ML20153D704
| ML20153D704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1985 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| 84056.095, NUDOCS 8602240221 | |
| Download: ML20153D704 (200) | |
Text
7
=4 9
4 u5vYrs 101 Caido nia Street Swte 1000. San Francisco OA 9411b5894 415 395600 November 26,1985 84056.095 Mr. W.G. Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallos, Texas 75201
Subject:
' Review issues List (RIL)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
References:
See Attachment A
Dear Mr. Council:
Enclosed are revisions to the mechanical systems, electrical /l&C, cable troy supports, conduit supports, pipe supports, and design control Review issues Lists (RILs).
All significant changes are noted by a revision bor in the right margin. Most of the revisions were made to provide changes in accordance with information requests made in the open items letters (References 2, 3, 5, and 6) and questions or comments on the CPRT plan (References I and 4). The cable troy supports RIL was also revised to provide clarification and expansion of existing issues. A similar revision is in progress for the pipe stress RlL.
The current revisions to each discipline RIL are os follows:
Discipline Revisions Cygna letter reference Pipe Stress 1
84056.093 Pipe Supports 2
84056.092 Mechonical Systems 3
84056.088 Electrical /l&C 3
84056.090 Cable Troy Supports 12 84056.094 Conduit Supports 3
84056.094 Design Control 2
840S6.085 8602240221 851126
~
PDR ADOCK 05000445 A
PDR 0
San Francisco Boston San Diego Chicago Richland v
5
.e
=-
.n.,
Mr. W.G. Counsil November 26,1985 Page 2
!f there are any questions please call at your convenience.
Very truly yours, e
I N.H. Williams Project Manager Attachments cc: Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/ottochments Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ottochments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ottochments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Libermon, et al.) w/ottachments Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ottochments Mr. J. Finneron (TUGCO) w/ottochments Mrs. J. Ellis (CASE) w/ottochments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/ottochments Mr. F. Dougherty (TENERA) w/ottochments Mr. R. Bollard (Gibbs & Hill) w/ottochments Mr. R. Kissinger (TUGCO) w/ottochme.its Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/ottochments i
i
~_
b=-
SffVsCf5 Mr. W.G. Counsil November 26,1985 ATTACHMENT A 1.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO), "Cygno Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan, 84056.085, dated October 6,1985.
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO), " Mechanical Systems Review Questions," 84056.088, dated October 16,1985.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO), " Electrical Systems Review Questions," 84056.090, dated October 16,1985.
4.
N.H.
Williams (Cygno) letter to W.G.
Counsil (TUCCO), " Additional Cygno Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.091, dated October 21,1985.
5.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," 84056.092, dated October 30,1985.
6.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO), "Coble Troy / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.094, dated October 30,1985.
a 11/20/85 i
Revision 2 c
(
Page 1 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
Box Frames With 0" Gap
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Box Frames with 0" Gap", 84042.023, dated 1/28/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, Item 2 3.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
L. M. Foppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), Attachment B, dated 6/8/84 5.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr. Regarding Consideration of Local Displacement and Stress" O
Susunary:
The original support calculations did not consider the effect of the box frame and pipe interaction (Reference 2).
In addition, later TUGC0 calculations (References 4 and 5) used unconservative temperature and frame stiffness assump-tions and did not include the effects of Cygna coments.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
2.
Design of Welded / Bolted Connections
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Design of Welded / Bolted Connections,"
84042.024, dated 1/28/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/21/84, Item 1.c.
3.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84942-01, Revis-ion 1, Observation PS-06
(')
Texas Utilities Generati ig Company A (ei,
Comanche Peat Steam Electric Station lilitilllllilillllllillllllll!
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE.
O 11/20/85 73 Revision 2 ty Page 2 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Sunnary:
Cygna found no evidence that welded / bolted connections are designed in accordance with paragraph XVII-2442 of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
3.
Richmond Insert Allowables
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B.. George (TUGCO), " Richmond Insert Allowables and Bending Stresses," 84042.025, dated 1/31/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/16/84, Item 2 3.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/30/84, Item 1 4.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/2/84 5.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/8/84 6.
Communications Report between Bezkor (Gibbs & Hill) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 6/12/84, Item 4 7.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr., Robert C.
~
Iotti, and R. Peter Deubler Regarding Design of
. Richmond Inserts and their Application to Support Design" Sumary:
Cygna has concerns with the following issues:
JJstifiCation for single insert alloWables based on test concrete strength.
Justification for bolt loads due to " axial torsion" of the tJbe steel.
Interaction results from STRUDL analyses.
Bending stresses in ' bolts.
Texas Utilities Generating Company g h ;g Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station e
111lll11lll11ll111111111111111Independent Assessment Program All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2 Page 3 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
4 Punching Shear (U-Bolt - Tube Steel Design)
References:
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 4 Open Items - Punching Shear,"
84056.053, dated 1/31/85 2.
Communications Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 10/4/84 3.
TUGC0 Calculations dated 10/11/84, received by Cygna 10/18/84 4.
Comunications Report between Finneran '(TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 10/30/84 5.
J.B. George > (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 11/8/84 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 4 Open Items - Punching Shear" 84056.058, dated 3/12/85 Sununary:
Cygna has not found evidence that the stresses in the tube steel or coverplate in support MS-1-002-005-S72R near the U-bolt hole were evaluated. Cygna has found that this absence of supporting calculations is typical for this type of design.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Referer.ce 1.
Texas Utilities Generating Company g[ j,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases ll111lll111lll11lllllllllll111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
i 11/20/85-Revision 2 f
Page 4
\\s PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 5.
Mass Participation / Mass Point Spacing
References:
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Mass Participation / Mass Point Spacing,"
84042.021, dated 2/8/85 2.
R. E. Ballard (G8H) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Mass Participation," GTN-69454, dated 9/14/84 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGC0), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participa-tion," 84042.017, dated 9/21/84 4
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participa-tion," 84042.019, dated 10/2/84 5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna), "Cygna Potential Finding Report Mass Participation and the Mass Point Spacing Error in Problem AB-1-61A," dated 12/7/84 Sununary:
Due to the detailed nature of this subject, please see Reference 1.-
Status:
This item is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
6.
Stability of Pipe Supports
References:
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Stability of Pipe Supports," 84042.035, dated 2/19/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 3 3.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
Communications Report between Rencher/ Grace (TUGCO) and Minichiello/Wong (Cygna) dated 5/24/84, Item 15 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company y[
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases -
11111111llllll1111111l lll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision'2 7
t Page 5 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 5.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 7/12/84 6.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran Jr. Regarding Sta-bility of Pipe Supports and Piping Systems" 7.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revis-ion 1, Appendix J, General Note 12, and Appendix G, Observation PS-02 Summary:
The issue of support _ stability is quite detailed.
Please see Reference 1 for a discussion of Cygna's concerns.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's-response to Reference 1.
f)
7.
Cinching of U-Bolts
%./
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.W. Beck (TUGCO), " Cinching of U-Bolts," 84042.036, dated 3/25/85 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, Item 5 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 4.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter -to N.H. Williams j
(Cygna), Attachment C, dated 6/8/84 l
S.
" Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C.
Finneran, Jr., regarding Cinching Dora of U-Bolts" (received 7/12/84) 6.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report EQ&T-EQT-860, Revision 0, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
U-Bolt Support / Pipe Test Program" (received 7/12/84) 7.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report entitled
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U-Bolt p
U Texas Utilities Generating Company A'M g Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 11161111lll1111111111lllllll11 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE-
11/20/85 Revision 2
'(~s L}
Page 6
' PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Finite Element Analysis", dated 6/12/84 (received 7/12/84) 8.
-N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
"U-Bolt Cinching Test / Analysis Program - Phase 3 Open-Item," 84042.015, dated 8/23/84 9.
Transcript of Meeting between Cygna Energy Ser-vices and Texas Utilities Generating Company and Ebasco Services, Inc., dated 9/13/84 10.
R.C. Iotti (Ebasco) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), " Additional Information as Follow-Up to Meeting of 9/13/84," 3-2-17 (6.2), ETCY-1, dated 9/18/84 11.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Status of Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Pro-gram," 84042.018, dated 10/1/84 12.
J.B. George (TUGC0) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Program - Addi-tional Information," dated 11/1/84 13.
J.B. George (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Program - Addi-tional Information," dated 11/16/84 Sumary *.
Dlease see Reference 1 for details.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
8.
Richmond Insert Allowable Spacing
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and i
Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/10/84, Item 1 2.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/12/84 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company g[H Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lltlllll1111lll1111111111lllll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
l l
11/20/85 Revision 2 Page 7 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List-Susumary:
Cygna had asked TUGC0 how the designers ensured that the al-lowables they used for pipe support attachments correspond to the installed Richmond Insert spacing. TUGC0 responded by stating that their designers used minimum allowables, un-less a walkdown was performed to ensure that larger spacings existed, thereby permitting the use of increased allowables.
There was no written procedure documenting this direction to the designers.
While Cygna could not find evidence that this unwritten procedure was not followed, Cygna has no assurance that conservative allowables were always used.
Status:
See Cable Tray Review Issue 3.E.
9.
Embedment Attachment Spacing
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B.' George v
(TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," item 5, 64056.13, dated 7/31/84 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 8/24/84 3.
Communications Report between Purdy (Brown & Root) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/4/85 4
Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45, Revision 1, dated 8/18/80 5.
Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 24, dated 4/18/84 6.
Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP 11.1-28,_ Resision 29, dated 1/25/85 7.
Communications Report between Warner (TUGC0) and Williams /Minichiello/Russ (Cygna) dated 2/27/85
)
8.
CPSES Procedure QI-QP-19.5-1, " Separation Inspection for Unit 1 and Common Buildings" o
I Texas Utilities Generating Company A{
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1811ll11111111lll1111111111lll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2 f]
Page 8 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Susumary:
Cygna has found two pipe support base plates welded to t:m-bedded plates with less than 12" required spacing between the edges of the support base plates (per Reference 4).
This was not a CPSES ivpection item at the time of the Cygna review (Reference 5); however, the Brown & Root pro-cedure was revised to include the proper checks for pipe supports (Reference 6).
Since this affects all hardware attached to embedded plates (HVAC, raceway, and pipe sup-ports) -not just a single discipline, and since it was not an inspection item in other discipline procedures (per References 7 and 8), this item has generic implications.
Status:
TUGC0 should provide evidence that the spacing requirement has been or will be checked on a plant-wide basis.
- 10. Thru-Bolts and Concrete Acceptability
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and
/
Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/3C/84, Item 2 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/2/84 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item 9 and Attachment D Summary:
Cygna is concerned that the loads on the walls may not be acceptable. Although Gibbs &-Hill has walked down several highly loaded areas per Reference 3, there is no written i
procedure documenting the transmittal of as-built loads on concrete structures to the structural group. Thus there is no assurance that each area, particularly near free edges, is acceptable.
Status:
TUGC0 should demonstrate that the civil structures are acceptable for the applied loading.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Ag,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111lll111!l16ll18111111llll Job No. 84056
O s
11/20/85
-l
Revision 2 Page 9 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 11. Bolt Spacing i
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George 4J (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions,"-item 3, 84056.14, dated 8/6/84 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 8/11/84 v.
Sununary:
In certain base plate designs in Phase 4 (CC-2-019-715-A43K, for example), the bolt hole dimensions are detailed as "1-1/2 MIN TYP" from the edge of the plate.
In some cases, this could result in a dimension from 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 inches. While this may have little effect on the bolt load, it does affect the maximum plate stresses by as much as 15%
for a strut, spring, or snubber with a 5* offset.
[
Status:
TUGC0 should demonstrate how this location tolerance is t
addressed in the design calculations.
- 12. Support Self Weight Excitation During a Dynamic Event
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher/Finneran (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/10/84 2.
TUGC0 memo CPP-9977 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Appendix J, Note 7
(<
4 N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open Items Associates with Walsh/Doyle Allega-tions," 84042.022, dated 1/18/85 Sunenary:
TUGC0 has not considered the loads due to the support dynamic excitation in the pipe support designs.
Status:
In order for Cygna to assess the impact of self-weight excitation on support design, TUGC0 should provide Cygna with all TUGC0/NRC/ CASE correspondence on this issue.
i
.j Texas Utilities Generating Company.
gy g Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1111111lllllll111lllll1lll1lll Independent Assessment. Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
3 t
a.
u
?,
?:
11/20/85 3
Revision 2 s-Page 10 PIPE SUPPORTS "f,
Review Issues List
- 13. Support Stiffness
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Appendix J, Note 8, 1.'
2.
N.H. iylliams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open Itenis Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allega-t tions," 84042.022, dated 1/18/85 Sunnary:
In designing Class 2 and 3 supports, TUGC0 has used a de-flection criteria for support stiffness. For supports with low design loads, this can result in very flexible sup -
ports. This could affect the stress analysis results and redistribute support loads.
Status:
In order for Cygna to assess the impact of support stiffness on support design, TUGCGisfculd provide Cygna with all existing TUGC0/NRC/CASli co respopdence on this issue.
14 Hydrotest Support / Stress Design
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGC0) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/10/84 with TUGC0 Instructions CP-EI-4.0-30, Revision s, attached 3.
D.G. Eisenhut (USNRC) letter to M.D. Spence (TUGCO),
Item V.E., dated 11/29/,64 Sunnary:
Cygna did not find any evidence in either the support design calculations or the pipe stress analyses that hydrostatic test loads had been considered. TUGC0 responded with a copy _
of their procedure which addresses the design of temporary supports.
Status:
TUGC0 should provide examples of checks made/ temporary sup-ports designed in accordance with Procedure CP-EI-4.0-30.
l
]-
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
.(
13 g i lililllitilllilllilhilillllll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85
. Revision 2 Page 11 i- [ ~N PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 15. Dynamic Pipe Movements in Support Design _
References:
1.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 9/28/83, Pipe Support Item 3 2.
Communication report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, Pipe Support Item 3 3.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-09-01 4.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 2 5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84 Sununary:
TUGC0 does not include dynamic pipe movements in support design when checking frame gaps, swing angles, or spring O
travel. Cygna was concerned this could affect design ade-quacy, and received a response (Reference 2) which only addressed the seismic effects. Other dynamic loads such as steam hammer were not mentioned in the response.
Status:
TUGC0 should demonstrate that dynamic events (i.e.,
steam / water hammer) which produce much larger displacements than seismic events do not impact design.
16.
Dual Strut / Snubber Design
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/22/84, Itera 2.b 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-03
- 4.. Cygna Phase 3 Firial Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Page 5-5 OQ Texas-Utilities Generating Company gQ,.,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station e
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases ll11ll1111lll1lllll1lllll1111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2
.(,-
Page 12 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues 1.ist 5.
" Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran,
~
Jr., Regarding Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints" 7
6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B.. George (TUGCO), " Force Distribution in Axial' Restraints -
Phase 3 Open Item," 84042.014, dated 8/10/84 Sumary:
While most of the discussion.on this subject has centered around axial restraints, Cygna is concerned about all types of dual restraint designs -(trapezes, double trunnions, riser clamps with shear lugs).
TUGC0 has designed each restraint
.in these cases to take only 1/2 the total load. Also, Gibbs
& Hill stated standard practice in local stress ar,alysis assumes the trunnions equally share the load.
';ygna finds this inconsistent with other design organizations, which usually assume one side takes more than 1/2 of the overall support load. TUGC0 is currently performing an assessment in response to Reference 6.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 6.
- 17. Hilti Kwik-Bolt Embedment Length References-Williams (Cygna) port between Wade (TUGCO) and
References:
1.
Communications Re dated 9/28/83, Pipe Support Item 1 2.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, Pipe Support Item 1 3.
Corr.unications Report between Rencher (TUGC0) and Minichie:lo (Cygna) dated 10/6/83, Item 1 4
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-02-01 5.
Communication Report between J. Van Amerogen 3
(TUGCO) and L. 'J. Weingart (Cygna), dated j
9/27/85, Job 84042, " Pipe Support Questions."
6.
H. C. Schmidt (TUGCO) letter to B. J. Youngblood (NRC), dated 4/2/84.
n v
3 Texas Utilities Generating Company
- Al ;, i Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 3
g--
Independent: Assessment. Program - All Phases
'i
. Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
'q
11/20/85 j
Revision 2 Page 13 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 7.-
N. H. Williami (Cygna) letter t.o W. G. Counsil A
(TUGCO), 84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support IB q,
Review Questions."
(
Sumary:
Embedment lengths shown on the support drawings do not match those in the support calculations. This issue was previ-ously closed, since there was no impact on the technical aspects of the design.
However, TUGC0 has committed to providing updated documentation for this review issue (Ref-erences 6 and 7).
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGCO's response to the document request in Reference 7.
6 18..
Incorrect Data Transmittal T
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01,
)
Revision 0, Observation PS-10-01 3
Sumary:
The displacement transmitted for support RH-1-064-001-522R had an incorrect sign.
Status:
This issue is closed and isolated.
19.
Incorrect Standard Component Allowables
References:
1.
Communications Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 9/28/83, Pipe Support Item 4 2.
Communicatio~ns Report Between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, Pipe Support Item 4 3.
Cygna Phase.1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation - PS-12-01 Sumary:
The incorrect U-bolt allowables were used in the design of support RH-1-064-011-S22R (formerly RH-1-062-002-S22R).
4 Status:
This issue is closed and isolated.
m)
Texas. Utilities Generating Company A {.,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessme'nt Program -' All Fhases 111111111111111lllllll111ll111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2 Page 14 s
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues-List 20.
Input Errors in the Design of Support MS-1-001-006-C72K
References:
1.
Communications Report between Grace (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/22/84, Item 10 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item (41) 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final ' Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-01 ~
Susunary:
Errors were found in the section properties and boundary conditions which will affect the STRUDL results. The STRUDL input was not checked or approved at the. time of Cygna's review.
Status:
This issue has been resolved technically, but remains open for resolution of its QA requirements.
- 21. Undersized Fillet Welds
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/16/84, Item 5 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGC0) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/8/84 item (31) 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-04 Susunary:
Two fillet welds were designed under the mini.aum required by the ASME B&PV code, Table XVII-2452.1-1.
Status:
This item is closed and isolated.
22.
Irproper Weld Calculations for Three-Sided Welds
References:
1.
Communications Report between Gra:.e (TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/22/84, Item 1 1
2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 6/0/84 item (32) l i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Jtj { g Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lilllllilillllillililllllllllj Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revi sion. 2 Page 15 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-05 4.
N.H. Williams' (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO) " Box Frames with 0" Gap," 84042.023, dated 1/28/85 item 3 of the Attachment 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna)' letter to J.B. George (TUGC0) " Mass Participation and Mass Point Spacing," 84042.021, dated 2/8/85 pipe support review Item 5 i
Sunnary:
TUGC0 does not always consider the eccentricity between the member center of gravity and the weld center of rigidity when determining weld loads to be used in the design.
Status:
This issue is closed for the supports ~ reviewed in Phases 3 and 4 TUGC0 should evaluate these calculations for any O
revisions to the pipe stress analyses which increase loads, such as those reevaluations associated with References 4 and 5.
L 23.
Improper Weld Calculation for Composite Sections
References:
1.
Communications Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Williams /Minichiello (Cygna) dated 7/11/84, Item 1 2.
Communications Report between Finneran (TUGC0) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 7/11/84 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 7/12/84 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-07 Sunnary:
When welding cover plates to tubesteel or wideflanges to form composite sections, the method used for the weld design is not always correct, and all the loads are not always considered.
Texas Utilities Generating Company A 1,
,i Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111111llll116ll1111lllJob No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
4 d
11/20/85-in~
Revision 2 1n)
Page 16-PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
This issue-is. closed based 'on ' additional calculations for the Phase 3 review scope.. However, these' errors should be corrected if loads increase in later revisians of the stress -
. analyses.
24 Untightened Locknuts on Struts
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation WD-01-01
- 2. - TUGCO Memorandum from M.R. McBay dated 6/9/83 Sunnary:
During the Phase 1 walkdown, :Cygna noted one support on which the upper locknut on the strut was not tightened.
This situation could' lead to-rotation of the strut and a subsequent redistribution of load among neighboring sup-ports.
O--
Status:
This issue is closed based on previous identification of the deficiency by TUGC0 (Reference 2) and proposed corrective and preventative actions.
25.
Inverted Snubbers
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation WD-02-02 2.
N. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC),
83090.021, dated 11/6/84 Sunnary:
During the Phase 1 walkdown, Cygna noted four supports in which the-snubbers were installed 180 degrees from the configuration shown on the support drawing.
These devi-ations have no actual design-or safety impact.
However, per Reference-1, this situation could be a potential violation-h of Quality. Assurance requirements under Criterion III of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8.
TUGC0'must demonstrate that the~
l I
required documentation existed for.this deviation when the installation procedure CP-CPM 9.17, Revision 2 was issued and that the' requirements 'of Criterion III were met (e.g.
i L
the installation procedure was reviewed and approved by engineering. ).
Texas Utilities Generating Company y
,g Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 3
lilllllilllillihilillllillll Independent Assessment ' Program - All ' Phases Job No. 84056.
l-23PS-ISSUE' o u
11/20/85 Revision 2
-p Page 17 G
PIPE SUPPORTS j
Review Issues List
' Status:
This issue is resolved with respect to technical considerations but remains open pending TUGC0's confirmation that QA requirements have been properly considered and satisfied.
- 26. Embedded Plate Design
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/22/84, Item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84, Page 11, Item 1 3.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-G, Revision 5, Section 3, Appendix 9, " Specification
~
2323-SS Structural Embedments" 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Appendix J, General Note 13 Sussnary:
In Paragraph 3.4 of Appendix 4 to Reference 3 Gibbs & Hill 3
requires that all attachments to embedded plates shall be assumed to be " pin connections" (force transfer only). They further state that moment connections to the embedment re-quire stiffening. As noted in Reference 2, however,-Gibbs &
Hill has not provided any guidelines for the stiffeners.
As also noted in Reference 2, the pipe support design organiza-tion assumes that-any attachment to the embedded plate will effectively stiffen the local area, but they did not cross-check this assumption with Gibbs & Hill.
Status:
While Cygna believes that the design methods used are not unreasonable, Cygna should review the embedded plate design calculations to determine the appropriateness of the pipe support design assumptions.
In addition,' Specification 2323-SS-30 should be revised to provide guidance in select-ing stiffners for the embedded plates.
27.
Pipe Support Design Procedures
Reference:
None a
Texas Utilities Generating Company gej,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Al1 Phases lllll1111llllll11lll1lllll1111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85' 4
Revision 2
(
.Page 18 PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Sunnary:
In performing the pipe support design review for Phases 2, 3 and 4, Cygna utilized certain engineering standards from ITT Grinnell, NPSI, and PSE when they were r eferenced in' a par-ticular calculation. Cygna did not review all the. guide-lines or standards from.each organization and has returned those that were used.
4 l
Status:
In order to complete our design process reviews, Cygna requests a controlled copy of the pipe support engineering guidelines / standards from ITT Grinnel, NPSI, and PSE.
i
- 28. Use of A563 Grade A Nuts With High Strength Bolting
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/16/84, Item 1.
2.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGC0) letter to N. H. Williams (Cygna) dated 4/19/84, Item 1.
Sunnary:
ASTM specification A563 recommends that Grade A nuts be used with A307 (low strength) bolting.
However, as noted by TUGCO, their designers, when not using h'gh strength nuts, will specify double nuts, with both nuts snuggtd. Cygna 's scope of review confirmed this statement.
Status:
This issue is closed.
b
- 29. Friction Loads
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1 Appendix G., Pipe Support Observation PS-08.
2.
Juanita Ellis (CASE) Letter to Administrative Judge P.B.
Bloch (ASLB) dated 6/13/85.
"Further Clarification of CASE's Position Regarding Applicants' Use' of 3 Sm".
Sunnary:
Loads due to friction were not included in the support design of pipe supports at CPSES when the piping thermal movement was 1/16" or less.
Status:
Open, further TUGC0 response is re uired.
The observation on the omission of friction loads n pipe support design V
Texas Utilities Generating Company y jg Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 11llllll!!Ill1111111llllll1111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
b 11/20/85
)
Revision 2 Page 19 1
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List (PS-08) with small thermal movements was previously con-cluded as invalid based on the considerations of. industry practice -the TUGC0 sample reanalysis, and the factors of i
safety available for normal conditions. This conclusion was 1
reached with the due consideration of the 1974 Edition of the ASME Code as the Code of Record.
However, the latest-edition of the ASME Code--namely, the 1983 Edition, para--
graph NF-3121.2--significantly changed the definition of..
.g primary stress due to constrained free end displacement and-appropriate allowable stresses.
(See Table NF-3523 -(b)-1.)
The code change has significantly altered some of the tech-nical points upon which Cygna relied to invalidate the observation. Consequently, Cygna requests further response
from TUGC0 and considers this issue open.
However, it should be noted that Cygna did review fifteen (15) pipe support calculations within Cygna's ' Phase 3 and 4 l
scope, which had negleted the effect of friction load.
Cygna found that all the supports are acceptable with the inclusion of friction loads-in combination with the original design loads. However, load changes due to the consideration of Mass Participation effects (Review Issue 5) may affect those conclusions.
- 30. MS-1-003-007-C72K, Revision 10
Reference:
1.
N.H Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056-013 dated 7/31/84.
" Pipe Support Review Questions", Question No. 10.
2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),.
dated 8/30/84.
3.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated 9/17/84.
4.
Communications Report between Van Amerogen/Rencher/
. Kerlin (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 9/11/84.
Item-No. 1.
4 Susunary:
Due to insufficient dimensioning in the subject drawing.
(Section J-J), Cygna -has concerns about the design of the connection.and particularly about the plate stresses'of Texas Utilities Generating' Company
({, f, Comanche Peak-Steam Electric Station 111lll1111lll1llllll1111111111 Independent Assessment _ Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 4
F 11/20/85 I[Y Revision 2 L V Page 20 i
-PIPE SUPPORTS H
Review Issues List.
L l
I items 35, 46 and the weld stresses between it' ems 35, 46 j.
and 22..
-TUGC0's response to these questions indicates that a finite element analysis has been performed with revised design loads (i.e. conservatism in load combination is taken
(
out)~. A design check indicates -that the plate stresses are l
very close-to the allowables (for upset and emergency con-ditions), based on actual tested material yield stress and ultimate stress (i.e. without the normal conservatism in k.
design based on code allowable' stress values).
Cygna feels that this isolated case deserves special l
attention and should be treated as an open issue for the i
following reasons:
)
l o
Cygna has not reviewed the revised de' sign calculation.
o High stress ratios exist.
Pipe loads may change as'a result of the CPRT reanalysis o
e f fort. This is especially true from the standpoint of providing consistent factor of safety for the piping system in question.
Status:
Cygna suggests a detailed review of this support in the CPRT
~
l reanalysis effort to ensure a proper factor safety is maintained.
l
- 31. Potential Edge Distance Violation
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) 84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support Review
. Questions."
Summary:
As noted in Cygna's Phase 4 pipe support walkdown, there are instances where pipe sleeve penetrations exist close to support baseplates but are not shown on the support drawing.
It is not clear how the support designer can identify any potential anchor bolt edge distance violations. Cygna has not found any criteria defining the minimum edge distance for anchor bolts adjacent to pipe i
sleeve penetrations (e.g. CC-1-028-017-533R, Revision 4; CC-1-028-022-S33K, Revision 7)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric : Station
.ID i a Independent Assessment Program -' All Phases L
181111118811111188111111111111 Job No. 84056 23 PS -
ISSUE
1, 4
11/20/85 Revision 2-Page 21 p)
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List-4 Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGCO's response to Reference 1.
32.
Incorporation of CMC 88765 Into Drawing CC-1-019-012-A43K
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGC0) a
" Pipe Support Review Questions" 84056.017, dated 8/7/84 l.S Item 2d.
Summary:
The all around fillet weld specified in CMC 88765, Revision 1, does not match the weld shown'in Section B-B of the subject drawing. The weld in the drawing is structurally acceptable.
Status:
In order to close this review issue, Cygna requests a copy of Revision 5 of the support drawing to. confirm that CMC 88765, Revision 1 has been incorporated.
- 33. Sight Holes Covered By Paint
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGC0),
84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support Review Questions".
Svanary:
Cygna's walkdown noted that se'veral sight holes of 4
strut / snubber component supports are painted over; there-fore, eye-rod full thread engagement cannot be checked via the sight hole.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGCO's response to Reference 1.
- 34. Hilti Kwik-Bolts Adjacent to Thru-Bolts
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.W. Beck (TUGCO) 84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support Review Questions", Item #2.
Summary:
Cygna's walkdown noted several instances of Hilti Kwik-Bolts installed close to Thru-Bolt base plates but are not shown on the support drawings.
Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
1 Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~L (d i A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111lll18lll1881111 ~ Job-No 84056 23PS-ISSUE
+
-m-
.-,,.on,.m..-.,,,,,-.u
,n.
-- -,, ~. <
,,w...
~w
.e.-,
11/20/85
~
Revision 2 f))
Page 22 PIPE SUPPORTS Review-Issues List
- 35. Minor Discrepancies Identified During Pipe Support Walkdown
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) 84056.092, dated 10/30/85, " Pipe Support Review Questions".
Summary:
During Cygna's wsikdown, the following isolated discrepancies were identified.
Further documentation and/or clarification are required from TUGC0.
A A.
CC-1-028-003-A33R, Revision 7.
Component Support Trace-ability The sway strut on the west side has no tag. Cygna reviewed the Inspection Report (IR) package and noted an Inspection Report (12/27/83) requesting verification of the strut serial numbers. This IR states that the strut is from bulk stock and is stamped D5022 (i.e. the same i
p serial number as the ea.st strut). There is also a I
Q Certificate of Shop Inspection, which gives the Mark No.
CC-1-028-003-S33R (rather than -A33R).
l B.
Hilti Anchor Bolts.
\\
l 1.
CC-1-031-009-S33R, Revision 5, Base Plate Section C-C Hilti Super Kwik-bolts were specified on the drawir.g, whereas only regular Kwik-bolts were installed.
2.
CC-1-019-003-A33R, Revision 2, Base Plate Section B-B Super Hilti Kwik-Bolts of 18" length were specified for all six bolts on the subject drawing. The installed lower right hand corner Super Hilti Kwik-bolt has a "W" marking, which indicates a length of 15".
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
jk A. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 181111";.11111lll1111ll11111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2 p.
Page 23 V
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues 1.ist.
C.
Weld Discrepancies 1.
MS-1-002-002-S72R, Revision 3 (sht 3 of 3)
The bottom 3/8" horizontal fillet weld between-the gusset plate (item 14) and the base plate is missing. Per Detail D1 of the drawing, there should be welds on both sides.
g 2.
MS-1-004-004-S72R, Revision 2 The flare bevel weld between items 16 and 17 at the top north face is undersized for a length of about 5-1/2" (i.e. the weld is not flush with the face of the tube steel).
Also, the rear bracket is welded to the base plates on all four (4) sides rather than two (2) sides as indicated on the drawing. However, this is conser-vative.
3 MS-1-001-004-572R The weld between items (4) and (5) is a flare bevel
+
weld and is flush with the face of the tube.
Per the AISC 8th Edition, the 5/16 weld size shown on the drawing is incorrect.
D.
Dimensional Discrepancies 1.
CC-1-019-007-A33K, Revision 2 The vertical dimension shown on the drawing for item 8 is 11' 1/2" (approx.) instead of 12' -
3/4".
This exceeds the 1" tolerance for work point dimension.
j 2.
CC-1-019-010-A43K, Revision 4 The dimension for item 7 (1/2" plate) is 10" x 10" instead of 7" x 7" as shown in Section B-B.
However, it has no design impact.
-l
)
v Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
i jk i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111;;..
