ML20096D241

Forwards Addl Cable Tray Support & Electrical Review Questions,Per Independent Assessment Program,Phase 4.Status of Phase 4 Questions Also Provided

ML20096D241
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/10/1984
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	George J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
84056.019, NUDOCS 8409050608
Download: ML20096D241 (17)

Text

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _

=-

101 Cahfornia Street, Suite 1000. San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415 397-5600 August 10,1984 84056.019 1

Mr. J. B. George Project Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company

, Highway FM 201 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 l

Subject:

Cable Troy Suppcrt and Electrical Review Guestions Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job No. 84056

Dear Mr. George:

Attechments A and B to this letter contain additional cable tray support and electrical review questions, respectively. Also, Attachment C provides a status of all letters sent to date containing Phase 4 questions for all disciplines. If there is uncertainty as to the intent of the question while preparing responses, please coll.

Very truly yours,

'4#.nuse N. H. Williams Project Manager Attachments cc Mr. D. Wade (w/ottochments)

Mr. G. Groce (w/ottachments)

Mr. S. Burwell (w/ottochments)

Mr. S. Treby (w/ottachments)

Mrs. J. Ellis (w/ottochments)

Mr. R. Ballard (w/ottochments) fDO k

San Francisco Boston Checago Fbchland

1. 4 8409050608 840010 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR

Mr. J. B. George Page I of 6 84056.019 August 10,1984 ATTACHMENT A

1. Detail "W" Drawing 2323-El-0601-S, Honoar Number 2602 e in calculation SCS-104C, Set I, Sheet 27, the honger members shown on Detail W were i originally qualified by similarity to the hongers shown in Cases A and D. It is not obvious that the hongers can be qualified because support 2602 is a composite of Cases -

A and D; however, in reviewing the CMCs issued against Detail W, Cygna noted that the calculations for the design review of CMC 32513, Rev. I, referenced a STRUDL

- analysis of the frame. It appears that the reonalysis was initiated since many

modifications had been mode to the support including the addition of more cable troys and conduits, use of alternate connection details, and use of alternate member types. 3 The computer output was not included with the design review calculations, therefore Cygna was unable to verify the adequacy of the frame analysis and design.

CMC 32513, Rev. I also included revised base plate details. No calculations for these revised details were provided in the design review calculations.

Referring to Section A-A, in CMC 32513, Rev. I, Sheet 3 of 4, Cygno noted that o I/4" fillet weld was used on the connection between the 6 x 4 x 3/4" clip ongle and a 1-1/4" base plate. It is Cygno's belief that this is in violation of AISC code section 1.17.2 f Please provide Cygna with the following:

i (a) A copy of the STRUDL analysis computer output referenced in

• he design review calculations for CMC 32513, Rev.1; J

(b) Justification for the lock of design calculations to qualify the base plates and anchor bolts; and,

! (c) Justification for the use of a I/4" fillet weld to attach the clip ongle to a 1-1/4" l base plate os described above.

i

. 2. Cable Troy Span Violations Cygna prepared field walkdown isometrics of the cable trays within the scope of the independent Assessment Program, Phase 4. These isometrics (ottoched) show basic tray layout, presence of Thermolog fire barrier, troy size, and locations of transverse

! and longitudinal cable tray supports. Cygna's review of these isometrics identified l several instances where the tray spons exceeded those allowed by the Gibbs & Hill project criteria.

I i

Mr. J. B. George Page 2 of 6 84056.019 August 10,1984 2.1 Transverse and Vertical Supports Spons were evoluoted per Gibbs & Hill criteria os shown in calculation SCS-Il3C, Set 3 and on Drawing 2323-S-0901, Rev. 4. Spons for fire-protected trays were evoluoted per TUGCO Engineering instruction CP-El-4.0-49, Rev.1.

Based on Cygno's interpretation of these criterio, for the trays in scope at El.

790'-6" in the Auxilary and Safeguards buildings, the maximum span must not exceed 8'-0".

Table 2.1 summarizes Cygna's findings of span violations for transverse and vertical supports.

