ML20236D352
| ML20236D352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1987 |
| From: | CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D330 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707300419 | |
| Download: ML20236D352 (38) | |
Text
- ___ _ - __- _
x 07/21/87; Revision 0 Page'i l
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List Table of Contents Issue i
__N o.
Issue Title Page INTRODUCTION...............................................
.1 1.
Richmond Inserts'A110wables................................
4 2.
Proxi mi ty Vi ol ati ons Between...............................
11 Embedded. Plates, _ and Structural Anchorages 3.
Thru-Bolts and Concrete Acceptability......................
16 4..
Embedded Plate Design.....................................
19 5..
Potenti al Edge Di stance Vi ol ati on..........................
23 (Pipe Sleeve) 6.
Hilti Kwi k-Bolts Adjacent to -Thru-Bolts....................
25 7.
-Installation of Exnansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes...
27 8.
A110wables for Hilti Anchors Having Edge Distance Less than 50...............................
30 9.
Seismic Category 'I Support Attached i
To Sei smi c Catego ry II Fi re Wall.........................
32 10 Proximity Violations Between Cable Tray Supports and Other Components............................
34 8707300419 870 m PDR ADDCK 05000445' I
A PDR '
L Texas Utilities Generating Company eg'{
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lililllilillllilillilillililli Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 I
i
7/21/87.
Revision 0 Page 1 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List INTRODUCTION This document summarizes the major issues related to embedment plates, structural anchorages and proximity violations.
Structural anchorages are used here in a general sense, they include expansion anchor bolts,- Richmond inserts, through-bolts, Nelson studs, civil anchors, grouted-in anchors, etc.
In addition, other related. issues that are being, addressed in the Civil /
I Structural scope of work may also be included in this document as appropriate.
~
The issues listed in this document were originally documented in the Cygna Pipe Supports RIL and the Cable Tray Support RIL.. The transfer of some of these 1ssues to this Civil-Structural RIL is a logical rievelopment, since all
.of'these transferred issues are being addressed under the Stone and Webster l
Engineering Corporation's (SWEC) Civil / Structural scope of work.
The following is 'a list of the Civil-Structural-issues with a ' cross reference
.to.the original source RIL:
1 Civil-$t tural Source RIL RIL N Issue Title No.
j 1.
Richmond Insert Allowables PS** No. 3 CT Nos. 3C, 3D & 3E.
5 2.
Proximity Viola (ions Between PS No. 9 Attachments, Embedded Plats, and CT Nos. 170 &
Structural Anchorages 17F i
3.
Through-Rolts and Concrete Acceptability PS No. 10 i
1 4
Emedded Plate Design PS No. 26 CT j
Nos. 17A, 17B
& 17C I
l t
3 Texas Utilities Generating Company
~
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ll 111 Illbilithlilli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
. Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
G 7/21/87 Revision 0 Page'2 e.
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues ~ List Civil-Structural Source RIL
-RIL No.
Issue Title-No.
5.
Potential Edge Distance Violation PS No. 31 (Pipe Sleeve Penetration) 6.
Hilti. Kwik-Bolts Adjacent to -
PS No. 34 Thru-Bolts 7.
' Installation of Expansion Anchors in CT No. 3J Diamond Cored Holes 8.
A110wables for Hilti Anchors Having PS No. 42 Erige Distances Less than SD 9.
Seismic Category I Support Attached to CT No. 22 Seismic Category II Fire Wall 10.
Proximity Violations Between Cable Tray CT No. 20K Supports and Other Components
- Legend:
PS denotes H pe Support CT. denotes Cable Tray Support Note: The Source RIL numbers are referred to Revison 3 of the Pipe Support RIL and Revision 13 of the Cable Tray RIL.
The Civil-Structural Review Issues List is a tracking document which provides a summary description of each issue, a list of relevant reference documents, a discussion of the methods used to resolve the issue and a brief statement on the status of the resolution.
Currently, the resolution of all of the Civil-Structural review issues are still.in progress. Criteria, procedures and/or c.lculations are being reviewed and generated by SWEC. Cygna is reviewing these documents and methmds of resolution as they become available and will update this Review
' Issue List as appropriate until all of the issues are properly resolved.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 3yig Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillllilllllllil ll lilillllli Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
c 7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 3 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List For the current revision,,the status has incorporated developments up to the last Civil / Structural audit performed by Cygna on June _8 through June 13, 1987 at SWEC's Boston, office.
i l
I 1
i I
I W
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Ibittlillllillllllilllilllil Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 I
I
-7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 4 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List 1.
Richmond Insert Allowables
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Richmond Insert Allowables and Bending Stress'es,"
84042.025, dated 1/31/85.
2..
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 3/16/84, Item 2.
3.
Communications Report between Rencher (TUGC0) and finichiello (Cygna) dated 3/30/84, Item 1.
4 L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams'(Cygna) dated 5/2/84 5.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGC0) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 5/8/84 j
6.
Communications Report between Bezkor (Gibbs & Hill) and Minichiello (Cygna) dated 6/12/84, Item 4 7.
" Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr., Robert C. Iotti, and R. Peter Deubler Regarding Design of Richmond Inserts and their Application to Support Design".
8 Cygna/SWEC Meeting Agenda, December 15 and 16,1986, Glen Rose, Texas.
(Exhibit I to Reference 9).
9.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen' Rose, Texas, dated December 15 and 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
10 SWEC Generic Technical Issues Report for CPSES, Revision 0, dated 5/8/86.
i Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I:llilllllilillllillliklit Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
~
? r 7/21/87-l Revision 0.
Page.5 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL-Review Issues List -
11.
Stone &; Webster's Pipe. Stress and Pipe Support Design
- Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, Revision 2.
12.
RLCA Report No. RLCA/P142/01-86/008, Ri chmond..
.j Insert / Structural Tube Steel Connection, Design.-.
Interaction Equation for Bolt / Threaded Rods, dated September 10, 1986 13.
.SWE'C General Calculation No.'.15454-NZ(s)-G1, General
~
Calculation' for.. Richmond ' Insert / Tube Steel Connections Design Modifications, Revision 2..
14 SWEC CPSES Technica1LReport No.- 15454.05-N(c)-002,.
Interaction Relation for a ' Structural Member of ~
Circular Cross Section, May 1986.
15 Communications repor't between S. Shah. (SWEC) and C.
Wong (Cygna):, Job. 84056, dated 4/1/87,1:00 p.m..
CPSES site -- Reinforcement Pattern in Concrete Where Richmond Inserts Are Used.
16
- Communications report between J. Russ, C. ' Wong (Cygna);
b G. Dean, M. Dilorenzo, N.-Kennedy, S. Shah (SWEC) and
[
B. Crowe, O. Lowe (TV Electric), Job 84056, dated 4/1/87, 2:00 p.m. CPSES site -_ Civil / Structural Audit -
Embedded Plates and Richmond Inserts
- 17. Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Evaluation of detail 1,.
Single-Bolt Connection," Cygna Technical' File 84056.11.1,259.
18 Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Justification of' the Adequacy of 1" Richmond Inserts For the Effects of Prying Actin," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.219.
22
(*N O T E: These RIL Reference numbers are referred to revision 3 of the Pipe Support RIL, revision 13 of the Cable Tray RIL and Revision 3 of the Conduit Support RIL).
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lilllllilillillllillili!!!
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 v-a
- t, w
' Q g
~7/21/87' Revision 0 Page;6;
- /-
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL ReviewiIssues List
- 19..US NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, IE F
Rulletin.No; 79-02.
- 20. American ~ Concrete Institute, " Code, Requirements for
. Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures (ACI.' 349-76)".
- 21. Ebasco Procedures SAG.CP4,." Seismic Design Criteria for
.?
Cable.. Tray Hangers for CPSES Unit 1", Revision -3:an'd SAG.CP3,. "Seismi_c Design Criteria 'for Cable Tray-Hangers for CPSES, Unit 2", Revision 6 22 Ebasco Instruction,'" General Instructions for Cable Tray Hanger ' Analysis 'for CPSES;Nos. I an'd; 2", Revision
- 4 '..
1 23.
Impe11 Instruction PI-07, " Design: Verification of -Base Plates, Base Angles. and Embedded Plates", Revision 3.
24 Impe11 Instruction PI-02, " Dynamic. Analysis of Cable Tray! Systems", Revision. 5 25.
Impe11 Instruction PI-11. " Cable Tray System Analysis J
and Qualification Closeout", Revision 1.
26 Gibbs A Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, " Structural-Embedments", Revision 2.
27 Communications Report between S. Harrison,. R. Hooten, J. Muffett, J.,.Redding'(TU Electric); R. Alexandru, P.
~
Harrison, E. Odar, M..Strehlow, (Ebasco); G. Ashley, R.
Grubb, B. Ramsey (Impe11); and J. Russ, D. Leong, S.
Tumminelli, W.' Horstman, N. Williams (Cygna), dated J
February 13, 1987, 11:30 a.m.
l.
28 Transcripts of Cable Tray Hanger Design Verification Meeting between TU Electric,'Cygna, Ebasco and Impe11 held at CPSES. site on January 26 and 27,1987.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station j
kg niginduhn Independent Assessment Program - All Phases u
-"t Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 7 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List
- 29. Gibbs & Hill Calculatin " Aux. Building Cable Tray Supports" Binder No. SCS-212C, Set 7, Sheet-4-11, Revision 0.
30 N.H. Williams (Cygna) Letter to W.G. Counsil-(TUGCO),"
Cable Tray / Conduit Support Reivew Questions," 84056.089 dated October 21, 1985.
31.
SWEC Design Basis Document DBD-CS-015, Revision 1 -
"The Qualification of Embedments in Concrete".
32.
SWEC Calculation No.:16345/6-CS(B)-109 "The Qualification of Embedments in Concrete".
l 33.
