ML20210P192

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Interim Technical Rept on Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Idvp, Verification of Design Analysis Hosgri Spectra - Interim Technical Rept 10,Rev 0
ML20210P192
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 06/22/1982
From: Cooper W
TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20209B723 List:
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8702130329
Download: ML20210P192 (55)
v • d • e


Text

-. .

3

/.

i-S p 4 l STAFF REPORT EVALUATION REPORT TITLE: INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT ON DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION PROGRAM VERIFICATION OF DESIGN ANALYSIS HOSGRI SPECTRA -

ITR 10 REVISION 0 10VP 0ESIGNATION: P105-4-839-010 ORIGINATOR: -Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

SUBMITTED BY: W. E. Cooper, Teledyne Engineering Servicits INTRODUCTION:

The Interim Technical Report Number 10 (ITR 10) written by Robert L.

Cloud Associates (RLCA) for the Diablo Canyon Independent Design Verification Brookhaven consultants, Program (IOVP) has National been reviewed Laboratory (BNL . by)the staff and its ITR 10 presents the results of the RLCA review of the recent Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) corrective action, with respect to the control of Hosgri response spectra. RLCA has verified that the DCP Design Criteria Memorandum (DCM C-17), which is the PG&E controlled document for the .

Hosgri floor response spectra was issued in a controlled manner and that the OCM contains portions of the current Hosgri design bases. OCM C-17 contains the contro'lled floor response spectra for the individual structures-and some of the methods of combining the seismic responses.

All of the methods of usage are not included in the OCM. This information was obtained, by telephone, from E. Denison on January 19,

.1983. PG&E is currently generating new floor response spectra.as part of their. reevaluation _ program. In addition, RLCA verified that spectra have now been defined for areas which previously had no spectra. The work remaining for the IOVP involves an audit of the OCP review of spectra used for Hosgri qualifications. After the DCP performs this review, the IOVP will verify the corrective action on a sampling basis.

SUMMARY

OF REPORT The objective of the ITR is to present the results of the IOVP review of the extent to which the Hosgri spectra were properly applied in the design applications. The design bases spectra reviewed by RLCA were contained in PG&E controlled document DCM C-17, Rev. 3. RLCA compared --

the design bases spectra as of November 1981 with those contained in the latest URS/Blume building reports.

The RLCA review of the Hosgri spectra inputs into the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Diant (DCNPP) qualification process was done in three steps. These steps were:

8702130329 870203 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-151 PDR _

b

. I5

(, i' 7

(1) Determine the current Hosgri design bases.

(2) Review the Hosgri spectra inputs into a sample of design analyses

.using the docketed Hosgri spectra with two exceptions. These exceptions were the revised November 19, 1981 annulus spectra and the additional turbine building spectra included in the March 1980 URS/Blume turbine building report.

(3) Verification of recent corrective action already undertaken by the Diablo Canyon Project (OCP) to specify and control portions of the current Hosgri design bases. -

The comparisons between the design spectra and the spectra used were made for the following structural analysis.

(1) Auxiliary Building (October 1979)

(2) Turbine Building (March 1980)

(3) Intake Structure (May 1979)

(4) Containment Structure (May 1979)

The spectra contained in DCM C-17 were found to be in agreement with the URS/Blume spectra with three exceptions for which Error and Open Item (E01s) reports were issued. Copies of these E0Is are provided in ~

Appendix A. The three exceptions found to the design basis Hosgri seismic inputs were:

(1) Auxiliary Building - 18 floor response spectra for the N-S direction were different from the October 1979 URS/Blume report (E0I 920)

(2) Auxiliary Building - torsional combination methods for calculating maximum accelerations differ from the October 1979 URS/Blume report (E01 1028)

(3) Intake Structure - some maximum absolute accelerations in the May 1979 URS/Blume report are different from the Hosgri report values

,in Table 1-53 (E0I 1028).

RLCA field verified all building, piping, equipment and components that --

were included in the initial verification sample. In the analysis of the initial sample seven locations were identified where Hosgri response spectra were not available, two in the Auxiliary Building, two in the Turbine Building, two in the Containment Structure and one in the Intake Structure. E01's were issued on each of the items. See Appendix A for a copy of the E0I's.

RLCA compared the spectra used as input for particular design problems with criteria spectra. This comparison was performed by locating

- , -- -.e - . - , - - - - - . . . - - , - , . . , - . , , - - . - - - - - -

3

support points for piping and/or equipment, determining the criteria spectra'for that point from DCM C-17 and comparing that spectra with the spectra actually used in the' design. Eleven equipment verification ^

samples and ten piping samples were selected. Four of the ten piping

' design analyses chosen contained inapplicable spectra. These spectra inputs did not envelop and were more than 157. lower than the Hosgri response spectra at some frequencies. The response spectra used for electrical equipment and instrumentation qualified by. shake table testing were found acceptable for the seven sample groups, except for one group. This group is discussed in Interim Technical Report Number 4, " Shake Table Testing". Eighteen E01's were identified for the-equipment sample and four E01's were identified for the piping samples. ,

The Hosgri spectra inputs used in the span evaluation procedures for small bore piping will be discussed in a future ITR. A total of forty-four E0I's were issued as a result of the comparison. The report contains a detail description of each E0I.

As a result of the verification review RLCA developed the following 3 concerns.

(1) The Hosgri report omits certain important portions of the current Hosgri design bases (spectra). In addition, spectra were not controlled.

(2) Spectra are not available for certain plant areas (e.g. pipeway and containment interior above elevation 140 feet).-

(3) . Preliminary and incorrect spectra were used in the design of piping. equipment and components.

s s To address the-above concerns RLCA proposed the following 4 actions and j, proposed to verify their implementation.

(1) Assemble the correct URS/Blume Hosgri spectra.

(2) Assign unique numbers to all spectra figures.

(3) Control these design spectra and any revisions thereto.

(4) Review spectra used for all Hosgri qualifications against the design spectra.

e EVALUATION ITR 10 outlines the steps taken by RLCA in their review. The staff concurs that these procedures would be expected to identify deficiencies significant in_the PG8E work if they existed. Indeed significant deficiencies were found with respect to applicability of the floor response spectra used for evaluation of buildings, piping, equipment and components. These deficiencies, as found by the samples, were limited to the Auxiliary Building and Intake Structure and centered around u::ing

.. 9-4 different floor response spectra than the docketed spectra and the method of combining torsional accelerations. Table 1 of the report shows a ccmparison between the design analysis and verification analysis for frequency and accelerations and a reference. This table is very useful in assessing the magnitude of the differences found. There was no such comparison for the ten piping samples. The staff concurs with RLCA in the methods and procedures used for identifying errors which may exist in the use of appropriate response spectra for equipment and piping design. ,

The staff concurs with RLCA in the concerns expressed in the report.

The control and proper use of floor response spectra is critical in the seismic evaluation of a facility. The staff concurs in the recommendations for controlling the design spectra and ensuring proper implementation. The staff recommends the updating of the DCM C-17 to include a section that contains a compilation of the methods for using the response spectra and the rules for combining the seismic responses.

4 p

O

O e t' h -h O e e e

k I

I e

APPENDLX A o

G O

9 M

y- , _ _

'/l -i PROGRAM RESO:.UTION REPORT .

Fi.le 1 o. 920 r 5 i

. File Revision No.

l - [.3 1.

2.

Resolution of an:' D 0 pen Item: C Class . Error ,

./ Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

i

a. O Closed Item 8 i b. O Deviation
c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task
3. Date Reported to PG&E 820722
4. Schedu led for TES Semimontnly Report No. August .
5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

Some of the Auxiliary Building floor response spectra in the N-S -

direction contained in the Hosgri Report differ from those in the October 1979 31ume Report.

Based on the PGandE presentation (July 14-16,1982) of their internal technical program the auxiliary building is being completely reanalyzed.

". Pr:gr!. Resolution is:

This E0I is combined with E0I 1097 as an Error A or 8. E0I 920 is therefore closed.

~,

7. Po'ential Program Resolution -

Report signed by Ecward Denison (RLCA) on 3207?!

k pe :ia n tor;an1isu on uste

3. Signature: #_/.#.6 m y u. (Accrovec/Progra, P.anager)
              • ese e e
  • ammme < = . eme w.ien eneman. -- .-*-*******-********"*******'+*' **' * *
  • filc Ne. 967

]

Filo R:visica na. 5

,[ "

1. Res:lution of an: C Open Item: O Class Error
2. Independent Design Ver_ification Program Resolution is as:
a. d Clo:cd Item -

i b. D Deviation (c-2

c. O Open. Item with future action by PGIE: Task
3. Date Reported to PGLE 820910 4 Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. Sep tember
5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

i _

E0I 967'Rev. 4: Some of the Intake Structure maximum absolute accelerations contained in Table 1-53 of the Hosgri Report differ from those in the $ay 1979 Blume Report.

(- .

6. Program Resolution is: _

Sased on the PG&E presentations on August 6, i982 and' September 1,1982 the Intake Structure is in reanaly' sis in the PGandE Internal Technical Program. -

File 967 is combined into file 1022, an Error Class A or B also .-

concerning the Intake Structure. Therefore, file 967 is c.lcsed.

\- 7. Potential Progran P.c:o lution .

Report signed by Edward Denison (RL on 820907 i voc 4cet/Orge.::,CA) u at ica cage

.e. . 5ignature: 72 / 810910 (Ap;)covcd/ Program Mar.agerj

.a .I r > FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET -

File No. 976 1 -

1. Classification . ~ Revision No.

Error Class (A, B, C or D) .

~

l Deviation ,

g. .  : .
i. Closed..Itec . ,

.. . . _ _ _ . . . . . . .) .

2. .

Documentation Reviewed .

Rcher: L. Cloud Associates, Inc. Design Verifi'catica Program - Seismic Service Rala:ed Centracts Prior to Jt:ne 1978 - Revision 1 - Phase 1 - Section 8.0.

