ML20199H469
| ML20199H469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1985 |
| From: | Burdell S NRC |
| To: | Bosnak R, Chen P, Fair J, Landers D, Terao D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A302 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-299, FOIA-85-59, FOIA-86-A-18 NUDOCS 8607030324 | |
| Download: ML20199H469 (89) | |
Text
P' t
O $
Dbk b f.
._. A _ TERA.O_
. _ J,.. E h u z.._ _._
__ _.g Q.
. _- -. e.-.c w
_cm<a
._..-._ D.._L s d O E/LS _ __ _._
OREnl IXEn13 ad__CfSEs___
L _3# A o 4 R._..JacLc W
A
_G f3A.c c1-+ !
S.
7Retsd QU J
sars
..w.
Mm S
.=_o e....._.._-w
-e.
mm__
ese h
._... _ A. "op enJ%,_nl cenecie1.ssacs " _isl._ copy
& '. Judo.t.inade_6yrygmA.e m eerny
- l____4efweea Cyg w_d.dke_Tucco_G-ch
/%.k..Ae.spedem_q Haadcy_M t$, tM
/
Eleaude Att_r.g-pretwaaxy" g[e- ;n ss J qenera asa.e s 6f 1by are..
e.
d.
Laare of A dUs %e He Dst i.s engt(4 yp aw re<;ws /L.se o a, 3, uct y.
fns-C Meae ade -%f it in efxk o umkec e f Ifems &Aick c y+ cc msidereef daec( wlier, 9 2.11 y
8607030324 860623 f-(o(4[p DE A-18 PDR
- I.
4' I
t Gan: 5.6.6a.nelf XA e umlav.s. af ifen._m eseL._ea%.yej &_ __ __ :
s ryiAea.&
E&c_e.n4 e_,_% lan.e_a A e<
L
. -.. - af..cafr(<. fay _.anLecrnJu.t_t_1a,ap aefs _sc.e._irea-.
_... -.. in fae n d. w.s o _ m
. Ao Cfa.ss;Et&_
- l. 5~
Spe _ sices s-.calcwidtms
\\
-._.__ A pr.3.s y aets
- 2. 3.
n
. 24_._-
- Girle..fap tz Onhtr_sypcts AeeG.a eaLsyste n.
._-_.--j C--
a s
_ z.
Ejeetaco.f spft.ms
. _ l (q QAr/Q.C.
.. Ika. 0f6.cLmenf-.vo'llle Eno.1,2el anef_ sed _+u a.s Idv +krs stentA. ai1% 0 fefer. -..
he /% e ekih3 vco.S Sr a..%s C fi(s c)mkCoft.5 i
Wi //- 6e sent *r ym wk=.~ tkey he t~ c aa.t(ohle -
h.M$.b b h... h 3/13/85
, u c 2 p.
i.,
11 Revision 0 8
$ ;;6:h.L. 5.55 130$ d d p 0 Page 1 th PIPC M ESS Open Items and Generic Issues 1.
Mass Participation / Mass Point Spacing
References:
1.
R.E. Ballard (G&H) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Mass Participation," GTN-69454, September 14, 1984 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Partici-pation," 84042.017, September 21, 1984 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participa-tion," 84042.019, October 2, 1984 letter to N.H. Williams L.M. Popglewell (TUGCO)l Finding Report Mass 4.
(Cygna) Cygna Potentia Participation and the Mass Points Spacing Error in Problem AB-1-61A " December 7, 1984 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation and Mass Point Spacing," 84042.021, February 8, 1985 6.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-05, and PFR-01 Susuary:
Pine stress seismic analyses did not include sufficient.
mqhto comply wnn PSAK requirements. Plass pol'nTspacing for dynamic analyses ala not always meet project criteria.
Status:
Cygna has issued Reference 5 which documents Cygna's eva-luation of the Gibbs & Hill piping reanalysis report and lists' recommended actions. Awaiting response from TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill.
2.
Incorrect Pipe Schedule Used for Calculation of Nozzle Allowables
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report,' TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-02-05 Susunry:
Cygna noted one instance in which nozzle allowables were calculated using an incorrect will thickness.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station bJk A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111lll11111111111111111 Job No. 84056
PIPE STRESS Open Items and Generic Issues Status:
Closed out based on expanded review to include pumps on diesel generator system.
i 3.
Finite Element Model Error in Flued Head Analysis
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-03-01 The flued head finite element model was found to contain a Sumery:
geometry error in which some elements were improperly generated.
Closed based on review of 15 of the remaining 18 flued head Status:
analyses 1
4 Inclusion of Fluid and Insulation Weight at Valves and/or Flanges
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-04 and Section 5.1., Page 5-6 Sumery:
Cygna found that it was Gibbs & Hill's standard practice not to include fluid and insulation weight at valves and flanges.
Status:
Closed based on Gibbs & Hill's reanalysis showing that the effect is minor.
5.
Discrepancies in Pipe Support Loads Between Analyses and Support Design
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042.01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-06 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 29, 1984.
Sumery:
Cygna found that in some instances the latest support loads were not used in the pipe support design calculat' ions.
- ?
Status:
Closed.
H o W.7 Texas Utilities Generating Company rg'y ' f j Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111lllll11ll1llll Job No. 84056
PRRMMRY 9"
PIPE STRESS Open Items and Generic Issues 6.
Snubbes on Fisher ' Valves
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01, Observation PI-00-07 and PFR-02
.2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated July 9,1984 3.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 29, 1984.
Susenry:
The snubbers on the Fisher valve operators not qualified for the as-built loads. This issue led to questioning whether the valve itself was capable of transmitting these loads and still naintaining operability.
Status:
Closed based on requalification of valves and snubbers.
7.
Snubbers Close to Equipment Nozzles
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 4 Pipe Stress Walkdown Checklists (not issued)
Sunwary:
Cygna noted several snubbers on the CCW system which were located close to equipment nozzles.
Due to their proximity to a rigid attachment point, the dynamic displacements at these locations will be very small such that the snubbers may not perform their intended function.
Status:
Closed with Cygna's recomendation that these snubbers be candidates for a snubber elimination program.
4 8.
Lack of Traceability for ANSYS/Relap Runs
Reference:
1.
Comunication Report between S. Lim (Gibbs & Hill) and L. Weingart (Cygna) dated 3/8/84, 8:45 a.m.
2.
Communication Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs &
Hill) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/13/84, 3:00 p.m., Revision 1-
~-
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station k
' A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111lll1111111111ll1111111Job No. 84056
(
T.,jW< h l Ut
?g 'kl 3/13/85
$ bbbIN.
i; Page 4 w
Revision 0
~
u PIPE STRESS Open Items and Generic Issues 3.
Comunications Reports between S. Lim (Gibbs &
Hill) and L.Weingart (Cygna) dated 3/15/84,'8:15 a.m.
Susuary:
Per reference 1
... the original RELAP analyses for the Main Steam were run circa 1981-1982. These files were subsequently lost and then re-generated well after the ANSYS analyses which nede use of the RELAP data."
Per reference 3, There are four pr grams involved in the Steam Hammer anal sis:
(1) RELAP (2) GHFORCE - provides imbalance loads (3)
Program to convert to ANSYS format (4) ANSYS lh Neve' has no concrete documentation linking Y
y g,~
'the four for a particular loop. He will
~
2 u*'
attempt to provide a tape / file list from the day files for these runs.
The list provided by Gibbs & Hill did not provide the needed cross reference when compared to the ANSYS and RELAP Gibbs & Hill did provide ANSYS plots of loads at analyses.
axial restraints for comparison to RELAPs plots of forcing functions. This provided sufficient assurance for Cygna to close the issue technically.
Per reference 1, "The binder which is labeled "RELAP Results" for Loop 2 contains only ANSYS output."
This was further evidence of improper documentation and filing for special analyses at Gibbs & Hill.
.g Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lilli.. k J '..lllli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases A
Job No. 84056 mu::
e
c.
4 3/13/85 n
,. ! I Ni Revision 0 R$
( f1 b
.s FIPE STRESS Open Items and Generic Issues Status:
Closed technically. Open from a QA standpoint. This issue will be addressed as.part of Cygna's Phase 4 design input control review.
p; d 9.
Inclusion of Support Mass In Pip'e Stress ' Analysls
References:
.1. Communications Report.between G. Krishnan (Gibbs &
Hill SSAG) and J. Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, 8:30 a.m.
2.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-68852 dated April 25, 1984 3.
Consnunications Report between H. Mentel (Gibbs &
Hill), G. Grace (EBASCO), N. Williams and L.
Weingart (Cygna) dated 5/24/84,10:00 a.m.
4.
ASLB Hearings, Doyle Questions #4 5.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Pipe Stress Checklist General Note 1 6.
Communications Report between D. Wade (TUGCO) and N. Williams (Cygna) dated 10/11/84, 4:00 p.m.
7.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
84042.022, dated January 18, 1985 "Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations."
Summary:
The weight of the pipe supports was included in the stress analyses for the Main Steam Inside Containment only.
In Reference 1, Cygna requested justification for this prac-tice. Gibbs & Hill responded in Reference 2, basically by pointing out the relatively massive supports associated with the sain steam lines.
However, per Reference 4, the effect of this omission on support loads was shown to be as high as 24%.
Status:
Open. Per Ref. 7, Item 13, further Cygna review is not authorized.
~
i Texas Utilities Generating Company 4
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g JL,
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1N111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056
y.U 3/13/85
[ragerf"t M
Revision 0 0U 1 Til i,
.b Is Page 6 PIPE STRESS Open Items and Generic Issues
- 10. Stress Intensification Factors (SIFs)
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and' 2 Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-01 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-01 Summary:
tygna found numerous instances where G&H either neglected to input the required SIF (Reference 1 & 2) or miscalculated the SIF (Reference 2).
Status:
Closed based on expanded reviews.
- 11. Welded Attachments
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 & 2 Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-02, PI-02-03, and PI-02-04.
2.
Cygna Phase 3 Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observations PI-00-02 and PI-06-01 Susuary:
Cygna found several problems with G&H's treatment of welded attachments:
Use of an increased allowable in the evaluation of local stresses for upset and emergency combinations (Reference 1).
Use of thermal expansion loads rather than load ranges for evaluation of local stresses (Reference 1).
Failure to consider local stresses in break exclusion zones (Reference 2).
Failure to consider combined effects of twc' supports at a single welded attachment (Reference 2)..
e Use of incorrect attachment size in evaluation of local stresses (Reference 1).
Status:
Closed based on use of rationale from later codes, recalcu-lations, and expanded reviews.
9 Texas Utilities Generating Company
[q'(t'j l fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases imilmmmmmmmill Job No. 84056
l
~
ae e7
)
3/13/85 g g g),) g I 'd
- t. g ( i Revision 0 1
Page 7 PIPE STRESS l
Open Items and Generic Issues l
- 12. Use of Incorrect Pipe Wall Thickness
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 & 2 Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-01-0'.
~ ygna found two piping segments were input to the stress C
Susunry:
analysis with the incorrect wall thickness.
Status:
Isolated; closed based on Cygna recalculation of stresses.
13.
Inclusion of Appropriate Responses Spectra
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 & 2 Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-02-01 Summary:
Cygna noted that stress analysis AB-1-70 did not consider all the appropriate response spectra from all buildings.
Status:
Closed based on evaluation of the omitted spectra and expanded review.
- 14. Support 1.ocation Discrepancy
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 & 2 Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-02-02 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Checklist PI-09 Item 14 Summary:
Supports were modeled at locations outside of tolerance.
Reference 1 was closed based on evaluation of stresses and states that this is isolated.
1 Status:
- Closed,
.~
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company M'y l Q Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111ll1111!!llllllllllltlllll Job No. 84056 l
1
l 3/13/65 Revision 0 Page 8 PIPE STRESS Open Items and Generic Issues
- 15. Use of Incorrect damping in Seismic Analyses
Reference:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PI-00-03 Sunmary:
Cygna noted that G&H did not consider the lower damping response spectra in some systems with mixed sized piping.
Status:
- Closed based on expanded review.
! $ $ k 3 1 [v s t i v b i u !
d j
ts l
=..
....m Texas Utilities Generating Company Tg'g ' f j Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases litillittlilllilliftlllllll! Job No. 84056
- - =
t SiY $ h' ~)
3/13/85 kb%
h j [ II 8'*j Revision 0
/
ii Page 1 I
s tiv kr a a
PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues
- 41. Box Frames With 0" Gap p
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Box Frames with 0" Gap", 84042.023, dated January 28, 1985 2.
Communication 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 April 19, 1984 j
4.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), Attachment B, dated June 8,1984 5.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr. Regarding Consideration of Local Displacement and Stress" i
Original support calculations did not consider the ef-Sumary:
fect of the box frame and pipe interaction (Reference 2).
Later TUGC0 calculations (References 4 and 5) used unconservative temperature and frame stiffness assump-tions.
Later calculations did not include effects of Cygna comments.
Status:
On hold pending TUGC0 response to Reference 1.
d 2.
Design of Welded / Bolted Connections ct*
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Design of Welded / Bolted Connections,"
84042.024, dated January 28, 1985 2.
Comunication 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 April 19, 1984 4
Texas Utilities Generating Company gp~ l fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independer.t Assessment Program - All Phases lifilllillilillllililllilllll!
Job No. d4056
t
[5N
)h i$
ggd 3/13/85 y[e[g-[Qs t
s ini I Revision 0 Page 2 PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-06 Cygna found no evidence that welded / bolted connections are 4
Susunry:
designed in accordance with paragraph XVII-2442 of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code.
