ML20138S000

Forwards Addl Phase 4 Pipe Support Questions Re Phase 4 Followup Walkdown & Questions on Previous Open Items from All Phases

ML20138S000
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/30/1985
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
84056.092, NUDOCS 8511190368
Download: ML20138S000 (10)

Text

I ssevscas 101 California Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco. CA 94111-5894 415'397 5600 October 30, 1985 84056.092 Mr. W.G. Counsil -

Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201

Subject:

Pipe Support Review Questions Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

Indepenaent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Job No. 84056

Dear Mr. Counsil:

Attached please find additional Phase 4 pipe support questions related to the Phase 4 follow-up walkdown as well as some follow-up questions on previous open items from all phases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the last set of questions for all disciplines.

If you have any questions or require clarification prior to preparing a response don't hesitate to call.

Very truly yours, N.H. Williams g31g1903688%$45 Project Manager PDR ADOCK O PDR A

Attachment cc: Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/ attachment Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ attachment Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachment Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachment Ms. J. van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachment Mrs. J. Ellis (CASE) w/ attachment Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/ attachment Mr. F. Dougherty (TENERA) w/ attachment Mr. R. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) w/ attachment Mr. J.W. Beck (TUGCO) w/ attachment Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attachment 8l0 i

i San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland

Mr. W.G. Counsil October 30, 1985 84056.092 ATTACMENT PIPE SUPPORT QUESTIONS

1. During the walkdown Cygna noted several instances where the sight holes of strut / snubber component supports are painted over, therefore eye-rod full thread engagement cannot be checked via the sight hole. (Generic)

Examples:

• MS-1-003-002-S72R, Rev. 1 e CC-1-050-004-A43R, Rev. 4 e CC-1-051-700-A43K, Rev. 1 e CC-1-028-017-533R, Rev. 4 e CC-1-028-034-S33R, Rev. 3 (South Strut only) e Also for support MS-1-002-005-S72R, Rev 6, a feeler wire can extend through the top sight hole without touching the eye-rod.

Question:

a. What procedure (s) does the QC inspector use to verify full-thread engagement? Please provide a copy of the procedure.

2. For support base plates attached to concrete elements (wall, floor etc.) by means of thru-bolts, there are many instances that Hilti Kwik-bolts exist in an area adjacent to the base plate. These Hilti bolts are not shown on the pipe support drawing. (Generic)

Examples: MS-1-001-004-572R, Rev. 1 MS-1-002-002-S72R, Rev. 3 (Detail D1)

MS-1-002-005-S72R, Rev. 6 (Sect. EE & FF)

Questions:

a. Are there any criteria / procedures governing the spacing design and inspection requirements between thru-bolts and Hilti Kwik-bolts?

b. Which project organization is responsible for ensuring that the combined load effect on the concrete supporting element is acceptable? How is the attachment load information transmitted between the support designers and this group? Is there any documentation showing that this type.of check has been made?

3. There are instances where pipe sleeve penetrations exist very close to the support base plate but are not identified on the drawing. (Generic)

Examples: CC-1-028-017-533R, Rev. 4 CC-1-028-022-S33K, Rev. 7 Page 1 of 9

O Mr. W.G. Counsil October 30, 1985 84056.092 Questions:

a. How does the designer identify any possible violation of minimum edge distance for the anchor bolts?

b. What are the design and inspection criteria of minimum edge distance for Hilti Kwik-bolt against pipe sleeve penetration? ,

4. CC-1-028-003-A33R, Rev. 7, Component Support Traceability -- It is noted that the sway strut on the west side has no tag. In reviewing the Inspection Report package, there is an Inspection Report (12-27-83) requesting verification of the strut serial numbers which states that the strut is from bulk stock and is stamped D5022 (i.e. the same serial no. as the east strut). Furthermore, there is a Certificate of Shop Inspection, which gives the Mark No. CC-1-028-003-533R (rather than - A33R).

