ML20235S247

Rev 1 to Discipline Specific Results Rept:Piping & Supports

ML20235S247
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/27/1987
From:	Beck J TENERA, L.P. (FORMERLY TENERA CORP.), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235S157	List: ML20235S166 ML20235S190 ML20235S247 TXX-6809, Forwards Comanche Peak Response Team Results Repts,Including Rev 1 to Issue Specific Action Plan Ii.E, Rebar in Fuel Handling Bldg & Decision Specific Action Plan IX, Piping & Supports Discipline Specific Action Plan
References
DAP-RR-P-001, DAP-RR-P-001-R01, DAP-RR-P-1, DAP-RR-P-1-R1, NUDOCS 8710080384
Download: ML20235S247 (113)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. __ m, _a. g if. 4. b g.+ 4' _~ V s. + n .w, n. . we.... ) . COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ^ ~"^M ,,g. W-4 ., kg- [ D. ../** DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM ~ DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC.RESULTS REPO m. .n.. PIPING AND SUPP HTS "*E . - n ..c. .w< +. W. d. ~ ^ ~., ', c .n .A d.s ....4. . ; Jut'y ny,p. .4, e .r.. rs g.;,;,- yb y ,e 3 DAP-RR P-001 .u Revision 1 m .y.-,.. August 27,1987 ' W 1 .-t' % ~*

• U '-

j i i l l ..a 1 + -u + s ,,4. c, . i&1Mc~t!*$f%GLfLf&n**m.%F..

s..

.s -....p. s.3.. .im g . f..,g, . p p..-.4,..q j, 4 5,.,h'., j _E-], g g; .4 p 4. pp .azd In. . Nel 5 4 MiE$ k' L.E. '4 %tP.:,M ' 4. .W.. .,- -, u. w....:.squeto N . ce m "+1. *. -, ' I MW [. g dg a...r. 4 or . n 4 N%'- . w

• %r
  • v c

,.,W I @' '; 7"' s "N ' ' "' ' 4 4 9,'n; $ $, or 2 % k ' . a..W<#ht...- 4 ~,1. '- 'e "shliww .s v y'w., ., 2 '. .h .+.f.c 4:.. tW--,' i . tem wa 4'G.. NW N.<M... p .Ai>$ 8710080384 870929 .fg g. ..4 ADOCK 05000445

1. g '

y., ' 'G PDR PDR ?' I { Q4'b. A AG^ ^ " " ^ ^ " *

(V) I l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM 'l RESULTS REPORT I i DSAP IX l TITLE: PIPING AND SUPPORTS DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN REVISION'1 1 O 3 i f - T '2-2 )f) Discipline Coordinator Date wW , - %.) S 7 87 R'iview' Team Leader V Date %./L ' s/2/>r JohnMf. Beck, Chairman CPRT-SRT Date O

TABLE OF CONTENTS seenow PAGE COVER TA B L E OF CONTE NTS................................... LIST OF FIGURES AND TA B LES................................ PA G E COU NT SUMMA R Y.........................................' 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS............. 2.0 SCOPE..................................................................... ............ 2 -1 3.0 EXTERNA L SOURCE ISSUES................................... 3.1 Review Methodology.................................................................... 3-3.1.1 Identification of Extemal Source issues.......................... l 3.1.2 Criteria and Commitment Compliance Review of SWEC Procedu res...................................................... i ) 3.1.3 Evaluation of Resolution Methodology............... Resutts............................................................................ 3.2 ................ 3-4 3.2.1 External Source issue identification............................{ 3.2.2 SWEC Compliance with CPSES Criteria............................. 3 6 3.2.3 Extemal Source issue Resolution........:................... l 3.2.3.1 Rich mond inse rts........................................... 1 Local Pipe Stresses........................................... 3-7 3.2.3.2 . 3-12 3.2.3.3 Large Frame Wall-To-Wall And Floor-To-Celling Supports................................ 3-14 3.2.3.4 Support System Stability...................... Generic Stiffnees............................................. 3.2.3.5 ........... 3-17 3.2.3.6 U-Bolts Acting As Two-Wa Friction Forces..................y Restraints.............l!I-21 3.2.3.7 AWS Versus ASME....................................... 3.2.3.8 . 3-22 3.2.3.9 A500 Grade B Tube Steet................................ 3-24 3.2.3.10 Section Properties............................................ Cinched U-Botts............................................. 3.2.3.11 .3-28 3.2.3.12 Axial / Rotational Restraints... 3.2.3.13 Gaps................................................. ...........................3-31 3.2.3.14 Seismic Design Load Specification.................. 3 31 3.2.3.15 Support Mass Effects On Piping................. Mass Point Spacing......................................... 3-33 3.2.3.16 .... 3-34 3.2.3.17 High Frequency Mass Participation.................. 3-35 \\ TN 67-7256 i DAP.RR-P-001. REV.1

i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION - PAGE 3.2.3.18 Fluid Transients................................................ 3-35 I 3.2.3.19 Self-Weight Excitation...................................... 3 39 3.2.3.20 Local Stresses in Pipe Support Members........ 3-40 3.2.3.21 S afety Facto rs.................................................. 3 3.2.3.22 SA-36 And SA-307 Stee!s................................ 3-42 3.2.3.23 Valve And Flange Qualification Valve Modeling........................s And ......................... 3-4 3 3.2.3.24 Piping Mode l.................................................... Welding.............................................. 3.2.3.25 . 3-45. 3.2.3.26 A ncho r Bo tt s........................................... 3.2.3.27 Strut Ang ulartty................................................. 3-49 3.2.3.28 Structural Modeling For Frame Analysis.......... 3 50 3.2.3.29 Computer Program Verification And Use......... 3-52. 3.2.3.30 Hydrotest.......................................................... 3 53 Seismic /Non-Seismic Interface........................ 3-53 3.2.3.31 1 3.2.3.32 Programmatic Aspects And OA...................... 4 Other Di Rs.......................................... 3.2.3.33 . 3-56 4.0 SE LF-INITIATED R EVIEW...................................................... ( 5.0 CORR ECTI VE ACTIO N......................................................... 6.0 CO NC L U SlONS.......................................................... 1 7.0 R EFER E NCEG.................................................................... ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENTS: EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS..................... A-1 ATTACHMENT B: OTH E R DI Rs............................................ ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT MEMORANDA....................................... C-1 ATTACHMENT D: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST............ D-1 l s i T487 7256 R DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 1

-) LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES NUMBER PAGE FIGURE 3.1-1 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE LOGIC DtAGRAM.... ij TABLE 3.2-1 ISS UE DOCUMENTATION '.................................... t FIGURE 3.21 TYPICAL RICHMOND INSERT / TUBE STEEL CON i FIGU R E 3.2 2 SUPPORT STAB ILITY........................................... FIGU R E 3.2 3 FLARE B EVEL WELD............................................ l FIGUR E 3.2 4 ANCHOR BOLT GAPS............................................ l \\ j .k i i i l i l 1 l i TN47 7256 lii DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 1 i l

I ,i 1 PAGE COUNT

SUMMARY

SECTION SHEETS v' COVER...............................................................................................................1 TAB LE O F CO NTE NTS................................................... 1 LIST OF FIG U R ES A N D TA B LES................................................ PA G E O F C O U N T S U M MA R Y............................................ SECTION1.........................................................................................................2 SECTION2........................................................................................................2 1 l SE CTIOff 3............................................................... 1 SECTION4.........................................................................................................1 l SECTO5.........................................................................................................1 SECTION6.........................................................................................................1 1 1 SECTON7.........................................................................................................2 1 I ATTA C H M E NT A.....................................................I AUA C H M E N T B...................................................... 4 A UA C H M E N T C..................................................... C AWAC H M E NT D..................................................... TOTAL-....................................................................................................112 l l l l i \\ TN47-7256 k DAP.RR-P.001, REV.1

I 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS i large bore piping and suppons at the Comanche P q described in Section 2.0. This review was performed as pan of the Desigj (DAP) under the chaner of the Comanche Peak ReJponse Team (CPRT 7.1) by a 1hird Party Organization (TENERA, LP.) The appmach, methD developed to accomplish this review are described in Discipline Specylc (Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan) as modified in Appendix A of Referenc The purpose of DSAP IX is to determine with reasonable assurance the cenain piping and piping suppons at CPSES. " Adequacy" is defined as conformR CPSES FinalSqfery Analysis Report (PSAR) and H~neing commitment codes and standards. The scope of this review, which involves extemal source concerns, has been c thirty two "earernalsource issues," each of which has been the subject of an evaluation. These issues were identified in publicly available NRC dockesed in 4 purpose of this report is to summarize the results of these evaluations and to prov I regarding the ad :ey of the design aspects reviewed by the1hird Party. The 1hird Party overview of the Stone and Webster Engineering Corpor reanalysis anxi pipe suppon requalification program has been completed. This e two extemal source issues. This scope involved la pipe suppon requalification, including the basis for the methods discussed used in these activities. Otheractivities, including the review of technical pecedu (~' reanalysis and requalificadon of small bore piping and suppons and the overview \\ implementadon of procedures for both types of piping including verificj as construction /as built verificadon, will be addressed as part of the TU Elec Assurance Technical Audit Program (See Reference 7.2). i 1 bis report summarizes the results and pressas the conclusions from th lhe activides addressed in this repon are as follows:

• lasue Review (DSAP IX, Section 4.2.1.1)

. enmmitment Verification (DSAPIX, Section 4.2.1.2)

• Large bore piping reanalysis and support requalification procedures revie wrian 4.2.13)

Briefly stated, the review identified external source issues, established ap on the CPSES PSAR and licensing comminnents, reviewed SWEC's proced criteria, and evaluated the resolution methodologies for the issues. Th were presented in SWEC's Generic Issues Report (GIR) (Aqference 7J) and Mr J into SWEC's pmcedures. Considerations regarding root causes and generic im l programmatic aspects of the extemal source issues will be addressed as part of t Reference 7.2). programs for processing and evaluation of nonconfonnance and O TN417 7256. 11 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 -

As required in DSAP IX, the Third Party identified extemal source issues by co document review. The Third Party review of over 40,000 pages of documents resul issuance of approximately 800 piping-related Discrepancy //ssue Resolution R O L which documented concems raised by extemal sources. These DIRs were con ExternalSource issue Summaries (ESISs, which are also referred to as " issues"), efficient resolation of the concems. These DIRs and ESISs were fo the basis for the scope of this report. SWEC procedures were reviewed for compliance with applicable CPSES FS criteria. Licensing commitments applicable to CPSES were used to establish a lis which were then used to check SWEC procedures. The procedures were determined t compliance either with the existing criteria or criteria changes that were =pH by the NR submittal as FSAR amendments.- (see NRC letter to TUGCO dated November 4 7.4). As documented in the GIR and its procedures, SWEC addressed each of the thirty-t using one or more of the following options:

• - Elimination of selected designs Use of analysis and design practices that are typical ofindustry practice Development of new methods specifically applicable to the concems raised Use of more advanced analysis Icchniques or testing to confinn the adequ and design methods Use of SWEC Corporate Quality Assurance Program implementation of project specific procedures for connel of all phases of des

{ o O For each of the thirty two issues, the resolution methodology has been reviewed Party and found to be responsive to the concem and in compliance with applicabl licensing criteria.1he Third Party has concluded that the overall objectives of the been met, and canaders all piping telseed extemal source issues applicable t piping scope to be closed with respect to the methodology being applied to the effort assuming the NRC appreves the FSAR amendments. -l 1he Third Party has concluded that SWEC's large bone pipe stress reanaly requalification program is comprehensive and capable, if properly implement known issues. Proper implementation will ensuse that the CPSES large b i will meet the PSAR and licensing commitments. j y O-TN47 7256 12 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

l 2.0 L SCOPE 'Ihis report addresses three areas'of review identified in DSAP IX as follows: ~

• Issues - The '!hird Party identified, reviewed,~ and tracked extemal source 1

1 Issues whidi were raised regarding pipe analysis and pipe support design! also included consideration of TRT Issue V.c (Rqference 7,5) which a i consideradons for piping between seismic Category I and non-seismic C buddmgs. The criteria and methodology used by the Project (SWEC) fo these systems were reviewed by the Thirti Party.1his review pmvides reasona . assurance that the extemal source issues have been identified and t methodology used by the Project address all identified issues.

• Commitment Verification 'the Third Pany verified that commitments whic piping and suppon related design criteria and standards are adequately add procedures and other Project documents. The mnmitment sources included design specifications, and the ASME Codes of Record forpiping (R<ferenc piping suppons (Agference 7.7). For each criterion source and standard id appropriate criteria and commitments were mmmarized. 'these criteria were u development of charirtim for the review of specific pmgram areas.~ This that Project procedures are consistent with applicable criteria and commitment Where criteria changes have been submitted by the project to resolve di%

the assumption that the NRC will approve the amendme J 7.Mre Review - 1he 1hird Party reviewed procedures (including approp Project Management memoranda) developed by the Project (SWEC) fo i evaluation of the supporting analyses, that they C purpose.1his review verifies that the project procedures resolve the extemal s issues. The focus of these review efforts is to ensure that the SWEC procedure compliance with Project licensing commitments, codes, and standards, 4 resolution of extemally idantin d issues, and e e ability to accommodate and resolve addidonal issues as needed. e addressedin this report are:The portions of the SWEC scope involving p all piping and pipe suppons within ASME III Code Casses 2 and 3 e than 2 inch pipe size) stress problem boundaries (including ASME Co small bore and Cass 5 piping and supports within these boundaries), and ASME m Code Casses 1,2 and 3 and Oass 5 e Reference 7.1). both Unit I and Unit 2. Procedure CPPP-6 (Refer applicable to Unit 1. CPPP-9 (R<ference 7.10)is the corresponding Un TN 87 7256 21 DAP.RR P 001, REV.1

4 1 1 i Party reviews of both CPPP-6 and CPPP 9 determined that the differences reflect differences in the stage of completion between the two units and provide because the procedural differences do not have a signific ( methods. Where it has been necessary to review implementadon acdvides T M ofthe the Third Party generally examined Unit I results because Unit 1 implementa stage of compledon. Unit I and 2 implementadon is based on the same methodo r Where the scope of the review covered by this report required an interface with l discipline, that interface was established as discussed in Section 3.2.3 unde 'Ihis report does not address the following DSAP IX reviews-

• Review of technical procedures for small bore piping and supports
• Overview of theimplementadon ofprocedures
• Overview of Project venficatiorVreconcillation of as-built information.

j '!he status of these areas of DSAP IX reviews will be addressed in separate report transmitted to TU Electric for further consideradon under their Quality Assurance Tech Audit Program. i I i O l lO TN47 7258 22 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

3.0 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES O s., a.vi. =.inoooioav All external source issues identified as being related to the piping and supports d addressed in this report. DSAP IX addresses both the identification of these issues an program for resolving them. The conduct of the Third Party review was controDed in with Third Party procedures and Discipline Instructions, written in accordance Adequacy Procedure 10 (DAP-10) (Reference 7.11). The diagram in FIGURE 3.1 1 depicts the relationship'among review acdvities le conclusions documented in this report. There were two independent, parallel paths evaluation of the SWEC methodology. One path focused on the information directl the extemal concerns. The other path focused on the criteria to which the CPSES 1he process incorporated consideration of the extemal source issue DIRs an commitments to verify that the methodology used will produce an acceptable resolu external songce issues. All issue resolutions were reviewed and the results documented in Engineering Evaluations which are the basis for the conclusions presented in th ' A discussion of each of the thirty-two issues is provided in Section 3.2.3.1he rem section describes the Third Party approach to identification of extemal source issu comsgitment compliance review of SWEC procedures, and evaluation of SWEC resol methodology. 3.1.1 Identification of Extemal Source issues Extemal source issues were identified and documented in acc 7.12). The process required the following three steps:

1) identification of extemal source documents,

2) source document review and preparation of' issue reconis/DIRa, and

3) consolidanon ofindividual issues into issue summaries.

The idendfication of source documents focused on documents judged to inclu relevant issues, particularly information either preserned to the Aaomic S Board (ASLB) or originated by the Boani. ASLB hearing transcripts were use the NRC staff. Texas Uffitries Electric Company (TU Energy Services were included and, as appropriate supplemeras thereto (SSERs). The documents also encompassed transcripts piping or support issues. Cygna reports and letters a The listing of all source documents used by the 1hird Party for extemal issue provided as Attachment A. Each source document was reviewed in accordann with DAP-2. extemal issues discussed in the source documents. Issues are do capture a minimum of one citadon of each distinct issue. O I TN-87 7256 3-1 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 ) j

i IDENTIFY EX7ERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS REVIEW UCENSNG COMMITMENT DOCUMENTS 1 d REVIEW DOCUMENTS & PREPARE SSUE RECORDSOIRs DEVELOP CRITERIA UST I CONSOUDATE DIRs TO IDENTIFY PRNARY ISSUES REMEW SWEC PROCEDURES FOR CRITERIA COMPUANCE M 1 REVIEW SWEC glr TO VERIFY COVERAGE i O ~7 EVALUATE SWEC RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY FOR ISSUE k REVIEW OTHER SWEC DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING METHODOLOGY J DOCUMENT THIRD PARTY POSITION N ENGINEERNG EVALUATIONS l SUMMARIZE N RESULTS REPORT FIGURE 3.1-1 Q EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE LOGIC DIAGRAM TN-87 7256 32 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

For every Issue Record, a DIR was issued to assist the Third Party in tracking cl issue. The document title and specific page(s) on which the issue is diaeneead ~ each DIR. The reviewer was not permitted to exclude any issue based on an ass validity or consideration by the source that the issue was closed. -The public records used as source documents contain considera and support issues. In most cases, extemal issues are discussed in many d repetitive documentation of the same issue in more than one DIR. To co:nprehe and to support effective resolution of each issue, it was necessary to consolidate in relating to a given issue. The aim of this consolidation was to ensure that key identified in the various DIRs were included within the definition issues are defined in thirty two ESISs. The issue descripdons in each ES technical assessment of the key aspects discussed in the source documents.- The references to the extemal source documents pertaining to the issue. Lists of the pe are provided in each ESIS, and a primary DIR is used for each issue to track the resolutio Because TU Electric elected to proceed directly to conective acdons for the externa issues in piping and supports, the Primary DIRs are categorized as " unclassified t described in Appendix E of the Program Plan.' 3.1.2 Criteria and Commitment Compliance Review of SWEC Procedures l The second review activity conducted by the Third Party to evaluate the adequa

==Wation program was to identify the criteria and commitments whidi the SWEC procedures must address. The criteria and commitments used fbr the overview reanalysis and support and pipe roqualification were taken from the PSAR (Aqf applicable Regulatory Guides; industry standants; the ASME Code; and design These documerus were used by the 1hird Party to develop the Design Criteria L O 001 (R<ference 733)in which applicable requirements are consolidated in accor DAP-1. The criteria were then evaluated collectively. Design Criteria Review thr*tist was used to review the criteria for com{r - accaracy,andconsistency, 1he acceptance criteria identi8ed in the Design Critada llst were funher taBo by development of Design Review Evaluation rhr* tiara Applicable criteria we into chacirfier attributes, as appmpdate, by stating the specific re =- of the co or regulatory guide. This approach permitted a detailed, documented manaammera items. Application of a Design Review Evaluation Checklist to specific design procedu annenament of compliance of the da==*al with the checklist attributes For each attrib t reviewer determined if the procedure was in compliance with design commitments. u e, the compliance was satisfactory, the reviewer indicated " SAT." If the pmcedure . compliance, or was indeterminate, the disposition was "UNSAT." Each UNSAT j findirig fbr future evaluation. An attribute which was l { design was marked "N/A." If an attribute was outside the defined scope of rev] on a particular checklist, it was marked "N/C" (Not Checked) since it was not evaluated i 1he final status of the Design Review Evaluation Checklist will be delia****d a i the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program. i j i TN47 7256 3-3 i DAP RR-P-001, REV.1 i a

n - SWEC has issued two procedures that define input and methods. and te including informadon interfaces, for the reanalysis and requalificadon effort: O

1) CPPP 6: Pipe Stress / Support Requalificadon Proceduit - Unit 1 (Agfere j

2) CPPP-7: Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports (Reference 7.8)

CPPP-7 procedure applies to both units and serves to define the technical m - includes the approaches used to resolve the extemal source issues. Additional issued CPPP-9 which applies to Unit 2 and conesponds to CPPP-6. ) i The procedures were reviewed using a set of checklists. The checklist, DAP-CLC used to document the review for Revision 2 of CPPP 6 and CPPP-7. Some aspects methodology were not included within Revision 2 and were either so indicated within procedures or documented in a series of project memoranda. A list of project memora reviewed as part of CPPP-7 is included as Attachment C of this report. r'r===+ were issued, l with the checklist and DIRs were used to track open items. Differences between rev reviewed and later revisions will be addressed as part of the TU Electric Quality A Technical Audit Program (See Reference 7.2). i 3.1.3 Evaluation of Resolution Methodology 4 l i I The third review activity conducted by the Third Party was to evaluate the SWE methodology. This evaluation incorporated the resuhs of the 1hird Party review of S; proccdures that were described in the preceding section. Ama,maments by th SWEC approach to each of the extemal source issues are provided in 'a evaluations. i l O The SWEC Generic Issues Report (GIR) outlined the approach to resolving e j d issues. This report and the procedures that implement the approach are the evaluadon required addidonalinformadon a &.oisg C -) generic analyseshalculations were reviewed to faciuts yalues and checks of the markmadcal dev% 7 of equations specified in GPP 7 b the procedure does not inchie this nevel of detan. The calculations also pro , ecause certain assumptions on which specific methods were based.1he appared used ibr n or justifications was also reviewed. Using the issues as defined in the ESISs, =~ prance criteria for resolution Documentation of those criteria and the evaluation of SWEC's methodology provided in a separate engineering evaluation for each issue. This report sum of those evaluations. 3.2 Results 3.2.1 Extemal Source issue identification the documents reviewed. The references were doc 800 Issue Records that have corr +. ling DIRs that are used to track each iss mately TABLE 3.2-1 lists the consolidated issues, the primary DIRs used to track them a TN 67 7256 34 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 l

I TABLE 3.2-1 ISSUE DOCUMENTATION ~ t ISSUE aiILE ENG. EVAL. ESIS PRIMARY DIR I RichmondInserts DA' P-E-P-001 ESIS-P-001 .E-1234 Imal Stresses DAP-E-P 002 ESIS P-002 E-1235 Large Framed Wall-to-Wall and Floor-to-Ceiling Suppons Support System Stability-DAP E P-003. ESIS-P 003 ' E-1236 Generic Stiffness DAP-E P-004 ESIS-P-004 - E-1237 DAP E-P 005 ESIS-P 005 E-1238 l U Bolts Acting as Two-Way Restraints Friction Forces DAP-E-P 006 ESIS-P-006 E-1239 -AWSvs. ASME DAP4P-007 ESIS-P 0M E 1240' A500, Grade B Tube Steel DAP-E-P-008 =. ESIS-P-008 E-1241 i ' DAP-E-P-009 ESIS-P-009 E-1242 Section Properties U-Bolt Cinching DAP-E-P 010. ESIS-P-010 - E-1243 DAP-E P 011' ESIS-P-011 E-1244 Axial / Rotational Restraints Gaps DAP-E-P-012 ESIS-P-012 E-1245 DAP-E P 013. ESIS-P-013 E-1246 Seisnic Design Load Specification DAP-E-P-014 ESIS-P-014 E 1247 Support Mass Effects on Piping Analysis DAP-E P 015 ESIS-P415 E 1248, Mass Point Spacing. DAP-E P 017 ESIS-P 017 E 1249 - / High Frequency Mass Participation Pluid Transients DAP-E-P 018 ESIS-P018 E-1250 Self-Weight Excitation DAP-E-P-019 ESIS-P-019 E-1251 - DAP E-P-020 ESIS-P-020 E-1252 localStress in Pipe SupportMembers DAP-E-P 021 ESIS-P 021 E 1253 SafetyPactors SA 36 and SA-3M Steel DAP-E-P 022 ESIS-P422 E-1254 Valve and Flange Qualification and Valve DAP-E-P 023 - ESIS-P023'" E-1255 Modeling PipingModel DAP-E-P025 ESIS-P42S E-1256 Welding DAP E-P 026 ESIS-P-026 E-1257 AnchorBolts DAP-E P 027 ESIS-P427 E 1258 Strut Angularity DAP-E P428 - ESIS P-028 E-1259 DAP-E-P-029 ESIS-P 029 E-1260 Structural Modeling for Frame Analysis DAP-E-P 031 ESIS P-031 E-1263 Computer W.= Verification and Use 4 Hydrotest . DAP-E-P432 ESIS-P 032 E-1264 DAP-E P 034 ESIS-P-034 E 1266 Seismic /Non-Seimnic1nterface DAP-E-P 038 ESIS-P 038 E-1275 Programmatic Aspects and QA DAP-E-P 016 ESIS-P 016 E-1276 1 O TN-87-7256 35 DAP RR P 001, REV.1

associated ESISs. Each ESIS lists the individua' l DIRs used to tr identified. DIRs for Issue Records that we:e not included within on addressed in Section 3.2.3.33. 'Ihese DIRs generally covered less complex questio &O t DIRs were addressed using the DIR form for documentation in accortlance procedures. i In the opinion of the Third Party, there is sufficient information in the public recl listed in Attachment A) for each concem. to enable the Third Party to define and! high degree of assurance that all concerns are addressedissue.l ( The extemal source issues can be classified into the following four gmups oNN

1) concems that well defined and explicit working level requirements were implemented,

2) concems that a technically specific FSAR commitment, industry code or sta regulatory position was not implemented in design methods,

3) concems that the use of standard design and analysis practices were not c wea _ y when applied to atypical designs, and l

4) concems that specific aspects of methodology, although in compliance l

Appendix A of10CFR50. codes, standards, or standard practice, failed to s 3.2.2 SWEC Compliance with CPSES Criteria O consistent, and adequate set ofcriteria.The collective evaluation of the D SWEC procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 were reviewed, and comments pro every item in the procedures that was determined to be a discrepancy when com chd% attribute, a DIR was written. These DIRs are C-type DDta which are usedi technical resolution and to trad the closure ofopen items. Each DIR lasued agai cument procedures provides both a descdption of the question posed by the third party resolution.1he DIRs have all been closed by the1hird Party through either tec or transfer to the TU Electric Quality Assurance Technical Audit Prognun Orgfe which were closed based on proposed FSAR amendments assume = the NRC. Unresolved DIRs will be delineated in the final Third Party sur The conclusion was that no differences existed that affected the ad g of SWEC complianceAdditionally, CPPP-9 was c or. with CPSES criteria. Based on the above reviews, the conclusion was reached that the SWEC that set ofcriteria. 3.2.3 Extemal Source issue Resolution Evaluations of the resolution methodologies have been completed for the thirty-with discussions of resolution methodology and the 'Ih O TN 87-7256 3-6 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1 w__________________---__-

- 3.2.3.1 Richmond Inserts ISSUE DESCRIPTION The use of Richmond Inserts in structural tube connections (see F concems generally relating to design allowables, methods used to compute bok loads in t connections, and frame modeling and analysis of the insertAube connection. A mo discussion of this issue can be found in Engineering Evaluation DAP E-P-001. within these areas are the following:

• Factor of Safety The design allowables for tension and shear were determined b Richmond Screw Company test data from tests using 3000 psi concrete an factor of 2.0.- The Richmond Screw Company recommends a safety factor of 3.0

. products. A second, related concem is adequacy, without confinnatory testing, o interacdon equation for combined tension and shear, which was taken from the Prestrened Concrete institure (PCl) Handbook. Concrete Strength - The concem is that the Richmond Insens have been inst concrete weaker than the 4000 psi design strength used for design. ; Shear Stres ABowables for I 1/2" Richmond Inserts - Shear 4 Richmond Insens have been extrapolated from test data for 1" and 1-1 not be conservative. Computation of Bolt and Insert imods Richmond InsertAube steel connectio analyzed using a simplified method which does not account for bolt angularity bendmg due to shear in the tubing, and may not accurately predict the pryin theinsert and the tube. O Frame Modeling of Tube to-Insert Connections - Inznsistencies in mode e i tube to-insert connections (such as the selecdon of pinned venus fixed in inaccurate calculation of suppon stiffness and tube / frame rtresses These q inconsistencies may also result in unconservative @% ofloads on boks and inserts.