...::11111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
~_.
l 11/20/85
)
Revision 2~
)
g]
Page 24 q
.g i
PIPE SUPPORTS i
Review Issues List
.l
- j 1
Note: The following are discrepancies exceeding the 1/4" tolerance.
3.
MS-1-002-002-S72R, Revision 3, Sht 3 of 3, j
Detail D1 The horizontal dimension between the center line of g
the attachment and the gusset plate (item 15) is 2-1/2" Linstead of 1" as shown on the drawing.
4.
CC-1-028-017-S33R, Revision 4, Section A A The vertical edge distance of the lower right hand -
corner bolts is 2-1/2" instead of 2-7/8".
5.
MS-1-002-005-S72R, Revision 6 The as-built C-C dimension of the strut is 3'. -
10-1/8" rather than 3' 1/2" as shown on'Section O
B-B.
6.
MS-1-003-002-S72R, Revision 1 The as-built C-C dimensions are 51-3/8" and 51" rather than 52" as specified on the drawing (i.e.
4'-4")
7.
CC-2-019-007-A43K, Revision 1 The as-built C-C dimension of 25-3/16" differs from the 2' 15/16" specified on the det wing. This discrepancy was identified in the Inspection Report Package, but the QC checklist for snubber instal-lation was marked " SAT" without giving explanation or back-up documentation (9-27-83).
E.
Miscellaneous Discrepancies j
1.
MS-1-002-005-S72R, Revision 6 The U-Bolt threads are not upset as specified on "l
the subject drawing (sht 1 of 4)..
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
i.L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11ll114ll118111111111ll1811111Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85=
Revision 2
{
Page 25
.V}.
PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
MS-1-004-004-S72R, Revision 2 The as-built support has double nuts on each leg'of the U-Bolt. This conforms to the details shown on Revision 2 of the drawing in the Inspection Report package. The Revision 2 drawing in Cygna's posses-sion shows only one nut on each side of the U-Bolt.
g 3.
CC-1-028-701-A334, Revision 3 There is a 1/2" thick plate welded to the base of each rear bracket. The two 1/2" plates are welded 2
to item 15 and item 18, respectively. These. plate connection details were not shown on the drawing.
In addition, the U-Bolt jam nuts are not snug tight.
4.
CC-2-019-707-A43S, Revision 2
~
The cold load o'f the spring is set at 7,000 lbs.
(approx.) rather than 6475 lbs., as.specified on the drawing. The base plate is covered by grout in the floor recess. This condition is not reflected on the subject drawing.
5.
CC-1-050-700-A43K, Revision 3
~
For item #2, the AC and AH shown on the drawing should~ read CS and HS, respectively.
(The AC and AH values would have to be 13-1/16" and 13",
respectively).
l l
j Status:
This issue is open, pending TUGC0's response to Reference 1.
- 36. Maximum Allowable Pipe Clearance
Reference:
1.
Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-28, Rev. 29 -
" Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports" l
)
Summary:
Per paragraph 3.3.4.la of Reference 1 above, the maximum l
allowable total dimensional clearance on one side of a pipe is 1/8" + 1/16" (i.e. 3/16" gap between pipe and support restraining members). The industry standard is 1/8" maximum.
- Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.. D 6 - A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111111111161611111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision.2 Page 26 p.
N, PIPE SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cygna is concerned that this QC Inspection Criterion has not been reviewed / approved by Engineering.
Status:
This issue is considered closed based on the unjustified deviation from the industry standard; however, if TUGC0 can provide existing documentation showing engineering review and approval of the QC procedure, Cygna's concern may be resolved.
i l
O l
i Ie i
O' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station t
t i Independent Assessment Program - All Phares 161111111111111111111111111lll Job No. 84056 23PS-ISSUE
hci 11/21/85 Revision 3 Page 1 1
ECHANICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List 1
'1.
Component Cooling Water (CCW) System Maximum Temperature
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-01-01 (not yet issued) 2.
N.H.' Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.010, dated July 30,,1984 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
j dated August 11, 1984 i
4 N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.023, dated August 21, 1984 5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams' (Cygna),
dated April 11,1984 6.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated October 1, 1984 Sunnary:
Cygna noted discrepancies between the Westinghouse stated maximum CCW system temperature of 120*F and (1) the CPSES FSAR; (2) Gibbs & Hill Calculation 233-16; and (3) Gibbs &
Hill Calculation 229-14 These documents indicated maxima of 121.8'F,135'F and 129.7'F, respectively. TUGC0 provided documentation that showed the acceptability of the 135'F maximum temperature. Some of this documentation is dated as late as 9/28/84, indicating that TUGC0 may not have been aware of the problem prior to the Cygna questions.
Status:
Cygna Observation MS-01-01 was closed based on the documen-tation which was provided by TUGCO.
However, Gibbs & Hill /
TUGC0 should demonstrate that, when design and operating data is revised, all. existing system components are reviewed to ensure that they meet the new operating conditions.
i l
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
L l
L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23MS-ISSUE
=-
s Oe-i 11/21/85 Revision 3 Page 2 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List
- 2. CCW Surge Tank Isolation on High Radiation Signal
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-06-01 (not yet issued) 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George L(TUGCO),
84056.028, dated August 27, 1984 3.
L.M. Poppelwell '(TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),.
dated September 20, 1984 b
4.
N.H. Williams (Cydatedbna)lettertoW.G.Counsil(TUGCO),
84056.088, etober 16, 1981.'
Smunary:
The Westinghouse functional design requirements document for the CCW system required that the surge tank be isolated by closing the vent valve on' receipt of a high radiation sig-nal. TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill removed this control function from the system radiation monitors to prevent spurious actuation caused by rising system temperature during accidents. Since -
the change did not address the radiation release effects of the vent remaining open, Cygna requested verification that the release would be acceptable.
TUGC0 performed a calcula-tion which verified that the release was within the limits of 10 CFR 100.
No generic review was conducted of other radiation monitor control function changes at CPSES.
Status:
Cygna Observation MS-06-01 was closed based on the results of TUGC0 calculation TNE-CA-094 dated September 19, 1984; however, Cygna has requested additional information in d,
Reference 4 to assess the design change control aspects of this finding.
3.
Class 5 Piping l
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-02-01 (not yet issued)
]
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 j
i 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated' August 11, 1984 W'ComanchePeakSteamElectricStation Texas Utilities Generating Company 4
k Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111:1414111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23MS-ISSUE
y.,m-g,
'11/21/85 Ev Revision - 3:
- Page 3-i, M CHANICAL SYSTDIS Review Issues List
'4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),-
84056.023, dated August 21, 1984 5.
L.M. Poppelwell:(TUGCO)-letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated September 11, 1984 6.. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna)..
dated September. 21, 1984 7.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated-September 25, 1984 8.
Communications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and R.
l Hess (Cygna), dated 9/5/84, 3:00 p.m.
9.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) -letter to V. Noonan (USNRC) "Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations,"
84042.022, dated January 18,~1985 10.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),.
k.
84056.088, dated October-16, 1985.
Sunnary:
Per Gibbs & Hill, Class 5 piping is not seismically designed; it is only seismically supported to prevent it from falling on safety related equipment. TUGC0 did provide q
documentation showing that the specific Class 5 CCW piping i
that was in Cygna's review scope was seismically analyzed and therefore, would remain functional as. required. How-ever, Cygna could not determine ~whether any similar circum-stances exist in other piping systens where Class 5 piping may be required to remain functional during a seismic event.
j Status:
Observation MS-02-01 was closed for the CCW system based on the documentation. and analyses provided. In Reference 10, Cygna requested'information regarding the criteria to d
determine whether a Class 5 piping system should be seismically analyzed.. Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide assurance that the use of Class 5 piping in areas where i
functionality is required following design basis events are analyzed for the design basis events.
Texas Utilities Generating Company.
Comanche Peak' Steam Electric Station L
L A
-Independent Assessment Program - All. Phases Job No. 84056 23MS-ISSUE
3, 11/21/85 i
Revision 3 Page 4 ECHAllICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List 4
Fire Doors q
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated August 11, 1984 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.023, dated August 21, 1984 1
4.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated August 31, 1984 5.
Communications Report between J. Van Amerongen (TUGC0) i and R. Hess (Cygna), dated 9/11/84, 11:00 a.m.
s.
l 6.
Communications Report between Mark Wells (TUGCO) and R.
Hess (Cygna), dated 9/13/84, 11:00 a.m.
7.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
f 84056.088,' dated October 16, 1985.
I Summary:
Cygna noted that the double doors between the train A & B nuclear chillers did not have a U.L. fire rating label.
1 TUGC0 stated that they had previously noted this and that i
the proper door was being installed. TUGC0 could not pro-vide documentation of how the error was noted but did supply copies of a purchase order for the correct door.
Subsequent reinspection by Cygna verified that the proper door had been installed. TUGC0 stated that an NCR or other paper work was not initiated, since the door is not safety related. The door is required to meet Appendix R requirements.
Status:
TUGC0 should provide assurance that the as-built Appendix R modifications are in conformance with the Appendix R design requirements and specifications.
In Reference 7, Cygna gj requested the procedures regarding the documentation.
tracking, and corrective action for discrepancies in the j
hazards protection area.
i Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
L l )L &
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111116ll161111111111 Job No. 84056 23MS-ISSUE
L
.11/21/85 3
Revision 3 Pago 5 ECHANICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List 5.
Single Failure - Reactor Coolant Pump Thermal Barrier
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-02-02 (not yet issued) 2.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Potential Finding PFR-01 (not yet issued) 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),-
84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 4
Comunications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and R.
Hess (Cygna), dated 8/17/84, 8:30 a.m.
5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated August 24, 1984 6.
Comunications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and N.
Williams (Cygna), dated 8/30/84, 3:?0 p.m.
7.
Comunications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and R.
Hess (Cygna), dated 9/5/84, 3:00 p.m.
8.
D.H. Wade (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
CPPA-40961, dated September 18, 1984 9.
D.H. Wade (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
CPPA-41237, dated October 3, 1984 10.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S..Burwell (USNRC),
84056.032, dated October 9, 1984
- 11. Comunications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and N.
Williams (Cygna), dated 10/11/84, 5:00 p.m.
12.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC),
84056.035, dated October 22, 1984 13.
E.P. Rahe, Jr., (Westinghouse) letter to R.C. DeYoung (USNRC), NS-EPR-2938, dated July 13, 1984 14.
T.R. Puryear (Westinghouse) letter to J.T. Merritt, Jr.
(TUGCO), WPT-7436, dated July 23, 1984 i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L 4-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1118H1111111M11111111111Job No. 84056 23MS-ISSUE
h I
I11/21/85 "5-Revision 3 Page;.6 t
l ECHANICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List i'
- 15.. N.H. Wil'11ams (Cybna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
~
84056.088, dated ctober 16,'1985.
Summary:
Cygna expressed a concern that if 5the single temperature
~
controlled isolation-valve on the outlet of the reactor 4
F coolant pump thermal barrier should fail to close subsequent -
to a rupture of the ' thermal barrier, then -low pressure-
. portions of the CCW sys. tem would be over-pressurized, and -
reactor coolant could be released outside containment.-
.t
. Westinghouse also notified the NRC and' TUGC0 of a similar.-
problem with CCW systems-they designed. TUGC0. informed Cygna that they. were filing a 50.55E report with the.NRC on this issue and that they would. investigate the generic implications of this finding.. Cygna submitted two letters on this subject to the IRC and TUGC0 in accordance with our review procedures for a Definite Potential Finding. Cygna has not received any of-the:TUGC0 documents which evaluate this issue, nor has Cygna performed "any additional investigation or review on this~ issue.
Status:
Observation MS-02-02 was upgraded.to Potential Finding PFR-01. Subsequently, References 10 and 12 were sent to the NRC in accordance with Cygna's procedures for processing _ a Definite Potential = FNing. TUGC0 should provide evidence that other sys*. ems do~not possess a similiar set.of attributes which could potentially result in a common mode failure. TUGC0 should provide Cygna with the'50.55E report to insure that the report addresses'Cygna' concerns.
i 6.
Missing Valve Sizing Calculations
References:
1.
Telecopy from N.H. Wil11ams (Cygna) to.R.E. Ballard (G&H) dated 5/9/85; 2.
Transcript.of Texas-Utilities CPRT Meeting Cygna Energy Services dated 5/21/85 (NRC/I & E Meeting) 3.
N.H. -Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
d 84056.083,~ dated October 16, 1985.
Summary:-
Cygna requested equipment and valve sizing calculations, along with pressure drop and flow calculations for the CCW system, at the beginning of the review. Sizing calculations Texas utilities Generating Company-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
6 i Independent Assessment Program
. All Phases Job:No.'84056
-23MS-ISSUE' lI
=
s 4
11/21/85 Revision'3 Page 7 IECHANICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List for the CCW surge tank relief valve, vent valve, and' vacuum breaker were not provided by Gibbs & Hill. Cygna performed an assessment of the adequacy of these components based on normal system operation and accepted the design based on Cygna's calculations. Subsequent evaluation of various scenarios, such as in-leakage to the system, caused Cygna to again request the sizing calculations and/or design bases-
~
from Gibbs & Hill. This data has not been received by Cygna. At the present time, it appears that the relief valve and vent valve may be undersized to meet current demands. However, until tne original sizing calculations are reviewed, it cannot be determined if they were properly sized during the initial design.
Status:
Cygna is awaiting design documentation requested from G8H in References 1 and 3.
i 7
CCW Surge Tank Sizing and Design Basis
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 229-12. Revision 1, "CCW Surge Tank," dated 1/4/79 2.
Transcript of Texas Utilities CPRT Meeting Cygna Energy Services, dated 5/21/85 (hRC/I&E Meeting) 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b 84056.088, dated October 16, 1985.
Summary:
The referenced Gibbs & Hill calculation does not address in-leakage to the CCW system caused by failures in systems cooled by the CCW system. This calculation also does not address or justify the surge tank design pressure of 10 psig versus the higher design pressure (150 psig) of the CCW piping and components.
Cygna raised.these issues in rela-tion to the failure of the reactor coolant pump thermal barrier, but they also apply to postulated failures of other heat exchanger tubes or leakage from other components served by the CCW system which operate at higher pressure than the CWW system. Since the su.9e tank is common to both safe-guards loops of the CCW system, its integrity is critical to the system meeting its safety function.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
k A Inde >endent Assessment Program - All Phases WNmMNMGMNm Job'to. 84056
x
.x
.+
+
+
.S 4
11/21/85_
pevision.3
~
.Page 8 h
IECHANICAL SYSTEM 5 Review Issues List i
L Status:
This generic. issue of -in-leakage should be addressed along with"the resolution of Review Issue 5.
In Reference 3.-
[
Cygna-requested the design basis for. sizing the surge. tank and for the design pressure.
8.
CCW Pump Motor Sizina i
2~
{;
References:
- 1.. CCW Pump Specification 2323-MS-11 Revision 2, dated '
12/10/74 l
2.
Electric Motors Specification 2323-ES-1D, Revision 4,=
j.
dated 11/10/76 3.
Communicatons Report, dated 7/31/85, between J.
1 Oszewski/R. Hess (Cygna) and J. Irons-(G4H) 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. Redding (TUGCO),
g 84056.081, dated August 13, 1985, t
a 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
84056.090, dated October 16, 1985 Summary:
The pump motor data supplied to the motor vendor in Speci-I fication 2323-ES-1D listed the motor horsepower ~as 1000 hp and provided a torque-speed curve for the pump with the z discharge valve closed. The pump is actually started.with 4
the discharge valve open for most modes of operation. The i
valve open condition is normally a more limiting design i
condition for pump motor current draw and accelerating time. Therefore, the pump motor may not be sized correctly for all service conditions.
If the pump' accelerating time is significantly longer than specified, it may impact the emergency diesel generated loading sequence.-
1-Status:
This issue is open for additional Gibbs & Hill design data -
j requested by Cygna in References 3 and 4 In Reference 5, k
i Cygna requested demonstration that the pump motor is adequate for the' starting scenario described in this review i
issue.
i I
r Texas Utilities Generating Company 4-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L A.
Independent Assessment Program All Phases Job No. 84056
{
,23MS-ISSUE =
11/21/85 i
Revision 3 Page 9 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Review Issues List 9.
CCW Surge Tank Vent / Relief Single Failure
References:
1.
Transcript Texas Utilities CPRT Meeting Cygna Energy Services, dated 5/21/85 and 5/22/85 (NRC/I&E Meeting) 2.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-02-01 (not yet issued), Mechanical
(
Systems Review Issues List, Review Issue 3 3.
Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-02-02 (not yet issued), Mechanical Systems Review Issues List, Review Issue 5 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b 84056.088, dated October 16. 1985.
Summary:
During the technical review, Cygna assessed the capability of the surge tank vent-relief / vacuum breaker combination to meet single failure criteria.
This assessment was based on the relief valve and vacuum breaker being passive devices with no external operators. Subsequent discussions with the project Senior Review Team and the NRC has led to a re-evaluation of this assessment. These components should now be considered active components, since mechanical movement is required for their proper operation. Since both the power supply and position indication for the vent valve are not safety-related, it cannot be relied upon as a backup for the relief valve and vacuum breaker under accident conditions. Based on this re-evaluation, the vent and relief capability of the CCW surge tank is not considered to meet the single failure criteria.
In addition, References 2 and 3 also relate to the application of the single failure criteria to the design of the CCW system, and therefore lead to questions relating to application of this criteria by Gibbs & Hill in the overall design process.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station b
h &
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases MillllMllllllilllillllli Job No. 84056 23MS-ISSUE
\\
11/21/85 Revision 3 a
Page 10 ECHANICAL SYSTDIS Review Issues List Status:
The system / component FMEA must be re-evaluated to address these valves as active components. Cygna understands that Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 are prasently reviewing the vent and relief capability of the CCW surge tank.
In Reference 4 j}g Cygna requested the design basis for the CCW surge tank relief valve, vent valve, and vacuum breaker combination for meeting the NRC single failure criteria.
l i
l i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases g
[
4 Job No. 84056 Hilllilllill!llilllillilillli 23MS-ISSUE
t, a
11/21/85 i
Revision 3 hj
-Page 1 v
4 ELECTRICAL (Power and lac) g Review Issues List s
C 1.
Instrumentation Pressure / Temperature Ratings
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) lettar to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated August 11, 1984 Suenary:
Two instances were noted by Cygna where the pressure-temperature ratings for instruments installed in the Com-ponent Cooling Water System (CCW) were lower than the max-imum pressure or temperature of the system as indicated in the Gibbs & Hill analyses. The instruments in question were later shown to be qualified for the higher design conditions or protected by interlocks. Cygna reviewed a total of 24 CCW instruments, and these were the only two pressure-temperature discrepancies noted.
x Status:
(Q Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide evidence that, when design and operating data are revised, all existing system compo-
?
nents are reviewed to ensure that they meet the new operating conditions.
Statistically, two instances out of s
24 may indicate the need for further review.
-3 2.
Cable Tray Thermolag Fire Protection
- l
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 2.
L.M. Poplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated August 11, 1984 4
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
J 84056.024, dated August 21, 1984 4
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated September 4, 1984 5.
Communications Report between J. Van Amerongen (TUGCO) and R. Hess (Cygna), dated 9/11/84, 11:00 a.m.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L A litimillilitimimilitilli Job No. 84056 23ES-ISSUE I
3
{
11/21/85 e-
- Revision 3
(.
V}
Page 2 ELECTRICAL ~
(Power and 18C)
Review Issues List
(
Summary:
During the Cy'gna walkdown of July 16,20,198f,itwasnoted that cable tray segment T130ACA43 was not covered with.
Thermo-Lag fire protection material. Cygna reinspected the area in August / September, and the proper material was installed. However, the documentation supplied by TUGC0 for the removal and reinstallation.of the fire lag insulation indicates the.t the. work was completed and signed off on 7/14/84. This is prior to the Cygna walkdown. While the reinspection showed the tray to be properly covered, the documentation is not consistent with, the noted sequence of 4
events.
Status:
Closed 3.
Temperature Indicator X-TI-4837 Not Installed l
(N
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation WD-07-02 j
Summary:
During the walkdown of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System, it was noted that a temperature-indicator was not in--
stalled. Further investigation revealed that some instru-mentation is not installed by construction in order to prevent it from being damaged by additional construction activities. When the system is turned over for operation, a set of instruments is prgvided for final 1,nstallation.
Status:
Closed.
. s,
, y 43 Incorrect Cable Identification Nu'mber i
s_.
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation WD-07-03 4
\\
Summary:
One of six cable-identification tags checked during the walkdown had an incorrect unit identification number on the tag. An additional 32 safety related cable identification tags were checked and found to be correct. Since the only discrepancy was in the unit number, no, safety inpact was Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Indep' ndent Assessment Program - All Phases L
L A e
MinlilllMMIMill Job No. 84056 23ES-ISSUE
4 5
11/21/85 4
Revision 3' Page 3 ELECTRICAL (Power and ISC)
Review Issues List
. involved,. and the observation was closed as an isolated error.
Status:
Closed.
5.
System Short-Circuit Currents
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and J. Oszewski, K. Zee _ (Cygna), dated 8/1/85, 10:30 a.m.
2.
Communications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/6/85, 3:30 p.m.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. Redding (TUGCO),
84056.081, d:ted August 13, 1985.
i 4
N.H. Williams (Cy na) letter to W.G. Counsil- (TUGCO),
b 84056.090, dated ctober 16, 1985.
Summary:
Gibbs and Hill short-circuit, calculations IV-3 and IV-4 were.
reviewed by Cygna as part of the IAP.
It was noted during the review that the design margin between the equipment i
rating and the calculated short-circuit current is less than 2% 'on several 480V buses.
In addition, several non-conservative assumptions were used in the Gibbs & Hill calculations:
4 Cable impedances based upon 75'C are used to reduce the j
short-circuit currents, when actual operating temperatures will probably be lower.
r The subtransient reactance assumed for large 480V loads a
is 25%, when typical values are less than 17%.
1 The 480V short-circuit calculation is based upon a maximum available momentary symmetrical 6.9KV short-j j
circuit current of 36,000A,.when calculated values are 1
38,000A.
i O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
' NIE Job No. 84056 23ES-ISSUE 4
j
11/21/85 Revision 3 4
Page 4 ELECTRICAL (Power and IAC)
Review Issues List The 6.9KV short-circuit calculation is based upon grid a
capacities determined in 1974.
The diesel generator's 5,hort-circuit contribution during breaker interrupting is based upon the transient reactance only.
Status:
Open pending discussion with Gibbs & Hill based upon their review of Reference 3.
In Reference 4, Cygna also requested g
justification of a number of assumptions used in the short-circuit calculations.
6.
AC Distribution System Voltages
References:
1.
Comunications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and J. Oszewski, K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/1/85, 10:30 a.m.
2.
Comunications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill)
O and K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/6/85, 3:30 p.m.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. Redding (TUGCO),
84056.081, dated August 13, 1985.
4 N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b 84056.090, dated October 16, 1985.
Sumary:
The Gibbs and Hill system voltage calculations III-7 and III-8 were reviewed by Cygna as part of _ the IAP.
It was noted during the review that certain operating conditions will result in bus voltages below the specified operating range. During conditions as discussed in paragraph 8.3.1.1.1 of the FSAR concurrent with normal grid voltage variations, the voltage on the safety buses is more than 10%
below the rated voltage of the connected loads.
During minimum loading conditions, the 480V bus voltages are more than 10% above the rated voltage of the connected load. The source of the assumed grid voltage variations is not indicated in the Gibbs & Hill calculation.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN.8.! L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111ll111111111111111llll Job No. 84056 23ES-ISSUE
11/21/85 Revision 3
- -~c Page 5 ELECTRICAL (Power and I4C)
~
Review Issues List The Gibbs & Hill calculations studied the starting of 6.9KV motors, but did not study the starting of 480V loads.
Additionally, the voltage regulation study for the medium voltage system states that the adequacy of voltages during h
DBA conditions is not in Gibbs & Hill's scope.
Consequently, cases of undervoltage conditions appear to remain uncorrected.
Status:
Open pending discussion with Gibbs & Hill based upon their review of Reference 3.
In Reference 4, Cygna requested justification and applicable calculations for voltage vari-d ations in the 480V system and the medium voltage system.
Reference 4 also requests data for the offsite grid voltage variations.
t 7.
Overcurrent Protection
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and J. Oszewski, K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/1/85, 10:30 a.m.
2.
Communications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/6/85, 3:30 p.m.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. Redding (TUGCO),
84056.081, dated August 13, 1985.
'4 N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
d 84056.090, dated October 16, 1985.
Susunary:
During Cygna's review of the component cooling water pump motor overcurrent protection, the following items were noted:
A'.
The motor thermal limit was not used to determine the maximum allowable tripping delay during stalled con-ditions. The setting was based only upon the accel-eration time, which is the minimum allowable tripping delay.
' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
(d i A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1814161111111111lll11tll111111 Job No. 84056 23ES-ISSUE.
11/21/85 4
Revision 3 Page 6 ELECTRICAL (Power and ISC)
~
Review Issues List i
i B.
The settings of transformer overcurrent d.evices did not I
consider the transformer's thermal limit - - ANSI point. Again, the maximum allowable tripping delay is based upon the thermal limit, with minimum delay based upon coordination with dowstream devices.
j C.
It was not clear that the 6.9KV safety bus feeders were 1
coordinated with the diesel generator's short-circuit capability and protective devices.
D.
It appears that the primary and back-up protective devices for the reactor coolant pump motor electrical penetration conductors are connected to the same current j
4 transforer.
It also appears that the breakers have a common control power source.
Status:
Open penoing discussion with Gibbs & Hill based upon their review of Reference 3.
In Reference 4, Cygna requested O'
demonstration that motors and trant.'ormers discussed in items A and B were adequately protected and that the like-3 11 hood of nuisance tripping has been minimized. Cygna also l
requested assurance that the diesel generator has adequate short-circuit capability, as discussed in item C, and that the protection of the RCF penetrators meets the single-failure criterion of R.G.1.63, as discussed in item D.
8.
Cable Sizing
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and J. Oszewski, K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/1/85, 10:30 a.m.
2.
Communications Report between P. Lalaji (Gibbs and Hill) and K. Zee (Cygna), dated 8/6/85, 3:30 p.m.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. Redding (TUGCO),
i 84056.081, dated August 13,,1985.
e Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L k,5 9 i A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilitillllilllllllllllllllHil Job No. 84056 l
11/21/85 Revision 3-4 Page 7 O
ELECTRICAL (Power and ISC)
Review Issues List b
4 N.H. Williams (Cydated bna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
84056.090, etober 16, 1985.
Sunnary:
During Cygna's review of Gibbs _ and Hill calculations, it was noted that the power cables were derated for a 40*C ambient outside containment and a 50*C ambient inside containment.
Paragraph 8.3.1.2.4 of the FSAR shows the long term post accident temperature inside containment as approximately 65'C.
Status:
Open pending discussion with Gibbs & Hill based upon their review of Reference 3.
In Reference 4, Cygna requested-g demonstration that the cables inside containment are adequate for the 65'C post accident temperature.
O O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li. d [ Al Independent Assessment. Program - All Phases l
111ll11111111111111lll11111111 Job No. 84056 23ES-ISSUE
i l
i 11/20/85 Revision 12 1
{m,)
Page 1 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
Controlling Load Case for Design
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 16-20, Revision 5 2.
Communications Report between P. Huang, S. Chang (Gibbs
& Hill) and J. Russ and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated November 13, 1984 i
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 1-7, Revision 1 4
CPSES FSAR, Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 Susunary:
Gibbs & Hill used the equivalent static method to design the cable tray supports.
In all load cases, the equivalent O
static accelerations used in designing the supports for SSE O
events are less than 160% of the corresponding accelerations for 1/2 SSE (0BE) events. Based on this finding and citing
~
Section 3.8.4 of the CPSES FSAR which allows a 60% increase in allowa',les for structural steel between OBE and SSE events, Gibbs & Hill determined that-the design was governed by the OBE event (Reference 3).
To validate this conclusion, the 60% increase in allowables must be liberally interpreted to be applicable to all sup-port components rather than applicable only to structural steel as specified in the CPSES FSAR. Catalog items such as Richmond Inserts and Hilti Kwik-bolts do not have increased allowables for SSE events. By designing these catalog components to the OBE event, the manufacturer's design factor.of safety is not maintained for the SSE event.
Furthermore, for the design of structural steel, the 60%
increase in allowables is acceptable -for axial and strong-axis bending' stresses.in structural members.
The 60%
increase cannot be applied to certain other allowable stres-2 i ses. For example, the maximum increase in base plate stres-ses may.only be 33%, at which point the material yield is J
Texas Utilities Generating Cor.pany Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d I.p! L
=
i-Independent Assessment Program -- All Phases 18111111 5 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU.
11/20/85 Revision 12 r-)
Page 2
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List reached. A limit on maximum allowable stress is not pro-vided in the FSAR.
These limitations were not considered in the selection of the governing seismic load case.
Status:
In order to reduce the loads for SSE, Gibbs & Hill elected to use 7% damping for the cable trays at SSE, as allowed by the FSAR for bolted structures.
Gibbs & Hill provided tables of peak spectral accelerations for OBE at 4% damping and SSE at 7% damping (Reference 1).
These tables show that for the enveloping acceleration levels, the ratio of SSE to OBE does not exceed 1.33.
The reduced SSE accelerations appear to demonstrate that OBE governs for the structural steel used in support designs on
{'T a generic basis. However, for supports designed using accel-s_,/
erations for a specific building elevation (e.g., elevations 773', 785' and 790' in the Safeguards Building), the ratio of SSE to 0BE may exceed 1.33.
Therefore, SSE can poten--
tially govern the design of the structural steel for these supports..The supports at the three elevations. indicated above require additional review.
Determination of the governing load case for catalog com-ponents depends on the determination of an acceptable safety factor for those items at the SSE load level.
See Issues 3.B and 3.E for a discussion of safety factors.
2.
Seismic Response Combination Method l
References:
1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 3.
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1 a
n N~-
. Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L*I.lJk i Independert Assessment Program - All ' Phases
)
HHIM!!r Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revisioa 12 Page 3 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 4
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation in response to IAP Phase 2 questions, Cygna Technical File 83090.11.2.1.50 Sununary:
A.
Closely Spaced Modes (10% Modal Combination) in Spectral Analysis In the response spectra analyses performed for the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 2), Cygna noted that modal responses were not combined considering closely spaced modes as required by References 1 and 3.
B.
Inclusion of Dead Load in SRSS Combination In all Gibbs & Hill design calculations, the acceleration due to deadweight is combined with the seismic accelerations using the SRSS mathod. A 1.0 g deadweight acceleration is first added to the vertical seismic acceleration.
The sum is then combined with the two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS method.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill has revised the working point analyses to account for closely spaced. modes in accordance with Reference 3.
For a discussion of other discrepancies in the Working Point Deviation Study, see Review Issue 12.
B.
This issue was discovered in Phase 2 of this review.
At that time, Gibbs & Hill performed a study to quantify the impact of this finding (Reference 5). Gibbs & Hill's studyLcompares the acceleration vector magnitudes cal-culated with the standard combination method and with the SRSS method. For most buildings and elevations, the magnitude of the resultant acceleration using the SRSS method does not differ significantly from the resultant using the standard combination method. However. the l
^
difference in vector direction was not considered and is V)
(~
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
.N (d i 1 -
Independent. Assessment Program - All Phases 1911111111111111111111111lll11 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
- v....
11/20/85-Revision 12 i
Page: 4 V
1 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List of greater importance, since each load direction con-tributes to different components-of response in the cable tray supports. To properly assess the impact of this combination method, the critical response should be evaluated instead of the magnitude of the acceleration applied to the support.
