ML20210P575

Interim Technical Rept on Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Idvp:Interim Technical Rept 12,Rev 0,Piping,Interim Technical Rept 17, Rev 0,Piping-Addl Samples

ML20210P575
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/07/1982
From:	TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20209B723	List: ML20209B717 ML20209B726 ML20210P155 ML20210P192 ML20210P260 ML20210P450 ML20210P482 ML20210P515 ML20210P536 ML20210P550 ML20210P575 ML20210P591
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8702130421
Download: ML20210P575 (98)

Text

~

r. ,

?

e a L STAFF REPORT EVALUATIg REPORT TITLE: INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT ON DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM:

ITR #12 REVISION O PIPING ITR #17 REVISION O PIPING-ADDITIONAL SAMPLES IDVP DESIGNATION: P 105-4-839-012

-P 105-4-839-017

' ORIGINATOR: Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc. (RLCA)

SUBMITTED BY: Teledyne Engineering Services (TES)

1. INTRODUCTION Interim Technical Reports (ITR) Nos.12 and 17 have been reviewed by the staff and its consultants, the Brookhaven National Laboratory. They describe and summarize the results of independent verification analyses performed by Robert L. Cloud Associates (RLCA) of 15 PG&E piping design problems. These analyses were initially perfomed by PGE subject to the loading and criteria as described in the Hosgri report (" Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5 Hosgri Earthquake").

2.

SUMMARY

OF ITR-12 INITIAL PIPING 5 AMPLE

.RLCA analyzed a sample of ten piping problems which were taken from various plant safety related systems. To obtain a representative sample of piping, they reviewed Table 8.3 in_the Hosgri Report. This list served as the sample space for computer analyzed Design Class I piping.

Through general plant walkdowns and drawing reviews, the ten initial piping samples were chosen considering the items given below:

1. Location

2. System

3. Class 4 Model decoupling - system connection l a. Rigid equipment analyzed by PG and E

b. Rigid equipment analyzed by others

c. Flexible equipment analyzed by PG and E l d. Flexible equipment analyzed by others

e. Large bore piping analyzed by PG and E

f. Large bore piping analyzed by others

5. Concentrated weights

a. Remote operated valves l- b. In-Line components l 6. Group performing analysis

! a. PG and E l b. URS/Blume l c. CYGNA (EES) i d. EDS Nuclear l

8702130421 870203 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-151 PDR C

l l

i. J

e r.-

-2 RLCA selected ten piping samples which were numbered 100 through 109.

These piping samples are described in Table I.

RLCA field verified each sample 79-14 Design Review Isometrics .(problem, design starting)with isometrics the PG and E IE

. ' The information which was field verified included: pipe size, location, concentrated-weights (valves, flanges, etc.), insulation, vent / drain lines, valves

.(e.g. operator orientation), supports (location,. type, orientation), and connected equipment.

Information pertinent to the specific piping configurations, including piping layout, pipe sizes, location and. orientation of supports and equipment nozzles, was provided by the PG and E design isometric

-drawings and field verified by RLCA. These drawings were used in conjunction with the PG and E piping schematic diagrams to verify system identificatior,, equipment and system interfaces, in-line components, valves and flanges, etc.

An Error and Open Item Report (E01) was issued in all cases where differences between the PG and E design review isometrics and the RLCA field verification exceeded the PG and E IE 79-14 tolerances. Except for those items noted in E01 reports, RLCA used the PG and E design isometrics as guidelines to develop the ten computer models.

Each piping configuration was subdivided into a series of nodes which were connected by sections of straight or curved pipe, or by sections of straight non-pipe members, representing valves, equipment, or other piping components. Nodes were assigned to all points of interest in the

• piping system.

All RLCA piping models terminated at pipe anchors, attachment to rigid equipment (with or without local flexibilities), or points following restraints in each of two orthogonal directions and one axial direction contained in an overlap piping region.

Equipment to which the piping systems were attached were considered rigid when the equipment fundamental frequency was determined to be greater than 20 hertz. (This corresponds to the support stiffness criteria established in the Hosgri Report.) In certain cases, local effects such as equipment nozzle flexibility were considered in the computer model.

For cases where the fundamental frequency of the equipment was less than 20 hertz, a lumped mass model which represented the dynamic properties of the equipment was incorporated into the piping computer model.

Smaller branch lines, for which the ratio of the branch diameter to that of the larger run pipe diameter was less than 1:4, were not specifically modeled in the analysis of the larger line. In these cases, the equivalent mass of the branch line was lumped at the intersection point of the larger run pipe and an appropriate stress intensification factor applied at this point. -

, , . - - -% _-..y- , _ , ,- ,_-% .. - , . - - - - - - ,

, i.

Suoports Supports with a total gap greater than 3/16-inch were considered inactive.for all analyses per walkdown tolerances. One way restraints-were considered inactive for. seismic analyses, and active for deadweight analyses if the restraint supported the weight of the piping.

All active supports were considered rigid, which is consistent with Section 8.2 of the Hosgri Report. This assumption was justified in the

- Hosgri Report on the basis that all supports have a fundamental frequency of at least 20 hertz.

Snubber supports were considered active only for dynamic loadings, while spring hanger supports were considered active only for deadweight loadings.

Valve Modelino Non-remote operated valves were modeled using the attached pipe wall OD and twice the wall thickness with the CG of the valve located on the pipe centerline. The weight of the valve, fluid contents, and insulation was unifonnly distributed along its length. For dynamic modeling, a mass. point was located at the center of the valve body.

Remote operated valves were modeled to represent both the ecce'ntric mass effect and any local flexibility effects. Equivalent pipe. properties for the bodies of these valves were modeled in the same manne- as for non-remote operated valves. The weight of fluid contents and insulation were distributed unifonnly across the valve body.

. A concentrated weight representing the weight of the valve assembly was lumped at the valve assembly center of gravity.

For remote operated valves having a fundamental frequency lower than 33 hertz, the valve yoke (structural member) connecting the valve body to the concentrated weight at the valve CG was modeled as a cantilever with inertia properties producing dynamic characteristics equivalent to the valve's fundamental frequency.

For remote operated valves having a fundamental frequency equal to or greater than 33 hertz, the valve yoke was modeled the same as the valve body, with the sama outside diameter and twice.the wall thickness of the connecting pipe.

Lumoed Masses Lumped masses for seismic evaluation were spaced so that the piping configuration was represented in the analysis to provide all mode shapes and frequencies up to 33 hertz. This was done by lumping one or more masses between two adjacent supports, active in the same direction, so that the fundamental frequency of the span between two lumped masses

, i

/ 8

_ 4 ..

was at least 33 hertz using a pinned-end straight pipe model. -

Lumped masses were also specified at valve body centers for non-remote operated valves and valve overall cgs for remote operated valves.

x To retain mass effects at supports, lumped mass was not specified at seisir.ically active supports in the verification analyses. Tributary masses associated with supports were distributed to node points along spans between supports.

Methods of Analysis -

The method used for seismic analysis was the response spectrum type using the computer program ADLPIPE version 10. For these seismic analyses, the methods for combining modal response and stresses are referenced in Section 8.2 of the Hosgri Report.

Piping configurations were represented as three-dimensional linear elastic models. Two separate analyses were performed in which the dynamic response for each analyses was calculated based on one horizontal plus one vertical input spectra. The total response was enveloped from the two separate analyses, one with North-South Horizontal and Vertical Spectra, the other with East-West Horizontal and Vertical Spectra.

. The dynamic response' considered the greater of either 10 modes or all modes less than 33 hertz, the rigid cutoff frequency. .The rigid cutoff frequency of 33 hertz is defined in the Hosgri Report.

In addition to seismic loads, sustained loads consisting of deadweight and pressure loadings were evaluated by static analysis. Secondary ~

loads, such as differential anchor movements between buildings or elevations were not considered in this verification process.

Response Spectra For seismic analysis, Hosgri response acceleration spectra were assembled based on pipe size and attachment locations. Torsional and

, translational spectra were combined to obtain horizontal spectra according to the method defined in the Hosgri Report. Separate horizontal spectra were determined for North-South and East-West directions. For a piping model spanning different floor levels, horizontal spectra at each floor level where spectra were defined were computed using maximum torsional effects at each level.

For both vertical and horizontal spectra, spectra between floor levels were linearly interpolated from spectra above and below. Spectra from all elevations to which the piping sample was supported were enveloped.

Newmark and Blume Hosgri spectra were enveloped, to obtain the final spectra. Separate final spectra were developed for vertical, E-W horizontal and N-S horizontal excitations.

t

q

,- ., i

r. =

_ 5 ..

. The damping ratios used were 3% for piping with a nomirial diameter greater than 12 inches and 2% for piping with a nominal diameter less' than or equal to 12 inches. The 2% dampi.ng ratio was also used for.

piping analyses with both pipe size categories (greater than 12 inches and: smaller than or equal to 12 inches). These values were tcken from Section 8.2 of the Hosgri Report and are consistent with USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61.

Acceotance Criteria To establ,ish procedures for the independent verification analyses of the piping samples, RLCA used the following DCNPP-1 licensing documents to determine criteria and commitments:

1. Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) which contains the original plant requirements.

2. Hosgri. Report which contai.ns licensing criteria-specific to th Hosgri evaluation of the plant.

The FSAR lists the original requirements for piping including governing design codes for the various PG and E piping classes. The FSAR references USAS B31.'1 1967 Edition with 1971 Addenda for the design criteria for Code Class I, II and III piping.

The Hosgri Report additionally specifies load combination equations and stress computation methods which are taken from a later code, ANSI 331.lb 1973 or later Editions.

The equation used for evaluating primary stresses (i.e., pressure, deadweight, and Hosgri) is:

PD g 0.75iM A 0.75M K3 4 B 4 h 4t n Z Z where:

P = Internal design pressure, psig Do = Outside diameter of pipe, in.

t n

= Nominal wall thickness o1 cr ponent, in.

M A

= Resultant moment loading on cross section due to sustained l loads, in-lb.

1 Mg = Resultant moment (in-lb.) loading on cross section due to

occasional loads i =

Stress intensificatign factor (SIF) i I = Section modulus, in.

" ***wwr- m w w- +e-- e--+

The allowable stress used in the verification analyses to evaluate pressure, deadweight, and Hosgri stresses for all Code Classes I, II and III is defined as 2.4 S g (i.e...K = 2.4 for the above equation). This definition is ~provided Tn the Hosgri Report, Appendix F for Class A piping, and in both the Hosgri Report and FSAR for Class B and C piping.

The SIFs were based on ANSI B31.1, 1973 Edition. For piping larger than two inches all butt welding connections were assumed to be flush welds.

Additional local stresses associated with pipe welded attachments were not calculated.

Result Comoarisons For the comparison of results, RLCA utilized PG and E design analyses

. dated prior to November 1981, with the exception of those used to compare with RLCA piping samples 106 and 109.

The five highest combined stresses (based on equation 12) or stresses at or above 70% of the Equation 12 allowable were tabulated. The corresponding seismic (Hosgri) stresses were compared to the design analysis stresses. If the comparison fell within the acceptance criteria, i.e., if the difference between the verification value and the design value was 15% or less, a comparison of enveloped support loads under seismic loading conditions was also performed. Support load comparisons were also performed in selected cases even though the stress comparison exceeded the acceptance criteria..

Val've accelerations and nozzle loads from the verification analyses were compared to their respective qualification limits or allowable values.

Allowable valve accelerations were obtained from the Hosgri and Westinghouse Summary Reports. In cases where the allowables were not available, design valve acceleration values were used for comparison.

For allowable nozzle loads, information furnished by PG and E was used.

In cases where allowable nozzle loads were unspecified, design analyses nozzle loads were used for comparison.

When valve accelerations were compared to the allowables, acceleration components at valve cgs taken from the computer analyses were used. For each building, ground accelerations were determined to be well below the valve acceleration allowables and therefore, were not enveloped with the computer valve accelerations. Two acceleration components were used for comparison between, the valve allowables and the computed values.

For remote (motor) operated valves with the stem perpendicular to the l

valve body centerline,the two acceleration components are: 1) the SRSS resultant acceleration in the plane perpendicular to the valve stem; 2) the acceleration component in the direction of the valve stem.

For non-remote (manually) operated valves, the two acceleration components used for comparison are: 1) the SRSS resultant

acceleration in the plane perpendicular to the valve stem; 2) the acceleration component in the direction of the valve stem.

For non-remote (manually) operated valves, the two acceleration components used for comparison are: 1) the SRSS resultant acceleration in the horizontal plane; and 2) the acceleration in the vertical direction.

In cases where individual acceleration components (i.e., vertical or horizontal) exceeded the allowable, the SRSS of the two valve acceleration components were compared to the SRSS of the individual allowables.

Follow-uo Analyses In cases where comparisons of seismic stress or seismic support load results between the verification and design analyses exceeded the 15%

acceptance criteria, RLCA examined the differences through follow-up analyses. The follow-up analyses compared only seismic stresses, loads and accelerations.

In cases where no major difference in geometry or modeling approach existed, new computer ' runs were made with input incorporated from the cesign analyses which were notably different from the verification input. Results from these follow-up runs were compared to the design analyses results. If stress comparisons met the 15% acceptance criteria, support load comparison were performed. Further follow-up analyses were performed until the support load comparison met or fell close to the 15% acceptance criteria. Follow-up analyses were not performed when support load differences were believed 'to be caused by differences in geometry within the established field tolerances and by differences in mass lumping techniques.

In cases where significant differences in geometry within the field tolerances or modeling techniques existed, RLCA simply listed differences between the verification and the design analyses.

ERROR AND OPEN ITEM REPORTS A total of 73 E01 reports were issued, which were classified as follows:

l Findings (ER/A, ER/AB, ER/B): 932, 938, 963, 1014, 1069, 1098, 1106 Combined with Findings: 961, 1009, 1021, 1025, 1060, 1105, 1115 i

l l

i

g .- '..

,~ >

~

Observations (ER/C,ER/D,PPR/DEV): 1931, 933, 934, 936, 937, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 951, 952, 953, 954. 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 964, 965, 966, 1050, 1062, 1063, 1071, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1080, 1081, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1089, 1090 Closed Items: 935, 955, 962, 994, 995, 996, 997,-

_ 1000, 1001, 1019, 1023, 1024, 1031,

, 1032, 1048, 1051, 1057, 1103.

