ML20137M643

Forwards Communications Repts Re Phase 3 of Independent Assessment Program

ML20137M643
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/05/1985
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84042.41, NUDOCS 8509130290
Download: ML20137M643 (26)

Text

..

u as 101 Cahtornia Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco. CA 941115894 415 397 5600 September 5, 1985 84042.41 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE l

1426 S. Polk l

Dallas, Texas 75224

Subject:

Consnunications Report Transmittal #17 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84042

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

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

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

Very truly yours, L LL ' %

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.' Sc Burwell'(USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/o attachments Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/o attachments

/

8509130290 050905

?

DR ADOCK 050 5

,,, /

p san Francisco Boston Chicago Richland e

l l

A Communications M &'fd Report lililllllillllilllllllllilllll Texas Utilities 3 Teiecon company:

conference nepon N

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

3/13/84 Subject-Time 11:00 a.m.

Main Steam System Design Pressure Place Si

/NY

"'"'P'"

Dick Kim Gibbs & Hill /NY J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By In regards to the correct design pressure for the Main Steam Lines, Mr. Kim referred Cygna to Westinghouse document 56-689,

" Steam Systems Design Manual." Cygna reviewed Revision 3 of this document at the Westinghouse offices on-site and found in Table 1-1, P

1200 psia for a model D = 412 (3425 MWT) plant Mr. Kim stated the line list would be revised to reflect the lower pressure. Thus, the data used in the MS analyses is Correct.

signeo

/eam "'8' 1

1 oisinoution D.'

ade,

4. W llams L Weingart, J. Oszewski, R. Hess, Project File 22-C-T Euru,ll ei sc roo i

Communications

-=--

MM' fia Report lillllllllllll!!Illlllllllllli conipanr Texas Utilities X Teiecon conference Repon Project Job No 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

~

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 June 18, 1984 Subject Time Pipe Stress Questions Placo Participants of i

L.J. Weingart CES l

Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested clarification on the following G&H responses (item numbers refer to those indicated in the Comunications Report dated May 24,1984).

Item 18 Was the interpolation performed using the refined or enref d:..d spectra curves?

Item 10 Calculation DRB-1C, Set 3, makes use of mass points at elevations 893.25', 834.75' and 895.33'. Those do not correspond to the elevations shown on any of the response spectra curves (refined orunrefined). Please explain the difference.

/j pg

/MS 1

1 N. Williams, O. Wade,Y. Grace, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File 0'$'"but'on

7. du/M l/

Communications di n i Report lililllililllllllllllllilillli Company:

Texas Utilities T*' econ Conter nce neport Project Job No 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 4/3/84 subject TUGC0 Nuclear Engineering Place Borys Czarnogorski G&H Shaid Ali TNE S. Bibo, D. Smedley, J. P. Toner, M. Maire, Cygna H. McGrane & J. Laurie Required item Comments Action By I called a meeting with the above participants to get an overview of the TUGC0 Nuclear Engineering (TNE) organization and corrective action systems. Specific questions were asked relative TNE C/A systems.

It was agreed that Cygna personnel would be given access to all required TNE documents.

I signeo

/dhb 1

1 o.itnbution N. WilTiams, D. Wade, 6. Grace, S. Bibo, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File

_---._----_----_F M

Communications Report t4 L t i lilli::""""::i!! ""!!!

Company:

Texas Utilities Teiecon X

Conference neport Project.

Job N 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date 4/2/84 l

sub ect Tim

• i I

2:45 pm Mechanical Review Document Request Place p

g P rticipants-of TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following documents:

1.

Latest Revision of Load Summary Sheet for CC-2-009-003-A33R 2.

TF/RB1384(MS-1-004-009-C62K) lf}), /pm 1 1 o.stribui on ' O. Wde,'N. Williams, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, C. Wong, Project File 22-C-411A ~

c. 9.a - A iosc ose

D Communic @tions s E AL ci Report 186lll1llllll116lll14llllll111 Company: Texas Utilities )( T*' econ Conference neport Project Job No l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 0 * Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 9/28/84 "D* Mass Participation Study 4:30 p.m. G & H/New York H. Harrison TUGC0 R. Ballard/H. Mentel/H. Y. Chang G&H C. Mortgat Tera J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Harrison stated that TUGCO's direction to G & H was as follows:

1) Rerun a sample of problems using the refined response spectra, ADLPIPE version D, and a 50H cutoff frequency.

z

2) Develop a screening criteria from this sample to determine which additional problems need renaming.

