ML20236S323

Forwards Communications Repts Associated W/Conduit Audits. List of Communications Repts Encl

ML20236S323
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/13/1987
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84056.130, NUDOCS 8711250057
Download: ML20236S323 (38)

Text

7%

g -

i W QD 3 :p . .

. sunov "

y a 3 /s,

.1  :^ . Hev4f 5 l 2121 N Caf fornia Blvd . Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415'934-5733

. November 13, 1987

84056.130:

' I 1

-'l ,

Mrs. Juanita Ellis -

President,' CASE 11426 S. Polk.

c Dallas, TX 75224 ,

Subjec't: Communications Report Transmittal No. 57

' Independent Assessment Program - All Phases

.,7

~

-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric -

Job No. 84056

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

J Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the conduit audits. A list  !

of the' enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1.  !

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

Very_ truly 'yours, . ,

G [ , -

L ,.

' N. H. Williams-Project Manager NHW/amh-4 1 Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding'(TU Electric)

Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) l Mr. L Nace (TU Electric) j Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)

Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC)

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

Mr. C. Chiou (Ebasco) i J

l i

8711250057 PDR ADOCK O 87 M pgh -

)

A l

l san Franc sco soston Chicago Parseppany

\TUE\84056\LTR.130 ,

I l

p' 'li,' . ,. :+ '.

ti'1,4' cit.,

l:;ph s '

y o,.

QV rti-l: f

h. $. .' k'$ '

.,p

.i -

"I':j;o :- ATTACHMENT.1 in List of Enclosed Communications Reoorts I r , 0-

'Y TIME ,

DATE

< u.

U'  ; 07/20/87.c .

9:50 a.m.-

. 07/20/87- 315 p.m.

07/21/87 - 930 a.m.

p ', 07/21/87'. -

1030 a.m.

"'. , .07/22/87' 9

05 a.m.

e - 07/22/87 - "

10:55 a.m.

..,T .08/31/877 10:45 a.m.

!E O ,

08/31/87I 11:25 a.m.

gc 09/01/87.' 900 a.m.

R" 09/25/87" 900 a.m.

l

~

a Y- ' s 4 ,

, ! s. ..

_ i .j jp:

i

' I al I

l l

1 f: )

i i

l l

\TUE\84056\LTR.130

T Communications j

,y A LnM Report l lltlll111lllllllllll11111ll1ll

. Company

Telecon X Conference Report Project - Job No.

CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,,e:

7/20/87 sumect **

. Design Review Process 9.50 a.m.

Ebasco Audit pi,c, Ebasco (N.Y.)

Participants:

of L J. Russ - Cygna Aequired ltem Comments Action By

' Cygna spoke to Ebasco to discuss the procedures and methodologies being used in the design review process.

1. How did Ebasco address Cygna's concerns on incorporating all possible configurations and the general notes into the conduit / conduit support design review?

Ebasco stated that each engineer was required to read the general notes and consider all notes that were applicable. The general notes were revised to reflect the requirement to consider. the general notes. The entire S-910 package was revised and reissued with the revision designation "C P-01".

Subsequent revisions may or may not result in revisions to the entire S-910 package. ' Ebasco noted that the largest impact on the supports was from member substitution and edge distance requirements. Both of these requirements were covered by special studies.

2.- How are the as-built supports and supports with CMC's listed against them considered?

All conduit supports will be as-built. If the walkdown shows that the installed support is within the generic support dimensional requirements, the actual dimensions for the installed support are not recorded. The walkdown package includes inspection reports (IR), CMC's and any other Signed: Page of Distribution: SEE XffACHED DISTRii3UTION SIIEET.

1020 01a .

j a

W - Communications 4L i i Report I lllllll1111111llllI11111111111 Requwed item - Comments Action By applicable documentation. The as-built support is compared to

!..~

the generic support. If the installed configuration is unconservative with respect. to the generic support capacity requirements, the installed support is labeled a " modified" support and a complete evaluation is performed.

3. Cygna asked how the analysis methodologies are selected for the conduit / conduit support evaluations.

Ebasco stated that if the spans are acceptable with respect to the generic criteria, but the supports are not, an aquivalent  ;

static analysis with accelerations of 1.5 x peak "g" will be '

performed. -If the supports are acceptable, but the spans are not, a response spectrum analysis will be performed.

4. . Ebasco was asked to' describe how the support qualification was performed.

' Modified supports will be analyzed using hand calculations, if

. possible. Computer models, based on the generic configura-tions, may be used if possible. A STRUDL skeleton is used to build the model. The skeleton is to be kept consistent with the current design criteria. Whether modified or consistent with generic, all supports are checked.

1 I

I J

I i

TUE/072087-C. CON i

Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 2 1020.01b

- q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- ---- - - - -

77-f;;

p.r i' -e ec..

.)- ,.

