ML20137M409
| ML20137M409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1985 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84056.082, NUDOCS 8509130229 | |
| Download: ML20137M409 (255) | |
Text
-
r _
s evers 101 Cahtornia Street. Sutte 1000 San Francisco _ C A 941115894 415 397' 300 September 5, 1985 84056.082 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Communications Report Transmittal #15 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84056
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the Phase 4 Independent Assessnent Program.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours, 5%
N. Willliams Project Manager Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms.J.vanAmerongen(TUGC0/2BASCO)w/ attachments Mr. S. Burwell (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/o attachments Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/o attachments kD '
A [$O G50905 0500o443 j}fh / l PDR yh San Francisco Boston Chicago Richtand e
)
I
Communications ALxi R3 port 111lllltlllll1111lll1lllll1lll dompany: Texas Utilities Teiecon H conference Report
" JbN- 84056 Comanche Peak Stexi Electric Station Independent Assessment Progran - Phase 4 cate-6/3/85 sumect Cable Tray Support Detail "Sd Time' 4:00 p.m.
Place CPSES Site Participants B. Bhujang o' Gibbs & Hill J. Russ, D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Bhujang for response to Cygna's questions regarding cable tray support Detail "S" (Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-5-0905). Mr. Bhujang stated that the response to those questions are reflected in DCA 18675 Revision 8.
l i
l l
l Signed I *
/ajb Page 1 of 1 neaoing, u. van ameroflJen, u. Muss, w. Horstman, u. Leong, d.
o,,,,,3u,,on_ n. nii ri sm , .
Trahu _
.1 . F 114 e " t
- L' *11 - Den 4mrt F41.
91_r'_ tun 1A /DD 1 1020 0ta L
~i Communications ALcd Report 1111llllllllllllllllllllll111!
company: Texas Utilities ] Teiecon conference neport
"*' M 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 care 5/10/85 suoi.ct Mechanical Systems Review Themal Barrier Failurime- 3:30 p.m.
Place CES/ Chicago
Participants:
J. Marshall, J. Redding ' TUGC0 N. Williams, R. Hess Cygna Required item Comments Action By i TUGC0 called to ask Cygna what the differences were between the l Westinghouse 10CFR Part 21 on this subject and the Cygna finding.
R. Hess explained that the Cygna questions concerned rupture of the reactor coolant pump thermal barrier and resultant leakage of reactor coolant (small break LOCA) into the CCW system outside containmen'.. The present system design does not meet single failure c"iteria 1or automatically isolating this LOCA.
The Westinghouse Part 21 only addresses over pressurization of component. on t! e discharge side of the CCW pump and does not
- specificallj eddress single f ailure criteria or a LOCA. The Cygna question is focused on the single failure of the temperature controlled isolation valve, over pressurization of piping and components on the suction side of the CCW pump and possible rupture of the CCW surge tank or piping just outside
, containment resulting in a LOCA outside containment.
Cygna referred TUGC0 to the following correspondence for additional details of the differences in the scenarios.
A. Two Cygna letters to the NRC in October, 1984 (84056.032 and 84056.035).
B. Letters from D. Wade to Cygna in September and October, 1984 (CPPA-41237 and CPPA-40961).
C. Various comunication reports between Cygna and D. Wade during the August to October time frame (8/17/84, 8/15/84, 8/30/84, 9/5/84 and 10/11/84).
p(p signeo - /ajb Page } of 2 f
o,sinoui,on M. 'w1Tisams, .J. EcddingyJ. van Amerongen, J. Redding, R. Hess, 5. Ireby, d.
,,,,, cra ,-s , n, _ _ ._ u o _ u ,. e,i. , , ,, n, , n , o o ,
't Communications
, ALni Report
,;.;. 3........ ...... 3 Item Comments Ac y Mr. Marshall stated that he did not see a difference in the two scenarios and that he did not think TUGC0 had a design problem with the system. A 50.55E report had not been filed on this issue. Mr. Marshall also indicated that TUGC0 was increasing the size of the CCW surge tank vent / relief valve but that this was not directly related to the thermal barrier issue.
Cygna noted that Gibbs & Hill had previously submitted a design change to TUGC0 to increase the size / capacity of the surge tank vent / relief valve but the change was rejected as unnecessary by D. Wade.
Cygna pointed out that rupture of the surge tank is not the only issue since the rupture of the low pressure piping just outside containment could also cause significant problems.
Mr. Redding stated that TUGC0 would research the past history on this entire issue and then get back to Cygna with any further questions.
i l
l l
Page g of 2
Communications L4 L n i Report
- "" " ' ::llllllllli Companr conference n port Texas Utilities Te' econ Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D8te:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Subject Time.
2:30 p.m.
Drawing Request CPSES Site Participants of TUGC0 D. 01dag Cygna i
Aequired item Comments Action By Requested and received the following:
Drawings:
CC-1-019-012-A43K, Rev. 4 (void)
CC-1-028-007-533R, latest revision (rev. 7 provided)
CC-1-087-002-A33R, latest revision (rev. 6 provided)
SI-1-325-002-S32R, latest revision (rev. 4 provided)
SW-1-132-020-543R, latest revision (rev. 10 provided)
SW-1-931-009-J05R, latest revision (rev. 6 provided) 2323-EI-0032, Sheets 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 & 27, latest rev.
Sheet I rev. CP1 provided Sheet 3 rev. 7 provided Sheet 5 rev. CP1 provided Sheet 7 rev. 8 provided Sheet 9 rev. CP1 provided Sheet 11 rev. CP1 provided Sheet 13 rev. CP1 provided I Sheet 15 rev. CP1 provided Sheet 17 rev. CP1 provided Sheet 19 rev. CP1 provided Sheet 21 rev. 5 provided Sheet 23 rev. 6 provided Sheet 25 rev. 5 provided Sheet 27 rev. 7 provided signee Page of L /ajb i 1 o sinbucon- N. Willisns,'J. ReddingTJ. van Amerongen, C. Wong,1. Martin, J. Oszewski, S.
, , , , , , ....r. .
.. m...., .._ -.-..,r.usos. . . . . ,.s o vvvow r nu
Communications p%i AL g
llllll11llllllllll1111llll1111 Report companr Texas Utilities conference Repon C Telecon 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 6/20/85 Time Subsect: 2 15 P***
Conduit Support Interfaces Place SFR0 S. McBee TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. McBee regarding the interfaces between the conduit support design group and other groups whose supports the conduit group is attaching a support to. The discussion was in terms of attaching a conduit support to a cable tray support but were applicable for other interfaces. He stated that the final reactions at the interface were calculated by the conduit support group and transmitted to the cable tray support group. The conduit support group was responsible for the design of the i support up to and including the weld. The cable tray support group would use the loads and determine if the tray support was capable of resisting the additional loads. If the tray support l was unable to resist the loads, the respective support groups would meet and jointly decide on an acceptable modification. I asked him what the recourse would be if the joint decision was not to modify the cable tray support and to force the modification by the conduit support group. Mr. McBee stated that the only alternatives would be to add an additional support to reduce the load on the cable tray support or to remove the conduit support from the cable tray support. He added that these alternative steps were rarely, if ever, taken.
In the case of attachments to pipe supports, Mr. McBee noted that the interface point was the end of the attachment and that the weld then became the responsibility of the pipe support group.
Inspections of the installations were performed by the respective quality control groups.
sig""
j / aj b " 1 2
}
o,,tneut,on N'. 'W TITalif., 'J. Reddirhf. J. van Amerongen J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
.- ,. -. .. .., .. ... - .., . - ... ..., o. ...3, , , os s u ,,,c u o vocuirno
1 Communications V
AL i i Report ,
l 1111111llll11111llltllllll1111 tiem comments AcYo"Ny Cygna asked if conduit supports that were designed by Component Modification Cards (CMC's) became Individual (IN) type >
supports. He stated that CMC's were written against a generic support drawing sheet of the Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0910.
Therefore, even though the support may not look like the support on the generic drawing sheet, the support as shown on the CMC was the type as shown on the generic drawing sheet. CMC's were never written against IN type supports. Modifications to IN supports were shown by revising the IN drawing sheet.
I l
l Page of 3
Communications Al ;i i Report 11111111llllllllllllllllll11ll
- "* "I Texas Utilities Telecon conference neport Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/27/85
Subject:
Time Data Needs from Gibbs & Hill (Mechanical) Gibbs & Hill /NY J Place-O. Irons Gibbs & Hill J. Oszewski Cygna Requeed item Comments Action By i
, Cygna requested that J. Irons provide us with the following data:
(1) Copy of 0EI-T183 on the rad monitor control function removal.
(2) Copy of the setpoint calculation and input data for HV 4572.
(3) Copy of the sizing calculation (s) relief and vent valves.
(4) Copy of Gibbs & Hill mechanical equipment separation criteria - specifically for instrument sensing lines.
(5) Input data / criteria for pump low pressure switch setpoint.
(6) Justification for values HV-4572 and 4574 being specified with an inlet pressure of 13') psig and a shutoff AP of 120 psi.
signee o stnbution:
(N. 911Tiams!fy /ajb "'9' 1
'J. Reading 7 J. Oszewski, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.;Burwell, Project 1
o, e nro,n e,3
1 Communications t t4 L n' i. Repod lillllllililllllllllllillllill Company: Texas Utilities O Teiecon Conference Report
'* Job No- 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate:
3/7/85
"
- T'm': 2:55 p.m.
Conduit Review Questions Place' SFR0 Participants of TUGC0 3, ggggg D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna l
Regwred item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated March 7, 1985, " Conduit Review Ques-tions," McBee, Leong and Russ participating.
Hr. McBee telephoned Cygna to reply to questions on Table 24 of Attachment 3 to procedure CP-EI-4.0-49. This was per the refer-enced telecon. He stated that the LS column of that procedure was for conduits less than 2" in diameter. He added that the sup-ports were evaluated for such conduit loadings. Cygna requested that he provide copies of these evaluations. Mr. McBee will also investigate the increase in LS allowables relative to the LA allowables for LA spans of CA-15 supports.
Mr. McBee stated that for support type Detail CSM-18b, the revi-l sion 8 calculations were the first calculation set to reevaluate )
the entire support configuration prior to revision 14. Cygna j requested that he review the calculations for revisions 9 through 14 and provide the appropriate sets.
1 Cygna inquired about the conduit support test program. Mr. McBee stated that Specimen GST was being retested to evaluate the ef-fects of an increased L dimension (now 8'-0" versus the 4'-0" previously tested) and a brace length of 16'-0". With regards to Cygna's concern for spot weld stresses, he noted that TUGC0 had performed a series of tests around 1980 to investigate this concern. The results of that program were presently being re- i searched. Essentially, this program entailed cutting a section I of Unistrut containing a weld, and then applying a load to pro-duce tension in the weld. Cygna cautioned that the use of this l
data must be donc carefully with full regard to the results of the present tests results. Mr. McBee also noted that there is a of s.gneo: -
/ajb Page 1 2 Distnbution: E. William 3, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, 5. ,
" It 2 E!, b 1I3 N "r:j::t : 22 C ^ S/"".2
1 mmunications
, E a Illitillfillimillimilillil comm.na ,Rgu rg possibility that a clamp test program will be initiated. These tests will account for the sinultaneous loading of the clamps in three directions. The end results will probably be in the form of an interaction curve.
i Page of
'2 2 l to20 0t h l
~ - - - __ _ .- . .-- - . _ . :
9 W Communications
, MDHM lll11111111111:illll1111111111 Report company: Texas Utilities conference Report D Telecon
- Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 3/7/85
- "** T'm' 2:55 p.m.
Conduit Review Questions Place.
SFR0 Participants. of 3, ggggg TUGC0 D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated March 7, 1985, " Conduit Review Ques-tions," McBee, Leong and Russ participating.
Mr. McBee telephoned Cygna to reply to questions on Table 24 of Attachment 3 to procedure CP-EI-4.0-49. This was per the refer-enced telecon. He stated that the LS column of that procedure was for conduits less than 2" in diameter. He added that the sup-ports were evaluated for such conduit loadings. Cygna requested that he provide copies of these evaluations. Mr. McBee will also investigate the increase in LS allowables relative to the LA allowables for LA spans of CA-15 supports.
Mr. McBee stated that for support type Detail CSM-18b, the revi-sion 8 calculations were the first calculation set to reevaluate the entire support configuration prior to revision 14. Cygna requested that he review the calculations for revisions 9 through 14 and provide the appropriate sets.
Cygna inquired about the conduit support test program. Mr. McBee stated that Specimen G5T was being retested to evaluate the ef-fects of an increased L dimension (now 8'-0" versus the 4'-0" previously tested) and a brace length of 16'-0". With regards to Cygna's concern for spot weld stresses, he noted that TUGC0 had performed a series of tests around 1980 to investigate this concern. The results of that program were presently being re-searched. Essentially, this program entailed cutting a section of Unistrut containing a weld, and then applying a load to pro-duce tension in the weld. Cygna cautioned that the use of this data must be done carefully with full regard to the results of the present tests results. Mr. McBee also noted that there is a signed.
/ a3 "*9' 1 2 Distnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, 5.
io m i.
b- ..
s 9 Communications y 4L i i Report
................... n nn Required item Comments Action By possibility that a clamp test program will be initiated. These tests will account for the simultaneous loading of the clamps in three directions. The end results will probably be in the form of an interaction curve.
l l
i l
I i
l Page of 2 2 9020 01D
, - ~ , . . - - _ . - - . _ , , _ _ . , . . . . . , _ _ . , _ , , , . . . . . , , . _ , , _ _ _ _ , _ _
l 1
l Communications l 3
@M B M 1llllllllllllllllllllllll11lll Report !
company: Texas Utilities O Teiecon conference Report
'*' No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:
4/30/85
""
- T'me 11:30 a.m.
Questions on SDAR CP-82-10 Place' SFR0 Participants' p, pggg] of Gibbs & Hill D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Aequired item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Patel regarding SDAR CP-82-10. Cygna asked for the date that the SDAR became effective. Mr. Patel stated that no specific date could be assigned, since the affected con-duit support drawings were reviewed and revised over a period of time. By reviewing the revision dates, however, one could determine when the revisions required by the SDAR were issued.
Cygna noted that the SDAR implemented a review of conduit support drawings to meet the more stringent criteria of later revisions.
Mr. Patel was asked whether this review process would ensure that all installed supports meet the current criteria. He replied that if the criteria were relaxed, the supports would meet the present criteria. Should the criteria have become more strin-
-l gent, the supports would have been reviewed to ensure accept-ability. Cygna stated thr.t their review had noted the use of current allowables to qualify older revisions of the support drawings. He stated that this practice should be acceptable if the criteria had been relaxed. If the criteria had become more stringent, the review process would have noted the use of non- '
conforming supports.
Cygna asked Mr. Patel if the support review for the SDAR was based on a review of the drawing sheets or on the review of an entire support configuration. Cygna was interested if support details such as CSD-la were reviewed independently. Mr. Fatel replied, that, to his knowledge, the calculations for supports which reference details on other drawing sheets included an analysis of the details as an integral part of the support.
/ cJo p,g, 3. 2 Signed: g Distribution: M. Wi n lm ,N. uwii's,U ^'E SC W "> ^
v .1 r11 u s sr aufwell; Project File 23-C-0430/PRJ
)
Communications ,
Report 2 d (% o lililllliiiiiii;; .....;;llt item comments [c7oNy Cygna requested that Mr. Patel provide a history of the events that led to the SDAR. He stated that the conduit support design process is to design the support, produce a drawing, release the drawing for use by construction and concurrently send the drawing for design review to Gibbs & Hill. The Gibbs & Hill design reviews reported a number of errors or omissions which led to the imposition of more strict criteria on the support designs. An analysis of this trend by field engineeering indicated a need for a review of the existing support designs and any previously installed supports. At this point, SDAR CP-82-10 was written.
TUGC0 reviewed the support design drawings and determined which were affected by the SDAR. Gibbs & Hill initiated a review of the calculations for these supports to determine if problems existed. If discrepancies were found, analytical work was performed in an attempt to mitigate any impact on the installed supports. Since the original designs were based upon the plant-wide peak accelerations, Gibbs & Hill was able to qualify most supports by the application of elevation specific accelera-tions. All CMC's against the installed supports were reviewed to determine if they had any effect on the supports. Any CMC's which had an effect were reviewed against the revised criteria.
Walkdowns were performed by QC and construction to verify the number and types of supports installed. For supports determined to be inadequate for the more stringent criteria, QC provided mitigating action. Among the options were: (1) rework of tne support; (2) replacement of the support; and, (3) addition of an ad,facent support.
l l
i
\
Page of so20 0tb
i l'
Communications N(%
d fa lllllllllllllllll111ll111lll11 Report company:
Texas Utilities Teiecon conference Report
' N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 2/26/85
"# "* 8:30 a.m.
Conduit Review Questions Place:
CPSES Site
Participants:
of 3, g ggg TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Conference report dated 2/25/85, " Conduit Support Testing," Miller, McBee, et al. participating.
Cygna spoke to Mr. McBee regarding conduit support designs and installation. He provided Cygna with copies of revisions 0, 1 and 2 of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet CA-la in response to the question on note 7 in the referenced telecon.
Cygna asked for and received from Mr. McBee the following items:
- 1. Calculations for IN-FP-226
- 2. Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0910, sheet CSM-42b, revision 0
- 3. The the capacity table calculations for support CSM-18d, revision 11
- 4. A historical set of drawing sheets G-1 through G-6 and G-la '
through G-6a Cygna requested the last item to check the effect of changing criteria on support installations. Mr. McBee stated that TUGC0
( had investigated that possibility in the past and wrote an SDAR when it was discovered that several types of support installa-tions were affected by the imposition of more stringent cri-teria. He provided Cygna with copies of CPP-8800 and a memo-randum from M. McBay to J.T. Merritt, dated August 20, 1982,
" Electrical Conduit Support Reinspection." After reviewing these, Cygna requested and received the calculations for supports CSM-6b and CSM-18c which qualified these supports for the more stringent criteria as noted in the SDAR.
S'9"*d /ajb P.ge 1 of 2 Distnbution: N. b il ries, U. waae, J. van Ami:1 unycii, R. Kissisisu, J. R;Z, D. LOO"g, S-w '. 1 c114, te'-ad e ll prn bet File 23-C-0226C/PRJ
~~~'" ~~ ~ '
______-_m_o____ _. - _ . . . _ .
i Communications AL t i Report IE ...
stem comments AcENy Cygna asked Mr. McBee to comment on the following situation.
Cygna's walkdown and QC's inspection identified a support as a type CSM-18f. However, CMC 62903 identified the same support as a type CSM-18b. He stated that this support was probably a CSM-18b originally. It was then modified to the CSM-18f configu-ration. This was a comon practice during the construction of types CSM-18a, -18b, -18c, and -18d until the CSM-18f detail was developed. Cygna then asked for and received the CSM-18b calcu-lations as well as copies of the applicable drawing revisions.
Cygna asked Mr. McBee how the effects of architectural concrete were considered the development of anchor bolt allowables. He replied that when engineering was notified of the need to place bolts in architectural concrete, all supports were reviewed to see which would require further evaluation. A certain group was found to be acceptable considering a 2" reduction in effective embedment. These instances are noted in the general notes as appropriate for installation on architectural concrete. The other supports were individually reviewed.
Mr. McBee was asked how conduit supports on cable tray supports were handled. He replied that the conduit group designs the conduit attachment to the cable tray support. The loads are given to the cable tray group for evaluation of their effect on the cable tray support.
l l
l l
Page of 2 2
- Communications
[416' M Report lilllllilillllll!Illlilillllli company: Texas Utilities Teiecon X conference Report
- N' 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:
6/5/85
Subject:
Time:
a.m.
Place.
CPSES Site Participants- '
D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received selected sections of Inspection Reports from DCC for the following items:
MS-1-004-001-C72S CC-1-028-725-S33R RIR 3607 (CP-1-CTAHCS-01)
RIR 8567 (CP-X-VAACCR-01)
RIR 12050 (CP-1-CHCICE-05)
RIR 07108 (CP-1-CCAPCC-01)
Conduit C-11904359 l
l i
l l
of Signed. V I fg g Page g g Distnbution. N. d1 llams, J. Redc ing, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Oszewski, S. Treby, J. ,
r i i 4 , " c _ ... _ -- s s n_ 4-_.
e43.
,, ,- ne ne n ,nn ,
f m e,, -- - - gg ;- : -
, _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . , _ . . _ , ._ _ . , _ _ _ , ._._.,,1
Communications
[q fD3Ri ll1111111lllllllllllllllll11ll Report Company:
Texas Utilities D Telecon Conference Repori 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date' August 19, 1985 subject: Time 1:00 p.m.
Document Request Place' WR0
Participants:
of TUGC0 (EBASCO)
J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following documents from Ms. van Amerogen:
- 1. DCA's 23107, 23108, 23109. Ms. van Amerongen was requested to send all revisions of these DCA's. If that was l impossible she was asked to send those revisions which incorporated the provisions of NCIG-01.
- 2. Procedure QI-QP-ll.2-1. Ms. van Amerongen was requested to send the latest revision and the two previous revisions.
'8" "'9' '
/xxx l 1 oistneution: 'N. Wil Qams,J van Amerongen, J. Redding, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, S. Treby, J.
C'.!%. D.' i . d.I, T,y;;t Ti!; 20- C -001^A/77J
g AM2ra Communications Report lillilillllllilillililillilill company conference Repon Texas Utilities ] Teiecon Project. Jcb No 84055 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*t' 4/25/85 Subsect- Time.
Conduit Support II.3pection 9:00 a.m.
Piace:
SFR0 S. McBee, M. Warner TUGC0 D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comn.ents Action By Cygna asked TUGC0 if QC knows what support type they are inspect-ing prior to walking out in the field. TUGC0 stated that the support type is listed on the construction traveller. Inspec-tions are performed using the current revisions of all pertinent drawings and details of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0910. Each QC inspector has a current S-0910 package to perform the inspec-tions. The revision used in the inspection is documented on the IR form.
Cygns noted that a substantial time lag between initiation of construction of a support and the final inspection could occur.
In that time, the installed design drawing could undergo a number of revisions. Thus, the QC inspectors would use a revision of i
the design drawings different from the installed revision.
TUGC0 agreed that the above mentioned process is common, i resulting in an average of 40% of attributes on the initial inspection report marked as unsatisfactory. Conduit support f inspections usually occurred at the completion of installation of I an entire conduit run. A time lag of a year between installation of the first supports on the run and final inspection were comon. TUGC0 noted that all unsatisfactory attributes were resolved such that tiie support matched the design drawing and/or any applicable change documentation. ,
signed P*ge of
/ajb 1 g f
l oistnbution- N. WiilTams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
_ . _,. y _m_ _ ___ __
[ ,,,,,,, aacuy, v. i. s a a a , . . unsi saw v s , rsvJub6 r i sc ca-u-v=tcan/rno
Communications AT% Report 11111lllllllllllllllllllllll11 Texas utilities ( " " ""'""*"
Project: Job No 34056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 4fpgfag Subject Time-SDAR CP-82-10 p,,c, .
SFR0 Participants. of ;
S_ McRep TUGC0 D_ lanng .1 Ruce Cygna 1
Required item Comments Action By 1 Mr. McBee presented the SDAR review process as he understood it.
- 1. TUGC0 reviewed Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0910 for more stringent criteria. Every revision of each sheet was included in the review.
- 2. TUGC0 generated a preliminary list of support types where more stringent criteria were imposed on later drawing revisions. Only affected revisions were included in this list. For example, if revision 4 of a si' ;rt drawing sheet became more stringent, only supports con:.cructed to drawing revisions 0 through 3 were included in the list. All sup- ,
ports constructed using drawing revision 4 onward were con- I structed to the more stringent criteria.
! Cygna asked Mr. McBee for some examples of "more stringent criteria." Mr. McBee stated that reduced lead capacity for 1 the support requirements for largar Hilti Kwik-bolts, and i
requirements for greater Hilti Kwik-bolt spacing are i examples of more stringent criteria.
- 3. TUGC0 submitted their preliminary list to Gibbs & Hill for further review. Gibbs & Hill eliminated 30-40% of the support types on TUGCO's preliminary list by performing additional analysis or by justifying that the later revisions were not more stringent. j Until the time of the SDAR review, support capacities were not provided for different floor elevations in the various buildings. In the review process, Gibbs & Hill provided I/ /a_ib 1 2
'"b""
N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
== Treby, J. Ellis,7 .;5 Burwell, Project File 23-C-0425
4 Communications
- A L n.i Report ll1llll111111111lll111!Illllll ltem Comments Ac on y additional analyses to generate capacities for each building and floor elevation for selected support types.
- 4. A final revised list of affected supports was submitted in the SDAR.
- 5. A walkdown of supports affected by more stringent drawing revisions was perfomed. All affected areas and building elevations were walked down.
Cygna asked why the walkdowns were performed by construction crews instead of QC personnel. Mr. McBee did not know the reason behind that decision.
- 6. The resolution of deficiencies was provided by engineering reanalysis or by rework.
Cygna asked if change documentation and fire protection were considered in the review. Mr. McBee stated that fire pro-tection had not been installed at the time the SDAR was issued. He did not know the extent to which change documentation was considered.
l 1
l l
l Page 2 '
2 1020 01D
q M%D Communications Report
. lillililll!'llllllllilllllllli company: Texts Utilities Teiecon 8 conference neport Project: p g gg gggj Job No. 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date: 7/19/84 subject Monorails - Mechanical Walkdown Systems Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: CPSES Site Participants- J. Foley of Cygna Roy Taliaferro TUGC0 Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Taliaferro if monorails over CCW pumps were seismically supported since we had reviewed drawing S-0767, a structural drawing showing plant monorails. The notes said that unless otherwise noted, everything on the drawing was Safety Class 1. Another note said that monorail tracks and stops were non-nuclear safety (NNS). I asked whether that meant we could infer that the supports were seismically qualified. Taliaferro was not sure but said a program had been undertaken to review and upgrade all monorails if necessary. The program is described in the letter CPPA-13,485. Apparently, seismic adequacy was inferred from in place load testing to 125% of rated load.
! Also office memorandum CPP-4481 dated February 4, 1981, from Steven G. McBee to M.R. McBay, documents Ed Bezkor's (G&H, New I York) statement that monorails were designed to withstand seismic loadings assuming that hoists are not in place.
Assuming that administrative procedures are in place to assure that monorail hoists are not in position unless maintenance is being performed, it was concluded by G&H that monorails do not present a hazard to essential equipment. The above assumption should be verified with TUGCO.
l l
l J
.] . . .. . . . -
Distnbution. ii. nini7mus, u. neue, v. vari turierurigeri, n. riess, t. V arl JL1Jgert-i, v. nuss, r.
Rainev_ S. Trahv. .L FiliC C" Anneman11 Prnimet Film M.E.710 /PD.1 ioso ot s - .
Communications A (*R d Report ll111llllllll11ll11lllllllllll Company: Teiecon . Conference Report eXas Utilities Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/21/84
Subject:
Time Document Requests - Electrical Review '11:00 a.m.
G&H Offices
Participants:
of T.R. Martin Cygna Required item' Comments Action By Requested the following documents:
- 1. Instrument list (2323-El-2400) for channel 4524. Received 6/21/84.
- 2. Identification of mechanical parameters transmitted for set-point calculations for FB-4536A.
i 3. Documentation concerning the removal of radiation monitor (RE-4509) interlock with the surge tank vent valve (RV-4508).
The Alternate Shutdown Report identifies separate fires in the cable spreading room, hot shutdown panel room, and shutdown transfer panel room as being within its scope. I asked D. Ghosh how redundant divisions of electrical equipment are protected in the shutdown transfer panel. He explained that only train "A" equipment is routed through the shutdown transfer panel. Cygna verified that train "B' electrical equipment was not included in the shutdown transfer panel.
l l
signeo Q /ajb l 1 o,stnbution: jg,' Q< lTiams, D. Wade, J.Mn Amerongen, R. Hess, T. Martin, S. Treby, J. Ellis, ymo. 9. su.w !, rroaect r i se a-L-oaf rew
. Communications (4bh' M lillllilllllllilllllilllllllli Report compa"r Texas Utilities Teiecon X Conference Reoort
' Job N -
- Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 9/20/84 Subject Time-.00 A.M. Place: G&H, NYC Participants. ' S.C. Chang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following documents: Binder Set Sheets SCS-113C 1 42-46 SCS-113C 2 18-19 SCS-146C 1 3-32 SCS-146C 2 31-39 SCS-146C 3 4-10, 61 SCS-146C 4 21 SCS-101C 3 11-15, 39, 46-48, 56, 60-69, 136-138 a I signeo. Page } of g f /ajb oistnbution: N. Wil liams, D. Wic e, J. VaMmerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. A m er. & __,__.
- . - . , .-w... .
,,_,,,.,,m,--,
.- -- . -,.n.
e+- Communications [4N 2 M Report llllllll1lllllllllllllll1llll1
" *"*"* Texas Utilities Teiecon conference nepon Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/4/85 l
Subject:
Time. Document Request P*** CPSES Site J. van Amerongen TUGC0/EBASCO D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By I requested and received selected pages of the inspection report packages for '.ingers CC-2-019-007-A43K and CC-2-019-707-A435 from the hanger status group. l l dhjhjy ~ ~ ~
/ajb 1 1 D'Sinbut'on: 'd. ' Williams, J. Redding', J. van Amerongen, C. Wong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.;
im o,. p.y i i , r ruJec t rile a-L-voue/ nw
Communications [41% , a Report
...... '"llllllllllllll1111 Company: Texas Utilities Teiecon '8 Conference neport
# "^ 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 care 6/5/85 Request for Index of CP-QAP Time: 2:45 p.m.
Place- CPSES Site
Participants:
J. Haworth DCC i D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received a copy of the index to the CP-QAP (ASME) procedures dated 5/10/83 from Jeanie Haworth. 4 s.gned- /ajb Page } of 1 Distneution: n. w1 ilams, v. KeGGing, 0. Van Amerongen, 5. Ireby, d. Lills, 5. Burwell, L. Weinaart. C Wnna. Proinct File 23-C-0605/PRJ 1020 0t a
Communications Aln i Report II:: ;;"" "' i company Texas Utilities Te econ conference Roort Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D8- Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/30/L4 i
Subject:
Time 9:30 a.m. Cable Tray Weld Details Place R. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna had noted a discrepancy between the design calculations and the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings for the beam-base angle con-nection of SP-7 supports. The drawings show a minimum weld length, for one weld, of 3-3/4". Gibbs & Hill calculations SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheet 62, dated November 10, 1978, show a minimum weld length of 4" for one leg. Cygna also noted that weld under-run evaluations were perfonned in SCS-146C, Set 1, and a 3-3/4" weld length was specified there. Cygna asked Mr. Kissinger which drawings construction personnel used to make the welds and which i drawings were used for QC inspection. He replied that the FSE-00159 drawings were used for construction and the 2323-S-0900 series drawings, which do not show weld lengths, were used for QC inspection. Cygna noted CMC 82988 dated November 15, 1982, indi-cates what weld lengths should be used for various connections between base angles and beams or hangers. Hr. Kissinger was asked to provide the documentation in use prior to the issuance 1 of CMC 82988 that showed the required weld lengths for these and similar connections. > ! Status: TUGC0 to provide response on weld lengths for connec- l tions at base angles. Cygna also discussed the possible discrepancies between the weld sizes shown on the design drawings and those shown on the fabrication drawings. Mr. Kissinger stated that due to present efforts en the dynamic analysis of cable tray systems and the , effort to respond to the TRT report conclusions, the analysis to evaluate the effect of any possible reduced weld size, including underrun, will be answered in the as-built program. signed. h Page of i gg Distribution: N.' WilTiams, D. Wade, J7 van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. . l ,,,,,,, T. _ ,, s. ci;i., i. % ;;', n ~ m ei2. __ l
\
Communications
', A Lmin Report lililllilllllllilllllllill!ill Company: Telecon Conference Report gg jjj jg Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/1/85 Mechanical Systems Questions Place' Participants- of Bob Hess CES Jim Oszewski CES Required item Comments Action By We called John to discuss Mechanical Systems questions in two areas:
- 1) Checking on the status of information we requested during our June visit to the G&H offices, but have not yet received, and
- 2) Technical questions which came up during a meeting with the Cygna Senior Review Team.
- 1. We asked John the status of the information we requested J0 to send during our visit to their offices (6/25-6/28). We told memo to J.
him we had not yet received any of the requested material. Irons re-John asked that we resubmit our request formally requesting via memo and telecopy it to him ASAP. He would then the begin checking on the information. information
- 2. We told John that two technical questions came up during an internal meeting with the Cygna Senior Reviw Team, which we were unable to answer without further information from G&H.
2A. Question A - The CCW RHR Heat Exchange discharge valve is opened approximately halfway on an "S" signal. G&H had previously stated that this was done to establish an additional flow path for the second pump. We asked if G&H had considered how the setting of the valve would influence the temperature of the RHR water flowing into the RCS. Distnbution-h)& ' '
\
Communications ( Repod
@1..
1 L n r e..
.......o... ..
Item Comments Ac on y Answer A - John stated that the temperature of the RHR water was controlled on the RHR side of the heat exchanger by the positioning of the by-pass valve. When the RHR heat exchanger was in use, the CCW valve was always full open and was not used in any way for temperature control.
- 28. Question B - In reviewing the documentation in our possession it appeared that the pump torque speed curve provided to the CCW pump motor vendor was based on the pump starting against a closed discharge valve. We indicated to John that we felt that there would be many instances where the pump would be started against an open discharge valve.
This would require the motor to draw higher current for a longer period of time. This might have an effect on the diesel generator load sequencing. Answer B - John agreed that the pump would normally be J0/KZ to starting against an open discharge valve. He did not contact know whether the vendor had been supplied with a G&H torque-speed curve for the open valve case. He also Electrical did not know how significant the effect might be. He Group suggested we contact the G&H Electrical group to verify that this condition had been accounted for in the diesel generator loading sequence. l l l 1 1
)
Page of 2
,m , , ISE[23-C-CIS
W
- Communications l BMIn lillilillllilil;llllllilllllll Report l j
company: Texas Utilities Telecon conference Report N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Dat* 4/9/85
Subject:
Time: 9:y5 a.m. Conduit Support Testing CCL/No. Carolina R. Kissinger, S. McBee TUGC0 R. Miller CCL D. Leong, J. Russ, N. Williams Cygna Required ttem Comments Action By This discussion covers the screening process used to dett.1nine the conduit test scope to cover the generic Unistrut designs at CPSES. TUGC0 stated that Gibbs & Hill was in the process of pre-paring a total package explaining the selection process, the testing, test results, and how those results can be used. To provide a basis for discussion, Cygna also screened the designs to compare results of the two sele: tion processes. Before discussing their screening process, Cygna asked TUGC0 for clarification on two issues. The first issue concerned the use of DDV File Listing in the screening process. This listing pro-vides an estimate of the number of installed supports of each generic design utilizing Unistrut members. TUGC0 stated that Gibbs & Hill performed their screeing independently of the DDV File Listing. Gibbs & Hill determined frequency of use by noting the number of revisions of the design drawings. Drawings with no revisions were judged to be infrequently used. The test scope list was later refined by TUGC0 to reflect the actual number of usages at CPSES. The second issue concerned the differences or similarities be-tween CSM and CST supports. To perform the screening of sup-ports, Cygna first eliminated supports not used at CPSES, as indicated by the DDV File Listing. The supports which have dou-bly symmetric members loaded in bending can be evaluated using AISI methods and were also eliminated from the test scope con-sideration. The remaining supports were separated into groups by similarity of configuration. In Cygna's first group (labeled Group 1A and included cantilever supports braced in one traverse direction and moment resisting in the other), five supports were sign " '
/ajb "*8*
oistribution:
~
)
Williams, 'J. j 1 5 N'. ReddinglJ. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
^'
7 :.2. . . _ .: . ' ' : : . ~ ^
- 7. ::2- T' ^ ^ ^_^ : _" '
y Communications t4 Le t i Repod 11111lllllllll11';;ll11llll111 item comments feYo*nYy found to be nearly identical: CST-10, CST-16, CSM-6a, CSM-6b, and CSM-26. Cygna asked TUGC0 what the functional difference was between the CST and CSM supports in Group 1A was, given the similarity of the configurations. Cygna pointed out that, considering tolerances for each support, it is possible to have identical CST and CSM supports. It follows that the identical CST supports would also carry longitudinal loads. CST supports are generally designed for loads of higher magnitude applied in two directions, while CSM supports are designed for lower loads applied in three directions. If CST supports accept longitudinal load on the order of the design transverse load, the design of CST supports would control over the design of CSM supports. TUGC0 stated that CST supports were originally intended to be guide supports and were designed for transverse loads only. TUGC0 felt that the issue of longitudinal loads on CST supports should be considered separately from the testing of multi-directional supports. However, based on Gibbs & Hill's screening process, TUGC0 believed that some CST supports are enveloped by CSM supports in the present test scope. TUGC0 also noted that the number of CST supports is small and that modification of such supports may be a better alternative than a detailed engineering method of qualification. Cygna agreed to adopt TUGCO's and Gibbs & Hill's approach of considering CST supports separately for the purpose of performing the screening. Cygna presented the results of their screening, which is included in Table 1 of this communications report. The resulting discussion centered on groups where Cygna and Gibbs & ; Hill chose different supports in the screening. ' I Group 1C - The difference in choice in this group is based i on judgement. Cygna and TUGC0 deferred discussion I until Gibbs & Hill could be present. Group 2A - No support of this type was chosen for testing. TUGC0 stated that since these designs were not frequently used, they were not chosen for testing. Cygna asked how those supports which were not fre-quently used would be qualified by the test scope, since no similar supports were tested. TUGC0 replied that enveloping would be shown in Gibbs & Hill's final package. Group 2C - Cygna will discuss the difference in choice with Gibbs & Hill. Page of
Communications TL% i Report : lilllillllilllillililllllllill item Comments Ac o y Group 2D - Cygna noted that Gibbs & Hill combined Cygna's Groups 2C and 2D into one group of braced trapezes. Cygna has not completed screening of this group because of the difficulty in judging whether Group 2D is envel-oped by Group 2C, as Gibbs & Hill has indicated. Addi-tionally, Cygna could not determine the tolerance for the placement of the brace in CSM-8. Group 4 - These supports were not frequently used and will be addressed in Gibbs & Hill's final package. Group 5B - Cygna felt that CA-la is the critical support design and presented a support configuration, shown in Figure 1, which would maximize anchor bolt loads. TUGC0 agreed that the configuration is allowed by the design drawing. An additional test may be performed for this configuration. Group 6 - Cygna asked whether CA-4 was considered to be a rigid support and was designed using zpa, since a 7 ft. beam length may have a natural frequency below 33 Hz. The discussion will be continued with Gibbs & Hill. Group JA/JB - Cygna had not completed screening of this group. Cygna witnessed test number 1 of configuration G9-T. The test configuration represents support CSM-9 and is pictured in Figures 2 and 3. Catastrophic " failure" of the tested support occurred when the brace connection marked "A" on Figure 3 slipped approxi-mately 1" along the brace. Cygna noted two discrepancies in the test set-up for configuration G9-T: The hydraulic ram which applied the transverse and vertical load was attached such that the longitudinal conduit displacement rotated the ram from the perpendicular (see "B" on Figure 3). Due to the rotation, r, an additional longitudinal load is imparted to the support in the direction opposite to the applied longitudinal load. After the support was unloaded, Cygna noted some residual deflection of the supporting wide flange beam (simulating the concrete connection at "C" in Figure 3) due to the applied load. This indicates that the beam flange was not sufficiently stiffened to prevent deflection due to the large rotation witnessed in the i Z-clip detail.
