ML20236X270

Forwards Communications Repts on Independent Assessment Program,Phase 4 Re Cable Tray,Civil/Structural & Conduit Audits

ML20236X270
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/25/1987
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84056.131, NUDOCS 8712090085
Download: ML20236X270 (59)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _ q ) !). j' ApM N s s" J 'Q 2121 N. Cahlornia Blvd:. Suite 390, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415f334-5733 November 25,1987-1 84056.131 Mrs. Juanita Ellis . President,' CASE i 1426 S.- Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

- Communications Report Transmittal No. 38.

Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '~ TU Electric Job No. 84056

Dear ~ Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the cable tray audits. A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1. If you have any questions.or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call. . Very truly yours, 44UMC h N. H. Williams Project Manager NIIW/amh Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric) Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) Mr. L Nace (TU Electric) Mr. G. Ashky (Impell). Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC) ems.rA:tVietti-Cook (USNRC) Mr. R. Alexandru (Ebasco) Q2]g $ 1 A 0>bg( s,,n nanasso noswn en car ears n,. \\TUE\\84056\\LTR.131

m'Qf 6; i;y a. 1 ,'f,: '3

~

r 4 ';: \\ 4 :g- [. '* tu

v. !

. ll^ i NITACHMENT 1 - List of Enclosed Communications Reports. TIME DATE-02/10/87-' 8 30 a.m.- 03/16/87: ' 1000 a.m. 03/16/87-- ~ 1X)0 p.m. _.103/18/87-12:30 p.m. 03/20/87 2:00 p.m. '03/20/87 2:40 p.m. 04/30/87 9:00 a.m. 05/12/87 390 p.m. - 05/13/87 3:30 p.m. 1 1 l I l l l 1

Communications 14PJ 2 M Report lilillllikllllllllillllllilll CO*P'"Y! b Telec n X Conference Report CES Fuc, ject: Job No_ 54U'ib CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ty 02/10/87 Cable Tray Support Design Review Impell/Ebasco Audit pi,co: Ut'sts site l'. Harrison, K. AICXandru, b. Uhen, l'. Hellinger og bDaSCO

Participants:

J. Swanson, J. Christoudias, D. Fong J. Park Impell B. Lashkari JBA W llorstman, D. Leong, J. Russ, s. l ummineill Cygna Required item Comments Action By 1. Cable Tray Sunnort Grouning Cygna initiated a discussion with Ebasco regarding the methodology used in the grouping of cable tray supports. Cygna stated that it was their understanding that the purpose of the grouping was to qualify support members by selecting or constructing. a " mother support" from those supports contained in a particular group of similar supports. Additionally, member connections and anchorages for all supports within the group were individually qualified. Ebasco concurred with Cygna's statements. When questioned on the number of supports that were grouped, Ebasco replied that out of 2309 cable tray supports within their Unit 1 scope,84 groups were formed from 3% supports. At Cygna's request, Ebasco described the considerations for including supports within the groups. Initially, Ebasco would determine which supports were likely to be included as part of RSM analyses. This was done by a review of the cable tray span drawings. These supports would not be considered for grouping. Additionally, the following support-types would not be considered for grouping-longitudinal supports special configurations supports with attached conduits Ebasco noted that a majority of the supports included in groups were cantilevers. g.) , [I NA1A 0[ Page of Signed E I f I h1 A c Distribution-SEE'ATT'ACllhD'blSTRIBUTION SHEET. 1070 01s

Communications wam MN M Report f lilillllillllliilillllilllilll I nem comments ~ [c7aT*8y - After reviewing a list of the groups, Cygna noted two groups with the support type designation 'TRIA." Such supports include supports that were identified by the.Gibbs & Hill designations "SP-7 with Brace"' and " Details E, F, G, and H with Brace." These supports j were all designed to support longitudinal loads. At - this point, Ebasco clarified their terminology. regarding " transverse, longitudinal, and multidirectional" supports.. Transverse -{ supports are defined as resisting vertical and horizontal transverse tray loads. Longitudinal supports are those supports which resist vertical and horizontal transverse tray loads as well as longitudinal tray loads. These ' supports are located on horizontal tray runs. Multi-directional supports resist the same loads as longitudinal supports but are located on tray risers. After checking the grouping. data, Ebasco reported that the two groups of type 'TRIA" were numbered 311 and 312. The supports in group No. 312 were longitudinal supports. When - the supports are identified as candidates for grouping, they are classified according to type. The support type and other data are included in the database. Tributary tray load data was taken from available span drawings. The input data to this database was checked. The first sort of the supports was made on support type. Within those individual support type groups, sub-groups of supports within certain height and width ranges were formed. Within the individual height-width sub-groups, the support drawings were reviewed to divide the supports into groups with similar anchorage configurations. Bolt types within the base plate were not considered. Cygna noted a concern regarding the lack of consideration of the bolt type, since Ebasco's criteria showed marked differences for base angles with different bolt types. .Cygna felt that, by net considering the stiffness differences, the evaluation of the individual anchorages j using the loads from the " mother support" analysis would not be l correct. After the supports were divided into configurations with similar anchorages, the evaluation for the selection of the " mother support" l was performed. The initial pass for this selection was based on the loads applied to the supports. Where applicable, (i.e., if the supports were at different elevations), accelerated tray weights were compared. The largest load would be selected. If a support had a j significantly higher load than the others in the group, it could be c removed at this point and analyzed individually. Variations in the SEE ATTACI-IED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 7 1020 0f tp -

Communications 4L d Report i lll1111111111111111111lll11111 Required item Comments Action By load location on the support which may affect the controlling support component (frame member or inchorage) were not generally reviewed. This was baeed on the judgement that, since the support dimensional parameters were so close, this would not affect which-component controlled. Additionally, all anchorages were to be evaluated individually using the loads from the " mother-support". l When the " mother support" was selected, the grouping package was transmitted to the design verification group. If the " mother support" did not pass, it was removed from the group and analyzed ' individually. The grouping team was notified and another " mother support" was selected from the remaining supports in the group. If the " mother support" passed, but. an individual support's welds or anchorages failed, that support could be removed from the group, the failing component could be analyzed for its actual loads, or the support could be modified. Cygna asked how - the effects of any loads induced by -the longitudinal connectivity-presently being assumed were considered in the grouping. Ebasco replied that the analysis for the loads induced by connectivity was an additional analysis and was presently being - i performed individually for all supports whether or not the support was a group member. 2. Increased Allowable Stresses for the Factored Load Condition Cygna then inquired about the increase in allowable stresses for the factored load conditions. Ebasco stated that the allowable stresses from the AISC Specifications are multiplied by the allowable stress factor (ASF) in the STRUDL code check. An upper bound limit for each allowable stress is specified. The ASF is always 1.6 per the requirements of the CPSES FSAR. Prior to the latest revision of the design criteria, all allowabic stresses were limited to yield. Both the ASF and the upper level limits were limited to yield. Both the ASF and the upper level limits were placed in the STRUDL analysis template. The upper bound limit was recently revised to 0.9Fy for all allowable stress values and was placed in the template. Cygna requested a copy of the template which reflects this revised criteria. 3. Missing Mass Considerations Regarding missing mass, Ebasco stated that the missing mass option available in P-Delta STRUDL was used in all relevant evaluations. I ) i l 1 SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET "*S* 3 '7 ) 1 io2c os e