• 4

1. . 4 1 ,,

DISTRIBUTION LIST

, . 1

' Mr. J.~ Redding Mr. L. Nace

• ' Mr. W. Counsil '

'O Mr. D. - Pigott -

4 Ms. A. Vietti-Cook

~

Mr. C Grimes L Mr. CY. Chiou

~

Ms. N. Williams-Mr. J. Russ '

Mr. W. Horstman Mr.- K. Parikh .

Mr.-B. Atalay-Ms. D. Leong

-Project File C

4

+

l l

i

'0'*' ' " _-__-_.____-..__.._m_ _ _ _

k.;

i c[ Communications

% AMc a Report t A lllll111111111lllll11111111lll 1

h

• • • "F Teiecon R conference neport CES Project: - Job No CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,i,:

7/20/87 l

sumect '""*'

Minimum Support Frequencies 315 p.m.

Ebasco Audit pi,c,: ,

Ebasco (N.Y.)  !

i

Participants:

of

]

J. Russ Cygna _

I

'~

Required

- l tem Comments Action By Cygna discussed the methodologies developed by Ebasco to derive q the minimum support frequencies and the design accelerations (g's), j

1. How were the minimum support frequencies calculated?

Ebasco reviewed all the response spectra and determined the lowest frequency for the support / conduit system which would not allow the acceleration to increase should the installed supports be stiffer than is considered in the analysis. The frequency selected by Ebasco for each of the response spectra for the combined support / conduit system is shown in Figure 1.

The frequency of the support / conduit system was calculated ]

using Dunkerley's formula. The conduit frequency was based on a simply supported span.

1 For some floors, the required minimum frequency does not insure that the accelerations will not increase if the support / conduit system frequency is greater than the minimum.

For these spectra Ebasco is presently evaluating the spectra in order to develop a correction factor. Additionally, conduit overhangs and air-drops may have frequencies that are less than the minimum required system frequency. Ebasco is considering using the peak acceleration for any of these i situations which have frequencies below the required minimum. I The calculations for the minimum support frequency are in )

Ebasco Calculation Book SPAN - 1010.

signed Page of 3 3 oistobution- SHE' ATTACHElf DISTRtI1UTION SHEET.

1020 014 )

^

Communications

> g f. c3 Report

, g: -.m.- :qn Requved

?'

Item Comments Action By

2. How were the " Design G's" developed?

In order to proceed with the work scope at CPSES, Ebasco calculated preliminary design G's which were to be multiplied L

by the tributary conduit weight in the evaluation of the S-0910 package. The calculation steps are as follows-y a. The frequency of a conduit with its maximum span and the required minimum support frequency are combined using Dunkerley's formula.

b. The acceleration corresponding to that combined frequency was selected from the response spectra. If the acceleration fell on the peak of the response spectra, it was multiplied by 1.5. If the acceleration did not fall on the peak, it was multiplied by 1.25. These accelerations were termed " approximate G's".

Ebasco selected the maximum G values for all sizes of conduits.

Ebasco used these accelerations in the evaluation of the i

generic design requirements shown in the S-0910 package. In order to assure that larger accelerations would not occur, Ebasco performed a series of response spectrum analyses (RSA) of various conduit run configurations. The various systems were analyzed in six different orientations to account for_ any possible orientation of the installed hardware. If the resultant accelerations at the supports from the RSA were larger than the " preliminary G's", the RSA accelerations were termed the. " Design G's". If the " preliminary O's" were larger than the RSA accelerations, then the " preliminary G's" were termed the " Design G's". Thus, for the configurations analyzed, Ebasco provides the upper bound acceleration for use in evaluation.

\

3. Are there any calculations which show the rationale for selecting the systems and configurations used in the RSA analyses? -

l Ebasco replied that they did not have any calculations for the selection of the configurations. f l

4. Did any supports fail to meet the required minimum frequency?

If so, how were they handled?

l l

Page '

SEE A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 3 )

icre m I

+ Communications ALni Report lililllilllllilllillililllllll Required item Comments Action By Some support configurations with long members and significant self-weight did not meet the required minimum frequency.

These support configurations were removed from the S-0910 package.  ;

i

' 5. Are the RSA calculations where the requirements for the LA spans adjacent to LS spans are located?

The RSA analyses did provide the requirements for the LA spans adjacent to LS spans. However, Ebasco has changed the span requirements. Presently, any conduit system which has a l support or span with a frequency less than 33 hz. must be evaluated using the ." Design G's". Additionally, since LA spans and their supports are generally stiff with frequencies greater than 33 hz., they would probably have significant thermal loads. However, Ebasco's studies have shown that designing the LA spans and their supports using the " Design G's" precludes the requirement of evaluating the conduit spans and supports for thermal loads. Ebasco has studies which show that the imposed thermal load combined with ZPA seismic loads is less than the seistnic loads using the " Design G's".

l l

TUE/072087-A. CON

" S' '

SEE A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 3 3 i m oin

[

i

Calculation 4 L .a , Sheet

.-- l11111111llll1lllllllllll11111 I

oate Project Tu E L B 772) c casas pp pgg + Prep *'ea By-Suoject C"*' * ** By orte

/9/^/' mon conDuti/gm m,

'~'

System JODNo File No.

