ML20210S437

Trip Rept of 860505-07 Site Visit to Attend Civil/Structural Issues Audit Meetings.Audit Attendee List & Agenda Encl

ML20210S437
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/21/1986
From:	Degrassi G BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Jeng D NRC
Shared Package
ML20209E570	List: IA-86-657, Advises of Meetings Scheduled for 850701,10,17 & 31 in Bethesda,Md to Discuss Util Program Plan.Nrc Response Will Be Sent to Util by 850807 ML20209E567 ML20209F940 ML20209F945 ML20209G005 ML20209J318 ML20210A660 ML20210A729 ML20210A774 ML20210B207 ML20210B978 ML20210C077 ML20210C318 ML20210C513 ML20210C590 ML20210C696 ML20210D123 ML20210D374 ML20210D403 ML20210D459 ML20210D880 ML20210E104 ML20210R211 ML20210S437 ML20211H073
References
FOIA-86-657 NUDOCS 8605290133
Download: ML20210S437 (96)

Text

-' -

. . m. . . . --

O BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATOR',' '

I QStruc ( ural l Analysis Division ASSOCIATED UNIVE'RSITIES. INC.

y

• 4partment of nucl-ar Energy Sa11 ding 129 2949 (516) 282 FIS 666-

. P:.ty 21,1986 1

l M . David Jeng Mail Stop P-3M Pn1111ps Build'ig US haclear Regulatory Comission 7920 Norfolk toenue Bethesda, PO 20314 Sabj ect: Cortarche Peak Civil /Structtral Issues Edit Meeting Trip Report

Dear Itr. Jer.g:

r nclosec $ 1 ease find a copy 'o' the trip rep:-t on the civil / structural issues audit meetings held at the Conanche Peak site on May 5-7, 1986. If you have any quest 1sns or coments, plea <e feel free- to call me.

l

, Very truly yours, b+ <C+ n Giuilanc DeGrassi ja E9 closure cc: C. Hofstaye , B%L P. Bezier, BNL M. Reich,BNL J. Rivard. TES V. Ferrari,1, EAS a,

, ... , l "

f0TH &&-bil

~

, ,,i.fb= S/.1/

.qi -!

w Wohtubs em.,m

~ o5g7C/ 33 -'

- - .. ,a, y

4k <

, .__..%4 __

/,

't]f AUDIT TPIP REPORT Structural Analysis Division Department of MJclear Energy Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 Cananche Peak Steam Electric Station Visit to:

Purpose:

Audit of Civil / Structural Programs -

Personnel: 3. Jeng (NRC), C. Hofmayer (BNL), P. Bezier (BNL),

G.DeGrassi (BNL), J. Rivard (TES), V. Ferrarini (EAS)

Dates: Fuy 5-7,1986 On May 5-7,1986, a series of audit meetings were held at the Comanche Peak site to obtain information concerning the status of ongoing civil /

structural programs. The NRC audit tean included D. Jeng (NRC), C. Hofmayer (BNL), P. Bezier (BNL), G.' DeGrassi (Bh.), J. Rivard (TES), and V. Ferrarini (EAS). Information was provided by representatives of TJGCO, Ebasco, Impell and ERC. The agenda, attendance lists and informattor 03tained during the audit meetings are attached. A swunary of each program is given below.

HVAC Program TUGC0 has initiated a new progran to resolve deficiencies reported to NRC in Decenber 1985 and documented in SDAR CP-85-54 The deficiencies which were

identified by a IUGC0 engineering review affect HV*C duct supports in Unit 1

' and Cummon areas. They involve missing duct to support attachme7ts, attach-ments which were made but not required by design, and supports w a.ich were j installed but not included in the seismic qualification report.

l The scope of work of the program ir.cludes the following:

1. . As-built walkdowns of all Unit 1 an: common three directional supports to check cuct to support attachments.

l

2. As-built waladowns of Unit 1 Contro' Roon and Diesel Generator HVAC sys-tem suppJets to generate as-built d awing configurations.

3. Engineering evaluations to: 1) c esign verify the CR and DG HVAC support systems, 2) verify the adequacy of systems with missing attachments, 3) assess the effects of attachments that were made bat not required, and

4) evaluate external source issues.

m -- ..___. _ -

Y x At the present time, this specific program is not part of the CPRT p'an althoagh HVAC supports are in:luded in the design adequacy and quality of construction plans. The fina*. products of this work will be as-built drawings, engineering evaluat'on calculations and an updated seismic qualification report. Details of the program including program schedule are included in attachnert 3.

• tost of the procedure docirnents should be avati able for review in early June 1986. Upon completion, an 50.AR report addressing the potentially reportable iter-s will be provided to NRC. .

EBASCO CABLE TRAY ANU C093LT PROGRA".5 Design verification prog es for cable tray and conduit supports in Linits 1 and 2 are being corducted as part of DSAP Vill of the CPRT program plan.

The programs are intendec to *esolve issues and concerms identified by external sources. The work is being perforned by Ebasco and Impell. Eba s.co is responsible for design verification of conduits except for Train C concuits 2 inches and smaller, anc for design verification of cable trays except for those in the Unit 1 S.afegua-ds Building and Reactor Bui sding.

The conduit progeans invcive walkoowns and desige verification. Due to an evolution of installation procedures, different prc. grams have been def t ned l

for Unit 1. Unit 2 and ccrr:on areas. Unit I conduits mere installed to the 5-0910 specification. Ue.it 2 supports were originally installed to a different specification ($2-0510). The $2-0910 specificattor. was later revised to resolve external scarce issues. The remaining conduits in Unit 2 are being installed in accorda,ce with the revised $2-0910 specification. The waladowns and enginee-ing evaluations that are being conducted are intended to insure that all conduits meet the revised 52-0910 requirements. Details cf the program including status and schedule are given in attachment 4.

It was noted that the Unit 1 program had been esp anded f rom the original CPRT plan. The original plan involved the evaluation of a random sample cf 120 ru,s and the replacerent of specific unacceptable unistrut support configarations. The current plan also includes a ctriplete verification of the S-0910 package and a waladown of all generic supports in Unit 1 shown to t:.e unacceptable.

Tae cable tray peogran is a 100% design verification of all cable tray l

supports in both units. This includes development of as-built drawings fce all su;; ports, design review and analysis of all suppor.s to criteria responsive to external source issues, testing to verify spect fic component or

' system behavior chara-teristics, and hardware mocifica . ion where necessary.

For Unit 1. due to the inaccessibility of design attrimutes, red-line drawings l

~ ~ ~

l. -- _- .

c.

D 3

- a e being prepared based on desi5n drawings. For accessible supports and a:cessible portions of inaccessitte supports, as-built conditions will either be confirmed or noted as differert on the design drawings. Final as-built drawings will then be preparec ncting any items that were inaccessible. The-

, inaccessible items will be adcressed by special studies which will include

. bounding assumptions and reviews of inspection reports. Two methods of design verification analysis will be utilized. The first method is equivalent static analysis which is consistent vitt t%e original design. The second method is response spectrum analysis which provides a snore accurate measure of system response. Details of the prog an including its status and schedule are given in attachment 4 The NRC audit team questione: whether the new criteria developed for both cable tray and conduit progracts c:yyly with FSAR licensing comitments.

i E3ASCO was asked to review their :rtteria and responc to this question.

IMPELL CABLE TRAY AND TRAIN C E0n00:T PROGRAMS Inpell is performing the cat *e tray design verification for the Rea: tor 8.uilding and Safeguards Build 199 in Unit 1. Impell is utilizing its ow- ,

p+ocedures but the methods and . criteria should be consistent with those used by EBASCO. Details of the progran including status and schedule are given in attachment 5.

Impell is employirg a systen analysis approach utilizing the SUPER 71PE

. and SUPERPOST computer prograns. Assumptions used in modeling the cable tray systens will be verified by test. The NRC audit tem wanted more information acout the computerized methodclo: weing used. It was agreed that this will

be the subject of a future audit dditional questions were raised about consistency with EBASCO work an. gliance with FSAR licensing comitments.

, 11npell was asked to review their . iteria and to respond to these questrons.

l Impell is also conducting the Train C conduit (2* diameter and under) p *og ran. The purpose of this pro; ram is to resolve the TRT issue that Train C (mon-seismic) conduits of 2" diameter and smaller weee not supported in a ,

m.anner consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.29 requirements, i.e., their f ailure 590uld not adversely affect the f an: tion of safety-related components. The o-iginal program described in ISU :.c of the CPRT program plan involvec a s ample evaluation. Due to an una:ceptably large number of failures, to meet tme acceptance criteria established for the sample program, the scope was espanded. Impell's current progran involves a walkdown of all supports in both units and verification of their adequacy against a multi-level screening c-iteria. Details of the prog an including status and schedule are give, in l attachment 5.

l l

.n __ . . - _ . _ ._ ,_ _ ,._ _ .- _ . _ _ __ _ , _ _ _ - _ . . . _ . - _ - ,. - . , . _ . ,, ,- ._

~

_..a_

}y _

?- Li g The Train C conduit program critert a document had been su' bmitted to WRC

-, 'for review prior to this meeting'. Ommsents on the document were presented and discussec with Impell. Specific comments are listed in Attachment 6. Impell claimed inat a large number of these comments had been raised durino third party am internal reviews. Impell is in the process of revising the document to, address the concerns. The revision wdll be submitted to NRC. Accitio9al NRC conce ns discussed included the use of a safety factor of 3 for Hilti bolts, the use of 7% damping, the stress criteria used for both support anc target analysis, and compliance with FSAR licensing connitments. Impell was asked to provide additional infonnation to address these questions.

SAFETY 5'GNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS E.J. Brabazon and J.D. Christenson gave a summary of Evaluation Research Corporation's (ERC) Safety. Significance Evaluation of the Deviation Reports identifie: by the Quality of Construction Program. This Pr' gram consists of

, the reimspection and documentation review of the safety-related hardmare con-structec and QC accepted at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).

Pop.tations identified for reinspection are identified in three disci-

-plines: Civil / Structural', Hechanical and Electrical. There are fif teen popu-lations ia the Civil / Structural disciplines. These include:

Concrete Placement Structural Steel Fill and Backfill Placement Liners Fuel Pool Liner Large-Bore Pipe Supports - Rigid large-Bore Pipe Supports - Nonrig.d Small-Bore Pipe Supports Pipe Whip Restraints

, Instrument Pipe / Tube Supports Cat 1 Conduit Supports HVAC Duct Support s Equipment Supports Cement Grout Epoxy Grout The Safety Significant Evaluations of the deviation reports is in pro-gress. Based on these evaluations, some construction deficiencies have bee 9 identi f t ed. All deficiencies to date involve locking devices identified in the Pipe Support Populations. ERC espects to complete the Safety Significant Evaluattoes, along with their deviation trending evaluation, and have dra't reports by the end of July with a f* sl report by the end of October 1986.

^'

~

~ ~ ~

, . - . ~ . - . . . - - a- . . - ~ ~ - -- - -----

, g -

4 APPENDIX P - CIV:L/ STRUCTURAL ISSUES Appendix P consists primarily of the QA/QC issues identified or implied in SSER Nos. 7. E, 9,10 and 11. The audit team nas primarily interested in the manner in which the Civil / Structural QA/QC issues identified in SSER 8 were being addressed. Jack Jones of ERC outlined the matrix developed by ERC to track not opis those issues identified in Appemdix P but ali 04/QC issues raised at CPSES to assure that all are addressed. .

