ML20100M503

Forwards Telcon Transmittal 6 Re Telcon Repts Associated W/Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program

ML20100M503
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/18/1984
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84042.017, NUDOCS 8412120347
Download: ML20100M503 (22)

Text

. ,

101 Cahfornia Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415 397 5600 June 18, 1984 -

840'42.017 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

SUBJECT:

Telecon Transmittal #6 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Job ho. 84042

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

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

If you have any questi'o.is or desire to discuss any of these documents please do g

'not hesitate to call. if you are unable to reach me in the Cygna San Francisco office ask for Ms. Donna Oldag at the same number.

Very truly yours, N. H. Williams Project Manager NHW/

Attachment cc: Mr. D. Wade (TVEC) w/ attachment Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachment $h Mr. G. Grace (TVEC) w/ attachment # h I Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o g I

o'N ,

p pd s/

gPfo??8cNNhi g a

s.n, _ . e.. .n om.... _._

. Communications l ALn i Report lulilNNNillNillHHNW1 company: lexas utilities g g ,,,, p Project: . Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84042  ;

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste: 3/14/84 - 3/17/84 Subject Time: 1:00 p.m./ 8:00 p.m.

Tube Steel Allowable Piace: Site

Participants:

D. Rencher of TUSI J. Minichiello Cygna J. Finneran TUSI/PSE Required item Comments Action By Cygna has noted that the allowables used for tube steel do not reflect Revision 10 of the N-71 Code Case, but only Revision 9.

Mr. Rencher explained that TUSI was aware of the differences and suggested Cygna contact Mr. Finneran concerning TUSI's position.

On 3/17, Cygna discussed the allowable with Mr. Finneran. Mr.

Finneran stated that TUSI had documentation from the ASME Code permitting the use of the earlier revision. Cygna requested a JF/TUSI

~

copy of the documentation for review.

l l

i m e *

.. .. e, , _a,, ..

-^=

u * * ^

..__,........_,.1._f.._.J._L.1.._t.9.._. . .. .a.. ...... ,= - ,It.

1030 0te

Communications 4( t i Repod 111111111111111111111111111111 l

company: Texas Utilities o Teiecon E conference n port J N 84042

"'TomanchePeakSteamElectricStation Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

3/20/84 subject Time: 4:00 pm PUS U-Bolt Allowables Place:

Comanche Peak

Participants:

D. Rencher ' TUSI J. Minichiello Cygna i

Required Item Comments Action By Cygna had requested allowables for PUH U-bolts above PUH-160.

According the Mr. Rencher, allowables do not exist. Instead, the designers are directed to use appropriate calculations to qualify the U-bolts, based on the cross-section. The same is true for PUS allowables not shown.

i signed. Page { of

/pm }

Distnbution: D. Wade, N. Williams, J. M1nichiello, G. Grace, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File im ei.

. . :.. . . w. . ,. . .~. - -. -. . ... . ..

Communications 4'l i i Report laillimillimlillilililli

• """ Texas Utilities g m.c n conference Report Projetomanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No.

Independent Assessment ?rogram - Phase 3 :

5/17/84

"" I* * **

Inspection Reports 9:30 a.m.

Place:

Boston

Participants:

of Donna Lewellen TUSI Requred item Comments Action By I called Donna to discuss the IR ftling/ retrieval system at CPSES.

Donna explained that she had logs of all IR's on file in her

, office. I told Donna that I would like to have her available on 5/21/84 to explain the IR filing system because I would be on site.

She said that she would be available.

l i

l l

l l

Signed Page of Distnbution: M. Williams, U. Wade, U. Urace, U. Smedley, 5. 51bo, 5. Ireby, d. t.llis, Project File

~

Communications

~

Al i i Report 111111111111111111111111111111

• "" T* '** "

Texas Utilities fi contemnce nem Project: Job No. .

