ML20235W333

Forwards Communications Repts Re Civil/Structural Audits,Per Independent Assessment Program,Phase 4

ML20235W333
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/10/1987
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
NUDOCS 8710160144
Download: ML20235W333 (16)

Text

- -

b'Mcp-M ChpS

' /'3/'07 wozc t

/q m Ey*Gl(. -

2121 N. Cahfornia .3ivo. Suite 390, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934 5733 l

October 10, 1987 84056.123 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President,- CASE '

1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal No. 32 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis-Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the civil / structural audits.

A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1.

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

N. . Williams Project Manager NHW/jlw Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric)  ;

Mr. L Nace (TU Electric)

Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric)

Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric)

Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)

-Ms.' A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC)

Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC)

Mr. S. Stamm (SWEC)  !

l B710160144 PDR 8ADOCK PDR O 0 0 45 A

San Francisco Boston Chicago Parsippany h

'lI

'j sunGv_

sunun--

ATTACHMENT 1 List of Enclosed Communications Reports Date Time 6/9/87 935 a.m.

&l0/87 900 a.m.

6/11/8 7 830 a.m.

7/16/87 3 20 p.m.

i 1

I l

Communications v 4L t i Report  :

1 1111111111111111111111111lll11 z

I companyCEC . Teiecon @ conference Report Project: TU Electric Job *o84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 paie: 6/9/87 i

-Subject Civil / Structural Audit Um*: 9:35 a.m.

Place: SWEC, Boston

Participants:

Cygna J. Russ, C. Wong - f R. Ciatto, B. Weasel, N. Kennedy SWEC Requrer item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the SWEC procedures for identifying spacing violations for the various anchorages at CPSES.

The affected procedures are CPE/FVM-CS-075, Revision 0,

" Field Verification Method, Concrete Attachments in Units I & II, Safety Related Structures," and ECE-3.06-15, Revision 0, " Evaluation and Documentation of Concrete Attachment Spacing Violations."

. Cygna noted that the walkdown procedure did not provide adequate direction for the identification of attachments with anchors using threaded rods. Thus, it would be possible to confuse a Richmond Insert with a thru-bolt, a civil anchor or a grouted rod. SWEC stated that they would investigate this possibility. Cygna asked what measurement tolerances would be used in the wal kdowns.

According to SWEC, acceptance tolerances will be specified in QI-0P-11.14-13. This document provides instructions for QC verification of the walkdowns.

Cygna's review of the procedure indicated that certain passages were worded such that sufficient emphasis was not placed on civil and grouted anchors. Cygna requested SWEC to provide such emphasis.

signea L,//' / Pag o D' " b " "

See Attached Distribbon Sheet.

1020 01s

Communications i.

AL i i- Report lll111111111ll11111lll111ll111 Item Comments Ac o y SWEC clarified that the word " tied" in the note at the bottom of page 8 was to mean " located relative to." SWEC will define " base plate clusters," a term used on page

9. Cygna asked SWEC ta provide additional detail on the

" appropriate action" noted in section 7.4.

ECE-3.06-15 requires that a support noted to have a spacing violation should have its component nwnber listed on the DCA that reports the violation. Cygna noted that this procedure, as written, was acceptable for any support which had a spacing violation that only affected its own ca paci ty. liowever, Cygna stated that the procedure should indicate that all affected supports be indicated on the-DCA. The evaluation for spacing violations did indicate that all affected supports would be considered, but Cygna felt that by listing all supports on the DCA, future evaluations for load changes would then capture all spacing violations.

SWEC provided Cygna with r6 vised copies of procedure PP-073, Rev.1 " Reporting Attachment Load Information to the

. Engineering Support Group," which controls SWEC's internal paper flow for the report of attachment loads. Cygna noted that the procedure should address installations which have angles welded to embedded plates. This connection was discussed with Impell during a previous audit. Due to the stiffness of the outstanding leg of the angle, forces that are perpendicular to the embedded plate face must be resisted by the welds along the heel of the an gl e. SWEC stated that they would consider Cygna's comment.