The results report of this effort will define areas of deficiencies (i f any) and will assare that all 04/QC issues are adequately addressed. The 4

final report is expected to be complete in Octobe- 1986.

CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ISAPS TUGC0 proviced information on the status of Civil / Structural 15475 II.a.

II.c. II.d. !!.e and V.b. Details of each program including current status and schedules are given in Attachment 7. Highlights concerning each 1ssue are given below. The audit tean originally intended to obtain information on the status of DS&P Vill activities as well. However, it was decided to schedule a separate audit meeting to cover this swbject at another tise.

II.a REBAR IN REA TOR CAVITY, The issue is an occurrence of missing' reinforcing steel in a portion of the. Unit I reactc cavity wall. The resolution p!an involves the analysis of the as-built 'concition and an investigation to decermine if similar peoblems exist elsewhere in the plant. The analysis has been completed and it confirmed the adequacy of the wall. Other invest gations are continuing. A preliminary results report will be available by std June.

l II.c SEISHIC AIR GAP The issue is whether an adequate air gap exists between structures to prevent seismic iateraction du*ing a9 earthquake. The resolution pla .

involves inspecti:n of gaps, resiew of design bas s calculations and gap rework. Gibbs an: Hill is perfonning calculations to determine minimurt required gaps at sase mats. The NRC team expressed a concern that the removal of material is based on achievia) these minimum gaps without applying a factor of safety. Gibbs and Hill was asked to provide further Justification for this. The prelin: nary results report on this toptt will be available by mic June.

II.d CONTROL ROOP CEILING /UAHA E STUDY VERIFICATIC%

The issue is that calculations for the slopirg suspended drywall ceiling

' did not adequatelj address set sric design considerations and that the possible effects of failure of non-selsr.ic items over the control room ceiling had not been considered. The resoluttor plan involves the repla:ement of the ceiling i

l l ,

- - r-~ ~,..a - . . . _ . . . - . ~ . - , . . . . . - - - . - . . - - - . . . - - - _ . - - - - _ _ - . - - - . . . . - . - . - -.

- - - - --~~~' =~-- ~

(,.t Q~

\

, with a new design and a review and verification of seismic dam. age study methods end implementation. Ceiling calculations and drawings are complete

. and available for NRC review. The damage study review identified a number of additional potential interactions which will require modification. To assist the NRC audit process, TUGC0 will put together a road map of the damage study activities. A preliminary results report on this topic will be available by the end of July.

'!!.e REBAR IN THE FUEL HANDLING BU'LDING The issue is tnat the depth of drilling in a slab could h-ave resulteo in an' unauthorized cutting of a third layer of rebar. The resolution plan involves an evaluation of the as-built condition and an investigation of areas where similar problems could have occurred. The analysis was completed and it confirmed the adequacy of the subject case. Other investigations are

' continuing. The NRC expressed two concerns: la TUGC0 has not yet been able to account for the number of drill bits ordered for the project which' apaears to be rNch greater than the nuriber required to perform the aut*iorized resar cuts. and 2) the possibility of unauthorized recar cutting has not been adequately addressed. TUGC0 was asked to provide further infcnnation in response to these concerns. A preliminary results report on tails topic will be available by the beginning.of July. .

V.6 l@ ROPER SHORTENING OF ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAX GENERATOR LATERAL SUPP0:.TS The issue is an alleged unauthorized s*1c-tening of anchor bolts in the stem, generator upper lateral (SGUL) s,upport oeams. The resol .ition plan involves the inspection of SGUL bolts and embedsents ir both u-its and investigation of potential generic applicability of the same issue in ot9er areas. Unit 1 SGUL bolts have been inspected. Non-conforming embednent noles l are being evaluated, inspections of similar bolted connections in other areas

! are being performed on a sampling basis. T9e IEC team asked wmether the sar'ple'would include a large baseplate with several Richmond I9serts as cav9itted to in a meeting held last Decembee. The TUGC0 representatives present were unaware of this comitment but promised to look into it. A preliminary results report will be available by the end of May, t

i I

In addition to providing responses to specific questions and conceres expressed durir.g the meetings, TUG 0 was asted to provide a list of docu,ents, calculations and drawint,- for NRC review. These items are listed in Attacrvnent 8.

?

f

, , - . .r._ y. .,-- _ _ , , _ _ . __.,,__y._ , _ , , , , , , , , , , , . _ , - , _ _ _ _ , . _ , . ,,,,,.__,,__,,w ..mm___. . , _ . _ , . , _ _ . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , , _ _ _ _ ., ,.

if

b. 4 ~& e, .~ ,

., *-r- >+' ..*%. ..e.. * * -wA .s w-=- --==-m- - h- -*a--- C

ti r ,,

W *

}-

f . . s k

2 h

7 S

Atta:hmen 1

. A;enda e

{

, jc<:+ , a

• tr ' .*u.

i j .

I Agenda t; . .

[ 5/5/86 - 577/86

- . Monday HVAC Supports 1:30 - 5:00 pm Tuesda.

. EBASCO .

3 Cable Tray Supports 8:30 - 12:00 am i Conduit Supports (Train A/B) a Impell j- Cable Tray Supports 1:00 - 5:00 pm Conduit Supports (Train C)

Train C Conduit Criteria .

Wednesday Safety Significance Evaluatior 8:30 - 9:30 am Appendix P - Civil / Structural Issues Miscellaneoss Status 9:30 - 1:00 pm 15AP ll.A Rebar in Reactor Cavity ISAP II.C Structural. Air Gap l

ISAP !!.D Centrol Room Ceiling /

Damage Study ISAP II.E Recar in Fuel Building ISAP V.B S/G Upper I.ateral l Supports e

o j

l

.. . . . n . . . . - - ..~--.------..

.* <V r

4 f

i-T Attachment 2 Audit Attendee List p

4 I

d

?

l; J

i.

t l,

., _~.---, .

24 4 - .

ATTENDEES MC A!DIT MEET 14G 5/5/86 Jim Rivard WC ("elodyne)

Jim Dale MC (!G4G) RIV Victor Ferrarini E CTE*S Paul Bezier N8 C/~Ett Giuliano DeGrassi WC/ BiL Charles Hofmayer MC/~ Ell Davi.1 Jeng WC -

Ji my L. Barker TUGC .'

John F. Streeter TtLC0 G.W. Kralik TOGC0 R.E. Camp TUGCC R.E. Pages TERA i

y.,,

3. ,~- ... ..z - . . . *

. c.

3

. li I

l ATTENDEES

'I

. NRC AUDIT MEETING 5/6/66

.!

• R.E. Camp TUGC0 i H. A. Harrison TUGC0 1 Bob G. Grube Impe11

.i 1 K.C. Warapt us Im; ell h John Eidinger la; ell

]i.j . Kim Huang Tom Desmono David Jeng Ingell Im; ell NAC

' ;. . Charlie hofsayer -

NRC/B%.

'j ! Victor Ferrarini NRC/Bh'

I Randy Hooto, TUGC0 Giuliano De3rassi s

Hark Swatta NRC/B%L Impell i

' Jim Barker TUGC0 Dick Pages Tera Joe Grdi.1cka Ebasco John Hiller Ters

.f Jeff Weaver Stc1e & Webster fred Burgess Westinghouse 4

Paul Bezier NRC/Bhi J. Rivarc NRC/Teledyne R.C. Iotti Ebasco Rene Alemanera Ebasco Joe Padalino Ebasco Bob 0'Neal Ebasco

[

• l

/

I l

I i

i

..--. ...,,.. . m _ .

-]

.., -- -y m._ ._._.._

r , . . . , ,

. - ..; w - .

.u n

ATTEND ES NRC AUDIT MEETING 5/7/86 G.J. Ashworth TUGC0 R.E. CaN TUGC0 E.J. Brabazon ERC J.D. Cheistenw ERC J. A. Jones ERC G. De3rassi NRC/BNL C. A-fmayer NRC/aNL .

Dawie C. Jeng NRC/NRR l Jire itvard NRC/TES P. Bezier NRC/BNL Jim fale NRC/EGaG -

W.D. Ricnins NRC/EG&G J.L. Ba rker TUGC0 D.G. Patankar TNE/G8H J.C. Miller TERA R.A. Sanan TERA C.C. Hooton TUGC0 C.*. Jan G8H A.M. tankre G4H Steve G. McBee TUGC0 Victea Ferrarm EAS .

Pa 1 Streeter TERA Jorma Acros TERA -

l l

l i

I e

m ,- .

o

'g . ,. -

e Attachment 3 HVAC Program e

l 4

0 i

i e

- - , - - , .- -m---- .. -.. ~ -- - - , - - - , , , , . - - -

---r-. - - .-,- - - - , , , - - , . , , - . , , , , - - - , , , - - - , , , - ,

_~ _._ .._,. - A ._ ..

• A t

i CPSES UNIT 1 AND COMMON HVAC DESIGN VERIFICATION PROJECT PRESENTATION OF THE HVAC PROGRAM TO THE NRC BY TUGC0 MAY 5, 1986 4

4 i

f 1

. a. .

o -

t i

. AGENDA

. BACKGRO.h3 i

!. PROJECT (:RGANIZATION

!

• PROGRI#

• SCOPE 0: WORK SCHEDL'Li l

l k

I Fr W'N-w'v+1' -r--e m--e v -* v eeMy-e eeyyeg,w99w--ep-_ _wr- ym ey eyFhMW NT4 ..W6T'W W'PW"'4D-N **FM'F*-"

, 7  ; .r . . . - - - _.-

BACKGROUND CAT AUDIT 1983 TUSCO STOP WORK 1983 CCL STUDIES (WELD STUDIES)

BSC PROGRAM NR: ACCEPTANCE OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION 1985 TUGC0 ENGINEERING REVIEW 1985

=,aw --m--,-me-, --, -m,n,- , , - --,--~, - ,, , , - - - -,,. - , -- - - - - , , , , , , , ,nv,-e ,,-<g-4-, - - - - , - - , - -n--,

- :.i . .

e . . .  ;, . . . .

~

u

, PROJECT ORGANIZATivN UNIT 1 PROJECT MANAGER p-_ .

, R. E. CAMP 1

TUGC0 GC  :

- - - - -l HVAC PROGRAM MANAGER

~P. HALSHAD S--- ----

1 l G. W. KRAllK l l 8 TEF.I_q l l

, -- J l ERC J -

1 I

I AS-BulLT WALKDOWNS I BSC C' I

- - - - - - - - - BAHNSON (BSC) l G. BEN ~ER T. CHAMBERS l

1 I

I ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS I CCL CI --J CCL C. BLA'.~0N B. HARRAWOOD

7, ,. .

g., _

RESPONSIBILITIES TUGC0 OvERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROJECT RANDOM QC lhSPECTIONS OF AS-BUILT WORK PERFCRMED.

