ML20096D529

Forwards Telcon Repts Re Facility Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program

ML20096D529
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/31/1984
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84042.029, NUDOCS 8409060102
Download: ML20096D529 (23)

Text

_

saevers 101 Cahfornia Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco. CA 94111-5894 415!397 5600 August 31, 1984 -

84042.029 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

Subject:

Comunications Report Transmittal #12 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84042

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find telecons associated with the Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program.

If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call either me or Donna 01dag.

Very truly yours,

%+.%

N. H. Williams Project Manager Attachments I

cc: Mr. D. Wade (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. J. Van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o Mr. S. Burwell (USNRC) w/ attachments mY B409060102 840831 1 l

PDR ADOCK 05000445 )

A PDR San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland An*** O S'** ,* g{

vhe

am--

I' Communications

4L & i Report llllll11llllllllllllllllllll11 company: Texas Uti1ities X0 Telecon O Conference Report Project Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job N 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date:

August 8, 1984

Subject:

Time:

4:05 PM Place:

. Schedule for Completion of Open Items CES - SFR0

Participants:

George Grace TUGC0 (EBASCO)

Nancy Williams CYGNA Requwed item Comments Action By I called George to get the schedule for TUGCO's completion of the Phase 3 Open items. He provided the following information:

Subject Completion Date SIF Review 8/17/84 Mass Point Spacing 8/17/84 Mass Participation 8/31/84 Fisher Valve Qualification

- Review of valves to 8/17/84 confirm whether the latest loads had been sent to Fisher Fisher Response unknown George also mentioned that the new main steam relief valve loads had been sent to Fisher by Gibbs & Hill. The analysis accounted for mass participation. I commented that we had not seen the revised piping analysis and wanted to check how the mass partici-pation was accounted for. In particular, I said that we are not

-entirely in agreement with G8H as to the approach for accounting for the effects of missing mass as described in their revised plan (GTN-69316). Cygna is currently preparing a letter coment-ing on the approach.

p

% g]>}), ,

Signed. / g/ ,,

/im p,g,1

'M 2w 1 N. Williams D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, G. Bjorkman, S. Treby, tosc o's C D o mn 11 1 F114e Deninet Filo

Communications

, e4 L n i Repod 1111111ll111111111111111111111 company: O Conference Report Texas Utilities XO Telecon Project Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84042 Dat*:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 August 8, 1984 sub iect: Time:

4:00 PM Comments on the Phase 3 Final Report CES - SFR0 George Grace TUGC0 (EBASCO)

Nancy Williams CYGNA I

l Required item Comments Action By George asked if Item 24b on pipe support checklist PS-005 was missing a comment in the comments column since the item is marked unsatisfactory. I said I would check.

l l

i l

signe

) g

/jm 1

1 N. Wikliams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, S. Burwell, J. Ellis,

~

Communications

. ts L t i Report 11111111111111111111111111llll company:

Texas Utilities Xo Telecon a conference n port l Project Comanche Peik Steam Electric Station J b No. 84042 L

D*t' l Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 August 8, 1984 Subject Time:

2:30 PM l Questions on Final Report Place:

j ,

Judge Bloch US NRC l Nancy Williams Cygna Required Action By

( Item Comments Judge Bloch called to ask Cygna to prepare a status of the Phase 3 Open items. This status should include a discussion of the process necessary in closing out the items and why they remained open for the Phase 3 report.

I also mentioned that Dave Pigott relayed another request from )

the Board regarding design QA. Judge Bloch reiterated the j request to be:

1. Why are the checklists for Design Control different for the various organizations (Gibbs & Hill, ITT Grinnell, l f

NPSI, and TUGCO)?

What is the basis for concluding that there was prompt I 2.

closure of design deviations for all four organizations?

i As far as the schedule for closing the open items is concerned, I  !

stated that the schedule is a function of the work being conduct- ,

ed by Gibbs & Hill and/or TUGCO. He agreed and suggested that j

! perhaps I should coordinate a response with TUGCO. j l

l l

l l

I Signed. , Page of f

N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, J. Minichiello, G. Bjorkman,

~ - L]ureen i

Communications 4L t i Repod 111lll111111111lll111111llllll

)

" ***"# N'c " Conference Report Texas Utilities < t X Project Job No.

