ML20236P598
| ML20236P598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1987 |
| From: | Beck J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236P529 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711180061 | |
| Download: ML20236P598 (69) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - -
g , .
g 4
- f .
- g. , +,
l( 'l
!' \_ _1
- COMANCHE PEAK' RESPONSE' TEAM 1
RESULTS REFORT~ ,
ISAP: -I.c
Title:
Train C Conduit and. Supports 5-
REVISION l'
)
1 .
I( .
a lC 76 6%
L Issue Coo dinator '
Date f-rem Team Leader N '
V Date '
ic heln O. /o /2-1lt* ?
l '- Jot (p'W. Beck, Chairman CPRT-SRT Date l'
8711180061 871109 PDR A ADOCK 05000445' -
l Rsvision:
l 1 j Pzgs 1 of 68 j
, ~1 RESULTS REPORT
\ ]
l ;% /
ISAP I.c l
Train C Conduit and Supports ,
{
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY NRC (Reference 9.1)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Technical Review Team (TRT) examined the non-safety-related conduit support installation in selected seismic Category I areas of the plant. The support installation for non-safety-related conduit that is less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter was inconsistent with seismic requirements, and no evidence could be found that substantiated the adequacy of the installation for non-safety-related conduit of any size. According to Regulatory Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2) and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 (Reference 9.3). the seismic Category II and non-seismic items should be designed in such a way'that their failure would not adversely affect the function of safety-related j components or cause injury to occupants of the control room, l 2,0 ACTION IDENTIFIED BY NRC
.x The NRC (Reference 9.1) specified that the following action should (v[ be taken on the Train C conduit (non-safety-related) and supports issue.
"Accordingly, TUEC shall propose a program that assures the adequacy of the seismic support system installation for a non-safety-related conduit in all seismic Category I areas of !
the plant as follows:
- 1. Provide the results of seismic analysis which demonstrates that all non-safety-related conduit and their support systems, satisfy the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.29 and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8.
- 2. Verify that non-safety-related conduit less than or
(
equal to 2 inches in diameter, not installed in i accordance with the requ1rements of Regulatory Guide 1.29, satisfy applicable design requirements."
ISAP I.c was formerly titled " Electrical Conduit Supports". The title has been changed to reflect the fact that ISAP I.c pertains only to non-safety-related conduit. Safety-related conduit and supports are being addressed in Discipline-Specific Action Plan A VIII.
b
Rsvisiont. 1 Page 2 of 68
- ; RESULTS REPORT v
ISAP I.c.
(Cont'd) ,
3.0 BACKGROUND
Seismic requirements for non-Category I structures are defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2), NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.7.2 (Reference 9.4), and CPSES FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 '
(Reference 9.3). The seismic qualification acceptance criteria are verification that Train C conduit supports and anchorages will maintain their structural integrity or, assuming that failure occurs.. verification that they will not adversely affect the function of safety-related components or cause injury to occupants of the control room. Alternatively, passive seismic restraints (e.g., aircraft cable restraints) can be installed to prevent collapse in the event of support failure and therefore preclude unacceptable interactions.
For Unit 1 and common areas, the seismic adequacy of Train C hardware was originally addressed by the Project through the CPSES Damage Study Program (Reference 9.5). This program included an assessment of potential seismic interactions between non-seismic commodities and safety-related commodities in seismic Category I
/N buildings. The assessment included Train C conduit runs as source
\_ ) commodities where conduit diameters were greater than 2 inches.
The purpose of the Damage Study Program was to demonstrate that the failure of adjacent non-seismic items due to a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) would not impair the function of seismic Category I systems and components or affect the safety of control room operators, as defined in Positions C.1.a through C.1.q of Regulatory Guide 1.29 and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8. The Damage Study, l which was performed in 1983, involved numerous walkdowns to evaluate all potential interactions to the acceptance criteria developed for the study. Methods for resolution of potential interactions consisted of analysis, evaluation, use of barriers, application of administrative controls, or addition of seismic supports or restraints (e.g., aircraft cable). Each of these i activities included pertinent requirements of the CPSES QA program.
Maintenance of the Damage Study Program was performed in accordance with Reference 9.6.
For Unit 2, Train C conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter has been designed for seismic loading to the same criteria as Train A &
B (safety-related) conduit. Thus, it was not necessary to consider these Train C conduit runs as potential source commodities in Unit 2.
/%
? $
\_/
[ RIvision 1 Page'3 of 68
. /~'T RESULTS REPORT
\ \ ,)
IS AP I.c (Cont'd)
3.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
For both Units 1 and 2 and common areas, the support of conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter was assumed to be adequate. This assumption was based upon consideration of the inherent capacity of the anchorage and supports for these relatively lightly loaded installations. Uncontrolled calculations were generated in support of this assumption. Accordingly, conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter was not considered in the Damage Study Program.
An' inspection of the Train C conduit system was conducted as part of the TRT activity in 1984. The inspection identified a concern (TRT Issue 1.c) that the support installation for non-safety-related conduit may be unsatisfactory. More specifically, the NRC stated in its finding that the support installation for the non-safety-related' conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter was inconsistent with seismic requirements and that no evidence could be found that substantiated the adequacy of the installation of Train C 7-- conduit of any size with respect to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2) and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8
(\--) (Reference 9.3).
In response to TRT Issue I.c the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) developed Issue-Specific Action Plan (ISAP) I.c to address this concern and to assure compliance with regulatory requirements and FSAR commitments. ISAP 1.c specifically addressed the issue-related to Train C conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter. The issue regarding the lack of demonstrated evidence of the adequacy of the installation of conduit greater than 2 inches
~
in diameter was referred to ISAP II.d (Reference 9.7), which examined the adequacy of the Damage Study Program (Reference 9.5),
andtothecorrectiveaegionprogramforsafety-relatedconduitand supports (Reference 9.8)
ISAP I.c originally specified that the seismic analysis of a sample of 2-inch-diameter-and-less conduit runs be performed to confirm the original assumption af restraint adequacy. Two samples were selected. The first sample was selected to obtain a distribution Certain Unit 1 and common and all Unit 2 Train C conduit larger than 2 inches in diameter have been designed for seismic loading to the same criteria as safety-related (Train A & B) conduit. The
,f-mg balance of the Train C conduit larger than 2 inches in diameter is
() addressed under ISAP II.d.
i Revision: l' i
, Paga 4 of 68 l' L ,
l
, ['7 RESULTS REPORT !
M ISAP I.c I (Cont'd)
3.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) ;
l of support types that would be statistica11y' representative'of f supports throughout the plant. The second sample was selected based on'an engineering criterion that would identify' supports'more susceptible to seismic excitation. Since the conduit had been field run, isometric drawings and support' details were generally not available. Thus, it was necessary to develop as-built J information.for the sample conduit runs to'be design verified.
The'firstcsample consisted of 126 conduit runs selected from the ;
population of approximately 3,738 runs of 1-1/2 and 2 inch diameter conduit using a table of random numbers, thus providing an equal chance that any single conduit'run might be selected, regardless of its identity, physical attributes or quality. Runs so selected that were found in the field to be inaccessible for as-builting, were excluded from the sample for reasons of practicality.
1 The'second sample of 131 conduit runs was selected for evaluation
-l based upon engineering parameters such as conduit size, span j g length, number of supports, type of supports, etc. The intent of
/
this selection was to define a subset of the populstion of conduit ]
\- .
runs that might exhibit more extreme behavior in a seismic event.
The analyses of the sample conduit runs, which were performed by
.Gibbs & Hill, Inc., indicated that there was an approximate 10 j percent failure rate of the supports in the sample (Reference 9.9). i Subsequent to this study, Gibbs & Hill and Impe11 jointly performed )
a second sampling study using a refined set of acceptance criteria. I This study resulted in a failure rate of 1.8 percent. Although it '
might have been possible to demonstrate seismic adequacy with a more rigorous analysis approach (e.g., non-linear analyses), TU Electric elected to resolve the concern through a 100% seismic qualification program.
The seismic qualification program was developed and implemented by Impe11 Corporation. The third party evaluated the qualification program methodology. This qualification program and the third-party evaluation are presented in the subsequent sections of this' report.
l 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN l
The original ISAP I.c provided for the analysis of sample conduit {
runs to verify the adequacy of the population of Train C conduit l p less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter. As discussed in j Section 3.0 above, the results of the sample analysis prompted TU '
Electric to implement a comprehensive seismic qualification program I
1 i _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___
Revision: 1 Page 5 of 68
() RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) that encompassed 100% of the Train C conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter. Therefore, ISAP I.c was modified consistent t
with the change in program direction. The issue regarding Train C l
l' conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter continued to be referred to ISAP II.d.
l 4.1 Scope and Methodology The objective of ISAP I.c was to address the actions specified by the NRC by demonstrating that Train C conduit is in compliance with the seismic requirements defined in Regulatory Guide 1,29 (Reference 9.2) and CPSES FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 (Reference 9.3). The CPRT tasks that were implemented to achieve this objective are:
The Damage Study Program for Unit 1 and common areas was reviewed by the third party in ISAP II.d. Since Train C conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter was included in the Damage Study Program, this third-party O review provided the documented basis needed to assure that Train C conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter in Unit 1 and common areas satisfies the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.29 and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8. Train C conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter in Unit 2 is being seismically qualified using the same criteria as for Train A & B conduit, thus meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29 and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8.
A multi-level screening process was used to verify the seismic adequacy of Train C conduit supports with conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter.
The criteria employed in this process are based on parametric studies, tests of generic support types, and dynamic analyses of representative supports. Other supports were qualified by specific analyses. The remaining supports that could not be qualified by inspection or by engineering analyses are being structurally modified.
4.1.1 Train C Conduit Greater Than 2 Inches in Diameter The Damage Study Program evaluated all Train C conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter located in seismic Category I areas in Unit 1 and common (approximately 500 runs). Approximately one-half of these runs were
i Rsvision: ;Page 6 of 68
l' > <
b
}
f_-
RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 1 1
~
4.0.'CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)-
initially identified as having unacceptable interactions'with safety-related items. The majority of these interactions (about 2/3) were resolved by the-
. addition of-seismic restraints. The remainder were resolved by analyses and evaluations.
Since the Damage Study Program utilized the same basic approach to evaluate interactions involving Train'C conduit,as was done for other non-seismic source commodities, a separate evaluation for Train'C: conduit greater than 2 inches is not necessary. The results of the third-party review of the Damage Study Program is included in the ISAP II.d Results Report (Reference 9.10).
4.1.2 Train.C Conduit Less Than or Equal to'2 Inches'in Diameter X A multi-level screening process, referred to as the
- % }. Train C conduit seismic qualification program, has been implemented to verify the' adequacy of all. Train C conduit supports for conduit 2 inches and less in diameter. A plant walkdown of all conduit and junction box supports for such conduit is being conducted as an integral part of this process.
The multi-level screening process was based on the alternative approaches for demonstrating seismic adequacy of non-safety-related conduit as described in Section 3.0:
Verification that Train C conduit and supports and anchorages will maintain their structural integrity; Assuming that failure occurs, verification that Train C hardware will not adversely affect the function of safety-related components or cause injury to plant personnel; Seismic design of the Train C conduit support system or use of passive seismic restraints (e.g., aircraft cable) to prevent collapse in the event of support failure and therefore (q), preclude unacceptable interactions.
p a Y^ > -
Rsvision: 1 Page.7 of 68-i r/""$ RESULTS REPORT
~V.
, 'ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRI ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)
The three approaches were translated into the: criteria I for the different screen levels. The multi-level screening process, including rework, options, is shown schematically in Figure 4-1. Each of the screen levels is briefly described below:
Level 1 - Lightly Loaded Supports: Conduit and. junction box supports meeting predefined criteria for lightly loaded supports.: Such-
. supports'are to be qualified by engineers during the walkdown and require no further engineering evaluation.
Level 2 - Good Supports: Support types having significant-capacity and determined to have adequate strength for seismic loading provided certain limitations are' met. These l'
supports are to be qualified by engineers during the walkdowns and require no further
[V ') ' engineering evaluations.
Level 3 - No Interaction Potential: Supports on conduit runs that would not interact with safety-related features in the event of failure. Such supports are to be. identified by engineering walkdown. (Used in conjunction with Screen Level 6.)
Level 4 - Seismic Load versus capacity Check:
Check of predetermined support capacities against seismic loads determined in the field. .This involves simple hand calculations. J Level 5 - Seismic Analysis: Engineering analysis of conduit runs and associated supports. These analyses will consist of hand calculationsLor computer analyses and j will utilize as-built information obtained by '
engineering walkdown.
Level 6 - Impact Analysis: Evaluation of the acceptability of impacts due to falling or swinging conduit runs on safety-related features. These evaluations are to be
( s)' conducted during the walkdowns.
I w"
u
- 1-Revision: 1-dif Page 8 of 68 j "
l
/' (g RESULTS REPORT
- s
.ISAP I.c-(Cont'd)
.4.0: CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)
Level 7 - Safe Shutdown Analysis: In situations where it is determined that a-particular safety-related feature is not needed for safe shutdown of the plant, any Train C conduit support whose failure could have an adverse effect on this safety-related feature is considered to be acceptable.
Level 8 - Seismic Restraint Capacity Check:
Check of existing seismic restraints (also
.known as aircraft cable restraints) that had j been previously designed and installed for Train C conduit greater than 2 inches in 1 diameter and non-safety-related piping to
- m. assure that they will sustain incremental
' loads due to postulated failures of inch-diameter-and-less conduit runs.
f-~ .
Only Screen Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been used j
,y
' to date in the seismic qualification program. Screen Levels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been used in the evaluation of conduit supports, and Screen Levels 1, 2, and 3 have been used in the evaluation of junction boxes. Screen Levels 7 and 8 have not been used.
Room closecut procedures were developed by Impell to assure that all supports in a given room were properly identified, qualified, and documented. Room closecuts were utilized once all supports had been qualified by appropriate seismic screening.
