ML20100M388

Forwards Communications Repts Re Phase 4 Independent Assessment Program Covering Cable Tray Support Design Review Usage of Design Drawings

ML20100M388
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/28/1984
From:	Oldag D CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
NUDOCS 8412120304
Download: ML20100M388 (136)

Text

g.

=-

seevns 101 California Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415l397-5600 November 28, 1984 84056.039 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75??.4

Subject:

Cunmunications Report Transmittal #13 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. ho. 84056

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed-please find communications reports associated with the Phase 4 Independent Assessment Program.

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

Ver truly yours, so-WdW' D. Oldag Administrative Assistant Attachments cc: Mr. D. Wade (TUGCO) w/ attachments l

Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments l

Ms. J. van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments 9

Mr. D. Pigott.(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments p

Mr. S. Burwell (USNRC) w/ attachments '

1jq D

8412120304 O

M

{DRADOCKOh0kk5

$j PDR 0+ f l

S.o r, c,.co so,io, cn,c.9 n,cs,.o.

Communications ALn Report i

.4 Ulll11llll11111lll11ll1811111 TC "

R conference Repon Texas Utilities Project:

Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U***

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/26/84 Subject Time:

11:30 AM Cable Tray Support Design Review Place:

Usage of Design Drawings

Participants:

of R. M. Kissinger TUGC0 Praven Patel TUGC0 l

Bill Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Patel to describe the procedures snd drawings used in the cable tray support installation and review process.

The following information was provided by Mssrs Patel and Kissinger and from procedure ECP-10.

1.

The only places that hanger nunt)ers are found are in the FSE-MAPS and the FSE-159 assembly drawings.

These nunt)ers are assigned by site engineering when the FSE-MAP's are created based on the Gibbs and Hill support layout drawings.

2.

The FSE-159 sheets, one for each support nunt>er, are considered fabrication or assembly drawings. These are supplied to the craft for construction purposes but were typically only used to determine the dimensions of the materials needed for the support.

It was the crafts' responsibility to fabricate the supports in accordance with the applicable Gibbs and Hill drawings (ie S-900 series or El-xxx-xx-S). FSE-159 drawings only provide basic dimensions and a bill of materials, no information on connection details, fit-up, working points, etc., is included.

3.

The FSE-MAPS, as generated by site engineering are "for reference only".

Q.C. is required to inspect a support per the corresponding Gibbs and Hill support layout drawing.

hf jj

/rr 1

3 g,

Distnbution:

N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,

" ' ' _ _ > 1* 'j ' 'j '["[** ' ' ' " " O ' '* _"[_[""9 [ _ _ _,

Communications Report yni lill!!!!"

Requred i

Action By Comments ltem 4.

Mr. Patel said that site engineering is currently in the process of revising all FSE-159 drawings to incorporate any significant effects of CMC's/DCA's. This includes items such as changes in member sizes, support location or dimensions, etc., but does not include any modifications to connection details, since these are not shown on FSE-159 drawings. Mr.

Kissinger added that in some cases, the changes are only incorporated in FSE-159 drawings if the hanger has to be re-fabricated, and the revised FSE-159 is issued to the craft.

In other cases, if the changes are significant, the support nunber may be voided (and thus the corresponding FSE-159 sheet is voided) and a new number is assigned for re-fabrication.

5.

FSE-MAP's are revised to incorporate any hanger deletions, additions or relocations, but need not be revised to reflect a change in the detail reference for a specific support (ie to a Case if a CMC changes Support No.1062 from a Case A2 B, and is relocated, the new location will be shown, but the 2description block will still indicate that the support is a Case A ).

It is also likely that the same would apply to the 2

Gibbs and Hill support layout drawings since these are no longer controlled by Gibbs and Hill, but have been turned over to TNE for revision control.

6.

Mr. Kissinger, papraphasing from procedure ECP-10, stated that an "FSE-MAP should be used strictly for determining the location of a support and for the assignment of the support number." and should not be used for other purposes.

la cases where a hanger is deleted, that support nunber shall be voided on the support log (it cannot be re-used), the FSE-159 l

sheet shall be voided, and the reason for the support deletion indicated (ie. CMC /DCA number) on the voided sheet, i

and the FSE-MAP should be revised to reflect the change.

7 Cygna asked what process would be necessary for a generic study of a specific hanger type to locate all occurences of that type. Mr. Patel responded that you could not rely on a review of the support layout drawings or the FSE-MAP's since l

L they do not indicate the actual support type used.

(See earlier comment on revisions to FSE-MAPS.)

L In order to locate all occurances of one type of support, he felt that you would have to review all changes (CMC's/DCA's) against each specific layout drawing to determine if any of the supports had been modified or replaced with a different support type. He said that instead of " generic support type l

l reviews", it would be more meaningful to consider actual j.

field conditions for supports, since " generic" reviews would i

have to consider all allowed extremes in the design Page of 9

1 l

1020 Ot t

Communications Report 4~L t i

. llllllll11llll1lllllll11111111 Item Comments Ac on y tolerances. Since the field may not have used the extremes, the review may not need to be as conservative as when con-sidering the design extremes.

1 a

Page of 3

3 1020 01b

er, -

/

Communications Report 41 i i-i 1111111111111111111ll1llllllll company:

Texas Utilities T*' econ g conference Report Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/11/84 Subsect Time:

9:30 AM Cable TrayConduit Support Place:

Review Questions T. Keiss, R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen EBASCO (TUGCO)

B.K. Bhuj ang, S.C. Chang, P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ, N.H. Williams (Part-time) CES Required item Comments Action By 1

Reference:

Conference Report dated 10 October 1984, 9:30 am,

" Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions," Keiss, Kissinger, et. al. participating.

Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above.

1.

Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "11" (Drawing 2323-S-0905) for Longitudinal Loads.

Reference:

Calculation Binders SCS-105C, Set 1 and SCS-212C, Set 7.

1 J

The original design calculations and the design review calcula-l tions for CMC 8278, revision 4 appear in the above calculation sets. These calculations did not correctly calculate the tribu-I tory span for longitudinal loads. The. calculations also con-sidered fixity of the beam at the wall connection but did not apply moments to the connection. Eccentric brace loadings were not considered. Gibbs & Hill agreed with the above and will evaluate the support based on Cygna's recommendations. Cygna was l

also concerned about beam member stresses due to applied loads.

j Gibbs & Hill made several comparisons to support type SP-7 with brace and showed that Detail "11" beam member stresses were below I

allowables. These comparisons will be included in the calcula-tions by Gibbs & Hill. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the wcrst case support for Detail "11" within Cygna's scope.

Status: Gibbs & Hill to evaluate Detail "11", incorporating the above comnients, for its ability to resist applied loads.

l)f)jff

/rr

• • • 1 5

y N'. Willia'ms, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,

~

N$tribution:

Eii o,

3. buiweii, revaeu riie f

v.

Communications Report AL t i i

lilllililllllillllillllilllill item comments Ac y

2.

Alternate Detall 1 (Drawing 2323-S-0903).

Cygna, TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill discussed various aspects of the analysis for Alternate Detail 1.

Gibbs & Hill will analyze the connection detail using a finite element technique. Loads from support type A4 analysis, assuming pinned bases, will be applied to the base angle.

i Status: Gibbs & Hill to analyze Alternate Detail 1.

3.

Design of Base Angles for Multiple SP-7 Type Supports.

Cygna received calculations for multiple SP-7 base angles from Gibbs & Hill.

Status: Cygna to review calculations.

4.

Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type SP-4.

Cygna received calculations from Gibbs & Hill on the generic design of support type SP-4.

Status: Cygna to review calculations.

5.

Controlling Load Case for Design of Cable Tray Supports.

Cygna asked when copies of the charts of spectral peaks for SSE loadings at 7% damping would be delivered. Gibbs & Hill replied that those tables were being sent from their New York office.

Per the discussions of 10 October 1984, (Reference 1) Cygna had reviewed the material for the acceptance of original allowable values of Hilti Kwik Bolts for 1" diameter by 7" or greater embedments. Cygna's reviewers were concerned that those designs which used the original allowable values would have factors of safety less than 3.0 for SSE loadings. Cygna will continue to discuss this issue internally.

Mr. Kissinger noted that Cygna should consider the locations where the increase from OBE to SSE is the largest (23%). He stated that these locations are at the lower elevations which have lower accelerations and hence, lower support loads. Ori-ginal anchor bolt designs were based on the higher elevations which have larger accelerations. Cygna acknowledged this fact, but stated that for supports which were modified by CMC or DCA, analyzed by elevation specific accelerations and the bolt de-signed to interactions levels close to unity, the concern with anchor bolts factors of safety falling below 3.0 for SSE loads would still be valid.

Status:

Cygna to internally discuss anchor bolt factors of safety.

Page of

'020 0

CommunicStions 4L Report 6 i 9

111llllll11Illlll1lllllll11111 Item Comments Ac n y 6.

Method of Combination of Seismic Response.

Cygna distributed the paper written by R.P. Kennedy, " Position Paper on Response Conbinations."

Cygna asked if the 10% method for the combination of closely spaced modes was used by Gibbs & Hill in any response spectrum analysis. Mr. Kissinger noted that the original designs were pseduo-static using the peak acceleration from the response spectrum curves. Cygna acknowledged this, but noted that several analysis, such as the working point study, employed response spectrum analysis. Mr. Huang asked if this question had been discussed with Mr. Jong Pier of Gibbs & Hill's Special Analysis group. Cygna stated that the type of conbination had been dis-cussed with Mr. Pier during the review of the working point analysis in New York. Cygna also noted that Mr. Kissinger had been asked if TUGC0 had commited to the 10% method and that he had replied negatively during the New York meetings. At that time, Cygna had noted Mr. Kissinger's response and decided to research the topic further.

A check of FSAR commitments showed that the 10% method was re-quired. Gibbs & Hill will review their response spectrum analy-ses to see which method had been employed. Within the cable tray review scope, this included the working point and any subsequent analyses.

Cygna presented various methods of conbining the spatial compo-nents of earthquake response. This presentation listed the methods as:

(a) The square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the directional menber component loads or stresses; (b) the SRSS of the directional component interactions; (c) the Gupta method; and (d) the Newmark 100-40-40 method.

In general, Gibbs & Hill used method (b) listed above. Mr.

Kissinger stated that this method has been used in the industry.

Mr. Kissinger reviewed the appropriate FSAR sections which stated that the member component loads dJe to the direction of earth-quake are to be combined by the SRSS method. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 was checked and section 2.1 was interpreted as requir-ing the SRSS of the component member loads due to 3 directions of earthquake loading.

Page of 9320 0 t ti 1

Communications ALnm Report q

l11111lllllll1llll111llllllll Item Comments Ac y

To assess the impact of the use of the combination method upon designs within scope, Cygna will attempt to identify the in-stances where cosination method (b) was employed. This " review" is subject to approval by Cygna project management and sche-dule. TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill will research the interaction combination method and respond to Cygna with their position.

Cygna stated that the review of conduit supports noted the in-clusion of dead load in the SRSS combination of seismic loads.

Gibbs & Hill said a study of the impact of the use of this combi-nation appears in calculation binder 109C. This study's results show the impact of this cosination as a 5% decrease in design loads. Cygna will review these calculations to determine the range of the margins.

Status:

1. Gibbs & Hill to review response spectrum analyses to determine if the 10% method for combination of close-ly spaced modes was used.

2. Cygna to check acceptability of reviewing calcula-tions for interaction methods.

3. Gibbs & Hill and TUGC0 to research interaction combi-nation methods and respond to Cygna.

4. Cygna to review study of SRSS of dead load with seismic loads for conduit supports.

7.

Prying Ef fects on Richmond Inserts.

Based on results of testing of Richmond Inserts at CPSES and a manufacturers recomended factor of safety of 3.0, Gibbs & Hill calculated allowable load values for tension and shear for 1" diameter inserts. The values were increased beyond the original design values and those reported in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-SS-30. The increase in allowable values over original allowable values, Gibbs & Hill stated, will account for not considering any prying action in the design of Richmond Inserts.

The results of the calculation indicate that with the exception of tension for 1 1/4" diameter by 13-1/8" embedments Hilti Super Kwik bolts, Hilti expansion anchors govern the design of ancho-rages. Gibbs & Hill prepared calculations which show the above and these were given to Cygna. Cygna will review these calcula-tions.

Cygna noted that the comparisions of the new allowable values to original desigr values appears to compensate for the increase in bolt loads due to prying action for Richmond Inserts.

It is Cygna's experience that prying action has never been considered in the design of Richmond Inserts. Gibbs & Hill stated that their engineers were instructed to include a 50% increase in Page of

'0200 %

Communications Report M

i i 118llllll111111111118811111111 Item Comments Act y

loads for prying action after the implementation of the 79-02 bulletin. Cygna noted however, that in the design verification for CMC and DCA modifications where the inserts were designed to allowable values from Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-SS-30, prying action was not considered and tension controlled in the design, the increase in Richmond Insert allowables would not account for neglecting prying action.

TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill presented an insert analysis based on a support type B4 considered to be the worst case loading. Cygna will consider this analysis in the evaluation of this issue.

Status: Cygna to review calculations for new allowable loads on Richmond Inserts.

8.

Factors of Safety for Hilti Bolts and Richmond Inserts TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill presented the factors of safety for Rich-mond Inserts and Hilti expansion anchors as below:

Factor of Safety LOADING RICHMOND HILTI CASE INSERT BOLTS OBE 3.0 4.0 SSE 1.8 3.0 Cygna requested assurances that the factors of safety will not fall below the values listed for SSE loads when the spectrum for SSE loads at 7% damping are developed. Gibbs & Hill will provide Cygna with the charts of peak spectral accelerations and discuss the issue at that time.

Status: Open.

I e

Page of

1 Communications uni Report 1111ll1111ll111111111111111111 Teiec n y conference Roon Texas Utilities Project:

Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U *

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/?6/84

Subject:

Time:

9:30 a.a.

Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions Place:

CPSES Site

Participants:

of J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO)

S. Chang, P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna Required

)

Item Commen:s Action By i

1.

Controlling Load Case.

Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with copies of the charts of spectral acceleration peaks for OBE loads at 4% damping, SSE loads at 5%

damping and SSE loads at 7% damping.

Status: Cygna to review spectral peaks.

2.

Effect of CMC 6187, Revision 0, on SP-7 with Brace Type Supports.

Gibbs & Hill provided calculations for the effect of CMC 6187 on SP-7 with brace type supports. Cygna wanted to know if the CMC would have any effect on the working point deviation calcula-tions. Gibbs & Hill will provide documentation to show that there is no effect on the working paint analysis conclusions.

Status:

1. Cygna to review calculations; and

2. Gibbs & Hill to provide documentation to show that CMC 6187 has no effect on working point analysis results.

3 Evaluation of Specific SP-4 Type Supports.

Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for the specific SP-4 support as discussed on October 24, 1984.

t Status: Cygna to review calculations.

Yhl)/[//A ub 3

/aj b 1

2

'N.' Wil'liams7I). Wade 7J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.

Distnbution.

,an oi.

n u rwe s i, rroj ect, rise, n. M ssinger

Communications

^

4L n i Repod s;

1111111llll11111lll11111tll111 Required item Comments Action By 4.

Evaluation of Details A-H (Drawing 2323-El-0601-Ul-S)

(

Reference:

DCA 2538).

Cygna noted that the tolerances shown in DCA 2538 provide for a more critical case of anchor bolt and base plate loading than considered in the design. Detail "E", with and without brace, was evaluated and found to be adequate as far as the anchor bolts and baseplate are concerned.

4 l

l l

l Page of 2

2 10M 01b

Communicstions AL ci Report 111111111111111111111111111111 compenn T*'* con 9L conference neport Texas Utilities Job No.

Project:

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D *'*

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/26/84 Time:

Subject 9:30 AM Cable Tray Support Design Review Place:

Usage of P~ign Drawings of

Participants:

Bill Horstman CES Requred item Comments Action By Cygna ask Mr. Keiss to describe the procedures and drawings used in the cable tray support installation and review process. Mr.

Keiss supplied the following discussion.

1.

Procedures Used:

1.

Brown & Root Instruction ECP-10 governs the engineering effort in terms of drawings revisions and change paper.

2.

TUGC0 Instruction Ql-QP-11.10-2 is the Q.C. inspection requirements for support fabrication and modification.

3.

TUGC0 Instruction Ql-QP-11.10-5 is the Q.E. inspection requirements for the "backfit inspection program" of existing supports.

1 2.

Governing Drawings 2323-S-0900 series drawings are the Gibbs & Hill support detail design drawings for generic support types and connection details.

FSE-00179 is a Brown and Root drawing which is based on the S-900 series drawings, it is intended as a reference drawing for the installation (Craft) and for Q.C.

This drawing is referenced by FSE-00159 sheets for connection details.

FSE-00159 is a series of Brown & Root drawings with one sheet for each support nunter. They show the specific dimensions for a support and a bill of materials.

(Support Assembly Drawing).

Originally this was used as the fabrication drawing by f

/RR

1 3

signed N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, oistneution-J. Cii.a. 3. uu..w;;, Ti vs su i.... R. ni..

3u.

Communic;tions 4L i i Report 18111111lllll111llllllllll1111 nem comments

[cYoNy the craft, but in 1981 procedures were changed so it was only to be used to determine the location coordinates and elevation of the support, the support type and size is now determined from the electrical support layout drawings (El-xxx-xx-S) or the FSE-MAP. Connection details are taken from the S-900 drawings.

2323-El-xxx-xx-S are the Gibbs & Hill cable tray support plans. These show tray routing, support locations and the support reference type and dimensions. Some of these also show the support details which are specifically designed for a certain application.

FSE-XXX are the Brown and Root support location MAPS. These are copies of the 2323-El-xxx-xx-S drawings with field assigned support numbers added. These drawings are currently maintained by TUGC0 Site Engineering Group.

3.

Change documentation (ie CMCs and DCAs) are issued against a Cable Tray Support Plan (El-xxx-xx-s). Gibbs & Hill may or may not incorporate these changes in the drawing (Mr. Keiss was unsure). However, TUG 0 will incorporate the changes in the corresponding FSE-MAP if the change involves a change in hanger type, location or the addition or deletion of a hanger. New FSE-159 drawings are issued by TUGC0 if needed. Mr. Keiss feels that the FSE-MAPS are keep current and more accurately reflect support layout then the El-xxx-xx-S drawings.

4 FSE-MAPS are not used by Gibbs & Hill in their review process, they rely on their support plans, which do not have hanger nunt)ers on them, and thus must identify supports by their column line coordinates.

5.

In the TUGC0 support review and modification process, Mr.

Keiss uses both the FSE-MAPS and the support plans, depending on which one is more convenient.

6.

The method by which a support is modified or a new support is added, due to a cable tray re-route or addition of new tray segments, depends on who initiates the change (tray routing changed by DCA). For site generated DCA's, TUGC0 will locate new supports on the FSE-MAP's, and individually design these supports rather than relying on Gibbs & Hill generic designs. Details and limitations of 2323-5-0901-01 drawing are rarely used.

(Tom noted that this drawing is used by the design engineers, it is not supplied to the craft or Q.C.).

CMC's for the new or modified supports are sent to Gibbs &

Hill for design review and approval.

Page of ioso oie L__

.s.-.-....-._-

.. ---/.._.. _.

Communications 4L n Repod i

111111111lll186111111111111111

[cEnTv item comments 7.

