ML20094A228

Forwards Communications Repts for Phase 4 Independent Assessment Program Re Cable Tray & Conduit Support Design, Local Buckling & Bending Stresses & Cable Tray Support Review Calculations

ML20094A228
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/11/1984
From:	Oldag D CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84056.034, NUDOCS 8411060335
Download: ML20094A228 (77)

Text

_

N'G , _ _

101 Cahfornia Street. Swte 1000. San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415 397 5600 Ocotber 11, 1984 84056.034 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal fil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84056

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the Phase 4 Independent A:sessment Program.

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

Very truly yours, D.01dag Administrative Assistant Attachments cc: Mr. D. Wade (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. J. Van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. S. Burwell (USNRC) w/ attachments

, a]

$8A$85!'o!$$8h 747' J1) 9 g, a San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland 30 *tW

Communications

, uni Report 11111111111111111111111llll111 .

company Texas Utilities cX Telecon a conference Report Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date-10/9/84 T

Cable Tray and Conduit Support Design 2:45 p.m.

Status of Specific Question as of 10/9/84 Place:

CES-SFR0

"'"'***"'*2 '

J. VanAmerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO)

P. Huang, T. Keiss Gibbs & Hill J. Russ, W. Horstman, N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By

1. Design of Embedded Plates for SP-7 Type Cable Tray Supports.

This item will be closed out via the generic discussion on SSE versus OBE. The plan for SSE is to consider the use of 7%

damping.

2. Conduit Support Type CA-Sa, Ability to Resist Loads from 5" e Conduits.

The calculations for 5" diameter conduit will be provided to Gibbs & Hill Cygna later this week.

3. Reaming of Holes in Unistrut P2558 Clamps for Conduit Supports (84056.015, Attachment A, No. 4).

Sufficient calculations were provided and the item is closed. None

4. Design of Cable Tray Support Details "W" and "N" (2323-El-0601-01-S) as Longitudinal Supports (84056.019, Attachment A, Nos. I and 2.2; and 84056.021, Attachment A, No. 5).

Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for detail W. Cygna Modifications are being made to detail b to provide longitudinal support. Gibbs & Hill provided the new calculations for modified detail N. Cygna will review as soon as possible so that TUGC0 can proceed with the modification.

signed. Page of jg 4 Distnbution: N. Willi'ams, D. Wade, W VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,

2. El' ': , E. E '! , " :j ::t " r

Communications

, 40 n i Report 1111lll11lll11111111llllllllll ..

Item Comments Ac on y Cygna quickly reviewed detailed W calculations. Unrefined "g" values were used. Although nothing obvious is wrong, Cygna needs to complete the review.

5. Transverse Span Violations - Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports (84056.019, Attachment A, No. 2.1).

Transverse span violations calculations were provided to Cygna Gibbs & Hill by Gibbs & Hill. Some considerations were not included in the - .

Gibbs & Hill response. A follow-up response is being prepared.

6. Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "11" (2323-S-0905) for Longitudinal Loads (84056.019, Attachment A, No. 2.2).

No discussion was held today. This will be discussed on 10/10/84 None

7. Design Verification for Special Cable Tray Support No.13080 Considering As-Built Conditions (84056.019, Attachment A, No. 5),

Gibbs & Hill provided a revision to the previous response. Cygna Cygna will review this as soon as possible.

8. Design Review Calculations for Conduit Support Type CSM-42a Considering Concrete Compressive Forces in Design of Bolts and Concrete.

Gibbs & Hill is currently working on calculations. Scheduled Gibbs & Hill to be available this week.

9. Embedded Plate Edge Distance Violation on Cable Tray Support No.

l 2953, Detail "F" (2323-El-0601-01-S). Requires Design Review l Calculations for CMC 12105 (84056.021, Attachment A, No. 7).

l The necessary CVC was provided for review. Cygna will review as Cygna soon as possible.

10. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type B4 Considering Correct Slenderness Ratio. Site Response Used Result of Phase 2 NASTRAN Analysis (84056.022 Attachment A, No. 4).

4 revised calculation was provided today. Cygna will review as Cygna soon as possible.

11. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type A4 Considering Correct Slenderness Ratio.

ygna will review the calculations as soon as they are available. Gibbs & Hill 31bbs & Hill estimates completion this week.

Page 2 of 4 102001b

I Communications  ;

. AMi 19811111lll11111lll1111llllll1 Report i I

Item ' Comments Ac o y

12. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type SP-4 (84056.022,  ;

Attachment A, No. 5).

Gibbs & Hill's prelimindry calculations show a 10% overstress. Gibbs & Hill ,

More refined analyses are being performed by Gibbs & Hill. No schedule established yet.

13. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type D1 Using Reduced Horizontal Accelarations and Neglecting End Fixity in Evaluation of Three Specific Supports (84056.022, Attachment A, No. 6).

Cygna has checked the Gibbs & Hill analysis previously provided. Gibbs & Hill Cygna had also run an analysis and found there was some difficulty 1 with the frequency calculation. Gibbs & Hill agrees with Cygna's i' comment and will perform some further analysis to address this discrepancy.

One support in the Cygna review scope contained a variation of TUGC0 the Di design. Gibbs & Hill addressed this variation in a response but Cygna has noted some discrepancies. The site will provide revised analyses.

14. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type D2 Using Results of Phase 2 NASTRAN Analysis for Design of Wall Connection (84056.022, Attachment A, No. 7).

, Calculations are being design reviewed and will be provided to Gibbs & Hill Cygna on 10/10/84.

15. Verification of Installation of Hilti Super-Kwik Bolts with Ultrasonic Testing (84056.026, Attachment A, No. 1).

An ultrasonic testing procedure and a sample of testing results Cygna were provided. On 10/10/84 Cygna will discuss the testing further with QC.

16. Consideration of Eccentric End Conditions in the Design of Single Angle Braces used in Cable Tray Supports (84056.027, Attoshment A No. 2). See Also Generic Issue No. 9.

Cygna believes that the working point deviation loads should Gibbs & Hills '

be considered in this response. Gibbs & Hill will check this effect. If it is 0.K. no further work is required. l

17. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support No. 202, type A-4. Response addresses only longitudinal loads, does not consider removal of brace in this support (84056.031, Attach. A, No. 1).

Closed based on further discussion. None Page '

3 4 m.

1 Communications t4 L t i Repod 11111111llllllll!!!ll1llllllll ltem Comments Ac on y

18. Contact Between Cable Tray Supports and Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger (84056.021, Attachment A Nos. I and 2).

TUGC0 agrees that the support should be notched. Cygna asked TUGC0 if this support had been QC verified. TUGC0 will check.

19. Suitability of Substituting 1 1/4" x 13 1/8" Hilti Super-Kwik Bolt for 1" Richmond Inserts (Reference DCAs 1711 and 20385).

losed based on clarifying discussion. None

20. Evaluation of Alternate Detail "1" Hanger Connection Drawing 2323-S-0903 (Reference DCA 2421).

-:PSES site will perform some analysis after further discussion Gibbs & Hill with Cygna on 10/10/84.

21. Installation Tolerances for Detail A-H drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S (Reference DCA 2538).

)iscussion scheduled for 10/10/84 None Summary

4. Williams summarized by noting that it appeared both Cygna and 31bbs & Hill had action items. It was also noted that several new

alculations either had been or were going to be given to Cygna for review. Some quiet time will be required for the Cygna reviewers to evaluate these new responses but that it would be ione as soon as possible.

Page of

..1020oin , _ . _

Communications LMm i Report 181111lllllll18111111llllllll1 Company: Texas Uti11 ties tX Telecon O Conference Report

• N-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date.

10/4/84 sumect T' m*-

10:30 Support MS-1-002-005-572R Local Buckling and Bending Stresses Place' 3p

Participants:

J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By As stated in the telecon between J. Finneran and N. Williams, Cygna ran a finite element model of the tubesteel/ coverplate (items 2 and 3 of drawing) to determine the effects of warpage on tubesteel stresses. Cygna's evaluation showed that the warpage does not impact the design adequacy of the tubesteel.

Cygna had not found any thickness sizing calculations for the cover plate. Cygna requested TUGC0 perform calculations to show the thickness is adequate for localized bending in the region of the u-bolt holes. Cygna's finite element results have shown high bending stresses in the area of the cover plate near the hole. These finite element stresses consist of both p ea'K and average effects. A sizing calculation for the thickness, done in accordance with appropriate standards, will be needed. Mr. Finneran will provide these calculations. JF (TUGCO) signee "*9' '

fj /dmm 1 1 Distnbution- N. Williams, U. Wade, d. Van Amerongen, J. m nichiel lo, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, R Rurwoll prnioct Filo 1o20 osa

Communications ALn i Report 1811111llllll1111lllllll111lll CompanF Texas Utilities '

cx Teiecon a conference Report

• N~

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oste.

10/1/84 subject ""

Conduit Supports 9:30 a.m.

Place:

Participants:

R. M. Kissinger '

TUGC0 C. K. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill J. P. Russ, N. H. Williams CES Requred item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Kissinger regarding anchor bolts and controlling load cases for conduit supports. Cygna's review has noted that the Hilti expansion anchors for conduit supports are designed to a factor of safety of 4.0 at OBE levels. When subjected to SSE loadings, the anchors would have a factor of safety less than 4.0. Mr. Kissinger stated that he was aware of the conduit bolt desig practices.

Cygna has also noted that the controlling load case for the conduit was the OBE level. This was verified through calculations by Gibbs & Hill. These calculations did not consider the aspect ratio of the frames. Mr. Kissinger felt that the calculations reflected the fact that the aspect ratio would not enter into the equations or the results.

Cygna also discussed loading combinations with Mr. Kissinger and asked him if he had reached a conclusion on the appropriateness of combining the interaction ratios for separate earthquake l components by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS).

Mr. Kissinger stated that he had not but still felt that the FSAR l could be interpreted to allow combination as performed by Gibbs &

Hill.

l l

l l

l s,gneo. Page of fpf g Distribuaon: N.' willTams, U. Wade, d. vanAmerongen, R. Hess, d. Russ, 5. Treby, d. Ellis, e o , . _3 3 o r,4 mn r41m

,- o, .

Communications i d i% i Report 1111111111111111111lll11llllll ,

Confvence Repon Texas Utilities 9 Telec n Project: Job No 84056  ;

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/1/84 Subject Time:

2:00 p.m.

Systems Review Questions Place.

SFR0

Participants:

of D. Wade. J. Van Ameronaen TUGC0 R. Hess . N. Willi ams CES Requaed item Comments Action By TUGC0 called to review the status of open questions with Cygna.

All Cygna mechanical and electrical systems questions are closed except for the following:

1. Maximum CCW water termperature -- TUGC0 sent a letter with a new calculation today.

2. Non-seismic pipe break /non-seismic vent chillers -- TUGC0 is to forward G&H calculation on maximum flow from ruptured vent chiller. Jeanne asked if Cygna was satisfied with the seismic analysis of the Class 5 piping. The analysis for the specific piping questioned is acceptable, but Cygna expressed some concern on generic implications. What is Class 5 piping in relation to seismic design? How do you tell what is seismically designed ard what piping is only seismically Spported? Dave explained that there was a very complex program associated with Class 5. In this case, a seismic analysis was performed. Dave referred Cygna to the FSAR (Section 3.7?) for more defintion on Class 5.

3. Lack of water hanner analysis -- Dave Wade stated there was l

no criteria for doing water hammer analysis. The feedwater system was the only system analyzed for water hammer.

Jeanne will confirm this.

l l 4. Minimum flow to R.C. pump thermal barrier -- Cygna is still

! reviewing the revised calculation sumbitted by TUGCO.

5. CCW surge relief valve I.D. tag -- Cygna will confirm in the

! field that the correct tag is installed.

l l ) (N s /dnm 1 2

'"b""

N. Williams, R. Hess, T. Martin, P. Rainey, J. Foley, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, l

iozo oi. 5. Treby, J. Ellis, 5. Burwell, Project File

^

Communications 4 (d i Repod  ;

1186lllll1111111llllllll141111 1 Requred item Comments Action By

6. Radiation monitor design conditions -- Cygna's electrical engineer is still reviewing the TUGC0 response.

7. Thermo-lag installation -- Cygna will verify the installa-tion in the field. Jeanne will look into question of last week of why only one (not both) raceways were addressed in the TUGC0 response.

