ML20234C673
| ML20234C673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1987 |
| From: | Richards J CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84042.51, NUDOCS 8707060610 | |
| Download: ML20234C673 (26) | |
Text
. -
- yG; .-
2121 N. Cahfornia Blvd , Suite 390. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934-5733 May 1,1987 84042.51
(^2ehrM g cm w/
Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE '
I. ,
1426 S. Polk f LL < .5V Dallas, TX 75224
Subject:
Communications Report Transmitta! No. 21 f Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 '
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric Job No. 84042
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed please find some communciations reports a?sociated with Cygna's audits of the Stone & Webster civil / structural action plan.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours, hlo/Yl'k&bctr Jessamyn Richards Administrative Assistant i
JWR/am Attachments cc: Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/ attachments Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. E. Siskin (SWEC) w/ attachments Mr. W. Counsil(TU Electric) w/ attachments [M I
Mr. L. Nace (TU Electric) w/ attachments d- '
Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric) w/ attachments Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) w/ attachments dff 4#[ #
Z333 b& #
f "m ed '
p;87 oms 8?8%s i i
8 A
/.f44 I I San Francisco Boston ChsCago e
Communications L t i Repod 7 MNiillilillHililllilillil J
CES company: o 7,,,,,n g con,,,,n,, p,,,,,
Project- TV Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 osie- 4/1/87 subject: 9:00 a.m.
Civil / Structural Audit - Enbedded Plates Time:
and Richmond Inserts Place: CPSES Site
Participants:
J. Russ, C. Wong, ,,
Cygna G. Dean, M. Kilorenzo, N. Kennedy, S. Shah, Stone & W& ster of B. Crowe TV Electric of item Comments req'd Action By Cygna spoke to Stone & Webster (SWEC) on enbedded plates and Richmond Inserts. With regard to enbedded plates, Cygna asked if SWEC had considered the note on Gibbs &
Hill drawing 2323-S-0786 which allowed the stbstitution of larger size Nelson studs at the discretion of the contractor. SWEC was also asked if they had considered another note on the same drawing which allowed the relocation of the Nelson studs at the discretion of the field engineer if an interference was encountered during installation. SWEC stated that they were aware of the latter note and asked Cygna what their concern was with the former note. Cygnt, replied that it might be possible for two larger studs, used at the spacing specified for smaller studs to have a capacity lower than that presently available by using the specified studs. Cygna noted a similar concern with Hilti expansion anchors in the conduit RIL. SWEC noted Cygna's comments and added that they were reviewing all {
available change documentation since their discussions l with personnel involved in the concrete placement I indicated that stud relocations were documented, even l though it wasn't required by the notes on the drawing, j i
Cygna had reviewed the SWEC calculation which evaluated the reinforcement in areas which contained Richmond Inserts. This calculation showed that 90% of the areas in which Richmond Inserts were present had reinforcement comparable to or greater than the reinforcement present in the test slabs. This showed that the reinforcement t
._ 4 n S'9**0 f ), Y ,k ),) fp Page bf 0 D'sinbution: See Att' ached Distribution Sheet. mom j
Communications T
%L i s Report 111lllllllllll111llllll1lll111 Hem ,
Comments , , Ac o y in une u c a i. s i au ... icricaenuouivc vi nc p i a n i, installations. The remaining 10% was judged by SWEC to be adequate. Cygna noted that several areas had reinforcement which was 61% of the reinforcement area contained in the test slab. Cygna asked for further justification of the conclusions reached by SWEC regarding these areas. SWEC stated that further justification would be provided. Since the allowables for Richmond Inserts have not been finalized, Cygna asked how the allowables will be incorporated into the final calculations for any structure or component which utilizes them. Cygna also wished to know what procedure would govern the incorporation process. SWEC stated that all the allowables will be incorporated into another revision of specification 2323-SS-30. If the SWEC evaluations determine that the allowable values in the 2323-SS-30 are conservative, the