BAHNSON SERVICE COMPANY (BSC)

AS-BUILT ENGINEERING WALKDOWNS (SUFPORTS, ATTACHMENTS, DUCT LAYOUTS)

QC INSPECT 10MS/ SURVEILLANCE SURVE!LLANCE OF AT LEAST 20% CC SUPPCRT DETAILS AND DUCT LAYOUT DRAWINGS INSPECTIONS OF ALL SUPPORT WELDS ANC ATTACHMENT DETAILS FINAL AS-BUILT DRAWINGS n

RESPONSIBILITIES (CONT!h'JED)

CORPORATE CONSULTin9 LIMITED f CCL)

GENERIC STUDIES TO ADDRESS TECHNICAL ISSUES l

l ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS UPDATED / REVISED SEISMIC QUALIFICATION REPORT l a .

l l

TERA i

0 SELF-It41TI ATED THIRD PAR ~Y REVIEW t

e

, . - . . - , - . - - . , - - - - - . - - - - , . , . - - - , , - - - - . - - , - - - - - . - ~ - - . - - - , , . - - . - . , . , - - . . - - - - , - - - .-

, . - . . . _- . . . . . y. .- ~.- - . .

e PROGRAM TO AS-BUILT DUCT-TO-SUPPORT ATTACHMENTS AND VERIFY THEIR DESIGh ADEQUACY.

l-TO RE-VERIF) THE DESIGN ADECUACY OF THE DUCT SUPPORTS.

UPDATE SEISP.:C QUALIFICATION REPORT (SQR)

RECONCI.E DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SKETCHES AND AS-!!UILT DRAhlNGS ENSURE THE SQR IS COMPLETE ACCOUNT FO:. :P:.T RELATED WOPK W

e 0

+ -- -

-j . .

ii-i-4

!}i SCOPE OF WORK

. Y. ' ,

i

'h

.j' 2

AS-BUILT WALKDOWNS

].

q -

j CONTROL ROOM AND DIESEL GENERATOR TRAIN A 1 E 1

I

'l 415 SUPPORTS (350 CONTROL ROOM. 65 DIESEL) i- LAYOUT DRAWING CONFIGURATIONS

.)

n' .

O.

• ALL UNIT 1 AND COMMON DUCT-TO-SUPPORT ATTACHMENTS (1318 T0TAL ATTACHMENTS) 1 ENCINEERING EVALUATIONS 415 SUPPORTS (~ 10% OF UNIT I AND COMMON POPULATION) 1318 ATTACHMENTS I

• ATTACHMENTS MADE EUT NOT REQUIRED BY DESIGt.

EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES

= . _ _ _ _

r --

l l ,

SCOPE OF WORK (CoxTINUED) 4 DELIVERABLES il i

FINAL RESULTING AS-BUILT SUPDORT, LAYOUT CONFIGURATION I

AND ATTACHMENT DRAWINGS j

A

] '

ENGINEERING EVALUATION CALCULATIONS (GENERIC, SUPPORT

]8 .

AND ATTACHMENT) y .-

UPDATED /REvlSED SEISMIC QUALIFICATION REPORT 1

a

';r l

. j.

l i

L  !

A a

I.

p.

f.I l

t l

i .

i J

i , WHY THE D.G. s C.R. SYSTEMS? -

i

. i PREFERABLE TO USE A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO INCLUDE ALL SUPPORT LOADlhG ATTRIBUTES (DUCT ATTACHMENTS, DUCT SPANS, DUCT *'YOUT CONFIGURATION) FOR SUPPORT

! EVALUATIONS.

(

BOTH ARE IMPORTANT " SAFETY-RELATED" SCISMIC CATEGORY I SYSTEMS, CONTROL ROOM DUCT SUPPORTS QUALIFIED Bi BOTH THE SYSTEM" AND "ESF" METHODS.

1 .

l l

0

- - - , , - , - ----------,,-,,,,-,---r - - - - - , ,. ,----.m. n,.,-. -_,--, --r,---- , ---,---- - ,---,--

. . . . , 21. .

, . _ . - _ - _ . . ~ -

e' i .. .

1i ,

9 EXAMPLES OF RELATED TECHNICAL ISSUES i

• l ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS (END CONDITIONS) i i

SUPPORT MO!EL VERIFICATION (ECCENTRICITIES, CONNECTIVITY)

ECCENTRICITIES FOR CONNECTION AND MEMBER EVALUATIONS

. l ANCHOR BOLT PRYING FACTORS l

1 SPAN STEEL BOLT HOLE EDGE DISTANCE REDUCED ANCHCR BCLT ALLOWABLES FOR SPACING / LOCATION VIOLATIONS SLENDERNESS RAT 10S DUCT L AYOUT CONFIGURATION, ATTACHMENTS, INS'JL AT IL.. Ai.D F l:E BARRIER MATERIAL OUT-OF-PLAhE SELF-WEIGHT SUPPORT EXCITATION GAPS BETWEEN SPAN STEEL AND UNEVEN CONCRETE SURFACE

. OTHER (THIF3 PARTY COMMENTS, INSPECTION FINDINGS, FTt.)

- , - - - - _ . - - . . , , , , , - - - - ----n-, - - - - - - - - - , -

.s i

c CONSERVATISP.S IN THE ORIGINAL DUCT SUPPORT DESIGN SEISMIC LOAD DEFINITICN ORIGINAL G1EBS S h!LL FLOOR SPECTRA USED FOR DESIGN.

DAMP!NG VALUES OF 2%/3% USED FOR OBE/SSE.

ANALYSIS METHODS EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE (ESF) METHOD USED TO ANALYZE ALL DUCT SJ:D O D.TS (EXCEPT C.R. " HORSESHOE' AREA).

COMBINED DJCT AND SUPPORT FREQUERCIES CALCULATED ARE LOWER THAP. ACTUAL RESPONSE FREDUENCIES.

WELDS WERE ASSUMEC TO BE 75% OF THEIR DES *uN LENG~H.

l SUPPORT WE;DS WERE QUALIFIED ASSUMING THAT THE WEAKEST WELD EXISTEE AT ALL WELD LOCATIONS.

_ ,v.,. - -,__ _ _ _- ,. -- , -... ..-,, _.-+-,.----

_ . _ _ _ _ _ . . - __. . . * ' 1 _. . .

3 .

,

• r 0

i '

1 t

1

.j .

j CONSERVATISMS IN THE OFIG1hAL DUCT SUPPORT DESIGN (CoNTINLED) 1 .

I ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .

j SUPPORT COMPONENTS (MEMBERS, WELDS, BOLTS) WERE

, l QUALIFIED To SSE LOAr5 USING OBE ALLOWABLE STRESSES (NO I ALLOWAS' . E STRESS INCREASES).

FOR HILTI ANCHOR BOLT 5 ALLOWABLES BASEC OA A F.S. = 5 1 <

\. -

MINIMUM BOLT EM5EDMENT ASSL'MED SHEAR ALLOWABLES TAtih AS THE TEfiSION ALLOWABLES

h THE INTERACT!3N CALCUL ATION f

\

e i

l l

l l

l l

-, - - - - - --.,,r v ,.----,..-,--,--.,.rs

y _ _7_ _ . , _. _.

.-,-.~.m.._ .... , .

l

~

e SCHEDULE ESTIMATED COMPLET10N ACTIVITY DATE AS-BulLT WALKDOWNS (BSC) -

415 DUCT SUPPORTS 07/11/86 DUCT LAYOUTS 07/11/86

- 1,318 ATTACHMENTS 07/11/8E i

ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS (CCL)

TECHNICAL ISSUES 06/20/86 i

l -

ATTACHMENTS NOT REQu! RED 06/01/85 415 DUCT SUPPORTS 08/15/86

- 1,318 ATTACHMENTS 07/25'rf DELIVERABLES (BSC CCL)

DRAWINGS 08/29/86 l .;

i. ' l CALCULATIONS 08/29/86 q

SEISMIC QUALIFICATION REPORT 08/29/86 i.<1: s

.. . .:a.:. . . '

a:A

. .{ . -

l EAY 6, 1986 I

TEIAS WTILITIES EMBATIE EMMPANT

""N" FEAK sTuaan EEacTRIC NTATZdB WTT 2 m PMIERAN

{

. seen e SAFETT EEL &TED 11&ZE A AED E e TRAIN C SFER 2" $

i

e samEIC 52-918 PacatasE i

e 'IN' AB MIFIED SUFF0ETS e 130 TERIFICAE15 i

e WIT 2 II 1 penemaer

. 1, b: .

f:

1 l

1 i .

'i I

.l

, '1 -

I i

.l: .

y t

,T.

• k e + eo-w-,---,----w--~wwm-www--w.- ,+ - - ,w., --e-w-w.v,.w-w-ew.we v

s_ c_ao _

m

. .L. .'n. 7 , . a,, , c _.

u ._

Mar O. 1936 TEIAS WTILITIES CEEERATIN M ANT m PEAK SES WWIT 30. 2 WWOIT BESIEW TERIFICATIS FECIAN e TRAM A&D - SAFETT BELAIED SEIMIC CAIM10E! I CMUITE M EIACTOR AS SAFEEARDS WILDIECS AB TEAM C 0733 2" etEDUITS e SCOFEs TEFIEL I M CS -

3.830 StFIaL myrtarS -

14.713 l e SUFFOEF BES!m e m BT S2-918 FACIAGE ttyraL cemirTC SUPPORTS -

13.043 e IEE&INIEE EWFCE25 t

MDDIFIED/*IN" SUFFORTS -

1.675 e M AM MBIFIED EFFUEII:

• M'S M IBITIBE&ILY EECIEEEEED SOFFEMES I

i e SUFFUE23 m SICEIFICANTLY DIFFEEENT FE:BI CEMEIC DEMIMIS l s f M'S II EEACIDE MILDIEC -

19 l

I _ ';' IE'S IN S4FME4ERS WILDIE - 67 W

e EmIF Mn surreEn. -

l e EUFFOEII MEIFIED FEM cuwrefC DE& WIES MBIFID IN MACTER WIISIEC .

423 MBIFMB II EAFME&EDS EUIIDIEC - 1,166 1.539 .

e 32-9910 cummere FacEagg, -

e 32-0910 SERIC FACKACE DEICIEAIAT BETEIME3 IT CMES &

EZIJ. AM REED PER MIT ED.1 CM IERTAfl ATIM e E54800 MBIm TERIFIED TEESI CENERICS TO PEEEEE CRITERIA e 1353E3 as31-910 WER WIT 50. 2 EEMIGIT IM*.ALIATICBt.

1 e 1 TRIAL 3EayIB:S IEEEED = 191

( e GENERIC TTFICAL WPPORTS CONFOREIEC 10 CEMIIC BRANIES

= 13. 043

. 1 ROIE: TEEst FICRES ALBAYS CEAECE SLICETLY FECEI MEFII-TO-NORTE I DEFENDMC W W.ALIATIONS AED DELETICES i

l l

1 m** w -

l

. m . ____ _y._. . ;

. i Ney 6, 1986 1EEAR WTILM. CEMTIE MANT CIM4BCE PEAK M MIT 50. 2  :

cm ERSICE TERIFICATIS CUEEENT STATUS I MEAL EEEEEER OF SIWPOEI5 r0IAgED TO B&TE 3.383

'IN' SUFFOETS = 347 IEDIFIED SUFFORTS = 3.036 .

