ML20100M557

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Telcon Repts Associated W/Phase 3 of Independent Assessment Program
ML20100M557
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 05/22/1984
From: Williams N
CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To: Ellis J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84042.013, NUDOCS 8412120366
Download: ML20100M557 (55)
v • d • e


Text

-

saseor uevers 101 Cahfornia Street, Suite 1000. San Francisco, CA 941115894 415 397 5600 4

May 22, I984 M @

84042.013

~

9 Mrs. Juanito Ellis President, CASE I426 S. Polk Dollos, Texas 75224

Subject:

Telecon Transmittal #3 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 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 don't

! hesitate to coll. If you are unable to reach me in the Cygno San Francisco office ask for Ms. Donno Oldog at the some number.

! Very truly yours.

l  %

Y

! N.H. Willi Projet:t M NHW/dhb Attochment cc: Mr. S. Treby (US NRC) w/o Mr. D. Wade (TUEC) w/o W. G. Grace (TUEC) w/o Mr. D. Pigott wo/o 8412120366 840522 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR

[4l ,f ,

A Ss San Francisco Bos:on Checafo Fhchland

/ n-

i 6 Communications AL t i Report ll11lll111ll11111ll11111llllll Company: Tec n y Conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D *:

Independent-Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/19/84 sutnect Time:

8:00 a.m.

Place:

Pipe Support Questions partcipants: '

D. Rencher TUSI John Minichiello, C. Wong Cygna Requred item Comments Action By Cygna requested response to the following comments:

1. In reviewing the calculations for U-bolts used in supports, Cygna has noted instances where
a. A 2" diameter U-bolt is called out, with no vendor s]ecified, nor any design calculation supplied (MS-1-003-001-C72S, Rev.

3).

b. A PUH-340 (2-1/4" diameter) U-bolt is called out, but this j does not appear in the NPSI catalog. The designer then l qualifies the bolt based on a pure tensile check (.6 Fy)

(MS-1-002-001-S72R, Rev. 3).

c. A Figure 137SN (2-3/4" diameter) ITT U-bolt is called out.

,. Since no allowable is supplied, the designer qualifies the bolt based on a combination of tensile and side load (because of swing angle). When the side load causes failure, a memo l

from ITT Grinnell is used to accept side loads (due to swing angles up to 5*) without tensile load reduction. The

designer then qualifies the bolt based on tensile alone --

(MS-1-002-004-S72R, Rev. 2).

d. Again, in MS-1-003-006-S72R, a designer qualifies a Fig. 137N 2-3/4" diameter U-bolt based on tensile stress only, although the designer does use the root area of the bolt (conservative).

9 Y l Rb A - A

'" /Pm, " { 1 , j, 5 E. inx "n,r isa ,"Erss"Hir' " "'~' - '' " "-" " -"

o' i-i-

1 5 Communications A L% 1 Report llll11111111111111111111111111 comments [eEnTy trem In al.1 the cases, except where no check was done, there was no attempt to consider the complex stress pattern of the U-bolt as a bent beam with a distributed load.

' To determine what the vendors would use for an allowable load, Cygna has prepared the following table of level A/B allowable vs.

rod size.

A comparison of allowable load vs. tensile stress area for the ITT bolts shows the following (up to 650'):

I Rod Tensile All ow. " Working Size Ary Load Stress" NPSI (in) (in ) (lb) (psi) ITT PUH-10, 20 .625 .226 3620 8009 Fig.137SN

-30 .75 .334 5420 8114 F1g. 137SN

-40. 80 .875 461 7540 8178 Fi g. 137SN

-160 1.0 .605 9920 8198 Fig. 137SN

- 1.5 1.404 23260 8283 Fig. 137SN

- 2.0 2.497 41400 8290 Fig. 137SN

- 2.25 3.246 54400 8380 Fi g. 137SN

- 2.5 3.998 67000 8380 Fig. 137SN Notes: Tensile Area from " Mechanical Engineers" Handbook, UNC l thread, Allow. load from ITT-Grinnell data sheets f " Working Stress" = TS

" Working Load" ~ (8400)(2)(Tensile Area)

For A-36 0 650'F, F y = 26100 psi, .6 Fy= 15660 psi l

j The designer's method would give a " working load":

" Working Load" ~ 15660(2)(Tensile Area)

~

f

! That is,. the method used by the designers is unconservative by -

85%. In particular, for MS-1-003-006-S72R, with a 2-3/4" bolt:

Emergency Load = 145711 lb

" Designer Method" = 145711/2 x Root Area (used in calc)

= 145711/2 x 4.62

= 15770 psi < .6Fy = 18600 psi i

Page of .

1020 010 ,

Communications Al t i Report llll111111ll111111111111111lll Comments Ac y Item Extrapolating the vendor " working load" method:

" Working Load" = 8400(2)(4.933)

= 82874 lb (level A/B)

Emergency Load = 1.33(82874) = 110000 lb

. . This bolt may not be adequate.

Question: Based on the above, have the vendors provided documentation on qualification methods for non-standard U-bolts?

2. Cygna has noted instances in the CCW system (CC-1-028-003-A33R, CC-1-028-001-A33R) where no gap is specified for a pipe within a frame. Has TUSI done a stlidy to show that, below a certain pipe temperature, pipe growth effects are negligible, since it is standard practice to use a 1/16" gap?

! 3. In reviewing the MS pipe support design calculations, Cygna has seen many instances where components are not checked. In some, there is reference to previous calcs which are not included. In others, there is no reference. As an example, Cygna has chosen MS-1-003-013-C72K. In technical file 84042-4F, Cygna has l

performed calculations which show most of the items are acceptable. Item 2, 2 PUS-320 U-bolts, does not appear to be acceptable. From the NPSI CORS, Allow = 16k x 2 = 32k Applied = 37k > 32k It does appear that the drawing calls out a 1-3/4" diameter rod for these " PUS-320" U-bolts, while the " standard" rod that a PUS-

! 320 is based on is 1-1/4" diameter. A 1-3/4" diamett- rod would "have an allowable (based on ITT-Grinnell, Fig.1375) of k

Allow = 31.4 h x 2 bolts = 62.8

{ which would be acceptable. ,,

1 l Questions l

a. Why are there no calculations or documentation for the standard supports?
b. Who is responsible for insuring that the data on drawings is correct?
c. What size U-bolt is in the field,1-1/4" diameter or 1-3/4" ,

diameter?

Page 3 of 5 1020 0 t h r ..

Communications A L% 1 Report 111111111111111111111111lllll1

,R

"** comments

d. How does NPSI/ITT Grinnell ensure that all parts of a design h' ave been checked, if a package does not contain or reference all the data?
4. In reviewing certain U-bolt and beam combinations, Cygna has noted instances where the local effect of the U-bolt on the beam is not considered. Forexapple,inMS-1-03-001-C72S,theU-bolt has an applied load of 23.7 and is attached to 6x6xl/2" TS.

Cygna has performed calculations which show the local bending stress in the top portion of the tubesteel may be high.

How does TUSI/NPSI/ITT Grinnell determine if connections can carry the applied load? Are standard tables available?

5. In reviewing installations with 0" gap around U-bolts, Cygna has the following questions:

i a. On Page 11 of CP-CPM 9.10, Rev.11, snug tight is defined l

twice:

i l " Note: Snug tight is defined as the tightness attained by a few impacts on an impact wrench or the full effort of a man using an ordinary spud wrench:

"When U-bolts are specified on the design document as not having any clearances, the U-bolt shall be snug tight so that the U-bolt cannot be moved by hand. The nuts on the U-bolt shall be installed on the side of the plate as shown on the design drawing."

Which is used for installation of U-bolts?

.b. In support CC-1-028-007-S33R, a PUS-240 U-bolt is used to provide support stability. If " snug tight" is taken as the first definition, this could mean ~ 80 ft-lb of torque.

Since,

,T ~ .2FD T = 80 f t-l b = %0 i n-l b D = 1" for a PUS-240

. *. F = 4800 lb/ leg l For piece 15 (1/4 x 4 x 4 angle)

! 4800 (2) as 4 (.25)'

g ng .