Reference 4 discusses a Cygna study on the effects of aspect ratios for frama types within the review scope.
The study results indicated the increases in resultant l
loads by. combining the dead load with the seismic SRSS may be larger than those predicted by Gibbs & Hill.
J TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill'should consider the effects of the frame geometry, loading, and ratio of horizontal to vertical seismic accelerations on the results of the SRSS study.
0 1
3.
Anchor Bolt Design
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Evaluation of Detail 1, Single-Bolt Connection," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.259 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-212C, Set 7, Sheet i
4-11, Revision 0 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Justification of the Adequacy of 1" Richmond Inserts For the Effects of Prying Action," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.219 4.
Brown & Root Procedure CEl-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled-In Bolts," Revision 9.
5.
Hilti, Inc., " Architects & Engineers Anchor and Fastener Design Manual" 4
Texas Utilities Generating Company
. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
LT[*j i i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 181111llltlllltllll1111116llll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
e 1
11/20/85 Revision 12 s
. (m./l Page 5 CABLE-TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues. List s.
6.
TUGC0 SDAR CP-80-12 " Reduced Allowable Loads for Hilti Kwik-bolts" 7.
TUGC0 Instructions CP-EI-4.0-49, " Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material on Class IE Elec-trical Racewayr," Revision 1.
8.
US NRC Inspection Reports 50-445/81-14; 50-446/81-14, dated 10/27/81.
9.
Communication Report between R.M. Kissinger (TUGCO),
4 B.K. Bhujang et al. (Gibbs & Hill) and W.R.
Horstman, et al (Cygna) dated 10/10/84.
10.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions "
/Qg
/N 84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
U
- 11. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission office of Inspection and Enforcement, Information Notice.
~79-02.
- 12. American Concrete Institute, " Code Requirements for'
. Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76)."
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Interoffice Memo, T.D. Hawkins to M.
Strange, dated 7/25/84 Summary:
A.
Frame Connection Point and Anchor. Bolt Pattern Cen-troid Eccentricity In the design for the anchor bolts, Gibbs & Hill did not properly account for the accentricity between the frame connection point to the base angle and the anchor _ bolt pattern centroid. The moment due to the eccentricity may cause the base angle to rotate about its longitudinal axis, resulting in:-(1) a Texas -Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L b'[tj g e
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
ll11111111lll1811ll111ll111lll : Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
~
n.
11/20/85 Revision 12 f'
Page 6 CA8LE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List compressive force along the toe of the angle section and (2) additional tension in the anchor bolt (s).
B. - Safety Factor on Hilti Expansion Anchors at SSE Levels Gibbs & Hill's cable tray support designs employed a safety factor of 4.0 for Hilti expansion anchors' for the_1/2 SSE load level. As discussed in Issue 1, the 1/2 SSE event was assumed to govern the support
' designs, without consideration of the reduced factor of safety on Hilti expansion anchors for the SSE event. The safety factor for the SSE event will range from 2.5 to 3.0, depending on the installed location in the plant.
C.
Inconsistent Application of ACI 349-76, Appendix B Gibbs & Hill has used the provisions of-Reference 12 to qualify several designs. Examples include the qualification of anchorages for Detail "11" (Gibbs &
Hill Drawing 2323-S-0905, Reference 2) and the use of code provisions as justification for the factors of safety used for Richmond Ir.serts. However, the designs do not comply with other sections of ACI 349-76, Appendix B.
For example, Section B.7.3 states:
g A single expansion anchor used to. anchor an attachment shall be designed for one-half of the design strength defined herein.
For any of' the cable tray support designs employing a single expansion anchor connection, this code provision would require a major reduction in the expansion anchor capacity.
4 O
v Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d b !L 1-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lll111lll111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
e 3.
11/20/85 Revision 12 f~)
Page 7-U CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cygna believes that.the philosophy of the. entire code appendix should be considered, rather than employing selected portions of the code.
D.
Factor of Safety on Richmond Inserts Gibbs & Hill's cable tray support designs employed a safety factor of.3.0 for Richmond Inserts for the 1/2 SSE load level. As discussed in Issue 1, the 1/2 SSE
. event was assumed to govern the support designs, without consideration of the reduced factor of safety on Richmond Inserts for the SSE event. The safety factor for the SSE event will range from 1.8 to 2.0, depending b
on the installed location in the plant. See Item C, above, for a discussion of ASI 349-76 as it has been applied to Richmond Inserts.
t E.
Richmond Insert Design 1.
Prying action was not considered in the original design of Richmond Insert connections for cable tray supports. To qualify those connections which use Richmond Inserts, Gibbs & Hill performed calcu-lations which reference the results of the Richmond Insert testing program performed at the CPSES Site (Reference 3). These calculations showed that 1" diameter Richmond Inserts, originally designed with Ta = 10.1 kips and Va = 9.5 kips, were not the controlling anchorage type, but rather that the Hilti expansion anchors were the limiting case.
Cygna has the following comments regarding these calculations:
o The calculations-do not account for the instances where the allowable values for 1" diameter Richmond Inserts taken from Gibbs &
Hill Specification 2323-SS-30 (Ta = Va = 11.5 4
kips) may have been used without the prying factor. This situation could occur whenever a k
IO v
. Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d Id k f A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lllll111llllll111lllllllllllll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
.f q Pa ge ' 8 b
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List new design was performed after the'1ssue of g-
)
this specification or a CMC /DCA allowed a change which affected the Richmond Inserts used in a support installation. Although Gibbs
& Hill has stated that their engineers were instructed to include the prying factor, Cygna could not locate any supporting documentation.
O Cygna has concerns on the use of the site testing of Richmond Inserts to justify higher g
allowable loads than considered in the original design.
See Pipe Support Review Issues List, Item 3, for additional detail.
2.
The original design calculations for concrete connections using Richmond Inserts employed allowable values of tension (Ta = 10.1 k) and shear (Va = 9.5 kips). With the issuance of Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, restrictions were placed on certain Richmond Insert allowables.
Decreases in allowable tensions and shears were provided for Richmond Inserts in cluster arrangemeats, Richmond Inserts embedded in the sides of concrete beams, and Richmund Inserts used in spacings less than those originally considered in Gibbs & Hill designs.
Since these restrictions were imposed after the original design of the Richmond Insert connections was completed, Cygna is concerned that cable tray supports installed using Richmond Insert clusters or Richmond Inserts in the sides of concrete beams may not have been evaluated for the required reduction in allowables.
In discussions with TUGCO, Cygna was told that the Richmond Inserts in clusters were reserved for pipe whip restraints. Authorization to attach to these clusters should have been obtained from the respon-sible TUGC0 group, and a corresponding evaluation of the installation should have been performed.
How-o Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
I. D: i A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111lll1lllllll11llllll1 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
~(N)
.Page 9 Ad CABLE TRAY SUFPORTS Review Issues List ever, Cygna could not locate any TUGC0 Quality Control instructions or procedures regarding the use g
of these Richmond Insert clusters (Reference 10).
Liu F.
Connection Designs
- 1. ' The cable tray support designs use angles or plates at base connections. The design drawings and asso-d ciated design change documents (i.e., CMC /DCAs) specify anchor bolt spacing and member placement tolerances.
However, these tolerances may be out-side the original design limits. Gibbs & Hill has not fully evaluated the effects of all possible installation tolerances on the base member stresses or the anchorages.
Cygna's Phase 2 Observations CTS-00-05 and CTS-00-07
(
respectively addressed the design of. base connections for Detail "E" supports with three-directional loadings and Details "A-D" base plate designs (drawing number 2323-El-0601-01-S) - These support connection designs must also be reviewed to assure that the above concerns are addressed. For several additional support types considered in Cygna's Phase 4 review, the installation tolerances g
allowed by the design drawings were not considered ir. the design calculations.
2.
For most support types, the design drawings allow the use of either Hilti expansion anchors or Richmond Inserts-for their anchorage to the con-crete. For support types A,~A
, A, D, D '
1 2
4 i
2 Detail "A" (Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-5) and Detail 11~
(Drawing 2323-S-0905), the design calculations evaluate the attachments for Hilti expansion anchors, but not for Richmond Inserts.
Texas Utilities Generating Company-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- d.. U' L i.
A-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lililllillllilllllHlHilllill' Job' No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 10 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List G.
Justification of Prying Factor In response to Reference 11, Gibbs & Hill support lb designers used a factor _ of 1.5.to account for the effects of base angle / plate flexibility on anchor bolt tensile loads. The value of this factor is dependent on the applied loadt-bolt pattern geometry, and angle thickness. Justification for the use of this factor has not been provided.
H.
Anchor Bolt Substitutions for Detail 1/1H and Details B, C and D For Detail 1H (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0909),
" Hanger Connection Using Hilti Bolts for Regular Cable Tray Supports," a substitution of Richmond Inserts for Hilti expansion anchors is allowed by Note 14d (Gibbs &
Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901):
Detail 1H (Drawing 2323-S-0909) Any Hilti bolt may.be substituted with existing 1" diameter or 1-1/2" Richmond Insert except for the 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Super Kwik-bolt which may be substituted only with 1-1/2" dia. Richmond Insert.
j Additional information on the allowable bolt substitu-tions are provided in DCA 2103, Revision 0:
Question: When only one Richmond Insert is available for a two-bolt hanger connection, may a combination of one Richmond Insert and one Hilti bolt be used? If so, what is the minimum and maximum distance between the bolts, and what is the allowable tolerance?
Answer: -Yes, combinations of Richmond Inserts and Hilti Super Kwik-bolts may be used.
Minimum and maximum spacing between _ bolts
")
1 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
[d i A
. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056
-PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 m
Page 11 CABLE' TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
shall be the same as used for.the "a" dimension shown in " Detail 1H, Two Bolt Hanger Connection," and the "a" and "b" dimensions shown in "Two Bolt Beam Connection."
gi Tolerances shall be as shown in " Detail 1H,"
and in "Two Bolt Beam Connection."
The DCA expands the scope of the substitution to include the "Two Bolt Beam Connection" (Details B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903), and does not include the restriction on the use of a.1-1/2" diameter Richmond Insert as a substitute for the 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Hilti Super Kwik-bolts.
These substitutions are inconsistent with several aspects of the cable tray support design calculations.
The minimum bolt spacings are 12",15" and 16" for 1"
)
diameter Hilti Kwik-bolts,1-1/4" diameter Hilti Super Kwik-bolts, and 1" diameter Richmond Inserts, respec-ti vely. The tolerances specified for the connections employing only Hilti expansion anchors are dif ferent from the tolerances for the equivalent connection detail employing only Richmond Inserts.- For moment loads on the base connections, the tensile load in each anchor is calculated by dividing the applied moment by the minimum bolt spacing..The tensile load distribution due to direct pullout is calculated based on the allowed con-nection eccentricity. By substituting a Richmond Insert for a Hilti expansion anchor at the Hilti spacing and eccentricity, the tensile load in the Richmond Insert may be greater than the previously calculated load. The effect of this substitution on Richmond Insert tensile loads has not been considered in the cable tray support designs.
In addition, since DCA 2103 does not limit the i
size of the Richmond Insert to be substituted for a 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Hilti Super Kwik-bolt in the beam connection, a 1" Richmond Insert, which_has a lower 4
capacity than the indicated Kwik-bolt, could be used as a substitute.
,pd Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LND L A-Independent. Assessment Program - All Phases lllllll11lllllll1111lllllll111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
E 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 12 7.sq b
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 was not able to provide the design g
verification documentation for DCA 2103 (Reference 13).
I.
Base Angle Boundary Con'dition Assumptions For trapeze type supports, Gibbs & Hill has assumed that the hanger connections employing two-bolt base angles are free to rotate about the strong axis of the iiar.gcr. Since both the welds between the hanger and its base angle and the base angle itself have significant flexural stiffness, this assumption requires that-the connection allow the calculated rotation without base connection failure. Gibbs & Hill has not justified such connection behavior.
(See Review Issue 26)
J.
Installation of Expansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes Section 3.1.4.2.3 of Reference 4 discusses the reinstal-
' l Os lation of an expansion bolt-in an empty but " pre-used" hole.
Paragraph (a) of that section states:
The bolt being replaced has been removed from the concrete using a Diamond core bit of the same nominal outside diameter as the replace-ment expansion bolt.
The replacement bolt shall be one diameter size larger than the
]
bolt being removed.
The Hilti " Architects and Engineers Design Manual" (Reference 5) addresses the bit type ~used in drilling holes for Hilti Kwik and Super Kwik-bolts.
On page C-4, Note 6a states:
All of the technical information pertaining to Kwik-Bolts herein (e.g., pullout and shear data) was accomplished using HILTl masonry carbide bits. Before installing the -Kwik-Bolt-using another means of drilling (e.g., Diamond 4
h Texas Utilities Generating Company d
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
I. 9 i i.
Independent Assessment Program -. All Phases Job No. 84056 11111111::
PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
4
.11/20/85 Revision 12
/
Page ' 13
-d' CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review' Issues List Core), contact your local _ HILTI Field Engineer for advice and proper procedures.
On page C-1 (Reference 5) a footnote to the installation process description states:
To obtain maximum published holding values, use only HILTI carbide bits..
In discussions with Hilti, Inc., Cygna learned that Hilti expansion anchors installed in core-bored holes will provide ultimate-strengths that are less than those published in the Hilti Design Manual. Primarily, the strength reduction is due to the diameter of the core bore bit itself.
It has been Hilti's experience that core bore bits are intentionally supplied at a larger diameter than the nominal size to account for the progressive reduction in bit diameter over its life.
~
Thus, at the initial bit usage, the bit diameter will be larger than that required for the bolt hole.
It is this hole oversize which causes the reduction in expansion anchor capacity.
In order to avoid any such strength reductions, careful control on the bolt hole diameter must be established.
Control may be established by measuring-the _ core bit diameter or the hole diameter. Cygna has not observed any QC procedures which impose such control. Addi-tionally, Cygna did not observe any procedures which require craft or QC to document which expansion bolts were installed in diamond cored holes.
K.
Reduced Allowable Loads for 1" Diameter Hilti Kwik-bolts Based on expansion anchor capacity tests performed by Hilti Inc. in 1980, Hilti Inc. issued a letter giving reduced ultimate capacities for 1" diameter Kwik-bolts.
In response to this letter, TUGC0 issued a Significant. Defic;eacy Analysis Report (SDAR) (Reference (O
Texas' Utilities Generating Company 1
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station dN i i Independent Assessment Program - All. Phases lllllllll1lll111lllllll1llllll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 14
_e CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 6) to evaluate the effect of the reduced anchor bolt
. capacities for support installations at CPSES. The resolution of this SDAR was to accept all existing designs employing 1". diameter Kwik-bolts by allowing a reduced safety factor of -3.41, and require that all future design efforts use the reduced capacity. The USNRC accepted this resolution (Reference 8).
For the review of cable tray supports where the cable tray load with Tnermo-Lag exceeds -the design load, Reference 7, section 3.2.2.1, paragraph (b) states:
All hangers shall then be evaluated for actual loads. During this evaluation, all pertinent design changes shall be taken into account.
Consideration shall be given to use of actual tolerances, weld undercut-undersize,1" j
~N diameter Hilti Kwik-bolt revised criteria and (V
actual field 'as-built' configuration However, Cygna's review of the subject Gibbs & Hill calculations and a discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill
)
(Reference 9), verified that the original (unrevised)
Hilti Kwik-bolt allowables had been used.
TUGC0/Gibbs &
Hill felt that the use of the original allowables was warranted, since the calculations reviewed an existing design. This is not consistent with the requirements of Reference 7.
Status:
A.
In response to Cygna's request for an evaluation of the additional bolt tension loads, Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 1) to justify disregarding the effect of this eccentricity. These calculations con-sider two specif;c connection details shown on Gibbs &
Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903:
" Detail 1" using one Hilti Super Kwik-bolt and " Detail 1-Alternate" using two Hilti Super Kwik-bolts.
?
Texas. Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
i;g i.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1811111lll11111111111lll1lll11 Job No. F4056 PRJ: 23CT!-1SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 p
Page 15 V
CABLE 1 RAY. SUPPORTS Review Issues List The reactions from support frame types B2 and A4 were selected as the basis for the " Detail 1" and " Detail ~ l-Alternate" worst. case applied loading, respectively.
Gibbs & Hill has not provided any justification for assuming that the B2 and A4 designs represent the worst case loading or frame geometry.
In the analysis, Gibbs & Hill assumed that the moment introduced by the eccentricity between the vertical load application and the centroid of the bolt pattern can be reduced by a horizontal force couple consisting of anchor bolt shear force and tray longitudinal (axial) force. The validity of this assumption depends on the capacity of the tray attachment clamps to transfer longitudinal forces, as discussed in Review Issue 18.
Furthermore, the mathematical model used in the Reference 1 analysis assumes that the lower end of the f
hanger is restrained from translation in the tray longi-tudinal direction.
The tray is not attached to the end of the hanger for trapeze type supports. Rather, it is attached to a beam spanning the-two hanger members.
Out-of-plane translation of the bottom end of the hanger is possible, due to the flexibility of the beam.
The resolution of this issue requires an evaluation of the worst case load and geometry for all applicable supports. The geometries considered should include the effects of any generic change documents such as those for the base angle ~ anchor bolt edge distance (CMC 1970) and the use of shims under base plates (CMC 1969).
Gibbs & Hill should revise the mathematical model to include the beam flexural stiffness in the anchor bolt forces study and should also provide justification for the selection of loadings used for base angle and anchor bolt analyses. Consideration of Review Issue 19 in the d
resolution of this item is also required.
4 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
[ej, i Independent Assessment Program - All-Phases 1111111111111111111111111lll11 Job No. 84056
- PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
_.. - - ~
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 16 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List B.
Cygna has collected data on the issue of the Hilti expansion anchor factor of safety and is evaluating it internally. Gibbs & Hill, however, should provide a supporting evaluation.
C.
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the use of the selected Appendix B sections of ACI 349-76.
D.
Cygna has not found sufficient justification for the safety factor of 1.8 for Richmond Inserts under emer-gency/ faulted (SSE) conditions.
E.
Cygna requires verification that controls on the use of Richmond Insert allowables and the inclusion of a prying factor were in place and enforced by all responsible grcups (see Reference 10).
In addition, Cygna's con-cerns on the validity of the Richmond Insert Test h
Program should be addressed.
F.
Gibbs & Hill should provide assurance that the installa-tion tolerances are properly accounted for in the base connection designs.
G.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the global usage of a prying factor of 1.5 for base angles / plates.
ri.
Gibbs & 11111 should provide technical justification for the allowed bolt substitution.
I.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the assumption of a pinned connection for ' two-bolt and g,
three-bolt base connections.
l J.
TUGC0 should provide technical justification for the adequacy of expansion anchors installed in core bored holes.
O v
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
{tj g Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i_
11111111lll181111111llllllll11 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-1SSU
11/2d/85 Revision 12 Page 17 (g^\\.
CABLE. TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List K.
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide documentation indicating that all designs performed after the issuance of Reference 6 consider the reduced capacities for the anchor bolts as applicable.
4.
Design of Compression Members
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, ' tats 2-6 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGC0),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.022, dated August 17,-1984, question 4 4
Timoshenko and Gere, " Theory of Elastic Stability," 2nd Edition, pages 99 and 100 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUCC0),-
" Cable Tray Support - Review Qusstions," 84056.041, dated I-February 12, 1985.
Summary:
A.
In the design of compression members for trapeze type support frames, Gibbs & Hill-did not consider the enti. e unsupported length of the channels to calculate the slenderness ratios (Reference 1, Sheets 11 and 18 for 4 and B, respectively).
If the correct support types A 4
unsupported lengths and pinned end conditions are assumed, the slenderness ratio of these members for bending about their weak axis will exceed 200.
AISC Specificatien Section 1.8.4. limits the slenderness ratio for compression members to 200.
B.
In calculating the slenderness ratio of the compression members for trapeze-type supports, Gibbs & Hill did not check the effectiveness of the in-plane sidesway restraint for the various support designs.
4 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
[e"j g i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilillllHillfilillililllHill Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page~18 J
CABLE. TRAY SUPPORTS
~
Review Issues' List j
C.
In the design of the compression member for cantilever type supports (e.g., SP-7, Details E, F, G, and H on Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S, etc.)- Gibbs & Hill used the distance from the face of the concrete to the centerline of the cable tray as the cantilever length..The correct A
length should be from the concrete face to the clamp in L%
the far side of the tray.
A value of k = 1.0 was used to calculate the minor axis slenderness ratio, rather than the value of k = 2.0 for cantilevers. A value of k = 1.0 is based on the assump-tion that the tray will provide lateral bracing at the clamp location. The validity of this assumption is j
~
pending on the resolution of Review Issue 18.
D.
For the trapeze type supports, Gibbs & Hill 'has not considered.the effect of weld undercut on the section properties of compression members at the point where in-plane braces are attached to the channel web. As shown in the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 2), high stresses exist in the region of the brace attachment and may increase if the reduced section properties are considered.
l E.
The design of compression members assumed that the applied axial load was parallel to the member axis.
Gibbs & Hill Installation Specifications 2323-SS-16b allows an installation tolerance of 2 degrees from plumb.
for vertical members. Cygna was unable to locate calcu-lations considering the effect of this tolerance.
See j
Reference 5 for a discussion of this issue.
F.
For trapeze type supports in the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 2), Gibbs & Hill reduced the unsup-h ported length of the hangers by 5".
This appears to be due to an assumption that the outstanding-leg of 'the L5x5x3/4 base angle is rigid with respect to the C6x8.2 hanger. However, the minor axis moment of inertia for.
P the C6x8.2 is greater than the corresponding moment of O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.NJ L i-Independent Assessment Program
' All Phases 111111181811111111111118188811 Job'No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
)
i 11/20/85 Revision 12-Page 19 i
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List inertia for the L5x5x3/4; therefore, the buckling hinge would occur within the base angle rather.than at a point in the hanger below the base angle, and the reduction in g
unsupported length is unwarranted.
E G.
For the design of braces in compression, the axial force is a function of the brace slope. -Gibbs & Hill designs provide a range of allowable brace slopes.
In some cases, Gibbs & Hill calculations check the brace for the slope which results in the largest axial load without considering other cases which have lower loads, but also have reduced capacity due to a longer member length.
Status:
A.
In order to reduce the slenderness ratios below 200, Gibbs & Hill performed calculations to show that k = 0.8 (Reference 1, Sheets 128-146, Revision 3, and
-~s Reference 2).
These calculations assumed that rota-tional restraint is provided by the clip angle used to attach the hanger to the bottom of the slab. Addition-ally, since the compressive load is applied at several points over the length of the member, the allowable axial stress was increased based on the buckling analysis of columns with multiple, discrete axial loads (Reference 4).
Cygna has analyzed one-and two-bolt clip angles under compressive loading and determined that it is reasonable to assume partial rotational fixity for weak axis bend-ing of the attached hanger. However, the assumption that the tray provides lateral bracing to the frame has not been validated (see Review Issue 18 for a discussion of tray clamps). Cygna believes that it is acceptable to consider the effective increase in allowable axial loads based upon a multiple point load application.
However, the increase is a function of the applied' loads and geometry, and must be calculated individually for
.^
each support configuration and load case.
pb Texas Utilities Generatino Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~ L*k '(' ) k A.
Independent Assessment Program.- All Phases 18111llll1lll11lll111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
1 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 20 p
'J CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Validation of the assumed bracing provided by the cable tray is open pending resolution of Review Issue 18.
B.
Gibbs & !!ill/TUGC0 should consider in-plane sideway in calculating the allowable compressive stresses for cable tray support members.
h C.
Open pending resolution of Review Issue 18.
D.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide justification for excluding the effect.of weld undercut on the section properties used in the Working Point Deviation Study.
E.
Open pending a response from Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 to Reference S.
F.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide justification for the assumption that the base angle is a rigid region with respect to the hangers.
G.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification that the brace designs considered the critical combination of brace loadings and brace lengths.
5.
Vertical and Transverse Loading on Longitudinal Type Supports
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 2 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, questions 3 and 4
- 3. ~ R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), GTN-69437, dated September 10,1984, with attached calculations f
4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.8..L.i 6 A.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111llll11lll111lll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85-Revision 12 Page 21 7-~
i CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Summary:
Longitudinal trapeze type supports (e.g., L-Ag, L-A, L-C,
4 4
etc.) were assumed to act independently of the transverse supports (see Reference 4). Calculations for these longi-tudinal supports (Reference 1) consider only longitudinal loads in the design of frame members and anchor bolts.
Since these supports are rigidly connected to the cable trays with " heavy duty clamps," a tributary tray mass will be associated with these supports.
It is Cygna's belief that these supports must be designed for vertical and pos-sibly transverse seismic loads similar to the transverse supports (References 2 and 3).
Status:
Gibbs & Hill should consider these effects and insure ac-ceptability of this assumption on a generic basis.
6.
Support Frame Dead and Inartial Loads O
keferences:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, g
" Cable Tray Supports (Design Criteria and Reference)."
/s Summary:
A.
Out-of-plane inertial loads (i.e. loads in the direction parallel to the cable tray) were not considered in the design of two-way cable tray supports. Such loads should, as a minimum, be considered in the design of base connections and anchorages. Assuming that tray clamps are able to transmit the loads from the two-way supports to the cable trays, out-of-plane inertial loads from the two-way supports must also be considered in the member and anchorage design of longitudinal supports
/hh (also see Review Issue 18).
B.
Gibbs & Hill did not consistently consider support dead loads.
The support design calculations considered support weight in one of the following ways:
(a) Support weight was not considered.
4 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
[fj i 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllililllilllllllllillfilill Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
1
(;
4 11/20/85 Revision-12
. Page 22 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List (b) Support weight was considered as a surcharge on the g
tray, in addition to the tray and cable weight (usually, this value was given as 5. psf).
(c) The support weight was calculated by considering the actual weight of each of the support's frame members.
(d) A dead load equal to one half the support weight was h
used as required by Reference 1,' Sheet 3.
Method (b) also led to other problems in the support design.
Initially, the tray unit weight was considered as 35 psf. When the " effective" support weight of 5 psf was added to the cable tray unit weight the result was a total assumed tray design load of 40 psf. At a later point in time, when design changes were issued against b
the supports or a revised analysis was required, the designer reduced the design weight from 40 psf to 37.5 psf, or even 35 psf, to remove some " conservatism" from the design loads in order to qualify the support. By doing so, the designer removed a portion of. the support weight.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for not considering out-of-plane inertial support loads.
B.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for not including support dead loads or not considering 100%
of the support dead loads and the related seismic d
inertial loads.
7.
Design of Angle Braces Neglecting Loading Eccentricity
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGC0),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, questions 3 and 4 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN j g Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
181116lll11111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU j
p i
11/20/85
+
Revision 12
(
i Page 23 m/
13~
Y i CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
i
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.027, dated August 27, 1984, question 2 I
3.
AISC Specification, 7th Editior., Sections 1.15.2 and 1.18.2.4 i
+
4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculaf. ion " Cable Tray Support Type SP-7 With Brace. Brace Eccentricity Calculations." Cygna Technical File -84056.11-1.228 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Verify the Adequacy of Brace L3x3x3/8 of the Governing Support Case C." Gibbs &
3 Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1, Revision 1, dated 11/16/84 6.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Justify the Use of Two L3-
{
1/2x3-1/2x3/8 Angles to Take the Appropriate Loati and Moment Individually in the Longitudinal Tray Supports at the Lower Brace." Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 2, Revision 6, dated 9/15/84 Sunnary:
A.
Longitudinal cable tray supports typically use angle sections as bracing to resist the longitudinal loads (e.g., SP-7 with brace, L-A, L-A, etc).
For the j
1 4
member design, loads were-assumed to produce only axial stresses. The induced bending stresses due to the eccentric end connections were not considered.
Neglecting these flexural stresses can result in members which are under-designed. For certain longitudinal supports, double angles are required. The design assumes that the angles behave as a composite member.
However, no intermittent filler plates are provided as required by AISC Specification Section 1.18.2.4.
- Thus, the double angles'inust be considered to act indepen-dently.
4
-4 B.
Transverse and longitudinal cable tray supports typi-cally use angle sections as in-plane braces to resist U
' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN N.JL i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056
-PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 24 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
transverse loaos and provide bracing points on the vertical members (e.g., A, A, B, 8, L-A, etc).
For-3 4
3 4
4 the member design, loads were assumed to produce only axial stresses. The_ induced bending stresses due to eccentric end conditions were not considered. Though it is not explicitly stated in the AISC Specifications, it is standard practice (Reference 3, Sheet 3-59) to con-
)
sider the bending stresses due to end connection eccen-tricity and check the interaction ratio considering the principal axes section moduli.
C.
Single longitudinal braces are typically connected to the frame by welding along the legs of the angle..Some brace designs provide welding on only one angle leg at one end of the brace; while, at the other end of the brace, welding is provided on the opposite angle leg.
Such end conditions mdy lead to failure by twist v
buckling at load levels below the critical value for d
Euler buckling.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations which considered end eccentricities as well as independent action for each-angle in doubla-angle brace designs (Reference 6). Case.
L-B4 was assumed to provide enveloping brace loads; however, this calculation did not consider the effect of-the allowed range of brace slopes on the member slen-derness ratio.
(Also see Review Issue 4.G.)
Calcula-d tions (Reference 4) were also provided for support type i
SP-7 witn brere, which has a single angle brace. Cygna believes that the approach is acceptable; however, Gibbs
& Hill should provide justification for-the enveloping cases used.
B.
Gibbs & Hill provided a calculation (Reference 5) which considered eccentric load application for in-plane braces. By reviewing'the results_of the Working Point Deviation Study, Gibbs & Hill found that Case C had the P
i 3
highest brace loads.
See Review Issue-12 for a discus-sion of the Working Point Deviation Study.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak. Steam Electric Station i
LNI.1 L A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases -
111119!l8111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056
- PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
..,. _. -... ~. - _
L.
4 11/20/85'.
Revision 12
(~N V
. Page 25 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List C.
Cygna has evaluated the possibility:of twist-buckling on single-angle braces and determined that it can result in a significant reduction in member capacity.
Gibbs &
Hill /TUGC0 should consider the effects of twist-buckling
'in their cable tray support'Jesigns.
8.
Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF) and Ratios between Continuous Tray Support Reactions and Tributary Tray Support Reactions
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Report, " Justification of the Equivalent-Static Load Method Using a Factor of 1.0 Times Peak Spectrum Acceleration for the' 0esign of' Cable Tray Supports; Comanche Peak UnitO 1;and 2." -
2.
Comunications Report between J. Jan (Gibbs & Hill), G.
Bjorkman (Cygna) dated October 4, 1984, 4:00 p.m.
3.
Comunications Report between J. Jan, P. Huang, J. Pier (Gibbs & Hill), N. Williams,': G. Sjorkman (Cygna) dated September 13, 1984, 3:00 p. mil 4
Comunications Report between J. Jan, J. Pier (Gibbs &
Hill), G. Bjorkman (Cygna) dated October 12, 1984, 10:00-a.m.
5.
Comunications Report between J. Jan (Gibbs & Hill), G.
Bjorkman (Cygna) dated October 18, 1984 6.
Comunications Report between J..Jan, et al. (Gibbs & )
Hill), H. Levin (TE9A), R. Kissinger, et al. (TUGCO), N.
Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated October 31, 1984 7.