3) Prc<ide the site with the load summaries from the rerun problems. The site will evaluate each support with load increases to determine if it is acceptable.

Cygna stated that they reviewed the results of G & H's sample of 35 problems. G & H had plotted percent increase in total (DW + Thermal + Seismic + SAM) support load against the directional mass fraction in the problem containing the support. G & H had also plotted data that TUGC0 had developed for Dr. Iotti. This data represented support margin vs. the actual / average support load for various pipe sizes. G & H proposed to screen each problem by:

1) determining the % increase in support load from the plot of X increase vs. mass fraction.

sig" " W g /ajb ""' 1 2 Distneution N. Williams, G. 8jorkman, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, J. 2;;6 ;. L,,,,;;

3. T.-y, F,vs m iiie ca-u-1courrna

O Communications M M'M Report lll1111ll!ll1111111111111lll11 ) Ac$o trem Comments y

2) entering the second set of curves for each support in the problem and determining what the average margin would be.

3) for supports which did not have sufficient average margin, requesting the site to evaluate this increase in load.

TUGC0 also suggested a second possible approach as follows:

1) Rerun all problems which have mass fractions lower than a certain value.

2) Review onsite all supports in those problems.

3) If no supports require redesign, draw a conclusion concerning the design adequacy of the remaining support based on this sample. Cygna stated that, based on a preliminary review of the results, the sample used to develop the " margin vs actual / average" plots (114 supports) did not represent a sufficient percentage of the plant. Cygna stated that they would formalize their comments on Monday, October 1 in a letter to TUGCO. It should be noted that this approach to the mass participation re-evaluation is differ-ent than that stated in the Gibbs & Hill revised plan. Page of 'on o's

Communications Report 4L t i 1111111111lll14111111lll111111 compaar Texas Utilities O Teiecon conference neport JbN 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oar. 7/31/84 suoi.ct Phase 3 Open items - Mass participation Place CES-SFR0 Participants M. Vivarito, H. Mentel, S. Lim o' Gibbs 8 Hill N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By M. Vivarito called to briefly discuss the mass participation program prior to issuing a revised plan. The analysis perfonned to date (5 study problems) on the new version of ADLPIPE showed that there were load increases, although this did not necessarily translate into a problem with pipe support design adequacy. M. Vivarito had heard through discussions with TUGC0 personnel that perhaps Cygna agreed that the pipe supports must see at least the piping tributary mass accelerated at the ZPA. Further, M. Vivarito stated that G4.H had review procedures from TVA which I employed this technique of ensuring that the pipe support loads i were equal to or greater than the mass accelerated at the IPA. N. Williams responded by acknowledging that when Cygna is doing a review, a coninon way of checking the piping output for reason-l ableness is to compare the support loads against the mass accel-erated at the ZPA. This is however a reasonableness check t i only. N. Williams also noted that the TVA approach sounded similar to approaches used by other design organizations in the l early to mid seventies. In order to better understand the specifics of the approach, Cygna would like to review a copy of l the TVA procedure. GlH was not sure if they could release the document but would check. l M* Wl3318M5, IJ. N3de, de Pilnlcnlello, b. Bj6~fM&h, L. W6Tngart, d. Van AineronMn, Distnbution t Trahu t *- - -- - - 1 1 .1 F114e Den te t f41m 911 7111DD1

Communications 4( Repod t i d 161111111111111111166l11111lll companr Texas Utilities OxT'coe com' < c a nori JbN 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 cat. 12/5/84 suoi.ct Discussion of Design Control Section of the 12:00 p.m. Place SFR0 Phase 3 Final Report Participants N. Downard o' EG&G D. Terao US NRC N. Williams, D. Smedley, L. Weingart Cygna i IIo"$, item comm.nt. EG&G is using ANSI N45.2.11 dated 1974, as opposed to the May 1973 used by Cygna. 1. Checklist DC-01-OlB, page 2. What is the significance of the statement, " Based on documents reviewed?" Cygna explained that it was a somewhat redundant com-ment by the reviewer which means his conclusions are based on the sample document reviewed. 2. Checklist DC-01-02A. What is a DRR7 Cygna explained that a DRR is a vehicle for the engineering department to use in order to evaluate whether a deficiency is reportable. Once the DRR is determined to be possibly reportable a SDAR is written. 3. Checklist DC-01-02A, item 13. What is a hanger hold? Cygna explained that it was'a means of halting con- ~ struction work on a pipe support. 4. Checklist DC-01-020,' iten 10. Are inspection reports l used only if a discrepancy is observed? 1 Cygna responded that the inspection reports are written l on everything. It is QC's means of checking installa-l tion acceptability. s.gned ' /ajb Page } of 3 . 1466, WAmeT6flgEn, J. riftlicnielio, L. weingart, d. T reby, J.

m. m a,.ineua,9 r114e e a.. h ti; n n 4.,.