82 CUEEENT BACEIAC (M EMIE 4/26/86)

OF REDIFIID/'IE' N l

l II M C5 TO E E TIEMD 3.790 i l (IECIRDIE SUFPMZ5)

ISGETRIC EETIMEB TO B42E 70*

M m AS-IS = 40 ADDITIM AI.AEALYSIS = 30 LII MMEER OF CEERIIC BRANIECs =m= 265 O N 34M10C 3 W CWSTEDCricE.

l I

0 l

l

M T 6, 1986 TRIAS UTILITIES CENERATIEC CINEPAET OWABCEE FRAE EES BEIT 50. 2 ISO RETIN PROCIAN SAIIF12 FEDCEAM TO ASSESS 90erma neumEE OF ISO'S REVIIvEn (FIELIEIEART) ,

660 130'S 13mWTIFIRB AS TICL& TING $2-910* 178 FACIACE CRITE11A (AFF30EDe&TELY 271)

===== OF ISO'S TRAT usefJ FALL SUTSDE OF (ESTIMATED) 200 52-910 CRITERIA BM +3" Tot 2EABCES ARE CEMIMEED (200 CUT OF 660 IS AFFRGE. 301)

Et m E W ISO'S 0.I. 282 l TUfAL 660 l

, . IF TEIS SAMPLE EDIJIS TEDE, TIE ISO IS FROJECTED TO MTULTE:

DEvartin AE& LYSIS FOR GEE QUARTER OF ALL ~

i (FORSIBLY PARTIAL WTRAMIC AEALYSIS)

AFFLICATICE OF REIAIID CRITERIA To 301 W ISO'S WITE SM ADDITICEAL AEALYSIS (IIEFIEl& TORY TERIFICATICE OF TEI EERIAMMB i

'I i

• TICIATIM EESULTD FRIEla 1) IESTALIATIM PRIOR TO CRITERIA FIEALIZATIM b

2) SPECIAL CASES OF SPAES/SUFF0ETS BUT A-

],

II S2-910 FACIAGE

_1

, 3) IESTALIATIW BUSTS L,

i o r.f a

'4 t

4 1

1 r'

i

,,r.. -

.1 .' *. '. ,

s. -

e..

. I MY 6. 1986 TEIAS WTILITMS MMBATIE CarANY CWascER PEAE SES WIT E0. 2 CIENTIT BESICE TERIFICATIM WIT 2 M 1 .

ftytAL EDEE CEEEP12TED TD BATE i l

1 o S-0910 EEMEIC 3RANIEES CINTERIED TO S2-910 FonIAT 200 o CCEDWIT EDEB M&I2ND 103 i

e CEBEFI2EE ISCRETRIC FEEPARATIM 15

+

.t' N

4 i

7 I

e

[  ; ,

r i

t-r

}

J I

9

s b .

MAY 6,1986 TEXAS UTILITIES CENERATINO COPPANY COMANCHE PEAK SES UN!* NO. 2 2 IN 1 CONDUITS o SCOPING PROGRAM C(MPLETE o ACTUAL WALMDOWN STARTED A/21/86 o TOTAL NO. Or ISO'S: 2736 o RATE Or WALKD0hS: INITIAL PLAN - 100/ WEEK REVISED PLAN - 200/ WEEK o COMPLETION DATE: ORIGINAL - NOVEMBER 15. 1986 . .

REVISED AUGJST 15,19%

o PRESENTLY PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS Dr 52-910 o FINAL APPROACH (APO CtMPLETIf?N)

DEPEM)ENT DN UNIT 1 5-0910 VERIFICATION O

I 5

• ey a p

~~

< . :z. ... . . , . . .. ,

. mer e, 19es TEIAS WTILITIES GE M EATIE: GEEPART C M FEAK SES WIT W. 2 CEWWIT BESICE TERIFIC& TION t

9UTAL WlEE CEMF12TED TO BATE I ItFTAL EMBER W 'IN' & MSIFIED SUFF0EIE 1,675 ftPfAL MBEEE W SUFFWF BEADIES REI2&EES TO BATE J.383*

a) 'IN' EUFPOETS

= 347 ,

b) MIDIFU3 SUFFCE25 - SAFECUAEBE WI23EEE

= 2,257 c) DEIDIFIED SUFFCEIS - ERACTOR BUII. DIE:

= 779 l

l TUTAL 3.383 II wr&L EcuBER W emunrwrc ssFF0ETS DERICE TERIFIED 191 m) GEERAL WIES 22 b) C33-ernrum 72 c) J5-EEEIES 23 - . -

d) C33-amarum 17 e) LS-ama m 30 l

F) LL5 6 17 s) Fas-sERIIs 7 h) CSF-SERIES  ; I

1) W 1 TUTAL EUMBER W GEMEIC 3RANIEES IsstED 191 265**

III IstBETRIC DEANIM:S ETIEMD TO BATE 70 IStBETRIC DEARIECS CIWLETE 40 i

e i

• IBcuRus EETIstoms (2.01 EEvIsIngs/DEAWIEC)

• • N4m EETISIcES (1.4 EETISIoss/DEAWIRC) j i

i n

, , ,,-w------ - -y .,,.- , , _ ,,....-...--..,,,,,w, -

. - .i I~Tc7Fvrry

{

PMy WL2 coteurtErront t0C r I C0tt'lEIJON OF gg i ___

j AUC ' ,

CPNT SAMPLE S SEPT i

I gy i

' (INES1 RUT .

I 8 ._

NtP ACI M NT . . . -

I WAlN001A4 4 _

EikL Pk0 LECT 10t, 1 SO910 SUPPORT ~

~

h g CAPACITY WREF NY

• 1 CLAW DETott.S J NY

.i i

j ~

1_ - -

!  ?

SPAN VERIF SY -

NY ,

DYN ANAL -

) -

i

, WALKDotAf a - -

-- i i

AS-BUIT S/NV ~

! __ 0F LUU iSD'S

~~- -

)

s JAJCTI0tj gog " ' ' ~'

GUAt. NY -

l *1 NORMAL & NY--

ACCIDENTAL TEW

{ HISCELLANEOUS

\ tNCR'S. RE S - ~

) ___ D L DG pg)yr;L -

\ - __ _-

' - DAW 1NG TEST '

e ~

=

}

i l CLAW TEST a CCL -

~.

7 SUPV Elc s/sy i

j _ - -

1 __

3 j .

~- _- -

~ . .. . . . .

.m. _ - , _ , . ... ...

.- ...--.v--

_, .e . ..>.

[

TEIAS ETII2 TIES cummaATIEG CEREFAIT CS453 PEAR SES DEIT 30.1 00BWIT SYSTEM BESIEE ^""?"'M _

l ST&TUS A3 0F 4/26/86 I

CIEEFuT13 OF CFET SAEFf2 (120 EDES/732 SUFFORTS) o CEEIFIATED BAI2DOES W ALL EDES

• e CtBIPuTED DTEARIIC f.EALYSIS W 72 EDES, FEESERTLY EDurfac 19 3m33 l

o ITAI2ATED 15 5UFPW25 AB 30erTm c513 agog l II UNISTEIT MFMCIIENT (851 SUFFOE25 CABIDATE FOR REFfM)

\ . - E.. Eu i

o i

Ctar!2TED AEALT3E3 PER 45 EDIE (IN DEAFTIBC)

, o EDEEIEC CE 12 BOEI SUFF0E25 I

l o -

j EEVISIEC FEIIASOFET FEtEl EEPuCEMNT To namnmeTRATIE TEAT CAE E MI2TED - MPEEDIM S Act3SSDILITT Pm III BAI230m OF SUFFORT5/FIEE FBIFIECTIM ISSUES .

a e 5m45 85-42 marranam Oy 164 EDES e

CEREFIATED 81 mrrnmes: WOREIEC 05 5 IEEE o

CIEEFLrfED OR 13 MORE VIIIFICATICE OF 1 EtEl INCLUDIEC SUFFORT5s'WDEKI o

IDENTIFIID 2 SUFFORTS EEQUTarur' MODIFICATICII o

INITIATED

= BarzID new CMC REVIEli TO REDUCE # OF POTENTIAL F305I2M SUF o

EEADIED STAFF TO PEIFDEM EALIDOWN W IIMAINIEC POTENTIAL P SUFFORTS (ESTINATED AT LESS TRAN 6.000) t l

. rr ; y

.e - .-- .

.. 4- .9 ,.

y Wr*

l

'5 l BAT 6, 1986 l

,Jr a TEIAS trFII.ITIII cumEATIE CtWANT Cm PEAK SBS INIT B0.1 COEDOIT ST5TW M31C3 ADSQUACT l

i j STATUS AS W 4/26/86 (GMTIMEEB) l .

IT S-8919 5WTem CAPACITT TIIIFICATIM e **AmmP IAADIEC 10 EE AFFI.IED TO EACE CINERIC SUF:'3T TU VERIFT CAPACITT e ASSMBIED STAFF TO DO CAPACITT TERIFICATIM e EAR SAWLE AEALYSES WITE EEEANG FUE PEWOCTIM EDES V  :: PAN TERIFICATION e N ST.*VF FOR WDEE TI JURCTIM BGE e LIST W ALL JUNCTIM EMES PARTIAI17 ASSEISLED e CENFFIEC W BGIIS II FEEFAEATIM e STAFFIEC CENEFI2TED TII WMAL AND ACCIDENT TENFEIATUM e CENEFIETED AEALYSES W STEAIGIT SPAN CtBIPIEATI(NI FUE WEMAL TEMPERATURE e MCAR WORK 05 STRAIGT SPANIEL 30W CIEEBIEATIOW e ENGAN WDEE W ACCIIENT TEMPEIATURE VIII CIJEF TEST - SEE TEST FECE2AM

'O

s. --, . - ,

- ,, --,y ,---

. A ..n-- -= . ,

MAY 6,195 6 TEXA5 UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY CDMANCHE PEAK SES UNIT NO. 2 CABLE TRAY WANERS COMPLETION STATUS PHYSICALLY NOT IN PROCESS TOTAL INSTALLEC INSTALLED VAULTED (VERIFIED)

BUILDING 669 5 490 -

164 Reactor 674 1756 1752 4 749. 10 7 3afeguard 1235 1 130 11C6 Auxiliary 1236 200 - 197 3 Diesel 200 Generator 3856 10 1566 23C0 Total 3866 PROGRAM

SUMMARY

MARCH APRIL

~

VAULTED TOTALS 1394 1566 IN PROGRESS TOTALS 2472 , 2300 e

l - - - - -

TEXA3 UTELITIES CEERATING C(MPANY CthANCE PEAX SES UNIT NO. 2 CTH CORRECTIVE ArTIONS TO CTH PPOCRAM .

o REVISED QI-QP-11.10.2A (REV 8) - COMPLETED 4/7/86 o REVISED ECP-10A (REV 3) ~ COMPLETED 4/18/86 o FIELD ENGINEERING TO VERITY SPANS o INSTITUTED REVISED ENGIEERING ORGANIZATION o INSTITUTED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUAL HANGERS

. THE SCHEDULE FOR C(NPLETION Or MODIFIED SUPPORTS WAS PROPOSED ON 4/25/86. CRAFT STLEYING SCEDULE o RESPONSIBILITY TUR DOIVIDUAL SUPPORT WITH LEAD ENGINEER WITH ENGR / CRAFT / CAD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE o HITS PROGRAM MfEIFIED TO SUIT PROGRAM

. . - - - ~ - . . - . .