Analys4 No Rev. No Sheet No g- h

>A" o

b t

kN b

l 1

.k W DD/W GW m-n av

,P~/4 026 _t 1036 0C

'h ) f-E DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L. Nace

Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott -

Ms. A. Vietti-Cook Mr. C. Grimes.

Mr. C.Y. Chiou Ms." N. Williams

, Mr. J. Russ Mr. .W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh

- Mr. B. Atalay.-

Ms. D. Leong Project File l

r.

f.

I 1 l l B I i.

I I

L l

L ,, Communications V d(m i< Report

. .. = lllllllllllIlllllllllIllllIlll I f Company; Teiec n Conference neport CES Project . Job No.

, g j Date:

07/21/87 subject:- **'

. Document Request 9:30 a.m.

Ebasco Audit.

pi,c,;

Ebasco, N.Y.

Participants:

of J. Russ Cygna Aequired item - Comments Action By Cygna requested and received for use during the audit the L following calculation binders:  !

)

Calculation Book Description )

?

1 SPAN - 1115 LS - Straight Run '

SPAN - 1131 LS - Double Bend -

SPAN - 1301 Support verification for CA-3a, CA-3b )

22 Support verification for CSM-2a-1, I CSM 2a III, CSM-2a V (all Unit 2) 1 l

TUE/072187-A. CON l

S6gned: Q~ 9/g -

Page of IlfilN W Distnbution SFF ATTACIIFD DT9TRTit1 TTinN RTIT:T:T 1020 01a I

L ,

1 $, .

>sg:e -f y' -

d

- DISTRIBUTION LIST

.Mr. J. Redding

' Mr. L Nace -  ;

Mr. W. Counsil  !

Mr. D. Pigott-

• l Ms. A.' Vietti-Cook Mr. C. Grimes l Mr. C.Y. Chiou l Ms. N. Williams

. Mr. J. Russ

' Mr. W. Horstman

- Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay .

Ms. D. Leong Project File 1 l

l-l l

p e

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ 1

t

,pussysui Communications C

A L%T1 Report lillllllllllllllllllilllllilll Company: Teiec n X conference Report CES Project.. Job No.

CPSES IAP Phase 4 o te:

07/21/87 GIR Update 1030 a.m.

Ebasco Audit pi,c .

Ebasco (N.Y.)

H.S. Yu, K. Gadalla Ebasco J. Russ Cygna 1

1 Required item Comments Action By Ebasco had indicated that there were several changes in their approach to the evaluation of the conduit / support systems at CPSES.

In order to more efficiently plan their review of the design verification program for the conduit systems at CPSES, Cygna met with Ebasco to status the changes in the GIR and to locate where the work was being performed. The latter information was necessary since there are two Ebasco groups performing design verification and walkdown activities, one in New York and one at the CPSES site.

The following list reflects any changes in the GIR that have taken place since the last public meeting on conduits and the location of the work activities. If the work is being performed by the Ebasco group at the CPSES site, the description so indicates. If a location is not indicated, the work is being performed by the Ebasco group in New York.

REVIEW ISSUE DESCRIPTION 1 No changes in the GIR.

2 No changes in the GIR. Ebasco provided Cygna with copies of calculations which address the use of the CQC method in determining the

" Design G's". These calculations, which were unchecked and for use during the audit, will be located in Calculation Book SPAN - 1001.

signed.

Q/' ~

Page of Distribution: SEE AWACHED DISfRIIdrION SHEET.

s.- .

7

h. 7,.

.)

Communications i 1 4Lt i - Report

'M

.gdl[ "]illll\

Required

' Item Commenfs Action By

.G.

3 No changes in the GIR.

4 No changes in the GIR. Cygna confirmed that.

if required, Ebasco will modify any supports to

. meet the anchorage requirements.

5 No changes in the GIR. The bolt hole o tolerance and edge distance study was performed in New York. The bolt hole study is taken from the work on cable tray supports.

The edge distance study is in Calculation Book SUPT - 0246.

'6 . No changes in the GIR.

7 No changes in the GIR.

8- No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at the site.

9- No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at site.

10 No changes in the GIR except those to account for the work by Stone & Webster. Calculation Books 60 and 5 are located in the New York office. Calculation Book TNE-CS-CA-CA-1 is located at site.

Cygna asked at what points the rotations were taken from in calculating the " average rotation" used in calculating the base plate stiffness.

Ebasco stated that the analysis configuration for a tube steel member and the points from which the rotations are taken are as shown in Figure 1.

