ML20076G040

Rev 1 to Program Manual Spatial Sys Interaction Program/ Seismic Midland Energy Ctr

ML20076G040
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/06/1983
From:	Carrwean A MARK G. JONES ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20076G013	List: ML20076G011 ML20076G040 ML20076G045 ML20076G063 ML20076G067 ML20076G085 ML20076G094 ML20076G106 ML20076G121 ML20076G137 ML20076G139 ML20076G165 ML20076G184 ML20076G204 ML20076G221 ML20076G243 ML20076G252 ML20076G259 ML20076G267
References
PROC-830606, NUDOCS 8306140532
Download: ML20076G040 (114)

Text

, ,

a.

r .

FORINFBIBiM!D!i DNLY

. = -__

PROGRAM MANUAL SPATIAL SYSTEMS INTERACTION PROGRAM / SEISMIC MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER REVISION 1 JUNE 6, 1983 1

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 h-b-E3 Prepared by MGJEC/Date

$ "b "hb ApF oved by MGJEC Project Manager /Date 3,,,, a > >11/ d4-73 Approved'by MPQAD/Date

&$ b'$O]

Approfed by CPCo SSIP/S Project Engineer /Date Controlled Copy Number MARK G. JONES ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.

333 Hayes Street San Francisco, California 94102 8306140532 830607 PDR ADOCK 05000329 A PDR

4-t TABLE OF REVISIONS Revision 0, Date April 23, 1981 Original Issue Revision 1, Date June 6, 1983 General Revision, Incorporated Addendum I.

W 2

L

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

I. SSIP/S OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 1.1 Obj ective 8 1.2 Scope 9 II. DEFINITIONS AND PROGRAM ORGANIZATION 2.1 Definitions 12 2.2 Program Organization 16 III. GENERAL PROGRAM METHODOLOGIES 3.1 Program Development 21 3.2 Site Evaluation of Targets 23 3.3 Interaction Resolution 25 3.4 Program Quality Assurance and Audits 27 3.5 Program Documentation 27 IV. PROGRAM PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS 41 Initial Program Development 29 42 Training of Personnel 29 43 Walkdown Procedures 30 4.4 Interaction Resolution 31 4.5 Documentation Control 33 l

, 3 L

s s

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page No.

V. QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITS 5.1 Independent SSIP/S Quality Assurance Audits 34 VI. PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION 6.1 Room Walkdown Packages 35 6.2 Interaction Identification ' Sheet (IIS) 35 6.3 Target Component List 36 i j

6.4 Computerized Data Base 36 l 6.5 Other SSIP/S Documentation 37 l 6.6 Final Report 39 VII. SOURCE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 7.1 General SSIP/S Source Evaluation Criteria 44 7.2 Specific SSIP/S Source Evaluation Criteria 45 VIII. INTERACTION EFFECTS EVALUATION CRITERIA 8.1 General Guidelines For Evaluating Interaction Effects 47 8.2 Specific Criteria For Evaluating 49 Interaction Effects 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page No.

II. PROGRAM EICLUSIONS 9.1 General Program Exclusions 52 92 0ther Programs 52 93 Specific Exclusions and Assumptions 54 I. REFERENCES 10.1. Reference Listing 57 10.2 Supporting Program Documentation Listing 57 II. APPENDICES 59 11.1 Appendix A - SSIP/S Target Criteria 11.2 Appendix B - SSIP/S Target Component List 11 3 Appendix C - Evaluation of Interaction Effects Due to Impact on Rigid Conduit and Duct 1

11 4 Appendix D - Deleted 11 5 Appendix E - Deleted 11.6 Appendix F - Deleted 5

o l

~

l l

l l

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page No.

I 11.7 Appendix G - Deleted 11.8 Appendix H - Deleted 11 9 Appendix J - Deleted 11.10 Appendix K - Source Acceptance Criteria 1

?

i 2

1 l

I i

l f

i 6

l 1

l . -_

,- +

2 I. SSIP/S PROGRAM _ OBJECTIVE _AND_ SCOPE The Spatial Systems Interaction Program / Seismic (SSIP/S) is one of many programs conducted at the Midland Energy Center (MEC) to assure that physical interactions between systems and/or components will not compromise the capability of re-quired safety-related systems to fulfill their safety design function. Such conditions were considered during the plant design phase; however, the possibility exists that an in-teraction was inadvertently overlooked or has resulted from installation.

This section describes the objective and scope of the pro-gram which addresses spatially interacting structures, systems and components. Interactions caused by the seis-mically induced behavior of seismically and nonseismically-qualified components potentially interacting with those ,

structures, systems and components required to maintain the plant safety design basis.

The implenentation of the SSIP/S is being undertaken by an an independent third party consultant that was not involved with the MEC design or seismic evaluations. The independent SSIP/S Consultant, Mark G. Jones Engineering Consultants, Inc. (MGJEC), is responsible for the development and imple-mentation of the SSIP/S at the Midlend Energy Center. The retention of the SSIP/S Consultant assures that an objective and independent evaluation of potential seismically-induced interactions that may have been inadvertently overlooked in 7

-- m e - + - - e n r m ,

a the original plant design is accomplished.

1.1 Objective The Midland Energy Center SSIP/S, when completed, will have performed the following tasks o Identification of SSIP/S target components o Development of seismic behavior criteria for sources o Identification by plant walkdowns of postulated seismically-induced source-target interactions o Technical engineering evaluation and resolution of identified interactions o Generation of final program report o An independent SSIP/S review of "as-installed" configuration of the MEC When all source-target interactions have been identified and resolved, MEC's SSIP/S will establish a confidence that:

When subject to a maximum credible seismic event (the Safe Shutdown Earthquake, or SSE), structures, systems and components required for the maintenance of the plant safety design basis (attaining and maintaining plant safe shutdown and mitigation of postulated acci- ,

dents) will not be prevented from performing their in- i tended safety functions as a result of physical inter-actions caused by seismically-induced failurec or be-8 1

l havior of any and all other structures, systems and com-ponents.

1.2 Scope The SSIP/S shall reflect the "as-installed" condition of the plant based on visual examination of the plant.

All necessary evaluations required by the program shall be undertaken to provide assurance that the plant may be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the general public.

The following major elements of the program are defined as to their scope:

1.2.1 Targets shall include all safety-related structures, systems and components, including those redundant systems, required to attain and maintain safe shut down of the plant.

The operation modes of full power, shutdown and refueling shall be considered in the formulation of the target scope.

Additionally, accident mitigating systems shall be included in the scope of targets such as contain-ment isolation and heat removal. Criteria for the identification of SSIP/S targets is given in Appendix A.

1.2.2 Sources shall include'all seismically and 9

1

O nonseismically-qualified structures, systems and components that could result in physical interactions with target components.

1.2 3 Plant Evaluation by a qualified Walkdown Team of experienced engineers shall be conducted to the extent that all source-target interactions not meeting certain source acceptance criteria (see Section VII) shall be identified and documented by the SSIP/S. A full description of the postulated interaction shall be documented.

During the course of SSIP/S plant evaluations, the Walkdown Team may encounter design or construction concerns that are not within the scope of the program. Such situations shall be documented and transmitted to CPCo for information. Documenta-tion shall not result in the formal treatment by the SSIP/S.

1.2 4 Analysis of Interactions identified by the Walkdown Team shall be performed by experienced engineers qualified to perform such activities.

Interactions may be resolved through evaluation by the Walkdown Team, or by analysis by on-site or office engineering groups of the SSIP/S Consul-tant or the plant architect / engineer.

10 j

1.2.5 Plant _ Modifications which may result from the scope of the interaction resolution effort shall be implemented in accordance with established MEC project procedures. Final verification of such modifications shall be performed by the SSIP/S Walkdown Team for systems interaction considera-tions only.

11

(. _1

II. DEFINITIONS _AND_ PROGRAM _0RGANIZATION 2.1 Definitions 2.1.1 Component - A single device, structure, or system segment. Examples of components are valves, pumps, piping, transmitters, tubing, conduits, switchgear, etc.

2.1.2 Discipline _ Engineer -A technically experienced Engineer assigned to perform one or more tasks of the SSIP/S. These taske may include participation on the Walkdown Team or resolution of postulated interactions. Discipline Engineers may be supplied by MGJEC or Bechtel.

2.1 3 Interaction _ Identification _ Sheet _(IIS) - The primary document of the SSIP/S used to record all aspects of a postulated interaction from its identification during the walkdown through to its final resolution.

2.1.4 Intercongartmental Walkdown- The review by Walkdown Team of postulated interactions that result from seismically-induced failures in one room or compartment that may physically interact with target components in another room or compart-ment.

12

.+

l 2.1.5 Target _ Component List - A listing by sys-tem and/or component of targets. The Target Component List shall be a controlled document, and contain those safety-related s,ystems and/or com-ponents that are within the scope of the SSIP/S and require walkdown evaluation. See Appendix B.

2.1.6 Q-Listed _ Component - A safety-related struc-ture, system, or component that has been seismically qualified to the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). See Reference 10.1.2 for a com-complete definition of components that are con-tained in the MEC Q - List.

2.1.7 Postulated Interaction - The physical inter-action of a source componenet with a target compo-nent as postulated by the Walkdown Team being caused by a seismically-induced failure or be-havior of the source component (s).

2.1.8 Resolution By_Walkdown_ Team _ Evaluation - A resolution of a postulated interaction, performed only at the time of the walkdown, which the Walk-down Team determines to either have no effect on the ability of the target component to perform its intended safety function, or is not a credible seismically-induced interaction. No plant modifi-cations are generated as a result of this type of 13

,. intoraotion rocolution. No further resolution action is necessary.

2.1 9 Resolution _By Analysis -A resolution of a postulated interaction assigned to a Discipline Engineer and that by analysis it is determined that no effect on the ability of the target compo-nont to perform its intended safety function re-sults from the interaction. No plant modifications are generated as a result of this type of interac-tion resolution.

2.1.10 Resolution By_ Plant Modification - A resolu-tion of a postulated interaction assigned to a Discipline Engineer and that by analysis it is determined that a plant modification is necessary to ensure the ability of the target component to perform its intended safety function as a result of the interaction. A plant modification is initiated as a result of this type of interaction resolution.

