ML20128C778
| ML20128C778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1985 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84056.068, NUDOCS 8505280410 | |
| Download: ML20128C778 (117) | |
Text
r _
c.
C lifornia Street. Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415:397-5600 May 3, 1985 84056.06S Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Communications Report Transmittal #14 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 ,
Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84056
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed for your information are additional Phase 4 communications reports. We have just finished reviewing our word processing file directory to ensure that all comunications reports entered into the system have been issued. As a result, there are some relatively old comunications reports in this transmittal.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours, N. Willliams Project Manager Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr.S.Treby(USNRC)w/ attachments Ms. J. van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr.S.Burwell(USNRC)w/ attachments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/o attachments Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/o attachments g, 8505280410 850503 7.8-PDR ADOCK0500g5 i San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland
n Communications 4 L .a i Report 1111111111111111111111111lll11
"***" ax *aa o "a'" = *"*ao" T.us ut m tses Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/29/84
Subject:
Time:
10:30 a.m.
Conduit Support Review Questions p SFR0
Participants:
of P.T. Huana Gibbs & Hill Cyana J.P. Russ Required Comments Action By item
Reference:
Telecon dated 11/21/84, " Conduit Support Review Questions," Huang and Russ participating.
Per the discussion of the referenced telecon, Cygna requested the weld underrun analyses for the following conduit supports.
CSM-18c CSM-18d CSM-18f CSM-42 CSD-la CA-Sa l'
I also asked Mr. Huang if a conference call on welds was going tc be held. He replied that Mr. R. Kissinger of TUGC0 would be con-tacting Cygna on this issue.
i Page of signed. L,,/[ .
/a_ib
/ h 1 1 D"*"* " N.' Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
'm' . Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
l i
Communications AL t i Report 1111!Illlllllll11lllll11111111 _
Conference Repd Teras utilities g Telec n Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3pf13fg4 Subject Time:
HM u Cable Tray Support Design Review - p,,c, Open Items sppo
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen ERASCO (TUGCO)
W. Horstman Cyana Required Comments Action By item Ms. van Amerongen requested Cygna to supply a written list of items, i.e., calculations, documents, etc., which are expected but have not been received from TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill yet.
I told her that there are several outstanding items, and that '
Cygna will supply a list to her by Monday, December 17, 1984.
j k/ hj_MM /aih 1 i N. Will # ams D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, w e'* S. Burwell, Project File
Communications ALni Report 111111111111111111M11111111 Conference Repn Tavat titilities g Telec n Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 if4fgg Subject Time:
2:30 p.m.
AISC Commitments ,,,
SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen TUGC0 (EBASCO)
Cyana J. Russ Required Action By Item Comments i
Cygna asked Ms. van Amerongen to verify the date of TUGC0's com-mitment to the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition anc if Supplement 3 to the code was committed to. Ms. van Amerongen stated she would investigate this question and reply to Cygna.
r l
i I
I t / 1 Il$An /aih 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, S. Treby,
'"'L_ _ _. J . _ El l i sa S. Burwell, Project File
r 2 __
Communications t ( t i Repod 111111111111111111111111ll1111 D Conference Repon Tavat titilitist g elecon Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/7/85
Subject:
Th 1:30 p.m.
AISC Commitments - "'***
Cable Tray Support Reviews SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen TUGC0 (EBASCO)
J. Russ Cyana Comments Ac n y item
References:
- 1. Telecon dated January 4,1985, "AISC Commit-ments," van Amerongen and Russ participating.
- 2. Telecon dated January 7,1985, " Conduit Drawing Revisions," Patel, van Amerongen, et al. partici-pating.
Ms. van Amerongen notified Cygna, per the requests of the references 1 and 2, that section 3.8.3.2.1 of the CPSES FSAR, revision dated February 27, 1978, references the "AISC Manual of Steel Construction,1969."
?
L
// /ais 1 1 Distnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, S. Treby, J.
= '= Ellis n _S. Burwe11n Project File
Communications 4Ph' i Report 111111llllll1111llllllllllll11 Conference Repon Texas Utilities S Telec n Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station #*
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/4/84 Subject Time:
h 50 A.M.
Documentation Verification - "'*'
Cable Tray Support Reviews SFR0
Participants:
of P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Requred item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Huang to verify the calculation location for Gibbs & Hill's study on the inclusion of dead load in the SRSS combination of seismic loads for conduit supports. He replied that the calculations were located on sheets 154-163 of SCS-109C, Set 1.
Signed: - Page of
) jf lIlA11NA M laib 1 1 D"*"""
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
- e. Treby, J. Elliss, S, Bmrwell, Pr@jaceR Filco
Comrnunications sl t i Repod 11111111111111111111N1lll1111 contemnce Repon Te m titilities g Teiec n Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ***
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/13/84
Subject:
Time:
11:30 a.m.
Cable Tray & Conduit Support Reviews -
Status of Outstanding Information SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen (EBASCO) TUGC0 N. Williams Cyana Required Comments Action By item l
I Ms. van Amerongen requested a schedule from Cygna on completing the review of telecons to determine if any additional informatior
' was still outstanding on the cable tray and conduit support reviews. Ms. Williams explained that it was her understanding l
that one more request would be transmitted to either TUGC0 or Gibbs & Hill within the next couple of days. Ms. Williams also l pointed out that these requests should not be interpreted as Cygna's final review of the open items. This effort was simply 0 review of the telecons to wrap up loose documentation from l
- Cygna's discussions with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill.
Ms. van Amerongen also requested a status of the Cygna U-bolt anc l mass participation reviews. Ms. Williams stated that the U-bolt assessment was not complete due to the need to respond to ASLB concerns. A letter sumarizing Cygna's position should be issuec i in approximately two weeks. It will not be possible to issue it next week since a meeting with the NRC has been scheduled for next Thursday in Bethesda, Maryland. The mass participation l
follow-up review results will be transmitted in a letter within l
the next two days. Ms. van Amerongen asked if everything was closed. Ms. Williams stated only that some open items existed.
The details will be provided in the letter.
d /aib 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, J. Russ, S. Treby, J.
f == Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications
( t i Repod 111111111lll111111111111111111
- '
- oxT*iecon o conference neport Texas Utilities ;
Project: Job No.
84056 j Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U '
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/17/85
Subject:
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Clamp Allowable Documentation -
Conduit Support Reviews SFR0
Participants:
of P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna i
l Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested Mr. Huang to send the following items:
- 1. Superstrut report on allowables for C-708 and C-708-S clamps for all directions of loading; and
- 2. Unit weights of flex conduit, i
l l
l i
l Signed. Page of mitneution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, ioso oi. S. Treby, d. t. ills, 5. Burwell, VrojecT. rise
I Communications 4L t i Report mammmmmmu
" **" conference nepri T.vae utiliti.e x Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/ps/gs
Subject:
Time:
Cable Tray Supports - p,,c,;
Dynar;ic Model Review GAH/NYC
Participants:
of T- Fonn Gibhc A Hill u_ Hncetman Cyana Required item Comments Action By T. Feng and W. Horstman discussed boundary conditions used on branch lines on Case 5 model. Cygna had noted that tray T220AF013-0806 had been included in model on Support Numbers 398 7 and 451, but ended before Support Number 472, and had only a rotational restraint at the end. T. Feng indicated that this tray segment was added to the top members on the two supports (see CMC 58241, Revision 10). It is not supported by Support Number 472, but by another support outside of the model boun-dary. No longitudinal supports are provided at any location on this tray segment, and thus the end was not restrained axially.
The friction clamps on Support Numbers 3987 and 451 must provide longitudinal restraint. No output of member forces or stresses are available at these locations.
/ MA 'V
/aih 1 1 Distnbution:
N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
=c o' . Vrs1AAJWlh S, BwimilMcatl F910
CommunicStions 4L t i Report 1111111111111111111111111lll11 Conference Report X Telec n Texas Utilities Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 4/8/85 Subject Time:
10:15 a.m.
Cable Tray / Conduit Support Design Review Place:
SFR0
Participants:
of E. Bezkor Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman Cygna Required Comments Action By item Mr. Bezkor called to ask what Cygna's schedule for this week was regarding the testing of conduit supports at CCL and the visit tc Gibbs & Hill's New York office.
Cygna indicated that Ms. Williams, Mr. Russ and Ms. Leong would be in North Carolina at the CCL laboratory on Tuesday morning, April 9,1985 to observe the testing process. Mr. Bezkor said that Mr. Huang would also be there, but was unable to arrange his arrival before Tuesday noon, April 9,1985. Mr. Kissinger had requested Mr. Huang be present at the testing. He also asked if the conduit Review Issues List (RIL) would be discussed during the visit to CCL.
Cygna said that Mr. Russ and Ms. Leong will fly to New York on Wednesday, April 10, 1985 to discuss the RIL with Gibbs & Hill in New York, rather than at the laboratory. Ms. Williams and Mr.
Tumminelli will be in New York on Thursday, April 11, 1985.
Mr. Bezkor said that no additional work on the dynamic analysis has been performed since Cygna's last meeting with Gibbs & Hill, and they will wait until Cygna indicates that their review is completed and all commments have been made. He asked if Cygna has completed the review yet. Cygna said that the review is not completed and there may be additional questions for Gibbs & Hill during the meeting this week. Ms. Williams will discuss the status of the review on Thursday, April 11, 1985.
f/)] ]M /a.ib 1 1 D" $""'"
N. Williams, J. Redding, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S.
wo oi. irecy, d. u its 5. Burwell, Project File
Communications ALni Report llllllllllI11111lllllll1llllll g Telec n Conference Rem Taras litilities Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 13fp3fg4
Subject:
Time-Conduit Support Review Questions 10:15 A.M.
p,,e, SFR0
Participants:
of P.T. Huang Gibbt A Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Huang if underrun analyses had been performed for conduit supports. He replied that they had. Cygna noted that such analyses had never been provided to them during the review even though all calculations pertaining to a support had been requested. Cygna will send a list of in-scope support types to Gibbs & Hill so that all pertinent underrun calculations may be provided, l
l l
l l
l l
t I
i i
*"*" ' ~
'lsh/ hlLium e 4s i 1
l N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
r.6 rii . c n ,i - , . --,
Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111 5 111111111111 T * " conference nepon T vae litiliti.e y Project Job No.
"#U" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11figfna
Subject:
Time:
Cable Tray Support Design Review p,,c, Document Request cptrs sit.
Participants:
of R. Wylip DETG W. Horstman Cygna 1
Required Comments Action By item I
Cygna requested and received CVC for DCA 2365, revision 2 and copies of DCA 2365, revision 0 and revision 1.
T i
l l
i i
i l
I Distnbution:
Y A5 ta<s , ,
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J Russ, S. Treb_y. J.
'oroo'. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications 4L t i Report 61111111111111111111111111llll
" Conference Rem Tavae titilitiac Y Project: Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o ,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11figfna
Subject:
Time:
^
Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions p,,,,;
rpqFR tito
Participants:
of T. Keiss TilGr0 W.R. Horstman. J.P. Russ rynna Required Comments Action By item
Reference:
Conference Report dated October 27, 1984, 9:15 A.M.,
" Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions," Keiss, van Amerongen, et al. participating.
- 1. Weld Underruns I
Mr. Keiss provided Cygna with copies of Brown & Root welding procedures 35-1195-MES 106B and WES-029. . He stated that he woulc provide the Quality Control (QC) weld inspection procedures at a later date.
Status: Cygna to review above procedures.
- 2. Details E-H Baseplate Thicknesses Mr. Keiss provided documentation noting that the thicknesses of the baseplates for the supports listed in Item 2 of the Refer-enced conference report were a minimum of 1 1/4 inches thick. ,
f Status: Cygna to review documentation.
- 3. Spans for Fire Protected Conduit Mr. Keiss provided Cygna with calculations confirming the adequacy of the Si span distances for LS type conduit supports.
Documentation for the S4 spans of LA type supports will be provided at a later date.
Status: 1. Cygna to review calculations for Si spans; and
- 2. TUGC0 to provide calculations for 54 spans.
]} % d s$na L, /a4h 1 1_
, , , .- A_ -
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
- Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
m .
Communications A( t i Report 111111111111111111111111111lll Tavne Itt f l i t i ac b " #' #
Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/15/84 Subject Time:
11:00 A.M.
Cable Tray Support Design Review p,,c,;
Tray Clamps CPSES Site
Participants:
of R. Wylie DCTG W. Hnrstman Cyana Required Comments Action By item Cygna reviewed CVCs for CMC 93450 revisions 0 through 4. All revisions indicate that no calculations were required.
i l
l l
k i
/ ) ]JM /ajh 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
,_ "': _ _ _ _ _ ,Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111
'" X conference nem Toyas Utilities Job No.
Project:
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/1g/g4 Time:
Subject:
II# #
Cable Tray Support Design Review p,,
Tray Clamps cpsgs s,t, of
Participants:
J. Lewis DCC W. Horstman __
Cyana
'l Required Action By item Comments Cygna requested and received TUGC0 drawing TNE-1-0902-02, revision CP-2.
" Tray Clamp Details For Cable Tray Supports" l
l l
P l
(
$N{ hjYRM
~ .
rpb 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
=m Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communientions Mn i Report immim Tavac litilitiac S Project: Job No.
Ranu Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 13figfga Subject Time:
Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions p,,,,
rpRFR Rito
Participants:
of S. r_ chana Gibbs A Hill J.P. Rust Cyana Required Comments Action By item Cygna received a revised computer output for a detail SP-7 with brace. This revision includes a release of the gicbal Y-axis moment for the beam-wall joint and is for L=5'-0 , W=30" and brace slope of 1:1.5. Cygna reviewed and confirmed that the longitudinal frequency was 13.66 Hz. According to Mr. Chang, the spectral acceleration is 0.89 for all buildings except the Fuel Building. Fuel Building accelerations are stated in the calculations given to Cygna on November 14, 1984.
Status: Cygna to evalute effect of reduced frequency.
Page of Signe Q ,
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. n Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
m'a Horstmann S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Bu_rwel_lm , Project File _ ___ __
Communications 4L i i Report
.<l T * " conference Report Toras utilities X Protect: Job No-84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/14/84 1 subject time; )
4:30 P.M. j Cable Tray Conduit Review Questions ,
CPSES Site
Participants:
of R K_ Rhujang Gibbs & Hill l W.R. Horstman. J.P. Russ Cyana item Comments Ac y Mr. Bhujang stated that DCA 2421 was written against drawing 2323-S-0903, revision 4 and, therefore, only applies to those supports listed under Detail 1 of that drawing. Cygna pointed out a note that states that other one-bolt connections are shown on drawings 2323-S-0908, -0909. Cygna feels that these connec-tions may use Alternate Detail 1 as a substitute.
1 /aib i 1 Distnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
= 'a Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications 4L i i Report
' . -lll11lllll11 I** " Conference Rep Taras Utilities X Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 iif13fg4 Subject Time:
1:30 P.M.
Cable Tray Support Design Review g,,
Working Point Deviation Calculations Cpsrs site
Participants:
of S.C. Chana_
Gibbs A Hill W.R. Horstman Cygna Required Comments Action Dy item
Reference:
SCS-215C, Set 4. Calculations for Working Point Deviations on Case E4 .
In the reevaluation of Case E4 using single bolt base connec-tions, SCS-215C, Set 4, sheets 16-20, no check of the interactior on the Richmond Inserts ("RI") was performed.
l i Mr. Chang said that he did not believe there was any need to check the RIs, since the the computer modeling assumptions did not differ from those used in the original design, so the loads should not have changed.
To check this conclusion, the following calculation was per-
- formed:
V = 4.02 kip , T = (1.03 + 7.81) kip use VA= 13.43 kip TA= 13.76 kip j
1.33 4.02 (13.43) +f.5(1.03+7.81))I*
1 13.76
= 1.15 > 1.0 The statement on SCS-215C, Set 4, sheets 20 and 32, that " Case Ea with one bolt hanger connection is adequate" is not correct in light of this calculation.
l Mr. Chang said that he would need to perform additional evalua-tion to determine the impact of this discovery.
i I
/ I /E YL /aih 1 1
'*"""' N.Willaims,D. Wade,J.5nAmerongen,R.Kissinger,J.Russ,W.Horstman,S.
=' a Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
1 Communications t4 L t i Report l
- ' 1111111 l
l
"*"" *aa T.m u,4 u ,4., r "a'~ac* "*a a Project: Job No.
8" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 in/1t/na i subject Time:
11:00 a.m.