• r41.

oo_c_ s onoon i I

A Communications Repod t4 L t i Item Comments Ac y 5. Checklist DC-01-02D, Attachment 1, page 3 of 4. IR-20061 is shown as missing. This is the only one. Cygna responded that the reason for the IR being noted i as missing is because it was somewhere in the process before being entered into the vault and being closed out. 6. Checklist DC-01-020, Attachment 3, page 4 of 5. Referring to the "Coments" column, some of these refer to Unit 2. Cygna responded that the review centered around the Unit 1 work, however,'there were a couple of documents which are associated'with Unit 2 in some of the sam-ples. EG&G asked if it was indicative of TUGC0 mis-filing. Cygna responded that the review was composed of a random sample of documents from the permanent plant records vault which contains records from both Unit 1 and 2. 7. Checklist DC-03-01, item SC. EG&G assumed that the exhibits referenced are part of the referenced procedures. Cygna concurred and stated that the basis for checking the item satisfactory is provided in Attachment 2 to the checklist. 8. Checklist DC-03-028, item 1. What is the meaning of the comment on the NCR system? Cygna explained that NPSI used an audit system at one time and later instigated an NCR system. Mr. Terao asked if this comment referred to NCR's relative to the design or construction. Cygna responded that there are two types of design deficiencies: (1) Those that are against procedures, and (2) those that are conflicts in the design. Mr. Terao asked for a description of the NCRs since this is a major item in the ASLB hearings. Cygna referred them to Attachment 1, page 2 of 4 for a description. 9. Checklist DC-03-028, item 11, refers to " Category 4". What is this? Cygna referred them to Attachment 1, page 3 of 4 of NCR l-1020 as an example of a " Category 4". Category 4 is the most severe level of an NCR. Mr. Terao asked if Category 4 of item 7 " correct previous transmittals", is correct. Cygna will check the referer.ce procedure and respond to Mr. Terao. Page of,.

? Communications Report Atn i ll"""""'!!!!!!!11lllll111 stem comments Ac o y

10. Checklist DC-03-02B, item 27. What is the significance of 7/5/78 through 9/28/80 time frame?

Cygna will check the reference procedure. Cygna later explained that the reference procedure was superceded by another procedure as later evidenced by the review matrix.

11. Checklist DC-03-028, Attachment 1, page 4 of 4.

On the fourth line from the bottom there is a mention of Westinghouse. EG&G understood that Westinghouse was not part of the review scope. Cygaa responded that this was correct except that due to the interfaces between the various design organiza-tions this caused some Westinghouse documents to be discovered during the design control reviews.

12. Checirlist DC-03-028, Attachment 4, page 1 of 1.

What is the meaning of "Various?" Cygna responded that some corrective actions apply to more than one project.

13. Checklist DC-04-02, page 2 of 4, item 5, mentions posting of Part 21 procedures. What does this mean?

Cygna responded that this simply meant that they complied with the requirement to make the Part 21 requirements visible to all employees. Page of I FM19D

Communications @4L% M L Report llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll { Confuence Repon Telecon Teras litilities Project' Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/2 /84 Subject. Time Jet Impingement Damage Study Place: Participants-of Rick Babb. D. West TUSI J. Minichiello. L. Weinaart Cygna item Comments Ac o By Protection matrices were transmitted to Mike Strange in G&H letter GTN-68175, 12/15/83. Cygna reviewed the matrices listed in that letter; there were no interactions on the Main Steam or Component Cooling water problems in the Cygna scope. Cygna will contact Mr. Strange to verify that the drawings reviewed were the latest revision. /[hM /pm 1 1 L D. Wade,N. Williams,[ Harrison,J.Minichiello,L.Weingart,M.Mani,A. Cowell, Project File 23-C-0302/PRJ p f9p y; ='a

