ML20132C655

Summary of 850107 Meeting W/Util,Tera,Brown & Root & Jba,Inc at Site.Key Meeting Issues Highlighted.List of Attendees Encl

ML20132C655
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/15/1985
From:	Jeng D NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:	NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
References
NUDOCS 8501220080
Download: ML20132C655 (8)

Text

_ . ._ __ - _ __ ._. _ __ _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ . .

l 4

[ 'o

/go UNITED STATES E'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

2 -I w> smuoton. o. c. 20sss l I ** I

% **"* / lt:7( i JM 1519g5 l

i

{

Docket Nos. 50-445  !

50-446 a

MEliORANDUM FOR

Docket File l FROM: D. C. Jeng, Comanche Peak TRT i i i

SUBJECT:

MINUTES OF TRT/TUGC0 MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 7, 1985 4

AT COMANCHE PEAK SITE t A list of attendees and agenda for this meeting are enclosed. Key issues

! dicussed in the meeting are highlighted below:

I l 1. INTRODUCTION l Howard L. - Objectives of Meeting Overview of Action Plan for NRC l -

CPRT Organization (Comanche Peak Response Team) i NRC members at meeting had not received Howard L. letter

! to Vince Noonan dated December 12, 1984. Copies were .

l provided at the meeting.

• a All CPSES project activities will be overviewed by a j third party.

{

- All work governed by procedures: '

First tier is Action Plan j Other procedures as deemed necessary j -

Qualification - CPSES Project Qualifications 3rd Party C. Hofmayer -

Some of these points need concurrence by NRC/TRT

, representatives other than personnel at this meeting.

1 Howard L. -

Documentation C. Hofmayer - How is Quality Assurance related to 3rd Party (i.e.,

TERA)?

! Howard L. -

Level of CPSES controlled by existing QA programs.

1 TERA involvement is considered to be overview.

Example: When TERA does reviews of calculations, gg20 0 FG )(A these calculations will be checked.

50-445/50-446 C. Hofmayer -

Suggest TUEC/ TERA check with NRC-QA for concurrence of this approach.

H. Levin -

When TERA (Independent Party) became involved, logic diagrams were developed for each Action Plan to provide a path for resolution of the issues.

II. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH H. Levin -

Identified concrete in time frane and outside tire frame (succeeding six months).

- B&R prepare surfaces

- Southwest Research (SWRI) performs test Overview of statistical analysis by Jack Benjernin Associates (JBA) D. Veneciano, MIT, TERA.

F. Webster -

Identification of Population 1

Steps in developing random sample of concrete at issue.

Comparison of Data - three statistical evaluations of rebound number data (slides attached).

I ". Hofmayer Is it the intent to present data in all ways?

F. Webster -

No, we would like to select one method with NRC concurrence.

R. Philleo -

You have done what we requested. All that needs to be done is agree on the best method.

H. Levin -

We need the statistical method with the most power.

R. Philleo -

NRC objectives for today:

(1)preparationofsurface (2)operatorsbequalified(SWRI)

5. Harrison -

Test procedure SWRI to submit procedure and personnel qualifications Test based on ASTM C-805-79 Documented on traveler:

Test location Surface preparation Tools used by craft

50-445/50-446 ,

R. Philleo -

Schedule of test: January 21, 1985 for fiRC witness; C. Hofmayer will also attend and can stay over to January 22,19ES.

Would like to look at SWRI qualifications records during visit on January 21, 1985.

III. CONDUIT H. Levin -

Flow Chart (attached)

. Two sar.ples selected: random & engineering Sampling restricted to 2"p and ll"p Sample - as-built performed by CPSES project personnel with TERA overview.

Gibbs &' Hill perform evaluation twith drd' party review C. Hoftayer -

What was criterie to build plant the first tirt?

H. Levin -

Train "C" conduit Non "Q"/Non-seismic field run i supported by gereric details. .

Objective is to take a representative sanple of the plant and see what happens with conduit.

C. Hofmeyer -

For conduit 2"1 or less, was considered not to be a prob)ent being f*S. I;o adverse interaction. Are you trying to prove this is a valid assumption?

H. Levin -

The sanple will attenpt to show that no adverse t interactions exist.

C. Hoftayer -

This approach r,ay not be one of the design approaches  ;

in the FSAR. This criteria may change the philosophy  ;

of initial design assumptions. The plant is licer. sed ,

to the FSAR, if the philosophy changes the FSAR wnuld '

require changing, ,

C. liortgat -

Conduit sample selection Random sample If"f and 2"p '

C. Hofmayer -

Are you not considering conduit greater than 2"p? i D. Witt - This larger conduit will be considered in revicw of the Dan. age Study Program. >

\

50-445/50-446 C. Mortgat -

Population Identifications 3738 conduit runs Random sample - 126 runs Engineering sample subjectively selected based on selection criteria l'ethod of analysis 1

Third party activities H. Levin -

Five additional runs were located after random sanple was made. Total 3743 not 3736 as in December 28, 1984 letter. These will becore a pcpulation by themselves.

C. Hofr.ayer -

Who is doing the survey?

H. Levin -

TUGC0 engineering. l C. Hefcayer -

Are you (TERA) reviewing Gibbs & Hill?

C. Fortgat -

Yes.

H. Levin / -

Conduit in the Control Room is part of the sample.

T.Kright T. Wright -

Instruction for field walkdown (ccry to NRC) l Qualification of walkdcwn persenr.el NRC looked at sor;e docurentatier that has been generated.

Isometrics, generic support sheet, special support sketches.

