|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:- -. | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| 7-s
| |
| * March 2, 1988' Docket'Nos. 50-445:
| |
| and 50-446
| |
| . NOTE T0: ~ File THRU: . James.H. Wilson, Assistant Director for
| |
| ~ Projects Comanche Peak-Project Division
| |
| .0ffice' of. Special Projects.
| |
| FROM: Melinda Malloy, Project Manager Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| .PUBLIC MEETING BETWEEN TU ELECTRIC AND CASE AND MARK WALSH ON FEBRUARY 18, 1988 On February 18, 1988, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric),' lead applicant for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,' met with representatives of the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) to discu:,s-.TU Electric's corrective action program as it relates to cable tray . hangers and conduit.and conduit supports. Representatives from NRC's Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects and the Office of General Counsel attended this meeting as observers.
| |
| -Enclosed for the record is a copy of the TV Electric meeting notice (Enclosure 1) and_the transcript of this meeting and associated presentation materials (Enclosure 2). Since the NRC staff did not participate in this meeting, it is the staff's position that any determination as to whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should be informed of this meeting should be made by the ap-
| |
| -plicant or intervenor. The enclosures to this note are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the Local Public Document Room.
| |
| (original Melinda signed Malloy, by)
| |
| Pro ject Manager Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects
| |
| | |
| ==Enclosures:==
| |
| : 1. TU Electric Meeting Notice
| |
| : 2. Transcript and Presentation Materials cc: (w/oenclosures)seenextpage DISTRIBUTION (w/ enclosures) DISTRIBUTION (w/o enclosures) iDocket File,e OSP Reading OGC-0WFN NRC PDR"~~ SEbneter/JAxelrad JMoore Local PDR CGrimes FMiraglia CPPD Reading PMcKee EJordan MHalloy JLyons JPartlow RWarnick DTerao JHWilson ACRS(10)
| |
| AVietti-Cook PP .
| |
| P Aw' AD:CPPDpf
| |
| ; p GPPD:0SP MMallo :cm ::P AVietti-Cook JHWilsoh-l 03/o>/88 0 03/o 2/88 03/ov/88 /
| |
| 88030so478 DR 880302 ADOCK 05000445 PDR.
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| ), . i f weou '
| |
| UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q g
| |
| [#' '
| |
| :j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
| |
| %,,,,,# March 2, 1988 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 NOTE T0: File THRU: James H. Wilson, Assistant Director fo Projects Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects FROM: Melinda Malloy, Project Manager Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| PUBLIC MEETING BETWEEN TV ELECTRIC AND CASE AND MARK WALSH ON FEBRUARY 18, 1988 '
| |
| On February 18, 1988, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric), lead cpplicant for the Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, met with representatives of the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) to discuss TU Electric's corrective action program as it relates to cable tray hangers and conduit and conduit supports. Representatives from NRC's l
| |
| Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects and the Office of I General Counsel attended this meeting as observers.
| |
| Enclosed for the record is a ccpy of the TV Electric meeting notice (Enclosure 1) and the i.ranscript of this meeting and associated presentation materials (Enclosure 2). Since the NRC staff did not participate in this meeting, it is the staff's position that any detennination as to whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should be informed of this meeting should be made by the ap-plicant or intervenor. The enclosures to this note are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the Local Public Document Room.
| |
| W Melinda Malloy, roject Mana Comanche Peak Project Divis Office of Special Projects
| |
| | |
| ==Enclosures:==
| |
| : 1. TV Electric Meeting Notice
| |
| : 2. Transcript and Presentation Materials cc: (w/o enclosures) see next page
| |
| | |
| .H
| |
| : y. ,,
| |
| 9 W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 CC: .
| |
| Jack R. Newman, Esq. Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Comanche Peak Project Division Suite 1000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1615 L Street, N.W. P. O. Box 1029 Washington, D.C. 20036 Granbury, Texas 76048 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny A.-Sinkin Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Christic Institute Director of fiuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20002 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
| |
| Dallas, Texas 75201 Government Accountability Project Midwest Office Mr . Rcbert E. Ballard, Jr. 104 East Wisconsin Avenue Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
| |
| 11 Penn Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq.
| |
| Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
| |
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, NW Renea Hicks, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20005 Assistant Attorney General Envirorsental Protection Division Robert Jablon P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711 Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, NW Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George A. Parker, Chairman Dallas, Texas 75224 Public Utility Comittee ,
| |
| Senior Citizens Alliance Of Ms. Nancy H. Williams Tarrant County, Inc.
| |
| CYGNA Energy Services 6048 Wonder Drive 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Fort Worth, Texas 76133 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
| |
| : y. >
| |
| ^
| |
| t W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Electric Station Texan Utilities Electric Company . Units 1 and 2 cc: .
| |
| Joseph F. Fulbright
| |
| .Fulbright & Jaworski-1301.McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010 Roger D. Walker Manager, Nuclear Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding c/o Bethesda Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burchette, Esq.
| |
| Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 GDS ASSOCIATES, INC.
| |
| Suite 720 1850 Parkway Place Marietta, Georgia 30067-8237 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
| |
| -Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth-A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830
| |
| | |
| EilCLOSURE 1 EE Log # TXX-88166
| |
| -._ __ File # 10005 r 10068 TUELiCTRIC February 4, 1988 Miulam G. Coundl Enr.orne s ur hrssarm U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington. 0.C. 20555 ,,
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| COMAllCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
| |
| DOCKET N05. 50-445 Afl0 50-446 MEETING NOTICE Gentlemen:
| |
| Attached is a notice of a forthcoming meeting between Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and TV Electric. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Corrective Action Program (Cable Tray Hangers, and Conduit and Conduit Supports).
| |
| Very truly yours, W. G. Counsil By: 4d.
| |
| JoNi W. Beck Vice President, Nuclear Engineering JDS/grr c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES (3)
| |
| . i '
| |
| W A
| |
| e# }
| |
| 400 \ orth Olne Street LB ai Dallas Tesas 7).'01 l {
| |
| | |
| A,/
| |
| ,i> .
| |
| ,. i.
| |
| Attachment to TXX-88166 February 4,- 1988 Page 1 of 1 MEETING NOTICE
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| FORTHCOMING MEETING BETWEEN CASE AND TV ELECTRIC .
| |
| DATES & TIME' LOCATION PURPOSE
| |
| * Thursday,- Sheraton Hotel Discuss-Corrective Action
| |
| .Feb ruary 18, 1988 Houston / Austin Room Program 8:30 a.m. 400 N. Olive Street (Cable Tray. Hangers and Dallas, Texas . Conduit and Conduit Supports Friday, Comanche Peak Steam CPSES Plant Tour -
| |
| Februa ry 19, 1988 Electric Station 8:00 a.m. (CPSES) Site (Visitors Center)
| |
| * The session on Thursday will be transcribed.
| |
| 4 o
| |
| F
| |
| .___.__._____.______._.1 a o s m. u nu_
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| ~ ' ' ENCLOSURE'2' PUBLIC MEETING BETWEEN' TV: ELECTRIC.AND CASE AND MARK WALSH FEBRUARY 18, 1988 .
| |
| :Mseting Transcript'.
| |
| and Presentation Materials f
| |
| he a , , e ii i ii i
| |
| | |
| 1 1- 1-
| |
| .C 2 31 ,
| |
| ~4 5
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 9 TU ELECTRIC-PUBLIC MEETING 10 WITH CASE AND MARK WALSH 11 12 13 4'
| |
| RECEIVED 15 FEB 2 3 legg 16 1, WILLIAM G. COUNSiL 18 19 20 21 Taken by: Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR February 18, 1988 JJ,'
| |
| 22 23 24
| |
| :L . .
| |
| 25 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 2 1 PROCEEDINGS 1( 2 MR. COUNSIL: The meeting Hill come to order. Mrs.
| |
| 3 Ellis and Jerry, HelCome once again. We alHays look forHard 4 to seeing you. I'd like a special welcome to Mark Walsh, 5 I've looked forward to meeting him for about three years now.
| |
| 6 Earlier this morning I scid I hoped his trip was 7 comfortable and blessed with nice Heather. Thinking about 8 that driving in this morning He couldn't have picked a better 9 day to be inside than on a plant tour. I hope tomorrow Hill 10 be better.
| |
| 11 With that, I'd like to turn it over to Mrs. Ellis for 12 any statements she might like to make.
| |
| 13 MRS. ELLIS: We're very glad for this opportunity to 14 meet Hith you again, and as I've said at previous meetings, 15 He're still reading and reviewing things, so we may have some 16 additional comments or Questions after we have had a chance to 17 read the transcripts and documents --
| |
| 18 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you.
| |
| 19 MRS. ELLIS: I think He've already mentioned that 20 Jerry, my husband, is here and Mark Walsh. And I Hant to say 21 again that I think that these meetings of this type nave been :*.*
| |
| 22 very helpful to all of us and help to clarify what the issues j 23 are 07d what you are doing and the amount of work you're 24 doing. And I Want to say again that it's obvious that you are l ( ,
| |
| 25 trying to address the issues, and He appreciate the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| - . . . ~
| |
| 3 1 opportunity to come and help clarify what our concerns are
| |
| ( 2 'even further.
| |
| 3 MR. COUNSIL: Now I'll turn it over to Larry Nace and 4 He Hill begin.
| |
| 5 MR. NACE: I, too, Hould like to Helcome Mark Walsh 6 to the Comanche Peak project, and I look forward to the site 7 tour tomorrow.
| |
| 8 Before He start, since the last meeting, Mrs. Ellis, 9 He've received tNo requests from you Wanting to show the 10 videotape on the ANCO shake table tests again for Mark's 11 benefit, and the second request was to discuss questions 12 relative to the temperature effects on structural steel.
| |
| 13 We'd like to open the meeting this morning with the 14 replay of the videotape on the ANCO shake table tests.
| |
| 15 Because of tne Heather, He have had a problem Hith some of our 16 slides, so He'll talk about the temperature effects on 2
| |
| 17 structural steel as soon as our material gets here. We had 18 hoped to do that as a second issue.
| |
| 19 Before He start, I Would like for Mark's benefit to 20 introduce the panel again. Then I'll turn the presentation 21 over to Jim Muffett. .: ,',
| |
| 22 Jim is TU Electric's manager of civil engineering.
| |
| 23 MR. MUFFETT: Good morning. Let me introduce the 24 panel before we play the videotape.
| |
| (
| |
| 25 We have Kevin Warapius of IMPELL, Greg Ashley of Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 i.. -
| |
| . . . )
| |
| | |
| 1 IMPELL, Pat Harrison of EBASCO, and Gavin Win 'on et E P> T " c '
| |
| C 2 These people represent people-that have had 6 signlilc rn acri 3 in the efforts in these areas.
| |
| 4 Before we get on into picking up Hhe e we _ert c.l on 5 the cable tray issues, we'd like to show the:/1deoture.
| |
| 6 MRS. ELLIS: I Just might mention tb t Me has On 7 the tape and he has, I think, a question or o abo:t t.
| |
| 8 (Videotape shown.)
| |
| 9 MR. NACE: That completes the showin.
| |
| 10 Will the panel make sure that when you're tah ...., . . ,
| |
| 11 close to the microphone for the reporter?
| |
| 12 Mrs. Ellis, do you have questions noi en th" :hnnin; 13 of the ANC0 tests?
| |
| ( 14 MR. WALSH: I have a few. On the coi lo trt/s W~'.
| |
| 15 was tested or shoHO on the film does not appeDr 13 ka (3 b0 16 the maximum tray width or tray lengths between rupre;ts. <-
| |
| 17 that correct? Or did ANC0 do tests that Hou4ri indi r'" tnc 18 maximum tray Heights completely filled with 6 ":7 19 MR. MUFFETT: Before I answer that & r'.;v -
| |
| 20 talk about the purpose of the tests and then39 ran '4ce d< .0 21 the question These were not qualification trits of cable 22 trays per the typical component qualification!!est schene 23 These Here tests to demonstrate the appropriati! ness of the
| |
| (_ 24 analytical method so that these tests were performed and also 25 models were made so that the analytical method:. a;d, .n '
| |
| 't, Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _-- 9
| |
| | |
| 5 1 conservatively predict what was happening.
| |
| (- 2 As far as fill, a range of fill was used in the 3 tests, a low filled tray, a moderately filled tray and a 4 completely filled tray, to Judge whether analytical methods 5 did, in fact, conservatively predict the range. The tray was 6 a 24-inch tray.
| |
| 7 MR. ASHLEY: Essentially, the parameters that Here 8 tested, we tested two tray Hidths that consisted of 9 multi-tiered systems. On one tier He may have a 12-inch tray 10 on the bottom tier or the top tier, or vice versa He may have 11 a 24-inch tray. The span widths or span lengths that were 12 tested Here nine feet. This was tested as a system that was 13 representctive of most of the systems as installed in the
| |
| ( 14 plant. And as Jim said, the intent wasn't to run these tests 15 and say these configurations are qualified. The intent was to
| |
| . 16 gather information such that He Could have assurance that our 17 analytical methods were conservative in predicting these 18 system responses.
| |
| 19 MR. WALSH: What were the parameters that you had 20 used in design and that this test verified was correct?
| |
| 21 For example, displacements. ;$
| |
| 22 MR. ASHLEY: What He measured in this test, they Here 23 extensively instrumented to measure displacement,
| |
| ( 24 acceleration. We did instrument in some instances restraint. ,
| |
| 25 There Here numerous locations of these measurements. For Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 6 1 example, He measured displacement and acceleration'at seVeral
| |
| ( 2 to ichts along the posts of the. trapeze-type supports. We 3 measured recorded response along the tray, He recorded 4 response at the shaking frame attachment of the ANCO shaking 5 frame such that He knew at each attachment location what the 6 input motion to the system Has. You recall from the videotape 7 He talked about fragility level inputs as high as two times f 8 the expected earthquake at Comanche Peak.
| |
| 9 (A short break Has taken.)
| |
| 10 MR. ASHLEY: As I was saying, that tHo times the 11 maximum earthquake Has determined on the basis of the 12 measurement at the attachment of the hangers to the shaking
| |
| ( 13 frame. In other words, we kneH what the input was of those 14 systems.
| |
| 15 MR. WALSH: When you Here measuring dispincement, 16 predicted displacement, how much did that deviate?
| |
| 17 MR. ASHLEY: We supplied the correlation study report 18 to you. You will note in there that on average the 19 overpredictions in ratios in the analytical model to the 20 actual testing configurations were a factor of two. There i
| |
| 21 was some overprediction in ratios which was as much as seven 2 ",I 22 to eight hundred percent over predicted in terms of 23 displacement.
| |
| 24 MR. MUFFETT: Obviously, this is a very complex test 25 Hith a lot of data. In general, He're seeing overpredictions Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 7' 1 on the order of two.
| |
| ( 2 MRS. ELLIS: From time to time, if you will bear 3 with me, there may be some things that I want to clarify that
| |
| '4 probably Mark can tell me later, but if you would, I'm not an 5 engineer and I'm Just trying to understand some of these 6 things just so it's clear in my mind as much as possible.
| |
| 7 I think it mentioned at the'beginning of the tape 8 that the tests began in 1985. But I think on the tape were 9 both tests for the conduit supports and the cable trays done 10 in May of '867 I think it said at the beginning of the cable 11 tray tests that it was May of '86, and I don't think it really 12 said on the conduit. That would be the same time frame, I 13 assume, wouldn't it?
| |
| ( 14 MR. MUFFETT: Well, He can get those exact dates when 3
| |
| 15 it started, but obviously tests like this extend over a period 16 of time, and there Here some tests even taking place in '87 l 17 that we had NRC come witness.
| |
| i
| |
| ! 18 MRS. ELLIS: Right. One of the things that I Hanted 19 to be sure of is that -- and I'm assuming that I know the 20 answer to this already, but I Just want to make sure -- is i
| |
| l 21 that these tests weren't done on what was in place really in '.I i l 22 1985, but are more representative of what's actually in place i l
| |
| t l 23 out there right noH.
| |
| 24 f{ MR. MUFFETT: Exactly. And He touched on that last l
| |
| 25 time. One thing, these represent the designs as they exist in ,
| |
| l Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 8 the plant now, and in some instances He built certain things
| |
| (
| |
| 1 2 into these trays to see their exact -- see the actual size of 3 bolt holes in the plant. We even did some tests on a bed 4 member Just to see what the effect was. So, yes, these trays 5 are a very accurate depiction of what exists'in the plant.
| |
| 6 MRS. ELLIS: I assumed that that's what it Has. I 7 Hould have had some problem if those Here the ones in place in 8 '85.
| |
| 9 MR. WALSH: I still have an additional question 10 regarding this cable tray test ano the tray and the wire that 11 was used. It seemed like the Hire Has not held down with 12 ties. When I Horked out there I remember seeing some ties to 13 hold the wiring to the trays.
| |
| 14 MR. ASHLEY: In fact, the cable was installed in 15 these trays the same as it is installed in the plant with the 16 cable ties.
| |
| 17 MR. NACE: Excuse me. I think one of the items that 18 could be confusing, some of the cable looked like it was 19 hanging unsupported, that Has test instrumentation; 20 instrumentation for the tests, not the cable installed in the 21 tray. 2 '.'
| |
| 22 MR. MUFFETT: It was installed using exactly the same 23 procedures that would be in the plant. Cable trays were built
| |
| ( 24 using exactly the some procedures and exactly the same 25 material. We made those as close as was humanly possible for Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| t 9
| |
| 1 conditions in the plant, k 2 MR WALSH: But I think you have already stated that 3 this is not the maximum Height that could be used out at the 4 plant.
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT: We had three fills. We had a light 6 fill and a moderate fill and a full tray.
| |
| 7 MR. WALSH: But the systems that go out there I can 8 see heavier trays, is that correct?
| |
| 9 MR. MUFFETT: You mean larger?
| |
| 10 MR WALSH: Larger trays, maybe larger spans for 11 each hanger?
| |
| 12 MR. ASHLEY: That's correct. There are larger trays 13 in the plant and there are some 36-inch Hide trays in the
| |
| ( 14 plant. As for as fill level, He tested the maximum fill 15 level. We tested 35 pounds per square foot, which in your 16 24-inch trays would be 70 pounds.
| |
| 17 Now, as for as -- as Jim mentioned earlier, these 18 Heretestsko'giveusadditionalconfidenceinourengineering 19 methods. We Here applying standard engineering methods.
| |
| I 20 These tests Heren't used to develop the criterion method used 21 for design validation. 2 ','
| |
| 22 Now, He have a separate set of tests which are 23 component tests. Those tests were run at CC&L. Now, the l
| |
| l
| |
| ( 24 purpose of those was to develop past these components for 25 design purposes. For example, He tested the tray there. In Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| , 10.
| |
| 1 those tests He tested enough trays such that we had an
| |
| ( 2 alloHable for.OVery tray size that's used in the plant.
| |
| 3 Additionally, He tested clamps such that we had an allowable 4 that could be used for every tray clamp in the plant.
| |
| 5 MR. WALSH: I guess what's bothering me chout this 6 test is the method of the conclusions and the large margin 7 that exists, but that there's only -- it's -- this test did 8 not demonstrate the' Horst possible condition at the plant 9 using the test up to two times SSE or --
| |
| 10 MR. MUFFETT: Each tray tested to a peak of tHice 11 the SSE, Which is probably a multiple of five per the ZPA.
| |
| 12 But the important thing to remember is these are not 13 qualification tests of the trays. They're a demonstration of
| |
| (- 14 the analytical method. And He did a Hide parameter, Hide 15 range of parameters, as far as the design, and then performed 16 the analytical studies that showed that our studies always are 17 conservative in the design of these trays.
| |
| 18 The purpose of the test. You are right. If you were 19 going to do a classic component qualification, our trays are 20 qualified by analysis. This was an additional backup and a 21 confirmation of the conservatism of the method. 2 * .'
| |
| 22 MR. WALSH: And this test was to demonstrate the 23 hanger or the tray? Or both?
| |
| 24 MR. ASHLEY: These being system tests, these Here to
| |
| ( ,
| |
| 25 test the behavior of the cable tray systems, meaning the trays Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 11 1 and the hangers.
| |
| (' 2 MRS. ELLIS: Aaain, Just so I'm sure I understand, 3 these particular tests that He snw weren't really designed or.
| |
| 4 intended to test for an absolute worst case condition, right?
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT: No. Let me rephrase what Greo said.
| |
| 6 We took all the components that existed in these trays.and 7 tested them statically to get allowables, so we had an 8 allowable for each type of tray, fitting, component. That 9 gives a number. It takes so much. Now, due to the Hay the 10 cable tray systems are in the plant with the wide variation in 11 configurations, we could not actually test all those 12 configurations. But we Hanted to do a confirmation of our 13 analytical method that it was, in fact, conservatism. We took
| |
| ( 14 a wide range of configurations and tested them on a shake 15 table and made a conclusive demonstration that the analytical
| |
| . 16 methods were conservative. Those analytical methods are used 17 in conjunction with those allowables for the other tests.
| |
| 18 MR. WALSH: Somewhere I read in literature that we 19 received there was a comment or a statement made that a test 20 was performed on a member with a cable of more than 300, and 21 that it was intentionally bent. Did that occur during these 2 ' ."
| |
| 22 tests?
| |
| 23 MR. MUFFETT: Yes.
| |
| ( 24 MR. WALSH: I'm curious. How can one draw a 25 conclusion that if this is not the maximum load that you con Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 12 1 still exceed K1/R, 90 to K1/300, if you don't have the maximum
| |
| (' 2 load on that member?
| |
| 3 MR. MUFFETT: As you are well oware, the K1/R was 4- eliminated regardless of the load, per AISC.
| |
| 5 MR. WALSH:- I don't have that information right in 6 front of me at this timo, but a conclusion is drawn that it's 7 an acceptable item, but it's -- this test, if it's not 8 maximum 1y loaded, you can't really get a large buckling 9 stress, axial loading of that member.
| |
| 10 MR. ASHLEY: The intent of that test, once again, was 11 a test to provide additional confidence. That configuration 12 was specifically designed to ensure that there were large l 13 axial loads in the bolts of that hanger member. But as I I C 14 said, it was not used as the basis to develop part of the 15 design criteria. It was simply as a demonstration that these 16 hangers with these long slender members under these seismic 17 loads, these transient compressive loads, are not susceptible 18 to instability.
| |
| 19 MR. WALSH: Even -- you see, that's where I have a 20 problem. They are not maximum -- they do not contain a large 21 axial stress or a maximum that -- you know, what would be the J '.'
| |
| 22 maximum oxial stress you could put in that member with the 23 large lengths.
| |
| ( 24 MR MUFFETT: First, I think that we may have misled 25 you. We want you to realize that any compression member Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| [ .
| |
| | |
| 13 1 complies with the guidance that we have from AISC in regard to
| |
| (~ 2 these compression members. We don't use this test as the 3 basis for any design of our members. They all comply with 4 AISC. And one could draH the conclusion that the loads He put 5 on those are probably overpredicted by about two based on Hhat 6 He saw from the test. The reason we did that is since He had 7 the shake table and the time, and this has been a question 8 that's come up on numerous dockets -- the Byron docket, the 9 LaSalle docket -- exactly the behavior of these long slender ,
| |
| 10 members during a one-time transient short-term compression, 11 and He had a shake table and a structural review and decided 12 to see what Hould happen.
| |
| 13 MR. WALSH: When you increased your load to two times 14 SSE, there was no yielding on the steel; is that correct?
| |
| 15 Of the hangers?
| |
| 16 MR. ASHLEY: That's correct. There was ro noticeable 17 gross deformation of hanger members. During one of the tests 18 after it had seen many, many cycles of earthquake, over an :
| |
| 19 hour of earthquake, there was some small deformation in one of 20 the clamp members; however, that did not result in any loss of 21 function of that hanger or that clomp. .: ,':
| |
| 22 To directly address your question, there was no 23 noticeable deformation, no deformation in the hanger members
| |
| ( 24 themselves.
| |
| 25 MR. NACE: I would like to clarify, Mark. Are we Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| \ .. _
| |
| | |
| 14 1 confusing you or confusing ourselves? The systems themselves
| |
| (' 2 are all qualified by analyses. These tests do not qualify the-3 system. The tests were confirmation of the adequacy of the 4 analytical techniques used on all those systems. '
| |
| Are He 5 communicating on that?
| |
| 6 MR. WALSH: I believe so. You know, I received a lot 7 of information, and I am concerned that someone would take 8 this test and say, "Well, He did it on thic test. Now He 9 don't have to follow specific guides 11nes. We did it on this 10 one test."
| |
| 11 MR. MUFFETT: No, absolutely not. We are in very 12 strict compliance with the applicable code.
| |
| 13 MR. ASHLEY: In fact, I'd like to point out that the 14 test demonstrated much higher levels of damping than Comanche 15 Peak has committed to in the FSAR: however, He have used the 16 damping levels as committed to.
| |
| 17 MR. WALSH: That's Unother point. ine lengths i
| |
| 18 betHeen har.gers. Someone mentioned that the maximum was nine 19 feet. Were there shorter spans tested?
| |
| 20 MR. ASHLEY: Yes, there were shorter spans tested.
| |
| 21 Those snorter spans tested Here in the region of, for example,2'." ,
| |
| 22 near the horizontal bend.
| |
| 23 MR WALSH: I believe if you decrease the length 24 between supports your domping Hould go down. If you increase
| |
| ( ,
| |
| 25 it, it would go up. I read somewhere this damping Has noticed Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| F' 15 l 1- that it was higher than TU indicated that they Here using.
| |
| 2 But if you tested a shorter span you might be closer to what 3 is in the FSAR or whatever.
| |
| 4 MR. MUFFETT: All the damping from all the tests, 5 with fittings, with bends, with all the configurations, Here 6 equal to or higher than Hhat we used.
| |
| 7 MR. WALSH: That's what I'm getting at. If we 8 shorten the span, wouldn't the damping 90 doHn?
| |
| 9 MR. MUFFETT: You'll find that structural dompitig is 5
| |
| 10 a fairly complex phenomenon, and there's a lot of aspects to 11 it. And shortening the span probably Hould reduce the stress 12 level which would reduce the structural damping.
| |
| 13 The test obviously is a very complex subject. The 14 test report that you have bears what He are telling you.
| |
| 15 MR. WALSH: And it would indicate that the shorter 16 spans the damping is closer to Hhat TU is using.
| |
| 17 MR. MUFFETT: I think another interesting thing is 18 the damping, from my reading the report, tends to vary more 19 Hith fill than with span. And if you think about it, that's 20 logical, because What happens is the cables actually rubbing 21 against each over use up a lot of energy. And really these 7 ' ."
| |
| 22 events are energy based. Although typically analyzed with 23 forces and components, energy is a big concern, and When you 24 have something take place like friction that uses up the
| |
| (_ ,
| |
| l 25 energy, it tends to magnify the damping.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| n 16 l' MRS. ELLIS: When you're talking about the reports,
| |
| ('
| |
| 2 you're still talking about the ANCO report?
| |
| 3 MR. MUFFETT: Yes. And the correlation section.
| |
| 4 MR. COUNSIL: Are there any other questions on the 5 cable tests?
| |
| 6 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 7 MR. NACE: Let's continue with the presentation of-8 cable tray hanger issues from the project status report, and 9 as soon as we're ready on the temperature effects, He'll make 10 that presentation.
| |
| 11 MR. NACE: We Hould like to ask you one Clarifying-12 Question from the last discussion to make sure --
| |
| 13 MR. ASHLEY: -- that we Here tc1 king about the same 14 thing. What He Here talking about is that what the ANCO tests .
| |
| 15 have shown is that the damping, in particular for the higher 16 'ill levels, is much higher than what TV has committed to 3In 17 other words, He're using Conservative levels of damping. Your 18 understanding is that as the spans get shorter, the domping 19 may more closely approach or come down to the level TU has 20 committed to.
| |
| 21 MR. MUFFETT: Before He get started with where He 2 '.'
| |
| 22 left off last time, He have c new panel member here today.
| |
| 23 I'd like to introduce him. His name is Gavin Winship.
| |
| 24 MR. WINSHIP: Good mcrning. My name is Gavin
| |
| ( ,
| |
| 25 Winship, and I've been working in England on nuclear power Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 4 1 plants for aboutst! yea ** _ ccme'to +ne gn ycf ston; ,
| |
| ( 2 work on nuclect;p3; . . O tec on u.. a; u curi.cu w ter
| |
| ~ .
| |
| 3 reactors and one3b 11tng: water reactor.
| |
| 4 I've! beer.: din EBisSCO. " five years now as. pr o.it ht 5 engineer at Comaav e F61k. I've worked on tt e cualr0 6- engineering side (L 5 structural enp#r.crino cide.
| |
| 7 M R . MU FJF.'i f : The first honocut 'n we has it basically an updoit e ; er 1 8 . in e. t '.- e '' -
| |
| 9 the December meetdr !
| |
| 10 didn't get to.becat . .... ... . o v . , .: . . u . . . .
| |
| / 11 What we'd-iia to do. if-yn 1 10%. o. ine sc . c ' p.:a .
