ML20128B590

Forwards Communications Rept Transmittal 7 Re Independent Assessment Program Phases 1 & 2

ML20128B590
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/02/1985
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
83090.027, NUDOCS 8505240584
Download: ML20128B590 (15)

Text

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

=,. _

101 Cahfornia Street. Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 941115894 415 397 5600 May 2, 1985 83090.027 1

Mrs. Juanita Ellis  !

President, CASE 1426 S. Polk i Dallas, Texas 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal #7 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 83090

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed for your information are additional Phases 1 and 2 consnunications l reports. We have just finished reviewing our word processing file directory to ensure that all communications reports entered into the system have been issued. As a result, there are some relatively old comunications reports in this transmittal.

If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.

Very truly yours, I h a N.H. Williams Project Manager

, Attachments cc: Mr.J.Redding(TUGCO)w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. J. van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr.S.Burwell(USNRC)w/ attachments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr.D.Pigott(Orrick,Herrington&Sutcliffe)w/oattachments Mr.V.Noonan(USNRC)w/oattachments Mr.J. Beck (TUGCO)w/oattachments hD A sob 40 A PDR s y,2 Y P

sen trenvuo nwon Cnear n<nana l},

na;

Communications  ;

41 t i Report lilllllillilillNillllllililli Telec n Conference Rep Towne titilitiac Y Project Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o ,,,.

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 9fi9fnR Subject Time:

^ "^

Walkdown Observation WD-07-01 p,,,,.

RFDA

Participants:

of J. van Amarnngen TIIr,rn (FRaRen}

I_ Usingart runna Requred item Comments Action By The latest revisions of the following drawings were requested to aid in answering the NRC's concern regarding walkdown observatior WD-07-01:

2323-El-1703 2323-El-1703-01 2323-El-1027 l

~~

f ja

, A -

11,4 k 1

- }

N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

" 1MHRIRR @Ri&88 HB@--

Communications AL t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 elec n Conference Rom Taras Utilities' X Project Job No.

83059 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,,;

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 2/11/85 j Time:

Subject:

Walkdown Observation WD-07-01 a.m.

SFR0

Participants:

of I. Voaelsana TUGC0 l

L. Weingart Cygna i Required item Comments Action By

Mr. Vogelsang and I discussed the Phase 1 walkdown observation

! regarding the grounding of the spent fuel pool cooling pump (WD-07-01). According to Mr. Vogelsang, although the grounding does not conform to the drawing, the double grounding is provided by alternate means which meet the intent of the drawing requirement.

The use of a bonding jumper is described in General Note 19 on drawing 2323-El-1703.

The deviation from the drawing was not formally documented due to the fact that this equipment is not Class 1E.

i l

I l

1 l

signe j/ )) /ajh 1 1 D'" b" "

N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

' moot. S. Burwell, Project File

g,q l- ly

-- -gasq -6qi 1q1 -

mi - , l : gr r r,n g r n r pr'q-- n -

maai n m , i,ar r u-ri r- g a n -

in - - q Communications Al i i Report 111lll1811111111lll11111111!!l

• • " T*C " Conference Repon Texas Utilities X

Project Job No.

83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 10/11/84 Subject Time:

l Phase 1 and 2 Final Report

• Phase 2 ASLB Open Items CPSES

Participants:

of D. Wade TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By N. Williams explained that during the course of reviewing the ASLB testimony for comments to be incorporated in the Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, it was noted that Judge Bloch may not consider the issue of support mass in stress analysis closed. During the hearings, Cygna performed some analysis on a portion of the RHR system in which some support load increases were identified when a portion of the support mass was included in the pipe stress model. Cygna testified that as a matter of general practice, support masses were not consistently included in pipe stress

, analysis and further, that it was a matter of the individual analyst's judgement as to whether support masses should be in-cluded. It was noted that changes such as this will obviously l

result in differences between analytical results (support loads l in this case) but that the significance of these differences versus the overall accuracy of the analytical tools available was not a matter of simply comparing output results. Different models will produce different results but the significance of these differences is what must be evaluated.

Referring to page 12,602 of the ASLB testimony, N. Williams pointed out that Judge Bloch may be expecting follow-up analysis

! by Cygna. There is no easy way to approach such analysis without the possibility of an extensive study. Such a study may be costly, time consuming and potentially inconclusive.

At this point in time, TUGC0 did not feel it was necessary to pursue the matter and told Cygna to issue the Phase 1 and 2 Final Report without pursuing the matter further.

