ML20205D337
| ML20205D337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1987 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Nace L TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| 84056.106, NUDOCS 8703300373 | |
| Download: ML20205D337 (68) | |
Text
,
4
=-
en.wm 2121 N. Cahlornia 56vd.. Sune 300, Walnut Creek, CA 94696 41s/934-5733 January 9,1987
=
840 %.106 j
Mr. L. Nace Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
Subject:
Piping and Pipe Support Review Issues List (RIL)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
Dear Mr. Nace:
i Enclosed are the current revisions to the Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Review Issues Lists (RIL). All significant changes are noted by a revision bar in the right margin. All of the revisions were made to reflect the discussions held with Stone and Webster and TUGCO at the CPRT meetings at Cherry Hill, N.3. on November 13 and 14,1986 and Glen Rose, Texas on December 15 and 16,1986.
If there are any questions, please call at your convenience.
Very truly yours, N.H. Williams Project Manager cc: Mr. V._ Noonan (USNRC) w/ attach.
Mr. F. Dougherty (TENER A) w/ attach, f Ms. A. Viett!-Cook (USNRC) w/ attach. /
Mr. R. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) w/ attach.
Mr. 5. Treby (USNRC) w/ attach.
Mr. 3. Beck (TUGCO) w/ attach.
Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.)
Mr. E. Siskin (SWEC) w/ attach, w/ attach.
Mr. J. Finneran (TUGCO) w/ attach Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attach Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington &
Mrs. 3. Ellis (CASE) w/ attach.
SutcIlf fe) w/ attach.
0703300373 070109 PDR ADOCK 00000445 h4aj San Francisco Boston Ch.cago
12/29/86 Revision 3
.l Page 1 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List e
1.
Box Frames With 0" Gap
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Box Frames with 0" Gap", 84042.023, dated 1/28/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, Item 2
~
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams 3.
(Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), Attachment B dated 6/8/04 5.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran,1*. Regarding Consideration of Local Displacement and Stress" 6.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2 7.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns Summary:
The original support calculations did not consider the effect of the box frame and pipe interaction (Reference 2).
In addition, later TUGC0 calculations (References 4 and 5) used unconservative temperature and frame stiffness assump-tions and did not include the effects of Cygna comments.
Status:
This issue is closed. Cygna's concerns on zero gap boxed Corporation's(SWEC)yStone&WebsterEngineering frames are resolved b commitment in the CPSES pipe support requalification effort to eliminate / modify all zero gap boxed frames (Sheets 106 and 107 of Reference 7). Details of the proposed modifications are provided in Section B, -9, of Reference 6.
p -
'=j Texas Utilities Generating Company p'*k,+lJ Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
=
L Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111111llll11llll1111Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 2 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
Design of Welded /8olted Connections
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Design of Welded / Bolted Connections,"
84042.024, dated 1/28/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/21/84, Item 1.c.
3.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01, Revi-sion 1, Observation PS-06 5.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 18 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2 6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16,1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns 7.
Cygna/SWEC Meeting Agenda, December 15 and 16, i
1986 Glen Rose. Texas.
(Item A. Exhibit 1 to Reference 6)
Sunnary:
Cygna found no evidence that welded / bolted connections are designed in accordance with paragraph XVII-2442 of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code.
Status:
This issue is closed. This issue has been adequately addressed by SWEC in their pipe support requalification effort in the following manner: Per Section 3.1.3 of -2 in Reference 5, all the shear loads will be designed to be carried by the weld alone.
In response to Cygna's question (Item A of Reference 7), SWEC further clariff es that for baseplate with welded / bolted connections, the baseplate will be modeled by finite element techniques which include the appropriate stiffness values of bolts / plates / welds. This methodology will properly account for the tension load distributions in the connection.
(Sheet 8 of Reference 6). Designs based on the above approach will satisfy the requirements of paragraph XVII-2442 of Section !!!, Division 1 of the ASME B&PV Code.
j
~ w " q Texas Utilities Generating Company E
Y Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station NJk Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilll!:"""" ""':lliliiil Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 i
Page 3 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Richmond Insert Allowables
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Richmond Insert Allowables and Bending Stresses," 84042.025, dated 1/31/85 2.
CommunicationsReportbetweenRencher(TUGC0)and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/16/84 Item 2 3.
CommunicationsReportbetweenRencher(TUGCO)and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/30/84 Item 1 4.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/2/84 5.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/8/84 6.
Communications Report between Bezkor (Gibbs & Hill) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 6/12/84, Item 4 7.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr., Robert C.
Iotti, and R. Peter Deubler Regarding Design of Richmond Inserts and their Application to Support Design" 8.
Cygna/SWEC Meeting Agenda December 15 and 16, 1986 Glen Rose. Texas. (Exhibit 1 to Reference 9) 9.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Glen Rose, Texas, dated December 15 and 16,1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
- 11. Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
Based on Cygna's original independent design review of the pipe support design at CPSES, there are some concerns on Richmond Insert identified as follows:
"?"Zg Texas Utilities Generating Company wpf Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I'J k f a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111411111lll1I111ll111111lll11 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
_ - ~ - _
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 4 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List c
I o
Justification for single insert allowables based on test concrete strength.
o Justification for bolt loads due to " axial torsion" of the tube steel, o
Interaction results from STRUDL analyses.
o Bending stresses in bolts.
Subsequent to Cygna's review TUGC0 c1mmissioned SWEC to perform a pipe stress and pipe support requaliff-cation effort for the CPSES Units 1 and 2.
After reviewing SWEC's design criteria (Reference 11) and proposed method of resolution (Reference 10), Cygna requested responses to some specific questions and provisions of some related backup documents (see Reference 8). A meeting was held between SWEC/TUGC0/
Cygna at Glen Rose, Texas (Reference 9), in which SWEC provided responses to some of the questions and also committed to provide the requested backup documents.
Status:
This issue is open pending review of documents and responses from SWEC/TUGCO. SWEC/TUGC0 have provided the following backup documents to Cygna for review:
o RLCA Report No. RLCA/P142/01-86/008, Richmond Insert / Structural Tube Steel Connection, Design Interaction Equation for Bolt Threaded Rods, dated September 10, 1986.
o General Calculation No.15454-NZ(s)-G1 for Single Tube with Richmond Insert.
Furthermore, SWEC will provide a response to address whether the reinforcement aatterns in the concrete slab used in the Richmond Insert allowable tests are representative of the field condition for the intended use as stipulated by ASTM E488-84 (Reference 8 Sheet 3).
In addition, Cygna needs to review the following document as referenced in sheets B2 & B3 of Reference 9:
- 3,-
m-Texas Utilities Generating Company vc- "i q Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Ld Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
1 Mililli!P"""""::::::1 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 5 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List o
CPSES Technical Report No. 15454.05-N(c)-002, Interrelation for A Structural Member of Circular Cross-Section, dated May, 1986.
4.
Punchina Shear (U-Bolt - Tube Steel Design)
References:
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 4 Open items - Punching Shear,"
84056.053, dated 1/31/85 2.
Communications Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Minichiello(Cygna) dated 10/4/84 3.
TUGC0 Calculations dated 10/11/84, received by Cygna 10/18/84 4.
CommunicationsReportbetweenFinneran(TUGCO)and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 10/30/84 5.
J.B. George (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 11/8/84 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 4 Open Items - Punching Shear" 84056.058, dated 3/12/85 7.
Stone 8 Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
8.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUCC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Sunnary:
Cygna has not found evidence that the stresses in the tube steel or coverplate in support MS-1-002-005-572R near the U-bolt hole were evaluated. Cygna has found that this absence of supporting calculations is typical for this type of design.
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna will perform a review of the information/ document provided by SWEC (References 7 and 8). Cygna will review the acceptability of the Beam
. "'"g Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.
L yIqAl Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6
19641111'lll111111111llll11111Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 6 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Analysis approach and will evaluate whether shear might be limiting. Furthermore, in the first paragraph of Section 4.5. Attachment 4-13 of Reference 7. states that " Stresses thus induced around the hole shall be evaluated so as to ensure no local failure exists." Cygna requests SWEC to clarify whether this statement implies that additional local stress evaluation around the bolt hole will be performed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the potential for local failure does not exist.
As an associated item (Item M. Exhibit I to Reference 8),
Cygna will review SWEC's response on Shear Lug-to-Tube Steel bearing allowables (Sheets M-2, M-3 of Reference 8).
5.
Mass Participation / Mass Point Spacing
References:
1.
N. h. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO),"MassParticipation/MassPointSpacing,"
84042.021, dated 2/8/85 2.
R. E. Ballard (G8H) letter to J. 8. George (TUGCO), " Mass Participation," GTN-69454, dated 9/14/84 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO)," Phase 3OpenItems-MassParticipa-tion," 84042.017, dated 9/21/84 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna)lettertoJ.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participa-tion." 84042.019, dated 10/2/84 5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna), "Cygna Potential Finding Report Mass Participation and the Mass Point Spacing Error in Problem AB-1-61A " dated 12/7/84 Sumary:
Due to the detailed nature of this subject, please see Reference 1.
Status:
This issue is considered closed for pipe supports. The concerns on Mass Participation / Mass Point Spacing are covered under Cygna Pipe Stress !ssue, Item 1.
The effect 7,7 a Texas Utilities Generating Company
+ VM Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L 6 fal Independent Assessment Program - All Phases litillitill:::::::::::!!!!ill Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE m
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 7 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues 1.ist O
of this issue on pipe supports is mainly due to the potential increase in pipe support loads. Since SWEC is performing a pipe support requalification effort, any load increases due to pipe stress changes will be evaluated by the SWEC requalification program.
6.
Stability of Pipe Supports
References:
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Stability of Pipe Supports " 84042.035, dated 2/19/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 3 3.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4
Communications Resort between Rencher/ Grace (TUGCO)andMinicitello/Wong(Cygna) dated 5/24/84. Item 15 5.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGC0) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 7/12/84 6.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran Jr. Regarding Sta-bility of Pipe Supports and Piping Systems" 7.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revis-ion 1. Appendix J. General Note 12 and Appendix G. Observation PS-02 8.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2.
9.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
- 10. Transcript of meetinD between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
7 E9 Texas Utilities Generating Company
' 'ppi Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r+
L I
6 ra i
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111661111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 8 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List C
- 11. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16,1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
- 12. SWEC's Generic Technical Issue Report (GTI) for CPSES, Appendix D. Revision 0 - Pipe Support / System Stability.
Summary:
The issue of support stability is quite detailed. Picase f.ee Reference I for a discussion of Cygna's concerns.
Status:
This issue is open, pending Cygna's review of Stone &
Webster's reponses.
(References 9,10,11, and 12) 7.
Cinching of U-Bolts
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.W. Beck (TUGCO), " Cinching of U-Bolts." 84042.036, dated 3/25/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, Item 5 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna).AttachmentC, dated 6/8/84 5.
" Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C.
Finneran, Jr., re arding Cinching Down of U-Bolts" (received 7/12/84 6.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report EQ&T-EQT-860 Revision 0, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U-Bolt Support / Pipe Test Program" (received 7/12/84) 7.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report entitled
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U-Bolt Finite Element Analysis", dated 6/12/84 (received 7/12/84)
- 7 7 7.R Texas Utilities Generating Company
-W'~y Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8L 6 Ai Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1114ll1llll;;::
..;;l Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
t 12)29/06
'a Revision 3 Page 9 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues 1.ist D.
N.H. Willl'ams (Cygna) letter to J.8. George (TUGCO),
"U-Bolt Cinching Test / Analysis Program - Phase 3 Open Item " 84042.015, dated 8/23/84 9.
Transcript of Meeting between Cygna Energy Ser-vices and Texas Utilities Generating coupany and Ebasco Services Inc., dated 9/13/84 10.
R.C. lotti (Ebasco) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), " Additional Information as Follow-Up to, Meating of 9/13/84."3-Z-17(6.2),ETCY-1. dated 9/28/84 l
11.
N.H. Will f ams (Cygna) letter to J.8. George (TUGCO),
" Status of Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Pro-gram " 8r042.018, dated 10/1/84 12.
J.8. George (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Wfilf ass (Cygna),
" Cinched U-Bolt Testf rig and Anal sis Frmgl/t..n - Addf-
/
tional. Information," dated 11/1/84 13.
J.B. George (T0GCO) letter to i;.u Williems (Cygna),
" Cinched U-Solt. Testing and Analysf a Program - Addia tional Information," dated 11/16/84
- 14. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 33, 1906 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
- 15. Transcript of meeting between Ck'EC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1980 - On Resolution of Cygna. concerns.
- 16. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Glen Rose Texas, dated December 15 and lu, 1986 - On '
nesolution of Cygna concerns.
Summary:
Please see Referent.e 1 for details.
Status:
This issue is closed. During the November 13,1986 meettng between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Stone &
Webster indicated that all cinched U bolts for pipe supports on pipinh with NPS larger than 6 inches will be
~ y;"*,=Ypp a
Texas Utilities Generating Comprny N
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.
(
L ra Indopend. tnt' Assessmant Program - All Phases 111111111lll111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 10 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List w
A eliminated / modified (Reference 14, Sheet 168 and Sheet S-6). A subsequent meeting was held in Glen Rose. Texas (see Reference 16) in which SWEC/TUGC0 had committed to eliminate all cinched U-bolt designs for pipe supports. This
/
commitment has eliminated the cinched U-bolt issue.
8.
Richmond Insert Allowable Spacinc r
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/10/84, Item 1 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/12/84 3.
Stone & Webster's Pipa Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2 4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns 5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16,1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns 6.
Cygna/SWEC Meeting Agenda, December 15 and 16, 1986, Glen Rose. Texas (Item B of Exhibit I to Reference 4) 7.
Pipe Stress / Support As-Built Procedure. CPSES, Unit 2. CPPP-9 Revision 2 8.
Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure, CPSES Unit 1. CPPP-6, Revision 2.
Summary:
Cygna had asked TUGC0 how the designers ensured that the al-j lowables they used for pipe support attachments correspond to the installed Richmond Insert spacing. TUGC0 responded by stating that their designers used minimum allowables, un-less a walkdown was perfonned to ensure that larger spacings existed, thereby permitting the use of increased allowables.
I
/
~
hy7pg Texas Utilities Generating Company
.NP Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
IJ6 ai Independent Assessment Program - All Phases NellWIllilllilllilllililllll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE j
s s
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 11
~
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List There was no written procedure documenting this direction to the designers.
While Cygna could not find evidence that this unwritten procedure was not-followed, Cygna has no assurance that conservative allowables were always used.
Status:
This issue is considered closed technically. However, the procedural aspects of this issue remain open and are addressed in the Design Control RIL. (Also see Cable Tray Review Issue 3.E).
L During the SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna meeting at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, SWEC stated that the actual insert spacing from the '
structural drawing will be used and the allowables reduced i
accordingly (Reference 4. Sheet 135). Furthermore, SWEC clarified that the verification of Richmond Insert as-built spacing violation would be implemented by Item 5 under Base Plates / Richmond Inserts in Reference 7, Attachment 9-9.
(Note: Similarly in CPPP-6 for Unit 1 Reference 8). Based on the above commitments, the issue of Richmond Insert allowable spacing will be adequately addressed by SWEC in the pipe support requalification program.
9.
Embedment Attachment Spacing
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," item 5, 84056.13, dated 7/31/84 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 8/24/84 3.
Communications Report between Purdy (Brown & Root) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/4/85 4.
Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45, Revision 1, dated 8/18/80 5.
Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28. Revision 24, dated 4/18/84 m_=m:::-
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Fi LN N L d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3
lismilmlillililllilillilli Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 12 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6.
Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28. Revision 29, dated 1/25/85 7.
Communications Report between Warner (TUGCO) and Williams /Minichiello/Russ (Cygna) dated 2/27/85 8
CPSES Procedure QI-QP-19.5-1, " Separation Inspection for Unit I and Common Buildings" 9.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns
- 10. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns
- 11. I.etter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) to E.H. Johnson (NRC),datedAugust 22, 1986 - Welded Attachments to Embedded Strip Plates Sumary:
Cygna has found two pipe support base plates welded to em-bedded plates with less than 12" required spacing between the edges of the support base plates (per Reference 4).
This was not a CPSES inspection item at the time of the Cygna review (Reference 5); however, the Brown & Root pro-cedure was revised to include the proper checks for pipe supports (Reference 6). Since this affects all hardware attached to embedded plates (HVAC, raceway, and pipe sup-ports), not just a single discipline, and since it was not an inspection item in other discipline procedures (per References 7 and 8), this item has generic implications.
Status:
This issue is open. SWEC has indicated that the issue of Embedment Attachment Spacing is being addressed by the Civil / Structural discipline (Sheets 148 and S-7 of Reference 9 Sheet 160 of Reference 10). Cygna will review the Civil / Structural action plan to determine the acceptability of the proposed action on embedment attachment spacing. The Civil / Structural action plan will be provided by SWEC.
In addition, Cygna is aware of the fact that Welded Attachments to Embedded Strip Plates (minimum separation) has been reported to the NRC as a potentially reportable g;
n Texas Utilities Generating Company
)
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r i N, J Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
1111::::'::llll:::llll1111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 13 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List item under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e) by TUGC0 (Reference 11). An engineering evaluation is currently being performed by TUGCO.
- 10. Thru-Bolts and Concrete Acceptability
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/30/84 Item 2 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/2/84 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item 9 and Attachment D 4.
Jtone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7 Revision 2.
5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Ch-^?y Mill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 -
On P.esolution of Cygna concerns.
Summary:
Cygna is concerned that the loads on the walls may not be acceptable. Although Gibbs 8 Hill has walked down several highly loaded areas per Reference 3, there is no written procedure documenting the transmittal of as-built loads on concrete structures to the structural group. Thus there is no assurance that each area, particularly near free edges.
l 1s acceptable.
Status:
The issue is open. SWEC has indicated that the issue of Through Bolt and Concrete Acceptability is being addressed by the Civil Structural discipline (Sheets 148 and S-7 of Reference 5; Sheet 160 of Reference 6). Anchor bolt loads and through bolt loads from pipe supports are transmitted to i
l g __
Texas Utilities Generating Company
=
p R
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.N 2 IA i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases J
i 11111111111ll11llll111111ll111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 14 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List the structural discipline. SWEC will provide the Civil / Structural action plan on Through Bolt and Concrete Acceptability for Cygna's review.
- 11. Bolt Spacing
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," item 3, 84056.14, dated 8/6/84 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 8/11/84 3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2 4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns 5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns Summary:
In certain base plate designs in Phase 4 (CC-2-019-715-A43K, for example), the bolt hole dimensions are detailed as "1-1/2 MIN TYP" from the edge of the plate. In some cases, this could result in a dimension from 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 inches. While this may have little effect on the bolt load, it does affect the maximum plate stresses by as much as 15%
for a strut, spring, or snubber with a 5, offset.
Status:
This issue is open. During the SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna meeting at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, SWEC stated that a bounding analysis is currently being performed to establish the effects of the anchor bolt edge distance tolerance on the base plate design. And the results of that evaluation will be incorporated into the final reconciliation program (Sheets 148 and S-7 of Reference 4). Cygna needs to review the results of the bounding analyses before closing out this issue.
n Texas Utilities Generating Company r
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d'N.! L5 I l Independent Assessment Program - All Phases A
plE
""llllllllll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 15 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List O
- 12. Support Self Weight Excitation During a Dynamic Event
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher/Finneran (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/10/84 2.
TUGC0 memo CPP-9977 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision 1. Appendix J Note 7 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open Items Associates with Walsh/Doyle A11ega-i tions," 84042.022, dated 1/18/85 5.
Stone"& Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2.
I 6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
7.
SWEC Project Memorandum for CPSES, PM-100, dated August 20, 1986 - Additional Direction for Self-Weight Computer Input.
Summary:
TUGC0 has not considered the loads due to the support dynamic excitation in the pipe support designs.
Status:
This issue is closed.
In Section 4.3.4.4 of CPPP-7 (Reference 5), it specifies that the effect of seismic acceleration of pipe support mass shall be considered. The detailed methodology is delineated in Attachment 4-21 of CPPP-7. SWEC has committed to include the effect of pipe support self-weight excitation for all frame type supports on seismic systems in the requalification program.
- 13. Support Stiffness
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision 1. Appendix J, Note 8 i
n zq Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r i L'.iL I I Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
L A
111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 16 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle A11ega-tions," 84042.022, dated 1/18/85 3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
6.
SWEC Calculation No. 15454.05-N(C)-003, September 1985 - Generic Pipe Support Stiffness Values for Piping Analysis.
7.
SWEC Calculation No. 15454.05-NP(c)-GENX-036 Revision 0 - Application of Generic Stiffness Criteria to the Analysis of the Piping Systems.
Summary:
In designing Class 2 and 3 supports, TUGC0 has used a de-flection criteria for support stiffness.
For supports with low design loads, this can result in very flexible sup-ports. This could affect the stress analysis results and redistribute support loads.
l Status:
This issue is open pending Cygna's review of the generic stiffness calculations provided by SWEC (References 6 and 7).