Communications t4 id t Repod i 1lllllllll1111111111lllllllll1 Company Texas Utilities 2 Telecon o Conference Report Project. Job N 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Dat'- 3/27/84

Subject:

Time-11:15 am Response Time for the Pipe Stress Questions Place: 3p of

Participants:

3 Gibbs & Hi11 L. Weingart Cygna Required item Comments Action By I contacted Steve to discuss his expected response time for the pipe stress questions. Steve is handling the main steam inside containment and feels that he will have his answers ready for discussion in about a week. He is going to discuss the other problems (MSOC and CCW) with Henry Mentel and call me back later today. I told Steve to consider the possibility of my going to the Gibbs & Hill offices in New York in order to expedite the process. 1 ( l l I sinced /pm Page } of 1 Distnbution D. N W1 L,. WeTitgart, M. Ness, Project tile, G. Grace i voro oi.

Communications a f& i Report llll1lll1ll1111111111lllllllll Company: Texas Utilities o Telecon it Conference Report Project: Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program, Phase 3 oste: March 15, 1984 "

• ire Protection and Hardware 1:30 pm Place ~

Weights for Cable Trays CPSES (site) Participants. Doug Hunt Gibbs & Hill D. Nandi Gibbs & Hill John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By I spoke to Doug and Mr. Nandi (both of Gibbs & Hill's Site Civil Group) about Mr. Walsh's request for weights of fire protection insulation and cover plates, splice plates and tray-support attachment hardware. Doug told me that the Site Hazards Group is responsible for determining which cable trays will require fire protection. This information is prepared by Mr. Jeff Spiegleman of TUGC0 and sent by CPPA to the Civil Group for evaluation of effects due to any additional weight. This evaluation is performed by adding the additional weight into the existing cable tray weight and comparing the total value to the design weight of 35 psf. I gave Doug a copy of the RHR tray segments. To expedite our response to Mr. Walsh's question, I asked Doug to provide the following information: 1. Tray segment unit weight for the size of each tray segement. Gibbs & Hill 2. Cable fill weignt per tray segment. Gibbs & Hill 3. Weight of insulation per tray segment. Gibbs & Hill 4. If any tray cover, and if so, its unit weight. Gibbs & Hill 5. The combined weight of Items 1 through 4. Gibbs & Hill l 6. Weight of splice (" doubler") plates for the size of each Gibbs & Hill tray segment. ) 7. Weight of the tray attachment clips and bolts for each Gibbs & Hill attachment. l l ( fpg Page } } of signed. lljams, R. Hess, Project File, b. brace oestnbutionf4. Wade, N. Wj// V :"S' gJy ) 1020 01a

-- l communications t4 Le c i Repod ll1lllllll11lllllll11lllll1lll companr Texas Utilities o Teiecon X: Conference Report Project Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station March 15, 1984 Independent Assessment Program, Phase 3 Date: Time: 2:30 pm subject Fire Protection for Cable Trays P' ace: CPSES (site)

Participants:

Ed Bezkor Gibbs & Hill John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By I spoke to Ed about the cable trays of the RHR system which may have fire protection applied to them. Ed told me that that information was available only on site. He suggested that I speak to the Site Civil Group regarding fire protection. i e ( /pm Page 1 of 1 s'9"*' l o.stnbug: u. waae,y.,wii11ams, M. Ness, froJect tile. u. urace sgal. = l

Communications t41% i Report IE Company: Texas Utilities o Teiecon X conference Report Project: Job N - 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/23/84 subject: Time. 8:30 am Place: Data Request a he Ped Participants. of p Texas uti1ities J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following: Add. Load Case 4 in STRUDL run - get output Change sign of X coordinate in Node 24 -- get output We need 2 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) ' of Page } 2 signed: /pm DisinbutiadV D. Wade, b. W1.1liams, J. Pfinichiello, G. Grace, J. Russ, Project File eg,g; g - iomo oi. ~