| |
| 12 is pick up with itt 24.
| |
| 13 MRS. ELLI'. ''s o ti likc c ; 1:
| |
| (' 14 to let you go aheco 0"O ~*nish x th the to ;- trat itu' 15 planned on cable ctri;ys and cctie- tray. suppor is e ae'.- _ od t te:-
| |
| . - 16 by that tir e it~ rtay -be t2me for lunct , .or o ' eak or.. n'. N d 17 let Mark take 1) laci a$ - " a+ "e "Saa' '''-'wa"a r < ara-18 in the December. meet'-~ '' -
| |
| ~ . to.v. s- -
| |
| 19 that he would : liter.1 .. accr cr- ci scme ou si;or- - -
| |
| 20 and finish up withTcoble tre.w s--<1rst before 'n
| |
| :n '
| |
| 21 conduits and conduit supports 1
| |
| 22 MR. NACE: r!ns 23 - MR. MUFRETT: With thot; we'll 90 t o i r 5 ue .7 h . i .' c h 24 Pat Harrison is goina 't ei t -. e r.
| |
| (
| |
| 25 MR. HARRIS 0'. '
| |
| 2 T e .. . . e ) . o . <. .
| |
| Carmeh Glocu ("P. R.^?.. tetro 425-55'2
| |
| ]
| |
| | |
| 18 l
| |
| f 1 members.
| |
| ( 2 Issues A and B: In the original design of cable tray 3 support flexural members, moments (bending and torsion) 4 induced by cable tray eccentricities to tier centroidal axes 5 have not been considered.
| |
| 6 The resolution to this issue follows: Design 7 Validation Procedures, SAG.CP11, SAG.CP34, PI-02, PI-03, and 8 M-12 require that moments (bending and torsion) resulting from 9 troy / hanger connection eccentricities be considered.
| |
| 10 MR. MUFFETT: Any time you'd like to ask a question, 11 feel free.
| |
| 12 MR. HARRISON: Itsue 24C. In the original design of 13 cable tray support flexural members, reductions in beam
| |
| ( 14 section properties due to bolts holes and Held undercuts are 15 inconsistently considered.
| |
| 16 The resolution to this issue is in two parts.
| |
| 17 Reductions in section properties resulting from bolt 18 holes Here developed per engineering studies in Volume I, Book 19 25 tid M-65, which are in accordance with the AISC 20 specification. The sizo of the bolt hole was determined to be 21 three quarters of an inch, based on a statistical evaluation J '.I ,
| |
| 22 of a bolt hole sample. Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP34 23 and PI-11 require the use of these reduced properties in the
| |
| (, 24 design validation of cable tray tiers to account for the 25 presence of both used and unused bolt holes.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| ~- -
| |
| | |
| g .
| |
| m.
| |
| N _
| |
| .. l E
| |
| ; me se:0,'d c~ t er the:itsve: Tt'c t0010 troy har :,ec y
| |
| i M ;r .
| |
| . 4:n sv.:. Acd,uiu i .,s.euvre nidi -3.0i-n ,;ul, ws. r p,. Ali;rancereot: bis weld. undercuts l hove.Deensrevoired. <An ,
| |
| 4- cengineering -study..in Volume I,-Book 20;1of the base Tiet01 - -
| |
| v'. -
| |
| d.. - detectthoentif1wr by tnese CC4 inspections) has-coen der l'ortwr cor concluced that the of f ents' .of. Welr; ur : PWt a
| |
| ~
| |
| -6 T catric tccvJconoc17.v.need. cot be exp].'rity.c isidered.
| |
| '.T - I c.7 tid li.tcrject- - e mort:.:st .
| |
| 4 E r nic, 3 ou a tt ,: ....;.,,. .e . . . .,; c ..
| |
| u .tv un ec-- ! hot ycu have then. Tu the tesL cf citr knoulisdtn.,
| |
| i<. vo, h c . F. these.
| |
| ..,.3 4
| |
| . . s h,, cv
| |
| . . = .1.m .. t s. ) 4 3 ;c g
| |
| s -. .; : .
| |
| .e .r t n..t. ,
| |
| ..,t p t p. , . ..: .-
| |
| ..-,- .. 3-, ..
| |
| i
| |
| , t e.,
| |
| . 6. .
| |
| - . Jh '
| |
| W- hhTdf. h)N : - N h 0lr ti Zf* '110,, t.bree rLe .t75 01 10 nr. f r:Ch
| |
| " -< w-t
| |
| . ... , , o- U - J 7.?' ii unit eice n t brn-ottnrr nr i re h h ?t
| |
| : e. i t. , .
| |
| ..,c-
| |
| : s. n. , . ~. n n .. e..i - . .+
| |
| . 4. . . .. .~..,..
| |
| : M. HkimlSON : 1.ciisunat %tand jai's cues 13an. Ttie
| |
| /0 Lel ac'. t
| |
| * wo-c Mni hs--inc h- tto} t one t-h e Sr. ' r- n -
| |
| thr:e 21 Quor *ers of a n it:c!'..
| |
| 2 '' Itrue ?t?: In thc. cripical. d:n;1gn cf cable tray 4- * ., ?F flexuro' r.er::bers , dcsigni calculotions-did nat con:,1 der thear s e ry qc.- e ; . ,
| |
| .- p - ; .
| |
| d ot- '.c a : rn t t.n e c r- St' -Vencnt : hear, i.r ttit-
| |
| .- . . . .4.s
| |
| .J.-
| |
| Ccri.w: 4 Gouden C".5, RPh. detro 429-Si.'.
| |
| | |
| 20
| |
| -1 Resolution to the issue is as'follows: Stresses due
| |
| ( 2 to direct shear and St. Venanttshear are considered in design 3 . validation as specified in SAEPCP34 and PI-03. .
| |
| 4 MR. WALSH: Is Harping torsion taken into account'for .
| |
| 5 these members also?
| |
| 6 MR. HARRISON: Yes, tWarping is added on to these 7 members. '
| |
| 8 Issue 24E: In the or.iginal design of cable tray 9 support flexural members, capacity reduction due to ,
| |
| 10 unsupported length of compression flange, per AISC equation 11 1.5-7, was not properly considered.
| |
| 12 Resolution to this issue is as fo11 ohs: Design 13 Validation Procedures SAG.CP34, PI-03 and PI-11 require'the
| |
| ( 14 use of AISC equation 1.5-7 for the validation of cable tray 15 hanger channel members and provide direction for its proper 16 application.
| |
| * 17 Issue 24F: In the original design of cable tray 18 support flexural members, the practice of considering 19 torsional Harping normal stress was not specified in the 20 Design Validation Procedure.
| |
| 21 Resolution to the issue is as follows: Torsional ' J 'l 22 Harping normal stresses are considered in design validation as 23 specified in SAG.CP11, SAG.CP34: and PI-03. *
| |
| ( 24 MR. MUFFETT: The next one we'd like to present is 25 Issue 25, and Greg Ashely is going to present this.
| |
| L Carmen Gooden, CSR, 'RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 1 .' i o .
| |
| '. :ss :e n t elcted D cci.:
| |
| . 'rc"
| |
| : e . . , . .. ; '-
| |
| he i.rst >trt: ?- t r.e 9 .d e !. . corioiml cable :roy auolificatior.:.cynomic cnplification i:Jc t or was t.ut u s .- u .
| |
| .* e nl a - . a s Je h!J s OPeri (C >vlyeO $1nce the des;g;.
| |
| ti v'.tji l d a t j U; ,' c20'e t i ;, t '., !y thr 04U1 bl6.a' .1Ji'C s' ?F0-II "- 7. c Eifdered "Pats SclSmic UCCelerGtions or sCj .111c c " .]ridt. 70s s a-
| |
| . s- 'r",'. rhu un ca y . . - r n *. 10 d
| |
| .. ~
| |
| . ,t -,. . . t ., . .. ,. .,
| |
| . 12 "i ce;c: ec engineering.. s tudies cent: f riec' in lo;, -'c . r:0: i Al i (- r r- r n .- ; o r t t i o n s .' .* v .au_ . : ".
| |
| ._.b- . .
| |
| Jon v-lico+2:n Proceduret SM '.F' ar.1 ~~'c .'n1
| |
| , .. p e a rm i .' < e:.c1 v r e wc z e cool e t rcy t', .' u i, 0 sileu- .cnd.
| |
| J 20 MR WALSH. Tnes.- ort..the results -- here :; t !O ed es - - , -
| |
| n: . 3,- --tm, ni ci voi, m.o n (nov,rn nn tne
| |
| , (i g .. . i1
| |
| ...J. res.
| |
| v
| |
| ,r m: t. 7 7 : Yes 12 . a iii< . 8:itiLEY - The second part to this issue: I'. the
| |
| - 4-- c/ ocismal cch)c t ov c,ualification.'t"e interacticn e =ctiu, i G.2- 2? was imorcserly baseo on atotal .]oca for: spans ;;recter *han .
| |
| . J .
| |
| . 4I' k
| |
| *~
| |
| .34.I I' ; ,- -' ' "- *
| |
| , [ I " "') s . 3,,,
| |
| ''' 'E. '
| |
| ,I
| |
| #~
| |
| C ? rim n 2 f 0 0' 6 0 J$i., SI?, N3trG 429-5 2 ''
| |
| | |
| r 22 1 of cable tray spans greater than.eight feet is based on
| |
| ( 2 comparison of tray bending moments with bending moment 3 capacities obtained from testing.T They refer you to 4 Cc1culations-M-03, M-34, M-35 and2 Volume I, Book 1.
| |
| 5 MR. WALSH: What testing?
| |
| 6 MR. MUFFETT: This is the CCL testing. This is not 7 the testing that you saw in the tape. This is the static 8 testing to determine allowables, determine moment capacities.
| |
| 9 MR. WALSH: Okay. And those tests they did fill 10 trays to the maximum possible?
| |
| 11 MR. ASHLEY: That's correct. In those tests, being 12 component tests, the components were loaded to failure.
| |
| 13 MR. ASHLEY: The next part to this issue: In the
| |
| ( 14 original cable tray qualification,.several incidences of 15 modificottons of vendor-supplied hardware for cable trays were 16 found without adequate Justification or documentation.
| |
| 17 This issue has been resolved since the effects of 18 modifications to vendor-supplied hardware are being evaluated 19 using as-built data as design input for validation as part of 20 the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program.
| |
| 21 NR, WALSH: May I go back+to a previous question? 2$.
| |
| 22 MR MUFFETT: You can go back anywhere you like.
| |
| 23 MR. WALSH: On the channels -- or excuse me -- the
| |
| ( 24 section member properties, you commented that you used ,
| |
| 25 three-quarter-inch diameter holes. How does that relate to Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 7 h < 23 1 What's out in the field, out in the plant?
| |
| ( 2 MR. HARRISON: -That was the maximum hole size that
| |
| -3 was found.
| |
| 4 MR, WALSH: That was found or that was allowed?
| |
| 5 MR. HARRISON: That was found.
| |
| 6 MRS. ELLIS: Here comes another possibly dumb 7 question. Am-I right in assuming that basically you redid the 8 as-built drawings yourselves, what was out in the field, 9 rather than relying on what was shown on the original 10 drawings? Is that correct?
| |
| 7 11 MR. MUFFETT: Exactly. These programs, the basis of 12 all these analyses that we talked about today, are the actual 13 configurations of the trays as they exist with no dependence 14 on other drawings or configurations. These have been walked 15 down and that's the foundation of the analysis.
| |
| . 16 Now, He Hill go back and look at some other variables 17 in the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program, which is 18 presently ongoing, but the foundation of these analyses is the 19 actually physical configuration as the trays and hangers are 20 now. So that if they fail He modify them. If it passes the 21 stress allowables, then He have an as-built of exactly how it J [ $
| |
| 22 is now.
| |
| 23 MRS. ELLIS: I know that there had been quite a
| |
| (
| |
| 24 problem in the past with drawings matching what was out in the 25 field, so you basically have avoided that problem by doing Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| __ _________-__-_________________________v , _ _ _ _ _ . _-
| |
| | |
| 24 1- your own as-built-drawings so that there's not a problem
| |
| ( 2 with --
| |
| 3 MR. MUFFETT: Exactly. And I believe you have 4 those procedures.
| |
| 5 MR. WALSH: And those drawings would indicate if they 6 had a three-quarter-inch hole or a five-eighths-inch hole, 7 correct?
| |
| 8 MR. HARRISON: Yes.
| |
| 9 MR. ASHLEY: The last part of this issue: In the 10 original cable tray qualification, cable tray moment of 11 inertial calculations do not consider shear deformation under 12 transverse loading of ladder-type troys, 13 This issue has been resolved. Design Validation
| |
| ( 14 Procedures SAG.CP18 and PI-02 consider cable trays as flexural 15 members. An engineering study, Calculation M-66, has shown 16 that this procedure is appropriate and that shear behavior 17 does not need to be explicity considered.
| |
| 18 MRS. ELLIS: Is this one of the ones that would he i
| |
| 19 in all the stack of stuff that we have gotten on this 20 particular calculation?
| |
| 21 MR. NACE: I believe it is. After the last meeting J$ ,
| |
| 22 He went through the presentation of the material in the 23 December meeting, including that which He didn't get to, and 24 sent you a truck load of three copies of cach.
| |
| '{ ,
| |
| 25 MRS. ELLIS: Right. I remember.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 25 e 1 MR. NACE: I don't know where you put it all.
| |
| ( 2 MRS. ELLIS: I'm certainly not saying that we don't 3 have it. I'll look.
| |
| 4 MR. NACE: If there are no questions at this moment, 5 I'd like to take a short break, and we'll reconvene in 10 6 minutes. -
| |
| 7- (A break was taken.)
| |
| 8 MR. NACE: 'The meeting Hill come back to. order. I 9 Hould like to set the record straight with respect to my last 10 statement. It turns out there are 12 more documents that are 11 referenced in the slides today that are not in that Which He 12 provided you after the December meeting. There are three 13 copies of each available here in Dallas, and as soon as this 14 meeting is over He Hill hire another truck and transfer those.
| |
| 15 MRS. ELLIS: I'll try to make another spot on my 16 kitchen floor, 17 MR. MUFFETT: Before He 90 on, I'd like to clarify 18 something, because I think the Hay He stated something was a 19 little misleading in regard to bolt holes. Just to make that 20 issue crystal clear, I'd like Pat to explain exactly what's 21 done. 2",
| |
| 22 MR HARRISON: What I said was that.the bolt hole l 23 was measured on the as-built drawing. In reality, it is the I 24 bolt hole size that is measured on the as-built drawing. The
| |
| ( , j 25 bolt -- I'm sorry -- is measured on the as-built drawing. The ,
| |
| , Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 '
| |
| l -- ._
| |
| | |
| F 26 1 size of the hole was determined by a sample that was done of t
| |
| ([ 2 ~ hangers, which is in Volume I, Book 25.
| |
| 3 MR. WALSH: So the holes could be larger than was 4 shown11n the calculations; is that correct?
| |
| 5 MR. HARRISON: What the sample showed was out of the 6 maximum size hole found in that sample, 7 MR. NACE: What he's trying to say is that that's not 8 -an average based upon a sample. That's the maximum diameter 9~ hole found in the plant.
| |
| 10 MR. WALSH: For that particular size bolt?
| |
| 11 MR HARRISON: For the bolts that were measured. For 12 every bolt that was disassembled and the hole measured, the 13 moximum size that was found was three quarters of an inch.
| |
| 14 MRS. ELLIS: That is done on a sampling basis, right?
| |
| 15 MR. HARRISON: Yes.
| |
| 16 MR. MUFFETT: All the details are in the study for 17 that.
| |
| 18 Now, getting back to an issue which is not on your 19 matrix there, which is one you asked us about, I'd like to 20 pick up with that one.
| |
| 21 Now. He paraphrased the question, our understanding J '. ,
| |
| 22 of it, and we believe that the question is: How is the effect 23 of high temperature due to LOCA on steel yield strength taken 24 into account in the design validation of the cable tray,
| |
| ( ,
| |
| 25 conduit and ilVAC supports?
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 27 1 The analyses are conducted in strict accordance with C 2 AISC requirements. This code is appropriate for the LOCA 3 conditions since the maximum steel temperature resulting from 4 the extreme accident event is less than 280 degrees, and this 5 is for less than actually that peak of around 280 that existed 6 for a number of hours.
| |
| 7 The code recognizes that the ultiamte strength is not 8 affected by this temperature.
| |
| 9 MR. WALSH: The loading combinations that are 10 annotated in the FSAR is based on the yield strength criteria.
| |
| 11 I believe that is Hhat's been commonly used out there at 12 Comanche Peak. And the effect of the temperature does offect 8
| |
| 13 the yield strength of the material. And from the documents 14 that I have seen, it appears that they're still utilizing the 15 yield strength of 36 KSI versus the 280-degree temperature, 16 which Hould be 31.2.
| |
| 17 MR. MUFFETT: If you Hill allow me to put up a 18 supplemental slide, I can relate to that issue.
| |
| 19 Unfortunately, I'm going to have to apologize because there is 20 one typo on here.
| |
| 21 In regard to this question of what we use and the 2 '.$
| |
| l 22 reduction in yield strength, you will see that what we're 23 using at Comanche Peak is .9 of Fy. Now, the NUREG 0800, 24 Which is the standard revieH plan, would alloH you to go to
| |
| ( ,
| |
| 25 .96 Fy, 1.6 times .6. We don't take advantage of that. So Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 28
| |
| : 1. What you see here is that the alloHable of
| |
| ( 2 non-temperature-adjusted allowables in compliance Hith the 3 NUREG Hould be 34.6. If the yield is adjusted for the 4 allowable, a change due to temperature, you see that you have 5 1.6 times .6 times the reduced yield, which is .95 of what it 6 is at room temperature, which would give you now an F 7 allowable of 32.8, which is still higher than Hhat He used.
| |
| 8 Now, not to get into a complex issue, but one thing 9 He wanted to check was, let's look at another code that does 10 something similar. Obviously, there's a lot of complexities 11 and a lot of differences between ASME and AISC, which I'm sure 12 you're aHare of.
| |
| 13 So what He did as a benchmark, as a crude benchmark,
| |
| ( 14 is look at what ASME Hou1.d do. That's the last two equations 15 here. ASME Hould derate the alloHable, but they would also 16 use an increase, because it's a one-time faulted event, of 17 approximately 1.8. That Hould give an allowable of 40.6 for 18 that faulted event at room temperature. If you adjusted the 19 ASME allowable for temperature as it does in the code and then 20 used the factor, the increase for the faulted condition, you 21 Hould get 36 KSI. All those numbers are higher than what He 2 ', ."
| |
| 22 used. In effect, He used the lower allowable to remove the 23 necessity to derate allowable for temperature on these types of components. That offers us a very positive benefit in that
| |
| ( 24 25 rather than different people performing all these different Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 29 1 calculations, we take a-uniform allowaule that addressed these
| |
| ( 2 effects, 3 MR. WALSH: Is-that -- I don't have my notes with me 4 on this, but I think there was one load combination where you 5 have, I think it's 1.7 times the strength of the material, and 6 it's equal to the SSE condition plus the LOCA. Then there's 7 another load case where it's 1.6 times the strength of the 8 material. And that'Hos with the LOCA and the OBE condition- .
| |
| 9 How do those equations relate back to the 1.6 times the yield 10 strength of the material? Or is this with the SSE condition?
| |
| 11 MR. MUFFETT: This is for the faulted condition.
| |
| 12 These loads are all manipulated in accordance with the 13 guidance given in the standard review plan, NUREG 0800.
| |
| ( 14 MR WALSH: Now, how about the case with the OBE 15 condition and the LOCA temperatures?
| |
| . 16 MR. ASHLEY: What we've provided here as the limit on 17 yield is .9 Fy as the load combination and the limit we used 18 for the SSE condition. In fact, we limit the OBE condition 19 for .6 Fy, or in effect we don't use the 1.6 multiplier.
| |
| 20 If you note in the SRP 1.7 is applied to the SSE condition, so 21 we've, in fact, for this comparison taken the lower factor '.'.'
| |
| 22 applicable for the OBE and compared it to the SSE allowable 23 that we used in design.
| |
| ( 24 MR. WALSH: But wasn't that all based on an Fy of 36, ,
| |
| 25 not 31.2?
| |
| Carmeri Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| '30 1 MR. ASHLEY: That's correct. What I'm saying is,
| |
| ( 2 what you would find for the OBE validation is that we're using 3 a .6 Fy, or roughly 21.6, rather than the faulted condition 4 allowed by the SRP which would be 1,6 times .6. So, in fact, 5 He were more conservative for the OBE case than the faulted 6 load combination.
| |
| 7 MR. WALSH: I guess I'll have to look at this a 8 little bit more closely.
| |
| 9 MR. MUFFETT: This is the slide Hith the typo. Let 10 me point that out. It's the second asterisk, the one with the 11 two stars by it, and I believe -- timing is everything.
| |
| 12 As you see, now you have the corrected one up there.
| |
| 13 It's .7 times Su over Ft. This comes from Appendix F of 14 Section III of ASME.
| |
| 15 I guess the real point is, Mark, one thing He're 16 going to make, He're aware that ASME derates this, but if you 17 see that when they use this factor of 1.8, 1.88, to increase 18 the load, because it's a one-time faulted condition, it 19 actually comes up to a higher number than we're using.
| |
| 9 3 20 MR WALSH: I guess the problem I have with this is 21 that Hhen Gibbs and Hill did their original analysis, they ','.'
| |
| 22 neglected LOCA because it was -- the material Has ductile.
| |
| 23 When they did their comparison they did not include the 24 decrease in yield strength, and that Has the basis of it.
| |
| ( And ,
| |
| 25 the Huy I was looking at it -- I've drawn a few numbers -- is Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| D 31-1 it's not necessarily the case if you stick with the original p 2 criteria that they had used in comparing the strength of the 3 material,-the 1.6 versus the 1.7 times the strength. The 4 yield strength goes down. They hadn't considered it.
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT: Right. And I believe, if I understand 6 correctly, if you were using .96 as your allowable, you should 7 derate it with temperature. But since we used something lower 8 all the time, those temperature effects don't really impact 9 this allowable. I guess that was the point of this slide.
| |
| 10 MR. WALSH: So that 34.6 KSI is based on a yield 11 strength of 36; is that correct?
| |
| 12 MR. MUFFETT: 34.6 is the non-temperature adjusted 13 allowable.
| |
| ( 14 MR. WALSH: So if you adjusted for temperature --
| |
| 15 MR. MUFFETT: That would be the next one down.
| |
| 16 MR. WALSH: Okay.
| |
| 17 MR. MUFFETT: You see that that's 32.8, which is 18 again a higher allowable than what we used.
| |
| 19 MRS. ELLIS: So what you're using all the time is 20 32.4; is that right?
| |
| 21 MR. MUFFETT: Right. And that saves us the necessity:,'."
| |
| 22 of having to make a critical calculation for temperature.
| |
| 23 This way we use a uniform allowable. We don't have to Horry
| |
| ( 24 about that or address it.
| |
| 25 MR. WALSH: And that 15. for bending?
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| ______ J
| |
| | |
| 32
| |
| . 1 MR. MUFFETT: Yes. Now,;there's a lot -- obviously N 2 there's a lot more complexity to this and there's a lot of 3 dif ferent types of things going onthere. We couldn't really 4 address that in simple charts or in the contents of this 5 meeting.
| |
| 6 MR. WALSH: Okay. So yoo're trying to say that ___,
| |
| 7 you're utilizing this 32.4 Just for the .9 Fy simplicity here.
| |
| 8- Now, if you were to-take a channel,'which has long and various 9 lengths, how Hould that be reflecte'd here? Where the point --
| |
| 10 it won't be .9. It's going to be dramatically less because of 11 the various lengths. How is that r:eflected here?
| |
| 12 MR. ASHLEY: Essentially what we're doing, this .9 Fy 13 is set as the limit on stress, on normal stress. In other
| |
| ( 14 words, for this load combination, this being the SSE 15 combination, we do not have any normal stress in design 16 validation greater than .9 Fy. When we do the individual 17 component designs, the components of stress, we, of course, 18 are reducing those components based on the AISC code: in other 19 words, whatever the major axis bending allowable is for the 20 channel, whatever it happens to be for the compressive stress 21 allowable for the particular channe:1 member. Now, when you 2 '."
| |
| 22 combine all those interaction-type equations, the total 23 combined normal stress cannot be greater than .9 Fy.
| |
| ( 24 Now, the other point that .this does bring out is the 25 .9 Fy, as I said before, is the limit set for the load
| |
| )
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| 34 1 from them.
| |
| II 2 MRS. ELLIS: Unless something else would come up --
| |
| 3 Thank you.
| |
| 4 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue Me have is 26, and Greg 5 Ashley is going to present that.
| |
| 6 MR. ASHLEY: This issue is related to the design of 7 base angles. It has several parts.
| |
| 8 The first part: In the original design, original 9 base angle design, base angles Here modeled as simply 10 supported beams, ignoring the stiffening effects of concrete 11 bearing at angle ends.
| |
| 10 12 This issue has been resolved. Design validation 13 procedures use the same assumption when checking base angle 14 stresses since consideration of the stiffening effects due to 15 concrete bearing at angle ends would produce lower base angle 16 stresses. This assumption is conservative for evaluation of 17 base angle stresses. However, concrete stiffness is included 18 in calculations of the base angle flexibility used in the 19 determination of support stiffness.
| |
| 20 The second part of this issue: In the original base 21 angle design, principal axes were not considered in the : * .'
| |
| 22 analysis of base angles.
| |
| 23 Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP34 and PI-07
| |
| (, 24 require the base angle principal axes be considered in the 25 evaluation of base angles.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| A
| |
| ~
| |
| :.r 36-1- where extremely similar hangers were grouped,-the' grouping was
| |
| .'($ 2 ' performed with consideration of support geometries, zonnection 3
| |
| -detailsJand other relevant attributes in accordonce with 4 Design Validation Grouping Procedures in Volume I, Books 4-and' 5- 8.
| |
| 6 MR. NACE: I might comment the references, Volume-I,
| |
| -7_ -Books.4 and 8 are, in fact, two of the documents you have not
| |
| , 8 received yet, but you will shortly.
| |
| 1 9 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is issue 28, which is 10 again going to be presented by Pat. -
| |
| 11 MR. HARRISON: Issue 28, critical support 12 configuration and loadings. The original issue was that the 13 original design calculations for trapeze-type cable tray 14 hangers considered symmetric load patterns and a limited 15 number of hanger aspect ratios which may not have represented 16 the bounding as-built configurations, u 17 Resolution to this issue is as follows: Design "
| |
| 18 validation was performed using as-built information which 19 adequately accounts for the significant number of attributes,
| |
| ; 20 including actual tray locations. The majority of the hangers i 21 have been design validated individually. In the limited J' ,
| |
| 22 number of instances where extremely similar hangers were 23 grouped, the grouping was performed with consideration of
| |
| ,.( 24 support geometries, connection details, and other relevant
| |
| ! 25 attributes in accordance with Design Validation Grouping l
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 9 ,* '
| |
| 1 Procedures in Volume I, Li cio 4 and 8.
| |
| 2 MR..WALSH: _W hc1 . 65 tw .au .enia9e .tnot nos ir, w1s 3 group?
| |
| 4: MR. HARRISON: idi s dess u ua 10 percent.