- 14. Hydrotest Support / Stress Design
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84 Item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 with TUGC0 Instructions CP-EI-4.0-30. Revision 1, attached
== - -
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station f,N, 6 d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3
1 Li 111111111111118!: " " " !!!!!!! Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE 1
,__,-,,--.-.,----,-_._y---..m,..--,
_m
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 17
~
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
D.G. Eisenhut (USNRC) letter to M.D. Spence (TUGCO). Item V.E., dated 11/29/84 4.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
Cygna did not find any evidence in either the support design calculations or the pipe stress analyses that hydrostatic test loads had been considered. TUGC0 responded with a copy of their procedure which addresses the design of temporary supports.
Status:
This issue is closed since SWEC is implementing a pipe support requalification program. Specifically, a test load condition is considered in Table 4.7.2-1 of CPPP-7 (Reference 4), and for verification / design of integral attachments in Section 4.6, Hydrotest load is clearly identified as a separate loadcase.
.M:te: Cygna understands that the TRT (NRC) has specific concerns regarding Hydrotest effects on the installation of Main Steam Pipes (Reference 3). This NRC issue is outside of the Cygna scope.
- 15. Dynamic Pipe Movements in Support Design
References:
1.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 9/28/83, Pipe Support Item 3
2.
Communication report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, Pipe Support Item 3
i 3.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-09-01 4.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 2 5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84
~~~
Texas Utilities Generating Company E== = w :
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L*I.
d LF L' 3 I i i
A Independent Assessment Program All Phases 186ll11lll111111llll11ll1lll11 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 18 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 9
6.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2 7.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
j On Resolution of Cygna concerns 8.
SWEC Procedure CPPP-6, Revision 2 - Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure CPSES Unit 1 9.
SWEC Procedure CPPP-9, Revision 2 - Pipe Stress / Support As-Built Procedure CPSES Unit 2 Summary:
TUGC0 does not include dynamic pipe movements in support 4
design when checking frame gaps, swing angles, or spring travel. Cygna was concerned this could affect design ade-quacy, and received a response (Reference 2) which only addressed the seismic effects. Other dynamic loads such as steam hammer were not mentioned in the response.
Status:
This issue is closed based on SWEC's commitments in the pipe support requalification effort (Sheets 154,155, and 5-10 of Reference 7). In Articles 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 of CPPP-6, Revision 2 (Reference 5), specific requirements for checking of pipe relative displacements against working ranges of component standard supports and clearances in the unrestrained direction for frame type supports are identified.
In conjunction with this, a detailed pipe support analysis checklist (Attachments 9-10) is utilized to ensure checking of the item (Item 11 under Frames; Items 5 and 8 under Spring Hanger; Items 6, 7, and 8 under Snubber Struts). Similar checklist items in Attachment 9-9 of CPPP-9 (Reference 9) will ensure that pipe movement requirements will be satisfied in the As-Built condition. Furthermore, Section 4.2.6 of CPPP-7 (Reference 6) has specific limits for control of swing angle / angularity which includes the effects of dynamic pipe movements. Proper implementation of the above requirements addresses Cygna's concern on this issue.
1 E=__. c r__
Texas Utilities Generating Company N [..md--
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 7
d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases jk 1111111111lllllll1111lllllll11 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 19 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List O
- 16. Dual Strut / Snubber Design
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/22/84, Item 2.b 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-03 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision 1. Page 5-5 5.
" Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C.
Finneran, Jr., Regarding Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints" 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Force Distribution in Axial Restraints -
Phase 3 Open Item," 84042.014, dated 8/10/84 7.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2 8.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns 9.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns
- 10. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16,1986 -
l On Resolution of Cygna concerns Summary:
While most of the discussion on this subject has centered around axial restraints, Cygna is concerned about all types of dual restraint designs (trapezes, double trunnions, riser clamps with shear lugs). TUGC0 has designed each restraint in these cases to take only 1/2 the total load. Also, Gibbs
& Hill stated standard practice in local stress analysis l
zurm Texas Utilities Generating Company l
=
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ri N' j L I[.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases s
L i
11lllllllllllll111111111111111Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 20 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- ~
assumes the trunnions equally share the load. Cygna finds this inconsistent with other design organizations, which usually assume one side takes more than 1/2 of the overall support load. TUGC0 is currently performing an assessment in response to Reference 6.
Status:
This issue is open pending response from SWEC (Reference 10) to clarify whether the LCD's for riser clamps have included the considerations of an eccentric load case.
- 17. Hilti Kwik-Bolt Embedment length Referencg
References:
1.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 9/28/83, Pipe Support Item 1 2.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, Pipe Support Item I i
3.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 10/6/83 Item 1 l
4.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report. TR-83090-01, l
Revision 0, Observation PS-02-01 l
5.
Communication Report between J. Van Amerongen (TUGCO) and L. J. Weingart (Cygna), dated 9/27/85. Job 84042, " Pipe Support Questions" 6.
H. C. Schmidt (TUGCO) letter to B. J. Youngblood (NRC), dated 4/2/84 7.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W. G. Counsil (TUGCO), 84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support Review Questions" 8.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) to R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phase IV Report l
l Texas Utilities Generating Company
- = - -
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I
ri'N'.ii d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases sI L
go.mymmm."':ll1 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 rage 21 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2:
9.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support
~,
Design Criteria for CPSES 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2
- 10. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns
- 11. SWEC Project Memorandum for CPSES PM-064 Revision 1 - As-Built Verification of Baseplate Using Drilled-In, Expansion-Type. Hilti Anchors Summary:
Embedment lengths shown on the support drawings do not match those in the support calculations. This issue was previ-ously closed, since there was no impact on the technical aspects of the design. However. TUGC0 has committed to providing updated documentation for this review issue (Ref-erences 6 and 7).
Status:
This issue is closed. TUGC0 has provided response to Reference 7, Item 10. TUGC0 has clarified that the stated revision (i.e., minimum embedment length) is incorporated in paragraph 2.4.5 of Brown and Root Instruction, CEI-20, Revision 9 (Reference 8). A table of Hilti anchor minimum embedment length for installation is provided there.
Furthermore, in light of the development of the CPRT plan and the Stone & Webster Piping / Support requalification effort and commitments (Sheets 148 and S-7 of Reference 10),
the requirements as stipulated in Section 4.3, Attachment 4.4 of CPPP-7 (Reference 9) and the additional requirements in PM-064 (Reference 11) will further assure that the actual minimum as-built ambedment (or a conservative minimum value) will be used in the evaluation of pipe supports.
- 18. Incorrect Data Transmittal
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-10-01 j
Summary:
The displacement transmitted for support RH-1-064-001-522R had an incorrect sign.
l Texas Utilities Generating Company
=-
_ _ _ =
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ri'l'd i IAN Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
L 10:
Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 22 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
This issue is considered to be isolated and is closed except as a procedural question which is addressed in the Design Control RIL.
- 19. Incorrect Standard Component Allowables
References:
1.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 9/28/83, Pipe Support Item 4 2.
Communications Report Between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, Pipe Support Item 4 3.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-12-01 0
4.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
The incorrect U-bolt allowables were used in the design of support RH-1-064-011-522R (formerly RH-1-062-002-522R).
Status:
This issue is closed and isolated. Furthermore, guidance has been provided in Section 4.7.5 of CPPP-7 (Reference 4) for the SWEC pipe support requalification effort.
i 20.
Input Errors in the Design of Support MS-1-001-006-C72K
References:
1.
Communications Report between Grace (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/22/84, Item 10 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item (41) 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01,
)
Revision 1. Observation PS-01 4.
Letter from N.H. Willians (Cygna) to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),No. 84056.092, dated 10/20/85 - Pipe Support Review Questions.
=7 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N,N.i I d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- lilli!!""" "":ll111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE J
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 23 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List c:
5.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) to R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phase IV Report.
Summary:
Errors were found in the section properties and boundary conditions which will affect the STRUDL results. The STRUDL input was not checked or approved at the time of Cygna's i
review.
Status:
TUGC0 has provided Revision 7 of the support drawings for MS-1-001-006-C72K (Item 13, Reference 5) which indicates that members 5 and 6 (Section X-X, Items 22 and 34) have been modified to a box-section as described in the revised design calculation previously provided to Cygna.
This issue has been resolved technically, but remains as an open issue to be addressed in the Design Control RIL.
- 21. Undersized Fillet Welds
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/16/84, Item 5 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item (31) 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-04 4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
t i
Summary:
Two fillet welds were designed under the minimum size required by the ASME B&PV code, Table XVII-2452.1-1.
Status:
This item is closed and isolated. Furthermore, SWEC states that minimum weld size check is no longer required per ASME III, Code Case N-413 (Sheet S-2 of Reference 4).
7 Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station E*b,l'J Al Independent Assessment Program - All Phases RNW::
Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 24 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List C
2:
22.
Improper Weld Calculations for Three-Sided Welds
References:
1.
Communications Report between Grace (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/22/84, Item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item (32) 3 Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01 Revision 1. Observation PS-05 4
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO) " Box Frames with 0" Gap," 84042.023, dated 1/28/85 item 3 of the Attachment 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO) " Mass Participation and Mass Point Spacing," 84042.021, dated 2/8/85 pipe suppert review Item 5 6.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7 Revision 2.
7.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Summary:
TUGC0 does not always consider the eccentricity between the member center of gravity and the weld center of rigidity when determining weld loads to be used in the design.
Status:
This issue is closed for the supports reviewed in Phases 3 and 4.
In addition, SWEC has provided criteria (Section 3.1.2 of Attachment 4-2, Reference 6) and committed to properly consider weld eccentricity in the design of unsymmetric welds (Sheet S-2 of Reference 7) in the CPSES pipe support requalification program.
- 23. _ Improper Weld Calculation for Composite Sections
References:
1.
Communications Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Williams /Minichiello (Cygna) dated 7/11/84 Item 1 Texas Utilities Generating Company psW Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
[*b[*J I 3 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
lillir
- iiiiilllilli Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 25 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
Communications Report between Finneran (TUGC0)~and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 7/11/84 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 7/12/84 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01, Revision 1. Observation PS-07 5.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7.,
Revision 2.
6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Summary:
When welding cover plates to tubesteel or wide flanges to form composite sections, the method used for the weld design is not always correct, and all the loads are not always considered.
Status:
This issue is closed based on additional calculations for the Phase 3 review scope. Furthermore SWEC has provided specific criteria (Section 3.1.5 of Attachment 4-2, j
reference 5) to consider effect of shear flow in the design of cover plate.
l
- 24. Untightened Locknuts on Struts
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report. TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation WD-01-01 2.
TUGC0 Memorandum from M.R. McBay dated 6/9/83 i
3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986
- On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
l Summary:
During the Phase 1 Walkdown, Cygna noted one support on i
which the upper locknut on the strut was not tightened.
This situation could lead to rotation of the strut and a
.;m Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ri L J O Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
lilill::
- ll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE i
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 26 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List C
subsequent redistribution of load among neighboring sup-ports.