Page 4 ' 5 -

l l io2coi.

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

Communications di n i Report lllll1lll111111llll111llllllll ,

item comments [cNy~

How does the installation procedure insure that the angle will not be deformed?

c. In reviewing support MS-1-004-003-S72R, Cygna has noted no gap shown on the drawing and both nuts on the same side of the beam, implying the U-bolt is " snug tight."

Have the local pipe stress and increased U-bolt load due to

! 500 F thermal expansion been considered?

l l

l l

l e

0 e

O

$ 6 Page of 10:0016

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

Communications AL% i Rsport l!!""""!!!!!!I11llllll1111 company: Texas Utilities 5 Teiecon a conference Report J bNo. 84042

"' tomanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date: 5/22/84 Time: 10:45 am subefipe i Support Review Place: San Francisco

Participants:

D. Rencher of TUEC J. Minichiello Cygna nequired item Comments Action By Cygna called to determine if it would be worthwhile to send a support reviewer to the site to review previous revisions of calculations (reference, telecon 5/16/84, item 4). Dave said

! that TUEC had prepared their formal response, which stated that previous revisions of vendor calculations are kept with the vendors (NPSI and ITT). Dave did suggest that Nancy Williams may be able to contact the vendors and have a copy of the calculations sent to the site.

. JF , a I .

u,_, ,_,,_ a , , . . . ,

, , e. ,. ,. s. .

. _ . . . _ _ _ _. _ ....,....a........ . _ . . . . .e . .. ,. _. ..

oi s,,,, _

Peniect File 1020 01a I

1 i . .

Communications L41 n i Report ll11111111111111111111!IIlll11

  • E*"# Telee n g Conference Report Tens Uti11 ties Protect: Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/9/84

Subject:

Time:

11:45 a.m.

Calculation Package Request Place:

CPSES Site Participants. of Dave Rencher TUGC0 John Russ CES neoered Comments Action By item I requested a copy of Calculation Package FW-1-18-006-C72S from Mr. Rencher.

I l

, > li f_^ ,

/eam

  • 1 1

'"*"" N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File ion o,.

Communications ALni Report llllllll111111lllllllll1lll111 Company: Teiec n g conference Report eXas Utilities Project: Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/26/84

Subject:

Time:

9:30 am Mechanical Review Document Request Comanche Peak

Participants:

of D. Rencher TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required Comments Action By item

Reference:

Conference Report dated 23 March 1984, "Open Items,"

D. Rencher, J. Minichiello, C.K. Wong, and J. Russ participating i

l Dave delivered to Cygna the following:

j l

1. Output for Load Case 4 in STRUDL run for CC-1-028-026-S33R
2. Output for change sign of X coordinate in Node 24 for CC-1-028-026-S33R
3. Two runs to(determine what was used in design:

(i.e., Node 24 with Run 1 --> Y =.5 x = .374

. Run 2 --> Y =.5 x = .374)

4. The STRUDL output for support MS-1-004-005-C72K as requested in the referenced conference report.

i e i

,l hU);/((q /pm 1 1 D'stneution: 0.' Wade, N. Williams, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, C. Wong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, toso ote r vgeu rsic

Communications AL% i Report ll"""!'!!!!!!!!!11llllllIll company: Texas' Utilities o Teiecon m conference n. port Job No. f.,4042 Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D

Independerit Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/2/84 Tim

  • 9:30 a.m.

sueiect: Initial Meeting with R. Baker to Locate Place:

Historical Organization Documentation CPSES

Participants:

of R. Baker TUSI D. Smedley Cygna Hequired Comments Action By item

1) Asked R. Baker to respond sp'ecifically to where we could obtain organization charts and job descriptions generated and used prior to 1982. He indicated that retaining outdated organization charts was not a CPSES requirement but that some might be obtained from personal files.
2) At 10:40 a.m. this date R. Baker provided me with numerous historical organization charts.

signeo /eam Page 1 of 1

(/

oistneution: N. Wi ri tams, v. waae, u. urace. 3. nioo, u. ameaiey, s. Treoy, J. iiiis, rroject em 1080 Of e

Communications Al a i Report 11lll11lll16ll1Illlllll1111lll company: Telec n g conference Repon Texas Utilities Project: Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/10/84 Sutnect: Time:

9:00 a.m.

Calculation Package Request Place:

CPSES Site Participants- of Dave Rencher TUGC0 John Russ CES Item Comments Ac n y I received a copy of Calculation Package FW-1-18-006-C72S from Mr. Rencher.

))t)) ylm leam 1 1 D"'b" "! 'N.' EiIIiams', D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File me o..

Communic 2tions AL t i Report lililllilllilllillulillllli Company: Texas Utilities 10 N econ 0 Conference Report 8404'2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oste:

Independint Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/15/84 sueiect .IUGC0 Audits of TUSI 3:15 PM Place:

Participants. '

S. 8IbO Cygna D. Anderson TUSI (Dallas) nequireo Comments Action By item i

Debra Anderson called at the request of Tony Vega to provide me with information requested from Tony Vega on 5/10/84 (refer to Cygna Conference Report between Bibo and Vega at CPSES, dated 5/10/84).

Debra stated that there was a status log that showed the status of the following findings:

l TCP-18 - Findings 2, 3, 4 J TCP-32 - Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 TCP-43 - Findings 1, 3, 4, 5 TCP-49 - Findings 2. 3, 4 TCP-70 - Findings 1, 2 Debra stated that the status log may indicate the specific D. Anderson information I am looking for.

I asked Debra to send me a copy of the status log for the above referenced audits / findings and stated that additional information may be requested upon review of the status log.

of signeo

/j) f f /dhb Page g g oisineut. ort M. W1' 11adis, D. Wade, G. Grace, D. Smedley, 5. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project

~

film N

Communications si c i Repod 111ll111111lllll1111111lll1111 company: Texas Utilites 10 Telecon a conference Report 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/15/84 T'**

subiect: TUGC0 Audits of TUSI 3:00 PM Place: g

Participants:

' Cygna S. Bibo D. Anderson TUSI (Dallas)

, neauweo Comments Action By item Debra Anderson called at the request of Tony Vega to provide me with information requested from Tony Vega on 5/10/84 (refer to Cygna Conference Report between Bibo and Vega at CPSES, dated 5/10/84).

Debra stated that for findings 2 and 3 of Audit TCP-47, there was a status log that indicated that both findings were responded to i

(via CPPA #23573 9/29/82) and closed by QA.

I asked Debra to send the following information to my D. Anderson attention ASAP:

1. Status Log for findings 2 and 3 of Audit TCP-47
2. Letter #CPPA 23573 (9/29/82)
3. Letter from 0A to TUSI discussing response /close-out of

- findings 2 and 3

/dhb Page } of y signed. L/

Distnbution- N. Williams, D. Wade. G. Grace, D. Smedley, 5. Bibo, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project rii.

1000 01e

Communications t4 L i i Report 111lll111lll111111111llll1llll company: Texas Uti11 ties E Telecon D Conference Report J N 84042 Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

5/15/84 subject Inspection Reports Tim *:

2:30 PM Place:

Boston

Participants:

Steve Bibo of Cygna Tony Vega TUSI Required Comments Action By item I called Tony to get an idea of how many Inspection Reports (IR) were issued at CPSES. He said that he would get back to me with T. Vega the number of irs issued. I also asked for an explanation of the IR numbering system and filing system. He stated that irs were sequentially numbered with a discipline prefix. He stated that they were filed with the corresponding component package. He also stated that there was a computerized printout available of irs which would indicate the discipline location and status.

1 In addition. I told Tony that I had requested a copy of CPSES

( Procedure CP-QP-18.00, Revisions 0 thru 10 from Richard Baker.

. _n ..

of g l signeo: f)g /dhb Page}

,,,, ,,,". "illie...;, O. We , G. Gia w. D. 5meaiey, 5. o100, s. IreDy, d. Ellis, Project l File

'" _ ._ . _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . , _ _ _ . . . . _ , . . _ _ _ :._.__ u___.