Communications Report ALa i IE Company: Texas Utilities o Teiecon & Conference Report N 84042 '* domanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 cate: 3/21/84 Sub ect: Time-10:00 am i Cygna Questions on Main Steam piace: Fort Worth o' Gibbs & Hill Participants-S. Lim L. Weingart Cygna Required item Comments Action By Steve and I discussed all of the questions which have arisen from the review of the stress analyses of the main steam inside and outside containment and the component cooling water system. The main purpose of this discussion was to assure that Gibbs & Hill understood both the nature and intent of the questions such that excessive iterations of response could be avoided. Only one direct action item resulted from this conversation. Steve will send a plot of the time history response of some of the axial restraints on the main steam inside containment. A comparison of these with the plots of the input forcing function along those runs will provide further assurance that the proper forcing functions were indeed applied for each system. A. m s gned Q /pm Page 1 of 1 WQ N. W T%L11my, d. rilnlcnletio, L. WelngarL, l'roJect r i ie, G. Grace Distnbution-U* , S. bra ll ? 1020 01a

Communications Alni Report 114lillllllllll11111111lllll11 Teiec n conference Rep Texas Utilities x j Project Job No 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date-Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 6/14/84 i Subject Time. Oversize Bolt Holes (Pipe Supports) 9:20 ) Place-(iton 95 in 5 /74 Telornni Site Participants-of R. Sievers B&R .1_ Mini chiplin Cvgna Required item Comments Action By Cygna called the CPSES N-STAMP holder to understand their position on the oversize bolt holes. Mr. Sievers, who is responsible for site ASME QC and a member of the Code Committee, stated that both his and the ANI's interpretation of NF-4721 is that no code violation exists. Their basis is that parag aph NF-4721(b) does not prohibit the use of oversize holes in bearing connections. Since the code has no prohibition, no violation exists. If engineering needs a smaller tolerance hole to meet their design criteria, that is up to engineering. For fabrication up to 1/4" oversize would be acceptable. 4 Signed tM Page of l eho /ss 1 1 A '"D"" N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, C. Wong, G. Bjorkman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project File S.Somw%.t 'ozoou n

O ' ~ gj ' SECTION HL DIVIS ON I - SUBSECTION NF NT-44213 NF4721 ,,'c [] l i se :s to ascid harmful thermal gradien:s. His NF4'20 BOLTING emedy f .c c:re may 21so be used for pe<: weld hear treat. M HM'N:(* ^ NF C cr repa::s.. w s --s

p..

J M.*i24.4 Hesting Components Internally. De For the pur;csc cf dis Artic!c, high strengd belts .*n I. . -.ne.t cupport or item m.sy be heated interna!!y or :c.-s:de ed these with ytekf s.engd g ea::: -. ; c t;erepr:a:e means and with adequate n.br-g g g g yp4 g g g g ., -. re:ording terrperature devices to aid in the re:;uir :=:ccti of(al threegh (ej beics.

:. 2nd mamtenance of a un: form diatn:ct:en d gggggg g

g g,.,yp4.,gt g g g, c r;mre in the ecmponent suppet; or stem, F :s'e.a o this operarica, the ctnpanent scpport er g 3 . :- ihm:d be fully eneMd with insulating material r.a= t:.ule s rec.ith c( 50.0 isi d52 MPar er i=s: the g g.-d 6 M Sem m k 6 ( h *:y b in. + 1.6 min). Wa tne 5xit hoie w.:r s

g ::s. f3.2 intoa larger th.sn the bolt and the boit is b In. {l3 Inc) or E MEc*. s'n 'med aase.'. sha" be use:.

[ 7,,4 th Oves:z:d or sartted Ech hoies inay be.zsed aid i Y ( h:Fi s:::r:gs bol:s % :n. O.% c:m'; : c2rrer sad lartc. ex:.ept as rest =c: d b tij, C). and (3) bc!ca. r (I,e Cded heles sh.33 act exceed de n::: ire-me=ts of Tab!c NF-C~2Hb-1. They3 2v b-me:d in y' ' any w an pin of fr e:cs-type :ciae:e:.L Wrdene: eI www-s sha3 be ins::12en cm.er exp*osed om - ' hele:, NT4MG HEAT TREATMENT OF . O nat-s! tted Wies M net & W 6a: 4 ELECTROSLAG WELDS ' perm h is) a W nm have a Wi emWmE the oversi:e dia=e:er aDomed,m 0) stam 3 E:ecinslag welds in ferritic material over IM in. (38 ^ by more than b in. 0.6 :nm). They may be used it " if '. mra) in thickness at the joints shall be given s grain' any or an plies d frictice-type or bearr.g-typ- ~ h [ re'.ning heat treatment. connectaans. De slocs may be used withcut regard 3: p direc:aon d loadmg in fricacn-type connarwm t s-shad be normal to the dira w, af the 1 cad in bcanet-4 NF-4700 REQUIRDIENTS FOR '