Status:
This issue is closed based on previous identification of the deficiency by TUGC0 (Reference 2) and proposed corrective and preventative actions. SWEC also stated that TUGC0 pipe support Engineering under the Hardware Verification Program (HVP) will perform a 100-percent inspection and necessary rework of locking devices (sheets 156 & S-10 of reference 3). This will further assure the resolution of this issue.
- 25. Inverted Snubbers
References:
1.
Cygna Phase I and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation WD-02-02 2.
N. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC),
83090.021, dated 11/6/84 Summary:
During the Phase I walkdown, Cygna noted four supports in which the snubbers were installed 180 degrees from the configuration shown on the support drawing. These devi-ations have no actual design or safety impact. However, per Reference 1, this situation could be a potential violation of Quality Assurance requirements under Criterion III of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
TUGC0 must demonstrate that the required documentation existed for this deviation when the installation procedure CP-CPM 9.17. Revision 2 was issued and that the requirements of Criterion III were met (e.g.
the installation procedure was reviewed and approved by 4
engineering.)
Status:
This issue is resolved with respect to technical considera-tions but remains open from a procedural standpoint and is addressed in the Design Control RIL.
- 26. Embedded Plate Design
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/22/84, Item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84, Page 11, Item 1
=mmli Texas Utilities Generating Company "N
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station h @)
d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
11111llll1111111llll1ll111!I11 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 27 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-46A, Revision 5, Section 3, Appendix 9 " Specification l
2323-55 Structural Embedments" 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Appendix J. General Note 13 5.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Summary:
In Paragraph 3.4 of Appendix 4 to Reference 3. Gibbs & Hill requires that all attachments to embedded plates shall be assumed to be " pin connections" (force transfer only). They l
further state that moment connections to the embedment re-quire stiffening. As noted in Reference 2, however, Gibbs &
Hill has not provided any guidelines for the stiffeners. As also noted in Reference 2, the pipe support design organiza-tion assumes that any attachment to the embedded plate will effectively stiffen the local area, but they did not cross-l 1
check this assumption with Gibbs & Hill.
Status:
This issue is open. TUGC0 has identified that embedded plate design is to be addressed by the Civil / Structural discipline (sheet 148 & S-7 of reference 6; Section 4.5.4 of CPPP-7, reference 5).
Cygna will review the SWEC Civil / Structural action plan before close out of this issue.
- 27. Pipe Support Design Procedures
Reference:
1.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
g=mq Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r *I ('i Al Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
1111111llllll11lll11lllll11111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 28 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List
=
.5 2.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose, Texas, dated December 15 & 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
3.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7.,
Revision 2.
4.
SWEC's project procedure CPPP-6, Revision 2-Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure CPSES Unit 1.
5.
SWEC's project procedure CPPP-9, Revision 2 - Pipe Stress / Support As-Built Procedure, CPSES Unit 2.
4 6.
SWEC's project procedure CPPP-11. Revision 1 -
Administrative Control of Calculations.
7.
SWEC's Generic Technical Issues Report (GTI) for CPSES, Revision 0.
Sumary:
The original designs fo the pipe supports at Comanche Peak (CPSES) were performed by three separate pipe support design organizations, namely, ITT Grinnell, NPSI and PSE (TUGCO).
Even though they were all committed to the requirements of Gibbs and Hill Specification no. 2323-MS-46A-Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports, and the CPSES FSAR, each i
organization has it's own engineering design guidelines /
standards.
In order to complete Cygna's design process reviews, Cygna had requested these documents.
However, due to the creation of the CPRT plan and the implementation of the SWEC pipe support requalification j
program, the final design of the pipe supports are essentially following the design criteria (Reference 3) and procedural control (References 4 and 6) of Stone & Webster
)
Engineering Corporation.
r Since the final qualifications of the pipe supports at Comanche Peak are based on the SWEC criteria and procedure, i
this has eliminated the need to further review the engineering design guidelines / standards of ITT Grinnell, NPSI or PSE.
i Texas Utilities Generating Company
--- =
- f Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L J L M Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111666111111111111111111111lll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE i
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 29 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List c
Status:
This issue is closed conditional to the complete and satisfactory resolution of all the technical questions raised by Cygna with respect to the SWEC design criteria /-
action plan / procedures.
(References 1, 2, 3, 7) etc.
In addition, since this issue is procedural in nature, this issue will be assessed under Cygna's design control review for its significance or possible impact, if any (see the Design Control RIL).
- 28. Use of A563 Grade A Nuts With High Strength Bolting
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/16/84 Item 1.
2.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N. H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84, Item 1.
3.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7,,
Revision 2.
4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 & 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
5.
SWEC Project Memorandum for CPSES pm-110, dated Sept. 8,1986 - Allowable loads for A193 grade B7 threaded rods.
Summary:
ASTM specification A563 recommends that Grade A nuts be used with A307 (Iow strength) bolting. However, as noted by TUGCO, their designers, when not using high strength nuts, will specify double nuts, with both nuts snugged. Cygna's scope of review confimed this statement.
Status:
This issue was previously closed, however, for the CPSES pipe support requalification effort SWEC has adopted new critera (PM-110, Reference 5). Part of these criteria consist of using a reduction factor of 0.60 when ASTM A-563 Grade A nuts are used. Cygna will further review PM-110 and the SWEC response (Reference 4) before final close-out of this issue.
Eggg Texas Utilities Generating Company r
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station dNJ L U Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 14ll11111111111111111111lll111Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 30 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List C
In addition. Project Memo PM-110 specifically addresses only Richmond Insert connections. However, the use of A-563 Grade A nuts with SA-193 Grade B7 bolt material also exists in through-bolt designs (e.g., Main Steam line pipe supports). The same situation may also potentially exist for Civil Anchors / Grouted-In Anchor designs. Cygna requires clarification as to whether this condition will be separately identified and corrected / evaluated in the appropriate Civil / Structural action plans.
- 29. Friction Loads
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision
- 1. Appendix G., Pipe Support Observation PS-08, 2.
Juanita Ellis (CASE) Letter to Administrative Judge P.B. Bloch (ASLB) dated 6/13/85. "Further Clarification of CASE's Position Regarding Applicants' Use of 3 Sm".
3.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7,
Revision 2.
4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Sumary:
Loads due to friction were not included in the support design of pipe supports at CPSES when the piping thermal movement was 1/16" or less.
Status:
This issue is closed. SWEC has committed to include friction loads (Section 4.7.3 of CPPP-7, reference 3; sheets 163 & S-12 of reference 4) for design in the CPSES pipe support re-qualification effort.
- 30. MS-1-003-007-C72K, Revision 10
Reference:
1.
N.H Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), 84056-013 dated 7/31/84.
" Pipe Support Review Questions". Question No.10.
psggg Texas Utilities Generating Company c-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ri,N, L M Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111611111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE i
--.-.-._.~
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 31 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated 8/30/84.
3.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGC0) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated 9/17/84.
4.
Communications Report between Van Amerogen/Rencher/ Kerlin (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 9/11/84. Item No. 1.
5.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7,
Revision 2.
6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
7.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) TO R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phrase IV Reports.
i Summary:
Due to insufficient dimensioning in the subject drawing (Section J-J), Cygna has concerns about the design of the connection and particularly about the plate stresses of items 35, 46 and the weld stresses between items 35, 46 and 22.
TUGCO's response to these questions indicates that a finite element analysis has been performed with revised design loads (i.e. conservatism in load combination is taken out). A design check indicates that the plate stresses are very close to the allowables (for upset and emergency con-ditions), based on actual tested material yield stress and ultimate stress (i.e. without the normal conservatism in design based on code allowable stress values).
Status:
This issue is closed. SWEC has provided further assurance that all necessary design input is verified and missing information will be obtained in the SWEC requalification effort (sheet 165 of reference 6). However, this isolated occurence basically falls under procedural concerns. The impact of these procedural concerns is addressed in the Design Control RIL.
l l
-g= = q Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
r*k. i Ial Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
l'
}
MHHWHumilmimmi Job No. 84056 i
,_4_--
-i.-,,.. - _. -,., _
--._--.m.
,c--,_,_e
--__w,,-y,. - _ _ _ _ _. _, _ _ _, _, _ _ _., _ _,,,,,
,,,_m..__.,i,,,e.,-.,... - _, _,,.,..
=-
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 32 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List l-
- 31. Potential Edge Distance Violation
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) 84056.09?, dated 10/30/85 " Pipe Support Review Questions."
2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 8 2. CPPP-7,
Revision 2.
3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
4.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGC0) TO R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phrase IV Reports.
5.
SWEC Project Memorandumfor CPSES PM-064 Revision 1. - As-Built Verification of Base Plate using Drilled-in Expansion-type Concrete Anchors.
l Summary:
As noted in Cygna's Phase 4 pipe support walkdown, there are instances where pipe sleeve penetrations exist close to support baseplates but are not shown on the support drawing. It is not clear how the support designer can identify any potential anchor bolt edge distance violations. Cygna has not found any criteria defining the j
minimum edge distance for anchor bolts adjacent to pipe sleeve penetrations (e.g. CC-1-028-017-533R, Revision 4; CC-1-028-022-533K, Revision 7)
Status:
This issue is open. The criteria for anchor bolt spacing against pipe sleeve penetration are provided in section 4.5.3 of CPPP-7 (Reference 2) and PM-064 (Reference 5).
In addtion SWEC has stated that the Structural Discipline (Sheets 149 8 S-7 of Reference 3) is developing a program to identify and document all anchor bolt spacing violations with pipe sleeve penetrations. Cygna will review the Civil / Structural action plan in order to assess its accepta-i, bility in resolving this issue.
l i
rr=q Texas Utilities Generating Company b,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111488441114184414164811111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE j
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 33 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List c
- 32. Incorporation of CMC 88765 Into Drawing CC-1-019-012-A43K
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO) " Pipe Support Review Questions" 84056.017 dated 8/7/84 Item 2d.
Summary:
The all around fillet weld specified in CMC 88765 Revision 1. does not match the weld shown in Section B-8 of the subject drawing. The weld in the drawing is structurally acceptable.
Status:
This issue is closed. This isolated discrepancy in documentation has no design impact.
- 33. Sight Holes Covered By Paint
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil i
(TUGC0), 84056.092, dated 10/30/85 " Pipe Support 1
Review Questions".
2.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) TO R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phase IV Report.
3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
i Summary:
Cygna's walkdown noted that several sight holes of strut / snubber component supports are painted over; there-fore, eye-rod full thread engagement cannot be checked via j
the sight hole.
I Status:
This specific issue is considered closed based on the
{
implementatin of the CPRT ISAP VII.c program and the commitment that items identified as trends will be reinspected and reworked as required during the Hardware Validation Program (sheets 166 8 S-14 of Reference 3).
i f
i zq Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ri,bJ M Independent Assessment Program - All Phases h.