Systems Approach to Base Plate p,,,,
Analysis for a 1-Bolt Base Plate cptrs tito Participants- of B.K. Bhuiano Gihht A Hill J.P. Russ . M.J. Berry Cynna Required Comments Action By item Mr. Bhujang informed Cygna that the 1-bolt base plate analysis with a revised gage distance would not be delivered to Cygna as previously indicated. He indicated that the 1-bolt base plate analysis with a gage of 1-1/4" caused a bolt interaction failure of 14%. Mr. Bhujang has decided to analyze the base plate using a systems approach which assumes translational fixity in the longitudinal tray direction.
Cygna requested that no further system analysis be performed until the flexibility of the tray and support connection is fully evaluated. The connection stiffness should consider the torsion and bending in the cable tray beam and hanger, the gaps at the clips per CMC-93450, and the rotational sway of the cable tray during modal response.
Mr. Bhujang acknowledged the flexibility of the connection and realizes that the system approach is a rough bound to the analy-l sis of the base plate. He suggested that the flexibility of the connection was too complex to evaluate initially.
l l
i l
l l
/ 1 Jf b /aih 1 1 l N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
t iosw. cr.rnVen% Sn TrGb;h Jo Elli k So B3rwgiln_P_r@om t F0lm
Communications 4L ii Report
.una Tavat litilities b '' " "#*"" "' #
, Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 5/31/84
Subject:
Time:
Document Request - '"
Mechanical Systems Review G&H/NYC
Participants:
of W. Cristali Gibbs & Hill P. Rainev Cyana Required Comments Action Ry item Cygna requested and received the following:
- 1. Computer User Manuals for Component Cooling Water Calculation
- a. P-Drop
- b. Pipe Flow
- 3. CCW Q Calculations
- 5. CCW Losses from Moderate Energy Line Break Calculation #54:
- 6. Chilled Water System Condenser Specification
- 7. Control Room A/C Condenser Specification l
- 8. Specifications:
- a. CCW Pumps
- b. CCW Heat Exchanger
- c. CCW Surge Tank
- d. RHR Heat Exchangers
- e. Containment Spray Hx l
l
) 1 AL U laib 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, l
I wo ois Project File
Communicctions L ii Report
.. m
- ""* " ' ' " conter.nce n.pon Tn as utilities x Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Pet 6 Steam Electric Station
- Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/26/85 Subject Time:
3 00 p.m.
Cygna Letter 84056.053 -
Tube Steel Punching Shear CPSES Site
Participants:
of TUGC0
' J. Finneran Cyana J. Minichiello Required Comments Action By item Mr. Finneran stated that TUGC0 agreed with Cygna that AWS punch-ing shear was not appropriate for evaluating the stresses in the tube steel /coverplate. TUGC0 did not use this method to evaluate other designs of this type. TUGC0 wanted to address this issue on a worst case basis and suggested reviewing Cygna's finite ele.
ment analysis for application to the broader picture. Cygna will discuss this and reply.
1 i
l l
l l
)
l L
i S
sign.d.
gcjjg ,,jh
'"*""' N. ' Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, J. Finneran, S. Treby, J. -
m oi. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communic;tions t4 ( t i , Report q Teiw n conference Remn Tone int il i t <.e Project Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,.
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 afafaq
Subject:
Time:
Embedment Plate Attachments - p,,,,
Procedural Control tron
Participants:
of G_ Purdy Renwn A Rnnt
.1_ Minichio11n rynna Required Comments Action By item Cygna wanted to know if there was an inspection procedure for ASME attachments to embedded plates which ensured the 12" spacing was not violated (reference Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45). Mr.
Purdy stated Brown & Root did not reference civil construction procedures when doing the ASME inspection, but would, instead, include the required portions in QI-QAP-11.1-28. In response to Cygna's original question on this issue (Cygna letter 84056.013 dated 7/31/84), Brown & Root had revised QI-QAP-11.1-28 to incorporate the embedment plate attachment spacing as part of the inspection procedure (see paragraph 3.3.1.2(c) of latest revi-sion).
Cygna will request the later revisions.
] )&u 1. n , ,
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen. J. Minichiello. Treby. J. Ellis S.
" '* Burwell, Project File
E Communications 4L t i Report 11111111111MIM111111M T.vae titilit 1.c Y * * "
Project Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 9/iofnq Subject Time:
10 00 a.m.
Conduit Support Testing p,,,,
won
Participants:
of R. Ynw. R. Miller cri J. Russ cygna Required Comments Action By item Cygna spoke to Messrs. Yow and Miller about the conduit support test schedule. Schedule confirmation was necessary to plan Cygna's witnessing the tests along with attending the TUGC0/NRC meetings at CPSES on Tuesday, February 26, 1985. Mr. Miller confirmed that testing of the suspended type supports concludes on Friday, February 22, 1985, and that the testing of the concrete mounted supports would begin on Monday, February 25, 1985. Tests are generally 60 to 90 minutes in length. Set-up between tests takes approximately the same amount of time.
Testing starts between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. each day.
Cygna asked if it was possible to review the test data. M r.
Miller stated that CCL would release the data with permission from TUGCO.
[I /3jb i 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen. R. Kissinger, J. Russ. D. Leona. S.
im ei. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communicstions l 4( ci Report manaamme ;
caa' ~ " a * "
- 1. m n+4 m 4.. % '*=a Project: Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 pf9gfag Subsect: Time:
1:40 o.m.
Calculation Request - Cable Tray Support Reviewp ,,,
CPRFR Rito
Participants:
of P. Huana Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cvgna Required Comments Action By item Cygna requested the following weld calculations from Mr. Huang:
Support Connection Detail D3-04 Detail "7" (2323-5-0903)
L-Ay , L-A4 All connections shown on 2323-S-0902.
SP-4 Detail "D" (Beam-to-base angle connection shown on 2323-S-0903)
Beam-to-beam connection Brace-to-beam connection SP-8 Detail "B" (Beam connection)
Detail "11" (2323-S-0905) Detail "G" (2323-S-0903)
Detail "C" 2323-S-0903 Detail "8" 2323-5-0903 Detail "A" (2323-El-0500-04-S) All weld details De+all "C" (2323-El-0500-01-S) All weld details Detail "N" (2323-El-0601-01-S) All weld details He asked Cygna to re-request these on Monday, March 4,1985 since Gibbs & Hill was attempting to issue the final report on the dynamic analysis of cable tray systems.
) 1Atg_ A fath 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
== Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
c Communications AL 6 i Report conference nepon Texas Utilities CX T*'. con Pro M t Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 6/1/84 Subject Time:
Document Request -
Place:
Mechanical Systems Review W. Cristali Gibbs & Hill P. Rainey Cygna
~
nequireo Comments Action By item Cygna requested and received CCW piping (seismic and nonseismic) vendor information on CCW control valve 1-FV-4536 specification MS-600.
l
?
'"" jj k /ajb 1 1 D'*tabut'on- N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell,
,,,,,, ..c.. ...
r . . .. ._
f Communic 3tionS L ii Report t
o aaac* a**a
- 1. m niiiiii.t 9 wea Job No.
Protect 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/18/84 Time:
SubWt 11:00 a.m.
Embedded Plate Criteria - Place.
Cable Tray Support Reviews SFR0
Participants:
of p_T Huang Gibht A Hill Cyana J.P. Rust comments Ac Iy item Cygna discussed the embedded plate allowables with Mr. Huang, as shown in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-55-30. Cygna asked Mr.
Huang how the allowables were calculated and to what load combination they were applicable. He replied that the reported Nelson stud allowables were reduced per spacing criteria and divided by a factor of safety of two. The allowables reported in 2323-SS-30 are to be applied against the OBE loads for cable tray designs. Mr. Huang also stated that his impression was that prying action was considered and a rigid plate assumption was used but he would need to check the calculations to confirm these points.
Mr. Huang also noted that a review of the embedded plate capac-ities for Comanche Peak by Westinghouse showed allowables much greater than those shown in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323 30.
~
Pag' Of Signed V JQ q 'f j
f '(111111]D L <\ la.ib 1 1
"'""" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S.
'*a ' Tr;rehJ. E111sn S. Burwell, Project File
r Communications 4L t i Report 1
l l
compny: conference neport Texas Utilities y econ Protect: Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 ,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*:
5/31/84
Subject:
Time-Calculations Concerning Dynamic Amplification Factor for Conduits and Cable Trays Place:
E. Bezkor Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received a draft copy of " Justification of the Equivalent Static Load Method Using a Factor of 1.0 Times the Peak Spectrum Acceleration for the Design of Cable Tray Supports, Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2."
""" ,hchj[Mg /ajb "' 1 '
1 Datnbution. N'. 'W11Ilams, 'D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby,
. = . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . _ . . .
CommunicQtions 4L t i Report mammmmma compny: Texas Utilities o Tei+ con le conference neport Protect: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Dat*-
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 7/13/84 Time Subsect 1:50 p.m.
Conduit Support Drawings Place-p Portacipants' of C.McClung(x226) Cygna item Comments AcNn y
- 1. Please supply Cygna with a copy of drawing 2323-5-0910, P.M.
Sheet CA-2a, Revision 1. 7/13/84
" /ajb '*** 1 *'
&lff),} jj [ 4 1 D*tribut'on N. silliams,'D. Wade G. Grace, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, m riva m Fih
f CommunicQti@ns 4L 6 i Report WWW15W1111111W1111 Compenr Texas Utilities o Telecon Ql Conference Repon 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date:
7/26/g4 10:50 AM Fire Frotection Calculations Place:
pg Richard Baker Brown & Root John Russ CES Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received a copy of the following procedures:
1 CP-El-4.5-14 Rev. 4 2 CP-EP-4.5, Rev. 1 0.etneution h ~,y& lceh '*** 1 N. Will1ams,' O. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis. 1 ww 'r=> ivi ei . <vwgww= r aau
r . . __ l Communications L 6 i Report i lumiillemmuillel
"'; Texas Utilities o T* con je conver.ne. n. port 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 0*:
2/26/85 Subt.ct: Tim.: 2:30 p.m. Document Request CPSES Site T. Kerlin TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac n y Cygna requested that Mr. Kerlin prw ide the calculation package DD-1-016-007-533R for review. He prw ided the package. Cygna reviewed the calculations and requested copies of FDCR 1084 and a speed letter dated January 15, 1985 from G.M. Chamberlain to Saeed regarding cable tray supports 756 and 757 and pipe support DD-1-016-007-S33R. Mr. Kerlin prwided these copies, e l h];jhh M ~ ~
/ aj b " 1 1 o..innution. N' Viliiams, D.' Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. h>rstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis,
. ... a . ou , - i i , rrusew6 r iis
Communic 3tions AL t i Report i 1111111lll1ll11111lllll1llllll Company: T con Texas Utilities R conference neport Project. Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 : 2/26/85
Subject:
Time. Drawing Request 1:10 p.m. CPSES Site N. Munoz Brown & Root (DCC) J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received copies of the following Gibbs & Hill drawings: 2323-El-0500-01-S 2323-El-0500-04-S L-
~
W]$Ll lli A ladb "' 1 1 D' * bu'$a N. Williams, D. WadeIX van Anerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis,
..... 3. nurweii, rroJect r i se _ _
Communications e4 ( t i Report lill Texas Utilities o Tei* con g conference n. port Project: Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*'*: 2/26/85
Subject:
Time: Change Documentation Request 1:20 p.m. CPSES Site
Participants:
of J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received copies of all revisions and all applicable CVC's for the following CMC's: 33556 ' 30878 59701 62903 62905 65808 67042 68276 68288
- 68438 l 75090
( l l l I l l h))) j jjQ / aj b ' 1 1 ( D abut'on N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. Treby, __.==Ha. _ _ #* 813 A_ousywii,_ _ _rruge g riie_ , . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , , , _ _ _ _ _
Communications 4 L. ii Report nun
*""* a conference neport Texas Utilities R Teiecon Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/27/85 Subject Time: Document Request 2:30 p.m. Dallas / Fort Worth Airport J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac n By Cygna requested the following items:
- 1. Gibbs & Hill Calculations:
- a. SCS-119C, Set 1, Sheets 8-15
- b. SCS-152C, Set 1, Sheet 39
- c. SCS-154C, Set 1, Sheet 79-85
- 2. Gibbs & Hill Drawings
- a. 2323-S-0910, Sheet JA-1, Revision 14
- 3. Inspection Reports
- a. Report for Conduit C13G03528
. b. If Item a. does not exist, the report for conduit , C12G03528
- 4. All Revisions and all CVC's for the Change Notices P Listed below:
- a. CMC's 4451, 11059, 17867
- b. DCA's 1946, 2012, 2024, 2122, 2265, 3646, 3814, 3887 l
1
**"" ff),jb y & /ajb '*** 1 '
1 l Distnbution- 'N - N111'iams', D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. Trebyc,
. .. v. t i i n, s. ourwe s i, rroaeu r i ie
Communicntions 4L t i Report ElHillllllllNillNNNilli C *""#; Texas Utilities o T* con g conference Report Project Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D*: 2/27/85 Subject Time: Document Request 11:30 a.m. CPSES Site B.K. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received a copy of Gibbs & Hill Calculation SCS-215C, Set 4, Sheet 77. ~ D'$t"bu" HWM2/bh
'N.
/a3b 1 1
Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, telo c's 3. DurWElI, FTUJEGL r1IE _ _ _
r .. , l Communicstions 4L 6 i Report um
*""# confereno n pon Texas Utilities R Teiecon Protect- Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/28/85
Subject:
Time. Document Request 7:30 a.m. Place: SFR0
Participants:
of P. Patel Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Patel to have J. van Amerongen provide a copy of SDAR CP-82-10 along with othe previously requested documents. e k/)/MMM
/ajb 1 1 D*'"6 "* "
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. .
=o oi. surwell, Project ri te . _ _ _ _ .____ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
1 Communications 4( t i Report nummmmmmm Company 0 Telecon g Conference Report Prokt Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 tifi3fg4
Subject:
Time: 9:00 A.M. Cable Tray Support Design Review ,,, Working Point Deviation Study cpsgg sit,
Participants:
of B. Bhuiana. S. Chana. P. Huana Gibbt & Hill W. Horstman. J. Russ Cvona Required item Comments Action B Gibbs & Hill provided copies of the revised working point analyses considering closely spaced modes in the NASTRAN response spectrum analyses.
- 1. SCS-215C Set 2
- 2. SCS-215C, Set 3
- 3. SCS-215C, Set 4 4 SCS-215C Set 5
- 5. SCS-215C, Set 6
- 6. NASTRAN Outputs corresponding to the above calculations.
- 7. NASTRAN Output for a longitudinal frequency solution for SP-7 with brace.
r A$M /aib 1 1 D' " * " 6 *"' N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
'm e'. Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwella_Pr$ect Filo
r-
]
Communicatirns ; 9L t i Report summmmmun
" 0 T' "
% C*"'"C' 8'P "
Texas Utilities Prosect. Jon No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station , Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/15/84 Subtect Time 11:1b AM Cable Tray Support Design Review Tray Clamp Gap Criteria CPSES Site
Participants:
of W. Horstman Cygna item comment. [cN Cygna asked for an explanation of the background of CMC 93450. Mr. Keiss said that previous to the issuance of this CMC, no criteria existed for determination of allowable gaps in installa-tion of friction type cable tray clamps. Q.C. had requested that engineering provide allowsble tolerances, since in field install-ations, gaps were present and some criteria was needed to evalu-ate the gaps. The allowed gaps specified in CMC 934b0 were based on engineering judgement and no supporting calculations were prepared. Af ter CMC 93450 was issued, Q.C. performed a " Clamp Backfit inspection Program" to determine if existing installations were within specified tolerances. Clamps which were not satisf actory were reworked. Mr. Keiss suggested that Cygna obtain a copy of TUGC0 drawing TNE-51-0902-02 (which incorporates CMC 934b0 and others which pertain to clamp details). D" b u' *" M hf)M[4m /ajb 1
' N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, 1
. .. v. r.i i n , a. nurwe i i , rrw eu, t i le , H. M ss inger
Communicatirns AL 6 i Report lillitilllillilillHilllHilli Texas Utilities I*c n 9 conference nepon Project Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/15/84
Subject:
Time Cable Tray Support Design Review 10:00 AM Working Point Violations CPSES Sita Participants of Jeanne van Amerongen EBASCO (TUGCO) W. R. Horstman Cygna pequneo item comment. Action av Ms. van Amerongen obtained a copy of Quality Assurance (QA) Tracking item 140 from the QA secretary and NCR H-84-000358, revision 2, from the $ vault. These documents were referenced by Mr. Warner on 11/15/84, 8:00 AM conference report. N,h4MLgg@
/ajb 1 1 D'*"'but'on N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstrnan, S. Treby, L . m. , r i i ir._1_, , c.u, ii, ri u i ru r i ir . R. ri:.-inurr
Communicatisns 4L 6 i Report lilNNiillilillllilllllNINI
*'"""" o Tac = a ca ac a por' Texas utiitties Project. Job No.