Status:
.On hold pending TUGC0 response to Reference 1.
3.
Richmond Insert Allowables p
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George j
(TUGCO), " Richmond Insert Allowables and Bending Stresses," 84042.025, dated January 31, 1985 1
2.
Comunication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/16/84, Item 2 3.
Comunication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/30/84, Item 1 4.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated May 2,1984 5.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated May 8,1984 6.
Communication 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 l
Design" Susamry:
Cygna has concerns with the following issues:
Justification for single insert allowables based on test a
concrete strength.
Justification for bolt loads due to " axial torsion" of e
the tube steel.
Texas Utilities Generating Company g{
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
11111161llll1111111111ll111lll Job No. 84056
yn E F1 F } f (A S h$
3/13/85 3
Revision 0 Page 3 PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Interaction results from Strudl analyses.
Bending stresses in bolts.
Status:
On hold pending TUGC0 response to Reference 1.
,.p g( 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 January 31, 1985 2.
Communication Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Hinichiello (Cygna) dated 10/4/84 3.
TUGC0 Calculations dated 10/11/84, received by Cygna 10/18/84 4.
Communication Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 10/20/84 5.
J.B. George (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated November 8,1984 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 4 Open Items - Punching Shear" 84056.058, dated March 12, 1985.
Suasary:
Cygna has not found evidence of an evaluation of the stresses in the tube steel or coverplate in support MS-1-002-005-572R near the U-bolt hole. This lack of calculation is typical of this design.
Status:
On hold pending TUGC0 response to Reference 1.
pcd 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 February 8,1985 7
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M ;g i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases mmmmmmmimmti Job No. 84056
i 3/13/85 e nd, h iN r !w $_., 9 s
lI 2$
! t it3 Revision 0 Page 4 PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 2.
R. E. Ballard (G8H) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Mass Participation," GTN-69454, dated September 14, 1984 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation," 84042.017, dated September 21, 1984 4.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participa-tion," 84042.019, dated October 2,1984 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 December 7, 1984 Summary:
Due to the detailed nature of this subject, please see Reference 1.
Status:
On hold pending TUGC0 response to Reference 1.
g\\
6.
Stability of Pipe Supports
References:
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TUGCO), " Stability of Pipe Supports," 84042.035, dated February 19, 1985 2.
Comunication 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 April 19, 1984 4.
Comunication Report between Rencher/ Grace (TUGCO) and Minichiello/Wong (Cygna) dated 5/24/84, Item 15 5.
L. M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated July 12, 1984 N
Texas Utilities Generating Company dd 2 M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 111lllll111lll1111llllll1111ll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
U 3/13/85 li (,,{g. gCJkit 3 Revision 0 J
Page 5 PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 6.
Affidavit of John C. Finneran Jr. regarding Sta-bility of Pipe Supports and Piping Systems, dated June 17, 1984 7.
Cygna Phase 3 Fir.a1 Report TR-84042-1, Rev. O, Appendix J. General Note 12, and Appendix G, Observation PS-02.
Sumary:
The issue of support stability is quite detailed. Please see Reference 1 for a discussion of Cygna's concerns.
7.
Cinching of U-Bolts
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cinching of U-Bolts," 84042.036, (tc be issued March 18. 1985).
2.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/19/84, Item 5 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams t
(Cygna) dated April 19, 1984 4.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), Attachment C, dated June 8,1984 5.
Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr., regarding Cinching Down of U-Bolts (received July 12, 1984) 6.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report EQ&T-EQT-860, Revision 0, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U-Bolt Support / Pipe Test Program" (received July 12,1984) 7.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report entitled
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U-Bolt Finite Element Analysis", dated June 12, 1984 (receivedJuly 12,1984)
Texas Utilities Generating Company d(.dj [ fd Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Niii
- llll111llll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
~
PIEMNAllY E@-
PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 8.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), "U-Bolt Cinching Test / Analysis Program -
Phase 3 Open Item," 84042.015, dated August 23, 1984 9.
Transcript of Meeting between Cygna Energy Ser-vices and Texas Utilities Generating Company and Ebasco Services Inc. dated September 13, 1984 10.
R.C. Iotti (Ebasco) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), " Additional Information as Follow-Up to Meeting of 9/13/84," 3-Z-17 (6.2), ETCY-1, dated September 18, 1984 11.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Status of Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Program," 84042.018, dated October 1, 1984 12.
J.B. George (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), " Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Program - Additional Information," dated November 1, 1984 13.
J.B. George (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna ),
Cinched U-Bolt Testing and Analysis Program - Additional Information," dated November 16, 1984 Summary:
Please see Reference 1.
Status:
On hold pending TUGC0 response to Reference 1.
d 8.
Richmond Insert Allowable Spacing
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/10/84, Item 1 2.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/12/84
.,9
=
Texas Utilities Generating Company r4'{d g [d Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
L milillllilllillilimilmit Independent Assessment Program - All 7hases Job No. 84056
PiEllMINAH s-PIPE SUPPORTS Open Itans and Generic Issues i
Susunry:
Cygna had asked TUGC0 how the designers ensured the allowables they used were for the correct spacing. TUGC0 had stated that their designers used minimums, unless a walkdown was done. There was no written procedure for this.
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 generic item 3.
cfib(9.
Embedment Attachment Spacing
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," item 5, 84056.13, dated July 31, 1984 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 24, 1984 3.
Communication 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 April 18, 1984 6.
Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28 Revision 29, dated January 25, 1985 7.
Communication report between Warner (TUGCO) and Williams /Minichiello/Russ (Cygna) dated 2/27/85.
8.
CPSES procedure QI-QP-19.5-1 " Separation Inspection for Unit 1 and Conunon Buildings."
Susunry:
Cygna has found two pipe support base plates welded to embedded plates with less than 12" required spacing between the edges of the support base plates (per Reference 4).
This was not an inspection item at the time of the Cygna 3
review (Reference 5) but is now (Reference 6). Since this Texas Utilities Generating Company i
i( )L A Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
!!!I1!!illlll111111181lll11111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 J
b.
PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues affects all hardware attached to embedded plates (HVAC, raceway, and pipe supports), not just a single discipline,
^
and since it was not 'an inspection. item in other disciplines (per References 7 and 8), this item has generic implication.
Status:
Open. Cygna will issue a letter describing this issue and requesting assurance that the spacing requirement has been
,and will be checked throughout CPSES.
g( d 10. Thru-Bolts and Concrete Acceptability
References:
1.
Communication. Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/30/84, Item 2 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated May 2,1984 3.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated June 8,1984, Item 9 and Attachment D Sumery:
In thru-bolt designs, Cygna is concerned that the loads on the walls or floors nay not be acceptable. Per Reference 3, there is no written procedure documenting transmittal of loads on concrete structures, although Gibbs & Hill had walked down several highly loaded areas. This does not provide assurance that each area, particularly near free edges, would be acceptable.
Cygna lacks assurance that the designs across the plant are acceptable, since no procedures regarding load transfer exist.
Status:
Open for internal Cygna discussion.
- 11. Bolt Spacing
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Pipe Support Review Questions," item 3, 84056.14, dated August 6,1984 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 11, 1984 W
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllfullimilHillit ul Job No. 84056
~
PREUMINARY PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Sumary:
In certain base plate designs in Phase 4 (CC-2-019-715-A43K, for example), the bolt hole is located from the edge of the plate with "1-1/2 MIN TYP."
In some cases, this could re-sult in a dimension from 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 inches. While this may have little effect on the bolt load, it does effect the maximum plate stresses by as much as 15% for a strut,
- spring, or snubber 5" offset.
Status:
Open for internal Cygna discussion; Cygna does not require further TUGC0 response at this time.
- 12. Support Self Weight Excitation During 'a 'Dynainif Eve'nt
References:
1.
Communication 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 0, Appendix J, Note 7 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
i "Open Items Associates with Walsh/Doyle Allega-tions," 84042.022, dated January 18, 1985 I
Susuary:
TUGC0 has not considered the loads due to the support i
dynamic excitation in the design of the support.
Status:
Cygna has deferred this issue to the USNRC review, a.; noted in Reference 4, item 14.
- 13. Support Stiffnesi
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Appendix J Note 8 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allega-tions," 84042.022, dated January 18, 1985
- ?
Texas Utilities Generating Company L8 L J L. A Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1:llilllilillilllilllHlulil Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
PRRIMl!M 5""
PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Summary:
In designing Class 2 and 3 supports TUGC0 has used a de-flection criteria. At low load, this can result in very flexible supports, which would affect the stress analysis results and redistribute support loads.
Status:
Cygna has deferred this issue to the USNRC per Reference 2, item 15.
- 14. Hydrotest Support / Stress Design
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated April 19, 1984 with TUGC0 Instruc-tions CP-EI-4.0-30, Revision 1, attached 3.
D.G. Eisenhut (USNRC) letter to M.D. Spence (TUGCO), Item V.E., dated November 29, 1984 Summary:
Cygna did not find any evidence in either the support design calculations or the pipe stress analyses that hydrostatic loads had been considered. TUGC0 responded with a copy of their procedure.
Status:
Open for internal Cygna discussion.
- 15. Dynamic Pipe Movements in Support Design
References:
1.
Communication report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 9/28/83, pipe support item 3
Williams (Cygna) port between Wade (TUGCO) and Communication re 1.
dated 10/4/83, pipe support item 3
2.
Cygna Phase 2 Report TR-83090-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-09-01 3.
Comunication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/20/84, Item 2
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station g
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111ll111111111111111lll11 Job No. 84056
l 3/13/85 b h..,
f Revision 0 nitubJisi PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 4.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated April 19, 1984 Summary:
TUGC0 does not include dynamic pipe movements in support design when checking frame gaps, swing angles, or spring travel. Cygna was concerned this could affect design, but had considered only the seismic effects.
Status:
Open for internal Cygna discussion.
- 16. Dual Strut / Snubber Design
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/22/84, Item 2.b 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated June 8,1984 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 0, observation PS-03 4.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report TR-84042-01, Revision 0 Page 5-5.
5.
" Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C.
Finneran, Jr., Regarding Consideration of Force Distribution in Axial Restraints" 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Force Distribution in Axial Restraints -
Phase 3 Open Item" 84042.014, dated August 10, 1984 Sunnary:
While most of the discussion on this subject has been about axial restraints, Cygna wishes to nake clear that our con-cern is 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 analysis assumes the trunnions share the l oa d.
Cygna finds this inconsistent with other design organizations, which usually assume cne side takes more than 3
Texas Utilities Generating Company by l Q Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Al1 Phaaes 111111lllllllll11111111ll11111 Job No. 84056
hhgh'55f[I e
n0 1
[kt; Page 12 Il= 2 g ~I s.": ci) is51 im o PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 1/2 of the overall support load. TUGC0 is currently performing an assessment in response to Reference 6.
Status:
Open pending TUGC0 response to Reference 6.
- 17. Hilti Bolt Embedment length References Williams (Cygna) port tietween Wade (TUGCO) anddated Communication Re 1
References:
1 2.
Communication Report between Wade (TUGCO) and Williams (Cygna) dated 10/4/83, pipe supports item 1
3.
Comunication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (CYGNA) dated 10/6/83, item 1 4.
Cygna Phase 2 Report TR-83090-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-02-01 Sumery:
Embedment lengths shown on the support drawing do not natch those in the support calculation. This is due to the support designer calculating a minimum possible embedment from the bolt length.
Status:
Closed.
18.
Incorrect Data Transmittal
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 2 Report TR-83090-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-10-01 Sumery:
The displacement transmitted for support RH-1-064-001-522R had an incorrect sign.
Status:
Closed.
- =~
Texas Utilities Generating Company
[y'[ej l M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All thases lilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinittil Job No. 84056
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q$$$$ $ N!
3/13/85
~
P 1"
N Revision 0
!Is g3[f t !?
h l 'd isi Page 13 "w
$Y[1 PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 19.
Incorrect Standard Component Allowables Williams (Cygna) port between Wade (TUGCO) and Communication Re
References:
1.
dated 9/28/83, pipe support item 4
Williams (Cygna) port Between Wade (TUGCO) and Communication Re 2.
dated 10/4/83, pipe support item 4
3.
Cygna Phase 2 Report TR-83090-01, Revision 1, Observation PS-12-01 Summary:
The incorrect U-bolt allowables were used in the design of support RH-1-064-011-S22R (formerly RH-1-062-002-S22R).
Status:
Closed.
20.
Input Errors in the design of Support MS-1-001-006-C72K
References:
1.
Comunication 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 June 8,1994, item (41)
\\
3.
Cygna Phase 3 Report TR-84042-01, Revision 0, i
Observation PS-01 Sumery:
Errors in section properties and boundary conditions will affect STRUDL results. STRUDL input was neither cnecked nor approved.
Status:
Closed technically. Open for QA significance.
- 21. Undersized Fillet Welds
References:
1.
Communication Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/16/84, item 5.
2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams
?
(Cygna) dated June 8,1984, item (31).
E Texas Utilities Generating Company M'[t; g' h Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station a
i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111lltlll11111lll111Job No. 84056
.. _ T.. _...
i
$ t t i l l A( g (6 % l3iT % E Ii 8 3/13/85 i
>$j!!E Revision 0 N
Page 14 PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Report TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-04.
Summary:
Two fillet welds were designed under the minimum required by the ASME B&PV code, Table XVII-2452.1-1.
Status:
Closed.
22.
Improper Weld Calculations for 3 Sided Welds
References:
1.
Communication Report between Grace (TllGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 5/22/84, item 1 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated June 8,1984, item (32) 3.