)
l l l Page of I 3 5 1
6 I Table 1 CONDUIT SUPPORT SCREENING SUPPORTS DESCRIPTION ENVELOPING CASE 4 GROUP IN GROUP 0F SUPPORTS CYGNA GIBBS & HILL 1A CST-10, CST-16, Cantilever, braced CSM-6a CSM-6a CSM-6a,CSM-6b, in 1-D, moment-CSM-26 resisting in 1-D 1B CST-12, CST-13a, Cantilever, braced --- --- CST-13b 1-D, more flexible out-of-plane-than Group 1A 1C CSM-1,CSM-9, Cantilever, braced CSM-1 CSM-9,CSM-11 CSM-11,CSF-la in 2-D 2A CST-11, CST-37, Trapeze, braced CSM-20 Note 1 CSM-20 in-plan, moment-resisting out-of-plane 2B CSM-2 Trapeze, moment- --- --- resisting in-plane, braced out-of-plane 2C CSM-3,CSM-4, Trapeze, exter- CSM-3, CSH-12 CSM-12 nally braced in CSM-12 2-0 20 CSM-5,CSM-8, Trapeze, internal- Note 2 --- CSM-19 ly braced in 1-D, braced out-of-plane 3 CST-17,CSM-10a, L-Shaped frames, CSM-10a CSM-10a CSM-lob various bracing 4 CSM-21,CSM-22 Truss-frame for CSM-21 Note 1 sloped conduit 4 5A CHM-la, CHM-2a Structural steel --- --- frame with Uni-strut headers 4 4 5
- v. ,
j o- g
;L s >
i
. Table 1 ~
CONDUIT. SUPPORT SCREENING (Continued) SUPPORTS DESCRIPTION ENVELOPING CASE GROUP. IN GROUP 0F SUPPORTS GYGNA GIBB5 & HILL 1 5B Ck-la,CA-lb, Header / outriggers CA-la CA-la,CA-2b CA-2a,CA-2b on concrete
- i. 6 CA-4 Beam spanning CA-4 ---
walls
.3 JA/JB J A-1,J A-2, Junction box Note 2 JS-9
- JS-7,JS-9 supports Notes: 1. These supports are not frequently used and were not con-
. sidered in the conduit support test scope.
2.: Cygna has not completed the review of the supports in this
- group.
9 . 1 I
,s r
v
./
l , 1
's e
5 5
Calculation 41 i i Sheet 5 lllllllllllllllllll111lll11111
**' ws r n, u r,es <&s udDr.sr ( "' "'" f 4 & ~ 4ur Subsect Checked By. Date -
[ O Wt Ut 0lb \ f f\'T1 C bb f, /^ Y V@.<, t, -i.I'g;(161 C0dlliI I $14[ POET TE G6 *dle [/Of,h Analysis No. Rev. No. Sheet No 6'b' . 99 3'd U
, (d , _ r o
JJ
,, , .. . c
' f f 1
~
A , A A
)
-y . . , ,
q.V )! ;p l g ? ( D' (2" \ Q Lj (160G I 4
/
( i f ( . l I r
! \
Calculation 4L t.i Sheet 111111111lllll111111lllllll111 k -
. I
'fEYA5. t ifiLMiF4 f fff5 f f f fD V f 4"'''""' M ALL 4.l-1/ / C 1
* * * fffpf7 eneckea sy oate
.jKd,n l OAM MV IJl Cfdct14
^
*"'*"' J$"- '"'"-
('01Ou rf Su(7h't(T pf g 6- @DM Analysis No Rev No. Sheet No
^' 4 O. C .
-f y . . .
-)
y s/ g 7 _f__
\0h\h0)
^
' IC Gr ismI,h/ '; f
( L 4 LfAf ag' 2% Q
. - - . . . _)
i (Olb 6((11 0 \ / [ ,.'LC : t } Q t* C $
'{h.iY.Mbb7h L(in((lL' flG0CE 2-(
Calculation s it t a Sheet n lilli:: ... ( __
i"' 'T(104 \)flG1% tb ' PfTt, f(1 (h_5c s '*** *v (Oh D*3 \.7l7c
'" '*' d&N o plus1 on s R79a(2T "" "'
f / rjn.
'"'*"' fast 4 If S U/7007 TPM 46 Q4or/,
Analysis No Rev. No.. Sheet No b pgn yO s/ V N ( sd
\\ R
\/
-- lb h I b >
~
{
%bf a ,, VI.') CbLL \
&6 , e ' rs l 1
j [NI*tbYCfbl L ot. t) Ci L L ( I'l.,{l0 h hf Il$t)U 0
.x
! communications [4M'M Report lllll1llllllllll11111111llllll l company: Texas Utilities x Teiecon conference neport Project: Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 D Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/1/85
Subject:
Time. Design Process Questions - Mechanical Place: Systems / Pipe Stress
Participants:
of Jim Oszewski CES Required item Comments Action By I called John Irons who was unavailable, so Manu Patel took the call. I told him that I was interested in discussing the Valve List, the Line List and the Modes of Operation Problems. Specifically, I wanted to know if these were controlled documents. Manu gave me the following infomation: Valve List - It is a controlled document which is periodically updated and reissued by Texas. Line List - This is a controlled document similiar to the Valve List. That is, it is periodically updated and reissued by Texas. With respect to the system information, the line list contains only design pressure and temperature. It does not contain operating temperature and pressures for various system operating modes. Modes of Operation Problems - These are contained in a series of books in the Mechanical group. The process works as follows. When the pipe stress group wants to analyze a section of piping, they develop a sketch of the system in question, give it a problem number, and send it to Mechanical. Mechanical responds with information on the system temperatures in that section
. for all modes of system operation. This information is transmitted to the pipe stress group via a controlled interoffice memo. Mechanical group keeps the original package and also sends a copy to the duplicate file.
oistnbution. ( _ _ n wi s im5c o. netoing.. o. van amerongen, i.. weingari., v. uSzeW5K1,
/plm[1,,
1 K. F1855, 3. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell,' Project File 23-C-0801/PRJ
'c>m -- _
q Communications [WU3TTd Report
- p. m y . . . . . .. . . . ... ..m Company: Texas Utilities X Teiecon conference n port
"*' J N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate' 5/28/85 ""**** Time 9:30 a.m.
Review Issues List - Pipe Support Question 11 enace-SFR0 Participants- j, gjppgpgn of TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna l 1 1 Required item Comments Action By Mr. Finneran requested clarification of the 15% change noted in the question. Cygna stated that it was based on the following:
- 1. Support CC-2-019-715-A43K, Revision 3;
- 2. Input strut load equal to that on the drawing with a 5, assumed offset in each direction; and l
- 3. Variation of the edge distance fron the bolt hole to the edge of the plate, but within the 1-7/8" MIN TYP" shown in Section A-A of the drawing. ;
l i s gneo. /ajb Page } of 1 o,,tnootion n.11rilams, J. Keooing, J. Van Amerongen, d. M1nich1ello, L. Welngart, 5. Ireby,
.1 rii<, e"E:rlVi e um ,, o m4.,+ r<i. 77 c nc7aioo, iom oi. ]s, _ _ _ ___
Communications dmm Report
- lllllll!:""'::111 company: Texas Utilities 7, ,g Project: Job No. d40DD Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oate. 7/10/85 subject: Clarifications on Document Request T'me- 10:00 a.m.
Place: SFR0
Participants:
J. van Amerongen of EBASC0/TUGC0 D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By I phoned Jean to verify that she received the telecopy of the document request I sent yesterday. She had received it, and had some questions about some of the items. I clarified that for items 83 and 84 from my request list, I needed a list of the Gibbs and Hill Design Guides and Project Specific Criteria. Also, Jean said that the drawings requested (item 71) were sent separately from the change documentation. I verified that we received them. 1 1 1b
- j signeo gg W 1J 4114 --e -1 DmAA4nn .1 .s. A-amanna. C T-L.. 1
/kab page E114, e-1 n----11 ot 1 Distnbution: '
Project File 23-C-0710/PRJ 1020 0 t a
g ADh rd Communications Report Tlll:: !!!!!! company: Texas Uti11 ties Telecon b conference neport Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oate: 6/4/85 subiect: Gibbs & Hill Specifications T' m* ~ P ** Place: CPSES Site Participants D. Oldag of Cygna P. McCamey DCC Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following from the DCC specifications group:
- 1. Index to Gibbs & Hill Specifications
- 2. CP-CPM-10.3 latest revision (received Revision 8, dated 2/28/84)
- 3. 2323-MS-50, Revision 2, dated 3/20/75
- 4. 2323-MS-11, Revision 2, dated 12/10/74
- 5. 2323-SS-30, Revision 1
- 6. 2323-SS-16b, Revision 1 Cygna received a copy of Revision 0 to 2323-SS-16b after being informed that Revision 0 was the current revision.
- 7. 2323-ES-13B.2, Revision 1, dated 4/7/76
- 8. 2323-MS-28, latest revision (received Revision 3, dated 3/10/77)
- 9. 2323-MS-32B, latest revision (received Revision 2, dated 4/14/76)
- 10. 2323-MS-80A, latest revision (received Revision 0, dated 11/17/75)
- 11. 2323-ES-8B, latest revision (received Revision 1, dated 12/17/76)
Cygna received these specifications on June 5,1985. i l
~
I i .Si ,n , l signeo.
]N. i g /ajb page 1 of 1
! . = , .. .edding, .. van he engen, J. % ,s, S. Tr cy, J. E;iis, ., Distnbution- ~ee ^~ . l 78urwell, J. Oszewski, L. Weingart, Project File 23-C-0604/PRJ
Communications Aim i A Report 4 111lllllllllll1lll1lllllllllll l company: Texas Utilities Teiecon b conference neport Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8 6/3/85 Subject. T'me a.m. Entrance Meeting Place: site
"*"P*"**~ '
D. Oldag, N. Williams, J. Russ, CYGNA J. Redding, R. Kissinger, J. Finneran, TUGC0 C. Moehlman, C Boyd, F. Powers Required item Comments Action By J. Redding explained that Cygna was on site to do verification walkdowns. N. Williams explained that the following Cygna personnel would require escorts tomorrow: C. Wong & S. Luo, piping & pipe supports: D. Leong, W. Horstman, J. Russ and B. Brown, structural. Ms. Williams also said the electrical verification walkdowns would not begin until Thursday or Friday, but that an escort would be required for them as well. Ms. Williams explained that Donna Oldag was along to collect documents to complete Cygna's records for ASLB & NRC documentation. Chris Boyd, TUGC0 DCC Manager, stated that DCC would fulfill requests with information only copies of documents. Fred Powers explained that he would be the contract for security clearances for Cygna personnel and access requirements, such as ladder set-up, etc. Mr. Powers explained that ladders would not be available today but would be available for tomorrow. Ms. Williams told Mr. Powers that B. Brown, W. Horstman, D. Leong, C. Wong & S. Luo would be going into the plant today. The question was raised about the qualifications of the escorts. Ms. Williams stated that senior people would not be required as escorts; no technical questions would be asked of the escorts. Technical questions will be referred to Mr. Kissinger or other appropriate technical contacts. s gnee y )j
/ 1 m "*** 1 1
V Distnbution: N. Williams,,J.,Reddi g , J g a4 A p g n, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, im o,, .. -. -..,.. m .
~
r 1 Communications l tiL% a Report 11llllllllllllll1lllllllllllll conipany; Texas Utilities D Telecon conference Report
' b"-
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date' 6/7/85 Document Request P Place. CPSES Site Psrticipants. of g Brown & Root D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received CP-EI-4.5-14, Revision 4, from Mr. Baker. Y signeo Q f jj /ajb "*8' 1 1 Distneution- N) W Tiams, 'J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
, . , , T . L.r , J . U I I . . I[-{^-. [. , L . L i . 3-
. . Iin- ; Iiis ^3-C-0007/IIJ
Communications [4M'M lllll::::.l iiiilllllllIllllli Report elec n Conference Repon Taras Utilities Project. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 May 31,1985
Subject:
Time: Supplemental Field Walkdowns 2:00 p CES-SFR0
Participants:
of J. Finneran TUGC0 N. Williams Cvgna Required item Comments Action By I explained the purpose of Cygna's site visit next week as follows:
- 1. Resolve discrepancies between Cygna walkdown information and TUGC0 responses,
- 2. Check additional items important to Cygna's evaluation of TUGC0 responses received subsequent to the July walkdowns,
- 3. Verify TUGC0's fulfillment of commitments which served as the basis for Cygna's resolution of discrepancies.
I further indicated that there would be roughly ten Cygna people on site for at least one week. l signe p g, ,, (/ D"'b"b "~ J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, N. Williams, J. Minichiello, J. Russ, J. Ellis, S. im o,. i r cuy , .. ... .= , i , . o va cu i.. - <<.,,no
Communications A L% Report r ::
***"' conference Report Texas Utilities O( Teiecon Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D" Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/3/85 Subject Time: p.m. Document Request CPSES Site R. Baker Brown & Root D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Ms. Oldag asked Mr. Baker where the following documents could be reviewed: technical specifications, FSAR operating procedures, and start-up testing procedures. Mr. Baker stated that the technical specifications are not finalized until operations begin, but a final draft could probably be obtained through Ted Jenkins of N0SF. Ted Jenkins would also be able to tell us when to obtain operating procedures to use. The FSAR is available in the office next to Mr. Baker's, and he loaned Ms. Oldag his copy of the start-up administrative procedures in response to Cygna's request for start-up testing procedures. Mr. Baker stated it was a motherhood document for start-up testing procedures. l I I s gneo I '
/ jjjj / aj b "'S' 1 1 Distnbution N. wit Tams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, J. , , , , , Gu . , 7, vacu i Mc 23-;-oveSo/ine
' Communications d L*i t d Report llll11111lll1111lllll111lll111 Telecon C conference Report Texas Utilities Project Joe No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/26/85 Cable Tray Review Questions 10:30 a.m. Place-CPSES Site Participanta of T. Keiss TUGC0 B. Bhujana Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Messrs. Bhujang and Keiss regarding fire protec-tion calculations, transmission of cable tray loads to other design organizations and underrun weld calculations. Cygna asked Mr. Keiss to prwide the load sheets from the 2323-El-1700 binders for the following cable tray segments: T130ACA26, 27, 28, 29, 30 T12GABF22, 23 24, 25, 26 T13GACD23, 24, 25, 26 T120ABC20, 21, 22 23 T120AB002 For any of the segments listed abwe where the unit weight exceeded 35 psf, TUGC0 was asked to provide the calculations. Cygna also asked Mr. Keiss to provide the fire protection calcu-lations for the following tray segments and any supports associated with the segments:
-T120SB005, 06 T130SCA45, 46, 47 He was also asked to provide the calculations for any of the prior listed segments where the unit weight exceeded 35 psf.
Cygna asked how cable tray loads are transmitted to other groups which require them, for instance, the pipe support design group. Mr. Keiss stated that a three part speed letter is used to transmit the required information and is stored with the pipe Segr.ed Page of D abut' " N. Williams, D. Wade, Jt van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, R. ion oi, ness, d. I reoy, d. t. ills, 3. su.wil, Project F ile m
r
~
Communications A L% i Report I
, 1111lllll11lll11tlllll111llll1 stem comments AcNy 1
support calculations. He indicated the same would be done for ; changes in cable tray loads, for instance, an increase in loads 1 due to fire protection. j Cygna asked Mr. Bhujang to provide the following original or weld , underrun calculations. s Support Connection Detail Di-04 Detail "7" (2323-S-0903) L-A1 , L-A4 All connections shown on 2323-S-0902 SP-4 Detail "D" (Beam-to-base angle connection shown on 2323-5-0903) Beam-to-beam connection Biace to beam connection Detail"B"(Beamconnection) SP-8 Detail "11" (2323-5-0905) Detail "G" 2323-5-0903) Detail "C" 2323-5-0903) Detail "8" (2323-S-0903) Detail "A" (2323-El-0500-04-S) All weld details Detail "C" (2323-El-0500-01-5) All weld details Detail "N" (2323-El-0601-01-S) All weld details He replied that it would be best to get those calculations from Gibbs & Hill, New York. Mr. Bhujang noted that Detail "5" would be ready in about two weeks. Page of 2 2 1020 01b k j
r Communications A (% i Report 1111lll1111111lll1111llll11111 Company: Texas Utilities Teiecon X conference neport
Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate:
6/4/85 suwect: T'm* 1:00 p.m. Drawing Request Place CPSES Site Participants of D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Requested and received the following from DCC: Gui Drawing 2323-El-0032, latest revision, cover sheet only Pipe support drawings MS-1-002-002-572R Rev 3, sheet 1 only. ' CC-1-028-003-A33R, Rev. 7 I 1 1 4 I 1 i 4 signed. V / aj b "'J' ' 1 1 o.unev .on: e N. WilTiams, J. Recdliig, J. van Amerongen, C. Wong, 5. Treby, J. Ellis. 5. e =__.,.,.. h __. e,,_.- oos.,, , mmo
{ Communications Lu% i Report 1111llllll11111lll111llllll111 company: Texas Utilities conference neport C Teiecon Project. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 8/29/85 subect 3 Document Request Time. 11 a.m. Place. SFR0 Participants- D. Oldag of CES J. van Amerongen TUGC0/EBASCO l Required item Comments Action By I called Jean to request FSAR question 40.48 and the TUGC0 response. Jean called back and explained that question 40.48 was incorporated in section 8.2 of the FSAR. a
- Signed /XXX Page 1 of o .tnout,oo. in W ? =ns.-
=tu + . M m *o$=su.s w Ellis. 5.-8vrwell; Pro.iect File 23-C-0829/PRJ n .J.
im ei.
Communications ALni Report it: ,,:"""""'lllll1 Company: Texas Utilities Telecon X Conference neport
' J No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 6-24-85
" T'** 1:00 pm Electrical documents received for Review at Gibbs & Hill Place Gibbs & Hill - NYC Participants of g C na P. Lalaji G8H Required item Comments Action By Documents received from Mr. P. Lalaji for review at G&H.
Rev. Dated
- 1. EEG 111 1 Sec e 31
- 2. EEG 113 1 July 76
- 3. EEG 115 2 Sept 82 4 EEG 116 1 Dec 81
- 5. EEG 100 2 April 80
- 6. EEG 122 1 Aug 81
- 7. EEG 119 2 Oct 81
- 8. EEG 117 1 Feb 80
- 9. EEG 106 1 Feb 79
- 10. EEG 101 2 Nov 80
- 11. EEG 301 1 Jan 80
- 12. EEG 303 1 Sept 81
- 13. EEG 304 1 Dec 81 Title Sh. Date
- 14. Design Guides 12-5-72 Elect Sect. IX DG. E-I s
- 15. Design Guides 5-20-74 Elect. Sect. XI OG E-Q
- 16. Design Guides Original Sect. IV Under Revision DG E-C s.gneo /pim Page 1 of }
oestnbution I I I N53 M U9 8. 31 van AmerUngen, v. v>4ewswi, S "Tr eby , J' d '. Ellis, 5. Durwell.: Project File PRJ/23-C-0801C
Communications dL t i Report 11llllllllllll11lllll1111lllll
"*"*"* conference neport Texas Utilities X reiecon Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D* 8/19/85 Subsect: Time Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria (VWAC) 12:50 p.m. (NCIG-01, Revision 2) "'8c' gg D.B. Jones TUGC0 J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Jones regarding the Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria (VWAC) (NCIG-01, Revision 2). This document was referenced in a letter from W. G. Counsel (Texas Utilities) to V. Noonan (USNRC), dated August 1 1985. Mr. Jones stated that NCIG stood for Nuclear Construction Issues Group, and industry owners group. The document was their criteria for weld inspections. He stated that the document had been reviewed by the USNRC. Cygna asked where this document could be obtained. Mr. Jones stated that the document had been incorporated into three Gibbs & Hill specifications. The specifications and the respective DCA's are shown below. Specification DCA 2323-SS-16b 23,107 2323-SS-16a 23,108 2323-55-17 13,109 s.gneo V f "'S' '
/xxx 1 1 o,stnbution- N. WT)liams, J. vaiFAmerongen, J. Redding, ,5. Burwell, J. Ellis, S. Streby, J.
n..., u- q.,, r 41. M.F.nH14/PRJ ioac ote
? Communications Aln i Report 1811111lll1lll11lllll1111lll11 company Texas Utilities Teiecon conference Repon N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6-25-85 sueiect T ' ** Electrical Design Guides 2:30 pm Place: G8H - MC L. Maggio Cygna T. Vardaro G&H P. Lalaji G8H Required item Comments Action By Mr. Vardaro and Mr. Lalaji explained that general electrical design guides were not used on CPSES. The technical content and format of electrical documents such as calculations, specifications, and drawings was determined by the individuals who prepared, checked, and independently reviewed these documents. The PSAR was initially used as a design criteria. The present Gibbs and Hill electrical guides (EEG's) and design guides cover general technical requirements. When CPSES was started these guides were not as complete as they now are and were not included as criteria for CPSES. Signed. # of h 7 Page g } Distnbution W. 'W1 T Tams , d. He _d. van Amerongen, d. UsZeWsK1, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 5. rwell! Project File PRJ/23-C-08010 1970 0ta
Communications AL t i Report lill:: company Texas Utilities Telecon X conference Report Project. Job No 84056
- Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 ~
l 6/25/85 Calculation IC-007. Setpoint 3:00 PM Methodology Place G8H - NYC Participants of g j D. Ghosh Gibbs & Hill Required item Comments Action By Discussed the setpoint methodology calculation IC-007 with Mr. D. Ghosh. Mr. Ghosh said that calculation 1C-007, Rev.1, has general descriptions in sheets 1 through 4 identified as "setpoint methodology documentations." These descriptions are specifically for this calculation and are not a technical procedure used for all setpoint calculations by Gibbs & Hill. General instrumentation engineering guides were not
- used on CPSES.
i of s.gneo jj])g j,,,Page ; g oistnnution- ' % Vi l li anis ~, g, J. van Amerongen, G. Smith, K. Zee, R. Porter, J. 1070 0ia m.-. t . _ . _ < .. - , ,,,.. . c .- , o_ .... ..,_ _ .,, - _m
Communications t4 (*-h i Report 186lllll111111ll111111llllll11 conwanr Texas Utilities UX Teiecon conference Repon Project- Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*~ 6/6/85 Subject. Time: g Plant Access
- CPSES Site
"* "'*' P'"'$ '
F. Powers TUGC0 l l J. Russ Cygna
! I Required item Comments Action By I spoke to F. Powers regarding the escorts for the Cygna mechanical walkdown team and the pipe support team. Mr. Powers stated that the difficulties with the mechanical escorts were due to the changing security requirements. I asked why the pipe
- support escort was scheduled to leave at 4
- 00 p.m. daily. I also noted that the escort was beginning his escort duties at 10:00 a.m. this morning. Mr. Powers stated that the escorts whould work until 5:30 p.m. He added that he was unaware that the escort was beginning work at 10:00 a.m. I stated that if our pipe support team was to complete their work on time, proper escorts should be provided. To this end, Mr. Power stated that an additional escort was being provided.
I e l 1 l k f )),))] p y /aJ b ** 1 1 oistr eution- k.' MlTiims,'J. ReddinL J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S./
, . . , . [hQ, i wm Tib .
23-C-ooo6Jno
l l
~= Communications
- - Mieh'In llilllllllllllillllllllililll!
Report Company: conference Report Texas Utilities Teiecon Proiect- Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 D* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Subsect. Time. Document Request CPSES Site Participants of D. 01dag Cygna Aequired item Comments Action By I requested and received the following documents: MS-1-004-001-C725 latest rev. (rev. 5 provided) MS-1-003-011-C72K latest rev. (rev. 2 provided) - CC-1-028-725-S33R latest rev. (rev, 4 provided) 2323-EI-0714 latest rev. (rev. 19 provided) 2323-El-0714-11 latest rev. (rev. 2 provided) 2323-El-0714-5 latest rev. (rev. 2 provided) 2323-El-0004 latest rev. (rev. CP3 provided) 2323-El-0173-01 latest rev. (rev. CP6 provided) FSE-00159, sheets 7129, 793, 2923, 118, 13127, 116, 333 2323-MI-0229 latest rev. (rev. CP3 provided) 2323-MI-0230 latest rev. (rev. CP7 provided) 2323-MI-0231 latest rev. (rev. CP6 provided) 2323-MI-0703 latest rev. (rev. 15 provided) 2323-MI-0703-001 latest rev. (rev. 13 provided) 2323-MI-0703-002 latest rev. (rev. 9 provided) 2323-MI-0703-003 latest rev. (rev. 9 provided) 2323-MI-0703-004 latest rev. (rev. 9 provided) 2323-MI-0703-005 latest rev. (rev. 9 provided) 2323-M1-0703-006 latest rev. (rev. 2 provided) 2323-MI-0704 latest rev. (rev. 13 provided) 2323-MI-0704-001 latest rev. (rev. 8 provided) 2323-MI-0704-002 latest rev. (rev. 8 provided) 2323-MI-0704-003 latest rev. (rev. 9 provided) 2323-MI-0704-004 latest rev. (rev. 2 provided) 2323-MI-0705 latest rev. (rev.11 provided) 2323-MI-0705-001 latest rev. (rev. 2 provided) 2323-MI-0706 latest rev. (rev. 4 provided) s gneo -
"'9' '
/ajb 1 2 Distnbut.on N.' k i l' iariis, U. Redd ng, J. van Amerongen, C. Wong, T. Martin, 5. Treby, J.
n,,_ ,oa riis, r e- an-mii ' o, m i on r41. 9 te_nnnAr/pu.i i r - . .
1 Communications i 4L t i Report ; 1111111ll16:!I1141616111111111 Item Comments Ac o y 2323-MI-0707 latest rev. (rev. 4 provided) 2323-MI-0708 latest rev. (rev. 6 provided) 2323-MI-0709 latest rev. (rev. 6 provided) 2323-MI-0710 latest rev. (rev. 6 provided) 2323-M1-0711 latest rev. (rev. 6 provided) 2323-MI-0712 latest rev. (rev. 5 provided) 2323-MI-0713 latest rev. (rev. 5 provided) 2323-MI-0714 latest rev. (rev. 5 provided) 2323-MI-0716 latest rev. (rev. 8 provided) 2323-MI-0716-001 latest rev. (rev. O provided) 2323-MI-0717 latest rev. (rev. 3 provided) 2323-MI-0718 latest rev. (rev. 14 provided) 2323-MI-0719 latest rev. (rev. 11 provided) l Page of m
BE==e Communications [4DM M Report lilllllllillllilllllllllllllli companr Texas Utilities 3 Telecon conference Report
' Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 6/3/85
"'*'*' T'm' 12:45 p.m.
Document Request - Electrical Place gp3{g Participants of p gg) Gibbs & Hi11 N. Williams Cygna Aequired item Comments Action By 1.' Cygna requested expedi cpies of the following electrical calculations / computer runs: 001-2 001-3 001-5 001-6 003-7 003-8 In addition, in order to review these outputs Cygna requires copies of the following user's manuals: 6062 - Short Circuit Program 1979 - Voltage Drop Program
- 2. Reference 5/31/85 telecopy from R. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) to L.
Weingart (Cygna). The Cygna electrical /l&C reviewers have selected procedures from the engireering and design guide indices (transmitted in the above referenced telecopy) which may be applicable to the Cygna review scope. Cygna requested Gibbs & Hill to check if any of the following project guides are applicable to the CPSES project. Sigreed h %
/gjg Pye } of 2
Distribubon N W I I , oms, u. , d. van Amerongen, d. UsZedski, 5. Treby, d. Ellis, 5. m - 11 .1. netowtki Penicet Filn 7%c .nfin1/ pp.1 ioio nie
3 COmmunICatlOnS t4 L t i Repod ll11111111111ll111lllll1111111 item comments e7a"Ny Engineering Guides EEG-111 Automatic Bus Transfer of Power Station Auxiliaries EEG-113 Battery Application Guide EEG-115 Cable: Power Application Guide EEG-116 Cable: Standard Sizes EEG-100 Circuit Breaker Application EEG-122 Electrical Engineering and Design Criteria EEG-119 Engineering-Design Sketches EEG-117 Insulation Coordination EEG-106 Motors: Selection of Induction and Synthronous EEG-101 Phasing: General Criteria EEG-301 Relay Protection: Connections for Type CA-16 Bus Differentials EEG-303 Relay Protection: Double Bus, Single Breaker EEG-304 Relay Protection: Loss of Field Design Guides Section XI Miscellaneous Design Information Section XV Cable Routing and Raceway Schedule Instrumentation Procedures SIP-IN Computerized Instrument List - Preparation Procedure SIP-2N Computerized Instrument List - Explanation SIP-3 Instrumentation and Control Identification System SIP-4 Preparation and Use of Instrumentation and Control Diagrams R. Ballard explained that releasing the procedures from New York may be dif ficult since they are proprietary. Cygna suggested that if there were any problems, J. Redding (TUGCO) would be the appropriate person to contact. Cygna also indicated that a similar request for mechanical systems procedures would be made in the near future. Page of g C
Communications AL% i Report 111llllll11llllllllll11lllllll company: Texas Utilities D Teiecon conference Report Project. Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D * 6/21/85 Subject Time. Conduit Load Transmittals 2:10 p.m. Place Participants of J. Russ Cygna Regared item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. McBee regarding the transmission of loads from the conduit support group to other groups when a conduit support is attached to the other group's support or equipment. The portion of the conduit support design in question was the evaluation of conduit support adequacy for the additional weight due to Thermolag. Mr. McBee stated that the loads are transmitted to the affected group by a three-part letter. In the case of attaching to pipe supports, an answer is received from the pipe support analysis group regarding the acceptability of the imposed loads. When the attachment is made to a cable tray support, no answer is received. Soned Page of [ gg ositneution N. Williims, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
,,,,,,. T. ,. e. ;;;;.., !. % . ? : . ;..... . c. - .. , F, - , r; a 23-c aveu
Communications d f. n i Report 111llllllllll1llll1811lllll111 companr Texas Utilities Teiecon conference Repon Protect. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 08 6/20/85 Subject Time Additiona' Documentation 11:30 a.m. Place. SFR0 J. Irons Gibbs & Hill R. Hess Cygna Required wem Comments Action Dy Cygna requested from Mr. Irons documentation on the half open setting on the RHR heat exchanger discharge valve (1-HV4572). We do not have this documentation in our files and need it in preparation for a meeting with the NRC. John stated that the reason for opening this valve half way on an "S" signal was to provide a CCW flow path after other demands were isolated by the "S" signal. He stated that the 229-15 calculation had some information on this flowrate and that it was now half flow and not valve half open. Cygna advised Mr. Irons that we were aware of this but that what we were looking for was the oq.ginal basis for having this valve open on an "S" signal and why fit was 50% rather than some other number. I suggested that ty:ts may be in the set point calculation or the input to the calculation and requested him to send us this calculation and any associated input criteria. John said he would get one of his people to look
- into it and call me back.
1 signed U -- s j,3 Page g of
}
o,sinbution- 4. Williams, J. eddinM J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, 3. 91.c.nA9nA/PRJ
}i n. ,-, u o,at n rn.
Communications ? mm mii ,,::;;; Report q 1
*""# mee n conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/25/85
Subject:
Time. Conduit Support Testing 8:30 a.m. Place: CCL Participants- of R. Miller CCL R. Kissinger. S. McBee TUGC0 J. Russ. N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By Prior to witnessing the test of a conduit support, Cygna dis-cussed the test procedure and sample selection with Messrs. Kissinger, McBee and Miller. In general, Cygna offered questions on the loading magnitudes and direction, the selection of the test configuration and the selection of the support types to be sampled. Q. What load case was used for the testing? A. Per Section 6 of the AISI " Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members", (AISI) a " working load" was considered. The OBE case was chosen as this working load. The load vectors used in the testing were determined by Gibbs & Hill and are shown in Appendix C of the test procedure. Q. What is the basis for the load factor of 2.57 A. Again, per Section 6 of AISI, a factor of 2.5 was chosen to con-form with the load factors found therein. Additionally, an l analysis for the effects of support inertial weight was performed using the "EZHANG" program. The analyses to date show that a portion of the system mass is not participating. The load factor of 2.5 will account for this effect. Q. What is the definition of "f ailure level?" A. The intent of the tests is to reach a specified target load which is some factor beyond the OBE design load. That factor should be a minimum of 2.5 for these tests. The results of the completed tests were generally beyond the target load of 2.5 x the design signeo- f Page of D'$tbut'oa N. Williams, D. Wade [J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. ce m. irvoy, do r.i ns. A surwei n Project File
Communications l Report L4 L n 4 niem comments [EoNy load. Some tests, were limited by the capacities of the equipment. Q. How were the target loads calculated? A. As stated above, the intent is not to detennine a failure load but rather to demonstrate margins beyond the design loads. The target loads were established as shown on Attachment 1. Q. Since some analyses, i.e., the use of the "EZHANG" program, are being performed as part of the test preparation, will a corre-lation between the analyses and the test results be made? A. CCL will attempt to correlate the "EZHANG" analyses with these specific tests and incorporate data from other tests. Q. How are the Strainsert bolts used in the test set-ups? A. The Strainsert bolts are 1/2" in diameter. They are pretensioned to'3200 pounds. Loads beyond this level will be noted. Bolt load levels are recorded at each load step. No shear is measured in the test since tension is assumed to be controlling. For other bolt spacings, the resultant tensions can be calculated rather than measured. Q. On Sheet 3 of Cygna's copy of the test procedure, the text shows
'that the' load steps should be increased as the support approaches failure. Shouldn't the text read " reduced"?
A. The use of the word " increased" was intended to reflect an in-crease in the number of load steps. The final revision of the report will reflect that the loads may be changed at the discre-tion of the test coordinator. I Q. Would it be possible for Cygna to review Appendix D of Reference j 1 to the test procedure? , l A. Appendix.D will be included in the final report. Cygna then discussed their coments on the test configurations and the direction of the applied loadings. Cygna's comments for the particular support types are noted below. 1 1 Test Specimen G2T (Type CSM-6a)
, The applied load direction does not apply critical tensile forces s into the spot welds as discussed in Cygna letter 84056.040. CCL noted that the tests were performed to loadings supplied by Gibbs l
& Hill. The loadings should be discussed with Gibbs & Hill. '
Page of
;l j
toac ot e l
Communications
, ALni Report 11!!!"'..... ':!!!
l item Comments Ac o y l Test Specimen G1T (Type CA-2a, Type 3) l Cygna noted that the anchor bolts were placed along the outrigger axis. Yet the anchor bolts may be placed directly under the con- j duit which may result in larger loads. Cygna also inquired if ! the P1941 connector plate was instrumented for the tests. This ; was based on Cygaa calculations showing an overstress in this plate due to the installation torques. Cygna also asked if a configuration with anchor bolts in the outriggers would be tested. TUGC0 replied that the connector plate wasn't instru-mented since the plates were not subjected to the loads which caused the overstress. For those cases where a deformation due to installation torque was noted, a P1064 washer plate was added per Note 7 on the CA-la drawing. TUGC0 wil1 verify the date this note became effective. Hilti bolts through the outriggers were used to hold shimt in place. These were not tested because the unbolted outriggers were considered to control. Cygna noted that some supports were identified as type CA-la supports on conduit inspection reports but as CA-2a on IN-FP drawings. TUGC0 replied that this was due to the evolution of the support types. Gradually, CA-la and CA-2a support came to reflect the same configuration and requirements. In order to simplify revisions to construction travelers, FSEG allowed either support type to be noted. Test Specimen GST (Type CSM-10a) Cygna stated that the critical "L" dimension and brace length were not considered in the test specimen. The "L" dimension chosen was for the largest load and not necessarily the most torsionally weak member. In addition, by selecting the largest load, the clamp' strength increased due to usage of a Superstrut C708-S clamp.' Per the design drawing, the brace length may be as great as 16'-0". Cygna feels that this length may be more cri-tical than the length tested. Test Specimens Employing CSD-la Connections Cygna noted that the supports using these connections should be tested using minimum bolt spacings. This would provide the max-imum tensile force in the bolts and test the acceptability of the
" systems" concept used to qualify the bolts in previous analy-tical efforts. TOGC0 and CCL agreed that the tensions would be greater at the minimum spacing but felt that the tension could be derived from existing data. They noted that the member connec-tion clips absorbed the greatest deformation rather than the header members. Cygna noted that data extrapolation was accept-able as long as it was properly performed.
Page of l , i WO - - . - , _ _ .
Communications
, 4L ci Report llllllll1111llll1llllllllllll1 nem comments [eEoNy Type JS-9 1 According to TUGCO, this support is elevation limited and the '
lower accelerations used in the test will reflect this con-straint. Cygna stated that this support hadn't been reviewed since it had been added to the test program only recently, but noted that all consnents from the present discussion would be applicable to this support also. ! Test Specimens Using Superstrut C708-S Clamps 1 When C708-S clamps are used, the sections to which the conduits are attached are modified per Detail CSD-7. Cygna believes that , smaller conduits, which require P2558 clamps, should be con-sidered. This would result in longer, less torsionally stiff sections. I TUGC0 then discussed the selection process employed by Gibbs & Hill to arrive at the support types to be tested. It was noted ; that the total number of conduit supports was arrived at by using the Project Management Computer System (PMCS) and not by a hand search of the conduit inspection reports. The PMCS is a database of all conduit and conduit supi. ort records, such as inspection reports. The intended use of the database was to compare the known inspected conduit lines and supports against a Gibbs & Hill list of conduit lines. THe comparison would show which lines weren't inspected. The actual comparison was never made and in 1983 the PMCS was abandoned. It has not been updated since then. TUGC0 still feels that this database is still an accept-able representation of the number and type of installed supports at CPSES. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the only conduit supports utilizing Unistrut components being installed since 1983 were the CA-1 and CA-2 type supports. Based on the PMCS tabulation, Gibbs & Hill divided the supports into three general classifications which are: A. Supports to be qualified by analysis using AISI B. Supports to be qualified by testing C. Supports to be qualified by a combination of testing and analysis In general, Gibbs & Hill believed that multi-directional supports would errfelope transverse supports based on the presence of lon-gitudinal loads. Page of I re m n
Communications , t4 Ld t i Repod 11!!"!!!!!!!!!Il1111111111 Item Comments Ac o y In sumary, Cygna cautioned TUGC0 to assure that the following items are properly considered in the test report.
- 1. The documentation of the selection of support types and configuration being tested must be complete enough to discern the logic behind the process the appropriate-ness of the final selection, and the enveloping nature of the test results.
- 2. The loading directions must be justified with regard to testing the critical components of the support includ-ing the member spot welds, anchor bolts and connec-tions, which include the conduit clamps.
- 3. Appropriate documentation of test data, the location of the measuring devices and the analytical methods used to extrapolate the data must be detailed.
Cygna aise noted that they wanted to examine the raw test data. TUGC0 asked about the number of tests required to assure repeat-ability of the test results. Cygna replied that repeatability reported in three tests of each support type should be suffi-cient. However, this implies that all " failure points" remain the same for each separate test. The following action items were noted:
- a. TUGC0 will assure that the enveloping support types, configurations and loadings were considered to load l critical support components. '
- b. TUGC0 will verify and notify Cygna of the date and revision of the 2323-S-0910 drawing sheet that Note 7 first appeared on. ;
- c. Cygna will spot check Gibbs & Hill's support selection !
process. Cygna observed the testing of specimen G1T. During the test, Cygna noted and reported to CCI. and TUGC0 personnel that the loading yoke plate farthest from the longitudinal ram had contacted a deflected outrigger. Page of
- m. _
O Communications l , Alm i Report l llllllll1lllll1111lllll1111111 ttem Comments Ac on y Attachment 1 1 Let: Cw = Conduit Weight i Hw = Inertial hanger weight calculated by EZHANG l program A1 = Acceleration in x, y and z directions The force in the x direction is calculated as: Fx = (Cw + Hw) Ax Similarly for the y and z directions: ; Fy = (Cw + Hw) Ay Fz = (Cw + Hw) Az The test load, P , is defined as: T PT = SRSS (Fx, Fy, Fz) Let: PA = Allowable load Then the safety factor, SF, is given as: SF = PT/PA l l l Page of 6 6 1
's Communications i
- M%i Report
- ......... ::lllll11
*" Conferenm R@on Tavae utilitiac X Project: Job No.
8" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 pfpsfas
Subject:
Time-M" Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions p,,c,. cri Participants- of D_ Miccinnor L McRep TUGC0 _ .1 . Dirce , N. Williame Cynna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to TUGC0 regarding: (1) Richmond Inserts; (2) AISC Equation 1.5-7; and, (3) Gibbs a Hill's dynamic analysis of selected cable tray systems. Cygna again noted their concern on the selective use of code sections from ACI 349-76, Appendix B. Cygna believes that the philosophy of codes must be adhered to and that the use of por-tions of the code must be consistent with the intent of the code section, if not the entire code. It has been noted that a factor of safety of 1.8 for Richmond Inserts subjected to f actorea loads has been used. Though this is inconsistent with a code required factor of safety of 2.0, it is acceptable provided that substan-tive testing results are provided. TUGC0 replied that Richmond Inserts were tested per ASTM E488 which notes that five tests per insert must be performed. Other inconsistencies in ACI code usage noted by Cygna are those dealing with Hilti expansion anchors. Thougn Gibbs & Hill used Appendix B provisions to qualify several expansion anchors in Detail "11" support, (reference Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0905) they did not explicitly consider the code recommended factor of safety of six in their one-bolt connection designs. Cygna also noted that Gibbs & Hill failed to properly employ Equation 1.5-7 of AISC Specifications (AISC). Cygna asked if Supplement 3 to the AISC Code was adopted by the CPSES FSAR. TUGC0 replied that that f act was still being confirmed. Cygna noted that in that supplement, a clarification is made to Equa-tion 1.5-7 with regard to cantilevers. This clarification recom-mends that the full cantilever distance be used in Equation 1.5-s.gned V Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, W.
" ' * . f$1MtmaLS,__Treby._J. Ellis. SJ Burwell . Pro f ect File
p Communications Report ALn a 11lllllllll11lll11llll11111111 Item comments e7eNy
- 7. Cygna notes that for SP-7 type supports, the distance to mid-tray was used, and not the distance to the outside edge of the tray where loads are actually transmitted. Use of this larger length will decrease the allowable bending stress.
Cygna's review had also noted instances where the correct length was not used in calculating the allowable bending stresses for trapeze frame hanger members. Gibbs & Hill's practice, it was noted, was to consider the distance between the base connection and the first beam level. Yet at this level, or any other beam level, no positive bracing of the hanger compression flange is provided. Cygna believes that the full hanger length must be used in determining allowable the bending stress per Equation 1.5-7 considering: (1) a review of the supports; (2) an inves-tigation of the code irtent and limitations; and, (3) frame behavior. Various factors must be considered when responding to this con-cern. Cygna noted that the analytical basis of the code equa-tions must be studied, the effect of local stiffening of the han-ger by the beam members, the value of Cb and effect of torsion on the bending allowable. Cygna suggested that some beneficial in-formation on local stiffening of the joints may be obtained from Gibbs & Hill's dynamic analysis of the five cable tray support systems. Cygna asked TUGC0 to clarify what the analysis will demonstrate. TUGC0 described several points of the dynamic analysis. Tray systems were selected based on tray weight after a review of the Cable Tray and Raceway Schedule (El-1700 binder). The chosen systems were modeled from selected initiation and termination points. Generally, the models contain representations of several hundred feet of tray with 20 to 40 supports in each run. Branch lines with sufficient tray length were included to account for the effects of distant boundaries. Modeling specifics include a single beam representation of the tray. At the supports, the proper degrees of freedom were re-leased to account for possible clamp-tray gaps. Tray attachment points were modeled to also include eccentric loadings. TUGC0 noted that the results to date show that the anchor bolts were the controlling elements. The beams were the next critical followed by hanger members. I l Page of I 2 2 102001b
i Communications ; M W Id l Report lll1111111111ll1111lll11111111 company: Texas Utilities Telecon @ conference nepon
"' '*** Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No 84056 ,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 4/10/85 sumect; Conduit Support Testing Time. 9:00 a.m. Place ~ CCL/Nortn Carolina Pa"'cipants R. Kissinger, S. McBee of TUGC0 R. Yow, R. Miller CCL P. Huang G&H D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna expressed concern regarding the scope of the conduit test program and the use of the test data to provide qualification of supports at CPSES. To assess the aim of the test program and the adequacy cf data obtained to realize that aim, Cygna provided a discussion of the original intent of the test program, its evo-lution in time, the present options available to TUGCO, and the documentation and data requirements to successfully complete the options. Cygna provided a brief discussion of analysis performed by Cygna to assess the behavior of Unistrut components under loads not considered in fonnulation of the Catalog allowables. Among the concerns were torsional loading of asymmetric sections and out-of-plane loads on pinned brace connections and angle brackets. These concerns were documented in Cygna letter 84056.040. In that letter, Cygna suggested that a test program may be war-ranted, as the analysis for such configurations are difficult to perform. Cygna suggested testing the asynsnetric sections in actual support configurations to verify not only the adequacy of , the section but also the adequacy of the connections to provide proper transfer of loads. The test program implemented by TUGC0 intends to provide quali-fication of the asymmetric sections as well as entire support configurations. As discussed on April 9, 1985 (Communications Report between TUGCO, CCL, Gibbs & Hill, and Cygna on 4/9/85 regarding enveloping criteria for conduit support tests), the conduit support configuration in the test scope were chosen to envelop all Unistrut conduit supports at CPSES. Signed. /ajb Page 1 of 5
"* ' 3 ' ' 3 "' d' Y T "9'so. van Mmerongen, d. nuss, n. norstman, v. Leong, a.
Distnbution: Trphv_ .1_ F111e R ' namelli Prninct Filo M.r.nd1n/PD.1
*20 0i=_ _ _ _ _ _ - . .- 2:^ . _ _ - _ ~ _ _ . - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - . . _ _ .
Communications I s 4 (d i i Repod HHWlllllmmllllllllllll ttem comments Ac o y Cygna noted that two qualification programs may be applied: (1) qualification of members with asymmetric sections for design loads; and, (2) qualification of support configurations at CPSES. Each of these programs have different documentation and i test data requirements which must be met to provide a complete qualification package. For the qualification of asymetric members, the test scope should be chosen to consider a representative sample of these members in their actual configurations with required loads. Documentation should support the choice of configurations and loads used. The tests should monitor the behavior of the members and their connections such that the test results can be used to qualify members in other support configurations which were not tested. For the qualification of supports, the test scope should be chosen to envelop all supports at CPSES. The screening process is more involved than in the first option, because, in addition to addressing member behavior, other components (connections, braces, anchors, etc.) must also be considered. Judgement must often be used to determine the weak link in a support configuration and to perform the enveloping of supports. To validate this judgement, the tests should be monitored and performed to test the perceived weak link and assure that the support behavior is as expected. Mr. Kissinger stated that TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill feel that the test scope will address the support qualification option rather than the member qualification option since parametric loading of the unsymetric members was not addressed in the test configura-tions. TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill also ag ved that further documen-tation was necessary to justify the screening process used to choose enveloping support configurations. Cygna pointed out tht all generic items for conduit supports must be addressed in the screening process, since the test scope is expected to envelop all installations at CPSES. TUGC0 provided a discussion of the resolution of items on the Review Issues List using the results of the test program:
- 1. Controlling Load Case for Design -- TUGC0 stated that the results for the strainsert bolts could be used to check the adequacy of the anchor bolts, and that the loads from the test include the effects of prying.
Cygna. pointed out that variations in placement of the bolts in the clip angles and placement of the hanger and brace members on the headers should be considered when determining the critical configuration. Gibbs & Hill stated that they felt that a safety factor of 2.5 Page of 2 5 _ _ m e _______. _ _ .. _
Communications t4 L R i Repod lilllllllliiiiii:::iiiiiillm 4 Item Comments Ac o y for working load is reasonable, and that a decreased margin for emergency / faulted load is also accepted.
- 2. Dynamic Amplification Factor -- The effects of dynamic amplification factor would be included in the support capacity calculation by using a reduction factor on the tested capacity.
- 3. Combination of Deadweight and Seismic Responses -- The deadweight effect will be included by reducing the tested support capacity using the results of the EZ Hang analyses.
- 4. Measurement of Embedment from Top of Topping -- This issue will not be addressed in the test program.
- 5. Bolt Hole Tolerance and Edge Distance Violation -- This issue will not be addressed in the test program.
- 6. Other Loads in the FSAR Combinations -- This issue will be addressed separately and is not included in the test program.
- 7. Support Self Weight -- The effects of the support self weight will be considered using EZ Hang analyses to reduce the tested capacity.
- 8. Torsion of Unistrut Members -- The test program specifically addresses this item.
- 9. Improper Use of Catalog Components -- The test program specifically addresses this item.
- 10. Anchor Bolts -- This issue is addressed in Item 1.
l 11. Longitudinal Loads on Transverse Supports -- This issue will be addressed separately and may involve a hardware fix to release the longitudinal restraint of the clamp.
- 12. Hilti Kwik-Bolt Substitutions -- This issue will not be addressed in the test program.
- 13. Substitution of Smaller Conduits on CA-Type Supports --
Supplemental tests may be performed to address this issue. Further consideration will be made.
- 14. Use of CA-Type Supports in LS Spans -- Supplemental tests may be perfonned to address this issue.
Page of
, 3 5
Communications l
., AL n a Report ll111lllllllllll11lll1111'lll1 ltem Comments Ac y
- 15. Stresses in Cable Trays Due to Attached Conduit Support
-- This issue will be addressed separately and is not !
included in the test program. l
- 16. Increases in Allowable Span Lengths -- This issue will i be addressed separately. Gibbs & Hill pointed out that j the LA spans in question are enveloped by LS spans and are therefore adequate. Cygna agreed to check this.
- 17. Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member -- This issue will be considered separately.
- 18. Clamp Usage -- This issue is not addressed in the present test program and will be considered separately.
- 19. Documentation Deviations Between Inspection Reports, CMC's and IN-FP Drawings -- This issue is not addressed in the test program.
- 20. Nelson Studs -- This issue is not related to Unistrut Supports and is not addressed in the test program.
- 21. Conduit Fire Protection Configuration -- This issue will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The test program will not address this issue.
- 22. Span Increase for Fire Protected Spans -- Additional discussion is required. This issue is not addressed in the test program.
- 23. Grouted Penetration Loads -- Additional discussion is rcquired. This issue is not addressed in the test program. Hardware fixes may be used to resolve ,
j concerns. l 24. Cumulative Effect of Generic Items -- Items 3 and 7 are pertinent to the test program. l TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill agreed that it was necessary to develop a plan for the qualification of supports using the results of the test program and to assess the adequacy cf the present data to fulfill the required qualification. TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill noted that a rigorous screening of supports was necessary to determine whether the assumed anvelope is defensible. TUGC0 added that a multi-tiered method of qualification may be used, in that sup-ports not enveloped by the test program be considered sepa-rately. Example methods include small hardware fixes to alter the configuration to fall within a support envelope (i.e. chang-
- ing connections brackets) or replacing supports with qualified l supports if the number of occurences is small. TUGC0 noted that Page of a 8i U3@o
Communications s A L % it Report lilllilililllilllililllllillit i item Comments Ac on y the qualification effort for supports should consider the number of installations at CPSES, because for a small number of supports, a hardware fix may be more efficient than qualification by test. 1 1 I t l l l l l l Page of C K
N Communications L4Tdlfd Report i tilllllllllilllillllllllilllll company: conference neport Texas Utilities Teiecon Project: Job No_ 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Sut ject-. Time: Document Request CPSES Site
Participants:
of D. Oldag Cygna l Required item Comments Action By Requested and received the following documents from DCC: 2323-El-0141 latest rev. (rev. CP1 provided) 2323-M1-2507-01 latest rev. (CP2 provided) 2323-M1-2510-01 latest rev. (cpl provided) 2323-M1-2513-01 latest rev. (CP3 provided) 2323-M1-2153-04 latest rev. (CP2 provided) 2323-M1-2514-01 latest rev. (CP1 provided) 2323-M1-2514-02 latest rev. (CP3 provided) 2323-M1-2514-05 latest rev. (CP2 provided) 2323-M1-2607 latest rev. (CP3 provided) 2323-M1-2610 latest rev. (CP2 provided) 2323-M1-2613 latest rev. (CP2 provided) 2323-M1-2614 latest rev. (cpl provided) S,gned. Page of jg Distnbution: N.' Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Oszewski, S. Treby, J. Ellis, ST
,,,,,,, ' L. U,. h vacu F iis _
M Communications Report [.h M 'fJ 111111111llll111111llll1111111 conmany: Tewc n Texas Utilities Q contemnce Roon Proiect. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/20/85
Subject:
Time' Cable Tray Dynamic Analysis 9:00 a.m. Place: < G&H/NYC j R. Kissinger TUGC0 R. Ballard, E. Bezkor, T. Feng, P. Huang, J. Jan, Gibbs & Hill J. Peir, M. Vivorito N. Williams, M. Berry, M. Engelman, W. Horstman, Cyana Required D. Leong Action By item J. Russ comments The purpose of the discussion was that Gibbs & Hill provide Cygna with a summary of pertinent information regarding the cable tray dynamic analysis effort. Cygna stated that they would provide Gibbs & Hill with a status of the review on Tuesday afternoon, March 26, and would leave after that status meeting. Mr. Kissinger provided opening remarks for TUGCO. The analysis is to show the engineering aspects of the "as-designed" condi-tion. The "as-designed" condition reflects pertinent change documentation (CMCs and DCAs) and actual cable fill. Mr. Ballard indicated that the report was currently under review by TUGCO, CPRT, and other consultants. The report will be up-dated to reflect known concerns and clarified where required. The updated report will include applicable topics from the Review Issues List (RIL). Mr. Huang stated that the dynamic analysis addresses the follow-ing issues. A. Combination of dead load with seismic loads using an SRSS method. B. The use of a dynamic amplification factor (DAF) of 1.0. C. The use of two separate support systems for transverse and longitudinal loads. Nj /ajb 1 ; Distnbution: M. Williams
,,kgu'ujry)") , J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leon
q Communications MMM Report ll1ll1111111111111111111111111 Required item Comments Action By D. Modeling assumptions wherein the same type of support is used in a single run. E. The systems concept to account for neglecting load path eccentricities. Cygna asked whether issues included in Cygna's letter 84056.041 and the most recent RIL had been considered in the dynamic analysis. Gibbs & Hill replied that the two aforementioned documents were not available at the time the report was issued but are being reviewed and would be included where applicable in future report revisions. Gibbs & Hill stated that the purpose of the analysis was to show that the member design stresses and design margins were accept-able. Cygna noted that the welds were not included in the sup-port evaluations. Gibbs & Hill explained that they considered the weld designs to be enveloped by existing calculations. The weld designs were presently being reviewed for weld loads to l assure that they were enveloped by those used in the underrun calculations. Gibbs & Hill presented five criteria for the selection of the analyzed systems. These criteria are:
- 1. Building elevation, which reflects acceleration on level
- 2. Tray weights
- 3. Systems containing trays of various widths
- 4. Systems with a representative mixture of support types and multiple trays
- 5. Systems within Cygna's review scope Gibbs & Hill noted that analyses Cases 1 through 3 met the first four criteria, while Cases 4 and 5 met the last four criteria.
Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill whether Cases 4 and 5 would have been chosen in the analysis scope if they were not in Cygna's review scope. Gibbs & Hill stated that a report on the selection process was being prepared and would describe the selection criteria. Gibbs & Hill's report documenting the screening process will be provided to Cygna when available. In the selection of systems, 24 floor areas were available. Fifteen were considered; the other nine were not critical. Gibbs & Hill pointed out that they felt that their sample was representative in th t 40% of the systems chosen were loaded to at least 25 lb/ft , while nly 20% of the systems in the survey were over 25 lb/ft 2. The chosen systems also covered a spectrum of tray widths and supports with multiple trays at multiple levels. Pagee of
M Communications l M %'IJ lillllilllllllllllilililllilli Report ttem Comments Ac o y Gibbs & Hill again stated that any generic CMCs determined to impact the dynamic analysis were considered. Support-specific CMCs were also included as input to the dynamic analysis pro-gram. Maximum working point deviations were considered for generic support types. Support self weight was included in the dynamic analysis but was not used as a screening criteria. The cable tray weight was derived using the cable schedule 2323-EI- { 1700 and, includes applicable fire protection weights. The fire protection weight associated with the support was considered negligible and was not included. , Gibbs & Hill mentioned that the tray / support boundary conditions used could be found on Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 in the report. Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill to discuss the basis for modeling one-or two-bolt concrete connections. Gibbs & Hill explained that if either one- or two-bolt connections were permitted, both cases were analyzed. One-bolt connections were modeled as pinned and two-bolt connections were modeled as fixed. For supports which use two-bolt connections exclusively, the base angles were included as beams in the model. Cygna inquired whether tray cover weights were considred in the analyses. Gibbs & Hill replied that tray cover weights were con-sidered if indicated on the tray segment drawings. Cygna noted that per discussions with TUGC0 personnel, the tray segment draw-ings were not an accurate representation of tray cover usage at CPSES. This was due to the fact that the contractor was gf in the option requirements. of tray cover usage in lieu of meeting spacing i Gibbs & Hill stated that the modeling techniques incorporated eccentricities between trays, beams, and hangers with the excep- ; tion of the hanger / clip angle connection. These are evaluated in the design / qualification calculations. Beam elements were used exclusively for both tray segments and support elements. Where possible, as in Cases 3 and 4, the tray system was extended ' to the tray terminations. In order to limit the model size, the systems considered the main tray run and tray branches were ter-minated outside of the area of interest. Tray runs were trun-cated at structural frame supports or longitudinal supports where possible. In general, branches were terminated three supports away from the main tray. Branch supports were not evaluated. i Dynamic degrees of freedom (DD0F) were selected as shown in Figure 4.6-1 of the dynamic analysis report. Trays were given two DDOF at midspan; no longitudinal DDOF at midspan were selected. At tray bends, DDOF were chosen as appropriate. Gibbs
& Hill explained that the choice of tray DDOF was based on the assumptions that the second mode of vibration of the tray: span Page -
'of 9 g
W [. w R I d Communications Report 11ll1111111!!!l111111111111111 Item Comments Ac o y did not participate and that the third mode frequency was greater than 33 Hz. Spectra from the floor elevation above the trays were used as input. Response spectrum analysis was run to 33 Hz. For frequencies greater than 33 Hz, a mass-smearing technique was used. It was noted that mass participation was on the range of 40-60% for the horizontal direction and 20-30% for the vertical direction. Concentrated masses were added to the system to account for con-duits exiting the trays. Cygna asked why vertical tray runs were not considered in the analysis scope when such a configuration was present in the Cygna Phase 2 review scope. Mr. Kissinger felt that vertical tray runs were not typical systems at CPSES. Load results were combined manually from the NASTSRSS outputs which were given to Cygna for review. NASTRAN output is available on microfiche. Gibbs & Hill then described the support qualification effort. Four element types were considered in the evaluation. For each support, only the critical element for each type was analyzed. Base angle stresses were checked; however, gusset plates were not checked. Embedded plates were considered only if shown on change documentation. Gibbs & Hill used conservative criteria and assumptions for ini-tial evaluations. Refinements were made to the analysis method if the element under consideration exceeded design allowables. Refinements included consideration of actual tray attachment and the effects of concrete connection stiffness. Bolt holes in beam flanges were not modeled and were considered on a case-by-case basis if their effect was significant. Gibbs & Hill stated that tray stresses were not checked since existing fire protection calculations showed them to be low. Gibbs & Hill stated that the purpose of the dynamic analysis was to show that the design margins were never less than zero. These design margins were achieved without consideration of inherent conservatisms such as lower input accelerations and higher cable tray system damping. Page. of
Communications [4R 6 M ' Report N11111llllllll111111111111111 Towc n Q conference Repon Texas Utilitles Propect Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~ '
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/13/85 Subsect Time. Document Request 9:00 a.m.
"** CPSES Site Patsy McCamey Brown and Root (DCC)
John Russ Cygna Item Comments Ac oIBy j Cygna requested and received a copy of GTN-68249. i I 1 i , Signed. fl} g~f - Page of Q WK.. A[g(1 h1 1/ M_L.of_A v laib 1 1 Detnbution N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. l.cong, S.
.,. Tiww7, .
- u. Einsy, i. ev.m is, rroJect rate _,
=---
Communications ihm' M lillllllllililllllllllllllll!! Report company: Texas Utilities 3 Teiecon conference nepon
' Jw N Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:
7/11/85 Cable Tray / Conduit Support Design Review - 2:00 p.m. _ Document Request Place SFR0
"'"
- P'"'$ '
J. van Amerongen TUGC0/EBASCO J. Russ, W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following documents from TUGCO:
- 1. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-109C, Set 1
- 2. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 1, Sheets 111-113*
- 3. Gibbs & Hill Computer Binder SAB-1385, Set 1 Revision 1**
- 4. Gibbs & Hill Spectra Binder FAB-3R, Figures 1314A and 1335A Please send item 1 to Cygna's San Francisco office; items 2, 3, and 4 to Cygna's Boston office. e l
1
- Sheets missing from set previously received from TUGCO.
Set previously received from TUGC0 was illegible. signee L/[ j) ~
/ aj b " 1 '
1 Distnbution: 1. W'illiams, J. 'Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
'r;% , ' . C'. ' ' , E[ thd"2, P . ;j;;t P i '. ; P"J. 20 0 07110
1 mm= _ Communications AL' M N1111111111111111111111111111 Report 1 Towcon conference newn Texas Utilities Protect. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/85 Subsect: Time Document Request 8:15 a.m. ! Place. CPSES Site Carol Crowe B&R (DCC) John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action gy Cygna requested and received Gibbs and Hill specification 2323-MS-625 and received the sign-off cover sheets for issue 334 of Gibbs and Hill drawing 2323-El-1700. e I i
\
l j . ;
}), ))j y laib 1 1 D*tnbut'on-N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Oszewski, ,,,,,,, i wuy , v. ii i n , 5. . - e v e'rroJecy clie _
1 Communications [4Dh' M Report N1114tilllifilllllillllilllll Tew n Q conference Repon
- Texas Utilities Protect
- Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/13/85 Subject. Time Document Request 12:00 p.m. Place: CPSES Site Participants- of J. van Amernongen TUGC0/Ebasco J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested copies of the documents listed on the attached sheets. 1 Signed.
}Q]11Jjn
/-/ %
M /aib Page 1 of 1 Detnbuten- N. Willia'ms,'J.Redding[J.vanAmerongen,R.Hess,J.Oszewski,S.
.,, T =vy , v.
Eiiu,a.-su,==n.jroJec1 riae
e g
==-- _ -- - _ .
b h_ - . _ , . .. .. . .. . . _ _ _ , . _ , 5_A 6 - Ib A.1 ,__ %
. RGL L . . . .._. -
SAS - I ser i _ ec _. Co?* oy*.rj ev9sts sN , 6- 1555, OET + ' __g&. O .__ serer H Or. sty _ REosN
. .- . .. .-- ..... ..e..... - . .-- .. -- - - - - - - . - -
M ogem ex me .mee-p-- ...*.gf .e .u- e-e e, -
- * =
amme m ***-.==-.+= -.-
. -- .-..e--
=.e --eme . enem . . _ -- 2e-n oL . _... . . . ll 00
- o 2, o+ .. . __ _._ - . - . ._. - - _ _ . _. ._
OG te or O .---.. . - - - . . . . . se e, '
-- .-.--9.-.---.....-...._ O .
IO
., ou Il n ..
/f
_z....-..._._.---_.__-.... " seTeo,9r Mewemwsy
.J, L__ to Q . .. o F ._. _ _ _4% ret a._. Foa.
_ 2Auv>.cs . eF _ Pawl _L.coPT _..BA ut - h% T*M s'*' YT@
-eq__ J m .- cos z+L . _ _ . _ . _ _ - - . . .
* ""*
- T*'"
.A-m, p. 4.
- . *e u-us.w*- edE>- ee-4.h4-hw w
- Amm> N6 W e- M M em M.e D me -6
.* .@ e e 9 '.
yu-+g,, .- a se . ,,.a -um 4 h qui weum amme em 6gg-g-e -e.,.-e em-iW,.me M->-eaem. A e. wap --Wmeg e amm,m-me
- mm W. W'.usMe-e 6+- .usg.-L--> e gem SEme mam.>p M e.* Sup W-m6--
e e .- 4 esp. O e -m- e e m y a y 4 e.
+ + - e T--
wem.m. -mut6+w gu emSm' e- N*M M *
@e 4- ammum.eaph erNwh-- i . M. e m hW eum que. 'M ^W>eem..es m 6 y , = . ,,. p,
-_ N. $ L6Sk k Ns% DRAHJM6 5 -. - . . . - . . . . _ . 2 3 2. 3 - M1 -- EZ43 - C.+, kev. C,P- 5' 232 3- b - O~lOS _LA7wsr -____ . _ - . . _ . . - N' " 232.3.- 41. - 0500
._h._._ Prod !D E_ _ ._.]%r_ .._6ARE 37~- .. 28VI SiON _ QF_. .7NT. F~0u.< 0MN(e .
___ . ..D s2 A w l a ta S AM D . _ A GC _ _ QC S I C>M CthW GE5 77Mr A26 _ _ _ _ .__. _SPFLL CA 6 L6_... . . _ . _. ..__ . . . . . _ _ _ _. _ _____ _ _ . ..2 3E 3 _E l . .O o 31 , _. sH r. _. 2 7 _ - . _ . _ ___..___.._ ___________n .___ ___. _ 0 0 5),____.. W._. 2.8- __ -
" " - O O (pl 0 4- _ . _ .
__ _... . _. _ .._. -_ . . . . . . f . ._ '.' . ~ .0 O (p 1 - l (p _ _ ,
._ .._-- . -. --. -. --. -_ . ._. .!! -. ~ O O D . ~ ? I .
, _ ___. ___ ..._ - . . .. . - _. .. . 'I _ _"._ ._ - 0 0_M 7 . __ _ . a
- oice
_.. . _ _ ___... . _....._._.. _ _ _ _.1.__ . O t 7 7. - O 4 . ._. . _ _ .c I 7 2. - o 7 ._. .
. _ . . _ ._ . _._. _ -_ _.._ _ ". ._. ." . . . ~ O 17 7 -- 4 l. . .
o173 34
- -_..-__. - . .._"-.. ....".. ._. _ O l 7 4 - 0 4 . . _ .. . . . -.
._. _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . ".o l 25 . 0. +. . _ - .__ _ . . . . . .
-e .
g ee -..-ee J.-* ,4 e ee _m e e e . +e es- wwdh-.
- w. e e e e g-w e,e -p4 .e.vemi-h& -.W.m 4.s e
. g- .
rene- - - 4.=e *a4 .. 4p up w w+ ee - yem9-D 4 *m - . w _ _-- e. 64 a6- *-sD wa e. 64 e . 4ee-er6 m&*.g . um. e-
.e - . .
.e p - useisp .e*,.lme.
*-e e. ewp. .a.e ee _we.e_, .g-
-r 1 n, M / n s n / .- ,,,
l n n n, <
~ V f 4 ~bG ~
. & (A ] Mg E VGlLLJ[OfIQ 0 1 /~t - I_ti p , ty_ , , m mw L UIJ IV.AJO % t ysj g 5 3, /N$$*WANT~ MLl&YU?idW $ Afff0ntd };"~o4 M pou owuv& ;
Lb - Vsoo 4 r - v s'o o PS VETO Lb - WrmA LR - vroo fr -yrzo j t A - W C 2. P2' - VFZ o rc-Vfle , TE - Y70 9 YZ -4 SJo ff-Vr3SA
<trs&A ff-ySJCS 71 S -vro F fit.
PA - YSv8 s'r - 4r344 fr -ver6 \ Pb -Ys78 FE-YT368 Fr-Vrr4 fb - VT 2.0 f.7 - Vfr4 i-E-Vrr? FC-yFCo T Y - VfI# 7"I - Yff'? i TO -<< f30 FI- Vf60 fr- YSC0 lif - Yr3 o YZ - YSE/ Tf-Vr4/ T-b - Y r 3 A A f/f - Y 196 F#-Yffs l \ ff- YS~3C4 f/S - YFf 8 ff-Vrf8
- Fb - YTIG4 LY -YF00 48 -YS00 A fb-YF3642 L.s-vso24 Lt1-vroo B i
fY-9'f3S8 Ls - Vro 26 48 - VScoA / fY- Vrr6 PS-v5s9 78 - Yrso l y y - Vff) Fr- s'*~ssn FB - YS3GA Fi-YF40 fis **A FB - Yff4 r Y - *S~ FT- Y fB - VT'O i Fn ~ 4714 ft s - VF3GO 4 Q - Vs~eo F ot - 4 1 9 6 R E - Y707 PR - Vfzo i pe - Yf>sA fe - Yrica FQ -Yrrs f R - Yfs0
" E*!"JE Communications
[41G M Report N11111llllll11811111111111lll Texas Uti1ities I' ** " " "'"** "' " " Protect- Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/7/85 4
""#*~ '""'
Discussion On I&C Equipment Location 8:00 p.m. CPSES l Patrick J. Costello Cygna Burton Phillips TUGC0 neauirea item Comments Action By I talked with Burton Phillips about equipment location that requires walkdown and sketches. We located all components by drawings except LS-4502A1 which deals with the surge tank. We checked P&ID'.s, elementrics, and the equiprnent list. This discussion took place at the I&C (physical) trailer. I l l
**"" ); /ajb 1 1 Detribution N. Williams,J.Redding J. van Amerongen, J. Oszewski, ,o,e e,, 3.T. .7 , s. mi ... .. . ..e rroaeu r u e
Communications AL i i Report 11111111111111111111161111lll1 Company; Texas Utilities a Teiecon g Conference Report
"' i*
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No 84056
< Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 uate:
6/7/85 suoiect Time: 10:00 a.m. Walkdown Sensor Line Review p,,,,
Participants:
P. Costello of CES R. Philliot of TUGC0 of item Comments Reg'd Action By During the walkdown of instrument tubing as outlined by Bob Porter and Tom Martin, Burton Phillips (an I&C Tech) found that three tubing runs are in violation of STD MS625 which requires a minimum slope of 1" per foot. The components affected are: PT-4520 CCW Discharge Press Transmitter - The problem with this run of tubing is due to a loose tubing support under the CCW Discharge Pipe. Recommendation: Tighten tubing clamp to support and insure that the slope complies with M5625. LT-4500 Level Transmitter For Surge Tank- The run in question l is on the reference leg of transmitter just above surge tank. ; Recommendation: To replace thid portion of tubing. FT-4556 RHR HX Outlet Flow Trassmitter- Tubing is routed on a stretch of pipe that is convenient for the worker to climb on. Suspect this is what happened. l Recommendation: Rerouting would not be wise due to the proxinity of pipe tap in line. Suggest some form of protective covering of tubing if possible. . 1 signed
% gf } jy Page of
- - m w er e en m & ~ -
1 Communications tile g a Rapod I llll1lll11111111lll11111111111 Confance Repon Texas Utilities Q M ec n Project: Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 g, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3figfg4
Subject:
Westinghouse Component Cooling Water Data - p Mechanical System SFR0 Participants. Of A. Moersfelder Cyana DCC TUGC0 Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following:
- 1. Component Cooling Water System Data for:
- a. Westinghouse System Design Specification and/or functional requirements docun.ent
- b. System Process flow diagram
- c. Station Service Water System process flow diagram
- 2. Heat Load Data for:
- a. RHR Heat Exchanger
- b. Containment Spray Heat Exchanger
- c. Reactor Coolant Pump Coolers
- d. Control Room A/C and Chilled Water Condensers
- 3. Sizing Calculations for:
- a. Component Cooling Water Surge Tank
- b. Component Cooling Water Pump
- c. Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger
- d. Component Cooling Water System Pipe Sizing
- e. Component Cooling Water System Orifice Sizing
- 4. Equipment General Arrangment Drawings for Component Cooling Water System Equipment
- 5. Reactor Coolant Pump Specification
- 6. W Doc. 677188
- 7. W Doc. 952389 k$)hj) 1 AIM ~
/a.ib 1 1 D'stneution: k. kiYlfams,'I). Wade,I. van Amerongen, R. Hess, S. Treby, J. Ellis,TST8u'rwellC
, . . . . rroJeCL M le , u. uszewsu
o ..
, , I
""" communications
. E [4M' M Report s 1811llll111111111l18lll1111111 Telec n Q conference Repon Texas Utilities Project: Job No <
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/13/85
Subject:
Time. Document Request 12:00 p.m. Place: CPSES Site
Participants:
of J. van Amernongen TUGC0/Ebasco J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested copies of documents on the attached sheets. l 1 l Distnbution-
'h h / 1/ I li/[ h
/ajb 1 1
'N 'WiIlYam's, J. Reddin[ J. van Amerongen J. Russ W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
m aa,. " e vi . . v. u i i s , g.y 7:3 rroJecT, r1se
g-0 . i
.}
.--.. -.,.._....-.__-.m.,. ... e._ __._.___._.~.,_.___-._.-l-
{ ' _$ _ _h t A L3.s h . CAA c o LA E9Ns _. _ _ _ __ _ . ... _ ._ - _ . _ . , h. ___ _ ._ ___ . E- l i .o .l. . ___ . _ _ _ ru u,
- =
QZ w ._ - .. -=_...- _.--
- l ~. 9 L - --- .....- . - - . -- . - . . . . .
og
- i. or -
R7 . _ _ _ _ _. . n <> -
. -_- - - -.-- -. . -_ .. - ..._ --.---.9-.-.._-.. 9 .
10 or _ 1I - __-_ .. -.- - - . . . - _- --- . _ ".,g- . . .. - -. ..- - . . p $ u-eme m. e- - e-u. *+%-- -e- ,e- =-* .* *=m # =m.- e *.u-*h e p*--w--r*b.--e J._ I . Cati M " C8.m; e.m _ Sert *N+>r Me *wmY v. - _.._._2Amoc E .p_ Puur_(. cop)" Ng, c.( pas paaserreo .. _.eq_ _ 6,1N - G8z49. _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . Ospw use New-e memm e-mac- % og -wW e a wei..w , . - - - - 4e... e m
. - mee .
w .- ,-& 4a 9-e-4.-a mm-e-e.--on- 4 % m. e. +
-'du.9=-e=N*We*e.se'smes.se%%e-*6--wm4%.-W -hM.+h-_we en e.-e.4.ewms.e wee m w. - e ee.- +
4 m.--potimemen=w e --.ca.+.- ..N-,4+ -1m w e. - -
. . . . . _ . - . . . - - - .. .----e - - ---. .~ - - - . . . - - . -. .. -.-- -- - .
l
f f . . O 4 . h __ . _ _ _ _ ___ _ .. _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - -- -. __.R, 6u_ees &b D a. w M s. ___.. _ _ _ . . . . _
- 2. 3 z 3 - %- z zM - o+, Rev. ce- s~ _ _ . . _ _
2 32.3 - 5 -
' o 703___ __Asrirst _ __ _ . _
__2 ! 2. 3. _ A 1. _ _ p f o O_ . _.kkf.._._____.._ . ._ .
-4 ,_ _ _ - _.. - . . _ . - -$. PRogioe -W. umr3r- aevi sion>_. ar _ M^_ F*o.e n ow!h <- - . - - - _D 9? A w i e <> 5 AwD _ Al e - D J S ' C>M L. Ci+RM 6 e~5 7~7Mr A26
_AFFU CA6 Ld . ___ _ _. _ . .__ 2 32.3- E 1 . 0 0.33., s H r. _ 2 '7 _ _
- .00 b l , . . D AT 28 . . .
. O %1 -Q4 . . _
i 8
. - 0 0(91 - l (p 6o% - Ol n " -
- . .__ .__ - . . -- _ _ - . . _ - - - - 00 6 ..07- . . - _ - .
. _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . ~
e-- e e-ww . .*ee =w - m - r..e e -- a.4 -- emem--n we -. %.,.---e mg -e e e_.m.h _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . A I 7 7 - o 7. __ .
".,__". ~
Q 177 -- 4 i ~ ii 'I - gi73 -39
. _ " .- . - ..01 74 o +. - - - . _ - . - . . .
n " oI95- 0+
* "h-=
p.W-ee-M - . awe.e.m4 . .4'+ e e .e- kee - +4_m. e-M ee 4 * . -
-ww*e-.eMMM1.Wm- w -*--.m.w--*- en en . *e.4
- e. .
L t , I /
~ ' * "'
T ( . l .
. _ _ . _ _ . . ._ . - _ _ _ .... - . .'_._,,2 _ _. . <.
0 Insneemeur- O d o m *' M Mfsses /~ot w pocco wuv 6 '. L b - Vseo sr - y Soo PS - vt 70 Lb - Usm A t.g - vs'do fr -yrao i.A '/ S 0 2. p? - Vrzo rc-vr30 TS - Yvo y rz - v r3o FE- Yf36A 77 S -VTo 9 Fi%. - t/f3&A ff~yfJCS PA - YSvg sr - vr344 M -ve'r4 Pb -Ys /8 FE- yF348 F7~-Vrr4 fb-VT20 & - Vis 4 rf - Vir? 7 Z- - Ys's~7 fr- vrto 7- Y - Ys~J6 Fr-yrco Tb -Y$~3o f7 - vr60 rr- yrs / TA - Yr3 o rz - Yrct i rb - YSyd A ftS - Yr94 F# -Ys f 6 FY- VS'344 f/s-Yr98 FE-Vrf8 fb - VflG4 LT -Yvoo 48 -Vf00 A f b - vr 36 Ata s.s - vro24 /i3 -vroo B \ fY-Yf3S8 LS-VroLS 48 -VrooA / f Y'- y r f6 PS -vf~/ 9 TB-vs3o 7 y - vrf) Fr- ses rsn FB - YF3GA F f -Yr&o ns vs sc4 fa - Ys r4 i ff-Y hf W- YY5hh fh ~~ [hh F A - 47f& ft s - YS3& B 4Q - VSco Fn -4 T96 R.E - vror Pq - vrzo ! ~ f& '/f36A f& ~ VS~368 f & - Y fb 4-l f R - YfCo l- -
l l Communications t [ 4 D h' M Report amm amamumu Company: Texas utsuties w.aa G] coa'r.acea.aon Prop.ct: Job No. M056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/85 Purchase Order Request 10:45 a.m. Place: CPSES Site Participants. og Lilly Banard B&R PMG John Russ Cygna 1 Item Comments Acfon By Cygna requested Westinghouse purchase order P.O.-611B l D'*ta6*oa 1 b /ajb R. Hess, J. Oszewski, S. 1 1 N.' Williams,J.Redding[J.vanAmerongen,
... Ts wuy , J. in s is L.c ou. ii, rroject clie
Communications oLn i Report llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Company: Texas Utilities M Teiecon a conference neport
"' ' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job N 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate:
6/14/85 subject: Time. 2:00 p.m. Cygna Document Request Place: SFR0
Participants:
D. Oldag CES J. van Amerongen EBASCO of item Comments Reg'd Action By Jean called regarding some of Cygna's document requests. N. Williams had asked Jean for some site procedures. Jean said some of the requested procedures had been deleted. I asked her to note which ones were deleted on N.H. Williams' request when she sent the available procedures. Also, Jean needs additional information to be able to find the test reports which were requested by Cygna personnel. She needs either the RTP or tag numbers to locate the reports. Jean also wanted to know if we absolutely needed the computer printouts for the pipe support calculations, as they were quite lengthy. I told her I would find out and call her back on both the test reports and computer output, as well as with an additional request for drawings. signe ygf pjffjjjg A p,ge 1 o, 1
- v. van muer viitjeri, v.
oistnoution: V.' e wittiams, o. neauing, 4 111 w hy .1 r114 e c n. prnioct pil, rsu s s , v . v > t e,v a e. . , , ,m aa w< ,,,u"
Communications t4 L i i R3 port M1111111111111111581111111
"* **"Y ; Tee n Q conference nepon Texas Utilities Job No.
Protect. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 T m.. l suwt l Document Request
*** CPSES Site '
P;rticipants- of D. Oldag Cygna Required Comments Action By item I requested and received copies of selected sections from the following IR's from the PPRV: JB1A2730 JB1A2640 JB1A2630 I i l
/ajb 1 1
/ s [
D'*tbut*n: k.' Williams,'J. Redding, J. van Amerongen,
.. 3.is evi , v. iiiis,p.ouv ii. troJecT, rise
Communications A( t i Report summmmmmmm
"""' ' ca- Q ca ' - a -a Texas utiitties Proyect: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/13/85
""# Document Request 2:30 p.m.
CPSES Site Dale Leech Brown & Root John Russ Cygna Reqwred item Comments Acton By Mr. Leech provided Cygna with copies of the following ITT Grinnell documents: DC-1 DC-2 DC-3 DC-4 l ED-1 ED-2 ED-3 ED-4 DCP-1 AV-1 CP-1 PE-1 SA-1 RI-1 CA-1 He also stated that Gibbs & Hill specification MM-702 was not available at site. D*'abu'*a
)) Q /ajb 1 1
'N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, C. Wong, S.