INiilllillilillililllililllll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE 4
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 34 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List c
- 34. Hilti Kwik-Bolts Adjacent to Thru-Bolts
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.W. Beck (TUGC0) 84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support Review Questions", Item #2.
4 2.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) TO R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phase IV Report.
3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986
- On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
4.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
Cygna's walkdown noted several instances of Hilti Kwik-Bolts installed close to Thru-Bolt base plates, but not shown on the support drawings.
Status:
This issue is open. Since the issue is addressed by the Civil / Structural discipline (sheet 149 of reference 3),
Cygna will review the SWEC Civil / Structural action plan to assess its adequacy in resolving this issue.
- 35. Minor Discrepancies Identified During Pipe Support Walkdown 1
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) 84056.092, dated 10/30/85 " Pipe Support a
Review Questions".
2.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) TO R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phase IV Report.
3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
3 primm Texas Utilities Generating Company TN Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r *I ('i k Ai Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
11111111ll11161611111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 35 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Summary:
During Cygna's walkdown, the following isolated discrep-ancies were identified. Further documentation and/or clarification are required from TUGCO.
A.
CC-1-028-003-A33R, Revision 7.
Component Support Trace-ability The sway strut on the west side has no tag. Cygna reviewed the Inspection Report (IR) package and noted an Inspection Report (12/27/83) requesting verification of the strut serial numbers. This IR states that the strut is from bulk stock and is stamped D5022 (i.e. the same serial number as the east strut). There is also a Certificate of Shop Inspection, which gives the Mark No.
CC-1-028-003-S33R (rather than -A33R).
B.
Hilti Anchor Bolts.
1.
CC-1-031-009-533R, Revision 5. Base Plate Section C-C Hilti Super Kwik-bolts were specified on the drawing, whereas only regular Kwik-bolts were installed.
2.
CC-1-019-003-A33R, Revision 2. Base Plate Section B-B Super Hilti Kwik-Bolts of 18" length were specified for all six bolts on the subject drawing. The installed lower right hand corner Super Hilti Kwik-bolt has a "W" marking, which indicates a length of 15".
i C.
Weld Discrepancies 1.
MS-1-002-002-S72R, Revision 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 01 of the drawing, there should be welds on both sides.
l
= =wdHi Texas Utilities Generating Company
~~ ~ TP Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
LJL Al Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Il!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Illi Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 36 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List er 2.
MS-1-004-004-572R, Revision 2 The flare bevel weld between items 16 and 17 at the top north face is undersized for a length of about 5-1/2" (i.e. the weld is not flush with the face of the tube steel).
Also, the rear bracket is welded to the base plates on all four (4) sides rather than two (2) sides as indicated on the drawing. However, this is conser-vative.
3.
MS-1-001-004-572R The weld between items (4) and (5) is a flare bevel weld and is flush with the face of the tube. Per the AISC 8th Edition, the 5/16 weld size shown on the drawing is incorrect.
D.
Dimensional Discrepancies 1.
CC-1-019-007-A33K, Revision 2 The vertical dimension shown on the drawing for item 8 is 11' 1/2" (approx.) instead of 12' -
3/4". This exceeds the 1" tolerance for work point dimension.
2.
CC-1-019-010-A43K, Revision 4 The dimension for item 7 (1/2" plate) is 10" x 10" instead of 7" x 7" as shown in Section B-B.
However, it has no design impact.
Note: The following are discrepancies exceeding the 1/4" tolerance.
3.
MS-1-002-002-572R, Revision 3, Sht 3 of 3 Detail D1 The horizontal dimension between the center line of the attachment and the gusset plate (item 15) is 2-1/2" instead of 1" as shown on the drawing, g= m ;g Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- k... $ Ll' 3 I \\
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases A
Wil::
Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
1 12/29/86
- Revision 3 Page 37 s
PIPE SUPPORTS
~'
Review Issues List
=
,A 4.,CC-1-028-617-533R, Revision 4.SectiUnA-A The vertical. edge distance of the lower right hand corner bolt's is 2-1/2" instead of 2-7/ai.
c 5.
MS-1-002-005-S72R Hevision 6 The as-built C-C dimension of the strut is 3' -
10-1/8" rather than 3' 1/2" as shown on 'ection S
B-B.
t 6.
MS-1-003-002-S72R, Revision 1 The as-built C-C dimensions are 51-3/8" and 51" rather than 52" as specified on the drawing (i.e.
4'-4")
y o
7.
CC-2-019-007-A43K, Revision 1 The as-built C-C dimension of 25-3/16" differs from the 2' 15/16" specified on the drawing. ' This discrepancy was identified in the Inspection Report Package, but the QC checklist for snubber instal-lation was marked " SAT" without giving explanation or back-up docuoentation (9-27-83).
E.
Miscellaneous Discrepancies 1.
MS-1-002-005-572R, Revision 6 The U-Bolt threeds are not upstt as specified on the subject drawing (sht 1 of 4).
2.
MS-1-004-004-572:1, 'tevision 2 '
The as-built support has double nuts on each leg of the U-Bolt. This confoms to the datails shown on Revision 2 of the drawin,3 in the Inspection Report.
package. The Revision 2 draxir.g in Cygna's posses-sion shows only one nut on each side of the U-Bult.
R C==
T'"' S "" " " ' S C'"' " " S C P'"Y Comanche Peak Steam -Electric Station T
~--
ri b 6 i d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
18611lll1111111111111111!!1111Job No. 94056 23PS-ISSUE
z 12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 38 3
7 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List O
3..
CC-1-028-701-A334. Revision 3 There is a 1/2" thick plate welded to the base of s
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.
In addition, the U-Bolt jam nuts are not snug tight.
y 4.
CC-2-019-707-A435, Revision 2
~
The cold load of the spring is set at 7,000 lbs.
(approx.) rather than 6475 lbs., as specified on the drawing. The base plate is covered by grout in the floor recess. This condition is not reflected s
on the subject drawing.
5..
CC-1-050-~700-A43K, Revision 3 for item (2, the AC and AH shown en the drawing I
6hoald read CS and HS, respectively.
(The AC and AH values would have to be 13-1/16" and 13",
![
respectively).
Status:
This issue is open, Cygna will review the Hardware Verification Program procedure, to be provided by TUGC0/SWEC (Reference 3, Sheet 162), in conjunction with SWEC procedure CPPP-5 and CPPP-8.
i
- 36. Maximum Allowable Pipe Clearenrg
Reference:
1.
Brown & Roet. Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-28. Rev. 29 -
"Fatrication 'and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports" i
f, 2.
Letter from W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) TO R.J. Stuart (Cygna), dated 9/2/86 - Open Items -- Phase IV Report.
3.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Desttn Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
-hd*f "]
Texas Utilitics Generating Company 4
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 23 l
L'It Os i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111:4461488.11111111111111 Job No. 84055
.-,-e.c
_-...---n--
-. -, - - - - -. - + - -. _, -, - - - -..
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 39 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Summary:
Per paragraph 3.3.4.la of Reference <1 above, the maximum 1
allowable total dimensional clearance on one side of a pipe
. m s
Q't l
is 1/8" + 1/16" (i.e. 3/16" gap between pipe and support restrainingmembers). The industry standard is 1/6" u
maximum.
h Cygna is concerned that this QC Inspection" Criterion has not been reviewed / approved by Engineering.
Status:
This issue is closed based on TUGC0/SWEC's commitments of adopting a 1/8" maximum clearance criteria for the CPSES pipe support design /requalification program (Item No.17 of reference 2; sheets 167 & S-14 of reference 4)
- 37. Line Contact Stresses (Local Stresses)
References:
1.
Pipe Stress Revioew Issue List, Revision 1 dated 4/23/85, Item 11 - Welded Attachments.
2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7, Revision 2.
3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry liill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
4.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Sunniary:
Line Contact Stresses was originally covered under the pipe stress issue of welded attachment. Based on Cygna's reviews of SWEC's design criteria (Attachments 4-6B and 4-6C) there are some specific items that require clarification'.
No Rationale for stating that the longitudinal bending stress si', is considered to be included in equation 4
_ __2 Texas Utilities Generating Company F
T.
~~~
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station td i J d
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases e
Niilillilillililllilllllilli Job Mo. 84056 23PS-ISSUE w
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 40 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List O
(6a) of Attachment 4-6B, Reference 2.
(Ref. 4. Sheet 122) o The bases for the use of the effective thickness (t
=t+t 3.2.4 of attachment 4-68, CPPP-7) for the pi,pe wall iS the local stress analysis.
(Ref. 4, sheet 122) o Rationlig for the inicusion of clamp preload only in the term S 1
(sheet 12$. of section 3.1.1. of Attachment 4-6C, CPPP-7 Rev.4) o The applicability or bound of the load condition as used in equation 9 of section 3.2.2., -6C. Also provide the derivations cf some of the equations in 3.2.3. & 3.2.4 of the same Attachment.
(sheets 97 &
126 Ref. 4)
Status:
This issue is open, SWEC has committed to provide further res pons es. Cygna may also perform spot review (in conjunction with the Welded Attachment issue) if F.E./
Parametric study was utilized as the basis of the methodology.
- 38. Thermal Lock-up
References:
1.
SWEC Project Memorandum for CPSES PM-071, dated 6/25/86 - Local Stress Evaluation for Dual Trunnion Anchors 2.
SWEC's Report on Evaluation of Generic Technical Issues, Appendix B: Local Stress-Piping, Revision O.
3.
Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in response to CASE questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services.
4.
Cygna/SWEC Meeting Agenda, December 15 and 16, 1986 Glen Rose Texas. (Exhibit 1 to Reference 5) i
====--
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r*b'L'i I[i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases j
L
- 11111111ll111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
0 12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 41 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List O
5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose Texas, dated December 15 and 16,1986 -
On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Sunnary:
The effect of thermal lock-up in anchors which restrain pipe radial thermal growth was an ASLB hearing issue. This issue is addressed by SWEC in section 4.6.4.1 of CPPP-7, and Project Memo PM-071. After reviewing the above documents.
Cygna has identified some detailed questions which require clarification from SWEC (see Item I, Reference 4). Based on SWEC's responses in the Cygna/SWEC meeting at Glen Rose Texas, Cygna's questions have been adequately addressd by SWEC. Furthermore, the proposition of using Finite Element Analysis on a case-by-case basis by the IWA group to refine the design is acceptable.
Status:
This issue is closed. The resolution proposed by SWEC has adequately addressed the issue.
- 39. Two-Bolt Baseplate Qualification Procedure
References:
1.
SWEC Project Memorandum for CPSES PM-059, dated 6/18/86.
2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7,,
Revision 2.
3.
Exhibit 1 to transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Sunnary:
PM-059 (Ref. 1) provides a generic procedure for the Design / Qualification of Two-Bolt Baseplates for the SWEC re-analysis effort. However, in order for Cygna to evaluate the acceptability of the methodology, more detailed infonnation is necessary.
