ML20094B252
| ML20094B252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1984 |
| From: | Martin T, Minichiello J, Moersfelder A CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094B179 | List: |
| References | |
| 83090, DC-5, DC-5-R02, DC-5-R2, NUDOCS 8411070078 | |
| Download: ML20094B252 (197) | |
Text
.. _ .. - . _. .
. ;l9 ' '
1 Job No. 83090 o '31 ,, Doc. No. DC-5
[] -' ' '
Rev. 2
,t INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM U - ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REVIEW CRITERIA i "
FOR
. COMANCHE PEAK STEA!! ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INCORPORATED 4
Prepared by ((M A. Moersfelder N-IA ##
Date Independent Review by j/. 1 [ -
f M*84 T. Martin Date Approved by mA t k-W Date
[J. C. Minichiello l
Cygna Energy Services
+- 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 September, 1984 8411070078 841012 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR t
18111:lll1111111lll11ll11ll111 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS f'] Section Page V
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................... 3 2.0 SCOPE. ................................................ 3
'2;l RHR Pump Power Distribution.................... 3 2.2 RHR Valve Control Circuit....................... 4 3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCES........................ 5 3.1 NRC Regulatory Guides.......................... 5 3.2 IEEE Standards.................................. 6 3.3 Insulated Power Cable Engineers Association.................................... 7 3.4 American National Standards Institute.......... 7 3.5 National Electrical Manufacturers Association..................................... 7 3.6 National Fire Protection Association............ 8
- /m
~ 5,,) 3.7: Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc................ 8 3.8 Branch Technical Positions..................... 8 l
4.0 DESIGN ............................................... 9 4.1 RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 Power Sources........... 9 4.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B Control Circuit......................................... 12
. 5.0 EXHIBITS............................................... 13 I Exhibit 2.1 RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 Motor Power Distribution System - Scope of Review t
L Exhibit 2.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B -
Scope of Review I
i I
I Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 of 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program eb( g 4 Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 11111111111111lll11111111111ll
1.0 INTRODUCTION
gx 1
, () This document provides the criteria to be used in the review of I the pdwer distribution system associated with the RHR Train B pump and the control circuitry for the safety injection system l valve located inside the valve isolation tank. This review l criteria is a composite of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) licensing. commitments, CPSES requirements, and appropriate industry standards. It shall be used in conjunction with Work Instruction 1, " Assessment Procedures," for details on the review methodology and documentation.
k 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 The electrical scope includes the power supply from the 6900V Bus 1EA2 to the RHR pump motor TBX-RHAPRH-02 (refer to Exhibit 2.1). The review will assess:
(~
\.
- the adequacy of.the cablings, switchgear breakers and buses, and the RHR Train B pump motor, e the adequacy of the protective relaying for the pump motor, e the physical aspects of the system design including the placement of the switchgear, the routing of cables and their physical separation from AEM redundant trains,
- the pump grounding system design, l
l
- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 of 13 l Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program eb{ g i Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 ll1ll11111lllll!!!1lllllll11ll
e compliance with the licensing and project-specific a commitments regarding the power distribution system,
\s e the design calculations for the switchgear and cable sizing,
~
e the adequacy of the design documents including the single line diagrams, relay and metering diagrams, grounding drawings, equipment specifications, cable tabulations, external connection diagrams, component listing, and tray / conduit routing drawings.
2.2 The control circuit scope includes the manual and automatic system logic that operates valve 1-8811B beginning with the secondary side of~the control transformer in the motor control center (refer.to Exhibit 2.2). The review will assess:
e compliance with the licensing and project-specific commitments for the control circuit, e .g . , the
(~}-
compliance of the interlocks with valves 1-8701B, 1-8702B and 1-8812B with the requirements of the CPSES FSAR Section 7.6.5, i
e the adequacy of the interconnecting cabling and the control circuit components, e the adequacy of the design documentation including the j logic diagrams, elementary diagrams, external connection i
diagrams, equipment specifications and the component list.
I l
l
(~
l s,)/ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 of 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l 1 3 Job Ho. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 181111f!ll1tll11111111llllll11 l.
~
\
l 3.0 ' CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCES This section lists the industry standards and design bases that were applicable during the design period and which should have been implemented on the project. These codes, standards and references provide the criteria that the design can be evaluated aga' ins t.
3.1 NRC Regulatory Guides 3.1.1 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classifi-cation (Revision 1, 8/73).
3.1.2 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.30, Quality Assurance Requirements for the Installation, Inspection, and Testing of Instrumentation and Electric Equipment (8/11/72).
3.1.3 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.32, Use of IEEE Std. 308-1971, Criteria for Class lE Electric Systems for Nuclear 0
Power Generating Stations (8/11/72).
3.1.4 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.53, Application of the Single Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Plant Protection Systems (6/73).
3.1.5 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.62, Manual Initiation of Protective Actions (10/73).
3.1.6 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.75, Physical Independence of Electric Systems (Revision 1, 1/75).
3.1.7 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.89, Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants (11/74).
Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 5 of 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program gib { i i Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 181lll1lllllllllllllll11111111
3.1.8' NRC Regulatory Guide 1.93, Availability of Electric
~
. Power Sources (12/74).
'3.1.9- NRC Regulatory Guide 1.106, Thermal Overload Protection for Electric Motors on Motor Operated Valves.
l 3.2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Criteria 3.2.1 IEEE 279-1971, Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations (Revision 1).
3.2.2 IEEE 308-1971, Standard Criteria for Class lE Power Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
3.2.3 IEEE 323-1974, Standard for Qualifying Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
3.2.4 IEEE 334-1974, Standard for Type Tests of Continuous Duty Class lE Motors for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
t
%d .
- 3.2. 5 IEEE 344-1975, Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power ,
Generating Stations.
'3.2.6- IEEE 379-1972, Guide for the Application of the Single Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Generating Station Protection Systems.
3.2.7 IEEE 382-1972'(ANSI N41.6), Guide for Type Test of Class 1 Electric Valve Operators for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
3.2.8 IEEE 384-1974, Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Class lE Equipment and Circuits.
% Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 6 of 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program g 3, Job Ho. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 N11141811111111lll111ll111111
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . - -. . _ _._.___ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . - _
3.2.9 IEEE 420-1973,' Trail-Use Guide for Class lE Control
,a Switchboards for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
3.2.10 IEEE 422-1973, Guide for the . Design and Installation of Cable Systems in Power Generating Stations (Draft 3).
, 3.2.11 IEEE 494-1974, Standard Method for Identification of Documents.Related to Class lE Equipment and Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
3.3 Insulated Power Cable Engineers Association (IPCEA)
Standards 3.3.1 IPCEA P-46-426 (IEEE S-135), Power Cable Ampacities (Volume I Copper, Volume II Aluminium, .
3.3.2 IPCEA P-54-440 (NEMA WC 51-1975), Ampacities, Open-Top Cable Trays.
'- 3.4 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 3.4.1 ANSI C37, Power Switchgear.
3.4.2 ANSI C57, Transformers, Regulators, and Reactors.
l l 3.5 National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 3.5.1 NEMA SG 3-1971, Low Voltage Power Circuit Breakers (9/71).
3.5.2 NEMA ICS, Industrial Controls and Systems With Revision 6.
l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 7 of 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program
, eg {tj g i Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 l !!Il11111111111111111!l1lllfll
3.5.3 - NEMA SG 5-1971, Power Switchgear Assemblies (3/71).
y ;
.t
's -
'3.5.4 NEMA SG 6-1966, Power Switching Equipment.
3.5.5 NEMA MG l-1972, Motors and Generators.
3.5.6- NEMA ~VE 1-1071, Cable Tray Systems.
3.5.7 -NEMA AB 1-1975, Molded Case Circuit Breakers.
3.5.8 NEMA FU 1-1972, Low-Voltage Cartridge Fuses.
3.5.9 NEMA PB l-1971, Panelboards with Revision 1.
3.5.10 NEMA PB 2-1972, Dead-Front Distribution Switchboards With Revision 1.
3.6 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
No. 70-1971, National Electrical Code.
O g 3.7 Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL) 3 3.7.1 UL-50, Electrical Cabinets and Boxes (1975).
3.7.2 UL-67, Electric Panelboards (Revision, 1975).
l~
3.7.3 UL-891,- Dead' Front Electrical Switchboards (1975).
3.8 Branch Technical Positions (BTP) j 3.8.1 BTP-ICSB 18 (PSB), Application of the Single Failure Criterion to Manually-Controlled Electrically-Operated l~ Valves.
l l
0 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 8 of 13 eg{ g Comanche Peak' Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 1111111111111111lll11111111111
.. . .. - - = _ . _ ~ _ -
A h
4.0 DESIGN
- M.:
4.1 RER Pump #12 Electrical Power Distribution System ,
4.1.1 Electrical Power Distribution System 1
4.1.1.1 Verify that electrical and physical separation has been maintained between redundant Class lE buses in accordance with IEEE Standards 308 and 384.
4.1.1.2 Review 6.9 KV Bus LEA 2 Voltage Profile calculation for compliance with voltage limits specified in IEEE standards. '
4.1.2 Motor Power' Quality Requirements
' ~
4.1.2.1 Verify that voltage and power source selection
?
was based on' motor horsepower rating as specified in
- appropriate project design criteria.
L4.1.2.2 Review to assure that motor sizing is correct as specified in the appropriate project design criteria.
4.1.3 Power Cable Requirements i
h:
l 4.1.3.1 Review cable ampacity for adequacy with appropriate project design criteria.
l l
,' e Current carrying capacity should be 25% above motor full load current rating.
t
!O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 9 of 13 og{ Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Progran Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 ggggy
- - , .. _ _ --.~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._.-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - .
e- Cable should be derated according to type of
-raceways that it is_ routed in and the spacing of
- J the trays.
4.1.3.2 Review the design to assure.that the cable voltage drop.is within the limits established by project criteria.
4.1.3.3 Verify that cable size shown on Cable Routing Schedule agrees with the size shown in the cable sizing calculation.
4.1.3.4' ' Verify that power cable construction conforms
-to cable requirements (conductor size, voltage rating, insulation and jacket material) defined by project 4
design-documents.
4.1.3.5 Power cable routing complies with Cable j( ) Routing- Schedule and project design documents.
4.1.3.6 Power cable tray fill has not exceeded the fill limit defined by project design documents.
1 4.1.3.7 Configuration of cable tray supports conform with the latest revision of Gibbs & Hill cable tray plan r drawings.
l l 4.1.3.8 Cable tray identification agrees with the f latest revision of Gibbs & Hill cable tray identifica-f tion drawings.
l l
4' -
Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 10 of 13 og{ g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job tio. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 y.,. ,
WWI l
4.1.4 Electrical Fault Protection
- ("T .
~
4.1.4.1 Verify that protective relaying and circuit breaker trip device shown on 6.9KV Bus LEA 2 one line diagram complies with protective relaying design documents.
4.1.4.2 Verify that interrupting capability circuit breaker of the 1APRH2 is reviewed for adequacy with Texas Utilities Services project design criteria.
- Three-phase short circuit current rating (interrupting capability) as shown on short circuit calculation agrees with 6.9KV switch-gear procurement specification and purchase order.
- Interrupting capability is greater than the
() maximum 6.9KV system three-phase fault.
4.1.4.3 Verify that circuit breaker lAPRH2 and its relay setting records and coordination curves are reviewed for adequacy with the protective relaying philosphy, as follows.
l
- Setting of Bus LEA 2 circuit breaker agrees with
( breaker / relay setting records and the protective relaying documents.
e Relay coordination interval as defined by l protective relaying criteria has been properly implemented.
/s k_
Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 11 of 13 g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 111111111111111111llllllllllll l
- Time setting of undervoltage relay allows overcurrent relays and circuit breakers to clear 7'#(~'}
any feeder or bus fault before the undervoltage relay trips the RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 motor.
4 4.2 Safety Injection Val're 1-8811B Control Circuit 4.2.1 Verify that the design of the control circuits
. complies with the appropriate regulations, industry ,
stardards and project-specific licensing requirements.
4.2.2 Verify that physical separation has been maintained between redundant safety-related equipment.
'4.2.3 Verify that the control circuit implemented in accordance with the Gibbs & Hill control circuit documentation conforms to the design input submitted by Westinghouse Electric Corp.
m
~
4.2.4 Verify that design documents and specifications identify Nuclear Safety Related components as appropriate.
4.2.5 Check interconnecting control cable identification documentation.
4.2.6 Assess the design adequacy of the cable routing procedures, and conformance with the Cable Routing Schedule
! with the cable routing drawings.
4.2.7 Verify electrical isolation between nuclear safety-related and non-nuclear safety-related circuits.
' Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 12 of 13 eg{ g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program J No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 111111lll111111ll1111111111lll
_-- . . _ . . ~ _ . _ _ _ , _ . , , . . , _ ~ . , _ - . . . , . . . . . - . . . ~ . _ , , _ _ , , _ , . . _ . , . . . - . . . _ _ , _ . , . . , _ . - , - . _ _ - , . , _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . . . - _ .
- . .c. a -- . . . ..- .- .
4.2.8 Check component identification numbers with Master-
- (~) Component List, design drawings and other design documents.
5.0 EXHIBITS Exhibit 2.1 RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 Motor Power Distribution System - Scope of Review Exhibit 2.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B - Scope of Review.
t O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 13 of 13
{ ,
Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 NNiilillNililllllilllllllli
- . - - , . ,,m . . , . . . _ . . , . - . - - _ , - . . - . . - ,-,--..-._-,,,,_.c-rw---..,.,-%_-,myr -.-.memw.,_-,.m-_-.y~wm,_.,..,v--.-~,,--.-.m___
EXHIBIT 2.1 SCOPE OF REVIEW G Mut PUMP TBI-RHAPRH-02 MDTOR POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM V
S v==t- lle U=iv A waiwamv
'Th.... Tm= .wam 3tsT a 0 UT ',
t a a 1_1 i i a 1 tJ u a i ij.11 u _
&@ MM (Y'% tY T
., "a~
o 3u3 sat
_i _
4 t 1 ""r
~
e
"", peev ses seat InI /--- 9 l r n
]
- 4. T.) cesseswarea.
!/ 1l IAP881 l
g
'h ,
i l .
t.L see.
- s JL l l l <- sa seme n* l 1 I j l mum. P e 3 l :ps i
l (Pr
- la) _ _ _ .
l l
l i
v Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
L bJ$ & Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111ll1111lll11lll1111111111 Job !!o. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2
EINIBIT 2.2 m
(j 3 COPE OF REVIEW SAFETY INJECTION VALVE 1-88115
^
o 1P E F
- po--ee
- =
p31lvA /-8)FZA 4 i k_,
o -*
2 '.
. b AssnA e* X-E 4 >
/pteveumes wmn o
Asroa se vauw a
(>
B
. r. -____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _1
>< l L _ _-es X-E _ _ _ _ _
~
CONTROL LOGIC COMPON Eh1TS l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \_ - E - - E me
- >G >&
? t p 29F/ 5 /=g?tSEB e*
O Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
kN b J L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1111111lllllllll111111f 111111 Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 2 L
Observation Revision Status
.,m,
'x Record Review Record (Attachment A)
Observation No. Revision Revision DC-01-01 0 2 0C-01-02 0 1 DC-01-03 0 1 DC-01-04 0 0 0C-02-01 0 0 0C-02-02 0 0 00-02-03 0 0 J PI-00-01 0 1 PI-00-02 1 1 PI-00-03 0 0 PI-01-01 1 1 PI-02-01 0 0 PI-02-02 1 0
[] PI-02-03 0 1 PI-02-04 0 0 PI-02-05 0 0 PI-03-01 0 0 PS-02-01 0 1 PS-09-01 1 0 PS-10-01 1 0 PS-12-01 1 0 CTS-00-01 0 0 CTS-00-02 1 1 CTS-00-03 1 1 CTS-00-04 1 1 CTS-00-05 0 0 CTS-00-06 1 1 a
M 19111111111tll1811111llll lil Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program
" "E ~
Page 1 of 2 ;
1
Record R. view '
,e Record (Attachment A) '
i Observation No. '
Revision +
, Revision CTS-00-07 0 0 CTS-00-08 s 1 1 WD-01-01 0 0 WD-02-01 0 0 WD-02-02 0 0 WD-03-01 0 0 WD-07-01 0 0 WD-07-02 0 0 WD-07-03 1 0
.O O
lO l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 1 of 2 l Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O nummmunhuumn
. . , , . . . _ , - . . _ . . . . . - , - - - . - - - , . . , , . - . , - - . . , _ , ~ . , , _ . , . - _ , - - . ,--,_,. .n._,,, , - _ - . ----.
l l
Observation i Al t i Record Review
- m. unnununun
/
V T Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-01 Revision No. 2 Observation No.DC-01-01 sheet 1 at 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Clo s e d X Corrme nt s E
1.0 Probable Cause Failure to implement procedures.
2.0 Resolution .
The identification of this observation acts as a confirmation of the document control problems previously known to Texas Utilities through the various reviews and audits performed at CPSES. In fact, prior to the Cygna Independent Assessment Program, Texas Utilities began planning a new document control program which would alleviate the inaccuracies inherent in the existing system. The implementation of this new system entail; establishing tighter control over document distribution and an
/"~] accurate design change tracking system. The major elements of the new system are:
U
- a. Centralization of existing document distribution points (file custodians) into six remote " Document Control Center (DCC) Satellite" stations.
- b. Development of a computerized drawing and design change listing.
- c. Performing a systematic verification of the computerized data base to ensure' accuracy.
The centralization of the document distribution points has been instituted. A review to determine whether the institution of this new system resolved the distribution control problems was conducted the week ending 10/28/83 by Cygna. The results of this review are documented on Observation Review Record DC-01-02, P.ev.1.
The DCC computerized drawing and design change data base has been developed by the Texas Utilities Design Change Tracking Group (DCTG) using the Gibbs & Hill design verification tracking system as a base listing. Since the Gibbs & Hill system did not include piping and pipe support drawings, a manual tracking system continued to
.be used by DCC to control this group of drawings. Once the as-built drawings are completed, DCTG intends to add them to the data base as well.
C Approvals Water g[ ,, Date fg/yjg Project Engineerpg Project Manag
,[,g Date ggg Date g Senior Review T p pp Date f$ /p/
/ / w Texas UtiMt+es' Services. Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
. . . _ _ _ _ ~ . . _ _ . .- . _ _ _ _ . _ __
Observation dIni ,
Rocord Mllunnuntunsllllllll p
( Checkitet No. un_nv Revision No.
.. 3 Observation No. un_n7_n1 )/ Ih"I 1
'I 9
Originated By , , , _ Mg, Date gjgfg Cowlewed By
[ g'[7[j Date afgfg l
1.0 Description Of the six conduits checked, one instance was found where the Cable and Raceway Schedule identified the conduit between Spent Fuel Cooling Panel XLV-06 and T130FCZ33 as C-03015123. The installation and routing drawing ider.tified this as conduit No. C-13015123.
2.0 Requirement 2.1 Brown & Root, Inc., Engineering Instruction EEI-7, Rev. 5, " Cable Pulling."
2.2 TUGC0 Instruction No. QI-QP-11.3-23, Rev. 6.
2.3 TUGC0 Instruction No. QI-QP-11.3-23.7, Rev. 4.
3.0 Document Reference 3.1 Cable and Raceway Schedule, Issue 308.
3.2 Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-El-0800, Rev. 16, 4.0 Design Impact The conduit identification number consists of the last five digits (i.e.
15123). This number is consistent with the reference documents and the l installation. The first three numbers indicate unit, function, and voltage only. Since the only discrepency is the unit number, there is no safety l
impact.
l Attachment A. Observation Record Review.
l l
l s
m tent bee: lated y entenerv. l other (specity)
Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc.
I Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l
i
Observation 9L t i Record Review Attachment A Checklist No. General Revlolon No. 1 Okeervation No.PI-00-01 sheet 1 et 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Commente 1.0 Probable Cause Inadequate procedures.
2.0 Resolution Cygna is concerned primarily with welds at elbow to pipe joints and welds between pieces of straight pipe for the following reasons:
- a. Welds at reducers will be taken care of by the reducer, SIF = 2.0.
- b. Welds at tapered transition joints (TTJ) will be taken care of by the
_p TTJ, SIF = 1.9.
( Welds at Elbows / Pipe Joints In response to Cygna's comment, Gibbs L d Hill referenced NUREG/CR-0371 " Stress Indices for Girth Fillet Welded Joints Including Radial Weld Shrinkage, Mismatch and Tapered Wall Transitions" by E.C. Rodabaugh and S.C. Moore (1978). In it, Rodabaugh and Moore state that mismatch should be considered for stress indices only for t < 0.237". Thi.s was adopted by the ASME Code in l the Summer 1981 addenda for transition joints (para. NB-3683.5(a)) and welds (para. NB-3683.4). While it has not yet been changed in subsection NC, l pargraph NC-3673.2(b) does allow the SIF (1) to be calculated based on the j stress indices (C 2 and K2 ) using l
L 1 = C22 K /2.
Therefore, for butt welds with t > 0.237" C2"1 K2 = 1.8 1 = 0.9 < 1 therefore i = 1.0 0 Approvale
- bMNw ,M Date IO[e[84-7 ** ***'***' 0 N L &A1Q.$s' -- - Dete /o/9l}y
~#' "**** YY))$lt' & De** /()//h/{L{
- ' a*** T*= A#A.f- o. . goA Texas Utilitiks' Services. Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 o
r Observation 41 t i Record Review q imummenmuu G, Attachment A Checklist No. General Revision No. 1 Observation No. PI-00-01 sheet 2 of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X-Comments For welds with t < .1875, Gibbs and Hill has used an SIF of 1.8, so it is only ,
those welds on piping where .1875 < t < .237 which may have unconservative SIF's. From the piping specification, this situation involves only 3" sch 40 and 4" sch 40 piping. For these, the SIF for an elbow (1.8 and 2.0, respec-tively) are equal to or greater than the SIF for the butt weld. Thus, welds at elbows have acceptable SIF's.
Welds Between Pieces of Straight Pipe For butt welds.between pieces of straight pipe, the same logic presented above holds for all piping other than 3 or 4 inch schedule 40. Since later ASME p Codes (Winter,1981) direct the analyst to use stress indices for primary
, y) stress checks, Cygna compared the results from the Gibbs and Hill practice to those from the later Codes.
B PDo BM 2A (Eq. 8, Winter 1981 Code)
+
7
< 1.5 S g e B PDo 1
+ B2 (M A
7
+ "B} < 1.8 g S (Eq. 9, Winter 1981 Code)
For a butt weld By = 0.5 B2 = 1.0 i Therefore, the new Equations 8 and 9 become Q+A 7
< 1.5 Sg (Eq. 8)
M +M PD , A B
- , z 1,g 3 H
O Approvals Originator Date (Of8[$h c2% c 9b i san c='*
w h M O ~"~m<'"~*"=~~ % ) & fi),L h u on' bhhM
. t Re*. re.mggj ost. ,,4 A
( Texas Utiliti d vices, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation
+L ti Record Review
' mamanmummmn Attachment A
+
Checklist No. General Revlelon No. 1 Observation No. PI-00-01 sheet 3 of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Clo s e d X Comments Comparing with Equations 8 and 9 as, used by Gibbs and Hill:
k+ M <S H (Eq. 8 with .751 = 1.0)
+ < 1.2 S g (Eq. 9 with .751 = 1.0)
We see that Gibbs and Hill does meet the primary stress requirements of the later code. The only area of concern, then, is in the secondary stress / fatigue check (Equations 10 or 11). It is Cygna's experience that welds which are not O- t ei8e s. tees er tr >itiee aeiets ecc#r "ere e e#t ieveis re s ii. 4 e .
in long straight runs.
To check this for maximum secondary effects, Cygna reviewed results for all 3 and 4 inch schedule 40 high energy piping (above 200'F) and a sample of 3 and 4 inch piping passing between buildings. The maximum corrected ratio for equation 11 of paragraph NC-3652.3, with a SIF = 1.8 at an intermediate butt weld, is 3
Max 18700 i 5 = g = 0.45 Allow As expected, the stress levels at intermediate weld locations are not large and, in most cases, are less than 5000 psi. Therefore, the use of an SIF of 1.0, rather than 1.8, has no impact on the piping design. For this reason, Cygna considers the observation closed.
O Approvals Originator
{ -
Date (o[g/4 eroject Eneineer Qg ,g g Date jgh
! ,,.> ,u.n.e., n7)y ya jj;; a o.,e abo 779 senior Review Team @g,g c ate M /, , M p y Texas Utiliti d vices, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation
~
d[' i Record 181111lll11111111118!lll111111 Checklist No. General Revision No. 1 Observation No. PI-00-02 , ,
sheet 1 of 1 Originated By I..J. Weingart M 1* x Date 9/12/84 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello @ L M g h Date 9/12/84
/ '
1.0 Description Gibbs & Hill uses an increase in the upset and emergen;y condition allowables when considering welded attachment stresses in combination with general piping stresses.
2.0 Requirement The allowable for upset and emergency conditions is contained in the ASME Code,Section III, Paragraphs NC-3611.3(b) and (c), respectively.
4 3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill Engineering Guide AEG-511, Rev. 0, June 1981.
4.0 Potential Design Impact Use of an increased allowable (1.5 Sq and 2.16 Sg) may result in actual stress >
levels above the appropriate allowab'les (1.2.SH and 1.8 Sg).
Attachments A*. Observation Review Record l
l l
l l
n
() Extent ,
. Isolated smieneive X l other (Specify) l l
Texas Utilities Service. Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
, _ . _ - __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . - .
Observation ,
41 t i Record Review O """""""" Attachment A Checklist No. General Revision No. 1 Observation No. PI-00-02 sheet 1 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Code Interpretation >
2.0 Resolution The Code of Record does not address allowables for local pipe stresses due to welded attachments. The only guidance is in paragraph NC-3645 " Attachments" g- which cautions the designer against geometries which cause excessive localized
(~ bending stress. In order to evaluate the local stresses, Gibbs and Hill utilized a computer program, "CYLN0Z", which is based on Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, a method used in the industry for evaluating attachments to shells. Cygna concurs with the Gibbs and Hill approach to this evaluation.
