ML20126M564

Forwards Info Generated by Idvp Effort.Addl Correspondence Included in Author 850610,21 & 0702 Memos to Central Files

ML20126M564
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	07/17/1985
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8508010409
Download: ML20126M564 (300)

Text

- __- _

h

'8 o g UNITED STATES I p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L ;j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, * * * * * /

UUL 171985 Docket No. 50-354 MEMORANDUM T0: (Chatra{Fil_es ,

FROM: Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

HOPE CREEK INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDVP)

Public Service Electric & Gas Company has contracted Sargent & Lundy to perfom an IDVP of Hope Creek. Bechtel is the architect-engineer for Hope Creek. The following correspondence (enclosed) has been generated by the IDVP efforts:

Enclosure 1 June 20 and 26, 1985 telecon notes Enclosure 2 Observation Reports 140 through 220 Enclosure 3 Resolution / Completion Reports to Observation Reports 74 through 76, 80, 93, 95, 97, 98, 102 through 104, 108 and 109 Enclosure 4 Resolution / Completion Reports to Observation Reports 87, 92 and 100 Additional correspondence was included in memoranda dated June 10, June 21 and July 2,1985 from W. Butler to Central Files.

/

Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch. No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated 850801 9 850717 PDR K 05000354 A PDR w __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'JUL 17 1985 Docket No. 50-354 MEPORANDUM TO: Central Files FROM: Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch ho. 2 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

HOPE CREEK IllDEPEhDENT DESIGli VERIFICATI0ri PROGE/R (IDVP)

Public Service Electric & Gas Company has contracted Sargent & Lundy to perform an IDVP of Hope Creek. Bechtel is the architect-engineer for Hope Creek. The folicwing correspondence (enclosed) has been generated by the IDVP efforts:

Enclosure 1 June 20 and 26, 1985 telecon notes Enclosure 2 Observation Reports 140 through 220 Enclosure 3 Resolution / Completion Reports to Observation Reports 74 through 76, 80, 93, 95, 97, 98, 102 through 104, 108 and 109 Enclosure 4 Resolution /Ccepletion Reports to Observation Reports 87, 92 and 100 Additional correspondence was included in memoranda dated June 10, June 21 and July 2,1965 frce W. Butler to Central Files.

Orimirmi sima ho, Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch lio. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated DISTRIBUT10ri Docket File LB#2 Reading PRC System PDR LPDR DWagner EHylton HWang,QAB LTTf/ PM LB#2/DL/BCf DWagner:lb UButler 07//y85 07/ 85 4

~ - _ - - - - - _ _ -

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

Enclosure l' ,

' SARGENT & LUNDY .l E N GIN E E RS I cmcaco l

Revised June 24, 1985 l l

r rnort: H. S. Taylor. TSP- 38 '

Sargent & Lundy

• Date: June 20, 1985 18D02 Project: Hope Creek j 312-269c6371 7212-30 3

TO: 11 . F. Bauer

! Principal Engineer ma

) Public Service Electric and Gas Company l Newark, New Jersey

201- 621-2150 g

11 . A. Bloss (2).

j. one pages to. follow.

! Attached is a telecon between H. S. Taylor (S&L) and E. V. Imbro (NRC) on June 19, 1985, Please refer to telecon of June 19, 1985 on the above R. inasmuch as the cover sheet indicating the TSP Number (38) was not' attached to same.... replace accordingly.

l'

).

=HST:nd *

Attachment 1

4 4

i "

r

'I k

4

. :s .

N

+ . , , , , , , , - , . - , , , , , , --. .<- ,,a , - , , , - , - , . . ,

f,lemorandom of Telephone Conversation Sf.CCCf.? O f ";'DY Peson Caned Date 6/19/85 Time 1 : 00 n.n.

Company E. V. Imbro NRC Person Cathng Company II . S. Taylor S&L l'roject Project No Hope Creek IDVP 7212-30 b o b, i Discuss (d S&L's Disposition of Resolution / Completion Reports Lummarf of Discu+s.un Oc 'sions and Commitments i tem I;o. 5 of the Rocclution/ Completion Report Fqrn for Obrerr +4 nn Retorts:

Mr. Imbro and I agreed that SSL should document the reasenn for accepting the BPC Droposed resolutions to all Observa*2 nn Reports when closing out the observations. Thin will bo _

( accomplished b" attachinn a supplementn] nhene en ehn Sn--

(

1 P

P cc W. F. Bauer (PSE&G)

Y. J. Yaworsky (PSC&G)

W. A. Bloss (2) P. G. McCullough H. S. Taylor R. M. Schiavonf J. Milhcan (!!RC) W. D. Crumpacker D. P. White T. DelGaizo (NRC) T. J. Duffy -*

,-?

"*/ Telecon - Technica1 , '/, ,[ y[,.

Category 4 s,gn,,,,,

SL.r713 10/84-F3 f

J. Milhoan

- SARGENT & LUNDY 8 l

E N GIN E E OS CMIC AGO H. S. Taylor TSB 403  ;

FROM: June 26, 1985 l, Sargent & Lundy Date:

18D02 Project: Hope Creek li 312-269-6371 7212-30 i j

TO: L. C. Oesterich I, i Bechtel Task Leader

\ Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco, California Telecopy No.: 415-882-3211 Confirmation No.: 415-882-1672 CC: W. F. Bauer Principal Engineer Public Service Electric and Gas Company Newark, New Jersey 201-621-2150 W. A. Bloss (2) ,

one pages to follow.

Attached is a telecon between W. A. Bloss, E. B. Branch, H. S. Taylor, L. R. Stensland, R. L. Givan (S&L) . and W. F. Bauer, L. C. Oesterich (PSE&G) on June 25, 1985.

g._

HST:nd Attachment .

'l l

1 l

l

. I p

1

-- . ,l

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation SARGENT S LUNDY l 4

Date 6 / 2 5 / 8 5 r,me 3:00p.m ,

Person Caued W. A. Bloss, E. B. Branch, company H. S. Taylor,L. R. Stensland,R.L.Givan person can.ng Sargent & Lundy W. F. Bauer, L. C. Oesterich company Bechtel Power Company Protect Project No.

Public Service Electric and GasC Hope Creek 7212-30 Subjlet oiscussed Te ecopy TSB-384 and TSB-393 Concerning Questions on OR Nos. 66, 69, 70 and 71 summary or Discussion, oecisions and commitments Bechtel would like to discuss S&L questions contained in Tolornpy

^

TSB-384 and TSB-393 on Observation Rnnnre No-bo-c 66. 64. 7n nna 71 S&L will set up a conference call at 1200 p.m. chicagn t- i ~ a nn .Tnno 76.

i 1985, with PSE&G. Bechtel. NRC and R&L to diccucs thnen i f-on e .

I con firmed with Mr. Hai-Boh Wang of the NRP t nday th a t-hn unnld T participate in the telechone call.

I e

cc W . F. Bauer (PSE&G) W. A. Bloss(2) H. G. McCullough r- Y. J. Yaworsky (PSE5G) H. S. Taylor J. R. M. Schiavoni Milhoan (NRC) W. D. Crumpacker D. P. White T. DelGaizo (NRC) T. J. Duffy ,

M ,-

n-C 3 '

I

Osgnatste S'.-F 713 10/84-F3

J Enclosure 2 SAnseP & Ta.m'or ENGJNMBRS rouNocoiese SS EAST MONROE STREET H. STEPHEN TAYLOR CHICAGO, ILLINCIS 60003

( 312 ) 269-2000 m us san swn o.o-ar Reor LSP-74 June 27, 1985 Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company llope 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 Report Nos.Station.

Generating 140 through 154 resulting from the IDVP of the Hope Creek The Observation Reports should be reviewed and the Resolution Report shoots as completed possible. and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as soon Return of original documents should be via rederal Express or ecuivalent of the observation overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's disposition 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 g .

HST:nd Enclosures Coples:

' ['

H. S. Taylor

[ ,, , .

T. DelGaizo J. L. Milhoan Chairman, Internal Review Committee L. C. Oesterich P. L. Wattelet W. A. Bloss (2)

O. Zaben W. D. Crumpacker i T. J. Duffy '

H. G. L. McCullough R. M. Schiavoni D. P. White l

l

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.lfg_, Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Safety and Turbine Auxiliary Cooling Water System (STACS)

Hydraulic Transient Analysis, Nov. 1982 BPC Procedures EDP-4.37, Rev. 6, Design Calculations

2. Description of Observation

BPC Procedure EDP-4.37 provides requirements for the preparation, l review and approval of calculations. It appears that EDP-4.37 was not followed in the preparation of the subject calculations 3.

for the followine reasons:

Significance of Observation: (continued.on next page)

The calculations may not conform to EDP-4. 37.

j 4. Recommendation fer resolution (cptional): '-

i i

a. BPC should provide evidence of a review for the subject calculation.

(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 Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety signi ficance . Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatu,res:

A/. .. t //am i Cnairman -

f l b f)""' bd57e/sub Af DE 00 # b Mechanical Representative Electrical epresentative

l n b '

s v Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative

i 4

1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope-Creek. Generating Station - Unit 1 Page-2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. MQ_, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85 1 i t

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

a. The sources of input data for the allowable transient pressures and pump characteristics are not given.

j b. Engineering judgment without stating a basis is used as justification for omitting two analyses:

j (1) the case of a simultaneous trip. of both pumps when j all valves close and, (2) the case of- the opening of valves to PJIR coolers.

c. The report was not initialled or signed by the reviewer as having been reviewed.

l .

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) i _

i

b. BPC should revise the subject calculation. to provide j . sources of all input information.

1

c. BPC should provide the basis for the engineering judgments '

l in the subject calculation.

d. BPC should provido evidence that EDP-4.37 has been followed for other calculations.

t 1

i a

j i

I I

i E

i i

y - , . . . * ,<y,. er , # ---

%-r - - ,. -, .+ --,-+.--irw-+,,-,---,--..--.-,--m.9--%e -2 _,- - - *w --- . e -

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

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 141, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Environmental Qualification Audit Package for Westinghouse Low Voltage Power, Instrumentation and Control Penetrations, Westinghouse Medium Voltage Penetrations, (continued on page 2)

2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2. 3 state that " components are qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and NUREG 0588, Category II and the HCGS EQ Program is attempting to upgrade (continued on pages 2 through 6)

3. Significance of Observation:

Because of the discrepancies noted in the subject audit package, the equipment may not meet IEEE 323-1974 requirements.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC/PSE&G should revise the EQ Audit Package to address all concerns identified.

(continued on page 6)

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 B)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

l Additional information is required to evaluate safety significanct Provide information requested in Item 4.

t

7. Internal Review Commitee '

Signatures:

d4 em Chairman -/ j/

/ ' n

-~ .2 V ) 'f% N.2S?7= l.A.lO W $f '

L-Mechanical'Representat'ive Electrical Representative' s .o

<(

/{,

Structural Representative fic .i Control and Instrumentation Representative

~ v --,

i i

Public Service Electric and Gas Company project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. Rev.

, , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s) , sys tem (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Raychem Shrink Tubing, Anaconda Cable and Nestinghouse Coaxial Connectors E135 (Q) , which contains Equipment Evaluation Summary Shee ts E-135-PEN-001, Rev. O, dated 4/2/85, E-135-PEN-002, Rev. 01, dated 4/2/85, E-135-ST-00 3, Rev. 01, dated 3/25/85, E-135-CABL-004, Rev. O, dated 4/2/85, and E-135-CONN-005, Rev. 01, dated 4/2/85.

Technical Specification 10855-E13 5 (O) , Rev. 6, dated 1/31/85.

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) to NUREG 0 5 8 8, Category I req uiremen ts . " NUREG 0538, Category I specifies IEEE 323-1974 requirements and the subject EQ Audit Package indicates compliance with IEEE 323-1974.

2.1 There is an apparent failure to meet the licensing requirements of NUREG 0588 for the following reasons :

a. Low Voltage Penetrations ^

1) Equipment Evaluation Summary Sheet E-135-PEN-001, fails to identify tag numbers of penetrations qualified by this audit package.

2) NUREG 0588, paragraph 3 (1) states:

" Quantified margins should be applied to the design parameters discussed in Section 1 to assure that the postulated accident conditions have been enveloped during testing. These margins should be applied in addition to any margins (conservatism) applied during the derivation of the specified plant parameters. "

Documentation presented in the EQ Audit Package fails to adequately address margin. Qualification is not based upon the LOCA temperature profile plus margin, but rather upon the LOCA temperature profile plus margin minus 25'F. Adequate justification is not provided for reducing the LOCA profile by 25'F. The statement that there is a 25'F gradient from the inboard to outboard end of the penetration, is not acceptable as the inboard end will be exposed to the full LOCA temperature profile.

3) NUREG 05 88, paragraph 3 (1) requires that the qualification testing to envelope the postulated accident conditions plus margin. NUREG 0588 requires testing of 110 days

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 6 OBSEl<VATION REPORT OR No.141, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) or a lessor time with justification of conservatism.

There is an apparent failure to meet this requirement.

Testing was documented at 30 days , however, no justification (i.e. , use of the n degree rule ,

Arrhenius equation, etc.) was documented in the report to demonstrate equivalence to 110 day testing.

Per conversations with PSE&G and BPC (TSB-3SB), credit is not taken for the n degree rule identified in the penetration reports. Therefore, there is no objective evidence demonstrating that the post DBE testing performed envelopes the .HCGS requirements for the Low Voltage Penetrations.

b. bdium Voltage Penetrations

1) Concern'2.1.a.2 above also applies to medium v:].tage penetrations.

2) Concern 2.1.a.3 above also applies to medium voltage penetrations.

3) There is no objective evidence demonstrating the evaluation of jet impingement forces per Technical Specification 10855-E-135 (Q) , Rev. 6, dated 1/31/85, for the medium voltage , penetrations.

4) Technical Specification E-135, Section 4, states that "the electric penetration assemblies shall be designed, fabricated, rated, tested and shall perform in accordance with...IEEE 317-1976." There is no objective evidence demonstrating the evaluation of fire resistance per IEEE 317-1976, Section 6.3.1, for the medium voltage penetrations.

c. Anaconda Cable NUREG 0 588, Section 2. 3 (1) requires the same piece of equipment be used throughout the test sequence, simulating as close as possible the postulated accident environment.

There is an apparent failure to meet this requirement as qualification is made using three separate reports with three distinct groups of test specimens. There is no objective evidence presented which adequately justifies the use of dif ferent reports to substantiate the qualification.

Public Service Electric and Gas company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 4 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No .111., Rev . 1, Da t e 6/2 7/8 5

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

d. Westinghouse Coaxial Connector Section 8.1 of IEEE 323-1974, requires that the qualification documentation shall verify that each type of equipment is qualified for its application and meets its specified

< requirements. The EQ Audit Package E135(Q) does not establish similarity between the tested and installed connectors. Therefore, there is no assurance that the connectors tested in Report E135(O)-98-3 qualify the connectors identified in EESS E135-CONN-005.

2.2 Information contained in the following " Equipment Evaluation Summary Sheets" is not consistent with data identified in the Material Requisition 10855-E135 (Q) , Rev. 12, dated 3/22/85, FSAR Table 3.,11-5, Vendor Report or Technical Specification 10855-E135(Q), Rev. 6, dated 1/31/85, as noted below: ,

'a . Low Voltage Penetrations (EESS No. E-135-PEN-001)

1) The qualified operating time and margin documented in the EESS, do not reflect the actual results of Test Report E135 (Q)-4-6.

2) Pressure margin identified in the EESS is not consistent with Vendor Test Report E135 (Q)-4-6.

3) Model number footnote is incorrect.

4) Function is not identified.

51 Location of Low Voltage Penetrations shown as " Torus Wall" is incomplete; "Drywell Wall" should also be noted.

b. Raychem Shrink Tubing (EESS No. 13 5-ST-00 3)

1) Reference for relative humidity specified is incorrect.

2) Pressure margin identified in the EESS, does not reflect actual test margin per Test Report E135(Q)-81-2.  ;

c. Westinghouse Coaxial Connectors (EESS No. E135-CONN-005)

Operating time qualified and margin identified in the EESS, does not reflect actual qualified time and margin as demonstrated in Test Report E135 (O)-98-3.

l l

______-___-_-_.___-_-_a

i l

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 5 of 6 q ODSERVATION REPORT OR No.lfl, Rev. _f_, Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) 6 2.3 Information contained in " Equipment Qualification Review Checklists" is not consistent with data presented within vendor reports as noted below:

a. Low Voltage Penetrations (E135 (O)-4-6)

1) Section 2.2 provides insufficient references to demonstrate that DBE testing performed envelopes IEEE 323-1974 margin requirements.

2) Section 3.3.1 contains incorrect data and reference with respect to the vendor report.

• 3) Section 3.3.2 needs to address the second radiation aging parformed as documented in the vendor report.

.~.

, 4) Section 7.1.2 fails to provide adequate references and/or justification demons <. rating that the DDE testing performed envelopes IICGS requirements.

b. !bdium Voltage Penetrations (E135(Q)-2-8)

1) Section 2.2 provides insufficient references to demonstrate that the DBE testing. performed envelopes IEEE 323-1974 margin re,quirements.

2) Section 7.1.2 fails to provide adequate references and/or justification demonstrating that the DDE testing performed envelopes !! CGS requirements. I

c. Anaconda Cable (E135 (Q)-3 (4 )-3)

1) Section 3.1.2 identifies an incorrect value for the thermal aging time.

2) Section 2.2 provides insufficient references to demonstrate that testing performed envelopes IEEE 323-1974 margin requirements.

3) Section 7.1.2 fails to provide' adequate references and/or justification demonstrating that the DBE testing performed envelopes !! CGS requirements.

i 1

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 6 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.LiL, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85 4

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

d. The references identified in several sections of the Westinghouse Coaxial Connector (E135 (0)-98-3) checklist appear to be incorrect.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that all equipment qualifications for similar equipment have adequately ,

considered the subject IEEE 323-1974 requirements .

6 4

0 I

f

1

)

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.14 2 , Rev.0 , Date 6/27/85

\ .

i 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

i Environmental Qualification Audit Packaqe for ECCS Motors, M001 (S01) which contains Equipment Evaluation Sunmary Sheet M001-MTR-015, Rev. 00, dated 4/18/95, Equipment Environmental

-(continued on next page) i 2.- Description of Observation:

FSAR Section 3.ll.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 state that " components are j qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and NUREG 0503, 3 Category II and the liCGS EQ Program is attempting to upgrarlo to

3. Significance of Observation:

i Because of the inconsistencies identified, the EQ Audit Pachace l for ECCS motors does not demonstrate that they are cualified for use in !! CGS. ,

4. ' Recommendation for resolution (optional)

? a. BPC/PSE&G should revise the EQ Audit Package to correct the

! discrepancies identified.

(continued on next page) j S. Internal Review Ccmmittee 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 requi~ red:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety sienificance

}

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee

! Signatures 1 i

[ Chairman MA , ,-

a, n.

/ ,,

Mechanic 41'Repr sentative

&

• L. .. D70Aht 4.lO l l$ 't 15.

Electrical Appr,psentative'

l k _

Q. ' (' /k f) *( /

,i

/ / e, Y * %

Structural Representative i

Control and Instrumentaticn i Representative i

6

. , . . - . ~~. .- ---- .- -- . . - -

1 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 5-Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 s

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.14 2 , Rev.

O _, Date 6/27/85

1. ~ Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)  ;

l' Qualification Review Checklist Document No. GE Phase III Book S001, l~

dated September dated 4/16/85 and GE Environmental Qualification Report NEDC-30737, 1974.

)j 2.- Description of Observation: (continuation) .

NUREG 05S8, Category I- requirements." NUREG 0588,-Category I i

specifies IEEE 323-1974 requirements and the subject EQ Audit

. Package indicates compliance with IEEE 323-1974.

] The subject environmental qualification audit package is j

i

. unacceptable for the following reasons:

', a.- The. stated' references in the Equipment Evaluation Summary l

1 Sheet M001-MTR-015 are not traceable.

1) The specified references for Temperature, Pressure, Radiation and Aging are incorrect, as they do not exist .x in the report. -

} b. Information contained in " Equipment Environmental Qualification Review Checklist" (Document No. GE Phase III Book S001) is i, not accurate and the stated references-are not traceable.

j 1) The stated reference'" Appendix A, Page A-41" under i

.Section it does not 3.1.3 of the review checklist is incorrect as exist. '

a 2) 1 i

Section Seismic 4.1 of the is Vibration review checklist states that Non-

"Not Applicable". No objective

, evidence is provided to substantiate this, although i Section 9 requirements Vibration of IEEE 334-1974 identifies Non-Seismic for motors.

3) The stated reference " Appendix A, A5.1.5" under j

• Section 7.4.2 of the review checklist'is incorrect, as f it test.

does not identify any simulated loads applied during j

i

4) The stated reference " Appendix A, A-8,. Para. 5.1.5" i

! under Sections.7.4.7 and 7.4.8 of the review checklist j - is incorrect, as it does not address any performance  ;

I characteristics and operability status during the test.

I I

t i .

I

'- . , - _ . . _ _ , . . _-.__-,,,._,.--__.__--_-.~..__..__.---._,._,v _ , _ . - - . . , _ - , _ . . - - , _

Public Service Electric and Gas company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No .14 2 , Rev. 0 . Date_6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

c. The referenced qualification audit package does not meet the requirements of IEEE 323-1974 for the following reasons:

1) Pages 14 and 15 of the GE NEDC-30737 Report identifies Class B insulation for the installed motors and Class F for the tested motor. No similarity analysis is included in the audit package between the installed and tested motors.

2) Appendix B, Page B-5, of the GE NEDC-30737 Report specifies a final high potential proof test of 2/3 of the sum of twice rated voltage plus 1000Vac for one minute as 6000V. The installed motors at HCGS are rated at 4160V. The 2/3 of 4160V plus 1000Vac is equal to 6213V. No analysis is included in the audit package

, for not testing the subject motors at 6213V.

4. Fecommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) b.

BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that all equipment qualifications for similar equipment have adequate 1.y considered the subject IEEE 323-1974 requirementr, .

l l

l J

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.143 , Rev. o , Date_6/2 7/85 ,

i I 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

EDP 4.28, Rev. 2, ." Project Q-List" HCGS Instrument Index FSAR Table 3.11-5, " Equipment Selected for Harsh Environnental

Qualification" (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation

~; There is an apparent failure to replace existing Rosemount 1151 transmitters, which are not environmentally qualified,with qualifie

Rosemount 1153 transmitters.

' (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

j Rosemount transmitters which raust remain functional during the design basis accident may not all be environmentally qualified.

i .

.~.

4. Recommendation fer resolution (optional):

a. DPC/GE should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

1 5.

(continued on ne::t page)

Internal Review Committee classification of Observaticn:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See :te 6)

Potentially Significan; to Safety (See-Item 8) 6.. Internal Review Committee reason for'non-safety-significance of observation er additional information required:

' Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. .

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee

Signatures

,

. /2 m

Cnairman /'

y -- , 37?/d,;di) ~/

,'/. g'

' Mechanical Representative ~~__ Electrical R,ept,esentative

^

l f . v ,*% /) ~

{ _ _

W /\ .,, ,,

Structural Representative control and Instrumentation l Representative

)

i

1 Public Service Electric and Gas *:ompany Proj ect No.- 7212-30 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OllSERVATION REPORT OR No.143, Rev._0 b

Date_6/2 7/8 5 i

1. Structure (s ) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

GE Document FDI-WTIO, Rev. 0 (BPC Document Control #10855-NO-B21- '

3090-115(1)-1)

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

F

,l During the IDVP plant walkdown it was observed that the HPCI Leak j

Detection Rack H21-P014 contains the following five Rosemount transmitters:

E41-N013 Rosemount Model 1151 i

E41-U050 Rosemount Model 1153 E41-N052 Rosemount Model 1151 E41-N053 Rosemount Model 1153 E41-N056A Rosemount Model 1153 The instrument index identifies the classification of all five transmitters as QFA, where QF identifies an item which (per'EDP

• j 4.28, Rev. 2, paragraph 3.5) "must not leak and remain operable for the design basis accident."

f FSAR Table 3.11-5 " Equipment Selected for !!arsh Environmental j

Qualification," pages 40 and 42,. identify that'all five trans-j mitters are to be environmentally qualified.

' GE Document FDI-WTIO, Rev. O, provides " materials and instructions to

. replace existing Rosemount transmitters e.g. Rosemount Model 1151 with qualified model 1153 Rosemount transmitters." FDI-UTIQ identifies for the IIPCI Leak Detection Rack !!21-P014, the existing transnitters associated with Tag #E41-N050, E41-N053, E41-N056A, ere to be replaced with Rosemount 1153 transmitters. The transmitters asso-ciated with Tog #E41-N013 and E41-N052, are not specified as

]

requiring change out to Rosemount il53 transmitters.. The field walkdown confirmed that only three of the five transmitters have  ;

been replaced, while the instrument index and FSAR specify that all five require environmental qualification, and so should hcVe been

. changed out.

I

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC/GE should provide assurance that all exinting Posemount

{

transmitters subject to environmental' qualifications are qualified.

, 1 1

?

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, g , Rev. 0 ,

Date_6/27/85

.l. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

" Structural Integrity and Operability Analysis of 14 x 23S, Safety Auxiliarios Cooling System Pump," V.P. 1085 5 (O) -:!-07 0 (Q) -

47-3, February 8, 1980, Polytechnic Design Co.,Inc. (Revision 2),

2. Description of Observation:

(continued on next page)

!! CGS FSAR Tabic 3.9-14 and Technical Specification 1085 5-F1-070 (Q) ,

Paragraph 6.16.2, require that for the upset /energency/ faulted operating conditions, stress limits for the normal conditions

3. Significance of Observation:

(continued on next page)

The subject equipment may not meet the PSAR and Technical Specification requirements.

4.

Recommendation for resolution (cptional): '

a. BPC should provide information as to how the observation has been or will be corrected.

(continued on next page) 5.

Internal Review Committee classificaticn of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y Additional information required (Sec 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 4

Signatures:

)

k, .

/br r% A Cnairman ,7 / j W4* $97dbt.yb ff.I)

, K Mechanical Representatives_,. Electrical,Royr sentative f

A L / G y / n --. '

( /

Structural Representative control and Instrumentat:cn Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Ilope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.14 4, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/05 i

1. Structure (s) , system (s ) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Technical Specification 10855-M-070(Q), Rev. 10

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) shall be used to assure pump active function during the upset /

emergency / faulted events.

The referenced Vendor design analysis (page 4.6) indicates that the pump discharge nozzle flange bolts, do not meet the bolt allowable stress criterion for the postulated inputs. On page 4.7 of the analysis, the bolt allowable stress is arbitrarily increased from 25000 psi to 31250 psi in order to compare the total required bolt area and the total available bolt area. No objective evidence, or justification exists within the reviewed seismic package, supporting this arbitrary increase for the bolt allowable stress.

4. Recommendation for Rosolution (op tional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that other pump nozzle flange bolt designs for similar equipment racet the FSAR and Technical Specification requirements.

1 J

l 1

l 1

J i

Public Fervice Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION' REPORT OR No.145 Rev. 0

, , Date 6/27/8

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Rosemount Pressure and Plow Transmitters, Model No. Il53AB, DB, GB, HB Seismic Qualification (Tag. No. B21-N075 and E41-N051)

Reference:

GE Document No. NEDC-30446, Book C59, Vol. 1,

2. Model #188C7360, dated April 1985 Description of Observation:

The referenced GE document identified the gencric test response spectra used for the qualification of the subject components (Attachment 3 of the reference). Ho;tover , the required 4

3. Significance of Observation:

The subject components may not be qualified for the required seismic criteria.

4. Recer.mendation for resolution (cptior.al): '-

a. BPC/GE should provide documentction to show that the required response spectra at the component mounting locations (covering the !!21-P014 rack and other structures

5. Internal Review Cormittee classifica ica of Observation:(continued on no.st page) x Not significant to safety (See Item 6)

Additional information required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) i G.

Internal Review Cerrittee reason for non-safety-nignificance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional significance.

information is required to evaluate safety Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

.j

/2 y t Chairman- /

I Qf,d-} L.csu .

wsa/670Hi.IS S Meenanical Representative g Elvctrical Reps sentative

/K b, nx /

. = , ,

~

'. Structural Representative Control and Instrumentatien-Representative 4

e

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSIRVATIO:: REPORT OR No.14 5 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) response spectra at the transmitter mounting locations are not identified. Specific transmitters identified by the respective tag numbers above, are mounted on the instrument rack H21-P014, and on various local panels and other structures which are identified by a shipping groups parts list and B21-5120. There is no objective evidence to indicate that the test response spectra used for the qualification of these transmitters, actually envelope the required response spectra at the mounting locations ~which inherently should reflect the amplifications induced by the various supporting structures.

4. P.ecommendation for recolution (optional) : (continuation) referred by shipping groups part lists B21-5120) are enveloped by the test response spectra used for the qualification test,

b. BPC/GE should provide assurance that other transmitters are ..

qualified seismically for their respective locaticn/mcunting.

9 0

h i

w

t Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek' Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. E, Rev. L. Date 6/27/85 '

i

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Environmental Qualification Audit Packago for 480Vac Motor Control Centers (MCC), E118 (Q) which contains Equipment Evaluation Summary Sheet Ell 8-MCC-001, Rev. 01, dated 3/26/85 and Equipment

2. " P9 Description of Observation:

PSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 state that " components are qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and ::URF.G 0588,

Category II and the HCGS EQ Program is attempting to upgrade to

3. Significance of Observation: (cor.dnued en ne.n pag The Environmental Qualification Audit Package for the 480VAC MCC c'o

not demonstrate that they are qualified for use in !! CGS.

4. Recc.mendation for resolution (cptional):

• BPC/PSC&G chould revise the audit package and the technicai specification to reflect the correct information and referencen.

5.

Internal Review-Cermittee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See item 6) l x Additional information required (See Item 6) i Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) i 6.

Internal Review Ccmmittee 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.

1 2

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: , n  ?

/. J. 4 1 .m 1

Cnairman /

i MecndaicaVRepresentative *

/.MM.OLA n/D h/hN $* 15 Electrical Re rejr.entative

l. [

As %

A M 6 -- m l Structural Representative Control and Instrumentauca Reprecentative 1

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.MS_, Rev. L , Date 6/27]85

1. Structure (s), system ( s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Environmental Qualification Review Checklist, dated 4/19/85.

Environmental Qualification Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet (EQMSIS) for HCGS, MS-Ell 8-VAR-H-MCC-001, Rev. 00, dated 4/18/85. Technical Specification for Motor Control Centers 10855-E-ll8(Q), Rev. 06, dated 4/14/83.

Environmental Qualification Summary Report for Hope Creek Generating Station, Rev. 01. Bechtel Documents 10 8 5 5-E118 (Q) -

136-4, Rev. 6, 10 8 5 5-Ell 8 (Q) -2 0 9-2, Rev. None and 10855-E118 (O)-

188-2, Rev. 01. Design Criteria DIT 7.5, Rev. 02,

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

NUREG 0588, Category I requirements." NUREG 0589, Category I specifies IEEE 323-1974 requirements and the subject EQ Audit Pcckage indicates compliance with IEEE 323-1974.

The Environmental Qualification Summary Report for the Hope Creek Generating Station,Section IV states that the HCGS Environmental Qualification Program is committed to IEEE daughter standards.

The IEEE standard for MCC's is IEEE 649-1980, " Standard for *

! Qualifying Class lE Motor Control Centers for Nuclear Power Generating Stations."

a. Information contained in " Equipment Evaluation Summary Shcot" (EUSS) is not consistent with data defined in Environmental Qualification Summary Report for Hope Creek Generating Station.

Also, the EESS is not complete.

1) The plant elevation identified for the MCC's in the EESS is 102', while the Environmental Qualification Summary Report (Table 3.11-5, Page 69 of 77) identifies elevation 77'.

2) The room locations for all the MCC's are not identified in the EESS.

b. Information contained in Environmental Qualification Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet (EQMSIS) for HCGS No. MS-Ell 8-VAR-H-MCC-001 is not consistent with data defined in DIT 7.5, (page 44):

The maximum ambient temperature to which the components willbeexpogedintheworstcaseasstatedfnthe l EQMSIS is 77 P, whereas DIT 7.5 specifies 94 P as the 1 maximum ambient temperature for all rooms vhere all the

. MCC's are located.

1

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Crcek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 O!!SERVATION REPORT OR No.14 6, Rev. 0 ,

Da t e_6/2 7/8 5

2. Description of' Observation: (continuation)

c. The referenced environmental qualification audit package does not meet the requirements of IEEE 323-1974 and IEE 649-1980 for the following reasons:

1) There is no evidence that cyclic aging includina inductive loads per Table 2, IEEE 649-1980 was performed in the test program.

2) 1.s there is no evidence of cyclic aging in the test program, the thermal aging parameter which in combined with DBC is incorrect.

3) There is no evidence that the loads simulated during DBE either represent field conditions or their nnximum full load ratings.

4) Frequency variation + 5%, per Section 6.3-1.5 of IEEE 323-1974 is not addressed in the test program.

5) The review checklist which addresses Qualification Report

No. BOR104A, is used to document the review of two separate test reports under the same checklist. (i.e.,

IIFB circuit breahors and Okonite-Okolon Cab 1cc.) Thiu has resulted in several inconsistencios in the data within the checklist.

6) The Technical Specification 10855-E-ll8 (0) does not specify IEEE 649-1980 as a guide standard for qualification of MCC.

t Public Service Electric and Gas Ccmpany Project No. 7212-30 Hcpe Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.147 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Specification 10855-C-406, Rev. 2, dated J/4/85, " Seismic Walkdown Requirements for Dalance of Plant Safety Related Equipment".

2. Description of Observation:

FSAR SectJ on 1. 8.1. 29 states tnat HCGS complies with Regulatory Guide 1.29 with certain exceptions. None of the exceptions relate to the first paragraph of Position C.1. Regulatory

3. . .

Significance of Observation: .

(Continued on nc::t page)

If potential seismic interactions are not addressed, there is no assurance tnat the FSAR commitment is met.

4. Reccmmendation for resolution (cptional): t-BPC snould identify how potenc'ial scismic interactionn affec-ting Seismic Category I structures, systems and compone.,ts are addressed.

5.

Internal Review Ccmmittee classification of Observation:

' Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6) i Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) 6.

Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of j

Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.

Provide information requested in Item 4.

, 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:- ,7 ,/

X!., (24# k -

Cnai

/ rman,/

j/ 7 cs L - '

l f- '-&#~

Meenanical Representativ b.2Sinn/SL uh b40 }l! Oh, Electri al RepreJentative // ,

}

4 Structural Representative L 69 Mi n e , ~ ,,

! Control and Instrumentation Representative l

~_.__..._...__._._-a;--__. _

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.147, Rev. 0, Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

Guide 1.29, Position C.1 states:

"The fcilowing structures, systems, and components of a s nuclear power plant, including their foundations and supports, I are designated as Seismic Category I and should be designed to withstand the effects of the SSc anc remain functional".

To be in compliance with these requirements the design of Seismic Category I systems and components should be conducted so that either:

potential seismic interactions with adjacent structures, systems, or components.are precluded.

or the Category I items must be capable of accomodating potential scismic interactions with adjacent structures, systems, or components without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.

In accordance with these requirements, Specification C-406, Exhibit 4, detines the minimum clearance requirement between balance of plant Class (i.e.,

lE control panels / cabinets, and adjacent walls, systems '

cable tray, conduits, 0 pipe, instrument tray tubing) and components.

There is an apparent deficiency in addressing potential interactions which may affect Seismic Category I items other than balance of plant Class lE control panels / cabinets.

BPC has not provided objective evidence on how potential seismic interactions involving Seismic Category I equipment, other than Class lE panels / cabinets, are addressed.

t b .

F

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 140 Rev. 0

, Date 6/27/8f

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Emergency Load Sequencers BPC Drawing J-105, Sheet G (Rev. 4 ) , Sheet 7 (Re v. 5) ,

Calculation 9(Q), Re v. O, FSAR Table 8.3-1 "Diescl Generator Sizing" l 1

2. Description of Observation:  ;

BPC Drawing J-105 identifies load sequencer following a DBAthe time.

and/or LOOP. settings for the emergency J-105 indicates that followingthe standby a DBA liquid control pumps are sequenced 30 seconds

3. Significance of. Observation: .

(continued on next page)

The design drawings as issued may not meet the FSAR commi tr.cn ts .

1 4.

Recommendation for resolution (cptional): -

'~ l a.

BPC should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the FSAR or the design drawing be revised? (continued

5. on ne::t page)

InternalNot Review Ccmmittee significant classification to safety (See !:enof6) Cbservation:

~

Additional information required (See tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See. Item 9)

} 6.

l- Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional significance information

. is required to evaluate safety Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

/M./ f%

.4 < . t?Ar *L.

Cnairman / .

l f' y l ./ '

i c-.

Mechanigal' Representative b,[$)hlCL4llb,bf ll. f/ (

p .

Electrical jaegresentative b -' /^ Gy,/-

Structural Rcpresentative fd A n . ?.

Control and Instrucentation-Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Gcnerating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.148, Rev. 0 , Date_6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

PSAR Table 8. 3-1 and Calculation 9 (Q) indicate that the standby liquid control pumps are sequenced 25 seconds following a DDA.

BPC has indicated that the standby liquid control pumps are to be removed from the emergency load sequencer per DCP v425. Even though the pumps are to be removed, it does not address the discrepancy in design documents.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design process which should have prevented it, and why that process did not. prevent the observation.

c. BPC should provide assurance that the remaining times for the operation of the emergency load sequencer are correct.

.~.

O I

i 1

l l

i I

t i

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSEPVATION REPORT OR No . g , Re v . 1, Da t e 6g7/ 8 5

l. Structure (s), system (s), or component (n) involved:

Safety-Related Standby Diesel Generators Reference Appendix E (Rev. 3, 1/28/83) to Technical Specification M-013 ( Re v. 5, 2/27/84), " Standby Diesel Generator"

2. Description of Observation: .

Appendix E to Technical Specification M-018 identifies for each timo step (i.e., 13s, 15c,...) the 4160V motor (s) and compcsite  ;

, 400V loads to be started on the standby diesel generator and

3. Significance of Observation:

Without a calculation or written analysis it is uncertain as to how the standby diesel generator time step loads are generated, reviewed and maintained accurately throughout the design process.

a

4. P.ecc..renBation for resolution-(cptional): ,

~

f a. BPC should provide written analysis or calculations i supporting the values of Appendix E to Technical  ;

j Specification M-018 relative to the current plant deciert.

5. Internal Review Committee classific(continued on next pace) ation of Observationi Not significant to safety (See Ite, 6) l x Additional information required (See : tem 6) bj Potentially Significant to Safety-(See. Item 8)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional infornation required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

l 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:  ;

j/

i e ny r

'Cnairman j/' s i

f'f .!' '

l '

Y/

n . u.

e - ' l.Didsi.Mir /y D_ll Ah$,,.

Mechanical Representative, ElectriyalReptssentative l

. /- l' 4/ - - /Gl o-_~

l

~

l 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 OBFERV7 TION REPORT OR No.149, Rev. _Q_, Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation; (continuation) the corresponding total kW value. No calculation or wri tten analysis has been provided which clearly identifies how the 480V kW values for each time step were derived.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should describe the process and procedures by which the specification and appendix were reviewed and approved.

In particular, the description should focus on the step in the process that assures that adequate backup documentation is available to support specific technical data included in the specification.

I l

l l

l 1

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.150 , Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/27/8

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Process Sampling Shutoff Valves FSAR Section 7.3.1.1.11.2, Pages 7.3-66a, 67, 68 Logic Diagram J-11-0, Sheet 17, Rev. 4, dated 4/18/85

2. Description of Observation:

The FSAR states that the process sampling shutof f valves will be automatically closed upon a signal of LOCA and/or LOP, however, the logic diagram shows the v-lves as being deleted.

3. Significance of Observation:

The design drawings and the FSAR are inconsistent.

4. 'Reccomendation fer resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classificatien 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 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:

A d. ih-an Cnairman 9

~

n L.esctchcaav .bi6.Ut.' V.. <>,'

Mechanical Representative Electrical Re,regentative /

/

, 4. N,/j[ *

/

/ <-- : ,

-Structural Representative Control and Instr'umentation Representative

Public Scrvice Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Crock Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OliSERVAT Tc:: REPORT OR No.150, Rev. _ _0 Date

, 6/2],/85 4.

Reco:Inendation for resolution (op tional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the process that is intended to control the updating of the FSAR to keep it current with the design and why the process did not prevent this observation.

9

. _ _ . - _ _ . .. -- ._ a __ _

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Gener.ating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.151, Rev. O ate 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Class lE Train A 250V Battery Calculation 5. l(Q) , Rev. 2, " Class lE 250V de System" BPC Drawings: E-6075, Sheet 7, Rev. 3 M-55-1, Rev. 10

2. Description of Observation:

l A review of Schematic Diagram E-6075, Sheet 7 and P&ID M-55-1 indicates Valve AP-HV-F0ll is normally open and automatically closes on actuation of the HPCI System (i.e., for a LOCA

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next pcce) -

Incorporation of this valve in the battery load cycle may reduce the available design margin to less than the 10% committed to in 'the FSAR (Section 8.3.2.1.2.2).

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

.~.

a. BPC should reconcile the battery sizing calculation with the design, considering actuation of Valve AP-HV-F0ll for a LOCA condition.

5. (continued on next page)

Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

x Not significant to safety-(See !:em 6)

Additional information_ required (See : tem 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

, / t7 sp <'%

Cnairman /

a  :

L -1 b$Si*flSLAO

• lf -

Mecnan.ical'Representativq Electrical Representative 8/ '

~

,- EM MW t

.M - s Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _

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 51, Rev. _2__, Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

' condition). The battery load cycle used in Calculation 5.l(0) does not include actuation of Valve AP-HV-F011 for a LOCA condition.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the features of their design control process which are intended to account for all DC system loads, that the load cycles are kept current with the design and the reason (s) such design control features did not in the instance cited in this observation.

c. BPC should provide assurance that other load cycle / battery sizing calculations include the effect of all loads.

S l

J

~

l i

l l

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. 152, Rev. 0 , Date f/27/85 '

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Battery Monitors for Class lE 125V and 250V Batteries Refe rence : Technical Specification for Batteries 10855-E-150 (O) ,

Rev. 5 (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

Per Specification 10855-E-150(Q), the battery monitors are not required to be qualified to the project seismic or environmental qualification requirements (that is, monitors are furnished as (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Failure of the non-safety-related battery monitor circuit may' degrade below an acceptable level, other Class lE circuits with which it is routed.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional): ^

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next paga) 5.

Internal Review Ccmmittee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See-Item B)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Addi,tional information is required to evaluate safety significance Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

y ,, ,

Y, (2Ni Chairman 9 / /

' f ,

/MM '

4.esraa<.a k 6Ly L i$

Mechanical Representative Electrical Reprrsentative

/ '

/r /~

4 ~

x s. ..

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.15% Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/27/85

1. S tru ctu re ( s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Reference:

Raceway Plan E-1676-1, Rev. 16 D4.18, Design Criteria for Separation of Class lE Equipment and Circuits, Rev. 4

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) non-safety-related equipment). The input to the battery monitor is (acceptably) isolated from the Class lE de bus by two fuses in series. Also, the input cabic is (appropriately) classified as non-safety-related. The output cable (to the non-safety-related control room alarm), however, is classified as a safety-related cable, and is routed with other safety cables. This is an apparent violation of separation requirements in that as a result of this routing, the non-safety-related battery monitor may not be adequately isolated from other safety-related circuits.

Reference D4.lS, Section 5.7.2.1, states "A non-Class lE circuit will be routed such that a non-Class lE circuit component, cable, or wire could not degrade a Class lE system below an acceptable level." .

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. DPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process which should have prevented it and why the process did not prevent the observation.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. LEl, Rev. n , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (n), or component (s) involved:

Battery Monitors for Class 10 125V and 250V-Systems FSAR Section 8.3.2.2.h

2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Section 8.3.2.2.h discusses compliance with IEEE Standard 308-1974 with regard to DC syctem monitoring. The design provides a common trouble alarm in the control room for each

3. Significance of Observation:

(continued on next page)

Upon actuation of a DC system trouble alarm, the determination of the exact cause may be hindered by the lack of an e::ternally visable local indication of battery monitor actuation.

4.

Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

l DPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

1 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 Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional Provide inforraation information is required requested in Item to evaluate

4. safety significance.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: . /

/ fl'/ cr Cnairman , / .

/ /,'

f \ / p._ ,

Meengnical Representative b E. STARU.vD b) h?l S%)Yi.

