ML20214K155

Forwards Communications Repts Re Phase 4 of Independent Assessment Program.No Other Unissued Communications as of 860709

ML20214K155
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/09/1986
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84056.101, NUDOCS 8608180155
Download: ML20214K155 (30)

Text

_ _

ll9B5 0 1 n T i d[ f C OY Gn s

101 Cahtarnia Street. Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415'397-5600 8 56.l b ~~ k co -vW i

Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal #16 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job No. 84056

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find some communications reports associated with the Phase 4 Independent Assessment Program. These reports had remained in draft form for some time. Cygna has no other unissued communications as of this date.

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

Very truly yours, N.H. Williams Project Manager NHW:jst Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUCCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. J. Finneran (TUCCO) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ attachments 8608180155 860709 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A

PDR I !

San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland

COmmuniCOtionS h

di;6 Report A

lulilllilillilillllilllllllli company:

Texas Utilities o m econ d conference noport Job No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oste:

11-16-84 sub ect Cable Tray Support Review he:

AM i

Work Point Deviations Place:

CPSES Participants-R. M. Kissinger TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Aequired item Comments Action By Working point Cygna has reviewed the working point analysis performed by Gibbs

& Hill in March and April 1984 This review identified problems with boundary conditions (i.e., unjustified restraint of frames in the longitudinal direction) and the effects of closely spaced modes. Gibbs & Hill revised the working point analysis to correct these discrepencies and resubmitted them for Cygna's review. Based on discussions with site personnel Cygna understands that any work associated with the closure of the working point study has been suspended until the NRC mandated as-built program is completed.

Cygna, however, has concerns with the analysis and its application which would not be addressed by an as-built program alone. The following discrepancies were noted during Cygna's review:

I.

Failure to consider all the change paper and previously approved design deviations in the working point analysis.

A.

The working point study establishes cut-off elevations below which the supports maybe considered acceptable for given working point deviations. This evaluation is based on assumed accelerations, 8'-6" spans, enveloping aspect ratios, and maximum permissible working point deviations. Above this elevation, Gibbs & Hill evaluated the supports on a case by case basis using design documents only.

Consideration was not given to the effects of CMC's, DCA's, or fire protection 2

in excess of 35 lb/ft,

signed

/

/ajb P'9' 1

3 Distnbution

'N. flMMa~ms, J. RsddirigM. Finneran, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.

Ti m, J. G,,, A.. k {.i I. f N i {

Z C-:-1 '.:

Communications 7

A( n.i Report llll1011101llll11111111lll11

[cYoNy nem comments Cygna has identified spans up to 12 feet (reference Cygna j

letter 84056.019 dated 8/10/84) in length which indicates 1

that there would be a problem in justifying the qualification of trays below a given elevation using an assumed 8'-6" span. Further, for supports located above the cut-off elevations with map drawing spans greater than 8 ft., an additional 6" installation tolerance must be considered. The effects of possible variations in aspect ratio, fire protection weights, and actual working point deviations must be considered in the same manner as the above concerns regarding span violations.

Further, QC's use of a working point deviation criteria as the sole means of ensuring compatability with the G & H analysis will not unto itself insure design adequacy.

II.

Effects of transverse and vertical loads on longitudinal trapeeze-type supports.

(Reference Cygna letter 84056.025 dated Aug. 21, 1984)

The above referenced letter questioned G & H's failure to consider transverse and vertical loads on longitudinal supports.

G & H responded by supplying calculations which determine an effective tributary span to be considered. However, these calculations assumed a rigid tray and took credit for the relative differences in support stiffness between longitudinal and neighboring lateral supports. As discussed in New York on Oct. 31, 1984, Cygna does not consider this approach acceptable. TUGC0 committed to evaluate the effect of these additional loads in the proposed dynamic reanalysis of selected systems in response to the Cygna generic issues.

It is Cygna's opinion that the consideration of these additional loads in the dynamic reanalysis of selected cable tray systems will not adequately isolate and quantify the effects. Therefore, Cygna believes that since this was an improper ommission in the original analysis and the underlying possibility of identifying a severe impact on the design, nothing short of a thorough study of the effects would properly evaluate support adequacy. This concern is also associated with the working point evaluations.

Additionally, the study only checked the hanger member interaction. An assumption was apparently made that this particular component governed while in other frames evaluated in the study, the anchor bolts were determined to govern. No l

evidence was found that the longitudinal supports were checked to l

determine the governing component.

l

!!I.