Co.mmunications [4M'Id Report llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Requeed item Comments Action By 4. Version Centrol for STRUDL Cygna noted concerns regarding the control of the STRUDL program.' ] Two versions of the program are listed in Attachment Y of the Ebasco General Instructions. The versions require different types of input to accomplish the same analysis. Ebasco replied that only one version of STRUDL was available for use at any one time. A list of revisions to the program was provided for Cygna's review. The different versions were noted in Attachment Y, because the latter i version was to be installed on the Ebasco system later. 5. Eupport Modelline with STRUDL Ebasco then described the process by which the support analysis was . performed using STRUDL. The analyst would develop the model i geometry and loadings and give them to an operator who Would construct the input file using a PC-based ' model builder. The analysis input skeleton was programmed into the model builder. After input, the analyst would check the input file for correctness. i The file was uploaded to a main-frame computer which contained the STRUDL program and the analysis was. performed. The output from the analysis would be reviewed by the originator and checked and approved per the applicable quality assurance requirements. 6. Analysis Methods Cygna inquired about the equivalent static method (ESM), the equivalent static method longitudinal (ESML), and - the response spectrum method (RSM) procedures being employed by Ebasco in the evalustion of the cable trays and their supports. Ebasco presented an explanation of the hiaory of these proceduree so that Cygna might better understand the process. Ebasco stated that the ESM and ESML procedures contained in Attachment Y to Ebasco's Gen 6ral Instructions were closely tied to the analysis associated with the development of the multi-mode i response mt itiplier (MRM). Ebasco had realized that the two corrections were required when using the ESM. These corrections were for:

1) the systems behavior of the supports and trays I

including the difference in support spacings; and, 2) the response of I the sydem at higher frequencies, as reflected in the MRM. l As the acceptability of the MRM value of L25 was being verified, j ~ the MRM analysis effort showed that 125 would only provide the ) corrections for the two concerns if the requirements of Appendix 4 to the design criteria were met. If the Appendix 4 requirements 4 were not met, a correction for the systems aspect would be j necessary. The multimode factor of 1.25 would still be applicable. j bbb A i 1 ACHbD Dlb1KIL3U 1 ION SHEET page 4 of7

a. Communications ~ " MM TJ Report lililllllllllllllilllll'Illll! R4quued item Commens Action By i The Unit 1 support span drawings weie reviewed, and any deviations from the ' Appendix 4 span criteria were noted. These deviations were categorized as " major" or " minor". Minor deviations were those' that, when considered through the use of ESML, would have load ' redistributions which would not affect the conclusion of the ESM analysis. Major violations are those cases where redistribution would cause a change in conclusion. All major deviations were analyzed using RSM. Further work on tie justification of the MRM factor of 1.25 showed that tins value would not cover some span configurations with changee in tray directions, i.e., L-shaped bends, T-shaped bends, and Z-shaped bends. To accommodate these non-standard minor deviations, a second method was developed. These two methods are found in Parts I and II of Attachment Y. The analyses in support of the Attachment Y methods are found in Ebasco Calculation Volume I, Book 15. Cygna will review this reference in more detail during a future audit. Ebasco will execute the analyses for Attachments Y and Z of the General Instructions for all cable tray systems. 7. Cable Trav Sunnort No. 3136 After Cygna's review of Ebasco's preliminary analysis of cable tray Support No. 3136, which is attached to a Category II fire wall, the following two items for Ebasco verification were noted. Cygna's interpretation of existing data indicated that there were more than three (3) trays Ebasco's analysis considered. Cygna noted that all welds were shown as accessible, whereas the j members of the support were marked as inaccessible. l Ebasco stated that a field check would be performed on these items. In order to examine the support boundary conditions, Cygna requested a copy of the system model for which Support No. 3136 was a part. Ebasco replied that the analysis was quite voluminous and suggested auditing it in New York. Cygna agreed with this. Ebasco suggested that the boundary conditions might be available from reviewing the forces input into the base plate analyses. Cygna j stated that they would review them for this possibility. Sbb ATTACHED DI51RIBUTION SHEET page 5 of 7 1020 010 _ _________________ _ __J

c, L -Communications - ALC M Report ll1lltl1ll11ll1111111111lll111 Requred item Comments Action By ' l: Cygna's review noted a - discrepancy in the analysis. Ebasco's calculations indicated the failure of one support member. Cygna's review. showed that the failing member jointly supported the attached tray with an adjacent member. Ebasco's. modelling procedure was to idealize the cable tray as a line element along the centerline ~ of the. tray. Iri _ this instance, by considering the geometry of the tray run with the modelling of the tray along its centerline, the analyst attached the tray to the failing member, but not to the other member to which it was also attached. Ebasco noted Cygna's concern and stated that they would review the modelling. Cygna noted that Ebacco decoupled the Category I steel from the Category II. steel. Cygna asked how Stone & Webster would accomplish this in their evaluation of the Category II steel. Ebasco -stated that they did not know. Ebasco added that the tornado loads evaluation was also on hold pending Stone & Webster action. 8. Samole Support Calculations Cygna reviewed the Ebasco calculations for Support Nos. 102, 121, and 125. Cygna was particularly interested in weld eccentricities and base plate analyses. Cygna's review noted that the calculations were from an RSM analysis. 8 The calculations were for two frame type supports and one cantilever support. For each type, the tier and cantilever member properties were modelled at the shear center, while the post member properties were modelled at the center-of-gravity. In response to Cygna's question, Ehasco stated that the member stiffness matrices for the tier and etmtilever member properties were not modified to account for locating the member properties at the shear center. Cygna noted that they were concerned that the axial stiffnesses were greatly reduced by modelling the cantilever member at the shear center. Thus, the cantilever's axial stiffness was not correctly accounted for in the model, and the response of the system was incorrectly calculated. Ebasco replied that this type of modelling would occur only when using RSM. For the modelling techniques to be employed for ESM analyses, Ebasco pointed to Attachments B1 and B2 c.f the General Instructions. The practice of modeiling the cantilever member properties at the shear center also affected the base plate analysis for the particult.- support under review. The analysis applied the member end forces from the cantilever to the base plate at the point where the beam j shear center intersected the plate. This point of load application is { closer to the bolt centerline than the actual point of attachment and results in significantly reduced bolt loads from the axial component SEE AI I ACHED D15iKIBUTION SHEET Page 6 of 7 1020 010 3 I

Communications [41.693 Report 111111111111111111111111!!!111 1 Required item Comments Action By of force. Cygna ' also noted that the member end forces were applied at the actual point of attachment for the base plates of post ) member properties at the post center-of-gravity. Ebasco noted ) Cygna's concerns. and stated that they would review the cited calculations. 1 Cygna noted that Ebasco considered the offsets. between the weld l axes and the member axes. -Additional moments due to the offsets were summed absolutely with the existing member end forces. Cygna l commented that this practice was conservative for the connections j under consideration, given the methods used to model the members. j 9. Base Plate Analyses with STRUDL Cygna asked whether the STRUDL base plate analysis was a special analysis. Ebasco replied that it was. Ebasco added that the { program raodelled the concrete as a set of compression-only springs and that there were no limits to the number of attachments that may be considered by the program. 10. Effective Length Factors for Buckling Cygna asked the following questions regarding the calculations (contained in Ehasco Volume 1, Book 6) for effective length factors (k-factors) used in determining the unbraced length for buckling:

1) Are all rnodels planer?

If not, what out-of-plane eccentricities were conddered?

2) Why are some of the second eigenvalues negative (see page 26 of Book 6)?

3) What extraction technique was used in the NASTRAN analysis?

If the inverse power technique was employed, what was the . seed'

4) Are the boundary conditions fixed? If so, why?

5) Referring to page 10 Book 6, what elemerits were used such that the member failed in axial buckling rather than lateral torsional buckling?