- 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
*~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/16/84 Subject Time-Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questio7s 4: 30 P.M. Place CPSES Site Participants- of S.C. Chang Gibbs A Hill W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ Cyana nequireo item Comments Action By Since the loads used in checking the acceptability of in-plane single angle braces for trapeze type frames were based on an earlier revision of the working point analysis, Cygna requested an evaluation based on the most current loading. 41bbs & Hill provided Cygna with a set of calculations which Cygria will review. j hjh Q /aj b 1 1 D*"'6"6 " N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, H. Hess, J. Russ W. i.a . . Itursbnan, 5. Treby. J. Lil()s, s. Hurwein, Probet rm
Communic tions ( t i Repod C *'* "* Texas (Jt111 ties 0 T*' econ g conference Report ht- Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/16/84 Subject Time. 1:30 P.M. Cable / Tray Conduit Review Questions CPSES Site B.K. Bhuj ang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Required Comments Action By item Cygna requested and received copies of the spectral peaks for 2% and 3% damping. D'*inbution (f d /[Q4M /ajb N. Williams, D. Made, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ. W. 1 1
..,.... nw n-o . v . r. i i n , 2. i reoy , d. Durwe l l , Proj ect F i l e
Communications AL t i Report 1911161111111146ll14ll1111llll Texas utilities x
.c n conver.nce nepon Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/4/85
Subject:
Time: 12: 45 p.m. LA Type Conduit Spans Place. SF R0
Participants:
of P. Huaro Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated Decenber 27,1984, " Conduit Support Review Questions" Huang, Leon) and Russ participat-i ng . Cygna spoke to Mr. Huang regarding the conduit spans for LA type conduit supports per the referenced telecon. Mr. Huanj reported the following:
- 1. Allowable spans for conduit diameters 2" and greater are based on stiffness criteria, i.e., the conduit frequency is greater than 33 hertz. For conduit diameters of 1-1/2" or less, an allowable stress criteria is used. Condui t stresses were based upon unrefined spectra.
- 2. Gibbs & Hill did evaluate the LA type supports for the revised spans.
Cygna requested the calculations noted by Mr. Huang. Cyg na al so L requested a list of the ZPA values for all plant elevations and design spectra for 2% and 3%, if the spectra were available. WNh)j IL/6HL/) /ajb 1 1 D *"' bu*" N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. Treby, J. 5 I I T E T H I I F"Baf E I I ) T fl 1 N F T FTIP
P Communications ! L4 L t i Report , a I Company: a conference neport Texas Utilities ~
'l T*l* con Prokt: < Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Progran - Phase 4 12/19/84
Subject:
Time: 1:30 p.m. Embedded Plate Criteria Place: SFR0 Participants; of P.T. Huano Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac y Cygna asked Mr. Huang when the allowables and criteria for embedded strip plates as shown in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-55-30 were developed. He replied that the calculations were perfonned during the perioc of December 1978 - January 1979. Cable tray designs employing embedded plates were also performed at this same time. 1 I l r l l 1 l l
~
h f/1/b /ajb 1 1 N. Wikliams, D. Wade, J. van A1.erongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
'mo o'. _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ _Horstman, 5. Treby, J. Ellis,'_5. Burwell, Project File _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
c .
- Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111W111
*""# conference nepon Texas Utilities )p Teiec n Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/7/84 Subject Time: Richmond Insert Allowables 8:30 a.m. Place: SFR0
Participants:
of R. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Russ Cyana item Comments Ac y Cygna asked Mr. Kissinger if it was possible for cable tray supports to be installed so that two adjacent loaded Richmond Inserts were spaced at a six inch center-to-center spacing. Cygna noted that allowable values for Richmond Inserts at such a spacing are listed in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-55-30, revision 1. Mr. Kissinger stated that such a configuration was possible. Since the insert allowable loads for that spacing are lower than those used in the design of the cable tray supports, Cygna asked if there was a procedure which assured the required spacing of loaded inserts was maintained to provide the design allowables. Mr. Kissinger stated that he would check on the existence of such a procedure and reply to Cygna. e i k,ff b)))]h]s1 A lajb 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. ioso oi. Horstman, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, 5. Burwell, Project File
Communications 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111lll
*" confuence Report Texas Utilities 9 Teiec n Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment. Program - Phase 4 12/3/84 Subject Time: Cable Tray Documentation Verification Request 2:30 P.M. Place: SFR0
Participants:
of B.K. Bhuj ang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ .Cygna l Required item Comments Action By 1 In order to close out the documentation loop for the structural design review, Cygna requested the following items from Mr. Bhuj ang:
- 1. Sheets 1-60 of Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-122C, Set 2.
- 2. CMC's and CVC's for the modification of those supports in contact with CCW heat exhanger.
- 3. CMC and CVC for modification to the Detail "N" support which adds a longitudinal brace.
4 Any CMC's and CVC's noting the member size change as documented in Cygna letter 84056.027 for cable tray l supports 2992, 2994, 3005 3017, 3021, 3111 and 6654 l l Cygna noted that an additional request would be made upon verification of a calculation set number with Gibbs & Hill, New l l York. Mr. Bhuj ang stated that he would send out what documents were available but noted that items 2 and 3 were being held up by Civil Engineering. Cygna asked about the progress on Detail "5" and Mr. Bhujang replied that Civil Engineering was presently reviewing that support also. Mr. Bhujang will be on vacation for three weeks beginning the l week of December 10, 1984, so Cygna can contact Mr. R.M. l Kissinger with any requests. Distribution: 'N'. hh ' M Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
/ajb 1 1 ,ano a,. nor nman, a. s i euy , v. c. i i i s , a. ouinesi, rivart6 rsie
_ ~ _ . . . _ _ - _ _ _ _
Communications d( ci Report 111111111111111111111111lll111
*""* g meen conference Report Texas Utilities Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D* r Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/4/84
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Documentation Verification Request 12:15 P.M. Place: SFR0 Participants. of B.K. Bhuj ang Gibbs & Hill J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Bhujang regarding the documentation required to close the loop on the design review. Cygna requested the following items:
- 1. Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-109C, Set 1, sheets 154-163.
- 2. Gibbs & Hill calculation SCS-101C, Set 2, sheets 45-86.
Mr. Bhujang stated that the change notices for the supports in contact with the heat exchanger, the A2 type supports with different members and the Detail "U with added brace will be sent to Cygna. /
/ jfgh
~~
/aj b 1 1 Distribution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
ovi s unaii, 3. Ti cui , v. G'. 2, ^; . ^,u i -c ; ; , T. va cu i;;e
Communications 4L ci Report lillllllllllllllllllllllllllll
"" Texas Utilities R W econ O Conference Report Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D'I' 12/5/84 ,, - Subject Time: Cable Tray Documentation Verification Request 10:00 A.M. Place: SFR0 J. van Amerongen EBASCO J.P. Russ Cygna Requved Comments Action By item
References:
Telecons dated December 3,1984 and December 4,1984,
" Cable Tray Documentation Verification Request," B.K.
Bhuj ang and J.P. Russ participating. Cygna received a telephone call from Ms. van Amerongen regarding the documents requested of Mr. Bhujang in the referenced telecon reports. She inquired as to the purpose of the requests. Mr. Russ stated that the requests were made to verify the conclusions of several verbal and written responses to Cygna's questions. Ms. van Amerongen asked that any further document requests be made through her and stated that Cygna's present requests would be sent out as soon as possible.
),j }
laj b 1 1 Distribution- N. Williains, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
^ ~
nw no .. , 3. L m,7, J. C.:... -,. ^ .- :: , .. y m ..Im
Communications 1 31 & i. Report Mllllllllllllllll1181lll111
*""* conference Report Texas Utilities R m econ Protect Job No.
M056
. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/9/85 suoiect Time Location of Hilti Expansion Anchors for Detail "7" 3:05 p.m. Place. B. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna nevree item Comments Actio t By
; Cygna spoke to Mr. Bhujang regarding DCA 2362, revision 0 which provides installation tolerances for the anchor bolts of Detail "7" on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0903. Cygna wished to confirm its interpretation of the note allowing the installation of a single 1"d x 7" Hilti bolts if the bolt is concentric with the beam centerline. Mr. Bhujang stated that the drawing could be interpreted in that sense. He noted, however, that Gibbs &
Hill's designs only allow for two-bolt installations for beam connections. He also stated that it was virtually impossible to install any bolt concentric with the beam centerline due to rebar or other interferences. Mr. Bhujang stated that in his experi-ence he knew of no one-bolt installations for this connection at Comanche Peak. l Cygna asked about the status of Detail 5. Mr. Bhujang stated that site Civil-Structural was evaluating Cygna's inquiries on Detail 5. V 1 Y ,7/ )./ / /1 4 mf a /ajb 1 1 N. Williams, U. Wade, d. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, d. KuSS, w . no r s ur.an , o, inoution. O . L. . , , C . ' .O., ,
. O'i,E 512". "'?j ?" ^
im oo
c Communications AL i i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 l company: contuence Repon Texas Utilities 9( T*'ec n Protect. Job No. 84056
.. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
~
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/27/84 Subject Time Conduit Support Review Questions 1:35 p.m. Place SFR0
Participants:
of P.T. Huang Gibbs & Hill D.K. Leong , J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Coraments Action By I Lygna spoke to Mr. Huang regarding sheets LA-6a, -6b and -6c of drawing 2323-S-0903. These sheets list the allowable S4 spans for LA type conduit supports. Cygna noted that the LA type supports were designed for 6-0" spacings, yet the above sheets all ow spans greater than 6-U". Cygna asked Mr. Huang to confirm the following items: l
- 1. Are the conduit spans reported on the drawing sheets listed above based on unrefined or refined spectra;
, 2. Which conduit diameters are governed by stiffness and which are governed by stress; and
- 3. If the reported spans are based on unrefined spectra, were the conduit supports reevaluated for the increased spans?
Mr. Huang stated that he would check on the above items and reply l to Cygna. I signeo
, c///
N. Williams, U. wade, d. van Amerongen, R.
/ b Kissinger, d. Huss, 1
W. 1 rio r s tma n , I DIstnbution- ! 0. L_.3, S . ' . l., , J . C ' i - E h - ':" , '^j ^C + *? imo oo
c
.. 3l Communications L4 L n i Repod !
lilllllillNiilillHMilllllli
*""F conference nepon Texas Utilities f T econ Protect: Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/16/85 Sutyect Time:
Conduit Drawing Revisions 2:00 p.m. Place , SFR0 ' 4 Participants of D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Patel regarding revisions of conduit drawing sheets for Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0910. Cygna wished to verify what the vintage was of the "G-x" drawing series (x = 1,2,3...). He stated that this series was used for the general notes prior to the "G-xy series (where x = 1,2..., y = a,b,c...) Cygna asked if TUGC0 had a cross-reference of dates to revisions of specific conduit drawing sheets. He stated that such informa-tion was available but not necessarily in the form of a log.
$ h ,jj),, / j E u A /ajb 1 1 oi.tneution: N. Williams, U. wade, d. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Kuss , w. nors tir.an,
". L. . . . ; , C . ' . A , .' . C '. ' i S 2 c " , "-^ j ^ ^ + " ' ^
Communications ALn i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 compenr Texas Utilities 2 Telecen o conference Report Project' Job No.
.. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Date' 1/17/85 subject Time Walkdown Response Verification 3:45 p.m.
Place- !
"*"'***" R. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated January 17, 1985, "Walkdown Response Verification," Kissinger and Russ participating. Cygna spoke to Mr. Kissinger regarding his review of TUGC0's response to the question noted in the referenced telecon. Cygna stated that they had checked the supports in question for com-pliance with Note 9 of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0901. Only one support (CTH 6654) had a heavier section with the same depth. However, Cygna noted that the shape had changed from the one specified to the one installed. The specified shape was an MC6x12 while a C6x13 was installed. Upon comparing the section properties of these two sections, Cygna noted that the installed shape was heavier, but the section properties were reduced. Based on this observation, Cygna asked Mr. Kissinger to verify the following:
- 1. Does Note 9 preclude the use of different shapes of the same depth but of the next heavier size?
' Is there a requirement for Quality Control inspectors 2. to note changes in a section made in accordance with Note 9 on the traveller form? Mr. Kissinger stated that he would investigate the above issues.
"' k / ) f f [ jf y /ajb "*i' 1 '
1 pistribution. N. Williams, U. Waoe, d. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, d. Kuss, W. Mo r 5 LIM n , h 2 - _ P "r - L- - 1 f* 1 1 * . f* fi . . - , o 1 1 fi a 4 a y+ 7{ln we hwwsy3 we = w wg y w - m = .,y -- -- --- , -y _ _
a Communications ; Ait i Report ! 15111111ll181111111111111lll
"""# Conference Repon Texas Utilities R Telecon Protect: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U*'
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/17/85 Subsect: Time.
~
Conduit Drawing Request 4:00 p.m. Place- f J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (E8ASCO) J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following revisions of sheets from Gibbs & Hilldrawing 2323-5-0910. The revisions were requested to com-plete Cygna s review of the drawing compatability with changes over time. Ms. van Amerongen stated she would provide Cygna with the drawings upon receipt of the telecopied list. Drawing No. Revision Nos. Other Dates i G-1 through G-6 6/25/79, 8/6/79 7/14/80, 12/5/80 G-4a 0,1 2,3 G-Sa 9,16 8/15/81 CA-2b 1 CA-lb 3,4 CA-la 10/9/81 CSD-14a 6/25/79, 8/25/81, 1/29/82, 2/12/82, 3/15/82, 4/5/82, 4/8/82 4/21/8E,4/14/82, 5/5/82 CSD-la 0,3 CSM-7 0 CSD-2 0,5
' CSD-7 0,2 CSD-14b 12,13 1/29/82 CSD-14c 5,6 CSM-18a 14,15 CSD-15a 11,12 CSM-18b 17 1/29/82, 2/12/82, 3/15/82, 4/5/82, 4/82/82 4
CSM-42b 2 CSD-13 5 JA-2 3/9/81 CSM-18d 1/29/82 l o..inoution: h) )jjj M N. Williams, U. Wade, d. van Amerongen
/ajb R. Kissinger, d. Kuss, 1
W. 1 110 r 5 UIid a ,
- 0. L...;, C. Tc A , '. O ' h , E . E r:" " ^ j ^' + "'^
r . , Communications ALni Report blemimimummim companr Texas Utilities N Telecon o conference Report Pro;ect. Job No. 84056 Coiaanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/17/85 Subject- - Time Conduit Drawing Revisions 1:20 p.m. Place
..m
"* ** * " J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO)
, [
J. Russ Cygna ReQwred item Comments Act.on By Cygna spoke to Ms. van Amerongen to request a list of conduit drawings that was to be telecopied to site. Mr. Russ explained that Cygna was looking at how the drawings were revised over time. He also noted that since any reference to detail drawings did not include a revision number, it was at times necessary to specify a range of dates on the request list. Ms. van Amerongen stated that she would send Cygna the drawings upon receipt of the telecopied list. hj ), f fffg /ajb '**' 1 1 Mor5Wan, o..tnout,on- N. Williams U. Waoe, d. van Amerongen, g. Kissinger, d. Kuss, W.
". L . .. . , , " . T . . i, , ' . :" i : , S . " ::' "'^ j ^' * ^
Communications ALni Report N111181111111111111111111111 company: p Telecon o conference Repon Texas Utilities Protect. Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/17/85 Subsect: Time-Walkdown Response Verification 8:15 a.m. Place
'*"**"~ '
! R. Kissinge~r TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna i Requwe0 item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Kissinger regarding his review of TUGCO's
- response to Cygna question A-1 of letter 84056.027. He stated that he would look into the subject. Since the question dealt with changed member sizes, he noted that the next heavier member, but of the same size could be used. Cygna stated that they would review that aspect of the question.
~ k f l } j } } , fj p lajb '**' 1 Van Mmerongen, R. Mssinger, d. RUSS, W. Horstman, 1
o,.ineut,on- N. Williams? D. WKae, d.