CPSES,FSAR,ISection3.78.3)5.C Summary:
Gi_' t 4 Hill performed cable tray support designs using an 4
'em ivalent static analysis" to' account for seismic loads.
e The tray dead load on a. support was calculated by the trib-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ki..l ji A-Independent Assessment Progran :- All Phases 111llll111llll1111lll1llllllll./.,b No. 84056
-RJ: 23 CTS-ISSU s,
11/20/85 Revision 12
-g Page 26 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS
' Review Issues List utary span. method. The~ tray seismic load was the product of the tray dead load and the peak spectral acceleration for the given buildings elevation. A dynamic amplification factor (DAF) was not included as required by Reference 7 (see also Issue 25.A).
An additional' factor to be considered is the ratio of the static reaction for a continuous beam to the reaction cal-culated by the tributary span method. This ratio depends on c
the relative stiffness between the trays and supports, the relative stiffness between different support types and the number of continuous spans.
Status:
In response to Cygna's. request for an evaluation of the required DAF, Gibbs & Hill performed a study (Reference 1) to justify a DAF=1.0.
Based upon discussions between Cygna-and Gibbs & Hill (References 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6),1.14 was O.
established as an appropriate DAF.
Several limitations apply to the use of this factor, based upon these assumptions, such as:
N o
Equal support spacing of 8'-6" was assumed on the given trwy run.
o-The DAF calculated is the ratio of the dynamic support reaction to the equivalent static reaction obtained by applying the peak spectral acceleration to a continuous h
beam.
Since Cygna's walkdown ' documented the use of non-uniform spans, Gibbs 8. Hill 'must justify using DAF=1.14 for desig'ning the supports of cable trays with non-uniform span lengths. All supports originally designed for DAF=1.0 i
should 'be reevaluated for a factor equal to the multiplica-
_ tion of the newly ' established DAF-(1.14 minimum) and the ratio between the continuous tray support reaction and tributary tray support reaction.
9
. Texas Utilities Generating Company
' Comanche Peakc Steam Electric Station L
ji A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 0 111111111111111111111111111111 : Job No. 84056:
PRJ: 23 CTS-1SSU 1
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 27 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 9.
Reduction in Channel Section Properties Due to Clamp Bolt Holes
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.015, dated August 6,1984, Attachment B, question-2 i
2.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-69371, dated 8/23/84, i
Calculation SCS-111C, Set 8, Sheets 34-39 3.
AISC Specification for the Design,: Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition.
Sussnary:
The AISC Specification (Reference 3), Section 1.10.1 states:
Riveted and welded plate girders, cover-plated O.
beams and rolled or wblded beams shall in general be proportioned by the moment of inertia of the gross section.
No deduction shall be made for shop or field rivet or bolt holes in either flange, except that in cases where the reduction of the area of either flange by such holes, calcu-lated in accordance_with the provisions of Sect.
1.14.3, exceeds 15 percent of the gross flange area, the excess shall be deducted.
Cygna found instances where the areas of bolt holes, used for the tray clamp bolts, exceeded 15 percent of the gross flange area, and the required reduction in moment of inertia l
.had not been considered in the design' calculations.
Status:
Cygna requested an evaluation of the effect of the reduction in channel section properties due to clamp bolt holes in Reference 1.
Gibbs & Hill provided a response in Reference 2.
s The response did not consider the following items:
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I.#j a A1 Independent Assessment Program '- All Phases L
lllllll1lll111llll111lll111lll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
- []
Page ' 28 kJ CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List.
o Cable trays'may be placed anywhere' in the-beam span -(for example, see Ci4C 2646).
o _ The case for cantilevered supports where one tray is close to the wall and other trays are located further out from the wall.
o-The effect of DCA 17838, which provides bolt hole gage -
tolerances, and allows the use of 3/4" diameter holes for 5/8" diameter bolts.
o All unused flange holes are not required to be plug-welded and may be present in high moment regions.
(See Note 15 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4.)
O Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for their response.
)
2
- 10. System Concept
References:
1.
N.H. Williarrs (Cygna) letter -to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984, Attachment A, question 2 2.
L.M. Poppleweil (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated September 28, 1984 with attached calculations Sussiary:
In order to justify certain design assumptions questioned by Cygna (Reference 1), documentation was provided indicating that Gibbs & Hill had assumed that the cable tray and sup-ports act as a system (Reference 2).
As part of this
" systems" approach, the following behavior was assumed:
A.
The moments introduced by the eccentricities between the load application points (i.e., tray centroid) and the 4
' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L8..l ji i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111lll11111111111111llllll' Job No. 84056' PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
j 11/20/85 i
Revision 12 Page 29 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List member resistant centroid were balanced by load' couples.
between adjacent supports. More specifically, for longitudinal supports (e.g...SP-7 with brace, Detail-8, drawing-2323-S-0903, etc.), the development of torsion 4
in the beam due to longitudinal loading eccentricity is prevented due to the development of flexure in the cable tray. This tray moment is subsequently balanced by a vertical load coupled between adjacent supports.
Similarly, the torsion in the beam and the weak axis'.
bending in the hanger due'to the vertical load placement eccentricities as well as~the bending moment in the beam due to the transverse load placement eccentricities are all balanced by either vertical -or transve. se: load couples between adjacent supports.
Such moment transfers as described above are only pos-O.
sible if full rotational and translational compatibility ~
exists between the cable tray. and support beam. The
'g relative stiffness between the trays and their supports can also affect the percentage of the moment to be balanced by the load couples between supports. Gibbs &
Hill assumes that the compatibility-is'provided by the heavy duty and friction types of tray clamps. -See Review Issue 18 for a discussion of'Cygna's concerns regarding the clamp behavior.
B.
In the design of trapeze support hanger members for com-pression loads, the trays provide-lateral bracing at points along the length of the hanger. Similarly, for b
cantilever type supports, the tray provides lateral bracing to the beam (See Review Issue 4)..
C.
For trapeze type supports, the longitudinal and trans-verse support systems act' independently. Therefore, the longitudinal ' supports are designed for 1_ongitudinal loads only, i.e., no transverse or ' vertical load ~ con-tribution is considered (also _see Review Issue 5).
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
bpJi A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111lll111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/8E Revision 12 Page 30 S
O CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List D.
Additional -tensile forces introduced by rotation of the
-base angles about the bolt pattern axis is minimized by the hanger attachment to the tray (also see Review Issue 3).
E.
For trapeze type supports, out-of-plane seismic inertial loads from two-way support frames (self-weight excitation) are resisted by-the longitudinal supports.
However, as discussed in Review Issue 6, these inertial loads have not been considered in Gibbs & Hill's design of longitudinal supports.
F.
The cable tray supports use channel sections for the beam and hanger-members. The typical connection between the beam and hanger is a lap joint, with the channels attached back-to-back. This type of connection will g
introduce bending moments and torsion in the members due to the eccentricity between the section neutral axes (Reference 1. Question 2.2).
v Gibbs & Hill addressed this issue in Reference 2, indicating that a portion of the effect is resisted as additional loads in the cable tray, and the net effect on the stress level in the support is less than a three percent increase.
Status:
Items A through F have not been fully justified considering the hardware and relative stiffness between tray: and their supports. Cygna is concerned that Gibbs & Hill's use of a
" systems" concept may not be consistent with the actual behavior of the clamps used in the field.
- 11. Validity of N#.STRAN Models
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 3, 4
Sheets 234-243, Revision 9 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN N-k A-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11::
'!::::111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
q 11/20/85 Revision 12 h
Page 31 0
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS.
Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder DFI-13C, Set 1 4.
Gibbs & Hill Report, " Justification of the Equivalent -
d Static Load Method Using a Factor of 1.0 Times Peak Spectrum Acceleration for the Design of Cable Tray Supports; Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2."
Susunary:
Cygna has questioned the validity of the NASTRAN models used in the Gibbs & Hill generic studies, such as the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 1), the qualification of Detail Di (References 2 and 3) and the Dynamic Amplification Factor Study (Reference 4). The analysis models consist of identical supports, separated by equal spans. This modelling will influence the system frequencies and seismic response and may not be representative of an actual instal-O lation, where a mixture of support types, non-uniform spans and tees or elbows in the tray are used.
Status:
Further justification is required prior to applying the results of these studies throughout the plant.
- 12. Working Point Deviation Study
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Sets 1-5 3.
AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and erection of Structural Steel for Buildings 7th edition.
4.
" Cable Tray Raceway System Dynamic Analysis Program,"
Gibbs & Hill, March 19, 1985.
d 5.
Communications Report between M. Warner (B&R/TUGC0 QC) and W. Horstman, J. Russ (Cygna) dated November 16.
p 1985.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN J L i
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1811111111111111111111111lll11 Job No. 84056-PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
- Revision 12 em Page 32 V'
CABLE 1 RAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903.
7.
Communications Report ' between B.K. Bhujang et al. (Gibbs
& Hill), R.M. Kissinger (TUGCO)' and W. Horstman et al.
(Cygna) dated September 14, 1984.
Summary:
Cable tray '"; ports employ angle sections as' braces in the d
fol l owi r.,,.anfigurations:
in-plane for trapeze type sup-ports, out-of-plane for ' longitudinal trapeze supports, and in various other orientations for other_ support types.
The original designs for supports assumed that neutral axes of
~
all members at a connection intersected at a common point, thus no connection eccentricities were considered.. The connection details -shown on the design drawings (e.g.,
Details 4 a-5 on Reference 6) provided a brace working point location which was not consistent with the design assumptions.
Based on a discussion with -TUGC0 personnel (Reference 5),
Cygna learned that the QC inspectors had difficulty in determining the design requirements for.the working point locations, and Gibbs & Hill had been requested to. provide clarification on the requirements and an allowable tolerance on the working point locations. DCA 20278 and DCA 20418 were issued in response, and the Working Point Deviation Study (References 1 and 2) was performed to consider the fact that the member neutral axes did not intersect at a common point and to provide the requested tolerances. The following are coments on the analyses performed as a part of this study.
A.
Gibbs & Hill's study (References l'and 2) does not fully consider the effects of previously approved design change documentation.
The analyses of the generic support types did not con-sider the effects of all generic design change documents which allow deviations from the original. support designs.
(Also see Review Issue 21.A.)
OV Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A.N L A
. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 114ll16::
Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
1 l
1 11/20/85 Revision 12
,(
Page 33 CABI.E TRAY SUPPORTS-Review Issues L.ist Due to the overstress of certain components of several support types, a limiting' spectral acceleration was calculated. and cut-off elevations were established using the individual floor responsa spectra. Frames below the cut-off elevations were not checked for compliance with the study parameters. Frames above the cut-off' elevation were analyzed on a case-by-case basis,
' but the analyses did not consider. the ef fects of. design change documents associated with -the individual support.
B.
The effects of veetical and transverse loads on longi-tudinal support frames were not considered in the Work-ing Point Deviation Study (also see Review Issues 5 and~10).
C.
The portion of the study that evaluated longitudinal d
trapeze supports only checked member stress interaction as specified in Section 1.6.1.of Reference 3.
No eval-uation was made to ensure that the connections, base angles and anchor bolts are also adequece.
D.
Modelling Assumptions 1.
Instead of modeling a engitudinal support.in the tray run, one end ot % tray was assumed to be fi xed. The effect of this tray boundary condition on the system response was not justified. Based upon the review'of the NASTRAN models used in the Dynamic Analysis Program (Reference 4), Cygna h
learned that Gibbs & Hill's modelling of these fixed ends did not account for the response spectrum input at those points, but instead fixed them to an abso-lute rigid ground.
If the same modelling technique was applied in the Working Point Deviation Study, the results of those response spectrum analyses may '
"l be incorrect.
-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
I. J k A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111114lll1111111111ll1811111. Job.No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
i 11/20/85 Revision 12 Q
2ane 3L N.J CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS-Review Issues List 2,
The analysis assumed a single 24-inch tray per support level and did not assess the impact of more realistic multiple tray loadings or other tray widths.
3.
Eccentricities were not properly modelled (also see Review Issue 10).
4.
The cable trays were modelled as translationally and i
rotationally fixed to the support beams. This b'
assumption of tray attachment fixity was not justi-fied (Also see Review Issue 18).
5.
The run configurations selected may not be represen-tative of actual installations.
Parameters include systems of identical supports, uniform 8'-6" support h
spacing, and the assumed worst case frame dimensions O
(also see Review Issues 11 and 28).
6.
The base angle modelling assumed a simply supported beam for two bolt base connections.
In reality, the concrete reactions (prying actions) provide flexural restraint to the base angle.
(See also' Issue 26) 7.
Excitation in the longitudinal tray direction was not considered.
8.
The out-of-plane translational degrees of freedom were restrained on trapeze type supports, resulting g
in an unrealistically restrained system.
1 E.
Gibbs & Hill did not check all support components when determining the controlling support element. For exam-ple, support type E4 was assumed to be limited by the l
load capacity of the Hilti expansion e' hors. Cygna 's review indicated that the actual gover'ning component was the Richmond Inserts which were not checked by Gibbs &
3 Hill.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company o
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LTI.".i L A,
Independent-Assessment Program - All Phases l1111111llllll111lllllllll111I Job No. 84056 PRJ:23C1S-ISSU
11/20/85
~
Revision 12 :
3 4
Page 35
_g.
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List F.
Working Point location.for Two-Bolt Brace Connections on Longitudinal Supports.
The working point location shown on the design drawing does not coincide with the actual line of. action of the brace load for two-bolt brace connections, e.g... Details "F" and "G" on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903, 'and the brace concrete attachments for support types L-Ag through L-A, L-B, L-B, L-B, L-C, L-C2 and L-C4 on 4
1 2
4 1
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0902.
These offsets may' induce larger tensile loads.in the anchorages than originally considered in the designs.. These connections 4
were not evaluated as part of the Working Point Deviation Study.
t G.
Arbitrary Allowed Working Point Deviations Several support types within.Cygna's review scope have specified allowable working point deviations without any suppceting calculations.
1.
Detail N (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S)
Gibbs & hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Set 3, Sheet 5 indicates an allowable deviation of 9" i 3" for brace connection to beam. Calculations are not included.
2.
Detail V (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S)
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Set r
3, Sheet 5 states " Low Stress, Brace Working Point Deviation of 6" is acceptable." Calculations to support this statement are not included.
H.
Working Point Deviations by Similarity Several support types within Cygna's review scope have specified allowable working point deviations based on similarity to standard support types.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
. I.
k A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 181111111111111111111111111111. Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12.-
(
Page 36 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List l
1.
Detai1 J (Gibbs & Hi11 Drawing 2323-E1-0601-01-3) is qualified by similarity to Case B.3 2.
Detail 11 (Gibbs & Hill Drawing ~2323-S-0905) is qualified by similari',y to Detail 8 (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903).
The calculations for case B3 and Detail 8 (Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binders 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2 and 4) indi-cate that these support types will be overstressed for the allowed working point deviation. Case-by-case evaluations of Case B3 and Detail 8 supports were per-formed to determine if all as-designed supports were
)
acceptable. The support types which had been qualified by similarity were not included in these case-by-case reviews; hence, there is no assurance that they are not overstressed also.
)
1.
Use of Enveloping Cases i
The Working Point Dev,ation Study evaluates several l
support types by grouping them with an enveloping sup-port of similar configuration. Reference 1, Set 2 evaluates two groups. Group 1 includes Cases A, B,
3 3
and C, considering Case C3 to envelope the other two.
3 Group 2 includes' Ct.ses A,- B, and C, considering cc,0 4
4 4
C4 to envelope thr others. For each analysis, the enveloping case as found to be overstressed, and a case-by-case as-Lsigned review of supports of that type is conductet The enveloped cases are not all included.in the r>le-by-case reviews; and a separate evaluation is.
not performed to show design adequacy of the other support types on a generic basis.
J.
Compressive Load Capacity of. Members bl As discussed in the status for Review Issue 4.A, Gibbs &
Hill considered the effect of multiple, discrete axial loads on the buckling capacity of the hangers in
. O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN.( ) t A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
111111111111111111111118811111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
i 11/20/85 i
Revision.12
]v Page 37 i
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ~
Review Issues List response to Cygna's concerns. The same effect was considered in the meraber evaluations for this study.
g Gibbs & Hill did not property apply the effect, since the factor is a function of the applied loading, and Gibbs & Hill did not calculate it for each load case.
(Reference 7).
Status:
To assure support acceptability, TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill l
should justify the modeling assumptions, the applica-bility of the analysis results for global support quali-i fication, and the use of working point deviations by QC.
l
- 13. Reduced Spectral Accelerations l
I
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Analysis of Alternate ' Detail 1"
C i
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheet 247, Revision 9 l
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C, Set 4 4
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 2, Sheets 131 & 132, Revision 5.
Sumary:
For the qualification of the supports discussed below, Gibbs
& Hill used reduced spectral accelerations based on a calcu-lated support-tray system frequency. These analyses assumed gl that all supports on a tray run are of the same type and have equal spacings (also see Review Issue 11). These studies are not representative of the cable tray installa-tions at CPSES.
A.
A reduced acceleration was used for the analysis of transverse supports, such as type A, which was used in 4
l analysis of Alternate Detail 1 (Reference 1).
This s
acceleration corresponds to a calculated frequency which is higher than that corresponding to the spectral Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
.(d 6 A-
' Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
L l
111111111lll181111111111111111 Job No. 84056 l
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision-12
)
.m
,Page 38 i
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS keview Issues List peak. This frequency was calculated using a system model of identical supports equally spaced at 8'-6" and hl a tray weight of 35 psf.
The results of:this study may not be valid for all installations as discussed in:
Review Issue 11.
B.
For longitudinal supports' (e.g., type SP-7 with brace-(Reference 3), L-At (Reference 2), etc.), the frequency bl calculations did not include the effect of the axial frequency of the tray and the eccentricities between the tray and support.
C.
The flexural stiffness of the base angle supporting the brace of the-longitudinal supports was not considered in frequency calculation' (References 3,4).
Flexural defor-mation of the base a'ngle can result in significant reduction in support frequency.
O Status:
Additional discussion between Cygna and Gibbs & Hill is required.
14 Non-Conformance with AISC Specifications
References:
1.
AISC Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition 2.
CPSES, FSAR, Sections 3.8.3.2 and 3.8.4.2 Summary:
Reference 2 commits to designing the cable tray supports in accordance with Reference 1.
Gibbs & Hill has not properly considered the requirements of Reference 1, as discussed below.
A.
Unbraced Length for Axial Buckling Section 1.8.4 (Reference 1) requires that k1/r be less than 200 for compression members.
Depending on the
^
approach selected for the resolution of Review Issue 4,
~O" Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.N.Jk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
-11/20/85 Revision 12
('S Page 39
.Q CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS e
~ Ceview Issues List this requirement may not be met. For example, if the friction type clamp cannot provide adequate restraint in the longitudinal direction, the k value should be taken:
as 2.0 for trapeze type and cantilever type supports.
Consequently, kl/r=257 for a 5'-9" C6x8.2 hanger or beam.
B.
Unbraced Length for Lateral Torsional Buckling Section 1.5.1.4.6a (Reference 1) requires that Equation 1.5-7 be used to calculate the allowable bending stress for channels.
In the denominator, "1" is the unbraced length of the compression flange. Cygna found the following instances where the AISC Specifications were not considered or were improperly applied:
O 1.
Gibbs & Hill's Working Point Deviation Study (see Review issue 12) uses 22 ksi for the allowable v
flexural stress without checking Equation 1.5-7.
Since the frame heights are on the order of 144", an allowable flexural stress of 15 ksi 1s calculated by Equation 1.5.7.
2.
Detail SP-7 and similar supports consider "1" to be the distance from the base attachment to the tray centerline and not to the outside tray rail where the load is applied.
Use of the larger distance will result in lower allowable bending stresses.
C.
Bolt Holes in Member Flanges Reductions in the section properties of beams due to bolt holes in their flanges per Section 1.10.1 (Reference 1), were not considered (see Review Issue 9).
1
("
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
i jk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111::'
': Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
q i
.l 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page'40-C l
CABLE TRAY SUPP0ltTS Review Issues List i
1
-l D.
Lacing of Double Angles l
Double angle braces are designed as composite members,-
without providing lacing per Section 1.18.2.4 (Reference 1).
(Also.see Review Issue 7.)
E.
Eccentric Connections Section 1.15.2 (Reference 1) discusses eccentric con-nections. This section ' requires that any axial members I
not meeting at a single working point be designed for l
the eccentricities. For example.this section of the j
specification applies to supports with single angle l
braces (SP-7 with brace, L-A1, etc). The gusset plates
}
connected to these braces must also be designed for the j
eccencricities.
i F.
Oversize Bolt Holes Section 1.23.4 (Reference 1) specifies bolt holes to be 1/16" larger than the nominal bolt diameter.
The bolt holes for anchor bolts in base plates / angles (per Gibbs
)
& Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903) and for tray clamps (per DCA 17838, Revision 8) are specified as 1/8" larger than the nominal bolt diameter. Therefore, the bolt holes in Gibbs & Hill's designs should be considered oversized and should be treated as such in bearing connection calculations.
G.
Use of the Allowable Compressive Stress' For Secondary Members For the design of the longitudinal brace for support type SP-7 with brace, the brace was assumed to be a secondary member, and allowable compressive stresses were calculated per Section 1.5.1.3.3 (Reference 1).
Since this is the sole member which provides longi-tudinal load carrying capability, it should be con-sidered a primary member, and Sections 1.5.1.3.1 and 1.5.1.3.2 are applicable.
p V
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.NJ L A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job'No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
.I Revision 12 "Y(d.
Page 41 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
Technical justification for noncompliance with the AISC Specifications should be provided by TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill.
- 15. Member Substitution
References:
- 1.. Communications Reports between R.M. Kissinger (TUGCO) and J. Russ (Cygna), dated January 17, 1985, 8:15 a.m.
and 3:45 p.m.
j i
2.
CMC 69335, Revision 1, dated 9/21/82.
j 1
3.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4 Sunnary:
Note 9 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4, states:
Structural members shown on drawing numbers 2323-S-900 series may be substituted by one step heavier shape of the same size.
This note allows craft ~ to substitute a member from one series with a member from another series, e.g., an American Standard Channel (C) for a Miscellaneous Channel-(MC) or vice versa, as long as the substituted shape-is heavier than, but of the same depth as the original member. Cygna is concerned that this note allows the use of substitute sections which are heavier, but have lower section moduli.
At a later date, Reference 2 was issued, providing the following clarification:
Structural members shown on drawing numbers 2323-S-900 series may be substituted by a member of the same size and next heavier shape determined by the material on site. The next step heavier shape
=
will be governed by sections as shown in AISC GO Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
.(
L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111111111111 1 11111111 Job'No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-1SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 h
Page'42 Q
CABLL TRAY SUPPORTS-Review Issues List' Manual of Steel Construction. Examples are shown on sheet 2 of 2.
The examples shown on sheet 2 of Reference 2 include the substitution of a C4x7.25 for a C4x5.4, a C6x10.5 for a C6x8.2, etc. This clearly. indicates that the substitution should be of the same series as the.specified member.
Cygna's concern is what types of substitutions were per-formed by the craft and accepted by the QC inspectors during the time between the issuance of Reference 3 and Reference 2.
Cygna was unable to locate any requirements for docu-menting member substitutions.
t Within Cygna's walkdown scope, such a substitution.was identified for support number-6654 (see Review Issue 20).
The design required an MC6x12, and the installed member was a C6x13, which has a smaller section modulus (S = 5.80 in3 i
for a C6x13 compared to S = 6.24_ in3 for an MC6x12). For the other supports listed in Review Issue 20, the required MC6x12's were substituted with C6x8.2's, a substitution not permitted by Reference 2.
Status:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide just'ification of such substitutions and the requirements for documentation of the 1
substitutions.
i
-l l
- 16. Weld Design and Specifications j
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (IISNRC),
" Response to NRC Questions," 83090.023, dated March 8, i
1985 2.
Coninunications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs &
Hill) and Horstman, Russ and Williams (Cygna) dated
~
October 27, 1984
- O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li-
)k A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111lll111111lll11111lll111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12-
.%q
' Page 43 '
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Communications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs &
Hill) and Horstman, Russ and Williams (Cygna) dated -
November 13, 1984 s
4 Communications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs &
Hill) and Russ (Cygna) dated November 17, 1984 5.
Communications Report between R. M. Kissinger (TUGCO) and J. Russ (Cygna), dated November 30, 1984 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985 4
Summary:
Cygna has noted the following discrepancies in the weld designs for cable tray supports.
A.
The design drawings are missing the weld details for several support types as described in Reference 1, Attachment C.
B.
Per discussions with Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 (References 2, 3, 4 and 5), Cygna has noted that the weld sizes shown 1
on the assembly drawings differ from those shown on the design drawings and those that were assumed in Gibbs &
Hill calculations.
C.
Eccentricities were not considered in weld connections.
1.
Detail SP-7 with brace and similar connections require a partial penetration groove weld at the gusset plate / beam connection. The design calcu-lations did not consider the eccentric load transfer from the brace member. The eccentricity of the brace loads results in a we'id stress in excess of the allowable.
+
2.
Weld designs for the lap joints between channels and g
between the base angle and attached channel did not O
- Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
. (.i L &
Independent Assessment Program - All Phates 111111841111111111111111111111-Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-1SSU
i 11/20/85 Revision 12 (N
Page L44 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS.
Review Issues List consider the eccentricity between the applied loads k
from the connecting members and the plane of the weld.
D.
The weld designs did not consider the thickness of the tonaected parts.
This issue was identified. by 'DCA 2365, Revision 2, but was never considered in the design b
calculations. Gibbs & Hill's weld designs assumed that the full weld throat would be developed without considering the thickness of the connected member.
For example, the weld size for support designs employing C6x8.2 channels with c fillet weld crossing the web of the channel is limited to the 0.2 inch web thickness.
Gibbs & Hill designs specified a 5/16" fillet weld size and did not reduce the throat to account.for the minimum 4
material thickness. Cases where this may be a problem include:
Details E, F, G, H. J and K on Gibbs & Hill i
Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S; SP-7 using an L6x4x3/4 base angle; and the Detail 2/2A on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-i S-0903 as modified per CMC 58338.
E.
Gibbs & Hill assumed ab incorrect minimum weld length for the beam / hanger base angle connection. Gibbs & Hill assumed a weld length of 1-k, where 1 = angle leg width and k = distance from back of angle leg to end of fillet. However, because of the existence of the curve with radius, r (approximately equal to one-half the leg thickness), at the angle toe, the actual weld length is l-k-r.
Status:
Items A through D are open pending response to Reference 6.
Item E may require further discussion with TUGCO.
- 17. Embedded Plates Design
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
<l
" Cable Tray Support Review 4estions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985, Attachment A, question 1 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station k.
JL A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111#16l19811111H1111llll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
-n,.-
t 11/20/85-Rpvision 12 g()
Page 45 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS -
Review Issues List-2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated April 19, 1984, page 11 3.
Coi,unications Report between Williams, Russ and Hor stman (Cygna), Kissinger and Keiss (TUGCO) and Bhujang, Huang and Chang (Gibbs '& Hill) dated September 15, 1984 4.
Comunications Report between M. Warner (TUGCO) and N.
Williams, J. Minichiello and J. Russ (Cygna) dated February 27, 1985 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-146C, Set 4, Sheet 3-9, 21 6.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0919, Revision 3 -
7.
Brown & Root Installation Procedure CCP-45, "Perr.anent and Temporary Attachments to Weld Plates," Revision 1, 8/18/80 8.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, Appendix 4
" Design Criteria For Embedded Plate Strips, Revision 1 9.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985 Summary:
A.
Gibbs & Hill performed capacity calcul5tions for cable tray support attachments to embedded strip plates.
Cygna's retiew of these calculations indicates that the calculated capacities may not have considered the effect of prying action on the tension in the Nelson Studs.
B.
Questions from Cygna's pipe support reviewers and. cable tray reviewers on the stiffening requirements for d
embedded plate moment connections elicited conflicting responses from TUGC0 personnel.
The-pipe support Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
A Independent Assessment Prcgram - A11 Phases 191111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85' Revision 12 n
Page 46
.b CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List response indicated that attachments to embedded plates act as stiffeners for moment connections (Reference 2),
while the cable tray support response indicated that any moment attachment must be stiffened or sufficiently analyzed (Reference 3).
C.
Cygna has noted that calculations for cable tray sup-ports attached-to embedded plates did not consider the capacity ~ reductions for attachment locations given in '
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, " Structural Embedments" (Reference 1). Cygna has requested any documents which address the corrective action associated with the issuance of Specification 2323-SS-30 (Reference 9).
g D.
A review of Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45 (Reference 7) indicates that any two adjacent attachments to an i
embedded strip plate must be separated by a minimum of 12".
Based on a discussion between Cygna and TUGC0 (Reference 4), it was determined that even though the installation procedure' requires this separation, the inspection procedures for cabic tray supports do not require an inspection of this attribute.
Cygna walkdowns noted several instances where the sep-aration between attachments to embedded p.stes were less than 12".
(Also see Pipe Support Review Issue 9).
Cygna is concerned that the lack of control of attach-i ment spacing may have an impact on the design adequacy j
of the attachments.
E.
Installation of Details E, F, G, and H on Embedded Plates Reference 5 is the design calculation for the instal-lation of Support Details E.F,G, and H (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) on embedded strip plates. A maximum tributary tray span of 7'-6" is used in these s
calculations.
Note 9 on Reference 6 states:
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
lJk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases imilmmimmimitilill Job No. 84056 4
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 s
h V(
Page 47 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List The supports will have a location tolerance of
_ t 12" in the direction parallel to the tray and i 2" perpendicular to the. tray. However, spacing between any two adjaceat supports shall not exceed 9'-0" for Unit 1 and Common Areas...unless otherwise noted on the drawing.
Supports installed in accordance with this drawing note may have to resist loads due to a 9'-0" tributary span, l'-6" greater tha'n the design tributary span. -
F.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30 (Reference 8) provides spacing requirements between embedded plates and Hilti expansion anchors.
During Cygna's cable tray support walkdowns, an instance was noted where an 81 p
embedded plate'was located near an opening in a concrete wall. Several Hilti expansion anchors were installed within the opening, on the concrete surface perpen-dicular to the surface with the embedded plate, poten-tially violating the requirements of 2323-SS-30. Cygna was unable to determine how the minimum spacing require-ments would be applied to situations where the expansion anchor is installed in a surface perpendicular to the embedded plate.
Status:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide justI~fication for items A through E.
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide the applicable procedure relating to item F.
l
- 18. Tray C1 amps
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0902, Revision 5 2.
TUGC0 Drawing TNE-SI-0902-02, Revision CP-2 i
l RV l
l Texas Utilities Generating Company d{ j g j. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 11111111111111184ll11111111lll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1,
Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 gm
()
Page 48 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Communication Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and W.
Horstman (Cygna) dated November 15, 1984 Susunary:
Two general categories of cable tray clamps are used at 4
" Friction" type clamps are installed on transverse type supports (e.g., A, B, SP-7, etc.). These clamps are y
1 assumed to provide vertical and horizontal transverse load transfer.
" Heavy duty" clamps are installed on longitudinal trapeze supports (e.g., L-A, L-8, etc.), three-way sup-i 1
ports (e.g., SP-7 with brace, Detail 8 on drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.), and transverse supports, where interferences (e.g., tray splice plates, fittings, etc.) prevent the installation of friction type clamps. Heavy duty clamps are designed to transfer vertical, horizontal transverse, and longitudinal tray loads to the cable tray support beam.
References 1 and 2; DCA 3464, Revision 23;. DCA 6299, Revi-O' sion 7; and DCA 20331, Revision 0 provide clamp configura-tion details.
In addition to the indicated load transfers between trays and supports, Gibbs & Hill has assumed other load transfer mechanisms in order to justify behavioral assumptions made in the support designs.