Structural Embedments, Gibbs'& Hill Specification 2323--
SS-30, Revision 3, dated 6/6/87.--
Sumary:
- Rased on Cygna's original independent design review of the pipe support and cable tray support designs at CPSES,.there are some concerns on Richmond Insert allowables identified as follows:
o Justification for single insert allowables based on test concrete strength (PS RIL No. 3 & CT RIL No. 3E).
o The representativeness of the reinforcement patterns used in the.TUGC0 Richmond Insert allowable test slabs (PS RIL No. 3 & CT RIL-No. 3E).
o Inconsistent application of ACI 349, Appendix B.
Cygna was concerned about the use of selected portions of the code rather than adopting the philosophy of the entire appendix (CT RIL No. 3C).
o Factor of safety on Richmond Inserts.
Factors of safety as low as 1.8 to 2.0, depending on the buiiding and elevation, were used in some cable tray support designs (CT RIL No. 30). This issue also includes the j
question of the values of safety factor used for the j
Texss Utilities Generating Company 3
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lll1111111 11ll ll llll1l l11 Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
w.
7 Ng y
7/21/87.
Revision 0
.Page 8 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List '
s different load-conditions'(e.g., Normal / Upset, Emergency, and Faulted conditions).
o' Allowables for Richmond Inserts in cluster and beam
. sides.. Cygna is concerned that cable tray supports installed'using Richmond clusters or Richmond Inserts in.the sides of concrete _ beams may not have been y
evaluated for the, requi red' reduction. in _ allowables' as.
.j stipulated' by specification 2323-SS-30 (CT RIL No.-
1 3E(2)).
Subsequent.to Cygna's reviews,- TU. Electric has initiatedithe-CPRT: program.to address the-various issues and Stone and' Webster. Engineering Corporation.-(SWEC): has'. been commissioned to resolve the civil / structural issues.
(NOTE: For~more details-refer to the ~ appropriate pipe' support or= cable tray support RIL.)
Response
Cygna has. reviewed some of SWEC'_s design. crit 1ria-(e.g.,;
Reference'11) and proposed method of resolution (e.g.,-
Reference 10) as well as other related documents-(e.g.,
References '12,13, and 14). ' On March 30 through April '1,;
}'
1987, Cygna performed audits.on embedded plates and Richmond Inserts at the CPSES'sitef(References 15 and 16). During
.f the audits Cygna reviewed the SWEC calculation " Steel.
Reinforcement in Concete Structures (Unit I'and II)",
1 No.16345/6/CS-S-121,- Revision' O.
The calculation concluded
.j that the reinforcement patterns used in the TUGC0'1984 tests are representative of those that existed at CPSES.
Per discussion in Reference 28, the anchorage evaluations performed for the design verification of cable tray supports do not explicitly reference ACI 349-76. However, the development of the capacities for Richmond Inserts and embedded plates may be based, in part, on ACI 349-80 I
With respect to Richmond Insert capacities and the use of' appropriate factors of safety, they are being verified by SWEC in the Civil / Structural Action Plan. The location of Texas Utilities-Generating Company i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I
b
' A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases ll11lllllll111ll11llll11llllll Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 u
- p 7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 9 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List i
the insert (e.g., in column faces, sides of beams, clusters, etc.) will.be considered. See Reference 21,Section III.2, IV.1.f.ii and Appendix 2 and Reference 23, Section 4.3.2 and Attachment B.
Status:-
This issue is open' pending further review /au' it of SWEC's d
Civil Structural Action Plan.
On June 8 through June 13, 1987, Cygna performed audits at SWEC's Boston office. During the audits, Cygna reviewed several documents related to Richmond. Insert A110wables -
?
DBD-CS-015 (Reference 31), SWEC Calculation No. 16345/6-CS(B)-109 (Reference 32), and Specification 2323-SS-30, Revision 3 (Reference 33). Major revision has been made to 1
Specification 2323-SS-30, which now includes only installation requirements with respect to Richmond Inserts.
]
Richmond Insert allowables and minimum spacing requirements are provided in DBD-CS-015, which is a comprehensive criteria document for the qualification of embedments in I
concrete (i.e., structural anchorages). After reviewing these documents, Cygna has some questions on:
o The appropriate value of the e factor for the.
calculation of tension allowables (i.e., 0.85 vs.
0.65).
o Factor of safety as related to load factor in the
{
factored load combination (e.g., 1.25 s OBE).
o Load distribution for cone overlap (i.e., allow one cone to take full capacity).
l 1
o A110wables for inserts in beam sides and columns, etc.
o The increase factor of 1.6 on bolt shear allowables for AISC bolt design in general.
i Subsequent to the Cygna audit, a discussion was held between Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station J'
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lllllll11111llllllllllll111lll Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 J
7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 10 i
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues Ltst SWEC and Cygna in which SWEC committed to investigate the number of instances where Richmond Inserts were used in beam sides and columns, etc., so that the extent of the' issue can be assessed. Currently, Cygna is conducting internal discussion to further evaluate the above issues.
i i
i
.I f
M' A Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station k
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllllllilillllllilllillilll!
Job.No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
7/21/87 i
Revision 0 Page 11 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List 2.
Proximity Violations Between Attachments, Embedded Plates, and Structural Anchorages
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Pipe Support Review Questions," Item 5, 84056.13, dated 7/31/84 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna) dated 8/24/84 3
Communications Report.between Purdy (Brown & Root) and.