distribution of the specification by controlled copy will be sufficient for notification of the vendors. Should the evaluation show that the values of the specification were unconservative, the appropriate notification documents will be utilized in order to correct the problem. For TV Electric, this , situation would probably require an SDAR and a I stbsequent corrective action program. SWEC would utilize a Report Of A Problem (RCAP) form. Cygna read the following statement by Mr. Ron Klause j from the Cygna/SWEC meeting of Decenber 15-16, 1986 l (page 113 of the transcript): ] On the pipe support drawings, the Richmond insert spacing is shown, and as was explained yesterday, the Project is developing a program for the interdiscipline Richmond Insert spacing and we believe that between .the two programs that this will resolve the concerra with Richmond Inserts as far as spacing considerations are concerned. So we're not using the minimum spacing rule that was i previously in voked. We're using the actual l spacings on the drawings. Cygna asked SWEC to reconcile that statement with their proposed action plan to walk down all Richmond Insert clusters. SWEC stated that the individual vendors were i 1 Page d of 0 1020010
Communications 4L i i Repod 1111lllll111lllllllll1111lll11 d item comments AcYoT*ey evaluating the attachments of their own supports in Richmond Insert clusters. However, in order to assure that the spacing requirements of the clusters are met, the comprehensive walkdown was initiated. SWEC noted that the comprehensive walkdown was not limited to Richmond Insert clusters, but encompassed all the anchorages in question, e.g., Hilti expansion anchors, Richmond Inserts, enbedded plates, civil anchors, thru-bolts, etc. The walkdown was geared primarily to spacing violations. If possible, the walkdown will attempt to incorporate the results of past walkdowns, but is presently designed as a stand alone effort. At this time, it has been decided that SWEC is to address all issues and concerns regarding anchorages. SWEC expected to have the program developed and the procedure completed by 21 April 1987, the date of the next ptblic meeting on the civil / structural action plan. 1 I l { l l Page 3 of 3 1020 01b
--_ -___ _ __ _ - _ -_ _____._ A'
Distribution Sheet 4 Distribution: i N. Williams S. Tuminelli i Project File J. Redding i J. Ellis p cr . . .?.. . . . , 1 A.4 Vietti-Cook S L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett J. Russ W. Horstman D. Leong K. Parikh , 1 E. Siskin C. Wong I PRJ:DISTLISTi i l _ _ _ __ - - _ - _ -___-_-_____-_-_-____- -_ __A
1 Communicatisns c ( k & k%d osmaear: CES om ( < m- w
- TU Electric Je. No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oum 3/30/87 ]
- Civil / Structural Audit - Ecedded Plates and ties 9:00 a.m. l Richmond Inserts Rees' CPSES Site J. Russ C. Wong , Cygna G. Dean, M. Dilorenzo, N. Kennedy, T. Lynch, S. Shah, Stone & Webster
^ ^
. .v. W T" E'^ t- M
"*m commones men's Action er Cygna met with Stone & Webster (SWEC) to discuss the actions being taken to address the concertis, regarding the design of e@edded strip plates and the factors of safety for Richmond Inserts. Cygna asked that SWEC present an overview of their plan, list any relevant calculations, and describe how these calculations would fit into the overall approach. Cygna noted that any procedures produced for actions to be taken, including those previously given to Cygna, would be reviewed for conformance at the end of the audit. To facilitate discussion, SWEC handed out copies of their presentations from the civil / structural and Richmond Insert pelic meetings.
In order to validate the allowables for single Richmond Inserts (both 1" and 1-1/2" diameters), SWEC has reviewed the results of the 1984 test program conducted at CPSES. SWEC will use these values as justification for the allowables in specification 2323-SS-30. SWEC offered the following reasons for the acceptability of the values: (1) the tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM E-488; (2) the concrete used in the test was poured in accordance with the procedures used in placing the concrete in areas where Richmond Inserts are present; (3) the compressive strength of the test slab concrete compared favorably with the concrete compressive strength used in the plant (This was determined by examining existing pour records); and
\
# __ j e *
*'"" H/ W4M/Mhw -
n. Cs, *11.;I;d
, I-I CI'!" $ICCI.