For " friction" type clamps, the following assumptiens have been made in order to justify the system concept (also see Review Issue 10).
o The trays will provide out-of-plane bracing to trapeze supports to reduce the buckling length of the vertical J
hanger members (also see Review Issue 4).
o The trays will provide lateral bracing to the compres-sion flanges of the horizontal beams (also see Review Issue 24).
o The trays will provide out-of-plane bracing to supports to prevent frame translation which would result in increased anchor bolt tensile loads (also see Review s
Issue 3).
O Texas Utilities Generating Company g{ ;g,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lililllillbillllilllllillfill Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU l
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 49 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List o
The cable trays will transfer out-of-plane inertial loads from transverse supports to longitudinal supports on the same tray run (also see Review Issue 6).
o The development of minor axis bending moment in the beams due to the horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the clamp bolt is minimized by a binding moment in the cable tray (also see Review Issue 24).
o For. vertical loading, the development of torsion in the beam due to the eccentricity between the clamp location and the beam shear center is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This assumes a full moment fixity between the tray and the support beam (also see Review Issue 24).
f For heavy duty clamps, all of the above assumptions are also applicable, and an additional assumption is made by Gibbs &
- Hill, o
The development of torsion due to longitudinal loads on three-way supports using composite beam sections (e.g.,
SP-7 with brace Detail 8 on Drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.)
is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This assumes i
a full moment fixity between tray and support beam (Review Issue 24).
The assumptions described above are valid only if the clamps can provide suitable displacement and rotation compatibility l
between the tray and support beam. ' Based on a discussion with TUGC0 (Reference 3), Cygna determined that installation tolerances (Reference 2; DCA 6299, Revision '7; DCA 20331, Revision 0; and CMC 93450, Revision 4) have been adopted which allow gaps between the tray side rails, the support beam, and the tray. clamps.
In order to provide'the assumed compatibility, " friction" type clamps must be cinched suf fi-ciently to develop friction between the tray / beam and tray /
clamp interfaces. The existence of gaps will preclude the Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1811141111111111ll111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
i 11/20/85 Revision 12 A
Page 50 h.
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List development of the normal contact force require for fric-tional resistance.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should evaluate the various clamp designs to establish their capability to provide the assumed load transfer.
- 19. FSAR Load Combinations i
References:
1.
CPSES FSAR, Section 3.8.4.3 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 1. Sheets 14-19 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 2, Sheet 32 Summary:
Reference 1 defines the loads and load combinations applic-able to the design of cable tray supports. Cygna's review of the cable tray support designs indicates that only dead weight and seismic inertial' loads are considered.
For supports installed in the Reattor Buildings, the loads associated with a LOCA may be applicable, including pipe whip, jet impingement, and thermal loads. Two support types within Cygna's review were designed for installation 'in the Reactor Building, Detail A (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0500-04 S) and Detail C (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0500-01-S). The design calculations for thase supports, References 2 and 3, respectively, did not consider these additional loads.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide the criteria for excluding other possible support loadings.
j i
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station t
belil llilliimlilllll h"ofe$end ssessment Program - All Phases g
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 i
Page 51 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List.
- 20. Differences Between the -Installation and the Design / Construction Drawings without Appropriate Documentation
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Support Layout Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S 2.
Brown & Root, Inc., Fabrication Drawing FSE-00159 3.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Manual of Steel Construction, 7th' Edition T
4.
Gibbs & Hill Support Layout Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 5.
Gibbs & Hill Support Layout Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S 6.
Gibbs & Hill Cable Tray Support Design Drawings 2323-S-0900 series 7.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.026, dated August 23, 1984 F
8.
Communication Report between M. Warner, J. van Amerongen (TUGCO) and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated October 25, 1984 9.
Communication Report betwee[T. Webb, M. Hamburg (TUGCO)
~
{
and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated October 18, 1984
- 10. Communicatio.1 Report between M. Warner, C. Biggs (TUGCO) and W. Horstman -(Cygna) dated October 10, 1984 I
- 11. Brown & Root Procedure No. CEl-20, Revision 9, " Instal-lation of Hilti Drilled-In Bolts"
(
)
12.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated -September 6,1984 s 1 O
Texas Dtilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station nep[d ssessment Program - All Phases ulnlillici tu PRJ:2? CTS-ISSU
-11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 52 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 13.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.021, 1
dated August 16, 1984
- 14. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
'" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
d "15. Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.2-28, " Fabrication, Installation Inspections of ASME Component Supports, Classes 1, 2 and 3," Revision 29.
I Sumary:
Cygna performed walkdown inspections on 49 of the 92 sup-ports within the review scope. Certain discrepancies be-tween the as-built support configurations and the design requirements were as noted below.
A.
Support No. 481, Longitudinal Type A4 1.
Single angles were installed as braces in the longitudinal direction. A pair of angles is required by the design drawing.
2.
The slopes of the upper longitudinal braces exceed the design limits.
d 3.
The working point locations for the lower longi-tudinal braces with respect to the beam elevation at the attachment to the hanger exceed the design limit.
l 4
The working points for all longitudinal braces, with respect to the anchor bolts, exceed the design j
limits.
i 5.
The angle sections used for the longitudinal braces p
are inverted.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
'L i A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 181414618111111111111111111lll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
~
i i 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 53 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1
6.
The length of several of the Hilti Super Kwik-!:olts g
is insufficient,to achieve the required embedment.
B.
Support No. 408, Type B ^
4 1.
Me lower corner'of the frame is modified by CMC 9916, Revision 1, to avoid interference with the CCW h}at exchanger.
This change document shows that 4" channel sections are to 'be used for the prescribed modifi::ation. A 6" channel !.ection is actually installed. The configuration of the notch, the weld 1
pattern attaching the added members, the elevation h
of the top beam, and the Richmond Insert locations do not match the requirements of CMC 9916.
2.
The bottom beam is a C4x5.4 A C4x7.25 is required.
C.
Support No. 649, Type At This installation uses concrete' anchorage " Alternate Detail 1" (Gibbs & Hill design Drawing 2323-S-0903),
which requires the use of an L6x6x3/4. An L5x5x3/4 was installed.
s D.
Support Nos. 722 and - 2606, Detail "N", Drawing ','
2323-El-0601-01-S 7
1.
The working point for' the brace, dith respect to the anchor bolts, exceeds the design limit.
2.
For Support No. 2606, the length of the C6x8.2 beam is less than required.
g 3.
For Support No. 2606, the base angle is an L6x6x3/4, whereas the design reqaires an L5x5x3/4.
4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak' Steam Electric Station k
NiU Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1811111lll1111111!!18111llllll Job No. 84056
. PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
('
Page 54 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List E.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 6654, Type A2 Reference 1 identified the above six supports as follows:
"A2 (except all members shall be MC6x12) "
where L = 8'-3" (frame width), h = 4'-2" (frame height).
1.
The Cygna walkdown documented the installed hanger member sizes, as listed below in Table 1.
Due to the presence of Thermo-Lag coating, which covers the entire bottom beam member and part of hanger members, Cygna was unable to determine the installed beam member size.
TABLE 1 Cable Tray Support Hanger Member Sizes Dimensions
- Member Size Flange Support Depth Width No.
(In)
(In)
Existing
- i 2992 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 J
2994 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3005 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3017 6
1-7/8 C6 x'8.2 3021 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 6654 6
2-1/8 C6 x 13 Dimensions of the vertical channels (hangers) 1 are based on measurements by Cygna. Member sizes are determined by selecting the channel type from Reference 3 which most closely matches the measured depth and flange width.
2.
The beam for Support No. 2992 was accessible and was d
found to be a C4x7.25 instead of the required MC6x12.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Stecm Electric Station LYFJ [ i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillmmmmillimmim Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
-, _ _ -. ~
11/20/85 Revision 12 ra Page 55 O
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
For the Detail I hanger connections.,for Support No. 2992, the distance from the anchor bolt to the h
end of the base angle exceeded the design limit, and the gauge dimension was less than required.
4.
For Support No. 2992, a separation violation was noted between a Richmond Insert on the east hanger and a Hilti Kwik-bolt on an adjacent pipe support.
F.
Support No. 455, Type SP-8 1.
The brace connected to the wall on one side of the support is located outside of the bolt. pattern on the base angle.
The Detail "B" (2323-S-0903) type connection requires the brace to be located between the two bolts.
O A
2.
The distance from the face of the concrete wall to the support is less than that required on the design drawing.
3.
Gaps of up to 1/4" between the base angles and the concrete, without grout or shims, were noted.
4.
The distance between the top 1-1/4" Hilti Super Kwik-bolt on the north brace attachment and a 1/4" Hilti Kwik-bolt attaching the Thermo-Lag to the wall is less than required.
G.
Support Nos. 2998 and 13080, Special Type Supports These supports were installed on floor slabs with 2" topping. The topping depth was not considered in i
selecting the length of the anchor bolts, and the i
required embedment length was not achieved.
"j O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L.N I. J L A
Independent Assessment Program.- All Phases listilllllllill::"::::::: Job No. 84056
~
PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 O
Page 56
'D CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List H.
Hilti Super-Kwik Bolts Without Stars' Section 3.1.3.1 of Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20 (Ref-erence 11) requires:
Hilti Super Kwik-bolts shall be additionally marked with a " star" on the end which will remain exposed upon installation.
Twenty-eight of the cable tray supports inspected by Cygna required the installation of Hilti Super Kwik-bolts. Of these, only two supports had stars stamped on the bolts. The bolts on the remaining supports were not stamped.
I.
Contact Between the Component Cooling Water (CCW) Heat Exchanger and Cable Tray Support Nos. 332 and 408 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100 requires a clear distance of six inches between cable tray supports and Class 1 piping. including insulation, unless otherwise allowed by the Owner.
Cable tray support numbers 332 and 408 were in contact with the CCW heat exchanger (Reference 13).
J.
Support No. 2953, Detail "E" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S)
This support is attached near the end of an embedded strip plate. The distance from the end of the embedded plate to a penetration through the concrete was less than the minimum distance required for the embedded Nelson studs.
K.
Proximity Violations Between Cable Tray Supports and g
Other Components As a criteria for clearance between cable tray supports and other non-attached components, Cygna used a mimimum
?
of 1-inch separation. This was based on the inspection O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
r Id a N
A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases llllll11111!!!Illll1811i1i1111 Job No. 84056 l
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
'S Page 57 (O
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List criteria for pipe supports (Reference 15), since no separation criteria was specified in the cable tray installation inspection instruction.
The separation violations found are the following:
Support No.
Violation Description b
202 1/2" clearance between beam and insulation on pipe passing through support 299 Brace and hanger near top of support in contact with Thermo-Lag on conduits 408 1/2" clearance between hanger and pipe passing through support
)
605 1/8" clearance between end of beam and an HVAC duct 758 1/8" clearance between brace and pipe running parallel to support frame 765,766,767 1" clearance between braces and pipe passing through support 2986 Hangers are in contact with Thermo-Lag on an adjacent cable tray 3026 Thermo-Lag on support beam is in contact with a pipe i
6654 West end of bottom beam is in contact with a pipe L.
Support No. '758, Detail "V" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) b]
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LNd L IA Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- l11lll111111111lll11lllllll111. Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85.
Revision 12 o
Page 58 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review issues List 1.
The north base angle for this support is shared with support no. 759. This attachment was not documented on the CMC affecting support no. 758.
2.
An anchor bolt spacing violation existed between one d
Hilti Super Kwik-bolt on the south hanger and a rod hanger from a fire sprinkler line.
M.
Support No.124, Type - D2 1.
The channel sections installed were C6x10.5 and C4x5.4 for the bottom and top beams, respectively.
The design requires C4x7.25 sections.
2.
The Richmond Insert pattern for the beam anchorage does not match that shown on CMC 1078, Revision 0.
N.
Support No. 202, Type A4 1.
The channel sections installed were C4x5.4 for the beams. The design requires use of C4x7.25 sections.
2.
The anchor bolt length for south hanger attachment is insufficient to achieve required embedment.
O.
Support No. 479, Detail "C", Drawing 2323-El-0500-01-S The length of the overlap between the hanger and the base angle is less than required by design.
P.
Support No. 589, Type At 1.
This support has an angle section added as a stiff-ener to the east C6x8.2 hanger, per CMC 2646, Revision 5.
The installed weld pattern attaching the angle does not match that shown on the CMC.
p
/3 G
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station eN FJ h b-A Independent' Assessment Program - All Phases 11lll1llllllll1lllllllllllll11 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85~
Revision 12
- (
Page 59 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS 4
Review Issues List 2.
Each hanger is attached to the concrete using a single Hilti Super Kwik-bolt; however, the anchor bolts are not centered on the hanger-as required by the design.
d Q.
Support No. 590, Type Ai 1.
This support has an angle section added as a stiff-ener to the east C6x8.2 hanger, per CMC 2646, Revision 5.
The installed weld pattern attaching the angle does not match that shown on the CMC.
2.
The depth of the notch provided to clear the tray rail exceeds the 3/4 inch limit given on CMC 2646.
R.
Support No. 605, Detail "A", Drawing 2323-El-0500-04-S The cable tray is attached to the this support using Type II friction clamps. The gage distances for the bolts attaching the clamps to the support team are not within the design limit.
S.
Support No. 638, Type SP-4 1.
The slope of the brace member exceeds the design limit of 1.5:1.
2.
The brace is attached to the frame using a gusset plate, which is not allowed by the design.
3.
The working point of the brace with respect to the base angle is not within the design tolerance.
)
T.
Support No. 724, Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S 1.
The length of the C6x8.2 beam was less than the required 6'-9" length.
y O
Texas Utilities Generating Co.npany Comanche Peak-Steam Electric Station L
b ik A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111111111111ll16llll Job No. 84056-PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU l
11/20/85 Revision.12-
,r y Page 60 fQ CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
The L3x3x3/8 brace was attached to the -incorrect I
side of the gusset plate on the beam.
3.
An L6x6x3/4 was-used instead of the required L5x5x3/4 for the beam base angle.
4 The anchor bolt types and locations do not agree A
with the requirements of CMC 155, Revision 0.
L'B U.
Support No. 763, Detail "K", Drawing' 2323-El-0601-01-S The installed base plates are 1-1/4" thick. The design requires the use of 3/4" plates.
V.
Support No. 764, Detail "K", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S 1.
The installed base plates are 1-1/4" thick. The design requires the use of 3/4" plates.
2.
Tne tray attachment uses heavy-duty clamps with 1/2" A307 bolts attaching the clamp to the tray. The distance from the end of the clamp to the bolt on one clamp is less than required by the design.
3.
The channel used as a spacer-between one tray and the support beam is not the required MC3x9 shape.
W.
Support Nos. 765, 766, 767, Detail "J", - Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S 1.
The in-plane braces for these supports are. attached directly to the supports' south base angles.
The design requires that the brace be attached to the hanger member, below the base angle.
2.
For Support No. 766, there is a spacing violation between one of the Richmond Inserts on the south hanger attachment and an adjacent Hilti Kwik-bolt.
Texas Util. ties Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
-Li N-k a Independent-Assessment Program - All Phases 1111mlllll111111111lllllllll - Job No. 84056 i
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
-(s i
\\_)
-Page 61 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
For Support No. 767, there is a spacing violation between one of the Richmond Inserts on the south hanger attachment.and a rod hanger.
i X.
Support No. 2602, Detail "W", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S Two non-seismic conduit supports were attached to this support at the east end of the W8x31 beam.
The attach-h ment of these conduits was not shown on applicable CMCs affecting this support.
Y.
Support No. 2986, Type A4 This support installation has one Hilti Super Kwik-bolt for each hanger anchorage. The design drawing-(2323-S-0909) requires that the bolt centerlines be coincident with the hanger centerlines, however the bolts are up to 1/4 inch off center.
Z.
Support No. 3026, Type SP-4 The north beam was a C4x5.4 section.
The desig;1 requires the use of a C4x7.25 section. Since the other members were covered with Thermo-Lag, their sizes could not be determined.
AA.
Support No. 3028, Type D1 1.
The east hanger is composed of two separate pieces of channel, a C6x8.2 and a C6x10.5, butt-welded together approximately 11 inches above the cable trays.
2.
The hanger attachment to the concrete slab uses one Richmond Insert and one Hilti Kwik-bolt. The loca-tion of hanger with respect to the bolts does not meet the design requirements.
BB. Support No. 3134, Detail "11", Drawing 2323-S-0905
^
O]'
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station h bg 2L A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases HL Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
.11/20/85 Revision 12-
.g Q.
Page 62 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
The beam length is 6 inches greater than that shown on CMC 8585, Revision 3.
2.
The longitudinal braces were L3x3x3/8 sections. -The design requires the use of L3-1/2x3-1/2x3/8
- sections, b.
3.
Two conduits were supported by rod hangers attached to the base angle for the east hanger, these con-duits were not shown on' any applicable change docu-ments.
CC.
Support No. 5807, Type Longitudiaal At 1.
The slope of the longitudinal braces are not with design tolerance.
2.
The L3x3x3/8 sections for' the braces'are inverted.
3.
The weld between the west brace and the hanger does not provide the required minimum weld length.
4 The welds between the gusset plates and the base i
angles are not per design requirements.
5.
The working points of the longitudinal braces with respect to the anchor bolts are not within the design tolerance.
6.
The location of the TS6x6 from the attached pipe support does not correspond with the location shown on CMC 80294, Revision 0.
7.
Based on the indicated bolt length and the measur'ed i
bolt projections, several of -the Hilti Super Kwik-bolts do not provide sufficient embedment.
P 9
O) v Texas Utilities. Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station kNN i A Independent Assessment Program '- All Phases 111111lllll1111111111111lllll1. Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 63 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
A.
TUGC0 issued CMC 2635', Revision 1, to document the lower brace substitution for Support No. 481. There has been no resolution for the other installation discrepancies.
B.
TUGC0 issued CMC 9916, Revision 2, to document the substitution of a C6 for a C4 at the notch for Support No. 408. There hcs been no resolution for the other
' g installatiots d'screpancies.
C.
TUGC0 issued CFC 99308, Revision 0, to document the installation of the incorrect size base angle for Sup-port No. 649.
D.
TUGC0 issued CMC 99309, Revision 0, to document the anchor bolt installation discrepancy for Support Nos. 722 and 2606.
For Support No. 2606, the reduced
'2 beam length will have no impact on the support adequacy, and the use of a larger section than required for the base angle is a conservative substitution.
E.
TUGC0 issued the CMC's listed below to document the installation of the incorrect hanger member sizes.
Support Number CMC No.
Revision 2992 44519 9
2994 99326 0
3005 96079 1
3017 99327 0
3021 30452 2
6654 90714 6
There has been no resolution for the additional' discrep-d ancies noted for Suppo.-t No. 2992.
.y Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statico I
,N -
Jk i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111::""""'"lllllll111 Job No.-84056
- PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU e
s sr g
.,+--
y
-l 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 64 V
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List F.
TUGC0 issued CMC 99307, Revision 0, to document the g
brace location tolerance violation for Support No. 455. There has been no resolution for the other installation discrepancies.
G.
TUGC0 is to evaluate the effect of reduced embedment length for Support Nos. 2998 and 13080. Cygna is eval-uating the corrective action required by SDAR 80-05 "Use of Architectural Concrete in Floor Slabs" for supports installed after its issuance.
H.
Cygna has discussed the absence of stars on Hilti Super Kwik-bolts (References 10 and 12) with TUGCO. The lack of stars is attributable to the fact that procedures in place at the time of support installation did not contain this requirement (Reference 12). To verify that Hilti Super Kwik-bolts were installed per the design g
g drawings, Cygna witnessed the ultrasonic testing (UT) of the anchor bolts for several supports (Reference 9). A total of twenty-one supports were tested. All expansion anchor bolts were verified to be Hilti Super Kwik-bolts as required. Therefore, this review issue is considered closed.
I.
TUGC0 issued CMC 1887, Revision 1 and CMC 9916, Revision 4 for Support Nos. 332 and 408, respectively.
These CMCs specified support modifications to atsure that a minimum clearance of 1" was provided between the CCW beat exchanger and the cable tray supports. TUGC0 3
should provide documentation verifying that 1" 46 separation is adequate.
J.
TUGC0 issued CMC 12105, Revision 1 to document the Nelson Stud edge distance violation for Support No. 2953. -
K.
Cygna has requested clarification on the separation requirements between cable tray supports and other
~
components (Reference 14).
j h-
-V' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Jk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lit""""" ""'"
Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision-12 g3
)
Page 65 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List L.
TUGC0 issued calculations evaluating the adequacy of the shared anchorage, considering the loads from both cable tray Support Nos. 758 and 759.
Cygna located CMC 6186, Revision 0, which documents the attachment of both supports to a comon base angle (this was issued against Support No. 759 only). There has been no resolution for the separation violation between the Hilti Super Kwik-bolt and the rod hanger.
There has been no resolution for the installation discrep-ancies noted in Items M through CC.
21.
Design Control C)
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawings 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0700-V 01-S, 2323-El-0713-01-S 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.022, dated August 17, 1984, questions 1, 2, and 6 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, question 1 4
Gibbs & Hill Cable Tray Support Design Drawings 2323-S-0900 Series 5.
Gibbs &. Hill Calculations for Support Numbers 3025, 3028, 2861, Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.225 6.
L.M. Popplewall (TUGCO). letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
"Responsee to Cygna Review Questions," dated September 4, 1984, C. attached calculations P
7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 3, g
Sheets 206, Revision 6
)
U Tex s Utilities Generating Company
)
' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~Li bgJL 1-Independent Assessment Program. All Phases lililllll!;;"""'""""; 1 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85-Revision 12
{
Page 66 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 4
8.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Response to Cygna Design Review Ouestions," dated September 11, 1984, with attached calculations
- 9. ~ Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5 10.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4 11.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support and Electrical Review Questions,"
84056.019, dated August 10, 1984, questions 2.1 and 2.2
- 12. Gibbs & Hill Drawings 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0790-01-S, and 2323-El-0713-01-S
/q
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Specifications 2323-ES-19, Revision 1 V
" Cable Tray Specification"
- 14. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-111C, Set 8.
- 15. Comunications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated June 13, 1984.
- 16. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated August 27, 1984 with attachments.
- 17. R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Supports Cygna Phase 4 Audit Activities," GTN-69377, dated August 24,1984, with attachments.
- 18. L.M. Popplewell (TUGC0)-letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
"Comancha Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review-Questions," dated September 11, 1984, with attachments.
- 19. Gibbs & Hill Calculations Binder 2323-SCS-111C, Set 7 g'
-f3 V
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L.Y W.! L A
Independent Assessment Program - All Pha.es flililllll:llliliililllillllll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
<~x Page 67-CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review issues List
- 20. TUGC0 k.:truction CP-El-4.0-49, Revision 1.
- 21. Cable Tray Thermo-Lag Evaluation, Safegua'rds Building, Elevation 790'-6."
Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.1.315.
- 22. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated g
February 12, 1985.
- 23. Comunications Report between M. Warner (TUGCO) and N.
Williams et al. (Cygna), dated February 27, 1985.
- 24. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. - Noonan (USNRC),
" Response to NRC Questions," 83090.023, dated March 8, 1985.
- 25. Brown & Root Cable Tray Hanger Assembly Drawing FSE-00159.
- 26. Gibbs & Hill Design Procedure DP-1, " Seismic Category I Electrical Cable Tray Supports," Revision 0, dated 6/11/84.
- 27. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
- 28. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.027, dated August 27, 1984 Susanary:
A.
During the course of the design and construction of cable tray supports, a large number of design change documents (DCAs and CMCs) have been issued that affect the support designs. These design changes can be grouped into two. categories.
Generic design changes are issued against a Gibbs & Hill support design drawing
' Texas Utilities Generating Company Nr Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station a i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lllll111llll""" """llll1 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 68 4
V CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List (e.g., 2323-S-0901) and may affect all installations of one or more generic support designs.
Individual design changes are issued against a support layout plan (e.g.,
2323-El-0601-01-S) and affect one or more individual support installations.
Cygna's review has identified several areas where over-b sights or errors may occur in the handling of these design changes. These may be due in pirt to the large numbers of design changes which have not been.incorp-orated in the design drawings.
1.
In the process of performing generic evaluations of support design adequacy (e.g., the inclusion of base plate flexibility in response to IE Bulletin 79-02, the Working Point Deviation Study, the evaluation of the effects of weld undercut /underrt.n, etc.), Gibbs
]V
& Hill based their calculations on the original support designs without considering the effects of all applicable generic design changes (Reference 27).
2.
In some cases, as a result of the generic studies discussed above, the design limits for a support type were made more restrictive than those of the original design.
In order to qualify existing supports which had been specified based on the original design limits, a case-by-case design ade-quacy review was performed for all individual sup-ports which exceeded the revised design limits.
These reviews were based on the as-designed config-urations for the individual supports, and did not include the effects of applicable individual design changes (Reference 27).
3.
The design changes for individual supports-are tracked by the cable tray support plan drawing number rather than by the support number.
In order M
to locate all design changes affecting a given OV' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station dba A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111lllllll1111ll1111lll1111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
~-
11/20/85 Revision.2 5
p Page av g
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List support, one-must manually search through all design changes affecting all supports on the applicable support plan. Cygna has observed that some support plans have over 200 design changes outstanding.
In order to expedite this effort, the TUGC0 Field Structural Engineering Group (FSEG) maintains a list h
of design changes sorted by individual support number. This list is not a controlled document, and Cygna's review noted several_ discrepancies between the design changes listed for individual supports and those located by Cygna through a search of.
design change documents at the Document Control Center.
It is Cygna's understanding, however, that this informal log is relied upon by the field engi-neer to determine which design changes should be considered in their evaluations.
N 4.
A discussion with TUGC0 cable tray support-installa-tion Q.C. personnel (Reference 23) indicated.that the method of locating design changes for support inspe: tion purposes' was very cumbersone and placed an undue burden on the inspectors in assembling inspection packages.
TUGC0 Q.C. indicated that the inspectors typically relied on the list of design changes included in the Brown & Root construction package as a basis for inspection without indepen-dently verifying the completeness of the package.
5.
Cygna has noted instances where the design review for the verification of design changes may have been inadequate.
The design changes allowed deviations from the original design that invalidated certain assumptions on_which the original design was based. However, the design review did not note this and did not assess the impact of the change on the design basis.
In other cases, the' design review did not assess the impact of the change on all compo-P 4
nents of a support that would be affected.- Examples of this include:
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N
- k A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111::...
Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 (V_)
Page 70 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List-o Base angles are designed assuming a minimum distance of 3" from the bolt hole to the end of the angle. This distance is used in the calculation of the resisting moment arm when~a i
bending moment is applied to the base angle.
CMC 1970 reduced this distance to a minimum of 1-1/4".
The design review for this CMC did not consider the impact of this reduction on b
the anchor bolt designs.
o Cable tray supports are designed for a frame
-l width based on a minimum distance of 3" from the outside tray rail to the inside of the flange of the hanger (see Review Issue i
28.A). CMC 2646 allows the hanger to be notched so that the tray rail actually-over-laps the inside flange of the hanger..this can result in cable tray supports which do not j
meet the minimum width required by the design. The design review for this CMC only addressed the reduced section properties at the notch without considering the effect on the support width.
o Cable tray supports are designed to act as a system, with the cable tray acting as a link between supports (see Review Issue 10). CMC 93450 allows gaps between the cable trays and the clamps attaching them to the supports.
The frictional force between the clamps and the trays, which is required to prevent rel-ative axial displacement between the trays and the supports, is eliminated by the gap. The design review for this CMC does not address the effect on the system behavior of the cable trays (see Review Issue 18).
p O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.L.i t i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases-ilillilllillilllilllilllililli Job No. 84056
- PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU wy ww-Nr
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 71
.N.)i CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List o
Cable trays are qualified for 'an 8'-0" maximum span- (see Review Issue 25.B). DCA 1594 pro-vides an installation location tolerance for b-the supports, resulting in a maximum spacing of 9'-0" between supports. The design review for this CMC does not consider the effect of the increased span on the cable tray qualifi-cation.
B.
Criteria Violations in Individual Support Specifications on Support Plans In the generic design of cable tray supports, support dimension and loading limitations are determined for each support type. These limitations are typically stated in the design calculations, but are not shown on the generic support design drawings (Reference 4). 'The dimensions for each support are specified in a descrip-tive block on the support plans (Reference 1), and the loading is indicated by the supported tray width shown.
The tray supports listed below were identified as having loadings or support geometries which exceeded the design limitations. Prior to the Cygna review, justifying i
documentation did not exist for the following individual support designs.
1.
Support Nos. 3025, 3028, 2861, Type D.
i Dr0 wing 2323-El-0713-01-S specifies these supports as Type D (except beam to be MC6 x 16.3), L = 11'-
9", h = 4
-2", and shows a tray width of 78".
The i
desigr calculations for Type Di supports limit L <
8'-0" and tray width to 48".
2.
Support No. 2607, Type A.
1 Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S specifies dimensions of L y
= 2'-9" and h =.4'-6" for this support.
The design ~
calculation for this support type limits h < 2'-4".
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- d. pbJk A Independent Assessment Program f All Phases 191888111llll111111tll11lllll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
-11/20/85 Revision 12
.i
,q Page 72 O
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues-List 3.
Support No. 657, Type A
- l Drawing 2323-El-0601-01 specifies this support as Type A, L =
7'-0", h = 2'-0".
The design calcu-g lation for this support type limits L < 6'-0".
4.
Support No. 734, Detail "H", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
This drawing specifies that one beam is to be an MC6x15.1, rotated 90* from its normal orientation.
The support design requires the use of C6x8.2 beam The secgion modulus of MC6x15.1 about its sections.
werk axis,1.75 in, is smalleg than that of C6x8.2 about its strong axis, 4.38 in. Therefore, this support should be reevaluated for vertical loads.
Rotating the MC6x15.1 90 frou its normal orien-tation significantly increases the longitudinal stiffness of the support.
This rotation, together witn CMC 00164, which requires the use of a " heavy duty clamp," can introduce significant longitudinal loads to the support. The support design requires the addition of a longitudinal brace if longitudinal loads are to be resisted.
j S.
Support No. 3011, Type SP-6.
Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S specifies. dimensions of L
= 8'-9" and h = 4'-6".
The design calculation for this support type limits L < 6'-0".
i 4
6.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 3111, 6654, Type A
- 2 Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S specifies dimensions of L
= 8'-3" and h = 4'-2", and shows a tray width of 78".
The design calculation for this support type F
limits L < 6'-0" and the tray width to 48".
Texts Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station NI Ji A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111lllll181111111lll11lll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
h 11/20/85 Revision 12
~~
)
Page 73 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 7.
Support Nos. 95 and 112 Type SP-7.
Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S specifies these supports as Type SP-7, L=5'-1", and shows a tray width of
-48".
The design calculations for Type SP-7 limits the tray width to 30".
8 Support No. 758, Detail "V", Drawing 2323-El-0601-S.
Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S specifies this support as Detail "V", b =8 '
t", h =7 '-3", h =4
-0", 1 =5 '-9",
2 3
g 1
=2'-3", a=2 -6", and shows a. tray width of 66".
2 The design for the support detail limits the tray width to 60".
9.
Support No. 765, 766 and 767, Detail "J", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S specifies these supports as Detail "J", L=8'-6", h =10 '-10",
h =9 '-6" and g
2 h =3'-6", and shows a tray width of 66".
The jesign 3
for the support detail limits the tray width to 48".
Additionally, Gibbs & Hill was not consistent in estab-lishing controlling criteria (i.e., support dimensions, tray width, etc.) in support designs. As an example, in several support designs, the support frame was designed for a particular height and width while the anchorages were designed using reactions from.a frame with a dif-ferent height and width.. The lack of a single limiting configuration may affect the support dimensions as shown on the cable tray support plans. Within Cygna's scope, support types E, SP-6 and SP-8 are affected.