Modeling Cygna also noted the following modeling and analysis discrepancies which have adverse effects on the working point deviation analysis results.

PRJ 23/C-Il19 page 2

of 3

i

Communications 3

.ALni Report

. unm::-

Ac$o Item Comments y

A.

Loading 2

The consideration of a tray weight of 35 lb/ft does not account for tray weights that may exceed this amount due to the addition of fire protection. This additional weight would affect the frequency of the system.

B.

Identical Supports in a Row The analysis considered the same type of support in a row.

Such an assumption is not representative of the actual support systems as installed. Therefore, the stiffness of the system considered in the analysis may differ greatly from those actually installed.

C.

Tray Attachment Assumptions The cable trays were assumed to be rigidly attached to the beam members of the support. Such an assumption is not consistent with the hardware installed in the field.

D.

Tray Boundary Conditions The meraber representing the cable tray was fixed at one end to apparently model the effect of a longitudinal support.

This assumption is incorrect since the flexibility of the longitudinal support is not included.

E.

Support Base Fixity Assumptions Alternate Detail I was not considered in the analysis.

Additionally, the model assumed that the base angles would behave as simply supported beams, which neglects the presence of the concrete substrate.

F.

Eccentricities The eccentricities of the applied loadings and the eccentricities of the member connections were not considered in the analysis.

G.

Tray Size The analysis only modeled one 24" wide tray attached to each of the support beams. The use of the singie tray will not reflect the actual behavior of systems which have multiple trays attached to supports. Such systems will have different frequencies and will respond differently than the analyzed system.

PRJ 23/C-1119 Page 3

o' 3

crac,n

Communications 4L Report ia 11111111lll1lllllll11111111111 Company: Texas Utilities le Telecon a Conference Report Project:

Job No.

p g

g 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

10/7/85 Subject Time:

1:30 p.m.

Electrical Open Items Piace:

CES - SFR0

Participants:

of W. McAlorum Gibbs & Hill K. Zee Cygna item Comments Reg'd Action By Mr. McAlorum asked for a clarification of three items in the electrical RIL.

RIL #5 Mr. McAlorum asked how the 38,000A value was determined.

Mr. Zee stated that the 38,000A value was the maximum short-circuit current with diesel generator contribution included and that the value was from a Gibbs & Hill calculation.

RIL #6 Mr. McAlorum asked for a clarification of the 480V starting loads subject.

He indicated that Gibbs & Hill calculation IV-13 studied that case.

Mr. Zee said that calculation IV-13 determined cable voltage drops during starting but did not determine distribution system voltages during motor starting.

Cygna needs to know I

which Gibbs & Hill calculation determined system voltages during 480V motor starting transients.

RIL #7 Mr. McAlorum asked for an explanation of the item dealing with diesel generator short-circuit current and relay coordination.

Mr. Zee explained that during loss of offsite power the diesel generators are the only source of medium voltage power. The coordination calculation did not clearly demonstrate that operations of instantaneous trip devices will occur on fault conditions during this operating mode.

Mr. McAlorum indict.ted that Gibbs & Hill is currently prepari 1g a response to Cygna electrical RIL items 5 through 8.

Signed V [gg Page }

of g

Distnbution: N. Willia'ms, J. Redding, R. Hess, K. Zee, S. Treby, J. Ellis, A. Victti-cook, fi.

f.

a t*f1-1020 00

~

Communications Rapod 4L t i 111111111llll11111111lll111111 company: Texas Utilities g Telecon a Conference Report of b No-84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station oste:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 June 20, 1986

Subject:

Time:

A.M.

Document Request Place:

SFRO

Participants:

of D. Oldag o,

Cycna D. Rencher of TUGC0 item Comments Reg'd Action By D. Rencher phoned D. Oldag to request that Cygna resubmit Item 26 of Attachment 4 to Cygna letter 84056.099 dated March 24 1986.

We complied with his request which was documented in Cygna letter 84056.100 dated June 20, 1986.

(N.H. Williams to J. Finneran) i l

n

. ? u

~

signed

/ Q p/ j } } /jj g Page 1

of I

J. 'F.,nn eran", T.'Wil'lI%sIW Redding S. Treby. A. Vietti-Cook Project File, Distnbution:

J.

Ellis

,on ao

Communications Report 4L t i llllllllillllllllllllillllllll Company:

Texas Utilities

• Telecon o Conference neport Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84056 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Dat5 11/7/85 Time:

4:00 p.m.

