ML20236B187
| ML20236B187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1987 |
| From: | Terao D NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710230379 | |
| Download: ML20236B187 (68) | |
Text
_
c 1fY Y.Q
' !e nog "go UNITED STATES
- !"' o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'i . 2 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,
l
\,
/ October'9, 1987 j l
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 j APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric) 1 FACILITY: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 !
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
MEETING AND AUDIT ON AUGUST 26-27, 1987 - CABLE TRAY HANGER GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES On August 26-27, 1987,* the NRC staff and its consultants met with representatives l of TV Electric, applicant for CPSES, and their contractors at the offices of !
Ebasco Services, Inc. in New York, New York. The purpose of the meeting was I to discuss the resolutions to the generic technical issues associated with the CPSES cable tray hangers. The meeting notice and a list of meeting attendees are !
provided as Enclosures 1 and 2, respectively. I l
The technical discussions focused around the 31 issue resolutions presented in i a report entitled, " Evaluation and Resolution of Generic Technical Issues for I Cable Tray Hangers," Revision 2, dated March 13, 1987.** Three additional issues l related to cable tray hangers were discussed which evolved from the on-going 4 CYGNA Independent Assessment Program (Phase 4) review. The 34 technical issues j and their resolutions as presented in the meeting are provided in Enclosure 3. 1 i
Following the meeting, the staff selected several documents which provide the technical basis for certain cable tray hanger issue resolutions for further review and audit. These documents are listed in Enclosure 4. j In the course of discussions during the meeting and audit, the TV Electric contractors presented the analytical methodologies used by Impell and Ebasco in design verification of cable tray hangers and related FSAR commitments. The staff also reviewed selected as-built (red-line) drawings which were developed ;
from field walkdowns prior to transmittal to the home offices of Impell and i Ebasco for design verification in order to better understand the process used in the cable tray hanger requalification program.
- Note that although the meeting notice (Enclosure 1) indicates that the meeting was to be held for three days (August 26, 27, and 28, 1987), the meeting and audit activities were concluded on August 27, 1987
8710230379 a71009 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0 PDR
7 B.'.
, ., , y 4
, , -l
'1 t2- .]
.There were no open or unruolved. items; resulting.;from the staff's audit. . The .
- ' staff will continue to review selected generic-issue resolutions-through-their. 1
~ implementation in ' design reverification.and will follow' the resolutions' of. the' open CYGNA-_ cable tray hanger issues .as ' identified in their Review Issuellist.
-The staff's final evaluation of the resolutions to the cable tray hanger generic-Ltechnical issues and their irtplementation in design' verification.will be' provided?
in a: future safety evaluation upon completion:of the' review'.
Original signed'by. .)
David'Terao, Mechanical Engineer. J
' Comanche Peak' Project Division 'l
' Office of Special Projects'
]
Enclosures:
- 1. 'Neeting Notice
- 2. List'of Attendees 1
- 3. Presentation of 34 technical issues and their resolution
- 4. Cable Tray Hanger Documents reviewed ~ '
by the staff cc: See next page bec: W. P. Chen,~ETEC 1 i
~P. Bezler, BNL G. Brerombach, BNL W. Grossman, BNL Distribution:
eDocketg11%
PDR i
LPDR:
CPPD Reading ']
OSP Reading )
J.'Keppler/J. Axelrad C. Grimes P. McKee J. Lyons 1 R. Warnick D. Kelly A. Vietti-Cook i M..Malloy '
CPPD/LA OGC.Bethesda l F.-'Miraglia E. Jordan :1 J.L Partlow ACRS'(10).
/
D SP :PM g:
uM--} :A/D:CPPD:0SP, : :
0FC :GPPD:0SP : , DS P .
4 :... . ......__:....____ ...__:_............ !
NAME :DTerao:cb AY tti Cook 11oy' :JLy : :
DATE' : S/ /87
....__:k/h/87.._______........h..........:h/1/87 : #/fl/87 : : -)
( [. .
u
_ _ _ wa-_Q
v 3i 4
0 b
- 1 W.'G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 l cc:
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs jl Ropes & Gray Comanche Peak Project Division- l 225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 P. O. Box 1029 l Granbury, Texas 76048 !
Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1
Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 2001 Bryan. Tower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 ;
Dallas, Texas 75201 l Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Christic Institute Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street i Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20002 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde,.Esq.
Dallas, Texas 75201 Government' Accountability Project Midwest Office Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr. 104 East Wisconsin Avenue Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 ;
Gibbs and Hill, Inc. 1 i
11 Penn Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq. ]
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ]
600 Montgomery Street l Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111. j Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0. Box 355 Anthony Z.'Roisman, Esq. f Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 j 1401 New York Avenue, NW j Renea Hicks, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20005 :
Assistant Attorney General )
Environmental Protection Division Robert Jablon. !
P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair i Austin, Texas 78711 Spiegel & McDiarmid l 1350 New York Avenue, NW Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George A. Parker, Chairman i Dallas, Texas 75224 Public Utility Committee !
Senior Citizens Alliance Of 1 Ms. Nancy H. Williems Tarrant County, Inc. l CYGNA Energy Services 6048 Wonder Drive ;
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Fort Worth, Texas 76133 i Walnut Creek, CA~ 94596 l
.l t
i
y , ,
~
q
\
o b-
-W. Gf:Counsil! .
-?- . Comanche Peak' Electric 1 Station ,
Texas Utilities Electric Company. s Units.1 and 2-l cc: :l
-Joseph F.LFulbright Fulbright & Jaworski L1301 NcKinney Street Houston,2 Texas;77010' Mr.. Donald.'R. Woo'dlan' . .
Texas-Utilities Electric Company; e Skyway Tower. l 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas,' Texas. 175201: I
- Mr. Jsck'Redding
.c/o..Bethesda Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company l ,
-3 Metro Center, Suite.610 Bethesda, Marylan_d 20814' 1
William A..Burchette, Esq. ,
Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative 4 of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025-Thomas Jefferson'. Street, NW Washi.ngton, D.C. 20007 James M. McGaugby GDS Associates, Inc.
Suite 450 2525 Cumberland Parkway ,,
Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Administ'rative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
. Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building '3500 '
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 37830 ,
Dr. Kenneth A.-McCollom 4
1107 West:Knapp- .
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075
.Dr. Walter H. Jordan- , q Administrative' Judge.
881~ West Outer' Drive. ,
Oak Ridge,-Tennessee. 37830 1 E
q
______1- _ _ - -
.y ENCLOSURE 1
- ' UNITED STATES 5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 ti E g / August 24, 1987 Docket Nos.: 50-445/446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Christopher I. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects 5
THRU: .Hans E. Schierling, Assistant Director for Projects gr Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects i
FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Project Manager Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH TV ELECTRIC AND EBASCO j
Date & Time: Wednesday, August 26, 2987 Thursday, August 27, 1987 i l
Friday, August 28, 1987 Beginning each day at 9:00 a.m. -
l i
Location: EBASCO offices !
2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10001
Purpose:
To discuss resolution of generic technical issues and the cable tray hangers
Participants:
NRC Applicant D. Terao D. Woodlan, et al.
Consultants (Teledyne)
& i 0:7-~' C Annette Vietti-Cook, Project Manager Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects Members of the public planning to attend should contact:
A. Vietti-Cook or M. Malloy (301)492-4555 (301) 492-7624 cc: See next page
-g-7t)2:<,-703-I-2 ^ Lp.
- u- ,
l'
. m l r
l
- l ENCLOSURE 2 (page 1 of.2)
MEETING ON CABLE TRAY HANGER GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES EBASCO OFFICES. 87th FLOOR 2 WORLD TRADE' CENTER, NEW YORK- -I r
List o'f Attendees'8/26/87 i hAME AFFILIATION W. P. Chen 'NRC' Consultant
.J. E. Lyons NRC/OSP- ,
D. Terao NRC/0SP l P. Bezler . BNL/NRC' l G. Breidenbach BNL/NRC Walt Grossman BNL/NRC S. W. Harrison TU Electric.
R. Kaczkowski IMPELL -
G. R..Ashley IMPELL ,
J.. Mu f fett ' TV Electric I F. Hettinger EBASCO-P. Harrison EBASCO R. Alexandru EBASCO J. Padalino- EBASCO:
M. Cnuaprasert. EBASCO K. T. Wu EBASCO J. S. Marshall TV Electric a
l.
S '
I i
3
i,
} I -
.i i
ENCLOSURE 2 (page 2 of 2):
8/27/87 .
MEETING ON CABLE TRAY HAN"-ER GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES EBASCO 0FFICES, NEW YORK List'of Attendees 8/27/87 NAME AFFILIATION.
W. P. Chen NRC;. Consultant ~.
i
- 0. Terao NRC/OSP E. Breidenbach BNL/NRC J. W. Muffett TV Electric- 1 Rich Kaczkowski IMPELL "
G. R. Ashley -IMPELL P. Harrison EBASCO F. Hettinger EBASCO' 1 R. Alexandru EBASCO l S. Harrison TV Electric 1 P. Bezler BNL/NRC- 'l I
G. Catzelfs EBASCO I
K. T. Wu EBASCO i
.l l
i i
1 l
- _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ }
,U. .