Ebasco stated that they would respond to Cygna's questions, but wanted to point out that Impell's values for the k-factors, which were smaller, could be employed since Ebasco currently assumes t longitudinal connectivity. I l TUE\\021087-A. CON i bhb A i 1 ACHbD UlbiKlHU 1IUN 5Hbh1 Page i of 7 1020 05 c ._ ____.________._______._________ _ ________ o

.;..~ DISTRIBUTION LTSI .I - Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Coussil Mr. D. Pigott

Ms;fA. Vietti. Cook, o

~" Mr. C Grimes"' Mr. R. Alexandru - Mr. J.' Muffett -- Ms. N. Williams i Mr. J. Russ-Mr. W. Horstman - Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File-k 'I J i l l} L h

~ ~ Communications = mG Report lilllllllilllilllllllilllillll Company: Teiec n .centerence neport ES. TU Electric 84056 - CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate: 03/16/87 Ebasco Cable Trny Audit 1000 p.m Place: New York Participants of R. Keilbach, P. Harrison Ebasco J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna had reviewed the response on the wcld preheat received from Ebasco and requested information on E7018 electrodes. Ebasco provided the attached sheets from ASME SFA-5.1 which is identical to AWS Specification A 5169. Ebasco noted that the response dealt only with those welds which connected two perpendicular pieces of metal as would occur in the connection of the welded clamp plates to 3 the top of the top fhnge of a tier member. Ebasco noted that these connections were the subject of an SDAR due to the lack of a fit-up inspection. Cygna noted that the response covered the assumption of sizes for the evaluan an of the welds. These assumptions were based on the as-built size of the clamp plates. Cygna asked what the walkdown crews actually examined in order to determine the size of the welds reported to the design verification groups. Ebasco rmarted that if the edge preparation was i I identifiable (as might to the case if the clamp plate which overhung the channel flange), the weld type was noted along with the edge preparation. The weld size was still taken as one-half of the plate .l thickness, which Ebasco stated was conservative. If the plate preparation was not readily observable or documentation was not available, poss;bly due to the presence of a weld return, the weld was assumed as a fillet weld with a size equal to any weld build-out that l was observable. t, jI l h Q ( Kl .I qA C ,f' Page of 9 l Signed ~ Distr'btston SLE AI' U7] DISTRIBUTION SHEET. r j 3 .I ~' 4 k.. tom o t a _.____.__n

i 4 Communications 1 ~-- [4Di t'id fleport 111lll1ll111111111111!I1111111 Regwred . ' Comments A:: tion By item e. s-Cygna noted that the response included several references to weld joint qualifications. Ebasco stated that these joint qualifications were for joints between perpendicular platec. These qualifications ] were performed according to the Brown. & Root procedures in force q during the ' time of the ' cable tray. support erections and were i performed to requad to concerns regarding the weld adequacy. Cygna asked about the weld joints between gusset plates and the backs of the webs of channel. members which occur in Gibbs & Hill support - type SP-7. Ebasco stated the response did not deal with these joints. Cygna ' stated that they' would investigate these connections further and would discuss them with Ebasco. I l' i l TUEs031687.B. CON l 2 '2 SEE NITACIIED DISTRIBUTION S11EET en m

6 jf' %j a / 1 SPECIFICATION FOR MILD STEEL COVERED ARC WELDING ELECTRODES.- SFA-5.1 (identical whh /tWS specification A 5.l.69) ( l,*e( I a I. Scope 1.1 This specification prescribes requirements for covered mild steel electrodes for shielded metal-are welding of carbon and lovt-alloy steels. Part 1--Classification and Acceptance

2. Claudication 2.1 The electrodss are classified on the basis of tN mechanical proper-ties of the as-weided deposited weld mett.1, type of covering, welding post-tion of the electrode, and type of current (see Table 1).

2.2 Any electrode classided under one glassificatip shall not be classi-Ced under any other classiScatf ori. i

3. Mt nufacture 3.1 The electrodes may be made by any method yielding a product con-forming to the requirements of this specification.

4. Acceptability 4.1 At the option and expense of the purchaser any or all of the tests required by this specification may be used as a basis for acceptance of l

electrodes.

5. Chemical Cornposition 5.1 The chemical composition of the deposited metal shall conform with the requirernents of Table 2.

6. Mechanical, Usability, and Soundness Tests

( 6.1 The following tests are prescribed to demonstrate the mechanical properties and soundness of the deposited weld metal and the usability of . electrodes classified herein: 6.1.1 The radiographic test la prescribed to demonstrate the soundness of the weld deposit made with a given electr.ade. The details of this test are stipluated in 21. Radiographic Test. G.1.2 The all-weld metal tension test and the weld metal impact test are prescribed to ascertain the mechanical properties of the weld deposit made with a given electrode. The details of these tests are stipulated in 22. All. Weld-Metal Tension Test and 23. Impact Test, respectively. I 1 c r ..so nir

p ' SF A.5,1 SECrlON !!, PAR T C MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS / 6.1.3 The fillet weld teet is prescribed to demonstrate the usability of ( the electrodes. The detalla of ihls test are stipulated in 24. Fillet Weld Test.

7. Methods of Test 7.1 Test specimens shall be prepared in accordance with 17. Roquired Tests to 24. Fillet Weld Test, inclusive, of this specification.

Tchte 1-Ele ctrode Classification CapaWeof Producing AWs Type of Covering Satisfactory Welds in Type of Current

• Classincation Positions Shown*

E60 SERIES-MINIMUM TENSILE STRENCTil 0F DEPOSITED METAL IN As-WELDED CONDITION 60 000 rst (oR Hic!!EP-SEE TABLE 4) E6010 High cellulose sodium F, V, O H, H de, reverre polarity E6011 High cellulose potast,!um F,V,OH,H ac or de, reverse polarity EC012 High titania sodium F, V, OH, H ae or de, straight polarity ES013 High titania potassium F, V, O H, H ae or de,either 3. $arity E6020 High iron oxide H-Fillets ac or de, straight pAarity F ac or de, either polarity E6027 Iron powder, f ren oxide H-Fillets ac or de, straight polarity F ac or de, either polarity E70 SERits-MINIMUM TENS 1LE STRENGTII Or DEPOSITED META!, IN As-WELDED CONDITION 70 000 rst (oR HICarER-SEE TABLE 4) E7014 Iron powder, titania F, V, OH, H ac or de,either polarity E7015 Low hydrogen sodium F, V, O H, H de, reverse polarity E7016 Low hydrogen potassium F,V OH,H ac or de, reverse polarity E7018 Iron powder, low hydro-F,V, OH, H ac or A, reverse polarity gen E7024 Iron powder, titar,ia II-Fillets, P ac or de, either polarity E7028 1ron powder, low hydro-H. Fillets, F ac or de, reverse polarity gen a The abbreviations F. V 011, II, and H. Fillets indicate welding positions (Figs.1 and 21 as follows: F = Flat H = Horizontal l'. Fillets== Horisonta' Fillets V = Vertical { j For electrodes 3/16 in, and under, except 6/32 in. and under for classi. Olg = Overbead J t 6 cations E7014, E7016. E7016 and E701L

• Reverse polarity means electrode is positive: strairbt polarity means electrode is negative.