In cases where tray addition /re-routing is intiated by Gibbs

& Hill Electrical Group, tray segment drawings are revised and submitted to the G&H structural group for new support design. These results are then sent to the field for implementation.

8.

The assembly drawings (FSE-00159 sheets) do not necessarily reflect all change to a support. They are only revised if so requested for a specific reason.

If they are revised, they go through the standard review processes, and may be field verified if necessary.

9.

TUGC0 is currently working with EBASCO to develop a plan for doing "As-Builting" of all existing cable tray supports.

They may incorporate all field changes and CMC's into the FSE-159 drawings or create new as-built drawings. This effort may be needed to answer an PRC concern on the lack of control on cable tray supports - the NRC feels that TUGC0 has no way to document the actual field configuration of a cable tray support.

10. Cygna asked if the weight of cable tray covers was included in the weight calculations used to evaluate cable trays with fire protection added.

Mr. Keiss said that he believed the cover weight was not included because it was considered negligable. The documentation used in these studies does not indicate when covers are present, and the only way to determine this would be to refer to the electrical group for the segment drawings which indicate the use of covers.

Page of N

Communications Report 4L t i 11111111lll1811111111111111111 T'* con 51 conference Repon Texas Utilities Job No.

Protect:

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10 Oct. 1984 Time:

Subject-9:30 a.m.

Cable Tray / Conduit Support Place:

Review Questions T. Keiss, R. M. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen EBASCO (TUGCO)

B. K. Bhuj ang, S. C. Chang, P. T. Huang Gibbs & Hill W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ CES Required 1:em Comments AcDon By

Reference:

1. Conference Report dated 9 October 1984, 9:30 a.m.,

" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"

Keiss, Kissinger,,et al., participating.

t Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above.

1.

Detail "W" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S).

Cygna's review of the STRUDL output noted that the global X-axis rotations at the support points of the W8 x 31 member were ap-proximately 5 degrees. Cygna' reviewers felt that these rotations were excessive and that the clip angles, which had not been checked for stress levels, would fail. Mr. Bhuj ang responded by stating that it was not appropriate to consider the clip angles as fixed. Cygna stated that the clip angle configuration is appropriate as a pinned connection for the vertical (Y-axis) loads but were not appropriate to resist X-axis moments. Mr.

Kissinger will check on the acceptability of the clip angles to resist torsion of the W8 x 31 member or design a modification to provide such resistance.

Status: Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the W8 x 31 connections for the effects of torsion.

2.

Detail "N" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S).

Cygna reviewed the Gibbs & Hill calculations fcr the proposed modification of a Detail "N" support to provide longitudinal restraint for several cable tray segments within the review

/dm '*" 1 6

})J )b pf A h,' gj j{iams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, Distnbuten

v. u n i s, a. ourwe i i, rroa ea ri s e, #5. M ssinger

Communications Report AL t i 111tll1lll1ll1111111111ll11111 llem Comments Ac y

I scope. These calculations did not consider torsion of the beam due to longitudinal loads. Gibbs & Hill. replied that the loadt used in the analysis and design of the modification were conser g vative but still enveloped by the design loads for support type SP-7 with brace. Cygna also noted that the brace was eccentric-ally loaded but was not checked for this condition. Gibbs & Hill will check the brace for the effects of the eccentricity.

Status: Gibbs & Hill will check the brace for eccentrically applied loading effects.

3.

In-plane Angle Braces for Trapeze Type Cable Tray Supports.

Per Reference 1, Gibbs & Hill checked on the working point analy-sis of the C type supports and found that the largest axial load 3

for a single angle brace was 7.46 K.

The evaluation of the brace appears in Attachment 1.

The results of the evaluation show the brace to be acceptable.

Status: Closed.

4.

Alternate Detail 1 (Drawing 2323-S-0903).

Per the discussions of 9 October 1984 (Reference 1), Cygna dis-cussed internally the analysis procedures Gibbs & Hill might employ in their evaluation of Alternate Detail 1.

Cygna sug-gested that due to the fixity provided by the base angle, some moments should be considered. Gibbs & Hill felt that this ap-proach might be too conservative. Cygna also suggested that evaluation of the base angle might be controlled by the stiffness of the outstanding leg (of the base angle.

Two cases were recom-mended for analysis:

1) A rigid body for short bolt spacings; and, (2) a flexible system for large support widths where the base angle might behave as a beam on an elastic foundation.

Cygna also recommended consideration of rotations about the bolt axis centerlines.

Status: Gibbs & Hill to analyze Alternative Detail 1.

5.

Embedded Plate Edge Distance Violation for Cable Tray Support 2953.

Cygna had reviewed the CVC for CMC 12105 and found the conclu-sions acceptable.

Status: Closed.

Page of

s Communicctions Repod 4L t i 111lll1811llll11111111lll!Il11 "Ac7o"nYy nem comments 6.

Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type D Using Reduced Horizontal i

Accelerations.

Gibbs & Hill evaluated the wall connection using frequencies that Cygna had calculated and original Hilti Kwik Bolt allowables for 1" diameter by 7" embedment anchor bolts. The interaction ratio for the bolts was 1.01 using the above data.

Cygna stated that Gibbs & Hill should not rely on Cygna's analy-sis to justify the connection adequacy but should perform a revised analysis. Gibbs & Hill agreed to revise the analysis to reflect their in-house calculations.

Gibbs & Hill used the original allowable values for the 1" dia-meter by 7" embedment Hilti Kwik Bolts because the original designoftheD}owables. supports were performed prior to the issuance of revised bolt al A study by Hilti Inc. showed that for designs based on the original allowable values, there would be no impact on support integrity provided that the anchor bolts were properly designed. This study was sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC has not responded on a general basis on the acceptability of the Hilti study.

Mr. Kissinger stated that TUGC0 had noted the change in allowable bolt values and filed SDAR CP-80-12. The resident NRC inspector had closed out the SDAR based on information provided by Hilti, Inc. The closure of the SDAR noted that the reduction in the factor of safety of the bolts due to the change in bolt allow-ables was acceptable. The documentation for the bolt allowable issue is Inspection Report IR 81-14 and Reports 50-445 and 50-446. After an internal discussion, Cygna advised the parti-cipants that the use of old allowable values for 1" diameter Hilti Kwik Bolts was acceptable.

Status: Gibbs & Hill to reanalyze type D supports using in-3 house programs and provide Cygna with a revised response.

7.

Installation Tolerances for Details A-H (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) per DCA 2421.

Cygna requested verification of the tolerances for Details A through H shown in DCA 2421. An examination of the actual confi-gurations which may occur when the tolerances are used indicated that Gibbs & Hill's original analysis may be acceptable. Cygna will review calculations for a Detail "E" type support subjected to 3 directions of loading to verify the adequacy of the anchor Page of

-.. C3 0 ' 6

Communic 0tions 4L ci Report 111111111111ll1111111111111111 AcNYy Item Comments bolts and the base plate. Cygna later received sheets 65-69 of the calculation binder SCS-146C, Set 8 for review.

Status: Cygna to review above calculations for applicability to supports in question.

8.

Ability of Conduit Support CA-5a to Resist Loads from 5" diameter Conduits.

Cygna received sheets 154-160 of calculation binder SCS-153C, Set 1.

Status: Cygna to review above calculations.

9.

Design of Base Angles for Multiple SP-7 Type Supports.

Cygna and Gibbs & Hill discussed the analysis to be used in determining the adequacy of the multiple SP-7 support base angles. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the connection based on worst case beam placement and loadings. Cygna asked whether rotation of the base angle about the bolt centerline would be con-sidered. Gibbs & Hill replied that it would not.

Status: Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the base angle connection.

10.

Design Review Calculations for Conduit Support Type CSM-42a Considering Concrete Compressive Forces.

Cygna received calculations for conduit support type CSM-42a.

Status: Cygna will review above calculations.

11.

Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type B using Appropriate y

Slenderness Ratio.

The calculations given to Cygna on 9 October 1984 included a reduction factor of 1.26 to account for distributed axial loads. Cygna,10ted the use of the factor as incorrect. Gibbs &

Hill showed that without the factor the hanger member was adequate to resist the design loads.

Status: Closed.

12.

Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type A Using Appropriate g

Slenderness Ratio.

Cygna received calculations for A, supports.

Status: Cygna to review above calculations.

Page of l

Communications M

ii Report 111llllllllllll1lll1lll1111111 AcEniy stem comments 13.

Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "11" (Drawing 2323-S-0905) for Longitudinal Loads.

Cygna questioned the acceptability of the equal distribution of longitudint.1 loads based on a comparison of cable tray and support stiffness. Gibbs & Hill suggested comparing the actual tray loads and tributary spans to the design loads to qualify the supports.

f this approach fails, the stiffness of the support will be considered to reduce the applied loads. Cygna and Gibbs-

& Hill will review the existing calculations for areas of pos-sible disagreement prior to the above evaluations.

Status: Cygna and Gibbs & Hill to review calculations. Gibbs &

Hill to evaluate Detail "11" based on discussion re-suits.

14.

Controlling Load Case for Design of Cable Tray Supports.

Mr. Kissinger provided Cygna with a copy of TSG-6b42 dated 21 September 1984. He also suggested that Cygna obtain a copy of TXX-4316, a letter from TUGCU to the NRC in response to questions regarding anchor bolt factors of safety, allowable loads and damping values. The responses by TUGC0 in these documents are based on unrefined spectra for 4% and 7% damping for (BE and SSE loadings, respectively. The differences between the OBE and SSE peak spectral values over all buildings and elevations ranged from 5 to 23%.

Mr. Kissinger reviewed TUGCO's response to the question regarding allowable material stress values for the SSE loading case.

In regard to the response to the question on anchor bolt factors of safety, Mr. Kissinger noted that the term " maximum working loads" referred to the OBE loadings. The response noted that factors of safety of 4 and 3 were used for OBE and SSE, respectively. He noted that with a change in loading from OBE to SSE of 23% that no Hilti Bolt would have a factor of safety below 3.0.

Cygna asked about those designs which used original allowable values for 1" diameter Hilti Bolts.

(See item 6 above.) These designs were accepted by the NRC site inspector based on a re-duced factor of safety in response to SDAR 80-12. Mr. Kissinger stated that Cygna should review the response to SDAR 80-12.

Gibbs & Hill is to provide Cygna with a peak spectral values for SSE loads at 7% damping.

Status:

1. Cygna to review NRC response to SUAR 80-12; and

2. Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with peak spectral values for SSE loads at 7% damping.

Page of

Communic 0tions

~

Report AL t i 11ll11llll11ll1111.!IIllll1111 AcNy stem comments For a frame type C with L =

3'-0", the maximum axial brace load 3

is 7.46 k.

(Reference Computer Binder DMI-18p5.)

1 = 89 i n r, = 1.15 in S = 1.317 in3 k = 1.0 r = 0.587 in S,z = 0.839 in 3 g

kl/r = 89/1.15 = 77.39 kl/r,z = 89/0.567 = 151.6 Fa = 6.49 ksi F'e" = 24.94 ksi F'e 6.49 ksi

=

fa = 7.46/2.11 = 3.54 ksi M,= (7.46) (1.06) = 7.91 in-k M = (7.46) (0.195) = 1.46 in-k z

To properly evaluate the stress interaction ratio, the point of maximum stress must be chosen. At point 1 of Figure A-1, no contribution to compressive stresses is made by N, because the At point 2 where M causes point lies along the neutral axis.

the maximum compressive load, the contribution from M,15 z

tensile. Therefore, the worst case combinations are shown below:

3.54 1.46 0.719 I1

=

= g + (0.839) (22) (1 6.49) 3.54 3.54 7.91 1.46 I2 " 6.49 (1.317) (22) (1 2 94)

(0.839) (22) (1 3 $4)

,q9 12 =.690 Page of scaccin

LOAD y

d APPt.icATioN W

POsMT PoNT 1 Powr.i o

x N

(

4 Figure.

A. - 1 e

9 I

g e

i i

t

Communications Repod 4Ln i lilHHillH611HilillHHilli Texas Utilities q Telecon Conference Report Project:

Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/2/84 Subject Time:

9:00 a.m.

Cable Tray Support Questions Place:

Participants:

of T. Keiss TUGC0 (Site)

W. Horstman Cygna i

Required item Comments Action By I asked Mr. Keiss to arrange for a field inspection of two cable tray support base plates:

No. 2998 in Auxiliary Building No.13080 in Safeguard Building He will determine Hilti bolt length code and thickness of grout between base plate and floor.

i l

Signed.

Page of

~

N./ 'ilIlams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess J. Russ, W. Horstr.an, S. Treby, 0.sinnution:

W v.

a s o, a. ourwesi, rruaect, ri se, n. M ssinger

s-Communications ALni Report 1111111llllllll1111111lll11111 Texas Utilities T* coa

% conference noon Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U'

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/25/84 Subject Time:

4:45 PM Cable Tray Support Design Review Place.

Verification of Installation of Hilti Bolts Mike Warner TUGC0 QE Jeanne Van Amerongen EBASCO Bill Horstman Cygna nequired item Comments Action By Mr. Warner provided copies of Ultrasonic Test reports for Hilti Expansion Anchors from the testing performed on Cable Tray Supports as requested by Cygna on 10/17/84. Mr. Warner stated that these reports will be placed in the Q.C. file for the corresponding cable tray support to ease in future location of this documentation.

l l

l i

l i

l h /

phj

/rr

• • 1 1

D*tabuhoa~

N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, im oi,

v. c.i n s, a. ourwei s, rroj ect riie H. Mssinger

Communications Report 41

( i 111111111111111111111111111111 companr Texas Utilities

1. Teiecon o conference Report Job No.

84056' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station onte:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/5/84 subiect Cable Tray Support Design Review Time:

11:45 a.m.

Anchor Bolt Ent)edment Place:

SFR0

Participants:

T. Keiss TUGC0 (Site)

W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Keiss provided answers to the questions asked in telecon of 11/2/84, 9:00 a.m.

1.

Support No.13080.

liliti Super Kwik Bolt Length:

"X" Grout Thickness: 3/4" Maximum Bolt Proj ection: 41/4" from slab to end of bolt 2.

Support No. 2998.

Hilti Super Kwik bolt length:

"U" Grout Thickness:

3/4" Maximum Bolt Proj ection: 4 3/8" from slab to end of bolt f

/ aj b " 1 1

signed N.' WilTiams,'D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, ointnbution:

.. ? !i ;, S. "..

! !,,, y m,;;m, R. m.....,3 c,

Communications 4 Ld i i Repod 14lllllllll1111111111111111111 conipany: Texas Utilities a Telecon a conference Report Job No.

Project:

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/24/84 9:30 A.M.

Cable Tray Support Design Reviews CPSES Site

Participants:

J. Burkeen DCTG W. Horstman Cygna Required ttem Comments Action By Requested and received Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-1240, Set #1, sheets 65 and 66.

i 4

i

~/j

/aj b

"*8' 1

1 signe N.'Wi'lliams, 0 N ade, 7. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, W. Horstman, J. Russ, S. Treby, Distneution-Cii i, 3. 6ui-cii, Fiwcu iiic, R. r i >> nisci v.

Communications Repod i

./

111111111111111111111111111111 compeny:

Texas Utilities o Telecon tX conference Report Job No.

84056' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oste:

Independent As essment Program - Phase 4 10/27/84 Cable Tray / Conduit 1:50 p.m.

Place:

Review Scope CPSES Site

Participants:

S C P Hg Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman, J. Russ, H. Williams Cygna nequreo item Comments Act:on By

Reference:

Conference Report dated October 27,1984, 9:30 a.m.,

" Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions" Keiss, Van Amerongen et al. participating.

1.

Per the discussion in Reference 1, Cygna reviewed specification 2323-ES-100 and procedure QI-QP-11.3-29, " Verify Electrical Seperation". The later procedure notes in Section 3.1.6, para-graph b, " Tray horizontal separation of different trains or channels may be reduced to a minimum of one inch clear air space provided the trays are covered."

Cygna noted that Gibbs & Hill used a 6-inch spacing between trays and 3-inch clearance to hangers. Cygna is concerned that by not considering the minimum tray spacing, the generic designs may not be adequate to predict the most critical support loads. Gibbs &

Hill replied that when laying out the tray supports, the engineer would use the generic support width for a specified maximum tray

(

width if the trays were spaced at less than six inches apart.

The engineers who determined the support maps were familiar with the support design and used drawing 2323-S-0901-01 which lists the support dimensions for limiting tray widths. Gibbs & Hill stated that drawing 2323-S-0901-01 was not a controlled drawing.

2.

Welds for Specific Detail E-H Supports.

Cygna noted that cable tray supports 734, 735, 2953, 3016, 3022, 3023, 3034, 3501, 3504, 3112, 5616 and 5608 have a 3/16-inch fillet weld specified for the beam-baseplate connection on the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings. The design drawing requires a larger fillet weld. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the effect of the

~

s$ne U

/aj b "*8' 1

2 l

Distneution-N. Wi'liam's, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, C. C.. ; ? ?, ".,. ;; "i ? ;, ':. ",i n i..r.

Communications Report 4 f.

t i 18ll111111lll181111llllllll111 AeENy ltem Comments FSE-00159 fabrication drawings. The design drawing requires a larger fillet weld. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the effect of the reduced weld size on the support capacity and the reason for the fabrication drawing deviation.

Status: Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the effect of the reduced weld size and the reason for deviation.

l l

t 4

Page of 2

2

- -~ ' " '. ' " _. - _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _,.... _ _.,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _, _ _. _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _

c_ '

J -

e __

Communications Report ALn i 111111111111111111111111111111 O Conference Repon Texas Utilities 9 Telecon Job No.

Project 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/2/84 Time:

Subject 1:00 P.M.

Responses to Cygna Questions p

SFR0 of

Participants:

J. Van Amerona_en TUGr0 (FRA9r01 B. Bhuiana. P. Huana Gibbs & Hill r

T. Keiss TUGco J. Rust rvnna Required item Ccmments Action By 1

Cygna spoke to the above TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill personnel to discuss status and responses to questions on conduit supports.

1.

The calculations for IN-CSM-15a did not include concrete compressive forces on anchor bolts. This calculation was to be i

performed to verify support CSM-42a. Mr. Bhujang stated that for support IN-CSM-15a, the bolt interaction values were small and that the compressive forces would not affect the results. Cygna concurred but asked for an evaluation of CSM-42a. Mr. Huang asked if it would be sufficient to show that the present calculations were conservative. Cygna concurred and stated that the concrete at the bottom of the beam or wall which the tube extends over should be checked for failure. Gibbs & Hill will prepare calculations evaluating the above items for Cygna review at site.

2.

The response to question 1 of letter 84056.20 did not address torsion of the section P1001C3 for support CSM-6b. This torsion will introduce bending moments into the P5000 member. Gibbs &

Hill agreed to reevaluate the response.

Cygna noted that the site visit scheduled for October 8 through 10, would be used to discuss open items such as those described above. Mr. Bh4jang asked if the meeting was nec ?ssary if Cygna wasn't closing out all items. Cygna reminded the TUGC0 personnel that R.M. Kissinger had requested the meeting curing the previous discussions in New York at Gibbs & Hill. Cygna noted that every effort would be made to cover all topics for which TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill had made sufficient preparation, such as responses to the open items discussed on September 20, 1984 at Gibbs &

Hill. New Yark.

)bY1JJu a

/a.1b 1

1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, J.

' ' ' " * " ' ' " ~

Burwell, Pragect file, K. KISsinger ion e.