11 No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at site.

12 No changes in the GIR.

13 No changes in the GIR. Cygna confirmed that the general notes of the S-0910 package were revised so as not to allow " groups of conduits"

"'S' '

SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 4 1020 01D -

~, j-t Communications

. 4 L% a;;i Report a at I

f Requred '

. Item Comments Action By on supports. According to Ebasco, the drawings

- only list allowable conduit weights.

- 14 The response in the GIR has changed. Ebasco now requires that ah conduits and supports in a conduit system to have frequencies greater than 33 bz. 'If any support or conduit span does not b have a frequency equal to or greater than 33 hz, the system must be evaluated using the

" Design G" values.

15 No changes in the GIR. Cygna understands that all attachments to cable trays will be

-identified via a special walkdown. If the

' attachments are conduits, the conduit group will evaluate the attachment up to the connection. The cable tray group is responsible for the evaluation of the cable tray itself.

,_ Ebasco stated that the specifics on the loadings l' can be found in SAG.CP-18.

16 No changes in the GIR.'

17 The response in the GIR has changed. Step b on page A.173 has been revised. The new process is described in Calculation Book SPAN-1189. Calculation Books SPAN - 1189 and i SUPT - 0247 which are available in New York, i r

18 The Tesponse in the GIR has changed. The l results of the ANCO testing program are now  !

being evaluated. The ANCO test program is i available for Cygna's review at site.

19 No changes in the GIR.

20 No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at site.

2 21 No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at site. Ebasco noted that only one support capacity is now given for any one support configuration. All applied loads, including those induced by Thermolag, are compared to the support allowable.

Page SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 3 4 1020 01b

Communications Am, Report

, lilllillllilllllllillitillllli Required item Comments Action By Ebasco procedure SAG.CP-25 addresses the evaluation of the as-built isometrics, including those conduit systems with installed Thermolag.

The Ebasco site group will perform a walkdown of the conduit systems and develop as-built isometrics. The as-built packages will be evaluated at site. Ebasco, New York will also evaluate some of the isometric packages as manpower requirements dictate.

22 No changes in the GIR. Ebasco has adopted a yield stress, Fy = 25 ksi. This yield strength was adopted since the test reports showed a minimum yield value of 253 ksi. Additionally, ASTM 53-87 shows that Type F (open hearth, oxygen or electric furnace) material as having a yield strength of 25 ksi. The value for Young's Modulus, E = 29,000 ksi was chosen since it matched the yield strength of 253 ksi.

23 No changes in the GIR.

24 No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at site.

25 No changes in the GIR. Calculation Book 44 is available for review in New York.

26 No changes in the GIR.

27 No changes in the GIR. The work scope associated with this Review Issue is being performed at site.

28 No changes in the GIR.

29 No changes in the GIR.

TUE/072187-B. CON Page of SEE ATI' ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 4 4 IC20 01 b

alculation

of l1111llllllllltll111111lll11111

, Project Prepared By Date YU [WWIC M C' W /W 4 Subject Checked By Date 4+erAsc A'o7:W770n Pok rs System Job No File No

Analysis No Rev. No. Sheet No g

O s

1

'.'). .t.

E, . /d

• O i Rorwon c

/)ve /A G 6 D ,, , o

.s.

e

/~/ 6 0 R 6 .i i

1006 00

g ,

-i(

h

-c-U DISTRIBUTION LIST p

Mr. J. Redding .

Mr. L Nace l, Mr. W. Counsil

- Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A.- Vietti-Cook

Mr.~ C. Grimes b-Mr. C.Y. Chiou -

Ms. N. Williams Mr. J.' Russ-Mr. W. Horstman

, Mr. K.- Parikh Mr. B. Atalay -

i, Ms. D. Leong Project File I

l I

1

I f '. ' l 4 Communications  !

,I 40,i Report

'llilllillililillllllilllllllll Company; Teiec n Cor.terence Report ES-Project:

TU Electric . 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 nete:

7/22/87 subject -

x, Embedded Conduits 905 a.m. j

. Ebasco Audit piece:

Ebasco, N.Y.

H.S. Yu, H. Ghandi Ebasco J. Russ, B. Shakibnia Cygna y

Required item Comments Action By Cygna met with Ebasco to discuss the methodology used to assess the adequacy of conduits embedded in concrete. Cygna noted that

. Ebasco- assumes ' that the embedded hook is similar to a plain reinforcing bar. Ebasco, in Calculation Book 151, evaluated a plain reinforcing bar in tension which has a standard hook. In the calculation, a ratio of tensile stress in the bar over the yield stress is used to arrive at the length of the hook, L, that contributes to the overall development length. Cygra asked why this was applic-able to the strength in bonded portion of the straight section of the bar.

Ebasco stated that a standard hook is required by ACI 318-63, the latest code which addresses the behavior of unreinforced reinforcing bar. The code states that the hook develops 10 ksi and 19 ksi for working stress design and ultimate strength design, respectively.