• Testing of Richenood Ines' ts - TUOOO perfonned ecsts to Ridanand laserts r

determine theload-carrying capacity of the lasert and to namine the behavior monection fbr camN=t loading. Questions were raised by external sourc (a) the representativeness of the tests to actual plant condidons, and ) of the test results.

• TUGCO Mnite Element Study - Verification of the screening method u u

simplified method for design of Richmond Inserts was based on impro j results offinite element analyses.

• Iacal Stress at Bolt Holes in Tubing - 1he local stress at bok holes was not evaluated. Such stres could cause punching-type failure in the tubing
• Fatigue - Padgue caused by cyclic loading of the connection was not con design.
• Improper Use of Richmond Allowables - Threaded rods / bolts at Richmond occasionally were unconservatively evaluated '1cause the tension and shea for theinsert were used.

O TN 87 7258 l 37 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1

F~ l NUT O l l WASHER PLATE I l- -TUBE STEEL [( !' '! )_ m / THREADED ROD / / / /l ((!! !! f j WASHER PLATE I I I .fpd v .g n., O C Pd X' RICHMOND INSERT 3 M ./' h/ p p a .d f 19. / ,- $$i l l. 2 j r- ~ y, I '1_.; _ d'. Y"' .W,AgM .y. FIGURE 3.2-1 TYPICAL RICHMOND INSERT / TUBE STEEL CONNECTION O TN 87 7256 3-8 DAP RR-P 001, REV.1

i t Specing at Richmond Inserts Lack of TUGCO structural attachment interface e program could result in f ailure to consider spacing effects of nearby anchors / sleeve [. the structural evaluadon ofinserts. -

• Shear Distribution at Richmond Inserts - The threaded rod and hole St up could cause unequal sharing of shear loading fmm tubing which is anchore more RichmondInserts.
• LOCA 1hermal Expansion of Tube Steel - Under LOCA conditions, thermal expansion oflong tubing anchored by two or more Richmond Inserts could prod I

unacceptably high loade and large deformations in the insert / rod connection.- SWEC RESOLUTIONME7H000 LOGY The methods used by SWEC to resolve or address the concems identifie' d abo

• - Factor of Safety - SWEC has adopted a safety factorof 3 for Richmond Inserts un normal, upset, and emergency loading conditions, as recommended by The Richmo)

Screw Company, but SWEC used a safety factor of 2 for faulted condition allowables are based on averaging TUGCO insert capacity test failure loads. ' Additionally, specific requirements have been imposed for concrete stren spacing, and concrete edge distance. For combined tension and shear. SWEC has adopted the Prestressed Concrete f (PCI) Handbook interacdon equadon which is used to evaluate all loading cond Concrete Strength - SWEC methods assume a concrete strength of 4000 ps Shear Stress Allowables fbr 1 1/2" Richmond Inserts - TUGCO performed ad tests to establish allowables for all sizes of Richmond Inserts. Shea Richmond Inserts are based on the average test failure loads presented in reports. Computation of Bolt and Insert Loads - The SWEC approach for computat e and insert loads depends on certain modeling requirements lbr structural linear lateraction equation to evaluate the adequacy of the sod in the insert bending, tension, and shear, and a force-couple transibnnation of bolt ben computeinsert' nsion. e Frame Mo(eling of Tube-to-Insert Connections - The SWEC approach tube to-inse.t connections establishes spxific modeling requirements at specif the inserts md and attaching to the tube steel, and rod an Testlan of Richmond Inserts - The SWEC approach uses the load capacity e results of two TUGCO test reports. For Richmond Inserts, these test results mit establWt the design allowables for plant service conditions, to validate the interac equa:lon for combined shear and tension, to establish the design stiffhess forinsert connections, and to establish the design limits used to evaluate the efflects oilhCA thernial expsesion. The TUGCO tests used previously to examine the t t vieiof connection are not used.

• TUGCO Mnite Element Study - The SWEC approach to insert cw..ecnun q does not rely on the previously performed TUGCO finite element study.

y I O TN47 7256 39 DAP.RR-P 001, REV.1

. Local Stress at Bolt Holes in Tubing SWEC procedures provide a methodolog implementing tables for evaluating the local load capacity at bolt holes in structura st:cl. This methodology limits the local stress in the bolt hole vicinity. . Fatigue - SWEC does not consider fatigue to be a relevant factor in these conne and therefore does not include it in the design. I.mproper Use of Richmond Allowables - The SWEC methodology requires that the e threaded rod and insen be evaluated separately, using specified aDowables and interaction equations.

• Shear Distribution at Richmond Inserts - SWEC procedures assume equal distribution of shear loads resulting from rod and hole fit-up tolerances, where tubing is an two or more Richmond Inserts. However, during final reconc!1 ation, these designs will l be reviewed by SWEC to verify that unequal shear load sharing assumption is a LOCA Thermal Expansion of Tube Steel SWEC procedures provide methods for a

evaluating the effects of LOCA thermal expansion of tubing on Richmond Insert connections. The method is based on RLCA Report RLCA/P142&l-86009 (R<ference 7.18) which uses shear test results in combination with an elastic analysis of failure to i estimate deformations. By applying a safety factor of 2 to these defonnations, des limits on inserthod deformations are established for LOCA thermal expension and system -hanicalloads, Spacing at Richmond Inserts - SWEC Corrective Action Program (SWFC-CAP) i e responsible for collecting all structural attachment load information and performing f evaluation for all pipe support structural metehments, inauAing Rich nond Insens. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The following paragraphs describe the Third Party evaluations of the SWEC methods identified concerns:

• Factor of Safety - The safety factor of 3 for normal, upset, and emergency loa conditions complies with the recommendation of the Richmond Screw Cbmpany.

safety factor of 2 for faulted conditions is based on American Concrete Iardrute Standard 349-85 (Reference 7.15) using the results of tests performed by TUGC 349-85 provides an tiwlsiry experi==* aaaaams basis for design of nwkw safe related concrete structures. TUGCO does not have a licensing commitment to with this standard for this application; however, this is an nevah4 standard for establishing adequate margin. The TUGCO test data indicates that the scatter in th failure loads is quite small, par':iculady when compared to data for other types o concrete anchorages, indicating that the reliability of Richmond Inserts is much greater than that ofexpansion bolts. A lower safety factor is acmptable, based on the test dat and ACI349-85. Use of the interacdon equation for combined tension and shearis supported by Technical Report, ' Connections for Precast Concrete Building", which states that an interaction equadon (identical to that used by SWEC) represents a lower bound cu insert test results. The statement is not limited to prestressed concrete. The app of this equation was evaluated and determined by the ihird Party to be evable for Richmond Inserts without reliance on confirmatory tests. O TN 87 7256 3-10 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1

e. Concrete Strength a Plant concrete strength was addressed in Issue SpecyI (ISAP) II.b Results Report, titled Concrete Compressive Strength,(#qference ~ CPRTprogram. This repon concluded that reasonable assurance exists tha required design strength of 4000 psi was met. ; i . Shear Stres Allowables for 1-1/2" Richenond Inserts - The SWEC based on average results obtained from' TUGCO tests performed specifically fl Richmond Insens.1he test results are adjusted in accordance dhh ACI 349-85. The safety factors discussed above are maintained. This is an acceptable _ basis to variations in shear stress al!owables. t

• Computation of Bolt and Insert Leads - 1he SWEC methodology for computation bolt and insen loads pmvides a conservative evaluation of the rod and insen, which adequately considers bolt angularity, bolt bending due to shear in the tubin action in the insert and the tube,1he SWEC structural modeling procedure results i set of rod loads that yields mnservative rod interaction values when compared to re l

of detailed finite element studies performed by RLCA. The SWEC procedure for. transforming rod loads into insert loads results in conservative insert interaction val l (using the PCIinteractbn equation) when compamd to the detailed RLCA studiesj md interaction equation and allowables forSA 36 and A-193 Orade; B7 mat; with the additional check for direct stress in A 193 material, provide a code e ) evaluation of the threaded rod in tension, shear, and bending. e ' Frame Modeling of Tube-to-Innert Connections - The influera of struct on Richmond Insen qualification is discussed above. The influesa on support st and member stresses is covered in Section 3.2.3.28, where it is concluded that the 1 modeling is adequate and in compliance with ASME Section HI, Paragraph XV O Briefly stated, the classical spiwv&di to modeling a connection based on a either a pinned or fixed connection is replaced with a more detailed model. i 2 Testing of Richmond Inserts - The representadveness of test to in-plant cond being evaluated under DSAP VIII in Third Party Issue Resolution Report (IRR DAP-E-C/S-515. (R<ference 7.17) - 1 The concem regarding li.;.imisdom of TUOCO test tesults is acceptablynsched because: a) the SWEC procedure for evaluating the tube steel to Richmond In connection relies upon the RLCA analysis'previously discussed, not on 6d00C0 m connection tests previously used to justify the TUGCO methods, b) the SWEC appropriately adjusts imert capacities to account for the difference between pla concrete design strength and the concrete strength for the insert capacity tests, a industry codes and standards (e.g. ACI 349) permit the averaging of test fai establish the design strength ofinsens. Finite Element Study - Because the SWEC approach does not use the simp e J screening method and does not rely on the previously performed a' nalysis, this inelevant to the cunent technical resolution.

• Local Stress at Bolt Holes in Tubing - Richmond Innest/ tube steel connectiore) large rectangular 1 inch thick washer plates which distribute the stress at the b y

l Under the maximum allowable tension loads which can develop at 14nch and 1 i(! connections for the sizes of tube steel used, the simplified SWBC local load ca methodology provides an adequate means for evaluating local effects at the loaded r connection hole. The model on which the SWEC methodology is based emplo l TN-87 7256 3 11 DAP-RR-P 001, REV.1' l

u/: simplifymg construct to calculate tha stresses in the bolt hole regiort To verify the adequacy of this analysis, additional analyses were perfonned by the Third Par attemate methodology. These separate analyses confirmed the accepatidity of the ( SWECmethodology.

• Fatigue - Sirne spedfic loads identified in the SWEC procedures 5:e dynamic, a SWEC evaluation was performed to consider high cycle fatipe as required by ASME Section IH, *!Ns evaluadon confirmed that the lower threshold limit of 20,000 cyc established in bbeecdon NF, below which fadgue is not a concem, will not be reached.
• Spacing at Richmond Inserts - The SWEC approach provides a centralized comprehensive program for evaluating Richmond Inserts, considering effects of all nearby anchorageshleeves.
• Improper Use of Richmond Allowables - The SWEC procedures ensure that stichmond Insert connections will be properly evaluated.

r 4

• Shear Distribution at Richmond InsertsTube Steel Connections -1he SWEC procedures provide specific writti.:n criteria for the evaluadon of Riclanand Inserts used l

in conjunction with tukt steel. The *Ihird Party considers these mettods adequate for a' evaluating sheardistribudon.

• LOCA Thermal Expansion of Tube Steel - The SWEC procedure for evaluating LOCA thermal expansion of Richmond Insert connecsed tube steelis based on the results of a I

detailed analysis, RLCA/P142A)l-8 WOO 9 (Agrerence 7JK), performed by RI.CA. To r verify the adequacy of this analysis, addidonal analyses were performed by the Third Pr.ny using an allemate ir.ethodology. *lhese separate analytes oor. firmed the ~ sc-*#Ety of the SWEC methodology. g CCNCLUSICW ~ SWEC methodology adequately addresses the concems identified in thia issue. This issue is I i closed. t 3 3.2.3.2 Local Pipe Stresses J f ISSUEDESCRIPTION A concem was raised that local pipe stresses at welded aC +s such as lugs and trunnio west not being evaluated for ocuparison to piping stress limits. Nthough the Code of Record / (Reference 7.6) does not contain specific requiremerus fbr the analysWof attachments, it is standard pracdce to calculate stmsses in the pipe that result fkom support loads on the - attachments. Analysis obtinforcing pads and dimensional limitadons on arvJytical trtethods are two corwems that are seld:d to evaluation oflocal pipe stresses. t There an sane frame supports at CPSES widt zero reclial chuwm. Normally, box frames are designed with a gap to albw for pipe radial munal gmwth. A concem was raised that the differential radial growth t&.a the pipe and the opport could result in unecoeptably high stresser in the pipe and the support. For Oass 2/3 piping, radial thennel expansion effects are n r l normally considered and the Code does not specify criteria forthis type ofloadhng. Similar i concems were rained about cinched U-bolts and anchors. In these cases, the eflect can be classified as a circumferential lirn load. Another conoem was raised regarding the c 0 oflongitudinal line loads on piping. At a frame support, theqp: rests with Ene l f; TN-87 7256 4 3-12 / ( DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 . ) l i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - ~ ' ' - - - - ^ ~ -

aqvjpq t.~ >

yyg B

9 4 cross-member. Local stresses m induced in the pipe as a result of a suppor + contact. The local pipe stress issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP ~p contains a detailed discussion of the issue. t ' N, SWECRESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 4 4 SWEC is evalnating local pipe stresses at welded attachments. Proced xg v, common Mgii and trunnions, including reinforcement pads. Local stre g! -{ (WRC) 107 raethodology is followed for some of the c ^ ' [Q j dimensk as ue not within the WRC 107 nhommended limitsr SWEC has c

f. / " y^

'4 studies which justify the use of proceduredq these cases where the designs in \\ 9 dimensions outside the WRC recommetidd limits and for unique dedgns su) y f S 1 Design changes have eliminated zer6p Names and cinched U bolts [drs's thermal expansion. Radial thermal espansion local stresses are being eva8 ial j addition, SWEC has developed procedures to inve 1 97tpMor (*,b$xp 1 anchors. I x V l lineloads at suppons. Procedures were dso defined for evaluating local p r i j 1 THIRD PART/ EVALUATION t, m k SWEC has hisued procedures for evaluating local pipe stesses j/ m supports with circumferential or longitudinal line loads. _ 'the computed stmas va 4 3-consistent with Code Cases N 318-2 and N-329 w 9 ? Cases N 318 2 and N 329 use allowables from a later Code which are hi Record. These higher allowables are also used for circumferential and lon 'i to local creases in the cases analyzed by SWEC. evaluation 4 i i t g for certain parameters, and to qualify unique design . - (. .N j the issue. A sampic of thirteen finite elemenvanalys 1 i beta limits, expanded Pitrife limits, non integral p re ~ j anchorlocal suess, and a Anite element model sensitivity study. Pive of the calcu i reviewed are qualifications of specific support attachment designs. j have been M:As a result of the finite element analysis studies, several pro 1 for support designs where they could be significant 1he stresse j i suenes for comparison to Code allowables-this is a conservative ap dqinddr$[o piping - i .] j CONCLUSIONS 3 s; / i SWEC's approach (calculating local stresses and adding local stress 7, comparison te piping allowables) adequately addresses the concems. This iss% O i ( b 4 TN 87-7256 3-13 "DAP RR P 001, REV.1 h -____L N-~~~~

r 7 ), l 3: a ?.p.3.3 1.arge Frame Wall-To-Wall And Floor-To-Celling Supports i ISSUE CELCRIPTION 1 i$liissue is evaluated in Magineering Evaluation DAP-E-P-003 which pmvides . discdssron of the issue. In summary, the concem is that in the design evaluation of I g 'h . wall to-wall and floor to-ceiling supports the following considerations for frame or ancho{ f were not explicitlyincluded: { frame thermal expansion due to LOCA and containment ambient conditions. e relative differential displacements between the frame and the building attachmen for seismic building movements and time-dependent displacement effects, e.g., concr creep, and cumulatbc effects resulting fmm thermal expansion, seismic, and time dependent e i ( relative' movements. 1 / J .g SWEc RESOEUTIONMETHODOLOGY v } ,+ SWEC addir aes the issue through analysis or support modifications as foHows: With the exmption of service water tunnel suppons,large Dame waH-to wan or floor to-ceiling supports are modified to include slipjoints to accommodate differential i displacements and thermal expansion.- j i Service water tunnel supports extending fmm wall-to wall or floor-to ceiling are e quali5ed forloading combinations that include frame thermal expanman, relative j'

• r diffenstial k*ias 81=

--E due to sciamic movemens,long tenn concrete creep, and live loads. Effects are evaluated cumulatively.

• Comer supports other than those attached to =~~da y walls are qualified using loads only. Relative building displacements have been demonstrated to be insign

' ! pmoedure CPPP-35 (Aqference 7.25) has bem issue THIRDPARTYEVM.UATION }. 1he approach x8rgited by SWBC addresses issue resolution by three ineshada 1he mo of all large fMne supports (exaspt those in the service water tunnel) to include slipjoints clieniamm s the concem of differential M=y= -m for these supports. The consbination ofloads used to evaluate large Dame waH-to-wan and Soor-e-ceiling supports in the service wate addresses the issue and the requirements of subsecsion NF-3231.1(a) of the ASME Code (Reference 7.7) and the ineent of Regulatory Guide 1.124, Position 5. conor.usx:mf The SWEC appmach adequately addresses this issue for wall-to wan and ficor-t H:elling suppons either by physical modi 6 cation or by design quaHScation. SWBC method e address corner supports for signnant osE building dini wall /as defined in CPPP-35 is ad~ne to close this issue.hvaams spanning primary and o O }' TN 87 7258 3 14 DAP An P-001, REV.1 z y

u 3.2.3.4 Support System Stability ISSUE DESCRIPTION Certain pipe supports were identified which appeared to be capable oflarge displace possible resuk of such displacements is a loss of intended function, that is, the } restrain the pipe as modeled in the piping analysis. Such'suppons are considered un supports in question have been grouped, for convenience, into the following categories Box frames connected to struts or snubbers i

• U bolts connected to a single strut orsnubber 1
• Trapeze supports
• Columrvstrutassemblies
• Trunniorvstrut assemblies i

3 -i For each of these categories, a displacement mechanism can be postulated that lead to carry the intended load. _ The technical issue is whether one can analytically demonst the postulated mechanisms do not occur under the set ofloading conditions imposed qualification of piping. FIGURE 3.2-2 depicts a postulated displacement wherein a box moves along the axis of a pipe. A support which may undergo such displacement is co unstable because it may not perform as required or as modeled in the analysis. .) The stability issue is evaluated in Engmeenng Evaluation D AP E-P 004 which prov detailed discussion of the issue. A related issue is U-bolt cir:ching,' which is evaluated i Engineering Evaluanon DAP-E P 011 SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY SWEC addressed support system stability with the following solutions:

• delete the potentially unstable supports from the analysis and physically remove from the piping system, 4

l

• redesign these supports, using a rigid configuration or standard hardware (

clamps),'

• modify trapene designs to eliminate potendal forlarge displacements, and develop analytical methods to confirm stability.

SWEC established a promdure forevaluating support function and stability whic specific types of design that were previously questioned and extends the evaluation { designs. Both support designers and piping analysts participate in these evaluation! evaluation is performed for all piping analysea.1his evaluation is, intended to proj that variations of the questionable configurations are also considered. j TH990 PARTYEVALUATION 4 1he approach adopted by SWEC addresses the concern specifically for the t were previously challenged, and also for every piping analysis, by performing evaluat Third Party that the stability issue is comprehensively a O l l TN47 7256 3 15 DAP RR-P 001, REV.1 j

O INITIAL POSITION l VERTICAL LOADING o l p g V / g BOX FRAME I + i SLIOES ALONG PIPE o PlPE IS DISPLACED l REFERENCE VERTICALLY l POINTS I SUPPORT I I ROTATES l l 1 1 I i ~ i i l i l l l FINAL POSITION I l t i 7- ~ f~~} ) !i 4-g + L...! 1 FIGURE 3.2-2 SUPPORT STABILITY ,,Q v l TN-87-7256 3 16 DAP RR P 001, REV.1

specific support designs provide the basis for determining the adequacy of th has placed the major emphasis on suppon removal or redesign. Implement . apg$ roach has resulted in elimination of two of the five categories of categories were treated in the following ways: Box frames. Box frames connected to struts or snubbers were el e

• U-bolts - U-bolts connected to a single strut or snubber were elirninated.'
• Trapeze supports Trapeze supports were not entirely eliminatediThe attemative preferred by SWEC was to remove the suppon, or redesign to eliminate the this was not mandatory. The cinched U bolt, however, was in all cases eliminate "Ihree types of trapeze modification wer e permitted. The displacement mec these designs hase been examined, and the designs have been determined to
• Column / strut assemblies - Analytical confirmation of stability was empl column / strut assemblies, where classical buciding analysis techniques cou in Third Pany calculation DAP-C P-002.-establish a criterion for ad
• Trunnion / strut assemblies 'Ihe only potentially unstable support category n specifically addressed by SWEC under the issue of support stability is the tru assembly. SWEC pmcedures, however, require a SWEC review of all suppon SWEC has adequately defined the general requirement for achieving' stab Pany review of the specific configuration questioned by CASE indicate by the methods used forlocal stress evaluation of trunnions.c CONCLUSION Thini Pany. "Ihe stability issue is closed.SWEC has established an 3.2.3.5 Generic Stiffness ISS?) DESCRIPTION Generic sttffness values were used to represent the pipe supports in the p Class 2 and 3 systems. During the original support qualification, a 1/16" de imposed as a check to ensure that the stiffness was representadve of the support stiffhess criterion was not established. Extemal sources determined t lightly loaded supports, the calculated stiffness was orders of magnitude values. Since the response of the piping / support system is influenced by the supports, the results of the pipe suess analysis may not be valid if generic values a Additional concems were raised regarding the' method used to calculat of all rupport components, i.e. U-bolts, base plates i

1 holes. Specific questions resulting from the generic alffness issue are as follows: 1 is the piping r%5c accurately predicted if g' eneric stiffness values are used? e O l TN 87 7256 3-17 DAP RR P 001, REV.1 q a

is the stiffness used in the piping analysis verified as being representadve of th e sdffness of theinstalled support? O- + Does the calculation of the support stiffness account for the flexibility effects of a suppon components? This issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluadon DAP-E P-005 which provide descripdon of the issue. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Y SWEC addressed the piping response aspect of the generic sdffness issue in i "Oeneric Pipe Support Sdffhess Values for Piping Analysis." This report documen determination of generic sdffness values to be used in the piping analysis and the m! suffness values below which calculated sdffhesses are used. The report concluded tha! stiffnesses exceedag the minimum values,use of genede stiffrnases instead of cal! will not result in significant variations in qualification parameters. { during the pipehupport system qualification process:SWEC add

1) Generic stiffness values were established based on support type (e.g., rig anchor, snubber, etc.). The generic values were derived from a sample survey o inamn d suppors and are repe=nrative of the majority of sample suppons con e

2) Maimum stiffness values were also established fbr each genede value defined minimum values were determined to define a stiftheas range below each generi]

that would produce comparable pipe sness resuks.