3. Reported.to?dandE Transmittal Date 3/22/82- ..
4. D escrip tion

~he E>=erier Centai._ ent specca w: 4 st:perseded by the UKS/ Bit =e Report isssued c'.- Jt=a 5, 1977. Ecwaver no transmittal to Westingh:tse of this spec:ra could ba loca:ed. -

5. Final Resolution Tne current prog: zs requires that RICA verify the trans:it:al of spectra _Scm FCandE to Westinghouse. This item is therefore closed, b e .

O,.sw ^ J e/ w .c -~

3 22- s1 P roj cet Eng,1.neer/Date

. To ndicate RLCA Finci Resolucica

y .. ,

.9 .

'= 0 ERROR REPORT . File No. 978 Class:

C File Revision No. 2 ,

( . A,S,C or 0 PGLE Task No. 70050

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee Not Acolicable Program Review Committee Action nnt Anolica51e Reported to PG&E and Originator apnso7
2. Scheduled.for TES Semimonthly Report No. Ic ,
3. Structure (s), system (s), er component (s) involved: '

Regenerative Heat Exchanger ,

J. Description of Error:

For the vertical direction, two-thirds of the filtered horizental spectrum was used in the analysis. The Hosgri report states that two-thirds of the unfiltered horizontal response spectra is to be used as the response spectra for the vertical direction. The analysis has been revised to reflect the correct vertical acceleration.

5. Significance of Error:

({ ,

All stresses are below allowable.

5. Racc mencation:

Error Class C k-

7. Poten:ial Error Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 320510 Type Name/Gegan t:a:icn Cate
3. Signatures: Not Acolicable D 8 d"' ~

For ?regram Review CJmmt :ee a;prevec/Prcgram llanager

m

  • F2.ic No. 981

_ ERROR AND'OPEN ITEM SITEET 1.. Classification - -

.')

(- l Error .

Error Classification , l or ]Cass (A, B, C, or D)

] Open Item . . .

-2. Descrip tion . ' 3. 3 ' 2. 4. 3 Buried Pipelines The buried pipelines connecting the Intake Structuie to the Turbine Building were qualified by.PGandE with input from URS/Blume. .

PGandE's qualification work was. independently. checked by Harding- -

. Lawsen Associates, using input from URS/Blume.(see Log 7). The inpyt used in . the above two studies will be verified in the overall reverification * .,-

program'.. '

.3. Significance *

.. .. ',Noted in "Prel1=inary Report, Seismic Rev'rificati.on e . .

. Report, Seismic Reverification'Piogram - No'vember. 12;

.,y . . .. .. . .. .

1951" r_. .

4.' Reco==endation '

(' 2

'.~

. s .

.This w

' ill ,be specifically covered by RLCA in the current program. . -

5. Reported. * '

~ -

@ PGa'ndE Transmittal Date 2/8/82 -

~

NRC Ref. & Date See above *

6. Final Resolution . .

<av c .,s y 2 I 3~2.- N ., b

. .Si;;ned/ ca.tc '

Pro.lant Engineer /ur.cc '

Prior to Release P:oject Accans=trator/uate '

. u -,, m ., n-- i..-4--

ERROR REPORT ~ File N3. 983-

, , Class: A - File Revision No. 2 A,B,C or 0

(- 1. Cates:- Reported to Program Review Committee Program Review Committee Action N/A N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 820910

,2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly. Report No. September ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Electrical Raceways 4 Cescription of Error:

Reported as Error Class A in Revision 1 of this file.

Nine of the twenty raceway support seismic calculations were found to have been done with inapplicable spectra.

5. Significance of Error: -

C

6. Recc mendaticn:

Revision 2 of this file is issued to include E0I Files 910 and

  • 930 into this cne file which had been classified as an Error Class A in Revision 1.

( 7. Potential Error Report signed by Mr. R. L. Cloud (RLCA) on 820206

3. Signatures: Typename/Gyn17ation 82g.;vc N/A Mg_

For Program Review Cc.mit:ce Approvec/ Program Manager

. . . _......~=a..u..=-- . .

.- . - - ......n..- . :--mn -

  • i ' '

PROGRAM RESOLUTIO 1 REPORT i' .

File No. 986

'i

  • j . Fil'e Revision No. 5 I = ' :- 1. Resolution of an:' EK0 pen item: C3 Class Error j-(
2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:
a. EX Closed Item

,. b. C3 Deviation i c. C3 Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task -

'l 3. Date Reported to PG&E 820722 i 4. Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. August

5. Resolution based on the following documentation

Since the final verttcal control room spectra are higher than the preliminary.

. spectra, a detailed review of equipment qualification will be necessary in the overall reverification program to ensure that the equipment was

, conservatively qualified.

Based on the PGandE presentation (July 14-16,1982) of their internal technical program auxiliary butiding is being completely reavaly:ed.

.( .

6. Program Resciution is: ,

9 This E0I is combined with E01 1097 as an Error Class A or 3.

E0I 986 is therefore closed.

o o-l

(, 7. Po:cr.till Progra.9 Rc:olution .

Sf M I SI9 hod Dy J 1rd 0+ nit L GLCA) on 920721 i de ioMe/Yrgd:112ition Oa:o

3. Sign 3ture: M [ ,, 74 0 % (Aggr;vad / Program .'#.anager)

PROGRAM RE50t.UT!0t: REPORT.

File tio. 1002 s s File Revision No.

4

~

1. Resolution of an: m Open Item: O Class Error *
2. Independent Design ~ Verification Program Resolution is as: .

z (_- a. 6 Closed Item

b. O Deviation
c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: 70074 Task ,

-3. Date Reported to PG&E 820623 -

4 -Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 16

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E0I 1002 Rev. 0: Calculations for Supply Fans 567, 68, and 69 were found to have used incorrect and unconservative seismic inputs. In addition, the forced draft shutter damper qualification showed incorrect seismic definition because gravity had not been added to the vertical acceleration. .

P105-4-1002-004: Rev.1 of Supply Fan calculation and examination ~ of Damper Factor of Safety. .

P105-4-446-005: Fan and Damper calculations.

FG&E drawing 59322 Rev.17 .

PG&E drawing 501:00 Rev.11, Unit II drawing including Unit I modification (1979)

PlC5-4-591.5-093: RLCA Field Notes 1979 modification.

RLCA has reviewed the revised qualification analysis to confirm that the proper seismic inp'ut were used and that no modifications to Fans were made as a result

.( of EGI 1002.

5. Program Resolutten is: .

TIS has reviewed RLCA actions and concur. Closed Item.

i b

i

7. Potential Program Reso lution Rep rt signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) on ' 820521 Type tiart/0rganiz ati:n Date
3. Signature:. f u h & 0# % %.820523 (A: proved / Program Manager) d I /

~

.Y.;: A r:..L.:. d C./..:.*_: 1:2fM ,

. -, File Revision t:o. .

4

. r 1. Resolution of an: E .Op.n Ite:::: O Class Error-

2. Recomended Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is a:,:

p- a. O Closed Itcin .

T. b. O Deviation -

c. O Open Item with future action b" PGi!
3. Date Reported to Program Manager 6/9/82 ,
4. Report submitted on behalf of RLCA (Organization)
5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E01 1004 Revision 0: Documentation of one transmiti.a1 of seistic infon::ation from PGandE to WestinEh ouse has been found to date.

liowever, this transmittal contains' only the Newmark earthquake ,

acceleration time histories for the Containment Interior at certain elevations. Noted in " Preliminary Report, Seismic Re-verification Report, Seismic Reverification Program - November 127 1951". .

P105-4-593-143 Telecon: R. Wray of TES infor=s RLCA that the .

interface between PGandE and Westinghouse has been confirmed by TES action. .

  • TE'. :YN I::;r:Etr:::s stevt: Er CONTROLLED

.. , DOCUMENT ' '

g, TES PRC.:. t.O. Sql 1 - '

( .

OATE (c. ( 0. Jrp , -

6. Program Resolution is:

Closed Item

.\

1..

7.

Signature: _

kbd '

(Rccomnended by) '

. ch/n

"t f FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 1009 1

h1.' Classification

. . Revision No.

( .

Er cr Class (A, B, C or D)

Deviation .

x Closed Item

2. Docu=entation Reviewed Design verification Program--Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978--Revision 1, Phase 1. ,

3/9/82.

Reported to PGandE Transmittal Date -

r.

4

Description:

From the ll/12T81 Prelf-4"ary Report- No docu=ent-ation has been found to date regarding for=al transmittals of spectra.from PGandE to Wyle. Labs.

5. Final Resolution ,,..,

RLCA has examined 7 groups of F.lectrical Equipment qualified by Wyle testing. Two E0I's have been issued as a result of these independent calculations: 1013 and -

1049.

This interface has been covered under the current prograc--

therefore E0I 1005 is closed.

$k <

L--L .0andx~

Project Engineer /Date 3 <t e 2.

To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

FINAL' RESOLUTION SiEZT Filo No. d'A'RI

-l' &

1 . Clacsification R3 vision No. 1 3 ,-

~ "

Error Class (A, B, Cfor D) -

E

! . Deviation

  • 74.+ -

T Closed Itan 3 g .. . .

0 2 .' ., Docu=entation Reviewed .

Design Verification Program--Seismic' Service Related' Contracts

. Prior to June 1978--Revision 1, Phase I.

. [3. 3/9/gi' '

Reported.to PGandE Transmittal Date

..{

4.- ~ Description --From the 11/12/81 Preliminary Report--

'Trans=ittals betwedn PGandE and. their consultants of electrical cquipment infor=ation do not satisfactorily document the interface. .,

s

5. Final Resolution _

Tho Phase I sa=ple includes 7 groups of electrical equipment qualified by consultant testing. This interface is covered and therefore E0I.1007 is closed.

WCW C% V C'%. b@ %

Proj ec: Er.p;ineer/Date

. To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

1 /. g

- . ?'-

' .~ ,

t -

Q c, 3'.k,; r ( 7;, 'g r y' t .~ ,,(lje n 4% ,

ERROR ~ REPORT ..