_________-_____ __ _____-_______-_______-_-___________-_____-___--__ - ___ a
Communications Report I lilll billfillililllilllllitt
- Comments [pgged By (4) the reinforcing layout used in the test slab is representative of the reinforcing layouts in areas where Richmond Inserts exist. The fourth reason was based on a review of the reinforcing patterns as specified on the drawings and any pertinent change documentation.
In elaborating on the review of the reinforcing drawings, SWEC noted that some areas where Richmond Inserts had smaller diameter bars, but these bars were at smaller spacings. By assuming a 45 degree shear cone, it could be shown that the same area of steel was present per a unit cross-section of l'-0". With regard to enbedded strip plates, SWEC stated that a corrective action plan had been instituted to address all deficiencies. As a first step, the design criteria, the installation procedures, and the inspection procedures The second were revised to be consistent with each other. step is to begin a 100% reinspection of the enbedded plate installations to note all attachments and any surrounding concrete anchors (e.g., Hilti expansion anchors or loaded Richmond Inserts) which may affect the load carrying capacity of the enbedded plates. The final step is to perform a qualification of all enbedded plates. As a basis for the qualification effort SWEC is relying on the formulae and assumptions listed in Westinghouse report WCAP 10923. The formulae are those listed in appendices 4W and SW of specification 2323-SS-30, revision 2. Inherent in these formulae are the assumptions that all I connections are moment connections. The formulae and l assumptions have also been incorporated into the WEB l computer program which is used to draw and analyze (using the sove-referenced formulae) enbedded strip and sheet plates at CPSES. SWEC is in the process of qualifying the WEB program for use per the requirements of the SWEC f quality assurance program. l The walkdown will be performed on all enbedded strip The plates at CPSES. The walkdown will be QC verified. drawings that result from the walkdowns will be sert to SWEC civil / structural for evaluation. SWEC will then request foot print loads (FPL) from any of the disciplines ! I Page of 102octo 2
Communications L L%' M Report lilllllillllllllllllllllllllli 1 Item Comments Ac on y attaching to the plates. As a first pass, 5Wtc wili use the WEB program, which they believe to be conservative, to evaluate the enbedded plates. Should the program indicate that the plate is unacceptable, SWEC will attempt to refine the analysis. The first refinement will be the use of more refined FPLs. The second refinement will be the use of individual finite element analyses. Should these refinements fail to produce acceptable stud loads or plate stresses, the attachments will be nodified on a case-by- i case basis. Modifications may include such actions as l removing the attachment from the enbedded plate, the addition of stiffeners, or providing additional attachment points. As a final step in the corrective action process, , specification 2323-SS-30 will be revised and reissued. , SWEC expects a revision to the spacing requirements for attachment to enbedded plates as well as more stringent spacing requirements between enbedded plates and Hilti expansion anchors and Richmond Inserts. l l l { \ 1 [ Page 3 of 3 to2c o t e
-4 Distribution Sheet l
Distribution: i N. Williams i S. Tuminelli Project File i J. Redding J. Ellis A. Vietti-CookV L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett J. Russ W. Horstman D. Leong K. Parikh E. Siskin C. Wong PRJ:DISTLISTi
~
Communications k a % pod ammmmmmma 1 5 tone & Web ster , propet TU Electric n 64uno CPSES IAP Phase 4 ones: 4/1/87 acepet Reinforcement Pattern in Concrete Tuns: 1:UU p.m. Richmond Inserts are Used C"# EE E " ^ S. Shah SWEC , w l C. Wong Cygna et- l w M Conwnenes meg d Acton Dy During this meeting, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) provided the calculation " Steel Reinforcement in Concrete Structures (Unit I and II)", No.16345/6/CS-S-121, Revision 0 - for Cygna's review. The purpose of this calculation was to show that the steel reinforcement (No. 7 bars at 10" c.c. each way) used in the Richmond Insert test slab for the tests performed by TUGC0 in April,1984 were representative of the steel reinforcement in concrete existing at the CPSES site where Richmond Inserts were enbedded. The calculation was based on a review of all the civil / structural drawings to identify the reinforcement , patterns in walls, slabs, etc. Three lists were { co'mpiled in the calculation (Attachments A, B and C) ) which give