Communications L4 L 6 i Report 11llllllllll!!!!mlllllllll11 company: Texas Utilities t T.i. con a conference n. port

~

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

5/16/84 sumect: **

-Pipe Supports and Pipe Stress 10:00 AM Open Items Place:

3 p

Participants:

G. Grace TUEC (Ebasco)

N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By 1 Cygna is still waiting for copies of the following pipe support calculations:

MS-1-001-004-S72R MS-1-003-004-S72R i

These were identified as open items between Cygna and Texas Utilities (reference D. Rencher telecon to C. Wong on 4/10/84) over a month ago.

2. As a result of Cygna Project Reviews of Gibbs & Hill response to Pipe Stress questions (reference Gibbs & Hill letter to J. B.

George,- GTN-68852, April 25,1984) the following information is necessary for Cygna to complete its reviews:

sa . An index of the Gibbs & Hill Engineering Guides (AEGs)

b. Referring to items la and b of the letter, what is the G&H procedure for evaluating valves where restraints are added after initial pipe stress analysis results indicate excessive accelerations (i.e. the original valve qualification report does not consider the restraints)?
c. Referring to item la and b, please supply a copy of Seismic Qualification Report F0P-5A-1 and related correspondence for the main steam relief valve.
d. Referring to item Sa, please supply a copy of Memo SAT-426. .

i signed:

"hn. wiiiiams, D. naae, 6. Grace, 6. nong, i.. weingart, s./dhbT reoy, Page 1 v.

of 1

t. i n s, vroj ect oistnnution:

File

_ - 90m. . - . - . , - . - . . - . . . . ,- - . , . ;.. --...-. - . -. _ - - - . - _ _- .

Communications l

4Ln i Report 11111lllll11111111111111lll111 company: Texas Utilities a m econ 10 conference Report -

Project: Job No.

84042

( Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

l '5/10/84

\

subject: *** 12:50 p.m.

l , Corrective Action Systems Place:

CPSES

Participants:

S. Bibo . N. Williams CES l D. Wade, R. Tolson TUSI l

I Required

! Action By item Comments We asked to meet with D. Wade to clarify in our minds exactly what " vehicles" were used at CPSES to document design deficiencies. Dave asked that R. Tolson be brought into the discussion.

Tolson and Wade explained that in addition to such documents as Nonconformance Reports (NCR's), Deficiency Review Reports (DRR's), Corrective Action Requests (CAR's), Significant Deficiency Analysis Reports (SDAR's), etc., other documents could be used to document design deficiencies. These documents are Computer Modification Cards (CMC's), Design Change Authorizations (DCA's), and Inspection Reports (IR's).

Tolson explained that he didn't feel it was important relative to what you called the piece of paper, as long as the deficiency was Jocumented.

of Page 1 }

signed-

]M. Wi l liams, U. Wade, b. brace, d. t$1Do, 5. /rg I reby , d . L i ll s , Proj ect t i l e oistribution:

I. .

Communications AL ( i. Report Ipililllillllllllllllilllllli Company: Texas Utilities o Telecon a Conference Report Job No.

Proiecomanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8404'2 Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3:00 - 3:30 susielhequest for Verbal Information Time:

3/21/84 Place:

Re: Corrective Action & Audits Richard Baker TUSI D. Smedley Cygna B. Good Requred Comments Action By item

1) Met with Mr. Baker at 3:00 to discuss subject. Clearly stated that this meeting was being held so that he could provide g with information and that we would not discuss anything that we had done up to this point or any remaining activities.
2) Asked Mr. Baker where we could find program requirements for:

a) Follow-up of deficiencies identified as design related.

b) Modifying design process to correct recurring design deficiencies, c) Necessary training.

3) Through discussion Mr. Baker cited procedures and cases where they were used. He went on to state that in his opinion TUSI does not need a corrective action program since all design
  • changes are ultimately approved by Gibbs & Hill. We made no comment on this and left further action pending discussion.

"*9' *'

signeo:

T) /cdm 1 1 Distneution: N. Williams, D. Wade. G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project r4u m

Communications AL t i Report 1111111llll!!1111118111111ll11 Conference Repn Toyas Uti1ities g Mcn ,

  1. Uomanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042

~

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/21/84 sunieTUG_C0/TUSI QA Plan 3:18 P.M.

Place:

Cvona Trailar of

[

Participants:

Susan Soencer TUSI Cyana D. Smediev Required Act#on By item Comments

)

1) I (D. Smedley) received a telephone call from Susan Spencer at 3:18 p.m. today. She said that she had been instructed to copy the historical contents of the TUSI QA Plan and ship it to the site. She stated that she was calling to find out specifically what we wanted to look at because the volume of documents she had to reproduce was enormous. (She later stated that the historical file for the 0A plan was at least one full filing cabinet.) I told her that it was not possible for me to discuss any portion of what I wanted to look at without getting approval from our project management first. She then asked if there was any way we could come to Dallas and review whatever we wanted to, so that she would not be copying materials that were not even relative to whatever we needed. I told her to expect me on Friday morning, tentatively and that I would clear this through project.

t I

I

- Page of Signed h/bf/Lw m /cdm 1 1 Distnbution~ N. W' hiliams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Biho, D. Smedley, S. Treby; J. Ellis, Project mo oi. n ie . .

Communications L4 L i i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 Conference Regn -

Texas Utilities

)p Tek n J""'

"' Tomanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8404'2 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/21/84 Subject Time:

TUGG0/TUSI QA Plan 11:32 am Place:

CPSES

Participants:

of Bob Scott TUSI Dave Smediev Cvona l Required Comments Action By item

1) Engineering Procedure

{ a) TUGC0/TUSI QA Plan and b) TUGC0 Corporate QA Plan.

Mr. Smed? ey was phoned by Mr. Scott to address this issue. Mr. Smedley was advised by Scott that there are in fact two separate QA plans on site and that the TUGC0 Corporate QA Plan would be made available for us to review.

2) Mr. Scott also stated that the historical elements of the TUGC0/TUSI QA Plan was being mailed by courier from Dallas and would arrive tomorrow (3/22/84) morning from the TUGC0 offices.
3) Mr. Scott advised that any questions or clarification that we l required should be obtained by contacting Susan Spencer at 979-8871 in Dallas.

1 1

Page of

(,A Signed.

/1 [//wM l 1 J

/cdm 1

"*"" " N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby. J. Ellis. Project L_ .. _ _ meum t11e

l Communications 4Ln i Repod 1111111111111111111111111lll11 company: Texas Utilities D T econ a conference Report 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oste:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/1/84 T,me.

subject: 4:00 PM Boston

Participants:

of gff g )

Borys Czarnogorski - G8H neouweo Comments Action By item I called Borys to inform him that I would be at G&H in New York next week.

t l

i Signed /dhb "*9' 1 1

- Distnbution: P l .' Williams, D. Wade. G. Grace. 5. Bibo, 5. Treby. J. Ellis Project File me oi.

x- '

.LL.----.-_..

Communicctions t4 L t i Report 11111111111111111111111ll1lll1 coniany: o T acon p conference Repn Texas Utilities Project: Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/28/84 subject: Time:

2 00 pm Place:

TUGC0 Request for Calculation Packages Terry Kerlin TUGC0 John Russ Cygna Required Comments Action By item Terry requested that Cygna deliver the following packages to him:

1. MS-1-004-006-S72R
2. MS-1-002-006-S72R
3. SI-1-031-700-S32R I gave Terry both Main Steam Support packages and told him the remaining package would be delivered as soon as our analysis was completed.

Terry also delivered the PSE Guideline Book previously requested.

l

~

Page of g signed. j Distneution: D. WidsTT.' Williams'. G. Grace. J. Minichiello, C. Wong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, l

Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 companr Texas Utilities a T.i. con a conference n. port .

Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J b No.

84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/23/84 Ti"*

suoi.ct
. Request for Additional Information 11:00 a.m.

