ML20206F720

Forwards Communications Rept Transmittal 47 Re Independent Assessment Program on All Phases of Conduit Support Design Review

ML20206F720
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/14/1988
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
NUDOCS 8811210295
Download: ML20206F720 (21)

Text

.

. $s' ab 1 mm. .

2i2 n. cancenu ow . see am wenut cree

• c^ 9.tw, 41ss34.s7aa l November 14, 1988 84056.158 hits. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dalla 4 TX 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal No. 47 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 Dear hits. Ellis-Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the conduit support design review. A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1.

If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.

Very trul ours, h.R. NOT b N.!i. Williams Project Stanager Enclostres ec: hir. J. Redding (TU Electric) hir. W. Council (TU Electric) htr. L Nace (TU Electric) hir. J. 51uffett (TU Electric) hir. D. Pigott (Orrick, lierrington & Sutcliffe) hir. C. Grimes (USNRC)

Af r. D. Terao (USNRC) hir. J. Wilson (USNRC)

Afr. C. Cl' iou (Ebasco)

Afr. F. Ilettinger (Ebasco)

GG11210295 891114 P r.iR ALOCK 05000445 to A PDC V o - - ,

l

\ Tuli \S4056\l11'R.158

A1TACilMENT 1 List of Enclosed Communications Reports DATE TIME 07/23/87 510 p.m.

09/01/87 9:00 a.m.

09/03/87 2 45 p.m.

09/25/87 2 30 p.m.

01/28/88 4f)0 p.m.

05/05/88 11G0 a.m.

\ Tuli \S1056\LTit.15S

..'o .

==fAsilia Communications

[4 N tid '

lllllllllllllllll111ll11!i1111 Report cornpany: reiecon conference neport CES

"' ' TU Electric Jw No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 g,,,

7/23/87 subject 7.me.

510 p.m.

l Conduit Support Design Review .

Ebasco Audit Place' New York, NY _

i Participants' '

yg Ebasco H. Shakibnia Cygna Requred Comments Action By Review Issue 28 - Systems Concept In response to an earlier request by Cygna, Ebasco provided a list of conduit supports where the systems concept had been applied:

Unit 1 S1!pport TyPa Remark CA-3a CA-3b Detail A only; Detail B is based on CCL tests CA 11a CA 11b l CA 14a CA 14b Unit 2

! S110P MO'OC IlClllilth l

CSht-2a 1 Ebasco Calculation Book 22 CSht 2a 3 Ebasco Calculation Ihk 22 CSht 2a 5 Ebasco Calculation llook 22 CSht 2a 2 Ilased on CCL test results CSht 2a-4 Ebasco Calculation llook 13

/?O r -

~N& bc // / V ):/./ flslv:

msmm.

"" 1 e.,,.py em ameimowrRp

Communications

%EGMn1 8M t Id '

Report 1111111111111111ll1lltll111111 stem comments [#!$

Ebasco provided a preliminary calculation (see attachment) which compared the effects of the two different boundary conditions (fixed and pinned), and also removed the conservatism in the original calculation. The conservatism in the calculation resulted from an additional eccentricity considered when determis.ing the moment. The original calculation considered an eccentricity equal to the distance between the centerli,m of the conduit and the concrete plus one-half the cenduit diar- 'e r. I The actual distance is equal to the distance from the o , cit centerline to the concrete face. Cygna stated that the reason for this conservatism may have been that, for abrasive clamps, the conduit load would be transmitted through the top of the clamp. Ilowever, the net moment on support would still be M*=(FKe3) y Ebasco stated that they would finalize the calculation for Cygna's review.

4 I

l i.

Tuli \072387. A. CON l

~

Still NITACilliD DISTitillUTION SilliliT 2 2

, r l

I,

k E

DISTRilllTTION LIST Mi. J. Redding t Mr. L Nace i Mr. W. Counsil  ;

Mr. D. Pigott t Mr. C Grimes Mr. D. Terao -

Mr.!K WNoon r  :

Mr. CY Chiou -

Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman '

Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay  :

Ms. D. Leong

' Project File M

D

{'

l r

> 1 I

[

I

, I r

[

l h

I i.

4'

~. o Communications ch( 6 i Report llllllllll11111111llll11111ll1 conspa* Teiecon @ conference neport CES

"' ' TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 '

September 1,1987 suo rect 7""'-

990 a.'m.