Ebasco was calculating what strength the straight length of bar can develop before the allowable bond stresses are exceeded. When this length is determined, it is multiplied by.a factor of 2, which is used by Ebasco as the required bond length.

l l

TUE/072287-S. CON

]

)

r )

Signed. Q Page of Distribution: SE8 ATTACHED DISTR' ThUTION SHEET.

ic20 01a

u _.

, ,' .\ .~_.

J.3 if f

& DISTRIBUTION-LIST Mr. J. Redding

'Mr. L. Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A. Vietti-Cook' Mr. C.' Grimes  !

L. .Mr. C.Y. Chiou Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman

- Mr. K. Parikh

. Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. Leong Project File i

I f s

4 i

i l

i

)

)

u-____.._____._ . _ . _

p-p*

Communications Ahe 111lll1lllllllll111lllll111111' Report y

I l

Compant Telecon Conference Report X l l Project: . Job No.

TU Electric o,,,: M050 l' CPSES IAP Phase 4

Subject:

Time:

" Design G" Values p,,c,; 1&55 a.m.

Ebasco Audit

Participants:

of "#' "*I*

l - , . ii.5. iu BDasCo l

p i Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the methodology used by Ebasco in order to determine the " Design G" values used in the evaluation of the conduit spans and supports at CPSES. Ebasco's procedure is as follows-

1. The " preliminary" or " approximate" G values are taken from the response spectra after the combined frequencies of the conduit / support system are calculated. The G values amplified by 1.5 and 1.25 if they are on or off the peak of the response spectra, respectively.

2. The " approximate" G values are confirmed by the response spectrum analyses (RSA) of the selected conduit system configurations. These accelerations are termed the

" average G" values.

3. If the " average G" values are larger than the

" approximate G" values, the " average G" values are used for the " Design G" values.' If the " approximate G" values are larger than the " average G" values, the " approximate G" values are used for the " Design G" values.

Signed. j Page y

of 7

oistnoution: SdE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

. 1020 0's

[c - .

' Communications A(ni Report i La - lilE ""t""lill l i

Required item Comments Action By l

l

4. Ebasco has programmed STRUDL to compute the ratios of the maximum, mean and minimum " average" G values to  !

the maximum, mean and minimum "approxunate" G values, l

respectively. These ratios are used in selecting the

" Design" G values. The maximum of the " average" G's >

.for all conduit configurations on an . elevation are tabulated. The maxima of these tabulated values are u those listed in the tables in Appendix 7 of the ~ design

criteria.

5. The values in Appendix 7 are not directionally dependent, I even though they may be labeled as such. The values are -

1 simply the maxima of the maximum, mean and minimum

" Design" G values. These are the values used in the  !

support and conduit span evaluations.

6. The support evaluation process requires that the analyst I rotate the support into 6 orientations and apply the

" Design '1" accelerations such that the worst case is evaluai Should the analyst decide not to perform an evaluation in this fashion, he must use an acceleration equal to L5 times the peak spectral acceleration. )

!. i j

l TUE/072287-A. CON P89' '

SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 2 1020 010

I

.'i ' <

l' f:i

j ,

a i-DISTRIBUTION LIST I. 'Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace '

Mr. W. Counsil a

Mr. D. Pigott Ms.' A. Vietti-Cook' Mr. C. Grimes Mr.' C.Y.: Chiou

. Ms. - N. .Will iams Mr. J. Russ -

Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh

. . Mr. B. Atalay -

- Ms. D. Leong Project File I

's ,'

J

j4h 4f.th 4 Communications Report ae , lllll11lllllll1111lll111llllll J. '

> a Compang X Conference Report g" Telecon

. Project ~ Job No

, t

' CPSES IAP PHASE 4 cate:

8/31/87 N;

Subject:

Time.

Place-CPSES Site

' Participants,: of S. Harrison TU Electric J. Russ Cvgna a

i Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked how the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP) was developed. TU Electric stated that a list of ,

inspection attributes for a given component type (i.e., pipe '

supports, cable tray supports, conduit supports, etc.) was developed. ' The Gibiss & Hill (G & H) and Brown & Root (B & R) inspection procedures were reviewed to determine if an attribute was required to be inspected. If the attribute was not required, it was put on the PCHVP list. If the attribute was required to be inspected by the G. & H and B & R procedures, an investigation was initiated to determine if the attribute was inspected prr>perly.

The investigations were in the form of walkdowns, including the QA/ OOC walkdowns performed by CPRT. The results of these walkdowns indicated that the welds were acceptable. Therefore, the welds on the components included in the PCHVP do not have to be reinspected.

L l

t

'TUE\083187 A. CON

\

[

oistnoution-

/ )v 1 # 4A 1 1

's'EFA'IFACHED DISTUBUTION SHEET.