File No. J Q jL 'y Class: C4 File Revisiin No. .M't *

, V.

/,A,8,C or 0 ~ '

PGLE Task No.

- <._ s

, 3

1. Dates,:- Reperted to Program Review Comittee ' tot acclicable" / <

ProgramRleviewCommitteeAction noe wj,14 a1.  %- T[', , f, Reported .to -PG&E and Originator __,e %-Aq -y ,

2. Scheduled for-1ES.Senimenthly Report No. ' F;

~'

(Y t -

3. Structure (s), system (s), er component (s) involyes:
  • 8 S.1 , ,

eda *' 3 )

MainAnnunciatoECabinetDrawingOc65.!!@Y-75-l* .< "

w I A r ,

4 Description of Error:^ <, e j'

The Hosgri spe,tra referenced in ths.PG&E analysis, Orawing 'QC663101-75';1, are preliminary spectra (4/4/77). Yhis item rep re sents .c.an incorfect '

engineering input because t spectra differ - frcm the He's'gri -

scectra. ','hi '4/4/77 .m.'-

m -

.n .

[ g ,, a '

+ ,; . .

. ,.p <

4.'-

\

.- t

,f.

i

/ . ';

, 7, . ,.

5. Significance of Error: a i T',,w .

O'!P indecendent analysis lUndica'ces that alicwlbles cre not exceeded as a i

v5 result of the differences in spectra and ther9 fore ' E0I 1008 is .an error. *<

Ciass C. File 9'9 1 (ErroF,Ulass A cr 3) c~ Main Annunciator Cabinets ,E [

a:Oresses err:necus assgocien of rigidity fo" N-S cirecticn in the 73&E w~'

analysis. / - -

y  :

~

.M (

,., ,. y ,, .

5. Raccr encation: , f ,

t J

?GLE to incarcerate correct Hasg'ri dectra 'in their reevaluatien' of. .

3 cabinet in ressense to the, concerns'of File 9/3. '

,f .

/

8 ,e

  • /
  • ===

r ..

t. .

7 Potential Error Rescrt signed by Edward Cenison/RLCA cn' 32031!

Type l ame/Gegan1:at1cn Oate'

3. Signatbres: .Not Acolicable  % ht' d'-_
  • ~

f cr Program Review Commt::ee Ac;revec/Fregram :1anager

, .. S.

} ,, . - . . _ . - . . . , , - . , - - . - - - . - - - W+----- - - - - - - - ~

, _, mauw, unnxa m.s wwm r f. b;N' . Tile fio. inog

.h ,: ;

.~

  • file Revision !!c.

c- :W a 5 t.

~

l.3 Resolution of an: 'tu Open Item:

,g., s O Class Error 4 ' 2.31n' dependent Design Verification Program' Resolution is as:

!u ~

- 'v a. O Cibecd Item

~'

i b. O Deilation

c. O Open / Item with future action by PG&E: Task t 3. Date Repceted to PGLE 820910 4.

[' * .

5.

Scheduled i fer TES Semicontn ly Report tio.

Resolution based en the following docum ntation:

Sectember s :. .

E01 1009 Rev. -4: Spectra have not been provided or scaling criteria defined for support locations above elevation 140' for the Containment

. Interior.

J ,

A

jY '

'j.z. .

(k, L

4.a

~

.s , -

5. Program Resolution is:

Based on the PGandE presentation c,n August 6 and September 1,1982,

,the Centainment Structure is being reanalyzed or reviewed as part y

of the PGandE Internal Technical Program. Therefore, this E01 -

. Flie 1009 is comoined into E0! 1014, wnich also pertains to the

~ Cantiinment Structure, and this file is closed.

s s

, . r. . . . -

.j '7. ryat'ential Program Re:o lutica jL Report signed cy Edward Denison (RLCA) on 320907 s .

T f/ ( yic ti m /0,geR 820910 z uien Gate

!' S. S ignmre: (A:provad/ Program ::anager) i 6

v -

% 0

_ '[

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT

f.
  • 1010

. File ho. -

~

, File Revisien No. s

~

1. Resolution of an: 3 Open Item: O Class Error b')'
2. Incepencent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:
a. Q Closed Item s
b. O Deviation 1 -

f 71, '

c. O Open Item with future action by.PG&E: Task
3. Date Reported to PG&E 8?O722 4 Schedu led for TES Semimontn ly. Report No. - August t 5. Resolution based on.the following documentation:

, Spectra have not been provided or scaling criteria defined for support locatiens above elevation 140' for the Turbine Building.

. The Turbine Building is being reevaluated (as-built vs.

analysis) in the PG&E internal technical program'as presented on July 14 16, 1982, a

~

5. Program Resolutien is: i .

This E0I is combined with E0I 1026 as an Error Class A cr 3.

E01 1010 is therefore closed.

t

.7. Po:ential Progran Re:clution .

Reccet signec by Edward Denison/RLCA on 820721

,% IV '

N, Yate

. 5ignature: 2 j ? d .,pe 'sa.?e/Organizition re.o 3 f (A::::covec/ Program Mar.ager)
t. . . .

. A-FINhtRESOLUTIONSHEET File No. 1011

e. - . . 1

- Revision No. i Classification ,

i. [ .

Error Class (A, B, C or D)  :

i 2 .

l l

Q Deviation -

f Closed Item -

1

'2.I Docu=entation Reviewed .- --

PGandE Disel Generator Oil Pricing Tank analysis File 129.10, -

Revision 0, 12/27/77 ,

?105-4-550-001 RLCA . comparison of spectra. .

s

! ~ '" .. Reported to ?GandE Transmittal Date 3/17/82-A s. .

4. Description The Hosgri spectra attached to the PGandE analysis for the Oil Pricing Tank are preliminary _ spectra.
5. Final Resolution .

The preliminary spectra are idantical to the Hosgri spectra. The

-accelerations used in the calculation are correct, therefore this item is deviation.

st

' 7 &Mh 3, l 7 _ h 1

Project En.e.ine e r/Da te

- To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

,...m....w_

, . OPf 3 ITEt4 krPoa7 File no. 1013 ,

File Revision No. 4

1. 04tc repcr ed to PG&F and RLCA p7n77,3 m*

. .khtedu le.: for (Originator)~ 53.3isonthly Report No. -Aucust .

(* ]. 3.

Responsive to PGl.E Tectinical Prograt::: Task (if applicaile)

. Preparert as a result of:

t. .. O 'OA /.udit and Review Re;m-t of ~ ~ ~ '
s. O Fi :% Inspectio i Deficiency -
r. O Inspeedent Calculatic:: l'eficiency J. O Seisiic Input Ocficiency ,
e. O Destyn !4ethodology Oeficiency

. i. X Ota.cf PGLE Rescrution Sheet R.R. Fray 820715 *

i. 3;.".ctur::( s), sy:te .( s) er cuap;nont(s) involved:

Group VI Electrical Equipment (Qualified by Testing)

5. -uescriptita uf Concern:

The target test spectra and the SSE test response spectra taken from the test table (Wyle Report 58255) used to qualify the Group VI Electrical Equipment did not envelop the required Hosgri spectra '(Figures 4-219 and 4-223).

As stated in the 1013 Fiel Rev. 1: The SSE test respense taken from the test taole (Wyle Report 58255) completely envelopes the required Hosgri spectra above 15 Hertz. Since the SSE test response spectra completely envelopes the required Hosgri spectra at all equipment resonant frequencies (experimentally determined), TES judges this test adequate to qualify the equipment,

. c; C' '!:r.ifictr.e$fCen::.trn:

2 Racoment: tion: .

RLCA and TES to review the PG&E response (Resolution Sheet R.R. Fray 820715) indicating no modifications and disposition this file.

s

9. sigratnec :
  1. ffy -- 820723_ (orig inator/cru.e.n izatien)

ERROR REPORT File No. 1014

(. Class: A/B A.S.C or 0 File Revision No.

PG&E Task No.

8 -

1. Ontes: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 82fff5'
2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. -Decemoer,,, , -
3. Structure (s), system (s), or . component (s) involvec :

Containment Structure

)

4 Description of Error:

E0I 1014 Revision 6: Spectra have not been provided or scaling criteria defined for the pipe rack attached to the Containment Exterior.

5. Significance of Error:

. C.

Spectra used in the design analysis of the pipe rack attached to the Containment Exterier may not.be applicable.

, c. Reconmenda tion :

3ased on the PGandE presentations on August 6 and September 1,1982, j, the Containment Structure is being reanalyzed or reviewed in the -

, -PGandE Internal Technical Program. Therefore, E0Is 977 and 1009, f which also concern the Containment Structure, are combined into this 1 file 1014, which is issued as an Error A or 8. Revision 8 is issued 4

to comoine 2006 and 3007 into this file as Errors A or 8.

7 Potential Error Report signed by NA

, _ _ on Type Name/Geg=nization

{ d. S igna tures : NA

_ f./ . g _ _

Date S21113

. For Program Review Committee Approvec/Psogram . Manager g , 1 5 - i- -

.. /d/.S~ -

ERROR AND OPEN ITEM SHEET

1. .. ' Classification E'rror - -

Error Classification -

or . . '. . d Class (A, B, C,.or D) *

. . ] Open Itect .

2.,  :

~

Description . .i.

Diesel Gen'erator. Oil Pricing Tank ., - ..

The ?GandZ quali'fication analysis (File 129.10, Revision _0, . .

,,12/27/77). .specified 4% da= ping. Regulatory Guide 1.6.1 s,pecifie's 3% dampi- * -

.. ror equipment. .- . .

... . ,... . ~ . . .. . .

......=,.,.. ...;. . . . . .. ... . :. :.

. :g;:.c ,:..

~

.M 3 . < Significance 4 -

IQ$b . . : . . . , :. . -

.;: c,n. .:n..

. . . , ..;. . .. q. -: . - c.: . ...:... :. . . .