Conduit Support Audits '

"'*** Glen Rose, TX Participants- of R Atalay, D. Leong, J. Russ, R Shakibnia Cygna

_un Required Comments Action ey Cygna discussed general procedural questions and goject overview with Ebasco:

Walkdown Procedures Cygna informed hir. Chiou that they had finished reviewing the walkdown procedures and were aware of the activities involved in ,

the Post Construction liardware Validation Program (PCIIVP) Cygna requested a disctusion with Rodney Beam to answer questions that  :

had resulted from the review of the procedures.

Conduit Support and Clamp fesiing Cygna also informed hir. Chiou regarding the overview of conduit support and clamp testing that Tim Kuo provided the previous day, hir. Chiou provided an overview of the shake table testing for clamps that was performed at ANCO Labs. lie stated that the final report would be available from ANCO in September; however, they were currently not planning on using the test results to qualify clamps in the design verification effort.

hir. Chiou explained the differences twtween the CCL and the ANCO tests. Ile stated that the CCL clamp tests used a sinusoidal load in eact of the three loading directions. He ANCO tests were not cycde, random mown was used, characterizing the SSE event.

Approximately 20 systems were tested.

n0

"" ' 3' kbw'/ w SEE"A 1 i ACIIE TIST1Ull YFSHbtu.

/// MMdm ~

I o si,,t,g,

menm Communications enem E4 N tid Report ll111111111111llll111111111111 nem comm na [f%$

Cygna asked hir. Chiou what the results were for the clamps which had been evaluated to date in the Iso verification effort. lie replied that there was no more than a 10% failure rate for the clamps. One important result of the ANCO tests showed that the C70SS clamp capacities were equal to those of the P2558 clamps, whereas the CCL tests showed lower capacities for the C70SS clamps due to breakdown of the abrasive material during cyclic loading.

Cygna asked how the failed clamps would be dispositioned. hir.

Chiou stated that there were two options. One would tm to utilize the ANCO test results to provide additional capacity. The other would be to change out the clamp or provide an additional adjacent support to reduce the load on the failing clamp. lie stated that Ebasco intended to review the results of the ANCO tests to develop capacities, determine an interaction formula if required, then decide whether it was in the project's best interest to pursue use of the results in the design verification program. Cygna requested a copy of the ANCO test p!an to review.

Concrete Anchors Cygna informed hfr. Chiou of the review they were doing of SWEC's concrete anchor document DBDCS-015. Cygna stated that DDDCS-015 defines allowable anchor spacing and loads. The Iliiti anchor allowables, required spacing between anchors, and edge distances have changed.

Cygna a.sked hir. Chiou how Ebasco procedures were being changed to conform to the requirements of DBD-CS-015, and they understand that any violations will te identified and dispositioned later. Ebasco will record the bolt spacing during the walkdown effort. If conformance to DBD-CS-015 is required, the information for the reevaluation will be readily available. Currently, Ebasco conforms to the requirements of Gibbs & Ilill Specification 2323 SS-30. They believe that SWEC will walkdown the entire plant and identify any spacing violations.

Seismie A'1chor Nic ,ons Cygna stated that their discussions with SWEC had identified thc.

existence of secondary walls with relative movement with respect to the floor slabs of up to 1/2". SWEC had informed Cygna that seismic anchor motion (SAhl) analyses for those walls had teen performed at the request of the cable tray and conduit support groups.

Str. Chiou acknowledged the existence of the large relative displacements and stated that provisions for evaluation of the impact

"* 2 i SEE ATI'ACilED DISTRIBUTION SilEET .

N fd Communications SN?U Illlllllllllllllininilllllli Report nem commem [ON had already been added to SAG.CPIO, Rev 4. lie stated that there were only 24 conduit lines attached to such secondary walls and that each one was being analyzed on a case-by. case Imis. The

- flexibility of the runs in the area between the ceiling and the top of the wall would be increased, or the conduit line would be r i rerouted.

Nelen Studs Cygna asked htr. Chiou how Nelson studs were being handled by Ebasco, in terms of the qualification of the surface to which the studs are welded. The ndequacy of the clamps attached with Nelson studs are handled by the site ,orcup, but the evaluation of the details delineating how the studs are wcided to the members is handled by the support group in New Yor).. The evaluations are

" performed for the CSD-series drawings in the S-0910 package using an allowable ductility of 10. hir. Chiou stated that the welds to tube steel members are critical.