,,,,,,, Tiwuy, J. iiin , a. ev. - se, rroaecT. rise
Communications [4h i::lill Report 11lIlllllliiii: company: Texas Utilities X Teiecon conference Report Project. CPSES MP - PMse 4 Jb"- 84056 cate: 8/2 ,
Subject:
T' * * ~ D e m t W est Place.
Participants:
of CES J. van Amerongen TUGC0/EBASCO l l Required item Comments Action By I asked Jean to speak with B. Phillips to find the status of instrument calibration cards that were requested by P. Costello of Cygna. Pat has left the company, so we need to find out what the status is from Mr. Phillips.
- I also requested a copy of G&H electrical calculation IX-3.
I received the calculation on 8/8. Signed: Q Q [ /plm Pagel of 1 o,stneut,on n. n ii rarrs, u. teaaing, u. van Amerongen, u. OsYewski, S. Treby, J. E111s,45. Osrwell,* Project File PRJ 23-C-0802 1020 0t e
Communications Al%n . Report lllllllllllli1liilii11llllllll Company: Texas Utilities n Teiecon Conference Report Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*t': 8/7/85 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 sub iect: I' ** Document Request a.m Place-Participants. of J. van Amerongen TUGC0/Ebasco Required item Comments Action By l I called Jean to request specification MS-38F and FSAR question 40.49 with Texas Utilities responce. Jean informed me that she had sent a package containing information from my last request that should be arriving today. Also, she spoke with Burton Phillips. Burton informed Jean that he had satisfied all of Pat Costello's requests concernimg calibration cards and that he currently had no outstanding commitments to Cygna. I told Jean that I would pass the information along to the appropriate Cygna people (Martin Porter?) The spec and question were received 8/8. Signed. U /pim Page1 of 1 oistribution. N. William ~s,7. Redding, J. van Amerongen, R. Porter T. Martin, S. Treby, d.uszewsk J. Ellis.d5.48vrwell.* Project File PRJ/23-C-0807 mo o'.
Communications [4 M'fd Report 1111111lll111111111111111111ll
"# Tewe n conference nemn Texas Utilities Proyect. Job No.
' 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/85 Document Request '** 3 :4 5 p .m .
*** CPSES Site
Participants:
of John Russ Cygna negeeo item Comments Action By
Reference:
Communications Report dated 6/11/85, 11:00 a.m.,
" Document Request", D. Leech and J. Russ participating.
Mr. Leech provided Cygna with the following NPS Procedures: 3.0.1, R.0 3.0.2, R.0 3.0.5, R.0 3.0.6, R.1 3.0.9(b),R.1 I l ! / /ajb 1 1 D* tabuon: N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen J. Russ, C. Wong, L. WF.ingart, l 5, i e _
Communications t1(L i Report l 11llllllllll111111111111111111 l Company: O M econ Texas t'tilities g conference Report Project- Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,,. Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/13/84 i
Subject:
12:50 P.M. Cable Tray Conduit Review Place. CPSFS Site
Participants:
of R. M. Kissinaer TUGC0 B. K. Bhu_iana. S.C. Chana. P.T. Huana. J. Pei r Gibbs & Hill W. R. Herstman. J. P. Russ. N. H. Williams Cyana Required item Comments Action By Mr. Peir was consulted by telephone from the CPSES site regarding the working point analyses. Cygna asked Mr. Peir what changes were made to the models of the support-tray systen. He replied that all supports were released in the longitudinal tray direc-tions and that the 10% combination for closely spaced modes was employed. Cygna asked why participation factors of 0.0 were listed in the "E.Q. 3" direction. Mr. Peir stated that no exci-tation was provided in that direction. Cygna also noted that the frequencies did not appear to change for the previous analysis. In regards to the analysis for SP-7 with brace supports, Cygna asked why the boundary conditions for the beam connection of the braced support included rotational fixity for the global y-axis. It was also noted that the condition was inconsistent with previous analytical assumptions. Mr. Peir stated that the , analysis for an SP-7 with brace support, where L = 5-0, W = 30" and the slope = 1:1.5 would be analyzed with a revised boundary condition. k )] S Jfit s tajs 1 1 _ N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,
- iomooi. J.Ellis,@.
- Suryell', Project File , ,_ _
+ h Communications 4
[A M'M Report lilllllilllllilllillllllilllll Company D Telecon OyConference Report as Udlities Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/31/84 Subject. Time. Cable Tray / Conduit Support Meeting p Generic Open Items Gibbs & Hill . NY Participants of J. Jan, J. Peir, P. Huang, R. Ballard Gibbs & Hill H. Levin TERA R. Kissinger, D. Westbrook TUGC0 N. Williams, G. Bjorkman, P. Guglielmino Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Communications Report dated 9/15/84, " Response to Cygna Cable Tray and Conduit Questions," Williams, Russ, Horstman, Kissinger, et al. participating.
- 1. Method of Combination of Seismic Responses A. Inclusion of dead weight in the 3RSS: Gibbs & Hill agrees that it is not appropriate to include dead weight with thc inertial loads. Cygna has quantified the worst case ef-fects for generic and specific design in Cygna letter 84056.031. The range for specific supports which are de-signed using individual floor accelerations is 4% to 16%.
The maximum effect for generics using unrefined spectra is 5%. B. Combination of closely spaced modes: NASTRAN combines closely spaced modes as follows: Modes: ai, -a2, -a3, a4, -a5 2 {lajj+/{aj i w/- dw/+ Negative signs denote close modes. This is conservative since the sum of the closely spaced modes is added absolutely rather than under the square
- root sign. Gibbs & Hill has developed a post processor tc check the NASTRAN output without the 10% option for the
/I[Ilu M /a.ib 1 5 l t'k$g jN. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, G.
n.... .. n c i. , , c , . , - .. . . .. . . ...
Communications ALnn Report 11111llll11lllllllll1llllllll1 Required item Commenth Action By
- effect of closely spaced modes in accordance with Regula-tory Guide 1.92. The working point study must be re-checked. Gibbs & Hill estimates that it will require ten working days to evaluate the effects, if any, on the work-ing point study. The amplification factor study has been checked -for closely spaced modes and has been determined to be acceptable. No other analyses are affected.
C. Resultant member force and moment interactions for multi-directional seismic loading: As noted in the referenced Communications Report, Cygna described two methods that are used to calculate stress interaction values for structural members of cable tray and conduit supports. Method 1 involves a square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the component forces or moments due to all directions of seismic loading before calculating the stress interaction values based on AISC equations. Method 2 involves calculating interaction ratios for each direction of loading and them performing an SRSS on the interactoin values. TUGC0 believes that Revision 0 of Regulatory Guide 1.92 allows for the use of Method 2. Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.92 may be interpreted to require the use of Method
- 1. TUGC0 is unaware of any backfit requirements being invoked due to a revision of the regulatory guide. Cygna agrees that method 2 is more accurate for a cantilever where the off-diagonal terms are zero. Method I would yield extremely conservative results. This may be the upper bound solution for Method 2. Method 1 may be the lower bound when used for systems where the off-diagonal terms are not zero. Method I will always yield more con-servative results where Method 2 may not err in the con-servative direction.
It is the CPSES project position that Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 0 may be interpreted as Method 2. Cygna will discuss this matter further at the Senior Review Team meeting on November 2, 1984. Cygna is also aware that the time frame of the original analysis must be considered when evaluating the appropriateness of the methods.
- 2. Dynamic Amplification Factor TUGC0 believes that further work to refine the values arrived at to date would be of minor benefit relative to the time involved.
Gibbs & Hill will provide revised results for the amplification study based on Cygna's comments. It appears that an appropriate factor will be around 1.12 to 1.14. Cygna will check the results Page of __ _"'t _- -_ _ _
Communications , AL i i Report
- 111 l
Requwed item Comments Action By as soon as they are available. Cygna noted that it is important : to correlate the use of the proper amplification factor with the 1 flexible direction rather than vertical and horizontal. l I
- 3. Modeling Assumption for B4 NASTRAN Analysis Cygna was concerned that restraint of the supports in the longi- l tudinal direction will predict higher frequencies and therefore lower accelerations. Cygna does not believe this is an accurate modeling methodology. Gibbs & Hill has rerun this model and will make it available as part of the working point revisions (see Item 1.B).
- 4. Selection of Models for the D NASTRAN 3
Evaluation Discussion deferred to next area on generic reevaluations.
- 5. Proposed Plan for Demonstrating Conservatisms Available in the Original Design TUGC0 proposed that this plan will include the following steps:
A, Distribution of tray loads: The actual weights are less than 35 lb/ftz. TUGC0 is developing data based on a re-view of the cabie/ raceway schedule. These results should be available in a couple of days. B. Seismic margin spectra (SMS): Evaluation of conservatisms in the floor response spectra. C. Dynamic analysis using:
- 1. Modeling
- 2. Tray Loads
- 3. Spectra
- a. Refined
- b. SMS
- 0. Seismic Margin Spectra: A study is being performed which attempts to evaluate the effects of four parameters. TUGC0 believes that these parameters fall within the category of ,
things that the CPSES project could have taken credit for 1 originally and those that can be utilized today. l
- 1. Spectra Refinement - The original analysis used
" unrefined" spectra which were hand smoothed plots of period vs. acceleration and linearly interpreted ,
between the base mat and the highest elevation. 1 Page of 3 5
COmmuniCOtionS I Mni Report 11llllllllllll11lll11111ll1111 nem comments UcDy
- 2. Soil Structure Interaction - The o.'iginal analysis used an analysis based on "best estimate", 0.25 x (best estimate) and 2 x (best estimate) where "best estimate" is the soil characteristic determined by test. The building analysis results are an envelop of all three cases. TUGC0 has chosen to compare the 2 x (best estimate) case to the existing envelop thereby simulating the effects of a fixed based. Another significant effect being considered is the effect of a soil mass equal to the height of the building at the base m3t. As a result, the original results showed increases in acceleration through the base mat.
Therefore, for the SSI portion of this study, the soil mass was removed and the soil spring stiffnesses evaluated.
- 3. Input Time History - The original time history was a complete envelop of the ground spectra. This is con-servative by today's standards. Gibbs & Hill is eva-luating the effects of a better fit spectra. They are also evaluating anchoring the vertical spectra at 33 hz with a 2/3 value.
4 Rocking Moment Arm - Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 are evaluating the effects of minimizing the moment from the corner of the building to the actual locations in question.
- 6. Modeling of Base Angles Some discussion was held on the behavior of the angle base plates and compatability with the frame analysis assumption of pinned connection. Cygna indicated that they were performing an evalua-tion of these effects to determine what an appropriate modeling technique would be for the frames.
- 7. System Behavior The discussion centered around the effects of vertical loads ap-plied eccentrically from the channel shear section. Gtbbs & Hill did not evaluate the resulting torsional effects on the channel.
Their response indicated that the trays and channels act as a system in which the effects of channel rotation are taken out by the tray. G. Bjorkman explained that this may be the case if the friction clips are capable of withstanding the loads induced to maintain compatability. TUGC0 emphasized that these types of local effects would not be considered in the proposed generic study. Page 4 of 5 io20 0t n
Communications AL t i Report i 11111116lllllllll1111llllll111 Item comments Ac7o" y
- 8. Consideration of Transverse Loads on Longitudinal Supports Cygna stated that the method used by Gibbs & Hill to calculate the effective contributary tray span to be considered based on relative support stiffnesses was not correct since it assumes the trays are rigid.
1 Y l Page of 5 5 soaoose
. . , _ . _ __ . . . _ . . - . . , _ . _ _ . . . - ~ - . . _ - - -
Communications oL &i Report 19111111llll11111111111111ll11 Company: o conference neport Texas Utilities g Telecon Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,, . Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 infnfg4 Subject. Time: 2:00 p.m. Factor Used in Equivalent Static Load Method ,,, SFR0 Participants of J. Jan & J. Peir Gibbs & Hill G. Bjorkman Cyana Required item Comments Action By J. Jan called to discuss the calculation of the factor used in the equivalent static load method. G. Bjorkman told J. Jan the specific values of static and dynamic reactions Cygna had calcu-lated for the four span case using the Gibbs & Hill enveloped spectra. J. Jan confirmed that the factor in the vertical direction had been calculated by comparing the maximum dynamic reaction to the maximum static reaction. J. Jan said that Gibbs
& Hill will reevaluate the factors in the vertical direction and check to see that the proper values were compared to calculate the factor in all other cases as well.
U " b "" "' Y) //j5p p ta$h 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, G. mo o'. Bjorkman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, J. Burwell, Project File
- Communications . AL t i Report 6
11111111lll11111lllllll1111lll Company: O Telecon O Conference Report y Project: Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 tofpofg4 Sub iect- Time 8:30 a.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review - p,,e, . Support No. 3136, Detail "S", (S-905) cpsgs sir,
Participants:
of R. Rhitiang Gibbs A Hill N_ Williamt. W. Horstman Cygna Required item Co. iments Action By
Reference:
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3 Cygna provided a list of questions (Attachment A) based on the review of the above-referenced design calculations for support number 3136 as modified by CMC 8229, revision 12. t i l l l O signeo V[J I l@ D / w Page of l
, [ M AA ill/M_ /aih 1 N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, J.
1
='a Ellis, iS. Burwell', Project File
Calculation Mi . immusumusum Sheet
;- ATTACHMENT A j Progect Prepared By: Date
_ _ _ _ Subsect ._A. . Checked Sy; 4 Date
, , Spenman Job No. Feie No.
l . Analyens No. Rev. No. Sheet No. Cmc 6er 686-l34l ,57 3
. ifs N E M 4- QuSr7)cNJ DC-T' G~O006 d S"I%
C MC._9 2.29
/.0 f*//ocue tunts.- J9B .bEtNN60 N/. - Any -fo/NADO lea 9mt-DOS 10 . biff'BAdNfML.- fA6Cru/-dii $672v6dW /90$ fl.bG.
4 A UD 4 F6 fun /d.C DL)Ge
- 7. 6 CAH Aposcios Pc72066N couenc-rs tusns suo F>a?
pu nrcne/ 20 m a c e m unsso punxe rys eits of -rHS 'j> can f ? A ta A t>y 6Yt.c17ntt dec p EstuscW us Au_s. Au o F~oe u I, . 77/6 .rArc A.crowr'od tuiu - 0 BG 70 NroM6 7'?fny /9u 7?f6 tcso wiu. B G Appus0 76 TW 6 uJ Au T TE v cW E6. 3.0 Gnec A9tt.- Lunn- 26He&sc f~u u s pisip
/Hro 77f& CoArcc576 UJAu S WV ; a:a G= ,5 MW our of f//A G t.u/cc/ Step pi.cptAc6 H Cv'T 22
- c3priseteA Ac 4- L.omme co"kenok 4 40 $//out,D W6/ mal- C TX6CCGS. i3 & Cbu21 DC1'd*4 Al A
L.onDIUG Coubi*TIOAl? - - NS .CG i.s uic - %,1,2- (=opcs.fMcucoTL
~
I S*0 WW 32 / ^' L 75A b OF AbbEO A cs u sv u a.y. ( l (c.o ubA dwps tch is vuo on w i - f, gsvv. s.D Wc c4 Edo ( Sheb ? LC 1.0 lad 'n rgko o f4E w D 6E ? - w'r...'s Go v E< m-(Mf,, b W C4.0 C 0; @ Mi (g1 g,p Msrv6 lbyC"cfw l is cur t . ?
,eoe ac
~
"2 T ?: ?, '^T '.*. _ 'l* ": _". '
~,.L.- . . . __ ,_ __ -.-.,_. _,
. Calcuintion
( , i Sheet
/ ATTACHMENT A. .
O Protect Prepared By. Date
' Subrect Checked Sy- Date
# Job No. Fele No.
System Analyse No. Rev, No. Sheet No D&/AD D/CCA AUl./0E I.o pcA 8o. /ps7t* Slc : og Se7?uwt A-A j' c- c of o7-G//o , ,wscD B B r<"665' / "BAc6p m 7st j 7r 8x+ K. r7r-
/Z / ' + , PGA- ALCC.- YM 6 M/N. >~)t.e cr u.s 6c' b thoutb isafh-2o pcA vo. /6C 7f f/6 i GM E t s v / Ti w / t.-c.>c) p i s s a c ; 7 8 o ; -
CH f'S, 4$f//0 C6H754 'fC C6!/n%" bl.tYAAIc6 BE7t066W vpp gri . 7v5Gs js ip c ogfcit T' (i.e . .rM7* f// 0 .6 ic7:
= lo '- 4' A us en7 r/so b is r = 7 '-// ' .) .
TO CML 00 6tz8 ElI3 EcgusrioA/ of~ F-A tustc spow.c A G " f b M is) 'PYP& 9E17/26 oU SYirr. v.) s c) , t.v F.1 Lon D F~k *4 -ftlis 7 >p 6 ceMr19E/GD //v /uinysis I Aes recxs dof o rHgs- p/r f.c p.ccr>xs o nt u ) A L L. C Ty u c-ruf G { . 4 S/Hcs v6Lriv L. ~rC 8 X+ Y . *37s" h.M6M e. C. II7[I/6) CUAt 85pov60 /r/ rH 6 FI6LD , h vAtysil C//out D fEFt 6Cf TU U. CHA p06 C/Mc6 toADJ ~7"O CofeWD/r'a-JA6128646 Avo eAtE9cirrS1 wiv iucges t6, f /40M.~E FOL Jo/u t' c1 resuep yo y p5 isicA:so. 1 C. Joipyr 3 i f 3 g,. S poucp pc.c ggy pos.<g y p ug r o CLo rrSD couuGC TI06J . 0 7 120M 'f Flif - ] olv1'S I, 6, 7, I T C}/outD No f 155 l?GL&MCC. trs TMS CAH6 Coub!T10J 43 FbL .t o tu rs 4*,4l 67C .
Calcubtion ( nummmmmma
,i Sheet ATTACHMENT A Propct Prepared By: Date Subsect Checked By. Date
# Job No. Fue No.
System Analyses No. Rev. No. Sheet No I
- 8. f#e76/176C 70/ - MSMN / *], / $f C 3 A&6 /WC e/ACC7
Ty sr T g =10 7 , Sy = S;g. m f" ~17, Ay w r o 8. 1 F~o t us n's. t -ro s o , zoo 7?> rar supur 'insa76xr?S5 Of~ u310 X44 f ALS O N6A/ NQ06 / & /Nf)u~f TS'l>f6AT'#E OF CoPPf* 5 GCT!0!' .
- 10. ADDJ-flo WA t. - C P 6 /&ff 7 Of LU/0 yVf LUILL/pcgEAt&
i Dcne t.ose of c ncu c 7vg s.
$ II. fo4 p g u e gs-s zjo -ro- zj3 jsopgt C4 x 7 tr-c/inupSt.s 76L cu& po. ea:e7 f.-// 3.
IT. DSO tons of PEu'.c r i o re z i 3 , -..c o rc sto wAs no7 //>ctop6D /D tonespu t, z f 3 ,
- if fo/- 3/ pros /opst..)/se/cespuGE C66 fAff ~3 e F cAu o urioa1 ( 2ws.. Ale l-tst.e so osiva ec &.
IC Al- /4614' C- .s" 70 /o .cG6 7 M f It of cstc.. fot: 4]D/7/0/>AL. (ef 2 pu6 To W w/g 5 )~/AS LDALL. 16 . ou (And6 /6 Deat- l Finu5 u.nf c- to E~tn/7 5 OF r~ P.t f SGSuC -fo &6 t.o u) . i r t soos oc
1 Communications dt 6 i Report 11llllIIll11111111111lllllll11 g elec n conference new Tovat Utilitles Project Job No 840 % Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10 /1 R /84 Subject Time. Factor Used in Equivalent Static Load Method , SFR0 Participants of
- 11. ,la n Gihhc A Hill G. Bjorkman Cygna Required item Comments Action By G. Bjorkman spoke with J. Jan at Comanche Peak and told him that for the factor in the vertical direction, Cygna had done an inde-pendent check of the four span 24-inch cable tray case using the enveloped response spectrum. Cygna was able to duplicate the static and dynamic reactions contained in the Gibbs & Hill cal-culation. However, it appears that the factor was not properly calculated. Apparently the maximum dynamic reaction at any sup-port was divided by the maximum static reaction at any support.
The two maxima do not occur at the same support. When the dyna-mic re3ction is divided by the static reaction at the same sup-port, the factor becomes 0.89 and not 0.73. J. Jan will look into this matter and get back to Cygna. h ll Jw 12 1s 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J Russ, W. Horstman, G.
= '* Bjorkman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, ?S. Burwell', Project File
P Communications t41%' i Report 1111111111lllllllll111111lll11 g Teiec n conference Report Texas Utilities Protect: Joe No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 10/12/84 sub iect: Time 10:00 a.m. Factor Used in Equivalent Static Load Method SFR0 Participants of J. Jan. J. Peir Gibbs & Hill G. Bjorkman Cygna Required item Comments Action By G. Bjorkman called J. Jan to inform him that Cygna had found discrepancies in the labeling of the governing earthquake direction (i.e., direction of earthquake input most likely to excite that frequency) in the sumary of frequencies for various cable tray supports. G. Bjorkman asked him to check into this tc determine if my assessment was correct. An hour-and-a-half later, J. Jan called to say that J. Peir had confirmed that G. Bjorkman's assessment was correct. I 1 l U'"*"" N .)/./././ M /aib 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, G.
'm ' . Bjorkman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell', Project File
I ~g . Communications
, L4 (A A Report IllllllilllllllllllililllllIll Company 0 Telecon Conference Report Project: Job No 84 m Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 g/13fg4
Subject:
Time 3:00 P.M. Cable Tray Support Static Load Factor , GAH. NYr
Participants:
of J. Jan. P. Huang. J. Peir Gibbs A Hill N. Williams. G. Biorkman Cygna Required item Comments Action By A brief discussion regarding the Gibbs & Hill analysis performed to determine what an appropriate dynamic amplification factor for cable tray support design was held where the following points were made:
- 1. Gibbs & Hill believed that their analysis showed 1.0 would be an appropriate dynamic amplification factor. This was based on a combination of the horizontal and vertical factors.
Cygna believes that it is inappropriate to combine the hori-zontal and vertical factors as Gibbs & Hill proposes. Rather, the design calculations must use the horizontal factor for the horizontally applied accelerations and the vertical factor for vertically applied accelerations.
- 2. Dr. Bjorkman questioned the use of a factor of 0.75 in the vertical direction since it appears that 1.0 would be a more appropriate factor for the canteleser type designs (single degree of freedom systems). Unlike Gibbs & Hill's assumptions on the trapeze type supports, the cantelevers are not rigid in the vertical direction.
- 3. Dr. Bjorkman noted that the forces used to compare the dynamic and static loao case ',ere the reactions at the base plate con-nections. Cygna questioned whether this location would pro-duce the worst case comparison of dynamic results to static results. Gibbs & Hill volunteered to check the load factor produced if one were to use the moments from the connection between the hanger and beam members. This information was later made available to Cygna and is attached.
M /aib 1 7 D"*"' " N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. some o . Syrwell, P1toject File, J. Russ, Rn Kiamicoger
Communications t4 L i i Report lit:: l l Required item Comments Action By ) l
- 4. Dr. Bjorkman requested a plot which compared the various input ;
floor spectra when normalized to one peak acceleration value. These plots were later provided and are attached. I i Page of 2 ?
'.- ,. 'Gibbs S Hill Inc ~ JobNo 1515 Client T-U q co 7 Subject EG U l.VA LEW ' G YA L U & FOR. CAB.LE TEA'/' CDPPoR7 DCfI4 ,
I Cd CalculationNumber DM2 C, kt .L Sheet No. l l Revision W Date Rev.f Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date
' W Preparer X X X X X JPL 9h4/f(C m >
To H & H t S TOR.'( : b ei. w B Ultut M C7 AT Gl F40o' 2 - DI PJ5C.T IOd PEAK 5 pac.TfE.dM VALUE = /.727g AT 6.32. Hg(f.k'.jc) (4 W M kr4mm d A 6'g (cd/* frag 4-- *- TYPG OF No.op REOdENcy MAY.1TATic TKa H4Y.D'p)A.4fc Fate At-- oT- DTAAMIC FACTOR, TEAYS $ PANS MoDELs :5HEAE. HoHEMT $6AE. MOHG4j-C 3 6.3 T s'727 /0 /3/ /.o2. 14-
+ b* # '
(H=C) EbI fl+7 O EI g" 4 (H 1) 6. 3Z b '778 Vl7lo 0.9a-4- (yeg) 6.36 5M7 Ez'LC o . 82-- 4 N
- f
. Ob (,Q \ t va' I h $ r,,Q, h C,aa { (, t /,, l ,{#7 l.
. Gibbs & Hill,Inc. 5No.1523 Client TU G Co Subject EG U I.YA LEW ' G YA L U & FO2. CAP LE TGA Y COPPO 27 DCEIGA
'Ji:l Calculation Number DM~t.- 14-C., Cet 1. Sheet No. Date Date Rev. Date Revision T Date Rev.) Date Rev. Rev.
- 1 X X X X X Preparer Jr/. o. ./)y/pi, ,
Tl H E- H I 5 Toe.Y : fw-/& B u l L Di"r AT Gl Pdo o' 2- - Dt EscT totd PEAK spec. TIE.dM VALuE = /.p7 g AT g,32. Hg.Oleh.1C 3 ($k W )hktsd e %&L km'p lcnLlc-{,-a k x- u-MAX,1TATic Tora */- TYPG OF No.OF M dENCY M4Y.DYtJA'4lc Fet4 o F orru sic mcToR TEAYS $ PANS MoDELS $HEAE. HOMErJT SHEA2 MoHGy . C' Y 6.3 / 30.r3 #7Pr o.1/ y 12- [ C.3y 5o25' f3&& D. 22-6 4.33 3aPr 3 773 o.7 / f 6 3r S~717 O* *-l 0h Sy" 5~ 6.3V N3 z - ?97$ o.7f 6 4.3-) Mzy 77f3 0 77 p 4.3 t- /Noz-/ 4. ft/- efz.7 Nll Y d.53 fooz- l2a ze o. 7') 7/
~
4 6. Jr 7o0/ ///03 8-
] -n Foc.c m,gt b oukj>tdj p.e. gWe.,ct.
vol % .2t _
]
Job No. 2323
. Gibbs S Hist,inc.
Client 7U G c o ,
",, Subject EG U t.YA LEW ' G. ' YA LU e poe. CAR.LE ten ( COPPo2 r DCElc^
O Calculation Number DM2 - 14.C., Ge.1- 1. Sheet No. Reveon T Date Rev. / Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date j
; M X X X X X i Preparu srL. e,h d. k, m
i Tl H E H I 5 To2.Y :
%e.W SUlL0tHT AT Gl 7f3 W
.t - Dt rec.T tod PEAK 5pec.T(EdM VALuE = ,gyr{, AT fo,7f. HEr -
(-tt be.s*d m cut. f &*gy = 2.o2 45 ) TYPE OF No.op EGdENCY MAX.T WIC7oCG M4Y.DYtJAMic Fdre oT- DY4Asic # rAgne_, TEAYS $ PANS MoDEL5 5HEA C. MoMEMT $6AE MOHGy 4 / O.72. 183f IJ 08' O 83
//
/L 4 /0 7L- s,ftf 22pf o,3f 4
~
[ /o.4f' M7% 3 /54 3 0. fo , .I. bc.,w spe,(ba.cd ,n m,+tuJung J M4 w<g 7.- 4 ~ d US g
. g
3
~
'Gibbs 8 Hill, enc, Job No.1525 Client TU G Co Subject EQUI.YA LEQ
' 6) ' YA LU E Foe. CAP 2LE TGA'( coPPC27 DCEIG.
C.; CalculationNumber DM7_- 14C., set .L Sheet No.
?
w T Date Rev. / Date Rev Date Rev. Date Rev. Date w x x X X X
'. w.c checker aa. 9 peg
'\3 i 1 -
l' TI 5. H I S TOR.Y : hv/hkp B ul tbr a ct AT GIf97#'
)(.- Dt esc.Tioid PEAK 5PEc. TIE.dM VALUE = .?.463g AT 6.36 Hg.(ftf.1a) h&M be~%I en hasmdi hagal e,.l.k +rasg.) -
4- *- TYPG OF No.OF fEGdENc7 MAX 1TATic Tote M4Y.DYtJNtic Fet4 -/M-oF. DT/MHIC FACTOR,,, TRAYS SPANS MODELS :5HEAE. HOMEMJ $@AR. MOHGy L:, f 6.3r 3 ors 7M7 c.9y II I2 r g.3p 5 ogr- qsty o.rs-
& 6.33 ;
- 3098' s'77f 67i y i.37 $777 12828 o.gf 99 s'
~
1-+ 6 57 sg32. tuf; 0.8o G ll677 6.37 92] 0 7(a Y 6.3 81] 2*4fl 027 ,. 3 g" YL 'd.3 f 9*o 2- / td's 0 77 -
'6 4.35' 9 col lJoyt,c o.22.
,, 4 Fee _ c.o1p,ttL ouApt( s c. 9c.. c.t. p: % 74 .n.
' ~ ~
., . Dibbs & Hill. Inc. Job Nol2525 Client TU G Co \
Subject EG Ul.YA LEW ' $ YA LU e FO2. CAf?.LE TEAY coPPo2 T DCrIGA ' C.,I CalculationNumber DM1- M-t, se.t .L Sheet No. Revisiors T Date Rev.) Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date
,' !!::lll;1 X X X X X !
Preparer 3L 9/)Vh4 checker > -
. 4
.)
i Tl H E fit $To2.Y. h K Ils'a S UlLDt H CT AT Gl 80 5' 2 - Dt rec.T (O ^3 PEAK 5PEcTOJM YALuE = .nu g AT &.of Hg.(fte}90- .M (* wps k+ m_~ra Apw a qj - K- *- TYPG OF No.OF TEGLIENCY MAX.1TATic ToEG M4k'.DTtJAMic Fette M OT- DylAMIC F4c7p(L TRAYS 5 PANS MoDELS $HEA E. HOMEq sHGA2. MoH"T
.~.
.'.' % f.o( p}3l' p263 0. E'5' W Sof A&bt/ 0.8V
/25f S 8.of _
'20S'L- /.24o O.83 4 8. o7 M/ 232p o./'/
n M 5' 207 54ts' p 697 o.93 i
- b t.of S*4D- zr o.PJ
. p P.o2. Ps74/
376/ o.84 ' i E' &.o f 3 253 p. 8T ' '
._ P32f L.:
'C t.or 2383 370j o.ept
-:' Fot o m p h v O dj 4 sc_e.
4.We.-ct i;- ve,i E.
. . . ~ . -
~
.'; .Gibbs S Hill.inc. Job o, 2s15 Client TU G Co Subject EG UI.YALEMT ' S YA t.U S f-02. CAILLE TP.X( COPPOR r DCrfGel
. j,5 CalculationNumber bM r C., se.t .1 Sheet No.
Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Revision T Date Rev.f Date Rev. X
-, M X X X X Preparer 5 pl. 9}ig/h _
Checker i Tl H E H I5 To2.Y : Sab$dd s u f L O a c7 AT Gl 9%.5 ' X - DI PJ5c.T (Od
- PEAK spec.TrEdM VALUE = 2.2p3p AT 7 07 Hg.(J2.f,qb)
~
(W-4-h% be-s A.I m.mm*EA 6%I 4-cd/< %) 4-
//-
TYPG OF No. op WOENCf MAX.TTATic 7002 M4Y.DYtJA'.4fc Ferre McToR, oT- DTIMMIC SPANS RODEL5 $ MEA E. 80MEMT $ HEAR MOHEy
' TRAYS
! *,g 9 1.o 7 270 5688 o.sy el 12-
~
0w
^ ^
4 7.o8' sh7 1'80) 2+ .
+ 1 *Y 87+1 isist o.,6 3/, .
I . .. 4 Foe _cc.up w ouA i d ; sec. % W e.- cc ia voi g .r. . . , , . _ _ l
. ' . Gibbs S Hill. Inc, JobNo. 2515 Client TU G Co _ . Subject EG UI.YA L9JT ' $ YA LU & FOP _ CAR.LE TEA'( COPPo27 DCr]G/-
d CalculationNumber DM r- M-t, se.1- 1 Sheet No. Revision T Date Rev.l Date Ret Date Ret Date Rev. Date
; m x x x x x Preparer M/ 9//v/?e c u er i -
Tl M E H 15 TOP._Y : Sa%md suitom, Ar si m .r' X - DiPJ5CT tod
- PEAK SPEcTOJH VALUE = .24 AT 6.25 Hg({2.f,.lY ge)
O Wf bMd n mnt ' kwiyht od,k -
.)
d- *- M dENCY MAX.TTATic ToEm H4Y.D'pJAMic Feta # TYPG oF No. OF OT- DTMHK. FACToP 1 trays SPANS MoDELs St1EAE HOMEMT 5HGAE Mo*T r.
'.' & 6,z.(, 2.460 7Ll j. l 0 or l2-f 6.27 f/3/ /.2/p O.74 s
/173
$ 6 Zf 78l /03 ,
- 5 L" ,
e
. OY ( Co'& V
; s,s O c NO<5' (L l$ YO $
- .nn --
I *! r
,Lil_
5- b.I TUSI-REFINED AND NORMALIZED SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTR A E l HORIZONTAL MAXIMUM FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR 1/2SSE: OAMPING = 0.04
! 3!.l_l_. I .
d'i 1.000 50.0
- ~~"!T ?, ?, 9, 5, 9, 7, 9, 9,10.00 7, 7, 9 i ,
1 r ---
;;L MAX. AT OAMPING O 1.0000 7.080 SXFEcuARbs 8f.36 :cL8%5FT --4.0% o
'p 'j 1.0000 10.59 .SAFEGu ARDS. 6 LEO , ;EL 773 5 FT 4.0%
j -- --t m 1.0000 6.321 . REACTOR 68-D6 :6L 360.o FT 4.0% _m d Ii - 1.0000 10.78 1.0000 6.360 REACTOR lbLP6 GL 7 83.sr FT A ux z.LIA R Y Bl. D6 : s t_g99.so FT- 4. 0% 4.0% M AURZ LZAR Y 6LDE : EL,79 c. soft-4. 0%
} -'f~ f-- 1.0000 8.080 .
p.. . _ , m o o o o [
., m m
= 2 ._ ..... _.
s o- .f R6 . EL . . . f6hC/. -
~
H 56: E L 773.5 l
/
a _
=
R6 EL 783.SY 56: EL 8%N, t a-
-a s -
m WE a.
~
8 m . t !" = m 2 Wo o E E m o ; y
,2 e m o w -
2 o a
~
Q .- p m w a o o <
*
- O 2 . .
. p 2 j yp /
l *._. f- - AB EL271s -
-f g n i x
- s m ~
f, A 6 EL716.5
=
5_ c m R
- 0 -
o 2 2 m o - - - - . . . o m m m e.
. e i e i i e ,. i e i .
' - A $ 4 6 6 ) 66' b b 4
- 1 000 FREQUENCY (HZ)
Communications
. t41 i i Report 1111111llllll1111lll11llllllll
* '" Teiec n Texas Utilities p conference nepon Project: Job No.
84056 i Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 6/27/85
Subject:
Time-a.m. Electrical Design Process p Gibbs & Hill /NY Participants' of P. Lalaji. R. DaBruzzo. D. Yang Gibbs & Hill L. Maqqio. K. Zee Cygna Required item Comments Action By We discussed the electrical group organization and the design processes including discipline interfaces associated with the working groups.
- 1. P. Lalaji indicated that the electrical group is organized into five working groups under the discipline job engineer,
- a. Calculation group
- b. Physical group
- c. Controls group
- d. Wiring group
- e. Cabling group !
- 2. We discussed the design process ar.d discipline interfaces associated with the physical, the wiring, and the cabling groups.
3
- 3. R. DaBruzzo and P. Lalaji described the work flow within the wiring group as follows:
- a. The wiring group is given a sketch from the controls group for the desired schematic drawing. The sketch is basically a rough schematic drawing without wire numbers or termination infomation.
- b. The wiring group then ' wires' the circuit on paper and makes the necessary connection and/or interconnection '
diagrams. A request is also sent to the cable group for cable ID's for the subject cables. Copy also sent to the physical group for raceway additions if ; required. l s,gneo of
/kab Page y 3 Distnbution: N. Williams, J. Redding, J. Oszewski, C. Killough, K. Lee, s. Ireby,ij. Litis, 3.;
fauriselli Proiect File /23-C-0627D wo w -
Communications es t t i Repod 111llllll11111lllllllll111i1ll Requred item Comments Action By
- c. The request contains from, to, cable configuration, channel, and reference drawings for the subject cables, d~. The request is returned with unique cable ID's assigned to each cable. This request form does not become a project document.
- e. The wiring group then makes a mylar for the schematic and wiring diagram (s) and any associated interconnection diagrams using the prior diagrams and the supplied' cable ID's.
- f. A checkprint is sent to the originator of the
' sketch'. The wiring group revises mylar as required. If review is required, sent for review af ter checkprint is accepted.
- g. After all items are resolved, the drawing is issued.
The checkprints are not kept, but paper work from the design reviewer is.
- h. Sign-offs required to issue drawing include originating discipline sign-off and any other discipline that the job engineer considers necessary.
- 1. All information exchange and interfaces are verbal or by informal memos and forms, except for the design review process.
- j. Revisions are handled the same way, starting with a sketch or mark-up.
- 4. D. Yang and P. Lalaji described the flow within the cabling group as follows:
- a. Group receives request for cable ID's.
- b. Cable ID's are supplied and cable program input documents are prepared. Reference drawings noted on the request are used to determine cable voltage level, size of power cables, etc.
- c. Cables are input into the program and ' cable ID' column of the request is filled in and returned to the originator.
- d. Group receives request for raceway ID's.
- e. Same process as in b and c takes place for raceways.
- f. Cables are routed. Routes are checked for continuity,
' correctness', i.e., a good engineered route,
- g. When schematic drawings are issued, program input documents are reviewed against the drawings.
- h. Cable pull cards are requested, printed by the computer and sent to the field via GTN.
- i. Changes to cables treated the same as new input except
' cable changes' are input.
J. If cable is already installed, depend on DCA process to handle that,
- k. Spare cables are trackeo in the program for proper fill calculations.
Page of 2 3 1020 01b
E Communications 4L t i Report 11!! "'!!! item cornments UcEnTy
- 1. There is no feedback from the field regarding installation status, i.e., installed cable length, or conduit length.
- 5. P. Lalaji described the work flow within the physical group as being similar in concept to the controls group.
Coordination with the structural group is by multidiscipline sign-offs on drawings during issue.
- 6. L. Maggio asked how cable parameters were input into the cable and raceway program; cable 0.0. and weight.
D. Yang's response was that the cable information was input into the cable and raceway program by the cabling group based upon vendor data-outline drawing, provided via the job engineer.
- 7. K. Zee and L. Maggio asked how the interface with the construction group was handled.
P. Lalaji and D. Yang described the interface as follows:
- a. Cable installation cards are printed by the computer in New York and sent to the field with a transmittal letter - GTN.
- b. Installation cards for raceways are not used. Raceways are installed based upon the layout drawings.
- c. Cable installation cards are not returned to Gibbs &
Hill.
- d. Catles are considered installed after installation cards are sent to the field.
- e. Gibbs & Hill design changes to raceways and cables are usually coordinated with construction via a phone call. A telecon memo is not written.
- f. Gibbs & Hill design changes to as-built raceways or cables usually results in the field generation of a
'DCA'.
- 8. K. Zee asked if the wiring or cable groups ' check' control cable voltage drops.
P. Lalaji's response was that there is no global effort to ) check all control loops for voltage drop. Their control circuits were designed to minimize voltage drops by using i low current draw solenoid valves and by using . repeater / auxillary relays. j l
- 9. P. Lalaji stated that some cable installation cards have j
. installation notes printed; such as minimum allowable installed length for short-circuit' concerns.