In combining these localized stresses with the general piping stresses, Gibbs and Hill had only the general guidance of NC-3645. Therefore, when evaluating the two normal condition comparisons, i.e., equations 8 and 10 (or 11, if necessary) of paragraph NC-3650, Gibbs and Hill used the allowables directly from the Code of Record. No increase was taken for the inclusion of the localized effects. -Cygna concurs with this approach.
For upset conditions, Gibbs and Hill used on allowable of 1.5 Sg versus the 1.2 Sg ' allowable for equation 9 of paragraph NC-3650 of the Code. Cygna noted that this allowable is identical to the typical allowable in the Code of Record for vessel design:
PL+PB < 1.5 SH, where
.Pt = Local Primary Membra'ne stress PB = General Primary Bending stress C Approvals O' W *'*' _. Date p{Qfg&
c '" * *' o='.
Ar]9M O r*ojec't Manager QR t%E&
P Date g h /
(( ~
senke newww Team ' ~ ' o,,,
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I 1
Observation AL t i -
Record Review numumumunum Gi Attachment A Checklist No. General Revision No. 1 Cbservation No. PI-00-02 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments Finally, the increase of 20% in allowable for emergency conditions, from 1.8 Sg to 2.16 SH is reasonable in light of the above comparison of the increase for upset conditions from 1.2 to 1.5 Sg . This rationale allows Gibbs and Hill to meet the intent on NC-3645, which 1s to' limit localized bending effects. It should be noted that the analytic method used by Gibbs and Hill conforms with that used by other organizations within the industry.
Based on the above reasoning as well as the low stress levels found in the RHR system for upset and emergency conditions, Cygna believes that the Gibbs and Hill approach does meet the intent of the Code and considers the observation (Uf-) closed.
O Approvals c"*.~ M;R, o=cc tole (9+
( Avr*ct
,o u , a* .< OS u...r p yggjg-j y! f _ . fgMuO . 4 6 -_ _ oa /c A M P o.,.;);/gry
..n R.. m ... g g y o. . f;Asy Texas Utilitie ervices, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Obsorvation 91 6 i Record t lillllllllllilllllllllllllllll
['s
(
CheckNet No. PI-01 Revision No. 1 Observation No.PI-01-01 , sheet 1 of 1 3 orleinsted my L. J. Weingart Mj\ _ -
, ._C Date 9/12/84 Reviewed my J.C. Minichiello ()hi>JnE_d Date 9/12/84
/
1.0 Description The wall thickness used for the computer analysis piping segments 16"-
SI-074-151R-2 and 16"-SI-073-151R-2 was 0.5 inches. The correct value is 0.375 inches.
'2.0 Requirement ,
. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-M-200, Rev. 3, " Design Specification for all !
ASE Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 Piping," Appendix 3, which contains Gibbs
& Hill 2323-MS-43A by reference.
3.0 Document Reference i Gibbs & Hill QA Binder AB-1-69, Revision 0, Sheet 6 " Analytical Data - Pipe Material and Properties."
4.0 Potential Design Impact For deadweight and seismic loading, stresses will increase by approximately 33%. For thermal expansion, stress levels will remain basically unchanged, since the loads are directly related to the thicknesses, while stresses are inversely related.
l Attachments A. Observation Review Record i
o....n, j leolated X .m t ensive Other (Speelfy)
Texas Utilities Service, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 '
r Obsorvation 4L "
t i Record Review
!q
, Attachment A Q
Checkilet No. PI-01 Rnlalon No. 1 one.,,sii.a w..pI-01-ot ska' t of 2 v.. w.
Valid Oteervation X
Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Analysis oversight.
2.0 Resolution For these two segments, Cygna has recalculated the stresses for the most significant design case, that being postulation of a through wall crack per the NRC Standard Review Plan. In this recalculation, Cygna assumed the pressure, deadweight, OBE, and thermal expansion stresses would increase by .5/.375 (see
(,A)
'" calculations equation 9 (0BE) below). Since is well below stress1.2levels are still below 25%
Sg (approximately .4 (1.2Sn + S and of allowable),g)he t error in thicknass has no design impact. Since this was the only error in thickness out of 38 piping segments (problems 1-69 and 1-70) Cygna cor.cludes that the error is isolated. .
CONTAINMENT ISOLATION Per Section 6.2.4.1.3 of the FSAR, the guard pipe past containment, the isolation tank, and bellows are no longer needed as part of containment since stresses between the flued head and valve are below .4 (1.2 Sg +SA ). Cygna checked the results independently:
O Aeorevole m '~
" "' m'"
L \ t1i ) - ~M cm niele+
, ' OR c 7dsL/13--- c~ /c?)9h9 v" sensee
~' ~~~ WHi&L tbDu c~ ddry Review T..i Nyjgjpf o i. 3 ,, f , g ,
Texas Utilities ( M s, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Obstrvation L6 4 Record Review !
mumusummme p
d Attachment A ,
on nu.i n.- Pr-01 a .,i.i.. m.. 1 <
on..e..is.. m..pt-01-01 an 2 .e 2 v.. n. i v.no o...,,.ii.. x !
ci...e x c.. ..... i Joints 701-706 (Train A) (corrected t = 0.375)
Maximun equation 9 = 3158 x [ = 4210 psi (pt. 706)
Haximum equation 10 = 9778 x = 13037 (pt. 1705) f Sum = I W 7 psi l i
1.2 Sg + aA = 1.2 (16600) + 27650 = 47570 !
.4, OK Ratio = h = 0.36 < {
731-1715 (Train B) l Maximum equation 9 = 1265 x h = 1687 psi (pt.1735) ,
Maximum equation 10 = 11449 x h = 15265 psi (pt. 735) l Sum = 16950 psi Ratio = Q = 0.36 < .4 OK
.'. There will be no bresks postulated between the penetrations and the isolation ;
valves. !
I l I a4 . !
M _- #_N Date p /g/gg OM C_M ., # atl.l D.** d9]p</
. Gp* ** WN/]> } lhM.a Det*jf)/jb}p/ \
- ****'*** N S/s / Det* jo)'sn/r,;
Texas UtilitiesMic5s'. Inc. ,
, Indeoendent Assessment Program; 83090 l
Obscrvation dL^' Rocord lifillllililillllililllllll!!!
ChechNet No, pl.02 Revision No. 1 Cbservation No. PI-02-02 , ,
sheet 1 .i 1 orteinsted my L. J. Weingart Q gl, _Q o.te 9/12/84 Reviewed er J.C. Minichiello Q [$fdf Jg Date 9/12/84 f '
1.0 Description Support RH-1-064-010-S22R (previous tag number RH-1-062-001-522R) is modelled 14 inches downstream from its correct, as-built location on piping segment 8"-RH-1-064-601R-2.
2.0 Requi rement The tolerance for support design location is t 2" per TUSI Verification Procedure CP-El-4.5-1, Section 3.2.4.
3.0 Document Reference a) Brown and Root drawing BRHL-RH-1-SB-003, Rev. 1.
b) Gibbs and Hill QA Binde- AD-1-70, Rev. O.
,73 4.0 Potential Design Impact O Stresses due to deadweight and seismic will increase approximately 10-20% in this region due to the increase in span.
Attachment A. Observation Record Review t a tenelve loin.,(so.eu,)
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Indcoendent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation 4L i i Record Review A 111111111ll1111111111lllllll11 U Attachment A Checklist No. PI-02 Revision No. 1 Observation No. PI-02-03 sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X
- Comments I
1.0 Root Cause Possible misunderstanding of the Gibbs and Hill procedure 2.0 Resolution Using the range for the 3 rigid restraints, Cygna calculated the following:
m
~ (j Load CYLN0Z General Support Range Stress Stress Total Allow SI-1-032-003-S32R 2700 10362 6763 17125 45000 RH-1-064-007-S22R 1300 5172 5128 10300 . 44000 RH-1-016-001-S32R 8615 11225 9328 20555 44000 The remaining 4 restraints are springs or snubbers and have no thermal load. Thus, there is no increase in stress above allowables.
4 Cygna also noted that the correct method was used for the welded attachments in anchors of Problem 1-70 and in all supports in Problem 1-69. Based on this, Cygna considers the error isolated. In addition, the RHR system will probably show the
-largest percentage difference (between maximum load and range), since it has many modes of operation. Thus, Cygna expects the error would have the most impact on this system. As the new calculations show, the impact on design is negligible and the observation is closed.
O Approvals
)
Originator . * -
Date (o[g Project Engineer
{ [g Date gpp
,,o - t .nage, wz;jgy o... goyr Senior Review Team Date h[pg Texas Utilities M ces, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 - -
1
^ l
./
Observation At t i Record Review p immmummimmum J Attachment A Checklist No. PS-02. PS-03 Revision No. 7 Observation No. PS-02-01 sheet 3 of 2
i Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to revise drawing information to reflect new data shown in the design calculations. '
2.0 Resolution Discussion and further review with Texas Utilities has shown the following procedure was in place:
- When designing a new support with preliminary loads (such as the initial pipe stress analyses), the designers specify on the pipe support drawing the minimum acceptable embedment for the Hilti bolt.
- When installing the HILTI bolt, construction and QC follow the Brown and
.. Root Installation Procedure CEI-20. Per that procedure, the embedment depth used would be the maximum of j a) that shown on the pipe support drawing, or b) the minimum for a standard Hilti (4.5 bolt diameters) or a Hilti Super Kwik-Balt (6.5 bolt diameters), or l- c) that necessary to meet the torquing requirements given in CEI-20.
- When subsequently reviewing a pipe support for later loads (as-built,
, ~~
revised routings), the designers calculate the minimum possible embedment l for the length Hilti bolt specified on the drawing. This embedment f length, "E", is defined as i
i C Approvals Originator f, Date / p g g $
O > ei Project Manager /
c2z c sz. s.</-
7 o - 9 .- w Date ghky Senior Review Teet Date ghy Texas Utilit M ervices, Inc.
Independent Assessmer.t Program; 83090
.=__w__ _ . - - - . _ - - . . _ _ __ _ -. _- -
Observation AL t i Record Review q immumlimimimmi V Attachment A Checklist No. PS-02. PS-03 Revision No. 1 Observation No.PS-02-01 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments E = bolt lengt5 - thread length - plate thickness - grout (if any) -
topping (if any) + 1 diameter The addition of the one bolt diameter is based on the following logic:
- 1) Hilti defines the embedment length as the length prior to torquing the bolt. Hilti also states that bolt setting typically requires 4 to 5 turns of the nut.
- 2) Brown & Root procedure CEI-20 requires that the change in bolt length due to tightening be limited to one nut height, which is approximately
- equal to one bolt diameter.
Therefore, construction must ensure that sufficient threads remain below the plate surface to allow the CEI-20 torque requirements to be met.
Engineering has taken this as approximately one bolt diameter, which is reasonable.
e In the event that this minimum possible length does not provide sufficient allowable loads, engineering can request a field measurement of the amount of thread above the nut. This will give the actual embedment after torquing, which is conservative when HILTI's definition of embedment is considered.
Based on this explanation, Cygna concurs that the embedment lengths shown in the revised calculations are not minimum required, but are minimum possible based on the installed length of bolt. Therefore, Cygna considers the observation closed since the drawing does reflect the later calculation by specifying the overall bolt length.
I O Approvals Originator g Date /p- $ - g(/,
Project Engineer
{
- Date jg _9 Project Manager Senior Review Team
{ Date jg gC/
f Date / a fv/
Texas Utilitie vices, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation
- h L. n i Record lillllfilllllillllllllilllilli (D
~V -
Checklist No.
PS-09 Revision No. 3 j Observation No.PS-09-01 Sheet of 7 7 Originated By S . l.uo - b. m A Date gf7pfg4 Reviewed By J.Minichielloh '
Date gf7pfg4 l
/
1.0 Description The working range (i.e. top up or bottom out) for spring hanger nos. SI-1-079-001-S32S and RH-01-010-002-S22S was not checked to ensure that the travel due to seismic movement was within the working range of the hanger.
2.0 Requirement Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.4, requires the design to consider the effects of seismic motion.
3.0 Document Reference Texas Utilities. calculation for Hanger Nos. SI-1-079-001-S32S and RH-1-010-002-S22S.
O
- ( ] 4.0 Potential Design Impact Combined seismic and thermal movements exceeding the working range of the spring hanger may result in an ineffective design due to loss of spring action.
Attachapnt A. Observation Review Record.
l l
L j
i Extent isolated Extensive )( l Other (Specify)
, Texas Utilities Service, Inc.
l- Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation AL% i Record 11!!lll1lllllllllll11111111111
(.
( Checklist No. PS-10 Revision No. }
Observation No. PS-10-01 sheet i of 2 orleinated my .S. Luo 4, h Date 4/6/84 Reviewed By J. Minichiello (l_ h j f. Date 4/6/84 f
1.0 Description The design input data for support RH-1-064-001-S22R contained an error in the X displacement sign (+.395 " vs. .395"). This error appears on the form transmitted from the pipe stress group to the pipe support group for use in the design.
2.0 Requirement Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.7, requires the use of correct design inputs.
3.0 Document Reference TUSI pipe support calculation RH-1-064-001-S22R, Rev 3.
4.0 Potential Design Impact The transmittal of incorrect loads or displacements to the pipe support group may lead to underdesigned or improperly designed supports.
Attachment A. Observation Review Record l
1 o e....,
.....e. x e . . . n. ... n,s.,<s......>
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation d L% i Record 1111111tll11111lll11111lll1111 Checklist No. PS-12 Revision No. 1 Observation No. PS-12-01 sheet 1 og 2 l l
orleinated my S. Luo 4 do case 9/12/84 !
Ceviewed my J. Minichiello (}_ g g , g , Date 9/12/84 '
f 1.0 Description The allowables for a "PUH" style U-bolt were used in the design calculation.
The bill of materials calls out a " PUS" style U-bolt.
2.0 Requirement 2.1 Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2.1.
2.2 NPSI Catalog, LCD tables which list allowables for U-bolts.
3.0 Document Reference TUSI pipe support calculation RH-1-064-011-S22R, Rev 5 (formerly RH-1-062-002-S22R).
4.0 Potential Design Impact Since the allowables for a "PUH" style U-bolt are approximately twice as high as for a " PUS" style U-bolt, use of the correct allowables may lead to hardware failure.
Attachment A. Observation Review Record 4
J xExtent IJslated X Ex tensive l Other (Speelfy)
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation dLni Record lilllllllilllilll!!!!!!!!!!ill ,
f3 t
G).
Checklist No. Various Revision No. 1 Cbservation No. CTS-00-02 sheet 1 et 2 originated my J.P. Russ Q ,g f& Date 4/6/84 Ceviewed my J.C. Minichiello @,M /) g 4 Date 4/6/84 f
1.0 Description Gibbs & Hill performed the calculation of total resultants for component loads as follows:
- a. For anchor bolts, Gibbs & Hill included the dead load in the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) combination of component seismic forces. This resultant is 9% less than the actual combination where the dead load effects are added absolutely to the SRSS of the seismic forces.
- b. Combined component member loads were calculated from various st6 tic and dynamic loads (i.e., dead and seismic) using the algebraic summation method for the following cable tray supports:
Standard Details Aj, B1 , Cj, and Dj (where i = 1 to 5, depending on the number of tray levels), details A, B, C, and D of drawing no. 2323-El-0601-01-S, which p are based on Standard Detail Dj, and Standard Details 4, 5 and 7.
v 2.0 Requirement 2.1 Standard design practice requires that the dead weight effects should be separated from the seismic effects and combined appropriately in order to obtain the worst case.
2.2 Standard design practice requires that if the algebraic sumation method is used, the static and dynamic loads should be combined to obtain the worst case loading for the components.
2.3 Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1, Section 4.2, lists the proper method for combining dead, live, and seismic loads (live load = 0).
2.4 CPSES FSAR, Section 3.7B.2.6 requires that any combined total response due to seismic loads be combined by the square root of the sum of the squares method.
3.0 Document Reference-al. Improper combination by SRSS was performed in all Gibbs & Hill cable tray calculations within the Cygna scope except those for Type SP-7.
O stent E
LJ stoisted E,ieneeve X l other (specity)
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation AMi Record 111llllll111111111!!1111111111 Checklist No. Revision No. 1 observation No. CTS-00-02 sheet 2 of 2 origineted BY J. Russ Q-[d A - Date 4/6/84 Reviewed BY J. C. Minichiello b%sA// Ate 4/6/84 ~
[
bl. Computer Output Binder DMI-SP, approved 10 November 1978. Applicable sections as below:
Standard Detail Binder Section Ai Reg. Cases At to A3 Di Reg. Cases Di to 05 b2. Calculation Binders Standard Detail Calculation No.
4,5,7 SCS-104C, Set 4, Shts. 4, 6, 9, 40, 41, 43 4.0 Potential Design Impact
~~s, The improper use of either the SRSS or algebraic sum. method could result in (V . unconservative levels of load or stress which may affect support integrity.
Attachment A. Observation Review Record l
l l
l l.
, Extent-
....... ....n.... x n,.,<s......,
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation AMi Record Review
(').
V lillillilillilill!!Illllillt!I Attachment A Checklist No. Various Revision No. 1 Observation No. CTS-00-02 Sheet 1 of 1
Yes No Valid Observation A Clo s e d A Comments 1.0 Probable Cause The probable cause of this observation may be attributed to use of simplifying analytical assumptions which yield unconservative results.
2.0 Resolution The deficiencies noted in Section 1.0 have been resolved as follows:
- a. To evaluate the use of unconservative component load resultants, Gibbs &
(]/
( Hill compared their original resultants to those developed from the correct combinations of dead and seismic loading for all plant elevations where cable tray supports are located. These recalculated resultants exceeded the original values by a maximum of 3 percent. This is an acceptable tol.erance for an SRSS combination (
Reference:
Cygna Technical File 11.2.1.50, Pgs. 4-13),
- b. A further review determined that care was consistently taken to ensure i
that the maximum member load combination, equal to the absolute sum of the i dead and each seismic load component, was selected for use in the member l design. A properly applied algebraic summation methodology is j conservative.
Because of the foregoing statements, part (a) is closed and part (b) is l considered invalid.
l c3 Approvals Origmator
,//, [
- Przject Erdrleer Date 5 ocT- N Qg g g{,, Date /d N
- Pr: ject Manager l
hgj Date fg j Senior Review Team '
[ [/ Date gjo/Q f
Texas Utilities N es, inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation A L% 1 Record 11!!!i11111ll11111111111111111 g)
( Checklist No. Various Revision No. 1 Observation No. CTS-00-03 sheet 1 of 3 Criginated By J.P. Russ Sk Mw Date 9/14/84 Reviewed By J. Minichiello Q , I . a f , 4 f , Date 9/14/84
'L
(
1.0 Description In the review of cable tray support calculations, Cygna discovered the following deficiencies in the modeling assumptions for frame analyses:
- a. Cable tray Standard Details A , Bj , Cj and Dj , where i = 1 to 5 depending on the number of tray levels,jand Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S which'are based on Standard Detail Dj, are modeled as plane frames. Two basic configurations are analyzed. The first configuration consists of two vertical members, called hangers, connected by horizontal members, called beams, which support the cable trays. This configuration is typical for Standard Details Aj , Bj and Cj. The second configuration consists of one vertical hanger and one to four beams which are attached to the hanger at one end and a concrete surface at the other. This second case it typical of Standard Detail Dj and the related Details A, B, C and D. All anchorage points were modeled
('N as pinned in the plane of the frame.
Q) Both support configurations are modeled with vertical and horizontal cable tray loads at the beam to hanger joints instead of at the beam tray support points. The total horizontal and vertical load distribution was assumed to be split equally between the beam support points.
The above assumptions are deficient for the following reasons:
- 1. Placing tray loads at the beam-hanger joints does not reflect the actual loading configuration thereby eliminating the effects of local bending and torsion on the beams.
- 2. For Standard Detail D j, where loads were placed at the beam ends which were ccnnected to the concrete surface (these points being modeled as simple supports), load effects were totally removed from the structure.
Extent I:olated Estensive X l Other (Specify) l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i
Observation d L% i Record lillilillllilillllllllilillll!
. V Checklist No. Various Revision No. 1
. Observation No. CTS-00-03 sheet 2 of 3 Originated By J.P. Russ _ Q [d% oste 9/14/84 Reviewed By J. Minichiello (/ ") / [ q 8 s # M ate 9/14/84
[
- b. Hanger ceiling connections consisting of angles anchored to concrete by either one or two bolts were modeled as hinges in the cable tray support frame analysis. Although this assumption is acceptable for the frame analysis, the assumption of a fixed joint is more appropriate for the evaluation of the base angle and anchor bolts.
2.0 Requirement Since the conditions described above do not properly model the local effects due to actual loading in the frame members or the actual geometry and load distribution in the connections, the requirements set forth in Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1, Sect! ion 4.1, are not met.
3.0 Document Reference V al. Computer Output Binder DMI-SP, approved-10 November 1978. Applicable sections as below: i Standard Detail Binder Section Aj Reg. Cases At to A3 Dj (Details A, B, C, D) Reg. Cases 01 to D5 bl. Calculation Binders Detail Calculation Binder Ref.
Standard At SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 7,30,72,73,94 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A2 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 8,30,72,73,74,95 l SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A3 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,30,72,73,75,96 SCS-122C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,11 Standards Di to D5 SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 Standards A, B, C, D
~
l SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 L
l Estent i:ointed Estenelve X l Other (Specify)
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation
. 3 (% 4 Record llllllllllllilllllllllllllill!
gs Checklist No. Various Revision No. 1 Observation No. ' CTS-00-03 sheet 3 of 3 criginated ay J.P. Russ Q.M. ib% Date 9/14/84 Reviewed By J. Minichiello ( l. M .., j f g g ate 9/14/84 g4 bl. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5.
b2. Gibbs & Hill Calculation No. SCS-101C, Set 1.
4.0 Potential Design Impact Support integrity may be affected for the following reasons:
- a. More appropriate modeling techniques may result in higher calculated member and connection stresses.
- b. An inappropriate assumption concerning joint fixity may lead to an unconservative design of support base connections.
Attachment A. Observation Review Record f
l Extent-l ' d :olated 1
Extensive X l Other (specify)
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation Mh4 Record Review
. llilllilillllilillililllllllit 3 Attachment A
-(J ,
Checklist No. Various Revision No. 1 Observation No. CTS-00-03 sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Clo s e d X Comments 1.0 ' Probable Cause The probable cause of this observation is a lack of documentation and/or justification of the modeling assumptions. For the frame members this may be concluded from the fact that although the beams were underloaded, the hangers were conservatively loaded by the analysis' assumptions. The analysis package did not address the appropriateness of the assumptions for the end connection fi xity.
O(3 2.0 Resolution The deficiencies described in Section 1.0 were resolved as follows:
- a. Gibbs & Hill reevaluated the supports in question incorporating Cygna's comments utilizing a response spectrum modal analysis to reduce some conservatisms implicit in the original spectral peak analysis. The results of these analysis revealed that although the support members as designed were highly stressed, stresses did not exceed allowable levels
(
Reference:
Cygna Technical File 11.2.1.50, Pgs. 31-69). In addition, Gibbs & Hill made calculations available to Cygna which addressed the local bending and torsion affects not considered in the computer model due to the load placement.
l b. Further analysis by Cygna indicated that the difference between fixed and pinned connections for one or two bolt base angles does not alter the acceptability of the support.
i Therefore, Cygna considers this observation closed.
i O Approvals
%__ os,e fg gp i *'""="'
[PrIject Manager c2& c;21 p a a,-
o.,e gg c **"*"'" - M D f o.,. ,;g ,,
Texas Utiliti M ces, Inc. C ' '
Indel:endent Assessment Program; 83090
. Observation ALn i Record Milllllilllilllllllillilllli A
Checklist No, M inos Revision No. 1 Ctpservation No. CTR 00-04 8h* 1 2 Celeinsted By Q,// Date J A Russ 4/6/84 Reviewed By J. Minichiello N
- d_ P ate 4fg/g4 6'
1.0 Description 4
- Cable tray Standard Details Aj , Bj , Cthe B, C number and D onofGibbs tray levels, Details2323-
& Hill drawing A,j and Dj, wh El-0601-01-S which are based on Standard Detail Di , and Standard Details 4, 5 and 7 were modeled as plane frames. Frame analysis and design were based upon a single ratio of height to width, whereas the ratio varies over the range of frames installed. Tray loads were placed in various directions in an attempt to simulate the worst case combination for the frame members. For Standard Detail Dj and Details A, B, C and D, an analysis of the base plate / angle and the anchor bolts included only loads with the largest acceleration factors.
The above analysis procedures are deficient for the following reasons:
- 1. If generic analyses are being performed for the design of cable tray group supports, care must be taken to ensure that the worst case configuration is evaluated. No basis was found to ensure that the analysis reflected the worst case aspect ratio.
- 2. The use of loads with the largest acceleration values in the analysis of the base plate / angle and anchor bolt system is unconservative if it precludes the possibility of vertical loads being directed upward, i .e. opposite gravity. The imposition of upward forces on one beam and downward forces on an adjacent beam coupled appropriately with other forces could result in anchor bolts with higher loads than those used in the original calculations.
2.0 Requirements If standard details are selected as the design method, proper consideration ~
should be given to ensuring the evaluation of the worst case. Since the conditions described above do not consider the range of height to width ratios
! and all possible combinations of loadings, the supports modeled thusly do not meet the requirements set forth in the Cygna Design Criteria, DC-3, Rev.1, Section 2.0, Scope, Section 4.1, Physical Requirements and Section 4.2, Loads and Load Combinations.