, s-.. , . ... .

v.. . ..

dLPGan'd2 resu'lts ire less'..than half of the allowable. *

.Q.QThe.calcluate$iRLCA .4xanination showed only a slight change in the ?GandE result -

' 'Itr':h. revised damoing value. - .

. e, . ~. ; .. . .

.- .+ i. .. , e ..... . u.: . r.c ...

. ,:. ...c. . >.

.......c .*.

.. ~- . . *

~

  • . ***A..-. ...*.  ;.:e ; ... . . '.- ,s *. .- .

~. .

Recon =endation

/' . 4.- . .

- (. ..,

. ,A reco endatk.on will be provided upon completien of the .ndep en- .-

- dent calculations for the generic equipcent. sample. ,

5. ' Reported- .

2/11 /87 '

(ij PGandE

  • Transmittal Date Ref. & Date .

U NRC -

, , ~ ~ -

6. Final Resolution .

Secti'on 5.2.1 of chai Hosgri Report per.J.cs 4% damping ror ,

... components (excluding reactor pressure vessel internals) . . . "

Therefore the danping value used 'oy PGandE is correct. -

i 1

l .

(-

L G ax nw' Sfgned/ Date -

4 ez-

~

r Froject Engineer /Dacc wiuCw 2 lll j.

- - Prior'to. Release ,

d2 M.'-- .

-y O m "l /3 82 a

p r.n i ec : ?.c:Lntstra arjueces t-

-- - . - , . - . - . , , - ~ -- .- , .- -

s

~

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET .

File No. 1020

' .- 1

/-

Revision No. .

U ' '1. Classification, .. ,

Class (A, 3, C or D)

Error

'I j

{fDeviation l Closed'Itea -

1 .

' ' - J _.

'2 .

Docu=entation Reviewed .

PGandE Auxiliary Saltwater Pu=p analysis File 116.31", Revision 'O, 12/27/77. ,

?105-4-550-006 RLCA co=parison of spectra.

Transmittal Date 3/17/82 (b. 3.

Rec. orted .co ?GandR 4.- Description The Ecsgri spectra attached to the FGandE analysis for the Auxiliary Saltwater Pu=p are preliminary spectra.

w.

5.. Final Resciution The preliminary spectra are identical to the H:sgri spectra. The accelerations used in the calculations are correct, therefore this iten is a deviation.

fd iu./ m c $ \ i n 3 la R L t Project Engineer /Date To Indicc e RLCA Final Resolu icn

. . FRRO?. REPO.1T File No. 1022 Class: A/B File Revision No. S A,B,C or 0~ 70093 PG&E Task No. -

1.

Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A Program Review Committee Actica N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 820910

2. Scheduled for TES Semiconthly Report No. Sectemoer , .
3. Structure (s), system (s), cr component (s) involvec:

Intake Structure.

4. Description of Error:.

E0I 1022 Rev. 4: The upper Auxiliary Salt Water Pump support is located ten feet above elevation *-2.1 ft. Spectra applicable at -2.1 feet were used as input for the upper pump support.

S. Significance of Error:

Scectra used.in the design analysis may not be applicable to Auxiliary.

J Salt Water Pump upper support.

6. Recormendation:

Based on the PGandE presentations on August 5 and September 1,1982, ,

tne Intake Structure is 'in reanalysis in the PGandE Internal Technical '_

Program. Files 967 and 988, which also pertain to the Intake Structure, have been combined into this file,1022, wnich is issued as an Error- Class A or 3;

7. Potenti;l Error' Repcrt signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) 820907 on Type Name/Gromivtion non S. Signatures: s/: fffg_ 6F310 f or Program Rev ie.. C::=1: tee Approvec/7eogram Manager

,- ___.~_m.-..-._ __._..m.__m .

, a

  • PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT ~

File No. 1025 File Revision No. 5 M'% 1. Resolution of an: q Open Item: O Class Error -

(# 2. Independent Design verification Program Resolution is as:

a. Q Closed Item
b. O Deviation .
c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task 3.. Date Reported to PG&E u90799
4. Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. Auoust -
5. Resolution based on, the folloying documentation:

The Hosgri Report does not include vertical spectra for the Turbine Building eievation 104' bents 16-20. Spectra .

for the Cardox Tank Support may not be applicable for the entire region - bents 16-20.

The Turbine Building is being reevaluated (as-built vs.

analysis) in the PG&E internal technical program as presented on July 14-16, 1982.

5. Progez Resolution is: -

E0I 1025 is combined with E0I 1026 as an Error Class A or B.

E01 1025 is therefore closed.

4 s 7. Potential Program Re:olution .

Recor signec ::y u.m non 4sen /qtcA on 820721 Cate

3. Signature: hM ' _ iyptlia*[*/Or:antziticnf.

fw, t, 7 [(Approved

,.E /Progra9 :42r.ag er)

Le ., 'O

.* ERROR REPORT , File No. 1026 -

3' .

Class: A or a File Revision No. 5 A,S,

"( 't or 0 PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee N/A .

, Program Review Committee Action 9/a Reported to PG&E and Originator apo722

2. Scheduled for.TES Semimenthly Report No. 3, ,n, , e . ,
3. Structure (s), system (s,), or compo,nent(s) involvec:

Turbine Building-

4. Description of Error:

The Hosgri Report does not include spectra for several areas of the Turbine Building that support Class I electrical '

conduit. The March 1980 Blume Turbine Building Report contains spectra for these areas O

5. Significance of Error:

_( The' Turbine Building is being reevaluated (as built vs.

analysis) in the PG&E internal technical program as presented en July 14 16, 1982. ,

r

6. -Recommendation:

E0I 1026 is combined with E0Is 982, 984, 989,1010,1025 and 1026. Error Class A or B. .

7. ?otential Error Report signed by es.m .s n o..e .joi es on a207?1
s. Type name/ Organization Date
3. Signatures: NAs 2, p #_ pt , n .-

for Program Review Cc=mittee Approvec/ Program Manager

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

,._m._.. ~_..._.e _ . . . .. .__. . . .

.. PROGRAM -RESOLUTIO t REPORT File No. 1028

  • ['* ,

File Revision No. c

,,q .

y -1. Resolution of an: 32 Ocen Item: O Class Error .

,. (

2. !ncependent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

. - a. O Closed Item

b. O Deviation

! c. EX Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 70112 -

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820713 '

4 Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. August

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E0I 1028, Revision 0: The URS/Blume Auxiliary Building Report-October 1979 page la appears to specify a methodology for calculating A g that differs from-the Hosgri Report. In the 1979 Blume Report, an additionai co-directional response is to be combined with Ag on the SRSS basis.

(AH = maximum horizontal acceleration).

P105-4-200-010 C-17 Revision 1 Controlled Hosgri Spectra.

C

5. Prt; ram Resolutica is:

CC:1 C-17 Revision 1 clearly defines methods for combining responses, however, the acplication of these methods is not specified.

PG&E to define the applicable method for combining responses for each building and all piping, equipment and components. PG&E should cite the studies referred to that demonstrate the acceptability of 2-0 absolute

- sum versus 3-0 SRSS method for combining directional responses.

Ocen Item with future action by PG&E.

=

. 7. Pr, tin:t.11 :rog e n c o;o i.,ei :n

' Repce: ; : jnm: .. y

, Edw vj..D.cn.i $pnLP,LC,L_ , , _ _

on n207n?

Wr. !*s y:: 1: s t . ,ts

. Signn re: M/ [_;,e _ beto voyf, ( A::::ruvec/ Program Manager)

. s

  • H .e.***.r "*.ee emme aume e.. e , so - . .w ,.- - , , , , , , ,,, ,,, ,,,, , ,, , , , ,

--,.,--g ,, , , - - --- e, &

. a. .

. . . . . . . . . - - ~ -

b I, PROGRA'tNFSOLUTIONREPORT i

, file No. 1049 File Revision No. o

,! C i)' . 1. Resolution of an: -x0 Ooea Item: O Class Error

p 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resoluucn is as
-

T a. Q Closed Item

] *

b. O Deviation -- ' ' '

.; c. O Open Item with future actiori by PG&E: -Task.

3. Cate Reported to PGLE 820723
4. Scheduled for TES'Semimontnly Report No. AUGUST

, 5. Reso lution based on the folic ~ wing docu.-'entation:

P 105-4-441-007 URS/31ume Auxiliary Building Repcrt 1979 P 105-4-591.5-035 RL C A Field Notes.

E 0I 1049 Revision 5: The Unit I m ain annunciator typewriter was seismically tested using auxiliary building spectra for 104 ft, elevation,

. but is actually in the contro1 room. The control mom spectra, generated by a FE M, is generally higher than the Aux. 81gd.140 ft. spect a.

The U RS/Blume rescrt states that the control room spectra were generated using input for the walls and columns. Since the -Unit i typewriter is located 6,c t! e X Una column, t.'.a 110 ft. spectra i: :ppif::ble t: the ty: : write .

The Unit II typewriter is not so qualified and it must be shown not to be ne:::::.ry f:r Unit I:afety-re!ated functions.

? 105 a-1049-014 P G & E R esponse: - The Unit II Typewriter is not required -

fcr Uni I safe shutdown.

C-  %.

.' . :ge2.7 Ret::1uti:n is:

~

5 0I 1049 is therefere C L OSE 0, however as noted in the ITR on Addit'enal i

ter fication and 4 iditional Sampling Revision 0 a concern rem ains regar:ing test ::rocecure in::uts (including field 1ccation).

~<

7- PO! tnt ial _ Progr2a Eu;o lu tiCn .

S 0 0 ".* I sig".ed Of -

pg., g. - . Cn 320723 Ty Ic:: :: t ,1:n 0a:e

3. S i ;..2 '.a re :

~

. [ C .;= .c :/ d:607?3

_. _ _ (Ac; roves /Pr::gra, Manager)

*E(4 4 .$e99.c 9- G $ y.4, MRS6 5-G.- '.es sh ed.e.mM 6 . ' . - 8' . P

r e -- .. .

e. .- .