Table 2.1 Transverse and Vertical Cele Troy Support Spacing Violations Ref. Dwg. Cygno Troy Span Supports No. Fire No. Iso. Sht. Seg. No. Storting Ending Protection FSE-00174 1 Tl20ABC03 11'-0" 299 479 Yes FSE-00174 2 TI2GABF04 10'-5" 333 332 Yes FSE-00176 4 Tl10SAAIS 8'-4" 592 593 No FSE-00176 4 Til0SAAl3 12'-0" 655 656 No FSE-00176 5 T120SBC36 8'-8" 764 765 No FSE-00176 5 T120SBC25 8'-4" 724 726 Yes FSE-00176 5 Tl205BC25 8'-2" 722 723 Yes FSE-00176 6 Tl20SBC29 9'-3" 620 587 No FSE-00185 7 Tl20ABC10 8'-9" 2986 2998 Yes FSE-00185 7 Tl20ABC17 10'-0" 2953 2990 Yes FSE-00185 8 Ti l0AAA08 8'-10" 2992 2993 Yes FSE-00185 8 Til0AAA10 9'-4" 3134 2861 Yes 2.2 Longitudinal Supports Spons were evoluoted based on Gibbs cod Hill drawing 2323-S-0901 and calculo-tion SCS-Il3C, set 3 for non-fire-protected lines. No reference was located for allowable longitudinal spons for fire-protected trays. Cygno assumes that the criteria of a longitudinal support span maximum of 40'-0" for continuous straight troy runs, with at least one longitudinal support on each straight troy run, no matter what the segment length is, shall apply to both fire-protected and non-fire-protected trays.

In reviewing the trays within scope, Cygno located several violations, which are summarized in Table 2.2.

Mr. J. B. George Page 3 cf 6' 84056.019 August 10, I984 ..

Table 2.2 Longitudinal Cele Tray Support Spac*mg Violation Ref. Dwg. Cygno. Troy Span Supports No. Fire Comments No. Iso. Sht. Seg. No. Starting Ending Protection FSE-00174 i Tl20ABC04 11'-10" - -

Yes No longit. support on run between riser at CTH 367 and horiz. elbow at CTH 479.

< FSE-00174 2 Tl2GABF01 40' - - Yes No longitudinal supports in to this entire run from col.

Tl2CABF04 lines F-A through K-A.

FSE-00174 3 Tl2GABF33 48' 489 -

Yes Span exceeds 40' from a longit. support to the elbow at CTH 124.

FSE-00176 4 TilOSAAl8 5' - - No No longitudinal support between elbow at CTH 589 and end of run at CTH 720.

FSE-00176 4 TilOSAAll 60'-5" 3134 5807 No Longitudinal span exceeds go._on i FSE-00176 5 Tl20SBC25 57'-5" 2920 13080 Yes Longitudinal span exceeds go._on FSE-00176 6 Tl2OSBC29 60'-2" 586 587 No Longitudinal span exceeds go._on FSE-00185 8 Tl IOAAA08 10'-4" - -

Yes No longitudinal supports on run between elbow at CTH

! 2923 and wall penetration at col. line F-A FSE-00185 8 TliOAAA10 63'-l I " 2993 3134 Yes Longit, span exceeds 40'-0"

. . = . - .- -- . . .

l i-Mr. J. B.. George .Page 4 of 6 84056.019 August 10, I984 Please provide Cygna with the following:

(a) Justification fer the increase in transverse and longitudinal spans beyond rated allowables;

,(b) Justification for using allowable longitudinal spans based on non-fire-protected tray loadings for those longitudinal spans which are additionally loaded with fire protection; and, (c) Assurance that longitudinal supports for fire-protected tray runs are

. adequately reviewed for the addition of the fire barrier under TUGCO 2 Engineering instruction CP-El-4.0-49, Rev. l.

3. Detail H' Drawina 2323-El-0601-5 4 Hanger Numbers: 722,723,724,726,728,730 and 2606 Calculation sheet IS of SCS-104C, Set I contains the statement, "Det. M is similar to Det. 'V' and_'R'. Use same beam and brace sizes and bolt requirements. No computo-tion required." It is Cygna's belief that significant differences between hanger I configurations preclude qualification by similarity.

The connection of the beam to the concrete is analyzed on sheet 39 of SCS-104C, Set 1. The two-bolt connection is designed for tension and shear loads.

Please provide Cygna with the following:

(a) Justification for qualifying the support design by similarity as described above;

) (b) Justification for ignoring the induced moment in the design of the base connec-tion; and, i (c) -Justification for ignoring possible eccentricities of the beam and brace from the centerlines of the base angle and anchor bolts.

4. S>ecial Type per CMC 6114 Fanger Number 2998

! This support was originally designed in CMC 6114 (reference SC" 1240, Set I, sheets 6 - 9). During the review of the calculations, Cygna noted the following:

(a) Section B-B is a plan of the wall-mounted base plate for the longitudinal braces. This plate was not rigorously analyzed for the effects of the applied j loads including:

(i) Eccentricities of the attached tube steel sections from the longitudinal centerline of the base plate; and,

(ii) Attachment of one tube steel member between an anchor bolt and the edge of the base plate.

t l

Mr. J. B. George Page 5 of 6 84056.019 August 10,1984 (b) Section A-A is a plan of the floor mounted base plate for the tube steel columns. The base plate was not rigorously analyzed for the effects of applied loads including:

(i) The effects of induced concrete compressive forces; and, (ii) Eccentricities of the attached tube steel sections from the longitudinal centerline of the base plate.