8. Valve motor H.P. rating -- TUGC0 still owes Cygna a follow-up response.

9. CCW surge tank vent radiation -- Cygna is still reviewing the TUGC0 response.

10. Reactor coolant pump thermal barrier rupture -- Dave stated that since TUGC0 had notified the NRC of a potential 50.55(e) on this subject and since TUGC0 considers this a generic issue, Cygna should close this question. Cygna did not agree since present TUGC0 responses do not address all the specific or generic implications of the question. TUGC0 reiterated that they felt the question was answered and that the final resolution of the problem should be between them and the NRC. The relationship between the Westinghause Part 21 and the Cygna question was discussed with Cygna maintain-ing that the Westinghouse fix would not necessarily resolve the TUGC0 problem. This is due to the fact that with the rupture pressure and flowrate from the thermal barrier, piping outside containment in the return loop to the surge tank may be overpressurized and rupture. Dave stated that TUGC0 was looking at this fix and its implications. Cygna also expressed concern that TUGC0 was not addressing the question of the rupture of tubes in other heat exchangers containing reactor coolant such as the letdown heat ex-changers. TUGC0 stated that they would issue a clarifica-l tion response that covered the questions generic implica-l tions for other heat exchangers. Cygna stated that they will issue a letter stating the question, its background and

^

implications, and its present status for closeout by the NRC and TUGCO. Dave also stated that TUGC0 was re-evaluating the entire issue as to whether they actually had to postu-

[ late a thermal barrier break as a small break LOCA and what l the postulated flowrate must be. Cygna told TUGC0 that the l break size of 275 gpm was given in the B.0.P. FR-1 document l of Westinghouse.

i Page of

?  ?

Communications '

AL t i Report 11111111111111111111111lllllll company: conference Repon Telec n Texas Utilities Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/29/84 Subject Time:

Cable Tray Support Questions 10:00 a.m.

Place:

Response for SP-4 SFR0

Participants:

of B. K. Bhujang, E. Kukowzer Gibbs & Hill J. P. Russ CES Requrred item Comments Action By I spoke to Messrs. Bhujang and Kukowzer regarding the site prepared responses for cable tray support type Detail SP-4 Mr. Kukowzer had prepared calculations which placed the largest flexural moment at the center span of the beam member of the support. Using the " simplified method" of load combination and the SRSS of the interaction values, Mr.

Kukowzer calculated an interaction value of approximately 1.01. This interaction was calculated for the Case I of the original calculations. I noted that the " simplified method" of the loading calculations was incorrect and Mr. Bhujang stated that revised calculations using the exact method would l be performed.

l l

Signed: Page of

~

D'St"bu " N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, im oi, v. tiiis, s. ourweis, rroae a rise

Communications TL ; t i Report 11111111ll111lllll11lll11lll11

• ""# y Telecon Conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 D

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/28/84 Cable Tray Support NASTRAN Analysis and 10:00 p.m.

Place:

Conduit Support Calculations SFR0

Participants:

of P. T. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. P. Russ CES hequired item Comments Action By I spoke to Mr. Huang regarding the types of supports tnat were being or have been analyzed as part of a cable tray system subjected to a response spectrum input using NASTRAN. He replied that the regular case trapeze supports had been analyzed as part of the working point deviation analysis. The regular case Detail D4 type supports were being analyzed as part of a response to questions raised in

Cygna letter 84056.031. Supports types such as SP-7 and j regular case Detail 01 were being analyzed by hand.

I asked Mr. Huang if he would be providing a response on the capability of onduit support type CA-Sa to support 5"

! diameter conduits. I stated that due to an oversight this l subject did not appear on the list of topics presented during the exit meeting on Thursday, 20 September 1984. Mr. Huang stated that a response to my concerns would be provided and requested a copy of the conference report from the exit meeting so that he could assure that responses to all open items would be provided. I stated that a copy would be forwarded to him as soon as possible.

1 l),}l)) /rb 1 1 i D'$tneution- N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, im,. v. r.iin , a. ousnesi, rivaevc rise

Communications t4 L9 t i Repod 1811111111111111llllll11llll11 companr '

T*' econ conference Report Texas Utilities Project Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 U

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/28/84

"" ""*~

Factors of Safety for Conduit Supports 2:00 p.m.

Place:

8. K. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill J. P. Russ CES Required item Comments Action By I spoke to Mr. Bhujang regarding the factors of safety for Hilti expansion anchors and the material allowables for conduit supports. I noted that conduit supports, which exclusively use Hilti expansion anchors, were designed to the 1/2 SSE load levels. Therefore, the same concerns that were raised for Hilti expansion anchors on cable tray supports, i.e. that the factor of safety will fall to some value less than 4.0 when the supports are subjected to SSE loadings, would apply to conduit supports also. I also noted that the conduit supports were chacked by Gibbs & Hill to assure that the load increase from 1/2 SSE to SSE did not exceed the allowed increases in the material allowables. I noted that the calculations performed did not consider the aspect ratios of the structures and had used the " simplified method" of load combination. These factors had to be considered when verifying the adequacy of the supports for SSE loadings.

Mr. Bhujang and I also spoke about cable tray support detail SP-4. I told Mr. Bhujang that the support calculations should consider the maximum moment causing loading situations. He stated that calculations would be performed and that he would speak to me on Saturday, 29 September 1984 regarding these calculations.

Datnbution:

%k/hh N. Willia'ms, D. Wade, Z VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby,

/rb 1 1

, ,, v.  ;;. , 3. Lu.-c;;, T. va m T. c

t Communications 4L t i Repod 11111111111111111111111111llll

"*""" Texas Utilities Conference Repon

'R Telecon Project Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D:

9/27/84 Subject Time:

Status of Cable Tray and Conduit Support Questions 11:00 a.m.

Place:

CES, San Francisco B. K. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill J. Van Amerongen Ebasco (TUGCO)

T. Keiss TUGC0 W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ CES ReQuered ,

item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to the listed site personnel to status the responses to Cygna questions on cable tray and conduit supports.

Question 2.1, Letter 84056.019 Cygna noted that the TUGC0 response only addressed the capability of the tray sections to resist the applied loads for the in-creased spans and did not evaluate the supports. Cygna requested

, an evaluation of the supports and noted that they must be checked

, for the as-built condition. A site response will be provided.

I Ouestion 5, Letter 84056.019

The response provided to Cygna did not consider the proper l

orientation of the tee-joint of the cable tray, did not consider the correct tray widths and did not consider the level of SSE loading. A revised response will be provided by the site.

Question 4, Letter 84056.019 The calculations provided in the response were acceptable, but lack consideration of the SSE load levels. Sita will provide a response.

signed _

Page of Datnbution~ N. W'illiams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. luss, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

,, m ,, a. auswesi, ii va eu Fiie

COmmuniCStionS 4L 6 i Repod

, 111141411111111111114161111111 _

leem comments [c7oNy Question 4, Letter 84056.015 Documentation for the acceptability of the reamed P2558 clamps is not available from Unistrut. However, a test program was run to show that acceptability of the clamp assemblies in the modified condition. Documentation on the test program and its results are available at site. Cygna will review this documentation during the next visit to site.

Question 5, Letter 84056.021 The effect of working point deviations will be incorporated into the Gibbs & Hill calculations for Detail "N." Messrs. Bhujang and Keiss are examining the possibility of employing Detail "W" as a longitudinal support. If this is unacceptable, there is a possibility that X-bracing will be installed between a pair of Detail "N" supports to provide a longitudinal load resisting system. To ensure positive mechanical contact, heavy duty clamps will be installed as required.

Question 5, Letter 84056.022 Cygna noted that the moments considered in the response for Detail SP-4 did not consider mid-span moments which Cygna believes are higner than the end moments used in the beam analysi!. . Mr. Bhujang stated that he would get the calculations for the support and speak to us on Friday, 28 September 1984 In regards to the SP-4 support without brace within the review scope, Cygna asked if clamps were used at both locations where the cable tray passed over the support. Mr. Bhujang replied that to his knowledge clamps were provided at both locations.

Question 7, Letter 84056.021 The original response to this question provided a CMC as a basis for closing out Cygna's question. Cygna asked whether the CMC had been designed reviewed. Mr. Keiss replied that the review process had been completed and that Cygna could review the documentation at site.

Question 4, Letter 84056.022 Cygna noted that the response on regular case Detail B4 used loads from the Phase 2 NASTRAN analysis. The site response may be unconservative. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the support for response to Cygna concerns.

Cygna also asked what was meant by the reference to " yield" in the site response. Mr. Bhujang stated that the use of the term was incorrect and would send a rewritten response to Cygna.

Page of 1020ota

T Communications A( t-1 '

Report 111111111lll111111111111lll111 stem u comments [cENy Questions 6 & 7, Letter 84056.022 Response to questions regarding regular case Details Di and D4 I were being prepared by Gibbs & Hill in New York and will be sent to Cygna when completed.

Question 1, Letter 84056.026 Cygna will review the test procedures and results of the ultra-sonic testing during the next site visit.

Question 3, Letter 84056.025 Cygna noted that response did not consider the effects of transverse and vertical loadings in the reanalysis of the longitudinal supports. Cygna is presently examining these effects and will advise the site on the acceptability of the response based on the results of the Cygna investigation.

Question 2, Letter 84056.027 Cygna noted that the angle brace calculations were based on the results of the Phase 2 NASTRAN results. Cygna will review the acceptability of the calculations and advise TUGC0 on the results.

Question 1, Letter 84056.019 The site personnel noted that Cygna's concerns regarding Detail "W" would be responded to in the response to Question 5, Letter 84056.021 as described above.

- Page of 1 1 10M 01b

Communications Mn i Report l111111111111111llllllllllllll Company eXas Utllities g( Telecon O Conference Report PrN*ct Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oare.

9/26/84 Subject Time:

Mechanical Questions 11:00 am Place:

R. Hess, N. Williams, J. Foley, P. Rainey CES J. Irons, W. Cristalli, C. Cavanaugh, D. Ghosh G&H J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 Required item Comments Action By

1) The conference call was set up to discuss the TUGC0 response to the Cygna question on the CCW recirculation valve opening and closing setpoints.

2) The minimum desired flow through the CCW heat exchanger is 11,500 GPM per the G & H mechanical group. The flow sensing circuit accuracy is 596 GPM therefore, to insure 11,500 GPM the valve is set to open at a minimum flow of 11,500 + 596 =

12,096 GPM on decreasing flow. It could open at a maximum flow of 12,692 GPM on decreasing flow. The control circuit has a dead-band of 600 GPM between the open and close setpoints for the valve on decreasing and increasing flow respectively. This results in the following valve operation l limits:

GPM GPM GPM MINIMUM NOMINAL MAXIMUM OPEN 11,500 12,096 12,692 CLOSE 12,100 12,696 13,292 MAXIMUM PUMP 16,100 16,696 17,292 OUTPUT WITH 4,000 GPM RECIRCULATION FLOW l Since the pump runout flow is slightly above 18,000 GPM, the i recirculation valve will close prior to reaching runout of l the pump even with the worst case instrument tolerance. In addition, if the pump head decreased to a level (near runout) signe "'9' '

] ff /rb 1 2 l Distnbution: N. killlhm'si'D.' Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, T. Martin, P. Rainey, e r- 1 - r* v_ L 1 P112. c D..---11 M=a 2m,6 f" 4 1 m i V .s v a wJ , we = w wJ , -- -- - -y -- -- ---3 w--- - -

Communications

, L4 L n i Repod 111111llllll1111ll1llllllll111 -

Item Comments Ac on y that did not supply the minimum flow to the most distant coolers, low flow alarms would be triggered and the operator would manually close, the recirculation valve. This action would stop the recirculation flow and increase the pump discharge head and flow to the most distant cooler. Based on the above data, the Cygna question will be closed.

3) Cygna also questioned the maximum flow rate out of the CCW system due to a failure of one of the non-nuclear chillers.

G & H stated they had run a "pipeflow" analysis for this condition and that the non safeguards loop isolation valves would close prior to the CCW surge tank being drained. The maximum flow out of the break would be less than 2500 GPM and it would decrease as the loop isolation valve closes. TUGC0 will forward this analysis to Cygna as soon as the verification is complete.

l ge '

/rb 2 2 I **

Communications 41 n' i Raport 1811111111llltl1llllllllllllll

• P8"Y -

g w econ contuence Remn TUGC0 Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 U*

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/?6/84 subject: Time:

Cable Tray and Conduit Support Questions _

9:30 a.m.

Pk.a Modal Combinations SFR0

Participants:

of R. M. Kissinger TUGC0 W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Kissinger regarding the 10 percent method of modal combinations. A review of the CPSES FSAR, Section 3.76.2.7, noted that analysis require the use of the 10 percent method. Mr. Kissinger stated that the procedure, as stated in the FSAR for 10 percent combination as well as the combination of component forces resulting from three earthquake directions, was open to interpretation.

l l

i 1

N/) f) jh /rb 1 1 D'stnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, im o,, u. titis, 3. nurweli, vroject rite

I i Communications til n i Report 111111111111111lll1811lll11111 Company:

• Texas Utilities Q Telecon 0 Conference Repon Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate:

9/25/84 sub iect: T' **

Mechanical / Electrical Questions 9:15 am Place.

Jeanne Van Amerongen TUGC0 R. Hess CES Required item Comments Action By References

a. TUGC0 letter Popplewell to Williams 9/17/84

b. TUGC0 letter Popplewell to Williams 9/18/84

1) The TUGC0 response in reference a. states that the surge tank relief valve ASME Class 2 tag has been removed and the correct tag installed. Asked Jeanne if TUGC0 used any paper work to document this correction to safety released equipment such as a punch list or traveler. She stated that no paper work was generated for this type of discrepancy. The correct tag was just installed by TUGC0 after the discrepancy was found.

2) Told Jeanne that the documentation supplied on the fire doors in Ref. a. would close out our question.