For supports that did not meet one of the eight levels of the screening criteria, three rework options were l 4
available:
- structurally modify the support.
- add seismic restraint cable (aircraft cable),
or reroute the conduit.
I Impell established a preventive action plan to preclude !
seismic adequacy concerns in future installations of r Train C conduit. The plan provided for the development T
of procedures to control support drawing preparation, installation, and engineering inspection.
>1 R2 vision: -1.
Page 9'of 68
/ RESULTS REPORT-u]- ~ k -
ISAP I.c
. (Cont 'd)'
q 4.0' CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.2 Third-Party Review i
The third party overviewed the procedures and' methodology ;
-developed by the Project for performing the activities described in Section 4.1. This Results Report documents the i results.and conclusions of the third-party overview.with respect to both the adequacy of the Train C conduit' support qualification program methodology and the resolution of external source-issues. The scope of the third party effort
. included the following activities:
i External Source Issues Identification - The third party f identified, reviewed, and tracked external source i issues that were raised regarding the original Gibbs 6 {
Hill conduit / support design. This activity consisted essentially of examining the Train A'& B
'(safety-related) conduit issues to determine which issues might potentially be applicable to Train C j
i conduit 2 inches and less in diameter. The objective !
was to provide reasonable assurance that external i b
source concerns regarding the: original design were )
fully identified, even if the external concerns did not i specifically refer to Train C conduit. I
.I Design Criteria / Commitments Identification - The third party identified the design criteria and' commitments that' govern the design of. Train C conduit supports for CPSES. The primary commitment sources included the FSAR (Reference 9.3), NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2), NRC. Standard Review Plan 3.7.2 (Reference 9.4), and the AISC and AISI Specifications (References 9.11 and 9.12). These criteria were used as the acceptance criteria for the review of specific program areas.
Walkdown Procedures Review - The third party reviewed the procedures for the walkdown program performed by Impe11. This review was performed to provide reasonable assurance that the procedures provided adequate instructions for field qualification or for obtaining accurate and sufficient design attribute information for qualification by analysis.
l Support Qualification Procedures Review - The third party reviewed the procedures developed by Impell for 3 the seismic qualification of supports for Train C i
l
.___m._____._ __-
R:vicion: 1 Page 10 of 68 RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) ;
conduit 2 inches and less in diameter. These reviews were performed to provide reasonable assurance that the seismic analysis procedures were in compliance with the committed CPSES design criteria.
Special Studies Review - The third party reviewed special studies performed by Impell as a basis for technical methods and assumptions included in their procedures or for resolution of external source issues.
These reviews were performed for the same purpose as the procedure reviews.
Test Programs Review - The third party reviewed test specifications, procedures, and results for i conduit / supports tests that were performed by the Project as a basis for Impell's procedures or the resolution of external source issues. These teviews were performed to provide reasonable assurance that the 7 tests were properly specified and performed in
', accordance with appropriate testing standards, and that the results were properly interpreted and used.
l Issue Resolution Review - The third party reviewed the methodologies used by Impell in the resolution of the external source issues. The review included special i studies, test results, and portions of procedures that were related to the specific issues. This review was 1 performed to provide reasonable assurance that the resolution methodologies used by Impell adequately address all identified issues.
]
This scope included the review of the items noted above for both Units 1 and 2. The third party did not complete reviews l for Screen Levels 7 and 8 because they have not been used to i date in the Train C conduit support qualification program.
The review of preventive action plan procedures was also not j vithin the scope of the third-party review. ;
Impell's implementation of the seismic qualification program (specifically, walkdowns and analysis calculations) and future 2 development, revision or use of procedures not reviewed by the f third party will be overviewed by the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program.
r i , j
)
. ./ i
____________a
Revision: 1 Page 11 of 68 z.s j
RESULTS REPORT
' Q,J '
ISAP I.c (Cont'd)'
4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.3 Participants' Roles and Responsibilities The organizations and personnel that participated in this effort are listed below with their respective work scope.
4.3.1 TUCCO Nuclear Engineering (TNE) Civil / Structural-Discipline 4.3.1.1 Scope (under original ISAP I.c)
Sample selection As-built documentation Damage analysis Assistance in overall evaluation
,-) 4.3.1.2 Personnel Mr. R. Hooton TNE Civil / Structural
- Discipline Supervisor
- Mr. T. Wright Civil Engineer j.
Mr. D. West Field Damage Study Group Supervisor i l;
4.3.2 Gibbs & Hill, Inc. (under original ISAP I.c; did not l j participate in modified action plan activities) 4.3.2.1 Scope
- Seismic qualification methodology Design review 4.3.2.2 Personnel Mr. J. Jan Chief Structural !
Engineer l
J Mr. P. Huang Principal Structural l
,% Engineer
,i ) f
\j 4 i
Mr. W. Thonguthai Senior Engineer 1
R2 vision:- 1 Page 12 of 68 i-(~Y
[ d.
L.
I' RESULTS REPORT ISAP I'.c (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd).
'4.3.3 _Impell Corporation L.
4.3.3.1- Scope (under mcdified ISAP I.c)
Seismic qualification methodology Seismic, qualification implementation
- Specification of rework 4.3.3.2 Personnel Mr. R. Grubb Site Manager Mr. K. Warapius Project Manager Mr. M. Manrique Project Engineer, Office-
. Dr. T. Desmond Project Engineer, Site 4.3.4 Third-Party Activities 4.3.4.1 Scope-External Source Issues Identification.
Design' Criteria / Commitments Identification.
- Walkdown Procedures Review, Support Qualification Procedures Review, Special Studies Review, Test Programs Review, Issue Resolution Review, and
- Preparation of Results Report.
p.
.h
Revision: 1 Pega 13 of 68
./ " ; RESULTS REPORT 4
' .)i -
~
ISAP I.c (Cont'd).
4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.3.4.2 Personnel Mr. H. A. Levin TENERA CPRT Civil / Structural' Review Team Leader
- Mr. J. Miller TENERA, TRT Issues Manager Dr. C. Mortgat TENERA, TRT lasue Coordinator
- Dr. D. J. Nyman TENERA TRT Group Leader
- Dr. F. A. Webster JSA Associates (CPRT Statistics Advisor) s
- i 4.4 Personnel Qualification Requirements
%)
4 The third-party participants in the implementation of this Action Plan met the personnel qualification and objectivity requirements of the CPRT Program Plan and its implementing procedures.
Other participants were qualified to the requirements of the CPSES Quality Assurance Program or to the specific requirements of the CPRT Program Plan. Activities performed by other than third-party personnel were governed by the applicable provisions of Section III.K, " Assurance of CPRT Program Quality", of the CPRT Program Plan.
4.5 Procedures Work performed by the third party in this ISAP was conducted in accordance with applicable CPRT work instructions (Reference 9.13).
4.6 Standards / Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for non-safety-related conduit are compliance with FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 (Reference 9.3), NRC l Regulatory Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2), and referenced industry l
<- s codes and standards. l
(.,
i I
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - )
r -l
-1 u
3:
Revision: 'l. f Pega'14 of 68-J J/7 RESULTS REPORT g a ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 3 5.0' IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS-This section of the report describes the third party. activities =
performed in the. overview of the Project's seismic qualification of_ j
-Train C conduit supports in the areas of methodology development (
and external source issue resolution. These activities consisted j
.g' of the following: J
- External Source Issues Identification.
' Design Criteria / Commitments Identification, L
Walkdown Procedures Review; b
Support Qualification Procedures' Review, i
Special' Studies Review,- 1
- T6st Programs Review, and Issue Resolution Review.
O These activities were performed to assess the overall adequacy of l .the Project's seismic qualification methodology and the approach for resolution of specific external source issues. I A flow chart of the activities performed by the third party is 'k provided-in Figure 5-1. Section 5.1 describes the review methods and Section 5.2 provides the results for each of the overview act1vities. Section 5.2.7 contains a discussion of individual external source issues, the Project's resolution methodology, and the results of the third party's evaluation.
5.1 Review Methodology The third-party review methodology for the activities noted '
above is described separately in the following subsections.
5.1.1 External Source Issues Identification 1
As discussed above, a single generic issue was !
identified by the TRT in its examination of the non-safety-related conduit support installation in
.)
1 selected seismic Category I areas of the plant. The l TRT concluded that installation for non-safety-related conduit that are less than or equal to 2 inches in A diameter was inconsistent with seismic requirements Q (Reference 9.1) and that no evidence could be found
.4, Rsvision: l' j
Pags 15 of;68 H
(,
f ' /"N . RESULTS REPORT-
! ! )
M ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
'5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF' ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION 0F RESULTS (Cont'd) that substantiated the adequacy of the installation with respect to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2) and FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 (Reference 9.3).
The selection and review of external source documents,'
including preparation of external source DIRs for the i Civil / Structural discipline, was performed within the !
scope of the Design Adequacy Program..specifically Discipline Specific Action Plan (DSAP) VIII, for Train A & B conduit and supports (Reference 9.14). The Train A 6 B issues were then examined for potential applicability to Train C conduit. Those issues identified as potentially applicable were assessed by the third party.
5.1.2 Design Criteria / Commitments Identification fy This third-party review activity was. conducted to
( ). identify the design criteria and commitments that are *
'- ' . applicable to CPSES Train C conduit supports. The criteria and commitments for Train C conduit supports were identified ~from reviews of-the FSAR, applicable Regulatory Guides,'and referenced industry. codes and standards. These criteria and commitments provided the acceptance criteria for all reviews of Project procedures and supporting documents.
5.1.3 Walkdown Procedures Review Walkdowns are being conducted for all Train C conduit runs 2 inches and less in diameter, either to perform seismic qualification directly or to assure the accuracy of design drawings used for seismic qualification. This activity was undertaken by the Project since the Train C l
conduit was field run and no as-built documentation was 1 available. The walkdowns are being performed by Impe11 )
for both Units 1 and 2. I For Screen Levels 1, 2, and 4 (see Section 4.1.2), the walkdowns are being performed to qualify the support based on its type, geometry and loading. For Screen i Level 5 a detailed as-built of the system geometry is I being developed in order to perform a detailed !
.h~'y engineering evaluation of the conduit supports. For
-(,,) Screen Levels 3 and 6, the walkdown provides the basis for acceptance or rejection of interaction analysis.
I
i
[ Revision: 1 j Page 16 of 68 j l
I [)' RESULTS REPORT l Q ,)
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) i 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 1 In all cases the walkdowns are being performed to {
examine and document the attributes considered j important to assess the appropriate screen level. The end product of the Project's effort is documentation to {
support or confirm the seismic qualification of specific tupports under the selected screen level.
The third-party review of this Project activity included the review of all generic Impe11 valkdown procedures and selected screen level qualification procedures. The third-party review was documented using review memoranda. The acceptance criteria for procedure reviews were defined based on the third party's assessment of which physical attributes are important to ,
qualification. l Any apparent discrepancies noted in the course of the walkdown procedures reviews were documented by Discrepancy / Issue Resolution (DIR) Reports and n)
' communicated to the Project. The DIRs were generally resolved by revision to the procedures or provision of additional justification. Resolution of these items was confirmed by the third party.
5.1.4 Support Qualification Procedures Review Screen Level 5 provides for qualification of supports i through analysis of conduit configurations. Impe11 developed procedures to define and control the seismic qualification process, the interfaces, and the technical methods employed.
In certain cases it was not possible to qualify supports for Train C conduit 2 inches and less in diameter by the screening procese. For such cases.
Impell developed procedures to control the design of required modifications, i.e., rework.
The third-party review of specific procedures was documented using review memoranda. In general, the acceptance criteria for third-party review were design !
attributes judged by the third party to be important to {
qualification and supplemental criteria imposed by the special studies that served as the basis of procedural j
(~T methods. The review of these special studies is l C) described in Section 5.1.5 below. {
1
~
]
R2 vision: 1 Page 17.of 68 i
,. y RESULTS REPORT 1
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) :
a 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION'0F ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
)
In conjunction with the review of specific procedures',
the third party reviewed the overall program R methodology, which defines project organization, project controls and documentation requirements. This was done in a qualitative manner and documented in l i
review memoranda. The purpose of this review was to .j assess the ability of Impe11 to perform effectively '{
with the level of detail provided in their procedures. !
As noted'in Section 4.2, the third party did not ~
complete reviews for Screen Levels 7 and 8 because they !
have not been used to date in the support qualification i program. The review of preventive action plan procedures was~also not within the scope of the ]j third-party review.
Any apparent discrepancies noted in the course of the procedures reviews were documented by DIRs and p transmitted to the Project. The DIRs were generally
-i'^ f resolved by modifications to the procedures or provision of additional information. Resolution was I confirmed by the third party.
5.1.5 Special Studies Review i
Impell performed special studies to support the -
development of criteria and procedures for the various l screen levels. Most of these studies provide a' basis for the technical methods and assumptions included'in the screen level instructions. Some studies were performed for the resolution of specific Train C-related issues. Other studies were also performed for items that did not directly relcte to procedures or issues.
1 Most of the special studies performed by Impell were reviewed by the third party. The selection of special studies for review was based on their respective significance to the qualification program. In effect, all special studies that were judged to provide a 1
necessary basis for procedural methods and resolution j J of issues were selected for review, 1 !
Most of the special studies selected for third-party
-C' '
evaluation were reviewed completely. Others were reviewed in a manner that provided a detailed
~
Rsvision: 1 Page 18 of 68 G RESULTS REPORT
(
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) I assessment of specific attributes judged by the reviewer to be of primary importance with a scan of the remaining information. All reviews were documented in review memoranda in accordance with Reference 9.13.
These review memoranda included a description of the method and extent of the review performed.
In general, the acceptance criteria for third-party reviews were developed on a case-by-case basis for each !
respective review and consisted of the applicable portions of the seismic qualification criteria 3
described in Section 5.1.2 above. The special studies '
were evaluated for compliance with these criteria, use of accepted engineering approaches, verification of assumptions, and technical and numerical accuracy.