details such as drawing nunber, elevation, Richmond Insert size, thickness, reinforcing bar size and spacing, etc. The area of reinforcing steel per square foot area was computed for the reinforcing pattern and compared with those used in the test specimen (No. 7 at 10" c.c. each way). The calculation l indicated that more than 90% of the areas reviewed have l equal or better reinforcement than those used in the ) tests. For those areas with lighter reinforcement, I based on steel area per square foot of concrete area, (approximately 10% of the reviewed areas), half of them l l (i.e., 5%) have Richmond Inserts installed. ; For the 5% of the areas with lighter reinforcement, the calculation also identified that areas with 1-1/2"D
/ 1 4 ,3 /e ,s _
( / [ Desermutien See Attached Distribution 4teet, sauna
r e Communications j t4 L ci Report 1 lililllilllilllllilli!Illllill , stem comments . AcYoTYy inserts, the minimum reinforcement existing is 83% of the typical test reinforcement area, and for areas with 1"D inserts, the minimum reinforcement existing is 78% of the typical test reinforcement area. Two areas were identified with reinforcement of approximately 61% of the reinforcement used in the test slab. However, SWEC has confirmed that no Richmond Inserts exist in those Unit I, Drawing SI-0627 areas (Safeguard Elevation Building,0", 801'-0" to 810 - Section 28-28 and Section 29-29). Based on the results of the above calculation, SWEC concluded that the reinforcement patterns used in the TUGC01984 tests are representative of those that existed at CPSES. Cygna reviewed the SWEC calculation and concurred with SWEC's conclusions based on the data presented in the calculation. Page of wcss ____________u
a l 4 l Distribution Sheet Distribution: N.. Williams S. Tumminelli Project File J. Redding J. Ellis
,.- AA Viett1-Cook L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett J. Russ W. Horstman D. Leong K. Parikh E. Siskin C. Wong PRJ:DISTLISTi
s Communicctions i a Report 61 l company: CES o T.iecon ( conkrence Report l
***' TV Electric M No 84056 l
CPSES IAP Phase 4 Date: 3/31/87
- Civil / Structural Audit - WCAP 10923 "**
10:00 a.m. Enbedded Plates Pmos: CPSES Site Pariacipants. J. Russ, C. Wona ,, Cyana M. Dilorenzo, S. Shah , Stone & Webster B. Crowe TV Electric E . vi i vi ned6inyuvude item , , , _ _ , Comments Reg'd Action By
.n v wui i vi v; 3n u uv immu. m w.icus u n a ., c i , un uny questions regarding the Westinghouse WCAP 10923 and the WEB program, a telephone conference was arranged with Mr. Orr, the author of the WCAP document.
Cygna asked if there was any higher priority version of the WCAP than the one that was reviewed. Mr. Orr replied that there wasn't. Cygna began the conversation by stating their interpretation of how the WCAP document, appendices 4W and SW and the WEB program were related. This interpretation was as follows: The WCAP document is a report on a series of baseplate analyses which were used to determine the behavior of enbedded strip and sheet plates. These analyses indicated which were the controlling parameters (i.e., plate stresses or studs tensions and shears) for the enbedded plate. Based on i an evaluation of the cnntrolling parameters, simplified j equations were developed which closely approximate the i actual stud tensions, shears and plate stresses. These ( equations were then reproduced in appendices 4W and SW l of specifications 2323-SS-30. These same equations are l used in the WEB program. Mr. Orr concurred with the interpretation. 1 A ? a # e
* $W0] A1)$Lf5 W '
_ __iimm . . . , . .vm _-. m. I l (
,.' Communications 's L t i Report Y 1111114ll111111111111111111111 nem comments [c$$5Ify Cygna then began a series of questions which dealt with specific sections of the WCAP document. Section 1.0 - Introduction Q. Does the WESPLAT program reinsert the springs after it has removed them, should the plate recontact the concrete sd) strate? A. Yes. Section 2.0 - Summary and Conclusions Q. What is the reason for considering the moment arm of the attachment used in calculating the resultant force couple as the width of the attachment plus 2"? A. The moment arm, which is 2.5 times the plate thickness, was based on the results of the analyses which are illustrated in Figure 5-3 on sheet 5-32. These plots show the point of contact closest to the attachment is most always 2". Q. What is the meaning of " studs per attachment"? A. These are the studs that are on either side of the attachment. Q. Why are shear loads assumed to be resisted only by the row of studs behind the attachment? A. This assu@ tion is only used in the analysis of ed)edded sheet plates where the row of studs near the edge of the plate may not be known and is assumed as non-existent. Section 5.1.1 - Nud>er of Bays Q. Were the directions of the individually applied loads considered so as to maximize the responses of the plate and studs? A. Yes. Section 5.2.1 - Location Q. The moments used in the analysis had a magnitude of 10 in-kips. Several of the allowd)le moments, which 1 Page g of 4 1020 010 i -