- u-Q t

, .. mat 6.1986 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING C0ffANY COMANCHE PEAX SES UtNIT No. 2 N0!FICATION REDUCTIDN PROGRAM 3 PUtPOSE

. CREATED TO ELIMINATE OR SIMPLIFY fWusY OF THE MODIFICATIONS o METHODCLOGY

. ACC; RATE THERH1AG LOCATION

. L'SE F TRAY AS STRUCTURAL TIE BEThCEN HANGERS WITH COLTED CLAMPS

. BUCILING RELAXATIOP o STATUS

. 5FG + AtX ORIGIhAL M005: 1273

. PRWECT NUMER F CANDIDATES FOR 750 MCC REDUCTION:

. WUfGER ICDIFICATIONS ELIMINATED TO DATE: 129

. NUfGEE F MCDIFICATIONS WHICH CAkdDT BE 145 ELEMINATED:

. REMIh!N3 TC GO: 476 l . DRCECTE3 CC"PLETION OF MAJOR ASPE!TS: 7/86

[ . SITE CDPPLETIG!;. 8/86 l

l f

~

....n.. .. , .~...a.-~ -

M T 6, 1986 TIIass WTILITIES CIERRATIE 6

- FEAE STEAR EI2CIRIC STATION M 2 CTE MSICE TERIFICATIM PEDEEm AREAS e- CARIX 1 EAT FITTIMS - QUALIFICATIss e AssWFTIM IN MSICE FM T AND CMTE3 FITTIECS "a qEALITY W MI215 II TEAT FITTIMb e TENTIE FCE STEEL 2 CUEC FITTIECS e CMEP mfC NW TT.A TESTIM e CAE12 TEAT SFLICEE e ACWFTABILITI W FIIID-FAEEICATED SFLIGS e TEAT OTEREFAB l e TEST B421 PESENILY IEEUFFICIENT TO JBITIFT OTERSFAN '

l e TWO OFTI M AEE:

o A. EETAIg crEM & EILL SPECS AND IIPAEMD TESTINC JUSTIFICATION E. CIABCE WECIFICATIM TO EEF12CT EZI OF TEST AND ABALYSIS o SEEWESS OF TEAT TC SUPPUET o marrwgSIB12 WELI CDRIECTIWS S

9 h .m. . . .

g.

' s TEAas UTILITT rcetOAr!NG contaNY (DMANt NE REAR STLA ELECTRIC STATION cTN mo masl ceEN ssess s/s/ss i

l wtTHon i I I cuAncE I T I orca i ut i I sassowsisLE I or i us!T 1 uMit 2 1

' l PARTY I accErrANG l DV l WD l CONST DV UD CDelst i Inut I htso:ArrioN I STATUS I I i l i i I l. I I Iccusit. Issets l l l l l l l 1 i l i i

I l l l 1 1 1 1 I I l L/T N!f.H I l l l l l CONSULIDAT!uN or cTGNA l $UtetARY outuMINT w/st:.011f!!ON I COMPLETES 1 1 i i I Luut *, I l l 8 l 1 1 1 ,

SClisbut t (sF RIholUTION l RLvitM BY 34D PARTT/CYGNA 1 ON ColNG l TUcCD l N/A l l l l l l l ou malmo l Tuccu I NicN l l 1 l 3 l l

• a:s&a Atuuno.1:. I nar netasau. Nicuam santino som I i I enNoulli i l i i i i i l I ,

l i I I I i i I l l __ I I I i i i l I I 1 1  : I i l l 1 l l praic Isseis 1 l 1 1 I I I I I i 1 I .

. 1.25 suut i Ano'L. sTUDitS 70 SATISrY l Ecp s/30 1 E/JBA l alGM l L l- l M iu l- I e i l 3D PAdff I I l l l l l l l 1 sucEtlNc t/a at1AAATION l POSITION r1NAL121D l CONFLETED l TUC/Mic l NICH I -

l- l - I- I- I -

I .

,  : IN i- I I sys ist trrtcf (#2) l INTDFRET/ EXTENSION OF 1.25 I IW mon ess, i E/I l NIcN I -

l- l - m 1 i E m - 5/1s i l l l l l , ';

- I sfvor l I 1 IN iM 1 l selwcp Nance / TRAY l STUDY F0R +5*1 LIMITED l ECD (ETUDY I E l NICM l -

1- l - N ~

1 v&LEDOWW F64 sAIANcE I OWLT) 5/16 I l l l l l l l l 4

" FINAL

• IDsAT!oN OF l REQUlkED IdoM IUGtD 1 TO ADV1st l 70C03 l MIGM l M iM l 18 iN lN l - I

' $ THiM ,IA0 1 l l l l l l l 1 l' i l IN EtHEtss l CE/E/1 l u!GN 1 m 1- I L lu l- I u 4 1

nAY SPAN VLAlficATION l UNIT 2 (G6N) UNIT 1 (E/1) l k I ANALV5ft

• Tkh! I i 1 l l l l l l '

i IN momEss l E I NicN m 1- 1 n Iw I- I n I

! ca. Ant rua mars l TLsr ia 1- l u l ciste ton mWoulis 1 Test i IN raom Est 1 Tuc/E l ulcn 1 -

1- l u I sfvor i conrLETEs i E I ulcu i n iL 1 n In 1- I L I 30LT rK.E DIsTAnct in Ie I u I Ta4T T0 cLant cars I sTwor + Test I ** I E/1 I alca i n In I u AcetoLNT Tetrta (f ) I sfuor i a 1 E/1 I noomATE l n 1- I n iu!-I a I INAccasS:sti vElms I sfvor I cDNFLETED I E I MIGN l H lN l L IN l5 l L l I su n0 mass Tucco I ulcN I -

1- l 1. Iu l- l L i

. 3/niertoro PlaTL 1 Tucts reuman 1 i

l I l i 1. I I I I 1 L = L .14/ l

• 1.MMIL/N

• Wl4H of50 FINDDIG Rtet!Pr 0F 1Artti sfuBy

. **TsD rom!Nc sEceler or ~'+e t **-v I *Ts mEvrew l

1 iw

. - - c. .

_ . ~

_ _ J p - ,

MAY 6, 1986 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY CDMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT NO.1 CTH AS-8UILT PROGRAM CURENT REOLIIE PROGRAM STATUS:

TOTAL SCOPE: 4525 WALK 002 5 COW LETE: 21so CUpp BACKFIT ' WALK 001AIS: COW LETE EDLIES TO NY CAD: 1176 EDLIES TO SITE CAD: 411 SPAN ORAWINGS: COWLETE ECADD! leg OF PREVIOUSLY WALKED REDLIES: COW LETE TRA) FILL DATA SHEETS:

RC8: C0W LETE FHS: C0W LETE CONTROL: .

C0ftPLETE AUI: (SCOPE i815) 1210 MANH(LES: (SCOPE - 8) 0 0

l

>e - . - . , , - - . , - .n,,,,,v-- . . , , , m- -.- - , , , ---------,-m,-. --

e e be v+. ..e a e

o eyemeo e

o e

?

• ee

• • e

* s oe e

e ee e.e

< e e

e d

e e

e W

• e e

e e

o b e e me

• M ee e

w e. o e

e G , me

• e I e e

h e

ene e g

• e eG e e e

• e ae *e g

• e m .

e o M e 8 O a

e ,e e

m *

{ es e e *

, . 1 ..

e O e ene e

C O e

• 4

• emos e e l+

4 e h 9 l e l

m .

e me.- e 1e i

e 1

1 d e "

muse e

! e W e W

l ,

e -

e "a p ,

9 e e. 9e.

e e sse ,

O . e r e empo , p j e e 4

'o 8"% .p en * *I" g e

g

• me 4

e W I

' T emme ee I

b en e

1 i

e 1

e e t J

• e .e e= e e

, me-- o---- e .-e e - es e t

. me e o ese e-

=en, O g

e. g e -6mmene % . --meeo e * -e- *p.

TEXAS ' UTILITIES CDEERATING COWUfT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC SMON

, WALKDOWN SCHEDULE EVAI,UATIC5 ORICINAI. PIAN: 25 TEAMS 9 2 SUPPORTS PER TEAM 9 6 :FS PD WEIK = 300 PER WEEK REVISED PIAN: 26 TEAMS 0 2 SUPPORTS PER 17.AM 9 5 =AYS FD utIX = 260 PER WEEK RESTANr: JANUARY 28,1986/ ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE.: JONE 13.1986 PRESErr'STAttS:

ACTUAL SCHED& m VARIMaCE o WALKDCWNS (..,MPETED: 2180 201C +1?O .

(AS OF 4/30)

RECOVERY PLAN STA*US:

o WALKDCWNS STILL COMPLETED 6/13/86 o CW SCHEDULE o INCREASE ITAMS SY CRAFT ADDITION o COMPLETE - 34 TEAMS FIELDED AS OF 4/286 o DECREASE SEIE MCNITORING o D0 COUNTERING TYPES REOUIRINO MONITORI3C -

IC EEh7 REALIZED AS YE""

o RAMP-CP PERIOD: APRIL 7-18 o C3tPLETE ALL CIAMP RETROFITS o COMPLETE 5/2 o TRAIN CRAFT o COMPLETE 4/25 0 3Y APRIL 18 dEGIN FULL PPCDUCIC*i w/34 TEA.*!! F*-* BIO o CDNP!E"E 2.5 SUPPORTS PD *EAM ! 5 DAYS PER WEI"T. = 425 FER h em J AVERACIfC !ESS THA!! 2 PER ?_.AM DCE TC TYPE & 3U" DING RES"RICTIONE

• o WALEX"dN TEAMS: SCHEDULED: 33 AC" t32) l Ta' OPD: REC (1) . t! "' " - 0: "RAINDIC)

WD 3 *T.AMS : ICHECU*ID: 10 ACT (8) (a' OPEt; REQ (1)  ; (T"* 0 - Of TRAOIDIG) o PLANNEO: 34 TEAMS 10 BE FIELCED AT ALL TI.wEI o ALTCMPLISHED

• Reac.cr Bu G ;.r.. - 15; to ce - week delsv r.:e te teactor internal erk - meacted week endino Si' - Restrict: J :.n sif eet t.hrouch 5/;6/?s.

• 7ue; au:1 dana - Pestr:eted oersenne; - 203 - :: - I..- set not tota;;i assessed - verunc 4:-h the buildin: tanaca :

5/4/n6 .

TrxAS tiillITIFS r.FNFRATINr. Of1HPANY C(1HANrilE PfAK tlNIT NO. I l .

REVISED WEEKLY SCHEDULE COMPARISON 4800

.X - - p 3 4200- y.-

g'

, X.- y'

3600-- .

fe ' -

[f c

! /

3000 / C x

j

/400 # ,s i

/ "-

s

_y gf ,

1800 y jE]

l

~X 4 1200 ,X g_@-O

1. . ' O' 600 l .K ;V(3 O Y , , , , c , ,

O 2 4 6 8 to 17 14 16 18 /.0 .

l i

CONTINUOUS WORKING WEEKS l

i O ACTUAL X OLD " 'MD 0 NEW SCHD l ... _ . . . , . . .