3) Prior to performing the piping analysis, each support stifthess was calcula*d as-built drawings and screened against the minimum values. If the calendaw above the minimum value, generic stifthess values were used in the piphn calculated value was below the minimum value, caladated suffnesses were u excepoon is made regarding suppons that are to be modified or replaced. For these!

suppons, the generic value is===nned wkh "ccennnaden requhed." Confirmation i required suppons are to be designed to meet or aceed the minimen adhana val defined by Tables 310-g-1 through 3-10-g-3 of CPPP-7. Addidonally, specif'i were defined so that the analytical value would be used when certain local condi existed (i.e., supports whidt restrain large masses or large axial runs) that m i generic values. t results. The stiffness values used in the analysis are venfie Additiceal SWEC confinnation of the generic stifthess method was provided f.n results was made between analyses using the generic \\ (calculated) stiffnesses for all supporta. Ot(srence 7.20). The problems were sel values were used. The pttblems were not considered wo representative. TN 67 7256 3 18 DAP RR P-001, REV,1

" SWEC addressed the issue ofincluding the local flexibilities of support compo i stiffness calculation by the procedures defined in CPPP-7. : O Class 2 and 3 pipe support stiffness was evaluated by methods prescribed in Atta s/ CPPP-7. These methods include engineering judgment (inspection or comparison to s designs with known stiffnesses), simple hand calculation, and detailed analysis. Att o also defines methods used to determine the stiffness of "special support types." in addition to the guidance given in Attachment 4-18, the following additional guida . provided for specific details elsewhere in CPPP-7: -4: Anchor stiffness values for Drilled-in Expansion type Concrete - Anchors. 5: Stiffness yalues for a single tube with insert connections along L as the only means of stmetural anachment. -8: Allowable stiffness ratios between support structures (for dual e I snubber / strut suppens using riser clamps).

• Attachment 412: U bolt Stiffness, Trapeze Crosspiece stiffness, clamping stiffness U-bolt and crosspiece.

i

• Attachment 4-15: Stiffnesses of trunnion type anchors.

'Ihe procedures for calculating support stiffness do not explicitly address over See Section 3.2.3.26 for a discussion of bolt hole clearances. \\ THIRD PARTYEVALUATION \\ O 1he 1hird Party evaluation of the SWEC generic stiffness approach centered o) the two sources of SWEC documentation; the SWEC report " Generic Pipe Supp Values for Piping Analysis" and the SWEC calculation GENX-117 summa verificanon results of the five problem comparison analyses. This spproach, developed by SWEC, as weR as those used thmughout th as their objective to provide a MWy e ensure that the stiffhess values used in) representative of the actual structures used in the plant. It is not industry practim to us calculated stifthess for aR suppons and all analyses but rather to use gene

• Wele results.

Industry approaches generally involve esrahtishing minimum stiffness (or sets of m stiffhess values) prior to the design of the suppons. Usually a deflection c criterion is also used. In this case, however,it is different in that these minimum v established prior to design and installation. The effect of this is that the supports flexible than if a minimum stiffness or fac e..;y criterion had been used. The ob r methodology is to use generic values where apptcpriate and to use actual values ! supports. This objective is considered by the 1hird Party to be remonable and practica! Based on the number and degree of piping analysis parameters and the factors the piping system qualification, the basis for acceptance of the generic appsoa sample verification effort provided in GENX-117 (Aqference 7.20). The review of th principles." Third Party concems were raised that the sim O TN 87 7256 3 19 1 DAP.RR.P 001, REV.1

l, h l

representative of actual configurations.1he 1hird Pany a-vance of the SWEC approach to generic stifthess was therefore based on evaluation of the sample analysis verincadon documented in GENX.117.

,O The results of the comparative analyses of the problems selected by the Third Pany were reviewed in detail. The conclusions are discussed below: u

• Pipe Stresses - 1he analysis using calculated stiffness indicated increases in stress over those calculated using generic stiffness at certain locations. These increases were generallyless than 15%.
• Support leads - Suppon loads from the analysis using calculated stiffness indicated increases in loads over those calculated using genene stiffhess by more than 15% in a significant numberofinstances.
• Valve Accelerations - Valve accelerations from the analysis using calculated stiffness indicated increases in accelerations over those calculated using generic stiffness significantly more than 15%.

While the differences in the two analytical results were in some E'.gieres greater than 15% th Third Party agrees with SWEC that in general, with some additional considerations, there are sufHeient inherent safety factors associated with standard industry design practices so that variations of this order of magnitude can be neglected. The various parameters invesdga the comparative analysis are discussed below:

• Piping Analysis - The1hird Pany agrees that there is signiScant conservadsm in the simplified SIF approach used in production piping design such that variations of this nature can be '=FM recognizing the overall inherent factors of safety.

O

• Support IAnds - No documentation has been p.Mded to <lamanarrate overall conservadsm such that the variations in loads can be neglected. SWEC issued a Proje Memorandum arpeg that during final reconcilianon, all highly loaded suppans 0.e.,

those with loads greater than 85% of design capacity) will be reviewed by the Option Review Committee e ensme that the use of the generic neinhana approach on a sym basis does not violme the overaB factor of safety consideradon. The SWBC procedu requiremansa e seview all highly loaded suppons are sufBcient to ensure that potentia variations in support loads will not un=veraNy compionise safety margins.

• Valve Accelerations - Accurate modelirig of supports nearlarge masses is important ensure accurate calculation of valve accelerations. To ensure adequate re- ='w SWEC has issued a Project Memorandum to review, during final reconciliation, stiffhessi representation near valves. In addition, SWEC has provided data which indicate inherent design margins for the acceleration values used as design limits. Based upon this, the Third Party believes that SWEC's position regarding overall design margins is maineminat

{ Based upon the above discussion, the1hird Pany considers the reasonableness of th be conSimed.. The detailed guidance for calculation of support stiffness including support component local flexibility was also considered of sufficient w..sy to be consistent with the generic stiffness j methodology. O TN47-7256 3-20 DAP RR P-001, REV.1 J

I l CONCLUSION The method established by SWEC of accounting for suppon flexibility in the pipin considered adequate.1he generic stiffness issue is closed. 3.2.3.6 U-Bolts Acting As Two-Way Restraints j ISSUE DESCRIPTION U bolts have been used at CPSES to attach piping to rigid suppon members. In th ' in question, the U bolts are not cinched. Suppons of this type were used whe called for restraint in a single transnational degree of feedom. Such supports are t L refened to as one-directionalstops. 'Ihe intent was that the U-bolt would provide restra direction parallel to the axis of the threaded portion. No restraint wat m:d: led in the latera direction, and no lateral loads were considered in the design of the support.1he con 1 insufficient space exists between the pipe and the U bolt in the lateral direc to move thennally and seismically without contacting and loading the support. In effect,it w alleged that the support acted in two directions and should have been modeled an accordingly.' This issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP E-P- 006 which provides a mo description of the issue. I SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Resolution of the issue under the SWEC requalification program consists of: replacing all unemched U bolts on pipes greater than 6-inch with a suppon th O + with the analyzed function,and modeling all uncinched U-bolt supports on pipes 6-inch and less as two-way restr the piping analysis, and qualifying the support for the resulting loads. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION U-bolts that continue to be used at CPSES, i.e.,6 inch and smaller, will be m as both axial and lateral restraints. 'Ihe allowable loads for the U-bolts are bas with ASME Section III, Subsecdon NF, paragraph NF-3330 (Agference 7.7). basis for addressing the concem and qualifying the support in accordance w commitments. CONCLUSIONS SWEC has established an approach to address the issue that is acceptable. The iss 3.2.3.7 Friction Forces l ISSUE DESCRIPTION The influence of friction was considered to be inadequately and inconsistently addre support design calculations. For designs produced by cenain design organizanons, CASE s contended that:

• the coefficient of friction was inconect, TN 67-7256 3-21 DAP.RR.P 001, REV.1

• ' friction had been neglected for pipe movement less than 1/16" withoutjustification.

the reduction in friction load based on support stiffness was incornet, and

• friction should have been included fordynamic load cases but was not.

The frict!on forces issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluadon DAP-E-P-007 which p more detailed discussion of the issue. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHOD0t.OGY SWEC addressed the technical concems as follows:

• The effect of friction at all sliding surfaces is considered in pipe support design regardless of the size of the pipe displamment.
• A coefficient of friction value of 0.3 is used for all steel to steel fricdon lo
• The calculated friction force is not reduced based on support stiffness.
• Fricdon loads are included in all static and/or steady state load cases. Dynamic load conditions are not included in the friction load evaluadon.

THIRD PARTYEVALUATION 'Ihe SWEC approach to friction forces *13=3aa*~ the inconsistency concem. It also eliminata the concems related to pipe movement and support stiffness affecting friction. I 'Ihe use of a coefficient of friction of 0.3 is consistent with industry practice and is consider be suf8ciently repr=ntative of the condition thss would exist at a nruman point be and support. 'the coefficient of friction wiB vary between a dynamic value for aliding con O _ which is significantly less than 0.3, and a static value coirWing to zero movemen .i relative to the support. It is not engineering practice to suempt to quantify the time v friction force or to use upper bound values. 'Ihe nuclear industry has adopted a p a value of approximately 0.3. 'Ihe industry practices for addressing fHetion loads for dynamic conditions such as seism develop due to dynamic anadminnaresponse varies to some extent; however, the p Under vibratory anadwions, friction ibeces are lower than those encountered in simple sliding without vibration. 'the fHetion fasce that would ocx also typically be intermittent, because the surface contact is iCM 1hese condidons are analyzed. Instead an industry pnuxice is to establish a design pracace that recognizes tha forces are not likely to be significant in support design. "Ihis practice is considered CONCLUSCN The SWEC s'phicach to fHetion forces in support design calculations is w= forces issue is closed. 3.2.3.8 AWS Versus ASME ISSUEDESCRIPTION The issue arises fmm a CASE concem that the ASMEBoller andPre Code) does not adequately address aspects of weld design and welding proadures that TN 87-7256 3-22 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 h _-_m.____.____-_m __._-_.-..m______a_

Criteria I, requires the establishment of appropriate s inadequate, The American Welding Society Structural Welding Code, O-should be imposed. There are ten areas where the ASME Code was consid inadequate.1hese are listed as numbered by CASE (R<ference 7.21): 1) L Pre heat requirements for welds on plates over 3/4 inch thick - 2) Drag angle and work angles (which limit the space allowed for the we 3) Beta Factor for tube-to tube welds - 4) . Multiplication factor and reduction factors for skewed "T" weld joints 5) Limitations on angularity for skewed "T" joints. 6) Calculations for punching (actually a reduction factor for the weld) shea joints 7) Lapjoint requirements 8) Design procedure forjoint of tube to tube with Beta equal to 1.0 9) Calculation for effective throat of flare bevel welds 10)

1. imitations'on weld sizes relative to plate thicknesses Additionally, the appropriateness of the CPSES welding procedures for weav welding, preheat requirements, and cap welding were questioned.

The AWS venus ASME issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP E-P-0 provides a more detailed discussion of the issue. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY ltems (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), and (10) as listed above, are welding desig (5), and (10) are discussed in Sect!on 3.2.3.25 as part of the Skewed "T" Jo of the Tube Steel and Wide Flange Web Stresses the AWS versus ASME (areas 1,2,7, and 9) are discussed furtherin this section ) THIRO PARTYEVALUATION i \\ Of the ten numbered items discussed in this section, three relate to welding (1), (2), and (7). Weave welding, downhill welding, preheat requirernents by the ASLB, was "whether welding procedures qu Code are adequate in light of AWS requirements for prequalified welds". Us comparison of ASME snd AWS and their review of TUGCO welding procedure able to reach a conclusion. On June 29,1984, ASLB ruled that, " Applicant's i ASME Code has been adequate to assure the safety ofits welding procedu of this issue is based on that decision. welding parameters in this issu O TN47 7258 3 23 DAP RR P 001, REV.1

NRC staff examination of this subject, and in particular the ASLB decision, le . nothing to indicate that the weld procedure mncems l Item number (9) was a design issue closed by the ASLB on December 28,1 a closed issue. An aspect related to this issue is weld design associated with struc outside comer radius.' This is d%'==e4 in Section 3.2.3.10, Section Properties. CONCLUSION There is no need to evaluate the adequacy of TUOCO_ welding procedures, b and ASLB have concluded they are acceptable with respect to this issue.1he des aspects are addressed in Secdons 3.2.3.20 and 3.2.3.25. This issue is closed. 3.2.3.9 A500 Grade B Tube Steel ' ISSUEDESCRIPTION Pipe suppons at CPSES, using A-500 Orade B tube steel, were designed bas lowered the design yield stress to 36 ksi. It was contende redesigned using the allowable based on the lower yield stress in Supplement a concem that the ductility of A 500 Grade B steel was too low. This issue is evaluated under Kneinaaring DAP-E-P-009 which provides a d theissue. O-SWECRESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY 1he methodology used in requalification of pipe supports is as follows:

• Supports designed using A-500, Grade B tube steel will be qualified using an yield stress of 36kai.

{

• Those supports not qualifying with a 36 kai yield semas will be qualified ash t

aDowable yield stress of 42 ksi and marked " Confirmation Regared".1he "Confinnation Requhed" will be removed upon issuance of a later supplemera Case N71, which is expected to retum the allowable yield stress to 42 kai. THIRDPARTYEVALUATION by virtue ofits inciusion kt Code Case N71. Since use TU0CO licensing commitments and is therefore acceptable.a 9 and 10 of Code Case N71 have been adopted by th Revisions 18 and 20, respectively. A response from the ASME regarding this iss that (1) the yield stress for A 500 Orade B tube steel was reduced to 36 ksi in C to address the slight reduction in yield suength which occurs in the heat affected zon weldments, and (2) 36 kai was a conservadve lower bound value, O TN 87-7256 3-24 i DAP-RR P-001, REV.1

The initial SWEC approsch, using a design allowable based on 36 ksi yield stress is co with the more conservative position taken by the ASME and is acceptable on that basis. T acceptance of 42 ksi by the ASME would be an acceptable basis for allowing the incr O stress. The ASME has full knowledge of the issue and their decision constitutes a reasoned industry consensus. If the ASME revises the yield stress to 42 ksi there will be a suffic for removing the " Confirmation Required" status of the supports. CONCLUSION The SWEC approach ofidentifying and tracking those supports that were qualified us higher allowable yield stress permined by Code Case N71-9 ensures that appropriate v be used in the final designs. This issue is closed. 3.2.3.10 Section Properties ISSUEDESCRIPTION Section properties of structural tubing are properties entirely dependent upon the geom configuration and dimensions of the tubing cross section. An example is moment ofinertia. Such properties are used in structural calculations of member stresses and stiffness. T for commercially available structural tubing are tabulated in the American Institute ofSt Construction (AISC) Manual of Steel Construction and in various other industry publi however, the properties differ from publication to publication. 'Ihe differences can be sh depend primarily on the comer radius used to calculate the values. Four concerns d regarding this comerradius: CASE contended that steel milled prior to 1980 had a different comer radius than that milled after 1980, the date corresponding to the issuance of the 8th Edition of the AIS O " ~ ' - CASE contended that the AISC manual was the appropriate source for section but that both the 7th and 8th Editions had to be used, depending on the date that t was fabricated. 1here was a concem that flare bevel welds for tube-to-tube connectio adversely affected by the dimensional fit-up at the comer. There was also a concem that the effect of boh holes on section properties had not considered 'Ihe section properties issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E-P-010 a more detailed discussion of the issue. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 1he technical concems relating to section properties are addressed as follows: SWEC performed an industry survey and determined that standard milling toleranc not change during the CPSES procurement of structural tubing and the properties assumed are consistent with the 8th Edition of the manual. For the requalificatio supports, the section properties of structural tubing are taken from the 8th Edition of the AISC Manual. O TN-87 7256 3-25 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1

• ~ To address the concem related to flare bevel welds, SWEC performed tests to establish a basis for the eNective weld throat calculation.' A sample ofinntatted suppons was measured to determine corner radius. This was compared to the assaned AWS DI.1 configuradon, i.e., a comer radius of twice the tube steel thickness. See PIGURE 3.2-3 m

for samples with the AWS configuration which would pmvide weld penetration. SWEC uses a throat equal to t minus 1/16 inch where t is the tube steel thickness in inches. For configurations that were more limiting with respect to. weld penetration, specimens were welded and the effective throat measured. 'Ihis resulted in a SWEC requirement to design welds on 2 x 2 x 1/4 and 2 x 2 x 3/16 inch tube steel using an effective throat equal to t minus 1/8 inch. 'Ihese were the only tube steel sizes requiring a reduction of the effective throat, i.e., less than t minus 1/16 inch. SWEC addresses the effect of bolt holes on secdon properties in accordance whh ASME Section III, Appendix XVII, which allows the designer to neglect the effect of a hole, provided the reduction in cross secdonal area does not exceed 15 percent of the cmss sectional area. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION \\ 'Ihe Third Party evaluation results are summadzed as follows: The AISC Manual is an ac~ wane source for secdon properties. It is a recognized industry standard and is commonly used throughout the nuclear industry for this purpose, 'Ihe 7th and 8th Editions have alightly different values for section properties. 'Ihe 8th j Edition states that the properties are exact or slighdy conservative, and there is no evidence that standard milling practim changed in 1980, or at any other time during CPSES procurement.1he AISC Manual chapter dtled " Standard Mill Practim" did not O change for structural tubing between the 7th and 8th edidon, indicating that no milling 'i practice change was noted by the AISC. The SWEC survey also supports this point. 'Ibe 8th Edidon properties are based on an assumed outside comer radius equal to twice the tube steel wall thickness. Based on the dimensions taken in the SWEC sample, that assumed radius is a reasonable basis for A Mag section properties. It had been creamlad by CASE that a radius of three times the tube steel wall thickness might be i more appropriate. This contention was not anhatantiawf by the physical measumments. The AISC Manual, the SWEC survey of milling practice, and the physical measurements taken for a sample of tube steel all support the conclusion that the 8th Edidon is an adequate source of secdon properties for tube steel In the absence of any data that t supports a w y posidon, the use of the 8th Edition is evaluated to bc ac~w=Ma The SWEC procedure generally applied for calculating weld throat, i.e., t minus 1/16 e inch, is comervative with respect to the weld throat permitted by AWS DI.1, provided - the AWS assumed geometry or a geometry allowing greater weld penetration is achieved. SWEC's method is conservative in such cases, hacanaa the throat is reduced 1/16 below the AWS value.

• In the process of sampling tube steel halaat a geometric configuration was identified by SWEC that has an effect on the capacity of a flare bevel weld for a matched tube steel annection. FIGURE 3.2 3 depicts the difference k.;;.a. the configuration typically assumed and the actual configuration. As a result of the difference, the opportunity to achieve weld penetration is lamaad, which has an adverse effect on weld throat. For such cases the tests performed by SWEC to arrive at a calculation method, i.e., t - 1/8 inch, are an ac=*awe means forqualifying the welds.

TN 87-7256 3-26 DAP-RR P-001, REV.1

WELD METAL '////////I! \\f\\ T \\ '\\ \\ '\\ \\ \\ ' O ?l / / '{- [ /,:- / ACTUAL CONRGURATON i TUBE ,/::. \\['l / d / ASSUMEDCONFIGURATION / \\ _2 N\\\\\\\\\\ / / /h /N N p / \\ N / \\ g / N POTENTIAL REDUCTIOW s N TUBE IN WELDTHROAT / N (s / \\ /s N O - R.AREBEVEL WELD ' f' 3 r w N( ] MATCHED TUBE STEEL CONNECTON FIGURE 3.2-3 FLARE BEVEL WELD TN-87-7256 3 27 DAP RR P 001, REV.1

= 6 Compliance with ASME Section III, Appendix XVH as a means of cons \\ of bolt holes on section properties, is an acceptable basis for addressmg the l cridcal bending sections, the section properties are reduced if the area of th memberis reduced by 15E Dis is an appropriately conservative interpretadon ASME rule. CONCLUSION The approaches for addressing the three aspects of the section property iss issue is closed. t 3.2.3.11 Cinched U-Bolts l ISSUEDESCRIPTION U-bolts were used instead of pipe clamps on some single strut or snubber pipe original design. Stability of these supports was questioned because of the poss bolts rotating about the axis of the run pipe. As a response to the stability iss U-bolts resulted in additional technical conmms. Dese includ assurance of adequate preload through plant life, i preload-torque relationship, adequacy of SA 36 material for the preload application. e U-bolt stresses including eNects of preload radial thermal expansion effects, and localized pipe stresses at stiff pipe clamps are also a concem, based on co e to those raised for emched bolts. De cinched U-bolt issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E-P-01 detailed discussion of the issue. De local pipe stress aspects are evaluat t Evalumico DAP-E.P 002.., SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC is eliminating all emched U-boks at pipe supports. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION Eliminating cinched U-bolts eliminates the concems. The function of the stiff reviewed with respect to all concems raised for cinched U-bohs, and it has be the concems are not valid based on the SWEC qualification procedures employe clamps is adequately addressed by SWEC. clamps. Local spesses f p pe CONCLUSIONS pipe clamps are adequately addressed forlocal pipe stre O TN47 7256 3 28 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 i

3.2.3.12 Axial / Rotational Restraints ISSUE DESCRIPTION Certain axial and/or trapeze type supports at CPSES use welded lug or trunnion att transferloads to frames or component hardware. The concems regarding thes supports are summarized as follows:

• - Eccentric loading, which can result fmm effects such as di'ferential snubb suppon steel stiffness variations, must be considered in the design process.
• Snubber end clearance effects may cause significant increase in loads, or invalida analysis results.-
• Multiple lug configurations must consider a conservative loading distribution fo

. frame decign.

• Insufficient clearances or eccentricities may exen rotational restraint on the pipe
• Rotational restraint effect must be treated as a primary stress for the support de The axial /mtational restraint issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E P-contains a detailed discussion of the issue. Related issues are discussed in the fo Engineering Evaluations:
• LocalStress(Pipe)-DAP-E-P-002
• Generic Stiffhess - DAP-E-P-005
• Gaps DAP-E-P 013 SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY SWEC addressed the above concems by separately considering integral non integral dual component supports, and lug / frame.

Integrally attached supports (including those which are welded to pads which a pipe) were addressed by integrating the geometry of the trunnions into the pip Additionally the design loads, obtained directly from the analysis, were increa i account for differential snubberlock up. i Non integral dual strut / snubber axial supports (including frame / lug type i transnational supports and each component is designed for 75% of the total load fr analysis. Four lugs are typically used for non-integral axial clamp suppons. E to 50% of the total load for dual component supports roodeled as a single compo Where significant variations in stiffness exist in the two sides of the suppon, component on the softer side will be physicaDy removed and the eccentricity modeled i piping analysis. For such eccentncauy modeled suppons, the load for each lug with the assumption that au of the moment is reacted at the lugs, i.e., the clam connection does not resist the moment. Cinched U Bolt trapeze suppons are being eliminated. i TN 87 7256 3-29 DAP-RR P-001, REV.1

Lugs for rigid frame type axial restraints are each qualified for the total load if only tw used, or 50% of the total load if four lugs are present. 'the total load will be distributed to half lugs which will produce the most cridcal stress in the frame. i Analysis ofload distribution at lug / frame interfaces will be based on an assumption that wiU maximize critical stress in the frame. ' Support suesses resulting from rotational restraints effects will be treated as primary stre both integral and non-integral supports. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION 'Ihe use of a 20% increase in load to account for differential snubber lockup on integrally attached supports is appropriate for matched snubbers. SWEC is reviewing the vendor data to ensure that paired snubbers are matched. Where n==my, modifications will be made to achieve this. SWEC calculadons to support the load distribution for dual strut / snubbers modeled as single axial restraint were reviewed, and it is i concluded that the 75% load, which assumes an increase of 50% of the load for each half of th dual support, is adequately conservadve. For non-integral dual strut / snubber supports that are modified by removal of one snubb support eccentricities and configurations are modeled iruo the piping analysis, thereby adeq addressing the rotadonal restramt. Load distributions are sufficiently accurate.and adequa Supports modeled as single / axial (e.g., frame /lus type and clamps with dual snubbers not consider rotadonal restraint of the piping. SWEC has issued a picoedure which evaluates-l pipe / support conditions during final reconciliation to determine if there are conditions wh produce unusually large pipe rotations. Evaluations of supports will be conducted if req 1 include the effects of pipe rotadons. 'Ihe SWEC method for determining load distribution on muldple lugs is considered both

• • anmhle and conservative based on the close lug / frame gap tolerances.