Any apparent discrepancies noted in the course of the special studies reviews were documented by DIRs and g communicated to the Project. The DIRs were generally resolved by revision to the special studies and (V i procedures or the provision of additional justification. Resolution of these items was confirmed by third-party review.
5.1.6 Test Programs Review !
i A series of test programs were performed by Impell in support of the Train C qualification program. These tests were performed for the following reasons:
to resolve external source issues; and to provide information and data required for specific hardware component qualification.
)
Test programs implemented to resolve specific issues l included those performed to justify the safety factor used for Hilti Kwik bolts and to justify the damping value used in Train C analysis.
A significant portion of the Train C support population i is constructed of Unistrut components and clamps.
Since insufficient data was available to determine (3 realistic support capacities, several tests were !
() conducted to provide data required for specific {
component qualification, j
r -
s
. RS,vieion: - 1 Page 19 of 68' fN RESULTS' REPORT.
}] ISAP I.c (Cont'd)-
(5.b IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN'AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
~
The tests were performed by Anco Engineers, Inc. (ANCC).
and Corporate Consulting and Development Company,-Ltd.
(CCL) in accordance with the requirements specified by-Impell. The tests performed by these.two testing
-laboratories were as follows:
ANCO Dynamic tests of conduit systems, Scatic and cyclic testing of Unistrut components, CCL Static testing of Unistrut components and threaded rod coupler nuts,.
x_ -
Static and cyclic testing of Hilti Kwik bolts and Unistrut moment connections, (V) -
Static testing of beam clamps and Unistrut hangers, Tensile and shear strength testing of Hilti Kwik bolts for conduit supports.
.In all cases, the respective organizations performing the testing developed their. test plans from.the test i specifications, conducted the tests, and produced test reports. The test results were incorporated either ,
directly or indirectly through special studies by '
Impell into their procedures for seismic qualification. j The third-party review of the test program included the {
review of the test specifications, test procedures, and J test reports for most'of the programs within the scope of review noted above. .These. third-party reviews were documented using review memoranda.
The test specifications and test procedures were reviewed to verify their ability to achieve the test objectives and their compliance with standard industry
, testing specifications and requirements. _ .
\g/
1 l
l
.n . _ f
.- ~ --
W ff
/ %, ,[#c%y
[ ~ Ql %
+ , e '
Rsvisions" 1?
- j. - .Page 20 ofl68.
- p. n -
fI i fb , ,-
-RESULTS REPORT ~
s
- gg' '"-
, ISAP I.c-(Cont!d):
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION 0F ACTION PLAN'AND DISCUSSION 0F RESULTSi(Cont'd)
['? .The test results, as documented in test. reports, were-
- E T reviewedtto determine that the) tests' complied.with the test procedures and that the required results data werei
- a. provided. 'Impell special studies;of test results were
-also reviewed by the-third party as described in Section'5.1.5e z
Any apparent discrepancies noted iri the course of the test program reviews-were documented by DIRs and-
. communicated to the Project. The DIRs were generally-resolved by' clarification of test results or through-submittal of' additional information.- Resolution of these itets was confirmed by third party; 5.1. 7 Issue Resolution Review-The third-party accivities associated with the review' of external source issue' resolution methodologies
'7 a included the review of Impell procedures, special
\ studies, and test program results as they relate to.
ieach issue. These reviews were performed as'an integral part of the third-party review activities '
described in Sections 5.1.3 through 5.1'.6.
5.2 Results The'results.of the. third-party review are described separately j
q for each overview activity.in the following sections.-
5.2.1 External Source Issues Identification I
As described in Section 5.1.1 above, the l review of external source documents for,the-Civil / Structural discipline under the DAP resulted in the identification of the single generic issue regarding the seismic adequacy of Train C conduit.
This issue was the NRC finding that Train C conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter was not ;
seismically designed or evaluated for potential j interaction with safety-related equipment. '
.t In addition, two issues were raised by the NRC during j technical audits of the Train C qualification program: {
1 D 1 4
i
-_2-_-__ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
n - - _ _ _
f-i.
.Rsvision: l'
,, Page 21 of 68 1
.I
'A j RESULTS REPORT .
ISAP I.c
. t
~(Cont'd)
{
,- )
f5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)' i Justification of.the factor of safety of.3.0
~
for.Hilti Kwik b'olts used to anchor Train 1C-
[ conduit supports;:
Justification of 7% damping value used in ' !
seismic analysis of: Train C. conduit. I Also, each external issue. identified for' Train A'& B
' conduit.was reviewed'to. determine.its relevancy to1 Train.C conduit.- A number of Train A &.B related '
issues are not relevant to Train C because of differences in hardware or. analysis methods. Others are of a general nature not specifically applicable to Train.C and are implicitly captured by.the-adequacy review of.the overall seismic qualification program.
In summary, four such issues were determined to. require particular attention: -l p --
ViolationofAISCe$ge.distancerequirements E!
for oversize h' oles; Omission of support self weight; Consideration of prying and applied moment for anchor bolts; Reaming of bolt holes . in conduit clamps. j The external source DIRs'that were generated to
. document and track the issues are presented in 1 Attachment A. The methodology necessary to resolve the '
DIRs were identified / developed by the Project as part ;
of the Train C seismic qualification program.
5.2.2 , Design Criteria / Commitments Identification - I The design criteria for Train C conduit supports explicitly delineated in the CPSES criteria and commitment source documents (References'9.2.and 9.4) l were considered to be consistent with the level of detail generally provided in the industry in such ,
documents for conduit supports. Most of the detailed l criteria were derived from the AISC and AISI I Specifications (References 9.11 and 9.12) that were l specified in the FSAR as the governing documents for N, structural steel design.
l
( ..
L
Rsvigion: 1
_Page 22 of 68-lfy _-
b 'RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 . IMPLEMENTATION OF. ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Based on the above reviews, the conclusion was. reached that the CPSES criteria, together with the extraction of detailed criteria from the committed codes and standards, provide a complete, consistent, and adequate set of-design criteria for conduit supports.
5.2.3 Walkdown Procedures Review 1
Screen Levels 1, 2,"4, and 5 i
.1 The specific Impe11 documents for Screen Levels;1, 2,- l 4, and 5 and the. corresponding third-party. review : '
documentation are listed in Attachment B.
The-review of Impe11 procedures encompassed several levels of document revisions. Based on.the review, it is concluded that the walkdown procedures related.to Screen Levels 1, 2, 4, and 5 are adequate. l
.n.
.( ). Screen Levels 3 and 6 i
The specific Impell documents for Screen Levels 3 and'6 i and the corresponding third-party review documentation -l are listed in Attachment B. '
The third party has. concurred with the basic concepts I of Screen Levels 3 and 6 as presented in the procedures. Given the subject 1ve nature of these screen level procedures, the third' party has concluded that they are adequate provided that their implementation is verified by the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program.
5.2.4 Support Qualification Procedures Review Screen Level 5 The specific Impell documents for Screen Level 5 and the corresponding third-party review documentation are listed in Attachment B. The third party has concluded that the procedures for Screen Level 5 are adequate.
1
[Y U
1 L - . _ _ _ _ _ - . ----_________________ _ __ _ a
t _.j
.o Rsvision:' -1 1
- Page 23 of 68~
lL ,
- ,.x RESULTS REPORT 1
-ISAP I.c.
, (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN.AND DISCUSSION.0F RESULTS-(Cont'd)'
Rework Options The specific Impell rework option proced'ures and'the q corresponding third-party review documentation ~are l listed in Attachment B. The third party has concluded 1 that the criteria and instructions for rework' options are acceptable.-
Program Methodology In conjunction with the reviews of the variousl
. procedure documents, the third party assessed the.
overall Impell' program methodology. This assessment covered the.fo11owing:
.i project organization. !
project controls.- 'l
- /]. .
documentation requirements. including Quality Assurance procedures, room closecut procedures, maintenance program which tracks.the impact ,
of future construction on Train C seismic- ]
qualification by interaction analysis. ]
The Train C conduit crit'eria document (Reference.9.15)-
. and Impe11. Project Instruction.0210-053-001, Part I (Reference 9.16) provides details on the Train.C conduit program methodology. The corresponding third-party review documentation'is listed in Attachment B.
The third party has concluded that the overall program l methodology for the Train C qualification program.is '
adequate.
p' Screen Levels 7 and 8 The third party has reached no conclusions with respect to.the procedures associated with these screen levels.
l
/~ . _
[ ,
L. . __a__._. ---.-. .-
Rsvision: 1 Page'24 of 68 2
L,)
) RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 5.2.5 Special Studies Review The specific Impell documents related to special studies and the corresponding third-party review documentation are listed in Attachment B. The third party has concluded that the special studies performed by Impell to support the Train C qualification criteria and procedures are adequate.
5.2.6 Test Programs Review The specific Project documents related to test programs and the corresponding third-party review documentation are listed in Attachment B.
The test specifications and procedures were found to meet the test objectives and to be in compliance with appropriate standard industry testing specifications and requirements. The third-party review of the test f--
(g) reports indicated that the test procedures were executed properly and that the test results are accurately presented and sufficient to meet the test program objectives.
Future use of the test results is controlled by an s
~Impell Project Instruction (Reference 9.17). The third party concurs with this controlled use of test data.
In summary, the third party has concluded that the test programs have been adequately performed and that the test data is justified for use in each currently identified application.
(
5.2.7 Issue Resolution Review The results of the third-party review of the Project's methodology for the resolution of the issues identified in Attachment A are presented in individual subsections below. These include a description of the issue, a description of the Project's resolution methodology, and a discussion of the third-party evaluation.
As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the external source issues consist of the single generic issue regarding l
/~'g the seismic adequacy of Train C conduit, the two I
(/ I i
l 4
L ____-_
Rsvision: 1 Page 25 of 68 RESULTS REPORT ql ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) issues identified specifically for Train C conduit during NRC technical audits, and the four issues from Train A & B conduit judged to be potentially applicable to Train C as discussed in Section 5.2.1.
The single generic issue regarding the seismic adequacy of Train C conduit is the basis for the entire ISAP I.c program. It is included in this discussion of issue resolution for the sake of consistency in addressing all external issues.
For clarity of presentation, the specific references to Project documents reviewed and the corresponding third-party documents that detail the reviews are not included directly in the text of each issue discussion.
These are referenced instead in Attachment B.
5.2.7.1 Seismic Adequacy of Train C Conduit
,- m
'. ) Issue Description During the TRT's inspection of non-safety-related conduit in selected seismic Category I areas of the plant, it was concluded that the installation of Train C conduit 2 inches and less in diameter was inconsistent with seismic requirements (Reference 9.1) and that no evidence could be found that substantiated the adequacy of the installation with respect to the requirements i of Regulatory. Guide 1.29 (Reference 9.2) and l FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 (Reference 9.3).
Resolution Methodology The CPRT program initiated ISAP I.c to address the issue of seismic adequacy for ,
Train C conduit that are 2-inch diameter and I les . As described in Section 3.0, Impell has developed and implemented a multi-level screening process to qualify Train C conduit supports for compliance with SRP 3.7.2 )
(Reference 9.4), (i.e., verification that j supports and anchorage will maintain their ,
/~'T structural integrity or, assuming that l
\~~/ l i
.d ,- '
q[ r
____- -' - - -- - g g
.e_._
^f l >
^ -
.a '
q c : /
JL y
'l (Ravision:-
R p%
p.
1 4' '
Pagef261of 68 l'~
a_ a ,
^l b e
., D ' ,
.RESULTS REPORT' ISAP I.c '
i,
.(Cont'd)- j
, 1
- i. . ..
p
'5.0 1 IMPLEMENTATION-OF ACTION' PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS'(Cont'd)1 :l
? ,
failureioccurs, verification-that no-
~i unacceptable. interactions' occur).L SInLeases.
g O where supports.cannot.be. qualified'intheir> .}
q
' current?as-built configuration,:the~ situation.
will;be; corrected by;either retrofit',or addition of. passive restraint's.. .i Third-Party Evaluation'
+ . . ..
{
.The. third. party' evaluated-Impell's walkdown j
-and seismic qualification' procedures, special- sq studies, test programs, and overall' program 1 methodology to determine if~they are:in d 4 ,
compliance.with! identified criteria and commitments. 'As discussed in Section.6.0' following, the' third party concurs with.
~
Impell's approach and methodology,for seismic-qualification of. Train C' conduit. The' third' party has concluded'that Impell's program, if y- '
- properly implemented,'is capable of resolving
" the issue of seismic adequacy of Train'C-'
conduit.' Therefore, this issue is closed ~..
5.2.7.2 Hilti Kwik. Bolts Factor of. Safety Issue Description For the evaluation of Hilti Kwik bolts in the l Train C qualification program, Impe11 has; i used a safety. factor of 3.0 applied to the- j average ultimate strength. The manufacturer's recommended factor of-safety j is 4.0 for. working loads. Industry practice i has been to use this' factor of safety (4.0). 1 for SSE loads on safety-related equipment.. .(
1 i
During an audit in June 1986, the NRC requested justification for a factor of safety of 3.0 for Train C conduit. -l Resolution Methodology ]
I Impell reviewed a number of industry available Hilti Kwik bolt test results and
' ' '[- .,
determined that at loads corresponding to a l 1 l l q
1 l
1 En_=.___.__.__ _ _ _ i
Rsvision: 1 I Page 27 of 68
) RESULTS REPORT-N~
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd).
factor of safety of- 3.0: 1) no failure occurred under static loads in over 800 tests; 2) cyclic loading has no effect on the ultimate capacity of Hilti Kwik bolt; and 3) loss of preload has no effect on the cyclic strength of Hilti Kwik bolts.
In addition, a subsequent test program was conducted by CCL (Reference 9.18) to determine the strength of selected sizes of Hilti Kwik bolts-in test slabs of concrete which are representative of the concrete used in CPSES structures. Impell evaluated these test results in a special study (Reference 9.19) which confirmed the industry available tests. The summary of r.hese efforts which constitute the principal justification for the use of safety factor of 3.0 for
,s non-safety-related components is presented in (w-) Reference 9.20.