"" "' MAC Report and Cable Tray Supports Place:

CES-SFR0 Participants; of J. Redding TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna item Comments Reg'd Action By J. Redding called to request the key Cygna personnel file an affidavit stating whether or not Cygna had any knowledge of the MAC report prior to May 29, 1985 when it was produced.

I told him that we did not have any knowledge of the report prior to 1985 and that I would have D. Pigott prepare the affidavits.

Regarding cable tray support open items, I told J. Redding that I had received a copy of G&H letter GTN-70764, dated October 23, 1985. The letter was addressed to J.B. George and requested that Cygna identify which items in Cygna letter 84056.089 (dated 10/21/85) require G&H response and which items require TUGC0 response.

I explained that Cygna had no way of knowing and suggested that TUGC0 work with G&H on this matter.

J. Redding said no further Cygna action l

is required at this time.

,n

.i Y

YJ Y }{All A I

_'. 1 Distnbution:

1. WLIIlam5, d. HeJJ1 rig, J.

MUSS, W.

no r 5 LIIid n, u. Lteurig, ts. ooisasu, v.

rannu un, l

C Trnhu

.1 r111e A Vintt4 rnnk Penior t Filo 1020 00

Communications 4L Report t i 1111111111ll1111111111111lll11 Company: Texas Utilities XK Telecon O Conference Report Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J b No. 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

3/5/86 sumect:

7""*

Document Request 9:00 a.m.

Place:

SFR0

Participants:

D. 01dao of Cyana D. Rencher TUGC0 of item Comments Reg'd Action By D. Rencher called to request a hand calculation performed by Cygna in response to Doyle question 15. This calculation is referenced as D15-1.1 in N.H. Williams's testimony of 2/22/84 I sent the requested document to him on 3/5.

l I

n Y i 0 N/ ll ] l/k/At A 1

1 Distribution-J. Re'dd In'g, 0."WWi fadis 'J. Fi n nMa n, S. Treby, J. El l i s, A. V i e t t i -Coo k,

Project File iom oo

Communications Report 4L ii NINNillHillHillHilllllll company: Texas Utilities y Telecon Conference Report Project:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No.84042/84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phases 3 and 4 oe:

1/13/86 T me 10:40 a.m.

Pipe Support Stability Place: CES - San Francisco Participants-D. Rencher TUGC0 C. Wong Cygna o,

of M:

Item Comments Reg'd Action By Dave called and asked which Cygna documents identified the pipe support stability issue, particularly the one with single strut and single U-bolts.

I referred him to the two Cygna position letters listed below:

1. Letter 84042.026, dated 4/30/85, " Stability of Pipe Supports - Additional Information"

2. Letter 84042.035, dated 2/19/85, " Stability of Pipe Supports" n

Signed V((

/j/fff Page of oist,,omt.on y vima, a. aec oing, c. wong, 3.

ireny, o. tiiis, s. vietti-coot, rroaect 1020 00

Communications Report 4L 6 i 1111111111111111111111111lllll Company: Texas Utilities 01 Teiecon a conference Report Project:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84056 Independent f.ssessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

1/14/86

Subject:

Time:

1:30 p.m.

Document Requests by Cygna Place:

SFR0

Participants:

of S. Palmer Texas Utilities J. Russ Cygna Item Comments Reg'd Action By

Reference:

Communications report dated 1/13/85, 9:30 a.m.,

" Document Requests by Cygna," Palmer and Russ participating Ms. Palmer called to discuss her request made in the referenced communications report.

Mr. Russ stated that he had discussed the subject document request with Jim Oszewski and was inform 3d that Cygna had not received the documents requested on June 27, 1985 and August 1, 1985.

Furthermore, theses same documents were requested in Cygna letter 84056.088, dated October 16, 1985. To date, Cygna has not received these documents.

A a

0 A f

A s gneo.

"gg)jJfyqg p.ge i

or i

o,,,,,,,,,on.

n. w u n aw, m. meaoing, u. o nneran, v. umm i, v. nun,

2.

. e u,,

1 rit4e a

vio++4_ennb Deninct Filn 1020 00

Communications

(

t i Report 111111lll11111111111111lll1lll Company: Texas Utilities M Telecon a conference Report J b N. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

1/13/86 Subsect:

Time-9:30 a.m.

Document Requests by Cygna Piace: SFR0

Participants:

of Susan Palmer Texas Utilities of J. Russ Cygna of item Comments Req'd Action By Ms. Palmer called to determine if Cygna had received several documents that had been requested from Gibbs & Hill in 1985.