Fire Protection Cygna asked hir. Chiou what an IN BBR drawing was, as there were not any in the original Gibbs & liill S-0910 package. lie replied that the IN.BBR drawings are isometrics for lines with fire wrap.

! Fire wrap is used for radiation shielding and fire protection. lie mentioned that the IN.BBR drawings were generated as a result on SDAR-85-31. Cygna requested and received a copy of SDAR-85-31, and Brown & Root instalbition procedures CP-CPht 10.3 and ElI 25 for Thermolag and Fire Wrap, respectively.

Additional Document Reqw,gs Cygna requested r.nd received the Elmco calculations for JA 1 and J A 3 supports. They also :equested and received Gibbs & 11i11 Calculation LIS402C, which was referrnced in an Ebasco calculation. [

TUE\090187 A. CON l

I

"'" 3 3 SEE ATTACilED DLSTRIBUTION SIILET t

t -

[

l l'

l l

DISTRIBUTION LISI.

l l Mr. J. Redding l Mr. L Nace f

Mr. W. Counsil

!- Mr. D. Pigott 1 Mr. C Grimes Mr. D, Terno M(.' 3.2 WHoosP.

Mr. CY. Chiou'.

, Ms. N. Williams

l. Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. llorstman Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. ?.cong Project File

.., e .

Communications 4L . i Repod 11ll1111!!i1ll1lll111:11111!!!

conspany: T econ x conferen e neport CES

"' ' TU Electric Ab No 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4

September 3,1987 sud,ect- T'"

2:45 p.m.

Conduit Support Audits Iso Verification Procedure Place Gb h, TX Participerts- of g Ebasco D. Leong Cygna Requeed Comments Action ny Cygna had reviewed the current revision of SAG.CP25, noting that it would be revised in the near future. The following questions and comments were discussed-2X Conduits Cygna asked what criteria were used to calculate loads for 2X conduits in common areas. Ebasco stated that there were three conduit groups- Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 2X. The Unit 1 and 2X groups use Unit 1 criteria. Cygna asked what buildings compriwd the common area. Ebasco replied that the Auxiliary and Fuel Buildings were comroon.

Rotation of Tule Steel on Ihw Plates Section 93.h states that a 10To capacity reduction should *.e applied for supports in which the tube steel memixt is rotated on the baseplate. Cygna asked which ~1culation provides the justification for the 107o value. Ebasco replied that the justification was provided in Unit 2 Calcu!ation 128, Revision 0, which was available for audit in New York.

Attachment to Platform Steel Section 11.4.c discusses the attachment of conduits to steel platforms. The section states that if steel platform spectra are not available, the engineer is to assume that the support is non-existent. Cygna asked whether this assumption was always 0 m .

se i o, g[ g / . r,3, a

e. ,3, emaa m muoim uyu wsmmi.

n===sg Communications A W s'fJ Report lilllilllllllllllllllllllllill nem commena [cEn$

conservative compared to the consideration of amplification of spectra throu h the platform. Ebasco replied that all conduits attached to atform steel would be disconnected.

Interface Procedures SAG.CP25 mentions a document TE-TD.EBM3, Cygna asked what the document was. Ebasco explained that it was a task description outlining the interfaces between the Ebasco site organization and TU Electric, Impell, third party, and Etusco NY organizations. Cygna requested and received a copy for review.

Conduit Attached to Cable Tray llancers Section 12.1 descritxs the method to be used to evaluate conduits attached to cable tray hangers. Cygna asked if the method was still being used. Ebasco replied that it was. The conduit group will obtain the cable tray hanger model from the cable tray group and perform frequency analysis to verify if minimum frequency requirements are met. There are no special procedures. The cable tiay hangers are to be treated as any other conduit support.

EESV and FPL Forms Cygna asked whether EESV and FPL Forms were still being used or were they txing replaced by SWEC procedures. Ebasco replied that EESV forms were no longer used. The footprint loads are still to be transmitted to SWEC.

Miuine Mau Consideration i

Section 4.0 of Appendix 1 states that the option to consider missing mass effects is available in STRUDL Cygna asked whether the missing mass option is to be used in iso verification. Ebasco replied that it is no; to tw used, as the generic study showed that the effects of missing mass were small. Cygna reminded Ebasco that there was still an outstanding question, regarding the adequacy of the specified mass point spacing to capture response to 33 hz, which was not answered in the public meetings. Since there was not a specific procedure to address fire. pro'ected systems, the adequacy of mass point spacing for those systems should 'also tw addressed.