FINAL RESOLUTIOM SiiEET: 1053 Fila Co.

. . . . 1

1. Clas s:. rication Revtston.No.

Error Class - (A, B, C or D)

I+ -

lx -Deviation .

Closed Itect ,

.)

~ ~

Documentation Reviewed

2. . , ,

?GandE Diesel Generator Starting Air Receiver Tank analysis-- -

, File 129.10 G--2/24/78' .

Transmittal Date * ' 3 /i2 /82

3. Reported.to PGandE .

-4.- Des cription ,

The qualification analysis uses curves other than those contained in the Hosgri Report. In addition 3" damping was specified instead of 4" as given in the.Hosgri Report.

5. Final Resolution The curves attached to the qualification analysis are identical to those in the Hosgri Report: Since 3% damping represents a conservative value, this item is a deviation.

L c.

h~bAi )Ghro

_

  • 3. 2 2l W 2.

l Proj ect En.o,ineer/Da:e *

! To Indicate P.LCA Fina'. Resolutic.-

[

I

s; FINAL RESOLUTION'SF.EET File;No. -1055 x ,,-

'l. ~ Classification . . Revision No. 1 Error Class (A, . E , C ' cr D) j

  • lX Deviation l .'- .

Closed Item . .

1 .

/ ,

2. '

Docu=enta~ tion Reviewed. -

RLCA Progsess Report Nu=ber 9, Attachment G - Reco::endation

..- ~

for Additional Verification Seismic Design'and Document Contr'ol.

.c .3.

Reported.to PGandE Transmittal Date 3/19/82 ..

'r

-4. Description ,

. The current annulus spectra curves are not carked with unique identifica ica nu=bers.

5. Final Resolution RLCA has recoc= ended that PGandE assign unique numbers to the Hosgri spectra curves. As these curv.es were not controlled this item is found to be a deviation.

( .-

~

'& G r N ,_, c -. - 5 l9 S2' Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

. - . . ~ . . . .

,; . Paga 2 of 2 ERROR REPORT

  • File No. 1062

-s . File Revision No. 3 f') Class: C PG&E Task No. 70156 -

A. A,B,C, or 0
5. Significance of Error:

E0I 932 reports an overstress. E01 1062 reports stress differences greater than 15% and under allowable. The significance of the twelve .

items is as follows:

1. Support 53S/23R: E0I 932 addresses this item.
2. The design spectra is greater than or within 15% of the verification spectra - Closed.
3. Mass Lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.
4. Support 98/6R: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances

- Error Class C.

5. 3/4" Vents: These vents fall outside of the decoupling criteria

, Closed. -

5. Pipe Weight: This difference is less than 15% - Closed.

'7. Empty Pipe Weigh.t: PG&E has suppplied an operating procedure to snow that this portion of line is empty - Closed.

8. Yalve 9001A Madeiing: The design analysis valve height is dif- .

f erent by more than 15% - Error Class C.

9. Valve 9001A Weignt: This difference exceeds 15% - Error Class C.
10. Valve 9002A: Tais difference exceeds 15% - Error Class C.
11. Pipe Length: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances -Error Class C.
12. Flange: This difference exceeds 15% - Error Class C.
5. Recormiendation :

Sased on Items 4.3,9,10,11 & 12, this file is classified as an Error Class

.C. ~~

7. Poteitial Error Report signed byEdward Denison/RLCA on 820729 Type Name/Crga ' ation DATE
3. Signatures: Ar/A7 - , . 44 I N./ / - -

For Program Review Comnittee 'ipproved/#ciram Manager /#20 # a' C

~ -----.. ......._ . . . . _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ _ ... - . - ...

-^-

. . . . - . . . . _ . . . . - . . - . -........-.v-.-

Page~1 of 2' ERROR REPORT .

File No. 1062 Class: C File Revision No. 3

. A,8, or 0 PG&E Task No. 7nicg

1. Oates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A Program Review Committee Action n ~

Reported to PG&E and Originator 9?ngna

.2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 3,,- , e ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) invofvec:

RLCA Piping Analysis'100 '

4 Description of Error:

Stresses in the design and verification analyses differ by more than 15%.

RLCA changed twelve items in the verification analysis and the pipe stresses agree within 15% (8%).

1. Suoport 585/23R changed from a deadweight to vertical restraint.
2. RLCA spectra input changed to agree with spectra used in design analysis.
3. Mass lumping technique changed to agree with design analysis.
a. Y Suppcit pertion of 98/6R moved l'-6" south to supper: 98/lllR.

I Supper portien of 98/6R moved l'.6" north.

( 5. Ceieted 3/4" vent lines en line 264-8".

5. Changed a section of pipe weight from 3.083 lbs/in. to 3.4151bs/in.
7. Changed a section of pipe weight from 3.083 lbs/in. to 1.116 lbs/in.

(Full to Empty)

3. Changed height of valve 9001A from 19.75" to 15" and the valve stem 0.0. from 4" to 8".
9. Changed concentrated weignt of valve 9001A from 430 lbs. to 600 lbs.

and uniform bcdy weight from 1.97 lbs/in. to .001 lbs/in.

10. Changed unifcrm weight of valve 9002A from 17.00 lbs/in. to 20.513 lbs/in.
11. Increase pipe length, supper: 97/23A to elbow tangent point from 3'-l 3/16" to 4'-5 1/2". -
12. Changed uniform flange (FE 931) weight from 17.17 lbs/in. to 22.12 ,

lbs/in.

(. #

',' ,_ txa0R w90RI lile No,lbb.!

. Class: C File Revision No. 2

{) A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70157 ~

~

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A Program Review Committee Action m

~

Reported to PG&E and Originator a7n7??

2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Repcrt No. Auaust- ,
3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

,. RLCA Piping Anal'ysis 07

4. Description of Error Stresses in the design and verification analyses differ by more than 15%. All stresses are below the allowable. The differences between the analyses are noted:
1. Valve 1 9003A moih Icel ar. 900 lbs. in the clee. ign analy . ie. .ind .i. ?'ll0 lhr..

In the verification analysis.

2. Spectra
3. RLCA included the weight of water content north of valve 1-9003A. PG&E has provided additional operational procedures that specify this line-emoty during operation. P-105-4-432-077 1 The design analysis does not show insulation on line 279-8.
5. the design analysis does not show a NS rigid support on line 279-8 below elevation 100_ feet.
6. Supports 585/124R and 585/30R are perpendicular to line 264. The design analysis shows these supports skew to line 264 .

7.

Support 58S/32R has k inch gaps-not active in verification analysis.

( -

8.

9.

Succor locations differ by 4 to 48 inches (58S/30R)

Pipe leg lengths differ by 74 to 24 inches (279 Z Oirection)

10. Mass Lu= ping.
5. Significance of Error:

All stresses are below the allowable. The significance of the ten items is as follows: _

l. Yalve Weight: Error Class C
2. Spectra: The peak of the spectra in the design analysis is 25". lower than the verification spectra for EW-Error Class C
3. Water Weight: Closed Item 4 Insulation: E0I 1050 addresses this item.
5. NS Rigid Support: E0I 964 addresses this item
6. Skewed Suoports: Error Class C
7. Support 58S/32R Gaps: E0I 963 addresses this item

.8. Support locations: Error Class C .

9. Pipe leg lengths: Error Class C
10. Mass Lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item. ._
6. Recomendation:

Based on Items 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9, this file is classified as an Error Class C

/. I oten t :.ii t eror ReporL s hjnt il by [ .llen i':nn/R LCA on 820710

3. Signatures:

For Program . Review Committee N/A d Approvec/Progrt:i Manager

. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ ,2-.._-..,__, . - , . . , _

d"7.5L%Tu% *r52 %*A=D r Revision No.

  • =

0 R

i QUALITY ASSURANCE - FINDINGS- ..-

1. Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2. Description ,

A general weakndss existed iIt internal and exchrnal interface and docu=ent controls. This questions whether appropriate design infor.ation was bein~g exchanged and utilized by design groups and con-sultants. One concern is if the latest Hosgri ,,

seismic data was inputted for design analysis.

3. Recom.endatten - Correcti.ve Action m . .

( . .

4. Reported to 2GandE. Transmittal Date 3/15/82 .

m N ~

l5 $2. Sbuwz- g nbt. w 3 iG b L Signe y ace. " / ' Eroj ect Engineer /Date

[ .,

t

5. Final Resolution -:

l l

l l

_L .

! Project Engineer / Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

File No.1068 0

. Revision No.

th

. QUAL 1TY ASSURANCE - FINDINGS _ ,

1. Company: URS/Blu=e .
2. Description : The Hosgri Report was not developed or issued by UES /31c=e as a c6ntrolled design.docu=ent .

d 3.

Reco==enda.cfon.- Corrective Action .

~.

~

'{ .

4. Reported to PGandE Transmittal Dats ' '3/15/82

/ h .

O .

2 b$co kcCu 31561.

Si ee'/ Date. ' / Proj ect Engineer /Date ,

5. Final Resolution
- L. ..
- FrojCC- ng,ineer/ Da OS

. a. . . . w s. . . ~ v. . - - . -. -. . - . . ,--.-._n,_......._~

,; i', .

~~

  • ERROR REPORT . File No. 1071 Class: c File Revision No. 3 .

A,S, r0 PG&E Task No. 70166 5

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee sua Program Review Committee Action .au A

~

Reported to PG&E and Originator a20a11

2. Scheduled for-TES Semimonthly Report No. Auaust .
3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involvec:

RLCA Piping Analysis 109 4 Cescription of Error:

Stresses in the-design and verification analyses differ by more than 15%

( 91.9%) . RLCA changed five items in.the independent analysis P105-4-521 020 Rev 0 and the pipe stresses agree within 15% (12.5%).

1. RLCA spectra input changed to agree with spectra used in the-design analysis.
2. Mass lumping . technique changed.
3. Supports were added to valves LCV-113 and 115.