2.1.11 Walkdown_ Team - A group of technically exper-ienced Discipline Engineers familiar with SSIP/S i , methodologies and analysis methods and have been trained in SSIP/S walkdown procedures. The activities of the Walkdown Team includes f 1. Postulate source-target interactions.

f

2. Resolve postulated interactions.

l l

14

I

i

3. Recommend interaction resolutions where practical at the time of interaction identi-fication.

4 Eve.luate plant modifications made under the SSIP/S for interaction consequences.

2.1.12 Source - Any structure, system or component at the Midland Energy Center which is postulated to physically interact with a target. A source component may or may not be Q-listed or seismi-cally qualified under other MEC programs.

2.1.13 Target -A structure, system or component identified by the Target Component List as being a safety related component that is within the scope of the SSIP/S and thereby requires walkdown evaluation. In some instances, targets themselves can be sources of interactions with other targets.

Criteria for the identification of SSIP/S targets is given in Appendix A, and the Target Component List is included as Appendix B.

2.1.14 Failure - A target structure, system or com-ponent is considered to fail if it suffers damage resulting in a loss of function and/or loss of structural integrity.

2.1.15 Rigid Range - That portion of the response spectrum curve in which there is no 15

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

I significant change in spectral acceleration with increasing frequency.

2.1.16 WaAkdown -A planned and systematic evaluation by visual examination of sources s.nd targets by a qualified team of Discipline Engineers.

2.2 Program Organization Overall management of the SSIP/S is the responsibility of the Consumers Power Company (CPCo). Personnel from CPCo and the SSIP/S Censultant are assigned to the SSIP/S Project Manager for CPCo. The responsibilities and functional relationships of the SSIP/S personnel are described below.

2.2.1 Project Organization by Responsibility An organization chart by responsibility is shown in Figure 2.2.1. The responsibilities of the principal organizations furnishing SSIP/S person-nel are presented in the following paragraphs.

2.2.1.1 CPCo SSIP/S_ Project _ Manager - The CPCo SSIP/S Project Manager is responsible for the overall conduct of the Program.

2.2.1.2 CPCo SSIP/S_ Project _ Engineer - The CPCo SSIP/S Project Engineer is responsible for l the technical aspects of the program. He 16

_. . . - _ . -1

t . i i .

manages the SSIP/S Consultant and coordinates the program activities with other organizations such as Bechtel and the Midland Proj ect Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD).

He also reviews SSIP/S Consultant procedures and establishes CPCo SSIP/S procedures for CPCo work performed in support of the program.

2.2.1 3 Bechtel Project _ Manager - The Bechtel Project Manager is responsible for all Bechtel engineering, design and construction activities associated with SSIP/S plant modifications in accordance with . established MEC project procedures .

2.2.1.4 Executive Manager, Midland Profect Quality l

Assurance _ Department (MPQAD) - The MPQAD Man-ager is responsible for all quality assurance activities of the MEC Project.

2.2.1 5 CPCo_ Midland Site _ Manager - The CPCo Site Manager is responsible for all site activities of the MEC Project.

2.2.1.6 SSIP/S Consultant - The SSIP/S indepen-dent consultant is responsible for the development and implementation of the SSIP/S I

under the direction of the CPCo SSIP/S Project Engineer. His responsibilities 17

7__

I include performance of walkdowns, documenting of postulated interactions, resolution of interactions, independent review of interac-tion resolutions performed by others, and I maintenance of SSIP/S documentation.

2.2.1.7 Bechtel Project _ Engineer - The Bechtel Project Engineer is responsible for design and analysis work in accordance with established MEC Project procedures, required for the resolution of interactions assigned to Bechtel.

2.2.2 Work Task Flow Chart A work task flow chart is presented in Figure 2.2.2, which outlines the principal tasks required for the implementation of the SSIP/S. Detailed descriptions and procedures are presented in subsequent sections of this Manual for each SSIP/S Consultant task identified in Figure 2.2.2.

l l

! 18 i

L _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - -

FIGURE 2.2.1 SSIP/S ORGANIZATION CHART - ~.

• i MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER l

l CPCo VICE PRESIDENT PROJECTS, ENGINEERING,

& CONSTRUCTION I

cec BECHTEL CPC0 SITE EXECUTIVE EXbIVE PROJECT MANAGER . MANAGER PROJ MANAGER MPQAD OFFICE MANAGER I I

. I I P^ 55 P/S PROJECT SITE MANAGER fuDT PR0J( N 'IN RN CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL MANAGER U

l l SUPT SUPT. CPC0 TECINICAL CONSTRUCh10N SSIP/S PE t

SSIP/S CONSULTANT I I

~

ENGINEERING WALKDOWN TECH./ ADMIN.

, GROUP TEAM SUPPORT I

FIGURE 2.2.2 SSIP/S WORK TASK FLOW CHART Lecend

- = Pork Flow

= OA Monitorino

( SSIP/S MANUAL g

PROGRAM

( TARGET SCOPE .!

(PROCEDURES FOR TPAINING D

j j

INITIAL WALKDOWNS SITE INSPECTION j g OF TARGETS BY ................................j WALKDOWN TEAM - l FOLLOW-UP INTERACTION IDENT.  !

WALKDOWNS  :

INTERACTION .................................j RESOLUTION  !

BY WALKDOW BY PLANT BY ANALYSIS PROGRAM AUDITS TEAM EVALUATION MODIFICATION INITIATE DESIGN CHANGE

• PERFOPPED BY OTHERS CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION ,

BY WALKDOWN TEAM l SSIP/S COMPUTERIZED DATA BASE l 20

III. GENERAL PROGRAM _ METHODOLOGIES This section discusses the various methods to be employed in j carrying out the responsiblilities and objectives of the prcgram from the initial program development through the site evaluation activities and resolution work to the final documentation. The detailed procedures for implementing the various program tasks are presented in subsequent sections and Appendices to this Manual.

31 Program Development This phase of the SSIP/S prescribes the preliminary activities required to implement the field evaluation and interaction resolution portions of the program.

3.1.1 Initial Activities shall include:

o Development of Project Quality Plan o Definition of the SSIP/S target scope (Appendix A) o Identification of SSIP/S targets resulting in a listing of those structures, systems and components required to be evaluated by the Walkdown Team o Development of guidelines and procedures to the Walkdown Team describing in detail the l

scope and behavior of sources which are postulated to interact with targets 21

o Development of the SSIP/S Program Manual o Development of data and plant room documen-tation packages to be used by the Walkdown Team in their plant evaluation activities; piping schematics, raceway lists, area draw-ings and other such documents may be included as part of the required documentation.

3.1.2 Source Acceptance _ Criteria shall be developed that establishes the basis and guidelines for the Walkdown Team's postulating of interactions.

Historical data, analysis or testing may be used to establish the criteria used to identify source seismic behavior during the SSE. The source accep-tance criteria (Appendix K) may include quidelines for source failure as well as source caismic motions.

3.1 3 Walkdown Team requirements shall be established and documented 4

in a Walkdown Team training procedure which describe the experience, technical and educational background of the team members plus the specific discipline expertise necessary to identify and possibly resolve the source-target interactions identified during the walkdown.

314 Program _ Procedures shall be developed by the SSIP/S Consultant in accordance with the require-22

.-- = ,.

ments of this Program Manual. Such procedures are written to be compatable with existing MEC Project Procedures. SSIP/S procedures are referenced in subsequent sections to this Manual and are con-tained in the SSIP/S Project Quality Plan (Reference 10.1 4).

3 1.5 Training rhall be provided by the SSIP/S Consultant using appropriate SSIP/S training procedures to all Walkdown Team Members to ensure l thoroughness of interaction identification as well l

as the familiarization with the scopo of sources and targets. l In particular, the training of the Walkdown Team members shall include classroom and field activities designed to assure that each team menber is knowledgeable of the source acceptance criteria, the targets of the SSIP/S, and guidelines for identifying and resolving postulated interactions.

32 Site Evaluation of Targets This section describes in broad terms the two-step method utilized to assure that the MEC has been fully evaluated and reflects SSIP/S treatment of the "as-installed" condition of the plant.

3.2.1 Initial Walkdowns shall be performed on an 23

area or system basis where the team identifies source-target interactions resulting from completed construction at the time of the walk-down. Because construction work in progress may be less than 100% completed in some rooms, the team shall only evaluate for interactions those structures, systems and components that are com-pleted at the time of the initial walkdown. This construction completion applies to both source and target components.

3.2.2 Follow-up__Walkdowns will be conducted once a room's construction is essentially completed.

Such follow-up walkdowns are comprised of two activities:

3.2.2.1 The completed room shall be re-evaluated for interactions. All targets, including those considered during the initial walkdown as well as those targets installed subsequent to the initial walkdowns, shall be evaluated in accordance with SSIP/S walkdown procedures. If all construction is found to be complete, this will constitute the final walkdown. If incomplete contruction is pre-sent during the follow-up walkdown, it shall be evaluated for interactions in subsequent walk-downs. This procedure will assure that the com-pleted room has been totally evaluated by the l 24

~

?

Walkdown Team.

3 2.2.2 The Walkdown Team shall verify that no new interactions have been created as a result of an SSIP/S modification. Should the modification be installed other than in strict conformance to the design or resolution documentation, the Walkdown Team shall assess the acceptability of the as-in-stalled configuration from a systems interaction viewpoint.

33 Interaction Resolution Once identified and documented, the postulated source-target interaction must be acceptably resolved in accordance with SSIP/S procedures. Because the SSIP/S is a third party review, overall program consistency is maintained by consultant review of all resolution work which may be performed by others. This section describes the interaction resolution methodology.

3 3.1 Resolution by_Walkdown_ Team Evaluation is per-formed at the time of the walkdown. The postulated interaction is reviewed and if in the judgement of the Walkdown Team using available data, experience or engineering principles the interaction is not credible or does not adversely affect the safety-related function of the target, it is so noted on the IIS and no further j 25 i

._ _ , . _ _ m , . _ , _ _ _ _ . , . _ _ . . _

,- ongineering action under the SSIP/S is required.