^
. L.. ., , S . '. 0., , 2. C ' % ! . E ::" . "-^j ^" e n .
Co[Timunications ALn i Report 11111111111111111111111111llll company: Texas Utilities il Tei. con o conference n. cort Je No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 oste - 1/21/85 Sue ect: T'**- 12:45 a.m. Conduit Drawing Request Place' SFR0 Participants- of TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac ,oY*By Cygna asked Ms. van Amerongen to provide a copy of sheet JA-1, revision 2 of drawing 2323-S-0910. Ms. van Amerongen stated she would send a copy to Cygna. 1
""" /ajb"*S' 1 '
o inoution kh N. Williams, U. [g Waoe, d. van merongen, R. Kissinger, d. Muss , w. norsuran, 1
- . - - , . m , . ,u e ... _ . _ , , o_ 4 ,. rm BF e En b w i e g g WW T T w wg ) ww a v v wy w- --- -y -y -
mw---- -v,-- - - -
, , , , ,- -.-n.,,---,.-r , , , . ,- - - , , . . , - , - - na,n-- -,-e,,,-- - - - -
Communications d( t.i. Report lll181lll1Willllllllllllll compnr Texas Utilities R Telecon a conference neport Profect- Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D * Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/18/85 Subject- Time Installation Procedure for CA-1, CA-2 Type Supports 10:00 a.m. SFR0 l P;rticipants- of D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked if there are specific installation procedures for CA-1 and CA-2 supports with outriggers. Mr. Patel said there are , none, and that the design drawings contain sufficient information to assure installation as required. He stated that Unistrut bolts through the P1941 plate are torqued as recomended by the manufacturer. Cygna also asked what the minimum separation distance between the outriggers and the concrete was to require the use of shim plates in the installation. Mr. Patel stated that shim plates were only used for these supports if specified by a CMC.
"*"" /ajb " 1 '
o.stnbution Thhl N. Williams, U. MM Waoe, d. van Amerongen, M. K1ssihg~dr, J. Muss, W. 1 norsT. man,
. ;. ac. ; , C . ' . ;. i., , ' . C l ' S , L i r ' l "-d ^' t " ' "
Communications A (% i Report sammmmmmmm
*""I conference neport Texas Utilities X T econ 84056 Conenene Peak Steam Electric Station U'
, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/5/85 Subtect Tim 6 Conduit Amplification Factor 10:20 a.m. Place SFR0
Participants:
of P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Huang regarding the amplification factor stud; ' for conduit supports. It was noted that the Gibbs & Hill calcu-lations being reviewed by Cygna referenced calculations DMI-8c, Set 1, Revision 0. To expedite review of these calculations, Cygna asked Mr. Huang to check the following:
- 1. Is the calculation set too large to be photocopied; and
- 2. Does the calculation set the reference any computer output?
fir. Huang stated that he would check on the above and reply to Cygna . o,etnbution N. Williams, U. Wade, J. [M /ajb van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Muss. W. tiorstman, 1 1 C. L;..; , C. I. ;i,, , 2. C ' t, i. 17 ::' , " ?j ?! * " ' ?
Communications 4Ln i Report
. igi
*""( Texas Utilities R T*'* con a conference nepon Protect. . Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 - 2/5/85 Subject. Time Conduit Amplification Factor 11:30 a.m. Place P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ D Cygna Required liefr Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated 2/5/85, " Conduit Amplification Factor," Huang and Russ participating. In response to the request of the referenced telecon, Mr. Huang telephoned Cygna. He stated that calculation DMI-8c, Set 1, Revision 0, dealt with Cliss 5 failure analysis. The calcula-tions in question were 130 pages in length and referenced six volumes of computer output. Mr. Huang stated the calculations had nothing to do with conduit amplification factors. Cygna stated that calculations SCS-100C, Set 4, Sheets 10-11 reference the DMI-8c calculations for methodology and assumptions. Mr. Huang stated that he would review the calculations and reply to Cygna. l f l i l l l l kNN. Sillnams, ohh,e /ajb D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, d. Muss, w, norspren, 1 1 l G iussn l 0. L..,;, C. '. ;b , '. C ' h , C. 5 n' . " rj er * "'e l
~
e Communications t L t i R3 pod EllWilllllllllllNilllilll
*""#' o conference Report Texas Utilities P T*' econ Prqect: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*'* -
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/19/85 subrt: Time-8:45 p.m. Conduit Support Testing Program Place J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Ms. van Amerongen regarding the Unistrut testing program at CCL. She informed Cygna that it was advisable to witness the test program at the end of this week or the beginning of next. Further information on the testing could be provided by Mr. Roland Yow, president of CCL (919/362-8800). Ms. van Amerongen stated that she is sending copies of the sample selec-tion criteria and the test procedures to Cygna. Cygna requested copies of the IRME for conduit C12004695 and sheet IN-FP-216 from Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-5-0910. Ms. van Amerongen said that these would be sent along with the test procedure. I l l l
,h,YJ)))/J))),w laj b '*** 1 1 l o,einbution N. Williams, U. wace, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Muss, W. norstman, l
.,2_
e ..._._,3 o
.4 . .-
e4,_ t
Communications Al i i Report 1116i111111111M1111111111111 compny: conference Report Texas Utilities X Teecon Propct: Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/22/85 subject: Time-Conduit Drawing Request 8:00 a.m. Place SFR0 J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated 1/17/85, " Conduit Drawing Request," van Amerongen and Russ participating. Cygna spoke to Ms. van Amerongen regarding the drawing request per the referenced telecon. After reviewing the documents sent from site, Cygna made the following requests:
- 1. Provide new copies of Sheet G-2, revisions 12 and 19 since the copies received were not readable; i 2. Provide copies of Sheets CSD-2, Revision 0, and JA-2 dated March 9,1981 since they were not received by Cygna; and
- 3. Review the dates of the revisions of Sheet CSD-14a to assure that Cygna received the required revisions.
Ms. van Amerongen stated that she would send out copies of the sheets for items 1 and 2 above. After a review of the revision dates for Sheet CSD-14a, she provided the following information on the revision dates: Revision Date 0 7/19/80 1 7/30/80 2 9/12/80 3 12/7/80 4 8/3/81 5 6/18/82 Given the above information, Cygna was able to determine that th e prcper revision of Sheet CSD-14a had been received, h, j (4"A ~-
/ajb 1 1 Distribution N. Williams, U. waae, d. van Amerongen, R. kissinger, d. Muss, w. nors w.an,
- 0. L _..; , C. T. ;i,, , J . O ' i;, L h ::" " ?j ^' * ""?
wesen
u ! Communications ALn i Report monummmu
"*""* Qnference Repon Texas Utilities R Telecon Protect: Job No l 84056 l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/31/85 Sobrect- Time-4 Cable Tray Support Design Review 12:45 p.m.
Place SFR0 Participants. of J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) B. Bhujang Gibbs & Hills W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated 1/31/85, 11:00 a.m., van Amerongen & Horstman The calculation sheet requested does not apply to Detail "11." The sheet from which the reference was made (SCS-216C, Set 1, Sheet 6) has been revised and the reference removed. Revision 1 now references SP-7 with brace as the " corresponding case of standard support." Ms. van Amerongen telecopied the referenced calculation sheet to Cygna. 4 4
~
Page of Signec QI!od/N *kl1111f2 1 1/ g m -
~
l /ajb 1 1 N. Williams, U. Wace, v. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Kuss, M. MO r 5 T,ma n , i o etnnution j
= 1 - - r i ess2. e n.._.11 n m4m,+ r:1m
- v. ..3, ,. ...t. , , . . .. .., __ _ _ - . - - , .--
Communications d( ci Report 11111111111111111111111111ll11 company: Texas Utilities o Xreiecon a conference Report Protect: Job No 84056 Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station D* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/31/85 Subject. Time Cable Tray Support Design Review 11:00 a.m. Pnece , 9 i J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) W. Horstman Cygna 1 \ Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested a copy of calculation SCS-215C, Set 7, Sheet 11, Revision 0. Ms. van Amerongen will telecopy it to Cygna today if calculation is available at site. l l 1 i l
/ ./ 'O
/ajb '" 1 1 l o tnbution N. Williams, U. Wade, d. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, d. Muss, w. norsTsan, l
". L.:.; , S . ':1, , 2. :' h , C . h ::' , "-^i ?' * \
. 4 Communications ALni Report IM111111111111tillilillM i
l
"*""Y Texas Utilities a Telecon a conference Report i
I Protect: Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 U*' Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/14/85 Subsect: Time ; Cable Tray Support Design Review 9:10 a .m. Place. Document Request B.K. Bhujang Gibbs & Hill W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested tne CVC and design review calculations for CitC 11062, revision 4. Mr. Bhujang will check if these documents are available, and provide copies to Cygna via J. van Amerongen. (
'l"" kc/)'[])j&Anx lajb 1 1 o,etevi on- N. Williams, U. Wade, J. van amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Mu s s , w . rio r s tman ,
. ___ , . -< , ,, ._ e . . _ . _ , , o _u _ . em m w w. , y , - w wg , -- = -, -- --- -- - , - - -
v . w.
1 Communications l Jt i '
- Report M11111tli ' ' ' - till
"*""* Texas Utilities conference Repon Xuee n Protect: Job No Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/13/85 Subrect: Time. 1 Inspection Package Request 12:45 p.m. -
Place. SFR0 J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Conference Report dated 6/29/84, " Cable Tray Support Change Paper Request," Warner and Horstman pa rticipating. Cygna requested copies of the inspection packages for the following cable tray supports: CTH 202 CTH 408 CTH 481 CTH 2602 CTH 2998 CTH 5807 Cygna wished to compare these documents with the information received per the request in the referenced conference report. Ms. van Amerongen replied that she would provide Cygna with the requested documents. f ,
/ajb 1 1 0.etnt>ution- N. Williams, U. Wade, J.r,,_ van Amerongen, o.._._s,
- g. Kissinger, d. Muss W. Norstman,
- , , . - < , e n __ 4 _ . re,_
EF e bbwuig g sur W T 5 w Brg } ww h
- iey w- w-- '=- y w --
, Communications t ( 6 i Repod M1lll18111111N11N11111111 company:
Texas Utilities c* Telecon o conference Report N 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 D8: 2/7/85
Subject:
Time Conduit Fire Protection Evaluations 10:25 a.m. Place. p Participants' of p p D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Patel to clarify some concerns regarding the evaluations of conduit supports for the application of the Ther-molag fire barrier. Cygna asked if it was possible for an addi-tional conduit to be installed on a support which also restrains a fire protected line after the support has been reviewed for the fire protection. Mr. Patel stated that Q.C. would have to sign off the Thermolag traveler when the fire protection was applied and would note any conduits that were not shown on the IN-FP drawing. If any conduit was attached after QC Thermolag inspec-tion, QC would also have to note the change on the IN-FP draw-ing. In both cases FSEG would be notified. Mr. Patel stated l that he would provide Cygna with the procedure number which spe-l cifies the above. Cygna asked why Section 3.2.3.1 of TUGC0 Procedure CP-El-4.0-49 i excluded any conduit spans or supports which have CMC's against them. Mr. Patel stated that this section only states that such cases must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. H With regards to the underrun analysis, Cygna asked if affected conduit sur ports were reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Patel replied that all pertinent CMC's were reviewed for any changes which affected the welds. Cygna asked if there was a list of CMCs' versus conduit supports. Mr. Patel said that no controlled log existed but an informal log existed in the conduit support group of FSEG. signe '
/a j b " 1 1 o innution N. Williams, U. waoe, d. van snerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Muss, M. norstman,
" . L.. . ; , C . T. A , 2. C'. ' i ; , L I ::" '^j ^' * * ^
Communications AL t i
- Report I
l compny: a conference Report l Texas Utilities R Teiecon Protect: Job No 84056 ) Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*5-Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/6/85 ! Suthect Time Conduit Amplification Factor 8:20 a.m. Place P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated 2/5/85,11:30 a.m.', " Conduit Amplifica-tion Factor," Huang and Russ participating. Mr. Huang telephoned Cygna to report that DMI-8c is the calcula-tion set referenced in the conduit amplification factor study. The DMI-8c calculations are for a Class 5 piping damage study. i 1 o.einooi.on Mhl N. Williams, u. waae, u. van amerongen, R. Kissinger, u. Muss, w. norstman,
/ajb 1 1
- - -- , . - < , re,2_ e . . . _ . _ , , n__u,. en. -
we u. w w v g y er s - -g y -- .. 1 -y
r .. COmmuniCDtionS L t i Report umal
*""# T*' econ
. Texas Utilities R a conter.nce n. port Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/15/85 Subject Tim.: Unistrut Testing Program 1:00 p.m. Plac.: J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac y Cygna spoke with Ms. van Amerongen regarding the Unistrut testing ! program currently underway at CCL in North Carolina. Per an offer extended by R.M. Kissinger, Cygna is planning to witness a portion of the testing. In preparation for visiting CCL, the following items were requested:
- 1. A copy of the test procedure; A copy of the criteria upon which the test samples were 2.
chosen; and 3 An update of the test schedule. Currently, Cygna is planning to visit CCL during the week of February 25, 1985, schedule permitting. Cygna also requested a conference call with Mr. Warner of Quality Control on Wednesday, February 20,1985 at 10:30 a.m., PST. Ms. ~ van Amerongen approved this with Mr. Warner and stated that she would respond on the above three requests.
] /ajb 1 1 Distnbution: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. Treby, . . , , o. u nso 2. ourwe s i, rroaect r i se , n. su ssinger_ _
r. l 1 mmunIC5tIOnS
"*""" conference Report Texas Utilities R Teiecon Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/18/85 Subject Time: Conduit Support Questions 10:25 a.m. Place: Per*icipants: of D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Patel about the fire protection calculations for conduit supports. In a review of conduit C12G03126, Cygna noted a discrepancy between the Inspection Report (IR) and Gibbs
& Hill drawing 2323-S-0910, sheet IN-FP-213a (INFP). The IR specifies CA-2a type supports on a portion of the conduit run while the INFP specifies CA-la supports. Cygna asked Mr. Patel which document was more accurate. He replied that the INFP was probably more accurate.
Cygna asked for the basis of support capacity for conduit sup-ports when used with fire protection. Mr. Patel stated that some of the CA type supports don't have a capacity, one just needs to meet the conduit span criteria. However, Table 24 of CP-EI-4.0-49 lists some support capacities based on added fire protec-tion. Mr. Patel stated he would provide Cygna with the calcula-tion numbers which validate Table 24. kh/A}]Lu& IaJb 1 1 Distnbution: N. Wliliams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. io . . surweii, rroJect r i se, n. m n "iuci
i Communications i 4L 6 i Report 1111llllllll14141111lll111llll Texas Utilities T* " a f confuence nepon Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/27/85
Subject:
Time Quality Control (QC) Inspections 10:15 a.m. CPSES Site Partepants: ' M. Warner TUGC0 N. Williams, J. Minichiello, J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac y Cygna spoke to Mr. Warner regarding cable tray and conduit support inspections and proximity criteria verification for embedded plates. Cygna had previously discussed how QC inspectors assembled an inspection package for cable tray support inspections. It was noted then that QC requests the package from the construction vault. Cygna asked how QC assembled a pa:kage of Gibbs & Hill generic drawings that were used to check the support. Mr. Warner replied that QC was on distribution for the Gibbs & Hill draw-ings, and therefore, on distribution for all CMC's and DCA's against those drawings. It was the inspector's responsibility to assure that his inspection package was complete which would require that he search through all applicable CMC's and DCA's. Mr. Warner noted that there were only two inspectors and through time, they acquired a familiarity with the support types and their requirements. He showed Cygna a list that an inspector had developed for his personal use. He could not assure that the inspectors verified that all applicable change notices were being used each time. Cygna asked whether QC ever verified that the change notices in the construction package were correct. He replied that he recalled several instances where construction was cited for incomplete packages, but he could not say whether it was a practice to check each package. D'a bu "~
${))))u O lajb
$.' Williams,'D. Wade,'J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D.
