ML20214A212

Piping & Pipe Support Requalification Program Unit 1 Large Bore Piping Final Rept

ML20214A212
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/07/1986
From:	Klause R, Wrucke R STONE & WEBSTER, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20214A205	List: ML20214A212 TXX-6085, Forwards Piping & Pipe Support Requalification Program Unit 1 Large Bore Piping Final Rept
References
NUDOCS 8611190306
Download: ML20214A212 (48)

Text

l ll TEXAS ununES oEnERanno Co.

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION lI il

/ /b g*

il i

8

'O >-

g I  %

'I II l PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT REQU ALIFIC ATION PROGR AM i UNIT 1 LARGE BORE PIPING FINAL REPORT 1

lI i

I I b I STONE & WEBSTER IAm":88a naaa: 4s PDR

I , .

~

J.0.No. 15454.05-N(C)-008 Job Book R4.8 l

5 E

PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM CPSES - UNIT 1 LARGE BORE PIPING FINAL REPORT hW TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

November 7, 1986 I

AD R. R. Wrucke, Project Engineer 3 aC R. P. Klause, Project Manager I

.I

I

!t

I I

I I

B l l

l SWEC PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM UNIT 1 LARGE BORE PIPING FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS l

l l

Section Title Py

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 l

2.0 PIPE STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN CRITERIA 2-1 2.1

SUMMARY

OF SWEC IDENTIFIED PRUDENT I DESIGN PRACTICES 2-1 I

l 3.0 3.1 3.2 VERIFICATION OF AS-BUILT INFORMATION SWEC WALKDOWNS EVALUATION OF DEVIATION REPORTS FROM 3-1 3-1 CPRT CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAM (CAP) 3-2 l

4.0 VERIFICATION OF EXISTING PIPE SUPPORT I

DESIGN DOCUMENTS 4-1 5.0 RESOLUTION OF EXTERNAL SOURCE CONCERNS 5-1 6.0 REQUALIFICATION OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS 6-1 6.1 PIPE STRESS REQUALIFICATION 6-1 l 6.1.1 Piping System Input 6-2 I

j l

6.1.1.1 6.1.1.2 6.1.1.3 SWEC Power Group SWEC EMD Fluid Transients Group SWEC Structural Group 6-2 6-3 6-3 6.1.2 Piping and Pipe Support System Review 6-4 I

6.1.3 Pipe Stress Reanalysis 6-4 l 6.1.3.1 Computer Analysis 6-5

! 6.1.3.2 Pipe Stress Analysis Results 6-6

6.1.3.2.1 Integral Welded Attachments 6-7 6.1.3.2.2 Pipe Rupture Analysis 6-7 6.2 PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION 6-9 6.2.1 Standard Component and Structural 1 Frame Supports 6-10 6.2.1.1 Standard Component Supports 6-10 6.2.1.2 Structural Frame Supports 6-10 I 6.2.2 Generic Modifications 6-11 6.2.2.1 Cinched U-Bolts on Single Struts or Snubbers 6-11 6.2.2.2 Cinched U-Bolt Trapeze Supports 6-11 6.2.2.3 Potentially Unstable Supports 6-11 6.2.2.4 Clearance on Rigid Supports 6-11 6.2.2.5 Uncinched U-Bolts on Rigid Frames 6-12 1

2018-1545405-HC4 i l

7--------- .

H TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

Section Title Page 6.2.2.6 Single Tube Steel with Richmond Insert 6-12 Bolts 6.2.2.7 Long Tube Steel with Richmond Insert r Bolts 6-12 6.2.2.8 Wall-to-Wall and Floor-to-Floor Supports 6-12 6.2.3 Summary of Pipe Support Modifications 6-12 6.2.4 Final Reconciliation 6-13 6.2.5 Schedule for Remaining Activities 6-14

{

7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 7-1 7.1

SUMMARY

OF SWEC ENGINEERING ASSURANCE (EA) c AUDITS 7-2 J 8.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION 8-1 l

9.0 REFERENCES

9-1 FIGURE 6-1 PROJECT TECHNICAL INTERFACES FIGURE 6-2 PIPING SYSTEM REQUAI,IFICATION SEQUENCE FIGURE 6-3 PIPE STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORT QUALIFICATION WORK SCOPE CHART FIGURE 6.1-1 PIPE STRESS REQUALIFICATION FLOW CHART FIGURE 6.2-1 PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION FLOW CHART FIGURE 6.2-s SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING ACTIVITIES l

TABLE 6.1.1 I TABLE 6.1.1.2 TABLE 6.2.2.2 TABLE 6.2.3 PIPING SYSTEM INPUT REQUIREMENT

SUMMARY

OF FLUID TRANSIENT ANALYSES FOR CPSES - UNIT 1

SUMMARY

OF CINCHED U-BOLT TRAPEZE SUPPORT MODIFICATION UNIT 1 LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

I l

AePENDIx 1

SUMMARY

OF SWEC ENGINtER1NG ASSURANCE AUDIT FINDINGS I

1 I .

I I

I I

2 m -1S ,4es-sc. 11

B E PlPING AND PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM CPSES - UNIT 1 LARGE BORE PIPING FINAL REPORT I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) has contracted Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) to perform a comprehecsive requalification I of piping and pipe supports for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Units 1 and 2. The scope of this effort is described in TUGCO's Comanene Peak Response Team (CPRT) Action Plan DSAP-IX (Refer-ence 1) which essentially consists of the following:

1. Development of CPSES pipe stress and pipe support design crite-ria, including the incorporation of the resolution of external-ly identified generic technical issues.

2. Review and verification of piping system analysis input data, including seismic, thermal and pressure, design and operating I modes, fluid transient, as-built information, and the existing pipe support documents.

3. Requalification of piping systems and pipe support design, in-cluding the development of any required field modifications.

I The purpose of this report is to summarize the actions taken and the re-sults obtained during the structural requalification of CPSES Unit 1 large bore piping (larger than 2 in. nominal pipe size), which includes I

ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping and pipe supports as well as the Class 5 piping and supports that are within these stress problem boundaries, and all ASME Code Class I large bore pipe supports.

I This Unit 1 Larbe Bore Piping Final Report presents a road map of the requalification effort from the early stages of design criteria develop-ment and technical issues resolution, through the establishment and im-I plementation of the SWEC project procedures, to the completion of the Unit I large bore stress problems and pipe support designs. Similar pro-cesses are also used concurrently to qualify the Units 1 and 2 small bore piping and the Unit 2 large bore piping. The results of Unit 2 large bore piping and the Units 1 and 2 small bore piping will be presented by I separate reports in the future.

Sections 2 through 5 of this report describe the design criteria, exter-I nal technical issues, and design input that have been developed, re-solved, and verified for the SWEC requalification program.

Section 6 describes the requalification process and the results of reanalyses for piping and pipe supports. A team of over 600 SWEC pipe stress and pipe support engineers and supporting personnel, committed to I address each of the details in the design criteria and project proce-dures, has advanced the requalification effort from the phase of input evaluation and design criteria development to the satisfactory requalification of the piping and pipe supports.

2018A-1545405-HC4 1-1

L Tens of thousands of documents were reviewed, evaluated, and incorporated L into the final qualification. Calculations for 317 large bore stress analysis packages and about 10,000 pipe supports were developed over a '

16-month period.

Section 7 describes the development and implementation of the quality assurance program applied to all project activities. This program is consistent with SWEC's NRC-approved Topical Report, Stone & Webster Stan-dard Quality Assurance Program (Reference 10). Audits of the requalifi-cation program as implemented by SWEC, TUGCO, and the NRC have demonstrated that the QA program is appropriate, the project has compli-ance with the program, and appropriate actions have been taken whenever inconsistencies in the program or its implementation are identified.

The results of the SWEC requalification program assure the structural

{ integrity of the CPSES Unit I large bore piping and pipe supports.

{ 2018A-1545405-HC4 1-2

~

1 1

1

~

\

2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPE STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS  ;

i I One prerequisite to the completion of the SWEC piping and pipe support requalification program was the issuance of a set of comprehensive and technically sound design criteria that meets the CPSES licensing commit.-

I l

l ments, including appropriate codes and standards, and addresses the ge-neric technical issues from external sources. SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-7, Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports (Reference 2),

was developed to satisfy this requirement. The objective of CPPP-7 was I to provide a comprehensive, independent, and stand-alone set of technical procedures for all aspects af pipe stress and pipe support requalifica-tion. Implementation of CUP-7, in conjunction with the Unit I requali-fication procedure CPPP-6 (Reference 3), is designed to address both the I resolution of technical and administrative concerns from the external sources (Reference 3) and from within the SWEC requalification project team. Resolution of external source concerns is described in Section 5.0. A summary of SWEC-identified prudent design practices is given in Section 2.1.

CPPP-7 was initially issued as Revision 0 on August 27, 1985. Due to the I length of time required to produce a complete design criteria, both Revision 0 and Revision 1, dated November 4, 1985, were issued as interim guidelines that required confirmation for their usage. CPPP-7 Revi-sions 0 and 1 allowed the requalification effort to progress, although I all facets of the requalification effort had not been addressed. CPPP-7, Revision 2 was issued April 25, 1986 as a more complete design criteria.

Confirmation for its usage was not required, although further refinement  ;

I was to continue.

During the requalification process, some clarifications and updatings of I the procedures are inherently required, and these clarifications and up-dates have been provided continuously to the pipe stress and support engineers through SWEC Project Memorandums (PMs). These PMs will be incorporated into Revision 3 of CPPP-7 which will be used for the final I reconciliation of all piping and pipe supports, including the hardware modifications resulting from the requalification effort.