' ENCLOSURE 3-k' i l
SLIDE'A-i 1
j TV Electric COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l i
~l 1
NRC/EBASCO/IMPELL MEETING -1 a
1 l
CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN VERIFICATION GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES l
l
.i I
l 1
l l
August' 26, 27, and 28,1987 i
.i
si g.
t TU Electric- ~ 8/26/87 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION L SLIDE.B t
1 AGENDA i l
- INTRODUCTION TV ELECTRIC
.!i
SUMMARY
0F. CABLE TRAY. HANGER DESIGN VERIFICATION- e
' PROGRAM- j SUtNARY OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES RESOLUTION l 4
~i s ,
{
j 1
4 a
j d
. ~.
t
/
TV Electric L8/26/87' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE C i
I
SUMMARY
OF CABLE. TRAY HANGER DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM ;
Il i
00TLINE i
o
SUMMARY
OF EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES .
o TU Electric CORRECTIVE ACTION HISTORY o PROGRAM FEATURES o WALKDOWN AND AS-BUILT DRAWING DEVELOPMENT I l
o DESIGN VERIFICATION APPROACH DEVELOPMENT I
J o DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCESS o REWORK AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS i
TU Electric 8/26/87 COMANCHE PEAK. STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE D I
.l CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
l o
SUMMARY
OF EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES !
l 1
- INTERVENOR RAISED SEVERAL BROAD ISSUES PRE 1984 !
1
- CYGNA IAP PHASE II . IDENTIFIED INITIAL SPECIFIC !
. TECHNICAL ISSUES l INTERVENOR RAISED ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS-IN APRIL-84 ASLB HEARINGS i TRT REVIEW RAISED QUESTIONS ON QC ADEQUACY SUMMER ,
0F 1984 l
- -PHASE IV 0F CYGNA IAP RAISED ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FALL 1984-MID 1985 AND MID 1987 j
l NRC NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED LATE-84 EARLY 85 (N0V 'S, 84-16, 84-26 )
o ALL EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED BY THE CTH CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM l
t I
.t
'i 1
'i
'e {
i
,, o TU Electric 8/26/87- 1 COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION.- SLIOE E .[j l
CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
i o TV Electric CORRECTIVE ACTION HISTORY CTH CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM BEGAN FOR BOTH UNITS FALL OF 84 j CTH PROGRAM WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DAP UNDER ;
CPRT PROGRAM.IN EARLY 85 1 l
j i
l l I
1 l
I
\ l t
TV Electric '8/26/87 I C0HANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE F f l
CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
I i
]
o PROGRAM FEATURES )
100% AS-BUILT OF CTH'S 100% AS-BUILT OF TRAY LAYOUTS i 100% QC REINSPECTION OF' PREVIOUSLY. INSPECTED.CTH'S 100% DESIGN VERIFICATION OF FINAL AS-BUILT )
CONFIGURATIONS 1 ALL EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL DESIGN AND QC ADEQUACY ISSUES ADDRESSED VIA WALKDOWNS, AS-BUILTING, DESIGN VERIFICATION. TESTING, OR SPECIAL STUDIES j
);
l l
l l
f
- m. ____ m.a.u__.mm
s i
TU Electric. 8/26/87 C0KANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE G' CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
i o WALKDOWN AND AS-BUILTING l
ENGINEERING WALKS DOWN EACH HANGER AND AS-BUILTS EACH ATTRIBUTE REQUIRED FOR DESIGN VERIFICATION WALKDOWN BY. TEAMS OF TWO PEOPLE MEASURES TO ENSURE ACCURACY OF WALKDOWN PRODUCT i (SPOT SELF-CHECKING AND SURVEILLANCE BY l INDEPENDENT ENGINEERING TEAMS)
THE FOLLOWING ATTRIBUTES ARE AS-BUILT.BY SURVEYING TEAMS:'
l PLUMBNESS LEVELNESS 4 TRAY SPANS )
I WALKDOWN PROCEDURES: TNE-FVM-CS-001 (UNIT 1) l TNE-FVM-CS-003 (UNIT 2) 1 TNE-FVM-CS-019 (UNIT 2) !
)
o AS-BUILT CAD DRAWING PREPARATION AND QC INSPECTION PRELIMINARY AS-BUILT PREPARED FROM ENGINEERING WALKDOWN INPUT l PRELIMINARY AS-BUILT USED BY QC FOR INSPECTION FINAL AS-BUILT PREPARED THAT INCORPORATES THE QC INSPECTION AND-DESIGN VERIFICATION RESULTS QC PROCEDURES: QI-QP-11.10-9 (UNIT 1 )
QI-QP-11.10-2A (UNIT 2) i I
.__m__.__ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
. .j TU Electric .
8/26/87 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC. STATION SLIDE H CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
cj o . DESIGN VERIFICATION APPROACH DEVELOPMENT i
DESIGN CRITERIA AND DETAILED PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS -
WERE DEVELOPED TO COMPLY WITH CPSES FSAR,~ APPLICABLE CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCES CRITERIA / INSTRUCTIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS TECHNICAL STUDIES AND TESTS PERFORMED SPECIFICALLY FOR CPSES CTH SYSTEMS AND THEIR COMPONENTS-1 CRITERIA / INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CONCERNS -
OF ALL EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SOURCES .l <
r \
l
]
1
)
l q
1 1
i
,1
u 7- 1
, l TV Electric 8/26/87 ..
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM' ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE I
'\
.j CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
I 1
o DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCESS
- SCOPE: ALL SEISMIC CATEGORY I CTH'S L - UNIT 1 AND COMMON:' 4530 + 820 (ON CABLE SPREAD- i
' ROOM FRAME)- ~j
- UNIT 2: 3866 + 900 (ON CABLE SPREAD ROOM FRAME)
- DESIGN VERIFICATION' INPUT l
- DESIGN CRITERIA AND INSTRUCTIONS
- AS-BUILT DRAWING FOR EACH CTH H
- AS-BUILT TRAY LAYOUT INFORMATION s - CABLE FILL DATA
- ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION i
- EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD OR RESPONSE' SPECTRUM METHOD -l OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS .
- STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN VERIFICATION
- WELD AND ANCHORAGE DESIGN VERIFICATION '
- TRAY AND CLAMP DESIGN VERIFICATION
- MODIFICATIONS DESIGNED AS REQUIRED i~
1 l - DESIGN VERIFICATION OUTPUT
- DETAILED CALCULATIONS l - DESIGN VERIFIED DRAWING FOR EACH HANGER
- FINAL DOCUMENTATION
- CRITERIA / INSTRUCTIONS, STUDIES, AND TEST REPORTS ~ .;
- DESIGN VERIFICATION INPUT '
l
- DESIGN VERIFICATION OUTPUT
__ _ _2
.l TU Electric .
8/26/87- 3 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE J j l
l CTH PROGRAM
SUMMARY
.[
l o REWORK'AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS l
REWORK l a
REWORK ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC HARDWARE IDENTIFIED {
UNSATISFACTORY IN THE INSPECTION REPORTS. FOR 1 EXAMPLE:
- GROUTING 0F GAPS UNDER BASE ANGLES AND PLATES
- TORQUING OF LOOSE BOLTS DESIGN MODIFICATIONS RESULT FROM CTH DESIGN VERIFICATION AGAINST CRITERIA i AND ARE DUE TO:
- MEMBER OVERSTRESS
- AS-BUILT WELD OVERSTRESS j
- INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF ANCHOR BOLTS-
- REPAIRING OF POOR QUALITY WELDS AND BUTT WELDS
- ANCHOR BOLT INSUFFICIENT EMBEDMENT y
- UNACCEPTABLE SLENDERNESS RATIOS 1
.}
l
- g - -
t
., M* j
[
TU Electric /
8/26/97 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE C
+ ' -
.", .u .o
,J -
CTH PROGRAM SUttlARY
, +.,. > 1
.) -
s J ' ?
g4 \
.i o' LOCATION OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 1 4 WALKDOWN EBASCO (UNIT l' & 2) SITE . (,j
]
.AS BUILT. DRAWINGS (CAD) j EBASCO (UNIT 1 & 2) SITE, NEW YORK '
< j DESIGN PROCEDURES IMPELL (UNIT 1) CP'CAGO, WALNUT CREEK ,
EBASCO (UNIT 1 & 2) NEW YORK DESIGN VERIFICATION IMPELL (UNIT 1) CHICAGO, WALNUT CREEK EBASCO (UNIT-1 & 2) NEW YORK
- STUDIES IMPELL (UNIT 1) CHICAGO, WALNUT CREEK EBASCO (UNIT 1 & 2) NEW YORK TESTING
" ~
IMPELL CHICAGO AND WALNUT CREEK ,
EBASCO NEW YORK > -
(' j
., +
r s
F i
/' /
I ,'
~
"E];.. , ,
-l 4 1 l
. 'r .