Plac.: p g 3

Participants:

N. Williams Cygna

< G. Grace TUEC (Ebasco) near.o item Comments Action By The following items are necessary in order that Cygna can complete the review of the listed support:

1. CC-1-087-004-A33A
a. Analysis / calculation for 2"4 thru-bolt. (Item 46,

, Drawing. Section B-B).

l l b. Computer analysis and calculation for the west side base plate. (Detail 14, Items 71 and 74, etc.).

a sica*d.

p /eam Page } cf Distnbution. E. 'W1 l Ilams, U. h&de, b. brace, d . Min 1Chlello, G. Wong, R. Iotti, 5. Treby, J.

}

r114e Den 4 art F41m e*_

1 l . .

CommunicStions 41 i i Report 111lllll11lllllllll1lll1:!!!!!

Teke n Conference Repon Texas Utilities x Project: Job No.

84042 Comanche. Peak Steam Electric Station g, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 4fp3fg4

Subject:

Time:

! Tipe Stress Questions 12:01 o.m.

I Place; SF/SITF i

Participants:

of Harvey Harrison TUST

! J. Minichiello Cvgna i

Required Comments Action By item

Reference:

TUSI Letter CPPA-25,234 to Herman d'Errico/NPSI, dated 12/1/82.

The referenced letter indicates that the Stress Analysis Group would consider local stress effects resulting from welded attachment and from contact line loads. Cygna could find no evidence that checks were being performed for contact line loads.

For example, a local stress calculation was performed for Support MS-1-002-004-C72K which was welded to the pipe; however, there was no such calculation for MS-1-002-005-C72K which was a very similar configuration, but was not welded to the pipe.

Please provide the documentation to show where the referenced

., commitment was satisfied.

Signed- Page of D"*"*"' D. Wade, N. Williams, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, inan a H. Mentel. Proiec_t File

Communications 4L i i Report l1181llll111111111111111111111 company: Texas Utilities o Towon ox conference Report

  • Job No- 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

3/27/84 subject ,, Pipe Support Calculation Document Request Tim *: 4:40 p.m.

Place:

CPSES Site

Participants:

' TUGC0 D. Rencher John Russ Cygna Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following:

1. NPSI baseplate analysis for baseplates shown in Sections "B-B" and "D-D" 0F MS-1-003-002-S72R dated 4/13/83
2. TSBR 102
3. CMC 95129. Rev. 0 4 CMC 95148
5. TF/RB-1333
6. PSE Sections 5 and 7 (CC-1-028-713-S33K) t .

l 1

1 l

l l

Page 1 of l Signed p . /pg }

Disinbution: D. dade, M. Williams, G. brace, d. mtnicntello, c wong, d. Muss, s. I recy, i esi4, n. 4.,. e<io

Communications dL 1 i Report lilllifilllllilllillfillllllli Texas utsiities "ca x

""''"c' a*

Project Job No. .

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

Independent' Assessment Program - Phase 3 3fpifg4 Subject Time:

3:30 on Lo~id Combinations for Anchors '*

CC-1-087-004-A33A and CC-1-009-016-A43A CPsEs site

Participants:

of Terry Kerlin TUGC0 John Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By I asked Terry to explain how the anchor load summaries for anchors CC-1-087-004-A33A and CC-1-009-016-A43A were determined. The load summary for the anchors references GTNs 64417 and 62995. Terry stated that the loads for the sumary for anchor CC-1-009-016-A43A were taken directly from the analysis output for problems AB-1-61A, Rev. 2 and AB-1-62B, Rev. I using the computer combined load files for normal, upset and emergency conditions. Anchor CC-1-087-004-A33A load sumaries were taken from the individual loading cases for problems AB-1-61A, Rev. 2 and AB-1-61B, Rev. 1. The loads from the individual load were then combined.

l l

e l

l l

I i

/1 lLN A lom 1 1 l

D"*"'** D. Wade, N. Williams, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, C. Wong, J. Russ S. Treby, mo oi. i> . t i l t s , Proj ect n le

Communications M ii Report 1111lll1llll11111ll11111n11ll

" *"*"" Texas Utilities N

  • con f contvence Report .

Project: Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/30/84 subiect Time:

1:45 PM lonference at G&H NYC at Conclusion of Independent Assessment Program (IAP) Place:

Participants:

J. P. Toner o' Cygna

_1 r umm1 runn2 Paul'P. DeRienzo (VP Consulting Eng., QA & New Tech) G&5 u4chmal a v4 ui ri e n tvp onwar rnn i ciu Robert E. Ballard (SRPM CPSES) G&H wah41 u roaaie (na umn2nor) raw Borys Czarnogorski (Proj. QA Eng. CPSES) GaH Required Comments Action By item Paul DeRienzo called the meeting to ascertain the status of the Cygna IAP for CPSES. He discussed the QA program and asked me to explain the IAP process which I did for QA on the activities to date. I told him I was not familiar with " Phase 4". They wished to know the timetable for the project. I replied that I did not know. He and Nabil asked what we had found. I explained to him that Borys was quite familiar with the open items most of which were items that were not located. Nabil stated that Borys would look in Hoboken, N.J., for them. They were told that any action they take was at their risk. We next had a general philosophical discussion on the other two open areas of design change trending and QA sign-off verification for corrective action of items not corrected and the necessity of having objective evidence to i verify close-out.

l l

l l

i l

signed'

/dhb "*" 1 1 Detribution. N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace. S. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File mo o,.

Communicntions LTL i i Report 11111111111111111ll18111111lll company Texas Utilities a Tei con d[ conference n. port Project: Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent, Assessment Program - Phase 3 cat.:

3/2/84 subject: Tim : 6:45 pm

"'*** Comanche Peak

Participants:

  • ' Texas Utilities DCC J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Please provide a copy of the following drawings with all DCA's and CMC's:

i j BRP-MS-1-SB-024 through BRP-MS-1-SB-047 BRHL-MS-1-RB-001 3RHL-MS-1-RB-002 l BRHL-MS-1-RB-003 BRHL-MS-1-RB-004 BRHL-MS-1-SB-016 BRHL-MS-1-SB-017 e

BRHL-MS-1-SB-01B l

BRHL-MS-1-SB-019 BRHL-CC-1-AB-007 l

a BRHL-CC-1-AB-013 BRHL-CC-1-AB-049 BRHL-CC-1-SB-001 l BRHL-CC-1-SB-002

. BRHL-CC-1-SB-003

\

Pag. } of }

/pm signed.

Distribution:

{

D.~dade, N. Williams, d. Min 1chtello, L. Weingart, M. Man), A. Gowell, Project fil wee si.

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

Communicatiens AL ua Report maammenam compny: 0 T*iecon q conference neport Texas Utilities Project: Joe No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Indepencr ent Assessment Program- Phase 3 Dete.

3/22/84

-Document Request -- NPSI Criterion Piece-I and XCI Review Partecipants. '

H. McGrane CES P. Mottola NPSI Required comments Action er item i I requested and received the following documents from P. Mottola j on 3/22/84:

1. Nonconformance Report Log
2. Nonconformance Report Files
3. Potential defect and noncompliance log A

])ff/j y& /rg ** 1 1 Distnbution ~ A.' WTiliams. D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo. S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File

. . _ . _._ _ m e's _ ._ __

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

a e, Communications L i i Report mammmum Company: o Tei con c)( Conference neport Texa's Utilities Job No.

Protectomanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 0*'*

Independent. Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/19/84 Tim

  • subieTngineering Procedures 1:30 P.M.

QA Vault Charles Osborne TUSI i

D. Smedley CPSES Required Comments Action By item

1) In order to perform an assessment of the volume or quantity of historical CCP-EP and CP-EI, a request was made of Mr. Osborne to be allowed to look at the contents of these file drawers. Mr.

Osborne stated that access to the files is limited to vault ,

l personnel and that in order to review the historical procedures files a sign out card must be issued for each. At this point in time the project team is signing out a few procedures at a time l for the matrix review.

e signeo Deinbution Q

N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File

/cdm '*" 1 1 mo ei.