Cygna Phase 3 Report TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-05 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO) " Box Frames with 0" Gap," 84042.023 dated January 28, 1985, item 3 of the Attachment 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.8. George (TUGCO) " Mass Participation and Mass Point Spacing," 84042.021 dated February 8,1985. Pipe Support Review item 5 Summary:
TUGC0 does not always consider the eccentricity between the member center of gravity and the weld center of rigidity when determining weld loads.
Status:
Closed for the supports reviewed in Phase 3 and 4 (that revision only). Open for any revision to the pipe stress analysis which increases loads (such as noted in References 4 and 5).
23.
Improper Weld Calculation for Composite Sections
References:
1.
Comunication Report between Finneran (TUGCO) and Williams /Minichiello (Cygna) dated 7/11/84, item 1_
7 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1
g,
g Independent Assessment Program - All Phases nlllillililllillllillllllilli Job No. 84056
3/13/85 P.'r ] #; 71 ij r n c.gI."d 5 :$ hylI5 7 gg g Revision 0 57 e 2 e
1 Y
g4 Page 15
- 4
'b.,, i f W s a, h3 51 t.
PIPE SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 2.
Communication Report between Finneran (TUGCO) 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 Report TR-84042-01, Revision 0, Observation PS-07 Summary:
When welding cover plates to tubesteel or wideflanges to form composite sections, the design method for the weld is not always correct and all the loads are not always considered.
i Status:
Closed as far as the Phase 3 review is concerned, but the errors must be corrected if loads increase in later revisions to the stress analysis.
3 Texas Utilities Generating Company E
[([,.
fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station tg Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11lllllllll1111lllllllll111111 Job No. 84056
i
'r)N d jk h t 3/13/85
~
kbl I NNN
"'N'i n 8 a
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues 1.
Contolling Load Case for Design
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 16-20, Revision 5 2.
Communication Report between P. Huang, S. Chang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated 11/13/84 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 1-7, Revision 1 4.
CPSES FSAR, Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 Summary:
Gibbs & Hill design calculations, Reference 3, assumed that the design of cable tray supports was governed by the 1/2 SSE seismic event. This was based on a comparison between a 50% increase in seismic accelerations from the 1/2 SSE event at 4% damping the SSE event at 5% damping, and an allowed increase in design stresses of 60% for the. SSE event, per Reference 4.
For the design of structural steel tambers, the 60% increase cannot be applied to certain allowable stresses. For exam-ple, using a 33% increase, allowabha stresses for weak axis bending of wide flange beams and bending in base plates, will equal the yield stress.
In addition, the allowable loads for concrete anchors (see Generic Issue 3) cannot be increased by 60% for the SSE event. Neither of the above
)
limitations were considered in the selection of the govern-ing load case for design.
In order to reduce the loads for SSE, Gibbs '& Hill elected to use 7% damping-for the cable trays at SSE, as allowed for bolted structures.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill provided tables of peak spectral accelerations for 1/2 SSE at 4% damping and SSE at 7% damping (Reference 1). The reduced SSE accelerations appear to demonstrate that 1/2 SSE governs for support designs on a generic basis.
However, for supports designed based on the accelerations for a specific building elevation, e.g., elevations 773',
785' and 790' in the Safeauards Building, the ratio of SSE
?
to 1/2 SSE exceeds 1.33, the increase allowed for Hilti' Texas Utilities Generating Company
[((d l h Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1111l1l111111111111lll11111111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
t pil"T te e S 77t.
e-3/13/85 4
Revision 8
=
Page 2 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues expansion anchors (see Generic Issue 3). SSE will poten-tially govern the design of these supports. Support systems at these building elevations are not included in Gibbs &
Hill's dynamic models, Additional review of the supports, at the three elevations indicated above, say be required.
2.
Method of Combination of Seismic Responses
References:
1.
CPSES FSAR Section 3.78.2.7 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 3.
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Design Review Ques-tions," 84056.031, dated 8/31/84 5.
Gibbs & Hill calculation response to IAP Phase 2 questions, Cygna Technical File 83090.11.2.1.50 Summary:
A.
Closely Spaced Modes (10% Modal Combination) in Spectral Analysis 1
Cygna noted that in the response spectrum analyses performed for the working point deviation study (Reference 2), 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 design calculations, Gibbs & Hill typically included the dead load in the SRSS with the multi-directional seismic loads. This issua was discovered in Phase 2 of this review, and Gibbs & Hill performed a study of the impact of this error (Reference 4). For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Reference 5.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill has evaluated the working point analyses to account for closely spaced modes in accordance with Reference 3.
For discussion of other discrepancies in the working point deviation study, see Generic Issue 14.
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company dd [ M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1111111lllllllll1I11ll111llI11 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
~
7 j2E f
3/13/85 i :elt " 3 g7. j f[,k t j k l.s M Ej'j/t 1
Revision 8 i
p*
skL k$s g Page 3 I
CABLE TRAY l
Open Items and Generic Issues I
B.
Quantification of the effects is complete; however, additional discussion may be required.
j i
3.
Anchor Bolt Design r
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 j
Sheet 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.
Sumery:
A.
Additional Tensile Forces Induced by Rotation of Base Angles About the Centerline of Bolt Pattern.
t Gibbs & Hill has evaluated Alternate Detail 1 and a single anchor loads (Reference 1). These loads were chosen base angle using A4 since the questions of design adequacy originated from discussion i
design. The resolution of this generic issue requires an j
of the A4 evaluation of the worst case load and geometry. Geometries should l
include the effects of any generic change notices such as those for the base angle edge distance (CMC 1970) and the use of shims under base plates (CMC 1969).
B.
Safety Factor on Hilti Expansion Anchors at SSE Levels.
C.
Inconsistent Application of ACI 349-76, Appendix B.
Gibbs & Hill has used the provisions of Reference 1 to qualify several designs.
Examples include the qualification of anchorages i
for Detail "11" (Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0905) (Reference 2) and the use of code provisions as justification of factors of safety for Richmond Inserts.
However, other code sections, such as B.7.3, which requires a factor of safety of 6.0 for single expan-sion anchor connections were not adhered to. Cygna believes that the philosophy of codes must be adopted and not specific code _
3 sections.
i Texas Utilities Generating Company l
htj g' fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11ll11ll11111111lllllll1111111 Job No. 84056
l 3/13/85
}
p(,)
P-[3e Revision 8 Qjg
{
Page 4 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues D.
Factor of Safety on Richmond Inserts.
E.
Richmond Insert Design Allowables.
l l
1.
Prying action was not considered in the original design of Richmond Insert connections for cable tray supports. To qualify those connections which utilize Richmond Inserts, Gibbs & Hill performed calculations which reference the results of the Richmond Insert testing program (Reference 3). These calculations showed that the Richmond Inserts were not the controlling anchorage type, but rather tnat l
Hilti expansion anchors were. Cygna has the following corunents regarding these calculations:
a.
The calculations do not account for the instances where the allowable values for Richmond Inserts from Gibbs &
Hill Specification 2323-SS-30 (Ta = Va = 11.5 kips) were used without the factor for prying. This situation could occur whenever a CMC was reviewed. Although Gibbs
& Hill has stated that their engineers were instructed to include the prying factor, Cygna did not locate any documentation of those instructions.
b.
The original design calculations for concrete connec-tions utilizing Richmond Inserts employed allowable values of tension (Ta = 10.1 k) and shear (Va = 9.5 kips). With the issuance of Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-55-30, restrictions were placed on the allowable values for Richmond Inserts. These restrictions dealt with the use of Richmond Inserts in cluster arrangements and show that Richmond Inserts ney be used in spacings less than that originally considered by Gibbs & Hill, but with a corresponding decrease in allowable tensions and shears. Since these restrictions were imposed after the original design of the Richmond Insert connections, i
Cygna is concerned that they were not properly evaluated i
by Gibbs & Hill.
In discussions with TUGCO, Cygna was told that the smaller spacings of Richmond Inserts were for clustered areas that were reserved for whip re-straints. Any use of Richmond Inserts in these areas would require authorization from the responsible group and a corresponding evaluation of the installation.
- ?
M, Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station luullHINilillHlulWHil Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
s I
1 a
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues F.
Connection Designs.
l The cable tray support designs provide for the use of angles or plates at base connections. These designs also provide for various tolerances in the anchor bolt spacings and member placement.
Additionally, field requirements may produce concrete connections wheich are outside the tolerances provided by the designs.
Gibbs & Hill has not fully evaluated the effects of all allowed tolerances on the base member stresses or the anchorages.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill is to provide justification for the use of A loadings for base plate and anchor loadings.
4 B.
Cygna has collected data on the issue of the Hilti expansion factor of safety and is evaluating it inter-nally.
C.
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill are to provide justification for the usage of the Appendix B sections.
D.
Cygna has not found sufficient..stificatinn for the safety factor of 1.8 for Richmond Inserts f or the emer-gency/ faulted conditions. Cygna is presently reviewing the number of tests used to arrive at this value.
E.
Cygna requires verification that controls on the use of Richmond Insert allowables and the prying factor were in
~
place and enforced by all responsible groups.
F.
Gibbs & Hill is to provide technical justification for their base plate designs.
- - ~
pr-Texas Utilities Generating Company h(tj l M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station niiiiiiii ic Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
W$
["
- & G })
3/13/85 Revision 8
^
Jrc4
- e. n r d b.a jj((
Page 6 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Gereric Issues 4.
Design of Compression Members
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 1 I
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 l
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions,"
84056.022, dated August, 17, 1984, question 4 Summary:
In the design of compression members for trapeze type sup-port frames, Gibbs & Hill failed to consider the entire unsupported length of the channels in calculation of their slenderness ratios (Reference 1, Sheets 11 and 18 for sup-4 and B, respectively).
If the correct unsup-port types A 4
ported lengths and pinned ends are assumed, the slenderness ratio for these members will exceed 200, the limit for compression members per AISC Specification Section 1.8.4.
In order to reduce the slenderness ratios below 200, calcu-lations were generated (Reference 1, Sheets 128-146, Revi-sion 3, and Reference 2) which assumed that rotational restraint is provided by tha clip angle used to attach the hanger to the bottom of the slab, giving k=0.8.
Addition-ally, since the compressive load is appled at several points over the length of the member, the allowable axial stress was increased based on the buckling analysis of columns with distributed axial loads.
Status:
Cygna has performed analyses of one and two-bolt clip angles under compressive loading and determined that it is reason-able to assume partial rotational fixity for weak axis bending of the attached hanger. The assumption that the tray provides lateral bracing to the frame has not been validated (see Generic Issue 20 for a discussion of tray clamps). Cygna believes that it is acceptable to consider I
the effective increase in allowable axial loads based on a distributed load application. However, the increase is a function of the applied load, and must be calculated indivi-dually for each support configuration and load case.
i Texas Utilities Generating Company M
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
g lulillitillililllillilillem Independent Assessment Program - All Phas2s Job No. 84056
l
)
3/13/85 l
- p. :F ;) ?Myaa g n a-i htLHh;5dinn)j/
Revision 8 f
.E ik f
S' i
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues 5.
Vertical and Transverse Loading on Longitudinal Type Supports
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 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 4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 5 Summary:
In the design of longitudinal trapeze type supports, e.g.,
L-A, L-A4 L-C etc., these supports were assumed to act independent.ly of,the transverse supports (see Reference 1
4). Calculations for these 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 they must be designed for vertical and trans-verse seismic loads just as the transverse supports are (see References 2 and 3). Cygna does not accept the simplified reasoning which considers only relative stiffness of support types as provided in Reference 3.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill is to consider these effects in the dynamic models being run in response to generic issues.
In addition to the Gibbs 1. Hill analysis of selected systems, performed in response to Cygna generic issues, further consideration must be given to isolate the above effects to ensure accept-ability on a generic basis.
7 Texas Utilities Generating Company
[Q@ l Q Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Pheses lllll1111111111111111111lllll1Job No. 84056
1 PEUMINARY 5"
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues i
6.
Differences Between the Installation and the Design / Construction Drawings witnout Appropriate Documentation
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc., support layout drawing 2323-El-0713-01-5 l
2.
Brown & Root, Inc., fabrication drawing FSE-00159 3.
American Institute of Steel Construction Inc.,
f
~
Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition 4.
Gibbs & Hill support layout drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S 5.
Gibbs & Hill support layout drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S 6.
Gibbs & Hill cable tray support design drawings 2323-S-0900 series Sumnary:
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.
j A.
Support No. 481, Longitudinal Type A4 Single angles were installed as braces in the longitudinal direc-tion, not pairs which are required by the design drawing. No change documentation was lccated.
B.
Support No. 408 Type B4 The lower corner of the frame is modified by CMC 9916, Revision 1, to avoid interference with the CCW heat ex* changer. This change shows that 4" channel sections are to be used for the prescribed modification. A 6" channel section is actually installed.
C.
Support No. 649. Type A1 This installation user concrete anchorage " Alternate Detail 1" (G8H design drawing 2323-S-0903) which requires the use of an L6x6x3/4.
Cygna's field inspection discovered that an L5x5x3/4 was installed.
No existing documentation accounted for this discrepancy.
[N([tj l fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station T-Texas Utilities Generating Company 1111ll11111111111111llllllllll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
^
~
PREll! win!iRY E"'
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues D.
Support Nos. 722 and 2606, Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S Cygna's field inspection found a working point violation on the brace attachment to the wall. Design drawing 2323-5-0929 Connec-gionDetail"F"wasused(2323-5-0903) which has a tolerance of y i 0.3b where 12"<b(3g". Cygna's field inspection results show the tolerance used was 7 - 0.5b (i.e., the brace was located in line with one bolt).