' - ~ ~

Electrical Rgprpsentative /'

u

'j g I i b

Structural Representative

,..A I}).m .m Control and Instrumentation Representative

. . - - . . . _ ~ .- - .- _ - , . ~

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 llope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.152, R ev . _a_ , Da t e_ 6 / 2 7 /_8 5

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

DC system. This common trouble alarm has several inputs. Local indication is to be provided to allow determination of the exact cause of the trouble. One of the inputs to the trouble alarm is " battery circuit unavailability". This input is obtained from the battery nonitor. Based on a review of the schematic relay and metering diagrams, the vendor assembly drawing and the' field walkdown , the battery monitor does not have any external indication of actuation. The battery monitor

-schematic does identify some internal light emmitting diodes (LED's) that apparently are used during the moni tor alignrent procedure. !!oweve r , this may not be cufficient local indication to assist in identifying the exact cause of a trouble alarm since the LED's are not vicable externally and opening of the monitor. cover requires a screwdriver to loosen several box clamps. It should.be noted that other inputs to the trouble alarm are clearly indicated locally by indicating lights on the front. of the battery charger or DC rwitchgear in accordance with FSAR Section 8.3.2.2.h.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 151, Rev. o Date 6/27/85 l

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Class 1C 125V and 250V Batteries Calculation GK-1(Q) , Rev. 5, " Auxiliary Building - Relay Area Heating and Cooling Requirements"

2. Description of Observation:

The hydrogen concentration calculation in Calculation GR-1(Q) uses hydrogen evolution data provided by the Eechtel Electrical Group in a 11/9/78 remorandum. This rar.orandum states that

3. . .

Significance of Observation: . (continued on next page)

a. Basing the battery room ventilation systen design on battery hydrogen evolution rates less conservative than that committed to in the'FSAR may result in the hydrogen Recemr.endation fc resolution (optio(na.tinued cop): on next page) -

BPC should provide information on hou the observation hc.s

] or will be corrected.

4 r

5.

Internal Review Committee classificatien of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) a x Additional information required (See :te 61 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 significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

. . dy  %

Cnairman j/ '

f, j ' ,

e ~~2 '

yl'?b Mechanical Representative

' -- .[ S M M t.Jb ht h )!/

Electrical Repregentative

4 ) '

~

l /l '. h t

, 0 g' ,-(t /e j..,

/ %

Structural Representative ~~

Control and Instrumentation Representative 4

Public Service Electric and Gas 2cmpany Proj ect No. 7212-30 Hopo Crcek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No .15 4 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

EDP 4.37 Calculations, Re v. 13 FSAR Section 1.8.1.1.28

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) per Regulatory Guide 1.128 the hydrogen evolution is based on a run away charger delivering its rated output into a fully charged battery. Regulatory Guide 1.120 endorses the requirements specifled in IEEE Standard 484-1975. This standard provides a formula for calculating the maximura hydrogen evolution rate for a battery. The formula used in the 11/9/78 memorandum does not agree with the formula provided in IEEE Standard 484-1975. A comparison of the values obtained from the two formulas indicates that the formula in IEEE Standard 484-1975 results in a significantly higher (greater than 1500) hydrogen evolution rato.

.~.

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)

a. concentration exceeding the allowable 2.0% concentration required by Regulatory Guide 1.128 and committed to in the FSAR.

b. Contrary to EDP 4.37, Design Calculations, which requires "The source of derivation of equations not in common usage shall be shown when they are introduced into the calculations" the source of the hydrogen evolution formula used in the Bechtel 11/9/78 memorandum is not noted. In addition, the design input from the Electrical Group is in memorandum form which has no indication of a revicw or approval prccess.

J. L. Milhoan 3 A .! M .X'T &.LUNT.W r .'rit G v U .U s.S r o e n e t ra i n s .

ES FALT M O N re C L $118 E C1 H, ETf Pt4LN TA(Lott '

v4., .,y .

t 3a2 ) P o w = P C O f1 312.". W 1 Yna mio.rai a co?

LSP-76 June 27, 1985 Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas company Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Independ'nt Design Verification Program Observation Reports i

1 Mr. W. F. Bauer P:Iacipal Engineer 4

Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Pah Plaza Neuark, !;ew Jersey 07101 .~.'

Dear Mr. Bauer:

Enclened for your information and action is one copy each of Observation Re;; ortting Gencrc. Non. 155 Stc. through 166 resulting from the IDVP of the 1: Ope Crcek tion.

Thc Obnervation Reports should be reviewed and the Reuclution Report i

sheets conpleted and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and reterned as soon as possible.

Return of original docutants should be via Pederal Express or equivalent.

of the observation overnight Reports.service in order to facilitate Sr.'s dispecition I.ny questions you or Bechtc) may have concerning thesc Observation Report.:

should be addressed in accordance with the. Program Plan Protocc].

Yours very truly, IIST :Ud i s

,nclosures

4. [ , j'bI , , .t. o Copie.-i : II . S. Taylor

-w/

T. DolGaizo J. L. Milhoan Chai rtaa n, Intorral Review Co:nait;tce L. C. Oe:;terich P. L. Mattelet W. A. Bloss(2)

O. Zaben W. D. Crurnpacker T. J. Duffy II . G. L. h:Cullough R. M. Schjavoni D. P. Whita

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 4 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 15 5, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Cable Trays: Calculation #677-340(Q), Rev. 0 (unapproved)

Calculation #677-39 (Q) , Rev. 0 (continued on page 2)

2. Description of Observation:

a. Cable trays are qualified based on a procedure outlined in Specification 10855-C-034(Q). Equations 3A and 4A, in Appendix A of this specification, qualify the ecbic tray for

3. Significance of Observation:

(continued on page 2 through 4)

Adequacy of cable trays for seismic loadings cannet be verified.

4. Recommendation fer resolution (optional): ^

BPC should provide information on modifications to the cable tray calculations which are necessary to address observations a.

through h. described in Section 2.

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 Ccmmittee reason for 1on-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: 7 p

/J. A Cnairman an a

/

'7 9%

Meenanical Representative f fSif v'c) D/D br $ $Ily V '

Electrical Rep'rencntative /'ft 7

/ .,

! /I A /4 : "--e.

Structural Representative Control an~d Instrumentation Representative

Public' Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 1

Hope Crcok Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 4 ODSERVATION REPORT OR No.15 5, Rev. O

_, Date 6/2]/85

1. Structure (s), sys tem ( s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Calculation #677-3(Q), Rev. 4, sheet 318 Materials and Quality Services Department Tech. Report #1083-02 EV BLN #0983-07 Design Guide C2.7, Rev. 3 Drawing E-1406-0, Rev. 44 Innovation Technology Report #7806-13 Technical Specification for Cable Tray #10855-E-034 (0) , Rev. 5 Design Assessment Criteria 10855-D-2.12, Rev. 1 i

Calculation # 677-334 (O) , Rev. O Specification 10855-G51, Rev. 1, " Category I Structures Ploor Response Spectra for Seismic Analysis of Equipment and Components" Calculation #677-332 (Q) , Rev. O, "SSE Accelerations at 7% Damping and 15% Damping"

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) an,eight foot span in all three seismic directions. Design Criteria 10855-D-2.12, page 7, requires transverse tray support at a maximum 1G'-0" spacing, and longitudinal support at a maximu-24'-0" spacing. (Vertical support is specified as 8'-0" maximums spacing.) These increased spans in the transverse and longitudin.

' directions do not appear to have been addressed in the original calculations by Innovation Technology or Calculation #677-334 (0) .

b. Innovation Technology Report #7806-13, which evaluates cable trays supplied by P-N Industries, has used seismic acceleration values obtained by following guidelines in Specification 10855-E-034 (Q) .

l The seismic response spectra provided in Specification 108 5 5-E-03 4 (Q) appears to be the enveloped spectra for the plant.

The design of trays is based on the natural frequency of the trav with a simple span of 8'-0" and the corresponding acceleratic for appropriate damping values from the above spectra. The inherent assumption in the above approach is that the supports are rigid and no amplification would occur due to the supports.

However, the supports are flexible since they are designed for peak accelerations of the response spectra in the vertical and transverse directions. Thus, the design of trays does not appear to consider any amplification due to the flexible supports,

c. Cable tray qualification, as outlined in Technical Specification 108 5 5-E-03 4 (Q) , does not address varicus fittings (i.e., Tees, crosses) used in the cable tray raceway system. Also, the hanger location tolerances in notes 8.2.3.1.a and 8.2.1.v, Drawing E-1406-0, do not appear to address fittings.

.. =

i 4

i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 1

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 4 OBSERVATICN REPORT OR No.Lil, Rev. _a_, Date 6/27/85

2.; Description of-Observation: (continuation)

! :d. . Calculation #G77-340 (Q) provides justification for using a generic i; tray load of 40#/ft. in the reassessment of the cable tray support system. The following items which effects load are noted:

1) Additional dead load due to tray covers does not appear j to have been addressed.

1 '

2) Effect of cable drops through the bottom of the tray or

• over the end or edge of the tray does not appear to have been addressed. The effect of cable drops off.the end

' of the tray also does not appear to have been addressed f

in Calculation #677-39(Q) for Cantilever Cable Trays, 4

3)

! Qualification of the 40#/ft. in Calculation #677-340 (O) has been based on a sort performed on the EE-580 program 1

for tray routing points which exceed the maximum 50%

! volume fill requirements. The sort was performed with

< 95% of the cable installed and 100% of the cable routed.

The result.of this sort was a listing of 125 routing .3 j points which exceeded maximum volume fill requirements.

A sample of 13 of these routing points were evaluated  ;

j for actual cable weig~ hts of which three exceeded the 40#/ft. load. These locations were qualified on an

)

individual case basis. The basis for this sample size  !

does not appear to have been addressed, considering

. the fact that the 13 routing points are not the point of maximum fill and there could be additional points t a

(

requiring individual calculations. In addition, actual

• j weights in trays will-vary depending on the mix of-cable sizes in the tray.

Verification that the analysi 3

has considered the critical load case does not appecr

{ to have been addressed.

1

4) The effect of overlapping cable loads at tray intersections does not appear to have..been addressed.

i I e...As stated in Design Guide C2.7, Section 4.5.b, dynamic testing i of the tray to 1/2" with~ support clamp system type trayhas shown slippage of the tray of up holdowns.

1 Calculation #677-3 (O) ,

sheet 318, qualifies a. bolted alternate, Detail 72, for seismic

loadings, but does not appear to address the effect of this more j rigid connection on the overall system behavior, when two_ types of connections exist in the same tray run. -

'l i

i

)

l

[

Public Service. Electric enc Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 I

' Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 4 of 4 j

OBSCOVATION REPORT OR No.155, Rev. _0_, Da t e_ 6 /2 7/,8 5

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) f.

i Tray attachment Detail 72-A has been evaluated fcr vertical load only in :aterials and Quality Services Tech. Report BLN E0983-07. Capacity of Detail 72-A for horizontal61083-02 EV, seismic loadings does not appear to have been addressed.

g.

Calculation #677-06 (O) qualifies the cable tray splice plates.

The following items do not appear to have been addressed:

1)

Capacity bolts. based on bearing on tray material at splice 2)

Overall bending ef fect due to transverse loading.

3)

Interaction seismic load,of static load and three directions of h.

Cable trays are qualified by testing and evaluated according to a procedure outlined in Appendix A of Specification 10855-E-034 (Q Seismic accelerations obtained from the response usedspectra in the evaluation of in curves given test results Figure A2 arcof Appendix A.

Comparison of these response spectra curves with enveloped acceleration values from Specification 10855-G-51, Rev.

as given in Calculation #677-332(O), appears to indicate that fin seicmic the accelerations curves in some A.

given in Appendix areas may not have been enveloped b 0

I

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.156 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/8!

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HVAC Rectangular Duct Design, Calculation No. 625-02(Q),

Rev. 0

2. Description of Observation:

a. In the procedure for calculating stresses in duct sheet, seismic stresses have been simulated by equivalent pressure loading. The combination of longitudinal

3. Significance of Observation:

i The design adequacy of the HVAC ducts cannot be verified.

4. Recc= endation for resolution (cptional):

BPC should provide information on the modifications to their HVAC duct calculations which are necessary to address observations A thru I listed in Section 2.

5.

Internal Review Cetmittee 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:

b, . /Zsj' n Cnairman /

l S w / s t>/D /!0/$((.h '$

Meenanical/ Representative ^ss Electrical eppesentative

? M 4 - (h Structural Representative

~

/

M ,-

4 Control and Instrumentation i Representative i

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project t;o. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATIOM REPORT, OR No . 15 6, Rev. _0_, Date_ 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) stresses (pressure plus seismic) is based on a single test of a 24" x 48" duct with a 6 psf sand load on the top and bottom of the duct (equivalent to approximately 2 "g"). The behavior and corresponding adequacy of the duct at higher "g" levels has not been demonstrated.

b.

The tests did not take into consideration the shear buckling of the duct due to dead load and seismic loads. Comparison of only the longitudinal stresses is done and shear buchling or tension field effect is not addressed.

c. According to Section 5.4 entitled, "Limitati.ons on Use of Test Results" of the " Structural Design of Class I Seismic HVAC Ducts" (referenced in the subject calculation) the testing which formed the basis for the subject calculation is based on width to height ratios of 1 to 2.

Design Drawing C-0320-0, Rev. 3, Table 1, which gives the appropriate sheet metal gage for certain widths and heights of duct does allow the width to height ratio to exceed 2 which is outside the testing ratio.

d. In the criteria entitled, " Structural Design of Class I Seismic HVAC Ducts" Section B.4, seismic stresses in the duct are computed by treating the duct as a beam. These stresses are found to be small based on a rigid "g" acceleration and the calculation concludes, "The beam stresses are very low and not significant and in general can be ignored." However, the following items are not addressed while computing the frequency of the duct:

1) The effect of flexibility of the companion angle joint on the calculation of frequency of the duct is not included. According to the Tennessee Valley l

Authority (TVA) document " Summary Report for HVAC Ducts Seismic Qualification and Verification /

Improvement Program," dated June 16, 1979, page 37 Section 8.4, the actual frequency of the duct was found to be .46 times the frequency computed on the basis of moment of inertia according to AISI Code.

In addition, it should be noted that the tension flange in TVA calculations was assumed to be equal to-the compression flange, while Bechtel calculations assume the full tension flange to be offective. The reduction in frequency for the Bechtel design may be even greater.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATIO:: REPORT OR NoJ56 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

2) On page B.8 of the subject criteria, a 50% fixity at supports is assumed for the duct frequency calculations. Since the duct is continuous over several supports, the frequency calculations should

~

be based on continuous span rather than single span.

Such calculations will indicate that the f und ar. ental frequency of continuous span corresponds to the frequency of a simple span and not a span with 50%

fixity.

3) On page B.9 of the subject criteria, the beam frequency calculation was based on a span of 8'-0".

Drawing C-0388-0, Sheet A-5, Rev. 6, Note 3.14, allows a maximum span of duct to equal 10'-0".

Note 3.8 on Shoot A-3, Rev. 4, allows transverse bracing to be omitted on alternate supports for certain types of supports. The combination of the two notes could permit the span up to 20'-0" ,

in the transverse direction. ~

4) The weight of insulation and accessories are not included-in the frequency calculations.

e. Overall seismic loads are based on a rigid acceleration and therefore, do not consider amplification by a non-rigid support. In addition, in the overall seismic evaluation of the duct, the flexibility of the duct panel was not considered.

f. Bechtel's calculations assume that the full tension flange is effective in lieu of determining the effective flange in accordance with the AISI Code. Consideration of the true effective tension flange may reduce the section redulus of of the duct and increase the corresponding bending stress.

g. The effect of duct openings was found not to be considered in the subject calculation, nor in the criteria entitled,

" Structural Design'of Class I Seismic HVAC Ducts."

h. The effect of eccentric load application of duct accessories and attachments was found not to be considered in the subject calculation nor in the criteria entitled, " Structural Design of Class ~I Seismic HVAC Ducts".

i. Ecalculations have not been prepared to address the adequacy of transitions and other duct fittings.

I

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 F. ope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No .15 7 , Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Jet Impingement Barrier (Shields) No. 12.AEB Calculation No. 625-42 (Q) , Rev. 1, " Jet Impingement Barriors Inside the Drywell"

2. Description of Observation:

3 a. On sheet 115 of 625-42 (Q) , there appears to be an inconsistency in the calculated value of Ix. A value of 120.92 in.4 is used while our computation results in a 3.

(continued on next page)

Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of shields 12A and B cannot be verified.

4.

Recom.endation for resciution (cptional): '

a. BPC should revise calculations for jet inpingement barriers No. 12A and D to address the issues a and b identified in Section 2 of this observation report.

5. (continued on next page)

Internal Review Committee classification of Observatio.a:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See : tem 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 Co .T.itee Signaturcs: ,

. 67Ap n.

Chairman /

\

Mechanical Representative 41sasa.#

Electrical Rep61 Alit (4h5$-

isentativo /

)

i

/ b. m t% l '

~

Structural Representative l - / 4.s t n Control and Instrumentation Representative t

__ _ ~ - - - -- . - - . - -

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7232-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OPSERVATION REPORT OR NoJ57 , Rev. O _

, Date 6/27/85 2., Description of Observation: (continuation) value of 92.33 in.4

b. For the design of Beam #1 in sheets 117 and 118 of 625-42(Q),

the following items are noted:

(i) The eccentricity of the shield plate reaction load and resulting torsional moment do not appear to have been addressed.

(ii) The warping shear and normal stresses do not appear to have been addressed.

(iii) Local flange bending stress calculations considering the shield attachment details to the beam flange, do not appear to have been addressed.

(iv) Calculations on the adequacy of the beam cross section, considering top and bottom flange copes at the connections to beams BG-3 do not appear to have been addressed.

(v) The calculations for the bearing bracket design on sheet 122, a tributory width of 1" is used to determine the loading for each stiffener versus a 12" width that would correspond to the center-to-center spacing of the stiffener.

(vi) The connection design does not appear to have addressed the torsional moment.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that other jot impingement barriers adequately address these issues in their calculations.

O

I t

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 cf 2 l OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 158, Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/27/85

1. ' Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HPCI Pump Foundation: Drawing C-0399, sheet 10, Rev. 5, Calculation #625-113(Q), Rev. 2, sheets 46-50.

Design Guide C-2.35, Rev. 2 " Anchor Bolt Design Guide"

2. Description of Observation: (continued on next page)

a. The interaction of shear and tension calculated on sheet

1. 50 of the calculations for the HPCI Pump anchor bolts appears to Ise based on the sum of squares. According

3. Sign $9ic3n$eoEbb!sShSSihS: " ""* " "'* E#9 -

The design adequacy of the HPCI Pump Foundation cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional): '

j i

a. BPC should check the anchor bolts for the HPCI pump foundation using a linear interaction of shear and tension. (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 Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information required in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: )

, s &f/A Chairman j/

,/ '

MechanicaY Representative S. U TGA%L4.lD $f h! Y 4'S Electrical hepresentative

/. &v #A! sff

,,(

? /l  %

s ~ n.

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative l

l l~

Public Service Electric and Gas-Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSEPNATION REPORT OR Mo.131, Rev. O_, Date 6/27/BS

! 1. Structure (s) , sys tem (s ) , or component (s) involved:

u (continuation) [

Design Procedure #680-03, Rev. O, " Design Procedure l

i for Structural Design of Equipment Foundations - All Buildings" '

2. . Description of Potential Observation: (continuation)

a. C-2.34, Rev. 2 and Design Procedure ( # 68 0-03 (Q) , Rev. 0),

i

the interaction of shear and tension for anchor bolts should 4

be based on the linear sum o f the shear and tension terms.

In the checking of the equipment foundation dowels on b.

j sheet 50gof the calculations,-shear does not appear to have been addressed.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional)

(continuation) '

b.

BPC should revise the calculations for the dowels in the

{i equipment foundation to check the adequacy of the foundation i for shear.

I

c. BPC shall provide assurance that other equipment foundation calculations include a check of the. anchor bolts for the '

j linear the design sum of of the shear and tension foundation and address the shear for dowels.

i i

] .

i l

i 4

i i  !

l J.

i 5 -

i -  ;

I . i I

,\

g S' }

i .

g M .

k

._.________.a

• Public Service Electric and Gas Cupany Froject :'o . 7212 ',0 Hope Crcek Generatir.; Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OSS~nVATIO:: REPORT On No.159 , Rev. 0, Da:e 6 c' 2 ' ' .-

., 1,. , S,t ructu,re ( s ) n sycrem(c), or compor.cnt(s) involved:

GC Decign Speci_ric.ation 22A6237, P.e v . O, dated 2/10/C2 _

j GE IIPCI Ulementary 791C420AC, Rev. 15, dated 10/17/84 11PCI Turbinc  !

2. Description of Observation:

d PSAR Section 6.3.2.2.1 Ond DITS D3.38 lists the follo,ein: four signals which automatically chutdown the HPCI Turbino: tuMO '

3 overspeed, RPV high water level, pump low suction pressure and

3. Significance of Observation:

j The miscing auto isolation cignal in the BPC DITS, with only a reference made to the GE Design Specification, could enuse a lack of meetin,q system design requiranents and indicates a i 4. Reco=endation fc resolution (Optional (continued on next oage) i a. BPC should revise the appropriate FSAR ): '

section.

b.

BPC should revise DITS D3.39 to show the correct interloc'..

C RPV hi% h w.tc1 level, purap lou suction pressure, turbine c: Sc..m t high pressure:and auto isolation. signal. The CE i:1cment.'rr niag rara 79134207.C j 5, hows the five signals which automatic:dly sha'. <

deur the hPC1 Yurbine.

There appears to be a discrepancy betuce7 the PGAR sections, tha BI'C DITS D3.33 and GE Design Specification 22AG237, concerning the u.4u of

!!PCI Tutbine.

the auto isolation signal as a chutic n signal tc ths.

3. Sigaificance of Observation: (continuation) por.cible interface problem battzeen GC and BPC.

t

4. required to automatically shut down the HPCI Turbinc, or provide an explanation of how a signal not t.hown would be detected and obtained from a reference to a vendor document, c.

EPC should describe the design process that controls the interince (i.e.,

between interlocks originating in different systecs auto isolation signz.ls frcm Leak Detection Systra and the IWCI Turbine) and hou these equipments are physically located and interconnected.

d.

i BPC should provide assurance that other systems having an interface uith the Leak Detection System have included that interface in the system DIT.

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. 16 0, Re v . 0  !

, Date_6/27/3

~

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

ADS Design, Installation and Test Specification (DITS) 10855-D3.28, Rev. 3, dated 7/6/84 FSAR Sections 7. 3.1.1. 3 and 5. 2. 2. 4.1

2. Description of Observation:

a)

The DITS for the-ADS system does not reflect the following licensing 5.2.2.4.1:

commitments listed in FSAR Sections 7.3.1.1.3 and (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Due to inconsistencies co:qmitments for the ADSbetween the'DITS may not be met.and the FSAR the FSAR 4.

Recommendation for' resolution (optional):

a)

BPC should provide specific information on how the obcerva-tion has or will be corrected. Will the DITS be revised?

5. tcontinued on next page)

InternalNot Review Committee-classification significant to safety (See Item of 6)

Observation:

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:

7.

Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ,

(Lt/ n Cnairman /

L ,Y '

cW Meenanical Representative J eElectrical n s - oRept /z sentative' ea6gMt

_ > $ 3 Structural Representative A-srf Control and Instrumentation Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project I o. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit ] Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION-REPORT O R I; o . E Os Rev. _0 , Date _ 6/27/05

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

1) ADS system has four logic channels B, F, H, D, and two trip channels B and D.

2) If the high drywell pressure signal is not present, the ADS safety relief valve will open af ter the high drywell pressure bypass timer and the ADS timer run out.

3) The automatic ADS logic trip system B requires the following ECCS pump running configurations to function:

RHR pump B or D, or Core Spray pump B or D.

4) The automatic ADS logic trip system D requires the following ECCS pump running configurations to function: RHR pump A or C, or Core Spray pump A or C.

5) Each ADS trip system timer can be reset manually to delay system initiation. If reactor vessel water level is restored by the HPCI system prior to the end of the time delay, ADS initiation will be prevented.

6) The ADS trip system B actuates the A solenoid pilot valve, and the ADS trip system D actuates the b solenoid pilot valve on each ADS valve. Actuation of either solenoid pilot valve causes the ADS valve to open to provide depressurization.

7) Manual initiation bypasses the ADS trip system time delay and all the trip logic.

8) The air accumulators are sized to be capable of opening the valves and holding them open against the maximum drywell pressure of 62 psig. The accumulator capacity is sufficient for each ADS valve to provide tuo actuations against 70% of the maximum dryuell design pressure.

b) The DITS incorrectly states that the signal for the relief valves to open is based upon signals for (a) high drywell pressure and (b) reactor vessel low water level (Level 3 or Level 1). Actually, Level 3 is not an initiation signal, but a permissive signal only. The re fore , the statomant concerning reactor vessel low water level should read Level 3 and Level 1.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation) b) Provide an explanation of the design process which incorporates requirements into the DITS and assurance that omissions of requirements in a DIT would not cause design omissions.

I

\

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 .161, Rev . 0 , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or ccmponent(s) involved:

Set Point Calculation 104, Rev. 1, dated 3/25/85, titled HPCI Injection Header Pressure Low, Design Guide J-2.6.4, Rev. O, dated.1/29/79-

2. Description of Observation:

In review of the set point calculations the following discrepancies were noted: j

3. (continued on ne: t pagc Significance of Observation:

These discrepancies will cause errors in the set point calculations, which will cause instruments to be calibrated using incorrect set points and pre-operational testing to be

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional): (continued on next pacc -

a. BPC should revise this calculation as required.

b. BPC should provide a description of and a justification 5.

Internal Review Committee classificat'en of Observation:(continued on next pacc '

x 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 Provide information is required requested to evaluate in Item 4. safety significance.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:, j, r a . (L4 4%

Chairman,,,fr /

)A b. &7f /bLt&, jf. lll. j'It Mephanical Representative'%,

Electrical pepresentative'*

N',~ ~

hf

.\ 5{

s'

./s,n, Structural Representative _

Control an~d Instrumentation Representative m

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project !!o. 7212-20 Hope Crcck Generating' Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 Ol+SERVATION REPORT OR No.,132, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

a. The calculation does not include the following effects on the instruments:

1) Seismic Effect

2) Radiation Effect

3) Instrument Calibration Inaccuracies

4) Power Supply and Load Effect b.

The calculation should include the effects of the most severe abnormal conditions due to an accident during which the instrument must operate.

c.

In the summary section of the calculation, the transmitter accuracy is ctated as 0.5% of span and Attachment 3 of the calculation shows the accuracy as 0.3% of span.

d.

Sheet part of1the of the calculation switch should not include deadband as accuracy.

e. On Sheet 2 of the calculation,

.should be verified and referenced.the process limit percentage

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) performed with incorrect set points referenced.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation) for set of the point existing process for preparation, review and approval calculations.

c.

BPC should provide assurance that other set point calculations have included the considerations described in this OR.

i i

1 l

l i

l Public Service Electric and GLs Company Project No. 7212-30 i Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2

)

i OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. LE1, Rcv. _a_ ,

Date 6/27/E

1. -Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

l Main Control Room and Remote Shutdown Panel Indicators /

Recorders

. Main Control Room Panel CC50, Remote Shutdown Panel C399

2. "

Description of Observation:

During the site walkdown the following discrepancies were noted:

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

a. Inconsistencies in recorder and indicator scales may result in incorrect plant operating parameters being indicated to operators which may lend to operator errors 4.

and plant system challenges.

Recommendation fc resciution (cptional):

a. BPC nhould provide specific infornation as to how the observation has or will be corrected. '

S. (continued on next page) l Internal Review Committee classificatien of Observation:

y Not significant to safety (See Item 6)

Additional information required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) ,

6.

Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for ncn-safety-sign!!icance of l

I Observation or additional information required:

! Additional intormation is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -

f Y, . , . 7--

Cnairmang /.

'//

L

' l 1 *5 *' . b ,/? $78 # L4N'h b? f )l', Y W r

Mecn4nical' Representative Electrical upAe e tative

, s% '

h , / Am  ? ) , y .,

Structural Representative l

l control and Instrumentation i Representative I

I l

d Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ORF,ERVATIO" REPORT OR No.162 Rev. _0 ,

Date__6/27/85

1. Structure (s) , 'sys tem (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Specification J2000, Data Sheet C032, Rev. 6, dated 3/25/85, and Specification J2010, Data Sheet FF01, Rev. 6, dated 5/3/85

2. Description of Potential Observation: (continuation)

a. Indicator / recorder scales have not been updated as committed to in the " Control Room Design Review Summary Report".

(Examples: (1) LR-4805-1 and 2 still have spare scales in place and (2) meter scales do not have the correct scale intervals.)

b. FI-2549B1 and FI-2549D3 scales which indicate the same para-meter, do not ngree between the main control room and remote shutdown panel. The scaling in the main control room is a linear scale. The remote shutdown scale is logarithmic.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. DPC should identify the causes of the discrepancies, the design process which should have prevented them, and why that process did not prevent the discrepancies.

0 1 ,

i

i l

I Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 09SERVATION REPORT OR No. 163, Rev. 0 , Date 6/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HPCI System, Composite Change Notices CCN-J-3622, CCN-J-3824 and CCN-J-4113

2. Description of Observation:

As a result of the site walkdown, discrepancies betecen the CCN's and the installed instrument tubing were noted.

(continued on no::t page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The installed instrunent tubing does not match approved closed chango documents. These discrepanc3cs could courc crrors in the seismic analysis of the instrument tubing.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a.

BPC should documents.

appropriate determine which CCN is correct and correct the 5.

(continued on next page)

Internal Review Committee classificatien of Observ<stion:

X Not significant te safety (See Item 6)

Additional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Sign!!icant to Safety (See Item 0) 6.

Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for ncn-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Adcitional cance. information is required to ovaluate safety signifi-Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: '

i A.% < " -

cnairman -

- //

,, 1 ff i

^

b ,hh 7f.!%h /h , b.1f.$YM Mechantcai Representativ Electrical Hgp(esentat1VO 6

'0 l / ?. i. . ( h $m/ )J' n-.,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative

Public Service Electric ar.d Gas Cenpany Project No. 7212-30 llo;)c Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 CBSCRVATIO" B EPonl OR No.163, Rev. ,0_ , Date 6/27/85 l

2. Description of Observation:

(continuation)

a. CCN-J-3622 shows instrument tubing to inlet of transmitters l- PT-N058A, PT-N057A and PT-NOS9C.

instrument tubing has the isolationAtvalvessupport S60, this l

4" apart. On CCN--J-3 824 installed and spaced tne instrument valves are installed at support S60 with a spacing of approximately 2" apart.

The installed instrument tubing does not match CCN-J-3622 or CCN-J-3824.

b. CCN-J-4113 shows instrument tubing to inlet of transmitters LT-4805-1 and LT-4805-2. Tho isometric details for instrument tubing from the instrument header to the instrument manifold does not match the installed instrument tubing. The CCN shows those tap connections fro.n the instrument header pointing south. Actual routing uses north tapc.

4.

Recommendation of Ecsolution: (continuation) b.

(

DPC should identity tnc causes of the discrepancies, the design process which should have prevented them, and why that process dia not prevent tno dancrepancies.

c.

Provido assurance that other instrument sensing lines have the as-built configuration documented correctly.

l I

t

, _ _ _ _ . . . , _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ~ - ^

=_ _.

3 i

i l

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 -

l OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. E4,, Rev. L. Dato G/27/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or ccaponent(s) involved: i Pipe whip protection for safety-related systems, structures l and components, Interoffico memo C. Bradford to R. Henderson ,

i dated 8/17/84, BPC procedure EDP 4.37, Rev. 6, Design Calcu- '

lations l 2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Section 3.6.1.a reads in part:

"High oncrgy piping is located away from essent.ial safety-related systems whenever practical. Otherwise, piping ,

i

3. Signf.Ei[ance et Ohser[a[ien: # hip restraints." ( ti on

! Becauce of a lack of documented analyses, it cannot bo l determined if the pipe whip requiremontrof the PSAR arc j mot.

j 4. Recor endation fer resolution (cptional):

DPC should provido documented analysos demonstrating that the pipo whip conaitments of the PSAR have becm met.

5.

InternalNot Review significant Cormittecto classification of Observation:

safety X Additional information requ(See ired Item (See6)

tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)  ;

6.

Internal Review ceraittee reason for non-safety-sign!!icance of Observation or additional information required: ,

Addit.ional significanco. information is required to ovaluate safety Provido information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Cormitee Signatures: ,

/ * ,

'l %A Chairman /

[ e Y l?$ffbl!(A epgesentative)/

kdl$$(.

Mechanical'Rept er,en ta t ive ElecteacoL t

i

-s structural Representative A. tM .*

control and Instrumentacten Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Gcnerating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OPsi:nvATIO:7 PEPORT OR No.164, Rev. O _, Date 6/2 7/0 5

2. Description of observation: (continuation)  ;

Also, similar commituents are made in the FSAR Section 3.6.1.2.1 for all high energy systems as for example, in Section 3.6.1.2.6.c, for the llPCI Steam Supply Line:

l "A combination of pipe whip rostraints and separation by distance or intervening structures ensures the availability of essential systems and conponents in the event of a 1:PCI steam supply line break occurring in the drywell, the HPCI pipe chase compartment, or the !!PCI pump compartment. "

Regulatory Guide 1.46 suggests that:

"The determination of the nood for pipe whip restraints should consider the potential consequences of postulated breaks at these locations."

l FSAR eS'ction 1.8.,1.46 roads in part:

"The critoria set forth in Regulatory Guido 1.46 are design  !

bases for !! CGS."

Further, FSAR Section 3.6.1 co:mnits to the follouing:

"Nucicar safety-related systems are designed to ensure that components required for safo shutdown and isolation of the reactor do not fail as a result of a failuro in a high or moderato energy piping system."

Pipe whip rostraints are provided for most postulated high enorgy lino break (HELB) locations. !!owever, the S&L walkdown (6-13-85 through 6-18-85) of selected brock locations identified break locations in the Main Steam Tunnel (Room 4316) and the llPCI pump .

room (Room 4111) which woro unrestrained and could result in potentially damaging pipe whip. r No documentation could be found of an analysis to show that pipo  !

whip rostraints woro providad to ensuro availability of ossential '

safety-rolated systems and components required in the ovent of a llELB.

Furthormoro, thoro appoars to be no formal documentation for an analysis to datormino pipo whip tip dofications, subsoquent to postulated ilELB for rostrained and ur.rostrainod piping, even -

though such an analysis apponra nocessary. For examplo, during '

the S&L walkdown of the llCGS drywall, it was datormined that lower RPV level sonsing lino 1-CCA-235 could bo impacted by pipo whip tip deflection duo to broaks in tho RWCU systom. Without tho analysed tip displacements, it cannot be datorminod if the sonsing lino will actually sustain damago subsequent to the llELD.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - ~ - ~ ' ' ' " - ~ ^~~~ ' ^ ~~

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Crcek Concrating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3  ;

OR No. 164, Rev. O, Da te,6 /2 7/8_5

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

Interoffico memorandum from C. Bradford to R. !!cnder son ,

dated 8/17/84, entitled "l'ic1d Walkdown 4/30 to 5/4/84" (preliminary) addressed the effects of pipe whip in unres-l trained piping. 11owever , this memorandum cannot be considered a design calculation due to its lack of adherence to A"SI N45.2.ll and EDP 4.37.

j l

9 e

t G

e t

I r

1 1

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 4 OBSEPVATION REFORT OR No. 165, Rev. _0_, Date 6/27/33

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

l Pipe Whip Restraints:

a. Calculation No. 625-21(0), Rov. O, Analysis a Declan (continued en next pago) l 2. Description of Observation:

Rogarding the analysis and design of pipe whip rostrainto, wo have the following observations:

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The adequacy of the pipe whip restraint system cannot be verified.

4. Recersondation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should roviso the calculations for p!.po whip rostraints to address the observations a thru n.

(continued on no :t pngo) 5.

l Internal Review Committee ciascificatien of Observation Not significant to safety (See Iten 6) x Additional inferra:Lon required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 9)

6. Internal Poview Ccmmittee reason for ncn-safety-sign!!icarce of Observation or additional information required:

i

' Additional inforination in required to ovaluato riafoty significanco. Provido information roquested in Itom 4.

7. Internal Review Ccmmitee Signatures:

)

. 6/5, A Cnairman y / ,,

'.  %& l,h]SW.tb/,tr/th ! !

Meenanical He rosentativo ']_0 L

. N Electrical,

/ Rep (tusuntatavo /.

// / s lk!. m Structural hepresentative 0 S wn -,,

Control and Inutrumentation Representative l

l l

l l

Public Service Elcetric and Gas Company Proj ect !;o. 7212-30 I flope Crock Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 4

( OHK RVATTt1 REPORT OR !!o.16 % Rev.1.. Datef /2 7d5

1. Structuro(s), systen (s) , or component (s) involved (continuation) I Proceduro for Framed Pipo Whip Rostraints  !

t

b. Dochtel Topical Report DN-TOP-2, Rev. 2, "Dosign of Pipo Drcak Effects" '

i

c. Structural Design Critoria D2-3  !

d. Structural Calculations 62 3-03 (Q) , Rev. O, 624-28(Q), Rev. 5, G25-10 (Q) , Rev. O t l

o. Interoffico Memo from R. U. !!cndorson to G. Sladok, dated i 3/19/84, Pipo Reaction Forces duo to Pipo Broaks (CCN #0268604) ,

f. Drauing C-0983-1, Rev. 9  !

2. Description of Ounorvations (continuation)

a. Interof fico m:mo, llendornon to Sladok, dated 3/19/84 staten in  !

part "...Theso forces (pipo reaction forcos) are not necessarily the resultant forcos en the whip routraint. Such resultant (

forces are a function of piping goemotry, longth of nomont >

arm, whip rostraint configuration and pipe break location."  !

t Donign Critoria D2.3 and Calculation No. 625-21(O) do not appeas to addrons the above itous. Specifically, the magnitudo of l the rentraint reaction, the otrain in the pipo at the rostraint location and at the potential ningo location in the pipe, and the deflected position of the brokon pipo tip havo not boon addronnod. In addition, the work dono by the jot forco will i be undarootimated since the deflection of pipe at the jet location may bo significantly larger than the displacement of  !

pipo at the pipe whip rostraint. i L

b. Non-yiolding structural olomonto (boams, framas, connectionn, etc.) nupporting the pipe whip rostraints undergoing plastic '

doformations do not a dynamic offects, i.e.ppear a to havn load dynamic boonfactor designed of 1.0 forhan anybocn ,

~

used. Specifically, dynamic amplification of the pipo whip  !

rentraint reaction,on the clastic supporting framing connectionn and the biological nhiold wall has not boon addrecnod. ,

l c. The offect of incronnod reactionn from pipe whip rentrainte duo to tho higher actual material otrongth au comparod to  ;

the minimum specifica ntrongth in the npocification doon not i appear to have boon addrasnod in the curront donign. l l d. The calculation G25-21(0), paragraph 1.1 providun the critoria for the location of pipo whip rontraint in relation to the  ;

location of brook in the pipo. The critoria requiron a cortain (continued on next pagt '

i l

I

r ..

l l Public Service Clect71e und Gas Company Project No. 7.'12-30 Hope Creek Generating Stat on - Unit 1 Page 3 of 4 l Olt!T".'/,7 TOQ, P El'OM OR !;o .1Lfq_. Rev . ,f1__, Da t cE;L7,/ 0 5  !

2. Description of Oncorvation (continuation) minimum distanco of the rentraint from the break location, but does not appear to have any provintons limiting the maximum distance. This distance, among other things, controls the maximum strain in the pipe and the deficction of the broken and  !

of the pipo.

o. Calculation 625-21(Q) , paragraph 3.7, requires that tho l rosictanco of rostraint hu 1.2 to 1.44 of the steady stato jet i force of the pipe. Thin doos not appear to have boon addrenced i for rectraints PR-41 and PR-49 in the original design,

f. Containment radial beams aro assumed to be simply cupported uhon utilized an pipo whip rostraints. The offect of actual 1 ond finity on the design, especially for the connection design l dooc not appear to have been addressed in the original design.

g. Idoalized clasto-plastic ioad resistanco curvo for frano typo pi'po whip rentraints is datormined by the incromontal collapso load mellod. The load resistanco of each stage of fra o l depends on tho hingc moment capacity (M ) under that staq).

Thu valuo of M is influenced by axlal Pload and chcar forco at the locatioH of hingo formation. The offect of antal loads and chear forces generated by a subuoquent etage of frano analysis on the previoun stago(s) on thu value of M, addressed. I i: not

h. The hingo mechanism annumed on ahoct 50 of Calculation (25-03(01.

Bov. O, may not be realiotic. A nimplo span beam under tho loud an shown should not have more than ono hingo in the span.

i. The offect of shear forco on reducing the hingo moment capacity -

(Ml ) of the containment radial beamn when utilized an yiciding pi,po rostrainto doos not appear to have boon addronad. I

j. A chock for pipo stability loads as requirod por paragraph 3.3 l of Calculation 625-21(Q), pago 4 doon not appear to have boon

! performod. -

k. Thora doos not appear to be calculations for locating the pipe whlp rentraints nhown on Drawing C-0903-1, Rov. 9.

l l 1. The loading combination of pipo break reacticn and noinmic t loads han not boon addronnad an requirod by TSAH, Tablu 3.0-5.

m. Drawing P-3003-1, Rov. 3, shown value of 4 gapn around tho

. pipe for the PWR PR-49. The gap no. 1 is a 4.62b" and gap

, no. 4 is a 3.25". Cap no. 4 has boon utilized for the ounign  ;

(Calc. No. 625-03(0), Rev. O, pago 50s calculation tio. 624-20(0),

i Rov. O, pago 10). Tho banin for nolocting gap no. 4 for donign doon not appear to havo boon addronned.

(continued on next page

• **_ . _ _ _ . ._ . > s v . _ n.

l

[

i Public Servico Electric and Gas ccmpany Projoet ?:o. 7212-30 llopo Crcek Generating Station - Unit 1 Pago 4 of 4  ;

opSPRV/, Tim: REPO;T _

OR No. M3, Rev. _Q . Da t e 6 /_2 7/9 5

. i

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)  !

n. Calculation No. 624-28(0), Rov. O , shoo ts 10, 52 and 53 chow ductility ratio of 17.5, which appoats to exceed the allowablo (l value of 10.  !

o. In the calculation for pipe whip rostraint MSPR-41, tho offects of loads from the two accumulator tanks that aro mounted on it do not appear to have boon addrocsod.

p. The design of supporting beams for rostraint !!PCI-R4 is r judged to be O.K. The basis for this judgoment does not appoar to have boon addressed. t t

. g. PSAR Soction 3.6.2.2.2 staten that displacements of the brokon pipo and the pipe whip restraint will bu calculated (

using DN-TOP-2 and potential interforences will be addressed. [

B!l-TOP-2 doos not appoor to addrean the displacomont of  !

j the broken pipo.

l The stability of framo typo pipo whip rostraints in the r.

I I

pleno normal to their own is not addressed. This is required i to assuro propor hingo formation in the pipo whip rostreint framo.

t I

a. Design calculations for PWR MS-R41 and MS-PR49, 625-03(0) ,

Rov. O, do not addrono the chancon roquanted por FCR's C-11831 and 12901. Thuso documenta roquant significant changes to l tho original doulgn. i

4. Rocommendation for Rocolutions (continuation)  !

b. DPC should provido accurance that other pipe whip rostraints l also addronn Section 2. the obnorvations doncribed in a thru o in i i

i l  ?

i

Public Service Elcetric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30

[ Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 4 l

093PRVATION REPORT OR No. E. Rev. _n_, Date 6/27/95 l

l. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Safety-Rolated Structuroc, Syntom: and Compononts. Regulatory Guido 1.29, Rev. 3, September 1970 Solnmic II/I Evaluation Program, Spoc. 10855-G-052(0), Rov. 2

2. Description of Observation l Regulatory Guido 1.29, Rev. 3 statos that, "Thoco portionn i of structurers, systema and compononts whose continued function is not required but whoac failuro could reduce the function-

3. bignT!i0a5ce"Of b$cfhSk[Nn: P "" " "" " " " E#9 Dased on tho inconsistoncion noted in the observation, the II/I design may not moct the requiromonto of the PSAR (Rog. Guido 1.29).

4. Recem.endation fer resolution (cptional):

i a.

Tho G-OS2 documentation (Record Shootc) chould to rovicued and reviced to climinato diceropanciou an identified in thin OR. (continued on next page)  !

l 5.

Internal Review co.mittee classification of observation:

Not significant to safety (See Iten 6) v Additional information required (Sue Item 6)

Potentially Sign!!! cant to Safety (See Item 0) i

! 6.

Internal Review cer.mittee reason for ncn-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional nignificanco.

information in required to ovaluate cafor.y Provido information roquestod in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Corr.mitee Signatures .

I

/Y, s.f (Zw t ~%

l Cnairman . /

r l I ,

) /'2 ^ 'b .. b2STi's,.Ct.JD *

/ $lt? ?5 Mecnanical Representative U e c t r i,c t. 1 R o~p H 1 u o n t a u v o " "~~

l / f' ,

O'-~

S t r uc tur al Tepr e senta t t ve ,

bR ._

Euroi and InscrIimentacten

~~'.=,

Representative

l Public Servico Electric and Gan. Company Project No. 7212-30 i  !! ope Crcoh Gcnorating Sta'. ion - Unit 1 Pago 2 of 4 i

OR No. 166, Rov. O, Dste C/27/60 [

2. Description of obcorvations (continuation) {

featuro... to an unacceptablo safety level... should bo  !

designed and constructed no that the SSE would rot cauce such  !

failure." Such portions of structuren, systems and components are roferred to as Soismic II/I commodities and are subject to ,

the Soismic II/I tvaluation Program defined by Specification 10855-G-052(Q). G-052 states that, "The PSAR Section 1.8.1.29 y confirma that such items vill bo identiflod in appijcoblo documents, will be designed not to fail, and will bo incpected 1

l in thu field to verify the installation." Thoroforo, the i Soismic II/I ovaluation program sorvon the following purpocos: I

a. To conduct a field walkdown of the as-built corditiens,  :

b. To identify the non-nafety-related items in the proxinity of tho safoty-related items.

c. To ovaluato*the design and construction of non-safety-related items and onnurc that during an SSE their failuro would not cause unaccoptablo damage to nearby safety-rolated i items. I d.