Most of these E0I reports resulted for the following reasons: 1) differences between ' design isometrics and as-built configurations, 2) pipe stress differences, 3) nozzle and support load differences, 4) definition and/or application of correct Hosgri spectra, 5) transmission of information between PGE and various contractors performing the piping analyses.

Based on these reports and their resolution RLCA identified eight generic concerns:

~

The PG and E IE 79-14 design isometrics in several cases do not 1.

completely reflect the "as-built" conditions. As a result, the design analyses differed from the "as-built" piping configurations.

2. The documentation and modeling of remote operated valves in several cases did not reflect the "as-built" conditions.

3. The modeling of attached equipment, either as in-line components or .

as terminal points, in several cases did not adequately consider equipment flexibilities and support conditions.

4 The design analysis response spectra, in several cases, did not envelop the Hosgri response spectra. In addition, Hosgri response spectra were not identified for several plant locations / elevations from which Design Class I piping is supported.

5. The tributary pipe mass assigned to support locations in the design

+

. analyses in certain cases were not considered in calculating

j. support loads. '

6. Pipe and component (e.g. flanges) weights in the design analyses in -

several cases differed from the vendor supplied values.

7. In several cases, the design analyses did not consider branch lines and analysis overlap in an adequate manner.

8. In several cases, the valve accelerations and equipment nozzle

, loads exceeded their respective allowable values.

.y .

,m x. -

. ~q U -

. m

i. +

s ,

' V4 ,

In addition to the eight generic concerns, one specific RLCA concern related to the modeling of standard fittings such as swage fittings and tees. In several cases, equivalent pipe properties were not used.

REVIEW 0F IDVP ITR-17, Piping-Additional Sameles On completion of the verification effort described in .ITR-12, RLCA y initiated an additjonal. sample of five piping analyses as specified in ITR-1. These analyses were-selected from piping categories not

_. represented in the initial sample, and to determine 'if all concerns with computer analyzed piping had been identified in the initial sample, ,

RLCA used the same analytical procedures and evaluation criteria in the' . 9 additional sample as were used in the initial sample except follow-up  :

analysis was not performed where differences in results could be ,

attributed to significant differences in geometry or analytical '

modeling.

• Many of the same concerns were noted in the additional piping sample as

'in the previous sample.

InadditionfourE01Fileswereissue(

- - i Finding (ER/A,ER/AB,ER/B): 'fl107 '

l.' i Combined with Findings: 1104,~1109 L t

Observation (ER/C, ER/D, PPR/DEV): None -

,,j Closed Item: 1108 , _

s E0I File 1107 was issued because the RLCA verification analysis shpwed 4 stresses exceeding the allowable for small attached vent and drain illne,E ,

A and the existence of two supports which were deadweight supports only,$ i .

(capabl of resisting' gravity but not two-way seismic motion).

• One generic cbncern was identified in ITR-17:

In several cases, the design analysis did not apply the, appropriate

• stress intensification factors in determining pipe stresses,

,particularly, at socket welded connections.

DCP COR3ECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM AND ITS VERIFICATION Based on the findings and concerns described in ITR-12 a d' ITR-17, PG

-and E initiated a program for corrective action of computer analyzed oiping which includes a complete walkdown and a review of all design .

analyses. In cases where this review reveals deficiencies, these are to -

be-corrected by additional qualification. The IDVP verification program for the PG and E corrective action will address concerns noted in the ITR's as follows:

i

1. Verify the new PG and E design review isometrics.

2. Verify modeling of remote operated valves against "as-built" conditic-ns and vendor documentation. ~

s 4

6 2

-I_- . - , - - - - - - - , - - - .m, - - . . - - - -- - -.

_W; ar .

~- = ,

~

, # , g0 _ -

+j _

.b -

-t q

3. Vegjfy modeling of flexible equipment.

4 Verify control of.Hosgri response spectra and verify seismic inputs into sam'ple design analyses.

s

_ + ,

54 t Verify that the IPA 1 actor applied to support loads is adequate and correctly implemented.

-6. 'lerify pipe and component weights.

7. Verify that adequate branch line and overlap procedures are specified and implemented.

,~ 8. Verify that valve accelerations and equipment nozzle loads meet F their respective allowable values.

9. Verify the modeling of standard fittings (specific concern).

As a result of thi) extensive reanalysis and modification effort by PGE

.the effort described in these ITR's will concentrate on verifying that PGE'has correctly addressed the concerns listed above.

i EVALUATION

~

b}'AreviawofITR'.s12and17indicatethatRLCAperformedasatisfactory

'4) verification of the large bore piping samples designed by PGE and t described in these ITR's. We evaluated the analytical and modeling a methodology used by RLCA and concluded-that correct and acceptable m approaches were applied to detennine various inconsistencies- in the PG &

E design andsanalysis of piping and equipment.

• A number of concerns were noted and resolved during these reviews as follows:

~

1. 'The significant differences in support loads as calculated by RLCA and PGE, with the RLCA values being considerably larger, indicate that these may fail even though the supports may have been designed with a conservative factor of safety. RLCA is aware of this concern and will address' it in a separate review of large bore piping supports.

2. Presentation of results in ITR-12 RLCA has calculated the deviation, during the comparison of support or nozzle loads, from the formula (verification-design)/ verification whereas a more appropriate approach is that these deviations should be based on the formula (verification-design)/ design. Although both approaches inoicate large deviations, the second approach emphasizes these deviations significantly. RLCA has agreed to use this approach in aqysfuture deviation calculatiori.

$. l uc '

.s

. 1 e a . l

--11 l

s ~ 3'. The bound ry support condition used in the analysis of the RHR pump in problem 103. The issue is whether pump lift off can occur since this appears to be a one-way support. RLCA has stated that the

._ W , weight of the pump is sufficient to keep it from lifting.f This assumption appears to be reasonable. ,

4. In problem 104 the natural frequency of' the heat-exchangers was -

determined as 9 Hz yet PGE assumed it was rigid. RLCA, also assumed it to be rigid in their analysis for the purpose of determining specific sources of deviation and differences. Heat exchangers are being verified separately.

We find the efforts described in these ITRs by the IDVP acceptable for determining the adeqdacy of PGE design and analysis of large bore piping systems. -

4

+

k k

i 4

/

g -

n

, . - i -

t e a

r r) ur et p 0 0 8 0 6 4 as 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 0 3 O re 0 3 4 4 2 6 2 4 3

n ee 2 1 - - -

5 4 a 1 1 - - -

mi eepr mg 0 3

0 0

0 3

0 0

0 0 i 0 9 x T d( 1 2 4 2 3 a -

M g

n i

t 5 a

r rg e e) 5 5 8

4 5 5 pui 5 0 3 3 ,

3 3 2 8 8 O ss sp 3 3 0 2 0 3 1 2 2 5 - - 5 - 5 - 9 ,

n.

u r e(

. 0 7 1 5 1 0 - 1 4 mP 1 6' 4 1 0 0

i 3 2 x

a

,M 2

- 1 4 8 e 1 80 ,

2 zr) ,

1 3 8 i es 4 ,

St e 8 1 , , ,

2 0 4 eh 8 4 64 6 1 8 1 emc pan 6 8

1 2 3

i ii 4 8

_ pD( ,

20 ,

- _ 4 1 2 ,

3 4 r ,r r

- r o so o o e i ui i i n r l r r r i e ue e e b t nt .t ,t gn y y y y r n nx yx yx y no r r r r u I AE rE rC r ii a a a a T a a a dt i i i i / t tt i t i t i l

a l l l l y n nn l n l n l i c i i i i r e ee i e i e i

_. lluo L x

u x

u x

u x

u i a m n

mn ni n xn w ui x n ui w x

u A A A A l i il At At A

. i a aa a a

l. x t tt t t u n nn n n A o oo o o C - CC C C E _._.

t S l r r E d e

ol ra l

a t e

t e

y I

t y t v v a a y l

' a a n no o W t W a p om c r o m n r p p i C e e g a g p u o S t R R n l n S S eL c e o r e i i ee t mt t l o l t m r hl n j ua a o C o n a e l p e n lolle le o o e e I

m n

u i l C r 'C n u

t t ma s y

V o r S a eS i l l t t t i w

_ t a t l a a n c n a e d sg t e au u e a e t n e yn n f cd d n e n n i e

Si o a ii i o R o o b

_ p C S ms ee s

e p p C r F i m m u p hR R o o T C C C l

e

- p m

A a CS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R g 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

n i

p i

p

FINAL RESOLUTICN SHEET Filo No. 931 OL 1. Classification , Revision No. 1 Error Class (A, B, C or D)  !

y, Deviation Closed Item

2. Dccumentation Reviewed -

FGandE Design Review Isometric 446540, Revision 9.

P 105-4-432 PGandE piping analysis 8-33, computer date 9/19[77, nodes 26 - 27 in y direction.

P 105-4-432'IE Bulletin 79-14, Field Verification Procedure. -

Unit One - Revision 2 - 10/13/80.

{. 1. Reported to PGandE Transmitta.L Date 3/9/82-

4. Final Resolution f

The PGandE piping analysis 8-33 shows valve 9001A to be vertical.

This item is found to be a deviation.

I PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 446540. This drawing -

change will not be reviewed by RLCA..

l L, a i

. .eA. -A 3/9 Tr.1 i Proj ect Engineer /Date l

1 To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

e

• FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET pile go, -qw l'. Classification -~

Revision No. 1 - -

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

Deviation

{ .

Closed Item , ,

' . . . ~

2. ..

Docunentation Reviewed .

~,

P105-4-932-007 Fray - (P.GandE) to Denison (RLCA) -

3/5/82 letter-support 58S/23R will be. nodified RLCA Piping Analysis 100,

.~- .

PGandE Piping Analysis 8-33, 9/27/77 computer date t, .

% (A L-. V. % .

J. Reported.to PGandE ' Transmittal Date! .

3/l'9/82

4. Description .

Support 58S/23R is shown as a vertical support on ISO 446540 -

~

Revision 9 and in the PGandE piping analysis. RLCA field inspection showed a dead load support only. - -

~

5. Final Resolution .

With support 58S/23R modeled as a dead load support only the stresses in RLCA Piping Analysis.100 exceeded the allowable. An additional .

analysis with support 58S/23R codeled as a. rigid vertical resulted in stresses well below the allowable. This. item is therefore an error Class A and modifications are required. RLCA has selected this support l

for independent analysis.

t o_ .

' Lu "v-~ ' YW b, i $ , S' 2.-

Proj ect Engineer /Da:e To Indicate RLCA Final Resclution r -- gr- --.r -

) .

' ERROR REPORT File No. c33

. .: Class: C' File Revision No. 7-

. A,5,C rD PGLE Task No.

.(f 70005

' ~

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee 820426

. Program Review Committee Action , N/A . .

Reported to PG&E and Originator 820510

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 13 ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 103 line_110. .

4. Description of Error: .

3 The "as-built" length of line 110 from support 555/90A to sed /zon is shown on PG&E Design Review Isometric 446541 Revision 7 as 9 3/4 inches. RLCA field inspection showed this dimension as.12 feet.

Design Analysis 8-3 (3/11/80) shows this dimension as 9.07 feet (nodes 31 to 45). This exceeds the 79-14 tolerances.

= r

5. Sienificance of Error:

~ ~

p;.-

The analysis did not show an everstress.

5. Recommendation:

IOVP Completion Report can be issued if PGLE informs TES that there will ce no physical modifications. -

7. Potential Error Report signed by E. Denison /RLCA on 820aP6 Type Name/Orcanization . Date

! 5. Sicnatures: N/A M g.~., . 320510 for. Program P.eview Osm 2;;ae A:orovef/ Program r.anager l

1

n. ,

, ., FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. osa I

1. Classification . ,

Revision No. 1 Error Class (A, B, C or D)

X Deviation Closed. Item-

2. Documentation Reviewed PGandE Design Review Isometric 446541, Revision 7.

P 105-4-432. PGandE piping analysis 8-3, computer date 2/29/80, node 5. -

P 105-4-432 II Bulletin 79-14, Field Verification Procedure -

Unit One - Revision 2 - 10/13/80.

{ 3. Reported to PGandE Transmittal Date 3/9/82

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 8-3 shows support 72/llR to be active in the vertical direction. This item is found to be a deviation.

PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 446541. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

l r

Li Da Proj ect Engineer /Date 2 e /n To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution l

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Fils No. 935 p ' 1. " Classification- ,

Revision No. I-s Error ] Class (A, 3, C or D)

Deviation x Closed Item-

2. Documentation Reviewed

~~

PGandE Design Review Isometric 446542, Revision 10.

F105--4-451 PGandE Piping Schematic Number ~ 102010, Sheet 3, .

Revision-6 P105-4-935-003 PGandE response to EDI 935 Reported.to PGandE Transmittal Date ~3/9/82

( 3. ,

~

4. Description. -

The PGandE-isometric shows a 3 inch line, number 931, to tee off line 1971. RLCA field inspection showed no 3 inch line attached to line 1971.

I 5 Final Resolution Line 931 does not tee off line 1971. FGandE Design Review .

Isometric 446542 Revision 10 and Schematic 102010, sheet 3, Revision 6 show line 931 to tee off lines 111 and 119. RLCA nisread the Isometric.

This item is therefore closed.

! CUTC Oie Proj ect Engineer /Date 3[9f2.

To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

- j FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET File No. 936

, .. 1

~

p 1. Classification ,

Revision No. I s 1 Error l Class (A, B,. C or D) 1 X Deviation.

Closed Item .

2. Docu=entation Revie:eed -

PGandE Design Review Isometric 446542, Revision 10.

P 105-4-432 PGandE piping analysis 8-31, computer date 9/22/77, nodes 33-28. .

P'105-4-432 IE Bulletin 79-14, Field. Verification Procedure -

Unit One - Revision. 2. - 10/13/80.

Reported to PGandE 3/9/82-

{ 3. Transmitral Date l

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 8-31 shows the length of the vertical run of line 1971 between valve 8804A and the RHR Heat Exchanger l 1-1 as 2 feet, 8 inches. RLCA field inspection showed this i di=ension to be 2 feet, 10 inches. This item is found to be a l deviation.

I PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 446542. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA..

.r en, 3!9 !T2 Project Engineer /Date i

To Indicatie RLCA Final Resolution l

l l

-t File No. 937 ERROR REPORT-2 Class: c File Revision No.

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

70009 NA

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee -

Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 820607 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 15 ,

2.