E.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 6654, Type A2 Reference 1 identified the above six supports as follows:
"A2 (8X-cept all members shall be MC6x12)," where L = 8'-3" (frame width),
h = 4'-2" (frame height).
The Cygna walkdown results show the installed hanger member sizes are as noted in Table 1, below.
Due to the presence of Thermolag coating, Cygna was unable to determine the installed beam member size. No documentation existed to reconcile the differences be-tween the design requirements and the installation.
TABLE 1 Cable Tray Support Member Sizes Dimensions (See Note 1)
Member Size F lange
]
Support Depth Width Existing No.
(In)
(In)
(Note 1) 2992 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 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 Note:
1.
Dimensions of the vertical channels are based on mea-surements by Cygna. Member sizes are determined by selecting the channel type from Reference 3 which most closely etches the measured depth and flange width.
l Texas Utilities Generating Company ib LA Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lettiill!!nuin"""!!!llll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
1 2
- f ev n8
=
Ik b b, I I l l b i k l Page 10 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues F.
Support No. 455. Type SP-8 Cygna's field inspection indicated that the brace connected to the wall on one side of the support is located outside of the bolt pat-tern on the base angle. The gype Detail "B" (2323-5-0903) connec-i 0.2b. TUGC0 issued CMC 99307, tion requires a tolerance of Revision 0, to document this discrepancy in response to Cygna's question.
G.
Support Nos. 2998 and 13080, Special Type Supports These supports were installed in floor slabs with 2" topping. The topping depth was apparently not considered in selecting the length of the anchor bolt. Therefore, the required embedment length was not achieved.
Status:
A.
TUGC0 provided CMC 2635, Revision 1, to document the installation discrepancy for support number 481.
B.
TUGC0 provided CMC 9916, Revision 2 to document the installation discrepancy for support number 408.
C.
TUGC0 provided CHC 99308, Revision 0, to document the installation of the incorrect size base angle for sup-port number 649.
D.
TUGC0 provided CMC 99309, Revision 0, to document the anchor bolt installation discrepancy for these two supports.
E.
TUGC0 provided the CMC's listed below to document the installation of the incorrect member sizes.
Support Number CMC No.
Revision 2992 44519 2
2994 99326 0
3005 96079 1
3017 99327 0
3021 30452 2
6654 90714 6
M"M Texas Utilities Generating Company
[Qtj l fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 18tll1111lll111111111111111111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job Mo. 84056
i 1
3/13/85 ft[tumikru},f j Ett N-Revision 8
..o 11 n
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues F.
TUGC0 provided CMC 99307 Revision 0, to document the installation discrepancy for support number 455.
G.
TUGC0 is to evaluate the effect of reduced embedment length for supports 2998 and 13080. Cygna is evaluating the action required by SDAR 80-05 for supports installed after its issuance.
7.
Support Frame Out-of-Plane Inertial Load's
References:
None Susunry:
Cygna has not seen any consideration of out-of-plane iner-tial loads for two-way cable tray supports. Such loads must be considered in the design of any base connections or anchorages as well as the design of longitudinal supports, assuming that a positive connection exists between the tray and the support.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill must provide technical justification for ignor-ing out-of-plane inertial support loads.
8.
Design of Angle Sections Neglecting Loading Eccentricity
References:
1.
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
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions,"
84056.027, dated August 27, 1984, question 2 3.
AISC Specification, 7th Edition, Sections 1.15.2 and 1.18.2.4 4.
Gibbs & Hill calculation " Cable tray support type SP-7 with brace. Brace eccentricity calcula-tions." Cygna Technical File 84056.11-1.228 Texas Utilities Generating Company Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station g
[
g 3 I dependent Assessment Program - All Phases lultilllllllllHilHillllull dob No. 84056
~
P f".
y g iq?
3/13/85 ei U Revision 8 L..
jQ Page 12 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues 5.
Gibbs & Hill calculation " Verify the adequacy of 3
brace L3x3x3/8 of.the governing support Case l
C." Binder SCS-101C, Set 1 Revision 1, dated 3
11/16/84 i
6.
Gibbs & Hill calculation " Justify the use of two L3-1/2x3-1/2x3/8 angles to take the appropriate t
load and moment individually in the longitudinal tray supports at the 16wer brace." Binder SCS-101C, Set 2. Revision 6, dated 9/15/84 Susunry:
l 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-A4 etc. For the member design, loads were assumed to i
1 produce only axial stresses. The induced bending stress due to the 4
ecce-tric end connection was 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. How-ever, no intermittent filler plates are provided as required by AISC specification Section 1.18.2.4.
Thus the double angles must be considered to stct independently.
B.
Transverse and longitudinal cable tray supports typically use angle sections as in-plane braces to resist transverse loads and provide 3
4 3
L-A.
bracing points on the vertical members, e.g., A. A, B, B4,ly 4
etc. For the member design, loads were assumed to produce on axial stresses. The induced bending stress due to the eccentric end conditions was not considered. Though it is not explicitly i
stated in the AISC Specification, standard practice (Reference 3, Sheet 3-59) considers the bending stresses due to end connection i
eccentricity and checks the interaction ratio considering the principal axis sectin modulii.
C.
Single longitudinal braces are typically connected to the frame by welding along the legs of the angle. However, the connections are such that at one end of the angle, only one leg is welded. At the angle's other end, the other leg is welded. Such end conditions say lead to failure by twist buckling.
l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases N111111111111111111185Job No. 84056
3/13/85 i m p a g e. - g g
[.k.[dIiilhi l
l}UjllN Revision 8
" 1 L.I CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations considering end ec-centricity and independent action of each angle in double angle braces (Reference 6) Case L-B4 was assumed to provide enveloping brace loads. Calculations (Refer-ence 4) were also provided for SP-7 with brace, which 4
has a single angle brace. Cygna believes that the approach is acceptable, but further verification may be needed to determine enveloping cases.
B.
Gibbs & Hill provided a calculation (Reference 5) which considered eccentric load application for in-plane bra ces. The brace loads for Case C, from the working 3
point deviation study, were assumed enveloping. See Generic Issue 14 for a discussion of the working point deviation study.
l i
C.
Cygna is presently evaluating the possibility of twist-buckling on single angle braces.
4 9.
Dynamic Amplification Factors
References:
1.
Later Sumery:
1.14 has been established as an appropriate factor. The support dynamic amplification factor (DAF) study was based on continuous, uniformly supported spans. Current CPSES cable tray support design methodology calculates static loads based on tributary length. Anyguture use of the 1.14 support DAF must account for the diffWrence between the tributary support reactions and the support reactions based upon continuous cable tray spans. Further, it may not be appropriate to use a DAF of 1.14 if supports are designed in
~
the future using non-uniform tributary span length loads.
Status:
No further work required.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak 3 team Electric Station
([ 3 g,
i lilllHillHillHillHilllilli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases j
Job No. 84056
3/13/85 Plgqg z;;b f hj(lf g
Revision 8
}.F; I
LA
"'S' llillill l
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues
- 10. 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 2.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-69371, dated 8/23/84, Calculation SCS-111C, Set 8, Sheets 34-39 Summary:
Cygna asked about the reduction in channel section proper-ties due to clamp bolt holes in Reference 1.
Gibbs & Hill provided a response in Refere7ce 2.
The response fails to consider the following items:
Cable trays ney be placed anywhere in the beam span (for a.
example, see CMC 2646).
b.
The resolution did not consider cantilevered supports where one tray is close to the wall and other trays are further out.
c.
The effect of DCA 17838, which provides bolt hole gage tolerances, is not considered.
d.
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.)
Status:
Gibbs & Hill is to provide technical justification for the solutions.
t
=*--
- Texas Utilities Generating Company
[eg'(tj g' f 3] Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases liiimmisiiiiiiiiiilillllli Job No. 84056
3 El Ir.j3. f I
~l, ' kIf E
3/13/85 4.
v W G J I;,![a Revision 8 3
tal Page 15 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues
- 11. System Concept of Design Affecting the Following Areas:
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (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. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated September 28, 1984 with attached calculations Susuary:
The following items must be addressed with regard to the use of the systems concept:
A.
Eccentricities between support members and load placement which induces additioinal bending and torsion stresses (References 1 and 2).
B.
Lateral support for buckling consideration (reference Generic Issue 4).
C.
Effective tributary spans for longitudinal supports (reference Generic Issue 5).
D.
Rotation of base connection angles about bolt pattern axis and the assurption of semi-fixity for weak axis buckling calculations (reference Generic Issue 3).
E.
Transfer of out-of-plane seismic inertial loads from two-way sup-port frames to longitudinal supports, (reference Generic Issue 7).
Status:
Item A was evaluated as part of the dynamic analysis by Gibbs & Hill. The status of Items B through E are found under the referenced generic issues.
9 Texas Utilities Generating Company
~
[Qtj l M Conunche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111111!!!!ll11111111 Job No. 84056
{
3/13/E5 Revision 8 g
g Page 16 E.
.i a*
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues
- 12. Design Control
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill drawings 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0700-01-S 2323-El-0713-01-S 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Design Review Ques-tions," 84056.022, dated August 17, 1984, ques-tions 1, 2, and 6 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Design Review Ques-tions,' 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, question 1
4.
Gibbs & Hill cable tray support design dr. wings 2323-S-0900 series 5.
Gibbs & Hill calculations for support numbers 3025, 3028, 2861, Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.225 6.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), " Responses to Cygna Review Questions,"
dated September 4,1984, with attached calcula-tions 7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheets 206, Revision 6 8.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), " Response to Cygna Design Review Ques-tions," dated September 11, 1984, with attached calculations 9.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 5
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4 11.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (Tt:GCO), " Cable Tray Support and Electrical Review l
Questions," 84056.019, dated August 10, 1984, questions 2.1 and 2.2 F#RE Texas Utilities Generating Company M'[d g' ] Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllilllilllillllilllllllllll Job No. 84056
?'i r 'A yt 5 5 3/13/85 t, 5 fSs>lf Revision 8 gjd y
j{ l Page 17 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues
- 12. Gibbs & Hill Drawings 2323-El-0601-01-5, 2323-El-0700-01-S, and 2323-El-0713-01-5 Susuary:
A.
Lack of consideration of the effects of generic CMC's and DCA's on original designs.
1.
Support type SP-7 with brac'e is affected by CMC 6187. The CVC was approved and design reviewed by Gibbs & Hill, New York, but its effects were not considered in the SP-7 with brace general calculations or any generic reviews.
2.
The effect of CMC 1970, which specifies the allowable edge distance of anchor bolt holes in base angles, was not con-sidered in the design of the anchor bolts.
B.
Criteria violations in individual support specifications on support plans.
In the generic design of cable tray supports, limitations on the support dimension and loading are determined for each support type. These limitations are typically stated in the design calcu-lations, but are not shown on the generic support design drawings, (Reference 4). On the suoport plans (Reference 1) the dimensions for each support are specified in a descriptive block, 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. No justifying documentaion existed for these individual support de-signs prior to the Cygna review.
1.
Support Nos. 3025, 3028, 2861. Type D. Drawing 2323-El-i 0713-01-S calls out these supports as "D1 (except beam to be MC6 x 16.3) L = 11'-9", h = 4
-2", and snows a tray width of 78".
The FSE-00159 fabrication drawing sheets reflect these dimensions.
However, the Gibbs & Hill design calcualtions supports (2323-5-0901) limits L < 8*-0" and tray for Type D3 width to 48".
l E"!N E
Texas Utilities Generating Company
[Qtj g' fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lillllilllilillilllulilllll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 i
~
~ '~
~ - -.
3/13/85 h pi q
- D ls i { #;. g? g g y
- are g p Revision 8 l It.l.!, Ylih k,ifi. j' g
Page 18 t
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues 2.
Support No. 2607, Type A. Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 spe-i cifies dimension of L = 2'-9" and h = 4'-6" for this sup-port. The design calculations for this support type (S-0901) limits h < 2'-4".
3.
Support No. 657. Type A. Drawing 2323-El-0601-01 calls out 1
this support as Type A, L = 7'-0, h = 2'-0".
The design i
calculations for this support type limits L < 6'-0".
Support No. 734, Detail H, ' drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 spe-4.
cifies that one beam 'is to be on MC6x15.1, rotated 90' from normal orientation. The design for this support requires i
the use of C6x8.2 secticns for beams. CMC 00164 requires the use of " heavy duty clamps" for this support, thus intro-ducing longitudinal loads. The design for this support j
requires the addition of a longitudinal brace if longitu-dinal loads are to be resisted.
5.
Support No. 3011, Type SP-6, drawing 2323-El-0713-01-5 specifies dimensions of L = 8'-9" and h = 4'-6".
The design calculations for this support type limits L < 6'-0".
6.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 3111, 6654, Type A, drawing 2323-El-0713-01-5 specifies dimensions of L =
g8 -3" and h = 4'-2", and shows a tray width of 78".
The design calculations for this support type limits L < 6'-0" and the tray width to 48".
C.
Consideration of as-built support conditions in generic reviews which require a case-by-case review.
1.
The SP-7 weld underrun analysis considered 5/16" fillet welds which were specified on the design drawings.
- However, the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings specify smaller weld sizes.
In addition, the underrun alaysis did not consider the effects of any changes to the supports which were re-ported in CMC's and DCA s.
2.