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT:. Iht ntxt 'issu+ is -issue 29, . which oreg 6' Ashley is going to preser:'
| |
| 7 MR. ASHLEY: Thks -1ssue ds r elated torthe muitiv1;T ve 8 ef f ect of all of 'the revhen in .tu ' ' *"ci l u ,' -t .e t 9 small unconservatisms resu 10 significant cumulative effs a '1. 0le :. ......u. s..v .c 11 by more than one issue.
| |
| 12 This issue has-betn resolved.since +.n e'; nn 13 cumulative unconservative f f ~t en+ i.
| |
| ( 14 In the current pri re"n +b.' '
| |
| 15- Corrective' Action Program everall c x v. . .S u cr. u p p r o -
| |
| - -- 16 has addressed each issues Lath-indi'/iduel]v sr.o cal.7.st tiv ' .
| |
| 17 The design valietlan h n c h a n n h n * < -- en ot-nut.1*
| |
| 18 data.
| |
| 19 The Design Yaltdition Proteocres 5Al.CP3, c. 5 l'.,
| |
| 20 18, 19, 28, 34, PI-02, r,1F cnd 11 r 7vidt r- .t o: : the 21 design process.
| |
| 22 All the final?desions cre"in conformance with the 23 applicable codes, 24 An extensive' tsstr.ptccra... r 'os ided cata deacns trating
| |
| (_ ,
| |
| , 25 the design validation apor.co: .. c.. ._ . r , :t : ?
| |
| i
| |
| ! Carmen Gooded, .'C OR, RPR, i.etro 429-5532 i
| |
| | |
| ~38 i
| |
| 1 MR. WALSH: I have another question regarding the
| |
| ( 2 temperature effects on structural steel. tYou referenced a 3 NUREG 800.
| |
| 4 MR. MUFFETT: Yes.
| |
| * 5 MR. WALSH: Is that included inithe FSAR for the 6 Justification of not decreasing the yield' strength?
| |
| 7 MR. MUFFETT: That doesn't speak to that, and we did 8 not reference it in regard to that. What: He referenced in the 9 NUREG was the 1.6 increase on the .6.
| |
| 10 MR. WALSH: And that would be referenced in the 11 FSAR. * -
| |
| 12 MR. MUFFETT: The NUREG7 13 MR. WALSH: Yes.
| |
| 14 MR. MUFFETT: Our load combinations come right out'of 11 L
| |
| 15 Standard Review Plan. I don't know if it referenced the 16 NUREG. It was Just written the same on the FSAR, and I don't 17 want to mislead you, but I believe that those are -- I think 18 they are exactly transposed from the Standard Review Plan to 19 the FSAR.
| |
| 20 MRS. ELLIS: I'd like to just mention that when Mark 21 talks about the FSAR he's thinking primarily of the way it ' J 5' .
| |
| 22 used to be, because he hasn't seen all of the stack of changes 23 that we received recently on this. So it may very well be
| |
| * 24
| |
| ( some of the things that he's talking about are different from 25 what -- are now different in the new revision from what he is Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| n ..
| |
| ?. -i. --
| |
| ;c f._
| |
| i r
| |
| . L.
| |
| (> .
| |
| . . , . _ . . .... s .c .t.on- s.. Is oc. . .: 1 t
| |
| + ;. . - .3 .. Pverbius -identi. .fied in. tne .FSAR?:vh.think~..thot
| |
| * 5 vou'r: oueu 2 on -
| |
| .t
| |
| ,- 4 4 Jos Opposed ' tc'..i .110.14URE6JJ8GU J e f er 6Hceo? .{
| |
| . 16.. WALEU. TheLNURE6. l
| |
| ' a F3..F.UFFEU . I A n.t.belic.it the UURE6 n .: !
| |
| : v. y :.be.11ew .tt'at unctine've dane 1& .toten-tnose-necccm.- m lot ''
| |
| +:
| |
| ]
| |
| a;..> c o s e. n ;,v :).a c:a oc m p
| |
| . 0;.. a' ,;
| |
| t t
| |
| i r
| |
| < _ .... ; r o. n. .s n. ; o. .
| |
| -......e..., .. :
| |
| . .< ,. . : ... 1 .. .
| |
| -10 the cat'. t iw.' di d. r.ot . i ndicote 11 F-Fy.in ine FSA: !
| |
| l' .E - AS%.Ef : . M.at - we * \ v - -he ' ve .used F T" L t 'n -l<
| |
| - .. G . d: . 9. .x,6
| |
| * r '.ine using . cent m- ' s t r .n . N-s p, . , . . v v. ~.4 g n- ee.* .o,s t ae v y ; o;; m . ...~:,, o ,e ,
| |
| ; !, cmonent
| |
| * x ' r.s !.I 'ic 5necificat-10' ; - W!:a t st.616 . r.:
| |
| , 15: .
| |
| 511oe 1:. Ne tuoi '.S ty cnd rairr comporison ihrouof;'.v5 top
| |
| ~
| |
| i um nre. snino nor v einr.s cer- the L?ct
| |
| )
| |
| t 1
| |
| y wno .,..n. 5 n meeni t< ou r. : rect:c. c2; '. .. ' -
| |
| l
| |
| . to a.rs:,.ne.su m iram ths 425C, ti.ct . n x t ' :, u t . . -
| |
| i i
| |
| ' i- -
| |
| 20 aesion. If we set o reduced allenob'.> 1ren -'r Jor on o e ~' : ig I t
| |
| ! i
| |
| ,; .21 ..anc.:s.tross on a.chonneL sectlencthat*s what we used in i
| |
| t t
| |
| 22 m ion i t
| |
| ' 1
| |
| ~2?- . ,- MRS. .ELLIS > - Se you .re not rtally relying ( ri the !
| |
| t'
| |
| , /i i+ r te) {
| |
| :- e. m - n.e t,e .' : . , ; _ . p. .1 reto:sc .u i
| |
| i f
| |
| r f
| |
| Coru n Oceder'. C ir; ppF. S tro 429-5532 !
| |
| -m.__,,- .f
| |
| | |
| 40 1 load combinations, and that's what He've taken out into the
| |
| ( 12 design procedures. That's the way He combined loads for 3 typical designs. I don't believe we have referenced what 4 He've done, is plagiarized those combinations out and put them 5 in the FSAR. There's a recommended combination frort the 6 Staff.
| |
| 7 MRS. ELLIS: There's one thing I want to clarify.
| |
| 8 I'm sure I know the~ answer to this, but just for the record, 9 in what you have done it was not part of your Job to really 10 look at the root cause of the problems that had come up in the 11 past; 1s that right? You Here looking at the corrective 12 action aspect of it and addressing it from that aspect rather 13 than what had happened before and the reason things had
| |
| ( 14 happened before; is that right?
| |
| 15 MR. COUNSIL: Mrs. Ellis, somehow somebody has a 16 misconception that He are not going to do a root cause 17 analysis. That is not true. In the last approval of our .
| |
| 18 Corrective Action Program and CPRT Program Plan the NRC in _
| |
| 19 Item i specifically asked us to do so. With any degree of 20 luck, that Hill be issued next week.
| |
| 21 MRS. ELLIS: I Just wanted to establish that these :[.
| |
| 22 gentlemen are not really the ones.
| |
| 23 MR. COUNSIL: Yes, they are. They are part of the 24 team that is helping us do the root cause analyses.
| |
| (
| |
| 25 MRS. ELLIS: That's what I was trying to clarify.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 41 1 MR, NACE: The basic mechanism will be described in
| |
| (' 2 the submittal once we finish our activities. All the 3 contractors, having gone through the validation process and 4 having cataloged Appendix A and Appendix B issues to the PSR, 5 then participate in the development of a root cause report 6 which will be submitted.
| |
| 7 MRS. ELLIS: Thank you.
| |
| 8 MR. MUFFETT: The next two issues numerically are 30 9 and 31. We addressed those last time in our last meeting. We 10 would propose to 90 on to 32 and let you ask questions later 11 about anything in the prior meeting. 5 12 Issue 32 is conduits attached to cable trays or 13 supports.
| |
| 14 The external source issue is: Questions regarding 15 conduits attached to cable trays or cable tray hangers have' 16 been identified. These questions are as follows: >
| |
| 17 How are conduit loads considered in cable tray hanger 18 validation?
| |
| 19 How are conduit loads considered in cable tray design 20 validation?
| |
| 21 How is hanger frequency at conduit attachment J '.
| |
| 22 locations determined in the equivalent static analysis?
| |
| 23 The resolution to the issue is as follows: Design
| |
| ( 24 Validation Procedures SAG.CP18 and SAG.CP34 and PI-02 for ,
| |
| 25 cable trays and cable tray hangers require thot the effects of Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 4:
| |
| m ,1 wc cat'etn i .:e Ja, N aed .in. ine evolJat a c: ; o'.0 e + r t e s
| |
| \
| |
| l -
| |
| s 1
| |
| !- 3 s for the-equivalent static. onalysis the system i
| |
| l' 4 frequency has evaluated based on.copropriate mass
| |
| {E -i particicction at specified in: SAG.C?34.
| |
| 2 E % 74th . EIT: The nExt issi. is 15:.ae : 3, uti.:
| |
| ./ ~-v:0ng to be p1esented by Govin Winshic.
| |
| O-
| |
| * M *-
| |
| . 1:.s.e 3. 'o u- . ' 901;dno.
| |
| n c.e w t : . .. L u . .: .. . . . . .
| |
| L1 v :'.NosP ,rceencre. Whct is the Ju ''.'icritic' !07. u2 c - -
| |
| ~? u c. for os-built e.ecsurements?
| |
| ~
| |
| : e. . !,- m : c s cl J .1 :i na' ..n...: ..
| |
| : 1. .*.
| |
| ,,,.se..,,.--
| |
| . y. e r . .- e....
| |
| . s. .
| |
| .. c i <.i t - -a t r " : m .'.h a w s : , u r u e n , ici',ucence: w, e c . u .
| |
| . 35 Octner um n .Du3 n Toble"troy trnd'coble tro- tongere-
| |
| - . . . , + . ..,-e n r , .3 , + n i , a L . s e ,s . . .s n 4 r. ,. .. r s. e <. .. < . . - - = : _ m. .- ,
| |
| .. . . . &. e r. e c .. G r.ere :..;,u ,.r.
| |
| A ;~ C #ct is ale justificction 'a' usin ' ' ' t. " - po-t -'
| |
| 21 the nelci uccepione criteria?
| |
| /2 &< de +" i:clLdonn procedur'as. evoluct: :M d 2? Denetrc*:on' c4 r.u P. t nt ..alnlown p utt ta e s evaluote unL:ichn
| |
| (
| |
| C a r"'o r. G r.e d e . . C SP , R PT:
| |
| F.e t r o 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 43 1 Do the walkdown procedures evaluate items attached to '
| |
| 2 cable tray supports?
| |
| 3 The resolutions Here as follows: TU Electric has 4 received NRC aLGruval to use visual Held acceptance criteria 5 (VWAC).
| |
| 6 The effective throat of Helds Has assumed 40 percent 7 of the beveled member's thickness based on ultrasonic tests t
| |
| 8 and engineering studies, Volume I, Book 20.
| |
| 9 When expansion anchor type and embedment length could 10 not be identified, the anchors Here design validated assuming 11 minimum capacity for the anchor type. Example here, A307 12 bolts with Richmond inserts, or Hilti-Kwik bolts as opposed to .
| |
| 13 a Hilti-Super-KHik bolt.
| |
| 14 Design validated assuming minimum embedment for the 15 particular anchor s.tze. !
| |
| . 16 And inspected using ultrasonic tests to determine as-built anchor embedment for validation.
| |
| 17 18 Finally, items attached to cable trays and cable tray '
| |
| 19 hangers and methods used to attach those items were then 20 identified by walkdown procedures FVM-CS-002, 003, 019 and 21 048. :l.
| |
| 22 The third and final issue: fhe following questions i
| |
| 23 regarding as-built walkdown procedures Here identified.
| |
| 24 What are the specific items evaluated as part of the
| |
| ( '
| |
| 25 cable tray span walkdown procedure? ;
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 7 44 1 The resolution Has: Troy covers, side rail
| |
| ( 2 extensions and modified splice plates are identified as per 3 Halkdown procedures FVM-CS-001, 003, 019 and 048!. These 4 attributes are being validated in accordance With . Procedures 5 SAG.CP3, SAG.CP4, SAG.CP18 and SAG.CP34, FI-02, PI-06 and 6 Calculation M-39, 7 MRS. ELLIS: I don't think we have any questions 8 right now. We may have some at some point later.
| |
| 9 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue that He'd like to talk 10 about is 34, Which is the system analysis methodologies, which 11 Greg Ashley is going to present.
| |
| 12 MR. ASHLEY: This issue ts related to the system li analysis methodologies. The external source issue is: The
| |
| ( 14 following questions Here raised regarding cable tray system 15 onalysis ee'hodologies.
| |
| 16 buperpipe error SP-004 involved the incorrect 17 assignment of lumped directional masses for static load cases.
| |
| 18 A method to adjust the results to account for the error Has 19 incorporated in the cable tray validation procedures. The 20 error Has subsequently corrected in a later version of 21 superpipe, and this method was no longer required. System J '.'
| |
| 22 analysis 176-063-02 incorrectly applied this method for error 23 SP-004 to a version of superpipe in which the error had been
| |
| (, 24 corrected. The question is: What is the impact of applying 25 the method to adjust for the error to a corrected version of Carmen Gooden, CSR. RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 45 ;
| |
| 1 superpipe?
| |
| 2 The resolution of this question was: This issue was 3 identified and documented in an internal technical quality 4 review which was conductea in accordance with IMPELL Quality 5- Assurance Procedures prior to identification by external 6 source. There was no impact of incorrectly applying this 7 method of adjustment to systems analysis 176-063-02. This is 8 documented in the TOR response. In response to the TOR, the 9 corrective action reauired that generic implications also be 10 identified. No other occurrences of this issue were 11 identified.
| |
| 12 The second part to this issue: The following 13 Questions Here raised regarding Cable tray system analysis 14 methodologies:
| |
| 15 The question was: What is the Justification for the 16 use of a 1.1 load factor for cable tray and cable tray hangers 17 located near analysis boundaries in the overlap regions of 18 response spectrum analyses?
| |
| 19 This issue was resolved by: A detailed engineering 20 study (Calculation M-13) which developed the overlap criteria 21 using the results of partial models with overlap regions 22 compared to the results of full models of the some system.
| |
| 23 Results of this study showed that no load increase factor was 24 reauired; however, a load increase factor of 1.1 was applied 25 in the overlap region to assure conservative analysis results, i
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 7 46 1 This factor wos established from a review of other structural 2 overlap criterio. One of those criteria, in particular, was 3 "Overlap Criteria in Piping" by Brookhaven National 4 Laboratory.
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue He'd like to proceed 6 with is A35. The issue was that in the original design and 7 inspection of cable tray hangers, QC inspectors failed to 8 identify and document conditions where the installation was 13 9 not in accordance Hith the design document.
| |
| 10 The resolution is that under the Corrective Action 11 Program the reinspection of cable tray-hangers has been 12 performed and documented in accordance with the following 13 procedures: 01-0P-11.10-2A, 01-0P-11-10-9, FVM-CS-001, 14 FVM-CS-003, and FVM-CS-036, 15 This as-built information is independently reviewed 16 by TU Electric QC personnel. ,
| |
| 17 This as-built information performed is considered as 18 design input for the design evaluations that we're talking 19 about today. And I think we touched on this point earlier.
| |
| 20 NoH we'd like to shift gears slightly and move into 21 Suboppendix B items. These are items that we have identified '
| |
| 22 ourselves while conducting a CAP that have been reportable ,
| |
| 23 issues under 50-55E. We'd like to talk about what we found .
| |
| l 24 and how We corrected these issues.
| |
| 25 The first one is B1, which is SDAR-CP-83-15. It's t Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 I
| |
| | |
| 47 1 going-to be presented by Greg Ashley.
| |
| 2 MR. ASHLEY: This internal source issue is related to
| |
| 'I the bolting materici for cable tray hanger clomps.
| |
| 4- Specifically, the original design of heavy duty cable 5 tray clamps for longitudinal-type hangers requi' red the 6 installation of high strength A-325 bolting materials to 7 attach the cable tray clamp to the cable tray hanger. Field 8 Halkdown of the installed conditions revealed the use of lower 9 strength A-307 bolting material.
| |
| 10 This issue is being resolved in the Post Construction 11 Hardware Validation Program which for cable tray hangers 12 identifies the installed bolt material used for the connection 13 of cable tray clamps to structural members. Existing bolting 14 material is being evaluated in accordance with the appropriate 15 allowables in the Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP19 and 16 01-06. Bolts Hhich do not comply with design requirements are 17 being replaced.
| |
| l 18 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is B2, which has to do i 19 Hith cable tray hanger design, which is going to be presented i 20 by Pat Harrison.
| |
| l This issue is SDAR-CP-85-35 and is 21 MR. HARRISON:
| |
| 22 now cable tray hanger design.
| |
| 23 The original design criteria may not have l
| |
| 24 appropriately addressed certain design requirements.
| |
| l 25 Additionally, discrepancies may have existed between as-built i
| |
| i j
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
| |
| | |
| 48 1 and as-designed cable tray hanger configurations.
| |
| 2 The resolution-is as fe:1. lows: TV Electric initiated 3 a cable tray and cable tray hanger Corrective Action Program, 4 CAP. CAP features include the establishment of cable tray and 5 cable tray hanger design criteria which comply with CPSES 6 licensing commitments; development of the Design Basis 7 Document, DBD-CS-082; validation of the installed cable tray 8 and cable tray hanger designs, including the identification 9 and implementation of necessary modifications.
| |
| 10 Cable trays and cable tray hangers have been design 11 validated in accordance with the Design Va]1dation Procedures 12 PI-02, PI-03, PI-06, PI-07, PI-11, SAG.CP3, SAG.CP4, SAG.CP9, 13 SAG.CP11, SAG.CP18, SAG.CP19, SAG.CP28 and SAG.CP34. The 14 installed cable tray hanger and cable tray hardware is being 15 validated in accordance with the Post Construction Hardware 16 Validation Program, PCHVP, by Procedures FVM-CS-001, 003, 019, 17 048, 050, 084, 098 and 100.
| |
| 18 MRS. ELLIS: One question on the previous slide. It 19 says -- this was on B1 -- that this was discovered through 20 field walkdown. How was the information for B2 obtained? How 21 was that issue identified?
| |
| 22 MR. ASH!.EY: B2 -- you'll note on page B2-1 as e 23 opposed to B1 -- B1 He call the internal source issue, B2 He 24 call an external / internal source issue. Really, B2 reported 25 to the Commission the findings of the external source issues.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 49 1 For example, the CYGNA review and all other issues, external 2 source issues, those >. vere recorded under 10CFR.50.55E using 3 SDAR-CP-85-35 as the vehicle. -
| |
| 4 MRS. ELLIS: Okay. I may have a little more.t-o say 5 about that later, too.
| |
| 6 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is B3, which is 7 SDAR-CP-85-50, which is going to be presented by Gavin 8 Winship.
| |
| 9 MR. WINSHIP: Cable tray tee fittings. The issue was 10 as follows: Some as-built Helds on vendor-supplied tray tee 11 fittings were not in accordance with the Helds specified in 12 the vendor drawings.
| |
| 13 The resolution was that tee fittings not meeting the 14 minimum vendor Held requirements have been identified as part 15 of the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program, PCHVP, 16 using Procedure FVM-CS-050. Tee fittings with inadequate 17 Helds are being modified to meet the design requirements.
| |
| 14 18 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is B4, which is 19 SDAR-CP-85-52. In light of What Greg Just brought up, I will 20 point you to this. It's also an external / internal issue and 21 that part of this or some of it to some degree was raised by 22 outside parties. We reported it on this SDAR under the 23 requirements of 50.55E.
| |
| 24 The issue was that discrepancies were identified in 25 the as-built documentation developed during in early phases Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 50 1 of the as-built inspection program.
| |
| 2 Resolution is that cable tray and cable tray hanger 3 systems Hhich have been as-built inspected during this phase 4 Here validated and reinspected by personnel trained in the TU 5 Electric field verification methods. .
| |
| 6 The next issue is B5, Which is SDAR-CP-86-52, which 7- is going to be presented by Gavin Winship.
| |
| 8 MR. WINSHIP: Cable tray splices and connections.
| |
| 9 The issue Has as folloHs: Cable tray splices Here not 10 installed in accordance with approved splice configurations as 11 summarized beloH.
| |
| 12 The cable tray splice configurations may have used 13 splice plates that Here not approved designs or may have 14 incorrectly used approved splice plates.
| |
| 15 Improper installation of splice plates may have 16 resulted in unused bolt holes in :able trays and splice 17 plates.
| |
| 18 The original calculations did not consider the 19 effects of unused bolt holes in cable trays and splice plates.
| |
| ; 20 Special splice plates may have been installed in l
| |
| 21 place of reducer fittings. The original calculations did not 22 consider the use of splice plates in place of reducer l 23 fittings.
| |
| 24 Tne resolution was as follows: Unacceptable 25 field-fabricated splices, which do not comply with design l
| |
| l Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 51 1 criteria, are being identified in the Post Construction 2 HardHare Validation Progrcm, PCHVP, in accordance Hith 3 Procedures FVM-CS-019 and FVM-CS-048. Splice plates that do 4 not comply Hith the design criteria are being replaced with 5 design-validated splice plates.
| |
| 6 Unused holes in cable trays and splice plates which 7 do not comply Hith design criteria are being identified during 8 the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program, PCHVP, 9 using Procedures FVM-CS-019 and FVM-CS-048. Trays and splice 10 plates with unused holes that do not comply Hith design 11 criteria are being repaired or replaced with validated 12 designs.
| |
| 13 Special splice plates used in place of reducer 14 fittings are being identified during the Post Construction 15 Hardware Validation Program, PCHVP, using Procedures 16 FVM-CS-019 and FVM-CS-048. These splice plates are being 17 replaced with design-validated splice plates.
| |
| 18 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue Hill be B6, which is 19 SDAR-CP-86-82, which is going to be presented by Greg Ashley.
| |
| 20 MR. ASHLEY: This issue is related to cable tray 21 hanger splice Helds. The original cable tray hanger 22 installation specification required the use of full 23 penetration Held Joints when channel sections were spliced end 24 to end. Non-destructive tests performed on a sample of these 25 end-to-end splice Helds revealed in certain instances less Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 52 1 than complete Held penetration.
| |
| 2 This issue has been resolved since the Post 3 Construction Hardware Validation Program has identified the 4 location of all channel end-to-end splice Helds.
| |
| 5 Non-destructive examination was performed, and Helds that did 6 not achieve full penetration Here modified to conform with 7 design requirements.
| |
| 8 MRS. ELLIS: Just one question on this. The method 9 used to locate this initially was a sampling, but the 10 resolution of it was not on a sampling basis. It was 100 11 percent.
| |
| 12 MR. ASHLEY: Right. The sample identified the 13 problem and the need to look at every splice Held.
| |
| 14 MR. WALSH: In the original criteria was there a 15 quality assurance program set up that they would go out and 16 use non-destructive testing on the original splices? How were 17 they originally approved, the splices?
| |
| 18 MR. ASHLEY: The original design required a full 19 penetration Held. I could not speak to the original program 20 Hith regard to what quality assurance was provided if full 21 penetration was achieved, but the original design was for full 22 penetration. We identified if it was lack of full penetration 23 then the need to repair.
| |
| 24 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is B7, which is 25 SDAR-CP-87-48. Pat Harrison Hill present this issue.
| |
| Ccrmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 i
| |
| _- _ . . . -- - 1
| |
| | |
| 53 1 This issue is cable tray transverse clamps. The 2 original installation of particular combinations of transverse 3 cable tray clamp +ypes provided inadequate restraint of the 4 cable tray when subjected to transverse movement.
| |
| 5 Resolution is as follows: The Post Construction 6 Hardware Validation Program, PCHVP, is identifying cable tray 7 clamp combinations using Procedure FVM-CS-001, 003 and 100.
| |
| 8 Clamp combinations not in compliance with the design 9 requirements are being replaced with on acceptable clamp 10 combinotion.
| |
| 11 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is B8, which is 12 SDAR-CP-87-59, which Hill be presented by Gavin Winship.
| |
| 13 MR. WINSHIP: This issue concerns the improper 14 application of construction aids.
| |
| 15 15 Certain adjustable cable tray fittings, intended only 16 to aid in the alignment of tray segments during i
| |
| 17 installation, were installed in permanent components without 18 evaluation of their structural adequacy.
| |
| 19 The resolution: That adjustable cable tray fittings l 20 installed as permanent components are being identified during 21 PCHYP in accordance with Procedures FVM-CS-019, 048 and 084.
| |
| 22 Fittings which do not comply with design requirements Hill be 23 modified or replaced.
| |
| 24 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is B9, which is 25 SDAR-CP-87-76, which Hill also be presented by Gavin Winship.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 54 1 MR. WINSHIP: This issue is field-drilled cable tray 2 holes. The issue Has that field-drilled holes used to install
| |
| '3 splice plates resulted in unused holes in cable trays and 4 splice plates. The issue was that these unused holes Here not 5 considered in tray and splice plate design.
| |
| 6 The resolution was as fo11 ohs: Unused holes in cable 7 trays and splice plates are being identified during the Post 8 Construction Hardware Validation Program, PCHVP, using 9 Procedures FVM-CS-048 and FVM-CS-019. Unused holes that do 10 not comply Hith design criteria Hill be repaired, t 11 MR. MUFFETT: That covers Appendix A and Appendix B 12 issues that He had.
| |
| 13 MR. NACE: I think at this time, Mrs. Ellis, 14 consistent with your earlier remarks, if you desire He con 15 break for lunch and Mark can collect his thoughts. If that's 16 your desire, then I might ask you what time you suggest He 17 reconvene.
| |
| 18 MRS. ELLIS: How about 12:307 19 MR. NACE: The meeting is recessed until 1:00 p.m.
| |
| 20 (A lunch break was taken.)
| |
| 21 MR. NACE: The meeting Hill come back to order. At 22 this time He'll proceed directly into the conduit and conduit 23 support project status reports and subjects.
| |
| 24 Jim?
| |
| 25 MR. MUFFETT: Before He get into the individual Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metru 429-5532 ;
| |
| | |
| 55~
| |
| v
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 issues, I'd like to put up a few slides that talk about.the 2 program in general. We've put these up'before for piping and 3 the cable trays at the inception of that r.ieeting, but', Mark, I-4 don't.think you've seen us Walk through the overall program.
| |
| 5 So.I think it would be a good chance to talk about that for 6 conduits.
| |
| 7 The first thing I'd look to go into in talking about 8 this program is the scope of the Corrective Action Program in-9 this area. It deals with Unit 1 and common Seismic Category 1 10 Trains A, B conduits and conduit supports and Seismic Category 11 2 conduits and conduit supports for Train C which are larger 12 than two inch in diameter. These have all been design '
| |
| . 13 validated. He'll talk about the Train C less than two inch in 14 diameter at the conclusion of this presentation -- at the r 15 conclusion of these conduit issues.
| |
| 16 The primary features of the Corrective Action Program 17 are the establishment of conduit and conduit support design 18 criteria which comply with the CPSES licensing commitments, 19 resolution of design and hardware-related issues for the CPSES ,
| |
| ; 20 conduits and conduit supports, development of the design basis 21 document, implementation of design and hardware validation, 22 including identification and implementation of necessary l 23 modifications, and compilation of validated design l
| |
| 24 documentation to form the basis for configuration control. .
| |
| 25 To expand a little bit on some of the topics I Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 56 1- touched on briefly, all the licensing commitments Here 2 identified. These Here found in the FSAR, the NRC Reg Guide, 3 I&E Bulletins and the applicable codes and standards.
| |
| 4 Design validation criteria and procedures Here 5 established. Engineering studies were performed, and 6 component testing Has performed. Unistrut material was 7 tested. Static, cyclic and dynamic clamp tests were 8 performed, and static conduit threaded fitting tests.
| |
| 9 Another feature of the program was to provide 10 assurance that all external source concerns have been 11 resolved. There's been extensive revieH by the CPRT Third 12 Party, which is being performed by TENERA, and this is 13 documented in the DAP Results Report, Civil / Structural Train A 14 and B conduit supports which is DAP Results Report C/S-002.
| |
| 15 Design validation Has performed. This dealt with the 16 collection of as-built data for each conduit and conduit 17 support.
| |
| 18 Design validation of each as-built conduit and 19 conduit support, and the above includes the Junction boxes and 20 the Junction box supports.
| |
| l 21 Implementing necessary hardHare modifications.
| |
| 22 And the final step is complete final reconciliation 23 process. That has the implementation of the Post Construction l
| |
| l 24 HardHare Validation Program, the incorporation of the results, l
| |
| 25 the closure of all open items from all of the revieHers, and a f
| |
| l Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 i
| |
| | |
| 1 compilation of the Design Validation Packages.
| |
| 2 The next slide is a flow chart talking about the 3 design validation process. And this outlines the steps that I l
| |
| 4 have'Just spoken about before in a logical fashion.
| |
| 5 Do you have any questions? -
| |
| 6 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 7 MR MUFFETT: In the morning He were moving along 8 rather quickly, and I may have forgotten to ask you if you had 9 any Questions. Just feel free to break in any time.
| |
| 16 10 The first issue He have in conduits is Issue 1, and 11 this is going to be presented by Frank Hettinger. As you see, 12 I have tHo neH gentlemen here with me, Frank Hettinger and 13 Enver Odar from EBASCO, who have been dealing in the conduit 14 program. So we have changed teams except for me.
| |
| 15 MR. HETTINGER: Good afternoon, everyone. I would 16 very briefly like to introduce myself. My name is Frank 17 Hettinger. I'm a structural civil engineer with 19 years 18 experience. Fourteen of those years have been with EBASCO 19 Services, during which I've participated in design and 20 analysis for structures for 10 nuclear poHer plants. I've 21 been working on Comanche Peak for three years now, and I'm 22 currently supervising engineer responsible for engineering 23 activities on Comanche Peak. I'm a member of the Society of 24 Civil Engineers and I am a registerea professional engineer.
| |
| 25 The first issue is related to the governing load case Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ = _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 58 1 -for design. The issue is that the original design may not 2 have properly considered both OBE and SSE load combinations by 3 assuming that a 60-percent. increase in allowables for SSE 4 was applicable to all conduits, conduit supports and their 5 components.
| |
| 6 This issue was resolved as follows: Conduits, 7 conduit supports and their components are desicn validated for 8 the OBE and SSE load combinations separately utilizing OBE and 9 SSE allowables respectively. The criteria used for each 10 component is described in Design Validation Procedures 11 SAG.CP10 for conduits and their supports, and SAG.CP17 for 12 Junction boxes.