Question:

Why do the two struts have the same serial number? Please explain the apparent discrepancy and reason for occurance.

5. During Cygna's walkdown, the following discrepancies were identified:

a. CC-1-031-009-S33R, Rev. 5 Base plate section C-C - Hilti Super Kwik-bolts were specified on drawing whereas only regular Kwik-bolts were installed.

Question:

Has the use of regular Kwik-bolts been identified by QA/QC, and properly evaluated by engineering?

b. CC-1-019-003-A33R, Rev. 2 Base plate section B-B,18" Long Hilti Super Kwik-Bolts were specified for all six bolts on the drawing. The installed lower right hand corner Super Hilti has a "W" marking, which indicates a length of 15".

Question:

Has the use of the 15" Super Kwik-bolt been identified by QA/QC and approved by engineering? Please provide the associated documentation.

Page 2 of 9

Mr. W,G, Counsil October 30, 1985 84056.092

6. During Cygna's walkdown the following weld discrepancies were identified

a. MS-1-002-002-S72R, Rev. 3 (Sht 3 of 3)

The bottom 3/8" horizontal fillet weld between the gusset plate (item

14) and the base plate is missing. Per Detail D1 of the drawing, there should be welds on both sides.

Question:

Has this discrepancy been identified by QA/QC and dispositioned by engineering?

b. MS-1-004-004-S72R, Rev 2.

The flare bevel weld between items 16 & 17 at the top north face is undersized for about 5 1/2" of the length. (i.e. weld not flush with the face of the tube steel).

Question:

How could the QC inspector verify that adequate weld exists?

c. MS-1-001-004-572R, Rev 1.

The weld between items (4) and (5) is flare bevel weld and is flush with the face of the tube. Per AISC 8th Edition, the effective throat thickness is 2x3/8x5/16 = ~ 1/4", which is less than the 5/16" i nt'i cated.

Question:

Please explain why the methodology used in computing effective throat thickness is different from that allowed by the AISC 8th Edition. What is the justification? Has any kind of test been performed to substantiate the use of larger effective throat thickness?

7. The following instances of dimensional discrepancy were observed in the walkdown.

a. CC-1-019-007-A33K, Rev. 2.

The vertical dimension shown on the drawing for item 8 is 11'-91/2" (approx) instead of 12'-3/4". This exceeds the 1" tolerance for working point dimension.

Page 3 of 9

Mr. W G. C:uns11 October 30, 1985 4 84056.092

b. CC-1-019-010-A43K, Rev. 4 Dimension fcr item 7,1/2 plate, is 10" x 10" instead of 7" x 7" as shown in section B-B.

c. MS-1-002-002-S72R, Rev. 3, Sht 3 of 3 Detail D1 - The horizontal dimension between attachnent centerline and the gusset plate (item 15) is 21/2" instead of 1" as shown on the drawing. This exceeds the 1/4" allowable tolerance.

d. CC-1-028-017-533R, Rev 3 Section A-A - The vertical edge distance of the lower right hand corner bolt is 21/2" instead of 2 7/8" as shown on the drawing. This exceeds the 1/4" allowable tolerance,

e. MS-1-002-005-S72R, Rev. 6 The as-built C-C dimension of the strut is 3'-10 1/8" rather than 3'-6 1/2" as shown on section B-B. This exceeds the 1/4" allowable tolerance.

f. MS-1-003-002-S72R, Rev. 1 The as-built C-C dimensions are 513/8" and 51" rather than 52" as specified on the drawing (i.e. 4'-4"). This exceeds the 1/4" allowable tolerance.

Question:

Have the above dimensional discrepancies, a through f, been identified by QA/AC? If so, please provide the associated documentation for review.

g. CC-2-019-007-A43K, Rev. 1 The as-built C-C dimension of 25 3/16" differs from the 2'-2 15/16" specified on the drawing. The discrepancy was identified in Inspection Report Package, but Q.C. stated " SAT" on the "QC checklist for snubber installation" without providing an explanation or back up documentation. (9-27-83).