4 C.
Consideration of As-Built Support Conditions in Generic I
Reviews Which Require a Case-By-Case Review v
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Jk A Independent Assessment. Program - All Phases 14ll1lll11111tl1111111111111llJob No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
(
Revision 12 Page 74 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
The SP-7 weld underrun analysis considered 5/16"-
fillet welds which are specified on the design draw-ings. However, the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings specify smaller weld sizes.
In addition, the under-run analysis did not consider the effects of any design changes to the supports which were reported in CMCs and DCAs (see Review Issue 21. A).
2.
The Working Point Deviation Study did not include d
the effects of all applicable design changes.
(see Review Issue 12).
D.
Inconsistencies in the Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports For Thermo-Lag Application 1.
Tray cover weights were not included in the develop-ment of the allowable span length tables (References 19 and 20) for fire-protected cable trays.
2.
Cygna believes that longitudinal supports are not evaluated for the added weight of fire protection.
Cygna noted evidence of the' above in the fire pro-tection reviews for cable tray segment T120SBD07. A longitudinal support (type L-A ) was assumed to 3
provide transverse restraint in the fire protection calculation. The calculated transverse load was g;
compared to an assumed design capacity, but no longitudinal load was calculated.
The original design for this support type assumes that only longitudinal restraint is provided.
Note that the calculations (Reference 21) reviewed by Cygna had not been design-reviewed at the time they were received from TUGCO.
3.
Gibbs & Hill performed calculations to determine the design capacity for supports to use as a comparison a
to the tray loads including fire protection (Reference 21). A tributary span of 9'-0" was Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li M g Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
19811111lll11lll111111111ll111Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU i
11/20/85 Revision 12 g
Page 75
-V CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List assumed. The actual design span was 8'-6"; there-fore, the Reference 21 calculations overestimated the support-design capacity.
4.
For several cable tray segments within Cygna's review scope, the tray weight, including fire pro-tection, exceeded the design limit of 35 psf by up to six percent, but engineering evaluations were not.
performed as required by Reference 20.
See Reference 27, question 3, for a listing of the affected tray segments.
5.
For tray segment no. T1305CA46, side rail extensions were installed, but a special evaluation was not provided as required by Reference 20 (see Review Issue 25.C.I.).
Cygna has requested additional information on the fire
\\
protection evaluation process in Reference 27.
E.
Tray Spars Between Supports Used In the Original Support Layout 1.
Reference 13 indicates that cable trays are to be designed and qualified for 8'-0" transverse.and vertical spans. Reference 10, Note 13, allows a location tolerance for supports of t 1/2 of the Richmond Insert spacing parallel-to the tray, and limits the maximum spacing between supports to 9'-0."
Gibbs & Hill cable tray support design calculations assume a maximum tributary span of 8'-
6," to account for a support spacing of 8'-0" on i
center and an erection tolerance of i 6."-
Cygna reviewed the tray support plans for segments j
within the review scope (Reference 12) and noted 15 1
locations where the as-uesigned tray spans exceeded 8'-0".
Cygna's walkdown of these tray-segments y
identified 5 locations where the as-built tray spans O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g4[Mg Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l
i Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 76 7...
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List exceeded 9'-0" (see Reference 11). This indicates that the design and installation limitations for support spacings may not have been complied with in.
the preparation of support layout drawings and in the field.
2.
Reference 13 indicates that cable. trays are to be g
designed and qualified for 40'-0" -longitudinal spans. Longitudinal support design calculations assume a maximum longitudinal tributory span of 40'-
0".
For several supports within Cygna's review, the support plan drawings-(Reference 12) showed these supports to have tributary spans greater than 40'-0" (see Reference 11).
In addition, several horizontal tray segments were not provided with any lon-gitudinal supports (see Reference'11). This indi-cates that the design limitations for the location
(~^
of longitudinal supports may not have been complied i
with in the preparation of support layout drawings.
~
F.
Lack of Calculations For Change Notices Cygna has noted several design reviews of change notices where the CVC was marked to indicate that new or revised calculations were not required. Cygna. considers some of the design changes to be significant, such that calcu-lations should have been provided to justify their acceptability.
In some cases, calculations marked "for reference only" are attached to the CMC which the reviewer had accepted without new or revised calcu-lations.
G.
Design Calculation Retrievability and Completeness During the course of the Phase 2 and 4 reviews, Cygna experienced difficulty in assembling complete support design calculation sets. Cygna noted that Gibbs & Hill has similar difficulty. The-following examples illus-U trate Cygna's concerns.
-Texas Utilities Generating-Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M ig Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
lilllilllilllithlilllililllll - Job. No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 77 CMLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
In Phase 2 of Cygna's IAP, Cygna requested an eval-uation of the effect of torsion in the C4x7.25 beams on the support design adequacy. Gibbs & Hill pro-vided calculations (Reference 14, Sheets 28-33) which evaluate torsion in the beams. These calcu-lations were performed in 1982, but were not
' included in the indicated calculation binder (the cover sheet for Reference 14 indicated that the total number cf sheets was 5). Subsequent to Cygna's review of these calculations, they were added to form Revision 1 of Reference 14 2.
Cygna requested a list of all calculations relevant to several generic support designs (Reference 15).
Gibbs & Hill provided a list of calculation binder and sheet numbers for each support type.
The review O-of these calculations by Cygna indicated that there were additional calculations relevant to the support designs which had not been included on the list.
For example, the Working Point Deviation Study involved several supports listed in Reference 15, but was not referenced in Gibbs & Hill's response.
l The difficulties in identifying and locating all calcu-lations pertinent to a support design may.be in part fg attributable to Gibbs & Hill's methods of controlling
(.LB structural design calculations. Cygna observed that, as a general rule, Gibbs & Hill did not revise or supersede older calculations.
In performing generic studies (e.g., Working Point Deviation Study, weld undersize / undercut, evaluation of torsional stresses in members, etc.) or performing design reviews f;r generic des 1gn changes, the new calculations evaluate only the effects of the changes.
These new calculations may reference the previous calculations as a source of data,-
but the previous calculations are not superseded by the new calculations, nor are they revised to reflect the g
results of the design change or' generic study. Hence, bV Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station gid. f, Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 18lll1llllllll1111lllllll11111 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 fmQ Page 78.
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List it is extremely difficult, from reviewing an original design calculation, to determine if it is still applic-g able to the support design.
It is also difficult to identify and locate generic study or design change review calculations that are applicable to the support design.
H.
Lack of Controlled Design Criteria At the initiation of this review, the cable tray support design criteria used by Gibbs & Hill consisted of a calculation set in a structural calculation binder (Reference 9). Cygna's review of this document indi-cated that insufficient detail was given to assure that cable tray support designs were performed in a consis-tent manner and that the designs satisfied the require-p ments of the CPSES FSAR.
Examples of the impact of an
(_./
incomplete design criteria include:
1.
Cygna has noted instances where the field design review group did not utilize the proper criteria to evaluate support adequacy. The evaluations for fire protection compared the as-built support load to a design load consisting of the allowable distributed load over a 9'-0" tributary tray span.
Since the maximum tributary span assumed in 'the current design calculation is 8'-6", the use of a 9'-0" span over-estimates the allowable load.
2.
Cygna has asked what supplements to the 7th Edition of AISC Specifications were committed to in the FSAR. No evidence was found to indicate that proper direction was given to design engineers to utilize the requirements of any supplements to which CPSES was committed.
I.
Differences Between Design Drawings.and Assembly d,
Drawings OG Texas Utilities Generating Company A{j,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 111111111llll18111111lll111111Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
L 1
11/20/85 Revision 12
. [s)-
Page 79 v
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List:
Cygna performed 'a review of the cable tray support assembly drawings (Reference 25), which _are used for b~
construction purposes, and evaluated the accuracy of these drawings via a comparison with the applicable design drawings (References 1 aiid 4). Numerous drawing discrepancies were noted, these included:
o Incorrect weld sizes specified for fillet welds-(also see Review Issue 16.A) o Incorrect weld patterns o
Incorrect member sizes specified in the " Bill of Material" o
Incorrect anchor bolt connection details O
V o
Incorrect support dimensions o
Members that are not required by the design For a detailed listing of the individual discrepancies, see Reference 24 Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide assurance that all design changes were. adequately evaluated and considered in design calculations and inspections.-
B.
Gibbs & Hill has stated that the engineer preparing a support layout drawing would be familiar with the design limitations. Gibbs & Hill also stated that several uncontrolled drawings-(nos. 2323-S-0901-01 and 2323 k 00903-01) were prepared, specifying the design limits for the generic support configurations. These drawings were used for reference purposes only. Based upon engineering judgement, the design limitations could be j
exceeded without preparing supporting calculations, since the support layout drawings would be subject to Texas Utilities Generating Compny
[ Q ei.,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
'..:;p"--LIiiiiiiiiii Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 I
Page 80 CABLE 1 RAY SUPPORTS Review issues List design review. Gibbs & Hill should assure that the critical frame limitations have not been exceeded with-out proper technical justification.
For the individual supports referenced above:
1.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 5) ovaluating these supports. Support Nos. 3025 and 3028 were found acceptable, Support No. 2861 shows 30% overload of anchor bolts.
2.
TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 6) demon-strating the acceptability of Support No. 2607.
3.
TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 6) demon-strating the acceptability of Support No. 657.
5 4
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 have not provided a response.
5.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 7) demonstrating the acceptability of Support No.
3011.
6.
TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 8) demon-
)
strating the acceptability of these supports.
-l 7
Justification has not been provided for the over-loading of these supports.
8.
TUGC0 provided calculations demonstrating the acceptability of this -support.
)
4 9.
Justification has not been provided for the over-loading of this support.
C.
See status for Issue 21.A and Issue 12.
.D.
TUGC0 should provide justification for excluding the weight of the tray covers and provide documentation.
Texas Utilities Generating Company ge Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases.
littlisilliilittlilluillfilli Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
("'N Revision 12
()
Page 81 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List assur'ing that.the evaluation of longitudinal supports is b
included in the fire protection evaluation.
E.
Gibbs & Hill has stated that the engineer preparing a support layout drawing would be familiar with the span limitations for transverse and longitudinal supports.
Based upon engineering judgement, these limitations could be exceeded without preparing supporting calcula-tions, since the support layout drawings would be sub-ject to design review.
For the individual span violations noted above, 1.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference
- 16) qualifying ~ trays and supports for the trans-verse span violations.
(%
2.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 provided calculations (References 17 and 18) qualifying trays and sup-ports for the indicated longitudinal span viola-tions. For tray segments lacking longitudinal sup-ports, the load was applied as additional trans-verse loads on transverse type supports located around a 90' bend from the unsupported tray seg-ment. For one tray run without any existing mecha-nism to resist longitudinal loads, segments T120SBC25 and T130SCA45, the addition of a new longitudinal support was required.
F.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
G.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
H.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
I.
TUCG0/ Brown & Root should provide assurance that support-g ~F installations satisfy the requirements of the design drawings.
(O
./
Texas Utilities Generating Company-Comanche Peak Steam Electric' Station k
Ji A-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111111111111R!I111111 Job No. 84056
, PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
~.
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 82 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 22. Design of Support No. 3136, Detail "5", Drawing 2323-S-0905
Reference:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 0.
2.
Communication Report between B.K. Bhujang (Gibbs & Hill) and N. Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated October 20, 1984 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 1.
j 4
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions",
84056.089, dated October 21, 1 %.
Summary:
Support No. 3136, located at elevation 790'-6" at the Auxil-iary Building / Safeguards Building boundary, is embedded in a fire wall.
In reviewing the design calculations for this support (Reference 1), Cygna noted several concerns. A list of Cygna's wuestions was provided (Reference 2, Attachment A) to Gibbs & Hill for their review.
These concerns included:
Justification for not considering tornado depressuri-o zation loads was not provided.
l The original cable tray support is Seismic Category 1, o
while the fire wall is Seismic Category II. Justi fica-tion for this conflict in design classification was not provided.
i o
Several errors were found in the finite element model and in the calculations.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 has provided revised calculations in P
response to Cygna's concerns (Reference 3). Cygna is cur-DU Texas. UHlities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electrie. Station i
I. D i i Independent Assessment Program'- All Phases-1 181111:41111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU w
- g e
m
+
g or
-e4-
~
c e
-w
11/20/85 e
Revision 12 Page 83 d
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List rently evaluating the acceptability of the response. The concern regarding the seismic category conflict has not been resolved. The response also raised additional questions on the tornado loads (Reference 4).
- 23. Loading In STRESS Models
Reference:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Computer Output Binder 2323-DMI-SP 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Set 2.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Drawirg 2323-S-0901, Revision 4.
b 4
Cygna Energy Services, " Independent Assessment Program Final Report - Volume 1, for Texas Utilities Services Inc., Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station," Report No.
O TR-83090, Revision 0, Summary:
For the design of standard support Cases A, B, Cj and D,
j j
j where i = 1 to 4, finite element analyses were performed (Reference 1) using the program STRESS. Single beam -
elements were used to model the-horizontal members (beams). The analytical results may be inaccurate due to g
the following concerns:
A.
Tray loads were applied at the beam / hanger intersection, rather than within the span of the beam where the tray is physically located, Modelling the load placements in this fashion eliminates the effects-of bending and torsion due to vertical loads on the h@m, and for Cases D, will totally remove the loao cpplied at the j
wall connection from the support.
(See Cygna's Phase 2 -
g' observation CT-00-03 in Reference 4).
B.
The ' applied loads are calculated based on an 8'-0"
' tributary tray span.
The actual design span is 8'-6" if installation tolerances are considered.
.f,
/~%
d' Te,:as Jtilities Generating Company.
Comnche Peak Steam Electric Station t.i.( ) i A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases IlillaintililllHil#flHilli' ; Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revi sion' 12
/'N Page 84 b
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issces List C.
The support design drawings (Reference 3) specify the support frame heights as the distance from the bottom of the concrete to the top of the C4x7.25 beam. The models b
considered this distance to be from the concrete to the centerline of the beam, thus underestimating the support height by two inches. This error is also-found in the related design calculations for the trapeze supports.
have been reevaluated in Gibbs & Hill'4, all braced frames, Support Cases A, A, B, B, C3 and C Status:
3 4
3 4
s Working Point Devi -
ation Study (Reference 2).
In this study, the load was app-lied at the tray centerline, and 8'-6" tray spans were used. Therefore, this issue is not a concern for these support types.
Sir.ce support cases A, B, B, B, C, C, D, 0, D3 and y
2 g
2 g
2-i 2
D4 are unbraced frames, they have not been reevaluated by Gibbs & Hill in the Working Point Deviation Study or sim ~
ilar, more refined analyses.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the adequacy i
of the finite element analyses of. support cases A, A, B,
y 2
1 B,C,C,D through D, and other supports which also 2
1 2
i 4
contain the error indicated in item C.
24 Design of Flexural Members
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984 2.
L.M. Popplewell -(TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna)
" Comanche Peak Steam Electcic Station Cygna Review Questions," dated September 28, 1984 3.
Communication Report between E. Bezkor et al. (Gibbs &
Hill) and M. Engleman et _al. (Cygna) dated April 11, 4
1985 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Li.@.jL A 11ndependent Assessment Program - All Phases
~ list 3111111:11111111111 = Job No.~84056 2
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU-x.
N 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 85
' ' (O)
CABLE TRAY SUPP0RTS Review Issues List 4.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903.
Sumary:
In the design of cable tray support flexural members (i.e.,
beams and hangers), Gibbs & Hill did 'not consider several important~ items as discussed below.
A.
Additional major axis bending stresses due to transverse loads are introduced by the vertical eccentricity be-tween the cable tray centerlines and the beam neutral axis (Reference 1).
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 2) indicating that the increase in bending stress did not exceed 2.5% of the allowable stress level. However, the analysis incorrectly assumed $ hat the beam was a fixed-fixed member, effectively isolating it from the remainder of the support structure.
In
(
addition, the load transfer mechanism that was assumed to be provided by the tray clamps may not be applicable to all clamp configurations (also see Review Issue 18).
B.
Minor axis bending of the beams due to transverse load-ing is introduced by the horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the location of the tray clamp bolt holes in the beam's top flange (Reference 1).
Gibbs & Hill's response (Reference 2) did not consider the allowed tolerance in bolt hole gage per DCA.17838, Revision 8.
A load transfer mechanism was assumed to be' provided by the clamp,. allowing the trays and supports to act as a system. This assumption results in increased transverse loads on adjacent supports and no minor axis flexure in the beams. The validity of this assumption depends on the resolution of Review issues 10 1
and 18.
C.
Vertical loading introduces torsion into the beams due to the horizontal offset between the tray clamp location w
and the shear center of the beam.
In 'Gibbs & Hill's response (Reference 2), the torsional moment was compl-O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN. d i A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases I.
~ 111111111lll1111111llllll11111 J Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85-Revision 12 ~
Page 86 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
etely eliminated, based on an assumed moment resistance provided by the tray clamps and the tray / support system concept (also see Review. Issue 10 for the acceptability of this concept).
D.
Torsion is introduced into the beam by longitudinal loading due to:
1.
The vertical offset between the tray centerline and the beam shear center (for longitudinal trapeze type supports, e.g., L-A, L-B )
1 1
2.
The vertical offset between the tray centerline and the shear center of the composite beam (for longi-tudinal supports similar to SP-7 with brace,' Detail 8, drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.)
Gibbs & Hill's evaluation of the; torsional effects are included in Reference 2.
The evaluation of torsion due to loading type 1 only considers the' eccentricity be-tween the shear center and the top of the tray. rungs for ladder type trays or the tray bottom for trough type trays. The centroid of the tray fill is a more appro-priate location from which to calculate the eccentri-city. For loading type 2, the lo1gitudinal load is applied.at the bottom of the tray side rails, rather than the centroid of the tray fill. The tray clamps-are assumed to provide rotational restraint to the. top flange of the composite beam, and all torsional moments are assumed to be resisted by a couple formed between adjacent vertical supports through flexure of the cable tray. All these assumptions must be justified per Review Issues-10 and 18.
E.
Gibbs & Hill has not consistently considered the reduc-tion in the beam section properties due to bolt holes through the flanges. (also see Review Issue 9) and weld-ende. cut effects. Based on CMC 58338, Revision 0, the f
welded connection between the beam and hanger can in-
/
Texas Utilities Generating _ Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station e
Li N.!L i.
Independent' Assessment Program - All Phases 1811111111111111111m11mlll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 i
Revision-12 n)
Page-87 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List clude vertical fillet welds crossing the web of the beam, thus weld undercut would affect the beam capacity at this critical location. Weld undercut could also affect the beam capacity at beam-to-base angle / plate
' connection for the cantilever type of supports.
In addition, based on' the tray installaticn tolerances-provided in Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100, Section 2.28, and the effect of CMC 2646, Revision 5, the tray clamp can be located such that the bolt hole is in the same cross-sectional plane as the effect of weld undercut. Thus, it is possible that both reductions may occur simultaneously.
F.
Gibbs & Hill has not evaluated the effects of shear stresses on beam acceptability.
Shear stresses will be introduced by two loadings:
1.
Direct shear stresses due to the applied forces 2.
St. Venant shear stresses associated with torsional loads (see Items C and D above).
Cygna's review indicates that direct shear stresses are minor and generally do not govern the design of flexural members. When these stresses are considered in combination with the potentially large St. Venant shear stresses, the effect can be a significant factor in the member design (Reference 3).
G.
Gibbs & Hill generally assumes an allowable major axis bending stress of 22 ksi for member designs.
The car:c-ity reduction based on the unsupported length of the beam's compression flange (AISC Equation' 1.5-7) is either not considered at all or not properly considered' (also see Review issue 14). Justification is provided, based on the assumption that the tray and tray clamp-will provide lateral bracing to the beam's ' compression.
flange. This assumption is dependent on the tray v
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Lib J L A
Independent Assessmant Program - All Phases MillililllilillMMilli ' Job No. 84056.
PPJ:23 CTS-1SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
- '4 Page 88 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List clamp's ability to provide bracing (also see Review
. Issue 18) and neglects compression of the bottom flange due to support frame sidesway and seismic uplift.. ' For the cantilever type of supports. the "1" value in Equation 1.5-7 is improperly selected as discussed in Review Issue 14.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the assumed load' transfer mechanism provided by the tray clamps and the fixed end conditions used in the evalua-tion of the increased major axis bending.
B.
For status, see Review Issue 10.
C.
For status, see Review Issue 10.
D.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the as-f'T sumed location of the applied longitudinal load, the
\\"'
assumed behavior of the tray clamps, and the system concept.
(Also see the status for Review Issues 10 and 18.)
E.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification of the beam adequacy considering weld undercut and bolt j
hole section reductions occurring at the same location.
(See also Review Issue 9.)
F.
Gibbs & Hill 'should provide technical justification that the combined direct and St. Venant shear stresses are at an acceptable level.
G.
The outcome of this issue is dependent on resolution of Review Issues 14 and 18.
- 25. Cable Tray Qualification
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-19, Revision 1 um Texas L4111 ties Generating Company
. Comanche Peak. Steam Electric Station L*k ( j k A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111 9 61111111111111!!I11111 Job'No. 84056
- PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 n _.p
(
i-Page 89
-J J.
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
Gibbs & Hill Structural _ Calculation 2323-SCS-111C, Set 7, Revision 1 3.
T.J. Cope, Test Report and Calculations for the Qualifi-cation of Cable Trays 4
CPSES FSAR, Section' 3.108.3, Amendment 44 5.
Gibbs a Hill Specification 2323-ES-100, Revision 2 6.
IEEE "RecG:nmended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," STD 344-1975' 7.
CPSES FSAR Section 3.78.3.5 8.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901, Revision 4 9.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGC0) letter.to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Response to Cygna Review Question 2.1 of Letter 84056.019," dated August 27, 1984 with attached calcu-lations
- 10. Cable Tray Thermo-Lag Evaluation Safeguards Building, Elevation 790'-6," Cygna Technical _ File 84056.11.1.1.315 b,
- 11. TUGC0 Instruction CP-El-4.0-49, Revisica 1 12.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
Summary:
The qualification requirements for cable trays are outlined in References 1 and 4.
In rei,iewing related specifications, calculations, and installations of cable trays, Cygna has noted several areas of concern.
y O
1 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
JL A
. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111118 - Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-1550 i
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 90 a
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List A. - Qualification of cable trays is performed through static load testing and calculation of loading interactions for dead load plus three components of seismic-load (Reference.1, Section.3.9 'and' Reference 3). Seismic loads are calculated by the equivalent static load method, using total tray dead weight times the peak spectral acceleration.
No apparent dynamic amplification factor (DAF) is used. Reference 6, Section 5.3, and Reference 7, recommend the use of a DAF = 1.5 unless justification is provided. (See also issue 8).
B.
The interaction equation specified for checking cable tray capacity (Reference 1, Section 3.9.4) is -limited -in its application and may have been used incorrectly.
The testing and qualification of cable trays is based on
>Ox--
an 8'-0" simply supported tray span (References 1 and 3); yet, Reference 8, Note 13, allows a support instal-lation tolerance resulting in a maximum tray span of 9'-
0" for Unit 1.
The capacity values derived in the tray testing.are total loads (in lbs) uniformly distributed over an 8'-0" section of cable tray (Reference :3). These values, F
n F, and F, as used with the interaction equation, are t
j only applicable to tray sections with 8'-0" spans.
However, for the fire protection evaluation calculations (Reference 2) and tray span violation calculations (Reference 9), total loads for various tray spans' were calculated as f' = w
- 1, where w is'the tray unit weight and 1 is the tray span. This load was compared with the rated tray capacity using the interaction equation.
For evaluation of trays with spans other than 8'-C",
a capacity' comparison must be made in terms of tray 2
bending moment which is proportional to (w
- 1 ), rather y
than the total load on the tray section. For example, 10
%.-)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L*k.( j L 4
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111W11111111W111116111ll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU i
a
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 91 emb.
CABLE TRAY: SUPPORTS Review Issues List if an 8'-0" tray span 'will support a total distributed load of 1600 lbs (200 lb/ft), by increasing the span to 10'-0", a uniform load of 128 lb/ft (1280 lbs) would-result in the same bending moment at mid span..There-fore, the capacity for the 10'-0" span would be 1280 lbs and not the 1600 lbs assumed.
C.
Cygna has noted several instances of modifications to cable tray hardware without adequate justification or documentation.
1.
Tray Segment No. T130SCA46 it assumed to be a -
24"x6" ladder-type tray in the fire protection evaluation calculations for Safeguards Building Elevation 790'-6" (Reference 10). Cygna's walk-down indicates that this tray is actually a 24"x4" ladder-type tray with 6" side rail extensions added to increase the tray depth. The tray qualification test report (Reference 3) does not provide qualifi-cation for trays using side rail extensions.
The procedure governing fire protection evaluation (Reference 11), Section 3.2.2.2 states:
Evaluation process described in 3.2.2 is not applicable to the d
cable trays (and their supports).
For such cases, actual as-built configuration of the tray-system with actual cable weight shall be taken into~ account and proper engineering evaluation performed.
No standard methodo-logy is recommended, but shall be based on acceptable engineering practice.
The referenced-calculations do not perform an evaluation of this tray segment. These calcula-tions (Reference 10) were obtained from TUGC0 prior O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
Lja A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l11111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
4m.+
11/20/85 N
Revision 12
.Page 92 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
to their design review; therefore, this possible g
omission.may be corrected through the design ~ review process.
2.
Tray Segment T120SBC35 is joined to a tray reducer.
with side rail splice connector plates. These plates have been modified by removing portions of their bottom flanges such that only the web area remains. This connector will not' satisfy the requirements of Reference 1. Section 3.7, Paragraph f, which states that connectors "shall-have moment and shear strengths at least equal to'tnose of the continuous uncut side rail." Cygna was unable to locate documentation justifying this modification of vendor-supplied hardware.
O D.
Cable tray section properties'are calculated using the i
static test results (Reference.3). The moment of inertia is calculated based on the flexural ' displacement formula fer a simply supported beam.
For. horizontal transverse loading (i.e., in the plane of the rungs) ladder-type cable trays show a truss-like behavior, and the deflection will be due to both flexure and shear deformations.
This will affect the calculated moment of inertia as used in any Gibbs & Hill analyses which consider the tray properties for frequency or displacement calcu-1attons.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the DAF.
used for cable tray evaluation.
l B.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification -for the use of the tray capacity interaction equation.
C.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide documentation illus-trating the acceptability of the use of tray. side rail
. extensions and modifications to tray connector plates.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric StationL Fji A.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6.
.11111111111ll141116#11111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 93 v
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cygna has requested additional information on side rail b
extensions in Refere.e 12.
D.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the use of the flexural deflection formula for the calculation of the cable tray moments of inertia.
- 26. Base Angle Design Refereices:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2 through 6.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1.
Sunmary:
A.
In References 1 and 2, the base angles were modelled as simply supported beams. This modelling technique does j
not include the stiffening effects of concrete bearing at the angle ends.
B.
The principal axes were not considered in the analyses of the base angles subjected to the various loadings.
C.
The base angle lengths due to the maximum spacing of the Richmond Inserts were not considered in the working
)
point analyses.
j
.s D.
For support types D, 0, L-A, L-A, SP-4. SP-6, SP-8, 2
1 4
and Detail 11 (Draw ng 2323-5-0905) the design calcula-tions do not include an evaluation of the base angles.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for modelling the base angles as simply supported beams.
B.
Gibbs & Hill should consider the principal axis pro-perties of angle sections in the base angle-analyses.
C.
Gibbs & Hill should consider. the most critical spacing
, of,the Richmond Inserts in the working point analyses.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- d..ijL 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 181164111111111111111111166111 Job-No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 m
Page 94 h
CJBLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List D.
Gibbs & Hill should provide assurance that the basa g
angles for all support types are adequately designed.
- 27. Support Qualification by Similarity i
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-104C, Set 1.'
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-104C, Set 5.
3.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), GTN-69361, dated August 21, 1984, with attach-ments.
j 4
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George l
(TUGCO), GTN-69377, dated August 29, 1984, with attach-ments.
O Susenary:
A.
In Gibbs & Hill design calculations, several support
]
types were qualified by similarity to another support i
type without showing similarity.
Cygna's review of the geometry, loading, connection details, etc. indicated that the designs were not obviously similar, and that calculations should have been provided. Supports'in this category are:
1.
Detail A, Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S.
Reference 2 states that Detail A is similar to Case SP-7.
Cygna noted that the cantilever ler.gth for Detail A is greater than for SP-7 and that the
~
anchor bolt attachment is unlike the attachment for SP-7.
2.
Detail N, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
V Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
J6 A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilillHilililllllillilillllli Job No. 34056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 p
Page 95
(_j CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Reference 1 states that Detail N is similar to Details V and R on the same drawing. Cygna noted that the frame geometry and tray locations for Detail N was unlike either of the cited details.
3.
Detail J, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Reference 1 states that Detail J is similar to case-B.
Cygna noted that the member sizes used are 3
different than those for Case B, and the frame 3
dimensions exceed the. design limits for Case B -
3 4.
Detail V, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Reference 1 states that Detail V is similar to Detail B, drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S. Cygna noted that Detail B is a three bay frane with braces in all bays and was designed as a pinned truss.
Detail V does not have braces in all bays, and if the same design technique is applied, the frame would be statically unstable.
B.
Allowed working point deviations for individually designed supports were established based on similarity to standard support types without justification.
See Review Issue 12.H for a discussion of this topic.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 provided calculations to justify the assumed design similarity (References 3 and 4).
B.
See Review Issue 12.H for status.
- 28. Critical Support Configurations and Loadings
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-191C, Set 1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-DMI-SP f
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
Ljk i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111166111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU L
1
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 96 CABLE TRAY-SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calcul6 tion Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-5.
4 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-19. " Cable Trays,"
Revision 1.
5.
N.H. Williams. (Cygna) letter. to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) g
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 28, 1985.
Summary:
A.
Gibbs & Hill design calculations (References 1, 2 and 3) for trapeze type supports considered only a limited number of support aspect ratios.
Justification was not-provided to show that the chosen aspect ratios would provide the critical configuration to evaluate all components of the support design. The determination of aspect ratios was based on an assumed frame width based on supported tray width and the maximum frame height.
l The frame width determination assumed that: (a) trays were installed with a minimum 6" horizontal spacing, (b) the distance between the side rail of a ti ay and the vertical hanger flange was a minimum of 3", and (c) all d
trays on a support were 30" or less in width.
Cygna's support walkdown noted that trays were installed with spacings as small as 1" between adjacent trays, and 0" between tray siderails and the hanger flange.
Reference 4 indicates that cable tray installations at CPSES allow a maximum tray width of 36".
B.
Ir. the design of the frame members for trapeze supports, Gibbs & Hill typically applied the loadings to the frame a
in a synmetric pattern.
In reviewing the support layout S
plans, Cygna has noted that the cable trays are often located in an asymmetric fashion on the supports.
This could result in higher stresses in the support members and higher loads on the anchorages than considered in the design.
f p.
j Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.
[jk i.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lemmilmilmilmmmi Job No. 84056 1
PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
i 11/20/85 Revision.12
']
Page 97 (G
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS-Review Issues List Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide justification for the aspect ratios used for support designs.,Cygna has requested related documentation in Reference 5.
g B.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide assurance that the critical load applications were considered in support designs.
- 29. Cumulative Effect of Review Issues
References:
None Susunary:
In this Review Issues List, a number of the cited issues may lead to small unconservatisms when occurring singly in a support design. Such unconservatisms may usually be neglected.
However, since several of these issues pertain to all cable tray support designs on a generic basis, their O~
effect can be cumulative, such that many small unconser-vatisms may be significant.