2.1

SUMMARY

OF SWEC-IDENTIFIED PRUDENT DESIGN PRACTICES In addition to the resolution of generic technical issues from external sources ideatified in Section 5.0, technical and administrative proce-I dures were developed to incorporate prudent design practices and design improvements based on SWEC's experience. These prudent design practices and design improvements address the concerns identified during SWEC's I engineering walkdown (References 5 and 6) and the evaluation of the CPSES licensing criteria. Details of the results of the SWEC engineering walk-down are contained in Reference 6 and are briefly discussed in Section 3.1 of this report. These results and action items were com-pleted and incorporated into Project Procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7.

Evaluation of the CPSES licensing status resulted in several FSAR changes I (Reference 24) presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in August 1986. These FSAR changes meet the intentions of the acceptance criteria specified by NUREG-0800 (Reference 18). These licensing cri-I 2018B-1545405-HC4 2-1

teria are contained in CPPP-7 and in the design specifications as appro-priate. In addition, the SWEC prudent design practices also include consideration of recent industry guidelines such as the Welding Research Council's WRC-300 (Reference 20) as well as SWEC's commitment to provide added conservatism in the requalification methodology to ensure a high  !

quality end product. All of the above are reflected in SWEC's procedures I and calculations. A sample listing of these design practices / improve-ments is provided below:

a. Add terminal anchor in the pipe stress problem boundary to I

i bound the stress problem.

I

b. Establish seismic-to-nonseismic piping interface anchor I design requirement.

l c. Establish pipe stress problem boundary decoupling requirement.

l d. Establish branch line mass effect on main piping requirement.

e. Establish functional capability evaluation requirement.

f. Document verification of thermal stress cycles and stress

, range reduction factor requirement.

1

g. Establish stiffness modeling of sleeve sealant.

l h. Revise clearance requirement between pipe and structur-al frame or shear lug and structural frame.

i. Establish clamp anchor requirement for 6 in. and smaller nominal size pipe.

j. Develop seismic design loads for nonsafety-related piping

( attached to safety-related ganged pipe supports.

k. Revise tube steel wraparound welding length evaluation j requirement.

I l

1. Establish strut, snubber, and spring hanger swing angle evaluation requirement, including thermal, seismic, and fluid transient movements.

m. Establish integrated clearance verification program (final field walkdown for clearance verification).

n. Establish pipe stress and pipe support system review docu-mentation requirement.

o. Establish review and verification of CPSES plant design and operating mode conditions requirement.

2018B-1545405-HC4 2-2

1 3.0 VERIFICATION OF AS-BUILT INFORMATION 1 3.1 SWEC WALKDOWNS l l

SWEC performed three separate walkdowns of sampled Unit 1 as-installed I piping systems. Two of these walkdowns were performed to determine I

l whether the as-built documentation for large bore and small bore piping was adequate to initiate the pipe stress analysis (Reference 7). These two walkdowns were necessary because TUGCO's CPRT-sponsored Construction Adequacy Program (CAP) review would not be completed until after a sig-nificant portion of the stress analyses was scheduled to be completed, and negative results for certain attributes of the CAP could have a sig-l nificant impact on the results of the stress analyses. The walkdowns would minimize the risk that the stress analyses might have to be redone I upon completion of CAP review results.

The third walkdown, called the Engineering walkdown (Reference 5) was I performed to determine:

• Whether there were any additional issues related to the func-

tional behavior of the piping system (not previously identified by CASE, CYGNA, NRC, etc) that should be evaluated and

• Whether additional (or refinements of) design inputs, guide-i lines, or procedures were necessary to complete the stress and support requalification effort.

These walkdowns were performed by experienced SWEC personnel ini accor-dance with SWEC Project Procedures CPPP-5, Field Walk Procedure, Unit 1 (Reference 7) and CPPP-8, Piping and Suppcrts System Engineering Walkdown llW Procedure (Reference 5). The results of these walkdowns are documented in separate reports (References 6, 8, and 9).

The walkdowns (large and small bore) to determine whether the as-built I documentation was adequate to initiate the pipe stress analyses conclud-ed that the data was acceptable. The following summarizes the results of these walkdowns:

• The orientation of large bore supports and valves was not ade-quately consistent with the as-built documentation. Five per-cent (10 of 200) of these orientations were observed to be inadequately documented.

As a direct result of this conclusion, the tolerance for orien-tation of pipe supports was tightened and the orientation of I all large bore valves with extended operators and component supports were reverified.

• All other information reviewed, including the orientation of small bore valves and supports, was determined to be adequate.

More than 99 percent (1197 of 1205) of these items were observed to be adequately documented.

I 2018C-1545405-HC4 3-1

5

• Some miscellaneous observations, outside the scope of large I bore and small bore walkdowns, were also observed and reported.

L These items were generally isclated cases and are consistent with items reported by the CAP (e.g., marking of components not c completely consistent with the applicable drawing, loose fas-L teners, etc).

The CPPP-8 engineering walkdown was performed by 10 teams of experienced E pipe stress and support engineers. These engineers walked the piping and supports included within 70 of the 317 large bore stress packages.

This walkdown identified that some additional information was required by l SWEC for the requalification effort. The Design Criteria, CPPP-7, and Requalification Procedure, CPPP-6, were also revised to incorporate walk-down recommendations and to clarify some particular information. Specif-ic situations observed by the walkdown team were provided to the engi-neers to assure that they would be properly accounted for in the requali-fication process.

The engineering walkdown resulted in a high level of assurance that no other additional technical issues existed, and that the SWEC procedures (References 2 and 3) with the revisions incorporated, were adequate to appropriately requalify the piping and supports.

3.2 EVALUATION OF DEVIATION REPORTS FROM CPRT-CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PRO-GRAM (CAP)

SWEC also reviewed the Deviation Reports related to the piping system requalification program generated by the CAP. The purpose of the review l was to determine in advance if any additional refinement of SWEC's proce-I j

dures was necessary and to identify any deviations that should be speci-fically or generically addressed for potential impact on the piping requalification program (Reference 11). The review concluded that there I

were no changes required in the piping system requalification program to account for the deviations identified by the CAP (Reference 12). Hard-ware-related concerns identified by CAP or SWEC, such as the washers, spacers, locking devices, etc, will be addressed by TUGC0 as part of the I

(

Hardware Validation Program (HVP) (Reference 13). The HVP will validate the consistency between the hardware and the engineering requirements, and therefore the deviation addressed by TUGCO's HVP will not affect the piping requalification program.

As a result of all of these efforts, it is SWEC's conclusion that the "as-built" information being used is acceptable for piping and support requalification.

2018C-1545405-HC4 3-2 l

- l

\

l 4.0 VERIFICATION OF EXISTING PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN DOCUMENTS SWEC originally intended to review existing large bore pipe support cal- )

culations on a sampling basis to determine if they could be used with the load comparison method in the requalification program. The approach was subsequently changed to a full evaluation and requalification of all I

l large bore supports individually, since it was determined that substan-tial new documentation would be required to address the external techni-cal concerns. The requalification has been performed by preparing I complete new calculations for each support. SWEC procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 provide a detailed description of the approach used and the crite-ria applied for the development of these calculations which demonstrate the structural adequacy of the pipe supports.

I I

I I -

I I

I I

I I

'I I 2018D-'545405-HC4 4-1 5

-ee

I l

5.0 RESOLUTION OF EXTERNAL SOURCE CONCERNS I SWEC formed a task force, discussed in DSAP IX, Attachment 2, Section 5, to identify and resolve generic external source concerns, including the NRC staff positions on the CPSES supplementary safety evaluation reports (SSERs). The task force was under the direction of the Assistant Project Manager responsible for the technical aspects of the requalification program. These generic external source concerns were identified by organizations external to the TUGCO/Proj ect Organization such as CASE, j CYGNA, and the NRC. These concerns addressed both technical and adminis-trative matters and encompassed a scope broader than SWEC's pipe stress and support requalification effort. SWEC addressed only those issues l that affect the piping and pipe supports requalification effort.

For each issue, pertinent documents were reviewed to gain an under-standing of the issue background. SWEC then summarized its. understanding of the issue, as obtained from the background, and implemented an action E plan to resolve the issue. The issue resolutions, where appropriate, j were incorporated into project procedures. This program is discussed in I more detail in Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation's Evaluation and Resolution of Generic Technical Issues Report, dated June 27, 1986 (Reference 4).

I I

I I

B .

I I

E I

I

i 6.0 REQUALIFICATION OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS 1

The requalification effort for the piping and approximately 10,000 pipe l supports within 317 CPSES - Unit I large bore pipe stress packages was undertaken by the SWEC CPSES - Unit 1 project team as described in SWEC Proj ect Procedure CPPP-6 (Reference 3). Project Procedure CPPP-6 is the governing document for the conduct of the Unit I requalificatic1 effort.

This procedure defines overall scope, interface responsibilities, data input verification requirenents, calculation preparation, and the re-quired documentation of the results. The SWEC project interfaces with TUGC0 and TUGCO's contractors are illustrated in Figure 6-1. The se-quence of the production activities of piping system requalification is shown schematically in Figure 6-2.

I The detailed review and validation process performed by the SWEC project on the CPSES piping system design input transmittals is summarized in Figure 6-3.

The SWEC piping system requalification program can be visualized as a three-step iterative process. The first step, described in Section 6.1, is to establish the input and the analytical models of the pipe stress packages, to identify and implement the necessary pipe support optimiza-5 tions and modifications in the analyses, and to produce a reasonable set of pipe stress analysis responses (pipe stresses and support loads).