'A TU Electric :8/26/87
, COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SLIDE L I
SUMMARY
OF' CYGNA ISSUE RESOLUTION 00TLINE=
o ISSUE. RESOLUTION PROCESS l
i o
SUMMARY
'0F 34 INDIVIDUAL . ISSUES AND THEIR RESOLUTION l'
l i l l j
l 1
.1 a
1 s l
.1 l
.p 1
.m
~,.
4 TU Electric- 8/26/87 )
CPO 5 - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT SLIDE M l
~I GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS .
ALL PERTINENT-DOCUMENTATION WAS REVIEWED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE i
- ACTION PLAN'WAS DEVELOPED TO RESOLVE EACH ISSUE THROUGH AS-DESIGNED AND AS-BUILT DATA COLLECTION, )
CRITERIA AND~ PROCEDURES. DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL j STUDIES TEST PROGRAMS AND DESIGN VERIFICATION -j
.j GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR) WAS DEVELOPED AND i
TRANSMITTED TO CYGNA
SUMMARY
MATRIX OF PROCEDURES AND REFERENCES WHICH RESOLVE EACH ISSUE IS INCLUDED IN GIR-r ACTION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION IS REVIEWED BY CPRT-AS AN ONGOING PROCESS ACTION PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION i
u- q
.., q TU Electric 8/26/87 '
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT ' 1.1 -
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 1: CONTROLLING LOAD CASE FOR DESIGN 4 o- ISSUE.
ORIGINAL G & H CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DESIGN MAY NOT-HAVE' .
PROPERLY CONSIDERED BOTH OBE AND SSE LOAD COMBINATIONS-o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT BOTH- ,
SSE AND OBE LOAD COMBINATIONS BE EXPLICITLY J I EVALVATED FOR CABLE : TRAY SUPPDRTS s
i I
I l
u-__---_---__-________________
y ,
i TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 2.1 1
CYGNA' ISSUE NO. 2: SEISMIC RESPONSE ' COMBINATION METHOD o ISSUE ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN DID NOT PROPERLY COMBINE SEISMIC. RESPONSES IN EVALUATION OF CABLE TRAY- 1 SUPPORTS FOR:
]
. A. CLOSELY SPACED MODES IN RESPONSE SPECTRUM .] .
- ANALYSIS :
B. DEADWEIGHT AND SEISMIC LOADS IN DESIGN <
CALCULATIONS o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE THATi A. CLOSELY SPACED MODES BE COMBINED PER USNRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1.92 ;
B. DEADWEIGHT BE ALGEBRAICALLY SUMED~WITH THE RESULTANT SEISMIC LOADS i
1 1
i i
-u-
.. H i
'I
's TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 3.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT. DESIGN j o . ISSUE l
.1 ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN MAY NOT HAVE PROPERLY ADDRESSED- 1 THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN: -l N ANCHOR BOLT TENSION RESULTING FROM ECCENTRICITY. :
BETWEEN SUPPORT MEMBER AND BASE. ANGLE- !
LONGITUDINAL AXIS B. SSE SAFETY FACTORS FOR HILTI~ EXPANSION ANCHORS l j
C. APPLICATION OF ACI 349-76 APPENDIX B l D. SSE SAFETY FACTOR FOR RICHMOND. INSERTS
.1 E. PRYING ACTION EFFECTS AND ALLOWABLES FOR RICHMOND {
s INSERTS I F. FIELD SUBSTITUTIONS ALLOWED BY DESIGN, AND INSTALLATION TOLERANCES 1 G. GENERIC PRYING ACTION FACTORS H. ANCHOR SUBSTITUTIONS NOT CONSIDERED IN DESIG11 j CALCULATIONS i i
I. ANCHORAGE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS I M~ INSTALLATION OF EXPANSION ANCHORS IN DIAMOND CORED HOLES
! X. ALLOWABLE LOADS FOR 1" DIAMETER HILTI KWIK . BOLTS l
l l
I
__- n.- - . - - - - - - - - - -
u .
] '
TU Electric 8/2'6/87-CPSES'- CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 3.2 1
-].
Ai l I
,CYGNA. ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN f
.- i. ..1 l
i
-o ISSUE .
A. ANCHOR BOLT TENSION RESULTING FROM ECCENTRICITY. i BETWEEN SUPPORT MEMBER AND BASE-ANGLE l..i.-J LONGITUDINAL AXIS r~c1) L_
l 0 RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT p ,
EVALUATION OF ANCHORAGES CONSIDER SUPPORT MEMBER 70 f i
ANCHORAGE ECCENTRICITY l
o ISSUE B. SSE SAFETY FACTORS FOR HILTI EXPANSION ANCHORS o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY THAT HILTI
( ANCHORS BE DESIGN VERIFIED FOR BOTH OBE AND SSE LOAD COMBINATIONS USING SAFETY FACTORS OF. 5.0 AND 4.0, RESPECTIVELY
] !
o ISSUE i
C. APPLICATION OF ACI 349-76 APPENDIX B )
l o RESOLUTION )
ACI 349-76 HAS NOT BE'EN USED IN CTH DESIGN !
VERIFICATION 1
I
'l:;
]
I l
's I TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 3.3 1
i i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN o ISSUE-D. SSE SAFETY FACTOR FOR RICHMOND INSERTS .
o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY THAT RICHMOND t
INSERTS BE DESIGN VERIFIED FOR BOTH OBE AND SSE LOAD l COMBINATIONS USING A SAFETY FACTOR OF 3.0.
.i o ISSUE E. PRYING ACTION EFFECTS AND ALLOWABLES FOR RICHMOND INSERTS o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT. RICHMOND.
INSERTS BE DESIGN VERIFIED CONSIDERING PRYING ACTION AND BOLT SPACING EFFECTS f
\
o ISSUE F. H. FIELD. SUBSTITUTIONS ALLOWED BY. DESIGN, AND. ff INSTALLATION ~ TOLERANCES-ANCHOR SUBSTITUTIONS-NOT CONSIDERERD IN DESIGN i
M' I,cjg g' CALCULATIONS {i.pr
, u-o RESOLUTION [~ o DESIGN VERIFICATION OF SUPPORTS AND' ANCHORAGES ARE A
9,t # iK' BASED ON AS-BUILT INFORMATION' j ,3
?
[],_pp )
o ISSUE W #
G. GENERIC PRYING ACTION. FACTORS o RESOLUTION PRYING ACTION FACTORS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR REPRESENTATIVE ANCHOR CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH STUDIES-AND-ARE USED'IN THE DESIGN VERIFICATION OF ANCHORAGES
l 4
TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 3.4 1
I CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN.
1 Lj y
o ISSUE .
I. ANCHORAGE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS o' RESOLUTION.
ANCHORAGE STIFFNESSES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR .
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHOR CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH STUDIES AND ARE USED IN THE DESIGN VERIFICATION OF ANCHORAGES-i t-o ISSUE ,
1 J. INSTALLATION OF EXPANSION ANCHORS IN DIAMOND CORED HOLES o RESOLUTION THE INSTALLATION PROCEDURE ENSURES THAT THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN ANCHOR STRENGTH.- CYGNA CLOSURE OF THIS_
ISSUE HAS BEEN TRANRFFRRFh To THE CIVIL / STRUCTURAL REVTEW ISSUES LIST o ISSUE 1
K. ALLOWABLE LOADS FOR 1" DIAMETER HILTI KWIK-BOLTS - !
I o RESOLUTION 1
CORRECT YENDOR ALLOWABLES HAVE BEEN,USED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION OF 1" DIAMETER HILTI KWIK BOLTSX' I
I k__ m.-. _-. _-m..-&_ _ .u ---
u ,.
A 4,.
TV Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 4.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS
.l o ISSUE ORIGINAL G 8'H DESIGN MAY HAVE USED IMPROPER ASSUMPTIONS FOR SUPPORT MEMBER SLENDERNESS RATIOS, AND AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRESSES AND ALLOWABLES, SPECIFICALLY:
A. UNSUPPORTED LENGTHS-0F-TRAPEZE POSTS B. EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAPEZE SIDESWAY RESTRAINT C. CANTILEVER LENGTHS AND OUT-OF-PLANE RESTRAINT PROVIDED BY TRAYS s D. EFFECT OF WELD UNDERCUT E. EFFECT OF SUPPORT OUT-0F-PLUMBNESS TOLERANCE F. EFFECTIVE LENGTH WITHOUT CONSIDERING BASE ANGLE GE0 METRY AND FLEXIBILITY.
G. SUPPORT BRACE GEOMETRY AND LOADS l
l i
- - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - -- - - J
u-
's 1 TU Electric 8/26/87- ..i '
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 4.2.
