ML20141M824
| ML20141M824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1986 |
| From: | TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141M821 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-860131, NUDOCS 8602280318 | |
| Download: ML20141M824 (14) | |
Text
TN ENG3EERNG SBMCES AUDIT PLAN C0 mANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CABLE TRAY AND CONDUIT SUPPORT REANALYSIS PROJECT 6410 REVISION 0 January 31, 1986 Written By:_.
s_,[ Mb7(( Date:
Ec/
/ t, /9#6 U
Approved By:
Date:
TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVE.
WALTHAM, MA 02254 8602280318 860211y5 PDR ADOCK O
T ENGNERNG SERVICES 1.0 Introduction The Cormianche Peak Response Team (CPRT) has documented its plan for verification of cable tray and conduit supports in Appendix C,
Civil /Structual Disipline Specific Action Plan, DSAP VIII, of its Program Plan (Ref. 1).
A significant reanalysis effort is being performed by EBASCO and Impell under TUGC0 Project Control.
In addition, TUGC0 has retained RLCA to review the EBASC0/Impell effort.
This effort includes obtaining as-built drawings, performing anal-yses, testing and modifying supports for the purpose of responding to issues related to cable tray and conduit supports.
Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) has been requested by the USNRC to audit the EBASC0/Impell and RLCA activities.
The objectives of TES audits are:
o Determine if FSAR licensing commitments are met.
o Determine if cable tray and conduit support analysis activ-ities, including load definition, are acceptable.
o Determine if redesigns are acceptable and in compliance with commitments.
o Identify and report any concerns raised during our audit activities.
The TES audit activities, which are detailed below, apply to both Units 1 and 2 of CPSES.
This plan will be revised, as appropriate, to reflect changes in the cable tray and conduit support reanalysis program.
WM ENGSEERNG SERVICES Since TES audits apply only to design / analysis activities, Attachment 1 of this plan gives recomended audit activities for construction. This will complete the audit program and it will ensure that all aspects of cable tray and conduit support structural integrity have been reviewed.
2.0 Scope The scope of the TES audit program is intended to address requirements pertinent to cable tray and conduit supports in order to assess structural integrity. Therefore, the following major components of the EBASC0/Impell program will be audited.
o Dynamic Cable Tray System Analysis o
Support Analysis o
Support / Tray Design o
Design / construction interfaces o
RLCA review activities Each of the above items will be reviewed through detailed audits of design documentation, analyses, tests and hardware. For instance, design criteria, analysis procedures, and calculations are three of the audited items which contribute partially to analysis. All of the detailed audits are identified in Table 1.
Design / construction interfaces will be audited to determine the effectiveness of design change control.
The items in Table I will be audited at the following organizations:
TUGC0 (audits of CPSES)
IMPELL RLCA ANCO E8ASCO CCL
WTELEDfhE ENGSEERNG SOMCES 3.0 Audit Methodoloqy Before proceding with audits the TES audit personnel will review CPSES cable tray and conduit support issues. These are listed in Reference 1, CPRT Plan, Appendix C, DSAP VIII, Tables VIII.1, VIII.2, and VIII.3.
Collectively, the audits will represent a comprehensive review of cable tray and conduit support structural integrity.
Hence, all primary documents, such as design criteria and procedures will be reviewed.
The secondary documents, including calculations, drawings, and reports will be sampled.
Hence, the audit will provide the basis for asseswient of the complete design process.
Audit findings, including coments and questions, will be documented in memoranda to the TES Executive Vice President or in trip reports for walkdowns and meetings held outside of TES' office.
The following paragraphs describe audit methods for the various items reviewed.
3.1 Engineering / Design 3.1.1 RLCA Audits Letter reports and other documentation by RLCA will be sampled and reviewed.
The emphasis will be on RLCA audits of E8ASCO and Impell during the implementation phase of the verification program.
TM ENGWEERNG SOMCES 3.1.2 Design Criteria The Design Criteria produced by EBASCO and Impell will be reviewed to determine if they reflect the FSAR commitments and the intent of the CPRT plan.
The technical adequacy and application of Code criteria will be assessed.
3.1.3 Analysis Procedures The completeness, design / analysis methodology and design control requirements included in the analysis procedures will be reviewed.