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 102

a. Description of Error:

PGandE Design Review Isometric 446544 Rev.11 does not show the second .

flange on the vertical run'of line 44 from the stabilizer / separator.

Design Analysis 8-25, computer date 8/19/80, does not show this flange.

RLCA field inspection ~showed the locatien of this second flange 13 inches above the first flange. .

5. Significance of Error:

This error does not cause an overstress.

5. Rec: nen ation: '

I;'!P Ccmpletien Report can be issued if PGandE informs TES that there will be no physical modifications. .

Edward Cenisen/R.L.C. A. en 5/19/32 l 7 P: ential Error Report signed by 1

Cate Not Applicable Type Name/Crean%'ationg.4 _ _

3. Signatures: Ascrcve:/?rcgsem .v.anager Fer.Pecgram Review C:mmi :ee

2 n .- -

', =. ,

ERROR REPORT File No. 938  :

Class: A File Revision No. 7 -

A,B,C or D PG&E Task No. 70010

1. Cates: Reported to Program Review Comittee ~

N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A

.; Reported- to PG&E and Originator

2. 821122 -

Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. December

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 103 - Valves 8724A, 8726A,' 8728A T RLCA Piping Analysis 102 - Valve 88058

] 4. Description of Error: '

~

• i Valve 8805B is shown on PG&E Design Review Isomatric 446544 Revision 11 i in a vertical position. RLCA field verification showed that this valve

~[ is in a horizontal position, q

f Valves 8724A, 8726A, and 8728A are required on vendor drawing DC 663219-292-2 to be installed in the vertical position. RLCA field verification

. showed that these valves are in a horizontal position. (E01 1105 combined with 938)

5. Significance of Error:

• valve 88058 will_ be rotated so that the stem orientation is in the vertical position as required on PG&E drawing DC 663219-458-2. '

Westinghouse letter PGE-4735 (10/26/82) permits valves. 8724A, 8725A, and 8728A to be installed in the horizontal direction.

'i . .

'l

-s

:. Recomenda tion :

'l Valve 8805B - Error Class A lI Valves 8724A, 8726A, and 8728A Closed Item T

.i d

l.,

7. Potential Error Report signed by a Edward Denison/RLCA on 821110

3. Signatures: Type Name/0rganization Oate y'.

N/A For Program Review Committee St'ffm fz un ^

Approved /Prosram Manager

.g b .. . . ... . --. .-

.-----.-n---------- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - * "* *

• ERROR REPORT File No. 939' Class: C File Revision No. 2 A,8,C or D 70011 PG&E Task No.

1. Date s,: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 820o19

2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. 16 ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 102 -

4. Description of Error:

Support 73/72R is shown on PG&E Design Review Isometric 446544 Revision 11 and in Design Annalysis 8-25 (computer date 800319)to be active in the NS direction only. RLCA field inspection showed .this support active in both NS and EW directions.

5. Significance of Error:

RLCA Diping Analysis 102 showed all stresses under allowable.

6. Recomendation:

Error Class C.

7 Potential Error Report signed by E.Denison/RLCA eg20519 Type Name/ Organization Date

3. Signatures: NA fj f f.. , yt.,ogz,

.: or Program Review Committee Approveo/ Program Manager

~

~

ERROR REPORT File No. 940 Class: C File Revision No. 2 A,B,C or D 70012 pggg Task No.

e

1. Dates: . Reported to Program Review Comnittee NA

-y e Program Review Committee Action a^

"9; Reported to PG&E and Originator 820619

2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. lg ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis #104 4 Description of Error:

The "as-built"ler.gth .of line 103 south of supper.ts 18/2R and 18/12 SL is shown on PG&E Design Review Isometric 449316', Revision 3, as 15 feet, 6 inches. RLCA field inspection showed t,his dimension as 6 feet. The design analysis does not reflect the correct dimension (

Reference:

P 105-4-940-003 PGLE response to 940). . .

5. Significance of Error:

The pipe stresses do not exceed the allowable stress.

6. Reccmnendation:

Error Class C

7. Potential Error Repcet signed by e no < e-n im e s . on opn=in Type Name/Crganization Date S. Signatures: NA st/ p /L_ te n f ,

For Program Review Committee Approves /Frogram Manager

~

', , FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 941 Revision No. 1 f ~1. Classification Error Class (A, B, C or D) ,

7 Deviation -

Closed Item

2. Docunentation Reviewed.

PGandE Design Review Isometric 449316,.: Revision 3.

P 105-4-432 PGandE piping analysis 4-3, computer date 1/30/80, node 11. .

~

P 105-4-432 IE.BulleH- 79-14, Field Verification Procedura -

Unic One - Revision. 2.- 10/13/80.

{. Reported. to PGandE Transmittal Date 3 / 9 / 82.-

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 4-3 shows support 18/4R to be active in the vertical direction. This item is found to be a deviation.

PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 449316. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

Eb l A A Projec; Engineer /Date 2A/n To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution l ..

j? PROGRAM RESOLUVION REPORT File No. 942 ,

~

File ,Rtvision No. 2

{* '1. Resolution of an: e Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

, b. E Deviation , . . . ..

~

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task '

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820510

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 13

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

~TES concurrence with RLCA, Revision 1

~

\'

5. Program Resolution is:

IDVP Completion Report can be issued if PG&E irforms TES that there will be no physical eccifica* ions.

~

7. Potential Program Resolution .

Report signec by Mr._ Ecwere Denisca /SLCA on c ?,03 30 va:e IE 'dP Ef?- ype :.ame/vrc anization

~

5 '. Signature: 210 (A;;r:ves/Frogram v.an ag te )

c .

<J PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT-

// File No.

,- , 943~

File Revision No. 2 -

1 'l. Resolution of an: c Open Item: O Class Error

. '2. Independent Design Verification Progr.am Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

. b. E Deviation , . . ._

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task "

'3. Date Reported to PG&E 820510 4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 13

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

~

TES concurrence with RLCA, Revision 1

~

p' -

5. Program Resolution is: -

IJVP Completion Report. can be issued if PGhE inferms TES Inat there will

e no ;nysical mocifications. .

7. Potential Program Resolution ,

Resort signec by Mr. Edward Denison/RLCA on - 820:30 I Date

3. Signature: PL/ f?' ef'_.~yp e n ame / Gr 220510 g an i z a( tA::r:ve:/:-:;ra-i on Manager)

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 944 f 1. Classification - Revision No.

Error Class (A, B, C or D)

X Deviation .

Closed Item

2. Docu=entation Reviewed PGandE Design Review Isometric 449316, Revision 3.

? 105-4-432. PGandE. piping analysis 4-3, computer date 1/30/80, node 3 at valve FCV 430.-

P 105-4-432 IF. Bulletin 79-14, Field Verification Procedure -

Unit ene - Revision 2 - 10/13/80.

Reported to PGandE Transud. tral Date 3/9/82..

('.

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 4-3 locates support 5003/V at the center line of valve FCV 430. RLCA field. inspection showed suppere 5003/7 to be 18 inches north of valve FCV 430. This item is found to be a deviation.

PGandE to revise Design' Review Isometric 449316. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

FLumL SryA 3 /9 / r2.

Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

Filo No.__945 ERROR AND OPEN ITEM SHEET

~

1. Classification Error Error Classification or ((] Class (A, B, C, or D)

Open Item

2. Description ,

PGandE Design Review Isometric 449314, Revision 3, shows line 104 supported at the J column line. The support identification number and the directions of restraint are not specified. RLCA field inspection showed this support labeled a s 5 5 5 / .". 0 R .

3. Significance The significance of this item can be better assessed upon co=pletion of the RLCA analysis and comparison with PGandE results. '

-e

4. Reco=mendation .

A reco=mendation will be provided upon completion of the RLCA analysis

5. Reported ,

((] PGandE Ref. & Date 1/20/82

[)) NRC Ref. & Date

6. Final Resolution O.nc G.vm lf20 S 1- c%~ 9 '.yv f<fS Signed /Date '

Pr6 ject Engineer /Date Prior to Felease Proj ect Administrator /Date Prior to Final Resolution

r .

FINAL RESOLUTION SHECT Fila No. 946' Revision No. 1-

1. - Classification ,  ;

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

. X l Deviation- ,

. Closed Item

• 3 ' -

2. ,

Documentation Reviewed ,

PGandE Analysis 8-21, 6/24/77, nodes 59 and 60 . . .

RLCA Piping Analysis 101 ,

. PGandE 79-14 Procedures.

3, . Reported.co PGandE Transmittal Date..-

3/19/82. .

4. Description

. The dimension of the. vertical run of line 1980 between valves 8922A and'8921A on PGandE Design Review Isometric 446546 Revsion"8 is not specified. PGandE analysis 8-21 shows 17 inches for this -

dimension. RLCA field inspection showed the distance to be 8 inches.

5. Final Resolution PGandE. analysis 8-21 uses an incorr6ct dimension. Since the allouable stresses are not exceeded this item is an error class C.

,o 3 em, -. 3 If,8Z

Proj ect En.e.ineer/Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution .

n

FINAL RESOLUTION SilEET y'lei go, 947-l' i 1. Classification .I ,

Revision No. -

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

l Deviation . ,

Closed Item .

3

- 2.

Documentation Reviewed -

! , RLCA Piping Analysis 101

?CandE Analysis 8-21,,6/24/77 nodes 3 and 4

, 3. Reported.to ?GandE Transnittal Date*

3/19/82 I . .

k

4. Description Valve 8821Aisshownon?GandEDesignRevd.ew.Isonatrie- 446546

• Revision 8:and Analysis 8-21, 6/24/77 as being installed in the hoirontal position. RLCA field inspection showed the valve in a vertical position. ,

5. Final Resolution -

The ?GandE analysis shows this valve nodaled in an incorrect position.

RLCA will exanine the valve qualification.acce'_erations as part of the Piping Analysis 101. Allewable stresses were not exceeded and therefore this iten is an error class C.

blinn e r w L c-v v 3 ,

I i 9 ?_

Proj ec t . Eny,ineer/Da:e

'To Indicccc RLCA Final Rocc'u:ica f

i

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 948 '

y 1 Classification- +

Revisien No.

F.s Error Class (A, B, C or D) -

jm Deviation .

. Closed Team -

' ~

. . u.1)1

~

~

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

2. . Docu=encation Reviewad . . '..'.* .,

. . J ~'. . " cp.:. . ,.; .. . . ; ,_ . .? . .

.. . ~. . .w ' - . .n.:; n a e!...

J ' PGa=dF D.esign Review- Isomat :.c 446491. Revision la

~ '

' . i-7..IO5-4-432 FGandFJ 'ph. ping analysis 4A.-5, Revisi.cq.'4~, l2[2/81 105 4'+432;.IF. Bulletin 79~-14, Fiaid Verification Procedura -

.:,F N'?' .

': Unit.'.One,

.,..n...-

. :. '.Ravisio. n 1 - 10/13/80 i.:- . 1 %.g.- -

.: 4. . . .x..~ . t. .....

.d.;;.;47 - '%s ~.' :. r. . . ..,.%.%..-. ~ . , , ..

.i. r .-- . ..

c ...:: . e.. , . ,

[ .

,, Reported *:Co ?Ga=d5

, TransmL tal. Dntet * * * '3/2./82 ' .

. a.. .

..n .

.f* .

4.

Final Resolution ,

, The 'EGandE piping analysis 4A-5, Revision.4,12/2/81 shows supper: 13/23 SL to be acting in a vertical direction. This itam.*is found to be a. deviation: not an error in analysis, * '

design cr construction but a departure from the. 79-14 Procedure- -

S ection 2.6. - .

PGandt to revise Cesign Review Isc=etric 446491. This drawing change will nc. bc j aviewed by R.cA. -

l Q. -

Wicue,n( e.)z m t&ys

., 3' 2 5 7 '-

Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicace RLCA Final Resolution pr 4

1 - . -

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 951 fas 1. Classificatien ,

Revision No. 1 w ,

~

Error Class (A, B, C or D)

X Deviation Closed Item

2. Docu=entation Reviewed -

FGandE Design Review Isometric 445878, Revision 14.

P 105-4-432 PGandE piping analysis 2-17, co=puter date 6/7/79, nodes 4-5 med nodes 5-6..

P 105-4-432 II Bulletin 79-14, Field Verification procedure ' -

Unit One - Revision 2 - 10/13/80.

Reported.co PGandE Transmittal Date 3/9/82-C. 3.

t

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 2-17 shows support 1/27R to be located 33 and 1/4 inches from the elbow. RLCA field inspection showed this dimension to be 35 inches. This item is found to be a deviation. ,

PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 445878. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

6 1 c # d _ B o j u e-t 3[9/82.

Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

., FINAL RESOLUTION-SHEET .Fils No. 952 A 1 t 1. Classification -

Revision No.

9 l Error Class (A, B, C or D)

-r-X Deviation Closed. Item ,

1. D$cu=entation Reviewed PGandE Design Review Isometric 445878, Revision 14.

P 105-4-432 PGandZ piping analysis 2-17, co=puter date 6/7/79, nodes 36-38-54. .,

P 105-4-432 IE Bulletin 79-14, Field Verification Procedure. -

Unit One - Ravision 2 - 10/13/80.

( ', Reported to PGandE Transmit tal Date '

3/9/82~

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 2-17 shows the dimension between valve FCV 37 and support 3/27V to be.-14 inches. RLCA field inspection showed this di=ension to be 12 inches. This item is found to be a deviation. .

PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 445878. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

hl SA Proj ect Engineer /Date 3 /s /r t.

To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

.m .

t . .

s- , .

File No. 953-ERRORREPCRf 2

Class: C File Revision No. ,

A,5,C or 0 PG&E Tas5 No. 70025

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comnittee NA'

' Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator a20607

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 15 ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 109

a. Description of Error:

Support 585/69R is shown on PGandE Design Review Isometric 447119 Revision 12 to be active in the z and y directions. RL;A field inspection showed this support to be active in tne x, y and z directions. Design Analysis 2-14 (computer date 1/16/82) node 5 shows a z and y direction support.

5. Significance of Error:

This error does not cause an overstress. .

5. Race mentation:

TES concurs with RLCA Revision 1. 7 PGandE in their lith semimenthly indicated that a modification is planned.

ID'!? therefore recuests PGandE to identify the nature of the modification.

4/30/82

, :otential Error Report signec by Edward Denison/R.L.C.A. on 1

Oa e Not Applicable Tyce tiame/Organiza:M/f_ [ca - .