These documents were originally requested during a telephone conversation between Jim Oszewski of Cygna and John Irons of Gibbs & Hill on June 27, 1985.

They were requested in Cygna letter 84056.078 dated August 1, 1985.

Ms. Palmer wanted to know if these documents were received so that Texas Utilities could prepare a response to a discovery request by CASE. Mr. Russ stated that he would check Cygna's project files, discuss Ms. Palmers's request with Nancy Williams, and attempt to reply on Tuesday, January 14, 1986.

H/S1/)/l,lIr$/m S'a"*a e se i

o' i

n; muams, m.

eaa m9, v. uszewsu, v. nuss, J.

i,i,iero,i, 5. 1,vuy, o,,t,,,,,,on L

d.

Li i n s, n. vieul-Look, rrvJeu r iie

Communications Repod 4L t i lilllHilillililllilllilllli Company: Texas Utilities M Tele:on a conference neport Jb"~

I

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:

12/2/85 fubject Time 2:00 o.m.

Pipe Support Reviews - Punching Shear Place:

SFR0

Participants:

D. Rpnt hor-of Titr,rn N. Williams Cygna of stem comments Reg'd Action By Dave called to request a copy of the computer output referenced in Cygna letter 84056.058.

l l

l 4

/-

Iy %' p } j } p J g 7 Page

}

of 1

f Signed Distribution 1 M M TBE, N." Eead i ng, T.

IreDy, d.

t. I i 15,

H.

V1 ELL 1-LUUK, rrUJecL riie I

Communications Report 4L 6 i M111111111111111111111111ll compenr Texas Utilities a Tewon a conference neport d'* " '

Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program 10/5/85 I' **

sumect:

CASE Discovery Request-9:30 a.m.

• * * ~

CES/SF0 of Participants.

gj j j jgg g g3 S. Paln.?r

'UGC0 Required item Comments Action By S. Palmer called to request the following documents in response to CASE discovery requests:

1.

EPRI Anchor Bolt test data 2.

The ANCO cable tray support report I told her we would mail them this week.

signeo i

Page g

g of Q

3 Distrinui on J. ~ Rec ding, J. Finneran W. Horin, D. Pigott, R. Kissinger, J. Ellis, S. Treby,

~

e

Communications Report 4(

t i M11111111111111111111111d1 compenr Texas Uti1ities y Tei. con o conference n. port J b N*

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 ost.

9/9/85 subi.et Outstanding Information Requests T'm*:

2:00 P.M.

Place CES/SFR0 P rticipants R. Ballard o'

Gibbs & Hill N. Williams Cygna

m. w ee item Comments Action By R. Dallard called to inform Cygna that J. Redding (TUGCO) had directed Gibbs & Hill to respond to any outstanding question and/or requests for information.

R. Ballard was aware that Cygni had questions in the electrical and structural area.

I confirmed that we did have questions in these two disciplines but that there may also be questions outstanding in the mechanical systems and piping areas as well.

R. Ballard wasn't sure about these other areas.

I said that it may be best for me to check with J. Redding on the various disciplines since it was our understanding, particularily in the cable tray and conduit support area, that the CPRT was the sole vehicle for resolving Cygna comments / questions.

I will get back to R. Ballard this week with the outcome of my conversation with J. Redding.

l.

W n.

= > >

i aiu s,

v.

netua i n s, v. rinneron, a.

areuy, v. tinis, n. vie ni-Look, o,,,,,g,,,n Proiect File

Communications Report 4L 6 i 111111111111 company:

Texas Utilities a Teiecon a conference Report bN-84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 o*t' 1/30/86 l

suorect.

Electrical /I&C Open Items Time:

8:30 a.m.

Place:

SFR0 Participants D. Ghosh of Gibbs & Hill K. Zee Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Ghosh asked for some clarification of the I & C open items discussed in Cygna letter 84056.000 dated October 16, 1985. Mr.

Ghosh wanted to know our reference for the I&C items on page 5 and 6 of attachment A to the subject letter. Mr. Zee said that Cygna's review of these items was based on instrument calibration cards from the site and the vendor data in the Gibbs & Hill l

purchase specifications. Mr. Ghosh indicated that the data in the purchase specification may have been changed to agree with the latest vendor data. The instrument tubing subject was not discussed.

H.

willidmd, d.ne001ng, d.

v. nudd, 3.