To document tho idontified items an well as tho ovaluation I and insuo the noconnary donign changes and/or inspection l notificationn." '

0-052 also ctaton that "The preparation for this progarm '

included a thorough modol roviow to identify, ovaluato, and  ;

document from the modol. thoso Soinmic II/I intoractions which can be datoimined It included ostablishing the critoria for designing and cvoluating the portinent aon-nafoty rclated itoa.n {

and the critoria for acceptanco based on standardi:od ovalua- i tions whora ponsibic." [

S&L has attempted to identify the design procons which in apparently taking placo prior to tho 0-052 walhdown to identify, evaluato, and docunont the Solamic II/I intoractionn which can y bo dotormined f rom the modol. No proceduro governing this i activity wan provided nor wan C&L ablo to identify any ronulting documentation.  ;

I During the stL walhdown (6-13-85 through 6-10-85), howevor, '

D&L did roccivo the nocord choots docunonting the recontly completed Dochtel C-052 walhdoan for four nooms (4615, 4626,  !

$305.and 5630). Domo of thoso nocord Shoots wore selected by l

H&L for a reviou and walkdown. Thu ruview and walkdot'n rostilted in the following obnorvations, which could not bo resolved i

during the walkdown:

I Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hopo Crook Gonorating Station - Unit 1 Pago 3 of 4 OR No. 166, Rev._0, Da te_6/27/0 5

2. Description of Observation (continuation)

( , a. Design Process Rolated Observations:

l l

1) The same source ( 1-KA- O ll-IIB D-1 " ) was identified on throo separato Record Shoots (461502, 03 and 04) which are not cross-referenced, thus in potential violation of the requirements in G-052. It was datormined during the S&L walkdown that the Record Shoots applied to throo difforont sectionn of the identified lino.

It apponrs that, for clarity, the piping section identified as the sourco should bo uniquely identified in ovary caso.

2) The ovaluations mado on the Hocord Shoots is supported by refuroncos.

In two conos (461506 and 530501) however, it could not be confirmed that the referenco supports tho evaluation.

3) Two Record Shcots (4G2604 and 462605) rubmitted for our review did not identify any intoraction. Thoso choots should not have been filod.

4) S&L han identified two potential sourcos in I:oom 5J05 which have apparontly not boon identified by tho Dochtul G-052 walkdown (no Record Shoots could be found). Thoso are:

The hangor on pipolino 1-MJ-154-4"-ilDD which is closont to the Dict 4ol Gonorator (not identiflod by numbor)

The drain lino 0-LP-024 XHC-4" identified in the Soparation Roview Data Dhoots,

b. Donign Adoquacy Rolated Obsorvations:

1) It apponrs that no design calculatiwns are available showing that tho hangors for the nolocted souren identiflod on Record Shoot 530502 are soinnically donigned an stated on the Record Dhoot.

2) Supporting calculations apparontly nado uso of the equivalent static load mothod. For throo reviewod canos (Rocord Shoots 401505, 14 and 15) it appearn that a dynamic load factor was not included in the appropriato load calculations.

F Public Service Electric and Gan Company Project :io. 7212-30 llope Croch Generating Stat'on Unit 1 Pago 4 of 4 OR !!o. 166, Ruv.,0_, Date 6/27d5

4. Recommendation for rosolut. ion (optionni): (continuation)

b. BPC should provide documentation which addresses the observations related to the denign adequacy.

c. BPC should identify or preparo a procc6tro that defines the design process for II/I, defines the renponsibilition and identifion the requirod docign documentatiori.

d. DPC should provido assuranco that II/I design in other areas have boon or will be completed utill::ing the procedure addressed in 4e above.

I

l l

i c

l l

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project tio. 7212-30 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 j OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 167, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/O t

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Safety-related Structures, Systems and Components .in the Reactor Building Design, Criteria D7.3, Rev.1 (continued on next page);

2. Description of Observation l FSAR 3.6.1.b reads in part:

" Jet impingement loads in the reactor building are reviewed ,

3. Significance of Observation:

The current walkdown, por the subject specification, may not }

be adequate to assure that the FSAR commitments for postulated pipe break are mot.

4. Recorsendation for resolution (cptional):

BPC should provido assurance that the G-019.1 walkdown will adequately supplomont the home offico separation review such thats' (continued on next pago)-

5. Internal Review Committee class!fication of Observations Not significant to safety (See Item 6)

Additional information required (See : tem 6) v i 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 ovaluate safety sign'ificanco. Provido information requested in Item 4.  ;

7. Internal Review Comaltee t

signatures: ' #

h, tilp &

• Chairman /

l f me Mecqanical Representative usw JuemhPL.

Electrical Represe sative

~

r

- t *S"i / _ / ( Ni n ,

structural Representattve Controu and Instrumentation Representative f

Public Sorvice Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.lf]_. Rev. 0 . Date 6/28/85 s

1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved (continuation)

Specification 10855-G-019.1, Rev.1

2. Description of Observations (continuation) .

1 '

along with other pipe break ef fects on a compartment-by-compartment '

basis. Structures designed to onclose and separate high energy piping from essential safety-related equipment are designed to sustain the predicted jet impingement and pipe whip loads. Loss I of safety-related systems occupying the compartment where the postulated pipo break occurs is considorod in the ovaluation of the plant's ability to shut down, cool down or isolato."

General Specification 10855-G-019.1 states in Section 1.1.4 "The field walkdown will verify the adoquacy and complotonons of the home offico separation review. This e f fort will confirm the work previously accomplished, and document those intoractions on safety-related targots not previously identified."

l S&L has reviewed the DPC documentation resulting from the home offico separation review. The procons appears to be informal, incomplete and based primarily on undocumented engineering judgomont (OR No. 58). The reviewod documentation at the prosent timo doos not moot requiroments for dosign documentation as requirod by ANSI N45.2.11. Thoroforo, the G-019.1 walkdown becomes important to assure final design acceptability. -

However, based on the results of the walkdown (June 13 thru June 18,1985) and a review of the preliminary results of an l carlier (May, 1985) D?C walkdown, the G-019.1 walkdown as currently conducted, may not be adoquato for the above stated l purpo so,. The G-019.1 walkdown proceduro as currently conducted appears inadoquato for tho following reasons l

l a. The DPC and S&L walkdowns for broak location 565 upstream I on the main steam lino AD-022-DDD-26", resulted in I

identification of a difforont number of targots. Potential reasons for thoso differencos include:

- inaccessibility of components

- variation in judgomont regarding the jot impingomont zono, and a variation in judgomont in selecting the targeto (duo to physical shiolding, safety-related datormination and other critoria) 1

1 l

Public S rvica Elcctric cnd Goo Ccmp2ny Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.112. Rev. n_, Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation s (continuation)

b. The S&L walkdown team concluded that at some break locations a potential for damaging pipe whip existed (break location 70 downstream on the foodwater piping and break locations 45, 215, 385 and 565 downstream on the main steam piping) .

This potential for pipe whip has apparently not boon identified by the BPC G-019.1 walkdown, even though pipe whip is in the scopo of this walkdown. Further, thoro is

apparently no evidence that pipe whip at those locations has boon addressed in the prior separation review dono

! by the home offico.

1

c. During the Soismic II/I walkdown, S&L identified in Diosol Generator Room 5305 drain lino 0-LP-024-4" XNG. An assessment for dripping from drain linos is a part of the scopo of the G-019.1 walkdown. BPC has apparently performed the G-019.1 walkdown for this room; the documentation

• received t,o dato does not show that the DPC walkdown identified this drain lino.

Completo documentation for the DPC G-019.1 walkdown, could not be fully reviewod as it is not yet availablo. The prolininary documentation that was provided is not a completo documentation package for this walkdown. Ilowevor, what was reco1ved indicatos that the majority of the identified targots for jot impingement woro disposed of during the walkdown, somo by noting that the targots were not "onnontial". No supporting evidence was provided for thono decisions. Further, apparently no list of the canontial l

equipment for the considorod breaks exista. BPC apparently rollos on the Design Critoria D7.3 and the engincoring judgoment of their exporlenced engincorn for thoso docinionn.

4. Rocommandations for Resolutions (continuation)

a. The design will moot the PSAR commitmonts.

b. The resulting documuntation will moet ANSI N45.2.11 requiroments.

l l

i 1

\

Public Service Electric and Gas company Project No. 7212-30 Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.16 8 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/8

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

seismic Qualification Report V.P. 10855-Ell 2A(Q)-14-4, "Scismic Analysis of the Safety Auxiliar ,

l Hope Creek Generating Station",y Wostinghouse Cooling System G.O.Pump Motors for SF15003-L7, 2.

(continued on next pago)

Description of Observations l

BPC Material Requisition Ell 2A specifies IEEE 344-1975 for seismic analysis of the subject pump motors. IEEE 344-1975 requires that design analysos and/or proof of performanco should j 3. Significance of Observations c n in nnx page)

Because of lack of documentation, 'the SACS pump motors soismic qualification report may not meet the requirements of IEEE 344-1975. .

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. DPC should reviso the soismic qualification report to moot the subject requirements of IEEE 344-1975. '

(continued on noxt pago) 5.

Internal Review committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See ! tem 6) x Additional information required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) 6.

Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-signi!!cance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluato safety significanco. Provido information requestod in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee signatures: .

. *v Cheltman if ,

bD7/NMhl

, * "?

Mechanical- Repre entati,ve Electrical tep;rts ntattve

/

B&f1 5ttuctural Representative

• • n .

~

AMA Contr'of and Insttumentation Representative I

i l

Public Service Electric and Cas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No._16 8 Rev. 0 , Dato_6/i8/85 l'. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation),,

Rev. 2, dated 12/11/81

' Material Requisition 10855-E-112A, Rev. 4

\

2.' Description of Observations (continuation) be presented in sufficiently detailed stop by stop form, to  ;

enable a reviewer to understand the analysos and verify the adequacy of the results readily, without rocourso to the

! originator. The subject qualification report does not includo  ;

details of analyson, computer inputs and outputs and roforences to enable an indopondent verification. Furthormore, portaining to the frequency test, the report does not identify tho test facility, equipmont and calibration and tost proceduro.

1

! 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPc should provido assuranco that other seismic qualification repoda for similar equipment moot the requirements of the applicablo IEEE Standard.

i 1

4 9

P 4

(

l t

l l l l

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.169 , Rev.* 0 , Date_6/28/8!

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: l l '

Structural steel columns, auxiliary building control area column 9 column lines "N" and "26.7", "N" and "31.6", and "Q" and 24.3" (continued on next page

2. Descript. ion of observation l The structural steel column design Calculation 644(Q)-8-8, l Rev. 2, have been reviewed and the following items have boon  :

noted concerning these calculations.  !

3. Significance of observations (continued on next pago" Based on the above observation the design adequacy of the ,

stool columns cannot be verified.

4. Seco.mendation for resolution (cptional):  ;

a. BPC should modify the calculations for column design '

identified in Section 2 of this observation report to address the issues A thru I.

5. (continued on next pagoN Internal Review Committee class!!! cation of observation Not significant to 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-signi!!cance of observation or additional information required:

Additional information in required to ovaluate safety i

significance. Provide information required in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee  !

Signatures:

e h Chattman ~ f

}%*W lA$flMuAfD $ $ $Y$KA' O \

l Mechentcal Rep esentative Electrical Re~prgsentatied  !

/

- k % 9'1 f><' i1 rt -. w Erructural Representative contrW1 and Instrumentatson  :

Representative '

l 1

4

l i Public 30rvich Elcetric cnd Goo Corpany Projcct No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Stat on . finit 1 Page 2 of 3 r OBSERVATIO lj 22BI OR No.169 . Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 l

1. Struciare (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation).

Calculation 644 (O)-8-8, Rev. 2 Calculation 644(Q)-8-10, Rev. O t Calculation 621-29(Q), Rev. 2 l Calculation 644 (Q)-8-11, Rev. O i Drawing C-1541-0, R.ev. 10(Q) 2.

. Description of observation (continuation)

a. Vertical seismic forces due to acceleration of " live load during operation" (L

,do not appear to hav$)buenJnddressed. Land,d.ua to permanent equip i

b. calculatien 6;'l-29 (Q),'.Rev. 2, addre'spes the final load

.verificatieq of floor framing. inis calculation does not  ;

.addross structural building columns. This calculation indicatos t that .t* Lnal load chee's "f or columns is ,not planned for !!opo Crook and raisting derimi as given in subje:t calculation is final.

Calculation 644(QJ-1-8, Rev. 2, uses a value of .5g for vertical i seismic accolorations for elevation 1(.0'-0d and .35g for ,

elevation

.Rev.'.,2, 105'-0",resboctively.

ylves' corresponding "q values Itowmmr, Calculation 621-29 (Q) ,

et .69 and .59 It ap carr, that there is incons'. stoney between framing design and j co umn design.

c.

It appears that calculation 644 (Q)-8-2 usos a seismic I acceleration corresponding to the floor under consideration to l calculato the total scismic load from all floors above. This may rot be conservativo. '

, 4

d. Vort.tcal osisnic forecs on the. columns :M & 26.7, N & 31.6) due to the dead load of the manonry walle do not appear to have beca considered (fte t. Calculation 644 (Q)-8-8, Rev. 2, shoots 24 6 25). ,

e. Firoproofing of columns have not bocn considered in dotormininq t

l the vortical and Porizontal column loads.  !

f. Aections 11 and D on Drawing C-1511-Oc Rev. 10(0) show that the concrete walls are supported by the uttal columns for horizontal seismic loads normal to the plano of e.he wall. However, column +

design cale'11ations do not addro'y this particular loading.

9 thads due to self weight excitahAun of the column are not

,addreanod. ,

h. 85E vortical foismic acceleratlob Aptears to govern 9 elevation i 137'ab', instoej of Ott valued, ibis does not appear to havo l l

been addressed in the calculaticas. '

l i (continued on next page);

s ,

t i , f

_ _ ________ _ _______a

Public S rvico Elcctric Cnd Gca Company Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.16 9 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation (continuation) .

i. Column load calculations reference masonry walls in auxiliary building. The masonry walls are changed now into concrete panel walls. The changes in thickness and density are not addressed in column loading calculations. Also, any attachments to those panel walls are not addressed in column calculations.

j. Note 12 of Drawing C-1152-0, Rev. 7(Q), states "All column splices shall be designed to transmit 50% of the upper column section allowable axial load; tension or compression as per AISC column Table 1, unless noted otherwise."

Note 13 states " Column web platos shall be designed for 50% full shear capacity of the uppor column section unless noted othorviso." Thoro are no calculations which address those requirements for column splicos.

4. Rocommandation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provido assuranco that other column design adequacy addressos tho issues identified in this observation report.

I e

4 e

, Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 '

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.170 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/8!'

l. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: -

Equipment Foundation for SACS Heat Exchanger, Drawings C-0399-0, Sheet 164, Rev. 2 and C-0845-0, Sheet 5, Rev. 8, Calculation No. 625-18(Q), Rev. 1, Dynatec R/D Company Seismic Analysis Report No. 1602, Rev. 3

2. Description of Observation:

The calculations and drawings for the SACS heat exchanger have been reviewed and the following items have been noted concerning these drawings and calculations:

3. Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of the equipment foundation for the SACS hea,t exchanger cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should revise calculation- for the SACS heat exchanger foundation to address the observations described in Section 2.

5. Internal Review Committee classificatio(n of Observation: continued on next page) 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:

Additional significance.

information is required to evaluate safety Provide information required in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

A 1.

Chairman' a, -

/

I,M9AS4MZ) b// /

Mechadietl' Representative' ~~ Electrical Rgpres neative

• g Structural Representative .

p ife-x-s C o n t r o'l a n d I n s t r u m e n t a r i c n Representative

Public Servics Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR Nol70 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) i

a. In the check of the weld on the gusset plate done on sheets 4 and 11 of.the subject calculation, the effect of the eccentric load application upon the weld does not appear to have been considered. In addition, it does not appear that the 11" length of weld required in the calculation was' specified on the design drawing.

b. The basis for this 1/2" minimum gap billed on Section "A" of Drawing C-0845-0, Sheet 5, Rev. 8, for the sliding connection is not provided.

c. The 1/4" all-around weld of the 1" web to the 1-1/4" plate as shown on Section "A" and the 1/4" all-around weld of the WT8x38.5 to the 1" thick plate, as shown on Section "C" of Drawing C-0845-0, Sheet 5, Rev. 8, does not appear to meet the minimum weld size requirement of the AISC Code.

d.

The check of the 1/2" one-sided weld of the shear lug to base plate (Section C, Drawing C-0845-0, Sheet 5, Rev. 8) done on Sheet 4 of the subject calculation is' based on a 5.5" weld-length. Review of Section C_ appears to show that only a 4.5" maximum weld length is possible.

e. The subject calculation cover sheet lists Rev. 2 of the Dynatec R/D Company Seismic Analysis Report No. 1602 (Rev. 3) as a reference while calculations appear to be based on Rev. 1 of report. Some support reactions have increased in Rev. 2 of the report.

f..

Detail of attachment for the SACS Heat Exchanger Frame to the Concrete Embedment Plate as shown in Section "D" of design Drawing =C-0845-0, Sheet 5, Rev. 8 (i.e., 30" of 5/16" weld) does not _ appear to match the calculation basis detail as shown on Sheet 12 of the subject calculation (i.e., 40" of 1/2" weld).- Also, FCR C-8125 does not appear to have been addressed which.further reduces the amount of welding.

• 1 1

~

1 .

]

l i

Public-Sarvice Electr'ic End Gas Company- Project No. 7212-30 i Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3  !

j OBSERVATION' REPORT OR - No ._120 ' Rev . 0 , Date 6/28/85 2.- Description of Observation: (continuation)

]

f ,

1 g. 'At the fixed cradle end of the heat exchanger, equipment l foundation Drawing C-0399-0, Sheet 164, Rev. 2, shows a .

total of 8' anchor bolts. The anchor bolts are arranged in 1 group of 2 at each end and l group of 4 at the middle for 2

attaching the W14x90 foundation grillage assembly to the

, concrete slab. Dynatec Seismic Analysis Report No. 1602 t

has the fixed cradle end modeled with three support nodes;  ;

nodes 1 and 4 at each end of the' cradle and node 19 at the middle with a structural member in between these nodes.

j On Sheet 13 of the subject calculation, the sum of the uplift forces of nodes 1,.19 and 4 are divided by the total j

i number of bolts (8) to generate the design' tension force L i for each bolt. Since the seismic equipment analysis provides  ;

individual nodal reactions, each anchor bolt group should be-j designed using the corresponding nodal forces.

[ h. Subject calculation appears to address only 1 of the 34

! change docum nts (FCR, FCN, NCR) .that were found to be

} written against the subject drawings. Reference and i ~ justification for acceptance of these 34 change documents i

was found to exist for only FCR C-1230 in the subject I calculation._ According to ANSI N45.2.ll-1974, Section 8, j entitled, " Design Change Control," "these changes shall be '

justified and subject _to design _ control measures commensurate  ;

s with those applied to the original design."

l, i. In the design of the 2" anchor bolts with 24" embedment, it-does not appear as if consideration was given to the reduction in the concrete. capacity due to-the edge distance l for the anchor bolt locatedL18'-1 1/2" from the inlet l 1

centerline and 4'-6" from the central axis of the heat  ;

exchanger. The distance from the bolt centerline to the edge of the opening is approximately 6 1/2".

4. Recommendation- for ' Resolution -(optional)

(continuation) j b. BPC should provide assurance that other foundation calculations 4 address-the issues identified-in Section 2.  !

c. BPC should provide assurance that the 33 change documents-in this observation and other change documents have the required supporting calculations to document their disposition.

4

~

a

~

\

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 H 1 Page 1 of 2

\opeCreekGeneratingStation-Unit  :

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. [11, Rev. g1_, Date 6/28/85:

\

\

\

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: -

Cable Tray Support Supplementary Steel Calculation #677-1(Q) , Rev. 4 i Calculation #677-334 (Q) , Rev. 0

2. Description of Observation:

Supplementary steel for cable tray supports is qualified in Calculation #677-1(Q) . The following items have been noted concerning these calculations:

s 3. Significance of Observation:

3 Adequacy of supplementary structural steel for cable tray supports cannot be verified.

4

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

BPC should revise the calculations for cable tray support supplementary steel to address the observations identified in Section 2.

l

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 significance. Provide information required in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

' i W1 Chairman //

4 . --

4 b a/ c

.Mechaniesi Representati,ve Electrical Repres ntative 2

l y

1 Asw Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation {

Representative 1 i

I l

, .,, , , , , , ,--...,...m .,.n -

Public Scrvice Electric cnd Gas Company Projcct No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.lli, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 1

2. Description of Observation : (continuation)

a. The effects of horizontal forces due to transverse and longitudinal seismic excitation do not appear to have been included in the member or connection checks. This -

1. includes the torsional effects due to hanger attachrents being made at the bottom flange.

b. The evaluation of support steel for the bracing attachment on sheets 5 and 6 does not appear to adequately address

eccentric effects. The magnitude of the applied bracing J

load needs to be evaluated for the contribution of 24 '-0" ,

of cable tray at the peak acceleration, as required by conclusion #1 of Calculation #677-334.

c The check of the local stresses in the flange of the main steel beam on sheets 7 through 12 has not addressed the effect of interacting local stresses with the overall longitudinal stresses in the main beam.

d. The evaluation of supplementary steel due to attachments ~

from two component systems (i . e . HVAC, cable tray) does

-not appear to be addressed.

e. Table E-3 on sheet 3.20.21 of Drawing E-1406-0 gives allowable eccentricities of cable tray support connections relative to the centerline of unstiffened beams. ' Calculations qualifying the values given in this table do not appear to be available.

]  !

t -

l l

l

. 1 4

1 4

0 I

4

,n w w ~ p n v* y A

. . .= . _ _ _ .-

i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 172 , Rev. 0 , Date6/28h8

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: _

a. HVAC Duct Support Type A-2, Drawing C-0388-0, sheet BA-2, Rev. 2, Calculation No. 625-82(Q), Rev. 0 (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

a. Type A-2 Support 4 1) In the calculation of dead load, pages 4, 5 and 6, the

3. Significance of Observation:

(continued on next page)

Based on the observations listed in Item 2 and OR-43, the adequacy of the HVAC Duct Support System cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

i

a. BPC should revise the calculations for HVAC duct suoports, Type A-2, M and Detail 9 to address the observations described in Section-2. (continued on page 6) 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 significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

4

7. Internal Review Commitee-Signatures:

49 A Ch&irma /

f -

A ,

./h Mtthahic11 Reprebentative Electrical Repr sentative Structural Representative An~

Con::rol and Instrumentation Representative l

3 r + ,, ,, . . - -

Public Sarvics Elcctric cnd Gnc Company Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.jjL2, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation) ,

b. HVAC Duct Support Type "M", Drawing C-0330-0, Rev. 14, Calculation No. 625-ll (Q) , Rev. 4, sheets 82, 83 and 84

c. HVAC Duct Support Detail 9, Drawing C-0344-0, Rev. 3, Calculation No. 625-29 (Q) , Rev. 1, sheets 158-165

d. EDP 4.37, Rev. 6, Design Calculations

e. Calculation No. 625-101(Q) and 102 (Q) , Rev. 0

2. Descripticn of observation: (continuation) following items do not appear to have been considered:

a) Increased weight of stiffeners due to the fact that the true length of the duct stiffener may not be equal to the duct perimeter, but rather the duct perimeter plus the stiffener depth at each of the four duct corners, b) Additional weight of the second stiffener for companion angle joints.

c) Duct accessories and insulation loads.

d) Eccentric effects of duct accessories.

2) Self weight excitation of hanger members does not appear to have been considered.

3) On sheet 9 of subject ca'lculation, the O.B.E. condition is found to be critical. This was accomplished by comparing O.B.E. spectra acceleration values with SSE acceleration divided by 1.5 values (1.5 is the ratio of SSE allowables to O.B.E. allowables for steel). For supports utilizing expansion anchor plate assemblies, no overstress for the SSE condition is allowed over O.B.E. condition according to Note 3 of Table 6C-2 of the FSAR. This does not appear to have been considered in determining the critical seismic loading condition.

4) On sheet 18, an, assumption was made that a square duct was the worst load case for frequency determination and design of horizontal members. However, narrow and tall ducts (2:1 ratio) would appear to be the critical case. This does not appear to have been addressed.

5) The computer analysis for the hanger as shown on Sheet 40 uses a 9' length for the vertical member. This lengtn is (contil.ued on next page:

--- __ l

.=. -

Public S2rvice Elcctric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.172, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) ,

inconsistent with sheet BA2 of Drawing C-0388-0(O),

which allows a length for 11' for the vertical member.

. In the walkdown of tne HVAC supports it was identified that the maximum length of vertical members used was only 10' for longitudinally braced supports and 9'-0" ~

for supports only transversally Draced, as shown on Sheet 10 of the calculations. No attempt was made to reconcile the difference between calculations, drawings

, and as-built condition.

6) Lumping of the total mass of the duct at the intersecting node of the vertical with the diagonal member for horizontal excitation does not appear to account for the flexural effect of the vertical and horizontal members and the actual mass distribution of the duct on the support.

7) On page 56, the moment due to the 2.815" eccentricity of the longitudinal brace to the vertical member (Detail B-6, Calculation 625-82, sheet 56) does not appear to have been considered in the design of the vertical member.

8) Calculations for connection to the structure (pages 54 and 55) do not appear to consider the following items:

a) prying action b) check of the connection angle '

c) check for bending of supporting beam flange d) check of plate for Detail A-3

9) Detail Al shown on Drawing C-0388-Q (Q) , sheet cal, Rev. 3 allows for an optional 3/16" weld of the hanger to the flange of the building steel beam. Per AISC minimum weld size requirement, 3/16" weld is good for beams with flange thicknesses equal to or less than 1/2". For beams with flange thickness greater than 1/2", a 3/16" weld does not meet ATSC Code.

10) On sheet 56, a check of the PS3563 bracket does not appear to have been performed.

11) Dead load and live load combination as required by FSAR Table 6C-2, does not appear to have beer. addressed in the subject calculation.

12) Welded connection of duct to horizontal member as shown on Drawing C-0321, Detail 2, does not appear to have been addressed in_the design.

(continued on next page) t

--g ,- --,-,e -.-,e

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 4 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.111, Rev. _A_, Date 6/2'8/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

13) On pages 56 and 62 for the connection of duct to strut, a check of only the Huck bolts were done. Check of the connection angle or bent plate and attachment of angle /

bent plate to the horizontal member does not appear to have been performed. -

14) No evidence was found that EDP 4.37, (Rev. 6), Item 3F was followed; specifically, identification of the program by number and name and the version or revision, including the option used in the calculation for the program used in calculations 625-82 (i.e. pages 19 through 24).

15) Section properties for duct of A=100in and Iz=1000in used in the computer program have no calculations or justification for their use. ' Response to TSB-178, Item 23, states that "these values were assumed."

16) Duct support dimensions used in the Calculation 625-82 (Q) are based on walkdown dimensions in Calculations 625-101(Q) and 102 (Q) as referenced on sheets 10, 11 and 12. The walkdown calculations are listed as " final" but neither acoear to be signed, checked, nor approved. Since the walkdown calculations provide input for 625-82 (Q) ,

the calculations are not in compliance with EDP 4.37.

b. Type "M" Support

1) In the calculation for Dead Load, sheet 82, the following items are noted:

a) The assumption that the stiffener weight is 20% of

. the duct sheet weight has no documented bases.

Considering the stiffener size for 2-75"x84" ducts and considering the additional stiffener at the companion angle joint, a value greater than 20% may be calculated.

b) Loads due to insulation and accessories and the eccentric effect of these accessory loads were not considered. ,

c) The design of Type "M" support is done on the assumption that it carries a maximum of 2-75"x84" ducts.

However, Drawing C-0330,0, Rev. 14, for Type "M" support does not give any limitation on the number and size of ducts which can be supported by this support.

It is conceivable that from the dimensions of the support it may be able to accommodate larger ducts, thus increasing the dead load on the support.

l (continued on next page l

Public Service Electric and Gas Campany Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 5 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.JCG, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. \ Description of Observation: (continuation) 7

\ 2) Several members of the subject support Type "M" do not j

appear to have been addressed in the calculations.

\

The calculations for the vertical member which did have calculations, appeared to only consider bending about one axis. Axial load and bending due to the longitudinal load does not appear to have been considered.

3) In checking the adequacy of the P5000 horizontal on sheet 84 of the subject calculations, the 7 foot span of horizontal member, as permitted by the drawings, was shown to be inadequate while a 5 foot span was shown to be adequate. Limitation on the span length of this member does not appear to be indicated on the subject design drawing.

4) The dead load and live load combination as required by FSAR Table 6C-2, does not appear to have been addressed in the subject calculations.

5) The AISC Code is used as design basis code for Calculation No. 625-11(Q) , Rev. 4. This code is not applicable to UNISTRUT members.

c. Detail 9 (C-0344-0) Support

1) In the calculation for Dead Load, sheet 158, the following items are noted:

a) The assumption that the stiffener weight is 20% of the duct sheet weight does not appear to have a documented bases. Considering the weight of the stiffener size required for a 72"x84" duct and considering the additional stiffener at the companion angle joint, a value greater than 20% may be calculated.

b) Calculation for Dead Load of support appears to be based on TS 6x6x5/16, instead of 7x7x5/16, called for on the design drawing, c) Duct insulation load does not apoear to have been ,

considered.

2) only the dead load plus S.S.E. load combinations are in-vestigated in the calculations. The checks for dead load i plus live load and dead load plus O.B.E. load combinations (

do not appear to have been addressed as required by PSAR Table 6C-2,

3) The Lateral force of 7.03 kips calculated on the bottom of

, sheet 160 used for the design of the vertical member and brace does not appear to be correct.

(continued on next page)

Public SOrvica ElGctric Cnd Geo Company Projset No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 6 of 6 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.172, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

4) Detail 9 does not appear to indicate the number of bolts for gusset plate attachment to the P5001 strut.

5) In the calculation of dead load done on sheet 158 of the subject calculation, 9'-0" was used as the tributary .

length of duct. According to Note 3.14 on Drawina-C-0388-0, sheet #A-5, revision 6, the contractor has an 18" hanger placement tolerance so long as the distance to the neighboring hanger does not exceed 10'-0". It is possible that with this placement tolerance on the neighboring hangers, the 9'-0" tributary duct length used in the subject calculation could be exceeded.

6) The supplemental steel supporting the right leg of the support as shown on the subject drawing does not appear to have been addressed in the calculations.

7) FCR #C-10813 was written against the subject HVAC Duct Support, but incorporation into the drawing was listed as not required in the FCR. Detail 9 HVAC Duct Support, as shown in the subject design drawing, is unique to two locations. FCR #C-10813 combines the two unique hangers into one hanger whose configuration is completely different from the detail 9 shown on the subject design drawing. The subject calculation and design drawing does not' reflect the as-built situation as described by FCR-C-10813.

Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that other HVAC duct support types I address the observations described in Section 2.

l i

l n

e 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. [11, Rev, o , Date 6/28f85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Hangers on MSRV Discharge Line C and L and HPCI Steam Supply Line from Maa.n Steam Line C to Valve HVF002

a. Main Steam Line C, Main Steam Relief Valve Discharge Lines

2. Description of observation (continued on next page)

There appear to be inconsistencies between the Hanger Guidance Data Sheets and the computer analysis results in calculation C-138-40 (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Use of inconsistent design input could result in support bin, ding, and could adversly affect support functionality.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should re-review and revise affected displacements on the subject drawings to agree with the current

! computer analysis results.

(continued on next page) i 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 significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

A/.

Chairman J /

~

,/

Mechtnical Repre entative Electrical Re r sentative Ng

$ A tmm Structural Representative ,

Control ~and Instrumentation Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Ccmpany Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.ll3, Rev. _Q_, Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

a. C, E , G, L and HPCI Steam Supply Line, Calculation No. C-138-4Q,  ;

Rev. 4, dated on 04/01/84.

b. Manger Guidance Data Sheets, Issue No. 4, dated 04/01/84.

c. Hanger Drawings for Stress Problem No. C-138-4Q.

Nanger Drawing No. Rev. Date 1-P- AB-06 3-H10 (Q) 03 --

1-P- AB-0 6 3-H15 (Q) 03 --

1-P- AB-0 55-H10 (O) 02 05/29/84

. 1-P-FD-0 01-H 0 3 (O) 03 05/01/84 1-P-FD-001-H0 7 (Q) 03 07/05/85 1-P-FD-001-H 05 (Q) 02 --

2. Description of Observatio'n: (continuation)

In the review of Hanger Guidance Data Sheets and related Hanger Drawings ( Re f. l . c) , it was observed that the maximum total displacements (Thermal + Seismic) , for the cases tabulated below, are not in compliance with computer analysis results.

.! The discrepancies that were noted on the Hanger Guidance Data Sheets and related Hanger Drawings are as follows:

Data Sheet C-138-40

, Tabulated Calculated Data Support Displ. Max. Total Max. Total Hanger Drawing No. foint Dir. Dir. Disp. (Inch) (Inch) 1-P-AB-0 6 3-H10 (O) 625 X X .04/ .49 0.281/-0.730 1-P-AB-063-H15(Q) 638 X X .180/ .32 0.385/-0.525 1-P- AB-0 55-H10 (Q) 738 X X .032/ .548 0.273/ .788 1-P-FD-001-H03(Q) 412 Y Y .591/-0.00 0.683/-0.092 1-P-FD-001-H0 7 (Q) 428 Z Z .897/-0.00 1.026/-0.129 l-P-FD-001-H05 (Q) 434 Z Z .689/-0.00 0.802/-0.113

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that the maximum total displacements at other safety-related pipe support data points are consistent with current piping analysis results.

c. BPC should identify. the 'cause of these discrepancies, the design control process which should have prevented them, and why that process did not prevent the disc'repancies.

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

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.174 , Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/2 8/85 J

J

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Supports and attached steel for Main Steam Line C, Main Steam' i Relief Valve Discharge Lines, and HPCI Steam Supply Line.

l a .- Attachment 7 of Bechtel Design Calculation No. C-138-40,

2. Description of Observation (continued on next page)

Bechtel Procedure EDP-4.37 states in Paragraph 3.0-a "Each calculation shall list or reference applicable codes, i (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The subject calculation may not meet BPC Procedure EDP-4.37,

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should revise the subject calculation to include input document sources concerning the stiffness of supports used

in the analysis.

5.

(continued on next page)

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) 4

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:

b < t%*  %

i Chairman /

.S$ifA'SLAdD $]7 2 Med g i g Representative Electrical apresentative' 6

Structural Representative A.t7m i

Control and Instrumentation

~

Representative

i t

2 l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30  ;

j Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2.of 2 s

. OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.174, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 l>

1 Structure (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation) I!

l. ,

,Rev. 4, dated 4/1/84 (

j b. Bechtel procedure " Design Calculations", EDP-4.37, Rev. 6, i dated 4/30/84  :(

Description of Observations (continuation)

2. i standards and references, including the issue date or particular j

revision of each, and shall contain clearly stated design j assumptions." l; i ,

contrary to the above, the review of Calculation No. C-138-4Q,

r

Attachment 7 shows that under "overall Stiffness values of Various i Support and Steel" a statement was-given indicating that tabulated stiffness values were provided by the Pipe Support Group, Civil i Support Group and Pacific Scientific. However,' specific

information regarding unique identification of.these design input i documents was not provided as required by EDP-4.37.

i 3

! 4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation) .

b. .BPC should provide assurance that the source for support l stiffness values are properly identified in other piping l

, stress calculations. l l

j I.

i t .

4 l i

I e

r 3

e 1

i i

.-.- . - _ _ ._ _ _ . - . . . _ _ . . - . ~ , . . . - - . . . - _ - . . , , _ , , ~ _ _ - , _ , . . - . _ - - . . - , - . _ _ _ . - , . , , , .

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Ho pe Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2

\ OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.175 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/8

\

\

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

ADS and other equipment required for safe shutdown inside the

• drywell.

Design Criteria D7.3, Rev. 1, dated 4/2/84

2. Description of Observation:

a. Section 3.6.1.b of the FSAR commits to the following':

"Where structural integrity of equipment or the function of essential safety related equipment is exceeded by the

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page)

Because of a lack of documented analysis, it cannot be determined if the jet impingement requirements of the FSAR are met. .

4. Rece mendation for resolution (cptional):

BPC should provide documented analyses demonstrating that the jet impingement commitments of the FSAR have been met.

(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 AA Chairman

~

sr i

j Megps'n 'ca R es ntative '

BAS 7USL4db

, Electrical Re essentative/'

Q'DVh

! s j ~ .

m.

, Sttuctural Representative -

Control an~d Instrumentation 5

Representative

l.

2 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope-Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.175. Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 8-

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) calculated jet impingement force, protection is provided by spatial separation, or by the addition of barriers or '

enclosures".

b .' Section 3.6.1 of the FSAR commits to the following:

i " Nuclear safety-related systems are designed to ensure that

components required for the. safe shutdown and isolation of ,

the reactor do not fail as a result of a failure in a high l

or mo'derate energy piping system". llj t

c. Section 3.6.1.3 of the FSAR commits to the following:

"That analysis of postulated pipe ruptures summarized in Section 3.6.2 verify that the consequences of any single rupture of fluid system piping in the plant do not prevent safe shutdown of the reactor".

Documentation was requested from BPC which addresses target survivability and methods of jet impingement protection for the

! ADS system. In response to this request, page 44 of Calculation j SC-5, Rev. O, dated 10/22/83 was received. However, this page I

does not provide satisfactory documentation evidence that all  :

ADS and safe shutdown targets were adequately evaluated for the j effects of jet impingement forces.

j l'

Likewise, it appears that there is no documentation which verifies that safe shutdown is achievable, subsequent to a HELB which l affects the ADS system. Per discussions with BPC, this was done 4

by undocumented engineering judgment based on the safe shutdown matrix of Design Criteria D7.3.

2 l 4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

] The analysis should include considerations such as:

I - Conclusive evidence that safe shutdown will be achieved per a failure modes analysis.

- A structural evaluation of all ESR and RSR targets, if necessary.

- Determination of whether the targets will survive the impingement and be able to perform their design function, j - An identification of the type of protection used for each target.

j - A list of all assumptions used.

- A list of all referen'ces'and their application to the analysis.

i

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 t Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.176 , Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/28/8

,1. . Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: .

l Safety Auxiliary Cooling System l

a. Support Drawing No. 1-P-EG-153-H36(Q), Rev. 3, dated 8/30/84 L 2.

(continued on next page)

Description of observation:

Support Drawing No. 1-P-EG-155-H06 (Q) shows a design load of 29,728 lbs. Support Drawing No. 1-P-EG-153-H36(Q) shows a design load of 15,420 lbs. Section 4.1.7 of reference 1.c }

3. Significance of Observation:

A structural member may be overloaded and remain undetected.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):- 3

a. BPC should provide structural review for the two subject '

support loads and document the results.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:  !

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See : tem 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:

. . O +1 Chairman jr -;

bo D YfsblAdD 0.W $ & D Mec g ifal Repre entati A -Electrical Representative

• l I .-c1' ,

L Structural Representative d s4 W, Control and In~strumentation Representative 0

y l

_ _ - - . _ . - ...n., -rs._ --, , _ - - - - ,e,.- . g ._

l l

l l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 l

l l OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.lli, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 '

l

l. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

b. Support Drawing No. 1-P-EG-155-H06(Q), Rev. 1 >

c, Specification 10855-P-408(Q), Rev. 8, dated 3/1/84, i

" Technical Specification for the Design and Documentation  ;

of Pipe Supports in Nuclear Service for Piping 2 1/2 Inches and Larger". ,

i

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) states that "Any loads in excess of 5,000 lbs. applied to structures shall require prior approval from Structural

. Engineer."

There is no evidence that the Structural Engineer approved these loads in excess of 5000 lbs.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation ,

b. BPC should provide assurance that support loads exceeding 5000 lbs. have been reviewed by a Structural Engineer for other pipe supports.

o o r e

i n

I

.,, - - - . , _ - ~ , .~ s- >- -n p ~ ,- y..m--- - - - .

, - - -- ---,w., y - w - - ,

n - , ---r g-- , .,,

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 177, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Main Steam Relief Valve Discharge Lines Vacuum Breakers:

PSV - F037C, F037E, F037G, F037L, 4500C, 4500E, 4500G and 4500L (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

Stress Group Procedures for Piping Stress Analysis indicates

, in paragraph 8.8, Page 25, under valve Accelerations, the following: (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The subject vacuum breakers may not be qualified for the accelerations experienced under all specified loading conditions. -

i

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC snould re-evaluate the vacuum breaker valve acelerations due to all operating conditions, including SRV or other dynamic loads. (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 Significan.t 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 requrested in Item 4

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatu es:

. s or fin Cnairman /'

s L W s ri d o t a > /- , C R W h i k '

Mecuahical Representative Electrical jRapres neativ'e

[M '

/We Structural Re~presentative Cont'ro;. and Instrumentation i

i Representative  !

t f

I

1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.Jll, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

a. Bechtel Design Calculation No. C-138-40, dated 04/01/84.

b. Stress Group Procedures for Piping Stress Analysis for the Hope Creek Generating Station, dated January 1985.

c. Design Specification 10855-M068 (Q) for Nuclear Power Piping, ASME Section III, Class 2 and 3, for Hope Creek

. Generating Station, Rev. 1, dated 01/23/79.

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

"The loading combinations for valve accelerttion shall be identical to those specified for the pipe."

Furthermore, Design Specification 10855-M-068(0) outlines the loading combinations for Class 2 and 3 piping, paragraph 6.2, page 15, in which Relief Valve Closure (RVC) transient, is defined as an emergency condition (DE) and dynamic events associ-ated with LOCA (DF) are addressed separately for upset, emergency and faulted conditions, respectively. Contrary to the above, the review of Calculation No. C-138-40, pages 48 through 50/62, revealed that only the maximum calculated acceleration values of the above mentioned vacuum breakers due to seismic loads were compared against tne allowables. However, tne maximum calculated valve accelerations due to SRV actuation or any other dynamic loads, for all operating conditions as defined oy the Design Specifications were not addressed in the calculations.

Furthermore, the maximum OBE acceleration value (2.364g) for vacuum breaker PSV-F037L, exceeds the allowable value (2.25g) and no technical justification or documented engineering judgment is given for acceptablility.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that calculated valve accelerations in other piping stress analyses include all appropriate loading conditions and that the acceleration values are within the allowables.

O

9 t

Project No. 7212-30  :

Public Service Electric and Gas Company 1

Ho pe Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 ,;

\OBSERVATION REPORT '

OR No.178 , gey, 0 , Date6/28/85 i i \ .

1 l \-  !

l '

1'. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: -

]

< Safety-Related 4160V Motors and Offsite Power Supply Breakers I BPC Drawings: E-3060 (Rev. 10), E-0071 (Rev. 6), E-0106 (Rev. 3) i ANSI Standard C50.41-1977

!.l i 2. Description of Observation:

)j Each one of the four essential 4.16kV switchgears is provided with a main and reserve offsite power supply. Upon detection ,

) of a degraded voltage on the main feed a dead bus transfer to (continued on next page)

J

3. Significance of Observation:

i The event described by the observation may lead to potential l

damage to the motors and/or driven equipment on two of the four

! electrical channels, f 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

j a. BPC should justify the basis for the present design j identifying why the motor loads may remain on the bus during 1 a dead bus transfer when the reserve breaker closes under j (continued on next page)

Internal Review Committee classification of Observations

5.

Not significant to safety (See Item 6)  !

x Additional information required (See Item 6)  :

j Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of 1 Observation or additional information required

!' Additional information is required to evaluate safety t significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

4

7. Internal Review Comitee Signatures

/

j ~

d5 i i

Chairman f i

r ,

• i b, $SMsudh 9 lll $

Mechaniqpi Repre entative Electrica Re

/ pJese tative'/

Structural Representative h /

Controlland Instrumentation hY Representative 4

1 .

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR NoJ78 Rev. 0 . Date 6/28/85 l 2. Description of observation: (continuation) the reserve feed is initiated provided the reserve feed voltage is above 92%. (Note: A dead bus transfer is used in all cases unless the degr'aded condition is the result of a transformer i fault, in which case a fast bus transfer is initiated.)

When a degraded. voltage occurs where the 4.16kV supply voltage drops below the degraded setpoint of 92%, but remains above 70%,

the undervoltage relay on the incoming main feed will time out and trip the main offsite feed circuit breaker. The bus voltage will decay to the 70% voltage setpoint (2975V) of the bus instantaneous undervoltage relay (GE Type NGV). Operation of the bus undervoltage relay will close the reserve offsite feed breaker without delay and trip the 4.16kV bus motors following a 15 cycle delay. Because of the 15 cycle delay, the reserve offsite feed breaker will close before the motor loads are shed.

The resulting motor voltage may exceed 1.33 per unit.