Ebasco replied that SAG.CP25 was being revised to include maximum mass point spacing for different conduit sizes, including conduit with Tliermolag.

i I

• " 2 "' 4

! SEE ATTACilED DISTRIBUTION SilEET

BMiBel Communications M D h' M Report ll11111111llt!!Illl11111llllll ttem comments [c N Torsional Clamn Capacities Section 53.C of Appendix 1 provides torsional clamp capacities and states that the applied torsion on any clamp should be limited to 4%

of the capacity. Cygna asked where the capacities were determined and how the 4% limit was defined. Ebasco stated that the capacities and limits were derived by calculation in the New York office.

Design "(s" Section 7.1 of Appendix 1 p;)vides the method of comparing equivalent support accelerations determined by analysis with the design "g" values to determine adequacy of supports in the iso verification process. Cygna asked whether that section would be upgraded to include the load factors recently derived by the span verification group in New York. Ebasco stated that the section would be upiated to be consistent.

Axial Stress Allowables Section 73.f of Appendix 1 provides stress equations and allowables to be used in the qualification of conduit sp.n3. Cygna asked whether the axial stress allowables provided were consistent with those used by the cable tray group, as Cygna was basir.g closure of that issue for conduits on the discussions currently being held for cable tray supports. Ebasco stated that they were not aware of the status of discussions in the cable tray area nor were they aware of how the arial allowables for conduits compared with the cable tray hanger axial allowables.

Fire Protection Analysis Cygna stated that previous discussions during the week with the walkdown group trised some concerns regarding inaccessible attributes due to fire protection. Cygna explained that they were concerned that there were not any specific instructions to guide the iso verification engineers in making appropriate assumptions, given the form of walkdown data which might be availeble for fire-protected systems. Ebasco stated that the engineers would not make any assumptions. If any information was required, it would be obtained in the fieht Cygna had one question regarding the installation and consideration of fire wrap. Brown & Root Instruction eel.25 does not specifically address the method of application of fire wrap to vertical conduits and air drops to prevent slippage. Additionally, assurance is not provided that the fire wrap will not slip on horizontal runs due to seismic motion. Cygna asked whether there are any provisions in SEE NITACllED DISTRIBUTION SilEET 3 4

Communications Xin 2 TD Report 1111111ll11111111111111111ll11 Reqvwed item Comments Action ny the iso verification program to address these possibilities. Ebasco stated that Impell was responsible for the dispositioning of fire-proofing for conduits. Ebasco just assumes that the fire proofing material is present and vill stay there. Walkdown data to verify current placement is available. Future walkdowns of fire proofed systems is also planned.

b l

t i

TUE\(PX)387 A. CON  ;

' "" 4 4

SEE ATTACllED DISTRII1UTION SIIEET L - -_ . _ _ - . .- . - - - _ . _ _ - -

e DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Mr. C Grimes Mr. D. Terso

M r. L W Neon ' &

Mr. CY. Chiou Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. Leong Project File

(

Communications A f. c Ti Report llllll!!Illl11lllll1lllllll"l compeny: Teiecon X conference neport CES Proiect J eNo- 84056 TU Electric CPSES IAP Phase 4 n ,,,.

September 25, 1987 s eiect T ' ** '

Conduit Support Design Review 2:30 p.m.

Ebasco Audit Place- ,

K.T. Wu, IIS. Yu, II. SchoPrmann, E. Bovera Ebasco B. Shakibnia, B. Atalay, W. Ilorstman Cygna Required Comments Action By

1. Review issue 15 - Conduits Attached to Cable Trays and Supports Cygna's review of Ebasco's calculations noted the following concerns-

a. Amplification from the cable tray was not considered in the qualification.

b. The bolts connecting Detail CSD-16 to the cable tray were not evaluated for shear,

c. The bolts were not checked for shear at the critical threaded section.

Ebasco stated that they would revise the calculation to address Cygna's concerns.

2 Review Issue 20 Nelson Studs Cygna will complete their review of Ebasco's calculations at the next audit.

3. Review Issue 2 - Dynamic Amplification Factors Cygna will complete their review of Ebasco's calculations at the next audit.