Some major points are identified under item K of the Cygna/SWEC meeting agenda. (Ref. 3).
l 6
i Texas Utilities Generating Company r
75 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I
l LN [,d i Id Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l
lill""""" ';::::llillli Job No. 84056 t
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 42 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List C
Status:
This issue is open. SWEC's responses indicate that the procedure is based on the results of a parametric finite element study. In order to attain a reasonable level of confidence in the procedure Cygna needs to review the finite element study performed by SWEC before the closing out of this issue.
- 40. NPSI Rear Bracket Sizes
References:
1.
SWEC Project Memorandum for CPSES PM-080, dated 7/14/86. - Clarification of Attachment 4-2 of CPPP-7.
2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support
?
Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7,
Revision 2.
3.
Cygna Communication Report between D. Rencher (TUGCO) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) - Pipe Support Questions, Item 3 - dated 5/16/84. Job. No.
84042.
4.
Cygna Communication Report between D. Rencher, G.
Grace (of TUGCO) and J. Minicheillo, C. Wong (of Cygna) - Pipe Support Questions and Status Item Number 29 - dated 5/24/84 Revision 1. Job No.
84042.
5.
Letter from L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) to N.H.
Williams (Cygna). - TUGCO's Responses to Cygna's review questions, dated 6/8/84 (Job No. 84042).
6.
Letter from N.H. Williams (Cygna) to J.B. George (TUGCO) - Phase 4 Pipe Suport Questions, dated 7/31/84 (Job No. 84056) 7.
Letter from L.M. Popplewwell (TUGCO) to N.H. Williams (Cygna) - TUGCO's response to Cygna's review questions, dated 8/11/84 (Job No. 84056).
Summary:
During Cygna's Phase 3 and Phase 4 Pipe Support Independent Design Review, Cygna has identified that documetns giving p_r_
_.g Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station rd L'.i L d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases s
llc.
Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 43 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List t
different rear bracket sizes (dimensions) had been used in the design of ITT-Grinnell Strut / Snubber rear brackets (see references 3 through 7).
It may have significant impact on the weld design of the rear bracket attachment if an incorrect size were used in the design. SWEC Project Memorandum No. 080 has identified that a similar condition also existed for rear brackets supplied by NPSI. SWEC has generated a calculation No.15454-NZ(c)-GENX-073, based on the most conservative rear bracket dimensions and the results of this calculation will be used for the as-built verification of rear bracket welds and local stresses in pipe support members.
Status:
This issue is open. A copy of the rear bracket calculation No. 15454-NZ(c)-GENX-073, has been provided by SWEC. Cygna will review this calculation for acceptability.
Cygna's concern on ITT-Grinnell rear brackets was previously considered closed based on TUGCO's response. (item 3 of Reference 5) which stated that a study was performed by ITT i
Grinnell. The study concluded that all struts and bracket weld stresses were within their respective allowables.
However, Cygna would like a clarification from SWEC whether a similar calculation has been performed for the ITT Grinnell rear brackets.
- 41. Adoption of Later Code (ASME) Paragraphs
References:
1.
SWEC Report - Documentation of ASME III NA-1140 Review for Piping and Pipe Supports - for TUGC0 CPSES, Units 1 & 2 15454-N(c)--007 (Dated 10/28/86) 2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
In the Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support requalification effort for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2, certain portions of codes later than the code of record are adopted for use in lieu of the original requirements in the code of record (i.e. for pipe supports,Section III Division 1 of the ASME 1974 Edition, pc_= ;;;;g Texas Utilities Generating Company T7 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station riLd6 Ial Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
N::
Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
~__ ___ _
- .. u.
=. :.... u. =..
w.
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 44 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List C
including the Winter 1974 Addenda).
In order to adopt and use the later edition of a specific code provision, the code stipulates that all related requirements have to be met (Paragraph NA-1140(f) of the ASME Code).
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna will review the SWEC NA-1140 Report (Reference 1) to ensure that all related requirements associated with the adoption of specific later code provisions have been considered and are met.
- 42. A110wables for Hilti Anchors Having Edge Distance Less than 50
Reference:
1.
SWEC Project Memorandum No. 099 - Allowables for Hilti Anchors Having edge Distance Less than SD, (dated 8/20/86).
2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
(Section4.5) 3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose, Texas, dated December 15 & 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
Summary:
In the SWEC pipe support re-qualification effort, Project Memorandum No. 099 provides a procedure to determine the Hilti Anchor bolt allowables when the concrete free edge distagce is less than 50 but is greater than or equal to 3D inches. This procedure is acceptable for anchor or 2 /2 bolts which are subject to predominantly tension loads.
Cygna has requested clarification from SWEC to demonstrate whether consideration has been given to situation where the Hilti anchor is subject to predomantly shear loads.
Status:
This issue is open. During the SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna meeting (Referrence 3) SWEC stated that the Hilti allowables are justifiable since the failure mode is similar to that of Nelson Studs. SWEC will provide Nelson stud test data to show that the bolt / stud shear capacity is adequate with concrete edge distance less than SD.
mem w g Texas Utilities Generating Company 7
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station b NJk N Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3
1111111:: " "
Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 45 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 43. Uncinched U-Bolt as a Two-Way Restraints
References:
1.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2. CPPP-7.,
Revision 2.
2.
Exhibit 1 to transcript of meeting between between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen Rose Texas, dated December 15 and 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns. (Item F)
The dynamic allowable loads. P,,fe,rence 1, are much higher Summary:
for NPSI U-bolts, as provided in Attachment 4-3 of re than the corresponding u-bolt allowable loads given in the NPSI catalog. However, the source or reference of these data are not indicated.
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna will review SWEC's response and perform a check on the reasonableness of the P values.
max
- 44. Location Tolerance for Modified Support
Reference:
1.
Stone & Webster's pipe stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
2.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13 and 14, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
3.
SWEC's project procedure CPPP-5, Revision 2 -
Field Walk Procedure, CPSES Unit 1.
Sunnary:
Stone and Webster's Design Criteria, CPPP-7 (Reference 1), section 3.10.6.11 states that "As-built piping configuration and support location shall be modeled in the analysis unless deviations are justified in the pipe stress calculations". In order to obtain an accurate understanding of the criteria, Cygna requested clarification on the location tolerance for modified supports (Item M of Exhibit I to Reference 2).
A q~~
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N.i IN Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
~
12/29/86 Revision 3 Page 46 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List c
^
Status:
This issue is open. SWEC has responded by providing a table of pipe support location tolerances (sheets N-3 of Reference 2), which conforms to the PVRC position in WRC-316. Cygna will review SWEC's response with respect to the acceptability of these tolerances. In addition, Cygna wishes to point out that a different set of support location tolerances, which is indepen-dent of pipe sizes, is given in section 5.1 of Reference 3 for field walk. Cygna understands that Reference 3 is intended for sample verification to initiate the pipe stress reanalysis. However, some clarification is required as to whether any of these field walk data will be used in the final as-built verification.
If so, the two sets of tolerance criteria may have potential conflicts as well as possible cumulative effects not being accounted for in the final reconciliation.
pxEgjg Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r*I.("=d i Iab Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
=
s L
111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
1 1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 1 PIPE STRESS
~
Review Issues List
[
1.
Mass Participation / Mass Point Spacing
References:
1.
R.E. Ballard (G&H) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Mass Participation," GTN-69454, September 14, 1984 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation," 84042.017, Septenber 21, 1984 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation," 84042.019, October 2, 1984 4
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna)
"Cygna Potential Finding Report Mass Participation and the Mass Points Spacing Error in Problem AB-1-61A,"
Decenber 7,1984 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation and Mass Point Spacing," 84042.021, February 8, 1985 6.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PI-00-05, and PFR-01 7.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985 8.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13 and 14,1985 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
9.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design i
i Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
i Sunenary:
The pipe stress seismic analyses did not include sufficient modes to comply with the FSAR, which requires that the in-clusion of additional higher order modes should not increase system response by more than 10%.
In addition, the mass point spacing for the dynamic analyses did not always meet the project criteria.
i M23 Texas Utilities Generating Company M ejlfj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
- g. m m..........
Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE i
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 2 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List
-?
Status:
This issue remains open. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 9). As documented in Ref. 8 Cygna has the following concern: the SWEC method of combining modal responses between the ZPA and the seismic analysis cutoff frequency of 50 Hz may lead to incorrect results for the seismic analysis. SWEC is preparing a response.
2.
Incorrect Pipe Schedule Used for Calculation of Nozzle A110wables
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report. TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-02-05 Summary:
Cygna noted one instance in which the nozzle allowables were calculated using an incorrect wall thickness.
Status:
This issue is closed, based on an expanded review to include the pumps. on the diesel generator system.
3.
Finite Element Model Error in Flued Head Analysis
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-03-01 Summary:
The flued head finite element model was found to contain a geometry error due to improper generation of some elements.
Status:
This issue is closed, based on review of 15 of the remaining 18 flued head analyses.
4.
Inclusion of Fluid and Insulation Weight at Valves and/or Flanges
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PI-00-04 and Section 5.1., Page 5-6 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
as=m.c Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station r*kl'iL Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3
L A
11111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ill1lll11 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE i
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 3 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List Sununary:
Cygna found that it was Gibbs & Hill's standard practice not to include fluid and insulation weight at valves and flanges.
Status:
This issue is closed for the CCW system, based on a Gibbs &
Hill study which demonstrated that the effect is minor.
Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 3) and finds that this issue is properly addressed. Therefore, this issue is closed for all systems.
5 Discrepancies in Pipe Support Loads Between Analyses and Support Design i
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042.01, Revision 1, Observation PI-00-06 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 29, 1984 3.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), GTN-69233, dated July 10, 1984 4
Communications Report between J. Finneran (TUGCO), N.
Williams and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 7/13/84, 2:45 p.m.
Sunnary:
Cygna found that, in some instances, the latest support loads were not used in the pipe support design calculations.
Status:
This issue is closed, except as a procedural question which is addressed in the Design Control RIL.
6.
Snubbers on Fisher Valves l
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PI-00-07 and PFR-02 2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated July 9, 1984 3.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 29, 1984 MSEC Texas Utilities Generating Company T g e.25 'L Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d'
'I Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11lll11111lllll1111lll111111ll Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE i
l
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 4 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List w
4.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated October 2, 1984.
5.
Communications Report between R. Manvelyan (Gibbs &
Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 6/15/84,10:30am.
6.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
The snubbers on the Fisher valve operators were not qualified for the as-built loads. This issue led to questioning whether the valve itself was capable of transmitting these loads and still maintaining operability.