These first-step results should, as a minimum, provide the pipe support design loads and determine that the computerized pipe stress reanalysis results (see Section 6.1.3.1) are within the code limits under all the specified load combination conditions. The second step is the detailed evaluation and design of pipe supports, described in Section 6.2, and tne evaluation of local strssses in piping (integral welded attachments),

nozzle and penetration loads, valve accelerations, pipe break locations, etc, described in Section 6.1.3. All discrepancies identified in this step are resolved either by support modifications or by refined analyses.

I The third step, or final reconciliation, described in Section 6.2.4, is the final process to consolidate all resolutions and modifications from Step 2 into the piping models. Requalification effort for the Unit I I large bore piping and supports is now entering this final reconciliation l phase.

6.1 PIPE STRESS REQUALIFICATION The large bore safety-related piping system requalification was divided I into 317 distinct stress problems. As a result of stress problem devel-opment, some Class 5 piping also was included in the large bore stress problem boundaries. The ASME III Code Class 2 and 3 and nonnuclear safe-g ty piping included within ASME III Code Class I stress problem boundaries a were requalified by Westinghouse. The pipe stress requalification flow chart is shown schematically in Figure 6.1-1.

As part of the piping and pipe support requalification program, TUGC0 has contracted Westinghouse to evaluate the effect of changes in pipe support design and stiffness on the qualification of Class 1 piping. Some

'I Class 1 pipe supports, such as cinched U-bolt trapeze supports, were mod-ified as a result of the resolution of external source technical con-cerns. These support modifications necessitated changes in the Class 1 pipe stress problem mathematical models, and therefore, all Class 1 pipe lI

stress problems were reanalyzed by Westinghouse to incorporate these de-sign changes and to provide new support design loads for the Class 1 pipe supports (see Figure 6-1). The Westinghouse piping reanalysis effort follows a three-step process similar to that described for SWEC in F Section 6.0.

6.1.1 Piping System Input r

In conjunction with the requalification of piping and supp' orts, a large quantity of input information was obtained from TUGCO, Gibbs & Hill (G&H), and Westinghouse. Table 6.1.1 identifies the input data require-l ments needed to perform the requalification effort. In general, TUGC0 provided as-built documentation; G&H provided system design and operating characteristics, seismic response spectra, building displacement data, and balance-of plant component design information; and Westinghouse sup-plied loads for Class 1 piping supports and NSSS component design information.

SWEC was responsible for assuring that the quality of input data was ac-ceptable for use during requalification. All inputs used in the develop-ment of stress and support calculations were, in general, reviewed for technical adequacy and reasonableness by the analysts during the conduct of their work. Supplemental verifications were conducted to assess the adequacy of as-built information and existing pipe support design docu-ments as discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. In addition, l the SWEC Power and Fluid Transient Groups developed refined requalifi-I l

cation input based on information supplied by TUGCO, G&H, Westinghouse, and SWEC prior experience with pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants similar in design to Comanche Peak. These and other supplemental verifi-catica programs conducted by SWEC are described in the following sections.

l 6.1.1.1 SWEC Power Group The SWEC Power Group reviewed system design and operating mode condi-tions, which describe the temperatures and pressures of piping systems l

under the plant design and operating conditions, supplied by G&H. These I

l design and operating mode conditions were evaluated and verified as rea-sonable or revised as necessary (with G&H concurrence), based on the ex-1 perience of the SWEC power engineers and a comparison to similar systems designed by SWEC for other plants of similar design to CPSES. Existing 5 design documents were rc.iewed for consistency with the operating modes developed by G&H and any inconsistencies were resolved. Design and oper-I ating system temperatures aad pressures for a wide range of plant condi-tions were documented and furnished to the stress analysts for use during requalification via System Information Documents (SIDs) and Problem Re-view Documentation Packages (PRDPs) as specified by SWEC Project Proce-dure CPPP-10, Procedures for Review of Plant Operating Mode Conditions (Reference 14).

t l l l

l l

2018F-1545405-HC4 6-2

1 The Power Group also was responsible for identification of potential sys-tem fluid transients for evaluation by the Fluid Transients Group, the definition of essential piping systems, identification of high-energy lines, and assuring through a flow diagram and stress boundary isometric i

drawings (BRHLs) review that all applicable lines were being addressed by L the 317 stress problems. Primary inputs used for these efforts included the FSAR, system descriptions, flow diagrams, and stress boundary isomet-H ric drawings (BRHLs).

I 6.1.1.2 SWEC EMD Fluid Transient Group This group was responsible for potential transients identified by the SWEC Power Group and the development of new forcing functions for safety systems to address the external technical concerns (Reference 4) and the requirements of the ASME Section III Code (Reference 1B).

SWEC system engineers reviewed the piping system operating components which could produce significant fluid transients, such as quickly opening or closing control valves, relief valve discharge, or pump startup or trip. The applicable fluid transients identified and developed by SWEC I for the balance-of plant, safety-related piping are summarized in Table 6.1.1.2. SWEC has identified these transients by following the

! guidance given in NUREG-0582 (Reference 19) using SWEC's past experience I with other PWRs and by assessing an overall review of the CPSES system design descriptions and flow diagrams. The identificatica of additional fluid-forcing functions and their inclusion in the requalification effort 3 was a primary contributor to modifications required because the previous l G&H dnalyses had censidered fewer transients.

The final fluid transients being considered for CPSES requalification were documented in the System Information Documents (SIDs) as described

I in CPPP-10 (Referecce 14) . Criteria for evaluation of these fluid tran-sient loads are de' scribed in CPPP-7.

6.1.1.3 SWEC Structural Group i

The Structural Group performed studies to validate that the design basis amplified response spectra (ARS) developed by G&H are reasonable and ade-quate for the requalification effort. The following specific reviews i were performed in these studies:

.1. Verification that the response spectra generated from the ground seismic input artificial time-histories envelop the site design response spectra for all applicable damping values.

2. Comparison of SWEC generated anplified response spectra (ARS) for typical and equivalent PWR plants with those developed by G&H.

3. Verification of the natural frequencies of safety-related structures.

E 2018F-1545405-HC4 6-3 I w

4. Verification that the actual soil spring constants are suffi-ciently close to the best-estimate soil spring constants used in the G&H analysis.

P 5. Review G&H damping values and peak spreading criteria and re-late them to present regulatory requirements.

These specific reviews concluded that the G&H design basis ARS supplied to SWEC are reasonable and adequate input for the SWEC requalification effort.

o.l.2 Piping and Pipe Support System Review During the requalification process, each stress package, including the associated pipe supports, was reviewed as a system, jointly by the pipe stress and pipe support engineers. The purpose of this review was for lB the engineers to understand the piping physical configuration and the relationship to the pipe supports, evaluate the appropriateness of sup-port types and locations, and identify areas of piping or pipe support designs which may require special modeling techniques to account for the I interactions between the pipe and the pipe supports.

Tbe engineers reviewed the pipe support drawings and support location drawings to determine whether the existing supporting system was appro-I priate and could physically perform its intended function. They also reviewed the pipe support drawings to determine the appropriate stiffness values for the input to pipe stress analysis. The engineers also deter-I mined whether some snubbers or other supports should be considered for elimination and whether additional pipe support optimization should be performed.

The results of this review were documented as a separate piping system review / stiffness assessment calculation for each stress package and were used as input for the pipe stress analysis. By the incorporation of this I review into the requalification program, SWEC has assured that an inte-grated process, with consistent criteria for both pipe stress analysis and pipe support design, was used.

6.1.3 Pipe Stress Reanalysis I Pipe stress reanalysis was initiated with the collection of the required input information, as shown on Figure 6.1-1 and Table 6.1.1.

the input with the results of the Piping and Pipe Support System Review, Combining as described in Section 6.1.2 above, the analyst prepared stress isomet-I ric drawings and developed mathematical models.

The main product of the computerized pipe stress reanalysis is the docu-I mentation of piping pressure boundary integrity and system structural adequacy, assurance that maximum calculated stresses are within code al-lowables under the applicable load combination conditions, and the func-

.tional capability for essential systems.

l 6-4 2018F-1545405-HC4 I 1 L_- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________________O

B I Additional results (other than the computed pipe stresses) that also were generated from the computerized pipe stress reanalysis were transmitted to other interfacing disciplines for resolution (see Figure 6.1-1), and I are sununarized as follows:

Pipe Stress Reanalysis Results

1. Pipe support loading summaries

2. Equipment nozzle loads

3. Penetration loads I 4. Expansion joint movements

5. Valve accelerations 6.

I Valve operator support loads

7. Valve nozzle loads

8. Flange loads

9. Pipe movements at sleeves

10. Instrument root valve movements

.I 11. Pipe movements at decoupled branch lines I 12. Pipe movements at pipe whip restraints

13. Stress levels for pipe break / crack evaluations 6.1.3.1 Computer Analysis Static and dynamic piping analyses were performed using the computer pro-gram NUPIPE-SW (Reference 15). The computer program output consists of stresses, displacements, accelerations, and interface loadings (i.e.,

loadings at pipe supports, equipment nozzles, etc). This output was used I to qualify the piping and related components in accordance with the ap-plicable codes and licensing commitments.

The first step in computer analysis was the generation of a model. Pip-ing configuration, mass, and boundary conditions were analytically de-scribed to assure the generation of meaningful results. All piping mass was considered including the applicable pipe support mass that would af-I fect the dynamic responses. Eccentric masses such as valve operators also were accounted for in the model. Sufficient mass points were in-I cluded in the model to ensure that all significant dynamic modes were represented.