• Comanche Peak Steam Election Station 84042 D*2' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 June 27, 1984 subject

• Equipment Specification Request 7:55 am Place:

Participants:

of R. Moller Westinghouse J. Russ Cygna L

I Required

[ ltem Comments Action By l Cygna requested the following data concerning the latest revision j' of the generic specification for the steam generators at CPSES:

I

1. Shop order number;

2. Specification number and revision;

3. Date and number of the transmittal letter.

Mr. Moller provided the following:

1. Shop order number: TB X-120

2. Specification number: G-952124, Rev. 4

3. WPT number: 4514 for transmittal letter

, dated 17 February 1984.

1

/J/)a /3s 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Hess, J. Puss, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, m'a TMrMereAJBUb ._ _ .__ _._ _ ___ _ __ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _

~

l

<: l Communications l 4L ci Report llM4111l181lll1111lllllllll company: Texas Utilities XO Telecon 3 Conference Report

';; e Project Comanche Peak Steam Electric 5tation Job No. 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 o.te: 7/13/84 subject Effective Date of G8H Procedures Time: 9:30 a.m. & 3:30 p.m.

l

, i '4_ Place: Boston

Participants:

Steve Bibo of Cygna Martin Miller G&H Required item ', Comments Action By f

I l called Marty.and asked him for the date of issue for G&H procedures DC-8, QA-1 and QA-4. He stated he would get back to megi,safternoon, Marty called at 3:30 p.m. and gave me the following information:

DC-8 Draft dated 10/73 was considered Rev. 0; therefore, the first official issue of DC-8 was Rev. I dated 11/73.

o 0,* ,c QA-1 Draft was considered Rev. 0; therefore, the first official

, i issue of QA-1 was Rev. 1 dated 11/73. In addition, Rev. 1

, . 'i was inadvertently marked Rev. 2. The correct sequence Q should be Rev. O draft, Rev. I dated 11/73 and Rev. 2 dated 12/73.

QA-4 Draft was considered Rev. 0; therefore, the first official issue of QA-4 was Rev. I dated 10/73. In addition, Rev. 1

', was inadverently marked Rev. 2. The correct sequence 4, should be Rev. O draft, Rev. 1 dated 10/73 and Rev 2 dated

,, 11/73.

L 'i ' In addition, Marty told me that R. Ballard would be expecting DCygna on 7/16/84.

g.

, R ;;(

i j f

> kt y (;

3 r' s;

,y.

Signed. Pageg of

}

/]jp

q. Distnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, D. Smedley, S. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, h ~ k j"' " ' ' I' "J " Q .[ '

. =- . _

Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 compendexas Utilities o Telecon xo conference Repor't N Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

6/18 subject Data Request Tim': 9:30 Place:

Site

Participants:

j, [gj g of ggg J. Minichiello Cygna  !

l Required ,

item Comments Action By )

l Cygna requested the latest copy of drawing BRH MS-1-002-004-C72K.

1 I

l l

4 l

l 1

i l 1

l sig"" ' '

/ /ceh "*8* 1 1 D'stnbution: I

N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Burwell, S. Treby, J. Ellis, L. Weingart,

_ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ "o'i _ _. d. Mi nicqi e l lo, yrpa,ect t i le .  !

Communications 4L i i Repod l111111111111111111111111lllll comp nyTexas Utilities b Teiecon o conference Report Project: Lomancne VeaK dLeam t.leCLric blation Job No. 84042 -

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date: June 6, 1984, Rev. 1

Subject:

CVC, G&H Surveillance Report 55-83-5 Time: P.M.

Place: Cygna-BA0

Participants:

J. C. Waal of Cygna Borys Czarnogorski G&H Required item Comments Action By

1. I called Borys to request additional information concerning correcting CVC's as identified in G&H Surveillance Report 55 3. Borys stated that the proper Surveillance Report should be 55-83-5, and not 55-83-3 (he will send me copies to verify). He stated that the finding in their internal audit was a result of a concern expressed by TUGC0 during an audit of G8H. TUGC0's l

concern was about the excessive use of white-out for correcting

! CVC's. Subsequently, G8H revised their procedure to prohibit the i use of white-out. Existing documents that had been corrected using white-out were not corrected, only the procedure was revised to prevent future use.