1

3) The Ref. a. response to CYGNA's question on thermolag installation only addresses cable T130ACA43, the original CYGNA question also pertained to T13GCCM98. Jeanne will check on this and get back to us. It appears this question will require field re-verification for close-out.

4) TUGC0's response to CYGNA's question on CCW recirculation valve set points contained in Ref. b. does not fully answer the CYGNA concern. Will the valve ever automatically close with the recirculation flow path up-off prior to the flow element? This requires that the system cemand be greater than 12,696 GPM and the pump output be greater than ~ 16,700 GPM.

s gnee "*9' '

j / /rb 1 2 Distnbution. N. Wfiltfims, D. Wade, J ' VanAmerongen, R. Hess, T. Martin, P. Rainey,

, r_,__ e , _ . , eist. e o.._. _, , n__2_a et,_

v ,,w .wj y -, -

.g y -, -- -,y -- --- -- y w~- -

Communications AL i a Report

, 11111111111111111llllll11lll11 ,

item comments [c7aNy Jeanne said she would have the person who prepared the response call me to discuss the qiiestion.

5) Jeanne also stated that TUGC0 was sending another letter out today to answer the remaining systems questions.

6) Asked Jeanne if the floor drains in the area of the CCW surge tank were monitored drains for radioactive waste. Also asked if in addition to the 10 CFR 100 analysis of releases from the surge tank vent they had looked at the ALARA implications of this release. She will check on both of these issues.

Page of

/rb 2 2 1020Cib

p.; g ommunications 79 11111llllllll11llllll11lllll11

• • • "* p w econ Texas Utilities a conference neport Project: Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8'*-

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/20/84 Electrical Review Question 9:40 am Place.

Jeanne Van Amerongen TUGC0 R. Hess CES Requned item Comments Action By References

a. Telecon R. Hess/J. Van Amerongen 9/18/84.

b. Cygna letter 64056.019 (8/10/84)

c. TUGC0 letter Popplewell to Williams (8/30/84)

1) Jeanne called about the additional documentation Cygna requested in reference a. She wanted to know if we wanted it verbally or in writing. Told her we would prefer it in writing.

2) Discussed TUGC0's response (Ref. c) to Cygna's question (Ref, b) on motor horsepower rating of valves HV-4512 and HV-4524. Explained that our question was not directed at the rating listed on the one line or interconnection drawings.

The vendor, Fisher Controls, listed the motor rating as 1.0 H.P. in letter CVN-027 dated 8/16/77 and G&H calculation 2323-V-12 Rev. 15 dated 5/26/82 also showed a 1.0 H.P. rating for these valve motors. Requested Jeanne to supply documentation showing the change to 0.7 H.P. listed on the installed motor name plates.

Signed. Page of Wb/1/ f lif v<h /ss 1 1 D"b"" " N. Williams!D. Wade,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,T. Martin,P.Rainey,

_ osea to.V md_tJ9Jeren, d. irecy, d. tills, d. ourwelin vrojeci. rise

Communications A L .i c i Report 11111111lll11111lll16llllllll1 _

"**"# g cont-ce Remn Texas Utilities T*' econ Project Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 D*'

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/20/84 subject '**

Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review 3:00 p.m.

• ~

Status of Responses to Cygna Questions G&H (N.Y.)

E. Bezkor, B. K. Bhujang, S. C., Chang, G&H P. T. Hur.ng G&H P. Patel TUGC0 W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ CES Acquired item Comments Action By Cygna met with the TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill personnel listed above to discuss issues related to specific questions of the Cygna letters.

Question 2, Appendix B Letter 84056.015 The response to this question is now open pending a response to question 2 of letter 84056.031.

Ouestion 3, Letter 84056.019 The responses on Detail "N," Detail "W" and the longitudinal supports are awaiting a review of the as-built conditions. A response based on these conditions will be provided to Cygna.

Cygna will review the response provided in TUGC0's letter of 11 September 1984 signeo *** '

Q'// /dmm 1 1 Distndution N. Williams,"D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

_ - - , , , ,.. 3. Lu. cii, T usu% i;;c

Communications L4 f. t i Report 1111i 411111111111111111lllll compnr Texas Utilities Ol Telecon o conference Report Protect Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Dat '

9/20/84 sube ct "**

Cable Tray Support Review 10:00 am San Francisco - CES Pravin Patel, Ed Bezkor, S. Chang, Peter Hua$g Gibbs & Hill P. Patel TUGC0 John Russ, Bill Horstman, CYGNA Nancy Williams Required item Comments Action By A discussion was held to identify open items associated with the cable tray and conduit support reviews. The following list sumarizes the status:

1. Working point deviation study

a. Controlling load case:

l Cygna believes that there are situations where SSE will be the governing load case. We found a case (detail SP-7) where an embedded plate was designed to 0.75 Fy for bending. The applied stresses were right j to the limit. Therefore, the allowable increase in allowable for SSE would be on the order of 20-25%

rather than the 60% increase permitted in the FSAR.

2. Richsond Inserts It appears that prying was not considered for Richmond Inserts. All calculations appear to have checked Hilti expansion anchors assuming them to be the controlling bolt type. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the effects of the change in controlling bolt type on the conclusions of their calculations.

3. Connection Design Cygna believes that rotation about the weak axis of a base plate due to pull out must be considered. Cygna is also concerned with consistency of design assumptions at the connection. In some cases the connections are l

signee jh /rb Page i

e' 3

oisinbution. N. WilTi'ams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby

, , eis,_

e u_,3

n. e43m

_v -

Communications dini Report 111111111lll11111111111ll11lll l**

comments [ygn"%

considered fixed for member design while the anchorage design does not evaluate the anchor bolts with the same ass'>mption. G & H will evaluate the effect of the connection on bolt stresses and fixity considerations.

4. Load Combinations Referring to Cygna letter 84056.031, Cygna reiterated that G&H must consider the effects of aspect ratio on comparison of the " exact" versus " simplified" method in future responses. No specific actinn is required by G&H at this time.

5. SRSS Methods TUGC0 (Dick Kissenger) is evaluating the difference in the two SRSS methods for member component load resultants since G8H has used both in support design.

6. Eccentricities G&H has not considered tne effects of eccentric loadings 4

on beam members, i.e. not loading through the shear center. Cygna also noted that if G&H is going to rely on a " systems" approach to evaluated supports then the loads induced in the supports must be considered properly. G&H should make sure that global assumptions do not conflict with detailed assumptions. Gibbs & Hill is preparing a response on the effect of eccentricities.

7. Vertical and Transverse Loads on Longitudinal Supports Gibbs & Hill and Cygna will independently review the effects of adjacent support stiffness on the imposition of applied transverse and vertical loads to regular case longitudinal supports such as L-Al and L-A4 .

8. ACI 349 Appendix B

. Cygna is concerned with the selective use of Appendix B of ACI 349-76. G&H uses Appendix B to justify a safety factor of 1.8. Alternatively, G&H may not be adopting other Appendix B requirements. A response to these concerns will be provided.

9. AISI Versus AISC G8H is still studying the dif ferences between the two codes. Pravin Patel noted that around 1982 they had i discussed designing to AISI instead of AISC but designing Page of MM 0 t t Irb 2 3

- - -. - , - . _ - . . . _ . r , .._ . _ . _ . _ _ _ , , _ _ - . , . . - . . , _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . - . . - _ . - . .

Communications i

4L n i Report M111111lll11116H11111111 _

item comments Ac7o"nTy to AISI was considered too difficult and incomplete.

They felt there was sufficient margin in the design to account for the differences in codes. G8H must discuss this further with TUGCO. There is no schedule for response at this time.

10. Reaming of Unistrut Clamps Cygna has asked for documentation on the acceptability of increasing the hole size of a manufacturer supplied and certified component. TUGC0 will supply the necessary documentation.

11. Frame Brace Angles The response to question 2 of letter 84056.027 did not address the bracing angles within the plane of the cable tray support frames. These braces will be discussed with the site during Cygna's upcoming visit.

12. Lacing Plates for Double Angle Braces Cygna is concerned that the double angle braces for supports L-Al and L-A4 will not act together as a unit because no stiching or lacing plates are provided.

Calculations will be performed to address this issue.

Page of

/rb 3 3 10M 01D

Communications AL% i Report 1118ll1111111111111111lll11111 company:

Texas Utilities o Telecon oX Conference Report 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

9/20/84 subject: "** 1:00 p.m.

Cable Tray Support Review Calculations GAH NYC

"**P'" P. T. Huang GAH S. C. Chaing G8H W. R. Horstman CES Required Comments Action By item The following calculations were received from Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

1. SCS-104C, Set 5, Shts. 76, 78, 79, rev 6.

2. SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9, 10, rev 0.

3. SCS-101C, Set 2, (Shts. not numbered)

(Calculation pertains to use of double angles without tie plates) l

4. SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts.76-95A, rev 8.

l l

I Signed U /rmk

"'9' l 1 l

Distndution ' b . Williams,' D. Wade 7J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby ,

l

.1 F114e < Riimoll Drn4ac+ r41o sc2oote

Communications tM & i Report 11111111!!l111111111111lllllll comp *"r Texas Utilities E Teiecon a conference neport

'* J N o.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date.

9/19/84 subject Pipe Support Review T'm' 8:00 am Place. 3p

Participants:

J. Van Amerongen ' TUGC0 D. Rencher TUGC0 M. Chamberlain TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By After reviewing additional TUGC0 data, Cygna requested the following information:

1) In Engineering Evaluation of Separation Violation #1486 (TUGCO's response to Question 5, letter 84056.013), there are no calculations for the embedment plate. Please provide the backup calculations showing the 6"-7" separation acceptable.

2) The Material Test report associated with TUGC0's response to question 10 of let er 84056.013 does show the yield and ultimate data referenced in the TUGC0 response. Please provide documentation which shows that the material for the filler plate (piece 35) was taken from the bulk material in this test report.

l l

signe page i of 753 1 Q

oisindui,on. N. Wil ~ fanis, U. Wade, d.~ T"dn Amerongen, d. M1nicrilel lo, 5. ireby, 5. Burwell, 3 rii4 n. 4 mn riim

__ 7, 1o20 01e

Communications o (% i Report 1111111111111111111111111lll11 _.

g Telec n Conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Election Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 gfggfg4

Subject:

Time-Mechanical Questions 7:40 am Place.

SFR0

Participants:

of Jeanne Van Ameronaen TUGC0 R. Hess CES Regwred item Comments Action By

1) Called Jeanne concerning TUGC0 response on Class 5 piping contained in TUGC0 letter, Popplewell to Williams, dated 9/11/84 Asked her if position C.2 of Reg. Guide 1.29 specifically addressed Class 5 pipe design. She said it covered piping that could fall on safety related equipment.

Told her that page 10 of specification 2323-MS-448 (referenced by D. Wade) stated that Class 5 piping was non-nuclear safety piping that was seismically supported. This

, specification does not indicate that Class 5 piping larger than 2" is seismically designed. I requested her to supply us with a seismic piping analysis for Class 5 which shows that it is seismically designed. Also requested her to send us position C.2 of Reg. Guide 1.29 since we don't have it in our files.

2) Asked Jeanne what criteria TUGC0/G8H uses to determine if a water hammer analysis is required for a given system. She will check and get back to me.

3) In reference to TUGC0 response to Cygna Question #1 of 84056.023 I asked Jeanne how they knew that the revised calculation 233-16 would show that the max CCW temp was 130'F or less. She said that the calculation revision was not complete but they would send it to Cygna when it was done or notify Cygna if the temperature was higher that 130'F.

D'" b " "

kYf)b A /ss 1 2 N. Williams, R. Hess, P. Rainey, J. Foley, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, icm oi. 5. Burwelln ProAect File

1 Communications

. 4 f. n i -

Report i 11111111111111111111111111111I l

ltem Comments Ac on y j

4) Asked Jeanne how the operational modifications required by the TUGC0 response to Cygna Question #7 of 84056.023 on thermal barrier minimum flow will be implemented. Also asked I why Cygna was not given page 91A of calculation 229-15 while we were at GaH in June when the page is signed prepared and checked on 6/14/84. The Cygna perse;nnel left New York on 6/22/84. Jeanne said she would check on these items and get back to me. Also told her these were preliminary comments on this response and that we had not completed reviewing it in detail, i

Page of l

L G7FJD

I COmmuniCDtionS L4 ( t i Report IM11111t#INNINNilNINI ..

coneny:

Texas Utilities o Telecon gt conference n. port Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date.

9/l8/84 subject: Time:

Cable Tray Support Review Questions 10:00 a.m.

G&H NYC P. T. Huang GAH S. C. Chaing G&H W. R. Horstman CES P1K3ue ?d item Co.nments Action By In response to Cygna review question 84056.019, No. 2.2 -

Longitudinal support on tray segment T120ABC04, Gibbs & Hill provided calculation SCS-104C, set 5, shts. 75-80, rev. 6.

Cygna observed an error on sheet 76: support No. 480 had been assumed to support this tray segment.

