ML20214K140

Forwards Communication Repts of 850913 & 27,1008 & 860206 Telcons Re Phase 3 of Independent Assessment Program Re Pipe Support Issues & Case Discovery Request

ML20214K140
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/09/1986
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84042.48, NUDOCS 8608180150
Download: ML20214K140 (11)

Text

'

[Ohjin[

arrrr 3.-.-

gll 101 California Street Suite 1000. San Francisco, CA 941115894 415 I97-5600 j

((

July 9,1986 84042.48

[ -k Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal #18 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job No. 84042

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find some communications reports associated with the Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program. These reports had remained in draft form for some time. Cygna has no other unissued communications as of this date.

If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to coll.

Very truly yours, I

b Nd N.H. Williams Project Manager NHW:jst Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. J. Finneran (TUCCO) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ attachments 8608180150 860709 h

PDR ADOCK 05000445 A

PDR San Francisco Boston Chicago Schland

Communications 4L Ropod t i lllllll11111111lll111llll111ll Company Texas Utilities

) Teiecon o conference Repo t Project: Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Job No. 84042 s/27/o5 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 o,,,

Subject:

Time:

Pipe Support Questions Place:

Participants:

of L. J. Weingart CES of J. van Amerongen TUGC0/EBASCO ltem Comments Reg'd Action By Cygna inquired what the latest revision to Brown & Root procedure CEI-20 was. Jean called back, leaving a message that Rev. 9 was the latest. This is the same revision that Cygna already has, thus there was no need for Jean to send a copy.

(

l i

l signed: Qg [Q g g g gg p.g.

/jm 1

o' 1

D"DN N. Williams, J.ddding, J. Finneran, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, A. Vietti-Cook, Project File j

i

Communications R9 port 4L t i 111ll111llllll1lll11lllll1i111 Company: Texas Utilities

)Q Telecon 0 Conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Job No. 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oste:

9/13/85 subject: Pipe Support Open Items 11:00 a.m.

T' **

Place:

SFR0

Participants:

of

n. Rpnchar of TilGC0 L.J. Weingart CES Item Comments Reg'd Action By U. Hencher called to inquire as to the status of the issue regarding gaps in the restraint direction for pipe support design.

I informed Dave that it would be necessary to examine the project documentation files and John Minichiello's notes before Cygna could give him an answer.

Sign

,M Mg p Page of j

y

"M N.

Williame-

.1 R o inn..1. Finneran. R _ He s s. 11.

Ru s s. S Trphv..1 - Fil i s.

A. Vietti-Cook, Project File

Communications 4L t i Reoort 111111lllllllllllllllll1111lll Company: Texas Utilities R Telecon a conference Report JbN.

84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Date:

10/8/85

Subject:

Time:

a.m.

Pipe Stress Questions Place:

SFR0

Participants:

of H. Mentel Gibbs & Hill L. J. Weingart CES Item Comments Reg'd Action By 1.

Review of the main steam inside containment analyses noted the following items:

a. Two LOCA load cases were run: unbroken and broken loop.

b. Unbroken loop loads and stresses were included in the emergency combination while broken loap was used in the faulted combination.

c. Broken loop loads and stresses were always higher than unbroken loop loads (as would be expected).

d. The CPSES FSAR does not specifically require LOCA loads to be considered for emergency condition.

Why was the unbroken loop case run?

2.

Review of G&H Project Guide PG-25, dated 3/1/83, " Procedure for Preparation and Design Review of Line Lists, Modes of Operation and Valve Lists," indicates that line lists are to be generated on the form included as Exhibit 1 of that procedt re.

Cygna did not find evidence of this during the reviews conducted at the CPSES site.

Instead, computer listings apparently were used which did not have all of the informatior indicated on Exhibit 1 of PG-25.

Please explain the reason for this discrepancy and the manner in which the computer listing was maintained and controlled.

3.

Cygna could not determine what tolerance, if any, was used for support orientation (i.e., angle) when performing the as-built stress analysis.

Please provide this vale and the reference document for it.

Signed.

f h

Page of Distnbution:

N. Williams, d.

Heading, L.

Weinga rL, d.

6reDy, d. t.llis, 5. burwell, n.-

- i r23_

e,, _ _ _

3 n__

ivgwv v

,wi

--..gi

....g-

l Communications Report 4L 6 i 1163!ill11llllllll111111111111 r

Company: CES g Telecon D Conference Report Projsct:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No.