| |
| 13 MR. WALSH: This covers the structural steel members 14 as well as the anchor bolts and catalog items?
| |
| 15 MR. HETTINGER: Yes. It covers all components.
| |
| 16 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is A2, which Frank is
| |
| . 17 also going to present.
| |
| 18 MR. HETTINGER: This issue is related to dynamic 19 amplification factors. The FSAR allows use of a dynamic 20 amplification factor less than 1.5 only if Justification is 21 provided.
| |
| 22 The particular issue is that in the original design a 23 dynamic amplification factor of 1.0 times the response spectra 24 peak accelerations was used without proper Justification.
| |
| 25 This issue was resolved as follows: Design Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 59 1 Validation Procedures SAG.CP10, CP17, CP20 and CP25 specify 2 use of any of the following methods to account for dynamic 3 amplification effects in conduit system design validation.
| |
| 4 All these methods comply with FSAR commitments.
| |
| 5 One method is the equivalent static in Hhich 1.5 6 times response spectra peak accelerations are used independent 7 of conduit system frequency.
| |
| 8 Second: In the equivalent static method Hhen 9 determination of conduit system frequency is made, design 10 accelerations Justified by dynamic response spectra analysis 11 are used. Dynamic amplification factors are inherently 12 included in these design accelerations.
| |
| 13 Third: When dynamic response spectra analysis of 14 specific conduit systems is used, dynamic amplification 15 factors are inherently included in the analysis.
| |
| 16 MR. WALSH: Just for my oHn Clarification, I guess.
| |
| 17 When you analyzed the conduit system, are you referring to the l
| |
| ! 18 conduit as one item and the supports as a different item, or 19 did you model support stiffness in?
| |
| , 20 PR. HETTINGER: No. The terminology, conduit system, l
| |
| l 21 is the system of the conduit and the supports which support l
| |
| ; 22 that conduit.
| |
| 23 MR. WALSH: Did you perform the analysis Where you l
| |
| 24 did not model in the support but Just modeled a conduit or --
| |
| l 25 MR. HETTINGER: In the second method, which is the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 1
| |
| | |
| 60
| |
| .1 equivalent static method, the system effect is considered by 2 the nature of the design accelerations. The loads imposed on 3 the conduit support are imposed independent of modeling the 4 conduit itself in that model, but the system effect is 5 considered.
| |
| 6 MR. MUFFETT: Any more questions?
| |
| 7 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 8 MR. HETTINGER: The next one is A3.
| |
| 9 The issue was that in the original design the load 10 due to deadweight was incorrectly Combined With the seismic 11 loads using the SRSS method. SRSS means square root sum of 12 the squares.
| |
| 13 Issue resolution: Deadweight is not included within 14 the SRSS of seismic loads but is added separately to the 15 resultant seismic loads in the load combinations specified in 16 the Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP10 and SAG.CP17.
| |
| 17 MR. MUFFETT: The next one we'd like to present is 18 issue 4, and Enver Odar is going to present this.
| |
| 19 MR. ODAR: Good afternoon. I introduced myself 20 during our December meeting; however, my name is Enver 21 Odor. I'm the project engineering manager for EBASCO on 22 Comanche Peak and I'm located at the site. I've been with 23 EBASCO since 1965; the only difference, last time it was 22 24 years and this time it is 23. And I have Horked on 17 nuclear 25 plants that EBASCO had A&E responsibility for, both here and Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
| |
| .. .... ... ..-.-. _. . . j
| |
| | |
| 61 1 abroad, including plants in high seismic areas such as Japan, 2 Mexico and Taiwan. I'm a member of the American Society of 3 Civil Engineers, Seismological Society of America, and I am a 17 4 registered professional engineer in three states.
| |
| 5 The issue is measurement of embedment from top of 6 concrete floor topping.
| |
| 7 Note SA on the original Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 8 SH G-4A allowed the'two-inch thick concrete floor topping to 9 be considered in determining embedment length of anchors at 10 building elevations 832 feet 6 inches and below.
| |
| 11 Since the topping integrity cannot be assured, the 12 effect of reduced embedment must be considered.
| |
| 13 This issue Has resolved as follows: The floor where 14 supports Hith Hilti-Kwik bolts are mounted were reviewed 15 against the list of floors which have architectural topping 16 during the design validation effort. Design validation for 17 such supports on floors with topping considered a two-inch 18 reduction of bolt embedment length as specified in Design 19 Validation Procedure SAG.CP10. Anchor bolts embedded only in 20 concrete topping and those that do not meet the anchor bolt 21 acceptance criteria are being replaced. In addition, He've 22 revised Note SA accordingly.
| |
| 23 The next issue is bolt hole tolerances and edge 24 distances, which we discussed to some extent in cable trays 25 earlier. This was an issue on bolt hole tolerances and edge Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
| |
| | |
| 1 distances.
| |
| 2 The external source issue on this was in two parts.
| |
| 3 The first part of the issue was that on the original Drawing 4 Number 2323-S-0910, on Sheet G-1B, Note 15 allowed bolt hole 5 tolerances which vary with the bolt size and are larger than 6 the AISC one-sixteenth inch tolerance. This tolerance may 7 have resulted in oversized bolt holes.
| |
| 8 This issue was resolved as follows: For steel to 9 concrete connections, A"SC bolt hole requiraments are not 10 applicable. This was covered in an AISC letter to Mr. Nace 11 dated August 29, '86. The effects of bolt hole sizes allowed 12 by the original Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 package were 13 evaluated through oralytical studies. These are shown in 14 EBASCO Position Paper, "Effect of Bolt Hole Oversize in CTH 15 System and Conduit System Adequacy". It was concluded that 16 the steel to concrete connections with the existing bolt holes 17 are adequate.
| |
| 18 For clamp connections which include cold-formed 19 components, the AISI code is applicable. Clamp capacities 20 were determined from tests as recommended by the AISI code, 21 and the tests Here performed in the CCL facilities. Those 22 procedures and test results are documented in CCL Report 23 Number A-699-85 and A-702-86.
| |
| 24 For connections between structural steel members, the 25 AISC code governed, and to ensure compliance with AISC code Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 63 1 appropriate corrective action is being taken in our Post 2 Construction Hardware Validation Program.
| |
| 3 MRS. ELLIS: These may very well be in one of our 4 stacks. If they are, Just let me know. The AISC letter dated 5 August 29, '86, and the EBASCO position paper which --
| |
| 6 MR. NACE: I believe that you do have a copy of the 7 AISC letter to me. I believe that was sent last time, as well 8 as the position paper. However, the same thing we talked 9 about in the cable tray hanger meeting. We are checking to 10 make sure you have the latest references in there, and if 11 there is one or more, they will be provided at the progress 12 meeting, the second truck.
| |
| 13 MR. MUFFETT: Just for completeness, that is the same 14 letter that we referenced last time on the cable tray hangers 15 that we brought up with Jack.
| |
| 16 MR. ODAR: The second part of the issue was-that some 17 original designs may not have provided the minimum edge 18 distance as stated in the AISC code. For example, CA-5A and 19 CSM-42 type supports have three-quarter-inch edge distance in 20 concrete to steel connection members versus 25/32 inch based 21 on the code, i.e., 1/32 inch difference.
| |
| 22 This issue was resolved as follows: Edge distances 23 in structural steel to structural steel connections contained 24 in the revised Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 have been design 25 validated in accordance with AISC requirements.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| 64 1 Baseplate edge distances in steel to concrete 2 anchorages were design validated in conformance with AISC 3 code. Cases where edge distance values were outside of the 4 AISC manual table values were validated based on acceptable 5 bearing stress calculations.
| |
| 6 For clamp connections which include cold-formed 7 components, the AISI code is applicable. Clamps with reduced 8 edge distance due to' hole size were tested as recommended by 9 AISI code to determine clamp capacities used in the design 10 validation. The results of these tests are summarized in CCL 11 Report Number A-699-85 and A-702-86.
| |
| 12 The next issue was on the FSAR load combinations.
| |
| 18 13 The external source issue on this was that ull applicable 14 loads as defined in CPSES FSAR Section 3.8.4.3.3 may not have 15 been explicitly considered in the original design.
| |
| 16 Specifically, loGds due to pipe whip and Jet impingement were 17 not addressed. Also, seismic response spectra which envelope 18 the containment building shell and internal structure response 19 spectra should have been used for conduit and conduit supports 20 which are supported by both the containment builaing shell and 21 the internal structure.
| |
| 22 This issue was resolved as fo11 ohs: Design 23 Validation Procedures SAG.CP10 and SAG.CP17 specify all
| |
| ! 24 applicable loads and load combinations to be considered in the 25 design validation, and these are based on FSAR Section l
| |
| l
| |
| ( Carmen acoden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| c:
| |
| ' 65; 1 3.8.4.3.'3.
| |
| . 2 Safety-related conduits and conduit supports have.
| |
| -3 either.been relocated or shielded from pipe Whip, Jet
| |
| : 4. impingement and internally generated missile effect.
| |
| 5 Safety related conduits located outdoors have been 6 shown to require no protection from tornado effects.
| |
| 7 Thermal effects were considered as specified in 8 Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP21 and SAG.CP25.
| |
| 9 Seismic response spectra which envelope the 10 containment building shell and internal structure response 11 spectra were used for validation of conduits and conduit 12 supports which are supported by both the containment building 13 shell and the internal structure. And this is specified in 14 Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP25.
| |
| 15 MR. WALSH: For the conduits that are on the 16 outside, are they protected from missiles, tornadoes or --
| |
| 17 MR. ODAR: No, they are not required to be protected 18 from tornado-related effects which is missiles as well as high 19 Hinds, because these safetey-related conduits are required to 20 remain functional for a specific LOCA event, and I believe 21 they are associated with feed water isolation valve operation.
| |
| 22 Since tornado and LOCA are not postulated simultaneously, they 23 Hould perform their function for LOCA, but they don't have to 24 remain functional under tornado effects.
| |
| 25 PR. MUFFETT: The next issue is issue 7. The issue Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 ,
| |
| | |
| 66 1 was that the self-Height of the support was not uniformly 2 considered in the original design for conduit supports.
| |
| 3 The resolution is that the Design Validation 4 Procedures SAG.CP10 and 17 specified that self-Height be 5 explicitly and consistently included in design validation of 6 all conduit supports.
| |
| 7 The next issue is issue 8, which Enver Odar is going 8 to present.
| |
| 9 MR. ODAR: This issue is on torsion of unistrut 10 members, and it has two parts.
| |
| 11 The first external source issue Has that torsional 12 loading on unistrut members was not considered in the support 13 design.
| |
| 14 This issue was resolved by the fact that the 15 torsional effects have been considered in design validation.
| |
| 16 Tests, as summarized in CCL Report Number A-678-85, were 17 performed by CCL, which included the torsional load effect on 18 unistrut members and the support.
| |
| 19 The results of the test were used to establish 20 alloHable Capacities for supports Hhich do utilize unistrut 21 members.
| |
| 22 The second part of the issue was on the tests that 23 were performed, and they included: The following additional 24 issues resulted from CYGNA's review of the CCL test procedures 25 and test results.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 1
| |
| | |
| 67 !
| |
| l J
| |
| 1 The conduit support types selected for testing may 2- not represent all support types installed at CPSES. Also, 3 test results for some conduit supports may have been affected 4 by improper test set-up.
| |
| 5 In addition, only one conduit clamp type, which was 6 C-708-S, for large conduit sizes was included in most rf these 7 tests.
| |
| 8 The second part of this issue Has resolved as 9 follows: The conduit support test set-up and results reported 10 in CCL Report A-678-85 Here reviewed and conduit clamp and 11 support capacities were developed as follows:
| |
| 12 Only unistrut configurations which were unaffected by 13 the test set-up are employed at CPSES. Configurations which 14 Here not tested or Here unsatisfactory were replaced. The 15 allowable load capacitiess for the unistrut supports at CPSES 16 Here determined utilizing the test results. These allowable
| |
| . 17 load capacities are shown on the Revised Drawing 2323-S-0910 18 package.
| |
| 19 In addition, conduit clamp capacities for all clamp 20 types used in CPSES conduit supports were established by 21 tests. These results are reported in CCL Report Numbers 22 A-699-85 and A-702-86, and they are incorporated in Design l
| |
| 23 Validation Procedure SAG.CP10.
| |
| 24 To illustrate the type of supports that were tested, 25 He have added a graphic sketch of a test set-up Hith conduit, Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 68 1 unistruts and unistrut components that were tested.
| |
| 2 MR. WALSH: The new allowables or the allowables that 3 are currently used, did it take into account the flexibility 4 of the connections and connect with the displacements, the 19 5 flexibility of the stiffness of the unistrut also utilized?
| |
| 6 MR. ODAR: Yes. The test -- whatever a test came up 7 with formed the basis for the allowables that were used. That 8 includes flexibility', interaction of components, everything.
| |
| 9 We h0ve tests for that specific hanger as utilized at CPSES.
| |
| 10 As I mentioned, those that were not covered by acceptance Il testing or those that were not the usual results were actually 12 replaced. We were only left with specific ones for which 13 we had specific tests.
| |
| 14 The n!xt issue is on the use of catalog components.
| |
| 15 The external source issue on this was that the original design 16 was based on the application of AISC to unistrut catalog 17 Components which may not be conservative. AISI should have 18 been used.
| |
| 19 And also that the following components were used in 20 ways not recommended by the vendor: These included unistrut 21 components; clamps, both unistrut and superstrut; and 22 anchorages, which includes Hilti-Kwik bolt and Richmond 23 inserts; as well as Nelson studs.
| |
| 24 The above issues were resolved by the fact that all 25 components employed in the conduit supports are either in Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| ._ ____ _:_________,__ _= ___ _ __ _ _
| |
| | |
| r 1- compliance with theLvendor allowables.or allowables have been 2 determined by tests.as recommended by the AISI code.
| |
| 3- MR. MUFFETT: 'Any questions?
| |
| 4 MR. WALSH: No . -
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is' A10, and Frank will l
| |
| 6 present this issue.
| |
| : 7. MR. HETTINGER: This issue is related to anchor. bolts 8 and has four subissues. .
| |
| 9 The first subissue is that prying action effects on
| |
| -10 anchor bolt tension may not have been uniformly considered in 11 the original design.
| |
| 12 This issue was resolved as follows: Prying action 13 effects are included in design validation for all base member 14 anchorages. Requirements are specified in Design Validation 15 Procedures SAG.CP10, CP17 and CP29.
| |
| 16 The second subissue related to anchor bolt 3 is-that 17 for conduit support CST-17, Type 17, the original design does 18 not consider moments induced in the anchor bolt due to shear 19 forces applied above the concrete surface.
| |
| l L 20 This issue was resolved as follows: Moments induced
| |
| [
| |
| 21 in the anchor bolts due to shear forces applied above the 22 concrete surface are considered in design validation of all l
| |
| 23 multidirectional supports, as specified in SAG.CP10 and CP29.
| |
| l 24 The CST-17 type supports in this particular issue are 25 transverse-type supports, all of which are either being l
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 L - . _ _
| |
| | |
| -70 1 eliminated or replaced by multidirectional type supports.
| |
| 2 The third subissue is that outrigger Hilti-KHik bolts 3= for the original CA-2A supports were assumed not to take any 4 load. However, some load may be imposed due to-conduit loads 5 and prestressing of the suppor't. The outrigger Hilti-Kwik 6' bolts may not be adequa: in resisting these loads since the 7 design drawing Haives separation violations between Hilti-Kwik 8 bolts and the outriggers and any other bolts.
| |
| 9 This issue was rtuolved as follows: The CA-2A type 10 unistrut support was tested without Hilti-Kwik bolts on the 11 outriggers. These tests cre documented in CCL Test Report 12 Number A-678-85. Therefore, these Hilti-KHik bolts are not 13 required in order to achieve the support capacity. Validation 14 of other supports which do not comply with separation criteria 15 Hill be performed as port of the Post Construction Hardware 16 Validatirin Program.
| |
| 17 The next slide simply illustrates a typical CA-2A ,
| |
| 18 type support and the arrangement of the conduit, clemps and 19 outrigger.
| |
| 20 The fourth subissue related to anchor bolts is that 21 the original Drawing Number 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4A, allowed 22 substitution of Richmond inserts for Hilti-KHik bolts. This '
| |
| ; 23 substitution may have resulted in lower bolt / insert capacities 24 than the original design because Richmond inserts in :1uster 25 arrungements,may have loHer Capacities.
| |
| L Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 1 This issue was resolved as follows: Revised Drawing 2 Number 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4A, no longer permits this 3 substitution of Richmond inserts for Hilti-KHik bolts. As 4 part of the engineering walkdown performed in accordance with
| |
| 'S CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033, all supports have been individually 6 as-built including concrete anchorage type and arrangement.
| |
| 7 And the as-built configurations have been design validated in 8 accordance with Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP10 and ,
| |
| 9 CP29, 10 MR. MUFFETT: Are there any questions?
| |
| 11 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 12 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is issue 11, 13 The external source issue Hos that longitudinal loads 14 may not have been considered in the original design of some 15 transverse supports.
| |
| 16 The resolution is that all loading directions are 17 evaluated in design validation of conduit supports. All 18 prev 10us transverse-only supports have either been converted 19 to multidirectional supports or replaced.
| |
| 20 Any questions?
| |
| 21 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 22 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is 12, and Frank Hill l 23 present this.
| |
| 24 MR. HETTINGER: This issue is related to Hilti-Kwik l 25 bolt substitutions.
| |
| l Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
| |
| | |
| 72 20 1 The issue is that Note 4 on Sheet G-4A of original l
| |
| 2 Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 allowed substitution of Hilti-Kwik j i
| |
| 3 bolts with larger size Hilti-KHik bolts. A situation may 4 occur where the substituted bolts have a lower capacity than ,
| |
| 5 the bolts in the original design.
| |
| 6 This issue was resolved as follows: Drawing Number 7 2323-S-0910, Sheet G-4A, Has revised to delete Note 4. These 8 bolt substitutions are no longer alloHed.
| |
| 9 The size and type of anchorage bolts were identified 10 as part of an engineering Halkdown performed in accordance 11 Hith Procedure CP-EB-FVM-CS-033. As-built configurations, 12 including bolt substitutions, were evaluated on a case-by-case 13 basis utilizing Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP10.
| |
| 14 MR WALSH: I certainly have a generic question that 15 goes With some of these other ones. In this particular one 16 they specify a particular drawing, a particular note. Have 17 the other drawings gone back to see if they had that similar 18 note?
| |
| 19 MR. MUFFETT: That's a really good question. I'm 20 glad you asked that because He should clarify thot. When they 21 say Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 that's kind of a misnomer, 22 because it is actually a package of a lot of drawings that has 23 draHings of conduit supports and conduit runs. And there Has 24 only one note like this in that package. And it really does 25 not look like a drawing, what you think of a drawing. It's Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 L
| |
| | |
| 73 1 actually'a stack of drawings, 20,000 drawings or something 2 like that. That's what -- oftentimes when they mention it, 3 you will see it says Drawing 2323-S-0910 package, that was the 4 note that was like in this' regard in that package.
| |
| 5 MR. WALSH: That would Cover all Conduit supports..
| |
| 6 MR. MUFFETT: Yes.
| |
| 7 MR. NACE: We'll take a 10-minute recess.
| |
| 8 (A break was taken.)
| |
| 9 MR. NACE: The meeting will come back to order.
| |
| 10 Jim?
| |
| 11 MR. MUFFETT: This morning we had some questions 12 about the NUREG, and Just as a matter of clarification I'd 13 like to go over this again for your clarification and for the 14 record, The requirements for the design of other Category 1 15 structures which are requirements which govern the design of 16 cable trays, conduits and HVAC supports, are presented in 17 Section 3.8.4 of the FSAR. These requirements are consistent 18 with those found in U.S. NRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG 0800.
| |
| 19 This section of the Comanche Peak FSAR was revised in 20 1978. This revision provided complete consistency with the 21 Standard Review Plan. In response to questions from the NRC, 22 TV Electric has formally confirmed consistency of design 23 covered by this section of the FSAR which includes the 24 Standard Review Plan design guidelines. The NUREG 0800 is not 25 explicity referenced in the FSAR, but we have done a check and Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 1 they are totally consistent in this area Hith them.
| |
| 2 MR. NACE: I think one of the reasons we sounded 3 confused on your question this morning, the NUREG 0800 4 Standard Review Plon, ae don't see that as something that a 5 licensee commits to. We see that as direction to the staff 6 reviewers as to how they should review an application.
| |
| 7 Therefore, He don't reference it in the FSAR: however, the 8 contents of the FSAR in this case are consistent Hith What the 9 revieHer is looking for. I hope He're Clear on that.
| |
| 10 MR. WALSH: Yeah.
| |
| 11 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue which He'd like to 12 present is 13, Hhich Frank Hill present.
| |
| 13 MR. HETTINGER: This issue is related to the 14 substitution of small conduits on CA-type supports.
| |
| 15 The issue is that CA-type support drawings alloHed 16 substitution of smaller conduits for larger conduits. Since 17 CA-type supports Here designed using ZPA values for large size 18 conduits and smaller conduit sizes Here designed for peak 19 accelerations, this substitution may result in larger loads 20 than reflected in the original calculations.
| |
| 21 The issue was resolved as folloHs: Design Validation 22 Procedure SAG.CP10 specifies that CA-type supports shall be 23 design validated based on design acceleration Hhich bound all 24 conduit sizes.
| |
| 25 The next slide pictorially illustrates a conduit Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| 75 i
| |
| 'l 1 supported by CA-type supports, and goes into a little detail 2 on what the original design considered and what the present 3- design considered. For large size conduits where the ccnduit 4 span is rigid, the CA-type supports were designed for ZPA in 5 the original design, and smaller size conduits where your 6 conduit span is flexible, the supports Here designed for peak 7 accelerations.
| |
| 8 In the present design the conduit span is assumed to 9 be flexible for all conduit sizes, and CA-type supports are 10 design validated for design accelerations which bound all 11 conduit sizes.
| |
| 12 The next issue is issue 14. This issue is related to 13 the use of CA-type supports in flexible spons.
| |
| 1 14 The issue is that CA-type supports for conduit with 15 diameter equal to or greater than two inches Here designed for 16 ZPA. The original calculations did not consider the fact that 17 seismic accelerations of the CA support may be affected by the 18 flexibility of the conduit span.
| |
| 19 This issue was resolved as fo11 ohs: ZPA is not used -
| |
| 20 for design validation of CA-type supports. The Design 21 Validation Procedure SAG.CP10 specifies that all CA-type 22 supports are to be design validated based on design 23 accelerations which include the flexibility effect of the 24 spans.
| |
| 25 MR. MUFFETT: Are there any questions?
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| FG 1 MR. WALSH: No. ;
| |
| 2 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is 15, but before He 90 3 on, Just for the record, ZPA'is zero period acceleration. It-4 has'to do with the acceleration of a certain place in the 5 response spectra curve. .
| |
| 6 The issue was that Sheet ~CSD-16 of DraHing S-0910 7 package allows conduit to be attached to a. cable tray. In the 3 original design, cable tray may have been designed without 9 additional conduit load. In addition, ZPA should not be used 10 to compute conduit load since the cable tray may be flexible.
| |
| 11 The resolution: Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP10 12 specifies that the conduit and its connection to the cable 13 tray are to be design validated for 1.5 times the response 14 spectra peak acceleration. Deadweight for both the rigid and 15 maximum flexible conduit alloHed in Sheet CSD-16 of DraHing 16 Number 2323-S-0910 package were included in the design 17 validation of the conduit. In accordance with cable troy 1
| |
| 18 Helkdown procedure CPE-EB-FVM-048, such configurations are 19 being identified and evaluated in the cable tray Post 20 Construction Hardware Validation Program. See external source 21 issue number 32 for cable tray and cuble tray hangers.
| |
| 22 The next page is Just an illustration of the cable 23 tray Hith conduit attached.
| |
| 24 Are there any questions?
| |
| 25 MRS. ELLIS: (Shakes head)
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 77 1 MR. MUFFETT: ine next issue is 16. The issue was 2 that allowable conduit lengths were increased in the original 3- calculations based on changes in the response spectra. The 4 effect of this change on conduit stress levels was not 5 appropriately evaluated.
| |
| 6 Spans of this type, LA spans, have been deleted from 7 revised Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 package. Design 8 Validation Procedure SAG.CP10, CP20 and CP25 require that 9 conduit stresses be evaluated for actual span lengths.
| |
| 10 The next issue we'd like to present is 17, and Enver 11 will present this one.
| |
| 12 MR. ODAR: Tnis issue was on substitution of next 13 heavier structural member support.
| |
| 14 The issue on this was that Note 5 on Sheet G-1A of ;
| |
| 15 the original Drawing 2323-S-0910 package allowed the 16 substitution of the next heavier structural member.
| |
| 17 Documentation of this substitution in the original design was 18 inadequate and self-weight of the support was not properly l
| |
| 19 considered.
| |
| ! 20 This issue was resolved as follows: Note 5 which i 21 allowed substitution of the next heavier structural member was i
| |
| l 22 deleted from Sheet G-1A of the revised Drawing 2323-SO910 I
| |
| i l 23 package.
| |
| (
| |
| 24 Member sizes were identified during engineering 25 walkdown per Procedure CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033. For open section l
| |
| l l
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 78 1 members the actual section thickness was recorded fcr the 2 design validation. For single cantilever type and L-shaped 3 cantilever type supports which utilized tube steel members, an 4 engineering study, which was reported in EBASCO Calculation 5 Book Number SUPT-0247 and SPAN-1189, was performed to e/aluate 6 the effect of substitution of the next heavier member an the 7 support capacities.
| |
| 8 The results'of this engineering study are being 9 incorporated into the Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP25 for 10 the design validation of such supports.
| |
| 11 Other supports utilizing tube steel sections were 12 conservatively evaluatea in accordance with the Design 13 Validation Procedure SAG.CP25 utilizing the Height of the next 14 heavier member and the smaller section of properties of the 15 as-designed member shown on the drawings.
| |
| l 16 The next issue is A18 and it's on clamp usage. The 17 external source issue is that the original design allowed l 18 alteration of clamp assembly components. These alterations l
| |
| 19 may have created a minimum edge distance violation and l
| |
| 20 distortion during installation. Justification is required for l 21 cmission, alteration or distortion of Washers, reaming of 22 clamp holes and cutting off a portion of the c.lcmp ears.
| |
| 23 This issue was resolved by the fact that the clamp 24 test program performed by CCL and reported in CCL Report l
| |
| l 25 Numbers A-699-85 and A-702-86 utilized three directional Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 79 1 loading and consi*, red reaming of the clamp holes; clamp edge 2 distances; bolt t)Je and size; omission, alteration or 3 distortion of Hashers; clamp distortion; and clamp 2
| |
| 4 modificLtion which was resolved by cutting off a portion of.
| |
| 5 the clamp ear. -
| |
| 6 The clamp allowables are based on the above tests, 7 and these are incorporated in the Design Validation Procedure 8 SAG.CP10, 9 In addition, He reviewed and identified revisions 10 required to the installation spec.), construction procedures 11 and quality control inspection procedures to preclude 1? unatthorized modification to clamp and clamp assembly 13 components.
| |
| 14 MR. WALSH: I have a question. On this test for the 15 alloHables, Hhat did ynu utilize as a factor of safety for the 16 load on the test?
| |
| 17 MR. ODAR: Perhaps I Hill come back a little bit and 18 explain that we had two ets of tests. One set was a static 19 test, conventional. The second very punishing test was piston 20 driven, typical for the load; 9t':s with the conduit itself, in 21 other Hords. Very, very punishing, t guess, is a good Hord 22 for conduit clamps.
| |
| 23 The results of the tests were then reduced to 24 establish allowable capacities. The exact number of factor of
| |
| ; 25 safety I Hill have to give you during the break or confer with i
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| \ . . .
| |
| | |
| 80 1 my associates on this. It is consistent or higher than 2 normal factor of safety.
| |
| 3 MR. WALSH: I'm Just curious. Did the allowables 4 90 down or up after the test?
| |
| 5 MR. 0DAR: From where?
| |
| 6 MR. WALSH: For the clamps. Based on what was 7 originally there.
| |
| 8 MR. ODAR: Originally -- how far originally?
| |
| 9 MR. WALSH: Gibbs and Hill.
| |
| 10 MR. ODAR: Conventional way of testing clamps is 11 appl.ying one load in one direction and the other load in the 12 othei direction, and not too many people really worty about 13 the actual direction. In our case we established both for 14 each of the three directions, statically as well as 15 dynamically. The loads -- again, I'll confirm. Numerical 16 values I don't have.
| |
| 17 MR. WALSH: I was Just wondering about the factor of 18 safety that you're utilizing.
| |
| 19 MR. ODAR: That the 0llowable loads are extremely 20 conservative in my opinion. The actual numerical values we'll 21 get for you.
| |
| 22 The next issue is issue 19, and it deals with 23 documentation deviations between inspection reports, CMCs and 24 IN-FP drawings.