However, Cygna's walkdown, and review of the applicable drawings 2323-El-0700-01-S and c323-S-0904 indicate that this support does not reach to the elevation of this tray. Messrs. Huang and Chaing agreed with Cygna's observation and agreed to revise the calculations to correct this error.

l signed V ) . Page of l h~

4( l11}l1 MAW lb** l l D'stnbution- N. William, D.' Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,

. . . . v. Eii>>, a. o u i vi c i i

Communications tu n i Report 111111111110'lm1m11111111 companr TUGC0 o Teiecon di conference n. port

N-84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

9/17/84 subject: Conduit Support Design Tim'- 1:30 pm As-Built Analysis G&H Md .

Participants:

p pgggj of TUGC0 J. Russ CES n0Qulf0C ltem Comments Action By Ref: Conference Report dated 16 September 1984, "As-Built Analysis," Bezkor, Bhujang, Chang, Huang, et. al.

participating.

Since Mr. Patel was in charge of the conduit support installation, I asked him if any retro-active generic analysis had ever been performed. The intent of the question was to determine if proper control of design input, as reflected in the as-built conditions of the conduit supports, was maintained. He reniied that in only one instance did such a situation occur. In that case, he stated, all change notices were collected and the impact reported in an SDAR which was subsequently closed out, of signe. waae,w. van amerongen, 3. xuss, K. tiess, w. tiorstman, 3. i reoy ,

.1 r114e R Rorwall peninet Filo tom ote

Communications ALni Report i l

NlllHilHINilllllHilllilli

• E* "I Telec n g conference neport Texas Utilities Project: Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '

)

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/16/84

Subject:

Time-Cable Tray Supports 9:00 a.m.

Place.

SP-7 Desian History G & H (N.Y.i

Participants:

of B. K. Bhu.iana. S. C. Chana. P. T. Huana Gibbs & Hill T. Keiss TUGC0 J. Russ CES Regwred item Comments Action By I asked Mr. Chang to explain the history of the design of Support Detail SP-7. He replied with the following chronology.

1. The original design showed a maximun length (L) of 7'-0" with a maximum tray width (W) of 2'-0".

2. The anchor bolt designs were based on tray spors of 9'-0" (later reduced to 8'-6") for L = 7'-0" and W = 2'-0".

3. The reanalysis for undercut sections (Calculation SCS-146C, Set 1) required the calculation of a new L. The results of this generic reanalysis showed that L must be less than or equal to 6'-0" with W = 2'-0". An "as-built" analysis of all supports in the plant showed all SP-7 supports to be okay.

Page of signed.

D"b"* " N. Williams, D. Wade, J VanAmerongen, J.Russ, S.Treby, J.Ellis, S.Burwell, Project sonoo,. F1Ie

1 Communications t4M i Report l':!!!H11lll11111111lll111111 Congany: TUGC0 a Teiecon 5 conference Repon

"' ' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J N- 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 9/16/84 subject: Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Criteria T'me 1:15 pm Place:

Allowable Stress Values G & H (N.Y.)

Participants:

R. M. Kissinger, T. Keiss, P. Patel ' TUGC0 E. L. Bezkor, B. K. Bhujang, P. T. Huang Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman, J. Russ CES nequired item Comments Action By Mr. Kissinger asked the basis for selection of the quantities listed in the Table of Allowable Stresses in the Cygna Design Review Criteria, DC-3. I replied that the table was developed based on Cygna's previous reviews and experience.

The intent of the table is for the convenience of the reviewer only. It is not intended to verbatim reflect the contents of the Gibbs & Hill design documents. It contains information such as SSE increase from the Comanche Peak project and excerpts from the AISC manual.

l l

l l

signed P89' 1 o' 1

/ /rf oistneution n. w1iilams, v. waae, v. vanamerongen, n. ness, v. nuss, s. ireoy, v. tilis, L Rurwell _ Proinct File mo oi.

Communications 4( i i Report 11ll181llllll18111111llltll111 conspenr '

Texas Utilities Teiecon g conference neport Project Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D *t

9/16/84 subject "**

Cable Tray Support Review 2:30 pm As-Built Analysis G & H (N.Y.)

"*"'**'"'* E. Bezkor, B. K. Bhujang, S. C. Chang P. T. Huang, A. Kenkre Gibbs & Hill Pravin Pater TUGC0 John Russ CES ReQwred item Comments Action By Gibbs & Hill performed a generic reanalysis of anchor bolts for detail SP-7 with brace. The analysis concluded that for supports above certain elevations, the supports would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I asked Mr. Chang if the as-built configurations as reflected by CMC's and DCA's were considered. He replied that only in cases where the stresses were near the allowable levels were the as-built i conditions considered. I then spoke to Messrs. Bezkor, Bhujang, Huang, Kenkre and Patel and asked if the as-built conditions had been considered in all generic studies. They replied that they had and also noted that all CMC's had to be design reviewed which would eliminate any problem.

hj} h ~~

gg /rf 1 1 Distnbution 's.'WiTItams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

3. uu..c;;, 7, v- i;;c

Communications AL% i Report

, 111llllll1111111111lll11111lll Company: Texas Utilities a Teiecon & Conference aeport Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date-9/15/ 84 subject Response to Cygna Cable Tray and Conduit Questiohs 1:00 pm Place ggg Participants N. H. Williams, J. R. Russ, W. R. Horstman '

CES R. M. Kissinger, T. Keiss TUGC0 B.K. Bhujang, P. T. Huang, and G&H S. C. Chang (intermittent)

Required item Comments Action By Cygna addressed several issues which resulted from the initial review of cable tray and conduit support calculations. The following questions were asked:

1. Q Cygna's review has noted that the effects of prying action were not considered in the design of Richmond Inserts. Can Gibbs & Hill or TUGC0 validate the assumption of no-prying on the inserts?

A Originally it was felt that the Hilti expansion anchors controlled the design and therefore, the Richmond Inserts would not need to be checked. We realize that 1-1/4" diameter Hilti Super-Kwik bolts with 10-5/8" and 13-1/8" embedments have greater tensile allowables than 1" diameter Richmond Inserts.

Obviously assurances that 1" diameter Richmond Inserts are not loaded beyond their allowable 3 must be provided. Gibbs &

Hill prepared a series of calculations for the effects of prying on Hilti Kwik bolts. These calculations showed the elevations, above which, the anchor bolts for the support type urder con-ideration, had to be checked on a case-by-case basis. We feel that by considering the actual tray loads, G-values and support configurations, the Richmond Inserts will be adequate to resist the applied loads.

Cygna noted that the cut-off elevations were determined on the basis of Hilti-Super Kwik bolt allowables. Therefore, any similar evaluation would need to consider cut-off elevations based on Richmond Insert allowables, signed Page 1 of

/rb 4 Distnbution- N. Williams, U. Waoe,d. vanAmerongen, M. Ness, d. KuSs, 5. lieDy, d. Lills, R h ewn11 Drn4 art filo 102 cote

Communications AMi Report IK: '

...;;llll ltem Comments Ac o y

2. Q Do Regular type Longitudinal supports with double-angle braces have spacer plates at required intervals?

A No spacer plates were used.

3. Q TUGCO's response (reference letter from L. M. Popplewell to N. Williams dated 4 September 1984) to question 1 of Cygna's letter 84056.021 states that the cable tray supports in question are in contact with the heat exchanger. Doesn't the condition still violate the criteria referenced in Cygna's letter and if necessary, how will the situation be rectified?

A TUGC0 agrees that the situation is in violation of the refer-enced criteria. An evaluation on the impact of the support-heat exchanger contact by the Mechanical Engineering Group will be performed. This evaluation includes an assessment of the effects of notching the support and/or the insulation.

4. Q TUGC0's response (reference letter from L. M. Popplewell to N. Williams dated 6 September 1984) to question 7 of Cygna's letter 84056.021 references CMC 12105, revision 1 as the reason for accepting the noted spacing violation? Will Cygna be provided with a copy of the CVC?

A Cygna will be provided with the CVC for revision 1 of the CMC.

5. Q Cygna has noted the use of unstiffened moment connections between cable tray supports and embedded plates. Gibbs &

Hill specification 2323-SS-30, revision 1 requires that the embedment be stiffened to resist the applied moment. Can the use of the unstiffened moment connection be validated?

A G8H agrees that per 2323-SS-30 the unstiffened moment connec-tions must be evaluated.

6. Q TUGC0's response (reference letter from L. M. Popplewell to N. Williams, dated 6 September 1984) to question 1 of Cygna letter 84056.026 noted that ultrasonic testing was performed to verify that the correct anchor bolts were installed prior to implementation of the " star" requirement for Hilti Super-Kwik bolts. Please explain how this is accomplished and where documentation exists on the results of the testing?

A The testing method for the length and bolt type (Kwik versus Super-Kwik) is based on the difference between the reflection of the sound waves in a Super-Kwik bolt versus a regular Kwik bolt. The wave is reflected differently due to the addi-tional cone associated with the extra wedges on the Super-l Kwik bolts. Documentation from the test program is available nn cito.

Page of

/rb 2 4 i

! iomoa

Communications ALni Report

. ll11111lllll1111lll!IIllll1111 ,

item comments Ac7o y

7. Q Please explain TUGC0's response on 6 inch wide cable trays (reference letter from L. M. Popplewell to N. Williams, dated 7 September 1984) as noted in question 1 of Cygna letter 84056.015?

A Any time a 6-inch wide tray is covered with Thermolag, the tray is automatically evaluated for the actual applied loadings.

8. Q In response to question 3 of Cygna letter 84056.025, Gibbs &

Hill provided calculations in GTN-69437. Cygna noted that the response for L-A4 type supports did not address vertical or horizontal transverse cable tray loads on the support.

Would you please explain this assumption?

A Regular type longitudinal cable tray supports do not support vertical or transverse loads. These supports are placed between a pair of regular cable tray supports after the regular supports are erected.

Futhermore, the flexural stiffnesses of the beam and hanger members of the longitudinal support are much smaller than the flexural stiffnesses of the transverse support beams and hangers. Therefore, the transverse supports will resist the vertical and transverse tray loadings.

9. Q Cygna has noted two different methods of calculating stress interaction valves for structural members of cable tray and conduit supports. The first method involves a square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the component forces or moments due to all directions of seismic loading before calculating the stress interaction values based on AISC equations. The second method involves calculating interaction ratios for each direction of loading and then performing an SRSS on the interaction values. An example is shown below. The second method results in lower resultant interaction valves than the first. Which method is appropriate for use in the design of cable tray and conduit supports?

EQ STRESS COMP 0NENT DIR. AXIAL BENDING 1 BENDING 2 X fa y fb1x fb2x Y fa y fb ly fb 2y Z fa z fblz fb2z Page of

/rb 3 4 1020 01b

Communications 41 n a Report

• 1911111111lll1lll1111lllllllll .

Item Comments Ac on y ETHOD 1 2

(fax + fay b faz) I 1x + fbyy + fblz ) 2 (fb2x + i b2y + fb2z) 2 TOTAL t, tb y F b 2

ETH00 2 fa x + fb 1x + fb 2x x" Ta Fb y Fb 2

fa fb fb y

, f z + fb lz + fb 2z z Ta K ]

I T0TAL (I x + Iy

• Iz)

A The question of which method is acceptable has not been decided. We will consider this issue before providing a response to the question.

10. Q Is the 10% criteria for closely spaced modes required to be checked for the NASTRAN response spectrum analysis?

A No, not to our knowledge.

l Page of l 4

/rh 4 1020 0 t h

Communic 0tions 4L ci Repod 2 .

1111111 ,

• ""* Texas utilities T econ 9 conference nepon Project. Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Date.

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/14/84 Cable Tray / Conduit Support Reviews 9:30 a.m.

Place GAH NYC B.K. Bhojang, S.C. Chang. P.T. Huang GaH R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 W.R. Horstman. J.P. Russ. N.H. Williams CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna addressed the following issues as described below.

1. Cygna noted the following while the checking the buckling for the longer member of the enveloping case of B4-C type supports in the working point deviation calculations. 4 A. The values for the stiffness at the tray level which are used to calculate the K value for buckling was in-correct. The calculation used the flexural stiffness of the channel beam instead of the torsional stiff-ness. Using the torsional stiffness increases the K ,

value to 0.70 B. The base connection was assumed as fixed against rota-tion about the centerline of the bolts. This means '

that the bolts must be designed as a moment resistant connection which has not been considered for cases of tensile or compressive loads on the outstanding leg of

the angle.

. C. A reduction factor for K based on the stepped

! compressive load in the hanger was applied. This factor was calculated for a different loading condition in a separate analysis. The factor must be recalculated for the case under consideration.

In response, the Gibbs & Hill - TUGC0 personnel stated the following:

A. The stiffness value and its effects would be reviewed.

"'*"** Y ff),)h,g /rmk 1 2 D"bubon ' N. hiTb5m's70. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, S. Burwell, S. Trely, J. Russ, W.

. . . , . norsunan, d. t.ilis, FroJect file

Communicatians A( t i Report

. 111111111111111116411111111111 1

nem comm.nis [ eon B. The connection does provide moment resistance and the anchor bolts would have to be designed accordingly.