6 re Dy, d.

t, t i l 5,

rinneron,

n. nedd, Distribution A Viotti_rnnk Drninct Filo

f7 1

Communications T

4L n i Report M11111111111111111111111lll1 company:

Texas Utilities d Tei. con a conference nepen Ja> No.

84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oeie 10-22-85 sutnut Schedule Tmw 1:45 p.m.

Place:

CPSES SFR0 Pedicments J. Redding of TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By J. Redding called to inquire about the status of the open items Cygna has been supplying in letters over the last week.

I provided the following summary:

Discipline Ref.Cygna Ltr.

Status

1. Cable tray / conduit 84056.089 This letter summarizes supports all known open items.

2. Pipe Stress 84056.086 Two more questions will be sent this week.

3. Pipe Supports (not sent yet)

A letter with the open items will be sent this week.

i l

4. Mechanical Systems 84056.088 This letter summarizes l

all known open items.

5. Electrical /I&C 84056.090 This letter summarizes all known open items.

These open items are a result of reviewing the findings as input l

to the final report.

I explained that, separate from the open items, Cygna has issued CPRT questions in two letters:

84056.085 and 84056.091. The later letter was issued last night since one of the design control sections was inadvertently omitted from the initial issue.

Cygna personnel are available to discuss these questions at TUGC0's convenience.

l s.oned

/ %

//

/jm Page 1

of 2

U

.R....dA Ll2DCb 2

ireof, v. u n is, r

. o m r, v.ncuu,ns, u.

<..o.c. o u,

n.

ocn,

u.

nu n,

o,,,,,,,,,,

A_ Vietti-Conk. Profect File

i Communications il n i Report

. ll1110ll1Hllllll1lllllll11ll I

OcYo$

nem comments I informed Mr. Redding that Cygna had been contacted by the NRC regarding the scheduling of an NRC meeting. Cygna did not discuss any tentative schedules with the NRC since it was our understanding that Mr. Counsel was going to arrange meetings between the Staff and Cygna.

I also highlighted the fact that we are not working on any presentations until we are notified of a meeting date.

It is important that any dates selected allow sufficient preparation time for Cygna. Mr. Redding said he would discuss the schedules with Mr. Counsel and inform Cygna as soon as he knew anything.

Mr. Redding was not aware of any schedule for Cygna/CPRT rieetings.

I told him we were ready at anytime. The only time constraint was last week when we were holding Senior Review Team meetings.

We agreed that the Phase 4 final report would be issued four weeks after receipt of satisfactory responses to the open items letters. This report would be followed by an integrated report which provides a summary and a set of conclusions for all four phases. This report would not be issued until Cygna was able to obtain answers to their questions on the CPRT program such that the Plan could serve as a basis for resolving the Cygna findings.

I told Mr. Redding that we would adjust our priorities according to TUGC0's and the NRC's meetir.g schedules. However, it would not be possible for us to attend CPRT meetings, review CPRT criteria, prepare for and attend NRC meetings and write the Phase 4 final report simultaneously.

(

Page p

of p

m

Communications I A(

Report ci M1111111111111111111118llll company.

CES a Twecon o conference Report Protect:

Texas Utilities CPSES IAP Phase 4 Job No-84056 Date:

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 5/8/85 subsect:

Cable Tray / Conduit Support Design T'm*:

8:15 a.m.

Place.

Review Questions 5FAO Participants.

P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ CES Requires item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Huang regarding several aspects of the cable tray and conduit support design process.

Cygna requested the design review cover sheets for all revisions to the cable tray support plan drawings listed in below (This list was verbally transmitted at 11:15 a.m. on 5 August 1985).

Cygna asked Mr. Huang which Gibbs & Hill group was responsible for the cable tray qualification. He replied that the Special Analysis Group (SAG) was responsible and suggested that I speak to Mr. Jong Pier regarding any aspect of the qualification process. He also noted that Mr. Tom Keiss of TUGC0 had some information of the tray qualification effort.

Mr. Huang was asked how the tray and conduit weights used in the design process were arrived at, who determined the weights to be used, and, if the group responsible for the weight determination was different from the structural group, how the information was transmitted to the structural group. He stated that Gibbs &

Hill's electrical group originated the cabic tray and conduit fill weights. The cable tray fill weights were based on the experience of the electrical group's engineers and are documented in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-ES-19. The conduit weights were also determined by the electrical group and are based on the maximum possible conduit fill. This information was transmitted to the structural group by a memorandum.

I 1

l lAl m Distribution N.'W1Filatts',"J.Feedding, J.4 Snneran, K.