ANSI Standard C50.41-1977 states that in order to limit the possibility of damage due to high transient torques, " ...it is recommended that the power supply system be designed so that the resultant vectorial voltage between the motor residual voltage at the instant the transfer or reclosing is completed does not exceed 1.33 per unit volts of the motor rated voltage basis."

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation) the conditions described by this observation. Included should be calculations indicating compliance with ANSI C50.41-1977 or a technically acceptable alternate.

b. BPd should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process which would have prevented it, and why the process did not prevent it.

I

'l L_.________________________________________________________.._____________________________________________________________

I l

l l

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 i Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. m, Rev. A, Date_ 6/28/8!

i 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Standby Diesel Generators

. Calculation 9(Q), Rev. O, " Diesel Generator Sizing" j 2. Description of Observation:

Calculation 9 (Q) tabulates the Class lE and non-Class lE loads to be operated from the standby diesel generators. Various loading conditions are analyzed based on the availability of

3. SihilIE38cgtggdg,gggggggnerators. (continued on next page)

The significance of this observation is the use of unsupported and undocumented assumptions, values and ommisions in calcu-lat' ions. ,

4. Recomendation for resolution (cptional):

i. BPC should demonstrate that 0.8 is a conservative horsepower to kW conversion factor, provide documentation to support the 20.5kW total valve load, address driven equipment

5. Internal Review Comitkee Sashi!Eca!Nn P gpeh m g g 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:

i Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

l 7. Internal Review Comitee

! Signatures:

. Np C l Chairman /

\

Mechanical Represe tative Electrical Representative b

Structural Representative

) c 2 s C6ntro1 and Instrumentation

~

Representative

Public Servico Elcctric cnd Gec'C'ompany Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2  ;

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.123, Rev. _D_, Date 6/28/85 2.gDescription of Observations (continuation)

\

The following concerns regarding the summary tables of Calculation 9 (Q) have been identified:

I

a. Note 5 on page 13 of 43 to Calculation 9(Q) states that i operating kW of motors 250 hp or smaller is taken as 0.8 l

of rated horsepower. There is no apparent documented basis for 0.8.

b. Page 4 of 43 to calculation 9 (Q) states a valve load of 20,5kW. There is no apparent calculation or written analysis to document the basis for the 20.5kW valve load.

Bechtel indicated that all valve loads were tabulated and divided by four to arrive at 20.5kW.

c. Loads in Tables 1 through 6 are numbered sequentially, however, blocks of numbers are missing (e .g. , loads 4 2-45 and 64-70) without explanation.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) l horsepower requirements and missing item numbers in Tables 1 through 6.

b. BPC should provide assurance that other electrical equipment sizing calculations contain documented assumptions and values.

l I

i l

l

.. . . . = _ . - - .-.. .=_ - - . . . - - . - .- -

I 1 l 1

l Public Service Electrie and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 ,

Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 i l OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. Lgg, Rev. _q_, Date 6/28/85

! i

}

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved

j Site Walkdown June 13 through June 18, 1985

! Offsite AC Power System Cables CPlA0319D and CPlA0319F j Drawing E-4073-1, Rev. 1, Cable Block Diagram

2. Description of Observation:

The following observation is relative to the cabling for the primary and backup trip circuits for main breaker 52-40301:

? ,

(continued on next page) i 3. Significance of Observation:

l Because of their common routing:

i a. The cables for the primary and backup trip circuit for i

' main breaker 52-40301 are susceptible to a single damage

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional): (continued on next page)

! a. BPC should provide specific information as to how the

]

i observation has or will be corrected.

i 5.

(continued on next page)  :

Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6)  ;

X Additional information required (See tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) j 6. Internal Review Committee' reason for non-safety-significance of i observation or additional information required:

f Additional information is required to evaluate safety j

significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

i

! 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

, ~

Chairman /

-m , .A Mechan 1 cal Representative -

Electrical Re resentative -

i

, /

j e

~ I Ahe+

Structural. Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative i

I.  !

v 1 (

Public Se vice Electric and das' Company

~

l Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating ,

Station - Unit 1 s Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION'R', PORT ' OR No.igjl, Rev. A, Date 6/28/85 l

l 2. Description of- Observstion (continuation) l \

j Not'e 2 on Drawing E-4073 states " Cable F must be' routed '

l . separately from Cable D" (Cables F and D refer to cables CPlA0319F and,CPlA0319D, respectivelfi. Contrary to this, the cable installation cards for these two cables indicate 7 common routing through raceway sections 14CTPR26 to 14CTPW16.

Cable Block Diagrams for othet -main circuit breakers have l- similar " route separately

• notes.

3. Significance of-Obr.ervationi (continuation)

a. causing event, contrary to the apparent intent of the design. .c

b. The effectiveness of the design process to translate  !

per:inent design requirements on higher tier design basis documents into correct implementing details on lower tier ,

documents, specifically regarding cable routing requirements, s

may be a concern.

4. Ree5mmendation for resolution (optional) s (continuation) 1 b.- BPC should identify the cause of this obyervation, the design process which should have previnted it, and why s

that process did not prevent l't

c. BPC should provide assurance that other cable routings noted with " route separately" on the C;ble Block Diagrams meet those requirements, i

.s

)

t o

I s

a v

en

-  ?

f '

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 181, Rev. _0_, Date 6/2 8/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Site Walkdown June 13 through June 15, 1985 Non-Class lE Cables Exiting Class lE Unit Substations FSAR Section 8.1.4.14.1.3  ;

2. Description of Observation: '

The FSAR states that for feeds from Class lE unit substations to Non-Class lE loads "The feeder from the breaker to the load is a Non-Class lE cable, which is routed in a conduit inside

3. Significance of Observation: -

There is no technical significance to this observation since fire test reports (reference Wyle Lab Report 17730-01, dated March 14, 1985) for Sil-Temp material which were reviewed in

4. Recom.mendation for resolution (optional): (continued on next page) j BPC should provide specific information as to how this observation has or will be corrected.

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:

Qualified Sil-Temp material wrapped cable inside the unit substation is an acceptable alternative to cable routed in conduit.

7.

Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

Chair A 2 a.

f /

/

Mecn cal Rep esentative Electrical Repres ntative i 3ffY

-% 21 %

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation 6 Representative l

t

. _ .w . . . - - _ . - -

i R N --

Public Servica Electric cnd Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 1

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No .2,al., R ev . 1, Da t e 6/28/85 )

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) the unit' substation." Contrary to'this, the site walkdown

. determined that the feed cable for the following Non-Class lE loads is not routed in conduit inside Class lE unit substations; rather the cable is wrapped in Sil-Temp fire retardant material ins'ide the unit substation:  ;

Non-Class lE Load ' Class lE Unit Substation MCC 10B262 10B460 RACS Pump 1BP209- 10B420 MCC 10B323 10B420 Reactor' Building Exhaust Fan 10BV-301 10B420

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) ,

Bechtel's. offices, appear to support use of this material as an acceptable separation barrier. However, the FSAR has not been kept current with the design.

f 9

4.g O

D 0

• 0

l 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. lgg, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Class 1E 125V Batteries Site Walkdown, June 14 and 15, 1985 Nuclear Environmental Qualification Report for Battery Racks / Cells dated 5/21/84 C&D Battery Installation Instructions

2. Description of Observation: -

During the DC system walkdown it was noted that a gap of up to approximately 2-1/4" exists between the end cell and the end stringer of the battery rack for the 125V battery.

3. Significance of Observation:

(continued on next page) '

The effect of this gap on the seismic qualification of the battery racks / cells may not have been considered. Therefore, the seismic qualification of the installed configuration may not be verified.

-4. Recc=mendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

(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:

i Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7 '.

Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

dy Cnairman /r f A ~

' f Mecnanical'Representaq'ive Electrical Repre entative M ,

{

h M%

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative I

{

(

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.lg2, Rev. 1 , Date 6/28/85 l 2 Description of Observation: (continuation)

The vendor's installation instructions and the battery qualification report do not provide a criteria for end cell to battery rack gap.

t

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : _ (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that as'-built equipment configurations are reflected 'in the seismic qualification packages.

l l

9 e

4 6

i i

e

1. _ 2... . .< - - _ . , . _ _ . )

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.133_, Rev. JL_ Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

~

Conduit-to-tray separation in the HVAC Equipment Room & Reactor Building Site Walkdown, June 13 through June 15, 1985

2. Description of Observation:- ( ntinued on next page)

Deviations from the separation requirements of Drawing E-1406-0, sheets 28.1,28.2 and 28.3 were observed during the site walkdown. Several of these observed deviations are acknowledged

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page) without a procedure the separation deviations may go unattended.

4. Recom=endation for resolution (optional):

BPC should identify or prepare the procedures that ensure that all secaration criteria violations will be identified and dispositioned.-

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: -

Cnairman

( M/ '

/r i 1

m Mecngnical Represent tive Electric 1 Represe ative s 4 #4h '

s\

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation

, Representative

Public Sarvice ElCctric cnd Gas Company Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.183, Rev. _ 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system ( s) , or component (s) involved:

.coecific Work Plan / Procedure SMP/P-E-20, Rev. 10, dated 3/6,35, Raceway Installation

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) ar.d documented by FCN's or on Drawing E-1439 (tray cover listing) for correction. BPC indicated the remainder are expected to be addressed on the final inspection prior to area turnover. No procedure has been identified which covers identification of and disposition of these deviations during the final inspection.

e e

Y

\'

i

\.

9 I

-_og -

m e m m emeo-e o mo 6m e -  %

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. 184, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 ,

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Primary Containment Design Specification C-152 (Q) Rev. 11 Primary Containment Final Stress Report PDM-02-091 Rev. 4 Drawing C-099 3-0 (Q) (Rev. 14)

2. Description of Observation: -

a. The seismic shear forces and overturning moments for the design of the drywell vessel were specified in the Design Specification C-152 (Q) , Rev. 11. In the Primary (continued on next page)  :

3. Significance of observation: r The design adequacy of the drywell and suppression chamber j cannot be verified. .,

k

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): l BPC should provide specific information as to how these l observations have or will be corrected. i

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) l x Additional information required (See Item 6) L Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

[

f

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of  :

Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety .

t

, significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: s l

/b e Cnairman /

A -

Mecnantcal Repre entative Electrical Repre.se tati e .

- A >

n i Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation .

Representative i

I *

. _ . . . . . . . - .- - - * ~

Public S2rvico Electric and Gas Comp ny Projset No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.ja.4, Rev. A, Date 6/28/85 2, Description of Observation: (continuation)

Containment Final Stress Report, Section 6.2.1, (PDM-02-091, Rev. 4) the drywell vessel appears to be analyzed by applying only the shear forces which do not result in overturning moments as specified in the design specification.

b. Local buckling analysis of the drywell vessel at beam seats does not appear to have been performed,

c. It appears that the BPC Drawing C-0993-0, Rev.14, and the primary containment Final Stress Report, Section 4 (PDM-02-025, Re v. 3) have not been revised or reconciled to accommodate the revised dead load of 3200 lbs. at twelve circumferential points on the water seal plate as specified in the Design Specification C-152 (Q) , Rev. 11.

d. The Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volume 2 (BPC-01-300-2),

Rev, 0, uses 122,000 ft.3 of water as a dead weight on the suppression chamber for all load combinations. This appears to be in conflict with Design Specification C-152(Q) ,

Rev, 11, which specifies 169,600 f t.3 as -tie volume of water in the suppression chamber for accident loading conditions.

t i

4 4

i I

l

, i wm ee.m m e e o e =

o mwn s

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. 185 Rev. 0, Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

1. BPC Seismic SSI Verification Study, Rev. 0 (10/86),

Table H-5, page C-1.

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation: -

The seismic analysis IDVP review was partially based on the Bechtal Seismic SSI verification analysis. The BPC analysis incorporated the current soil properties and state of the art (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation: -

These observations may affect the Reactor Building seismic '

responses particularly in the area of the bioshield and the RPV pedestal. The conclusions of the verification and I impedance analyses may therefore be affected.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

BPC should evaluate the effect of these observations on the conclusion of Bechtel's seismic verification analysis and  ;

j impedance approach verification. -

t

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation: ,

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) l x Additional information required (See Item 6) i Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)  ;

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required: t Additional information is required to evaluate safety i significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

E, 7'. Internal Review Commitee .

Signatures: .

84V _

Chairr / j i

/b Meenan*ca bRepres ntative N Electrical Repre.s ntative

/ 4_ h Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation .

Representative s ,

s i

Public Sorvica Electric cnd Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.18 5, Rev. O, Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

2. Impell Seismic Report SED-76-017, Rev. 5, Table C-4.

l

3. BPC Impedance. Approach Seismic SSI Analysis, Rev. O.

-2. Description of Observation: (continuation) analysis techniques. If the interaction responses from the BPC verification analysis are bounded by the Design Basis Response 4

from Impe'll, then the design basis is conservative and acceptable.

, The BPC model consists of 20 soli elements-and a stick model representing the superstructure.

The horizontal superstructure seismic 2-D seismic model developed by BPC was used for both:

- The SSI FEM analysis to. verify the design basis seismic-analysis performed by Impell.

- The seismic impedance analysis for reconciliation of the design basis FEM analysis as per NRC requirements. -

j The following are seismic model items which appear to be inconsistent.

a. The stiffness properties representing the RPV pedestal appear to be inconsistent with the actual properties:-

l Value A(ft ) I(ft ) E(ksf) G(ksf)

~

Used in Model 58.4 4430.0 5.47x10 2.339x10 i

Actual S&L estimate 381.0 31060.0 5.50x10 2.350x10'

b. The RPV does not appear to be included in BPC's model. It appears that only the mass of the RPV has been lumped on nodal points of the bioshield and pedestal stick model. The RPV weight is approximately 4200 kips as compared to the total weight _of the bioshield and pedestal of~3275 kips. The RPV's stiffness and distribution of the RPV weight can affect local responses,

c. As a result of the RPV stiffness not being modeled, the

! rotational and translational springs corresponding to the j RPV stabilizer truss do not appear to-be included in the model.

\

i- .

t 1

s 1

l .

i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.18 6, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Secondary Containment Calculations: 623-7 6 (Q) (Rev. 1) and 623-66 (Q) (Rev. 1)

2. Description of Observations _

a. Cylindrical Wall The meridional flexural design of the cylindrical wall was (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of the secondary containment cannot te verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optionall:

BPC should modify the calculations to address the observations identified in 2.

S. Internal Review Cetmittee 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:

e k -

Cnairm, /  ;

l

/ J-Mechanical Repre entative' Electrical Representative j ~s

/1 w Arn Structural Representative Control and' Instrumentation Representative i

e W

• • • -======w---._.g..,;g

Public SCrvica Elcctric cnd G;n Company Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.LLL, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) performed based on the analysis of dead load, live load abnormal pressure, thermal load, tornado and seismic loads by the moment distribution method of a one foot rtical strip of the wall. Additionally, a calculated wide 0.98invg/ft of reinforcement steel in the hoop direction was required for abnormal pressure loading.

The membrane stresses due to thermal gradient were calculated using the standard ACI 307-69, " Specification for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys."

The following items do not appear to have been addressed in BPC's original calculations: ,

1) The radial shear resulting from moment distribution calculations for the above loadings.. i I

l

2) The operating thermal load did not consider the l; load factor in the FASR.

l

3) The effects of thermal expansion of floor slabs relative to the cylindrical wall. ,

l

4) The reinforcement steel area of 0.98in /ft in the .

hoop direction for accident pressure does appear to have been combined with the reinforcement I requirements for other loadings specified in the FSAR

b. Dome:

The analysis and design of the dome of the Reactor Building were performed for the following load combinations:

U = 1.4D + 1.7L U = 1.4D + 1.9E U=D+L+W t and an additional thermal gradient of 70 F.

1) The above load combinations and thermal gradient i analyses do not appear to provide an assessment i for all load cases required by the FSAR. For example, some of the following load combinations might be the governing cases:

U = 1.2D + 1.9 E n U = D + T, + 1.5 P, U = D + 1.25 P, + 1.25 En.

~ '

- - ___J 2:1 __ _ _ ~~~ N

Public S rvico ElCetric cnd Gac Co'mpany Projsct No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.18q Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of observation: (continuation)

2) The reversal of seismic forces does not appear to

( have been addressed.

3) The seismic forces used (EDS seismic report SEC 76-017 Rev. 3) do not appear to correspond to the current design basis (Rev. 5).

! 4) Radial shear does not appear to have been evaluated in the calcuations.

l 5) Reconcilation of the analysis and design forces between dome analysis and cylindrical wall analysis at the junction points does not appear to have been performed.

l '.

1 i

l i

l l

l i

\

e

! l l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 '

(

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 g OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.187 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 a

i

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved

J RPV Pedestal and Biological Shield Calculations:

1

.Cales 626-04 (Q) , Rev. 2 (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation

'

1 a. The biological shield calculations 622 have been reviewed and the following observations are noted:

(continued on next page)

{ 3. Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy.of the RPV pedestal and the biological j shield cannot be verified.

1 2

. '4. Recomcendation for resolution (optional):

} BPC should revise the biological shield and RPV pedestal

calculations to incorporate the observations described in j Section 2. '

i 5.

Internal Review Committee classification of Observations i

Not significant to safety (See~ Item 6) l 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: ,

j Additional information is required to evaluate safety i significance.

I a

Provide information requested in Item 4.

! 7. Internal Review Commitee i -

! Signatres):

/. . o i Chairman /r ,

s 3 m / W.,

j Mecennical Repres ntst4=a__ Electrical Represe tative i

n structural Representative control and Instrumentation i Representative

'1 b

l

~ . -

i L

I Public Scrvica Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.187, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Calcs 622-12 (Q) , Rev. 2 Cales 622-20 (Q) , Rev. 0 6 2 2-13 (Q) , Rev. 2 62 2-21 (Q) , Rev. 4 62 2-14 (Q) , Rev. 3 622-23 (Q) , Rev. 2 l 622-15(Q), Rev. 2 622-2 4 (Q) , Rev. 4 62 2-16 (Q) , Rev. 3 , 6 2 2-2 9 (Q) , Rev. 2

[ 622-18 (Q) , Rev. 2 622-30 (Q) , Rev. 0 62 2-19 (Q) , Rev. 2 622-33(Q), Rev. 2 l

Calcs 625-03(Q), Rev. 4

• l

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) i 1. The reaction loads from the floor beams at Elevation l 121'-7 " do not appear to have been considered in the design.

2. The local stresses due to pipe whip restraint loads were calculated in 625-03 (Q) , but do not appear to have been added to the overall stresses from other loads on the biological shield.

B. The RPV pedestal calculations 626-04 (O) have been reviewed and the following observations are noted:

1. The reaction loads from the floor beams at Elevation 100'-2" do not appear to have been considered in the design.

2. Radial load due to thermal expansion of the RPV skirt does not appear to have been considered in the analysis, r

{

l l

O 4

l l

l

• , - - . .- _ ~ 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. 188, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Cable Tray Support Details, Calculation #677-221(Q), Rev. O, Cable Tray Assessment Design Criteria 10855-D-2.12, Rev. 1 Drawing E-1406-0, Rev. 43 Special hanger, Section A&B, Drawing E-1633-1, Rev. 16

2. Description of Observation: -

The connection details for cable tray supports are evaluated according to Assessment Criteria 10855-D-2.12 in Calculation

1. 677-221(Q). The calculations for Details 1, 4 through 8, 18, (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Assessment calculations for cable tray connection details do not appear to be complete.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should revise the cable tray assessment design criteria to address the observations noted in Section 2.~

(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 evaluate safety significance.

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: .

/J. A Cnairman e

/r A B Mecn(nical-Representative '*- Electric 1 Re entative d4 Structural Representative

/ th N

Control and Instrumentation Representative a

3

l l

Public S3rvico Elcctric cnd GOD Company Projcet No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 l OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.jjdL Rev. _jL, Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation (continuation) 22, and 90 do not appear to address the following considerations:

a. The capacity of angle fitting pieces. Section 8.1 of Criteria D-2.12 specifically addresses this. requirement.

b. Prying action considerations for Details 1 and 90.

c. The welds specified in Details 4, 18 and 22.

There appears to be two different types of connections indicated I for connecting P1001C3 horizontals (supporting riser tray sections) to vertical members for the special hanger shown on E-1633-1.

Section A of Drawing E-1633-1 appears to show a detail utilizing t P1068 connector pieces. Section B of the same drawing appears to show a Detail 74 for the connection. Detail 74 may not be able to i

be installed with a P1001C3 horizontal.- 3

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional): (continuation) ,

b. BPC should provide assurance that all calculations performed for the cable tray assessment meet all requirements of the cable tray assessment design criteria.

e 9

's 9

1 e

4 0

L ,

l I'

l _ .

1

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. 189, Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Reactor Building Basemat ,

Calculation 6 21. 6 (Q) , Rev. O Calculation 621.9(Q), Rev. O Calculation 621.18 (O) , Rev. 1

2. Description of Observation: '

The basemat finite element analysis results were stored on computer tapes PA 5547, PA 352 and PA 8458 and a hard copy was not retained. A post processor utilized this data to (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of the basemat cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

BPC should verify that the results of tne finite element analysis have been properly utilized for input to the post processing program used for the design calculations of the basemat.

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:

b/ N Cnairman j/'

MeE3anital Representative Electri ep sentative s

. 051 3 Structural Representative Control .and Instrumentation Representative i

1

Public Scrvica ElGctric cnd goc Company Projcct No. 7212-30 Hopa Crcok Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.189, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 L

i

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) provide input to the design in the above referenced calculations.

These computer tapes are not available and the accuracy of the design input cannot be verified.1, l

A I

i l.

r l

e e

• = ~ ~ - _ _, ,, * ** MS

• N h p,

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 190, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Shear Walls: Reactor Building:

Calculations: 623-25(Q), Rev. 2, west wall 623-29 (Q) , Rev. 4, interior walls 6 23-38 (Q) , Rev. 1, south wall

2. Description of Observation: -

The following items are noted in the design calculations for shear walls:

a. In the design calculations for external shear walls,

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page)

The design adequacy of the shear walls cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should revise Reactor Building shear wall calculations to reflect the observations identified in Section 2.

(continued on next page) 5.

Internal Review Ccmmittee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y Additional informa !cn required (See Item 6) i Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required: l Additional information is required to evaluate safety l' signi ficance . Provide information requested in Item 4. 3 i

7. Internal Review Commi ee

• Signatures: .

o O I Cnairman

.? f /n -

l Meeganical Repres tative Elect al Re j , g, / /preentative '

i Structural Representative Cont'rol and Instrumentation i Representative i I

f

Public S rvica Elcctric cnd Gnc Company Projcct No. 7212-30 l

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.190, Rev. 0 , Date_6/28/85 2 Description of Observation: (continuation) the effect of a tornado missile in combination with the tornado wind appears to have not been addressed as required in FSAR Section 3.8.4.3.2.

b. It appears diat the design of the construction joints is not addressed.

c. In the subject calculations for the shear walls, the combined effect of in-plane and out-of-plane forces due to bending is considered by subtracting 40% of the area of steel required for out-of-plane forces, from the total area of steel and considering the remainder of the reinforcing steel for in plane loads. Justification of this approach does not appear to be given,

d. The effect of openings in the shear walls does not appear to have been addressed,

e. The calculations do not address the following items:

1) The applied out-of-plane moments on the shear walls due to the floor slabs.

2) Loads from the direct attachrents to the shear walls.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that other shear wall calculations address the observations identified in Section 2.

l 1

t_ . . , . ...-

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.191, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Building Structural Steel Columns at Grids Q-24.3 and Grids N-26. 7, Calculation 621-29 (Q) , Rev. 2 l

2. Description of Observation: '

During the S&L Field Walkdown of Auxiliary Building, Columns Q-24.3 and N-26.7, it was discovered that various attachments such as fire barrier partitions, conduite, firo protection 3.

(continued on next page)

Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of the building columns cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a.

BPC should describe how attachments to columns are accounted for in the column design.

(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: l' l

e f/4 -

Cnairman L

/ [

~

M yaarncal Repr entative Electrical Repr sentative -

A Structural Representative

/ A Control and Instrumentation Representative e

-w

Public Sorvico Electric cnd Gao Company Project No. 7212-30

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 l

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.191, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 ,

2. Description of observation: (continuation) piping and equipment, instrumentation piping equipment, cable '

tray bracing struts, and large bore pipe' supports have been attached to the columns. It appears that there are no calculations l which address the effects of these additional loads.

[ ,

(continuation)

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) :

b. BPC should provide assurance that all columns are evaluated for attachments as required in 4.a. above.

0 6

0 i e

1 i

t 0

> f 1

I l

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.192 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Main Steam Relief Valve Discharge Lines, Supports, Shear Lug Welded Attachments.

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation: '

There appears to be inconsistencies between the referenced MSRV Shear Lug Evaluation Calculation No. SC-16-1 and the Main Steam Design Calculation No. C-138-40.

3. Significance of Observation:

Inconsistencies between the two design calculations has resulted in using enveloped moments that were underestimated. Thus, the total piping stresses calculated at the pipe integral attachment coints m

4. Recccmenday be underestimated.ition for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should properly re-evaluate the affected enveloped moments (.M 3, M b and M for load cases WTDW, SEISOB and SEISSS for the subjec6) shear lugs.

5. (continued on next page)

Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to 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 required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.*

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures -

e e d& N Cnairman

/

Mechdnicai Repre entative

, kV Electri 17Repre entative Structural Representative I n ,-~

Contr61 and Instrumentation Representative i

i e

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No192 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s) , sys tem (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

a. MSRV Shear Lug Evaluation, Calculation No. SC-16-1, Rev. 1, dated 8/17/84.

b. Main Steam Line C, Main Steam Relief Valve Discharge Lines C,E, G, L and HPCI Steam Supply Line Design Calculation No.

C-138-40, Rev. 4, dated 4/1/84,

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

Attachment 3 of SC-16-1 indicates that: " Shear lugs for the following axial supports:

(AB-057-H07, H09, H04, AB-063-H08, H14, AB-055-H09, H18, H04,'

AB-059-H05, H04, H07) are evaluated using enveloped loads for the smallest size shear lug (1-1/2" x 2" x 5") . "

The enveloped moment loads are tabulated in SC-16-1 for load cases WTDW, SEISOB, SEISSS, SAMOB and THRMAL.

A review of the tabulated enveloped moments revealed that they do not consistently agree with the computer analysis results in C-138-40 for load cases NTDW, SEISOB, SEISSS. It appears that the enveloped moment values should be as follows:

(From Enveloped Moments Used (SC-16-1) Corrected Enveloped Moment C-138-40

.ord Cnse M Mb M (FT. lbs.)

a M, Mb M c (FT. lbs.)

TDN 156 27 1961 768 528 1961 IJOB 199 7965 4091 2398 7965 6828

EISSS 181 7922 3663 3218 7922 7140 Therefore, it appears that the proper equipment moment values were not used to qualify the pipe integral attachments at the specified support locations.

Furthermore, it was observed that hanger drawing number AB-057-H04 was mistakenly identified on sheet 7/11 of Attachment 3A of Calculation No. SC-16-1. The correct hanger drawing numberHis AB-057-H05.

4. Recommendation for Resolutions (continuation) b.

BPC should also revise the affected calculations for the shear lugs in SC-16-1. i

c. 'BPC should also correct the documentation of hanger drawing \

number shown on sheet 7/11 of Attachment 3A to correctif read AB-057-H05. \

d. BPC should provide assurance that correct moment loading has been applied in the stress analysis of shear lugs in other piping systems.

l l

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proi.ect No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.19 3, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Feedwater nozzle breaks and induced Annulus Pressurization load on Main Steam Header Line C System

a. Bechtel Design Calculation No. C-138-40, Rev, 4, dated 2.

04/01/84. (continued on next page)

Description of Observation: '

Reference 1.a, paragraph 5.5 " Annulus PressurizatEon" .

partially states that: "In order to analyze the i 60* breaks (Feedwater nozzle breaks), it is necessary to rotate the

3. Significance of Observation:

~

Calculation C-138-40 apparently does not meet the requirements of EDP-4.37.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should provide information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the calculation be revised?

(continued on next page) 5.

Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) s.

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 -

Cnairman /

Mecnanical Repres ntative Electrical Rept ntative b,,' ,s

~~

. , A /4 Tr w '

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation .

Representative

{

0 6

-9me M en

Public S2rvice Elcctric cnd Gno Company Projcct No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.193, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 l

1. Structure (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

b. Stress Group Procedures for Piping Stress Analysis, dated January 1985.

c. Bechtel Engineering Department Procedure for Design Calculations EDP-4.37, Rev. 6, dated 04/30/85.

d. Bechtel Special calculation SC-1, Rev.1.

i 2 Description of Observations (continuation) i geometry of the piping model (in this case Main Steam Line C) to align the coordinate system of the piping geometry input with

! the axial center line of the nozzle." This is accomplished by use of a geometry rotation program documented in stress group Special Calculation SC-1. EDP-4. 37, Subparagraph 3.0.e requires that: " Computer calculations , other than those utilizing a

} Standard Computer Program (SCP) as defined in the EDP entitled Standard Computer Programs, shall contain the inputs and outputs a

and, by reference or inclusion, a description of the program, 4

including the program option used, . . . . " In the review of Calculation No. C-138-40, it was determined that the geometry i

rotation program documented in Special Calculation SC-1 was used in the Annulus Pressurization load analysis, however, it was net explicitly referenced in any part of Calculation C-138-4Q  :

as required.

4 Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that the requirements of EDP-4.37 with regard to use of non-standard computer programs have been met in other pipe stress analysis calculations.

I e

\

a

t. .

% 3 0 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Urnt 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT ,

OR No. ,194, Rev. 0 , Date6/28/85 s

1. Structure (s), systete.(s), or component (s) involved:

a. Stress Report A$ME Section III Class I Analysis of High Pressure Coolar.t 2njection System, Appendix F, Volume II of II, Calculation No. S/10855-1402, dated 10/23/84.

~

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation: -

a. In accordance with the requirements of EDP 4.37, concerning the adequacy of program verification an'd' computer operation verification of Non-St4ndard Computer Programs, the validation for ME 912 was not pez' formed prior to actual application in 1.a

3. Significance of Observations (continued on next page)

a. Because the subject stress ruport (ref 1.a.) was performed prior to terification of computer program ME 912, the results mny not be consistent with established criteria.

4. Recommendationforresolution(opk339.g{9gedonnextpage)

a. BPC should iden tify the cause of these dicercpsncies, the design control procesa which should have prevented them, and why that process did not prevent the discrepanciet. (continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classificatien'of Observation:

Not'significant to safety (See Item 6) x Addi:ional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety.iSee Item 8)

6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety i significance. Provide informution requested in Item 4.

a f.

7. Internal Review Commitee #

• i Signatures:

, . , d4 -

Cnairman- j/ > '

/' /  ;

hsA Meenanical Repr sentative Llectrical Reptqsentative

- . . A .

n StructursA Represertacive

~

control and Instrumentation l Representative

..m __ m.c m_ - . n.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 '

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of.3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.23J, Rev. n _, Date 6/28/85

1. S tructure( s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuatiod

b. Computer Program ME912, Version 0, Verfication, dated 3/8/85

c. EDP 4.37, Rev. 1

d. Standard Review Plan tSRP) Section 3.9.1

e. Computer Program NE452 i

f. Computer Program ME210

g. Computer Program ME909

h. Computer Program ME602

1. Computer Program ME120

j. Computer Program CE901

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

b. Reference 1.d requires a description, verification and listing of all computer programs used in the analysis of seismic Category I code and non-code items listed. It also includes the review of transients used in the design and f atigue analyses of all Code Class 1 and CS components, and supports and reactor internals.

The following discrepancies were noted relative to this requirement:

1) FSAR 3.9. l. 2. 5. 4 des cribes computer program NE452 for Relief Valve Discharge Line Reflood. This section of the FSAR states "Bechtel Computer Code VRV (NE452) is used for analyzing reflood transient in steam relief valve discharge to a water pool".

In a conversation between S&L and BPC (documented in L. Fergusson's Bechtel office visit report for dates 6/24 and 6/25/85) S&L was informed that NE452 was not used on the Hope Creek Project.

2) Program ME210, which is used in the qualification of welded i attachments to piping, is not listed in the FSAR.

3) Program ME909 merges response spectrum curves and makes plots i of the curves . It is used in the dynamic analyses of piping systems. Program ME909 is also not listed in the FSAR.

4) Program ME602 is used for spectra merging and simplified seismic analysis. This program performs the seismic anaylsis 4 of small bore piping systems (2 inch diameter and under) and generates a set of tables of seismic spans, support reactions, ,

and stresses for various pipe sizes. ME602 is not listed in the FSAR.

5) Program ME120 is a weld design program containing a method of determing fillet weld size for a connecting structural member used in support design. ME120 is not listed in the FSAR.

6) Program CE901 is a STRUDL program used in the analysis of support designs. CE901 is not listed in the FSAR.

3. Significance of observations (con tinuation)

b. The licensing commitment to identify all computer programs used r for design in the FSAR may not be met.

b 5

~ _ _ _ _ __a

l l

Public SOrvico ElSctric and Gas Company Projcct No. 7212 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION' REPORT OR No.194 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuationi

-b. BPC should provide specific information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

FSAR be. revised?

Will the calculation be rerun? Will the I

c. BPC should provide assurance that other non-standard computer l programs use.

used- on Hope Creek have been properly verified prior to

d. BPC should verify that other computer programs used for design are

' identified in the FSAR.

I i

I i

t I

S l'

. e 4

I P

a

. 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. 19 5, R e v . 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

" Evaluation of Clearance Requirements for Bulk Commodities."

Hope Creek Generating Station, Bechtel Job 10855, Revision 0, November 1984.

Calculation 675-9 (Q) , Rev. O, Proximity Evaluation

2. Description of Observation: -

The subject evaluation addresses the clearance requirements between installed bulk commodities. Tables 5-1 and 6-1 of this document summarize the results of the limiting cases

3. Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of the subject clearance requirements cannot be verified.

4. Re:ctmendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should document the effect of larger spans of HVAC ducts and cable trays on the impact study.

(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 i observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance, i Provide information requested. in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: l M

Cnairma sr o

14gpnanical Repr sentatih Electrical Repr sentative n A jo Structural Representative Control ~and Instrumentation  :

Representative t

1. N' e se * - en e g # e _ g C.A

Public Servica Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.;urg, Rev'. n, Date 6/28/85 2 Description of Observation: (continuation) ,

evaluated. Calculation 675-9 (Q) provides the basis for the document.

The following items are noted regarding Calculation 675-9 (Q) ,

Rev. 0: -

a. In assessing HVAC duct supports as targets or as impactors during a horizontal seismic acceleration, a duct span length of only 10 feet appears to have been assumed. How-ever, for some of the HVAC supports, the duct span could be as large as 20 feet. Similarly, cable tray supports appear to be evaluated for an 8 foot support spacing while actual support spacing in the transverse direction could be as large as 16'-0".

b. The unistrut members appear to undergo plastic deformations in the analysis for impact loads. No justification appears to have been provided that addresses whether these members are capable of developing full plastic moments.

c. The check of cable tray and HVAC duct support connections does not appear to have been addressed for impac,t loading.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide justification for:

1) use of plastic moment capacity.for unistruts

2) not checking cable tray and HVAC duct support connections e

e d

e e

g 1

• * * * *9***

• 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. E , Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/28/85 -

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Mechanical Auxiliary Support Steel:

Drawing No. 1-P-EG-155-H05 (O) , Rev. 10, Calculation No. 1-P-EG-605-Cl3, Rev. 2 (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation: '

a. Specification P-408 (Q) , P.ev. 8, Section 4.1.14 and '

Specification P-410 (Q) , Rev. 15, Section 4.1.3 and 4.14.1 .

give allowable deviations from design drawings which may

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page)

a. The calculation for design adequacy of the pipe auxiliary support steel may not account for allowable undocumented eld changes.

(continued on next page)

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should provide calculations to support the allowed undocumented field changes.

(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 l significance. '

Provide information requested in Item 4,

7. Internal Review Commitee  !

Signatures: '

//, . . e.

Cnairman / 1 Mech ~anical Repre tative Electrical Repres tati e i AArn '

Structural Representative Contro'1 and Instrumentation Representative I l

Public Scrvice Elcctric.cnd Gac Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.19 6 , Rev . 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Drawing No. 1-P-EG-12 5-H01 (Q) , Rev. 1, Calculation No. 1-P-EG-125-C1, Rev. 1 Drawing No. 1-P-FD-001-H02-H03 (Q) , Rev. 3, Calculation No. 1-P-FD-001-C10, Rev. O Specification P-4 08 (Q) , Rev. 8, P-410 (Q) , Rev. 15 Pipe Support Design Manual HCGS Project SFPSM 13.15.1, Rev. 0

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) be built without requiring a-change document being written.

The effects of these allowable deviations on the auxiliary support steel do not appear to be addressed by calculation or in the design guide (Project SFPSM 13.15.1) b.

The calculation cover sheets reference the 7th edition of the AISC Code. STRUDL II User's Manual (Ref. CE901, p. 3-1) states that the 8th edition of AISC Code is used in the program equations. The FSAR commitment is to ASME NF per Section

'3.9.3.4.6 and 5.4.14.1.2.

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)

b. FSAR commitments may not have been followed.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should revise the FSAR or the calculations, with respect to ASME/AISC code justification and modify the calculations as necessary.

f b

d 0

e e eem 6 6 me

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 ,

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.197 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Structural Steel Fireproofingf.

Drawing A-0242-0, Rev. 5 1

2. Description of Observation: -

During the field walkdown of selected areas of the Hope Creek Project, the following items regarding the configuration of the fireproofing of the suructural steel were noted that (continued on next page) -

3. Significance of observation: -

The adequacy of the structural steel fireproofing cannot be i verified. l

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

BPC should provide justification for not fireproofing connecting  !

beams and the embedment plates., l I

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 i

6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of {

Observation or additional information required: I Additional information is required to evaluate safety l significance. Provide information requested in Item 4. .;

i

7. Internal Review Commitee I Signatures: .  !

. ./$. Al &

Cnairman /

A.

Meenanic#l Repre entative Electrical Repre ntative h A ,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation  :

Representative l l

I t

1

'Public Servica Elcctric cnd GOD Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.19 7, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) appear not to have been considered in the qualification testing' of the fireproofing system:

a. Some areas, where fireproofing.was required and had been installed on-major structural steel members, were found to contain smaller beams framing into these members.

The smaller beams were not fireproofed and may reduce the fire rating on the major steel members.

b. Embedment plates supporting the beam brackets for fireproofed stee' l members do not appear to have been fireproofed.

1 l

r i

i

?

I i

l t

e I

I I~

.I I

i

i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.198 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Hope Creek FSAR .

BPC Calculation 621-23 (Q) , Rev. O BPC Calculation 623-37 (Q) , Rev. 1

2. Description of Observation: -

The following possible civil discrepancies are noted regarding the Hope Creek licensing commitments contained in the FSAR:

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Some inconsistencies may exist between the Hope Creek FSAR and the design.

i

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

BPC should revise the FSAR or the design document discussed in the observation indentified in Section 2.

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) .

X Additional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Significant to Safet,y (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. ,

l i

7. Internal Review Commitee  :

Signatures: .

l oaf Chairma /

/

j __ c

_ T-MecghgicalRepresentative blectricalRepresentative '

A rv ~ , o Structural Representative Con ~ trol and Instrumentation a Representative .

o l

i

.:. ~ : r . ~. s . .. . - - - -- . .....- _._... . . .. . __

7._

. r- -

. , e

' Public Service Electric and Gas l Company Project No. 7212-30 '

. Hope Creek Generating -Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 i.

1 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.198, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85 4-

! - 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

a. BPC's reply to licensing question 220.19 on concrete reinforcing bar weld splices states, " Section 3.8.6.3.3.

has been revised in response to this question. Welded splices are not used at HCGS." However, 3.8.6.3.3 of 5 the FSAR states, " Welded splices are used on a case by .

a case approval basis. Welding is performed by qualified l welders using procedures conforming to the recommendations  :

- of'AWS D12.1."-  !

4' l b. The value of friction g angle between the basemat and the foundation soil is 31 according to FSAR Section 2.5.4.10.3A.

However, cagculation 621-23 (Q) , Rev. O, sheet 1, uses a value of 35 for the. friction angle.  ;

i.

c. FSAR Section 2.4.1.1 states that the-flood levels

! according to Table .3.4-1 have been utilized in the design !l 1

l of HCGS and includes the ef fect of water waves. Table ii 3.4-1 provides a level of 120.4 feet for walls other  !

than the' south wall. Elevation 120.4 feet includes the i effect of water waves.- However, in the. calculation for I-j the exterior west wall.of the Reactor Building (sheet 6 I, of calculation 623-37 (Q) , Rev. 1), a level'of 113.8 l

feet appears to have ~ been used which corresponds to. -

} - still-water.

d. FSAR:Section 3.6.2.2, " Analytical Models to Define Forcing l l Functions'and Response Models,"' states that. nonlinear- -. l time history piping dynamic' analyses'are performed for l' pipe breaks for piping systems other than the recirculation  !

piping system. However,. based on a review of:the available t'

! calculations, it appears that'this analysis has been i j done .only for the HPCI System. l.

i . - . i;

i. . e. FSAR Section 3.8.5.3 states _that " Stability against sliding i

j. is ensured by-the dead weight of structures, subgrade soil i friction and. lateral soil resistance to.the foundation." .

D (dead load) +H (earth pressure)-+ Es (SSE)'is a committed  :' I load: combination-for the investigation of the' sliding of- ,

the-plant. i I  !

j.

~

e- I 1

1 l

l- -  !

I I

l-i-

y y e--%- ..<t-'v "F **b4 W = m T* - ' " " - - - - - 'm-+- -- - sir wt- v++n, +en' W e- w*~^'r-s- M -?v='-i < ''-++w--v---et-

Public Service Electric cnd Gus Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No .19 8 , R ev . _ O _ , Date_ 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

From the calculations given on sheet 1 of Calculation 6 21-2 3 (Q) , Rev. O, it appears that:

1) The dynamic soil pressure due to seismic has not been considered in the stability calculation.

2) A lateral force due to water pressure has been utilized as die stabilizing force. No justification appears to have been provided for this. .

f. FSAR Section 3.7.2.9.1 states that the turbine building and the administration building are the only non-seismic Category I structures located near seismic Category I structures and they are designed to withstand an SSE -

without their structural elements exceeding their yield strength. However, Civil / Structural Design Criteria 2.1, ,

Appendix B, Section 3.3, states that seismic Category o II/I steel structures shall be designed for elasto-plastic .

behavior with .a ductility factor of 3.0 which would mean i that the yield strength is exceeded. I 1

r i

e 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. 199, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Site .Walkdown June 13 through June 18, 1985 Onsite AC Power System 480V Unit Substation Transformer 1BX400 Calculation 15 (Q) " Load Flow Study" Rev. 2

2. Description of Observation.

Calculation 15 (Q) indicates the Class lE unit substation transformers as being tapped at 2-1/2% boost.

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Installed and turned over equipment may not adequately reflect t the design of equipment with adjustable features.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should describe what actions have or will be taken to resolve the identified discrepancy with unit substation l transformer tap settings. {

5. Internal Review Committee classificatio(continued on next page) n of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6) l Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of i Observation or additional information required: 1 Additional information is required to evaluate safety i signi ficance . Provide information requested in Item 4.  !

7. Internal Review Commitee ,

i Signatures:

Chairman /

/

L Mechanical Repr sentatitts Electrical Representative a A / /c Structural Representative Control and~ Instrumentation Representative

l Public Service Electric and Gas Compan'y Project No. 7212-30

. Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. M , Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) i I

. Contrary to this , during the site walkdown,the 4160V Class lE l unit substation transformer 1BX400 was observed as being tapped at 0% boost.(, taps E&F' connected). Note that this substation

-had been turned _over to PSE&G. No documentation is apparently available to explain this-variance.

.I

4. Recommendation for resolution (optiohal):

b. BPC should identify the .cause of this observation, the design control process that should have prevented it, and why the process did not prevent the observation. -

c. BPC should provide assurance that the as installed condition  !

- of other electrical equipment with adjustable features is in accordance with the design prior to prior to turn over to PSE&G.

l f

e e

i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. gaa, Rev. n ,

Da te 6/28/85

1. ' Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Diesel Generator Governor Control Detection of loss of offsite power and switch from droop to isochronous control.  !

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation: "

During diesel genarator testing, in parallel with the system, the diesel generator governor is in the droop mode. The governor control will switch (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

With the present control / relaying logic the diesel generator governor, when in testing, may not switch from droop to isochronous mode following (continued on next page)

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): l

a. BPC should indicate how a loss of offsite power will i be detected on the channel undergoing diesel generator testing, and on the. channel. (continued on pages 2 and 3) k i

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation: -

Not significant to 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 required:  !

Additional information is required to evaluate safety 'i significance. Provide information requested in Item 4. .

7. Internal Review Commitee i Signatures:

9/ n Cnairman jr Mecnant 1 Repte entative' - Electrical Repres ntative 3 -

n i }1/2V1') '.

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation i Representative I 1

~ .- .

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.1QH, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Beloit Power Systems Drawings 01761776, Sheet 6, Rev. 10 and 01761776, Sheet 7, Rev. 12.

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) automatically to the isochronous mode when the two circuit breakers to the offsite power system are open.