Third-Party Evaluation The third party has reviewed the CCL test report (Reference 9.21) and Impe11's justification of a factor of safety of 3.0 for Hilti Kwik bolts (References 9.22, 9.23, and 9.24) and concurs with Impe11's position.
The Impell report (Reference 9.20) provides adequate justification for the use of a safety factor of 3.0 for Hilti Kwik bolts.
This issue is closed.
5.2.7.3 Train C Conduit Damping Issue Description Seven percent damping has been used in the analysis of 2-inch-diameter-and-less Train C conduit. Gibbs & Hill used 7 percent damping in their sampling study for Train C conduit. Impell adopted the same 7 percent damping for their analyses with the
) justification that NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 1
(}
V-allows the use of 7 percent damping response l
l
(
1 Rsvision: 1 Page 28 of 68
' ')
(_/
RESULTS REPORT
'l ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) spectra in the evaluation of bolted structures subjected to SSE level motions.
The NRC requested justification for 7 percent damping in the analysis of Train C conduit and supports during an audit in June 1986.
Resolution Methodology Dynamic testing of representative CPSES Train C conduit was performed by ANCO Engineers to demonstrate that 7 percent damping was ,
realistic for conduit supported by one-hole i clamps (which have a minimum of elements for producing damping). The conduit and supports tested were representative of the same type used at CPSES. The amount of cable in the conduit was varied over the range of typical cable fills found at CPSES. The test motions f- s applied to the conduit were to be
(~') representative of CPSES SSE motions. Impell performed a special study to analyze the test data (Reference 9.25). The results are documented and summarized in Reference 9.26.
Third-Party Evaluation The third party has reviewed (References 9.27, 9.28, and 9.29) the Impell report which summarizes the ANCO tests and the Impell special study. The third party concurs wfth the use of 7 percent damping for Train C conduit. Impell's report (Reference 9.26) ;
provides adequate justification for the use of 7 percent damping in Train C conduit analysis. The seven percent damping issue is closed.
5.2.7.4 Edge Distance Violation Issue Description During CYGNA's Independent Assessment Program (IAP) review of Train A & B conduit work, it was noted that some Gibbs & Hill support
(^}
( ,/
designs did not comply with AISC requirements. Specifically, support Types CSM-42 and CA-Sa violate minimum edge distance requirements for oversize holes.
l Y-- _ _
s
-Rsvision; l'
.Page;29 of 68
'f RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0' IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN ~AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) i Resolution Methodology Support Type CSM-42 was not used on Train C conduit; therefore, it is of no concern.
Impell performed a special study (Reference.
9.30).co evaluate plate. stresses due-to edge distance violations in Type CA-Sa supports.
This' study demonstrated a high margin of.
l . safety for this condition.
Third-Party Evaluation The third-party review (Reference 9.31) of Impell's special study (Reference 9.30) confirmed that a high margin of safety exists-t for the . stresses in. Type CA-5a supports,with edge distance violations. The edge distance violation issue is closed.
() 5.2.7.5 Support Self-Weight Issue Description CYGNA's IAP review for the Train A & B-conduit work noted that support self-weight-was not uniformly considered in Gibbs & Hill support designs. Support self-weight was sometimes ignored, or considered nonconservatively. Some such supports had anchor bolt interaction ratios as high as 1.0, and any additional load would produce unacceptable interaction ratios over 1.0.
i Impell has relied upon Gibbs & Hill Train C '
conduit calculations to substantiate Screen Level 2 criteria for Type 6 supports.
Resolution Methodology Project Instructions for the Impell analyses and walkdowns required the consideration of support self-weight in the support evaluation (References 9.16 and 9.32).
i
)
. \__/ !
l
.? ,
m s.)
Revisions 1 Page.30 of 68' e.
ll.r~^C ^RESULTS REPORT !
I \m /K p ISAP I.c l
-(Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The screening criteria for: Type 6/ supports were based on'the Gibbs & Hill calculations-in which support self-weights were not included. Impe11 performed an evaluation-(Reference 9.33) of the Gibbs & Hill Type 6 supports' including support weigh.ts. .The results showed that the qualification
, criteria for Type 6 supports were unchanged by. inclusion of support-self-weight. .Thus, self-weight.of Type 6 supports had no impact L on the Type 6 support screening criteria.
Third-Party Evaluation The third-party review (Reference.9.34) of Impell's analysis and walkdown procedures confirmed that support self-weight is to,be included in the support evaluation.
.sm
-l L The review (Reference 9.35) of Impe11's
\- # evaluation confirmed that inclusion of support self-weight does not affect the results of the Gibbs'& Hill calculations for-Type 6 supports. Hence, the inclusion of self-weight of Type 6 supports has no impact on the Type 6 support screening criteria.
The support self-weight issue is closed.
5.2.7.6 Anchor' Bolt Design Issue Description CYGNA's IAP review for the Trains A and B conduit work had the following concerns regarding anchor bolts in Gibbs & Hill support designs:
- 1. Prying action was not addressed consistently and lacked justification.
- 2. Moments due to shear on anchor bolts were neglected in a specific case (CST-17 Support). l 1
I
- - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ 1
' Revision: 'l Page'31 of 68:
p-
)
( ' %);['"f 'RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) ..
'5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
Some' support designs neglected prying, some used a prying factor'of 1.5~without justification, and others used a prying :
factor of 1.0 based'on the'. method presented in the AISC Specification .(Reference 9.11) .
In the latter case, the applicability of this method was not justified.
In' addition. the moment loading on the anchor-bolts for CST-17 Type 17 supports is due to
-shear loading of the bolts at a significant
' distance from the concrete surface.
'Although CST-17. Type 17 supports were not used on Train C work, the effect of a similar situation should be investigated. -
Resolution Methodology
- y -
(- Impell has performed special acudies to address prying and moment loading of anchor bolts (References 9.36 and 9.37). Prying factors were determined based,on plate flexibility obtained from finite element analyses. Moment loadings of anchor bolts were determined by hand calculations performed on analytical models that consider-the relative stiffness of the anchor bolt and the Unistrut member through which the bolt passes. In' addition, instructions have been incorporated in the seismic qualification procedures to provide consistent treatment of~
these considerations.
Third-Party Evaluation The third-party review (References 9.38, 9.39, 9.40, and 9.41) of Impell's special studies indicates that prying and moment loading of anchor bolts have been satisfactorily addressed. The anchor bolt design issue is closed.
. v 1
. . . . = - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ - _ _
H E
4 Ravision: '1'
'. Page 32'of 68 J/ '\? RESULTS REPORT t :
\ _4ll l
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION'0F RESULTS (Cont'd) i 5.2.7.7 Clamp. Usage Issue Description CYGNA's IAP review for Train A & B conduit-work noted'that certain Gibbs.& Hil11 support.
designs permit' reaming of P2558 clamp bolt holes to accommodate larger-bolts. This results in a violation of minimum edge distance requirements. Additionally, washers were omitted. One of the designs:is for Type CA-5a supports, which are also used in Train C work. The effect of reaming of the clamp
. bolt holes must be investigated.
Resolution Methodology A conduit clamp testing program conducted by y CCL (References 9.42 and 9.43) for the Train
(- A & B conduit program determined allowables for the clamps used for conduit supports.
The test program considered the effects of oversized holes, edge distance violations, bolt type and size, modification by cutting off a portion of the clamp ears, omission and distortion of washers, and distortion of clamps. The test results were then utilized to develop design allowable loads for the conduit clamps taking into account the possible modifications.
Impe11 uses the resolution for Train A & B conduit to resolve this issue for Train C.
Third-Party Evaluation The third-party review (Reference 9.44) of the CCL clamp test program indicates that the clamp test allowables have been properly j developed and have an appropriate factor of i safety. The clamp usage issue is closed.
\~
! 1 l-l Rsvision:
1 Page 33 of 68 l E')
v RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)'
5.3 Surmary of DIRS
~As discussed in Section 5.2.1, two external source-DIRs were !
written to document the single generic issue identified by the
-TRT regarding the seismic adequacy of Train C conduit. These DIRs, E-992 and E-1222, were determined to constitute design deviations. They are addressed further in the sections below.
5.4 Safety Significance Evaluation In view of the extensive corrective action program undertaken by the Project for Train C conduit 2 inches and less in diameter, the Third Party elected to proceed directly to the !
analysis of root cause and generic implications rather than l performing a safety significance evaluation of the two design I deviations delineated above.
5.5 Root Cause Analysis and Generic Impl1 cations Evaluation g
Q The' central issue identified by the NRC TRT regarding Train C conduit and supports was whether such conduit installations conformed with Regulatory Guide 1.29. As discussed in Section 3.0, the Project had assumed in its original design evaluation that conduit 2 inches and less in diameter was inherently capable of withstanding seismic loads such that adverse interactions with safety-related items would not occur.
Calculations that were not a part of the design basis had been generated in support of this assumption.
In view of the fact that observations of the performance of similar hardware during actual earthquakes support this assumption, it was common practice within the nuclear industry during the time frame of these CPSES design activities to make these assumptions. In the current time frame, designers typically document the bases for such assumptions. This was not formally done by the Project although, as stated above, uncontrolled calculations had been generated.
Whenever assumptions of this type are made, it is important to assure that designs fall within the bounds of applicability.
For example, data developed by the Project during the initial phase of the ISAP investigation suggests that the support of single conduit runs was generally acceptable. However, during the same initial IS/J investigation, the Project was not able f)
'v to establish that a few supports on which multiple small
I R1 vision: 1 Page 34 of 68 s
,)
i RESULTS REPORT I'
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) diameter runs had been hung would not fail under seismic '
conditions. Thus, the " extrapolation" of the experience base for single conduit runs represented a weakness in the logic supporting .the Project's' conclusion on the seismic adequacy ~ of Train C conduit 2 inches and less in diameter.
It is concluded by the third party that the root cause of the Train C conduit problem is that the Project failed to reconcile key. design assumptions and to recognize the evolution of industry practice and regulatory requirements to support these assumptions with formal calculations. This problem is similar in nature to those identified within the CPRT Design Adequacy Program (DAP). DAP-identified issues, as well as other design-related items, are subject to remedial
. actions under the comprehensive Corrective Action Program (CAP), being conducted by TU Electric. Given the breadth and depth of the CAP, generic implications associated with this
(N ISAP are considered to be addressed. Accordingly, no further
\_-) corrective action under this ISAP is warranted.
5.6 Corrective Action Recommendation As previously discussed, a comprehensive seismic qualification program for Train C conduit has been undertaken by Project.
The program brings Train C conduit into compliance with the FSAR and licensing commitments and resolves known technical issues. No further corrective actions are required.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S The scope of third-party overview of the Project's seismic qualification program for Train C conduit 2 inches and less in diameter included an assessment for compliance with FSAR criteria and TU Electric commitments, as well as evaluation of the Project's resolution of external source issues. The third-party overview of the seismic qualification program also included a review of walkdown and seismic qualification procedures, special studies, tests, and overall program methodology. Review of Impell's implementation of the seismic qualification program (i.e.,
walkdowns, analysis calculations, and systems interaction assessments) was not included in the third-party review scope.
,-ss The implementation of the seismic qualification program will be
('- ) subject to audit by the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program.
The conduct of the Technical Audit Program as well as selected activities of the seismic qualification program will be overviewed by the third party as directed by the SRT.
w ,7 J;c
- , , - a; _
b M 7 -
. s .
nRevision: 1 Page 35 of:68' t
NL '
d.[ v RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
'6.0ECONCLUSIONSf(Cont'd)
.Six specific external source issues.in addition tofthe generic
'issueiraised by the NRC:TRT were identified.' The' third party.-
- reviewed'Impe11?s pertinent procedures,Lspecial studies and tests-i thatLaddress an'd resolve these issues.'
,The third party has concluded'that Impell's Train C:
- conduit / supports seismic 1 qualification' program is comprehensive and.
capable of meeting the FSAR and'11 censing commitments.and resolving
.known technical issues..
7.0 ONGOING ACTIVITIES-The seismic qualification program;for Train"C conduit lis currently being: implemented-by Impe11. .The TU. Electric QA Technical Audit Program,isioverviewing this implementation effort.-
.8.0- ACTION TO PRECLUDE OCCURRENCE IN THE FUTURE
[^\
\-'
Preventive' actions have been developed by Impell for~ Train C L
conduit 2 inches and less in diameter to preclude recurrence of the issues identified in Section 5.2.7. These actions are discussed in
.the sections below.
8.1 Construction Procedure ECP-19B A construction procedure, ECP-19B (Reference 9.45), was developed to provide guidance for installation of new, modified and relocated Train C conduit (2-inch diameter and less) supports. This procedure superceded the portions of procedures ECP-19 (Reference 9.46) and ECP-19A (Reference 9.47) that gave instructions for installation of these supports. In addition, several limitations and restrictions on what is acceptable for installation were included to ensure seismic adequacy of the-supports. The third-party review (Reference-9.48) of ECP-19B concluded that adequate installation guidelines are provided. )
8.2 Typical Drawings Original installation of Train C conduit (2-inch diameter and less) was based on design documents DCA-4693 (Reference 9.49),
which delineated support classification requirements, and DCA-5106 (Reference 9.50), which delineated typical support details. Impell has issued several design drawings based on
- , construction procedure ECP-19B that provide installation details for various typical supports. These drawings are to be used for new and modified support installations.
U- ______.__E_1___.._____.mm _ _ _. _ _ . _. _ _ _ _
Revision: 1 Page 36 of-68
/~N - RESULTS REPORT-iJ ISAP I.~c (Cont'd) 8.0 ACTION TO PRECLUDE OCCURRENCE IN THE FUTURE (Cont'd) >
8.3 Support Drawings for Custom Supports
~
In cases where typical drawings cannot be utilized for modification / replacement of Train C conduit supports, specific-drawings that provide custom designs are being issued.
8.4 Engineering Inspection Procedure An engineering inspection procedure has been' developed to provide guidelines for inspection of. newly installed and modified conduit supports.