Ness, d. Kuss, 5.

Ireby, J. Ellis, a v 4 m + + 4 _ rma t, o.mtm,+

e41m

9-

. ~ -

Communications 0

4Ni Report 5110ll1Hl;;;llllllllllllll Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Huang to describe the process by which cable tray reroutings were implemented in the design process. He stated that after the electrical group reached a decision to reroute a cable tray, they issued a CMC or DCA against the cable tray segment drawings. The site would receive these change documents and FSEG would evaluate the effects of these changes on the support system. Mr. Huang also stated that the electrical department was required to incorporate any applicable CMCs and DCAs into the tray segment drawings after a specified period of time.

Design review checklists are required for all revisions to the following Gibbs & Hill cable tray support plans:

2323-31-0601-01-S 2323-El-0700-01-S 2323-El-0713-01-S 2323-El-0500-01-S 2323-31-0500-04-S Page p of rgyun

Communications Repod 4L t i o

1111111llllll111lll18lllllllll Company: Texas Utilities o Telecon a Conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 8405f) 5/8/85 seject: Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions 10:30 a.m.

Place: SFA0

Participants:

i T. Keiss TUGC0 W. Horstman, J. Russ CES of of item Comments Reg'd Action By 1.

Tray Qualification Cygna requested a copy of the cable tray qualification report (T.J. Cope) and any related documentation.

2.

Additional Tray Side Rails Cygna asked for the reason tray side rail extensions were used. Mr. Keiss replied that the side rail extensions were added to accomodate additional cable fill. Cygna asked how the use of side rail extensions was specified and tracked for individual tray segments. According to Mr. Keiss, the use of extensions were specified using j

standard change documentation. Cygna requested the drawings which show the design details for the side rail extensions.

Mr. Keiss stated that he would provide Cygna with the drawing.

3.

Thermolag Evaluation Process Cygna asked Mr. Keiss to describe the Thermolag evaluation process.

He replied that the evaluation process was performed under a task force arrangement.

Basically, the process was performed using the following steps:

a)The trays to be fire protected were specified on a DCA which was written on an elevation specific basis.

Signe{

g..

M g Q M Page

/Jm 1 og 4

Distnbdfion: N. Williams, J.Regding, J. Finneran, R. Hess, d. Russ, 5. Ireby, d. tills, A.

VieLL1-Look, ProjeCL Plie m

Communications

.AL ci Report Illllullidiiiiiiiiiiiiiillli

[cYoNy nem commena b)

FSEG initiated a structural evaluation of trays and supports which may have included a walkdown to record support numbers and tray spans c)

The task force paper flow group obtained the signatures from any affected disciplines for release of trays for Thermolag application. After FSEG completed their evaluation of the trays and supports, the responsible engineer signed the sheet and returned it to the paper flow group.

4.

Revision to Electrical Raceway Schedule Drawing 2323-El-1700 Cygna asked Mr. Keiss how revisions to the raceway schedule were incorporated into the fire protection evaluations.

Revisions to cable routing or the addition of new cables could affect the tray weights used in the evaluation. He replied that the evaluations were based on the revision in effect at the time of the evaluation. Any changes reported in later revisions to the schedule would be caught in the design review.

5.

Assembly Drawings Cygna asked Mr. Keiss which engineer reviewed the Brown &

Root Cable Tray Hanger Assembly Drawings (FSE-00159 series). He stated that TUGC0 engineers reviewed these drawings. According to Mr. Keiss, Gibbs & Hill did not review any Brown & Root drawings.

/jm Page 2 of 2

_M_dI' " ' r, ' ":M'.3, J. "'-.:ro

, ". % ;; J L ~ o L TJ A o Jo Cl:

su

Communications Raport AL t i Mllllllllllllllllllllllllll Company: Texas Utilities jp Telec n Conference Report Project: Comanche Peak - IAP Job No. 84056 D8te:

3/19/86 Stability of Pipe Supports 1 in n m.

Place:

CPSES Si u

Participants:

J. Finneran et TUGC0 R. Baliga Cygna L. Weingart Cygna of item Comments Req'd Action By We called Mr. Finneran to find out the methodology used by TUGC0 in defining the cinched U-Bolt. The following supports are some examples where different methods were used in showing cinched U-Bolts.

1.

On Support Drawing CC-1-028-700-A33R, one nut is provided on either side of the plate but "0" clearance is shown between the pipe and the U-Bolt.

2.