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/27/84 i Subject Time:

Gibbs & Hill Internal Surveillance Reports Place:

G & H/NYC

Participants:

of J.C. Waal C_vana Joan Gaynor Gibbs & Hill Item Comments Ac n y Internal Surveillance Reports were presented for Cygna's review. The reports covered the period from 1978 through 1983.

We requested additional reports for previous years. Ms. Gaynor said that she would try to locate the reports. Although the procedure for internal surveillance dates back to Dec. 1973 (for

. Rev. 2) Ms. Gaynor stated that she didn't think that any were performed prior to 1978. She said that the form QA-I-I in QA-1, Rev. 2 was used to transmit and record documents for design review. The process involved a final calculation being transmitted to QA, QA then puts on the QA-I-I form and sends it out for design review, the document returns to QA from the design reviewer with the appropriate spaces filled in to show that a design review was performed and whether or not corrections to the document are required. (RefertoChecklistDC-02-028) l l

r I

I I

l Segned.

• Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Waal, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File im ei.

-- . . - - __-__,.___.____.-._.s. _ _ . _ _ - . . _ , . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ ~ _ - . . - _ _ - - _ - . . - . _ _ . .

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

Communications 4L t i Repod mellumilllllKil compeny:

Texas Utilities el Telecon o conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No.

84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 June 41984 subject Clarification on Large Bore Stress Problems ""

1:45 p.m.

and Welded Attachment Calculations S .F .

Participants:

of g, ggggg] EH L. J. Weingart Cygna Required item Comments Action By Henry clarified that the 272 large bore stress problems and 735 welded attachment calculations are for Unit 1 systens and systens comon to both units. Henry will provide Cygna with the log of welded attachment calculations as an aid in the attenpt to assemble a list of all supports which involve welded attachments.

=

l t

l l

Signed g)  ;)jf, jj , Page g of g

i oistneution: N. W1' liaiiis, D. Wade, G7 Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File 9000 0ta

Communicstions 4Ln i Report INilllillNNNNNNNNiill compaar Texas Utilities E Teicon o conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84042 Independent Assessment Progran - Phase 3 8:

June 6,1984 subject Pipe Stress Questions - Welded Attachents in Time 8:00 Break Eyclusion Zones Place:

Site

Participants:

H. Harrison ' TIEC J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Harvey asked if Westinghouse should perfonn any analyses on their piping within break exclusion zones. Cygna replied that G&H was examining this problen to detennine design impact and may need data from Westinghouse, but probably not additional analyses.

I 4

I l

a s gneo (/ / I y Page } of g oi.insi,on: M. F11T ans, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. M1nichiello, 5. Treby, J. Ellis,

, - "rjd "":

1030 0ts

Communications 4L ci lillililllHililllNNI;Nilll Report t

compenr Texas Utilities o Telecon rX conter nce Report Project Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' bb No.

84042-Independent Assessment' Progran - Phase 3 June 8,1984

Subject:

Pipe Support Data Request time:

10:30 Place:

3gge

Participants:

G. Grace TEC J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested a copy of the NPSI Tubesteel/ Richmond insert analysis (see TUGC0 letter May 18,1984) be sent to:

Cygna Energy Services 286 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 Attn: Dr. Gordon Bjorkman 1

1 1

l Signed L/ of Page g y oisinbution: N. b illisns, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, n , _ - , , _

10M 01e

- - - - . , . - - - . . . - , - --._--..--..--_.--_----_,-,_n.,----_-

Communications A( t i Report mmmmmmmma Company q)g g 0 Telecon g Conference Report Project Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Date:

Indeoendent Assessment Proaram - Phase 3 June 6.1984 SutWt Time:

Data Request 10:00 Place:

Site

Participants:

of D. Rencher TIEC J. Minichiello Cvan a 1

4 Requred item Comments Action By l Cygna requested SA-4184, Revision 0 and 1, for review (referenced in support MS-1-003-004-572R).

i I

l 1

1 l

l l

i i

l Signed y jj #

Page of b g, K LlLil A M.d IMS 1 1 0"*"* "

N. Willians, D ua de, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File im ei.

Communications 4L t i Repod maammann

""**"" 9

• coa "a'ac* a'a a Texas utilities ProHet: Job ho.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 oste:

Independent Assessment Proaram - Phase 3 June 6. 1984 Subsect: Time:

ITT Internal Audit Findings 3:30 P.M.