1 2 I anan N IeAhw I F IIit A Ma s enese I I l#roierT F 1 l9
1 Communications 4L t i Report 11111111111111111111n1111111 stem comments Oc7eNy Regarding the installation torque inspections of bolts for conduit supports, Cygna had previously asked what would happen if single bolts on non-vertical conduit supports weren't torqued to specifications. Cygna asked if such a situation would be noted as unsatisfactory. Mr. Warner stated that for all but the earliest installations, all bolts on each support were checked. He noted that an unsatisfactory on the inspection report wouldn't necessarily be checked. This would be due to construction accompanying QC on their inspections. If a bolt was not properly torqued, QC wouldn't mark it unsatisfactory, but would have con-struction immediately repair the bolt. Cygna asked Mr. Warner what span criteria QC would inspect to for a conduit which is supported on an LA support and is then sup-ported on an LS support. He stated that in all cases where there were conflicting criteria, inspectors would apply the more strin-9ent criteria. He stated that in the case noted abwe, the LA span criteria would be applied.
! Cygna stated their walkdowns of pipe supports had noted two instances where the proximity criteria for attachments to em-bedded plates was not met. Cygna stated that construction pro-cedure CPP-45 was the only document that could be found. Cygna asked what QC used to inspect to.
After reviewing QI-QP-11.10-1a (for Unit 2 conduit) and QI-QP-11.16-1. Attachment 21 (for Class 5 piping), Mr. Warner could find references to embedded plate inspection requirement only in the latter procedure. ( Cygna asked why an attribute for embedded plates was not shown on ! the cable tray and conduit support inspection forms. He replied that inspectors would only check to see if the. attachment confi-gurations were per the drawing requirements. Cygna asked if the proximity inspections were performed at the time of room turnwer. Mr. Warner reviewed QI-QP-19.5-1, "Sepa- ! ration Inspection for Unit 1 and Comon Buildings." No reference to embedded plates, except for measuring Hilti bolt / Richmond Insert spacing, were found. l i I I Page of l k m
p ._ e s Communications 4L 6 i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 I*'** " conference rem Texas Utilities .. X Project Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. 84056 Independent Assessment Procram - Phase 4 11/17/84
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review - 8:00 A.M. Weld Sizes - Gra nbury. TX
Participants:
of S.C. Chana. P. T. Huano Gibbs & Hill W. R. Horstman. J.'P. Russ. N. H. Willi m s Cyana Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Cygna explained that some further investigation into the weld undersize problem had been completed. In addition to the weld size being smaller on the constructi6n drawing than that used in the design, it appears that underrun effects are also applicable.
DCA 2365 documents the approval of smaller welds than those spe-cified in the design for frames as well as for SP-7. Gibbs & Hill has provided calculations to evaluate the effects of 1/4" weld size on SP-7 detailr. It now appears that the above con-siderations must be given to the welds on.other support types. In addition, Cygna provided a list of design changes for Gibbs & Hill review when considering the validity and possible effects of this concern. Cygna noted that the list, which follows, should be checked for completeness. The design changes that were listec are: CMC 32473 Alternate weld pattern for SP-4 CMC 82988 Tolerances on weld length for connection between channel and clip angle . DCA 3318 General comment requiring brace connection welds to withstand 25 kips j DCA 4854 Substitutes fillet weld for full penetration weld to attach beam to hanger member for ~ longitudinal hangers DCA 5677 Repair groove weld on longitudinal hangers by overlaying with fillet welds ! CMC 2055 Reduction in weld size for hanger to clip connection for SP-1 signeo V Page of A N. Williams, D. WadY, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. ! "'N _.__'10F5L"'"' 3* tre y,y . r.y g,
- a. auywwii,fvac Fiic s
F Communications 4L t i Repod 1111111lll1111111111H11111111 nem comments [cNy CMC 12132 Reduction in fillet weld size to 1/4" for brace connection of SP-7 with brace CMC 32456 Modified weld details for brace connections on SP-4, Detail "B", and longitudinal trapeze frames. This information nay have an impact on nany of the analyses per-formed in response to Cygna questions. It was agreed that a con-ference call with all concerned parties should be held on Monday, November 19, 1984.
- 2. Cygna has reviewed the G&H calculations which address the 1/16" reduction in fillet weld size (3/16" vs. 1/4") for Details F -
H. If the effects of eccentric loads are considered, the welds appear to be overstressed. The G&H calculations did not consider these effects. G8H inquired if the member was also overstressed. Cygna responded that for a 4'-9" cantilever length, the beam mem-bers for Details SP-7 and F - H are 4% overstressed. Cygna pro-vided the following list of details which appear to exhibit over-stress conditions in the weld and/or member. For 3/16" fillet weld without undcrrun: a) Details F - H without brace with 30" tray and neximum momment arm. b) SP-7 attached to embedded plate with 24" and 30" i trays. ! c) SP-7 with brace attached to embedded plate with 24" l and 30" trays. (G8H noted that allowable tray spans l for embedded plates is 7'-6".) d) Details F - H attached to embedded plate with 24" and 30 " trays. For 3/16" fillet weld with 1/32" underrun for all tray sizes: a) Details F - H b) Details F - H attached to embedded plate c) SP-7 attached to embedded plate d) SP-7 with brace attached to embedded plate Potential member overstress examples include: l l a) Details F - H with 30" tray l b) Details F - H attached to embedded plate c) SP-7 attached to embedded plate d) SP-7 with brace attached to embedded plate 1 l Page of i 2 3
Communications
-, AL i i Report 11111111111116ll11111111111111 Item Comments Ac n y
- 4. Cygna also pointed out that the weld reanalysis for Details F - H did not consider interaction of all the forces in the weld.
There was some discussion regarding whether this was necessary since the G&H approach is perhaps reasonable per standard engineering practice. Page of
' 3 mwnn -
u - Communications 4 AL i i Report imammilmisilmill I
*""" conference neport Texas Utilities X2 Teiecon Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/1/85 Subject Time: Dynamic Analysis of Cable Tray Systems 11:40 a.m. Place: R. Ballard, S. Chang, P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Actior By
Reference:
Telecon dated February 26,1985, " Calculation Request," Huang and Russ participating. l Mr. Ballard telephoned Cygna to inform them that the dynamic analysis of the five selected cable tray systems was complete. l He requested that Cygna review the calculations during the week I of March 4, 1985, but asked that if Cygna did, to be present in l the Gibbs & Hill offices on Friday, March 8, 1985. This was
- j. requested so that Gibbs & Hill lead personnel could be present to l respond to Cygna's concerns.
Mr. Russ replied that at the present time, Cygna's efforts were directed to preparing for the meeting between TUGCO, the NRC and l Cygna which was scheduled for March 14, 1985. Mr. Ballard added that the meeting may not be held. Mr. Russ stated that he would check with N. Williams on this, inform her of the completion of i the analyses and request that she respond on Cygna's schedule. In order to determine the manloading required to efficiently review the analyses, Cygna asked for some information on the l' volume of calculations and the size of the models. Mr. Huang noted that there were 600-700 pages of calculations. He broke the five systems down as follows: bM//f[Ato /ajb **1 2 D'ib* a N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D. Leong, S. Treby, rmn u. t a lis, d. nurwei s, vrogect n ie
Communications l
; 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 m
item Comments Ac$n y Number of Dynamic System Supports Freedom 1 31 489 2 49 813 , 3 29 301 4 23 220 5 22 388 He added that each analysis contained three Nastran computer runs: a static, a dynamic for frequencies below 33 hertz, and one for above 33 hertz. Cygna again requested the documents in the referenced telecon. Mr. Chang stated that he would send those to Cygna. l l \ l Page of 2 2 52 " _ - _ _ . . .--._ _ _. .__.___.-___ ..----. _ _._ _ . . ._. . . - - - -
m . .. u. . _ _ . = Riy Communications l f AL t i Report I 111111111111111111111111111111 l
*** Texas Utilities N T*'* con a conference Report Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Dat*: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/8/85
Subject:
Time: 1:00 p.m. Torsion In Unistrut Members Place: R. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna item Comments A n y Mr. Russ spoke to Mr. Kissinger regarding the results of Cygna's scoping study on the behavior of Unistrut P1001C3 members under torsional loads. Mr. Russ verbally transmitted the information on the attached sheet. The data on the S and P dimensions was not transmitted. Mr. Kissinger stated that a STRUDL analysis was being performed at Comanche Peak to investigate the effects of torsion on the Unistrut sections. The results of that analysis will be compared to the results of Cygna's study.
&h/)g}}l tg / aj b '*** 1 2 D'St"butioa: N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, D. Leong, iozo oi. 3. Ireoy, d. r. i ils, a. ourwe i e , r ruJect rise
l 1 Communicctions AL t i Report 111111111111lll111111111111111 Item comments AcDy Results of Cygna's Scoping Analysis for Unistrut Conduit Supports I Conduit Location Size & ofCenterpf Nunb er Rotati on S(in) A(in) O(PSI)3 O(DEG)4 3-3/ 4" A 36 24 32,029 12.6 3-3/4" B 36 24 23,427 9.6 1- 1-1/ 4" A 55 24 33,834 14.8
- 1. Analysis was based on a 2-span conduit with support spac-i ng , S . The P1001C3 menber of the CSM-6a type support was modeled as a cantilever with the brace attached at a dis-tance, I from ground. All moments at the P1001C3-brace connection were released.
- 2. The analyses considered two center-of-rotation locations:
A- The center of rotation was located at the shear center of the P1001 menber to which the conduit was attached. B- The center of rotation was located at the center of gravity of the P1001C3 menber.
- 3. Summation of the flexural and warping normal stresses at mid-span of P1001C3 menber (= 1/2).
- 4. Menber-end rotations about longitudinal centerline of P1001C3 menber at P1001C3-brace joint.
Page of 1020.01b
[,- 4L t i Communications Report m en .- i
* **"# )p Telecon Texas Utilities a conference n port Project' Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D* Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/19/84
Subject:
Time: 9:30 a.m. Cable Tray Frame - Base Place: Angle Connection Welds T. Keiss, M. Warner, D. Mercer (part-time) TUGC0 J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO) W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac r y
Reference:
Conference Report dated 12/18/84, " Cable Tray Review Questions", Kissinger and Russ participating. Cygna spoke to the TUGC0 personnel regarding the welds between cable tray frame members and base angles as described in the referenced communications report. Cygna asked which TUGC0 organization was responsible for overseeing the Brown & Root FSE-00159 series fabrication drawings. Mr. Keiss replied that the electrical group was initially responsible, but the civil structural group later took over responsibility. Cygna noted that the distance between the concrete face and the end of the frame channel is shown on the FSE-00159 fabrication drawing as 1-1/ 4" . Since this dimension is noted in the Gibbs & Hill design calculations, but is not shown on the Gibbs & Hill design draw-ings, Cygna asked how this dimension was arrived at for the fab-rication drawing. Mr. Keiss replied that the 1-1/4" dimension was based on the "k" dimension as shown in the detailing tables of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. Cygna asked Mr. Keiss if this dimension could vary from the 1-1/4" shown. He replied that it could. Cygna asked what the purpose of issuing CMC 82988 was. Mr. Keiss replied that the CMC was requested by the metal fabrication shop to ease cable tray support construction. Cygna noted that be-tween revision 0 and revision 1 of the CMC, that relaxed toler-ances appeared to be allowed for all support configurations. Mr. Keiss stated that that was true. He noted that revision 0 was not approved in the design review process, but that revision 1 was. Cygna asked if the configurations shown on sheet 1 of revisions 1 and later could be used for wall or ceiling mount-Signed: Page y or 2 i am:, , C. Wade, J. v66 Anmisns6n, R. KIS3inger, C. MC33, J. D 03 M. Distnbution: n. Mi Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell , Proj ect File
w Communications i 4L 6 i Repod 111 Required item Comments Action By i ng s. Mr. Keiss replied that they could be used in either configuration. Mr. Warner was asked what procedure, if any, was used for cable tray support inspections, prior to the issuance of QI-QP-11.10-2, revision 0. He replied that welds were inspected to Specifica-tion S-5201-106B. Mr. Warner noted that this specification does not address weld length inspections but does address weld returns to assure a full weld profile throughout the length.- He stated that procedure QI-QP-11.3 may also have been used to inspect supports but would have to verify this. Cygna asked what drawings were used to check the cable tray supports. Mr. Warner stated that the Brown & Root FSE-00159 fabrication drawings were used during the period of 1979 to 1981. Cygna noted that revisions 1 and 1ater of procedure QI-QP-11.10-2 state that the Gibbs & Hill drawings are to be used for support inspections. Cygna asked how these drawing were used to inspect the welds in questions when the required dimensions are not shown on the Gibbs
& Hill design drawing. Mr. Warner replied that the FSE-00159 drawings were used.
Mr. Mercer, who inspected cable tray supports in the 1979-1980 time period, stated that he used the 1-1/4" dimension as a maximum if the channel were attached to the outside of the angle leg. If the connection was to the inside of the angle leg, he used the "k" dimension as reported in the AISC manual . He added that this was per an engineering directive for cases where no dimension was shown on the design drawings for the connection detail in question.
- ygna noted the above statements by the participating TUGC0 personnel and stated that they would be discussed internally.
The following documents were al so requested by Cygna:
- 1. RFIC-EH-1842
- 2. Documentation from engineering indicating that the dimension in question be 1-1/4" or the "k" value.
- 3. All revisions of QI-QP-11.3 issued prior to the issuance of QI-QP-11.10-2, revision 0.
Page of teac ott
~ ~
F1 . . - Communications 4( ci Report 1 m= a conference Report
*"Y Texas Utilities p T acon Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*t': Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 12/18/84 Subject Time: Cable Tray Review Questions 9:45 a.m. Place: R.M. Kissinger TUGC0 J.P. Russ Cygna item Comments Ac By
References:
(1) Gibbs & Hill Calculation SCS-101C, Set 5, Revision 5. (2) Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20, Revision 9,
" Installation of 'Hilti" Drilled in Bolts".
(3) Conference Report dated 12/7/84, " Richmond Insert Allowables", Kissinger and Russ partic-ipating. (4) Conference Report dated 11/30/84, " Cable Tray Weld Details", Kissinger and Russ participating. Cygna spoke to Mr. Kissinger regarding Richmond Insert applica-tions and welds between cable tray frame members and the base angles. Cygna had noted that a one inch Richmond Insert may substitute all Hilti expansion anchors except a 1 1/4" x 13 1/8" Hilti Super Kwik Bolt, for Detail 1H. This substitution was allowed per note , 14d of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0901. Cygna stated that based on the newly revised allowables for Richmond Inserts (Reference
- 1), there appears to be no problem since the Richmond Insert allowables envelop the Hilti allowables. Cygna noted however, that no statement regarding minimum spacing of the two different anchorage types was provided on the drawings. Per Reference 2, a minimum spacing of 12-5/8 inches is allowed. If the spacing of the anchor bolts should decrease below the 15 inches required for Hilti installation to the minimum distance, the resultant bolt h/)j/[s /ajb ""* 1 2 ,
oistneutioir ' N'. 'Wil'liams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
. .. nw umen, a. ircuy, u. r. i i n, a. ourwe i, r ruacu r i s e
P
' Communications 4L i i Report ; Imellumilimitamim 8 tem comments [eUnTy loads may increase. Cygna requested documentation which ad-dresses the required spacing between Richmond Insert and Hilti expansion anchors used in this configuration. Mr. Kissinger stated that he would investigate the issue to determine the spacing criteria for such installations as described above.