84042 Independent Assessment Program Date:

Feb. 6, 1986

Subject:

CASE Discovery Request Time:

11:30 AM Place:

CES-SFRO

Participants:

John Finneran' TUGCO of Nancy Williams Cygna of of item Comments Reg'd Action By J. Finneran called to request that Cygna prepa.:

responses to the attached discovery requests relative to pipe support stability.

I responded that we would begin immediately but that it appeared that the breakdowns of the support types would require some effort.

.h Wil1iams b h )

/ta Page 1

of 1

signe N.H.

Distnbution:

J.

Finneran, J.

Redding, N. Williams, S. Treby, J.

Ellis, iom m A. Vietti-Cook, D.

Pigott, C.

Wong, FrOJCCL Ihe

b FEB 5 'BB 15:33 CASEE GLEN ROSE PAGE,c-

~

gpa

-b

.uncinched U-bolts?

(xi) double strutted frames supporting a single pipe with cinchec-down U-bolt?

(xii) double strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-bolt?

(xiii) double strutted trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?

(xiv) sulti-strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-bolt?

(xv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?

s (zvi) multi-strutted box frama?

(xvii) single snubber with cinched-down U-bolt.?

(xviii) double-strut, double-trunnion with uncinched U-bolt?

(xix) double-strut, double-trunnien with cinched-down U-bolt?

(xx) double strut trapeze with box frame?

(xxi) triple strut box frame?

(xxii) other configurations not specifically listed in the preceding?

Also supply any additional information which might assist in understanding ths configurations discussed in the preceding.

(e)

(1) Have Applicants considered the possibility that there may also be some potentially unstable cable tray supports?

(2) If the answer to (1) is yes, supply the same information for cable tray supports as was requested in (a), (b), and (c) preceding.

(f) In regard to Cygua's 2/19/85 letter 84042.035 to Mr. J. B. George, under Subject of Stability of Pipe Supports (copy of which is attached to CAsI's 2/25/85 Notification of New and Significant Information and CASE's Supplement to CASI's 10/15/B4 Motions and Answer to Applicants' Hotion for Summary Disposition Regarding stability of Pipe Supporte, which is being sent in the same

'f

(

t

f;

~

CPEEE GLEN ROEE FEE 5 *BE 15:34 3

mailing with this pleading):

Supply a list of the supports which Cygna identified on page (1) 7 (last paragraph) as:

the 37 supports which, in the total absence of the, (i) pipa, are etable; (ii) the 124 supports which, in the absence of the pipe,

~

would be unstable, but which Cygna considers to

~

possess sufficient positive attachment to the pipe to ensure stability; and (iii) the 65 supports which Cygna considers to be potentially unstable.

Supply th'e drawings and calculations which Cygna re (2)

(If these are already syy:jl support listed in (1) preceding.

.I included in the Cygna Reports, please indicate where the A

j If these are the same drawings be found in the Report.

r to and/or calculations supplied by Applicants in their answe Bs specific.)

(b) preceding, please so indicate.

(as Supply all derwings, calculations, or other documents (3) defined on page 2, item 3, of this pleading) generated by h support listed li Cygns or its agents in Cygna's review of es3 1'i (If this has already been provided, please J.

in (1) preceding.

cGI t pro ided 9,8f

. identify, for each support, the specific documen h

and the date and Cygna identification number for each suc fr:

cover letter by which it was provided.)

had Did Cygna attemp,t to ascertain whether or net Applicants (4) i l promptly idencifed and corrected the problem of potent a i

instability?

4 o.

[,

u.

. :.. o -

c _ : r.

.it

4E.c2 e

(5) Did Cygna attempt to ascertain whether or not Applicants had trended each of the supports which were potentially unstable?

(6) If the answer to (4) and/or (5) preceding is yes, for each of the supports listed in your answer to (1) preceding, provide all documentation which Cygna reviewed which indicated that Applicants identified such support as potentially unstable, including copies of all deficiency paper (i.e., NCR's, CMC's,

~

DCA's, IR's, and any other paper used by Applicants to-identify such deficiency, 10 CFR 50.55(e) raports, etc.).

Include all supporting documentation for such deficiency reporting, as well as all documentation relating to the consideration of how to handle or correct the problem, including all documentation relating to the final disposition of the problem.

Also include all documentation that each of the potentially unstable supports were included in trending.