8.5 Interdiscipline Interface Impell has set up comprehensive interface control procedures-(References 9.51 and 9.52) to ensure that controlled interfaces exist with the other contractors. In addition, the documents define lines of communication between the Project and vendors.
'\
8.6 Maintenance Program In cases where Train C conduit components are postulated to fail and/or potentially interact with safety-related plant features, tracking of any installation / removal of plant features is paramount in determining the effect on the previously performed systems' interaction work. To address this concern, Impe11 has initiated a' maintenance program to monitor all construction to identify if there is any effect on previous work.
9.0 REFERENCES
9.1 " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of CPSES, Units 1 and 2", USNRC, NUREG-0797, Supplement 8. Attachment 3, l February 1985.
9.2 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification",
Rev. 2.
9.3 TU Electric, CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report. {
9.4 USNRC Standard Review Plan 3.7.2, NUREG-0800, Rev. 1, " Seismic System Analysis". f O '
L R: vision: 1 Page 37 of 68
[';, RESULTS REPORT LJ ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
9.0 REFERENCES
(Cont'd) 9.5 TUSI Instruction No. CP-EI-4.0-36, " Control of Seismic and Non-Seismic Interaction Evaluations", Rev. O, November 8, 1982.
9.6 TUSI Instruction No. CP-EI-4.0-53, " Maintenance of Damage Study Analysis", Revision 0, March 19, 1984.
9.7 CPRT Program Plan Issue-Specific Action Plan II.d, " Seismic Design of Control Room Ceiling Elements", Rev. 3.
9.8 DAP-RR-C/S-002, Discipline Specific Results Report:
Civil / Structural - Train A & B Conduit and Supports, Rev. 1.
9.9 Impell Report No. 01-0210-1449, " Train C Conduit, Two Inch and Under, Criteria Document, Regulatory Guide 1.29 Issue", Rev.
1.
9.10 ISAP II.d Results Report, " Seismic Design of Control Room Ceiling Elements", Rev. 1.
<V 9.11 AISC " Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel", 7th and 8th Editions.
9.12 AISI " Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members", September 3, 1980.
9.13 CPRT Work Instruction CSM-5, " Documenting Third-Party Reviews", Rev. O.
9.14 DAP-RR-C/S-002, " Discipline Specific Results Report:
Civil / Structural - Train A & B Conduit and Supports", Rev. 1.
9.15 Impell Report No. 01-0210-1479, " Train C Conduit (Two Inch Diameter and Less) Criteria Document", Revs. O, 1.
9.16 Impell Project Instruction 0210-053-001, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit (Two Inch and Under) at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station", Rev. 7, 9.17 Impell Project Instruction 0210-052-011. " Procedure for Utilizing Test Data on Train C Components", Rev. O.
9.18 CCL Report No. A-736-86, " Tensile and Shear Strength Testing of Hilti Kwik Bolts for Train C Conduit Supports", October (S 23, 1986.
9.19 Impell Calculation ROTC-50, " Analysis of CCL Test Report A-736-86", Rev. 1.
Revision:. 1 ,
Page 38 of 68 '
,'~ RESULTS REPORT L}I -
ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
9.0 REFERENCES
(Cont'd) 9.20 Impell Report No. 01-0210-1483, "Hilti Kwik Bolts Justification of Factor of Safety", Rev. 2.
9.21 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of CCL Test Report #A-736-86 dated October 23, 1986, "lensile and Shear.
Strength Testing of Hilti Kwik bolts", Review No. 33505-01, April 3, 1987.
4 9.22 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Completion of l Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1483 Rev. 0, dated February '
1986, Portion of Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review No.
33105-01, June 23, 1986.
1 9.23 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Report, " Justification of Factor of Safety", Report 01-0210-1483, Revision 2, Dec.1986 (Draf t for Comment),
Review No. 33105-02, March 4, 1987.
,s 9.24 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell l 1 ' Report #01-0210-1483, Revision 2, " Justification of Factor of
\- > Safety", Review No. 33105-03, September 29, 1987.
9.25 Impell Calculation ROTC-37, " Damping Determination, Test vs.
Analysis", Rev. O.
9.26 Impell Report No. 01-0210-1527, " Justification of Damping Value", Rev. 1 December 1986.
9.27 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, CPSES Train C Conduit," Justification of Damping Value", Impell Report No.
01-0210-1527, Review No. 33622-01, October 21, 1986. !
9.28 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, CPSES Train C Conduit, " Justification of Damping Value", Impell Report No.
01-210-1527, Revision 1 (Preliminary), Review No. 33622-02, November 25, 1986.
i 9.29 TERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, " Justification of l Damping Values", Action Plan I.c, Review of Impell Report l #01-0210-1527, Revision 1, Review No. 33622-03, September 30, 1987.
9.30 Impell Calculation No. ROTC-16. " Development of Walkdown Criteria for S-0910 Supports Similar to Type 6 Supports", Rev.
p 3.
\
l 1
Revision; l' Page 39 of 68 J
jf"Ti RESULTS REPORT U
ISAP I.c (Cont'd) 9.0- REFERENCES (Cont'd)
-9.31 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c,
, Task 4.2.3, Review of'Impell Calculation ROTC-16, Revision 3 "Walkdown Criteria for S-0910 Supports-(Type 6)", Review No.
33627-01, June 5, 1987.-
9.32 Impe11 Project Instruction 0210-052-003, " Seismic Evaluation of Train C Conduit Supports", Rev. 3.
9.33 Impe11 Calculation ROTC-60, " Summary of Impe11's Two-Inch ~and Under Train C Sample Analysis", Rev. O.
9.34 TENERA Memorandum, J.'Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Project. Instruction 0210-052-003, Revision 3, " Seismic !
Evaluation of' Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33103-02, September 30, 1987.
9.35 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Review of Impe11 Calculation ROTC-60, Revision 0, " Summary of
'7-m .Impe11's Train C Sample Analysis", Review No. 33604-01, 4- September 30, 1987.
,V 9.36 Impe11' Calculation ROTC-02, " Procedure to Calculate Anchor i Bolt Loads (Prying)", Rev. 2.
9.37 Impe11 Calculation No. ROTC-28, " Evaluation of Moment Loadings 1 on Anchor Bolts", Rev. 1.
l 9.38 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Completion of Review of Impe11 Calculation ROTC-02, " Procedure to Calculate Anchor Bolt Loads, TUGC0 Train C. Conduit 2" 0, Review No.
33611-01, June 25, 1986.
9.39 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impe11 Calculation ROTC-02, " Procedure to Calculate Anchor Bolt Loads", Revision 2, Review No.
33611-02, May 29, 1987.
9.40 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impe11 Calculation ROTC-28, " Evaluation of Moment Loading on Anchor Bolts", Revision 0, Review No.
33628-01, June 4, 1987.
9.41 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-28 " Evaluation of l Moment Loading on Anchor Bolts", Revision 1, Review No.
33628-02, July 1, 1987.
L.
e
{
Revision:
h 11 J Page 40 of 68
,N -
RESULTS REPORT
!l L ,ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
9.0 REFERENCES
(Cont'd) 9.42 CCL Report > No. A-699-85, " Conduit Clamp Test Report Phase I",
December 17, 1985.
9.43 CCL Report No. A-702-86, " Conduit Clamp Test Re' port. Phase II",' April 7, 1986.
9.44 DAP-E-CS-308.." Engineering Evaluation for Conduit Clamps",
Rev. O.
9.45 Brown & Root Procedure No. ECP-19B, Rev.l2, " Installation of:
New, Modified, and Relocated Train C Conduit Supports for Two
. Inches and Under Conduit".
,9.46 Brown & Root Procedure No. ECP-19, " Exposed' Conduit / Junction Box and Hanger Fabrication and Installation". :
9.47 Brown & Root Procedure No.. ECP-19A, " Installation of Class 1B Conduit Raceway Systems".
II) 9.48 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Procedure ECP-19B, " Installation of New, Modified and Relocated Train C Conduit Supports", Revision 2, Review No. 33702-01, May 29, 1987.
9.49 DCA-4693, Through Revision 11.
9.50 DCA-5106, Through Revision 9.
9.51 Impe11 Interface Control Instru'ctions, Job Nos. 0210-052, 054, 056, and 058. Revision 7. ,
9.52 Impe11 Interface Control Instructions, Job Nos. 0210-053, 055, 057, 059, Revision 6.
,4 4
Revision: l'-
f Page 41 of 68
( RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd) i ENTIRE POPULATION
' i r i -i t r
SCREEN 1 SCREEN 2 E SCREENS 3 & 6 l i
UGHTLY m NO NTERACTON POTENTIAU LOADED e NPACT EVALUATON t
SUPPORTS ,
I I E
PASSES 7 l
O i t i r i t i f l
SCREEN 4 SCREENS SCREEN 7 i SCREEN 8 E t l
SBSMIC M l SEM SEtSMIC CAPACITY ANALYS6 Sm l RESTRANT QECK- ANALW S CAPACHYCHECM K E g W ns PASSES? I !
1 r if i f h og1oNi i ogroN Can s MOOFY j ADOMACRAFT , REROUTE i suppoRr Cm coon FIGURE 4-1 FLOW CHART OF SCREENING LEVELS O 1 1
I l
Revision: 1-Page 42 of 68 h( RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd).
IDENDFY EXTERNAL REVIEW UCENSING SOURCE DOCUMENTS COMMITMENT DOCUMENTS 1
1 r , ,
l REVIEW DOCUMENTS & l PREPARE ISSUE DEVELOPACCEPTANCECRTTERIA RECORDS /DIRs TEST PRCGRAMS l SPECIAL STUDIES
, , PROCEDURES EVALUATE PROJECT SEISMIC _
OUAUFICATION PROCEDURES AND ISSUE RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY 1 P DOCUMENT THIRD PARTY REVIEWS SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONS IN RESULTS REPORT FIGURE 5-1 THIRD PARTY REVIEW ACTIVITIES
Rsvision: 1 Page 43 of 68 i
~~
/ N, RESULTS REPORT l x_ >
ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT A l
SUMMARY
OF TRAIN C CONDUIT RELATED EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES. i DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR) REPORTS BY SOURCE AND ISSUE GROUPS Issue Group No. DIRs Related to and Description Issue Groups by Source Issues Identified by Other Cygna Independent Assessment Sources Program (IAP)
IAP-16 IAP-32 IAP-34 (Ref. A1) (Ref. A2) (Ref. A3)
- 1. Seismic Adequacy of E-992 Train C Conduit (NRCT-16)
(Ref. A5)
E-1222 i (NRC-45)
.j,-s') (Ref. A4)
Nm/
- 2. Edge Distance Violation E-0165 E-0761 E-1171
- 3. Support Self Weight E-0167 E-0757 1
- 4. Anchor Bolt Design E-0170 E-0760 E-1164
- 5. Clamp Usage E-0178
- 6. Seven Percent Damping (1) I 1
for Train C Conduit I
- 7. Factor of Safety of Three ()
for Hilti Kwik Bolts i
( These issues were identified by the NRC during a technical audit of f--
(, Impell's work in June 1986.
l l
[ ,
i _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
=. .
c >
'Ravision: o l'-
.Page 44 of 68.
vi[
.t 4 RESULTS REPORT-
~LV. '
.. ISAP I.c-(Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT A References A1. . IAP-16, Review. Issues List Transmittal,. Cable Tray Supports,.Rev.
-11) and Conduit' Supports (Rev. 2), August. 13,'. 1985.
'~
-A2. . IAP-32, Review Issues List Transmittal.. Conduit Supports'(Rev. 3),
March 29, 1985.
i A3. IAP-34,'Cygna Letter 84056.060, Generic Issues Summary, IAP.- All:
Phases,' November 20, 1985;-
A4. NRC-45, Issuance of Supplement No.111 to NUREG-0797,. Comanche Peak
. Steam Electric. Station, Units 1 and 2, June 10,11985.
E AS. NRCT-16,. Meeting to Discuss the Applicant's-Plan for Resolution'of
- Requests for Additional Information from the Comanche Peak -
Technical Review Team (TRT) Effort, October 23, 1984.
L tT's .
Q) .-
d.
.__.._.m
R1 vision 1 Page 45 of 68
~'% RESULTS REPORT i 1 ij ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B PROJECT AND THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE CROSS-REFERENCE LIST Third-Party Applicab'e Review Project Document Ref. Screen Level Document Ref.
- 1. WALKDOWN PROCEDURES
{
PI-0210-052-004, Rev. 1 Bl.1 5 33410-01 B4.1 PI-0210-052-004, Rev. 1 "
5 33410-02 B4.2 PI-0210-052-005, Rev. 2 Bl.2 6 33409-01 B4.3 PI-0210-052-005, Rev. 3 "
6 33409-02 B4.4 PI-0210-052-005, Revs. 2 & 3 "
6 33409-03 B4.5 PI-0210-053-001, I, Rev. 3 Bl.3 1-8 33401-01 B4.6 PI-0210-053-001, I, Rev. 4 "
1 33401-02 B4.7 PI-0210-053-001, I, Rev. 5 "
1-8 33401-03 B4.8 PI-0210-053-001, I, Rev. 6 "
1-8 33401-04 B4.9
'PI-0210-053-001, I, Rev 7 "
1-8 33401-05 B4.10
(, s') PI-0210-053-001, I, Rev. 3-7 "
1-8 33401-06. B4.11
%.J PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 1 Bl.4 1-3 33402-01 B4.12 PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 2 "
1-3 33402-02 B4.13 PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 3 "
1-3 33402-03 B4.14 PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 4 "
1-3 33402-04 B4.15 PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 5 "
1-3 33402-05 B4.16 PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 6 "
1-3 33402-06 B4.17 PI-0210-053-001, II, Rev. 7 "
1-3 33401-05 B4.10 PI-0210-053-001, II, Revs. 1-7 "
1-3 33402-07 B4.18 PI-0210-053-001, III, Rev. 3 Bl.5 4-8 33403-01 B4.19 PI-0210-053-001, III, Rev. 4 "
4-8 33403-02 B4.20
-PI-0210-053-001, III, Rev. 5 "
4-8 33403-03 B4.21 PI-0210-053-001, III, Rev. 6 "
4-8 33403-04 B4.22 PI-0210-053-001, III, Rev. 7 "
4-8 33401-05 B4.10 FI-0210-053-001, III, Revs. 3-7 "
4-8 33403-05 B4.23 PI-0210-053-001, IV, Rev. 3 Bl.6 Rework 33404-01 B4.24
.PI-0210-053-001, IV, Rev. 4 " "
33404-02 B4.25 l PI-0210-053-001, IV, Rev. 5 " "
33404-03 B4.26 PI-0210-053-001, IV, Rev. 6 " "
{ 33404-04 B4.27 PI-0210-053-001, IV, Rev. 7 " "
33401-05 B4.10 PI-0210-053-001, IV, Revs. 3-7 " "
33404-05 B4.28 7g PI-0210-053-001, V, Rev. 5 Bl.7 1-3 33405-01 B4.29
('y PI-0210-053-001, V, Rev. 6 PI-0210-053-001, V, Rev. 7 1-3 33405-02 B4.30 1-3 33401-05 B4.10 1
Rsvision: 1 Page 46 of 68' '
RESULTS REPORT
)
s_s ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B :
(Cont'd) I Third-Party Applicable Review Project Document' Ref. Screen Level Document Ref.