3. Signatures:

For ?.regram Review C:: 1 ;ee Aporoveo/Frogram . Manager

7 .-' -

ERROR REPORT File No. osa

.. . Class: C~ File Revision'No. 2 A,5,C or D

(. PG&E Task No. 7nn9s

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee 820430

_. Program Review Committee Action ,

N/A ,

Reported to PG&E and Originator 820510

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 13

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 109 4 ' Description of Error: . .

Support 585/55R is shown on Design Ana. lysis 2-14 (computer date 1/15/82) nodes 27 to 30 and PGLE Design Review Isometric 447119 Revi-sien 12 to be located 5 feet, 2.in:hes from the elbow.. RLCA field inspection showed this support to be located 7 feet, 8 inches from the elbow.

~

5. Significance of Error:

This error does not caust an overstress.

6. Recernendation:

'DVP Completion Res:-t can be issued if PG&E inf:res TES tnat there will :e no physical r:cifications.

7. Potential Error Re: ort signec by E. Denison/:LCA on 820430 Type Name/C :ar.t:ation , Date S. Signatures: N/A JC/"'4f? _

820510

. cr Ffc;ra?. Revit. Ccmmittee 4::-:.e:f?r: gram Manager 0 p . .

4

6;: , ,

~

F NAL RESOLUTION SHEET File No.-osc i

Classification, Revision No. l' _

-f Class (A, B, C or D) p Error _

Deviation l -

x Closed Item ,

3

?-

~

~2 .' ,'Decumentation Reviewed F105-4-955 Fray-(PGandE) to Denison (RLCA)--letter number DCVP-RLCA-ll concering E0I 955 F105-4-955 585/57R drivings from~PGandE

~

Transmirtal Date

3. Reported.to PGandE 3'/16/82'

4. Description Two supports , both labeled 58S/57R, are shown on PGandE Design Review Isometric 447119, Revision 12. It is RLCA's understanding that.PGandE's Unic I support nomenclature calls for unique support numbers at specific locations.

5.. Final Resolut' ion The PGandE drawing for support 58S/57R shows this restraint at tuo separate locations on line 574. E01 #955 is therefore closed.

Skar' hwiwn 2h6(2 L Project Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

I -

ERROR REPORT File No. 7E6

. i --

Class: c File Revision No. 7 -

A,3,C or D '

/> -

PGLE Task No. 70028

~

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comnittee 820430

. Program Review Committee Action , N/A . .-

Reported to PG&E and Originator 820510

2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. 13 ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 109

4. Description of Error: -

T~

Support 585/69R is shown on PG&E Design Review. Isometric 447119 Revi-sion 12 and Design Analysis 2-14 (computer date 1/16/82) nodes 5 to 3 to be located 3 feet from the elbow. RLCA field inspection showed this support to be located 2 feet,1 inch from the elbow. This dif-ference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances.

~

)

o

5. Significance of Error: _

This error does not cause an overstress.

5. Reccatendation:

IDVP Compl6 tion Report can be issued if PG&E informs TES that the,re will be no physical modifications. ,

/

7. Potential Error Rep:rt signed by E. Denison/RLCA on 820a20 Type Name/Draaniza ton . Date S. Signatures: N/A M t"8, _- $20510 For ;regram Review Com.mi::ee A:; rove:/Frogram .~.anager

3 ~,

.e. . ; -m

~_  : -

PROGRAM RESOLUThN REPORT .

~f. - , [. , g ~'

1 File No. 95r .

' hi 5 o File Revision No. 5 m

N ' 1. Resolution of ani 'O Open Item: (3 Class c Error ..

-- 2. Independent Design Verification Progrem Resoluti6n is as:

a. n Closed Item

b. O Deviation 3 i

. c. O Open Iter: with future action b) PGLE: Task y,'

.. 3. Date Reported to PG&E Ron m A~

4 Schedu led for TES Semimonth ly Report No. AinUST

. 5. Resolution based on the following docur4atation:

4

~

Lines 577 and 578 are shown to be insulated on TG&E Design w

- Review Isometric 447119' Revision 12. RLCA initial field inspection showed these line to be uninsulated.

3 File Revision 2 classified this as an Error C and indicat!d that PG&E was adding tN insuistion. ' i'

_ n.

~

P 105 4-591.5-110 RLCA field verification (7/14/82) showed that the lines had been insulated in response to this E01.

, h

It g 4 a.,, .

6. Program Resolution is: ~'

Closed Item.

b O

.)- ,

\.

7. Potential Program P.esolution .

Report signed by %ard Dec.11gn_ on 820715 J.ype teame/Org4::iz tLion wate 3 '. Signature: W/ C f z o ., 4 7 (Approvec/ Program . Manager)

.s 3

s- x,

( .

6

• *,. PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 958 I,1 . 1,\

x 3~ -

File Revision No. .

a n.

1. Resolution of an: _ Q Open Item: C3 Class Error ^

2. Incegendent Design Verification Program Resolution, is as:

a. O Closed Item s b. Q . Deviation

' c. C ~ 0 pen Item with future action by PG&E: Task 34 Date Reported to PG&E 820707 4 .0 Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. 17

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

R Support 585/55V is shown on PG&E Design Review Isemetric 447119 Revision-4 12 and Lead Balance 2-14 node 33 to be located on the horizontal run of a

^

pice immediately above a tee. RLCA field inspection showed this support to be located a inches below the tee.

?

• N -

Nj '. Pr: gram Resolutien is: -

The design iscmetric does not agree with the field configuration within the 79-14 tolerances. A vertical spring hanger 8" down on a vertical 3" pipe will not affect loads or stresses on the piping in any way.

Qtviation.

(

4~

t

[

/ . .

s >

k' -

ts m ,

b'- *:

7 / p-

7. Potential Progran Resolutien Edward Denison/RLCA 820702 Re cet signec by on

' Type teamefor ganization Date

3. Si; nature: #8t# w A s t d 6 toto ? (A; proved / Program Manager)

/

p p

./ " .-

?,l . .

i Y.3 ERROR REPORT File No. 959 Class: C File Revision No. 2 A,5,C or D PG&E Task No. 70031 L -

1. Dates; -Reported-to Program Review Comittee ^

Program Review Committee Action M q' Reported to PG&E and Originator englo

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 16 ,

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

b RLCA Piping Analysis #105 Description of Error:

4 Support 11/495L is shown on PG&E Ocsign Review Isometric 445884 Revision 8 and Disign Analysis 3-5 (ccmpute'r date 770902) adjacent to the reducer at elevation 163 feet on line 20. RLCA field inspection showed the su;iport to be located adjacent to the bend at elevation 155. feet.

5. Significance of Error: -

The stresses in RLCA Piping Analysis 105.are below the allowable.

5. Recomendation:

Error Class C 7 Potential Error Report signed by E. Denison/RLCA on 820519 Type Name/0rganizaticn Date

3. Signatures: es W f* &.,_  % e ,, c For Program Review Committee Approveo/ Program Manager

, ., FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 960 f 1. Classification -

Revision No. l' d

Error Class (A, B, C or D)

X Deviation <

l

. Closed Item

2. Docu=entation Reviewed - ~'

P 105-4-432 PGandE analysis number 3-5, computer date 8/24/77, node 1 and the. tangent of the elbow between nodes 91 and 97..

PGandE Design ' Review Isometric 445884, Revision 8.

P 105-4-432 II Bulletin 79-14, Field Verification Procedura -

Unit One - Revision 2 - 10/13/80.

P 105-4-960-003 Denison-Tresier 3/6/82 Telecen

( '. Reported to PGandE Transmittal Date 3/9/82 4 Description -

The PG'andE isometric shows the elevation of the first 45-degree elbow above the header on line 19 as 166 feet 21 inches. RLCA field inspection showed the__ elevation to be 155 feet 1 inch.

l .

l 5. Final Resolution -

The PGandE piping analysis 3-5 shows the elevation of the first-45-degree elbow above the header on line 19 to be 156 feet, 1 and 3/16 inches. RLCA field inspection showed this elevation to be 155 feet, 1 inch. PGandE field inspection of EOI 960 showed this elevation to be 156 feet 2 inches. This item is found to be a deviation. ..

PGandE to revise Design Review Irometric 445884. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

ELJ SA 3 /9 /r z Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution l

r, , PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT-

+

File No. 961 File Revision No. 5 l

1. Resolution of an: 02 Open Item: [3 Class Error 1 2.' Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is. as: l

' j C a. @@ Closed Item

b. LJ Deviation

c. [] Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820921

4. Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No; October

5. Resolution based on the following occumentation:

-C Supoort 11/595L is shown to be active'in the vertical direction on PG&E Design Review Isometric 445884 Revision 8. RLCA field inspection showed two skewed snubbers 20 and 25 degrees respectively from vertical.

~

The seismic load computed (RLCA) is greater than that computed in the design analysis. l

5. Program Resolution is:

Based on PG&E Presentations (August 6, 1982 and August 26,1982)of their Internal Technical Program of Piping, this File combines with Files 1021,1058,1059, and 1098_into one Error Class A or B File.

File 1098 includes all concerns of these Files and has been designated as an Error Class A cr B.

t

~

l 1

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 820913 l Tye Name/Crganization uate C 8. Signature: f/[C imm , (Approved / Program Manager)

'+ a PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 962  !;

File Revision No. 2

1. Resolution of an: ci Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is. as:

a. Il Closed Item *

b. O Deviation .

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820621 4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 1g

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

Support 48/44R is shown on PG&E Design Review Isometric 445884 Revision 8

-i to be . active in the EW direction. RLCA field inspection showed this support to be active in both the NS and EW directions.

P105-4-591.5-070 RLCA Field Notes: The gap in .the NS direction exceeds the 79-14 tolerances. The initial RLCA field information was 'in error.

This support is not active in the NS direction.

~

3 i

j ,

t

5. Pr: gram Resolution is: -

Closed Item .

7. Potential Prcgram. Resolution '

Recer: signed by Edsard Cenisen/RLCA on S20519

_ type Name/Organizatien Date E. Signature: W8 6# %t.og2/ (Accreved/?rocram Mana:er)

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 963 File Revision No. 9 __

1. Resolution of an: Q Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. E Closed Item

b. O Deviation

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E mp1nso 4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Nnvember

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

PG&E Design Review Isometric 446542 Revision 10 and Design Analysis 8-34 (Computer Date 10/8/77) shows support 585/32R to be active in both the vertical and EW directions. RLCA field inspection showed a 1/4 inch gap in both directions of restraint. This gap exceeds the 79-14 tolerances.

P105-4-591.5 - 150 RLCA field verification (10/15/82) - The vertical and EW gaps on support 585/32R have been shimmed to within the 79-14 tolerances, f

6. Program Resolution is:

Closed Item.

j -

7 Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 821021 Type Name/ Organization Date

3. Signature: d, ,- _ SPz_ m 2 = (Approved /ProgramManager)

- . . - ~ . . - . . . . . . . - ..n-.

...-..~..s.

,? .

ERROR REPORT File No. raa- -

a Class: C File Revision No. 3

'-" rD (h PG&E Task No. 70336

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Conmittee 820426 *

. Program Review Committee Action ,

N/A - -- .

Reported to PGLE and Originator 820510 .

2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. 13

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

RLCA Piping An.alysis 107 line 279 ,E

4. Description of Error: ,

RLCA field inspection showed a NS rigid support on line 279 to be located three feet,10 inches from the elbow below elevation 100 feet.

PG&E Design Review Isometric 446542 Revision 10 and the- Design Analysis 8-34 (9/22/77) does not show this support.

~

5. Significance of Error: _

e.

This error does not show an overstress.

E'.,

5. F.e ommendation:

D'.'P Completion Repor.t can be issued if PG&E informs TES that there l

will be no physical modifications.

~

(

7. Potential Error Report signed by E. Denison/RLCA on 820425 Type Name/ Organization . Dat S. Signatures: N/A O[' M , - 820:_e10 For Program Reviea- Committee Acorove: AProgram r.anager

PROGRAM RE50L'JTION REPORT File No. 965 File Revision No. 3

1. Resolu. tion of an: O Open_ Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution.is as:

a. O Closed Item D. Dc Deviation ~ .,yv .

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E- 820607

4. Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. 15

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

P105-4-432: PGandE Load Balances 85A part 4 I and II (8/6/76 and 9/3/76) show vertical spring hanger 555/12SV te be located 8'5" from the elbew. RLCA field inspection showed this dimension to be 8'10"

- within the 79-14 tolerances. . .

o

3. Or:; a- Rasciuticr is:

Deviation l

l

7. Potential Program Resolution .

Re:Or: signed by Edward Denison/R.L.C. A. on  :/19/52 -

Tvee tiame/Or:aniza:icn Date

3. Signatare: <2L/lf/f$,-- (Approved / Program Manag-r)

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 966 .

A 1. Classification , _ Revision No. 1 s

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

X Deviation f Closed Item 1 .

~

2. Documentation Reviewed PGandE Design Review Isonetric 446342, Revision 10.

P 105-4-432 PGandE piping analysis 8-34, computer date 9/22/77, nodes 32-36 in the z direction. -

P 105-4-432 IE Bulletin.79-14, Field Verification. Procedure -

Und_t One - Revision 2.- 10/13/80

( '. Reported to PGandE Transmittal Date 3/9/82-

4. Final Resolution The PGandE piping analysis 8-34 shows support 14/33 SL to be 4 feet, 11 and % inches from the elbow. RLCA field inspection l

showed this' distance to be 4 feetr 5 inches. This item is found to be a deviation.

PGandE to revise Design Review Isometric 446542. This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

e

, .Luv es. & 34 T 2.'

Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolutien

' FINAL-RESOLUTION SREET Filo No. 994 I

jg l. Classification Revision No.

1 -

Error Class (A, 3, C or D)

Deviation x Closed Item , , ,

~

'2 .

Documentation Reviewed -

• Design Verification Program--Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978--Revision 1, Phase I.

3. Reported to PGandE , Transmittal Date ~ 3/9/82 4 Description --From the 11/12/81 Preliminary Report--

Piping--PGandE uses a for=al design guide for the seismic factors which they transmit to the consultants. This will .

be a significant interface to examine in the overall rever- '

ification program.

l

5. Final Resolution The Phase I piping sample includes several lines analyzed by consultants. This interface is covered by the independent calculations and therefore EOI 994 is closed.

i CI.LOCv1C/ 6./ } tM% 39O2, l Proj ect' Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution 1

l

, , FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 995-D% -1. Classification . Revi.e. ion No . I Error Class (A, 3, C or D)

Deviation .

x Closed Item

2. Docurantation Reviewed Design Verification Program--Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978--Revision 1, P.hase 1. -

2/27/82 RLCA letter to.MRC; " Seismic Reverification Program--

RLCA--Sample Selection."