/

Communications 4L Repod i i 111111111161111111111111lll111

-f mecn conference Repon Torac ut111 tips Job No.

Project:

RanM Comanche Peak Steam Election Statior; g,,,.

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/?n/Ra Time:

Subject 11:00 a_m.

Cable Tray Support Calculations for Change p,,

Documentation epsrs sito of

Participants:

Janpile Rurkppn Gibhc A Hill Rill Hnectman rynna Required item Comments Action By Please provide copies of the following cable tray support calculations.

SCS-133C Set 1 Sheets 7-10 SCS-213C Set 5 Sheets 11-23 SCS-210C Set 6 Sheets 10-13 SCS-210C Set 8 Sheets 17-18 SCS-1240 Set 1 Sheets 61-62 Received 7/20/84, 1:45 p.m.

I

(

Page of Signed:

/ )// /[/ 2/u Lim 1

1

.g1111ms,D.kade,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,J.Russ,S.Treby,J.Ellis, Distribution:

S._ _B_u r_wel_l_, Proj e_ ct__ File __,

R.,

Ki ssinger_ _ _ _ _ _ _.

im oi.

Communications

~

AL Report i i 1111111111111111111!ll1111llll Telee n g Conference Repon Texas Uti11 ties Job No.

Project:

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/20/84 Subject Time:

8:45 a.m.

Cable Tray Support Review Document Request CPSES Site of

Participants:

Diane Overton Brown & Root (DCC)

John Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received copies of sheets 86 and 93 of drawing FSE-00159.

l

' 1 1/ UlA 13 m 1

1 N. Williams,'D. Wade, J. VanAmerangen, R. riess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Di"b" "

ioac oi.

d. tsurwe i i, vrq) ecT. r 1:e, K. K1$ singer

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

z3 c-Communications 4 (% i Report 11111111llll111111lll11lll11ll 9 conference Repon Teiec n Texas Utilities Job No.

Project:

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/18/84 Time:

Subject:

1:00 P.M.

Cable Tray Support Design Review CPSES Site

Participants:

of N. Munoz DCC W. Horstman Cyana Required item Comments Action By Requested and received c2ble tray support assembly drawing FSE-00159, sheet 3136, r evision 3.

l l

Signed:

Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, W. Horstman, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, U'"b"

• J. Ellis, 5. Burwell, Vroj ect tile, K. Kissinger smo oi.

=.

l Communications 4L ci Report 1lll181lllll111lll11llllllllll OU"P'"YI Telec n Conference Report Texas Utilities Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/24/84 f

Subject Time:

9:30 A.M.

Cable Tray Support Design Reviews Place:

CPSES Site

Participants:

of J. Burkeen DCTG W. Horstman Cygna Required l'em Comments Action By Requested and received Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-1240, Set #1, sheets 65 and 66.

I i

lj)), bu laJb 1 1 N.' Wiliiams, I).'Ilade, d. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, W. Horstman, J. Russ, S. Treby, D'stnbution: s d.

Lill5, O. Dusweii, f a ug ru s i$c, S. Na as singts

. - - - -. oto oi,- - - _ _. _-

Communications t4 L Report t i ll111lllll1111ll1lll11111lll11 Texas Utilities R Telec n Qnference Repod Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station U*' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/14/84

Subject:

Time: (1) Fouling Factors for CCW Heat Exchangers Place: (2) Maximum Flows through Heat Exchangers Participnts: of J. Foley Cygna N. Cristali Gibbs & Hill Required item Comments Action By 1 I asked Wanda to provide the fouling factors specified to the CCW Heat Exchanger manufacturer.

Response

W. Cristali telecopied Struthers-Wells specification sheets showing cleanliness factors of 80 percent. Cygna will convert to fouling factor to determine if TEMA recomendations are met. 2 I asked Wanda to provide manufacturers' flow rates for the following heat exchangers: l RHR l Containment Spray l Chilled Water (nuclear) Condenser Control Room A/C Chiller Condenser

Response

i W. Cristali telecopied manufacturers ' data on 8/16/84. Cygna l will check G&H flow calculations to be sure manufacturer flow rates are not exceeded. l I M ggu /ceh 1 1 N. Wi' l'iams', D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, F. Rainey, S. Treby, J. Ellis, oistnbution: A " E' * ' ' ~ u onc os,

co E Communications 4 (% i Report 1811lllllllllllllllllllll11111 g conference Report

• P'"Y Teiec n Te n s M 1 hies Project:

Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/18/84 Time:

Subject:

9:00 a.m. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions p CPSES site of

Participants:

R.M. Kissinaer. T. Keiss (oart-time) TUGC0 J. Van Ameronoen TUGC0 (EBASCO) B.K. Bhui ana. S.C. Chana. P.T. Huana Gibbs & Hill W.R. Horstman. J.P. Russ. N.H. Williams rFS Required item Commen's Acticn By Cygna discussed the items below with the personnel listed above. 1. Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "11" (Drawing 2323-S-0905) Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for Detail "11" Status: Cygna to review above calculations 2. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports 2861, 3025 and 3028 (Type D ) l 1 Considering Wall Attachment Fixity. Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for supports 3025 and 3028. t I l Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 3. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type D2 Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for Detail D - 2 l l Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 4. Ability of Conduit Support Type CA-Sa to Resist Loads from 5 inch Diameter Conduits. Cygna had reviewed the calculations received on 10/10/84. It was noted that the calculations did not consider the installation tolerances for the support which would provide a more critical case for the anchor bolts. The maximum plate thickness, maximum clamp offset,and the minimum bolt spacing were not considered. L)bkNA Icwk 1 3 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, J. _Ellis, S. Burwell., _Proj ect_ File, R. _Kissinger_ _ _ __ mooy

Communications ~ 4( n i Report .s.. m:: 4 Item Comments Ac y I The effect of these tolerances thougn will not change the final ~ result given the low interaction ratios.on the anchor bolts. Gibbs & Hill will revise the calculations but will not provide Cygna with copies of the revision. Status: Closed. 5. Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "W" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) Cygna found Gibbs & Hill's calculations for Detail "W" acceptable. Closure of this issue is contingent upon verification of existence of heavy-duty tray clamps by Gibbs & Hill. Status: Closed with exception noted above. 6. Transverse Span Violations - Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports. Cygna had discussed the preliminary calculations with Mr. Keiss on 10/16/84. It was noted then that the support evaluations referenced the original designs and had not considered any new analysis. Cygna asked how new or the most current analysis were located and used by an analyst. Mr. Kissinger stated that a program exists to develop and implement a system to reference calculations to specific support details. Cygna received the checked and final copy of the cable tray sopport evaluations for fire protection loads from Mr. Keiss. Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 7. Evaluation of Specific SP-4 Type Supports. Cygna had reviewed the analysis previously delivered by Gibbs & i Hill. Cygna inquired as to what spectra was used for design i review calculations. Mr. Bhujang replied that the unrefined l spectra was generally used but the refined would be used if a specific support failed using the unrefined. Mr. Bhuj ang provided Cygna with another calculation for a specific SP-4 support where L > 4'-0". Status: Cygna to review the above calculation. Cygna will 'also review the deternination process for critical SP-4 l supports where L> 4'-0". i l Page of

Communications Report 4 s. t i 116llllllllll111111111111lllll trem Comments Ac$oNy { 8. Evaluation of Detail "V" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) As part of the evaluation of Detail "W," (see item 5, above) Cygna noted that a specific Detail "V" type support was evaluated for its ability to resist loads due to axial accelerations of a cable tray. This calculation referenced Gibbs & Hill calculation sets 1 and 2 of binder SCS-1301 which notes the additional weights of fire protection to be added to cable tray support members. Cygna requested and received copies of the applicable calculations. Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 9. Installation Tolerances for Detail A-H. (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) (Reference DCA 2538). Cygna had reviewed the calculations previously provided by Gibbs & Hill. Additional information was required to assure that cantilever lengths were below design lengths. Gibbs & Hill recommended review of a list of Detail E-H type supports contained in calculation binder SCS-146C. Status: Cygna to review above calculations. i l Page of . n..

Communications Report 4L t i { llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll company: Texas Utilities e Teiecon o conference neport N-84056* Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/29/84 Ti** 11:10 A.M. Document Request - Electrical Review Place: J. van Amerongen TUSI T. Martin Cygna Required item Comments Action By Requested the latest revision of drawing 2323-El-0144 and any associated DCA's and CMC's. t i I t I 1 I l 1 ff),]} aJb '*** 1 1 N. W'ill'ii'ms, D. Wa'de, J. van Amerongen, T. Martin, R. Hess, S. Treby, J. Ellis, oistneution: C. C. ?, , y m T;6

n-;>:, Communications ~ t4 Ld t Repod i l118lll1lllllll1lll11tlllll111 T* con % conference Report Texas Utilities Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/15/84 subject: Time: 1:15 p.m. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions Place: CPSES Site T. Keiss, R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) B.K. Bhuj ang, S.C. Chang, P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ, N.H. Williams Cygna Requred item Comments Action By

Reference:

Conference Report dated 15 October 1984, 9:00 a.m., " Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions," Keiss, I, Kissinger, et al., participating. 1. SP-7 with Brace Working Point Analysis Cygna continued the discussion of this topic initiated in Reference 1. It was stated by Cygna that the longitudinal f requency of the SP-7 support-tray system will be greatly affected by the torsional rigidity of the composite beam l member. By considering the torsional rigidity, the frequency l will be lowered such that the peak spectral accelerations must be i used in the evaluation of the brace anchor bolts. Gibbs & Hill l and TUGC0 will consider the above points and respond to Cygna at l a later time. l i Status: Gibbs & Hill and TUGC0 to evaluate the working point l analysis results considering the torsional stiffness l of beam member of the SP-7 with brace support. 2. Status of Open Items The following status of discussion items was noted: Item Action Design of Ent)edded Plates for Closure contingent upon SP-7 Type Cable Tray Supports. Cygna review of new spectra for SSE at 7% damping. [ff /cwk "' 1 3 signed. N. Willi'ams, D.' Wade,' J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, ~ Distnbution: J. Eii.. ~,. L. II, I. s d 91 4 Is. u.....r.

Communications 4L Repod t i i 1lllllllllll1lll111111111ll111 nem comments [c7oNy Item Action Ability of Conduct Support Cygna to review calculations. Type CA-Sa to Resist Loads from 5" Diameter Conduits. Design of Cable Tray Support Cygna to review calculations Detail "W" (Drawing provided by Gibbs & Hill. 02323-El-0602-01-S) as a Longitudinal Support. Transverse Span Violations - TUGC0 to provide calculations. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports. Design of Cable Tray Support Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna Detail "11" (Drawing with calculations. 2323-S-0905) for Longitudinal Loads. Evaluation of Cable Tray Closed contingent upon resolution of generic Support Type A4 Considering Correct issues. Slenderness Ratio. Evaluation of Specific Cygna to review calculations. Type SP-4 Supports where L > 4'-0". 4 Evaluation of Cable Tray Calculations acceptable based Support Type D, Using on resolution of issue on 10% 1 Reduced Horizontal method of modal combination. Accelerations Gibbs & Hill had stated that i the 10% method was not used in the Di analysis. Evaluation of Cable Tray Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna Supports 2861, 3025 and 3028 with calculations. (Type D ) Considering Wall 1 Attachment Fixity, Evaluation of Cable Tray Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna t i Support Type D -Analysis of with calculations. 2 Wall Connection. Verification of Hilti Cygna to discuss with Quality Super-Kwik Bolts with Control. Ultrasonic Testing. of Page g 3 I to2ooin

Communications Report 4L t i 11;;... Ac$on Item Comments y ,T,t m Action Consideration of Eccentric End Gibbs & Hill to evaluate effect 1 Conditions in the Design of of frequency on support type Single Angle Braces Used in SP-7 with brace. j i Cable Tray Supports. Contact Between Cable Tray CMC's for modification have Supports and CCW Heat Exchanger. been issued. Cygna to receive CVC's and review. Evaluation of Alternate Detail Analysis by Gibbs & Hill in "1" Hanger Connection (Drawing progress. 2323-S-0903) (Reference DCA 2421) Installation Tolerances for Cygna to review calculations. Details A-H (Drawing 2323-El-0601-02-S) (Reference DCA 2538) Design of Base Angles for Closed contingent upon Multiple SP-7 Supports. resolution of generic issue of base angle rotation. Review of Fire Protection Cygna to review calculations. Calculations for Tray Segments. l Page of 3 3

z 3 - c - / O / '- [ Communications i 4L c i Report 18lllll1lllll11lll1lll11111lll

• con 3 contuence nepon Texas Utilities Project:

Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 14 October 1984 Subject Time: Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions 2:00 p.m. Place: CPSES site

Participants:

of J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) B.L. Bhuj ang, S.C. Chang, P.T. Huang Gibos & Hill W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ, N.H. Williams U.E Requred ite m Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above. 1. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports 2861, 3025 and 3028 (Type D ) 1 Considering Wall Attachment Fixity. Cygna noted that the Gibbs & Hill's calculations for support 2861 + received on October 12, 1984 did not consider an additional 18 inch tray. Mr. Bhuj ang will field verify the existence of this tray. Cygna also suggested moment distribution to analyze the frame rather than fixed-fixed end assumptions assumed in the analy-sis. Mr. Bhujang stated that this will also be done in the support reevaluation. Correct seismic input will also be used. Cygna questioned the use of a single as-built bolt spacing configuration to qualify all three supports. The bolt spacing installation tolerances should be used unless all three wall connections are field verified. Gibbs & Hill will field verify all connections and consider the enveloping case of the three. The original allowable load values for 1" diameter by 7" embed-ment Hilti Kwik Bolts will be considered in the analysis by Gibbs & Hill. Actual system frequencies may also be considered. f hj)}j }}nh Icwk 1 2 N. Will'iams','D.' Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. . Distribution: ourwei s, rrua eu r i s e, R. n,m inver ~ ~ - - -

3 _.. _ _ _. = J Communications 4L c i Report II:: AcN y Item Comments Cygna noted its concern on the use of the original design to envelope the design for these three supports in light of the analyses being performed to qualify the supports for the actual loads. Cygna feels that the additional work required to qualify the supports indicates a lack of consistency in the application of design assumptions. Status: Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the three supports based an the comments above. 2. Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "W" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S). Gibbs & Hill supplied Cygna with revised calculations for Detail "W." Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 3. Evaluation of Specific Type SP-4 Supports. Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for cable tray supports 7223, 3362, 1356 and 1348 for which L > 4'-0". Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 4. Cable Tray Fire Protection Reevaluations. Calculations for cable tray support 726 were received from Mr. Keiss on October 12, 1984. Cygna will review these calculations. Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 5. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Types A4 and B4 Using Appropriate Slenderness Ratio. The slenderness ratios for A4 and Ba supports will be investigated by Cygna as part of a disc _ussion on generic issues. Otherwise the calculations are Bnside.ed closed. Status: Closed except as noted above. 6. Prying Action on Richmond Inserts. Cygna had reviewed the calculations received from Gibbs & Hill on October 12, 1984 and found the form acceptable. Final resolution will be affected by resolution of issue on consistent application of design assumptions tentatively scheduled for October 15, 1984. Status: Closed with the exception noted above. Page of "M - -. ~ -

Communications Report W6 i 111111111lll1111111111lllll111 l Company: Telee n 9 conference Repon Texas Utilities Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/17/84

Subject:

Time: 4:00 PM Cable Tray Support Design Review Place: CPSES Site

Participants:

of Billie Wylie DCTG Bill Horstman CES Required item Comments Action By Requested and received copies of the following CVC's for the following: CMC 8229 rev. 0-13 CMC 16410 current rev. only CMC 16412 current rev. only DCA 3701 current rev. only DCA 20177 current rev. only DCA 19167 current rev. only DCA 18675 current rev. only These pertain to cable tray support no. 3136. i [1//[j e /RR 1 1 N. idilliams5 Ii. ' Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, Distnbution: f* 9 5t h Burwell Pro n, {ect f1le, R. Kissinger_ _ ___ _ _

. _ _...., ~. _. _ _ _........ _ _. _.. _ _... _ _ _. - _. -..... _ Communications A (m i Report l111111111111111111111111lll11 compny: Texas Utilities 0 Telecon Jp Conference Report Project: Job No. 84056 Comancha Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date: 10/24/84 Subject Time: 9:00 AM Cable Tray Support Design Review i Place: p Billie Wylie DCTG Bill Horstman CES Required item Comments Action By Requested and received CVC's for the following: CMC 4469, rev. O CMC 11062, rev. 3 CMC 6155, rev. 1,2 ] l l l l /) /RR "' 1 1 signe N. Williams, D. Wade, J3anAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, Distnbution: u a i:, a. ourwei i, Proj ett file, R. Kissinger v. in c o,.

u-e v a g Communications AL Report 6 i 1881ll111111ll191ll18111111lll Texas Utilities u T* con 9L Conference Report Project: Job No. 84056* Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/12/84

Subject:

Time: 4:30 p.m. Cabie Tray Fire Protection Reevaluations CPSES Site T. Keiss, S. Desai TUGC0 W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna contacted Mr. Keiss regarding reevaluation of cable trays and their supports for the additional load due to fire protec-tion. Mr. Keiss took Cygna to see Mr. Desai who had performed the evaluations of trays and supports. Cygna questioned Mr. Desai on the evaluation process. He stated that he checked the actual tray loads including Thermolag fire protection along with the effects of other trays and CMCs and DCAs against the original design parameters. Cygna asked Messrs. Keiss and Desai if a document existed which listed the limiting support and tray parameters. Such a document, Cygna noted, would assure a uniform and up-to-date reference and would assure that the intent of the support design was met. Messrs. Keiss and Desai stated that no such document existed. Cygna requested that Mr. Keiss supply the Thermolag evaluations for the following tray segments and any affected supports: T120SBC25 T129SBC26 T120SBC27 T130SCA44 T13pSCA45 T1395CA46 T13DSCA47 Mr. Keiss provided Cygna with the requested evaluations. Cygna will review these calculations. Status: Cygna to review calculations for fire protection reevaluation for the tray segments and supports listed above. /)f /dmm

• 1 1

j u ominbution: N.' W'iillams, D. Wade, J. VM Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, im ei.

v. c.iiis, rrojecT. rise, n. M ssinger

@ - C -/K/ Communications AL Report t i l$1lllllllllllllllllllllllllll Texas Utilities p Teiec n conference Repon Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station j Irdependent Assessment Program - Phases 4 11-1-84 Subject Time: 10:00 a.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review Ultrasonic Testing of Hilti Bolts gg g

Participants:

of Mike Warner TUGC0 QE - SITE Bill Horstman CES - SFA0 Requred item Comments Action By 1 Cygna noted that UT report No. T-1605 provided by Mr. Warner only specifies the type and size of 8 Hilti bolts for support No. 481. The support actually used 12 bolts. Mr. Warner said he would check with the test operator to see why the other 4 bolts were not tested. signed: L Page of D'" b" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,

d. tills, 5. Burwell, Proj ect File, R. Kissinger uno oi.