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: - DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS ,
i W
o ISSUE A. UNSUPPORTED LENGTHS OF TRAPEZE POSTS i
C. CANTILEVER LENGTHS AND OUT-OF-PLANE RESTRAINT.~
PROVIDED BY TRAYS F. EFFECTIVE LENGTH WITHOUT CONSIDERING BASE ANGLE GEOMETRY, AND FLEXIBILITY i
o RESOLUTION l
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY APPROPRIATE !
s EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTORS, SLENDERNESS RATIO LIMITS, AND RULES FOR DETERMINING UNSUPPORTED LENGTHS i
i 1
i u
l 1
- u ;
,. i l
1
'i )
TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 4.3 ,
W
)
i CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS 1
I' o ISSUE B. EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAPEZE SIDESWAY RESTRAINT:
)
o RESOLUTION EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTORS WERE DEVELOPED CONSIDERING TRAPEZE SIDESWAY RESTRAINT' l
i
,o ISSUE
- 0. EFFECT OF WELD UNDERCUT o RESOLUTION BASE METAL DEFECTS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED PER VWAC AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISPOSITIONED i
l l
i
-]
y
. y . ;
'RJ Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 4 '. 4 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: . ~ DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS ,
o ISSUE i E. EFFECT OF SUPPORT OUT-OF-PLUMBNESS TOLERANCE o RESOLUTION STUDIES SHOW NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT OF 2 DEGREE OUT-OF-PLUMBNESS TOLERANCE. OUT-0F-PLUMBNESS GREATER THAN 2 DEGREES IS CONSIDERED Di DESILA VERIFICATION.
s o ISSUE G. SUPPORT BRACE GEOMETRY AND LOADS i
o RESOLUTION CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ARE EVALUATED INDIVIDUALLY BASED ON AS-BUILT INFORMATION l n
i 1
'* TV Electric- 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 5.1 i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 5: . VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE LOADING ON LONGITUDINAL TYPE SUPPORTS .
o ISSUE ORIGINAL DESIGN DIO NOT. INCLUDE TRANSVERSE AND:
VERTICAL SEISMIC TRAY LOADS ON LONGITUDINAL TRAPEZE SUPPORTS o RESOLUTION l
l DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY THE SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF THREE ORTHOGONAL ,
DIRECTIONS OF SEISMIC LOADING FOR ALL SUPPORTS i s
l I;
l 1
1 1 A i l g
TU Electric 8/26/87
- CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 6.1 1
.l 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 6: SUPPORT FRAME DEAD LOADS AND INERTIAL LOADS o ISSUE l I
~ 0RIGINAL G & H DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS DID NOT j CONSIDER:
A. OUT-OF-PLANE INERTIAL LOADS ON TRANSVERSE. l SUPPORTS AND LOADS TRANSMITTED THROUGH TRAYS T0-LONGITUDINAL : SUPPORTS j l
B. CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF SUPPORT DEAD WEIGHT j 1
4 o RESOLUTION ;
I s A. DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY THAT TRANSVERSE SUPPORT OUT-OF-PLANE' INERTIAL LOAD EFFECTS BE CONSIDERED ON BOTH TRANSVERSE AND LONGITUDINAL SUPPORTS B. DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT 100- j PERCENT OF SUPPORT DEADWEIGHT BE USED IN SUPPORT j VERIFICATION -
1 I
l l
I l
u l
- u-
- . l TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 7.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 7: DESIGN OF ANGLE BRACES NEGLECTING 1' LOADING ECCENTRICITY o -ISSUE ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN DID NOT. CONSIDER EFFECTS OF ECCENTRIC END CONNECTION FOR ANGLE BRACE DESIGN, l SPECIFICALLY FOR: .
A. INDUCED BENDING STRESSES AND DOUBLE ANGLE COMPOSITE ACTION FOR OUT-OF-PLANE BRACES B. INDUCED BENDING STRESSES AND PRINCIPAL AXIS j i
PROPERTIES FOR IN-PLANE BRACES i C. POTENTIAL TWIST BUCKLING 2
o RESOLUTION A , B. ECCENTRIC END CONNECTIONS AND PRINCIPAL AXIS l STRESSES ARE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION !
EITHER EXPLICITLY, OR GENERICALLY THROUGH !
STUDIES, TO DETERMINE THEIR EFFECTS. !
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY j REQUIREMENTS (AISC 1.18.2.4) FOR CONSIDERATION 1 0F DOUBLE ANGLE COMPOSITE ACTION. I C. DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY DESIGN CHECKS FOR TWIST BUCKLING a
i l
l i l
TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 8.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 8:. DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF) AND RATIOS j BETWEEN CONTINUOUS TRAY. SUPPORT REACTIONS AND'- -I TRIBUTARY TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS o ISSUE , )
i 0RIGINAL G & H DESIGN.DID NOT INCLUDE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF) OR. ACCOUNT FOR SYSTEM EFFECTS IN USING " EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS" T0- U EVALUATE SEISMIC LOADS o RESOLUTION .
'l DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR EQUIVALENT STATIC !
ANALYSIS SPECIFY AN AMPLIFICATION FACTOR OF-1.25 1 s (CALLED HRM) AND LOAD. DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED TO ACCOUNT FOR MULTIPLE MODES AND. SYSTEM EFFECTS. FURTHERMORE, A SCREENING PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY AND DESIGN VERIFY TRAY SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS j FOR WHICH THE 1.25 MRM'IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCOUNT !
FOR BOTH MULTIPLE MODE AND LOAD REDISTRIBUTION.
EFFECTS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED.
t l
i I
1
'I I
s I
l
TU Electric ,
8/26/87 l '
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT- 9.1 I
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 9: REDUCTI'0F IN' CHANNEL SECTION PROPERTIES.
DUE TO CLAMP BOLT HOLES o ISSUE ,
ORIGINAL.'G 8' H DESIGN DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER-SUPPORT MEMBER SECTION PROPERTY REDUCTION DUE TO BOLT HOLES o RESOLUTION' ,
4 DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS TO APPROPRIATELY CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF USED AND UNUSED BOLT H0LES s
'l l
1 t
._-._.m.._. h
- u 4
)
-i TU Electric 8/26/87 I CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 10.1 ;
I 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT ;
l l
o
) l ISSUE ~
ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN MAY HAVE INCLUDED UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SYSTEM CONCEPT APPROACH REGARDING:
A. LOCAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRAYS AND. SUPPORTS, l
'AND ITS EFFECT ON SUPPORT MEMBER LOADS -!
B.- EFFECTIVENESS-OF TRAYS AS 0VT-OF-PLANE BRACING O. TRANSVERSE AND VERTICAL TRAY LOADS ON LONGITUDINAL SUPPORTS D. LOCAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRAYS AND SUPPORTS, AND ITS EFFECT ON ANCHORAGE LOADS E. TRANSMITTAL OF OUT-OF-PLANE INERTIAL LOADS l
THROUGH TRAYS TO LONGITUDINAL' SUPPORTS F. SUPPORT TIER TO POST ECCENTRICITIES l
q u
1 l
l -l
~l l
9 tm_ _ _ _ . . _ __ - ._,, _
l i
l j
CYGNA ISSUE NO.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT -
l o . ISSUE )
A. . LOCAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRAYS AND SUPPORTS AND ITS EFFECT ON SUPPORT MEMBER LOADS D. LOCAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRAYS AND SUPPORTS AND ITS EFFECT ON ANCHORAGE LOADS E. TRANSMITTAL OF OUT-0F-PLANE INERTIAL LOADS ;
THROUGH TRAYS TO LONGITUDINAL SUPPORTS F. SUPPORT TIER TO POST ECCENTRICITIES
]
s o RESOLUTION l
l DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES CONSIDER LOCAL l COMPATIBILITY ( AND GLOBAL. DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD i THROUGHOUT CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS.
ECCENTRIC END CONNECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION EITHER EXPLICITLY, OR GENERICALLY THROUGH STUDIES TO DETERMINE THEIR EFFECTS. .
t um___.___ _ __. _____-- ----_
1 TU Electric 8/26/87.
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 10.3 1
CYGNA -ISSUE NO.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT l l
4 o ISSUE B. EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAYS AS LATERAL BRACING o RESOLUTION EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTORS USED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION .
WERE DEVELOPED CONSIDERING THE RESTRAINT PROVIDED BY- 1
-THE CABLE TRAYS j d
l o ISSUE C. TRANSVERSE AND VERTICAL TRAY LOADS ON LONGITUDINAL SUPPORTS o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY THE i SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF THREE ORTHOGONAL DIRECTIONS OF SEISMIC. LOADING ON ALL SUPPORTS I
i Q_.__- . - . _ _ _ .-- .-- - . - . - - . - -
L
- o, i
.. l TU Electric' 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 11.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO.11: VALIDITY. 0F NASTRAN MODELS
, o ISSUE 1
NASTRAN MODELS USED IN 0RIGINAL G & H GENERIC 'l STUDIES MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE OF ACTUAL INSTALLATION l
J o RESOLUTION THESE GENERIC STUDIES- ARE NOT USED IN THE 'I PRESENT CTH PROGRAM AND THEREFORE ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE l
]
i 1
I l
l l
l 1
l l
L.