PI-0210-053-001, VI, Rev. 5 Bl.8 4-6 33406-01 B4.31 PI-0210-053-001, VI, Rev. 6 4-6 33406-02 B4.32 PI-0210-053-001, VI, Rev. 7 4-6 33401-05 B4.10 PI-0210-053-001, VI, Revs. 5-7 4-6 33406-03 B4.33 PI-0210-053-001, VII, Rev. 5 Bl.9 Rework 33407-01 B4.34 PI-0210-053-001, VII, Rev. 6 " "
33407-02 B4.35 PI-0210-053-001, VII, Rev. 7 " "
33401-05 B4.10 PI-0210-053-002, Rev. 3 Bl.10 4 33408-01 B4.36 PI-0210-053-002, Rev. 3 "
4 33408-02 B4.37
() 2. SUPPORT QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES PI-0210-052-003, Rev. 3 Bl.11 5 33103-02 B4.38 !
PI-0210-052-003, Revs. 0-3 "
5 33103-03 B4.39 PI-0210-052-006, Rev. 1 Bl.12 5 33108-01 B4.40 PI-0210-052-006, Rev. 2 "
5 33108-02 B4.41 PI-0210-052-006, Revs. 1 & 2 "
5 33108-03 B4.42 PI-0210-052-008, Rev. O Bl.13 Rework 33110-01 B4.43 PI-0210-052-008, Rev. 1 " "
33110-02 B4.44 PI-0210-052-008, Revs. 0 & 1 " "
33110-03 B4.45
- 3. SPECIAL STUDIES I Calc. ROTC-02, Rev. O Bl.14 5 33611-01 B4.46 ;
Calc. ROTC-02, Rev. 2 "
5 33611-02 B4.47 l Calc. ROTC-02, Revs. 0 & 2 "
5 33611-03 B4.48 Calc. ROTC-03, Rev. O Bl.15 5 33615-01 B4.49 Calc. ROTC-03, Revs. 0 & 1 "
5 33615-02 B4.50 Calc. ROTC-04, Rev. O Bl.16 1,2,4 33310-01 B4.51 1 Calc. ROTC-04, Rev. 1 "
1,2,4 33310-02 B4.52 Calc. ROTC-04, Rev. 2 "
f 1,2,4 33310-03 B4.53
( ,j) Calc. ROTC-04, Revs. 0-2 "
1,2,4 33310-04 B4.54
Ravision: 1 Page 47 of.68 L _
! RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)- l 1
-ATTACHMENT B
- j. (Cont'd) l ;
- Third-Party Applicable . Review Project Document Ref. Screen Level Document Ref.
n Calc. ROTC-05, Rev. O
. Bl.17 1,2,4 33310-01 B4.51-Calc. ROTC-05, Rev. 1 "
1,2,4- 33310-02 B4.52 Calc. ROTC-06, Rev.-0 Bl.18 5 '33610-01 B4.55 Calc. ROTC-06, Rev. 1 "
5 33610-02 B4.56- ..
Calc. ROTC-08. Rev. O Bl.19 5 33618-01 B4.57-'
Calc. ROTC-08,.Rev. 0- "
5 33618-02 B4.58 Calc. ROTC-16, Rev. 3 Bl.20 2 33627-01 'B4.59 Calc. ROTC-18, Rev. O Bl.21 ~5 33605-01 B4.60 Calc. ROTC-19, Rev. 0- Bl.22 5 33619-01 B4.61 Calc. ROTC-19 Rev. 1 "
5 33619-02 B4.62 Calc. ROTC-25, Rev. 1 Bl.23 2 33621-01 B4.63 Calc. ROTC-25, Rev. 2 "'
2 33621-02. B4.64 Calc. ROTC-26, Rev. O' Bl.24 4 33312 B4.65 Calc. ROTC-26, Rev. 0 "
4 33312-02 B4.66 Calc. ROTC-28, Rev. O Bl.25 5 33628-01 B4.67 Calc. ROTC-28, Rev.-1 "
5 33628-02 B4.68 Calc. ROTC-32, Rev. 1 Bl.26 5 33620-01 B4.69 Calc. ROTC-32, Rev. 1 "
5 33620-02 B4.70 1 Calc. ROTC-36, Rev. 1 Bl.27 5 33623-01 B4.71 l
Calc. ROTC-43, Rev. O Bl.28 2,4,5 33624-01 B4.72 l Calc. ROTC-43,.Rev. O "
2,4,5 33624-02 B4.73 Calc. ROTC-60, Rev. O Bl.29 2 33604-01 B4.74 i Calc. ROTC-62, Rev. 1 Bl.30 5 33625-01 B4.75 g
l l
E E ,
.y Rsvizion: 1-I 'Page'48 of 68 f% 4 RESULTS REPORT M
ISAP 1.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B.
(Cont'd)'
f Third-Party Applicable Review; Project Document Ref. Screen Level Document Ref.
i Calc..ROTC-75, Kev. 1 E1.31 .33612-01 B4.76:
-(supercedes Rpt. 01-210-1523, Rev. 1)
Calc..WDC-01,.Rev. 2 Bl.32 2 33302-01 B4.77 -
Calc. WDC-02, Rev. 0- Bl.33' 2 33303-01 B4.78 Calc. WDC-02, Rev..3 "
2 33303-02 B4.79 :!
Calc. WDC-02, Rev. 4 _ "
2 33303-02 B4.79 Calc. WDC-02, Revs. O, 3, & 4 "
2 33303-03 B4.80 Calc. WDC-03, Rev. O Bl.34 4 33304-01 B4.81
- Calc. WDC-03, Rev. O "
4 33304-02 B4.82 f
(.
A Calc. WDC-04, Rev. O Bl.35 4 33305-01 B4.83 Calc. WDC-04, Rev. 1 "
4 33305-02 B4.84
]
Calc WDC-07, Rev. O Bl.36 4 33307-01. B4.85-Calc. WDC-11, Rev. O Bl.57 2 33311-01 B4.86 Calc. WDC-11, Rev.'O "
2 33311-02 B4.87 Calc. WDC-13, Rev. O Bl.38 8 33313-01 'B4.88 i i
Rpt. 01-0210-1479, Rev. O Bl.39 33101-01 B4.89 Rpt. 01-0210-1479, Rev. 1 "
33101-02 B4.90 Rpt. 01-0210-1483, Rev. O Bl.40 33105-01 B4.91 Rpt. 01-0210-1483, Rev. 2 (Draft) "
33105-02 B4.92 Rpt. 01-0210-1483, Rev. 2 "
33105-03 B4.93 Rpt. 01-0210-1483, Revs. O, 1, "
33105-04 B4.94' ,
2 (Draft), & 2 l 1
Rpt. 01-0210-1523 (5/86) Bl.41 33617-01 B4.95 i Rpt. 01-0210-1523 (8/86) "
33617-02 B4.96 l Rpt. 01-0210-1523 (9/86) "
33617-03 B4.97 I Rpt. 01-0210-1523, Rev. 1 "
33617-04 B4.98 (superceded by Calc. ROTC-75) p Rpt. 01-0210-1527 (9/86) Bl.42 33622-01 B4.99 Rpt. 01-0210-1527 (11/86) "
33622-02 B4.100 Rpt. 01-0210-1527, Rev. 1 "
33622-03 B4.101 1
7-
.' Revision: 1 Page 49 of 68 1
RESULTS REPORT
\j l- ISAP'I.c l
(Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B (Cont'd)
Third-Party [
Applicable Review Project Document Ref. Screen Level Document Ref.
Rpt. 01-0210-1560 (11/86) Bl.43 33111-01 B4.102 Rpt. 01-0210-1560, Rev. O "
33111-02 B4.103 p
Rpt. 01-0210-1562 (11/86) Bl.44 33109-01 B4.104 !
Rpt. 01-0210-1562, Rev. O "
33109-02 B4.105 Rpt. 01-0210-1583, Rev. A Bl.45 33609-01 B4.106 Rpt. 01-0210-1583, Rev. 0 "
33609-02 B4.107 Rpt. 01-0210-1584, Rev. A Bl.46 33616-01 B4.108 Rpt. 01-0210-1584, Rev. 1 "
33616-02 B4.109
(~s l
(') Rpt. 01-0210-1479, Rev. O (App. D only)
B2.1 33106-01 B4.110 !
- 4. TEST PROGRAMS CCL L I
Rpt. A-707-86, 2/14/86 B3.1 33502-01 B4.111
'Rpt. A-707-86, 2/14/86 "
33502-02 B4.112 Rpt. A-711-86, 4/4/86 B3.2 33501-01 B4.113 Rpt. A-711-86, 4/4/86 "
33501-02 B4.114 Rpt. A-720-86, 7/10/86 B3.3 33504-01 B4.115 Rpt. A-720-86, 7/10/86 "
33504-02 B4.116 Proc. 1903.23-01, 5/9/86 B3.4 33503-01 B4.117 Proc. 1903.23-01, 5/9/86 "
33503-02 B4.118 Rpt. A-736-86, 10/23/86 B3.5 33505-01 B4.119 l, PI-0210-052-011, Rev. O Bl.47 33112-01 B4.120
'I
- 5. MISCELLANEOUS Proc. ECP-19B, Rev. 2 Bl.48 33702-01 B4.121 gs N.)
m Revisiont ~1 Page.50 of 68
("3 RESULTS REPORT Q.)
ISAP I.c-(Cont'd) l ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES Bl. Impe11 Documents 1 a
Bl.1 Project Instruction 0210-052-004, "As-Built Walkdown",
Rev. 1.
Bl.2 Project Instruction 0210-052-005, " Procedures.for Implementing Screen Level 6", Revs. 2, 3.
Bl.3 Project Instruction 0210-053-001, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit, Part 1, Methodology", Revs.
3-7.
Bl.4 Project Instruction 0210-053-001, " Multi-Level Screening.
Criteria for Train C Conduit, Part II, Conduit Supports Walkdown Instructions", Revs. 1-7.
j-.' Bl.5 Project Instruction'0210-053-001, " Multi-Level Screening
) Criteria for Train C Conduit, Part III, Conduit Support *i
(/-
~
Engineering Evaluation Procedures", Rev. 3-7.
Bl.6 Project Instruction 0210-053-001, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit, Part IV, Procedures for Support Rework Options", Revs. 3-7.
Bl.7 Project Instruction 0210-053-001 " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit, Part V, Junction Box Walkdown Instructions", Revs. 5-7.
Bl.8 Project Instruction 0210-053-001, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit, Part VI, Engineering Evaluation Procedures for Junction Boxes", Revs. 5-7. !
Bl.9 Project Instruction 0210-053-001, " Screening Criteria for j Train C Conduit, Part VII, Procedures for Junction Box Rework Options", Revs. 5-7.
Bl.10 Project Instruction 0210-053-002, " Level 4 Screening Criteria for Type 1 Supports", Rev. 3.
Bl.11 Project Instruction 0210-052-003, " Seismic Evaluation of Train C Conduit Supports", Revs. 2, 3.
Bl.12 I
f- g Project Instruction 0210-052-006, " Rigorous Analysis of l
.( ) Train C Conduit", Revs. 1, 2.
l l
j
i
(
Rsvision: 1
-Page 51 of 68
[N= RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
-Bl.13: Project Instruction 0210-052-008, " Procedure for Implementing Rework Option 2 - Seismic Restraint by Aircraft Cable", Revs. 0,1.
Bl.14 Calculation ROTC-02, " Procedure to Calculate Anchor Bolt Loads (Prying)", Revs. O, 2.
'Bl.15 Calculation ROTC-03, " Parametric Analysis of Multi-Conduit Supports", Revs. O, 1.
Bl.16' Calculation ROTC-04, " Train C Junction Box Criteria: Two Lug !,upport Type", Revs. 0-2. l Bl.17 Calculation ROTC-05, " Train C Junction Box Criteria:
Four Lug Support Type", Revs. O, 1.
Bl.18 Calculation ROTC-06, " Multi-Mode Factor Evaluation for gg Train C Conduit", Revs. O, 1.
Bl.19 Calculation ROTC-08, " Junction Box Stiffness", Rev. O.
Bl.20 Calculation No ROTC-16 " Development of Walkdown
. Criteria for S-0910 Supports Similar to Type 6 Supports",
Rev. 3.
Bl.21 Calculation ROTC-18 " Justification of 1.2 Impact Factor", Rev. O.
Bl.22 Calculation ROTC-19, " Check of Width Thickness Ratio for Unistrut Members", Rev. O, 1.