TEXAS tlIILIIlfS f.ENERATING COMPANY 5/6/b6 f rnHANCIE PCAK UNIT NO. 1 'j UNIT 1 PROGRAM STATUS AND SCHEDULE A 800 -- - - - - - - - -

A200- P

} , y

.y y

3600-

if B-g '

w n ,

3000- 3 F -

2400-

[G '

3 now wr. ,, ,

1800- -

.d ~ j 1200-600-N h -

0 r-: r- v i- - r - i i M 2 r(- B .- iO -

CONTINUOUS WORKING WEEKS

-l- REDUNES X PAR TO SITE O QC lNSPECTION O NY DRAWING S/O loF3 NOT INC1.llDE. IM8'El l'!. .%8:Fil'R;

. ,.-- - w-

---__- .----3,-+..._,

s.

ywx:- 7 t r- ~

4 MY 6. 1986 MEAS WTILITIES mT-me CREANT G M&BGE PEM 3133 mrmeTRIC STATIGE OBIT 1 GC IESPECTI M STATUS - CTI BESICE TERIFIC&TI M e 528 PaczAcas AvaInsLa To qc

• 44 IEBPECTION PEDCEgg s (1-gr-11.10 9 EIV. 4 *

• TR&IIIB CIEr1313 APRII, 30,1986

• STN IMPECTICE APRIL 5.1986 l

l

{

i

( -

0

.y- .. .__ , ,. .c . ._,

l-MY 6,1986 TEXAS UTILITIES GDIERATING COMPANY

. COMNCHE PEAK UNIT No.1 Sum 4RY MSIGN VERIFICATIQN STATL'S AS OF 5/2/96 REDLINES

. SECEIVED O.V. PRE-D.V. D.V. NEED FIELD SLOG SCOPE IN NY0 C0ftLETED REVIEW ONGOING INPUT DIESEL 181 178 132 12 20 14 i

FUEL 294 8 0 8 0 0

CONTROL 8 0 0 0 0 0 AUX 1815 560 29 160 237 126 NCT um 8 0 0 0 0 0 l

TOTAL 2306 746 161 188 257 140 o ALL COW LETED D.V.'S PASSED AS-8UILT o FINAL DRAWING SIGN 0UT: SEPTD SER 13, 1986 h

9 l

7

-,,- ,, . , - , ,- . - - , , . , , . _ . . - , . - - , , - . _ , , _ , . _ , , , , _ - , , . . , , , . . , , , . _ , , , . . , __n- _. _ - - . - , _ . _ _ _ . - , _ . . - _ . - -

. - -... - _ . , _ . . _ , _ _ =

7- _ . . .

o p - ..

EAT 6,1586 1EIAS UTILITIES MTIE GRIFANT M FEAK STIAM ISSCTRIC STATIM M TEST F90ERAN ET&TOS 51pBIAIT

1. TEST N (G:L). Purrm*.AmT RENLTS EIAIM.

CIJMP CAPABILITY II M laECITW5 MAL BIEECTIM Im TRAN IIPSCTEB.

l l

2. EDEFMITIS W WE ERALTETIC (EIGER) CIJMF CAPABILITT IS II PMCEESS FOR DISCRESIM WITE CrlL.

. a) WTMTR TERT FIETWEE5 EATIE 6 EFFECT W M1EMIEEE CLAMP CAFABILITT.

! b) EMFIM A IMER REALISTIC EtBIEEE W Mam STERSS CTC125.

c) MFIM CAFABII.ITT EAEED UFW aNAenEAWf M STATISTICAL MFIEEBCE uvEI..

l .

l -

3. TEST FEccaaN to EE REDEFIEED WITE CCL, AFTER SELECTED TERT SAEFI23 ARE INTESTICATED FOR TE EFFECTS OF 2(a) AED (b) A30TE.

l l A. SEI2CTED TEST Sm AT CCL ARE IN FMCEESS.

1 .

v I

i l '

}

i

.-.,---v.---,,--,,w-._- - _ - - .,m , , _ , , - - , - - - , , , _ , - , , _ , , _ , , - , , , , - - -

,--_ we-I 5/6/86 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY j COMANCHE PEAK SES TEST PROGRAM STATUS SUIMAPY o DYNAMIC TEST (ANC0) j SCOPE

! 6. CONFIGURATIONS STATUS l

CO W.ETED: CASE 1. 2, 44

• l

• REMAINING TO COMPLETE A

SHIP MAT'L CASE MRT'L RECEIPT ESI ENGRG TEST TEST TEST RE!

9 ANCO VISIT TO ANCO START C00@LETED TO E!

, 7 C0ffLETED COWLETED C0WLETED IN PROCESS 5/21 /8 6 6/11/1

• • 6 Cup @LETED COMPLETED 5/21/86 5/22/86 5/28/86 6/13/1 I 3 5/19/86 5/26/86 5/28/86 5/29/86 6/30/86 7/21/1

• • CJCKLING CONFIGURATION e

o STATIC TRAY FITTING AND TRAY CLAMP ASSEMBLY (CCL)

! SCOPE 1

ST4 TIC TEST OF TRAY AND TRAY FITTINGS EDC: 7/9/86

. 8 CONFIGURATIONS

. ISEC R1 S/0 4/21/86 CL.V9 STATIC / CYCLIC TEST EDC: 7/9/86

. 6 MULTIPLE CLAl80 CONFIGURATIONS

. IMPELL SPEC R1 S/0 4/17/86 9 STATUS i

{ . COL HAS COWLETED TEST PLAIJS i . APPROVAL BY 5/9/86

! . MARDWARE DELIVERY: A.C.G,D, CLAMPS Sill??ED; 5,J CLAMPS TO BE SHIPPED O!i e ALL TRAY FITT!r(GS Sil!PPCD.oALANCE OF STiAIGiT SECTIOfi! TO 3E SilIPPED C 4'

. KILL RE-ARRAtlGE TEST CASEE TO RESOL','E SCHECULE IMPACT CF HARDWARE DELM i o BASE ANGLE TEST

. SITE TESTIrlG WILL DE REDIRECTED i.

s -. . .

. .. . - . . . ,, n. u.; - - -m- , , - . _-

. . . ~. - -

.-.~., .

m t

g Attacrvaent 5 Impell Car te Tray and Train C neutt Program .

\

A

y O N s

'f' , ,b~'

j COMANCHE PEAK i STEAM ELECTRIC STATIQN TEXAG UTILITEs GENERATING CO<

j .

k sa.

l MJNTHLY STATUS PRESENTATICN BY _

. ItiPELL CORPORATION MAY 6, 1986 y

1, 4.

s s ',,

l a.

[-

t l

AGENDA OVERALL PROJECT ORGANIZAlION CABLE TRAY STATUS - .

c i

j -

CONDUIT TRAIN C STATUS

-0VERALL MANPOWER

SUMMARY

.- -. - .- -~~ - . . - - -

W i

e e

G 6 o

• y

l .

- . . . . - _ - - - . ._. -m.,,- . . _ . _ _ .

- e . . . .

l OVERALL PROJECT ORGANIZATION l

l l

l .

j s!TE nesAset l

l R. L. SRLSB l

l l

l .................

7.................... 3 e s i

e s s a

, s l'IB ACT m

l e e i

e e

M. C. MARAPIUS  :

l _. -s _- .

e 1

r-s~

5" - -

l s e- I

s. s e

8 -

__, e a,

' CAR K TItAYS i TT..!N C CGCUIT I s

' ASBT. MIQJ. MAfdOR. Eut. MtOJ. MAfSA.  :

s a

s.

s.

l.' R. A. PHIL8RICM M. S. SWATTA l' l

e s.

e s

l si- g.

I s -

l:e a

l SITE CABLE TitAY DCpt OFFICE NOPE WFICE SITE TRAIM C MIOKCT EMB! SEER M W 2 CT EpsteEIItS PIELECT ENGIBEE3tS MICKCT ENEIDEEP e

e s -se.g g,

~----v., - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - , - - , , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , . - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - , , - - - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - -

CABLE TRAY STATLlS 1.0 APPROACH

. . . . . _ _ _.2..O ORGANIZATION .

l - --

3.0 PROGRESS / SCHEDULE _

(.O COST AND PRODUCTIVITY 5.0 MANPOWER O%8 O

e e m e.

I i

e

~.  ;.T. . - .~- _- --

CABLE TRAY DESIGN VERIFICATION APPROACH SPECIAL Stu3fES Age LIGNSIMS .

tESTimi -

1 r WALMD0 bad PRFI,

= PRELIM!NAunr RED-LIES, -

ELL M INSTR. ==

PRELIMINARY SPAN ONES. .

EERATE PRELIMINARY $

4 N GEERATE FILL EIGWT . DATA

~

PERFtNtM PMLIN. DYN. 2 -

SYSTEM ANALYSIS '

9F PGtFORM PRELIMINARY & SEERATE ANY RESIGN VERIFICAT!!M PRELIM REG'O (F SLPPORTS =

MEE!FICATIONS SPECIAL STtK3!ES _ ,

AM3 TESTING. 1 r ,

PetFORM PRELIM. DESIGN I E 4 WERIFICATION OF "

GEERATE ANY PRELIM REG'O TRAYS AM) CLIPS m

' M33!FICATIONS FINAL S/C l l VERIFTED SLFPtytT _ g l tutAM I W S FINALIZE IESIGN 4 VERIFICATION AM3 ISSLE M005 9 P VA11.1 Butm isssiisii $ sm iiii m

__..... . -- - . ~-

. . - 7-- ;7 u ..

_ titi

. j ESSS Ej 5555 O *

- g 5 l-h5 -

lI L

• _

EE EREE I $~'~ ~5 T

Illl hE l

Z -

- --l,i =. k

.. ges l < -

l co I- I a i " an JFI~

-i J Is!

Ihs!

O, I 1"9, REE!

F.4 -;;; - - _ _

sese -

ssss Y

O ti ta " a 2 ___.

n:

~

In 5 N

-d II 11

- f. 8 3eet E, , . _ _- 5% -

ll - . - . - - -

_3 '

g. *

! L3 -

lEE-E g i ]. ,g E 55 I[N~'d Re f

r-* - --- -

.....____.v __- - - - - . - - - - - . - - - . . _ . - - - - - - - _ , ,

._ - . - . . . ~ - - - . - - - - . - - - - - , . . - - . . - - - - . , - .

~

4

- * * ,i , I l .e.... . . .',

l .. . i. .. ,-

CABLE TRAY PROGRESS-DESIGN VERIF ICATION (PRODUCTION) .

LMIT SAFdOUkN iMI MEAC1 0R EllLDING

i. ,, i ,

e s .

1355 155E TASK wy osc aan us nan aPn nar Jun Jut aus ur act -

1.0 MBTAIM PIN! LIM. Dellen INPUT 2 0 5ITE WORN-PRFI HALMD06mt umme mamma saamm em amma

~ ~" ~ "" ~

5.6 gsg 'T lE~

- ' - ' ~ '-~ ~ ~ ~ ^-'

a gt.

^ ' - ~ ~

4.0 *$UPERt!PE* SYtitM ANALYSf 6 -

5.D gtgr p nUIIEU l i ungnes musuu m '

e 5.0 COMPLETE PRELIM. SUP. DE5. ' '

VER. CALC. PACNABE PREP.

7.0 COMPLETE PRELIM. SYSTEM DES. VER.

8.0 DEVELOP PRELIMINARY MODS 5.0 REVIEW FINAL G/C DESIGN l INPUT 10 0 FINALIZE DESIGN VERIFI- -

CATION & ISSUE M005 j, .