Static and dynamic modeling techniques and evaluation methods for members and anchors will be reviewed in these primary documents.
3.1.4 Calculations The calculation packages will be sampled and reviewed for the attributes listed in Table 2.
3.1.5 As-Built Drawing Process The TES auditors will perform a walkdown and field review of cable tray and conduit support hardware on the system and com-ponent (support frame) levels. Red-line drawings will be reviewed during this walkdown and compared to the installed hardware.
Final as-built drawings will also be reviewed.
The TUGC0 walkdown procedures will be reviewed for walkdowns requirements, methodology, and documentation requirements.
WM ENGDEERNG SERVICES 3.1.6 Testing Cable tray and conduit support testing will be audited since test results will be used as analysis input.
This will include reviews of test specifications for conformance to FSAR comitments and the CPRT plan as well as Q.A. requirements. Test procedures will be reviewed for technical requirements including test set-up and instrumentation and Q.A. requirements.
Tests will be witnessed and test reports will be reviewed for conformance to procedures, completion of documentation, cali-bration of instrumentation, and control of test specimens.
3.2 Design / Construction Interfaces Design change control is affected by the interf aces between engineering design and field construction.
The audits will determine if the requirements of ANSI N45.2.11 are met. They will include:
o Reviews of modification drawings for conformance to design concepts and implementations of modifications by the field, o Reviews of nonconformance reports and the disposition of NCRs by engineering.
o Reviews of engineering change documents and field-initiated changes.
4.0 Audit Sample Selection For secondary documentation reviews, two samples of cable tray systems and two samples of conduit systems will be selected. Samples will be selected which are analyzed by dynamic system analysis as-well as static analysis.
Longitudinal and transverse supports will be included in the selected systems.
WTELED(E ENGNEERING SERVCES 5.0 References The references given in Table 3 comprise the audit items to be re-viewed. TES file numbers follow the name of the organization which pro-duced the document.
6.0 Schedule The audit schedule is given in Table 4.
WM ENGDEERNG SOMCES Table 1 Cable Tray and Conduit Supports - Documents and Hard-ware to be Audited.
Major Component Detailed Items CPRT Program CPRT Program Plan Appendix A Appendix C - DSAP VIII Engineering Design RLCA Reports / Audits Design Criteria Analysis Procedures Calculation Packages Walkdown Procedures Walkdown Results Red-line Drawings As-built Drawings Test Procedures Test Reports Design / Construction Modification Drawings Interfaces NCRS Field change documents Engineering change documents G&H interf ace with EBASC0/Impell
TE M ENGSEERNG SBMCES Table 2 Checklist of Attributes to be Reviewed in Audits of Design / Analysis Calculations.
o Controlled design inputs, including loads, design criteria and field information.
o Checking of calculations.
o Verification of computer programs.
o Calculation methods including assumptions, o
Analytical models conform to physical structures.
Changes to calculations performed with same quality stan-o dards as original issue.
o Use of correct codes, editions, and addenda.
o Design / analysis outputs including contruction drawings issued in a controlled manner.
Design drawings issued for construction supported by com-o pleted and controlled calculations.
T ENGNEERNG SOMCES Table 3 Cable Tray and Conduit Supports - References 100 TUGC0 TUG-11-0330 CPRT Program Plan Revision 3 101 TUGC0 TUG-11-150 AB Procedures - Cable Tray Design Verification 102 TUGC0 TUG-11-181 UNIT 2 CONDUIT DESIGN CRITERIA 103 TUGC0 TUG-11-209 Unit 2 Procedure CT Supp. Inspection 104 TUGC0 TUG-11-260 unit 2 Procedure As-built Drawings 105 TUGC0 TUG-11-261 Procedure - Verif.