The piping model boundary conditions that included separation of problems I at terminal anchors and at branch line connections were addressed. The effects of eccentric / rotational restraints and appropriate pipe support stiffness were included in the model. In addition, snubber reduction and .

the support optimization program were included. Terminal anchors were I added, where necessa ry, to isolate the analytical pipe stress models.

Appropriate representation of pipe support stiffness from the piping and pipe support system review also was accounted for.

Static analysis was used for deadweight, the rmal , and anchor movement cases. Time-history analysis was used for fluid transient cases, and I response spectrum method analysis was used for seismic cases. Although damping based on Regulatory Guide 1.61 may have been used for response spectrum analysis, the alternate damping rules of ASME Code Case N411 I were primarily employed. Modal contributions above the cutoff frequency 2018F-1545405-HC4 6-5

were addressed by an analytical technique based on NUREG/CR-1161 l

(Reference 21). This technique assures that high-frequency dynamic re-sponse is considered in the response spectrum analysis.

In general, the above analysis indicated that all the 317 stress prob-lems, as requalified by SWEC, are within the allowable stress criteria of the ASHE Section III code. However, additional evaluations are continu-ing to resolve localized conditions such as nozzle allowables, stresses I at welded attachments, branch connections, etc. These additional evalua-tions are further detailed in the following sections.

6.1.3.2 Pipe Stress Analysis Results Following completion of each stress calculation, a results package that contains a summary of pipe stress analysis results is compiled and dis-tributed to the SWEC site engineering office and interfacing disciplines as shown in Figure 6.1-1. The resolution package consists of informa-I tion, such as the loads and accelerations described in Section 6.1.3, sent to other disciplines for concurrence or notification of allowable I exceedances that require additional evaluation and resolution. To date, 277 of 317 stress problems (40 problems currently being reanalyzed for revised input) have had results packages compiled. The number of com-piled results packages requiring additional evaluation is 197. These packages are categorized as.follows:

Valve acceleration > allowable................... 137 Valve end reactions > allowable.................... 85 I Equipment nozzle loads > allowable................ 132 Pipe movements at sleeves > allowable.............. 91 Drain and vent line connection stress level > allowable.......................... 50 Same of the 197 packages require additional evaluation on more than one item.

It is anticipated that the majority of the above issues requiring resolu-I tion will be found acceptable, since the components were generally de-signed with substantially higher margins. For example, most of the valve accelerations that exceeded the allowables are associated with small man-ual valves on vent and drain lines that are capable of withstanding high I acceleration values. Equipment nozzle allowables, as-is, generally were developed through vendor acceptance of prior calculated loads. It is believed that the allowables can be increased for compatibility with the new loads. The sleeve movement situation is similar to the nozzle allow-I able situation because existing sleeves were designed based on previous predictions of piping movements. Piping movement increases which result from optimization and other cumulative effects will require the modifica-tion of some sleeves, while other sleeves can be accepted in the present configuration.

'I I

2018F-1545405-HC4 6-6

The piping stress reanalysis also resulted in a number of pipe support l modifications. These modifications include the results of support opti-mization, fluid transient ef fects, the addition of boundary anchors, and the implementation of generic resolutions (e.g., generic modification of cinched U-bolt trapeze supports). Upon stress calculation completion, a support modificaton package consisting of a summary table identifying the affected supports, load summaries, and stress isometrics is sent to the SWEC site organization for implementation.

It is worth noting that as of October 31, 1986, 583 snubber supports were deleted, approximately another 300 snubber supports were converted to rigid supports, bringing the total number of snubbers eliminated for Unit 1 to 1182 (some snubber supports contain more than one snubber).

This large reduction of snubbers (approximately 50 percent of the origi-nal total) is part of the overall plant improvement incorporated into the SWEC requalification effort. It represents a significant improvement in

'i plant reliability and reduction in inservice inspection, worker exposure, and cost of maintenance.

6.1.3.2.1 Integral Welded Attachments Evaluation of local pipe stresses induced by the pipe supports that are integrally welded to the piping pressure boundary (trunnions, lugs, and I pads) is a design requirement in CPPP-7 (Reference 2). Much of the geom-etry represented by the installed integral welded attachments (IWAs) fre-quently requires special analysis. An IWA Task Group was formed to I perform the detailed local stress analyses for those IWAs that did not meet the geometrical requirements of CPPP-7 or that could not be quali-fied by using the methods specified in CPPP-7. It is the responsibility of the IWA Task Coordinator to screen those IWAs that have geometrical I configurations beyond the limits addressed by CPPP-7 and to perform the analyses either by an alternate acceptable methodology or by finite ele-ment analysis. Similarly, the IWA Task Group also reviewed IWAs which do not meet the ASME Code allowable stress limits to determine whether al-I ternate, more refined analysis techniques may be used to qualify the sup-port or concur with the proposed modification.

There are approximately 700 IWAs for Unit 1 which are not within the geo-metric requirements of CPPP-7. The screening effort for these 700 IWAs ic essentially complete, and approximately 500 IWAs have been qualified.

I Solutions are being developed for approximately 200 IWAs. The major ef-fort ongoing is the completion of the parametric finite element studies.

These calculations will provide the design basis for IWAs that do not I meet the geometric requirements of CPPP-7. In addition, 69 IWAs will be qualified by finite element analysis. This analysis effort is expected to continue through the end of 1986.

6.1.3.2.2 Pipe Rupture Analysis As part of the CPSES licensing commitments, the locations of the postu-I lated pipe ruptures of CPSES high-energy line break (HELB) and moderate energy line crack (MELC) are being evaluated and assessed using results of SWEC pipe stress reanalysis. The SWEC Mechanical Group reviews piping stresses, including the local pipe stress from IWA pipe supports, to lI

l postulate break and crack locations. New mandatory break and crack pos-tulation points were compared to previous locations, and the results were l forwarded to the TUGC0 System Interaction Group to determine the impact.

l This impact may include elimination or addition of restraints, jet shields, and jet impingement damage studies, or recycling the pipe stress if the consequences of new postulated break locations are unacceptable.

, Pipe Rupture Analysis Results High-energy piping arrangement in CPSES Unit I utilized the design crite-I ria of protection against postulated pipe ' ruptures by physical separa-tion. Consequently, pipe rupture analyses are required for only 73 high-energy pipe stress problems and 48 moderate-energy stress prob-I lems. These 73 stress problem packages are contained in the high-energy piping systems and line numbers tabulated in CPSES FSAR. Presently, 63 of 73 high-energy pipe stress problem calculations and all 48 moderate-I energy pipe stress problem calculations were completed and evaluated by the pipe rupture analysis group. The pipe rupture analysis results are as follows:

High-Energy Line Break (HELB) Postulation Total number of new mandatory postulated breaks 9 Total number of mandatory postulated breaks eliminated 22 Moderate-Energy Line Crack (MELC) Postulatiou Total number of new mandatory postulated cracks 33 It should be noted that qualification of Pipe Break Exclusion Zone with I integral welded attachments (IWA) is still pending IWA analysis results.

Furthermore, the above pipe rupture analysis results do not include the results of high-energy Class 5 and high-energy small bore piping. Pipe I rupture analysis of Class 5 and small bore piping will be completed in early 1987.

I I

I a

2018F-1545405-HC4 6-8 l

- 6.2 PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION-Based on the support load summaries from the SWEC and Westinghouse stress I analyses and the CPSES Unit I detailed support drawings, individual cal-culations for all large bore pipe supports were prepared to assure their structural integrity. The pipe support requalification process is shown I

l schematically in Figure 6.2-1.

whereby field modification of pipe supports, in conjunction with the This can be summarized as a process stress analysis, provides the final verification of the piping system requalification.

l The total scope of the support requalification effort originally included

! approximately 10,000 supports, 1000 of which were Class I supports.

Stress analysis completed to date deleted 1119 supports and added 139 supports, including 15 anchors. Consequently, a balance of approximately 9000 supports require requalification in accordance with CPPP-6 and CPPP-7. Of the supports requiring requalification, pipe stress lI reanalysis results to date have dictated the modification of 939 supports.

To date, the pipe support requalification of the remaining 8100 supports has identified approximately 1700 which require modifications due to the combined effect of the multiple issues. Not included in this number are the modifications to supports that require only minor adjustment, such as shimming of box frames or retorquing of the cinched U-bolts. These modi-fications are described in Section 6.2.3 (see Table 6.2.3), and periodic I status reports on the implemented modifications are submitted to NRC on a continuous basis. It should be noted that there is a time lag between the engineering identification of support modifications required and the issuance of the detailed modification drawings to TUGC0 Construction.

I This time lag accounts for the difference between the 1700 modifications presently identified and the number of issued modifications as summarized in Table 6.2.3.

The design of the new and modified supports to conform with stress re-quirements was also performed by SWEC in accordance with CPPP-6 and CPPP-7. Following the installation of each support modification, an I as-built package including the site support calculation will be returned to the Headquarters office for final reconciliation (see Section 6.2.4).

I Calculations for supports determined to be acceptable are distributed and filed in accordance with project procedures. Structural attachment loads are distributed to CPSES structural discipline for further assessment.

I Support drawings for acceptable supports are revised to reflect the com-pletion of SWEC analysis.

The CPSES Unit I pipe supports can generally be categorized into three types as follows:

a. Standard Component Supports - Struts, spring hangers, and snubbers.

b. Structural Frame Supports - Including gauged type supports.

I 2018F-1545405-HC4 6-9 I

I

- c. Integrally Welded Attachment (IWA) Supports - Trunnions and lugs.