Question:

What was the basis for QC acceptance?

4 Page 4 of 9

Mr. W.G. Counsil October 30, 1985

$ 84056.092

8. The following are isolated discrepancies that were noted in Cygna's walkdown and require some clarification by TUGCO.

a. MS-1-002-005-S72R, Rev. 6 The U-Bolt threads are not upset as specified on the drawing (sht.1 of 4).

Westion:

Why were the U-bolt threads not upset as required? Was this noted by QC7

b. MS-1-004-004-S72R, Rev. 2 The as-built support has double nuts on each leg of the U-Bolt, this conforms to the details shown on Rev. 2 of the drawing in the Inspection Report package, whereas the Rev. 2 dwg, which Cygna has, shows only one nut on each side of the U-Bolt. (i.e. no ocuble nutting).

Question:

Why do two different drawings have the same revision number? Please explain.

c. CC-1-028-701-A33R, Rev. 3 There is a 1/2" thick plate welded to the base of each rear bracket.

The two 1/2" plates are welded to item 15 and item 18 respectively.

These plate connection details were not shown on the drawing.

The double nuts on each U-Bolt legs are not snug tight.

Question:

Were these discrepancies identified by QA/QC7 If so, please provide the associated documentation.

d. CC-2-019-707-A435, Rev. 2 The cold spring setting is 7,000 (approx.) rather than 6475 as specified on the drawing. Also, the base plate is covered by grout in a floor i recess. This condition is not reflected on the drawing.

l Questions:

Has the difference in cold load setting been identified by QC and l approved by engineering?

Page 5 of 9 i

o Mr. W.G. Counsil o October 30, 1985 84056.092 Is there a more current revision of the drawing or supporting change documentation?

e. CC-1-050-700-A43K, Rev. 3 For Item #2 the AC and AH shown on the drawing should read CS and HS respectively. (The AC and AH values would have to be 131/16" and 13" respectively).

Question:

Is there a later revision of the drawing or supporting change documentation which corrects these errors?

9. Follow-up on previous open items:

Subject:

Document Control

Reference:

N/A Information Needs: It is Cygna's understanding that for pipe support designs, the control of design drawings and design documents (i.e. BRHL, BRH, CMC's, design analyses and calculations) is the responsibility of the Pipe Support Engineering Organization (PSE) until the design is considered complete. At that time, these documents will be turned-over to DCC for proper document control. Please provide a brief chronological description explaining the organizational (e.g., DCC, PSE) responsiblities for the tracking and distribution of pipe support drawings and CMC updates since the DCC procedures may not govern this process if PSE turns completed drawings over to DCC at the end of the design process.

Subject:

Hilti Embedment Length

References:

1. Communication Report between J. van Amerongen (TUGCO) and L.J. Weingart (Cygna), dated 9/27/85. Job 84042, " Pipe Support Questions."

2. H.C. Schmidt (TUGCO) letter to B.J. Youngblood (NRC), dated 4/2/84.

l Information Needs: The revision to B & R Instruction CEl-20 referenced in Reference 2 is Revision 9. Under paragraph 3 of " Anchor Bolt Embedment Length" it states that "The instruction has been revised . . .", please clarify whether Revision 9 of CEI-20 was revised or whether the stated revision has already been incorporated into Revision 9 of CEl-20. If so, please specify which paragraph.

Subject:

Base Plate Re-analysis of CC-1-028-001-A33R Page 6 of 9

O

, Mr. W.G. Counsil October 30, 1985 84056.092

References:

1. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), dated 7/31/84. No. 84056.013, Item 4.

2. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),

dated 8/11/84.

3. Communications Report between C. Wong (Cygna) and J. Finneran (TUGCO), dated 6/5/85.

Information Needs: Per TUGC0's response in Reference 2 above, the base plate and anchor bolt were re-analyzed and the load for the most highly loaded bolt decreased by 4%. Please provide a copy of base plate re-analysis for review.