The following scenario may occur in the event of a loss of offsite power during diesel generator testing:

a. Since the diesel generator supports voltage on the bus, the CV-22 second level undervoltage relay will not operate. Therefore, the main breaker to the bus will not trip. The existing relaying system can not  ;

detect a loss of offsite power with a diesel generator  :

in testing, paralleled with the system. j

b. Consequently, the diesel governor control will not switch promptly to isochronous control which may be i required to properly support the intended load. f The diesel generator may become overloaded and operate i below rated frequency until the overcurrent or under- L frequency relays will trip the' diesel generator breaker.

c. With the diesel generator in test mode, supporting the i load on two channels (if during testing, prior to loss i of offsite power, two channels are tied together) , the j second diesel generator will not start until the diesel a undertest is tripped as described above or a degraded voltage condition is detected on the bus. ,

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) .

, j a loss of offsite power.

The diesel generator may sustain thermal damage in -

conjunction with the scenario described above. Also, the loads on Class 1E buses may be subjected to prolonged underfrequency operation and may sustain damage.

l 4. Recommendation for Resolution: (optional) (continuation) :  :

tied to the same offsite power supply transformer as the r channel undergoing test.. j I

e 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. 199, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Site Walkdown June 13 through June 18, 1985 Onsite AC Power System 480V Unit Substation Transformer 1BX400 Calculation 15 (Q) " Load Flow Study" Rev. 2

2. Description of Observation.

Calculation 15(Q) indicates the Class 1E unit substation transformers as being tapped at 2-1/2% boost.

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Installed and turned over equipment may not adequately reflect the design of equipment with adjustable features.

4. Recommendation fc resolution (optional):

a, BPC should describe what actions have or will be taken to resolve the identified discrepancy with unit substation transformer tap settings.

5. InternalReviewCommitteeclassificatib$okOE$hrOatSoNIE*9" 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: -

A/.

Chairman J /

L Mechanical Repr sentative, Electrical Representative a A f nc Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Compan'y Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.l.2.2., Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

Contrary to this , during the site walkdown,the 4160V Class lE unit substation transformer 1BX400 was observed as being tapped at 0% boost (taps E&F connectedl . Note that this substation had been turned over to PSE&G. No documentation is apparently available to explain this variance,.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optiohal) :

b. BPC should identify the cause of this . observation, the design control process that should have prevented it, and why the process did not prevent the observation. -

c. BPC should provide assurance that the as installed condition of other electrical equipment with adjustable features is in accordance with the design prior to prior to turn over to PSEEG.

1 S

s i

t

?

9 9

4 t

d h

I

. t Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3

. OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. gag, Rev. n , Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Diesel Generator Governor Control Detection of loss of offsite power and switch from droop to isochronous control.  !

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation: '"

During diesel generator testing, in parallel with the system, the diesel generator governor is in the droop mode. The governor control will switch (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

With the present control / relaying logic the diesel generator

governor, when in testing, may not switch from droop to isochronous mode following (continued on next page)

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should indicate how a loss of of fsite power will i be detected on the channel undergoing diesel generator testing, and on the, channel. (continued on pages 2 and 3) ,

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-nafety-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:

DJ/ n Chairman jr

,I t Mech 1 Repre entative' Electrical Repres neative l 6$ ,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation e

Representative i

,-- , y - ~ m. y ,..y- - . , . . - - , . , ,,.....,s, ,-n.- ,, ,.,._...%,- . .yw_9, , , .- , .

J 1

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 4 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 f OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.2QA, Rev. O_, Date 6/28/85

1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation) i Beloit Power Systems Drawings 01761776, Sheet 6, Rev. 10 and 01761776, Sheet 7, Rev.12.

2.- Description of observation: (continuation) automatically to the isochronous mode when the two circuit breakers to the offsite power system are open.

The following scenario may occur in the event of a loss of offsite power during diesel generator testing:

a. Since the diesel generator supports voltage on the bus, the CV-22 second' level undervoltage relay will j not operate. Therefore, the main breaker.to the bus 4 will not trip. The' existing relaying system can not detect a loss of offsite power with a diesel generator in testing, paralleled with the system.

b. Consequently, the diesel governor control will not i switch promptly to isochronous control which may be

required to properly support the intended load.

i The diesel generator may become overloaded and operate l below rated frequency until the overcurrent or under-

, frequency relays will trip the diesel generator 4

breaker.

4 j c. With the diesel generator in test mode, supporting the l load on two channels (if during testing, prior to loss

of offsite power, two channels are tied together) , the second diesel generator will not start until the diesel undertest is tripped as described above or a degraded voltage condition is detected on the bus.

i

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) -

a loss of offsite power.

The diesel. generator may sustain thermal damage in i conjunction with the scenario described above. Also, the loads on Class lE buses.may be subjected to prolonged underfrequency operation and may sustain damage.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (optional) (continuation) :

. tied to the same offsite power. supply transformer as the >

channel undergoing test.. ,

. _ .- , - . , - . . - . _ - , - # __ , - ._, , _ . --._,=,.._,.,,.-,,,....# --

%---,y_---..,_e-__..

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.200, Rev. 0 , Date 6/28/85

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (optional) (continuation) : ,

b. BPC'should identify the effect on the diesel generator under test 3 while remaining in the droop mode following a loss of offsite power, and how the diesel generator will be protected from damage.

i e

O l

4 s

e e

e 6

we e ee e* -** e e e e,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. 11L, Rev. o , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Site walkdown June 15 through 18, 1985

2. Description of Observation:

r During the site walkdown, two pipes (approximately 8" diameter) were observed passing (vertically) through the "A channel 4.16kV Class lE switchgear room within approximately 4 feet

3. Significance of Observation:

A potential hazard may exist to Class lE electrical equipment by the identified piping.

4. Recc==endation fer resolution (cptional):

BPC should specifically identify the piping routed through the Channel "A" and "C" Class lE 4.16kV switchgear rooms and assess their hazard potential to Class lE Electrical equipment.

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant te safety (See Item 6) y Additional information required (See :te: 6) 4 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

, signi ficance . Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: .

~

k. ) brn .

Chairmp / +

f *

'f f)7wu

- ~

),

,,% [ k Mechanical Re .;;;atative

, / s Electrical Representative n

') .. - ( '

/['f//.'

'E '

E, l I \ [ t T r s Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative

Public Service Electric and. Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 4

Hope Creek Generating Station-- Unit 1 .- Page 2 of 2 Latt 7/1/85

~

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.2DJ, Rev. _D_,

I 2 - Description of Observation: (continuation) of Class lE electrical equipment. A similar situation was noted in the "C" channel 4.16kV Class.lE switchgear room. The function of these pipes has not been identified. The switchgear rooms

,have apparently been turned over to PSE&G.

i a

f 4

b i -

t 4

l l

l

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1  ? age 1 of, 3

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 20 2 , Rev. 0 . Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

High Pressure Coolant Injection System Inside Drywell.

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

There appears to be an inconsistency in the SHUTDOWN Load Case application and the description terminology used in the subject calculations.

(continued on next page)

2. Significance of Observation:

Due to the ondssion of the temperature transient associated with the shutdown mode, the stress ranges used in the fatigue analysis may be underestimated.

4. Recctmendation fer resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the stress report be revised? .

(continued on page 3)

5. Internal Review Committee classifica:icn of observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional informa: ion required (See : tem 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 safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ~

Al. 2 . " 's , . -

Chairman /

p'

) /' .

.,)f i /

~

l'~~

)WA n - i .

[ ,

'~ , L,/ J <. . ^

Mech &6ical Repre entative Electr49al Reppesentative f

,A

/ / /7 /) c es Structural Representa:1ve Control and Instrumenta:1cn 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.2Q2, Rev. _A_, Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

a. Stress Report ASME Section III Class 1 Analysis of High Pressure Coolant Injection System, Document No. SR-10855-1400,

Rev. O , dated 04/09/85.

i b. Stress Report ASME Section III Class 1 Analysis of High Pressure Coolant Injection System, Appendix E, Volume 1 of 1, Calculation No. S-10855-1403, dated 04/04/85.

l 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

~

Reference 1.a, paragraph 6.2.2, briefly describes the requirements of Section NB-3653 of the ASME Code and states that: "Therefore the stresses due-to various load cases must be compared with one i

another to compute . stress ranges. All possible combinations of load cases.are evaluated by the rules of the Code to determine the maximum possible stress ranges."

1 In the review of Reference 1.a, inconsistencies have been identified between the HPCI Steam Supply Load Histogram, Figure 6.1 and the-load combinations for Primary.Plus Secondary Loads,

• Table 6.2-2. 'These inconsistencies are:

i

a. Load case SHUTDOWN is indicated on the Histogram, however, Table 6.2-2 describes this load case as COLD SHUTDOWN.

b. On'the Histogram, the SHUTDOWN load case was not numbered as a load case. However, Table 6.2-2 describes this load case as No. 7.

c. On the Histogram, the SHUTDOWN load case is defined ~as a variation of temperature from 546*F to 100'F,'with a thermal transient rate-of 100*F/HR, and pressure from 1000 psig to zero psig for 111 cycles. However, Table 6.2-2 de fines COLD SHUTDOWN as the zero load case (70*F initial and final temperature, zero psig for 120 cycles).

Review of Calculation' No. S-10855-1403 computer' analysis-results ' indicates that the COLD SHUTDOWN load case was considered as defined in Table 6.2-2 of Reference 1.a for the fatigue evalua tion . It appears.that the shutdown temperature

' ~

transient defined by the Histogram was not accounted for.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station --Unit 1 Page '3 of 3 x

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.22 Rev. 0, Date 7/1/85

~

4. Recommen' datio'n for resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that the shutdown mode loading conditions have ~been accounted for in the fatigue analysis of other ASME Class 1 piping.

Y i

L T

h i

f 4

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. 20 3 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Calculation 1-P-EG-358-C1, Rev. 6 Drawing 1-P-EG-358-H02(Q), Sheet 1&2 (Rev. 6)

2. Description of Observation:

During the S&L field walkdown, it was discovered that the fillet welds alona the inside edges of the base plates were missing for pipe support 1-P-EG-358-H02. The welds,are required accordinc

3. Significance of Observation:

. (continued on next page)

.The adequacy of the subject hanger cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation fer resolution (cptional):

BPC should provide specific information as to how this observaticn has or will be corrected.

5. Internal Review Ccmmittee classification of Observatic.:

Not significant te safety (See Item 6) .

x Additional information required (See tem 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:

[.1 . . y .

Chairman-> j/

lk j .,022%Z A m 7r j',\),1

/

Meenanical Representative Electrical Repr sentative V ~, , * * /

^

,1 y*

./

hK / (.)3!

). ' ' ' '

- / -- ,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentat:cn Representative

4 f

f 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. 203, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/8_5

2. Description :of Observation: (continuation)

'to-Revision-6'of Drawing No. 1-P-EG-3 5 8-110 2 (Q) . Also, sheet 4 of

- Calculation 1-P-EG-358-Cl shows that these welds were put in-at

the request.of BPC's Civil / Structural Group.

j l

7

)

I 1

i I,

i 1

I 1

. . - _ . . ~ ._ .. . . . , _ _ _ , . . . , _ . , , , _ . ~ . . . _ - . , . . ._.m

,. - :.4_s P .

.- {

4 .

i

('

PublicServiceElectricandGasCompany{ Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating' Station - Unit l~ s Page 1 of 4 OBSIRVATION REPORT' OR No .- 2 0 4 , Rev. 0

, Date 7/1/85 s

c. .

i

l. Etructure(s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Primary Containment Drywell Floor Framing Elevation 121'-7S" Draving C-0964-1, Rev.s 27 ,

- calculation 624-28 (Q) , Rev. 3 (con'inued t on next page)

2. ' Description of Observation. g, The drywell floor framing, calculation his been reviewed and the following items are noted'.

) (continued on next page)

^

3. SkpaificanceofObservation$ , ,

I The design adequacy of.the drywell framing cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation ,fer resolution (cptiona'.):

a. BPC should revise the calculations for the drywell framinc 7,; at elevation 121'-7 " to address the observations described in Section-2. . .

.i- (continued.on pacc 4g

5. Internal Review Committee classificaticn of Observation:

/,',,; lNot significant to safety (See Item 6) .

t ,, x  : vAdditional information required.dl.See Item 6) iPotentially Significant,to. Safety (see Item B) 7

6. Interdal Revie'W Cc cittee reason for.,ndn-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required 'to vvaluate safety significance.. Provide inf6rination 'regtfested in" Item 4.

'\ .:. ,

7. Internal Rev?.ew Commitee Signatures:t / ,

/l .. f, ./i n , f. ~

~

Chairman / i

- f v '> r  !,s S g ,

/

e,((y / Q%y_ }

. 0 ' ,1)6

)n .k>/

Mecnonical Rtpresentative Electrical Representative

• • 'm

' f , ,/

W)f) L

/ '

- s im e, .

/l K .X , , - , ,

Structural Representative Contrcl.and Instrumentaticn g RMp r.e f.en ea t i ve

_ .[(n/: , 7 .I \

ij ,

Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page . 2 of 4 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 204, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure ( s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: Tcontinuation)

Calculation 624-28(Q), FCR's #C-15585, C-10271, C-4598, C-6120,

-C-4833, C-3685, C-3745 Calculation- 624-26(0), Rev. 4, Drawing C-0973 (q), Rev. 12

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

a. Page 14 of Calculation 624-28 (O) shows governing loads for the design of box beams, girders and miscellaneous steel.

The following is shown in the calculations:

Miscellaneous Beams Type of Beams Governing Desicn Loads BB7 Pipe Restraint'PR-189 BB6 (T.O.S. El. 121'-7 ") PR-47 BB6 (T.O.S. El. 122'-5 ") PR.194 BBS (T.O.S. El. 122'-Sh") PR-81 B2 PR-121 B1 PR-123 W18 and W10 Grating Support-C10 Grating Support No reference calculations appear to have been provided to'show how the governing loads were obtained.

The determination of the governing loads-should have addressed the following items:

1. Geometric properties of beams

2. Span length of beams

3. Direction of reactions from pipe whip restraints j

4. Number of whip restraint frame attachment points

5. Orientation of~ intermediate framing-beams

6. Beam end connection restraint ,

7. Location of all loads

b. Drawing C-0926-0, Rev. 12, Detail 1, shows a dimension of 1" min. between the end of the radial beam and the 1" plate.

The same dimension appears to be shown as 1 " nin. in Section A of Drawing C-0974-0. -

(continued on next page)

F L

(-

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 4 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 2 0 4, . gey , 0, Date 7/1/35

2. . Description of Observation: (continuation) ~

c. On page . 7 of Calculation 624-28 (Q) design reactions of

-RDV = 600k and RDH = 300k are specified for the desian of beam seat connection at the containment end. No calculations appear to have been made or referenced as the basis for

-these reactions. Also, no torsional loads are specified for

-the design of the beam seats though these loads may exist at the support.

d. The radial box beams in the drywell are chamfered at the

-containment end. Vertical stiffeners are utilized to transfer the reaction to the beam seats. There is a projection of approximately 11" from the center line of the stiffener to the end of the beam. No local stress check appears to have been made for the flanges of the beams as the vertical load is not directly transferred from the stiffener to the seat.

e. The effect of horizontal seismic excitation on the design of framing.and the connections does not appear to have been addressed for the beams.

-f. The calculation of effective size of the partial penetration welds, namely the reduction of 1/8" from the size of the weld does not appear to have been done for-some of the welds as required by AISC Code Section 1.14.7. For example, see.

Calculation 624-28 (Q) , sheets 24 and 32.

g.

The effect of the difference in the elevation between center lines of various framing members does not appear to have been addressed in the analysis of drywell framing for horizontal loads.

h. FCR Nos. C-15304 and C-15375 revised the weld size, type and length of the welds connecting-framing member W10x49 to framing member BB6. No formal supporting; calculations

' documenting adequacy appears to have been made.

i. No formal design calculations appear to have been made supporting Detail 3 on Drawing C-0974-0, sheet 1.

j. No formal design calculations appear to have been made for framing member W10x49 which uses end connection Detail 3, C-0974, sheet 1.

k. Page 6 of 624-28 (O) appears to ;;e the average of the E-K and N-S horizontal accelerat'en which may not be conservative.

(continued on next page) l

.I(

3 . . .. .. - . . .

7 Public Service Electric and Gas-Company Project No. 7212-30

Hope Creek Generating' Station - Unit 1 Page 4 of 4 OBSERVATION REPORT. OR No.LLL, Rev. n . Date 7/1/85

2. . Description ~of Observation: (continuation) .

I

1. Calculation 624-28 (Q) has multiple calculations addressing the design of the same structural element. None of these

>' . calculations are' indicated as being void. It is not clear.

which calculation controls. Example: 624-28(Q) sheet 10 shows a calculation of-a box beam with a pipe whip load.

Sheet.109 shows additional effects of thermal loads plus pipe whip load, sheet 10 does not mention the calculation on 109.

m.- In Calculation 624-26 (Q) , the design of connections for .

PWR Member-bbl to' column members of CE for PR-ll4 controls j' design of these columns. Page 64 of the calculation indicates columns'overstressed with fixed-fixed connections for bbl.

Connections were' revised to simple supports and columns were shown to be adequate. Reference is'made to page 67.for the connection design. However, page 67'contains connection design calculations-for a stability load only.. Also, the

-connection appears-to be a fixed connection instead of simple support.

n. Documentation for the north pipe whip tower is not clear.

It.cannot be determined'whether the impact of each PWR reaction

! on the support framing at' Elevation 100'-2" and 121'-7h" has been properly considered. The design basis.for both overa,ll and local effects is'not clearly stated.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should provide-assurance that calculations for other framing in the drywell adequately address the observations described in Section 2.

~1 l

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of :<

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 205, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Structural steel floor framing load verification - General Calculation No. 621-2 9 (Q) , Rev. 2 Structural Walkdown, Calculation No. 624-49(Q), Rev. O Attachment 2 (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

The following items are noted as a result of the review of 1 the structural steel load verification calculations:

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The adequacy of the structural steel final load verification l procedure cannot be verified.

l

4. Reccmmendation for res:1ution (cptional):

BPC should revise their structural steel framing load verification program to address the issues described in Section 2 of this observation. .

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See !:em 6) x Additional information required (See : tem 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 safety significance.

Provide information requested in Item 4,

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: - -

. A' . L :)

Chairman '

,,g- ( , '

~

~

. , b {' /

2 -< - ., , t s' . ) -k . ~ ^

Mechthical Repre entative Electrical Representative i"

,- / .

h'{)d.t ., ) .% / we Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn 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. 205, pey, 0 , Date 7/1/85

' l. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) -involved : (continuation)

Calculation No. 64 4 (Q)-10-9, Rev. 1

~ 2. Description of Observatios- . (continuation) i a. The effect of small' attachments like conduits, cable trays, HVAC ducts, piping smaller than 2 " etc., is simulated by an equivalent dead.loadlof 50 psf. This may not properly represent the total' reaction from these components due to the following reasons:

1. The effect of some point loads may exceed that of.the 50 psf uniform load.

2. The horizontal reactions from the' components do not

appear to be accounted for.

b. For beams supporting concrete slabs, the horizontal forces

~

due.to the reaction from component suoports do not appear to be addressed in the design of tne beam end connections.

c. Sheet 24 of Calculation 621-29 (Q) appears to allow a local bending stress of .75F in the flange of wide flange sections.

The interaction of locEl and overall stresses does'not

• appear to be addressed.

d. Load verification calculations appear to have been~ prepared with no reference to the current design basis calculations (i.e. 64 4- (Q) 11, Rev. O, " Load Verification -- Auxiliary i Building Control Area, El. 77'-0", do not refer back to the design basis Calculations 6 4 4- (0) 8, Rev. 2).

e. The procedure used by Bechtel for final load verification i appears to be based on individual room turnovers. The load verification procedure does not appear to require that common boundaries of adjacent . rooms be included as part of

.the load verification ' (1.e. floor loads from one room may not be considered with the ceiling loads of the room below).

It appears.that the verification procedure does not address-subsequentLchanges to a room not yet turned over on a room

~

that has been turned over.

4 i

_ _ , , . _ -_,m

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.206 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Offsite Power Feeds to Class lE Switchgear FSAR Figure 8.3-1 (Bechtel Drawing E-0001-0, Rev. 5),

FSAR Figure 8.3-18 (Bechtel Drawing SK-E-1074, Rev. P),

(continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

Each Class lE switchgear is provided with two offsite power source feeds. Transformer LAX 501 is connected to each (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The ic. tent of GDC 17 may not be met for the following reasons:

a. The common routing of the two offsite sources through (continued on next page)

4. Reccmmendation fcr resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide an analysis which demonstrates that both offsite sources of electric power are not subject to simultaneous failure under operating and postulated events (continued on next page) -

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observatio.:

,Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See tem 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 required to evaluate safety significance.:

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee-Signatures: > ,

/ . . k l Chairman / , l

[

~'

p. w - a /" l

/ f y ~ ,.-, f ,

l/ (%,'4 -

Meqrpnical RepresentatA Electrical Representative l

~

s7 ,f [ ,_ s Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn I Representative

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 2JJ_, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Bechtel Drawing E-1670-1, Sht. 1 of 4, Rev. 1, General Design Criterion (G9C) 17, (10CFR50, Appendix.A).

2. -Description.of Observation: (continuation)

Class lE switchgear by Bus Duct 1AX108 and Transformer 1BX501 is connected to each Class 1E switchgear by Bus Duct .AX109. Bus Ducts LAX 108 and 1AX109 are-both routed through common areas of

. Turbine: Building, Service and . Radwaste Area and Control and Diesel Generator Area.- In addition, both bus ducts are routed throuch each diesel generator room together.with each diesel generator feed to the respective. Class lE switchgears.

This design is not in accordance with the intent of GDC 17 which

. . states that the offsite sources shall'be supplied by two physically independent circuits designed and located so as to minimize,to the extent practical,the likelihood of their simultaneous failure under operating and postulated accident-and environmental conditions.

The common routing of the two bus ducts may expose both offsite sources to common hazards such as fire, environmental and. missile design base accidents such as pipe whipping and discharging fluids.

The com-on routing-of both offsite. sources and each division's

(channel) onsite source (diesel generator) in each diesel generator i

room provides the possibility of losing both offsite sources and one diesel generator to a common event such as a fire in the diesel generator room.

3. Significance of observation: -(continuation) various common areas of the plant presents the possibility of losing both offsite' sources of ac power to a common event. >

b. The common routing of both offsite sources and each division's onsite source (diesel generator) in each Ciesel conorator room presents the possibility of losing both o#fsite sources of'ac power to all four divisions plus the onsite source to one division, to a common event.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation) and resulting environmental conditions due to their common routing.

..b. BPC should provide an analysis.which demonstrates that the

. plant can be safely' shut down in the event that both offsite sources of ac power and at least one onsite source of ac power is lost cue ~to'a common event occurring in a diesel

, generator. room. BPC should identify all credible events

considered possible to. occur in each diesel generator room.

c. BPC should-identify the cause of this observation, the design process which should have prevented ~it, and why that process did not prevent it.- Particular emphasis should be placed on the review procedure that-is intended to ensure compliance with GDC 17..

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page l of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 207 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Expansion Anchor Plates for Pipe Supports:

Computer Programs: BOLTS - User's/ Theoretical / Verification Manual, Rev. 1, STAND - ME425, User's Manual, Rev. 1, ME425 (continued on next pace)

2. Description of Observation:

a. Justification has not been provided for the statement in the " BOLT" manual that possible prying action between the plate and concrete is assumed to be a self-limiting

3. Significance of Observation: (c ntinued n n xt page)

The design adequacy of expansion anchor plates for pipe supports utilizing the BOLT and BASEPLATE II Programs cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide justification for their position on prying action in BOLT.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

• Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 9)

6. Internal Review Committee reason fc: ncn-safety-significance of Observatica or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

/ -:

i

! n .j

/-ex Chairman s' ) ,

'}

Q ,/ / n - ~r .. ..

n

' N'a n-u .

Mecn'anical V

Representative Electrical Repr sentative 7 .,

f. . I'5 :.

/.

s i

' / .%

s /

Af N & .f, - ,,

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. 207 Rev. 0, Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: Icontinuation)

' Verification Manual, Rev. 1, ME425 Programmer's Reference

. Manual, Rev. 2 Specification 10855-C-136, Rev. 10

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) phenomena of insignificant magnitude and therefore neglected.

b. When the expansion anchor is relocated beyond the tolerance limit specified by Specification 10855-C-136 (O) , Rev. 10, an analysis is carried out using the " BASEPLATE II" computer program. The spacing between'the anchors can.be reduced to a spacing less than the 10d required by C-136 and there is a possibility that due to overlapping shear cones, a concrete cone failure may control the capacity of the expansion anchors. It is not apparent how the possible reduction of allowable expansion anchor capacity is considered in either the " BASEPLATE II" computer program or the calculations,

c. It is not apparent how the stiffness of the attachment is accounted for~in developing the empirical equation used in the " BOLT" (CE-050) computer program. .

d. For the BASEPLATE II program, the user specifies the attachment size. It is not apparent how the program preprocessor generates the attachment stiffness.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide information on how they account for

, -overlapping cone effects and attachment size in the BOLT l and BASEPLATE II Programs..

f l

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 . 2 0 8 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Gallery Platforms:

Specification 10855-G-050(Q), Appendix A Calculation 625-39(Q), Rev. 2 (continued on next pace)

2. Description of Observation: '

a. Page 10 of Appendix A of Specification 10855-G-050(O) appears to indicate a platform column size of W8x24.

Page 38 of Appendix A of Specification 10855-G-050 (O)

(continued on next page) 3.

-Significance of Observation:

The design adequacy of the gallery platforms cannot be verified.

4. Recccmendation for res lution (cptional):

a. BPC should modify gallery platform calculations and drawings to address observations in Section 2.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classifica:icn of Observation:

Not significant te safety (See Item 6)

X Additional informa: ion required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significan: 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/ /IA.y n Cnairman *

/ -

l l

J c ,_ __,, , ,,

'-m. '

Mecannical Representative Electripal Representative Q, ' f ' l

. ,il/

'/ ! G '( /, 3 , ) .A

. ,~,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn Representative

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 CBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 20% Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: '(continuation)

Drawing C-0 319-0 (Q) , Rev. 4 Drawing C-085909(Q), Rev. 5, FCR C-15798 Calculation 690-1, Rev. O, Calculation 690-2, Rev. 1, Calculation Log for Field Designed Platforms

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) indicates a platform column size of W6x15. General Platform Drawing C-0319-0 indicates a platform column size of W6x15.

There appears to be a discrepancy in the calculations, Appendix A, and the general platform design drawina,

b. Platform R-162-2 on Drawing C-0859-0(Q), Rev. 5, appears to indicate that the grating cantilevers 2'-2" from the center-line of the supporting beam to the wall. Page 16 of Appendix A of Specification 10855-G-050(Q) and platform configurations on General Platform Drawing C-0319-0, Rev. 4, appear to indicate that the grating is to be installed as a simple span. There appears to be no calculations which address the cantilever grating or its effect on the loading of the supporting beam.

c. Platform R-162-2 on Drawing C-0859-0(Q), Rev. 5, does not

• appear to indicate any lateral bracing within the platform or at the columns. Page 29 of Appendix A of Specification 1085 5-G-050 (Q) and the platform configuration for wall supported platforms indicate that a lateral brace is to be installed in the plane of the platform. The calculations (Appendix A, Page 29) appear to indicate that the brace is necessary for lateral stability of the platform.

d. Platform R-162-2 on Drawing C-0 859-0 (Q) , Rev. 5, appears to indicate that Detail 1 on Drawing C-0319-0(Q), Rev. 4, is to be used for attaching the column base to the floor slab. Detail 1 on Drawing C-0319-0(Q), Rev. 4, and Page 13 of Appendix A of Specification 10855-G-050 (Q) indicate that 4-3/4 9 expansion anchors are to be used. Page 13 indicates that the expansion anchors in Detail 1 have a factor of safety-of 4.23. FCR C-15798 permits the deletion of one expansion anchor at one of the columns; however, the calculations do not appear to address this.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that other gallery platforms address these observations.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 209, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HPCI Steam Vacuum Tank Condensate Pump OP215 DIT 10 855-D3.38, Rev. 3 Bechtel Drawing E-6074-1, Rev. 4

2. "** E"9*

Description of Observation:

P&ID M-56 identifies a Condenser Drain Pump OP215 in the HPCI system. A control schematic (E-6074-1) exists for the pump motor. The HPCI design criteria (DIT D3.38) includes, in

3. Significance of Observation:

The significance of the observation is that the BPC design process may not maintain design criteria current with the plant design.

4. Reccmmendation for res lu:!cn (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classificati0n 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 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:

/. . y Chairman -

/

9

-h (

> ),t. _ ,,,

'. \,

.,^l7w w a

Meccahical Representative Electrical Representative

') - ,

'/ A

(

/ ;(;/j' '

-t (J'i /

de r n structural Representative Control and Instrumentatien Representative

. . = . - - .- .. .. .

4 a ,

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating' Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 l OBSERVATION REPORT- OR No.2&S, Rev. _a_, Date 7/1/8 5

1. _ Structure (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation) r

) TSB-378,' dated 6/24/85

! P&ID M-56-1, Rev . 8'

Bechtel Engineering Department Project Instruction EDPI-4.1.2, Rev. 2

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

Section 2.2, component data and classification; for the -HPCI system. . The Condenser Drain Pump (OP215).is not included in Section 2.2 of tte DITS, although -other HPCI . system pumps i 'are.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that other electrical design criteria are not at variance with the design.. ,

J s

1 1 .

s e

Z e

4 h

Y l

b

, - . - , . ,..,f . .,-,-,r-,.y..-.-- , -,m,- ,..v.

- .-.,..r-. ,w~ ..'--. 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. 210, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HPCI and SACS Logic and Schematic Diagrams Logic Diagrams J-55-0, Sheet 5, Rev. 5, J-11-0, Sheet 4, Rev. 6 Schematic Diagrams E-6076-0, Sheet 2, Rev. 4, E-0217-0, Sheet 5,

2. Description of Observation: Rev. 4 The logic diagrams and schematic diagrams contain inconsistent in fo rmation.

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Schematics are to be developed based on logic diagrams. Failure of the two to be in agreement may result in circuit interlock and indication functions to operate incorrectly.

4. Reccemendation fer resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide specific information as to how this observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classificat;cn of Observatio.9:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item S)

6. Internal Review Committee 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: -

s -

/

/

/.] . ,C , nn .n-Cnairman j/ , ,

f / * * ' _ ' ?~ ' '

2 (( )f') s-s '

Mechanical Representative A A b.. ( .A Electrical-7Rep.re,antative

. r.

, s :- -' '/ ,A Q

/' ,' /, ,' l s I ..< , ,. ,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentat:cn Representative t

-n -

-v

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.210, Rev. O_, Date 7/1/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)-

a. HPCI System Logic diagram J-55-0, Sheet 5, indicates two logic paths to open valve: 1) the control switch and 2) continuation to completion of valve opening once valve action has been started (i.e., seal-in). Path 1 only, includes a GE permissive (interlock) to stop or prevent valve opening when an HPCI isolation signal is present.

' Schematic E-6076-0, Sheet 2, also indicates the same two paths as the logic diagram for valve opening, however, the GE permissive (interlock) to stop or prevent valve opening when an HPCI isolation signal is present it included in both opening paths.

Per the logic diagram, if an HPCI isolation signal is received during opening of the valve, the valve will continue to its 100% open condition before it starts to close (closing is also a function of the HPCI isolation interlock); however, per the schematic, the valve will stop opening immediately and start closing.

Note that this inconsistency exists for multiple HPCI system.

valves (e . g . , 1-HV-F002, 3, 4, etc.).

b. SACS System Logic diagram J-ll-0, Sheet 4, indicates that logic cabinet BC-652 wire number 123A operates indicating light HS-24851B,

" Loop A In Service".

Schematic E-0217-0, Sheet 5, indicates that logic cabinet BC-652 wire number 123W operates indicating light " Loop A In Service" while wire number 123A is a logic cabinet input for " Low-Low Head Tank Level" .

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design I control process which should have prevent it and why the ,

process did not prevent the observation. l

c. BPC should provide assurance that other logic and schematic diagrams are in agreement.

l 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. 211, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Site Walkdown June 13-through June 18, 1985 Onsite AC Power System Neutral Grounding Transformers LAG 403 and 1BG403 (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

The procurement specification and Drawing E-0008-1 indicate the temperature rating of diesel generator neutral grounding transformers LAG 403, IBG403, ICG403 and 1DG403 as 1500C.

3. Significance of Observation:

Equipment with ratings other than those designed for and specified may be installed and placed into service.

4. Recommendation for res0lution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation i has or will be corrected.

(continued on next pa'oe)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance cf Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:  ;

/bI,... I?y . -u Chairma'n , / *

/f y -/ , '. f. /

,, / O L~ ,.-

Mechanical. Representative Electrical Representative

.-> i.

!),ls[..

.,7.*

,.:n ns

' ,/

,\

Structural Representative

~

Contro'l and Instrumentat:cn Representative

s .

Public' Service' Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek-Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.211, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: '(continuation)

Drawing E-0008-1, Rev. 1, Single Line Meter & Relay Diagram

. Specification 10855-M018(Q), Rev. 5

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

< Visual inspection of the transformer nameplates for LAG 403 and 1BG403 indicates a rating of ll50C. No documentation could be provided to indicate that this discrepancy had been previously identified and was being addressed by BPC.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the control process that should-have prevented it and why the process did not prevent the observation.

I, 4

4 l

}

- , ,- -r- ~g, ., ., -

l l

l 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. 212 , Rev. 0 ,

Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Non-Class lE Motor Control Centers Fed From Class lE Switchgear FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.7, Page 8.3-9 GE Drawing No. 75B702315, Rev. 0

2. Description of Observation:

Non-Class lE motors and motor control centers are fed from Class lE 480V unit substations. FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.7 (Page 8.3-9) states that on a loss of offsite power, bus

3. Significance of Observation:

This observation is an indication of the inability of the BPC design process to maintain the PSAR current with the present design. The commitments in FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.7 may not have been met.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next pace)

5. Internal Review Committee classificaticn of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) v Additional information required (See : tem 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 required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -

kN _a li v K Cnairman / .. .,

, t, /

Q [. ,,

Mechehical Representative Electrical Representative

-7  ;

'/ ', , ') 1 Structural Representative Control 'and Instrumentaticn 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.212 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

~

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) undervoltage relays trip the Non-Class lE loads. This implies that all Non-Class lE loads, including motor control center feeds, are tripped on bus undervoltage. Contrary to this, the vendor. drawings indicate the Non-Class lE motor control centers fed from Class lE unit substations are not tripped on loss of offsite power.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process that should have prevented it, and why the

, process did not prevent the observation.

(

l 4

1, 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.213 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Voltage Drop Circuits Feeding 120 V ac Solenoid Valves Calculation 17A(Q) , Control Transformer Selection and Maximun Circuit Wire (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

To ensure that the 120V ac control circuit lengths to various equipment are not excessive and the voltages available at this equipment (e.g., solenoid valves, starter coils, etc.) are (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Excessively long circuit lengths to solenoids valves may exist resulting in solenoid valves not operating when required due to unacceptably low voltage at the solenoid.

4. Recommendation for resclu: ion (cp ional):

a. BPC should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

5. Internal Review Committee classifica:icn of Observa:io.:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Ite 6)

Potentially significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reasen 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:

/s(, /(, u Ab i 6 ., . ~

Cnairman , ,/ -

df i f  !./GY,7v.;%

ff),

Meenanical Q

Representative Electrical Representative o i

/

.A

! (/ 4.Q ') ,  ! , , ,

Structural Representative -

Control and Instrumentaticn 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. 213, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/8 5

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Lengths for MCC Control Circuits, Rev. O, approved 4/4/84

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) sufficient for proper operation, BPC developed Calculation 17A(0) .

In this calculation, an application table (Table 3) was developed for six different loading conditions of the 200VA, 480-120V control power transformers used on the Hope Creek Project. This table indicates maximum acceptable circuit lengths for the six postulated typical transformer loading conditions. The tabulated maximum allowable control circuit lenghts are used in the design process as a guide to determine if a particular control circuit / loading con-figuration is acceptable.

The six application cases described in Table 3 do not include solenoid valves among the loads which are energized. Even though the sketch on page 18 of Calculation 17A(Q) " illustrates the simultaneous energization of starter coil (42) or M relay and Agastat timer followed by a solenoid valve," there appears to be no design application guidance in the 17A(0) calculation which would indicate whether or not a particular circuit involving a solenoid valve is acceptable from the circuit length standpoint, despite the fact that circuits including remote solenoid valves may be more limiting than any of the six cases analyzed in the 17A(0) calculation. For example, ASCO 8300 series solenoid valves have (per page 2 of the calc.) a 250VA inrush and (per ASCO catalog) require 85% of 120V to pickup. This voltage requirement is higher than that associated with other remote heavy inrush loads used in the calculation. It appears that there is no document which controls the design of circuits involving solenoid valves from the point of view of determining whether a particular circuit length to the solenoid valve is excessive.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional): (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process that should have prevented it, and why the process did not prevent this observation.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1,of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 214, Rev. 0 ,

Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Control Circuit Cable Lengths to Safety-Related Equipment Calculation 17A (0) , Rev. O, Approved 4/4/84, Calculation 15(O),

Rev. 2, Calculation 15.l(Q), Rev. 1, Design Guide E.2.ll.2.3, (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

Design Guide E.2.ll.2.3 states " Minimum bus voltage level is determined by project criteria and calculations should be based upon the minimum bus voltage being available at the (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The significance of this observation is two fold. First, the Calculation 17A(Q) does not utilize the minimum bus voltage available at the 480V MCC in establishing the (continued on next page)

4. Recem endation for res0lution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide a control circuit cable length analysis which is based on the minimum bus voltage available at the 480V MCC buses under worst case operation conditions. If the (continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classificatien of Observation:

Not significant tc safety.(See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for ncn-safety-significance cf Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

Chairmpn 4/. ../. o.4

/

ft ,

/

f

, ,__ a l

Mechanical /R'epres.en ta t ive

'/

r'or

• Electrical Repres ntative

s. .

c ( .

' '% , f t T* .,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn Representative

4 iPublic Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 214, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Rev. O, Design Criteria 10855-D4.1, Rev. 4

~

2. -Description of Observation: (continuation) time the devices must be picked up." Calculation 17A(Q) utilized a minimum bus voltage of 0.9 pu at the 480V MCC to establish the maximum control circuit cable lengths in ac control circuits for various starter sizes and control conductor sizes. Calculation i 15(0) established a minimum bus voltage of 0.7848 pu at MCC l

10B583 during an accident scenario. Calculation 15.l(O) which covers the bus voltages for various scenarios established the minimum bus voltage for MCC 10B583 as .8617.

Since Calculation 17A(Q) did not utilize the minimum bus voltage at the MCC, it is possible that insufficient voltage will be 3

available to energize (pick up) the starter coils of safety related loads when required to respond to design basis accidents.

It is recognized'that the minimum bus voltages indicated in Calculations 15 (O) and 15.1(Q) occur during motor starting sequences, however, no indication is provided as to when the bus voltage will recover sufficiently to allow the starter coils to be oicked up. Therefore, it is not possible to establish that '

the safety related loads fed from the 480V MCC will complete their safety function within the required time.

3. Sianificance of Observation: (continuation) maximum control circuit cable lengths. Second there appears to be no documented analysis to verify the safety related loads fed from the'480V MCC will perform their safety function within the required time taking into account the possible additional time delay associated with the voltage recovery at the 480V MCC buses.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation) minimum bus voltage uti.lized'is not a steady state value, then the-analysis should show the time period required to recover to at least 0.9 pu.

I

b. In addition, if the minimum bus voltage utilized above is not a steady state value. BPC should provide an analysis that shows that the safety related loads (equipment) fed from 480V MCC will conplete their stfety function within the required time taking into account the time delay associated with the time for the minimum bus voltage to recover sufficiently for the starter coils and other control devices to complete their safety' function.

(continued on next page)

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

5

. , s i ' Public'. Service Electric and Gas ~ Company Project No. 7212-30 1 . Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 j -OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.214 Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

4. Recommendation'for Resolution: (continuation) -

c. Should'any of the analysis recommended above result in reduced allowable control circuit lengths, BPC should describe the corrective actions that will be'taken to identify'and

~

correct the soecific, circuits affected.

j d. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, identify i the~desian control orocess that should have prevented it, and'why the process did not prevent the observation.

4 f

j J

• i p- f i

i i

L f

9

(

i 4

1-e

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ . __.___ _m__- _-_2_ _ - _ . _m___ .- _m___. . _ _ _ > _ __-_.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. (Li,, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Second Level Undervoltage Protection Relav Setting Calculations 7.4 (Q) , Rev. 1 and 15.l(0) , Rev. 1 TSB-236, dated 5/29/85

2. Description of Observation:

The intent of Calculation 15.l(0) was to establish a minimum bus voltage at the 4.16kV switchgear below which decraded or (continued on next paae)

3. Significance of Observation:

It may be possible for a degraded voltage condition to occur and not be detected with the present relay settinas, which apparently do not consider relay tolerances soecified by the manufacturer.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should identify the minimum acceptable 4160V bus voltage that governs the design and revise Calculation 15.1 (Q) to clearly state this value.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classifica icn of Observatio.:

Not significant te safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Ite: 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See I:em 8)

6. Internal Review Ccmmittee 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: ,

A !. A. 2., . ~

/

Chairman.f

(

7% u  %- ,

l j'./ b~  :-

Mechanical Representative Electrical Rep tsentative n

f. f , j s .- ( < , . >> '

% e.~.,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumen:aticn 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.lli, Rev. O_, Da t e 7 p /_g3

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) unacceptable voltages would occur at the 480V level. Several cases of plant operation were analyzed. Sheet 24 of the calculation concluded that in one case 0.9102 pu at 4.16kV leads to degraded conditions and in another case .9181 pu at 4.16kV leads to degraded conditions. It is not stated which degraded condition governs the design. Furthermore, the FSAR Section 8.3.1.2.1 states that "the minimum acceptable 4160V bus voltage should be above .9087 pu". Based on the determination of minimum acceptable bus voltage, the second level undervoltage protection relay setpoint is determined in order to protect against sustained degraded conditions. This-setpoint has been determined to be 0.92 (based upon a .9181 pu degraded minimum acceptable bus voltage). It would appear that a higher setpoint for the second level protection should have been considered in order to account for the +3%

acceptance criteria associated with the Westinghouse undervoltace relay, and the use of a non-standard relay tap required to achieve a 0.92 pu pick-up.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should commit to revising the FSAR so that it is in agreement with the results of Calculation 15.l(Q), relative to the minimum acceptable degraded voltage.

c. BPC should commit to reanalyzing the setpoint of 0.92 for the second level protection addressing in the reanalysis the relay manufacturers acceptance criteria, and the effect on relay performance of using a non-standard calibration tap.

d. BPC should identify the design review process which controls the determination of protection relay settings, and indicate why it did not address the concerns of this observation.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 216 , Rev. U , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Offsite Power Feeds to Class lE Switchgear FSAR Figure 8.3-1, BPC Drawings E-0001-0, Rev. 5, E-1670-1, Sheet 1 of 4, Rev. 1, Calculation 2.5, Rev. O, Calculation

( " ""* " "** P^ '

2. Description of Observation:

Each class lE channel is provided with two offsite power source feeds. Transformer LAX 501 is connected to each Class lE channel by Bus Duct 10A108 and Transformer 1BX501 is connected

3. Significance of Observation:

" ""* ""* E"9 '

The technical and safety significance of this observation is four fold. First, the Bus Ducts 10A108 and 10A109 have been routed through rooms having a higher than specified ambient

4. Recommendation fer res lution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on page 3)

5. Internal Review Committee classifica icn of Observation:

Not significant te safety (See Item 6) x Additional informa:Lon 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 significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal' Review Commitee Signatures: -

/, -

. Ai Chairman f/.

, .s , ,

) j-h , I ,/ M 5 .*

Meenanical Representative Electrical Representative

.Q ^ P , ."  ;,

s a s /l j b,/r...!-

bb ' M '*b

, ~ . , .

Structural Representative Control and Ihstrumentation Representative

)? }"^

~ ~~~ ~ '

p-

}?' ~ i f  ;

e

i. g 1 T

.Public' Service Electric and Gas Company Pro' ject No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Statio,n - Unit 1

" .l Page 2 of 3 .

> '? -

OBSERVATION REPORT g' OR No. 216, Rev. 0 Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), hystem(s), or[ component (s) involved: Icontinuation) 4 8.3, Rev.-4; Calculation 9)D), Rev. 0. . Design Criteria 10855-D7.5, Rev. 2 T '~

\ _E

2. ~Descr.iption of Observation: (continuation)

.to each'C$ ass 11E channel by Bus Duct 10A109. Bus Duct's 10A108 and

10A109 pre both routed through the. diesel generator rooms.

4 Design Criteria.10855-D745' indicates that the temperature inside each diesel generator room Mill N be 1200P.when the diesel generatorn I are running.