Status:
This issue is closed, based on TUGCO's requalification of all affected valves and snubbers. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 6) and find sthat this issue is properly addressed. However, the procedural interface remains as an open issue to be addressed in the Design Control RIL.
7.
Snubbers Close to Equipment Nozzles
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 4 Pipe Stress Walkdown Checklists (not issued).
2.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13 and 14, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure for CPSES Unit 1. CPPP-6, Ref. 2.
Sunnary:
Cygna noted several snubbers on the Component Cooling Water System (CCW) which were located close to equipment nozzles.
Due to their proximity to a rigid attachment point, the dy-namic displacements at these locations will be very small, such that the snubbers may not perform their intended func-tion.
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC procedure (Ref. 3), Attachment 9-7, for hanger optimization and is concerned about the lack of specific criteria for snubber elimination. As documented in Ref. 2, Cygna will review a
= mw Texas Utilities Generating Company
~
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N,N L Ai Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3
M!!""""
/
Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 5 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List sample of SWEC calculations to ' determine the validity of the engineering judgment used in eliminating or not eliminating snubbers.
8.
Lack of Traceability for AN$YS/Relap Runs
Reference:
1.
Communications Report between S. Lim (Gibbs & Hill) and L. Weingart (Cygna) dated 3/8/84, 8:45 a.m.
2.
Communications Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/13/84, 3:00 p.m.,
Revision 1 3.
Communications Reports between S. Lim (Gibbs & Hill) and L.Weingart (Cygna) dated 3/15/84, 8:15 a.m.
Summary:
There are four programs utilized by Gibbs & Hill in performing a steam hammer analysis:
1.
RELAP 2.
GHFORCE - provides imbalance loads 3.
Program to convert to ANSYS format 4.
ANSYS Sufficient documentation did not exist to provide cross referencing of the four runs for a particular Main Steam loop.
Status:
This finding was closed technically; however, it remains open from a procedural standpoint. This issue is being addressed as part of Cygna's design control RIL.
9.
Inclusion of Support Mass In Pipe Stress Analysis
References:
1.
Communications Report between G. Krishnan (Gibbs & Hill SSAG) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84,8:30 a.m.
2.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-68852 dated April 25, 1984 m=dT Texas Utilities Generating Company
(*$ L""*$***l I d Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
A n ependent Assessment Program - All Phases L
llll11lllllllll1llllllll11lll1 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 6 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List t
4.
Profiled Testimony of Nancy H. Williams, Response to Doyle Question #4, June 12, 1984 5.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision
^
- 0. Pipe Stress Checklist General Note 1 6.
Communications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and N.
Williams (Cygna) dated 10/11/84, 4:00 p.m.
7.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USMC),
84042.022, dated January 18, 1985 "Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations" 8.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
9.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
- 10. Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated Noveder 13 and 14,1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Sununary:
The weight of the pipe supports was included in the stress analyses for the Main Steam Inside Containment only.
In Reference 1, Cygna requested justification for this prac-tice.
Gibbs & Hill responded in Reference 2 by pointing out that the supports associated with the Main Steam lines were relatively massive and, as such, a judgement was made to include their mass in the stress analysis. For other systems, a judgement was made that the effects would be negligible.
Per Reference 4, the effect of this omission on support loads was shown to be as high as 24% on the RlR system.
I Status:
This issue is closed. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 9). SWEC has considered the effects of support mass in the piping reanalysis effort.
Per the commitment made in Ref.10, SWEC will notify Cygna if the accentric mass effect is implemented by changes to the mass / stiffness matrices as opposed to modeling of the eccentric support meters (see Pipe Stress RIL Item 19).
i hyipyg Texas Utilities Generating Company i
i Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ri NJ L L
A1 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111llll111111111llllllll11 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 7 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List
- 10. Stress Intensification Factors (SIFs)
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-01 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PI-00-01 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6,1985.
4.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated Novenber 13 and 14,1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Sunenary:
Cygna found numerous instances where Gibbs and Hill either neglected to input the required SIF into the stress analysis (References 1 & 2) or miscalculated the SIF (Reference 2).
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 4) and, as documented in Ref. 5, is reviewing SWEC's code reference for their exclusion of SIFs at weld neck flanges.
- 11. Welded Attachments
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-02 and PI-02-03 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision 1 Observations PI-00-02 and PI-06-01 l
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
4.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
EN;r@y Texas Utilities Generating Company 7-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station rN if 1 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
k 111411llill11llillllll11111111 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSVE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 8 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List
}
5.
Stone & Webster's Piping and Pipe Support Requalification Program, CPSES Unit 1, large Bore Piping Final Report, dated 11/7/86.
6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated Novenber 13 and 14,1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Summry:
Cygna found several problems with Gibbs and Hill's treatment of welded attachments:
o An increased allowable was used in the evaluation of local stresses for upset and emergency conbinations (Reference 1).
o Thermal expansion loads were used rather than load ranges for evaluation of local stresses (Reference 1).
o Local stresses were not considered in break exclusion zones (Reference 2).
o Conbined effects of two supports at a single welded attachment were not considered (Reference 2).
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 4) and Large Bore Piping Final Report (Ref. 5) and finds that all of the above concerns are properly addressed.
However, as documented in Ref. 6, Cygna's review of the criteria resulted in the need for clarification on the procedures provided in Attachment 4-6A to Ref. 4 This clarification is required to assure that the results from the PITRUST, PILUG and PITRIFE analyses are properly applied in the evaluation of welded attachments. To date Cygna has performed one audit at the SWEC Boston office.
An additional audit is required to close all remaining concerns on this issue.
12.
Use of Incorrect Pipe Wall Thickness
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-01-01 J
Suenary:
Cygna found two piping segments which were input to the stress analysis with the incorrect wall thickness.
N Texas Utilities Generating Company A @ff?
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 18611lll1lllllll111111lll11lll Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Pa ge 9 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List t
Status:
This problem is considered isolated and closed, based on Cygna's recalculation of the pipe stresses.
13.
Inclusion of Appropriate Response Spectra
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-02-01 Sununary:
Cygna noted that stress analysis problem AB-1-70 did not consider all the appropriate response spectra from all buildings.
Status:
This issue is closed, based on an evaluation of the omitted spectra and an expanded review to determine if this situation occurred in other stress problems.
14 Support location Discrepancy
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-02-02 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Checklist PI-09, Item 14 Sunmary:
Supports were modeled at locations outside of allowable tolerances. The Reference 1 observation was closed based on an evaluation of the pipe stresses and an assessment that these occurrences were sufficiently isolated. The Reference t
l 2 discrepancy was noted and evaluated by Gibbs & Hill in their QA binder.
Status:
This issue is closed.
- 15. Use of Incorrect Damping in Seismic Analyses
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PI-00-03 L.>J-Texas Utilities Generating Company kg~f Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station kia Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
116611111llll111lll111111lll11 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 10 PIPE STRESS Review Issues Ust t
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Susunry:
Cygna noted that Gibbs & Hill did not consider the lower damping response spectra in some systems with both large and small bore piping.
Status:
This issue is closed, based on Cygna's expanded review.
Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 3) and finds that this issue is properly addressed.
- 16. Combination of Safety / Relief Valve Thrust and Seismic Loads
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-06-02 2.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
In pipe stress problem AB-1-238, the stresses / loads due to safety / relief valve thrust were not cosined with those due to SSE for the emergency case.
In the other three Main Steam lines outside containment, the two effects were cosined. While not specifically required by the FSAR, Cygna believes it is appropriate to combine the two effects.
Status:
This issue is closed. TUGC0 has filed an amendment to the CPSES FSAR which elimiottes SSE from any emergency load combination. However, as stated in Ref. 2, SSE and SRV thrust loads are being cos ined and compared to a faulted allowable.
- 17. Force Distribution in Double Ported Safety Valves
Reference:
1.
Comunication Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/12/84, Item 2b.
Th Texas utilities Generating Company s
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d d7 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
11pl6111116666118616111111111 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P1-1SSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 11 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985 3.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13 and 14,1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Summary:
By assuming a 55/45 split in the flow, instead of the 60/40 suggested by Crosby Valve as general practice, the torque on the Main Steam pipe is halved.
Status:
This issue is open pending Cygna's review of SWEC's response presented ir % f. 3, pages97-100.
- 18. Fisher Valve Modeling
Reference:
1.
Communication Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/12/84, Item Ic 2.
Communication Report between Krishnan/ Ray (Gibbs & Hill) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 6/12/84 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
4 Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Sumary:
Cygna has questions on the modeling of " flexible" valves (F < 33 cps).
In the review, Cygna found that valves noted in Reference 2 (other than Fisher valves) were the only
" flexible" valves within the Gibbs & Hill scope.
Cygna determined that the valve accelerations for those valves were acceptable; however, Cygna did not address the modeling of the Fisher valve yoke, which is laterally supported at the end.
If the yoke is modeled much stiffer than it actually is, this may affect the analysis results.
Status:
This issue is closed. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 4) and finds that this issue is properly addressed.
WE Texas Utilities Generating Company T
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
bJk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilillillillilliimmillitti Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P1-155UE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 12 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List
- 19. Eccentric Mass and Its Effect on Piping and Welded Attachments
Reference:
1.
Communication Report between G. Krishnan (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/21/84, Item 1 2.
R.E. Ballard, Jr. (Gibbs & Hill) letter GTN-68852 to J.B. George (TUGCO) dated 4/25/84 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions /Coments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6,1985.
4.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
5.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated Novenber 13 and 14,1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Sunenary:
In modeling the masses of the supports in the Main Steam lines inside containment, Gibbs & Hill did not consider the eccentricity of the mass from the pipe centerline.
In their response in Reference 2. Gibbs & Hill showed that the seismic effects were small on the overall pipe cross-section. They also showed that the local effects at the welded attachment were not significant for a 1.0g load.
Further Cygna review showed that the seismic accelerations were on this order. Cygna's review did not consider the effect of fluid dynamic accelerations, nor other systems.
Status:
This issue is closed. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 4).
Per Ref. 5. SWEC has modeled any eccentric support menbers. SWEC has committed to notify Cygna if the eccentric mass effect is accounted for by modifying the mass and stiffness matrices.
- 20. ANSYS Steam Hamer Analyses
Reference:
1.
Communication Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/13/84, Item 2 2.
Communication Report between G. Krishnan (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/21/84, Item 3 l'ifw Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1411ll111lli111111llllllll111 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P1-ISSUE l
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 13 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List 3.
R.E. Ballard, Jr. (Gibbs & Hill) letter GTN-68852 to J.B. George (TUGCO) dated 4/25/84 4
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
5.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
6.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGCO/CYGNA at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated Novenber 13 and 14,1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
Summary:
In reviewing the ANSYS model, Cygna questioned the mass point spacing and time step size used.
Gibbs & Hill sup-plied the results of a sensitivity study in Reference 3.