4 RLCA removed the 3x2 swages at valves LCV-113 and 115.

5. RLCA removed the X directicn restraint at support 585/69R.

'5. Significance.of Error: '

.( - RLCA piping analysis 109 showed stresses to exceed- the allowable. ECI 1C69 reports the overstress. E0I 1071 reports stress differences greater nan 15% but not exceeding the allowable. The significance of the five items is as follows:

1. Spectra : The design spectra are within 15% of the verificatter spectra-(frequency and accelerations). Closed' Item.
2. Mass Lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.
3. Added Supports: E0I 1069 addresses this item.

4 Swages: Error Class C.

5. 58S/69R: E0I 953 addresses this item.
5. Retamendation:

The 3x2 swages were incorrectly modeled in the design analysis - Error-Class C. ,

~

- -' 7 P0tential Error Repcrt signed by Edward Cenison/RLCA on 320710

  • Iype Name/Geganizaticn Date
5. Signatures: tu4 2/f f~ nop ri For Program Review Committee Approvec/ Program Manager

iile !!c. 1072 File Revision tio. 1

, , ]

.. Resolution of an: G Opan' Item: O Class Error

2. Recom ended Independent Design Verification ~ Program Resolution is as:
a. 9 Closed-Item

([ b. 9 Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE

- ~

3. Date Reported to Program Manager 6-8-82 ,
4. Report submitted on behalf of RLCA (Organ ization) ,
5. Resolution based on the follo.ving documentation: ,

E01 1072 Revision 0: The PGandE and RLCA calculated' stresses differ by more.than 15%. All stresses are below allowable.

The following reasons have -been established for the 'diffe'rences.

The des'ign didn' t evaluate ch'e coupled sys tem and b'ase.p1'at'a .

. anchor bolt flexibility. In addition the spectra used'in the

. qualification s - ary are not the Hosgri sp,ectra. -

TE' EDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICE 5 '

. CONTROLLED

' ~

. . DOCUMENT .

TES PRdl. NO. M 1I DATE JUN 9 1951

~ .

-6. Program Resolution is:

The spectra used in the qualification su==ary are identical to the Hosgri spectra, except for the identification numbers. Since the spectra were not contained in a controlled document, th'is item is a deviation. '

- The RLCA analysis considered the coupled system and base plate anchor. bolt flexibility.

The design analysis did not consider this item. This explains the stress differences. .

Closed Item.

I \~ , _ r .{ .7. Signature: d oM kL(A (Recem: ended by) 6/9/F2. ,

t

_. - - -- - - - - - ~ -

^

'I

. ERROR REPORT ,

File No. 1074 Class: C File Revision No. 2' '

_ ; {..] y A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. '70169

1. . Dates: Reported to Program Review Comnittee N/A ~

Program Review Committee Action ii/A

'~

Reported to PG&E and Originator deudco ,

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. August ,

-3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involvec:

RLCA Piping Analysis lbl.

4. Description of Error:

Stresses in the design and verification analyses differ by more than 15% (20.3%). RLCA changed four items. in the independent analysis P105 4-521-022

~ Revision 1 and the pipe stresses agreed within 15% (14.8%).

1. RLCA spectra input changed to agree with spectra used in design analysis .
2. Mass lumping technique changed to agree with design analysis.
3. 'lalve 2821A oriented horizontally (E0I 947).

4 Flange weight as 17.00 lbs/in (design analysis) rather than 19.07 lbs/in (independent analysis). ,

( 5. Significarce of Ereor:

All stresses'are below~70% of the allowable. The significance of the four items is as follows:

'l. Spectra: The des'gn spectra does not envelope Hosgri Figure 4-136.

2. Mass Lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.
a. Valve: E01 947 addresses this item.

4 Flange: Weight agrees within 15% - Closed Item.

6. Recommendation:

The Design Scectra does not envelope the required Hosgri Scectra Error Class C. _

. 7 Potential Error Report signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) on 320613 b* Type name/Oroantritten Date S. Signatures: N/A f or Program Review Committee ML gy Approvec/Pfogram Manager r . . . . . . ... _

l

, ,p .- ,- ,,--,,.r-,. -. . , ,. . - . ,--r - - -

.. l l

.Page 2 of 2 '

ERROR REPORT File'No. 1080

. CLASS: c ' File Revision No. 2 l b **

PG&E Task No. 70179

~

l

10. Mass Lumping '
11. Line 930-3" is decoupled from the base 14".line-in the verificatien analysis and included in the design analysis.
5. Significance of Error:
1. Spectra: The: design spectra is above or within 15 % of the ver.ificaticn spectra--Closed Item.
2. Valves: The design analysis does not consider the valve eccen-tricity. Since the three valves are non-remote operated valves, the eccentricity effects are minar--Closed Item.
3. RHR Pump: The mcdel of the RHR Pump in the design analysis utilized boundary conditions which were not completely justified. To insure adequate design, boundary condition sensitivity should have been

. considered--Error Class C.

4 E:g This dif.ference is less than 15%--Closed Item.

5. 14" Tee : The weight difference is less than 15%--Closed Item.

k<.

6. Flange Weight: This weight difference exceeds 15%--Error Class C.
7. Valve 1-8700A: Both analyses model a rigid ivalve stem. In addition, the weights agree within 15%--Closed Item.
3. Model dimensions: The locatien of support 72/2R differs by more than the 79-14 tolerances--Error Class C. ,
9. Snubber Orientation : These differences exceed the 79-14 to ler-ances--Error Class C.
10. Mass Lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.
11. Line 930-3": The RLCA criteria provides fer decoupling lines with an 00 ratio of 4--Closed Item.
6. Recomendation :

3ased on Items 3, 6, 8, & 9, this file is classified as an Error Class C.

7. ?ctential Error Repcrt signed by _ Edward Denison/RLCA cn ---_

Type Name/Criginator Date

3. Signatures: N/A Fce Program Review Ccmittee

.sI/8eaI [b 8 /b

~

Approve //programMana(er s

Page 1 of 2 ERROR REPORT File No. men Class: r F.fle Revision No. 9 A,6,C or &

-h

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee vis Prcgram Review Committee Action yea Reported to PG&E and Originator

. 2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. e. .. %,. ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involvec:

RLCA Piping Analysis 103 4 Description of Error:

1. Spectra
2. Valves 1-8724A, 1-8726A and 1-872SA were modeled in the design analysis with an 00 of 8.947" and 447 lbs at the valve bcdy center.

The verificatien analysis has these valves modeled with an 00 of 8.625" and 412 lbs at the valve center of gravity together with a distributed weight of 50 lbs alcng the valve body.

3. The RHR Pump was modeled in the design analysis by lumping the mass at the center of gravity and restraining the- rocking and vertical degrees of freedom at the base. This pump was medeled in the ,

verification analysis by using a multi mass stick model and restraining the vertical and lateral degrees of freedom at the base. The , RHR Pump rests on a sliding base, two additional ,

verificatien analyses were run, one assuming a free base and one '

assuming a fixed base.

k< -

4 Thg design and verifpaticn analyses input the value of Eu as 25.4 x 10 psiandg.6x10 psi, respytively, for lines 1663 fnd 112 and as 26.6 x 10 psi and 27.9 x 10 psi respectively for line 512;

5. The 14" tee was modeled in the" design analysis by using equivalent pipe sections (350lbs) and in the verification analysis by using fabrication data (3941bs).
6. The flange uniens adjacent to the RHR Pump suction nozzle are modeled in the design analysis as 889 lbs and in the verification analysis as 534 lbs.
7. Valve 1-8700A was modeled in the design analysis with a thickness of 6.50" and a total wight of 2660 lbs. The verification analysis .

mcoeled this valve with a thickness of .876 in., a distributed weight of 6.10 lbs/in along the stem and a total weight of 2513 lbs. -

8. Several differences in overall mcdel dimensions were noted including a 22.5 inch difference in the location of support 72/2R.
9. Snubbers 4/22 SL and 4/j3 SL on tge RHR pump are modeled in the design analysis as 11 and 100 from the positive x-axis, re The verification analysis modeled these snubbers as 40*spective1g.

and 130 from the positive x-axis, respectively.

~.

i e

--,-err a -

r wo-- ,wr,---,r,---,,v,rs- - , - - + - , - ,- ,,-r- -

. . + ..' .

1 ERROR REPORT File fio. 1081 Class: C .. File Revision flo. 2

. A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70180 -

1. Dates: Reported to Program. Review Cormittee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A
  • Repotted'to PG&E .and Originator 820831
2. Scheduled for~TES Semimonthly Report No. Septemoer ,
3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

RLCA Piping Analysi.s 104 4 Description of Error:

The stress in the verification (P105-4-521-044 Rev.1) and design (4-2 and 4-3) analyses differ by more than 15%. Five differences between - the analyses have been noted.

-1. Response Spectra.

2. Piping Component Weights
a. The design analysis models . the weight of valve FCV 431-

. at a fully restrained point.

b. The design . analysis gives the weight of FE44, 45, and 46 as 607.5 lbs. versus 996 lbs. in the verification. analysis.
3. Support locations differ by a maximum of 77 inches between
  • supports 555/2R and 55S/3R.

4 Component locations and piping lengths differ by up to 28.5 inches between FE 46 and the east side elbow.

5. Mass Lumping.

C 5. Significance of Error:

The significance,of these items is as follows:

1. Response Spectra: The design spectra does not envelop or f all within 15% of the verification spectra at all frequencies -

Error Class C.

2. Piping Component weights: This weight differs by more than 15% - Error Class C.
3. Support Locations: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances Error Class C.

4 Ccmponent Locations and Piping Lengths: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances - Error Class C.

5. Mass Lumping - E0I 1060 addresses this item.

All stresses are below allowable. *

5. Reccimendation :

3ased on items 1 thru 4, this file is classified as an Eiror Class C.