Working point studies (reference Generic l'"re 14).
w
~%
E-Texas Utilities Generating Company dd l M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1111llll1111ll11ll111111111111 Independent Assessment Program. All Phases Job No. 84056
1 4
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues D.
Inconsistent application of as-built and design information in the evaluation of cable tray supports for Thermolag application.
covers is not included in the allowable The weight of tray (Procedure CP-El-4.0-49).
1.
span length table i
2.
Longitudinal supports are not evaluated for the added weight of fire protection. The fire protection review did not note the lack of any longitudinal supports in the tray run with Detail N.
3.
Fire protection evaluations are performed on tray-by-tray ba sis. The cumulative effect of multiple trays with fire protection on one support nay not be considered.
E.
Tray span between supports used in original support layout.
1.
Reference 9 indicates that cable tray supports are to be designed for 8'-0" spans. Reference 10, Note 13, allows a location tolerance for supports of
- 1/2 Richmond insert spacing parallel to the tray, and that the maximum spacing between supports shall not exceed 9'-0".
Gibbs & Hill design calculations for cable tray supports assume a maximum tributary span of 8'-6", to account for support layout of 8'-0" on center and an erection tolerance of i 6".
Cy gna 's review of Reference 12 noted 14 locations where the as-designed tray spans exceeded 8'-0".
Cygna's walkdown of these tray segments discovered five locations where the as-built tray spans exceeded 9'-0" (see Reference 11). This indicates that the design and installation limitations for support spacings were not followed.
2.
The design of longitudinal supports indicates that the maximum longitudinal tray span is 40'-0".
For several supports within Cygna's review, the support plan drawings (Reference 12) provided supports with tributary spans greater than 40'-0" (see Reference 11).
In addition, several horizontal tray segments had no longitudinal sup-ports provided (see Reference 11). This indicates that the design limitations were not followed for the location of longitudinal supports.
N~"
Texas Utilities Generating Company M'{tj l f[ Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111!!!1111:11111111!!!I1111Job No. 84056 A
3/13/85
} 47"l N;j2 j"
e 3 re p g j(
Revision 8
! [3 gi L' + BY;)iautl Page 20 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues F.
Use of "For Reference Only" Calculations Cygna has noted several desgin reviews of change notices where the CVC was narked to indicate that new or revised calculations were not required. Attached to the CMC, however, are calculations that are narked "For Reference Only".
G.
Cygna is concerned about support design calculation retrievability and completeness.
H.
Lack of Controlled Design Criteria 1.
Cygna has noted instances where the field design rev1ew group is not utilizing the proper criteria to evaluate support adequacies. The evaluations for fire protection compare the actual load to a design load which is based upon a 9'-0" tributary tray span. The maximum tributary span assumed in the current design is 8'-6".
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 supple-ments that were committed to.
Status:
A.
No further discussion required.
B.
Gibbs & Hill has indicated that the engineer preparing a support layout drawing would be familiar with the design limitations. Based upon judgement he/she could violate these limitations without preparing supporting calcula-tions since the support nap drawings would be subject to design review.
For the individual support listed above:
(1) Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 5) evaluating these supports. Support numbers 3025 and 3028 were found acceptable, support number 2861 shows 30% overload of anchor bolts.
(2) TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 6) demon-strating the acceptability of support number 2607.
N2M Texas Utilities Generating Company
[Qtj ' fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 18:111lllllIl111111lllll111111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
I 3/13/85
=
IF U a 4 $ --
Revision 8 ss g (. s.
NiHillin l CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues (3) TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 6) demon-strating the' acceptability of support number 657.
(4) Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 have not provided a response.
(5) Gibbs & Hill provided calculation (Reference 7) demonstrating the acceptability of support number i
3011.
(6) TUGC0 provided calculations' (Reference 8) demon-strating the acceptability of these supports.
C.
No further discussion required.
D.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
E.
Gibbs & Hill has indicated that the engineer preparing a support map drawing would be familiar with the span limitations for. transverse and longitudinal supports.
Based upon engineering judgement, he/she could violate these limitations without preparing supporting calcula-tions since the support map drawings would be subject to design review.
For the individual span violations noted above, l
i 1.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 provided calculations qualifying i
trays and supports for the transverse span viola-tions.
2.
Gibbs & H111/TUGC0 provided calcualtions qualifying trays and supports for the longitudinal span viola-tions. For tray segments lacking longitudinal sup-ports, the load was applied as additional trans-i 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 T1305CA45, the addition of a new longitudinal support was required.
F.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
G.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
~
l H.
Evnna is enntinuina internal evaluatinn.
f I
Texas Utilities Generating Campany
( )L A Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 11881111111111llllll1811111111 Independent Assessment Prsgram - All Phases Job No. 84056
1 ae CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues
.?
1 l
- 13. Validty of NASTRAN Models
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C Sets 2-6 i
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 3 Sheets 234-243, Revision 9 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder DMI-13C, Set 1 r
i Sumery:
Cygna has questioned the validity of the NASTRAN models used in the Gibbs & Hill generic studies, e.g., working point deviation study (Reference 1) and the qualification of l
Detail D1 (References 2 and 3?. The models assume a row of supports of one type, all having identical configuration and spans. This will influence the system frequencies and seismic response. Such models may not be representative of actual installation where a mixture of support types and spans are used.
i Further discussion is reguired as part of the model selec-Status:
tion for TUGCO's propose generic study.
i
- 14. Working Point Analysis Study
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-216C, Sets 1-5 i
l Sumery:
f A.
Gibbs & Hill's working point study (References 1 and 2) lacks consideration of the effects of change documentation and previously l
approved design deviations. The cut-off elevations were esta-blished using assumed 8'-6" spans, enveloping frame dimensions and l
maximum permissible working point deviations. Frames above the cut-off elevation were analyzed on a case-by-case basis but did not consider the effects of change notices. Since any one of the above assumed parameters may effect the acceptability of the study, the use of QC's check of working point deviations alone to determine field compatability with the scope of the study will be inadequate.
Texas Utilities Generating Company
$b k A Comanche Peak Steam Eiectric Station i
lintintillisillennlinilli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
=
3/13/85
~
PREUMililiRY m" '
CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues B.
The effects of vertical and transverse loads on longitudinal sup-port frames were not considered in the study (reference Generic Issue 5).
C.
The longitudinal support portion of the study only checked member intera ction. No evaluation was made to ensure that this component governed.
D.
Modeling Assumptions 1.
Instead of modeling a longitudinal support, the tray run ends were assumed as fixed. The effects of such a tray boundary fixity on system response was not justified.
2.
The analysis assumed a single two-foot tray per beam and did not assess the impact of more realistic multiple tray load-ings.
3.
Eccentricities (reference Generic Issue 11).
4.
The assumption of tray attachment fixity was not justified.
i 5.
Selection of run configuration (reference Generic Issue 13).
6.
The base angle modeling assumed a simply supported beam for two bolt base connections.
7.
Excitation in the longitudinal tray direction was not con-sidered.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 must justify the use of the modeling assumptions and the use of the analyses results for QC inspections. The concerns discussed above should be con-sidered in Gibbs & Hill dynamic analysis of the five selected cable tray systems.
)
M, Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111118##11111111111111ll Job No. 84056
~ _ _ _ _.
s 3/13/85 S,k h,. ;f f.i ;n. b g tI Revision 8 1 4
- AI k
Page 24
","1LN !i n$i, Gtu I l
CABLE TRAY I
Open Items and Generic Issues
- 15. Reduced Spectral Accelerations
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill calculations, " Analysis of Alternate Detail 1" 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 3 Sheet 247, Revision 9 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C, Set 4 Summary:
Gibbs & Hill used reduced spectral accelerations based on a calculated support / tray system frequency for the qualifica-tion of the supports discussed below.
A.
For transverse supports, such as type A4 which was used in analysis of Alternate Detail 1 (Reference 1) a rec'uced acceleration is used based on a calculated frequency which it. beyond the spectral peak.
The study assumes a tray weight of 35 psf and tray spans of 8'-6".
Use of the results of this study will not be valid in installations where either of the above parameters have been exceeded without considering the effect on frequency.
B.
Similarly, for longitudinal supports, e.g., type SP-7 with brace (Reference 3) L-Al (Reference 2), etc., the frequency will decrease due to tray weights exceeding 35 psf or longitudinal spans exceed-ing 40'-0".
In addition, the frequency calculations for support L-B, etc., did not include the effect of the axial types L-A,f the tray.
4 4
frequency o Status:
Additional discussion between Cygna and Gibbs & Hill.
- 16. Non-Conformance with AISC Specifications
References:
1.
AISC Specifications for the Design Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition Summary:
Gibbs & Hill failed to properly consider the requirements of Reference 1 as discussed below.
3 e
Mg Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
mmillmimillmmimi Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
.m
}d d ItiM kk.f I
R n8
~
"'S 25 VidW CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues A.
Unbraced length for axial buckling.
1.
Section 1.8.4 requires that kl/r < 200.
2.
Examples where k1/r limitations were exceeded.
a.
See Generic Item 4.
b.
SP-7 and associated supports are checked for buckling assuming that the tray provides a roller restraint at i
the tray attachment point, therefore k = 1.0.
- However, since no restraint can be assumed, k = 2 and k1/r > 257 for a 12" tray.
B.
Ur. braced length for lateral torsinal buckling.
1.
Section 1.5.1.4.6a 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.
2.
Examples where the specifications were ignored or improperly
- applied, The working point analyses use 22 ksi without checking a.
Equation 1.5-7.
The frame heights are on the order of 144" which yield an allowable flexural stress of 15 ksi.
b.
Detail SP-7 and similar supports consider "1" to be the distance to the tray centerline and not to the outside rail where the load is applied. Use of the larger dis-tance will result in lower allowable bending stresses.
C.
Reduction in section due to bolt holes in flange per Section 1.10.1 (see Generic Issue 10).
D.
Lacing of double angle braces (see Generic Issue 4).,
E.
Eccentric connections - Specification Section 1.15.2.
1.
This section requires that any axial members not meeting at a point be designed for the eccentricities.
- 9 r
Texas Utilities Generating Company gd g M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllilillllililllllilllllllli Job No. 84056
3/13/85 y ;,S r
Revision 8 P
I NJ.4L! ifE I"I!"i!'t Page 26 LABLt IKAT Open Items and Genaric Issues 2.
Examples of designs where this specification section applies are the gusset plates used for single angle braces, espe-cially type SP-7 with brace.
Status:
Further discussion with Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 required for technical justification.
- 17. Member Substitution
References:
1.
Conference Reports dated 1/17/85, 8:15 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., "Walkdown Response Verification,"
Kissinger and Russ participating Sunusary:
A.
Note 9 on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4, states:
" Structural members shown on drawing numbers 2323-S-900 series my be substituted by one step heavier shape of the same size."
Cygna interprets this note as allowing craft to interchange struc-tural shapes, e.g., an MC for a C or vice versa, as long as the substantial shape is heavier than, but of the same depth as the original members. This would allow the use of substitute sections which have lower section aodulii. TUGC0 has stated that they ir.terpret this note as requiring the craft to stay with the same shape, i.e., a C section can only be substituted by a C section (Reference 1).
B.
Within Cygna's walkdown scope, support number 6654 (see Generic Issue 6) was reviewed and reflected Cygna's concern as discussed above. The design required an MC6x12 and the installed member was a C6x13 which has a smaller section modulus (S = 5.80 in3 for a C6x13 compared to a S = 6.24 in3 for an MC6x12). For the other supports listed in Generic Issue 6, the required MC6x12's were substituted with C6x8.2's a substitution not permitted by this note.
C.
Cygna could not locate any documetnation which requires QC or craft to note where such substitutions were made.
- Texas Utilities Generating Company
[Ntj l fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111ll111111 Job No. 84056
?
3/13/85
["
s j l(. A rj s i.:g j; V Revision 8 t
j g, yj [j Page 27 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues Status:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill to provide justification of such substi-tutions and the requirements for documentation.
- 18. Weld Size Rquirements i
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Response to NRC Questions," 83090.023, dated March 8,1985 2.
Conference Report dated 10/27/84, " Cable Tray Conduit Review Scope," Change, Huang et al. parti-cipating i
3.
Conference Reporet dated 11/13/84, " Cable Tray Conduit Review Questions," Chang, Huang et al.
participating 4.
Conference Report dated 11/17/84, " Cable Tray Support Design Review - Weld Sizes," Chang, Huang et al. participating 5.
Conference Report dated 11/30/84, " Cable Tray Weld Details," Kissinger and Russ participating 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions,"
84056.041, dated February 12, 1985 Summary:
Cygna has discovered the following problems with the weld designs of cable tray supports.
A.
The design drawings are missing the weld details 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 on the fabrication draw-ings differ from those shown on the design drawings and those that were assumed in Gibbs & Hill calculations.