In addition, Cygna questioned the load output in two axial re-straints, since they were less than the load input. Gibbs &
Hill explained why the results were reasonable in Reference 3.
Prior to the Reference 3 response, however, Cygna did not find any documentation indicating that either a sensitivity study had been done or that the ANSYS results had been reviewed for " reasonability".
As part of the Stone & Webster piping reanalysis effort, all fluid transient analyses were redone. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 5). Based on this review, Cygna has the following concerns, as documented in Ref. 6:
1.
Mass point spacing is based upon bending mode frequencies up to 50 Hz. The timehistory analysis may include frequencies up to 200 Hz.
- 2. -1 to Ref. 5 requires timehistory analyses to include 80%, or more, of the piping system mode shapes. As documented in Ref. 6, Cygna is concerned with the acceptability of using more than 50% of the total number of modes.
- 3. -1 to Ref. 5 does not provide a clear explanation of how the predominant frequency of the input forcing function is determined and what k$b(59 Texas Utilities Generating Company g
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111161llllllllllllllllllll1 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 14 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List x
corresponding analytical techniques are applied to calculate the at used in the timehistory analysis.
Status:
This issue is open pending SWEC's responses to Cygna's concerns.
21.
Valve Acceleration and Flange Load Generic Studies
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0 Checklist PI-01, Notes 3 and 4 2.
Communication Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, Item 7 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan", 84056.085, October 6, 1985.
4 Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
5.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure for CPSES Unit 1. CPPP-6, Rev. 2.
Sumnary:
In Phases 1 and 2. Cygna found that Gibbs & Hill did not check valve accelerations or flange loads in every pipe stress calculation.
Instead, Gibbs & Hill used a sampling process, which was reasonable, to determine the worst valves or flanges. They then showed, through two general studies, that all valves met the Specification allowables and that all flanges met Code allowables.
In Phase 3, however, Cygna found one safety valve with an acceleration slightly above (2%)theallowable. This indicates that the sampling method may not be sufficient to address all valves or flanges.
Status:
This issue is closed.
Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria and procedures (Refs. 4 and 5) and finds that this issue is properly addressed.
{' :@T -
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station riI L
L A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P1-ISSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 15 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List g
J..
22.
LOCA Load Cases
References:
1.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO) " Responses to Cygna Energy Services", GTN-70737, October 17, 1985.
Susunary Westinghouse supplied Gibbs & Hill with the displacements at the steam generator nozzle during a LOCA event.
Two sets of displacements were provided. The first set consisted of the displacements which result from a primary side break in the same loop as the main steam line being analyzed. This was called the " broken loop" case. The second set consisted of the displacements associated with a primary side break on a different loop. This was called the " unbroken loop" case.
Review of the main steam inside containment analyses noted the following:
a.
Two LOCA load cases were run: unbroken and broken loop.
b.
Unbroken loop loads and stresses were included in the emergency co4 1 nation, while broken loop was used in the faulted co41 nation.
c.
Broken loop loads and stresses were always higher than unbroken loop loads (as would be expected),
d.
The CPSES FSAR does not specifically require LOCA loads to be considered for the emergency condition.
Status:
This issue is closed.
Per Reference 1, the stress analyst initially assumed that the main steam was an essential system. The CPSES FSAR states that essential systems must meet a faulted allowable stress of 1.85 (normally the emergency allowable).
Hence, unbroken loop LOCA was included in the emergency codination. Af ter the stress analyst came to the understanding that the main steam was a non-essential system, the unbroken load case was no longer run.
+T Texas Utilities Generating Company P
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station yk."6lA Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P1-1SSUE
e 1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 16 PIPE STRESS Review Issues List 23.
Line Lists, Modes of Operation and Valve Lists.
References:
1.
Communications Report between Manu Patel (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Oszowski (Cygna) dated 8/1/85.
2.
Communication Report between T. Hawkins (Gibbs & Hill) and R. Hess (Cygna) dated 6/ 7/84, 11:00am.
3.
Communications Report between T. Hawkins (Gibbs & Hill) and R. Hess (Cygna) dated 6/7/84, 3:00pm.
4 N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Information Requests - Pipe Stress Analyses,"
84056.086, October 9, 1985 5.
Stone & Webster's Procedure for Review of Plant Operating Mode Conditions for CPSES Units 1 & 2 CPPP-10, Rev. 1.
6.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure for CPSES Unit 1. CPPP-6, Rev. 2.
Sumary:
Review of Gibbs & Hill Project Guide PG-25, dated 3/1/83,
" Procedure for Preparation and Design Review of Line Lists, Modes of Operation and Valve Lists," indicates that line lists are to be generated on the form included as Exhibit 1 of that procedure. Cygna did not find evidence of this during the reviews conducted at the CPSES site.
- Instead, computer listings apparently were used which did not have all of the information indicated on Exhibit 1 of PG-25 Additionally. Cygna could not determine which procedure, if any, controlled the issuance of the computer listings.
Status:
This issue is closed.
Cygna has reviewed SWEC's procedures (Refs. 5 & 6) and finds that a procedure has been set up for review of operating modes and conditions and that these operating conditions are transmitted to the Lead Pipe Stress and Support Analysis Group Engineer.
Vi r;,
Texas Utilities Generating Company
't Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
bJh &
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1116111111111111111161111111ll Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P!-1SSUE
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 17 PIPE S1RESS Review Issues List
- 24. Support Orientation Tolerance
References:
1.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Responses to Cygna Energy Services," GTN-70737, October 17, 1985.
2.
Stone & Webster's Field Walk Procedure for CPSES Unit 1 CPPP-5, Rev. 2.
3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Surunary:
Cygna could not determine what tolerance, if any, was used for support orientation, (i.e., angle) when performing the as-built stress analysis.
Per Reference 1, an angular tolerance of five degrees was used, based on the manufacturers' permissible misalignment or angular motion. This tolerance was not documented.
Instead, it was communicated verbally to all as-built analysis group leaders, as well as to the individual analysts, by the responsible job engineer.
Status:
This issue is closed. Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 3) which, in Section 3.10.6.11, requires the as-built configuration to be modeled in the analysis. Any deviations must be justified in the pipe stress calculations. The SWEC walkdown procedure (Ref. 2) allows for a maximum support orientation deviation of 15' from the as-built drawings.
25.
Hydrotest Loads References 1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.W. Beck (TUGCO) 84056.064, dated 4/23/85.
" Review Issue List i
Transmittal". Cygna Pipe Support Review Issues List, Item No.14. Revision 1 2.
Gibbs 4 Hill Specification 2323-MS-200, Revision 3 3.
Communication Reports between J. Minichiello (Cygna) and D. Rencher (TUGCO), dated 3/20/84, 2:00 p.m., Project 84042 5 3 ]T-Texas Utilities Generating Company
~
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
b k A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111lllll11lllllll111lll11111 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
J.-
A v.
-e-*
.r %
1/6/87 Revision 3 Page 18 PIPE $1RESS Review Issues List g
6 1
4 L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
i dated 4/9/84 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
s
" Pipe Stress Review Questions," 84056.093, October 28, 1985 6.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
Summary:
While reviewing the Cygna pipe stress data base and TUGCO's response to Cygna's comment on Hydrotest Loads (Reference 4), it was necessary to identify under which plant condition "hydrotest load" is considered.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-200, Section 5.2.1, states that " testing conditions" are excluded from the Normal Plant Operating Conditions.
In Section 5.2.5a, the specification states that " testing conditions" are considered as a normal plant operating condition.
4 i
In addition to this discrepancy, Cygna could not determine j
how the pipe stress and support designs accounted for the hydrotest load condition.
i Status:
This issue is closed.
Cygna has reviewed the SWEC criteria (Ref. 6) and finds that this issue is properly addressed.
1 Section 3.4.5.2 required a hydrotest load case to be analyzed for all steam piping and Table 3.5-1 defines the i
load combination in which this load case is to be used.
26.
Pipe Stress Review of Welded Attachments
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.W. Beck (TUGCO) 84056.064, dated 4/23/85
" Review Issue List Transmittal". Cygna Pipe Stress Review Issue List, item No.11, Revision 1 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Pipe Stress Review Questions", 84056.093, October 28, 1985 3.
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure for CPSES Unit 1, CPPP-6, Rev. 2.
EgN h m Texas Utilities Generating Company 5y Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station rN b LFA Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
a 111111111111111lll1111ll111111 Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23PI-ISSUE
r x
i 1/6/87 Revision 3
)
Page 19 4
fIPE STRESS Review Istges List
?.'
1 Sussiary:
Based on Cygna's understanding that no formal process was established to allow the pipe stress analy7,t to review the pipe support designs, it was not possible to determine by which procedure welded attachments were identified for evaluation by the pipe stress analysts.
Status:
This issue is closed., The SWEC requalification procedure (Ref. 3) requires that the assigned ' pipe review the pipe support drawings in each, stress engineer package. The same procedure also directs integral attp:hoents to be requalified by one of the methods IAntified in the piping criteria, CPPP-7.
- 27. Pipe Wall Thickness Below Code Minimum
References:
1.
Stone & Webster Project A morandum PMa66. Revi 1,'" Pipe Wall Thinning Criteria", dated Augur,f; 26, 1956.
.2.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUCC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13 and 14, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
3.
Transcript of meeting be^ ween SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna et rlen e
Rose. Texas, dated December 15 and 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
J Susunary:
The Stone i Webster procedure for evaluating pipe wall s
thinning (Ref.1) allows the pipe wall thickness 'to be less than the ASME code siminum in certain sit.uations.
Status:
This issue is open. Cygna is reviewing the ASME code I
interpretation used by SEC as a justification for this P,!
practice (Refs. 2 and 3).
t
~
- 28. Design of Seismic /Non-Seismic Interface Artchors
References:
1.
Stone'and Webster's Pipe' Stress and Pipe Support tesign' Criteria for CPSES Untis 1 & 2. CPPP-7 Revision 2.
2.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cyyn at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13 and 14,1986
- On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
g5g Tens Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I.d L M Independent Assess m t Program - All Phises 3
L lemmmmillimililimi Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P!-ISSUE w
n 1/6/87
~
Revision 3 Page 20 I
PIPE STRESS Review Issues List
-s Summary: -10 to Reference 1 provides the procedure for the design of seismic /non-seismic interface anchors. This procedure considers the three global directions separately when determining limiting loads due to plastic hinges. As documented in Reference 2. Cygna feels that piping can supply full plastic bending moment or close to plastic bending moment and close to full plastic torsional moment simultaneously.
Status:
This issue is open pending SWEC's response to the Cygna concern.
E 3,
i l
, Eu Texas Utilities Generating Company 1
WV Coman:he Peak Steam Electric Station
- $L 6 A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111111lllllll1111111 - Job No. 84056 - TUG: 23P1-ISSUE
- _.. _ _.