11.0 FIELD SWPORT -

12.0 PROJECT CLOSEOUT '

k

_= _ ., .-. .__ _.

h310.S c==3 HORM REMAINING

!l em NORN COMPLETE

. .. . _ ,------.-s --_

_ ..,.:--..'a * ,

,d.,

g' es. '

.-. , ,e.,,, ,,

esame . emme an=

W -

" :d , I_

.O WW '

I .,. _i

.W 6 .

o -

g . ,

_b - _ _

/ ,,

e  % ,

5 N -

A  %. A i r,m - - - --<

!  % w sv

, g - g%,l *'%e )*e ;' ' H e a i

I g

3 g ,

y t_ -

-g --

. g Q .,

1 W

5 E

i w

4 l l _

c

, j

~

(f) l -

rn 1 - >

3 d I

& h ~

1

-O --

O '

e c --

5

( ,' s -

\

\ s l

g s g s u

\ E I W . -

I J -

CD E U .  :

1 i 'I  ! I S180ddnS 30 H38WnN

-e,w- ,--y--- -wwy..y..-,- -%., - . , - -eg gw wg,--w+-e-y-,-----.p.g-.-ywy-wwy+www----yev-e--.mw

j i .

. l i  !

l o

' =

i i .

CABLE TRAY SUPPORT QUALIFICATION

SUMMARY

- i 1

NO. FINAL DESIGt NO. SUPPORTS NO. SUPPORTS NO. SUPPORTS QUALIFIED IN REFINED SLFPORTS VERIF. DHG.

COMPLETE N00!FIED ISSUED (PRELIM) (PRELIN) ANALYSIS (420 1 (60) (0)

SAFE 6UARDS (480) ,

DUILDING . ,. .

,i

• 1 (0) (0) (0) ,

REACTOR (0) t I j BUILDING l i l l l

i

.. c. -

sy;, .

CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DESIGN MARGIN

SUMMARY

- GUALIFIED SUPPORTS .

NO. EVALUATED " AVERAGE MARGIN' MEMBERS i WELCS ' ANCHCRAGES '

420 0.3 350 20 _

50 2 - .

' POTENTIAL MODIFIED" SUPPORTS ..

NO. EVALUATED g " AVERAGE MARGIN , O RIE C M PONENT l MEMBERS I'3 ELDS ANCHORAGES 60 1.5 50 2 8 ,

-**Wh* ***ee - m. pe . . , , ,

! j j j .

r

' s '

CABLE TRAY PROGRESS-SPECI[L S'TUDIES -

- - ,1 1 .

.i I . ,',

s - -

ilssis

{ ,

TASK ,,,,

tses m.e m ,o - apa nay, m, as ya er, ocT isiv l.0 yEMERIESS RATIO ISSE mumme summe muun' "" - "'" "'E:: =:"

f j, \2 0 KFFECTIVE LENGTH ,,, mama - =3 ,

1 / FACTOR IND STWY

• f ygagfoE'C!!?.'.ama " -- - - - -

jf gne,f.'aC W ' -- - - - 1 c====

(OCYGNAISSERESOLUTION neumma musum mummu muuuu mununu -

' num==u iip OgMg SYSTEM TESTINS guyau umann unmann IEEEEE MEEmum num= ==EE= ::8 -

. P.9 OYNAMIC SYSTEM TEST / ,

i , 1 ANALYSIS CDRRn AT (ENd 9 4 CADLE TRAY TESTIfe _

y gca* PORT 1

0.0hLAMPQUALIFICATI0W i I I.0kABLETRAYMAALIFICATION useum en I 2.0 h RMAL LOAOS ISSUE imumum ummuu -

! 1 3.0SkNLOAOSISSUE, "m u' emu  !

fj i4.0 OGALAP CAITERIA - ,,,,,, 3

.AETIFI *ATim ,,

15.0 EX]RA 9t3ADEh ING AM CLIP STFFNESS BOUNDING

,,,,,, - - a'I ,

. PEETING BTTINDANCE/ ~

, PREPARATION ,

- p:

l i e

• l 1 -

)

i j g L E G E BLS l , a==== HORN PEMAININB g , m NORN COMPLETE I n L. J=u2D SWFnrumnyn .I .

E (T ___,,ZZ ,~ . 7 .y ....___ _ _

g

.l g

ff/h

/  ! 80 3

" - . z .

I _ ,

r ,/r

(! ,

l g ,

l ....-.tx .-- ..

, =,  ;,

% d f j j g f/

! g 7

~

i _

~

ll f

I t  ?

I .

i , l i a_ E 3 R g g g g g g 83MOdNYW

(:

r TRAIN C CONDUIT STATUS l

l

- 1.0 PROJECT APPROACH 2.0 ORGANIZATION

, 3.D PROGRESS AND SCHEDULE 4.0 COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY 510 MANPOWER

~ ~ ~

o -

l -

1 -

/

s 4

d

v. **w q e . er -

==o '* a he~ -y -

W==

O GISBS L HILL imeu. um Glees a. HILL TRAIN C

==

ANALYSIS su = T EV m TION CONDUIT APPR3ACH. ':

AM FUPPC T M REVISED

')

ggTgg CRITERIA ,;

F i

ii E8ASCO gg lEVIEN AS MAutOOW4 FIERA MAutDW EVfW ONS s r

ACCEPTANCE W ALL

' PROCEDURE AS TRAINI m

-) AM REWW LatlTE I AM PREVIOUS WORK ,i z  %

d b

• l

. \

1 r h IHPELL ITELL ,

JUSTII rtCATION REV. B - 3/98 I

~

OF C11TERIA REY. O - 4/28/06 '

ACTIVITIES. REV. 1 - 5/15/86 h

I

~ 8/ 4/88 - 5/06 4/06 - 5/S.

t/es - 3/e6 1/86 - 3/88 - - 4/ = l -

=

i,\

=

= - ,

t

e '

mnan u' (.,ureuul i M.MthNINL5 PLOHCHART 1

I ENTIRE POPULATION l 1 P 1 r 1 r SOtEDs I SDIEIN 2 SCHEEN 3 EIGHT WGR S IN 80'l0 SUPPORT N0 INTERACT POUM25 PER F00i SAN POTENTIAL I

I

~

~

SLPPCRT YES y <

PASSES 7 M - STOP l ~

- - g -

~

1 P ~

e __. 1 r Z 5 SOtEEN 4 S V :REEN E' i SDIEEN 8 SOtEEN 7 SOtEEN E MISMIC SEISMIC CAPACITY SYSTEM TN SAFE DISTIM W W FIEl.Dr SW M SEISMfr g gf gg,, N 3IS

, ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS I 7 I I SLPPCRT YES u PASSES 7 n STOP 1 P

~

, I

/ OPTIm 1 l OPTION 2 OPTION 3 ADD ATRgtAFT M00tW

CABk SUPPQRT REROUTE CONDUIT I

w- * - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ -- --_

._ _ . _, m ._..__ _ _ _..

, s . .

- CRITEF!!A -

HOME OFFICE ORGh~NII TION MIC E CT MANAGER MEVIN MARAPIUS ASSISTANT MICECT MANAGER

- ~

MARK SWATTA STAFF CGdSLA. TANT Jurn t,4uariotR -

~ ~

- - - . ~ . ._

.. MtCKCT EMINEER "

TOM DESMON'O O.

l l

LEAD ENGIMER LEAD ENGINEER I LICENSING ISSUES TEST PROGRAM pg h LEA IEER MIM HOANG ANDREW COWELL TOM DESMOND OSCAR ZUNIGA

_v -

.q PRODUCTION -

SITE ORGANIZATION l srTE MANASDt l

ROBERT GRUBB I

PROKCT MANAGER l STAFF KEVIN WARAPIUS '-

CDMSULTM

! JOHN E!DINGER --

PROKCT ENGuttM l .

. . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . TOM DESMOND _

_ _ .umBASE-TRACKING.

I l

l l

• MC 2 t

SCREEN 3 SCREEN 4,5iE,7,8 REWDRK TEAM TEAMS TEAM i

AS AS NEEDED As gg NEEDED PEEDED NEEDED

~

N,.

a.

~ _ .

crsuuuu AUN -

Murit:. UFFICE ORGAMZATION

~

PaOECT MANAGDt MEVIN WiutAPIUS ASS!STANT paoxci MANAast MARK SWATTA STAFF CONSULTANT '

.KDN EIDINGER Mt0 K CT ENGIE ER

~

l 2~~~

MIM HOANG

. LEAN. ENGINEER .

LEAR ENGTEst LICENSING ISSES LEAD ENGIEER L5AD ENGINEER TEST PROGRAM SEISHIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS

- REWORK e

o AS As END gg l 60 EEDED whED l

-y .- -----e -p - .% g-,,.y.-, , . . -g3ev -- m--y-y e,- -

t 1 '

TRAIN C CONDUIT PROGRESS AND SCHEDULE I

,' 3/25/88 c,/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 E/6 5/12 5/19 E/28 S/2

,i 1

A.0 PROE CT PLANNING P"""""' ' -

.0 REVIEN OF GIBBS & i n HILL Am E8ASCO NORN un'u 'umuuuuumm unummi M EC::: o 2.0 g ,,,, , , ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, , g==== ==== == ==: :==== ==: : :3 [

3.0 TEST ENM' W Mun'EMuumMumuul 7

u t::::  :::

PROGRAM .

4.0 Vjl1 J' , ,,,,,,,,, yW '

e___ ____

_ =% = :____ ;__%=

5.0 FINALIZE REHORN ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, e=== _=__: .==_ ====

DESIGN PROCEDURES I I

G.0 00m y ' h

, , i i 7.0 TRAINING , s - M b:::: l I I

8.0 SITh WALMD0ted AW f ENGIEERING SUPPORT 4 ,

i i m

- I UNIT 1 '

y MILESTOE ISSUED TES SPEC 4/21 9ECEIVED SIDS 4/25 .

i LE8ENR'

• y REY. 0 *

==z HORN REMAINIW  ! -

ummes MORN C0ffLETE c= =s SCEOLLE OVERALM, ,

' . , c I '- s

. . - - . . ' f - ,

1 E

M:-

E i .

S NE

. L I IT NE U /

S IL A

D MW EO

.

i E S n

_ H C

/

S u n s u nC M ;'

o NM S

s =

2 e =

D N

/

S L == "" , ;

! I A 5 . !

i l-2

/ -

S 5 S

E S I

\

I R /

5 G -

I O 2 l .! t R 1

/

i P 5  ;

T 5 l c -

I / l

i-

5 . I ,

U D

l N

5 i

O i.

' / l 4 -

C 8 I  !

8 s  ; I C 2

/

1

/

- N 4 S

i I TL . . .l CE T A AV R rE O R .

G N f L P P E T .

CI IT EE N L S

C N

RL TE SA TI AR 2N N)

EB U A A.

LSC TI G IM TE C A IS ET SS VN ME T

~

IA ED LD MA 0 0 0 0 9 0 I 2 1 I 1

1' 1

! t .I

. , ! t D

E T .

C L A

K U O T R C P A 8yIh - Z3 E8" -

n i

=

6 2

8 I

7 0

5 s

a ,

- ~ - _

~

W -

b- _-

' l b j S N

t O H ~

I T

M I . l S ~

6 k 0

A E

R { f j CI F

R A j4 I

D P N O

T M

$,De 00 * / p E

R .