l

2. I also asked Borys about his efforts to get to Hoboken where permanent records are stored and determine if earlier Management Review Evaluation Reports and Surveillance Reports for the period I

prior to 1978 are available. Borys stated that he was instructed not to go to '50 ken to pursue this request.

l l

l l

l signed- /MS Page 1 of 1 Distnbution: N. Wi liiams, D. WadeM. Grace, S. Bibo, J. Waal, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, m _m ,,_

s wgwwv =w

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

Communications

4L ci Repod 1111111111111111111!1111111111 compendexas Utilities g 7 ,,,,,n x

0 Conference Report Project Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station sob uo. 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste: 6/12/84 subject Pipe Stress Review Time: 12:45 Place: Site

Participants:

C. Ray of G8H J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By In the original review of AB-1-61A, Cygna did not find a welded i attachment calculation for CC-1-028-713-A33K. G8H had said that

the calculation was referenced in the back of the QA book, under l CC-1-028-113-A33K (by mistake). Cygna requested a copy of the l G&H memo (attached) and verified that support -713 is similar to i support -004, as stated in the memo (713 has a slightly lar0er trunnion diameter of 16" vs. 14").

i l

l l

signec /5s Page1 of 1 Distnbution: N. Wi lliFns, ). Wade, G. Grace, d. M1nichiello, 5. Burwell, 5. Ireby, d. tills,

, ,,_, _ _ _ - n__:_.. es,.

m a rv w i gwa w y wy=ww --

. _ . . . .~

1 n

u :s . :-

cc . r.6 RUtiwrki (IL) , Her.ry Hente) ( 3 L) . Pt.2 2 2 p Bepr t (It, IA),

f 3 u l 1Q. 3.. ( I L )

+

.b[b 39 b, [Y(([. [f~lC*

Interoffice MemorenduE ,

70 T/8[ 7 Trank Colue MTE - #.5 //2 //2 .

FROF..-

Philip Bocert/ V c'#/J2//4 JOB N0: 11-2323-030 .

5 JECT: welded Attachments RE F. N0.- AM-wa- 32.

(Non-Anchor) Unit Load Local Stress Tor Use In As Built Analysis A.M. has completed welded attachment analysis for'the following attachments: .

Stress Proble:.- Hancer Mark Number I

AS OG/A C C - /- cp2 B //3 - A 33% a The analysis is based on a unit load of one thousand pounds acting on the total hanger support such that the unit load stress should be scaled by the total support load given in the ADLPIPE output (regardless of the number of trunnions or lugs welded to the pipe for the subject support) the

. resulting maximum local stress intensiti,es dee:

Max cembined mems,ane Mas combined dress

• Tetts' inlinsity Gu*) in h sity 3')

/2/,si 307 pi Thesc Je the overall maximum local drawes on the pipe wall and- -

should be scaled up to the ADLPIPE load at the data point of' interest for each ASME code equation. The resulting stresses should be added directly to the ADLPIPE stress regardless of component- direc- ion . If this conservative approach yields unacceptably hign stresses, the enclosed stress components-should be combined with the matching stress analysis compo-nents before'a stress intensity is calculated.

b M!ov ed L$N bis memo is A-copy o{Ike begee 5b eitb Io int!vt!c JS dr. JfAebmenI to 1be- A boili Qt book.

NOTE:

• This s u y o et* is identical lo suport._ cc - /. o29. col- Ad3 K _ cf pro As -

_/.f/__4_. s_ and rke rer.otti, m obfained from der anapsis. Refer ' rke soctJe/ .

attuh.n,ni st ysts in A o boa p,. u /-ov4 pr Jctails.

,8. 88, N -

i,

.~ - . . . ~ ~ ,

Communications 4L ii Report 111111111161181111111lll111111 W ec n Conference Reprt Texas Utilities X Projut: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Election Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Auaust 1. 1984 Subject Time:

8:30 AM Place:

TUGC0 Comments on Final Reoort CES - San Francisco

Participants:

of G. Grace TUGC0 (EBASC01 N. Williams Cvgna

(

Required item Comments Action By George Grace called to give the following TUGC0 comments on the final report:

1. Eliminate references to Phase 4 because Phase 3 and 4 are separate. I asked G. Grace whether Exhibit 1.3 should also eliminate the Phase 4 column. G. Grace will talk to D. Wade about leaving references for historical perspective and things to be checked in walkdowns. TUGC0 I said that I would make it clear that the Phase 3 conclusions are not tied to Phase 4 results.