Cygna also requested copies of CPPP-7 and the FSAR in order to determine whether proper load values are reported.

I . 'SWEC provided a general overview of DBD-CS-15, Revision 1, the design basis document (DBD) for concrete anchorage.

f SWEC noted that the DBD has a general section which discusses the failure modes of the anchorages, as well as Pa08 Of 7 3 toe A + + vhoa ni st ri bution Shapt _

[

Communications L i Report

!I lilllllllllllllillllilllilillt-Item Comments Ac o y sections containing the anchor allowables. SWEC l emphasized that the concrete code of ' record, ACI 318-71 was adhered to; however, ACI 349-85, Appendix B, was used, l

as appropriate, to provide additional confidence in the predicted behavior, i

The DBD reflects SWEC's verification of vendor specified j allowables and includes test data for situations not l presently addressed by the vendor. The tests include the site test of Richmond Inserts and the new test data from  ;

Hil ti, Inc. on expansion anchor edge distances.

Cygna asked if the embedded plate allowables addressed the concerns on undocumented substitution and relocation of Nelson studs. SWEC stated that neither issue had been considered in deriving the allowables, but that they would ,

consider Cygna's concerns. l Presently, SWEC has not made a decision on the use of the WEB program. Cygna stated that should SWEC use WEB and i

alter 'or lim;t the program capabilities, that the user and verification manual must be reviewed to see how the

" revision" to the program affects the qualification I effort.

SWEC stated that they consider the forces in concrete attachments as " local load effects." They feel that this j approach is appropriate and in line with the philosophy of I the ACI code. Cygna stated that they would review SWEC's posi ti on. ,

I With regard to the substitution of the drawing-specified Nelson studs with the next larger size (length or diameter), SWEC stated that there would not be a problem if the group action allowables for the studs were ]

calculated using the methodologies specified in ACI 349- l l

85, Appene Ix B, which SWEC asserts to be more appropriate than thme specified in the 1;elson manual. Cygna stated f that they would consider the appropriateness of SWEC's i

l approach to the Nelson stu-d substitution.

f l

I J

Page 3 '

3 I l

amon See Attached Distribution Sheet. j

i q-DISTRIBUTION LIST ,

. Mr. J. Redding -

Mr. L Nace .

Mr. W. CounsH Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A ViettiCoon Mr. C Grimes t Mr. S. Stamm

. Mr. J. Muffett 1 Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.Leong Project File I

l

h Communications AL c1 R3pcrt 1111111lll11ll11lll11111111lll t %.

companr CES .

Telecon X Conference Report Project- TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES-IAP Phase 4 o ,,,. o/lu/ui Ebiect: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Time: 9:00 a.m. .

Place: SWEC, Boston l:

i

Participants:

J. Russ, C. Wong - of Cygna i R. Ciatto SWEC ,

j i-Required Item Comments Action By SWEC provided Cygna with a signed copy of procedure PP-073 for use during the audit.

Cygna spoke to SWEC regarding some of the edge distance criteria that was listed in the supporting calculation to  ;

DBD-CS-15. With regard to Hilti expansion anchors, SWEC '

noted th6t the Hilti anchor must meet the spacing criteria for both shear and tension. For tension, the edge distance must be greater than three (3) bolt diameters or 2-1/2", whichever i s greater. If the edge distance is greater than the embedment depth or five (5) bolt diameters, the Hilti anchor has full capacity. For any bolt distances between the minimum edge distance (2-1/2" or 3 bolt diameters) and those giving full capacity (depth of embedment or 5 bolt diameters), the anchor capacity can be derived by linearly interpolating between the maximum and minimum distances or by calculating the capacity using the projected area theorem.

The edge distances used for shear are based on the results l of tests performed by Hilti. Inc. as well as several  ;

papers based on work by Slutter and Fischer which are l.