Bl.23 Calculation ROTC-25, " Allowable Conduit Span Lengths Adjacent to CI Boxes", Revs. 1, 2.
Bl.24 Calculation ROTC-26, " Train C Junction Boxes: Boxes with 1 Two-Hole Mounting Lugs", Rev. O. '
Bl.25 Calculation ROTC-28, " Evaluation of Moment Loadings on Anchor Bolts", Revs. O, 1.
Bl.26 Calculation ROTC-32, " Stiffness Calculation for Train C Supports", Rev. 1.
.p Bl.27 Calculation ROTC-36 " Metal Framing Joint Load Rating",
Rev. 1.
l
_ - _ _ - - - - I
! I i
Rsvision: 1 Page 52 of 68 i
-- i f [)\ RESULTS REPORT l ISAP I.c (Cont'd) i ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
Bl.28 Calculation ROTC-43, " Minimum Edge Requirements for Bolts Near a Concrete Chamfer Edge", Rev. O.
Bl.29 Calculation ROTC-60, " Summary of Impe11's Two Inch and Under Train C Sample Analysis", Rev. O.
Bl.30 Calculation ROTC-62, " Evaluation of Grouted Penetrations", Rev. 1 (Supercedes Report No. j 01-0210-1523). q Bl.31 Calculation ROTC-75, " Evaluation and Resolution of Cygna Train A & B Conduit Issues as Applicable to Train C Conduit Supports", Rev. 1.
Bl.32 Calculation WDC-01, " Screen Level 2 Criteria for Type 6 Supports", Rev. 2.
./'m
() Bl.33 Calculation WDC-02, " Screen Level 2 Criteria for Type 5 q Supports", Revs. O, 3, 4. j Bl.34 Calculation WDC-03, " Screen Level 4 Criteria for Type 4a )
Supports", Rev. O. j l
Bl.35 Calculation WDC-04, " Screen Level 4 Criteria for Type 1 l Supports", Rev. O, 1. ]
l Bl.36 Calculation WDC-07, " Screen Level 4 Criteria for Type 5 l Supports", Rev. O. I Bl.37 Calculation WDC-11, " Level 4 Screen Criteria for Type 6 Supports", Rev. O.
B1.38 Calculation WDC-13, " Lateral Displacement of Cable Restraints", Rev. O.
Bl.39 Report No. 01-0210-1479, " Train C Conduit (Two Inch l Diameter and Less) Criteria Document", Revs. O, 1.
Bl.40 Report No. 01-0210-1483, "Hilti Kwik Bolts Justification of Factor of Safety", Revs. O, 2 (Draft), 2.
Bl.41 Report No. 01-0210-1523, " Impact of Cygna Train A & B
/"'N Issues on Train C Conduit Support Evaluation", Revs.
(,_) May 1986, August 1986, September 1986 and Rev. 1 (superceded by Calculation ROTC-75). l
'.su a
, y F-p ,
r
- p g ,
Ravicion: ,:1 an >
Page 53fof.68 v a- , . , .
L
[ 2 RESULTS REPORT
%[J ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B' g REFERENCES"(Cont'd)
- Bl.42L Report No. 01-0210-1527, " Justification of Damping
'Value". Revisions September 1986, November 1986 and-
,Rev. 1.
Bl.43 Report No. 01-0210-1560, " Engineering Inspection of Train C Conduit"," Revision November-1986 and.Rev.-0.
Bl.441 . Report No. . 01-0210-1562,." Justification for Screen;Leveli 6 - Conduit Having Lightly Loaded Supports", Revision
-dated November 1986 and Rev 0.
- Bl.45 Report No. 01-0210-1583,." Anchor Bolt Installation 1 Torque Issue", Revs. A, O.
Bl.46 Report No. 01-0210-1584, " Rod Hanger Coupler Issue",
Revs. A, 1.
' () Bl.47 Project Instruction 0210-052-011. " Procedure for Ut111 zing Test Data on Train C Components", Rev. O.
Bl.48 Brown & Root Construction Procedure _ECP-19B,
" Installation of New, Modified and Relocated Train C=
Conduit Supports", Revision 2. ;
B2, Ebasco Documents l B2.1 Ebasco Report on Impact Evaluations (Appendix D.of Impe11 )
Report No. 01-0210-1479, Rev. 0), March 6, 1986. 1 B3, CCL Documents B3.1 CCL Report No. A-707-86, " Static and Cyclic Testing of Train C Support Components", February 14, 1986.
B3.2 CCL Report No. A-711-86, " Static Testing of Train C Support. Components", April 4, 1986.
l B3.3 CCL Report No. A-720-86, " Static Testing of Train C Beam ,
Clamps and Unistrut Hangers", July 10, 1986. '
B3.4 CCL Procedure No. 1903.23-01, " Static and Cyclic Testing ,
of Train C Beam Clamps and Unistrut Hangers", May 9, '
., 1986.
t
\' -
B3.5 CCL Report No. A-736-86 " Tensile and Shear Strength Testing on Hilti Kwik Bolts for Train C Conduit Supports", October 23, 1986.
- . t p Rsvision
- li L Page'54'of 68 l
/ 'RESULTS REPORT !
?% !
ISAP.I.c (Cont'd)-
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
'B4.1 Third-Party Documents !
B4.1 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-052-004,' Revision'1, " Train C. '!
Conduit As-Built Walkdown", Review No. 33410-01, March 24, 1987.
B4.2 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Supplemental Review of Impell. Instruction PI-0210-052-004,.Rev. 1,
" Train C~ Conduit As-Built Walkdown Program", Review No.
33410-02, October 14, 1987. !
i B4.3 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan !
I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-210-052-005, Revision 2 " Procedures for Implementation of Screen Level 6". Review No. 33409-01',
,- s December 5, 1986.
.('-"') B4.4 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat Action Plan I.c Task'4.2.3, Review of Instruction PI-0210-052-005, Revision 3 (Including PICN #030), " Procedure for Implementation of Screen Level 6", Review No. 33409-02, February 27, 1987.
4 B4.5 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3,' Supplemental Review of Impell Instruction PI-210-052-005, Revs. 2 & 3, " Level 6 Walkdown", Review No. 33409-03, October 14, 1987. I B4.6 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 3, Part I, Portion of Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review No. 33401-01, August 11, 1986. !
B4.7 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of the Review of Impell Report PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 4, Part I, Review No. 1 33401-02, September 8, 1986.
1 i
B4.8 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan '
I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of the Review of Impell Report PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part I, Review No.
33401-03, September 15, 1986.
I) s.
I 1
%,____a_-_.._._--- __- - _
1 L
y ,
y, j
- Revisiont: '1 g -
~ '
l Page 55-of 68 im \3 M +
4
~RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.'c:
.(Cont'd) _3
' ATTACHMENT B
, REFERENCES (Cont'd)-
~
B4.9, TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c .
-Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001,-
Rev. 6, Part.I, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train q C Condult", Review No. 33401-04, December 30, 1986..
q
.B4.10 ' TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of.Impell Project Instruction 0210-053-001, Revision 7. " Multi-Level Screening Criteria
'for Train C-Conduit", Parts I through VII, Review No.
33401-05, September 30,:1987.
B4.11 TENERA Memorandum,~J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, supplemental Review of Impell Project Instruction a; '
PI-0210-053-001, Part I, Revs. 3 through 7. " Train C Walkdown Criteria", Review No. 33401-06, October 14, q
}g 1 B4.12 TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of Review of Impell Report
.PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 1, Part II (Excluding Level 3),
Review No. 33402-01, June 24, 1986.
'B4.13 =TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c. Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instructions.
PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 2,'Part II, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33402-02, July 14, 1986.
B4'14
. TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of Review of Impell Report PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 3, Part II, Review No. 33402-03, July 22, 1986.
B4.15 TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan
, I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instructions PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 4, Part II, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33402-04, August 11, 1986.
B4.16 TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instructions PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part II, " Multi-Level Screening
.3 Criteria for Train C Conduit, Review No. 33402-05, October 1, 1986.
- __ -_:_=_-_- _-
Rsvision: 1 Page 56 of 68
-~3 q
( ) RESULTS REPORT s.s ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.17 TERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 6, Part II, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33402-06, January 15, 1987.
B4.18 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Supplemental Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Part II, Revs. I through 7,
" Train C Walkdown Criteria", Review No. 33402-07, October 14, 1987.
B4.19 TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan i I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instructions PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 3, Part III, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33403-01, jL')i July 21, 1986.
B4.20 TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instructions PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 4, Part III, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33403-02, September 24, 1986. >
B4.21 TENERA Memorandum, R. Mackie to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part III, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33403-03, December 3, 1986.
B4.22 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 6, Part III, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33403-04, January 21, 1987.
B4.23 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan 1.c, Task 4.2.3, Supplemental Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Part III, Revs. 3 through 7,
" Train C Walkdown Criteria", Review No. 33403-05, October 14, 1987.
,m x._
)
( i 1 - ---- J
.,r _ h
, x -
e , Rsvision: 1 Page 57 of 68.
- g 1
RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd).
B4.24 TENERA Memorandum,'J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of the Review of Impell Report-PI-0210-053-001,'Rev. 3,-Part IV, Review No.
33404-01, August' 14, 1986.
B4.25 - TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of the Review of Impell Report PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 4, Part IV, Review No.-
33404-02, September 2, 1986.
B4.26 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan 1.c. Task 4.2.3,. Completion of the Review of Impell Report PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part IV, Review No.
33404-03, September 15, 1986. -
.. .B4.27 ' TERA Memorandum,'R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c.
. '!O .'
. Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001,
!V Rev. 6, Part IV, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33404-04, January 13, 1987.
B4.28 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan
- I.c, Task 4.2.3, Supplemental Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Part IV, Revs. 3 through 7,
" Train C Walkdown Criteria", Review No. 33404-05, October 14, 1987.
B4.29 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan j I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instructions .
l PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part V, " Multi-Level Screening j Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33405-01, 1 September 17, 1986.
B4.30 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, j Rev. 6, Part V " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train l C Conduit", Review No. 33405-02, January 14, 1987.
)
l B4.31 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan 1 I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part VI, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33406-01, September 26, 1986.
1 I
.;<. 4 i
[-
}
Revision: -1 l# Page 58 of 68
~
,m -
L- RESULTS' REPORT
'ISAP I.c -
(Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B' REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.32 TERA Memorandum,[R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001~,-
Rev. 6, Part VI, " Multi-Level Screening Criteria'for
! +
Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33406-02, January 14, 1987.
B4.33 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action. Plan I.c,1 Supplemental Review of Impell Project Instruction ,
PI-0210-053-001,- Part VI, Revs. 5 through 7 Review No. (
33406-03, October 14, 1987. l
,B4.34 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan i I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction !
PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 5, Part VII, " Multi-Level Screening 'l Criteria for Train C Conduit", Review No. 33407-01, October 20,'1986.
\ B4.35 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c..
Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-001, Rev. 6, Part VII, " Multi-Level-Screening Criteria for Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33407-02, January 14, 1987.
B4.36 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-002, Rev. 3, " Level 4 Screening Criteria for Type 1 Supports", Review No. 33408-01, January 27, 1987.
B4.37 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan )
I.c, Task 4.2.3, Supplemental Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-053-002. Rev. 3, " Level 4, Type 1 l Walkdo5n", Review No. 33408-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.38 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Project Instruction 0210-052-003, Revision 3
" Seism 5c Evaluation of Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33103-02, September 30, 1987.
l Revision: 1 Page 59 of 68
~
7 RESULTS REPORT w.s)
ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.39 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki ro C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Project Instruction 0210-052-003, Revs. O, 1, 2, & 3, " Seismic Evaluation of Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33103-03, October 13, 1987.
B4.40 TERA Memorandum, S. L. Shein to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction $
PI-0210-052-006, Revision 1 " Rigorous Analysis of Train '
C Electrical Conduit", Review No. 33108-01, December 16, l 1986.
B4.41 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-052-006, Revision 2, " Rigorous Analysis of Train C Electrical Conduit", Review No. 33108-02, July 20, tN 1987.
B4.42 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan {
I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Project Instruction
- 0210-052-006, Revs. 1 & 2 " Rigorous Analysis of Train C ]
Electrical Conduit", Review No. 33108-03, October 14, 1987.
l B4.43 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan :
I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Instruction PI-0210-052-08, Revision 0, " Rework Option 2 - Seismic Restraint by Aircraft Cable", Review No. 33110-01, j February 6, 1987. '
B4.44 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Revie.w of Impell Instruction PI-0210-052-08, i Revision 1, " Rework Option 2 - Seismic Restraint by i Aircraf t Cable", Review No. 33110-02, August 28, 1987.
B4.45 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Instruction
- 0210-052-08, Revs. 0 & 1, " Rework Option 2 - Aircraft ,
Cable", Review No. 33110-03, October 13, 1987. '
s-
Revision: 1 Page 60 of 68 l
m I'(V)
[
RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.46 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Completion of Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-02, " Procedure to Calculate Anchor Bolt Loads, TUGC0 Train C Ccaduit 2" 0",
Review No. 33611-01, June 25, 1986.
B4.47 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-02,
" Procedure to Calculate Anchor Bolt Loads", Revision 2 Review No. 33611-02, May 29, 1987. !
B4.48 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-02, Revs. 0 & 2., " Prying Factors", Review No. 33611-03, October 14, 1987.
B4.49 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Review of
('"T Impell Analysis ROTC-03, Review No. 33615-01, June 30,
() 1986.
B4.50 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Supplemental Review of Impell Analysis ROTC-03, Revs. 0 & 1,
" Combining Multi-Conduit Loads", Review No. 33615-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.51 TENERA Memorandum, P. McCarraher to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of the Review of Impell Calculations ROTC-04, Rev. O and ROTC-05, Rev. O,
" Junction Box Calculations", Review No. 33310-01, September 18, 1986.
B4.52 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculations ROTC-04, Rev. I and ROTC-05, Rev. 1, " Junction Box Calculations", Review No. 33310-02, December 17, 1986.