( 7 patontial Erici- Report signed by Edward Genison (RLCA) on 320824

8. 5ipu.turcc: T#PU UU*i## r0 Date N/A r or vregra.3 hav i r. Conni tTE5
  1. EIh Approve 3/P rop c,1;anager b

.----,.---.,,,-y- - .m, , - - , - , .--.----er.. ,- . - - -- - . . _ ,

Page 4 of 4

~

File No. 1084

,. ' ERROR -REPORT '

CLASS: C File Revision No. 3 A,B,C, or 0

.- (f- PG&E Task No.70187

12. Valve 88058: E0I 938 addresses this item.

.6. Recomendation -

Sased on items 1, 2a, 2d, 2e, 6, 8, & 9, this file is classified as an Error Class C. ;

7. Potential Error Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA cn 820823 Type Name/Organizatien Date
8. Signatures: N/A M[ [m_ 7ro < e s For Program Revieu Comittee Approved / Program Manager e

e d

E l . .-

I L

~

Page 3 of 4

$. - . . ERROR REPORT

. File No. 1084 CLASS: r File Revision No. 3

, A,B,C, or 0 PG&E Task No.70187

' 2. Model Weights

a. Valve 8924: This difference exceeds 15%-Error Class C.
b. Flange Union Omitted: 'E01 937 addresses-this item.
c. Insulation Line 1971: This weight difference is less than 15% of the pipe weight-Closed.
d. Flanges: ' This difference exceeds 15%-Error Class C.
e. Insulation Line 734: This weight difference isless than 15% of the pipe weight. Insulation not on . piping in field. Insulation indicated on design isometric and included in design analysis-Error Class C.
f. Valves 8805A and 88058: This difference is less than 15%-Closed.

~3. 10" Nozzles: Both techniques are acceptable engineering .

practice-Closed.

4. 3 Foot Segment: The differences in the actual pipe location fall within the 79-14 tolerances-Closed.
5. Support 73/72R Restraint:
  • E0I 939 addresses this item. -
6. Separator / Stabilizer: E0I 1098 addresses this item for effects on the in-line component. Frem the standpoint of piping-Error Class C.
7. Young's Modulus: This difference is less than 15%-Closed.
8. Overlap: The first two design analyses are overlapped near-anchor 74/6A. This anchor provides adequate restraint for

- decoup li ng-Closed . The .second overlap, at line 1456, was -

based on 2 componenets of restraint in 2 directions and an axial support north of the line 734 tee. South' of the line 734 tee, there is only 1 component of restraint in 2 directions.

Two components of restraint in each direction (minimum) are -

required to decouple the lines. Also, PG&E included a fictitious X-direction restraint at support 73/27R-Error Class +

C.

9. Spectra: This is related to item 8. RLCA model RLCA 102 includes piping at higher elevations than PG&E's in order to terminate tne mcdel with a sufficient overlap support scheme-Error Class C.
10. Branch Line: The verification analysis included the line attached to line 113-8" for overlap effects only-Closed.

i L-

11. Valve Flexibility: The design analysis reflected industry practice for the licensing basis-Closed.

<---r- s -m ,,-,,--g- -,--n--- , . , . - , y v ,-w, ,-ew,---,w--, ,e w- ,,---e. .---

y- a '

,. ., a

. .. a . .

.. ,3 ,,

" Page:2 of 4 C

..  ; *),.

ERROR REPORT' j '

'x File No. 1084

,. +y. -

p CLASS: r ,8 " Fileckavision No. 3 l- A'B'C' 0 8 *

',U, . x,/ -

FG&E Task No.70187 '%*

, f'

[

31 The verification analysis includes the '10 ' nozzles . to thes a

chsging pumps. The design analysis ends at the equipmqnt # -

interface flange. f

~ '

4. The design. analysis 8-25 modeled the 3- foot- section neas charging pump 1-2 as 1 planer 4LC and 1 rolled 600 elbow. This '

section was mcdeled in ,the verification analysis as 3 planar 45 g elbows.

7 t  !

5. f7 Support 73/72R is modeled in the desier analysis 8-25 as an X 4 restraint and in the verification'inalysis as ah XZ restraint. '"

-; 1,~

6. The separator / stabilizer suppor ttis' mode' led in tne design analysis 8-25 as an XY translationalf restraint. The.

verification analysis shows .this supp(rt ~ as an XY trans-lational and XZ rotational we,straint. *

7. The values of Ycung's! modulus differ slightly. -
8. The verification analy[is is represen'ted . bywthree design ~

analyses. .- >

,t

, s ,- .

/

, e .. -

{ 9. Spectra. s

,k

/^

10. Design analysis 8-31'in'cluded branch .line 118-8".

/

~

s -

11. Design analysis' 8-24 ' did not consider' valve 3805A &8 '

flexibility. v s m'<'

12. Valve 88058 is modeled in the design analysis 884'as vertical.'

and in the verificaticn analysis as hcrizontal *

5. Significance of Error: p

~.

All stresseis are~ belcw the allowable. The significance of the twelve items is as follows: .

1. Model Oimensions t ,
a. EW leg: This exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-Error Class C. . .-
b. Support 73/71R: . This difference, eicseds the 79-lo x tolerances-Error Class C. ws
c. Anchor 74/6A: This differer[ce exceeds ,th5 79014 ,

tolerances-Error Class C. ' N'

~

d. Support 73/72R: This difference exceeds the f  !

79-14 tolerances-Error Class C.

e. Scopert 74/36R: This difference exceeds the 79-13.

tolerances-Errte Class C.

,Aw a e 4 g

$ J

e 3 -

3

, ., .. . Page 1 of 4 ERROR REPORT File No. ,y a " %1 Class:

C

  • File Revision No. 1

[

A,B,C or 0 1( ', .,

s i PG&E Task No. w e7 -

N. 'C 1.-Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee 9ea

" r Program feview Committee Action n/a

Reported. to PG&E and Originator a;nctc M., 2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. em.,.. s . ,

'3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) ir volvec:

/ RLCA Piping Analysis.102 2 4 Gescription of Error:

Stresses in the design and verificatien analyses differ by more than 15%.

All stresses are _ belcw the allowable. Twelve differences between ene

.. analyses are noted:

1.- Model Dimensicns

'l.

a. The EW 1eg of line 44-4" including suppcrt 73-31R is shown in the design analysis 8-25 as 6'10 1/2" and in the verification analysis as 6'l 7/16".
b. ' Support 73-71R is shown in the design analysis 8-31 at P

^f elevation. 76'10" and in the verification analysis at eleveation 78'0".

> c. Anchor 74/6A is modeled in the design analyses 8-24 and 8-31 as 'l' below the tee and in the verification analysis as l'1" east of the *ee.

'l'

d. Support 73-72R is shown in the design analysis 8-31 at

. the' elbcw hcrizontal weld point and in the verification ana,1ysis as 21/2" above the elbcw vertical weld point.

/ e'

e. Suppcrt 74-36R is shown in design analysis 8-24 at elevation 96'3" and in the verification analysis at elevation 95'.
2. Mcdel Weights r
a. ' ' Yalve 8924 is mcdeled in the design analysis as 238 lbs.

and in the verification analysis as 331 lbs.

b. Design analysis 8-25 cmitted one flange union.
c. The design analysis 8-25 does not include insulation en -

line 1971. -

d. The flanges to the removable strainers adjacent to the charging pumps were medeled in the design analysis 8-25 as S5 lbs. and in the verificatien analysis as 54 lbs.
e. The design analysis 8-31 includes the weignt of insu-lation on line 734 RLCA field verification does not indicate insulatien.

f.

Valves 8805A and 88058 were modeled as 531 lbs. in the (s design analysis 8-24 and as 462 lbs. in the verificaticn

, analysis.

~ -

gY c

X ,

s .s .. r .

..- .. Page 2 of 2 ERROR REPORT , File ilo. 1085 i

Class: C s File Revision No. 3 ,

A,8,C or 0 i h PG&E Task t:o. 70188 y

. ,t '

5. Sionificance of Error (cont.):

s

8. Risers: The . dif f erence in pipe , length does not exceed the 79-14 tolerances - Closed. ~
9. Young's Modulus: The difference is less than 15% - Closed. + 4

_ c.

10. Line 19 Segment: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances - >'

Error Class C.  ;, -- ..

11. Snubber 11/59 SL: .E0I 961 addresses this item.
o. 12. Pressurizer Modeling: PGandE Open Item #22 addresses this A.. item.
13. Support Locations: The difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-

} Error Class C.

3 M

( ,

).

Y y

) ,

8 s

6. Recomendation:

5 Based on items 3, 4, ' 5, 7, 10, and 13, this file is classified .

~

g as"an Error Class C.

f

<\

k.

\'

-(. 1 h

j

7. Potential Error Repcrt signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) 820823 on Type i;ame/Geganization Date
8. .

Signa.ture s: N/A:i

  • pg ,g" s For Prcgru Havis Cor;m ttee Approved / Program I:anacer

a- W

  • File No.1085

-..  : ERROR REPORT Y^ '

Class: C .

File Revision No. 3' A,B,C or 0

'( PG&E Task No. 70188 II. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 82 nan '

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Seotemoer -
3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involvec:

RLCA Piping Analysis 105 (Design Analysis 3-5 Rev. 4)

4. Description of Error:

Stresses in the design and verification analyses differ by more than 15%. The following differences between the analyses have

~been noted: ,

1. Mass lumping.
2. Spectra. '
3. The branch line 17-6" was included in the verification. analysis and not in the design analysis.
4. The thickness of line 23 is shown in the design analysis as .

I"s and in the verification analysis as 3/8".

5. The thickness of ifnes 727, 728, and 729 is shown in the design analysis as .432" and in the verification analysis as .718".
5. The small eccentricity of Valves 1-8010 A, 8, and C was not modeled in the design analysis.

(. 7. The pipe side flanges, 3401bs., for Valves 1-8010 A, S, and C were omitted frcm the design analy's is.