\

' Drawing E-1670-1,'5neet 1,' indicates.that portions of Bus Ducts-

'10A108 and 10A109 are wrapped with 1-hour fdre , tarriers. Drawing E-1670-1 also indicates that each bus duct tha$ passes through each floor and wall penetration, is equipped with.a h-hour fire barrier, bo;th inside anE ogtside thuebus duct.s 3 Calculation 2.5, Exhibit 1," indicates that'tiH[ nqrmal and maximum ambient temperatures for the indoor bus sections-is 1040r. The

~

calculation does not address the possible dcrating dd sth'e bus duct for hi,qher than specified ambient. temperatures,.nor does it s address' the possible , additional derating due to the' addition ,of the 3-houd, rated fire barriers at the) floor and wall penetrations, nor the 1-haur rated fire barrier wrapped on the outside of certain sectioris of the bus duct.

A review of Calculations 8.3 and 9(Q) indicates that'if a LOCA occurs with'Only one offsite power source available, various sections of bus could be loaded up to approximately 98% of;pty continuous rating with a maximum ambient of 1040F (or 92% of its capability '

withcut exceeding ANSI allowable temperature rise limits, reference Exhibit 2, Calculation 2.5)y v t e n'?

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) ,

I temperature which may result in overloading. sections..of the bus

. duct during,certain operating conditions (such a's' a 'LLCA with 3 .only one of fsite power's'c urce available) . Second, certain sections of the Bus Ducts 10A108 and 10A109 haVe bee; wrapped on the outside with a 1-hour rated fire barrier resulting in a possible overloaded condition for these sections of bus. Third, theLfloor and wall penetrations through which the bus' duct passes are equipped with 3-hour rated fire barricrsvwhich will restrict air movement and 4' possibly impose an additional derating factor. Fourth, there is an inconsistency betwe'n e the Design Criteria 10855-D7.5 and Calculation 2.5 regarding Aho. normal operating ambienti temperature i

,' that portions of the bus duct will be subjected to.

i

( *

• t~ J L _ _----

i i- -

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.216, Rev. 0, Date 7/1/85'

4. Recommendation for Tesolution: (continuation) -

b. BPC should identify ~the cause of this observation, the design control process which would have prevented it, and why the process did not prevent the observation,

c. BPC should provide assurance that cables and other electrical power equipment have been properly derated to consider the effects of maximum ambient room temperatures and the install-ation of fire stops, fire wraps or other thermal insulating material added by other than the equipment's original manufacturer.

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. 217 , Rev. 0, Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Short Circuit Protection for Cables Used in DC System Calculation 7. 9 (0) , Rev. O, 9/6/34, "125V DC & 250V DC Class 1E System" (continued on next page)

2. Description of Observation:

BPC Design Guide E.2.6.7 provides guidelines for selection of cables based on available short circuit currents. Calculation 7.9(O) determined the available short circuit current at the

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page)

Without adequate consideration of short circuit current in the selection of cables, they may be susceptible to damage and cause unacceptable degradation of adjacent cables during short circuits.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page) 5.

Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant te safety (See ten 6) .

x Additional information required (See : tem 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 safety sianificance.

Provide information requested in Item r.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ' -

/, . . f.

69- ~

Cnai rthan / M

,// , 3 ,:

y,h,}%

_ _ J' %A?M ~

• Mecashical Representative Electr4 cal Representative 3

/ s <*, /

,' / //

'] .m AA

/

' ' t' <. 5 _ m , , --r ,.

_ Structural Representative Control and In'strumentaticn 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.217 , Rev. 0, Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Calculation 10.1(O), Rev. 1, 10/15/84, " Medium Voltage Cable Ampacity" Calculation 10.2 (0) , Rev. 1, 11/6/84, "600V Power Cable Ampacity" BPC Design Guide E.2.6.7, dated 6/28/83, " Cable Short Circuit Ampacity"'

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) 125Voc and 250Vdc Class 1E distribution panels while Calculations 10.1 and 10.2 provided cable ampacity values. Neither of these calculations addressed short circuit current as a basisJfor selecting +

cable sizes for DC systems.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that the power cable sizes selected for application on the HCGS are acceptable relative to applicable short circuit currents. -

i e

f 1

1 4

e m- -

- p- r , , - - , - ,, - - - . - v --

w e v +n- 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. 218, Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Class lE Onsite AC Power System Calculation 15(Q), Load Flow Study, Rev. 2, dated 2/5/85

2. Description of Observation:

The purpose of BPC Calculation 15(Q) is to analyze the Hope Creek plant single line arrangement to determine if the design meets voltage regulation requirements under various operating (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Without clearly addressing all modes of plant operation it is uncertain as to whether Calculation 15(Q), meets voltage regulation requirements under various operating conditions.

4. Recc=mendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classificatien of Observation:

• Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Iter 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Ccmnittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.

Provide informatin requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ,

/f .

-[ dy L.

Chairman , /

,Wl/( '$ Q ' ~5 {

Y / z. - s U.-.

MecManic'al Representative

_ \ /- k.L c .. I Electrical Representative

. A

( ' g, ,~

Structural Representative Control and Instrumen;atten Representative 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.Uj_, Rev. L , Date 7/lL85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) conditions. Numerous cases were analyzed in Calculation 15(O).

The cases specifically related to the Class IE switchgear were discussed during the meeting with BPC. in San Francisco, June 16 and 17, 1985.

In addition, to the scenarios presented in BPC Calculation 15 (Q) ,

other operating scenarios exist which are not addressed by this calculation. Specifically, the following two cases are of concern:

a. The loss of-a single offsite power supply occurs simultaneously with a LOCA such that the fast bus transfer occurs and the loads sequenced without.first adjusting the transformer taps.

The transformer taps are held fixed at their value for normal plant operation.

b. 'The offsite power supply system is also designed to operate on

, a dead bus transfer. This case is not addressed by Calculation 15 (O) . A dead bus transfer is initiated when an offsite power supply is lost-for a condition other than a transformer fault.

Since only a single offsite power supply is lost'and not a complete loss of offsite power, the restart of loads following a dead bus transfer is not controlled thru the sequencer. As a result, those loads with maintained start signals and process signals will block start. BPC did provide a calculation to demonstrate block start capability on a dead bus transfer with normal plant operation; however, this may not be a worse case scenario, since it did not involve LOCA loads.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that all credible. plant operating modes are enveloped by Calculation 15 (Q) .

6 6

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page l of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 219 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Switchyard Control House 125V DC Primary and Backup Battery Racks FSAR Section 8.2.1.4 PSE&G Drawing No. 247846A1753, Rev. 3

2. Description of Observation:

A single switchyard control house is utilized for both the 13.8kV and 500kV systems. Two 125Vdc systems are provided, primary and back-up, to ensure the avai' lability of control (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The FSAR commitment may not have been met and the prinary and back-up batteries may be vulnerable to common mode failures.

4. Recommendation fer resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observatic.c: -

Not significant to safety (See Item 6)

X Additional information required (See : tem 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 9)

6. Internal Review Committee 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:

/,j i wi d'

. - .o . .

n c.. ~

Chairman '

/ //

/ * /' ,/

s

// -, s

/

Y l )% <v. / , r . -i . .

Meonanical Represent &Ylve Electrical Representative

/  :, A y /' , , . ,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn Representati.ve

2 Public Service' Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope-Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION' REPORT OR No.219 , Rev. O ' ' , Date 7/1/85 (continuation)

2. Description of Observation:

power for the control and protection of the offsite power supplies.

FSAR Section 8.2.1.4 states that the components of the two 125Vdc systems are located more than 20' feet apart. This-is to prevent a common mode failure of both 125Vdc systems. PSE&G Drawing

-247846A1753 indicates that the primary and back-up 125Vdc batteries are approximately 8 feet apart.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC/PSE&G should identify the design control process which is

intended to maintain the plant design in compliance with the FSAR and why this process did not prevent the observation.

4 a

i.

9

.i l-1 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. 2 2 0 , nev. 0 ,

Da te 7/1/8 5

1. Structure (n), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Penetration Assemblies - Overcurrent Protection Considerations FSAR Section 8.1.4.12 Calculations 7.13 (Q) , Rev. 2, dated 10/19/84, and 7.13A (0) ,

Rev. O, dated 5/19/82

2. Description of Observation:

Concerns regarding the overcurrent protection for the containment electrical penetration assemblies related to the commitments of Section 8.1.4.12 of the FSAR are:

(continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Penetration assemblics may not be provided with necessary primary and/or secondary overcurrent protection.

4. Recc=mendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

• Not significant to safety (See Item 6) v 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 requred to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -

. n' Chairman

d. ' 6 a f .

N g/J/ _,

]A.-.e s

,' L

,/

~ % ,u :t MecDanical Representative '

Electrical Rep esentative I .

,.c - 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.220 , Rev. 0 , Date 7/1/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) ,

a. The penetrations are provided with primary and back-up over-current protection. Primary protection for the 480V MOV penetrations is provided by magnetic only circuit breakers and motor thermal overloads. Back-up protection is provided by thermal-magnetic circuit breakers. Since, during a LOCA, the motor thermal overload elements of the primary protection are bypassed, there is no primary short circuit / overload protection for current magnitudes below the magnetic breaker pick-up setting.

L b.- Continuous current carrying capabilities of the penetrations are not indicated on the coordination curves contained in 1

Calculation 7.13(O). The penetrations may not be provided

. with proper overload protection. For example, Figure 3 of Calculation 7.13 (Q) illustrates protection for #4 AWG penetrations. The 100A HFB breaker used does not appear to provide overload protection to the subject penetration, which according to Table 1 of Calculation 7.13 (Q) is rated at.74A.

c. Maximum available short circuit currents for various size penetrations are not indicated on the coordination curves contained in Calculation 7.13 (Q) . Without establishing the

, maximum available short circuit at a penetration, it may nqt be possible to determine whether the short circuit withstand capabilities of the different size penetrations are not exceeded by the design.

4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)

b. BPC should provide verification that all electrical penetrations are properly protected for applicable overload /

high impedance faults as well as for high magnitude.short circuit currents, given single random failure.of current overload protection devices.

c. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process, which should have prevented it and why the process did not prevent the observation.

1.

_=_ _ _ _____ _ - __- _ _ _ _ - __ - __ _ _ __:__-_-__-__-____-____

. . . . JUN 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5 Enclosure 3 k

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 l

OBSERVATION REPORT I

OR No. 74 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/14/d J. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:  !

Environmental Qualification Audit Package F35373 (Q) for terminal connectors.

10855-DITS 7.5, Rev. 02, (10/29/84)

. 2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 state that components are qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and NUREG-0588, Category II and the HCGS environmental qualification program is

3. Significance of Observation:

The subject terminal connectors may not be qualified to IEEE-323 requirements and DIT 7.5.

4. Recom.mendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC/PSELG should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page) 5.

InternalNot Review Committee significant to classification safety (See of6)

Item Observation:

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 required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

/. Oc -

Cnairman /

Me6trani~ cal Represen ative Electrical Representative

]

Structural Representative RL Gmu/s1. C//[

Control andtInstrumen:a.uon g Representative

• I r

e i

Ja 27 8s 02 8 4 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of'2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.74 , Rev. A__,, Date 6/14/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) attempting to upgrade to NUREG-0588, Category I requirements.

~

NUREG-0588, Category I specifies IEEE 323-1974 requirements. The subject EQ audit package specifies compliance to IEEE 323-1974 requirements.

a .' Contrary to the requirements of IEEE 323-1974, paragraph 8.3 (-4) (c) ,

the qualification report does not identify test instrumentation including calibration records reference.

Contrary to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971, paragraph 5.2. 4. 3, the qualification report does not identify the test instrument-tation and traceability records.

b.

Data defined inTer-001, F-35373-Wire the Equipment Rev. O,Evaluation Summary Sheet (EESS),

dated 4/9/85 is inconsistent with data defined in DITS 7 5. The EESS defines the required post-DBE operating time as 100 days, while Table 5 of DITS 7.5 defines the required post-DBE operating time as 180 days.

c.

The EQ Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet (MSIS)

MS-FLD-VAR-WIRT-001, dated 4/19/85 states that the terminal connectors are qualified for 40 years. However, the 40 year qualification is not substantiated because the EESS indicates that the qualification does not meet the post-DBE operating time requirements,and the EESS indicates that the qualification does not meet the temperature requirements for aging (therefore, no qualified life has been determined). ~

d.

A comparison of the required DBE profile given in EESS Note 1, and the DBE profile to which the terminals were tested (as defined 1978),

in test report QPS-TB(SH)-878, Rev. O, dated October reveals that the post-DBE test duration of l02 days does not meet the required post-DBE duration of 100 days plus 10%

margin as required by EESS/IEEE 323.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) b.

BPC/PSELG should explain the intent of the FSAR statenent

" attempting to upgrade to NUREG-0588, Category I requirements."

c.

BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that all EQ reports for similar equipment have considered the subject IEEE 323 requirements.

l

JLIN 27 '8s 0 2 8 4 5 4 5 EOb Public 8ervice Electric and Cao Company Project No. 10855-0 Hope Creek Generating Station a Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 .

RCSDLUTI0l?/ cot!PL*. TION _ P.EPOP.T OR No. 74 Rey,- 0 Date 6f14/85_

R/CR No. L Rev. E

. Date 6/97/s5

1. Clescification of observation (by Est):

cet cignificant to safety Cigniftcont to safety x J.dcitionel Information required

. neviene p:cpocod resolutions (See attached sheet)

3. Reviewee resolution report by:

c

• 'Cs0 b estplide an0roup

~

! L supcrylaor YL4lr5~

Date

_ h $ r l1A~ - _

'l.24TS' g een:ct Project Ungineer Ditto '

' =

4. Public Service tiectric and cas Company reviews

~

=~

"y@Chio W, GU 4-1 ._

6/2 7NS Project 44tVfger Da te '-

~

5 CEL'c dicposition of Resolution / completion Repo'rt Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, obcervation closed.

Acd1tional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6 Finci .. classification of obserystion by Review Committees Not significent to safety

__ cignificant to safety

7.

• P.cVicu Co=cittoo siencturec t

JLM 27 '85 0 2 8 4 5 4 5

(

Public Service Electric and Cas Company Project No. 10855-613 Bope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ~

RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 74 (Continuation sheet) Rev. A Date s/14/as R/CR No.74 Rev. ,,[L, Date 6/77/85

2. _ DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATIONS:

A.

The S&L observation cites a lack of infomation from the vendor regarding test instgumentation, calibration records and traceability. This infoma-tion was provided by the vendor in a letter to BPC dated 10/19/82, and is identified'as CCN #226099 which is attached to this reply.

B. The observation identifies an inconsistancy of infomation between DITS 7.5 and the EESS with respect to operating time requirements. It should be.noted that the DITS 7.5 data was incorrect and will be revised to agree with the EESS and shown on the attached BPC memo dated 6/10/85.

C.

The observation alleges that the EESS infomation does not substantiate a 40 year qualified life because of a failure to meet operating time requirements and temperature requirements for aging. The latest EESS for this equipment properly addresses these topics and is attached for reference.

D.

The observation again cites a discrepancy related to operating time requirements. The reference in this case pertains to the DBE test profile and margin associated with the 100 day operating time. This item is properly addressed in Note #5 of the latest EESS.

4. RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION:

A. .

Each area of the observation has been addressed in the reply to para-graphs 2(A)-2(D) above. The additional infomation to support the reply is attached.

B. The intent of the FSAR statement was to provide an indication to the NRC that the Hope Creek EQ program is attempting to meet the latest .

requirements for EQ even though the plant is not required to do so.

At the time this section of the FSAR was written, it had not yet been

. detemined if the Hope Creek equipment could. meet the latest requirement.

f.

BPC and PSE&G are cognizant of the pertinent IEEE 323 requirements. All EQ reports have been, and continue to be, reviewed against the 1974 ver-

i sion of the standard. Assurance of this review is maintained in the backup files which support the actual NRC audit packages.

l i

_ ,, a. _ . ; . ,

. JUN 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5

, , , m128 820 2 2 609 9

,,,,,,,,,,,, F107124 componATsu

eers ,-

t . < ww ,

tooIWie 202 Rar. tan New.le sey 08869 1 485 1600

' aM190 _ ppg y p,g October 19, 1982 d tea. 2 A Bechtel Power Corporation SECHT!1 POWR CORPORATION P. O. Box 3 CONSTRUCTK)N Eancocks Bridge. NJ 08038 Attention: L. R. Rosetta OCT 21882 4- l'3 .

StW ECT: Job No. 10855.f161477A$,.% tsclunents A & n JOB #10855 Ea: ITC-8765 CCN 7097180. IMF-5095 CCN F100614 Gentlemen:

After careful review our response to the comments on Attachment A for cable straps and Attachment 3 for wire terminals are as follows:

Attachment A A) No

3) For the cable ties all calibrating means shall be traceable to the National Bureau of standards per MIL-C-45662. Il C) Temperatures were measured by use of thermo couples and temperature recorders.

Attactusent_3 A) No.

3? Reference specification number QPS-TB(CH)-878 (Rev. O) " Sum =ary and .

Conclusions' . also reference Paragraph 5.0 of this report.

" Test Results".

C) Reference Specification Number QPS-T3(CH)-878 (Rev. 0) " Listing Agency Compliance UL486 File Number 19809". As a requirement for UL certification, all caliberting means shall be traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.

D) Temperatures were measured by use of thermo couples and temperature recorders.

E) At this time there is not enough known to address this issue.

continued . . . .

ff"'hbb0

& M &We 64m a g;O '

-* - 41588232113o 3 4 vv y , * -

- - EN 27 '85 0 P 8 4 4

" 4 5 oci 28 820 2 2 609 9

-( 5echtel Power Corporatio. F10M 4 Page 2 October 19. 1982 F) No.

If you require further assistance in your evaluations please feel free-t.e -

contact me. Saference A0042.

Regards.

A>d David L. Jeude Technical Service Rapresentative

/ lev cc S. Sayer C. Conne11y-

1. Boniski J. Bopper J. Murray G. Pietey

'" ed MEMORANDUM -gngY.u404U4@

ro /4" 84V/ tocarios "

,=e. e N r' a z e r -/ a / O L - a I l care June io. ac ,,

(

• JO8 NO l$ $$T SU5 'E CT #U4ffd [ bd/IA _ FILE 1l AfS}k'A$.CA* TE N1MM S k AlF (*dl /. ff AM Mb/df fa f/* ff f [

Cl' .b/72 Y[ . Atris Y rdE hfAheAl er TJE LU'/}w1orAf GA p m/g ZAk"/DE 7d" f hfjHARY / M*rd/dHAA77* NK 7df. } 8'E. ~

/44.2 f.C 76

/*pAfr/HH ras 77 7ys 4 -!! a bre ruax) ed TAe 74r/E m i4 trxer . rsx Orwr %xanod cioun sr A -i e 1sv.

a of 11Tr 7-r 7Nt Ade/E ffRet AblL Af /AfeAfPcMArth rd rss drxr nwrica Z>e rMEer Asx my niiserieJe pisse-(All - H en) AT X~dP$f' h

(~ dex.araa.a h A DAdhf/n2

d. h s em m-

[.

1 oon . . . . , ,

i 1

l

{- ~

10855-D7.5, Rev. 2

( ll

b. Radiation Conditions (outside Bioshield)

/ Total integrated gamma plus neutron dose:

2.5 x 107 rads /40 yr. (4.2 x 106 rads '

g' for neutrons).

Total integrated neutron fluence: 4.2 x

-1014 neutrons /cm2 for 40 years (11.0 MeU)

2. Abnormal Conditions

a. Temperature, pressure and Humidity Conditions The temperature and pressures in the drywell resulting from a loss of offsite power (LOP) event are shown in Figures 6 and 7. The humidity hd11 be in the range of

) 20 to 90%.

b. Radiation Conditions The radiation exposure does not increase above the normal operating levels during LOP event.

3. DBE Conditions

a. Temperature, pressure, and Humidity Conditions are provided in table 5. f These environmental conditions are based on a combination of DBE's to ensure conservative b'ounding values. The 100%

Relative Humidity for 100 days is also conservative, and encompasses that .

environment produced by containment spray

, actuation. . I

b. The primary containment post-LOCA total [ ,

integrated doses (TID) and dose rates are ,

provided in Table 4.

.. Both gamma and beta doses were calculated for the primary containment. The doses were calculated by assuming that 100% of the l

l

1 0086H 39 i

1

m OAWN (Akre>ee ze fzF) soulreeter tvAtlaarles easeenstr !aet1T f Hurt OEIII GNEwerING 9rftrfG8 THONn5 AND BETIS WIRE TERNINAL ,

mer. ND:

Bew. seh F35373+blive 1tna.- **I g lypgJgr metrisu)esepfr L'_

ENErEl ~6/24/85 DEsatsPrtos 00GDE9frJtrlOf IEPTIW5s2 PAfuerrous SperlFIED QumipilED SIAI.II.

SFWCIFIED QUALIFIED IEDIOD M

1113ei ftnfCHI (1) SYSrygpq VARIOUS 100 days A. Istie 19gt033 M day Ucst) . h.M 8. h.M ' ~ Test ana Analysis b in ,= so. uA ,, . ,)

Nm MM

s. ,,,,,,,, g,7," . . .

PfESER88E . .

(3) GeseeBfr trSIA) 105 (Man) second t,an, cent d.,,ng OSC WIRE TEltNINAL See Noteft Note #2 *

• provides acceptable margin.

i4) penseFAC1ustst se:Jurtvt 43 sameDs,y (g) 100

8. Pg.37 8. Pg.37 &

TH0sWL5 & BETTS Steam

• 38 *

(5) equuEL 30, FID0DesW Not reg'c riogge N/A N/A N/A KON N/A N/A *

• IIADIAflas 1.0920RG 8

16) rimettfat (simis) 2x10' R G 8. Pg.36 &

ggggg gg Note #3 hs" C. Pg.1 37 **' d , 0.91x10" -

gyg agasancy 40 yrs F 40 yrs e A,.als MS . RG gag 135*F A. Pg.Is s. rg.gJ L al sumeCIFIED N/A 156*F 18.la ~ ~. Vess ana Analysis * -

y. ,

td Actuat. II/A'- Not req'i

_ g O

(8) EBCarIGs SPstAV N/A N/A REACTOR BUILollIG N/A N/A N/A = = I "SI8' 'i eminals3 "en, the wire X

t will be installed c A s D 2 in mater tight compartments.

• F (10) SEISIEICAl2.Y TESTTD 8. TA8 Spec. No. QPS-TB(CH)-878 Rev.0 1. 0-20sec 735 ltHE 4. Provides connection for safety related '

YES equipment. Category 2a.

'O sEF.

"/A

_ C. Letter No. CCN-0200418 Ot 11/81 20s-5 min 340 62 156 100 g 0, tsechtel Resolution of Comunents 5m-3 hrs 340 40 100 h' . A barrier is provided on Teminal Block h

(!!) SupwritJJes2 se00. 3h-6 hrs 320 P584 (10/13/83)' 40 100 so that if the wire tensinal insulation g Yes fur.

6h-24 hrs 250 25 100 . Is lost for any reason, the effected sen T E Ida-4 days 200 25 getrcutt stfIl can perfone. Therefore..

. Bechtel memo dt. 6/10/85. (Con (tmin9 4d-100 days 200 100 100 days D8E duration inside primary 10 100 fatture of insulation can be of no sig-containment.) nificance af ter 30 days Post 08E. See Ref.D.

2. For Teap. and Press. Profile see Ref.B. Pg.40 ,

3. INCLUDES Beta Radiation.

6. Te*P.

teminals of 156*F includes self heating of

~

i -

!MEl'85028454$.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30

Bope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 75, Rev. j__, Date6/14/9 i 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved

Environmental (equipment does Qualification not have tagof Splice Kits Package F485610, 10855-DITS 7.5, Rev. 02, (10/29/84) numbers).

2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Section 3.11 identifies the equipment subject to environ-mental qualification and the qualification requirements.

(continued on page 2)

3. Significance of Observation:

a.

Since there is no auditable link between the installed components and those qualified there is no assurance that what is installed is qualified.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional)

(continued on page 2)

a. BPC/PSE&G observation has or will be corrected.should provide specific inform (contined on page 3)

! 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:

Additional information Provide information is required to evaluate safety significance; requested in Item 4.

7.

Internal Review Commitee Signatures:j

/d. ./J. au k Chairman /'

I

~

i Mechanical Repre.entative Electrical Representative

\

h $l Cnm l[ ke i

, Structural Representative Control and Instrumen;f ion Representative '

i

i as 27 8502 84 54 5 i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 g Hope Creek' Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 7 5, Rev. O , Date 6/14/,85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

FSAR Section 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 states that HCGS EQ program is committed to NUREG 0588, Category II and IEEE 322-1971, but is attempting to upgrade to NUREG 0588, Category I and IEEE 313-1974.

The Equipment Qualification Audit Package Checklists indicate compliance with IEEE 323-1974,

a. FSAR Section 3.11 states that the environmental qualification is attempting to upgrade to IEEE 323-1974. Paragraph 6.1 of this standard requires the qualification documentation to include " identification of Class lE equipment being qualified."

The environmental qualification audit binder identifies the manufacturer (Raychem), and the model numbers of the splices tested but not the model number (s) of the splices installed.

b. The Equipment Evaluat' ion Summary Sheet (EESS Sheet F48561-TINS-001, Rev. 02) and the Equipment' Qualification Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet, MS-FLD-VAR-H-TINS-0 0 5, Rev. 05 contain inconsistent data. The LOCA parameters are defined for inside containment, while the normal environmental parameters are defined for outside containment rather than inside containment. This appears to be only a data inconsistency i

since the qualification tests use the inside containment parameters.

c. IEEE 323-1974, paragraph 5 (1) , requires assurance that the severity of the qualification meets or exceeds the maximum anticipated service requirements and conditions. There is no calculation demonstrating that the test profile envelopes the plant unique LOCA profile.

d. DITS 7.5, Rev. 2,- Table 5,' indicates that equipraent must be

' environmentally qualified for 180 days post LOCA. Actual testing was performed for only 30 days post LOCA. Document CCNf0271401 (in the audit package), dated 9/17/84, page 8, states that the 180 day requirement is satisfied by taking credit from thermal aging testing performed before the LOCA te s t'. This does not meet requirements of DITS 7.5 or -

l IEEE 323-1974. *

3. Significance of observation: (con tinuation) i b. There is no assurance that the components are qualified for the Hope Creek postulated environmental conditions.

G

.r .,.

JUN 27 '85 0 2 8 4 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of .1 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.75 , Rev. 1 , Date 6/14/85

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that the subject cable -

i splices are representative of the installed splices, are qualified per DITS 7.5 and IEEE 323-1974 and that qualification conditions meet or exceed anticipated service conditions.

c.. BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that all other environmental qualification packages for similar components:

1. Properly identify the equipment being qualified.

2. Define the correct environmental parameters.

3.

Include calculations which demonstrate that the qualification envelope the maximum anticipated service conditions.

l

• h L I l

i 6

I I

e

a -

- o m.m m . .

9 of u m 27 8s02 8 4 5 45 ' x Public service Electric and Gas Cosspany Project No. 10055-01 sope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 R550LUTIOH/C0!!PLET10N RrPORT

=- OR No. 75 Rev.0 Date 6/14/85 l R/CR nod 5 Rev. F Date M F

~ ~

1. Cloccification of observation (by asL):

Het significant to safety cirnificant to safety

_y_ ,t. M tionel Informction required

1. . ..n .c ; : ep:,cci : ec:. iutio :: (See attache:: sheet)  !

l S. Reviewoe resolution report bys k )4 n L%

1. aVisciplirfelroup 14ltr~

Supervisor Date

) >],ge EL- 6/Nhr ~

4t.c:.ct.TTropct Ungineer ~

Dcto - -

4. Public Service tiectric and Gas Company reviews b W. Odb-4/m db7/f5 Chiet Projt.ct agryer Date

1. Ct.L'c dispecition of Resolution / Completion Repo'et:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

_ Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

t 6 Final classification of observation by Review Committees Not significant to safety

Significant to safety

7.

• Review Committee algnatures:

4 1_ _ . - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ~ ~ - -

o .

JlM 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project so. 10855-613 Bope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 '

SLESOLUTION/ COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 75 Rev. O (Continuation sheet) Date 6/14/85 R/CR No"73I~ Rev. L Date 6/27/85

2. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

A.

The observation cites a lack of model number identification for the splices to be used at the plant to verify that they are the same as those tested by the vendor. . The model number of splices to be used in the plant are identified'on the EESS as WCSF-N.

specifies the use of this splice. Bechtel document E-1408 requires and B.

The observation provided for the cites spliceinconsistencies kits. between the EESS and EQMSIS pages sistancy and are attached for reference.These sheets have been revised for con-C.

The observation ability of the testcites the lack of a calculation to demonstrate accept-profile.

This calculation is attached for reference.

D.

The observation addresses the suitability of the method used to age the equipment.

in 2C above. This item is also addressed in the calculation referenced

4. RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION:

A.

Each item of the observation report is addressed in 2A - 2D above.

B.

The subject cable splices have been shown to meet all applicable require-ments and the installed splices are representative of the. qualified splices as described in section 2 above. ,

C.

PSE&G is cognizant of the requirements noted and is actively reviewing all EQ packages for suitability of documentation. '

l o

e

- 7gf6 E045 40.: .0 N '850 ? 8 4 5 4 5 REF. CO.:

do d.,6 '2B M S - q s - yp p _ y _ s p ,_ ,,y REV. ND.: o "

DATE: s/2ofts 1 8.0. MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION SMEET F Safety Related System \d2v/eus Environment: Narsh Mild Component Tag No. Not- Ah,pf,, - Lf m P.O. No. - FMa5cI(O Component Names hf (.S F- N IM LIME. CABLE SP'L tc. E' Type of Component: Electrical Mechanical Type of Replacement: - t Total Subcomponent NA Qualified Life: Component do fe.v:s G If4*F Subcamponent Vendor: S ATC- R E M Vendor I.D./Part No. .

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (MAINTENANCE /SUB COMP. DETAIL /OTHE ga w.y s sas7.5 n.1,P,.u, % , - - " *= n "

b wk.'a-h 4ha. C* *f* ns k > t.ofil Jo a- exposed is 13 S*F-1

, REFERENCE INFORMATION:

DOC. TITLE DOC. NO. REV. DATE t

PAGE NO. REMARKS byew t.atter e e rin 27g4o t Sjf7$4 8

~

• • Esc.hhat. g n (sm)^""A"

,,s ,,,, p et rt-

- 7,g, p - 1.fe, e 04G  ;

I4, i l 7 sufwwa dud. % p.A u/hs.4 .p4gSci- AgRw-..

• N #[ U "

M neary, sog $s.FA t b'& 1lL .

s g - m -s PREPARED BY: 1. N'T DATE: 5"[fo/8f L i CHECKED BY: fMAd-d.Aw l- DATE: 5~/z3/ps CC:db MP54 161/C 5 1

e

~

EB8tfMBer EMAsasarsGs ascesar assRr EME M A35011W388 88sMG8 RAVCNEM WCSF-N SPLICE sur en, F40561-SPL-002 I

IWa BDe 1 quemuner WWsEBOWet Osete 'annias SOGSWesRBsGs smEEmetB

• "mottes pasusesus gensasse gansJr.

meterse specsream genostsen _ cres seems times sessen gauge til 55583s VARIOUS #" ' a-vi.a e-rege e Test and Tsss ys Me5 lone

- a p s 788 Analysts Isors than

12) m. adequate m . (*tt See Ilete #1 See Note #2 * * =

• 499 Gessest M

• neef tossM See tiete #1 * =

=

WE5F-N IN LINE CAALE * .

5ptiCE smursyt 1001 les suussyncsimum 2001 *

• a4TCNEN aassesw tal Test sene met reg'd ---

MalmesEV v,

45) SEmm.an. rung Tes E. Pg.12 EDR-5037 Test Table 2 lone Not reg'd ---

anssarges See Note f3 2.4MS RE 043 geggyges A-07.5 s Pg.

teamst Bote #4 Test hete 2.82Eg SEE NOTE #5 Table 4 8. Pg.A-1 qual mae. Level enc'en-

.44 38 40 yrs 0 70 yrs S passes specified normal (73 mmmmarv acan 10855-07.5 C-Pages Gesume & aleutron T10 at spectram W A 135'F 90*C Test and note #4 Rev.2 1.8 a 9 Analysis liet reg ---

est AC5100s. (194*F) Pg.8 0-Pg.7 & 8

~

tel segu gg geng E Yes Yes vas:Ov5 -

Pg.19.21 B-Pg. C6 Test f I'*I '*4*d b D 9/5/84 CCN G270617 TEW'F Psit TiiE p 1 888

",',"9F'"',,Y M 2. 0- htm n-! M n W C .

o-25sec TEW'F 34dl PSIS h as go g""*

- s. Wyle Labs apth F,445610-1-IF u.i-32.a,s 370 64 MsecMa 5~U j em

,,,,-, 3a u 5.in-3hn 340 m

62 jgC 32.2 hrs-54.2 hrs 298 40 1883 meumsMWEB M m.

C. Raychem Report EDR-5046 CCN 0271401 56.2 hrs-80.2 hrs 205 47 39 3 hrs-6 hrs 320 40 8 g ~n 3'8 8'F* 80.2 hrs-152.2 hrs 272 64rs-24 hrs 250 25 C se -""T ~

8. RaF hem letter to SPC 152.hn@.Mrs 250 27 15 Iday-4 days 200 25 g a 4 days- M ays M 9/17/84 (CCN 0271401) 200.2 hrs-248.2 hrs 240 10 -

10 D gy j E. DITS 10055-07.5 2 4. h rs-382. M rs 230 6 b 382.2 hrs 720 hrs 210 0 CR Rev.2(10/89)

F. Bechtel Nemo dt.6/I of 85 (Confirming 100 days nar A.e.,e e..ed. ..e.. e ..e --.og. _ -- - - -

i s

s 4 l

, 3. Samme Nomal TIS 7.4s106 I

Easuna 00E TIS Air 2.6s10 Gamma Def TIS Plate 3.4 ale' Seta DAE TIS Af r 9.5m108 Sota 00E TIS Plate 6.7s198 Neutron TID Nemal 1.1n100 i

4. Beta Radiation Qualf fication Later.

. 5. Cable splice provides insulated to minatten Category 2a.

1

! TJ l

N CI un C

M D

h j (J1 h

- CJT

JUN 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5 000. no. F48561-ARRN-001 ,

R:v.0. dt. 5/20/85 i

i

,, JUSTIFICATION OF QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT l PURCHASED UNDER P.O.10855-F48561/Q FOR #K# M INSIDE DRYWELL CONDITIONS OF /eMee HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION -

P  ;

l SPLICE KITS l

REY. DATE PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED 0 5llTlgg 1. b.R4AdGULyh & 44 y}g 6

r - _

t e' ;m JL% 27:as02 8 4 5 4 5 7

w .a

. t RXTENSION OF DBE TEST DURATION OF 30 DAYS TO 180 DA'rs, , ,

~

t

1. SCOPE: ,

This document justifies the extension of DBE test data from 30 days to 180 days, in addition to 40 years at 900c, fo-- l splice kits. Data is taken from CCN 9027140l,Page 8. '

Extension of profile is done via Arrhenius Relationship methodology.

s A

2. ARRHENIUS EQUATION:

t1=t2 x e (e/k)~./l_ - 1\ ,

(Tl T2j Where: T1 = Service Temperature in degrees Kelvin

(.' T2 = Test Temperature in degrees Kelvin t1 = Qualified life ,

! Y t2 = Aging time s 9 '= Activation energy (1.328 ev)

K = Boltzmann's M *)td (0.8617410-4 dv per degree Kelvin)  ;

e = 2.718 i

4

( ,

,i i j

l: y

. x ,

I TN:all

THERMAL AGING CALCULATIONS FOR

$PLICE KIT. THERM 0 FITS AND IN 27 '8s 0 2 8 4 5 4 5 EXTENSION CF DBE TEST DATA FROM 30 DAYS TO 180 DAYS y Arr. Eq'n. t =12**I'/EII g 1 ~ kU2) k = .8617 x 10-4 ev/*k e = 2.718  ;

1 9 = 1.328 t = time tg = qualified tim 12 = aging time = 1500 hrs.

T3= 90*C = 363*k 1 1 -5 j T2= 150'C = 423*k TT' 2 3

8/k = 1.328/.8617 x 10'4 = 15.411 x 103 3

t 3

=t 2

x 2.718 (15.411 x 10 ) (3.9 x 10'4)= 69.8 yrs.

At t =2 1000 hrs.

f t g = 1000 x 2.718 (' N "

• l' } (Si * ' ) = 46 yrs.

At t2 = 850 hrs.

t g= 1000 x 2.718 ( ){*W8 )e 40 yrs.

Remaining (1500-850) = 650 hrs. at 150*C can be utilized in extra-

! polations of LOCA from 30 days to 180 days as stated in CC#0271401, pp.8, and shown below.

Extrapolation of DBE:

T1 = 2000F = 940C = 3670K 1 I T2 = 1500C -r 423OK 91 92 = 36 x 10-5 t2 = 650 Brs. l t1 = 650 x 2.718 x OD (36 x 10%

= 6952 days which is well in access of 180 days Therefore, splice kits are qualified for 40 years at 900C and 180 days for DBE. l I

_ IN 27 '85 0 2 8 4 5 4 -

w a *

% 4

'g'l ~$.

N l M

g h[

q-  ; c kh . , .' "' r, ,', 7. X  ?,

g .

= w 4 ( O )L I I $l b

% a

% J L JL C4 4 m .

i 4 I gw 3

• lt *

=

1r O }

b h( C l

. Yd  ; [ l t k. -i R 4 o 6 j" J

• 1 oc oc . , e e e r b "I, W ,;.

w -

" f w

C =

J% i

} --

O

• Q q I t

>- t- C,

3 35 e h 2; p A  : c d4 .

1 p 4 a +--

8i , b 1k It M 7 .

n 1 O 's o

3

" e  %

1 -

3 1

i q, s

.Qs '

r '$ s t g

-' n '

g=

1 :L a

' f I, I II , ,

lJ J < >

l I L J i i  : R \

! J '

C i n I O 1 L L l 3k  %

! 3 '

. .4 e b i C -

u

l l

(' N . I a i jh o Mt 2 I

l

g ,at 2C y

• g 1 ( '

I i

JL e.

L 1., 0 1

, g -}-

g ,

q K 9 g .

s o o vs r G

gL .

4.-4 3 lt

• ll[,','~ h "

D  ;

D~ = b -k .) .W _p

.rd 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5 1

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 76 , Rev. 0 , Date_6/14/8

{

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Environmental Qualification Audit Package for Terminal Blocks (Buchannan) F37917 (Q) , which contains Environmental Qualification -

Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet for HCGS, Rev. O, dated 4/22 /85.

Description l 2. of Observation:

FSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 states that components are i

qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and NUREG-0588, Category II and the HCGS EQ program is attempting to upgrade to

3. Significance of Observation:

Without providing firm direction to field personnel, i.e.,

defining the applicable replacement intervals and correct vendor /

part numbers, EQ related maintenance and surveillance may not be

4. Recommendation for resolution (optionaY)": Me N ne page)

a. BPC/PSE&G should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6)

~

v Additional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) l

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance l Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatu es:

Chairman /

Y- ..

1 Mechartical Representative M lectrical Representative

~

I le r% & RLCirgu/ju $ w k b D Structural Representative Control and Instrumen:a:Jen Representative "

JbN 27 '85 0 2 8 4 5 fB Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30

?

Hope Creek Generating Statign - Unit.1 Page 2 of 2

' OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 76 , Rev. 0 , Date6/14/85 4

~

i .

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

NUREG-0588, Category I requirements. NUREG-0588, Catego'ry I, invokes IEEE 323-1974. The subject EQ audit package specifies compliance to IEEE 323-1974 requirements.

Section 6.6 of the IEEE 323-1974 states that a periodic replacement plan shall be instituted to maintain the qualification status of equipment.

Based on review of the Environmental Qualification Maintenance and Surveillance Information Sheet (EQMSIS) which is in response to Section 6.6 of IEEE 323-1974, for Audit Package F37917(Q) (Buchannan Terminal Blocks), there appears to be a lack of direction to plant personnel relative to the following EQ related maintenance activitieC

a. Required parts replacement intervals (necessary to maintain the qualification of the equipment) are not defined, but rather must be determined by field personnel from regression line curves.

Determination of the required replacement interval is contingent upon correct interpretation of the curves. -There appears to be lack of direction to field personnel regarding correct inter- -

pretation of these curves in that:

1. There is more than one regression line per package, there is no direction as to which curve is to be used. #

2. Use of the curve requires determination of temperature, there is no direction as to how this temperature is to be determined or what temperature is to be used (e.g. , minimum, maximum, average, mean).

b. The EOMSIS identifies the manufacturer only, does not identify the model number.or part number. Lack of such information could potentially degrade the maintenance program.

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) adequate. Therefore, the equipment qualification program may be invalidated.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that all EQs for similar

' [ ' equipment have adequately considered the subject IEEE 323 requirements.

\ .

e

JLW 27 '8s 0 2 $.I5 I$ "

Public Service Electric and Gas Cotapany Project No. 20C55-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTIOH/CO_MPLETION _REPor.T OR No. A Rev. A Date j'/p/85

' R/CD No.7 L Rev. L D a t e 6 / 2 7'fi5__-_ __

1. "C1cccificetien of Obeervation (by sal):

Not signigictnt to safety cignificent to e4fety Additionci Iniforection required

2. F.cVieuco propoecd resolutions (Sceattachedsheet) o

~. i.-..r .( r u .: @ d er. c p : :. ht xpcD)??YwdlC'- 'lM/tr E.to_1.1:BM: cup superhcor bcto '

/J..;= h t' J M +ncGikwetkngineer ~ s/u/rs-Dato

4. Public Corvice Electric and Gas company reviews

[*R:1 W. Guh/srs 6/2-7h5 Cnic:. hojecF4ptgncer _

Deto ' >

5. C&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Repo'rt Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

= - Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Finsi classification of observation by Review Committsos Not significant to safety

. significant to safety

7. "Revieu committee signcturecs 9

• ^ ** ;

) * *[* **L-.*, =*** {*. " _ * ' = ******

' h**

o' .

~~

. JJN 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project'No. 10855-613 Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ~

{

RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 76 Rev. O (Continuation sheet) Date 6/14/85 R/CR No.76 Rev. O Date 6/27185

2. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

A. The observation cites a lack of direction to field personnel for main-tenance activities. The EQMSIS for this equipment clearly indicates a 40 year qualified life with no required replacement. The curves supplied with the EQMSIS are mearely backup infomation which indicate the source data used to show the qualified life. Any future use of this infomation would be by the support engineering group.

B.

The observation cites the lack of model number infomation on the EQMSIS.

This infomation will be added to the EQMSIS.

4. RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION:

A. Addressed in'2A above.

B.

PSE&G is cognizant of the requirements of IEEE 323 and is reviewing all EQ packages for inclusion of pertinent documentation.

I t

, - ,~ -

n-

an . . . -

as :s as02 8 4 53 3

- 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. 80 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/13/G

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Expansion anchor plate: Drawing E-1406-0, sheet 3.24.386, 4/2/84 '

Calculation 677-222 (Q) , 'Rev. O, dated 5/2/85 FSAR 3.10.3.2

2. Description of Observations

a. Drawing E-1406-0, sheet 3.24.386, detailing a concrete

. expansion anchor plate for a conduit support appears to have been released without calculations.

3. Significance of Observation:

a.. Since calculations were not prepared prior to the release of the drawing, BPC was not able to demonstrate that this expansion anchor plate met FSAR seismic load requirements prior to drawing release. (continued on next page)

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): "

a. BPC should provide assurance that other expansion anchor plates have-calculations prepared, reviewed and approved prior to release of drawings.

(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 Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required: i Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance)

Provide information requested in Item 4. l l

7. Internal Review Commitee -

Signatures:

tZe '1 Chairman /

l{f

l. <STE4Lh/O .b10mY. $ku M W Mechanical Repre entative ~' Electricjl Representative I\ /7t. llunn /k..&.e,k Y h ,

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticy '

l Representative

n as 8502 8 4 5 3 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.80_, Rev. 0 , Date 6/13/85

2. description of observation: (continuation)

b. Subsequent calculations for this expansion anchor plate have been prepared by BPC dated 5/3/85. These calculations do not address the folAowing issues:

1. The tolerance of locating the attachment to the plate was not considered in the direction parallel to the web of the

~

attachment when checking the adequacy of the concrete expansion anchors.

2. There is no limit on the size of cope allowable in the expansion anchor plate on the drawing.

3. Significance of observation: (continuation)

b. The adequacy of the expansion anchor plate cannot be verified since the drawing does not limit the cope size and the tolerance

. of the attachment location.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (op tional) : (continuation)

b. ,BPC should provide assurance that other drawings for expansion anchor plate details properly limit location tolerances and cope sizes and such Aimits are included in the calculations.

c. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process which would have prevented it, and why the i process did not prevent the observation.

O i

O 1

l l

. f l

\

~

$: N.,4 .-

as .'s 85 0 F 8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Cr tek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3

~

RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 80 Rev. O Date 6/13/85 R/CR No. 80 Rev. O Date of 26 /gr

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to safety X Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

3. Reviewee esolution report by:

/ s<

Discipline Group Supervisor j

Date t/zs/er .