2. Page 1-5 and 5-20 appear to require classification as to whether Cygna the PFR's are a programmatic breakdown.

3. Appendix J Generic Notes: TUGC0 doesn't understand why a checklist item is checked unsatisfactory when it is deemed acceptable per the general notes. I explained that missing or incorrect calculations are " unsatisfactory"; however, an obser-vation is not warranted if there is no safety impact as discussed in the comments column. I referred G. Grace to the explanation on pages 3-3 and 3-4.

Appendix E: TUGC0 doesn't understand which criteria are Cygna's

~

4 and which are TUGC0's commitment from licensing standpoint.

5. Page 1-4 clarifies the meaning of the time frames specified.

J l W~ / i Am 1 d Distnbution:

'N"""

N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell .

cmsa sm

Communications iL t i Report 1111111llll1llllll1111lllll111 Requred item Comments Action By

6. Observation PS-02. G. Grace stated that two of the four stability bumpers are cinched, and therefore, this observation pertains to two of the four bumpers. Please revise the observation and appropriate references accordingly. TUGC0 feels this is isolated.

7. Composite section design (Observation PS-07). TUGC0 believes that this should be isolated. I responded that this was not isolated since there was a problem with most of the ones using tube steel Cygna reviewed.

8. Page 4-4, change reference from TUSI to TUGC0 in paragraph 4.3.

Also any references in Exhibit 4.4.

9. On page 5-6, check if reference to Observation PI-00-01 is correct.

10. On page 5-7, Cygna states that approximately 50% of the main steam pipe supports use composite sections. TUGC0 questions this since only seven examples with the tube steel composite design

!~ exist. I responded that composite design includes wide flanges, tube steel or any type of composite design. This number is at least 25%, if not 50%, based on our count. Cygna will recheck this number. A check during this telephone call indicated that l 33% of the pipe supports use composite sections, not including sections built from other sections.

l 11. On page 5-8 there is reference to four stability bumper supports l when it should be two.

l Page 5-13, second paragraph, last sentence: TUGC0 thought that 12.

l " trending" was not an appropriate word when discussing audits. I l responded that " evaluation" pay be a better word in accordance with DQI-CS-4.6.

13. Page 5-13, center of the page: Observations should be referenced to Appendix G instead of Appendix F.

14. Page 5-19, item d: The stress analyses which were rerun were AB-1-23B and AB-1-23D. The other two lines had cinched U-bolts on the stability bumper.

15. Appendix E, DC-2, page 5 of 19: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code should read, "1974 edition with addenda through Winter of 1974."

16. Appendix E, DC-2, page 7 of 19: The stiffness criteria is a guideline only as to what is appropriate in good piping design.

i The assumptions used in the stress analysis should match the pipe support actual stiffnesses within certain tolerances. The fact Page of 2 4 m . __ . _ - . _ - -

Communications 4L i r Report 11111111ll11111111lllllllll111 Requred item Comments Action By that TUGC0 used a deflection criteria instead is still being discussed and Cygna has not commented on this since the NRC staff is reviewing the matter.

17. DC-2, page 7 of 19, paragraph 4.1.2, Gaps: Cygna stated that 1/8" gap in the restrained direction is correct per G&H specifi-fication. To be more specific it is 1/8" i 1/16".

18. DC-2, page 8 of 19, Section 4.1.4, Spring Supports: The middle of the paragraph states that " springs available travel shall be checked against all thermal and seismic movements." G. Grace doesn't believe this was done on large bore. We agree and have noted that fact on the Phase 2 review.

19. Design Criteria DC-2, paragraph 4.1.5: Is 4* correct for rod hanger swing? Cygna will check if that is our criteria Cygna

20. Design Criteria DC-2, page 11 of 19. Section 4.2, " Loads".

TUGC0 disagrees that the magnitude of the friction load must be Cygna

! at least equal to the dead load. Cygna agreed to check.

i t

21. Design Criteria DC-02, page 12 of 19. Cygna was asked for a

clarification on the steamhammer and relief valve loads under all emergency and faulted conditions. I explained that it was a l matter of interpretation of the FSAR as described in Observation j PI-06-02.