Table 2-Chernical Requirernent, Chernical Composition, man, per cent

• AWS Classification Mange.

silicon Nickel Chromium M Vanadium de E7014, E7015 E6010, E6011 ~], 1.25* 0.90 0.30' O.20' O.30' O.08' E7016, E7018 E7024, E7028 No chemical requirements E6012, E6013 E0020, E6027 ]

• The sum total of a!! elements with the asterisk shall not eseeed 1.50 per cent.
• For obtaining the chemical composition, de, straight polarity only, may be used whe.e de. both polarities, is specifbed.

l 1 1 a l --- ---------- -------- _ ---- _ _ _ J

<,

.;u j

5 1 DISTRIBUTION LIST i Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr.'.D. Pigott - ] Ms.!CViettiCock1 Mr. C. Grimes : Mr. R. Alexandru - Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams. Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman ' Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong. Mr. G. Ashley Project File 'l i i

L Communications e [ [*hM' Id Report I-lilllllilllililllllllilllillli company: O Telec n conference neport. .CES "' i' ' ""~ TU Electric 84056 p CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,ie 03/16/87 subiect Cable Tray Support Review if)0 p.m. Audit of Ebasco - pi,co: Elmsco (NY) P. Harrison, F. Hettinger Ebasco W. Horstman Cygna 1 Required item Comments Action By l. Cygna requested the calculations packages and computer output for the cable tray supports listed on the attached sheets for use during the audit. Ebasco indicated that those calculations which are available in the 3 New York office will be provided this afternoon. The support calculations handed in the Lyndhurst, NJ office will be sent to New York by tomorrow. t f)), fx p l 3 oistnbution SEB ATi'ACITED DISTRIndTION S11EET. 1020 0's

1 Communications L M'LW fd L [.4 Report j . ll111ll1ll11111111111111111ltl I Requred ' Item Comments Action By. l Calculation Description Analysis Tyne. -Wali: . CHT-1-05387 - (Wall) ESM l CHT-1-05341 - (Wall) ESML I CHT-1-03986 (Wall) ESM CHT-1-01877. (Wall) ESML Special: I CHT-1-00154 ~ (SPEC) ESM I CHT-1-01126 (SPEC) ESML CHT-1-13202 (SPEC) ESM CHT-1-07016 (SPEC) ESML i' L Shaned: CHT-1-01888 (L3) ESM CHT-1-01958 (L3) ESML RSM RSM-6 RSM-20 i RSM-25 RSM-27 i GROUPS Special: CHT-1-01944 (SPEC-307) ESM Cantilever-Mother: CHT-1-417 (CANT-344) ESM CHT-1-01343 (CANT-344) ESML i Triangle: Mother: CHT-1-6151 (TRIA-312) ESM 3 LM': CHT-1-01828 (LW-300) ESM 1 ( Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2_ 3 10?OO10

g ~- s ' Communications DiL*h'To ' Report lll1111111ll1111ll11ll11111111 l' Required item Comments - Action By Calculation Description Analysis Tm Trapeze l' Mother: 1 i' CHT-1-00175 (U2T1-303) ESM CHT-1-7061' -(U1B2-304) ESML CHT-1-01274 (U2-302) ESM Wall: CHT-1-05386 (Wall-310) ESML CHT-1-05320 (Wall-302) ESM CHT-1-01806 (L-312) ES44 L SHAPED-Individual Hangers-Cantilever: CHT-1-00333 (CANT) ESM CHT-1-00190 (CANT) ESML CHT-1-01745 CANT) ESM CHT-1-02803 CANT) ESML Trapeze-CHT-1-02244 (UG) ESM CHT-1-00299 (U5) ESML CHT-1-00201 (U4) ESML CHT-1-01655 (ult 1) ESML CHT-1-00289 (U4) ESM CHT-1-03580 (U3) ESM Longit. Traneze Not Found in CHT Completed Calculation Index Traneze: CHT-1-00155 (TRIA) ESM CHT-1-01153 (TRIA) ESM CHT-1-01298 (TRIA) ESML ClIT-1-05184 (TRIAP) ESML i \\TUE\\031687-C. CON Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 3 3 1020 01b l

j. DISTRIBUTION LIST ' Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace. Mr. W. Counsil. Mr. D. Pigott sMs.: ArNietti Cookna Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley - Project File B-i J l l !w__-__--__----

Communications mph' TJ Report 11llll1111llll11llllll11111111 Company; Teiec n x Conference neport j ES ' Project-Job No. TU Electric 840 % CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: 03/18/87

Subject:

Time: Ebasco Cable Tray Audit - Attachment T 12:30 p.m. Place: Ebasco, New York

Participants:

of P. Harrison, F. Hettinger, R. Kapadia Ebasco W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna Required item. Comments Action By. Cygna spoke to Ebasco regarding the evaluation of tier members for edge distance violations for bolt holes from cable tray clamps. The procedure for evaluation of this situation is in Attachment T of the Ebasco General Instruction. 3 Ebasco stated that after an evaluation of the bolt hole sizes in the cable trays, it was found that a 3/4" diameter hole was the largest hole in the support tier members. The gage line of the hole varied so that the edge of the hole could actually intersect the edge of the tier members.- C6 x 82 sections were considered in Ebasco's analysis. The evaluation of the capacity of the connections included loadings parallel and perpendicular to the edge of the tier flange with the bolt hole. Both linear and plastic analyses were used in the evaluation of the section. Although the analyses showed some local stress concentrations, the increased allowables that may be used were not considered in determining the largest possible applied loading. The allowables were eventually reduced based on the applied local loads. The procedure in Attachment T requires the analyst to evaluate the reduced capacity of the section by checking the applied load against an allowable in an equation. The equation includes a variable which is the ratio of the applied flexural stress over the allowable flexural stress. ]f h jf1L ~" 1 2 SE'E ATrXCIIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET. D'stnou""

10?0 05 a

lilHIREHEiB Communications [4'LeHT3 Report 1 'll1111111111111111111ll1111111 Flequired item Comments Action By .-Cygna asked how the' ratio of the applied flexural stress over the ~ allowable flexural stress was derived if an RSM analysis has been performed. Ebasco stated that the total member interaction value could then be used. \\TUE\\031887-A. CON l l "*8* SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION S11EET 2 2 1020 01b.

.3 J/f-o p

3;. .) i DISTRIBUITOI!.11SI Mr. J..Reddi$ki 'Mr. L. Nace Mr. W.' Coumil Mr. D. Pi ' & % A % gott sttM'mk1 Afr. C. Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru. o' Mr. J. Muffett : . Ms.' N. Williams Mr. J. Russ-. Mr. W.' Horstman Mr. K. Parikh, Ms. D. L6ong - Mr. G. Ashley Project File t -) )

$31Q Communications A (*U fd Report u L; 11111ll1111111llll111lll111111 Company: C Telec n conference neport CES Project Job No. TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oato: 03/20/87 F Subject Time: l Ebasco Cable Tray Audit 200 p m. Place: New York F' participants: of Bob Keilhach, Pat Harrison Ebasco William Horstman, John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Achon By Cygna discussed the penetration weld configuration at the connection where a gusset plate is used to connect a longitudinal brace to a tier member. This connection was shown in CMC 01971. Cygna was concerned that such connection welds were not properly considered by Ebasco. It was pointed out by Ebasco that the connection j requirements that were shown in the CMC were for a minimum groove weld of 1/4". Since the requirements specified that the analyst use 1/2 the thickness of the gusset plate and the maximum thickness gusset plate was 1/2", the welds considered by the design verification group would be adequate. l i TUE\\032087-B. CON knca /k ~ ) Page of I 1 1 [ 11 1 Kp A D$tobotion SEE ATTACHED"DI'5YRIBUTION SIIEET. i 10/cota

u E.. I' t pl@TBUTION LIST l L Mr. J. Redding l Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil V 7 ~ Mr. C Grimes 1 Mr. R. Alexandru - Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong _ Mr. G. Ashley Project File L. t I e

r= Communications [ehDj U] Report lilllllllilllllillllllilllllll Company. h Telecon h Conference Report gg Project. JobfJo. TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate 03/20/87 subject-Ebasco Cable Tray Audit 2:40 p.m. Status of Audit piece: Ebasco (NY) Ebasco R. Alexandru, F. Hettinger, W. Horstman, K. Parikh, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the status of the audit of the esble tray support design verification with Ebasco. Cygna stated that they had not completed the review of the design calculations and expect to finish them in the next audit. Cygna stated that a review of the following topics is still required: e o individual support calculations o baseplate stiffness o COMBS program o MRM development o effective length factors Cygna noted that the grouping methodology looked acceptable, but that several other logic sheets may need to be looked at. Given the extent of the audit to this point, Cygna stated that they would status the topics at the next audit. l l TUE\\032087-A. CON l signea V' fg Page of oisitinution SEE ATTACilED DISTRIBUTION SilEET. 1070 0's

<. ;\\. DISTRIBUTION LIST ' Mr. J. Redding .Mr. L Nace

• "r. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott e Ma d iVmeti4ock 2 Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru.

Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ.- Mr. W. Horstman - Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Ieong ' Mr. G. Ashley Project File l l

Communications ^ C m 1 j [*si e'fd Report j llllllllllllllllllllllIllllllI l ' l ) . Telecon Conference Report Company: -g Project: Job No. TU Electric 84036 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: 04/30/87

Subject:

Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 9:00 a.m. Ebasco Audit Piace: Ebasco (NY)

Participants:

of P. Harrison Ebasco j K. Parikh Cygna Required item Comments Action By

Reference:

Communications Report dated 28 April 1987,1100 a.m., "Ebasco Cable Tray Audit - Document Request", P. Harrison (Ebasco) and J. Russ (Cygna) participating. Ebasco provided the following calculations (Items 1 and 2 in the referenced Communications Report) for review during the audit: 3 CTH-1-7064 CTH-1-7063 ESML Computer Run No.199DAO TUE\\043087-CCON s Signed V '/ j} (( Page of k'Q(A1111 ark 1 W l 1 Distnuution SEE ANACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 1020 01a

p .,_.v.,,.,.,, u. 3.y/J 4 ~ - r.- b - i s ij' . DISTRIBUTION LIST .Mr. J. Redding . Mr. L Nace ' Mr. W. Counsil. Mr. D. Pipott - iWA?Vmettit2Mi if i M r.' t G E "' ~* l - Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams '. Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G.' Ashley;. Project File !!) N l 4 1 i 1 1

Communications ?T#P n MeR rd Report lililllillllililllilllllllill! - Company: h 'Telecon Conference Report Project: Job No.- TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oeie: 05/12/87

Subject, Time:

Cable' Tray Support Review 300 p.m. Impell Audit piece: Lincolnsh;re, IL " * * * * " ' ' - P. Harrison, G. Ashley Ebasco, Impell S. Harrison TU Electric S. Tumminelli, N. Williams, D. Leong Cygna B. Shakibnia, W.' Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By In response to several of the open items from the March 6,1987 meeting' with Cygna, Impell provided the following information: o A white paper stating their response to Cygna's question on SUPERPIPE Error No. SP-004. This document is preliminary and for review at Impell's offices only. o The analysis. associated with the overlap / continuation of system model No. 176-063-02 is not available for review. Thermo-Lag has been added to the system since the time of Cygna's last audit and the updating of the analysis is not yet completed. 2. Single Angles - Geometric vs. Princinal Axes Cygna has reviewed the references provided by Impell on March 6,1987 (filings, letters, etc. associated with the La Salle docket), and the criteria used by Impell in Calculation M-22. Impell indicated that they were preparing a white paper to present their position on the use of geometric rather than principal axes in the modelling of angles. Segned Q Page ) 5 of SEE ATTACl[ED DISTRIBUTION SiiEET. 1020 01a __.__..______.__.___________________________Q

1 Communications 4L t r1 Report ll1llllll111lll1111111111lll11 - Requwod item - Comments Action By l Cygna made the following points based on the review of the La Salle documents: l o Galambos' position npplies to angles which are attached by one leg at each end, i.e., both ends must be supported on the same leg. This is indicated in page 4 of Attachment 2 to the NRC letter dated August 11, ) 1986. o The report for the testing of single angles at Washington University was prepared based on members in typical truss configurations where the truss members are attached to structural tee sections at each end. The report indicates that test configuration B is critical. This configuration corresponds closely with the { installations at CPSES. Impell and Cygna agreed that the use of the geometric axes in the finite element models will not have a significant effect on the overall structural response of the model. This is due to the fact that the angles are primarily axial members, and their flexural stiffnesses are generally lower in comparison with the channels which make up the bulk of the supports. Cygna is concerned with the use of the radius of gyration associated with one of the geometric axes in calculating the allowable axial compressive stress. This is indicated in Impell Calculation M-22 (SUPERPOST Theoretical Development). Impell indicated that SUPERPOST should use the minor principal axis radius of gyration. Impell will investigate this concern and respond later. It was noted that, since there are no highly stressed angle sections in their review scope, this should not cause any member ] failures. 3. Sinele Angles - Allowable Bending Stresses Cygna accepts the calculation of member bending stresses with respect to the geometric axes if the allowable stress levels are developed based on the geometric axes. This is especially critical for the lateral-torsional buckling effects (see Leigh and Lay's paper reference in the La Salle documents). Cygna asked if SUPERPOST considers the end conditions for single angles when performing the member stress evaluation. Page of SEE ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET 2 5 1020 01b 1

Communications A ed M Report lilllilllllllllillllllilllilll RequireJ ltem Comments Action By Impell indicated that SUPERPOST did not check to see if the angle was attached by the same leg at each end. Cygna mentioned two considerations to be addressed: c Calculations of member forces and moments via a finite element model with geometric axes and the applicanon i of a 20% increase in stress level; o Evaluation of the member adequacy. This requires the l calculation of the allowable bending and axial stresses. 4. Single Angles - End Eccentricities Cygna has reviewed the portion of Impell Calculation M-12 which provides justification for not. considering the end eccentricities on angle braces. Cygna understands that by neglecting the end eccentricity, the overall response of the structural model is not significantly affected and the axial force in the brace is correctly calculated. Ilowever, even if the eccentricity is not considered in the modelling, the moment due to this eccentricity is still present and should be considered in the member stress evaluation. Impell indicated that they would review the magnitude of this noment and provide an evaluation of the impact on the member evaluation. 5. Single Angles - Compactness Cygna was not able to locate any check for compactness for angle sections in the SUPERPOST Theoretical Manual (Impell Calculation M-22). Cygna asked if angles were checked for compactness in the determination of the allowable stresses. Impell indicated that SUPERPOST used members only from pre-defined database of member section properties. All members were checked for compactness by an engineer before they were placed in the database. All standard angle sections used for bracing in cable tray supports are compact. If a non-standard section is used, the stress evaluation would be performed manually. This would include a check for compactness. l-L l l Page of SEE ATI'ACIIED DISTRIBUTION S11EET 3 5 1020 Olb

t Communications NL*H In Report-1 d lll1ll1ll11111llllI!I1ll11110 item Comments Action By 6. Sinele Ancle's - Discussion based on Australian Code (SA-1250-811 and SSRC Recommendations l ~ 1 -Cygna does not agree with the use of SSRC equation 5.11 1 (see page C-2 of Impell Calculation M-22) to calculate the allowable bending stress. This equation applies to doubly symmetric sections only. This condition results in the member shear center and center of gravity being coincident. This condition is not true for angle sections. The equation for the bending allowables for angles (in S A-1250-81) is derived based on the peneral differential-equation associated with member stabihty. This equation may give different allowables stresses thar. those considered by Impell It would be difficult to make an algebraic - comparison between the two methods,_ so Cygna suggested that a numerical comparison would be valuable. Cygna also noted that, in the La Salle docket material, the NRC did not support the use of the AISC flange stability equations (b/t ratio limits) in the calculation of allowable bending stresses for angles. Impell indicated that they did not have the La Salle docket information available at the. time that they developed their 3 design criteria, so they took an approach which was reasonable based on their experience. Impell will provide a numerical comparison between the Australian equations and their criteria. 7. Stress Interaction Ecuations Cygna noted that SUPERPOST uses AISC equation 1.6-la to check member stress interaction ratios. Cygna had two questions on the methodology used to implement this equation in the program: I o What values are used for the moment magnification factors (Cmy: Cmz)? Are these user input parameters? o Does SUPERPOST perform the member stress evaluation on an element-by-element basis, or does it scan for the maximum forces and moments over all elements which comprise a single structural member? Impell indicated that they would have to researen the answers to these questions and would respond later. m Page of SEE ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SilEET 4 5 1020 0lb