OE O : istent ei. .d E,i..... x loin.,<s,.ci,)
Tsxas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation A (% i Record
- 1111111lll!Il111111!!111111111 ps Checklist No. 4 Revision No. 1 Cbservation No. rTc_nn.nd Ih"' 2 'I 2
Originated By ,3 y Q , [ M ate 9,,, g 4/6/84 teviewed my
.1 winichiolin O M m m . 8- d
- 4/6/84
/
-3.0 -Document Reference A. Computer Output Binder DMI-5P, Approved 10 November 1978. Applicable sections as below:
Standard Detail Binder Section Aj Reg. Cases At to A 3 Dj (A,B,C,D) Reg. Cases D1 to DS B. Calculation Binders Detail Calculation Binder References Standard Al SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 7,30,72,73,94 s SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A 2 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts 8,30,72,73,74,95 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A3 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,30,72,73,75,96 SCS-122C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard Di to 0 5 SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 A,B,C,D SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 Standard 4, 5, 7 SCS-104C, Set 4, Shts. 4,6,9,40,41,43 4.0 Potential Design Impact By not ensuring tha't the analysis employed the worst case aspect ratio and by not considering the effect of differing load directions on anchor bolt forces, both member stresses and anchor forces may be undervalued. Cable tray support designs based upon these lower load values may be overstressed and fail locally when actual tray loads are applied.
Attachments A. Observation Review Record
/
O Esterit V : stated Estensive X l other (speesty)
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
"% Observation L4Dh' fd Record Review lllllllilllillllll!'lillllllll e
N-l Attachment A 1 Checklist No. y, g y ,, Revision No. 1 Cbservation No. PT9_00 04 Sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation x Clo s e d y Comments 1.0 Probable Cause The use of " engineering judgement" in the initial phases of cable tray design may have precluded the consideration of the worst case height to width ratio when analyzing the cable tray supports.
" Engineering judgement" may also be given as the reason for failure to consider the loading combination described above which may result in higher anchor bolt
, loads.
('",)
2.0 Resolution Since standard cable tray widths and standard bolted clamp spacings are used for the installation, there is a limited range of height to width ratios possible. Further review ensured that the worst case ratio was used by Gibbs &
Hill in the analysis.
Further evaluation of the baseplate / angle and anchor bolt loading revealed that the maximum vertical seismic acceleration is less than or equal to the acceleration due to gravity. Assuming the seismic acceleration to be upward results in a net downward acceleration or no acceleration depending on the building elevation. Therefore, since vertical loads will not be directed upward, using the largest sum of the seismic and gravity accelerations applied downward is appropriate.
Further review has resulted in this observation being invalidated.
O Approvals Originat
, f, f Date g o c; ' 8 9-
- Prosect En66eer gg j g Date y g_
_ Pr; ject Manager '
/[ j Date gjgg Senior Review Team ~
Date g[A(jg Texas Utilit M ices, Inc.
Indel:endent Assessment Program; 83090
. Observation A Lm ' Record lilllllillilililllilllilliitti
('% ,' ; CheckHat No. Various Revision No. 1 Observation No. CTS-00-06 sheet 1 of 1 l
Criginated By Ceviewed By J.P. Russ O - [. [ b _ Date 9/12/84 l
J.C. Minichiello ()[Tf, Aff Date 9/12/84 l \
1.0 Description The analysis and design of Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S was based upon the analysis and design of Standard Detail Dj ,
wnere i = 1 to 5 depending on the number of tray levels. The orientation of the major axis of the C6 x 8.2 section, used as a hanger for both support series, differs by 90 degrees. The major axis for Standard Detail Dj is out of the plane of the frame while for Details A, B, C and D it is in the plane of the frame. As a consequence, Details A, B, C and D are more flexible than Standard Detail Dj. This was not considered in the analysis. In addition the changes in the design of the beam connections to the hanger were not evaluated.
2.0 Requirements Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1, Section 4.1 requires that the analytical model accurately reflect the actual support geometry.
( 3.0 Document Reference G) 3.1 Gibbs and Hill Computer Output Binder DMI-5P, Approved 10 November 1978, Section: " Reg. Cases D ioD" t S 3.2 Gibbs and Hill Calculation No. SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5, 6, 10, 34, 35.
4.0 Potential Design Impact Since the member orientation in details A, B, C and D is rotated 90 from Detail Dj, the results of the Di analysis are not directly applicable. Use of the actual orientation may result in members being overstressed.
Attachments A. Observation Review Record I
Ectent l _ .Mlated Ettensive X l Other (Speelfy) i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation Atn i Record Review inunninnnininnnin
\a l Attachment A Checklist No. VariOUS Revision No. 1 Observation No. CTS-00-06 sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Otsservation x Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause The observation described above may be attributed to the use of " engineering judgement" which precluded a detailed evaluation of the various design considerations (i.e., connections), and differences between the support types.
2.0 Resolution
,s' Although the difference between the actual configuration and the referenced
( standard detail used as a basis of qualification constituted a potential design i deficiency, further analysis by Gibbs & Hill (see Cygna Tech. File 11.2.1.50, ppg. 31-69), incorporating Cygna's comments, revealed that sufficient design margin existed to compensate for the increased stress levels. Therefore, the observation is closed.
i l
C Approvals Origmator Q , ,//, [ Q _
Date fg q39-Pr:Mt Enahnder Q[ [Q . 2Ad6f,f Date jll
. r= net u.n. .e S;nior Review Team
/% qpf;);jhmsm **
M/s/6/
l
/ Date p,hh-h Texas Utilit M vices, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 t
Observation ALni Record
~l11111111111lll111111111111111
(~)
- V Checklist No. Va rious Revision No. }
Observation No. ~ CTS-00-08 sheet 1 of 2 Criginated BY J.P. Russ %N& _
Date 9/14/84 Ceviewed BY J. Minichiello Q_ Ya h 8s#8p Date 9/14/84
/
1.0 Description The cumulative effect of the following analysis techniques and/or procedures may have a potential impact on plant safety:
Observation No. Description Checklist No.
CTS-00-01 Neglect of self-weight excitation of CTS-11, -13, -24, Cable Tray Support. -25, -32, -33, -34,
-35, -37, -38, -39 CTS-00-02 Improper load combination by the SRSS All method.
CTS-00-03 Computer modeling assumptions which CTS-2, -3, -10, -11 resulted in improper load placement -13, -24, -25, -26, and the assumptions that a rigid one- -27, -28, -29, -30, or two-bolt base angle acts as a -32, -33, -34, -35, (q
NJ CTS-00-05 pinned rather than a fixed connection. -36, -37, -38, -39 Cantilever member with a two-bolt CTS-6, -14, -15, base connection assumed to act as -16, -17, -18, -19
. a three- way restraint. -20, -21, -22 CTS-00-06 Extrapolation of specific details CTS-11, -13, from generic analyses which assume different member orientation.
CTS-00-07 Unconservative assumption for case CTS-11, -13 plate behavior.
l t
i l
/OE U tent im.ted sni.n.i . x l oin., <so. city >
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation !
o L% i Record
' N1lllllllllll111ll111111111!!
Checklist No. y, g Revision No. ) ,
Caservetion No, g,gg,gg . Sheet p of 7 Originated By ,j_p_ q Qfd Date gf14fg4 Cowlewed By U
- I' il Minichiplin >_ > > 'd 9/14/84
(/
2.0 Requirement 2.1 Cygna Design Criteria 83909-DC-3, Rev.1. .
2.2 Gibbs & Hill, Texas Utilities Cable Tray Supports Design Criteria SCS-101C, Set 5, Rev. 2.
3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill. Calculation Binders:
SCS-101C SCS-146C SCS-122C SCS-187C SCS-104C SCS-125C 4.0 Potential Design Impact Acting alone or in combination, the deficiencies described in Section 1.0 may fg lead to unacceptable support loads or stresses. If these or similar
() deficiencies exist for supports outside the review scope, such potentially generic deficiencies may have a significant safety impact.
Attachment A. Observation Record Review.
. stent
...i.... . . . e n.i.e x n,s.,<s...i..,
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Observation A L% J Record Review umiinillitiilliimilmii Attachment A s' -
Checklist No. g g,, Revision No. 1 Chaervation No. CTS-00-08 sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation x Clo s e d X
Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Inadequate procedures and documentation.
2.0 Resolution See Potential Finding Report PFR-01.
rm l
l Its Aoprovals Originator ,g g Date y g g39-Prriect Eng6 deer
[g ggg Date jg/gg
_ <r: Ject Manager / j{ Date j /[g/{
S nior Review Team p Date j,,# fj[g j Texas Utilit1 N vices, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
~
Potential oai Finding Willlllllllillllillllllllill g
~ /] PFR No. 01 Revision No. 1 observation No. CTS-00-08 sheet 1 of 6 1 Description See Attachment A (sheet 4 of 5).
Requirement
- 1. Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1.
- 2. Gibbs & Hill, Cable 1 ray Support Design Criteria SCS-101C, Set 5, Rev. 2.
O Reference Documente Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binders:
l SCS-101C SCS-146C -
l l SCS-122C SCS-187C L
SCS-104C SCS-12sC l
I':
Extent isolated Extensive X Other (Speelfy)
Texas Utilities Services, Ir.c.
! Independent Assessment Prograc; 83090
Potential n( *j i- Finding o'"""'"""'""'""""" Report LJ
- PFR No. 01 "*'*" " -
1 Observation No. CTS-00-08 sheet 2 of 6 Design impact Acting alone or in combination, the deficiencies described above may lead to unacceptable support loads or stresses. If these or similar deficiencies exist for supports outside the review scope, such potentially generic deficiencies may have a significant safety impact.
Potential Safety impact See Attachment B (sheet 5 of 5). .
l-l Originated By Cogntrant Group Leader Date qPL sca.e+
Approved By Proioct Engineer Date GL dLuL A+w TexasUtilitiesServicesInc.[83090 Independent Assessment Program;
Potential Ai% ""'""'"""'""""""'
i Finding Report (3 PFR No. 05 R evision No. 1 Observation No. CTS-00-08 sheet 3 er 6 Il Senior Review Yes No Further Review Required X Valid Observation X Pctential Safety impact X Comments CY i ..
//s /oAo/F7 SkokraniSenior Reviewer Date lll Project Manager Comments m W lO /0 '
, (j Approved Sw Prole.ct Manager ! Date Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Sheet 4 of 6 Rev. 1 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT NO. 01
) ATTACimENT A The currulative effect of the following analysis techniques and/or procedures may have a potential impact on p; ant safety:
Observation No. Descri ption Checklist No.
CTS-00-01 Neglect of self-weight excitation of CTS-11, -13, -24, Cable Tray Support. -25, -32, -33, -34,
-35, -37, -38, -39 CTS-00-02 Improper load combination by the SRSS All method.
CTS-00-03 Computer modeling assumptions which CTS-2, -3, -10, -11 resulted in improper load placement -13, -24, -25, -26, and the assumptions that a rigid one- -27, -28, -29, -30, or two-bolt base angle acts as a -32, -33, -34, -35, pinned rather than a fixed connection. -36, -37, -38, -39 CTS-00-05 Cantilever member with a two-bolt CTS-6, -14, -15, base connection assumed to act as -16, -17, -18, -19 a three- way restraint. -20, -21, -22 .
CTS-00-06 Extrapolation of specific details CTS-11, -13, f' from generic analyses which b) assume different member orientation.
CTS-00-07 Unconservative assumption for base CTS-11, -13 plate behavior.
The generic implications of these observations on cable tray supports through-odt the plant should al'.' be addressed.
e
\,
v 11lllllllllllIllllllllll11111
==
Shett 5 of 6 Rev. 1 POTENTIAL FINDING REP 0kT NO. 01
(\ \
( ,) ATTACHENT B The resolution to Observations CTS-00-01 through CTS-00-07 shows that each l observation, when considered on an individual basis only, has no impact on
-plant safety.
l To evaluate the cumulative effect of these observations on tray supports across the olant, four factors were considered:
- 1. The margins to allowable stress and load levels in members and enchor bolts as determined by the Gibbs & 11111 reanalysis
_ effort.
- 2. The percentage of the total number of supports in the plant that were reviewed by Cygna.
- 3. The process by which field deviations from the original support design are reviewed.
4 The overall conservatisms in the design process for cable tray supports.
Each of these considerations is discussed below.
In response to the noted Observation, Gibbs & Hill reanalyzed a large per-()
V centage of the tray supports reviewed by Cygna. Their reanalysis incorporated (1) Cygna's comments, (2) more detailed modeling, and (3) specific response spectra (
Reference:
Cygna Technical File 11.2.1.50). An examination of the results shows that there is more than a 10% design margin in the support components, and, it should be noted, this reanalysis used conservative loadings.
Based on a survey by Gibbs & Hill, it was determined that the Cygna review covered a major portion of CPSES cable tray supports. Specifically, Cygna reviewed 60% of the generic support designs, which accounts for 70% of the designs. The remaining support designs are special application, of which Cygna reviewed 5%. In total then, 43% of the plant's support designs were reviewed. This quantity is sufficient to draw substantive conclusions concerning the overall design adequacy and plant safety.
Field deviations to the original support designs are satisfactorily addressed on CPSES. When a support with a deviation from the original design is installed, a Design Change Deviation (DCA) or a Component Modification Card
- (CMC) is issued by site personnel. These documents are reviewed by Gibbs &
Hill to ensure that the deviations are acceptable and do not prevent the support from meeting its functional requirements. In the case of several l
O_
llll11llllllll11llllll11llll11 1000 00
Shset 6 of 6 ,
Rev. 1
,, POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT NO. 01
? \
V ,
ATTACHMENT B changes to any particular supoort, all previous change documents are listed on each subsequent CMC or CCA. The document trail, as described, provides a basis to evaluate the support's ability to meet its functional requirement.
Overall, the design process for cable tray supports provides for plant safety. In addition to the above considerations, this conclusion is
, substantiated by the following items: -
The Gibbs & Hilll reanalyses used assumed tray weights which are more than 20% greater than the actual weights.
The reanalyses employed conventional damping values. Such flexible frames, especially if highly stressed, would be candidates for higher damping values.
Cable tray support systems are typicilly ductile, with considerable load-sharing capabilities. Thus, local overstressed conditions can potentially be accomodated by the overall system.
Ba:ed on all the above, Cygna has concluded that this potential finding has no impact on overall plant design or safety. The potential finding is closed.
(T V
f
'N i
1811111111111111lll11111111111 ima m
O O O Independent Design t*hM', ~hg Review Checklist l PIPIIIG Als PIPE StPPORTS .
l
- S. Dillon, R. Hess [ , D , h Checklist No. WD-01 1 11 7/19/83 pet.
, Setlefactory itent Yee No Commente i
STRESS PROBl_EM 1-ISI-C l
1 Starting at Spent Fuel Pool Suction Screen (CPI-SFSRSF-02) 4
- 1. Screen to penetration Measured from top of pool.
- a. Dimensional agreement x No vertical dimension taken.
- b. Piping orientation x-2 Penetration to 90* elbow turn to east and 24 down
- a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Piping orientation x 4
l 3. Elbow to support SF-X-032-012-F53K (D.P. 3109) A PSA snubber was used. Further review
- a. Dimensional agreement x shows it has an equivalent rating to i b. Piping orientation x the NPSI saubber specified in the bill of
- c. FVR x materials.
I 4 Support SF-X-032-012-F53K to 90* elbow turn to north j a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Piping orientation x l S. Elbow to support SF-X-032-013-F53K (D.P. 3108) A PSA stubber was used. Further review
- a. Dimensional agreement x shows it has an equivalent rating to
- b. FVR x the NPSI snubber specified in the bill of
.j materials.
}
)
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program ,
4 ,
'As-Built r
! Assessment '
[4M.-d T tilllilllillir!Illiittiililli Checklist -
i PIPIllG Alm PIPE SilPPORTS i
amiewer(s) S. Dillon. R. Hess N b ',/ b checkilet No. WD P888 1 of 10 Ro h hte '7/21/83 l
i Satisfactory itens Yes No ' Comments STRESS PROBLEM 1-151-A Starting at Pump CPX-SFAPSF-01 Discharge
- 1. Pump discharge flange to branch line l a. Dimensional agreement x
! b. Piping orientation ,
x i 2. Branch line to valve XSF-003
] a. Dimensional agreement x i b. Valve orientation x 4
i 3. Valve XSF-003 to branch line j a. Dimensional agreement r x
- b. Piping orientation '
x i
!' 4 Branch line to support SF-X-003-002-F43S (D.P. 1108) Support is located 1" closer to branch
- a. Dimensional agreement .x in order to avoid elbow weld, still meets
- b. FVR x t 2" tolerance of MS-100, Rev. 6 1
i 5. Support SF-X-003-002-F43S to support SF-X-003-006-F43K Snubber is installed inverted from support j (D.P. 0028) drawing depiction. .See Observation j a. Dimensional agreement x WD-02-02.
j b. FVR x i ',
l I Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
j Independent Assessment Program; 83090
n ()
~
^
U O As-Built Assessment L4.B 3M -
Checklist 1111111111lllllllll111llllllll PIPIONi NO PIPE SUPPORTS 00 viewer (s) R n111 nn ;
D. bec - N.D. M Checklist No. g ,gg Page j et jp i 8* h'* 7/21/83 J
- Satisfactory
- Item Yes No Comments j STRESS PROBLEM 1-086A i
Starting at Spent Fuel Pool Heat Exchanger CPX-SPAHSF-01
! 1. Heat exchanger to 90* elbow up.
! a. Dimensional agreement x l b. Piping orientation x 1
! 2. Elbow to branch connector
- a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Piping orientation x i 3. Branch connector to support SF-X-005-015-F43S (D.P. 0004) i
- a. Dimensional agreement x l b. FVR N/A Inaccessible, i
I 4 Support SF-X-005-015-F43S to branch connector i a. Dimensional agreement x i b. Piping orientation x i 5. Branch connector to 90* elbow to north
! a. Dimensional agreement x 1
- b. Piping orientation x I
) Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
] Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1
o r
~
d V As-Built-bM, . . 'f Assessment i lillL "M ..nu Checklist PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS l Rcvi wer(s) . D. /M Checklist No.
S. Dillon. R. Hess WD-04 Pese 1 of 2 Review Date 7/21/83
, Setlefactor>
l Item Yes No Comments STRESS PROBLEM 1-066C Starting at embedded plate j 1. Plate to 90* elbow to west Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K.
- a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Piping orientation x
- 2. Elbow to support SF-X-033-010-F53R (D.P. 196) Support SF-X-033-010-F53R j a. Dimensional agreement x deleted by Rev 3. of Dwg.
3
- b. FVR N/A BRHL-SF-X-FB-027 I
- 3. Support SF-X-033-010-F53R to support SF-X-033-009-F53R Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K.
(0.P. 98)
- a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Drawing check x j 4 Support SF-X-033-009-F53R to tee at El. 840'-2" Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K.
j a. Dimensional agreement x j b. Piping orientation x -
4 j 5. Tee to support SF-X-033-003-F53R (D.P. 116) Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K. .
- a. Dimensional agreement x 4
- b. Drawing check x 2
l I Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I
O o As-Built O
- (.hpH M Assessment a
llt11111111111mll11111111111 Checklist l PIPING NW PIPE SUPPORTS C0'8***' (*) Y ,'O, l
S. Ollion, R. Hess h checkilet No. WD-05 Pese 1 of 2
- neview este 7/21/83 i
- Sallefactory 1
Item Yes No Commente j STRESS PROBLEM 1-0868 1
Starting at backing plate i
) 1. Plate to 90* elbow to west Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K.
l a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Piping orientation x j 2. Elbow to support SF-X-005-031-F53R (D.P.171) Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K.
- a. Dimensional agreement x
- b. Drawing check x i
) 3. Suryort SF-X-005-031-F53R to TEE at El. 840'-2" Inaccessible due to height. Visually 0.K.
- a. Dimensional agreement x i b. Piping orientation x i
l 4. TEE to support SF-X-005-001-F53R (D.P. 179) Inaccessible due to height. Visually-0.K.
l a. Dimensional agreement x
! b. Drawing check x
- 5. Support SF-X-005-001-F53R to end cap to east l a. Dimensional agreement x l b. Piping orientation x 1 -
1 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
[ Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i
O O ~
As-Built O
Assessment
[4DH fd Checklist j 11lll1111111111111111111llll11 TK KM s
! s l n:: viewer (a) N.H. Willtams yg/},f/g Checkilet No. WD-06 p.,, _1 g . 2 i Review Date 7/19-21/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Commente l 1. Unit I spent fuel pool cooling pump room El. 810'-6". Walls, ceiling, and floors painted, j a. Floor X Formwork 0.K. Concrete work outside j b. Walls X of pump rooms was not painted and j c. Ceiling X exhibited good workmanship.
l 2. Pump CPX-SFAPSF-01 foundation Reference Dwg. 2323-S-0800, Rev. 5.
- a. Location X j b. Size X i c. Finish and grout X i 3. Heat Exchanger CPX-SFAHSF-01 foundation Reference Dwg. 2323-S-0800, Rev. 5.
- a. Location X l b. Size X
! c. Finish and Grout X 1
l 4 Fuel pool pump suction penetration from pool Visual inspection only.
j a. Location X l b. Size X l
) 5 Fuel pool pump discharge penetration from pool Visual inspection only.
i a. Location X j b. Size X i
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l
e.=_=
O _
^
O At-Built D -
r Assessment L*h.(d 2 Iil Checklist l neumuman 1 1
i FLECTRICAL MLKDOW
. ..n
" " ' * *' I*) .inha p: anon.c ], (/k _ e-. - Checklist No. WD-07 Psee i of 6 i "**" 7/19-21/83 '
Setlefactory j llem Yes No Commente j .
j 1. Equipment Review i
j a. Pump Motor Name Plate agrees with x -
l Pump Motor Data Sheet i
j b. Pump distribution equipment is x l in agreement with one line diagram i
j c. Control components type and models x j are in agreement with elementaries 4
l d. Local instrument types and models N/A Instrument list with model number j are in agreement with instrument list data was not available.
i l e. Remote instrument types and models are N/A j in agreement with instrument list i 2. Equipment Installation Review i
j a. Pump is installed at location shown on: Pump is installed with . single ground
!
- Equipment arrangement drawing x not double grounds. See observation
- Equipment list x WD-07-01.
e Pump is grounded in accordance with x
! grounding drawing j
- Electrical erection specification (4.6.2) x i
l' Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
As-Built A, . .
Assessment i
Ztu rd Checklist i llllllllllllll1lllllllllllllll ELECTRICAL MALKDOM
- ccviewer (s) John P. Bonner Checklist No. WD-07 p.g. 4 og 6 Review Date 7/19-21/83
- Satisfactory
- Item Yes No Comments i
- f. Control and alarm cables are terminated in x Cable E9014537 does not agree with
, accordance with wiring diagrams drawing due to cable termination worn j in progress
] g. Instrument cable numbers are in accordance with:
! e Cable schedule x j
- Wiring drawings x ,
- h. Instrument cable constructions agrees with Could not be verified due to
- Cable Schedule installation of cables in conduit.
j e Number of conductors x e Conductor size x
! e Jacket and insulation N/A j e Voltage rating N/A
- i. Instrument cables are terminated in N/A Cables associated with JB-1A1730'not
( accordance with wiring diagrams installed. To be installed later.
j 4. Raceway Installation Review
- a. Conduit associated with pump circuit Conduit C-02011928 installation l
3 cables are installed in accordance with: revised per DCA-10,480.
- Conduit plans and details x l
- Conduit support and drawing x i
l 1
l I
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
- Independent Assessn'ent Program; 83090 1 , ,
O O O Design Control Process j M '
- Assessment Checklist l
P. Toner /M. Mai re/D. Smedley O/ "~
DC-01-01
"* l' 8
Organintion/ Activities Reviewed Review Dates 7/11/83 - 7/18/83, 7/25/83 TUSI Design Control General
! PersonnelContacted J. Finneran, J.R. Van, P. Chang, B. Hill, K. Williams, P. Patel, R. Baker, G. Mcpheeters, M. Strange, C. Moehlman, L. Popplewell, G. Creamer, A. Vega, D. Walsh IIIm No. Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments
- 1. Where design change interfaces CP-EP-4.0 Materials reviewed for this and exist, have the following been- 53.2.2 all remaining checklists DC-01-03
- prepared? through DC-01-08 are attached.
i a. Identification of X Key personnel or organizations i Titles and responsi- in procedures
! bilities of key per-
- sonnel .
{ b. Establishment of lines X Procedurai coverage of communication and (EP, El procedures) controls.
f c. Control and distribu- X Procedural j tion of documentation.
i
- 2. Have design change inputs been CP-EP-4.0 X Design changes were reviewed. Note
{ identified, documented, reviewed 13.3 design changes were not generally j and approved on a timely basis? incorporated (e.g. structural, 2
architectual) in a timely manner
{ into drawings & specifications.
! 3. Are incoming documents received by CP-EI-4.0-1 X Reviewed a sample of incoming i PSE devices verified and receipt 13.1.1 documents. In each case, the acknowledged? procedure was followed.
i j Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
- Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I
i
C) 0 0 Design Control Process
- Assessment Checklist.(cont.)
DC-01-01 checkilst No. Page 2 of 8 Item No. neview Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments
- 4. Has an engineering cormnittee been CP-EI-4.0-1 X The committee was composed of-a
- appointed by PSE for the review of 13.2.1 Head, both Chief Engineers, 4 Lead I in-house engineering data? Designers, QA representative plus 2 others depending upon discipline.
- 5. Do PSE design package files CP-EI-4.0-1 X consist of
- 13.2.3 Item e (Drawings) maintained in
, a. Cover sheet? DHE-3 all active packages only.
{ b. Design verification sheet? DHE-6 1 c. Finished sketches? DHE-4 4
- d. Calculation sheets? DHE-5
- e. Check copies of drawings?
- f. Computer input / output sheets
! (if applicable)?
i g. Final drawing (s)?
! h. Other documents, as applicable?
l 6. Has the engineer initialled and CP-EI-4.0-1 X For those calculations reviewed dated the cover sheet and each 13.2.6 in support of design changes, the
- calculation sheet? '
engineers intials were included j as required.
- 7. Has the PSE design verifier: CP-EI-4.0-1 X Per procedure for those verified.
i
- a. Initialled sketches (DHE-4)? 13.2.6 i b. Initialled each ca'..ilation I
sheet (DHE-5)?
j c. Signed and dated the design j
verification sheet (DHE-6)?
! d. Initialled and dated the cover i sheet (DHE-3)?
i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
l Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Design Control Process M
- Assessment Checklist (cont.)
l DC-01-01 Checklist No. Page 3 of g item No. Review Attributes Reference Document SAT NA UNSAT Comments l 8. Has the PSE drafter initialled CP-EI-4.0-1 X Per procedure for those verified.
