ML20206U925
Text
_-_
~/ 6. ). * 'I A
s f,5',
e s
SSER WRITEUP DD:U".EtiT C0fTROL/ ROUTE SHIET U. t;! /s.
}{b.M,
Allegation t; umbers A E-/ 7 C e,,hi r
/s.,,,,_
/4,,,,
L A f..,,, r, '
c.
Subject of Allegatio[nLlof/ j ;,,, L u d
( 77a TRT Group Author:
ch TA,, / n
/
/
This sheet will be initialed by each reviewer.
It stays with all revisions to the SSER writeup and serves as a routing and review record.
It will be filed in the work pachage when the writeup is published.
Draft NJmber Draft 1
m A,
3, a4 5
Author h.
O O V +c Group Leader M ' t"D n4,#l fy I4c5 Tech. Editor M
/- y 7W"
- )"-] !F /7
/
Wessman/Vietti
%) ' S/ f t
J. Gaoliardo i
T. Icoolito 1
Revision Number Final 1
2 3
4 5
l Author Tech. Editor Group Leader J. Gaaliardo T. Ippolito Administrative Write;; integrated into SSER P: er.tial Violations to Region IV W:,rk:ackage File Complete Work:ackage Returned to Group Leader 7 g' [ j g f,' - [',' " '.I [;
$ %,g i :. - -
i 8607110235 860624 PDR FOIA KI GARDE 85-59 PDR zW Yu"
Revision 1 CP3 10/22/84 Category No. 14/AE-17 SSER 1.
Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 14, Control Room Area M
mMAcoYYt.
Deficiencies
~ '
% c/4Wmf A.
m m
~
2.
Allegation Number: AE-17 3.
Characterization:
It is alleged that the field run conduit, the drywall, and the lighting installed in the area above the ceiling panels in the control room are -classified as non-seismic and are supported only by wires and that these item's may fall as a result of a seismic event.
4.
Assessment of Allegation-The implied signific this allegation is
/
that if it is true, the'h:::rd i: + G -entr:i cc:: ;p;r;t:r: may cause i nj ury 'to ' h:2 6 ' ; :: f = f : :;;-t and adversely impact ua. plant safety. -
TAA cer@td AOert. epMM The^ Technical Review Team (TRT). electrical group reviewed the electrical l
aspects of this allegation (Electrical and Instrumentation Cate~ gory -4).
The Civil and Mechanical group of the TRT evaluated the seismic aspects of this allegation.
General Design Criteria No.19 requires that safe occupanc'y of the control room during abnormal conditions be provided for in its design.
The Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) control room is in a seismic Category I structure, wit'h certain seismic Category II and
'nonseismic components located in the ceiling.
Seismic Category I refers to those systems or components which must remain functiona1 in the event of an earthquake.
Seismic Category II' refers to those systems or.
components whose continued functioning is not required, but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any Seismic Category I system or component (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1,.29) to an unacceptable level or could result' in an incapacitating injury to occupants of the control Seismic Category 11 systems or components are, therefore, designed room.
,-v-----
-.----,-.------.-.------=---..----e+eem,
.e
- - - -,. - +,
o Revisien 1 CP3 30/22/84 Category Na.14/AE-17 SSER 1.
Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 14, Control Room Area Deficiencies 2.
Allegation Number: AE-17 3.
Characterization:
It is alleged that the field run conduit, the drywall,
~
and the lighting installed in the area above the ceiling' panels in the control room are -classified as non-seismic and are supported only by wires and that these item's may fall as a result of a seismic event.
^
4.
Assessment of Allegation: Theimpkiedsignilic
-this allegation is
/
v that if it is true, the, hazard to ths control room operators may cause A
injury to them during seismic event'and adversely impactsur, plant safety.
QC s
ThenTechnical Review Team (TRT) electrical group reviewed the electrical aspects of this allegation (Elebtrical and Instrur'nentation Cate' gory -4).
The Civil and Mechanical group of the TRT evaluated the seismic aspects of this allegation.
General Design Criteria No. 19 requires that safe occupanc'y of the i
control room during abnormal conditions be provided for in its desi'gn.
The Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) control room is in a seismic Category I structure, with certain seismic Category II, and
'nonseismic components located in the ceiling. Seismic Category I refers to those systems or components which must remain functional in the event of an earthquake.
Seismic Category II refers to those systems or.
components whose continued functioning is not required, but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any Seismic Category I system or component (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1,.29) to an unacceptable level or could result' in an incapacitating injury to occupants of the control Seismic Category II systems or components are, therefore, designed room.
.... :.,9 :.:-%Gr;i M.~%1$r*i'kW.\\b W
~
j
..s a
. r:
[..
..s.'.;
.,... : l i. ~ :,.~... :... '.. :
. J '. '
a '- ~. i'.?: -
e
(
and constructed so that a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) will not caus'e such failure or injury.
In assessing this allegation, the' TRT reviewed the CPSES nonsafety-related conduit,, lighting fixtures, and the suspended ceilings installed in the control room.
Three types of suspended ceiling exist in the control room:
drywall, louver'ed, and acoustical.
The following list designates those ceiling elements present in the control room and their seismic category designation:
s 1
1.
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
- Seismic Category I 2.
Safety-related Conduits
- Seismic Category I
~
3.
Nonsafety-related Conduits
- Seismic Category II 4.
Lighting Fixtures
- Seismic Category II 5.
Sloping Suspended Drywall Ceiling
- Nonseismic 6.
Acoustical Suspended Ceiling
- Nonseismic 7.
Louvered Suspended Ceiling
- Monseismic The TRT also examined the control room ceiling system and pertinent design drawings, and met with cognizant Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) engineers on July 31, 1984, to discuss the specific seismic analyses performed for the ceiling elements.
In addition, the TRT held a, conference call on August 1,1984, with principal Gibbs & Hill (G&H) design engineers (at which TUEC representatives were present) to discuss the design and calculation procedures for the ceiling elements.
The TRT determined that none of the suspended ceiling elements were considered to be either seismic Category I or II; however, TUEC had l
modified the sloping suspended drywall to add more support.
G&H could l
not provide' backup calculations to support this modification, nor could TUEC provide justification f'or their position that the re.maining' suspended ceiling 61ements (i.e., the louve~ red and acoustic elements)
~
would not fall and cause an incapacitating injury to operating personnel.
i i
" 2 R.. ;-
U.
h...
. a h,. ? *; ?,>. \\..'. B....::; l..'.:.L..!
. s.* y.',.., 0 3
.. ~.', ':.. :.' <5....;; :
f:.
- .L.
- . v,.
..,.n;w-
._. s...x.
., ~...
3 s
This would indicate failure of the quality assurance program to ensure that applicable provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.29 were fully met.
N The TRT requested backup calculations fo'r the sloping suspend'ed drywall.
TUEC,provided the calculations on August 3, 1984", along with the calcula-tion packages for the lightin's fixtures, the nonsafety-related conduits larger than 2 inches'in diameter, and the safety related conduit.
The TRT rev.iewed these calculations, except those for the safety-related conduit since they were designated as sefsmic Category I and therefore were excluded from the scope of this review.
s.
l The TRT found that'nonsafety-related conduits that were less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter were not supported by redundant seismic Category II cable restraints. The TRT also verified the adequacy of calculations for the nonsafety-related conduits larger than 2 inches in diameter.
The TRT found that the G&H calculations we're based cn the equivalent static load method, which involves multiplicati'on of the -dead weight of an item by an appropr'iate seismic acceleration coefficient. This equivalent static load calculation did not take into account the influence from the adjoining suspended ceilings on the calculated response. This was significant because redundant cable supports were not provided,for the suspended louvered and acoustical ceilings, and the impact from the accelerations of the lighting fixtures was not considered in any analysis. The ceiling, as a whole, manifested a more comp' lex configuration than that assumed in the equivalent static load an'alysis in that the effects from adjoining suspended ceilings were not considered.