~~
4 1
1 Texas Utilities Generating Company E-
~~
[eg'(tj g' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111!'lll11ll111111ll Job No. 84056
g p, e a %[$ U Y k[ e ;; MM 3/13/85 p r-rMN Revision 8 $l($1N*$ l Page 28 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues 1 C. Eccentricities were not considered in weld connections. 1. SP-7 with brace and similar connections requires a partial penetration groove weld at the gusset plate / beam connec-tion. The design calculations did not consider the eccen-tric load application from the brace member. The eccentri-city of the brace loads results in a weld stress in excess of 400 ksi. f 2. Weld designs for base angle connections never considered the eccentricities of the applied loads from the connecting mem-bers. D. The weld designs did not consider the thicknesses of the connected parts. Gibbs & Hill's weld designs assumed the development of full weld throat without considering the thickness of the connected member. E. Gibbs & Hill assumed an incorrect minimum weld length for the beam / hanger base angle connection. 1. Gibbs & Hill assumed a distance of 1-k, where 1 = angle leg width and k = distance from back of angle leg to end of fillet. 2. Because of the radius of the curve at the angle toe, r (approximately equal to one-half the leg thickness), the actual weld length is 1-k-r. Status: Open pending response to request per Reference 6. 19. Embedded Plates Design
References:
1. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985, Attachment A, question 1 2. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated April 19,1984, page 11 3. Conference Report dated 9/15/84, " Response to Cygna Cable Tray and Conduit Questions," Williams,--. 4 Russ. Horstman et al. D8PticiD8tinQ Wi=-jg / 1ri Texas Utilities Generating Company rN'L kfM Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L Niilllililllilliitillllilllll Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
'b kd / 3/13/85 % T'% ? f'd
- T I fV2 d
fi Revision 8 I (kl bio igg [ Page 29 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues 4. Conference Report dated 2/27/85, " Quality Control (QC) Inspections,"- Warner, Williams, et al. '. parti-cipating i Susuary: Cygna's review of caole tray attachments to embedded plates indicated that the allowables for the embedded plates nay not have included the effects of prying action (Reference 1). Additionally, questions from Cygna's pipe support reviewers and cable tray reviewers on the stiffening re-quirements for embedded plate moment connections elicited conflicting responses from TUGC0 personnel. One response indicated that attachments to embedded plates act as stiffeners for moment connections (Reference 2) while another indicated that any moment attachment nust be stiffened or sufficiently analyzed (Reference 3). Cygna has also noted that cable tray embedded plate designs were not within the tolerances of Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-55-30, " Structural Embedments" (Reference 1). Cygna is also evaluating the lack of attributes for embedded plate inspections on the QC Inspection Report forms as well as the verification procedures for attachment proximity criteria (Reference 4). Status: TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill to provide justification for the above items.
- 20. Tray Clamps
References:
None Sunmary: The cable trays have been assumed to provide bracing to the tray supports for the following modes of behavior: Buckling of the hanger members. e Lateral torsional buckling of the beam members Bracing of the support frame to prevent frame rotation which would result in anchor bolt over-l oa d. E= ~-' -# Texas Utilities Generating Company [,(f;l M Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lullmittillililillililillil Job No. 84056
j i l 3/13/85 p & F
- t, e '
g Revision 8 ") k n. La 9 I!E D a 1 Page 30 CABLE TRAY Open Items and Generic Issues Such bracing may occur only if the tray clamps provide suitable compatability conditions. Status: Cygna is currently evaluating the various clamp designs to establish their capability to provide sufficient load trans-fer.
- 21. Other Loads in the FSAR Combinations
References:
1. CPSES FSAR, Section 3.8.4.3.3 2. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 1 Sheets 14-19 3. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 2, Sheet 32 Summary: Cygna is concerned that all applicable loadings, as defined in Reference 1, are considered in the design of cable tray supports. Among these concerns are LOCA loads. Reference 2 provides the calculations for Detail "A" (Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0500-01-S) which was originally designed for use in containment. Only dead and seismic loads were con-sidered in this design. Similarly, Reference 3 is the design calculation for Detail "C" (Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0500-04-S). This support was only evaluated for dead and seismic loads. Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 is required to establish the exact criteria for ignoring other possible support loadings. ~ Texas Utilities Generating Company [%d l fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l lilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllilli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
-5 m-' 3/13/85 $ hD $ j)it f
- lr et k.!tsilihi!!
15 Revision 0 9 " CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 1. Controlling Load Case for Design
References:
1. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill on 10/1/84 regarding anchor bolts and controlling load cases Summary: A. Anchor bolts control the design fcr most supports. A factor of safety of 4.0 was used for the OBE loading. SSE loads will reduce the factor of safety. B. Catalog components are designed for OBE loads. The catalog does not allow an increase in allowables for SSE. Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. Also see Cable Tray Generic Item 1. 2. Amplification Factor of 1.0 Used for Design of Supports
References:
1. Cygna discussion with Gibbs & Hill on 2/5/85 regarding reference calculations for amplification factor 2. Cygna discussion with Gibbs & Hill on 2/6/85 confirming discussion on 2/5/85 3. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-100C, Set 4, Sheets 1-11 Summary: Gibbs & Hill has submitted a calculation for justification of the 1.0 amplification factor. That calculation was based on a Class 5 piping 1amage study. Status: Reevaluation of the 1.0 amplification factor is required based on results of the cable tray amplification evaluation (see Cable Tray Generic Item 9). i -N Texas Utilities Generating Company = = [(M l ] Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllllillllllllllllllllililli Job No. 84056 l
~ h gg y 'g 'g 3/13/85 J 94g p?- Revision 0
- 9' l
5 5 'n d CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues 3. Combination of Deadweight and Earthquake in SRSS of Loads / Stress
References:
1. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-109C, Set 1 Sheets 154-163 Summary: Deadweight is added to the vertical acceleration, then SRSSed with the horizontal acceleration components. Status: 'Gibbs & Hill has submitted calculations for the consideration of vector nagnitudes of acceleration for the standard combination trethod and the SRSS method used in their designs. The unconservatism is snell and is conditionally acceptable based on cumulative effects (see Item 24). Also see Cable Tray Generic Item 2. 4. Measurement of Embedment from Top of Topping
References:
None Summary: Note 5a on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4a allows reduced embedment for certain supports at lower elevations. Support types in Cygna scope affected: CSM-18 Series, CST-17. Such a reduction is not acceptable for 1/4" and 3/8" Hilti bolts with 2" embedment requirement (these bolts are embedded in topping only). Such a reduction may not be acceptable for other sizes depending on the actual acceleration versus the design acceleration. Status: Technical justification is required for instances allowed by the note. 1 3 EF-- Texas Utilities Generating Company [e@ [ fj Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillllllilllllillllllllllllill Job No. 84056
\\ 3/13/85 F 8-Revision 0 N 9 5 5 I E !"d i 7 (* !!D.1y09 Page 3 bb1 i CONDUIT SOPP0 lits Open Items and Generic Issues i 5. Bolt Hole Tolerance and Edge Distance Violation (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910,- Sneet G-lb, Note 15)
References:
1. AISC Specifications, 7th Edition, Section 1.16.5, Minimum Edge Distance 2. AISC Specifications, 7th Edition, Section 1.23.4, Riveted and Bolted Construction - Holes Sunuary: A. The AISC Code does not provide for bolt hole tolerances. AISC bolt holes are 1/16" larger than the bolt size. Gibbs & Hill allows a tolerance varying with bolt size. B. For oversize holes, the AISC code requires that a minimum clear distance be naintained. Gibbs & Hill designs do not provide the minimum edge distances as specified in the AISC code. Supports in Cygna scope affected: CA-5a: Required edge distance = 25/32"; edge distance provided = 3/4" CSM-42: Required edge distance = 25/32"; edge distance provided = 3/4" Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. I 6. Other loads in the FSAR Combinations
References:
1. CPSES FSAR, Section 3.8.4.3.3 Suspery: Cygna is concerned that all applicable loads were not considered in the conduit support designs. Among those concerns are: ) Applicable LOCA loads in containment. Design accelerations do not envelop Containment Building e and Internal Structure spectra. F--- Texas Utilities Generating Company B'M l Q Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111llIlllll1111111111111Job No. 84056
- 2. '.;.
- a*
3/13/85
- 9. ! ( T # ^d Eh p. Irg t i.j!)
D Revision 0 8 l hkbiid[{Q Page 4 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required to determine if any justification exists.. Also see Cable Tray Generic item 21. l l 7. Support Self Weight
References:
1. Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Sunnary: Cygna's review has noted t' hat support self weights were not uniformly considered as discussed below: A. Only partial support weight was considered. Tube ends are neglected (only length to conduit centerline considered). Brace weight for CSM-6b was not considered. e B. Support self weight was neglected. CST-3, CST-17 Unistrut supports. Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. This item affects the design of anchor bolts. See cumulative effects. Item
- 24. Also see Cable Tray Generic Item 7.
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. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 1/8/85 regarding analysis of P1001C3 members under torsional loads 3. Cygna discussion with Gibbs & Hill on 2/21/85 regarding conduit support testing. 4. Cygna visit to CCL test labs on 2/25/85 to witness Unistrut support tests 7 M, Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lifillll:lllllllilllilllilllll Job No. 84056
- ~ - ts-3/13/85 P 75
- m. f. ; M ' h 5 h/y e -
j 3 *- ' Revision 0 P h age 5 =E L J CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Summary: Torsion of Unistrut members is not considered in support designs. Unistrut does not support the use of members for torsional loading. Status: TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill are evaluating the effects of torsion in the Unistrut test program. Cygna personnel visited the CCL test labs on 2/25/85 and provided coments on the test scope and procedures: (1) Worst case support configuration Member lengths and load agnitudes chosen my not be the critial case. Member lengths chosen m y not adequately address e torsional behavior of the generic support design. Documentation is not readily available to evaluate the criteria used in choosing the test configurations. Choice of larger diameter conduits for some supports e precludes testing of P2558 clamps, since C708-S clamps are required for large conduits. (2) Direction of loading to test weak link Loading of clamps should induce tensile force in e bolts. Many tests load the members in bearing instead of eximizing clamp load. For composite Unistrut sections, loading should provide tensile load on spot welds to test the integrity of the section. TUGC0 is also reanalyzing some supports per AISI methods. More information is required for evaluation of those analyses. FMEM Texas Utilities Generating Company 3'g~ i y Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllillfililllllillitilllilli Job No. 84056
3/13/85 p s 71[r ; e, g g gb.,y q Revision 0 I g, b p;t 3 W : ri. f,3, g ? 5 Pa ge 6 i-4 r. m h:.,. A s u nu a I CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open items and Generic Issues 9. Improper Use of Catalog Components
References:
1. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill on 9/20/84 regarding AISI versus AISC usage 2. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 10/11/84 regarding AISI versus AISC usage 3. Cygna discussion with fjnistrut on 1/21/85 - regarding P1941 connector plates 4. Cygna discussion with Unistrut on 2/4/85 regarding Unistrut allowbles and use of P1001C3 members 5. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Sheet 1/37 6. Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists Susunary: A. Implicit increase in allowables for SSE (see Item 1). B. AISC derived allowables are used in the design process. These values are generally conservative for bending, but are mostly unconservative for axial allowables, as catalog allowables are based on the AISI code and consider buckling of thin, open sections. Examples: l CSM-6b: 20 ksi was used for Fa which is.6 Fy, where Fy = 33 ksi (for all lengths). Catalog values range from 5.77 ksi for a 5' brace to 13.9 ksi for a 2' brace. e CST-3: AISC tables were used for Fa where Fy = 36 ksi. See additional comments for CSM-6b above. CST-17: AISC tables were used for Fa, with Fy = 36 ksi; then Fa was reduced by 33/36. See additional comments for CSM-6b above. I M C - Texas Utilities Generating Company M'M l y Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllillllllilllfillllilllilll Job No. 84056
[f 8[kiy M 3/13/85 i ni4 *
- k if U Revision 0 E U h!!b. N,,
Page 7 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues C. Use of components in ways not intended by the vendors. 1. No allowables are given for P1001C3 sections. Member pro-perties are given for X-Y axes instead of principal axes. Discussion with Unistrut indicates that use of P1001C3 is unique with respect to load application and restraint of the member, such that no generic allowables could be given. Unistrut places the burden on the designer to properly consider the capacity of the section for its intended use. 2. The Unistrut catalog shows use of P1325, P1331. P1332 brackets on single members (pinned connection). Gibbs & Hill uses two brackets on double members (moment connection, but Gibbs & Hill considers them pinned connections for some brackets in CSM-6b, CST-3, and CST-17). Unistrut does not t give allowables for this configuration. 3. Gibbs & Hill references a test C-49 to obtain allowables for the double bracket connection in CST-3. The test only provided tensile loading on the bracket; therefore, only tensile load was compared to the allowable, ignoring shear. 4. P1941 plate connectors ars used to connect headers to outriggers in CA-la and CA-2a supports. Tightening of Unistrut bolts to specified torque overstresses the plate (by analysis), causing excessive bowing. Discussion with Unistrut indicates that these connectors are used to construct frames, such that restraint is provided at the other end of the connected member. On CA-la and CA-2a supports, clarification of this problem is required, as there is conflicting information regarding behavior of the P1941 plates: a. In Revision 1 of Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet CA-la, Note 7 was added to provide P1064 plates if bend-ing of the P1941 plates occurs. b. In Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C. Sheet 1/37, a discussion of field installation documents that the P1064 plates do not reduce the bowing of the outriggers. c. Unistrut tests showed no bowing of the outriggers when the P1064 plates were used. Verification of bolt torques for the test is required. F Texas Utilities Generating Company gy ' f j Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station kittitiliittiilitiffilll#$lli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
~ 3/13/85 Ih 0{k pl,.d It t ? Na] al h.d.3 <-t j' Tt 5!El S f Revision 0 s e i Page 8 !k l l l e 1 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues i 5. C708-5 clamps are not. designed for three-directional load-ing. Allowables for tensile loading only are given in the Superstrut Catalog. Summary: Discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 10. Anchor Bolts
References:
1. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions " 84056.015, dated August 6,1984, Question A2b regarding CSD-la Sunmary: A. A prying factor of 1.5 was used in most cases without justifica-tion. The Teledyne method predicts higher factors for CSH-18d and CSM-18f (rectangular plates). B. The AISC 8th Edition method was used to omit a prying factor for CSD-2, Detail 8 (U-glips). C. No prying factor was used for CST-17. Type 17 (box bracket). D. No prying factor was used for CSD-1, Detail 2 (Z-clips). This detail is addressed in the Unistrut test program. Status: Discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill is required. Also see Cable Tray Generic Item 3. 11. Longitudinal Loads on Transverse Supports
References:
1. Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists Clamps provide restraint in three-directions. Summary: e Some transverse supports pay be on the same order of stiffness as long cantilever multi-directional supports. Torsion of transverse supports due to transverse loads may induce some longitudinal loads. ~*- Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 9[ g, Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111lll11ll11111llllllllllllll Job No. 84056
3/13/85 . s. a gg it a 9 mL f$aiB!;k,HN g CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Status: Technical justification by Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 12. Substitution of Hilti Bolts
References:
None Sunmary: Note 4 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910 Sheet G-4a, allows substitution of all Hilti Kwik and Super Kwik bolts with those of larger size. A reduction in the allowables for larger bolts nay te necessary due to spacing require-ments, such that the replacement bolts have lower capacity than the original bolts in the design. Examples: 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 (2750 lbs for 3/4" bolts versus 3012 lbs used in the design). CSH-42: 1" Hilti Super Kwik bolts at 7.5" spacing were Type III used in the original design (allowable tension = 12452 lbs, allowable shear = 6884 lbs). If all 1" bolts are replaced by 1-1/4" bolts of equal embedment, bolt capacity is signifi-cantly reduced (allowble tension = 6405 lbs, allowable shear = 6221 lbs). Status: Technical justification by Gibbs & Hill is required for supports affected by this note. FASE@E Texar, Utilities Generating Company 3'y 1 3 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statinn lilillifillfilllllifflilllill Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
I 3/13/85 QII l
- 8If h,j '* F'17 Revision 0 l
hkN.N d CONDUIT SUPPORTS f Open Items and Generic Issues )
- 13. Substitution of Saller Conduits on CA-Type Supports
References:
1. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 3/7/85 regarding conduit support allowables for fire-protected supports Summary: CA-type supports are designed using ZPA for large conduits -and peak acceleration for small (<2") conduits. For CA-type supports with capacities tabulated on the drawings, substi-tution of smaller conduits is allowed unless specifically prohibited on the drawings. Although the deadweight load of the sail conduits must be less than the capacity, the accelerated load of the small conduits may exceed the accelerated load of the large conduits used for desigr.. Example: CA-15 was designed for 2 - 3" conduits with deadweight i ) capacity of 156 lbs. Five 1-1/2" conduits can be installed on a CA-15 support, giving higher accelerated loads than designed for: Rigid span loads (2 - 3"); 343 lbs,109 lbs Flexible span loads (5 1/2"); 504 lbs, 450 lbs This item possibly affects 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. l 4 see s w Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 4( Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 186lll11lllllll11Illll!!Ill111 Job No. 84056
7 3/13/85 i il COIIDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues
- 14. Use of CA-Type Supports in LS Spans
References:
1. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 2/20/85 regarding QC practices 2. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 3/7/85 regarding conduit support allowables for fire-protected supports Sumery: CA-type supports are used to support LA spans, which are limited to 6' length. CST-type and CSH-t/pe supports are used to support LS spans, which can be up to 12' for transverse spans and 24' for longitudinal spans. In field installations, when conduits run from walls to equipment in the middle of a room, transition is nude between LA spans and LS spans. Thus, CA type supports may support LS spans. The concerns are discussed below. For large diameter conduits (>2"), ZPA was used to calculate the accelerated design load. For the CA-type support with an adjacent suspended support (CST-or CSM-type), the peak acceleration should be used to check support capacity, since rigidity of the transitional span can no longer be guaran-teed. There is evidence that decreased support capacity is considered for the fire-protected supports (see CP-EI-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 investigating the practice for fire protected supports.