) the finished drawing and dated 13.4.2
! and initialled the cover sheet (DHE-3)?
l
! 9 Has the PSE drafting checker CP-EI-4.0-1 X Per procedure for those verified.
, high-lighted the drawings, 13.4.3 1 indicating corrections in red j and initialled and dated the i check copy?
! 10. Has the PSE drafting checker CP-EI-4.0-1 X 1. Per procedure for those
- initialled each final drawing 13.4.5 applicable drawings reviewed.
i and intialled and dated the 2. See Attachment 1 for a list i cover sheet (DHE-3)? of drawings reviewed.
I j 11. Has the PSE design verifier CP-EI-4.0-1 X 1. Per procedure for those i signified final completion 13.5.1 and applicable drawings reviewed.
I (including final drawings) by: Figure 1 2. See Attachment 1 for a list
} a. Printing name, signing and of drawings reviewed.
j dating design verification?
- b. Initialling and dating cover sheet (DHE-6)?
- c. Initialling each check copy?
- 12. Has the lead PSE engineer CP-EI-4.0-1 X 1. Per procedure for those
] initialled and dated each final 13.6 applicable drawings reviewed.
I drawing and the cov.er sheet 2. See Attachment 1 for a list j (DHE-3)? of drawings reviewed.
i i
j Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
- Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i
O x> o v
o V
(M sessammmm.
Design Control Process Assessment Checklist (cont.)- -
DC-01-01 Check 5st No. Page 4 of g hem No. Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments
- 13. Is a card index naintained of CP-EI-4.0-3 X Either cards or sheets
! all drawings received from G&H 13.2.3 mai ntained.
l by the Field Design Group which
- indicates the drawing number,
- current revision number, the i transmittal letter which forwarded the drawing, and the date the drawing was received?
- 14. Does FSEG document, in writing, CP-EI-4.0-4 X 1. CMC used for a specific one i any changes in criteria or new 12.4.2 time change, criteria to CPECM? 2. DCA used for a Generic /New Item i 15. Does the FSEG supervisor main- CP-EI-4.0-4 X A list exists and is maintained j tain a list of persons qualified 12.5.1 by the FSFG supervisor.
! and authorized to check, approve j and design review documents?
i l 16 Are FSEG design change documents CP-EI-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
j initialled by the draftsman or 13.5
- preparer?
! 17. Has the FSEG engineer performing CP-El-4.0-4 X Review of CMC /DCA disclosed that
! review and/or design calculations 13.6 he initials each calculation and
} initialled each document? performs the design review.
18 Are FSEG documents approved, CP-EI-4.0-4 X FSEG approves changes and drawings in initialling, by an 13.7 only; calculations are reviewed and authorized approver? checked by G&H/NY.
)
i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Ind: pendent Assessment Program; 83090
O O -
C)
. Design Control Process M Actsessment Checklist (cont.)
DC-01-01 Checklist No. Page 5 8 Item No. Rewsw Attributes Reference Document NA SAT UNsAT Comments i
i 19 Are all FSEG controlled drawings CP-EI-4.0-4 X Per procedure as noted in stamped and given a control 13.8 and Document Control Center # 65 number? Figure 6 20 Is a log maintained indicating CP-EI-4.0-4 X 1. Per procedure for sample j the controlled distribution, 13.8 and reviewed.
l the number of copies issued, Figure 1 2. 50 copies are generally issued issue dates of revisions and to craft, 20 to QC and copies j receipt acknowledgement date? to DCC 18 and G&H/NY.
- 21. Are FSEG documents issued by CP-EI-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
j transmittal form? 13.9 and Figure 2
, 22. Has each FSEG design change CP-EI-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
l document been reviewed? 13.11.1 l
j 23. Is a design review log main- CP-EI-4.0-4 X 1. Design Reviews by G8H.
1 tained that indicates document 13.11.2 2. The log states "G&H".
l l
and revision number, design review responsibility, design review date and design reviewer?
l 24. For off-site design review, has CP-EI-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
! FSEG informed the review organi- 13.11.3 i zation in writing and has the
{ review organization formally j acknowledged review completion?
r Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
l Ind:rendent Assessment Program; 83090 1
O O O i Design Control Process l
Assessment Checklist (cont.) :
DC-01-01 Checklist No. Page 6 of 8 l
1 item No. Howew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments
- 25. Does FSEG maintain a log for each CP-EI-4.0-4 X 2323-S-910 series _ drawings /
drawing that shows any deviations 13.12.4 and design changes were not
- for that drawing? Figure 4 reviewed. See Item #11 of check-j list DC-01-02 and attachment #7 i of DC-01-01 for drawings / design j changes reviewed.
1 26 Does the FSEG file custodian CP-EI-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
,i acknowledge DCA/CMCs by 13.12.5 and j initialling and dating the Figure 5
- deviation distribution sheet?
l 27. Do FSEG controlled copy holders CP-EI-4.0-4 X Reviewed Audit file for FSEG audits l audit their design change logs 13.13.1, 3.13.2 performed.
i bi-annually by coming to FSEG and 3.13.3 l for a log comparison followed by
- an audit of their files vs. the l log? Are these audits confirmed
- in writing?
l 28. Does IEG maintain a log for each CP-EI-4.0-6 X Log indicated applicable CMCs j drawing indicating the applicable 12.5 i CMC's and review status?
. 29. Are I&C FSIs modified by CMCs or CP-EI-4.0-6 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
! drawing revisions and approved by 13.1.4 l designated persons?
l 1
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Ind2 pendent Assessment Program; 83090
O O O Design Control Process L '*
N Assessment Checklist (cont.)
j DC-01-01 CWW Nof % W g 7
Hem No. Review Attribules Reference Document NA SAT UNsAT Comments i
! 30. Does IEG forward design changes CP-EI-4.0-6 X No changes identified as
, to PSDG for engineering 13.1.4 applicable to PSDG. .
. evaluation?
j 31. Are 2323-I-001 package drawings CP-EI-4.0-6 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
i modified by CMC or drawing revi- 13.2.4
) sions and does the CPPI&C engi-
! neer make a determination, if the
- modification is a design change? .
i j 32. Are 2323-I-001 modifications ap- CP-EI-4.0-6 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
i proved by designated personnel 13.2.4
- and, if design changes, ' forwarded l to PSDG for engineering j evaluation?
- 33. Are 2323-I-002 design changes: CP-EI-4.0-6 These are exceptions to designs and will not be incorporated.
{ a. modified by CMC or drawing X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
i revision?
l b. approved by CPPI&C :..gineer? X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
- c. transmitted to EDS for X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
) design review?
s j 34 Are design change documents CP-EI-4.0-22 X A card file is established per the
( from vendors to TSMD logged in? 13.1 procedure and includes drawing #,
j revision #, date received, date 1 released, i.etter Transmittal #.
i 35 Are BRPs initialled by the CP-EI-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
drafter and reviewer? 13.2.1 i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
l Indgendent Assessment Program; 83090 l
4
o O~ u Oo Design Control Process
- Assessment Checklist (cont.)
i DC-01-01 checkelet No. Page 8 (W g item No. Rowew Altribules Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA
, Comments
- 36. Is a log maintained indicating CP-EI-4.0-22 X Discrepancies noted between log and
- all outstanding design changes 13.3 design change status at DCC.TSMD
! against BRPs? group was aware of condition and
- was correcting log status at time 2
of review.
- 37. Are all documents which have been CP-EI-4.0-22 X Per procedure noted on two BRPs incorporated into BRPs referenced? 13.3 in production.
- 33 Are changes to drawings " clouded" CP-EI-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
!- with the new revision number 13.3
) indicated in a small triangle?
j Are all previous " clouds" and j revision numbers removed?
j 39. Has the checker initialled all CP-EI-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
- drawings? 13.3 j
1 40. Are "as-built" BRPs initialled CP-EI-4.0-22 X None observed l by both the drafting approver 13.4
) and the TSAB coordinator?
- 41. Have BRHs prepared from FMHSs CP-EI-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
and VCDIs had the Brown & Root 13.5.1 and f logo and revision block added, Attachment A annotated with "blueline" and 1
been initialled by the drafter, j checker and approver?
- 42. Have "bluelines" been initialled CP-EI-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed,
. by engineering? 13.5.1 and either signed or initialed.
Attachment A Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Ind: pendent Assessment Program; 83090 l
1 _
O O .
O
. Design Control Process 2
%t i Assessment Checklist 1
l Rehww(s) Toner CWHet No. "'* #
.- DC-01-02 1 5 l
tw ( .
Organizanon/Achwbes Rmwed Rmw Dates 7/ll g l2/g3 CPSES Site Document Control j mn oneiconiacted F. Strand, R. Smith, P. Parker, S. Brown, i
K. Norman, D. Hatley, D. Bleeker, H. Hutchinson i
Item No. Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUENTS See Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for a list of documents reviewed.
j 1. Are controlled document Brown & Root X The DRCL is on computer output.
- recipients identified by DCP-3 See sample format in Attachment 6 i their respective control 13.1.1.1 to Checklist DC-01-01. '
numbers on the Distribution Routing Control List (DRCL)?
- 2. Does the Document Disposition DCP-3 X Per procedure but also includes l Form list recipient control 13.1.1.1 the signature of recipient.
3 numbers, document number, and Attachment 2 j the quantities distributed?
i j 3. Are all design changes distri- DCP-3 X Refer to Attachment 7 in Checklist 2
buted to holders of affected 13.1.1.1 DC-01-01 for Design Change controlled documents? distribution.
! 4. Are issuance and receipt of desigr DCP-3 X The initials of the recipient l changes documented on the Document 13.1.1.1 appear on the form.
I Distribution tog by signature or Attachment 5 l initial of the file custodian?
i l
I Texas Utilities Se. vices, Inc. '
Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l
o J ( ,J V Design Control Process
,,,,,,,,,,, Assessment Checklist J. P. Toner, D. Smedley ./)/dy checklist No. DC-01-03 Page 1 of 7
, M. Maire O'9**28" "'^*"*es Hewewed Rowew Dates l 7/12, 7/13, 7/18/83 TUSI Drawing Update Activities i Personnel Contacted j
i M. Strange, S. Ellis, R. Williams Item No. Remew Attributes Reference Document l SAT UNSAT NA Comments i
i See Attachments to checklist
{ DC-01-01 for a list of documents
\
reviewed.
- 1. Has the nuclear engineering CP-EP-4.9 X Each individual engineering 1
manager established, documented 12.3 department is responsible for and implemented a program for review and approval of design changes.
1 the revieve ar.d approval of l design changes?
- 2. Has the DCTG incorporated field CP-EP-4.9 j design changes into design 13.1 l drawings in accordance with the j following criteria?
l i a. The G&H DCA/ CMC checklist X Per procedure for sample reviewed. 1 i (Ref.1-C) specifies '
t incorporation or, l
- b. DESIGN CHANGE AUTHORIZATIONS X Per procedure for sample reviewed.
j (DCA's) state the change However, each DCA is further i "will be incorporated in reviewed for incorporation and the design documents," or, initial determination can change.
l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. .
j Independent Assessment Program; 83090
O -
O' ; O Design Control Process
- h
] '
Assessment Checklist i Revieweds) 6 i W, e g l
W*
J //
fM* CheckNot No. Page of
.P. Toner /R. Maire ' N -
DC-01-04 1 9
- OrgamzatiorvActmtses Revewed '
Rowew Dates 7/11/83 - 7/18/83 l TUS! Field Design Change Control
! PersormelContacted i F. Strand, R. Hooten, G. Creamer, M. Stange, P. Patel ,
- R. Baker, C. Moehlman, L. Pop)lewell, J. Finneran tiem No. Renew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments I .- Refer to Attachments to Checklist
. DC-01-01 for documents reviewed.
GENERAL .
- 1. Have all design changes /devia- CP-EP-4.6 X Currently only DCA's or CMC's tions to specified design / con- 12.5 are generated for design changes, j struction requirements been docu- Prior to current procedure
! mented by a Design Change Author- requirements, design changes j ization (DCA) or a Component Mod- were also issued as DE/CD or
! ification Card (CMC)? DC/DDAs. See Attachment 5 to i, Checklist DC-01-01.
DESIGN CHANGE AUTHORIZATION l Has the DCA form been completed CP-EP-4.6 2.
as follows: Attachment 1 &
Figure 1 3 a) DCA Number - assigned by X Per procedure for sample
! Administrative Services revised. See Attachment 3 i Office when DCA is ready to Checklist DC-01-01.
for signature.
j Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
J Independent Assessment Program; 83090
O O O Design Control Process 4L '
- Assessment Checklist mmmmmmmmum ReviewMs) . 9 Checklist No. Page of
.P -
DC-01-05 1 6 Organization /Actanties Renewed Rewsw Dates TUSI Design Control General 7/11/83 - 7/13/83 Personnel Contacted M. Strange S. Ellis item No. Renew Attributes Reference Document SAT l UNSAT NA Comments Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for documents reviewed.
- 1. Have adequate TSG instructions CP-EP-4.4 X 1. TSG is now TNE; therefore, been prepared to supplement the 12.4 procedure requires revision.
TSG Design Control procedure? 2. See CP-EP-4.9 and Checklists DC-01-03 & DC-01-07.
designers acting for other 12.4 individuals?
- 3. Have personnel involved in the CP-EP-4.5 X Personnel training records were design change control program 12.5 not reviewed. However, personnel been trained and indoctrinated interviewed indicated knowledge in accordance with CP-EP-2.0 of procedural requirements.
and the records attesting to their proficiency being control-led by TSG? i t
I i
l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
j Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i
i
O O O Design Control Process
,M Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) h ' .i Checklist No. Page of J. P. Tonets s Ud M DC-01-06 1 4 M. Maire hi '
~
i o<ganention/Actn,ites neviewed new.w ostes j
7/12/83 - 7/15/83 TUSI Design Verification (Design Changes) l Personnet Cor tacted l C. Moehlman, L. Popplewell , R. Baker, K. Hooten, j G. Creamer, P. Patel, J. Finneran Item No. newew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i
l See Attachments to Checklist
! DC-01-01 for a list of documents j reviewed.
i i
- 1. Has Design Change Verification CP-EP-4.5 X 1. Pipe support & I&E perform
- been done in accordance with 13.1 verification; G8H performs the l instructions that outline the balance.
l requirements and/or the methods 2. See DC-02 Series Checklists for to be used? G8H reviews.
- 2. Has Design Cha~nge Verification CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, j been performed by someone other 13.1 i than the one who performed the i original calculation?
- 3. Has Design Change Verification CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure where applicable, included an evaluation of the 13.1 i effects of the change (s) on the .
overall design?
- 4. When applicable, has the Design CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure for sample re' viewed.
- Change verification been verified 13.1 by the original designer?
! Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
I Independent Assessment Program; 83090
O O O Design Control Process 4L h 2 Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Checklist No. of J. P. Tonerg \ d <\v.; 'N DC-01-07 Page l' 3 i M. Maire Q.
org.n.ation/Acimi.e neviewed neview osie' 7/12 - 13/83, TUSI Field Design Change Control - DCTG l
Personnel Contacted j M. Strange, C. Knight, S. Ellis i
j ltem No. Review Attnbutes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments
- Refer to Attachments to Checklist j DC-01-01 for documents reviewed.
i
{ 1. Have DCAs and CMCs been received CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed
- by DCTG from CPPE groups in the 13.1 but most are hand carried j specified manner?
l 2. Has DCTG obtained the pertinent CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for drawings
] supporting documents? 13.1 reviewed j 3 Have conduit support field CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for design changes been transmitted 13.2(c) "S-910 Series" documents directly to G8H/NY by FSEG with
- a copy of the transmittal letter j being sent to DCTG7 4 Have all other types of design CP-EP-4.7 X Cable / Pipe support ~ for info only changes been sent to DCTG for 13.2(Al disposition as appropriate? (B)(D)[E)(F) i I
l l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
! Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i
I .
O O .
O Design' Control Process 4.L i2 -
Assessment Checklist
~
"' * * # *I i cwet k " #
d.P. Toner, S. Bibo, M. ire DC-01-08 1 7
\Is bw a MM l \
- O'9*'" rata n/Actinhn rem Rewew Dates 7/ll/g3 ,7/7g/g3 TUSI Interface Control
- 's nnes contacw M. Strange, R. Kissinger, G. Creamer, A. Vega, C. Moehlman, R. Hooten, P. Patel, G. Purdy, J. Finneran, L. Popplewell, R. Williams, D. Walsh item No. Rewew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for documents reviewed, i 1. When an interface has been CP-EP-4.0 X Refer to Checklist DC-01-01,
) identified, have the following 13.2.2 Item No. 1
- been established and approved
i i a. Titles and responsibilities l of key personnel?
5 b. Lines of communication and 4
controls?
- c. Control and distribution of documentation?
! 2. Have persons installing expan. CP-EP-4.3 X Approval by EESV (Engineering
! sion anchors not meeting the min- 13.2.2 Evaluation of Separation i imum separation requirements Attachment 6 Variance), on a risk basis.
1 obtained angineering approval prior to installation and is that approval on the proper form?
l i
I l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
! Independent Assessa.nt Program; 83090 l
l _ _ ,,. _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
TJ O"
- O
.. Design' Control Process I dLn> ,
Assessment Checklist i N55555NBd5N555 ,
i i
ne*.ede)
- 5. L. Ribo M '
c m m.DC-02-01 %1 3 S. C. Q o searmon/Acb=*es Re=e-ag Rom hees 7f}g,7fggfg3 l Design Change - G8H Headquarters j P**=' con +=c'"' C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G8H Project QA Engineer l
f Hem No Rowow Atinbuses Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments DESIGN CHANGES l 1. Are changes or deviations that G8H Proceoure X See Attachment I to this j are made to a G8H design document PC - 9 Checklist. 't i after the document has been issued 12.2 and i for fabrication or construction, Appendix PC-9-1 documented on a Design / Engineer-ing Change / Deviation (DE/CD) form?
- 2. Has the originating discipline PC-9 X See Attachment 1 Job i;agineer reviewed the change / 12.3 devia tion for 10CFR21 applicabi- <
Ilty and checked the appropriate block on the DE/CD form? ,
I
- 3. Have all appropriate interdisci- PC-9 X See Attachment 1 p11ne approvals ber, obtained on 12.4 the DE/CD form? -
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
O O 9 Design Control Process 4L i fa Assessment Checklist NNMMMMMENNNN l
"* * " d *3 "
S. L Bibo DC-02-02 1 5 S. C. Whit % _ ,
Organirst6cn/Actmtses Reviewed Review Dates Processing of Design Changes (DCAs and CMCs)
I PersonnelContacted
! C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G&H Project QA Engineer item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL
- 1. Are copies of CMC's/DCA's forward- G8H Project Guide X Based on review of Project ed from the CPSES site to G8H New (PG)-24 Coordinator Files 1 York? TC.1 i
- 2. Has the Project Coordinator (PC) PG-24 X Based on Review of:
l for CMC's/DCA's logged the re- 1C.2 1. CMC Affected Document Report l ceived date for each document (CPR 501) dated 7/16/83 i on a form or entered it directli 2. DCA Affected Document Report i into the log by CRT, and (CPR 501) dated 7/12/83 l indicated the distribution?
i
- 3. Has the PC identifled the re- PG-24 X See Attachment I for ceived date and the CMC /DCA num- 1C.3 Review of Actual Checklists ber on the " Change vertification i Checklist for CMC's and DCA's" j form (Attachment B) and attached this form to each DCA/ CMC for l distribution to the Lead Discipline Engineer?
I i
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
l Independent Assessment Program; 83090
4 O (D Design Control Process Wh' b Assessment Checklist IMNMNMNMMNNNN 1
S. L. Bibo A@
ne* weds) CheckNet No. Page of DC-C2-03 1 3 S. C. Wh1te a e... m ,
, Orgerwastion/Actenties Renewed Revow Dates
! 7/18-7/22/83 G8H - Design Change Control - Specifications i Persormt Contacted
! C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G&H Project GA Engineer item No Renew Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i
I GENERAL i
- 1. Are revisions / changes to specif1- DC-5 X 1. The following specifications were cations processed in the same man- 16.1 reviewed: MS13 MS29A, M551, ner as the original specification MS-64
- 2. All revisions and addenda were
! checked. Refer to Attachment 1
) of this Checklist for details of the review.
1 j 2. Are subsequent issues of speciff- DC-5 X cations reviewed and approved 16.2 by supporting discipijnes when the new issue has revisions l affecting their areas of l responsibility?
I l 3. Are the specification revision DC-5 X I number and date conspicuously ,
16.4 identified on the cover sheet directly below the original 4 issue date?
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
j Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i .
1 O O '
. Design Control Process SC*
lugummusuunnus Assessment Checklist S. L. Bibo . DC-02-04 1 7 S. C. Whitettaa gem o en. .wAct es Re e.co n ostes 7/18-7/22/83 G8H Design Change Control - Calculatio.is C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer
- 8. Czarnogorski: G8H Project 04 Engineer item No Re.ww Attributes Reference oocument SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL
- 1. Does the Job Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed the following Cales:
a flie and index of calculations 13.1 Calc 235 Series:
in his discipline 7 235-1-Spent Fuel Pool Pressure drop
- 235-3-Spent Fuel Pool Skinener 235-4-Cask Pit & Transfer Canal pump drc
- 2. Are calculations which are clas- DC-7 X Calc 235-1, Rev. 1, 2, 3 sified as " Nuclear Safety Related' 12.2 or "Non Nuclear Safety Related-0A Program Applicable" design re-viewed? -
PREPARATION
- 3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Calc 235-1, 235-3, and 235-4 G8H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 standard calc sheets (Appendix DC-7-!!) in a neat and orderly manner so that assumptions, methods, and results can be readily checked?
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
n m Y U V
. Design Control Process d L% > Assessment Checklist nummmmmmma -
W s) Checkast No. P.ge of S. L. Bibo M DC-02-05 1 2
- 5. C. nih1teMya oro.ns.eio waci iies w eo R.vi D.ies 7/18-7/22/83 DC-3, Rev. 5, " Drawing Production Procedure" evesonnes cone.cied C. Chapman: G4H Project Engineer ,
R. Czarnogorsk*: G8H Project Q4 Engineer tiene No l Re.iew Att obuses Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments
- 1. Is there evidence that all
" nuclear safety related" drawings and changes thereto exhibit / display:
- a. Evidence of the drawing being DC-3 X See Attachment I to this Checklist
" checked" for: completeness, 14.1 for a 11st of drawings.
accuracy, correctness, adher-ence to design documents, correctness / adequacy of lay-out, and OSHA Requirements?
- b. Evidence of approval by the DC-3 X See Attachment 1.
squad leader of the origin- 15.1 ating discipline?
- c. Evidence of a design review DC-3 X See Attachment 1.
in accordance with DC-8 15.3 (design review procedure)?
- d. The lead discipline job DC-3 X See Attachment 1.
Engineer / Supervising Engineer 15.4 approval for: conformity with established design concepts, satisfactory checking, adher-ence to SAR requirements, and adherence to codes and standards?-
Texas Utilities Services. Inc.
Independent Assessment Program: 83090
C (3 Design Control Process 4L n i Assessment Checklist muuuuuuuuuuus S. L. Bibo Q n.* de) ch chant No. Page
~
of DC-02-06 1 3 S. C. uhiten n m. u w Orgeruzehen/Actruees L,--0 Recew Dates 7/18-7/22/83 DC-8. Rev G. " Design Review Procedure - Calculations. Drawings, Specifications" n w. ;:ce cieo C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G8H Projcct QA Engineer nem No Rewew Anasbutes Deference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments
- 1. Is there eviderce that design DC-8 X Reviewed List Maintained by P. M.:
reviews are performed by quall- 12.2 Design Document ffed personnel and are such Reviewed Di Jsc Reviewed personnel identified on a list Sche 11er Elec Dwg El-0005 of designated design reviewers Renko Elec Dwg El-0020 maintained by the Project Giannu zi Mech Specs Manager? Horovitz Mech Specs Morris Mech Specs Totten Mech Calcs
- 2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Based on not signing documents as reviewers are independent in 12.3 preparer / checker & based on review that they have had no input into of P. M. list and discussions with the design they are tasked with P. M., P. E. and Lead Discipline reviewing? Engineers 3 Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X Seperate checklists for each utt11 ring a checklist applicable 13.1 discipline (i.e. Mech, Struct, to each discipline and do the Elec. etc.) are used. In addition, checklists establish the items within each discipline, there are to be addressed by the reviewer sp=cific checklists for each type of and identify the source document (i.e. Specs Cales, Dwgs) d e.ocumants?
Texas Utilities Services. Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
$ 0 D
Design Control Process
.N. '
- Assessment Checklist Revieweds) CheckNet No. Page of S. L. Bibo -
DC-02-07 1 3 S. C. White-ada n.-sceu '
Organization /Activit6es neviewed Review Dates 7/18-7/26/83
- G8H Interface Control (G8H Project Guides.Section V)
Personnel Contacted
. M. Strange (SITE), C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer l B. Czarnocorski: G&H Prolect GA Engineer itim No Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i
, 1. Are changes in disciplines' Q- Sect. 4.a X Amendment 38 to FSAR Section 17A Lists submitted to the mechanical- Page V-3 was signed off by all disciplines l nuclear job engineer for incor- including Mechanical Job poration into the project 0-List? Engineer i 2. Does G8H send drawings to TUSI for Sect. 4.b.(3) X Per PC-2, Rev. 2, TUSI Approval of
- approval and, at the same time, Page V-3a dwgs is no longer required and aperture cards to DCC7 cards no longer sent (Refer to Client letter TSG-1759 (12/30/82) j 3. Does G8H maintain an up to date Sect. 4.b.(6) X See Attachment I to this Checklist listing of CPSES Nonconformance Page V-3a approval delegation?
- 4 Are records of nonconformance ap- Sect. 4.b.(6) X Via Distribution of j proval by CPSES forwarded TO G8H7 Page V-3b DCA/ CMC /DECD's
- 5 Are disapproved documents return- Sect. 4.b.(8) X See Attachment 2 to this Checklist ed by CPP Engineer to G8H/NY on a Page V-3b Status 2 document form?