Engineering judgement is supported by stated rationale. l 3.3.2 Resolution by Analysis results from the Walkdown Team's recommendation that further analysis is required for resolution because the interaction's complexity is beyond the capability of the team to resolve at the time of walkdown per 3.3.1 above. In this case, each interaction is to be analyzed to determine the source seismic behavior or if the interaction adversely affects the safety-related function of the target compo-nent. Engineering judgement when used as part of the analysis must be supported by a stated rationale or a detailed analysis.

333 Resolution _by Plant _ Modification results from

1) the failure to show by analysis that the inter-action was not detrimental to the target component, or 2) the decision to resolve the interaction by designing a plant modification. In this case, the Discipline Engineer prepares a resolution summary describing the proposed modification which is then submitted to the CPCo SSIP/S Project Engineer for implementation of the modification in accordance with established MEC project procedures.

26 1

I

.~.

,.. l 3.4 Program Quality Assurance and Audits The SSIP/S is considered an engineering evaluation pro-gram rather than a 100FR50 Appendix B requirement for design and construction. However, the quality related activities of the SSIP/S have been made subject to audit and surveillance in accordance with the existing MEC project procedures and the internal MGJEC quality assurance requirements described in Reference 10.1.4 35 Program Documentation 3.5.1 This section describes the minimum required documentation to support the elements of the program.

3.5.1.1 Interaction Identification Sheets (IIS) are used to document the plant evaluation activities of the Walkdown Team, the results of analysis, and the final resolution method.

IIS's also serve as the reference for all other SSIP/S documentation. The IIS is a controlled and auditable document.

3 5.1.2 Target _ Component _ List (Appendix B),

contains an itemization of all structures, systems and components in accordance with the criteria for selection of SSIP/S targets (see Appendix A). The Target Component List is a 27

\

controlled and auditable document.

1 l

3.5.1.3 Project Quality Plan (Reference 10.1 4) which includes the MGJEC Quality Assurance Manual, defines the means by which the

, Quality Assurance requirements of the SSIP/S shall be met. The Project Quality Plan which includes applicable implementating procedures is a controlled and auditable document.

3.5.2 Additional documentation may result from procedures of the MEC participating groups; however, they are not governed by this Manual.

Ancillary documentation maintained by the SSIP/S Consultant include the following:

3.5.2.1 Hardcopy Files are established which contain "information only" copies of pertinent written documentation associated with any IIS.

3 5.2.2 Computerized Database is established which contains the summary of results of each interaction. The database is searchable to obtain statistical information about the program, and to provide status information regarding on-going resolution and walkdown activities. The computerized Database is for "information only".

28

^

IV. PROGRAM _ PROCEDURES _AND_ INSTRUCTIONS l The SSIP/S procedures outlined in this section are written to be consistent with those of other organizations which interface with the SSIP/S.

4.1 Initial Program Development 4.1.1 Target criteria outlines or describes the boundaries of systems included in the scope of the SSIP/S and the operability requirements of powered components. See Appendix A.

I 4 1.2 Walkdown team training procedures outline the sources to be considered in the scope of the SSIP/S, together with a description of general SSIP/S excitricus. See Reference 10.1 4 413 The SSIP/S Program Manual is the document, which describes the organization, methologies and procedures for the conduct of the Program.

42 Training of Personnel 4 2.1 Walkdown Team classroom and field training sessions are. conducted to ensure proper and consistent program implementation. See Reference 10.1 4.

4.2.2 Engineering discipline training is conducted to 29

\

..+

l l the prograa proceduro on intercotion resolution '

methods. See Reference 10.1 4 43 Walkdown Procedures This section outlines the general methods used by the Walkdown Team to evaluate the MEC for postulated inter-actions. See Reference 10.1.4.

431 Initial Target Evaluations may be performed on an- area or system basis. Generally, the initial evaluations will entail the walkdown of areas in various stages of construction completion.

4.3.2 On-Going _ Plant Construction may be eval-uated by one or both of the following methods.

a) Formal re-evaluation by the Walkdown Team.

b) Review of the design documents based on guidelines for accepting plant changes which do not entail addition of components to the plant, thus not requiring formal evaluatione by the Walkdown Team.

4.3 3 SSIP/S Modifications are implemented by existing MEC project procedures, and eval-usted by the Walkdown Team for SSIP/S con-siderations, such as verification that the 30

interaction was resolved per the design or is acceptable as installed, and that no new in-teractions were created by the plant modifi-cation.

434 Thermal _Ccnsiderations are incoporated into the site evaluation process by the Walk-down Team at the time of walkdown. This is accomplished by estimating the thermal move-ments of piping systems or attached equipment by conservative estimates or through the use of deflection data obtained from the thermal analysis of such systems. Postulated seismic displacements are thereby measured from the estimated component location in the hot con-dition. Potential interferences resulting from thermal movements are also treated during supplementary walkdowns and preopera-tional testing of systems by other MEC organizations as described in Reference 10.1.3.

44 Interaction Resolution This section describec in broad terms the requirements to resolve an interaction that has not been resolved by the Walkdown Team at the time of interaction identification. An information copy of all documenta-tion shall be contained in the files of the SSIP/S as a 31 I

l result of the work of this section. Design data or en-gineering analysis that is used by the SSIP/S for in-teraction resolutions shall be tracked for possible future revisions which may affect the outcome of prior interaction resolutions. See Reference 10.1 4.

The independent SSIP/S Consultant shall technically review all SSIP/S interaction resolutions performed by other organizations in accordance with the procedure presented in Reference 10.1.4 The technical review will ensure that the interaction is addressed and re-solved in accordance with the requirements of this pro-gran.

4 4.1 Resolution _by_ Analysis of identified interac-6 tions is conducted by Discipline Engineers. The resolution package shall contains a) The signed IIS b) Detailed calculations or calculation summaries in accordance with established engineering procedures or c) Stated rationale which is documented in lieu of calculations indicating why the interac-tion is not credible or does not affect the ability of the target component to perform its intended safety function. Such rationale includes historical or test data, or compari-32

. 1

...- <l son to previous seismic qualification work.

4.4 2 Resolution by Plant __ Modification is a result of engineering analysis by the Discipline Engineers followed by modification implementation in accordance with existing MEC procedures. In ad-dition to the data required for the resolution package described in 4 4.1 above, a copy of the complete design change documentation shall be in-cluded or a reference made to the appropriate de-sign documents.

45 Documentation Control The logging, tracking and filing of SSIP/S documentation shall be performed in accordance with the procedures presented in Reference 10.1 4 i

l 33

,. V. QUALITY _ ASSURANCE _ AUDITS l

5.1 Independent SSIP/S Quality Assurance Audits SSIP/S activities which are subject to audit by the MPQAD quality assurance programs include but are not limited to the following:

Project Quality Plan, including MGJEC Quality Assurance Manual SSIP/S Program Manual, Criteria and Target Component List Project Correspondence Document Control Walkdown Team Training Project Quality Assurance Training Plant walkdowns and interaction documentation Interaction resolutions Plant modification verification These audits are performed in accordance with the existing MEC project procedures. Additional independ-ent SSIP/S audits are conducted by MGJEC or part of their quality assurance program as described in Reference 10.1 4 34

. VI. PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION This section describes the minimum documentation to be generated by the Program in support of the results of the SSIP/S study. All documentation described herein shall be properly referenced in the SSIP/S final report and turned over to CPCo for retention.

6.1 Room Walkdown Packages 1

These packages contain the detailed design information pertaining to targets, walkdown dates, rooms, boundaries, etc. The material contained in these packages is used to facilitate the location of targets within the plant. These documents are maintained for "information only" and are not the basis for the postulation of interactions.

6.2 Interaction Identification Sheet (IIS)

The IIS properly completed with required signatures, shall be the document which records walkdown and resolution data for postulated interactions. See Reference 10.1 4 for a description of the procedure for the use of the IIS. The IIS will not be used to trans-mit modification data or authorization to proceed with design activities to Bechtel. The IIS is similar in format to the sample shown in Figure 6.2.1.

35

6.3 Target Component List A listing of each target structure, system and component defined by the target criteria (See Appendix A). The list shall include, as appropriates (see Appendix B) 6.3 1 Structure, system, and/or component 5

identification 6.3.2 Appurtenances to the target, if to be

evaluated by the Walkdown Team 6.3.3 Boundaries of the target; e.g., piping system termination points 1

6.3.4 Conponent operability requirements 1

! 6.3 5 Location in plant by room number 1

6.3.6 Special comments relating to the target (e.g.

only required during refueling) 6.3.7 Space for initialling by the Walkdown Team to signify walkdown date.

6.4 Computerized Data Base j The computerized data base is designed to log, track, retrieve and provide statistical SSIP/S data. The information contained in the data base is that shown on the IIS. This data is supplemented by coding which is used to facilitate sorting and tracking of the status 36

- w -

of individual or classes of identified interactions.

Supplemental coding includes postulated interaction numbers, and interaction codes (IC) containing perti-nent information such as the source, target, location, l type of interaction phenomena, and type. resolution to allow data manipulation and sorting of Enteractions by these specific categories. In addition, reco= mended resolutions ,(RR) EEd final resolution (FR) codes shall to provided for each interaction to indicate the type of resolutions and final disposition ,

of each, e.g. no action necessary, mcdifications by discipline'(if re -

quired), and type of smalysil parformed such as impait, testing, historical data etc. The data base is an "in-

, e formation only" source. -

6.5 Other SSIP/S Documentation -

6.5.1 SSIP/S_ Transmittal Form is Iced to' transmit various program documents',aveng'and within CP6o, 3> ,

Bechtel, and the SSIP/S Consultant. Examples of such documents includo.valkdown summaries, -

intrr-action resolution packaEes, engineering technical review documents, computerizt>d edatabase updates, requests for information, etc. The SSIP/S Trans-mittal Form is similar in format to th'e sample shown in Figure 6.5.1.1.