Page of m 1 a 9
c . r -- Communications WJ M Report ..~f 11lllll1111!!Ill1llllllll111ll Texas Utilities I* " ""'""" Protect Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/85 suweet Time Document Request 11:00 a.m. Place: CPSES Site Participants of Dale Leech B&R ___ John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By I asked Mr. Leech to provide the documents on the attached sheet. signed. Page of D'5tabutioa' N. Williams, J. Redding...J., van Amerongen, J. Russ. W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
. . . , . T cuy , v. Eiiis, a . _ su . = i i , rr0JeCL F1le
.sg 9 3 5 ~/ & T .
3A-/ DC-) Dc -2 D C-3 DC-% C f- 1 PE-l B D - ). l=D- L ED-3 29-+ DCP-I en - 1 D- / kN W W 2323 m ,,.,_ 7g NPS Pm : wp- g o, , IJF - 3,0. r-14F- 3' O ,5^ Int!- 3 0, 6 W~R Oc 9(k) 1
EII!! " -=- - Communications
- 1 '[4Dh' TJ Report Mllllllllllllllllllllllllll rexas utuities
' - - Qce-caJ Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' Independent Assessmert Program - Phase 4 6/10/85 Subject. Time. Document Request 3 :45 p.m. Place: CPSES Site
Participants:
of J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the drawings listed on the attached sheet. Drawing 2323-El-721-1 was also requested. Cygna was informed that a drawing with this number did not exist but drawing 2323-El-721 did, i l l kh),}})A A /aib 1 1 Distnbution: N. Williams, J. Redd.in}, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. l
,eno... Ti cui . o- 25***. 3. .==tgfp rmam ri1,e , cr,02EwFki
Calculation
. [4M' M Sheet lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!
Prepared By Date Prosect Subject Checked By Date System Job No File No Analysis No Rev No Sheet No G o Py ry Pe* D R.A u s ac.a REVt5s00 BLuc L suG m e.F - $ 12 G 2 313 - n - G O 2. - / L 2. X
- too9 to X
- 70 0 -
oz. 2.o M V
-100 - II S~ X
-701 -DE /6 X X
-70I - ll 6~ Y
- 7 01 -
- 12. S X
- 7 03 EO X X
-7o& zL X X
( - 7 O(o /G X X
- 7 / 2. - o/
~
Z.6 X X
- 7 / 2 - C+ 7 X X
- 7 / 2. - / / 9 X
-7/ 7 - /z 1 x
-7 / 5 st X x
- 7/G - O/ 2.o X X
- 7/h -/2 f x l
1 1 1 ime z
i Communications LI(d j2 A Report . IINiE alii Company: a XConference Report Texas Utilities o Telecon Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D8'e: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Sub i ect: Time: Inspection Reports CPSES Site
"'P*"** '
Vernell TUGC0 (Vault) Ms. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following Inspection Report packages from the TUGC0 vault: CC-1-021-001-A 33R CC-1-028-003-A33R CC-1-028-004-A33K CC-1-028-017-S33R CC-1-028-022-S33K CC-1-028-026-S33R CC-1-028-034-S 33R CC-1-019-003-A33R CC-1-019-007-A33K CC-1-019-010-A43K CC-1-019-011-A43K CC-1-028-024-S33R l l l t i l l ' I Signed. Fage of [ Distnbution: N. Williams', J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, C. Wong, S. Treby, J. Ellis,yS.- " I A._m diVTProiect File l ioro ot.
[ Communications L4 L m i Report i:: .. ...::: Telec n g conference Repon To n c 1+ilitine Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/28/85
Subject:
Time-Afternoon CCW System Mechanical Design Process p Gibbs & Hill /NY
Participants:
of
.1 - Irnns Gibbs and Hill
.1_ (k 79ws k i Cyana Required item Comments Action By John and I discussed the flow of information in the design process used by Gibbs and Hill for the mechanical portions of the CCW system.
John explained the reasons behind setting the control valve downstream of the RHR Heat Exchanger to open 50% on an "S" signal. John showed me and explained all elements of calculation 229-015 We also discussed the Gibbs and Hill renuirements and procedures for revising calculations, incorporating ve.. dor data, and l interdisciplinary coordination. l l l ljl /kab 1 1
' ~ ~ " ~ -
Distnbution:
.N. .
Williams, J. Redding, J. Oszewski, C. Killough, S. Treby, J. Ellis, .ST
~
im o,. joui.-3 , o vs m - . - . . - . . . -.
Communications ; L4M i Report II:ll::..........ni... ;;lill
* #" O Tencon g434g } Conference Report Project' Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/28/85 _
Subject:
Time: Afternoon CCW System Mechanical Design Process p Gibbs & Hill /NY
Participants:
of J. Tenne Gibbs and Hill
.1_ nc7 wski Cyana Required item Comments Action By John and I discussed the flow of information in the design process used by Gibbs and Hill for the mechanical portions of the l CCW system.
John explained the reasons behind setting the control valve downstream of the RHR Heat Exchanger to open 50". on an "S" signal. John showed me and explained all elements of calculation 229-015 l We also discussed the Gibbs and Hill requirements and procedures for revising calculations, incorporating vendor data, and interdisciplinary coordination. l l l l l 1 bl }}) Ikab 1
~
1 N. W1.lliams, J. Redding, d. Oszewski, C. Killough, S. Treby, J. Ellis,[S.7 iiw 1020 0t a mal wuj J , ra uguww --- - - . - - - , - . . _ ,__ l
wam Communications I [416' M Report Nililillliliilillllililllilli
" X Tewcon C, conference nemn Texas Utilities Job No Protect:
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 5/29/85 T ""* - suorect: Design Process 1:30 p.m. Place: 3p Bob Ballard Gibbs and Hill Lee J. Weingart Cygna Required item Comments Action By I called Bob to request that he telecopy copies of the indexes for the design control procedures and the technical guides (similar to the abs and AEGs, respectively) for the electrical, I&C and mechanical disciplines. I requested that this be done by tomorrow. Bob felt thtti the guides and proced' ?es for electrical and I&C would be easily obtainable but those for mechanical might take a couple of days due to being in the middle of a move. l l l } }} /ajb 1 1
- o. tnbution- 'N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, L. Weingart, me. . 3.L wui , J. Eii n ,;a. weg- yg. rroject rise
Communications 3 (% i Report IN1;:. ' "'!!!
*E*"Y D Telecon g Conference Report g4 g gg))
Project: Job No , 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station * ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/26/85 Sut ject: Time: Use of Engineering Design Guides 9:00 a.m. p, Gibbs & Hil1/NYC
Participants:
of R. Ballard Gibbs and Hill N. Williams. J. Oszewski Cygna Required item Comments Action By We told Bob that one of our tasks was to review the Engineering Design Guides (EEG's and MEG's). Bob explained that those guides were not used on the CPSES project because they were not fully developed at the time when most of the mechanical and electrical design work was being performed on CPSES. I i l l l l l signeo f p.ge or
"""b""
N. Williams, J. ,Reddi,ngd.yn grggehf. Killough, J. Oszewski, R. Porter, o c v.r .
- a. -- -- :
,m oi, - g.; , ,
1 i Communications
, MMi Report 111llll1llll' ' . "llllIll
*"I Telee n g Conference Report Tens Milkies Jcb No. !
Project: 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/28/85
Subject:
Time. A.M. Electrical Design Process p Gibbs & Hill /NY
Participants:
of P. Lala.ii. S. Martinovich Gibbs & Hill L. Maacio. K. Zee Cyana e Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Mr. Lalaji provided the attached rough preliminary sketch None of the electrical design process to supplement previous discussions on the same subject.
- 2. Mr. Martinovich indicated that the range of offsite grid Gibbs & Hill voltage shown in the response to NRC question 40.49 were supplied by the utility. A copy of the letter or other document used to transmit that data to Gibbs & hill will be sent to Cygna in San Francisco.
i Signed. Page of Distnbution: j){j g g g, u i 2, ,-- __ _ m . , , - . - . . .
., . c.m - . . ... ... .-- - w -_,- ,.. .
_ m.. ._,
- "'*
- 4 % , .
ag.. dX s ,M V y j7) n_(N) _a g ._. y __ w e;sm
#. J@ e.wm;,c 3 a n 3 I b N.m't', 3,)xg b.
- e. .s r - .. .. .,
hy* j. I'E. :.:k.v.~3 E 2 h 5% 6MkN' w.,b ~1 ~ b. uP g
- ... x.
m- y y
. ^ .: : y ' ~'
y .___. e}. _. . _ _ _ . ..xy _yd. g .. .; . g . A, p __ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ - . - .
- f. . f. ___ . _ _ _ _ _
0
.,_D_d__ __ _. i . ,g
*. .t). J_ ._.Q g L . . _ _ _
.(- _1. 1 l m
P
' ~
k' ( g i 3 _ p . . . .
-- _ $ o fg.g._._. g L. _ _. . _ . .
c. E I
- u h
w a.y_m, m g.,h:_ . h9 y t b_
.e 1._ __ . .. . ._.
7.g . _q. .. _. g j . . ._ __.. #. . . g _ _ _ _ . . . _ el - 4 t- 't 3 g n.. . _ . _ . . . ..d
>3 33 t
+ -
-D d A' - -
g
,, > qg > y ! 6ir 4
g..
}q_ . . .
7 T A c s 3., _4 3 -.
. . C. . - uj c_ ;- o 4{a. 7y s
p w
,d. . ,
., _ 4 g, w d
1 4 s _ _ . . O. 6) .. . 7 . . . . .
. .. . - .. q .
1.{ , 3 1
' g6 C ha , 4{ . _ 7
, r. 5 t .A 3 w - 1 si y g- -
t.(tg) *O su. 1 4 9, w 4
~ ~~
- g. - -
y g. i _ . _ .
$w > D
$ s .e_ '
.C ] f._,._........
M4 , _ . - - T.L ,- . - - _ <_ 7
. .z..
- ,u
- n. ._E, -
..w sA
;y o l
. . . . . . . . . _ - - . . . . . p....;
at .I t as a r .2 3 1 . ky _ _ _ (3 e r
}9 s l 5 2')
t L vo
-- u e J \L V tu s~-
~L '
y . uv " T,,1
~
g ;- 5%s 1 i._ .. 4f(.
, ; ,i ,
s i W < 4u
* ! e i_
$ +L- r m j l
d h i_ __
Communications Al% i Report lilllll!llllllllihilllilllili Telec n g Confeence Repon To n e fit i l i t i os Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/22/85 Subsect Time. I 1:30 p.m. j Cable Tray Dynamic Analysis hace: G&H/NYC Participants of
.L pair Gibbs & Hill Cygna n Ianng item Comments Ac n y Mr. Peir provided Cygna with the microfiche copies of computer output available for the dynamic analysis. To limit the amount of output, results are provided as follows:
Mode shapes are defined for nodes where dynamic degrees of freedom are specified. Output points were chosen prior to analysis, and results at those points only are available. p,,, ,, signee 7 k , Distnbution: N. Williams, J. Reddi_ng,. h van A er,ongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
>>> w---
tozo oia treDy, d. L a i a s , cc --..
r
- Communications At n i Report 1111111111llllll1111llllllllll company: o Telecon a conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station cate.
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/21/85 Time-
Subject:
10:00 a.m. Cable Tray Dynamic Analysis Place. G8H/NYC of Pari cipants' Gibbs & Hill M. Berry, M. Engleman, W. Horstman, D. Leong Cygna Requred item Comments Action By Mr. Feng provided Cygna reviewers with a NASTRAN applications manual and provided the following information.
- 1. All connections-to-concrete are slaved to one node when the response spectra are applied.
- 2. The accelerations at 33 Hz were used for the equivalent static analyses.
- 3. An envelope of the spectra for the Auxiliary and Electrical Control Building was used for the Case 5 analyses.
- 4. Static analyses were performed with fixed boundary con-ditions because Gibbs & Hill felt that the difference between fixed and pinned conditions was negligible.
l i l l l signe U [f //
/ajb " 1 1 l
Distneution: N. Viilfa'ms, J. Redding, R. Kissinger J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D.
. . . , , e T,ohu .1_ F11 h _ T Rawinih- Proiect File
~
,ea e,. ,
Communications A L % .i Report 11111111111!I11ll111!!11111111 company: cK conference seport Texas Utilities o Teiecon N- 84056 Comanche Peak Stearr, Electric Station Independent Assestment Program - Phase 4 Date. 3/23/85 T a e- 11:00 a.m. Cable Tray Dynamic Analysis Place-G&H/NYC
Participants:
o' Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman, D. Leong Cygna item Comments Ac o By Mr. Feng provided Cygna with the following information:
- 1. NASTRAN Analysis - MAT 1 Card 0.14 material damping coefficient GE was input to the analysis but is not used for any calculations, since response spectra curves were input for only one damping value.
- 2. NASTRAN Analysis - SPC versus MPC Cards MPC cards are used to provide constraint in skewed axes, i
while SPC cards are used for restraint in global axes.
- 3. NASTRAN Analysis - Input of Motion to System All support points are constrained to a large mass which is excited. The mass point is fixed similar to an SPCl fixity.
Output displacements Lad velocities are relative to those 0" the large mass. Accelerations are absolute.
- 4. NASTSRSS Analysis - Modal Combination Rigid body modes are not used in the development of dis-t placements and stresses.
c signea P
/ajb age 1 of 2 g norstman, D.
l Distnbution: N.' Williams,J.Redding,R.Kissinger,J.vanANrongen,d.Kuss,W. tonnn. S. Treby. J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project 1e mo o,.
f Communications
' ' Report
.4, R "
"'* Comments 3c o y
- 5. NASTRAN Analysis - Concentrated Mass Concentrated masses are added on four supports in the analysis. No documentation is available in the calculation regarding i.hese masses. Mr. Feng will check for the missin0 calculatians.
- 6. NASTRAN Analysis - Solution 3 Solution 3 is used to obtain mode shapes. NASTSRSS is used to apply the response spectrum and combine the modes.
- 7. NASTRAN Analysis - End Restraints Tray runs were checked downstream of truncation for longitu dinal supports. If longitudinal supports are present, the tray run was assumed to be axially rigid and was thus fixed longitedinally. If there are no longitudinal supports, the end was modeled without axial restraint.
Page 2 of 4 l l L 1020 010
Communications s( i i Report 11llllllllllllllllllll111lll11 company: o T*' econ cx conference Report Texas Utilities N' 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station cate. Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/23/85 T ' '" 9:15 a.m. Cable Tray Dynamic Analysis Place: G&H/NYC P. Huang Gibbs & Hill D. Leong Cygna Requred item Comments Action By Mr. Huang provided Cygna with copies of the following calculations. Undercut / underrun for CSM-18b (2323-SCS-227C, Set 1 Sheet 13) Dynamic Analysis Case 1 Design (2323-SCS-217C, Set 2) Dynamic Analysis Care 5 Design (2323-SCS-217C, Set 6) Dynamic Analysis Criteria (2323-SCS-217C, Set 1) Anchor Bolt Analysis (2323-DMI-14C, Set 11) l h ),))) Q
~
/ aj b '*** 1 1 Distnbution: N.' Wilfiams, J. Re'dding, R. Kissinger, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D.
.-___ e T.-osu .1 niu n aurw11. Proiect File
,a o, .
Communications ! ALa1 R3 port \ i.:::= m 1 company: oX conference Report Texas Utilities a Teiecon Job No. ! Project: 84056 l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date~ Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/21/85 T ** 4:15 p.m. Cable Tray Supports - Place: Dynamic Model Review G&H/NYC
Participants:
' Gibbs & Hill S. Chang W. Horstman Cygna Required Comments Action By item
Reference:
Gibbs & Hill Calculations DMI-14C, Set 8 and SCS-217C, Set 6 In reviewing calculations for modeling of Case 5, Support Number 2994, Cygria noted that CMC 99326, Revision 0, was not consid-ered. (This CMC was issued in response to Cygna letter 84056.027, question 1). Mr. Chang indicated that the analysis was based on all CMC's against this support as provided by the site group. The calculations were performed in November 1984, and site personnel may not have supplied the CMC's which had beer recently issued. He will contact the site personnel to verify this. l l Signed- L/ /ajb Page 1 of 1 van a W. NorsT. man, 0. oistrieution: ' L williams, s. Medding, M. Kissinger d. 1P000. b. Treby, . Ellis,as. Burwell,, Project @ebongen, v. Kuss, i e 1020 0t a
Communications t4 L i i Report 11lllllllllll111lll11111lllll1 Company: cX conference Report Texas Utilities o Telecon Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/21/85 .,
Subject:
Time' 4:45 p.m. Cable Tray Supports _ Place: 1 Dynamic Model Review S. Chang Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Gibbs & Hill Calculations DMI-14C, Set 7 and SCS-217C, Set 5 Mr. Horstman indicated that modeling of Support Numbers 481 and 455 did not consider fabrication errors noted by Cygna's walkdown as documented by CMCs issued in response to Cygna's questions. Mr. Chang asked if Mr. Horstman knew of any other cases where CMCs were issued in response to Cygna <alkdrwn finds. Mr. Horstman indicated that he knew of no other instances for supports within Cases 4 or 5 of Gibbs & Hill's dynamic analysis. l signed jf /ajb "* 1 1
~
Distnbution: R. Wi111adis, J. Redding, R. Kissinger, J. van A edongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. tonnn t Trphv. J. Ellis. S.' Burwell; Project f e 1020 01a L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ .
s Communications ? L4 L%' i Report llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll company: IC " conference Repon Texas Uti1ities X Project: Job No 84056 l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/12/85 Subject Time: 1:30 p.m. Request for documents Place-CPSES
Participants:
of J. van Amerongen EBASC0/TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna item Comments Ac o y Please have copies of the following documents transmitted to Cygna, San Francisco (Attention: N. Williams) as soon as possible.
- 1. Pipe support calculations including any complete analyses for:
CC-1-028-001-A33R SW-1-004-015-A33R DD-1-016-007-S33R
- 2. Inspection reports for the following pipe supports:
CC-1-028-017-S33R CC-1-028-023-S33R CC-1-028-003-S33R CC-1-019-006-S33R CC-1-019-014-A43R CC-1-019-010-A43R CC-1-051-010-A43K CC-1-051-014-A43K
- 3. Specification MS-613, sheets 14-63, and DCA 16460
- 4. Specification MS-605, revision 2, sheets 13.09 and 13.04
- 5. Permanent Equipment Transfer's (PET's) #1423 and #1425 ff)j)) /kab'*** 1 2 U'" b" "
N. Williams, J. Redd g g 4 va{ A m onge Q Wgng g Os p w g g y Pfbbt" S File g,, m, ...m~,
s ! Communications
; e4 L 6 i Repod item _ _ comments . Ac7o y
- o. runs cor as i vr- Line aussunisi9 uovies.
Ep100001 ' E0100555 l AD104340 Ep104347 E0107008 Epl19630A Epl19639 Epl19640 Epl19660 E0119678 Epl19701
' Epl19838 Epl35063 ES~.35030
- 7. DCA-9253, revision 1 (Temperature elements)
- 8. Protective relay settings, revision 0, referenced in Gibbs t Hill calculation VIII-6. (Bruce Wilcoxin, x734, is checkiq but has not responded yet.)
- 9. Copies of the following documents referenced in Gibbs & Hill 6.9 KV bus short circuit calculation IV-3:
- Main Generation Data, ACT-987, dated 7/19/78, equipment no. 1G and 2G.
- Main Generation Data, ACPSI proposal section 6, equipment no. IG and 2G.
- Diesel Generator, DeLaval letter DET-091, dated 2/3/77, equipment no. 1EG1, 1EG2, 2EG1, 2EG2
- 10. Copies of the raceway schedule (2323-El-1700) for the ;
-following cables:
Epl35118 Epl35119 Epl35035 Epl35036 1
- 11. Calculations associated with the CVC for DCA IC675, revisior 8 (cable _ tray support " detail 5").
' ~#
Page of
~ ,_ _
- sasent Communications
[4M'M Report lll111llllllllllll1lllllllll11 compa9exas Utilities com'er ec a aori O x 'ecoa ProtectComanche Peak Steam Electric Station JbN- 84056 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4/4/85 sutnect: Time. 5:30 p.m. Place Discussions with CPRT CES-SFR0
Participants:
F. Dougherty ' TERA N. Williams CES Required item Comments Action By F. Dougherty wanted to briefly review the major Cygna findings arld identify the key references. I provided him with the April 4,1985 (reference Cygna letter 84056.062) transmittal of the RIL and we reviewed the Cygna findings in the piping and pipe support areas. I highlighted the fact that although some of the issues have been partially addressed by Gibbs & Hill, such as mass participation, Cygna is unable to draw any conclusions relative to-the cumulative effe cts of the many issues which are interrelated.
\
signed: N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, L. Weingapt, 1 of
, ,m , ei,,_ w -= w .__.__ >,_ ,,__ n n , . ,, ., ,.,,m.
"J ' ' ' ' " #"'" '""*''"'"'"'
Distribution Q
;. S ' 'J
Communications L4 L n i Report htl:: ' ' " .. "::lil company: Texas Utilities O Telecon conference Report
'" J No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:
7/2/85 l l
" T'm 3:40 p.m.
EBASCO Memo on kl/r P! ace: SFR0
Participants:
' EBASCO R. Iotti J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
EBASCO Interoffice Correspondence from E. Odar to R. Iotti, dated June 17, 1985, " Comanche Peak NPS; Trapeze Type Hangers - kl/r Considerations" Cygna asked Mr. Iotti if the document referenced above was intended to apply to cable tray supports, pipe supports or both. He replied that the document was intended for use in cable tray evaluations. Mr. Iotti asked for Cygna's opinion on the document. Cygna replied that the document was being reviewed on a technical basis as well as an FSAR commitment basis.
- n. niii
{ ains , v. N nem ng, v. van uneimnyen,
- v. nu3s, n.
nus>cman, v. Leung, a. Distnbution:- Trphv_ J. Ellic . 'LMan113 Proinct File inac oi.
p '- Communications [.4M M Report lllll1111llllllllll111ll111111 Company: Te ns Utilities nie CE weene Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date: 6/13/85
" Time 1:00 p.m.
Thermal Loads on Cable Trays & Supports Place- gp3{3 gjgg
Participants:
R. Mi EBASCO J. Russ Cygna Required item Commente Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Iotti at his request. He wished to discuss thermal loads on cable trays and their supports and stated that the purpose of the discussion was not to request Cygna's accept-ance of EBASCO's methodology on the evaluation of thernal load effects on Unit 2 cable tray and supports, but to inform Cygna of their actions. I informed him that acceptance of EBASCO's metho-dology could occur only after review by the Cygna project review team. Mr. Iotti asked what Cygna's experience was with consideration of thermal load effects on cable trays and supports. I informed him that the industry does not generally consider thermal loads on cable trays and supports located outside containment. I also noted that the question of thermal load effects was raised to understand Gibbs & Hill's rationale for ignoring a loading com-mitted to in the FSAR. Mr. Iotti stated that he had performed ; calculations which showed that the thermal load effects were small and self-relieving. These calculations included the stiff-nesses of the longitudinal supports and showed that the maximum displacements in a 100 foot tray run was approximately 1/16 inch. I added that though these resultant loads are small, they must be considered in conjunction with any other previously identified issues so as to provide a component interaction value less than unity. As far as supports located inside containment, Mr. Iotti stated that the thermal loadings were being considered. Work on the supports had proceeded to a point where several supports were identified as requiring modification. This group included several transverse type supports located around a bend from a 4*'
. d .
o. van mierungen, u. m _ _ nu n , n. nui s ma n , m v.
- i. c u u 3 , s.
i Ostnbution: " * * "* T 3'"h Trohv. il. E11 h. CRurwell? Proiect File
Communications 4 (u t i Repod lillitillitilil!!!!!!!!!!illil Requwed item Comments Action By longitudinal support. In some cases for this work, Mr. Iotti stated that thermal loads were being ignored if the interaction ratios-were around 50 percent. If a particular support was found to have high interaction values, the thermal load effects were added in to assure that the interaction values would still be less than unity. Page 2 ' 2 102o 01o
d Communications LTL %' a Report lll1111lllll1lllllll1111lll1ll compabas Utilities OxT'eco- co <ereece aenoa Job No. 84056
"'i Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4/2/85
Subject:
Time 11:30 a.m.
"'*** CES-SFR0 Comanche Peak Response Team H. Levin, F. Dougherty TERA (CPRT)
N. Williams Cygna J. Redding TUGC0 Required item Comments Action By The CPRT personnel listed called to briefly discuss Cygna's findings relative to the cable tray supports. H. levin was interested in Cygna's views on the viability of testing as a metns of resolving the findings. I responsed by saying that Cygna was not adverse to testing as long as the programs were well thought out in terms of setting an objective and conducting the tests ir a sufficiently controlled manner. The difficulty that Cygna has had with the conduit testing to date is that the program was undertaking a very broad proof of conduit support capacity without collecting the proper type of information to do so. The concept of enveloping support configuration was also not justified sufficiently. In spite of this particular experience with test programs conducted to date by TUGC0, Cygna believes that a well structured test is a very viable means of evaluating the support capacities. H. Levin also mentioned that EBASCO was noting some possible discrepancies with the type of Hilti bolts installed (Super Kwil vs. Kwik ). I responded that Cygna had also found the same probl em because the Super Hilti bolts were not marked with a star in the field as required by current procedures. It appears that this requirement, however, was not instituted until after many installations had been made. As i result, Cygna requested TUGC0 QC personnel to perform a sample ultrasonic testing program to determine if the Super Hilti's were installed where required. "he TUGC0 contact for this testing was Mike Warner. The results of this sample of 64 bolts on 23 supports indicated the Super Hilt' 's were installed where required. I suggested that the CPRT personnel talk with Mike Warner.
< n ,-il,A n D Signed- Page of Yf N williame; .L Rodding J. van Ameronoen. R. Kissincer. J. Russ. W. Horstman, D.
"" " 23-C-0402 Leong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 'SNuheiT'," Project File /dco /
m ooi.
. o
. 'N Communications
&M:
a i ei ? r a Report lllll111111111llll!1lll1111lll Teiec n Texas Utilities { contmnce ne on Proiect. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/29/85 Subject. Time: Conduit Support Tests 9:00 a.m. Place: I CPSES Participants- + of R. Miller. R. Yow CCL E. Bezkor. P. Huana Gibbs & Hill C. Mortaat TERA R. Kissinaer S. McBee TUGC0 N. Williams, J. Russ Cygna nequired item Comrnents Action By
Reference:
Communications Report dated 3/7/85, " Conduit Review Questions," McBee, Leong and Russ participating Cygna met with Gibbs & Hill, TUGCO, CCL and TERA personnel to discuss the conduit support test program. Per the referenced communications report, TUGC0 had stated that a conduit clamp testing program may be implemented to test clamp behavior under sirruitaneous three-directional loading. Cygna had reviewed some test data for Unistrut and Superstrut clamps and noted that tests were performed for unidirectional loadings in each of the three directions of restraint. Cygna suggested delaying the test effort until TUGC0 was aware of industry prac-tice on clamp testing and the use of such test results. Gibbs & Hill. described the interaction equation used to determine clamp adequacy. It was noted that C708-S clamps were stronger than C708-U clamps. The tension and shear allowables for Uni-strut P2558 clamps, which are similar to C708-U clamps were used as the controlling allowable loads. Failure was assumed to be controlled by the clamp bolts. The applicable loads and the interaction formula are shown in Attachment 1. The safety factor of 2.0 was based on a draft paper regarding electrical compo-nents. The title was not available to Cygna. Based on the discussion of industry practice, TUGC0 was unable to describe the intent of the conduit clamp testing program. Cygna noted that they were performing a review of industry practice and would be checking on other clamp test programs and interactions formulae. Signed; b'M A'//
- Page of f .
/ J M il /L ty m lajb 1 5 D'$tribut'or' ,. N 11 hg J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S.
m Communications Report M W in 11111111111lll1111111111111111 Requwed Comments Action By item Cygna stated that the clamps will in all probability remain intact, but may be defermed to a point where positive contact with the conduit may not be maintained. If contact cannot be assured, the impact on previous response s~ which rely on such clamp-conduit compatibility such as those that consider a systems behavior must be reevaluated. Along these same lines, Cygna pointed out that the same clamps are useri on both two-way and three-way supp. orts. Cygna has noted that some two-way supports have the same stiffness in the longitudinal conduit direction as some three-way supports. If the same types of clamps are used, the supports designed as two-way restraints may be experiencing loads for which they were not designed. This behavior should be addressed by the test program. Cygna asked about the deformation of conduit clamps allowed upon installation. TUGC0 stated that the present criteria only al-lowed gaps at the conduit. The deformations were more prevalent with the t/pe P2558 clamps than the type C708-S since the P2558 clamps were shorter. Cygna's concern lies with the shear of the Hilti expansion anchors that attach the clamps directly to the concrete such as in CA-5a type supports. Cygna will internally investigate the clamp deformations. Clamp modificaticns were also discussed. Cygna had previously noted that some clamps were reamed to allow the use of Nelson studs and Hilti expansion anchors. TUGC0 added that C708-S clamps for 4" and 5" conduits were also modified by cutting off the end portion of the clamp ears, thus removing one bolt hole. This modification'was chde to meet conduit separation criteria. l TUGC0 stated that the testing of the modified clamps may be l required. Cygna reiterated that further study and consultations 1 be made before embarxing on a clamp testing program, j Cygna asked TUGC0/Gibbs & hill to explain the screening process I used in selecting the support types for the test program. In response, Gibbs & Hill supplied Cygna with Attachment 2. A meeting was held between TUGCO, CCL and Gibbs & Hill to select l the supports to be included in the test program. In addition to the number of installations of a support type, the criteria in Attachment 2 were applied. The first pass was to determine the support types which can be analyzed by AISI code specifications. The shapes in this pass would not be asymmetric or loaded in a fashion which would not induce torsion into the members. The criteria also specified that transverse supports using asymmetric sections would be enveloped by multi-directional supports. 1 1 Pagg of
Names Communications [4 L%' M Report ll111lll1llll11111lll111111111 Requwed item Comments Action By The last two criteria would compare multi-directional supports so as to provide enveloping cases based on configurations and member usage. The application of these last criteria were based on
" judgement calls." The entire screening process was based on a visual review of the support drawings to compare configurations, components and loads.
Cygna stated that there were two approaches to answering the concerns on the torsional loading of the unsymmetric sections. The first approach would be to load rate the actual component by either rigorously testing it under isolated conditions or by testing it within the support. The second method is to load rate the support to determine its capacity. If this second method is used, one must ensure that the test sample is representative and enveloping. Therefore, it is necessary that the " judgement calls" be justified and documented to allow the extrapolation of the test results to the balance of the supports. As a check on the selection process, Cygna will review the Gibbs & Hill drawing package 2323-S-0910. Cygna stated that several Review Issues will also affect the results of the conduit tests. These issues should be considered in any further work. The following issues were discussed.
- 1. Dynamic Amplification Factor The effects will be considered in the determination of the final results from the test data.
- 2. Inertial Support Loads Inertial support loads are determined by the "EZHANG" analyses. The effect of the inertial loads will be sub-tracted from resultant test load to arrive at an effective margin over the design load.
- 3. Longitudinal Loads on Transverse Supports The consideration of these loads will affect the screening process and will be affected by the clamp testing program.
- 4. Use of Non-Rigid Conduits on CA-Type Supports This concern would affect the screening process. TUGC0 suggested that Cygna review Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-ES-100 for the spacing' requirements. TUGC0 will check for any previous calculations for support type CA-15.
Page, of 3 5
W N %'Ia Communications Report 111ll1!!1111111111ll1111111111 Requred Comments Action By item
- 5. Use of CA-Type Supports in LS Spans The effect of increased accelerations in transition spans between LS (i.e., flexible) and LA (i.e., rigid) spans must be considered.
l TUGC0 explained how the test data will .be reduced to arrive at the final margins over the design loads. The previous tests have shown that the failure load is 1.6 to 1.8 times the target load.
.i 1 (The target load is 2.5 times the accelerated design load.)
Failure has generally been at the maximum oeflection of the load , cell although other failures have been noted. The loads from the ' cells are plotted against their deflections. From these curves the effects of support inertial loads will oe subtracted. Since the designs were based on an assumed material yield stress, the failure loads will be adjusted to account for the actual yield stress as reported in the Unistrut test reports. A margin of 2.5 times the design load is desirable since that factor is specified in the AISI specifications. TUGC0 is performing a second set of conduit tests to address Cygna's comments on the previous tests. The test specimens, drawings of which appear in Attachmt.t 2, and the loadings are as follows:
- 1. Test Specimen G-9T The specimen is similar to specimen G3T, but the loading is in the opposite direction. The localized failure of the '
P1001C3 is being investigated since the spot welds will be placed in tension.
- 2. Test Specimen G-10T This specimen uses an 8'-0" beam and a 2" conduit so the l section will not be stiffened. This configuration will l address the torsional capacity of the beam av.d the tensile '
capacity of the spot welds. The brace angle has been increased 60, to increase the brace length.
- 3. Test Specimen G-11T The configuration is identical to specimen G-10T. The intent is to test the brace member. Therefore, a 4" con-auit is used and located on the beam near the brace member.
Pagg of 4 5
- Communications
' L4 M'LtTJ t Illililillilllillllillllllilli Report comments Ac70 By item
- 4. Test Specimen G-12T The conduit is placed on the bottom of the beam and load-
, ings will be directed to induce tensile loads in the spot welds.
TUGC0 also stated tnat the test data will be examined to see how the test results might be extended to qualify the Z-clip connec-tions, Detail CSD-la, e Page Of 5 5
.. . . ~ . . ..
9 Attacnment 1 , Let: T = Applied conduit tensile load TA '= Allowable clamp tensile load V. = Applied conduit shear load . I VA .= Allowble clamp shear load SL- = Applied conduit slip-through load SLA = Allowable clamp slip-through load The following interaction equations must be satisfied. l I__ + ( V + SL < 1.0: TA V SL
< 1.0 SL A
] 1 h
- k. 3-st V5 ATTAcHMWT 2 SCREENING GUIDELINES FOR TEST CONFIGURATIONS A Review calculations and qualify to AISI - do not test B Not frequently used C Transverse support utilizing asynnetric shapes enveloped by multi directional support D Configuration enveloped by other supports - judgement call E
Members enveloped by members in other supports - judgement call CONFIGURATIONS TO BE TESTED BY GROUPING Group 1 - Support against wall or ceiling - Multi-directional support (G1) Selection: CA-la Member size = P5000 s # - Conduit size = 5'O Bolt size = 3/8"O Hilti Outrigger = P5000 Group 2 - Wall or ceiling mounted - cantilever in one direction and propped-
.(G2) cantilever in the other direction - Multi-directional support Selection: CSM-6a - wall mounted Group 3 - Wall mounted - propped cantilever in two directions - Multi-directional (G3) support Selection: CSM-9 Group 4 --Wall or ceiling mounted - trapeze support with internal or external (G4) braces - Multi-directional Selection: CSM-12 Group 5 - Wall mounted "L" type support with external brace in the longitudinal (G5) direction Selection: CSM-10a Group 6 - Ceiling or floor mounted - propped-cantilever in two directions -
(G6) Multi-directional support Selection: CSM-11 Group 7 - Junction box support Selection: JS-2a l (G7) 1
\
a
UNISTRUT TYPICAL SUPPORTS UNIT 1 AND CO M N CONDUIT SUPPORT UTILIZING UNISTRUT MEMBERS POSSIBLY RESOLVABLE NOT RESOLVABLE BY AISI SCREENING ANALYTICAL METHOD-BY TEST ONLY SUPPORT TYPE BY AISI ANALYTICAL METHOD A CST-1 X A 2 X A 3 X
.A 4 X A
5 .X A 6 X A 7 X A 8 X A 9 X X C 10 C X 11 C X 12 C X 13a & 13b A 14 X X C 16 C 17 X(if P1001 or PE001 X(if P1001C3 is used)d is used) A 18 X A 19 X A 20 X X C 25 C X 33 C X 37 X G3 CSM-1 G4 X 2 X G4 l 3 X G4 4 i X G4 5 X G2 6a & 6b G4 X 8 X G3 9 X G5 10a & 10b X G6 11 G4 E X G3 U X X G4 19 20 X .&44 X B ! 21 X B l 22 X G2 26 36a & 36b X- Bfp i
. 1 e-
' UNISTRUT TYPICAL SUPPORTS UNIT 1 AND COMMON CONDUIT SUPPORT UTILIZING UNISTRUT MEMBERS NOT RESOLVABLE BY AISI POSSIBLY RESOLVABLE SCREENING ANALYTICAL METHOD-BY TEST ONLY SUPPORT TYPE BY AISI ANALYTICAL-METHOD X
e6 CHM-la X AE 2a X
.S P CSF-la & lb X
D86 B JA-1 & 2 X 3a & 3b X 086 4a Y - C m JS-! ! 10 n; 5:10:: X B 16a & b B X 17 B X 20 G7 X 24 B X 26 G1 X
- CA-la & b X GI d4r E&b X E
PA 4 X 6 7 X S 48 8 AA 9 X * &T 3t,- s G7
)
JS-2a G7 JS-2b G7 JS-3 G7 JS-4 G7 JS-S G7 JS-6 G7 JS-7 ' G7 JS-8 G7 JS-9
- 6
~
ft,- so NOTE: Support types that are underlined are proposed configurations to be tested.
6,
~ n. m W r- '}-
' pigE Sii? 2 ee e sh
. i . =g3 =, A c 5 l 3 4= f -@- - 3 $a ? ti$g, d dijFdiss
- lE53 i
.. !!EEil:s E
.d .
. w a noe nN 1,o E g/P r 4i
,g gg lg ;J i
s e ag
'[4t:ilsalsggg 5 u
$$pg =.n> as we su g .
. .=gs11- ;sg
$ g.ef 31
- s. isdhadh,
.. c. ,
al s ,
.e 5
- E5t F i gl2 *' jf s J g 1e i
! i!$i di!e!jiP,dii$e!ik} ei o i i :i4! rg m p. .g=pi11 r e:
- 3 a g! ! g v f l. z
,g bgg;Ig4;P c.*l f I m !
s le g h.!s i i d 513.s ' ' i E.!it!! i 5 I! si: a ligas italin indi d el*l hjA hj
! ;!!i g IIPII !]jii !" >
I i m s <. # e e s- 6
!..g l
as vt l-m 8s is .,g gxo _ [3se , s s. y 14 i 1- Is ji l' M1
;
- h, !RiT 3 s I'I" I c Ils e 7-g
- v. u
- mE 0 i l l ! i l
i l ' -" y .c ja.i E
,*!$lN =* p i I ;Ei il r 3
s W< = m 3g E4 z.
?
f k's5h* 5N4 ,e
- . ~
. !'!" its1 7=
i 1 WI ,: - l p!g<$ 1
$ }, +E=b Le v - e , -
E -55I j
*$n = C Lf1 E y y ' c bl Y (
*,.4
_ P =g , 9s. e e i
\
E= >- D u q* , d , r=, sy ' bdir". . g.
-i a v' .
ti li$-y$ EE l= 71 19 ,,..
se r ev. $' NO** ' -.--e rs004A-q CAPACITIES c4 m 37 s ce s.6 {Ploot c3 til LBS m .g c i a.* 1HT S.5 40*AQ2
. u ,
g _ gegs Q' 30* _6 0*
*li-- - - - - 'n -> __
ArrACHso ATTAesso
** .d s A To wxt. _ _ .ro cs wG 8~ i.
4 e.w w so- ' . Tn asti.- LoNGt-TRAH6- LONGl= 4 8 r. FZ66 v.s. .F4_ E--TuOiHAL ..v.s.A0E-ruCWaa.-- g _ g.g 5
._ I
_ y l.
,/
rioco s
.'-x .
6* -O' . 44._ 6 6'- 124 56 54 7G . 10 6 3 ag, yO' 62 f
, '~
- A,' r j
' ' ' N es na ,4 i4a g . I , . .
a O- 5 8e f
} 206 2
b Z i H
.qq V - '- P tol5 f~rr 1'
W~nei afe)g sc
,~' - .-
E'-O' 12 & APPLICATIOH em. . IOo N jf 1
.H- v jgg_QLTAiL c - ; c c>-a i (t .uyany
.-o
- 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES EEE unLL Ab
( . PL AN 011. ELE.VATION SALL OR W82 3 "^*- CEILING N,"T" DNG 25ES-S-09tO SH G l. (&A.W p -mMw i. s'soon.P5tm t1R P5000843 12 CAPACITY OF ERACl(ET IS LIMITED TO
~FES5S FOR CONDUlT4e*gl ONLY ONE OF THE LISTED GROUPS OF Oh l ,Ng"O*'EEId C FO65 FOR CCM)UIT e.2*4 CONounTS. FOA ANY GROUP, A cot 40 tilt 3
1- TYN - OF A 6 MALA.ER O(AME!TER MAY BE P f y,tjM SUBSTITUTED FOR ONE 6HOWN rPilll i E i I g_ l.j I l b_~g 1~ 4! c ir
.5. litAL L ' t2:004 bil0We4 pi it'Cl~ ion A A tlAY tT. It'EN(il DOS ANiell0Rilt'NI/4
*8 ; g -.