Communications t4 LM t Repod i .i 1111111llllll111lll11111111lll company: Texas Utilities o Tser sn a conference Report Project: Job No. 84056 -Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statten oste: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 1 10/12/84 Subject ~ Time: 3:00 P.M. Cable Tray and Conduit Support Questions Combination of Spatial Components in Seismic AnalyWF CPSES D. Kissinger TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Kissinger had reviewed Regulatory Guide 1.92 dated December 1974. Referring to section C, " Regulatory Position", paragraph 3, which states: "... simultaneous action of three spatial components of an earthquake should be obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of corresponding maximum l or representative maximum values of the response of the element to each of the three cnponents calculated independently." Mr. Kissinger believes that this can be interpreted as follows: 1. The purpose of using an SRSS methodology in the first place is to account for the fact that the hori-zontal and vertical components do not occur simulta-neously. 2. Each horizontal or vertical earthquake component causes two bending and one axial response in the struc-ture. 3. It is, therefore, reasonable to establish the max-imum structural response due to each of the directional earthquake input motions and combine these using the SRSS methodology. 4. Regulatory Guide 1.92, December 1974, may be interpreted in this manner. "'8' signe / /ajb 1 2 Distribution: fil itill'ia'ms, D. Wade, J.' van Amerongen, S. Burwell, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Proj ect 1@ $$ g -,.,,. ~ ,___-_,_,_,_,_______,mm._

Communications 4L c 4. Report item Comments ~ Ac y Cygna is still evaluating whether the conbination should be done on the basis of structural response due to all directions of seismic loadings before calculating the AISC stress interaction values or calculating the interaction values for each direction of loading and then performing an SRSS of the interaction values. Cygna believes that use of TUGC0's interpretation may not be consistently conservative. Mr. Kissinger is researching the PSAR and FSAR revisions to determine what commitments the Comanche Peak project has made in their licensing documents. The PSAR was issued prior to Revi-sion 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.92. Revision 1 wording is much more specific and may not allow for an interpretation which supports the method sometimes used by Gibbs & Hill. (Calculation of interaction ratios for each direction of loading and then performing SRSS on the interaction ratios.) The current version of the CPSES FSAR does adopt Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.92. Mr. Kissinger believes that the FSAR change request may explain the basis for adopting the revision and its impact on methods being currently employed by Gibbs & Hill. Cygna is currently reviewing the methods available and the differences between them in order to better assess the technical basis of the Gibbs & Hill methodology. l l l I Page of 1020 0 t b t

Communications AL Report i i a 181lll1lll1111111111111111llll company: Texas Utilities a Telecon cX Conference Report 84055' N-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/15/84 Date: 9:00 a.m. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions Place: CPSES Site

Participants:

T. Keiss, R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) B.K. Bhuj ang, S.C. Chang, P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill 4 W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ, N.H. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed 2.bove. 1. Evaluation of Alternate Detail "1" Hanger Connection. Mr. Bhujang discussed the assumptions to be used in the evalua-tion of Alternate Detail "1". The assumptions included modeling the frame or applying reactions from a hand analysis to the base angle finite element model. Cygna requested to review the model i prior to the analysis being performed. Status: Gibbs & Hill to analyze Alternate Detail 1. 2. Effect of CMC 6187 on SP-7 with Brace Type Supports. Cygna asked whether CMC 6187 had been incorporated in the generic designs of SP-7 with brace type supports. Calculations appear in Attachment I which show an overstress in the brace for one pos-l sible support configuration, l l Gibbs & Hill suggested that the calculation was conservative because the axial rigidity of the support-tray system would lower the frequency and hence the accelerations. They also stated that the tray load is applied at two points along the beam which will reduce the brace axial load. Employing reduced accelerations due to support tray frequency and a distribution of the load along the beam, the interaction was calculated as 0.8. (Calculations shown in Attachment 1). Though these hand calculations appear to I show no technical problem, Cygna still feels that because the conditions shown in the CMC weren't censidered in the original of Pcge g 4 signe / /cwk Distribution: N. Williams, I. Wade, J7 van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. l " call, "c w Gis, . X..~... r. ^

Communications Repod 4L i i 1llll11llll1llll11111111111111 item Comments Ac n y 4 design calculations, there was a lack of consistency in the evaluation of the effects of design changes. Status: Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the effect of CMC 6187 on SP-7 with brace type supports. 3. Effect of CMC 1970 on Anchor Bolt Designs. CMC 1970, dated October,1978, provided reduced allowable edge distances for the ends of two-bolt base angles. As an example, Cygna noted generic design calculations for Detail SP-7 (calcula-tion binder SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheet 136, dated 1 June 1979) which did not consider the reduced edge distances in calculating bolt loads. The calculations for multiple SP-7 prepared by Gibbs & Hill site and given to Cygna on 10 October 1984 do consider the reduced edge distances. Gibbs & Hill stated that the CMC has no effect on bolt load calculations where the distance between bolt centerlines was used to calculate the bolt loads. Cygna added that this was true only if the centroid of the compressive block did not occur between the bolt centerlines. Cygna noted that the working point calculations could also be affected by the CMC, Gibbs & Hill stated that the CMC does not affect specific designs where the bolt spacing was used, but would affect the bolt calcu-lations where a compressive block was assumed. Additionally, for the SP-7 supports, a 16 inch bolt spacing was assumed for 1 1/4 inch diameter Hilti Super Kwik Bolt designs and not the 15 inches required by the drawing. Cygna replied that the 16 inch spacing would affect Richmond Inserts and that if 15 inches had not been considered for the Hilti anchors, the calculations had not con-sidered the worst case spacing. Gibbs & Hill noted that the case of SP-7 with brace used in the working point analysis (tray width = 2'-0" and L = 7'-0") was conservative. A table of SP-7 sup-ports was developed for the under-run, under-cut analysis which showed that no supports had a cantilever length greater than 6'- 0" for a 2'-0" tray. Gibbs & Hill noted that in the 1978 time period, CMC's were being designed reviewed at the site. Gibbs & Hill in New York was not informed of these changes so if any CMC's, such as CMC 1970, were issued they wouldn't have been incorporated into the generic calculations. In the particular case of CMC 1970, Gibbs & Hill speculated that the design reviewer probably had concluded that the CMC would not affect the design. Cygna feels that the effect of the CMC may require a reevaluation of all 2-bolt connections which were designed using a compression block. Cygna believes that as a minimum, all SP-7 supports with L = 7'-0" must be reevaluated. It appears that any installations prior to October,1978 will not need to be evaluated since they Page of 1020 01 D

1 Communications Repod t4 L t i llllllll11llll111111lll1111111 [cYoNy nem comments had to adhere to the 3 inch edge distance requirement. Cygna and TUGC0 will discuss this issue at a later. time to form an action plan for reevaluation. Status: TUGC0 to formulate an action plan for reevaluation of two-bolt base angles. 4. SP-7 with Brace Working Point Analysis. Cygna noted that the working point analysis considered the eccen-tricity of the load application from the long-axis bolt center-line. The consideration is inconsistent with previous analy-ses. Cygna was concerned about the moment arm used in the analysis for rotation about the bolt centerline and the lack of consideration of prying offects It was decided to discuss these issues as part of any discussions on generic items. Cygna in-quired why the s.r.allest bolt spacings weren't used in determining the loads on the bolts. These appeared to be the most critical spacing. Gibbs & Hill demonstrated that for those cases where the critical bolt spacing wasn't considered, the effect on the final interaction was negligible. Finally, Cygna noted that the calculations for the working point analysis had considered a reduced acceleration based on the fre-quency of the tray-support system. Cygna felt that the calcula-tion of the stiffness was incorrect because the brace stiffness was not considered. Consideration of the brace stiffness will lower the stiffness and the frequency of the support and increase the accelerations. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the effect of the brace stiffness on the analysis results. Status:

1. Prying action and rotation about the bolt centerline to be discussed as part.of generic issue.

2. Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the effect of brace angle stiffness on the results of the working point analy-sis.

I l Page of toroo1e

Communications 4L Report t i 1lllllllll11111lll1111111lll11 nem comments AcYoNy Evaluation of SP-7 with Brace Configuration allowed by CMC 6187. L = 5'-0" W = 2'-6" Brace slope = 1:1.5 9h = 2.07 (elev. 873'-6") Pj = (40)(2.07)(2.5)(.035) 7.25 k = = (9/7.5)Pi 8.69 k = p = (8.69)(1.06) 9.21 in-k = = (8.69)(0.195) 1.69 in-k = kl/r, = 88.7 kl/r = 174.0 z F = 4.93 ksi f, = 8.69/2.11 = 4.12 ksi a F'ew = 4.93 ksi 19.0 ksi F'ez = 4.12 9.22 1.69 (1.317)(22)(1 - ) (.839)(22)(1-h) I = 1.80 > 1.0 N.G. Gibbs & Hill had previously calculated the frequency of the SP-7 support as 16.7 hz. The following reduction in the interaction is based on reduced accelerations and the transfer of the axial tray load to two points along the beam which will reduce the axial brace load. l Revised Acceleration 1.3 g = Reduction for Brace Load (3.5/5.0) l Due to Beam Attachment = 0.70 = f (1.8)(0.70)(1.3/2.07) Revised Interaction = 0.80 = Page of 1o20oin - -. - - -. - -.- ~.. - -...

Communications & Y U. l ' ' ', N Report g 1111111111111111111111111lllll Texas Utilities o T*'* con f conference Report j Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/11/84 Subject Time: 10:00 A.M. Conduit Support Design Review Questions Place: AISC versus AISI D. Kissinger TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required 1 item Comments Action By Cygna had previously asked TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the differences between AISI and AISC for use in the design of cold-formed steel design such as Unistrut. After some review, TUGC0 decided that such a comparison would be extremely difficult. They had, however, identified some obvious differences. For example, torsion in menbers due to eccentrically applied loads is not addressed in AIST. There was some discussion on whether it is appropriate to apply eccentric longitudinal loads to Unistrut sections. Gibbs & Hill designed the conduit supports in ac-cordance with AISC and in some cases checked torsion using AISC as guidance. The CPSES FSAR, Table 17A, shows that cable tray and conduit support design shall comply with AISC. AISC recommends the use of AISI for cold-formed steel design but does not require it. j TUGCO, therefore, believes that it is appropriate to use AISC for the conduit support design regardless of the differences between the codes. Ms. Williams stated that it didn't appear necessary to continue with a comparison of the codes. The question pertains more to whether it is appropriate to load Unistrut in torsion. l l l signeo Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J.' VanAmerongen, S. Burwell, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project j D'stnbution: l r i s e, 6. Bjorkman, J. Russ, W. Horstman mo oi.

pc-iu v c Communications 1 AL Report t i 1 11llllll111111111lll1lllllllll I** " Conference Repon Taras Utilities X Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/9/84

Subject:

Time: 9:30 A.M. Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions CPSES Site of

Participants:

T. Keiss. R.M. Kissincer TUGC0 J. Van Ameroncen EBASCO (TUGCO) B. Bhuiana. S. Chana. P. Huanu Gibbs & Hill W_ Hnrstman_ J. Russ Cvuna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above. 1, Design of Embedded Plates for SP-7 Supports. Cygna had noted that the stress levels in the plates were incor-rectly calculated by assuming a moment arm to the centerline of the plate. When considering tray spans of 8'-6", the stress level in the plate was approximately 24 KSI. Cygna was concernec that when SSE loads were considered, the plate stresses would exceed allowable levels. Gibbs & Hill replied that SSE loads will not control. Veri fica-tion of this will be provided when the peak acceleration values from the SSE loads at 7% damping are given to Cygr.a. Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with peak acceleration values for SSE spectra at 7% damping. 2. Capability of CA-Sa Conduit Supports to Resist Loads from 5" Diameter Conduits. As discussed in New York, Gibbs & Hill was to provide calcula-tions to demonstrate CA-Sa type conduit supports to resist loadings from 5" diameter conduits. Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with calculations for 5" diameter conduit loadings. h 4/ /aib 1 5 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, W. Horstman, J. Russ, R. Hess, S. Treby, i J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File, R. Kissinger 'm' a

Communications 4La Repod i lll1lllllllllll1lllll1llllll11 AcYo Item Comments y 3. Reaming of Unistrut P2558 Clamps. (Reference Question 4, Attach-ment A of letter 84056.015). TUGC0 stated that no test program had been performed on P2558 clamps but their response to Cygna had showed that the P2558 clamps when used with Nelson studs were acceptable. The accept-ability is based on the greater strength and pretensioning of the Nelson studs versus the bolts normally used in Unistrut connec-tions. Cygna considered this item closed. Status: Closed. 4. Design of Cable Tray Support Details "W" and "N" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) as Longitudinal Supports. Gibbs & Hill noted that Detail "W" and Detail "N" were field examined for the types of tray hold-down clamps and feasibility of support modifications. Mr. Bhuj ang noted that all the trays on the top flange of the W8 x 31 beam for Detail "W" were attached by heavy duty clamps. This conclusion was based on a visual field inspection. All other trays on this support used regular clamps. An analysis of the support was provided to Cygna for review. Several tray segments within Cygna's review scope are also sup-ported by a series of Detail "N" supports. To provide longitudi-nal bracing for these trays, a braced frame will be constructed l using a Detail "N" support. Cygna was provided with calculations for review on the modification of the Detail "N" supports. Status: Cygna to review calculations and respond to TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill. 5. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports for Transverse Span Violations. l Mr. Keiss provided Cygna with calculations for the review of the existing cable tray supports for transverse span violations and fire protection weights. Cygna noted that all trays on the supports were not considered. Mr. Keiss acknowledged this and will provide Cygna with revised calculations including the ef-l fects of all supported trays. Status: TUGC0 to provide Cygna with revised calculations. 6. Design Verification of Cable Tray Support 13080. Cygna was provided d.h 5 r wised set of calculations for review. Status: Cygna to review ut: air.tions and respond to TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill. Page of 1020 016

Communications Repod s it t i ~ illilillllillllllilllilillllli Item Comments Ac o y 7. Calculations for Conduit Support CSM-42a Considering Concrete Compressive Forces in Design of Bolts and Concrete. Per previous discussions, Gibbs & Hill was to evaluate the effects of the concrete compressive force on the concrete and support anchor bolts. Status: Gibbs & Hill will provide calculations to Cygna. 8. Embedded Plate Edge Distance Violation for Cable Tray Support 2953. TUGC0 gave Cygna the CVC for CMC 12105. Status: Cygna to review CVC and respond to TUGCO. 9. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type B4 Using Appropriate Slen-derness Ratio. Cygna had noted that the slenderness ratio calculations for the hangers incorrectly used a reduction factor for distributed B4 axial loads. A revised response was provided by Gibbs & Hill. Status: Cygna to review calculations and respond to Gibbs & Hill. t 10. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type A4 Using Appropriate Slen-derness Ratio. Cygna had noted that the slenderness ratio calculations for the hanger member for A4 supports may exceed 200. Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with calculations for review. Status: Cygna to review calculations and respond to Gibbs & Hill. i 11. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type SP-4. l Preliminary calculations by Gibbs & Hill for SP-4 supports show a potential overstress of 10%. These calculations, however, do not l consider the stiffness of the support in the longitudinal direc-tion. Gibbs & Hill will provide Cygna with a generic resolution for all SP-4 supports. For those supports where L > 4'-0", a check will be made to assure that the supports are adequate to resist the actual design loads. Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with calculations. Using Reduced Horizontal 12. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type D1 Accelerations. Cygna had noted that Gibbs & Hill had calculated a frequency for the transverse direction of Di type supports using a static l deflected shape and calculated an average frequency based on Page of mo oin ~..-.. -.

~.. Communications 181lllllllllll11111111lll11lll ' Report 4L ci l [cDy item comments interier andsexterior spans. It was noted that calculated fre-quencies Daud on an assumed deflected shape were only appro-priate when that shape reasonably approximated the mode of in-terest ? Cygna presented the results of an eigensolution of Gibbs & Hill's cenfiguration which showed that the first frequency of interest wac'3 bz. below Gibbs & Hill's calculated frequency. ~ Cygna also noted the lack of documentation for the acceptability of Gibbs & dill't,' technique of averaging frequencies. Gibbs & s Hill stated that a response spectrum analysis would be run for the configuration in question. ' Status: 'Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with additional calcula-tions. 13. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports 2861, 3025 and 3028 Considering Wall Attachment Fixity. Cygna stated that for the noted supports, an assumption of a pinned wall connection was adequate for beam member design. Cygna showed Gibbs & Hill calculations that indicated a possible bolt failure if a fixed condition was assumed. Gibbs & Hill stated that they would investigate the actual end connections and loadings and prepare calculations based on these conditions. Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with calculations. 14 Evaluation of CabM Tray Support Type 0

• 2 Gibbs & Hill stated that an analysis of a series of U4 supports was being ' design reviewed and would be given to Cygna on October 10, 1984. This analysis will envelope all Dj type supports.

Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with calculations on ,. October 10, 1984. l 15. Verification of Installation of Hilti Super Kwik Bolts' with Ultrasonic Testing. I Ms. Var. Amerongen gave Cygna a copy of QI-QP-11.18-4 and the results of bolt testing for conduit supports for Elevation 790'-0" in the Auxiliary Building. Cygna noted the form of.the test results and asked how the reported results were correlated to the specific sog. port requirements. Cygna was referred to Mr. Mike Warner, Q C. department head. 5 Status: Cygna, to discuss the issue with Mr. Warner. s Page of 4 5 . 5

_ _ _ - ~. _ _ _ i. Communications 4L t Report i 111lll1lllll1llllll1111lllllll [cYoUy nem comments j i .16. Consideration of Eccentric End Conditions for the Design of Single Angle Braces. Cygna was concerned that the appropriate loads be used to check the adequacy of eccentrically loaded single angle braces. Gibbs & Hill will review their working point calculations to assure that the appropriate axial loads were used. Cygna will also investigate the acceptability of a k value of less than unity. Status: Gibbs & Hill to investigate the brace axial loads, Cygna to investigate the appropriate end condition factors. 17. Contact Between Cable Tray Supports and the Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger. Cygna noted that the previous discussions with TUGC0 had not provided a definitive resolution to this issue. TUGC0 stated that the cable tray supports would be notched. When the CMCs for this action are issued, Cygna will be provided with the CMCs and CVCs for review. Status: TUGC0 to perform corrective action and provide Cygna with documentation for review. 18. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support 202 for Longitudinal Loads and Brace Removal. Cygna asked why the effect of the brace removal was not considred in the response to this issue. Gibbs & Hill noted that the removal was considered in the CVC for CMC 4450, Revision 2. Status: Closed. 19. Suitability of 11/4" x 131/8" Hilti Super Kwik Bolts for 1" Diameter Richmond Inserts. Cygna asked about the acceptability of this substitution. k TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill noted the effect of the issuing DCAs was a superceded through the issuance of 2323-S-0908, -0909. Status: Closed. 20. Evaluation of Alternate Detail "1" Hanger Connection. Prior discussion on this connection had not provided any resolu-tion on the acceptability of this connection. Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 decided to analyze the connection. Cygna will internally discuss j the approach to be used by Gibbs & Hill in the analysis to avoid iterations in the review process. Status: Cygna to discuss analysis approach and respond to Gibbs & Hill. Page of 1020 Ot t

3.-. Communications ALua Repon 1811lll111lll1111111111111lll1 Company: Texas Utilities 0 Telecon W Conference Report ~ N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12 October 1984 T 1:00 p.m. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions CPSES Site

Participants:

R. M. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) B. K. Bhuj ang, S. C. Chang, P. T. Huang Gibbs & Hill W. R. Horstman, J. P. Russ, N. H. Williams CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above. I 1. Design Review Calculations for Conduit Support Type CSM-42a Considering Concrete Compressive Faces. Cygna reviewed the calculations received on 10 October 1984 and found them acceptable. Status: Closed. 2. Evaluation of Cable Tray Support Type SP-4. Gibbs & Hill provided Cygna with a revised sheet 3 of the calculations given to Cygna on 11 October 1984. On sheet 1 of l those calculations, the moment diagram for vertical loads showed l end-moments which indicates fixed ends. Cygna feels that the assumption of fixed ends is incorrect. On sheet 4, the long-i l itudinal frequency is calculated for a fixed-end beam which Cygna I also believes is incorrect. l Gibbs & Hill explained that the increase in bending stress from vertical loads due to a change to pinned-end assumptions will be l small, less than 1 KSI. Gibbs & Hill also demonstrated that the change in frequency due to a relaxation of end-fixity will not affect the value of the acceleration used in the design. Gibbs & i Hill will provide the calculations on the specific SP-4 supports where L > 4'-0" when completed. Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide calculations for specific SP-4 l supports. /dmm "'9' 1 2 signed [ ~y Distribution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, [ I. vs - Is, n.

n. 22 nigi

1 Communications ^* ( Le ' i Repod n ma" nc Item Comments Ac$o$ y 3. Design of Cable Tray Support Type Detail "W" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S). Preliminary calculations for the analysis of Detail "W" show a potential overstress when design loads (35 psf) are used. Gibbs & Hill requested to use actual tray loads in the support evalua-tion and perform a ratio of actual loads to design loads. Cygna replied that since the structure was linear-elastic, a proper ratio of the loads would be acceptable. Status: Gibbs & Hill to complete analysis of Detail "W." 4. Design of Base Angles for Multiple SP-7 type Supports. Cygna had reviewed the calculations received on 10 October 1984 and found them acceptable. Status: Closed. 5. Design of Cable Tray Support Type Detail "N" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S). Cygna had received calculations by Gibbs & Hill from TUGC0 in a letter dated 11 September 1984. These calculations for Detail "N" which were performed by Gibbs & Hill, New York, used weights of 35 psf for the two supported trays. In subsequent calcula-tions performed by Gibbs & Hill's site group, the actual tray weights of 28.67 and 46.5 psf for the 18 and 24 inch trays, respectively, were used. Cygna is concerned that proper control was not exercised when the 24 inch tray and any supports were loaded beyond the design load of 35 psf. Cygna believes that the fire protection reevaluation effort should have detected this load value and that Gibbs & Hill, New York should have been aware of any such evaluation. Cygna will contact Tom Keiss regarding this issue. Status: Cygna to address fire protection reevaluation issue with Tom Keiss. 6. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports 2861, 3025 and 3028 (Type D ) 1 Considering Wall Attachment Fixity. Cygna received calculations for support 2861, considered by Gibbs & Hill to be the controlling load case. Cygna will review these calculations. Status: Cygna to review calculations for support 2861. Page of to20 0t n ~._. .. ~. _

Communications LN k j 2 A Report lillllllllllllllllllllllllllll mec n g conference Repon Texas Utilities Job No. Project: 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/19/84 Time:

Subject:

9:30 A.M. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions CPSES Site of

Participants:

T. Keiss, R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 B.K. Bhuj ang, S.C. Chang, P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ, N.H. Williams Cvuna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above. 1. Evaluation of Specific Di Type Supports. One of the specific Di supports under review by Gibbs & Hill has a base angle attached to the wall by two 1-inch Hilti Kwik bolts with the common bolt centerline oriented vertically. The top bolt, by Gibbs & Hill calculations, is 22% overstressed. Gibbs & l Hill stated that if one now considers that top bolt no longer effective, with the nut and washer removed, the connection will act as a pin connection. By considering this behavior of the connection, the bottom bolt can be shown to be adequate. Cygna suggested that this support be left open for evaluation based on resolution of discussions on input accelerations. Status: Open. 2. Design of Cable Tray Support Detail "W" (Drawirg 2323-El-0601-01-S). Mr. Bhujang showed Cygna the inspection report ME-1-0004098 which showed that heavy duty clamps were installed for the trays sup-ported at the top of the W8x31 menber. l Status: Closed. l l k ]h h)L Ur/ la3 b 1 4 ~" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. catnbution: f mo oi. tsurwes i, Proj ect h ie, R. Kissinger

~ Communications 4L n Report i 'a 18llllllllllll111llllllllllll1 Ac$ y Item Comments 3. Installation Tolerances for Details E-H (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) (

Reference:

DCA 2538). Cygna reviewed Set 8 of calculation binder SCS-146C and found the loads and cantilevers within acceptable limits. Status: Closed. 4. Effect of Weld Size on SP-7 Type Supports. Cygna noted the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings for several SP-7 type supports within the review scope specified 1/4-inch fillet welds to attach the beam member to the base angle. This is in apparent contradiction with the design drawing 2323-S-0903 which specifies 5/16-inch fillet welds. These supports then were not covered by Gibbs & Hill's undersize-underrun analysis whict con-sidered a fillet weld size of 5/16 inches minus a 1/32-inch un-derrun. Mr. Kissinger stated that the weld size was revised based on DCA 3265, revision 2. The FSE-00159 drawings for all supports were revised under a five month effort. rygna stated that these weld revisions also pointed out several deficiencies in the generic undercut-underrun analysis by Gibbs & Hill. Primarily, the maximum cantilever length for some SP-7 supports will be reduced since these lengths were governed by the weld size. Second, the Gibbs & Hill analysis is deficit because the as-built conditions of the supports were not considered in the analysis, but rather the specified design configuration. This type of evaluation would not assure the adequacy of the installed supports. Gibbs & Hill will reevaluate the limiting cases for SP-7 type supports based on a 1/4-inch fillet weld size. Mr. Kissinger will check the issuance date of the DCA and the revision to the weld inspection procedure to determine if the underrun problem occurred with the 1/4-inch fillet welds. Status:

1. Gibbs & Hill to evaluate SP-7 supports for effect of 1/4-inch fillet welds; and

2. TUGC0 to determine if 1/4-inch fillet weld are af-fected by underrun problem.

Page of 1020 0 t te

i Communications si i i Repod lilillHilllilllilillililllill item comments ~ Ac7oNy 5. Effect of CMC 68386, Revision 1 on Cable Tray Supports 714 and ) 7128. CMC 68386, revision 1 added an additional 12-inch tray to support 714 (an SP-7 support) and increased the total cantilever length to 66 inches. Cygna noted that the as-built configuration of a total tray width of 30 inches with a contilever length of 66 inches was outside the allowable parameters of SP-7 supports and was not noted in the underrun review. Sample calculations showed the support member and the anchor bolts to be adequate. The additional 12-inch tray is also supported by support 7128, a B2 type support. The loadings induced into support by the tray were not adequately considered in the design review of the CMC. TUGC0 will investigate this support. Status: TUGC0 to evaluate support 7128. 6. Effect of CMC 93232, Revision 1 on Cable Tray Support 1483. CMC 93232, revision 1 indicates that the bottom bolt of this mul-tiple SP-7 support could not be torqued. The design verification did not consider the critical case of uplift. TUGC0 will evalu-ate this support considering actual bolt spacing, uplift and bending of the base angle. Status: TUGC0 to evaluate support 1483. 7. Effect of CMC 56315 on Cable Tray Support 624. CMC 56315 called for a 1 1/4-inch Hilti Super Kwik bolt with a 9-inch embedment. Cygna asked how the allowable load for this nonstandard embedment was calculated. Gibbs & Hill replied that the allowables were based upon interpolation. The CMC moved the lower beam of this multiple SP-7 support, originally four beams, to another location. The bottom beam on the remaining multiple support was below the bottom anchor bolt. This configuration was not evaluated considering all three beams on the support. Hand calculations performed during the i discussion showed the support to be adequate. Status: Closed. 8. Effect of CMC 30285 on Cable Tray Supports 710 and 711. The CMC required a multiple SP-7 support with two beams attached to a single base angle. The beams were located within the cen-terlines of two anchor bolts spaced 39 inches on center. The Page of 1020 01b

Communications 4 Report 4L i i 111111111tlllll111111111111111 Item Comments Ac y ~ normal multiple SP-7 support requires at least one bolt between each beam. The bolts were analyzed considering the base angle to be a rigid plate, which Cygna disagrees with. Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill if any documentation or instructions existed which specify the limits of the rigid plate assumptions for such an analysis. Gibbs & Hill replied that none existed. Hand calculations con-sidering flexible action of the base angle were performed during the discussion which showed the anchor bolts to be adequate. Status: Closed 9. Evaluation of P2558 and C708-S Clamps Considering Fire Protection Loads. TUGC0 provided calculations to Cygna. Status: Cygna to review above calculations. 1 Page of 4 4 l 1020 0t b - - - - _ - _. - _.. -,, _ _ _ - _ _.... -. - _...,..., -, - - _ - - - _ _ ~ -. - _ _ _. _. _, _ -, _ -

CommunicStions Report 1 i i ..I lHIHilllMINNillNilNini company: Texas Utilities o Teiecon di conference Report N-84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/6/84 Tim : 11:00 AM Cable Tray / Conduit Supports - Open Items Place: G % & Hill, E

Participants:

D. Wade, M. Strange TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna R. Ballard G&H Required item Comments Action By A brief discussion was held to summarize what the larger generic issues were relating to the cable tray and conduit support reviews. N. Williams provided the following list but stressed that it was not necessarily complete:

1. Load combinations: G&H has included the dead load in the SRSS combination of dead loads.

2. Computer modeling:

Cygna believes that use of a modeling approach similar to that used in the Phase 2 NASTRAN analysis is not appropriate for responding to many of the Phase 4 questions since the dynamic effects of the tray are not evaluated.

3. Application of eccentric loads: Cygna is not able, at this time, to globally assess the effect since no calculations were performed by G8H in the original analysis.

4. Dynamic Amplification:

G. Bjorkman is still assessing what is a roasonable factor.

5. Bolt holes in beam menbers: This may pose a problem with high moment regions.

6. Richmond Inserts: Cygna is reviewing the allowables and the effects of plate bending when Richmond Inserts are used.

7. DCA's/ CMC's : Cygna has been told that DCA's and CMC's which are important to the generic studies being conducted by G8H (NYC) are considered. Cygna is concerned that changes may be Page of signe jpp y

2 oestneution: N~. Wil'liimT,'D. Wade, D. vdn % erongen, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, ".w ; C N',c, C. " b L.....

COmmuniCOtionS Report 4L i i 1' 1111111llllll11111111111111111 item comments AcEYy made in the field which have not been considered in the generic evaluations. j

8. Span Violations: It appears that some examples of span i

requirements being exceeded may exist. This is being investigated further.

9. Fire Protection Reviews: Cygna is still observing the manner in which fire protection weights are evaluated for impact on support loads.

N. Williams summarized by saying that this is the current list of generic issues only. There are still questions associated with specific support details. It is to soon to tell whether all of these items, when considered together will result in any design impact, Cygna is aware that certain conservatism do exist in the building spectra and the support designs. Page of l 1020 016 c

CommunicStions I Report AL t i umummmann cornpany: Texas Utilities 0 Telecon CX Conference Peport 84056' Comanche Peak Stear. Electric Station D* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/20/84 9:30 a.m. CCW Tank Partition CPSES SITE

Participants:

J. Foley CYGNA C. Cavanagh G5H Required item Comments Action By Asked Cavanagh for documentation that partition in CCW tank had been designed and fabricated to meet the "one side empty criteria". He provided copy of APC0 (Applied Engineering Co's) Drawing N-2640-359, REV CP-1. Note 8 clearly states the requirement. (),)}(py, /ms '*** 1 1 Distnbution: N. Wifliams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, E. van Stij geren,

3. Ti cui,

Eiiis, a. ourwesi, rroj ect. n le v.

~ Communications Report ALn i maammmam company: Texas Utilities IX Telecon D Conference Report i Job No. Protect: 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/20/84 Time.

Subject:

11:50 a.m. Control Room Air Conditioning Chiller Consensers Place:

Participants:

Ken MacDonald TUGC0 J. Foley CYGNA Recureo item Commen:s Action By Asked MacDonald length required for pulling C.R. A.C. condenser tubes. He said 8'-6" is required per manufacturer's equipment manual. i l hf,] /ms 1 1 "'8"# j Distnbution: N. WfilTams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, E. van Stij geren,

3. Ti cui,

.2. 3. aui-cii, h ua cc 6 rise v.

~.

Communications 4L Report i i INiillllllilllilllNillNilli company: Texas Utilities o Telecon tX conference neport i Job No. Propct 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*t*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/20/84 Time: Subject P.M. l i Walkdowns Place. p of

Participants:

Mike Sopko IMPELL Required item Comments Action By Asked Mike what steps would be taken to assure that throttleng i valves would be maintained in proper position after CCW system is balanced and taken over by TUGCO. He said that all manual valves would be chained and locked in their throttled position. Valves which must throttle for changing conditions are indicated in control room and will be positioned to maintain required flow by plant operators. i Page j,, 1 1 signe ) )) M N'. 'W1'I fiams, (i. Wade, 7. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, E. van Stij geren, Dist.ibution [ii.a. 3. ouiweis, rivaeu rise S. 7. wi, v.

Communications Report 4L i i sammanname Texas Utilities a Telecon gt conference neport Protect: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D * Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/20/84 Subject' Time. 2:35 p.m. Document Request Place: T. R. Martin CYGNA DCC CPSES Aequired i item Comments Action By Please provide the following drawings with their associated DDC's and CMC's. 2323-El-0716 2323-El-0716-12 i l i Signed. v1 Page et 0'"buoa N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, E. van Stij geren, S. Treby, v. r.i n s, a. ou rwe s i, vroj ect n i e

l Communications 4L Report i i maammmama comp *ar Texas Utilities o Teiecon d conferenco noport Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oste: 7/20/84 l """I*" Drawing Request Place. CPSES Partsctpants: T. Martin CYGNA DCC CPSES Required item Comments Action By Please provide the following drawings with their associated change paper: 2323-M1-2103 SH 5 2323-M1-2104 SH 6 2323-MI-2106 SH 14 l of Page g g Signed V j,g i oistrieution P. Williams, D. Wade 7 J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, E. van Stij geren, S. Treby, i ei,1. o _ m. a y vr y -1 -,--i. 1 y ,vgswg

1 Communicatiens Report gl y ( o m aa 9 coa'*"ca a'ao Texas utsisties ~ Job No. Project. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station *~ Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/27/84 Time. Subject 9:00 AM Document Request Place-CPRES of Participants Tom Keiss TUGC0 John Russ CES Required item Comments Action By l

Reference:

Telecon dated July 24,1984, " Document Request," T. Keiss and J. Russ participating. Cygna received a copy of Item 3 listed in referenced telecon. j l i I hh) d/) /ceh 1 1 N. Vi$11ams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D*'"bua l rrgj eu ri s e . _ _ e,..i. _

s. nurwe:1,-. -. _~ -_,-_

Communic:tions Report 4L t i umma Texas Utilities 9 Telecon a conferenco Report Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/15/84

Subject:

Time: Mechanical Systems Questions p.m. Place: SFR0 Participants. of R. Hess CES 1 Required item Comments Action By Dave called concerning Cygna's question on reaction coolant pump thermal barrier leakage into the CCW System. He requested that we supply him with the criteria we based our question on j concerning single-failure. I told him we would get back to him with the requirements. Wff)t)hgg /ceh 1 1 N. 'W'illiams,'D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D'*tnbut'on

a. nui wii, rruu eu r i s e

~ -- ---

CommunicClions Report 4L t i annanam Telee n g Conference Re Texas liti1ities Protect: Job No. 84056 Comanch>. Feak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 24 July 1984 Subject Time: 2:05 PM Document Request CPSES

Participants:

of Diane Overton B&R (DCC) John Russ CES Required item Comn.ents Action By Cygna requested and received the following Westinghouse drawings and any associated change notices. Drawing Sheets 8815D31 19,20,39,40 8823D18 12 The DCA's received are: DCA-15855 DCA-17649 DCA-20031 DCA-17214 / /ceh 1 1 N.' Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Distnbution-im ei.

3. uurwe ll, Proj ect ti le

1 O ~; C 'l I k Communications Report q( mmmmmmmmmm company: Texas Utilities b Telecon O Conference Report J N 84056 - Comanche Peak Steak Electric Station D*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/19/ 84 i* 3:30 p.m. Certified Pump Curve Place: PSES M

Participants:

J. Foley CYGNA Chris Cavanagh GIBBS & HILL Required item Comments Act'On BY Asked Cavanagh for certified pumps curves. He delivered 3 pump curves derived from Bingham-Willamette tests of the CCW pumps performed in July and August 1977. None was for CP1-CCAPCC-01. The curves were attached to a letter from R. E. Hersperger of Gibbs & Hill to Homer C. Schmidt of TUGCO. (Letter No. GTN-21776), dated October 11, 1977. Cavanagh said there was a later transmittal letter, but the curves transmitted were the same. segn" /ms "1 1 Distneui>on;N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, S. Treby, J. Ellis, '. L.m;;, T. y m i.ic

Communications Repod 4L t i ElllllllllllNINNililllll U *P'"Y Tens Wi1itie 9 Telec n Conference Report Project. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station *~ Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/27/84 Subject Time: Document Request - Electrical Review 2:30,P.M. Place:

Participants:

of P. Lalaj i Gibbs & Hill T. Martin Cygna Required item Comments Action By Requested the latest revision of the Cable and Raceway Schedule pages (2323-El-1700) for the following cables: E0135030 E9135033 E9135040 E0135063 E0135077 Received the above cables via telecopy on August 27, 1984 4 / ([]Q(b /aj b 1 1 D*'"b"" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Vant.merongen T. Martin, R. Hess, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. uurwaii, vroj ect n ie

Communic ^tionS Report AL t i umnumanumm - C***"*' o m

• coa 3 conferece nepon Texas utilities Job No.