Communications 4L 6 i Report

usammanssa l

company: Texas Utilities o Telecon 5 conference Report proie&omanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

3/19/84

) suoi.8ccess to Historical Copies Tim *- 11:00 - 3:00 Place:

CPSES Participants ' TUSI Engineering Richard Baker S. Bibo CPSES D. Smedley B. Good Reauirea Comments Action By

! Item We met with Richard to request that we have access to historical copies of engineering procedures / instructions for the purpose of performing our review at CPSES.

Richard explained that all copies of engineering procedures /instructionswereintheQArecordsvault(Charles Osborne), and that he would clear it up with Mr. Osborne for us to have access to engineering procedures / instructions.

We also requested that Richard spend some time with D. Smedley and B. Good to explain the CPSES procedural system.

I asked Richard if we could (if necessary) get copies of engineering procedures (historical) for use in our trailer next week. He stated that he had no problem with it, but it would be up to Charles Osborne (QA records vault) to follow his normal

, procedures for issuing documents.

Richard Baker authorized Mr. Osborne to issue copies of all engineering procedures / instructions requested by Cygna.

of sig"" /cdm Page g }

k()

Dietnbution N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, 5. 51bo, 5. Ireby, J. Ellis, Project File i.e oi.

m e CommuniCDtions 4L 6 i Report 111111111181111111111111111111 company: o T** con )p conf r.nce n. port Texas Utilities Protect Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Dam:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/19/84 Subsect Time:

Hist'orical Copies of QP's and QI's 10:45 AM Place:

p Tony Vega TUSI Site QA Steve Bibo D. Smedley B. Good n.aun.o it.m Comments Action By We met with Tony Vega to request that we have access to historical copies of quality procedures (QP's) and Quality Instructions (QI's) for the purpose of performing our review at CPSES.

Tony brought us to the QA records vault and introduced us to Charles Osborne. Mr. Osborne stated that he would set up a work location within the vault and bring us any procedures we requested.

In addition, I asked Tony Vega if Cygna could get " copies" of selected QP/QI procedures for use in our trailer.

Tony stated that he had no problem and that I should request these procedures from C. Osborne.

Tony Vega authorized C. Osborne to issue copies of all QA procedures requested by 4/5 - 4/9.

& ),)}, u

' ~

/cdm '*** 1 1 Distnbution: N. Wi1'11ams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File

Communic 2tions 4L t i Report imimimilmmmmim company: Texas Utilities o T wcon )b conference n. con Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independe~nt Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

3/28/84

' '"

  • Ti"* 4:39 PM Management Assessment of Place:

Design Program Mr. Merritt's Office i

"*"'*"'* ' TUSI j Mr. Merritt Dave Smedley Cygna item Comments Ac y

1. As a result of my conversation with Tony Vega at 11:00 AM today Mr. Merritt called Dave Wade who in turn called Bob Hess of Cygna asking for the issue of Management Assessment of Design Program to be related directly to Cygna by Mr. Merritt.
2. I received approval from Bob Hess to meet with Mr. Merritt.

1.

3. Het with Mr. Merritt at 4:39 and explained that all we were asking Tony Vega for was information relative to Management Assessment of the Program. I also explained that at this point I did not want to know any information other than where other management controls were prescribed by procedure.

This issue was further clarified by stating that we just want to be sure that we look at all procedures relative to this issue and Mhat's all we wanted to know.

Mr. Merritt then said that he had misunderstood what we were looking existed.,for and said he would find out if any other procedures V of

/dhb Page y }

Sea *d.

dg oisineution: N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File m

Communications AL 6 i Report 11111111111111ll11111111111111 company: Texas' Utilities o T* con D Conference Report 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

3/28/84 T' **

subject: Management Review of Program 11:00 T. Vega's Office

Participants:

TW hp TW Dave Smedley Cygna neauired item Comments Action By

1) I asked Tony Vega if he was aware of any procedures or programs that required management on site to review the adequacy or effectiveness of the design program. He stated that he was not aware of any prescribed requirements other than audits.

i He suggested that I talk to Mr. Merritt or Mr. Tolson for further input. I told Mr. Vega that if he could not identify any more information for us then I would call my management before talking to Merritt or Tolson. He said he would try to answer this and get back to me.

l e

l l

~

i signeo l

}, f p /dhb "* 1 1 l

o.stnbution- N. Wfiliams,X Wade, F. Grace, S. Sibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File i

teso cia

Communications ALn i Report 111111116811111111111114141111 company: Texas Utilities o m econ y conference Report Job No.

ProMomanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8404'2 D * '*

Independent ' Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/20/84 subielProcedures Tim" 1:45 p.m.

CPSES

Participants:

of gygg 3 gg D. Smedley Bob Scott TUSI Site QA l

C. Osborne TUSl QA Records neauireo Comments Action By item S. Bibo and D. Smedley requested to review the historical files of the TUGC0 CPSES QA Plan.

We were given the latest copy and informad that the historical files were maintained by TUGC0 in Dallas, Texas.

In addition, we requested to have access to the CP3ES PSAR. This request was granted by C. Osborne.

I i

l l

s.gneo g /cdm '"' 1 G. Grace, 5. Bibo, D. Smedley, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project 1

0.stnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade l

- .. . ' n ._ . ,_ . _ _ _ _ _

Communications A( t i Report 111111111111111111111111111lll company: Texas Utilities a rewon a conference Report Project: Job No. 84042' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

' Date:

Independent- Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/28/84 Time:

suetect- ,, 9:00 am Pipe Support Drawing Request Place.

p 3

Participants:

D. Bleeker Brown & Root (DCC)

John Russ Cygna Requred Comments Action By item Cygna requested copies of the following:

1. Drawings:

FP-1-201-700-S35R latest revision CT-1-017-700-535R latest revision

2. Computer Model STRUDL computer model for drawing SI-1-029-700-532R 1

1 i

i s.ga*d /pm '' 1

1 oi innution: D. Wade. N. Williams. G. Grace, J. Russ, C. Wong, S. Treby, J. Ellis '

_w. n-

- + - - _ - . ., , , . _ _ , . . .. _ . _ . _ . ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 companr Texas Utilities N T*' econ o conference neport Protect. Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Dat*:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 4/12/84 subject: T' ** '

1:30 PM 4TT Grinnell Additional Audit Information Place-

Participants:

of g g

P. Salcone ITT - Grinnell-QA t

Requered '#

Item Comments Action By

1) I called Pete Salcone to request the closecut date of corrective action report #3010.

Pete stated it was closed on 8/20/82.

2) I asked Pete the issue date of audit reports #7 and #8.

Pete stated 9/26/79 and 10/6/81 respectively.

3) I asked Pete to explain the 2 year gap with no project audits.

! had a turnover in personnel. and that in Pete late 1979. statedGrinnell that they(Providence) activities for TUSI (CPSES) were winding down. It wasn't until early 1981 that TUSI work picked

,up in Grinnell.

s,enee /rg "* 1 *' 1 jf Dietnbution N. W'.lliams, D. Wade. 5. Bibo, G. Grace. 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File sene e,e

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

Communic 0tions 4L 6 i Report 111111111111111111111111111111

  • '" " "*' ca"*aa "**a To m utiiiti s 9 **aa Protect Job No.

84042 Comanche. Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/15/a4 Subject Time:

1nspection Reports 4:40 PM Place:

Rnet nn Participants. of S. Bibo f*v n na Donna towellen TIM f Required Comments Action By item Donna called me per request of Tony Vega to supply me with requested information relative to the number of Inspection Reports (irs) issued at CPSES. Donna stated that between the "old" IR system and the "new" IR system there are in excess of 150,000 irs. She stated that the new system has a computerized log but that the old irs were manually logged. The old system contains about 100.000 irs. Donna explained that the nuriber of irs given is her "best estimate".

We also discussed procedure CP-QP-18.00. Donna informed me that D. Lewellen this procedure was up to revision 17. I asked her to send me revisions 12 thru 17.