The bolt loads may see a load of 1.5 to 2.9 times the applied compressive or tensile load from the hanger.

An evalution of this effect will be performed and a response will be given to Cygna.

C. The use of the reduction factor from a previous analysis was incorrect and a new factor would be calculated.

2. In the response to question 2.1 of letter 84056.019, Cygna noted that support 480 was considered as a support on the in-scope tray. Cygna's walkdown and the generic support drawings show that the tray is not supported by this support. Gibbs & Hill will reevaluate the tray segments in question and provide Cygna with a response.

3. In the response to question 3 of letter 84056.018 which discusses Detail "K" of drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S, Gibbs &

Hill considered the torsion on the support due to longitudinal loads to be resisted by flexure of the tray.

Cygna noted that by considering the relative stiffnesses of the tray and the support, the support must resist the load. Gibbs S Hill concurred and will reevaluate the support considering the above.

Page of 2  ?

ion ei.

Communications AL t i Report lillililllilllllilllilllllllli .

CompanW Texas Utilities & Telecon D Confesence Report Project: Texas Utilities Job No.

84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate:

9/13/84 subiect: Mechanical System Questions T'**-

11:00 a.m.

Place SFR0

Participants:

g ygj)g of TUGC0 R. Hess CES Required item Comments Actinn By

1) Mark called in reference to question #6 of Cygna letter 84056.023 dated 8/21/84. He wanted to know what documentation we needed as part of the TUGC0 response to this question on fire doors.

2) Stated that we wanted the documentation TUGC0 generated when the wrong door was found installed in Room 115. Mark said that since fire doors are not safety related they do not fill out NCR's or Travelers when discrepancies are noted. The documentation may consist of a memo from engineering or construction to purchasing and a subsequent purchase order to obtain the correct door. Fire door ratings are normally checked during walkdowns such as for Appendix "R" compliance.

3) Asked Mark to send us whatever existed and a brief description of their procedure for finding and correcting these discrepancies.

Signed. Page of

=

4, V,

4 j3g y }

fr- --

Distnbution: N. Williams, U. Wade, J. VanAmerangen, R. Hess, J. Foley, E. vanStijgeren, n e _ _; 3 . e T

-_w.

i r314, e o . . .._. _ 3 3 n m4-_,+ r43m

, _y _ . -

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

D -'

+-

.7 Communications ALni Report

. 1111111ll181111lll1111111lllll 00*P8"* Teiecon Texas Utilities g conference neport Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 U'

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 09/13/84

Subject:

Time-Conduit Supports and Letter Responses 9:00 a.m.

Place.

GaH, New York Participants. of B. K. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill R. M. Kissinger TUGC0 W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna met with the TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill personnel listed above to review the cable tray and conduit support design. The items discussed are listed below.

1. Inconsistent use of ACI 349-76, Appendix B.

Cygna had noted the selective use of ACI 349-76, Appendix B as a reference for justification of f actors of safety for Richmond Inserts and Hilti expansion anchors as well as equations for calculating Hilti anchorage capacities. (Detail "11", Drawing 2323-S-0905.) Cygna wanted to know if TUGC0 had adopted the appendix as a basis for qualifying anchorages as referenced, why hadn't they consistently applied the intent of the other code sections such as B.7.3?

In response, Mr. Kissinger replied that Appendix B had not been I formally adopted by TUGCO. In addition, as far as the require-ments of Section B.7.3 are concerned, he felt that if connections as described therein were designed using manufacturers' tested allowables, then there was sufficient justification of the connection adequacy. A response on the selective use of the code will be prepared for Cygna.

2. Cygna's review of the conduit support IN-CSM-15a noted that the calculation did not address the weld capacities, nor the effects due to concrtita compressive forces on the anchor bolts. During the walkdown, Cygna had also noted a base angle which did not provide adequate bearing due to concrete uneveness (Ref. Question 4, Letter 84056.020). Mr. Bhujang stated that the support noted in the referenced question had been repaired by grouting under V

Signed: -fj j jy /J -

ljw Page of 4

r IIhfV1A M 1 Distribution: N. NiTilam's, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.

io m i, o u rw e s i , rroJecc r 1:e

Communications A L ;6 i Report 111111!:llll ... "!!!Illi item comments [c7oN _

the support and using beveled washers for the Hiltis. Calcula-tions had been prepared for this support but had not been checked. Mr. Kissinger stated that Cygna's concerns would be addressed in these calculations.

3. In the calculations for conduit supports CSM-18c, -18d, and -18f, Cygna noted that the support was designed to the conduit configu-ration shown in Figure 1, attached. The calculations result in a total allowable load which the support may carry. Cygna was concerned that the configuration shown in Figure 2 was the controlling case and would result in lower allowable loads.

Mr. Kissinger agreed that Cygna was correct but the total change in loads was negligible due to the formulation shown in Attach-ment 1. Cygna questioned the inclusion of the vertical loads in the SRSS. A revised calculation showed that Pi = .53 P g . Mr.

Kissinger stated that when considering the base conservative base plate prying factor of 1.5, the effect on the design was negli-gible.

Cygna also noted that the base plate stress calculations did not include the effects due to the compressive concrete force. Mr.

Bhujang checked with the site and determined that the baseplate stress calculations were conservative as they included only one-half the plate width, a distance equal to 5".

4 Cygna asked if conduit support type CA-Sa was adequate for 5" diameter conduits. Gibbs & Hill stated that calculations for 5"4 conduits would be provided to Cygna.

5. Cygna asked if the load case of Figure 2 from Item 3 above had

! been considered in the design of CSM-42a. Mr. Kissinger and Mr.

l Russ then reviewed calculation SCS-209C, Set 3. The calculation l considered all loading configurations. Cygna also asked about i the effect of concrete compressive forces in the bolt design.

l Mr. Kissinger stated such calculations would be included with the I

calculation for support IN-CSM-15a.

6. Cygna had reviewed the response to question 5, Attachment A of l

letter 84056.019 and noted the following discrepancies.

A. The orientation of the tee-joint was incorrect and did not reflect the as-built condition; B. no longitudinal supports for the in-scope tray exist in the Safeguards Building; and, l

l C. The tray segments' widths used in the analysis were incorrect.

l Page of so20 0in

Communications AL% i ll:: ......<... .n;;iilllll Report a

Requwed item Comments Action By Mr. Bhujang stated that the as-built situation will be checked and new calculations prepared as required.

7. Cygna asked if a DCA/ CMC existed for bracing plates on double angle braces. Mr. Bhujang stated that a search would be made bu1 felt that no plates were used.

l I

Page of i

3 4 10200tb

ATTACMENT 1 Assumptions: A. Design is controlled by anchor bolt capacities.

B. Shear in bolts due to moments about Y-Y axis are small.

C. Longitudinal spans are two times transverse spans.

Transverse spans are equal to vertical spans.

D. A uniform and equal G field is applied in all directions (X,Y,Z).

Per assumption C, the loadings for Figures 1 and 2 are as follows:

Figure 1: P X

= P T

= P o

Py = =

Py P o

= = = 2P PZ PL 2PT o Figure 2: PX

=

PL +

1 Pq

= 2Py + Pi = 3P 1

Py = 2Py = 2P PZ

= P + P T1

=

2P1 + Pi =

3P1 Since the support is a cantilever, the three earthquake components cause distinct effects, and the tube steel may be oriented at any angle about the Y-Y axis on the base plate. A total applied load vector which is equal to the SRSS of the components may be applied. By applying such a vector, the relative magnitudes of Poand Pi may be established.

V= [P2 + p2 + (2Pg )2]I/2 gp g (1) g 7 1

= [(3Pg)2 + (2Pg)2 + (3P1 )2]1/ 2 . /71 pl (2)

Equating (1) and (2) and solving for Py :

=

6 Pi / P 7 g

= .52 P o

Therefore, this shows that the loads for the condition in Figure 2 are 1/2 the magnitude of Figure 1. Considering the vector magnitude, the design is adequate.

Calculation i 4 L% i Sheet ar- ::::::::::::::::::

Project Prepared By Date Subject Checkes By Date System Job No File No Analysis No Rev No Sheet No 3# $# /

b

-. I <,

j l ,

1 1 i v

I V L l l Pv, l

f g l R, l r p u, P

! l P I g _ p,'

\ --

x -i / . ,. A I  ! (5)e' i. 7 ll li l y Py kfr, NOTE: do e rrs y Pg OF EQAL I PsAadTWL Fs voU 1 F1 Go R.E z.

l l

l f l

l mece

c).h- ,

bi , l Communications d(ni Report 4

. 19111111lll11111llll111111llll Telec n Texas Utilities 3 coberence Ren Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Date-Indeoendent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/12/84 '

Subject:

Time.

NRC Questions 11:00 a.m.  ;

1 Place-G&H (NYC)

Participants:

of E. Bezkor. B.K. Bhu.f ano S.C. Chang. P.T. Huana J. Pier G8H R.M. Kissincer. C.R. Hooton (ohone). D. Wade (phone) TUGC0 J. Van Ameronaen TUGC0 (EBASCO)

W.R. Horstman. J.P. Russ CES Required item Comments Action By

Reference:

Letter from B. J. Youngblood to M. D. Spence, Docket No. 50-455 Mr. Wade called to discuss the questions asked by the NRC (Ref.

1). Cygna was present to respond to questions regarding Cygna's statements on the issues.

Mr. Wade asked Mr. Kissinger if it was possible to easily arrive at a number of Hilti bolts which may have a factor of safety of three. Mr. Kissinger responded that the task would involve a large v'lume of work. Mr. Wade stated that he felt that the NRC wasn t questioning the factor of safety of three and would speak to the staff about the intent of their l

l question. Mr. Bezkor stated that Gibbs & Hill had prepared a l reply on the acceptability of a safety factor of three. Mr.

Wade asked that the reply be mailed to site so that it could be studied before replying to the NRC.

Mr. Wade asked what the intent of question 130.38 was. Mr.

Kissinger stated that he was not sure but suggested that the transcripts of the hearings be reviewed to see what Cygna's statements were. Mr. Wade said that copies of the transcripts would be telecopied to Gibbs & Hill for review. Messrs.

Horstman and Russ were requested to speak to N. H. Williams about her statements in testimony.

In regards to question 130.39, Mr. Wade asked why the NRC is asking the FSAR to be changed. He asked if that was what the intentions of Cygna's statements were. Mr. Russ replied that the intent of referring to the ANC0 report, a comprehensive V

~~

Signed. Page of f f /3 /rmk 1 2

'"b""

N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, wro oi. J. Ellis, 5. Burwell, Project File

Communications a

s id , i 111ll.;;;::::::::"llll:::1111 Repod stem comments Ac o y report detailing raceway behavior under seismic loading, was to show the actual behavior of the systems. This report had also been used by other utilities to justify damping values greater than those specified by the applicable regulatory guides. The TUGC0 personnel will review the FSAR commitments and correlate them with the use of damping values for bolted structures for cable trays and supports.

Page of 2 2 1020 01D

Communications L4 L%' i Report

, 11ll11lllll11i11111111llllll11 company: m econ Taras Utilities g confuence Repon Project: Job No.

84

• Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 gfipfg4

Subject:

Time:

Cable Tray / Conduit Support Reviews g Generic CMC's & DCA's Participants. of R _K _ Rhuiang GAM R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 W.R. Horstman_ J.P. Russ CES Required item Comments Action By i

Cygna met with Messrs. Bhujang and Kissinger to discuss the DCA's and CMC's listed below. Due to their continuing involvement with the cable tray and conduit supports, these gentlemen were able to provide Cygna with the historical information regarding the change notices listed below:

OCA 575, Rev 1 The detail shown was not used as it was superceded by a later l

connection detail.

DCA 1564, Rev. O Cygna believes that it is possible for violations of AISC edge distance requirements to occur. Mr. Kissinger replied that violations could not occur since Q.C. inspections are performed in accordance with the AISC code. Therefore, edge violations are caught.

DCA 1711, Rev. O and DCA 20385, Rev. O Cygna noted that the replacement of 1" diameter Richmond Inserts with 1-1/4" diameter Hilti Super-Kwik bolts is not l appropriate because the allowable shear for the Super-Kwik bolt (10.37 kips) is smaller than the allowable shear for a Richmond l Insert (11.5 kips) as listed in Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-l SS-30, Rev. 1. Mr. Bhujang replied that DCA 1711 was written before the iss"ance of 2323-SS-30 when the allowable shear for 1" diameter Richmond Inserts was listed as 10.1 kips per calculation SCS-1010, Set 5.

/ } /11

/ // - f]RM f Signed / Page of

? < laib 1 3 U'"*"

N. Wdliams, D. WadY J. VanAmerongen, S. Burwell, S. Treby, J. Russ, W.

l Horstman, J. Ellis, Project File

_ 'o2c ot. .- _. - - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - .

t Communications A (% i Report

• lil!!"- ..mii,;;illi ..

~

Requwed item Comments Actoon By DCA 2079 Rev. O and DCA 2084, Rev. O Cygna will review the connection details for acceptability.