A justification based on the seismic response characteristics of the entire ceiling, which would account for the frequency content and amplification characteristics of the seismic motions, as represented by floor response spectra, is required to justify.the value of the seismic acceleration coefficient used.
~
g.l&.'
' b ':
.* ' ~. J i:.l.l{. M, z.
a.~. MQgl;5-7. ( :. Y'.;.i*
t 4.
a 5
._.._ p i.. e-t-
c.i-
- ; g u_,__.c_
~
- - i c [ 7., g c
c,.
t_ e -
_l, fall L-
- r t',
.,c c, _ o ntrcl [ ;- ceir; J.,,c, 2 ] ],
,.. -..c.
s t o so;t r
. -. N,,
itt s are t A.. a r.
- rm.1!1raiiy, t"ese
, ; - t e d a s m <,1 ' -i C
~.c nts These c:n
- 1.. - n.
,3. me.i y.
.ec,c ed ceilin:s.
L 1.e c
y scf" :_'a.-
~
J
-.,, E
,x e;
Latisfy. e f :, 5 t
, ; q
_.,E
.t.
sei -i; effo
.s
.u.. y
.. -.n
+ d is a::' - _ h te m
o
.- g. < > c
~ u C' ; 2 3
ress al;;
- ,., o :, c ~, mer c -..,
m e, c _
s, i.
w
,t
,.j. t, c,,.,
s
~
,c m
,,.,~i.
c,. e c.
_s
. ' t,
. > t t e d r, g p,.
TUEC prest seis-ic effects.
ite-s Fad W n Cr.na.4 W..
r 1
2 m of failure of these ic Cet q :ry II the seis calculatiens sgportira c;nc'iu"es that the rotaticnal intercction
' Ice I "ni adequately reflectthe fund rental fre w cies of lighting fixtures do not A
In addition, with the r Q e.smic iters.
lated to determine the influence of l
the su;;;rted rasses were not ca cutFe c cntrol rcor cei'ing ele v ation.
)
at
< -" i c r e s ; : n s e s p e c t r c tFe se L;t the e micsure to the D Ei< f f
See Ite-II.d in ren' red:
18, 1924 to M. D. Spence (TUEC).
6.
'ctic-s letter cf Septeder
~y
.t,,.. x.
- 'I N
ic,,
, f.
1 %
, ': V QA:..,M'f
...e 3
[.-
=
.- g.s ' a.
s..
' ; ys. ~
kah ';v*,h({ ]-i
- g
- .'
~N s-s. ; ) r,'q w} M,%,Q,,. - -
'c f,'
4,.
4'
,m~
4.
w -
h
%.& f.0
[t,.}%
. *r.
.:S :j f, 4]y,,
^
x, x.
- y., '- :j L
. e.. # ^ "c -^
N-A.,
_f 7.:%@,k.,g. $y.Q.?j[ Q g.y, 4.,:.n2*
.,..r:
- v s.
. 1
' p. - u'
,,7**
. w '... '.
40 j, 4" *'
f -
- %G,,3j :
L..
4
' ? y,; f' m.
?
' :je -f-
,...):.ql u< s
- ysf( F A 5+4'pMg> *
- .' ;
h.g 3
7 gz
-s
... Q.':t;& Q, L._
'.,. ~.}u
.,.fgi.-;,i; T o s', :. l w.f
'. ' '.. e 3.,
w.
.,., y 3,',,W.n f
- c
,g,y
..w..,,,..,. '
M.-
- ~"
- ~.c c. ' ' w r
~
y c ;. '6 p,.;f k 'r.
s
. g.g
~
p -
5,',p,ge
. < ~. : +..a l: ;, - y }
n..t. ~.'..i
'w l k
?.
- .. 1.
}
.~.y
~,., -y; - :-
g s.,..
_-n
>..,... 6 4. m. %..,
2
-j
'[ ; ; ;
,(
.n
- Q q..;..z.; ; '.
- q. ;
y v
n
., r..
., e.
+ - -..
.,., ~ >...
~-.. -c..
?..
, p
,:. :. 4 7,.
6.s 2,3
. 3.