Place.

Boston

Participants:

of P. Salcone ITT Grinnell A. Jones Cyana Required item Comments Action By 1.a I phoned Mr. Pete Salcone of ITT Grinnell on June 6,1984 in reference to the status of Grinnell Audits No.1 and No. 2 with regard to closure of Findings 3 and 4 respectively. He informed me that he had reviewed these particular findings himself and they were closed out on April 4,1984 1.b In regard to Findings 5 through 12 issued during Grinnell Audit No. 6 dated Septemer 19, 1978, he said they also had been closed out.

When I asked him the contents of these particular findings, he said they were sketches that were in the process of revision at the time of the audit.

I requested copies of the above items from him and was told to call Dave Powers on Thursday, June 7,1984 and he would send us the information.

J Mgpg,fh "a* a'

,ss 1 i D"*"***

$. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, A. Jones, S. Treby, J. Ellis voso oie Project File

Communications 4L t i Report  :

111111111111111111111111111111

• ""* conference Repon Texas Uti11 ties  % Telec n

~

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 oste:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 June 5, 1984 Data Collection P.M.

Place:

Participants:

of J. C. Waal Cygna Borys Czarnogorski G8H Requred item Comments Action By I called Borys to see how he was doing getting historical copies of the Project Guides that I had previously requested. Borys said that it would take longer than he first thought because there were a lot of files to go though. I told him that I realized that he was very busy and that he could place my request on a lower priority. I also told him that I could develop the checklists using the latest revisions and then review the historical documents during upcoming visits to GaH, New York City. Borys said that would be fine. He asked if we would definitely be coming to New York City then. I told he that I didn't know because we were still developing the checklists, but I would inform him when the visit to New York City is scheduled.

i j

)))

'* Page of Signed.

~

/HS l l D*uhon N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, J. Waal, S. Treby, J. Ellis

. . , , rruseu riie

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

- l COmmuniCGtionS Mi 111111111111111111111111111111 Report 1

l U ' ' ' * " "''""'#

Toyae 1Iti lit 1 oe S Project: Job No.

"#0#2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,

Independent Assessment Progran - Phase 3 6/1/Ra

Subject:

Time:

11 am Sort Request ,,,

tir o

Participants:

of D_ Ranchpr- TIIFC

,1. Minichiello Cygna i

i Required ltem Comments Action By

{

Cygna requested a sort of stress problem number against line number and pipe size for all piping problems. This would be similar to the 3 and 4 inch pipe size sort "LIBSH-CGN-DI A.RPT" received 5/24.

l l

i l

l l

l l

signed Page of Ybl))}l[Al^ t rk e 1 1 N. WillEms, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File I im ei.

5 Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 Company:

Texas Utilities tX Telecon a conference Report N

84042' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date:

6/6/84 Notification of Meeting Time for 6/7/84 9:15 am Place:

SFR0

Participants:

Juanita Ellis CASE Donna Oldag Cygna Requred item Comments Action By I called Mrs. Ellis to inform her of the time for the meeting being held at CPSES tomorrow. I also asked her for the name of the person from CASE who will be attending so that Texas Utilities could ensure access for the CASE representative. Mrs.

Ellis said that they were still trying to line someone up for the

, meeting and that she would call Dave Wade directly with the name of the CASE attendee.

i i

l l

s.oned- L/ g 1

/rke "*8' 1 1 Distnbution. N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File L

Communic'OtIOnS 4L t i Report MINillNOWillllHillHI Company: Texas Uti11 ties a Telecon d Conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date: 5/30/84 subject Time: 4:00 p.m.