4
< Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
l 4 'h Design Control Process 4L nummme==
Assessment Checklist C*** * ( *) cMNet Na * # '
- S. Bibo < DC-02-08 1 7 J. Toner h e '
org.ninison/Acimises nevieweV neview o.ies 9/12/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill /An'alysis Control - Processing of Calculations (Electrical)
P. Lalaji S. Matirovich B. Czarnogorski liem No noview Altributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL
- 1. Does the Joh Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed calculation index for a file and index of calculations 13.1 electrical calculations filed in
- in his discipline? the G8H Job Book.
i
- 2. Are calculations which are DC-7 X Calculation IV-1 "6.9 KV Bus classified as " Nuclear Safety 12.2 Voltage Study" and Calculation Related" or "Non-Nuclear Safety VII-1 " Cable Sizing Calculation"
! Related-QA Program Applicable" were both design reviewed.
destgre reviewed?
l PREPARATION I
l
- 3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 2 for i G8H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 calculations reviewed.
standard calculation sheets *
(Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat
! and orderly manner so that assumptions, methods, and results can be readily checked?
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
jindependentAssessmentProgram;83090 l
1 O O I Design Control Process j
'h Assessment Checklist
"""I*I Page of S. Bibo g ~
CheckIlst No. DC-02-09 g 2 J.Tonerg orgenint'on/Actenties nev'e M \ noview osies 9/12/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Design Review of Calculations (Electrical)
Personnel Contacted p g B. Czarnogorski ll Item No Review Attributes Reference Docurnent SAT UNSAT NA Comments
! 1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Reviewed the 1/20/83 list of j reviews are performed by quali- 12.2 authorized design reviewers.
l fled personnel and are such Calculation IV-I and VII-I personnel identified on a list were design reviewed by of designated design reviewers B. Lusin who is on list of maintained by the Project design reviewers.
l Manager?
- 2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Review of Calculation IV-1 and
, reviewers are independent in 12.3 VII-I revealed that B. Lusin l that they have had no input into had no input.
the design they are tasked with reviewing?
l 3. Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X Calculations IV-I and VII-I l utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 documented design reviews on I to each discipline and do the checklist titled " Design Review l checklists establish the items Checklist - Electrical to be addressed by the reviewer Calculations."
and identify the source documents?
l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
Y 4 'C'
. . Design Control Process 4L 'h Assessment Checklist mmimRNNNNmMNm
}Co*wa(s)
S. Bibo ,
DC-02-10
"*" 1 7
J. Toner ge
\
o<geniunon/Aci vii.es nevie M neview osies Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Processing of Calculations (Mechanical)
- H. Mantel C. Chapman
, W. Cristall B. Czarnogorski item No neview Altnbtiles neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i
i GENERAL
- 1. Does the Job Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed the piping calcu-
- a file and index of calculations 13.1 lation index "CPSES As-built I in his discipline? Piping Analysis Tracking Report" dated 6/28/83 and the mechanical calculation index dated 7/6/83.
- 2. Are calculations which are DC-7 X Reviewed calculations AB-1-69 classified as " Nuclear Safety 12.2 "RHR/ Safety Injection System" and
- Related" or "Non-Nuclear Safety AB-1-70 "RHR System" l Related-QA Program Applicable" design reviewed?
I
- PREPARATION
- 3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Reviewed Calculations AB-1-69
! G8H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 and AB-1-70.
l standard calculation sheets (Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat and orderly manner so that
- assumptions, nethods, and results can be readily checked?
l 9
s Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
$ $ ()
Design Control Process
- 4. .L^^ Assessment Checklist
==
- R;viewerk)
S. Bibo #8'N* DC-02-11 Page g ' of g J. Toner l o'9anintion/ Activities RevieweY Reh Dates 9/10/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Design Review of Calculations (Mechanical)
! P*'s nnes coni ctw H. Mantel B. Czarnogorski i C. Cha9 man item No Review Attnbutes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments I
- 1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Reviewed the 8/3/82 list of reviews are performed by quali- 12.2 authorized design reviewers.
fled personnel and are such Calculation AB-1-69 was design
- personnel identified on a list reviewed by P. Zarney and l of designated design reviewers Calculation AB-1-70 was design
- maintained by the Project reviewed by H.Y. Chang.
d Manager? Both individuals were on the list.
! 2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Review of Calculation AB-1-69 reviewers are independent in 12.3 revealed that P. Zarney had no that they have had no input into input. For Calculation AB-1-70 i the design they are tasked with H.Y. Chang had no input.
i reviewing?
l 3. Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X Design review for calculation l utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 were l
to each discfpline and do the documented on checklists
! checklists establish the items entitled " Design Review i to be addressed by the reviewer Checklist - Calculation and l and identify the source Analysis - Applied Mechanics."
documents?
I l
, Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
i 4 h
.- Design Control Process Mg Assessment Checklist
- "# CheckNet No. Page of S. Bib
- 0C-02-12 g g J. Tonerd (
- organerzi.on/Activii.es nevie=eP nev6ew o ies 9/12/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Processing of Calculations (Structural)
Ars nnes contate P. Huang B. Czarnogorski
! C. Chapman l item No. Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments I
GENERAL
- 1. Does the Job Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed the structural master a file and index of calculations 13.1 calculation index for cable i
in his discipline? tray and conduit supports.
j
- 2. Are calculations which are DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C sets I classified as " Nuclear Safety 12.2 and 3 and SCS-104C, sets 1, 4 i
Related" or "Non-Huclear Safety and 5 were design reviewed.
Related-QA Program Applicable" design reviewed?
i i
PREPARATION i
2
- 3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C sets 1 and G8H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 3 and SCS-104C sets 1, 4 and 5 e
standard calculation sheets were reviewed.
(Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat i and orderly manner so that i assumptions, methods, and
] results can be readily checked?
!TexasutilitiesServices,Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
O- C ()
Design Control Process j M Assessment Checklist R;wlewer(s) d 3 g Checklist No. DC-02-13 " I 2 J. Toner m I
Organumbon/Actmtss neviewM neew Datn 9/12/83 thru 9/16/83-Gibbs 8 Hill / Analysis Control - Design Review of Calculations (Structural)
Nrsonnel conieciw Peter Huang B. Czarnogorski
, item No neview Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments l
l 1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X See Attachment 1 to this checklist.
- reviews are performed by quali- 12.2
. fled personnel and are such i personnel identified on a list of designated design reviewers i maintained by the Project Manager?
l 2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X See Attachment I to this checklist.
- reviewers are independent in 12.3 i that they have had no input into the design they are tasked with
) reviewing?
t
! 3. Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X All calculations reviewed j utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 (SCS-101C Sets 1 and 3 and
- to each discipline and do the SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 and 5) checklists establish the items were identified as being to be addressed by the reviewer design reviewed on structural i and identify the source checklists for calculation documents? review (form 722A dated 10/76). !
! Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
3 Independent Assessment Program; 83090
4 W .n V
n V
Design Control Process l hM U j NWWWHNWHWWIM Assessment Checklist
""E"I') "*9' i 5. Bibo. M
- Checklist No. DC-02-14 1 3
, J. Toner g ors:nictionrAcii iies nevieweY T neview osies 9/13/83 and 9/14/83 l Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Computer Usage P"' "nei conisciw
- B. Fried, M. Tipishana, 8.C. Zarnogorski Item No. neview Atinbuies neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments l 1. Has the Department Manager or EDP-10 Rev. 2 X The following programs were reviewed
! Chief Engineer approved the 13.c for approval:
- Form F-736 for the use of the Program Approver computer program? ADLPIPE/2C #5017 C. Corjan, 12/81 i ADLPIPE/1C #5017 C. Corban, 6/80 ANSYS, Rev. 3 (V67L) C. Corban. 1/82 CYLN0Z, Version 2 C. Corban, 3/82 l 2. Have all Class A program; been EDP-10 X The programs identified as follows verified? 13.d were verified.
Program Verification Date ADLPIPE/2C 12/18/81
- ADLPIPE/1C 12/18/81 i
ANSYS, Rev. 3 12/18/81
- CYLN0Z, Version 2 12/18/81 1
- 3. Have the programs been verifled EDP-10 X a) ADLPIPE/2C, Test Run Job #1262 i on the basis of one of the 14.0 was compared with the Verification following: Job #504 for the verification of e hand calculation? ADLPIPE/1C.
e benchmark to another pro- b) ADLPIPE/1C was verified against gram previously vartfled ADLPIPE/1B via the sample
.i or accepted by the NRC? problem 1-51D.
e standard test problems? c) ANSYS runs were compared with the Swanson Verification Manual.
Texas Utilities Services, Inc,
- Independent Assessment Program; 83090
4 0 Design Control Process 9
U Nh nummmmma Assessment Checklist R; viewer (s)
CheckNet No. Page of S. L. Bibo J g DC-03-01 1 6 Organization /Act6wties newewed Review Dates 7/27-7/29/83 Brown 3 Root Interface Control Personnel Contacted G. Purdy, D. Wade, C. Bennetzen, R. Tolson llim No newsw Attnbutes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments
- 1. Does the B&R site QA Manager QAM X review and approve owner 16.4.4 Reviewed procedure CP-SAP-6 Rev. g
" Control of work on station comm provided procedures and ponents after release from con-instructions which affect code struction to TUGC0" & CP-SAP-3, fabrication or installation Rev 12 " Custody tagging of station components."
- 2. Have NCRs dispositioned "Use X 1. NCR 2807 Rev. 0 & Rev. I as is" been approved by the reviewed, engineer 2. See Attachment I to this Checklist.
- 3. Has the Procurement and Sur- CP-QAP-8.3 X Per discussion with TUSI personnel veillance Group (PSG) Supervisor 12.1, 2.2 a review of surveillance procedurc established and executed a system system was determined to be out for accomplishment and documenta- of scope of Brown & Root project tion and source survelliances? responsibilities.
4 Have hold / surveillance points CP-0AP-8.3 X See Item 3 above.
been established during the 13.1.2 life of the P.O. or contract?
- 5. Has the PSG Supervisor determined CP-0AP .3 X See item 3 the extent of an established 13.1.3
- phr '- :;r : ' :pcct'cr.?
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
A l 4 v o(-.
i
.- _ Design Control Process
! gd4, Assessment Checklist i
R: viewer (s) Checklist No.
DC-03-02 " #
5
%P 1 1
Org:runtion/ Activities neviewed noview Dates Br:wn & Root Interface Control G. Purdy, D. Wade, C. Bennetzen, R. Tolson d
Ilim No neview Attnbutes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments
- 1. -
Has the Quality Engineering QAM X 88R has no responsibility for Group perfomed site initiated 13.2.6.1 Auditing / Surveying vendors pro-
) qualification surveys and viding design services. 88R's audits of vendors providing only interface with vendors is to i
design services? purchase bulk material.
- 2. Have DCA's and/or CMC's been QAM X Based on a review of discipline issued to the engineer when 14.3 engineer group files and DCC com-the design cannot be completed? puterized disposition lists. (Also NOTE: In general, DCA's reflect j changes to specs, CMC's to change documents used directly in l construction / fabrication.
3 Does the QE Group verify and QAM X Reviewed the following:
j document fabrication or 14.4 BRP-SF-X-054 Rev. 4 - CMC-91934 8 l installation design changes? CMC-81533 l 2323-MS-50, Rev. 1 - DCA-18058 2323-MS-51, Rev. 2 - DCA-18059 l- 2323-M-801, Rev. 4 8 BRP-CC-X-FB-001 Rev. 5, CMC-92150 2323-M-801, Rev. 4 8 BRP-CC-1-FB-002
- Rev. 9, CMC-94219 1
i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Independent Assessment Program; 83090
O 10 O Design Control Process i - b 'h Assessment Checklist
, 111111111111111111111111111111
- Rtviewer(s)
.P oner (Q< Page of-i Checklist No.DC-04-01 1 4 Orgrnizstion/Actmties Reviewed Review Dates l Supplier Design Change & Interface Control
{ Personntl Contacted A. Vega, J. Gore, L. Smaney, D. Anderson Ittm No. Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 1
Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for reviewed documents.
j 1. Does the procurement document de- P.O./Specificattor x -
- 1. Contained in specification i fine the scope of design involve- Contract 2. See Attachment 2 to Checklist i ment for the selected company? DC-01-01 for specifications
- reviewed.
i i 2. Does the procurement document de- P.O./ Specification x Contained in specification j fine applicable codes and stan- Contract j dards and the specific revision?
- 3. Do the codes / standards and the FSAR 17.1 App. x 1. ASME Revision OK for J. Oats associated revisions contained in lA(B) per FSAR.
- the procurement documents agree 2. P.O.'s reviewed
- CP-0046A,
! with committments of the FSAR? CP-0051, CP-0605, CP-00208.1,
! CP020C
}
l 4 Does the procurement document P.O./Speci fication x Reviewed P.O., specifications, and j
define interfaces? Contract correspondence.
i l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Indeperident Assessment Program; 83090
a u R.-
GENERAL NOTES TO PIPE STRESS CHECKLIST
- 1. Effect of Support Mass on Pipe Stress Results In reviewing problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70, Cygna found that Gibbs and Hill did not include the mass of -
hardware attached to the pipe in the pipe stress analysis. This has not been noted as an observation since '
l the decision to include the support mass in the stress analysis varies according to design organization, policy and the judgment of the individual analyst. Some organizatons do include .it in Class 1 analysis but not in Class 2 and 3. Cygna is not aware of any criteria available .to the industry for the purpose of
- determining whether to include the support mass. In response to questions raised during the ASLB hearings, Cygna did rerun a portion of the RHR system between the pump ard heat exchanger. This study included the i
added mass of all pipe supported hardware. Cygna's results show that the effect on natural frequency and pipe stress is small. The effect.on support load is somewhat larger. However, this study did neglect the effects of the damping allowed for supports and of the true distribution of support mass. Based on this study, it remains Cygna's position that the effect 'of support mass on pipe stress results is not a significant factor.
l
- 2. Effect of Dual Supports on Piping and Support Results In reviewing the pipe stress analyses, Cygna noted supports 'ormed by welding two trunnions to the pipe and attaching a strut or snubber to the end of each trunnion. Inis arrangement can introduce some additional rotational restraint in the piping system, if one neglects the effect of any gaps in the support hardware.
In the analysis, Gibbs and Hill had not modeled any rotational restraint at these points. Cygna does not l believe this is incorrect and has seen both methods employed in the industry. . One method is not necessarily i
more appropriate or conservative than the other. Each yields reasonable stress results. Loads in the i remodeled support may increase; however, loads in other supports may decrease when the rotational restraint is added. Pipe , stresses may increase or decrease with rotational restraint. Cygna believes the Gibbs &
i Hill approach is reasonable.
l i
i x= = - ,. -
Texas Utilities Generating Company; 83090 Page 1 of 1
! 3 M [ fd Independent Assessment Program, Phase 2
- llllllllllllllllllll1lllll1111 1
O __
O O 1
. Independent Design
- [7..
- h (*R. eTd Review Checklist 1111111I11111111111 3 l11111111 PIPE STRESS i
i Reviewer M K. Mani JL p M Checkilat No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69 o.ge 9/23/83 l Satisfactory liesm Yes No Comments
- 1. System Boundaries
- a. Check that all required branch lines are included. X See attachment to this Checklist for i b. Check that the attachment point is justified as an X reference documents.
i anchor if system starts at a branch. attachment point.
Refer to Flow Diagrams and Criteria for Decoupling,
- Cygna Design Criteria DC-1, Section 4.3.3.
- 2. Piping Classification Check for consistency with Flow Diagrams and G8H X Piping Design Specification 2323-MS-200.
! 3 Design & Maximum Pressure 4 -
Check for consistency with G8H Design Specification X 2323-MS-200, Appendix 7.
t j 4. Thermal Loading j a. Maximum Temperature X Check for consistency with G8H Design Specification
! 2323-MS-200.
i b. Check if Operational Modes Considered X Three out of the seven thermal' modes j -
Refer to Appendix 8 in G8H Design Specification (numbers 3, 4, 7) were run. Since 2323-MS-200 other modes are enveloped by these l c. Check Equipment Nozzle Movements X three modes this is considered
{ -
Refer to equipment drawings and check any hand acceptable.
l calculationt l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 10
(D~ O u O J
M Independent Design
~
P=M M lillilllilllilllill!!!Illifill Review Checklist j PIPE STRESS l R viewer A. Klinger D A g, gh Checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: ABM-70 / o,,e9/23/83 j Satisfactory l Item Yes No Comments i 1. System Boundaries
- a. Check that all required branch lines are included. X 1. See references on the attachment to this
- b. Check that the attachment point is justified as an X Checklist.
- anchor if system starts at a branch attachment point. 2. Decoupling criteria satisfied, i - Refer to Flow Diagrams and Criteria for Decoupling, i Cygna Design Criteria DC-1, Section 4.3.3.
I i
i 2. Piping Classification
- - Check for consistency with Flow Diagrams and G8H X Piping Design Specification 2323-MS-200.
l 3. Design & Maximum Pressure Check for consistency with .G8H Design Specification X j 2323-MS-200, Appendix 7.
4 Thermal Loading
- a. Maximum Temperature X
! - Check for consistency with G&ll Design Specification i 2323-MS-200.
- b. Check Operational Modes Considered X See Note 1 on the Attachment to
! - Refer to Appendix 8 in G&ll Design Specification this checklist.
2323-MS-200 6
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 10 i
O O O E- .Z independent Design L4,LW Id ll11lll!I111llll11lllllllll111 Review Checklist l
FLUED EAD Reviewer J. Minichiello h ~76[ '
Checklist No. PI-03
[ nate 9/23/83 Satisfactory i Item Yes No Comments l
- 1. Geometry Input
- a. Check that computer geometry (wall thicknesses, X 1. Model is incorrect (see page 36) in
. lengths of transition pieces) agree with Fig. 74-1 inboard piping (a vs ) near i of 2323-MS-74 and the fabrication drawing. taper. This has no design impact on
- b. Check that material properties agree with those X- the head since all loads must go
- . from the Code of Record (1977 + S'77 addenda). through the region and it is
- c. Check that there is sufficient detail to insure X sufficiently removed from the head so the validity of the solution. the lower stiffness will have
- negligible effect. (El. 38-92)
- 2. See Observation PI-03-01.
l 2. Stress Analysis The pipe weight' load stress (1500 psi) 1 a. Are all piping loads considered (per Project Design X required by specification 2323-MS-74,
- Specification 2323-MS-74? 13.6.4.3, was not added to the flued
- b. Is primary containment pressure considered X head " slice" stresses. Since the maximum
! per Para. 3.6.4.3.a of Appendix "A" of the ratio to allowable is only 0.25, this i specification? has no impact.
j c. Are the pressure "end cap" loads considered? X i
i i
4 i
! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 2
~
O O O F"M Independent Design
[*hM'M Review Checklist-lilllllillllllllllllllllllllil
- ELECTRICAL (POWER) i Ravlower A. Moersfelder/J. Dady g g g _ ff g checklist No. EE-01
/ o.to 9/27/83.
S atisf actory 4
Item Yes No Comments i
I
- 1. Has electrical and physical separation been maintained The following Gibbs & Hill drawings
- between redundant Class IE buses in accordance with
- ' were reviewed:
1 2323-El-0600-01, Rev. 16 1
2323-El-0600-11, Rev. 3 j 2323-El-0600, Rev. 15 j 2323-El-0600-12, Rev. 2
! 2323-El-0603-01, Rev. 19
! 2323-El-0603-11, Rev. 3 1
2323-El-0718-01, Rev. 17 2323-El-0718-11, Rev. 3 2323-El-0718 Rev. 7 1 2323-El-1701, Rev. 10 i
j a. IEEE Standards? X j b. Gibbs & Hill Cable and Raceway Schedule, Document No. X 1. Note 11 references Criteria for j 2323-El-1700, Issue 301? Separation of Class IE Equipment
- and Circuits.
1 2. Note 21 invokes Specification j 2323-ES-100 to maintain separation i
of redundant cables. .
) c. Gibbs & Hill Criteria for Separation of Class 1E X References IEEE Stds. 279-1971,
{ Equipment and Circuits, Rev. O, dated 02/13/75? 308-1974, 384-1974 and 420-1973 and j USAEC Reg. Guide 1.75.
1 1
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 13
n v l
('a P; v -
EEMMJ Independent Design l'hl eit M litilllllllllillllllitilliliti Review. Checklist ELECTRICAL (POWERI 0 0 ' * *' Checklist No.
A. Moersfelder/J. Dadv EE-01 Date 9/27/83 S etlef actory item Yes No Commente
- 10. Specification cover sheet documented preparer, reviewer and
- approver procedure. '
4
- 11. Verified interdisciplinary review.
4
- b. Is the interrupting capability greater than the X 1. Reviewed the following documents:
- maximum 6.9 KV system three-phse fault? e Gibbs & Hill Protective '
l Relaying Calculation VIII-6, j Rev. 1.
- Appendix 1 entitled " Rating and Performance Requirements."
- e Gibbs & Hill Specification for
] 7.2 KV Switchgear and j Accessories, Document No.
- 2323-ES-5, Rev. 1.
l 2. Specification clearly identified as j Nuclear Safety Related.
! 3. Specification cover sheet l documented preparer, reviewer and j approver.
l 4. Evidence of interdisciplinary review.
- 5. See also Notes 5-11, above.
' Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program
! Sheet 11 of 13
O O O.
M MMM
. Independent Design
~
Illilllllllllllllllllillllllll Review Checklist FI FCTRICAL (INSTRlBENTS A CONTROL) l I' * *f A_ Mnpesfelder/J. Dadv Checklist No. EE-02
! ((g Date 9/27/83
[ Satisfactory item Yes No Commente j 1. Does the design of the control circuits comply with the following regulations, industry standards and project-l specific licensing requirements:
j a. Gibbs & Hill Instrumentation and Control Diagram X Although the drawing is not marked j 2323-M1-2263-06, Rev. 5? Nuclear Safety Related, it is classi-
- fied as Class 1.
! b. CPSES/FSAR, Section 77 X Design of the control circuit for valve
{ 1-8811B cc,mplies with FSAR Section 7.6.5.
e Automatically opens when (2/4) RWST
! level signals are lower than the
! Lo-Lo setpoint in conjunction with an "S" signal.
. Is interlocked such that it nust be i closed before valves 1-87018, 1-
) 8702B, and 1-88128 can be opened.
j Design of control circuits for va'ives i 1-8701B and 1-8702B comply with FSAR Section 7.6.2.1.
e Open circuits will not energize until RCS pressure is below approx-1 fmately 425 psig.
] e Close circuits will automatically j close when RCS pressure increases
! above approximately 425 psig.
! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 9
O O O Independent Design
[*hDH fd Review Checklist littliffittilllittimittimt i ELECTRICAL (INSTRUMENTS & CONTROL) i i
- Oc vi* *** A. Moersfelder/J. Dady Checklist No. EE-02 Date 9/27/83 Sallefactory item Yes No Commente l
! c. Gibbs & Hill Instrumentation and Control Diagram X 1. Drawing is not marked Nuclear l 2323-M1-2260-05, Rev. 4? Safety Related, but is noted as 1
Class 1.
l 2. Logic diagram for Loop Inlet Isola-tion Valve has no reference to Note
{ 4 which describes Alternate Power i Supply connections.
! 3. Loop A inlet / outlet isolation valve i logic does not agree with Loop B j after Alternate Shutdown capability l change.
l FSAR section 7.6 indicates that j inlet / outlet valve logic is identi-cal for both loops. This discrep-ancy is due to modifications re-l quired to meet fire protection
! regulations.
! d. Regulatory Guide 1.106 and BTP-ICSB18 X Thermal overload contacts for the motor operators on valves 1-88118, 1-8812B, j 1-8701 and 1-8702B are used to annunci-
- ate an overload condition for the valve j in the control room. They have not been included in the valve control cir-l cuits where they could possibly inhibit l the valve from moving to its desired position.
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 2 of 9
( Independent Assessment Program I
O _
O O P!SEPREW Independent Design
[*h1 W Id Review Checklist 1111881111111 a11lllll11111ll Fl FCTRICAL fINSTRUENTS & CONTROL)
D '* * *'
A. Moersfelder/J. Dadv Checkflet No. EE-02 Date 9/27/83
, 8stlefactory i
l Item Yss No Commente
] 2. Has physical separation been maintained between redundant X 1. Note 21 invokes Specification
! safety-related equipment. 2323-ES-100 to maintain separation j of redundant trains or channels.
- 2. The following Gibbs & Hill drawings were reviewed:
2323-El-0601-02, Rev. 14 l
I 2323-El-0601-11, Rev. 3 i
2323-El-0700-01, Rev. 9 2323-El-0700-12, Rev. 3 l 2323-El-0700-02, Rev. 18 jl 2323-El-0701-12, Rev. 4 2323-El-0701-10, Rev. 8 i 2323-El-0712-01, Rev. 24 2323-El-0712-12, Rev. 7 2323-El-0715-01, Rev. 11 l 2323-El-0712-02, Rev. 10 i
2323-El-0712-16, Rev. 5 2323-El-0712-03, Rev. 8 2323-El-0713-12, Rev. 4
! 2323-El-0713-01, Rev. 12 i
2323-El-0713-02, Rev. 19
{
2323-El-0708, Rev. 18
! 2323-El-0700-12, Rev. 3 2323-El-0601-01, Rev. 9 l
2323-El-0716, Rev. 17 j 2323-El-0716-01, Rev. 20 9 m _ri_n71s_i9 ,
oeu a l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
- independent Assessment Program Sneet 3 of 9
- O O O P Independent Design L4M'Id Review Checklist Il11111lll111111!!IllllllI11ll ELECTRICAL (INSTRUENTS & CONTROL) g = i. ., A. Moersfelder/J. Dady Checkilet No. d-W Date N 'I Sallefactory item Yes No Commente 2323-El-0722, Rev. 10 2323-El-0712-11, Rev. 7 2323-El-0607, Rev. 22 2323-El-0602-01, Rev. 20 2323-El-0602-11, Rev. 1
- 2323-El-0718, Rev. 7
} 2323-El-0717-11, Rev. 2 l 2323-El-0601-03, Rev.16 j 2323-El-0718, Rey, 17 i
j 3. The criteria for Separation of j Class 1E Equipment and circuits,
- Rev. O references 10CFR50, Regulatory Guides and appropriate
- IEEE standards. Appendix 2 j tabulates electrical equipment
{ which requires separation.
