ML20137G567
| ML20137G567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1985 |
| From: | Landers D TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| References | |
| 6410-22, NUDOCS 8601210087 | |
| Download: ML20137G567 (10) | |
Text
.
4 "RTELEDYNE ENGNEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTH AM, MASSACHUSETTS C2254 (617) 890-3350 TWX (710) 324-7508 November 22, 1985 6410-22 Mr. Vince Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Project U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Mail Stop P-234 Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Noonan:
Attached please find our preliminary Trip Report for the Audit of the Cable Tray Hanger Program.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
.Qor Donald F. Landers Executive Vice President DFL/lh Attachment (TripReportNo.2179) cc:
L. Shao (USNRC)
C. Trammell (USNRC)
C.Poslusny(USRNC)
D. Jeng (USNRC) 6410 File (TES) i0 8601210007 951122 k\\
PDR ADOCK 05000445
\\
G PDR ENGINEERS AND YETALLURGISTS
'W TF1FTT(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES TRIP REPORT NO. 2179 PROJECT 6410T CABLE TRAY HANGER PROGRAM AUDIT INSPECTION REPORT November 6, 1985 contains the list of attendees at an audit held at the Comanche Peak site, Wednesday, November 6,1985, at 4:00 PM.
The primary areas of discussion were:
1.
Overview and status of Cable Tray Hanger Program.
2.
Involvement and division of responsibility of primary vendors (i.e.,Ebasco,Impell,ANC0).
3.
Need for and ultimate use of test data.
4.
Status of test matrix.
5.
List and status of inaccessible attributes.
Mr. H. Harrison gave an overview and current status of the Cable Tray Program. This is Attachment 2 to this report.
Current modifications to cable tray supports in Unit 2 are essentially based on FSAR criteria and standard industry practice. For example, Buckling - strictest interpretation of 7th Edition of AISC Code, a.
b.
Analysis - based on equivalent static force approach.
c.
Loading - assume all trays are full of cables.
Mr. Harrison stated that Impell was asked to review the Cable Tray Program and to perform a dynamic system analysis to see if rework can be minimized using existing acceptance criteria for Unit 1.
The Impell effort indicated that dynamic system analysis, using actual tray fill, will reduce the number of modifications required in Unit 1.
However, the current Kt/r requirements of the AISC Code relative to buckling are limiting the effectiveness of this approach.
The Ebasco/
Impell team currently is proposing to submit, through TUGCO, a request to the NRC to increase the K1/r requirements of AISC from 200 to 240 for the Unit 1 analysis.
The basis for this is an apparent expansion or clarifica-tion to the 8th Edition Commentary of the ASIC Code.
In addition, Impell indicated that a reduction in modifications results from the fact that in some cases the seismic load up is less than the weight load down; therefore, the net load on the support is down and buckling is not a concern.
'~
WTA mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Trip Report No. 2179 The Impell scope of work is currently 1500 supports.
Ebasco and Impell will utilize the same criteria and methodology.
For Unit 1,
Impell/Ebasco will use dynamic analysis and actual tray fill.
This could reduce rework which is approximately 28 percent for Unit 2 to 11-14 percent for Unit 1.
Impell will utilize its own QA program.
TUGC0 is currently reviewing the testing and test matrix.
The current plan is to qualify Unit 1 cable trays and supports without benefit of test results.
This is primarily because the analysis schedule will not accommodate use of the test data.
However, should the test data indicate that modifications to supports can be reduced from that determined analytically, the test data would be utilized and reanalysis performed.
The test plan may be modified to address the buckling issue.
The Impell analysis will be done at the Walnut Creek Office using the Superpipe Program.
The NRC would like to review modelling techniques including support self-excitation.
Third Party Overview The role of the CPRT will basically be an overview of procedure and analysis.
Since 100 percent of all cable trays and supports will be reanalyzed, the program will be very similar to the piping area.
Documents will be submitted to NRC for review.
Inaccessible Attributes R.
Iotti dicussed the differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 when reviewing attributes.
Unit 2 currently has very little thermal lag installed whereas portions of Unit 1 are covered by thermal lag.
Due to thermal lag, worst case assumptions may have to be made relative to tray size, location and brace connection point.
It may be difficult to determine physical types and location of clamps.
If this happens, then historical records will be reviewed.
- Also, bolt holes may be larger than permitted.
In the analysis, conservative assumptions will be made relative to weld size and missing weld segments.
Unit 2 data will be used to compile and justify Unit 1 attributes (based on statistics).
If required, an envelope analysis may be performed using maximum undersized / maximum underlength welds even though they may not be at the same location. This would be conservative.
The previous designer of record for Unit I was:
Unit 1 Conduit:
Gibbs and Hill Unit 1 Cable Trays: Gibbs and Hill TUGC0 is currently reviewing the status and will report back to the NRC as to who will be the designer of record now that Ebasco and Impell are involved.
'RTA m(NE ENGINEERING SERVCES Trip Report No. 2179 NRC Areas of Concern The staff expressed major concern in two areas.
a.
Modification of the AISC requirements related to Kt/r.
Any changes to this requirement must receive staff approval.
b.
The ccmbination of seismic and deadweight forces.