/[ /a.ib 1 1 Distnbution:

N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, wo oi. v. n gott, d. Ireby, 5. Burwell, J. Ellis, Project File

. . . - . = . - .

Communications 4L n i Report 1111111111111011111H11111lll company: cK conference Report Texas Utilities o Telecon Project: Job No.

83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Dat':

Independent Assessment Program, Phase 2 3/15/84 Time:

subject: 2:30 P.M.

Place:

Fire Protection for Cable Trays CPSES (Site)

Participants:

Ed Bezkor Gibbs & Hill John Russ Cygna Required Comments Action By item I spoke to Ed about the cable trays of the RHR system which may have fire protection applied to them. Ed told me that information was available only on site. He suggested that I speak to the Site Civil Group regarding fire protection, e

Page of signed: jpg 3 1 Distnbution- D. Wade, N. Williams, G. Grace, J. Russ, Proj ect File seso v.

Communications 4L 6 i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 Company: a Telecon g Conference Report ens Uti ties Project: Job No.

83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '*

Independent Assessment Program, Phase 2 3/15/84

Subject:

Time:

2:30 P.M.

Fire Protection for Cable Trays CPSES (Site)

Participants:

of Ed Bezkor Gibbs & Hill John Russ Cyana Required Comments Action By item I spoke to Ed about the cable trays of the RHR system which may have fire protection applied to them. Ed told me that information was available only on site. He suggested that I speak to the Site Civil Group regarding fire protection.

2 of (Nggj jg Page Signed. d d/ IA J2 1 1 1 11jfnt A /pm 1 1 i

D'stnbution- D.' Wade, N. Williams,'G. Grace, S.Treby, J. Ellis, J. Russ, S. Burwell, Proj ect

= ma t L88 ._ __ __ _ _ _ . _ _ __

p Communications AL t i Report il#11111tilillllillNiillllli Company Teiec n q Conference Report exas Utilitles Project Job No.

83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D* '

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 & 2 6/11/84

\

sumect "**

DCC Satellite Review 3:00  !

1 CPSES S. Bibo and D. Smedley CES H. Hutchinson, C. Boyd, T. Gray TUSI i

l Regwred Comments Action By item I asked Chris Boyd to explain what the " number of drawings issued" to a satellite entry on the DCC distribution list actually meant. Chris explained that for craft satellites, (306 and 307/308) if the distribution list shows two copies, then the satellite receives two "hard" copies (controlled). They can't make any copies; they nest have either two copies in file, or one in file and one signed out, or both signed out. Those are the only options.

For the remainder of the satellites, one aperature card is sent to each satellite. If the DCC list shows two copies, it means that the satellite has issued two controlled copies from the aperature card. If the satellite chooses to issue 15 controlled I copies, it is OK, provided the list people who got the controlled I copies is in the computer. However, the satellite should then fill out a CRT update sheet so that DCC will change their distribution list to show "15" as the " number of drawings issued" to a satellite.

7 We also requested an explanation of a computerized Design Change log. We had requested a copy of a design change log from DCC in the early morning of 6/11/84. On the same af ternoon we requested

(

that satellite 304 run a printout of what we had requested from DCC in the morning. The satellite printout showed a CMC that l J

wasn't on the DCC printout. Chris explained that the CMC was probably entered between our two requests. We verified that in fact the CMC was entered between our requests and would be i distributed to all affected satellites the morning of 6/12/84 j l

i

/ss ""' 1 sig e 1 Distnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, J. Van Amerongen, D.

m, .n- s uj , u s va ca s ses

1 Communications l 4L i i Repod i W111111111111111111111111111 company: a Telecon Texas Utilities o conference Report 83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oste:

Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 and 2 9/6/84 Time:

subiect Doyle Question 15 11:00 Place:

p P. Chang TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Required Comments Action By item In relation to Doyle Question from the Phase 1 and 2 ASLB hearings, #15, SI-1-325-002, Cygna had testified that finite element results were below 3Sm. TUGC0 would like to know what temperature Cygna used and how the pipe and frame were modelled.

After reviewing Cygna's technical files (84042/1/F), I replied that we had used a 350 F pipe temperature (per Gibbs & Hill problem AB-1-69). In addition, Cygna had modelled both the pipe and frame with plate elements. The applied load on the frame from the strut was input.

p

"*8' '

signe /dmm 1 1 N. Williams, ~G. Bj orkman, J. Minichiello, D. Wade, S. Treby, S. Burwell,

~

Distneution:

, ,, v. G.u, v. mn L~. ung .