• type ennecdont HaN W. M k MW

") BOLTED CONSTRUCTION

• ** ** E **

(3) Long s!ctied bcles shan not b'e: sider thas y NF4710 BOLTING AND THREADING perndtted by (a) aboi.e and sh 3 oct have a ien;-d g NF411 Thrend Engagement which eseceds 2S times the bcit,r,ry.cr. In the:r:n-gyp,,cg g,3,,g g g., g g The threads of all bolts or' studs sha!! be engaged for without regard to direction of leadmg. prmided ta: l 4 de fui; length of thread in the nut. strest on the bol:s docs e::t exceed 7M of tir J 't allowable sotiing srrms given in NF-3000. In ber NF4712 Thread Labricants ing-type conne:tions, the ice; c2 amer of the six shan be normal to the direction of loading. L.s=y-Any lubricant or ecmpound used in dreaded joints slotted boles may be ased in ot:y one of the conne vx <' ~ shall be suitable for the service conditions and t. hall parts of either a fr ctico-type or bearing 4ype coerc-i unfavorably with ar.y support element tion at an indhidual faywg scr'are. Satteral p : r.ot reset rr.nerial. Centact surfaces within friction type joints washers or a continucas har eat less than % tr._ (I lt f.nu be free of oil, pair.t. lacquer, or ga!vanizing. mm) in thickness shan be used t::oser long s!:ts tn.n f i are in the outer plies ofjoints. Rese asshers ;r ban { NF-4713 Removal of Thread Lubricants shall ha$e a size sufficient to cover the s'et ecmp e:e!. after installation and shall meet the requirements of 3 All threading lubricants or compounds shall be NF 3000. 3 : n.csed from surfaces which are to be welded. (c) Eacept as specided in (d) below, holes may be x I 74 .3M

.gaj WD n.

q*

c 'NF.000 - FABRICATION AND IN5TALLATION i,. Ny q q ~ J.: ~ ' ~ ~ l; TABLE NF-472Eal-1 C: y/(8 E0LT HOLE SIZE 5 TAE.I h7 4721b-1 Y a f TCLEUNCE5 04 CVERSIZED HOLES f. Sc#t $n Hose $n .t 1 Sort !.m . Mas. hase se, ~ -g s I c. sc.t s:ar ete, -j -s s.. e% ~ .. - m, so,t s m,.,.

m. -

f

'-(, n to Sort diamete-

,e t tn } 2 c. pass % n so;* sie mer pn.s b. c. >2J. Scrt diametr

t e.

Ecst s.a irte-ms %. E i pues N s i 4 i panded. ;revided ie itekne.s of the mate:.al a mer .%TC Bolt Teason j g-" - -5 n ie ucminal diameter of the boit pia 4 Wac q '

n. i:.2 mrn). When the th:ckness of the mate:.a! n M i6 d mi bob M be prewed j

? wer dan de seminal &ameter of the boit pus * ,, gy, 3,, 3,,, g3 g, p,3 ;g g, g,.3 } .n. 0 2 mmt, heles shall be drtiled, subpun:hed. and Swan PM g shall be metd:cred by 15e 9 re m-d. :r 6ermally cut. Thermal:utting shaIl not m: d at Mod h My calibM @ j

s.-1 : ss the Ioad bear ng surfaces are machmed r or by frect extensien indicators. Bolts pre:=A-4 by 4

m octh. For subpenched holes, the die sha.'1

• me, :s of e c:fibrated wrench shaIl be in=e=Hed wid a

.. m. (1.6 mm) smaller than the noc:ma' harcened usher under the nut or bolt head, wiuch- .:.eut .. -f the bolt. ed tur d in pmMint h ~~~."dr.,. . (13 mm) der wacne s a e mot required when bolts are preloaded by e scies m ma*er:21 over % m. g h2 n; a spec:ned mm. mum yield strength & Md tht W h i Fesa { an 30.., st (552 MPa) aan be drilled. are recnired ander the not and belt head when the boits b M m em hd W a W {

c. For coits not subjected to shear, the Im.uts for Jl cseru:ed and slotted hcles m. (d) above may be yte!d pcm:less than 40.0 ksi(27m MPa). - >'