Minichiello (Cygna) dcted.3/4/85.
4 Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45, " Permanent and Temporary Attachments to Embedded Weld Plates", Revision 1, dated 8/18/80.
5 Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 24, J
dated 4/18/84 6.
Brown & Root Procedure QI-0AP-11.1-28, Revision 29, i
dated 1/25/85 7
Communications Report between Warner (TUGCO) and Williams /Minichiello/Russ (Cygna) dated 2/27/85.
8.
.CPSES Procedure QI-QP-19.5-1, " Separation Inspection for Unit 1 and Common Buildings".
9.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 13, 1986 - on Resolution of Cygna concerns.
10.
Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Cherry Hill, New Jersey, dated November 14, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna concerns.
l-l l
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
{A3 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 l
!!Illlllllllll11111ll111111111
m,- -
n
~
['
{
?7/21/87 Revision 0:
Page,12-1 l
1 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL
~
Review Issues List 11.
' Letter from W.G. Counsil"(TUGCO) to E.H..-Johnson <-(NRC),.
j dated August 22,'1986 f Welded. Attachments to Embedded g
Strip Plates..
j
'12.
Communications' report of audits at'SWEC site office, 7
,c between J. Russ, C..Wong.~(Cygna); N.- Kennedy, et 'al
.(SWEC);;and.B. Crowe, 0. Lowe (TV Electric),: April,1, 1987,.2:00 p.m. (Glen Rose,. Texas) -' Civil / Structural:
1-
~ Audit - Embedded Plates and ' Richmond Inserts. ? Job.
'84056 13 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, Appendix 4, d
" Design Criteria for Embedded Plate Strips,"
L Revision 1.
14 Transcripts of the Cable. Tray. Hanger Design
. Verification Meeting between TU: Electric /Cygna/Ebasco/
Impell: at the. CPSES site on January26 and 27,1987.
15 Transcript of meeting between :TU Electric /Cygna/SWEC/
~
Impe11/Ebasco at Glen Rose, Texas, dated ' April 21,
+
1987.
,I 16 Communications report of audits at SWEC site office,-
1 between J. Russ, C. Wong'(Cygna); N. Kennedy et al (SWEC) and B. Crowe: (TUcElectric), April 1,7 1987, 9:00 i
a.'m.' (Glen Rose, Texas) '- Civil / Structural Audit -
Embedded Plates and Richmond Inserts,; Job. 84056.
d 17 SWEC Procedure CPE-FVM-CS-075, Revision 0.(6/9/87) -
Field. Verification Method, Concrete Attachments in Units I & II, Safety Relate'd Structures.
- 18. TV Electric Document ECE-3.06-15 (draft)
" Evaluation i
and Documentation-of Concrete Attachments Spacing Violations",
t 19.
SWEC Design Basis Document DBD-CS-015, Revision l'-
"The Qualification of Embedments in Concrete".
WA Texas Utilities Generat'ing Company j
. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
'k 11ll11lll1111111lll11lll111111 Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
]
7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 13 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List Sumary:
This issue deals with attachments / anchorages proximity violations in general (i.e., spacing requirements between attachments / embedded plate /Hilti/ Richmond Insert / Grouted-In anchors / Civil. anchors, etc.)
'The following are some examples identified:
f A.
Inspection Requirements for Attachment Spacing.
A review of Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45 (Reference 4) j indicates that any two. adjacent attachments to an embedded strip plate must be separated by a minimum of 12".
Based'on a discussion between Cygna and TUGC0 (Reference 7), it was determined that even though the installation procedure requires this separation, the-inspection procedures for cable tray supports do not require an inspection of this attribute (CT RIt'
)
No. 170).
During a subsequent walkdown, Cygna has found two pipe
)
support base plates welded to embedded plates with less
)
than 12" required spacing between the edges of the 1
support base plates (per Referer 4).
This was not a j
~
CPSES inspection item at the timt af the Cygna review (Reference 5); however, the Brown te Root procedure was revised to include the proper checks for pipe supports i
-(Reference 6).
Since this affects all hardware 1
attached to embedded plates (HVAC, raceway, and pipe 1
supports), not just a single discipline, and since it was not an inspection item in other discipline j
procedures (per References 7 and 8), this item has generic implications (PS RIL No. 9).
B.
Spacing Requirements Between Embedded Plates and Concrete Anchors.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30 (Reference-13) provides spacing requirements between embedded plates Texas Utilities Generating Company r
r Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
L Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111lll1111111!!11111Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 a
L 7/21/87-Revision 0 -
)
Page 14 i
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review' Issues List L
and Hilti expansion anchors. During Cygna's cable tray support walkdowns, an. instance was noted where an embedded plate was located near an opening in a -
1 concrete wall. Several Hitti expansion anchors were installed within the opening, on the concrete surface-perpendicular to the surface with.the embedded plate, potentially violating the requirements' of 2323-SS-30 Cygna was unable to determine how the minimum spacing requirements would be applied to situations where the expansion anchor is; installed in a surf?ce perpendicular to the embedded plate (CT-RIL.No.17F).