A n ,

I '

/[/ ks P* 2 e h_  %

o.,emefcf/ 5titi A tTAC11EITDISTIUlldrIDFSHEtiI. f

.e.w .

Communications

%t 5 M t I'd Report ll11111111!!1llllllll111111111 item comments [e70$$

4. Review inue 23 - Grouted Penetrations Ebasco must provide justification for the use of the ACI equations for allowable bond stress for conduits with diameters larger than

1. 18 reinforcing steel.

5. Review luue 17 . Member Substitution Cygna reviewed Ebasco Calculation Books SUPT-0247 and SPAN-1189. Cygna stated that Ebasco must provide justification for the use of the equation:

lE > \Ve + W's _

IR We + Ws

4. Review Tuue 6. FSAR Load Combinations Cygna will continue their review of Ebasco's junction box qualification calculations at the next audit.

s I

TulN)92587 A. CON SEE NITACilED DISTRlilUTION SIIEET 2 "2

y.. ,

DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D.- Pigott Mr. C Grimes Mr. D. Termo

Mi2 rWilsomh Mr. CY. Chiou Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. Leong Project File

. .e Communications 4 f. i i Report ll1111111lll111ll11llllllll111 company. Teiecon x confere e neport CES Project TU Electric J b No 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,,,.

Subject T ' **

dd S i Ra'im @p Oversize Bolt lloles "*

Walnut Creek, CA Participants. of g g, II.S. Yu, F. IIettinger Ebasco Required Comments Action By References

1. Ebasco Calculations Book SUPT 0253, Revision 3, dated April 28, 1988.

2. Cygna Communications Report dated April 26,1988, 3:15 p.rn.

Ebasco stated that they had revised Reference 1 to address Cygna's concerns listed under item 1 of Reference 2. After reviewing the revision to Reference 1, Cygna had the following comments:

1. One page 8 of Reference 1, support type CSM 181 is listed as having a shear ratio of 039. On page 9, support type CA-Sa is listed as having a shear ratio of 033 and is evaluated. Support type CSM-18i, which has a more critical shear ratio, is omitted from consideration.

2. On page 10 of Reference 1, the mathematical formulation used to convert shear ratio into factor of safety is incorrect.

Cygna stated that they wanted to review the base plate analyses described under item 2 of Reference 2. A sample output which contains the bolt load, used on pages 15 71 of Reference 1 was also i requested.

Ebasco stated that they revise Reference 1 to address Cygna's comments and provide the requested documents.

TUE\0 MSS &l1 CON nO m .

) & Y/

Stiti A I I ACHED TRslyluuTION diitit 1.

Yl<<e n Disir on

/'

,m.

....+o.

s DJSTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott -

Mr. C Grimes Mr. D. Terno tMr,1Wiless72 Mr. CY. Chiou Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Ilorstman Mr. K. Parikh Mr. H. Atalay Ms. D. Leong Project File

- 1 -

~

M Communications (4'Or$ i f(1 Report lillllillllillllllllllilllllli e

company: conference neport CES @ Telecon Project JbN TlJ Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4

May 5,1988 Subgect Conduit Support Design Review

'""* 11:30 a.m.

Oversize Bolt IIole "'***'

Walnut Creek, CA

Participants:

R hl a n J. Rm Qp J. Muffett, L Natzic TU Electric C.Y. Chiou, E. Odar, J. Kuo, K.T. Wu, F. Ilettinger Ebasco Required Comments Act oa By References

1. Ebasco Calculation Book SilPT.0253, "Conduit / Junction Box Support Design Verification . Effects of Bolt llole Oversize",

Revision 4, dated April 30, 1988.

Cygna stated that they had reviewed Reft:rence 1 and had the following questions-

1. Cygna asked why pages 77A,77B and 77C were revised. Ebasco stated that they had discovered several numerical errors on those pages in the previous revision. The present revision corrected those errors.

2. Cygna asked why the allowables for 3/8" llilti Kwik bolts on page 77A differed from those on page 77D. Ebasco stated that the bolts had diffefent embedments and hence, different allowables.

TUE\050588-D.TEL n n n o , ,, , j,n lwf L /5 / h b' w 1.

stitc KITACTIhD Ulb l K}UU l lOTSTit:t:

.m e , .

e -

DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Mr. C Gri.nes Mr. D. Termo w,,g.m=:n Mr. CY. Chiou Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. l{orstman Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. Leong Project File f

m . .