W

% S { / 3 W --

Bechtel Project Engineer Date coItuhs

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company review N # CWSw/m 6/2s/PS' h i* Chief Project Eng W g [/ Date / '

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn. ,

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, i observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide 1 additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee:

. Not significant to safety significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures:

l l

l 1

"M~. . -

.u :s as 026 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Paae 2 of 3 1

~

RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 80 Rev. O Date 6/13/85 (Continuation sheet) R/CR No.80 Rev. O Date 6/ts /n'

~

Response to Description of Observation

a. :The original calculations for the expansion anchor plate shown on sheet 3.24.386 of Drawing E-1406 are sheets 346-350 of calculation 677-3(Q),

which was prepared on 11/6/79. This calculation determines conser- l vative reactions, tension on anchor bolts and shows sizing of base

! plate. The welds were approved by engineering judgement. Calcula-tion 677-222(Q) Rev. O was prepared for documentation purposes and i l confirms the adequacy of the engineering judgement.

b.1 Calculation 677-222(Q), Rev. O, was done using the worst-case as-sumptions based on actual and reasonable field practice. The critical condition for EABs is when the column is as far as possible j

.from the embed. The condition assumed for calculation 677-222(Q), l Rev. O is shown on attached Figure 1. The condition shown in Figure 2 is theoretically possible and has been evaluated in calcu-

!, lation 677-222(Q), Rev. 1, although the condition is highly unlikely.

, Even using the Figure 2 configuration-and other conservative assump- '

tions, the concrete expansion anchors meet design criteria. Calcu-lation 677-222(Q), Rev. 1, will be sent to S&L by 6/27/85.

b.2 The intent of the cope, as stated in Note 1 on sheet 3.24.386, is ,

to allow enough room from the edge of the embed plate to accom- l modate the weld to the EAB plate. The field engineers, who know  :

the intent of the cope, ensure that excessive coping does not occur.

Furthermore, a conservative analysis was performed in calculation ,

677-222(Q), Rev. 1, and shows that with only 4.4" of plate (3.8" l

. of cope on each side) the plate and weld will meet design criteria.

See Figure 3.

Response to Recommendation for Resolution

, a. The adequacy of expansion anchor plates is either specifically

& addressed in the individual support calculations, or is approved

b. by comparison to the existing calculations and by engineering 1 judgement. The expansion anchor plates'are reviewed for the max-

! imum allowable eccentricity stated on the design documents or, if I none is stated, the " worst-case" eccentricity. During the design

, process, the engineers have developed knowledge of the capacities 2

of the expansion anchor plates and use this knowledge to confirm

~

j adequacy of the detail based onfjudgement or comparison.

i Only detail 86 allows coping of the plate and this condition is i addressed-in Calc 677-222(Q), Rev.1.

I i

i

)

4

, , - _ , - - - . . , , - +.,,.-w-,--,--, -nm-~,- --n,,,- --~,-v e, +~ n..,n. ,nvnn~,--~,,--n.--,-- -.nr-- ,,--,,-,,,-n-,,nn,,-

.u ri '85 0 ? 8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Job No.10855-013 j Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 80 Rev. O Date 6/13/85 l (Continuation Sheet) R/CR No.80 Rev. O Date 6/26Jvf

-c. Use of engineering judgement to approve minor variations (such as the cope) to the baseline design is an accepted method in the de-sign process. Therefore, there is no deviation from the design control process. As part of the reassessment program, the adequacy of expansion anchor plates will be addressed for all applicable supports .

e i

r Attachment l

j f

i l

BEC-5/46

??S- ' -

i

~

l

• ATTACHMENT TO R/CR No.80 Rev. O Date C /2 f./s t

=

^

/kh ._'j(Ws '

a :3 8502 8 4 53 3

? ~~

~

- ~ ~ '

(TYR[

n l

c' n "**' l , e E XIS TIM G d l l ') E'MBEO ,

% Eh , l (TYP)

~

s ts i ,

pw == m-n i I

.C 0 , L__ . _ _

o~ x '

i .

D G_ #

/ 13,

~ ~

g g ,, 77YR)

(TYR) i COMFIGURATIOM USED TO EVALUATE EAB'S IN CALC 677-222 (Q') REY. O l

FIGURE 1 t.

j T " l i l l

- l

! l u

0 l COMFIGURATIOM USED TO EVALUATE EAS'S IM CALC 697-222 (Q) REV. I l.

FIGURE 2 9

db w .,_  :

i . h l ,

i t i

. ,i -

e '

. Il 1

____ -_a l l l,

courlGURATIOF) USED TO EVALUATE COPE IM Calc G17-222(Q) REV. I

. FIGURE S

M. _ ._

. - _. L

-2 ._

l m3 8s02 8 4 5 3 3 .

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 l Bope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 1 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 93 , Rev. 0 , Date6/18/85

1. - Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

BPC Calculation C33-20, dated 11/2/83 HPCI Pump Discharge to line anchors Drawing 1-P-BJ-01, Rev. 13

2. Description of Observation:

In Calculation C33-2Q, the computer model of line 003-DBB-14 does not appear to agree with the routing shown on Drawing 1-P-BJ-l (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation

The apparent unreconciled discrepancy may have an effect on the calculated pipe stress and the calculated loads on the discharge

nozzle of HPCI Pump 1 OP 204.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should provide assurance that the discrepancy in the computer model has ben reconciled with the design drawing.

(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 1 1

Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. '

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee' Signatures:

. (2+  %

Chairman s/

Mechdnical Representative Ilectrical Reptesentative f1 %

A t.W Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative

y. . .. . . . .. . . . _ . . . _ . . . _. ... . . .

a:sasijFG4533 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.93 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/18/85 l

l

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) l No

., d 00  ;

3'044y l vy y

. < i g

'os I

\l N Ou fe P ,

schy ', g,

$0Pto4 eso As shown on Drawing As Modeled In the computer analysis, the line is modeled as a span of four  ;

feet in the positive X-direction from node 115 to node 130. l Drawing 1-P-BJ-01 shows a four foot span from node 115 to node 130 in the positive Z-direction.  ;

i

4. Recoranendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) 1

b. BPC should assure that other pipin[ stress analyses have been reconciled with the design drawings' l

e I

r

J3 :3 8s02 8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating. Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 93 Rev. O Date 4 h elsf R/CR No. 93 Rev. O Date klthier -

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety significant to safety X Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed recolution:

See sheet 2

3. Reviewee re olution report by:

hO bdf /2/10 $$/QE5

/Dipipline Group SupeWisor te t bbl/3 & E -- &lwltG

+

Bechtel Project Engineer Date

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company reviews W. T4 Y/M g Chief Project B6gridtfg Date /

A Z skS

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee l Not significant to safety l Significant to safety )

l

7. Review Committee signatures:

J.N :s 8s 07. 5 4 5 3 3 i

4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 93 Rev. O Date 6/is /tf l I

(ContinCation sheet) R/CR No7FT~ Rev. O Date bl261s( i 4.a Calculation C-33-20 mentioned in OR-93, Rev. O, was first per- -

formed by Impell Corporation (formerly EDS Incorporated) under contract with Bechtel Corporation. As required by EDP 4.58, Sec-i tion 3.2(d) titled " Supplier Calculation and Test Results", this calculation was reviewed by Bechtel to:

i I a) assure that work is in compliance with the specification; i b) assumptions and criteria are consistent with the project j criteria; c) to the extent needed, to determine that the calculations are sufficiently comprehensive.

-Since the detailed geometry check of the supplier work is not spe-cifically required by EPP 4.58, the discrepancy in OR-93 was

missed. . Later revision of the same calculation (Rev.20) was

performed by Bechtel to incorporate the spectra changes identified

! by the Civil group. Since this discrepant area was not revised at i that time, no geometry check was performed of this area per our

! procedure. In other words, Rev. 20 was performed to incorporate i only the effects of spectra change on calculation.

i It is our engineering judgement that, since this discrepancy was ,

! locally confined to one area, its effect on the overall calculation I

would be minimal. To confirm the judgement, a study run was made

and will be sent under separate cover by June 28, 1985. The study j run showed the pump nozzle and piping code stress allowables were j not exceeded.  !

4.b The aBR program would have addressed this discrepancy. As is outlined in our ABR program, the as-built condition of the pipe geometry and other parameters such as supports, insulation, valve j weights, etc., will be reviewed against the current calculation

and any such discrepancy will be reconciled either through en-

! gineering judgement or performing revised calculations. Appendix i L of the As-built Reconciliation Procedure provides a checklist 3 for analyst to verify that all such parameters have been reviewed and found acceptable by him.

l i

l l

i l BEC-6/7 i

i

, _ . _ . , __.....__-.._.,.~.._..____m,_ - , , - , _ _ __- ,....____ .. _ _,,, . - _..__ _ .

.u.*

'L'. .

13 :3 '85 0 P 8 4 5 3 3

! Public Service Electric and Gas company Project No. 7212-30 Bope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. JUL,, Rev. 0 , Date6/18/85

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Reactor Building Safety Auxiliary Cooling System, Calculation

. . No. C1750-30, dated 2/13/84.

(continued on next page)

2.' Description of Observation:

1 Section NC-3647 of the 1974 Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section-III, states " Flanged joints shall be analyzed and the stress evaluated using the methods given in Appendix XI . . . ."

(continued on next page)

'3. Significance of observation:

The failure to analyze the moments and stresses at a flanged joint could result in a failure to meet the recommended allow- '

4 ables specified by ASME-III.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a. BPC should perform the flange analyses required by 1 Stress Group Procedures to determine if moments at above flanged joints are acceptable.

! (continued on next page)

5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (See Item 6) v 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 significancc, Provide information requested in Item 4. '

7. Internal Review Commitee I

, Signatures:

( Chairman /'

l 1 - -

Mitbinita'l Repres neative Electrical Representative

1. k n --*$

Structural Representative Cont'rol and Instrumentaticn Representative i

i 1

L.: _ .. ...._. . =-:. _ ....__ . -.--- - - . . . .

M 25 '85 9 E 6 4 5 i

• i Public Servive Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No . 95 , Rev . 0 , Date 6/18/85

1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

Stress Group Procedures for Piping Stress Analysis for the Hope  ;

Creek Generating Station, dated January 1985.  :

Stress Bulletin #13, dated September 10, 1979. I

2. Description of Observations (continuation) ,

i j This requirement is followed by Bechtel document " Stress Group j Procedures for Piping Stress Analysis for the Hope Creek Generating l 4

Station," dated January 1985, Section 8.6 which staths, " Flange  ;

joint evaluation shall be performed to the procedure outlined in

, Stress Bulletin #13 for all nuclear Class 2 and 3 flanged joints."

There appears to be no evidence in Calculation C1750-3Q that flanged joint evaluations were performed for data points 320 and 340 l (valve HV2522D) and 410 and 430 (valve HV2522A). j

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that flanged joints in other piping systems have been analyzed in accordance with Stress Group Procedures and ASME Section III.

c. 'BPC should' identify the procedural process for the initiation and incorporation of all Stress Bulletins applicable to ASME 4

Section III activities.and provide assurance that this procedure j

has been implemented.

i l

e .

I

(

_ - - _ - . _ . . ~

ib; _. . .

1123 8s0284533 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 95 Rev. G Date G h t/ tf R/CR No. 95 Rev. O Date citsist

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to' safety x Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

f Reviewee resolution report by:

3.)N"kO .

0h972 e ub5Eff Dgicipline Group Supervisor pite

/M1/ AN M/S p  :.

P Ke/cB?1-Bechtel Project Engineer Date 6/u,/ v

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company reviews h Chief Y SAe Y m Project Entiffpf/ Date S

/

1 ((

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures:

4

, - - , . - , - ~

, , __. ,_ ,-- --.-, .-----y- ,- m

i Jul T2 '85 0 P,8 4 5 5 5

[

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 i

RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 95 Rev. 0 Date (,lulas

! (Continuation sheet) R/CR No T Rev. O Date doln i

4.a Flange joints are analyzed on Hope Creek Project as required by ASME Section III Code. There are a total of 14 flanges in cal-culation C-1750-30 As is evident from this calculation, 10 flanges were analyzed and 4 flange analyses were inadvertently missed by the analyst. We have performed flange analyses at data j points 320, 340, 410 and 430 and have found them to meet ASME s

Section III Code allowables. A copy of our evaluation will be

! transmitted under separate cover by June 28, 1985 for your review.

^

4.b As is evident from the calculation submitted to S&L within the IDVP j scope, flange joints have been analyzed in accordance.with Stress l Group procedures and ASME Section III requirements. However, if j there are any instances where such analysis may have been inad-i vertently missed, such discrepancies will be picked up during l as-built reconciliation . Appendix L of As-Built Reconciliation

Program, requires the analyst to verify the flanges (Item 4.a of the checklist) have been appropriately analyzed, It should be jl noted here that because of very high allowables of Mfs and Mfp;'

i permitted by the Code, it is our experience that once piping code allowables have been met, the flange joints have no problems meeting the allowables.

4.c Stress bulletins are generated by the Chief Engineer's staff. '

These bulletins ~ provide discussion and guidelines on subjects

, which are generic in nature with the intent of maintaining unifor- l

mity in dealing with those subjects on all Bechtel San Francisco i projects. The bulletin documents subjects ranging from Code interpretations to new employee indoctrination. These bulletins also serve to inform projects which are in design phase of the experiences of the completed or near-completed projects.

I The bulletins are transmitted by the Staff stress group supervisor to the Project stress group leader. As directed in the letter,

, this information is disseminated to all the members of the project j stress group. These bulletins are filed and maintained current by j the stress group on the project. The specific use of'the bulletin l in any calculation -is so noted by the analyst on form P-1306B of j the stress calculation. In addition, where bulletins have been l used as guidelines in generating project stress group procedures, i they have been so noted in appropriate sections of the above

{

procedure. The approver of the calculation verifies the applica-

) bility of the stress group bulletin to any calculation. This pro-i cedure has been implemented throughout the calculations performed on the Hope Creek project.

! BEC-5/49 i

~ ~ ^

w- . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

1a :3 as 9 ? 8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 4 Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 , j BSERVATION REPORT OR No. 97 , Rev. 0 , Date 6/18/85 .

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

a. Piping Analysis Calculation C1547-2(Q), dated 9/24/83.

b. Design Specification 10855-M-707A(Q), Rev. 5, for IlydrodynamiG Accumulators, Seismic Category'I.

(continued on next page) 2.' Description of Observation:

There is an apparent failure to meet a design requirement, in that the calculated piping nozzle reactions at the supply side of the accumulator tank (page 97 of Reference la) exceed the (continued on next page)

3. significance of observation

The accumulators may not be able to accommodate the nozzel reactions generated by the attached piping.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): L

a. BPC should demonstrate that the accumulators can accommodate the calculated nozzle reactions.

(continued on next page) i

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.

i

7. Internal Review Commitee  !

signatures: I

/.

Chair' man j/

Machinifal Rept entative Electrical Representative A , u -w 5tructur'al Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative l

2;.. .. . . . .-.._.a_ . _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . .... .. . . _ . _

.u :s as 0 P 8 4 5 3 3 1 l

! Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 QRSIRYAT1QM_PIPQRT OR No._3.1, Rev. ,1, Date 6/18/85 i 1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (Continuation)

c. Final Stress Report for Hydrodynamic Accumulator Tank 1AT-412 and 1BT-412, dated 9/28/83 (BPC Document No. 10855-C152(O) -

l 2809-3).

2. Description cif observation: (continuation) upset condition allowables defined in the design specification j (Appendix 3 of Reference Ib). The seismic qualification for the

!' accumulators (page A5.2 of Reference Ic) is based on the nozzle J reactions defined in the design specification.

4 The upset condition allowables defined i: 4 the specification ares l

3 Fr + Mr 1 and H f .8(1.2Mr) ,

l 1.2 Fr(max) 1.2 Mr(max)f axial l From piping analysis Calculation C1547-2(Q) the nozzel loads are:

~

Fr =

(2182) 2 + (13848) 2 + (6382)2 = 15403 lb i Mr = (76081) 2 + (3471) 2, g14973) 2 -77618 f t-lb;Maxial=76 0 81f trib ,

! From the Design Specification:

Mr(max) = 70234 ft-lb and Fr(max) = 14668 lbs i Inserting values Fr, Mr, Fr(max) , and Mr(max) shows both Design ,

Specification conditions are violated, i.e.,

O.875 + 0.921 = 1.796 1 and 76081 67425 '

l I 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should identify the design process which ensures that calculated piping reactions do not exceed the allowable

equipment nozzel reactions, or that any overloads are reconciled.

l c. BPC should provide assurance that calculated nozzle loads for l other equipment have been reconciled with the sopropriate j allowables. -

1 1

\ .

i .

' - . - . . - . - - . , . - . - . - . . = .

la 23 'a5 0 ? 8 4 53 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 97 Rev. O Date 6/18/85 R/CR No. 97 Rev. O Date cit 6 fie r

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to safety x Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

3 Reviewee resolution report by:

f D/2fcipline Au"$hE/Rf Group Supervisor 0ws pite 2d/M8

<F4 m/c M -

Bechtel Project Engineer Date c,/z u r

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company reviews

& We WA.e /m Chief Project EnT14'iWW Date /

/ 2-A h S

/

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee:

Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures:

9

Am 2s as 0P 84 53 3 I

Public Service Electric and Gas Campany Project No. 10855-013 i Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 97 Rev. O Date 6/18/85

! (Continuation sheet) R/CR No7 FT Rev. 0 Date 6tt s hts t

l 4.a The reference document listed in OR-97, Section 1.c, was revised on 12/12/83 by Pittsburgh Des Moines (PDM). PDM issued a "Re-

vised Nozzle Load Design Check", Document #10855-C1520-2874-1, that addressed stress calculation 1547-20 leads. (The letter that transmitted these loads to Mechanical group is included as

!. Attachment 2 of 1547-20 Above PDM document will be sent to

} you by June 28, 1985.)

From page N31 of the revised PDM report "The controlling load in the revised nozzle load design check, Section NWZ, causing the overstressing of the shell plate is the faulted moment, Mz. This moment is approx. 2.0 times greater i than Mz in the existing design, stress report, (Section] V-B. To prevent any overstressing, this moment needs to be reduced by 344,

- assuming no other load or moment is changed, in order for exist-

! ing design to be adequate."

Reanalysis.of the faulted condition resulted in revised faultid i

loads sent to PDM on 8/21/84 via letter number BLC-1483. The I normal and upset loads remained unchanged and, as stated above, did not contribute to the overstress condition. PDM's letter CLD-152-3398, dated 12/12/84, advised Bechtel that the new faulted loads are acceptable. Therefore, the accumulators have been verified to take the calculated nozzle reactions. Letters BLC-1483 and CLB-152-3398 will be sent to you by June 28, 1985.

J

! 4.b In the stress analysis of the piping system, the allowable loads j on the equipment are obtained by the analyst from one of the j following sources:

a) letter from vendor; ,

3 b) allowables given directly on the equipment drawing;

c) allowables provided in Bechtel Design / Tech. Specs.

i

The exact source of allowable nozzle loads is identified by the

! stress analyst in his calculation package. If the allowable load, as given, cannot be met, the cognizant engineer in the Mechanical /

Nuclear discipline is contacted (see attachment 2 of stress cal-j ulation 1547-20). The appropriate vendor is contacted and the

overload condition is resolved either through additonal re-analysis j on the part of the vendor or additional supports on the piping system. This resolution is documented through letters and tele-cons or modifcation of the vendor drawing. The procedure for're-solving an overload nozzle condition is discussed in Stress Group

. Procedures for Piping Stress Analysis (See Sec.8.3).

f

, , ,,,,,,-.--,-w----,w n-- - . , , - , , - - -,--,-n-- ,,,-n.mm --. ,,-----.,,,,,,--,,,-,-,w ,,~,,,,,,,-,-,en-,,mr,--,,

JLN 3 db i)? 6 4 0 $ 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Job No. 10855-013 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 l

. RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 97 Rev. O Date 6/18/85 (Continuation sheet) R/CR No.97 Rev. O Date w/ar 4.c The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the procedure outlined in 4.b was followed in resolution of overloaded nozzle connection. This procedure is followed for all other calcula-tions. Therefore, the assurance that calculated nozzle loads for other equipment have been reconciled is not required.

, t.

+

i 1

1 4

BEC-6/6 J l l

.Di 7.3 85 0 ? 8 4 5 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2

. CBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 98 , Rev. 0 ,

Date_6Zl8/8:

I

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HPCI Pump Suction Discharge

a. Support Drawing No. 1-P-BJ-005-H01(Q) , Rev. 2, dated 5/17/84

b. Computer Output No. 67276-0A, dated 10/27/83, for

. Calculation No. C-33-2(Q) (continued on next page)

2. Description of observation:

Support Drawing No. 1-P-BJ-005-H01 (Q) , shows a 3/4" thick, 12" diameter anchor plate welded to a 4" pipe with full penetration weld and to a wall penetration plate with 5/16"

. (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Since the effect of localized stresses due to a pipe integral attachment was not considered, the stress values obtained at

the anchor point (data point 200) cannot be verified to meet ASME-III requirements. .

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional)

a. BPC should evaluate the local stresses, due to pipe integral 2

attachment for the support shown on Drawing H01(Q) for its effect on total pipe stress.

(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 significanco Provide information requested in Item 4.

l

7. Internal Review Commitee j i Signatures  !

Yo o OA -

Chairman sr ,

I a MeqAenEcal Representative' Electrical Representative e

/$6Yfs ^

strdctural Representative A/

Control and Instrumentation i

Representative

.n 3 '85 0 P. 6 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 ,

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 j QBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 3L, Rev. L, Date 6/18/85

l. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation) i

c. ASME Section III - Subsection NF - 1974 Edition

d. ASME Section III - Subsection NC - 1974 Edision

e. '

Calculation No. C33-20 "HPCI Pump Discharge to Line Anchors,"

dated.ll/2/83, Rev'. 2

f. " Technical Specification for Design and Documentation of Pipe Supports in Nuclear Services for Pipe 2 1/2 Inch'es and Larger,"

Specification 10855-P-408 (Q) , Rev. 8, dated 3/1/84.

2. Description of Observations (continuation) all-around fillet weld.

As indicated in Articles NF-1222 and NF-3276.1 of Reference e, the

anchor plate constitutes a pipe integral attachment. Per Article NC-3645 of Reference c and 4.4.6 of Reference f, consideration should be given to the localized stresses induced into the pipe by integral attachments.

There is no evidence that the effect of pipe integral attachment was considered since there are no additional calculations for localized stresses in Calculation No. C-33-2Q.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) ,

b. BPC should assure that other integral attachments have been evaluated per ASME,Section III requirements for local effect on total pipe stress.

)

..g I

I O

I

- -- , - , . - , _ , _ . , - . .m.. - _ . - , . . ~ , _ _ . .. ,, . - _ _ _ . - - - - ,

.. l l

JUN :S '85'M A 4 3 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 98 Rev. O Date j,ht]&f R/CR No. 98 Rev. O Date tis 6tsr

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L): '

Not significant to safety Significant to' safety X Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

~

See Sheet 2.

4 5

ki t

3. Reviewee res lution report by:

Yf hN b$$ Wb $$/VSS '

><'Dy4cipline Group Supervisor (gate .

%/68G Bechtel Project Engineer Date choles

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company review - '

h ChiefW.Project 0<Y F21 G6(iddWt Date 6/2-Sh f

/ '

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion ' Report ,$

Observation invalid and withdrawn. ,

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information). -

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures:

4 i '(

\

i \

\

s.

4: . .- . . . _ ..:. .. . ., .. .

a:s 8s0284533 3

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 i

i RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 98 Rev. O Date 6/hds4 (Continuation sheet). R/CR No7FF" Rev. O Date Ghws( -

i 4.a The effect of localized stresses induced in the pipe by integral t.

attachments -is considered on Hope Creek Project. Appendix L, titled " Welded Pipe Attachment Evaluation Procedure" of Hope a

Creek Stress Group Procedure provides necessary guidance and docu-mentation requirements to the analyst for local stress calculation.

l The documentation requirements vary depending upon the type of <

7 welde'd attachment e.g., rectangular lug attachment, stanchion type i support or anchor, sleeve type anchor, etc. As is recommended in i i Stress Group Bulletin 97 and position adopted by the project in

! Section I of Appendix L, the effect of localized stresses due to

! plate type anchor is accounted for by putting stress intensifica-tion factor (SIF) equal to 2.1 at the anchor point. There is no 1 local stress calculation required for plate type anchor other than i inputting.the above SIF in ME101 input and confirming the resulting l intensified stresses meet the code allowables. In this particular j instance, support drawing No.1-P-BJ-005-H01(Q) is a plate type '

a anchor. Although SIF value of 2.1 was not input in ME101, it is

the judgement of the approver (based on direct multiplica- L i

tion of calculated stress times 2.1) of the calculation that

! because overall stresses in the system are low, there is no prob-4 lem in meeting code allowable stresses taking into account localized

{ stress effect. This is verified in our calculation being trans-

mitted separately by June 28, 1985.

a ,

These calculations clearly demonstrate that ASME Section III code

allowables have been met. Also the maximum stress ratio of 0.47

(calc. stress / allowable stress) is well below the allowable of 1.0.

4.b The effects of integral attachment on the total pipe stresses have

been evaluated on Hope Creek project. As discussed above, Appen-dix L of the Stress Group Procedure has been utilized to provide

! such documentation. Local stress calculations are filed as at-i tachments to the main calculation to provide assurance that during i revision of the main calculation, the local stress calculation i update will not be missed.

! Appendix L of the As-Built Reconciliation Procedure provides the j analyst with checklist item 2(e) to assure that welded attachment calculations have been performed and discrepancies, if any, recon-

! ciled at.that time.

t i

l BEC-5/48 i

1 i

- _ _ , _ , _ _ ______i_--._.__,,-_ . . _ _ - , . _ _ - _ _ _ - . - - - . m-..-.--- --. - -

~ - - - -

e Public Service Electric and Gas Dempany Project No. 7212-30 Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. g , Rev. 1 . Date 6/19/l l h

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Environmental Qualification Summary Report for Hope Creek  ;

Generating Station (EQSR), Rev. 1,Section IV, Page IV-1 and Specification 10855-G-013 (Q), Rev. 03, dated 4/30/81,

2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 state that " components are qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and NUREG 0588, Category II and the HCGS EQ Program is attempting to upgrade to

3. Significance of Observation:

The generic checklist used in the HCGS Environmental Qualificatio Program does standards not323-1974.

of IEEE address the specific requirements of the daughte

4. There(continued is a possibility of overlookinq on next page)

Recommendation for resolution (optional): l BPC/PSE&G should provide documented assurance that the environmental standards of IEEE qualification issues as called out in the daughter 323-1974 are qualification process. factored into the equipment 5.

InternalNotReview Committee significant classification to safety (See Item 6)of Observation:

_ y Additional Potentiallyinformation Significantrequired (See Item 6) to Safety (See Item 8) 6.

Observation or additional information required: Internal Rev Additional information Provide information is required requested in Itemto evaluate

4. safety significance 7.

Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

429 Chairman /

i Mecnanicar Representative'  % L. '

Electrical Representative 8n A Strbeturnl Repres'entative -

b w,,

Control and Instrunt-ntaticn Representative

IN 27 8s02 84 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.1,Q.1, Rev.1, Date_6/19/85

1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved:

(continuation)

General Project Requirements for Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment, Section 6.3.4, pages 14 and 15. .

l

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

NUREG 0588, Category I requirements." NUREG 0588, Category I specifies IEEE 323-1974 Package indicates compliance with IEEErequirements and the subject EQ Audit 323-1974.

Environmental Qualification Summary _ Report for the Hope Creek Generating Station,Section IV,-states that the llCGS Environmental Qualification Program is committed to, but not limited to, conformance with the following IEEE 323 daughter standards:

a.

IEEE 383-1974 " Type Test of Class lE Electric Cables, F'ield Splices and Connections for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" b.

IEEE 382-1980 " Type Test of Class lE Electric Valve Operators" c.

IEEE 627-1980 Nuclear " Design Qualification Power Generating Stations" of Safety Systems used in l d.

ANSI Standard N-278-1 "Self-Operated and Power Operated Safety-Related Valves Functional Specification Standard" l As a result of a review of several EQ packages, it is not apparent how all the complied requirements of the IEEE daughter standards are with.

No checklist exists within the EQ Program or the {

EQ standards, therefore, the requirements of the IEEE daughter reports to address requirements are met. there is no objective evidence that these

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)

I e certain for environmental the daughter standardsqualification issues without unique checklicts of IEEE 323-1974.

i

a a 85 0 P. 8 4 5 4 5 e

Public service Electric and Cao Company Mope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Project I?o. 10C55-0 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 103 pay. 0 Date 6/,19/85 R/CR Ho.1L Rev. C Dcte inus2

1. 'Claccification of observation (by s&L):

Not significant to safety Ty significant to safety Additionc1 Informction required

2. Revievoc propoecd resolutions (See attached sheet)

E i

i

0. Reviewoe resolution report by:

~hh b'act,1 plane frUup bupcrvasor h b Mkr bctc ~'

, hL hr.

- --- s/atkc 4 :. i c : -t yL. 3 v L:.c :.t c.:. .

Lt. ai.

4. Public Service Cloctric and Can Company reviews p.& Jt',

Gm b/m Cnice Project p or ._

bote 6/2 7/W t

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Repo'rt Observation invalid and withdrawn.

~

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide edditional information).

6 Final classification of observation by Review Committees Not significant to safety 1

-~ ] Sign,ificant to safety

7.

• Review Com=ittee signaturcos n

es s tr  ;.'.7= ~.t* *

• n . *: i ~tT*

. - . _ -; ~,_ .__ _"'~7. _n :_ , ,

,9

. JUN 2'? '85 0 2 8 4 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas company Project No. 10855-613 Bope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 '

RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. y Rev.

(Continuation sheet) Date 6/14/AR-R/CR No. E Rev.A L Date 6/77/Rs

2. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

The observation cites a lack of specific direction to reviewers of EQ documents regarding compliance with daughter standards of IEEE-323 and the lack of obdective evidence to ascerttain that such standards were met.

PSE&G review practices are geared to the use of checklists which meet the requirements of IEEE-323 and not daughter standards. Compliance with daughter standards, which generally amplify IEEE-323 or provide guidance, is considered during the review of documents provided by vendors to show compliance with BPC specifications. The required degree of compliance with these standards is evaluated by the PSE&G engineers in conjunction with any necessary support from 'BPC engineers. Judgments made in this process are documented by letter or telecon and are kept in a file of supporting infomation for each purchase order.

4. REC 0tHENDATION FOR RESOLUTION:

Requirements and guidance contained in IEEE daughter standards are evalu-ated as discussed in 2 abcve.

k O

e 4

.L'N 7 '85 0 F 8 4 5 A 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Bope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 102, Rev. 0__,

Date_6/19/0

\

Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

HCGS FSAR, Amendment 7, dated 8/84, Figure 3.11-4, Environmental Design Criteria for the Hope Creek Generating Station, Document 10855-D7.5, Rev. 02, dated 10/29/84, and Technical Specification

2. 10855-E-129 (O) , 5kV Power Cable, Rev. 05, dated 6/8/82.

Description of Observation:

FSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 state that " components are qualified to the requirements of IEEE 323-1971 and NUREG 0588, Category II and the HCGS EQ Program in attempting to upgrade to

3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page)

Because the subject Technical Specification did not specify the rise time for the transient period of the LOCA temperature profil'e, compliance of the actual rise times cannot be verified

4. to meet NUREG 0588, Category I requirements.

Recommendation ~for resolution (optional):

a.

BPC/PSE&G should provide specific information as to how the observation be revised? has or will be corrected. Will the specification (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:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance Provide information requested in Item 4.

4

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -

ele N Chairman /

[d,t; ; W  ?

i

/

Mechanical Representative ~

~ Cm i'?

E cet'iical RepresentatiiTe

/

/

n h

/\

//  %

i Structural Representative _

,s g me ,

Control and Instru.T.cntation j Representative t

[

1

JUN 27 '8502 8 4 5 4 5 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No..l.Q2, Rev. L, Date 6/19/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

NUREG 0588, Category I requirements." NUREG 0588, Category I specifies IEEE 323-1974 requirements and the subject EQ Audit Package indicates compliance with IEEE 323-1974.

NUREG 0588, Category I, Section 1.1, Part 3 and Appendix C,

• requires all equipment in harsh environment to perform their intended safety function when subjected to the rise time during the transient period of the DBE profile. There is an apparent failure to meet this requirement in that the Technical Specification 10 85 5-E-129 (O) , Appendix A, page A-1, does not specify the rise time during the initial transient of LOCA temperature profile.

FSAR Figure 3.11-4 and Specification D7.5, Figure 2, also do not show the rise time during the transient period of the DBE.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) b.

BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that components covered by the subject specification have been qualified for the rise time during the DBE transient.

c.

BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that similar components have been qualified, the transient DBE. as appropriate, for the rise time during e

0 m

l

• ,E JUN 27 8s02 8 4 5Ig 5 ur-Public Service 81ectric and Gas Company Project No. 10f55-0{

Nope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION /C0_MPLETION_ REPORT OR No. E Rev. Dete 6fl9/85 R/CR No.1L Rev.o _LDcte L7D/e5 i

1. "Clacsification of observation (by ssL):

Not significant to safety Gignificant to safety 1 x Ad(.itionc1 Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolutions (Seeattachedsheet)

3. Reviewce resolution report bys

)

pyl knM~Ar du/x- \

Ficcipla.no kaup Supervisor Date -!

- Aw Ar gechtcllfojectEngineer

~

duhr -

J Date 4.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company reviews ppo 4 ' G Y l. M f s/z7//S Ciss_e l'cojecsPpneor

' ~

octo ' ~

, 5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Repo'rt: '

~ ~

observation invalid and withdrawn.

~

Proposed resolution / future action acceptabic, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide

- additional information).

{ 6 Final classification of observation by Review Committeca E

Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7.

• Review Coenittee signatures

' ' I I "- l

• 4=

• g, , , * ,.* .p** g. ***? _.y,

• o *

. EN N '8502 8 4 5 4 5 1

i Public service Electric and Cas Company Project No. 10855-613 Bope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2

• RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 102 Rev. O (Continuation sheet) Date 6/19/85 R/CR No W Rev. T Date 6/27/85 1

2. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

The observation cites an apparent deficiency in the testing of 5KY cables in that rise time for the DBE temperature transient was not specified. The conditions for qualification as discussed with S&L. perso documented in TSB-169 (first item on page 3). The qualification report for this equipment provides a specific comparison of the test profile vs. the Hope testing.Creek specific profile and shows that rise time was factored into the 4.

RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION:

A.

Specific information is provided in 2 above.

specification DITS 7.5. There is no need to revise B.

The cables are temperature risequalified time. in a manner which includes the effects of C.

Similar requirements are imposed on all vendors.

O*

9 l

l

. t.

Ik 57 8s02 8 4 54 5 L

Public Service Electric and Gas' Company Project No. 7212-30 Rope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3

-OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 3, Rev. L Date_6/19/8 8 1. - Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Environmental Qualification Audit Package for Buchannan Terminal Blocks,No.

Sheet F37917 (Q) , which contains F37917-TFB-001, Rev. O,Equipment Evaluation Summary dated 4/9/85.

2. Description of Observation:

FSAR Sections 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.3 state that the HCGS Environmental Qualification Program is committed to NUREG 0588, Category II requirements, but is attempting to upgrade to

3. Significance of Observation:

It is not possible to arrive at a conclusive statement ::egarding the qualification status of Buchannan Terminal Blocks per IEEE 323-1974.

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a.

BPC/PSE&G should provide. specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected.

(continued on page 3) 5.

InternalNot Review Committee significant classification to safety (See Item of6)

Observation:

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 Provide information is required requested in Item to evaluate

4. safety significance

7. Internal Review Cormitee Signatures: -

/ . . tby E Chairman /

I - -i f -

?

~

i Mectranical Representative N %_

Electrical Re resentative b '

A a :r i

Structural Representative _

Control and Instru:ae..tation Representative

IN 27 '850 7 8 4 5 4 5 e

Public Service Electrip and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30

Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.104, Rev. _jl, Date 6/19/85 .

1. Structure (s) , system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)

EQMSIS Sheet, Rev. O, dated 4/22/85, Equipment Environmental ~

Qualification Review Checklist and Environmental Design Criteria D7.5, Rev. 02.

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

NUREG 0588, Category I requirements." NUREG 0588, Category I invokes IEEE 323-1974. The subject EQ Audit Package indicates compliance with IEEE 323-1974.' The subject Environmental Qualification Report is deficient with respect to the requirements of IEEE 323-1974 for the following reasons:

a.

Information contained in the Equipment Evaluation Summary Sheet (EESS) is not consistent with data defined in DIT 7.5 and does not meet the intent of IEEE 323-1974.

1. IEEE 323-1974, Section 6.3.1.5, paragraph 6, states that the qualification test shall include a +10% margin over the period of time the equipment is required to be operational following the design basis event (DBE). The qualified duration of 102 days as stated in the EESS does not meet this requirement of IEEE 323-1974 which would dictate a 100 x 1.1 = 110 day duration.

2.

Per the EESS, the Buchannan Terminal Blocks can be used anywhere in the reactor building, except the torus area.

The identified environmental- temperature and pressure used for qualification are not consistent with the required enveloped reactor building environmental conditions defined in DITS 7.5.

b.

Information contained in the Equipment Environmental Qualificatio Review Checklist is not consistent with data defined in EESS and the stated references are not traceable (i.e., see Equipment F Qualification Review Checklist and Franklin Research Center Qualification Test of Terminal and Fuse Blocks, Report No.

F-C5143, dated July 17, 1980).

1.

t Section 3.1.2 of the Review Checklis't addresses two types of terminal blocks, while the EESS only defines one type of terminal block.

l

2. Section 3.1.3 of the Review Checklist defines qualified life of the terminal blocks as 126 years at 500C, while the qualified life stated in the EESS is 40 years at 503 C.

i

. .. . . w cs , ,w IN 27 '8502 8 4 5 45

^

c Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating 3tation - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.104, Rev. _0 , Date_6/19/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation)

There is no evidence that the installed equipment is equivalent _

.to that being qualified.

i Specification F-37917 (Q) does not define the model of Buchannan terninal blocks being purchased. There is no certificate Audit Package ofdefining conformance what he(Csupplied.

of C) from the vendor in the EQ

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) b.

BPC/PSE&G should provide assurance that all equipment qualifications for similar equipment have adequately considered the subject IEEE 323-1974 requirements.

?

4 4

l t

' O .= s;;

M 27'850gg4 Public Servios Electrie and Cao Company Project No. 10055-01.

sope creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 .

ILE80LUT20N/ COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 24 Rev. Date6/19/85 R/CR Ho.104 Rev.o L catc67 Hrs

1. 'Claseificction of observation (by s&L):

~ Not significant to safety 1y Sicnificant to safety ACditional Information required  !

3. Reviewoc proposed recolutions I (Seeattachedsheet) l l

. he'.'; n. e t. retolution report b;

f*dt} .

__ b M K N WL DReipa,inc croup suparvisor SlMlir Date '

hM necm48r%n _Ecs Lngineer A:A YMlTr -~ ~~"

^

DLuc t i

4. Public service Electric and Gas company review:

\

f ' LTR;t . -_Projc~ci fGo& /M .

snemrce -

db7hf  ;

5.

_Deze I

S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Repo'rt

~-

Observation invalid and wlthdrawn.

~ _

_ proposed resolution / future action acceptabic, observation elesed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provido additional information).

6 Final classification of observation by Review Committeo Not significant to safety i

Significant to safety

7.

• Review Coomittee signatures:

i .

~: ::u -

s

s.,

. :.~p- ~.-~~~,, .n.

l

. o

• rg :7 8502 6 4 5 4 5 '

l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-613 Bope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 '

l RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. y Rev. n Da te 6n o /nc; (Continuation sheet) R/CR No.104 Rev. O }

De to 6/2'l/85]

2. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

A.

The observation cites deficiencies in operating time margin and incon-sistancy between qualification parameters and conditions at the locations of the teminal blocks. PSE&G has performed supplementary calculations which demonstrate the time and temperature margins available from the qualification testing. The EESS has also been revised to clarify the applicability of the qualification for the locations of the teminal blocks.

These documents are attached for reference.

B.

The observation cites inconsistency between the EESS and the review check-list with respect to temina'l block type and qualified life. It also states thatqualified.

equipment there is no traceability of the Hope Creek equipment to the correct the identified PSE&G has reviewed and revised the checklist to deficiencies.

Creek equipment is provided in BPC document E-1408. Assurance of traceability That document allows procurement of only the qualified teminal block models.

4.

RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION:

A.

The infomation provided in 2A & 28 discusses actions taken by PSE&G.

B.

PSE8G/BPC are reviewing all EQ packages to ensure the suitability of documentation.

4 e*

e

l 1

l j

i amour ===w ,

888E GMt tm.surtsc surscus 08C81415144 TEmilAAl. 8 FW5E SLOCg Spr gas g.]yg.g3 F ~

8er.ene z

. s. ,,, swssuneest ' .

n,

' 2_ .A lensen c z a r. m - .

cin. ,. cn.

ggggggg in. .a

=== m u r. i=.

.) , .$ = de ,s A. 42 El

=.4 *e ge,;

Test and None d e. 4 i in == - i , sis 7 ear pur test es.

n/A v  : ci page feygiae. .

,, .. t

,.. te ed i , = ,. n puumugg ,,,,e y -

(3)AIIsN TEMillAL FW5E BLOCK (fee (.)

J. M8 bas) 113 peat Note #1 * ~

N' e, Pg.5-14 .-g ,

lic None gap s.,gysegus,n amJeswa 888-63*88-guClemanRN essgest ,(g3 Ime.e Steen ss -

95 .B. P . 5- 15 5.1$

• FldMB00EV Sene Not reg'd 155

== =. = Wnr sess.so II 104 FWDEIB N/A N/A g/A N/A g

E I #3 g s, ....,,,e

i. ic. .

, _=

t. ,,

e .

e5.5 N/A sene set reg'd vest - ,t i

g cp ape'In.

gg, se yrs y ~ ge yrs y 122*F

n. Tvsas Pg.15 ans i . nr...

g c este #5 Analysts

{ It) acusans. _

asse set reg'd @

(ep m EACTW WWW N/A N/A N co BLSE. NOTE #4 N/A N/A N/A til Assu. fla . Em e.

1 Rome liet reg'd tus I us _ SDOS.I.ur5EBfI.rW W G

4. SIT 5 *="'-57. 5. Rev.2 ICIES _

u ,

g,ggg , B. FaC Report F-C5143 St. 7/17/88 1. For Temp. and F E ss'. Prettle see net.e. Ps.5-14. "

l was_J mr. L se (F 3M141-lO

2. The $saltfled Red'letten Bose secessnesses spectfled 8 and B Beses i C. FIIC Project C5143 St. 6/27/79 .

,,,,,,,,,_,,,,. t' 'a"a+ >" 3. Provides comasell88 fee safety related egefpaset. Category Fa.

1 me. B.18055-07.5. Rev.2. Tal>1e 6. 4. 5.e No C.,. rlass

. it,Termina,,l e., ses is located la he.4182 (Terws Area) sox t 8.' Dee.ne.FS1987-Anani-ses steis~e oja4/N1 E. m.t.c, A 5, AG med A'ew-,y.e m ,_ %

c - e-, g ' +

I

! u.w.ne F sis >si-Annor-een Jeer.etstages) g,I*3g % y.,9* y $. 25

r. seentel name et. 3/2s/s5. .

C. F.e Sr==if =al T*+ **J TT**e % .ta f see,

____ - -- -~ _- - ~~~~ _ .___ __- leef. A. Q. 42f070_ =

IW 27 '85 02 8 4 5 4 5 D

TIME MARGIN f/_ . May 24, 1985 Nc+14.4 24 Doc. No. F37917-ARRH-001. Rev. O ARRBENIUS RELATIONSBIP POR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE FOR l

BUCHANAN TERMINAL BLOCK 1 l

INCLUDED IN FRANKLIN REPORT NO. F-C5143 l l

1 Prepared For Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 l

I Prepared By PROTO-PONER CORPORATION 591 Poquonnock Road Groton, Connecticut 06340 (203) 446-9725

JUN 27 '850 2 8 4 5 4 5 Pcge i N y 24, 1985 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR THE LIFE' EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP METHODOLOGY 1 3.0 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP. COMPUTER PROGRAM 1 3.1 Description 1 3.2 Operation 2 4.0 EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE TO 100 DAYS APPENDIX A - Sample Output APPENDIX B - References l

Ed d7Page '8502 T 84545 Mcy 24, 1985 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSRIP

' POR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document outlines the extrapolation of DBE test data for Buchanan Terminal Blockswith the use of the Arrhenius Relationship for Life Expectancy Cor.puter Program ( ARRHEN) .

This computer program was developed by Proto-Power Corpora-tion'for use in the determination of the expected life of  !

equipment subjected to thermal aging conditions. Details of the Buchanan Terminal Blocks expected life qualification are  ;

provided in Section 4.0.

2.0 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSEIP METHODOLOGY i

The accepted model for accelerated thermal aging testing is

the Arrhenius Relationship.