8. The risers on lines 19, 20, and 21 directly below the relief valves are 4" longer in the verification analysis.
9. The valves of Young's modulus differ slightly.
10. The segment of line 19 including support ~ 11/57 SL is shown in the design analysis as 43" and in the verification analysis as 66 3/8".
11. Snubber 11/59 SL-is shown.as vertical in the design analysis and skewed in the verification analysis.
12. Pressurizer Modeling.
13. Support locations differ by 2" to 26" (48/8R).
5. Sicnificance of Error:

All stresses are belcw the allowables. The significance of the ttems are reported below:

t' . Mass lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.

2. - Spectra: The design analjsis spectra is either above or within 15% of the design spectra - Closed.
3. Scanch line: With an 0.0. ratio of 2, at a minimum the tributary 4

mass affect of the 6" line must be considered - Error Class C.

Line 23: This difference exceeds 15% - Error Class C.

, 5. Lines 727, 728, and 729 Thickness: The difference exceeds

(

6.

15% - Error Class C.

Eccentricity: This eccentricity is small comper :u .ith tne

  • valve dimensions - Closed.
7. Flanges: This additional weight is more than 15% of the valve weignt - Error Class C. ~

(continued on page 2) a p ---y ,,.----.w, , , _ . . . - - e, n,-w - - - , - ,-..,-,...,g..,,..%..,.,.r--,-~ - , . , - ,

' [,42* *..*. .

OPEfi ITEM REPORT File !!o. 1086

- i File Revision ?!o. 0

1. Octe reported to PG3E and TES 5/16/82
2. Scheduled for RLCA (Originator) Semimonthly Repcet tio. 13
3. Responsive to PG&d' Technical Program: Task (if applicat:le)

,( 4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of
b. O Field Inspection Deficiency
c. El Independent Calculation Deficiency
d. O Seismic Input Deficiency
e. O Design Methodology Deficiency
f. O Other Deficiency *
5. Structura(s), system (s) or compenent(s) involved:

RLCA Piping Analysis 108. -

6. Description of Concern:

The indepencently calculaced pipe stresses differ frca chose in the design analysis by more than 15%.

(. 7. Significance of Concern:

All stresses are below allowable.

8. P.eco=enda t ion :

RLCA to determine the reasons for the differences.

L 9- 3 iga nure: b b o  ;

_h~ h[d_Tr_L. (Or ig inator/ Organ iu:icn) ft.LcA

'.: 4.. ^

PROGRA.'t RESOLUTION REPORT

.. .*s , File tio. 1093 Fil'e Revision No. 5 O' 1. Resolution of an: " 5 0 pen item: O Class Error -

2. Incependent Design Verific. tion Program Resolution is as:

i a. EX Closed Item j, b. O Deviarim I i-

c. O Open 1 tem with futu9 action by PG&I.. TW - '
3. Oate Reported to PG&E 820/22
4. Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. . August

- 5. Resolution based on the following documentation: ,

E01 1093 Rev. O Auxiliary Building - Unit I, Hosgri Response Spectra is not available for the following areas: Fan Room Elevation 163-175 ft.,

L and 18 lines; and Ventilation Room elevation 140-165 ft., V and 64 lines.

^

Based on the PGandE presentation (July 14-16,1982) of their internal technical program the auxiliary building and fuel handling building are being completely reanalyzed.

C

6. Program Resolution is: -

This E0I is comoined with E01 1097 as an Error Class A or 3.

E0I 1093 is therefore closed.

l o

k. 7. Potential Program Reto.luticn towarc Denison (RLCA) 820721 Report signed Oy en Cate
3. S igr.a ture : M f [Iv e tame /Gegant:ition h w t. (Aoprovec/ Program P.anager)

~ ~ - - -

e , .. -- ,

e

, . 5

~

ERROR R'EPORT File No. 1007 Class: _A nr n File Revision No. 5 A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to. Program Review Committee sta

-- ~

- Program Review Committee. Action 9/a

'- - Reported to PG&E and Originator 830677

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. ,in l y
3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Building ,

4. Description of Error:

Hosgri Response Spectra is not available for the Fan / Machine Room above elevation 163'6". This area is located at the intersection of column lines H and 18 and contains Fan E-27.

5. Significance of Error:

Based on the PGandE presentation (July 14-16, 1982), of their internal technical program the Auxiliary Building is being completely reanalyzed.

6. Recommendation :

This E0I is combined with 920, 986,1029,1070, and 1093 as an Error Class A or B.

Revision 5 of this File issued to include E0I 1132 which as been combined with this File.

7. Potential Error Repcet signed by N/A on S. Signatures: Type Name/ Organization Oate N/g For Program Review Committee 1r [m ra o c .7 Approveo/ Program Manager

+ :~ -

- + ^* CPEN ITEM REPORT, File No. 1102

. RLCA File Revisicn No. a I

-.(", 1. Date reported to PG&E and TF/J 821108 .

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. %.-8.,
3. . Responsive to PG&E Tecnnical Program: Task (if applicaole)
4. Prepared as a-result of: '
a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

,f

- b. O Field Inspection Deficiency M

c. 0 Independent-Calculation Deficiency
d. O Seismic Input Deficiency
e. O Design Methodology Deficiency
5. f.10 Other(s),

Structure Ufffgfgygy)Prggram system (s or component Review(s)Comittee involved:Discussions of 11/1/82.

HVAC Damper 7A

6. Description of Concern:

Revision 3 of. this file was a Potential Error C which addresses the following issues: ,

1.. Discrepancy in damper flange thickness.

2. Incorrect vertical spectra noted in manufacturer's damper analysis.
3. Analyses do not consider damper in as-built configuraticn.

-A( The Phase I Program Review Committee discussed this file on 11/1/82 and considered the PG&E response of 10/17/82 by R. R. Fray. The discussion resulted in the following clarification and agreements.

, 1. , Discrepancy in damper flange thickness between a drawing value of

.3/4" and as-built value of 7/8" is mainly related to a weight-problem. It was determined that the weight issue was not

-significant.

2. Although the damper manufacturer analysis referenced an unconservative vertical g-level, the manufacturer actually used conservative inputs to qualify the damper.

~

3. The damper orientation is not the real issue rather it is the ,

difference in the actuator C of G location between the analysis and as-built condition.

7. Recomendaticn :

RLCA to revise their potential error report to clarify the actual issue on which their errer recomendation will be based.

b 3

/o =* ,,o

3. Signature: -7 . [ 4 m , ~ vitna (Originator /Organi:ation)

J 9 O @$ $Mg4 A$g g,. g . p gg gyg pgMg gg

. . [ w .

o Tu- i - PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT

~~

i* , File No. 1103 FiledevisionNo. 5

' (_- 1. Resolution of an: CD Open Item: O Class Error

. 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

' a. O Closed Item ~

b. O Deviation
c. di Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task j 3. Date Reported to PG&E ___ 821203 i 4. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. December 1 5. Resolution based on the following documentation: .

1 Pipe supports 18/ISL, 18/4R, 10/2SL,10/lSL and 5/10R are attached to i rupture restraints, steel plate, and building structural steel. Concern d

.1 is that local pipe supports are addressed in the qualification of the i

l supporting steel.

PGandE considers all supplementary steel between the piping and the building. structure for the 20 Hz. criteria. Rupture restraints are

,.; considered rigid in the rupture restraint line of action.

i

.s. -

+

2 g

6. Program Reso lution is:

]

(; .

PGandE is to specify the process used to evaluate pipe support flexibility j for supports attached to rupture restraints / loads transverse to the l rupture restraint line of action.

'i.

i

.i q .-

'l l

.f

.; 7. Potential Program Reso lution

(-

N.

Report signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) on 821118 Type Name/Crganization . Oate ci 3. Signature:

~2 /f #_. 821203 (Approved / Program Manager)

)) -

g'-

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPOP.T '

,_ ,, . File no. inna

-  ?' ' '  ;

. File Revision no, i

1. Resolution of an: er Open Item: 0 Class Error .
2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

'C. a. 5 Clos'ed Item ,

b. O Deviation c.-O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task.
3. Date Reported to PG&E 820623 -
4. Scheduled for' TES Semimontnly Report No. 16
5. Resolution based on the follow.ing documentation:

The second Phase I Interim Technical Report, on the-Quality Assurance Program and, Implementation Review, issued by TES and dated June 23, 1982.,

4

i. Program Resolution is:

File 2004 relates to the RFR QA Audit and Review Report find ings with respect to PG&E.

These Findings are responded to by including in the program additional verification of the PGLE work as described in the fir,st Phase I Interim Tecnnical Report, on Additional Verification and Additional Sampling, issued by RLCA on June 10, 1982. .

k_

7. Potential Frecram Resolution .

Recort sig.nec':y N/A on N/A i Oa e

!. ii; nature: 78 (f?e " a.te/ Organ 1Z 820622 at10n (A::covec/Pr: gram Manager)

- - - - - -- r.- r-- y . , - . --r-..- y, - - , , , - - -n-- y-

~

- w/ PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. mnna -

~ [ S." 4 . File. Revision No.

1

1. Resolution of an: Or Open Item: O Class Error ~

- ([ ; 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. El Closed Item *
b. O ~ 0eviation

,, c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task g,

~3. Date Reported to PG&E 820623

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 16
5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

The second Phase I Interim Technical Report, on the Quality Assurance Program and Implementation Review, issued by TES and dated June 23, 1982.

C

5. F-cgram o.esolutien is:

File 2005 relates to the RFR QA Audit and Review Report findings witn respect to URS/Blume.

These Findings are responded to by including in the program additional verification of the structures and components as described in the first Phase I Interim Technical Report, on Additional Verification and Addi-tional Sampling, issued by RLCA on June 10, 1982.

k.

7. Potential Program Resolution .

Recort signed by n/A on N/A T Gate

'3. Signature: 2A &ype tiame/Gr:aniza:icn 820622 (Approve::/ Program Manager) 4

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20210P192&oldid=3309280"