~
Response
SWEC has developed a compr'hensive walkdown and evaluation-program to address the various spacing requirements and proximity violations of embedment plates, attachment, and-structural anchorages.
(See References.12, 17, and 18.):
The procedures for walkdowns and evaluations were made l
available to Cygna during the audits at SWEC's Boston office on June 8 through June 13, 1987
~
k atus:
Open.
Pending internal discussion by Cygna.
On June 8 through June 13, 1987, Cygna performed audits at SWEC's Boston office.
During the audits Cygna reviewed the documents provided by SWEC - CPE-FVM-CS-075 (Reference 17),
ECE 3.06-15 (Reference 18), and DBD-CS-015 (Reference 19).
SWEC has indicated that:
q o
Comprehensive attachments / anchorages minimum spacing requirements are provided in DBD-CS-015.
o Procedure ECE 3.06-15-is used to check existing violations and DCAs will be used for resolutions.
During the audits, Cygna requested clarification of the procedure on the identification of the various types of Texas Utilities Generating Company j
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L
l Ji A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lililllllllllllllillllllllllli Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 15 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List anchors (Richmond Insert, through bolt, civil anchor, grouted-in anchor, etc. ).
In addition, Cygna is aware of the fact that Welded i
Attachments to Embedded Strip Plates (minimum separation) has been reported to the NRC as a potentially reportable item under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e) by TUGC0 (Reference 11). An engineering evaluation is currently being performed by TUGCO.
t
-1 l
REYif Texas Utilities Generating Company 3'y l {'
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillllillllillllllllllllllllll Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
7/21/87' a
Revision 0.
Page 16-
' CIVIL-STRUCTURAL
. Review Issues List
'3 Thru-Bolts' and ~ Concrete Acceptability :
References:
1.
Communications Report between Rencher-(TUGCO) and.
Minichiello'-(Cygna). dated 3/30/84, Item 2.
l 2.
L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) 1etter.to N.H.JWilliams (Cygna)
~
dated 5/2/84
.L
.3 L.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO) letter to N.H.~ Williams (Cygna) f dated 6/8/84 item 9 and Attachment-D.
L 4
Stone & Webster's Pipe Stress.and Pipe Support Design.-
Criteria for CPSES Units 1 & 2, CPPP-7, ' Revision '2.
5 Transcript of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at
' )
~
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, datdd November 13, 1986.- On
. Resolution of Cygna concerns._
.I 6
Transcript. of meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at.
Cherry Hill, New Jersey,: dated November -14,1986 -- On 3
Resolution of Cygna concerns.
l 7.
Transcript-of meeting between TV Electric /Cygna/SWEC/
l Impe11/Ebasco.at Glen Rose,,- Texas, dated April 21, 1987.
y 8.
SWEC Project Procedure PP1210, Revision 0 (4/17/87) -
" Load Verification of Seismic Category I Structures" l-(with two (2) change notices).
9.
SWEC Project Procedure PP-073, Revision 1 (6/3/87)
" Reporting Attachment Load Information to the Engineering Support Group".
10 SWEC Design Basic Document DBD-CS-015, Revision 'l -
"The Qualification of Embedments in Concete".
Summary:
Cygna is concerned that the loads on the walls may not be acceptable.
Although Gibbs & Hill has walked down several
-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 4
3 lilllillllllllllllllllllllllli -
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No,'84056 - PRJ: 0460 L
-3
t v,
/
.j p
36
'b
& * [.
7/21/87-Revision.0 Page 17
- 4
.j u
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL-
^
Review Issues List.
o-
'i highly loaded areas per Reference. 3, there is' n'o written '
i procedure documenting the transmittal of-as-built loadsVon concrete structures.to the structural group.' Thus there is no assurance that each area, particular.ly near free edges, is' acceptable (PS RIL'No. 10).
?
Response
.SWEC has -indicated that-the issue'of Through-Bolt and' Concrete Acceptability is' being! addressed by thel n
Civil / Structural Action Plan _ (sheets 148 'and :.S-7 of.
~
Reference 5; Sheet 160 of Reference 6). ; Anchor bolt loads and through-bolt loads from pipe. supportsL are transmitted to the structural. discipline.
In the April 21,1987 meeting,LSWECindicate'dthat:this'
. issue would be addressed by the. Design; Basis Consolidation:
. Program which. included a Load Verification Program, via
~
Project. Procedure Number 210, for -all seismic Category I' structures.
(See' sheets 48 through 54.of-Reference 7.)'
Status:
Open. - Pending further ' internal discussion by: Cygna. On June 8Lthrough June 13,.1987,;Cygna-performed; audits at SWEC?s Boston office. During.the audits,' Cygna reviewed the relevant docume*.c' provided by SWEC - PP-210 (Reference-8),
PP-073l(Reference 9), and DBD-CS-015 (Reference 10).
7 SWEC indicated that the." load smear method" would be.used to q
evaluate the concrete element acceptability.