22. Observation PS-08: Is the requirement a part of the 1974 code?

l I responded that it was actually Winter 1976 addenda. We will correct the requirement to explain why friction loads should be considered.

23. Observation PS-08, item e: TUGC0 requested clarification. Cygna responded by reference to the load equations which should be l DW + Th + 1/2SSE < Fa for Upset DW + Th + friction < Fa for Normal

, TUGC0 does not perform the second equation check due to their l approach for considering friction loads.

24. Appendix J, General Note 2: There is a reference to Communica-tions Report 5/30/84. Cygna should check to see if this is the appropriate reference. I mentioned that it may be an NPSI consnunications such as the one attached to Cygna letter 84042.022. Cygna checked and the correct reference is Cygna June 8, 1984.

25. Appendix J, General Note 12, page 7 of 9, item d: T = 1.45" should be T = 1.25".

Page of 3 4

Communications 4L c.r Report l1111111lll1111lll11lllll11111 stem comments o UcYo"nTy

26. Checlist PS-002, page 4 of 9, item 11: This was checked in the original analysis.

27. Checklist PS-004, page 1 of 9, item 1: TUGC0 stated that the pracice is to weld all around any item and, therefore, the length TUGC0 is not required. Cygna responded that problem with this item is that it is not positioned on the base plate in order to determine the length. G. Grace will check.

28. Checklist PS-021 sheet 8 of 8, item 22: TUGC0 states that this weld check is contained in the original calculation.

29. Checklist PS-024, sheet 2 of 10, item 4: TUGC0 asked what the basis for closing the discrepancy is. Cygna stated that a reference to Note 16 is missing in the Comments section.

30. Checklist PS-024, sheet 5 of 10, item 11: Why is this "unsati sf actory"? I responded this is because the original analysis did not account for prying action.

l 31. Checklist PS-036 items 6, 7, and 8: Why are these marked l "unsatisf actory"? I responded that they should be marked N/A.

l 32. In a couple of the checklists there is reference to " drawing i

change is required". In some cases TUGC0 believes the changes such as pipe movements are too minor to change.

l TUGC0 will send their questions and comments including any l documentation t; ."bstantiate their responses.

Page of d a

I Communications

, A( t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 "I x Telec n Conference Report Texas Utilities Project Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 June 15, 1984 subject **

Pipe Stress Analysis 11:00 AM Mass Participation Cygna SFR0/ BOA S. Moran, M. Vivarito, E. Bond Gibbs & Hill F. Colucci, H.Y. Chang, R. Ballard Gibbs & Hill N. Williams, G. Bjorkman- Cygna Required ftem Comments Achon By a

Gibbs & Hill expressed the opinion that for stiff systems which may have low mass participation, the modes which produce a maximum displacement of less than 0.001" and are therefore excluded from the ADLPIPE analysis will not produce significant additional response. Cygna explained that there was less concern for the pipe stresses in these systems but that the real concern l centered on the potential for underestimating support loads.

l l Gibbs & Hill posed an example of a simply supported pipe loaded j at the center by a short duration, high magnitude force that produced a displacement of 0.001". The pipe stresses and support loads produced by the high magnitude impulsive force could be i

very low. Cygna agreed, but mentioned that this was not the real

! prcblem. A better example would be a simply supported pipe

loaded by a short duration, small displacement, high acceleration l support motion. In this case the induced pipe stresses could be

! very low, yet the support loads could be relatively high compared to those generated in the Gibbs & Hill example.

Gibbs & Hill discussed the fact that an anchor could move 0.500",

which is far in excess of 0.001", and not be overstressed at all. Cygna agreed that from a static point of view this may very l well be true. Cygna explained that the static movement was not the concern. To illustrate the concern, Cygna proposed a problem in which a valve was located very close to an anchor. During the static displacement of the anchor, the valve has little influence on the response at the anchor. However, if the anchor were suddenly moved through a high support acceleration accompanied by only a small uisplacement, the inertial resistance of the valve would introduce support loads in addition to those generated by

,12 I f) n A A a _

l

/ceh 8* 1 2 o,,,n,,,,,g n . . . oma, v. noue, u. urace, u. oaurr, man, v. ru nicniel lo, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File sm

Communications

< 4L t i Report ~

181111:16llllll1lllll111111lll ltem Comments Ac n y

-displacement alone. It is this type of additional support load which may be absent from the response of a piping system which has a low mass participation.