Therefore, any reevaluation of support designs should consider the cumulative effect of all pertinent Review Issues.
Status:
The additive effects of the findings described in the Ruiew Issues List must be addressed as part nf the CPRT Plan.
l t
O.
\\j Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L 1ju i-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111101111516m158m Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
p i
)6 11/20/85 Revision 3 3
Page 1 (d
CONDUIT SUPPORTS l
Review Issues List 1.
Governing Load Case for Design
References:
1.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger (TUGCO), B.
Bhujang (Gibbs & Hill), and J. Russ and N. Williams, (Cygna) dated 10/1/84 2.
CPSES FSAR, Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 Sunnary:
Gibbs & Hill used the equivalent static method to design the conduit supports. In all load cases, the equivalent static j
accelerations used 11 designing the supports for SSE events are less than 160% of the corresponding accelerations for 1/2 SSE (OBE) events. Bated on this finding and citing Sect'.an 3.8.4 of the CPSES FSAR which allows a 607. increase in allowables for structural ' steel between OBF and SSE events, Gibbs & Hill determined that the design was governed by the OBE event.
i 1
To validate this conclusion, the 60% increase in allowables
(
must be liberally interpreted to be applicable to all support components rather than applicable only to structural steel as specified in the CPSES FSAR. Catalog items such as i
Unistrut components and Hilti expansion anchors do not have increased allowables for SSE events. By designing these catalog components to the OBE event, the manufacturer's design factor of safety is not maintained for the SSE event.
Furthermore, for the design of structural steel, the 60%
increase in allowables is acceptable for axial and strong-axis bending stresses in structural members.
The 60%
2 increase cannot be applied to certain other allowable stresses. For example, the maximum increase in baseplate stresses may only be 33%, at which point the material yield is reached. A limit on maximum allowable stress is not provided in the FSAR.
These limitations were not considered in the selection of the governing seismic load case.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. Also see Cable Tray Review Issue 1.
J Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g
3, gggggggy Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job.No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
s' 11/20/85 i
Revision 3 7
Page 2 iA COMUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
Dynamic Amplification Factors
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/5/85 2.
Communications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/6/85 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-100C, Set 4, Sheets 1-11 4
CPSES, FSAr., Section 3.78.3.5.
Susmary:
Reference 4 specifies tMt a dynamic acplification factor (DAF) of 1.5 be used unless otherwise fastified.
Gibbs &
Hill submitted a calculation demonstrating a DAF of 1.0 for both cable tray and conduit runs. That calculation was based on a Class 5 piping damage study.
A reanalysis was performed for cable tray runs (see Cable i
Tray Review Issue 8), which established 1.14 as an acceptable DAF for the design of supports (with certain restrictions). Cable Tray Review Issue 25 identifies the need to perform a reanalysis to address the DAF for tray a
stress as well.
l Status:
Similar reanalyses for the Dynamic Amplification Factors are
~
necessary for conduit and supports.
3.
Combination of Deadweight and Seismic Responses
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-109C, Set'1, Sheets 154-163 Summary:
In all Gibbs & Hill design calculations, the acceleration due to deadweight is combined with the seismic accelerations using the SRSS method. A 1.0 g deadweight acceleration is first added to the vertical seismic acceleration. The sum is then combined with the two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS method.
1 i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comancho Peak Steam Electric Station A{
, i gggggggggg Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job.No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE j
~
!v 11/20/85 Revision 3 p.p Page 3 y,
C0lWUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
Gibbs & Hill has submitted calculations which compare the i
acceleration vector magnitudes calculated with the standard combination method and with the SRSS method.
For most buildings and elevations, the magnitude of the resultant acceleration using the SRSS method does not differ l
significantly from the resultant using the standard l
combination method.
However, the difference in vector direction was not considered and is of greater importance, since each load direction contributes to different l
components of response in the conduit supports. To properly j
assess the impact of this combination method, the critical l
response should be evaluated instead of the magnitude of the l
acceleration applied to the support.
l Status:
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is required.
l l
4.
Measurement of Embedment from Top of Topping
References:
1.
SDAR CP-80-05, "Use of Architectural Concrete in Floor l
Slabs," dated August 8, 1980 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 Summary:
Note Sa on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4a allows reduced expansion anchor embedment for certain supports at lower building elevations. SDAR CP-80-05 states that the integrity of the architectural topping cannot be assured, thus evaluation of all affected designs must be 3
made to satisfy the corrective action requirements of the SDAR. Cygna has not reviewed any design calculations resolving the abovementioned note with the implications of the SDAR. The generic design calculations do not address the note.
l Such a reduction in anchor embedmont is not acceptable for 1/4" and ' 3/8" Hilti Kwik-bolts with 2" embedment requirement,.since these bolts are embedded in topping only.
Additionally, Hilti does not manufactura a 1/4" Kwik-bolt of sufficient length to accomodate the 2" topping and j
the 2" mininum embedment in structural concrete.
\\
V r
Texas Utilities Generating Company i
ged Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station gggfg,gg,g independent Assessment Program - All Phases l
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
i 11/20/85 Revision 3 -
t, Page 4 CONDUIT SUPPORTS j
Review Issues List l
The anchor embedment reduction may not be acceptable for other sizes of Hilti Kwik-bolts, depending on-the actual accelerations applicable to the floor-mounted supports versus the design accelerations. The affected support types i
within Cygna's scope are-the CSM-18 series and CST-17.
4 Status:
Technical justification is required for instances allowed by the note.
Calculation; in support of the subject reduced h
embedment in architectural concrete were requested ira Reference 2.
j 5.
Bolt Hole Tolerance and Edge Distance Violation
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-lb, Note 15 2.
AISC Specifications, 7th Edition Section 1.16.5, Oj Minimum Edge Distance I
3.
AISC Specifications,-7th Edition, Section 1.23.4, Riveted and Bolted Construction - Holes Sunenary:
A.
Reference 1 allows bolt hole tolerances which vary with the bolt size, whereas the AISC Specifications provide zero bolt hole tolerances.
Therefore, the bolt holes in Gibbs & Hill' designs should be considered oversized and i
should be treated as such in bearing connection j
calculations.
B.
Reference 2 requires that a minimum clear distance be maintained for oversize holes. Some Gibbs & Hill designs do not provide the minimum edge distances
-I required in the AISC Specificat %ns. For example, support types CA-Sa and CSH-42 p avide edge distances of j
3/4".
Per Reference 2, 25/32" is required.
- t Status:
Discussion witn Gibbs & Hill is required.
i
?
O Texas Utilities Generating Company y[ jg Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8MWWNMR Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
' Job'No. 84056
a 11/20/85 Revision 3 0-Page 5 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6.
FSAR Load Combinations
References:
1.
CPSES FSAR, Section 3.8.4.3.3 Suunary:
Cygna is concerned that all applicable loads, as defined in Reference 1, were not explicitly considered the conduit support designs.
These concerns include loads due to pipe whip and jet impingement as well as the use of design. accelerations which do not envelop Containment Building and-Internal Structure spectra.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required to determine if any-justification exists. Also see Cable Tray Review Issue 19.
7.
Support Self Weight
References:
1.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (not yet O
issued)
Saunary:
Cygna's review has noted that support self weights were not uniformly considered in the various designs.. For most CA-type supports, the support weight is negligible and was not included in the calculation of support loads. For the CSM-and CST-type supports in the review scope, part or all of the self weight was neglected in the designs.
The omitted self weight may be an insignificant portion of the total load on the support; however, for most designs, the anchor bolts are designed to an interaction ratio of 1.0.
Any additional load will produce unacceptable interaction ratios over 1.0.
In the design of the CSM-6b, CSM-18 series, and CSM-42 supports, only a portion of the support weight was considered. The CSM-6b support is a braced cantilever configuration composed of Unistrut members.
The weight of the cantilever' member was included in the load calculation, but the weight of the brace member was neglected. For most of the supports composed of structural tubes (CSM-18 series and CSM-42), the member length considered in the calculation of self weight was taken as the length from the baseplate to Texas Utilities Generating Company g{
Comanche-Peak Steam Electric Station-Mm Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85' Revision 3 i
- f)
Page 6 G' -
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List the conduit centerline. The additional. length from the conduit centerline to the free end of the cantilever.was neglected.
For the CST-3 and CST-17 Unistrut support designs,' the total support self weight was neglected. For larger support frames, the tributary conduit weight capacity is quite small, and the self_ weight can be a large portion of the total load on the support.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
8.
Torsion of Unistrut Members
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
"Cygna Study of Unistrut Torsional Capacity," 84056.040, dated January 18, 1985 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGC0),
d hu
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 3.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger (TUGCO) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 1/8/85 4
Comunications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 2/21/85 5.
Comunications Report between R. Miller (CCL), R.
Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), and J. Russ and N.
Williams (Cygna) dated 2/25/15 6.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), R. Miller (CCL), and D. Leong, J. Russ, and N.
Williams (Cygna) Dated 4/9/85.
7.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger and S. Mcdee (TUGCO), P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL), and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/10/85.
j OG Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1
,' Nmme Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
-23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85-Revision 3 Page 7
\\v.
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Sunnary:
Torsional loading of Unistrut members is not considered in the support designs.
Unistrut does not support the use of members for torsional loading. Since analysis of asymmetric sections is difficult, testing of the members was proposed.
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill are evaluating the effects of torsion in Unistrut components by a support qualification test program (Referer.ces 6 and 7). Cygna personnel visited the CCL test labs (Reference 5, 6 and 7) and provided the following comments on the test scope and procedures:
1.
Enveloping of Conduit Supports:
o TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill assume that the group of tested conduit supports adequately envelops all generic type supports at CPSES. Detailed documentation is required to assure the validity of this assumption. The documentation should address the O) weak link of each enveloping support and how the
(-
tests correlate with the perceived weak link of each support qualified by comparison.
i o
The conduit support test scope does not address concerns from the Review Issues List. When screening each support to determine the enveloping group to be used in the test scope, all applicable concerns from the Review Issues List should be.
d included in the comparison of design and configurational requirements.
1 o
Tht; effect of applicable generic and support-specific design changes should be addressed in the qualification test program.
2.
Worst case support configuration and loading for the tested support:
o The chosen member lengths and load magnitudes and directions may not be the critical case.
Cygna noted that the selected configurations may not adequately address torsional behavior of the generic support design.
r"b)
Texas Utilities Generating Company 4{.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases g
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 8 CMDUIT SUPPORTS
- Review Issues List o
The choice of larger. diameter conduits in the testing of some supports resulted in the testing of C708-S clamps.
P2558 clamps were not tested in the majority of the support configurations.
o Clamp loadings should induce tensile forces in the clamp bolts. Many tests load the members in bearing instead of maximizing clamp load.
o For composite Unistrut sections, the loading direction should be selected to provide tensile loads on spot welds to test the integrity of the composite section.
3.
Test Procedures:
o in the visit documented in Reference 5, Cygna noted O
that a yoke plate had impinged upon an outrigger, which imparted additional, unintended forces into the support. The effect of this additional load must be considered when reducing the test data.
o In the visit to the test lab documented in Reference 6, Cygna noted two discrepancies in the test set-up. The hydraulic ram which. applied the transverse and vertical load was attached in a manner such that longitudinal conduit displacement rotated the ram from the perpendicular.
Due to this rotation, a force in the longitudinal conduit direction was imparted in a direction opposite to the load applied by the longitudinal ram. The impact of the effective reductions in the longitudinal and transverse forces.should be addressed in the data reduction..
Cygna noted that in a test of a conduit support using detail CSD-la (Reference 6), the supporting i
wide flange beam to which the detail was attached via a strainsert bolt was not sufficiently stiffened to prevent a deflection in the flange due to a rotation in the connection detail.
Technical O
Texas Utilities Generating Company A{j,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85-Revision 3 p
Page.9 Q
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List justification should be given for the ability of the support member flanges to resist bending due to imparted connection moments witnout significant deflection. Otherwise, the effect of flange deflections must be considered in the data reduction.
O Strainsert bolts were used to anchor the specimens to the test fixture.- These bolts were preloaded to 3200 lbs. for all test cases. Cygna is concerned that the preload used may not be applicable for all test cases.
The supports employ expansion anchors of various diameters and'embedments, which implies a range of allcwable bolt tensions. Additionally, use.
of a preload will affect the support stiffness and 1
hence any deflections measured in the test.
In addition to the testing scope, Gibbs & Hill is also reanalyzing supports which are not subjected to torsional p()
loads using AISI code provisions. Gibbs & Hill intends to address the adequacy of the majority of conduit support designs utilizing Unistrut members by either testing or analysis.
Status:
After discussions with Cygna (References 6 and 7),
1 TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill agreed to provide documentation supporting the selection of the test scope. The documentation has not been received to date. The Gibbs &
Hill analyses using AISI methods have not been completed.
In Reference 2, Cygna requested the documentation of the screening process and the final test. report, if the results k
- j of the program are to be used for the qualification of j
supports.
9.
Improper Use of Catalog Components,
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Patel, et al. (Gibbs &
Hill) and J. Russ, et al. (Cygna) dated 9/20/84 2.
Communications Report between D. Kissinger (TUGC0) and N. Williams (Cygna) dated 10/11/84 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company
- gg Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station IIlittiilililli'"' """'"'... Independent Assessment Program - All. Phases Job No.
- 84056 23CS-1SSUE
11/20/85
. a Revision 3 (Q
Page 10 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Communications Report between E.. Irish (Unistrut) and D.
Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 1/21/85-4 Communications Report between E. Irish (Unistrut) and D.
Leung and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/4/85 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation-2323-SCS-153C, Sheet 1/37 6.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (not yet issued)
Susenary:
A.
In addition to Cygna's comments on the implicit increase in allowables for SSE loads (see Review Issue 1), Cygna has other concerns regarding the support designs using catalog components.
AISC-derived allowables are used in the design process. These values are generally conservative for A
bending, but are generally unconservative _for axial allowables, as catalog allowables are based on the AISI Code which considers buckling of thin, open sections.
Examples of Cygna's concern are discussed below:
o CSM-6b:
20 ksi was used for Fa, the axial allowable. This value is equal to 6 Fy, i
where Fy = 33 ksi and was used for any member length without considering slenderness effects. Catalog values range from 5.77 ksi for a brace length of 60" to l
13.9 ksi for a 24" brace.
o CST-3:
The design employed the AISC table of axial stress allowables for 36 ksi steel, o
CST-17:
The design employed the AISC tables of axial stress allowables for 36 ksi steel. The table value was then reduced by a ratio of 33/36.
.< l O
Texas Utilities Generating Company ye,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric-Station 1811111lllllll11111111lllll11i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
i 11/20/85 3
Revision 3
./\\ ;-
Page 11 CONDUIT SUPPORTS
~
Review Issues List B.- Comoonents were used-in ways not intended by the vendors.
Cygna concerns in this area are as follows:
o Allowables are not-listed for P1001C3 sections in the Unistrut catalog.
Member properties are given for the X-Y exes instead of the principal axes.
Discussions with Unistrut indicate that the uses of P1001C3 are unique with respect to load application i
and member restraint. Thus, no generic allowables can be provided.
Unistrut places the burden on the-designer to_ properly consider the capacity of the section for its intended use.
Gibbs & Hill has not provided adequate evaluation of these members, o
The Unistrut catalog indicates that-the intended use of P1325, P1331, P1332 brackets is for single O-members in a pinned connection. Gibbs & Hill uses two brackets on double members, which Cygna believes to be a moment resisting connection. Gibbs & Hill considers these connections pinned for some brackets in CSM-6b, CST-3, and CST-17 supports. Unistrut does not provide allowables for this bracket configuration.
o Gibbs & Hill references Unistrut Test C-49 to obtain allowables for the double bracket connection in CST-3. The designed connection is subject to tensile and shear loads. The test provided data for loading the bracket in tension'only.
Gibbs & Hill compared the calculated tensile load to the allowable, ignoring the calculated shear.
o P1941 plate connectors are used to connect headers to outriggers in CA-la and CA-2a supports. Gibbs &
Hill calculations indicate that tightening the Unistrut bolts to the specified torque overstresses the plate and causes excessive bowing of the plate.
Discussion with Unistrut indicates that these connectors are to be used to construct frames
~
where the connected members are restrained at both Texas Utilities Generating Company og [,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lililllilllllilililillililli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
l i
11/20/85 Revision 3 m
l i
Page 12.
Q
.)
C0lIDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List ends. Clarification of this concern is required for CA-la and CA-2a supports, since the member end restraint required by Unistrut has not been provided. Evaluation of the connection to transfer d
the required load was not performed.
In Revision 1 of Gibbs & Hill. Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet CA-la, Note 7 was added to provide P1064 plates if bending of the P1941 plates occurs.
In Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Sheet 1/37, a discussion of field installation practice documents that the P1064 plates do not reduce the bowing of the outriggers.
Unistrut tests showed no bowing of the outriggers when the P1064 plates were u3ed. Verification of the bolt torques used in the test set-up is required.
o Four types of Superstrut clamps are specified for O
use on conduit supports: C708, C708-U, C708-S, and L/
modified C708-S (see Review Issue 18). These clamps are not designed for three-directional loading but are used in that capacity. Allowables for tensile loading only are given in the Superstrut Catalog.
Status:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the above issues.
- 10. Anchor Bolts
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.015, dated August 6, 1984 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
n
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
41\\
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Set 1, Sheets 32-44 1
OV Texas Utilities Generating Ccmpany y,,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 11lll1lll111lll1111llllll11111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE i
-yy 9
w.,
, ~ -
s.-
,_-,,,-a y
m
~
-,,.m
11/20/85-
- Revision 3
(]
Page 13 m
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review issues List 4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Set-1, Sheets 146-152.
Susumary:
Cygna has the following concerns regarding anchor bolt designs:
A.
For the conduit support designs reviewed, Gibbs & Hill was inconsistent in the treatment of prying of concrete attachments on anchor bolt tension. The increase in anchor bolt tension was handled in one of three ways:
o In some support designs, prying was neglected.
o For most supports with baseplates, a prying factor of 1.5 was used.
For this case and the one above, justification for the assumed prying factor or the lack thereof was not provided by ~ Gibbs & Hill.
o In a few other support designs, the method on pages.
O, 4-89 to 4-90 of the 8th Edition AISC Manual of Steel Construction was used to justify the use of a prying factor of 1.0.
For this. case, justification of the.
applicability of the method is required, since the concrete attachments in the conduit support designs differ from the steel-to-steel connections addressed in the 8th Edition Method.
B.
The concrete connections for conduit support CST-17, 4
Type 17 consist of box brackets around the P5000 header members, through which the Hilti Kwik-bolts pass. The header is 3.25 inches deep, and the anchor bolt is loaded at a considerable-distance above the concrete surface. 1he Gibbs & Hill design does not consider moments induced in the anchor bolt due to shears applied above the concrete surface.
C.
In the design of CA-2a supports, Gibbs & Hill assumed that longitudinal forces on the conduits are resisted only by the outriggers bearing on the concrete k
surface. Because of this assumption, the Hilti Kwik-bolts in the outriggers do not carry any load; however, the anchors may carry some load due to the conduit loads O
Texas Utilities Generating Company
. ( { ti,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station IIllilililllllililillilillilli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056-23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3'
-f)
Page 14 s/
-s C001DUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List and also due to prestressing of the support by the cinching of the bolts in the P1941 and P1064 plates connecting the header and outrigger. Additionally, the current revision of the CA-2a design drawing waives proximity violations between the Hilti bolts in the outriggers and any other anchor bolts.
If these bolts' g~
are evaluated for loads, large' capacity reductions will be required for the spacing provisions in the design.-
D.
Note 3 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4a allows substitution of 1" diameter Richmond Inserts for 1" diameter and smaller Hilti Kwik-and Super Kwik-bolts.
In general, singly-installed Richmond Inserts have a higher capacity than Hilti Kwik-and Super Kwik-bolts; however, Richmond Inserts in cluster arrangements may have lower capacities. The Gibbs & Hill designs do not consider or evaluate Richmond Inserts.
O Status:
In Reference 2, Cygna requested the documentation regarding
(,)
attachment of raceway supports to Richmond Insert clusters. TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for all the above issues.
- 11. Longitudinal Loads on Transverse Supports
References:
1.
Communications Report between E. Irish (Unistrut) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 7/25/84 2.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), R. Miller (CCL), and D. Leong, J. Russ and N.
Williams (Cygna) dated 4/9/85.
3.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be i
issued)
Summary:
Some transverse supports have the same order of longitudinal stiffness as long cantilever multi-directional supports.
Since conduit clamps provide restraint in three-directions, longitudinal loads, which were not considered in the design, may be imparted to the supports.
^i Texas Utilities Generating Company eg ' { j,,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lilllilllllinilitillllllill Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3 itO
' Page 15 V
1 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Additionally, the displacements due to torsion of longitudinal support beam members may induce some longitudinal loads into transverse supports.
Status:
Technical justification of the above issues by Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 12. Hilti Kwik-Bolt Substitutions
References:
None Sumary:
Note 4 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4a, allows the substitution of all Hilti Kwik-and Super Kwik-bolts with those of a larger size. A reduction in the allowables for the larger bolts may be necessary since the actual spacing may be smaller than that required. Thus, a situation may occur where the replacement bolts have a lower
)
capacity than the bolts in the original design.
Examples of Cygna's concern are described below:
o CSM-18c:
1/2" Hilti Kwik-bolts at 5" spacing were used in the original design.
If all 1/2" bolts are substituted with 3/4" or 1" bolts, the tensile allowable for the replacement bolts will be less than the design tensile allowable of 3012 lbs. (2750 lbs for 3/4" bolts and 2930 lbs. for 1" bolts).
o CSM-42 Type III:
1" Hilti Super Kwik-bolts at 7.5" spacing were used in the original design (allowable tension = 12452 lbs, allowabie shear = 6884 lbs).
If all 1" bolts are replaced by 1-1/4" bolts of equal embedment, the bolt capacity is significantly reduced (allowable tension =
6405 lbs, allowable shear = 6221 lbs).
Status:
Technical justification by Gibbs & Hill is required for supports affected by this note.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company 4,p Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lillfilllilllisillIllililllll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
4 11/20/85 Revision 3 O
Page 16
- V CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 13. Substitution of Smaller Conduits on CA-Type Supports
References:
1.
Communications Report between S. McBee.(TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 3/7/85 Summary:
CA-type supports are designed using ZPA for-large (> 2")
diameter conduits while peak accelerations are used for 4
small diameter conduits (<2").
For CA-type supports where 4
capacities are tabulated on the drawings, small diameter conduits may be installed unless specifically prohibited on the drawings. Although the deadweight load of the small diameter conduits must be less than the capacity, the seismic load of the small diameter conduits may exceed the equivalent seismic load of the large diameter conduits 4
considered in the original design.
As an example, support type CA-15 was designed for two 3" conduits with a deadweight capacity of 156 lbs. However, five 1-1/2" conduits can be installed on a CA-15 support, giving higher seismic loads than designed for. The rigid span loads for two 3" conduits are 343 lbs. and 109 lbs. for the vertical and horizontal directions respectively. The flexible span loads for five 1-1/2" conduits are 504 lbs.
and 450 lbs. for the vertical and horizontal directions respectively.
This item possibly affects support types CA-6, CA-7, CA-12, CA-14 Series, and CA-16a.
Status:
Discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill is required.
TUGC0 is investigating this item with respect to fire protected supports.
14.
Use of CA-Type Supports in LS Spans
References:
1.
Communications Report between M. Warner, et al. (TUGCO) and W. Horstman, et al. (Cygna) dated 2/20/85
)
1 2.
Communications Report between M. Warner (TUGCO) and N.
)
Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated 2/27/85.
t O
Texas Utilities Generating Company y)
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111lll111111111111111111111Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
I 11/20/85-Revision 3 m
)
Page 17 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 3/7/85 Summary:
CA-type supports are used to support LA spans, which are limited to a 6' length. CST-type and CSM-type supports are used to support LS spans, which can be up to 12' for trans-verse spans and 24' for longitudinal spans.
In field in-stallations, when conduits run from walls to equipment in the middle of a room, a transition is made between LA spans and LS spans. The concerns are discussed below.-
For CA-type supports, ZPA was used to determine the design load for large diameter conduits (> 2" diameter.) Since the conduits are field-run, CA-type supports may be installed adjacent to multi-directional supports. The span between the two supports is considered to be an LA-span, since the span length must not exceed that specified by the design of the CA-type support. The rigidity of the span can no longer O
be assumed, due to the flexibility of the multi-directional b
support and the effect of the flexible spans past the multi-directional support.
Peak acceleration should then be used to determine the design load for that span.
There is evidence that decreased support capacity is considered for the fire protected supports (see TUGC0 Instruction CP-El-4.0-49), since support capacities are given for both LA spans and LS spans. For unprotected lines, there is no indication that this was considered.
Status:
TUGC0 is iraestigating the practice for fire protected suports. Additional discussion is required for unprotected supports.
15.
Stresses in Cable Trays Due to Attached Conduit Supports
References:
1.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued) 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-156C, Set 1, Sheets 101-104 O
y _
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station IIllilllilillitilllittlililli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases j
Job No. 84056 23CS-I SSUE-
~
'11/20/85 Revision 3
=Page 18 g
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Sunnary:
This item applies to CSD-16 in the Cygna review scope and to any similar details. Cable tray spans are ostensibly designed to the capacity of'the tray. The addition of CSD-16 to the tray rails adds loads above the capacity of the cable tray. Therefore, a generic stress check for the trays is not possible, and all tray spans with these conduit supports should be individually checked.
Additionally, in the design of the CSD-16 support, peak acceleration was used to determine loads due to the flexible conduit section, and zero period acceleration (ZPA) was used to determine loads due to the rigid conduit attached to the cable tray. Since the support is attached to the flexible tray span, there will be additional amplification of input acceleration on the CSD-16 support. As a minimum, peak acceleration should be used for all conduit segments.
An additional dynamic amplication factor (DAF) may be required.
Status:
Cygna's comments require discussion with Gibbs & Hill.
O 16.
Increases in Allowable Span lengths
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 12/27/84 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-189C Set 1, Sheets 15-24 3.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL), and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/10/85.
Sunnary:
In the revised Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 S-0910 package, LA span lengths were increased by a ratio of the refined to the unrefined spectra. Gibbs & Hill provided a calculation to show that the above changes are correct with respect to the spectral ratios and that rigid spans remain rigid (diameters l
I
> 2").
This is adequate for support designs, since support loads are proportional to span lengths. However, an evaluation of the conduit stress is required, since conduit bending stress is proportional to the square of the span length.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
-<g[
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1861611114f111111111111111Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
)
11/20/85 Revision 3 A
- Page 19
-Q COMUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
In Reft-rence 3, Gibbs & Hill stated that the conduit spans discussed in this review issue are shorter than the spans discussed in Review Issue 22. TUGC0 is providing additional information to address Review Issue 22.
If Review Issue 22 is resolved, Review Issue 16 is resolved by comparison.
If Review Issue 22 is not resolved, technical justification for Review Issue 16 is required.
- 17. Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member
References:
None Suunary:
This item refers to Note 5 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet G-la.
Most supports are designed to the allowable load limits for the Hilti Kwik-bolts. Since support self weight has not been properly considered in some designs (see Review Issue 7), Hilti Kwik-bolts may be overstressed in generic designs using structural steel.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
i
- 18. Clamp Usage l
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions" 84056.015, dated August 6,1984, question A4 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGC0),
" Conduit Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.020, dated August 13, 1984, question 3 l
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 4
Communica". ions Report between E. Irish (Unistrut) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 7/25/84 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.M L a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111146166111 Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
+
g-.----
,-n-
,w,----,,,---.---n,-,,----w,-p-
- + -
..--,,-.4-
,,,ny-
11/20/85 Revision 3
. {v Page 20 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 5.
Communications Report between T. Keiss, et al. '(TUGCO),
B. Bhujang, et al.. (Gibbs & Hill) and W. Horstman, et al. (Cygna) date 10/9/84-6.
Communications Report between R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL), E. Bezkor and P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), C. Mortgat (TERA), R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), and N.
Williams and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 3/29/85.
7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1005, Set 1, Sheets 9-13, regarding clamp reaming 8.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1005, Set 1, Sheets 7-8, regarding clamp distortion b
9.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued)
- 10. Cygna Conduit Support Walkdown Checklists (to be issued)
Sumary:
A.
In the following two Gibbs & Hill designs in Cygna's review scope, P2558 clamps may be reamed to accommodate larger bolts. As a result, the minimum edge distance requirements are violated.
For CA-Sa supports, clamps for small diameter conduits
(<2") must be reamed to accommodate 3/8" Hilti Kwik-4 bolts. The washers for 3/8" Hilti Kwik-bolts will not fit properly on the clamps. The washer is an integral part of the bolt, and justification for its omission, alteration, or distortion during installation is required.
For the IN-CSM-15a support, clamps for the 5-inch diameter flexible conduit are reamed to accommodate 1/2" Nelson studs.
i In response to Reference 1, TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill provided Reference 6 to justify reaming of clamps for conduits 3
larger than 2" in diameter.
This calculation addresses j
the clamps for the IN-CSM-15a support, but does not address the clamps for the small. diameter conduits for the CA-Sa supports.
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11l1311:111111111111lll181111Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3
.R Page 21 -
i C0ledIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List -
B.
C708-S clamps for conduits can be modf fied by cutting off the end portion of the clamp ears.
This modification removes two of the four bolt holes from the clamp. Justification for this modification is.
required. Also see Review Issue 9 for discussion of clamp allowables.
C.
In the Cygna walkdown, clamp distortion was noted for the following supports:
Support ID Support Type C12G03528-8 CSM-18f C12002935-4 CA-Sa C12G03126-18 CSM-42 C12G02851-6 CA-Sa In response to Reference 1, TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill provided Reference 8 to justify clamp distortion.
Status:
Further discussion with TUGCO, Gibbs & Hill is required for all the above issues.
In Reference 3, Cygna requested the g
reaming procedures for P2558 clamps for CA-Sa supports with conduits less than 2" in diameter, to insure that fit-up problems do not occur. Cygna also requested information and calculations for the modification of C-7085 clamps.
- 19. Documentation Deviations Between Inspection Reports, CMC's and IN-FP Drawings
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cy na) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b
" Cable Tray /Condu t Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 2.
Communications Report between P. Patel (TUGCO) and D.
Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/18/85 3.
Cygna Individual Conduit Review Checklists (to be issued)
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1.i g i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases t
111111111111111111111111111lll Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 22 7q Q,1 C010DUIT SUPPORYS Review Issues List 4
Cygna Conduit Walkdown Checklists (to be issued)
Susunary:
A.
For each conduit line, an inspection is performed and documented on an inspection report (IR). All CMCs and applicable IN-FP drawings should be reflected on the IR. Examples of Cygna's concerns are discussed below:
1.
Line C11003395, IRME-18120F, Support -1: On the IR, the support is listed as CSM-18f, Revision 4.
On CMC 62903, the support is listed as CSM-18b, Revision 14 Based on the CMC information, the IR is in error.
2.
Line C12G05087, IRME-16817F, Support -4:
On the IR, the support is listed as CSM-18c, Revision
- 13. On CMC 62905, Revision 0, the support is listed as Revision 9.
On CMC 62905, Revision 1, the support is listed as Revision 12.
Five such discrepancies occur for supports in Cygna's review q
scope.
D 3.
Line C12004695, IRME-16089F, IN-FP-216 and I N-F P-226: There are discrepancies between the IR and both IN-FP drawings for support types CA-la and CA-2a.
There is no structural difference in the supports, but a documentation inconsistency exists.
Nine such discrepancies occur for supports in Cygna's review scope.