L_-_-------_--__---_-_---_--_---
_y _ _ -__ _ _ _ --_- _
' .8 I
)
TU Electric 8/26/87 !
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 12.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO.12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY o ISSUE
'CYGNA HAD THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON THE ORIGINAL WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY:
A. THE. STUDY DID NOT INCORPORATE THE EFFECTS OF ALL i DESIGN CHANGE NOTICES FOR INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTS B. THE STUDY DID NOT. CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE LOADS ON LONGITUDINAL SUPPORTS C. THE STUDY DID NOT EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF CONNECTIONS, BASE ANGLES, AND ANCHOR BOLTS FOR LONGITUDINAL SUPPORTS D. THE STUDY WAS BASED ON QUESTIONABLE MODELLING s ASSUMPTIONS l E. THE STUDY DID NOT CHECK THE ADEQUACY OF ALL i SUPPORT COMPONENTS F. THE STUDY DID NOT EVALUATE TWO-BOLT BRACE ,
CONNECTIONS ON LONGITUDINAL' SUPPORTS, FOR WHICH l THE WORKING POINT DOES NOT COINCIDE WITH THE LINE OF ACTION OF THE BRACE LOAD G. THE STUDY SPECIFIED ALLOWABLE DEVIATIONS WITHOUT SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS H, I. THE STUDY-QUALIFIED CERTAIN ' SUPPORTS BY SIMILARITY T0-SUPPORTS WHICH WERE LATER FOUND TO l BE OVERSTRESSED J. THE STUDY DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE, DISCRETE AXI AL LOADS IN. THE BUCKLING <
CAPACITY OF SUPPORTS o RESOLUTION THE PRESENT CTH PROGRAM IS BASED ON AS-BUILT INFORMATION AND DOES NOT RELY ON ANY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE ORIGINAL WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY.
ALL GENERAL CONCERNS RELATED T0 THIS ISSUE ARE ADDRESSED AS RESOLUTION OF OTHER CYGNA ISSUES.
l
- M ,
TU Electric 8/26/87 i CPSES'- CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 13.1 .
l 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO 13: REDUCED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS-o ISSUE ORIGINAL G & H GENERIC STUDIES WERE PERFORMED TO l JUSTIFY REDUCED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS WITHOUT PROPER -
CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING: ,
A. VARIATION IN SUPPORT TYPE, TRAY SPAN, AND TRAY .l WEIGHT l l
B. EFFECTS OF TRAY AXIAL FREQUENCY AND TRAY TO ,
SUPPORT ECCENTRICITY l
l C. ANCHORAGE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS i l
'o RESOLUTION A, B. DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY.USE OF AS-BUILT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE HANGER / SYSTEM FREQUENCIES AND SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS C. ANCHORAGE STIFFNESSES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THROUGH GENERIC STUDIES AND ARE USED IN DETERMINATION OF SYSTEM FREQUENCIES AND SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS
_ - - - - ~ - - _ _ _ - - _ - - . - - _ - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
q u
TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 14.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 14: NONCONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATIONS o ISSUE ;
i CYGNA IDENTIFIED IN ORIGINAL G'a H CALCULATIONS THE l
- FOLLOWING AISC SPECIFICATION NONCONFORMANCES:
l 1 A. REQUIREMENT ON UNBRACED LENGTH FOR AXIAL BUCKLING l
MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED J
1
! B. EQUATION FOR BENDING STRESS IN CHANNELS WAS l IMPROPERLY USED OR NOT CONSIDERED l C. REDUCTIONS.IN SECTION PROPERTIES OF BEAMS DUE TO BOLT HOLES IN FLANGES WERE NOT CONSIDERED D. DOUBLE ANGLE BRACES WERE DESIGNED AS COMPOSITE MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH NO LACING WAS PROVIDED I l
E. DESIGN OF SUPPORTS USING SINGLE ANGLE BRACES DID- l NOT CONSIDER ECCENTRIC CONNECTIONS i F. OVERSIZED BOLT HOLES WERE NOT-DESIGNED AS SUCH G. LONGITUDINAL BRACES WERE IMPROPERLY DESIGNED AS i SECONDARY MEMBERS 1
1
,, ----7
. 4' ,
i
, l TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 14.2 i
~1 I
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 14: NONCONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATIONS 1
o ISSUE A. REQUIREMENT ON UNBRACED LENGTH FOR AXIAL BUCKLING-MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED'~
o RESOLUTION i DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY APPROPRIATE EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTORS, SLENDERNESS' RATIO LIMITS
~
AND RULES FOR DETERMINING UNBRACED LENGTHS l I
o ISSUE B. EQUATION FOR BENDING STRESS IN CHANNELS WAS ,
IMPROPERLY USED OR NOT CONSIDERED i
o RESOLUTION-AISC EQUATION 1.5-7 IS USED TO DETERMINE ALLOWABLE BENDING STRESS FOR THE COMPRESSION FLANGE OF CHANNEL 1 SECTIONS !
o ISSUE C. REDUCTIONS IN SECTION PROPERTIES OF BEAMS DUE T0 BOLT HOLES IN FLANGES WERE NOT-CONSIDERED o RESOLUTION REDUCTIONS IN BEAM SECTION PROPERTIES DUE'TO BOLT r HOLES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN. DESIGN VERIFICATION
'I h_ -._mam.m-- -
u .--
1
.. i
- a TU Electric -
8/26/87
' CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 14.3 i
I i
.CYGNA ISSUE NO. 14: NONCONFORMANCE ~WITH AISC SPECIFICATIONS q l
'J
-l q
o ISSUE D. DOUBLE ANGLE BRACES WERE DESIGNED AS COMPOSITE MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH NO LACING WAS PROVIDED o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY' REQUIREMENTS (AISC EQ.1.18.2.4) FOR CONSIDERATION OF _0OUBLE: ANGLE 1 COMPOSITE ACTION
]
e ISSUE ,
E. DESIGN OF SUPPORTS USING SINGLE ANGLE BRACES DID NOT CONSIDER ECCENTRIC CONNECTIONS 1 l
o RESOLUTION ECCENTRIC END' CONNECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION EITHER EXPLICITLY, OR GENERICALLY THROUGH STUDIES TO DETERMINE 'THEIR EFFECTS o ISSUE l F. OVERSIZED BOLT HOLES WERE NOT DESIGNED'AS SUCH j o RESOLUTION THE EFFECTS OF OVERSIZE BOLT HOLES ARE NOT EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION.- - A STUDY'WAS '
1
/ PERFOR" WHICH DETERMINED THAT.0VERSIZE HDLES (3/8" l l
/ FOR CONCRETE ANCHORAGES AND 1/8" FOR BOLTED CLAMPS)
ARE NOT IN VIOLATION =0F DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND DO Rb< ')
\
I NOT ADVERSELY EFFECT THE CTH. DESIGN ADEQUACY ,
ghuly l t June - 6; ' w I'y. - , ;, .
C..(4teTg @ rid & C, ? .:l .
'l 7 1n c74' Q M<pg b, n 1
u- -
J l
- r TU Electric 8/26/87 :1 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 14.4 CYGNA ISSUE NO.14: NONCONFORMANCE' WITH AISC SPECIFICATIONS o ISSUE- ,
I a I G. - LONGITUDINAL BRACES WERE IMPROPERLY DESIGNED AS l SECONDARY MEMBERS o RESOLUTION
. ALL BRACING MEMBERS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VERIFIED USING PRIMARY MEMBER STRESS ALLOWABLES j
l I
i >
1 l
l
~
I
't
. .e .y :r
.' .g. _}
'. .!} > .y c
~'
.l' '
..g
-[
//- i+ jJ
-TU Electric 8/26/37'd CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 15.1 i
1 CYGNA ISSUE NO.15: MEMBER SUBSTITUTION
.4, ,
o ISSUE $.l" .
I. j ,/ 4 ! !
THE ORIGINAL G & H DESiGW SPECIFICATION ALLOWED e.,
SUBSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL' MEMBERS-WITH MEMBERS- ,
u HAVING POTENTIALLY 1.0VIR SECTION MODULI. - .,
l DOCUMENTATIONOF-SbjSMTUTIONWASINADEQUATE. ,g -e 3 s ,
'.. ,f
.f '
- n. i L. i
'" 0 l o RESOLUTION l i .. . ,
THE PRESENT CTH PROGRAM.USEs#AS-BUILT MEMBER '- i CONFIGURATIONS FOR. DESIGN VERIFICAT10fi
.i. !
'W. .o
.$ . j f
-i g
1 1
', , j'
.r a ,.
i i 1
1
.f- 1
g =u-
~..