---_._._______-_________________-.--_._---.-----__----__---o
Communications o L% i Report ) ll11111llI!I1111ll11111111llI! nem comments [No$ were calculated by multiplying the 10 in-kip moment by the ratio of the allowable plate stress over the actual plate stress had magnitudes of approximately 70 in-kips. Given the inherent non-linearity of the solution process, were any analyses performed which used the final allowable moments? A. No. Such analyses do not need to be performed given the inherent linearity of the system being analyzed. Section 5.2.1.2 - Out-of-plane Loads Q. The curves in Figure 5-15 seemed to have been developed based on two data points. Is this true? A. Although the text of the WCAP does not indicate it, other analyses were performed which provide the data points at Ey = 2 and Ey = 4. Proof of this is found . in Figure 5-17. Section 5.2.2 - Size Q. What is the definition of "Ex" in Table 5-9, Case 37 A. This is the eccentricity of the attachment from the centerline of the enbedded strip plate. Section 6.6 Q. How is the linear equation for determining plate r stresses and stud tension justified? A. The premises of the linear interaction is that the plate behaves as a simply supported beam. For example, the plate stress is the griatest for Fz when applied at midspan, but is a minimum when applied at the stud locations. Consequently, the additions of any other forces and moments, when applied at locations other than at midspan will not conbine to provide higher stresses than predicted by the equation. Cygna asked Mr. Orr to explain the derivation of the equations for the analysis of the enbedded strip plates which were developed in WCAP 10923. Mr. Orr stated that if the attachments were not separated by more than 12" (as they were in the two-bay models used in the WCAP), the worst location for stud tensions for Fz is at the Page of 1020 01 D
--__-______Q
Communications T
.4 L t i Report 11lllll11111:rNll111111llll stem comments [cYoUy studs and slightly off the stud line for Mx. This shows that there is little effect from other attachments. Mr.
Orr then discussed the limits that were used in deriving the equctions. Equation 6.3 Equation 6.3 is composed of three components that result in tensile loads on the stud. The component for Fz has limits based on Ex = 0 and Ex = 2.5 which places the attachment on the plate centerline and along the stud centerline, respectively. The equation for Mx is based on data from the analyses in the WCAP (Table 5-3 is representative) and applying a curve. The equation for My is based on assuming the moment as an equivalent eccentrically applied force and shifting that force between the plate centerline and the stud centerline (Ex
= 0 and Ex = 2.5, respectively).
Equations 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 The upper curve given in Figure 5-20 for the results of placing the load at point 3 is conservative. The conservatism was intended only to allow the equation to be a simple function of the equation for the stress at the centerline. In Figure 5-21, the higher values for the point load are justified by looking at the basis for Figure 5-19. Cygna asked if the WCAP considered the possibility of , the attachments in the vicinity of a butt joint between two enbedded strip plates. Mr. Orr stated that WEB presently does not have the capacity of evaluating this configuration. Additional work by Westinghouse, performed at the request of TU Electric, investigated the situation. Mr. Orr stated that if a 12" spacing between attachments is maintained across the butt line, without the attachments being located in the cantilever region, the formulations in the WCAP are acceptable. If the spacing is less than 12", the studs must be evaluated individually. Page of 4 4 ioso ein
f. Distrhution Sheet I Distribution: 1 N. Williams S. Tunninelli Project File J. Redding J. Ellis 1 Aj! Vietti-Cook" L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett J. Russ W. Horstman D. Leong K. Parikh E. Siskin C. Wong 1 I PRJ:DISTLISTi j i I ____________________J
Communications 4 i i Repod ) Elllllllllllllllllllllllllll l CES Company: a T.5 con a conference Report j Project TV Electric Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak oste. 3/19/87 i sues.et: T'm* Boston SWEC/CES/TUEC Meeting 11:00 a.m.