Subject:

Verification of weld size between Items 15 and 26. MS-1-004-001-C72S

References:

N/A Information Needs: Revision 2 of CMC 81947 and the " Weld Data" cards from the inspection report are required to confirm that QC has verified the existence of 5/16" weld size as shown on the drawing.

Subject:

Design Modification of Pipe Support MS-1-001-006-C72K.

References:

1. Pipe Support Observation PS-01, Revision 0 Cygna Phase 3 Report - Independent Assessment Program, CPSES

2. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),

dated 6/8/84. Attachment EE.

Information Needs: Per TUGCO's response in Reference 2 above, the support l 1s modified. Please provide a current revision of the pipe support drawing so that Cygna can verify the changes have been incorporated on the drawings.

Subject:

Design Calculations for the Re-analysis of Support MS-1-003-007-C72K, Revision 10

References:

1. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), dated 7/31/84. No. 84056.03, Item 10.

2. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Willians (Cygna),

dated 8/30/84

3. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),

dated 9/17/84. Item 1.

Page 7 of 9

Mr. W.G, Counsil October 30, 1985 s 84056.092 Information Needs: Per TUGC0's response in Reference 2 above, a re-analysis was performed for this support. Please provide these design calculations for this support, especially the weld designs for the region described by Detail 46.

Subject:

Warped Tube Steel Design

References:

1. N.H. Williams (Cygna) leter to J.B. George (TUGCO), dated 8/6/84. No. 84056.14, item 4.

2. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),

dated 8/24/84.

3. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),

dated 6/8/84. Attachment K, Speed Letter TSBR #128.

4. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUSCO), dated 1/31/85. No. 84056.053, on " Punching Shear."

Information Needs: This issue was initially closed based on TUGC0's response that arrected pipe support calculations were performed using a 5%

reduction in the section modulus. This is documented in a telecon between N.H. Williams (Cygna) and J. Finneran (TUGCO). See References 2 and 3.

However, this was subsequently re-opened per Reference 4 with regard to the effect of local stress in tube wall containing a bolt hole, combined with the effect of tube warping near the tube end. Please provide the revised calculaticqs with the reduced section modulus as stated in Reference 2.

Also, please provide the calculations which justify why the 5% reduction is acceptable for the warping effect alone. Note that the local stress / punching shear is still an open issue.

Subject:

Base plate analysis program was not QA verified at the time of use. CC-1-087-004-A33A.

References:

G. Grace (TUGCO)

1. Communications and J. Munchiello,Reports C. Wongbetween D. dated (Cygna), Rencher,5/24/84.Item 51.

2. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),

dated 6/8/84. Item 22.

Information Needs: Per TUGCO's response in Reference 2, the revised version was yA vertried later, as Version 0684, and no changes were required. Cygna has a copy of the " Computer Program / Documentation Change Form," dated 6/6/84. However, it does not specifically state that this version is identical to the PSDI STRUDL Version 83A2 used for the north base plate analysis on 2/23/84. Please provide the proper QA documentation to indicate whether or not the two versions are identical.

Page 8 of 9

o Mr. W.G. Counsil October 30, 1985 l

s 84056.092 l

Subject:

Maximum Allowable Pipe Clearance

References:

1. Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-28, Rev. 29 -

" Fabrication and Instaliation Inspection J Safety Class Component Supports."

Information Needs: Per paragraph 3.3.4.la of reference 1 above, the maximum allowable total dimensional clearance on one side of the pipe is 1/8" +

1/16" (i.e. 3/16" gap between pipe and support restraining member). This maximum value, 3/16", devittes from the industry standard of 1/8" maximum.

Has this QC Inspection Criterion been reviewed / approved by Engineering? If so, is there any engineering documentation to justify its acceptance?

Please provide the proper documentaitons.

Page 9 of 9

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