Requalification of the IWA type supports, which is governed by the local stress of run pipe at the junction to IWA, is addressed in Section 6.1.3.2.1.

Requalification of the other two types of pipe supports is addressed in Section 6.2.1. Section 6.2.2 describes the generic modifications adopted to expedite the resolution of external source concerns for the requalifi-I cation effort.

I The field modification of pipe supports, which includes also the generic modifications described in Section 6.2.2, is described in Section 6.2.3 and tabulated in Table 6.2.3.

6.2.1 Standard Component and Structural Frame Supports l 6.2.1.1 Standard Component Supports All standard component supports were evaluated to assure they performed their intended function. Loads from pipe stress analysis were compared with standard component support capacities for different service levels I as applicable. In addition, the relative displacements under all speci-fied load combination conditions of pipe stress analysis results were evaluated to verify the working ranges, including swing angles, of the standard components.

6.2.1.2 Structural Frame Supports Frame type supports were qualified by using hand calculations with stan-dard structural analysis methods or by computer analysis using STRUDL, STRUDAT, and SANDUL programs (Reference 2). In addition to verifying the adequacy of local stresses in the run pipe, analysis results included:

• Maximum member stress or load versus applicable allowables

• Maximum reactions at all support joints, including local stress effects on tube steel members

• Verification of weld adequacy at welded joints

• Verification of adequacy of bolted connections, including wash-er plate design and local stress effects on tube steel members

• Verification of adequacy of concrete anchors and baseplates

• Verification of adequacy of clearances

• Verification of adequacy of gang hangers including the calcula-I tions of support loads for nonnuclear safety-related piping attached to safety-related large bore pipe supports.

I 2018F-1545405-HC4 6-10

I j

W 6.2.2 Generic Modifications

g Specific pipe support types were identified for generic modification pri-

!g or to stress reanalysis as a result of the resciution of external techni-cal issues and as specified by the proj ect memorandums and CPPP-7.

Generic modifications for the following types of supports (with the ex-ception of those noted in 6.2.2.8) are the prudent means for requalifica-l tion. The support functions were justified expeditiously and reliably by hardware modification, in lieu of the lengthy process of complex analyses and testing.

6.2.2.1 Cinched U-Bolts on Single Struts or Snubbers In order to avoid lengthy detailed stress evaluations for the pipe, U-Bolt, and crosspiece, all cinched U-bclts on single strut or snubber supports for pipe sizes 8 in. and larger were eliminated or modified.

j I This accounts for 189 supports on Unit 1, of which 44 have been modified with the use of standard pipe clamps and 117 with stiff pipe clamps.

Solutions are being developed for the remaining supports.

Small pipes are inherently more capable of sustaining local stress.

Therefore, cinched U-bolts on pipe sizes 6 in. and smaller were retained and qualified in accordance with the conservative methodology of CPPP-7, Attachment 4-12, and retorqued (including the addition of hardened wash-ers). Some of these supports were eliminated if they were not required for system structural integrity as demonstrated by the results of pipe I stress reanalysis. Others were modified as they were encountered in the production effort if they could not be qualified by the conservative cal-culation method.

6.2.2.2 Cinched U-Bolt Trapeze Supports Of the 595 cinched U-bolt trapeze supports in Unit 1 large bore piping I systems, 119 eliminated, and the remaining 476 were modified.

Table 6.2.2.2 summarizes the type of modifications provided for the cinched U-bolt trapeze supports.

6.2 2.3 Potentially Unstable Supports In addition to the cinched U-bolt supports, both single strut and tra-I peze, CPPP-7, Attachment 4-9, requires that potentially unstable supports be modified. Additional configurations identified are trapeze supports with zero clear,ance box frames, Type F springs on trapeze, and Type G I springs without a U-bolt. These supports were redesigned or eliminated during the requalification process.

6.2.2.4 Clearance on Rigid Supports The clearance between the pipe and the restraining surfaces for rigid restraints such as frames, straps, uncinched U-bolts , lugs, etc, were reinspected and adjusted where required to meet the more stringent clear-ance requirements specified in CPPP-7, Attachment 4-11. These require-ments meet the prevailing industry practices and have been used in the past designs performed by SWEC.

2018F-1545405-HC4 6-11

6.2.2.5 Uncinched U-Bolts on Rigid Frames Uncinched U-bolts on rigid frames for pipe sizes 6 in. and smaller were

- analyzed and designed as two-way restraints in accordance with CPPP-7, Attachment 4-3. When they existed on pipes 8-in. nominal size and larg-

~

er, they were eliminated or replaced by a strap or a box frame, as appro-priate, during the requalification process.

6.2.2.6 Single Tube Steel with Richmond Insert Bolts

- Supports with single tube steel Richmond insert connections loaded pri-marily in shear and/or torsion were modified by the addition of "outrig-gers" to increase the rigidity of the support.

~

6.2.2.7 Long Tube Steel with Richmond Insert Bolts L

Pipe supports with long tube steel anchored by Richmond inserts and sub-r ject to LOCA temperature effects were modified by limiting the tube steel i length as specified by Project Memorandum PM-112. These supports were primarily "run together" gang supports, and were modified by severing the tie between the supports.

l

• 6.2.2.8 Wall-to-Wall (W-W) and Floor-to-Floor (F-F) Supports All W-W and F-F supports without slip joints, except the eight in the service water tunnel, were modified by the addition of slip joints. The I

l eight F-F supports in the service water tunnel were requalified, some with minor modifications, including the effects of relative structural displacements between the floor and the ceiling.

6.2.3 Summary of Pipe Support Modifications The principal task of the requalification program was to requalify the I piping and pipe supports. This was accomplished by developing well-documented calculations that incorporate justifiable techniques and cri-teria consistent with the guidance in USNRC Standard Review Plan NUREG-0800 (Reference 18). In addition to these expanded requirements,

I SWEC factored plant improvement into the requalification process. This took the form of pipe support optimization where supports requiring high maintenance such as snubbers and springs were eliminated, whenever possi-ble, from the final qualified configuration. By eliminating high mainte-nance supports, i.e., optimizing the support arrangements, inservice inspection time and worker exposure will be reduced, as well as the costs associated with the inspection and maintenance.

In the pipe support requalification process, it became evident that cer-tain supports (such as the cinched U-Bolt trapeze supports), because of

,I the iterative nature of the analysis, required more resources (i.e.,

stress and support analysts' time and computer dollars) to technically justify the existing design. It was SWEC's cost-impact assessment that llW for supports of this nature it was more expedient and economical to pro-vide a physical modification rather than pursue analytical acceptance.

' ~ ' "" '~'

I

w The implementation of the resolution methodology of external source tech-nical issues, compounded by the expanded criteria of NUREG-0800 and support optimization, required many pipe support modifications. In order I to identify the primary cause of support modification, the major contrib-uting factors for the modification were categorized as follows:

1. Prudent - Because the iterative nature of the analysis and as-sociated costs, physical modification is more expedient than l__ analytical justification.

2. Recent Industry Practice - Modification to eliminate snubbers to enhance plant maintainability, reduce inservice inspection, and einimize worker exposure.

3. Adjustment - Modification such as retorquing, realigning, or shimming.

4. Cumulative Effects - Modifications due to the combined effect of the multiple issues.

I Table 6.2.3 summarizes the categorization and number of Unit I large bore pipe support modifications in each category to date (October 31, 1986).

This table also contains description of the types of modifications by these categories.

The extent of plant modifications resulting from this requalification program is of a magnitude that has been determined by TUGC0 to be poten-I tially reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e). TUGCO reported to the NRC the large bore piping modifications in the Significant Devia-tion Analysis Report SDAR-CP-86-36 (Reference 22) . Periodic status re-I ports are submitted to the NRC describing the continuing evaluation and the extent of the modifications that are being made.

6.2.4 Final Reconciliation The purpose of final reconciliation is to reconcile and resolve any re-maining pipe stress reanalysis results, such as the pending detailed I

I analysis for IWAs and interfacing requirements (nozzle loads, valve ac-celerations, etc). Final reconciliation is the last step of the stress analysis process to be conducted. This step follows the completion of I

• revised as-built information reflecting as-analyzed problem boundaries and the revised pipe support configurations as dictated by either the stress analysis or by support modifications necessa ry to meet the requalification requirements.

Final concurrence and/or resolution of stress results and pipe support reactions at structural / vendor interface also is accomplished during this phase.

The final clearance walkdown, Hardware Validation Program (Reference 13) results, and removal of all " Confirmation Required" items from the pipe stress and pipe support calculations to incorporate CPPP-7, Revision 3, amendments are accomplished during this phase. The majority of the NRC staff positions in supplementary safety evaluation reports (SSERs) will 2018F-1545405-HC4 6-13 I

I l be addressed by TUGCO's HVP, while the remainder are addressed by SWEC's project procedures and by the CPRT issue-specific action plans (ISAPs).

Finally, all the open items and deviations related to piping and pipe supports that were identified by TUGC0 Quality Assurance, TUGC0 Engineer-ing and Construction, and/or the NRC SSER will be reviewed and resolved prior to the completion of this reconciliation phase. These open items E include the Notices of Violation (NOVs) from the NRC, the Corrective Action Requests (CARS) from TUGC0 Quality Assurance, and the Significant Deviation Analysis Reports (SDARs) to address the 10CFR50.55(e) or 10CFR21 from TUGC0 Engineering Assurance. The effect of any CPRT issue-specific action plan results will be incorporated into the requalifica-tion, if required.