Co'mmunications MDh' f& . Report lll11IIllllll1111111111111113 Required item Cornments Action By 8. Allowable Strers Increase Factor for SSE Impell and Ebesco allow an increase of 1.6 on the allowable axial compressive stress, Fa. Cygna noted that the NRC portion given in the La Salle docket allows a factor of 1.33 to be used for Fa in designs. governed by the AISC Specifications. Based on review of Galambos' positions, it is recommended that stresses near the buckling limit be avoided since " strain softening" may greatly reduce the capacity.- 1mpell indicated that. none of the angles evaluated in their scope exhibited axial stre.sses near the 1.6 Fa limit. Therefore, this concern will not have an impact on the support adequacy, impell will provide a summary of maximum stress levels to demonstrate design adequacy. Cygna agreed that a numerical demonstration of adequate margin is acceptable at this point for the current evaluation. However, Cygna recommends a change in criteria for future work at CPSES where loads may increase so as to erode the margin. This concern is applicable to TU Electric when the cable tray ' design calculations are their responsibility. .j TU Electric indicated that they would consider this issue and may incorporate Cygna's concerns in their own design criteria for future support work. 9. Imoell's Comments on Cygna Communications Reports Cygna has received the written comments provided by Impell on May 11,1987, and has no questions. Cygna will revise ] the communications reports and reissue them. l l i i l l l TUE\\051287-B. CON j 1 \\ l l Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET 5 5 wm

I' s, p l: I-DISTRIBUTION LIST' L: 1 Mr. J. Redding i Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil ..Mr. D. Pigott.,. l' Ms.j A.!,ViettiCook ^9 i ..."Mr C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett - .{ Ms. N. Williams ') P Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley. . Project File 1 l

Communications M(eR rd Report ' lilllllililll!Illlllllllilllll Coropany:L ] Telece,si X Confer;nce Report Project ~ Job No. TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ooi : 05/13/87 SuNect'. Time: Cable Tray Suppo-t Design Review _ 3:30 p.m. Impell Audit nace: Lincolnshire, IL

Participants:

OI G. Ashley Impell S. Harrison - TU Electric P. Harrison Ebasco .i WJ Horstman, S. Tumminelli, N. Williams Cyana Required - Item Comments Action By A discussion of the following topics was held: 1. Intermittent Fillet Welds Cygna had. noted differences in the methods used by each consultant in the evaluation of intermittent fillet welds used to join composite channels. The primary concern is that Impell does not include ' stresses associated with torsion and warping while Ebasco does. Impell indicated that they have prepared a white paper to discuss this issue. Their conclusion is that the stresses due to torsion and warping are insignificant since: o The rotational connectivity between the tier and tray assumed by Impell in the system models minimizes the torsion present in the composite tiers; o Due to the end conditions typically found on composite tiers, warping is not significant and St. Venant torsion dominates. n } hj JYQ bw 1 3 SEE 'A'ITACITElfD'ISTRIB'dTION 5IiEET. Distanut on-Ea# ____-___-_____________-____-_A

O " M CE Communications MbiM Report-1111111111!!111lll1111ll111111 l Required item. Comments Action By 2. Boundary Conditions for Composite Tee-Channels Cygna had previously raised concerns on the assumption of full l. fixity of composite tee-channels attached to base angles. Since only one channel 'is physically anchored, the full section of the composite member may not be effective. The following effects will be noted: o The member torsional stiffness will be reduced; o Distortion of the cross section at the anchorage may affect the stress distribution; and o The reaction of the portion of load resisted by the horizontal channel must pass through the web of the member attached to the base angle. Ebasco indicated that they had prepared a response to Cygna's concerns. which will be available for. review soon. The response addresses: o Effects on load distribution in the finite cicment models of the supports; and o Effects on the internal distribution of stresses in the composite section. 3. Evaiuation of Single Angles Cygna discussed the evaluation of size 6 angles on May 12, 1987, at 700. Cygna wanted to point out that the Ebasco's approach is not consistent with Impell's and that similar comments would apply to Ebasco's work. Impell indicated that the white paper being prepared will address both consultants' approaches. 4. White Papeis Provided by Ebasco Ebasco provided the following comments on the white papers provided on May 13,1987 at 1215 1 Frequency at a Point (kinematic condensation) o Ebasco provided the method used to derive the mass participation of each mode at one nodal point. This is based on NUREG-1161. J P"9 2 3 SEE ATTACIIED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET

a i ~ Communications APj J M Report llilllllilillllllllllllillllli Requ. red item Commen;s Action Dy o Mass points on braces and unloaded tiers Ebasco has reviewed the braces on 190 supports for this effect. They included the bending mements due tq self-f weight inertial loads, used the same allowable bending stresses as used by Impell. Ebasco's conclusion is that the-effect is not significant. For unloaded tiers, Ebasco believes that evaluation is not necessary because each unloaded tier in a support is typically the same cross-section as the loaded tier. If the loaded tiers are acceptable, the unloaded tiers will be acceptable by comparison since there will be no load from a cable tray. 5. Ebasco's Support Identification Database The database printout that Cygna was given in New York to select supports for review is used only for tracking pirposes. It is not used 'for support grouping or other purposes requiring quality assurance support grouping development based on a review of the actual as-built drawings. The review of base archorage details for RSM models was based on a search through the applicable as-built drawings. The database was not used. ) 6. . Multi-mode Response Multiplier i The new study is complete and vrill be available for review at Ebasco's New York offices. i 7. Other Responses The remaining responses owed by Ebasco will be available next week. Ebasco feels that a group discus ion would be the tx:st fonum to cover these responses, since the written responses are lengthy. i TUE\\051387-D. CON 5th A 11 ACithD D151 RIBUHON SilEET Page 3 of 3 h

. -. w __ ^ ,.7 DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L. Nace Mr. W. Counsil , Mr. D.. Pi d.lWE%pottm $f etti Cook.. ?- Mr.' C Grimes . Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W.'Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.' Leong Mr. G. Ashley ' Project File i i i 1 I I i i ii-k' l l l 1 l-1 1 l I l '. __.__.___._..__.___________L. __________Y

g (j t.. .;mnor . unva h ~ 2121 N. Cahfornia Bivd., Suite 390. -Walnut Creek. CA 94596 415/934 5733 Novembe* 25, 1987 84056.132-Mrs. Juanita Ellis ' President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224 ~

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal No. 39 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 i Dear Mrs. Ellis-Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the civil / structural audits. A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1. If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.- Very truly yours,,. >R 1-N. H. Williams Project Manager NHW/amh Attachments Mr. J. Redding (TG Electric) cc-Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) Mr. L Nace (TU. Electric) Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC) > JMs. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) ?, 'Mr.'S. Stamm (SWEC) ~ L I S v1 fiancisco Boston Chicago Par 9ppany 1 \\TUE\\84056\\LTR.132

7 _ -. .ii I ATTACllMENT 1 List of Endosed Commemications Reports TIME ._JJ4TE I 06/13/87 8:40 a.m. 08/26/87 5D0 p.m. I i l I i l. \\TUE\\84056\\LTR.132

3.. M LNiW Communications o . m;g_ E NMM Report 11111111l!!!111111111111111111 v Compan0 Telecon Conference Report Project: Job No. l CPSES IAP Phase 4 sate: l 08/26/87 Subject-Time: Drillco Manufacturing Tolerances 05 00 p.m. Place:. SWEC, Boston