- 15. Stress in Cable Trays for Attached Conduit Supports
References:
1. Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists i 2. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-156C, Set 1 Sheets 101-104 Sumery: This item applies to CSD-16 in the Cygna review scope and to any similar details. Tray spans are ostensibly designed to the capacity of the tray. Addition of conduit supports to the tray rails adds load above that capacity. Therefore, a y MA Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111llll11111111111lll111111ll Job No. 84056
i 1 r "; r, g *i. d 4 3/13/85 r. Revision 0 lr S3idijf lEy S' 22 i 11 CONOUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues generic stress check for the trays is not possible, and all tray spans with these conduit supports should be indivi-dually checked. Since the design drawing does not preclude l the use of this detail on fire protected trays, and since the conduit support designer is responsible for showing adequacy of the tray for the attached detail, a proper check must be nede for all uses of this detail. I Status: Cygna has reviewed the Gibbs & Hill calculation for CSD-
- 16. Cygna's comments require discussion with Gibbs & Hill.
I i
- 16. Allowable Span Length Increase from Old S-0910 Package
References:
1. Cygna discussion with Gibbs & Hill on 12/27/84 ( l regarding span increase J 2. Gibbs & Hill Calculacion 2323-SCS-189C, Set 1 Sheets 15-24 i Summary: In the revised S-0910 package, LA span lengths were in-l creased by a ratio of the refined to the unrefined spectra. l Status: Gibbs & Hill provided a calcuation to show that the above changes are correct and that rigid spans remain rigid (large diameter conduit). This is adequate for support design, since support loads are proportional to span lengths. Evaluation of conduit stress is required, since conduit bending stress is proportional to the square of the span length. i
- 17. Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member l
l
References:
None l { Susamry: This item refers to Note 5 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 ; 0910, Sheet G-la. Since supports are designed to the limit of the Hilti bolts, and in light of the discussion in item i 7.A., generic designs using structural steel are affected but are not checked. ) Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. See cumulative effects, item 24. 1 4 L l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station f eg[ Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l pmmmNamMW'l Job No. 84056 i
3/13/85 IM, gp5 [2 h f 5 [l Of
- ,,, s Revision 0 II.L.
Iti$3bhElI CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues
- 18. Clamp Usage
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 regarding reaming of P2558 clamps 2. N.H. Williams (Cygna) 1etter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Conduit Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.020, dated August 13, 1984, Question 3 regarding deformed clamps 3. Cygna discussion with Unistrut on 7/25/84 regarding reaming of P2558 clamps 4. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill on 10/9/84 regarding reaming of P2558 clamps i 5. Cygna Walkdown Checklists Summary: i A. For small diameter conduits (<2"), clamps nay be reamed to accomodate 3/8" Hilti bolts. 1. The minimum edge distance is violated. 2. Hilti washer for 3/8" bolts will not fit on clamps for sali diameter conduits (<2"). The washer is an integral part of the bolt, and justification for its omission is required. B. In the Cygna walkdewn, distortion of clamps for the following supports was noted. Support 10 Support Type I C12G93528-8 CSM-18f C12002935-3 CA-Sa C12G03126-18 CSM-42 C12G02851-6 CA-Sa Texas Utilities Generating Company Comnche Peak Steam Electric Station p litilfillillillilllIlitil.itti Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056
3/13/85 i P }E' ygi,;cgj rj Revision 0 , L...; lp jl $tt 89' 3. b. CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues Status: A.1. Gibbs & Hill has provided calculations; Cygna is reviewing the calculations. A.2. Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. B. Discussion with TUGC0 is required.
- 19. Documentatiorf/0A Deviations Between IR/ CMC /IN-FP
References:
1. Cygna discussion with Gibbs & Hill on 2/18/85 regarding discrepancies between IR and.IN-fps for C12004695 i Susanary: For each line, inspection is performed as documented on the IR. All CMCs, supporting calculations, and IN-FP materials should reflect the IR. Examples: Line C11003395, IRME-18120F, Support -1: On the IR, the e support is listed as CSM-18f, Revision 4. On CMC 62903, the support is listed as CSM-18b, Revision 14. From the CMC information, the IR is in error. Line C12G-05087, IRHE-16817F, Suppor -4: On the IR, the support is listed as CSM-18C, R.,ision 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. Line C12004695 IRME-16089F, IN-FP-216, and IN-FP-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 supports, but. documentation should be consistent. Status: This item is still in the evolutionary stage. Additional issues will be noted as the review progresses. i Texas Utilities Generating Company B'y l p Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lill!illiittiillililllililllll Job No. 84056
1 3/13/85
- c.,p a : 6 r3 s4 Eq PIlbb3$8L::
h eil: f ! f.T4 s jy l Revision 0 (d I U 4.
- E3h
~ Page 15 V;h t!hk I i CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues l
- 20. Nelson Studs I
References:
1. Cygna discussion with Gibbs & Hill on 8/7/84 regarding Nelson stud and conduit clamp issues 2. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-156C, Set 1 Sheets 131-160 '3. Gibbs & Hill Calculati6n 2323-SCS-109C, Set 1 Sheets 164-184 Summary: A. Allowables. Allowables used by Gibbs & Hill do not conform to allowables given by TRW/ Nelson. B. Pretensiar of Nelson studs. Gibbs & Hill calculations use pretension force in the Nelson studs to resist applied loads. The pretension force should consider the flexibility of the shim plate and clamp, as distortion and/or re-laxation in these components will decrease the stud preload. i I C. Bending of Nelson studs. l Filler plates with oversized or slotted holes allow the studs to be I loaded at the clamp, applying a shear load eccentric to the weld. l Transfer of side-load on the clamp is provided through shear and I bending of the Nelson stud rather than pure shear considered in the design. D. Stress in shim plates due to stud welds. Gibbs & Hill provided a calculation to address stress in shim ( plates. Status: A. Justification of allowables used for the Nelson studs is required. B. Evaluation of the actual preload and its effect on the stud capacity is required. ? Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 11111111111ll1116 llll16$l11 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 1
P ["U I ?- g F y g]* 3/13/85 . [i
- l t L' Revision 0 i
m. [ { l(!$l} Page 16 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues C. Evaluation of the Nelson studs for the above situation is required. D. Cygna has reviewed the calculation and requires technical justification of the following issues regarding the yield line analysis: Underrun was not included in consideration of the weld. The assumed stress distribution in the fillet weld around the plate is not realistic, as it assumes an infinite stress on the bottom of the plate. A more realistic stress distribution shows that the weld can not provide full fixity of the plate. This should be considered in a revised yield line a nalysis.
- 21. Configuration of Fire Protection on Conduits
References:
1. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 10/16/84 regarding configuration of Thermolag fire-protection on conduits l Summary: Gibbs & Hill fire-protection calculations consider a round configuration of Thermolag material around conduits. Weight of Thermolag on the spans was calculated based on this con-figuration. Cygna walkdown shows that a square configura-tion was alsc used in field installation. 1 Status: Evaluation by Gibbs & Hill of the as-built configuration with respect to the design configuration is required to insure that the design adequately envelops the field condition. Preliminary evaluation by Cygna indicates small unconservatisms in some cases. See Item 24 for cumulative effects. e l .. ~ Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Ilittiililimittililllllimi Job No. 84056
s FNoE:n! E5!l $h()'N l' 'N'b' ~~ ' f j 'lty' h', l 7 Revision 0 l
- 9' i
4 CONDUIT SUPPORTS i Open Items and Generic Issues
- 22. Span Increase for Fire-Protected Spans
References:
1. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 10/16/84 regarding fire-protection on conduits 2. Cygna discussion with TUGC0 on 10/27/84 regarding fire-protection evaluations 3. TUGC0 Instruction CP-EI'-4.0-49 4. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, LA Series 5. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, LS Series 6. Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1017, Set 1 Susuary: Many allowable spans for fire-protected conduit runs are longer than allowable spans for unprotected runs. Status: Cygna has revie,ted calculations provided by TUGCO. Addi-tional discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 23. Loads on Grouted Penetrations
References:
1. None 1 Susuary: For straight conduit runs embedded in walls and floors, no longitudinal conduit supports are required if there are no bends in the run. For very long conduit runs, the loads on the grouted penetrations nay be large. Status: Technical justification for omission of longitudinal sup-ports on embedded runs with respect to performance of the grouted penetrations is required: l Capability of the grout to resist applied loads should be insured. Proper documentation and inspection of grouting should e be performed to validate analysis of the penetrations for applied loads. ~ Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Niilillllillllfillllllllillli Job No. 84056
' P:. rra a r E j;t i.1," f:d " A 'jl f 3/13/85 f f' ?.,D i)2 E $1. 7 Revision 0 i ) f.1. 3 Page 18
- 2 6
um t-x .o i C0flDUIT SUPPORTS Open Items and Generic Issues j
- 24. Cumulative Effect of Generic Items
References:
None Summary: Small unconservatisms can usually be neglected in design. Since most of the conduit supports are designed to neximum capacity, the cumulative effect of nany unconservatisms may be significant. The following items ney have cumulative effects on the conduit designs: Combination of dead weight and earthquake loads (Item 3) a. b. Support self weight (Item 7) c. Substitution of heavier structural members (Item 17) d. Variance in Thermolag cross-section (Item 21) Status: Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. 4 3 I Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111111111111111:111111 Job No. 84056
b i i 3/13/85 f < * !} Qf f Revision 0 I A L.Is.[ $ N!}J tb f Page 1 i t MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Open Items and Generic Issues i 1. Component Cooling Water System Maximum' Temperature
References:
1. Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-01-01 (not issued) I 2. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), 84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 1 -3. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGC0-) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), j dated August 11, 1984 y i 4. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), I j 84056.023, dated August 21, 1984 i y 5. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated April 11, 1984 7 l 1 j 6. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated October 1, 1984 Sumery: Cygna noted discrenancies between the Westinghouse stated maximum Component Jooling Water (CCW) system temperature of 120'F, the CPSES FSAR, Gibbs & Hill calculation 233-16 and i Gibbs & Hill calculation 229-14 which indicated anximums of l 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 was not aware of the l problem prior to the Cygna questions. Status: Cygna Observation MS-01-01 was closed based on documentation l provided. However, when design and operating data is revised, all existing system components should be reviewed to ensure that they meet the new operating conditions. l 2. CCW Surge Tank Isolation on High Radiation Signal ,I
References:
1. Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-06-01 (not issued) 2. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),84056.028, dated August 27, 1984 ~ p MA Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases billlllimililllilllimilli Job No. 84056 1w. ---.