| |
| 25 The external source issue was that differencers were Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 g I
| |
| | |
| 81 1 identified between some final conduit line inspection reports 2 and the corresponding component modification cards, CMCs, 3 and/or individually engineered fire protected conduit system, 4 IN-FP, drawings. Additionally, differences were identified 5 between the final irs and the installed conduit 6 configurations.
| |
| 7 This issue was resolved as follows: An engineering 8 Halkdown in aCCordance with CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033 of conduits and 9 conduit supports was performed to determine the as-built 10 configurations. Design validation of the conduit and conduit 11 supports was performed in accordance with Design Validation 12 Procedure SAG.C. .!), CP17, CP25 and CP29, and revised Drawing 13 Number 2323-S-0'J7.0 package utilizing the as-built data. -
| |
| 14 Ercis of the 1ocumentation and conduit configuration '
| |
| 15 discrepanc.ses ideitified under this issue were individually 16 evcli.icted, A determination was made that there is no safety 17 significance Hi-h any of the identified deviations.
| |
| 18 The next issue is A20. The external source issue on 19 this was that the original calculations to qualify Nelson 20 studs used in conduit connections details may not account for 21 the flexibility of clamp and shim plate, relaxation of preload ,
| |
| 22 and additional moment on the stud. Also, an analysis of the 23 shim plate subjected to pretension loads in the Nelson studs i i
| |
| 24 may not be adequate. i l
| |
| 25 This issue was resolved as follows: The allowable
| |
| \
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l . . - : - _-
| |
| | |
| 82 1 capacities for clamps using Nelson studs have been established 2 based on CCL tests, reported in CCL Report Number A-699-85 and 3 A-702-86. These tests took into account the flexibility of 4 the clamp and shim plates, relaxation and additional moment on 5 the stud. There also was some detajl covered in issue 18 when 6 we were talking about the test.
| |
| 7 These allowable clamp capacities were incorporated in 8 the Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP10.
| |
| 9 In addition, the adequacy of shim plate 10 configurations subjected to pretension loads in the Nelson 11 studs was confirmed by engineering studies, and these are 12 reported in EBASCO Calculation Book Numbers 44 and SPAN-1191.
| |
| 13 MR. MUFFETT: Any questions?
| |
| 14 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 15 MR. ODAR: The next issue is A21, and it's on 16 conduit fire protection calculations.
| |
| 17 The external source issue on this was that the 18 original design considered a round configuration of thermolag 19 material around conduits. A square configuration of thermolag 20 material is also used at CPSES. Documentation of the specific 21 configuration installed was not maintained.
| |
| 22 And also that the original calculations used support 23 capacities which may not be applicable to the specific 24 configuration.
| |
| 25 The resolution of the subissues within this issue Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 83 l I
| |
| 1 were Os follows: The thermolag conduit systems were os-built l
| |
| l 2 and the cetual thermolag configurations were documented. :
| |
| 3 3 Design validation of thermolas systems was performed using '
| |
| 4 support capacities contained in the revised 2323-S-0910 l
| |
| .5 drawing package and the as-designed support configurations.
| |
| 6 The os-designed support configurations are being confirmed as
| |
| ~7 port of the Post Construction Hardware Yolidation Program.
| |
| , 8 In addition', this particular issue may be 9 inapplicable due to the fact that the thermolag, all 10 thermolag, on the plant is being removed because of other 11 considerations. And when placed back obviously will be 12 properly controlled and design validated accordingly.
| |
| 2 11 3 MR. WALSH: I have no questions.
| |
| 14 MR. MUFFETT: The next' issue is issue 22. The issue 15 was that the original design used the conduit yield stress
| |
| ; 16 data from the vendor's tests in which the yield stress value 17 varies with conduit nominal size. This is not considered to i
| |
| 18 be appropriate. In addition, the original design used a i
| |
| 19 dynamic amplification factor of 1.0 in the calculations.
| |
| 20 Resolution: Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP10 21 specified that the conduit yield stress shall be 25,000 pounds 22 per scuore inch for all conduit sizes, which is the lowest 23 yield stress for any conduit used at CPSES.
| |
| 24 In addition, the fire protected conduit systems were 25 design validated utilizing the response spectra analysis Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 84 1 method which inherently incorporates dynamic amplification 2 effects.
| |
| ~3 Any questions?
| |
| 4 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 5 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is' issue 23, which Frank 6 will present.
| |
| 7 MR, HETTINGER: This issue is related to grouted 8 penetrations. The issue is that in the original design all 9 grouted penetrations were considered to be multidirectional 10 supports. The longitudinal load capacity parallel to the 11 conduit for grouted penetrations may not have been completely 12 addressed in the original design calculations.
| |
| 13 This issue was resolved us follows; Design 14 Validation Procedure SAG.CP10 provides design criteria and 15 allowable bond stress betHeen the conduit and concrete Halls 16 or slabs for conduit penetrations. This criteria is used for 17 determination of the longitudinal load capacity for grouted 18 penetrations.
| |
| 19 MR. MUFFETT: Any questions?
| |
| 20 MR. WALSH: (Shakes head.)
| |
| 21 MR. HETTINGER: The next issue is issue 24. This 22 issue was related to the rigidity of CA-type supports. The 23 1ssue is that in the original design, CA-type supports were i 24 ossumed to be rigid, that is, having support frequency equal 25 to or greater than 33 Hz. This assumption was not validated Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 1 in the original design calculations.
| |
| 2 This issue was resolved as follows: CA-type. supports 3 Here not assumed to be rigid in the design validation.
| |
| 4 Frequencies for such supports were calculated in accordance 5 with Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP10, 25 and 29.
| |
| 6- MR. WALSH: I have a question. Do you have conduit 7 supports that are attached to the pipe supports?
| |
| 8 MR. KLAUSE: My name is Ron Klause. I'm the project 9 manager for the pipe stress / pipe support section.
| |
| 10 There have been some pioe supports that have cable 11 tray conduit connected to those. Those have been controlled 12 through interface procedures between the pipe stress group and 13 the cable tray conduit group for inclusion in t a validation 14 of its design.
| |
| 15 MR. WALSH: What did they use for the dynamic 16 amplification factor when they were attached to the pipe 17 supports? Did they include the pipe support conduit, or did 18 they Just -- did you use the 1.5 factor?
| |
| 19 MR. ODAR: Let me also add that during the 20 engineering WalkdoHn in 033, one of the requirements was to 21 identify what the conduits are attached to so He know exactly 22 to what other commodities they are attached. The loads are 23 then provided to the owners of that commodity, and that's how 24 He have that close interface.
| |
| 25 In cases of attachment to pipe supports, He had used Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
| |
| | |
| I 86 1 one and a half times peak G to conservatively cover whatever 2 frequency requirements may have been on the supports.
| |
| 3 MR. HETTINGER: The next issue is issue 25. This 4 issue is related to enveloping configurations for design. The 5 issue is that the original generic support design did not 6 consider the most critical support configurations; that is, 7 maximum load eccentricities, installation tolerances, member 8 substitution, bolt substitutions, weight of support member 9 components, and overhang portion of support members.
| |
| 10 This issue was resolved as follows: Design 11 validation of generic supports shown in the revised Drawing 12 Number 2323-S-0910 package was performed to establish generic 13 support capacities. This validation included maximum load 14 eccentricities; allohed installation tolerances; member 15 substitutions, as discussed in external source issue number 16 17: bolt substitutions, as previously discussed in external 17 source issue number 12; weight of support member components; 18 and overhang portion of support members.
| |
| 19 MR. HETTINGER: Any questions?
| |
| 20 MR WALSH: No.
| |
| 21 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is issue 26, which will 22 be presented by Enver.
| |
| 23 MR. ODAR: This issue was on the original design 24 drawing discrepancies. The external source issue was that 25 certain discrepancies and inconsistencies may exist between Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| ._._:_ _ )
| |
| | |
| 87 }
| |
| 1 the original design drawings for generic, modified and 2 individually engineered IN supports, and original ,
| |
| 3 calculations, including missing information such as base plate 4 size, clamp type and edge distances.
| |
| 4' 5 This issue was resolved as follows: An engineering 6 walkdown in accordance with Procedure CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033 was 7 performed to provide as-built information for conduit support 8 configurations. Drawing Number 2323-S-0910 package which 9 contains generic modified and IN supports was revised to 10 incorporate the as-built data. The as-built support 11 configurations were design validated in accordance with Design 12 Validation Procedures SAG.CP10, CP25 and CP29.
| |
| 13 The next issue is on walkdown discrepancies, and 14 these walkdown discrepancies are CYGNA's walkdown as was 15 performed by them.
| |
| 16 The external source issue on this consisted of a 17 number of specific issues in that conduit support i
| |
| 18 discrepancies existed between the installed clamps, anchor i 19 bolts, structural steel members, and unistrut components and 20 the corresponding original design drawings. In addition, some 21 commodity clearances and anchor bolt spacings were not in 22 accordance with the design criteria.
| |
| 23 The issues identified by the external source walkdown 24 were resolved as follows: Conduit and conduit supports were 25 as-built as part of the engineering walkdown utilizing Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 1 requirements of the CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033. The as-built 2 configurations were documented in the Drawing 2323-S-0910 3 package and design validated in accordance with Design 4 Validation Procedures SAG.CP10, SAG.CP17, CP25 and CP29.
| |
| 5 Commodity clearances and anchor bolt spacings are 6 being validated as part of the Post Construction Hardware 7 Validation Program.
| |
| 8 Any questions?
| |
| 9 MR. WAL5H: (Shakes head.)
| |
| 10 MR. ODAR: The next issue is issue 28, and it deals 11 with systems concept. The external source issue on this was 12 that in the original design of two-bolt concrete surface 13 mounted supports, the acceptability of the support was 14 established by assuming that the moment generated by the 15 eccentrically applied longitudinal load would not be resisted 16 by the support. This moment would be balanced by a load 17 couple consisting of forces generated at the support of 18 interest and the next support. Possible differences in 19 support and conduit stiffnesses were not considered.
| |
| 20 Applicability of these calculations to other supports wns not 21 demonstrated.
| |
| 22 This issue was resolved as follows: Design 23 Validation Procedures SAG.CP10 and SAG.CP29 require that load 24 eccentricity effects be included in the design validation of 25 all conduit supports.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 89 1 Two-bolt concrete surface mounted supports have been 2 design validated by considering that the moments induced by 3 eccentrically applied longitudinal loads are shared between 4 the support and the conduit in accordance with the stiffness 5 of the system components.
| |
| 6 We felt that this probably requires a picture to 7 explain further what I am saying. To illustrate this, He made 8 a simple chart. When the load is applied longitudinally on 9 the conduit along the length or access of the conduit, there 10 Hill be a moment generated due to eccentricities involved.
| |
| 11 On the left side is the description of what I tried 12 to verbally explain, which is that the moment equal to E times 13 P Hill result in a couple by dividing it by distance L between 14 two supports, and then the supports Here checked for two loads 15 only. What we're doing is essentially analogous to moment 16 distribution in that He are considering the stiffness of the 17 anchorage as Hell as stiffness of the conduit and considering 18 that moment acting on the embedment, as Hell as the couple 19 effect which is relatively or insignificantly small. When you 20 have long L and small eccentricity, the loads are relatively 21 small.
| |
| 22 Any questions on system concept?
| |
| 23 MR. WALSH: (Shakes head.)
| |
| 24 MR. ODAR: Next I Hill go into the 30 issue, Hhich is 25 on conduit unions in the conduit installation.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
| |
| | |
| o 90 1 MR. MUFFETT: We switched. Everyone is looking 2 puzzled. That was 28. We're going to do 30 next and do 29 as 3 a logical conclusion, which is cumulative effects.
| |
| 4 MR. ODAR: The external source issue was that the 5 conduits which are Joined together by uni'ons which are loose 6 could result in two ends of conduit becoming free during 7 vibration. The structural continuity of the conduit could 8 then be offected and the cable housed therein may be subject 9 to loads not considered in design.
| |
| 10 This issue has been resolved by the specific union 11 tightness verification requirements incorporated into the 12 construction / installation and quality control inspection 13 procedures. This verification is part of our Post 14 Construction Hardware Validation Program.
| |
| 15 Any questions on this?
| |
| 16 MR. WALSH: No.
| |
| 17 MR. MUFFETT: The next issue is issue 29. This issue 18 has to do with the cumulative effect of the review issues.
| |
| 19 Small unconservatisms resulting from separate issues 20 previously mentioned may have significant cumulative effect on 21 supports impacted by more than one issue.
| |
| 22 There is no cumulative unconservative effect with the 23 designs now because the overall design validation approach has 24 addressed each issue, both individually and collectively.
| |
| 25 Design validotion was based on the as-built dato.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| ___ ____________________________-______:_=_____ _.
| |
| | |
| 91 j 1 Design Validation Procedures SAG.CP10, 17, 21, 25 and 5 1 2 29 provide control of the design process.
| |
| I 3 All final designs are in conformance with the 4 applicable codes.
| |
| 5 Are there any questions?
| |
| 6 MR. WALSH: (Shakes head.)
| |
| 7 MR. MUFFETT: Now we will shift gears again here and 8 move over to the B issues, which are the SDAR issues for this 9 discipline.
| |
| 10 The first one is B1, which is SDAR CP-85-19. This 11 issue should look familiar. We talked about it a few moments 12 ago.
| |
| 13 The issue was the original design used the conduit 14 yield stress data from vendor's tests in which the yield test 15 varied with the conduit nominal size. This is not considered 16 to be appropriate, 17 Design Validation Procedure SAG.CP10 specifies that 18 the conduit yield stress shall be 25,000 pounds per square 19 inch for all conduit sizes, which is the lowest yield stress 20 for any conduit used at CPSES.
| |
| 21 The next issue is B2, which is SDAR CP-85-31, the 22 electrical raceway support system.
| |
| 'l 23 The issue was that separation barrier material and 24 radiant energy shield material were installed in Class 1E 25 conduit in order to meet the FSAR and Reg Guide 1.75
| |
| ! Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| , 92 1 electrical separation criteria. However, the original design 2 of conduit and conduit supports constructed prior to the 3 installation of the SBM and RES did not account for the 4 additional Height imposed.
| |
| 5 Resolution: Conduit and conduit-supports with 6 separation barrier material and radiant energy shield material 7 Here design Validated in aCCordance Hith Design Validation 8 Procedure SAG.CP25, which included the SBM and RES Heights.
| |
| 9 In addition, the procedure governing design changes, 10 ECE 5.01-I3, requires that when SBM or RES material is added f
| |
| 11 to electrical raceways, the conduit and conduit supports 12 discipline group be notified.
| |
| 13 Are there any questions?
| |
| 14 MR WALSH: (Shakes head.)
| |
| 15 MR. MUFFETT: The next one is B3. Which is SDAR 16 CP-85-34, which Frank Hill present.
| |
| 17 MR. HETTINGER: This issue is an overall umbrella 18 issue related to conduit scpport design. The issue is that 19 discrepancies may have existed betHeen as-built and 20 as-designed conduit and conduit support configurations. In 21 addition, the original design criteria may not have 22 appropriately addressed certain design requirements. A 23 description of these concerns is provided in suboppendices Al 24 through A20 and A23 through A29 of the PSR.
| |
| 25 To resolve this issue TU Electric initiated the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| { . . _ , . . . . . . .
| |
| | |
| 93 1 conduit and conduit support Corrective Action Program known as 2 the CAP. Under the CAP, resolution of this issue was 3 accomplished through identification of licensing commitments, 4 establishment of design criteria, and the development of 5 Design Validation Procedures, namely, SAG.CP10, CP17, CP20, 6 CP21, CP25, CP29 and CP35, that include the following:
| |
| 7 Use of as-built data as design input for conduit and 8 conduit support validation, 9 Valida?,1on of conduit and conduit supports to design 10 criteria that is in compliance with Comanche Peak licensing 11 commitments and responsive to all Comanche Peak Response Team, 12 CPRT, and external issues.
| |
| 13 Testing to establish allowable load capacities and 14 suitable methods for modification of conduit.
| |
| 15 Engineering studies implemented to provide additional 16 confidence in the conservatism of the design validation 17 procedures used for conduit and conduit supports.
| |
| 18 And lastly, implementation of hardHare modifications 19 as necessary to assure that all conduit and conduit supports 20 comply Hith the validated design.
| |
| 21 Resolution to the specific concerns have been 22 discussed in external source issues A2 through A20 and A23 23 through A29.
| |
| 24 Any questions?
| |
| 25 MR. WALSH: (Shakes head.)
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 94 l
| |
| 1 MR. HETTINGER: The next issue is issue B4 relating r to SDAR CP-85-53. This issue is related to the seismic design
| |
| , of conduit. The issue is that a number of free-ended conduit 4 elbows are connected to the remainder of the conduit vio a 5 threaded coupling, with no support between the coupling and 6 the free end. The coupling does not provide torsional 7 resistance to motions induced by seismic events.
| |
| 8 This issue was resolved a.s follows: The Engineering 9 Walkdown Procedure CCPE-EB-FVM-CS-033 requires the 10 identification of threaded fittings in the rigid overhanging 11 conduit. Tests as documented in CCL Report Number A-746-87 12 have shown that Hrapping the threaded fitting and adjacent 13 areas with fiberglass cloth impregnated Hith scotch cast 14 product produces the required torsional resistance.
| |
| 15 Accordingly, all such instances are being corrected either by 16 fiberglass cloth Hrapping or by providing supports in the 17 overhanging portion of the conduit.
| |
| 18 MR. WALSH: This Hropping material: Hos that been 19 tested for high temperatures?
| |
| 20 MR MUFFETT: It's being reviewed as part of the EQ 21 program for environmental conditions right now.
| |
| 6 22 This is a logical breaking point for us because the 23 next thing we're going to go into is the two-inch and less 24 Train C non-safety-related conduits. So I think it may be an 25 appropriate time for o break.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 95 1 MR. NACE: We'll take a 10-minute recess.
| |
| 2 (A break was taken.)
| |
| 3 MR. NACE: The meeting will come back to order.
| |
| 4 MR. MUFFETT: Before we 90 on, there is something I 5 wanted to clarify. I didn't state it very clearly on the 6 scotch cost. It's not a formal part of the EQ program, and 7 it ist. t going to be environmentally qualified with the 8 environment that it has to be. And there is not any in the 9 plant yet because we're pursuing that last thread.
| |
| 10 The other thing that we wanted to come back to is we 11 promised to get back to you those factors of safety.
| |
| 12 MR ODAR: The evaluation of CCL tests and generation 13 of factor of safety are in our Calculation Book SPAN-1200, 14 which we'll make Ova 11able. The cyclic allowables that were >
| |
| 15 established are at lecst a factor of safety of three compared 16 to static. As I said, it was a very punishing test, with 17 many, many cycles and distanc.e applied in all three directions 18 simultaneously.
| |
| 19 MR. NACE: We will provide that document, three 20 copies, in one of the next trucks.
| |
| 21 MRS. ELLIS: Thank you.
| |
| 22 MR. MUFFETT: Are there any Questions?
| |
| 23 With that I'd like to move on to the Train C portion, 24 what we call Train C. This is actually only the Train C that 4
| |
| 25 is two inches and less in diameter. The large bore Train C is Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| 1 covered under the program we Just discussed.
| |
| 2 The slide here and the issue are a little bit 3 different, and I will get into that as we 90 along.
| |
| 4 The issue was that the installation for 5 non-sofety-related conduits with two-inch diameter and less 6 was not adequate for seismic loading. According to Reg Guide 7 1.29 and the CPSES FSAR, the nonseismic items should be 8 designed in such a way that their failure would not adversely 9 offect the function of seismic Category 1 systems, structures 10 or components, or cause incapacitating injury to occupants of 11 the control room.
| |
| 12 Let me paraphrase that in layman's terms. It's not 13 supposeed to fall down and hurt sonebody.
| |
| 14 Issue resolution: Corrective Action Program for 15 Train C assures compliance with the licensing commitments for 16 the support of Train C conduits and conduit supports. This 17 Corrective Action Program assures that Train C is designed 18 such that its failure would not adversely affect the function 19 of seismic Category 1 systems, structures or components, or 20 cause incapacitating injury to occupants of the control room.
| |
| 21 Now, the next slide deals with validation methods.
| |
| 22 There are three validation methods used for this small bore 23 Train C conduit.
| |
| 24 Validation 1- No Interaction Potential. Validated 25 that the Train C conduit supports if they were to collapse, Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| . . _ . . _ _J
| |
| | |
| 97 l
| |
| i 1 would not strike any seismic Category 1 system, structure or
| |
| ]
| |
| 2 component. In other words, this was in an area where there 3 was not safety-related equipment.
| |
| 4 Validation Method 2: Acceptable Interaction.
| |
| 5 Validated that the Train C conduit support if they were to 6 collapse, would not reduce the function of any seismic 7 Category 1 system, structure or component.
| |
| 8 Validation Method 3: Structural Integrity.
| |
| 9 Validated that the Train C conduit and conduit supports were 10 evaluated and designed to prevent failure under safe shutdown 11 earthquake conditions.
| |
| 12 Design modifications were made when Train C could not 13 be design validated using the three validation methods 14 described. Three design modification methods were used.
| |
| 15 One: Modify Support. The Train C conduit support 16 was structurally modified to assure structural integrity, or 17 else additional Train C conduit supports were designed to 18 further support the conduit, 19 Modification Method 2: Provide Seismic Restraint 20 Cable. Restraint cables Here used to restrain the conduit and 21 provide conduit supports if they were postulated to fail.
| |
| 22 Modification Method 3: Reroute Conduit. The 23 conduit was rerouted and supported by new conduit supports.
| |
| 24 The conduit and new supports were evaluated and designed to 25 prevent failure under the safe shutdown earthquake conditions.
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| y
| |
| '1 1 The design criteria requiring consideration of the 2 effects of seismic loads on Unit 1 and common Train C-and the 3 use of the as-built data for design input have been 4 established and documented in the Train C Design Basis 5 Document, DBD-CS-093. These requirements, are included in the 6 Train-C two-inch diameter and less conduit supports design l 7 validation procedures.
| |
| {
| |
| 8 The last thing I was going to conclude with was the 9 flow chart of the program, which was virtually identical to 10 the one I showed you earlier for the large bore conduit. ;
| |
| i That concludes our presentation of the Train C I 11 12 program. l 13 It was a massive effort in numbers, but there were l 14 not the same type of technical issues involved. t i
| |
| 15 Are there any questions? :
| |
| 16 MR. WALSH: (Shakes head.)
| |
| 17 MR. NACE: I think I would like to point out, 18 emphasize what Jim Just said, on the Trains A, B and the Train ;
| |
| 19 C greater than two-inch conduit supports in Unit 1 and common :
| |
| 20 areas, something like 30,000 in the plant; whereas in the 7 ;
| |
| 21 Train C less than two inches, the final issues Jim talked l 22 about there, about 108,000 in those same areas of the plant.
| |
| 23 That concludes what we had intended to present today ;
| |
| 24 on cable tray hangers and conduit supports. !;
| |
| 25 MR. COUNSIL: Just as a general note, a couple of
| |
| ?
| |
| Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 I
| |
| | |
| 1 general notes, then I will make some closing comments and turn 2' it over to Mrs. Ellis and Mark if they would like to make any, 3 and then bock to Larry for whatever he might want to say.
| |
| 4 I want to let everybody know, especially NRC, that 5 the final Project Status Report was issued today and that's on 6 heating, ventilating and air conditioning. Mrs. Ellis, you'll 7 probably have your copies tomorrow, I hope. That's the third 8 truck.
| |
| 9 One other general note, too. I was informed 10 yesterday Rev 4 of CPPP-7 will be out shortly, and I will 11 probably give it to you early next week. There's nothing 12 different. All it does is incorporate the project memorando 13 so you don't have to chase Ground and try so hard to look for 14 things. So I wanted you to have that, too.
| |
| 15 I would very much like to thank Mark for visiting 16 with us. I know it's an imposition bringing you in from 17 Indiana, but I do appreciate your participation with us today.
| |
| 18 And also to let you know that for temorrow your tour at 19 Comanche Peak, as long as you want to make it, I'm sure my 20 people will love that. Really, as long as you want to make it 21 it is absolutely unrestricted. We'll show you conduit, cable 22 tray supports, modifications that are being made in those 23 areas and anything else you may want to see, Just ask. There 24 are no limits.
| |
| 25 Now, as I usually do at times when I've been talking Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| .. . -l..
| |
| | |
| 100 >
| |
| 1 to Mrs. Ellis, I have another informal agreement with Mrs.
| |
| 2 Ellis. What He've agreed to do, because we do at these 3 meetings present so much roterial in a very concise amount of 4 time and also He do have to provide a few more calculations 5 and books and so forth -- that's the truck Larry is talking 6 about -- our agreement is this: If, in fact, questions are 7 generated as o result of what He talked about today or the 8 material that you get, if it is a small number of qur.stions, 9 Just call my office and He will respond in writing, giving the 10 auestion, our answer and/or appropriate reference back. If 11 it's additional cales or whatever you need, we'll provide that 12 in addition. And the letter will not be on the service list.
| |
| 13 It Hill be a letter between myself and Mrs. Ellis. If it's a 14 large number of questions, we've agreed that she would write 15 the questions to me. I, in turn, Hill provide the answers to 16 those questions, again, outside the bounds of the service 17 list. If I've said anything wrong, please correct the record, 18 but that is the last comment I have, other than I do hope we 19 all get the feeling that He are trying to either narrow in or 20 close issues. Thot's the whole purpose of this meeting, as 21 Hell as the correspondence I just talked about.
| |
| 22 Mrs. Ellis?
| |
| 23 MRS. ELLIS: I think you summarized it very well.
| |
| 24 Also, there are some FSAR changes which have come out 25 recently -- I think -- 68. I believe it is -- February 15, Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| .. ..~
| |
| | |
| 101 1 which we haven't had a chance to even open yet, get out of the 2 box. And He do want to take a look at some of those things, 3 too, because they may help to answer some of the questions we 4 might have had on some of these things. And there's no need 5 taking the time now to go over things that might have been 6 answered in some of that. And there is a tremendous amount of 7 information, as you mentioned, in there. We've been plowing 8 through it as best He can. Of course, the main crux of that 9 is on Jack and Mark. I try to read some of it, but I'm not 10 sure I understand all that I'm reading, I have to admit.
| |
| 11 Another thing that I Hanted to mention is that I 12 still Hould like to see some sort of reco3nition officially, I 13 might add, some sort of document at some point in time of the 14 fact that all the cable tray issues virtually probably never 15 Hould have come to light if it hadn't been for Mark. I said ,
| |
| 16 that, I think, at the last meeting, and I want to say it here 17 again. We'll probably embarrass him, but I want to recognize 18 that because it wasn't really until he looked at the CYGNA 19 report of cable tray supports that were involved in their look 20 that really became aware of -- He really became aware of the 21 problems with the cable tray supports.
| |
| 22 Another thing that I wanted to be sure to say is 23 that, of course, we may have additional questions, as we said.
| |
| 24 but I think that again, as I said before, these are so much 25 better circumstances to work under for the detailed technical Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| .m.
| |
| ' . . . . gy3 1 engineering type issues, and He really appreciate the 2 opportunity of being able to meet in this more informal 3 setting and have this Question and answer session back and l 4 forth. We appreciate all your efforts in providing these 5 presentations, and we know they take a lot of effort on your 6 part. We appreciate it.
| |
| 7 MR. WALSH: The only comment I have: I appreciate S the time to inform me of what you are doing. It's a lot 9 easier than going into the courtroom and finding out that 10 things aren't a1 Hays as you perceive.
| |
| 11 That's about it.
| |
| 12 MR. NACE: Just on administrative matter. For the 8
| |
| 13 tour tomorrow, the notice says the tour Hill start in the 14 Vicitor's Center for the Nuclear Operations Support Facility.
| |
| 15 Jim Muffett Hill give you some directions on how to get there 16 after the meeting. Jim Hill meet you there and bring you over 17 to the building I'm in, which is right behind inat building, e
| |
| 18 and we'll start in there in the conference room. We'll use 19 that as a marshalling point. There Hill be four people, I 20 believe, going on the tour, plus probably NRC Mill have -- at 21 least they did last time --a representative, and yourself and, 22 I guess, Doctor Boltz is coming also.
| |
| 23 MRS. ELLIS: Yes.
| |
| 24 MR NACE: So Jim Hill meet you at the Visitor's 25 Center, bring you over to my conference room area, and we'll Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| GW.
| |
| i e -
| |
| 9 -1. :90 from there on the' tour.
| |
| ~ '
| |
| 2, If there is no:other business, the meeting is 3 adjourned.
| |
| 4 (The meeting'was adjourned at 3:00.p.m.)
| |
| 5 .