{,3 Reported to PGandE Transmittal Date 3/9/82

4.

Description:

From the 11/12f81 Preliminary Report-the transmittals of piping 'information from PGandE to EES need to be exmined.

5 Final Resolution RLCA has selected several EIS piping analyses. By comparison of stress results, this interface will be examined in the current program.

EOI #995 is therefore closed. .

CN unucn( au Proj ect Engineer /Date 3 9 ccz. -

To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

9

. w .; .' .

. , ERROR AND OPEN ITEM S11EET *

1. Classification

• O rrror -

zrror c1===ification .

or -

' ] Class - (A,, B, C, or D) -

@ Open Item . .

2f Description 3.3.7.1 Piping Fystems "

For. che _ scope of piping assigned to. URS/Blume, very lii:tle corres '

pondsnee lyses. was, located during the time frame o'f. Unit 1. piping ana-However, URS/Blume has not yet been contacted to provida any transmittals they may have,sent'or. received.

acconiplished during the long term reverificat; ion effort.This wil1 be . .-

y. . .

. ~ -

- i.3. Signific..ance

,Noted in ".P.reHmi%ry Report, Seismic Rev'erificati.cn i.

,t.: ,~, .!. deport, Seismic Reverification'P2egram - No'v' ember.12, ..

' . . .*ck.:

, ., . .. , 3..qi81" , '. : ., ' '

'~

• .v. . . .. . . . s. -

=

s-

.. , f* . . :. ' . , .

-l,'..,- .' . . .

. . ..i* ~

.. ..; . a*

(, 4. .Recom='endation '

The Blunie/.PGan'dE idterfaces fra being

• covered by both the.QA Review and the Seismic Design Chain.

t

~

Reported..

'5.

' ~

. @ PGandE hrans'Ed.ttal Date 2/8/82- .

NRC Ref. & Date See above - -

6. Final Resolution. . . -

-  ; . e c a. 6 &~2 V

} Signed /Date ,

FTC ec' Engineer /Date Prior t Relense

, Project Mministrator/Date '

Prior to Final Resolution '

t FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET File No. co7

1. Classification- Revision No. ,

O Error 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 I. .

3. Reported to PGandE TransbittalDate '3/9/82

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

No documentation has been found concerning transmittals of valve information from PGandE to EES.

5. Final Resolution The Phase I Program requires that the accelerations of all valves included in the 10 piping analyses be examined. Since EES piping analyses have been selected as part of the sample, this item is closed.

LLiculuk Nent. 3f9 f62.

?roject Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution l

l

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET Filo No. 1000 h1. . Classification Revision No. 1 Error Class (A, B, C or D)

Deviation x Closed Item .

Documentation Reviewed

'2 . ,

Design Verification Program--Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978--Revision 1, Phase I.

b Reported to PGandE Transmittal Date ,/o/82 s -

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

Suffic.ient records have not been.found to fully document the flow of valve-infor=atioit from PGandE to- Westinghouse.

5. Final Resolution The Phase I Program includes checking accelerations for 16 Wes,tinghouse supplied valves. As this interface is being covered, E0I 1000 is closed.

.m 4

P4vCU1.c v c. 39f$1 Proj ect Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET File No. inn, A

,S -

Classification Revision No. 1 Error Class (A, 3, C or D)

Deviation x Closed Item 3

'2 ." ,

Docu=entation Reviewed .- -

Design Verification Program--Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978--Revision 1, Phase I.

( Reported.to PGandE Transmittai Date 3/9/82

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

. With the documentation available to date, no evidence has been ~

found to indicate whether the valve accelerations have ever been verified as being correct before transmittal to the valve qualifiers.

5. Final Resolution .

The Phase I Program provides for the examination of accelerations for 28 valves. This interface is covered and E0I 1001 is closed.

9 t .-

MJ'7 e -

W 3 Y01 Proj ec t Engineer /Date To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution ,

- - - - - - -- -- -,rr.

r nUu n A *i At.J usu l I V.3 Kt FU:{ l .

Tile fo. inno .

File Revision !!o. 5

1. Resolution of an: $ Open Item: O Class Error j 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution. is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. O Deviation -

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

3. Date Reported to PGLE 820910 .

4 Scheduled for TES Semicontnly Report tio.

.. Sectember

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

f-1 E0! 1009 Rev. 4: Spectra have not been provided or scaling criteria V

g_ defined for support locations above elevation 140' for the Containment i Interi.or. ..- ,

f

o. Program Resoluticn is: - -

l Based 7n the PGandE presentation on August 6 and September 1,'1982, i the Containment Structure is being -reanalyzed or reviewed as part of tne PGandE Internal Technical Program. Therefore, this E0I -

! File 1009 is combined into E0I 1014, which also pertains to the i

Containment Structure, and this file is closed.

[

i l

l .

1 I

7. Potential Program Re:;olution .

Repcrt signed by Ecward Denison (RLCA) on 820907

! I Date

! 8. Signnure: //g dyne acn/Geger_iz- 820910 ation ( App roved /Progra :: :-:ar.ag er)

/

ym, g - . . - + - - , , . - -.g-. , , . , ,-,-w w. - . . - -

. u

• '... ,' +-

~

ERROR REPORT File No. 1014 Class: A/B File Revision No. 8 A,B,C or 0 PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 821115

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Decemoer ~~ ., -

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

Containment Structure j

4 Description of Error:

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

5. Significance of Error:

Spectra _used in the design ' analysis of the pipe rack attached to the

~

i Containment Exterior may not be applicable.

j o. Recommenda t ion : -

3 Sased 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 l, file 1014, which is issued as an Error A or B. Revision 8 is issued to combine 3006 and 3007 into this file as Errors A or B.

7 Potential Error Report signed by NA on

3. Type Name/Oroaniz ation Date Signatures:

NA For Program Review Committee M88_

Approved /Psogram Manager 821113 4

a e ee ep

• e e e go e v y *e, a.m., - em o e eaus - e e e me e g see

• ese e -= ese nem ee ,e e c-

.? . l FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET File No. 1019

1. Classification -

Revision No'. 1 Class +"

l Error (A, 3, C or D) M l Deviation.

g Closed Item , , ,

2. ,

Docu=enta' tion Reviewed

~

? 105-4-1019-004 PGandE Separator / Stabilizer and Support Drawings

3. Reported.to PGandE Transmittal Date '3/18/82- *

~

4

4. Des cription RLCA had been unable to obtain documentation for the Separator /Stabili::er dimensions.

5. Final Resolution PGandE has transmitted the required drawings and therefore this item is closed.

j 4 ,

JW@v GAU.Q0 A. 3_ l W 5[

j P roj e c t . En.o,ine er/ Da t e l To Indicate RLCA Final Resolution

e. 4 VKUuMM*t nt,3vt.y a gun %rvne File No. 1671 -

~

A

~

File Revision No. 5 _

1. Resolution of an: D Open Item: O Class Error -'

2. Indeoendent Design Verification Program Resolutten is as:

a.- G Closed Item C- b. O ceviation .

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820921

4. Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. OCTOBER

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

c -

PG&E piping analysis number 4-3 (Revision 15, 3/4/80) represents the Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger as a rigid anchor. The Hosgri Report (Table 7-5) lists natural frequencies of 9 hertz (horizontal and -

vertical) for this heat exchanger. The modeling of a nonrigid piece of equipment as a rigid anchor may not be conservative.

F

5. Program Resolution is:

Based on PG&E presentations (August 5, 1982 and August 25, 1982) of their Internal Technical Program of Piping, this File combines with Files 961, 1058, 1059, and 1098 into one Error Class A or S File. .

l File 1098 includes all concerns of these Files and has been designated as an Error Class A or B.

l 2 -

l i

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by rdward non unn /ot rA on 820913 _

Type Name/Crganization Date S. Signature: 7,JP d'_ m ,s, (Approved / Program Manager)

- . v .

'8 -  :--

~

_: ~T -1

.a I

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT- -

File No. Inst File Revision No. c .

, 1. Resolution of an: 03 Open Item: O Class Error

; ^

2. Incependent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. ER Closed Item "

, b. O Deviation

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820719 4 Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. s , , ,, , e .

5. Resolution based on'the following documentation': ,

RLCA was not able to obtain information on a 3 inch Velan valve.

Valve drawing 663317-4-3 has been received by RLCA

5. Dr gram Resciutien is:

RLCA has received the information required to model the valve. Therefore this is a closed item.

l t

e l-i

7. Potential Program Resciution .-

Report signec ey E.Denison/RLCA on 820713 Iyce .ame /Gegen iz 3t ion Uete E. Signature: '4 '? f ., _ _ n o -r e ( Ac::reved/ Program Manager)

/

• W **me woe e awa. + m ee om , m

~ - - ~-

~ ~

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

. . PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1025 i

File Revision No. 5

'S 1. Resolution of an: .g Open Item: O Class Error

- ~, 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. El Closed Item

b. O Deviation .

_c.;O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. -Date Reported to PG&E apo7??

4. Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. Auoust

5. Resolution based on, the following documentation:

- The Hosgri Report does not include vertical spectra for the -Turbine Building elevation 104' bents 16-20. Spectra for the Cardox Tank Support may not be applicable for the entire r.egion - 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. Program Resolution is: .

E0I 1025 is combined with E01 1026 as an' Error Class A or B.

E01 1025 is therefore closed.

t l

, 7. Potential Program Resolutien .

I Repor: signec ey es w ,,e nan ken /RtcA on 820721 Tyg a Ge-=/ Organization Cate

! 3- Si~natur9: _DM ' - -

_ fLO 7 L 1 ( Approveo/Prcora"; *.ar.aoer)

• =

1 ,

l t

. . i . ... _ u _ _ _ . . J 4

-. . .- ..Z.....Z.........T...........~ . . s . . . . . .n

.lo

~

PROGRAM RESOLUT!ON REDORT -'

, File No. 1031

l. File Revision No. 6

.j ,

1. Resolution of an: gg Open Item: O Class Error

2. Incependent Design Verification Program Resolution .is as:.

'; a. O Closed Item

. b. O Deviation -

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task ~

3. Date Reported to PG&E apn719 4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Aucust

, 5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

RLCA has been unable to obtain documentation necessary to model valves FCV-37 and LEV-115 RLCA requests for information P105-4-620-184 P105-4-620-210 PG&E Information P105-4-432-051 RLCA Field Notes P105-4 -591.5-049 P105-4-591.5-079

5. Pr: gram kesolution is:

PG&E has provided information for valves FCV-37 and LCV-115.

This information was verified and supplemented by RLCA field work. Closed Item _

t

't t

i 1

Potential Program Resolutter. tdward Denison/RLCA 820710 7.

Recert signec by on i Type 4a.e/Or;4r.ize:1on Gate I 3. Signature: 'Z/ 2" #- - rt.= 7 o (A; prove /Procram F.ana:er)

~ ~

+ /

s I

1

. . . I

4 s OPEN-ITEM REPORT File No. - 1031 File Revision No. 4

1. 820707 Da:e reper:ed to PggE Tc and ggjA 7

2. Seneduled for (Originator) Semimonthly Report No.

3. Responsive to PG&E Tecnnical Program: Task 70115 (if applicaole) .

4 Prepared as a result of:

1. C 'QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. X Other Deficiency PG&E Response to PRR/0IP

5. -Structure (s), system (.s) or component (s) involved:

RLCA Piping Analyses #108 and #109

6. Description of Concern:

RLCA had been unable to cbtain documentatica necessary to model valves FCV-37 and LCV-115.

7. Significance of Concern:

3. Recommencation:

?G&E Ccmpletion sheet datad 320621 suggests that PG&E has provided the needed information.

RLCA to review and submit recommendation

[ f'-

9. S ignature : Mpm 4 f,, p 4.s, e?m 7 (Orig inator/Organiz atien)

// / / ,

t . p. .ee mimmme e eene ..m -e e me e e e* ee o e

v - m a

, i

-1 5

, . . . PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1032 -

4 File Revision No.

1. Resolution of an: ci Open Item: O Class Error

2. . Incependent Cesign Verification Program Resolution is as: -

a. pf Closed Item

3. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820707 4 Scheduled for TES 'Semimentniy Report No. 17

5. Resolution based on the following documen:ation:

Succort 73/70R shown on PG&E Design Review Isometric 446544, Revision 1, (5/25/81) and PG&E Orawing 049259 sheet 83, Revision 1 (slash) is designed as an ' axial support. The support is designed with zero clearance in one norizontal (west) direction.

RLCA analysis 102 shows seismic movements in the EW direction of .0281" P105-4-1032-003 Thermal Analysis 196P shcws a thermal movement cf .171" in tne east direction. .

5. Pr: gram Resciutien is:

In the hot p.osition, the seismic movements in the EW direction will be less than the clearance. Closed Item.

I 9'-

7. Potential Program Resolutien Edward Denison/RLCA 520702 Re: Ort signec by on Type tiame/Grganizatica Date

3. S igna ture : 67 dh 4 m.4 b y dzo7,/( A : o re v ed / P ro g ra"t Man ag er )

sf ' /

7i/ '

~

. ERROR REPORT -

File No. 1050 ,

Class:

. C File Revision No. 2 A,B, rD (i PG&E Task No. ~70136

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee 820430

- Program Review Committee Action -

N/A - -- -

Reported to PG&E and Originator 820510

2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. 13 ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 107

4. ' Description of Error:

T.

PG&E Design Review Isometric 446542 Revision 10 and design analysis 8-34 (computer date 10/8/77) does not show line 279-8 to be insulated between valve 1-9003A and support 575/70V (nodes 11 to -20) and between supports 15/1SL and 565/30R (nodes 25 to 29). RLCA field inspection showed this line to be insulated in the above specified locations.

5. Significance of Error: _

. (EE- .

This item does not cause an overstress.

e

6. Recc mendation:

l IDVP Completion Report can be issued if PG&E inferms TES that there will be no pnysical modifications.