I j 4. Westinghouse Criteria for
! Electrical Circuit Physical Separation-Recomended Design Basis E-EPS-1, Issue 5 Westinghouse
- clarification letter GTN-1280 l provides further guidance.
I l
I l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 4 of 9 j Independent Assessment Program
O '
O O Independent Design
> l'hM' M lillllllillfilllilllillifillli Review Checklist FIFCTRTEAR (IllSTRIBFNTS A rnalTDnf )
Ralewer A Mnersfplder/J Dadv Checklist No. EE-02 pate 9/27/83 l Satisfactory i
item vee No Commente 4
i 3. Does the Gibbs & Hill control cire:uit conform to the design X 1. Setpoint information for input submitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation? Westinghouse instruments not available from control schematics
Reference:
1 i Gibbs & Hill Instrumentation and Control Diagram 2. Control circuits comply with design l 2323-M1-2263-06, Rev. 5 basis information furnished by l Westinghouse.
l Westinghouse Diagram 271C336 Sheets 396 and 397 Rev. 2. 3. Instrument tag numbers for
! and 401 thru 404, Rev. 3 indicating lights are not shown on j schematic diagram 2323-E1P0062, l
Sht. 23.
! Westinghouse Motor Control Schematics 271C336, j Shts. 396 and 397, Rev. 2 and 401-404, Rev. 3 I .
l 4 Do design documents and specifications identify Nuclear X 1. The following Gibbs & Hill Drawings Safety Related components as appropriate? were reviewed:
2323-ES-5, Rev. 1 2323-ES-10, Rev. 4
. 2323-ES-13A, Rev. 1 l 2323-El-1700, Issue 30I j 2323-ES-100, Rev. 2 ,
- 2323-MS-605, Rev. 2
{ 2323-ES-24, Rev. 1 j 9,92_re_7 2
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 5 of 9
O O O Independent Design.
i L4M'M 11119!!1lllll11111111!!Illllll Review Checklist ELECTRICAL (INSTRUENTS & CONTROL) i i
i c: viewer A. Moersfelder/J. Dady checkilst No. EE-02 i
Date UlUlO
- Satisfactory item Yes No Comments i
2 2323-ES-5, Rev. 6 Calculations VIII-6, Rev. 1.
Calculations VIII-1, Rev. 2 1
- 2. No indication of Nuclear Safety
- Related status on Solid State i Isolation Equipment specification, Document No. 2323-ES-24, Rev. 1.
! It is indicated as Class 1.
1 l
i 5. Is there adequate interconnecting control cable X Reference documents:
j identification documentation?
j e Gibbs & Hill Design Control l Procedure DC-5, Rev. 6.
i
, e Gibbs & Hill Cable and Raceway
{ Schedule, Doc. 2323-El-1700, Issue j 301, Section 1.
i Note 7 defines cable numbering.
j
' Note 12 defines tray numbering.
Note 13 defines conduit numbering.
i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 6 of 9 1
O O O
"!"'"'""" Independent Design i
MM'Id llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Review Checklist ELECTRICAL (INSTRUMENTS & CONTROL) ccvi...r A. Moersfelder/J. Dady l Checklist No. EE-02 Date #
Satisfactory j Item Yes No Commente
) Note 16 defines spatial coordinate
- system for locating cable origins, i destinations and raceway segments.
l Note 20 disclaims lighting system, cathodic protection heat-tracing,
, fire protection and plant / equipment
! grounding from Cable and Raceway i
Schedule i 6. Are cable routing procedures adequate, and is there X The following Gibbs & Hill drawings conformance between the Cable Routing Schedule with the were reviewed:
cable routing drawings? 2323-El-0601-02, Rev. 14 2323-El-0601-11, Rev. 3 2323-El-0700-01, Rev. 9 2323-El-0700-12, Rev. 3 2323-El-0700-02, Rev. 18 2323-El-0701-12, Rev. 4 ,
2323-El-0701-10, Rev. 8 2323-El-0712-01, Rev. 24
) 2323-El-0712-12, Rev. 7 i 2323-El-0715-01, Rev. 11 i 2323-El-0712-02, Rev. 10 l 2323-El-0712-16, Rev. 5
! 2323-El-0712-03, Rev. 8
- 2323-El-0713-12, Rev. 4 2323-El-0713-01, Rev. 12 2323-El-0713-02, Rev. 19 i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 7 of 9 Independent Assessment Program
O O Cr Independent Design
! [4M' M Review Checklist
! lilitillittttfilillittitilliti 1
ELECTRICAL' (INSTRufENTS & CONTROL)
D '* " A. Moersfelder/J. Dady Checklist No. EE-02 j oste 9/27/83
} Sallefactory
! llem Yes No Comments 1
- 2323-El-0708, Rev. 18 1 2323-El-0700-12, Rev. 3 l 2323-El-0601-01, Rev. 9
- 2323-El-0716, Rev. 17 2323-El-0716-01, Rev. 20 1 2323-El-0716-12, Rev. 4 l 2323-El-0722, Rev. 10 j 2323-El-0712-11, Rev. 7 l 2323-El-0607, Rev. 22 j 2323-El-0602-01, Rev. 20
! 2323-El-0602-11, Rev. 1 l 2323-El-0718, Rev. 7
- 2323-El-0717-11, Rev. 2 l 2323-El-0601-03, Rev. 16 2323-El-0718-01, Rev. 17
! 7. Is adequate electrical isolation provided between nuclear X 1. Reviewed Gibbs & Hill Solid State l safety-related and non-nuclear safety-related circuits? Isolation Equipment Specification 2323-ES-24, Rev. 1. (Title page
! not marked Nuclear Safety Related
{ as required by Design Control i
Procedure DC-5.)
I l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 8 of 9 f
O O O 1859N8 Independent Design WL6' M litilllittitillMillittillllit Review Checklist ELECTRICAL (INSTRUDENTS & CONTROL)
C"'* " A. Moersfelder/J. Dady Checklist No. EE-02 Date 9/27/83 Sallefactory item Yes No Commente 2._ Criteria for Separation of Class 1E Equipment and Circuits, Rev. O states that:
" Isolation shall be through relays in specially designed relay racks. Isolation in analog circuits shall be achieved through signal converters in analog instrument racks."
8 Check component identification numbers with Master Component List and the following design documents:
- a. Westinghouse Control Schematics 271C336, Shts. 396 and X Considered the design input.
397, Rev. 2 and Shts. 401-404, Rev. 3.
}
l b. Gibbs & Hill Functional Diagram for the Safety X Diagrams contain references to two l Injection System, Doc. No. 2323-M1-2263-06, Sht. 3? pressure sensing instruments on another j diagram, cross-references do not i distinguish between instruments by tag
{ number.
j c. Gibbs & Hill Criteria for Separation of Class 1E X Tabulates all electrical equipment l Equipment and Circuits, Rev. O, Appendix 2? requiring physical separation by j equipment number.
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 9 of 9
O O O E==m3 Independent Design '
[4M M 1111111111111111111111llllllll Review Checklist EQUIPENT QUALIFICATION oc-se" A. Cowell 8 - 02 get/ Checklist No. EQ-01 =t i
, 'r LDate 9/21/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments Calculations l
i 1. Is modeling of equipment appropriate and justifiable
! (Refer to assembly and detail drawings)?
i
- a. Pump (casing, shaft, impeller)
- Geometry X j -
Mass distribution X
- - Support conditions X i -
Attached, piping X Considered by applying nozzle loads If a~ static analysis is used, is it justified? X l b. Motor (rotor, stator, shaft, casing) i -
Geometry X j -
Mass distribution X l -
Support conditions X i -
Attached piping (heat exchanger) . N/A If a static analysis is used, is it justified? X
! c. Auxiliary equipment (seal cooler) j -
Geometry X i -
Mass distribution X j - Support conditions X j -
If a static analysis is used, is it justified? X i
i I
i l Texas Utilities Services in'..; 83090 '
Independent Assessment Program f Sheet 1 of 4
i- p Q) () Ll GEIERAL NDTES _ TO C.ABLE TRAY SUPPORTS CHECKLISTS
~
, Gibbs & Hill calculaticn SCS-101C, Set 5, derives the applicable load combinations and shows that, for j seismic loadings, the 1/2 SSE (0BE) condition controls. Sirce the supports were designed to OBE loads, the a
members were checked against the normal allowables with no increase for seismic loads. Inherent in this normalization process is the fact that normal strength allowables may be increased for SSE loadings. Since, unlike structural member allowibles, anchor bolt allowables remain constant (i.e., no increase) for SSE i '
loadings, Cygna questioned the acceptability of this design approach. Gibbs & Hill had evaluated this i
concern in 1979 and arrived at the conclusion that 'the anchor bolts would be acceptable with a safety factor of 3 for SSE. Cygna has done an' independent calculation that demonstrates the lowest resulting safety
- factor is 3 This calculation is based on 5% damping for SSE while Regulatory Guide 1.61 allows 7% damping for bolted structures. The consideration of higher damping values will reduce the acceleration and increase the safety factor.
- 2. Use of 4% Damping for Catile Trays j
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 specifies that bolted structures may be evaluated using 4% of critical damping for OBE and 7% for SSE. Although some connections in the cable tray supp. ort system are welded, Cygna believes that cable trays act like bolted structures when the entire system, including the cables and tray
_l sections, is considered. This is consistent with the Gibbs & Hill design assumptions. This is appropriate
- for the following reasons:
}
The lower damping value for all welded structures recognizes that such a structure will dissipate less energy than structures with mechanical connections. In the case of the
) cable trays, there are many significant mechanisms for dissipating energy, e.g., the l cables are loosely connected to the trays, the trays are connected mechanically to the i
structural frames, and the frames are bolted to the concrete.
j Various test results show that cable tray systems exhibit damping values much greater '
- than 4%.
J
, t i
i l Texas Utilities Generating Company; 83090 Page 1 of 1
- g {trj t ri Independent Assessment Program, Phase 2 llll18111111111111111111111111
{
- - - __ ____ - ___ L
- e-- -
e ~
d Indep;ndsnt Dasign (a)-
, [41+h' M lilllliliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;llli Review- Checklist-CABLE TRAY SUPPORT 0 viewer C. Liu M M, , , - 2 d Mo Checklist No. CTS-01
] Frame CSM-SP // oste 10/14/83 f Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-187C, Set 1.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-S-0910; IN-CSM-53a, Rev. 2; IN-CSM-53b, Rev.
4; IN-CSM-53c, Rev. 2; IN-CSM-53d,
- Rev. 3.
l i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SCS-187C, Set 1.
l 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2 1
1 l 4. Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
- 5. Restraints:
Check whether the design suits application requirements. X Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O O -
O
,., independent Design
- tli' Id Review Checklist litimitillfilillitillmlill CABLE TRAY SUPPORT 4
l R 2,4wer C. Liu S8. [1 _ g C & Checklist No. CTS-02 j Support 12586," Detail SP-7 with ' Brace, L=2'-3"; El. 784'-6" pote 10/6/83 Setlefactory item Yee No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data: X 2
Check that all <Jata is used correctly. 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
Set 4, Sht. 10; Calculation No..SCS-101C, Set 3, Sht. 65.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 2; CMC-64346; DCA-12106; lj 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
j Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),.
l Set 4, Sht. 10; Calculation No. SCS-101C, Set 3, Sht. 65.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X j Section 4.2 l 4. Support Spacing:
j Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
- O O O
""'"""" Independent Design L4M'Id Review Checklist IlllillHillitillfilllllllilli CABLE TRAY SUPPORT C;'l* * *r C. Liu M . [ - 2 d M. , .. Checklist No. CTS-03 i Supporf 244 Type: SP-7 4 tith brace, L=2'-0", El. = 779'-6" ost. 9/28/83 l Satisfactory l Item Yes No Commente
, 1. Design Input Data: . X l- Check that all data is used correctly. 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
! Set 4, Sht. 10.
j 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. El-0600-01-S,
] Rev. 2; FSE-00181, Rev. 6; 2323-S-l 0903, Rev. 5.
1
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- Check the acceptability of the original design. 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
! Set 4, Sht. 10. -
l
- 3. Loading Combinations: X l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, Section 4.2 l 4. Support Spacing: X l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-0C-3 l Section 4.1.
- 5. Restraints: X Check whether the design suits application requirements.
1 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i
Independent Assessment Program j Sheet 1 of 3
O O O
"* Independent Design M M'M Illillilimilllitilllllililll Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT Ocviewer C. Liu M, M / [{ h . Checklist No. CTS-04 I
Support pf9, Detail "E", L=f 5", El . 782 '-0" onto 10/6/83 1
- Satisfactory Item Yes No Commente i
) 1. ' Design Input Data: X Check that all data is used correctly. 1. Refer to Calculation No. 146C(II), Set 1 8, Sht. 21,
- 2. Refer to GaH Drawing No. El-0600-S, Rev. 2; El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; CMC-
, 93279; FSE-00178, Rev. 4.
}
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methoas
- X Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
{ Check the acceptability of the original design. Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 3. Loading Combinations: X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
- Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, l Section 4.2.
- l 4. Support Spacing: X
- Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 Section 4.1.
l i
l l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program 1 Sheet 1 of 3
O O O t
Independent - Design _.
Lak( t Ti Review Checklist 11111111111t!!!!111111111111tl CABLE TRAY SUPPORT i
i
- R
- viewer C. Liu Q p, L g CM Checklist No. CTS-05 j Supportf901, Detail "E"$ L=2'-5", El . 782'-0" p e.
Satisfactory f item Yes No Commente j 1. Design Input Data: X Check that all data is used correctly. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
1.
Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0600-S, Rev. 2; 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; I FSE-00178, Rev. 4.
! 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
l Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. 146C(II), Set 8, j Sht. 21.
j 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
- Section 4.2 1
1
- 4. Support Spacing:
1 Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X j Section 4.1.
1 l
i 1 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
6 7
, 1 ,
) 0 )
I 0 I 3 I - I 3 8 ( E .(
C S 5C f Q
/
6 6 F 06 o
/ 4 4 0 1 ; 01 . 1 1
. o 4 0 2
0 t -
e o e _
n g
t a N N .
se v
So TN C
0 0
h e
D n gR n - S s s i
t o n .o S e
i i , oi T _
t wS Nt C el i t n a a- a _
Dk c 6 e
m l
u1D0 c2
. r1 nl .
ou1 ic2 N o
m t eR T 0 tl C
o l a .H1 A0 aa . n o
n e hOPU S
T ctg 6 h
oSo- .
0 vC t r h i dn CP S C
t r8r-
,tl1 E1 b eoS st Or8 t
a v
r ewA Y o e e3 . e e N ftf2 v eft s pet R eee3 e eee b t
s RSR2R SRS O eve del i
i l
k c . . . .
e e
C e 1 2 12 S I nRA C h
C y
r o o X X t N c
f a
s it e X a e X S Y O 3' C
3 C
D D "8 . - -
- n g
0 0 9 9
'7 i s
0 3
0 3
9 e
g 7 l
d l
8 i
a 8
i a
E . a r r d ,
l t
y i
n g
t i
e t
i e
"5 c :i r r
- e sr C C r do IQ r o a a o he n n L c th g g et y y 0
, d M C C 9
" m e f 0 E e s no h h 3
-_ " l t u g t t 8 i y i i s ;m d l i
t a
i a
st Dl ei i : c sn w
e c
n w
e cr ng
.a e t a
&b a na I o r
D a
/ 3
- d a
tl st np oe oi il tp : p i
l sP e
ct 8 al ic am gm in
- 14 t Da tt tc pa m
no ic2 b
no .
ic1 c
ve rm es u r ua ue mr4 ar4 Ss i o ph sh oo po e L p nt st Cf n S f n ss p I A o o es
~. u k k gki tki iA d1 Tm m C S nc ge nc ge nct iec rct oec t
it 1
1 ih ih dh e ph e l n 1
1 sC sC aCS pCS ie 1
m r e e o u td D D L S Un O.WM'1 1
1 e e 1 w sp 1
1 1
1 i e . . . . ae h1 1 v 1 2 3 4 xd
- 1 1
1 e en
[1 1 R TI
. ! ,j i' j !!lli j ,;1 }!'l}j! li :'
O O '
O Independent Design i 4 f. n M Review Checklist littlettituffittilllitilfll CABLE TRAY SUPPORT 0:viewe' C. Liu O_.A A .-- J d A checkii.i ae- CTS-07
! Support $43, Detail "C" 6 2'-5", El. 784'-8" Date 10/6/83 Setlefactory j ltent l ,Yee No Comments i
'. 1. Design Input Data: .
l Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-125C, Set 1, Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No.
j 2323-El-0600-S, Rev. 2; FSE-00178, j
Rev. 4.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
} Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SCS-125C, Set 1, i Sht. 21.
i i 3. Loading Combinations:
l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2 -
i
! 4. Support Spacing:
1 Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X
) Section 4.1.
- 5. Restraints: '
] Check whether the design suits application requirements. X 1
1 i
j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program
! Sheet 1 of 3
O O LO Independent Design Al% fi Review Checklist Illilletiltittlittilitilllillt CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT -
Calewer C. Liu Q_,[ M A d. & Checklist No. CTS-08 l
Support'943, Detail"C"fL=2'-5",El.790'-0" r,ete 10/6/83 l Setlefectory
- Item Yes No Conomentt i 1. Design Input Data
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-125C, Set
{ 1, Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawings No. ,
- 2323-El-0600-S, Rev. 2; FSE-00178, Rev. 4.
i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
1 Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SCS-125C, Set 1, j Sht. 21.
i l 3 Loading Combinations:
) Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
j Section 4.2.
i j 4. Support Spacing:
j Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X
! Section 4.1.
1 j 5. Restraints:
j Check whether the design suits application requirements. X i
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
{ Independent Assessment Program i
Sheet 1 of 3
t -
' e 1 ,
S 0 8 6
, 0 t
) - . e I l1 S 3 I E1 3 8 ( - ,
/ C 3 . ) f o
O 6 6 2 v I
/ 4 3 e I 0 1 2R ( . 1 1
C 2
. 6 0 t e
n g
t o N o o7 N9 4
1 0
- e e
p 8 0 h it n g7 . - S o n7 o S s s e i i -
wC N T C
el i t n
t a aM n Dk c 9
, e m
l u
c D
rC i
t o
N o
m H4 a 0 o n eTR l
t a
- C 8 l n hO P S C1G . u o v
den CP T 2 c i C o oe l t U t .tR a a S t C v rhr , r ewA Y o eses o . e N f - t1 s peR e ,f e1 2 b iT t
e R8R0 r O eve deb L l
f k
c e 1 2
ft RS e .
eh S
e e
I nRAC h C
y r
o o X t N
" c 4 f a
- e
' l s
1 t
e e X X X X 0 S Y 8
l E
s O
" t 1 n 1 . e
- 3 3 m
' - - e 1 . C C r n
g D D i
= - - u q
i 0 0
_ p s 9 9 e r
1_ L e 0 0 d 3 3
, 8 8 n
[ "4
- y l
a n i a
i a i t
o l i r r a G. '2 t c :i g
t e
t e
i c
= e sr i i l r do r r p i r o C C .
p o
g"'L ,
c h e th et a
n a
n a
s 0
" d M g g t 9
- F m e f y y i 0
- " e s no C C u 3 t
I u g s 8 l iy h h
- m
[c
[
i a i s st ei t
i t
i n
g .a cr
_ t e a Dl i :
w w i s ng D t &b se e e I o r
a a nc c d
[ 2 6
. :d a
tl st np oe on ia ti : i n
a h
e sP e
ct h# 3 al ic al gl t i n 5 Da tc np np ve pa i.m r rm t
r tt ua m
ue bo mc2 im.
co ac1 :h e es Ss u o p e i o p
ph nt sh st Cr4 Sr4 st t e ss L es p I A o o nh -
iA l , u k k gf n tf n iw t n!m C S nc nc n o r o a i t ge ge iki oki rk O Im
'Lm e
t m
i r
e w
ih D
sC e
ih D
sC e
dct aec oh e LCS pct pec uh e SCS t c se eh RC l n i e td Un sp e
,L m e . . . . . ae
_ m i v xd 4e t i R e
1 2 3 4 5 en TI
,: ;! ;l1i!lj:i{} , ij;l1 ;" 4iil
~
(}
Q JQ .
independsnt Design L4 L a Ti Review Checklist flillatillilitellilitilllilli p _
0 0* " C. Liu %f, M , . . . g (J. M Checkflet No. CTS SupportY79, Detail"H"widhbrace,L=Lp=L=L=2'-5",El.001'-4" i 3 4 Date 10/6/83 Setlefactory l Item Yes No ' Commente i
- 1. Design Input Data:
- Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. 146C(II), Set 8,.Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; FSE-00176, Rev. 11.
I i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: X Refer to Calculation No. 146C(II),
j Check the acceptability of the original desiga. Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 3. Loading Combinations-
- Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02, f
! Section 4.2 '
- 4. Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X j Section 4.1.
I
- 5. Restraints:
! Check whether the design suits application requirements. X 4
(
) Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
{ Independent Assessment Program
- Sheet 1 of 3
~
O O O Independent Design d ( t Ti Review Checklist '
CABLE TRAY SUPPORT l Ocview*' John Russ9D / . M checknet No. CTS-11 Support 778 Typ6 Detail "0", L=3'-10 1/4", h p=9'-10", h =8'-6", h =7'-2", El . 801'-4" oste 9/26/83 3 4 Satisfactory j ltem Yes No Commente l
l 1. Design Input Data: 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-06.
j Check that all data is used correctly. X 2. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
I 3. Refer to Computer output binder j
DMI-SP, approved 10 Nov. 1978, Section
{ " Reg. Case Di to 0 i SCS-104C, Shts. 5,5;"6. Calculation No.
) 4. Refer to G8H Drawing Nos. 2323-El-601-01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-S-0903, Rev. 5; l FSE-00176, Rev. 11.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 2. See Observation No. CTS-00-07.
- 3. Modelling assumed pinned at Nodes 1, i 6, and 8. Base connections are semi-i fixed. Therefore a fixed support j should have been assumed to consider induced moments. See Observation No.
l CTS-00-03.
j 4. No sensitivity study was performed to i show that the configuration analyzed j was the worst case. See Observation No. CTS-00-04.
t j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
! Independent Assessment Program
! Sheet 1 of 4 i
Q $ '
8"" Independent Design lin' M Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT ,
i n
" ' * " C. Liu O[d /m d. d '
Checkflet No. CTS-12
' Support 777. Y tall "E". L=2' [ . El. 8091'-4" Date10/6/83 i Setlefectory Item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(I),
l Set 1, Sht. 7; Calculation No.
I SCS-146C (II) Set 8. Sht. 21.
! 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-i 01-S, Rev. 4; FSE-00176, Rev. 11.
I 1 -
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
l Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146(II), Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
j Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
j Section 4.2 l
l 4 Support Spacing:
j Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X
! Section 4.1.
i j 5. Restraints:
! Check whether the design suits application requirements. X 1
I Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program sheet 1 of 3
O O O 1
Independent Design
! 9L W Review Checklist
! CABLE TRAY SUPPORT i
l Re*"
John Russ Q.. [. [r . . . CheckHet No. CTS Support 776 Typ d Detail "C", L=S'-2 1/4", hg=11'-2", h2 =9'-10", h 3 =8'-6", El. 801'-4" oste 9/26/83 j Setlefactory
- Item Yes No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-06.
X 2. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
- 3. Refer to Computer output binder DMI-
- SP, approved 11/10/78, Section " Reg.
! Case D to D
! SCS-10kC,Shks;".CalculationNo.
5, 6, 10, 34, 35.
I 4. Refer to G8H Drawing Nos. 2323-E- -
l 1-601-01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-S-0903, Rev.
l 5; FSE-00176, Rev. 11.
i
{ 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: '
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. Sea Observation No. CTS-00-07.
j 2. Modeling assumed pinned supports at Nodes 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8. Base connections are semi-fixed. Therefore a fixed support should have been assumed to consider induced moments.
See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- 3. No sensitivity study was performed to 1 show that the configuration analyzed
! was the worst case. See Observation l No. CTS-00-04.
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 i
O O O Independent Design AL& f a Review Checklist WWWWWHWWNW CABLE TRAY SUPPORT
) M * * * **
C. Liu Q _ [ M .m__ M [( M CheckHet No. CTS-14 Support /879, Detail "E", L=/-5", El . 806'-8" oete10/6/83 l Setlefactory i item Yes No Commente s
l 1. Design Input Data:
l Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
Set 8, Sht. 21.
I
- 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; CMC-8524, FSE-00176, -
j Rev. 11.
i
} 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
l Set 8, Sht. 21.
?
! 3. Loading Combinations:
i Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
l Section 4.2 l
f 4. Support Spacing:
- Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
t
- 5. Restraints:
j Check whether the design suits application requirements. X See Item 2.
i l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 I Independent Assessment Program I Sheet 1 of 3 i
O O O Independent Design i
- h1 L' i Review Checklist
- I CABLE TRAY SUPPORT ,
U*= C. Liu Q_.[ Mj 6. & CheckHet No. CTS-15 l Support 110gDetail"E",L=2'#,El.814'-0" cate 10/6/83 Setlefactor/
l Item Yes No Commente l 1. Design Input Data:
- Check that all data is used correctly, X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
l Set 8, Sht. 26.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No.
l 2323-El-0602-01-S, Rev. 2,
! 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4, i FSE-00187, Rev. 6
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation CTS-00-03.
j 2. Refer to Calculation No.
l SCS-146C(III), Set 8, Sht. 26.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation 110. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2
- 4. Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
j I
i 4
i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
! Independent Assessment Program
! Sheet 1 of 3 "*
i
O O O Independent Design
- hL tb Review Checklist-Mmmmmmmmmm
- CABLE TRAY SUPPORT i
l CC**** C. Liu Q.[ M ._ M 6. d CheckHet No. CTS-16 Support 6099, Detail "E", L4'-5", El . 822'-0" one.10/6/83 l
setietectory l
l Item Yes No Commente i
- 1. Dasign Input Data:
1 Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-I 146C(II), Set 8, Sht. 26.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-j 01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0602-01-S, Rev.