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 9
| |
| i 10 11 12 13 14-15 16 17 ,
| |
| f 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPt Metro 429-5532
| |
| : w. . , _ . , . . ,
| |
| | |
| a 104-1 2
| |
| STATE'0F TEXAS )
| |
| 3 )
| |
| COUNTY OF TARRANT )
| |
| ,. 4 5 I,-CARMEN GOODEN, Certified Shorthand Reporter of.the 6 State of Texas, vertify that the foregoing proceedings were 7 reported stenographically by me at the time and place 8 indicated, and that it is a true record of the proceed 1ncs had 9 -at that time.
| |
| 10 Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 22nd 11 doy of February 1988. ,/ '
| |
| 12 13 Ca'rmen Gttden, Rotary Public and 14 Certified 5hv.thond Reporter in and for the State of Te,<os.
| |
| 15 Certificate No.: 2353 16 Expiration Date: 12-31-90 Netary Expires: 08-10-91 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
| |
| | |
| y '
| |
| I i
| |
| CASE MEETING TOPIC MATRIX l
| |
| PSR DECEMBER FEBRUARY.
| |
| i
| |
| ! SUB GIR 1997 1988:
| |
| l ISSUE TITLE APPENDIX APPENDIX MEETING NEETING >
| |
| CONTROLLING LOAD CASE FOR l'ESIGN Al 1 X l SEISMIC RESPONSE COMBINATION DESIGN A2 2 X ,
| |
| j ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN A3 3 X .
| |
| i DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS A4 4 'X
| |
| ! VERTICAL AND TRAN5 VERSE LOADING ON AS 5 X LONGITUDINAL TYPE SUPPORTS SUPPORT FRAME DEAD AND INERTIAL LOAD A6 6 X
| |
| ; DESIGN OF ANGLE 11 RACES NEGLECTING A7 7 X j LOADING ECCENTRICITY I DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS.(DAF) A8 8 X 1 l TRIBUTARY TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS AND MISSING MASS EFFECTS
| |
| ! REDUCTION IN CHAMIEL SECTION PROPERTIES A9 9 X l- DUE TO CLAMP BOLT HOLES ,-
| |
| SYSTEM EFFECTS A10 10 X l
| |
| : VALIDITY OF NASTRAN MODELS All 11 X WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY A12 12 X !
| |
| REDUCED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS A13 13 X i NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATIONS A14 14 X 1 MEMBER SUBSTITUTION A15 15 X i
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 3_, J.
| |
| CASE MEETING-TOPIC MATRIX PSR DECEMBER FEBRUARY SUB GIR 1987 1988 ISSUE TITLE APPENDIX APPENDIX NEETING MEETING WELG DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS A16 16 X EMBEDDED PLATE DESIGN A17 17 X TRAY CLAMP A18 18 X~
| |
| FSAR LOAD C00EINAT10NS A19 19 X DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION A20 20 X AND DESIGN /CONSTR3CTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION I DESIGN CONTROL A21 21 X DESIGN OF SUPPORT NO. 3136, DETAIL "5" A22 22 X DRAWING 2323-S-0905 LOADING IN STRESS MODELS A23 23 X DESIGN OF FLEXU ML MENBERS A24 24 X CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION A25 25 X BASE ANGLE DESIGN A26 26 X SUPPORT GUA! TFICATION 8Y SINILARITY A27 27 X l
| |
| l CRITICAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATION A28 28 X l AND LOADINGS l CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES A29 29 X l CA8LE TRAY SYSTEM DAMPING VALVES A30 30 X MODELLING OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS A31 31 X
| |
| | |
| Q f.
| |
| CASE MEETING TOPIC MATRIX l
| |
| f
| |
| ; PSR DECEMBER FEBRUARY j SUB GIR 1987- 1988 j ISSUE TITLE APPENDIX APPENDIX NEETING NEE (ING l CONDUITS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAY A32 32 X i
| |
| OR SUPPORTS
| |
| ! AS-BUILT WALKD0tBi PROCEDURES A33 X-SYSTEM ANALYSIS NETR000LOGIES A34 X l FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSPECT A35 X l CABLE TRAY HANGER NRC NOVEMBER I 50-445/8416-V-01 BOLTING MATERIAL FOR CABLE TRAY B1 X j HANGER CLAMPS
| |
| ! CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN B2 X l: CABLE TRAY TEE FITTINGS B3 X l: CABLE TRAY HANGER REVERIFICATION B4 X .
| |
| ); PROGRAM C
| |
| CABLE TRAY SPLICES / CONNECTIONS B5 -
| |
| X i CABLE TRAY HANGER SPLICE WELDS B6 X
| |
| ! CABLE TRAY TRANSVERSE CLAMPS B7 X j' IMPROPER APPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTION 88 X q; AIDS
| |
| : FIELD DRILLED CABLE TRAY HOLES B9 X i
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 2 I
| |
| \
| |
| E l
| |
| h.
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A24 (GIR APPENDIX 24)
| |
| DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| A, B. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT FLEXURAL MEMBERS, MOMENTS (BENDING AND TORSION) INDUCED BY TRAY ECCENTRICITIES TO TIER CENTROIDAL AXES NAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| A, B. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP11, SAG.CP34, PI-02, PI-03, AND M-12 REcu!RE THAT MOMENTS (BENDING AND TORSION)
| |
| RESULTING FROM TRAY /NANGER CONNECTION ECCENTRICITIES BE CONSIDERED.
| |
| l l
| |
| l A24-1 l
| |
| | |
| . 1 CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS
| |
| : PSR SUBAPPENDIX A24 (GIR APPENDIX 24)-
| |
| DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| C. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT FLEXURAL MEMBERS, REDUCTIONS IN BEAM SECTION PROPERTIES DUE TO BOLT HOLES AND WELD UNDERCUTS ARE INCONSISTENTLY CONSIDERED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| C. O REDUCTIONS IN SECTION PROPERTIES RESULTING FROM BOLT HOLES WERE DEVELOPED PER ENGINEERING STUDIES (VOLUME I, BOOK 25 AND M-65) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AISC SPECIFICATION. THE SIZE OF THE BOLT HOLES WAS DETERMINED TO BE 3/4 INCH, BASED ON A STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF A BOLT HOLE SAMPLE. THE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP34 AND PI-11 REQUIRE THE USE OF THESE REDUCED PROPERTIES IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF CABLE TRAY HANGER TIERS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PRESENCE OF BOTH USED AND UNUSED BOLT HOLES.
| |
| O THE CABLE TRAY HANGERS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED AS SPECIFIED IN NOI-3.09-M-001. ALL UNACCEPTABLE WELD UNDERCUTS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED. AN ENGINEERING STUDY (VOLUME I BOOK 20) 0F THE BASE METAL DEFECTS (IDENTIFIED BY.THESE QC INSPECTIONS) HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND CONCLUDED THAT THE EFFECTS OF WELD i UNDERCUT ON THE CABLE TRAY HANGER CAPACITY NEED NOT BE EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED.
| |
| l l
| |
| A24-2 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| k CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A24 (GIR APPENDIX 24)
| |
| DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| D. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT FLEXURAL MEM8ERS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS 00 NOT CONSIDER SHEAR STRESS EFFECTS DUE TO DIRECT SHEAA, ST. VENANT TORSIONAL SHEAR, OR THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| D. STRESSES DUE TO DIRECT SHEAR AWD ST. VENANT SHEAR ARE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VALIDATION AS SPECIFIED IN SAG.CP34 AND PI-03.
| |
| A24-3
| |
| | |
| ) CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A24 l
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 24)
| |
| DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| E. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT FLEXURAL MEMBERS, CAPACITY REDUCTION DUE TO THE UNSUPPORTED LENGTH OF THE COMPRESSION FLANGE, PER AISC EcuATION 1.5-7, WAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| E. THE DESIGN VALIDATION PPOCEDURES SAG.CP34, PI-03 AND PI-11 REOUIRE THE USE OF AISC EcuATION 1.5-7 FOR VALIDATION OF CABLE TRAY HANGER CHANNEL MEMBERS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR ITS PROPER APPLICATION.
| |
| l I
| |
| A24-4 l
| |
| | |
| f CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY NANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A24 (GIR APPENDIX 24)
| |
| DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| F. IN TNE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT FLEXURAL MEMBERS, THE PRACTICE FOR CONSIDERING TOR $IONAL WARPING NORMAL STRESS WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN TNE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| F. TORSIONAL WARPING NORMAL STRESSES ARE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VALIDATION AS SPECIFIED IN SAG.CP11, SAG.CP34 AND PI-03.
| |
| l l
| |
| l A24-5 l
| |
| | |
| h CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS l '' -
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A25 (GIR APPENDIX 25)
| |
| CABli! TRAY QUALIFICATION EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| A. IN THE ORIGINAL CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION, DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR (DAF) wAS NOT USED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| A. DESIGN VALIDATION OF CABLE TRAYS BY THE EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD CONSIDERED PEAK SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS OR SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS AT THE SYSTEM FREQUENCY AND USED AN AMPLIFICATION FACTOR OF AT LEAST '
| |
| 1.25. (WHEN RESPONSE SPECTRA METHOD IS USED, THIS ISSUE DOES NOT APPLY.) THIS AMPLIFICATION FACTOR IS JUSTIFIED BY DETAILED ENGINEERING STUDIES CONTAINED IN VOLUME I - BOOK 15.
| |
| CERTAIN CONFIGURATIONS MAY REQUIRE A HIGHER MRM. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP28 AND SAG.CP18 wtRE DEVELOPED TO PROPERLY ANALYZE THESE CABLE TRAY SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS A25-1
| |
| | |
| , l a
| |
| V CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A25 (GIR APPENDIX 25)
| |
| CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| B. IN THE ORIGINAL CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION, THE INTERACTION EQUATION WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON TOTAL LOAD FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 8 FEET.
| |
| l ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| B. DESIGN VALIDATION OP CABLE TRAY SPANS GREATER THAN 8 FEET IS BASED ON COMPARISON OF TRAY BENDING MOMENTS WITH BENDING M0 MENT CAPACITIES OBTAINED FROM TESTING (REFER TO CALCULATIONS M-03, M-34, M-35 AND VOLUME I - BOOK 1).
| |
| l l
| |
| l e
| |
| l l A25-2 l
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| -_ _ _ . . - - - _ . _ - - _ _ - , _ - . _ _ _ . - - - - . - - - . - - . - ':~ . _ _ _ _ - _ - - . _ . - - , . _ _
| |
| | |
| , l 1
| |
| y CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS i
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A25 (GIR APPENDIX 25)
| |
| CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (CONTINUED) l l
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: !
| |
| C. IN THE ORIGINAL CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION, SEVERAL INSTANCES OF MODIFICATIONS OF VENDOR SUPPLIED HARDWARE FOR CABLE TRAYS WERE FOUND WITHOUT ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION OR DOCUMENTATION.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| C. THE EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO VENDOR SUPPLIED HARDWARE ARE BEING EVALUATED USING AS-5UILT DATA AS DESIGN INPUT FOR VALIDATION AS PART OF THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM.
| |
| l l A25-3 1
| |
| | |
| !' CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS
| |
| > ()
| |
| L' -
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A25 (GIR APPENDIX 25)
| |
| CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (CONTINUED)
| |
| E CMAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| l I
| |
| l D. IN THE ORIGINAL CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION, CABLE TRAY MOMENT OF i
| |
| INERTIA CALCULATIONS DID NOT CONSIDER SHEAR DEFORMATION UNDER TRANSVERSE LOADING OF LADOER-TYPE TRAYS.
| |
| JSSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| D. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP18 AND PI-02 CONSIDER CAsLE TRAYS AS FLEXURAL MEMBERS. AN ENGINEERING STUDY, CALCULATION M-66, NAS SHOWN THAT TNIS PROCEDURE IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT SHEAR BEHAVIOR DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED.
| |
| l l
| |
| l .
| |
| i I A25-4 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| T s, Y Y'
| |
| TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURAL STEEL
| |
| 'T QUESTION ,
| |
| HOW IS THE EFFECT OF HIGH TEMPERATURE (DUE .TO LOCA) ON :
| |
| STEEL YIELD STRENGTH TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF THE CABLE TRAY, CONDUIT, AND HVAC SUPPORTS AT CPSES?
| |
| l 4
| |
| P
| |
| , CQ 1-1 1
| |
| l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| N ..
| |
| %^
| |
| '-j TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURAL STEEL
| |
| . (CONTINUED)
| |
| | |
| ===RESPONSE===
| |
| O ANALYSES ARE CONDUCTED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH AISC REQUIREMENTS 0 THIS CODE IS APPROPRIATE FOR LOCA CONDITIONS SINCE A. THE MAXIMUM STEEL TEMPERATURE RESULTING FROM THE EXTREME ACCIDENT EVENT (A ONE TIME EVENT)
| |
| IS LESS THAN 2800 FOR ABOUT A DAY.
| |
| B. THE CODE RECOGNIZES THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS TEMPERATURE.
| |
| l 1
| |
| CQ 1-2 i
| |
| , - - - , - - , , . . . - - , , , , . - - - , - , _ , , _ , , , , . , , . . . . , , , . - , . , , - - - . , . . , , , . . , , _ , , _ _ - - _ _ _ , , , . _ _ _ . _ _ . , ~ , _ . . . . .
| |
| | |
| ..u-TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON STRUCT AL STEEL l
| |
| l EXAMPLE
| |
| [OD'O Ot' f6LLOINIWG hQG,g' l COMPARISON OF CPSES DESIGN CRITERIA vS. A E LIMITS FOl! THE POSTULATED ACCIDENT (FAULTED CONDITION)
| |
| LIMITS ON STRESS FOR (BASIC STRESS MIT = 0.6Fy)
| |
| A36 MATERIAt l' CPSES DESIGN AT 2670F FAtt s 0.9 y 32.4 KSI I
| |
| l NUREG-0800 (SRP)
| |
| " NON TEMPERATURE ADJUSTED FAtt _1.6*(0.6Fy) = 0.96 Fy 34.6 KSI TEMP. ADJUSTED 0 2670F fat s 1.6*[0.6(.95Fy)] = 0.91 Fy 32.8 KSI ASME NF l
| |
| l NON TEMPERATURE ADJUSTE FAtt s 1.8**(0.6Fy) = 1.13 Fy 40.6 KSI l TEMP. ADJUSTED 0 2670F FAtt s 1.88** [0.6(0.89Fy)] = 1.0Fy 36.0 KSI j' USING SECTION 111 '
| |
| l APPENDICES 1
| |
| * THIS REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM INCREASE FACTOR FOR THE ACCIDENT LOAD ATION WHICH INCLUDES THE EARTHOUAKE EVENT.
| |
| i
| |
| * 1.17 APPENDIX F OF SECTION 111 -
| |
| Sy ASME CODE i
| |
| 2 i
| |
| TYPOG/MPP/ML EM oe - lA f ivcx r bE
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - , - - -- m
| |
| | |
| ..;,o --
| |
| 4 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURAL STEEL EXAMPLE COMPARISON OF CPSES DESIGN CRITERIA VS. ASME LIMITS FOR THE POSTULATED ACCIDENT (FAULTED CONDITION)
| |
| LIMITS ON STRESS FOR (BASIC STRESS LIMIT = 0.6Fy)
| |
| A36 MATERIAL CPSES DESIGN AT 2670F FAtt 5 0.9Fy 32.4 KSI NUREG-0800 (SRP) i MON TEMPERATURE ADJUSTED A F tt s 1.6*(0.6Fy) = 0.96 Fy 34.6 KSI I
| |
| TEMP. ADJUSTED 9 2670F FAtt 5 1. 6* [0. 6 (. 95Fy)] = 0.91 Fy 32.8.KSI l' ASME NF nom TEMPERATURE ADJUSTED FAtt s 1.8**(0.6Fy) = 1.13 Fy 40.6 KSI
| |
| ;~ TEMP. ADJUSTED 9 2670F FAtt 51.88** [0.6(0.89Fy)] = 1.0Fy 36.0 KSI i l USINs SECTION III l
| |
| APPENDICES
| |
| * THIS REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM INCREASE FACTOR FOR THE ACCIDENT LOAD COMBINATION WHICH INCLUDES THE EARTHQUAKE EVENT.
| |
| ** 0.7 SU APPENDIX F OF SECTION III FT ASME CODE l . .
| |
| | |
| r, &
| |
| .,I CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A26 (GIR APPENDIX 26)
| |
| BASE ANGLE DESIGN l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: l A. IN THE ORIGINAL BASE ANGLE DESIGN, BASE ANGLES WERE MODELED AS SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAMS, IGNORING THE STIFFENING EFFECTS OF CONCRETE BEARING AT ANGLE ENDS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| A. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES USE THE SAME ASSUMPTION WHEN CHECKING BASE ANGLE STRESSES SINCE CONSIDERATION OF THE STIFFENING EFFECTS DUE TO CONCRETE BEARING AT ANGLE ENDS WOULD PRODUCE LOWER BASE ANGLE STRESSES. THIS ASSUMPTION IS CONSERVATIVE FOR EVALUATION OF BASE ANGLE STRESSES. CONCRETE STIFFNESS IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS OF THE BASE ANGLE FLEXIBILITY USED IN THE DETERMINATION OF SUPPORT STIFFNESS.
| |
| l l
| |
| A26-1
| |
| | |
| r ,'
| |
| 4 1
| |
| sg CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A26 (GIR APPENDIX 26)
| |
| BASE ANGLE DESIGN (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| B. IN THE ORIGINAL BASE ANGLE DESIGN, PRINCIPAL AXES WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS OF BASE ANGLES.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| B. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP34 AND PI-07 REQUIRE THAT BASE ANGLE PRINCIPAL AXES BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION OF BASE ANGLES.
| |
| A26-2
| |
| | |
| 5 i CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A26 (GIR APPENDIX 26)
| |
| BASE ANGLE DESIGN (CONTINUED) l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| C. IN THE ORIGINAL BASE ANGLE DESIGN, BASE ANGLE LENGTHS CONSIDERED IN THE "WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY" DID NOT REFLECT THE MOST CRITICAL SPACING OF RICHMOND INSERTS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| C. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP3, SAG.CP4, SA6.CP34 AND PI-07 REQUIRE THAT AS-BUILT INFORMATION WHICH INCLUDES THE SPACING OF RICHMOND INSERTS BE USED AS DESIGN INPUT FOR THE EVALUATION OF BASE ANGLES.
| |
| A26-3 1
| |
| | |
| ..q CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAV HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A21 i
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 26)
| |
| _ BASE ANGLE DESIGN .
| |
| (CONTIPUED) !
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| D. IN THE ORIGINAL BASE AWGLE DESIGN, NOT ALL BASE ANGLES WERE EVALUATED FOR STANDARD (GENERIC) CABLE TRAY HANGER TYPES.
| |
| j ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| D. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP34 AND PI-07 REQUIRE THAT ALL BASE ANGLES OF EACH CABLE TRAY HANGER BE EVALUATED.
| |
| A26-4
| |
| | |
| /
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A27 IGIR APPENDIX 27)
| |
| SUPPORT QUALIFICATION BY SIMILARITY EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS, SOME CABLE TRAY HANGERS (I.E.
| |
| SUPPORTS) WERE VALIDATED BY SIMILARITY WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION WAS PERFORMED USING AS-BUILT INFORMATION WHICH ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTS FOR SIGNIFICANT HANGER ATTRIBUTES INCLUDING BRACE CONNECTION ECCENTRICITIES. THE MAJORITY OF THE HANGERS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED INDIVIDUALLY. IN THE LIMITED NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE EXTREMELY SIMI LAR HANGERS WERE GROUPED, THE GROUPING WAS PERFORMED WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT GEOMETRIES, CONNECTION DETAILS, AND OTHER RELEVANT ATTRIBUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN VALIDATION GROUPING PROCEDURES IN VOLUME I, BOOKS 4 AND 8.
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 A27-1
| |
| | |
| i CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS <
| |
| l PSR SUBAPPENDIX A28 l (GIR APPENDIX 28) !
| |
| CRITICAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATION AND LOADINGS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR TRAPEZE TYPE CABLE TRAY HANGERS (I.E., SUPPORTS) CONSIDERED SYMMETRIC LOAD PATTERNS AND A LIMITED NUMBER OF HANGER ASPECT RATIOS WHICH MAY NOT HAVE REPRESENTED THE BOUNDING AS-BUILT CONFIGURATIONS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION WAS PERFORMED USING AS-BUILT INFORMATION WHICH ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTS FOR SIGNIFICANT HANGER ATTRIBUTES INCLUDING ACTUAL TRAY LOCATIONS. THE MAJORITY OF THE HANGERS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED INDIVIDUALLY. IN THE LIMITED NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE 2XTREMELY SIMILAR HANGERS WEP.E GROUPED, THE GROUPING WAS PERFORMED i WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT GEOMETRIES, CONNECTION DETAILS, AND OTHER RELEVANT ATTRIBUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN VALIDATION GROUPING PROCEDURES IN VOLUME I, BOOKS 4 AND 8.
| |
| l 1
| |
| l A28-1
| |
| | |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A29 (GIR APPENDIX 29)
| |
| CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| SMALL UNCONSERVATISMS RESULTING FROM SEPARATE ISSUES MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECT FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS IMPACTED BY MORE THAN ONE ISSUE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THERE IS NO CUMULATIVE UNCONSERVATIVE EFFECT OF ISSUES BECAUSE:
| |
| OVERALL DESIGN VALIDATION APPROACH HAS ADDRESSED EACH ISSUE BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION WAS BASED ON AS-BUILT DATA.
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP3, SAG.CP4, SAG.CP9, SAG.CP11, SAG.CP18, SAG.CP19, SAG.CP28, SAG.CP34, PI-02, PI-03, PI-07, AND PI-11 PROVIDE CONTROL OF THE DESIGN PROCESS.
| |
| ALL FINAL DESIGNS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES.
| |
| AN EXTENSIVE TEST PROGRAM PROVIDED DATA DEMONSTRATING THAT THE DESIGN VALIDATION APPROACH IS CONSERVATIVE.
| |
| 1 4
| |
| A29-1
| |
| | |
| / 0 CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A32 CONDUITS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAYS OR SUPPORTS l
| |
| l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| QUESTIONS REGARDING CONDUITS ATTACHED TO CAB?..E TRAYS OR CABLE TRAY HANGERS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED:
| |
| l 0 HOW ARE CONDUIT LOADS CONSIDERED IN CABLE TRAY HANGER (SUPPORT)
| |
| VALIDATION?
| |
| l 0 HOW ARE CONDUIT LOADS CONSIDERED IN CABLE TRAY DESIGN VALIDATION?
| |
| O HOW IS HANGER FREQUENCY AT CONDUIT ATTACHMENT LOCATIONS DETERMINED IN ESM ANALYSIS?
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| l DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP18, SAG.CP34, AND PI-02 FOR CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY FLANGER $ R20UIRE THAT THE EFFECTS OF ATTACHED CONDUIT BE INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION OF CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGER.
| |
| FOR THE EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS, THE SYSTEM FREQUENCY WAS EVALUATED BASED ON APPROPRIATE MASS PARTICIPATION AS SPECIFIED IN SAG.CP34.
| |
| l l
| |
| l A32-1
| |
| | |
| e CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS
| |
| . PSR SUBAPPENDIX A33 AS-BUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURES EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| A. IN THE AS-BUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURE, WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TOLERANCES USED FOR AS-BUILT MEASUREMENTS?
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| A. ENGINEERING STUDIES (REPORT IM-P-009, M-69, M-15 ATTACHMENT C, M-92 AND M-95) DEMONSTRATED THAT THE MEASUREMENT TOLERANCES USED FOR GATHERING AS-BUILT CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGER INFORMATION WERE ACCEPTABLE.
| |
| A33-1 i
| |
| . ,. +
| |
| | |
| 4 l' CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A33
| |
| , AS-BUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURES (CONTINUED)
| |
| I EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| l
| |
| : 8. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDING AS-SUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURES WERE IDENTIFIED:
| |
| 0 WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR USING WAC AS PART OF THE WELD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA?
| |
| O HOW DO THE WALKDOWN PROCEDURES EVALUATE WELD PENETRATION?
| |
| O HOW DO THE WALKDOWN PROCEDURES EVALUATE UNKNOWN BOLT TYPE /EMBEDMENT?
| |
| 0 00 THE WALKDOWN PROCEDURES EVALUATE ITEMS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS?
| |
| A33-2
| |
| | |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A33 AS-BUILT WALKDRM PROCEDURES (CONTINUED) i ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| 0 TV ELECTRIC MAS RECEIVED NRC APPROVAL TO USE VISUAL WELD ,
| |
| ACCEPTANCE CRITER1'A (VWAC). i O THE EFFECTIVE THROAT OF kELDS WAS ASSUMED 40% OF THE BEVELED MEMBER'S THICKNESS BASED ON ULTRASONIC TESTS AND ENGINFERING STUDIES (VOLUME I-BOOK 20).
| |
| ! O WHEN EXPANSION ANCHOR TYPE AND EMBEDMENT LENGTH COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED, THE ANCHORS WERE:
| |
| I -
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATED ASSUMING MINIMUM CAPACITY FOR THE ANCHOR TYPE (E.G. A307 s0LTS WITH RICHMOND INSERTS OR ,
| |
| HKB AS OPPOSED TO HSKB)
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATED ASSUMING MINIMUM EMBROHLNT F02 THE PARTICULAR ANGHOR SIZE INSPECTED USING ULTRASONIC TESTS TO DETERMINE AS-BUILT ANCHOR EMSEDMENT FOR VALICATION I
| |
| O ITEMS ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAYS AND'CAS:J ' TRAY HANGERS AND THE METHODS USED TO ATTACH THOSE I'.' dis WERE IDENTIFIED BY WALKDOWN PROCEDURES FVM-CS-001, 003, 019 AND 048.
| |
| A33-3 .
| |
| 1
| |
| -_-__-_________1__
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| . CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDI.X A33 AS-BUILT HALKDOWN PROCEDURES (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| C. THE FC LLOWIh? QUESTIONS REGARDING AS-SUILT WALKDOWN PROCEDURES WERE IDENTIFIED:
| |
| 0 WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ITEMS EVALUATED AS PART OF THE CABLE ,
| |
| l TRAY SPAN WALKDOWN PROCEDURE 7 ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| ! C. TRAY COVERS, SIDE RAIL EXTENSIONS, AND M00! PIED SPLICE PLATES ARE IDENTIFIED AS PER WALKDOWN PROCEDURES FVM-CS-001, 003, 019 AND 048. THESE ATTRIWUTES ARE BEING VALIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCFDURES SAG.CP3, SAG.CP4, SAG.CP18, SAG.CP34, PI-02, PI-06 AND CALCULATION M-39.
| |
| L A33-4 1 1
| |
| i
| |
| . - . _ _ . , _ . . . . , ~ . . _ , , _ _ - . - , - . - , _ . - , - . _ _ _ _ - _ . - . _ _ . - . - _ _ _ _ . _ - . . . ~ _ . - - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ - _ _ - - - - _ . . - - - _ - - _
| |
| | |
| /s b
| |
| i.
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A34 SYSTEM ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| A. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE RAISED REGARDING CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES: ,
| |
| i SUPERPIPE ERROF; SP-004 INVOLVED THE INCORRECT ASSIGNMENT OF LUMPED DIRECTIONAL MASSES FOR STATIC LOAD CASES. A METHOD TO ADJUST THE RESULTS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ERROR WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CABLE TRAY VALIDATION PROCEDURES. THE ERROR WAS SUBSEQUENTLY l CORRECTED IN A LATER VERSION OF SUPERPIPE AND THIS METHOD WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED. SYSTEM ANALYSIS 176-063-02 INCORRECTLY APPLIED THIS METHOD FOR ERROR SP-004 TO A VERSION OF SUPERPIPE IN WHICH i THE ERROR HAD BEEN CORRECTED. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF APPLYING THE l METHOD TO ADJUST FOR THE ERROR TO A CORRECTED VERSION OF SUPERPIPE?
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| A. THIS ISSUE WAS IDENTIFIED AND DOCUMENTED IN AN INTERNAL TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEW (TQR) CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IMPELL QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PROCEDURES PRIOR TO IDENTIFICATION BY EXTERNAL SOURCE. THERE WAS NO IMPACT OF INCORRECTLY APPLYING THIS METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SYSTEM ANALYSIS 176-063-02. THIS IS DOCUMENTED IN THE TOR RESPONSE. IN RESPONSE TO THE TQR, THE CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED THAT GENERIC IKPLICATIONS ALSO BE IDENTIFIED. NO OTHER OCCURRENCES OF THIS ISSUE WERE IDENTIFIED. ;
| |
| I r
| |
| A34-1 I
| |
| | |
| d
| |
| ,j CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A34 SYSTEM ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| B. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE RAISED REGARDING CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES: ;
| |
| WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF A 1.1 LOAD FACTOR FOR CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS LOCATED NEAR ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES IN THE "0VERLAP REGIONS" 0F RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSES?
| |
| ISSUE RESOLl' TION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| B. A DETAILED ENGINEERING STUDY (CALCULATION M-13) DEVELOPED THE OVERLAP CRITERIA USING THE RESULTS OF PARTIAL MODELS WITH OVERLAP REGIONS COMPARED TO THE RESULTS OF FULL MODELS OF THE SAME SYSTEM. RESULTS OF THIS STUDY SHOWED THAT NO LOAD INCREASE FACTOR WAS REQUIRED, HOWEVER, A LOAD INCREASE FACTOR OF 1.1 WAS APPLIED IN THE OVERLAP REGION TO ASSURE CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS RESULTS. THIS FACTOR Y.n3 ESTABLISHED FROM A REVIEW OF OTHER STRUCTURAL OVERLAP CRITERIA ("0VERLAP CRITERIA IN PIFING" BY BROOKHAVEN HATIONAL LABORATORY.)
| |
| s A34-2
| |
| | |
| /t.
