ML20141B823

Forwards Responses to NRC Questions & Program Rept Re Cable Tray Support Qualification,Per 860319 Meeting.Anco Lab Test Rept Proprietary & Not Encl.Requests That Acceptability of Program Be Reflected in Next Sser

ML20141B823
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/03/1986
From:	Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:	Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20141B827	List: ML20141B823 ML20141B832
References
SBN-989, NUDOCS 8604070121
Download: ML20141B823 (6)

Text

O

?

SEABROOK STATION Engineering Office PutAc Service of New Hampshire New Hampshire Yankee Division April 3, 1986 SBN-989 T.F. B7.1.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5

References:

(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter (SBN-911), dated December 20, 1985, "Seabrook Cable Tray Support Qualification," J. DeVncentis to V. S. Noonan Subje ct: Seabrook Cable Tray Support Qualification

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are final reports on the Seabrook Station Cable Tray Support Qualification Program. The reports describe our program for cable tray support qualification based on plant-specific full scale dynamic tests as described to your staff at meetings in Bethesda on Dece mbe r 3, 1985, January 14,1986, and at Seabrook on March 19, 1986. At the latter meeting, we committed to provide the following information for your review.

(a) Responses to NRC questions resulting f rom the March 19th meeting. The specific reference paragraph from all supporting material is also listed.

(Attachent 1)

(b) The Program Report, which provides details on dynamic testing, connection testing, test input, analytical techniques, and qualification documenta-tion. (Attachment 2)

< During the March meeting, we also committed to provide a copy of the ANCO Laboratories Test Report (five volumes) which contains test proced-ures, inputs, and results of all dynamic testing. However, this document has not been included herewith because it is considered by us to be proprie-tary. If requested, we will send this document to the staff at a later date pursuant to 10CFR2.790. A copy of this report is available for your review and information out of our Bethesda Licensing Of fice. The fif th voluume of this report is presently being finalized but is is expected to be available within two weeks.

8604070121 PDR 060403 ADOCK 05000443 I PDR ( r I

Seabrook Station Construction Field Office P O Box 700 Seabroo ,NH 03874

s e %

United States Nuclear Regulatory Comaission Attention: Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Page 2 It should be noted that applicable FSAR changes reflecting the use l of test data were submitted in Reference (b). As indicated in that letter, these changes will be incorporated into the FSAR by a future amendment.

We request that the acceptability of the enclosed Cable Tray Support Qualification Program be teflected in the next supplement to Seabrook's Safety Evaluation Report.

I Very truly yours,  !

pk/

John DeVincentis, Director Engineering and Licensing Enclosures cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List l

t i

. N Dirn2 Currcn P:tte J. Mathews, Mayse Harmon & Weiss City Hall 20001 S. Street, N.W. Fewburyport, MA 01950 Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 Calvin A. Canney City Manager Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. City Hall Office of the Executive L* gal Director 126 Daniel Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Stephen E. Merrill Robert A. Backus, Esquire Attorney General 116 Lowell Street Dana Bisbee, Esquire P.O. Box 516 Assistant Attorney General Manchester, NH 03105 office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Philip Ahrens Esquire Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General Department of The Attorney Genewal Mr. J. P. Nadeau Statehouse Station #6 Selectmen's Office Augusta, ME 04333 10 Central Road Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Cavutis Designated Representative of Mr. Angie Machiros the Town of Kensington Chairman of the Board of Selectmen RFD 1 Town of Newbury East Kingston, NH 03827 ,

Newbury, MA 01950 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Mr. William S. Lord Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Environmental Protection Bureau Town Hall - Friend Street Department of the Attorney General Amesbury, MA 01913 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street l

Senator Cordon J. Humphrey Concord, NH 03301 U.S. Senate (ATTN: Herb Boynton) i Washington, DC 20510

( (ATTN: Tom Burack) H. Joseph Flynn l offlee of General Counsel Diana P. Randall Federal Emergency Management Agency 70 Collins Street 500 C Street, SW Seabrook, NH 03874 Washington, DC 20472 Richard A. Hampe, Esq. Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

Hampe and McNicholas Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern 1 35 Pleasant Street 25 Maplewood Avenue l

Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 360 l Portrmouth, NH 03801 l Donald E. Chick Town Manager Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

Town of Exeter Holmes & Ells 10 Front Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Exeter, NH 03833 Hampton, NH 03841 l

l Brentwood Board of Selectmen Ed Thomas RFD Dalton Road FEMA Region I Brentwood, NH 03833 John W. McCormack PO & Courthouco

' Boston, MA 02109 ,

1 I

. . - . . . - ~ . . . - . - - - - . _ .- ._ -.