Project 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 10/24/84 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Time: Subject 9:30 AM Cable Tray Support Design Review Place: CPSES Site Janelle Burkeen DCTG William Horstman CES AcIn y Item Comments Requested and received Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-1240C, Set

1. 1, Sheets 65 and 66.

l s one /}[ /RR 1 1 D ab u* N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongon, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,

d. Lills, 5. Burwell, Project file i m ei.

t Communications Report 4L t i - 111111111111 Teiec n conference Report i Texas Utilities Joe ;.o. Project: 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station U Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/23/84

Subject:

T6me: 8:00 a.m. Cable Tray Support Review Place: Document Request of Participants. Diane Bleeker DCC Craig McClung Cygna nequred item Comments Action By 1. Cygna requested a copy of the following cable tray support AM 7/23/84 drawings: FSE-00179, all sheets. 3 l l i i I N ff) g [fj h /jm "1 1 N. Williams,'D.' Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D'stnbut'oa

a. 6ui nii. Fi va eu i it

Communicottons Report 4L i t i n======= T' a % Conference nemn Texas Utilities Protect: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station U* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/23/84

Subject:

Time: 8:30 A.M. Cable Tray Support Review Place: Document Request

Participants:

of Carole Crowe Brown & Root (DCC) John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action oy lieference: Conference report dated 7/21/84, " Document Request," D. Webb and J. Russ participating. Cygna received the documents requested in the referenced conference report except: GTN-47958 GHF-2243 DAX-699 IM-14183 These documents will be supplied to Cygna at a later late. Brown & Root l i l l l l Y/) /jm 1 1 N. Elliiams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D'"abuoa 1 i n o,.

a. nurwe s i, rruj ect n ie

J CommunicQtions Report 1L 6 i a l O'* I Telec n g Conference Report Texas Wilities Sroject. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/23/84 Subject T6me. NCR Request Place: CPSES P articipants: of Cher i Raffin B&R - QA Vault Johduss Cyana 4 Requered I ltem Comments Action By Cygna requested and received copies of the following NCR's: N*,R-E-80-00160 NOR-E-80-00210 1 i l h/1/hb /jm 1 1 N. W111'ia'ms,'D. Wade, JI VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, o iributeoa

a. nurweii, ri va cu. r i s e

Communications Report 4L t i ' lill g Conference Re Teiec n n Texas Utilities Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/24/84 Subject Time: 9:30 a.m. Document Request CPSES Participants. of Carol Crowe Brown & Root (DCC) John Russ Cyana nequired item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received a copy of CP-CPM-10.3. i, i r 1 I l l \\ l f) LR M lin 1 1 Distribution N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, i j m oeie

5. Burwell, Project File

I ~ Communic 0tions Report 4L 6 i mammmmma o Taca a a * ac' a' a a Texas utilities Project Job No_ 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station D*'*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/21/84 Subject Time: 11:00 a.m. Document Request

• * ~

CPSES Site Cindy Green Brown & Root (DCC) John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By

Reference:

Conference Report dated 7/21/84, " Document Request," C. Green and J. Russ participating. Cygna received all documents listed in the referenced conference report except: FOCR-530 DE/CD-5-1000 Cygna will receive these documents at a later date. Brown & Root I Page of pg j 8egned Distribution N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis,

3. b.. i, 7, w m T;;m

Communications Report 4L t i asummmem Texas Utilities T* con 9t conference neport Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station D*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/21/ 84 Subject Time: 10:25 a.m. Document Request Place: CPSES Darla Webb Brown & Root (DCC) John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the documents listed: Brown & Root GTN-47958 GTN-48515 GTh-50557 GTN-68812 GTN-68925 GTT-1868 GHF-2243 CPPA-260 CPPA-401 DAX-105 DAX-699 10M-485 IM-14183 IM-16429 l IM-16462 l TUF-4598 4 l i l Page of Signed e I N. ' Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Distnbution: eJ g LJU I FTL 5 5 g I I Vybww 3 3 u%

r Communications Report 4L. t i 111111111111111111111111111111 Teiec n 9 conference noon Texas Utilities Project: Job No. i 84056 i Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/19/84 Subject Time: 2:00 p.m. Document Request Place: CPSES

Participants:

of Diana Overton Brown & Root (DCC) John Russ Cygna l Requred item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following drawings: 2323-S-0919 2323-S-0920 - Cygna also received the following CMC's and DCA's: CMC 11045 CMC 11058 i CMC 11060 DCA 3423 (two copies) DCA 5847 l i ff)) M /Jm 1 1 N.Wiilia'ms,D.Wa'de,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,J.Russ,S.Treby,J.Ellis, D'Sinbution i.,,

a. ourwesi, rruae u riie

r .i Communications Report c3L i i 3161113M8111111111111lll11 I

• M"Y O Telec n g Conference Report Texas Utilities

' Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/21/84 Subject Time: 10:20 a.m. Document Request Place: CPSES

Participants:

of Cindy Green Brown & Root (DCC) John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the documents listed below: Brown & Root FDCR-497 FDCR-530 DCA-1479 DCA-9738 DE/CD-S-483 DE/CD-S-775 DE/CD-S-814 DE/CD-S-844 DE/CD-S-900 DE/CD-S-976 l DE/CD-S-1000 i DE/CD-S-1086 DE/CD-S-1107 l + l l l L l i Signed; i Page of ( N. Williams, D. Wade,'J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D"but' a mo o,.

d. tsurwei l, vroject tiie

Communications 4L Report t i 111111lllllll18111llllllll1111 i Teras Utilities 3 ""**""'P " I* Project: Job No. R4056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7fpifg4

Subject:

Time: 11:45 a.m. Document Request p CP9F9 Sito

Participants:

of Bonnie Vaughan Brown & Ront (DCC) l John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following calculations. Binder Set Sheets SCS-111C 7 1-23, 52-55, 71-75 SCS-113C 1 42-57, 76-78, 86-94 SCS-113C 2 18-19, 24-25, 36-37, 40-41 SCS-113C 5 1-41 i I fl 1 ]J/ A9( A fim 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAme'.ongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D'i D "" "' iomo oi.

5. Burwell, Proj ect File

.... _... = Communications AL Report 6 i 11111111111111111111lll11lllll Tovat titilities X ' " Project Job No. RA N Comanche Peak Steam Election Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Auoust 29. 1984

Subject:

Time: 8:40 Cable Tray Suppport Questions cvnna Gn Franciern Participantre of Mukher de (x585) Gibbs A Hill (Sitel Nancy Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By Referring to Attachment A of Cygna letter 84056.022, question 4, Mr. Je asked where Cygna found the 130" dimension. I responded that the question is based on the Reference (1) cal-culation 101C Set 1, page 2. Sketch (4) shows that the unbraced length for standard detail B4 is 130". CMC 9916 Revision 1 which modifies the B4 detail to a shorter unbraced length pertains to -1 specific support in the Cygna review scope (#408). Cygna is con ~ cerned with the generic application of detail B4 anywhere in the plant. We understand support 408 may be acceptable as modified is installed as shown on the detail drawing, but if detail B4 there maybe a problem with the generic design. I I l ,/ /ceh 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, J. Russ, U'""" toro of. W. Horstman, Prqj ect File

Communications 4 LM t Repod i 1111llllll11lll11111111111llll Teiec n 9 Conference Report Texas Utilities Job No. Project 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/26/84 Time: Subject 10:45 AM Fire Protection Calculations Place: CPSES of Participants; Tom Keiss TUGC0 John Russ CES ttem Comments Ac n y

Reference:

Telecon dated July 24, 1984, " Document Request," T. Keiss and J. Russ participating. Cygna received a copy of Item I listed in referenced telecon. l l h /)f//fg h /ceh 1 1 N. Will'iams,'D'.' Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, ~ Distribution: iomo oi. 3. ourweii, rruaeu rise

6 Communications t4 Ld t Repod i 1811111lllll1111111111llllllll Telec n g Conference Repd

.y Texas Utilities Project Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/26/84

Subject:

Time: 10:35 Fire Protection Calculations Place: CPSES

Participants:

of Tom Keiss TUGC0 Craig McClung Required item Comments Action By 1 Cygna requested calculations showing increased weight from fire protection covering junction boxes. Support in question is found on drawings 2323-S-0910 - Sh. JA-1 Type 1B. i l Signed: Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, l Distnbution: ioso oi. 3. tsu rwei l, vroject rise

Communications R3 port AL t i 1941111llll11111lll1111lll11ll Texas Uti1ities 9 Telec n Conference Re@d Project Job No. 84056' Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/17/84

Subject:

Time: 8:30 AM Mechanical Systems Questions I Place: SFNO I

Participants:

of D. Wade TUSI R. Hess CES Required item Comments Action By Dave called to inform us that the thermal barrier leak was considered a small break LOCA and that single failure criteria did apply. He stated that Westinghouse had submitted a 10CFR21 report on this issue on July 12, 1984 and that it applied to many plants. l { \\ hh //h /ceh 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D'stribution: io2e as.

5. Burwel l, Proj ect ri te

~ - . J .1..

J Communications t4 LM t Repod i 6 1111111llll111llll1llllll11111 Texas Utilities g Conference Report Telee n 3 Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/20/84 Subject Time: 4:15 o.m. Document Request CPSFS Site

Participants:

of Tina Coooer B rown & Root (DCCl John Russ Cvgna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the CVC's and any supporting calculations attached to the CVC's for the CMC's and DCA's listed on the attached sheets. ' l1)fik /Jm 1 1 '.' Ni111ams, b. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D* b " " N ioso oi.

5. BurweIi, Proj ect h Ie

_...~._. _.._.._. _. _ Calculation Sheet 9L i4 !ammummumimm ***'** B Q Q Q, _ ja y,gp Oste *'**' 7 s a s arou ves - c_pg,1-mp

• ~cer c*<*

'"%w ms ea,e a, FHe No. 04w ric. zsz3-s-oat o ; """' g4cgg Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet No. /. o i 4 e m c. DcA 2er=caavcs Documeun /8 8 G O 30212-8// 73 C 3Grtt 1 1481 .ZDM - +85~ i / 5'94-23G5' FDCK - S'60 2G/8 ocs 9,se 30 13 3+23

Calculation 4L 6 Sheet i IEllilillllllfululillbilli -i Project Prepare By' Date Subject Cneckoo B# Date D6$ mom ' D#Au e W Ce 0,m c,'s 4 OC.A'3 1 D#.4wi#0. 23E5 090 i "' 84csb Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet No. C. F7 C. DCA 29=fdWCar Docome-un 3147-5317 70 #3 t j /B 3 Ib i-Zo zzB i got7S 6 TA/ - 68 9tC l 2O +/0 L EO63 i ~ i l-icos ao _.m.__ _,.,,,m_- , -, -, - ~.. -. - -,...

Calculation Sheet 9( t i 111111111111111111ll1811111111 7 "'7n46 or,uvrt - c. eses ' me * '" ' 9 / /l, p/ggy. cnm.a syr o.i. '"$"r's a c a.a s. a c, c.mg3 4 M o w.,n. 23z.3 - s-oiot e4csg Anasyss No. Rev. No. Sheet No. C p1 c. DCA REFf w C6 Document 5 j h 2 W& Nul EZo 92. 3 2,5D3 386T? C fuso 97-13C 6 T7" - /8 G8 Of/cp-S- S I 9, OcA 14 *11 ZM ~ /G +2.1, GJh+ -401 290) 3063 3 318 ~ V5-38, Grd - sbs's'% Gu T^J-+SrM S9 H ,_a__

Calculation Sheet t4 L t i f 1N1llllllllllllllllllllllllll "***'" ** q.A 4. _ - 7/w/6> '*'*** texas oriuves - c eses me Subsect Checked Byf Date Desic a Exzau iw c. emc's 4 Oc.A'J o4,ec. 2.3t.3-s- o t os " "" ' 8 4c rt. c Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet No. C 81 C. DCA E E F f 2 W C. 6 Documenn 4/W sou-coir f6S4-G279 O 17771 17 838 178 f L l9 %7-L i (- J ( (.--

\\ ~' Calculation Sheet 4 Le t i nummmmmmu Protect Prepared By Date Date ' Checked W Suerect DesW DW.Au iM Ce CmO 4 : DC.A'J '""~ 0 4 w.sc 2.32.3 - s-o 9 o % 84csb Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet No. L' P7 C. DCA AEFD2WC6 D OCum eN TS o /5%. /693 17G i G /9 M /47/ 2DW l z/se 7A % 3 4zL 4Y23 l

Calculation Sheet 4L t i namimummmma ,....oer.q,p,4,. o,,. ~,-< _ g.,, u.,,, _ _. c"~~ *r! ~ . = ' c '"1%.a m.a c, ene, e a ow.m 20z3 - s-o9o 3 e 4 css Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet No, e M c. DcA 2e=c w cs aocom m n (s18 ? / 7/fL /(_o180'- O /765B 3//67 3 7A73 f8 338 saas3 8073F

Calculation ? Sheet Ldt i mamanamme ,. ~. a' Protect Prepare By g{, 7!w/5f, cate TDA6 orturras - c. eses' pp Suoiect "******f ~ oesw mu.a ce emds 4 M System

• • N *-

04w sc. 7,32.7-5-otos ggm Analysis No-Rev. No. Sheet No, I e m c. DcA 2g=cawcs aocumewrs 62388 RAL EH ~ l 6 41 @ bd/ fprc EH - 2Fz.5"~ $ h hl$ DE/c.o ~ S ~ + B 3 ' FDe *- +47 $ } $~ i d ifF - 22. e, DAX - /os-l- 753 AFIL CF-/017lgg_gzyL j L s m - l 6 + s 2. ' cMA - z.,c o i ] S~2 S~~ [ /576 T~uF - 4S18, ZM-l4163 1000 00

--.=. - Ca!culation Sheet 4( t i imam -== aroi.ei, ,,.,.o sy. g.g g o.i.4p e, son,.e cn.em.o ay/

o.. '

oest.4 DrzAu id c. emc's 4 OcAJ 04w.s c. t.32,3 - s-o9o3 " * " ' 8 4crt, Analysis No. R.v. No. $h.e No. 5/ C /r/ C. DCA R E F 6 YZ W C.g Doc umeMTS os/ co - s-e4+- /7 // gere.- c-z+co s 2p?L to29 O 2 08 F EF I (. - t-2,585~ LI03 l AFL C ~ C - 2, +T3 LI82-s.ei C. - c.- 2. r+7 2,3(m 2 oc/co -s-T oo 13 j (, A F i c. - c.- 7. 5"o t octe.o 1-f n f 2.487. IM E

a --. ~... -. ,[_ _ Calculation Sheet 4L t i -u Date Project Preparoc By: Suo mt Checked By: V Date DESMoM Df2A*J'MCs C.*td3 4 Oc.A'3 ~# on gc. n t.3 - s-oto5 6 4c fta Analysis No. Rev.No. Sheet No. C. M C. DCA REff/ZWCf D o c u m 6 A./ T 5 1 27c,I Ds/co 5- /ca c d C) 3 DAY -6 M Oe/c.o 3-II oi 2iO f G.Ttd - O 95'8

• • !co - s - '*
• C.

7 9If 34 5~* l l +/3 & 4-3o / 4735' f6'D 6?o72-

_.. y.. - Calculation Sheet 4L i i 1Wl1lllllllllllll1NB1N1141 Date Proiect Prepared By Chacked By " ~ Date ' Suoiect DES (s4 DQ Au eM Ce CM C.'S 4 Oc.A'J

• "~

Od.Aw e r# C. 2 %3 - S-03O} ~ 64CSL Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet Nc. 9 e m c. DcA REFcrzwcs cocumeun ST=-H /9 9 ~+3

1. ~ " ** ' L 2A 2 ?b C'

7,o W i i l 5000 00 ~--.....-....----,-----,-.__..-.--..,,.---._..--,...---,--..-,-,_-__..-----_,....-.-----..,_.--..--.-s-----,-

Calculation Sheet 4( 6 i mamummummmi m o rsci m rs - c_ps g ' mP I hk's[ [. *

1. '.7/28/69 -

Checked By f Date Subsect DeStW DW.Au s M Ce C.MO 4 DC.A J Ogaw ies t. 732,3 0904 84CSL Analysis No. Rev No. Sheet No. I C M C. DCA REFcrzWC6 Documents g 3 0 o ~5 L=t e- - L'E - /?o 6 2 27 5'l 3I W .C zon> sooo oo f .-,c .-....-m,,,..,.-mm.-em,.,,.,.,...me.-,,...,...,._--,-.v,,.-.,m-._.- ..--,.-r= -,,-y,--.,-

Calculation u ,i Sheet mammmans /) Date Protect W Prepared By0 Y. kr > l3*lS 9' TEXA6 O TIurret - C.PE es / Sucrect CheckooB/ Date Dtr5st.M Dt2AsJ eM Ce CmO 4 DC.A'J mw ee t, L%3 09 o 6 ' 6 40 % s Analyses No. Rev. No. Sheet No. /2./ l i \\ ( p1c, DCA RE7=frzWC6 D OCut?iex/T5 3 (, L2.- e' I- { l i .e(.. I tM 00 l m,.m..._., ,,_r_..,-,.,._..., ..m,.

A s M 6eem ep6m, em a a g, w ,qy4 Q Calculation Sheet 4 (. t i

=

Prepared By-Date Project p Sumtect Checked By[ Date vauw o w. a c. ema e oeAs n " ~ 8 4c rt. 0 4 wir c. 242.b s- 070t 8 e S""' " - Analyss No. Re. No. O W e m c. DcA fe=cwcs cocumeu n 3*8 3stv 4 -Ne m 0 l ,e ( ,om ae i -w -wgr --m ,,-e, ,w-,e-ww--- w- -www, www ~e,-w - mw wv,-ww wy --i-< c, w---w-awup e-- - = -a T--+- -*rMee's WmT-W'*F -Nv'"N-W'# -h--W"--P

._i_. _. __..__ ]l Calculation Sheet ~ 9 Lena MilllllElidilNiillNN 9 Date "'*"' 7a,3 0 7, v,,, _ c,g,, Prepared Sy;Q_, a puj """'* */ o* ""*7'sw ca.4w. ace emd, 4 M3 e

1. ""~

' " " 04~.*- 2 *>u s - 0 9 /1 eem Analysis No. Rev. No-Sheet No. g L M c. DcA 2E?=c w cs cocumen n 8EiL llO +1 No53 Ho6o i l L ) kb) t NM l 5899 65% F v, s, as l i G667 t

= -... -. :- -. r. l Calculation Sheet i 4( 6 i 1Ell111111lll1111111llllllll h eh d,- 07/24/8b N' # " 'V 5 " 7gy44 9 7,y y,yg. e,pgg w Subsect Checked By: V Date / D E $s(ord D(LAW W Ca C M c's 4 DC.A'J 2 04w eic, r.3tJ. st-o731- 01-J ' 84csb LSE3-E1 - C G 0 Job No. File No. i System - o t -s i AnWym No. [II"5" %75o."#* * ~# Sheet No. c.iric. DcA .fe=cawc:s aocomeun oeico s - ns- /144 c,/co s- /o-- 2538 f/M C: 9 . ems ME O

u_. y b / Communications 4L t Report i 111111111111111111111111111111 00*E'"Y; Te Mi1iWs g Telec n Conference Report Project Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Election Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/14/84

Subject:

Time: Seismic Support of Large Lights Over Nuclear Chilled Water Condensers CES-BAO

Participants:

of J. Folev Cyana Georae Grace Tuaco Required item Comments Action By I asked G. Grace if large parabolic lights over nuclear chilled water system condensers were seismically supported. G. Grace field verified that there are two tethers attached to the light fixtures: one to the parabolic globe, and one to the cage over the light bulb. 1 h f J ll]K A Iceh 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, R. Hess, P. Rainey, E. Van Stij geren, D'"*"** _3.,ireoy, d. ti n s, s. ourwei s, rraj ect rise

= - - - Communications 4L t Report i lilllllilliiniii..... ;;iiii U

• E* "I 0 Telecon g Conference Report 7

g)4g Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/12/84

Subject:

Time: 2:00 pm Document Receipt p G8H

Participants:

of B. Czarnogorski GAH T. R. Ma rti n Cvona Required item Comments Action By Received Gibbs & Hills final issue of the following documents for use in the review: e Reliance Custom Controls Drawing No. W-ILV152861-F Sheet 1 - 6 e STP Local Override Common Alarm ICD No. 2323-M1-2200-25 fh]);) JM /ss 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, R. Hess, T. Martin, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Distnbut*" ,w n.. Durwell. Vrm ect. tiie

1 :; - e - w =; Communications Repod 4Ln i lilililllilllilllllilllllillli i Teiec n 9 Conference rem j Texas Utilities ~ Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 lof9fg4

Subject:

Time: 9:00 A.M. Cable Tray Support Design Review Verification of Expansion Anchor Type CpSES Site

Participants:

of J. Van Amerongen EBASCO W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By In response to Cygna's question on the testing procedure used to determine the type of Hilti Expansion Anchor which is embedded in concrete, Jeanne Van Amerongen supplied a copy of TUGC0 Instruc-tion QI-QP-11.18-4, Rev. O, " Ultrasonic Examination of Hilti Bolts." She also provided several samples of the "Hilti Bolt Ultrasonic Test Reports" for conduit supports located at elevation 790'-6" in the Auxiliary Building. Cygna asked if it was possible to relate any of these test reports to supports within Cygna's scope. Jeanne said that she was not familiar with the test program, but would arrange a meeting for Cygna with Mike Warner of TUGC0 QA. Y /b c m /aj b 1 1 N. Willia $,D. Wade,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,J.Russ,W.Horstman,S.Treby, D'"*""'

d. Ellis, 5. Burwell, Proj ect File wo oi.