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A35 FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSPECT CABLE TRAY HANGERS NRC NOV 50-445/8416-V-01 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND INSPECTION OF CABLE TRAY HANGERS QC INSPECTORS FAILED TO IDENTIFY AND DOCUMENT CONDITIONS WHERE THE INSTALLATION WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIGN DOCUMENT.
| |
| l ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| UNDER THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP) THE RE-INSPECTION OF CABLE TRAY HANGr.RS HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILED PROCEDURES (QI-QP-11.10-2A, QI-0P-11.10-9, FVM-CS-001, FVM-CS-003, AND FVM-CS-036).
| |
| AS-BUILT INFORMATION IS INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED BY TV ELECTRIC QC PERSONNEL.
| |
| AS-BUILT INFORMATION IS CONSIDERED AS DESIGN INPUT FOR DESIGN EVALUATIONS.
| |
| I l
| |
| i A35-1
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B1 (SDAR-CP-83-15)
| |
| B.Q.LTING MATERIAL FOR CABLE TRAY HANGER CLAMPS INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF HEAVY DUTY CABLE TRAY CLAMPS FOR LONGITUDINAL TYPE HANGERS REQUIRED THE INSTALLATION OF HIGH STRENGTH A-325 BOLTING MATERIALS TO ATTACH THE CABLE TRAY CLAMP TO THE CABLE TRAY HANGER. FIELD WALKDOWN OF THE diSTALLED CONDITIONS REVEALED THE USE OF LOWER STRENGTH A-3M BOLTING MATERIAL.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP) FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS IDENTIFIES THE INSTALLED BOLT MATERIAL USED FOR THE CONNECTION OF CABLE TRAY CLAMPS TO STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.
| |
| EXISTING BOLTING MATERIAL IS BEING EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPMOPRIATE ALLOWABLES IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP19 AND PI-06. BOLTS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REPLACED
| |
| ~
| |
| B1-1
| |
| | |
| ; M l
| |
| ,s y .
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B2 (SDAR-CP-85-15)_
| |
| CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN l
| |
| EXTERNAL / INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CRITERIA MAY NOT HAVE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED CERTAIN DESIGN REQUIREMENT 3. ADDITIONALLY, DISCREPANCIES MAY HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN AS-BUILT AND AS-DESIGNED CABLE TRAY HANGER CONFIGURATIONS.
| |
| E I I L r f
| |
| L B2-1 i l
| |
| | |
| G.ABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B2 ISDAR-CP-85-35)
| |
| CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN (CONTINUED)
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| TV ELECTRIC INITIATED THE CABLE TP.AY AND CABLE TRAY HANGER CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP). CAP FEATURES INCLUDED THE:
| |
| ESTABLISHMENT OF CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGN CRITERIA WHICH COMPLY WITH CPSES LICENSING COMMITMENTS DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT (DBD-CS-082)
| |
| VALIDATION OF THE INSTALLE0 CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGER DESIGNS INCLUDING THE IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS.
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES PI-02, PI-03, PI-06, PI-07, PI-11, SAG.CP3, SAG.CP4, SAG.CP09, SAG.CP11, SAG.CP18, SAG.CP19, SAG.CP28 AND SAG.CP34. THE INSTALLED CABLE TRAY HANGER AND CABLE TRAY HARDWARE IS BEING VALIDATF.D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PGST CONSTRUCTI0id HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP) PROCEDURES FVM-CS-001, 00?, 019, 048, 050, 084, 098 AND
| |
| ! 100.
| |
| 1 B2-2 l
| |
| l
| |
| - .- . -- , , -- . . , , - - . _ - _ . , . . . . , _ - . . - - . - _ _ _ . ~ _ , - _ _ - . _ _ - , . __
| |
| | |
| l CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS l PSR SUBAPPENDIX B3 :
| |
| (SDAR-CP-85-50)
| |
| CABLE TRAY TEE FITTINGS INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| SOME AS-BUILT WELDS ON VENDOR SUPPLIED TRAY TEE FITTINGS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELDS SPECIFIED ON THE VENDOR DRAWINGS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| TEE FITTINGS NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM VENDOR WELD REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIEP AS PART OF THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP) USING PROCEDURE FVM-CS-050. TEE FITTINGS WITH INADEQUATE WELDS ARE BEING MODIFIED TO MEET THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
| |
| B3-1 I
| |
| | |
| j CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS
| |
| ~
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX B4 (SDAR-CP-85-52) i
| |
| ; CABLE TRAY HANGER REVERIFICATION PROGRAM 1
| |
| l EXTERNAL / INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| DISCREPANCIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE AS-BUILT DOCUMENTATION DEVELOPED DURING THE EARLY PHASES OF THE AS-EUILTING AND INSPECTION PROGRAM.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| ! CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGER SYSTEMS WHICH HAD BEEN AS-BUILT i
| |
| AND INSPECTED DURING THIS PHASE WERE VALIDATED AND REINSPECTED BY I
| |
| PERSONNEL TRAINED IN THE TU ELECTRIC FIELD VERIFICATION METHODS.
| |
| B4-1 i
| |
| | |
| j .-
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B5 (SDAR-CP-86-52)
| |
| CABLE TRAY SPLICES / CONNECTIONS INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| i
| |
| ; THIS ISSUE WAS THAT CABLE TRAY SPLICES WERE NOT INSTALLED IN
| |
| ] ACCORDANCE WITH APPROYED SPLICE CONFIGURATIONS, AS SUMMARIZED
| |
| { SELOW:
| |
| i CABLE TRAY SPLICE CONFIGURATIONS MAY HAVE USED SPLICE PLATES THAT WERE NOT APPROVED DESIGNS OR MAY HAVE INCORRECTLY USED APPROVED SPLICE PLATES.
| |
| IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF SPLICE PLATES MAY HAVE RESULTED IN UNUSED BOLT HOLES IN CABLE TRAYS AND SPLICE PLATES.
| |
| ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS DID NOT CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF UNUSED BOLT HOLES IN CABLE TRAYS AND SPLICE PLATES.
| |
| SPECIAL SPLICE PLATES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN PLACE OF REDUCER FITTINe$. ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS DID NOT CONSIDER THE USE OF SPLICE PLATES IN PLACE OF REDUCER FITTINGS.
| |
| ~ -
| |
| B5-1
| |
| _ _ _ . . . - . - - - - - - . ~ - -
| |
| | |
| ~ .
| |
| I CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B5 (SDAR-CP-86-52)
| |
| CABLE TRAY SPLICES / CONNECTIONS (CONTINUED)
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| UNACCEPTABLE FIELD FABRICATED SPLICES, WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH DESIGN CRITERIA, ARE BEING IDENTIFIED IN THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP) IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES FiM-CS-019 AND FVM-CS-048. l SPLICE PLATES TMAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN CRITERIA ARE BEING REPLACED WITH DESIGN VALIDATED SPLICE PLATES.
| |
| UNUSED HOL.ES IN CABLE TRAYS AND SPLICE PLATES WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH DESIGN CRITERIA ARE BEING IDF,NTIFIED DURING THE ,
| |
| POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP) USING PROCEDURES FVM-CS-019 AND FVM-CS-048. TRAYS AND SPLICE l PLATES WITH UNUSED N0LES THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH DESIGN I
| |
| CRIT 5RIA ARE BEING REPAIRED OR REPLACED WITH VALIDATED DESIGNS.
| |
| SP3CIAL SPLICE PLATES USED IN PLACE OF REDUCER FITTINGS ARE BEING IDENTIFIED DURING THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHYP) USING'PROCEDdRESFVM-CS-019 AND FYM-CS-048. THESE SPLICE PLATES ARE BEING REPLACED WITH DESIGN VALIDATED SPLICE PLATES.
| |
| B5-2 v- - -- _ ,_,,,- ,_,__,_.._-w__ - ._- -,-.-__. _ m. _ . . _ , , , . . , . , _ . . . _ . . . . - , _ . _ , _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ , . . . _ _ _ - . _ , _ . - _ . . _
| |
| | |
| Al 6
| |
| CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE. TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B6 i
| |
| (SDAR-CP-86-82) 4 CABLE TRAY HANGER SPLICE WELDS INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| ORIGINAL THE CABLE TRAY -HANGER INSTALLATION SPECIFICATION J
| |
| REQUIRED THE USE OF FULL PENETRATION WELD JOINTS WHEN CHANNEL SECTIONS WERE SPLICED END-TO-END. NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTS PERFORMED ON A SAMPLE OF THESE END-TO-END SPLICE WELDS REVEALED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES LESS THAN COMPLETE WELD PENETRATION.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP)
| |
| IDENTIFIED THE LOCATION OF ALL CHANNEL END-TO-END SPLICE WELDS. ,
| |
| NON-DESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION WAS PERFORMED AND WELDS THAT DID NOT ACHIEVE FULL PENETRATION WERE MODIFIED TO CONFORM WITH THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
| |
| I B6-1
| |
| | |
| Iv CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B7 (SDAR-CP-87-48)
| |
| CABLE TRAY TRANSVERSE CLAMPS INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL INSTALLATION OF PARTICULAR COMBINATIONS OF TRANSVERSE CABLE TRAY CLAMP TYPES PROVIDED INADEQUATE RESTRAINT OF THE CABLE TRAY WHEN SUBJECTED TO TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THE Post CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM (PCHVP) IS IDENTIFYING TRAY CLAMP COMBINATIONS USING PROCEOURE FVM-CS-001,003 AxD 100. CLAMP COMBINATIONS NOT IN COMPLIANCE l WITH THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING REPLACED WITH AN ACCEPTABLE CLAMP COMBINATION l
| |
| l B7-1
| |
| | |
| i 17 CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS l PSR SUBAPPENDIX 88 (SDAR-CP-87-59)
| |
| IMPROPER APPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTION AIDS INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| CERTAIN ADJUSTABLE CABLE TRAY FITTINGS, INTENDED ONLY TO AID IN ALIGNMENT OF TRAY SEGMENTS DURING INSTALLATION, WERE INSTALLED AS PERMANENT COMPONENTS WITHOUT EVALUATION OF THEIR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY.
| |
| IMPLEMENTATION / RESOLUTION:
| |
| ADJUSTABLE CABLE TRAY FITTINGS INSTALLED AS PERMANENT COMPONENTS ARE BEING IDENTIFIED DURING PCHVP IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE FVM-CS-019, 048 AND 084. FITTINGS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MODIFIED OR REPLACED.
| |
| B8-1
| |
| | |
| 0 CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS PSR SUBAPPENDIX B1 (SDAR-CP-87-76)
| |
| FIELD DRILLED CABLE TRAY HOLES INTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| FIELD DRILLED HOLES USED TO INSTALL SPLICE PLATES, RESULTED IN UNUSED HOLES IN CABLE TRAYS AND SPLICE PLATES. THE ISSUE WAS THAT THESE UNUSED HOLES WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN TRAY AND SPLICE PLATE DESIGN.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| UNUSED HOLES IN CABLE TRAYS AND SPLICE PLATES ARE BEING IDENTIFIED DURING THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAn (PCHVP) uSING PROCEDURES FVM-CS-048 AND FVM-CS-019.
| |
| UNUSED HOLES THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH DESIGN CRITERIA WILL BE REPAIRED.
| |
| f 6
| |
| B9-1
| |
| | |
| . I b
| |
| TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC ST TION UNIT 1 AND C0l#40N
| |
| \
| |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS
| |
| ! I_ RAINS A & B AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER I
| |
| CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM PRESENTED TO CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY FEBRUARY 18, 1988 ~c
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER SCOPE OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP) 0 UNIT 1 AND COMMON SEISMIC CATEGORY I TRAIN A& 8 CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS AND SEISMIC CATEGORY II CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS FOR TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER HAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED.
| |
| O PRIMARY FEATURES OF THE CAP FOR CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS:
| |
| ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT DESIGN CRITERIA WHICH COMPLY WITH CPSES LICENSING COMMITMENTS RESOLUTION OF DESIGN AND HARDWARE-RELATED ISSUES FOR THE CPSES CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT (DBD-CS-090)
| |
| IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN AND HARDWARE VALIDATION INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS COMPILATION OF VALIDATED DESIGN DOCUMENTATION TO FORM THE BASIS FOR CONFIGURATION CONTROL II
| |
| | |
| r
| |
| . 1 4 I CONDUIT AND. CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PRIMARY FEATURES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP) 0 IDENTIFY COWITNENTS FSAR NRC REGULATORY GUIDES AND I&E BULLETINS
| |
| - APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS (E.G., AISC) 0 ESTABLISH DESIGN VALIDATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES ENGINEERING STUDIES PERFORMED COMPONENT TESTING PERFORMED UNISTRUT STATIC TESTS
| |
| - STATIC, CYCLIC AND DYNAMIC CLAMP TESTS STATIC CONDUIT THREADED FITTING TESTS l ,
| |
| O PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT ALL EXTERNAL SOURCE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN l
| |
| RESOLVED EXTENSIVE REVIEW BY CPRT THIRD PARTY (TENERA) DOCUMENTED IN DAP RESULTS REPORT: CIVIL / STRUCTURAL TRAIN A &B CONDUIT Supports, DAP-RR-C/S-002 -
| |
| III l
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| f.
| |
| CONOUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER l
| |
| PRIMARY FEATURES OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP)
| |
| (CONTINUED)
| |
| O PERFORM DESIGN VALIDATION COLLECTION OF AS-BUILT DATA FOR EACH CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT (WALxDOWN)
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION OF EACH AS-BUILT CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT THE ABOVE INCLUDES JUNCTION BOX AND 50X SUPPORTS 0 IMPLEMENT NECESSARY HARDWARE N00IFICATIONS 0 COMPLETE FINAL RECONCILIATION PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION OF PCHVP INCORPORATION OF PCHVP RESULTS CLOSURE OF OPEN ITEMS COMPILATION OF DESIGN VALIDATION PACKAGES i
| |
| r IV l
| |
| | |
| s CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP)
| |
| CONDUlT AND C0 'lDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A AND B AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER IDENTIFY LICENSINQ I FSAR COMMITMENTS 4 OTHER LICENSINQ l DUCMENTS If DEVELOP DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT (080)
| |
| I
| |
| _. Y y PEhFORM DESIGN 4 CPRT (DAP & QQC)
| |
| VALIOAT10N C EXTERNALISSUES
| |
| . NRC (SRT. sit. TRT. C AT)
| |
| CYON A (IAP)
| |
| CASE ODIFICATICW YES DES 10N NR NSPECTION REPCRTS REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS 7
| |
| l
| |
| , NO
| |
| . lf POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION d p PROGRAM (PCHYP)
| |
| FIN AL DESIGN RECONCILATION lf l
| |
| IS ADDITIONA YES i VALIDATION REQUIRE
| |
| ?
| |
| lf 1
| |
| FINAL DOCUMENTATION (DESIGN VALIDATION PACKAGES) t I
| |
| | |
| z.
| |
| r CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCN DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A1 (GIR APPENDIX 1) -
| |
| GOVERNING LOAD CASE FOR DESIGN EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN MAY NOT HA%E PROPERLY CONSIDERED BOTH OBE AND SSE LOAD COMBINATIONS BY ASSUMING THAT A 60 PERCENT INCREASE IN ALLOWABLES FOR SSE WA5 APPLICABLE TO ALL CONDUITS, CONDUIT SUPPORTS AND THEIR COMPONENTS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| ; CONDUITS, CONDUIT SUPPORTS AND THEIR COMPONENTS ARE DESIGN VALIDATED FOR THE OBE AND SSE LOAD COMBINATIONS SEPARATELY UTILIZING OBE AND SSE i ALLOWABLES RESPECTIVELY. CRITERIA USED IS D3 SCRIBED IN DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10 FOR CONDUITS AND SUPPORTS AND SAG. cpl?
| |
| FOR JUNCTION BOXES.
| |
| (
| |
| Al-1
| |
| | |
| 5 l
| |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A2 (GIR APPENDIX 2) .
| |
| DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (OAF)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| FSAR ALLOWS USE OF A DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR LESS THAN 1.5 ONLY IF JUSTIFICATION IS PROVIDED. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, A DYNAMIC l AMPLIFICATION FACTOR OF 1.0 TIMES RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAK ACCELERATIONS WAS USED WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION.
| |
| l A2-1 S
| |
| | |
| 1 d'
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A2 (GIR APPENDIX 2) .
| |
| DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF)
| |
| (CONTINUED)
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES (SAG.CPIO, SAG. cpl 7, SAG.CP20, SAG.CP25)
| |
| SPECIFY USE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS TO ACCOUNT FOR DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION EFFECTS IN CONDUIT SYSTEM DESIGN VALIDATION. ALL THESE METHODS COMPLY WITH FSAR COMMITMENTS.
| |
| (I) ON'A METHOD IS THE EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD IN WHICH 1.5 TIMES RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAK ACCELERATIONS ARE USEC INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM FREQUENCY.
| |
| (II) IN THE EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD WHEN DETERMINATION OF CONDUIT SYSTEM FREQUENCY IS MADE, DESIGN ACCELERATIONS JUSTIFIED BY DYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS ARE USED.
| |
| DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS ARE INHERENTLY INCLUDED IN THESE DESIGN ACCELERATIONS.
| |
| (III) WHEN DYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC CONDUIT SYSTEMS IS USED, DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS ARE INHERENTLY INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS.
| |
| A2-2
| |
| | |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS '
| |
| TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A3 (GIR APPENDIX 3)
| |
| COMBINATION OF DEADWEIGHT AND SEISMIC RESPONSES EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, THE LOAD DUE TO DEADWEIGHT WAS INCORRECTLY COMBINED WITH THE SEISMIC LOADS USING THE SRSS METHOD.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DEADWEIGHT IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE SRSS OF SEISMIC LOADS BUT IS ADDED SEPARATELY TO THE RESULTANT SEISMIC LOADS IN THE LOAD COMBINATIONS SPECIFIED IN DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10 AND SAG.CP17.
| |
| A3-1
| |
| | |
| /
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIANETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A4 (GIR APPENDIX 4) l l
| |
| l MEASUREMENT OF EMBEDNENT FROM TOP OF CONCRETE FLOOR. TOPPING l
| |
| l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| l NOTE 5A ON THE ORIGINAL DRAWING NO. 2323-S-0910 SH. G-4A ALLOWED THE 2-INCH THICK CONCRETE FLOOR TOPPING TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING EMBEDMENT LENGTH OF ANCHORS AT BUILDING ELEVATIONS 832'-6 AND BELOW.
| |
| SINCE THE TOPPING INTEGRITY CANNOT BE ASSURED, THE EFFECT OF REDUCED EMBEDMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THE FLOORS WHERE SUPPORTS WITH HILTI-KWIK BOLTS ARE MOUNTED WERE REVIEWED AGAINST THE LIST OF FLOORS WHICH HAVE ARCHITECTURAL TOPPING D,URING THE DESIGN VALIDATION EFFORT. DESIGN VALIDATION FOR SUCH SUPPORTS ON FLOORS WITH TOPPING CONSIDERED A 2-INCH REDUCTION OF BOLT EMBEDMENT LENGTH AS SPECIFIED IN DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10.
| |
| ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED ONLY IN CONCRETE TOPPING AND THOSE!THAT DO NOT MEET THE ANCHOR BOLT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE BEING REPLACED. NOTE 5A WAS REVISED ACCORDINGLY.
| |
| A4-1
| |
| | |
| l 6
| |
| CQlEMlIT AND CO M IT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. Als TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A5 (GIR APPENDIX 5) .
| |
| B0LT N0LE TOLERANCES AND EDGE DISTANCES EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| A. ON ORIGINAL DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 $H. G-15, wCTE 15 ALLOWED BOLT NOLE TOLERANCES WHICH VARY WITH THE BOLT SIZE AND ARE LARGER :
| |
| THAN THE AISC 1/16" TOLERANCE. THIS TOLERANCE MAY MAVE RESULTED l IN OVERSIZED BOLT NOLES.
| |
| l ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - A: l FOR STEEL TO CONCRETE CONNECTIONS, AISC BOLT HOLE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE (AISC LETTER TO L. D. NACE DATED AUGUST 29, 1986). THE EFFECTS OF SOLT HOLE SIZES ALLOWED SY THE ORIGINAL DRAWING NO.
| |
| 2323-5-0910 PACKAet WERE EVALUATE 0 THROUGH ANALYTICAL STUDIES (EsASCO POSITION PAPER "EFFECTS OF BOLT NOLE OVERSIZE IN CTH SYSTEM AND CONDUIT SYSTEM ADEQUACY"). IT WAS CONCLUDED TMAT THE STEEL TO l CONCRETE CONNECTIONS WITH THE EXISTING BOLT HOLES ARE ACC(PTABLE.
| |
| FOR CLAMP COMMacTIONS WHICH INCLUDE COLb-FORMED COMP 0hENTS, THE AISI CODE IS APPLICASLE. CLAMP CAPACITIES WERE. DETERMINES) FROM TESTS AS RECOMMENDED BY AISI CODE (CCL REPORT NOS. A-699-85'ANo A-702-86).
| |
| l A5-1
| |
| ; 1 1
| |
| i I
| |
| : i
| |
| | |
| . C005UIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. ASE TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A5 (GIR APPENDIX 5).
| |
| BOLT N0LE TOLERANCES AND EDGE DISTANCES (CONTINUED)
| |
| FOR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL STEEL MEM8tRS, TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH AISC Coot, APPROPRIATs CORRECTIVE ACTION IS BEING TAKEN IN THE j POST CONSTRUCTION MARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM.
| |
| l I
| |
| A5-2
| |
| * ^*
| |
| | |
| l .
| |
| l 6
| |
| / CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIME,TER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A5 (GIR APPENDIX 5)
| |
| BOLT HOLE TOLERANCES AND EDGE DISTANCES (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| B. SOME ORIGINAL DESIGNS MAY NOT HAVE PROVIDED THE MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE STATED IN THE AISC CODE. FOR EXAMPLE, CA-5A AND CSM-42 SUPPORTS HAVE 3/4 INCH EDGE DISTANCE IN CONCRETE TO STEEL l CONNECTION MEMEERS VERSUS 25/32 INCH BASED ON THE CODE (1/32 INCH DIFFERENCE). l ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - 8:
| |
| i EDGE DISTANCES IN STRUCTURAL STEEL TO STRUCTURAL STEEL CONNECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE REVISED DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE HAVE BEEN !
| |
| l OESIGN VALIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AISC CODE REQUIREMENTS.
| |
| BASEPLATE EDGE DISTANCES IN STEEL TO CONCRETE ANCHORAGES WERE DESIGN VALIDATED IN CONFORMANCE WITH AISC CODE. CASES WHERE EDGE DISTANCE VALUES WERE OUTSIDE THE AISC MANUAL TABLE VALUES WERE VALIDATED 8ASED ON ACCEPTABLE BEARING STRESS CALCULATIONS. ,
| |
| 1 A5-3 I l
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| ! .CGIEHJIT AM30NDyIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. Als TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH _QlelfEIT_ER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A5 (GIR APPENDIX 5) 80LT N0LE TOLERANCES AND EDGE DISTANCES (cowTxwuso) l l Fon CLAMP CONNECTIONS WHICH INCLUot COLo-FORMEo COMPONENTS, THE AISI l Coot Is APPLICAsLE. CLAMPS WITH REoUCEo EDet oIsTANCE OWE To HOLE sIza want Tasiso As ascoMusNoso sy AISI Coot (CCL aspom7 mos. A-699-85 ANo A-702-86) To esvaRMIN: CLAMP CAPACITIas Usso IN ossIeN VALIoATION.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l i
| |
| A5-4 9
| |
| | |
| t i
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A6 (GIR APPENDIX 6)
| |
| FSAR LOAD COMBINATIONS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| ALL APPLICABLE LOADS AS DEFINED IN CPSES FSAR SECTION 3.8.4.3.3 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
| |
| SPECIFICALLY, LOADS DUE TO PIPE WHIP AND JET IMPINGEMENT WERE NOT ADDRESSED. ALSO, SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WHICH ENVELOPE THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING SHELL AND INTERNAL STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING SHELL AND INTERNAL STRUCTURE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10 AND SAG.CP17 SPECIFY ALL APPLICABLE LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED, BASED ON FSAR SECTION 3.8.4.3.3.
| |
| I SAFETY RELATED CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS HAVE EITHER BEEN RELOCATED OR SHIELDED FROM PIPE WHIP, JET IMPINGEMENT AND INTERNALLY GENERATED MISSILES.
| |
| SAFETY RELATED CONDUITS LOCATED OUTDOORS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO REQUIRE NO PROTECTION FROM TORNADO EFFECTS.
| |
| A6-1
| |
| - . . - - - -. - - - - .-- -. +-y. , - - - - -
| |
| | |
| h CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A6 )
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 6) j l
| |
| 1 FSAR LOAD COMBINATIONS (CONTINUED)
| |
| AS SPECIFIED IN DESIGN VALIDATION 1 THERMAL EFFECTS WEk2 CONSIDERED l PROCEDURES SAG.CP21 AND SAG.CP25.
| |
| SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WHICH ENVELOPE THE CONTAINMENT SUILDING SHELL USED FOR VALIDATION OF AND INTERNAL STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA WERE BY BOTH THE CONTAINMENT CONDUITS AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS SUPPORTED STRUCTURE AS SPECIFIED IN DESIGN BUILDING SHELL AND INTERNAL VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP25. ,
| |
| i f
| |
| l l A6-2 s
| |
| .- - . _ . _ . _ . . . - . = _ _ -
| |
| | |
| I CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A7 (GIR APPENDIX'7) -
| |
| SUPPORT SELF-WEIGHT l l
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUR:
| |
| 1 THE SELF-WEIGHT OF THE SUPPORT WAS NOT UNIFORMLY CONSIDERED IN THE i ORIGINAL DESIGN.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG CP10 AND SAG.CP17 SPECIFY THAT THE SELF-WEIGHT BE EXPLICITLY AND CONSISTENTLY INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION.
| |
| t I
| |
| l
| |
| , l 1
| |
| 1 A7-1 I '
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT _S !
| |
| 1 TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER TPAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A8 (GIR APPENDIX 8) -
| |
| TORSION OF UNISTRUT MEMBER l
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: 4 A. THE ISSUE WAS THAT TOR $IONAL LOADING ON UNISTRUT MEMBERS WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE SUPPORT DESIGN.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| TOR $10NAL EFFECTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERLD IN DESIGN VALIDATICN. TESTS (CCL REPORT NO. A-678-85) wERE PERrORMED BY CORPORATE CONSULTING AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD. (CCL) WHICH INCLUDED THE TORSIONAL LOAD EFFECT ON THE UNISTRUT MEMBERS. THE RESULTS OF THE TESTS WERE USED TO j ESTABLISH ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES FOR SUPPORTS UTILIZING UNISTRUT M' EMBERS.
| |
| 1 i
| |
| 1 A8-1
| |
| ! l
| |
| | |
| t CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A8 (GIR APPENDIX 8)
| |
| TORSION OF UNISTRUT MEMBER (CONTINVED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| B. THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ISSUES RESULTED FROM CYGNA'S REVIEW OF THE CCL TEST:
| |
| 0 THE CONDUIT SUPPORT TYPES SELECTED FOR 7ESTING MAY NOT REPRESENT ALL SUPPORT TYPES INSTALLED AT CPSES. ALSO, TEST RESULTS FOR SOME CONDUIT SUPPORTS MAY HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY IMPROPER TEST SET-UP.
| |
| ]
| |
| O ONLY ONE CONDUIT CLAMP TYPE (C-706-S) FOR LARGE CONDUIT SIZES WAS INCLUDED IN MOST OF THE TESTS.
| |
| i I
| |
| A8-2 p
| |
| r , .- E es-14 *T9 4 -------rwr- --------c- - - - - -
| |
| | |
| I y
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A8 (GIR APPENDIX 8) I TORSION OF UNISTRUT MEMBER (CONTINUED)
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - B: i THE CONDUIT SUPPORT TEST SET-UP AND RESULTS (CCL REPORT NO. A-678-85)
| |
| WERE REVIEWED AND CONDUIT CLAMP AND SUPPORT CAPACITIES WERE DEVELOPED AS FOLLOWS:
| |
| 0 ONLY UNISTRUT CONFIGURATIONS WHICH WERE UNAFFECTED BY THE TEST SET-UP ARE EMPLOYED AT CPSES. CONFIGURATIONS WHICH WERE NOT TESTED OR WERE UNSATISFACTORY WERE REPLACED. THE ALLOWABLE LOAD CAPACITIES FOR THE UNISTRUT SUPPORTS AT CPSES WERE DETERMINED UTILIZING TEST RESULTS. THESE ALLOWABLE LOAD CAPACITIES ARE SHOWN ON THE REVISED DRAWING NO.
| |
| 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE.
| |
| O CONDUIT CLAMP CAPACITIES FOR ALL CLAMP TYPES USED IN CPSES j CONDUIT SUPPORTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY TESTS (CCL REPORT NOS.
| |
| A-699-85 AND A-702-86) AND INCORPORATED IN THE DESIGN l
| |
| , VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10. )
| |
| : l l
| |
| 4 A8-3 l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAN 1 I
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A8 i
| |
| -(GIR APPENDIX 8) '
| |
| TORSION OF UNISTRUT MEMBER (CONTINUED) g .'?E>" -- -
| |
| p.
| |
| 4: g/ !
| |
| s
| |
| ,/
| |
| i I
| |
| i J ' %. !
| |
| )
| |
| i TEST CONFIGURATION FOR CONDUIT SUPPORT TYPE C l l
| |
| ; A8-4 i l
| |
| 1 !
| |
| 1
| |
| : (
| |
| | |
| .~:..... . .....:... . . . ~..a . .
| |
| /*
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A9 (GIR APPENDIX 9) .
| |
| USE OF CATALOG COMPONENTS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| A. THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF AISC TO UNISTRUT CATALOG COMPONENTS WHICH MAY NOT BE CONSERVATIVE. AISI SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED.
| |
| B. THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS WERE USED IN WAYS NOT RECOMMENDED BY YHE VENDOR: UNISTRUT COMPONENTS, CLAMPS (UNISTRUT AND SUPERSTRUT),
| |
| AUC 'ORAGES (HILTI-KWIK BOLT AND RICHMOND INSERTS) AND NELSON STUDS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION /IMPLEMENTATJON - A & B:
| |
| A '. L COMPONENTS EMPLOYED IN THE CONDUIT SUPPORTS ARE EITHER IN COMPLIANCE WITH VENDOR ALLOWABLES, OR ALLOWABLES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY TESTS AS RECOMMENDED BY AISI.
| |
| i a
| |
| I j A9-1 i
| |
| | |
| i 1
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT _SilPPD,7Il IRAINS A & 8. AND TRAIN C LARGER _..
| |
| THAN 2 XNCH DIANETER .
| |
| l PSR SUBAPPENQJX A10 (GIR APPENDIX 10) .
| |
| ARCHQJt BOLTE ... .