6.2.5 Schedule for Remaining Activities I Three milestones of the Unit 1 piping and pipe supports requalification program are scheduled for completica within the next 8 months , shown schematically in Figure 6.2.5. The first milestone is the completion of engineering issuance of the pipe support modifications to TUGC0 Construc-I tion by the end of 1986. The ph'/sical pipe support modifications per-formed by TUGC0 Construction, including the Hardware Validation Program to be implemented by TUGC0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control, is the second milestone with a completion date of June 3, 1987. The final mile-

,I stone is the stress reconciliation phase as described in the previous section, to be completed by July 8, 1987.

I I

g I

I I

I I

2018F-1545405-HC4 6-14

7.0 QUALITi' ASSURANCE I

All stress and support requalification activities were performed in ac-cordance with SWEC's Quality Assurance (QA) program. This program is consistent with SWEC's Topical Report SWSQAP 1-74A (Reference 10), Stone

& Webster Standard Quality Assurance Program, which has been been ap-proved by the KRC.

The implementation of this QA program was initiated by the development of detailed procedures, a design criteria document, and a description of the specific QA program covering the essentials of the stress and support requalification program. These documents were distributed to all lead and principal engineers and were readily available to project personnel.

The issuance of design criteria, requalification procedures, and major revisions were followed up with detailed training programs for the appli-cable personnel. In particular, pipe stress and support engineers on I project received training in the design criteria document (CPPP-7, Reference C), the procedures applicable to the analysis of pipe stress and supports (CPPP-6, Reference 3), and in the resolution of externally identified concerns (Reference 4).

A Project QA Manager, directly responsible to the SWEC Vice President of QA, with management experience in auditing and QA program procedure de-velopment, was assigned to the project in the earliest stages of project mobilization. This organization assures independence of the QA functions and prcmotes knowledge and understandir.g of any changes in scope of work and status of- project activities. The project QA Manager has a staff of Engineering Assurance (SA) engineers assigned to assist him in his du-ties. One of these EA Engineers is assigned full time on location to the site organization. These individuals provide assuranca that the QA pro-I gram properly addresses all project activities and assist project person-nel to understand and properly implement the QA program.

The responsibility for both the pipe stress and pipe support analyses I associated with each stress package boundary was generally assigned to one office. This work assignment was used to promote communication be-tween the stress and support engineers. Each office performing work was I responsible for all activities garformed in that office and overall coordination / communication within the office. One SWEC office was as-signed responsibility for coordination of all activities associated with I each of the CPSES projects (Unit 1 and Unit 2). The Project Manager's staff has the responsibility for coordinating all efforts on CPSES. This promotes communication between all offices and results in a coordinated and technically consistent approach to all project activities.

The adequacy and implementation of this Quality Assurance program was extensively audited by SWEC's Engineering Assurance Division, TUGC0 QA's I Vendor Compliance Section, and the NRC's Vendor Program Branch. A total of 25 audits were perfo rmed by these organizations between August 1985 and September 1986 for both Units 1 and 2 as follows:

SWEC - EA 16 TUGC0 - QA 8 NRC - VPB 1 i

2018G-1545405-HC4 7-1 I

All of these audits were performed by personnel experienced in auditing

( QA programs and pipe stress / support analyses.

es were audited by engineers with significant experience preparing /

In particular, the analys-auditing stress and support work for various nuclear plants throughout F the industry. These audits, therefore, represent a very detailed and L complete assessment of the following:

• Adequacy of the QA program L

• Implementation of the QA program I

• Technical adequacy of the design criteria and procedures L

• Implementation of the design criteria and procedures These audits identified instances where some actions were required to:

clarify or modify procedures to more clearly address some activities; revise calculations to address an omission of clarifying statements or

{ more properly address a situation; and provide additional training or project guidance to ensure continued compliance with procedures. All of these items were expeditiously addressed, and the required actions were promptly taken. A prompt and complete response was developed for every

{ question identified throughout the audit process. Whenever a question that suggests a need to improve any of these items was identified, the cause, extent of conditions, and any required corrective / preventive ac-

! tions were determined and properly documented. All required actions were promptly taken. Subsequent audits have verified that appropriate actions were taken, in these cases, and identified an improved ' trend in overall j performance. No itans which would result in questions of technical ade-quacy of SWEC's overall requalification program have been identified.

, Through August 1986 more than 100,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> have been expended by SWEC in I

activities directly attributable to the overall Project Quality Assurahce program (i.e., training, procedure development, auditing, and the project QA Manager's staff).

l In summary, an appropriate level of attention has been given to the qual-I l

ity of all activities; the QA program is appropriate for the scope of work; project performance has been demonstrated to be in compliance with the QA program; and appropriate corrective and preventive actions were taken whenever they were required.

l 7.1

SUMMARY

OF SWEC ENGINEERING ASSURANCE (EA) AUDITS Through September 1986, SWEC EA has performed 16 audits of the CPSES stress and support requalification project. Each project location has I

been audited at least twice. An average of five subjects were reviewed during these audits. The following list of audit subjects describes the depth of auditing that has been performed:

1. Adequacy of the Design Criteria (CPPP-7)

2. Adequacy of the Project Procedures (CPPPs) 2018G-1545405-HC4 7-2

I

3. ARS Data Conversion l

4. Calculations - Technical adequacy i

5. Calculations - Documentation i

6. Compliance with Project Procedures

7. Construction Support Activities (NCRs, CMCs, etc)

8. Document Control

9. Field Walkdown Activities

10. Indoctrination and Training

11. Licensing Activities

12. Job Book Maintenance and Completeness

13. Maintenance of Project Procedure Manuals

14. Personnel Qualification and Experience Verification

15. Power Input Documents (SIDs, PRDPs)

All of these subjects have been audited at least once, and most have been I audited several times. To assure that proper emphasis was applied to the technical adequacy and documentation of calculations, approximately one third of all the audit subjects addressed these topics. A chronological tabulation of SWEC EA audit findings is presented in Appendix 1.

I I

I 2018G-1545405-HC4 7-3

__ _ _ m

I l 8.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION The completion of the Unit I large bore piping requalification program assures that the large bore piping sytems comply with the engineering and regulatory guidance and will perform their intended functions. Design process issues (design criteria and implementation procedures) for pipe I and pipe supports addressed in NUREG-0797 and Supplements (SER/SSER's, Reference 23) were resolved by the requalification program. The bases of the pipe and support requalification program met the acceptance criteria contained in the NUREG-0800 (Reference 18), and conformed to the basis of l the SER (NUREG-0797) and supplements. Except as specifically identified in the approved changes to FSAR, all bases for NUREG-0797 and supplements remain unaffected. A separate report identifying each SSER concern and referencing the specific corrective action taken will be submitted by the CPRT during the final reconciliation phase.

I The methodology and the calculations used during the requalification process meet the latest regulatory guidance, address the technical concerns raised by parties external to the project, and confirm the acceptability of the piping and support systems. Indepth technical audits, evaluations, and inspections verified the adequacy of the implementation of the requalification program.

As a result, the Comanche Peak Unit 1 Steam Electric Station piping systems and supports are assured to perform their intended functions under all speci-fled load combination conditions.

I -

1 I

I 1

I I

'I I

"'*"'"'~"" *~'

I ~

i

9.0 REFERENCES

1. Comsache Peak Response Team, DSAP IX, Piping and Supports Dis-cipline Specific Action Plan, Units 1 and 2, Texas Utilities Generating Company, Revision 1, January 24, 1986

2. SWEC Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 7, CPPP-7, Design Cri- {

teria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports, Revision 2, April 25, 1986

3. SkTC Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 6, CPPP-6, Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure, Revision 2, April 18, 1986

4. SWEC Comanche Peak Generic Technical Issue Report, June 27, 1986

5. SWEC Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 8, CPPP-8, Piping and Support System Engineering Walkdown Procedure, Revision 1, April 25, 1986

6. SWEC Piping and Support System Engineering Walkdown Final Re-port, CPSES Unit 1, June 4, 1986

7. SWEC Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 5, CPPP-5, Field Walk Procedure, Unit 1, Revision 2, March 12, 1986

8. SWEC Comanche Peak Unit 1, Large Bore Field Walkdown Report, October 10, 1985 g 9. SkTC Comanche Peak Unit 1, Small Bore Field Walkdown Report, 3 June 19, 1986 10.