"*** Walnut Creek,CA
Participants:
J. Muffett ,, TUEC ! J. Richards o, Cygna of item Comments Reg'd Action By Jim Muffett called and asked if the meeting in Boston was cancelled. After a conversation with Nancy Williams I assured him it wasn't. The informal meeting would still take place with Steve Tumminelli. Nancy would not attend.
, s -
signeo V // g / f ) , / / j g ~ Page if } b D'stnbution- 'see' Altached Distrib ution Sheet, mono
4 Distributi:n Sheet / 1 Distribution: N. Williams S. Tuminelli Project File J. Redding J. Ellis A. Vietti-Coo} L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett E. Siskin PRJ:DISTLIST i
1 Communications ! L 6 4 Report i M11lll111181111111111111111 { i CL5 . compear o Tomcon ey conference Report Project TU Electric sob so. o*voo CPSES IAP Phase 4 g ,,,. 4fifgf subject. Civil / Structural Audit - Enbedded Fiates anc r,me: ' 4:uu p.m. l Richmond Inserts pt.e . mo me J. Russ, C. Wong Cygna , of # I G. Dean, M. DiLorenzo, N. Kennedy, S. Shah, Stone & Webster of n_ rrnwo n I nwa o, TV Electric item Comments req'd Action By ) Cygna met with TV Electric and Stone & Wsster (SWEC) to j discuss the status of the items reviewed by Cygna during q the civil / structural audit. '
- 1. Single Richmond Insert Allowables Cygna reviewed the 1984 test program, test results and the SWEC evaluation of the reinforcement existing in the plant in areas where Richmond Inserts are located.
In order to provide Cygna with further justification on the acceptability of several areas where the existing reinforcement was only 61% of the reinforce-ment in the test slabs, SWEC had reviewed the areas in question and determined that these areas did not really contain Richmond Inserts. Cygna reviewed the , calculations. l l Status: No questions. However, SWEC committed to ! review the allowables to ensure that they are consistent among the various disciplines (i.e., civil / structural, pipe supports, cable tray supports, etc).
- 2. Richmond Insert Cluster Allowables and Usage i i'
Cygna understands that SWEC's work on the cluster allowables and the procedures for their use and e aA ,) ' ( NO ,k 00* R' 3 Distribution' ' Cu B++nchnd D4 c t e45 tit 4 nn 9hopt, sono oc
.s .
- Communications di t i Report tilllii..... "filll nem comments Ac o y evaluation is still ongoing. The schedule projected completion date is 21 April 1987.
Status: SWEC to provide the cluster allowables and procedures when completed.
- 3. Richmond Inserts in Beam Sides Cygna explained their concerns with Richmond Inserts installed in beam sides. The SWEC work on the allowables for such installations is ongoing and is expected to be completed on 21 April 1987.
Status: SWEC to provide the allowables for Richmond Inserts in beam sides when completed.
- 4. Interdisciplinary Spacing Cygna understands that a comprehensive walkdown and evaluation program is being developed by SWEC which will address the various spacing requirements and any individual spacing violations. The program development is expected to be completed on 21 April 1987.
Status: SWEC to provide the spacing requirements and the procedures to be used in the walkdown and evaluation of the individual anchors with spacing violations when completed.
- 5. Effect of Missing Reinforcement on the Results of SWEC Study Cygna has spoken to the Steve McBee, the TV Electric engineer responsible for the investigation of the allegations of missing reinforcement. According to Mr. McBee, none of the areas which were missing reinforcement had installed Richmond Inserts. The calculations supporting this were available for Cygna re view.