x J increa::d if structural p!ste washers or continnoas bars ahich meet the requirements of NF4000 are NF.4725 Y a+ne Devices , a 3, pr: sic.-d. g W83 fas:eners dan he 'p All thr-e d g with I lockmg oesices to prevent looserung during servbe-h=ne step an:s (when compauble with sernce $ N74 22 Bolted Connecticas tempera:uret ksck nuts. jam nuts, and drilled and fd Sudaces of bolted parts in contact eth the bol: wtre:* muts are all acre, table locking devices. L*p6e: head and nut shall not have a slope of more than 1:20 thre:ds (by peenmg, tack welding, or other means) S.ith respect to a plane normal to the bolt axis. Where may serve as lock:ng devices. Torquing and other the surface of high strength bolted par. has a slope of preloadmg aw: bads asay be used as lockmg desices on mere than 1:20, a beveled washer shall be used so threaded par::: 3:ade of misterial with a yield streng-h i cctr.rersate for the lack cf parzlle.tsm-of 80 kst (F2 MP2) and greater, loaded in tension, prcvided the resairmg pre! cad is at least 20% abose fA. Bolts loaded in pure shear shall not have ^ threads !ccated in the load bearing part of the shank the marsc n:: lead on th fastener for the specified j ur.!ess permitted by the Design Specifcations. loadmg condruocs, but is Nmited to 70'", of the 3 specified adurnars tensile strectth of the fastener-t 4 'the threaded assembly sha!! be ested for the dy. i i nande leading conditiocs specified in the Design j.NF4723 Precautions Before Boltirg Specification, ar.d the established preroad shall be l j A!! par:s assembled for bolting shall have contact verified on the assembly by properly calibrated j sud:e5 free from scale, chips, or other deleterious wrenches, direct extensien indicators, or the turn of the nut mesod. The results of the test, required ? ! ma::61. Surfaces and edges to be joined shall be preload, and specified thread lubrication shal1 be s r.ccch. uniform, and free from fins, tears, cracks, and [ cti.e: cefe,:ts which would degrade the strength ef the provided in the Design Report. Disk and heliced y joint. spring lock washers shall not be used as locking devices. t ?$ gj gj ( l . -. -. - -. ~ -.,. .., - +..,, e-, _.w-

Communications t41 n i Report l111llllllll1111111111llllllll company: Texas Utilities o Telecon in conference Report Project: Job No 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D8te: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/21/84 suoiect: Time: 10:30 an Place Data Request p Participants. D. Ree TUSI J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following items: Baseplate output re-run dated 10:58:11.12.. 02/23/84 for calc CC-1-087-004-A33 Revision 3 of CC-1-077-013-S435 Documents SA-4124 and SA-4125 (Calc. MS-1-004-004-S72) STRUDL frame output for support CC-1-028-023-S33R STRUDL frame output for support MS-1-004-004-C72K i i ( s,. - o. w~<,a m____ u. r o,.t,2u,,,f u. waa e, n. m i n ams, s. m n un i e i i u, 5020 01a

Communications AMi Report lillllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Company: Texas Utilities o Telecon a conference neport Project: Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station j Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3/20/84 Date-sueiect: Time 8:00 I Cygna Coment on MS Place Comanche Peak Participants-G. Krishnan Gibbs & Hill J. Minichiello Cygna nequired item Comments Action By Cygna requested response to the following coment: 1. For the MS lines, Cygna has not found any hydrotest analysis. Where is the documentation showing hydrotest stresses acceptable? i l 1 of } signe ,=9 jpg Page } j oistnbuto#' D. Wade,5N. Williams, J. Minichiello, G. Grace,t Project File.g$. gwAll 1020 01e -~. - -.

Communications A( Report t i 1111111111111111111111111lllll Company 0 Telecon O Conference Report Project: Job No. Texas Utilities - IAP Rana? Date: M3rch R 10RA Subject Time. CMC and DCA Evaluation Procedure 4?d; n m-Place. PDRrt c4to

Participants:

of Arneo Willenvenn nihhe 1 Mill .Inhn Ruce rynna Required item Comments Action By Ref: Conference Report of March 8,1984, CMC and DCA Evaluation Procedure, P. Patel and J. Russ participating I spoke to Bruce, the Gibbs & Hill Site Design Review Supervisor, 4 about the procedures for review of Component Modification Cards (CMC's) and Design Change Authorization Cards (DCA's). Bruce verified that the revision of PG-24 (see referenced Comunications Report) was the most recent. Bruce also explained that PG-24 was not e )mplete explanation of the CMC and DCA review process. PG-24 or.y details the procedure for reviewing CMC's and DCA's sent to Gibbs & Hill's New York office. PG-29, from the same Project Guide, explains the review process performed on site. The review process for CMC's and DCA's is performed in two ways, with or without prior engineering approval of the proposed changes. Bruce also stated that all CbC's or DCA's will uncergo the review procedures set forth in PG-24 and PG-29. j s$nea /eam 1 1 D. Wade, N. Williams, T. Wittig, R. Hess, T Acuna, Project File [gllggj/; D"**"~ ,m a,.