1 I -

7. Potential Error Report signed by E. Denison/RLCA o'n' S20430 Type Name/Orcanization . Date S. Sicnatures:

N/A MCM 820510 For ?regram Review Committee Apsrovec/f rogram Manager 5

, . . . . - - . . . -.a

. s.-y t .

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT -

File No. 1051 ,

File R'evision No. 2

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

2. Incependent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. D Closed Item

b. O ' Deviation -

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820607 4 Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. 1~

5. Resolution based on the following documentation: ~

E01 1051, Revision 0: The insulation specification given in-PGandE-

- drawing 102040, Revision 9, 6/22/81 for lines 264-8 and 2519-8 is ,

NIR (No Insulation Required). PGandE Design Review Isometric 446540, Revision 9, shows the insulation specification for these lines to be III P(Personnel Protection Only). .

P105-4-1051-003 The 79-14 Design Review Isometric controls in these cases.

o

i. :r:;ra- Resolution is: .

Closed Item 7 .

7. Potential Program ?.esolutien '

Re:crt signed by Ecward Denison/R.L.C.A. on 5/20/82 gT se Name/Grgan za::en Data 3- Si9 natre: M8 G m m (A::r:se:/Progra,.v$ager) ar

4 $5 A. _.u1, FINAL RESOLUTION SHEET File No. 1057: ,

~

Revision No. 1

..-- Classification Error Class (A, B, C or D)  :

i -

l Deviation -

~

'_. x Closed Item  ;

2. ,

Documentation Reviewed .- -

l- FGandE Analysis 4A-5 '(Revision 4, 12/9/81 computer date) -

RLCA Analysis 106 ,

Reported.to PGandE 3/16/82

~

.$ . Transmittal Date' 1

Stresses and support loads in the RLCA analysis diffa.:

from those in the PGandE Analysis 4A-5 by more.than 15%.

By more accurately distributing the lu= ped masses in the RLCA analysis the pipe stresses compare within 15%. The

4. Description RLCA lumoed mass criteria was found to be overly conserva-tive, an'd has been changed co' require a larger, mass distri-bution.

The 2nd difference involves masses located at supports.

ADLPIPE multiplies the effective pipe mass at the support I by rero period accelerations. PIPESD neglects the effective l pipe mass'at the support. PIPESD is representative of in-L 5. Final Resolution dustry standard in the 1970's with respect to this issue.

The design analysis was found to be modeled correctly and executed correctly on PIPESD. The difference noted above between ADLPIPE and PIPESD will be examined under EDI 1060.

i this item is therefore closed.

i

[

M G/* 5@ 0 l0 6 L I Project Enr.ineer/Date I To Indicate RLCA Final Resolutien l

l I

s

, envune acabw. wn ~ v.n ' (

c'- -

File No. 1060 -l File Revision No. 3

1. Resolution of an: G Open Item: O Class Error

2. - Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed :ltem

-b. O Deviation

c. D open Item'with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E apnopi 4 Scheduled for ,TES Semimonthly Report No. OCTOBER

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

PIPESD provides the user with two options with. regard.to. tributary pipe mass associated with support nodes. Masses assigned to support nodes may either be deleted (option A) or distributed to adjacent node points-(option B).

The design analyses corresponding to the initial RLCA sample delete masses assigned to support nodes. A comparison case run by RLCA shows these two options produce results that differ by more than 15%. In general, the support loads obtained by optien B are higher than .those obtained by option A.

Rev. 2 of this file was a PPRR from RLCA for an Open Item with future action by PG&E. TES and RLCA agreed in a Program Review Committee action to modify this reconnendation to that shown below.

Program Resolution is:

6.

Based on PG&E Presentations (August 6,1982 and August 25,'1982) of their

, Internal Technical program on Piping, this file has been transferred into file 1098 Rev. 5.

(

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison/RLcA on e9no,,

T e Name/ Organization Date

.;, 3. Signature: h/- . n.,o,, (Approved / Program Manager)

. . . _ . .- -.. ~

t s . .

Page 1 of 2 ERROR REPORT File No. 1060 Class: C File Revision No. 3 i

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

1. Cates: Reported to Program Review Committee N/A Program Review Committee Action efa Reported to PG&E and Originator a9nuna

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. a ! , m.n + ,

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 itets in the verification analysis and the pipe stresses agree within 15% (8%).

1. Support 585/23R cnanged 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.

4 Y Support portion of 98/6R moved l'-6" south to support 98/lllR.

Z Support portion of 98/6R moved l'-6" north.

5. Deleted 3/4" vent lines on 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.D. from 4" to 8".

9. Changed concentrated weight of valve 9001A from 430 lbs. to 600 lbs.

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

10. Changed uniform weight of valve 9002A from 17.00 lbs/in. to 20.513 lbs/in.

11. Increase cipe length, support 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.

N .

z:.; :i

~'

Page 2 of 2-EP.R0R REPORT' File No. 1062

. . File Revision No. .s

_j Class: C PG&E Task No. 70156 A,B,C, or 0

.r 5. Significance of Error:

E0I 932 reports an overstress. E0I 1062 reports stress differences greater than 15% and under allowable. The significance of the twelve items is as follows:

1. Support 58S/23R: EDI 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.

, Support 98/6R: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances

- Error Class C.

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

- Closed. ,

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

7. Empty Pipe Weight: PG&E has suppplied an operating procedure to show that this portion of line is empty - Closed.

8. Valve 9001A Modeling: The design an'alysis valve height is dif-ferent by more than 15% - Error Class C.

9. Valve 9001A' Weight: This difference exceeds 15% - Error Class C.

10. Valve 9002A: This 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.

6. Recomendation :

i Based on Items 4,8,9,10,11 & 12, this file is classified as an Error Class l C.

7. Potential Error Report signed byEdward Denison/RLCA on 820729 Type Name/0rgan' ation DATE

3. Signatures: N /A7 -

245. - d A./ /

For Program Review Comittee Approveo/ #ciram Manager /e _.#2dJd I f

._. .,.-?,.- v ; --. e : -

]

,, __ u, . . .- . .- '~

. l tnAUR HEPORI F i le No.100.1 3 Class: C File Revision No. 2

/ A,B,C or 0 PG&E _ Task No. 70157

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/a Program Review Committee Action -- ina Reported to PG&E and Originator -

m7n77>

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Auoust ,

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

4 RLCA Piping Analysis 107

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 modeled ,n 900 ihs. in the dee. ign analy'. ie. and a'. 2110 th*..

. 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 empty during operation. P-105-4-432-077 4 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 58S/124R and 58S/30R are perpendicular to line 264. The design analysis shows these supports skew to line 264

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

3. Support locations differ by 4 to 48 inches (585/30R)

9. Pipe leg lengths differ by 7h to 24 inches (279 Z Direction)

10. Mass Lumping.

5. Significance of Error: ,

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

1. Valve Weiqht: Error Clase. 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: E01 1050 addresses this item.

5. NS Rigid Support: E01 964 addresses this item

6. Skewed Supports: 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 1 tam.

6. Recomendation:

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

/. Poli nL ia l Lrror Report s ojned by [.Denison/RLCA on 820710 Type .Name/Organizat Date

! s. Signatures: N/A g For Prcgram : Review Committee Approvec/Progrh Manager l ' .

_ . - - .n.--. ..

g .

OPEN ITEM REPORT File'No. Ingo a File Revision-No. 6 Date reported to PG&E and

1. g30sp4

2. Scheduled for Tes (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. July

3. Responsive to PG&E Tecnnical Program: Task 70164 (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of .: . . . .

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency . . . .-- .=e e

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

_ f. D Other Deficiency (Completion of Modification)

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved: -

RLCA Piping Analysis 109 - Valves LCV-113 and LCV-115

6. Description of Concern:

Valves LCV-113 and LCV-ll5 are shown to be unsupported on PGandE Design Review Isometric 447119, Revision 12. RLCA field inspection (811130) confirmed that these 35" long valves with 2" connections were unsupported. PGandE Analysis 2-14, Computer Date 820116, indicates that supports have been added to valves LCV-113 and LCV-115.

7. Significance of Concern: ,

This item causes an overstress in the RLCA Piping Analysis 109.

OCP Completion Sheet 1069, Revision 5 (dated R. R. Fray 830620) indicated that supports have been added to LCV-113 and LCV-ll5 valve operators and l the valves have been qualified with the supports.

l l 8. Recomnendation :

RLCA to verify support addition and review OCP valve qualification.

l I -

\

9. Signature: -

W#[~ y f10 627 (Originator / Organization) g_ _ , - , - _ _ , - - . _ _-

. .._,_ .._. . . . - . . . - - - - - . - .= > - c ~ '-

ERROR REPORT File No. In71 Class: e File Revision No. 3 A,5,t or 0 s PG&E Task No. 70166

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee i' N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 820811

' 2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No.

3. Auaust ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis l09 -

t. . Description of Error:

I 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 direction restraint at support 585/69R. ,

I

5. Significance of Error:

RLCA piping analysis 109 showed stresses to exceed the allowable. E0I -

1069 reports the overstress. E01 1071 reports stress differences greater than 15% but not exceeding the allowable. The significance of the five items is as folinws:

1. Spectra: The design spectra are within 15% of the verification spectra (frequency and accelerations). Closed Item.

2. Mass Lumping: E01 1060 addresses this item.

3. Added Supports: E01 1069 addresses this item.

4 Swages: Error Class C.

, 5. 58S/69R: E01 953 addresses this item.

5. Recomendation:

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

a i.

[t 7. 2 0tential Error Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 820710

8. Signatures: Date N/A Type Name/Org@aniz.[ation[m noga For Program Review Committee

-i Approvec/ Program Manager

., T. .: . g r..f,j 43 ,

, ,d OPEN ITEM REPORT . File No. 1074

'}'

RLCA- File Revision No. 3 821209 Date reported to PG&E and X1)Dfx l.

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. December V 3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Frogram: Task (if applicable)

a. Prepared as a result of: . .

</ . a. C QA Audit and Review Report of ~

b. C Field Inspection Deficiency

,; c. E Independent Calculation Deficiency ,

. d. O Seismic Input Deficiency -

e. C Design Methodology Deficiency 5 f. C Other Deficiency Y{ 5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

3 Q RLCA Piping- Analysis 101.

,lA 6. Description of Concern:

'Tl

'd RLCA spectra input' changed to agree with spectra used in design analysis 8-21. ,

.li mj St 3

.Ih 7. Significance of Concern:

? H j The design spectra used in 8-21 did not envelope Hosgri Figure 4-136.

4

...1 A

. q

! i.1 8. Recomendation :

t M

l" Based on PGandE Resolution (820830) and Completion (821122) Sheets,

r. RLCA to review the latest PGandE calculation package 8-108 and confirm 9 that no modifications are required and that file can be closed.

di

.a 5.I

.1

j. /,] 9. Signature : A kg./ [ ;-- '

821209 (Originator / Organization) ff{ .  ? 5_

et4 3i._.....__...._ . . . . . . . . _. _. ..

c' -

. . . . . . .. ,. . . . . . . . . . . ..~. . . .. _..:_

- . . i ' ., -

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT

. File No. 1075

[' File Revisien No. 2

1. Resolution.of an: C3_0 pen Item: O Class Error

2. Incependent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. Ek Deviation .

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820607 .

4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 15

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

RLCA 104, Piping line 104, supports 5007-R and 18-5R ,

Supports 5007-R and 18-5R are l abeled on PGandE Design Review Isometric 449316, Rev. 3 as being active in the y and : directions.

RLCA field verification showed the support to be acti.ve in both the x and y directions. Design Analysis 4-3 (ccmputer date 2/18/80) agrees with RLCA field inspection. Isometric is incorrect.

i. : :; i- Ess:luticr. is:

aviation s

c .

7. Potantial Precram R'esciution

~

Re:crt signec by Edward Denison/R.L.C.A. on 4/30/82 Type tia e/Crganizatien Date

3. Sicr.a turs : 2/r p . .. (Accreved/Prcoram Manacar)

. POTEf;TI AL PROGRN1 RESOLUT!0tl REPORT file flo.1076 File Revision flo. 1 (e, 1. Resolution of an: I2 Open Item: O Class Error

2. Reco:m: ended Indepencent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O ~ Closed Item b.(3 Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE

3. Date Reported to Program Manager 1/11 /82 -

4. Report submitted on behalf of RT.cA (Organization) .

. 5. _ Resolution based on the following documentation: ,

PGandE Analysis Number 4-3, Computer Date 1/30/80.

1 .

TELEDYNE ENGlf!EERING SERVICES CONTROLLED DOCUMENT TES PROJ. NO. 44 / ./

OATE lf /A A7 f .

(.

6. Program Resolution is:

! Support 55S-3R is. labeled on PGandE Design Review Isometric 449314, Rev. 3, as being active in the Y direction.

RLCA field verification showed the support to be active in both the X and Y directions.

The design analysis shows support 55S-3R to be active in-both the X and Y directions. This item is found to be a l

! deviation.

l PGandE to revise the Design Revieti Isometric 449314, Rev. 3.

This drawing change will not be reviewed by RLCA.

t

(

T .

7. Signature: ' 6 kbC b Recom. ended by) sho/n.

y-- .

.]

W N:, . ~ '

Page 1 of 2 f 7.- , ERROR REPORT File No. Snen ^

l Class: c File Revision flo. 2

A,F.C or D PG&E Task No. 7n17g

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comnittee via Program Review Committee Action win Reported to PG&E and Originator

. 2. Scheduled for TES Semimenthly Report No. u .#.,

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

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 body center.

The verification 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 along the valve body.

3. The RHR Pu'np was modeled in the design analysis by lumping the mass at the ccnter of gravity and restraining the-rocking and vertical degrees of freedom at the base. This pump was modeled 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 verification analyses were run, one assuming a free base and one assuming a fixed base.

4 Thg design and verifpation analyses input the value of Eu as 25.4 x 10 psiand?g.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 unions 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 .

modeled 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 model 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, regpectivelf. The verification analysis modeled these snubbers as 40 and 130 from the positive x-axis, respectively.

, a-

• * , Page 2 of 2.

_ ERROR REPORT- . File No. 1080 CLASS: c File Revision No.- 2 A, B,C, cr 0 PG&E Task No. 70179

10. Mass Lumping

11. Line 930-3" is decoupled from the base 14" line in the verification analysis and included in the design analysis.

5. Significance of Error:

l. Spectra: The design spectra is above or within 15% of the verifi, cation 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 minor--Closed Item.