/N//11/// A Af A /dhb 1 1 0"*"**" N. WilIYams. D. Wade. G. Grace. D. Smedley. S. Bibo. S. Treby J. Ellis, unmaia Protect F11e

Communications t ( 6 i Report  ;

1111111tHNIH1111111HNINI company: o Te w n g conference neen Texas Utilties Protect: Job No. -

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

Independbnt Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/19/84 Time.

Subsect:

teview of P.O. ----

Place-GAH. New York Participants. of Jeff Waal Cyana Borvs Czaraonoski GAH Comments Ac n7y ltem I observed the contract between Gibbs & Hill and Dallas Power &

Light Co.. Texas Electric Service Company and Texas Power & Light Company. The date of the contract is August 15, 1972.

n e

Yh{))}ll mis /dhb 1 1

""*"" N. Williams,d. Wade,G. Grace,S.Bibo,D.Smedley,S.Treby,J.Ellis, we e4 Project file ,

Communications 4L t i Report meillemmlillilimil company a conference meport Texas Utilities di Teiecon .

N-84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/16 Ti"':

sues ct: 1:45 PM/2:15 PM

_ Valve Accelerations Place: g Participants E G. Grm J. Minichiello CYGNA neauneo Comments Action By item

1. George requested clarification on question 2. I responded that Cygna's question concerned supports added to a valve to reduce operator accelerations. Does Gibbs and Hill have a procedure to address this?

George also noted he would express mail by tomorrow the data we requested earlier today.

2. In a later call, George asked if Cygna also wanted a list of the Gibbs and Hill AEPs (Analytical Engineering Procedure). I said that the list would be useful.
    • "" /f ), } g /dhb '*" 1 1

dil riims. T. Wade. G. Grace, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, Project file Dietnbution N.

._'"?' t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _

Communications AL i, i Report maammme compny: Texas Utilities )p T

  • con a conference neport Job No.

Protect: 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date Independe'nt Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/17/84

'n T'**

suoi.ct. P.ipe Stress Questions 10:30 AM l

Place:

3p

Participants:

  • ' GaH H. Mentel L. J. Weingart CES l

Requwed Comments Action By item I

Henry and I discussed the pipe stress question identified in the telecon of 3/19/84 8 AM, Item 1 (welded attachment stresses in ,

break exclusion zones). Henry informed me that G&H has received authorization from TUEC to perform an evaluation which will consist of the following:

1) Identification of all welded attachments for all break exclusion zones.
2) A numerical evaluation of the identified points per the j requirements of MEB 3-1.
3) Where this evaluation indicates an overstressed situation, G&H will perform a more refined analysis in order to reduce

- the local stress.

4) GAH will check with Westinghouse to determine their procedures in break exclusion zones which are under Westinghouse jurisdiction.

Henry expects to have this task completed next week. Cygna will receive a copy of this report.

l l

P' 1

  • ***d

%jj jjg /dhb 1 o.urinution: D. Wade, N. W' l' 1ams, J. Minichiello, R. Hess, G. Grace, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, cn'-

t l - - - , -* * ' * . _ . , _

>m

CommunicStions AL i i Report 11111111111111111111111111llll company: Texas Utilities o T.wcon il confer.nc Report J No.

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

3/23/84 Decument Request -- NPSI Criteria Place:

I and XVI Review NPSI

Participants:

of 4

H. McGrane CES P. Mottola NPSI Required item Comments Action By I requested and received the following documents from P. Mottola on 3/23/84:

1. Corrective Action Request Log
2. Corrective Action Requests (1978-1984)
3. Corrective Action Request Progress Reports
4. Internal Audit Reports (1978-1984) w

/pg Page } cf 1 S6gned.

Distribution- ' Fl. lil I 118ml, T. Wade. U. brace, 3. 51Do, 3. IreDy, d. LiIls, VroJecT. tile r~~ylan

Communications oL i i Report lilillllllllillllllhllillllli compenr Texas Utilities o Tei. con a conference Report J N-

  • 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independest Assessment Program - Phase 3 Dat*

5/14/84 T'** 11:00 AM seject: , Request for Documentation Place:

Boston Partcipants. O' S. Bibo Cygna R. Baker TUSI neouveo Comments Action By item I called Richard Baker because I couldn't get through to Tony Vega to request copies of the following documents:

CPSES Procedure #CP-0P-18.00 Revisions 1 through 10 I requested that they be sent to my attention ASAP.

Richard Baker said he would do what he could to get me the R. Ba'ker information. TUSI i

l

/dhb Page } of }

signeo.

kh M. Wi l li ams, U. Wade, G. brace, s. ts1 Do, u. dmed ley , 5. Ireby, d. t. lits, Project oisineut,on.

as,.

1000 01e

.T

  • T -. - . - , - - - . - - - . ._ ,--.._..-----,L,-.._,,--,-.,---...-.,-.,.__- _ - - . . , . . . - - , , - - - - - . - - . . - -

Communications

{ 4L 6 i Report 111111111111161111111111111111

~

Company: D T***a  % Conserence Report Texas Uti11 ties Project. Job No.

64042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

. Independ'ent Assessenent Program 4/2/84

-QA Vault Access 1:10 PM i rise :

C. H. Welch TUGC0 R. Baker TUGC0 D. Smedley Cygna neewed item Comments Acton By

1) As per telecon with Nancy Williams today a list of Cygna personnel requiring vault access was submitted to C. H. Welch (attached). Mr. Welch then authorized Cygna personnel limited access with the stipulation that out cards be given to vault clerks < tc pull required documentation.
2) This transpired after I refused to issue a letter identifying the scope and duration of our review as pertained to the QA vault.

Richard Baker met with Mr. Welch and substantiated that no scope letter would be issued and to take appropriate action to allow Cygna access to the vault.

l l

1 l

f&])j)/jp;, ldhb '* 1 2 D*'r6bu'e 'N'. 'Will'1ams, D.' Wade,7. Grace, S. BiLo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Projecc File

! .____-_cDo____.____________ .._ __ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . , _ . . . _ _ , , , _ . . . _ , _ _ . _ _ . _ .

O O

' Memorandum in i llllll11111111111111111111ll11 Date: .

To:

C. H. Welch. TUGCO, QA Supervisor April 2,1984 Job No:

From:

D. L'. Smedley, Cygna, Project Engineer 84042 copa sw ~

Vault Access for Cygna Personnel This is a list of Cygna personnel who require access to the Comanche Peak QA vault:

F.A'. Morlino M.S. Mai re J.D. Laurie J.P. Toner D.L. Smedley H.E. McGrane P.D. DiNonato S.L. Bibo J.P. Russ N. Williams E.C. Kuo N

e .

s O

$ 4

,-,--,e___

Communications 4L t i Repod l11111111lll1lll11111111111lll company: Texas Utilities & Tei con o conference Report JbN- 84042

"'s*fomanchePeakSteamElectricStation Independent. Assessment Program - Phase 3 o.te:

5/22/84 sub91pe Support Questions Time: 8:00 a.m.

Place: San Francisco

Participants:

G. Grace cf TUEC (Ebasco)

J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested response to the following generic and specific questions.

GENERIC C000ENTS:

1. In some instances where non-symetric weld pattern is used (e.g.,

3-sided weld for T.S. member), the additional moment due to the eccentric location of the weld center of gravity is not considered in the weld stress calculation.

Some examples found during the review were:

CC-1-028-004-A33K, Rev. 4. Calc. Rev. O MS-1-004-006-C72K, Rev. 3, Calc. Rev. 2 MS-1-001-002-C72S, Rev. 5, Calc. Rev. 2 MS-1-001-003-S72R, Rev. 2 Calc. Rev. 2 What project procedure provides guidance in evaluating non-symetric weld patterns?

I l

2. In reviewing supports by NPSI, Cygna has noted instances of washer plates used with tube steel and inserts.

a) What is the basis for the standard NPSI washer plate design (i.e., criteria, etc.)

b) If a designer deviates from the standard design, what documentation is required to ju,tify this?