6.5.2 yalkdown Summaries are issued foll'owing each l W S k

'37 ,

y -m J n 4

r m-r

SSIP/S walkdown to summarize the activity and interactions identified.

6.5 3 P.esolution_ Reports are generated by the' engineering groups ' performing interaction resolution work. These' reports, in the format approved for use by each group, contain the detailed assumptions, rationale, calculations, etc. which were used in the resolution of the interaction. "Information Only" copies of resolu-tion reports become a part of the SSIP/S hard copy files.

6.5.4 Technical _ Review Form (Reference 10.1 4) is generated by the SSIP/S Consultant to document the technical review of interaction resolutions performed by other groups. "Information Only" copies of the engineering technical review form become a permanent part of the SSIP/S hard copy files.

6.5.5 Field __ Verification _ Report Form (Reference 10.1 4) is used to document the Walkdown Team findings of the site evaluations of SSIP/S plant modifications which resulted from interaction resolutions. This form is used only when a question or- problem arises as a result of the field verification of such modifications. "Infor-mation Only" copies of the field verification re-38

j .

b i

port form becomes a permanent part of the SSIP/S hard copy files.

6.6

~

Final Report At the conclusion of the SSIP/S, a report shall be prepared summarizing the results of the program. The report shall contain as a minimum:

6.6.1 A brief description of the program 6.6.2 The historical basis of the program with reference to applicable NRC documents 6.6.3 A Summary of IIS's by interaction category or type 6.6.4 A Summary of interaction resolutions

a. Major items

b. Generic items

c. Types of sources

d. General descriptions of required plant modifications 6.6.5 References to relevant program documents

a. SSIP/S Program Manual

b. Target criteria and Target Component List 39 i __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

c. Analyses, tests, or reports in support of the source acceptance criteria

d. Project Quality Plan e

I 1

i 40

. Sheet 1 of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER SPATIAL SYSTEMS INTERACTION PROGRAM / SEISMIC INTERACTION IDENTIFICATION SHEET (IIS)

POSTULATED INTERACTION NO:

ROOM NO.: FLOOR ELEVATION: SOURCE ELEVATION:

LOCATION WITHIN ROOM:

IDENTIFICATION OF INTERACTION COMPONENTS:

SOURCE: SOURCE CODE:

TARGET:

POSTULATED INTERACTION DESCRIPTION:

IC NO.:

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION BY WALKDOWN TEAM (SEE SHEET TWO IF FINAL RESOLUTION REQUIRED):

RR NO.:

WALKDOWN TEAM ORIGINATOR /DATE CPCo PROJECT ENGR. APPROVAL /DATE WALKDOWN TEAM LEADER APPROVAL /DATE REV DATE BY APP DESCRIPTION 41 Rev. 5/83 FIGURE 6.2.1

,- Sheet 2 of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER SPATIAL SYSTEMS INTERACT 10N PROGRAM / SEISMIC INTERACTION IDENTIFICATION SHEET (IIS)

POSTULATED INTERACTION NO.:

continued from page one:

FINAL RESOLUTION / VERIFICATION OF POSTULATED INTERACTION:

FR NO.:

SSIP/S PROJECT MANAGER /DATE -_________________

FIELD VERIFICATION:

I WALKDOWN TEAM LEADER /DATE REFERENCE RESOLUTION DOCUMENTS:

DESIGN CHANGE DOCUMENT NO.:

42 FIGURE 6.2.1 (cont)

l .

'h Cassumes m M SSIP/S TRANSMITTAL FORM MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER h**

gn,,n,, yin,"cY.u7 ale., inc.  !

D A TE: CORRESPONDENCE NO:

TO: FROM:

ATTENTION:

SUBJECT:

REF: IIS NO(S):

OTHER:

E N C L O S E D:

i ACTION REO'D () INFO ONLY ()

REM ARKS:

1 SIGNATURE: C C:

43 FIGURE 6.5.1.1 REV 5/83

VII. SOURCE _ ACCEPTANCE _CRITER[A 7.1 General SSIP/S Source Evaluation Criteria The fundamental objective of the SSIP/S is to identify and document all seismically induced physic.al interac-tions which are postulated to occur between safety-related target components and any other source com-ponent. That is, any other structure, system, or com-ponent is to be considered as a potential source of physical interactions whether or not it has been seis-mically qualified and/or is a safety-related (Q-listed) component. The Walkdown Team will, therefore, consider the seismic behavior of all possible source compcnents when performing SSIP/S walkdowns.

It will be aesumed, however, that the following general guidelines which are required for seismically qualified components have been considered in the design process, and that applicable design and QA procedures have been properly implemented for Q-listed and seismically qualified components:

7.1.1 All seismically qualified structures, systems, and aomponents will be capable of remaining structurally intact following the SSE.

7.1.2 All seismically qualified components have l

44 I

been supported to structures which are seismically qualified.

7.1 3 The motions of all structures which have seismically qualified components attached to them have been considered in the design of the seismically qualified components.

Simply stated, the seismic motions of seismically qualified components will be the only mechanism considered when treating such components as sources.

These motions will be evaluated either by using the conservative criteria for nonseismically qualified structures and components (see paragraph 7.2), or by use of the existing seismic qualification documentation.

7.2 Specific SSIP/S Source Evaluation Criteria Specific criteria for evaluating the seismic behavior structures, systems and components is presented in Appendix K for particular categories of equipment.

This criteria vill be utilized by the Walkdown Team for postulating and predicting the seismic capability and motions of source components, and also to establish which nonseismically qualified structures and components are assumed to not fail structurally during the SSE.

45

l The criteria of Appendix K have been generated using conservative and/or definitive historical, analytical, or test data. However, interactions will be documented which in the judgement of the Walkdown Team are credible, despite the fact that the Appendix K criteria has not been violated. If interactions result from the application of Appendix K, they will be documented by the Walkdown Team by use of the IIS.

l v

46

VIII. INTERACTION EFFECTS _ EVALUATION _ CRITERIA 8.1 General Guidelines for Evaluating Interaction Effects Once an interaction is identified as sufficiently credible to occur, a more detailed and systematic evaluation is required for acceptable resolution and documentation.

The postulated interaction may result from direct mechanical impact and/or exposure to hostile environments created as a result of the interaction, such as fluids, etc. An evaluation is first performed to determine if the interaction results in a loss of function or degraded operation of the target component.

Secondly, chain-reaction failures of other target systems / components are considered as described below.

8.1.1 Target Loss of Function Target loss of function may result from physical damage which impairs mechanical operability, control systems, power; etc. Any level of functional impairment is an unacceptable outco=e for a seismically induced interaction. For example, an electric motor operated valve may be ,

1 required to operate during shutdown. A source l component may impact the valve operator and/or power cable, damaging them and preventing opera-47

l tion, or degrading valve operation.

)

8.1.2 Chain-Reaction Interactions If the function of the target is maintained as a result of the postulated interaction, an evalua-tion is made of the effect of the interaction on surrounding or ancillary target systems or components on a case-by-case basis.. For example, the impact of a source component on a target electrical conduit may not cause unacceptable damage to the conduit, however the transmitted vibration or conduit deformation could adversely affect an attached target instrument. Such chain-reaction interactions or conditions are considered by both the walkdown team at the time of interac-tion identification and/or by the Discipline Engineer providing the interaction resolution.

8.1 3 Cascading Source Interactions If in the judgement of the Walkdown Team the seis-mic failure or motion of a source component re-sults in impact with another source component resulting in its subsequent failure, the interac-tion consequences of the induced failure will be considered by the Walkdown Team on a case-by-case basis. All cascading source interactions will be !

documented in the same manner as if the componeut ,

1 48

were to have been postulated to fail by any of the source acceptance criteria of Appendix K.

8.2 Specific Criteria For Evaluating Interaction Effects 8.2.1 Impact Impact loading on target components is the major mode of physical, seismically-induced interaction.

Generally, impact considerations are treated on a case-by-case basis during the interaction resolution effort. However, the Walkdown Team can exercise engineering judgement and experience coupled with the criteria presented below when evaluating the effects of impact-type interactions.

8.2.1.1 Rigid Conduit Impact Source components impacting rigid conduit targets may be evaluated using the criteria shown in Appendix C. Impact configurations which are determined to be acceptable by ap-plication of the data contained in Appendix C may be used for final resolution by the Walk-down Team.

8.2.1.2 Piping Impact a) Impact due to source deflections 49

1

-. l The impact loading of one steel piping system on another may be considered, at the option of the Walkdown Team, to not be detrimental if all of the following conditions are ful-filled:

o The impact is between piping whose support systems remain functional o The target pipe diameter is at least equal to the diameter of the source pipe and the wall thickness of the target pipe is at least equal to that of the source pipe.

o The source pipe is 6 inch nominal diameter or less in size.

b) Impact on target piping due to falling source components must be treated on a case by case basis.

8.2.1 3 Duct Impact Small source components impacting target HVAC ducts may be evaluated using the criteria shown in Appendix C. Impact con-figurations which are determined to be accep-table by application of the data contained in Appendix C may be used for final resolution by the Walkdown Team.

8.2.1 4 Cable Tray Impact 50

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

Impact loadings on target cable trays due to lateral source motions or lateral source in-pacts will be treated by the Walkdown Team on

, a case-by-case basis. All instances of i

I postulated cable tray impact using the source I

acceptance criteria of Appendix K will be documented by the Walkdown Team.

8.2.2 Fluid Loss and Environmental Effects The effects of source fluid loss and environmental conditions surrounding the target component, such as radiation, humidity, temperature and pressure are treated in one of the following ways:

a) Utilization of data and results from the MEC flood effects or HELBA programs b) Comparison of the environmental interaction phenomenon with the environmental qualification data for the target component, if available c) By the engineering judgment of the Walkdown Team d) A case-by-case evaluation of the fluid and environmental effects by Discipline Engineers 51

II. PROGRAM EXCLUSIONS 9.1 General Program Exclusions The SSIP/S is implemented to identify the seismically-induced physical interactions between safety-related target components and other commodities. It is not intended to serve as a design verification for Q-listed structures, systems, and components, and the Walkdown Team will hasume that all applicable seismic design considerations were applied to such components. Thus, the SSIP/S will not treat for interaction effects such items as a target component interacting with its own support system, cable entry into a cable tray from a conduit, integrity of instrument or vent / drain connections to piping systems, etc.