' " " ~ "-

ic e ..

,. +

"f.

3, . . . .

r; ,

c,... -

f 1-l}li(;

d ul W~ ' a ..

Op Q

, DISTRIBUTION LIST'

' ' Mr. J. Redding -

'a. Mr. L. Nace Mr. W. Counsil

, . Mr. D.'Pigott Ms. A.' Vietti. Cook

< Mr. C Grimes

. Mr. CY. Chiou Ms.' N. Williams.

Mr. J. Russ T Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K.' Parikh fr: :F ' Mr. B. Atalay K1 Ms. D.' Leong .

Project File

,l (

t I 1

i 1

l r ,!

.i ' .

I

1 Communications 1

1. *h f, en i Report E ' llll1111111111111lll111ll11111

)

Company:

CES O Te'eco- 9 coe'e<eceaenori heJect: Job No.

l 1

- TU Electric 84056 i CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.ie 8/31/87

""'i"' '**

Conduit Support Walkdowns 11:25 a.m.

Ebasco Audit piace-CPSES site J. Aaen, R. Beam Ebasco 1 J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received copies of the following documents for use during the audit:

1. CPE-EB-FVM-CS-014, Revision 5

2. CPE-EB7VM-CS-033, Revision 2 The first document is the walkdown procedure for Unit 2 conduits and their supports. The second document is the walkdown procedure for Unit I conduits and their supports.

l Cygna stated that they would review document 2 and discuss any l questions with Ebasco. >

1 j

l I

,) J , 1 1 j Distnbution: S E' A'ITAC5ED DISTRIlRITION SHEET.

.1020 01a

I ,r ' '

DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding

- Mr. L Nace

- Mr. W. Counsil L Mr. D. Pigott

- Ms. A' Vietti-Cook

' Mr. C. Grimes 1 Mr. C.Y. Chiou

- Ms. N. Williams

.: ,~

Mr. J. Russ

Mr. W. Horstman

' Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D.' Leong Project File J.

,1 d a 1.,.

-p i ',

'l

.y 1

' -----_x.__._.u.._._.___ ,,. __ __

g___ _

1 communications mt , Report L- llililllillllillllllllllillill Company; x co te,e ce aeaort ES O Te'eco#

Project: Jcb No-CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.te. l 9/01/87 Conduit Support Walkdowns 9.00 a.m.

Ebasco Audit pi co.

CPSES site J. Aaen, R. Beam Ebasco J. Russ Cygna Required item - Comments Action By Cygna met with - Ebasco to discuss the walkdown procedure for conduit and conduit supports CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033, Revision 2.

&gtion 1.0 - Introduction

1. What is document CPE-TD-EB-060 " Conduit Design Adequacy Program", that is referenced in this section?

CPE-TD-EB-060 is a task description document for Ebasco's work scope on the Train A and B conduit systems and their supports. This document lists the activities that will be performed in the design verification program.

&ction 2.0 - Scone

2. Does the note on page 1 apply to those common supports with only Unit 2 conduits attached to them?

The conduit systems indicated in the note are not as-buit, because, at one time, only Unit 2 conduits were to be as-built.

These conduit systems are covered in that program. All Unit 2 conduits were traced to termination, including termination in Unit I and common areas. The note simply states that these conduits do not have to be as-built again. The note does include any supports with Unit 2 conduit on them.

Page of Signed: Q Distnbution: SEE' ATTACHEli DISTRIBMION SHEET.

9

+

Communications AL i i Report

'I!!11111111111111ll11111ll1111 Required item Comments Action By

3. Please provide some examples of conduits without any supports.

Ebasco provided the examples shown in Figure 1.

4. This section indicates that Unit 1 conduits that were as-built by other programs do not have to be as-built again. Were the  !

walkdown requirements of the other programs commensurate I with those of this procedure? I The section is in error. All Unit I conduits will be walked i down according to the requirements of this procedure. l l

Section 3.0 - Organization Structure

5. Is the . check of the as-built drawings for deficiencies (which may result in an NCR) reviewed by any other person than the walkdowu engineer? j l

The walkdown . engineer checks the as-built drawings for i deficiencies related to the hardware as indicated in Section 13 of the procedure. The engineer does not check for conformance to the drawing requirements.

The walkdown process is as follows:

a. The walkdown engineer is assigned the conduit system to be as-built.

b. Given a prepared package which contains previously generated documentation on the system, he alone, or with another engineer, measures the system and provides as-built sketches. The walkdown team is to note the occurrence of any deficient hardware. Hardware deficiencies are things such as missing washers, loose nuts, etc.

c. When the as-built sketches are complete, the walkdown engineer reviews the drawings for any indicated deficiencies. He notes these deficiencies on an NCR form. The as-built sketches and any NCRs are sent for processing so that they may be assigned to a checker.

d. The checker reverifies the as-built sketches in the field and notes any discrepancies between his measurements and the original walkdown engineer's measurements that are outside the measurement tolerances or do not match the conditions in the field. The checker then reverifies the conditions noted on the NCRs. The checker may also add deficiencies to the NCRs.