'M ycgggcat) pgopgg3 ggggeg g I i M de etCCis O in i MMic titeHG 81'410A gl l - . . _ _ *l
. I .
t>sn . Arte et,t 4L OR sNol4 e( cut.Y
.. I i 1 -
(F100lCS 4 E ##EE III' 9 .E j l8 : 4
'I' hic##I t u .OOO'I'ON#'s Sit w o i 'tw o :neio'in s eL 0" I'I il l HEE DETAIL 'S' 1 0 1416 It' W tlCADER.
, i
, P.ib52 uin teu cSu. n
,1.rj I' uAA. FOR CONOulT
- 2*p 4, CAtte. (AHHlf.140H fM6tf tan t*6 ^11tulGD
-) 1-in i.m tromese mi e. was, ou i <
(TYP.) CECTlON A- A, fel. (,60 '2. t lee ADER PWAA - ' utvisco As Horto Tyst j i ,,g 1',e
.in) -. g --
EVI^ tid AS tt01 tid COMANCHE PEAh _-- 6._$ ?_4h_I t -~~
'.s f r n ,,_ ,,_ _ ,,,,
*(.ve%D A e40 LEO 4 6 einLA.w utm - sur -
MULTI-OIRECTICAIAL SUPPORT evFx o e eoTec) L wme g - 5
-- ~~
5f 5 TEM 6 FOR Su6 PENDED R.AIS TYPEG
~ ' -~ ~
ilnwig g {pk siva5EutWTES As tFlEl Z - 1 :naA m r7 g
- etvnto u noen w e g g
2 1atwae rty - Jet Foll5CO AS NOTEO . ~ . /P..s ! t' Sin
+ - 7 - . .-- ss. c.e H p 4 - 1...
g,sy,,,, -
. . . . . , mi 230S - = ::.
(M ( .
a a O f 0 1 ga. F ).6 n at ! r c'q vi s ., 5.k o 5 g a 30 E 3h g g. -g di'l s f4 e 2 y g o.
$3;
- u s.
bb $ f f 'I"gt '"I : d ; i hI 'N 0 6$ u e- sA ? c5 hi r E d p~9
$c.
3 l at au "j3 gg d i 2 28 f J ro 0 o < e ws p 5 d!'y 55' g o 5>-a gi$ $ 5$as12 v 23= e l! $a P, Lyr,1 I Eg
$ $ g$
= j;1 I 4
o y 8 "hs e
;{h.{. on.l..."i!g" . oI A,
5 a m q s a W . f .- i g!3 : o ji ,v a a ag Ogd :l 9P l U - 5 5 U fE esh
- 3 Ifl8l1 2 N
5 k! l ltl l 43 l il i i i a
.l ' .I i i .
a, l 8'I !a ( - ii i i ?
#Sk; s u a d
l I :
$-a M L o ii,i, m i i
i
'i
.e - l@% \! . ,
jo [l=3 w eip g i f ji ! lj !! sb 42 H i ij ic 3 xL 4 em,
')'%.
s
,v g8 M.
e 6 f
% ll k M~ f, f ,].
;_ l
' _ _= m_-9 = ' ._ r .
,. g 3 ] 4,
--------d{l
. 'i l
,s . l
.4
, l.
l 4
- ,3, d<*j i 3 2.' -
i if < .- i. .i tl4
- A *Y b *y v h V
\ L's li.! ? ,c ' 4 - nQ u
- 6e' v
<t c ._ - -
r- - - 3 $ E I ~ ~_~ ~ E E ~_ ~" ~ ~ _ _ _ C *
,T--
.T -
e *?
- a m --
n
'7U E L' n !p!i . ffl n 5;=
. e
- , ,1 4- . g# g te wg a a p#
"3
_g e v. : - gy@a f E ! d h 3 A tC; ., kaE Yl h ' A Nf l e~ ipllg5 ',g s = aIgi 4~$tTl! \, up s i 33 9 ,4@) <\ <
' s dis 3 wd 3 h2 !
- u. . . . y p~t y -,c 3 % elegs V o(Q \
ff 2 kV t 3 F= - - - .- ~ ; ; _
*hg ! <Id,f g
jN g, Slfg 3h fg , y1 + , fj y ~' I
\h 1
l,l,l$'s.h,l5linidt 4.gh$E s-3 q s,d ,M , ' l
' 5 ' 3 w j ' I 1 b','t 9 ' II y 9
, {l j o 5 .
f: >.t.p$ tu[ b g
~
- 77-i ,,
f e g us - es s ~ y, 97 jf ', 8 8 we; gI e b g r% u 5 l , o!lp m:f
,n
, m
, p'u 8 y u.
yt. l
' \ \
n
;j$0 2 3 , :
$ f 9 Df (t$ l f l 4
;j, w_
Mr , #d p:ffal If,+j b , x 5 . t C l+ 5i 9 y . @ $3 if$""~4 w "
'i '
dh,! E , !ll !! I ; ao4 . _,. .
$g Pg
*D 89 e e 4
. - . , , - - -- ,-. .,......-,,-,---,,--n.--, ..,-,,..,-c.
*d
- i i e kl o;' r . v (u - D e F p i5 o '
c t; Dyeb u 3-5;a - . . gi( . .] u g}, f, gg ;, ,4
~
, Yg.
Di d q
- h(t' j
'> , y j f i :;i I,
g
.)'
~ .
$ G G LS 4 l D
** T ?, '
9 d ( ydf f,{ h
$9 O h f o f!
t .il etl N + v
,ogged u 1 a ghi H I= iqG <
ad 'us 6 o It pLgf.' f f 6 t-
. C <
o g
< ( y, 0 Ff 8 9 5d IJ a-3 f.
9 g. I IN a I
.f,[ , II, E
d'- Y d {[
- h. L I -. g ho( a *< 2 rs eye i 9 i" $ $ $ j h
1 w. (Ldy i ^- -) p @dz illShllbfud fd _t s l $DIj!., j ([ h E, a p$gs
$ll$h y j
I I l
-, Y U n
> gis a all. a r iu i i .
9 , EW 4i sitiaa i l ll l .; l s+mu o s , , = . I , , aj '
'y .
.N ,
; I l I l '!]
kG t 5 le
~
.l II I I i
.k( '1.9 I43,d 44 ] i I l b_ =os v 1r
.i. .
;l 77 77 [' ,y '. D [
Sg) $ w TT , , . , ra ili i i g 2' C 04 J] ) N h kf ;I j$ e
]
f,
/ e a rca i
, mL i 31 F i tt y i
f l fo
~
3 0 i _ - --- 2 D rf'fn"yy' ( 5 (,y ; s ! i M !: " Gl' en -; g-dj 6 Ej T gg QS x ; r$ dI 1 k Yj f- t
/ g8l Id J
G h3 1 r a, v ., . u ~ e,_ =u t ggua.
.: ,,, p"
~h I .
Il e j ;j ,T h
- 4- O /g; 3U l
$ 6d iud o. k: -
l b i
- - l
h
;i E. - . . 75 .
S e .
$k xs / dh' h- o t' !I I -.
I !E ) *h fh+ f. hN f '
.)
l i
,d -
* - -> LK "d 'g *h
- s. b o D" s
'F-Q ib- g- a
- 6 4 i 5g5 %
i - o> \ a ,:r 4 m U8 ( gi
- 2 , Q 0] I o i '
g{nhl - rt M l w .--F %gX gl8 j fj- ! lH p-3.: P0
"*e n' !
- z cin W H i
4 g 11 1
!! d u . Q F 0 3
}.
o by %,0 ,.
- <
- il g.7 o dfAt- 0
! in e; ; m' 4
$6 u 2 u s a y Et s o 1
7 *- QhE @p i ! is d ! l13 s -- uid g . @(. , u i= l@ ;i N M 3 :D'o- % , 4m 2_ _ 3z 4s !. g uGkB }
; %$c ~*2
'. $)2 $ #s; ,Z _ __li_; bic inio: :
;'y .jg 'k' , E~fL- -~TLl 6- "$ ili I a
===Ms in i e
J *h
- 3 l.' 5 7s$ #8 4 UN jili ; :
q!$ 0 $ _' . . b8 F . - . - tzi Q*ti-lgj,
'ili ui
?
f( '8 .cE ,g ,W' 2 h*.h y 3 l B
, % .uo ,
'x\ lp "g 4G m IIll ' l I
-,f 4 Q' i, titrets i L? -
3' b 1111 ili i y - sj \ I \
\
\,.s. -
00 q-U l - GitHt$. ! 4 s ' (I ..
%I g}
E45 i
'I g
5 ' re d
$ \, f =
p _ . ,H - . p f,g hxj z ' r- ei; /g ,ggm iii y w _ ,c- , a . 1 1 e,40 I ,I m:-r w m p{ M i
.f
,I I m ,._
)o D ED La_ a,-7 E'd lg I
./ .
! ~t
. ~
ga tl i )sh2 i 9 g _} - is.i . N Y[ ' $ ' T ,I d [. \ EET
'g' g.t ;1 w e co .; g; ...
jR w
\ '
E ' C f $ l,- - .
= . . . . . p,. 6 o4
- _.... B sA 36
.py 4
6 . g 6190 e
- l\
/ 8 S . . . M l' . ,
W d. E E t P ,_ sY p y T o s _s. T.
+ T a s. m ,
5 t S o ' xN d um a ._ .i 2 t
- 5 Pr .
2 3 I P Z U f e s a
. C S SD c.
4 x W 6 '4 '4 '6 4 6 '4 1i, MSE O A 4 4 4 4 4 # 4 4 E U %E - ,
"j t
S I u 4 T oO 5 W s s d 5 t E M$ 5 i S d P oS M. s 6 TEo D 6 "6 6 8 # '6 i O i , WMX I Cs 0, E*A A.i u 1 1 1 1 i ' 1 1 d T CS WE
- L M4 D ,.
O O. d A O c . t. t lo x b o o G 6 4 o 4 l' t G t i 2 ft u J F [ . DEM E M Fo 'TC J f i i O G 0 G ll AO AE N BA2 D3 ME4 (D I w 2 1 1 1 3 4 G i i I. O Hv.AM Ep3
) HU T . . * = * - =
OC rO5 i 4 z OT J C J
> . g o 6 o t 1 4
N 3 G G S M P Rt A m"toJ T G c S WNTOOF a J e i , t 1 8
. i c
EATOSOt i e e. CEmTE AB L b2S t. T 3 . i b _ E T N A EFC f f H OoECHG *JE o . . g E InC ( 9W A tT t d E3 v OR EEteT T g MCeAi E A i r R VAjp t
/ .
c u ^*
/ l'S M
t 4 6 ~
~
g y _ T g .. ; 4 d
,I. p'- 1
' 0 f .
, f '
gt . 1*' re e , i - _ ' 5 l 2 .,,
.7
__ f - f 7 I1, ,
- e __ m T2 8 9 ,,
nA _. .
' C<
f- .C .
"S 2 7 _
._ ' . ET -
~)
odoo . e , C y' $ Ur ' f 5 r __ SC. ** T1 m,P . U il Aa .E
* <i2 w 06 i .
E_ S S (
, { -
s
- P p3 iI,
=
- n. E r
, }' 2 3 j -<
S g sJ pl
- S4 *-
- U s
lb _ I
. r t
- PP o ,
4 ,f O Z g 4 * *. ._
' p
,j,
~ - '
W8 c D"m
'l 1 II
_ { 18 k ' i
.
- a ..
f , t n+ d W)f . ._ 1_* * . i t . . Lx~ 3 .. f 3 Ei t
.._.M ,
m 4 C I A' y ~ ._. . (r . 4 3 O OO t [ .. m-
'['
I
.L P P S'
-D.t C o.
1, t 4 t * [(*g~ . 4 o4 .
- m S o a. 4-g l W-- . ' . _ P P s. S A} $. T_
3, Mp u_' +* E. E.2 Br y ._ i j a-O HS
'o y y
.i4 m
Y AE S HT g . . IIr [a MTsC t 5R M
- lI I 3 l I
'4 - . .
8C S G t
- 0 ) 0u .N t 6
* ']
, ~
. il
?
t ~- t o9o5 ru Gc t n . P P oNo cTTos C A
.s
."i -
S ( To4 I Fs 4 1 t H u4 T M T *C. Cxy h g. O n:T r WAC M eAS S t $ O
~
i
.-4 -
Communications AL t i Report 11111881ll11111111111111111111 Company: IOXas Utilities 0 Telecon h Conference Report Pro;ect. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oste: 3/26/85 subject. Cable Tray System Dynamic Analysis T'me- 2:30 p.m. Place. G&H/NYC Participants M. J. Peir, of G1bbs & Hill S. Vivorito, Chana. R.E. Bezkor,J. Ballard, P. Jan
'iiuang,Mareno S.
C. Mortaat (phone) TERA N. Williams , J. Russ . G. B_jorkman. S. Tuminelli , C_vana M. Engelman, M. Berry, W. Horstman, D. Leong Required item Comments Actfon By
References:
- 1. Cable Tray Raceway System Dynamic Analysis Program," dated March 4,1985, Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
- 2. Communications Report dated March 20, 1985,
" Cable Tray Analysis," R. Kissinger, R. Ballard, E. Bezkor, et al . participating in order to respond to issues raised by Cygna regarding the design of cable tray supports for CPSES, Gibbs & Hill performed an analysis of five cable tray systems. The results of this analysis effort are described in Reference 1. As noted in Reference 2, Cygna's review of the Gibbs & Hill analysis was to conclude on March 26, 1985, at which time the results of Cygna's review would be discussed.
This report documents discussions between Cygna and Gibbs & Hill regarding preliminary results of Cygna's review of Gibbs & Hill's cable tray dynamic analyses. C. Mortgat of TERA participated in the conversation by telephone. Cygna stated that Case 5 analyses and designs were reviewed in detail because it is within the Cygna scope. Case I was selected for spotchecks of procedures and design of components. Items reviewed were briefly listed as follows: e NASTRAN Modeling Members Boundaries
- Dynamic Degrees of Freedom
; /ajb 1 9
'"b""
N. Williams J.Redding[J.vanAmerongen,J.Russ,W.Horstman,D.Leong,S.
..... areoy, v. ii in, j. Q g. , Ti ve T1
COmmuniCDtiOnS Al n i Report i l1llll11111111lll11llllllllll1 R r Comments e NASTRAN Analysis Method
- Load Application Load Cases and Combinations 4
- Design Criteria Anchor Bolts e Design Calculations Methods Procedures Spotchecks for Critical Components Cygna noted that further review of the criteria calculations, design calculations, and applicable documentation would be performed at the Cygna offices.
Cygna discussed the following findings of the review in detail:
- 1. Use of CBAR Elements in NASTRAN Model Cygna noted that CBAR elements were used instead of CBEAM elements. CBEAM elements would have oeen a more appropriate choice, since CBAR elements can not model in the effects of ecentricities. Quantification of the effects of the selection could not be provided by Cygna. A more flexible system and increased torsion could be expected. The lack of torsion in the beams and weak-axis bending in the hangers is due to the inability of the rigid offsets to move the mass to a position longitudinally eccentric to the hanger-beam gridlines. Cygna stated that the mass must pass vertically through the channel flange and not the grid centerline. The support model, therefore, does not accurately reflect the eccenticities which cause beam torsion and weak-axis moments in the hangers.
II. Eccentricity of the Tray Mass for Longitudinal Supports A rigid beam element with full fixity was used to connect the tray and beam nodes. Since the rigid link maintains a right angle compatibility with the tray longitudinal axes, and the beam is torsionally weak, the tray will take out the torsional moment. Since the tray absorbs the torsional moment, only weak-axis flexure is experienced by the beam. Gibbs & Hill stated that the intent of modeling in the rigid link was to consider the eccentricity of the tray mass. Cygna stated that, had the moments been released at the tray node, the modeling would be more appropriate. Page g of g 1020 01D
Communic 2tions 4L i i Report llllll11111111lll11111lll1llll Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna presented an example for a longitudinal support (Type D1 ) for Case 5. For this support, the torsional moment in the beam was 240 in-lb. If the applied longitudinal reac-tions (788 lb) were multiplied by the vertical eccentricity of 5", the upper bound applied torsional moment would be 3940 in-lb. Cygna further determined that phasing of the longitudinal responses of the tray did not have an effect on these results. Gibbs & Hill suggested that the resolution of this issue may depend upon the rigidity of the tray-beam connection. III. Boundary Conditions for Truncated Tray Branches Cygna noted that boundary conditions were not applied consistently for all five tray systems analyzed. More importantly, the branch-tray end nodes were not connected to the rigid mass where response spectrum input is applied. Gibbs & Hill confirmed that support base connections were rigidly linked to the mass, while the tray end nodes were constrained in space and were not connected to the global mass. Cygna stated that the branch tray ends must be connected to the global mass, since physically, at some point, the branches are connected to a support where excitation is applied. Cygna provided an example for the Case 1 analysis where a tray branches off to a tee section. One support on each tee leg was modeled, with truncated ends constrained in global directions. Cygna pointed out that the support immediately before the tee branches was highly stressed, which could have been a result of the fixity of the branch ends with respect to the input motion. The calculated results for this support may be conservative. Cygna also noted that there was no available output to assess the behavior of the area in question, such as support reactions on the tee branches or mode shape plots. IV. Missing Mass Consideration (Higher Mode Response) Cygna discussed the method used by Gibbs & Hill to account for portions of the system mass which are not excited in the response spectrum analyses. The percentages of system mass participating in the dynamic analyses t we calculated by Gibbs & Hill and are summarized in Table 1. Gibbs & Hill's practice of smearing the response of this missing mass uniformly over the entire system is not acceptable to Page 3 of 9 som oth
Communications ( Ld c i Repod 11llllllllllll1llllll1111lll11 Item Comments Ac o y Cygna. This is due to the fact that the missing mass should be distributed only to those locations where higher mode participation, i.e., those modes greater than 33 Hz, is dominant. Since the method employed by Gibbs & Hill smears the mass over the entire structure, its use inaccurately estimates selected support loads and other responses. Gibbs & Hill suggested that the methods employed to con-sider the missing mass were consistent with industry practice, and since a low participating mass in the system response was calculated for those frequencies below 33 Hz, the predominant response was rigid. Therefore, a smear technique was an acceptable approach. Cygna diagreed, stating that by having any modal response below 33 Hz, one could determine where the higher frequency responses would occur. Thus, one could employ techniques sJch as that described by Powell and used in the commercial programs SUPERPIPE, NUPIPE, and ADLPIPE to properly distri-bute the missing mass response. V. Design Criteria Calculations - Anchor Bolts The method by which Gibbs & Hill reduced the joint moments at the support / concrete boundaries is shown in Attachment
- 1. The reduced moments were used in checking the adequacy of the anchor bolts. Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill to explain the derivation of, or basis for, reducing the moments at base plate / angle connections by considering the base angle fixity ratio. Gibbs & Hill stated that the fixity ratio was the moment distribution factor required when considering the relative flexibilities of the base angles and hanger members. Cygna replied that this was the factor for only the initial relaxation, that further redistribution of moments in the frame must be considered, and that the final moment in the base connection would be some value other than that predicted by Gibbs & Hill's nethod.
Gibbs & Hill discussed the applicability of AISC connection design philosophy for Type 1 connections to the base-angle connection under review. Cygna stated that justification is required to compare and apply the AISC philosophy to the connection details under discussion. Cygna suggested that a comparison be made between the assumedly fixed boundary conditions and the actual boundary condition by performing a moment distribution on a model of the support and its connection configuration. Cygna also
~
Page 4 of 9 1020 0 t b
Communications AMi lill;;;;lllL Report
/
nem comments Ac?o y noted that, analytically and realistically, it is not appropriate to assume a model to be fixed or pinned at the base without evaluating the base connection's capacity to accept the moment from the fixed condition or addressing the ability of the base connection to deform through the calculated rotations of the pinned assumption. VI. , Design Criteria Calculations - Warping Normal Stresses Cygna described the methodology used by Gibbs & Hill to determine warping normal stresses in beam members. The Gibbs & Hill method considers beam members with fixed-ends to determine a factor which was applied to the member torsion in order to calculate the warping normal stress. The length of a single beam element, which represented only a segment of the beam model (i.e., the hanger node to the tray connection node) was used in the calculation. Cygna feels that a more appropriate approach would be to consider the entire beam member length with pinned ends. The pinned ends are justifiable because the beams are connected to the hangers along the webs only. Gibbs & Hill stated that the models and assumptions used in the criteria calculations were conservative when compared to the method suggested by Cygna. Gibbs & Hill stated that the warping normal stresses were higher for short element sections with fixed ends thar for an entire beam model which has pinned ends. Cygna stated that for some cases that was true, but not for all cases. Gibbs & Hill stated that a calculation was performed to show the conservatism of their method. Cygna noted that those calculations were not 'i.icluded in the criteria calculations. Gibbs & Hill will provide calculations to justify the warping normal stress calculations. Cygna then noted that St. Venant shear was not checked, and with consideration of additional torsion previously dis-cussed, the shear stresses may be significant. Gibbs & Hill agreed to check this. VII. Design Calculations Cygna reviewed the methodd ogy for the design calculations and assessed the ability of t e hprocedures to address the concerns of the Review Issues L!st. Cygna is addressing this portion of the dynamic analysis by review of the design calculations in Cygna's off;ces. Among the topics that Cygna is concerned with are: A. Consideration of Bolt Holes in Beam Channel Flanges Page $ of g 1020 01b
COmmuniCClionS AL g.. t i Report Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna asked how the reduction in beam channel section moduli was considered in the dynamic analysis, since the tray locations were not rigidly controlled during the initial tray support layout and installation. Gibbs & Hill replied that for the tray attachments within the dynamic analysis scope, the as-built, i.e., actual tray locationc, were considered in the design and were found not to be critical after refined evaluations. B. Lateral Torsional Buckling Cygna has observed that Gibbs & Hill assumed the trays will provide bracing to the beam and hanger members in their evaluation of lateral torsional buckling (LTB). Gibbs & Hill initiated a discussion of LTB considerations for hanger members. It was agreed that the discussion on this issue would be held at a later date, since this subject is of generic concern. C. Procedure for Calculation of Interaction Ratios For the Case 1 design calculations, Cygna noted that interaction ratios (IR) for steel members were calculated as follows: (IR) Total = (IR)Deadload + (IR) Seismic The documented Gibbs & Hill calculation did not appear to consider the possibility that the following axial interaction ratio would occur: (fa)Deadicad + (fa) Seismic > 0.15 For situations where the axial interaction ratio exceeds 0.15, the total interaction ratio combination used by Gibbs & Hill would be invalidated. Cygna did I not observe any cases as described above, but is i concerned with the approach to documenting assumptions used by Gibbs & Hill engineers. D. Braces Cygna noted that the Gibbs & Hill calculations for brace members on longitudinal supports use axial allowables for secondary mmbers. Cygna feels that since these brace members provide the primary restraint for longitudinal load, the allowables for ; Page 6 of 9 , I 1020 010
Communications AOna 111lllllllllfll111111111lll111 Report Requwed item Comments Action By primary members should be used. Gibbs & Hill assumes that these members are secondary and are subject to the AISC Code provisions for such members. Cygna also noted that, since the brace members were modeled with no intermediate nodes, the NASTRAN analyses does not calculate stresses in the brace due to uniform acceleration of the member. These stresses due to gravity and seismic accelerations should be added to the displacement-induced stresses calculated by NASTRAN. Cygna calculations show stresses on the order of 3 ksi for this effect, which may be signifi-cant. Gibbs & Hill will check brace members for these additional stresses. E. Welds Cygna noted that no weld checks were contained in the design calculations. Gibbs & Hill is presently check-ing welds for the dynamic analysis cases. The check will be made by comparing the loads from the dynamic analysis to those in the underrun weld analyses. Cygna noted that these calculations did not account for all Cygna concerns such as weld size discrepancies. Cygna and Gibbs & Hill returned to the discussion regarding CBAR elements and their offsets. Cygna discussed their thoughts on assessing the behavior of the members in the model. Cygna does not fully understand the formulation of the CBAR element and is not assured that the system was properly modeled. The example previously discussed in Section II of this communications report (Longitudinal Support Type D Cygna stated that t5c torsion in the beam is r_j) . ofwas the recalled. maximum torsion and believes that the result is not reasonable. Additional evaluation would be required to assess the extent of any discrepancies. Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill how they assessed the rationality of the dynamic analyses results, since it was difficult for Cygna to i check certain concerns due to the lack of adequate output generated in the NASTRAN analyses. 1 Cygna discussed an example of calculations done by Cygna to check the behavior of Case 5 under longitudinal load. Since support reactions were not included in the printout, calculations using I internal member forces were necessary to check whether the distribution of mass was reasonable. Cygna concluded that the proper magnitude of mass was included in the analysis, but could not ascertain whether the distribution was correct, since output i for boundary areas was not provided. Cygna feels that additional Page 7 of g j SM 0'# _ _ _ ,
Communications d (% i Report ll1llll11lll1111111llllll11111 Requwed item Comments Action By output in the boundary areas is necessary to assess the perfor-mance of the dynamic model. Cygna pointed out that, if results were provided in the boundary areas in Case 5, mass distribution could be checked, and an evaluation of the effect of constraining the truncated tray ends as discussed in Section III of this communications report could be performed. Gibbs & Hill stated that they decided to limit the amount of output at the onset of the analysis effort. Only quantities necessary to support the conclusions were requested. Gibbs & Hill feared that if too much output was generated, for example, at the boundaries, there would be a chance that the information could be misinterpreted since some unrealistically high stresses will appear at the boundaries. Cygna stressed that it was difficult to judge whether or not the analysis was a good one, b?cause a line-by-line check of the input was not possible to accomplish in the limited time allowed for Cygna's review of the output. As good practice, Cygna feels that as a minimum Gibbs & Hill should have provided reviewers with the following to assess the reasonableness of the analysis:
- 1. Check of reactions at artificial boundaries.
- 2. Assessment of expectations versus results.
- 3. Justification for the choice of dynamic degrees of freedom (DDOF) and verification of the system behavior with respect to the choice. This is especially important since DDOFs were chosen at the support nodes instead of at the tray nodes.
- 4. Mode shape plots for major modes to judge whether the behavior of the system is as expected.
Cygna acknowledged that these discussions were preliminary, and that further discussion may be necessary to resolve the issues. Cygna cautioned Gibbs & Hill not to perform substantial rework of the dynamic analysis based on this discussion. Further discussions would be required with TUGC0 since Cygna is not chartered with the responsibility for authorizing work by Gibbs 8 Hill. Page of g - - --_
ATTACHMENT 1 Let: K, = Moment distribution factor for base angle which reflects rotational stiffness K b
= Moment distribution factor for support beam which reflects rotational stiffness M = Joint moment from NASTRAN output MR = Reduced joint moment
=
(M)[(Ka )/(Ka + Kb)3 r O I 1 s i { s
. . . , - - s --- ,
p- --- .n a y p--, , - -eme.,-r,w-----, e - - ~. ,,
a e Communications l d (% i Report i 181lll111111111111111llllllll1 Requeed Item Comments Action By Cygna summed up the discussion by stressing the importance of thoughtfully and methodically resolving the concerns. Overall, there may be a problem applying the results of the dynamic : analysis to all cable tray systems at Comanche Peak. Cygna stated that they have not yet seen the documentation for the filtering process used to select the five cases for the analysis effort, i P 1 1 Page g of g _ _ . . '0800'8 _ _ _
TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF MASS PARTICIPATING BELOW 33 HZ _________DIBERIIDN G85E__________K__________Y__________I__ 1 65.3 23.3 47.7 2 42.0 21.0 58.0 3 65.0 25.0 35.0 4 60.0 23.0 66.0 5 46.0 60.0 69.0 N9IES
- 1. Table 1 was summarized from Gibbs & Hill calculation 2323-DMI-14C.
Sets 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. . i l l ~ . _ _ _ _
Communications Libh i Report llllllllllllllll11111lll111111 cornpany: Texas Utilities O m coe can' ec a aoa Texas Utilities Electric Company "' 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8-6-85 subject: '""' Phase 4 Electrical Open Items 3:30 P.M. CES-SFR0 P. Lalaji Gibbs and Hill K. Zee Cygna Aequired item Cointnents Action By
- 1. Mr. Lalaji called to continue the discussion of the electrical open items - ref. communications report between P. Lalaji and J.
Oszewski, K. Zee dated 8-1-85, 10:30 A.M. Mr. Lalaji said that the open items list should be formally sent to Gibbs and Hill; i.e. Mr. R.E. Ballard, and that he would not take any action to resolve the open items until directed to do so by the project. i 1 i l s.gneo L/ -
/pim Page 1 o' 1
)
o,itneution: N. Williams, J. ReddfM J. Oszewski, R. Porter, K. Zee, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. soaoose ny _,_.eny
. , , .a.
- l. _
w ; 1 , .- Communications 1 3 d i n' To Report 111111:: companr Texas Utilities conference Report D Telecon Project Job No. 84056 Texas Utilities Electric Company D* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/1/85 Phase 4 Electrical Open items 10:30 A.M Place CES-SFR0 P. Lalaji Gibbs and Hill J. Oszewski, K. Zee Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna Asked Mr. Lalaji various questions associated with the documents reviewed during the Phase 4 IAP. The questions involved clarification or justification of calculation methods and inputs used in the following groups of calculations:
- 1) System short-circuit calculations e Justify the use of cable impedances based upon 75'C.
- Explain why the subtransient reactance assumed for large 480V loads is 25% when typical values are less than 17%.
- Explain why the 480V short-circuit calculation is based upon a maximum available momentary symmetrical 6.9KV short-circuit current of 36,000A when calculated values are 38,000A.
- Are updated grid capacities available since the calculation is based upon grid capacities determined in 19747
- Was a short-circuit decrement curve used to determine the diesel generator's short-circuit contribution?
- 2) System voltage calculations e GaH Calculations 111-7 and !!!-8 show overvoltage and undervoltage conditions on the safety buses. Has this condition been corrected?
signed /pim Page } of } p j
- n. : m ri s am> , v. _neuurnu, v. van amerungen, r. . LEET-TMreoy, v. ct113, a.
o,,ineo,,on
- jlSurwell, Project File om ...
w . . . 1 Communications A ld i i Repod llltlllllllll1111111lllll11111 item comments Ac y e How did G8H determine the offsite grid voltage variation . e Where are system voltages during 480V motor starting calculated?
- 3) Overcurrent protection / Relay coordination studies e Explain why motor thermal limits and transformer ANSI po ints were not used.
- Which G8H calc'ilation shows the coordination of the dies el generator's short-circuit capability and the 6.9KV feede s.
d e it appears that the primary and back-up protective devic as for the reactor coolant pump motor electrical penetratio l conductors are connected to the same current transformer , It also appears that the breakers have a common control power source. Please clarify and/or justify.
- 4) Cable sizing calculations e Justify why the cables inside containment were sized for a 50*C ambient when the long term post accident temperature is approximately 65'C.
Cygna also asked Mr. Lalaji to review motor starting and load sequencing for the component cooling water pump motor starting against an open discharge valve. Mr. Lalaji said that he would review these items with G4H/Cygna the cognizant engineer (s). Further discussion of the above items in greater detail is planned for the week of 8/5/85.
/pim "*8' 2 1 im e.
Communications dini Report 1111111lll111114ll111lll1lllll company: T* coa X conference nepon Brown & Root Project Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/4/85 Subject Time. Start-up Procedures CPSES Richard Baker B&R D. Oldag Cygna l Required item Comments Action By I asked Richard where start-up procedures could be reviewed. Mr. Baker stated that there are an abundance of those sort of procedures and that one of the following people could give me more specific information: i John Allen, TUGCO, located in the Operations and Administration Building, X5204 and Sterling Franks, TUGC0 Start-up, X799. l i i l i s'9a*d
' /pim Page} of }
Distneution N. % 11'ams, J. ReddingbJ.. van Amerongen, J. Oszewski, C. Killough, D. Oldah, S. Treby. J. Ellis. 1. 11 *9roiect File PRJ/23-C-0604F _._,='*- _ __ _ - _ _ _ _ .
1 Communications ALn.i Report 1811111llll111111111111111llll comp *"r Texas Uti1itles Teicon confer nc. Report Project. CPSES IAP - Phase 4 Job No. 84056 D*- 7/31/85 suoi.c' T' m' 5:15 am Cable Tray Support Design Review Information l Request SF Participants' ' J. yan Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cygna f Required item Comments Action By I requested a copy of Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-125C, . i Set 1, Sheet 23. t (Telecopy Received 6:00 am 7/31/85.) i i i i
! 1 I
I signed g f
/plm pagel av 1 f
o,,ineut,on n.niiiT W, J. J. RUIs, n. norstman, D. i.cong, S.Treby,J.Ellis,: 8. brw. ell,' vafrAmerOngen Project File PRJ 23-C-0731A
. .-wo* . .. ..
Communicstions 4L t i Report 111111111111H111111111111llll Texas Utilities u T*'* con C1C conference Report Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*t Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/27/85 Design Basis Documents for the CCW System Gibbs & Hill /NY Place. R. Ballard Gibbs & Hill J. Oszewski Cygna item Comments Ac y Cygna asked R. Ballard to help define the design basis documents for the CCW system. Specifically, Cygna wanted him to discuss the status and relationship of the following documents with regard to DBD's:
- 1. Westinghouse design and interface information, specifically BOP-FR-1;
- 2. FSAR and PSAR;
- 3. Gibbs & Hill mechanical system description (50) TD-0229;
- 4. Gibbs & Hill CCW system calculations.
In addition, Cygna asked him to dicuss how the Westinghouse design information is transmitted to Gibbs & Hill and how it is processed at Gibbs & Hill. Also, what role did Westinghouse play during the conceptual design stage of the project? R. Ballard noted that at the beginning of the CPSES project Westinghouse supplied their Standard Information Package (SIP). This included the document B0P-FR-1 and was part of the Westinghouse proposal and their initial contract. R. Ballard also noted that much of the original staffing for the CPSES 1 project came from the Gibbs & Hill Fort Calhoun project. Fort Calhoun-1 was a CE reactor, but Unit 2 was a Westinghouse plant, 1 and so the people were very familiar with the Westinghouse SIP. Early in the project there were a number of the usual A/E design studies (motor sizing, plant layout, butiding orientation, etc.) which resulted in a conceptual design. 1 s.gneo '
/kab"*8' 1 2 N. Williams, _J. Reddinc , J. Oszewski, R. Porter, C. Killough, R. Hess, 5. Treby, oistribution i ri14e 'a: h aam112 W oiect File
.- .m . . . .
Communications v 4L i i Report 18lllllllllll161111lllllllll11 stem comments [cENy Once the conceptual design was established, the project managers decided to write down the design criteria in the PSAR. This was convenient because the CPSES PSAR referenced RESAR 3 and the Westinghouse SIP. supported RESAR 3 plants. The System Descriptions (SD's) were developed at the same time as the PSAR, but it was decided that the SD's would not be design reviewed and would not be design documents. They were for information and convenience only. The next step in the process was the development of system calculations which were utilized as design basis documents. At the same time Westinghouse was converting their standard design into a CPSES specific design, Gibbs & Hill was incorporating ;his infor: nation into the BOP design. During this period the SD's 4 were not being kept up to date. In 1978 it was decided to update the SD's but it was again decided not to make them DBD's. At this point in time. TNE was updating the SD's again, but not as design basis documents. Today the DBD's are the FSAR, Gibbs & Hill specifications, drawings and calculations. The Westinghouse project specific information (TIP) is treated as a design requirement. The SIP information is for reference and infomation only. In response to Cygna's question about Westinghouse, R. Ballard stated that Gibbs & Hill does not administer the NSSS contract; TUGC0 does. Gibbs & Hill receives all Westinghouse infomation simultaneously and has responsibility for technical review of all the infomation Westinghouse transmits. Gibbs & Hill treats the , Westinghouse information in the same way they treat vendor information from their own purchase orders. Page of L ~ n o
COmmuniCCliOnS L9 ten i Repod 11111111411111111111111111lll companr Texas Utilities a voi, con a dn,,,,nc, p,por,
""' JoN 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 4/11/85 suoiect Time 10:00 a.m.
Cable Tray Support Dynamic Analysis Place G&H/NYC Participants E. BeZkor, S. Chang, J. Jan (all part-time') Gibbs & Hill P. Huang, J. Pier Gibbs & Hill N. Engleman, D. Leong, S. Tuminelli, N. Williams Cygna J. Russ Cygna item comments [cfo"[E,
Reference:
Communications Report dated 3/26/85, " Cable Tray System Dynamic Analysis," Vivorito, Bezkor, Huang, et al. participating Cygna stated that the referenced discussion on the dynamic ana' y-sis of the cable tray systems noted several problems with the modeling and analysis. Due to problems with the tray boundary conditions and input motions through those boundaries, it may b e necessary to rerun the analysis. Cygna believes that the correc-tion of other problems concerning the support modeling, e.g., the use of CBAR elements, may be labor-intensive and lengthy. Cygna performed some preliminary comparative analysis to determine th e effects of these errors on the final analyses results. By mak' ng these comparisons, Cygna hoped to determine if the modeling errors might be corrected by hand calculations rather than by altering the NASTRAN model input. ! Gibbs & Hill inquired if the results of any reanalysis would serve any positive function. Cygna replied that the role the dynamic analyses would play in response to the generic cable tray issues must be determined by the CPRT. In order to assess its relative value, the dynamic analyses must be addressed in the CPRT-formulated action plan for electrical raceways. To prevent l any unnecessary work on Gibbs & Hill's part, Cygna suggested that further discu';sion be held between TUGCO, CPRT, Gibbs A Hill, and Cygna on the epneric cable tray issues. Cygna's study of the effects of the NASTRAN modeling discrepan - cies addressed the following topics: 1 S'9"" /aftr 1 of L
- n. Wiiiiims, J. Rim ing, R. Kissin gr. J. von Ar o,,, n e o,,,,
Leona. S. Treby, J. Ellis, 5.; Burwell . Project ile fvrumpo,- J. Russ, c n n --_-
Communications
. d L n ri Report lllllll111111111lll11111ll1111 item comment. [cNy
- 1. the use of CBAR versus CBEAM, elements;
- 2. placement of the vertical load colinear with the hanger nodes; and
- 3. the use of a single rigid link to connect the cable tray to the beam for longitudinal supports other than the longitu-dinal trapeze-type supports.
Cygna is still investigating the mass condensation with respect to the selection of the dynamic degrees of freedom (DDOF). In addition, the cumulative effect of the discrepancies found relative to the analyses results is still unknown. Cygna stated that two approaches may be used to obtain final analysis results: modify the present models to incorporate corrections to all discrepancies, or, if possible, perform hand manipulations using the present results. The first method is straightforward but labor-intensive. In order to use the second approach, several considerations must be made. Hand manipulations using the present NASTRAN results would be acceptable for a static analysis. For a dynamic analysis, changing the geometries and elements will alter the frequency response and, therefore, the internal force distributions. For the analyzed cable tray systems, however, the relatively flat profile of the amplified response spectra (ARS) may be a mitigating factor. Thus, large changes in frequencies may be tolerated without significant impact on the overall response. Such a conclusion must be substantiated before hand manipulations are performed. Cygna then discussed the preliminary Cygna analyses that were perfonned to address the topics listed above. To assess the effect of the choice of elements on the analysis results, Cygna investigated the element formulations by examining where NASTRAN reports nodal displacements and element moments and forces. The locations where these results are reported are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the CBAR and CBEAM elements, respectively. Based on Cygna's investigation, it appears that the torsional moments reported in the Gibbr, & Hill analysis when using the CBAR elements are 15% higher in magnitude than when using the CBEAM elements, but are reversed in direction from the actual configu-ration as shown in Figure 3. By using the CBEAM element, the stiffness was 20% higher than ti.e stiffness of the CBAR element. This roughly translates into a 10% increase in vertical fre-quency. Cygna feels that the changes in magnitude of the fre-quency and torsion are acceptable; however, the change in direction of the torsional moment needs to be evaluted with respect to the hangers. Page of
r. p $
l
. 1 Communic tions !