Status: No questions at this time. Page g of 3 1020 citi
l Communications j L4L% A Report ' lll11lllllll1!!Il11llll1llll11 d item comments [EoT*ey j
- 6. Westinghouse WCAP 10923 and WEB program i
Cygna has reviewed WCAP 10923 and discussed its l contents with Westinghouse. (Ref. 3/31/87 conference j report). Cygna also understands how the document is I used in the WEB program and that SWEC will qualify the program for use under its own quality assurance l program. Status: No questions at this time.
- 7. Notes on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0786, Revision 9 Cygna had asked SWEC what considerations were being given to the notes on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 0786, revision 9 which allowed substitution of the specified stud size by a larger stud size at the contractor's discretion and the allowed relocation of the studs without documentation by the field engineer in case of field interferences.
Status: Open pending SWEC response.
- 8. Enbedded Plate Walkdown and Evaluation Cygna understands that work is ongoing on the development of the procedures for the walkdown and evaluation of enbedded plates. The program completion date is 21 April 1987.
Status: Open pending completion of SWEC activities. Cygna noted that they had requested and received copies of the following drawings and would keep them as a record in the project file: Gibbs & Hill 23233-5-0786, rev. 9 Brown & Root FSC-0046, Sheet 2, rev. O Page 3 of 3 1020 0 t b
' Distribution Sheet Distribution:
N. Williams S. Tumminelli Project File J. Redding J. Ellis A. Vietti-Cook , L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett J. Russ W. Horstman D. Leong K. Parikh E. Siskin C. Wong PRJ:DISTLISTi
. . . . . _ . _ . .. /
Communications ammmmmmma k & %%d 5
- m. CES a g ,,,,
ym%
- TU Electric Joe No- 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 pose:
3/30/87
- Civil / Structural Audit - Enbedded Plates and ** 2:30 p.m.
~
Richmond Inserts Ptems: CPSES Site Perssosam J. Russ. C. Wono y, Cygna M. Dilorenzo, T. Lyr,ch Stone & Webster et -
~
"'ra commenn n., e 4,,,.n ey Cygna spoke to Stone & Webster (SWEC) regarding the qualification of the WEB program per SWEC quality assurance (QA) requirements. SWEC stated that their QA program required that any program used by the SWEC organization be verified for accuracy. WEB will be qualified by using the BAP program, a preprocessor for ANS YS. If, in the qualification program, SWEC determines that the WEB program is not conservative, SWEC will impose limitations on the program such that any enbedded plate analyzed using WEB, with attachments that meet the limitations, will be acceptable. SWEC could not provide further detail on the methodologies that they will employ in the qualification because the qualification process had not been started.
SWEC noted that in order to expedite the qualification process, they would like Cygna to review the WEB program as well as WCAP 10923 and provide them with any comments. Cygna asked about the progress of the work on allowables for Richmond Insert clusters. SWEC stated that work was currently ongoing at this time. However, it was noted that a 100% review of all clusters will be performed as part of the qualification process. The qualification effort will include a determination of th- allowables and application of them to the Richmond Insert cluster installations. At the present time, the cluster allowables were being calculated using projected area methodologies.
-n ,n ~
NI[/ II/#d A **8' I s' 2 See Att' ached Distribution Sheet. eene
Communications t4 Ld c i Repod 18111111111111111111111111lll1 Item Comments Ac o By Cygna asked how Richmond Inserts in beam sides were being handled by SWEC. SWEC replied that they were not considering Richmond Inserts in beam sides at this time. Cygna reminded them that Richmond Inserts in beam sides were part of the cable tray RIL 3.E.2 Cygna also highlighted the fact that the concerns included cluster effects as well as the effect of any existing tension field on the capacity of the inserts. Page of g g 1020 01b
Distrtution Sheet Distribution: N. Williams S. Tuminelli Project File-J. Redding J. Ellis
. Ai+Vietti-Cook L. Nace C. Grimes W. Counsil J. Muffett J. Russ W. Horstman D. Leong K. Parikh j E. Siskin C. Wong PRJ:DISTLISTi l}}