Stiffening of Embedment Plates Place: G8H, New York

Participants:

Ed Bezkor of G&H John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Bezkor to explain the requirements for stiffening embedded plates so that moments at base con.1ections of pipe supports were resolved into shear and tensio, loads. Mr. Bezkor stated that the plates must be stiffened per Rev.1 of Specification 2323-SS-30. Mr. Peter Huang will provide Cygna with the detailed calculations when he returns from vacation.

l l

o,,,,,,,,,, ................ _ , . . . . _ . - . . ......

,, m_ __ - .

. . . . ..v.....,.

Pro.iect File im e,.

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

~

Communic 0tions '

4L .-

t i Report 111111111111 Required Hem Comments Action By the bolts to share the shear load.

What is TUSIs standard practice in this type of con-nection? Is this weld acceptable?

d. The weight of the constant support itself is not included in the support design load for the frame. A #53 constant support weighs approximately 600 lbs., or 5% of the design load.

What is TUSI's standard practice for spring anchorage design" 1

l l

l Page g of g ae oi.

a. . .

Communic 0tions 4L 6 i Report ,

""*"' .'* caa Texas utilities x"a'ac* a'a a 1 Protect Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program 3/21/84 Subsect Time:

Mechanical Review Comments - Phase 3 2:30 p.m.

Place:

Site

Participants:

of D. Rencher TUSI J. Minichiello Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested responses for the following questions:

Comment: In the spring design loads for the main steam system, Cygna cannot match the loads in the design calculation to the loads in the data transmitted by G8H.

i How has the design load for a spring been calculated?

Comument: In reviewing MS-1-004-001-C725. Cygna had the followin ;

questions:

a. There appears to be a 7/16" flare bevel weld between items l i and 22. This does not seem possible due to item 34.

Does TUSI have documentation confirming the size and configuration of this weld? Likewise, the weld (5/16")

between 26 and 157 l b. The STRUDL model uses a fixed point at the embedment plates

(3, 6,12, and 15 joints). Specification 2323-55-30 Rev.1 ,

! requires these to be treated as pin joints, unless the embedment is stiffened.

Where is the stiffener in this calculation, and has structural accepted this configuration?

c. Per ASME Appendix XVII, paragraph 2442, shear loads on connections with both welds and bolts must be taken by the welds alone. Item 16 is attached to beam #21 with both weld i and Hilti bolts. The weld sizing calculations performed use i

Detnbution-Y/}/ILa /jw 1 N. WiIliams, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Hess, T. Wittig, S. Treby, J. Ellis, sessois Project tile

Communications

( t i Repod letilllilllilllitilllllllill Texas Utilities  % Telecon conterence neport Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 D

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 6/8/84

Subject:

Time:

Notification of Rescheduled Meeting on Data Bas, AM Place:

Verification Activities - CASE

Participants:

of D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By I phoned Mrs. Ellis to notify her that the meeting on Data Base i Verification Activities had been rescheduled to Wednesday, June i 13, 9 a.m., at the CPSES site.

Mrs. Ellis asked for the exact location on site. I replied that she would have to ask G. Grace for that information since he was arranging for the meeting room.

D'"b" ":

Yf)[f[ e /rke 1

1 k.' Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File me oi.

l Communications 4Ln i Report mammanum Texas Utilities 9 Telecon o conference Repon Project: Job No. )

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessme'nt Program - Phase 3 6/8/84 subject Notification of Rescheduled Meeting on Data Tim': M Place:

Base Verification Activities - NRC l

Participants:

of Spotwsood Burwell NRC D. Oldag Cygna ,

1

! item comments [cE'Yy I phoned Mr. Burwell to notify him that the meeting on Data Base Verification Activities had been rescheduled to Wednesday June 13, 9 am, at the CPSES site.

Mr. Burwell stated that he would not be attending the meeting but

. would expect a Conference Report summarizing the meeting.

i I

h j b )); g u /rke 1 1 D'stneuten- N.'NiII'iams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Burwell, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File

! 1030 0f a

I s

4. .a Communicctions

( t i Repod ammmmmmme compenr Texas Utilities oX Telecon D Conference Repon

"*' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J""~

84042

~

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/30/84 subject "**

May 24, 1984 Site Discussions 4:C0 p.m.

Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports "***

Cygna, SFR0 Pen cipante: '

D. Wade T0EC N. Williams Cygna

, Requwed item Comments Action By Dave Wade called to ask for some clarification on the questions which remain open from the 5/24/84 discussions at the site:

PIPE STRESS

1. (Item 8, 5/24/84 Comunications Report) .

Dave asked what the main cause of the SIF errors were. I replied that it was a combination of omissions not found by the checker, use of incorrect properties in the input to ADLPIPE, and incorrect application of the later code (i.e., requirements contained in footnotes).

2. (Item 12, 5/24/84 Comunications Report) l l Dave clarified that E.C. Rodabaugh was not working with G&H on the welded attachments in break exclusion zones, although G&H is checking these attachments as stated in the Communications Report.

3. (Item 17, 5/24/84 Comunications Report) i Dave asked for some more specifics on the mass participation question. I stated that there were examples in the main steam i

analysis where 0% of the mass was participating in the vertical direction.

There is further discussion of these examples in the 3/19/84, 8:00 a.m. telecon.

sw ;A f),e.ge 3 or l

! Distnbution: N. Wf' liams, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Iotti, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, C. Wong,

,, 2. C' ' i : , E. 5:% , 9' ? a rj-" -

l' .

~

Communic 5tions 4L t i Report 111ll1111llll11111111111111111 Item Comments Ac n y Dave also stated that they would be sending all of the GaH' reviews on this matter which have been conducted to-date. I also requested that he include a description of the methodology G8H used in calculating the mass fractions.

4. (Item 20, 5/24/84 Communications Report)

Dave asked where the 0" tolerance requirement is documented. I stated that it appears in G&H Specification MS-46A, Section 3.6.2.1.1. Referring to that section, Dave said his copy, Rev. 5, dated 2/84, did not contain that requirement.

Further review of Cygna's technical file indicated that Cygna's copy was Rev. 3. It appears that the 0" tolerance may have been deleted in Rev. 4 or 5. Cygna will check into this matter and void the question if appropriate.

5. (Item 35, 5/24/84 Communications Report)

Dave mentioned that G&H appears to interpret the line contact stress question as referring to pipes resting on structural members such as tube steel. I stated that the concern really related to attachments which are not welded. For example, a saddle welded to the pipe would be analyzed using the CYLN0Z program, while the same configuration in the unwelded condition was not analyzed. Refer to the 4/23/84 Communications Report for specific examples.

PIPE SUPPORTS Dave asked if the question on section properties pertained to just tube steel or other structural shapes as well. Also does the question pertain to NPSI or ITT Grinnell design?

Dave asked what Cygna meant by " consistency in design" (Item 28). I replied that we were asking for design procedures I

but the intent was to understand how the pipe support design activities were controlled. I further explained that although we were asking for procedures, we recognized that it is unlikely that any organization would have procedures for every aspect of the design activities. Rather, the question was intended to initiate some discussions which would aid Cygna in understanding the Texas Utilities design process from which we could make an assessment of how well it was working, based on the adequacy of the designs we reviewed.

In sumary, I stated that the list of open items contained in the 5/24/84 Comunications Report were in many cases minor discrepancies or requests for further information to complete the review. This list is not necessarily indicative of the number of Page 2 '

toso oit

t. ,

Communications 4L t i Report 191llll11lllll11111lll11111111 Required item Commen'.s Action Gy observations or a serious matter in terms of the adequacy of the pipe support design. Rather, in keeping with Chairman Bloch's request to document more of the review details to minimize questions by people attempting to assess the adequacy and depth of Cygna's review, we were pursuing a more literal interpretation of our review criteria and placing more emphasis on documenting perhaps minor points.

l l

4 l

I Page of 1020 01D

, , _ _ . , _ , , , _ , . . _ _ _ . . , .