Communications 4L Repod t i llllllll1111lll11llllllll11111 Company: exas Utilities 0 Telecon g Conference Report Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 U' ; Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/24/84 Electrical Review Question 7:45 AM Place: SFR0

Participants:

of R. Hess Cygna J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 Required item Comments Action By 1. Called Jeanne to find out when we would received TUGCO's response to our question on value motor horsepower ratiag. 2. Jeanne stated that they were still waiting on a letter from the vendor (Fisher Controls). They should have the letter today or tomorrow and would Federal Express it to us. !.l t l l ( dhe /rr 1 1 N.hilliams,D. Wade,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,T. Martin,S.Treby,J.Ellis, D'"bu a: l rTan 30 t$urwei i. Frol ett F Lle

Communications Report d( ~ t i 111111111111111111111111lll111 .) Texas Utilities R TMecon Conference Repon Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*' ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/29/84

Subject:

Time: 10:00 a.m. Limitorque Motor Operator Information Place: T. Wisler Limitorque T. R. Martin Cygna Required item Comments Action By Requested information concerning the size of motor operators on Limitorque SMB-00/10 valve actuators. Tom informed me that the size of the motor operator varies with the type and speed of the motor used. However, the SMB-00/10 means that the actuator develops 10 ft.-lbs. of torque for valve movement. Therefore, the specific motor characteristics depend on the type of motor supplied and they will vary, bat no matter which type of motor is used SMB-00/10 actuators will provide 10 ft.-lbs. of torque for valve movement. 1 Signed: Q Page of /b / /IA/ A /dmm 1 1 'g,gj~lliams,D. Wade $J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,T. Martin,S.Treby,J.Ellis,S. ~ D'stneution: iosc o,. D u rwe l l, Vroject t1le

Communications t4M i Raport 1111lll11111lll11llllll1llll11 company: Texas Utilities o Telecon cX conference Repon Project: Job No. 84056. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oste: Independent Assessment Program - Phases 4 10/10/84

Subject:

Time: 10:00 a.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review Verification Place: of Installation of Hilti Super Kwik Bolts Mike Warner TUGC0 QE Curtis Biggs TUGC0 QC Bill Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By A meeting was arranged to discuss the method used by Quality Control ("Q.C.") to verify the type and length of Hilti expansion anchors installed in cable tray supports before procedures re-quired the marking of the bolts with a " star." 1. Cygna requested a copy of the references used in TUGC0 Instruc-tion No. QI-QP-11.18-4 Rev. O " Ultrasonic Examination of Hilti B ol t s. " Mr. Warner stated the reference "1-A" CP-CPM-13.1 " General Calibration Procedure" is a general laboratory / test equipment calibration procedure, and should have no significance to Cygna in understanding the Ultrasonic Testing ("U.T.") proce-dure, reference "1-B" (paragraph 2.3.lc) does not exist, this is a typographical error in the procedure, and should be listed as "1-A." 2. The sample U.T. reports provided to Cygna were dated in May 1981, yet the procedure QI-QP-11.18-4, Rev. O, was dated July 1982. Cygna asked what procedure was in effect at the time of these tests. Mr. Warner said that prior to 1982, the testing was performed by Brown & Root ASME NTE group, based on a B&R proce-dure. When TUGC0 took over the effort, this procedure was re-issued to change it to one with a TUGC0 designation. 3. The testing documented in the sample U.T. reports was done as a general sampling process. A number of bolts in a specific room were tested to verify that the letter code stamped on the bolt head was correct, i.e., that the bolts was of the proper length. The testing was done on a room-by-room basis throughout the plant for each type of support (i.e., Pipe, Conduit, Cable Tray,etc.). The sample bolts were selected by the operator of jf} /dmm "'9' 1 2 signe N. Williams,' D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, Distribution: ~. n_ es,. n v-- v.

6aaea, s.

ww. rm.., .-s--- - 1 a-- l g . ~..

Communications 4( n i Repod lililllilllillllll!Ill'illlill ) item Comments Ac on y the test. Th'e nunt>er chosen was deemed necessary to estabMsh a l certain confidence level for installed anchor bolts in the plant; NCR's vere written against a support if a discrepancy was found. There was no traceability between these tests and the specific support number. 4 A separate series of U.T. examinations of Hilti bolts was performed as part of the "Backfit Inspection" program. Based on a review of the cable tray support documentation packages in the QA vault, U.T.. examination was requested if existing documentation did not indicate that bolts were satisfactory. Tests were not performed for all supports, but based on the list of supports in Cygna's scope, Mr. Warner will attempt to locate samples of tilcse test reports. x it 5. The original inspection travelers for cable tray support in-stallations did not indicate what size, length or type of bolt was used, it only indicated if the bolt was satisfactory based on Q.C. witnessing of installation. Each Q.C. inspector maintained a notebook listing the bolts he had inspected, but these were not official documents, and have not been retained by TUGCO. 6. Cygna asked for a description of the U.T. technique used to dif-ferentiate between Hilti Kwik Bolts (HKB) and Hilti Super Kwik + Bolts (HSKB). ' Mr. Warner stated that the U.T. operator is trained by Q.C. on the method used. In his understanding, the wave reflection pattern is different for an HKB and an HSKB. By comparing the reflection pattera for an unknown bolt with the patterns for an l'KB and an HSKB of the same diameter and length, the operator can , identify the bolt by determining which known pattern matches. i Mr. Warner will arrange a demonstration of the test process for

i Cygna, or provide photos of the U.T. patterns for HSKB and HKB to illustrate }he characteristic differences.

1 g i' Page of 2 2 1020 01D " ~ ' ' ~ (( "._ l _ _.,_.~ ~ , _. ~

2. 3 ec Communications te le t Repod i

l1lll1ll111111lll1111111111111 g Conference Reprt Teiec n Texas Utilities Project-Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/11/84

Subject:

Time: 1:00 P.M. Cable Tray Support Design Review Place: CPSES Site Participants. of J. Van Ameronaen EBASCO M. Warner TUGC0 J. Russ W. Horstman Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested that Mr. Warner provide more information on the "backfit" inspection program of cable tray supports as it related to verification of Hilti Bolt types. Mr. Warner stated that the backfit verification was performed to update or complete the documentation packages for cable tray sup-ports. This program covered all of the supports in the C-TRAIN, B-TRAIN and many of those in the A-TRAIN. TUGC0 instruction num-ber QI-QP-11.10-5 (Rev. 10, June 1984) was used. Support docu-mentation packages were reviewed to locate incomplete installa-tion travellers or determine if any documentation was lacking. Field verification was only performed if it was needed to fill in j missing information. If a field inspection was required for the l anchor bolts, testing was performed to determine bolt diameter, length and type. This was compared with the design requirements to determine if bolts were satisfactory. Corrective action would be taken if necessary. A more extensive backfit inspection program is being performed for Unit 2 supports, in which actual as-built support connection t-details are being documented. l l l l l l i l Signed: Page of l D''*"" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, R. Hess, S. Treby, I m o'a.. . Ja EllhSM:FfdRlUM8Ber-refLJN l

- -.... ~. ~. ~. ~. _. -.,..,.,. - l' ..l' Communications i ALn Report i 1111111llll1111lll1lll111lllll Teiec n g conference Repon Texas Utilities Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U*; Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/18/84

Subject:

Time: 8:30 A.M. Cable Tray Support - Hilti Super Kwik Bolt Ultrasonic Testing WB h

Participants:

of T. Webb, M. Hamburg TUGC0 (EBASCO) W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Webb demonstrated the Ultrasonic Test (UT) process used to identify the length and type of Hilti Expansior, anchors installed in the plant. A UT aparatus was used which displayed a plot of response vs. distance (calibrated in inches of thickness of material being 2 tested). He demonstrated the test on a selection of Hilti Kwik Bolts ("HKB") and Hilti Super Kwik Bolts ("HSKB") obtained from the supply room. For a given length and diameter bolt, the UT pattern was distinctly different for the regular and Super Kwik bolts. He explained that a reflection of the sound waves occurs at each discontinuity in the bolt, so the shoulder at the top of the taper for the second set of wedges on the Super Kwik bolt produces an extra reflection at a shorter distance out than is seen for a regular Kwik bolt with only one set of wedges. The primary (largest magnitude) reflection for both types of bolts will occur at the end of the bolt, giving an indication of total length. To perform the test in the field on installed bolts, a bolt of the same type and length is taken to use as a " Control" specimen for comparison of the characteristic reflection pattern. Cygna indicated to Mssrs. Webb and Hamburg the locations of approximately 20 cable tray supports within scope that required HSKB but were not so marked in the installations. Signed: Le Page of Distribution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, W. Horstman, J. Russ, R. Hess, S. Treby, ,o m i. _

u. ti lis, s. tsurwei t a rroj ect._fi l e, K.

p1551I19er_ _, _ _ _ _ _ _

Communications A( ci Report 11111llllllllllll1lll111lll111 Item Comments Ac n y Cygna personnel witnessed the-testing of six bolts out of the sample, and determined that the UT was apparently satisfactory to identify installed bolts. After testing, these bolts were stamped with a " STAR". Mr. Webb, within the next two days, will supply test reports for as many of the bolts in the sample as are accessable. i l l I l l l Page of 2 2 1020 01b

(_ /;,- Communications AMi Report ,o Texas Utilities g conference Repon elec n l Project: Job No. MnM Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,; Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 In /17 /Ra Subject Time. 00 A.M. Cable Tray Support Design Review Verification p,, Installation of Hilti Super Kwik Bolts cpsps sit,

Participants:

of M. Warner Tursco oc N. Williams. W. Horstman cygna Required item comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Warner to clarify some of the information given on Hilti Super Kwik Bolts ("HSKB") in the 10/10/84 communication report. Cygna asked what the reasons were for the two Ultrasonic Test ("UT") programs which were conducted to examine Hilti bolts. Mr. Warner stated that:

1. The UT program in 1980 was done to establish the actual in-stalled lengths of all Hilti bolts in the plant. Determina-tion of bolt type (i.e, regular or super) was not the goal of this program, but only a by-product of it. No markings were made on the bolts to indicate the type. The tests were I

performed based on a statement by a craftsperson that he had I in some cases cut-off Hilti bolts because of installation difficulty and welded it to the base plate to give the j rppearance of a correctly installed bolt. All bolts in the rooms where this person had worked and a sam-l pling of bolts throughout the plant were tested for correct length. Appropriate corrective action was taken to repair any incorrect length bolts. No correlation between the bolts ins-pected and the requirements for a specific support type or number were made at this time, so there is no way to tie these test results back to any supports in Cygna's review scope. l I 1 11111( A f aib 1 9 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, W. Horstman, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Proj ect File, R. Kissinger mo oi.

r Communications 4 Ld t Repod i llllllll111ll11ll111111lll!!!1 Item Comments Ac o y

2. The "Backfit Inspection Program" was started to fill in any information missing from the QC documentation packages for individual cable tray supports. Basically, it involved a review of existing inspection reports for each support to determine what information was missing. Only in cases where the inspection traveller was not marked " satisfactory" for an expansion anchor was a UT examination requested to determine anchor length and type. The results of the test would be compared with what was required for this hanger type and the "Backfit" report was marked to indicate acceptance.

Cygna asked how the UT reports from this program were stored, and if they could be located for the specific supports within the re-view scope. Mr. Warner stated that the report form is in triplicate, one copy stored in the Q.A. vault, one copy is retained by the craft and he maintains a file of the remaining copy. The reports are filed by date, not by support number, so a manual search through the files would be needed to locate the report for a specific sup-port. This effort would require a great deal of time, since there are several thousand test reports in his file. Mr. Warner suggested that the most expedient means for verification of the anchor bolts within Cygna's scope was to have a QC inspector perform and document new UT examinations on these bolts. Cygna accepted this suggestion and agreed to have Mr. Horstman accompany the QC inspector on 10/18/84 to observe the UT proce-dure in the plant. Cygna asked how the original QC inspection report ("IR") for a hanger installation documented the type of expansion anchor used. Mr. Warner showed Cygna several examples of inspection reports, indicating that the bolt type was not explicitly called out, but instead, the inspector only checks off the bolts as satisfactory or unsatisfactory as per the design. Thus, if an IR shows the l bolts are satisfactory, the bolt type is adequately documented. l During the time period when the Super Kwik bolts were not marked with a " STAR", it was customary to have a QC inspector witness the installation of Super Kwik bolts to assure ~the correct type was installea, since no visual evidence exists on installed bolts, however, this was not an established " hold point" in the inspection procedure. i Page of 2 2 1020 01b

e..

Cor5munications l Aln Report i [ llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Teiec n 9 confe ence Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/27/84

Subject:

Time: 9:15 A.M. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions CPSES Site Participants; of T. Keiss TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen TUCGO (EBASCO) S. Chang, P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ. N. Williams Cvuna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above. 1. Evaluation of Details A-H (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) (

Reference:

DCA 2538). Cygna noted additional concerns regarding Details A-H baseplates when evaluated in light of DCA 2538. These concerns were also applicable to multiple SP-7 and multiple SP-7 with brace type supports. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the above details, except Details A-D, in light of the allowed tolerances. Gibbs & Hill will examine the generic situation and if necessary the as-built conditions of the above supports considering all CMC's and DCA's. Status: Gibbs & Hill to evaluate the details listed above. 2. Base Plate Thickness for Cable Tray Supports 734, 736, 3023, 3112, 3501 and 3504. Cygna noted the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings call out a 3/4" plate for the base plate rather than a 1 1/4" plate as shown on t. the generic design drawing. TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill will determine what size plate was actually used and evaluate accordingly. Cygna stated that they would check if the write-off by QJality i Control (QC) was made on the original FSE-00159 drawing. This might indicate what size of plate was actually used. -l Status:

1. TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill to determine actual plate thickness and evaluate accordingly; and h1 JA

/ajb 1 2 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, D"bd "'

d. El lis, 5. Burwell, Proj ect File, M.

Mssinger mo oi.

Communic 2tions 4( n i Repod l 1111lllllllll11111lllll1111111 Uc7e"nTy nem comments

2. Cygna to determine what QC sign-off noted.

3. Cable Tray Support 734 (

Reference:

CMC's 00164 and 88240). Cygna noted that the tray at Elevation 803'-5" was connected to the beam using heavy duty tray clamps. However, the support was not analyzed for longitudinal loads. The original revision of CMC 00164 also analyzed the baseplate for a 1 1/4" thickness, yet the FSE-00159 fabrication drawing specified a 3/4" baseplate. TUGC0 will evaluate this support utilizing a field verified base-plate thickness and considering longitudinal loads. Status: TUGC0 to evaluate cable tray support 734. 4. Cable Tray Spacing Criteria. TUGC0 had provided. a copy of specification 2323-ES-100 for Cygna's review. Cygna was referenced to sections 2.28.2 and 4.11. These sections were discussed for their applicability to the tray spacing used in the design of generic cable tray supports. It was Gibbs & Hill's interpretation that the specifications would not allow a spacing of less than six inches. Cygna feels that the distance can be less. Cygna stated that they will internally discuss the referenced sections. Status: Cygna to consider referenced sections of 2323-ES-100. 5. Effect of CMC 6187 on Design of Support Type SP-7 with Brace - Working Point Calculations. Per discussion of October 26, 1984, Gibbs & Hill offered the calculations shown in Attachment A to show that CMC 6187 did not affect the results of the working point analysis. Cygna accepted the results shown in Attachment A. Cygna asked Mr. Keiss how the results of the working point analysis were used by TUGCO. He replied that the analysis output was a maximum brace tolerance. Quality Control sampled the supports for exceedence of this maximum tolerance and found the results within a 95% confidence level. Mr. Keiss was not aware of the sampling procedure used. Status: Cygna to investigate the sampling procedure for the working point analysis. Page of so200in

Calculation 4 (L i Shmt 111111llllllllllll18111llllll1 G Prepared By. Dat Project subject cneckea By: cate 7 System , Job No File No. Analysis No. Rev No. Sheet No. 3" N 4 WP s r'\\ x e s / /' A 3 / NA \\ ' p* m / P = cousMT yt = 2.zs' pV ( Y C ep%c.E 1c 1 4= 3Y A 3 Ng= P (g+c) x i X Y A A t C. Pv _ k (p. 38 Py f l.T I 1

4. E6

l. T Py

1. O I

3 C, 7.I P 5.25 P y y O.61 1

4. 5-(,, ~17

,(il Py 4 50 Py I l( 1 l 1000 00

~ Z$-L- /- i j Communications 4 L. Report t i 111111114ll11111111111111lll11 Texas utiitties 9 coa''aa a** o==a Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/17/84 Subject Time: 4:00 P.M. Cable Tray Support Design Review p CPSES Site

Participants:

of J. Burkeen DCTG W. Horstman Cygna I Required item Comments Action By Requested and received copies of CVC's for the following: l CMC 8229 Revision 0-13 CMC 16410 Current Revision Only CMC 16412 Current Revision Unly DCA 3701 Current Revision Only DCA 20177 Current Revision Only DCA 19167 Current Revision Only DCA 18675 Current Revision Only l These pertain to Support No. 3136. [ t Page of l Signed. U D'"*" "; N. Williams, U. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, ..d. tilis, 5. Burwell, Project File, R. Kissinger im oi.