I SkIC Topical Report SWSQAP-1-74A, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Standard Quality Assurance Program, Revision E, February 21, 1986 I 1.1. SkTC Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 18, CPPP-18, Procedure for Evaluation July 7, 1986 of ERC Deviation Reports, Revision 0,

12. SWEC Report No. 15454-N(C)-003, Impact of Construction Devia-tions on Stress Requalification Program (November 7, 1986)

13. TUGCO Hardware Validation Program, Revision 0, October 8, 1986

14. SkTC Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 10, CPPP-10, Procedure g for Review of Plant Operating Mode Conditions, Revision 1, 3 Apr'l 1, 1986

15. NUPIPE-SW---Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Computer I Program ME-110, Version 5, Level 2 I 2018J-1545405-HC4 9-1 I

E I 16. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1 Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1974 Edition, including the Summer Addenda Subsections NC and ND

17. Camanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, 1986

18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Revision 2, July 1981

19. NUREG-582, Waterhammer in Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1979

20. Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 300, Technical Posi-tions on Criteria Establishment, Damping Values for Piping, Response Spectra Broadening, and Industry Practice by Technical Committee on Piping Systems, December 1984

21. NUREG/CR-1161, Recommended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission Seismic Design Criteria, Prepared by Lawrence Livermore I Laboratory for USNRC, May 1980

22. TUGC0 Letter No. TXX-4844, W. G. Counsil to E. H. Johnson, Di-rector, Division of Reactor Safety an-1 Projects, U.S. Nuclear I Regulatory Commission, Pipe Supports...Large Bore Piping, dated June 9, 1986

23. NUREG'0797, Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Supplement (SSER) Nos. I through 13, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statio1, Units 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1981, Supplements dated through May 1986

24. TUGC0 Letter No.'TXX-5006, W. G. Counsil to V. S. Noonan, I Director, Commission, CPSES FSAR Amendment dated September 12, 1936 Division of Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I

I I

I 11 I

2018J-1545405-HC4 9-2 I

I FIGURE 6-1 PROJECT TECHNIC.81 XNTERFACES I

TUCCO ENOTWEERING d

• As-Built Documentation

• Design Modification

• Loads en Inline Equipeent I

• Structural Interface Requirement Equipment / Valve Nossle Loads Design Change Recommendations

• Expansion Joint Qualification e Valve Accelerations and Valve

.I (

Operator Support Requirement Pipe Movements at Pape Rupture Restraint Locations

• Pipe Break Postulation l

• Root Valve Movements for Instrument

Systems

• Review of Resolution of

• Fipe Movements at Sealed Sleeve External Technical Locations Issues

.l

• Review Frocedure and g Results of Requalifi-r CFRT cation Program

• Design Requirement for

< Class 1 Supports

• Class 1 Fipe Suppart Loads

• solution of Technical '%  :

N STRUCTURAL ADIQUACY OT ,

CLASS I FIFIK; FIFING SYSTEMS

• Results of Analysis

• Design Changes

• Results of SVEC Requalifi-cation of C1ssa 1 Supports '

Including Pipe Support Stiffness  !

• Reaction Imposed by Class 2 and 3 Piping on Class 1 F1 ping 1

1 I

1 R. L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES ASSIST TUGC0 IN TECHNICAL

• System Operations g,,,, ,, ,,,,,,3,,,,,g,g, I

OVERVIEW OT SWEC Characteristics RESOLLTION OT JECHNICAL ISSLT,5

• ARS Data (sacluding ,, y,,,3,gg,, ,,,,,,3 ,,4,g,,,,,g,

• ' at Fenetration/ Box Trame Pipe g , $, * ) Support Locations

• System Design I.

• Modification Fenetration Con-figuration i,

• Geological Input Data

• Building Seismic and l l

Static Displacements

f

,, l

. 1

!W CIBBS & HILL /3WEC CORRECTIVE

• ACTION PROJECT

.

• FIFING SYSTEM OPERATION

!I NOTE I

• l.

• Adequacy of Structures Penetrations, etc.

These responsibilities are currently being reassigned to a separate SWEC Project associated with the CPSES Corrective Action Program.

I e

I I

7ICURE 6-2 PIPING SYSTE'.S REQUAI.ITICATION ACTIVITY OPERATION SEQCDiCE I I

I g -

Result of SWEC Input from

SEC *

• Developecnt of Design Other Organizations Tield Walkdown Criteria / Procedures i

• Resolution of Special Technical Concerns il Review and Verification of Design /As-Built Information il

!I '

i Requalification Analysis of Output to other l -

Pipe Stress and Support , organizations Designs ll lm Hardware Modification Recommendation No i

Yes i '

o As-Built Verification Final Field Walk-i of Hardware Modification down of Clearance Verification No As-built Condition of - Yes  ;

Hardware Modification I

. Acceptable? '

1

h 1.1 igej g {EE It I l  :=l r:

55a i ~~.

i xsf

• W * **

5% .

• 3 5 *Z .

e. a .,

I u rif sgs:

fjpgF!!

was r'r%ugn=

E giafp=2 ~

5

.g o 'l'Esh .s -

m""

8

=  ;- - -

w rr 8IEl?

5 5' Esg L ---

l a 5~5N ge .e=

j$

e 5"engs I

ll y f

~

!!;It r:

s w N us. sei EE 8 NE ar r5~

RE~g* t

l 8 %5 9 g k R ag Il 5

$ 2 i f.5

.l l -

e r !"

l.

a 5;:z.yasEg= st I: E 55~li s*E i

b

" Eg5e es En'= ~ .j " E5s I

m

5K 5*  :?*=sijs~ ?:EEE=- s$

s..krFi; I l..g?

Ik $

i &

• J*E ' 5lE -

ig 5 .

l5 y e__*

8 5

s p.,, .,,ig.E._..

_,g==

ll ar58 asp 22~.*5 2

• • ]Re::prryg Cw I AE- e

$$$$ e"s= .sp, den

$ nue>

ag Cs $ ig~g$5

. ,5 r

il

v. _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

i l

FIGURE 6.1-1 PIPE STRESS REQUALIFICATION FLOW CHART TUCCO Pipina Drawints/Systee Parsecters SVEC Power Group SVEC SWEC

~

• System Operating Modes Pipe Stress

• Issential Systees structural Group 1 l Group ARS Curves e Break Exclusion Boundaries )

( l Systes Review and Hamrer Optiairation Review 1

I Inputs and Modeling

)

EMD T1uid Transient Analysis I Stress Analysis ; I Using WUpIPE e

RESULTS l5

• Maxieue Calculated Stresses

• Pipe Support / Penetration Isads

• Equipment Nozzle / Valve Nozzle /

T1 sage Loads

• Valve Accelerations and Valve ejerator Support Requirement Westinabouse

• Expansien Joint Mswaments

• Loads from

• Pipe Movements at sleeves Class 2 i

• Root Valve Movements for Instrument Systems and 3 Pip-ing on

• Stress Level for Pipe Break Class 1 Postulation I

Piping

• Pipe !!ovements at Pipe Support ,

and Pipe Aupture Restraint Locations e Punctional Capability Evaluation I

• of Essential Piping Insulation Removal Requirement at Penetration Locations 5

STRISS CALCULATION

.I Documentatioo/Transeittals

$ )

r

'I [

SVEC l RESULTS DISTRIBUIID POR DESIGN ACCEPTANCE TUGC0 g

• Pipe support CIBBS & HILL /SWE0 CORRICTIVE

• Evaluation

• Valve Acceleration ACTICN PROJECT e Expansion Joint 3

• Stresses for Break Movements Postulation e Equipeent/ Valve Nozzle e Loads on Penetrations

• Pipe Movements at Loads Pipe Rupture

• Root Valve Movements e leads on Moment Restraints

- 1 Restraint Locations (see CPPP-20) for Instrument Systaes e Pipe Movement at Sealed

• Pipe Movements at e insulation Removal Sleeves Requirement at Penetrati:n I Decoupled Branch Line Connections

• Valve Operator Support with Reaction Loads if Applicable locations I

• See Note 1 in Fig. 6-1.

.I

I FICURE 6.2-1 PIPE SUPPORT REQUALIFICATION FLOW CHART I SWEC Pipe Stress Results Westinghosse Class 1 Pipe Support I Pipe Support Loads ---*

TUGC0 As-Built Group = .

Information and Non-ASME Attachment

.I Loads

I Formation of Support Loading Condition I o o Review of Review of

'I i Structural Frames Component Standard Revieu of Integral Attachments Supports

Stiffness Calculation for

' Class 1 Pfpe Supports

• Load Combination

• NT/AISC Code Check

g

• Weld / Bolt Joint Design 5

• Local Stress Evaluation i

P l Baseplates/ Richmond Inserts and Anchor Bolt Qualification

, Support / Structural Documentation and Class 1 Pipe Support

}g Interface Reaction Loads , Lored Transmittals Results, Including Pipe

g to SWEC Corrective Action Project Support Stiffnesses, i to Westinghouse e

Insulation Removal at Design Modification / Local Stresses at

Box Frame Pipe Support BRH Drawing Change IWAs to SWEC-MEG

Locations to G&H Recommendation to SWEC-SEO

I

ll X _

M W 1

1. G M N ATI EI N M TNI 5SUA

- MS KNEE 2.A 6EI O R TI PTRI U E RETFI AOV

[ UHS T GC EC 7 I NCLA 8 FAI U 7 / MRD M L8 U9 8

/

OTE CCH J1 7 EC LS E

M N8 U9 7

J1 I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I k M 7 J" Y8 A9 M1 N O

I T

M R8 P9 7

E R

A I

L A1 LA I LW C AD N TR O Y R8 7 SA NH C

E A9 I/^ R M1 S NN L OO A I I N M B8 7

l TT CA I

F E9 UC F1 G RI 8 TF

/ SI ^  ! l ! ! ! ! ! ! ! f ND M N8 7

1 3

/

OO CM A9 2 J1 1 g! f; M C8 6 _

E9 D1 S E

G M V8 6

TA RK OC O9 PA -

N1 PP U

SN M 6 EI O

T8 PT C9 I A O1 PC I 1

$ 6 EF UI SD 2

0 P8 SO -

E9 I M 5 S1 1 K

M C P M

C M

M

TABLE 6.1.1 - PIPING SYSTEM INPUT REQUIREMENT

1. Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) l

2. All ASME III Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping drawings and G&H Class 5 I

l 3.

and 6 piping drawings within the same stress problem boundary (BRPs)

Pipeline designation list

4. Piping design specifications

5. Flow diagrams, system description and operating modes

6. Seismic response spectra (including the application of Code I

Case N-411)

7. Seismic structural displacements data l

8. General arrangement and civil / structural drawings l 9. As-built piping support location drawings (BRHLs and GHHs) i

10. Pipe support drawings (BRHs)

11. Thermal structural displacements data

12. Containment pressure test displacement data

13. Sleeve sealant design information

14. Jet impingement loads

15. Pipe whip impact loads

16. Structural and equipment layout drawings

17. Valve and valve operator weights (including extended attachments),

center of gravity, yoke frequency and acceptable valve acceleration limit I 18. Equipment movement data and allowable nozzle loads