. L 'a Report Milillilittiilitiatillfilli R
"'m comments 3c y The effects of placing the vertical load colinear with the hanger nodes were also investigated. This concern is illustrated in Figure 4. Cygna's evaluation indicated that the change in stress in the hanger member due to the applied bending is approximately 3.3 ksi. If the vertical load offset is included in the finite element model, some reduction in magnitude may result. However, if the additional stress is imposed through hand calculations, it may not be possible to determine the magnitude of the reductions J
resulting from stress redistributions, and the full value of the bending stress would have to be considered over the full length of the hanger member. This additional hanger stress must be considered for every beam-hanger connection. Cygna investigated the use of a rigid link element betweenGibbsthe a tray nodes and the beam nodes for longitudinal supports. Hill specified full joint fixity at each of the nodes, which assumed full moment transfer. Cygna feels that in order to assume such behavior, not only must the rigidity of the tray-bean connection be ensured, but the beam cross-section must be suffi-ciently stiff to transfer the load from the flange to the beam centerline. Although Cygna realizes that the cross-section is not sufficiently stiffened to provide load transfer from the flange to the beam centerline, an assumption of rigidity was mad ( for comparative purposes. Cygna nsumed that the tray-beam connection was pinned in the direction of the beam centerline The model (X - direction in Figure 5) at the top of the flange. configurations used in the comparison are shown in Figure S. The results of the comparison using a 1 kip load, were extended to a more realistic loading of:
- 1. three one-foot trays;
- 2. a unit weight of 35 psf;
- 3. a tributary length of 40 feet; and
- 4. longitudinal accelerations of 2.0 g's.
For these values, Cygna calculated St. Venant shear stresses of 20 ksi and warping normal stresses of 24 ksi in the beam. An i additional 3 ksi was induced in the hanger members. The inclu-sion of the pin reduced the longitudinal frequency by 60s. Thes e results occur because the stiffness is based on the torsional stiffness of the beam rather than the flexural stif fness of the tray. In addressing the assumption of a single continuous rigid link, i.e., no pins at the flange, Cygna stated that a rigid tray-bean' flange connection must be provided as well as a stif fener span-ning between the channel flanges. If both of these details are m not provided, the moments must be resisted by bending in the bea top flange which may result in stresses higher than those pre-Page 3 of b c nn
Communic 9tions ts i n i Repod 1lllllllllllll16ll11111lllllll ttem comments [cNy dicted by the Cygna analysis. Cygna noted that, given the confi-guration of the clamp connection at the beam, a pinned condition must be assumed. It was suggested by Cygna that the stress magnitudes may be decreased by appropriately modeling the tray boundary conditions to reflect their attachment to the system input node. The stresses may also be reduced by guaranteeing that the longi-tudinal support torsional moment is absorbed by the tray. Cygna addressed the issue of DD0F selection and its effect on mass condensation in the Guyan reduction. When using the Guyan reduction, the D00F should be chosen so that large masses are condensed to the nodes where they naturally occur. To do other-wise may adversely affect the eigenvectors. Gibbs & Hill was asked about the existence of a convergence criteria for the method used for eigenvalue extraction. Cygna felt that if such a criteria did not exist, the higher modes may not be good. Gibbs & Hill stated that they felt the higher mode response was not significant, therefore the existence of a con-vergence criteria was not that important. Cygna replied that 4 higher modes were significant for local effects, but the modal mass participation, which was not provided in the NASTRAN output is required to evaluate the significance of the higher mode *, Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill whether they had assessed the effect of missing mass on the analysis results. Gibbs & Hill stated that they had assessed the percentage of load due to missing mass for the critical components on a number of supports. They found this percentage to be 2-3% and concluded that missing mass was not significant for the critical components. Cygna noted that smear-ing the missing mass over the entire system overestimates loads on some supports and underestimates loads on others, since the actual distribution of mass is not known. Cygna suggested that 100% of the mass can be applied at ZPA and combined to the other modal responses using an SRS5 to insure that all the mass at each point is considered. Gibbs & Hill stated that all braces were being considered as primary members. The calculations wherein the resulting stresses were compared to primary allowables were in progress. Gibbs & Hill presented an explanation of the method used to reduce the moments at the base connections by considering the relative stiffnesses of the base angle and the hanger member. This method employed joint moment distribution factors to reduce the loads at the anchor bolts. Cygna noted that the formulation was not appropriate, since the reduction was applied to a moment rather than a rotation. Additionally, Cygna stated that since Page 4 of 5 toso cie
I Communications . AL 6 d Report l 1111111lllllllll111111ll111111 stem comments [cDy this reduction was made using the output from the present analy-ses, the effects of changing the base connection stiffness on the overall response must be evaluated before the manipulation can be used. Such an evaluation on response must include the flexibili-ties of all support base connections. It is not acceptable to selectively alter the modeling assumptions as is assumed by Gibbs A Hill. Cygna felt it was important to discuss the interrelationship between analysis and design. When an analysis of a prelimanary design is performed, assumptions are made on the boundary conditions and structural behavior which are consistent with the physical configuration of the structure. Should the designer find that the structure is unable to resist the applied loads within the requirements of the adopted code, only two options are available. The designer may modify the structure to resist the applied loads in a fashion consistent with the analysis assumptions, or the designer may ask the analyst to refine the analysis in a fashion consistent with the structural configuration in an attempt to lower the internal load distribution 50 that the present configuration is acceptable when compared to code. Page b of $ on ,, -
- Calculation 4L Sh:3t i ,, i, a
~c'R$ W %fK n(seiM N w / ""' ?W
~
.!h' ire
***' OmAv\) mot.-(. o t d. (kfo GT :'nv-
***'"l lffd{ NPi C.pf(Off Rih [t1IC !!!Y'ClfiN" '
[4(>I[ Analyses No Rev No I~ Sheet No ' 1 I C0s - s
> r V ? .'. ? * / * ) "~'
/^lv scct<,5 v : G
( Cea t tLee q E ett cgscan unau. i\bfEi \
' ~
\ . dI s
> : e ; ;. : . , , . + ,
**'# ,)
't,,'.,,
i
- f] ' ,' , # .
, 7,
$(/,t4i.!.1i/1'Y
~
s
@2UG 7 l (
10G4 CO
Calculation AL t i Sheet
, muummonen k
"' ' * % 7 @ L a s - n f u t ! 1 4 0 ' t. a 4 "'" "' C[ Ac
4 v'y
'"*'*' MM v 10\ c14 n Y. '{p{c(r
\On,s f;f ry c,5
^
'"'" Aki *i(f i{ *' tn([hli Q' QM sc (Ld[.{'($ l r '** "*
Analysis No Rev No Sheet No 7
% ,' s) @ biesk O]fi.2%' l
/ ;'. (q 4 I i
($ $ N$2 ii
- l I p.
(t'$l l l l
' Ger '- p
( 1
- c. , . , ,
' f if) f. ( ~
(pic C m ! ' -. CG J f c. y i , 1. ,, ,., 1 r ~ . f)(.[-s r) s lj>l/'['f..T *]s i l
- a. ' * ') ( ( Q' l
sooe 00 l
Calculation 4( t i Sh:::st ElllllilillllNiillllNilll
"'"'synsme-ctm MMost 4
- r
'~""' cf %
Checked By
a Ia 17c Cate Subrect 0)h'?Y'1310{* J s\ /(f
- f. &' 'l
G)$ fl (l(dt 1IF1 U.'ff?if Dtm hilc hp '.I'/D E.' *" IJ D r $ Analysis No AevNo Sheet No
/*1 ,1
})( Q in' gs f
-v
- t. . , r.r: 3, e
e i h
\
V T 'e '# \ ( p ,+ ,t g 7f i I
'/ , ;
, b, e 4 .
3 h' ( U$'}' - cc g ... ,.\ l \\ A* .?* n .J e,
- r v
, q ,
;' t"
,1 e; . .=
\- . . . _ . . . .
1 (,c m , t / /, foc,,,, ' E,v./ . 14v
- t. Gyy
!2TUGli A 9t ' A C ' _. ' '. c .' ~
( <e 5
; ,*. . /,
y o (' i -
)e. .a.]-
1004 H
-4 -a_e .
- Calculation 4L t i Sheet . 111111144111111111111111111lll (
*'' f:^J K Of R \m G - (' PU'. ' Of i a[ v A YM'L '"'l*-
7: 04MihhAhCA'finIb kEfoPT ' O > et.
"' CMr O ; J/IToC1 P HMac Ml"Ipf "" ez ors Analysis No Rev No Sheet No
%W f
\ i /
// -
/ \
Y. t.% . N ,. - s )ty** r ,t 6 s
, . . - : ,. c q i. <. < i /; '.' t L-9 t M S di L L F
- sy
,;% c '
N," s 7p,. ,
.U wt y;,, , t ', 1 ' .,.:
y# - _\ s
,e ,.
fif?!)l 1/r OptL py,g./ r e r d E bp. _ yhete \ Tc.' y ra w ;;-n' : ' > \e Ih')fb h
Communications L4 L i i Report 11111111111111111111146166ll11 Teiec n g conference nepon Teras utilities Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g , ,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/4/85 Subject- Time 2:45 p.m. Request for Procedure ,,, CPSES Participants of 9_ Rakar Brown & Root n_ n1dag Cyana item Comments AcIo[By Please provide the latest revision of the CP-EP series procedures and the latest revision of the following procedures: CP-EP-1.0 Introduction CP-EP-2.1 General Program for Pipe Support Design, Fabrication, and Installation Activities CP-EP-3.0 Organization CP-EP-4.6 Field Design Change Control CP-EP-4.7 Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design Changes CP-EP-6.0 Preparation of Engineering Procedures and Instructions CP-EP-6.1 Preparation of QC Inspection Instructions CP-EP-7.0 Control of Engineering Procedures and Instructions CP-EP-7.1 Control of Special Distribution Documents CP-EP-9.1 Control of Permanent Equipment Transfers CP-EP-9.2 Control of ASME Related Material Items CP-EP-16.3 Control of Reportable Deficiencies CP-EP-18.1 Control of Records by PDEG 1l 15(A1/^ lkab 1 1 _ _ . ."N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, L. Weingurt, J. Oszewski, S. Treby, J.
l iiiiiggg Communications i [41*h' M Report I ll1111!!!!lll111111111111ll111 j l Company 0 Telecon 0 Conference Report Project. Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 c ip roc Subsect Time Onsite Mechanical Engineering Group C'ibbs & Win /" p,,c, Participants of D. Dallard Gibbs t uni J. Oszewski Cygna Required item Comments Action Ov Cygna asked R. Ballard to describe the responsibilities of the onsite Mechanical Design group. Mr. Ballard informed Cygna that no Mechanical Design group, as such, was sent to the site. Per the Project Organization (Section V.A.1 of the Project Guide), the only Gibbs & Hill groups at the site are:
- 1. Site Stress Analysis
- 2. Gibbs & Hill Duplicate Files
- 3. Design Review Team The Design Review Team members are considered part of the Gibbs &
Hill original design team, and are assigned by the Gibbs & Hill Chief Engineers. They are governed by Procedure PG-29 from Section V of the Gibbs & Hill CPSES Project Guide.
~ ~
~
L A DM 93u 1 1 Distribution N. Williains, J. Redding, R. Mess, L. Weingart, J. Russ, J. Oszewski, S. Treby, J.
" F111e t. Enrwall Drnimet File
Communications A (9 t i Report Mittlilllillalluttililli
*" Teiec n g conference nemn Texas Utilities Protect Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/11/85 Subsect: Time Request for Computer Output - Electrical 10:30 p SFR0 Participants of
._ S. Mareno Gibbs and Hill D. Oldag Cyana item Comments Ac n By I requested the following computer runs referenced in a 6.9 KV calculation.
101-1 201-1 301-1 2101-1 These are for a short circuit calculation. i Y) ilhlkA A /kab 1 1 N. Uilliams, J. Redding[J. van Amerongen K. Zee, J. Oszewski, R. Porter, S.
'oa a Trahv. J. Ellis.~ F. Proiect File
CommuniCOtions AMi Report 1811114llllll111111011114611ll Company: a conference neport Texas Utilities y Teiecon Proiect. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/10/85 Sub i ect: Time A.M. Thermolag Installation on Cable Trays ,,, SFR0 Participants of I. Vogelsang TUGC0 il. Russ. K. Zee Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Cygna and Mr. Vogelsang discussed cable ampacity derating for cable trays with thermolag fire wrapping.
Mr. Vogelsang said that the cable ampacity was derated, and checked against the load current and existing m ercurrent protection. The applicable site procedure is CP-EI-4.0-42.
- 2. Cygna requested a copy of the subject procedure. Mr.
Vogelsang said he would send a copy to Cygna via Jean van Amerongen.
- 3. Cygna asked if there were cases where both tray cw ers and thermolag was installed. Mr. Vogelsang said that existing tray cwers were not remmed before thermolag installation.
- 4. Cygna asked how cable pull cards were tracked in the field and how Gibbs & Hill re-routing of installed cables were handled.
Mr. Vogelsang said that new pull cards were sent to the field whenever cables were re-routed or changed by Gibbs & Hill. If the cable wasn't installed, the new pull card would be used to install the cable. If the cable was already installed, they would either physically remwe the 'old' cable and install the 'new' cable or write a DCA to leave the cable as installed.
/ / /aib 1 1 N.hilliNs,J.Redding, . van Amerongen, J. Russ, J. Oszewski, W. Horstman, C.
( ,
Communications L4 L n i Report 111111111111111111111lll111111 Tovac tit i l i t i a c Y Project: Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9f99fgg Subsect Time Conduit Calculations
" ^^*^
p,,,,; URO Participants- of
.1_ van Amer nngen Tllr,CO (FRA9CO)
.1. Ruce Cynna Required item Comments Action By
References:
Telecon dated 2/18/85, " Conduit Support Questions,' Patel, Leong and Russ participating. Ms. van Amerongen provided Cygna with the requested calculation numbers per the referenced telecon. After speaking to Pravin Patel, she stated that the CA-la calculations for Table 24 of fire protecton procedure CP-El-4.0-49 are found in SCS-1017C, Set 2, Sheet 8-11. Calculation SCS-152C, Set 1, Sheet 39 is referenced on Sheet 8. Ms. van Amerongen also asked when Cygna's response to the NRC regarding cable tray walkdowns would be issued. She was informec
- that the letter was in final review and should be issued today.
The letter has been delayed due to Cygna's preparation of the pipe support stability letter. If there was any further delay, Cygna would inform the staff. Ms. van Amerongen stated that she would note that Cygna was issuing the cable tray letter today in her status report to D. Wade, k) J t><s 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. uss, D. Leong,IS b /'
i l Communications ALn a Report 11llllllllllll111llllll1111111 company: Telecon Texas Utilities conference Report j Protect- Job No 84056 i Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D a'*- Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/14/85 1 subiect. Schedule Place. J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) D. Oldag Cygna I Required item Comments Action By Jean called to find out the status of three items from Cygna letter 84042.022. I told Jean that I would check on them and call her back. I checked with N. Williams and she informed me of a revised status letter that was to be telecopied this morning. I called Jean back and told her to be expecting a telecopy of the letter to answer her questions. Jean also informed me that CASE exhibit 669B that I had previously requested was being held up by TUGC0 at D. Wade's request. I told Jean that the CASE exhibit was needed for the stability review which was one of the open issues she was asking about. s.gne '
/ /ajb "*** 1 1 o'stabution N. Will'iams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, S. Trety, J. Ellis,[$. Surwel,1, Project < r >
Communications [. u d t i Report m!l""""" ll::: ::::::1 Company: Conference Report exas Utilities T econ Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D* 2/13/85 Subiect: Time a.m. Telecons Place J. yan Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By J. van Amerongen called to ask when Cygna would be issuing telecons again. D. Oldag told J. van Amerongen that other issues had probably taken precedence, but that she would check with N. Williams and call J. van Amerongen back. J. Minichiello spoke to J. van Amerongen later in the day and relayed N. Williams' response, which was that there weren't many communications reports backlogged, but that other items had taken priority. sm na ' j
/ajb " 1 1 Distonution N. Wi liiams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 5. Surwell, Project
\
l , Communications A l n' i Report 11lll111111lll1111111111Cll11 l l I l Company: Texas Utilities Xo Teiecon a conference Report
# J N o.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Date: {'IndependentAssessmentProgram-Phase 4 2/4/85
'#** T*: 10:45 a.m.
Unistrut Test Program - Conduit Supports Place-SFR0
Participants:
R. Kissinger ' TUGC0 D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna l i Required item Comments Act.on By Cygna discussed with Mr. Kissinger the planned Unistrut test program. Mr. Kissinger stated that the planning was almost i complete and listed the supports to be tested. These supports are:
- CA-la e CSM-6a
- CSM-9
- CSM-12 !
- CSM-10a e CSM-11
- JS-2a
- JS-9
- CA-2b (Type 3a)
Resultant loads are to be applied to the supports in the critical configuration, considering conduit orientation and placement and applicable accelerations. Mr. Kissinger extended an inviation to Cygna to view the testing in North Carolina and to contact Roy Miller to make appropriate arrangements. Mr. Kissinger will send Cygna further information on the test program as it is finalized. Cygna informed Mr. Kissinger that we had spoken to Ellwood Irish of Unistrut regarding loading and allowables of P1001C3 members, and conveyed Mr. Irish's explanation for the omission of allow-ables for these psrticular members. In a discussion with Cygna, 1 Mr. Irish had stated that no allowable loads are listed in the ' I Unistrut catalog for these members since the sections are asym- i metric and the allowables are dependent on the method aro point i of load application. Cygna stressed that for that reason, it' is i imperative that P1001C3 sections be included in the test program.
; N <
S'9a" V[g} /ajb Page} of } - Distnbution. M. W1 Illams, U. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. t . g ,n T .g i eii4,
, FaZ% ; n-,.j. .
~ . , _ ._ _
e4i.
W Communications ; M1+h' Id Report lilllilllllllllilillllllllllli
""'"# Teiec n Texas Utilities C conference Roon Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/13/84
Subject:
Time Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions 4:20 p.m. Place-CPSES Site S. Chang, P. Huang Gibbs & Hill N. Williams, W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By After a review of the tables of spectral peaks for 7% damping, Cygna comented on their acceptability. Cygna stated that, in general, the 7% spectra do indicate that OBE loadings will control the designs since the ratios of SSE to 0BE are less than 33%. However, three elevations in the Safeguards Building have SSE to OBE ratios which are greater than 33%. These elevations are 773', 785' and 790'. Cygna noted that any supports that were designed to accelerations which are specific to these elevations, such as for a CMC, may be governed by the SEE load case. There-
' fore, these supports would require additional review.
J 1 r seg u d. Page of
. ', D'$tneut'oa' N. Wil'liimis, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
l ' mo o,. ireoyo o. tiiun a. -s ia7Poasct ri se . _ _ , _ _ _ _,
1 Communications
, Mha g7.....im . . ..iig Report
***"# % Qnference Repon Texas Utilities T*c "
Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/84 Subject Time. Cable Tray Support Listing 9:30 A.M. Place. Gibbs & Hill, NY Participants. of P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Conference Report dated June 11, 1984, " Cable Tray Support Configurations," Peter Huang and John Russ participating. Cygna received the attached list which was requested in the referenced conference report. I
/ fg /aj b 1 1 I Distnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
< com o , noru man _, so i reo y,_ a_, t i 15._ m. nurumu erni cr Fiin I
* %cc/nv . i ,,
' /
Gsbbs S HiH.Inc. Jnh No. 1.523 C5ent q, - g::7 7 n. o g,g k, CahWNumber CYCT@eetNo. ,,
., vvaw g ,-
o== nw o.= n.v .%, .m o.m nw o.w. n.v on 3== MMJ-_. W X X X"' C' v/LO G';F.D : X I r,w m 6 gl 4
//b ,n 3/3
~
W r t'n . I/ 1 h , : /- .
$UME'TS5 d it<tl"UE '///sv 841,le _
<mMPtatR TRAY SFGMENT potA Rl(
Un05S RLecMh2BI oL,Tf4fr. J.D t.oc.Cr>t*Durf " TYPE s P.4ci a ao. Y z' x c-w or c.um n -s a ::'- TnbSM 3.I 0806 W9 480) SP7 n. ado SW. E.@ IS'cmuNau)S.@
.. p ,, 11' .,
.i
. . Aus
- El6eHI 20 odb6 4d74 Mol SP7 <<
6'-Ji~ Eqj ,, 8'C4 " n Ed-a6 Al h=E-l 3' *
~ 2'-15 a s9 oee6 4879 48o7 sN. n.sa's A-:.t" .
r
~
EM E @ ,6'-f 'N O ta cae5 ffe71 486 SP7 SO
' Mat As L = >'-c' l' k" st W i s'
'(J 17 ch5 # 1'f4f6 Al k= M s'-7' + . t 2Y~ WO i6 c@:s iB61t @ t Ai A = 2'-4 , lgd' HG - Al ju'9'i *- s@ ir i, L Al , ,, (, f- 6",, Ar n 1." .2 4 NS
$-9(
Al ~ IS @G %%L 't3*l
~
Al
. <> 9' 5" E& 9 h~ S&
. I4 08t? +M7%C8 .
~
13 o N 8t ui It874 AI
~~
~ ~ '
9'-9f~ S@ Z
~
As .. r- . s'-94~ . As ,
4 '-2.-k",, H@ ~
gn -
- (-s-4
..e. .
p S8 W@ i >!44".2'- W 6 3 f" p- M . A; M'6" n'3 _. 42 .okeNgyyaff .. .. . ..
~
s@
~
, (C T. ~ il~ is kno2 urw an't > . r-4 l .. q .; ..q_ F-166,7-82 Checking Method . # jma:::h=, m2':::: - . ~ , . L ._ ..
Jnh No. .2323 Chent GSbba S Hill.Inc. R*yect Sheet No. Calculation Nunier - om. n.v. o.= %. i o m T o.m n v. o.m 1 % X X X X h4 X emonw Lef. A-4t-f4 chec w I I m' -mY SEGHEVI Su% (3 STRUCTURE . LecAT104 k m Aa.K ouvrvt 2.n ec. cewowr TYPa _ R4ct t a o. Y 2 x r-W ec =L- our 4 .OFCAL.LAlf Eve't. FEE 2't E@ If NO rneMA 10 0% W7 4719 IX T s (s aar) /1 crrflo*r) =
" 't,'f.. 5
%s Dt kc$1b E@ a. W,. S El 7f 3-il 908C6 ItF7 4D8 AZ kMi 4'-14
" a A2 .
r 1 pfy.eks 1>nT F (1 1T 82- 0 "
., . ing -
a-m> se s G uT F WY M EO SS 21'-I{ DCT F trr Il L:4'-i E #11 FA2 @ \s'g-9 7' 'i Der F 4'-j " E@ l'- $i~ s60 _' - e A-4'-f tr si'- '" I 11'-
~
{ D .
- O O&c5 tr tCT h5 TCT 1l -
a 4'~ 5h S& p* e e e
. 4 ..
..e. >e-
* +
e.
.f
-~
(x
, .t .
e.. . . . ,
.. i . -
F-166,7-82 Checking Method # jmm
.m = =.-= _ _._..__ .. - -
Job No. 23z.3 Chent Gibba & Hill,Inc-R'hject StM No.
.." CakulationNumber '
o.m % o nw o.= %
- w. o== 1 h oon e one I X 'X X X P.-"4 X Pmww L J1. h-14 w (
suppogr's s p e g n J R rr agMAsy i cm mnwt WY sEGHEhT ' L o rA T1osJ rYPE-OUTPUT z.R tac. coM .E-W_e p co L . LnJ E_ .N- 5._of co' LWE _ PW li W0- Y 2, X_ sP7 n *
~
uML FME - x, S@ a Ts1bsa- " (-18 d SP7 ~ e .2 ~ ser ws oI s' h c-Lot-il s vLuii ~ G 33 oDJ Yf43 478$sP7 $g 6'- % el-64 els sP7 ' n )4' 'ld' otrH N& 32 cac1 Ws %c8 O*T d R&d-4' >'d E WLL f%% @ S$
~
.31 del 48t34bf SP7 rtN4 re 3[-T( "
n < 4'.p
~ <
- 4d .x d; S@
~
spy w/aR u
- 3 4'.25
7
" 23'-2[ ~
30 c@l 4853 Ybr3 SP7*/SR , al-2i" ~ 2i cSel yttt' yrd DET N cL77M ,. 28 c1N 420' W3 r 16,- 4 ', 27 42ff 42tr MT W RTitd a
. 26 o797lg2 o7W ter ~~ ~
~~~ sq-zy .*
w oyn yM M20 orr u wrti+' ,,
~
- ,, r, s o'. 2 { '
** n *r s'. > f*
r a n. r 6' s t* d ai ~ ~ .. s'-z g a
- r. . , . . . z*-a -k ~
24 0 o .
. or . A. & "
4 bsTW or
- & - l'- 4 ' 5@ -
1, . . . . (\ .. ,
,. , i,
-; I --
l
!. .i j .
F-166,7-82 Checking Method #.E*.,* j2::0. L W. 1 %=, .. , - - . , -
~~
l l
T Cbent Gibbs S Hill,Inc. MNo. 2an RW c4A6onW Sheet No. D( w w o= nw om nu o.a. nw om. an o.m 1ll::n X X .X X X Pgww LgL f-{l-29 cn.ca wnmst WY seenENT SUPPORT & stWCTURE' m eer .*.m Loc. co-* madre TY PT Lcc@or P.4w-fT Pi o. N z,' X UW CF c41-. LaJE_ fl-S oFeat.. upt TrioAsc sip o773 Y8C 1t9 4 sp7 n.dit 2't(r Wall PEdb 3 Nb 23 4 arf +1 6 strw. 12 c71e triig Ms1 'tily. DET [ n.g
's 4,- 3, Nh n.1st-# ..
sr 7 3'se n. Y-9' - a-1&cl5 , Al c8a3 If ggf a,qa.l n df, n , 2 MM r . *r d-6",, s-L E-3 4 iq -(
.t[
DET (w -eis).f F n&a 'r + 24 CQc3 It tff It9W _ d$ GP7 nbl'-6' 'i 17 cec 2.4 M if14f ta ofez. Mff 16t3 Dt1 F (6el-d&) d N N@ 17 cacy tr af 47.rf orifo%d - Mi s@ misw .: , v'-f s@ 77 css r c
. 16 eee r W ei vi77 scr IA't t . a'-l' N@ .
~~ l le dhre tstf 'ti 1T IPY MI Jr 9 1 1 WCE) tit cem,'(terlit tet.
t3 elf? Itfs t 8t it2. -. M .. ..[
. bro' id-t' f.@) 7 4" #@ -.
._. 12 (flij 'ttiI It jg'J. ._. . . .
_ . . _ _ lI 677& t8n{ ltYA . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . .
~
E opt $t M22 WbsY f.t (w at ya)w& 6'/[ N@ .-
,io se. k~' enf WE 9992 SP8 V$6' $3{ .
E& /t .M@ ~ 8 on8 %n +122. AO Of. - .' /' o778 w75 49st. A 4. f(1 _. . 7 ' SG DwG $ odse 8t#8f- 47gf. .
] n-7ae-t1 . ' . _ .
l.A4. h 234 3'1' .
- I/ t - .. -
m.3=cis t o8ee 4177 8t1&s A4 u 'c y' 3 ),, w@ s't - pa'y 3'-d
- st]@ it'i
;1 IF ose.r WT7 8tt#6 34 .
.. _L _L 1stso cse.. s'-24" . in't . #
3 eFor 'tip 8t io6 gc,, stE.)l n'ys. W @ ll'.I
- Checking Method # 2 ;ny F-166, 7-82
- . = = .. ,_ -
i
~
l
*
- Gibba C Hill,Inc. JobNo. 232.3 C6ent f
-) Wh Cabdabon ect Number Sheet No.
' Rw one new Dane neason T oene % one '
% oen.
M X X X X X
& LJ4- L- M #
cheaur carmtra TitAf 553%DrT 8* PPodG JTkdcTUPtE P 2.s ur e men TYPt L_ocA704 RDMM R W-M Ho. 4 z X E-W N ceL. LNE' W-5. o F-*
- L L'E ThGis?
d o84 %o (jll Sp7 nge M[ h- [(wn W) H8 wG spq m S'-2h. E($ _ rs 07=-Q 33 oS2 491 It ill n Teos - D2. h*/i Idd, M.
- 3 N@
~~
dioo 4733 H77 WTA nadi s,'-o,, E@ l'i
,, 3-o W@ - ,-
st k=a'8" s'-fi w@ s' - t@ ( G .
.3 can H16 H77 wTA nd i-f . gg wGD P42o-23 Ti24SEK 3.T c777 M 980 By uT v k=8,, '/ IN-k WO d 3 . Sh cat' eg <, -
ve. : .. -- WTG c'nfi***o @ 4'*3
~
- H0 --
w HI y - g-q u ' rg *u n . , Jd-jif . A-6cle:S M C777 Mf1 t8$.I DtT J & =9'6" E@ .* ".. .. ._
,, (ace M W .%" r@ t * ..
> N e" r - .e. . _ . .
- Y-3 i 37 elif 'IM %$3 S P'/ E1.-711 P- 1 k .9 . . _
l
. ___ .1, _.
.sr7 n.717 > c r u a rA 2) e @ /4 W@ . .
.a. . .. . _ . . _.. . . . .
. s . b _._
Jl .__ ..
. . . _ __ ., ~
(' ', i
.. l_ . ..j .
.2 __ p. _.4jj _ _ . . _
. . . . i... .. .
, q_. i
.i. . ... . .
1 i .. . I F.166,7-82 Checking Methoc # j .2:c-a:::n. c% W.W - -
b .. I Communications Ahi Report 186lllllllllll11llll11lllll111 cornpany: Texas Utilities oX Telecon a conference neport Project. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*'e: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 4/16/85 Conduit Material Properties 11:40 a.m. Place-Participants. of TUGC0 D. Leong Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. McBee how Gibbs & Hill obtained yield stresses for conduits reported in Calculation 2323-SCS-102C, Set 2, Sheet 18, since the yield stresses vary for different sizes of conduits. Mr. McBee explained that the conduits were fabricated per ANSI standards which do not specify material strength. Tests were performed by the manuf acturer for various conduits and supplied to Gibbs & Hill. Gibbs & Hill reduced the test data to obtain material properties. Mr. McBee will provide additional information and calculations for the material properties. l l Distneution
).
hhf -
/ajb"
N! Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 1 1 a: ww .-
.ww...,"
w e i vg=== s v ,s 1
M Communications Report [4Li'fd lilllilllllllillllllllilitill!
*"* conference neport Texas Utilities 3 Teiec n Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 4/16/85 subject: T,me 10:30 a.m. Conduit Support Test Loading Yoke Place SFR0 Participants of R. Miller CCL J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested Mr. Miller to telecopy a drawing of the loading yoke used in the tests of specimens G1T (Type CA-la supports). Mr. Miller provided Cygna with the drawing on April 17, 1985. l 1 l i
} j})fjj j /a1b 1 1 oistneut on:
N." Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. icac oi. treby, J. tilis,.s..Burwell, Project File
l Communications ALn i Report lilll::""" . :;;;; i l
*#*"# Teiec n conference neport Texas utilities Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U*-
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 5/7/85 Subject- Time. 10:40 a.m. Conduit Stress Allowables Place Participants, of i J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
References:
- 1. Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D. Leong (Cygna) dated April 16, 1985 1 2. Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D. Leong (Cygna) dated April 18, 1985 Cygna spoke to Mr. McBee regarding the conduit stress allowables as discussed in References 1 and 2. He stated that he had col-lected material test reports on conduits used at CPSES. The data indicates that there may be a problem with the conduit stress allowables. He stated that the data will be sent to Gibbs &
Hill, New York, for evaluation of problem existence and/or extent. Cygna stated that if work is to be performed that further discussions might be appropriate to clarify any of Cygna's concerns. jj/ d f /ajb "*** 1 1 D'5t"butma~ N. Willianis,' J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. 1030 014 5ycuy,tJ. L I I 13, J e -.wwsI, r rvJtL b r 135 _ _ , _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _
s' Communications At n' i Report II::""""" ...::llllll1 conipany: Texas Utilities oX Telecon a conference Report Protect: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 4/18/85 Conduit Supports 9:25 a.m. Piece SFR0 Participants- of 1
- 0. Leong Cygna Requted item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following information from TUGC0:
- 1. A copy of the document authorizing the change of fire protection cross-section from round to square.
- 2. Information on the process or supportin] calculations for the resolution of underrun / undercut for conduit supports, specifically for supports against which CMCs were issued.
Mr. McBee also reported that he had reviewed the conduit materia properties contained in Gibbs & Hill calculation 2323-SCS-109C and agreed that the Triangle PWC test data was used by Gibbs & Hill for the conduit span designs. Mr. McBee was in the process of reviewing the electrical test specifications and noted that TUGC0 requires one coupon test per truck load of material. He will continue research into those coupon tests to ascertain whether the assumptions made by Gibbs & Hill are enveloped by the coupon tests. 6 fhf)),}}p , / aj b '*** 1 1 Distneution- . Willliams, J. Wedding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. Treby,
== Communications
[4bilId Report lillllllllllllllililllllllllli company conference Report Texas Utilities Te! econ Protect Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D** Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/19/85 Subject Time 10:30 a.m. Dynamic Analyses of Selected Cable Tray Systems Gibbs & Hill /NYC P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following items.
- 1. One set of floor spectra.
- 2. One set of composite envelope spectra.
i l l l l
)
l
&])gj)wY /ajb " 1 1 o'stnbution II.' Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. ._ . tevnu. 3 . T . cu r . J. Eli o. - ,. ;;. 7. usm T iic I
Communications A L ;& i Report 11lllllllll11!!!!!!!!!"!!!!! companr Teiec n Texas Utilities Q conference nemn Project- Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independtnt Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/27/85 Sut Ject' Time Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions 8:45 a.m. p . CPSES Site Participants of S. McBee TUGC0 J. Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated 2/22/85, " Conduit Calculations," yan Amerongen and Russ participating. f Cygna spoke to Mr. McBee regarding the calculations for conduit support capacities for fire protected supports and embedded plates. 4 In the above referenced telecon, Cygna was told that the calcu-
- lations which document the capability of fire protected CA-la -
supports to carry the additional load are contained in Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-1017C, Set 2. Cygna requested the similar calculations for all other in-scope supports. Mr. McBee replied that only CA-la support calculations were so revised. He pro-vided Cygna with Calculation Sets 2 and 3 from SCS-1017C. Cygna also asked how QC checks proximity criteria for attachments to embedded plates. He replied that it was his impression that the criteria was checked at the time of turnwer. signeo V -
/ajb page 1 or 1 j }}}) u w
'"*"" N. Williams, J. van Amerongen, R. Mssinger, J. Russ, O. !.co3, S. Trahy 1
- - - -,__.en, 1070 0t e Ll4Ib, p y "'" . ' ' ' ' ' ' - -
Communications ti tu t i Repod 111111lllll111llllllllllllll!
""*"" conference neport Texas Utilities T*' econ Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oate Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/4/85 subiect. Time Data Request - Inspection Procedures 8:00 a.m. Place J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following inspection procedures:
- 1. QI-QP-19.5-1, " Surveillance and Inspection of Completed Installations for Separation / Spacing (Unit 1 and Common Building)," latest revision plus all historical changes.
- 2. QI-QAP-11.1-28, " Fabrication and Installation JVA Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports," latest revision plus revision 26.
l l l V[h/)Mfo /ajb " 1 1 oisinoution- N. 'Wi'1'iams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, J. Russ, S.
..... n --y, J. iii n, ).)_. J,i, r, vjm r ii.
Communications AMi Report 111llllllll11ll1lll1111lllll11 companr Texas Utilities Telecon conference neport Project Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*te 3/4/85 subject: T.m. 9:05 a.m. Conduit Review Question - CMC 68272 Place Participants of TUGC0 D. Leong Cygna Required item Comments Action By In a previous telephone conversation, J. Russ (Cygna) asked Mr. McBee (TUGCO) what deviation for conduit C12G03126 was allowed by CMC 68272. Mr. McBee called to report the following:
- 1. The original intent of the CMC was to document the deviation of the support configuration around the conduit elbow fittings (LBD). In the LS-la drawing, two supports are specified on each side of an LBD. Mr. McBee stated that the requirement is for providing moment resistance in the conduit system on each side of the LBD. He said that one conduit clamp is not capable of carrying the fixed-end moment, but that two supports can take out the moment in a couple.
- 2. Revision 3 of the CMC added information on the member lengths of the CSM-18f support for the benefit of the engineering group qualifying the support.
of s.enedVgg fg Page g g
~
o.stneution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S.
^
L J., , ' . C ' '. ; , ^ . 0. 21 T .j a t T . '. .
T Communications i t i Repod 111181411111111111111111111111 a Conference Report Company; CES 9C Telecon J b No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date' Independent Assessment Program-Phase 4 June 5, 1985 subject: , Time ~ 11:30 AM Base Plate Re-Analysis Place: GlenRose-Plant Site Participants. J. Finneran o, Texas Utilities C. Wong Cygna of item Comments Reg'd Action By I have requested for a copy of the base plate re-analysis for the pipe support CC-1-028-001-S33R from Mr. Finneran. The re-analysis is for incorporation of correct base plate dimension.
$ YkN1 '*9* *' 9" 11 A1 A Distnbution: N., Williams, J. kreddiTig , J . van Arnerungen, G. Wung, s. iteLy, s. LAArs, al m.. - 11: prni,re p41.
1030 00
Communications oin i Report W111111111111111111181411111 Texas Utilities Tewon Q conference n.pn Prop.ct. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 suwt: I" i Document Request CPSES Site P;.rticipants of g TNE D. Oldag Cygna p.osree item Comments Action By
- I requested and received the following calculations:
2323-III-6, 2323-V-5, 2323-IV-12, 2323-VII-2, 2323-IV-1, 2323-IV-8, 2323-VIII-6, 2323-IC-007, 2323-VII-6, 2323-XIII-2, and 2323-11-5, except for 2323-IV-13 which will be ready tomorrow. \ i l
/)k )jl l] h A A
~~
/ajb 1 1 D*'nbut'oa N.'Willian((.Redding,Y.vanAmerongen,
,,,,,,, 3.Ti rvi , v. r.iin , a.. . si, rruaru. n is
l Communications AL t i Report M11111111111111111111118411 Tew n conference neun Texas Utilities Pr;tect Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/7/85 SuWt Time P*** Gibbs & Hill Calculation Index - Electrical and I&C Place CPSES Site P rticipants of J. Day TNE D. Oldao Cygna seasireo Item Comments Action By I I requested and received indices for Gibbs & Hill electrical and IAC calculations. i f i 1 - i O b l ;IIl h
/a.ib 1 1 i o..innui.c" N. illiams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen,
. -i i , rroaen n se s.i. w.r. J. ii i i n. d. -
Communications 4L t a Report ; 1111111llllll111111111111111tl company: Texas Utilities a Teiecon di conference Report
" Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date: 6/5/85 Subject Time. 2:30 p.m.
Calculation Request Piace. 6/5/85 Participants. of J. Day ,, TNE D. Oldag ,, Cygna item Comments Reg'd Action By Cygna recieved addendum #2 to calculation 229-15 and three oversized flow diagrams that are attachments to the calculation. I rerequested SCS-101C, Set 3, sheets 17-18, 57-58, 72-87, 97-98, 105-108, 129, and 133-134. I received them on 6/5/85. i signeo. g p))),]fj) g Page 1 of 1 D"but'on N. Wil'liams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S'"Burwell, . ! "" Project File
l Communications AL 6 i Report NNiilillllN11NINillNilli compny: Tew n ! Texas Utilities Q conference nemn Protect: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Conduit Drawing Request 9:15 a.m.