- SEE nTTnC;iED isi3Thi6 i,G, assi_Ia y _

g 1020 0 t t .

I

,)'

i' 1

~: .

Communications L

L,.

n 11lllll11lll111111111111111111

,i Report i-I-

[. Requeed

(? Item Comments Action By L

e. In cases where the checker has indicated that something by the orginator is incorrect, the originator and the checker meet to resolve the issue. Where resolution is

~

. not possible between the originator and checker, the supervising engineer is contacted so that resolution may be reached.

6. If the original walkdown engineer misses a dimension which the checker records 'on his field reverification, is the checker's measurement allowed to stand without independent verification in the field?

There are no requirements for independent verification for such a case. 1

7. How are discrepancies between the originator and the checker in the listing of the deficiencies on NCRs resolved.

If discrepancies between the orginator and the checker arise due to a disagreement over a deficiency listed by the originator, the resolution is achieved in a fashion similar to resolution for drawings as described above. If there are discrepancies between the originator and the checker due to the listing of additional discrepancies by the checker which were not listed by- the originator, there is no need for independent verification. From the work that has been 1 completed, there are indications that the checker lists more discrepancies than the originator.

Section 73 - Preparation of an Isometric Drawing

8. How is checking accomplished?

See the response to question 5, above.

Sub-section 0

9. Why are the locations of the conduits oc the faces of junction boxes recorded for unsupported junction botes only?

This requirement was specified by the design verification group.

Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 3 7 1020 CID

i I

Communications l A L .a i Report

+ lilillilill!!""""'";;lill -

Required item Comments Action By Subsection P

10. Are all conduits crossing the Unit 1/ Unit 2 boundaries flexible?

% Most likely, those at the unit boundaries are flexible. The existence of flexible conduit will be verified by the walkdowns.

Subsection R'

11. If a support does not have an identification number, what steps are taken?

If' a number is not found on a support, an NCR is written.

The walkdown engineer originating the NCR suggests a number for the support and attaches documentation that would substantiate his recommendation. The NCRs are assigned a number and sent to the NCR Tracking Group (NCRG).

Subsection U

12. When is a "CDR" written?

This section is in error and an Interim Change Notice (ICN) has been issued. The revision shall replace "CDR" with "NCR".

Section 7.4 - Revisions to Isometrics Generated for FVM-CS-010 Sphsection A

13. What is an IN BRR support? an IN BBS?

These numbers were specified in FVM-CS-010 and there meaning can be found there.

14. How does a " trackable document" trigger a revision to a previously generated document?

A " trackable document" is, in most instances, a memorandum.

An example of previously generated document is an isometric generated by FVM-CS410. A case where a " trackable document" requires a revision to a previously generated document is a memorandum which mandates a walkdown to as-built previously generated isometrics.

Sub-section B

15. Note 3 lists section 7.2.B as the section which describes the checking process. Is this an error?

Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 4 7 1020 01t>

Communications t4 L n i Repod

,  : E................Eililll! :

L I' .

Required item 4 Comments Action By The reference to section 7.2.B is an error.

ll Spetion 7.5. - Historical FVM-CS-010

' 16. What . is the purpose of the " Field Verification Package

' Inventory Supplement"?

Ebasco will research this question and provide a response at a later date.

Section 7.6 - Thermolan Sections As-Built Sub-section A-

.17. On completely Thermolagged sections of conduit, how is the  ;

conduit diameter verified?

The experience from previous walkdown efforts indicates that no conduit that is entirely covered with Thermolag. As of September 1,1987, Memorandum 2-CP-C-1898 (CND-54-12) is effective. This memorandum directs that all Thermolag on a r conduit be removed at the support locations. If further removal of Thermolag is required within the conduit spans, the removal will be done on a case-by-case basis.

18. How is the thickness of the Thermolag determined?

The thickness of the Thermolag is not measured, only the outside dimensions of the Thermolag surface.

I

19. If discrepancies exist between the overall Thermolag size noted '

in the fieki and conduit diameter, what assumptions are made?

Resolutions to this type of discrepancy are to be addressed by the design verification group.

Sut>.section C

20. Are fittings identified with the phrase " Appears to be . . ."

subsequently labeled "IA" (to denote inaccessible)?

Ebasco feels that this situation is unlikely given the unique shapes of the fittings of the conduits. It was noted that junction boxes are tagged and the conduit supports on any side of it would have different support numbers, which indicates a change in conduit number. However, it is possible to have a pull box which has conduits that enter it at an angle of 90 degrees to each other.