All as-built verification efforts for Q-listed systems, QA/QC inspections, design proximity verifications (including electrical channel separation requirements) and other design compliance verifications will be assumed to be satisfactorily performed by other MEC groups.

9.2 Other Programs Several other MEC programs deal with the interaction 52

effects of certain phenomena. The initiating events and/or effects of these programs will not be duplicated or superseded by the work performed under the SSIP/S.

This paragraph summarizes four such programs and the assumptions made in considering the applicability of these studies with regard to scope of the SSIP/S.

9 2.1 High Energy Line Break Analysis (HELBA)

The HELBA work postulates the location and effects of the breaking of high energy piping systems.

• Since in the SSIP/S the structural failure of only mechanically coupled or threaded piping connections is assumed and the resulting piping motions considered, the SSIP/S scope does not duplicate the HELBA efforts. It is possible to utilize the impact and environmental effects analysis from HELBA to formulate resolutions to postulated interactions.

9 2.2 Flooding The effects of flooding and moisture on safety-related equipment is determined and evaluated through an MEC flooding effects program. The results of this work may be used to solve SSIP/S interactions on a case-by-case basis where mois-ture, flooding or fluid effects on target com-components is postulated.

53

, - _ _ - . - . , = _ - . -- .. . -- .

. l

)

l. 9 2.3 Dasign Proxinity Requirstants i

The proximity requirements of various design specifications are not considered when postulating interactions for the SSIP/S; rather, the source acceptance criteria described in Section VII are utilized to evaluate the acceptability of the spatial relationship of sources and targets.

9.2 4 Fire Protection It will be assumed that the ability of safety-related components to function in a fire environment will be verified by fire protec-tion studies at MEC. Therefore, postulated SSIP/S source-target interactions that may result in a fire within the room containing target components will not be documented.

93 Specific Exclusions and Assumptions 9 3.1 Piping 9 3 1.1 Welded piping designed and installed in accordance with ANSI B31.1, Power Piping Code does not fail structurally as.a consequence of vertical / lateral pipe support failure.

However, the effects of resulting pipe deflections are considered as described in 54 l

?

Appendix K.

9 3.1.2 Vents, drains and instrument taps (including root valves) which are welded to i

piping systems and are three feet or less in l 1

total length will not structurally fail or separate from the main piping system as a result of seismically-induced loads.

9 3.2 Structures 9.3.2.1 Seismically-induced lateral motion of Seismic Category I supported grating that is judged by the Walkdown Team to be less than that required to result in contact with a target component will not be considered or documented as a postulated interaction. Cases of postulated contact will be documented in accordance with Section VII.

9.3.2.2 Interactions are not considered for spatial proximity considerations between a target component and structures or rigid extensions to such structures within the rigid range of the response spectrum curve.

Such structures include structural beams, walls, floors, rigid pipe or equipment supports or rigid raceway supports.

55

, +-- g - - - + - ,---#*

933 Instrumentation Tubing 9 3.3.1 Impact between two instrumentation tubes (source and target) will not be considered or documented as a postulated interaction due to unacceptable damage not occuring to either component. i 934 Q-Listed Components Q-listed structures, systems and components are assumed to be seismically qualified, and therefore are not considered to fail structurally. However, i the consequences of seismic motions of Q-listed components are considered by application of the source acceptance criteria of Section VII of this Manual.

9 3.5 Light Fixtures All electrical light fixtures at MEC shall not be considered as source components during the formal site evaluations by the Walkdown Team, as these components shall be evaluated for seismic capability by a parallel effort by Discipline Engineers and/or the SSIP/S Walkdown Team.

9 3.6 Contact / Impact Interactions Engineering judgement shall be used to exclude the documentation of trivial contact / impact interactions between sources and targets.

56 l

1 I. REFERENCES 10.1 Reference Listing 10.1.1 " Final Safety Analysis Report - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2", Consumers Power Company.

10.1.2 " Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Project Q-List", Bechtel Power Corportion.

10.1 3 " Systems Interaction Program For Midland Units I and II", Prepared by Midland Project Safety and Licensing Department, Consumers i

Power Conpany, January, 1933 10.1.4 "SSIP/S Project Quality Plan", Mark G. Jones Engineering Consultants, Inc., latest re-vision.

10.2 Supporting Program Documentation Listing 10.2.1 Exclusion Calculations (to follow) 10.2.2 Source Acceptance Criteria Data 10.2.2.1 Calculations (to follow) 10.2.2.2 Historical Data 57

l (to follow) l 10.2.2.3 Test Programs (to follow) 10.2.2 4 Miscellaneous Data (to follow) 1 58

,I II. -APPENDICES 11.1 Appendix A - SSIP/S Target Criteria 11.2 Appendix B - SSIP/S Target Component List 11 3 Appendix C - Evaluation of Interaction Effects Due to Impact on Rigid Conduit and Duct 11 4 Appendix D - Deleted 11 5 Appendix E - Deleted 11.6 Appendix F - Deleted 11.7 Appendix G - Deleted 11.8 Appendix H - Deleted 11 9 Appendix J - Deleted 11.10 Appendix K - Source Acceptance Criteria i

l l

59

APPENDII_A SSIP/S TARGET CRITERIA A.1 Scops of SSIP/S Targets The scope of the targets considered for the SSIP/S shall consist of all structures, systems and components listed on the Midland Project Q-List (Reference 10.1.2). This document, which shall be considered as the basis for the Target Component List, details the safety-related components necessary to attain and maintain plant safe chutdown, and to perform the following accident mitigating functions:

o emergency reactor shutdown o containment isolation o reactor core cooling o containment heat removal o reactor core residual heat removal o prevention of a significant release of radioactive material to the en-vironment in excess of the guide-line exposures of 100FR100 All associated components to the equipment listed in the Midland Project Q-List, such as electrical raceways and equipment, which ars necessary for target operation or maintenance of target integrity shall be included within the scope of SSIP/S targets.

A1

APPENDII B I SSIP/S TARGET COMPONENT LIST B.1 The SSIP/S Target Component List is attached.

(to follow) 8 B1 l

l

.t APPENDIX C EVALUATION OF INTERACTION EFFECTS DUE TO IMPACT ON RIGID CONDUIT AND DUCT C.1 Postulated impact configurations which are determined to be acceptable by application of the data contained in this Appendix may be used for final resolution by the Walkdown Team.

The tolerance to be applied to the figures in this Appendix shall be one-half (1/2) unit of the measurement used, i.e., for values in inches, the tolerance shall be +/- 1/2 inch.

! C.1.1 Rigid Conduit Impact Source components impacting rigid conduit targets may be evaluated using the criteria l shown in Figures C.1.1.a through C.1.1n. The following notes apply to these Figures:

C1

=*

C.1.1.1 These curves are applicable only for blunt sources. Impact from sources with

-sharp edges or corners invalidates the

, applicability of these curves.

C.1.1.2 The drop height given by the curves are maximum drop heights. If the source of a given weight falls from any height greater than that shown by the curve, it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

C.1.1.3 The basis of these curves assumes -

flexural deflection of the target con-duit to absorb the momentum of the source. Application of these curves does not apply for impacts close to the conduit supports where the expected displacement is small.

C.1.1 4 The support length of conduit (L), is the distance between the support points of the target conduit.

C.1.1.5 The contact length (1), is the length measured along the conduit upon which the impacting source strikes the con-duit. Contact lengths not covered by the Figures must be treated on a case-C2 l

by-case basis.

C.1.2 Duct Impact l l

1 Source components impacting HVAC ducts may be evaluated using the criteria shown in Figures C.1.2a through C.1.2.f for ducts of circular cross-section, and Figures C.1.2g through C.1.21 for ducts of rectangular cross-section. The following notes apply to these Figures:

C.1.2.1 Characteristic source dimensions not covered by the Figures must be treated on a case-by-case basis.

, C.1.2.2 The drop height given by the curves are maximum drop heights. If.the source of a given weight falls from any height greater than that shown by the curve, it must be evaluated on a case-by , case i

basis.

C.1.2.3 These curves are applicable only for blunt sources. Impact from sources with sharp edges or corners invalidates the applicability of these curvec.

C.1.2 4 The postulated impact must not take place at any corner or edge of rectangu-c3

l' L .

c - lar duct, or at any ducti support loca'

{

tions. The theoretical basis for thIse

- curves requires the flexur,il f deflection -

i of the duct sheet metal to absorb the' .

~

nonentum of the-source.

The so'urce impact C.1.2 5 length for circular ducts is measured along the longitudinal -

axis of the duct.  ;-- ;_

?

I W

/ c

-# W

-e r

(V

_, e J

me f'

[

+-

V w

W J

f' s

..f 0

.# h.,

.e-A_ f a#

C4

__W m

<a-

O et e

VALUkS OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WO(Lbs)

FOR %'CCtOUIT 12 -

\ \ \

\\

.. h G

s

-e 8- $-

8-

\ \ \ s

\s \ c. ;

o h(FI) o m

g g\

?

4_ #p,/ t

\ s

~

N- \

2-

\s N

s

\\ -

' \

I N N s g WLID FOR ALL CONTACT LENGTHS i 10 10 0 1000

. O.I WI SOURCE WGT. LBS.

/ = CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUIT OF iMFMCTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FI) h =

onCP K G R (FT.)

Figure C.l.la

VALUES OF SOURCE ,, WEIGHTS (,WO(LbS)

FORI COh0UIT 12 -

I,q I\l \ --- --

g o_ \ .

%- i

c. \ s

\

N h 8-Lh

, c. . -c. ____

e- \  %- \J h(FT) \, -Y.,

o 4- \3 \

k ks 3

\ N \\

\ \ \

g < s s N

s N

WLID FOR ALL CONTACT LENGTHS O-O.1 1 10 10 0 1000 W1 SOURCE VWGT. LBS.

/ =

CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUIT OF IMPDCTING BODY (IN.)