3/13/85 f g lQ ' [ Revision 0 ll h MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Open Items and Generic Issues 3. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated September 20, 1984 Summary: 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 teniperature during accidents. Since the change did not address the radiation release effects of the vent reneining open, Cygna requested verification that the release would be acceptable. TUGC0 performed a calculation 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. 3. Class 5 Piping
References:
1. Cygna Phase 4 Final Report TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Observation MS-02-01 (not 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) dated August 11, 1984 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 1 EM
- =
Texas Utilities Generating Company Counche Peak Steam Electric Station b N k U Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3 j lillllllllllllililllilllilllli Job No. 84056 l
e PLajyhlOg[yk 3/13/85 a) [ $ et e g g c 5, Revision 0 b f jillt? r Page 3 ggg MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Open Itans and Generic Issues 8. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC) "Open Items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations," 84042.022, dated January 18, 1985. Summary: The definition of Class 5 piping design and analysis re-quirements are not clearly presented by TUGCO. Per Git;bs & 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 documentation showing that the specific Class 5 CCW piping that was in Cygna's review scope was seismically analyzed and therefore, would i remain functional as required. However, Cygna could not determine whether any similar circumstances exist in other piping systems where Class 5 piping nay be required to remain functional during a seismic event. Status: Observation MS-02-01 was closed for the CCW system based on the documentation and analyses provided. Cygna has not been authorized to investigate the generic implications of this issue for other piping systems. 4. Fire Doors
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 4. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 31, 1984 Sunenry: Cygna noted that the double doors between the train A & B nuclear chillers did not have a U.L. fire rating label. TUGC0 stated that this had been previously noted by them and that the proper door was being installed. TUGC0 could not provide documentation of how the error was noted but did supply copies of a purchase order for the correct door. Reinspection by Cygna verified the proper door was in-stalled. TUGC0 stated that no NCR or other paper work _was Texas Utilities Generating Company m = = - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station p8.d L f Al Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 3 L liti!Illilllitilllllilllilllli Job No. 84056
3/13/85 Revision 0 l $ 5 D RI: "S. y.y. N Page 4 r.N
- h. s;*j & i.' fihEk E 6 'A b gg 7 j-l NAHMiCAL SY31tm Open Items and Generic Issues e
f initiated since the door is not safety related. The door is required to meet Appendix R requirements and as such should j be considered important to safety. Documentation and in-spection trail is in question. Status: Open for internal Cygna discussion. 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 issued) 2. Cygna Phase 4 Final Report, TR-84056-01, Revision 0, Potential Finding PFR-01 (not issued) 3. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 4. L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 24, 1984 5. D.H. Wade (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), CPPA-40961, dated September 18, 1984 6. D.H. Wade (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), CPPA-41237, dated October 3,1984 7. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC),84056.032, cated October 9, 1984 8. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USMRC),84056.035, dated October 22, 1984 9. E.P. Rahe, Jr., (Westinghouse) letter to R.C. DeYoung (USNRC) NS-EPR-2938, dated July 13, 1984 10. T.R. Puryear (Westinghouse) letter to J.T. Merritt, Jr. (TUGCO), WPT-7436, dated July 23, 1984 Summary: Cygna expressed a concern that if the single temperature controlled isolation valve on the outlet of the reactor coolant pung thermal barrier should fail to close subsequent .O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases L L L A N11111lll11111111111111111111 Job No. 84056
a 3/13/85 o hvision 0 P'lI"dkfj,tg. [lk nae-Page 5 1..E 5 D Is b i t fi MEffUUIIMsiem Open Items and Generic Issues to a rupture of the thermal barrier, then low pressure portions of the CCW system would be over pressurized and reactor coolant could be released outside containment. Westinghouse also notified the NRC and TUGC0 cf'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 NRC and TUGC0 in accordance with our review procedures for a Definite Potential Finding. Cygna has not received tny of the TUGC0 documents used to evaluate this issue nor hat Cygna performed any additional investiga-tion or review on this issue. s Status: Observation MS-02-02 was upgraded to Potential Finding PFR-01 and closed via the TUGC0 commitment and Cygna's NRC notification. j 1 79 -N Texas Utilities Generating Company Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station NN)( fil Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillllllililllilllllililllilli Job No. 84056
3/13/85 mhemh f f,$h k! 7: P"'f e< Revision 0 1 i f 1 0 $Y '( ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Open Items and Generic Issues 1. Instrumentation Pressure / Temperature Ratings
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 Summary: .Two instances were noted by Cygna where the pressure tem-perature ratings for instrdments installed in the CCW system were lower than the maximum pressure or temperature of system as indicated in Gibbs & Hill analyses. The instru-ments in question were later shown to be qualified for the higher design conditions or protected by interlocks. The generic implications of these oversights were not investi-gated. Status: When design and operating data is revised, all existing system components should be reviewed to ensure that they meet the new operating conditions. 2. Cable Tray Thermo tag Fire Protection
References:
1. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),84056.010, dated July 30, 1984 2. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated August 11, 1984 3. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),84056.024 dated August 21, 1984 4. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated September 4,1984 Summary: During the Cygna walkdown of July 16-20, 1984, it was noted that cable tray section T130ACA43 was not covered with thermo lag fire protection material. Cygna reinspected the area in August / September and the proper saterial was installed. However, the documentation supplied by TUGC0 for the removal and reinstallation of the fire lag insulation indicates that the work was completed and signed off on 7/14/84. This is prior to the Cygna walkdown. While the Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station b,NJ fA3 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases litillillllitiliiiiiiiiiumi Job No. 84056
"i M ? E r t.I./ 3/13/85 P 7! E i" "Eii'J 5 Revision 0 ' ij $ = .Ic.$ s, !. I fi[{ Page 2 d ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Open Items and Generic Issues reinspection showed the tray to be properly covered, the documentation is not consistent with the noted sequence of events. Status: Open for internal Cygna discussion only. 3 y i _ Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ( T N.J L fil Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i lilllllllilll!!!!!muni Job No. 8a056 ~
=b=au=gh ev s n0 ~ = 6 u x, :.,, Page 1 DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues
- 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 a.:sociated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations," 84042.022, thted January 18, 1985 4. N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC), " Status of 1AP Ccclusions," kOS6.050, dated January 25, 1985 5. All Communication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assess-ment Program Sunnary: Given the data available from all four phases of the Cygna technical and design control reviews, a cumulative effects evaluation of all observations and potential finding reports is being performed. This review will also focus on the cumulative effects of individually insignificant discre-pancies. Any trends identified which indicate either strengths or weaknesses in the CPSES design / design control program will be evaluated. Status: Cygna is in the process of extracting raw data from all phases of the IAP performad to date. The results of this review will be included in the Phase 4 Final Report. 2. Adequacy of the Design Process used on CPSES
References:
1. Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al., Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2, dated December 28, 1983 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company [((t,l Q Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillililillfilllllllllilllitig Job No. 84056
n b 3 I t 4 btLLhannfin s L j;. Rv 0 Page 2 DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues 2. CASE's Motion for Sunmary Disposition, " Allegations Concerning Quality Assurance Program for Design of Piping and Pipe Supports," dated i July 3, 1984 J 3. Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections ' 4. Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision f t 1, all Sections 5. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated i' January 25, 1985 6. All Consnunication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent i Assessment Program Sunmary: Based on the Phase 1 through 4 review scopes, Cygna is f evaluating the adequacy of the process employed in the design of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. This review i will also include an assessment of the resulting quality of 1 the final design. l Status: This evaluation is ongoing in conjunction with the cumula-tive effects review. The results of this review will be included in the Phase 4 Final Report. 3. Qualification and Training of Design Engineers l t
References:
1. Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections J l 2. Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections l 3. N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan j (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station [,, Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11llll1111111111lll111111111llJob No. 84056
3/13/85 89 I E t b w: :27 l'd! 1:l e a u n iu k G m in Gt. Open Items and Generic Issues 4. All Comunication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Summary: Assess the root cause of all discrepancies and observations to determine whether or not a trend exists which indicates any weakness in the training / qualifications of the design . engineers. Status: This issue is being addressed in conjunction with the cumulative effects evaluation. Results will be provided in the Phase 4 Final Report. 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 Communication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Susuary: Assess the adequacy of the interfaces as a result of trending which was performed on Phase 1 through 4 observations. The results of this review will be provided in the Phase 4 Final Report. Status: This issue is being addressed in conjunction with the cumulative effects evaluation. 5. Adequacy of Procedures Reference : 1. Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 4 r Texas Utilities Generating Company el:' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases d' till!IlillllllRillilillllli Job No. 84056 --g. --w - - - + - - -
.. : ' ~ ~ - I, h f.,; f d ev n0 g t. b,c.f.h u = t: v e s 5 t:.i t s u s I Page 4 In p s I DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues 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 Comunication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Summary: The adequacy of and compliance with procedures for the CPSES project is being reviewed as a result of the initial trending of observations in Phases 1 through 4. The results of this review will be provided in the Phase 4 Final Report. Status: This issue is being addressed in conjunction with the cumulative effects evaluation. 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 Comunication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Summary: The adequacy of design documentation is being evaluated as a result of the usage of undocumented assumptions and inadequate references which were identified during the IAP technical reviews. The results of this review will be provided in the Phase 4 Final r:eport. Status: This issue is being addressed in conjunction with the_ cumulative effects evaluation. Texas Utilities Generating Company j Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station b ' A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111611lll1llllll1111111!I111Job No. 84056
l P I2!n#[dilteI$1Ih, fi.h [ 'I J d 3/13/85 d ,p Revision 0 I Page 5 DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues j 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 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 Communication Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Susunry: An evaluation of whether or not the issues identified by Cygna on all phases of the IAP should have been detected by TUGC0 through the corrective action system. The results of this review will be provided in the Phase 4 Final Report. Status: This issue is being addressed in conjunction with the cumulative effects evaluation. i 8. Document Control
References:
1. Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observations DC-01-01, DC-01-02 and Dr 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 y Texas Utilities Generating Company og M g, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Ntl1111lll1111111111lll161111Job No. 84056
D 8 s E N Of E ! 5 T'Q) 3/13/85 i{g3EyEjy;fjNl-Revision 0 F" ,,-,9 ! Y ! s i t ~t s 1 Page 6 t DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues Sumery: Observations concerning the Document Control Center (DCC) and control of design. documents were written in Phase 1 and 2. Reference 2 was issued to document the adequacy of current DCC practices. Assessment is still required to evaluate the effects of technical and design control deficiencies which could be attributed to inadequate controls in the DCC. The results of this review will be .provided in the Phase 4 Final Report. Status: This issue is being addressed in conjunction with the cumulative effects evaluation. 9. Design Change Tracking Group
References:
1. Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 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 Samary: 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 any possible effects on the design. Status: This issue is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 10. G8H Design Input References
References:
1. Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation DC-02-01 2. N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noona'n (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Sumery: A Gibbs & Hill design specification required a different edition of ASME Section III than a computer code (ADLPIPE ~ Version 2c) used for piping calculations. Texas Utilities Generating Company Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station [ Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111mll1!!!!!ll11111111111111Job No. 84056 i
I hk\\ a DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues Status: This Observation is considered closed except for review during the cumulative effects review. 11. Inspection Reports
References:
1. Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-01-01, j 2. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Susuary: Three inspection reports had been filed in the permanent plant records vault prior to closure. Status: This Observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 12. TUGC0 Audits
References:
1. Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observations DC-01-02 and DC-01-03 2. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Susuary: TUGC0 Audit files did not contain corrective 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
- 9 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
[ Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1lllll11111llllllll1111111 Job No. 84056
Nvs n0 ts p DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues 2. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 j Sumary: Documentation which verified surveillance activities had been performed for 1973 through 1977 was not imediately obtained. Status: -This Observation is closed. except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 14. Gibbs & Hill Management Reviews
References:
1. Cygna Phase 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 Sumary: Gibbs & Hill nanagement Review Evaluation Reports were not available for 1974 through 1976. Status: This Observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 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 (USNRC), " Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Sunuary: Gibbs & Hill had renumbered an audit finding and not closed the original finding. Status: This is closed. Texas Utilities Generating Company rgy { y Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Hillilllilllililllilllllillli Job No. 84056
~ fi $ E..k!hj(E: [I # O 1 +' 3/13/85 () E{N[0 94t. =t $1.e 's gj 1lk Revision 0 1 Page 9 DESIGN CONTROL Open Items and Generic Issues 16. Evaluation of Gibbs & Hill Design Reviewers
References:
1. Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-02-04 letter to V. Noonan (USNRC), N.H. Williams (Cygna) ions," 2. " Status of IAP Conclus 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Summary: Gibbs & Hill deisgn reviewers were not evaluated on an annual basis as required. Status: This Observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review. "N Texas Utilities Generating Company Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station b k A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases N8111tl11111111111ll111111111 Job No. 84056 _}}