DCA 2421, Rev. O Cygna asked Mr. Bhujang how this depicted base connection behaved. Cygna was concerned that for the case 1 connection shown, the Richmond inserts capabilities would not be enveloped by the original two-bolt detail since the behavior of the connection is quite different. Calculations in support of the CVC will be searched for in the Gibbs & Hill calculation books and made available to Cygna.

DCA 2538, Rev. O DE/CD S-1000 lists calculation book SCS-101C as a reference for the tolerances shown. The calculations will be provided to Cygna when located.

DCA 3318, Rev. O To assure the adequacy of the brace connection details, Cygna was referred to the response to Question 2 of letter 84056.027.

DCA 3423, Revs. O and 1 Cygna was concerned with the adequacy of the welds as noted in Revision 0 of the DCA. Hand calculations show that the tensile and shear capabilities exceed those of the bolt. The Revision 0 detail was used until Revision 1 of the DCA was issued.

Supporting documentation for Revision 1 exists with the calculations for welding supports to embedded plates.

DCA 3464, Rev. 23 l

Cygna is to review the referenced calculations.

DCA 3622, Rev. I and DCA 4897, Rev. O l

Cygna was referenced to response to question 1 of letter 84056.025 and question 1 of letter 84056.018.

DCA 4735, Rev. 0 l

Cygna asked for the location of the calculations that verify the design changes. The calculations appear in the original support design calculations. Cygna will verify this.

Page of l

L 10M 01L

Communications t41th i Report

• 1:: ... iiiiillli ..

Requwed item Comments Action By DCA 7043, Rev. 3 Cygna will review calculation SCS-122C, Set 2, Sheets 1-60.

DCA 19973, Rev. 5 This change is covered in a CMC and will be discussed at that time.

DCA 20278, Rev. 1 These changes deal with working point deviations which were previously discussed with Gibbs & Hill.

CMC 32503, Rev. O Since shear gcverns, there is no problem with the calculations.

Mr. Kissinger will obtain a copy of NCR-E-2092 for Cygna's review.

CMC 80254, Rev. O Cygna was referred to the response to question 2 of letter 84056.027.

Cygna reviewed the following DCA's and CMC's and found no problems.

DCA'S CMC'S 2687 1969 2055

3422

! 32456

! 77652 i

l l

t I

Page of f

\

m20 0t n

Communications A f.% a Report )

'"""'"!!!!!!ll11ll11ll1111

• #'" conference Repon Texas Utilities p m ec n Project Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 gfii jg4 Subject Time.

Mechanical and Electrical Review 11:00 a.m.

Place:

SFR0

Participants:

of Jeanne Van Ameronaen TUGC0 R. Hess C.E.S. _

Required item Comments Action Gy Ref erences:

! (1) Cygna letter 84056.023 (8/12/84) Question #6

, (2) Cygna letter 84056.024 (8/21/84) Question #5 (3) TUGC0 letter Popplewell to Williams dated 8/31/84 (4) TUGC0 letter Popplewell to Williams dated 9/4/84 I

1. The TUGC0 response (Ref. 3) to Cygna Question 6 (Ref. 1) did not supply the requested documentation on how the nonfire rated door

, was originally detected by TUGC0 and what paperwork was used to

( correct the problem. Jeanne said she would investigate it and provide Cygna with the required documentation.

! 2. The TUGC0 response (Ref. 4) to Cygna Question 5 (Ref. 2) stated that the Thermo-Lag fire protection had been reinstalled after the Cygna walkdown. However, the attached Construction Operation Traveler no. AM84-876-0500 shows that the reinstallation was signed off by QA/QC ENG on 7/13/84. This is before the Cygna walkdown which occurred during the week of July 16 - 20, 1984.

. Also, the attached inspection report E-1-0049703 is dated 7/14/84. Jeanne said she would check with QC on this and get additional information back to Cygna.

l Signed:

g Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, T. Martin, J. Foley, P. Rainey, a o'. S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _

Communications d (% i Report 1111111lllll111111lll1llllll11 p ec n Confmnce Repon Texas Utilities Project: Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

• Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 gf11fg4

Subject:

Time:

Pipe Support Follow-up Questions 1:00 o.m.

San Francisco Participants. of J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 D. Rencher TUGC0 T. Kerlin TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna had the following follow-up questions on the pipe support design /wclkdown review scope.

1. Cygna letter 84056.013, question 10a

a. The rear bracket is adequately located with respect to the two beams, as shown in section J-J. Piece 35, however, is not located anywhere on the drawing with respect to item 22 or the rear bracket. In other words, (1) how did the designer size piece 35 if he didn't know where it was relative to the rear bracket?

l (2) how did construction fabricate the support without knowing the location of piece 35?

(3) If piece 35 was " assumed centered" on the rear bracket, which was located on the two beams, what tolerances does QC use for " assume center" items?

(4) The output is conservative since the thickness of l piece 35 is input as 7/16" rather than the 1/2" shown on Revision 10 of the drawing.

l Mr. Kerlin stated that piece 35 may have been properly dimen-sioned in an earlier revision of the drawing. He believed the designer, in the earlier calculation, had designed the plate (piece 35) to transmit the load directly to piece 22 through the welds. (TUGC0 will provide further response.)

r b s

,,, jh [h

/dmm 1 2 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, C. Wong, S. Treby, l

iom oi. d. Ellis, Project File, 5. Burwell

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

l Communications l At ti Report )

11111:: I Item Comments Ac o y

2. Cygna letter 84056.014, Ouestion 1 In TUGC0's response, they note that traceability can be through nameplates, tags or serial number. As TUGC0 has stated in their response to letter 84056.013, question 3, material from unused supports is occasionally used in other supports, so tag numbers are not a reliable source. Cygna points this out as an inconsistency.

In tracing sizes by measuring, Cygna concurs that this is a possible method. However, how is this done for an SRS-12 and SRS-14 sway struts, since both have the same dimensions in the NPSI catalog? If these are verified through component traceability, please provide an example (list, etc.) of the serial numbers which QC would check.

3. Cygna letter 84056.017, question 1 Since there were no dimensions to the stiffness of section BB in the present revision, had earlier revisions had this dimension? Cygna requested a description of the construction of this plate from the standpoint of fabrication and QC.

1 Page of 2 2 1020 0116

1

. Communications d (% i Raport 18111llll1llllllllllllllllllll

" * #* "# 2 T* con Texas Utilities CK Conference Report Project. Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Indeoendent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*:

9/7/84 Cable Tray Support Review 9:30 a.m.

Working Point Deviations G & H (N.Y.)

Jong Pier Gibbs & Hill J. P. Russ, Bill Horstman CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Pier the following questions regarding the working point deviation analysis: ,

1. Why were the cable tray supports restrained in the out-of-plane direction;

2. Why were the trays fixed to the beams of the supports;

3. Were mode shapes plotted; and, 4 What percentage of mass was participating.

Mr. Pier replied as follows:

1. & 2: The support restraint and tray fixities were per instructions of the structural group;

3. No mode shapes were plotted or output; and, 4 The participation factors were printed in the output.

Distneution:

hch) u N. Williams, D. Wade 7J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby,

/rb 1 2

, ,, J. iii., . ^ u.m., I . vo m .~ ; '. m

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

+,

1- Communications At n i Report

,,,,......,,n............m e .

Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna verified that sufficient mass was participating in the analysis.

l 9

Page of

/rb 2 2 1020 0 t b

Communications ALa i Report 181lllllllll1111llll1llll11111 Company: 0 Telecon eXas Utilities () Conference Report Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 D*'"

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/7/84

'" I* ' '"*

Cable Tray Support Review 1:30 p.m.

Working Point Deviations G & H (N.Y.)

E. Bezkor, B. Bhujang, S. Chang, P. Huang, J. Pier G&H W. Horstman, J. Russ, N. Williams CES Pequired item Comments Action By Cygna discussed with Gibbs & Hill the analysis for working point deviations. Cygna noted that the out-of-plane displacements of the tray supports were restrained and that the trays were rigidly connected to the support beams. Mr. Huang replied that these modelling assumptions were consistent with the support-tray system behavior. He noted that the longitudinal supports vill resist the accelerated frame weight in the out-of-plane di recti on.

Cygna also noted that only Hilti expansion anchors were checked in the analysis. Since Richmond Inserts were used for the supports and they have lower allowables when compared to some Hilti expansion anchors, the calculations must consider them also. The calculations for the cut-off elevation, above which the supports must be checked on a case-by-case basis, were checked and were found to be unchanged by considering the Richmond Inserts. Gibbs & Hill noted that the Richmond Inserts would be considered in the future. Cygna will review the remaining working point deviations calculations to check for the effects of Ricnmond Inserts.

Cygna also noted that the working point calculations compared the refined OBE loads to unrefined SSE loads. Cygna believes that comparison is not correct. Gibbs & Hill noted Cygna's concerns and stated that they would await Cygna's completed evaluation before responding. Gibbs & Hill also noted that the cases Signe Distnbution:

(- f W' WilWam~s, f /rf

"'i' 1

D.' Wade,"J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 2

,,,, 3 . ^ . .m  :, ^.vo m T;;s

9 Communications L41% i Report lilli:: "lll ..

Item comments [cWNy 4

reviewed were very conservative and did not really represent actual plant conditions.

Cygna noted that the response to question 4 of letter 84056.015 showec loads beyond the Unistrut rated capability of the P2558 clamp assembly. Mr. Huang showed Cygna sheets 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b of drawing 2323-S-0910 which show limitations on the longitudinal spans for supports using P2558 clamps and thus ensure that the loads will not exceed the noted allowables, l

l i

l Page of frf 9 9

) S _ - 1 Y Communications L4 L t i- Report 111111111111111lll1lllllllllll g Teiec n conference Repon Texas Utilities Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/7/84 Subject Time:

Data Request Follow-up 7 30 a.m.

p SF

Participants:

of J. Van Ameronaen TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cyana i

Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following backup documents to the TUGC0 responses on the pipe supports:

1. Cygna letter 84056.013, question 5, TUGC0 response 8/24/84 -

Cygna requested a copy of the EESV form showing acceptability.

2. Cygna letter 84056.013, Question 8, TUGC0 response 8/11/84 -

since the nuts were not backed off in July 1984, Cygna requested documentation to show that the rework described in NCR 9241, Rev. 2, had been performed.

3. Cygna letter 84056.013, Question 10, TUGC0 response 8/30/84 -

Cygna requested the material test report from which the yield and ultimate data were taken.

I asked Jeanne to call me when the data was available.

L$ 11 h A ~

/ dun 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File

Communications ALn i Report 11111lllll11111lllll1111lllll1 _

Company: o Teiecon d( conference neport Texas Utilities b"

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate:

9/6/84 subject Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review T'**

2:00 p.m.

Gibbs & Hill Responses to Cygna's Question G&H, New York

'''" E. Bezkor, B.K. Bhunjang, S.C. Chang, P.T. Hu'ang Gibbs & Hill T. Keiss, D. Kissinger TUGC0 W. Horstman, J. Russ, N. Williams CES Regwred item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the Gibbs & Hill and TUGC0 personnel:

1. Q. For the working point deviation analysis, what is the basis for choosing the sample analyzed:

A. The sample that was analyzed was selected on the basis of Gibbs & Hill's experience with previous analysis for regular cable tray supports. Aspect ratios (height to width) were selected to assure that the largest possible axial load would occur in the hanger. The intent of the sampling was to make the analysis generic for the entire plant.

2. Q. Please explain Gibbs & Hill's response to question 2b of Cygna letter 84056.015 (reference Gibbs & Hill GTN-69371).

i A. The longitudinal rigidity of the conduit system will impart a l restoring force to the support shown in the calculation.

This force will prevent rotation of the support. Therefore, additional forces in the bolt resulting from concrete l compressive forces will be resisted by the longitudinal i restoring force.

L

3. Q. Cygna noted several fire-protected trays with total weights which exceeded the 35 psf design weight. (Reference quastion -

3, letter 84056.027.) Please explain why these trays and their supports were not evaluated per procedure CP-EI-4.0-49.

A. The trays and supports in question were not analyzed because the increase in loads and the accelerations at those eleva-I signee '

h[j /dmm

"'9' 1 2 Distnoution: N. ~ Wi ll'iams, D".' Vade, d. 73n Amerongen, R. Hess, d. Russ, 5. I reby, J. E l li s, e o.._._,, n__:-. re,_

f Communications 41 i ..i Report g . . . . .

comments Ac7oNy item tions are low. Therefore, by engineering judgment, the trays and supports were considered acceptable. For trays and supports at higher elevations or where the loads are much greater than the design load, we have performed numeric evaluations.

4. Q. Due to on-going work and the presence of fire protection, Cygna was unable to determine if the cable trays in scope were continuous between the auxiliary and safeguards build-ing. Are these trays continuous?

A. All trays throughout the plant are not continuous across building boundaries.

5. Cygna was concerned about the following itesm for Detail "11" on drawing 2323-S-0905:

(a) Use of an average span length rather than turbutory span for calculation of longitudinal loads; (b) Beam end fixity assumptions for analysis of longitudinal loads; (c) Ignoring the transverse load in the calculation of bolt i loads for the beam connection; and (d) The accelerat. ion values used in the analysis of Detail "11."