L =

SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FI) h =

once temr (FT.)

Figure C.l.lb

0 0

0 1

S H

T G 0 N 0 )

E 1 N

). L

(

I s T b C Y L A D XR

s #

r O

B O

W. N C S. G B N (T L L I c

SU I

\ uN L A

T C l TJ HN G

I O g\\\

\ \ s R O

F T.

G W

M W )T I

F F l

C EC \ D E O (

\ I 0 CR e W'd \

\

\

s s L 1 U

T T I

U U I r u

I c;)- ,

\ W O D D g E i

\ \ S N N CR l t,

\ O O i

RO U F l

i c; -

- \

f W

C N F C F O - OO )

S \q TH H F T

T.

F \ G G (

O N N E

L LE U S T T G E C R T U 1 A O T P P L N P O A O U n V C S o

=

8 L h 1

0

- - - ) _ -

2 1 o e g I 4 F

(

2 h

aa

0 0

0 1

0 0

1

) .

) N S (I b Y L

( D

)e O B

S G (WT B L

N I

d l T l C

SU T. M T

HO B G

W F

MI T.

)

l C

GO I

E F O (

F EC 0 CR e r

W"%

• N ,

1 U

T U

I T

IU u

O g E 1 CR 8

s- x 's S D N

D N i F

RO =

3 s N 1 O C

O C

f W U F O \

s

,\

x N N F OO )

S H H T.

b T G

T F G (

F # <e A N N O c.% \ x E L L E i

\

S \ m E \

\

'\

\

\

\ T C R H T E U l A O T P P L

A 1 4 -

%* N P C O U n V -

k (, C S D L- - (

• 3

\i

=

. [ L h f_ 2

=

f l

- 0

- - - - ) - ~

2 0 8 6 I 4 1 1 F

(

h m _

0 0

0 1

0 0

1

)

N.

) 6 s

b Y t D

( O O .

D S G (WT B N L I T

e l C l SU T

% l TD G F

MI I

)

HN W F C GO E FO (

I EC W'a f 8 A

0 CR 1

U O

T T I

U IU e

r u

g S D D i E I = N O

N O F CR / 4 1 C C RO 5 c ,\ W N F UF ~

\ \ OO )

O ,

\

H H T.

S - \ T T F F

O k

\

\

\ \ G G (

N E E N T S

E

\

\ c k< s \

\

L L iG T

C T

R H I

E U

s

\ '

I A O T P P L \ N P O O U on C %f A C S V $ '2

\

l- '

rb f

=

\

\

(

/ L h

\

3

=

f 1 O

. - - ) - - '

2 2

1 n 8 s I 4 F

(

h ow

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WE)(Lbs.)

FOR 14" COINOUlT 12 -

k ( (

\ \ \ \

10 - r G-$ C

'l 8-

\ \ \ \

~

924 \ \ \ ^tt s ,

( \ \

j a h(FT) 3 zg g 4- \

x \\\ x l-3-8 h ---*\\\

• - ~

x_h.

O.I i 10 10 0 1000 W1 SOURCE WGT. LBS.

/ = CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUlT OF IMF%CTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FT.)

h =

onoP HEET (FT.)

Figure C l.lf O

VALUES OF SOURCE WElGHTS (WO(Lbs)

FOR 2" C0tOUlT 12

\ \ \ \

10 -

\ \ \ \

_._ .__.i \

• f r (

8-4 g-- g

? p _.__

y_

h(F 8=

t= 5

• f-a

" ~

\ \

\ \

f=2 hs \ \ s 2-x x N x N 'x

\ -

0.1 1 10 10 0 1000 W1 SOURCE WGT. LBS.

[ = CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUIT OF IMPACTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FT.)

h =

DROP tOGHT (FT.)

Figure C.1.lg

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WR)(Lbs.)

FOR 2" CONDUIT 12 -

\ \

• ~"

10 -

D '

\ \

G G 1 's 8- 3 p

) \

6-

' \-

\ \ \

h(FI) \

,_ \ 1=3 -*\ \

~

\ \ \

2-

\ -

x s s N -

0-

. O.I I to 10 0 1000 W1 SOURCE WGT. LBS.

8 = CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUIT OF IMPACTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FT.)

h =

DROP HEIGif (FT.)

Figure C.1.1h J

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WRXLbS.)

FOR 2" CONDUIT 12 - '

\ \ \

O~ (\ \

\

c cM 8- .n m[m e e? ~

\ \ \

\y \ k-l= 5- 8 f +

c3 h(FI)

U 4- \

x \ x N N N

~

bc- -- q x x.

\ =

\ X,-

O .I I 10 10 0 1000 W.R SOURCE WGT. LBS.

8 = CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUlT OF iMF%CTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUlT (FT.)

h =

DRCP HEGR (FT.)

Figure C.l.li

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WO(Lbs)

FOR 2" CONDUIT 12 -

i

~

(

_ (! ., 2

-\ l .{=3'-D'

• ~

\

~

\

e. \

% \

g_ fc 7 h(FI) ~~'

• ~

\\ k-

\\

2-

\ N\ '

s. ,

SS '

O-O.1 1 10 N IN W1 SOURCE WGT. LBS.

/ = CONTACT LENSTH ON CONDUlT OF IMmCTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FT.)

h =

onOP HEET (FT.)

Figure Col.lj l

0 0

0

_ 0 1

0 0 )

) 0 1

N.

I s (

b Y t

D Xe O B

S G (WT ,

B L

N I

l T k SU T.

C A l T D G P )

H G

N W M I T.

F l

I O F C EC 0 EC O(

0 R e W'3 1 U

O T T I

U U I

r u

E S D D g N N CR L O O i RO W C C F U F  %

N F OO O '

)

S H H T. .

T 3

T F G (

F N N O \ E L L E t t S g T

a '2 "3 T

E \ 0 C R m U

L

\ s 1 A T

O P e -=

A \ \ O N P c U n V ,\ s C S of/

\ s. i' \ \

k

\

1. \ = == -

1. g -

s c# \ / L h -

\

t\

s

\ .

a g

1. ,"/N h[v '

,7'

\ x

\ i

- - - - ) - -

2 0

• s I 4 0 1 1 F

(

h od

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WO(Lbs.)

FOR 3" CONDUlT 12 -

\ \ \ \ . - .

c. \

\

\ \c c.

r

\,

c.

%s>

e

• ~

\ \ $ \ \

\ i

c. i \

h(FI) 1 y \ 's 3 \

4-

\ .t \ \' \ \'

n \( l \ \

t \

\

\ s<

Q \

\

M s \ \ 's ,

\ '

s m

\_ w 's

\

0-I IO 10 0 1000 10.000 W A SOURCE WGT. LBS.

/ =

CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUIT OF lMPACTING BODY (IN.)

L =

SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FT.)

h =

DnOP HEIGHT (FT.)

.g = s' f -- g" Figure C.l.ll

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WO(LbS)

FOR 4" CONDUlT 12 -

\

10 -

(

F 8- Ip

\ *e

,_ \ \

o h(FT)

\ \,

M N c'G \

4 .

.\ o's \

s '74 3 \ N s

Rex

\ =2 L l:T o_

I 10 10 0 1000 10.000 W1 SOURCE WGT. LBS.

[ = CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUlT OF IMFMCTING BODY (IN.)

L = SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FT.)

h =

DRCP HEIGH (FT.)

.I = 2"

/ = 3" Figure C l.lm

VALUES OF SOURCE WEIGHTS (WR)(tss) l2-FOR 4' CONDUlT

)

\ \ ~ ~

lO- \ \ \

\ \ \ \

8- (.\ \; \ ;

\ y

\x\ L \

f.

\(. \ @

6- '

h(FI)

,- (.'\

g '?x '

\

x x

<.4W s

\ \

2- - \ Ax s x '

Ny \ \ 's s

s Qs s x \ s 's m

0-l 10 10 0 1000 10,000 W1 SOURCE WGT. LBS.

/ =

CONTACT LENGTH ON CONDUIT OF IMPACTING BODY (IN.)

L =

SUPPORT LENGTH OF CONDUIT (FI) h =

DROP IOGHT (FT.)

I = 5"

.[ = 8" Pigure C.l.In 1

FOR 8" DIAMETER DUCTS 50 s

5 40 \

I 2 "'

g f Source impact length 5 30 '

n S 20 S \ \

[:) 10

• 3 4 N N-N N s s r ~ 2h 0

1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE'C.l.2a IMPACT CURVES FOR 8" 9 DUCTS FOR 16" DIAMETER DUCTS 50 s

5 40

\

J \12" - Source impact length x \/

8

\

S 20 E \ \ N' 10 N N s ' s E

g N -

D:sh s 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE C.1.2b IMPACT CURVES FOR 16" O DUCTS

(

l C 19

FOR 32" DIAMETER DUCTS 50 ,

g 12' 5 40

, 8 \ Source impact length M 30 4"

/

\ \\ \

lg 20 3 3 3 o \ \

E E 10 s, Y s Nm N 5 h _

0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE C l.2c IMPACT CURVES FOR 32" 9 DUCTS FOR 40" DIAMETER DUCTS 50 m

E 8" E 40 3

Source impact length E

S 20 I .,

4

\ \,

h E 10

\ \\ \

s

\

\

f N

w 5 - ,

0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE C l.2d IMPACT CURVES FOR 40" 9 DUCTS C 20

1 FOR 56" DI AMETER DUCTS l i

50 0 12 5 \ \

. C - -

Source impact length e 30 ,,, ,

3 h \ \

S 20 \,

N

\ \

s I

1o x NND ' w -

0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE C.l.2e IMPACT CURVES FOR 56" 9 DUCTS FOR 64" DIAMETER DUCTS 50 0 12 5 40 \ k 5 3 y --

y-- Source impact length 5 30 ,

\

y 4'b \ \

S 20 E \ 'N h

- 10 's s's h DN '

0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE C.l.2f IMPACT CURVES FOR 64" O DUCTS l

C 21

FOR 12" WIDE DUCTS, RECTANGULAR C'ROSS-SECTION 10 t0

\ g , , ,

Source size (diaineter) 5 8

\8,, _/ ' -

35 6'a '