4 All applicable CMCs and their revision numbers should be listed on the inspection reports.
In A
Cygna's review scope, three CMCs were not listed on lo the appropriate IR. CMCs 59701, 69387, and 68272 should be listed on IRME-20073F. Revision numbers were not provided for the following five CMCs: On IRME-18120F, CMCs 67042 and 62903; on IRME-20143F, CMCs 68276 and 75090; and on IRME-17398F, CMC 68438.
B.
Additionally, the Cygna walkdown identified deviations between the final ' inspection reports and installed configurations for two conduit lines.
I O'
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
6 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 181111111111161611111111lll111 Job No. 84056 23C5-ISSUE J
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 23 O
L CONDUIT SUPPORTS:
Review Issues I.ist 1.
Conduit line C12002935 appears to have been 4
rerouted. The final inspection report IRME-16236F j
lists four supports on the line. There are three l
supports on the line in the field. Support C12002935-3 has been removed, and support C12002935-2 has been re-marked C12002935-5. An l
updated IR was not found.
2.
Support IN-CSM-15b is not listed on the inspection report IRME-14684F.
It is present in the field.
Status:
Discussion with TUGCO is required.
In Reference 1, Cygna i
requested information on the evolution of the CA-la/CA-2a support designs. This information will be pertinent to Item A.3 above.
4 i
- 20. Nelson Studs l
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Huang and R. Sanders
?
(Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated August 7,1984 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-156C, Set 1, Sheets 131-160 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-109C, Set 1, Sheets 164-184 1
Summary:
In the original conduit support design calculations, Gibbs &
Hill did not check Nelson studs for conformance with vendor specifications and allowables.
Subsequently, Gibbs & Hill supplied Cygna with Nelson stud qualification calculations to determine the adequacy of the installed stud configurations. Cygna has the following coments on the calculations provided:
o Reference 3 provides evaluation of the stud stresses. A pretensioning force was assumed to relieve applied loads to the studs.
The calculation did not account for the flexibility of the clamp and Shim plate or relaxation of the preload.
i Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1
L 1
a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases j
INNNMMINHWH Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
p
'l 11/20/85
' Revision 3 7
Page.24 C0W01T SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
o The allowable Nelson stud forces reportad by TRW/ Nelson are based on shear applied at the weld acation.
In the conduit support designs, the studs are loaded at the clamp, which produces a moment in the stud. This additional moment was not ~ considered in the Reference 3 calculation.
o Reference 2 (Sheets 151 through 160) provides evaluation of tne shim plate attaching the Nelson studs to the structural member. The stress distribution assumed ~for the weld connecting the shim plate to the member is not realistic, as it introduces an infinite stress at the bottom of the plate. The assumption affects the results of the yield line analysis performed to check the adequacy of the shim plate.
o Weld underrun was not considered in the Reference 2 calculation.
Summary:
Further discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required for the resolution of the above concerns.
- 21. Conduit Fire Protection Calculations
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 t
2.
Comunications Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and W.
Horstman, et al. (Cygna) dated 10/16/84 3.
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D.
Leong (Cygna) dated 4/18/85 4
TUGC0 Instruction CP-El-4.0-49 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1017, Set 2, Sheets 8-11.
i 6.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-152C, Set 1, Sheet 39 O
Texas Utilities Generating Com?any Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
1 6 a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases NNumpunnumeN Job ~No. 84056 23CS-!SSUE L
7 11/20/85' Revision'3 Page 25 p;.y.
CO MUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation for Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet IN-F P-213a 8.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation for Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet I N-FP-212 9.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation for Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet IN-FP-214
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-233C, Set 1. Sheets 62-67 for Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet IN-FP-226 d
Susanary:
All calculations providing evaluation of fire-protected conduits and conduit supports were obtained from Gibbs &
Hill prior to the completion of the design review for those calculations. The comments made in this review issue may have been resolved due to design review efforts.
(\\
A.
All of the Gibbs & Hill fire protection calculations consider a round configuration of Thermo-Lag material around conduits. The Thermo-Lag weight on the spans was calculated based on this configuration. The Cygna walkdown and discussions with TUGC0 indicate that a square configuration was also used in the field installations. Documentation of the specific configura-tion installed was not maintained.
B.
Reference 5 caiculates the capacities of CA-la supports for various plant elevations using both LA-and LS-spans. The analysis model used in the calculation supported one conduit and had two sets of outriggers.
Reference 4 provides tables of the capacities for use in determining the adequacy of CA-la supports with fire protection; however, the tables do not specify that the capacities given are limited to the support configuration used in the analyses.
C.
Capacities for CA-2a supports are given in Table 24 of Reference 4.
Reference 6 contains calculations which determine support capacities for CA-la and CA-2a supports with multiple conduit installations. Reference 4
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
,6 4
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases WWWHmmmmmtm Job No. 84056
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 26 V
COIBUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6 states that CA-la capacities should be used for CA-2a supports, since CA-2a supports are "similar to and stronger" than CA-la supports.
The allowable capacity for LA-spans calculated in the referenced calculation is 185 lbs. Table 24 of Reference 4 gives the allowable as 385 lbs. The tabulated capacities for CA-2a appear to be in error, when compared with the CA-la capacities in Tables 25 and 26 of the same reference.
D.
In the review of IN-FP calculations, Cygna has three d
i concerns regarding detailed calculations used to demonstrate support adequacy.
1.
The IN-FP drawings generally contr.in information on span length, support location on the conduit run,>
and type of support (such as Type 17d or 17e for a CSM-18c support).
In some cases, the mounting j
surface will be indicated (such as ceiling-mounted or wall-mounted), as well as key dimensions for a support (such as cantilever length). Cygna has noted that orientation of the support on the t
mounting surface is almost never given, yet the IN-FP calculations assume a configuration for the 4
I detailed analysis. Two supports in Cygna's review scope which are qualified based on such assumed configurations are C12G03126-1 and C12G03126-11.
2.
Cygna has noted that some detailed calculations do not include the effects of CMCs when analyzing the supports for the effects of fire protection. Three supports in Cygna's review scope which neglect CMCs are C12G05087-4, C12G03126-2, and C11003395-2.
3.
Cygna has noted that the support capacities used for the qualification of fire protected supports were taken from the drawing revisions which were current when the IN-FP calculations were performed, although the supports were originally installed and inspected to earlier revisions. Justification for using these capacities was not provided.
Four supports in Cygna's review scope which are qualified to later drawing revsistons are O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.
a 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111616 111111111111101866666 Job No. 84056 23CS-1SSUE
11/20/85 l
Revision 3 Page 27 fm tLJ CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues '.ist C12004695-5,-C12G05087-4, C12G03126-2, and C11003395-2.
a Status:
A.
Evaluation by Gibbs & Hill of the as-built coafiguration g:
with respect to the design configuration is required to insure that the design adequately envelops the field condition. Preliminary evaluation by Cygna indicates that small unconservatisms exist for some cases.
Cygna has requested the documentation authorizing the change in fire protection configuration from round to square. The request was made to TUGC0 in References 1 and 3.
B.
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is required.
C.
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is required.
D.
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is required.
O
- 22. Soan Increase for Fire Protected Spans j
References:
1.
Communications Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and W.
Horstman, et al. (Cygna) dated 10/16/84 2.
Communications Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and J.
Russ and N. Williams (Cygna) dated 10/27/84 l,
3.
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D.
Leong (Cygna) dated 4/16/85 l
4 Communications Report between W. Zehe { Triangle PWC) and l
- 0. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/17/85 5.
Comunications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D.
l' Leong (Cygna) dated 4/18/85 l
l 6
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 5/7/85 7.
TUGC0 Instruction CP-El-4.0-49 l
l l
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
t L
6 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111111111111111111111111666111 Job No. 84056 23CS-1SSUE
7 4
'11/20/85 L-Revision 3.
- Page 28 L
COMUIT SUPPORTS
~
j Review Issues List i
' 8. - Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910 LA Series-9.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, LS Series
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1017. Set 1 -
Summary:
TUGC0 Instruction CP-El-4.0-49 (Reference 7) gives allowable conduit spans-for fire-protected runs. Cygna noted that. in most cases..the fire-protected spans exceed-the allowable spans for unprotected conduit spans documented in the 2323-S-0910 drawing package (References 8 and 9).
Cygna reviewed the design calculations for the fire-protected spans (Reference 10) and concluded that the increase in length for the fire-protected spans could be attributed to the removal of conservatisms from the analysis, such as using the refined rather than the O
unrefined spectra.
In general, Cygna agrees with the analysis method used in the span design; however, Cygna does i
not agree with the conduit stress allowables'used in the analysis.
To obtain allowable stress values for the conduits, Gibbs 8-Hill used test data supplied by the vendor to obtain yield l
stress values. Cygna has two major comments on the derivation of the allowables*
I o
The allowable stress values vary with conduit nominal size. The vendor. test data consists of'three to four tests for specimens of each conduit size. Gibbs & Hill used the lowest tested yield stress for each conduit.
size or an imposed minimum yield stress value of 33 ksi to obtain allowables for that particular conduit size.
Justification for the imposed minimum yield stress value was not provided. Cygna feels that it is not-appropriate to specify different allowable stresses for-each conduit' size.
/
c O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
6 a Indeper. dent Assessment Program - All Phases Imimmemummel. Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85-Revision 3 Page 29 V.
CONOUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List o
Gibbs & Hill did not provide documentation to justify
'the applicability of the vendor test data to the conduits installed at CPSES. Cyana understands that electrical conduit is fabricated in accordance with - ANSI C80.1, which does not contain requirements for material Conformance.
Cygna spoke to Triangle PWC, the conduit supplier for CPSES, regarding the test data provided to Gibbs & Hill (Reference 4). Triangle PWC informed Cygna.that as a rule, no certification test reports are provided with the product and that any test data. in the' public domain represented a general sample of conduit they have produced. They also stated that Triangle PWC is a processor and does not manufacture the steel used for the conduits. There are no ASTM standards applicable to conduits.
The items discussed above concerning the conduit allowable O
stress apply to all conduit span calculations performed by Gibbs & Hill.
Cygna has one comment on the method used for the calculation of conduit stress. A dynamic amplification factor (DAF) of
/$$
1.0 was used in the conduit stress evaluation without justification. Review Issue 2 discusses the reanalysis efforts by Gibbs & Hill to a6drrss this concern.
Results of those reanalyses should be applied to the conduit stress analyses described here.
Status:
Cygna has discussed the conduit allowable stress issue with TUE 0 (References 3,4, and 5).
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill are investigating the derivation of the allowable stresses used in the design.
- 23. Grouted Penetrations
References:
1.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL) and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/10/85.
4 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
Jk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Mmmmelemal Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
s 11/20/85 Revision 3 O
Page 30 (G
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Summary:
For conduit runs embedded in walls and floors, longitudinal conduit supports are not required if there are no bends in the run. The grouted penetrations are assumed to carry the entire longitudinal load for such a conduit run.
l Additionally, all grouted penetrations are assumed to be i
multi-directional supports, sharing conduit load with the supports closest to the penetration. Calculations were not performed to assure the capability of-the penetration to carry the required loads. Other supports on the conduit run may also be affected depending on run configuration and j
relative stiffness of the supports.
Status:
In Reference 1, Gibbs & Hill agreed to provide technical justification for the capability of the grouted penetrations to resist the required loads. As a minimum, the following two items should be provided:
o Design calculations demonstrating the load capacity of the grouted penetrations.
o QC documentation of the placement of the embedded conduits to validate the assumptions of the above-l mentioned design calculations.
l 24 Rigidity of CA-Type Supports
References:
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Checklists (not yet issued)
Sununary:
In the design of CA-type supports, the rigidity of the conduit spans was checked to justify the use of ZPA in calculating the design loads for the supports.
In determining the rigidity of the conduit spans, Gibbs & Hill assumed that the CA-type supports were rigid.
The frequencies of the conduit systems were due to the span flexure between rigid supports only.
The design calculations for the CA-type supports did not include stiffness evaluations to validate the assumptions.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
I Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche peak Steam Electric Station L
A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 31 CONDulT SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 25. Enveloping Configurations for Design
References:
1.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued) b 2.
Cygna Individual Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued)
Sunnary:
Since the Gibbs & Hill generic supports have numerous design parameters and tolerances for installation, the design must be evaluated for the worst case configuration allowed by the drawing. Cygna has noted several cases where the model used in the design evaluation did not reflect the most critical support configuration. Additionally, the models used to check the perceived critical component were used to check other components whose forces were not maximized in the design model. The following supports are affected.
o C A'-la' O
o CA-2a o
CA-Sa o
CSM-18f o
CSM-42 o
CST-3 o
CST-17 o
IN-CSM-15a The maximum load eccentricities and installation tolerances are also not considered in the Gibbs A Hill designs.
The following generic supports are affected:
o CA-la o
CA-2a o
CA-5a o
CSM-6b o
CSM-18b o
CSM-18c o
CSM-18d o
CSM-18f o
CSM-42 o
CST-3 o
CST-17 o
JA-1 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company
()k &
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.
IRMMMINIMMI Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
. lob No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
9 11/20/85 Revision 3 f3 Page 32 O-C001DUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List The following individual supports are affected:
o IN-CSM-15a o
C12G03126-1 o
C12G03126-11 Component substitutions and any related tolerances should
/A also be considered. See Review Issues 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17, C
and 18 for substitutions and tolerances allowed generically. This review issue is similar to concerns i
regarding enveloping configurations for the Unistrut testing i
scope discussed in Review issue 9.
i Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
i 26 Design Drawing Discrepancies
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheets and Revisions noted below.
J i
o CSD-2, Revision 1 o CSM-6b, Revision 3 o CSM-18b, Revision 16 j
o CSM-18c, Revisions 12, 13, 14 o CSM-18d, Revision 9 o CSM-18f, Revisions 3, 4, 5 l
o IN-CSM-15a, Revision 6 I
Summary:
In the review of generic conduit support designs, Cygna has compared the design drawings with the assumptions and models used in the support evaluations. The following j
discrepancies or inconsistencies were noted in the. design drawings.
o The baseplate size on detail drawing CSD-2, Revision 1 was not given.
4 o
For CSM-6b, Revision 3, the capacity table restricts the j
conduit size to 1" diameter or less. The drawing has a i
note specifying that C-708-5 clamps must be used for i O j
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
L L 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23C5-1SSUE
'l
11/20/85 Revision 3
(]
Page 33 V
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List conduits greater than or equal to 2" in diameAer. This note is superfluous, considering the size limitation on the capecity table.
I o
The clamp type was not noted on the support drawings for CSM-18b, CSM-18c, CSM-18d, and CSM-18f.
g o
No edge distance for the clamp bolts is provided for the angle bracket in IN-CSM-15a.
o The design drawing for CSM-18c has no conduit size tables, but there is a superfluous note on the drawing regarding the nonexistent table.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
i
- 27. Walkdown Discrepancies i
i
References:
1.
Cygna Conduit Walkdown Checklists (to be issued) 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Conduit Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.020, dated August 13, 1984 l
3.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
transmitting calculations in response to Cygna questions, dated August 31, 1984.
4.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
transmitting calculations in response to Cygna questions, dated September 11, 1984.
5.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
transmitting calculations in response to Cygna questions, dated September 18, 1984.
6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
l 84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 l
4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L &
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111W1411W1W11114W Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 34 V
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Susunary:
The Cygna walkdown noted a number of conduit support discrepancies discussed below.
A.
Clamp Installation 1.
Clamp distortion was noted in four supports.- This is discussed in Review Issue 18.
2.
Gaps Between Clamps and Shims The maximum gap allowed between the ears of a P2558 clamp and the shim plate is 1/8". Cygna noted two supports with gaps in excess of the 1/8".
These supports are:
o C13G02851-1 j
o C12002935-1 1
B.
Anchor Bolt Installation 1.
Hilti Expansion Anchor Proximity Violation There are five occurrences of Hilti proximity violations where the spacing in the field between the support and Hilti expansion anchors in adjacent supports is less than the minimum distance used in the design.
The affected supports are:
~
o C13G03528-1 o C12G03126-21 (two occurrences) o C12G05087-1 o C12605087-2 l
2.
Hilti Expansion Anchor Placement Violation Cygna has noted three supports with field installations of Hilti bolts which differ from the installations in the design drawings and/or CMCs.
The affected supports are:
o IN-CSM-15a o C12G05254-1 o C12G03126-16 O
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company L.
(,
i a Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 111001111111111111111111111111 Independent Assessment Program - /,11 Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
+
11/20/85 Revision 3 -
Page 35 k
C0lWUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues 1.ist The placement violation for one Hilti _ Kwik-bolt on support IN-CSM-15a results in a concrete edge distance violation.
3.
Richmond Insert Installation b
Cygna noted that both Richmond Inserts on support-C12G03126-12 were not properly seated, such that they were not bearing flat against the base angles.
4.
The base angles for IN-CSM-15a were installed such that the angle legs do not bear flat against the concrete. There is a gap of 1/4" between the angle and the concrete near the tube, which decreases to zero at the toe of the angles.
C.
Installation of Structural Steel 1.
Installation Tolerance Cyg1a noted two supports with installation tolerances in excess of those provided on the design drawing:
a.
For support C13G03528-3, the tolerance for attaching the tube steel to the base plate was exceeded.
b.
For IN-CSM-15b, the brace member work points are not coincident with the tube steel workpoints as shown on the design drawing.
2.
Member Size For IN-CSM-15b, the baseplate for the horizontal brace is 19-3/4" long.
The maximum size allowed on the design drawing is 18".
4 I
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lililllillfilllMilllMill Job No. 84056 23CS-1SSVE
y, 11/20/85 Revision 3
-p
.Page.36 g-COIIDUIT SUPP0ltTS Iteview Issues List D.
Installation of Unistrut 1.
Seating of Unistrut Nuts One nut in C12G03126-13 and four nuts in C12G03126-12 were not properly seated in the Unistrut channels.
2.
Member Substitution P5000 members were used as header members in C12002935 instead of P1001 members, as specified in the design drawing.
3.
Member Rotation The brace member in C12G03126-14 was rotated 180' 9 bout its own axis from the orientation shown on
.he design drawing.
4.
CSD-1 Connection Installation Cygna noted installation discrepancies for the CSD-I connections in supports C12G03126-12 and C12G03126-13.
a.
Five connections were skewed, such that the header and base angle were not square relative to one another.
b.
Four connections had gaps between the header and base angle in excess of the 1/4" allowed by the design drawing.
5.
The outriggers in C13G02851-4 are skewed with respect to the header. The outriggers should be perpendicular to the header.
E.
Conduit / Pipe Interferences Five pipes or conduits not supported by the support in question are in contact with the following conduit supports:
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
k i Independent Assessment Program - All' Phases llNNNN#illNIHilHNINI Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85
-Revision 3 p
Page 37 O
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List o C12G03126-21 o C12G03126-18 (3 occurrences) o C12G03126-19.
F.
Conduit Placement gjg 1.
Spacing V';olation The minimum distance between the flexible conduits is given as 10-1/2" on the design drawing. The conduits on one tube are 10" away from the conduits on the other tube.
2.
Rotation of Conduit Attachments The three conduits attached to the TS6x3 member on IN-CSM-15b are shown to be perpendicular to the tube steel on the design drawing. The conduits are O'
skewed _with respect to the tube steel in the field installation.
Status:
A few of the walkdown discrepancies discussed in this review issue have been previously identified by Cygna in Reference 2.
Those items are discussed below:
Item A.2 - Gaps Between Clamps and Shims Response calculations were performed and transmitted to Cygna in Reference 2.
Cygna has also contacted Unistrut regarding these gaps and does not consider them to be a design deficiency.
4 Item B.4 - IN-CSM-15a Response calculations were performed and transmitted to Cygna in Reference 3.
In those calculations, TUGC0 agreed to add bevelled washers and grout to mitigate the loads in the anchor bolts due to the installation. Cygna's reinspection of.this support during the subsequent walkdown noted that the bevelled washers.had been added, but the grout had not been placed behind the support.
In d
Texas Utilities Generating Company L*I'['i 2 Al Comanche ~ Peak Steam Electric Station Independent As'sessment Program - All Phases 184lll1ll1111111111111ll111lll Job No. 84056 23CS-1SSUE s
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 38 p
i i
%)
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Reference 6, Cygna requested the revised design drawing and documentation regarding the installation and inspection of the identified corrective action items.
Item D.2 - Member Substitution Response calculations were performed and transmitted to
/{$ '
Cygna in Reference 2.
Cygna accepts the substitution on a technical basis; however, a CMC should document the change.
Cygna also requested some documents in Reference 6 for three other items:
Item B.3 - Richmond Insert Installation Cygna requested the installation procedures and instructions for Richmond Inserts in regard to the tolerance in installation angle.
~
Item C.1.b - Installation Tolerance (Working Point)
Cygna requested information regarding the inspection and corrective action implemented for working point deviations for conduit supports.
Item E - Conduit / Pipe Interferences Cygna requested the separation criteria for electrical raceways and their supports.
Cygna requires discussion with TUGC0 regarding all the walkdown discrepancies noted in this review issue.
- 28. Systems Concept
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGC0),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions" 84056.015, dated August 6, 1984 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Set 1, Sheets 153-160
('
\\'
Texas Utilities' Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L '] k f i
. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111llltll1111lll11lll1111 Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
i 11/20/85 Revision 3 g
Page 39 (j
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1520, Set 1, Sheet 38 4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-102C, Set 2, Sheets 255-258 (Revision 2),
Suasury:
For the majority of supports in the 2323-S-0910 package, the design evaluations are performed for individual supports with applied point loads representing the conduit. Loads 3
from all restrained directions and tributary spans are applied to the support model. However, for the design evaluation of CA-Sa supports and the CSD-la detail (Z-clip),
the interaction between supports on a conduit run or between the support and the conduit is used to validate use of reduced loads on the support or connection.
In References 2 and 3, Gibbs & Hill uses a load couple between adjacent CA-Sa supports to resist longitudinal loads. The rigidity of the conduit to provide transfer of (v]
longitudinal load to tensile load on the adjacent clamps was not shown. The use th1s configuration requires specific field installation of supports (CA-Sa supports in series on a straight run).
Its generic application in conjunction with other support types and in conduit runs with bends and offsets was not considered.
In Reference 1, Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill to consider the impact of the eccentricities for the design of CSD-la details. TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill submitted Reference 4 in response to Reference 1.
In the response calculations, Gibbs & Hill assumed that the conduit attached to the support provided bracing for the support in the longitudinal direction, preventing rotation of the support and CSD-la detail.
The calculation in Reference 4 makes generalized configura-tional and load assumptions for both the support and conduit system. The applicability of the calculation to all supports using this detail, for both multi-directional and transverse supports should be demonstrated. This affects supports CSM-6b, CST-3, and CST-17 in Cygna's review scope.
Status:
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is rec;uired.
f%b Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
.1 L*I [d i i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111llllllll11lllllllllllll Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3
(]
Page 40
'w)
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 29. Cumulative Effect of Review Issues
References:
None Summary:
In this Review. Issues List, a number of the issues cited may lead to small unconservatisms when occurring singly in a support design and can usually be neglected. However, since several of these issues pertain to all conduit support designs on a generic basis, their effect can be cumulative, such that nany small unconservatisms may be significant.
Therefore, any reevaluation of support designs should consider the cumulative effect of all pertinent Review Issues.
Status:
The additive effects of the findings described in the Review Issues List must be addressed as part of the CPRT Plan.
O 1
l n
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L*h.. d i i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l'
1111111::.
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
Of 11/20/85 Revision 2 Page 1 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 1.
Review and Analysis of Cumulative Effects
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all~
Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations,"
84042.022, dated January 18, 1985 4
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 5.
All Comunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Summary:
Utilizing the data available from all four phases of the Cygna technical and design control reviews, an evaluation of all discrepancies, observations, and potential finding reports is being performed.
This review is also focusing on the cumulative effects of individually insignificant discre-pancies. The purpose of this review is to assess the potential root causes of all technical review findings, so 2
that any adverse trends can be identified. Any trends identified which indicate weaknesses in the CPSES design / design control program are being carefully evaluated.
Status:
Cygna has extracted and classified the data from all phases of the IAP performed to date. This data has been included d
in the IAP Review /Results Data Base, from which sorts will be made in order to better assess trends and cumulative effects. Results will be included in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
+
- O Texas Utilities Generating Company
%-(.
T Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LN "j.2 A.
Independent Assessment Program '- All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 l
l PRJ: 23DC-ISSUE
v 11/20/85 Revision 2 Page 2 DESIGt CONTROL Review Issues List a
2.
Design Verification *
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-083090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report,-TR84042-01, Revision 1, All Sections 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of.IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4.
All Comunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of tne Independent Assessment Program 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGC0),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, dated October 6, 1985.
Samary:
Cygna has performed a preliminary evaluation of the d
technical review findings to assess the effectiveness of the TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill design verification program. This effort identified a significant number of discrepancies which may be an indication of the program effectiveness.
Status:
Results of Cygna's evaluation will be included in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5, Cygna provided questions and comments regarding the design verification procedures to be implemented for the CPRT Plan. The CPRT Plan must assure that any discrepancies identified in Cygna's trending evaluation be corrected, and that future work be accomplished using acceptable procedures.
Formerly " Adequacy of the Design Process used on CPSES", divided into " Design Verification" and " Design Inputs" (Review Issue 17, page 10).
3.
Design Methods
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision P
0, all Sections Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L8,L j(<a Independent Assessment ' Program - All Phases 111ll18llllll11111ll111lll1111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
u.
11/20/85' Revision 2 Page 3 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4.
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Sunnary:
The potential root cause of all discrepancies and observations is being assessed to determine whether or not a trend exists which indicates any weakness in the design methods used by the design engineers.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
4.
Control of Design Interfaces
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Comunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program 4
5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT PLAN," 84056.085, dated October 6, 1985 g
s Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L*I F.! -
i-Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 18ll1311lll1111ll181llllllll1 ' Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE l
.~
~
l l
11/20/85 l
Revision 2
(]
Page 4
%J DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List Sunnary:
Cygna's cable tray support and piping reviews have indicated that some of the design problems may have been caused by h
site /home office interfaces.
The adequacy of these and other interfaces will~ be assessed as a result of trending which is being performed on Phase I through 4 observations.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5, Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan does not appear to address the adequacy A
of design interfaces.
In light of Cygna's identified LS concerns in the cable tray support and piping areas, the CPRT Plan should assess the adequacy of the design information which is shared between design groups / organization.
5.
Adequacy of Procedures
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision O
0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Sunnary:
The adequacy of and each organizations' compliance with the requisite CPSES project design related procedures is being reviewed as a result of the initial trending of observations in Phases 1 through 4.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in' the IAP Integrated Report (all phases),
a O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.*It i. j6 A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases llll7...
- 11 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23DC-ISSUE
1, 11/20/85 Revision 2
[
Page 5 L
DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 6.
Adequacy of Design Documentation
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all' Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
b "Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, dated October 6, 1985 Sunnary:
The adequacy of design documentation is be'ing evaluated as a result of undocumented assumptions and inadequate references which were identified during the IAP-technical reviews.
Status:
.The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5 Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan does not address the adequacy of the n
design documentation aspect of the design process.
In light IB of Cygna's identified concerns, the CPRT Plan should assess the documentation procedures and requirements currently in place to determine the adequacy of these for future work.
7.
Corrective Action as it Pertains to Design Related Issues Identified to Date
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and-2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 4
2.
Cygn.s Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revisicn 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 s=g;- - c Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station bj i 7 3 J'
A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6-I: ::i:::::::ililllililli Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2
- l]p Page 6 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 4
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on-all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program b
5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, 3
dated October 6, 1985.
Summary:
An assessment is being performed to determine whether or not the technical findings identified by Cygna on all phases of the IAP should have been detected by TUGC0 through the corrective action system.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5, Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan will develop "reportability checklists" to assess the acceptability of design documents against the SAR and other performance criteria; however, the criteria for the determination of acceptability were not provided.
d Cygna requested additional discussion and description of the criteria.
8.
Document Control
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observations DC-01-01, 00-01-02 and DC-01-03 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC) "DCC Satellite Review Results," 83090.013, dated June 30, 1984 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
A
" Additional Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan,"
/B 84056.091, dated October 21, 1985.
t 3(D Texas Utilities Generating Company p
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Jk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111lllll181lll1tll1llll11 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2 7.-
(
Page 7 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List Summary:
Observations concerning the Document Control Center (DCC) and control of design documents were written in Phases 1 and 2.
Reference 2 was issued to document the adequacy of current DCC practices. An assessment is still required to evaluate the effects of technical and design control deficiencies which could be attributed to inadequate controls in the DCC.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 4, Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan does not address the impact of document control problems on the hardware installation. The CPRT b
Plan should consider not only the existence and correction 4
of design control errors, but should also consider the impact of those errors on the existing installations.
9.
Design Change Tracking Group
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revis'on 0, Observation DC-01-04 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC) "DCTG Data Base Review Results," 83090.017, dated November 6, 1984 Summary:
The Field Design Change and Review Status Log was reviewed, and Observation DC-01-04 was initiated during Phases 1 and 2.
The effects of inadequate controls on design changes are being reevaluated to determine whether or not there was any possible impact on the adequacy of the design.
Status:
This issue is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Design Input References
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report. TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observations DC-02-02 AND DC-02-03.
2.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
4
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 1
25, 1985 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
. N' k p
A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2
(]e
-s Page 8 1
DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 1
i Summary:
For pipe stress problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70, the computer code, ADLPIPE Version 2c was used for pipe stress calculations. This version incorporated requirements of an edition of ASME Section III other than the edition specified as a design basis in Design Specification 2323-MS-200. The ADLPIPE Version dated 9/72 was specified for usage by FSAR Table 3.78B ( A)-1.
Status:
This observation is considered closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
11.
Inspection Reports
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-01-01 T
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January-25, 1985 i
Summary:
Three inspection reports had been filed in the permanent j
plant records vault prior to closure.
j Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
i
- 12. TUGC0 Audits
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observations DC-01-02 and DC-01-03 4
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985
'F Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station k*b b'I ' A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111ll1ll1111111111llllJob No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
't 11/20/85 Revision 2 Page 9 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List Summary:
TUGC0 Audit files did not contain r.arrective action responses for selected audit findings.
Status:
These observations are closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Internal Surveillances
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-02-01 2
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Summary:
Documentation which verified that surveillance activities had been performed for 1973 through 1977 was not immediately obtained.
I Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 14. Gibbs & Hill Management Reviews
References:
1.
Cygna rhase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, observation DC-02-02 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Summary:
Gibbs & Hill Management Review Evaluation Reports were not available for 1974 through 1976.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
t D
(G Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station IJk 1
' Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L
111 18611111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
e 11/20/85 Revision 2
'(
Page 10 DESIGN CONTROL.
Review Issues List
- 15. Gibbs & Hill Audit Corrective Actions
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-02-03 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (U3NRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Susanary:
Gibbs & Hill had renumbered an audit finding and had not closed the original finding.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
l
- 16. Evaluation of Gibbs & Hill Design Reviewers
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-02-04 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
Suassary:
Gibbs & Hill design reviewers were not evaluated on an annual basis as required.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 17. Design Inputs *
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-083090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections P
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Mp2k A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1814l14l14ll114lllll11841111ll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
o 11/20/85 Revision 2.
Page 11 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4.
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Summary:
Cygna's cumulative effects evaluation and trending program has shown that the use of improper design inputs in the design and design review processes resulted in a number of discrepancies.
Status:
Evaluation of this issue is continuing in conjunction with reviews of discrepancies in related elements of design control, particularly design verification and design i
methods.
(Review Issues 2 and 3). Results of the evaluation and review will be included in IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
See Review Issue 2, page 2.
4 i
,p i
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Ele-tric Station LN b J k A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111616111111111ll1111111111111 Job No. 84056 j
PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
_, - - _ _