{ '!he SWEC approach to evaluating support /hanne stresses based on a selected, 'l load distribution is reasonable and acceptable based on simple statics. 'Ihe approach to evaluating constraint of free end displacement is consistent with the ASME Code. End clearance effects are evaluated in the Knei-ing Evaluation of the Gaps lasue (DAP E-P413). l CONCLUSION 'Ihe SWEC approach to resolving this issue is considered adequate based on the guidan provided in the SWEC procedures. 'Ihe axial / rotational restraint issue is closed. O TN 87-7256 3-30 DAP RR-P 001, REV.1

1 i 3.2.3.13 ' Gaps (~% - ISSUE DESCRIPTION V-The concem was raised that the piping analysis ' oes not adequately acco d in the piping /suppon system. The specific gaps of concem are:

• excessive clearance between pipe and suppons in the loaded directions, e - inadequate lateral clearance for U-bolts, i

excessive clearance between Hilti expansion anchors and the bolt holes in th e i and

• . excessive clearance between Richmond Insert threaded rods and i

The first of these is discussed in this section based on Engineering Evaluation DAP-E-P-013. The general concem was the applicability of a linear clastic ana piping system response given that the actual system contains gaps. The adequacy of U bolt lateral clearance is' discussed in Section 3.2.3.6 bas Evaluation DAP-E-P.006. Bolt hole clearance for Hiltis is discuss Engineering Evaluation DAP-E P-028. Richmond Insert bolt hole clearances are dis 3.2.3.1 based on Engineering Evaluation DAP-E-P4)l. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 'the pipe / support gap clearances to be used by SWEC in designs are listed in Tab -11 of CPPP-7. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION Table I A, Attachment 4 of CPPP 7, Rev. 2, specifies clearanus that allow a max linear analysis, which does not model gaps, is an app applies to piping systems that have 1/8 indi gaps.1his is pedicated on the assump linear analysis is a sufficiently accurate means for calculating the response of p suppons. On the basis that SWEC is applying mecapM industry practices, the practice considered acr*pt=Ne. CONCLUSIONS The SWEC spproach to pipe / support clearances is acceptable. This issue is closed. i 3.2.3.14 Seismic Design Load Specification 1 ISSUEDESCRIPTION 1he seismic design load specification issue is comprised of several miscellaneous regarding the adequate specification of conservative design criteria.1he exsemal so are summarized as follows:

• Analysis procedures allowed a dynamic amplification factor of 1.0 for equivalent s 1

analysis. No justification was provided, but justification is required by the CPSES - LO " ^ ^ - TN 87 7256 3 31 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 4

• NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 is not conservative.
• NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 requires the use of the lower OBE dampening va SSE spectra for design of active components, e.g. active valves. Extemal Source is part of the system. interpret this to apply to analysis of piping systems, whi
• Analyses of stress problems with both large and small bore piping incone the less conservative, higher dampened spectra forlarge bore piping
• Spectra used did not envelope all the applicable spectra.
• Observation that emergency design loads sometimes exceed faulted loads led to a presumption that errors in the detennination of the loads may have been made.

The seismic design load specification issue was evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E-P 014 which provides a detailed discussion of the issue. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC procedures require a dynamic amplification factor of 1.5 for equivale unless otherwisejustified. specify damping values for qualification of piping sys c Guide 1.61 and the NRC-approved (Reference 7.22) usage of the more recent N-411, which recognizes the variable damping relative to systems frequency De ase regarding reduced damping for active components is not considered to be a ~. analysis. Such reductions are not consistent with industry practice for piping. require that piping systems containing mixed pipe sizes above and below 12 inc \\ evaluated with the lower damping values. SWEC envelopes spectra or uses multiple response spectra input. The latter with N-411 spectra. Implementation ofSWEC corporate quality assurance procedures is intended to r regarding random errors. oncems THIRD PARTYEVALUATICN ne concems raised are of three types:

1) equivalent static analysis criteria,

2) damping criteria, and

3) implementation of various criteria.

ne use of a 1.5 factor for equivalent static analysis is the approach accepted by used throughout the industry as a conservative calculation. It is an acceptable prac The SWEC approach to addressing the spectra damping is considered acceptable Regulatory Guide 1.61 has long been the industry accepted basis for licensing of plants. The results of more recent industry studies are reflected in Code Case power O TN-87-7256 3 32 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1

- been approved for use by the NRC on other nuclear plants and specific 7.22). { 1 Cenain requirements were established as NRC conditions for the use of N-4 i were primarily documentadon requirements. For example, all pipe stress pack! Case N 411 are to be identified in the FSAR. Compliance with such requirem directly relate to the assessment of technical methodology. Other requireme with walkdown programs that follow the completion of analysis.' It has been d requirements can be satisfied by SWEC walkdown programs and the stability eva . included in CPPP-6 and CPPP 9; however, the adequacy of the techn not dependent on completion of such programs. Therefore, the walkdown proce evaluated as part of this issue. One requirement is that N-411 damping is not to history analysis. SWEC complies with this. i SWEC's position regarding reduced damping for active components is accep l with industry practice. 1 The other resolutions addressing random errors of incorrectly damped spectr specific procedure errors are considered to be adequately addressed by SWE project procedures.- q CONCLUSION \\ SWEC has provided an acceptable approach to address seismic design load s! consistent with that utilized by the industry. The seismic design load specific O 3.2.3.15 Support Mass Effects On Piping. ,SSUEoEScR.r,oN It was alleged that Gibbs and Hill procedures did not specify how or when s\\ have been included in the CPSES piping analysis. The result was in inadequate accounting of support mass effects in the prediction of pip i stresa. SpeciSc concerns were the related effects of eccentric support ma for evaluating dynamic loads, including fluid transient induced loads. Th evaluated in Fneinaaring Evaluation DAP E-P-015 which provides a more the issue. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC wiB considersuppon mass in the analysis of all CPSES piping syst procedures have been issued which address common support configurations for s component type suppons, dermling the component mass or portions of mass whic modeled concentrically or eccentrically in the piping model. In addition to th modeling suppon mass effects in the piping model, methods for evalu mass effect on piping mi.pcis, due to design or installation deviations, have be THIRO PARTYEVALUATION ' The methods described in the SWEC procedures address the ma,jority of s data in the procedures.. The SWEC procedures d p TN 87 7256 3-33 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1

e.g., structural frames or cantilever supports. The significance of the effect of the m types of supports is dependent on both the mass and stiffness of the suppon modeling stiffness and evaluating self weight excitatio een i 1 considering the mass effect for the type of designs encountered. j As pan of the assessment of this issue a review was conducted of an aspecl design modifications in limited use, it is possible for t three directions. The NUPIPE-SW Program has the capability to model directi Third Pany considers these adequate for closure of this issue. 1 I CONCLUSION effects, in the piping model which are adequate. T t analysisis closed. 3.2.3.16 Mass Point Spacing ISSUE DESCRIPTION j l Gibbs & Hill procedures for CPSES established requirements for minimum sp points in the piping model, to predict an accurate +w to dynamic loadings. analysis reviewed by Cygna did not comply with the established requirements. computer program used (ADLPIPE Version C)impropedy lumped concentrated mas O primary issue is adherence to established requirements for mass polm sp spacing issue was evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP E P-017 which c discussion of the issue. SWECRESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC modeling guidehnes specify where lumped mass points are to be analysis. To assure adherence to these requirements SWEC has includ a reviewitem in the analysis Mi% THIROPARTYEVALUATION The review of the SWEC requirements indicates that the lumped mass accurate to capture dynamic characteristics. The evaluation of SWEC formulatio in DAP calculation number DAP C P-003.1he inclusion of mass point spac checklist itein provides adequate assurance that the established guidelines a 1 manually derived and automatically generated mass point spacing. CONCLUSIONS l model.1he mass point spacing issue is closed.1he SWEC procedui O 4 TN 87 7256 3 34 ..DAP RR-P-001, REV.1 i )

3.2.3.17 High Frequency Mass Participation - ' ISSUE DESCRIPTION 'Ihe pipe spess analyses ' onducted by Gibbs & Hill did not comply with CPSES PSA c requirements in that there was no assurance provided that the potential inclusio frequency modes in response spectrum analyses would not increase systemi than 10% of that predicted up to the cutoff frequency. 'Ihis high frequency mj issue was evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP E-P-018 which provides a detaj discussion of the issue. l SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC has addressed this issue by requiring one of the following: 't

• Perform amplified response spectmm (ARS) modal analysis up to a 50 Hz cutoff.

frequency using NUPIPE-SW V04/LO2 with the high frequency missing mass option chosen.

• Perform a NUPIPE ARS analysis with A 50 Hz cutoff frequency without th mass correction option chosen. Combine these results with the results from an eq static analysis for the zero period acceleration (ZPA). The combination is by SR er.c of three orthogonal directions.

a 'Ihe abcVe criteria are specified in the current project procedures. In additi mass c)rrection is specifically included in SWEC's pipe stress analysis checklist as a review item. O " " ' " " " " " ^ " " The two methods permitted in SWEC procedures addressing the concem frequency modes were reviewed. 'the NUPIPE missing mass correction is an technical methods described in published papers that have been subjected to pe 'This is the basis for accepting this method for CPSES. methods a 'Ihe second method was in common une prior to the availability of missing mass methods. It is a conservadve means of bounding the response. CONCLUSION i SWEC has established an approach to resolution of the high frequency mas that is acceptable. The high hequency mass participation issue is closed. 3.2.3.18 Fluid Transients ISSUEDESCRIPTION Several indirectly related concems were raised relative to design of piping syst transients. dischargeloads. These are:Two of the concems are related to assumptio O 1 i TN-87-7256 3-35 DAP RR.P-001, REV.1 )

flow distribution in Crosby dual port S/RVs for the purpose of developing 'e and stresses on the Main Steam line, and O-e - conservatism of assumptions regarding multiple S/RV actuation sequence used evaluate the maximum instantaneous stress in the Main Steam piping system. The remaining concems are related to analysis / design requirements and acce specifically addressing the unique characteristics of fluid transler.1 loads. '!hese are: j rigid frame gaps in unrestrained directions for fluid transients, i criteria or requirements to validate time step selection for tim ~ history analysis e e

• consideration of steady state versus dynamic fluid transient loads in piping syste supported by snubbers.-

1 a detailed discussion of the issue.The fluid transients issue was evaluate SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 1 SWEC's approach to addressing the fluid transient issue is to develop co and loading criteria. Concems regarding Main Steam S/RV loading have been verified with the ven underway to develop conservative piping response to single and multiple S/RV actuI The specific macems regarding analysis / design requirements and acceptance j addressed in project procedures as follows: O'

• Clearance requirements are addressed by requiring the transmittal of pipin displacements for all pipe loadings, combined in accordance with the load combinations, to the pipe support design group for acceptance.
• Guidelines are provided for determining time steps and cutoff frequencies in a history analysis and reviewing results for reasonableness.

{

• General guidelines are provided for consideration of the type ofloading (static o dynamic) for modeling snubbers in the piping analysis.

1 THIRO PARTYEVALUATION The SWEC approach to resolving the concems is sufficiently detailed to pro specific concerns will be adequately addressed. 'the more general concem, re is partially addressed by the procedures. Review of that the attention to fluid transient related design requirements is adequately co general practice. However, because it is not general practice to proceduraliz fluid transients design and analysis ac6vities, implementation review was re adequate consideration of all related design criteria. e The 'Ihird Party's review of Guid transients implementation was conducted th which paralleled the SWEC activities: Arzt, the identification of significant even -i the quantificadon of fluid transient loads from these everas. '!he Chemical an System (CVCS) and the Main Steam System were selected as subjects for this revie TN47 7256 3 36 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 i w_-

l Task 1: "Ihe first task was a review of the identification of(screening for) signific transient events. 'Ihe System Information Documents, the supporting calculations O-assumptions, and the implementing (fluid transient) analyses were reviewed ag - base of CPRT systems, alignments, and events, independently prepared e Third Party review. Bases used for the determination of significance as well smpe boundaries were also specifically reviewed. l 1 The review indicated an adequate implementation of the SWEC procedures and. . commitments consistent with industry practice. 'Ihe SWEC screening proce i resulted in the specific design attention to more events than originally addressed. also indicated adequate attention to the major aspects of plant design and operat 1 can result in fluid transients and knowledge of general nuclear plant experience _with transients. Adequacy of the SWEC screening process is dependent on verifying that bound transient loads are properly evaluated to determine significance on piping and sI compliance. SWEC has issued a calculation and an implementation procedure for - evaluanng pipe stress. 'the procedure additionally requires suppons to be evaluate i cases to assure that fluid transient loads, which are screened out based on pipe stres accommodated.. Assurance is also dependent upon verification that some additional events consist the FSAR design basis have been reviewed for significance. Specific conc 'Ihird Party are being addressed by SWEC procedures. _The procedures require i following: The non safety piping and suppons for the Main Steam line'fmm the moment r e the turbine and condenser are to be reviewed to determine if the new turbij calculated by SWEC are within ANSI B31.1 allowables. 1 Recent modifications performed on the Feedwater and Auxiliary Feedwater the effects of these revisions on the piping and supports are to be revie i adarg. j 'Ihe Safety faj* system will be nyiewed for potential two phase water bamm due to valve leakage. System operating pros 4. or design analysis reunedies implemented if a*w y. Other Oass 2/3 systems will also be reviewed forpo valve leakage fluid transients. i 'Ihe piping integrity will be reviewed for the isolation of pipe rupture even e Main Steam and CVCS piping adjacent to SWEC piping scope. 'Ihe licensin CPSES will be reviewed to detennine if these events need to be address support design. 'Ihe '!hird Party concludes that these procedures provide sufficient assurance th transients events identification process is adequate. Task 2: The second task of the Third Party review of fluid transients implementa verified the adequacy of the development ofloadings to be used in pipe stre Review of the CVCS system analyses, MS turbine trip analysis, and FW break 1 analysis verified a generally adequate and conservative approach to the estima transientloadings. J The review verified that the various methods used by SWEC, including co with Method of Characteristics programs (WATHAM and STEHAM), RELAP, a TN 87 7256 3 37 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 .i

U results for these analyses were verified in magnit reasonable by independent calculations. Inputs for the analyses, including were verified as to source, consistency, and reasonableness of values. Mod including time steps, nodalization, equipment modeling, and duration of a verified as reasonable and generally conservative through a detaile calculations. Modeling assumptions, including the selection of boundary conditions a

were verified as consistent with system operation by independent review a review it was verified that essential equipment of the analytical results were adequately considered.

The analytical models were also reviewed to assure the insensitivity to nne i other governing parameters. Sensitivity analyses were specifically done for isoladon analysis model as appropriate for the RELAP program used in i Sensitivity analyses performed on the Main Steam turbine trip analysis mo be selected small enough so that results are adeq analyzed. Also, a sensitivity analysis representative of SWEC analyses wa verified the reasonable insensitivity of the remaining analyses. 1 Assurance as to the adequacy of the SWEC Guid transients analyses verification that flashing during the majority of depressunzation transient increase the calculated loads orimpair valve performance; Specific venfica potential for vapor pocket conspee overpressure and loads are not significant o ate } bounded by existing load cases wiH be provided by the imal**a-ata procedures issued to address this concem. SWEC will calculate loads fo and events (using a method that explicitly addresses vapor pocket for and will include these loads in piping analysis. i Additionally, spedfic substantiadon that the RV's can pass two phas requirements win be provided by a review of thi procedures. Related discussions are contained in the foHowing Engineering Evaluations: I i

• Mass Point Spacing DAP-E P-017
• Support Mass Effects on Piping Analysis DAP-E-P 015
• High Prequency Mass Participation DAP E P 018
• Valve and Plange Qualificadon DAP-E P425
• Generic Stifthess DAP-E-P 005 CONCLUSION as discussed above are sufficient to provide assur na review considerations will be addressed. The Guld transients issue is closed.

O-TN 67 7256 3-38 DAP RR P 001, REV.1 L

s 3.2.3.19 Self-Weight Excitation ( ISSUE DESCRIPTION \\ The qualification oflarge bore pipe supports did not generally inchyle the pipe suppo weight orloads due to self-weight seismic excitation in the support calculations. justification was not pmvided for neglecting these loads.' Support self-weight excitation was evaluated in Engin~ ring Evaluation DAP-E-P-019 whic contains a more detailed discussion of the imue. I fC SWEC RESOLUTIONME7H000 LOGY SWEC addressed this issue by the following methodology: Dead Weight Loads - SWEC has committed to evaluate a111arge bore pipe suppo dead weight loads. Under this approach, the component dead weight is considered in either the structural (suppon) analysis or the piping stress analysis. i Sdf-Wdsht Erdtation Loads - SWEC promdures require that all self-weight excitado J loads be included in the support evaluation fior all frame suppons. He procedures din require a calculation of these loads for elements of supports attached direcdy to the building structure,i.e., supports without structural frames. Dese loads are considered be insigniScant. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION De Third Party evaluation is summarized as follows: O

• Dead Weight 14 ads - De dead weight load of any component support hardware is included in the piping analysis model or directly in the support design calculating dead weight load is not double counted. Dis adequately addresses this aspes of issue.

T

• Sdf-Wdsht Esdtation Leeds - The SWEC procedures provide fourmethods for analyzing suppens for mainnie loads. Supppet mass that is not modeled wit modeled with the support. Dree of the asethods stancany analyse the agip acceleration values derived by SWEC ime the CPSES response spectra, A espe Third Party evaluation perfonned to review this derivation determinad th the method and acceleration values are annapenhte De founh method is a dynamic auslysis w nonnally would not be necessary to calculate self-weight exchation kinds'because the simpler and more conservative static analysis typicany produces loads which are conservative. Dynamic analysis would be used to reduce the loads if-- y. Such dynamic analysis is an appropriate analytical tool; however, it has not been used De SWEC appmach of not requiring a calculadon of seismic self weight excitation for component suppott hardware attached directly to the building structure is acceptable, beca component part (e.g., snubber rear bracket) which is attached is so rigid that it foDows the building motion without ampli5 cation and does not produce signi5 cant additional kw support itself. Dis is considered a valid approach and one which is typical nfindust 6,

i O TN47 7256 3 39 OAp.RR-P.001, REV.1 - a,

C NCLUSICH > The SWEC procedures establish an acceptable methodology for addressin loads and loads due to the self weight excitation of the support. This issue is closed. i 3.2.3.20 Local Stresses in Pipe Support Members ISSUEDESCRIPTION l' Cenain types of pipe supports or details of pb supports have been identified may be the limiting design factor, but they were not evaluated during the design pra include: ~; 1 I

• local stresses in cinched U-bolts.
• local stressesin piping anchors, local stresses in zem gap box frames.

e l

• tube steci and wide flange web stresses at connections, and
• short beam stresses.

3, i, 4. Local stress in pipe suppon members was evih lated in Engirk>:rhg Evaluation which provides a more detailed disco:sion of the issue. l \\ \\ i SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY l the remaining concerns is as follows: Local stresses in piping anchors a i e Local Stresses in Cinded U-bolts - TUGCO has eliminated r Local Strrmats in Zero Gap Box Frame:: - SWEC has committed to elbalna e gap box frames, local stresses in tube meel connecdoos and weld e acconiance with the requirements of AWS DI.1, U-bolt nuts bearing on tube wide fisoges) are designed using. AISC Specification guid Short Beam Stresses Local strestes in shon members are evaluated va e approach which depamis on an engineer to correctlyjudp load transt r tchaviorof t i beam. l l 7HIRD PARTYEVALUATION \\ 1. n s The *Ihird Party evaluation is summarized as follows: Local Stresses in Cluded U bolts - Elimin'ation of all cinched U concern. / Local Struses% Ze Gap Box Frames - E11mindon of all zero gap box fra e the CPSES desips resolves this corcem.

• Tube Steel and Wide Flange Strenses at Connections'- Review of the desig O

procedures, and calculations used in the engineering hvelopment of the procedu c TN 87 7256 l 3-40 DAP-4P.091, REV.1 \\ i l \\ ? E

s e i herify th.t SWEC methodology for the design of tubular con considerstbn of beta factors and punching shear, and for the design of welded attachments to tube steel is consistent with the requirements of AWS D1.1. The SWEC analysis performed to develop the method &gy for qualification of nuts bearing on tube steel walls was reviewed and determined to be acceptable when uppmpriate washerplates are used between the nut and the tube steel. The SWEC pmcedures provide adequate directions for evhlusting the local stresses i t open stapes due to welded attachments. The procedures as in accordance with the 1 guidelines presented in the AISC specification.

• Shori Bes.n Strem. The SWEC procedures provide an acceptable qualitative appreadi 'o evaluiting the local stresses in short beams.

CONCLUSION The approach used by SWEC for the evaluation oflocal stresses in pipe supports i Thisissut 6 dosed. 3.2.3.21 Safety Factors ISSUEDESCRIPTION The concem relates.o possible reduction of built-in safety factors resulting from frdlure to comply with various applicable reguistry, licensing and code requirements. This diminutio and practices. The safety factorissue is a concem for fanu requuements, not to any specific, individual issue compliance." Safety factors are evaluated under Er.gineering Evaluation DAP-E-P-022 which p detailed discussion of theissue. SWECRESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 1he resolution methodology implemented by SWEC is that all generic issues must b before CPSES can invoke the inherent design margins (safety factors) accumulated built in conservatism in codes, input, and regulatory positions that typically provide margin so that minor variations or small loads that might poemtially occur during norm operation can be neglected. All generic issues hcve been evaluated and included into C = design criteria. With all generic issues appropriately addressed, there is sufficient m allow for small potential loads that occur during normal operation. THIRD PAR 1 DEVALUATION The safety fisetor =l~; y of codea and regulatory positions per se is net at issue, and in fact is not apa4W within such documents. Generally, such positions ef/,ct corwensus s group of experts in the field. Compliance with applicable FSAR, NiSC Menani, ASME and Regulatory Guides and Bulletins requirements is sufficient to dernonstrae exlrserr appropriate safety margins. Only in cases where deviation from such requirectsts occu where such requirements fall to provide adequam guidance,20tdd questions r 6 and CPPP-7, is consistent w'th starglard design trethod O TN47-7256 3-41 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1

w g ~ 1 methods irclude compliance with applicable codes, standards, and regulatory are supplemented, where na=*ty, by good engineering pracdces. SWEC idendfled the by way of CPPP 7 design procedures. technical issues involved, estab ') The general safety factor concem is sesolved by satisfactory resolution of all ind CCWCLUSION - Based on the fact that indihidual issues have been satisfactorily resolved safety factors is also resolved. The issue is closed. 3.2.3.22 SA-36 And SA-307 Steels ISSUEDESCRIPTION Specific aspects of this issue relating to the use of SA-36 and SA-307 steels . supports Le as follows: SA 36 Steel Used in Dynamic Applications - 1he use of SA 307 bolting mater recommended, by code, for use in dynamic applications. CASE corumnded that since SA-36 material is similar to SA-307, the same cautionary consideration s SA 307 Material Used in DynamicaDy Leaded Friction Connections - SA 307 material has been used in dynamically-loaded friction connections.1his the code. u Regulatory Guide 1.124 Limitatior.s - Bohing material has been designe o allowable stresses which exceed the material yleid strength under Level D S O Limits.1his does not meet the requienents of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.12 limits load increases to 1.5 times Level A Service limits because of the p ductile behavior.

• Use of Law Strength Nuis with High Strength Betting law sensgeh nuta, A-5 Grade A (companiou auts to SA 307 bolting) were used with high suength B7) botting.

A detailed dimenanian r.(this issue is p64,ded in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E SWEC RESOLUTICWMETHOOOLOGY 1heSWEC Ph o resolve cach of the concems identified above is as follows: t

• SA 36 Used Ist Dhnamic Applications SWEC procedures permit the use

/ material in bolted type connections subject to dynamic loads.

• SA-307 Material Used In Dynamicag -landed Friction Connections - SWEC y

connections subject to dynmaic loading. procedures preclude t 4 .

• R:gulatory Guide 1.124 Limitations SWEC procedures make no direct refe N

the Regulatory Guide 1.124 requirement that allowables be limited to 15 times T. eve,1 A limhs. SWEC has adopted ASME Code paragraph NF 3225.2, W add eda which limits the stresses to yield. i O ^ TN 67-7256 i 3 42 DAP RR P-001, REV.1 ,y y' ) 4

• Use of Low Strength Nuts With High Strength Bolting - SWEC procedu that, fbr high strength botting connections using low strength nuts, the tens of the s=wdon be reduced by 40 percent.

7HIRD PARTYEVALUATION ne nird Party evaluadon results are surnmarized as follows:

• SA 36 Used In Dynamic Applications - Although SA 36 and SA-307 material )

similar, it must be recognized that neither the ASME nor the AISC cod prohibit the use of SA 36 material under dynamic loading. However, since s identified in the SWEC procedures are dynamic, a separate Third Party evalu performed to censider high cycle fatigue as required by ASME Section III. His is not a concem, will not be reached.evaluadon confinned that the lo i SA 307 Material Used In Dynamically Loaded Friction Connections - To im e the resolution, SWEC has undertaken a progrwn to review all applicable Certified l Materials Test Reports,Imad Capacity Data Sheets, and Certified Design Re ensure that SA 307 materialis not used. De pmcedures also require that any SA 3 threaded rod identified on the pipe support drawing be replaced. Regulatory Guide 1,124 Limitations - ne requirements of Regulatory Guide 1 apply specifically to ASME Class I bolting. However, the intent of the Regu Guide has been met through the adoption of a later code paragraph which lim stresses to the material yield strength at temperature under all service loads. Use of Low Strength Nuts With High Strength Bolting - A separate Third evaluadon was performed verifying that the reduced allowables for conne low sutngth nuts with high strength bolts is acceptable. CONCLUSION ne approach adopted by SWEC adequately addresses the issues. Tic issue is close 3.2.3.23 Valve And Flange Qualifications And Valve Modeling ISSUEDESCRIPil0N i ne issue of qualification of valves and flanges ard the correct modeling o analysis raised three areas of concem:

1) De main steam relief valve operator supports (snubbers) are not qualified f loads, and the adequacy of the valve has not been demonstrated for a the operatorsupports.