(c) In ottaching the tube steel sections to the base plates, a i/4" fillet weld is employed. The plate thicknesses are la and 1-1/4". It is Cygno's belief that the use of the I/4" fillet weld is in violation of minimum weld requirements of AISC code section 1.17.2.

(d) Richmond inserts are allowed for attachments of the base plates to the concrete surface. These anchors are not checked for their ability to resist the opplied loads.

Please provide Cygna with the following:

(a) Justification of the base plates ability to resist the applied loads; (b) Justification that any Richmond inserts employed in the design will adequately resist the opplied loads; and, (c) Justificotton for the use of I/4" fillet welds in attaching the tube steel sections to the base plates.

5. Special Type per CMC 85720 (Revisions 0 - 4)

Honger Number 13080 Cable tray support 13080 was originally designed to replace support 594. A review of the CVCs for revisions 0 - 4 of CMC 85720 state that no new or revised design calculations were required to verify the adequacy of the support. A calculation sheet with design calculations is attached to revision 3 of the CVC but the calculations are unsigned and marked "For Reference Only." During Cygno's review of the available documentation on the support's design, the following points were noted:

(a) The tray support is located at a tee intersection of trays. It employs heavy clamps cnd is skewed with respect to the transverse oxis of the cable troy. Due to its location, orientation and the use of the heavy duty clamps, the support is required to be designed for vertical, transverse and longitudinal loads. The longitudinal loads were not considered in any calculation, including those marked "For Reference Only."

(b) The base plate was designed for a specific orientation and location of the 6" x 6" tube steel column. Subsequently, several modifications to the support resulted in a final orientation and location of the tube steel attachment. No calculations were performed to analyze the effects of these attachment alterations on the base plate and anchor bolts. Cygna believes that the final orientation as shown

- . ._=

Mr. J. B. George Page 6 of 6

- 84056.019 August 10,1984 on sheet 2 of CMC 85720, Rev. 4 differs greatly from the original orientation.

Therefore, the present configuration connot be qualified by similarity to the originally design condition.

Please provide Cygno with justificotton that the effects discussed above will not prevent the support from resisting any applied loads.

4 4

---

w -

v -

w--- - pw v g wy ,--y---, -,e + - ---- yv.- --v

....+--=**c--

se 4 ++ . se * ,M. g i

o to 3 5

{' {

q YW 2 0 o E @

& 33 .j .

ih 3 33 e " ,

Y s

in -

O G 9

4 .

b" U 1 i O f

-. Y----- - - 2

• g g gi g

's \

e

,*e

'4D55, 7fr et r pS F 5 3 1 ,9

(

~

r L

7

-l S

D 0 $- b

'n g i T S 1 t ,e. ~

.3 ja' '

s -

P

_k ,

58

'o E 4 sf y

( y 4- W@

< o WJ-0

' ts 8 4

g P gh g

e

'4 s

0.0 $

e6 g g

'hi %%  ; y an}o j

[

~

52N p $

'm

"$9

'  % ,..~.

,- 4 a .

• 9., *'

s o

- ~ .. E t .

as g

=

E

-I O

r, .

I I

i

_. # +

nin i

~~

M83 i

5 Tl2.GWOL i j

Y ,e\ ,,, *' [A

?< .. - , , , '

qo w

p l

'e

?

354 2-

' g6

! i%

i i i

i

{1 i

l .s TMA6Foq 12" 4 Fi u e w : n o 4 i '0 }

! q r i TaAy / sun I O Agt se_noWASL6 J - 1 I acss ot-D Q s Louce> G n t

CABLE mtA%- As h wt 15mETEtc5 I L4 L t , Auxitan.x 1ko a. . Et ~M D'-I,"  ; ,

m Swr 2. 4 Ru. bwa. Fss-son +

9

e 6..-~." ~ . . ~ . - , , . ._,V_ ..e. m -

._e, . . - _ . . _

w e e **

• 4 1

40- ' $

u C \ i N ,S I

iy i t

\

=

h

% a Y 11 a e , Of  :

b -

o i

o i sx c @

"g i 1.  ;\ ^

s t

g

'o 10 g -

5 e & 1

$s .s H O g

P

\ E. W 't' o

Iwi 3o

g. $ un

'd

' s a

[9d 4

d F@ d3

'l - YQ

.g.  !

1 kY O

e e

'e a

T

• ,ble

$s C

o, ga\ .

9 5

g i' 5 . ' . ,. E s.  ! Eg E

e .. *

/N -

• 'A-A e p i i o2 g +\ .. 'g , g

• ' W \

,f M$ j <g N \/

$th_ o

(, e O e t t*o

(*3

=

, ,W s e t . s t"

. y E

F

?/ '% 3 F

-L r- 5 A k g 'o, a '& y N 40

, c

's '

o .

