ML20141K381

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 851025 Meeting W/Util & Ebasco Svc,Inc Re Design Verification Testing & Mods to Conduit Supports & Cable Tray Supports.List of Attendees Encl.Ebasco & Util Will Provide Listed Documents for Review
ML20141K381
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 12/02/1985
From: Shao L
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
Shared Package
ML20141K361 List:
References
NUDOCS 8601220471
Download: ML20141K381 (6)


Text

. - _ _ _

e# "% UNITED STATES c

. *, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

  • a s

\.....*j DEC 2 1985 DOCKET N0.: 50-445/446 MEMORANDUM FOR: File FROM: L. C. Shao, Manager, Civil /hechanical Group, CP TRT

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH TUGC0 AND EBASCO ON OCTOBER 25, 1985 A group of the Co manche Peak Project TRT members and their ccusultants met with the TUGCO, EBASCO and their consultants to discuss the progress of design verification, testing and modifications of the conduit supports and cable tray supports.

The list of attendees is enclosed. Following are the highlights of the meeting:

1. Definition, characterization and the relationship between the third party (CPRT) and EBASCO was described. The tests which are being performed are initiated by both EBASCO and CPRT. EBASCO is performing verification program and may use the results from the tests as confirmatory information to verify the basic assumptions made in the design verification program.

Tests specification, and overseeing is responsibility of EBASCO. CPRT is reviewing the test specifications which the purpose of the tests is to establish the adequacy and additional conservatism which is implemented in the analytical approach and modifications.

The modifications which may result from the DAP will be in conformance with the NRC/FSAR guidelines. Third party (CPRT) is overseeing the EBASCO effort to ensure that these commitments are met.

Cable Tray Supports

1. Determination of As-Built Conditions The walkdown procedure at Unit I was described.

The Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) is made at the EBASCO office on the basis of the available infonnation from Gibbs and Hill.

These drawings are sent to the site for ' erification and marking during walkdown. The corrections / changes are incorporated on a new "As Built" drawing. The cable tray design verification program is using these as-built drawings as a basis for the analysis.

2. Design Verification Design verification is made for every cable tray hanger (CTH). Multiple Response Multiplier (MRM) of 1.25 was used. Studies have been made by EBASCO to support the use of MRM of 1.25. Other plants have been known to use this value also.

8601220471 851218 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR

DEC 2 EMS In the design verification the lowest frequency response of a hanger is used with conjunction of response of the tray with or without the thermalog.

For Unit 2 the response spectrum analysis has been done-on a limited basis.

~

For Unit 1, it can be predicted which analysis (response spectrum method or equivalent static method) is appropriate.

The Third Party did not review the design. verification procedures yet.

The CPRT is planning to perform a confirmatory type analysis of cable tray supports in the future. NRC recommended a more intensive involvement of-the CPRT in the design verification program.

3. Modifications i For Unit 2 the proposed modifications are originated by the ti.Y. office (EBASCO.

For Unit 1 the proposed modifications are originated by the site EBASCO office.

It is estimated that the modifications will be between 6 to 25 percent of the CTHs. .

4. Testing It is expected the CTH testing will commence at the ANCO, and Culver Sity, California office by the middle of November. TRT will be informcd about the schedule and is planning to observe some of these tests.

Conduit Supports

1. Unit 2 No tests are planned for Unit 2. Changes are to be tested in mid-November 1985, because they were tested by the vendor for a particular type of installation. Since the Comanche Peak Project deviated from the type of-

! installation and_ the manufacturer's recommendation, they will be tested to

! verify that they are adequate for the type of installation planr.ed for.the Comanche Peak Plant.

2. Unit 1 4 The AISC specification to which the conduit supports (UNISTRUT) have been originally designed and committed to in the FSAR recommends that for thin walled sections the AISI specifications be used. Therefore, design verification will be performed using AISI.

f

3-DEC 2E Potential Modifications of Unistrut Supports There is a total of 7929 conduit supports, out of these 6214 were found to be acceptable, 624 were found that their capacity is reduced and 691 will have to be replaced.- These figures reflect the expected results.

The actual verification program differs from the proposed plan. The basic difference that the UNISTRT program was implemented first because the most of the problems were found in the UNISTRUT rather than in any other portion of the system. The random sample selected will consist of 60 runs (zero defects),

total 450 supports in the sample. If it is founo that there are defects the program will be expanded.

Equivalent static method will be used in the analysis. If the result will show that failure occurs then the response spectrum method will be used. In all cases the AISI code allowables will be met.

e4%

\ C. Shao, Group Leader L.

Comanche Peak Project TRT NOTE: At the conclusion it was agreed that EBASC0/TUGC0 will provide a number of documents for review by the TRT. (Seeattachedlist.)

f 9

4 t

Items that EBASO is to Provide to TRT

1. Status of cable tray support verification program.
2. Justification of 1.25 MRM (2-3 days)

Instructions to designer (a) general requirements (b) instructions for implementation.

3. Statement from C. Korchner.
4. Copy of viewgraphs (received at meeting).
5. 2-3 examples of red-line drawings and sample of cales associated with these drawings.
6. Test specs for ANCO and CCL those which have been reviewed by third party.
7. Differences between 1974 and recent AISC.
8. Differences between AISC and AISI.
9. Justification for lack of as-built program in Unit 2 - conduit support program.
10. TUGC0 will specify convenient / effective date at CCL and ANC0.

r , ,

s n A> W f k 1 - 7p *7 V- ,

5' AGENDA NRC INSPECTION AUDIT CPRT CIVIL / STRUCTURAL REVIEW (Preliminary)

OCTOBER 25,1985 EBASCO Offices, NYC Friday, October 25,1985,9:00 a.m.

Cobie Troys / Conduit Supports Proarom

1. Overview of Project and Third Party Activities (Mortgot/Kircher)
2. Overview / Status of Units I and 2 As-Builting Programs (Hooton/EBASCO)

- 3. Overview / Status of Units I and 2 Project Design Verification Programs (Hooton/EBASCO)

4. Identification of Potentlo! Modificottons (Hooton/EBASCO) '

/ 5. CEble Troys / Supports Testing (G. Howard, ANCO)

- Description of All Phases / Status

6. Conduit / Supports Testing (R. Yow, CCL)

- Description of All Phases / Status for Trains A and B, Train C Porticipants Prolect R. Hooton, et al.

R. Iotti, EBASCO, et al.

E. Bezkor, Gibbs and Hill, et of.

Third Party C. Mortgot C. Kircher l

l l

i

,t Testinc Organizations G. Howord, ANCO, et al.

R. Yow, CCL, et al.

NRC D. Jeng, NRR, et al. ,

, D. Norkin, R. Shewmoker, I&E, et ol.

4 Brookhaven National Laboratory l.

I f

?

I l

2

.