2) Valves with fundamental frequencies less than 33 Hz which have operator sei testraints should have accurate modeling of the yoke stiffness to ensure that the v m

responseis correcdypredicted.

3) he validity of a sampling process to assure the acceptability of valve accelera flange loads has not been demonstrated.

De valve and flange qualifications and valve modeling issue is evaluated in E Evaluation DAP-E-P-025 which provides a more detailed discussion of the iss V TN 67-7256 3-43 DAP RR-P 001, REV.1

m discussed in Magiaaaring Eva'uation DAP E P-014, Seis SWEC RE90t.UT10NMETH000t.0GY SWEC procedwes require as-built data (e.g., suppon locations) to be incorporate by TUGCO.1 hen all valve accelerations, valve end lo } requirements are transmined to TUGCO for ultimate M pance and con 5rmation. Valves with fundamental frequencies less than 33 Hz are modeled using a cantdev equation to determine an equivalent moment ofinertia based on the valve's Amdament frequency. Valve operator supports are treated the same as any pipe support u include suppon disectens function, stifthess, and mass. The SWEC procedures require au valves be quallSed for applicable acceleration a limits. All bolted flangejoints are required to be qualined for moment loadings, wh ASME quali5 cation of the bolts. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION 1he SWEC pmcedures provide methods and requirements for modeling and qualii valves, Sanges, and associated sugerts. No specinc reference is made to vj motor operators; however, this case is addressed by the general cliteria in the procedwei of a sampling process is no longer a concern.Because SWEC's scoj CCNCLUSKWS O The SWEC approach to the qualincation of valves and flanges is acceptable. and suppon maMing techniques provide adequate methods of addressing thj this issueis closed. i 3.2.3.24 ' Piping Model ISSUEDESCRIPTION This issue comprises several concerns relating to the accuracy and input oi models. These concems are: I supponlocation tolerances. correct identi5 cation and input of Ssress Intenry! cation fattors (SIFs), inclusion of valve and Carige insulatiorvfluid mass, and e

• location of snubbers a(acent to rigid attachment points.

detailed discussion of thisissue.The piping model issue was evaluated in E SWEC RES0t.UTIONMETH000t.0GY SWEC addresned each of these concems in the project procedures: O-TN 87 7266 3-44 DAP-RR P-001, REV.1

m 4 f s: 3 i i l l> e ' As-built infonnadon is to be the basis for all_CPSES piping analysis, with diffe p: ' be econciled within the calculations. 1 -

• Piping SFs for the most common comporunts and transitions are Wu".cally ide in the project pmcedures. 'the specification of SEs is noted to be of special co is included as an analysis checklist item.
• Pmcedums contain a general mquirement to include mass effects of piping content insulationin the analysismodel.
• Pmeedures recommend removal of snubbers near equipment connections. Also incI are requirements to evaluate snubber activation for those in close proximity to ancho and equipment connections.

THIROPAR7 DEVALUATION j SWEC's method for identifying and documenting reconciliation of deviations in s locations is ev=hle and verifiable. Identification of concem regarding SFs in general, inclusion of SFs as an analysis i and specific identification of SFs for the more common piping components are sufficienj address this'mncem. - SWEC's general icqhuent to include mass of coments and insulation is sufficient to' 1 this concem. SWEC pmcedures adequately address the concem regarding snubber activa s wnnecisons. CONCLUSION SWEC procedures are sufficiently detailed to ensure that these piping desigrdnp evaluated. 'the piping model issue is closed. i 3.2.3.25 Welding. a ~ ISSUEDESCRIPTION Concems have been raised regarding the adequacy of a) engineering methods wI for sizing of welds and/or checking of weld spesses, b) violation of applicable and c) fabrication practices. Specific aspects of these concems are as follows:

• Unspnmetrical Welds - For three-sided welds, the eccentricity beia,, the center of gravity of the member and the weld was not considered in the weld design, ah could increase weld stresses with a consequent effect on the weld size.

= Cover Plate Welds. The weld design methods were inadequate for evaluating j stresses of welds anehing cover plates to primary members to form composite sectioj A related concem involves the failure to consider local loading effects of comp bracket attachments.

• Undersized Fillet Welds - Some welds did not meet the minimum size requirem specified inthe Code of Record.

O TN-87-7256 3 45 f DAP-RR P-001, REV.1 y

f

• Combination Bolted and Weid' ed Connections - Connecdons whic bolting and welds did not meet the Code criteria requiring welds to be design the entire shearform.'
• - Skewed "T" Joint Welds 'Ihe design of skewed "T" joints in accordance with ' he.

ASME Code did not adequately consider reduction factors for determining the effectiv t

thmat and angularity limits as prescribed by American Welding Soclery (AWS) Code - DI I. t Fabrication Practices ~- Concems were raised relating to inadequate welding practic including weave welding, downhill welding, preheat requirements, lap joint requirements, cap welding, and weld cracking. This issue is discussed in detail in Fnoimering Evaluation D' AP-E-P 027. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 'Ihe SWEC resolution methodology for each of the design issues is as follows: .

• 1 Unsymmetrical Welds - SWEC procedums require that any eccentricity bd.;s the center of gravity of a member and the associated weld be evaluated when detemnin total weld loading. Altematively, for symmetric weld pattems with different weld sizes eccentricity need not be considered if the weld evaluation uses the smallest effeedve throat.

Cover Plate Welds - SWEC procedures require that coverplate welds be qualified fo shear flow.- O Undersized Fillet Welds - SWEC has adopted ASME code Case N-413 which exclu e the minimum fillet orpartial penetration weld size requirements.

• Combination Bolt and Weld Connections - SWEC procedures require that, on base plates using bolt and weld combinations, the weld be designed to carry the entire shea load on the face of the plate.
• Skewed "T" Joint Welds - SWEC procedures identify specific requirements for the design of skewed "r" joints.
• Fabrication Practices - Concems regarding the fabrication practices have not been addressed by SWEC in design procedures. These concems are discussed under the "AWS vs. ASMEIssue Summary."

THIRD PAR 1 DEVALUATION The Third Party evaluation results are summarized as follows:

• Un.y._kical Welds - SWEC procedures for evaluating unsymmetrical welds are acceptable because proper weld stresses will be calculated when the eccentricity is considered, and conservative results will be obtained when using the smallest effective weld throat for pattems made up of different weld sizes.
• Cover Plate Welds - SWEC procedures identify specific instructions for calcula maximum weld stress. Although the procedures require that cover plate anehment welds be qualified for shear flow, no specific guidelines orinstructions are provided O

performing this evaluation. Normally, pipe support design practices do not involve the! TN 87 7256 3 46 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

I 1 ,../ 9 \\. use of composite members; therefore, the absence of specific guidelines is not .q signiacant. ' ,O ' r 1) Undersized Mllet Welds - Code Case N-413 (which has been incorpora.. tedintolater Code revisions) recognizes the diffen:nces in ASME and 'AISC weld joint quali 'the ASME requirement to qualify all constructionjoints otwistes the need d minimum weld sizes in the Code. 'Ihis Code Case has been endorsed by the NR Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 24.- (Reference 7.28). l ' * Combination Bolt and Weld Connections 'Ihe SWEC requirements for eva combination bolted and welded connections are consistent with ASME Section III, Appendix XVII. Paragraph XVII 2442 (Rc'erence 7.7) and are acceptableJ Skewed "T" Joint Welds-SWEC procedures W*1y address the design of skewed e T"jo' ts, including specific requirements for determining effective throats of welds a m ' applying reduction factors to welds based on the angularity between members. 'Ihes . requirements are consistent with AWS DI.I. CONCLUSDN i-Where necessary SWEC has established specific requirements which adequately welding design issues. 'Ihis issue is closed. 3.2.3.26 Anchor Bolts ISSUEDESCRIPTION ) Concems idersified reganhng the design of anchor bolts at CPSES are the fbilow Friction vs. Bearing Connections - Whether base plates fastened with Hilti anchors should be designed as friction or bearing connections. If the connecuons beanng connections, there is a question regarding unequal shear load distribu anchces and the effect on support stiffness caused by oversized bolt holes (Se 3.2 4), Anchor Bolt Imcation Tolerances - Construction tolerances for anc e attachment steel installation were not considered in the original design.. Neg tolerances may result in unconservatively predicted stresses. J 1 Anchorage Embedment 'Ihe embedment lengths on some support sketches do n e match those used in the respective calculations. This issue is discussed in detail in Engmeering Evaluadon DAP-E-P-028. SWECRESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY 'Ihe SWEC methodology for addressing the items above is as follows:

• Friction vs. Bearing Connections - SWECprocedures require that only beanng connections be used in pipe support design.' SWEC has adopted Subsection NF Summer 1985 addenda (Reference 7.23) which defines the allow such beanng connections.
• Anchor Bolt Location Tolerances - In addition to specifying minimum edge distan for holes in base plates, SWEC provides a procedure for verifying the accepta TN47 7256 -

3 47 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1

9 Q l t BOLT HOLE ANCHOR BOLT BOLT (4) ." ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 .w::. f E: !0;.;l._ 'O l@ l l I h ~ g l wI LW.'. .h E-G) sTRuc - / Q Q ATTACHMENT l / \\ BASERATE I 1 FIGURE 3.2-4 ANCHOR BOLT GAPS TN-87-7256 3-48 DAP RR-P 001, REV.1

a + l L , e built plates that were designed without consideration of possible bolt and attachment location tolerances. .

• Anchorage Embedment - SWEC pmcedures provide specific requirements for the -

design of anchor bolts including establishing minimum embedments. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The 'Ihird Party evaluation results are summarized as follows: 1 ) e Friction vs. Bearing Connections 'Ihe concem related to the connection of base plate} to the concrete surface has been evaluated using the requirements of subsection NF of the. ' ASME Code based on NRC staff w*p9e* of the adoption of subsection NF-4721,. Summer 1985 addenda. SWEC procedures and design requirements comply with ' subsection NF, and are therefore acceptable. Such connecdons are used witicut. exception in all commercial nuclear facilities in the United States. The CPSES Hilti installation procedure requires preloads which conespond to a level which was shown by test to have no effect on local-displacement behavior and thus no effect on anchorstiffness.

• Anchor Bolt Location Tolerances - SWEC procedures define specific calculation requirements which conservatively consider all possible design combinations of -

'I attachment and bolt location changes. *lhe design combinations ' provide for conver the specific member shape into an equivalent square member.

• Anchorage Embedment - SWEC procedures provide adequate requirements for detennining the embedment depths on anchors. 'these requirements include reduction O

embedment length for concrete toppmg, as well as specific methods for calculatir g embedments when the depth is not indicated on the drawing. In such cases the sp bolt length is used as input to the calculation which will then conservatively determin l minimum embedment. CONCLUSDN The SWEC methodology is consistent with ASME and AISC Codes and provides ad consideration of the issue. This issue is closed with respect to extemal source concems. Anchor bolts are also the subject of the self-initiated review documemed in DAP-E-C/S-51 ' (Reference 7.24) and $15 (Rqference 7.17). 3.2.3.27 Strut Angularity ISSUE DESCRIPTION Standard component supports, such as snubbers and struts, may transmit an addi load component resulting imm relative pipe displacement (s). A " kick" load occurs whe component oriemation is other than normal _(at 90' to) or parallel with the pipe axis. Ang swing results from relative pipe movements (caused by thermal, seismic and/or flu or relocation permitted by installation tolerances. 'Ihe issue is whether or not the " kick" load component associated with the angul tolerance must be considered in the support design. The strut angularity issue is evaluat '( Engineering Evaluation DAP E P-029 which provides a detailed discussion of the issue . TN 87 7256 3-49 DAP RR P 001, REV.1 L

t. SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY

SWEC addressed this issue by establishing the following requirements:

. *. Struts and snubbers installed with swing angle exceeding 12* tolerance will be q documented in the as built program.

• Angular swing of stmts and snubbers from relative movements caused by thermal, seismic, and/or fluid transients combined with the as-built installation angle will be -

assessed.'

• The load component associated with swing angle will be considered for all supp designs.

~

• Angular swings exceedmg 1 ' will be additionally evaluated to ensure proper functio 5

and load rating of support mmponents.

• Support Design Checidists include an evaluation for the swing angle effects ofload -

components. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION ' 1he approach taken by SWEC addresses both the concem regarding consideration oflo and load rating is evaluated.1he approach is therefore accepta ~ l CONCLUSION j { 1 SWEC has established aM*:vaa guidelines to address the design consideration ~ J strut and snubber angularity variations. This issue is closed. 3.2.3.28 Structural Modeling For Frame Analysis ISSUE DESCRIPTION 1he cornputer modeling of pipe support frames by TUGCO engineers and =9-contractors at CPSES did not reflect actual conditions under the following ciremem

• Torsion Evaluation -To evaluate the wide flange member torsional' stresses using an extremely high value for the torsional resista actual member torsional properties, resulted in conservative estimates of flange t in the wide flange members at locations of torsional load 1
• Member End Restraints / Boundary Condition Modeling for Richmond Inserts -

Three different approaches were used to model member end restraints at Richmo Insens connections.'. H 1) Release all rotational degrees of freedom (DOF) at member end. - 2) Release rotational DOF along axis of member and along axis of the Richmo' nd . Insert, and restrain rotational DOF normal to the member and the Richmond I

3) Restrain all mtational DOF at member end.

O TN-87 7256 3-50 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 1 p.j a

..] a

• Pipe Support Boundary Conditions CASE identified several suppons that had evaluated asuming questionable boundary _ conditions. Analyses used engineerin experience / practice in defining support boundary conditions.'

"Ihis issue is evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E P-031 which provides a detailed i - discussion of the issue. i SWECRESOLUDONMETHODOLOGY, SWEC addressed this issue with the following methodology: -i

• Torsion Evaluation The SWEC approach to modeling'and evaluatmg structural members in pipe supports is based on using values for torsional resistance determined from dimensions provided in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. Equations are -

provided in the design procedure for evaluating wide flange members and local effects due to torsional loading. A sdffhess criterion is used in lieu of deflections; therefore, actual torsional resistance values are required to be used in the support stiffness determination. Member End Restraints / Boundary Condition Modeling for Richmond Inserts - ~ SWEC procedures identify specific modehng requirements for Richmond Insert-Tube ' steel connections. These requiremerns are discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 where it is - l concluded that the SWEC approach is adequate. l Pipe Support Boundary Conditions - SWEC requires the individual support desi = to establish the boundary conditions appropriate for the model used. 1HIRD PARTYEVALUADON i fk The 'Ihird Party evaluation results are summarized as follows: i-! Torsion Evaluation 'Ihe SWEC procedure provides a conservadve approach to e evaluating member stresses induced by torsion. Torsional shear, warpeg shear, an warping normal stresses are all conservatively evaluated by assuming each stress is - produced by the full torsional moment. These stesses are also conservadvely co with other stresses by assuming that all maximums occur at the same point in the w flange cross section. By using AISC torsional resistance values for wide flange in structural models, pipe support stiffhesses will be caladamt appropriately. Member End Restraints / Boundary Condition Modeling '!he SWEC approach toj e modeling the Richmond Insert / rube steel connection includes die threaded rod in the-{ structural model and uses realistic section properties for the rod. Any offset between t centerlines of the rod and tube steel is modeled as a fictitious member. 'this mo approach acceptably addresses the flexibility of connections to unmodeled structures I accordance with the requirements of ASME Section III, Paragraph XVII 2420, i "Connecdon Design".

• Support Boundary Conditions - Modeling assumptions for boundaty conditions at connections of structural elements in a support are typically made by the support designer. It is not appropriate to attempt to describe typical boundary conditions fo multitude of conditions encountered. 'Ihe adequacy of the modeling is depend the use of sufficiently experienced designers and checkers. 'Ihis is common pra such design efforts and SWEC's dependence on their designers' judgments is an acceptable practice.

l TN 87 7256 i 3-51 . DAP-RR P-001, REV.1 h a

,q l .l CONCLUSION: l 5 SWEC has established an adequate approach to structural modeling through: 1 e use of representative section properties of wide flanges for structural analysis of pi supports..

• conservative calculation of membeitorsional stress and conservative combina them in evaluating member stresses in accordance with code requirements, and 1

ti

• accurate specification of boundary conditions for modeling of Richmond Insert / tube steel '

connections.' The issue is closed.- 3.2.3.29 Computer Program Verification And Use ISSUE DESCRIPTION i Concems were mised regarding the existence of adequate program verification (qua assurance) and use of the appropriate program versions for the following computer progra i'{

• ADLPIPE Version 2c (Date: 4/77)(a piping analysis program)

~ )

• FUB-II (an ITT-Grinnell base plate qualification program) -
• Comer and Lada Base Plate Qualification Program The computer program verification and use issue was evaluated in End==ing Evaluation DAP-E-P-032 which provides a more detailed discussion of the issue.

SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY.' SWEC addrer. sed the comput:r program verification issue in the following ways:

• All computer prograra verification is documented for the identified programs and t venfication documentation addresses all project applications.- Also, these pmgm qualified for the purpose for which they are to be naed. '

' s "* *

• All computer programs and applicable program versions used forPaping/ Sup) are appropriately identified in the project procedures and/or the PSAR.

THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The computer programs about which specific concems were raised are not being uti SWEC requalification effott. However, the original acceptance criteria still apply to programs. SWEC's use of computer programs is verified in accordance with SWE program requirements with regard to verification, technical adequacy, and use of appr version. The methods used to control computerprogram use are acceptable. CONCLUSION .t SWEC's approach to addressing the issues related to computerprogram verification i acceptable..'Ihis issue is closed. i 'I O 1 ,1 TN 87-7256 ' 3-52 . DAP-RR-P 001, REV.1 - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. - - - - - " ' - ' ~ - - ~ - - - - N

3.2.3.30 Hydrotest ISSUEDESCRIPTION designs were not adequately considered. Specifica . Damage observed during or subsequent to a hydrotest of the compone was attributed to hydrotesting. . De Cygna review indicated a lack of consideration for hydrotest condit analysis and support design calculations. He hydrotest issue was evaluated in Engineering Evaluation DAP-E P-034 more detailed discussion of the issue. SWEC RESOLUDONMETHODOLOGY 1 hydrotest conditions in accordance with the Code o Casses 2 and 3 hydrostatic test pressure, which was taken as 1.25 times instead of 1.5. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION SWEC's method of evaluating Casses 2 and 3 piping systems forhydros accordance with the ASME Code. ASME Gasses 2 and 3 piping were teste 1.25 times the system design pressure. Casses 5 and 6 piping are te is in accordance with a later Code version, which code update is acceptable based on the Project meeting requirements of A ? His criterion was confirmed by the Third Party in the Engineering Evaluat CONCLUSION conditions forpiping and support evaluations. The hyd 3.2.3.31 Seismic /Non-SeismicInterface ISSUEDESCRIPTION the adequacy and implementation of seismic /non-s issue was transferred to DSAP IX. Specific concems were the following: eria. De Category I buildings without seismic isolation. Safety related p

• Postulated Turbine Building failure, due to an earthquake, was not which is a non-seismic Category I building.related piping rou O

TN 87-7256 3 53 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 j

i ~' i

• 1he seismic effects of non safety related piping attached to safety related p O

' have been adequately considered in the associated piping and anchor supp j The seismic /non-seismic interface issue was evaluated in Engineering Evaluationl which contains a detailed discussion of the issue. -i SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC procedures address ASME piping as described in Section 2.0 of this repo and methods for assuring seismic isolation and designing against postulated failure as well as the interface between seismic and non-seismic piping are also are three basic methods described for the design of seismic piping at non seismic in - methods assume a collapse of this non-seismic pipe: one method assumes a col the seismic interface anchor whereas the other assumes a collapse at a point separ seismic interface anchor by seismically designed non-seismic Category I piping .j ' The third method requires that all attached non-seismic Category I piping be 3 and supported to the next anchor. { { THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The three methods described by SWEC provide a reasonable basis for design of se seismic interfaas where interface anchors are present.1he first two methods can be u address Turbine Buildmg fai'.ure. Although SWEC procedures do not specifically ad for seismic piping interfaces. This method is acceptabl interfaces where non-seismic piping is seismically analyzed. CONCLUSION ) h The seismic /non-seismic interface issue is closed.The methods de 3.2.3.32 Programmatic Aspects And QA 1 l ISSUE DESCRIPTION documents. The extemal source programmatic concern Interfaces - A significant number of the technical concems that were raised a{ result from inadequate interface control between the numerous organizationa Iterative Design - Identification and correction of design errors should not until the end of the iterative design process Quality Assurance - Calculations did not follow industry orproject guidelines for Quality Assurance, Timeliness - Generic concems which affect numerous designs were not evalu e timely manner, leading to widespread design deficiencies of similar types

• Field Changes Field changes were made without obtammg proper app unconventional designs being evaluated for adequacy "after the fact."

O TN-87 7256 3-54 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1

• Personnel - Qualifications of personnel approving desigtvmodifications w due to insu#icient procedures defining qualifications required to perform at various levels of responsibility.
• Procedures - Procedures and instructions at CPSES were changed frequently inadequately controlled and often not in place resulting in a chaotic situation in wh procedures were often violated, relying on the final review to identify design criteria changes.

Construction Procedures and documents controlling installation / construction we inadequate and/or not kept up-to-date.

• Calculation Errors - Numerous random calculation errors were identified wh implyprogrammatic deficiencies.
• Miscellaneous - Various other concerns were raised reganhng the updating of crite and the adequacy of various practices used in design / qualification activities. '

SWEC RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY SWEC's approach to resolving the various programmatic issues is through procedur document responsibilities, interface control requirements and quality assurance pro plan is outlined in project procedure CPPP 1, the Management Plan for Project Q (Reference 7.26), which addresses each of the eighteen criteria of 10CFR50, Appe plan is implemented through issuance of Project Procedures, Engineering Assuran and Quality Standards. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The Bird Party evaluation is summarized as follows:

• Interfaces - The Pmject Procedures controlling interfaces and derming respon

^ provide detailed descriptions of responsibilities and specific definition ofinterface information to be transmitted between various design organizations within the project. %e controls delineated in SWEC procedures are acceptable since requirements at all applicable interfaces. The significant reduction of the number o extemal interfaces also enhances the implementation of these procedures.

• Iterative Design - De SWEC Procedure Controls provide an acceptable basis for iterative design pmcess since all stages from design to as-built are tracke design deficiencies and open items, his will assure that design changes and err closed, and that any preliminy information that was used is confirmed.
• Quality Assurance - The SWEC Management Plan for Project Quality establishe program to assure project quality consistent with industry guidelines. Implementation the plan is an acceptable basis for closure of this issue.
• Timeliness - SWEC procedure CPPP 13 (Reference 7.27) provides adequate that changes due to design iterations or disposition of non-conformances will be addressed and/or incorporated within a reasonable time frame by providin i

mechanism on forms used to document such changes. Implementation of the .i Management Plan for Project Quality will assure that concems reganiing l generic implications are appropriately addressed. O TN-87 7256 3-55 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1

a a ,~ ,? -i V l

• Field Changes - Requirements contained in SWEC Project Procedures 'are a ensure that new designs, modifications, or reconciliations with as-built condidons are documented and approved by a qualified responsible engmeer/ designer.,
• . Personnel - SWEC procedures for project personnel training and indoarmatio

' the means to ensure that the design is performed to acceptable standanis by q people - e' h,,st ires - SWEC has published guidelines for issue and control of procedures adherence to these guidelines will ensure that proper procedures are in place for th design ofsafety related items.

• Construction -Initial walkdowns performed to Prhject Procedures to ver of analysis input data to identify additional technical issues combined with a Anal reconciliation walkdowrvanalysis review will ensure that the as-built condition o

~ and supportsispropedyevaluated.