In response to these concerns, Gibbs & Hill and TUGC0 personnel provided the following answers:

(a) An average span is acceptable as the trays and supports act as a system; (b) The worst case loads have been considered in the frame design; (c) The effect of the transverse load on one bolt of the beam connection will be small and disappear when combined by an SRSS method; and (d) The system, when analyzed for actual stiffness will show high frequency valves, therefore, lower accelerations and forces will result.

Cygna noted that it will consider these responses and respond with further questions as needed.

Page of 1020 01b

Communications t4 L n i Report 111llllllllll18111111lllll11ll company: Texas Utilities o Teiecon ci conference neport Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Piiase 4 oste:

9/6/84 select: Tim': 9:30 am Cable Tray Support Review Working Point Deviation NASTRAN Analysis G & H, N.Y.

Panicipants: ' G&H dong Pier Bill Horstman CES John Russ CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Pier to describe the features of the NASTRAN analysis for the working point deviations. Mr. Pier noted the following points:

1. The structural department dictated the sample of supports to be analyzed.

2. The analysis is a response spectrum analysis. .

3. A study was made to determine the appropriate number of spans and unit weight to be used in the analysis. A five-span model at 35 psf was selected. The tray-support system was modeled as 21 /2 spans with symetric boundary

, conditions.

4 The cable trays were modeled as a single beam fixed to the support. Tray properties were taken from the cable tray test program.

signea ,9 '

/rb "'9' 1 1 oistnbution: N. dilliains,'D. Wade, f. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

,. m _ _ , , n__m_. ,- - , _

vy uwa ri v . iy vgw=w - -

Communications

. A ( %' i Report 181111llll1111llllllllllllllll companr Texas Utilities & Teiecon a conference Report Project: Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date' 9/5/84

• 3:00 p.m.

Mechanical Review Questions S.F.R.0.

Participants:

D. Wade TUGC0 R. Hess CES Required item Comments Action By

1. Dave called to discuss TUGC0 responses to several Cygna questions that resulted from the mechanical systems design review.

2. Reference Cygna letter 84056.010 dated 7/30/84 question 4 and TUGC0 letter dated 8/24/84 The Cygna question concerned rupture of the reactor coolant pump thermal barrier and resultant leakage of reactor coolant (small break LOCA) into the CCW system outside containment. The present system design does not meet single

! failure criteria for automatically isolating this LOCA. Dave stated that he believed that the TUGC0 response that referenced the Westinghouse Part 21 and stated that TUGC0 was filing a 10 CFR 50.55e report on this issue should close out the Cygna question. I stated that we did not have sufficient information to draw the same conclusion. The Westinghouse Part 21 only addresses overpressurization of components on the discharge side of the CCW pump and does not specifically address single failure criteria or a LOCA. The Cygna question is focused on the single failure of the temperature controlled isolation valve, overpressurization of piping and components on the suction side of the CCW pump and possible rupture of the CCW surge tank or piping resulting in a LOCA outside containment. The Westinghouse fix is to enlarge the vent capacity of the CCW surge tank. I pointed Got to Dave that the proposed Westinghouse fix would not I result in an acceptable system at CPSES. Dave said TUGC0 was aware of this and that they were focused on the correct problem of small break LOCA and single failure criteria. It is TUGC0's opinion that this is a generic industry problem and should be handled as such. I agreed that the problem appeared to be generic but stated that Cygna needed additional documentation showing that TUGC0 was addressing the Cygna issues and proposed signed. "*9' '

, O, 7 N. Williams, U. Wade, d. vanAmerongen, K. Hess, d. Minicniello,

/dmm 1 F. Kalney, 2

Distneution:

y u. .u, e r , _3 c114e e o , . ,.m 1 1 o ,.nj oc + r41o N' . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __, ._ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Communications AL i_i Report lillE M!

item comments UcYoNy fi xes . According to Dave, the 50.55e report, which is due to the NRC by 9/28/84, will cover the issue in accordance with TUGC0 licensing requirements. Dave then agreed to revise the TUGC0 response to the Cygna question to better address the Cygna concerns.

3.

References:

a. Cygna letter 84056.010 (7/30/84) question #3.

b. Cygna letter 84056.023 (8/21/84) question #2.

c. TUGC0 letter dated 8/11/84.

Dave wanted to know why Cygna asked the question on the rupture of the Class 5 piping on the inlet to the N.N.S. chillers in reference (b) when it wasn't asked in reference (a) and therefore, was not addressed in reference (c). Since it was Cygna's understanding that Class 5 piping was not seismically designed (only seismically supported), we assumed that TUGC0 would address its failure in the response. Dave stated that this was not true and that Cygna had not been given the full story on Class 5 piping by Gibbs & Hill. According to Dave, the Class 5 piping to the chillers is seismically designed. Not all Class 5 piping is seismically designed but all Class 5 piping over 2" in the CCW system is. TUGC0 will provide documentation that the Class 5 piping to the non-nuclear chillers is seismically designed. Dave stated that Cygna should review specification MS-44 A and B for reference.

4 In relation to Cygna's questions on minimum flow to the reactor coolant pump thermal barrier, Dave said that the latest verified analysis indicates a minimum flow of 36 G.P.M. under all conditions. Cygna had based the question on the latest data available from G & H in June of 1984 Cygna was aware that the Q. C. verification was not complete on this analysis but asked the question to insure that minimum flow requirements were met in the final design. I requested that Dave supply the latest flow calculation data.

5. Dave stated that TUGC0 was still working on responses to questions contained in Cygna letters 84056.023 (8/21/84),

84056.024 (8/21/84) and 84056.028 (8/27/84).

Page of

Communications din i Report

. 1111lllll1111111lll11llllll111 Company:

• O Telecon D Conference Report Tavse !!t 414 t i ne Y Project: Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station gang Date-Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 o ro f on

Subject:

Time.

1 'In DM Place-D4nn ti,rnnr+ snA unrh3nir31 ft , n c + 4 m n e rrt_Cron Participants. of Geer;c Grace TUGC0 (E?nSCO)

Nancy u41,4 m cvge Required item Comments Action By George asked for clarification on the following Cygna review questions:

1. Cygna letter 84056.014, dated 8/6/84, Attachment A, Question 4 Question: What main steam support is Cygna referring to which is 1/4" - 1/2" warping?

2. Cygna letter 84056.013, dated 7/31/84, Question 7.

Question: A TUGC0 inspection went into the field to check on Cygna's reference to the bolt being 2" off from the

! center line of the tube steel. Looking at tube steel item 10, they couldn't find the 2" offset. Is Item 10 the correct item?

3. Cygna letter 84056.010, dated 7/30/84, Attachment A, Question 5.

l l Question: Did Cygna perform a calculation which would show that

! ~

a water hanner analysis would produce significant effects?

Response: I said that we were interested in the valve closure item since a fast closing valve would have more of an effect than a slower closing one. He said that Gibbs

& Hill's response was that the fastest actuating valve took 3 seconds to open and 17 seconds to close.

Distnbution:

Y 3 l1

~ ~ ~

I iM ~

1 4 ,,,

, o I

i N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello R. Hess, C. Wong, S. Treby.

" S. Burwell, J. Ellis, Project File

Communications

( LM t i Repod a lilli;.. ,;;lli .

stem comments [c7o"Ny

4. Cygna letter 84056.010, dated 7/30/84, Attachment A, Questions 8 and 9.

Question: What is the difference between these two questions?

Response: Question 8 refers to the fact that ASME name plates, in general, were not attached to the valve.

Question 7 refers to a particular conflict between the ASME name plate and the CPSES tag.

i Page of

x Communications 4(96 i Repod 11llllllll1111111lll1lllll1111 .

Teiec n g conference nepon Texas Utilities Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 - July 77 14R4

Subject:

Time Walkdown Inspection Procedures 1:30 Place-Site

Participants:

of T. Blixt BAR J. Minichiello Cygna Requ: red item Comments Action By In response to Cygna's question on ASME valve nameplates, Mr. Blixt provided the procedure used to track nameplates (CP-QAP-12.4 ) . He also provided examples of the inspection reports QC used to verify the nameplate / valve correlation.

i l

l signeo. . Page of gl! . f ftIbMc A /ss 1 I N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. Minichiello, R. Hess, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.

L .." t_ .... Burwellg Project File

Communications AL t , Report lilillllllihillilllilllllllli <

Company: O Telecon g Conference Report Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Election Station g,,,

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/1gf94 Subject. Time-Cable Tray Support p,,,

CPCFe Sito

Participants:

of Frank O'Neill DCTG (Gibbt A Hilli Bill Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Please provide copies of the following CMC's and their related CVC's:

CMC Rev. CMC Rev.

4550 0,1 44519 0 30282 0 8278 0, 1, 2, 3 9916 0 6114 0,1,2,3,4,5 1974 0 88568 0 74945 0, 1, 2 30452 0 56315 0, 1 4534 0, 1, 2 30285 0,1,2,3,4 6961 0 68386 0 90714 0, 1 90727 0,1,2,3,4 8285 0 61806 0, 1 85720 0, 1, 2, 3 8528 0, 1 164 0, 1, 2, 3

, 88240 0, 1 l 2663 0, 1, 2, 3 93232 0 32513 0, 1, 2, 3 l 3631 0 35537 0, 1, 2 53778 0, 1 91716 0 t

11062 0, 1, 2 Signed . Page of l Vk k)) I jf kn fJm 1 1 D"*"" "'

N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis. S. Burwell, ioac ot. Project File

Communications

. M%i Report us:: ,m Telec n 3 Conference Report Toras Uti1ities Project: Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station g, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/19/84

Subject:

Time 11:15 a.m.

Cable Tray Supports p CPSES Site

Participants:

of Tnm Keiss TUGC0 Rill Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By During a field walkdown of Cable Tray T120SBC29-33, Cygna found a major difference between the existing tray routing and that shown on Drawing FSE-00176 rev. 13 (5/29/84). I asked Mr. Keiss why the change was not shown on the drawing. Mr. Keiss told me that the FSE drawings are not updated to reflect changes in tray routing, they are only changed to indicate hanger modifications; therefore, in the area where the tray has been re-routed, the hanger locations on the FSE drawing are only approximate. To determine correct routings of trays, you must check the current

" Cable Tray Segments" drawing, 2323-El-0601-11.

Signed. Page of I })1 JNA16<3 /im 1 1 l N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

=== S. Burwell, Project File

Communications A (%' i Report ll111111llll1111ll111111111111 .

Companr Texas Utilities 0 Telecon q Conference Report Project: Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date-6/20/84 Conduit Supports - CMCs & DCAs 4:00 p.m.

Place:

p Desmend Stevens (x226) Cygna George Grace TUEC Required

!!em Comments Action By Please allow Cygna access to Q. C. vault to review conduit li ne packages for the lines listed below:

C12 G 03126 C13 G 03528 C12 0 02935 C12 G 05086 C11 0 03395 C13 G 02851 C12 0 04695 C12 G 05087 l C12 G 05124 l

C12 G 05254 C13 0 13677 C11 0 04359 1

signed. "'9' '

] /ms 1 1 Distnbution: ' N.' Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Hess, J. Russ, D. Stevens, S. Treby, J. E'

.- m ___,, _

n__,__. r. 2 ,.

we uui vvw - , y - vg w v v iw

Communications A (% i Report

• 11111111111111111111llll111111 _

company: Texas Utilities o Teiecon L conterence neport Job N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ,

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

6/8/84

" T' ** : 3:30 pm Mechanical Review Place:

NY, NY

Participants:

of j gj G8H R. Hess CES Required item Comments Action By

1) In response to our earlier question on orifice installation requirements Wanda gave us the attached installation standards.

2) She said that the I&C engineer stated that everybody uses the same criteria and all vendors requi rements are the same. In other words the G&H criteria is industry standard. If we have additional questions the I&C engineer would be available to discuss the matter with us.

l l

I Signed: L

• j Page 1 of 1 Distnbution- 'N. Willidms, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Hess, P. Rainey, J. Foley, 5. Ireby, J. tilis,

- , , m_ _ r,,_

.J . LJ LA 4 FT b 5 I g B B bry b w b i%

ORfICE OR FLDW psOZZLE

< -~ flCE OR Flow .wo22LE j

_J"' ICE OR FLOW NOZ2L)E ORIFICE- OR FLDur NOZ2L)E

. . - ~

Bh A'-* S h A E4 ^ 0 2

lo- A-+

A meg- tor S. Ti l Ems.T - - S.OR -r =

De M S

^ O hA-+ 6h +-A' d8 h I"tasiG LONG - 40 - -

$ .4 -

40 OctFKg OR PLDw NOZ2LE - - 40 V STRAIGH NGV #7 l

[

W Lc+l,si- -

g _~ / ,

' 1"%

I

_ = _J r

r 7 " --cjel+ 4 _._

E y 5.-A-e[Sh.

2mm

• C-+Sk N %p M C-+ S l*- [ M 2 Dem 3 gm [- I pa;i.a l { -RAcass ._A g ytOw wogztg 20eAaA ~

,r,e _

m STRAIGHTENING x =

3

== lAdsk

,_~g 4- ao 1-

, - zolg 2 --

2og

---

ao

( [

~

SEPAftATOR E I$ st .22S

~ .

f d..