Regarding the issue discussed in Reference 3, Mr. Kissinger stated that the normal spacings for Richmond Inserts is 15 to 16 inches. The reduced spacings noted in Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-S5-30 were provided for whip restraints and impingement shields. Such closely spaced patterns were reserved for these uses only. However, if in the tray layout or in a subsequent modification, the bolts in such a pattern were used by a cable tray support, a detailed analysis would be performed by the re-sponsible engineer. Cygna noted Mr. Kissinger's statements and stated that they would be reviewed. For the welds between cable tray frame members and the base angles, Mr. Kissinger referred Cygna to Mr. M. Warner of Quality Control (QC). Mr. Kissinger stated that Mr. Warner would be able to discuss the QC procedures used to inspect the welds in question. Page of soac ots
CorilmuniCOtions f,- Report
- 1 1 ~
A ii
. ll
\
"""# y Tc. con conference neport Texas Utilities Project Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/21/85 Subsect Time Conduit Support Tests /Cygna Letter 84056.041 10:30 a.m. Place P. Huang Gibbs & Hill J. Russ Cygna neauirea item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Huang regarding Gibbs & Hills' determination of the support dimensions and load point applications for the conduit supports being tested by CCL. He stated that Gibbs & Hill, working in conjunction with CCL, reviewed the original design calculations and selected the dimensions and load points. The results are contained in the CCL calculation package. Mr. Huang also had several questions regarding Cygna letter 84056.041. For Question 1, he asked what the meaning of " Rigid plate assumptions as well as prying action effects ..." was. Cygna stated that this was per a discussion with Mr. Huang and
- l. was Cygna's understanding of Gibbs & Hill's typical base plate l
analyses. He also asked if Reference 1 to Question 1 of Cygna's letter did not include evaluation of the embedded plates for moment connections. Cygna replied that the moment was considered, but was compared to allowable loads based on pinned loading assumptions. Mr. Huang stated that he would review the calculations. t-Mr. Huang asked what the intent of Question 7 was. Cygna replied that the intent was to have TUGC0 provide a formal reply on their j plan of action regarding the effect of underrun on all undersized welds. This was to be in addition to statements made by R. Kis-singer which indicated that weld evaluations would be made based on the results of the cable tray support as-built effort. Mr. Huang asked if Question 10 was TUGCO's responsibility. Cygna replied that that was true per Reference 3. i kk/JY if N. Williams, U. waoe, d. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, d. Muss, M. no r s ur.a n ,
/a.ib 1 I o,etnbution j 0. L...,, 0. '. 4 , J. O ' h, S. S m" , " rj"' e
, === i _m._ _ - . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ - , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . . . - . . . _ - - . . . _ , . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ , . . _ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ _
7 Communic 2tions 4( , i Report t limimimimulmitillil Requwed item Comments Action By In order to assess the Question 7, Mr. Huang asked that a copy of Reference 3 to that question be prwided. Cygna stated that a copy would be sent to him. 6 P Page of 2 2 1020010
Comriiunicationc dLn i Report 1111111111111111l18111111llll
'"'*"* Texas Utilities N T*' econ conference neport Project Job No 84056 l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 1/7/85 Sub i ect: Time Conduit Drawing Revisions 9:00 a.m.
Place Participants of J. van Amerongen (part time) 1UGC0 (EBASCO) D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna neau,rea item Comments Action By
Reference:
Telecon dated January 4, 1985,"AISC Commitments," van Amerongen and Russ participating. Cygna spoke to Mr. Patel to verify the procedure used in issuing new conduit support drawings or revisions to existing drawings. Mr. Patel stated that prior to the January 1979 - June 1979 time period, revisions to the Gibbs & Hill 2323-5-0910 drawing sheets were by DCA's and CMC's. Near January 1979, the responsibility for the designs of new and revised conduit supports was trans-ferred to CPSES site. At that time, the present format of the 2323-5-0910 drawing sheets was adopted. Any DCA's and CMC's against the conduit drawing sheets were incorporated in July 1979. Mr. Patel stated that Document Control was notified of these incorporations. Mr. Patel described the procedure for issuing new or revised conduit support drawing sheets as follows:
- 1. The drawing sheet in question is prepared and site calculations performed.
- 2. The drawing sheet and any calculations are sent to Gibbs &
Hill via a CPPA. The CPPA transmittals are recorded in a log.
- 3. Gibbs & Hill design reviews the drawing sheet and approval from Gibbs & Hill is noted by GTN. The GTN's are also i recorded in the CPPA transmittal log.
I Mr. Patel noted that the drawing sheets may be issued prior to engineering review. ( Signed e ' Page of lllJ M At A N. Williams, U. wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Mssinger, d.
/ajb Huss ,
1
- w. norsuran 2
o siribution m .- , .m , ess,_ e n..__,3 n- w , em LF S b b VII} g gs y b Vg j WW L v T w y w - -w - -- - y u -- L
Communications . 4L 6 i Report llllllll1lll11ll11166lll181lll AcYo$Yy item comments Cygna requested Mr. Patel to send Cygna a copy of the document which details the above procedure. He replied that he would supply Ms. van Anerongen with the procedure number so she could mail it to Cygna. Ms. van Amerongen stated that she would send the procedure to Cygna. She also noted that she was still investigating the questions noted in the referenced telecon. Page of c D oin
T Communications
; 4L t i Report i
company: Texas Utilities
- T.i. con a cone.r. nee n. port ProMct Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date: Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/21/85 subset rim.: Conduit Support Testing 7:30 a.m. Plac.:
Participants:
of J. Russ Cygna item comment. [cEn"Yy Cygna spoke to Mr. McBee regarding the conduit support test pro-gram currently in progress at CCL, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. Mr. McBee was informed that Cygna will be witnessing the tests of the CA type supports on Monday, February 25, 1985. N. Williams will be attending for one day while J. Russ will be attending for a
- minimum of one day depending on the test schedules. After reviewing the test procedure and noting its lack of description, Cygna felt it was necessary to witness the support tests.
l Cygna asked Mr. McBee how the support sample was determined and who determined the configurations and the load application points for the tests. He replied that the inspection packages were reviewed and a list of applicable support types was developed. Based on similarity of types and loading, TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill selected the types to be tested. However, there is no documen-tation available for Cygna to review. Gibbs & Hill then deter-mined the support dimensions and load application points to be used by CCL after reviewing the original design calculations. Mr. McBee stated that the test data should be available for review by Cygna. He also noted that it was okay to bring a camera as long as no other proprietary tests were being performed near the support test area. ( Cygna requested and received the following correlation between the CCL test numbers and the conduit support types. I Signed Page of
~~
D'*t"buten' N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.
. . , . ou, ii, rruseu r iie , a. r i n .nua i
- Communications , 4L t i Report 111111111111111111111111111111 stem comments [cNYy CCL Test Conduit Support Number Type G1T CA-la 62T CSM-6a G3T CSM-9 G4T CSM-12 G5T CSM-10a G6T CSM-11 G7T JS-9 G8T CA-2a(Type 3a)
Page of 2 2 1020 01b
Communications M i i Report g ...
"""* conteence Repon Texas Utilities " lec n Project. - Job No 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/4/85 Subsect Time-1:15 p.m.
Cable Tray Support Design Review Fabrication Drawings g Participants- of R. Kissinger TUGC0 J. Russ, W. Horstman Cygna Aequired item Comments Action By Cygna asked Mr. Kissinger to clarify an aspect of Cable Tray Support Installation Procedure ECP-10, Revision 6. Per Section 3.1.2, paragraph 13, an FSE-00159 support fabricati an drawing shall be revised if a support must be refabricated per i CMC or DCA. Cygna found several instances of supports within t ie review scope which were replaced with supports of a different type without the revision of the fabrication drawing. These supports are: Support No. Original Type CliC New Type 605 Case A1 1974, Rev. 1 Detail "A" (El-0500 s) j 2990 Detail "9" 11062, Rev. O Detail "A" t (El-0500 5) p 2998 Detail "5" 6114, Rev. 4 Unique (S-0904) Type per Cli : Mr. Kissinger agreed that per the current revision of ECP-10 a revised FSE-00159 sheet would be issued for these changes. How - ever, the indicated paragraph is a recent addition to ECP-10, a id if it had not been added at the time these supports were refabr l-cated, no revised FSE-00159 sheet would have been issued.
.o h hhjj{,& lajb 1 2 o,etnbui on N. Williams, U. waoe, J. van amerongen, g. Kissinger, d. Mu s s , w .- no r s tma n .
- . , . _m , , , , . _ e ..._._,3 o_ w . em We b w wi'3 5 *ir 8 ' ' * *J 3 *' *' '*7 *' --' -- 1 -w ---
[1-Communications 1 A (% i Report 111111111llllll111111111111111 item comments AcYoTYy Mr. Kissinger said that he would have someone determine which revision of ECP-10 was effective at the time these supports were refabricated and get back to Cygna with a response. He also indicated that the Unistrut Test Program at CC&L was in progress and would continue through early March. He is sending information on the testing to N.H. Williams. l l l l l l d Page of 2 7 n
':. . t
. Communications t AL t i Report memnmensma mec n g conference Rem Torac titilities Project Job No.
E# Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o ,,,. Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 o/1a/Ra Subject Time: 1:00 o.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review ,,,e, r,4hhc 1 Will NVP
Participants:
of B. K. Bhuiang. S. C. Chana. P. T. Huang Gibht A Hill J. P. Russ. N. H. Williams. W. R. Horstman Cyana Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Cygna letter 84056.019, Question 2.2, Support Type Detail "N" In Gibbs & Hill's response to the referenced question, calculation SCS-104C, Set 1, Sheets 105 - 120 were provided. These calculations attempted to justify the use of support detail "N" to resist longitudinal loads. Cygna asked for an explanation of the rationale used by G8H to justify this. Mr. Chang said that he believed the friction type clamps used on these supports would be able to provide longitudinal load carry-ing ability through friction and through a " locking" action which would occur if the tray slides through the clamp and causes the clamp to rotate and " dig" into the tray rails. In addition, Gibbs and Hill used reduced horizontal accelerations for the loading calculation based on their calculation of a fun-damental frequency of 2.5 Hz for the tray support system in the F longitudinal direction. This frequency falls on the flexible i side of the response spectrum peak and allows use of a lower acceleration. . Ms. Williams disagreed with the use of this method to reduce l_ applied loads. This doesn't consider the possibility of higher modes which may fall within the spectral peak, and she felt it was more reasonable to use the peak acceleration for the design. Mr. Horstman pointed out that Gibbs & Hill's calculation neglected the added stiffness of support no. 2602 at the end of l this tray run, which would tend to increase the system frequency. hkhj}}) & u nnn 1 9 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, rTo CouuukJ:wuLJWeauvwomuln
at Communications
, 4L 6i Report 111lll11111111ll11111111111111 stem comments [cNy Mr. Chang responded that he believed support no. 2602 (detail "W" drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) was as flexible as the detail "N" supports, since the trays rested on a C4x7.25 cantilevered off the wall.
Mr. Horstman noted that a review of the CMCs for support no. 2602 had shown that the C4x7.25 had been replaced with a TS4x4x0.375 and hence would be much stiffer than Mr. Chang assumed. Mr. Chang said that he had not checked for changes to this support in his review, but had simply assumed it was built per the original design. An agreement was reached that additional evaluation of the detail "N" and detail "W" supports will be performed by Gibbs & Hill. i l i e l l l l I I Page of 2 2
- _ _S2m . . _ _ __ _ - - _ _ _ _ - . .--
Communications 9 AL t i Report t- 111111111M111161811111111111 Telec n g Conference Report Texas Utilities Project Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84056 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/16/84
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Conduit Review Questions 8:00 A.M. Place: CPSES Site
Participants:
of M. Warner Brown & Root W. Horstman. J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Warner regarding the Quality Control (OC) effort in the area of working point deviations. Mr. Warner stated that QC had been seeking engineering action on the working point issue over the past year. In an evaluation of three cable tray supports in the Cable Spreading Room, QC issued a Nonconformance Report (NCR) against these supports. Some dis-cussion between engineering and QC followed as to whether this NCR should be applied on a generic basis. To further evaluate this issue, 18 to 20 other supports were sampled to determine if the problem was more widespread. All supports in this sample were unacceptable and NCR M84-000358 was written against them. l This NCR and the one written against the original three were resolved by issuing CMC's against the specific supports. To assure the adequacy of other supports in the plant, several l DCA's were issued that allowed tolerances in the working points. l QC instituted a sampling program using Military Standard 105-D to insure that these tolerances were not exceeded. A total of 200 P supports were sampled. 42 supports did not meet the criteria. Greater tolerances were received from Gibbs & Hill, such that the number of rejections in the sample fell below 42 but was still greater than the acceptable number of rejections. The effort to verify the extent of the deviations has been suspended in light of other actions by Region IV of the NRC as well as the conclusions of the TRT report. l Mr. Warner referenced Cygna to Tracking Item 140 (TI-140) and supplied the three attached documents. i l '"*""' Q f]hjf)1 0 A /ajb 1 1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. iosooi. Treby, J. Ellis, Project Plle
CACLE TRAY HANGER WORKPOINTS li PROBLEM - The_ concern'by-QC inspection personnel that inadequate work-point dimension and lack of tolerances for workpoints was first expressed in September of 1983.- At that time _Engineerings posi- . tion was that workpoint dimensions were provided as " reference" dimensions and were not significant. Numerous discussions between QC and Engineering from September 1983 through January 1984 did not result in any clarifying or additional criteria which QC could utilize-when inspecting cable tray hanger. member workpoints. As a result QC initiated NCR M84-000358 documenting workpoint vio-lations, workpoints not per design drawings.
' CORRECTIVE ACTION -
Engineering initiated DCA 20278 which established tolerances for workpoint locations for cable tray hangers as shown on drawings 2323-S-902 and 2323-S-903. Upon issuance of this DCA, QA Engineer-ing established a plan for sample inspection of comp,11ance of workpoint tolerance on cable tray hangers in all Unit 1 and Unit
'2 buildings. Engineering initiated DCA 20418 to establish toler-ance for workpoint locations for: cable tray hangers shown on all other cable tray hanger drawings. Following issuance of.this DCA, QA implemented a sampling inspection plan derived from MIL STD 105D.
This plan is a double sampling' plan, population size 10,000-35,000 with initial sample size 200 having a .40 AQL which translates to a confidence level of 2 % defectives 95% of the time. In the event the initial sample failed (4 rejects), additional sample of 200 to be inspected. (ACC 4, Rej. 5). QA provided direction for in-spection of the workpoint location tolerances as shown on DCA 20,278 and 20,418. Engineering in conjunction with Quality Engineering is to evaluate results to determine the effectiveness of the tolerance as applied to the as built workpoint locations. MEASURES TO PREVENT REOCCURANCE - Following-evaluation and analysis, Engineering will establish additional tolerances as. required for all workpoint locations. W
suy-tos/ l lO Ah O llLillh5 bhNt:,M AllNb LUMt'AN I
*~
OFFICE MEMOR A NDUM T. _ A. Vega _ . men nose. in. October 31.1984
'i senci _ . _ . _ _ . CPSES N.RC Inspection Report 8_4-16 Tracking item 140 Cable Tray Hangers This item identifies instances where cable tray hangers were installed by craf t to conditions other than those specified by design documents and inspections performed by QC did not identify and document these conditions. The following i actions have been taken by QC and QE to address this item of non-compliance:
1.The specific problems with the cable tray hangers (CTH) have been resolved by the issuance and completion of corrective actions for NCR's M 84-01834. M 84-01835 and M 84-01836. i 2.The details associated with this item of non-compliance indicate that 92 CTH's were inspected by the NRC with comments being provided on 15 of these supports. Of the 15 CTH's identified in thjs item,12 were dispositioned use-as-is and 3 hangers were reworked. 3.To determine if other CTii's had problems similar to those identified ! in this item of non-compliance all CTH's in the Unit 1 Reactor Building having a design where a combination of welding to embed plates and i Hilti bolts was used for attachments were re-inspected. This attachment design was selected for inspection since a common element existed with l CTH's 6591. 6598 and 5499 identified in the inspection report. The results I of this walkdown inspection indicated that all CTH's were installed in l
-, accordance with specific engineering approval and met drawing l requirements.
1 Since the balance of problems identified in this item of non-compliance are I diverse. an evaluation to address generic implications, if any, on Unit 1 CTH's has been initiated. It is anticipated that this evaluation will be completed by November 30, 1984 at which time an additional response on this item of non-compliance will be provided. C. II. Welch i y TUCCO Site QA Supervisor CHW/lj cc: D. N. Chapman S. L. Spencer J. T. Merritt M. D. Warner J. D. Ilicks 1
( -___. 41H Ro
- W W C9 %fjQll p -. y g 7 ---- m y
,DChnAu4tb c C 7 ts rc,wa & Sc up.M r . . . 42 a Sapion 7A*/ fQ D iSoGrl kl.? AS Bsnt, WP l Di TA rt s (ve:,n)
NL lGl v lTH
- I)%a a6 h.? Tca R AM1 _
Di1 K /Be wPe ntru L s " 3Y4 "r'i?YW5'!l$b
~
4"rl" - l FRu lfeo 6 5 454 0;1 l/s,- w rr. o ,p t 2
$ 0.? 4 'r'N!$N puA 47 /"rl" 2 %'
2 RBt /P32
?'l?'iVE99} CaseO<lw1c,"Atr i 0044 Yi$'YN' No% 2" 3 RarlEDb 2 C'
3 10 4 " Ocr1lcla.