Gibbs & Hill noted that SAM loads are very high. They believe '

that they can show great conservatism in the final support loads due to the way in which SAM was combined with other loads.

Gibbs & Hill combined the SAM loads absolutely. They believe ,

that an SRSS, combination might be more appropriate. Addition-ally, they believe that SAM may be able to be classified as a free end displacement with respect to the ASME Code.

4 Page of

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

y Communications AL i i Report 111lllllllllllllllllllllllllll Compan exas Utilities 0 Telecon X O Conference Report Project:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 83090 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 and 2 cate:

6/13/84 sumect "

l DCTG Review 9:00 AM Place:

Bibo, Williams, Smedley Cygna Strange, Reddi'g, McBay, Wade, Grace TUGC0 Hatley CASE Walker BLCP&R Required item Comments Action By N. Williams opened the meeting by asking Mike Strange (TNE) to explain the validation process by which the DCTG data base was updated.

Mike began with a brief history of the DCTG function. He l , explained that the validation process (described in the 10/24/83 Cygna Communication Report between Williams & Strange) was for the most part complete. The validation effort did not include piping and pipe location drawings (i.e., BRP, BRHL). Although the design changes associated with the piping and pipe location drawings are accounted for on this DCTG numerical design change listing, they were not part of the DCTG data base update.

Mike McMay explained how these drawings were being updated.

Mike Strange explained that for DCA's, a comparison of the contents of the G&H and DCTG computer listings was made to ensure that all DCA's were accounted for. If there were any missing l numbers, or discrepancies, the DCA and associated Change Verification Checklist (CVC) was pulled and reviewed to determine and resolve the problem. The database was then updated.

l Mike also explained that the DCTG validation process for CMC's was basically completed. This process was accomplished by reviewing the CVC for each CMC and updating the database. In addition, a reviewer of all drawing (except piping and structural) was performed to determine if the DCA/ CMC had been incorporated and if so, the database was updated.

1 signM Page of Q p Distnbution:

N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project sozo oia File, S. Burwell _, __. .____ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ ,__ _ __ ,

s Communications

. 4Ca i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 Requwod item Comments Action By S. Bibo asked Mike if he would walk us through the validation process and show us the documentation he used to record this process. Mike agreed to this and N. Williams asked the CASE representative if she would want to witness this.

Mrs. Hatley (CASE) said that she had other things to do but may want to talk to Nancy later. N. Williams gave Mrs. Hatley the on-site Cygna extension where she could be reached.

N. Williams, D. Smedley, S. Bibo and M. Strange proceeded to the DCTG area and were given a tour of the DCTG file and computer terminal areas. Mike showed us some design change files which were filed by discipline and grouped by design change number blocks (i.e., CMC 600 through 700). He pulled a typical folder and explained the notes / markings on the log that was filed in front of each folder. One in particular showed that during the DCTG validation process, a CVC was determined to be missing.

There was a notation on the log that a copy was requested and received from Gibbs & Hill. The entire log entry for the DCA was then " highlighted" in blue which, as Mike explained, meant the file was completed. We returned to Mike's office and continued a general discussion of the validation process.

Mike explained in a little more detail the merging of the G8H and DCTG databases. Mike said that if a DCA/ CMC was listed against an affected document on the G8H printout, but the document should not have been, DCTG changed the status to "NI" (Not to be Incorporated) but left the DCA/ CMC on the printout for historical

, purposes.

! S. Bibo then requested Mike to pull the file of a DCA (the number l was chosen at random by S. Bibo), and the computer listing of l affected drawings relative to the DCA selected. Mike pulled the l DCA and explained that we would have to give the computer a l drawing number, to determine the DCA/ CMC associated with it. We l asked the computer for the drawing number which was referenced on l the DCA. A printout for that drawing revealed that in fact the

DCA requested was listed against the drawing. The DCA indicated

that it was to be incorporated into the referenced drawing, but the printout indicated "NI". S. Bibo questioned Mike on this and he showed the CVC (attached to the DCA) which indicated that the DCA was not to be incorporated. S. Bibo then asked Mike if it was true that one function of the CVC was to change the incorporation requirement of the DCA. Mike said that was correct.