Page '

SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 5 7 1020 01D

Communications 34 L n i Report L-11111lll111111111181W11111 7

T, c

!' ~

Beguired

, ltem Comments Action By hection D 1

21. ' What is meant by "Where support locations cannot be verified,

m due to an indication not being provided by Thermolag

' configurations, . . ."

Since the issuance of Memorandum 2-CP-C-1989, which directs that the Thermolag at the supports be removed, the location of supports should not be a problem.

6 lSection 7.7.1 - As-built (excludine "NONIS" Sucoorts)

Sub-section M

22. Is the start and end-point of the Thermolag recorded?

The walkdown instructions do not require that the i, tarting and

termination points of the Thermolag be recorded.

% Sub-section N

23. Is the requirement for checking for violations due to the presence of bolts from other supports being dropped?

This requirement will be deleted given that Stone & Webster is initiating a program to identify spacing violations.

.Section 7,7.2 - Identification SuMeetion A i

. 24. How are NCRs for supports without identification numbers dispositioned?

NCRs are sent to the DV group or to NCRG for disposition. i

- Section 7.8 - CSITS Procram 1

. 25. What is the purpose of the CSITS program? l The program is used to track the status of all conduit system components. It contains the list of applicable drawings, inspection reports and other applicable material.

1 P'9' '

SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 6 7 1020 01b

Communications L

4 L ;t i Report

' ll!!ilistil!!!!!!Illi!!!!I!!!!

Required item Comments Act:on By Section 8.1 - Isometric Drawine and Sunnort Verification n

Sub-section C

26. How are measurement tolerances used ". . . after the walkdown engineer has completed the checking of' 'the as-built drawings / sketches"?

Ebasco will research this question and provide a response at a later time.

27. ' What is the basis for the tolerances listed in Table 5?

The tolerances were provided by the DV group.

Section 13.1 - Deficiencies

28. Are the NCRs that report hardware deficiencies trended for corrective action?

Any trending of NCRs is probably performed by the NCRG.

TUE/090187-B. CON SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 7 of 7 1020 01b

jf, '

b Calculation 4 (. ia Sheet 1i111lll!!!!!1111111ll1111111 '

i

. Pro ,

Prepared By Date Subject Checked By Date

! System Job No Fue No

! donowr s<hofbars 84M6 Analyses No Rev. No Sheet No sweeope o .ju a noa 0 p' .q BWQ C O ^'A1 r .

O .Q

\ p ..

o r &. ? ,

, sm .

OszcP  ? ,

~~

~

/ if. .'O; 6'{

,9.-

,// co@W -

r /b, q F/4 ves .1 1006 cc

'..(

/

li:

.r O';

!. . ;_ ,  : i-; 4 h...)-

- [ !, t-1, i s

C[!, c, . DISTRIBUTION LIST

p. .c_

", h ,

'7 Mr. J. Redding j

Mr. L Nace .

1 l:3 n:

~~

Mr. W. Counsil l u"

?'

Mr. D. Pigott-Ms. A. Vietti-Cook

' Mr. C. Grimes Mr. C.Y. Chiou p 'l;'

. . . s Ms. N.- Williams e

Mr. J. Russ Lj 'w.

Mr. W. Horstman W1 Mr. K. Parikh .

Mr. B.~ Atalay r;7 Ms. D. Leong

'iL

'; ; y 0 Project File.

i

,,I l

t

. i.

.Y ,

. .j $

%, Communications

& A (m i Report p lllllllllllll11lllll1ll1ll1111 companr -

7, icon n conference Report Project- ,

Job No.

. CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,t,;

09/25/87

. subject **

iConduit Suport Design Review 0900 a.m.

Ebasco Audit pi,c,:

Ebasco, (NY)

Participants:

of B. Shakibnia, D. Leong Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the following documents for use during the audit:

Ebasco Calculation Book 62 CP-JB-20 CP-JB-21 CP-JB-22-2BV Ebasco stated that Calculation book 62, " Junction Box Load Capacity", has been voided. This calculation determined the load capacities of connection conduit supported junction boxes using test results. However, the tests performed did not comply with the Quality Assurance Procedures. Hence, test results were discarded.

Ebasco also stated that the CP-JB-22-2BV was the only junction l box calculation that had been updated based on the latest revision of SAG.CP17 (Revision 6), and was available in the New York office. However, all junction box calculations based on Revision 5 of SAG.CP17 were available in the New York office.

'l TUE\092587-F. CON k I

i l

$sgned: Q Page of f D5tnbut'on- SEE' AfI' CHED' DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

tozo oia I

H k

<;,y

.-t f;,

DISTRIBUTION LIST- 1

.n. Mr. J. Redding .

_ Mr. L. Nace Mr. W. Counsil-Mr. D.' Pigott

-Ms. A. Vietti-Cook Mr. C. Grimes Mr. C.Y. Chiou Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ

- Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. Leong

. Project File 1

i d

f

- _ _ _ . -- - - _ .