For a global check, when'the loads exceed'80% of the original design.
loads (i.e., based-on smeared load), SWEC would perform a refined evaluttion. For local check (i.e., punching shear,.
U moment, etc.), SWEC would perform a 100% local check for
-j heavy attachments or baseplate clusters. During the-audits, 1
Cygna requested clarifications on the following items:
i
- o A better definition of " Element" with well defined
-indication of boundary line (e.g., region where beam and column intersects). See Reference 8, Attachment PP-210-01.
l l
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
[
' l::
"l;;;;,,,,iiiiilHI Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
~ Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
_ _ _ -. _ _ _ -.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ = _ - - - - _ _ -
7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 18 0:,VIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List o
To indicate civil anchors and grouted-in anchors are included (Reference 8, Section 6.2).
o.
Loads reported are combined loads (unfactored), but Civil / Structural uses factored loads in design (Reference 9).
i l
o The computation of the effective projected stress area for thru-bolt group. The interior rectangular area defined by the outermost corners of the perimeter bearing plates (i.e., when individual bearing plates are used) shall be deducted from the overall project
. area of the thru-bolt group.
Cygna will further update this RIL after internal discussion.
l
- l..
l l
t.
l
. Texas Utilities Generating Company 3'y l f Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lllllllllll1ll1111lll111111111 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
]
y c
,,p t
C.
F,.If
' it
'l 7/21/87-Revision 0.
Page'19'
. CIVIL-STRUCTURAL' Review Issues List 4.
Embedded Plate: Design
References:
-1.
Communication _ Report between Rencher (TUGCO) and Minichiello- (Cygna)' dated.3/22/84, Item 1.
w 2.
't.M. Poppelwell (TUGCO)L1etter to N.H. Williams (Cygna)~
l dated 14/19/84, Page;11, Item 1.
3.-
Gibbs a' Hill Specification 2323-MS-46A,' Revision 5, Section 3, Appendix 9, " Specification 2323-SS. Structural Embedmentsi.
4.
CygnaL Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01,- Revisioin 0,.
y
~
- Appendix' J, General Note 13..
5.-
. Stone-and. Webster's _ Pipe Stress and Pipe: Support Design Criteria for CPSES. Units.1' & 2, CPPP-7, Revision:2..
6 Transcript of meeting between.SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna) at Cherry Hill,;New Jersey, dated. November 13,1986 ' On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
7.
Communications Report between J. Russ, C. Wong (Cygna);
.0. Lowe, B. Crowe (TV Electric) and ;N. Kennedy,' et' al '
u
'^
(SWEC), dated April. 1, 1987,.2:00~ p.m..(Glen. Rose,
-Texas)
. CIVIL / Structural Audit :- Embedded Plates and Richmond. Inserts,-Job 84056.
8.
.N.H.- Williams - (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), -
j
" Cable Tray Support: Review Questions,".84056.041, dated
. February '12,1985, Attachment A, question 1.
9.
Communications Report between N.: Williams, J. Russ, W.
Horstman (Cygna); R. Kissinger, T. Keiss (TUGCO);;and q
B. Bhujang, P. Huang, S. Chang (Gibbs & Hill) dated
.l September 15, 1984.
J l
Texas Utilities. Generating Company Coma'nche Peak Steam Electric' Station lilillililli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Lililllilli i Job No'. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 l'
'7/21/87'
. Revision 0:
Page 20 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List 10.
Communications Report.between M. Warner (TUGCO)-and N..
Wiliams, J. Minichiello, J. Russ (Cygna) dated February:
~
27, 1985 11.
Brown & Root Installation. Procedure CCP-45, " Permanent and Temporary Attachments to Weld Plates," Revision 1,.
8/18/80.
12.
Gibbs & Hill ' Specification 2323-SS-30, Appendix 4.
" Design Criteria For Embedded. Plate Strips," Revision
'1.
13.
- N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil '(T' GC0),
U
" Cable Tray / Conduit' Support Review Questions,"
84056.089,- dated October 21, 1985, 14
. Transcripts of,the Cable ~ Tray Hanger, Design Verification. Meeting between TV Electric, Cygna, Ebasco and Impell at the CPSES Site on January 26 and 27, 1987.
15.
Communications Report between'J. Russ, C. Wong (Cygna);
M. 01Lorenzo, S. Shah (SWEC); 8. Crowe (TU ~ Electric).
and R. Orr (Westinghouse) dated 3/31/87, 10:00 a.m..
(CPSES site) - Civil / Structural Audit - WCAP 10923 Embedded P1ates.. Job.'84056 16.
Communications Report between J. Russ, C..Wong' (Cygna)-
and M. Dilorenzo, T. Lynch (SWEC), dated. 3/30/87, 2:30 L
p.m. (CPSES site) - Civil / Structural Audit - Embedded Plates and Richmond Inserts. Job 84056.
17 Communications Report between J. Russ, C. Wong (Cygna);
N. Kennedy et al (SWEC), and B. Crowe (TV Electric), dated 4/1/87, 9:00 a.m. (CPSES site) -
Civil / Structural Audit - Embedded Plates and Richmond Inserts. Job. 84056.
j1 l-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases llll11ll11111111l l1ll11111 Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
'Jh o
.7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 21 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List Summary:'
A.