+ ml Ace ier 4 %Wz' nes x DaHlde;c 2 6502 'r'04'iz#8 ReA39 6" 6W S Ran /8ao "
l 2# 2 'At SP7olas l"b"" ALT
& RBo /E40 t 50 2 ?$?$b M u40
\
2" 2V4" S P7 a / M l 'G ' At.T 7 56r /173 240 ?$/$1 Rm 5I It 4 I 'l5e?N! Rm93 2 2Vtl i Det k' l c19 8 2. 8 S&r / Poo 1499 b!N$ Rm B3 2" 2 %' Cw Al "G' Avr I 9 SGr/8tO 2 S6Il852 4107 #$$! $. Rn IO3 2" 2U" Dn S l d 9
- to 2
'$ $ !c ? Rm 103 2" 2 sat' Dn 5 / c19' SRI lRS2 6260-ll C' b lit" De1 G l cleo 2 St,I/832 248I 'b-]$$s Rm %.
12 W$ Rm83 2* 2 Yk" SP4-l"F"Aa I
/3 SGI/810 le7I 2.
L.I
- 10 $ ~ >
% 2s5 (, " 74ao ocr a / d .9 f4 Aus/enz 7zo s ry.c - 2,, ,
Is Ausleoz. 6szz '%l* 'd Rm z<o W% 6'4 " Der R /d o s 2. ca 34" sp4 / p m I u, Aut/esi s922 McM9 b . zi9 1688 I'N f*9$ Rm 269 2" 2. Y GP4 / F m- l
/7 Au./s.31 "$ a [Ia?dy b'/Eg O l IB#f D N'[M em 2r(, 2" Aum/s31 & go e
/g fo l 4 u - 7 e.4 - o a -s rst-ig e tem #83 (3 9 ,M. A4 / ort .5 I
/9 Aut/74o o,e"
- z".:t 9%a cc. p __ awu a #
- r. I ce-7 3 oo-3 24" f- 7 ** " w/Bre e H a o, 20 A01!790 [*470 rs e - 105 Pm 180 "
b" ~/ A D#4 I 199 E = l7 N. l*T A-2/ kd* [790 sp7w/rin/6Aa.r
$54 Y:,cP77[#cm i74 2" 2.'4" 1 22 Aum/79o 39 2 Y,c# [- T@ em i 74 6' ' 6 'Ii> ~ S' Dc,'T-~ 4 l 23 Aam /77o S'P4 'Def F ALT I c 6 = 744 4 nc - ,7 3 pm I' 3 c." Z 36 "
/4 cc / 778 14 8 6Y" SPZ/ d [3 2g, (*c / 778 149 g Rm ti3 6' 4 33C,1 D[c $',$r-[^' gen usa ([ t 1. "l h " sp4 / gos coNu l
/c ec /7 7a Me" kev'penousa (; *I" ve" s?A (uns csan n_
ee h rs 2924 z * " " ' z '' 21 Sc.el,
't'.:/ '.% , e"' [. 1 z... %,1 Q, 2.
zg ec.lem z . w .t. 4 2* 2 Glit." Si'7w/Ba l'C' At 7 L. 29 PB:lF&b 'I 7 5 I 1u tas
?" 2/"3 4 SP lu/M l"l' A L 7__ L 3c RF1lSOE 4 7L 5 'OrN$$ ' 6 44" t- t .'W d J J (
- d * *'V #/ 3 8 2 " er 'M *'
2 *n " Dl1Kld.'m.4 nsra 2 2.' vPedean II779 s t o hr e ro i < JI RR2/8tO o r st i M1YlerwN aon. 2 32 Ra?/M 0 I760 '/iYd'i ' ' ' ' ~ ~ r I* I,a voo in 5W" l' I V4 ' 98 s PC is As4 t of t l 's* *~J (,o e,~) t 2
- t de n M
- - a l' et sif W* hTC Bf u?It Ulf
- 3) $$ElfivD Il ifC f .s e /47 2 !
ll]86 tiret ssil
*M n7 ( * ! 2 9 &f }" Di1ClMu'43ff
.S4 ROI NO 117M3 */Ob5 ' Yo'l?.'.!)~ 'lbllT DE1elN"!Es*$r" 33 RR 2/R/10 & \
'b'l',$1 6" 1 341" bt i H l d o9 34, 251ff!O IIPtI 2" ? 'A!" i S P 7altr e /"E ' ALT l 3JRB2lP&O 1191/ 'l$rDi$' ' i
,..~....
r- " ~v w _ _ _ _w. - _ _ _ _ , _ _. . ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ DCA G 204 t0 ~1 i .t 5 .
- dis Grl KJ.P AS Bud SuPrtRT TYPE d Derass(/,.ur) N i 3!A /61, CTH
- DRwas
- TaeRAWce R1P I -S!52/790 76SI 5'0$I' 2" 25Ai 3p1../M "e w r L
*!$3b "# #)
6" 'J':- / Vin" () /& 2 2 .Sn 2lSta /o/62 2 Rasins 42 W A *?;1 ' % u G / 6," - I's / - I 4 % tu M .'h 2 YO'.Tst, R" B3 "*' LT* Ri u.m (
~
D"df, S '" + 2 4 [6Gr/sa todas s sozlast isioi n?.*iA e- se ~ r ='"* w u.o -1. e"" z r,. _ 7 8 9 to ll 12
/3
/f -
/5 .
17
/B 19 2a El 22 23 24 25 14, 21 r-28 29
> Jo 31 32 33 J4 -- , 35 34 -
\
\ ..
37 ,. _ M - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
P e Communicatigns
, 4L 6 i Report summmmmmma Tawne tit 414 t ime Y Protect: Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o ,,,. Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 , mac Subsect: Time Conduit Support Review - Open Items
" ^^*^
p,,,, Torsional Capabilities of Unistrut (run Participants - of
- 9. Eietinner Tilfirn N. W1111ame runna Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna's review of conduit support designs has noted instances where torsional effects due to longitudinal loads were not con-sidered. Cygna has performed a study to evaluate these effects on the integrity of the longitudinal conduit supports. The study and its conclusions, as discussed below, indicates a need for further evaluation, not only of the support designs, but also of conduit stresses and anchor bolts used in connection detail CSD-la.
In the design for longitudinal loads, no consideration was given to torsional effects induced in the support due to either the ec-centricity between the conduit and the main member (P1001C3) or the eccentricity at the connection (P2815) between the brace (P1001) and the main member. Although the effects of conduit eccentricity on main member bending was considered, the potential effects of torsion due to member eccentricities was never inves-tigated. H To assess the system behavior of the conduit and Unistrut support l due to longitudinal loading in the presence of member eccentric-ities, Cygna constructed a finite element beam model and per-formed a conservative preliminary analysis of a conduit supported - by three multi-directional supports (Type CSH-6a). The analysis showed that system behavior is quite evident. Since the bending stiffness of the conduit is so much greater than the torsional stiffness of the main member, virtually all torsional moment due to conduit eccentricity was absorbed by the conduit and very ! little torque was transmitted to the torsionally flexible Uni-strut main member and its cantilever support. Signed V j~ Page of J1) 1 Af M
, 1 ints s ,
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen. R. Kissinger, J. Russ, G. Bjorkman, S. l **'* Trabv. J. Ellit. S. Burwall. Pentact r11a
Communicatisns 4L i i Report I lill!IllllH111111111111till item Comments AcSNy In contrast to the low torque developed in the main member between the conduit and the cantilever support, considerable torque was developed in the main meder between the conduit and the connection to the brace due to the brace eccentricity about the center of rotation of the main member. Depending upon the assumed location of the center of rotation of the main member,* the rotations at the end of the main meter ranged from 10' to 15*. The combined normal stresses (bending plus warping normal) at the most highly stressed location on the cross section ex-ceeded the maximum allowable stress allowed by AISC (0.6 x 33,000 psi = 19,800 psi) and in the latter case by AISI (0.6 x 45,900 = 27,540 psi).** However, in reality these large rotations will not occur since the P2815 connections can develop moment resist-ance about an axis perpendicular to the pin axis. Regarding this support, Cygna has the following concerns:
- 1. The manufacturer has stated that Unistrut com-bination members have not been designed to resist torsion.
- 2. A P1001C3 Unistrut met er is a co21 nation of triree P1000 meters j oined by intermittent resist-ance spot welds on 2 to 3 inch centers such that its cross section possesses no axis of symmetry.
As such, the evaluation of the torsional proper-ties and the internal distribution of stresses due to torsional loading of a P1001C3 member would re-quire an extremely detailed analysis.
- 3. Torsional moments and conduit longitudinal forces are applied through one of the P1000 members and resisted by another P1000 member to which the brace is connected. Thus, the spot welds j oining the members are subj ected to a combined state of shear and tension of an unquantifiable magnitude.
- For twisting only, the center of rotation of the P1001C3 was assumed to occur at either the C.G. of the entire section or the shear center of the single P1000 member to which the con-duit is attached. Torsional stiffness and torsional stresses were conservatively based on this same single P1000 member to which the conduit was attached.
** These are not necessarily the correct allowable stresses.
They are the maximum allowable stresses allowed by the code for members satisfying very specific conditions. Page of ioto oit
- -- :. v Communic tions i 4Ln i Report M1111111111M111111111111 ltem
- Comments Ac n y 4 Resistance spot welds are designed to resist only shear and not the tearing type tension loads which must be developed to transmit from one P1000 mem-ber to. another both torque and tensile reactions forces'at the brace connection.
- 5. To resist the rotation of the P1001C3 member, the brace connection P2815 must resist bending about an axis perpendicular to the pin axis. This con-nection was not designed or load-rated for this moment.
The results of the analyses performed by Cygna are not to be construed as lim! Led to the support type analyzed (CSM-6a). The studies were performed to evaluate and illustrate the ef fects of torsional loadings on Unistrut member and connection components. The results should be considered in all cases where such loads occur and where spot welds are used to transfer loads other than shear. Given the intent of the analysis, i.e., to evaluate the ef fect of torsion on Unistrut components, Cygna has not examined the effects of the torsion at the conduit stresses and the behav-ior of the support-conduit system. Such behavior was referenced (Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-69371, dated August 23, 1984) in re-sponse to question A2b of Cygna letter 84056.015. This response indicated that the anchor bolts used for CSD-la type connection detail were acceptable due to the behavior of the support conduit system. In light of the above results, Cygna believes that these areas should be investigated further. For the reasons stated cbove, which arise from the composition
~
and construction of the 91001C3 member and the configuration of the connections, Cygna believes that the calculation of a safe load carrying capacity cannot be made in accordance with the provisions of either AISC or AISI. Therefore, a safe load carrying capacity must be established by testing of the actual support configurations and their variations. {" N. Williams will send to R. Kissinger more details on the stresses from Cygna's analysis as soon as possible. I Page of L somom
Communications AL Report I nummamme t i c ~ "r ,.... .,..,4
- r- c,c - -
4.. Project Job No. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 i n m ma Subject Time: nn AM Cable Tray Support Design Review p,,c,; Discussion of Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 Responses roere e4+.
Participants:
of DT Wi n a nn C_P Phann F.4 hhc 1 W411, NYP
.1. van Amarnnnon FRARen T_ Kaiec Tilr,En NW M4114mme U D un re t ma n runns Required item Comments Action By A discussion was held between Cygna, Gibbs & Hill and TUGC0 on outstanding items and responses to Cygna's Cable Tray Support Design Questions.
- 1. Support Type SP-7 with Brace The tolerances on brace slope given in CMC 6187 were not consid-ered in the design calculations. This CMC was design reviewed b)
Gibbs & Hill, NYC, but no calculations were ever generated. Gibbs & Hill will consider the design impact of this CMC, and provide calculations if needed.
- 2. Support Types 01 and D 7 A. Nastran Analysis, provided by Gibbs & Hill to justify using reduced horizontal accelerations, considers a series of identical Di supports in the system. Cygna feels that this may not be a good representation, since Di supports are very stiff horizontally, the system has a higher natural frequenc) ..
than systems of trapeze supports. The results of this analy-sis would not be valid if a system is supported by a mixture of Di and trapeze type supports. P.T. Huang responded that in areas where Di supports are used, the tray run will be close to a wall and only Di or SP. 7 type supports would be used; without any trapeze supports. Cygna showed an example on dwg 2323-El-0713-01-S where a tra) 2 run is supported supports bytype). (trapeze several DP.T.iHuang supports intermixed responded that with thisAIs a enne421 emea snA wnulA nnt ha fauna nienuhnen 4n *kn n1mnt { ] '
) ler 1 A Destnbution; N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, R. Hess, W. =* Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications 4L Report 7 6 i 1111111lll18111111141ill1111ll stem comment. [cioN B. In Cygna's opinion, there is no simple way to verify that this is an isolated case, so the use of a system of identical D1 supports is not valid for a generic study to qualify this support type. We will add the issue to the Generic Items list, "How to determine what is a good representative model of a system of supports." C. Cygna asked what would be done for a support which must be reevaluated for fire protected weights exceeding 35 psf. The added weight would reduce the system frequency, and an analy-sis which used reduced accelerations based on a given fre-quency would not be valid, i.e., loads could not be linearly increased based on added weight, but would also have to be increased based on reduced frequency. Tom Keiss responded that the Fire Protection Evaluation Group would check the support based on the peak spectral accelera-tion and reanalyze the support rather than referring back to the generic design for Di . They would only resort to a fre-quency dependent analysis if the support could not be quali-fled based on the peak acceleration. D. Cygna asked why the calculations provided for the D2 base connection angle, using the transverse load reactions from the Di analysis, neglected the pull out from both beams acting in phase. S. C. Chang showed that pullout was considered from both t_ levels, but since for one level, the net compressive force l from dead load plus vertical seismic load exceeded the pull-l. out, a resultant force of zero is used. Compression in ex-cess of the pullout was not used to reduce other tensile forces due to the applied bending moment. Cygna has no other questions on the design of support type D. This question is closed, contingent on the resolution of tke generic issue introduced above. f l l E. P. T. Huang stated that it would be possible to perform a i multi-span analysis with a mixture of support types to re-I solve this issue. N. H. Williams suggested that this matter be postponed until the discussions are held on the generic issues at a later time. F. P. T. Huang pointed out that Cygna should note that the NASTRAN analysis used for D1 supports does use the 10% close-ly spaced mode combination technique, see output page 30. Page of 4 4 1020 otn
B Communicstions 4( t i Repod
! 1116ll111111111111111111111lll Requred item Comments Action By
- 3. Support Type SP-4 Specific calculations for individual cases are being reevaluated by Gibbs & Hill and will be re-submitted to Cygna on 10/26/84.
- 4. Support Type L-Aa, No. 481 Cygna noted from their field inspection that the incorrect mem-bers were installed for the lower braces on this support. A single L3x3x3/8 was used for each brace, where the design calls for a double L3-1/2x3-1/2x3/8.
Tom Keiss will investigate the matter to see if any existing documentation (i.e., CMC's, inspection reports, NCR's etc.) reflects this error. If no justification is found, this support will have a CMC issued against it and the appropriate design review will be performed.
- 5. Generic Issue on Longitudinal Supports with Transverse & Vertical Loads Gibbs & Hill provided calculation for case L-C4 (considered to be the governing design) including transverse and vertical loads.
These added loads are based on a tributary tray length derived from the support's stiffness relative to a normal C4 support. Cygna presented Gibbs & Hill with the results of a preliminary analysis showing a comparison of the reactions for a five span tray model for static and dynamic analyses. These results showed that for static loading, the softer support, (i.e., the longitu-dinal type) supported less load than the stiffer support, (i.e., tranverse type) but for a response spectrum analysis, the loads were approximately equal, independent of support stiffness. Cygna and Gibbs & Hill could not reach an agreement on what e tranverse and vertical tributary spans should be used to design the longitudinal supports. Cygna will study the issue in more detail and provide a firmer position to Gibbs & Hill at a later date.
- 6. Support Type Sp-7, and Details E-H Design Changes Cygna indicated that additional discussion will be needed on this matter. However, the Cygna project team member responsible for this discussion is ill and cannot be present today.