• Calculation Errors - The detailed Project Procedures for documentation, review,'

contml of calculations provide a means to identify random types of errors. 'the revie the implementmion of these procedures during the TU Electric QA Technical Au) proyule additional assurance that random enors will be minimized. - -{

• MisceDaneous - Standard SWEC procedures are adequate to ensure that criteri design practices used for qualification of(PSES piping and supports address these mieceitaneous concems.

i CONCLUSION \\ O The SWEC procedures establish adequate methods and controls to climinate't programmatic mncerns raised over the initial design effort. A review of the implemern Engmeering Functional Evaluation will provide adde ( 1 r reoccur. This issue is closed. 3 3.2.3.33 Other DIRs O In addition to the DIRs addressed by the thirty two Primary Issue j to g ~ ' as na hm o this Detaned reso uti each respective DIR. Each of the fifty one DIRs is resolved and closed. nted on - 1 s O -TN-87 7256 3-56

DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 y

l 'l i 4.0 SELF-INITIATED REVIEW All of the Third Pany review acdvities required by DSAP IX are extemal source . corrective action overviews. There are no self-initiated reviews. I j ) l I l l O i 1 4 i i TN 87 7256 41 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1'.- i

5.0 CORRECTIVE' ACTION b The SWEC resolution methodology and Third Party evaluation for external source issu discussed in Section 3.0 of this report. The implementation of that methodology work defined in Attachment 2 of DSAP IX is the corrective action for the piping and discipline. The Third Party evaluated this methodology in conjunction with the resolut Extemal Source issues and determined that the methodology resolves external source is meets applicable criteria and commitments,l Among the purposes of the conective action overview described in Appendix H of the CPRT Program Plan was the evaluation of the ) implementation of procedures. In accordance with direction fmm the Senior Review T Pany activities under Appendix H have been modified (Reference 7.1). Documentation of completed Third Party Corrective Action overview is being transmined to Texas U Assurance, including recommendations for further consideration under their Technical Au Program. O 1 i TN-87 7256 5-1 D AP-RR-P-001, REV,1 -

h

6.0 CONCLUSION

S a '() This repon presents the results of a Third Pany review of the adequacy of cenain larEe bore piping and pipe suppons as related to issues raised in extemal source documents. The 'Ihird i Pany categorized these issues into thiny-two issue categories which formed the basis for the J . scope of the review. Resolution methodology for all these issues is provided in the SWEC Generic issue Repon and the SWEC procedures. The evaluation of adequacy comprised an 4 evaluation based on the CPSES FSAR and licensing commitments of the SWEC resolution methodology. The Third Pany has concluded that the SWEC large bore pipe stress reanalysis and pipe suppon requalification program is compreher.sive and capable of resolving known technical issues. Proper implementation will ensure that the CPSES large bore piping and suppons will meet the FSAR and licensing commitments. Where criteria changes are proposed by the Project final verification of compliance is subject to review of NRC approved amendments. The overview of the implementation of the program by the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program provides assurance that the technical issues will be resolved. .I l 1 m V i 1 .q l i f k TN-87-7256 6-1 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 Comanche Peak Response Team Pmgram Plan, Rev. 4, June 18,1987. 7.2 Memorandum from John W. Beck (01ainnan, SRT) to Howard A. Levin, DA DAP Piping and Piping Supports Results Report, August 12,1987. 7.3 Report on SWEC's Evaluation and Resolution of Generic Issues, Rev.1. Ap 7.4 Letter fmm Vincent Noonan (NRC) to William Counsil (TUGCO) re: Pmposed Change - Piping / Pipe Supports, November 4,1986. 7.5 ISAP V.c, " Design Consideration for Piping Systems Between Seismic Ca Ncn-Seismic Category I Buildings," Rev. 2, January 24,1986. 7.6 Summer 1974 Addenda, Subsection NC and ND (as Reference 7.8). 7.7 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I,1974 Ed Winter 1974 Addenda, Subsection NF. 7.8 CPPP-7, " Design Criteria for Pip: Stress and Pipe Supports," Rev. 2, April 25 7.9 CPPP-6, " Pipe Stress /Suppon Requalification Pmeedure Unit No.1," Rev 28,1986. 7.10 CPPP-9, " Pipe Stress / Support As-Built Procedure - Unit No. 2," Rev. 1986. 7.11 DAP-10, Development and Use of DAP Pmcedures and Discipline Instructio March 31,1987. 7.12 DAP-2, " Documentation and Trackmg of Issues and Discrepancies," Rev May 19,1987. 7.13 Design Criteria List DAP-CR-P-001, Rev. 2, May 8,1987, 7.14 R.L. Cloud and Associates Report RLCA/P142/01 86A)08, " Richmond Inse Tube Steel Connection Design Interaction Equation for Bolt / Threaded Rods, September 10,1986, including Errata dated September 11,1986 (1 page). 7.15 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349-85. 7.16 ISAP II.b Results Report " Concrete Compressive Strength," Rev.1, 7.17 Third Party Issue Resolution Report (IRR) DAP-E-C/S-515, Rev. O, O 7.18 R.L. Cloud and Associates Report RCLA/P142/01 86/009, " Richmon Tube Steel Connection Effect of Thermal Expansion of Tube Steel on Ri i and Bolts," Rev. O. April 6,1987. O TN 87 7256 71 DAP.RR P-001, REV.1

l 7.19 K.R. Wichman et al. " Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells'due Loadings.* Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, August 1965. I', V) 7.20 SWEC Calculation 15454 NP(C)- GENX 117," Verification of Generic Stiff in the' Analysis of Piping System," Rev.1, May 26,1987. l' . 7.21 L CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Wa before the ASLB dated August 22,1983. a ) 7.22 Letter from Vincent Noonan (NRC) to W.G. Cotncil (TUGCO), March 13,1986. 7.23 ' ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I,1983 E Summer 1985 Addenda, Subsection NF, Paragraph 4721. ( 7.24 Third Pany Issue Resolution Repon (IRR) DAP-E-C/S-514, Rev.1, March 20, I 7.25 CPPP-35," Piping and Pipe Suppon Qualification Procedure for Secondary W i Displacement," Rev. O, June 8,1987. ~ 7.26 CPPP.1, " Management Plan for Project Quality," Rev. 7. March 25,1987. i 7.27 CPPP-13 " Site Construction Support Activities Procedures," Rev.1, Decemb 7.28 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, " Design and Fabrication Code Case A Section III Division 1" Revision 24, June 1986. 7.29 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Final Safety Analysis Repon with a

O

'I i l i 4 l l TN-87-7256 72 DAP-RR P-001, REV.1 L-_-_----------

c-1 O l ATTACHMENT A EXTERNAL SOdRCE DOCUMENTS 4 l \\ i O i I 1 O TN-87 7256 A1 DAP-RR P 001, REV,1 1

[ 1 l 4 ATTACHMEIR A EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS i Source l Document. Date -.., j Dw.nen,t Title ', ASLB-1 09/01/83 BOARDMEMORANDUM ANDORDER MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND TO STRIKE ~ ASLB 2 12/28/83 ' BOARD ORDER'AND MEMORANDUM LBP 83 81: (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN). - ASLB 3 02/08/84 MEMORANDUM AND BOARD ORDER LBP 84-10: (RECONSIDERATION CONGRNING QUALITY 4 H ASSURANCE POR DESIGN) d ASLB 4 ' 06/29/84 ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-84-25 (WRTITEN PILING DECISIONS,#1: SOME AWS/ASMEISSUES) ' ASLB 12/18/84 BOARD MEMORANDUM CONCERNING WELDING ' 1SSUES ASLB 6 12/18/84 BOARD MEMORANDUM-REOPENING DISCOVERY: MISLEADING STATEMENT ASLB 7 07/29/82 "ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRDT .I ASLB-8 07/30/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRDT ASLB-9 09/13/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 10 09/13/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT l ASLB 11 09/14/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-12 09/15/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-13 09/16/82 ASLB PROGEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-14 04/25/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-15 05/16/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-16 05/17/83-ASLB PRO EDINGS TRANSCRIPT l ASLB-17 05/17/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-18 05/18/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB19 05/19/83 ASLB PROGEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-20 05/20/83 ASLB PRO EDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 21 06/13/83 ASLB PRO EDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-22 06/14/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 23 06/15/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ) ASLB-24 06/16/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-25 10/17/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-26 10/18/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT LO i ' TN-87 7256 A :.DAP RR P-001, REV.1

y

Q

-~ ? rj 4 - ATTACHMENT A-Continued Dee Dw.; Tide : u ASLB 27l 02/20/84 . ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT R ASLB-28

02/21/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT i

ASLB 29 '02/23/84 . ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIFT t ASLB-30 ' 03/19/84 - . ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 31 ~ 03/20/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT I ~ ASLB 32 ' 03/21/84 .ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT I j 'ASLB-33 03/22/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT 3 ' ASLB-34 ' 03/23/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIPT ASLB-351 03/30/84 . 'ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 36 '04/18/84: ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-371 04/24/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB 38 04/25/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT a ASLB 39 - 04/26/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIFT ASLB-40 04/27/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRI7T j ' ASLB-41 05/01/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIPT 1 ASLB 42 05/02/84 ' ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT / . ASLB 43 05/03/84 ASLB PROGEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 44 02/22/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIPT ASLB-45 10/31/85 .' ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-85-14 '(PROCEDURAL RULING BOARD CONCERN ABOUT QA POR DESIGN). ASLB-46 02/28/84 TELEPHCNE CONPERENCE-10 DISCUSS SCHEDULING MATTERS RELATED TO MARCH 12 THROUGH MARCH 16 HEARINGS - .i CASE-1 07/29/82 . CASE EXHIBIT 659 - WALSH TESTIMONY (EXH 659A-H) CASE-2 08/19/82 CASE EXHIBTT 669 - DOYLE ORAL DEPOSmON - (VOLUME I), EXHIBIT 669A - (VOLUME II), AND EXHIBIT 669B -(DEPOSmON EXHIBITS) CASE-3

09/13/82 CASE EXHIBIT 683 - DOYLE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY CASE-4 07/28/83 OBIECTION TO BOARD'S PINDINGS AND CASE'S ;

i ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' 07/15/83

SUMMARY

OF THE RECORD REGARDING WEAVE AND . DOWNHILL WELDING ) CASE 5. 08/22/83 CASE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND O ' CONCLUSIONS OFLAW TN 87 7256L A-3. DAP RR-P 001, REV.1'- i

y n -!l -l I ~ ATTACHMENT A-Continued - f Source - .i j ( Document Date Document Title q 1 CASE 6! 09/03/83 CASE'S MOTIONREGARDING 09/07/83 .j CONFERENCE CALL CASE 7 - 11/10/83 CASE'S RESPONSE TO (1) APPLICANTS'.BRIEF ' 1 REGARDING BOARDINQUIRYINTO ' APPLICABILITY OF AWS AND CODES TO WELDING ON PIPE SUPPORTS AT CPSES: (2) NRC RESPONSETO BOARD QUESTION ON CPSES - WELDING CODE - CASE 8 11/23/83 ' CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ' (AFPIDAVITS ON OPEN ITEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) CASE 9 ' 08/06/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS MCrTION FOR :

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES IN THE i DESIGN OFPIPE SUPPORTS WTTH SMALL i THERMALMOVEMENTS CASE-10 08/06/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR j

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE : ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME l O CODE PROVISIONS RELATED 1V DESIGN ISSUES l CASE-11 08/06/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADEIN DETERMINING DAMPING FACTORS POR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS CASE-12 08/13/84 . CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANT 3' MCmON FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SECTION PROPERTY jl VALUES CASE-13 08/20/84 CASE'S ANSWER TV APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR ' .I

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING U-BOLTS ACTING AS TWO-WAY RESTRAINTS CASE-14 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING THE ' UPPER LATERAL RESTRADR BEAM CASE-15 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS', STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OF FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN AXIAL RESTRAINTS ' l i iTN-87 7256~ A-4 DAP-RR P-001, REV 1 1

i ATTACHMENT A-Continued Sowce Document Deze .Q Dw.we Title CASE-16 '08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHICH i THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING l APPLICANTS' USE OF GENERIC STIFFNESSES INSTEAD OF ACTUALIN PIPING ANALYSIS CASE 17 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' l STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FR AMED, WALL-TO-WALL AND FLOOR-TO-I CEILING SUPPORTS i CASE-18 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL PACTS AS TO WHICH { ] THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS - CASE-19 08/29/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICA!GS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACIS ' S TO WHICH THERE IS NO A GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES d CASE-20 ' 09/10/84 ~ (9 . CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT \\._ / - OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO RICHMOND INSERTS AS TO WHICH THERE ARE NO MATERIAL ISSUES CASE 21 10/01/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING - CONSIDERATION OFFRICTION FORCES CASE-22 10/08/S4 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR'

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING DOWN OF. U BOLTS CASE-23 10 @ 9/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES CASE-24 10/13/84 . ATTACHMENTS'!V CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF - CINCHING DOWN OF U BOLTS - 1 I TN-87 7256 A5 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

s , - ).- gG I ATTACHMENT A --Continued: f. n.- a , SouK4 ' Documefit ' Dam " J, Document tpk j ? Q) s CASE-25 10/15/84 DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED.- . BY CASE REGARDING APPLICANTS' MOTIONFOR-

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING STABILITY L Ti OF PIPE SUPPORTS - CASE-26 -10/1844: CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPUCANTS'. i(s fa 7.s

. w-

_x b MOTION POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ~ '. d e ~ - REGARDING APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE f(M.aif ;. [~ [ l PROGRAM POR DESIGN OFPIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR CPSES f y CASE-27 10/18/84 CASE'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO APPLICANTS i ' REGARDING CROSS-OVER LEG RESTR, ADfrS CASE-28 '10/30/84 CASE'S 2ND PARTIAL ANSWER 10 APPLICANIS' STA1EMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH n THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING ' APPLICANTS'. QUALITY ASSURA)D PROGRAM ". POR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS : CASE-29 11/20/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS; REPLY TO. [ CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR _ e

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING THE UPPER '-/ LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM O CASE 30 12/19/84 ' CASE'S 4hH RONND' ANSWER 10 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' >= 4 MOTION POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION 4 REGARDING THE EFFECI3 OFGAPS. M ' j, ' .j) CASE-31 01/17/85 CASE'S FIRST SET OF IN1ERROGATORIES 10 ' APPUCANTS AND REQUESTS TC PRODUCE j. ;; CASE-32 02/04/85 g y ij CASE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO - Vf APPLICANIS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUG RE: J A J CREDIBILITY CASE-33 02/25/85 CASE'S FOURTH SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO - APPLICANTS AND REQUES'IS TO PRODUCE ' CASE-34 02/25/85' CASE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES 10 APPUCANIS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE 35 03/04/85 : CASE'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANIS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE-36 04/26/83 SURREBlTITAL TESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE (CASEEXHIBTT761 AND ATTACHM7NIE) CASE 37 04/28/83 SUPPLEMENTARY SURREB LTITAL TESTIMONY OF. JACK DOYLE(CASE EXHIBIT 762) O '.i TN47 7256 A6 DAP-RR-P M1iREV.19 1 y. s N' l

U j-..g.. g( Q> y y gj -g(f N Ng m m.- r y 4q .,n p p' 3 ~~ c, e ty g:. $ N 3,

j Y

a , p_f(t. e c .5:

• ?

3 A*fTACHMENT A -ConrismW M sowee. M V 3 ';( Doewnem ' Dee. rJgww.ATide i A,r; M}>p,, ., :a g. CASE 38 05/04/83,,. SUPPLEMENTARY SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF H 4 JACKDOYLE(CASEEXHIBIT763 AND f ATTACHMENI?) CASE-39 11/04/83 i CASE RESPCOSETO NRC AFFIDAVITS ON OPEN TS49 RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATI'ONS 4;, CASE 40 11/28/83 . CASE'S ANSWER 1D BOARD's 10/25/83 0;f MEMORANDUh.'(PROCEDURE CONCERNING 1' QUALITY ASSURANCE) $ .,N s CASE-41 02/01/84-CASE'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS FOR d+ RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S MEMORANTATM - .. lAND )ER (QUALITY ASSURANG FOR DESIGN) j, t BYj 7MCANTS AND NRCSTAFF j ' ' CASE-42 08/13/84 CA.jN1( ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENTj '\\ - OFMATERIAf FACTS AS TO WHIOf THERE IS NO Mc OENUINE ISSUE REGARDING THE EPFECTS OF. Y si OAPS ON S1RUCTURAL BEHAVIOR UNDER Y /,J ? SEISMIC LOADING CONDmONS ' CASE 43 05/04/83 SURREBUTTAL 1TSTIMONY OF MARK ANTHONY O =" j> 10A12/84 i ' CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY.TO CASE-44 ~ CASES'S ANSWER 1D APPLICANTS' MOTION s REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADEIN-i DETERMINING DAMPING FACIDRS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDITIONS.' s CASE-45 12/19/85 CASE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANI5' 11/12/85 : "- yV CHANGES TO AFFIDAVITSIN SUPPORT OF - T n APPLICANTS' MOTIONS POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION. - IAP-1 '10/12/84 - COMANCHE PEAK INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT TR-R30904)l, REV,0 1AP-2 11/20/84 COMANCHE PEAK INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT / PROGRAM FINAL REPORT (PHASE 3) TR 84042 01L 4 6 IAP-3 : ' 03/14/85 TUGCO/CPRT MEETING TD DISCUSS FINDINGS i h o, PROM INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM i4 IAP 4 '04A)4/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - PIPE' S STRESS & PIPE SUPPORTS " IAP-5 04/04/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS & CONDUIT SUPPORTS M IAP-6 04/04/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMITTAL-ELECIRICAIJI&C I~ 'i .6- . se .e TN 87 72!)6 \\ A 7-iS ' DAP RR-P 001, REV.1 y i f-t o 7.u i g '. s.

u, y,.- (, jf 1,( y;,. o~ v- >y q mp

x

' ATTACHMENT A'-Continued [.. ' Sowce i i ' Document Date ' Document Title ..~' ia: LAP-7 04M)4/85. ~ REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMITTAL -- MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. IAP-8 '04 S 4/85 ' REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - DESIGN ' H COhTROL~' 1AP-9 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - PIPE. .1 3 STRESS EV.1) & PIPE SUPPORTS (REV.1)~- a IAP 10 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - CABLE - +H TRAY SUPPORTS (REY. 9) & CONDUIT SUPPORTS -

(REV.1)

IAP-11 l04/23/85 i RdVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMTITAL ' L ELECTRICA1/I&C, REVISION 1 2' IAP-12 04/23/85 ' REVIEWISSUES LIST *IRANSMTITAL - MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, REVISION 1 . IAP-13 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL DESIGN CONTROL, REVISION O t IAP-14 06/21/85, REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMrITAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS, REVISION 10 'q IAP-15 06/21/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - DESIGN CONTROL,REVISIOh I' IAP 16 08/13/85 ' REVIEW ISSUES LIST WSdSMITTAL ; CABLE + TRAY SUPPORTS _ (REV.11) & CONDUIT SUPPORTS (REV. 2) L 1AP17 08/13/85 REVIEW ISSUES LISTTRANSMTITAL'- MECHANICALSYSTEMS, REVISION 2 IAP 18 08/13/85 REVIEWISSUES LI!rr1RANSMrrTAL-a ELECTRICAI.4&C, REVISION 2 5 1AP-19 05/15/84 IAP PHASE 4 - SUPPLEMENT 10 APPLICANTS' PLANTO RESPOND TO MEMORANDUM AND M 4-ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN), MARCH 13,1984. IAP-20 10/09/84 CYGNA LTR. 84056.032 - REACTOF, COOLANT THERMAL BARRIER RUPTURE 4-IAP-21 10/22/84 . CYGNA LTR. 84056.035 - REACTOR CGOLANT s PUMPTHERMAL BARRIER RUPTURE-CLARIFICATION 1AP-22 01/18/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.022 - OPEN TrEMS 4 ASSOCIATED WTTH WALSH/I>OYLE AI.I FGATIONS. .t ^ IAP 23. 01/25/85- ' CYGNA LTR. 84056.050 STATUS OFIAP 1. a CONCLUSIONS, ALL PHASES L 4 h TN-87 7256 A8 DAP RR P 001, REV.1 m m

.an I ^ o x'y y X y w w h -)y (jfi y' p t e ',6 y.- ' ATTACHMENT A -Continwd ' somce ' 1 Docummt Date r+3 w;TW ; L 1AP 24 - ' 01/31/85 ~ CYGNA LTR. 84042.025 - PHASE 3.- WALSH/DOYL! ALLEGATIONS (RICHMONDINSERT: i ALLOWABLES AND BENDING STRESSES) IAP 25 ~ 01/31/85-CYGNA LTR. 84056.053 a PHASE 4 OPEN ITEMS lj (PUNCHING SHEAR).{ ,j IAP 02A)B/85 CYGNA L'IR. 84042.021 - PHASE 3 OPEN ITEMS .4 (MASS PARTICIPATION AND MASS POINT - ) SPACING). i IAP-27, 02/12/85 [s, . CYGNA LTR. 84056.041 - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT l ? REVIEW QUESTIONS IAP-28 ' . 02/19/85 c CYGNA LTR. 84042.035 - STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS - l . IAP-29 03/08/85 CYGNA L'!R. 83090.023 - RESPONSE TO NRC.: o QUESTIONS,IAPPHASES 1 AND2 1 IAP 03/12/85-CYGNA 1,TR. 84056.058 - PHASE 4 OPEN ITEMS " (PUNCHING SHEAR)l 1AP-3I 03/25/85 I CYGNA L'IR. 84042.036 - PHASE 3 OPEN TIEMS. 1 (CINCHING OF U-BOLTS)- 1 IAP 32 ' 03/29/85 { CYGNA LTR. 84056.060 - GENERIC ISSUES -

SUMMARY

. IAP-ALL PHASES l IAP-33 '; 11/20/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMTITAL CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV.12). IAP 34 11/20/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMrITAL - CONDUIT SUPPORTS (REV.3) MAC-1 05/17/18 MANAGEMENTQUALTTY ASSURANCE AUDir , NRC-1 02/15/83 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM (SIT) REPORT - (50-445/82-26)(50 446/82-14) AS A RESULT OF ' WALSH/DOYLE CONCERNS l NRC-2 04/11/83 i CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL INSPECTION (CA a .j 50-445/83 18,50-446/83 12. l NRC3 08/29/83 l NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION-j NRC-4 08/30/83. NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN. / THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION 4 NRC-5 ~, i 10/03/83 l REGIONIV CATPOLLOW-UPREPORT NRC-6 n 10/28/83 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION : REGARDING APPLICABLE WELDING CODES AT CPSES i L-O TN 87 7256 A-9 L DAP RR P 001; REV.1

f ATTACHMENT A -Continued i N ~ Sowce Document - Date Docurere Title N' RC-7 07/13/84 COMANCHE PEAK SPECIAL REVIEW TEAM REPORT NRC-8 11 S 2/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT 3' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS ON WELD DESIGN NRC 09/30/85 STAFF EVALUATION OF CPRT PROGRAM PLAN, REVISION 2; DETAILED COMMENTS / CONCERNS ' NRC-10 07/01/81

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 A' '

2 (NUREG-0797) NRC-11 10/01/81 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2(NUREG-0797)SUPPLEMENTNO 1 NRC-12 01/01/82 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENTNO,2 NRC 13 03/01/83 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT CPSES UNTTS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENTNO. 3 NRC-14 11/01/83 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT.- CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENTNO. 4 NRC-15 11/01/84 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENTNO. 6 NRC 16 01/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREO-0797) SUPPI.EMENTNO. 7 NRC-17 02M1/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENTNO. 8 NRC-18 03/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-M97)SUPPIEMENTNO. 9 NRC 19 04/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPIEMENTNO.10 NRC-20 05/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG 0797) SUPPLEMENTNO.1I NRC-21 09/02/82 NRCSTAFFTESTIMONY OFJOSEPHI.TAPIA AND W. PAUL CHEN INREBUTTALTO THE TESTIMONY OF MARK ANTHONY WALSH CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS NRC-22 - 05/13/83 INSPECTION REPORT 50445/83 12: 50-446/83 INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY J. L TAPIA AND W. PAUL CHEN NRC 23 12/13/83 AFFIDAVITS OF JOSEPH I. TAPIA AND W. PAUL CHEN ON OPEN TIEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE CONCERNS NRC-24 // NRCINSPECTION REPORT 82 30 L TN-87-7256 A 10 DAP RR-P 001, REV.1

g ,(. 5 i f l d ATTACHMENT A-Continued. L H Document Date P-:- _..; Title. NRC-25 01/08/85 NRC LETTERTO TUGCO RE:.TRT QA/QC FINDINGS (ATTACHED TO NRCT-6).1 "l 3-NRC 26 05/30/85 NRC REGION IV INSPECTION REPORTS 2/17/84 .THROUGH 5/30/85.' NRC-27 10/11/84 NRC INSPECTION' REPORT (50445/84-22)(50446/84- - 07). INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED UNDER'- RESIDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM 05/19/84 ' THROUGH 07/21/84 ] NRC-28 02/27/79

SUMMARY

OF FEBRUARY 13,1979 MEEITNG ON. ) ' AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH QUESTIONS. 1 NRC-29' - 11/17/80 LETTER, R.L. 'IEDESCO TO RJ. GARY RE: SERVICE 'I INSPECTION OF PRESSURE ISOLATION VALVES NRC-30 ' 01/14/81 LETTER, R.L. TEDESCO 'IO R.J. GARY RE: l: PRESERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF ' -i SNUBBERS' NRC-31 10/14/82. l TRIPREPORT-AUDITOFTUSID' DOCUMENTATION . FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QT.IALIFICATION OF - SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR CPSES 1 AND NRC 32 10/29/82 SSERINPUT ON SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRIC J-AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 3 .4 NRC 33 01/31/83 REGION IV RESPONSE TO R.J. GARY LETTER ON SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OFLKENSEE.