On Support Drawing CC-1-031-001-S43K, a note saying "Use one nut and upset threads (typ)" is provided.

3.

On Support Drawing MS-1-001-006-572R, 2 nuts are provided on the same side of the plate and also 1/8" clearance is shown between the pipe and the beam.

Mr. Finneran told us that the U-Bolts are considered cinched if:

1.

No clearance is shown on the support drawing.

2.

Two nuts are provided on the same side and no clearance is provided.

3.

One nut is provided and the threads are upset as a l

locking device, signed. Q L g g p 4 eage 1 of 2

oisinduffn N. Williams, J.Reddfng, W. Horin, R. Kissinger, S. Treby, J. Ellis, A. Vietti-Cook, Project File mo oo

t Communications I

. At n i Report 1111101110ll1lll11llllllll11 Requred item Comments Action By He also told us that if any clearance is provided between the pipe and the U-Bolt, this overrides any method used above and, as a result, the U-Bolt is treated as uncinched U-Bolt.

We also told Mr. Finneran that for the supports with multi-loaded clamps with trunnions welded on the clamps, Cygna j

should know whether these clamps were designed to take multi-directional loadings. Mr. Finneran said that the design of tie clamp is not part of the stability issue and therefore it has to be treated as part of the design verification. Cygna agreed to this.

Page of

Communications 0h i Raport t

1111111lll1111111111111!11llll

)

9 D Telec n Conference Report Company: TmsWli&

Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Job No. 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 o,ie u/d/ud subject ~ Conduit Support Review Time' 9:00 a.m.

Place: CES/SF0

Participants:

S. McBee TUGC0 of D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna of of l

i ltem Comments Reg'd Action By 1.

Conduit Support Population Size in Unit 1 Cygna asked Mr. McBee for information on the conduit support population size in Unit 1:

a. Total number of conduit supports in Unit 1

b. Number of each group of supports (i.e., CA-CSM, CST-

,etc.)

c.For the generic support types in Cygna's scope, the total number of each type in Unit 1 Mr. McBee agreed to provide Cygna with the information from the conduit support database used by FSEG. Mr.

McBee asked Cygna to provide him with a list of the required information. Cygna telecopied the attached list to him later that morning.

2.

Change in Fire Protection Configuration for Conduits Cygna cited Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM-10.3, Revision 8 regarding the procedure to handle installation deviations for Thermolag placement on conduits. The referenced procedure states that the Field Damage Study Group (FDSG) issues and reviews any CMCs for Thermolag installation deviations.

O /)

//

/

>r

,/ /Liss a

' ^ ~ ~

signeof'.' .'ill i m, J." d d i n g, J. Fi,r.c r =, ". "c z, J. "u t t,

T-

- r/-

"" N Page of M

S. 'rchy, J. El'it.

"D"" " a u:_..:

c__.

n

_4__.

c:3_

_o___

l Communications i

4 (M i i Report ll1111llll11lll11111llllllllll

[Eo$'s$

nem comments Mr. McBee stated that FSEG was never informed of any changes in fire protection configuration by FDSG and suggested that Cygna speak with Jeff Spiegelman of FDSG about the matter.

3.

Drawing Revisions Noted on CMCs and irs Cygna discussed the deviations between drawing revision numbers noted on CMCs and drawing revision numbers noted on irs for the same support. Cygna asked Mr. McBee which revision the CMCs should be written against. Mr. McBee replied that CMCs were written against the revision which was in effect at the time. He stated that when a final inspection for the support was performed, an update of the CMC was not required, even if the drawing revision used in the final inspection differed from the drawing revision noted on the CMC. QC would inspect the support using the current revision and would insure that the support changes were accurately documented on the CMC.

Cygna asked Mr. McBee which drawing revision was used to perform the design review. Mr. McBee did not know which revision was used and suggested that Cygna contact B.K.

Bhujang of Gibbs & Hill.

4.

Use of P1064 Washer Plates for CA-la and CA-2a Supports Cygna asked Mr. McBee if, after the CA-la and CA-2a design drawings were changed to specify the use of P1064 washer plates, previously installed supports were modified to include the P1064 washer plates. Mr. McBee checked with R.

Kissinger, who replied that QC noted the uplift of the outriggers early in the Unit 1 installation such that backfit was unneccesary.

5.

Cygna asked Mr. McBee if Gibbs & Hill used design review checklists for the 2323-S-0910 drawing package. He did not know and referred Cygna to B.K. Bhujang.

6.