I I;

... i 1 3

- . , , -, rt .. ~n

.4 % % G b b 44 b II 4 %d V =# b' i V E' b ' V' V ' **

( h?mi t / . '\ / // m Distnbution f

1020 016

Communications

• hL L i Report

'+ lilllilllllllllllillllllllilli item comments Ac on y I ,

referenced in the calculation. The anchors have full capacity at an edge distance of 14 bolt diameters. The capacity of the bolts for edge distances less than 14 diameters is based on the following equation:

Suc = S'uc (De-2d)/12d where:

Suc = reduced concrete shear capacity S' uc = ultimate concrete shear capacity for anchors with more than the minimum edge distance.

De = the actual edge distance of the Hilti l expansion anchor d= the diameter of the Hilti expansion anchor.

Cygna had reviewed the data provided by Hilti and noted that the minimum edge distance considered in the tests was four and one-half (4-1/2) bolt diameters, thus, there was no basis for considering any capacity less than this distance. SWEC replied that the behavior indicated by the capacity equation above was based on providing a lower bound on the Hilti test data and comparing the results to other known behavior, such as for headed studs.

With regard to headed studs and Richmond Inserts, the allowable edge distances were based on using the equations found in ACI 349-85, Appendix B. Where applicable, SWEC used the results of the site tests of Richmond Inserts to establish the limits on edge distance.

For anchors located near a penetration such as a pipe sleeve, SWEC considers an area near the sleeve to bc l unconfined concrete. For any bolts located in this area, j the bolts must meet the applicable edge distance l requi rements. For bolts located outside this area, the 1 bolts are assumed to be in confined concrete. A diagram j of the area boundaries is shown in the attached sketch. 1 With regard to Hilti expansion anchors in core-bored i noies SWEC noted that they believed that the Hilti l i

i Page 2 of 3 torooin See Attached Distribution sneet.

Communications Lt i Report

• 1111lllll111lll11lll111111llll .

Item comments - UeYo"$Yy anchors would exhibit their required ultimate strength if they were installed with their required torque which is  ;

the value required to achieve 115% of the allowable tension load. Additionally, SWEC noted that the requirements of ASTM E488 state that the average value of the Hilti test results would exhibit the published allowable values. Cygna noted SWEC's contentions and  :

stated that they would consider them.  !

l i

l i

e. ]

{

l

\

Page of 1 9

'See Attached Distribution Sheet.

)

l

],

}:i-

)

DISTRIBUTION LIST 4

Mr. J. Redding I Mr. L Nace

Mr. W. Counsil -

gg,:- k-4 Mr. C. Grimes i

Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett

. Ms. N. Williams -

Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman '

Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Project File i

~

l I

i

l

, Communications I

, 4( t i Report 11186111ll1111111111111lll11ll  ;

'\'

l Company: -CES Te!. con conference Report Project: TU Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 6/11/8/

oste: )

l T'm*:

subiect: Civil / Structural Audit 8:30 a.m.

Place: $WEC, Boston

Participants:

'J. Russ, C. Wong of Cygna R. Ciatto, J. Carty, S. Stamm SWEC 4

Required item Comments Action By Cygna met with SWEC and TV Electric to status the audit of the civil / structural review issues.

Cygna noted that on Monday, . June 8,1987, SWEC had provided Cygna with an overview of the procedures and approaches that were being taken in regard to the walkdowns for spacing violations and their subsequent evaluation, the evaluation of concrete structures for attached elements and the derivation of concrete anchorage all owabl es. ,

Procedure FVM-CS-075, Rev. O As indicated on Tuesday, June 9,1987, SWEC will revise this procedure as follows:

1. Provide the requirements so that concrete anchorages using threaded rods will be clearly and correctly identified during the field walkdown for anchorage ,

spacing violations.

2. SWEC will identify the appropriate measurement tolerances to be used in the walkdowns.

s signed.

0"*"'*"

Vf[ QWI1 IIh )//1llh'W Page 1

of 3

See Attached Distribution Sheet.

wo oi.

t

• • Communications 4L ti . Report l t lll11ltllllllllllll111ll11llll .

ltem Comments Ac o y i

3 '. SWEC will define the term " base plate cluster" used on page 9 of the procedure.