( . .

Communications 4Ln i Report  ;

W1111111111111111111lll11111 company: o conference Report Texas Utilities E Telecon l Project: Job No.

83090 l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*'*:

Independent Assessment Program - Phases 1 & 2 11/2/84

Subject:

Time:

9:15 a.m.

Final Report Place:

J. Van Amerongen EBASC0/TUGC0 L.J. Weingart Cygna Requ red Comments Action By item Jean called to discuss the Phase 1/2 Final Report No. TR-83090-01, Rev. O. Referring to TUGC0 letter from H.

Schmidt/TUGC0 to B.J. Youngblood/NRC dated 4/6/84, Jean ques-tioned why all the comments were not incorporated. I explained that any omission was intentional by Cygna and each comment was thoroughly reviewed for relevance and accuracy. Specifically, comment 34 referred to a checklist item regarding Hilti bolts.

The item referred to an observation. The checklist item was not revised, however, the observation was revised. Comment 35 requested a checklist comment be revised to reflect that the comment was isolated. I explained that the checklist itself was used to review a single support and any individual note on the checklist does not apply to other supports unless specifically stated as such, or possibly as stated in a referenced observa-tion. Regarding changes to Cygna's design criteria (e.g. Comment 16), I explained that the criteria is a composite of CPSES licensing commitments, CPSES requirements, industry codes and standards and Cygna engineering and design experience. The reviewers use the criteria documents in evaluating the calcula-tion. Deviations from the criteria are examined and commented upon in the checklists and observations. Cygna does not neces-sarily require TUGC0 to conform with the criteria in all cases, but rather uses it as a guideline for the review.

Jean stated that she was satisfied with these explanations and any other comments were of an editorial nature and would not be pursued by TUGCO.

Thus there would be no further comments and TUGC0 considers Phase 1/2 closed.

I of signe V f fj /cwk Page t i

~

Distnbution: N.' William's, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

. . . , , }.ouiweii, ii ua eu i.ic _ . - - - - - - - - --

7 Communications 4L 6 i Report 11111111111111111111111111ll11 conte . ce Repon Texas Utilities 9 Teiec n e

,o.

Project:

83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '

Independent Assessment Program - Phases

• and 2 11/20/84 Subject Time:

10:20 0" Gap Box Frames Place:

SF, Cygna

Participants:

of D. Terao US NRC N. Williams Cygna Required Comments Action By item The NRC QA department would like to set up a conference call to discuss some matters associated with Cygna's June 30, 1984 letter to the NRC and possibly portions of the April 19, 1984 meeting between the NRC and Cygna in Bethesday, Maryland. I told D.

Terao I would retrieve these documents from the file and be ready for a conference call later today or tomorrow.

1 a

Page of signe g C" b"" ": N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, P. DiDonato, D. Terao, J. Ellis,

,om ai. d. tsurwel l , d. Ireoy, u. rigou , vroj ect, ti i e

F ., 1 1

3 Communications  :

I 4L t i Report mamamma

• "# Telee n conference Report Tens Utilities X Project Job No.

83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 2/4/85 Subject Time:

11:20 a.m.

Observation WD-07-01 1

Single Grounded Pump SFR0

Participants:

of O. Choora USNRC N. Williams Cyana Required

, item Comments Action By 1

Mr. Chopra called to find out if TUGC0 had brought the single grounded pump into compliance with the drawing. He understood that the double grounding requirement was for personnel safety but he was concerned that a design requirement was not implemen-ted. N. Williams explained that Cygna did not pursue the matter further since it was not a safety related requirement and as such the same quality assurance measures do not apply. Cygna will, however, check with TUGC0 to establish whether they installed the second ground and call G. Bagchi (301/492-8251) back with the response.

?

IM /ajb 1 1 D'*"" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis, e

no 5. surweii, i. rarp__n,y. gen._ r{UJu{ r

(

Communications 4L 6 i Report l . .

m Texas utiitties a ==a o c a'- ac a *ri Job No.

ProMt: 83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase l'. 2/26/85 Subject Time:

1:00 p.m.

Observation WD-07-01 Place.