Cygna asked Mr. McBee if TUGC0 reviewed Gibbs & Hill's design methods when FSEG took over the conduit design responsibility, or if TUGC0 accepted all Gibbs & Hill design methods without review. Mr. McBee replied that, when FSEG took over the conduit design responsibility, they adopted all of Gibbs & Hill's methods and assumptions.

Page of m

r:

Communications 41 Report i i 1111lll11111lllll11ll1111lllll Item Corrments Ac on y Please supply Cygna with the following statistics for conduit support populations:

(1) How many conduit supports are there in Unit 1 and Common?

(2) How many conduit supports were there in the fullcwing support categories in Unit I and Common?

CST CSM CA JS JA IN Miscellaneous Unistrut (Please list support types included in this category)

Miscelaneous structural steel (Please list support types included in this category)

(3) For each of the support categories in (2), how many are Unistruct supports, and how many are structural steel supports?

(4) The following generic support types are in Cygna's review scope.

How many of each generic type are in Unit I and Common?

CA-la CA-2a CA-Sa CA-15 CSD-16 CSM-6b CSM-18b CSM-18c CSM-18d CSM-18f CSM-42 CST-3 CST-17 JA-!

Page of m

i r.

Communications Report i

d(

i i 11111llll10llllll:'"""!!!!

[c7oTY, Item comments (5) For the generic supports listed above, are there additional breakdowns available for support types within each drawing?

See below for breakdowns.

CSM-18c (Types 17d and 17e)

CMS 18d (Types 17f and 17 )

9

)

CSM-18F (Types 17d,17e,17f, and 17 )

9 l

t I

i l

l l

l l

Page of 4

4 1

Communications Rspod

[

t i 1111111lllllllll11111111lll111 l

company: Texas Utilities il Telecon a conference Report Project: Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Job No.84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date: 11/6/85 subjectMechanical Systems Review 11:29 Place:

SFR0

Participants:

of R. Levline. F. Schnfer _ l_ Fernandp7 of TFNFRA N_

Willfamt of runna j

Item Comments Reg'd Action By TENERA called to obtain a clarification of the Class 5 piping issue noted in mechanical systems RIL No. 3.

Ms. Williams briefly explained the history of this issue.

By saying that the piping would remain functional in the RIL, Cygna was referring to the pipe maintaining its integrity as a pressure boundary and that no collapse or i

crimping would occur such that the piping system could not l

perform its function.

I I

1 1

l s,

l l

0.k Yn N

MAb^ 13m 1

signe VN. Willfams_.1.Reddi

.1 _ Finnpran. R_

He s s.

1_ R'Ms. S_ Trphy

1. h111s.

Distnbution:A. Vietti-Cook. Pro tect File

,oso ao l

f l

Communications Raport

[

t i 11111lll111111111111111111llll Company: CES

)b Teiecon a Conference Report Project:

Job No. c'+UDD Lumancne rcoK D*:

6/5/85

Subject:

Base Plate Re-Analysis 11:30 a.m.

T' **:

l Place:

j

Participants:

GlenRose-Plant Site of J. Finneran Texas Utilities C. Wong Cygna item Comments Reg'd Action By Cygna requested a copy of the base plate re-analysis for the pipe support CC-1-028-001-S33R from Mr. Finneran. The re-analysis is for incorporation of correct base plate dimensions.

l I

l I

(

l l

Signed.

Mg M Page of p

DistnbMn:

8 N klill i ams. T Roddinn.

.1 Finnpran. R-Host.

,1_

Rust. 9. Trobv.

.1 rilis.

A. Vietti-Cook, Project File

Communications 4(

Raport

, i ININiillHilHilllRilNINI company: Texas Utilities

& Teiec n conference Repon Project.

Job No.

Comanche Peak Steam Election Station 31055 D*'*

Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/25/85 subject: Request for Design Review Checklists Time: 2:00 p.m.

Place: SFR0

Participants:

.1 van Amorngen of mt:en /rnacen I

l Unina?rt of CE$

of item Comments Reg'd Action By Cygna requested Jean to send copies

'f the design review checklists' referenced in Gibbs & Hi-procedure DC-8 for each discipline within the Cygna -

1ew scope (i.e., pipe stress, electrical, mechanical, conduit supports, and cable tray supports).

i i

l hA(jL j ppf Q3fg3___=

^

l segna Page

,3, 3

of 3

D'stribM N. Williams, J.Reddind J. Finneran, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, A. Vietti-Cook, Project File

==

.