As-builts transmitted to New York (Gibbs & Hill)

IV. C0hTROL ROOM CEILING H. Levin -

Introduction Two areas: Centrol Room Ceiling Design Other Items Reviewed Flow Chart of activities

. . i 1

50-445/50-446 H. Levin -

Objective / Philosophy How do systems perform? What is important?

Restraint architectural items vertically ceiling to be modified such that it responds in a way where no unacceptabic interactions occur install system to limit horizontal sway.

S. Swan -

Review experience data /past experience Presented slide show on past experience data, SYLMAR Convertor Station ceiling EQE recomendation is to restrain architectural items from falling. Most important aspect.

M. Wells -

Described the architectural features and how they will be restrained (from model)

Limit sway of unistrut frames through cross cables C. Hofmayer -

What is primary support?

H. Levin -

The rod hangers with redundant aircraft cables.

Additional cross cables will be used to limit sway.

C. Hofmayer -

One needs to assess the. load on the attachments to the building structure. Need something (calculations) on paper to justify the design.

H. Levin -

We focused nore on interactions than gross performance of the ceiling. Worst loading case due to total weight that exists in the ceiling is very small.

C. Hofmayer -

Need to show support is not a problem; that sway does not give unacceptable interactions.

D. Witt -

3rd party review Specific reviews on Control Room ceiling ,

Program (Damage Study) review (audit) b Review of architectural items by Damage Study and 3rd party review (100%)

3rd party review (audit) of Damage Study, review /

interactions' during audit, review is multidiscipline 3rd party review-includes treatment of all non-Category  !

-I items i 3rd party Damage Study review to focus on key assumptions  !

i l

l .

l e s 50-445/50-446 SITE TOUR

1. Group visited Auxiliary Building (el. 810'-6" hallway, and el. 873'-6" to witness the surveying of train "C" conduit under item I.C of the Action Plan.

I

2. Group visited Control Building to observe areas being prepared for concrete Schmidt Hamer test (el. 807, linits 1 and 2 Cable Spread Room).

Surface was not complete but was fairly smooth. Surface was approximately 1/4" deep on a column. R. Philleo stated af ter looking at the surface that 1/8" minimum depth is probably okay on a vertical surface. Philleo cautioned that the prepared surface should be as flat as possible. SWRI will be responsible for acceptable surface per ASTM C805-79 prior to test.

CLOSING DISCUSSION:

H. Levin -

We are proceeding on the items discussed and other plans.

How do we get comments and concurrence from the staff?

C. Hofmayer -

This will be relayed to NRC management for this response.

H. Levin - Seismic Gap Objective: What is there and where is it?

We will try to put the history together based on project information and visual data that is assembled. All structures - both units. May analyze or remove whichever is most expedicious. Valid analysis where rotofoan is permanently left in place.

C. Hofmayer -

When in design process did rotofoam being left in place become part of the design?

H. Levin -

We have chosen to handle generic issue of debris in the mechanical issue Action Plan associated with the reactor vessel. Went over flow chart of issue.

C. Hofmayer -

Are you looking for approval of the Action Plan?

H. Levin -

Not approval; concurrence, we are going in an acceptable direction.

i

! 50-445/50-446 i R E A CT O P ,C_Ay,1,T,Y, ,R,E,B,AR, ,0M I S,51,0,N H. Levin -

Flow chart explanation We are looking at all rebar omissions to assure appropriate docunentation.

Look at New Ycrk to site interface 3rd party parallels CPSES project activities 17 cases of emission.being reviewed REBAR IN FUEL HANDLING BUILDING

! H. Levin -

Cutting treated as specific case Look at other cut locations C. Hofmayer -

What are you looking at?

H. Levin -

We are looking at locations where two layers of rebar 4

are present. We will go look at hilti bolt length.

Also, this particular crew's activities will be 1

reviewed for hilti installation activities. .

C. Hofmayer -

Procedure review; control of drill bits; quantity of drill bits versus' quantity of-bars that can be cut. Is there a corrolation to bits purchases versus bars cut?

HINUTES TAKEN BY: ' ~ ~

C. R. Hooton I MINUTES ACCEPTABLE AS DOCUMENTED: ~

Howard A. Lev' ins Charles H. Hofmayer .

. , , - - - - - - 5e-,., -- y .g e - - _ - .,,.,.,.,m.y. . , = - , . , , , , , . . , . . , ,.m.--,,c,,,,,,y.--,- rw.---

q., a .y v,.,~.-ev. y g.---

. 9+ . ,

4 i

ATTACHMENT  !

l ATTENDANCE LIST FOR JANUARY 7,1985 TRT MEETING i.

ATT E ND.E.E.S COMPANY PHONE NUMBER Howard Levin TERA /TENERA MD-301-654-8960

TX-817-897-4881 x895 ,

Terry Langowski NRC/TRT 301-443-7901

.H. Shannon Phillips NRC RIV Sr. Resident FTS 897-2201 '

C. Hofmayer NRC/TRT 516-282-2317 1

Randy Hooton- TUGC0 817-897-4881 x421 Chris Mortgat TERA /TENERA 415-845-5200 Scott Harrison TUGC0 817-897-4881 x591 Tim Wright TUGC0 817-897-4881 x861  !

Gary Merka Brown & Root 817-897-4881 x477 Fred Webster JBA, Inc. 415-969-8212 Douglas Witt TERA /TENERA 415-845-5200 I i

l Paul Smith EQE 415-495-5500 i

Sam Swan EQE 415-495-5500

Mark, Wells CPPE 817-897-4881 x477 RcSert Phiileo Consulting Eng. 703-256-4183 l

i e

i t

P h

e i

4 a .._ .. -

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