< l TU Electric 8/26/87 l CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 16.1- 1 l
l 1
CYGNA ISSUE H0.16' WELD DESIGN AND'3 SPECIFICATIONS I o ISSUE )
CYGNA HAS NOTED THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES IN THE ORIGINAL G & H WELD DESIGNS FOR CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS:-
A. WELD DETAILS WERE NOT PROVIDED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR SEVERAL GENERIC SUPPORTS 1 l
B. DIFFERENT WELD SIZES WERE SHOWN ON ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS, DESIGN DRAWINGS, AND IN CALCULATIONS i
C. ECCENTRIC LOADS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN DESIGN OF WELDS FOR BRACE /CUSSET PLATE / BASE CONNECTIONS, LAP JOINT CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CHANNELS, AND BASE g ANGLE CONNECTIONS {
D. THICKNESSES OF CONNECTED MEMBERS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN WELD DESIGNS. SPECIFIC GENERIC DESIGNS MAY HAVE EXCESSIVE WELD THROAT.
E. DESIGN CALCULATIONS ASSUMED AN INCORRECT MINIMUM LENGTH FOR BEAM / HANGER BASE ANGLE CONNECTION, DUE TO RADIUS ON ANGLE LEG i
)
o RESOLUTION A, B, E. DESIGN VERIFICATION HAS BEEN BASED ON WELD DETAILS FROM AS-BUILT HANGER DRAWINGS C. ECCENTRIC LOADS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.IN THE DESIGN OF WELDS FOR THE CASES NOTED D. WELD DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURE APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERS THE THICKNESS OF THE CONNECTED MEMBEra
~..
'TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 17.1 i l
I l
l CYGNA ISSUE NO. 17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN i
o ISSUE I CYGNA RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS 0N THE ORIGINAL G & H EMBEDDED PLATE DESIGN:
A. EFFECT OF PRYING ACTION ON TENSION IN NELSON STUDS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED B. PIPE SUPPORT DESIGNERS AND CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DESIGNERS USED INCONSISTENT DESIGN PRACTICES ON STIFFENING OF MOMENT ATTACHMENTS TO EMBEDDED PLATES ,
i C. DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR SUPPORTS ATTACHED TO EMBEDDED PLATES DID NOT CONSIDER CAPACITY
)a
, REDUCTIONS GIVEN IN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR. 'i, SPECIFIC LOCATIONS D. INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR' SUPPORTS DID NOT REQUIRE A CHECK OF ATTACHMENT SEPARATION '!
3 E. SOME SUPPORT ANCHORAGE DETAILS MAY RESIST LOADS l FPOM LARGER TRIBUTARY TRAY SPANS THAN WERE' i
. ASSUMED IN DESIGN CALCULATIONS i F. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT ADDRESS MINIMUM SPACING FOR HILTI EXPANSION ANCHORS INSTALLED ON ;
CONCRETE SURFACE PERPENDICULAR TO EMBEDDED PLATES o RESOLUTION l
A, B, C, THE EMBEDDED PLATE DESIGN VERIFICATION APPROACH !
D & F. IS INCLUDED IN THE'SWEC CIVIL / STRUCTURAL CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
]
E. AS-BUILT TRAY' SPANS ARE USED TO DETERMINE l EMBEDDED PLATE LOADS l l
q i
l
__ - - - - - - -- - 1
- u. 1 ad
"' 'nj Electric. 8/26/87 ,
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT- 18.1 1 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO.18: TRAY CLAMPS o ISSUE-ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN MAY HAVE' INCLUDED UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING ROTATIONAL AND DISPLACEMENT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRAYS AND SUPPORTS i l
o RESOLUTION DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES CONSIDER-LOCAL i I
COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRAYS AND SUPPORTS. THREE DIRECTIONAL CONNECTIVITY EFFECTS BETWEEN TRAYS AND I ALL' SUPPORTS ARE INCLUDED. -THESE PROCEDURES lHAVE.
BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY DYNAMIC SYSTEM TESTS. .!
i 1
1 l_.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s a.
TV Electric 8/26/87
- CPSES - CTH' GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 19.1 1
l CYGNA ISSUE NO. 19: FSAR LOAD COMBINATIONS l
o ISSUE
_ LOCA ASSOCIATED LOADS WERE NOT CONSIDERED.IN THE 1 ORIGINAL G-8 H CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DESIGNS
)
o RESOLUTION THE CPSES SYSTEMS INTERACTION PROGRAM HAS -
DEMONSTRATED THAT SAFETY RELATED CABLE TRAYS ARE i EITHER SHIELDED FROM OR ARE~NOT IN THE PATH OF PIPE WHIP AND JET IMPINGEMENT LOADS THERMAL ACCIDENT TEMPERATURES ARE NOT CONSIDERED EXPLICITLY IN DESIGN' VERIFICATION. CPSES FSAR SECTION'3.8.4.3.3 PERMITS NEGLECTING SELF-LIMITING AND SECONDARY THERMAL LOADS APPLIED TO DUCTILE- 9' SYSTEMS SUCH' AS CABLE TRAYS AND SUPPORTS. THE PROJECT HAS PREPARED A TECHNICAL STUDY TO DEMONSTRATE l COMPLIANCE WITH THE FSAR. THIS STUDY ALS0' ADDRESSES i THE EFFECTS OF ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE ON ANCHORAGES.
l 1
m__---_.___..
7 d y ;
TV Electric 8/26/87 1 CPSES - CTE GENERIC ISSUES REPORT. 20.1 ,
l
. ,j i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND-DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT .,
APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION '
1 o ISSUE- J l
A THRU Z CYGNA HAS IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS UNDOCUMENTED I AA THRU CC DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE AS-BUILT AND THE AS-DESIGNED-SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS 1
o RESOLUTION ALL CONCERNS IN THIS ISSUE, EXCEPT THOSE'NOTED ,
BELOW,'ARE ADDRESSED BY THE FACT THAT AS-BUILT -l
. CONFIGURATIONS ARE USED IN SUPPORT DESIGN
, VERIFICATION I, K. TU ELECTRIC HAS DEVELOPED A SPECIFICATION TO ADDRESS j
4 SEPARATION / CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS AND OTHER COMPONENTS. THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE CIVIL / STRUCTURAL REVIEW ISSUES LIST {
i l
l 1
1 1
1
- _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - .o - - .-_
- u. ,
TU Electric 8/26/87 i CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT ~2 1.1 l
l CYGNA' ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL .l I
o ISSUE l CYGNA'HAS IDENTIFIED INADEQUATE DESIGN CONTROL IN THE.- l ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY: j 1
A. CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT'TO PROPER l IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN CHANGE DOCUMENTS I 1
B. LIMITS ON' SUPPORT DIMENSIONS AND LOADINGS FOR l GENERIC SUPPORT- APPLICATION WERE EXCEEDED WITHOUT ')
DOCUMENTATION C. AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN -
GENERIC DESIGN REVIEWS s D. NOT ALL RELEVANT WEIGHTS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION OF SUPPORTS WITH THERM 0 LAG FIRE l i PROTECTION
{
E. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION LIMITS ON TRAY SPANS MAY )
HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED J F. CALCULATIONS FOR SOME SIGNIFICANT DESIGN CHANGE.
NOTICES WERE LACKING OR UNCONTROLLED ']
1 G. CALCULATIONS WERE NOT ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED 1 H. DESIGN CRITERIA WERE INADEQUATE TO ENSURE l CONSISTENCY AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE FSAR AND THE l APPROPRIATE EDITION OF AISC I. DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED BETWEEN SUPPORT DESIGN AND ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS l
l I
l
< ' i Li 1
1 TU Electric 8/26/87 'i CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 21.2 CYGNA ISSUE NO.' 21: DESIGN CONTROL' l
o ISSUE j
A. CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT T0 PROPER l IMPLEMENTATION'0F DESIGN CHANGE DOCUMENTS B. LIMITS ON SUPPORT DIMENSIONS AND LOADINGS FOR '
GENERIC SUPPORT APPLICATION WERE EXCEEDED ~WITHOUT .{
DOCUMENTATION I
C. AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN 4 GENERIC DESIGN REVIEWS .}
E. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION LIMITS ON TRAY SPANS MAY HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED-
\
I. DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED BETWEEN SUPPORT DESIGN' AND ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS' !
I o RESOLUTION A, B , C, HANGER DESIGN VERIFICATIONS ARE BASED ON AS-BUILT E & I. CONDITIONS o ISSUE a
D. NOT ALL RELEVANT WEIGHTS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE !
EVALUATION OF SUPPORTS WITH THERMOLAG FIRE !
PROTECTION
'I I
o RESOLUTION l 1
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY THAT CABLE !
TRAY COVER WEIGHTS AND FIRE PROTECTION WEIGHTS BE. !