Prying Action on Nelson Studs Gibbs & Hill performed capacity calculations for cable tray support attachments to emLadded strip plates.
Cygna's review of these calculations indicates that the calculated capacities may not have considered the
.effect of prying. action on the' tension in the Nelson Studs (CT RIL No. 17A).
'B.
Stiffening Requirements for Moment Attachments
.In Paragraph 3.4.of Appendix 4 to Reference 3, Gibbs &
Hill requires that all attachments to embedded plates shall be' assumed to be." pin connections" (force.
transfer only). They further. state that moment connections to the embedment require stiffening.
Questions from Cygna's pipe support reviewers.and cable tray reviewers on the stiffening requirements for
. embedded plate moment connections elicited conflicting responses from TUGC0 personnel. The pipe support response indicated that attachments to embedded plates act as stiffeners for moment connections.(Reference 2),
while the cable ~ tray. support response indicated that any moment attachment must be stiffened or sufficiently analyzed.
(Reference 9.-),(PS RIL No. 26 & CT Ril No.
178)
'/_
experience j ihat core hore bits are intentionally supplied at a larger diameter than the nominal size to~ account for ] the. progressive reduction in bit diameter over its ' life. Thus, at the initial bit usage, the bit diameter will be larger than required for the bolt hole. It is this hole oversize which'causes the reduction in j expansion anchor capacity. In order to avoid any such strength reductions, careful control may be established by measuring the core bit i diameter or the hole diameter. Cygna has not observed any QC procedures which impose such control. i Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g[ g Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 18llllll11lll1111lll1111ill111 Job-No.-84056 - PRJ: 0460 i 7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 29 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL-Review Issues List i Additionally, Cygna did not observe any procedures - -l which require craft or QC to document which expansion i bolts were installed in diamond cored holes.
Response
A.
Impe11 provided a position paper (Reference 4)-
indicating that if, at'the time of expansion anchor installation, the minimum set torque can be achieved, the installation of Hilti expansion anchors in diamond cored holes will have no impact on the ultimate capacity of the anchor bolt.
Based on communications between Cygna and Hilti, Inc.
(Reference 5), Cygna believes that the use of diamond cored holes will increase the variability in the anchor bolt capacity and potentially result in inadequate bolt installations.
In a subsequent meeting with TU Electric (sheet 60 of Refere %e 6), SWEC was identified to be the lead party in co-operation with Impell for the resolution of this issue.
Status:
Open.
Pending further review of the summary information (to be provided by SWEC) on inspections of bolt installation (e.g., torque values).
i
)
i l
1 I
?MM{p Texas Utilities Generating Company J
+=:= = l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
Ill lilllilllillkill Independent Assessment Program - All Phases f
ll i
Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 l
l
r 7/21/87 Revision 0-o Page 30 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List' 8.
A110wables' for Hilti Anchors Having Edge Distance Less than 50
References:
1.
SWEC Project Memorandum No. 099 - A110wables 'for' Hilti Anchors Having Edge Distance Less than 50, (dated-8/20/86).
2.
Stone and Webster's Pipe Stress and Pipe Support Design Criteria for CPSES Units' 1 & 2 CPPP-7, Revision 2.
(Section 4.5) 3.
Transcript of' meeting between SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna at Glen
. Rose, Texas, dated Decemhe-15 4 16, 1986 - On Resolution of Cygna Concerns.
4.
SWEC Design Basis Document DBD-CS-015, Revision 1 -
"The Qualification of Embedments in Concrete".
5.
SWEC Calculation No. 1634_5/6-CS(B)-109, Revision 0 -
"The Qualification of Embedments in Concrete".
Sununary:
h the SWEC pipe. support requalification effort, Project i
Memorandum No. 099 provides a procedure to determine the l
Hilti Anchor bolt allowables when the concrete free edge distance is less than 5D but is greater than or equal to 3D or 1 1/2 inches. This procedure is acceptable for anchor bolts which are subject to predominantly tension loads.
4 Cygna' has requested clarification from SWEC to demonstrate
-l whether consideration has been given to situation where the Hilti anchor is subject to predominantly shear loads (PS RIL No. 42).
Response
During the SWEC/TUGC0/Cygna meeting (Reference 3) SWEC stated that the Hilti allowables are justifiable since the failure mode is similar to that of Nelson Studs.
SWEC provided Nelson stud test data to show that the bolt / stud shear capacity is adequate with concrete edge distance less j
than 50 Texas Utilities Generating Company e amu Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station j
_ g'y y Independent Assessment Program - All Phases j
ll1111111111111111111111111111Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
r.
7/21/87-Revision L O Page 31
. CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List Status:-
Open. Pending interna 1' review / discussion by Cygna. For the qualification of embedments in concrete (i.e., structural anchorages). SWEC has developed a comprehensive design i
criteria for allowable' loads and minimum spacing requirements.