2; DCA-3612, CMC-88304; FSE-00187, Rev. 6.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
- Set 8, Sht. 26.
l
- 3. Loading Combinations:
l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
! Section 4.2 t
i I
l 4. Support Spacing:
l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X
- Section 4.1.
I Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 I Independent Assessment Program i
Sheet 1 of 3
- O O O .
Independent Design-
! 4L th Review Checklist l
CABLE TRAY SUPPORT a
l Cevieww C. Liu % k . A g (> d CheckHet No. CTS-17 j Support 6 078, Detail "E", 8 2'-5", El.'830'-0" cate 10/6/83 Setlefactory ,
item Yes N. Commente i
i
- 1. Design input Data: '
{ Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
j Set 8, Sht. 26. .
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0602-01-S, Rev.
li 2; FSE-00187, Rev. 6; CMC-88304; DCA-3612; CMC-3424; CMC-88503.
?
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
Set 8, Sht. 21. *
- 3. Loading Combinations: r Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2
} 4. Support Spacing:
} Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X i, Section 4.1.
1
{ Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
- Independent Assessment Program ;
Sheet 1 of 3 l l _ ..
O O O Independent Design
@4 LifJ L Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT i
Cove *=*r C. Liu % [. M g (7 g,'m CheckHot No. CTS-18 Support"2778, Detail "E", 62'-5", El. 836'-0" ost.10/6/83 Wellefactory
, Itene Yes No Commente l 1. Design Input Data:
4 Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
Set 8, Sht. 28.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; CMC-88467; 2323-El-0602-l 03-S, Rev. 2; FSE-00212, Rev. 4; CMC-i 88306; CMC-88467.
i l
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05. ;
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
- Sht. 8, Sht. 21.
1 i
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X j Section 4.2. 1 i
l 4. Support Spacing: l j Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X l
! Section 4.1.
I
! l 1
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Indepe.ident Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O O O Independent Design L*hl . t fi Review Checklist
" . CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT 4
) Re*wer C. Liu h[ [ . . [/ CheckNet No. CTS-19
~
- Support @722, Detail "F", L # -5", El. 844'-0" one.10/6/83
~
Satisfactory ltem Yes No Commento
)
- 1. Design Input Data:
i Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
i Set 8, Sht. 21.
l 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-j 01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0602-03-S, Rev.
1 2; FSE-00212, Rev. 4; CMC-88306; CMC-l 88466. l l
1
! 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05. i
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
Set 8, Sht. 21.
l !
- 3. Loading Combinations: i Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X
) Section 4.2 I
i 4 Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
i l S. Restraints:
l Check whether the design suits application requirements. X See Item 2.
I Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O O O Independent Design L41N fi Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT
]
n e *" C. Liu Q -[ [ d 67 % ChekNet No. CTS-20 j SupportN777, Detail "E", Ld'-5", El . 850'-0" pate 10/6/83 l Satisfactory items Yee No Commente I 1. Design Input Data:
j Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
- Set 8 Sht. 21.
j 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0602-03-S, Rev.
1 2; CMC-88306, FSE-00212, Rev.'4.
i l 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
! Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05.
I 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C (II)
- Set 8. Sht. 21.
j
- 3. Loading Combinations:
l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3. X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
j Section 4.2 I
{ 4. Support Spacing:
i Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
- 5. Restraints:
Check whether the design suits application requirements. X See Item 2.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O O O i Independent Design
, Mn' h Review Checklist CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT 4
R****r C. Liu % / M -- - d 6. d CheckN9t No. CTS-21 I
Support d437, Detail "E",d=2'-5", E1. 856'-6" DetdO/06/83
] Setlefectory item Yes No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data
1 Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
! Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-
) 01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0602-03-S, Rev.
j 2; MC-88271, FSE-00202, Rev. 3.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-05.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
l Set 8. Sht. 21.
)
- 3. Loading Combinations: '
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2.
j 4 Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
- 5. Restraints:
{ Check whether the design suits application requirements. X See Item 2.
i 1
l Texcs Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
}
O O O Independent Design 4Ln i Review Checklist .
i CABLE TRAY SUPPORT l n e**** C. Liu 4 [ g -- d C.g checknet u . CTS-22 j Suppor/5436, Detail "E"g L=2'-5", El . 864'-9" pote. 10/6/83 satsevoetery j ltem Yes No Commente -
)
j 1. Design Input Data: .
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II), !
Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4 2323-El-0602-03-S, Rev.
j 2; FSE-00202, Rev. 3; CMC-88516; CMC-88271
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation CTS-00-05.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C (II), Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02. .
Section 4.2 !
! 4. Support Spacing: '
l Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X j Section 4.1.
I i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
! Independent Assessment Program
{
Sheet 1 of 3
- o o o Independent Design TL n i Review Checklist N
- CABLE TRAY SUPPORT ne, sewer C. Liu C) . / M g d g r. CheckNot No. CTS-23 l SupportF 5439, Detail "E"# L=2'-5", El. 866'-6" pote 10/6/83 l S etlefactory item Yes No Commente j
i 1. Design Input Data:
) Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C(II),
) Set 8. Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-i 01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0602-03-S, Rev.
2; FSE-00202, Rev. 3.
j 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
j Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. 146C(II), Set 8, j Sht. 21.
I i 3. Loading Combinations:
i Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
j Section 4.2 i
l 4 Support Spacing:
i Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1. ;
i i
j ,
4
{ Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O .
O O I
Independent Design l 4 L% fi Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT 1
]
Maiew J. Russ Q__ [ M_
support Ipsu lype:
"*3'-*~* ***~-D~*
" ~~"~
CheckNet No. CTS-24 _ _ _ _ _ _
j A3' '"J'-J~*
note '#I "/ "
Setlefactory
] Item Yes No Comments
! 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
l 2. Refer to Computer output binder 1 DMI-SP, approved 11/10/78, Section
" Reg. Case A "; Calculation No. SCS-101C, Set 1,3Shts. 9, 10, 75, 96, 72, 73, 30; Calculation No. SCS-122C, Set
. 3, Shts. 9, 10, 11 l'
- 3. Refer to G&H Drawing Nos. 2323-El-0603-01-S, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0901, Rev.
4; 2323-S-0902, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1;
, FSE-00202, Rev. 3.
1 l 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. Modeling assumed pinned supports. Base
! plates used are stiff angles which act l
i as a semi-fixed connection.
Therefore, a fixed connection should
!' have been assumed to consider induced moments. See Observation No.
CTS-00-03.
I Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O Independent Design
- h L a i Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT J. Russ 9 - M, , . Ch*ckNet No. CTS-25 Support J887 Type: A 2, L=3'-3", H=3'-ll", 1=2'-7" ,,,,9/zJ/UJ Setlefactory item Yee No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
- 2. Refer to Computer output binder DMI-SP, approved 11/10/78, Section
" Reg. Case A "; Calculation No. SCS-101C, Set 1,2Shts. 8, 30, 72, 73, 74, 95; Calculation No. SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9, 10, 11.
- 3. Refer to G&H Drawing Nos. 2323-El-0603-01-S, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0901, Rev.
4; 2323-S-0902, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1; FSE-00202, Rev. 3.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. Modeling assumed pinned supports.
Base plates used are stiff angles which act at a semi-fixed connection. Therefore, a fixed connection should have been assumed to ,
consider induced moments. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
l '
i l '
I Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 I
O O O Independent Design t*hn i Review Checklist N ,
CABLE TRAY SUPPORT
"'***' e s i., O_ , / h g ({ ChekM No. CTS-26 Suooort d90. Detail "SP-7" h Brace . L=3'-0" . E1. 868'-5" Date 10/6/83
) Setlefactory "
j Item Yee No Commente J
j 1
- 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C i (II), Set 8, Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0603-01-S, Rev.
j 2; CMC-90711, FSE-00202, Rev. 3.
i i
} 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
i Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
! 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C j (II), Set 8, Sht. 21.
1
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X Section 4.2
) 4. Support Spacing:
! Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X l Section 4.1.
1 I
- 5. Restraints:
j Check whether the design suits application requirements. X I
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O O ~O Independent Design th n f a Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT
"* C. Liu b [. L g gg ChecitNet No. CTS-27, 28, 29 Support d779. 1782 and 1786 / Detail "SP-7" Date 10/6/83 Setlefectory item Yee No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C (II), Set 8. Sht. 21.
- 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 4; FSE-00202, Rev. 3.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C (II), Set B. Sht. 21.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2
- 4. Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
- 5. Restraints:
Check whether the design suits application requirements. X Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
O O O
.. Independent Design
'*h % 6 Review Checklist NuuuRNMENMusul CABLE TRAY SUPPRT
"""' C. Liu Q M. //_. _ g (> [ - checkilet No. CTS-30 Support 8 2652 Detail "A"d/ brace, Li = 3'-6", El. 868'-8" Date 10/6/83 i Setietectory j Iten Yes No Commente
} 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(II),
Set 5, Sht. 1.
, 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0718-i S. Rev. 1; FSE-00206, Rev. 4; 2323-El-0700-01-S.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(II),
, Set 5, Sht. 1.
i
] 3. Loading Combinations: '
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X Section 4.2 4 Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X Section 4.1.
5 l
- 5. Restraints:
Check whether the design suits application requirements. X i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
- O O O
- Independent Design 4L
- t Ti Review ChecklistL INlllllllllHilllllllllllllll CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT
?
CC'l***f C. Liu Q h [ Checkflet No. CTS-31 SupportM640, Detail "B", [= 3'-9", El . 867 '-4" Det* 10/6/83 l Setlefactory f item Yes No Comments j 1. Design Input Data:
( Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(II),
Set 5, Sht. 2.
- 2. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0700-
, 01-S; 2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 1; FSE-
- 00206, Rev. 4.
j 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
i Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(II),
3 Set 5, Sht. 2.
j 3. Loading Combinations:
i Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
j Section 4.2
- 4. Support Spacing:
j Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3
- Section 4.1. X i
! 5. Restraints-j Check whether the design suits application requirements. X I
! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program i Sheet 1 of 3
O O Independent . Design l'h i 2 In Review Checklist liittliffillittilittimfiftli CABLE TRAY SUPPORT mcvkwe' J. Russ 4,4 M Checkflet No. CTS-32 Support 2641 doe: Detai l "5" , L=6 ' -0 1/2" , hi =10 '-3" , h,=8 ' -11" , h =6 2 ' -3" , h,=4 ' -3" , Date 9/26/83 i h5=2'-11", a-2'-1 1/2" sonsrectory I Item Yes No Commente l 1. Design Input Data:
l Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C (I),
Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
- 3. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 1; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; 2323-
, S-0907, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1; i FSE-00206, Rev. 4.
j 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X 2. No sensitivity study was performed to
- show that the configuration analyzed j was the worst case. See Observation
+
No. CTS-00-04.
- 3. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C (I),
j . Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
I
- 3. Loading Combinations: See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
3 Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X l
j 4. Support Spacing:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X
] Section 4.1. '
i i
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program
- Sheet 1 of 4 i
O O O
. Independent Design 1
- hL th Review Checklist ,
littlittettletititteltilititti .
CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT tc,s.ww J. Russ Q /7 g._ _ Checknet No. CTS-33 Support 2645:/ Detail "4", L=6'-1 1/2", hy=8'-11", h 2=7 '-7", h3 =6'-3", o,,, 9/zb/53 h4=2'-11", a=2'-1 1/2",, a=2'-1 1/2a setietectwy l Item Yes No Commente l
1 l 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See 00servation No. CTS-00-01.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C (I),
- Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
1 3. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 1; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; 2323-
- S-0907, Rev. 2; 2323-5-0909, Rev. 1; j FSE-00206, Rev. 4.
i l 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
! Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03. -
. 2. No sensitivity study was performed to I
show that the configuration analyzed was the worst case. See Observation j No. CTS-00-04.
, 3. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C (I),
, Set 4 Shts. 6, 41.
1
- 3. Loading Combinations: See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
, Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X j Section 4.2.
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
] Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O .
O Independent Design 4L t i IlllillennillIlllinlinilli Review Checklist -
CABLE TRAY SUPPORT 1
R: viewer J. Russ C3-, Checknet No. CTS-34
- % nnart apssskun.- notail aa" i=s' 1 1/pa h.=8'-11" ho=7'-7". h,=6'-3". Date 9/26/83 h4=2'-11", a=2'-1 1/2" sapetecim
)
] Item Yes No Commente j
) 1. Design Input Data:
- Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C (I),
- Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
- 3. Refer to G&H Drawing No. 2323-El-0718-
- S, Rev. 1; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0907, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1.
)
i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
. Check the acceptability of the original design. 2. No sensitivity study was performed to
} show that the configuration analyzed as the worst case. See Observation
} No. CTS-00-04.
j 3. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C (I),
j Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
- 3. Loading Combinations: See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X Section 4.2.
l l
1
! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 '
Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 l
1
0 0 O
, Independent Design MLt i lillilimilimilillitilllitt Review Checklist CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT 1
Ceviewer J. Russ Q f , [ h __ Checklist No. CTS-35 Support E563 Type: A , L=5 ' -7 7/8" , h=2 * -II" , f. = l' -/"
2 Date !'/ZJ/ 33 Setlefactory Item Yes No Commente j 1. Design Input Data:
- Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
2
- 2. Refer to Computer output binder i DMI-5P, Approved 11/10/78, Section
" Reg. Case 2A ;" Calculation No.
, SCS-101C Set 1, Shts. 8, 30, 72, 73, 74, 95; Calculation No. SCS-122C, Set j 3, Shts. 9, 10, 11.
{ 3. Refer to G&H Drawing No.
l 2323-El-0603-01-S, Rev. 2; i 2323-S--0901, Rev. 4; 2323-S-0902, l Rev. 5; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; l 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1; FSE-00206, Rev.4.
! 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
1 Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. Modeling assumed pinned supports.
I Base plates used are stiff angles which act as a semi-fixed connection. Therefore, a fixed
- connection should have been assumed to consider induced moments. See l Observation No. CTS-00-03.
l I
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 i
O O O Independent Design 4 4L t fi Review Checklist 11ll19111111111111111111111111 CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT i
~
R; view j C. Liu @ . 8 // 2<_. - -- d 6 / __ - ch.ekslet No. CTS-36
) Support @l57, Detail "SP-7# with Brace, L=4'-6", El. 868'-8" once 10/6/83 i
- Setiefactory ii. e v.. . c ..e i
l 1. Design' Input Data:
i Check that all data is used correctly. 'X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C (II), Set 4, Sht. 10.
- 2. Refer to G8H Drawing No.
2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 1; 2323-S-0903,
- Rev. 3; FSE-00206, Rev. 4.
I
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-146C l (II), Set 4, Sht. 10; Calculation No.
l SCS-101C, Set 3, Sht 65.
3
- 3. Loading Combinations:
- Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X
{ Section 4.2 4
l 4. Support Spacing:
! Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3 X j Section 4.1.
' Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program i
Sheet 1 of 3
O O O
- Independent Design 4L t fi -
Review Checklist 11111111111t!!111111111mll11 CABLE TRAY SUPPORT
! R:: viewer J. Russ Q Checklist No. CTS-37
- Support 2ff42 Type
- A ,
i L=3'-6", H=1'-4" p.e. 9/23/83
, Satisfactory i Item Yes No Comments 1
i 1. Design Input Data:
i Check that all data is used correctly. 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
! 2. Refer to Computer output binder l DMI-SP, approved 11/10/78, Section
- " Reg. Case 2A "; Calculation No.
SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 8, 30,72, 73, l 74, 95; Calculation No. SCS-122C, l Set 3, Shts. 9, 10, 11.
- 3. Refer to Drawing Nos.
- 2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0901, Rev. 4; 2323-S-0902, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5;
- 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1; and l FSE-00206, Rev. 4.
I 2. Design Assumptions and Design Methods:
?
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. Modeling assumed pinned support. Base plates used are stiff angles which act as a semi-fixed connection.
- Therefore, a fixed support should have
- been assumed to consider induced moments.See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program i Sheet 1 of 4
$ O p).
U e g
m
- -w Ind:pondant Dasign
[4Dh' fd Review Checklist 11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!llllll11111 CABLE TRAY SUPPORT ccvlewer J. Russ b [. ~
// b _ L=5'-2", Checkilet No. pp_y Support #26434 Type: Detail "7", hg=8*-ll", h2"7 -7"' h3=6 -3", h4 =2'-ll", h5 =l'-9" Date9/26/83 Satisfactory i
! Item Yes No Commente 1
- 1. Design Input Data:
l Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(I),
Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
- 3. Refer to G8H Drawing No. 2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 1; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 1; 2323-l S-0907, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0909. Rev.1; i
FSE-00206, Rev. 4.
I I 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods: 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
! Check the acceptability of the original design. X 2. No sensitivity study was performed to show that the configuration analyzed was the worst case. See Observation i
No. CTS-00-04.
l 3. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(I),
l Set 4, Shts. 6, 41.
l j 3. Loading Combinations:
j Check or compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
1 Section 4.2 l
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
{ Independent Assessment Program i
Sheet 1 of 3
m O G (ap
=e=- =q Indspsndant Dasign Al*h' Id litil;;.......;;iilillilillll!
Review Checklist CABLE TRAY SUPPORT C ;* * *' J. Russ Q , M [s u checklist No. CTS-39 Support 2545kpe: Deta i l "7" , L= 5 ' -2" , h i=8 ' -11" , hg=7 ' -7 " , h,=6 ' -3" . ha =2 ' -11" , hs;=1 ' -9" Dat* 9/26/83 Sallefactory item Yes No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-01.
- 2. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(I),
Set 4, Shts. 9, 43.
- 3. Refer to G&H Drawing No.
2323-El-0718-S, Rev. 1; 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5; 2323-S-0907, Rev. 2; 2323-S-0909, Rev. 1; FSE-00206, Rev. 4.
- 2. Design Assumptions and Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. See Observation No. CTS-00-03.
- 2. No sensitivity study was performed to show that the configuration analyzed was the worst case. See Observation No. CTS-00-04.
- 3. Refer to Calculation No. SCS-104C(I),
Set 4, Shts. 9,.43.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for compliance with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-3, X See Observation No. CTS-00-02.
Section 4.2 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 3
A p) p.
() L G GENERAL NOTES TO PIPE SUPPORT CECKLISTS
- 1. Use of U-Bolts as Pipe Clamps In the review of the supports for problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70, Cygna noted instances where a U-bolt was used in place of the standard pipe clamp. Since Cygna had not reviewed the installation procedures for these U-bolts, Cygna did not consider that the pretension of the U-bolt.would be.significant. Since Cygna's reviewers had judged the effects to be small, Cygna did not assess stresses in the pipe due to such pretension.
As a result of information made available at the ASLB hearings, Cygna has determined that the amount of pretension can be significant, depending on the thickness and size of the pipe. Cygna is currently reviewing a detailed test / analysis performed by TUGC0 to determine the overall effects of this use of U-bolts. Cygna will issue their findings when that review is completed.
- 2. Local Effects in Tube Walls In the supports reviewed, Cygna noted instances where either a support bracket is welded to a tube, or two i
tubes are welded in a "T" fashion (stepped tube). In most cases, the punching shear on the tube wall. was not checked explicitly. Cygna independent calculations show this is not of concern, since the tune wall must be equal to at least the fillet weld size. In addition, Cygna did not find any instances wherein the local flexibility of the tube wall was included in a stiffness calculation. However, Cygna also believes l the effect is small in comparison to the overall flexibility in the support. In addition, Cygna believes it is accepted practice not to consider such detail in standard support design. Thus, Cygna has found TL3CO's design approach to tube steel acceptable per Cygna's criteria.
I i
l is::ma p5 g k 7d T Texas 1:
Utilities Generating Company; 83090 Page 1 of 2 4
Independent Assessment Program, Phase 2 3
lill!- ..... '.............
i
O l ')
V U (V )
- 3. Effect of Support Dead Weight As a matter of general practice, the TUGC0 pipe support design organizations do not include the weights of standard components (struts, snubbers, clamps, etc.) .in their pipe support design calculations. They do, however, include the weight of frame members when using the Strudl program to perform frame analysis. While general purpose structural design codes do specify that dead load shall be considered in the design of structures, the significance of the various components of dead load in the design of a structure varies with the type of structure. In the case of a piping system, dead load is considered in the-design of pipe supports. This includes the piping dead weight and the weight of all material attached to or integral with the piping, such as insulation, valves, etc. Since the dead weight of the pipe support itself is generally very small compared to the piping dead load, thermal load and seismic load for which the support is designed, it is neglected. Cygna believes that neglecting this specific component of dead load (i.e.,
support dead weight) is also consistent with standard practice.
- 4. Effect of Pipe Radial Expansion on Anchors and Frames In designing supports with 0" gap box frames and with trunnions welded to the pipe to form anci' ors, the TUGC0 design organizations do not include the loads due to pipe radial expansion in the support design.
These loads, being induced by imposed displacement, are secondary in nature and would be compared to three times the normal allowable from the ASME Code (paragraph NF3213.10 and NF3231.la of Section III). Cygna has performed calculations on a. number of these configurations (SI-1-325-002-S32R and SI-1-037-005-S32A, for example) and found stresses within acceptable limits. It is Cygna's position that these effects have no impact on design.
- 5. Effect of Bolt Hole Size on Bolt Shear Distribution In designing baseplate / bolted connections for the CPSES pipe supports, the TUGC0 design organ:zations assume
'all bolts equally share the shear load in a bearing connection. This assumption is consistent with standard design practice throughout both the standard and nuclear construction industries. In response to questions raised during the ASLB hearings, Cygna has performed calculations which show that the effect for a 1" bolt with a 1/8" oversized hole in a 4 bolt baseplate under the most adverse condition is a 4% reduction in safety factor. Thus, Cygna has shown that, while the conventional method does not provide rigorously exact results when compared to nonlinear analysis, it provides an adequate basis for design.
N [frj y M Texas Utilities Generating Company; 83090 Page 2 of 2 ll11ll11111111lllllllll;;;illl Independent Assessment Program, Phase 2
O O O
~
O l'h L&'Id Independent . Design lillllililllllllllllilllfillli Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-003-S22R)
R::viswer ,3 - g,Mfnichiolin bC YMw Checkilat No, pg,gy
[ Date 9/15/83 Satisfactory '
Item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-003-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-064-003-S22R, Rev. 4.
- 2. Design Assureptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-003-S22R.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X.
No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
i l 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria
. 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic I
movements in enrestrained directions?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O i Independent Design-
,N,
L
, ,i,n M Review Checklist i lilllllllllll!!Illlllllllllill PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-325-002-S32R) l R:: viewer S. Luo fh Checklist No. PS-02 Satisfactory Item Yes No Comments l
i i 1. Design Input Data:
i Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
'l SI-1-325-002-S32R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
. SI-1-325-002-S32R, Rev. 1.
j 3. The minimum embedment length for 1-1/4" Super Hilti Kwik Bolts should i be 8-1/8". A 6-1/2" embedment was
- shown on the drawing.
j 4. See Observation PS-02-01.
i
! 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
}' Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SI-1-325-002-S32R.
! 3 Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
- 4. Gap (if applicable):
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria X 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
]
? 1 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
- Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 I
o U G L3j i
M M LC M Independent Design lilllllllllllllllllllllllillll Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-325-002-S32R) l, R: viewer S. Luo Checkflet No. PS-02 Date UI"l" Setlefactory -
item yee No Commente I b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic X
, movements in unrestrained directions?
{ 5. Restraints: Clip angle may be overstressed due to Check whether the design suits application requirements. X cinching of U-bolt to provide support
- stability. However, the frame which is specified to have "0" clearance will develop sufficient clamping force to i maintain stability.
i i
i
- 6. Spring Supports (if applicable): N/A Check consistency with:
- a. G8H Speci fication No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.4.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.4.
i
{ 7. Hanger Rods (if applicable): N/A j Check consistency with:
j a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, i
Section 3.6.2.2.2.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.5.
l i
i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 2 of 4 Independent Assessnent Program i
O O O M Independent. Design i
[*Wn' M 111;;,, , . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review Checklist PI'PE SUPPORT (SI-1-325-002-S32R)
Rulewer S. Luo Checklist No. PS-02 Date N/ U Satisfactory item Yes No Comments l 8. Snubbers (if applicable): N/A
! Check consistency.with:
i a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, i Section 3.6.2.2.6.
j b- Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.6.
I 9. Strut (if applicable):
Check consistency with:
- a. G8H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, X Section 3.6.2.2.1.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.7. 'X l
! 10. Base Plates and Anchor Bolts:
i Check consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, X
- Section 4.1.8.
l f 11. Design Interface Requirements:
{ a. Sti f fness:
Does the design meet the requirements of X 1. A < 0.0625" (See Note 2 on Checklist Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1? PS-01.)
i b. Stresses:
l Does the design meet the requirements of X Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.4?
{ Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 3 of 4 I Independent Assessment Program i
O O O P""""! Independent Design MCId imimmummumumi Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-325-002-S32R)
Rcviewer S. Luo Checklist No. PS-02 Date UlalO Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 12. Inspect Loadings for reasonableness (see Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2 for definitions):
- a. Dead Load (DL) X
- b. Thermal (TH) X
- c. Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) X See Note 1 on Checklist PS-01.
- d. Pipe Whip (PI) N/A
- e. Jet Impingment (JI) N/A
- f. Friction (FL) N/A
- 13. Design Output: Design calculations do not consider
- a. Does the design meet the functional requirements? X the effects of pipe radial expansion
- b. Does the design reflect correctly all the physical X on the support. CYGNA calculations arrangements shown on B&R drawing (s) show no significant effect.
SI-1-325-002-S32R, Rev. 17 I
I l
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 4 of 4 l Independent Assessment Program
j O O O-i=:19E= Independent Design I
[*hD h'Id Review Checklist llllllllllll1111llll11111lllll PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-021-001-S22R) f C cvi*
- S. Luo f, Checklist No. PS-03 onto 9/19/83 S atisf actory l Item Yes No Comments
)
- 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-021-001-S22R).
! 2. Refer to B8R Drawing No.
l RH-1-021-001-S22R, Rev. 3.
l l
l 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
l Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
l RH-1-021-001-S22R i
i 3. Loading Combinations:
l Check for consistency with G8H Specification X j No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3 Section 3.6.2.2.