CONSIDERED. THE EFFECT OF SIDERAIL EXTENSIONS HAS- 1 BEEN DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT. 1 l
i l
1
_________________________.__________:__________._ l
g u -
t,,,
L" TU Electric 8/26/87
[ CPSES . CTH GENERIC -ISSUES REPORT 21.3 i l
. l CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL .l l
)
l o ISSUE F. CALCULATIONS FOR SOME SIGNIFICANT DESIGN CHANGE NOTICES WERE LACKING'OR UNCONTROLLED G. CALCULATIONS WERE NOT ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED o RESOLUTION 4
.i DESIGN VERIFICATION CALCULATION PACKAGES ARE CONTROLLED BY THE USE 0F APPROPRIATE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES s ,
o ISSUE -)
H.
k DESIGN CRITERIA WERE INADEQUATE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND COMPLIANCE WITH FSAR AND APPROPRIATE EDITION OF AISC' o RESOLUTION .
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND }
COMPLIANCE WITH CPSES FSAR AND AISC SPECIFICATION 7TH j EDITION INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTS 1, 2, AND 3 i l
i i
i
'l i
ti e
.I
u j TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 22.1 i
i CYGNA ISSUE NO. 22: . DESIGN OF SUPPORT NO 3136', DETAIL "5",
DRAWING 2323-S-0905 o ISSUE THE ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN OF SUPPORT NO. 3136, WHICH I IS EMBEDDED IN A FIRE WALL, HAS THE FOLLOWING .)
DISCREPANCIES: !
ERRORS WERE FOUND IN FINITE ELEMENT MODEL AND' !
CALCULATIONS l
TORNADO DEPRESSURIZATION LOADS WERE NOT CONSIDERED -
1
- SUPPORT IS SEISMIC CATEGORY I WHILE FIRE WALL IS I SEISMIC CATEGORY II 'I s
q
- o. RESOLUTION ORIGINAL ' DESIGN CALCULATIONS ARE NOT USED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION CASES OF CABLE TRAY HANGERS SUPPORTED FROM CATEGORY II STRUCTURES ARE IDENTIFIED AND EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS SEISMIC CATEGORY II WALLS WILL BE QUALIFIED BY THE SWEC CIVIL / STRUCTURAL CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM CYGNA CLOSURE OF THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE CIVIL / STRUCTURAL REVIEW ISSUES LIST.
q
- c _
TU Electric 8/26/87
- CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 23.1 1
1 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 23: LOADING IN STRESS MODELS o -ISSUE CYGNA HAS THE-FOLLOWING QUESTI'ONS ON THE ORIGINAL
-G & H STRESS MODELS USED FOR STANDARD (GENERIC)
SUPPORT DESIGN:
A. APPLICATION OF TRAY LOADS DOES NOT REFLECT ACTUAL TRAY LOCATIONS i
B. THE DESIGN LOADS 00 NOT CONSIDER TRAY SPAN TOLERANCES PERMITTED BY THE DESIGN DRAWINGS >
i C. FRAME HEIGHTS DO NOT REFLECT DISTANCE TO THE TIER- j CENTROIDAL AXES.
o RESOLUTION THE PRESENT CTH PROGRAM DOES NOT RELY ON ANY OF THE ORIGINAL STRESS MODEL RESULTS. GENERAL CONCERNS RELATED.T0 THIS ISSUE ARE ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS:
A. APPLICATION OF TRAY LOADS IS BASED ON AS-BUILT TRAY LOCATIONS B. AS-BUILT CABLE TRAY SPAN LENGTHS ARE USED IN THE DESIGN VERIFICATION C. HANGERS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VERIFIED USING ANALYSIS MODELS IN WHICH CENTROIDAL AXES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PER STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
o u- q e-j TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 24.1 ]
q l
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS d
j o ISSUE l CYGNA HAS NOTED THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS REGARDING THE g ORIGINAL G & H DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY' SUPPORT FLEXURAL l MEMBERS: l l
A, B, C, D. MOMENTS.(BENDING AND TORSION) INDUCED BY TRAY {
ECCENTRICITIES TO TIER CENTROIDAL AXES HAVE NOT -l BEEN CONSIDERED
]
E. REDUCTIONS IN BEAM SECTION PROPERTIES DUE TO BOLT l HOLES AND WELD UNDERCUTS ARE INCONSISTENTLY l
' CONSIDERED !
F. DESIGN CALCULATIONS 00 N0T CONSIDER SHEAR STRESS i EFFECTS DUE TO DIRECT SHEAR, ST. VENANT TORSIONAL. :
SHEAR, OR THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO G. CAPACITY REDUCTION DUE TO THE UNSUPPORTED LENGTH OF THE COMPRESSION FLANGE, PER AISC EQUATION 1.5-7, WAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
l j
j o RESOLUTION :j
)
A, B, C, D. MOMENTS DUE TO THESE ECCENTRICITIES HAVE BEEN {
APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VERIFICATION l
E. DESIGN VERIFICATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY j REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF USED-AND j UNUSED BOLT HOLES i i
BASE METAL DEFECTS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED PER VWAC ]
AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISPOSITIONED ]
1 F. DESIGN VERIFICATION' APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERS 1 DIRECT SHEAR, ST. VENANT TORSIONAL SHEAR, AND THE i COMBINATION OF THE TWO !
G. AISC EQ,1.5-7 IS APPROPRIATELY USED TO REFLECT THE CAPACITY REDUCTION DUE TO THE UNSUPPORTED l LENGTH OF THE COMPRESSION FLANGE ]
a l
r .
h.
TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 25.1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION. .
o . ISSUE CYGNA HAS NOTED THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS ON THE ORIGINAL G & H CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION:' f 1
A. DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR (DAF) WAS NOT USED .]
a B. THE INTERACTION EQUATION WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON l TOTAL LOAD FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 8 FEET C. SEVERAL INSTANCES OF, MODIFICATIONS TO VENDOR i
' SUPPLIED HARDWARE FOR CABLE TRAYS WERE FOUND l WITHOUT ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION OR DOCUMENTATION D. CABLE TRAY MOMENT OF INERTIA CALCULATIONS DO NOT CONSIDER SHEAR DEFORMATION UNDER TRANSVERSE LOADING OF LADDER-TYPE TRAYS I
o RESOLUTION !
A. EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD (ESM) USES AN AMPLIFICATION FACTOR (CALLED MRM) 0F 1.25 ON PEAK SPECTRAL ACCELERATION B. TRAY QUALIFICATION IS PERFORMED FOR ALL SPANS BY ;
APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERING ULTIMATE MOMENT 1 CAPABILITIES
- C. CABLE TRAY DESIGN VERIFICATION IS' BASED ON l
ll AS-BUILT paTA. SPLICE BEHAVIOR IS ADDRESSED BY A '
COMBINATION OF ANALYSIS AND TESTING D. CALCULATIONS OF CABLE TRAY MOMENT 0F' INERTIA ARE BASED ON TEST DATA USING A FLEXURAL FORMULATION. j FOR'SHORT. SPANS,-POTENTIAL LOAD' INCREASE FROM !
SHEAR BEHAVIOR IS ACCOUNTED FOR BY A CORRECTION- l FACTOR OR SHOWN TO BE:SUFFICIENTLY SMALL TO BE i NEGLECTED. j a
.{
I
u l
- n- .
TU Electric 8/26/87 '
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 26.1 l
CYGkA ISSUE NO. 26: BASE ANGLE DESIGN o ISSUE CYGNA RAISED THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS REGARDING ORIGINAL G & H BASE ANGLE DESIGN:
A.- BASE ANGLES WERE MODELLED AS SIMPLY SUPPORTED l BEAMS, IGNORING THE STIFFENING EFFECTS OF l CONCRETE BEARING AT ANGLE ENDS-B. PRINCIPAL AXES WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS OF BASE ANGLES u C. BASE ANGLE LENGTHS CONSIDERED IN THE " WORKING l POINT. DEVIATION STUDY" DID NOT REFLECT THE MOST CRITICAL SPACING'0F RICHMOND INSERTS- 'l D. NOT ALL BASE ANGLES WERE EVALUATED FOR STANDARD' (GENERIC) SUPPORT TYPES 1
o RESOLUTION A. THE PRESENT CTH PROGRAM USES THE SAME-ASSUMPTION, SINCE IGNORING THE STIFFENING EFFECTS OF CONCRETE ,
BEARING AT ANGLE ENDS IS CONSERVATIVE FOR- i EVALUATION OF BASE ANGLE STRESSES. HOWEVER, THIS :
1 STIFFENING EFFECT IS CONSIDERED TO CREATE ADDITIONAL ANCHOR BOLT TENSION AND APPROPRIATE ,
PRYING FACTORS ARE APPLIED. J B. PRINCIPAL AXES ARE CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN l l VERIFICATION OF BASE ANGLES )
! )
C. DESIGN VERIFICATION OF BASE ANGLES IS BASED UPON 'l "AS-BUILT" INFORMATION l l
D. ALL BASE ANGLES OF THE CABLE TRAY HANGERS ARE ]
DESIGN VERIFIED i i
- - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - a
v
- +..