"***~
CPSES Site C. Boyd TUGC0 (DCC) J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Comunications Report dated 6/5/85, " Request for S-910 , Drawings," D. Oldag and C. Boyd participating. Cygna spoke to Mr. Boyd regarding the request made in the refer-enced comunications report. He stated that DCC did not have the requested drawing sheet revisions since the 2323-S-0910 drawing i set was taken over at the revision effective in January 1984 The requested drawings were of earlier revisions. Cygna stated that the drawings would be requested through FSEG. i ) I l l l l' l
\
/ M /ajb 1 1 Distneution-N. Williams, J. Redding J. van Amerongen J. Russ. W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
I isse ei. u sui , w. 6io n , e. p . rruJect riie
~- -
Communications [4Dh' M Report M118ll1811111111111111114ll Texas Uti1ities Prosect Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4
*ts 6/5/85 Procedure Index Request 8:55 a.m.
Place CPSES Site P;mcipants_ of TUGC0 D. Oldag Cygna i Required item Comments Action By I requested and received a copy of the index to the CP-QP and the QI-QP procedure from Carol Ivey. (Memo dated May 29, 1985, Distribution of Quality Document Index.) i l
< LMA V_ laAb 1 1 D'*tabut'oa N. Williams, J. Redding .J. van Amerongen,
, _. a.*rre.r. v. c o i n. .ggs,w;g. , rroject raie_ e
m Communications M%i Report llll1llllllllll111llllll11llll Company: Texas Utilities oX Teiecon o Conference neport
' bN-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 cate 4/17/85
- T'*
Conduit Material Properties 10:50 a.m. Place SFR0
Participants:
of y g Triangle PWC J. Russ, D. Leong Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna explained to Mr. Zehe that it is their understanding that conduits are fabricated according to ANSI Standard C80.1, which has no requirement for strength. The conduit span designers for a nuclear facility under review have chosen to perform stress analysis on the installed conduit, which requires yield stress values for the various conduit sizes. Cygna told Mr. Zehe that Triangle PWC had provided the utility with some test data for various conduit sizes, reporting E, Fy, Ftu, and c. Cygna asked Mr. Zehe whether the test data provided was specifically gener-ated for conduits supplied to the nuclear facility or if the data was generated on a general sample of conduits fabricated by Traingle PWC. Mr. Zehe stated that the test data was for a general sample and that as a rule, no certification test reports are provided with the product. Mr. Zehe stated that their conduit was certified per UL. 6 and fabricated in accordance with ANSI C80.1, but that there are no requirerrents on material conformance. If specifi-cally requested Triangle PWC could provide such data, but re-quests have not been made. j Mr. Zehe stated that Triangle PWC is a processor and does not manufacture the steel used for the conduits. He added that there are no ASTM standards applicable to conduits. I Cygna asked Mr. Zehe if he had ever seen stress analyses of con-duit spans performed. He stated that he had not. Cygna asked 11 Triangle PWC provides span tables with their product. Mr. Zehe said that they did not and that the conduit is installed per National Electrical Code guidelines. signed. _ p g, et o,stneution: N. Williams, d. ReddTng, d. van Amerongen, d. Kuss, U. Leong, 3. IreDy, d. t. I l i s ,
- ri" x = m p,ny.c, na
~
Communications A L%'id Report lilllllllllllllilllllllllllll!
*"r Texas Utilities Telecon conference neport Project: Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 3/7/85 Subject. Time 9:55 a.m.
Conduit Review Questions Place Participants of TUGC0 D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac o By Cygna requested the following documents from Mr. McBee: A. Design calculations for Detail CSM-18b, Revision 14. If no calculations exist for Revision 14, the next earlier calculations would suffice. B. Fire protection evaluations for Detail JB-1A-2730. Cygna believes that these calculations are with those for drawing IN-FP-235. Cygna also asked Mr. McBee to explain the meaning for the conduit support allowables in Table 24, Appendix 3 of Procedure CP-EI-4.0-49. He stated that he would investigate this item and reply to Cygna. Cygna also discussed the use of non-rigid conduits on CA-type supports. In the review of support CA-15, Cygna noted that five 1-1/2" diameter conduits could be installed on this support with-out exceeding conduit spacing or support weight limitations. These conduits have frequencies in the flexible range. There-fore, loading the support to its deadweight limit with these conduits would be more critical than loading the support with a conduit whose frequency is in the rigid range. The former case is more critical because those conduits are accelerated at the spectral peak rather than at ZPA. Mr. McBee stated that both the rigid and flexible conduits were generally considered in the CA support analyses. He added that he would investigate the CA-15 design. signeo Distnbution
)[ /ajb "'9' N. Williams, U. Wade, J. van Emerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S.
1 1 Trd.,, J. El' h, L "_c ;? ? , "- :f::t " ?:
Communications , L JL A Repod l ummme i ; Tei.e n Q conter.nc. mpon Texas Utilities Prop.ct Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 34056
~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Conduit Review Issues Pi.e.: CPSES Site TUGC0 S. McBee J. Russ Cygna 8 tem comment. [cfo*ns$ Cygna requested and received the following sheets of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-5-0910: Sheet Revision CA-2a 1 CA-15 15, 16 CSM-42 9 JA-1 0, 1 LS-2 5 LS-10 2 LS-12a 6 Cygna also asked Mr. McBee how Train C conduit supports using rod hangers are attached to concrete. He stated that Hilti expansion anchors are placed into the concrete. The racks are attached to the Hiltis by a coupling. The rod diameter is the same as the Hilti diameter. No controls were placed on the maximum depth of the Hilti embedment, but proximity violations were checked. Mr. McBee also asked how he might get all of the Cygna communica-tions reports on conduits. Cygna stated that Jean van Amerongen should have all applicable telecons. D*'a6u'*a Nh fbwm /ajb 1 1 N.'W1'lliams, J. Redding[J. van Amerongen. J. Russ. W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
.. Tiwwy, J. Eis u ,;a.;purw.si, rrvaect rise
Communications ALn i Report i lNIl1llllllllllll111111111111 l company: Texas Utilities M Teicon o conference neport
"**** Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J b No. 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 cate: 6/6/85 subject T' **-
Follow-up on Pipe Support Observation 11:30 a.m. PS-07 (Composite Section) Place: CPSES site
Participants:
Of J. Finneran, J. Burgess ,, TUGC0 C. Wong ,, Cygna item comments Req d Action By Cygna has requested all of the safety-related large bore pipe support drawings for the following piping systems:
- 1. Feedwater lines inside containment and for portions outside containment from containment penetration up to the feedwater pump.
- 2. All of the service water lines.
Signed. %hp hpjg Page 1 of 1 oisineution: N. Williaifis, J. Redding, E van Amerongen, 5. Treby, d. Ellis, 5. Burwell .
'"'" C. Wong, troject File
(
^ m Communications 4 E4M' fd Report i N1111111llllll111111111111111 company:
Towe n Q conference nepon Texas Utilities Protect Joe No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/10/85 Subsect Time Document Request 3:45 p.m. Place CPSES Site Sheila Ward DCC J. Russ Cygna seas.rea item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the drawings listed on the attached sheet. Drawing 2323-El-721-1 was also requested. Cygna was informed that a drawing with this number did not exist but drawing 2323-El-721 did. l l l
, I l
N I s 1
),1 /ajb 1 1 D'Stabut'on:
' ' N. Wiliiams, J. Redding. J. van Amerongen. J. Russ. W. Horstmen, D. Leong, S.
I
.,, is evy . u. Ei i n , s. . --p , rruJecT. rise
-- Calculation l 'j 4L t i Shsst )
111111lll16111111111tll111lll1 4 j l- ) Prepared By Date Protect
. Subject Checked By Date System Job No Fue No Analysis No Rev No Sheet No eoFy ry Par DliLA u s uG RTVs5 sod BLuc L suG mcf -$ s tG 2 'S2.3 - ri - (, o 2. - / z, 2. X
- 409 to y
- 70 0 - oz 2.o M X
-700 - II S X
-701 - o z. /d X X
-7ol -
II 6~ Y
- 7 01 -
- 12. S X
-703 to X X
-70& zo X X I - 7 0Co /(a X X
- 7 / 2. - 0/ Z. 6 X X
- 7 / 2. - o+ 7 X X
- 7 / Z. - / / 4 X
-7/ 7 - /2 '7 x
-7 / 5 tt X x
- 7/G - O/ zo x x
~)lb -/Z. f x l
I i i l ( i 1006 Oc
Communications ' 4 s. a t i Report WilNiililllilN111111114HI . I Teiecon Q conferenco neport Texas Milities Propect: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/85 Subsect Time Document Request 1:25 p.m. Piece-CPSES Site _ Sheila Ward B&R (DCC)
-- s, John Russ Cygna y Required 1:em Comments ' Action By l Cygna requested the following:
l 1)The CVC for DCA 18675 2)Gibbs and Hill drawing 2323-El-721. e, s I
~
$ l { 1 i s.eneo V/Vi // Page of ail}}l W /aib 1 1 o.einnution-N. Williams, J. Redding, J, van Amerongen, J. Russ. W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
.,. Tiwuy, u. i s i i s , i. ==. i g, rrvJeu r i s e
E 5_=5"' Communications [41Wb 31111!il11111111111111111lll11 Report Telee n Texas Utilities Q conference neart Protect. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessnent Program - Phase 4 6/13/85 Subsect Torne. Electrical Document Request 12:00 p.m. Place CPSES P;rticipants. of J. van Amerongen TUGC0/Ebasco stem comments [cfoI'By Please provide copies of the cable / raceway shedule (2323-El-1700) for the following cables: NK119681A NK119681B NK119681C NK119681 E0105631 l I I l l
] /ajb 1 1 l D'*t"oution N'. Wil'liams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen J. Russ. W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
l
..... i.evyn v. E i i n , a. eu , -w i e , rro, ject riie
1 i N Communications a [4Yeh' M Report Nililllllllillllllllillllilll Company; Telecon Conference Report
) g Protect Joe No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/11/85 Subsect Time Document Request 11:00 a.m.
Piece CPSES Site me Participants of Dale leech B&R John Russ Cygna Regwred item Comments Action By I asked Mr. Leech to provide the documents on the attached sheet. s.eneo i - p.,, o, q/ i[; , l#A*U /ajb 1 1 D abut'on N. Williams, J. Redding. J. van Amerongen, C. Wong, J. Oszewski, - issoai. o u vi , v. u s o , n. ww.y v . rrugec1. rise
e 4 o e
)
)
= 5 o
~
Sp-/ DC-)
~
~
Dc -2 D C-3 i Dc-4 C f-) PE-l ED-1 {D-2 Ev-3 EP-+ DCP-l ' CP -l D~-/ W$W 2323 pysu- 7o c HP5 && : yi/p. g, o, , IJF - 5,0, c Vt/P- Si O,5 Pt/ # - E 0, 6 Wf~R O'9(k)
I
= ji Communications 4in a Report W6ll14llll111111111111114811 compnr * *" " **"
Texas Utilities Protect Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/4/85 su w Calculation Request 1:00 p.m. Piece. p Darla Webb TNE D. 01dag Cygna newee item Cominents Act on By Requested and received: SCS-102C, Set 5, Sheet 43 SCS-111C Set 7. Sheets 71-75 SCS-111C Set 8, Sheets 1-6 and 7-27 ( According to TNE , sheet's 7-27 are not used, calculation only goes through sheet 39, and therefore request for sheets 40-67 could not be fulfilled.) SCS-133C, Set 9, Sheet 8 SCS-134C, Set 6, Sheets 6,7 SCS-134C, Set 8 Sheets 4,5 SCS-137C, Set 1, Sheets 12,49 SCS-137C Set 2, Sheet 5 SCS-153C, Set 1, Sheet 68 SCS-156C Set 1, Sheet 32 SCS-175C Set 1, Sheet 2, dated 4/17/81 (Revision 1 requested, no revision number apparent but sheet is dated 1/27/81.) SCS-210C, Set 6. Sheets 10-13 SCS-210C, Set 8 Sheets 15-18 SCS-213C, Set 5, Sheets 11-23 SCS-310C, Set 1 SCS-1240 Set 1. Sheets 6-9, 61-62 Calculation 229-9 Revision 0, dated 1/75 CCW Pump TDH and NPSH calculation Calculation 229-15, CCW Pressure Drop latest revision and all addenda, received calculation and addendum 1. I also requested SCS'101C, Set-3, Sheets 17-18, 57-58, 72-87, 97-98,105-108,129, and 133-134 but did not receive them, o' s,en.agqgggjjj e.se D'abuon N.' Williams,J.Redding,J.vanAmerongen,J.Oszewski,J.Russ,W.Horstman, i .. 5.L wuy, v. ii i n . s. yo,- s i , rrug e cT. n is, u. ucuny
l
.a a Communic tions !
AL t i Report : N11111111111tlililillittilill Tewcon Q conference mopon Texas Utilities Protect. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/6/85 Sobrect Time Electrical Questions 1:00 p.m. Piece CPSES Site
'*"'* * " Ivan Vogelsang
*' TUGC0 Pat Costello, J. Russ Cygna "w commeni. [efoI'[,
Cygna asked Mr. Vogelsang how Motor Data Book EMB-1 and Motor List EML-1 might be located. He showed Cygna Gibbs and Hill letter GTN 53466 which transmitted EML-1 and EVL-1. He stated that EMB-1 was probably available in New York. i Cygna asked Mr. Vogelsang if he could provide the manufacturer name and model number for CPI-El-PR-CI-01. He stated that this was a Westinghouse cabinet and was covered by Mechanical Specification MS-6118. The respective purchase order was P0-611B. This cabinet is part of the analog control rack. 1 i I M /ajb 1 1 D*"'*"6*a N. Williams, J. Redding, J.' van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Oszewski, S.
... L =vi , J. b m ge . -. i i e rruasc1 rise
1 5, M7miiv5 Communications l
,' d NJL M Report 111llll1111111lll11lll1111!I11 l
Teiec n Texas Utilities Q conference newn Protect. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/13/85 Subsect Time Request of Procedures 12:00 p.m. Place. Participants of J. Russ Cygna J. van Ameroncen TUGC0/Ebasco stem comments [eEoIN Please provide copies of the most current revisions to the following procedures: CP-QAP-09.01 Permanent Equipment Transfer Verification. CP-QAP-11.01 Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Components, Component Suppearts and Piping. CP-QAP-12.01 ASME Section !!! Installation Verification and N-5 Certification. CP-QAP-15.02 Handling of Potential Reportable Deficiencies. CP-QAP-16.01 Control of Nonconforming Items. CP-QAP-16.02 Reporting Safety Related Defects and Noncompliance, CP-QAP-17.01 Corrective Action. CP-QAP-17.02 Stop Work. CP-QAP-18.02 QA Review of ASME Documentation CP-0AP-09.02-048 Ultrasonic Examination of Hilti Bolts
')!-QAP-10.02-04B Ultrasonic Examination of Hilti Bolts I1 O'b /a.ib 1 2 D'stabuoa N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, L. Weincart, J. Oszewski, ,e,,,,, S . i. evi , v. Eiin ,,a. wu ..ii, rrogecT. rise,t,. wong
- f. ..
esta Communications g [.4M' fd Report l181111111111111111lll11111111 Item comments acNy Ql-QAP-11.01-35 Permanent Equipment Transfer verification. QI-QAP-11.01-36 Inspection Verification of Salvaged Supports and Parts. QI-QAP-16.01-5 Documenting Field Piping Deviation. Page of
Communications 4L 6 i Report monummma I Tec on Texas Milities X Q conference neport Propect: JoePeo Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6n/85 Subsect: Time Procedure Request 12:00 p.m. Piece CPSES Site R. Ballard Gibbs and Hill J. Russ Cygna neow.,eo item Comments Act'on -y Please identify which procedures listed below are applicable to the Comanche Peak Project and provide a copy. MEG-001- Velocities in Pipes MEG-002- Velocities in Ducts MEG-003- Friction Calculations in Pipes MEG-008- Pump Head and NPSHA Selection MEG-010. Preparation of Control Valve Data MEG-015- Calculation of Pipe Wall Thickness MEG-016- Sizing of Safety Valve Vents MEG-025- Typical System Descriptions MEG-027- Fouling Factors for Heat Exchangers MEP-007- Content of a Systems Techni~ cal Description MEP-008- Performance of Damage Study. Cygna also asked for GTN 57206 dated 1/22/82. If possible this GTN should be telecopied. The GTN should be stnt as soon as possible. EMB-1, a motor data book, was also requested. D*'a m a h j /ajb 1 1 N. Willia'as, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen J. Russ, J. Oszewski, S. egge ,,, b wwy . We ElIIDs a. _m y v a rr uJWEI F1IE . - -
I CommunicStions i dL t i Report lilllilililllillitillHilill Telecon ] Conference Repon v , n . n 4 4., Project Joe No.
" 5' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,
Indeoendent Assessment Program - Phase 4 s/c/nc Subsect- Time
* "^"^
Document Request p,,,, PDtrt Cita Fatticipants of
- 0. ^1 h; Cyaa" Kt: KC Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received copies of the attached listing of CMCs, DCAs and CVCs for CMCs and DCAs.
Kim from DCC stated that some CMCs had no CVCs available. Segned
@m M ' Page of Distribution i u/ ))]#M 14n 1 1 N. Wil11ms, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ. W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
m ois T mau 1 filia L_ Anamman11 Dientact film
~ -
N.1 . .. . . . . - . . . . . - . - - - i l ECEST FOR CCPIES FOR BIGitERING OR CFFIE USE CULY DATES h l _ DRAWINGS _ CESIGN CHNIGES tWE h ACI dO CEPARTt9 6 k EXT. AIRhCRIZED BY: A TYPE OF REPRCDUCTICtl (CFECK CNE):
.MICRCFILM PRINT ELLELINE (IF AVAILA3LE) i
_89 x H .
.__.11X17 XERCX(IFAVAILAELE) 85 x H 18 x 24 -
. _ 24 x 35 _. 12 x 13 OCCfJW11TS REGLESTED: (LIST BELCW) 1 Obte.s - 30775' 20-6 , CMG 8MO2 aD rec.
SG IM oE re A 37192 aD re n , 52598 aD av$ d509 &, aN red 5 ~ 7foM aD rev.s ' i ncAs W3 allrev.s . 3Sw3 aD reas
//19 9 aD reks 978Y QAla/s.
/GP55 aErevi /7M9 alllegs, am3) all rers /' /@N d/ revs l
l l
., s - . - . . . . . . ....
[s
- e I ECEST FOR CCPIES FOR E!GIfERit:G OR CFFIE USE 0;LY DATEh!Y l
l _ CRAWINGS _,,,,CESIGN CHNIGES NME O OCP CEPARTtENT M EXT. A ALIIbCRIZED BY: TYPE OF REPRCCUCTICN (CEECKCNE):
,MICRCFILM PRINT ELWL!NE(IFAVAIL13LE)
.__ 84 x H 11x17 XERCX(IFAVAILASLE) 18x24 _
89 x n _ 24 x 36 _. 12 x 18 00CtM.NTS REGWSTED: (LISTBELCW) OV6 for +bse c M e 's PA77c'4 8, 30975 R3
.325. /B Rd . 35537 R/ u cf 20,' P'C720 KI.'
90727 AD' SSB15 AD,2/ s20,' 9/7/h RI i'20, 0696/ RIs 2n.107fs en 3l/7.9,'ASW 4767. $MY'/9Yb . M d LV0 !wHrese'NA 'N- 31.75 300W. IHI .' l.7//, AD/b An99,NOV4, RW7.' 3CM. 'alo3 83IT AIVA s'7K.'aaba' 763( a39ll. 256 4, Mat ' istrk As#-7 is9L. 2915 /074,34s%
~~' '
aagf. ye q ' ' '
/ .
r s 1 3 .. Communic]tIOnS
. ALn i Report m!r"":::::...... .. ::m Company T*'ec n conter nce neport exas Utilities Project Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*'
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/27/85 Subject Time P.M. Electrical Design Process Gibbs & Hill /NY T. Vardaro, P. Lalaji, S. Martinovich Gibbs & Hill J. Oszewski, L. Maggio, K. Zee Cygna item comment. [cEoI*o$
- 1. The electrical design process was discussed -- specifically, electrical design calculations and specifications.
The Gibbs & Hill engineers described the process as follows:
- a. The design basis for calculations were industry codes, standards, and general. practices, and the PSAR/FSAR.
- b. Mechanical group interfitee for calculation inputs,
- i.e., motor data, is by vendor print distributions by project administration and by the CPSES motor list.
- c. Coordination of system design with other entities, such as TUGCO, is by letters and telecons through project administration.
- d. Class 1E boundaries were based upon the project Q-list and boundaries shown on the flow diagrams and ICD's.
- e. Calculations were prepared, checked, and reviewed per project procedures DC-7 and DC-8.
- f. All purchase specification are coordinated / reviewed by other disciplines as determined by the originating job engineer.
- g. Issue of specification includes multi-discipline sign-offs and design reviews as required.
"* /ajb "*"" 1 g 2 D"6ube N. Williams, J. Redding, J. Oszewski, L. Maggio, K. Zte, S. Treby, J. Ellis 5.
.- - - - - - - - - - . . . . - _ - - _ m rro m u o m-_ - - - - _ _ - - --- - - - - - - _ . . _ _ _ _
1 l i Communicati ns 4( 6 i Report lemmimimilmmmt stem comments [cNy
- h. Design reviews are required for all Class 1E related items per DC-7 and DC-8.
- i. As-built data is generally not incorporated into design calculations if the existing assumed data is still conservative.
- j. Interdiscipline interface is basically via coordination prints, vendor drawing distributions, and multi-discipline reviews and sign-offs.
- 2. Cygna requested and received copies of the telecons identified as reference #5 in Gibbs & Hill calculation IV-3, revision 2.
- 3. Cygna asked how interface with construction was handled for items such as installed cable lengths and MOV nameplate data.
The Gibbs & Hill engineers said that discrepancies between design data in the specification and nameplate data is a field QC item for identification. Installed cable lengths were not reviewed since various design steps were taken to minimize cable voltage drops in control circuits. 480V power cable voltage drops were checked in either calculations IV-12 or IV-13.
- 4. Cygna asked if the cable ampacity derating factor for firestop material had been verified by test.
The Gibbs & Hill engineers indicated that the derating factors should be in specification MS-38F.
- 5. Various other miscellaneous items were discussed involing discipline interfaces. The Gibbs & Hill engineers said that interdiscipline interfaces / coordination were basically via drawings and specificaticns which require multi-discipline checking, reviewing, and sign-offs. This includes vendor drawings.
- 6. Gibbs & Hill indicated that the design inputs for electrical schematic drawings were ICD's and logics and that these drawings were transmitted to the electrical group by project administration.
Page of 7 7
I RE574' Communications 7' MD3 s' fi Report ll!!I1111111111111111111111111
***"* Teiec n nemn Texas Utilities C conter -c Prosect Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/28/85 Sutsect Time a.m.
Instrumentation and Controls Design Process p Gibbs & Hill /NY Partictants of D. Ghosh Gibbs & Hill L. Maaoio. K. Zte C_vana Aequired item Comments Action Dy
- 1. Cygna asked if OEl-T183 for the radiation monitor control function removal was available.
Mr. Ghosh said that it should be available from the field.
- 2. Cygna asked for the setpoint calculation and input data for HV-4572.
Mr. Ghosh said that there wasn't any setpoint calculations done for HV-4572 limit switch settings. The 50% oosition was to be adjusted and set by startup; however, ti did not know of any memo or telecon informing startup to let the limit switch for 50% flow.
- 3. Cygna asked for the sizing calculation for the CCk surge tank relief and vent valves.
Mr. Ghosh said that valve sizing was done by the mec.'anical group. In addition, system setpoints were also done t.,' mechanical. The setpoints were transmitted to the instrumentation group by an informal memo. This information is used as an input to the instrumentation group's setpoint calculation, and to the instrument data sheets. The data sheets are project drawings and are sent to the mechanical group for sign off, coordination, and distribution. The data sheets also become part of the instrumentation purchase specification. g_ /kab 1 2 D"b"6 " N. Williams, J. Redding, J. Oszewski, K. Zee, C. Killough, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. ion e's Burwell, Project File
Communications 7' o( 6 i lllll11lllllllll11!Ill11111111 Report item comments c$niv
- 4. Cygna asked if there was a criteria for separation of instrumentation sensing lines.
Mr. Ghosh said that there was a tubing installation criteria and that he would get back to us with a document number.
- 5. We discussed design process and discipline interfaces associated with the instrumentation and control group.
Mr. Ghosh described the design process as follows:
- a. The mechanical group transmits system setpoints to the I&C group via an infomal memo - memo not retained as a project record.
- b. Setpoint used as input to the I&C group setpoint calculation and the instrument data sheet.
- c. I&C calculation determines desired instrument setpoint,
- d. The calculation is transmitted to the field via a
'GTN'.
- e. Instrument data sheets are sent to the mechanical group for input of system extremities and review of setpoints.
- f. The issue of instrument data sheets includes multi-discipline review and sign-offs as required by the job engineer.
- g. Safety classifications and channels are assigned based upon associated mechanical equipment and project Q-list.
- h. Safety classifications and channels of instruments are shown on the ICD's issued.
- 1. Issuance of the ICD's includes multi-discipline review and sign-off's as required by the job engineer.
J. Instrument data sheets are attached to the purchase specifications. Page of
? ?
%f0 0 t h
y . COmmuniCOtiOnS AL t i Report mamammm company: Teiec n conference nepon Texas Utilities Protect. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/4/85 Subject Time Request for Procedures 2:45 CPSES R. Baker Brown and Root D. 01dag Cygna l l Required item Comments Action By f l Please provide copies of the latest revision for the following
- procedures
1 CP-El-2.3-1 Conduit Numbering Effort CP-El-4.0-1 Design and Design Verification Control for Pipe {; Support Engineering CP-E!-4.0-2 Instruction for Establishment of Essential l Electrical Equipment
; CP-EI-4.0-19 Design Control of Calculations and FMEA's for Damage Study CP-E!-4.0-24 Cable Pulling Tension Evaluations CP-EI-4.0-34 Instruction for Revision of Pipeline Designation List CP-EI-4.0-36 Control of Seismic and Non-seismic Component Interaction Evaluations CP-El-4.0-39 Perfomance Instruction for PSE HFT Results Group i
- CP-EI-4.0-42 Cable Ampacity Verification i CP-El-1.0-54 Engineering Instruction for Pipe Hanger Engineering 1
Data Report CP-El-4.0-55 Control of Pipe Support Revisions Affecting Engineering Data Only , CP-EI-4.0-56 Control of WEB Input CP-El-4.0-57 Maintenance of CPSES Equipment List i CP-EI-4.0-58 Identification of Safe-Shutdown Functions, Systems, Components, and Cables and Circuit Separation i Analysis l CP-El-4.0-59 Associated Circuits by Spurious Operations Analysis CP-E!-4.0-60 Associated Circuits by Comon Power Supply Circuit Coordination Study '. CP El-4.0-62 Maintenance of the CPSES Valve List i s,gned Page of Dabui'o" N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. ion e . irceyo a.r. ins,s. a no rroaect rise
N Communications 4L 6 i Report mummmmmmm item comments [cDy CP-EI-4.0-63 Review of Architectural Specifications and Drawings To Identify Non-Seismic Sources CP-EI-4.0-65 Pipe Support Engineering Design Control Activities for TUGC0 Operations CP-EI-4.0-66 Maintenance of Cable Routing Integrity for Fire Safe Shutdown Capability CP-EI-4.0-67 Cable Tray Hanger As-Designed and As-Built Drawing Development CP-EI-4.0-69 Cable Tray Hanger As-Built Weld Mapping Unit No.1 CP-EI-4.0-70 Control of Activities for Pipe Support Engineering Design Control Group CP-EI-4.0-71 Cable Tray Hanger As-Built " Bolt Hole Verification" Unit No. 2 CP-EI-4.0-72 Control of STRUDL Analysis Activity Within Pipe Support Engineering CP-EI-4.3-1 Pipe Support Design Group Evalution of Separation Criteria for Expansion Anchors CP-EI-4.3-2 Procedure for Hilti/ Anchor Bolt Inspection CP-EI-4.5-21 Unit No.1 Cable Tray Hanger Engineering Walkdown CP-EI-4.5-22 General Program for the Qualification of As-Built Loads on Equipment and Valves CP-EI-4.5-24 Control of Stress Analysis Activities for Technical Services CP-EI-4.6-8 Field Design Change Control for Large Bore Pipe Supports CP-EI-4.6-12 As-Built Verification Program for Structural Steel Supports CP-EI-4.6-13 Fleid Design Change Control for ASME-Related BRP's CP-EI-13.0-2 Determination of Torque Requirements for Expansion Anchors CP-EI-13.0-4 Capacity Test for One Hold Strays Conduit Supports CP-El-13.0-7 Capacity Test for Unistrut Welded Foot Conduit Supports CP-EI-13.0-8 1-1/2" Richmond Insert Shear Tests CP-E!-13.0-13 1-1/2" and 1" Richmond Insert Shear and Tension Tests CP-EI-18.0-1 Control of @ Records by PSE CP-EI-18.0-2 PSE Control of Vendor Supplied S Records Page of 9 9 10M 01D
EEcya Communications . [*hMT] Illlillllilllllll!!!Illlllllll Report
'" Conference Red Tovac !!tilitiac )
Project Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 afgfgg Subject Time Conduit Support Testing 1:45 o.m. p, , CCI/No. Carnlina Participants cf D- riceinnpr; t_ McRon TUGC0 D- Huann Gibht L Hill R Miller; R1 Harrawnnd (nart-time) CCL n Iann, .1 Duce N Willisme rvgna Required item Comments Action By Cygna explained to Gibbs & Hill the screening method employed by Cygna and recounted pertinent issues discussed with TUGC0 in the morning session (Comunications Report of 4/9/85, 9:15 a.m., at CCL/ North Carolina, regarding Conduit Support Testing; Kissinger McBee, Miller, et al. participating). Cygna and Gibbs & Hill agreed to limit the discussion to support groups for which Cygna and Gibbs & Hill chose different test configurations. Group 1C - Gibbs & Hill chose CSM-11 for testing since the main member is a P1001A3 member, while CSM-1 and CSM-9 use P1001C3 members. Cygna pointed out that they felt that the P1001A3 member was not critical, compared to the P1001C3 members; however, the inclusion of CSM-11 in Lhe test scope is acceptable. The choice between CSM-1 and CSH-9 was discussed. A resolution was not reached. Cygna pointed out that it was difficult to perform the screening with limited infomation on the design of the supports and that it was difficult to quantify and document the
" judgement." Gibbs & Hill agreed that additional documentation was necessary to support their screening process. Cygna noted that, since the test configurations were chosen to address a perceived weak link, the documentation should also address the enveloping of supports relative to the weak link of the test configuration.
Cygna pointed out that, in any group of similar sup-
, ports, the weak link may not be the same for all sup-s.gneo gy l -
///JM /_Ajb Page o, U" "* "
HE- 1 3 N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.bf/
.... . . , , ri,, c n ,, n , .. rii.
m . Communications 4 4L 6 i Report NiilllNiillHilillillilillii item comments [cEnTy ports in the group because of variation in load magni-tude and placement. Cygna noted that in the course of the review, they have found that the design margins for all suppcrts are approximately equal. Therefore, it is difficult to show enveloping of supports if the pre-dicted weak link for each is different. Group 2C - Cygna added CSM-3 to their test group, since the header configuration is different from that of CSM-12, Gibbs & Hill did not feel that the difference was great enough to change the enveloping for this group. At this point, Cygna and Gibbs & Hill closed their discussion and Mr. Harrawood of CCL gave a brief presentation on EZ Hang. EZ Hang will be used to consider inertial and deadweight effects of the support frame in the following manner:
- 1. A computer model of the tested support is generated using springs to represent the concrete connections.
- 2. A unit mass is applied in each of three global direc-tions at the conduit attachment point to determine the support siffness at the load point.
" static
- 3. A uniform acceleration, g, is then applied for the three directions to determine the effective mass ap-plied at the conduit location.
Kxwg = M,ff xg For a 1 g acceleration, M,ff= K x w g
- 4. The effective mass is multiplied by the applied accele-ration to determine additional load due to the support deadweight and inertia.
I F,ff = M,ff xa peak
- 5. The final support capacity is the tested capacity, re-duced by the effective support force.
F cipacity =Ftest - F,ff Cygna requested that an EZ Har.g discussion and results of its use be included in the final test riport.
,- Page of 2 )
orrn
~,
Communic 3tions L 'i Report 1111111111lll1111641111114ll11 i
"*m comm.nts fgl,y Cygna asked TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill how the generic items list would be considered in the test results. TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill stated that their intent was to include all applicable concerns in the test by reducing the test-determined capacity by appro-i priate factors.
Gibbs & Hill stated that they were presently revising their am-plification f actor study for conduits per Cygna's consnents for the cable tray dynamic amplification factor (DAF) study. Cygna stated that they will review the DAF study with relationship to the spacing and support stiffness variations present in conduit runs. Cygna also discussed the clamp interaction equations used to check a conduit clamp's capacity. This form of the equation discussed by Cygna is four.d in Attachment A. 1 l Page of 2 2 iosoott _ ,
p=9Er??! Communications [41ei ' M Report lilllllllllitilllllllllillliti Company: Telecon Conference Report Tavse Ilt414 tine Project Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 g/g/ng Subsect Time Request for NCR p,,c, FDRFR Rito Participants or DDRV J. Baker D. Old:9 Cy0"? Required item Comments Action By Requested and received a copy of NCR 9241 from the Permanent Plant Records Vault. s,aneo page or Distribution N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
""'" Treby, J. Ellis,- S. Burwell, Project File
Communications t4 L t i Report 1111111llllllll14111llll11llll
~ " Teiec n Texas Utilities Q conference nepon Project: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,,
- Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/5/85 Subsect Time Request for S-0910 Drawings D***
CPSES Site Participants' of C. Boyd DCC D. 01daa Cyana Required i item Comments Action By Cygna requested copies of the following drawings from DCC on 6/4/85: l 2323-5-0910, Sheets CA-2a, Revision 1 CA-15. Revisions 15 and 16 CSM-42 Revision 9 JA-1, Revisions 0 and 1 LS-1, Revision 5 LS-10, Revision 2 LS-12a, Revision 6 Mr. Boyd, DCC Supervisor, asked why we required these sheets at those particular revision levels. I replied that my understanding was that Cygna engineers had previously reviewed these drawings but had not obtained copies, and that the copies , were needed to complete our files. Mr. Boyd stated that the revisions requested were dated before 1/84, when DCC became responsible for the S-0910 drawings. He : further stated that these particular revisions were not now available at the CPSES site and were never previously available there, therefore, it was not possible that Cygna reviewed these drawings on site. i I b )/ e /ajb 1 1 D" b"b "- N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. j iom ote Treby, J. Ellis, 3. Wisruell, Project File
4 Communications Report
,,,)E '
t.. conter nce nepon i Texas Utilities Q Teiec n Protect Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/3/85
Subject:
Time FSEG Conduit Responsibility 3:10 p.m. p SFR0 Participants of S. McBee TUGC0 J. Russ Cyana item Comments Ac n y Cygna asked Mr. McBee when FSEG took responsibility for the conduit designs. After a review of the revision 0. S-0910 drawings, he stated that the date was June 25, 1979. o D'"*"" Y)J JAf /ajb 1 1 N'. Williams, J. Itedding,[J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
'm o's Treby, J. Ellis, 5. BurWell. Project File
Communications t4 L n i Repod 1111111lllll1111111:;lllllllll Texas utilities [ Teiec n conference Repon Project. Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g , ,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/12/85
Subject:
Time Data Request 8:00 a.m. SFR0 Participants of J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Minichiello Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the latest revision of CP-CPM-9110.
] /ajb 1 1 D"*"" "
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 5.' ion nie ,glertf811.. Project File
Communications AL t i Report m:: .::::: I company: T econ conference neport Texas Utilities Protect Job No l 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/4/85 j Subsect: Time 2:00 p.m. Document Request - Electrical /I&C CPSES Site Participants of R. Ballard Gibbs & Hill
- D. Oldaa Cygna Required j ltem Comments Action Oy Please provide copies of the following documents as soon as possible:
I Computt.r Runs: 102-14 ! 202-16 004-7
~
202-9A 202-98 202-10A 20E-10B 003-11 003-12 005-15 Telecons: " Switchyard Impedances," dated 4/1/74. TRV, PNL 1
& CKS to WAG, participating.
- " Switchyard Impedances," dated 2/3/75 WAG to TRV, participating.
Letters: " Reference for Calculation IV-4," IA & HJ to SM, letter GTN-68363, dated 1/20/84.
"Gibbs & Hill /Gould," NKK to PK, letter GTN-55857, dated 10/23/81.
i h ~'j } Jh , lajb '*' 1 1 Distnbution N. Williams,]. Redding, JT van Amerongen, T. Martin, J. Oszewski, S. Treby, J. im e,. t.iiis, a._ - J, rroaect r iie
Communic tions 4L t i Report limmmi company: Texas Utilities a Telecon 2 conference Repon Project; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84055 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 06/18/85 subject: Time. 10:30 a.m. Document Request Place-. Participants-of - J. van Amerongen ,, TUGC0/EBASCO J. Russ o, CES ttom Comments Reg'd Action By Cygna informed Ms. van Amerongen that the planned site visit was postponed due to preparations for an upcoming meeting with the NRC. Cygna requested the following documents from Ms. van Amerongel: CP-QAP-15.02 CP-QAP-16.02 CP-QAP-18.02 QI-QAP-09.02-04B QI-QAP-11.01-35 QI-QAP-11.01-36 QI-QAP-16.01-05 l These documents had been requested previously by Cygna. Since then, Ms. van Amerongen informed Cygna that these procedures had been deleted. Therefore, Cygna requested the last revision of the procedure prior to voiding.
. ~ -
S,gned g}pjg Page of Distributeort 1. Williams, d. HeGGiny, d. van Ar.0rongen, d. Huss, H. Norstman, U. Lt Ong, e T L 1 r114, e" m3 -11 D.n4 net r41n i Un t e ru rt
g;;=79; Communications 31th' f 3 Report 11111111111ll1lll!!!!!I11ll111
* **" r Texas Utilities Telecon conference neport Protect . Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date 7/11/85 EPRI Anchor Bolt Study 10:30a.m.
Piace SFR0 M. Czarnecki URS/ John A. Blume J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the 1980 revision in ultimate values for 1" Hilti Kwik-bolts with Mr. Czarnecki. This revision which was due to a change in manuf acturing, affected the ultimate values for bolts with embedments equal to and greater than 7". Cygna asked if any test results in the URS/Blume database would be affected by this revision. He stated that the revision in values should not affect the results of the anchorage study since only bolts with minimum embedments were considered. The minimum embedment for a 1" bolt is 4-1/2". He noted that a sample of 1" bolts was evaluated and the results showed that the ultimate value to be approximately 18 kips (tension) at a 98% confidence level. s.gned '
/kab " 1 1 Distnbut on N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong,
_ m . _ . , . , . ,,,-
- n. nis,s.i, ,ivass. . .is y
Communications g(mTa L4 Report llll1ll1111lll1111111111111111 companr Texas Utilities conference Report D Teiecon
# Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oate 7/9/85 Requests for Information a' 11:15 a.m. Place: SFR0.
Participants:
J. van Amerongen TUGC0/EBASCO D. Oldag Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna called J. van Amerongen to request some additional documents and to give her the answer to some questions she had asked Cygna in an earlier conversation. ,
- 1. In response to J. van Amerongen's question regarding RTP numbers for some electrical test reports (reference telecon of 6/12/85, N. Williams and J. van Amerongen participating), Cygna told her that we didn't have the RTP nubmers so we would have to do without those reports.
- 2. Regarding computer outputs for pipe support calculations, John Minichiello and Chun Wong decided it would not be necessary to send us the output.
- 3. Cygna asked J. van Amerongen to verify that the QI-QAPs and CP-QAPs that were not received on June 20, are unavailable. Ms.
van Amerongen replied that she sent those at a later date. Cygna will verify that.we received them or, if we still need them, Cygna will request the procedures again. '
- 4. Cygna has some additional requests for documents. Cygna told J.
van Amerongen that we would telecopy the list to her today. signee j /ajb Page g of g l o,strimution: N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, J. 0szewski, C. Wong, S.
.r _ m , ee u F~r:r'X? o_,_. enu om , . ,, , m,mm i , , , , - .,. -- -- - . m , _ . . , - - - -- --- -- - - --
*}}