Typically, the Arrhenius-type formulation for relating life-

! times at two temperatures is written as:

L 2 = eXp i . (Tt - T9)

Li k TT2I where i e

T1 = Test temperature, degrees K

[ T2 = Service temperature, degrees K l L1 = Test time at temperature T 1 L2 = Expected Life at temperature T2 l

7 = Activation energy, eV l k = Boltzmann's constant l

(0.8617 x 10-4 eV per degree K)

The units for L1 and L2 are consistent,in hours, days, years, etc.

3.0 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSHIP COMPUTER PROGRAN 3.1 Description The program ( ARRHEN) calculates the life expectancy of equipment based on Arrhenius Relationship described in i

Section 2.0.

l From Reference 1 and 2, the source listing of the pro-gram, the base equation for calculating the expected i

life of equipment using the Arrhenius Relationship is:

EXPECTEDLIFEl = (E# ((ENERGY / BOLTZMANN #)*

j ((TEMP 1-TEMP 2)/(TEMPl* TEMP 2))))

• TIME 1 where E = 2.718282

-,- . - - -- , - - - _ _ _ . - _ - - _ _ , . - ~ - - . - - _ . . - ._

JLM 27 '850 P 8 4 5 4 5 Pcga 2 l May 24, 1985 l

ARRRENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE This equation is a direct translation of the Arrhenius Relationship explained in Section 2.0.

A conversion factor of 8766 hours0.101 days <br />2.435 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00334 months <br /> per year is used to convert the units of the expected life from hours to years. This factor is calculated as follows:

365.25 day X 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> = 8766 hour0.101 days <br />2.435 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00334 months <br /> year day year The 365.25 day / year factor is equivalent to an average year.

3.2 Operation The Arrhenius Relationship program ( ARRHEN) is main-tained on and accessed via the Proto-Fower Corporation in-house personal computers. Authorized users may ac-cess the program for the purpose of evaluating the life expectancy of equipment subject to thermal aging.

4 Access to the ARRHEN program is available through the Proto-Power Corporation working disk files.

A sample of the output is illustrated in Appendix A.

4.0 EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE TO 100 DAYS Based upon test data supplied by the manufacturer, Reference 3, Figure 11, thg equipmept was subjected to temperatures ranging from 212 F to 346 F for 7 days. An activation ener-gy of 0.637 is obtained from Reference 3, Page A-6A. This report shows how the test egndition is equivalent to 300 F for 30 min, followed by 148 F for 100 days plus 10% time margin.

In grder to simplify calculations, Figure 11 is rgduced to 346 F for one hour (ollowed by two curves of 265 F for 95 hours0.0011 days <br />0.0264 hours <br />1.570767e-4 weeks <br />3.61475e-5 months <br /> followed by 212 F for 72 days. The equivalent life for these two curves is shown as follows:

Test Temp Service Temp Test Bours eV Equivalent Life 265 F 148'F 95 0.637 0.3729 212 148 72 0.637 0.0663 0.3729 + 0.0663 = 0.4392/ Years 0.4392 X 365.25 days = 160.4 days yr This is much greater than the 10% time margin required.

^ ~ ^

u n r ob uj y g g y ,3 5 M y 24, 1985 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP POR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE i

l 1 s.*

APPENDIX A - Sample Output

)

a 9

- _ - - .___ __, . - . __,.m, -.__-_

JUN 27 8s02 8 4 5 4 5 ARRHEN3 US RELATIONSHIP FOR L IFE EV8'ECTANCY COMPUTEP (ARRHEN) PROGRAM TEST TEMPERATUPE (T1) = 265 DEG. f SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 148 DEG. f -

TEST TIME (L1) = 95 HOURS ACTIVATION ENERGY (THETA) = .637 EV EXPECTED LIFE (L 2) AT TEMPER 4TURE 148 DEG. f = .

(1. 3709 YEAPS ADPHENIUS REL AT IONWIP FOR L IFE EY' 7CTANCY COMPUTER PROG TEST TEMPERATUPE (T1) = 212 DEG. f SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 148 DEG. f TEST TIME, (L1 ) = 72 HOURS

' ACTIVATION EtJEPP/ (THETA) = .67' EV EXPECTED LIFE (L2) AT TEMPERATUPE 148 DEG. f= 0.0665 YEARS J O n

...n.--, e

e? -'. ww w % Mg ANM;y 2724,.1

'85 085 4P. o *$4 5 i

ARRBENIUS RELATIONSBIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE

)

1 APPENDIX B - REFERENCES Y

I se 4

y 27 '850 7 6 4 5 a 5 1

,' n y 24, isas ARRBE2IUS RELATIONS 2IP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE

1. Arrhenius Relationship for Life Expectancy Computer Program (ARRHEN) Documentation, Version 1.0., June 1984, Proto-Power Corporation.

2. Arrhenius Relationship for Life Expectancy Computer Program (ARRHEN) Documentation, Version 2.0, August 1984, Proto-Power Corporation.

3. Franklin Report No. C5143.

. dPR 59'/y JUN 27 '85 0 P. 8 4 5 4'S

[84 Mca, y TEMPERATURE MARGIN Prv 24 1985 Doc. No. F37917-AR,RH-002. Rev. O i l

ARRBENIUS RELATIONSHIP l FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE FOR 1

BUCBANAN TERMINAL BLOCK INCLUDED IN FRANKLIN REPORT NO. F-C5143 i

i Prepared For l Public Service Electric & Gas Company l 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 i

1 i

I Prepared By l PROTO-POWER CORPORATION l 591 Poquonnock Road Groton, Connecticut 06340 (203) 446-9725

. JL'N E7150 2 8 4 5 4 5 Pcgs i N0y 24, 1985 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSHIP

• FOR THE LIFE EXPECTANCY i EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP METHODOLOGY 1 3.0 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP COMPUTER PROGRAM 1 3.1 Description 1 3.2 Operation 2 4.0 EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE TO 100 DAYS APPENDIX A - Sample Output APPENDIX B - References O

JUN

'85 Q h 8 4 5 $

Pcge 1 Mcy 24, 1985 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPEC'TANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document outlines the extrapolation of DBE test data for Buchanan Terminal Blocks with the use of the Arrhenius Relationship for Life Expectancy Computer Program (ARRHEN).

This computer program was developed by Proto-Power Corpora-tion for use in the determination of the expected life of equipment subjected to thermal aging conditions. Details of the Buchanan Terminal Blocks expected life qualification are provided in Section 4.0.

2.0 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSHIP METHODOLOGY The accepted model for accelerated thermal aging testing is 4

the Arrhenius Relationship.

Typically, the Arrhenius-type formulation for relating life-times at two temperatures is written as:

L2 = exp , (T1 - T9)

L1 TT12 where T1 = Test temperature, degrees K T2 = Service temperature, degrees K L1 = Test time at temperature T 1 L2 = Expected Life at temperature T2 9 = Activation energy, eV k = Boltzmann's constant (0.8617 x 10-4 eV per degree K)

The units for L1 and L2 are consistent,in hours, days, years, etc.

3.0 ARRBENIUS RELATIONSHIP COMPUTER PROGRAM 3.1 Description The program ( ARRBEN) calculates the life expectancy of equipment based on Arrhenius Relationship described in Section 2.0.

From gram, Reference 1 and 2, the source listing of the pro-the base equation for calculating the expected life of equipment using the Arrhenius Relationship is:

EXPECTEDLIFE8 = (Ef ((ENERGY /BOLTZMANNf)*

((Tg g gEMP2)/(TEMPl* TEMP 2))))

where E = 2.718282

IN 27 '8s 0 P28 4 5 J S Pcge May 24, 1985 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE This equation is a direct translation of the Arrhenius Relationship explained in Section 2.0.

A conversion f actor of 8766 hours0.101 days <br />2.435 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00334 months <br /> per year is used to convert the units of the expected life from hours to years.

This factor is calculated as follows:

365.25 day X 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> = 8766 hour0.101 days <br />2.435 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00334 months <br /> year day year The year.365.25 day / year factor is equivalent to an average 3.2 Operation The Arrhenius Relationship program (ARRHON) is main-tained on and accessed via the Proto-Power Corporation in-house personal computers. Authorized users may ac-cess the program for the purpose of evaluating the life 1

expectancy of equipment subject to thermal aging.

Access Proto-Power to theCorporation ARRHEN program is available through the working disk files.

A sample of the output is illustrated in Appendix A.

4.0 EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE TO 100 DAYS Based upon test data supplied by the manufacturer, Reference 3, the equipmgnt was subjected to temperatures ranging from 212 F to 346 F for 7 days (Figure 11). An activation ener-gy of 0.637 is obtained from Page A-6A of Reference 3.

This report shoys how the test condition is equivalent go 100 day,s at 300 F plus margin for 30 min. followed by 148 F plus 15 F margin for the balance of 100 days.

In grder 346 F to simplify calculations, Figure 11 is reduced to for one hour followed by five curves and the equiva-lent life for each curve is calculated as follows:

Test Temp Service Temp Test Bours eV Equivalent Life 346 F 163 F 5 0.637 335 163 .0734 315 3 0.637 .0350 163 4 0.637 265 163 .0303 212 81 0.637 .1875 163 72 0.637 .0391

.3653 Years

.3653 X 365.25 days = 133.4 days yr

- . . .. .. . .s. .nn a... .....a-.-...

JtiN 27 '8502 3 4 5 4 5 M2y 24, 1985 ARRRENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR I

LIFE EXPECTANCY '

EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE i

i

.i 4

APPENDIX A - Sample Output J

l 4

r ... . ~ , -- , - , - . - - - - , - - - - - - - - .

IN 27 850 ? 8 4 5 4 5 ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY COMPUTER PROGRAM (ARRHEN)

TEST TEMPERATURE (T1) = 346 DEG. f SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 163 DEG. f TEST TIME (L1) = 5 HOURS l !

ACTIVATION ENERGY (THET A) = .637 EV EXPECTED LIFE (L2) AT TEMPERATURE 163 DEG. f = 0.0734 YEARS ,

ARRHENIUS RELATIDMSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY COMPUTER PROGRAM (ARRHEN)

TEST TEMPERATURE (T1) = 335 DEG. f

. SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 163 DEG. f TEST TIME (L1) = 3 HOURS

. e ACTIVATION ENERGY (THETA) = .637 EV EXPECTED LIFE (L2) AT TEMPERATURE 163 DEG. f= 0.0350 YEARS ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY COMPUTER PROGRAM (ARRHEN)

TEST TEMPERATURE (T1) = 315 DEG. f SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 163 DEG. f TEST TIME (L1) = 4 HOURS ACTIVATION ENERGY (THETA) = .637 EV EXPECTED LIFE (L2} AT TEMPERATURE 163 DEG. f= 0.0303 YEARS 1

ARRHENIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY COMPUTER PROGRAM (ARRHEN) l

- 1

---

-.---.. l l

TEST TEMPERATURE (TI) = 265 DEG. f

. SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 163 DEG. f TEST TIME (L1) = B1 HOURS ACTIVATION ENERGY (THETA) = .637 EV EXPECTED LIFE (L2) AT TEMPERATURE 163 DEG. f= 0.1875 YEARS I

' JtM 27 '85 0 2 8 4 0 4 5

. ARRHENIUS RELAT'7,4SHIF FOR LIFE EXPECTAtCY 7Mr UTER PRD:. RAM (.' ~.F.! !EN)

TEST TEMPERATURE (T1) = 212 DEG. f SERVICE TEMPERATURE (T2) = 163 DEG. f

- TEST TIME ~(L3) = 72 HOURS e

ACTIVATION ENERGY (THETA) = .637 EV EXPECTED LIFE (L2) AT TEMPERATURE 163 DEG. f= 0.0391 YEARS 4

e 9

e e

4 e

IN 27 '85 0 P 8 4 5 4 5 M:y 24, 1985 ARRBENIUS REIATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTAMCY EXTRAPOIATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE i

l l

APPENDIX B - REFERENCES i

l e*

AM2/Obu40404U

• ' Ccy 24, 1985 ARRBEHIUS RELATIONSHIP FOR LIFE EXPECTANCY EXTRAPOLATION OF DBE TEST PROFILE

_____________________________________b__________________________ . ,

1.

Arrhenius Relationship for Life Expectancy 1.0.,

ComputerJune II Program (ARRHEN) Documentation, Version 1984, Proto-Power Corporation. '

2.

Arrhenius Relationship for Life Expectancy Computer l Program (ARRHEN) Documentation, version 2.0, August 1984, Proto-Power Corporation.

3. Franklin Report No. C5143.

O

-~ ~ , - ,-

, n n

1;.i

• xx s850284533 s

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 b8SERVATIONREPORT OR No. 109, Rev. 0 , Date 6/19/85

\

1 \

\

1. (s) No.system s ,, orRev.

comunent(s) involved:

Structure FD-1((Q)) Z, "HPCI Steam Supply Venturi Calculation Flow Limiter and Steam Supply Line Size"

2. Description of Observation:

Figure 6.3-3 of the FSAR commits to a maximum pressure drop of 15 psi between the reactor and the HPCI turbine. However, Calculation No. FD-1(Q) may not have conservatively calculated (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

Because as-purchased pressure drop data was not used there is a potential that the FSAR commitment may not be met.

t

4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):

a.. BPC should provide information on how the observation has or will be corrected.

(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 evaluate safety significance:

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

Chairma <

A. 2 a<,

j/

~

/Sc )

Mechanical Repre entative -

L*suua> 61DYib#!Ok.'

Electrical / Representative l

ff ~

Structural Representative

.  % ~

/f h res Control and Instrumentation l

Representative i

j

~ ~

L- -

-.. . . . . .. . ... 1 r<:38s0764533 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of ,2 0$SERVATION REPORT OR No.109, Rev. O , Date6/19/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) this pressure drop for the following reasons:

a. The pressure drops for the as-purchased valves (NVF001, HVF002 and HVF003) were not used even though the flow coefficients are shown in the calculation. The pressure drop for the as-

. purchased flow limiters was not used.

b. The pressure drop across the venturi flow limiter was assumed j to be 10% of the maximum differential pressure drop.

The maximum calculated pressure drop per FD-1(Q) is 14.72 psi based on the conditions in Mode B of Figure 6.3-3 of the FSAR. The maximum pressure drop of 15 psi may be exceeded if the actual pressure drops from the as-purchased valves and venturi flow limiter are used.

I

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide assurance that as-purchased pressure drop data has been considered and incorporated where pressure drop parameters are critical to meeting system design requirements.

l l

e

__ _ _. . ~ . . _ . . . __ . . . __ _ . . _ . . . __ _

A.l.. v. ~ . * . 4. .. . .

1 M :s 8502 8 4 5 3 3 l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Crcek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 109 Rev. O Date 6/19/85 R/CR No. 109 Rev. O Date i.f is t f r

1. Classification of observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to safety x Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

3. Reviewee resolution report by:

&k se L:<,.A & I M Discipline Group Sdpervisor C ft ' l2T Date '

%sMk _

Bechtel Project Engineer Date 6huler

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company review:

SU W' $6 M /l24lff Chief Project Encft2ftQ Date / '

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee:

Not significant to safety Significant to safety

^

7. Review Committee signatures:

l AN 23 '850 2 8 4 5 3 3

. Public Service Electric and Gas -Company Project No. 10855-013 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 .

1 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 109 Rev. O Date 6/19/85 (Continuation Sheet) R/CR No.109 Rev. O Date 4f363u(

l Response to Recommendation for Resolution l

, 4.a Calculation FD-1(Q), Rev. 2, is considered conservative, with a l correct result showing that the maximum calculated pressure drop i does not exceed the 15 paid maximum permitted pressure drop re-i quired by GE, and the venturi will limit flow to 425 lbs/sec. in 4

the event of a pipe break outside containment, as committed to in the PSAR.

Calculation FD-1(Q), Rev. 2, considered the as-built condition and revised references. When this revision was made, a different but internally consistent set of L/D values was used. The L/D

! values used in each revision are technically acceptable. Table 1, i attached to this response, provides a summary example of the L/D

! values used for fittings in each revision. It can be seen that although the gate valve L/D values used in revision 2 (taken from Cameron Hydraulic Data, 15th Edition, which is based on Crane .

Technical Paper No.410) are less conservative than the revision 1 values calculated from the manufacturer's Cy, all other values are i more conservative. The total L/D used in revision 2 is more con-servative than the total from revision 1.

The pressure drop across the venturi used in the head loss cal-

, culation has bee'n confirmed on vendor drawing 10855-J425-2-10,

! and is shown on the drawing as the maximum unrecovered head loss

! at design conditions f 1.12 psid (not to be confused with the pressure drop seen at the venturi pressure taps, which is con-siderably higher).

4.b The calculation results are conservative and meet design require-ments. As a clarification and to avoid future confusion, the por-tion of Calc. FD-1 which refers to gate valve L/D values based on vendor Cy will be deleted by July 12, 1985.

1 As described in 4.a above, the analyst chose an alternate method of calculating L/D values for the entire piping run in revision 2 i of this calculation. This method resulted in more conservative.

results and is considered an acceptable method for calculating

, piping system pressure drops, instead of~using the as-purchased i pressure. drop values. The approach used on all pipe-system pres-i sure ' drop calculations is to use conservative, yet realistic L/D

values to provide assurance that system pressure and flow require-i ments are met.

t BEC-6/ll 1

j

,g , , ,;- ,- .

e Attachment 1 to OR-109 Response Calc. FD-1, Rev.1 Calc. FD-1, Rev.2 Page 12/30 Page 12/30 L/D L/D Gate Valve 2 x 25 = 50 2x 8= 16

60' EL 1 x 13 = 13 1 x 25 = 25 ,

90' EL 4 x 15 = 60 4 x 30 = 120 Total 123 161 i

4 I

i i

i I

l 8

t i

4--- -----.,,--mr--e .www- ,--~.- - . - - - - e,w ----, w-,e,---,-ee--,------o,+

e... . . . ,

i -

al N '8502 8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30

j. Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 f CBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 108, Rev. 0 , Date 6/19/85

,- 1. structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Safety-Related Systems, Structures and Components Design Criteria 10855-D7.9, Rev. 2 i

\

2. Description of Observation-i Design Criteria 10855-D7.9 Section 2 states: " establish guidelines for routing items in the field in a manner that will protect safety-related system functions and will maintain the plant's (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

The potential exists that the Q system routing requirements of DIT D7.9 may not have been met.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide documentation that demonstrates that D7.9 has been incorporated in the design of Q systems.

, (continued on next page).

1 3

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:  ;

i Additional information is required to evaluate safety significancei

, Provide information requested in Item 4. l 4

7. Internal Review Commitee l Signatures: ,/

~~

Chairman sf W WSU.lD h h/

Mechknical Representative, Electrical Repre entative

~

t / k d@+

Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative f

-- _e -~,--._.--%- - . , . . - - , , . - , _ . . , _ . _ , , . . - _ . . _ . - . - , _ . . - . . , _ . , . , . , _ _ _ , , . . , . . - , , . . . , , _ . - ~ .

IN 3 850 P 8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric.and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ,

OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.laj, Rev. JL_,, Date 6/19/85

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) design capability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown following postulated hazardous events." Section 8, states: " ... documentation 4

is required for the routing of all Q systems and all non-Q systems

in the safety-related areas that violates the separation criteria i stated in previous sections. The Resident Project Engineer (RPE) i

shall be notified before routing Q systems in high energy pipe break zones and/or in safety areas where separation is violated.

The field engineer shall use the form shown in Figure 9 to document i field routing information. This form provides all information i required for the review of the field routing. The RPE shall either approve or disapprove the routing and send copies of the form with the appropriate composite drawings to the home office for review and approval by the project separation review chairman and the project 4

engineer."

l This Design Criteria was re'l eased to the field for use in March 1983.

No objective evidence has been provided to indicate that these i criteria were ever used.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. If D7.9 has'not been explicitly followed, BPC should describe the procedures that were used (either Field or walkdown procedures and identify how these procedures adequately cover the require-ments of D7.9.

l l

.e # #

l 1

AH rs 8s 0 P.8 4 5 3 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 108 Rev. O Date 6/19/85 R/CR No. 108 Rev. O Date LJ26 / a r

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to safety X Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

3. Reviewee resolution report by:

a Row.A L n' Discipline Group Sdpervisor Date

<brhr '

\ csp 5 2 L cahsAr Bechtel Project Engineer Date

4. ublic Service Electric and Gas Company review:

AV. & Y /m f/Z4h5

~ Chief Project Enfig(Ag7 Date '

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee:

Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures l

l l

I

, .p 1325'850284533 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 108 Rev. O Date 6/19/85 (Continuation sheet) R/CR No. 108 Rev. 0 Date 6ise /ar I Response to Recommendation for Resolution 4.a No documentation exists which demonstrates that Design Criterie l D7.9 has been incorporated into the design of Q systems.

i~

4.b As noted in Section 2 of D7.9 "The purpose of this document is  !

to establish guidelines for routing items in the field in a man-j ner that will protect safety-related system functions and will i maintain the plant's design capability to achieve and maintain i safe shutdown following postulated hazardous events. This docu-

! ment is a part of the overall plant separation program that in-cludes the following separation criteria documents:

l a) Mechanical Separation Criteria (D7.1)

{ b) Electrical Separation Criteria (D4.18) i

] c) Procedure for Documentation and Criteria of l Plant Separation (D7.3) ,

i d) Seismic Classification and Seismic Design (D7.2) '

i e) Project Walk-Through Reviews i j f) Seismic II/I Evaluation Program G-052(Qs)."

i l It is BPC's position that this purpose has been accomplished in

that,a ready reference tool (D7.9) has been provided to field on-i gineering to assist in the field routing of safety-related com-

! modities and of non-safety-related commodities in safety-related 4 areas. Although the~ documentation required by Section 8 of D7.9 i

cannot be demonstrated, the documentation provided by engineering reviews and field walkdowns is adequate to assure that the speci-fled separation requirements have been. satisfied. Listed below

! are the specific hazards identified in D7.9 and the corresponding walkdown/ review procedures which provide assurance that the sep-

aration criteria have been met (refer to Section 4 of D7.9).

1. Pipe Break Ef fects G-019.1(1) i 2. Fire G-054(F)(2) i 3. Seismic II/I G-052(Os)(3)

4. Other Hazards (missiles) G-019.1 Notes

l (1) G-019.1 " Procedure for Jobsite Review of Hazards Effects"

(2) G-054(F) " Fire Hazard Analysis Safe Shutdown Review Program"

(3) G-052(Os) " Seismic II/I Evaluation Program"

, The G-019.1 walkdowns began in December, 1984 and are ongoing.

i Documentation of the walkdown results and implementation of neces J

. . . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . _ . - . , _ _ . -_..m._,. _ _ _ , _ _ . _ , _ . _ , . , , _ _ , _ _ . . , _ . , _ . _ _ _ . - . . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ . , . _ , . . . .

a s 8s 0 2. 8 4 5 3 3 I Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No.10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No.108 Rev. O Date 6/19/85 '

(Continuation Sheet) R/CR No.108 Rev. 0 'Date alt 6 /ar sary modifications to meet the separation criteria is currently un-der way. All documentation and modifications are currently sched-uled to be completed by October, 1985.

l The G-052(Qs) walkdowns began in June, 1984 and are scheduled to be completed, including documentation and any required modifica-l- tions, before fuel load.

f The G-054(F) review was initiated to more fully document the fire i hazards analysis performed for FSAR Appendix 9A. This review and  !

i documentation program will be completed by August, 1985. A field walkdown was conducted in May, 1985. ,

j Sargent & Lundy has been provided with G-019.1 and G-052(Os) . ,

4 G-054(F) will be provided by June 26, 1985.

E l

t i

L g

]

l f

I i

l ' BEC-5/29 i

l l

L _ __ _ _ _ . . _ . . , _ - - _.- _ _

Enclosure 4 In reply reference CCN: 13 ~. 3 0,- ,s, i O * '-

Eachtel Construction, Inc.

I

\

Fdry Beate Street San Franc:sco, Cahforrua Ma# Adeoss: P O Box 3965. San Francisco, CA 94119 Written reply required: None Sargent & Lundy Engineers 55 East Monroe St.

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Attention: Mr. W. Bloss

Subject:

Job 10855, Public Service Electric & Gas Company Hope Creek Generating Station Independent Desion Verification Program Gentlemen:

The Bechtel responses to Observation Reports Nos. 87, 92 and 100 are attached for your use.

very truly yours 0.a$ W K.W. Burrowes LCO/as Project Engineer BEC-2/48 Attachments: Resolution / Completion Reports for O.R. Nos.

100. 87, 92 and PIP: Mr. W. Bauer - PSE&G (SFAO)

Mr. J. Yaworsky w/a

- PSE&G (SFAO) w/a cc: Dr. H. Wang w/a Project Manager Quality Assurance Branch Office of Inspection and Enforcement Mail Stop EWS-3058 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. T. DelGaizo w/a Westec Services Inc.

1 Meeting House Center

- ~ ~ ~ ~ Suite 100-2240, Butle t_ Pike Plymouth Meeting, P.A. 19462 ~~

12510 (R EV. 4/84)

14'5'85076443 4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 87 , Rev. _g_, Da t e 6/l'

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Class lE Auxiliary Power System, Offsite Power Supplies to Clas Switchgear. Drawing E-3060, Rev. 10, Logic Diagram Class lE Sta Power - 4.16kV System Main Circuit Breaker

2. Description of observation:

The logic diagram which applies to 8 main circuit breakers, doc not a ree with the corresponding schematic diagrams. The discrepancy involves permissive interlocks in the closing circ @

3. Significance of Observation: '

BPC design of electrical schematics is developed from the logie diagrams. Failure of the two to be in agreement indicates a concern for the design process.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptiona(l): continued on page 2) -

a.

i BPC should identify which document, logic or schematic, reflects the correct design.

(continued on pages 2 and 5.

Internal Review Committee classificatfen of Observation:

y Not significant to safety (See Item 6)

Additional information required 'See Item 6) i Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:

The FSAR ccmmitment has been implemented in the design via the schematic diagram even though the logic diagram was in disagreen with the FSAR.

Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -

A5 --

Cna y an f /

Heen?nicc1 Represchtative \

/ 4'.5 % & W D t. [/ '

1. f flectrical Representativa

, N, \ l 4 '- 'N

~~ R/. C., pr /A,9,..,,[i -

Structural Reptr:sIrTtat:ve ~ .

Con t rol In3"' Ins e c u: .cnEc, ion ReprEScaratiV3 e

9

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , _ m.,-

~

n a Mosc443a

. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 QRSERVATION REPORT OR No.1Z., Rev. _,0,,,,, Date 6/13/85

1. ,

Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Drawing E-0072, Rev. 6, Electrical Schematic Diagram Class 1E Station Power Switchgear Main Circuit Breaker (1)52-40308 Drawing E-0069, Rev. 6, Electrical Schematic Diagram Class 1E Station Power Switchgear Main Circuit Breaker (1) 52-40101 Drawing E-0074, Rev. 6, Electrical Schematic Diagram Class lE Station Power Switchgear Main Circuit Breaker _(1)52-40401 Drawing E-0073, Rev. 6, Electrical Schematic Diagram Class 1E Station Power Switchgear Main Circuit Breaker (1)52-40301 Drawing E-0070, Rev. 6, Electrical Schematic Diagram Class 1E

, Station Power Switchgear Main Circuit Breaker (1)52-40201

2. Description of ObservationE (continuation) for fast or slow bus transfer. The logic diagram indicates that Switch 52-CSS (Normal / Emergency) must be in " Normal" position to

. allow breaker closing for fast transfer conditions (Terminal 101);

slow transfer closing can occur irrespective of the position of Switch 52-CSS. That is, 52-CSS provides a permissive interlock for the logic from Terminal 101 only. The schematic diagrams indicate that Switch 52-CSS must be in the " Normal" position to allow breaker closing for either slow transfer (Terminal 101) or fast transfer conditions (Terminal 11). That is, 52-CSS provides a permissive interlock for the logic from Terminals 101 and 11.

3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)

Had the schematic been developed per the logic diagram, all four electrical channels and all eight offsite breakers (i.e., two per channel) would have been susceptible to spurious operation due to a fire in the room containing the logic cabinets for all four channels. The fire' hazards analysis for this room (FSAR Table 9A-145)' indicates that transfer cwitches allow one' train of safe shutdown equipment to be isolated from the control' equip-ment room.. Switch 52-CSS serves this' isolation function. Per the logic diagram it would not have served the function to allou one train of safe shutdown equipment to be isolated from the contrG equipment room. ,

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC_should describe the revisions that will be made to bring

- . - these, and any other documents derived from the logic diagrams related specifically to this~ observation into agreement.

IN "3 '85 !) 7 G 4 4 #: 1

. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.87 , Rev.

0 , Date 6/13/85

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

c. BPC should provide assurance that the logic and schematic diagrams associated with all equipment required for one train of safe shutdown equipment, reflect complete electrical isolation capability from the control equipment room, in accordance with the FSAR (Table 9A-145).

d. BPC should provide assurance that other logic and schematic diagrams are in agreement with each other and applicable FSAR commitments. *

e. BPC'should describe the intended use of logic diagrams during design, construction, t'esting, and over the operating life of the HCGS.

f. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design control process which should have prevented it, and why that process did not prevent the observation.

t

AM . 3 et)?b44MJ f Public Servico Electric cnd Gcc Comp 2ny Projcct No. 10855-013 Hcp3 Crock Genarcting Station - Unit 1 Pcg2 1 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 87 Rev. O Date 6/13/85 R/CR No. 87 Rev. O Date c/ar/tr

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

X Not significant to safety Significant to safety 4 Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

3. i eport by:

Revieweersolutlone -

Discipline Group Supervisor chsler Date W @ lum rBechtel Project Engineer Date u /zs/8s 3

4.

%Public Service Electric and Gas Company review:

1. '. G Y /y W 6/2 7/P[

Chief Project'Eh(5Keer Date ' '

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee:

Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures:

AN .1~65 0 F G 4 4 3 4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 87 Rev. O Date 6/13/85 (Continuation sheet) R/CR No.87 Rev. O Date G/pchrf Following is our response to the recommendation for resolution:

4.a Based upon an extensive review of schematics for all eight of f-i

' site breakers associated with all four Class IE electrical chan-nels, it is concluded that these schematics were developed cor-

rectly to reflect the intended logic. None of the four electrical channels would have been susceptible to spurious operation due to a fire in the room containing the logic cabinets for these chan-nels. In accordance with the schematics, the transfer switch 52-CSS will serve the purpose of isolating the respective elec-

, trical channels (all trains) from the control equipment room.

4.b There is a drafting error in the logic diagram E-3060, revision

10. Revision 11 to this drawing shows the 52-CSS (contact 19-20) signal correctly (CCN 0282491 dated May 10, 1985 transmitted copy to S& L) .

1 4.c As stated in 4.a above, an extensive review of schematics for all eight of fsite breakers associated with all four Class IE electrical channels showed that they were developed correctly to reflect the intended logic. In order to further assure ourselves, logic diagrams and schematics were reviewed for all four emergency diesel generators and for one each (Channel B) of the SACS and SSWP break-ers. This review resulted in no discrepancy between logic diagrams and schematics. Since no errors were uncovered, a review of all logic and schematic diagrams associated with all equipment required for one train of safe shutdown equipment is not required.

! 4.d See 4.c.

1 j 4.e The logic diagrams are used for information, design, testing and

' operation of the plant. These are not usually used for construc-tion purposes.

i j'

4.f The observation is a drafting error without any consequence to eight schematics associated with all four electrical channels.

Based on our review of other logic and schematic diagrams, (see 1 4.c), we conclude this drafting error to be an isolated case. I BEC-5/44

- - - , . ,. . ,._.3 -

, , .- _.m, . - - , , , _ . _ . .y-.-, - m _._r . . - , _ . . , , .

1N.5'85QF$4464

~

Public Service Electric and Gas dompany Project No. 7212-30, Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 92, Rev. 0 , Date 6/1d

\

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

DITS 3.10, SACS, Rev. 2, dated 7/6/84 DITS DS.12, Remote Shutdown, Rev. 1, dated 4/10/85 FSAR Sections 7.3.1.1.11.7 and 9.2.2.5, Logic Diagram, J-11-0 Sheet 8, Rev. 5, dated 10/25/82

2. Description of Observation:

a. The FSAR requires that Loop B of SACS be controlled from rem ote shutdown panel (RSP) . Contrary to this requirement DITS D3.10 does not include the requirement to control SAC (continued on next page)

3. Significance of Observation:

BPC informed the Review Team at the kick-off meeting that the DITS are part of the base design documents. Lack of proper reference and errors could cause discrepancies or errors in thG design.

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptice.al):

a. BPC should revise the applicable DITS to show the proper references and the correct design.

(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 significe Provide information requested in Item 4.

7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:

r Chai~rman j/

/ ~

, / - -

Y -

Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative A -) .

M s Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative

F J.M 3 'B5 fj f. 6 4 4 91 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 QBSERVATION REPORT OR No.2.2_, Rev. _.9,_, Date 6/18/85

2. Description of Observations (continuation)

Loop B from the RSP or reference DITS D5.12 which calls for indication only of Loop B. ,

b.

A review of DITS D5.12 shows an error for valves HV-24968 and HV-2496D.

The DITS call for indication on the RSP only. Logi8 Diagram J-ll-0, Sheet 8, shows these valves as indicated and controlled from RSP. BPC stated that the correct design is for the on valves RSP.HV-2496B and HV-2496D to be indicated and controlled

• 4.' Recommendation for Resolution (optional) :

(continuation)

b. BPC should identify the cause of this discrepancy, the design control process that should have prevented it, and why that process did not prevent the discrepancy.

e e

h e

e b

pa- e e 4 h

! . l l

.- , ,,,,..-,w ,

-n~ , - - , , , - , , ~ ~ . . - --.-- ., , - , - - ---w..m.m--r- .~wr---.--,~~.-,r-e-

.lM :3 '65 0 ? 8 4 d 9 4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 92 Rev. O Date 6/18/85 R/CR No. 92 Rev. O Date 6/3r/vr

1. Classification of observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to safety X Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

Reviewee - 7 resolution report by:

,  % n

- Discipline Group Supervisor b l L t li's~

Date

_ W Q l/ S: m -th.- -

&lLnlW Bechtel Project .Engineer Date

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company reviews

.4 w. cu h 6 +A Wr.r B sChief Project'EffTneer Date '

5.

SEL's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information).

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures

M'.5850?G4434 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 92 Rev. O Date 6/18/85 (Continuation sheet) R/CR No. 9 2 Rev. 0 Date s/arbr e 2.a DITS D5.12 is a design document which specifies the design of the

' Remote Shutdown System (RSS) as committed to in the FSAR.

DITS D5 12'and D3.10 together meet the requirements of the FSAR for the SACS system. DITS D5.12 was issued to consolidate the RSS requirements of the appropriate systems. RSS is a system in itself. We elected .to identify RSS requirements in DITS D5.12 and not in each specific DITS related to the systems that are part of the RSS.

2.b DITS D5.12 states that indication for valves HV-2496B/D is provided on the Remote Shutdown Panel (RSP). Logic diagram J-11-0, Sheet 8, shows that control and indication for valves HV-2496B/D are pro-vided on the RSP.

The design as shown on the logic diagram is correct. DITS DS.12 will be revised to state that the RSP has provisions for control 1

and indication of valves HV-2496B/D.

August 15, 1985. The DITS will be revised by 4

4.a Refer to response to 2.a and b.

4.b.

DITS D5.12 was reformatted and revision 1 was issued on April 10, 1985. This revision inadvertently omitted the control design requirements for valves HV-2496B/D. The design of valves HV2496B/D shoen on logic diagram J-ll-0, Sheet 8, was correctly

1. reflected in Revision 0 of DITS D5.12, Section 2.2.1.2.a, issued on July 27, 1982. The DITS required control as well as indication provisions on the RSP. Attached is page 12 of DITS D5.12, Revi-sion O.

We feel that this error is an isolated case. However, we will review revision 1 of DITS D5.12 against the applicable logic diagrams to ensure that identified in OR-92. The there are no other similar errors as j 1985.

review will be completed by July 12,

Attachment:

DITS DS.12, Rev.0, Page 12.

I I

i

- _ .._BEC-5/37 _ .

i

, ATTACHMENT to OR No.92, Rsv.OLN ;5 6E U E 8 4 4 31D855-D-5.12, Rev. 0 R/CR No. 92 R3v.0 a.3 Mo, tor operated valve opens, on transfer, with open-closed status displays )

i

( E11-HV-F004D Jockey pump suction i

b. Air operated valve with open/close control and open-closed status display.

1  ;

.- HV-F1228 ,

Recirculation test 4

Pump, with start /stop controls and run-stopped col j

status displays.

BP202 RHR pump c.2 Pump runs automatically on transfer, with j run-stopped status displays.

DP228 Jockey pump

d. Process display instrumentation

{

1 FI-4435 RHR Heat Exchanger "B" outlet flow indicator with square root converter (FY-

, 4435).

TI-4401 Discharge to Liquid Radwaste temperature indicator. Signal supplied from TT-4401.

! 2.2.1.2 Safety Auxiliaries Cooling System (SACS) i

a. Motor operated valves with open/close controls

, and open-closed status displays:

, HV-24915 SACS heat exchanger (BIE201) .

, HV-24948 SACS heat exchanger (B2E201)

! HV-2522D TACS supply i HV-2522B TACS supply l HV-25128 RHR heat exchanger outlet HV-24965 TACS return l HV-2496D

' TACS return l

b. Air operated valve with open/close control and open-j closed status display: .

l HV-2520B RHR pump seal and pump motor bearing i

cooler inlet a controlled in conjunction with BP202, RHR pump.

j c. Pumps with start-stop controls and run-stopped status d

displays:

9 1

BP210 SACS pump B j -

DP210 SACS pump D I

ene ok

.-_ = - _ - - - . - - - - - - , - _ . . . .-- - - . - . - . . . - . -

AN ;5 '83 9 i n .1 4 4 :

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 100, Rev. 0 ,

Date 6/1t

1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Piping Auxiliary Support Steel:

a. Drawing 1-P-EG-125-H01(Q), Rev. 1 and Calculation 1-P-EG-18 Rev. 1

2. Description of Observations

a. FSAR Sections 5.4.14.1.2, page 5.4-67 and 3.9.3.4.6, page 3.9-92 both indicate that pipe supports are designed in accordance with Section III, Subsection NF of the ASME B&P3

3. Significance of Observation:

a. The design of piping auxiliary steel may not meet FSAR commitments with respect to the ASME code edition.

(continued on page 2)

4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):

a. BPC should provide assurance that the subject auxiliary sto design meets the FSAR commitments with regard to ASMC code editions. (continued on pages 2 and 3

5. Internal Review Cemmittee classification of Observation:

Not significant to safety (Sec Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)

Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)

6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safet)-significance of Observation or additional information required:

Additional information is required to evaluate safety significa Provide information requested in Ttem 4.

7. Internal Review Commitec Signaturcs: -

.

• AM Chairman / ,

, ff ,  %. . A . / / ~

Mechanical Represe tative Elecer cal Rept sentative

._ 8 S t r u c t u r a l _ __-~Reptesu'ntative Cont.r01 ~end Instrumentaticn

~ - * ~ ~ ~

Repr o:.cnta tive l

IN ;5 650 P G 4 4 $ J Public Service Electric'and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope _ Creek Generating _ Station - Un{t 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. LAD, Rev. _A_, Date 6/19/8@

1. Structure (s) , syst'em(s) , or component (s) involved:

b. Drawing 1-P-FD-001-H02-H03(Q), Rev. 3 and Calculation 1-P-FD-001-C10, Rev. O c.

Drawing 1-P-EG-155-H05(Q), Rev. 10 and Calculation 1-P-EG-605-Cl3, Rev. 2

2. Description of Observation: (continuation) .

Code, 1974 issue, including Addenda through Winter 1974.

The calculation cover and Specification sheets P-408, Rev. for the listed 8, page calculations 5, indicate that Addenda through Winter 1975 are used,

b. For 1-P-EG-155-H05, the flange of the W12x72 appears to be welded to the 1 inch flange of_a W10x88 with a 1/4" weld versus a 5/16 inch weld as required by ASME Code, Specification P-408(Q), Rev. B, Table 4.7.3(a) and Table No. 6 of Section PSCS-32 contained in P-SFPSM-13.I'.1, Rov. O.

c.

For items la and'lb, the weight of components (i.e., struts, snubbers, clamps) do not appear to have been considered in the calculations of the deflection arid frequency. of the auxiliary support steel.

d. Calculation 1-P-EG-605-Cl3 does not appear to consider the torsion resulting from the application of the, friction load to the top flange of the wide flange support member.

3. Significance of Observations (continuation)

b. The piping auxiliary steel welds appear to be inconsistent with the-ASME minimum fillet weld requirements.

c.

Because the effects of self weight of the component and i torsionaleffectsofthefrictionloadhavenotbeen,consideredd the design adequacy of the piping auxiliary steel cannot be verified.

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

b. BPC should provide justification for not meeting the minimum fillet weld requirements on the subject calculations as specified in the ASME code.

- c.

BPC should revise.the subject calculations on piping auxiliary steel to address the effect of self weight due to component hardware and the torsion effects'of the friction load. - l

IN:.3'as0PG4454 3 i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 i . Hope Creek Generating $tation - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 i OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.J.Q.Q, Rev. 0 ,Date 6/19/85 8 o

4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)

d. . BPC should provide assurance that other applicable auxiliary pipe support steel calculations address these issues.

e. BPC should identify the cause of this observation, the design i control process which would have prevented it, and why the process did not prevent the observation, j .

i i

i I

i O

i .

I I

'S I

i i

e

. g l

2 me *em m i

1.N3 650sG449j Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No. 100 Rev. O Date 6/19/85 R/CR No. 100 Rev. O Date 6 /s r/wr

1. Classification of Observation (by S&L):

Not significant to safety Significant to safety X Additional Information required

2. Reviewee proposed resolution:

See Sheet 2.

1

3. Reviewee resolution report by:

L - IMb- CI NId / 88 jpficiplineGroupSupervisor Dfte en

\) ,,, <" b* t 1 7 Bechtel Project Engineer Date

4. Public Service Electric and Gas Company review:

s . 1 & A,,,

Chief Project -EN'gOHW'e r Date

• /z r/n~

5. S&L's disposition of Resolution / Completion Report:

Observation invalid and withdrawn.

Proposed resolution / future action acceptable, observation closed.

Additional action to be taken by Reviewee (provide additional information) .

6. Final classification of observation by Review Committee

• Not significant to safety Significant to safety

7. Review Committee signatures:

l d

t

a .s8507,8443a Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855-013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION P.EPORT OR No. 100 Rev.

(Continuation sheet) R/CR No.100 O Date 6/19/85 Rev. O Date G/tr/*f 2.a The FSAR reference to ASME III Subsection NF 1974 edition, in-cluding addenda through winter 1974, is incorrect. An FSAR change notice will be issued by July 12, 1984 to correct the FSAR to agree with Specifications P-408(O) and M-095(O) and the calcula-tion cover addenda sheet,winter through which correctly indicate 1974 edition with 1975.

2.b l-P-EG-155-H05 In Rev.6 of the said hanger drawing, W12x72 (Item 2) was welded to W12x72 (Item 3) with a 1/4" size fillet weld. In Rev.7, Item 3 wasnotchanged to W10x88 by the field by FCR-P4127, but the weld size was upgraded per specification P-410. This deficiency was identified and documented as an open item for code case N413 currently awaiti'g NRC approval for use on Hope Creek.

2.c Please refer to reply for OR-44, items 2.b and 4.a.

2d Calculation 1-P-EG-605-Cl3, sheet 5, lists torsional moment allow-able (35.88K-in) versus torsional moment actual (0.7 K-in) . This r(

sult was32.

through very conservative as it enveloped the loads for memberst.1.

For making comparisons, a new run was made that included moment due to eccentricity of the friction forces. It was observed that no members or welds were overstressed in the structure.

very little change.

The member normal stresses and joint deflections had There was no change in any weld sizes.

Torsional moments enveloped for members 1 through 32 were 10.27 K-in(< 3 5.8 8 K-in (allowable ) .

calculation, which will be transmitted to S&L by June 28,This1985. is documented 4.a Please refer to answers 2.a and 2.b.

4.b Please refer to answer 2.b.

4.c From the reply of OR-44 and 2.d of this OR, it is evident that no l revision of the subject calculations is necessary.

4.d Min. weld size violation For the installed hangers that did not meet the minimum weld size criteria, to avoid expensive rework, project engineering made a decision approval). qualify welds by the code case N-413 (now pending NRC to If the code case is rejected by the NRC,An open item log is maintained to ide accordingly. then rework would be done Self-weight of the component Please refer to reply of OR-44, items 2.b and 4.a.

IA:3'650?.64481 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 10855=013 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION / COMPLETION REPORT OR No . __100 Rev. O (Continuation Sheet) R/CR No.100 Date 6/19/85 Rev. O Date C,/s(/gr koment due to eccentricity of friction force a) Torsional moments due to eccentricity of the friction forces were considered basis. per engineering judgement on case-by-case had There were significant no structures observed where these moments effect.

b)

Friction forces conservatively were considered with the up-set / faulted loading conditions, whereas they needed to be considered with the normal loading only.

c) For conservatism, 15% higher than expected loads were consid-ered (including friction force) in the design.

4.e As explained above, there is no design deficiency, as the correct Code addenda has been followed for design, and if Code Case N-413 is not as made approved for Hope Creek, weld size modifications will be appropriate.

i BEC-5/47

.