Of Base PL for Grout 106 TUGC0 TUG-1-262 Procedure - Visual Weld Inspection 107 TUGC0 TUG-11-263 Procedure - Concrete Anchor / Insert inspection 108 TUGC0 10 CFR50 55(e)s Poten Report Items 200 EB ASCO EB A-26-001 Spec - Dynamic Tests 201 EB ASCO EBA-26-003 Unit 2 Seismic Design Criteria for CT Hangers 202 EB ASCO EBA-26-004 Unit 2 Procedure CT Hanger Analysis 203 EB ASCO EBA-26-005 Unit 1 Seismic Design Criteria For CT Hangers
TN ENGNENG SEFMCES 300 Impell IMP-34-001 Proc. PI-01 Simplified Anal. Methods 301 IMPELL IMP-34-002 Proc. PI-02 Dynamic Anal. Methods 303 IMPELL IMP-34-003 Proc. PI-03 CT Support Qualification 304 IMPELL IMP-34-004 Proc. Interface Control Instructions 305 IMPELL IMP-34-005 Proc. PI-04 Site Information 306 IMPELL IMP-34-006 Unit 1 CT Hanger Design Criteria 307 IMPELL IMP-34-007 Proc. PI-05 CT Supp.
Buckling Coeff.
400 ANCO ANC-27-001 Proc. Static / Cycle Anchor Tests 401 Anco ANC-27-002 Proc. Dynamic CT System Test Plan 402 ANCO ANC-27-003 Proc. Static Tests of CT Sections 500 CCL CCL-28-001 Proc. Conduit Clamp Tests 501 CCL CCL-28-001 Proc. Static Conduit Supp. Tests 502 CCL CCL-28-003 Proc. Static Unistrut Tests
.a
=
==
3 3
g f
s I
1 8
D t
e'I 4
e 1
w 5
a 8
W V
E 4
i G
-4*
s A
a 6
9
?
L
E B
1 9
a I L 3
e a
f 8
L1 =
1 6
5 Li u a>
6 I
I e $ 4 O=
Cl e $.
O, < b b ~
0 E
>.u..
- o.or,, :. c,
,p <3 e J B
f 1
aw 4
4 e
t a
a g
g I
e n..
a 8
3 5
4 8
2 e
a e2 i
B M
4' J C E
i 8
- W
+, -
e~
h I
g e R
i,
- Ct s
s-A
,J
@ 94 d.3 6 -.'
f10 I.1 ' 1 A b r d'
% e ~
L 1
@ R 4 r.
g 4
75
& a L,
i
- 6. =
u 3 i
fa -
ej i J d
a
. N J! e e 4o3.
o.
4 e w..
.. s 4
9 d) L1' w e', 4 48 3Grt L 4D 4
-.I. a*
- 4. '
w s sN s a
- w. % 4 p
e NN % 4 *
~=b
> l J1 i]* C;'.J $. 6 E $.4+ {3i F
b-Ie u.-
- I
- I
'l C U.
4 a.".
i I
W =*
a.J * * - C (! G
.w s Leg e *- I e J.
- t
+ %
i 3:,tec
,ta 2.
, 4-t,a.e ( f n.' e-f s6 8
,4 t
( 4 i 4.- 1 = 1 ** 8 4
4 3mWW t
i Cs.4 e a 4
4 i
W 5
e i
a tJ O.4 a ti 3e n
i e
e 7
R 4
I a
(' O5M h
t 1
Z-Oe t
u
- * > = Zd G 4 Ji -J
, O
.1 f a.
J4 9 es e
a ts 61 OL i J. C :.1 P Jt*
4aen 3 % N I N N s I s s s
.J L P >=
5 C 60 t,i 9 6.; Q.
1>
1 *> t
=
6 s' 4 T (T
.4 s y ** M Iff >= 4.I I w f
I.
- l,d E I E I* $
Li 4 E E e!. E 8 8
j tm
'.1 b s s i s s.
essss 1 k _' O f 4 6 CN d 8 4 p-4 04(4*
e as#9 ie f 4 l'
I a=****
8 ** 7 4 W 9
9 1
1 8
5 5
6 8
4 LJ G
B t
F 9
LI O
9 a
t e
1 U
R i
l
?