• PERFORMANCE (SALP)

NRC-34 07/06/83 SUBMITTAL OF INTERIM STAFF EVALUATION OF l THE ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN DESIGN FOR THE CPSES NRC-35 01/24/84 SER UNRESOLVEDISSUES REQUIRING RESOLUTION PRIOR TO LICENSING CPSES UNIT 1 i NRC-36 01/24/84 SER OUTSTANDING ISSUE (1), "PROTECrlON l AGAINST EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE L POSTULATED RUPTURE OF PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT" ~ NRC-37 02/13/84 ADDITIONALINFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION 1 NRC 38 05/17/84 TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE SER FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (UNrrS 1 AND 2) ' '.) NRC-39 09/12/84 NRC STAFF CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW REPORTFOR THE CPSES ) TN47-7256 A-11 DAP RR.P 001, REV.1 - j

1 ATTACHMENT A-Continued I sowce f] Document Dem Document Title %/. NRC 40 09/18/84 COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW NRC-41 11/13/84 ACCEPTABILITY OF ASME CODE RELIEF - REQUESTS PERTAINING TO THE PRESERVICE . INSPECTION (PSI) PROGRAM FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 ~ NRC-42 11/19/84 . ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENTNO. 6 TO THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT NRC 43 06/05/85-USE OF ASME CODE CASES N 397 AND N-411 FOR THE CPSES (UNITS I AND 2). t NRC-44 06/07/85

SUMMARY

OF MEETING BETWEENNRC STAFF AND TUOCO TO DISCUSS THE COMANCHE PEAK FIRE PROTECTIONPROGRAM. NRC-45 06/10/85 ' ISSUANG OF SUPPLEMENT NO.11 TO NUREG-0797 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC - j STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC 46 07/24/85 RESPONSE TO LD. BUTTERFIELD'S MAY 16,1985 REQUESTFOR COMMENTS ONTHE WESTINGHOUSE OWNERS GROUP (WOG). O' GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING SUBMITTALS REQUESTING NRC APPROVAL OF REACTOR TPJP TECH. SPEC. CHANGES ~ NRC 47 09/25/85 USE OF ASME CODE CASES N 397 AND N-411 FOR THECPSES(UNITS 1 AND2) NRCT-1 09/18/84 NRC-152 TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM BRIEFING: COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW NRCT-2 11/01/84

SUMMARY

OFMEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICAN13'PLANFOR RESOLtJTIONOF REQUESTS FOR ADDTTIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM EFFORT DESCRIBED IN LETTER DATED 09/18/84 l NRCT3 12/2Q/84 1RANSCRIPT CYGNA/NRCMEETING - INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM NRCT-4 01/10/85 MEETING WITH CYGNA ON CPSES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM(PHASE 3) NRCT-5 01/15/85 MEETING WrTH TUGCO CONCERNING THE MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON QA/QC PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK O i G TN-87 7256 A 12 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1

.u 4 1 o> ATTACHMENT A -Continued. O, sowce Docufnent Dale Docn===r Title qj NRCT-6 01/17/85 MEETING TO DISCUSS TECHNICAL REVIEW. TEAM STAFFFINDINGS - COMANCHE PEAK. ] NRCT-7 02/07/85

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH CASE, TUGCO AND NRC CONTENTION 5 PANEL CONCERNING ' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION AND TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE ASLB - HEARINGS THURSDAY, PEBRUARY 7,1985 - NRCT-8 02/26/85 MEEmNG BETWEENTEXAS LTTILITIES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC . STATION-PIPING AND SUPPORT DESIGN NRCT-9 ' 02/27/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILTTIES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC, STATION-PIPING AND SUPPORT DESIGN i y NRCT-10 03/06/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS LTTILITIFE AND THE NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E REGARDING CPSES - TRT TESTING PROGRAM ISSUES NRCT-11 03/07/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILITIES AND THE - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING CPSES - MECHANICAL AND ' MISCELLANEOUS NRCT-12 04/26/85 CYGNA BRIEPING10 NRCMANAGEMENT ON COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM NRCT-I3 06S6/84 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL (06/06/S4) TO DISCUSS VARIOUS MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON ON PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN AND QA ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT NRCT-14 06/08/84 MElmNG INBETHESDA ON TECHNICAL DATA

AND SUPPORTING MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONS NRCT-15 06/11/84 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (NRC, CASE, TUGCO) TO DISCUSS MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON ON PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN AND - DESIGN QA LO TN-87 7256 A 13 DAP RR P-001, REV.1.-

ATTACHMENT A -Continued - 7 Document Due Document Title NRCT-16 10/23/84 MEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICANT'S PLAN FOR RESOLUTION OF REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE - COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL P2 VIEW TEAM - (TRT) EFFORT NRCT-17 03/23/85 MEETING TO CONDUCT FEEDBACK DISCUSSION o WITH MESSRS. WALSH AND DOYLE REGARDING ' CONCERNS ABOUTTHE COMANCHE PEAK PLANT NRCr-18 04/19/84.. MEETING WITH CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES ON INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (IAP) FOR COMANCHE PEAK ' l NRCT-19 07/03/84 MEETING BETWEENNRCSTAFF AND CYGNA - 07/03/84 NRCT-20 03/05/85 MEETING BETWEENTEXAS UrILmES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - QA/QC, APPLICANTS' PROGRAM PLAN NRCT-21 06/20/84 NRC MEETING TO DISCUSS SUBMTTTED

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONS NRCT-22 10/19/84 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC STAFF l NRCT-23 11/13/84 PREHEARING BRIEFING NRCT 24 08A)6/84 DISCUSSION ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON FILED BY APPLICANT, COMANCHE PEAK { NRCr-25 08A)8/84 QUESTIONS ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONS FILED BY TEXAS UTILrrIES ON COMANCHE PEAK NRCr-26 08/09/84 (HEARING TRANSCRIPT) IN THE MATTER OF COMANCHE PEAK, TEXAS UTILTTY NRCF-27 08/23/84 COMANCHE PEAK MEETING BETWEEN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND TEXAS UTILITIES - MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON NRCT-28 06/13/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING OF 06/13/85 AND 06/14/85 NRCT-29 10/02/85 PUBLIC HEARING RE: HOMOGENEOUS [_ HARDWARE POPULATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REVIEW AND SWECREANALYSIS

PROGRAM, NRCT-30 06/13/85 NRCfTUGCO MEETING - VOLUME I - MORNING SESSION O

TN 87 7256 A 14 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1 l

ATTACHMENT A -Continued O Source Document Date P-w=4 Title NRCT-31 06/I3/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING - VOLUME II-AFTERNOON SESSION NRCT-32 06/14/85 NRCfTUGCO MEETING - VOLUME I - MORNING SESSION NRCT-33 06/14/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING - VOLUME II - AFTERNOON SESSION NRCT-34 06/18/85 MEETING ONRECALCULATION OFSEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA: COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-35 08/14/85

SUMMARY

OFMEETING BETWEEN THE NRC COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL, THE APPLICANT, AND THE INTERVENER TO BRIEF THE COMANCHE PEAK PANEL ON TIE ALLEGED INTIMIDATION ISSUES AT COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-36 09/17/85 MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY TO DISCUSS Tim OFFICIAL INSPECTION OF PAINTED SUPPORT WELDS NRCT-37 10/18/85

SUMMARY

OF 1072-3/85 MF2 TING - BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE HOMOGENEOUS HARDWARE POPULATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REVIEW, AND THE STONE AND WEBSTER PIPE AND PIPE SUPPORT REANALYSIS PROGRAM NRCT-38 11/05/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC.CPRTMONTHLY STATUS -NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 - VOLUMEI NRCT-39 11M6/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC-CPRTMONTHLY STATUS - NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 - VOLUME II NRCT-40 11/05/85 HANDOUTS FROM PUBLICMEETING IN GRANBURY NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 NRCT-41 11/12/85 TRANSCRIPT OFPUBLIC HEARING HELD IN DALLAS, TEXAS NRCT-42 12/18/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC-CPRT MONTHLY STATUS NRCT 43 02/06/86 TUGCO-NRCPUBLICMEETING, ARLINGTON, TEXAS TUGC-1 08M5/83 APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN - THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION TUGC-2 08/29/83 TRANSMITTAL OF " DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR2.206" DENYING PETTTION FILED BY MRS.ELLIS ON BEHALFOF CASE TN 87-7256 A 15 OAP RR P 001, REV.1

W ~- p o L ATTACHMENT A -Continued : [. Source ) Document Date ' Dm... era Tide c TUGC 3 .08/30/83 APPLICANTS' MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE - FOR SPECIAL PROCEEDING, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (IFNECESSARY), AND FOR ' CLOSING RECORD AND FOR EXPEDITED REPLY. 'TUGC-41 08/31/83 - APPLICANTS'(1) ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTION TO ' SUPPLEMENTTHE RECORD (REGARDING . WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS)(2) REQUEST FOR EXPEDITEDRULING AND(3)MOTIONFOR - NOTICE OFINTENTTO StPOSE SANCr10NS i TUGC 5. L 09/06/83 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S PROPOSED - f FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) ~TUGC4-10/28/83 APPLICANTS' BRIEFREGARDING' BOARD INQUIRY INTO APPLICABILITY OF AWS AND ' ASME CODES TO WELDING ON PIPE SUPPORTS AT COMANCHE PEAK TUGC-7 ' 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DEPOSTT : REGARDING ALLE4iED ERRORS MADEIN - DE1ERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND I SSE LOADING CONDmONS ] ( TUGC-8~ 05/17/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATEDTO DESIGNISSUES TUGC-9 05/18/54 APPLICANT 3' MOI 10N FOR

SUMMARY

D!SPOStr!ON REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF GAPS ON STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR UNDER SEISMIC LOADING CONDrrlONS' TUGC-10 05/18/84 APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CASE ALLEGATION REGARDING SECTION PROPERTY VALUES ' H TUGC-11 05/20/84 AP?LICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING UPPER LATERAT RESTRAINT BEAM TUGC-12 05/20/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOStrION OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS. 4 REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS TUGC-13 05/21/84~ APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING USE OF GENERIC-STIFFNESSES INSTEAD OF ACTUAL STIFFNESSES INPIPING ANALYSIS-1 TN-87 7256 A.16 DAP RR P 001, REV.1.

x,' 3 l ATTACHMENT A-Continued. h Document Deze P---- - =^ Tide TUGC-14 ~ 05/23/84 . APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

J .) DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS j REGARDING U-BOLTS ACTING AS TWO-WAY 1 RESTRANTS l d . TUGC-15 06 S 2/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR'

SUMMARY

j n DISPOSmONREGARDING DESIGN OFRICHMOND INSERTS ANDTHEIR APPLICATION'IO SUPPORT-DESIGN TUGC-16 06/I7/84- . APPLICANTS' MCTTION FOR'

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING STABILITY OF PIPE l SUPPORTS. 'i TUGC-17 06/18/84 APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONS 10ERATION OF - LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES i TUGC-18 06/22/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DIPFEREPmAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL TO-WALL, AND, FLOOR-l j TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-19 06/29/84-APPLICANTS'MCmONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS. REGARDING CINCHING DOWN OF U BOLTS TUGC-20 07M3/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESION OFPIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS F COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ' TUGC-21 07/09/84 i APPLICANTS' MOT 10N FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONREGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OFFORCE DISTRIBLMONIN AXIALRESTRAINTS . TUGC-22 08/31/84 CORRECTIONS TOTHE RICHMOND INSERT. MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON i TUGC-23 09/19/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

~' DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF PRICTION FORCES TUGC-24 09/21/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY 10 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS'MOTIONREGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS FATIN DETERMINING DAMPING ] FACTORS IOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS TN 87 7256 A 17 DAP RR P-001, REV.1 - l .i

'I l . ATTACHMENT A -Contim? s_. Domment ' Date D=_.m Thle i TUGC-25 '09/28/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES ) .TUGC 26 10/01/84 ~ APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO ' APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL. DISPLACEMENTS OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO- ) 8 WALL, AND PLOOR-TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-27 10/26/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO - APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING THE UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM TUGC-28 10/26/84 L APPLICANTS' REPLY TO (I) CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

{ DISPOSmON REGARDING 'IME EFFECTS OF GAPS ) i AND (2) BOARD CHAIRMAN'S " PRELIMINARY VIEWS"REGARDING ADDmONALPLEADINGS TUGC-29 11/02/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S PARTIAL O-ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS TUGC 30 11/12/84 i APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS'MOllONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING SECTION PROPERTIES TUGC-31 06M/83 APPIJCANT'S RESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIR.Y REGARDING ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS FOR PIFING. TUGC-32 09/14/82 TES!1 MONY OF KENNETH L. SCHEPPELE, ROGER F. REEDY, PE1ER S. Y. CHANG, JOHN C.' PINNERAN, AND GARY KRISHNAN REGARDING WALSH ALLEGAT10NS TUGC 33 09/14/82 SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF KENNETH L. SCHEPPELE, ROGER F. REEDY, PETER S. Y. CHANG, JOHN C. PINNERAN, AND GARY-KRISHNAN REGARDING DOYLE ALLEGATIONS . TUGC-34 09/13/84 DISCUSSION BETWEEN CYGNA ENERGY ' SERVICES AND TEXAS LTTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY AND EBASCO SERVICES INC. TUGC 35 - 05/21/85 TEXAS tmLITIES CPRTMEE11NG CYONA ENERGY SERVICES 05/21/85 AND 05/22/85 0 TN-87 7256 ' A 1B DAP.RR-P-001, REV.1

1 ATTACHMEM A-Continued O sowoe J poewnem Das Daewnsa Tide - TUGC-36 10M1/82 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, SELF-INITIATED - EVALUATION" TUGC-37 08/01n8-LETIER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C. SCHMIDT RE: PRESSURIZER DISCHARGEPIPING CLASSIFICATION TUGC 08/1708: IETTER H.R. ROCK TO H.C SCHMIDT RE: LICENSING QUESTION - TUGC-39 : 08/2408 LETTER, H.R. ROCK 'IO H.C' SCHMIUr RE: i CONFIRMATION OFINSTRUCTIONS - CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURIZER SAPETY RF1M VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING TUGC 40 03/19n9 LETTER, RJ. GARY 10 W.C SEIDLE RE: UNIT NO. 1 REACTOR VESSELNOZ2LE WELD METAL DEFECIS TUGC-41 08/10/79 MTTER,RJ. GARY 10 W.C SEIDLE RE: PIPE i SUPPORTS TUGC 42 09/1109 IETTER, RJ. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE PE: PIPE WAILTHICKNESS l TUGC-43 01/23/80 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL ' TUGC-44 03/28/80 LETIER, RJ. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL-TUGC-45 04/21/80 LLTIER, RI OARY TO W.C SEIDG RE: CLASS V ) PIPING SUPPORTS [ I TUGC 46 04/15/80 IETTER, RJ. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PIPING. MINIMUM Wall. TUGC-47 06/19/80 l IEITER, RJ. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC 48 07/14/80 LETTER, RJ. GARY 10 W.C SEIDLE RE: CLASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC-49 09/18/80 IEITER, RJ. GARY TO W.C SEIDG RE: CLASS V P! PING SUPPORTS TUGC-50 IW21/80 - IEITER, RJ. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: DIESEL ' GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS. TUGC 51 12/16/80 LETIER, RJ. GARY.TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL ' TUGC 52 01/12/81 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: DIESEL GENERATOR P!PE SUPPORTS O 1 TN 87-7256 A 19, DAP RR P-001, REV.1 m__1_-----_-._------

,t ( )./ ' !j' j'., ( i d s. l i 6 Document ATTACHMENT' -Contimed A' source Date P-s-- -: Tale ~ EUGC-53 04/13/81-LETTER,1.S. MARSHALL TO R.L. 'IEDESCO RE: PRESERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF ' SNUBBERS TUGC-54 ' 07/29/81 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: DIESEL . GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS ' TUGC-55 06/03/81 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L MADSEN RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL - TUGC-56 10/02/81 LE' ITER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: DIESEL - GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS ' TUGC-57 '03/31/82 LETTER,~ H.C. SCHMIDT TO S.B. BURWELL RE: . FUNCDONAL CAPABILITY OF CLASS 2 AND 3 BENDS ANDELBOWS TUGC 58 08/16/82 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO H.R. DENTON RE: DESIGN CERTIFICATION L TUGC-59 05/13/82 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO S. BURWELL RE: STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL CONTROL TUGC-60 03/08/83 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: - ACCIDENT MONITORING - STEAM GENERATOR O SAFETY VALVE POSITIONINDICATION TUGC-61 03/29/83 g l LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L MADSEN RE: VENDOR INSTALLED HVAC SYSTEM (SDAR-106 CP-83-06) - TUGC-62 06/21/83 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: COMPONENT COOLING WA1ER CLASS V PIPING (QA PILE:CP-83-11, SDAR-11I) TUGC 63 07/22/83 ALTERNA1E SHIFDOWN-INTERIM STAFF EVALUATION. TUGC-64 08/31/83 RESPONSE 10 NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION-INSPECTION REPORT NO. 83-23, FINDING NO.1 TUGC-65 10/06/83 SER TABLES ON EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION TUGC-66 01/05/84 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ YOUNGBLOOD RE: l HIGH/ MODERATE ENERGY PIPE BREAK' ANALYSIS TUGC-67 02/17/84 IEITER, RJ. GARY 10 BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: REQUEST POR PARTIAL EXEMPTION TUOC-68 03/08/84 HUMAN FACIORS CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW-FINAL REPORT TUGC-69 04/06/84 TUGCO COMMENTS ON CYGNA*S INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM u O: TN47 7256 A-20 ' DAP-RR P-001, REV.1-l.

(, s 1 m U '~ "ATfACHMENT A - Continu,( c.. g.1 . some. Document Date - Docum aTitle TUGC-70 06/29/84 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION JUSTIFICATIONS FOR INTERIM OPERATION - . TUGC-71 09/28/84 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: ~ IMPACr OF TEMPERATURE DUE TO MAIN STEAM . LINE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT ON ' EQUIPMENT THAT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL - QUALIFICATION. .TUGC-72 01/17/85 . IEITER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT TUGC-73 02/14/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: MAIN STEAM LINE BREAKS OU'ISIDE CONTAINMENT TUGC 04/09/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TUGC-75 04/23/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: TEMPORARY CHANGES TO PROCEDURES TUGC-76 05/02/85-LETTER,J.W. BECK TO V.S. NOONAN RE: ARBITRARYINTERMEDIATE PIPE BREAKS TUGC-77 06/07/85 ~ LETTER, J.W. BECK TO V.S. NOONAN RE: NRC GENERIC LETTER 83-28 TUGC-78 07/10/85 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: RESOLUTION OF TMI ACTION TIEMS II.K.3.30 AN II.K.3.31 RELA 1ED TO SMALL BREAK LOCA ANALYSIS TUGC-79 07/15/85 LETIER, W.G. COUNSEL 1D V.S. NOONAN RE: CLARIFICATION TO TEXAS UTILTTIES LETTER TXX-4426 TUGC 80 10/14/85 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 85-06 (ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRA TUGC-81 12/20/85 LETTER,J.W. BECK TO E.H. JOHNSON RE: DAMAGE STUDY EVALUATION OF WESTINGHOUSE SDAR: CP-85 46 TUGC.82 02/28/86 LETIER, W.O. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: USE OF ASME CODE EDITION AND ADDENDA. TUGC 83 12/15/86 TRANSCRIPT OF CYNGA/SWEC MEETING IN GL ROSE, TEXAS O 1 TN 87 7256 A 21 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 e-

j ,i j ' ATTACHMENT A-Continued sown .O TUGC-84 . 04/05/84. APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELA 1EDTO WELDING ISSUES. REQUESTFOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE XASL-001 08/19/83. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -MOTION POR. q CLARIFICATION ON THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE j SUPPORTS XASL-002 - 07/06/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-003 .10/18/84-MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-MORE DETAIL ON 'l INDIVIDUALPIPE SUPPORTS XASL 004 11/10/83 AFFIDAVITOFJACK DOYLE XASL 005 WD6/83 PARTIALINmAL DECISION (CHANGEIN. MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR A500 STEEL) 1 'I XCAS 001 08/16/83' CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION POR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ONTHERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS I XCAS@2 07/15/83 MOTION POR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S ' O 07/06/87 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - THERMAL 'f SIRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XCAS 003 05/09/S3 CASE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD's REQUEST FOR - DISCUSSION OF INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ASME APPENDIX XVII, 2271.3. TO REST OF ASME CODE XCAS 004 10s06/84 j CASE'S STATEMENT OF MA1ERIAL FACT AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO OENUINE ISSUE REGARDING - ' CASE'S FIRSTMOT10NFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF - THE DdPLEMENTATION OF APPLICANTS' DESIGN : ) XCAS-005 09/26/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO j BOARD'S PARTIALINmALDECISION ) REGARDING A500 STEEL l XCAS 006 05/14/84 i CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OFCERTAINCASE AU.EGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO WELDING ISSUES XCAS-007 01/17/85 CASE'S 01/17/85 SUPPI.EMENT TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANIS' MOTION POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL O DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES i TN 67 7256 A-22 DAP RR P 001, REV.1-4

p~ r f ' ATTACHMENTS-Continued (O "~~"* XCAS@8 11 S 5/84 CASES ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO . BOARD REQUESTFOR INFORMATION-REGARDING CINCHING DOWN U BOLTS XNRC 001 05/11/83 NRC STAFFRESPONSE TO BOARDINQUIRY REGARDING APPENDIX XVIIOF THE ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE - XNRC-002 05/03/83 NRC STAFF REPLY TO CASE'S BRIEF REGARDIN ~ CONSIDERATION OFLOCA IN DESIGN CRITERIA POR P!PE SUPPORTS. XNRC-003 04/29/83. NRC STAFF MOTION FOR PRO 1ECTIVE ORDER XNRC-004 04/20/83 NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CASE MOTIONS SEEKIN ADMISSION OF DOCUMEPCS XNRC-005 06/02/82 NRCSTAFF'S ANSWER SUPPORTING APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOStrION OF CONTENTION 5 - XNRC-006 03/15/82 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO CFUR'S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL XNRC-007 09/28/84 NRCSTAFFRESPONSETO APPLICANTS' AND CASE'S FINDINGS OFFACTON WELD FABRICATION XNRC-008 0242/84 NRC S'rAFF'S RESPONSE TO CASE'S (1) ' DECEMBER 23,1983 RESPONSETO APPLICAIRS' IDENTIFICATION OFISSUES, AND(2) JANUARY 16,1964 CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES IN 12/2343 F12ADING ~ 1 XNRC-009 02/06/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 12/28/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN) XNRC-010 01/27/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' M(Yr FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN) XNRC-011 12/13/83 .i NRCSTAFFMOTION TO REOPENRECORD TO - ADMrr THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JAI RAJ N. RAJAN XNRC-012 12/13/83 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FO .l RECONSIDERATION (AFFIDAVr!S ON OPEN r! EMS RELATING'ID WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) XNRC-013 1W28/83 NRCSTAFFRESPONSETO BOARD QUESTION REGARDING APPLICABLE WELDING CODES AT O TN47 7256 A 23 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

y i A'ITACHMENT A - Continueg-O Source Document Date - P+- = M Tide XNRC-014 '09/12/83- ~ NRCINSPECTION REPORT 50445/83 24,50-446/83- ~ 15 XNRC-015 '02/17/83 LEITER FROM G. L. MADSEN, CHIEF, REACTOR PROJECT BRANCH 1. TO R. J. GARY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, - TUGCO XNRC-016 04/13/83 LETTER FROM CO'UNSEL FOR NRC STAFF TO - L ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES - GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE. l' PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)- 1 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 - XNRC 017 - 03/17/83' LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRCSTAFFTO 1 ASLDIN THE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,ET AL (COMANCHE . PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS l 'AND 2); DOCKETNOS. 50-445 AND 50446 - 1 i XNRC-018 02/22/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF - IN THE MATTER OF u TEXAS UTTLITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC ) O STATION, UNITS I AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50445 i I AND 50446 XNRC-019 02M8/83 IEITER PROM NRC STAFF COUNSEL TO ASLB IN l THE MATIER OF TEXAS IITILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,ET AL (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNTIS 1 AND 2) DOCKET I NOS.50445 AND50446 XNRC-020 02/18/82 IETIER PROM NRC STAFF COUNSEL TO ASLB IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS LTTILITIES GENERATING - COMPANY,ET AL (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNTTS I AND 2) DOCKET NOS.50445 AND 50446 XNRC-021 03/27/83 LETIER AND REPORT ENTITLED " REVIEW OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY Q wzNS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY ABOUT - CONDUCTOFREGIONIV-INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTION TO ASLB" XNRC-022 - 11/04/83 COUNSELPOR NRCSTAFFIN THE MATIER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.(COMANCHE PEAK S'IEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50446 'M V l TN 87 7256 A 24 DAP F.R P 001, REV.1'

ATTACHMENT A-Continued m. 3 Document Date Dw -- = ITitle XNRC-023 11/01/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF IN THE MATTER OF - TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.(COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS I AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 . AND 50446 - XNRC 024 10/14/83 COUNSEL FOR NRCSTAFFIN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC - STATION, UNITS I AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50446 XNRC-025 12/31/84 LETTER FROM D. R. HUNTER, CHIEF, REACTOR PROJECT BRANCH 2 TO M. D. SPENCE, PRESIDENT,TUGCO XNRC-026 05/17/84 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRCSTAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY. ET AL. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) XNRC-027 05/11/84 ADDENDUM 70 PAGE 27 OFNRC STAFF TESTIMONY ON WELDING FABRICATION CONCERNS RAISED BY MR. AND MRS STINES. XNRC-028 04/24/84 LETTER FROMNRC TO APPLICATNTIN THE MATIER OFTHE NRCSTAFF RECEIVING ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES,ET. AL. (COMANC2iEPEAK STEAM ELECTRICCOMPANY,UNrrI AND2). DOCKET NS.50445 AND 50446, XTUG-001 02/18/87 APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENER,(SETNO 1987-4) XTUG-002 08A12/83 APPLICANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON THERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-003 05/11/83 APPLICANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF REGARDING PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN XTUG 004 05/03/83 APPLICANTS' REPLY BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCA IN DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-005 04/21/83 APPLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THERMAL STRESSES IN DESIGN OFPIPE SUPPORTS TN47 7256 A-25 DAP-RR-P 001, REV.1

r ATTACHMENT A -Continued - O Sowce n~~_t Daae Document Title XTUG-006 ' ' 07 S 3/84-APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE RE APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM - POR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION XTUG-007 06/29/84 APPLICAN13' STA1EMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING U-BOLTS . XTUG 008 06/18/84 APPLICANTS

• STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH 7"JIERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE '

' REGARDING CONSIDERATION OFI.DCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES XTUG-009 06/17/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS. AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE. REGARDING STABILTTY OF PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-010 06/02/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO RICHMOND INSERTS AS TO WHICH THERE ARE NO MATERIALISSUES O XTUG 011 05/20/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE XTUG-012 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' 1TA1EMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS10 WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE XTUG-013 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STA1EMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ' AS1D WHICHTHEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE. REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF PRICTION ~ PORCES IN THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS WITH SMALLTHERMAL MOVEMENTS XTUG-014 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STA1EMENT OF MA1ERIAL FACTS ' ' AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE. REGARDING APPLICANTS' CONSIDERATION OF DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDITIONS XTUG-015 06SI/83 COUNSEL FOR TUGCO RE: TEXAS LTTILTITES GENERATING CO., ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNTTS 1 AND 2) DOCKETNOS.50445 AND 50446 XTUG-016 11/19/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TV CASE'S MOTION CONCERNING INFORMATION REGARDING CDdQHNGDOWNU40LT5 O TN47-7256 A 26 DAP RR P 001, REV.1

ATTACHMENT A-Continued - sou m Docurnent Date Dw.nent Title XTUG-017 11/16/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD'S PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION REGARDING A500 STEEL XTUG 018 11/05/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (MORE DETAIL ONINDIVIDUAL PIPE SUPPORTS) XTUG-019 07/11/84 COUNSEL POR APPLICANTS RE: 'IEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2), DOCKETNOS. 50-445 AND 50446 XTUG 020 06/29/84 COUNSEL POR APPLICANTS - SUBJ. TEXAS UTILITIES ELECIRIC. ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRICSTATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKETNOS. 50-445 AND 50446) XTUG 021 06/17/84 LETTER FROM APPLICANTS' COUNSEL TO ASL SUBJ. TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK S1EAM ELECIRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND2)DOCKE! NOS.50445 AND50-446 XTUG-022 04/11/84 APPLICANT 3' RESPONSE TO PARTIAL INITIAL O'- DECISIONREGARDING A500SIEEL l XTUG-023 06/02/84 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS, ET. AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC COMPANY, UNIT 1 AND UNrr 2) DOCKET NOS. 50445 AND 446. - O TN 87 7256 A.27 DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 ^

~ ) q ATTACHMENT B" OTHER DIRs 1 J .a 1 1 l i i TN 87 7256 B1 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 1

t y N d A'ITACliMENT B The following three categories wem established for DIRs which were not covered by Extel Source Issues / Primary DIRs. Each DIR was resolved individually. A summary of the closure follows: CATEGORY-MISCELLANEOUS (#36) 1. DIRs with no specific concem identified. These DIRs are classified as unsubstantiated: DIR E-0323,

Subject:

Cygna desire to complete review of pmcedures. l Resolution: No concemidentifled. DIR E 0812

Subject:

Overthickness in pipe. Resolution: No specifics identified; only mentioned as a subject to be covered latur. 1

j DIR E-0940

Subject:

Responsiveness of SIT Report to Walsh/Doyle items. Resolution: All Walsh/Doyle items are addressed bySWEC's GTIR. DIR E-1198

Subject:

Assyretric dynamic loads on Reactor Coolant System. Resolution: ' Issue was indicated as " undergoing staff review" in SSER 6. Limited infonnation is provided for DAP review. DIR E-1199

Subject:

NRC review'of WECAN computer program not complete. Resolution: ' Program not used in SWEC's requalification pmgram. DIR E-1200

Subject:

Resolution of TMI Action Items. I Resolution: Document (TUGCO-78) describes resolution - FSAR revision.. Any further resolution required will be identified by i i the NRCin subsequent SSERs. i DIR E-1201

Subject:

Use of Code Cases N-397 and N-411. Resolution: Per NRC letter fmm V.S. Noonan to W.G. Council dated 3/13/86, the NRC approves use of these Code Cases, t pmvided listed requirements are met. ' 2. Concems closed outside cf DSAP IX review and/or closed as invalid. Th i classified as Observadons or Unsubstantiated: i DIR E-0242

Subject:

Functional capability of austenitic bends / elbows. Resolution: ( NRC raised the issue in the SER; a method was developed and applied on a sampling basis; NRC closed it in SSER #3. DIR E-0347

Subject:

Improper use of temporary supports, and the erection process L in general, could have damaged Main Steam pipes { Resolution: Per ISAP V.e. Results Report the issue is closed.- DIR E-0354

Subject:

_ Snubber faDure after steam / water hammer. Resolution: Snubbers are load rated by vendors. Given that piping loads are propedy determined and correct snubber size is chosen, the supports should not fail. DIR E-0536

Subject:

Combined load evaluation for AWS weld evaluadon. Resolution: TUGCO satisfies CASE's question later in the extemal O . source document (NRCT-13). TN-87-7256 i B2 DAP-RR.P-001, REV.1 i i

4.

DIR E-0858.

Subject:

ANI is responsible for interpretation of ASME Code.' Resolution: DAP disagrees.with Doyle. ANI does not interpret. engineering related matters; the only design related - responsibility)is to ensure that the required analysis has been : done and is property certified.' DIR E-0936 -

Subject:

' OBE vs. SSEloads.'. Resolution: No ermr occurred. Damping values were based on Reg.. Guide 1.61 The Reg. Guide damping values are noted as - being conservative per recent WRC studies (WRC-300). DIR E 1176

Subject:

Inconectly calculated pipe stress allohable. Resolution: . Per ASLB 43, the allowables are shown to be correctly calculated. DIR E-1191

Subject:

Whether or not all seismic restraints must be +/. . Resolution: . Ihird Party agrees with TUGCO's response. that.- uni-directional supports can be used if dead weight ic luger ' than the +Y loads. 3. Concems with TUGCO arguments that are not pgdi.s4 to SWEC resolutions. are classified as Unclassified Deviations: DIR E-0560

Subject:

.Snubbercapacity test results. Resolution: Per CPPP-7, the allowable loads are stated in vendor LCD sheets or certified design report summaries. These test results - are not used.; DIR E-0778

Subject:

Inelastic deformation in bolts used to justify shear distribution among base plate bolts. Resolution: SWEC does not use bolt deformation to justify shear distribution among base plate bolts, but bases their procedurehesolution ~on NF4721. DIR E 0843

Subject:

. Effects of bolt hole gsips on material and impact damping.. j l Resolution: SWEC does not use hnpact or material damping tojustify their appmach to the bolt hole gapissus, but bases their. ) j pmcedurehenolution onNF-4721.. '{ DIR E-1195

Subject:

U-bolt cinching; can torqueing or paint be used forlocking. Resolution: PerPM 82 Rev 1, cinched U bolts are eliminated. Jam nuts orlock nuts are used on stiffclamps. t 4. Calculation / Procedural concerns.' Addressed by SWECin CPPP 6 and 7: ] DIR E-0062

Subject:

STRUDL analysis guidelines. Resolution: Supports analyzed using STRUDL are checked against NF Code requirements. s j DIR E-0134

Subject:

Member bearing may be inappropriately considered for compressionloads on welds.' ) ' Resolution: CPPP 7, Att. 4-2 requires compression to be considered. O s TN-87 7256 ' B3 DAP-RR P-001, REV.1 l

4 [ 9 a. DIR E-0295,

Subject:

Combining SRV'and seismic loads in Emergency for Main ]i Steam pipe. Resolution: H CPPP-7, Table 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 sequires SRV and SSE to be combined in the Fauhed condition.' 'Ihis change in load -{ combination required an PSAR change, which was incorporated in Amendment 61 (per DIR C-0024). - DIR E-0313,

DIR E 0734, i

DIR E 0823.- DIR E 1188 ~

Subject:

Spring travel, frame gap, and swing angle evaluadon for - seismic and fluid transients. -) Resolution: CPPP-7,'Att. 4-1 requires that displa' cements be calculated for spring travel evaluation using Table 4.7.2-1 combinations :

(which include seismic and fluid transient). Frame gaps are addressed in DAP-E-P-019, and swing angles in DAP-E-P-

'004. DIR E-0322

Subject:

Embedded plates - connections assumed as pinned, and 4 stiffeners required for moment connections. CPPP-7 does not require that attachments to embedded plates Resolution: be assumed as pinned, and per CPPP 6, calculated loads are - transmitted to SWEC CAP for evaluation. DIR E-0735

Subject:

Spacing of attachments to embedded plates. 1 Resolution: Per CPPP-6, support reactions on embedded plates are transmined to SWEC-CAP fbr evaluation. DIR E-0969

Subject:

Gang suppons pinned to building structures were not ~ considened interactively IE.a. attached piping. Resolution: CPPP 7, Att. 4 9 r:quhes elimination ofpinned attachments of ganged supports to building structures. { DIR E-1174 -

Subject:

Stresses due to reduced pipe wall thickness. 1 Resoludon: Reduced wall thickness is evaluated per CPPP-7, Att. 3-14 R and PM 137.. CATEGOR Y - GENERIC / CUMULATIVE (#37) - 1. Concem with inconsistent and nonstandard criteria. Addressed by SWEC requalificati program use of CPPPPmcedures: DIR E-0008

Subject:

Inconsistent criteria forSTRUDL. Resolution: CPPP-7 defines criteria and methods for requalification of supports. SWEC uses its own version of STRUDL, and has issued contmiled user's manuals. DIR E-0331

Subject:

Non standard pipe engmeering assump. support designs invalidate standard. j tions and practices.. Resolution: ' CPPP 7 defines criteria and methods for requalificatiora of supports, ensuring all supports in SWEC's acope are re< valuated based on industry codes / standards. O TN-87 7256 B-4. DAP RR P-001, REV,1 L - -

DIR E-0523 ' {

Subject:

. Unresolved issues related to provisions of GDC-1.

Resolution:

Specific items were addressed under SWEC's requalification program, includirig: Skewed "T" joint welds, Plare bevel w ' welds, Puehing shear, and Tube-to-tube welds. (See DAP- ' E-P408 and DAP E-P 027). DIR E-0884

Subject:

Piping analysis techniques have' changed. Resolution: CPPP-7 defines criteria and methods for requalification of _ piping. lands generated in these analyses will be ~ incorporated into support designs. ' 2.. - Concem with cumulative effects of specific concems. East spehific concem was. individually addressed by SWEC, thereby eliminating the cumulative effects conce DIR E-0658 DIR E-0720 - DIR E 0730.. DIR E-0731'.

Subject:

Resolution: SIFs. . See DAP-E P-026 Pluid/ insulation weights of valves and flanges See DAP-E P426' Mass point spacing See DAP-E-P 017 Support mass. See DAP-E-P-015 Support stiffness 1 See DAP-E P-005 Valve acc. generic study .See DAP-E-P 025 Plangeload generic study ' See DAP E-P-025 ' Welded attachments - See DAP-E-P 002 k SS elbow functional capability. CPPP-7, Att. 3-16 Support self weight excitation See DAP-E-P-020 - l O TN-87-7256 5 DAP RR P 001,-REV.1

. CATEGORY-WESTINGHOUSE ' ' Concem with seismic damping in Westinghouse piping analysis: DIR E 0035, DIR E-0121, DIR E 0135, i DIR E 0230, DIR E-0526, - DIR E-0527, DIR E-0528, ~ q DIR E-0583, DIR E 0641,- 1 DIR E-0785, DIR E-0787, DIR E-0972 DIR E 0983

Subject:

Ioads on one support were greater for Nonn/ Upset than t .1 Emerg/ Fault. 'Ihe damping values used in the OBE/SSE 'i analysis of a 3" pipe were questioned (2,4%). FSAR specifies 2% and 4% damping for OBE and SSE for j Resolution: 12" and larger piping; it also permits CC N-411 damping. Westinghouse memo TCX SDI-150 notes damping used for RCL analysis isjustified/ documented in FSAR Sect.'1 A(N)- <j 34, and that the specific analysis in question (1-41)is based on N-411 damping. (All DIRs in this category were transfened to DIR E-0121.) ' O I i w I l l O TN-87-7256 B-6 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1

K ~ ( (,, '< - 3 v .y / .f, .'s b tp' ,j y, --l q ATTACHMENT C-PROJECT MEMORANDA is: 1 .\\ l l. O ,i \\ 4 O TN 87-7256 C1 ' DAP-RR P 001, REV.1 g Y. '

gq r ?l)<L ATTACHMENT C (~} 'I (j Procedure No. ' Rev. Date of f Title No. luue REVIEWED AS PART OF CPPP-7, REVISION 2 PM-001 Pipe Suppon ComputerProgram Usage. 1 01/08/86 if PM-003 Design Information Request Procedure 0 11/18/85 [ PM-016 Qualification of Two (2) Bolt Base Plates 0 01/24/86 PM-025 Gang Hanger and Terminal Anchor Prycedure - Unit 2 0 02/28/86 PM-026 Impact Testing ofIntegral Attachments i .0 02/28/86 PM-039 Administrative Procedure for Qualifying Wall to-Wall, 2 07/21/86 ' Floor to-Floor, and Comer Pipe Suppons PM 050 Procedure to Adjust the Seismic Response 1 06/16/86 Accelemtion for Valve Qualification PM-051 Integral Welded Attachment (IWA) Task Group 0 05/09/86 { PM 052 Through Bost Allowth!c lead Criteria 0 OVJi/86 PM-053 CPPP-7, Rev. 2. Sec. 34.4 (Essential Systems) 0 05/15/86 PM4)S4 Project Engineering Assurance Engineer q Responsibilities 0 05/15/86 'J PM-055 ) Weld Design Criterirfor Pipe Suppons 0 05/19/86 PM-056 Simplified Methld for Qualification of As-Built Small 1 12/03/86 Bore Piping PM 057 Floor Slabs with 2" Concrete Topping 0 06/16/86 PM 058 Pipe Support Member Stress due to LOCA for CT and { t 0 06/IP/86 SI Systems PM 059 Two-Bolt Baseplate Qualification Procedure 0 06/18/86 PM-060 Revised Pad Width Requirements for Attachment 4-6A 0 06/18/85 ofCPPP-7 PM-061 Mismatch SIFs 0 06/23/86 PM-062 Calculation of Support Loads for Non-Nuclear Safety 0 06/24/86 Related Piping Attached to ran ASME III Support PM-063 Pipe Support Clearance Requirements 0 06/24/86 P M C64 As-Built Verification of Base Plate Using Drilled In 1 07/14/86 Expansion Type Concrete Anchors PM 065 Use of Hardened Beveled Washers 0 06/24/86 PM-066 Pipe Wall Thinning Critens \\ (D 2 10/09/86 %.) l TN-67-7256 C ?, 1 DAP-RR P-001, REV.1 4 w--___--__

l' 4 o p. t s a n q ll gj

1

- ATTACHMENT C-Ch.adnued ~ "{.0

b

<k? Procedwe m. Ma- ' Rev. ' Date of-

)

Tm m.

Issue-PM 067 Suggested Distance Between Mass Points, q ,O. - DM4/86D ') Weld Tenninatiokat MemberEdges , PM-068 - ~ 4' 0' OW4/86 PM-071 Local Stress Evaluation for Dual Trunnion Anchors. 0 0@5/86 L E PM 072 Anchor Stiffness for APE (ST-378) Computer Program'OL 06/25/86' l: V 4. ' PM 074 . Code Case N318 ComputerProgram 1 l 11/21/86 '- M 'I s PM 075 Design Considentions fore-Systems and Western .0 07/07/86- "k '1 o-ai ' Piping Stiff Clamps used on Main Steam and . FeedwaterPiping 1 ,,.c -l V ',. ! PM-076 - Loca1 Stress Checkin Tube Section.- q p 0 07/07/863

f PM-077

. Code Case 392 ComputerWog = '0 07/07/86 PM-079 Revised NF17 Code Check Equation Tables .0 07/14/86i PM480 - Clarincadon of Attachment 4-2 of CPPP-7 0 07/14/86-PM481 - New Release of STRUDAT/SANDUL- ] 0 07/14/86- ) PM 082 = Modifications to Onched U Bolts - .1 - 12/26/86 PM 083 Procedure for Evaluating Onched U-Bolt Supports. 1-09/23/86-PM 084 Clarificadon of S** for CT and SI Piping Systems - 'O 07/21/86 - PM-085 Local Stress Evaluation for Pipe-to-Pipe Bearing 0 07/21/86. PM-086 CPPP-11, Administrative Control of Calculations 1- ' 02/13/87 PM487 Analytical Requirements for Penetration Sleeve Sen$ 0 '- '07/21/86 and Boots .. 3 - PM 088 Correcdon of Typographical Enors - CPPP-7 ~ f ~ 0 q ' 07/21/86 PM-089 . Eliminssion ofHanger Engineering Data Report 1 (HEDR)- 1 02/13f87 Review of NCRs for Potential Reponability j PM 090 1< 12/16/86 PM491 Problem BoundaryModifications PM492 - 0 07/31/86 Computer Program for Pipe Support Analyses j 3, 0 07/31/86 ; 5 PM493 Allowables For 3/8 in. Diameter Hilti Kwik Bolts with g i 0' 07/31/8' J g">. 15/8 in. Em>1sm Depth 6 PM494 Revised Procedure for the Qualification of Camp 0 07/31/86, - Anchors PM 095 - . Cinched U Bolt Analysis Computer Program PM-006 Piping Decoupling Criteria- - 0. 08/13/86 O - 1 09/10/86 TN47 7256 C-3 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1 ', ? i ______f_._~O----- - - ^ ^ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ^ ~ ~ ' "[t s1 3

?!.y p v ATTACHMENT C-Continued j ure u f ' No. Rev. Date of Title No. Issue. . PM-097 . Pipe Support Welded Tube Steel Joints 0-08/20/86-PM 098 ' Local Stress Evaluation for Uncinched U Bolt 0 08/20/86' Supports - PM-099 Allowables for Hilti Anchors Having Edge Distance 0 08/20/86 Less Than SD PM-100 Additional Dute: ion for Self-Weight Computer Input 0 08/20/86 PM-102 ' local Pipe Stresses Due to Longitudinal Bearing Loads 1, 10/09/86 PM-103 Allowable Valve Accelerations c 0 08/21/86 PM 104 StressIntensification Factors 0. 08/26/86 PM 105 , TNanal Expansion Range Stress for Run Pipe Local 0 08/28/86 Stress Evaluation 1 PM 106 Proposed Modification Repons ' 0 09/09/86 PM-107 Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) Movements 0 09/10/86 PM-108 ' Local Stress Evaluation Procedure 1 10/01/86 PM-109 Local Member Stress Induced by Nuts Bearmg Against0 09 S 8/86 hbe Steel Wall w PM-110 Allowable Loads for A193 Grade B7 Threaded Rods 0 09/10/86 PM-111 Procedure for Modeling Tie Back Supports 0 09/08/86 PM 112 ThermalExpansion ofLong hbe Steel 0 09/18/86 PM-113 Additional Plastic Moments fbr Interface Anchors0 09/30/86 PM-114 Cinched U-Bolt Computer Program Clarification ' 0 209/30/86 PM 115 Code Case N318-2 and N413 Usage. 0 09/30/b6. PM 116 Self Weight Excitation Loads forTie Back Supports 0 09/30/86 PM-117 i New Release of SANDUL 0 09/30/86 PM 118 Calculation Transmittals and Distribution Requurments 0 10/09/86 I PM 119 Allowable Stress Range for Expansion Stresses SA 0 10/09/86 PM-120 Small Bore Pipe StrapStiffness 0 10/09/86 PM 121 Loads and Movements Required to be Shown on Pipe 0 .10/09/86 / Support Drawings PM-122 Effect of Construction Tolerance on Pipe Support 0 10/20/86 Stiffness TN-87 7256 C-4 DAP-RR-P 001, REV.1

x e. y, g ATTACHMENT C-Continued D. .t=-t e No. Rev. - Dem of-Tm E. Issue PM 123.- ENective Pillet Weld Length for Trunnion-to-Elbow Connection -0 10/20/86 PM 124 Procedures for Qualifying Decoupled Vent / Drain and 0 10/20/86 Free End Connections ' PM-126 SA PSM, and PSC-Memos - 0' 10/20/86' REVIEWED AS PART OFISSUE RESOLUTION PM 039 Administrative Procedure for Qualifymg Wall-to Wall, '3 Floor-to-Floor, and Comer Pipe Supports 64287:

PM 103 Allowable Valve Acceleradons 0

8-21-86 PM-110 Allowable Loads for A193 Grade B7 'Ihreaded Rods 0 4-14-87 PM-133 Fmal Reconciliation Check List 1~ .5 27-87 ' PM-135 Sections of CPPP-7, Rev. 3. Which Require 0 2-23-87 Confirmation s PM 137 . Wall Thinning Criteria. Dynamic Analysis of Fluid Transient leading 0 3-18-87 PM 138 0 3-31-87. PM-139 ( Procedare for Evaluating Pipe Stresses at StiN Clamp Supports. 0 3-31 87. PM 140 Flar BevelGroove Welds 1 0541-87. PM 141 Unequal Shear 14admg ENect on Richmond Insens 3-25-87 and '!hreaded Rods Used in Cor$mcsion with 'nabe g. ..f. . g., .n-PM 146 The Use of Galvanized Nuts on CPSES 0 4 20-87 PM-151 s PSAP RELAP 5, and REPIPE Computer Programs 0 541-87 PM-154 AxialRestramts with Lugs 0 54787 PM 155 SIF Evaluation ofBranch Connections 0 64887 PM 157 . Bttak/ Crack Postulatica, Pipe Stress Analysis, and 0 5 13-87 Pipe Qualification Requirements for Class 5 High and Moderate Energy Lines - Units I and 2 [CircularTrunnion Attachmerns to Elbows q PM-162 0 5 22-87 i PM-163 CPPP-7 Piping and Pipe Suppons Code Applicability 0 5-27-87 Changes PM-164 Overall Final Asseument Review of Piping Systems 1 6 19-87 PM-165 Screening Procedure Fluid Transient Cutoff Loads O 1 6-25 87. 11N-87 7256 . C-5 DAP RR P-001, REV.1

4 ATTACHMENT C-Continued ' .Wure. No. Rev. Date of Tide-No. Issue j PM-166 - Pipe Stress and Support System Review Checklin ' O 5 28-87 Use of Computer Pmgram PITRFE O IE 211) PM-167 0' 6-03 PM 170 - Revised Pmcedure for Qualification of Elbows with ; O 6-08-87 Branch Connections PM-178-Resolution of TERA Fluid Transients Issues 0 6-25 87 1 I q l 0 1 1 ) ) i O TN-87 7256 C-6 DAP RR-P-001, REV.1

I ^ I O ATTACHMENT D ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST l i-1 i I l l O i I 1 ( O TN 87-7256 D-1 DAP-RR-P-001, REV.1 I

ATTACHMENT D ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS' LIST. ' Abbreviation 1 or Acronym Explanation ACli American Concate Institute ] . AISC ~ American Institute of Steel Construction - ARS . Amplified Response Spectra ASLB . Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ASME. American Society of Mechanical Engineers AWS American Welding Society CAP ~ Cormctive Action Program CASE' ~ Citizens Association for Sound Energy l CPR Code of Federal Regulations CPPP Comanche Peak Project Procedures CPRT Comanche Peak Response Team CPSES Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '] CVCS Chemical and Volume Control System - I DAP Design Adequacy Program DIR Discrepancy / Issue Resolution Repon DOF Degrees ofFreedom DSAP Discipline Specific Action Plan ESIS ExernalSourceIssue Summary ) FinalSafety Analysis Repon ~ ) PSAR FW Feedwater GENX Stone & Webster Generic Calculation' Number GIR GenericIssues Repon - Hz Hertz (Cycles per Second) IRR Issue Resolution Repon ISAP Issue Specific Action Plan . KSI KIPS (Ihousand Pounds) Per Square Inch LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident MS Main Steam N/A' Not Applicable N/C Not Checked NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission { TN 87 7256 D. DAP-RR-P-001; REV.1 -

f ATTACHMENT D--Continued 10 or Acronym Explanation OBE Operating Base Eanhquake PCI ' Prestressed Concrete Institute - QA Quality Assurance RLCA R.L. Cloud Associates RTL ReviewTeam Leaders RV Relief Valves - S/RV. Safety / Relief Valve - SAT Satisfactory SER Safety Evaluation Report. SSER Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report SIF StressIntensification Factors SRSS Square Root Sum of the Squares SRT SeniorReview Team

1 SSE Safe Shutdown Eanhquake i

t SWEC Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 1 TechnicalReview Team I TRT TU Texas Utilities TUGCO Texas Utilities' Generating Company UNSAT Unsatisfactory j WRC Welding Research Counsil 1, 2PA Zero Period Acceleration i O I TN 87 7256 D-3 DAP-RR-P 001, REV 1 ___---}}