.fd

.. < '*s U c $

• 1 s

's->

F Sww s

~b 3f o E l e 5 05 W

{d3C

\e-

+ , ,o i

z <

x g 'A  ?

i 3 1

~.a k.

+ *d d $ 5, s, s -u e s 0

,e a6 J

• p lA 'h i__e, .,

,,a

- F - .,

' h #

W..

C

. 5 k2 'T-

$ I e:s

h g' I'  %'

e, ' 8

• 1

• e + n

• s .

1 10 3'k i

\

?

. /g g*

w 1 sc, s

e-  % s

\

i 1 l.% g 4

\

%g 1

y S e $

4h sx K - 4 A

., f*

+

s,

& \ ..

V s< * *%. $ .

A'. ,

\

f ,,

g e_.s sg 4 Y 3

o e r,#- c k

4

$ a$ v a

.,, d q*

g %b

-\$

s

( 3 8

, p.)

s k m

1 0,

6 -

6 s

\r& '

4

) sti g

%x Gg#s s

x 9

) ,

• v t, g3  %'e.

. 3 U .

4 -

L.

,fCi '

m m ..so m m m s u p -

---

w------

, e .

t 2 -

s d 2

$ E g

() /

b':

h n M w8 4

o 4

3 -

h h$

ox o!T s

S . $

m_i ~

. 3 m so O e

% $4

,  % GE k # a ' o,,, Y T

so" -

A x &

d k ?q.,/

I I

ka j i i ,k \ j s  !

a

/ 't sh\

+ A si s o i;

k*  % %L* yN, 8s e

@ O 7 t e 3 e e

\ -

<j$

gw T *. e s

\ '

' og W

$'s. ,

s!.

e.+ c

, i 3}

"&' hO g 5 5e i d \

l

\

\

o' p

i .

.- e ehA

• '2 , e .

._~_._--/

h ,A  ?... 2 &

• , g y 5

g. '\ $aw '

0 El

$g o 4, 3 4:

w 5

(

o

'y 4h a "

b s

E O Q@

N 'y' *}

y ,

2 o

1

,,7 d g -

c '

• s M 3 9 ag t E b

,ej$, 4 i .,f 4

? s p 5g

._ /\ ( \

k< ' tr y

l

$ 3*

• ,$,.sr-v'~  % 4'W$.

k fc (3 4.

S /.4 C*

s

1. '~ t. ~

5  %-N 4  % *

$ D 1

h 5 h

8 j}%$

• / 1 \ S 7

i As*

> 1 e.

l

, 4

-s '

s

• ,e y .a

\ s 0*

,S

' 4 4

e i, * -

1: '

El t

., a

s. .. - ,, $  %'

_y - -, _ _ _ _ _ _

O 9

i', $ {, , z h,

O s k" a g

/ a '

" w f

\

./.

ed i

,A. ,

- ~% i;gitil e

2~

i

=

p s w.

y 3 o..

)

• s

(

n [. .,)

~ -a

\

s

%x

/.

• Q '-

,I 1 '

b .,

i -

$ f

' D .

f

+

/

/ -

C _

g,

& 'o .)

o d

WV

s. s +c.-, o -

d

,i

• 4 e-o

' f' n O %

' $ -P

/

5 d e 2

Y 5

• O N

m.

3, bi

(

4 t ['\

4 s ,. ge

~

~.- -

n; .,

Mr. J. B. George PageIofI 84056.019 August 10,1984 ATTACHMENT B Ei.ECTRICAL WALKDOWN QUESTION in reviewing additional information received on walkdown items, Cygna has found that MOV's HV-4512 and 'HV-4524 both have 0.7 HP motor operators instead of the 1.0 HP indicated in the vendor data and trip setting calculations. Please explain the difference and provide the apprcpriate documentation supporting the change.

t 1

E

Mr. J. B. George PageIofI ',[

84056.019 August 10,1984 ATTACHMENT C ,

STATUS OF PHASE 4 OUESTIONS -

Letter No. Date Subject Response Received Comments 84056.010 7/30/84 Mechanical & Electrical /l&C Review No  !

Questions

• 84056.011 7/31/84 Request for Calculations for Affected No Necessary to complete Affected CVC's (Coble Troy Supports) review of calculations.

84056.013 7/31/84 Pipe Support Review Questions No 84056.0!4 7/31/84 Pipe Support Review Questions No 84056.015 8/6/84 Cable Troy and Conduit Support No Review Ouestions 84056.016 8/6/84 Design Control Review Questions No 84056.017 8/7/84 Pipe Support Review Questions No 84056.018 8/7/84 Cable Troy Support Review Questions No

____ _- _ _ _ _