23 s - /G A Communications dL ci Report 181llll11111111111111111llllll Company Telec n g Conference Report exas Utilities Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/17/84 Subject Time: 3:00 P.M. Cable Tray Support Design Review. Place; CPSES

Participants:

of T. Keiss TUGC0 W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested information regarding Cable Tray Hanger 3136 located at elevation 790'-6" in the Auxiliary Building / Safeguards Building common wall. This is support Detail "5" on 2323-S-0905. Tom Keiss said that this support had been significantly modified from the original design when it was decided that a fire barrier was necessary between the two buildings. This hanger now sup-ports one of the cable trays in the scope of Cygna's review. Cygna could not have observed it during the field walkdowns since it also serves as framing for the fire wall and is covered on both sides with Gypsum wall board. Tom provided a copy of CMC 8229, Rev.13, detailing the modification to this support. l l l i l l Page of L/[I b [)/ jf([gu /ajb 1 1 Signed. D'$t"but'on: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, W. Horstman, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, im o,.

v. tisis, s. ourwesi, rroject, riie, n. Mssinger

23-e-it/L Communications Report M i i 19181111lll11llll1111111111lll Texas Utilities 9 wee n conference Repon Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/16/84 Subject Time: 1:00 p.m. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions Place: CPSES site

Participants:

of T. Keiss TUGC0 J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ, N.H. Williams CES Required item Comments Action By 1. Transverse Span Violations - Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports. Mr. Keiss had provided Cygna with preliminary calculations earlier on this date. Cygna reviewed those calculations. The preliminary calculations showed support 2993 as a Detail "N" type support. Cygna noted that this support was a Detail "11" which Gibbs & Hill was evaluating for other Cygna concerns. For support #764, a Detail "K" support, reference was made to the original design calculations. Mr. Keiss was shown a more recent evaluation performed by Gibbs & Hill, New York to answer other Cygna concerns. Cygna asked Mr. Keiss why he hadn't referenced i this calculation. He replied that due to the short time between the calculation's origination and the time of fire protection i question response was written, the Detail "K" calculations by Gibbs & Hill, New York had not been processed through THE. Cygna asked if the supports were checked for CMC's by using a controlled list. Mr. Keiss repled that TNE's uncontrolled log was used. Cygna will contact Mike Strange if further questions on CMC retrieval for cable tray supports are required. Cygna asked if the FSE drawings were ever updated. Mr. Keiss replied that the FSE drawings are updated to show added trays and changes in supports. The indicator blocks which show the support type are not changed. Minor tray reroutings are not shown on the revised FSE drawings. 3 Cygna noted the CMC 6114 showed a 6'-5" span for cable tray support 2998, yet Mr. Keiss's calculations used 6'-0". Mr. Keiss stated that 6'-0" was used based on judgment and the fact that the design weight of 35 psi was used as the design weight. )f j h),WA lcwk 1 3 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, D'" b" aw.

u. ti li s, s. uurwel l, Proj ect ti te, K. Kissinger

Communicntions AL Report t i 1111lll16lll18ll11111111111111 "AcDy nem comments Cygna asked how the site reevaluation group determined what the limitations of the generic designs were. Mr. Keiss was also asked if a procedure or table existed which showed these limita-tions. Mr. Keiss replied that the original design calculations were used as a comparison in the fire protection reevaluations. 2. Revaluation of Conduit Spans for Thermolog Fire Protection Cygna asked Mr. Keiss to describe the reevaluation procedure for conduits covered with Thermolog fire protection. He listed the following steps: i) An isometric drawing of the conduit line in question is prepared;

11) The conduit spans and supports are evaluated based on these walkdowns.

iii) Completed evaluations are sent to Gibbs & Hill, New York for design review. Should the design reviewer have any coments, the calculations are returned to site for additional work. Mr. Keiss was asked if square or rectangular cross-sections of fireproofing had been used in the plant. He stated that these sections were sometimes used to coat two or more closely-spaced conduits. In general, round pre-formed sections were used to cover conduits. Cygna asked if the square cross-sections were considered in the analysis for coated span lengths for conduits. Mr. Keiss stated that he would investigate this matter. He also noted that the analyst performing a reevaluation would not be aware of the type of Thermolog cross-section used on a conduit because the isometric drawings were developed prior to installation of the Thermolog. Cygna asked if the Thermolog was ridigly attached to the conduit so as to make the assembly a composite cross-section. He replied I that it wasn't. He added that the type of fireproofing installation was selected after testing various methods in the site fabrication shop. Mr. Keiss noted that in the revaluations of conduit supports for fire protection, the method of analysis was generally to compare actual spans, weights and accelerations to the design values of these parameters for a support. In cases where this method wasn't successful in qualifying a support, the support was completely reanalyzed. If the support could not pass after this analysis, an additional support was added to reduce the span lengths and hence, the conduit loads applied to the support. of Pagg 3 so2o oin

Communications 4L t Report i 118llll111111lll11111111111111 ftem Comments Ac n y Cygna asked Mr. Keiss why the fire protected loads and spans shown in procedure CP-EI-4.0-49 weren't 'used in evaluating the effects of reaming P2558 clamps. (Reference letter from L.M. Popplewell to N.H. Williams, dated 8/30/84). He replied that he would review the calculation and respond to Cygna. Cygna also asked how the fire-protected conduit spans reported in CP-EI-4.0-49 which have additional mass can be longer than the spans for unprotected spans. Mr. Keiss stated that he would look into the question, but it would be best to speak to Pravin Patel who had developed the referenced procedure. e l l l l l i Page of 5o20 01m

b p v Communications Repod 4L i i 111lll111111111111111111111111 7*'ee n 9 conference Repon Texas utilities Projut: Job No. 84056* Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/24/84

Subject:

Time: 1:15 p.m. Cable Tray / Conduit

• • • • 2 Review Questions CPSES Site of

Participants:

J. Van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) S.C. Chang, P.T. Huang, B.K. Bhuj ang (Part-time) Gibbs & Hill W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed above. 1. Evaluation of Specific SP-4 Type Supports. Cygna had reviewed the calculations for the support at Elevation 787'-4" previously provided by Gibbs & Hill. The review noted the following:

a. The calculation used g-values that were interpolated between floor elevations. Accelerations should have been based on the floor elevation above;

b. The calculation considered fixed-ends for the vertical loads. Simple ends are more appropriate; i

c. Torsion appeared to have been improperly combined with weak-axis bending of the cantilever members; and

d. No consideration was given to the controlling load Case.

Status: Gibbs & Hill will provide revised calculations. ( 2. Evaluation of Detail "11" (Drawing 2323-S-0905). Cygna noted that two trays on the support selected as the worst case for analysis were spaced 2 inches apart horizontally. Tr.. s j tray arrangement indicated that the generic support designs may not have considered the worst case support configuration because l Gibbs & Hill always used a minimum 6 inch spacing between trays. l l m h j ) ( y 7t p /ajb ' 1 2 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, D'stneutic,n: san oi.

v. cen s, a. ou,weis, r,vacuu rise, n.

ni>> iisci

Communications Report At t i ilullitilllllHilllillfulHI OcIISIfy stem comnents The revised calculations also reference a " frictional shear" calculation. This relates to the calculations for CMC 8278, revision 4. Cygna noted that the effect of working point deviations on the brace anchor bolts was not considered. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate the effect. In the calculation of the bolt interactions for the beam connection, Cygna noted that the Richmond Insert allowables from specification 2323-SS-30 were used and prying action was not considered. Gibbs & Hill will evaluate this situation. Status: Gibbs & Hill to perform calculations as noted above. 3. Fire Protection Evaluation for Cable Tray Supports. Cygna had reviewed the calculations previously received from TUGC0 and found them acceptable. Status: Closed. 4. Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports 2861,3025 and 3028 (Type D ). 1 Cygna had reviewed the previously received calculations for supports 3025 and 3028 and found them acceptable. Cygna received calculations for support 2861 from Gibbs & Hill. Mr. Bhujang noted that the tray frequency was conservatively calculated. Status: 1. Calculations for supports 3025 and 3028 closed; and

2. Cygna to review calculations for support 2861.

l I l l Page of i 2 2 l ma oin

O s - oti Communications Report 4L t i 111111111111111111118111111ll 4 Telee n 9 Conference Repon Texas Utilities Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/27/84

Subject:

Time: 11:45 a.m. Fire Protection Evaluations Place: CPSES Site

Participants:

of T. Keiss TUGC0 J. P. Russ. N. H. Williams (Part-time) CES Required Item Comments Action By

Reference:

Conference Report dated 10/16/84, 1:00 p.m., " Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions," Keiss, Van Amerongen, Horstman, et al, participating. Cygna asked Mr. Keiss if cable tray covers were used at Comanche Peak. He replied that they were. He stated that if the tray clearances were below a specified minimum, the contractor could opt to use tray covers for fire protection. The contractor was not required to report whether tray covers had been used or not. Mr. Keiss was asked if any trays which had covers had been covered with Thermolog. Mr. Keiss stated that situation was present in the field. Cygna asked what the gage of the tray covers was and if their weight was included in the revaluation of trays and supports for the additional weight of fire protection. Mr. Keiss stated that he was not sure of the gage of the covers but thought it might be 16 gage. He also stated that the weight of the covers was not considered in the fire protection revaluation. Previous discussions with Mr. Keiss (referenced conference report) noted some discrepancies in the allowable spans for fire i coated conduits. For LS type supports, the firecoated spans for S1 shown in Attachment 3, Table 9 of procedure CP-El-4.0-49 are l greater than the uncoated spans shown on sheet LS-Sa of drawing 2323-S-0910 for the same conduit diameters. I Cygna and Mr. Keiss reviewed Set 1 of calculation binder SCS-1017C and noted discrepancies in calculations for tne Si spans for LS type supports and in the moments of inertia for the S4 calculations for LA type supports. Mr. Keiss will investigate these issues. j 1 m /dm 1 2 '""" "~ N. Williams D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby. J. Ellis, S. Hurwell, Proj ect File R. Kissinger 'm'a

Communications Repod t4 L t i 181111111111111111111111111111 AcEniy tiem comments Cygna had previously asked Mr. Keiss (see referenced conference report) if square or rectangular sections had been used in the field and if such sections were considered in the analysis of the allowable spans for coated conduits. Mr. Keiss replied that square cross-sections had been used. The analysts would not have been aware of their usage he stated. Cygna also requested a copy of SCS-1017C, Set 1. Status: Mr. Keiss to investigate coated conduit spans. i 1 l [ Page of i

Communic 9tions Repod 4L s i IN111111110illllililllilillli C**P'"Y Texas Utilities o Telecon a conference Report N' 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*'*: Independent Assessment Program - Phases 4 10/11/84 Subject Time 5:00 P.M. Mechanical. Systems Review Place: Thermal Barrier Rupture p

Participants:

D. M TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required Item Comments Action By

Reference:

N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (NRC) and J.B. George (TUGCO), 84U56.032, " Reactor Coolant Thermal Barrier Rupture", dated October 9,1984. D. Wade, having received the above-referenced letter, expressed concern that Cygna was misinterpreting TUGCO's position and WestinghoJse's baseline assumptions on this matter. D. Wade believed that through extensive discussions with R. Hess (Cygna Mechanical Systems Project Engineer), it was made clear that in order to initiate the Cygna or Westinghouse senario, the same event must occur - failure to isolate the reactor coolant pump thermal barrier rupture. The referenced letter leaves the reader with the impression that there is a world of difference between the Cygna concern and Westinghouse 10CFR 21 concern. It should be obvious that the central issue of the initiating event is the i same in both cases. Further, D. Wade stated that TUGC0 was still evaluating the potential deficiency to determine if it was neces-i sary to postulate in thermal barrier rupture. It was agreed that there is no clear guidance available on this matter. N. Williams agreed that if the letter appeared ambiguous or un-clear on the differences between the senarios that Cygna would issue a clarifying letter next week after discussing the matter with R. Hess. i ff),});gQ /a) b '*** 1 1 N. Williams, D.' Wade, J.'VanAmeror. gen, R. Hess, C. Killough, D. Pigott, S. Treby, ~ Distnbution:

3. L.-m;;, J. ii..., T. y m i;;m

t) c. Communicottons Report 4L t, 1Nllllll' lill Company ili ies g Telecon D Conference Report Protect Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 ti_i_g4 Sub ect Tame: i i 10:45 a.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review Hilti Bolt Embedment Length CYGNA SFA0

Participants:

of Tom Keiss TUGC0 - SITE Bill Horstman CES - SFAO Aequired item Comments Action By Ref: CTH 481. Type L-A, letter 84056.026, Question 4. 4 1. TUGCO's response to referenced question supplied CMC 2635, rev. O as justification for the use of a 1 1/4" (T) Hilti Super Kwik Bolt. Overall length is 12". I asked TLm to provide the design review calculations for this CMC to determine what embedment l length was used. 2. Is it possible to obtain 10 b/8" min. ent>ed with a 12" colt? Tom said that it would be awfully " tight" to attempt that with a 3/4" base plate. It would only work if partial nut engagement was used before torquing. He referred to CEl-20 for installation requirements. 3. How does the craft determine what length bolt to use? Tom said that the drawings specify minimum embedment, so the craft would need to add on the base plate thickness and nut engagement to get the overall bolt length. He wasn't sure how the nut engagement required before bolt turquing was determined. ] I fl1 At M Icwk 1 1 N.hilliam.D. Wade,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,J.Russ,W.Horstman,S.Treby, Distneution: J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project file R. Kissinger m e'.

o. Communications y Report 4L t Company Texas Utilities IK T*'* con o Conference Report Protect Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D l Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/15 Subject Time. 10:30 i MS Relief Valve Seismic Qualification Place: Pipe Stress Review R. Manvelyan (EQ) TNE (G8H) J. Minichiello Cygna Requeed Action By item Comments Cygna called to determine what snubber loads, if any, had been i transmitted to Fisher to qualify the MS relief valve. Mr. Manvelyan stated he was not aware of any loads transmittal, but he had not worked in that area for a year. He suggested we contact Gibbs & Hill in New York. Cygna has noted that DCA 15,870 to Specification MS-600 (the other Fisher valves) does require the vendoe to qualify the valves including the effect of seismic restraints. l i i i l \\ r Page of g s oned N'.'Wil'lia'ms, D. Wade, G. Grace L. Weingart, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, D'*tabuboa: ?.. rrcu ecr. n le

j ..v_., ...._..........,,,,,,aa S P E,C. HAN, TUGoC (2), A M (4) l t PM3 1 & 2 t.aaGl I!EdIm H09? G3malCE hm 315m a2JCDt2C FDt22GI ': II MRIGI GhtlGR AUDEERIZA2'2GI III v 3 ~r J, (NIEZ,) (91154 M DIC35GIA2ED Bt i:532Gt COC3GNF DCA E. 15.870 1. EhrErr NZACID ECCDefts X 1!!B E 2* E8 GE~ _N DES 3GER Y 3. m e atIr r.I,s_i: A..MOR'.J: SEQ 1NL4EIDMX 2323-MS-600 mv. 3 B. Depu2A __ _ _ Descriotion of chance: (1) Add the followina at end of oara. 3.7.1: Onerability reautrements of oara. 3.7.1.1 and 3.7.1.2 are not reauired forJassive valves.

2) 3.7 after last para., add attachment #1.

ENGillEERINGIUSTIFICATION: Valve restraints reauired to meet seismic' stress criteria'. i i 4 .1 l t l 4. SDPR3tf215 uG5.s wu m l DECD 2323-5-2702. Rev. O i 5. APPMUAI,Sie w HAH:

ch,

1-24-83 j W -- h f ZA $ /s A / Danx /1443 A. Cit 23D8mns M/// b /u M Dnze h/ 5-93

s. nasIan umsamerves 4,, -

4. vanzzt '5 West 1TmI,

as X de m CP-600(FisherControls) 7.

ames3We Db-uwe [ Assis (original) (1) 8.F. Jones-Procurement (2) och Knot 11-40 oaality Durtneering (1) Adam. Arv 7-42 t 15 fbe orig. Dee5 (1) teostinghouse 41tm i1) 3/V

e-e,,..,, o, ,~ DCA-15,870 Page 2 of ? ~II ATTACHMENT *1 ,e 2, DECD 2323-5-2702, Rev. 0 ..~ For all valves which have not been qualified with seismic restraints, or where seismic restraints could not be installed at the vendor de-signed location, the proposed attached location of the restraint shall be forwarded to the vendor for his approval both for active and passive valves. In addition, for active valves the vendor shall demonstrate operability, including the effect of the seismic restraints. " Passive"(non-active) valves are required to maintain the pressure boundary, integrity intact during and after the prescribed seismic events, including the effect of the seismic restraints. 9 0 t 6 6 E 6 WY

Ic-Ci j. Communic 9tions Report t4 ( , i 111111111111111111111111111111 company: Teiec n g conference Report Texas Utilities Protect: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D *'* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 2 10/9/84 -n... 6"bi"i 8:15 A.M. Drawing Request Place:

Participants:

of N. Munoz DCC W. Horstman Cygna Requwed ( ltem Comments Action BW Cygna requested and received copies of the following drawings: 2323-S-0800 2323-S-0801 2323-5-0825 J i i l i [ // / /L 16 /aj b '"' l 1 N'. Wil'1faIns, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, W. Horstman, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, ~ ~ Distneution:

v. ii;... ;. ;-,

. I,.j - ; , k, ^. % h ;,,,,

Communications Report 4i L A maammmmme compny: Texas Utilities "

• con y conference neport Protect:

Job No. 84056-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/9/84 Sutgect T6me. 1 8:45 A.M. Applicability of Procedure CP-EI-4.0-4 Place:

Participants:

of W. Horstman Cygna 1 J. Russ Cygna nequireo item Comments Action By i Cygna asked Mr. Patel if procedure CP-EI-4.0-4 was applicable to any drawing other than 2323-5-0910. Mr. Patel stated that it was not. The reason for the procedure was to control distribution of j conduit support drawings which were prepared per FSEG calcula-tions. Cygna asked if the procedure was applicable to the fol-lowing drawings: 2323-S-0800 -0801, and -0825. Mr. Patel stated that these drawings were prepared by Gibbs & Hill in New York and were not covered by the above procedure. l 1 ( f)j] b d /ajb '* 1 1 oi ineution. 'N.' Nilit"ams,'O. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, W. Horstman, J. Russ, R. Hess, S. Treby,

a. Li ns, s. surwe s i, rroject r t ie, 8. Kissinger

ir 6 Communic tions a 4 (% i Report nummm:mmmmm compery Texas utilities & w. con a conference n qrt JbN. C4056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oste: 10/4/84 nmt 4:00 p.m. sube.ct Factor Used in Equivalent State Load Method Place: Cygna

Participants:

C, M, Jan of Gjbb$ & Hj)) G. Bj orkman Cygna n.que.o item Comments Action By The purpose of the conversation was to reiterate Cygna's position, which had been stated during the Septefter 13, 1984 meeting at Gibbs and Hill, regarding the Gibbs & Hill justification study for the use of a 1.0 factor in the equivalent static analysis of cable tray supports, and to respond to the additional information (normalized I.orizontal ARS) Cygna had received subsequent to the meeting. Cygna stated its position as follows: As determined in the Gibbs and Hill study, the appropriate generic factor for plant-wide use for cable tray supports which are flexible (i.e., frequency within the amplified region) in the horizontal direction is 1.12, and the appropriate factor for supports which are stiff (i.e., frequency not within amplified region) in the vertical direction is 0.75. Cygna does not agree with the methodology by which these two factors were combined to obtain the " combined (any direction) factor" of 1.0 since the actual factor is dependent on support geometry (i.e., for higher aspect ratio supports the horizontal factor would dominate support reactions). For cable trays which have supports that are flexible vertically (i.e., cantilever type supports) the generic " horizontal" factor of 1.12 is appropriate in the vertical direction provided that each of the vertical floor response spectra is enveloped by one of the horizontal floor response spectrum used in the development of the 1.12 factor. Based on the normalized horizontal response spectra received subsequent to the Septenter 13, 1984 meeting, N Distnbution n.i r laama, u, usue, v. van nmwiunyun, u. oJunman, a. escuy, u. r.issa, v. nuas, Denlart Fila _ R Ki ttinume

v i Communicstions 4L t c Report 7 1111ll181111111111111111111111 iten comments Ac y Cygna confirmed that this was the case and therefore the generic 1.12 factor is appropriate for supports which are flexible in the vertical direction and the 0.75 factor is appropriate for supports which are stiff in the horizontal direction. Cygna recognizes that the actual factor will vary from elevation to elevation with the shape of the individual floor response spectrum and that the higher factors are generally applicable to lower elevations which have smaller peaks. However, as a generic multiplier to be applied on a plant-wide basis,1.12 is the appropriate factor to be applied in the flexible direction of the cable tray supports and 0.75 in the stiff direction. Whether or not the use of a factor less than 1.0 in one of the support directions satisfies the intent of the SRP or the SAR is not clear. Page of mo ons}}