Participants:

of Drillco ) J. Russ Cygna 1 Required item Comments Action By l Cygna spoke to Drillco to determine whether Drillco used ANSI Standard D94:l'A977 when manufacturing their diamond core boriq bits. Drilico replied that they would not use a standard for carbide tipped bits in the fabrication of their diamonti coring hh. Drillco noted that, ai one time, the manufacturing shop in Florida which had the contract for the core-bore bit fabrication used the ANSI standard, but the shop flid not have stringent quality control procedures. Records don't exist for the manufacturing process. Drillco believes that the. core-bore bits are probably manufactured to a larger size to account for wear. Drdico had recently spoken te Stone & Webster on the diameters for core-bore bits and provided them tvith the sarne information that was provided to Cygna. Drillco is presently seaiching for purchase order documentation from the CPSES site that may have required them to have provided core-bore bits tbt ' meet the ANSI standard. TUE\\082687-A.TEL l Pago af Signed V i O [\\ If j IA hL 2Gtt4 \\ olinnctio, SEM MIT4CHED' DISTRIBCfflON SHEET. i I

l ll - M'

DISTRIBUTION LIST -

. Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W.' Counsil MD ' ott E P 14"%r. g. G ~y " Mi.~C. Grfmes : ~ Mr. s. stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N.- Williams Mr. J. Rum Mr. W. Horstman . Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Project File. ' i x . f; } l .a____-_-__

Communications = - _m m'ra Report lllllll111111lll11111111111111 @ conference neport Company: Teiec n CES Project: Job No. TU Electric 84056-CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: 06/13/87

Subject:

Time. Civil / Structural Audits 8:40 a.m. Place: SWEC, Boston

Participants:

Of J. Russ, C. Wong - Cygna R. Ciatto, T. Lynch, J. Steere SWEC Required item Comments Action Dy Cygna discussed some aspects of the civil / structural plan with Stone & Webster (SWEC). Regarding ' the evaluation of the concrete structures for all attachment loads, SWEC will multiply all service loads by the load factors required in the concrete capacity load equations. SWEC 4 stated that a breakdown of the loads may be requested if it is needed. Cygna stated that they would discuss this issue internally. For the relocation of Nelson studs, SWEC states that if one considered the radii of influence for the various components, the resultant projected concrete area would be very conservative. Cygna stated that SWEC could not presuppose any stud relocation pattern 'since the relocations could be large or small. Cygna reminded.SWEC that the note on the installation drawing allowed the field engineer to relocate the Nelson studs to any location on the back of the plate without notifying design engineering as long as the field engineer marked the new stud position of the relocated stud by a paint mark or metal stamp. SWEC stated that the use of the different factors of safety on anchor bolts for the extreme and service load cases was to account for the differences in working stress and ultimate strength design. < ~ Signed V ((' M Page of !l ./ l} oistobuuon SEE NiTAdilED'DISTRIlIUTION SilEET. 1020 Dta ; i________________________________

Communications 4 Ltt rd Report lll1111llll111lll1111111111111 Requwed item Comments Action By Although ACI 349-85 recommends that a phi-factor of 0.ti5 should be used for anchorages penetrating one layer of concrete reinforcement, SWEC uses a phi-factor of 0.85. SWEC chose the 0.85 value because this is the value required for punching shear by ACI 318-71, the code of record. Although ACI 318-71 in silent with regard to concrete anchorages of the types employed at CPSES, SWEC stated that the failure of the bolts by cone pull-out is identical to punching shear failure which requires a phi-factor of 0.85. SWEC stated that where the code of record was silent on the - behavior of any concrete component, they reviewed the literature to determine the acceptability of their approach. They recommended that Cygna review TVA CEB 75-32, " Anchorage to Concrete" which discusses the phi-factors. j SWEC feels that when there is a spacing violation, it is ecceptable to arbitrarily assign one of the anchors full capacity while assigning the full reduction to the adjacent anchor. They felt that this practice was acceptable since the total concrete capacity was based on group action. SWEC also stated that the shear stresses along the face of the shear cone near the surface of the concrete were quite low and the maximum stresses were at the head of the anchor. Therefore, since rupture would not initiate at the surface of the ) concrete, but at the head of the anchor, it. is appropriate for them to consider this type of reduction assumption. Cygna stated that they would consider SWEC's comments during an internal discussion of this practice. For Hilti anchor bolts close to a free edge, i.e., less than five bolt diameters, the methodology employed in SV/EC criteria DBD-CS-015 was to obtain the allowables based on a computed concrete capacity with proper reduction for edge distance effect. A factor of safety (FS) equal to 2.0 was then applied. The computed reducea allowable was then compared with the allowable based on test data with an FS equal to 4.0 and the smaller of the two was used. SWEC stated that the allowable based on test data was not reduced for spacing, since it was used mainly to check the slip requirement which is spacing independent. Cygna will consider this approach. Cygna asked SWEC why they used a beta-factor of.25 in the calculation of the minimum edge distance required to prevent side blowout of the concrete. SWEC suted that the beta-factor was conservatively taken as 0.25. Additionally, the beta-factor was derived from tests on headed studs which did riot have any pretension load applied to them. SWEC noted that the Hilti l expansion anchors had a proof load applied to them equal to US% j of the working allowable load. { 1 I ) ) "'Q' 2 3 SEE ATTACliED DISTRIBUTION SIIEET

j-p; Communications' p(m M Report c4 llll111ll1111111111lllllllllii [e7o"Ny stem comments Cygna stated that the SWEC should limit the 1.6 increase ' in allowable shear stresses to the value of the yield stress dNided by the square root of three. SWEC stated that they won:d discuss this internally. SWEC again stated that, when. calculating the projected s:ress area for thru-bolts, they would subtract the proper ineffective arca on .I the opposite side of the wall as defined by the configuration of the group of bearing plates. Document DBD-CS-015 will be revised accordingly. SWEC stated that th.:y had revised Procedure PP-073 to have the loads reported from the other groups at the centroids of any d attachment welds. Additionally, SWEC had revised Proecdrire PP-210 to specify that, during the walkdown of the st!sch.c.ents to the 4 concrete structure, the walkdown team should be cognizant of the i load distribution along the element under review. TUE\\061387-A. CON Page 3 3 SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SliEET 1020 01b

3

. DISTRIBUTION LIST 'Mr. J. Reddmg Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott .,j'y,,WViettiCook 7 Mr.' C" Grimes ' ' Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Project File l l l 1 1 1 \\ l L__________.___.-____.