ATTACl985pT 1 Responses to ERC staff questions resulting from the Ilarch 19, 1996 meeting at Seabrook Station.

1. When qualifying supports with test data, you must show that the support displacements are not going to cause impact damage or render any cable not functional.

D

Response

All supports, whether qualified by test or analysis, will be evaluated for displacement. (see Susunary Report Attachment 2 Paragraph 6.4 and Figure 6.5.) Cable tray interaction with adjacent components is included in the Seabrook Proximity Evaluation Program under Mark Technologies Procedure No. 8505-trfP-4-Q.

2. When a support cannot be qualified by test data, then an analysis of the support will be performed using alternate criteria.

Response

For supports not directly qualified by test data, calculational analysis is performed. See details in Attachment 2. Sections 3.2, 4.2, 5.0, 6.2, and 6.3.

3. A detailed check list should be used to fully document why each support is qualified when comparing to one of the configurations tested. Include the number and size of trays, length, height, bracing, hardware, dead-load weight, etc.

Response

A detailed checklist is used to document 6he qualification of each support. For details see Attachment 2, Sections 6.0 through 6.4 and l Figure 6.5

4. Clearly eeference in the program any documents that the NRC has already reviewed and accepted to eliminate reviewing them again.

Response

Program reference documents are listed on Page 43 of Attachment 2.

l NRC staff has previously reviewed and accepted the following technical i documents which are pertinent to the Seabrook Program: References 5, 6, 11, and 12.

5. Documeni. In the program how the longitudinal displacement of the cable tray supports from the test will be used to qualify as-built configurations.

Response

Longitudinal displacements are not directly used to qualify any as-built configurations.

.-. 3 . _

LTTACHNENT 1 (continued)

Where longitudinal displacements are a concern, an analysis is perfonned 4 to determine the displacement values. Thus, areas which may be qualified i

directly by test for structural integrity may have a supplemental analysis performed to verify low displacement. An example of such a situation is Control Building El. 21'-6".

t

6. Document in the program that horisontal bracing is better than diagonal bracing.

Response

When subject to very high load levels, diagonal bracing " softened" during fatigue testing. This behavior was not observed on horizontal braces.

See Attachment 2. Section 4.2.1.

7. Review the cable tray records to determine if any of the cable trays exceed the 40% volume limit for 100% full.

Response

The support qualification check list includes review and documentation of tray fill associated with each support, to ensure that cable tray fill does not exceed 40% volume limit.

See Attachment 2. Figure 6.5 and Section 6.3.

8. Discuss the basis for the quantity of individual connection tests performed.

Response

1 Noment - Rotation connection tests performed at ANCO Engineers were continued until satisfactory repeatability of results were confirmed.

Normally this occurs af ter two or three tests. The three tests performed i

for the primary connection 33 DU (strong axis) are shown in Attachment 2, Figures 4-14a. 4-14b and 4-14c.

Also, see ANCO Report 1053.438, Volume 5, Section 4.0, for additional i connection test results.

! 9. Provide additional detail on connection test procedure and results including applicability to analytical models.

f Bosponse Detail on connection test procedures and results is contained in Attachment 2, Sections 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.2.2, 5.0, and 6.3.

i Also see ANCO Report 1053.438 Volume 5.

~

m%ReJw4 ATTACHNENT 1 (continued)

10. Provide examples of supports which are quellfied directly by test.

Response

. Examples of supports which are directly qualified by test are shown in

, Attachment 2. Figures 3-13 and 3-14.

11. Document the member stresses recorded during the dynamic tests.

RESP 0089 Peak member stresses are listed in Table 4.9a of Attachment 2.

Also see ANCO Report 1053.438, Volume 1. Paragraph 4.4, and Test Results in Volume 2 (Case A), Volume 3 (Case B), and Volume 4 (Case C).

12. What approach is used to address % in cable tray supports.

Response

The original design guidelines for the cable tray supports included the requirement for limiting the value of y for members loaded in compression. For the unistrut members, the y value is limited to 200. (Attachment 2, Reference 11, Section 5.2.2)

The support Qualification Program will include a review of the support members y values. (Attachment 2. Section 6.0, Figure 6.5). The number of cases to exceed the y maximum value is expected to be small because the original desi n guidelines has addressed this item.

Any cases that may exceed the limit will be evaluated on an individual basis. The evaluation will include: (1) allowable compressive stresses will be in a:cordance with AISC buckling requirements, and (2) latersi deflections will be reviewed for impact with nearby plant hardware. If either of these requirements cannot be met, the support will be modified.