M 6 S 3 y 4" S 4 3 b (M N E

0

%h m 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 SOURCE WEIGHT, POUNDS FIGURE C.l.2g IMPACT CURVES FOR 12" WIDE DUCTS OF RECTANGULAR CROSS-SECTION, BY SMALL SOURCES FOR 48" WIDE DUCTS, RECTANGULAR CROSS-SECTION I I l l 8

h - -

Source size (diameter) 20,(,

M 40

. \ .. \ \

5 30 \

E S 20

\\ '

N

\ \

S \ \ '

s E

10

\ s \

N NK 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 SOURCE WEIGHT, POUNDS FIGURE C l.2h IMPACT CURVES FOR 48" WIDE DUCTS OF RECTANGULAR CROSS-SECTION, BY SMALL SOURCES C 22

FOR 90" WIDE DUCTS, REC 1 ANGULAR CROSS-SECTION 100 y

M 80

\ h

___ Source size (di meter) 3 60

=

N N S 40 \ \

\

E E

'\

\

N

\ \

E 0

KN AN N 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT OF SOURCE, POUNDS FIGURE Col.21 IMPACT COP.VES FOR 90" WIDE DUCTS OF RECTANGULAR CROSS.SECTION, BY SMALL SOURCES 9

e C 23

l e e 1

APPENDII_D DELETED D1

4 e o e

e APPENDII__E 1

DELETED E1

9 4

e APPENDII_F _

DELETED F1

APPENDII G DELETED G1 l

9 9 ,

9 s

APPENDII_H_

DELETED H1

. l

.. APPENDIX J e

DELETED l i

1 1

Jl '

i

1 A_P_PENDIX K J

l SOURCE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA K.1 Criteria for the Identification of Interactions The Walkdown Team will use the following criteria to assist in the identification of potential interactions.

System configurations that violate the following cri-teria and are postulated to result in an interce-tion will be documented by the Walkdown Team using the IIS. Additionally the Walkdown Team will identify po-tential interactions that, in the judgement of one or more Walkdown Team members, may pose a concern from a potentiial interaction viewpoint or may be a special or unusual configuration that may otherwise meet the criteria presented below. The term " failure" or " fail" is defined in the context of the criteria descriptions as gross structural failure and/or collapse of the source component.

The source components described in the following paragraphs are assumed.to be non-seismically qualified components unless specifically indicated otherwise.

Guidelines for the evaluation and resolution of potential interactions are discussed in Section VIII of the Program Manual.

K1

l

... l The tolerance to be applied to the criteria, graphs and figures in this Appendix shall be as follows:

o For dimensions given in feet, the tolerance shall be +/- six (6) inches.

o For dimensions given in inches, the tolerance shall be +/- ten percent (10%)

K.2 Identification Criteria K.2.1 Structural Sources K.2.1.1 Grating It is assumed that grating resting in a laterally restrained support will not be dislodged if held down by bolts, mounting clips, or welds. Laterally unrestrained grating is assumed to fall from its support due to seismic motions, and the interaction consequences of this failure are considered.

K.2.1.2 Handrails Removable handrails are assumed to be dislodged from their supporting stanchions unless bolted, pinned or otherwise fixed.

K.2.1 3 Ladders / Stairways a) Ladder configurations appearing in Figure K.2.1.3a will be assumed to fail K2

if support spans exceed the, spoeified maximums given in Table K.2.1.3a.

i b) Stairways with overall dimensior s ex-ceeding in any direction-those specified in Figure K.2.1.3b are asaused to fail.

The maximum deflection of such stairways is 1/4" in any direction.

K.2.1 4 Platforms a) Platform integrity The collapse of any non-seismically qualified platform is assumed, and the interaction consequences of this failure in all spatial directions are considered.

b) Platform deflections The deflection of seismically qualified platforms (motion due to the earthquake) will be assumed to be, and not exceed, 05 inches per foot of platform height in both horizontal directions.

K.2.1 5 Miscellaneous Structural / Architectural Features Any nonseismically qualified structural or architectural feature not treated in K3

Paragraphs K.2.1.1. through K.2.1 4. above is assumed to fail and the interaction conse-quences of this failure evaluated.

K.2.2 Piping Sources K.2.2.1 Pipe Break Circumferential pipe breaks are assumed for all threaded or mechanically coupled pipe (except the bolted portion of flanges). The interaction consequences of this failure are then considered, such as flooding, large pipe deflections, or falling sections of pipe.

9 K.2.2.2 Flange Separation Permanent flange bolt strain is assumed for flanged pipe connections, resulting in fluid loss. Complete severance of the flanged con-nection is not assumed.

K.2.2.3 Pipe Supports The interaction consequences of pipe deflections are considered for the following failure scenarios:

a) Failure of all fixed-end type threaded l

rod supports b) Failure of all rod, spring, clamp and U-K4

bolt type pipe supports where 1

o the vertical pipe support spacing '

between such types of supports exceeds the recommendations for vertical spacing as given in ANSI B31.1, Power Piping Code, table 121.1 4 which is reproduced below.

Values between those shown may be interpolated.

ANSI B31.1 Suggested Pipe Support Spacing Suggested Maximum Span _in_ Feet

~

Nominal Pipe Size Steam, Gas, or Inches Water Service Air Service 1 7 9 2 10 13 3 12 15 4 14 17 6 17 21 8 19 24 12 23 30 16 27 35 20 30 39 24 32 42 o the vertical support between such types of supports is a fixed end rod hanger which is assumed to fail per Paragraph K.2.2.3a above.

K.2.2 4 Pipe Deflections K5

j a) Lateral Deflections The maximum, mid-span lateral displace-ment of pipe is assumed in the amounts givin in Figure K.2.2 4 for pipe with lateral support spans of the amounts given in the same Figure. These dis-placements apply for all seismically and non seismically qualified filled piping containing inline masses such as valves. Displacements for other points along the span may be interpolated from the mid-span deflection to the lateral support location.

b) Longitudinal Deflections Longitudinal displacement of pipe will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering the longitudinal support span, the types of piping system supports, and the piping direction changes. The interaction consequences of this longitudinal pipe deflection will then be considered.

c) Vertical Deflections o Downward - displacement of pipe is assumed to be one inch between ANSI

'K 6

. l B31.1 pipe spans o Upward - displacement of pipe is assumed in the amounts given in Figure K.2.2 4 K.2.2.5 Concentrated Pipe Masses Where concentrated masses greater than the mass occupied by straight pipe or standard pipe fittings are present without supports in addition to the ANSI B31.1 recommended vertical spacing, all piping system hangers are assumed to fail, and the interaction consequences of this failure are considered.

K.2.2.6 Independent Structures Where piping spans are located between, and are supported from, independent structures, failure of the first pipe support on either structure bridged by the piping is assumed, and the interaction consequences of this failure are considered. The remaining pipe supports are evaluated in accordance with Paragraph K.2.2.3 above.

K.2.2.7 Pipe Anchors Terminal ends of piping rystems are assumed to fail when the connection contains lower K7

structural capacity than the pipe, and the interaction consequences of this failure are considered. Typical locations include connections to thin wall vessels, equipment connections, etc. The remaining pipe supports are evaluated in accordance with Paragraph K.2.2.3 above.

K.2.2.0 Special Piping Situations Any special piping or pipe support configuration which in the judgement of the Walkdown Team results in a potential interaction shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This includes cast iron, PVC, copper and other types of piping materials.

K.2.3 Raceway Sources All raceway sources described in this section are assumed to be filled to capacity with electri-cal cable.

K.2.3.1 Cable Tray Supports Support configuratione shown in Figures K.2.3.1a through K.2.3.1g are assumed to fail if their support spacings and dimensions exceed thcse specified. Support configura-tions not shown in the above Figures, support i

i K8

1

, spacings which are greater than those shown, or cable tray systems with appurtenances such as pull boxes, conduit, instruments etc., are assumed to fail, and the interaction conse-quences considered.

K.2 3.2 Cable Tray Deflections Longitudinal and lateral deflections due to seismic loading for seismically and nonseismically qualified cable " trays are assumed to not exceed 2 inches in any direc-tion for any support configuration shown in Figures K.2 3.1a through K.2.3.1g.

K.2 3.3 Conduits and Supports Rigid conduit can be assumed not to collapse if supported by standard conduit support hardware with spans lese than or equal to a distance of 10 feet. Pull boxes and standard conduit junction devices are assumed not to fail.

K.2 3 4 Special Raceway System Situations Any special raceway or raceway support configuration which in the judgement of the Walkdown Team results in a potential interaction shall be evaluated on a case-by-K9 l

l- ...

, once basis.

l K.2 4 HVAC Duct System Sources K.2 4 1 Duct Supports Fixed-end type threaded rods shall not be considered as acceptable vertical duct supports, and are assumed to fail.

It is assumed that single ducts with vertical support spans greater than six feet for any duct size will fail and collapse. The interaction consequences of this failure must then be evaluated.

K.2 4.2 Duct Deflection Clevis end rod supported ducting shall be assumed to have a lateral and longitudinal deflection of 6" in all directions except vertically downward in which a deflection of 1" shall be assumed. Seismically supported or seismically qualified ducting shall be 1

assumed to have a lateral and longitudinal j deflection of 1" in all directions.

K.2 4.3 Concentrated Masses Where concentrated masses greater than the mass occupied by the duct or standard duct fittings (including manual dampers) are K 10

,. Present (such as in-line fans, power opsrated i dampers, etc.) without supports in addition to the maximum duct support spacing distances given in Section K.2.4.1, the concentrated masses are assumed tot a) become dislodged from the ducting and/or b) fail the duct system supports.

The interaction consequences of these failures must then be considered.

K.2 4 4 Special HVAC Duct System Situations Any special HVAC duct system or duct system support configuration which in the judgement of the Walkdown Team results in a potential interaction shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

K.2 5 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Sources K.2.5.1 overturning Overturning of tanks, pressure vessels, pumps, filters, cabinets, transformers, switchgear or other floor mounted mechanical or electrical equipment is assumed for cases where the distance to the estimated center of gravity, as measured from the base is greater K ll

, than or squal to 50% of the base width in all directions.