S. Bibo and Mike Strange held further discussions on the actual percent complete of the DCTG validation effort. Mike stated that i from the standpoint of merging the G&H and DCTG databases, the effort was 100% complete, however, Mike felt that he was about 3 Page of 2 1 rnon

Communications 4 4L t i Report 1111111111ll1811181111111111ll ttem comments [cEYy months away from what he considered to be a " completed product". S. Bibo and Mike Strange continued this dialogue (relative to percent complete) with N. Williams, D. Smedley, D.

Wade, and G. Grace. After the discussion, all parties agreed that the DCTG validation process was basically complete and could be verified.

Page of m . . . . - -. _ . . _ - _ - . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

Communications alt i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 CompanyTexas Utilities X D Telecon D Conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J b No. 84042

[

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste: 6/11/84 i

l Subject 1. Telecon 3/19/84, 8:30 AM, Item 8 Time: 3:00 PM

2. GTN-68852, dated 4/25/84 p,,,,.

Participants:

H. Mentel, F. Colucci, S. Lim of G8H N. Williams, G. Bjorkman Cygna Required item Comments Action By

. Cygna mentioned that it wcs not possible to assess the effect of neglecting fluid & insulatten weight at valves and flanges based on the response provided b) Gibbs & Hill. Cygna explained that, even though a region of the system where these effects appear to have their worst influence we considered, to compare an equivalent static type analysis of a smaller region of the system which incorporates the additionoi weights to a complete dynamic response spectra analysis of the entire system which did not incorporate these weights was not a good comparison because the results would certainly be influenced by other unquantifiable factors in addition to fluid and insulation weight at values &

flanges.

Gibbs & Hill determined that the number of changes to the dynamic model necessary to incorporated fluid and insulation weights at valves and flanges would be relatively sm311. They agreed to re-

! run the dynamic response spectra analysis with the additional fluid & insulation weight at valves & flanges.

l Signed. *

/S$ Page} of 1 Distnbution- N. Wil'~ ins, ). Wac e, b. Grace, U. BJorkman, L. d. Weingart, d. IreDy, l C . ",2;;11, 2. E! " : , " :j r "'r t n cun

Communications A L . c i. Report l1111fl111111111111111111lll11 Compendexas Utilities XD Telecon O Conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84042 -

D

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 June 6, 1984

Subject:

Cancellation of June 7 Data Base Verification MeetiRf': P.M.

Place:

Participants:

D. Oldag Cygna D. Wade TUEC Required item Comments Action By I called Dave Wade to ask if it was possible to go ahead with the meeting on data base verification activities in light of the information received from S. Burwell. Dave said he hadn't been able to return Spot's call and asked me to relay Spot's message to him. I told Dave what Spot had told me (see June 6, 1984 P.M.

j telecon, D. Oldag and S. Burwell) and asked him if we could go l ahead with the meeting. He said that he had already told Mrs.

l Ellis that the meeting was cancelled. Dave said if I were l willing to call Mrs. Ellis and see if CASE would be able to send someone to the meeting, it was acceptable to him. I asked Dave if it wouldn't be more appropriate for him to call Mrs. Ellis to see if CASE could still send a representative since he cancelled the meeting. He stated that he was hesitant to do that since

, CASE might object to the late rescheduling. I asked if there was l

any possibility of having the meeting if I could get CASE to agree to send someone on this short notice, especially since I t had Steve Bibo in Boston waiting to hear whether or not he should be boarding a plane for Texas. Dave then stated the meeting was definitely cancelled because all the TUEC people had already been i

notified of the cancellation.

l l

l l

\

signe Page of

(

) _A jg3 l l D'stnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File im ei.

Communications AL c& Report l$llllllllllllllllllllllllll Company 0 Telecon O Conference Report Project: Job No. -

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 gig Subject Time.

Pipe Stress Expanded Review 9:00 Place:

Sitp

Participants:

of C. Rav r,AH J. Minichiello cynna l

Requwed item Comments Action By Data Point 86 of problem 1-175 had not included an SIF for the 3 x 2 sockolet. This piping, however, is class 5 (nomograph) only and was included in this problem for its effect on the 3" line only. See page 21 of the QA binder for this explanation.

l t

t Page of

})f lenh '

D"*'*

"'N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, S. Burwell, S. Treby, J. Ellis.

im ei. J. Minichiellon Lo W9in sch_28d vAlfARr; ~