- During the June 8 through June 13, 1987 audits at SWEC's Boston office, Cygna reviewed the criteria-(Reference 4) and the backup calculation (Reference 5). This new design criteria document adopts a minimum concrete edge distance of 2D (i.e., 2 times diameter) and uses a "5/3" power for the Hilti anchor bolt interaction equaiton. These new criteria ~
are different from those previous Hilti criteria adopted by SWEC (see References 1, 2, and.the Summary section above).
Cygna has informed SWEC that additional internal ~ discussion of this issue by Cygna is necessary.
i c
M
-Texas Utilities Generating Company i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lll111!!!!ll11111111lllll ll1 Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
____________.____________._____j
7/21/87-Revision 0 Page 32 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List 9
Seismic _ Category I support attached to Seismic Category II fire Wall.
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 0.
2.
Communication Report between B.K. Bhujang (Gibbs'&
Hill) and N. Williams, et al'. (Cygna) dated October 20, 1984 3..
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 1.
4
~N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review' Questions",
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
5.
Transcripts of the. Cable Tray Hanger Design Verification Meeting between TV Electric /Cygna/Ebasco 1
and Impell at the CPSES site on Janaury 26 and 27, 1987.
Summary:
Support No. 3136, located at elevation 790'-6" at the Auxiliary Building / Safeguards. Building boundary, is embedded in a fire wall.
In reviewing the design calculations for this support (Reference.1), Cygna noted several, concerns.
A list' of Cygna's questions was provided (Reference 2,
~
Attachment A) to Gibbs & Hill for their review.
One of the conce ns is that the ' original cable tray support is Seismic Category I, while the fire wall is seismic Category II. Justification for this conflict in' design classification' was not provided (CT RIL No. 22).
Response
During the discussions in Reference 5, Ebasco provide the following response:
Texas Utilities Generating Company j
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station gg Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111ll11111lll1ll1111111llfllll Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 I
J
= _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
i 7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 33 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List.
Isolated cases of cable tray hangers supported from Catgory II structure are identified and evaluated on1a case-by-case basis. Seismic Category II walls will be
. qualified by the SWEC Civil Structural Corrective Action Program.
Status:
Open.
Peding review of SWEC's apprcach in the treatment of Category II walls with Seismic Category I supports attached in the Civil / Structural Action Plan.
I l
i l
1 l
l l
l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
l Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111lll1111111111111lll! !!I Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
)
f,'
7/21/87 Revision 0 l
Page 34 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List
- 10. ' Proximity Violations Between Cable Tray Sappor_ts and other Components, i
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to.J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.026, dated August 23, 1984 2.
Brown & Root Instruction ~ QI-QAP-11.2-28, " Fabrication,-
Installation Inspection'of ASME Component Supports, 3
Class 1, 2 and 3," Revision 29.
3.
TU Electric, CPSES, " Generic Issues Report Evaluation and Resolution of Generic Technical Issues for Cable Tray Hangerc", Revision 1.
4.
Transcripts of Cable Tray Hanger Design Verification Meeting between TV Electric /Cygna/Ebasco/Impell held at the CPSES site on' January 26 and 27,1987.
Sunnary:
Cygna performed walkdown inspections on 49 of the 92-supports within the. review scope.
Proximity. violations between cable tray supports' and other components were checked (CT RIL No. 20K).
l As a criteria for clearance between cable tray supports and other non-attached components, Cygna used a minimum of 1-inc.h separation. This' was based on the inspection' criteria for pipe supports (Reference 2), since no separation criteria was specified in the cable tray installation inspection instruction. The separation violations found are the following:
Support No.
Violation Description 202 1/2" clearance between beam and insulation on pipe passing through support 299 Brace and hanger near top of support in contact with Thermo-Lag on conduits Texas Utilities Generating Company 4{
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l illlillllililill lillil lll Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 f
u____
}
7/21/87 Revision 0 Page 35 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List 332 0" clearance from CCW heat exchanger 408 1/2" clearance between hanger and pipe passing through support,'0" clearance from CCW heat exchanger 605 1/8" clearance between end of beam and an HVAC duct I
758 1/8" clearance between brace and pipe running parallel to support frame 765, 766, 767 1" clearance between braces and pipe passing through support 2986 Hangers are in contact with Thermo-lag on an adjacent cable tray-l 3026 Thermo-lag on support beam is in contact j
with a pipe.
]
)
6654 West end of bottom beam is in contact with a pipe.
3016 Bottom beam is in contact with l
insulation on a pipe 3022 5/8" clearance between bottom beam and insulation on a pipe 13131 Fire protection on the cable tray is in contact with the rear bracket of the strut for a pipe support 1
i t
Texas Utilities Generating Company l.
gy Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station lilllllililllllllllillllilll!!
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460
~
e-7/21/87 i
L Revision 0 j.
Page 36 1
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL Review Issues List
^
Response:-
SWEC has developed procedures / criteria to address ~the issue of proximity violations between cable tray systems and other.
components.
i Status:
Open. Pending review of the Civil / Structural Action Plan and proximity criteria.
l, s
i I
Y%$dE Texas Utilities Generating Company
. = - =
Coma'nche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
' l 11111111 lillililillliti Job No. 84056 - PRJ: 0460 1
)