_Q p_f- U ---__, _-_._D .

..A p..

._..~

p i

ft>R

... '4d-~

. A-. eh-

~

v ~ -

5 -- I""r } ~--~~- ~'-

9 "_'_

f

3.j TMk[ _ .

pg 2 a _

?,5 jj

--~

~---w9:

-~ ~ ~ ~-

r j

o oJo o do oso oso o 020 04o 000 oso o c20 04o 000 08o o 02o o40 C *lo Oso l DeAMETER RATO, A otAa.f TER RATIO.A DRAMETER RArc,A DIAsisETER RATO.A 1

(A) FOR ORIFICES AND FLOW NOZZLES (8) FOR ORIFICES AND Fl_OW NOZZLES (C) FOR ORIFICES AND FLOW NOZZLES (D) POR ORIFICES AND FLOW NfL778 F9 ALL FITTINGS IN SAME PLAME ALL FITTINGS IN SAME PLANE FITTINGS IN DeF8ERENT PLANES FITTlHGS IN DFFERENT PLANES So j g onwecE OR FLOW Nol2LE

,g . .

~

~ ~

eEu uouTNEo eORratt OR A ' Sh" p ; '. - 1 '"~'

RdLE T j FLOW NO22La SM MNE 40 ya y-- -

NM__o*

_ - 1 WENTLst e (alCE OR ROW NO ELBOWS .. iI n C e A 8 A

j m +--S-.

+-A-+ 8 e-

,_g_, -

m

_--. hc_.{.g.5g v__,,,_ ,,

QR,g,', _y]; l,8 f W!  !!

!_NING\ !! .

, . I

[ N STRAac.HTENING WANE 2 DIAM LONG

-]- -

g3 As REouinEO.l SmA ~ g8 g -- -_- ..-

gnag. g-dlI ggyg ._ f-- g evygNG g _._ gg (AIR CONDITIONER _ ggg - --

2o( 3g _ . _ _

, /.-__ e

. ,_:TT_

, L__

f wi al

.2_ Pt . .

,,so _ f.,dk

. WENTum

^

[

5

$e .g g ek "g I. o j /_

A___ ,,,,,_ _ -cL f ,,,. e . _._ __._... .__._

i 8

T f_ e- e -.- "

5 d_ e.

.- _". ,, pi t

,,,(...' ,,,

y __A gAi g__

, ,, _g_ ___ ,_ .

0 R '

8- .r * ---- 8'-- d' 4 g;I f yggjjj

.-}* g^ '

m

_ - _ .._ _.. _. -.. t-_es_... - .

2

, o a2o o eo oso o so o 02o cao oso one o a2o a4o oso oso eso oso nao o eo oss ese OtAndTER RATO, A OsAMETER RATO, A DIAa4TER RATM, A OsAa4TER RATIO,#

(E) POR OmeFICES AND PLDW NOZZLES (F) FOR ORFICES AND PLOW NOZZLES j WITH REOUCERS AND EXPANDERS IN ATMOSPHERIC INTAME (G) VALVES AND REGULATORS (H) FOR VENTURI TUSES l FIG.11-11-1 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM LENGTHS OF PIPE PRECEDING l AND FOLLOWING ORIFICES, FLOW N0ZZLES AND VENTU RI TUDES (ALL CONTROL V ALVES, INCLUDING

. REGULATORS. SHOULD DE LOCATED ON OUTLETSIDE OF PRIMARY ELEMENT.)

i 9

DESIGN ENGINEERING DATE PIPING DESIGN SECTION REVISION DESK MANUAL PAGE: 3 INSTRUMENTATION

2. C. Position of Flow Lines The position of the flowing lines in which any of the differential pres-sure producing devices are installed, shall be in accordance with the following chart. Preferred installations are indicated by an asterisk.

POSITION OF FLOWING LINE FOR TYPE OF DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE PRODUCING DEVICE USED FLUID CONCENTRIC ECCENTRIC VENTURI FLOW PITOT TUBE MEDIUM ORIFICE ORIFICE TUBE NOZZLE OR PLATE PLATE PITOT VENTURI CLEAN

• HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL LIQUID VERTICAL, VERTICAL, VERTICAL, VERTICAL, UPWARD OR UPWARD OR DOWNWARD UPWARD OR DOWNWARD DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY DO M ARD FLOW. FLOW. FLOW.

LIQUID VERTICAL, HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL WITH DOWNWARD ONLY. VERTICAL,

• VERTICAL, SOLIDS FLOW ONLY. UPWARD OR DOWNWARD-IN DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY.

SUSPENSION FLOW.

LIQUID-

• HORIZONTAL'

• HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL VAPOR VERTICAL, VERTICAL ONLY.

UPWARD UPWARD OR FLOW ONLY. DOWNWARD #

j FLOW.

SATURATED HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL STEAM

• VERTICAL, , VERTICAL,

• VERTICAL, DG M ARD UPWARD OR DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY.

• DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY.

FLOW.

SUPERHEATED HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL, HORIZONTAL, STEAM (500 VERTICAL, VERTICAL, VERTICAL, HIGHER UPWARD OR UPWARD OR

• DOWNWARD

• DOWNWARD

• DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY.

FLOW. FLOW.

DRY GAS

• HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL

• HORIZONTAL '

• HORIZONTAL OR AIR ' VERTICAL, VERTICAL, VERTICAL, VERTICAL, UPWARD OR UPWARD OR DOWNWARD UPWARD OR DOWNWARD DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY, DO M ARD FLOW. FLOW. FLOW, WET GAS HORIZONTAL,

• HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL,

• HORIZONTAL OR, AIR

• VERTICAL, VERTICAL,

• VERTICAL , VERTICAL DOWNWARD UPWARD OR DOWNWARD UPWARD OR FLOW ONLY. DOWNWARD FLOW ONLY. DOWNWARD FLOW.

_ _ FLON.- . . .. --

e-- - ,-,--,me----% -yen,--~ ,,c -----*%-,9w ---qe----g- ----mewmyw -w-- --+-vi-em,-- ---gr-- -y9-,,w-

r y/

%M M7 ., . . , .

.w . o .

. ,_w .-- -

.,......s~ . . , - - ..-.,....-~,...u..__.., ....w. _.., _ .,. _ .._ . .

!LD 8'A P

,. _ . _ A A . . _.. _ 5p _ E.D.

_ < @ L tj.OJ A

_50___.g 64 _ 'd4 p 's , _b._ .)..th , . . _ J.0__

A. ._[ y}i . . - _ _ _ . _ _

.._ } -g4 ..__b g _

_-,,,.__. _r.e_.(.._.oc -P ^

w.

} 3 M "ORH ICE J .__.L _

a

]. USE ECCENWtc REDUCER

, Ri m RUNS

" Cat FICt!.

.MG^ 1 - 4 MCASURING LIQUtDS ,gg gb _.

• _ sp _ to p_(tS p.wnttt.x).s tD ._A_ __A_ 5p 15 0 5p - M

$ (one_ son)_. ,

_tW.,. to Dito p_WHc tM 50) .,_.A_ mp

_h_ 50 to -

_t's.a . -

g,, .

3,__.4 J a n 1 -

. _q s i

...____. g .._ 1 .

Tr w oamiCr. {_._ G [ i __ a .

w oaiFiCf.

... _ _. [

.m x, 1

] r .m.A I' .

_A 5D . 7D . _.70 50 _A r.o l 4

. _ b_ eo 2'r. A _.7D_. ___7D _5D .(At'

._ 5p 7 r'-.= o4 b._ h Jo of w

f.i kl- 1- . e s . 7 .

f -I V oRm:CE. [s['~V-I-

+ ~~~% 4

- 1.-.- e { - Q ~' ff x I 4-- j -

F-IG,.&-

vAucs

~plG .r 10.,

1

'] .FI.G._. 11

.N A _ ': SD . . . . SoDft:D.wucel x) 50) ._ _,. 4.('

FOR METER RUNS MEAGURtMG LIQUIDS ('. .3 No10)I .

o__. _5 0_ r _ ea 1V, ..SO D.(150.V.itCN. . 50. )

J- M E* Alt. PiPC SKINCHUS Cr#

p' *Ae. THESE DIMENSIONS ARO 1t00 CRtFICC Rurt DETAtt.". EMt.

1 f FOR. FL ANoE TAPS. INCLU9C THE Fott.OWINO t:07

}. b -

-[ '

/ '0/= "THGSE DiMEN$ TONS ARF. 8.*THis D3TAtt. SHALL f l '. )gg " .. . FOR t't e 6 PiPt* TAPS. f At\RICATf'O F ROM H FULL P!'<.

'(/= r:OMINAL PtPC Of AMETER. LCHOTH,UtJJO:MTED' Ot. 0) t???- 4 A *d*. E XACT L Q OF PtPfl

. b 9--

• 7tr a O F'IPE 'l APS SHAT.t,. M 1014f CD PtPU PROM FL ANC. *n

- ' (ter ART.LT P1T'E FtTTi# <

._A._,  ; 50 . _ _ _ _7 0. . .., _.7 0- LOCATED TO NC AREST h' U$tNO 2.'PtF2 FOR RAS'ilCAT:C t'ucT L D M Piec. Of' Tuts ocTAtt sntst.t. t2 c !

~o, *~ sp 6A *' Ji ~79 7D' - ,

h0R McTcP. nuns MsAsuR- LCcito roR iNeto2 cvocmt::-

{

h_

A ^

ING LtQUIDS FIG. llO G INCL, ORtFICE f'.UNS INSID2 M'N!?.' i

. "lHE DOWN".iRC AV END OF THE ROH RE'CU1R57.*0NTS C.mt L CCT.. f

{- l

}. } --- I - -aiq- -- W{V~VJ g,.#{ - - - l -- '

R0:J SHALL TU;tN UP AS IN FtCa10 NO WELT CD JoitJT5 AND HO FLc .

~

r Voairece VANES OR RISC ONC PIPC DIA. MINIMUM O't FrTTINOS CrTHER THAN C;'.C- l 05 FORE TURMING DCVAS A$ ItJ FtG. FL AN(.55 AND TAf*S. f

= FIG..'5^- ii. rio o shat.t. HAve AN ECCt>4- ALL Pips sx ITCH:s Cee- (

l. TRic RCDtrrn AT THE DOVal- 8NG OktFtCE Rut 4 C .1TAILG C!'.*.'.

l A SD /O_ D ~ ST RE AM [t4D AS SHOWlJ tW INCLUDS SUITASLE NOTCG TO :

' 5@ O.d DOTTLD LINC. LORE rLANGS OR Cot.!Ttt # t? '

_b ._ . m . 3.k d AO_D C*THIS Oft /CNSION APPLICS GTAt L ATIOM AG POR GTO N.tc

/ 1 # n[ U TO THi* UPSTRE AM RUN IN FtG. OR STO 88J-103, AND T CGITION h'l 'fAP Afs PCR G"T D IM-lC4.

'f 1 - - - - ' I

• • " _-d r, b-- l *to 7. INCt.. AND IS COPAPUYr0 t gy Ltstt!G THS NOMtHAL DIAMET- D!TtrCTIOtt 0-3 FLDW C'8At Nd8UCE #

TR OF*fME tNCt.UDED PIPO. I'.E INDICATED ON Pl?3 CW:TC AL L 'O' RUNS SP:'CtrtrO tJtti'

• T;.V~"<J~~~ unvUM. THe UPsTar AM 'o' NUN onAr:YrNG svANDAn.o s

/.p _A_. suutt. m A:. toNc. As Possiste,

. 50 . __ _7 0 -

_7 D_ _._ vat:cs otALL oc uscD ONtv ... c.. . . . , . c .

' [, t (A "/ D 7D Wittt rr IT!CovstG HCCE SSAfW "10 cye,- ,, e,Yi3,1 geg,nrNire t: CU$~tEiE. ti

. . Ce -

- . .?h t'%

- +-- e F.!'DUCS TH *. MINIMUM LINC OUN g [y .

's0 - f- d F.f_C.UIRE.Mf FITS. WHEN REQUIRED. $"ff,g*Q)f,QE) (*, d N 'y.

., n ,- - - -

p , - g --p.;.7)--- -- 4. , -fi. vwn s r.nAt t on ADotD TO n'2 MINIMUM tr:NOW.c . . .;.*.

r*

N 0:aFICL V~~~NAt3: f. .VN D;stc.N fac ITf M L T SYRu-Cit 2GT TO TL CNG!>'j"Nnt*!Cr y r, gg-( y. l CU4 TROT. V?LV2 -- ,. .

.,,..,,,g,,,.

(C PT. F OTL VANO DZTAILS SEC .f_ _ g g p; ~_ p',#_ _ ; ?.I, ,

. .b.~7 STO V2 -tot..

'a. myu.cy'

! .% *.. 22

- . . . .Q& ( ~: ::f * *

.-~. .. ~ ~ _ . . . 3 ..;. ;. ..;;, ..;. ;. x

, .