Communications L4Miii Report r CompI4Kas Utilities & Teiecon a conference Report Project: Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 2/21/85 Subsect: Time. 11:00 a.m* Pipe Support Stability Place p of

Participants:

gpg TUGC0 N. Williams, J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By J. Finneran called to find out how Cygna was defining some of the categories used to define stability within the Cygna review scope. (Reference Cygna letter to TUGC0 84042.035, February 19, 1985.) Cygna responded as follows: 1. Single strut with box frame or cinched U-bolt 2. Multi strut with box frame - as an example see CC-1-019-006-A43R. These are mostly double double struts but sometimes two struts in one direction and one strut in another direction. 3. Single strut with uncinched U-bolt stability bumpers. J. Finneran noted that TUGC0 had committed to the NRC to remove the stability bumpers. 4. Double strut trapeze with uncinched U-bolt. The following three exanples. 1 MS-1-003-006-572R (PS-102) MS-1-001-002-S72R (PS-068) CC-1-028-700-A33R (PS 035) J. Finneran noted that CC-1-028-A53R is actually clinched. l l l W9 #1) d h s m ~ ,.4s N. hilliams, D. hade, J. van Amerongen, J. Finneran, S. Treby, J. Ellis,d.3vn.4[

Communications rs=2s M&' M Report WHHillfillil?imlill Teiec n conference Remn Texas Utilities Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station at' 6/4/85 ~ Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3

Subject:

Time. DCA Request Place (p3{$ gjte Pcrticipants-of Cygna J. Finneran TUGC0 1 Reovired item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received 3dA 20754. This DCA was needed to follow-up Phase 3 support design review questions. l l Nff)h// M /ajb 1 1 l l 'N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, [(80ru$ Distneutica

Communications g% rJ t41 Report lii;ii;;l;illlii;iiiiiiiiilill Tawne lit 414 t 4 ac Project: Job No. " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 ci,cioc

Subject:

Time Pipe Stress Questions p,,c, ceDfi Participants. of u, yete c4pe g u411 L M&gert Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the reference for the 713,000 lb/hr flow rate used in the thrust calculation for the 8" main steam relief valve (Gibbs & Hill stress problems AB1-23A, B, C & 0). Mr. Mentel informed me that this value was used as a result of a request by TUGCO. A more detailed account will be forwarded to Cygna. l W4911 1hi k , su 1 Distnbution: N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.;8mruell/ Project File

Communications AMd Report llllll111:11lllllllll111111111 Q Telec n conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/16/85

Subject:

Time-Pipe Stress Questions Place. i SFR0

Participants:

of l G. Krishnan Gibbs & Hill / Site L. Weinaart Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested formal documentation of the " Reconciliation" process referred to in the Attachment to Phase 3 checklist PI-09. According to Mr. Krishnan, this process is actually a final " reverification" as described in the as-built verification procedure CP-EI-4.5-1. The " Reconciliation" process which the Gibbs & Hill SSAG group refers to, will not be included in any revision to the as-built verification procedure. Mr. Krishnan will attempt to find some correspondence or documentation that refers to the " Reconciliation" process. i Y)jhfdA /ajb 1 1 N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, D"' b "" "' J. Ellis, 3.cuurwell,; Project File mo on

2n=fx : Communications BTW {k Report 111111111llllll111111111lllll1 e Teiec n conference neport s Tevac titilitiac Project Job No. 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 gfpajag Subject Time. 9:45 a.m. Pipe Stress Questions g,,, RFR0

Participants:

of d G_ Krichnan Gihhc 1 Hill / Site I Weinnart Cygna Required item Comments Action By The package transmitted May 17th, " Copies of correspondence of problem 1-61A" should read " Copies of correspondence of problem 1-094". l I l Signed U Page of N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis

5. Burwell, Project File

= ' ' ' i _}}