3. RHR Pump: The model 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.

a. E:

g This difference is less than 15%--Closed Item.

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

6. Flange Weight: This weight difference exceeds 15%--Error Class C.

7. Valve 1-8700A: Both analyses model a rigid valve stem. In addition, the weights agree within 15%--Closed Item.

S. Model dimensions: The location of support 72/2R differs by more than the 79-14 tolerances--Error Class C.

9. Snubber Orientation: These differences exceed the 79-14 toler-ances--Error Class C.

10. Mass Lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.

11. Line 930-3": The RLCA criteria provides for decoupling lines with an OD ratio of. 4--Closed Item.

6. Recommendation :

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

7. Potential Error Report signed by _ Edward Denison/RLCA on ---.

Type Name/ Originator Date

3. Signatures: N/A For Program Review Conmittee uYkSud #>J b

'ApprovggIfragramMana(er

/

O

~ ~ ! - .

+

..=~.

ERROR REPORT File No. 1081 Class: C File Revision No. 2

^ #

PG&E Task No. 70180

-1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Conmittee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 820831

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. September ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 104.

_ 4. Description of Error: -

The stress in the verification (F105-4-521-044 -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 555/3R.

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

5. Mass Lumping.

$. Significance of Error:

The significance.of these items is as follows*:

1. Response Spectra: The design spectra does not envelop or fall within 15% of the vir_if_icat-ion spectra at all "requencies :

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.

Component Locations and Piping Lengths: This difference exceeds 4

the 79-14 tolerances - Error Class C.

5. Mass Lumping - E0I 1060 addresses this item.

All stresses are below allowable. *

5. Recomendation:

Based on items 1 thru 4, this file is classified as an Ebror Class C.

7. Potential Error Report signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) 820824 on

, Type Ncte/Grganization Date

s. ,s i pa.t u re r, : N/A ppg For Prcgram Rev10'a Committec Approved /Progre.m i anager

~

s, Page 1 of 4

e. ,

ERROR REPORT ' File No. ,ne Class:~ C A,8,C or 0 File Revision No. I '

PG&E Task No. vntp7

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee ura

- Program Review Committee Action ufa Reported to PG&E and Originator g9ncte

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. e.g.#. ,

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

RLCA Piping Analysis 102 4 Description of Error:

Stresses in the design and verification analyses differ by more thar 152...

All stresses are below the allowable. Twelve differences between the analyses are noted:

1. Model Dimensions

a. The EW leg of line 44-4" including support 73-31R is shown in the design analysis 8-25 as 6'101/2" and in the verification analysis as 6'l 7/16".

b. Support 73-71R is shown in the design analysis 8-31 at '

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 tee.

d. Support 73-72R is shown in the design analysis 8-31 at the' elbow horizontal weld point and in the verificat. ion analysis as 21/2" above the elbow vertical weld point.

e. Support 74-36R is shown in design analysis 8-24 at elevation 96'3" and irt the verification analysis 'at elevation 95'.

2 .- Model Weights

a. Valve 8924 is modeled in the design analysis as 238 lbs.

and in the verification analysis as 331 lbs.

b. Design analysis 8-25 omitted one flange union.

c. The design analysis 8-25 does not include insulation on -

line 1971.

d. The flanges to the removable strainers adjacent to the charging pumps were modeled in the design analysis 8-25 ,

as 85 lbs. and in the verification analysis as 54 lbs.

e. The design analysis 8-31 includes the weight of insu-lation on line 734 RLCA field verification does not indicate insulation, f.

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

/ '* - . '.' Page 2 of.4 ERROR REPORT File No. 1084 CLASS: c. File Revision h 7 A,B,C, or 0 PG&E Task No.70187

3. The verification analysis includes the 10" nozzles to the charging pumps. - The _ design analysis ends at the equipment-interface flange.

4. The design analysis 8-25 modeled the 3 foot section - near -

charging pump 1-2 as 1 planer 4!P and 1 rolled 600 elbow.- This

_ section was modeled in the. verification analysis as 3 planar 450elbows.

5. Support 73/72R is modeled in the design analysis 8-25 as an X restraint and in the verification analysis as an XI restraint.

5. The separator / stabilizer support is 'modeled in the design analysis 8-25 as an XY translational restraint. The verification analysis shows this support as an XY trans-lational and XI rotational restraint.

7. The values of Young's modulus differ slightly.

8. The verification analysis is represented by three design. .

analyses.

9. Spectra.

10. Design analysis 8-31 included branch line 118-8".

11. Design analysis 8-24 did not consider valve 8805A & B flexibility.

12. Valve 8805B is modeled in the design analysis 8-24 as vertical and in the verification analysis as horizontal

5. Sicnificance of Error:

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

1. Model Dimensions

a. EW leg: This exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-Error Class C.

b. Support 73/71R: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-Error Class C.

c. Anchor 74/6A: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-Error Class C.

d. Support 73/72R: This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-Error Class C.

e. Suppcrt 74/36R: This difference exceeds the 79-14 l tolerances-Error Class C.

l

. ++w t .

Page 3 of 4

^

ERROR REPORT '

File No. 1084 CLASS: e 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 7 4: 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 8805B: This diffe-ence 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. From 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 everlapped near '

anchor 74/6A. This anchor provides adequate restraint for decoupling-Closed. The second overlap, at line 1456, was based on 2 componenets of restraint in 2 directions and an i axial suppo-t 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 te item 8. RLCA model RLCA 102 i includes piping at higher elevations than PG&E's in order to terminate the model with a sufficient overlap support scheme-Error Class C.

10. Branch Line: The verification analysis included the line attached to line 118-8" for overlap effects only-Closed.

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

c I

= 4

, Page 4 of 4 File No. 1084 ERROR REPORT File Revision No. 3 CLASS: C A,8,C, or D

-l PG&E Task No.70187 j

12. Valve 8805B: E0I 938 addresses this item.

6. Reconinendation

_ Based 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 on 820823 Type Name/ Organization Date

8. Signatures: N/A M[ [mr n..e,a For Program Review Conmittee Approved / Program Manager O

e

• O M

~

1 V 7 4 Page 1 of 2 ERROR REPORT- File No. 1085 Class:

C File Revision No. 3 A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70188

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&Ecand" Originator 870an

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No.

3. Seotemoer ,

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

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

4. Descripticn of Error:

Stresses in the design and verification analyses differ by more than 15%. The following of fferences 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 h" and in the verification analysis as 3/8".

5. The thickness of lines 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, 340lbs., for Valves 1-8010 A, 8, and C were omitted fecm the design analysis. t

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. Sionificance of Error:

All stresses are 'below the allowables. The significance of the items are reported below: -

1. Mass lumping: E0I 1060 addresses this item.

2. Spectra: The design analysis spectra is either above or within 15% of the design spectra - Closed.

3. Branch 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 15% - Error Class C.

6. Eccentricity: This eccentricity is small compereu with the valve dimensions - Closed.

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

(continued on page 2)

'J' ^*~

Page 2 of 2 ERROR REPORT.

^

File flo. 1085 Class: C File Revision flo. 3 A,8,C or 0 PG&E Tas'< flo. 70188

^

"~

5. Sionificance'of Error (cont.):

8. Risers: The difference in pipe length does not exceed the 79-14 tolerances'- Closed.

9. Young's Modulus: The difference is less than 15% - Closed.

10. Line 19 Segment: This differenc'e exceeds the 79-14 tolerances -

Error Class C.

11. Snubber 11/59 SL: E0I 961 addresses this item.

12. Pressurizer Modeling: PGandE Open Item #22 addresses this item.

13. Support Locations: The difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances-Error Class C. .

5. Recomendation:

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

as an Error Class C.

7 Potential Error Report signec by Edward Denison (RLCA) on 820823 Type llame/Geganization Date

8. SignatLres: N/A pgg f or Prcyram RevMW Cownittee Approved / Program Itanacer

Page 2 of 3

.aa .

. ERROR REPORT File No. 1086 CLASS: c ' File Revision No. 2 A,8,C, or 0 PG&E Task No. 70180

13. Changed 0.0. , wall thickness and weight / length of line 584 from 27.83", .9163", 23.591 lbs/in to 27.81", .906", and 24.350 lbs/in.

14. Mass lumping changed to agree'with the , design analysis.

_ 15. All relief valve lines were deleted from the model. This included both piping and attached valves.

5. Significance of Error All stresses are below the allowable. The significance of the items is as follows: -

1. Spectra: The design spectra is greater or within 15% of .the verification spectra -- Closed.

2. Main Steam Line: RLCA field verification does not show a rigid

• vertical support on this portion of line -- Error Class C.

3. E Value: This difference is within 15% -- Closed.

4 Line'593: This difference is within 15% -- Glosed.

. 5. Fif teen Dimensional Items: The line 593 difference exceeds tne 79-14 tolerances -- Error Class C.

6. Support 3/43R: The support orientation is within the 79-14 tolerances -- Closed Item.

7. Valve 87298: This difference is less than 15% in overall weight with similar models -- Closed Item.

8. Valve FCV-37: The center of gravity for this valve differs by more than 15% --Error Class C.

9. Line 593 Junction: The section of line 227-28" 'rtm the centerline to outside radius should be modeled as an equivalent "r i g td" section -- Error Class C.

10. Imoingement Sleeve: This weight difference exceeds 15% -- Error Class C.

11. Support 1032/4SL: This difference exceeds tne 79-14 tolerances --

Error Class C.

12. Valve FCV-42: The weight differences exceed 15% -- Error Class C.

13. Line583: The design analysis input values agree within 15% of tne verification values -- Closed.

.: . 1 1 i

. .)

,. g.,. , Pag 2 3 of 3 ERROR REPORT File No. 1C86

~

' CLASS: c File Revision No. 2

}

A,8,C, or 0-

'PG&E Task No.70180

14. Mass Lumping: E01 1060 addresses this item. .

15. The relief valve lines contribute significant mass effects to the 28" line -- Error Class C.

'l

. 6. Reconmendation :

I Based on Items 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 15, tnis file is classified as an error Class C.

4 l 7. Potential Error Report signed by EDWARD DENISON/RLCA cn 820824 Type Name/ Crc ization Date j 3. Signatures: .M/ w A /e./ 4 _-M n gy%

~

N/A l For Program Review Conmittee Appro#6(/ Program Mar 49er l

en

?

5 s

.o. - - - .- - - - - - - . . , ,~m, , , _ . , , ,

s. on 9.-

J' 7 .

ERROR REPORT File No. 1098 Class: A or B File Revision No. 9 A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70210

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator a3070s

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. July ,

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

CVCS Separator / Stabilizer

4. Description of Error:

The design analysis 8-25 modeled the CVCS separator / stabilizer support as an X -and Y tr.anslational restraint. RLCA field verification shows this support as an X and Y translational and X and Z rotational restraint. '

5. Significance of Error:

The separator stabilizer was qualified as an "in-line" piping component.

Design analysis 8-25 'does not record the correct anchor bolt loads on the separator / stabilizer.

6. Recommendation:

Based on PGandE presentatiens of their technical program, this file is -

combined with Files 961,1021,1058,1059,1060, and 1104 as an Error Class A or B. -

The inclusion of File 1060 and 11b4 into this file was achieved by Program Review Committee action. .

Revision 6 was issued to reflect the inclusion of File 6001.

Revision 7 was issued to reflect the inclusion of Files 1115 and 6002.

Revision 8 was issued to reflect the inclusion of File 1126.

Revision 9 was issued to reflect the inclusion of- File 1137.

All file.

concerns of the above mentioned files will be reviewed under this

7. Potential Error Repcrt signed by N/A on N/A

8. Signatures: Type Name/0rianization Date N/A For Program Review Committee Md730 - 7/c7a e Approvec7 Program Manager -

'.-c+.

E PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT Fi1e No. 1103 File Revision No. 8

1. Resolution of an: lb Open Item: O Class' Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as: -

a. ID Closed Item

b. O Deviation

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

. 3. Date Reported to PG&E mn415

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. May

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

- E0I 1103 Revision 1: Concern is that local pipe support loads are addressed in the qualification of supporting. steel and that supporting steel is considered in the frequency calculation. _.

The IDVP verification program includes review of structural member qualifications for inclusion of local pipe. support loads.

P105-4-1103-005 and 009 (DCP 11/3/82 and 3/21/83 responses).

The OCP considers all supporting steel between the piping and the building structure for the 20 hertz frequency criteria.

Rupture restraints between pipe supports and the building structure are considered rigid.

The OCP has provided rupture restraint frequency calculations and jud'ged the frequencies of rupture. restraints to be "... considerably greater than 33 hz." The IDVP concurs with this judgement.

O t

6. Program Resolution is:

Closed Item. ,

4

7. Potential Program Resolution Repcet signed by , Edward Denison/RLCA on 830407 Type Name/ Organization Date

8. Signature: d, J,. G % r3 u e (Approved / Program Manager) y

T - .

]:.e.

9 .

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT ~ ._

File No. 1106 File Revision No. 7

. 'l'. _ Resolution of an: D Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as: -

a. D Closed Item

b. O Deviation -

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830623

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. July

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E0I 1109 has been combined with 1106.

These two files note RLCA calculated nozzle loads that exceed design analysis loads and RLCA calculated valve accelerations that exceed allowables..

E0I 1109. Revision 2: It is understood that the design analysis nozzle loads were vendor approved. The true maximum acceptable nozzle loads are unspecified but may well be higher than IOVP values. This is not an item of great concern, but one that must be checked in the corrective action program.

Valve allowables for 9001A are met (Ref. OCP analysis 8-116, Revision 2).

Differences in valve weights for 9003A, LCV-ll3 and LCV-115 are reported in E0Is 1133 and 1135. Allowables for these valves will be verified as part of the resolution of E0Is 1133 and 1135.

6. Program Resolution is:

C1csed Item: ,

Nozzle loads are being reviewed by RLCA as part of the verification of DCP activities.

Valve allowables are met for 9001A.

Valves allowables for 9003A will be verified as part of E0I 1133.

Valve allowables for LCV-ll3 and LCV-115 will be verified as part of E01 1135. .