Page of so20oib
Communications 1 4L i i Repod 11111lll11ll161111111111111111 Item Comments Ac y
- 7. Tray Spacing Requirements Tom Keiss provided a copy of Gibbs & Hill specification ES-100 Cygna will review this to determine what the tray spacing re-quirements are, and if there will be a potential effect on sup-port designs.
l l i l l r Page of
.. __ 2 0 ' # _ . _ . . _ .
r Communications
. 4L 6 i Report -/ 15m11111111m11111m1m T * " conference Report Tavat utilitiac x Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/13fg4 Subject Time: 3:10 P.M. Cable Tray / Conduit Review Questions ,,, rP9F9 91tp
Participants:
of S.C. Chana, P.T. Huana Gibbt A Hill W.R. Horstman. J.P. Russ. N.H. Williams Cvgna Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Conference Report dated 11/13/84, " Cable Tray Support Design Review ...." S.C. Chang and W.R. Horstman parti cipating. Cygna discussed the following items with the personnel listed j above.
- 1. Evaluation of SP-7 and SP-7 with Brace for 1/4" Inch Fillet Weld!
Cygna received calculations for support types SP-7 and SP-7 with brace for a 1/4 inch fillet weld. Both the generic calculations, which show revised capacities of the supports, and the specific l calculations, which analyzed supports that do not meet the l generic capacities, were received by Cygna. The analysis for specific supports was based on field walkdowns which verified weld length, cantilever length, tray span, member size, tray width and the presence of thermolag. All applicable CMCs were used. Cygna asked how the number of SP-7 type supports was verified. Gibbs & Hill was not aware of the process as it was F performed by TUGC0 personnel. Cygna will discuss the process ! with TUGCO. Cygna asked if weld underrun was considered. Gibbs & Hill replied that they had not considered it. Cygna will also discuss the applicability of the underrun with TUGC0. Status: Cygna to review calculations and investigate SP-7 research and underrun applicability with TUGCO. signed. Page of N. Wbliams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, m 'a J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
C Communications i AL t i
- Report
/ 11lllllllllllll181111111llll11 item comments [cDy
- 2. Evaluation of Multiple SP-7 with Brace Base Angles Cygna received calculation from Gibbs & Hill.
Status: Cygna to review above calculations.
- 3. Evaluation of Detail F-H Base Angles and Anchor Bolts Cygna received calculations from Gibbs & Hill.
Status: Cygna to review above calculations.
- 4. Evaluation of 3/16 and Fillet Weld for Details E-H Cygna received calculations from Gibbs & Hill.
Status: Qygna to review above calculations.
- 5. One Bolt Richmond Inserts for Support Type E 3 Per calculations shown in the referenced Conference Report, Gibbs
& Hill stated that the two-bolt connections will still govern the cut-off elevations for the case-by-case review of type E4 supports. A check of the 33 E4 supports shown on sheets 2 and 3 of SCS-215C, Set 6, showed that 12 supports must be evaluated.
These evaluations are on hold pending the results of further investigation by Gygna into the working point issue. Status: Cygna to investigate working point issue.
- 6. Weld Size on Detail K Supports
Reference:
Calculation SCS 104C, Set 1, sheet 95a, revision 8; and, Drawing FSE-00159, sheets 763 and 764. A 1/4 inch fillet weld is specified for the connection between the C3X5 and the web of the C6X8.2 on the FSE drawing. The referenced calculations considers a 5/16 inch fillet weld. The 1/4 inch weld is adequate without consideration of underrun, but Cygna wished to note the documentation discrepancy. Status: Open pending resolution of investigation on underrun as described in Item 1, above. Page of. 2 2 10M 01b
e Communications y 4L t i Report 1111111111111 0 111111111111111
**" Conference Repn Texas Utilities X Project: Job No.
84056 Comanche-Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/14/84 Subject Time: N/A Cable Tray Conduit Review Questions Place: CPSES Site
Participants:
of T. Keiss TUGC0 W. Horstman (Part-time). J. Russ Cyana Required item Comments Action By i Cygna discussed the following items with Mr. Keiss.
- 1. Weld Underrun Cygna asked Mr. Keiss to provide the effective dates of DCA 2365 and the procedural changes which eliminate the weld underrun.
Mr. Keiss will investigate this issue. Status: TUGC0 will investigate the effective time frame for the reduction in weld size and underrun.
- 2. Detail SP-7 Investigation for 1/4 Inch Fillet Welds Cygna asked Mr. Keiss how the listing of all SP-7 type cable tray supports was developed for Gibbs & Hill's investigation for 1/4 inch fillet welds. He stated that the FSE-00159 drawing sheets l were scanned for SP-7 type supports and the support number noted. These supports were then checked for CMC's. The CPPE CMC
- log was updated to incorporate all CMC's listed as "NI" on the DCC listings. The CPPE log is still uncontrolled however.
- 3. Working Point Investigations Cygna questioned Mr. Keiss on the working point investigations.
He was asked to describe the process and provide Cygna with the Quality Control (QC) procedures for the investigations. He stated that QC, using the working point tolerances provided by Gibbs & Hill, inspected a number of supports. This investigation showed some supports were outside the provided tolerances but were not evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Rather, revised l D**"" " [] 1sh /ajb 1 2 l N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, W. Horstman, S. Treby, im oi. _ j . t i l i s_ , p. nu rwe l i , Progect tile _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Communications
; 4 L .a i Report illlilllllilllllllllillillllli Requwed item Comments Action By tolerances were developed but have not been released from the design review process. The working point evaluations have been suspended pending the completion of the EBASCO as-building ef-forts of cable tray supports. If any working point violations are discovered, they will be evaluated at that time.
Cygna asked if the working point analyses results were included in the evaluations of supports for the addition of fire protec-tion. Mr. Keiss replied that they had not. Status: TUGC0 to provide Cygna with the QC procedures for the working point inspections.
- 4. Component Modification Documentation for Support Number 481 Cygna asked Mr. Keiss if he had found any calculations showing the acceptability of using reduced bolt embedments for support 481. He replied that he had found TWIX 12307 which stated that the CMC 2635 was being design reviewed at the site. Mr. Keiss also stated that he would look for the CVC for CMC 2635. A new revision of this CMC is being issued to note that the longitu-dinal braces for this support are single rather than double-angle braces. Cygna will receive the CVC's for this revision when issued.
Status: TUGC0 to provide CVC's for the appropriate revisions of CMC 2635.
- 5. Installation of Cable Tray Supports on Surfaces with Topping Cygna asked Mr. Keiss if the cable tray support construction
[ group would be aware of topping when installing tray supports on ! floor surfaces. He stated that they should be aware since there are signs posted at those locations where topping occurs. l Y' Page of 2 2
t Communications
? 4L i i Report immummmemumm Company: O Conference Report Toyae liti1i t i oc g Telecon Project Job No.
84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,, Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 3/7/gs subject: 10:35 a.m. Document Request - Place: Cable Tray & Conduit Support Inspections spuo og
Participants:
J. van Amaronnen TUGC0 (ERASCO) J. Rust Cyana Required item Comments Action By
Reference:
Conference Report dated 2/27/85, " Quality Control (QC) Inpsections," Warner, Williams, et al. participating. Cygna spoke to Ms. van Amerongen about Quality Control (QC) inspection procedures and cable tray weights. During the above referenced discussion, Mr. Warner of Quality Control (QC) stated that prior to Mechanical QC's involvement, Electrical QC handled the inspections of raceways and supports. In order to more fully understand the history of the inspection l process, Cygna requested that Ms. van Amerongen provide Cygna ! with a historical set of procedures used by Electrical QC when i inspecting cable tray and conduit supports and raceways. ( Cygna also requested weight data on the following cable tray segments:
- T120ABC20, 21, 22, 23, 24 T120SBE85 T12GABF26 I T12KSBE84, 85 86 T130SF005 T130ACA36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 l
T130SCA48 l T13GACD23, 24, 25 26 T13KSCB44, 45, 46, 47, 48 l signe ( Page of N, Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, D. Leong, S. iom oi. Trebs J. Ellisn_ S. _ Barw211n_PmFxe2 ffHa _ _
[ r Communications
. 4 Lt t i Repod .j lillilitilllllililillinilli stem comments AcEn"Yy Cygna requested the following data for the tray segments listed abwe:
A. The tray weight. B. If the tray is fire protected, the total weight of tray and fire protection. C. If any tray segment weight from B. abwe is greater than 35 psf. any support eyaluation calculations that exist. Ms. van Amerongen stated that she would prwide Cygna with the abwe items. l l Page of 1020 01b
l Communications U t i Report
> mammanum Tavne lit i li t i ac Y Project: Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,; Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 13fiafg4 Subject- Time: 2 15 P.M. l Cable Tray Conduit Review Questions p,,, I r_PRF9 Rito
Participants:
of R Y_ Rhiviann .1 f' rhonn C,i hhc 1 Mill M_ Rarry, U D Mncetman, .1 D Disce rynna Requwed item Comments Action By Cygna discussed the following items with the Gibbs & Hill personnel listed above.
- 1. Alternate Detail 1 Cygna had noted that the gage distance used in the analysis of the single bolt base angle given to Cygna on November 13, 1984 was not the minimum. Mr. Bhujang stated that the analysis with the correct distance was presently being run.
Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide Cygna with results of analysis using proper gage distance.
- 2. Controlling Load Case for Base Angle Analysis Cygna had noted that the loads used in the single bolt base angle analysis were not the controlling load case. Cygna requested that Gibbs & Hill provide documentation for the controlling load case. In regard to the controlling load case for Alternate
# Detail 1, Cygna noted that the detail may also apply to those connections using one Hilti bolt. Mr. Bhujang stated that it only applied to those details listed on drawing 2323-S-0903.
Status: Gibbs & Hill to prepare calculations for controlling load case for base angle analysis. Signed. C Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Hess, J. Russ, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. m o'a Burwell, Project File
i Communications I-AL t i Report 11111111111111111111111111llll l item comments AcENy 3.- Contact Plots Cygna asked for plots of the area of contact between the base angle and the concrete for the base angle analyses. Mr. Bhujang stated that such plots were not available. Cygna will plot the contact surface from the nodal displacement output.
- 4. Bolt Stiffness Cygna requested justification for all the bolt stiffness used in the base angle analyses. Gibbs & Hill said that they would provide these.
Status: Gibbs & Hill to provide justification of bolt stiffness.
- 5. Detail 5 Gibbs & Hill is presently evaluating Detail 5.
Status: Open. Page of 2 ? 1020 01b
Communications 0 4L t i Report 6 r 111111111111111111111111111111 Compnr T*'* con Texas Utilities X Conference Repon Project Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 11/14/84 Subject Time: Cable Tray Conduit Review Questions 3:30 P.M. CPSES Site S.C. Chang Gibbs & Hill W.R. Horstman, J.P. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to Mr. Chang about the following issues.
- 1. Working Point Analysis for Generic Longitudinal Trapeze Supports Cygna asked Mr. Chang if a working point analysis was performed for the regular case longitudinal supports and if it had includec vertical and transverse tray loads. He replied that an analysis had been performed, but that it did not include those loads. He stated that Cygna would be provided with a copy.
Cygna asked if the actual line of action was considered in the analysis of the anchor bolts. He replied that the effect of the offset from the working point was negligible when considering the reduced loads resulting from a frequency analysis of the longitu-l dinal support system. The same question was asked of SP-7 with i brace supports and Mr. Chang provided the same reply. Status: Open. F 2. Anchor Bolts for Regular SP-7 Beam Connection l l The effect of CMC 1970 was evaluated for regular SP-7 beam connections, using Gibbs & Hill's original loads and cantilever lengths. The check of the calculations showed that the anchor bolts were adequate. Cygna will evaluate these calculations. Status: Open pending Cygna review. o'stribution: ohm N. Williams, D. Wade, J. vTn mer M Kissing
/ajb K
1 2 W. Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ell s, OngOn, Rurwell,.ProjectfCile . NESS, d. Kuss, me o,.
. ._ m.-
Communications
/ 4( t i Report "
I llelleillimillililitimilli item Comments Ac y
- 3. Vertical and Transverse Loads on Longitudinal Trapeze Supports Cygna had reviewed the Gibbs A Hill calculations received on October 25, 1984. Cygna noteo a discrepancy in the stress interaction evaluation of the C8x11.5 beam member. The strong axis bending stress was combined by the square root of the sum of the square (SRSS) with the weak axis bending stress. A calcula-tion without this SRSS shows a potential 14% overstress. Gibbs &
Hill agreed with this evaluation. Evaluation of the effect of this overstress will be made based on the resolution of the issue of vertical and transverse loads for longitudinal supports. Status: Open. e Page of
? ?
to20 0t t
c
# Communications , i L i Repod
- 111111111111111111111111111111 Tarat litilit ies k ' " "#"** ' P
Project: Job No. 84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 2/20/85
Subject:
Time: 10:40 a.m. QC Procedure Inspections - ,, Conduit and Cable Tray Supports SFR0
Participants:
of M. Warner. D. Mercer. C. Bicas TUGC0
.1. van Amernnaan TUGC0 (EBASCO)
W. Horstman. D. Leona. J. Russ. D. Smedley Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to the TUGC0 personnel listed above regarding the following TUGC0 Quality Control (QC) inspection procedures: QI-QP-11.10-1 QI-QP-11.10-2 QI-QP-11.10-5 QI-QP-11.10-1 Q. Would you please clarify sentences one and two of Section 3.3.2? l A. Sentence one states normal numbering procedure for conduit sup-I ports. Sentence two allows a unique number to be given to con-l duit supports that are added to, but not listed as part of, an IN-CSM type support. Q. Per Section 3.4.1(a), paragraph two, sentence two, an inspector must inspect one bolt / nut combination per support for proper L tension. If a bolt / nut combination has less tension than re-l quired, how is this documented? Since Unistrut frames contain several bolt / nut combinations with different torque values, how does the inspector verify that all appropriate torque values are reached? A. Bolt tensions are given in Attachment 6 of this procedure. Generally, more than one bolt / nut combination was checked. Torque inspection is noted by the presence of orange torque seal,
/ /1Au /aib 1 3 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, R. Kissinger, J. Russ, W. Horstman, D.
mo o's Leong, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications el t i Repod 1ll111111lll111111111111111111 Item Comments Ac on y Q. Is the number of bolts inspected recorded? A. No, it is not. Q. Please define " totally comon" in Section 3.8.2(e). A. " Totally comon" indicates conduits which all initiate at one point, are attached to all the same supports and then terminate at the same point. This section allows all the lines to be listed on one IR to save paper. Q. In Section 3.8.2(j), sentence one, shouldn't the third line read
" Unit 1" instead of " Unit 2"?
A. This section applies to supports installed in Unit 2 per Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-5-0910 instead of drawing 2323-S2-0910 which was issued later. Q. When was Section 3.8.2(h) added to this procedure? A. By recollection, this section was in the procedure since revision O. Even if this section was added at a later date, the intent of this section was established in CP-QP-18.0. Q. What is the intent of Section 3.11? A. This section allows the inspector to inspect supports which have had welds damaged after the initial inspection was performed. Q. Section 3.12 references QI-QP-11.10-2. What section of this procedure is applicable? A. Section 3.12 of QI-QP-11.10-1 is for the specific case of the cable spread room. Due to great congestion, many conduits are supported on cable trays. As such, the inspectors cannot verify capacity of the conduit supports. This was done in the as-built u acceptance of the spread room supports. The applicable section l of QI-QP-11.10-2 is Section 3.2. Q. How then are the capacities of conduit supports attached to cable tray supports verified? A. Since there are no standard conduit attachments to cable tray supports, the conduit support is analyzed as part of the CMC which must authorize it. Page of 2 3
Communications 3 4L i i Report 1811111111111111ll11111111llll Item Comments Acb y QI-QP-11.10-2 Q. Does Section 3.1.3.2 only apply to standard and high strength structural steel bolts? A. Yes. QI-QP-11.10-5, Revision 9 Q. What is the intent of Section 2.2 and the date of June, 1981 , contained therein? A. This section indicates that for any supports that were missed, or weren't inspected for some reason, they would be inspected.
- TUGC0 will investigate the 1981 date and reply to Cygna on it.
Q. Would you please explain the hanger reinspection or backfit process? A. A review of existing hanger packages was performed to ascertain areas of the inspection that were deficit. Once the deficiencies were discovered, the hanger was reinspected per this procedure. Q. Who reviewed the packages? A. At first, QC clerks reviewed the packages, then QA took over the task. Q. How did QC put an inspection package together, say with CMC's and DCA's? A. QC didn't put a package together. The inspectors would pick up the package at the construction vault, which already contained the CMC's and DCA's, and took that to the field to inspect with. Q. Is fire protected conduit covered with square or round sections of Thermolag? A. Both sections are present in the field. Page of 3 3 3 1020 01D
--. - , .,. - - . - . - . _ . -}}