Distnbution:

b) 4Auch _ _ _ .. . .. ..

n. wi l litms, u. waae, u. urace, v ra nicnie n t o, c. wong, n.

loll 1, 2. trepy,

.1_ F111e. Penimet File 1e00 01e

- . . . - . . ~ , - _ - , . - _._. _e_.___ __.._,. _ . , _ . . ______,___,.;,_,_ . _ _ _ , . . __ _ , _ ,

Communications

. t4 L i i Repod l1llllllllllll1111111111111111 Requred Comments Action By item

==

SPECIFIC COMENTS:

These' supports require reanalysis or further detailed calculations to determine the impact on design of the items noted. Cygna requests that TUEC address each item with either documentation showing whether or not the discrepancy has any design impact.

1. CC-1-028-720-S33R, Drawing Rev. 5, Calc. Rev. 4 The STRUDL model at joints 1 and 2 assumes a torsional rest raint. If the torsional load at joint 1 is used to check the rotation this load would cause, the resulting rotation is insufficient to close the gap in the outer box beam (# .003 rad vs . g .01 rad ). Since the maximum bolt interaction is 0.92, releasing the torsional restraint may impact design.

Note: see CC-1-028-721-S33R for a similar design deficiency.

2. CC-1-031-001-S43K, Drawing Rev. 5 The initial swing angle of one snubber is approximately 17 degrees, which may have an effect on snubber operation. Has the vendor accepted this? Where is this documented?
3. CC-1-028-024-S33R, Drawing Rev.11, Calc. Rev. 5 The final design calculation did not consider the effect of the bolt out-of-plumb at joint 10 of the model (Section B-B of drawing). The original calculation (Sheet 23) did evaluate this effect. The load increase may impact this bolt design.
4. JS-1-002-006-S72R, Drawing Rev. 4, Calc. Rev. 3 The calculations for the input to the NPSI baseplate analysis of items 31, 32, 44 and 45 were not provided. It is not clear how the input loads were derived. Further, the sides of the welded attachments for plates 31 and 32 are not parallel to the plate side (attachment is rotated on the plate). Since the interactions are as high as 0.93, please show how the input was derived and what the effect of the rotated brackets would be.
5. MS-1-002-005-C72K, Drawing Rev. 7, Calc. Rev. 5 In the analysis for the baseplate shown in Section A-A, detail 3, ,

the bolt interaction equation reached 1.0. The stiffener plates were not modelled, but only accounted for by thickening the baseplate to 2-1/2" (vs. 2" actual). In addition, there are small changes between the modelled and as-built dimensions.

Page of 4

1020 01b

  • i .

Communications ti t i Repod 1111llllt!!!llllllllllllllllll Requwed item Comments Action By Please provide calculations showing the bolts are acceptable when the stiffeners are properly modelled and as-built dimensions are used.

6. _ MS-1-002-008-C72K, Drawing Rev. 7, Calc. Rev. 5 a) No design calculations were provided for Section F-F (baseplate, stiffener, and welds). While this may have _been done in a previous revision, there is no reference. Please provide this calculation, b) On Detail 28, there is a note " Bolt cut off 1/2" i 1/8" projecting out from face of plate." While the interaction on this plate is low (0.28), and this bolt may not be necessary, please provide verification concerning whether there is a nut on this bolt (with adequate engagement) or not.
7. MS-1-002-004-C72K, Drawing Rev. 9, Calc. Rev. 5 The weld lengths and section properties for checking joint 1 (TS 6 x 6 to baseplate, sheet 15) do not appear correct.

Specifically, it is unclear from detail 26 that the 12" weld length is appropriate. In addition, the loads were not l transferred from the modelled location to the weld center of j

gravity. Please provide clarification concerning the correct j

weld length and appropriate weld calculations.

l

8. MS-1-003-007-C72K, Drawing Rev. 5, Calc. Rev. 4 l

a) No weld stress calculation was provided for the attachment of the rear bracket to items 35 and 46 (detail 46, drawing sheet 5 l

l of 8; also Section J-J). It is not clear that the 1/4" welds are l

l sufficient.

l v, b) The inclination of the thru-bolt at joint 20 (plate item 49) was not considered in the design.

9. MS-1-003-011-C72K, Drawing Rev. 2, Calc. Rev. I a) Please provide clarification of the dimension between the centerline of the E-W tube (Item 1) and the South insert bolt.

l 8-3/8" is shown en the latest revision, but 18-3/8" is used in the STRUDL model and is also shown in Rev.1 of the drawing. If l

the 8-3/8" is correct, this may impact the STRUDL results.

10. MS-1-004-003-C72S, Drawing Rev. 7, Calc. Rev. 3 ,

The stress in the 1/2" x 8" x 20" plate (item 24) was not checked. Simple calculations indicate the stress may be quite high. Please provide calculations for this member.

Page 3 o' 4 1020 o1m l - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

___m

s Communications s AL i i Report lill;::"" "tilli stem comments AcNy

11. MS-1-001-006-C72K, Rev. 5, Calc. Rev. 3 The input data calculations for the STRUDL model were not checked or approved.

There are errors in the moments of inertia (and section modulus) for beams 5 - 6 (Iy = 681 in.", should be 359 in.") and 8 - 11 (Iy = 1213 in.", should be 642 in.4). Also, the assumption of a fixed support at joints 4, 8,14 and 17 does not seem appropri-ate, especially for rotation about global Y.

Since the errors in inertia and the use of " fixed" supports have a significant impact on design stresses, please provide calculations to correct or justify the data and assumptions in the calculation.

e e

Page of 4 4

.__ .._. _ _ . _. . _ . . . . _ _ ._._..____..___..e. . . . _ , _ ..,.._ _

4 Communications l 4L i i Report l 1

< 111ll111llllll111:llllll111lll D Conference Report Company: Texas Utilities D Xelecon N

  • 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/16/84 sumect

"** 2:30 PM Pipe Support Questions SF/ Site l Participants. '

D. Rencher TUEC J. Minichiello CYGNA Required Comments Action By item Cygna requested response to the following 5 questions:

1< In reviewing certain supports, Cygna has noted instances where either cover plates are not used on connections near tube ends o r stiffener plates are not used at wide flange connections. In addition, Cygna has also noted instances where stiffeners are provided, but no calculations are performed. Good design practice dictates that a connection should be checked to ensure proper load transfer. For example, if no stiffeners are provided the wide flange web or flange will be forced to carry much of the local loading and may not be adequate. If the stiffeners provided are not sized properly, the same effect can occur.

In certain other supports, Cygna has noted instances c:ere a plate is welded to a tube member to fonn a composite section.

The design of the weld attaching the plate to the tube has accounted for the shear transfer (VQ/It) term, but not the locally high weld stress at the point of load application. Cygr a did note instances where this was accounted for.

What hidance do the CPSES design organizations give to the engine'e.as to ensure that connections are adequate? Please provide the appropriate documents which give this guidance.

2. In their support review, Cygna has noted instances where different assumptions were used by different organizations. For-example, in the TUGC0 letter of 6 April 1984 (TXX-4145), item 15 ,

TUGC0 notes that PSE and ITTG do not consider friction if the

  • thermal movement is less than 1/16", implying NPSI may consider friction for any thermal movement. Yet, in calculation

/dh age 1 of 2

    • "** @ C % fy 14 _ _ , _,_, m _,,_ ,. -_
v. .nu.womm, n, -

a nu .

Distnbut8n: 5poQg u. mm, u. ui m,

,s ...

Communications

, AL i i '

Report 11........

Comments Ac n y ltem CC-1-028-721-S33R, revision 2, no frictional load is considered for a movement of .1". Cygna has also noted instances where a designer will use the steel section properties from the AISC 8th edition, rather than the 7th edition called out in specification 2323-MS-46A (" Code in effect" on date of specification).

a) How does TUEC control the design process to ensure consistency in design across the plant? Please provide the appropriate documents.

b) What documents provide guidance to the designer concerning the appropriate standards for use on CPSES?

c) What checks does TUEC perform to ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed?

d) What is the basis for neglecting friction if the thermal movement is less than 1/16"?