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by , Edward Denison/RLCA on 830618 Type Name/Crganization Date

8. Signature: M[A__ Pfor z 2 (Approved / Program Manager)

~

i ,. -

' #' '* PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT

- r, File No. 1104

, File Revision No. 2

1. Resolution of an: CD Open Item: [3 Class Error

2. Indelendent Design Verification Program Resolution 1s as:

H a. O Closed Item

b. [] Deviation

c. [] Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task *

3. Date Reported to PG&E 8209??

4 Sched Jied for TES Semimontnly Report No. - OCTOBER

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

RLCA Piping Analysis 110 - Lines 4260 and 3078 One suoport on line 3078 adjacent to the line 4259 tee and two supports on line 4260 adjacent to line 3078 are missing the U-bolts required to provide -

oilateral restraint.

RLCA will model these lines assuming bilateral restraint at these locations.

As noted in the progress report, RLCA will not issue E01s concerning 79-14 walkdown items noted for the additional five lines. Thesa lines will be

, modeled using RLCA field information excepting the above supports.

C Rev.1 of this file was a PPRR from RLCA for an Opet Item with future action by PG&E. TES and RLCA agreed in a Program Review 4cmmittee action to modify this recontendation to that shown below.

C e

6. Program Resolution isi C

Based on PG&E Presentation (August 6,1982 and August 26, 1982) of their Internal Technical program on Piping, this file has been transferred into file 1098 Rev. 5.

C C

C

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 920910 W [ ce a Name/Or z oes t(Approved / ProgramDate I_mganizations Manager)

C 3. Signature:

o e. s .

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1105 File Revision No. 2

1. Resolution of an: D Open Item: O Class Error-

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. El Closed Item

b. O Deviation

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

3. Date Reported to PG&E 821018

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. November

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

The RLCA field verification showed valves 8724A, 8726A and 8728A to be installed in a horizontal position.

~

Vendor drawing DC663219-292-2 (P105 4-459-096) requires that the valves be installed in a vertical position.

~

J'/ :

6. Program Resolution is:

PG&E to assess the significance of horizontal valve installation in view of vendor requirements.

The concern of this file has been transferred to file 938.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by e s.m , rs no,4ernfo,r3 on opint i f/[T[yga riame/Gesan Date

3. Signature: m _ P r. r odation / g (Approved / Program Manager) ~

0-

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

' ~ ~

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT

- - - .- + - File No. 1107'

~

File Revision No. _ 8~

1. Resolutica of an: E Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. D Closed Item

b. O Deviation

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

3. Date Reperted to PG&E 830607- '

4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. June ,

5.- Resolution based on the following documentation:

a. . RLCA field. verified and modeled two valves (including 1-8068A) 'c

~ attached to the 3/4'ien't 1.ine from line*3488. The design analfsis

- andschematicdrawini-(P&ndID) 102007, Sheet 5. Revision 8 shows one valve on this vent line. ,,

b. RLCA field verified two supports on line 4259 to be deadweight only.

The design analysis shows these supports as rigid vertical supports (previously identified concern 79-14 program).

c. The verification analysis used a value of 2.1 for the socket weld

• connection SIF. The design analysis used 1.0. .

All concerns noted as a result of RLCA Piping Sample 110 have been addressed by the revised DCP analysis (7-103, Revision 0). .

6. Program Resolution is:

RLCA has field verified the modifications required to address the'above concerns. ,

Closed Item. .

i .

= **. .

r ..

7. Potential Program Resolution -

Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 830601 T

nm ype Name/ Date

5. Signature:

yI 4MhOrganization r

(Approved / Program Manager)

L

,,_ . , . ~.-

. Q* ' 4. .,

4

, PROGRAM RESOLUT1ON REPORT File No. 1108' File Revision No. 6

1. - Resolution of an: Q: Open Item: C Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as: .

a. d Closed Item _ --??

b. C Deviation ~.

F

c. C Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E g20317 4 Scheduled for TES Senimontnly Report No. so, il

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

RLCA . Piping Sag le 110 (Additional 5 lines) Design Analysis 7-1

-Revision 5.

The design analysis (pre 11/30/81) does not consider movements -at the attachment of the RTD lines to the Reactor Coolant System.

The PG&E Phase I Final Report comits to inclusion of DE movements in piping stress analysis and CE, 00E and Hosgri movements in support loacs.

6. Program Resolution is:

c The licensing criteria does not require inclusion of reactor ecolant system movements for the analysis of small bore. piping.

The PG&E Phase I Final Report comitment will be reviewed by the IOVP in their review of OCP Corrective Action.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 330314 Type Name/Crganization Date

3. Signature:

[M>s L Ju.// n (Approved / Program Manager

/' 'J3ws

4 .. ...m_ =

. 5 4 ~<

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT 9

Fi1e Not 1109

1. File Revision No. ~

~

2. Resolution of an: CD Open Item: p O Class Error Independent

a. G Closed ItemDesign Verification Program Resolution is as

b. O Deviation *

3. c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E:

Date Reported to PG&E 4 821209 Task _ '

5. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. -

December Resolution based on the following documentation:

Additional - Sampling - 5 Piping Analyses.

calculated for the following nozzles exceeded Nozzle loads independently '

values. the design analysis 4

Steam Generator 1-1 Inlet Steam Generator 1-2 Outlet Boric Acid Tank No. 1-1 Outlet Boric Acid Tank No.1-2 Outlet Boric Acid Pump 1-1 Inlet '

Boric Acid Pump 1-2 Inlet RC Loop 1 Hot Leg (RTO) {

7 RC Loop 1 Cross Over (RTO) '

RC Loop 1 Cold Leg (RTO)

A M

?b

.g

6. Program Resolution is: is)

W 4

It is understood that k

'I approved.

may well beThe highertrue maximum acceptable nozzle loads ',.la than IDVP values. This is not

, but an item of great concern, but one that must be checked in the corrective action This E01 combines with E0I 1106. *a.

in regards to generation of allowable values for these nozzles 8:$

Tri EGl

. m..

. ?.d 34

5 di

.,5{

.t- 4 7 a Potential Program Resolution h%

Repcrt signed by - Cwt Den ison /RLCA 'M

d. Signature: on 821207 '

~

., EI Type Name/ // Organ 12attog/Qf

~

Date D proved / Program Manager)

Ai_,

6..g m; c.

1.l, 1

7, . 7 . -

- h O'i i 2?

' N b Transmittal- Please Sign and Return Acknowledgement g CJ O Request for Information (RFI)

When Requested Assign Control Number Page l__of I C Receipt (TES Use Only) Control No

- -- _h W. E. Cooper Mr. H.-E. Schierling Originator Transmit T :

5511 office nf W M actor Regulation Project No.

Date 4 cember 6. 1982 7 U. S. Nuclear Reculatorv Comission .

Client PO k 5-2-82 j 7920 Norfolk Ave.

N/A Bethesda, MD 20114 Transmitted Under Separate Cover To:

NOTE: Furnish complete identification for items transmitted (belon).

b QTY TYPE ITEM IDENT NO. REV OESCRIPTION - Title and Number of Sheets / Paces 1 Nts necomh pr 7. 10A9 Maptinn Nntae niernecinn of Containment Annulus Structure for DCNPP r

l e

l I

' t l

i e I

i l

t i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT 13Y TITLE DATE I)lSPjSITION FOR PREVIOUS HEVISIONS L deturr. :o TES U Mark Void COestroy [ Uncen*r:lled N~G_E .TJO ADQR,ESS_EE: L!nlea stated otherwise the listed items are furn.shes tc . ; r,s C., .t,:,e:

qcuments. P!ecce cign C9d return the number 2 Oo,c y t::

n ~ j i*.E ENr,iNEtr<;qr; ,qre.' ICES 130 Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts 02254 Attentien: Occument Centrol. Droject E511 [

31ST C:duT!UN: ' anc - A::recsee  ?. Document Centrc; a .;;;g:nst:rfo r: g :: c3 ..

c 7 ,

• a

"RTF1 PTWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES PLACE: Teledyne Engineering Servkes' (TES), Waltham, MA December 2, 1982 DATE: ,

PURPOSE: Discussion of Containment.' Annulus Structure for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP)

PARTICIPANTS: See Attachment 1 . j W. E. Cooper opened the meeting at 8:30am by reading the statement found on Attachment 2.

Ron Wray then provided the DCP an opportunity to respond to E01s 3006 and 3007.

W. H. White explained that he would respond to three major issues: (1) the problem of frame consolidation by computing stiffnesses of radial beams, (E01 3006), (2) the IDVP's concern with the validity of the horizontal spectra and, (3) the effect of the tangential beams, which do not appear to have been represented, on the local amplified response spectra, (E0I 3007). He went on to explain that the DCP's proposed modification relative to E013006 was to ' place columns at the containment wall end of the partial radial beams. The columns span from 106 ft. to 101 ft. and then from 101 ft to the foundation mat. In addition to this, the DCP will stiffen the inner end of the radial beam (end closest to the crane wall) by the same method as above or by extending the radial beams to the crane wall. The modifications apply to only those radial beams which were used in the 1981/1982 URS/Blume analysis of the Containment Annulus Structure.

Ron Wray then asked if the DCP intends"to reanalyze after their proposed modifications.

W. H. White replied tilat because three quarters of the mass is in the 140.

f t. level and that the lower two levels comprise only ten percent of the total structure, the model will not be affected and no new reanalysis will be done.

~

J. M. Biggs pointed out the modifications will fix the local -

amplification problem, but the modification will not make the structure look like the model.

W. H. White gave a brief slide presentation, showing where the

'nodifications would be placed.

Ron Wray reiterate'd the IDVP's concern over whether the modifications will make the as-built structure look like the frame model.

M. J. Holley, Jr. felt that verification should be required to show that the modification will make the structure look like the model.

~y ,

e

'RTri mYNE -

ENGINEERING SERVICES W. H. White presented a drawing of floors 101 ft. and 106 ft. which showed the major support locations at which the annular structure was loaded in torsion, to be used in the evaluation of members and connections.

Ron Wray felt it was important to look more closely at whether there is coupling between the columns and radial beams when developing local response spectra.

Steve Harris questioned why the - tangential . beams were considered secondary when, in some cases, they were the same , size as the radial beams. .

At points in the annulus structure where there are, gaps, the DCP proposed to make the structure more continuous by bridging these gaps with steel framing. .

In response to the problem of horizontal shock, ~the DCP proposed bracing 3 to obtain a minimum frequency of 20 HZ.

In reference to E0I 3007 the DCP proposed to' respond through their interpretation of the licensing criteria.

M. J. Holley, Jr. felt that it was important for the . IDVP to have the .

DCP's written interpretation of the licensing criteria.

After lunch, Ron Wray concluded the meeting by reading the statement found on Attachment 3.

KTS RMS 12/3/82 b

"RTA mYNE ATTACHMENT 1 ENGINEERING SERVICES O IDVP MEETING

- TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES i

DECEMBER 2, 1982 l

1 NAME AFFILIATION Dick Anderson Bechtel p Ken Buchert Bechtel Charles Miller -BNL A.J. Philippacopoulos BNL Gordon Fine Governor Brown's Office Kirkpatrick, et al Roy Fray DCP J.K. McCall DCP W.H. White DCP Mel Biggs HHB .

M.J. Holley, Jr. HHB Bruce Norton Norton, Burke, Berry and French Harold Polk NRC Hans Schierling NRC Richard F. Locke PG&E Steve Harris- RLCA Stanley Chin TES Raymond Ciatto TES W.E. Cooper. TES J. Cragin TES R.A. Enos TES K.T. Smith TES Ron Wray TES

~

Lincoln E. Malik URS/Blume

=.- .

f.-

- IOVP Meeting

' ATTACHMENT 2

.r TES

$. December 2, 1982

. Attachment 2 .

J.L ' .

wn "This meeting between the IDVP and requested by for the purpose of Tne participants are :ne 10VP and

- , In accordance with the guidelines of Pr.

29,1932, the f3C

~

Denton's letter to TES of Septemberwere informed of this meeting, staff and We also recognize that any may be present as observers.

NRC staff meders present have regulatory functions which With the they may wish to exercise during the meeting.

specific exceptions 1dentified above, this is an IOV?-

working meeting, not a public meeting caIIed, conducted and documented in accordance with f3C As physical host for this caeting, procedures.

has the right to include, as an observer, or exclude any non-participant or non-invited observer."

g*- .

Pe

. s

• a G

.._ ~

.,i-

a. ! C.****. ,*

....'t-s s:. : . - .-

• .'s -

j .

l-

\ .

l l

t

- * "R TF1pnVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES .

IDVP Meeting Teledyne Engineering Services December 2, 1982 Attachment 3 IDVP CLOSING STATEMENT

'. In summary, the IDVP would like .to give its interpretation of the morning presentation given by the DCP on their response to the concerns contained in E0I Files 3006 and 3007. That interpretation consists of the following:

1. that the DCP proposed modifications for elevation 101' and 106' consist of adding intermediate columns under those existing radial beams which are currently attached to outer ,

tangential beams and further to either extend these radial beams td the crane wall and attach thereto or use inside end columns for vertical support. By doing this the DCP feels they have modified the annulus s'tructure to more closely reflect their current anal' sis y and will demonstrate in some analytical fashion that. spectra for points on the radial beams will not exceed the corresponding response spectra given by their current model.

2. that the DCP will issue a criteria paper which will delineate their interpretation of the licensing criteria for the annulus structure and its supported systems. They thereby hope to _

justify the seismic adequacy of the annulus structure and its subsystems. The IDVP looks forward to receiving such a document and will review and comment on it.

The IDVP would hope the DCP interpretation would contain a procedure similar to that in the DCP Resolution to IDVP file 1103 which reads as follows:

k

"#TA mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES IDVP Meeting Teledyne Engineering Services December 2, 1982 Atta~chment 3

" Procedures for the calculation of pipe support frequency are described in DCM-M-9. The procedure requires the frequency to be at least 20 Hertz.

Included in the stiffness calculation is supplementary steel .used .to bridge between the piping and the building structure. Piping analysis uses response spectra from the building structure to which the supplementary steel attaches. The flexibility of the pipe support is thus considered in the piping analysis"

3. for the horizontal shock case our . understanding of what is being done by the DCP is to make the necessary modifications supported with calculations to ensure that the lowest frequency of the annulus structure, including local regions providing support , to systems and components is 20 Hertz or greater.

4. that for the elevation 117', the DCP intends to use the floor spectra generated from their current annulus analysis for evaluation of raceways and HVAC. The IDVP will have to defer from commenting on .this approach until it has had a chance to

- review. and evaluate the DCP procedures for the seismic evaluation of raceways and HVAC systems.

m 6

0