A 9 44,)4 6 J J4J-44
.s i
e p-t C3 (C 3 F4 6 Q C3 Q f 4 '- e ad as % s% i N % % % a s % 4 d'
r.ta.x,.
z
..,-,mmut g1 s *L 25 w- ' % ~ l
=%
5 % N e
.I e 4 = a ( 9 e or 3 Ae) # 3) I g) @ g kJ N W D ed **(4
. f 3 ( 4 -* sa i e ** A e
6 4
b 4
5 5
E
,1 8
e a
e n
- w e
5 t
4 9
il 3"
4.)
a r.
g bha U M.c a g C CD C I
a w
G e
c.
eo<1 oocei<4.
t 6, 6 C' O CD 4.1 1 u, C e
>-==
- i ee Q
a (l*
Es *
.s a N sN w e. % 4 g
aU 4.<a d. n;4 e&e i n.e 4 g* el
= > e J * *
- 5 IJ W time W 4 W 3% 4 I 4% 8 6 J"9 te t 6 L L <T 4 TT d e t >d a w. b a 6esra-t + r'-.
s essss wss 8
O c me 14 a
a 6 04
- ) ** * *= f4J B W L1 4 t
t I
i e
P h
6 1
4 4
8 e
i 4
4 a
l l
1 i
d e
e 9
8 0
0 4
5 8
e i
e d
9 i
O1 a
f4 a 6
W I e
a W
6 8
d W
1 3
)f Q
Z5 P
e
.I W G 4
U 9 8
O t
LJ t G e
- ** e 8
61 6
Li !
F s Ci b" a
~
4 s
VI i 9
e*.4 8 3-b g i a
w e
u.
Wec i
o e
- ** J W e
I u
J l
QM2L. U G
't Wu R
8' :D F L1 6
04 w
W W== Q l
Oa 6
.J.J~
e m is
- 2 8 4$
7 U6 6
44e i e
>4 eO
>=5**
4 e) f) t U Le 6
3 6" ca 7
-se h
WM-e 3 t ruu 1
5 4 eu
- 's***** : WOJ t A e
- t.: 1* > Ul ** U J e - 1 C7e y >fl n "E Ji a
- 6/
W 8 d W te - I hJ d #
5 l W k i i. ** 4 6 u.'3 L (1 se d W B
J D **
0
@4 e U1 E
- W
.W
= w e 't o o so i w-ui-8s o
i
. c2
.J
- g b nn. 33W4 7333 i A
b"'I
- C3 4 >
9 he W,J l " U.* W* 664 8,
+ F f 61 H 4 e w t-O p ** - g g F-J me il
.f 3.r=
I I U8 8 '*
I+3 6 4 d ts # > 4 i W.E' W i.,
8
- 9 **
9 WW
.r1
%.' F e **
s D 4 g m a > is a a e 4i
, w ame e
t e
t6 1 7 s L e d' u's re r. <C O 7 0. n <* s e* ca s i aL 3O I
- 4
@r
- 4
- g 6
4 i
i 6
h I
6 e
i 8 1#
hu}s}bO 1}
l.
to l'
U
- Os n e y8 T U a
a s
b #
0 de I 4 68 E
N ** ** I A 0 8 j
p t
i e
r a
1 e
a F.
A A
/.
M N
k--
?
Y ENGWEERING SEFMCES RECO MENDED AUDITS OF CABLE TRAY AND CONDUIT SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION To complete the cable tray and conduit support structural integrity audit program, the following audits of the construction process are recom-mended. The audits should emphasize reviews of installed hardware and QC documentation and they should determine if f abrication and erection of cable tray and conduit supports reflect the design intent.
Construction attributes which auditors should review are:
o Use of controlled construction specifications, drawings and procedures.
o Personnel training and qualifications.
o QC documentation is complete and accessible in document con-trol.
o Fabrication and installation conform to controlled drawings and procedures.
o Quality control inspections are complete, well-documented and conform to QC procedures.
o Non conformance reports are properly dispositioned by engineering.
TN ENGNEERNG SOMCES 1.0 FABRICATION / INSTALLATION Hardware f abrication and installation procedures should be reviewed.
Methods of installing expansion anchors and connecting frames to concrete inserts and embedded plates should be reviewed.
A field walkdown should determine if the sampled hardware is installed in accordance with proce-dures.
2.0 SITE PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS Documentation should be reviewed to determine if craft and QC inspec-tors have been trained, qualified, and certified where applicable. Audits should emphasize welder qualifications, weld inspectors, and expansion anchor installers.
3.0 SITE QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL Site quality control activities should be audited.
QC procedures should be reviewed for completeness and conformance to engineering docu-ments. QC inspection reports should be reviewed for completeness and con-formance to procedures.
Site QA should be reviewed to determine the frequency and thoroughness of QA audits.
.