,a TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT-- 27.1 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 27: SUPPORT QUALIFICATION'BY SIMILARITY i o ISSUE-A, B IN ORIGINAL G 8'H DESIGN CALCULATIONS, SUPPORTS WERE QUALIFIED BY SIMILARITY.TO SUPPORTS NOT OBVIOUSLY !
SINILAR WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION o RESOLUTION l 1
A, 8 FOR SUPPORTS QUALIFIED BY GROUPING, A DOCllMENTED GROUPING PROCEDURE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR DESIGN
^
VERIFICATION r
.l
- l f
i a
1 i
l q
4 l
4
.-y
.l A .._ ,
]
'i '
o g., ,
TU Electric 2
.. 8/26/87--
CPSES'- CTH GENERIC: ISSUES REPORT. 28.1 -)
Tj
, 1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 28: CRITICAL SUPPORT, CONFIGURATIONS l
- AND LOADINGS j l
o -ISSUE I 1
IN ORIGINAL.G & H DESIGN CALCULATIONS: ,
] ;
A. ASPECT RATIOS USED IN CALCULATIONS FOR-STANDARD. >l (GENERIC)-TRAPEZE SUPPORTS MAY.NOT REPRESENT CRITICAL CONFIGURATIONS LI B. ASYMMETRIC TRAY LOADS 'ARE NOT CONSIDERED.FOR 1' TRAPEZE SUPPORTS 1
o RESOLUTION
]
A. "AS-BUILT" SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS HAVE BEEN USED FOR DESIGN-VERIFICATION. A GROUPING PROCEDURE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND USED AS APPLICABLE, T0-FACILITATE DESIGN VERIFICATION OF SIMILAR HANGERS .
B. "AS-BUILT" CONFIGURATIONS ARE USED I'N DESIGN VERIFICATION 1
. . . , i TU Electric .
8/26/87- !
CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 29.1'
)
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 29: CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES i'
o ISSUE SMALL UNCONSERVATISMS RESULTING FROM' SEPARATE ISSUES MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECT FOR SUPPORTS IMPACTED BY MORE THAN ONE ISSUE l
o RESOLUTION
- OVERALL DESIGN VERIFICATION APPROACH HAS ADDRESSED EACH ISSUE BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY
- DESIGN VERIFICATION IS BASED ON AS-BUILT DATA
- CONSERVATISM OF APPROACH IS CONFIRMED BY EXTENSIVE j TESTING j .
- NO SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECT NOW EXISTS I l
i
__2-_-_-
'O l
% a.
TU Electric 8/26/87 CPSES - CTH GENERIC ISSUES REPORT 30.1 l
EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 30: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM DAMPING VALUES !
)
-i o ISSUE- l l
CASE HAS QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF 4% and 7% DAMPING )
USED FOR -THE OBE AND-SSE SEISMIC EVALUATION OF CABLE i TRAY SUPPORTS )
i o RESOLUTION-L 4 l ' CABLE TRAY SYSTEM DYNAMIC TESTS 'HAVE BEEN PERFORMED l I TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALIDITY OF 4% and 7% DAMPING. )
ACTUAL DAMPING VALUES WERE DETERMINED TO BE 7-10% FOR OBE AND 15-20% FOR SSE.
{
q l
l 1
)
l l
l i
.-u.
q 1
A . , _
l
.TU Electric 8/26/87' k CPSES - CTH GENERIC. ISSUES REPORT 31.1- i 4
. EXTERNAL' SOURCE ' ISSUE NO. 31: MODELING 0F BOUNDARY CONDITIONS i
o ISSUE CASE HAS QUESTIONED-THE MODELLING TECHNIQUE 0F BOLTED HANGER ANCHORAGES WITH RESPECT T0 OVERSIZED BOLT HOLES l o RESOLUTION l
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY STUDIES THAT OVERSIZE HOLES l HAVE INSIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CABLE TRAY SYTEM DYNAMIC d CHARACTERISTICS, SEISMIC RESPONSE AND COMPONENT j CAPACITIES I
l l
l l
.1
..- -y
~
.. d
.l; e ' ., -1 e .
j i.. a l
ISSUES 32, 33, AND' 34 ARE -QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE ARISEN FROM CYGNA'S CURRENT REVIEW OF THE CABLE TRAY o.
DESIGN' VERIFICATION' PROGRAM l 1
h DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN 'CYGNA, TU ELECTRIC, EBASCO, AND IMPELL ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY TO RESOLVE THESE QUESTIONS -.q 1
1 l
o 1
a
\
t j
j i
.i t
-l
l a- ,
f ev
.I
)
.)
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 32: CONDUITS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAYS OR SUPPORTS-o ISSUE CYGNA HAS RAISED-QUESTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING' ITEMS'REGARDING CONDUITS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAYS OR CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS:
A. HOW ARE-CONDUIT LOADS CONSIDERED IN CABLE TRAY .j SUPPORT DESIGN VERIFICATION?
)
1 B .- HOW<ARE CONDUIT LOADS CONSIDERED IN CABLE TRAY DESIGN VERIFICATION? .
l . . -1 C. HOW IS SUPPORT FREQUENCY AT CONDUIT ATTACHMENT. l LOCATIONS DETERMINED IN ESM USING GUYAN KINEMATIC '
+
CONDENSATION TECHNIQUES?
l l 2 1
l
-l j
l l
l 1
1 l
l
.j f
}
5
u j s
O , ,
1 v. j l
CYGNA ISSUE NO 33: AS BUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURES- l o ISSUE- ;
CYGNA HAS RAISED QUESTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS REGARDING AS BUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURES A. WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TOLERANCES USED FOR- 1 AS-BUILT MEASUREMENTS? .l B. WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR USING VWAC AS PART OF THE WELD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA?
.l HOW DO THE WALKDOWN PROCEDURES EVALUATE -
l WELD PENETRATION?~ l I
l
.,- UNKNOWN BOLT TYPE /EMBEDMENT? l ITEMS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS? ')
i C. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ITEMS EVALUATED AS.PART OF THE l CABLE TRAY SPAN WALKDOWN PROCEDURE? j l
J 3
.. {
- l
_ _s--__-
- a, ,
- '( '
l CYGNA ISSUE NO. 34: SYSTEM ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES l 1
ISSUE CYGNA HAS RAISED QUESTIONS ON THE F0LLOWING ITEMS: !
A. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF ERROR NOTICE SP-004 FOR THE IMPELL !
PROPRIETARY COMPUTER CODE SUPERPIPE? '
B. WHAT'IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE METHOD OF MODAL COMBINATION AND THE 0VERALL APPLICABILITY OF THE IMPELL l OVERLAP CASE STUDY MODELS?
I l
l l
l l
l' 1
I I
1' t
l' 1
x; joh j w.
L ,
ENCLOSURE 4 y i
CTH Documents 'for NRC Review in Ebasco'NY Office on 8/27/87
~ 1' . CCL Report No. A-717-86 " Test Report for Monotonic an'd Cyclic Tests of.
Cable Tray. Clamps" Rev. O dated 6/27/86.
2.- CCL Report No. A-743-87 " Summary Test Report for Monotonic and Cyclic
' Tests of Cable Tray Clamps" Rev. O dated 5/7/87.
- 3. CCL Report No. A-719-86." Test Report for Static Tests of Cable Trays and Fittings" Rev.'0' dated 7/3/86.
- 4. CCL Report A-737-86 "Tes't' Report for Additional Static Test's of Cable -
Trays and Fittings" Rev. O dated 10/30/86. . l j
- 5. CCL Report A-739-86 " Test Report for Additional Static Tests'of Cable Trays and Fittings" Rev.' 0 dated -10/30/87.
- 6. CCL Report A-742-87 " Test Report for Cable Tray Tee-Fitting Test" Rev. O dated 5/1/87.
- 7. CCL Report A-721-86 " Test Report for Additional Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray Clamps" Rev. O dated 7/13/86,
- 8. Ebasco Position Paper " Effects of Bolt' Hole Oversize in CTH System ,
Adequacy", Revision-3' dated July 23, 1987. !
i
- 9. Ebasco Study Volume I Book 22 " Statistical Analysis of Bolt Holes / Edge Distances in Cable Tray Hangers", Revision 3 dated April 9, 1987. ] 1
- 10. Impell Letter IM-T-0210-040-238 dated May 15, 1987 " Joint Impell/Ebasco Approach Toward Design Verification of Inaccessible Attributes".
- 11. Impell Calculation M-27 " Thermal Load Evaluation" Revision 2 dated May 5, 1987..
- 12. Ebasco document SAG.CP4 " Seismic Design Criteria for Cable Tray Hangers for CPSES No. 1, Revision 6 dated July 1, 1987.
j
. . - . - - - - _ _ . - ~ . /