19. As-built location of pipe with respect to sleeve

20. Existing pipe break locations, pipe rutpure restraint locations and detailed drawings

21. Valve nozzle allowables for all Westinghouse supplied valves

22. As-built pipe conditions below minimum thickness requirement

23. Westinghouse Class 1 pipe stress reports I

2018F-1545405-HC4

I E 24. ADLPIPE computer listing for each stress problem

25. Containment pressure / temperature displacements due to containment I overpressurization as a result of LOCA

26. Component drawings (equipment, penetration, valve, etc)

27. Existing calculations

a. Pipe stress analysis

b. Pipe support analysis and stress report (if applicable)

c. Fluid transient analysis

28. Loads from non-ASME attachments on pipe supports

29. Geotechnical input data for buried pipe analysis

30. Flexible hose design criteria and vendor's design report

31. As-built input information for tie-back support

32. As-built pipe weld shrinkage and locations i

I I

I I

~

I l

I I

2018F-1545405-HC4

.I

L r

TABLE 6.1.1.2 i

L

SUMMARY

OF FLUID TRANSIENT ANALYSES FOR  ;

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 {

L 1 Containment Spray System  !

l

• Containment spray pump startup and water impact Safety Injection System

• Clieck valve closure following pump trip

• Isolation / flow control valve operation (study) I

• Thermal relief valve discharge (study)

Station Service Water System

• Pump trip and pump start j

• Pump start with empty column

• Screen wash pumps suction check valve closure (study)

Residual Heat Removal System l

• Relief valve discharge l Chemical and Volume Control System

• Relief valve discharge l

• Isolation / flow control valve operation (study)

Main Steam System l

• Main steam turbine trip analysis

• Auxiliary feedpump turbine trip analysis

• Feedpump turbine trip analysis

• Safety and relief valve discharge Feedwater System

• Check valve closure following pump trip

• Sudden closure of isolation or control valve

• Check valve closure analysis following postulated pipe rupture Reactor Coolant System

• Pressurizer safety relief valve discharge effect on branch pip-ing (study)

Auxiliary Feedwater System

• Check valve closure following trip of one AF pump 2018F-1545405-HC4

l I

l Boron Recycle System l

• Relief valve discharge Component Cooling Water System

• Relief valve discharge  !

• Isolation and flow control valve (study)

I I

E l

I i

I I

I I

I

I I

,i I

I 2018F-1545405-HC4 (I

l l

TABLE 6.2.2.2 StNMARY - CINCHED U-BOLT TRAPEZE SUPPORT MODIFICATION (October 31,1986)

I TYPE DESCRIPTION OF MODlFICATION LARGE BORE PIPING

. 1 Single strut or snubber with a standard 31S(57) pipe clamp I 2 Box Frame 72(12)

I 3 Trapeze with strap and lugs 101(32)

I 4 Trapeze with welded attachment now con-stituting a rotation restraint 70(9) 5 Single strut or snubber with a welded 3 I attachment 6 Single strut or snubber with a stiff 14(4) clamp I 7 Single strut or snubber with a U-Bolt 18(5)

I 8 Trapeze with box frame and lugs 2 I

TOTAL 595(119)

Ntribers in parentheses represent the ntsnber of supports deleted as a result of support optimization.

I I

I

TABLE 6.2.3 (NIT 1 LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

(October 31,1986)

Category Nunber of Modifications Prudent 873 Recent Industry Practice 1143 Adjustment 198 j Cunulative Effects 705 W TOTAL 12911i MAJOR MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION CONTRIBUTOR CATEGORY Richmond Insert Single Tubes Prudent Allowable Stress Exceeded For Structural Member Cumulative Effects I Support Deleted Support Added Recent Industry Practice Cumulative Effects Rigid Trapeze Prudent Trapeze Snubber Prudent Allowable Stress Exceeded For Welds Cumulative Effects l Allowable Load Exceeded For Standard Component Cumulative Effects Allowable Load Exceeded For Concrete Anchor Cumulative Effects U-Bolt Torque Value Require'd Adjustment Component Exceeds 5 Degree Offset Adjustment I Revise Clearances To Be Modified Into A Clamp Anchor Adjustment Prudent Box Frame On Pin Connection Cumulative Effects Modify To Increase Stiffness Prudent Preliminary Study Revises This Into A Clamp Anchor Prudent Change From Rigid To Anchor Or From Anchor To Rigid Prudent Change From Snubber To Rigid Recent Industry Practice Change From Rigid To Snubber Cumulative Effects Two Way Rigid Restraint Changed To One Way Restraint ,

Or One Way Changed To Two Way Restraint Cumulative Effects Three Way Changed To One Or Two Way Restraint Cumulative Effects U-Bolt On A Rigid Frame (One Or Two Way Restraint) Cumulative Effects Change From Rigid Hanger To Spring Or Spring Tc Rigid Cumulative Effects Relocate Hanger Cumulative Effects Pipe Bearing Stress Failure Cumulative Effects Reset Spring Settings Adjustment I

I APPENDIX 1

SUMMARY

OF SWEC EA AUDIT FINDINGS Audit Number Action (s)

Location / of Audit Required /

Date Subjects Audit Findings Taken Site 6 None None 7/85 New York 5 Miscellaneous Document

• Revise CPPP-3 10/85 Control items

• Obtain latest FSK index

• Update CPI /CPO Logs I

• Update latest indexes in project manuals Job Book Index not up Revise CPPPs-3 and 4 to date Some personnel records Update the records not up to date I Additionsl project pro-cedures required

• Issue CPPPs-11, 13, and 14

• Revise CPPP-1 I Cherry Hill 5 Miscellaneous Document

• Log Unit 1 CP0s at CHOC 10/85 Control items

• New York to obtain Unit 2 I stamp

• Log transsittals Houston 5 Requirements for Job Revise CPPP-3 12/85 Book filing not clear PMs not " controlled" None stamped I Miscellaneous inconsis-tencies in some support calculations Revise calculations Some personnel records Update the records not up to date I Toronto 4 Miscellaneous inconsis-

• Correct calculations 12/85 tencies in some support

• Remind personnel calculations I l Logs not same as in Use CPPP-3 logs CPPP-3 2018K-1545405-HC4 1 I l 1

s Numbar Actien(s)

Locsti:n/ of Audit R quired /

Date Subjects Audit Findings Taken Calculation index does Revise calculation index not have " Superseded by" column

[ Boston 12/85 1 CPPP-6 responsibility for fluid transient identi-Revise CPPP-6 fication not clear Computer program not Correct in future calcu-listed in log lations Miscellaneous inconsis-

• Revise Calculation No. F-08 tencies in some transient

• Remind personnel calculations Site 8 Miscellaneous inconsis-

• Issue IOM and PM 12/85 tencies in some calcula-

• Use standard Unit 1 forms I tions

• Training Files do not have Job Revise CPPP-3 Book identification No incoming / outgoing Develop and maintain logs logs Some experience records Complete the records not completed for new hires I Boston 6 Some personnel records Update the records 2/86 not up to date No incoming / outgoing Revise CPPP-3 logs Cherry Hill 3 None None 2/86 I

• New York 5 Some minor inconsisten-

• Revise calculations I 3/86 cies in stress calcula-tions

• Issue PM

• Recopy calculation pages I Some minor inconsisten-cies in support calcula-tions

• Remind personnel

• Revise calculations

• Ensure TUGCO drawings are legible Distribution of CP0s not Revise CPPP-3 in accordance with CPPP-3 2018K-1545405-HC4 2

Number Action (s)

Lccetien/ of Audit R: quired /

Date Subjects Audit Findings Taken SIDs and PRDPs not docu-

• Revise CPPP-10 mented in accordance with

• Revise SIDs and PRDPs CPPP-10 Project not on distribu-

• IOM to EA tion of prs /IPRs

• Issue CPPP-19 Houston 4 Some minor inconsisten-

• Revise calculations 4/86 cies in calculations

• Remind personnel Distribution of calcula-

• Issue CP0s tions not to Boston with-

• Assign more people in 30 days Site 6 Minor inconsistencies in

• Remind personnel 5/86 some calculations

• Revise calculations Miscellaneous inconsis-

• Training tencies with NCF/EESV

• Revise NCRs I

j disposition documentation

• Issue calculations i

Toronto 4 NPSI Catalog /LCDs not Issue " controlled" 6/86 controlled catalog Embedment length of Hilti None - Disagree not in accordance with with finding drawing I Boston 6 Minor ir consistencies in

• Revise calculations 7/86 some calculations

• Remind personnel CH plot not listed for Revise calculations some transient calcula-tions CPPP-7 not clear regard- Issue PM ing construction tolerance and PSRD Copies of calculations Revise CPPP-11 distributed in lieu of originals Cherry Hill 7 Some project manuals not

• Update manuals 7/86 completely up to date

• Remind personnel Some discrepancies from

• Update Job Book index CPPP-3

• Mark file cabinet

• Refile data I 2018K-1545405-HC4 3 I .

I Number Action (s)

Location / of Audit Required /

Date Subjects Audit Findings Taken Some inconsistencies in

• Issue IOM to remind calculations personnel

• Revise calcul:tions New York 9 Report not issued yet 9/18 _

Total

)g 16 (Audits) 84 (Subjects g Audited)

I I

I I

I I

I I .

I I

I I 2018K-1545405-HC4 4 I

~