4. SWEC will define the " appropriate action" used in Section 7.4.

Procedure PP-073, Rev.1 As indicated on Tuesday, June 9,1987, SWEC will revise this procedure as follows:

1. SWEC will require that all attachment loads be reported at the centroid of the attachment weld pattern.

2. SWEC will provide Cygna with the information required to evaluate whether the reported attachment loads will be used in the correct load combination equation when evaluating the concrete structure.

Design Basis Document DBD-CS-15, Rev.1 Cygna is still reviewing this document and the supporting SWEC calculation but noted that, as indicated on Tuesday, June 9,1987, the following actions will be taken:

1. Cygna will review the proposed acceptability of using the projected area techniques to assure acceptability for any larger size Nelson studs that may have been substituted for those specified on the design drawing.

2. SWEC will address the possible undocumented relocation of the Nelson studs on the back of embedment plates and its impact. on the calculated allowables. )

3. SWEC will investigate the possibility of reduced anchorage capabilities for anchorages in concrete tensile regions such as bolts in beam sides. Cygna will provide any basis documentation that may be j requested by SWEC. j l

Page of 2 3 non t t t ac hnet ni s t ri hotinn S hoot.

Communications 4L t i Repod .

A lll1111llll1llll1111lll11lll11

]

Item comment 9 Ac o y

.=---- ,

j 4 Cygna stated that they wished to review the {

implementation procedure and verification of the WEB program by SWEC since SWEC may revise the applicability range of the program. SWEC stated that j the decision to use WEB was still yet to be made and i would respond to Cygna's request at that time.

i

5. Cygna will discuss internally SWEC's use of the data I from Hilti, Inc. on the edge distance requirements for .

Hilti expansion anchors. The point of the discussion "

will be the use of data for edge distances greater than 4-1/2 bolt diameters as the basis for determining anchor allowables with edge distances less than that val ue.

6. Cygna will consider SWEC's arguments on the acceptability of using minimum torque requirements for reaching the published tensile strength values for Hilti expansion anchors in diamond cored holes. Cygna will consider the acceptability of the averaging of the data per ASTM E488. I Procedure PP-210, Rev. O I; I

Cygna indicated to SWEC that the procedure was not worded ) '

so that ambiguities would be precluded. As requested, SWEC will revise the procedure to preclude ambiguities in i the determination of which element that any concrete attachment will be located on. Additionally, SWEC will revise the procedure to more clearly indicates the actions that will be used in the walkdown when locating {

attachments with large loads. j I

l l

4 l

Page '

l 3 3

- See Attached Distribution Sheet.

j

.a

-t DISTRIBUTION LIST '

Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil .

Mr. D. Pipott . .,

Ms. A. Vmtti-Cook' Mr? C Grimes Mr. S. Stamm Mr.- J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams  !

Mr. J. Russ  !

Mr. W. Horstman i Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. I.cong Project File i

4

-l l

1

4' Communications  !

f* 4%i Report  ;

ki 111lll11lll111lll1ll11111llll!

company: CE5 conference Report Q Telecon Project: TV Electric Job No. 84056 j CPSES IAP Phase 4 o, 7/H/87

{

Subject:

Status of IAP Issues Time: 3:20 p.m. j Place: Cygna, W 1

Erticipants: John Russ of Cygna Scott Harrison TU Electric i:  ;

Item - Comments Ac o By Cygna spoke to TU Electric to discuss the several issues  ;

from the cable tray and civil / structural areas. Cygna noted that they would be speaking to TV Electric on MRM on Friday, July 17 -1987. Cygna requested the following documents from TV Electric:

1. Specification 2323-SS-30

2. Design Basis Document DBD-CS-015

3. SWEC Project Procedure PP-210 i

4. Procedure CPES-S-1021, Revision 1 .

5. Procedure CPE-FVM-CS-068 )

i

)

j k k O'stnbotion See Attached DistributiU Sheet.

1020 014

. .,g L

I DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding 1 Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil -

Mr. D. Pigott Ms.1Vwtti-Cook?'

Mr. C Grimes '

Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. I.cong Project File

.