I U

M O

j, C

+0[

F 43 g /

/ U R

8 1

e a

g i

l '

D D N D N N A [ G I

m f <

O i _

S 8 C T I

l N

C U y '

f N p I

A R -

T -

- g p

- 3

- =

a 0 0 0 0

0 0 m 0 0 0 0, 0, 0 o 0

5 a m 2 t emgafO Wmh 8Qr l l ll l 1lI l lll l

1 1

1 (

TRAIN C MANPOWER (NEH) i j E0 - -

l ' UNI 1 e

REWORM

1 l

_ //////

} .,

,,y

\ \\% \\ \

- - ~

- 5';;;;;;;;;; 3 r.'

I t///// /  ; '

' UN " '

' REWORK/ I'

/////// '

///////////

! W ,

sssssssisf///>

/

o s

' ;l$$$ .

r///

a. .

- ;fff s

an -

! 2 $.h

< UNIT 1 UNIT 2 - 4 l ~

i z  :.

WALNDOWN HALHOOWN -- J,' l

~

?  :'d

/,;

.A ID ' '..

m i < < / 7 , , , , , , .~

%w */// / ! / / o* / / / / / */ s

',/,/ / / / // / / / / / // / / .

y 1

g APR W JUN JUL AUG . SEP GCT NOV OEC JMI FES. ,_!wt. _fWJL  ;

1988 1987

)

N f

~ + - - . .. ..  % s. . .. . .

m. _ ,,

1 Attachneet 6 Concents on Train C Condait Criteria Docunent i

l l

l l

l l

l

~~- . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ .. _ .

Comments on Train C Conduit Criteria Docunent

1. The program addresses Unit 1 and common areas only. Resolution of the problem for Unit 2 is not defined.

2. Screening level 1 - weight check is based on sampling study results rather than " worst case" calculations.

3. Screening level 2 - good supports check is based on sampling study

, results rather than " worst case" calculations. In addition, there are ne load or dimensional limits on " good" supports.

4. Screening level 3 - interaction potential check does not define a zone of influence.

5. Screening level 4 - seismic capacity check in field calculates tributa v span weights on the basis of one half of adjacent span lengths. This will be unconservative for certain supports.

6. Screening level 7 - safe shutdown system check does not give any details of methodology.

t 7 Sway interactions o' conduits are only considered by screening level 3.

It appears that potential sway interactions would be missed if a condu-t system meets one of the " strength" screening levels.

8. Appendix A - Seiset: Evaluation using refined criteria:

a) Stress acceptan:e criteria for unistrut members does not appear tc address local D.ckling of compression flanges.

b) Self ' weight of supports do not appear to be considered in analysis.

_, e.. -

c) The use of a 1.1 multimode factor for equivalent static analysis of straight conduit runs requires justificaticn.

d) The fatigue cu ves which define allowable numbers of cycles provide a factor of safety of only 1.5 on cycles. This appears too low for fatigue evaluations (ASME code uses a factor of 20),

e) The sample cal ulations consider loads in only one or two directions rather than three directions. (Conduit clamps provice restraint in three directions.)

f f) There a e errors in sample calculations where stress umits are used in place of force units and vice versa.

9. Appendix D - Target Analysis:

a) Allowad:e weight versus height curves for missiles irpacting piping targets were developed for stainless steel pipes. Application of these cueves te carbon steel pipes should be justified.

b) Piping target evaluation assumes that all missile energy is absorbed by plastic defornation of p'ipe. Failure of target pipe supports is not addressec.

c) Allowaoie weight versus height curves for miss les inpactir.g HVAC duct targets are based on evaluation of one du:t size only (36" x 27"

- GA16). Application of these curves to otner duct sf,res should be j usti fied, d) All tables and figures associated with part 11 "Lenitt of Missile Conduit Span which Participates in impacts Opon Targets" are missing, wo results are given. .

, s

)

10. Appendix E - Criterta for Screen levels 1, 2 and 4:

a) Why are special s@p. orts type 7 classified as ** good" supports if they require evaluatior om a case by case basis?

b) How can a support as complex as the multi-tiered gang support with rod hangers (type 8) be classified as a " good" support not requiring any evaluation?

c) Screen level 4 defic.es tables o' support capacity in two directions )

only wrile conduit clanps have the capability of transmitting loads ir. three directio%.

O e

.1

.j - __ , _ _ .

2 e .

l l

l l

l l

l Attachment 7 Civil / Structural ISAPs e

e l

l L

1 O

i 1

1 l

l l

l

\

- - . . .- . - _ - , . , . - - -------.,-..-._,,,,_v.r, ._,, , - _ _ , - , , , , - - _ _ . , ,, - , , , - - - , - - - -

l ISSUE II. a REINFCROING STTE IN THE REACTOR CAVITY A. ISSUE ,

i Addition.al rebar called for by a drawing revision was not ,

included in a portion of the Reactor cavity wall. TRT requested enalysis of the as-built condition. -

B. SUMMAFY OF INITIATIVES

• Analysis of As-built condition. (complete)

Review of all NCRs for missing rebar. (complete)

Review of randoe sample of pour ca da for reference to correct revision of rebar placement drawings.

(carplete)

Review of NCRs and pour cards .or major embedments in the Reactor Building. (coc=lete)

Procedure review. (complete)

C. PROGRAM CEANGES Add as-built verification :f exposed rebar to confirm compliance with design draving.

D. SUPD4ARY OF' IMPLEMENTATION Analysis of as-built condition complete and reviewed by 3rd party. Analysis ccmfirmed adequacy of cavity wall.

19 NCRs fer missing rebar.(this addition to sub ject case) All disposition rev:,ewed by Project and 3rd party.

None similar to subject case.

C1 dispositions correc .

Sctme additional documen ation added by Project for clarity.

Review of random sample ef pour cards.

In all cases drawing revision and chance documents referenced on *.ne pour :ard were correct.

O ISSUE II a. cont. Page 2 of 2.

- Review of NCRs and pour cards for major embedments in Reactor Building. (144 embedmnts)

• No NCRs related to placement problems.

• In all cases drawing revisions, and change documents referenced on pour cards were correct.

- Review of procedures covering release of drawings and change documents, site document control, placement and pre-pour inspection of rebar and embedments and use of construction hold notices.

• Project review complete, 3rd Party review. (cocplete)

All procedures were adequate and in effact.

- As an additional source of verification, approximately 100 areas of exposed rebar have been as-built and are being compared to design drawings. (in process)

E. ON-GOING ACTIVITIES 3rd Party review of rebar as-builts.

F. STEPS REQUIRED FOR Cf4SURE Results Report t

- - . . _ - - - . . . - - . - , ~ , , . a .~ . ~ .. -.-

~

ICSUE II. c - SEISMIC AIR GAP A. ISSUE The TRT could not determine whether an adequate air gap has been provided between structures (due to the existence of debris in this space) to prevent seismic interaction during an earthquake.

B. SIMMARY OF INI'"IATIVES

- As-built inpse:tions of building, Seismic Category I/

Seismic Category I, and, Seismic Category I/Non-seismic interfaces. (in process due to increase of scope) l

- Leview procedures for maintenance of air gap. (complete) verification and control procedure complete: Post pour inspect . on in revision.

- Review design basis calculations requiring revisions due to as-built condition. (in process)

Gap Rework. (in process) l Overview final as-built inspections. (monitoring in process verifi:ations) ,

i C. PROGRAM CHANGES Added inspection of gap between containment and internal structure. (in process) l Added inspection of Secondary wall gaps.

D.

SUMMARY

OF IMP 2 MEN'"ATION 1

Inspections

• Scope Identified (see attached table)

• Methodology Established.

Initial Inspection complete for Double Wall Gaps, Single Wall Gaps and Base Nat Gaps.

• Gap Mainter.ance Procedure implemented.

1

'

• Post pour inspection procedure in revision.

1

, v. . .. ' . .. i . - . . . . . . .

ISSUE II. c - SEISMIC AIR GA? Page 2 of 5 Findings Debris Less-than-design Gap ,

Reportable Items Related Activities Critical Spaces (ISAF VI . a) I Housekeeping (ISAP VII. a. IC) l I

i 1

l

. l I

)

l l

i f

I

y . i < .=~ .

Pcq2 3 of 5.

ISSUE kl. c INSPECTION SCOPE

• Reactor Building 01 to Internal Structure Reactor Building 92 to Internal Structure Reactor Building 61 to Puel Building -

Reactor Building il to Safeguard Building Reactor Building fl to Acziliary Building Electrical Ccatrol and Auxiliary Buildine to Switchgear Bldg. 91 Safeguard Building el to Switchgear Building 41 Electrical Control and Auxiliary Building to Switchgear 31dg. 92 Aaxiliary Building to ruel Building .

Reactor Building 92 to Fuel Building Reactor Building #2 to Auxiliary Buildine Safeguard Building 42 to Auxiliary Building Electrical Control Building to Turbine Generator Bldg. #1 Electrical Control Building to Turbine Generator Bldg. 62 Raactor Building #2 to Safeguard Building #2 Safeguard Building 42 to Switchgear Building 42 Refueling Water Storage Tank to Unit 1 Pipe Tunnel Condensate Storage Tank to Unit 1 Pipe Tc. vel Reactor Make Up Water Storage Tank to Unit 1 Pipe Tunrel ,

Refueling Water Storage Tank to Unit 2 Pape Tunnel Condensate Storage Tank to Unit 2 Pipe Tunnel

• Reactor Make Up Water Storage Tank to Uni . 2 Pipe Tuntel Safeguard Unit 2 to Pipe Tunnel Unit 2 Safeguard Unit 1 to Pipe Tunnel Unit 1 All Secondary Wall Separation Gaps Unit 4 2 1

Includes Seismic Category I to Seismic category I kuilding interfaces as well as Seismic category I to non-se;,smic building interfaces.

l 8 .

e 0

9  : ou,,

t

. si- 3I 5a 8

E<

rI._j..i .t .

5 I: -

j!

!i

=E k l:j*1ir"-

5-*s srg .:

I:. .

v. . . . . .

g-]' i >

k E 8 f-'7 /  : I g b M f l v7-e e.

WW - :a ,

a . . ...

.n.. ... -

las_. -

a

.,I

f. $a-L g s :'=

58-as :13:5 -'

y -- -

. 4. a . ..,.n. ...,u i 7 sL}

- , g,;:i ~

v r i yl t, i' . 3!

d -il-- .E 5. -

Ei l ii .' 9.!.... il-2,1 L

1 '

f "[,, A .

(

)i , ---'

Ei!

a*

"n man . ...c ..n. i....cu 3 -

l 7 p!

15 to

% iii -

% ee g

- r!!

z vi s i 6-Ag;, ,

') .g,, A I l/MI I I' !g M ,i'

: I _N 11 ;s l.i "

NrD 1 as  :-

s, I.=  ::

i: p:

9

- M

> r - ,e:

7 - -- --

c .. ,. .

ISSUE II.c - SEISMIC AIR GAP Page 5 of 5.

E. ON-GOING ACTIVITIES Containment / Internal Structure vierification and repair for basemat.

Removable of seals in double wal 1. single wall, basemat and secondary wall gaps. .

Debris removal from double wall < gaps in process.

Secondary wall gap verifications .

Gibbs & Hill calculations for set =:ndary walls being finalized.

F. STEPS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE _

Calculations for seconday wall gra;s finalized.

Calculations for minimum gap e tusse w.ats.

Methodology for addressing inacenssible areas developed and finalized.

Overview report on in process imsrections and final inspections performed to date.

FSAR update identified and submi .ted.

Results Report ( )

_n-,- - . - . , . . - - , , , - , _ ---