Single Grounded Pump I. Vogelsang, J. van Amerongen TUGC0 K. Zee, L. Weingart Cygna Comments Ac y item I'. I. Vogelsang described the "as-built" grounding of the Spent Fuel Cooling Pump Motor:

A. A 1" rigid steel conduit is installed between the motor space heater terminal box and the cable tray - no " flex" used.

B. Another rigid steel conduit is installed for the n.otor power circuit. Approximately 3' of liquidtight " flex" is used at the connection to the motor terminal box. Approximate total raceway length is 22'. ,

C. One #4/0 ground cable is installed between the " ground loop" and the motor's ground pad - cable is routed in parallel to the 1" conduit. l l

D. One #4/0 bonding jumper is connected in parallel to the ,

liquidtight " flex" using approved fittings. ,

I e f II. Regarding confonnance of the as-built configuration to the grounding details shown on G&H drawing El-1703-01, Revision 6; I. Vogelsang indicated that the "as-built" condition provided the required two connections as per Table 1 of the referenced details.

K. Zee agreed that although the installation did not match the

< grounding details, it did " effectively" provide the two-point connection required by the grounding details.

1 Page of Signed I kL{M4@ ladb 1 2

'"*"" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, T. Martin, K. Zee, L. Weingart,

"" - _ 5. Treby, J. El115, 5. llurwell, Project P11e

I

• Communications Lt i Report 111141 11;l1161111111111111111 g

Ac y Item Comments

1. The first connection is provided by Ite:n 3 of the "as-built" condition.

2. The second cordition is " effectively" provided by a combination of Items 2 and 4 of the "as-built" con-dition and Details 3 and 4 of EH drawing El-1703, Revision 6.

Discussion The bonding jumper and the physical connection of the power terminal box to the motor frame " effectively" bonds the rigid steel power conduit to the motor frame. The rigid steel conduit is acceptable as a ground conductor thus grounding the motor frame to the tray system. Detail 3 of EH drawing El-1703, Revision 6, shows the tray system grounded via #4/0 cable. This in combination with Item 3 of the "as-built" condition provides the required two connections of the " ground loop" to the motor.

III. According to I. Vogelsang, this discrepancy with the drawing was not documented due to the fact that double grounding the puiap in question is a non-safety related (i.e., non-1E) requirement.

r Page of to20 0t n

4

.t i Communications 4L t i Repod mammmmmme Company: Telecon g Conference Report exas Milities Job No.

Prosect:

83090  :

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

Independent Assessment Program, Phases 1 & 2 3/15/84 Time.

subject:

1:50 PM Fire Protection for Electrical Cable Trays CPSES Site _

Participants; of Jeff Spiegleman TUGC0 Cygna John Russ Required Action By item Comments

Reference:

Conference Report of March 15, 1984, " Fire Protection and Hardware Weights for Cable Trays," D. Nandi, D.

Hunt and J. Russ participating.

I spoke to Jeff, who is in the hazards evaluation area, about the cable trays which require fire protection. Jeff, who is respon-sible for developing the list of protected trays, gave me a copy of his CPPA Log, which is attached. The CPPAs are used to trans-mit the lists of trays which require protection. Jeff stated that the list is approximately 98% complete. Additional segment lists and revisions are provided by additional CPPAs.

fll} hf ja A ~

Iceh 1 1 D'$t"but'oa: N.'WilIiams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell

. . , , r roa e u. r i s e

u & .... ,.

n <. * /f mg 4 '89 TFHA FIRE BARRIER PENV LOG

• PENV ORAWING

• CPPA #

SUILO. / ELEY. FIRE 20NE

1. 30.117 . 21,082 SG - 873 178 17C 2 4 25,883 , 25,432 ,

A8 - 852 21F 23.716 , 22.096

, 33,137 I

I  :

35,616 i

i 5 30,182 , 30.118 ,

SG - 852 18 26,005 6 33.136 17A 36,628 34,961 10 24,362 , 22,345 A8 - 831 210 35,620

.k . . . . .

7 26,763 , 26,731 ,

SG - 831 15 8 26.014 16 14 9 35,147 12 26,588 A8 - 790 21A 35,694 I

i 26,706 4C 13 SG - 790 14 IC 4 2C 35,359 15 29,835 A8 - 810 218. C & 31 35,832 20 30,104 SG - 810 8 9 21 22 35,171 142 & 143 17 31,536 , 30,510 EC - 778 153 43, 47, & 57 13 35,547 (Original)

• • (Update) ..

.l . . . _ . . . . .

- -