) 4 Gap (if applicable):
! a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria X
! 83090-0C-2, Section 4.1.2.
l b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic X ,
i movements in unrestrained directions?
\.
l 1
j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O b7 Independent Design l'AM'Id Review Checklist lllI;l!!!!1lllllllllllllll!!!!
PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-007-S22R) .-
Reviswer S. Luo { Checklist No. PS-04 Date 9/14/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-007-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-064-007-S22R, Rev. 2.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-007-S22R.
3 Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
l 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
I
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
! b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 l
l - ..
O O O Ema Independent Design
[*h M 'I2 Review Checklist lilllimillimlillllllimli PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-010-003-S22R)
R: viewer S. Luo 6,h Citecklist No. PS-05 Date 9/16/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-010-003-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-010-003-S22R, Rev. 3.
- 3. Since the rear bracket was dimensioned incorrectly, the weld properties changed from 6" to 9" for lw.
However, the weld sizing calculations were conservative, since they are ,
based on a 6" length rather than a 9" length.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-010-003-S22R.
- 3 Loading Combinations
! Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 sheet 1 of 4 Independent Assessment Program
O q n v V pgiejyy independent Design A Li M Review Checklist lilllillllillillllllilllllilli PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-002-522R)
Raviaever ,,
f, b Checklist No. PS-06 Date 9/19/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-002-S22R).
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-064-002-S22R, Rev. 4.
- 3. T02 for SPC-08-80 should be 9",
however, 10" was ured in design calculation. This will change the calculated C-C dimension from 17-3/8" to 18-3/8" which is still within the allowable C-C value.
- 4. A set of conservative loads from a previous piping analysis were used in the design. These loads were higher than the final as-built loads.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-002-S22R.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G&H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
Texas Ut.ilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O
- := c Independent Design Wid Id liiiiii;;iiiiiiiiilimiilliti Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-038-013-S22A)
R:vi wer S. Luo f,h Checklist No. PS-07.
l Date 9/21/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data
j Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
j . SI-1-038-013-522A.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
i SI-1-038-013-S22A, Rev. 2.
i i
), 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
i Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
i SI-1-038-013-S22A.
l l 3. Loading Combinations:
j Check for consistency with G8H Specification X i No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
l l 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
j a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria
! 83090-00-2, Section 4.1.2.
! b. Does the gap accomodate thermal and seismic l movements in unrestrained directions?
l 1
i i
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
)
1
O O Cq Independent Design i
L*hM' Id Review Checklist
!!!!lllllllllll::.::..........
} PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-325-001-532R)
Rsviewer S. Luo f,[g Checklist No. PS-08 j oss, 9/18/83 f Satisfactory
) llem Yes No Comments i
1
- 1. Design Input Data:
i Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-325-001-S32R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
! SI-1-325-001-S32R, Rev. 2.
l 3. Both base plates were qualified i
using the loads from the worst case base plate.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
! Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
5 SI-1-325-001-S32R.
3 Loading Combinations:
- Check for consistency with G&H Specification X l No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
l l 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
l a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
- independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 .I
]
i _ _
O .O O c- 7 Independent . Design
- Meh' M Review Checklist-j 1811111tll111111lll111llllll11 PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-079-001-S32S) i -
C= l* **r S. Luo Y. Iso Checklist No. PS-09 -
Date 9/20/83 Satisfactory j ltem Yes- No Commente l
I i 1. Design Input Data:
l Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SI ! 079-001-S32S.
i 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No. SI-1.-
079-001-S32S, Rev. 3.
l i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SI 0/9-001-S32S.
i 3. Loading Combinations:
l Check for consistency with G&H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
l 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria i
83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic l movements in unrestrained directions?
l l 5. Restraints:
j Check whether the design suits requirements of X the functional application.
l i
j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 4 l Independent Assessment Program j
O O O Independent Design L4M' fd lillli;;,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;illlill Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-001-S22R) c: view *' J. C. Minichiello )I w // ,fL Checkflet No. PS-10 Date 9/14/83 S atiefectory item Yes No Commente
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that.all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-001-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-064-001-S22R, Rev. 3.
- 3. The pipe displacement in the X-direction was shown as .395" on the transmittal (GTN #60910) to the pipe support group. It should be
+.395". The support group has used
.395" as input for the their design. The error is minor, however, and does not effect the desi gn. See Observation PS-10-01.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-001-S22R.
- 2. Bolts noted as unacceptable on the calculation. The designer waited for as-built loads for a final
! determination of acceptability as j part of the as-built program. The i final loads did decrease to acceptable levels.
i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 4 j Independent Assessment Program l
O O O WM -
Independent Design L*hM' Td Review Checklist-lllllllIlllllllllllllliil;;;;;
PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-001-S22R)
R;vlower Checklist No.
3 m PR 10 Date o f 3 g f g,g Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
- 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
- 5. Restraints:
Check whether the design suits requirements of X l the functional application.
- 6. Spring Supports (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
- a. G8H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.4.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.4.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 2 of 4
O O O E== -w Independent Design -
[*hM' f]
Ciii;;;;;m;;llisisiiiiiii Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-001-S22R)
CUI2"*' Checklist No. pun g_ c, uto4,h4g!!g -
Date of33,g, Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 7. Hanger Rods (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
- a. Gali Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.2.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.5.
- 8. Snubbers (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
- a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.6.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.6.
- 9. Strut (if applicable):
Check consistency with: X
- a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.1.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.7. X
- 10. Base Plates and Anchor Bolts:
Check consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, X Section 4.1.8.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 3 of 4
O g &
G J
"=- e Independent Design L4%'Id -
Review Checklist 11ll11!!l111llllll111lll11llll PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-001-S22R) 4 C wl***r J. C. Minichiello Checkilet No. PS-10 Date
- 9/14/83 Sallefactory item lYes No Cesamente i
i 11. Design Interface Requirements:
- a. Stiffness: X 1. No check on stiffness was provided
- Does the design meet the requirements of in the support calculation.
l Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1? (See Note 2 on attachment to
- b. Stresses: X Checklist PS-01.)
Does the design meet the requirements of
- Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.47 ,
f f
i l 12. Inspect Loadings for reasonableness (see Cygna Criteria i
83090-DC-2 for definitions):
I a. Dead Load (DL) X
- b. Thermal-(TH) X
- c. Safe Sbitdown Earthquake (SSE) X See Note 1 on attachment to Checklist PS-01.
j d. Pipe Whip (PI) N/A i e. Jet Impingment (JI). N/A
! f. Friction (FL) N/A
! 13. Design Output:
- a. Does the design meet the functional requirements?. X
- b. Does the design reflect correctly all the physical s X arrangements shown on B&R drawing (s)
RH-1-064-010S22R, Rev. 3.
I l
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 4 of 4 Independent Assessment Program I
O O O Independent Design i
M M'M IIllll111llll111111111111ll111 Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-009-S22R) i l Reviewer S Luo f, h Checklist No. PS-11 cate 9/16/83
! Satisfactory i
l Item Yes No Comments
! 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
jl RH-1-064-009-S22R.
1 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
! RH-1-064-009-S22R, Rev. 3.
i
- 3. The forces used to qualify the weld a
between Elements 1 and 2 were not j
correct (see attached sheet). This i
error will not effect the adequacy l of the ' weld since the as-built
- loads are small.
3 2 Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
l Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-009-S22R.
i l 3. Loading Combinations:
i Check for consistency with G8H Specification X j No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
4 I
4 Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
Q Q (}
!"A'"l independent Design l'hD h'Id Review Checklist' littlillfilllillllitilllllllli PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-011-S22R) i (formerly RH-1-062-002-S22R)
- Reelewer S. Luo 4, fm Checklist No. PS-12
- Date 9/15/83
- Satisfactory item Yes No Commente I
l 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-011-S22R.
l 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
I RH-1-064-011-S22R, Rev. 4.
{ 3. The designer used a type "PUH" U-
! bolt allowable to check a type
, " PUS" U-bolt. However, the as-j built load (3915 lb) is still less than the " PUS" allowable
! (3620 x 1.3 = 4706 lb).
- 4. See Observation PS-12-01.
! 2. Design Assumption's & Design Methods:
- Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-011-S22R.
i 3. Loadi,.g Combinations:
j Check for consistency with G8H Specification X
! No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
r i i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 l
O O OL R
L*H &'Id Independent Design lillllfilllllllllllillllllllll Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-011-S22R)
(fnempelv'RH-1-06?-002-S22R)
Rsvlower S. Luo Checkilat No. PS-12 f D"
9/15/83 i Satisfactory Item Yes No Comments i
1 4. Gap (if applicable):
l a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria X
) 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
i b. Does the gap accomodate thermal and seismic X movements in unrestrained directions?
1 5. Restraints:
i Check whether the design suits requirements of X l the functional application.
i j 6. Spring Supports (if applicable): N/A.
?
Check consistency with;
- a. G8H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2.4.
! b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.4.
I i 7. Hanger Rods (if applicable): N/A.
i Check consistency with:
- a. G8H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, i Section 3.6.2.2.2.
,) b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.5.
j i
i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 2 of 4
O O O E!!P=!!!"!5 Independent Design t MM'Id
!!!I1111llllll!!!I11111111llll Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-011-S22R)
( formerl y ' RH-1-062-002-S22R) ncviewer S. Luo Checklist No. PS-12
.i Det* 9/15/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Commente I
- 8. Snubbers (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
- a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, i
Section 3.6.2.2.6.
i b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.6.
- 9. Strut (if applicable): ,
- Check consistency with
- a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, X
- b. gna Cr t $83b90-DC-2,Section4.1.7. X t
I
! 10. Base Plates and Anchor Bolts:
j Check consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, X i
Section 4.1.8.
1
- 11. Design Interface Requirements:
- a. Sti f fness
- X No check on stiffness was provided in l' Does the design meet the requirements of the support calculation. (See Note 2 Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1? on attachment to Checklist PS-01.)
i i
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 3 of 4 i
O O O e=== Independent Design L*hM' M Review Checklist 111111111111!!!!'llll1111lll11 PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-011-S22R)
(formerly RH-1-062-002-522R)-
ecviewer S. Luo Checklist No. PS I j Dat* 9/15/83 j Sallefactory item Yes No Commente
- b. Stresses:
Does the design meet the requirements of X Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.4?
i i
- 12. Inspect Loadings for reasonableness (see Cygna Criteria j 83090-DC-2 for definitions):
- a. Dead Load (DL) X j b. Thermal (TH) X
! c. Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) X See Note 1 on attachment to Checklist i PS-01.
i d. Pipe Whip (PI) N/A i e. Jet Impingment (JI) N/A
) f. Friction (FL) N/A l
l 13. Design Output:
j a. Does the design meet the functional requirements? X l b. Does the design reflect correctly all the physical X arrangements shown on B8R drawing (s)
RH-1-062-002-S22R, Rev. 4?
i i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
{ Independent Assessment Program Sheet 4 of 4 l _ _ ._ _ __ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o p ;
e V V s A Independent Design-
[*hM' .Id 111111;;....
..:;l Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-010-S22R)
R:vi:wer S. Luo f,fg Checklist No. PS-13 Date 9/20/83-Satletectory Item Yes No Comments I
! 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-010-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-064-010-S22R, Rev. 4.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
4 RH-1-064-010-S22R. I I
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
i
}
- 4. Gap (if applicable):
i
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria N/A.
83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic
- movements in unrestrained directions?
j i
i; l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 4 Independent Assessment Program
" ~
e-=~e,
.O O O A LO;7Pr" Independent Design U u, Review Checklist 181111111ll11lllll1111111ll1ll PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-073-700-S32R):
4 n:vis" S. Luo 4 8114) . Checklist No. PS-14 pate 9/17/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
! 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-073-700-S32R.
) 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
- SI-1-073-700-S32R.
- 3. The design calculation includes a pipe bearing stress calculation
- although this is not required for i general pipe support design.
- 4. This support was designed,by a site j engineer.
i
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-073-700-S32R.
3 Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X Enveloped loads were conservatively No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2. used in the design calculation.
l i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
- Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 i
O O O \
w Independent Design M,5sM Fh M Review Checklist lilllllilllllllill!Illlllillil PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-042-002-S22K)
Reviewer S. Luo f, h Checklist No. PS-15 oste 9/21/83 Satisfactory Insm Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-042-002-S22K.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
SI-1-042-002-S22K.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-042-002-S22K.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specificatie X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
- 4. Gap (if applicable):
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria X 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic X movements in unrestrained directions?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O E= 3 Independent Design
[*hM IU 1111111111111111111ll1111ll111 Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-075-001-S22R)
Reviewer S. Luo f, [g Checklist No. PS-16 Date 9/17 7 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments
- 1. DesignInputdata:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-075-001-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
SI-075-001-S22R. Rev. 2.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-075-001-S22R.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G&H Specification X The consideration of friction forces No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2. under emergency condition is conservative.
- 4. Gap (if applicable):
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria X 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic X movements in unrestrained directions?
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 4 Independent Assessment, Program
O O O
==3 293 Independent Design
[*hl*'h' id Review Checklist ll11111111111!!!111llI111111!!
PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-075-003-S22R)
Rowlewer S. Luo f [,g Check!ist No. PS-17 Date 9/16/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-075-003-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
SI-1-075-003-S22R, Rev. 3
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-075-003-S22R.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
- 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 4 Independent Assessment Program
O O O
==="- Independent Design l'h M'Id Review Checklist lillllllililllllilllllilllllli PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-008-007-S22R)
Reviewer S. Luo I, h Checklist No. PS-18 Date 9/14/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calceslation No.
RH-1-008-007-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
HH-1-008-007-522R, Rev. 3.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-008-007-S22R.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
4 Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal arsd seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
e Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 4 Independent Assessment Program
O O O W5A254 Independent Design L4 t*"h' Id Review Checklist lililllillllllllllilllilllllli PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-006-S22K)
]
C=lewer S. Luo 4. du, checklist No. PS-lg pate 9/14/83
- Satisfactory
{ Item Yes No Comments l
l 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-006-S22K.
i[ 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
! RH-1-064-006-S22K, Rev. 3.
- 3. The design loads were higher than the as-built loads. The calcula-
- tion is acceptable.
i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
i Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
i RH-1-064-006-522K.
(
i 3. Loading Combinations:
! Check for consistency with G8H Specification X i
No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
i l
l 4 Gap (if applicable): N/A.
j a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria l 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
I
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?-
l
, Texas utilities Services Inc.; 83090
! Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 i
O O O Br ==53 Independent Design
[*hDh' Td Review Checklist 11111111111111118lll111111llll PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-005-S22R) ecesewer S. Luo $,b Checklist No. PS-20 Date- 9/14/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-005-S22R.
- 2. Refer to BAR Drawing No.
RH-1-064-005-S22R, Rev. 4.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-005-S22R.
- 3. Loading Combinations: -
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X .
No. 2323-MS-45A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
- 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i' Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O
&=M Independent Design t [*h M'Id imimlilllililimilililiti Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-010-004-S22K)
- R o-lo w S. Luo [.h Checklist No. PS-21
- oste 9/13/83 j Satisfactory
{ Item Yes No Comments i
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-010-004-S22K.
X 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-010-004-S22K, Rev. 2.
. 3. For design calculation, also refer l to calculations RH-1-010-002-S22S, j (Checklist PS-23).
l l 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
i Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
l i
RH-1-010-004-S22K.
l j 3. Loading Combinations:
! Check for consistency with G8H Specification X l No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
i
! 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
j a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria
! 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
l b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic-9 movements in unrestrained directions?
i I
- Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 1
Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 l
O O O hy
,*h t L%gs! Independent Design
' M Review Checklist 111!!11llllll11lll11lll1lll111 j PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-004-S22K)
I l Ocviewer S. Luo { /u checklist No. PS-22 Date - 9/14/83 f Satisfactory
) Item Yes No Comments 4
i 1. Design Input Data:
! Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064--004-S22K.
l 2. Refer to B8R Drawing No.
' RH-1-064-004-S22K Rev. 4.
- 3. Design loads were much higher than as-built loads. The calculation is
- conservative.
j 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-064-004-S22K.
l i 3. Loading Combinations:
i Check for consistency with G8H Specification X
{ No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
l 4. Gap (if applicable):
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria X 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
, b. Does the gap accomodate thermal and seismic X j movements in unrestrained directions?
I j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
0 0 L) 53!! Independent Design
[Q*h LC M 1tlll1111llll11111111lll111111 Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-010-002-S22S)
Co:l***r S. Luo f,-fa. Checklist No. PS-23 f
Date 9/14/83 l Satisisctory h item Yes No Comments l
! 1. Design Input Data:
- Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
1 RH-1-010-002-S22S.
j 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
l RH-1-010-002-S22S, Rev. 4.
I
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
i Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-010-002-S22S.
l 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
- 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria l 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
! b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic ,
j movements in unrestrained directions?
i
{
j Texas utilities Services Inc.; 83090 independernt Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 '
N o o Independent Design 6
MDh'Id lillllillllllllllllillfilillli Review Checklist PIPF SitPPORT (RH-1-010-002-S22S)
Cowlewer 3, gyo Cneckflet No, pg_23 pote 9/14/83 Setlefactory item Yes No Commente
- 5. Restraints:
Check whether the design suits requirements of X the functional application.
- 6. Spring Supports (if applicable):
Check consistency with:
- a. GaH Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, X Design Hot Load shown on the drawing Section 3.6.2.2.4. was 1032 lb. which did not match the
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.4. X value 1037 lb. in the design calcula-tion. The effect is negligible.
Seismic matement not considered in the spring design calculation. See Observation PS-09-01.
- 7. Hanger Rods (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
- a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.2.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.5.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83G90 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 2 of 4
O O O K-E3M Independent Design MM'Id ilHililllHHilllllNilllilli Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-079-007-S42K) 00'8*' S. Luo 6. b Checklist No. PS-24 Date 9/10/03 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-079-007-S42K.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
SI-1-079-007-S42K, Rev. 2.
- 2. Design Assenptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-079-007-S42K.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G&H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
4 Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accomodate thermal and seismic l movements in unrestrained directions?
\
i i
\
f l 1
\
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 l Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
0 -
O O
, IE* PE3 Independent Design l'A M'Id lillHilllHHiltlilillilillli Review Checklist i PIPESUPPORT(RH-1-064-008-S22K)
C:r: sewer J. C. Minichiello () C W '
Checklist No. PS-25
- pate 9/15/83 Satisfactory llem Yes No Comments
{
i
- 1. Design Input Data:
, Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
i RH-1-064-008-S22K.
! 2. Refer to B8R Drawing No.
} RH-1-064-008-S22K, Rev. 3.
~
j 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
l Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
j RH-1-064-008-S22K.
i l 3. Loading Combinations:
1 Check for consistency with G8H Specification X j No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
! 3 l 4. Gap (if appilcable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria i 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
, b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic l movements in unrestrained directions?
i r l
1 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 i
O O O REllRREI Independent Design L4M'Id Review Checklist tilllittittitittillittittlitti PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-064-008-S22K)
Ceviewer J. C. Minichiello Checklist No. PS-25 Date 9/15/83 Satisfactory Item Yes No Commente
- 9. Strut (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
- a. G8H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.1.
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.7.
- 10. Base Plates and Anchor Bolts:
Check consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, X In the FUB II analysis for item 6 the Section 4.1.8 inputshowninthesketchontheInput form agrees with the latest drawing.
In the " memory register" table on the lower right side of the input form g incorrect data is shown for the "Y dimensions. The correct location of the attachment center should be about 1" farther away from bolts 3 and 4.
This will not affect the design since the ratio to allowable is small .
- 11. Design Interface Requirements:
- a. Stiffness: X rovided in Does the design meet the requirements of the support calculation.No check on stiffness w Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1? on attachment to Checklist PS-01.)
- b. Stresses: X Does the design meet the requirements of Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.4?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 3 of 4
O O O w5 j Independent Design
! M li M Review Checklist
! 181111111111111111lll111llllll PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-037-005-S32A) l c: viewer S. Luo f. h Checklist No. PS-26 Date 9/22/03T Satisfactory lla m Yes No Comments
! 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No. SI-1-037-
, 005-S32A.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No. SI-1-037-005-S32A, Rev. 1.
f I 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
} Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No. SI-1-037-005-S32A.
l
, 3. Loading Combinations:
j Check for consistency with G8H Specification X -
l No. 2323-MS-46A Rev. 3 Section 3.6.2.2.
i ,
! 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A. I
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 I
O O O Independent Des.ign MMId WIWillWilmillllilllW Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-037-005-S32A) t
! Cowlewer S. Luo checkleet No. PS-26 i
Date
, Setlefactory item Yes No Commente q 12. Inspect Loadings for reasonableness (see Cygna Criteria 1. Each loati case was run separately l 83090-DC-2 for definitions): and combined positively and nega-l tively with the other cases (64
! cases). This result was then
- conservatively enveloped.
- a. Dead Load (DL) X I b. Thermal (TH) X l c. Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) X 2. See Note 1 on attachment to Checklist PS-01.
- d. Pipe Whip (PI) N/A
- e. Jet Impingment (JI) N/A
- f. Friction (FL) N/A
- 13. Design Output: Design calculations do not consider
- a. Does the design meet the functional requirements? X the effects of pipe radial expansion i b. Does the design reflect correctly all the physical X on the support. CYGNA calculations j arrangements shown on B&R drawing (s) show no significant effect.
{ SI-1-037-005-S32A, Rev. 1?
l i
i l
i i
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 4 of 4 Independent Assessment Program
p) o
- v. (d- G F'res Independent Design
[*hM' Td Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-070-007-S22A)
Ccvie=*r S. Luo f, [m checkiset No. PS-27 net. 9/22/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-070-007-S22A.
- 2. Refer to BAR Drawing No.
SI-1-070-007-S22A, Rev. 1.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-070-007-S22A.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
4 Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2. .
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O EssiE if Independent Design MM'Id 19111111111111111lll11111!I111 Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-024-011-522A) 02 5* ** S. Luo 4[g Checklist No. PS-28
, pet. 9/23/83 l Satisfactory l Item Yes No . Comments i '
i 1. Design input Data:
l Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-024-011-522A.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
RH-1-024-011-S22A, Rev. 1.
! 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
I Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
l RH-1-024-011-S22A.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2. !
i j 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
i '
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic movements in unrestrained directions?
I l
l l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
~
O O O
==
- Independent Design E41'ii'Id Review Checklist lelunntilliluttiilintilli PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-075-002-522K)
Ccviewer S. Luo f, h Checklist No. PS-29 o.te 9/23/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-075-002-S22K.
- 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
SI-1-075-002-S22K. Rev. 3.
- 3. The frame and base plate analyses were based on previous loads which were larger than the as-built loads. The design calculation is, therefore, conservative and acceptable.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-075-002-S22K.
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3. Section 3.6.2.2. t 4 Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 t Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
O O O
- F=W Independent Design l
l'hM' Id 11111111111lll1111111111111111 Review Checklist PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-030-003-S32A)
C= lower S. Luo f, b Checklist No. PS-30
! oate 9/23/83 Satisfactory Item Yes No Comments l
j 1. Design Input Data:
- Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
SI-1-030-003-S32A.
. 2. Refer to B&R Drawing No.
SI-1-030-003-S32A, Rev. 1.
)
i 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
! Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
l SI-1-030-003-S32A.
i l
l 3 Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2.
1
- 4. Gap (if applicable): N/A.
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2. Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic i movements in unrestrained directions?
l l
I i ,
i l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 j Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4 I
O 6 C W
L*hL&'Td Independent Design Review Checklist
- memnnenmmmun PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-030-003-S32A)'
R:* *" S. Luo checkiist we. PS-30 l Date 9/23/83 j Setlefactory -
Item Yes No Comments l
i
- 9. Strut (if applicable): N/A.
Check consistency with:
j a. G&H Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, i Section 3.6.2.2.1.
I
- b. Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.7.
- 10. Base Plates and Anchor Bolts:
Check consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, X 1. SA-193-B7 through bolts were used.
j Section 4.1.8. 2. A conservative bolt interaction
- formula was used for rod " bolt."
i I
- 11. Design Interface Requirements:
- a. Stiffness: X No check on stiffness was provided in i Does the design meet the requirements of the support calculation. (See Note 2 Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1? on attachment to Checklist PS-01.)
l b. Stresses:
] Does the design meet the requirements of j Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.4?
I i
t i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090
) Independent Assessment Program Sheet 3 of 4 i
O O O g Independent Design L@' dIa Review Checklist Illtatute PIPE SUPPORT (SI-1-030-003-S32A)
Ceviewer S. Luo Clieckflet No. PS-30
~
o,,, 'J/ 4J/ oJ Setlefactory item Yes No Commente .t
- 12. Inspect Loadings for reasonableness (see Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2 for definitions):
- a. Dead Load (DL) X
- b. Thermal (TH) X
- c. Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) X See Note 1 on attachment to Checklist
. PS-01.
- d. Pipe Whip (PI) '
N/A e.. Jet Impingment (JI) N/A
- f. Friction (FL) N/A
- 13. Design Output: Design calculations do not consider
- a. Does the design meet the fu.'ctional requirements? X the effects of pipe radial expansion j b. Does the design reflect correctly all the physical X on the support. CYGNA calculations
'l arrangements shown on B&R drawing (s) show no significant effect.
i SI-1-030-003-S32A, Rev. 17 l
\
j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 ,
Sheet 4 of 4 Independent Assessment Prograia
O O O E= - Independent Design
[*ibb' ?j M Review Checklist linemmministalli PIPE SUPPORT (RH-1-010-001-S22R)
Reviewer S. Luo $, b CheckHet No. PS-31 cate 9/12/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments
- 1. Design Input Data:
Check that all data is used correctly. X 1. Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-010-001-S22R.
- 2. Refer to B8R Drawing No.
RH-1-010-001-S22R, Rev. 3.
- 2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods:
Check the acceptability of the original design. X Refer to Calculation No.
RH-1-010-001-S22R. ,
- 3. Loading Combinations:
Check for consistency with G8H Specification X The friction forces were conservatively No. 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3, Section 3.6.2.2. included in seismic load case.
- 4. Gap (if applicable):
- a. Check for consistency with Cygna Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.2.
- b. Does the gap accommodate thermal and seismic X movements in unrestrained directions?
Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 4
_ _ _ - - _