B4.53 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan ,
I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROIC-04, Revision 2. " Train C Junction Box Criteria", Review No.
33310-03, June 9, 1987.
B4.54 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan
, I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-04,
[ 'J
's '
Revs. O, 1, & 2, " Junction Box Calculations", Review No.
33310-04, October 14, 1987.
I I
l l
_ - _ _ _ _ _ l
Revision: 1 Page 61 of 68 73 y) p ,
RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.55 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Completion of Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-06, "Multimode Factor
' Evaluation Train C", Review No. 33610-01, June 25, 3
1986.
B4.56 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-06, Revision 1, " Multi-Mode ;
Factor Evaluation for Train C Conduit", Review No. l 33610-02, December 10, 1986.
B4.57 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c. i Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-08, '
Revision 0, " Junction Box Stiffness", Review No.
33618-01, March 10, 1987.
B4.58 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-08,
()/
\. _, Rev. O, " Junction Box Study". Review No. 33618-02, October 14,.1987.
B4.59 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-16, Revision 3, "Walkdown Criteria for S-0910 Supports (Type 6)", Review No. 33627-01, June 5, 1987.
B4.60 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-18, Revision 0,
'" Justification of 1.2 Impact Factor", Review No.
33605-01, September 28, 1987.
B4.61 TENERA Memorandum, S. L. Shein to C. Mortgt?, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-19, Revision 0, " Check of Width-Thickness Ratio for Unistrut Members", Review No. 33619-01, December 2, 1986. i l B4.62 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan l I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impe11 Calculation ROTC-19, i Revision 1, " Width-Thickness Ratio of Unistrut Members",
Review No. 33619-02, June 1, 1987.
i B4.63 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan l
I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-25, I~'T Rev. 1 " Allowable Conduit Span Lengths Adjacent to CI
\/ Boxes", Review No. 33621-01, December 11, 1986.
l l
L - __ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ __________.___________U
?C , <
/.
L,L Ravision: l' g;
f' %g > LPage 62 of;68.
i/g:
( (( ,
RESULTS REPORT' ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
L-- ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd).
1B4.64 TERA Memorandum, R.. Brown'to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c.
Task-4.2.3,; Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-25. Rev. 2
" Allowable Conduit' Span Lengths Adjacent to:CI Boxes",
Review No. 33621-02i January 21, 1987..
i '
B4.65 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c,-
Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-26,-Rev. 0,-
" Train C Junction Boxes: Boxes with Two-Hole Mounting.
Lugs", Review No. 33312-01, January 23', 1987.
B4.66 TENERA Memorandum, J. Croncki to C.'Mortgat, Action Plan.
I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell' Calculation ROTC-26, Rev. O, "Juntion Box Calc. -.Two Hole Lugs", Review No.
-33312-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.67 TERA' Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c.
I'~ Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-28, .
" Evaluation of-Moment Loading on Anchor Bolts", Revision 0, Review No. 33628-01, June 4, 1987.
B4.68 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c.
Task 4.2.3,' Review of Impell Calculation'ROTC-28,
" Evaluation of Moment Loading on Anchor Bolts", Revision-
.1,-Review No. 33628-02, July 1, 1987.
B4.69 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant:to C. Mortgat, Action. Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3. Review of'Impell Calculation ROTC-32,-
Revision 1, " Stiffness Calculations for Train C Supports", Review No. 33620-01, October 17, 1986.
B4.70 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculations ROTC-32, Rev. 1, " Stiffness Calculations for Train C Conduit".
Review No. 33620-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.71 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-36. Revision 1, " Metal Framing Joint Load Capacity", Review No. 33623-01, August 18, 1987.
B4.72 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c.
Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-43, Revision 0, " Minimum Edge Requirements for Bolts Near a Concrete Chamfer Edge", Review No. 33624-01, January 13, 1987.
u
, m Revision:- 1 Page 63 of 68-p .. Mf I -
RESULTS REPORT' L %f ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT'B.
',; REFERENCES (Cont'd)1 l.
l B4.73 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C.'Mortgat, Action Plan-
-I.c, Task 4.2.3, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-43, Rev. O, " Minimum Edge Distance' Requirements",. Review No.~33624-02, October 14,- 1987. >
B4.74 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action: Plan I.c,' Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation ROTC-60, Revision 0, " Summary of Impell's Train C Sample Analysis", Review No. 33604-01, September 30, 1987.
B4.75- TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c,' Review of Impell Calculation'ROTC-62, Rev. 1
" Evaluation of Grouted Penetrations", Review No.
'33625-01,- September 29, 1987..
B4.76 TENERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Review of
/~' Impell Calculation ROTC-75, " Evaluation and Resolution of
( Train A & B Conduit Issues as Applicable to Train C Conduit Supports", Revision 1, Review No. 33612-01,-
-September 25, 1987.
B4.77 TERA Memorandum, J. Giova to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation WDC-01, Revision
.2, " Screen Level 2 Criteria for Type 6 Supports", Review No. 33302-01, April 13, 1987.
B4.78 Calculation Review Checklist 33303-01, " Screening Criteria for Type 5 Supports", Impell Calculation WDC-02, Rev. O, G. Jackson.
B4.79 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan 1.c, Review of Impe11 Calculation WDC-02, Revisions 3 & 4,
" Screening Criteria for Type 5 Supports", Review No.
33303-02, August 12, 1987.
B4.80 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan !
I.c, Supplemental Review of Impe11 Calculation WDC-02, Revs. O, 3, " Screen 2, Type 5 Calculation", Review No.
33303-03, October 14, 1987.
1 B4.81 Calculation Review Checklist 33304-01, " Screening Criteria for Type 4a Supports", Impell Calculation WDC-03, Rev. O, G. Jackson, August 26, 1986.
x-1
l Revision: 1 Page 64'of 68 er .
[ RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.82 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculation WDC-03, Rev. O, " Screen 4, Type 4a Calculation,", Review No.
33304-02, October. 14, 1987.
B4.83 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell C41culation WDC-04, Rev. O, " Screen Level 4 4
Criteria for Support Type 1", Review No. 33305-01, December 11, 1986.
B4.84 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation WDC-04, Revision 1,." Screen Level 4 Criteria for Type 1 Supports", Review No. 33305-02, April 8, 1987.
B4.85 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation, WDC-07, Q(,f Revision 0, " Screen Level 4 Criteria for Type 5 Supports", Review No. 33307-01, December 12, 1986.
B4.86 TENERA Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c,' Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Calculation WDC-11, Revision 0, " Screen Level 4 Criteria for Type 6 Supports". Review No. 33311-01, December 2, 1986.
B4.87 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Supplemental Review of Impell Calculation WDC-11, Rev. O, " Screen 4 Type 6 Calculation", Review No. 33311-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.88 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c.
Review of Impell Calculation WDC-13, " Lateral Displacement of Cable Restraints", Revision 0, Review No.
33313-01, April 27, 1987.
B4.89 TENERA Memorandum, R. Pages to C. Mortgat, Review of l Impell Report #01-0210-1479, Rev. O. Sections 1.0 through l 5.0, Review No. 33101-01, June 30, 1986.
B4.90 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1479, Revision 1 " Criteria Document", Review No. 33101-02, March 24, 1987.
Rsvision: -1 Page 65 of 68 m
.s- )- RESULTS REPORT 3
ISAP I.c I (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B i REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.91 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Completion of Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1483, Rev. O, dated [
February 1986 Portion of Action Plan I.c Task 4.2.3, ;
Review No. 33105-01, June 23, 1986. '
B4.92 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Report, " Justification of Factor of Safety",
Report 01-0210-1483, Revision 2 Dec. 1986 (Draft for Comment), Review No. 33105-02, March 4, 1987.
B4.93 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1483, Revision 2, " Justification of Factor of Safety", Review No. 33105-03, September 29, 1987.
B4.94 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Supplemental
(% Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1483, Revs. O, 1,
(_,/ 2 (draft), & 2. "Hilti Bolt Factor of Safety", Review No. ;
33105-04, October 14, 1987. I B4.95 TENERA Memorandum, R. Pages to C. Mortgat, Completion of Review of Impell Report No. 01-0210-1523, Rev. A, Portion of Action Plan 1.c, Task 4.2.3, Review No. 33617-01, June 23, 1986.
B4.96 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Completion of In-Process Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1523, Rev. A, Aug. 1986, i
" Evaluation of Cygna Train A & B Issues for Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33617-02, October 22, 1986.
B4.97 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c Task 4.2.3 Completion of In-Process Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1523, Rev. A September 1986, " Evaluation of Cygna Train A & B Issues for Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33617-03, October 22, 1986.
B4.98 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Report 01-0210-1523, Revision 1, " Generic Technical Issues Report of Cygna Issues as Applicable to Train C Conduit Supports", Review No. 33617-04, August 27, 1987.
/ 'T
~
L_.)
Rsvision: l' Page 66 of 68 p
1 (%.) RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES (Cont'd)
B4.99 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, "CPSES Train C Conduit Justification of Damping Value", Impell Report No. 01-0210-1527, Review No. 33622-01, October 21, 1986.
B4.100 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, "CPSES Train C !
Conduit, Justification of Damping Value", Impell Report i No. 01-0210-1527, Revision 1 (Preliminary), Review No.
33622-02, November 25, 1986.
B4.101 TENERA Memorandum, D. Nyman to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1527, Revision 1,
" Justification of Damping Values", Review No. 33622-03, September 30, 1987.
B4.102 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan 1.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1560, ;
Nov. 1986, (Draft for Comment), " Engineering Inspection f)i
(, of Train C Conduit", Review No. 33111-01, December 18, 1986.
B4.103 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1560, Revision 0, " Engineering Inspection of Train C Conduit",
Review No. 33111-02, July 20, 1987.
B4.104 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1562, Revision A, (Draft for Comment), " Justification for Screen Level 6 for Conduit Systems Having Lightly Loaded Supports", Review No. 33109-01, December 11, 1986.
B4.105 TENERA Memorandum, J. Croneki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impell Report #01-0210-1562, Revision 0, " Justification for Screen Level 6 for Conduit Systems Having Lightly Loaded Supports", Review No.
33109-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.106 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of Impell Report " Relevance of Anchor Bolt Installation Torque Verification", Report No. 01-0210-1583, Revision A (Draft for Comment), Review No. 33609-01, March 3, 1987.
\_/
.c ,
'O Ravision:- .1 Page 67 of 68 y:
I .
RESULTS REPORT ISAP I.c' (Cont'd)
ATTACHMENT B-REFERENCES (Cont'd)'.-
B4.107. TERA Memorandum, J..Groncki to.C. Mortgat, Review of
-Impe11 Report #01-0210-1583,' Revision 0, " Anchor Bolt Installation Torque Issue" Review No. 33609-02,' April'3,
, 1987.
B4.108 TERA Memorandum,.J.'Groncki to C..Mortgat, Review of-Impe11 Report." Rod Hanger Coupler Issue", Report No.
01-0210-1584, Revision A (Draft.for Comment), Review No.
33616-01, March 3, 1987.
B4.109 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of-Impell Report #1-0210-1584, Revision 0, " Rod Hanger Coupler-Issue", Review No. 33616-02, April 2, 1987.
B4.110 TENERA Memorandum, R. E. Pages to C.:Mortgat, Review off Appendix D of.Impell Report 01-0240-1479, Review No.
33106-01, July 8, 1986.
B4.111 TENERA' Memorandum, C. Savant to C. Mortgat, Completion of Review of CCL Report #A-707-86 dated' February 14, 1986, Portion of Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3. Review No.
33502-01, June 19, 1986.
B4.112 'TENERA Memorandum, C. Mortgat to CPRT I'ssue I.c File, Supplemental Review of CCL Test Report #A-707-86, " Static
& Cyclic Component Capacity Tests" Review No. 33502-02, October 13, 1987.
B4.113 TENERA Memorandum, J. F. Giova to C. Mortgat, Review of CCL Report No. A-711-86, " Static Testing of Train C Conduit Support Components", 4/4/86, Review No. 33501-01, June 26, 1986.
B4.114 TENERA Memorandum, J. Gronck1 to C. Mortgat, Supplemental Review of Impell'CCL Test Report A-711-86, " Static ,
i Testing of Train C Components", Review No. 33501-02, !
October 14, 1987.
d B4.115 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan l 1.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of CCL Report #A-720-86 dated l July 10, 1986, " Static Testing of Train C Beam Clamps and Unistrut Hangers", Review No. 33504-01, January 22, 1987.
I
l
.Ravision:- '1L r Page:68 of 68 i
,-c j RESULTS REPORT-ISAP I.c-(Cont'd) <
ATTACHMENT B
. REFERENCES (Cont'd) !
.q
.B4.116 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan- l
~I.c -Supplemental Review'of CCL Test Report #A-720-86, -
" Beam Clamp Test", Review No. 33504-02, October 14, 1987.- .
B4.117 TENERA Memorandum, J. Groncki: to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c. Task 4.2.3, Review of CCL Test Procedure
- 1903.23-01, Review No. 33503-01, June 30, 1986.
B4.118 TENERA Memorandum,'J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Action Plan !
I.c, Supplemental Review of CCL Test Procedure
- 1903.23-01, " Beam Clamp Test Procedures", Review No, 33503-02, October 14, 1987.
B4.119 TERA Memorandum,:J. Groncki to C. Mortgat, Review of CCL Test Report #A-736-86' dated October 23, 1986, " Tensile and Shear Strength Testing of Hilti Kwik Bolts", Review-
- ] J No. 33505-01, April 3,'1987. 4 B4.120 TERA Memorandum, J. Groncki'to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Impe11 Project ' Instruction PI-0210-052-011, Revision 0, " Procedures for. Utilizing Test Data on Train C Components", Rev. O, Review No.
33112-01, August 28, 1987.
B4.121 TERA Memorandum, R. Brown to C. Mortgat, Action Plan I.c, Task 4.2.3, Review of Procedure ECP-19B " Installation of New, Modified and Relocated Train C Conduit Supports",
Revision 2, Review No. 33702-01, May 29, 1987.
'(
,