~

(If any of this information has already been provided in response to (c) preceding. please identify specifically which such information reviewed by Cygna has already been supplied.)

(7) If the answer to (4) or (5) preceding is yes, what are Cygna's current conclusions regarding the adequacy of Applicants' prompt identification and correction of the problem of instability, as well as the adequacy of Applicants' trending and whether or not such trending

'.}

,f accomplishes the' purpose of promptly identifying trends which may adversely affect quality?

4 (8) Which (identify by each support's number) of the supports t

4

~g 7

I u

5 *BE 15:25 C:EEE GEA N EE

' AGE.CM

~

reviewed by Cygna fit into each of the following categories (this infor:aation is not clear from Cygna's listing at. the top of page 8):

(1) box frame with zero-inch gap attached to a single strut or snubber?

(ii) single strut with cinched-down U-bolt?

(iii) box frames modified by " indexed lugs"7 l

(iv) box frames modified by " additional struts"?.

(v) box frames modified by cinching down U-bolt?

/

(vi) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gapt (vii) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap, modified by adding supplementary steel to create

" stability bumpers"?

(Answer appears to be 2; is this correct?)

(viii) single struts with U-bolt and a thermal gap.

modified by cinching down U-bolt?

(ix) double strutted frames supporting two or more pipes?

(x) double strutted frames supporting a single pipe with uncinched.U-bolts?

(x1) double strutted frames supporting a single pipe with cinched-down U-bolt?

s (xii) double strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-bolt?

(Answer appears to be 3; is this correct?)

(xiii) double structed trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?

(xiv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with uncinched U-

C.

FEE 5

BE 15:36 CPSES GLEN ROSE ft,sE.cg e

i bolt?

(xv) multi-strutted trapeze supports with cinched-down U-bolt?

(xvi) multi-strutted box frame?

(Answer appears'to be 8; is this correct?)

a (xvii)' single snubber with cisched-down U-bolt?

(xviii) double-strut, double-trunnion with uncinched U-

~

bolt?

(xix) double-strut, double-trunnion with cinched-down U-bolt?

(Answer appears tc be 1; is this correct?)

(xx) double strut trapere with box framat (Answer eppears to be 2; is this correct?)

l (xxi) triple strut box frame?

(Answer appears to be 1; i

is this correct?)

(xxii) other configurations not specifically listed in l.

t.he preceding?

Also supply any additional information which might

?

assist in understanding the configurations discussed in the preceding.

(9) Do Applicants agree that the copy.of Cygna's 2/19/85 letter 84042.035 to Mr. J. B. George, under Subject of Stability of Pipe Supports, which was attached to CASE's 2/25/85 Notification of New and Significant luformation and CASI's Supplement to CASE's 10/15/84 & tions and Answer to Applicants' Hotion for Summary Disposition legarding Stability of Piie Supporrs (which is being sent in the same t

mailing with this pleading), is an authentic and correct copy of the letter received by Applicants from Cygna (with the

-.,,--..-.,-n

-,---,-n.

---n

f.'

t.

FEE E *EE :E:2E

EEE G Eh MEE cesE.cs n.

exception of the date en which CASE received the letter, which has been. hand-written in the upper right-hand corner of the letter)?

(10) If the answer to (9) preceding is no, supply an authentic'and correct copy of such letter.

(11) Does Cygna consider the 226 pipe supports which they reviewed as part of its Phases 2, 3 and 4 review to be a representative sample of the pipe supports at Comanche Peak?

(12) Do Applicants consider the 226 pipe supports which Cygna reviewed as part of its Phases 2, 3 and 4 review to be a representative sample of the pipe supports,at Comanche Peak?

(13) If the answer to (12) preceding is no, please explain in detail Applicants' rationale for having chosen the particular systems which they had Cygna review to help alleviate the 3

Board's concerns about the design of Comanche Peak.

2.

' Regarding A500 Steel:

Provide responses to the following, which refer to the Affidavit a.

of John C. Finneran, Jr. Regarding A500 Tube Steel,'which was attached to A,:plicants ' 4/11/64 Response to Partial Initial Decision Regarding A500 steel:

(1)

Affidavit beginning at bottom of page 2, continuing on page 4

3:

(i)

Provide documentation that Applicants recognized the reduction in yield strength.

(ii) Who were the people (supply individuals' names, titles, and organizations) who recognized the reduction in yield strength?

,-----,-..-.---,.,-,,----------.------,----ae,,-,-

,