K.2.5.2 Extended Proportions Failure of valve or vertical pump motor /

operator upper structure to body junctions is assumed for all power-actuated valves, and for pumps and valves with upper structure masses greater than the body-bonnet mass.

Ioke to operator junctions are assumed to fail for all power-actuated valves.

K.2 5 3 Equipment Deflection Lateral deflection of all seismically and non-seismically qualified tanks, pressure vessels, pumps, filters, cabinets, transformers, switchgear or other mechanical or electrical equipment which is structurally fixed at the base is assumed to be 1 inch per foot of equipment height as measured from the base.

K.2.5.4 Wall Mounted Equipment With the exception of equipment or instrumen-tation mounted within the rigid range of the i i

response spectrum curve which have unsup- I structures extending less than 12 inches from K 12

the wall or ceiling and not exceeding

< 50 pounds total mass, all wall or ceiling mounted equipment is assumed to fail. The in-teraction consequence of this failure is then considered.

, K.2 5 5 Special Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Situations Any special mechanical and electrical equipment or equipment support configuration which in the judgement of the Walkdown Team results in a potential interaction shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

K 13

TABLE _K.2.1.3a LADDER _ SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS Category

• Number Description Max. Support Spacing, ft.

LS1. Stringer size 7 3/8" x 2"

, LS2. Stringer size 12 3/8" x 2 1/2" LS3. Stringer size 14 3/8" x 3" LS4 Stringer size 17 3/8" x 3 1/2" LS5. Stringer size 19 3/8" x 4" LS6. Stringer size 22 3/8" x 4 1/2" LS7. Stringer size 13 03 x 6.0 LS8. Stringer size 14 C4 x 7.25

• support requirements apply to ladders of the l configurations shown in Figure K.2.1.3a or similar.

Other ladder types, such as those which have a per-sonnel cage attached, are assumed to fail structurally and must be treated on a case-by-case basis.

. K 14

e ,

l a

! G I

-f

. q' j.c \

/ .

nornuus

- \\ -_

f L . _l!(a* M A v.  !

" Y l@ @ ) 'i4' MIN . ] g ..

. .j . -uMDING

'y~

344 RUNGS x

,o WELD IN FROM

~

• $ _4

h_ i OUTSIDE 4  % .. _

(m

.wv eotr_ s ) -

e i e

_n eg__ m r~

~

.-lp_

ig

-. o _.L._s __.

i . .

i e 3 c.d]'.

. .e ,4_ y .

FIGURE K.2.l.3a TYPICAL LADDER CONFIGURATION

_,.. STAIR WIDTH

,. - 3'0" .

C10 x 15.3 1

t i

i l

(

1 7 L

, i e =

l ,f 5 -

p '  : 2,, y "

$$ i C5 X 9 .

= \

8d .

2 .

W C10 x 15.34 , j S o l .

1. x

" l DN j S =

$'  : E

~

.r 4

(& BM OR BACK OF [ ~ ~3 ,

PLAN l' .,

.* x i -y i

N

=-

\ '

./

=

o

~

N .

x7

$ 's' s.

' 7, T0E PLATE

__ l 1

l. -

TOP 0F i

fy ~T ~"L~

5 GRTG.

~<

E STRINGER

_o 3' C10 X 15.3 y /

3 u!\ ELEVATION STAIR DETAIL STEEL STAIR STRINGER AND LANDING LAYOUT FIGURE K.2.1.3b STAIRWAY CONFIGURATION K 16

"0 "

5 0

5 0 ., .

e

0. , 7 5 2 0 ,

2 7

1 8 7 6 2 1 0

5g

, i, 8

- "8 " -

0 1

2 -

6

/-

1 -

g,,

/

[ - .- 0 7

2 - .

1 "0

1 -

/ _

O g,_

. '6

} "8 S N

O j"

6

/ ,/ 5 0

' I T

C E

L

- )

F E

T D F

( E 7"

, H T

G P

P I

4 J

/ 0 4

N E

L C

I M

S N I A E P S 3

- - S E

_ P 4 I

2 .

P 2 2 - -

i; 0 2 3

l f' - K I _

G I

1

- _ _ F l

/, 0 j

2 i

/

/

4

/

3 E- ,

0 1

EI r1 0 5 0 5 . 0 1

4 3 3 2

$ ,~

l Il XED a

g 10 0 l Ecnxo rwenq NOTES:

E 1. Support spacings are measured

/ /\ along the long axis of the r Tvini/ cable tray perpendicular to l& P r3'b2 TYP. the plane of the sketch.

TYP Fremrencarl

,, 2. Vertical support spacings exceeding those in the

/ \ table must be assumed to (t 3p.) fail.

$ Sk 3. The sketch shown is an elevation not a plan view. The support con-

__/ p h_ figuration is only t, 4A ,J applicable to this P 1 orientation.

4. All the dimensions in the sketch are maximum values. Configurations with any dimensions NUMBER MAXIMUM exceeding these must 0F ALLOWABLE be assumed to fail.

TRAYS SUPPORT SPACING (FT.) 5. In applying this configura-tion to situations with less than 4 cable trays, only the bottom-most cable tray (s) 2 8 can be omitted to achieve 3 8 the configuration with the d 4 reduced number of trays.

1 FIGURE K.2.3.la MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING K 18

i l NOTES:

1. Support spacings are measured 8 along the long axis of the /

cable tray perpendicular to i ,

the plane of the sketch. L 16" (ty-)

2. Vertical support spacings 8 1 exceeding those in the table must be assumed to / (M DM hP')

fail. / ' L

3. The sketch shown is an ' D P-1001 by-)

elevation not a plan ' '

view. The support con- -

figuration is only applicable to this orientation.

4. All the dimensions in the sketch are maximum values. Configurations with any dimensions exceeding these must be assumed to fail. NUtiBER MAXIMUf1 0F ALLOWABLE

5. In applying this configura- TRAYS SUPPORT tion to situations with less SPACING (FT.)

than 4 cable trays, only the bottom-most cable tray (s) can be omitted to achieve 1 12 the conficuration with the 2 12 reduced number of t. rays. 3 12 4 8 FIGURE K.2.3.lb CASE 3 MAXIMuti ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING K 19

t

/\ o

!g fl00I

=

q O fg, ..

al W

1 fl000 NOTES:

, pag'q 1. Support spacings are measured 3, along the long axis of the

. cable tray perpendicular to the plane of the sketch.

" 2. Vertical support spacings 39 MM~ exceeding 12 feet must be

< > assumed to fail.

3. The sketch shown is an elevation not a plan view. The support con-figuration is only applicable to this orientation.

., ASSUME TO FAIL FOR SPACINr EXCEEDINr, 12 FEET FIGURE K.2.3.lc CASE 5 f1AXIf1UM ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING e

K 20

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

.~

2(^

^

/

34-P22 Sk N DTPLIT 3[' t'ioos

/- a N - arsrgar oo h l

.e NISTE!.JT~

NOTES: I##O

1. Support spacings are measured 4. All the dimensions in along the long axis of the the sketch are maximum cable tray perpendicular to values. Configurations the plane of the sketch. with any dimensions exceeding these must -

2. Vertical support spacings be assumed to fail.

exceeding those given below must be assumed to 5. Member sizes are mimina.

fail. Similar support configura-tions with smaller member

3. The sketch shown is an sizes must be assumed to elevation not a plan fail for any support view. The support con- spacing.

figuration is only applicable to this orientation.

ASSUME TO FAIL FOR SPACING OVER 4 FEET FIGURE K.2.3.1d CASE 7 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING K 21 l

,s *

.' i

' /,. 'fs

.- ' '[,

/,i,,/i . * // /' //,/l

<? .

, /. '* ,' / .

/// A '

n . _ _ . . _ . .

%e %cU d

w- y TcX 6Eic.TCkJ x[4 12."

t'AXIMud p

<- 3 f3OX il V N T. x flo il 3 (a M A XI M uti NOTES: ( )

1. Support spacings are measured 4. All the dimensions in along the long axis of the the sketch are maximum cable + ray perpendicular to values. Configurations the plane of the sketch. with any dimensions exceeding these must

2. Vertical support spacings be assumed to fail, exceeding those given below must be assumed to 5. Member sizes are mimina.

fail. Similar support configura-tions with smaller member

3. The sketch shown is an sizes must be assumed to elevation not a plan fail for any support view. The support con- spacing.

figuration is only applicable to this orientation.

ASSUt1E TO FAIL FOR SPACING EXCEEDING 8 FEET FIGURE K.2.3.le CASE 10 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING l i

K 22

i 1

4 L

= Unistrut P1001 typical h

Cable Tray 1

- / _-

NOTES:

1. Support spacings are measured along the long axis of the h [= 30"thru 60,, cable tray perpendicular to the plane of the sketch.

18"

2. Vertical support spacings thru 12' exceeding those in the 4

l table must be assumed to 39" fail.

44" 10' 48" 8' 3. The sketch shown is an 60" 6' elevation not a plan Greater than 60" Assumed view. The support con-to fail figuration is only applicable to this orientation.

l FIGURE K.2.3.lg CASE 12 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING K 24

9 4.,

l

< 3G MAXIMUM >

l 2,4#

L y g2 x 2. BOX r

fo s m r. x 4 ,

d l

^

o 8x8x%n n

Plure NOTES:

1. Support spacings are measured 4. All the dimensions in along the long axis of the the sketch are maximum cable tray perpendicular to values. Configurations the plane of the sketch. with any dimensions exceeding these must

2. Vertical support spacings be assumed to fail, exceeding those given below must be assumed to 5. Member sizes are mimina.

fail. Similar support configura-tions with smaller member

3. The sketch shown is an sizes must be assumed te elevation not a plan fail for any support view. The support con- spacing.

figuration is only applicable to this orientation.

ASSUME TO FAIL FOR SPACING EXCEEDING 8 FEET FIGURE K.2.3.lf CASE 11 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SPACING i

K 23

,w.-n. w