.f
. :4
- N-
.Q_c.fm.fG..
t ty
^ ;. *.,..,.,
f.0,
'*,,e
.~
?.
w
/ f > f..':. ' N. A u.p.,
-,'. )p~,,.y
~.(
. s c a,3,n,,.,.%o-.,..
t r
<=.
s+..
f
,"s-p... ~,
.,.w y
,~
,,. ?. Q...,.,y. '.. j-
,3 e... y. M,..; *i.' y 2
'. ~ -K
..4,,, 9
,,_N.,,.*E*
,a (..3
.J-s
_ m L.
i '.
,. x y
e
- .+ r y.) -.
ys - '.. < ' _,.
_1 s.
.,,f g;;,.,
- n,.
- t u.e 5: m.py
',sx..z :.. ( *,, ~;., C -.
,g a;
,e f#
~*, n
- ,;,?
y.
t
. y y
'N
-g.
.$ ~ $.,
f p; *.
r.
~..n p-
,", ;~ ' w x "m_
4* s,.,.a. ~.,,_.
p.,-
.e
- 4. (,, * - -
.h y
~e
,~
p A_4 y p
< ^
G.-. c2 .
2
(
,?
r r 1.;,';..
Ds
..u.
.,+n3.
e,.p 5
. j* 'i,.,*,
.e 9
- Q,; ~, g...,
44.-
,, a.
e,c.,4;n
- %.s y
.. e + +
.g y n
_, m.4, g.s..V,...
g Q
?~
l y R, '., >t". % ' ]O... ~. g. "
.p-f
- . r
-.,'{f*'(*'.Q_f'. ;
j,. _v.....4.e.,j~,-.,,
. g..,
,g,
+
'e
-.:_.y..
- s. '.
s,. s
-e1 '.., -,. g>
q ' *. R,-
.... ~..
h,p,,,
C f
3
. p y _s
~,
8 at r-'*
.,, g - (, '..
w.
' l _
[,
Q
- '<,%.8 I'.
- 1
. 's;q, 4Q;, v
~
.-~
.j j
'h,%y ' r D l". -*} :- ' ,
- l
- cs...'.. '
- 3...<-..
.,,y,s. -,,,
g.
p.
2 y
'\\[
- . w'2..., c, 3 V
- 4 s
- '.,-
c e..:. :. y.
.I, h.
-.. r., y..,
=s
..* '. +.,. s.
Q (,.*'.c :.. 4... -g '
3.[,
..y.
p._'4, t..
-4 x,
s
,.*s.
gy,. 3 9'
)
- s. 3
,, e x
[,.
d
,. q _8"'V ' "%.g..
.\\,, *, s-
~.e
.m 0'.. e v.
s..;.
g.
,b,, k. Y Q< y-.Q.
.}
f-
.s b'
p..s l'
(' *~ -[ w
(
a.
4, '.'";,, e,
,,,g'...
.o "
$j. :
+ h'e < 'q..
.e e
'[
3 l;..$h{&d. ? WbW&hdhe.~
- 4A g
.*4
%g f,
'.J. i f E g }'.a e
e w"'
C>
5 1
8.
Attachments: None.
l 9.
Reference Documents:
1.
Calculation No. SCS-171C, Set No. 2, " Seismic Restraint of Lighting Fixtures," pages 1-37, dated January 14, 1981.
2.
Design Change Authorization No. 10757, dated August 10, 1981.
3.
Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Clas.sification."
4.
Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (TUSI) letter CPPA-11, 410, dated s.
July 22, 1981.
5.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTT-7965, dated August 7, 19al.
6.
TUSI memorandum CPPA-40, 224, dated August 3, 1984.
10.
This statement prepared by:
J. Tapia, TRT Date Techn c Revieweri 0-YhYSY
- c. 4.iOyw/gT DA Te A u.4 % % cv Reviewed by:
L. Shao, Date Group Leader Approved by:
V. Noonan, Date
)
Project Director l
1 l
l 8
1 1
1 l
l
. _. A *,',.\\.! ~.;.,'.
"E
.'....,,,'.->..c
,h..
?. s. :. *,' *.
.