Q,

( senvres~~~ 2191 N. California Blvd., Suite 390. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934-5733 November 25, 1987 84056.132 Mrs. Juanita Ellis . President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal-No. 39 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases ' Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis- . Enclosed please find communications teports associated with the civil / structural audits. A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1. If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yoursn b s N. H. Williams Project Manager NIIW/amh Attachments cc-Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric) Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) Mr. L Nace (TU Electric) Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Mr. C. Grimes USNRC) s : Ms. A. Vietti-C(ook'(USNRC)' ' Mr. S: Stamm (SWEC)" san rm sco Bosmn ene yo pars,ppany \\TUE\\84056\\LTR.132 w

i j g . f,. A'ITACIIMENT 1 List of Enclosed Communications Reports TIME DATE 06/13/87 8:40 a.m. 08/26/87 5:00 p.m. l \\TUE\\S4056\\LTR.132 1

l sanwcas 2121 N. California Blvd. Suite 390. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934 5733 November 25,1987 '84056.133 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transmittal No. 40 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - TU Electric Job No. 84056

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

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 desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly.yours, q N. H. Williams Project Manager NilW/amh Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric) Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) Mr. L Nace (TU Electric) Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC), m. Ms.. A. ViettiCook. (USNRC) ' Mr. C. Chiou (Ebasco) ~ Mr. F. Hettinger (Ebasco) s.m nanciwa sosmn cincago p sion.,ny \\TUE\\8405tAL fR.133

1 A'ITACIIMENT 1 List of Enclosed Communications Renoris DATE __ TIME . { 09/03/87 100 p.m. 09/03/87 2:00 p.m. 09/03/87-3:15 p.m. l . j-s S T f 8 1) \\TUE\\84056\\LTR.133

8g(._ _-,. 2121 N. Caldornia Blvd. F Jite 390. Walnut Creek, CA 94S96 - 415/934-5733 November 25, 1987 84056.133 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX.75224

Subject:

Communications Report Transtnittal No. 40 Independent Assesstnent Program - All Phases Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric ' Job No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis-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 desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly.yours, q i N. H. Williams ' Project Manager NHW/amh Attachment.s cc-Mr J. Redding (TU Electric) Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) Mr. L Nace (TU Electric) Mr J. Muffett (TU Electric) i Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) l Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC) l Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) J Mr. C. Chiou (Ebasco) Mr. F. Hettinger (Ebasco) San Fri.nasco Bosten Crucago Par sippany \\TUE\\84056\\LTR.133

+ .4 A'ITACHMENT 1 List of Enclosed Communications Reports DATE TIME 09/03/87 1.00 p.m. 09/03/87 290 p.m. 09/03/87 3d5 p.m. I N j \\TUE\\84056%LTR.133 i

FF"==a Communications Min J Ta Report lilllilllllllllllillllililllll C mpany. Teiec n X conference neport CES Project Job No TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,te: 09/03/87 subject Conduit Support Design Review 1D0 p.m. Ebasco Audit Piace: CPSES site, TX

Participants:

of T. Kuo, C.Y. Chiou Ebasco l B. Shakibnia, D. Leong, B. Atalay Cygna F.' Thomas Corporate Consulting & Devlpmnt Co., L i U (UCL) Reqwred item Comments Action By In response to Cygna Concern no. 3 (see communication report dated September 2, 1987, 2:10 p.m.), the CCL representative stated that the values reported on sheet 50 of the test report are the total loads on the supports. Ebasco acknowledged that the support capacities for CA-la, CA-lb, and CA-2a type 2 are in error and stated that the support capacity calculations would be revised. In reference to the CCL test report, Cygna asked Ebasco what plate size was used in the G16-T test configuration. The CCL representative stated that he would respond later. TUE\\090387-A. CON Page cf s.gned [ J y 3 r,~:i. ll/1W Disinoution SEE ATTAClIED DffikiBUTION SIIEET. ~ 1020 014

DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott....,. . 1Ms? A. Vietti-Cook ' Mr7C. 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 ---____------_a_m--,-

4 i i Communications = - L4DR Td Report lilllllllllillilllillllilllill-Company: C Teiec n x conference neport ES Project: Job No. TU Electric - 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,te: 09/03/87 sumect l' Conduit Support Design Review 200 p.m. Ebasco Audit piac.: CPSES Site TX

Participants:

of T.Kuo Ebasco - B. 'Shakibnia, D. Leong Cygna i i R0 quired item Comments Action By REFERENCES 1. " Seismic Qualification Test Report of Conduit Support Systems for CPSES" by CCL Report No. A-678-85, October 9, 1985. i In response to Cygna's question on the dimensions of the 1" thick plate used in test G16-T (junction box support), Ebasco stated that CCL informed them that the plate used to represent the junction box extends 1" beyond the load / frame bolt points (shown on A. 29 of Reference 1). Therefore, the plate dimension are 1"x1 W 19". TUE\\090387-C. CON Ifh l / Page of Signed V [ b4 H ] I, / Y J / A / s w o.stribution' S'ET^ffACIIMD'DISTRII!UtION SHEET. ~ - 1020 01a

n i ~ y 9

r, t,

_.sjg f .t g,;,. lle i G'"/ j' ' ;n 4, .h DISTRIBUTION LIST-Mr. J. Redding ' Mr. L. Nace : Mr. W. Counsil yy ThW M h 'Mrf C/ Grimes - 4 .j Mr. C.Y. Chiou Ms. N.. Williams .Mr. J. Russ - Mr. W. Horitman - Mr. K.-Parikh. Mr. B.' Atalay ' Ms. D. Leong. Project File: k

[ a >. ' ' tim v Communications MdHa Report 1lll1llllll111111ll1lll111111! - Company: _ Teiecon x conference neport CES Project: Job No. TU Electric - 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: 09/03/87 Conduit Support Design Review 3:15 p.m. Ebasco Audit Piace. CPSES site, TX

Participants:

of T.Kuo Ebasco B. Shakibnia, D. Leong, B. Atalay Cygna Required item Comments Action By REFERENCES 1. Calculation TNE-CS-CA-JA-1, Revision 0 " Design of Conduit Supports". y After review of Reference 1, Cygna noted the following concerns: 1. The sizes of the junction boxes covered by the test do not include 60x24x10 and 30x18x18 junction boxes. (See page 6 of Reference 1). However, Sheet JA-2 of drawing S-0910 does include these two sizes. What is the basis for including these two junction box sizes on Sheet JA-2 of drawing S.0910? 2. On Sheet 12 of Reference 1, JA-3a and JA-3b junction box supports are qualified by similarity to JA-2. It states that as long as the total weight of the junction boxes shown on Sheets JA-3a or 3b are equal to or less than 193 lbs., the capacity table of JA-2 can be used for their qualifications. How is the weight comparison used in checking the junction box loadings against the support capacity table? l 1lb i, I 2 3dE "ATr' filf[ DIS'IMBUTION SIIEET. d Distobution~ E '"?

Communications ""i = [+hM'Il Report 1111111111111ll111111111111111 Requeed item Comments Action By In response to Cygna question no.1, Ebasco stated that the junction box sizes shown on Sht. JA-2 of drawing S-0910 are only indicative of the sizes that would fit and/or can be installed on the support. The junction box loading would be checked against the capacity table regardless of the junction box size. However, Ebasco acknowledged that the capacity calculation (Reference 1), considers only the 12" thick junction boxes, and the 30x18x18 size should be l deleted. Ebasco stated that they would delete the indicated I junction box sizes on Sht. JA-2, snd would add a note stating that the maximum junction box thickness for support JA-2 should be less than or equal to 12". In response to Cygna question no. 2, Ebasco stated that the weight comparison was mentioned in the calculation only to show that the JA-2 capacity table could be used to qualify the junction box supports JA-3a and 3b. Regardless of the junction box weight, the junction box loading would be checked against the capacity table. Cygna also noted an additional concern on the CCL test

report, Seismic Qualification Test Report of Conduit Support System for CPSES, CCL Report no. A-678-85, October 9, 1985.

The values shown on Sheet 50 for configuration G14-T, at step 72 are not the same as those shown on sheets D224 and D225. Cygna believes that correct values for G14-T, configuration at step 72 should be axial =5450 lbs. and perpendicular =2410 lbs. 6 Ebasco stated that they would revise the values for the G14-T configuration. TUE\\090387-B. CON Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SilEET 2 2 1020 0 %

.~ -_-_ - ___ ___ - l;

c..

p.

l. <

l) l.- l DISTRIBUTION LIST l Mr. J. Redding l.. Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil. Mr. D.' Pigott '!MU?M'Vietti. Cook 93'"p - Mr'!"C Grim 6s*""' " d Mr. CY. Chiou.

Ms.- N. Williams Mr. J. Russ

. Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K; Parikh Mr. B. Atalay Ms. D. Leong. Project File I i _}}