Since seismic forces are generated as a result of acceleration of the cable tray mass (deadweight), it would appear that when the accelera-tion up is greater than 16, then all of the mass (deadweight) is moving up and there is zero force down.
Use of the technique, briefly presented by Impell, should receive staff, approval.
The audit adjourned at 6:30 PM.
. Coy James A. Flaherty JAF:Jej Attachments (2) 1 - Trip Report File 1 - R. D. Ciatto (TES) 1 - J. A. Flaherty (TES) 1 - J. J. Rivard (TES) 1 - E. A. Solla (TES) 1 - Vince Noonan (NRC)
'RTA AWNE Trip Report No. 2179 ATTACINENT 1
)
i l
INSPECTION REPORT LIST OF ATTENDEES 1.
Title:
Cable Tray Hanger Program Audit 2.
NRC Staff and Consultants:
L. Shao, NRC D. Landers, Teledyne D. Jeng, NRC J. Flaherty, Teledyne B. F. Saffell, Battelle J. Rivard, Teledyne T. F. Westerman, NRC J. Milhoan, NRC 3.
TUGC0/CPRT Staff:
R. E. Ballard, Gibbs and Hill
- 0. M. Recter, Gibbs and Hill R. S. Alexandru, Ebasco R. C. Iotti, Ebasco Z. T. Shi, Ebasco R. E. Camp, Impell j
John Eidinger, Impell K. C. Waravius, Impell C. Mortgat, TERA H. A. Harrison, TUGC0 R. M. Kissinger, TUGC0
e ATTACHMENT 2 COMANCHE PEAK CABLE TRAY HANGER PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGER:
H. A. HARRISON TUGC0 UNIT 1:
COMBINED EBASCO - IMPELL ENGINEERING EFFORTS SCOPE:
IMPELL - SAFEGUARDS BLDG.
EBASCO - ALL EXCEPT
~
SAFEGUARDS BLDG, CRITERIA:
SAME METHODOLOGIES:
SAME l
UNIT 2:
ALL EBASCO EFFORT
c I
IMPELL INVOLVEMENT PAST ENGINEERING STUDY PERFORMED BY IMPELL TO ESTIMATE UNIT 1 REWORK USING DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS:
ESF AND SYSTEM ANALYSES PRODUCE SIMILAR RESULTS FOR RUNS WHICH BEHAVE ESSENTIALLY AS SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS.
ESF METHOD PRODUCES CONSERVATIVE RESULTS FOR RUNS
~~
WITH MULTIPLE TIERS OF TRAYS AND COMPLEX CONFIGURATIONS.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS COMBINED WITH ACTUAL TRAY FILL WEIGHT AND ACTUAL THERM 0 LAG WEIGHT COULD REDUCE REWORK FROM 28% TO 11-14%.
I CURRENT UNIT 1 DESIGN VERIFICATION:
SAME CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY AS EBASCO AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH FSAR.
IMPELL WILL REFERENCE EXISTING EBASCO ENGINEERING STUDIES.
m STATUS OF CPSES CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM AS OF 11/02/05 UNIT NO. 1 TOTAL SCOPE 4527 AS-DESIGNED DWGS RECEIVED 2616 AS-BUILT DWGS COMPLETE 802 DESIGN VERIFICATION COMPLETE 83 AS-BUILT ACCEPTED 83
"~
AS-BUILT REQUIRES MODIFICATION 0
QC INSPECTION COMPLETE 0
SCHEDULE DESIGN VERIFICATION COMPLETION 04/01/85
n STATUS OF CPSES CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM AS OF 11/02/85 UNIT NO. 2 TOTAL SCOPE 3857' AS-DESIGNED DWGS RECEIVED 3695 AS-BUILT DWGS COMPLETE 3689 DESIGN VERIFICATION COMPLETE.
,, 3310*
AS-BUILT ACCEPTED 2197 AS-BUILT REQUIRES M0DIFICATION 952 395 QC INSPECTION COMPLETE l
SCHEDULE DESIGN VERIFICATION COMPLETION 32/22/85 l
SCOPE INCLUDES 162 DESIGN AND INSTALL SUPPORTS.
~
u m
4 UNIT #2 PROGRAM STATUS 1.
TOTAL AS-BUILT CTH'S:
3691 NEW DESIGNS:
160 TOTAL UNIT #2 CTHS:
3851 2.
DESIGN VERIFICATION COMPLETION STATUS AS OF October 23, 1985 Total as-builts design verified as acceptable:
2105 Total as-builts design verified requiring modification:
845 TOTAL AS-BUILTS DESIGN VERIFIED:
2951 AS BUILTS STILL TO BE DV:
740 3.
Percentage modification per type (Calculated as of September 30, 1985) and upgraded to October 23, 1985 Status of the DV population K1/r--------- '----------------------------------.12%
. Weld Overstress----------------------------------10%7 Tier Overstress----------------------------------
3%1 See Note Below Post Overstress-------------------------,-------- 2%
Anchor Overstress--------------------------------
1%j 28%
I NOTE:
Conservatism was used in DV of the as-builts I
in the following area:
Maximum Design Load - 100% fill VS as-built All Trays Theromolagged within a designated room.
.