3. The rear bracket dimension of ITT Grinnell strut given in the LCDS are different from those given in ITT Grinnell Catalog PH-
81. Since the discrepancies in dimensions may affect weld stresses in the design, it is necessary to ensure that the correct size of bracket (i.e. consistent dimensions) are used in both design and construction.

f a) Which bracket is supplied (LCDS or catalog)?

I b) Is there a procedure to ensure the conformance of the above item between that used by the designer and that installed?

4. In responding to question 2 of the 3/19/84 telecon, TUEC has noted (4/19/84 letter, item 3) that the standard support items

" are verified in the original calculation. If the as-built load decreases, they are not rechecked.

a) Where are the previous revisions of the calculations filed for' record, since they were not in the package reviewed by Cygna to date?

b) Ifstandard the as-built load increases but is still within the component limits, what documentation does TUEC require to address this?

5. In some cases, the fillet welds called out on a drawing are smaller than the minimum required by Code (for example, .

CC-1-031-011-S43R, revision 5, rear bracket to baseplate).

What construction procedure automatically upgrades the- weld size to the code minimum?

Page 2 of 2 l

m . - - . _ - . _ _ _ ., -.- _ _ _.-...- - -.- -. -

l '

.' Communications 4L 6 i Report

. 11111111lllllll1llll111llll111 company: **" Conference Rom Texas Utilities X Project: Job No.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,,

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 4/6/84

Subject:

Time:

9:15 am Open Items cpqrg q %

Participants:

of B. Wood Titr,r0 J. Russ cvnna Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following:

1. The items on the attached action items summary list.
2. Copies of the following calculation packages:

CC-1-028-007-S33R MS-1-001-004-S72R MS-1-003-004-S72R MS-1-003-009-C72K MS-1-004-004-C72K Signed. Page of D'"*""

D. Wade, N. Williams, G. Grace, J. Minichiello. C. Wong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, m oi. Project File

- = - -- ..... - --

, i 1 D _

M,

'e O re 6

4 4 y4 2c l WN#8 4

1 'A'4W8 M9 s

A 7R 6 1 4P* 1 o-E a*e F

? ._

A5a D <a ) '

4.#

o l N8 te s e, '*

  • 4e y
  • c o t.4 t A

D - *dAr c@8 3t -

a P, w d ws r /"!

efr E

C s 9 " n opA g t

i W6^3 a cg; a L w 6 -

u, g c,,, y B

4.,

x.

ci c. w g E ,

%aN l ,

E -

e/ L W p i

j

. s- e

  • igg CMkcN A 6hN P, i

Ce r

==

n y

n m .ic a

4 5 i

t o se m>

+. o.

. /

+

8 D

.f)

Z

/

3 2

8 o 2 /

. c e <e

  • 1 4

3 3 AItS t g E

G p s ,

i i.

xe g M ut e R T E R .

3'

. D 0 o j s .,  %

..t e

s E- g 3

g @

j d g J -

t .

d e

c - ,kL s l o 47

. 4 c -

cc c.

, 2 3o 4 4 c, 4 c n - c. 9 g

. I 5 A s -

g 0

3 S M g 8 g., .

s tl ca

.m

c. nr 3O A. r ,

w2L a. i I g e) g nT uL c

n W'. w, e2 c

,. WR Cs 3

3 A77 s -

.or sP g e C 'uo u qr '6  %

5 u3 e ct PS jt

  • o.O t e
u. p, l

I h  ?

- k.

P 0L 44 i n ve rm

  • c es 0

.ac.cr "o4n n t

a S s t.

q d o e e

> a, r.

c C

. w o - Q- ss es

" w, c: A n o$c g

r s u i 4 c. - M s a i A v(J

. t q 1

t

. r r o e c. s r. 4 z it

,e . s2r i C c A o c>

s l n i ei so 'v..

t m ~

'5 n3 s - _ s- t t

,m e r

e c w -

l Un W< fAmD f. 0sC i. o t

m c , . f t - cs$ s ,e

. c3 ex f ae Amp l I g

. ' /

0 x < t m

. O0p DAA O C en T I a .

&m m e 1

1 3, 4

- ~

. i I:ij ' !i :l,1 l1f.jill'

k. '

Is y) ,

4

)

y l l Action +

j L 6 a ltemS -

3 6

l M -

, svirtierpq t i I .

' - * =< & 6?,,s A i 4 .42,t. e ,

...e  ;

j ,

Due Ctese-end Notes Deeertpeles Referesse iBy To

J

! 6.A. srgutx, C*.frPerr ustaW4

! Nep'e ocne. Pottes, W * )

D. W ggQoese S med'ep (05-1-cC4-oo7.c7tx R. (4tiu N&fBf l j e. ars, sema~

l

~r~r t,. A. sme. oure $60* N l D. R M W k&&

6. SW Aob pyS.; 4 L.cos s1tt. t. U0046
c. JA 4c 4 ggqoegrep f ameut'89 l

7' 4* 64 4 52- pp$.g.co4.cos.s7zt c. 9Jo*Jk D. MM 3l&f S. 5A 4&33.  !

l e I

I

8. A . W 5M A M #

\ ,

4" VD-t- oa$ 152 3- AT c,c..g .ogs.723 5734 J. Eoss D. 4 W IIIIM  ;

\ saft'otr siv-s -osh-lit - SEC l i

l 8. C#K. 5385'*,,887. +

I i

j 1. STEoOL 60 *T cc.p.o77-0C8 63 X J. &55 P, yses. 3jo?ley ggQvg$raro I?MWU coc4e'5Poe' M to N P-T sdo w cM Cetr #7/#7 i l

i ,

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

. , Independent Assessment Program; 83059 i

i

. . 1 Communications ALni Report 111111llllll18tllllll111111111 i

company: Texas Utilities o Telecon a conference Report .

Project: Job No.

-84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Dete:

Independent- Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/21/84 Time:

subiect: _

8:30 am Additional Pipe Stress Questions Place: p

Participants:

G. Krishnan Gibbs & Hill J. Minichiello Cygna Required Comments Action By item Cygna requested the following be sent to H. Mentel for review.

In addition, Lee Weingart of Cygna will meet with Steve Lim of Gibbs & Hill (in Fort Worth) to discuss these and other open questions.

1. Does Gibbs & Hill have any analytical substantiation for not taking into consideration the eccentricity of the masses for the
l. " trunnion" type supports on the Main Steam inside containment?

For example, Loop #3 l

l Weight Offset from Support No. (lbs) Pipe Centerline MS-1-003-007-C72K 415 2'-3" MS-1-003-009-C72K 1800 3'-2" MS-1-003-010-C72K 415 2'-5" MS-1-003-014-C72K 260 2'-3" l

l

2. Does Gibbs & Hill have any analytical substantiation for

! neglecting the weight of support no. MS-1-03-010-C72K (1681 lb) in the pipe stress analysis?

of

/pm Page } g si9""

g

u. Wade, M. Williams, u. Minicnielio, L. Weingart, 6. brace, 5. I reby ,

o, tnbut,on:

.i _ F111c R. intti_ Peniert File

Communications

- -. Ai t i Report Illit:"""'""'!!Illlililli Requred item Comments Action By

3. Steam Hammer Analyses Additional questions based on review of forcing functions:

- a. Loop #1 ,

Z-load at containment penetration Peak Input Force = 43.6 K Max. Output Load = 4.9 K

b. Loop #4 Load on axial snubber MS-1-004-007-C72K Peak Input Force = 18.5 K Max. Output Load = 15 K Has Gibbs & Hill evaluated the discrepancies noted above?

l l

l l

t I

Page of

--m - , - - . . - . . - , _ . . . - . , - - - - - - - - - . . .,.,--y - + - --,------_-.---.,-.w .,.-w>v- - - ,- . , , - . . , ,,,-,# , _s-e-,r.,a, w,.m,-e.e,----

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20100M557&oldid=2776884"