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: -
| |
| A. PRYING ACTION EFFECTS ON ANCHOR BOLT TENSION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN UNIFORMLY CON 3IDERED IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - A:
| |
| l PRYING ACTION EFFECTS ARE INCLUDED IN DESIGN VALIDATION OF ALL BASE !
| |
| MEMBER ANCHORAGES. Renu!REMENTs ARE spECIFIED IN DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10, SAG.CP17, AND SAG.CP29. -
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l
| |
| \ l A10-1 j
| |
| : 1 1
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| f CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS .
| |
| TRAINS A & B AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER l PSR SUBAPPENDIX A10 (GIR APPENDIX 10) -
| |
| ANCHOR BOLTS l
| |
| (CONTINUED) I EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| B. FOR CONDUIT SUPPORT CST-17, TYPE 17, THE ORIGINA'. DESIGN DOES NOT '
| |
| CONSIDER MOMENTS INDUCED IN THE ANCHOR BOLT DUE TO SHEAR FORCES APPLIED ADOVE THE CONCRETE SURFACE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - B:
| |
| )
| |
| MOMENTS INDUCED IN THE ANCHOR BOLTS DUE TO SHEAR FORCES APPLIED ABOVE THE CONCRETE SURFACE ARE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN VALIDATION OF ALL MULTIDIRECTIONAL SUPPORTS (SAG.CP10 AND SAG.CP29). THE CST-17 TYPE SUPPORTS IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ARE TRANSVERSE TYPE SUPPORTS, ALL OF i WHICH ARE BEING ELIMINATED OR REPLACED BY MULTIDIRECTIONAL TYPE SUPP0 PTS.
| |
| l i
| |
| A10-2 l
| |
| l l . -- ._ . .. _ _ _ - _ _ . - - . -
| |
| | |
| t CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN'2 INCH DIAMETER
| |
| . . c.
| |
| PSR SUBAPPMDIX A10 (GIR APPENDIX 10)
| |
| ANCHOR BOLTS (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| l C. OUTRIGGER HILTI-KWIK BOLTS FOR THE ORIGINAL CA-2A SUPPORTS WERE ASSUMED NOT TO TAKE ANY LOAD. HOWEVER, SOME LOAD MAY Bi IMPOSED I DUE TO CONDUIT LOADS AND PRESTRESSING OF THE SUPPORT. THE OUTRIGGER HILTI-KWIK BOLYS MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE IN RESISTING THESE LOADS SINCE THE DESIGN ORAWING WA!YES SEPARATION V:0LATIONS BETWEEN HILTI-KWIK BOLTS IN THE OUTRIGGERS AND ANY OTHER BOLTS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - C:
| |
| l I
| |
| CA-2A TYPE UNISTRUT SUPPORT WAS TESTED (CCL REPOkT NO. A-678-85)
| |
| ; WITHOUT HILTI-KWIK BOLTS ON THE OUTRIGGERS. THEREFORE, THESE
| |
| {
| |
| HILTI-KWIK BOLTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE SUPPORT CAPACITY. )
| |
| VALIDATION OF OTHER SUPPORTS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITN SEPARATION l CRITERIA WILL BE PERFORMED AS PART OF THE POST CONSTRUCT!0M HARDWARE VALIDATION PROSRAM.
| |
| i l A10-3 1
| |
| I 1
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND COMUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER TMAN 2 INC ,
| |
| PSR SU8 APPENDIX- A10 '
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 10)
| |
| ANCHOR BOLTS '
| |
| (CONTINUED) man. summt ,
| |
| g k T ~5
| |
| \
| |
| l'o M nocen 3 '
| |
| . lr, ;
| |
| \
| |
| / L - _.:_2 i'A
| |
| '( r------
| |
| ~
| |
| t I- - '
| |
| /
| |
| s x 7" s
| |
| 'I '
| |
| 1 SECTION B B
| |
| [J, 1 B B y w- -
| |
| 3 __
| |
| _..- - a-,
| |
| ),*,. A .
| |
| ,' A *4
| |
| ., A ' * . _1 SECTION A A
| |
| ! CONDUIT SUPPORT GUTRIGGER CONFIGURATION I
| |
| A10-4 4
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| ._.u_..-
| |
| _ _ _ . - _ - _ - _ ~ _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - . ,
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| " i CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B, AND TRAIN C LARGER THAR 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A10 (GIR APPENDIX 10)
| |
| ANCHOR 80LTS (CONTINUED)
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| D.
| |
| ORIGINAL DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 SH. G-4A ALLOWED SusSTfTuTION OF RICHMOND INSERTS FOR HILTI-KWIK 80LTS. THIS SUSSTITUTION MAY HAVE RESULTED IN LOWER BOLT / INSERT CAPACITIES THAN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN BECAUSE RICHMOND INSERTS IN CLUSTER ARRANGEMENTS MAY HAVE LOWER CAPACITIES.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - D:
| |
| REVISED DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 SH. G-4A NO LONSER PERMITS susSTITUTION OF RICHMOND INSERTS FOR HILTI-10dIK BOLTS. AS PART OF THE ENGINEERING WALKDOWN (CPE-ES-FYM-CS-033), ALL SUPPORTS HAVE BEEN j j INDIVIDUALLY AS-BUILT INCLUDING CONCRETE ANCHORAGE, TYPE AND ARRANGEMENT. THE AS-BUILT CONFIGURATIONS MAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED !
| |
| i IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CPIO AND SAG.CP29.
| |
| i t
| |
| l l t
| |
| l A10-5 l 4
| |
| I i
| |
| l .
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| 4 CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER j l
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX All (GIR APPENDIX 11)
| |
| LONGITUDINAL LOADS ON TRANSVERSE SUPPORTS l
| |
| ~
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| u
| |
| < l LONGITbDINAL LOADS MAY NOT HAVE SEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF SOME TRANSVERSE SUPPORTS.
| |
| l ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| ALL LOADING DIRECTIONS ARE EVALUATED IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF CONDUIT SUPPORTS. ALL PREVIOUS "TRANSVERSE ONLY" SUPPORTS HAVE EITHER BEEN CONVERTED TO MULTI-DIRECTIONAL SUPPORTS OR REPLACED. '
| |
| l
| |
| . I I 4 i
| |
| 1 i !
| |
| j A11-1 1 1 l
| |
| I '
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPQRTS t TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER l l
| |
| t PSR SUBAPPENDIX A12 '
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 12) -
| |
| 1 i
| |
| HILTI KWIK BOLT SUBSTITUTIONS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| NOTE 4 ON SH. G-4A 0F ORIGINAL DRAWING No. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE, ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF HILTI-KWIK BOLTS WITH LARGER SIZE HILTI-KWIK, BOLTS. A SITUATION MAY OCCUR WHERE THE SUBSTITUTED BOLTS NAVE A LOWER CAPACITY THAN BOLTS IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
| |
| I ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| l DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 SH. G-4A WAS REVISED TO DELETE NOTE 4. THESE BOLT SUBSTITUTIONS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED. !
| |
| THE SIZE AND TYPE OF ANCHORAGE BOLTS WERE IDENTIFIED AS PART OF AN ENGINEERING WALKDOWN (CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033). AS-BUILT CONFIGURATIONS j INCLUDING BOLT SUBSTITUTIONS WERE EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS
| |
| { UTILIZING DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10. ,
| |
| l i l i
| |
| ! A12-1 !
| |
| l i i
| |
| i
| |
| : . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _:: . :=: = : == ::_ 2 -- 0
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS l TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A13 (GIR APPENDIX 13) .
| |
| SUBSTITUTION OF SMALL CONDUITS ON CA TYPE SUPP0P.T5 l l
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: I l
| |
| CA TYPE SUPPORT DRAWINGS ALLOWED SUSSTITUTION OF SMALLER CONOUIYS FOR LARGER CONDUITS. SINCE CA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE DESIGNED USING ZPA VALUES FOR LARGE SIZE CONDUIT, AND SMALL CONDUIT SIZES WERE DESIGNED FOR PEAK ACCELERATIONS, THIS SUBSTITUTION MAY RESULT IN LARGER LOADS THAN REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| l DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10 SPECIFIES THAT CA TYPE SUPPORTS SHALL BE DESIGN VALIDATED SASED ON DESIGN ACCELERATIONS WHICH BOUND ALL CONDUIT SIZES.
| |
| l l
| |
| l A13-1
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ; , CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS l TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMF'lR PSR SUBAPPENDIX A13 (GIR APPElWIX 13)
| |
| SD STITUTION OF SMALL CONDUITS ON CA TV2, SUPPORTS (CONTINUED) ,)
| |
| 'h,'.[f* #
| |
| , . 'e j.
| |
| . 'Y . /
| |
| , , i . g ' , . '. 's , : 4 k .k. .l 3 CA TYPE
| |
| [= L _
| |
| SUPPORT CONDUIT i I
| |
| ORIGINAL DESIGN O FOR LARGE SIZE CONDUITS (t 2" 9), c0NDUIT SPAN (L) IS RIGID AND CA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE DESIGNED FOR ZPA.
| |
| O FOR sMALL SIzt CONDUITS (< 2" 9), CONDUIT SPAN (L) IS FLEXIsLE AND DESIGNED FOR PEAK ACCELERATIONS.
| |
| PRESENT DESIGN O
| |
| CONDUIT SPAN (L) IS AS$uMED 70 st FLExIsLE FOR ALL CONDUIT SIZES.
| |
| O CA TYPE SUPPORTS ARE DESIGN VALIDATED FOR DESIGN ACCELERATIONS
| |
| ! WHICH BOUNO ALL CONDUIT SIZES.
| |
| 4 1 l !
| |
| l A13-2 i ;
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| If CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A14 (GIR APPENDIX 141 USE OF CA TYPE SUPPORTS IN FLEXIBLE SPANS EXTERNAL S0liRCE ISSUE:
| |
| CA TYPE SUPFORTS FOR CONDUIT WITH DIAMETER EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 2" l WERE DESI'3NED FOR ZPA. THE ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS OF THE CA SUPPORT MAY BE AFFECTED BY i THE FLEX :BILITY OF THE CONDUIT SPAN (LS).
| |
| l ISSUE RE5OLUTION/ IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| )
| |
| , l ZPA IS NOT USED FOR DESIGN VALIDATION OF CA TYPE SUPPORTS. THE DESIGN l VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10 SPECIFIES THAT ALL CA TYPE SUPPORTS ARE TO BE DESIGN VALIDATED BASED ON DESIGN ACCELERATIONS WHICH INCLUDE THE FLEXIBILITY EFFECT OF THE SPANS.
| |
| i l I I l
| |
| l l \
| |
| l A14-1 i
| |
| i
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , , _ _ _ . _. . _ . - _ . _ . _ _ _ . , , . _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ . _ _ ~ . _ _ _ . . _
| |
| | |
| 5 i
| |
| ' . 1 ,'
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A15 (GIR APPENDIX 15) -
| |
| STRESSES IN CABLE TRAYS DUE TO ATTACHED CONOUIT SUPPORTS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| SH. CSD-16 0F DRAWING N0. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE ALLOWS CONDUIT TO BE ATTACHED TO CABLE TRAY. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, CARLE TRAY MAY HAVE BEEN DESIGNED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONDUIT LOAD. IN ADDITION, ZPA SHOULD NOT BE USED TO COMPUTE CONDUIT LOAD SINCE CABLE TRAY MAY BE FLEXIBLE.
| |
| l ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10 SPECIFIES THAT THE CONDUIT AND ITS CONNECTION TO THE CABLE TRAY ARE TO BE DESIGN VALIDATED FOR 1.5 TIMES RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAX ACCELERATION. DEADWEIGHT FOR BOTH THE RIGID AND MAXINUM FLEXIBLE CONDUIT ALLOWED IN SH. CSD-16 0F DRAWING No. 2323-S-0910 PACKAGE WERE INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF THE CONDUIT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH CABLE TRAY WALKDOWN PROCEDURE CPE-EB-FVM-048, SUCH CONFIGURATIONS ARE BEING IDENTIFIED AND EVALUATED IN THE CABLE TMY POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARK VALIDATION PROGRAM (SEE EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 32 FOR CABLE TRAY AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS).
| |
| A15-1
| |
| | |
| I f CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A15 (GIR APPENDIX 15) .
| |
| STRESSES IN CABLE TRAYS DUE TO ATTACHED CONDUIT SUPPORTS (CONTINUED)
| |
| FJ G i p C4 N Pul T PLEX AN901T p
| |
| xa \\\\\\e I
| |
| I M WLE Tr.AY TYPICAL FLEXIBLE CONDUIT CONNECTED TO LADDER / SOLID BOTTOM TRAY ORAwx;40 No. 2323-5-0910, SHttT CSD-16.
| |
| ; A15-2 i
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| i CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS l TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER TRAN 2 INCH DIAMETER ,
| |
| I
| |
| : PSR_SUBAPPENDIX A16 l (GIR APPENDIX 161 INCREASES IN ALLOWABLE SPAN LENGTHS l
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| ALLOWABLE CONDUIT LENGTHS (LA SPANS) WERE INCREASED IN THE ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS BASED ON CHANGES IN RESPONSE SPECTRA. THE EFFECT OF THIS I i CHANGE ON CONDUIT STRESS LEVELS WAS NOT PROPERLY EVALUATED. l I$ SUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| SPANS OF THIS TYPE (LA SPANS) HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM REVISED DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE. DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDUP.ES SAG.CP10, !
| |
| l SAG.CP20, AND SAG.CP25 REou!RE THAT CONDUIT STRESSES BE EVALUATED FOR ACTUAL SPAN LENGTHS. ,
| |
| l l t l
| |
| (
| |
| i 1 l
| |
| l A16-1 1
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| - l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B, AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER l
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A17 ;
| |
| I (GIR APPENDIX 171 .
| |
| SUBSTITUTION OF NEXT HEAVIER STRUCTURAL MEMBER l
| |
| l EllPNAL SOURCE __IllE:
| |
| NC'? JN SH. G-1A 0F THE ORIGINAL DRAWING Mo. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE l
| |
| Al.k..s0 THE
| |
| . SUBSTITUTION OF THE NEXT HEAVIER STRUCTURAL MEMBER.
| |
| DOCUMENTATION OF THIS SUBSTITUTION IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS l i
| |
| XNADEQUATE AND SELF-WEIGHT OF THE SUPPORT WAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
| |
| i 1
| |
| t ,
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l 1
| |
| 4
| |
| ! A17-1
| |
| )
| |
| i l
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| t t
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A17 (GIR APPENDIX 17) -
| |
| SUBSTITUTION OF NEXT HEAVIER STRUCTURAL MEMBER (CONTINUED)
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| )
| |
| l NOTE 5 ALLOWING SUBSTITUTION OF THE NEXT HEAVIER STRUCTURAL MEMBER WAS DELETED FROM SH. G-1A 0F THE REVISED DRAWING MO. 2323-S-0910 PACKAGE.
| |
| MEMBER SIZES WERE IDENTIFIED DURINS ENGINEERING WALKDOWN (CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033). FOR OPEN SECTION MEMBERS THE ACTUAL SECTION THICKNESS WAS RECORDED FOR DESIGN VALIDATION. FOR SINGLE CANTILEVER TYPE AND L-SHAPED CANTILEVER TYPE SUPPORTS UTILIZING TURE STEEL MEMBERS, AN ENGINEERING STUDY (ESASCO CALCULATION BOOK NOS. SUFT-0247 AND SPAN-1189) WAS PERFORMED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE NEXT HEAVIER MEMBER ON SUPPORT CAPACITIES. RESuLTS OF THE ENGINEERING STUDY ARE INCORPORATED INTO DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP2ti FOR THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF SUCH SUPPORTS. OTHER SUPPORTS UTILIZING TUBE STEEL SECTIONS WERE CONSERVATIVELY VALIDkTED (DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP25) UTILIZING THE WEIGHT OF THE NEXT HEAVIER MEMBER AND THE SMALLER SECTIONAL PROPERTIES OF THE AS-DESIGNED MEMBER SHOWN ON THE DESIGN DRAWINGS.
| |
| 1 A17-2 '
| |
| l l
| |
| . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . , 1
| |
| | |
| k ,
| |
| ColBUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBA'PPENDIX A18 (GIR APPENDIX 18)
| |
| _ CLAMP USAGE EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN ALLOWED ALTERATION OF CLAMP ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS.
| |
| THESE ALTERATIONS MAY MAVE CREATED A MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE VIOLATION AND DISTORTION DURING INSTALLATION. JUSTIFICATION IS REcu! RED FOR OMISSION, ALTERATION OR DISTORTION OF WASHERS, REAMING OF CLAMP MOLES AND CUTTING OFF A PORTION OF TME CLAMP EARS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| )
| |
| THE CLAMP TEST PROGRAM PERFORMED BY CCL (CCL REPORT MOS. A-699-85 AND A-702-86) UTILIZED THREE DIRECTIONAL LOADING AND CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING:
| |
| 0 REAMING OF CLAMP MOLES 0 CLAMP EDGE DISTANCE
| |
| * O BOLT TYPE AND SIZE O OMISSION, ALTERATION OR DISTORTION OF WASMERS 0 CLA N DISTORTIONS ..
| |
| O CLAMP M00ZFICATION BY CUTTING OFF A PORTION OF CLAMP EARS A18-1 i
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| }
| |
| } C05UIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & i. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SU8 APPENDIX A18 (GIR APPENDIX 18) .
| |
| CLAMP USAGE (CONTINUED)
| |
| THE CLAMP ALLOWABLES ARE BASED ON THE ABOVE TESTS AND WERE INCORPORATED INTO DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10.
| |
| I IN ADDITION, EBASCO REVIEWED AND IDENTIFIED REVISIONS REQUIRED TO THE I INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS, CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE, AND QUALITY j CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURE (NQA 3.09-2.03 Amo ECP-19) To PRECLUDE UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS TO CLAMP AND CLAMP ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS.
| |
| l A18-2
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = . _ .: = =
| |
| | |
| l .
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A19 l (GIR APPENDIX 19)
| |
| DOCUMENTATION DEVIATIONS BETWEEN INSPECTION REPORTS, CMCs AND IN-FP DRAWINGS 1
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| s DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED BETWEEN SOME FINAL CONDUIT LINE INSPECTION REPORTS (IRS) AND THE CORRESPONDING COMPONENT MODIFICATION CARDS (CMCS) AND/OR INDIVIDUALLY ENGINEERED FIRE PROTECTED CONDUIT SYSTEM (IN-FP) DRAWINGS. ADDITIONALLY, DIFFERENCES WERE IDENTIFIED BETWEEN THE FINAL IRS AND THE INSTALLED CONDUIT CONFIGURATIONS.
| |
| 1 A19-1
| |
| {
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCN DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A19 (GIR APPENDIX 19)
| |
| DOCUMENTATION DEVIATIONS BETWEEN INSPECTION REPORTS. CMCs AND IN-FP DRAWINGS (CONTINUED)
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION: ,
| |
| AN ENGINEERING WALKDOWN (CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033) 0F CONDUITS AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS WAS PERFORMED TO bETERMINE THE AS-BUILT CONFIGURATIONS.
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION OF THE CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES (SAG.CPIO, SAG.CP17, SAG.CP25 AND SAG.CP29) AND REVISED DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE UTILIZING THE AS-BUILT DATA.
| |
| E'ACH OF THE IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTATION AND CONDUIT CONFIGURATION DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED UNDER THIS ISSUE WERE EVALUATED. A DETERMINATION WAS MADE THAT THERE IS NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE TO ANY OF THE IDENTIFIED DEVIATIONS. .
| |
| A19-2
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX Agg (GIR APPENDIX 20) :
| |
| E LSON STUDS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS TO QUALIFY NELSON STUDS USED IN CONDUIT CONNECTIONS DETAILS MAY NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE FLEXIBILITY OF CLAMP AND SHIM PLATE, RELAXATION OF PRELOAD AND ADDITIONAL MOMENT ON THE STUD.
| |
| ALSO, ANALYSIS OF THE SHIM PLATE SUBJECTED TO PRETENSION LOADS IN THE NELSON STUDS MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES FOR CLAMPS USING NELSON STUDS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON CCL TESTS (CCL REPORT NOS. A-699-85 AND A-702-86). THESE TESTS TOCK INTO ACCOUNT THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE CLAMP AND SHIM PLATE, RELAXATION OF THE PRELOAD AND ADDITIONAL MOMENT ON THE STUD (SEE EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 18). THESE ALLOWABLE C LAMP CAPACITIES WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10.
| |
| IN ADDITION, THE ADEQUACY OF SHIM PLATE CONFIGURATIONS SUBJECTED TO PRETENSION LOADS IN THE NELSON STUDS WAS CONFIRMED BY ENGINEERIllG I
| |
| STUDIES (EBASCO CALCULATION BOOK NOS. 44 AND SPAN-1191).
| |
| A20-1
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| l l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A21 l
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 21) '
| |
| l l
| |
| l CONDUIT FIRE PROTECTION CALCULATIONS l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSE:
| |
| A. ORIGINAL DESIGN CONSIDERED A ROUND CONFIGURATION OF THERMOLAG MATERIAL AROUND CONDUITS. A ' SQUARE CONFIGURATION OF THERM 0 LAG MATERIAL IS ALSO USED AT CPSES. DOCUMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION INSTALLED WAS NOT MAINTAINED.
| |
| B, C, D. ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS USED SUPPORT CAPACITIES WHICH MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE SPECIFIC CONFIGURATIONS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - A, B. C. & D:
| |
| THE THERM 0 LAGGED CONDUIT SYSTEMS WERE AS-BUILT AND THE ACTUAL THERMOLAG CONFIGURATIONS WERE DOCUMENTED. DESIGN VALIDATION OF THERM 0 LAGGED SYSTEMS WAS PERFORMED USING SUPPORT CAPACITIES CONTAINED IN THE REVISED 2323-5-0910 DRAWING PACKAGE AND THE AS-DESIGNED SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS. AS-DESIGNED SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS ARE BEING CONFIRMED AS PART OF THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM.
| |
| A21-1
| |
| % " % AFe y A % 999-a < - * - , *n of w
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| t i
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCN DIAMETER :
| |
| 1 i
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A22 i
| |
| . (GIR APPENDIX 22) .
| |
| l l
| |
| l SPAN INCREASE FOR FIRE PROTECTED SPANS l
| |
| l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: !
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN USED THE CONDUIT YIELD STRESS DATA FROM VENDOR'S TESTS IN WHICH THE YIELD STRESS VALUE VARIES WITH CONDUIT NOMINAL SIZE.
| |
| THIS TS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE APPROPRIATE. ORIGINAL DESIGN ALSO USED A DAF (DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR) 0F 1.0 IN THE CALCULATIONS. J ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10 SPECIFIES THAT THE CONDUIT YIELD STRESS SHALL BE 25,000 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH (PSI) FOR ALL CONDUIT SIZES WHICH IS THE LOWEST YIELD STRESS FOR ANY CONDUIT USED AT CPSES.
| |
| IN ADDITION, FIRE PROTECTED CONDUIT SYSTEMS WERE DESIGN VALIDATED i UTILIZING THE RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS METHOD WHICH INHERENTLY INCORPORATES DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION EFFECTS. '
| |
| 1 l
| |
| A22-1
| |
| . _ . - - _ . . - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ = _ = = - - . - _ - . - ___ - . -
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPLNDIX A23 (GIR APPENDIX 23)
| |
| SROUTED PENETRATIONS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, ALL GROUTED PENETRATIONS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE MULTIDIRECTIONAL SUPPORTS. THE LONGITUDINAL LOAD CAPACITY (PARALLEL TO CONDUIT) FOR GROUTED PENETRATIONS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY ADDRESSED IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10 PROVIDES DESIGN CRITERIA AND ALLOWABLE BOND STRESS BETWEEN THE CONDUIT AND CONCRETE WALLS OR SLABS FOR CONDUIT PENETRATIONS. THIS CRITERIA IS USED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE LONGITUDINAL LOAD CAPACITY FOR GROUTED PENETRATIONS.
| |
| A23-1 l
| |
| -,5.___,-...,_.--.--._,--.__.,_.--,e[_ , _
| |
| .h.,-_,-__.w.,- -w,-% ,,-y
| |
| | |
| l I
| |
| 1 CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER s
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A24 (GIR APPENDIX 24)
| |
| RIGIDITY OF CA-TYPE SUPPORTS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, CA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE ASSUMED TO BE RIGID (HAVING SUPPORT FREQUENCY EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 33.0 Hz). THIS ASSUMPTION WAS NOT VALIDATED IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| I CA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE NOT ASSUMED TO BE RIGID IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION, FREQUENCIES FOR SUCH SUPPORTS WERE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITF; DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10, SAG.CP25 AND SAG.CP29.
| |
| A24-1
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A25 1 l
| |
| (GIR APPENDIX 25) .
| |
| l ENVELOPING CONFIGURATIONS FOR DESIGN '
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL GENERIC SUPPORT DESIGN DID NOT CONSIDER THE MOST CRITICAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS, I.E. MAXIMUM LOAD ECCENTRICITIES, INSTALLATION TO L E RANC ES , MEMBER SUBSTITUTIONS, BOLT SUBSTITUTIONS, WEIGHT OF SUPPORT MEMBER COMPONENTS AND OVERHANG PORTION OF SUPPORT MEMBERS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION OF GENERIC SUPPORTS SHOWN IM REVISED DRAWING NO.
| |
| 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE WAS PERFORMED TO ESTABLISH GENERIC SUPPORT CAPACITIES. THIS VALIDATION INCLUDED MAXIMUM LOAD ECCENTRICITIES, ALLOWED INSTALLATION TOLERANCES, MEMBER SUBSTITUTIONS (SEE EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 17), BOLT SUSSTITUTIONS (SEE EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 12), WEIGHT OF SUPPORT MEMBER COMPONEMTS AND OVERNANG PORTION OF SUPPORT MEMBERS.
| |
| A25-1 i
| |
| i
| |
| ' ~ ' '~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| | |
| I l CDNDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A26 (GIR APPENDIX 26)
| |
| DESIGN DRAWING DISCREPANCIES l
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE: j i
| |
| CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES MAY EXIST SETWEEN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS (GENERIC, MODIFIED AND "IN" $UPPORTS) AND I ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS, INCLUDING MISSING INFORMATION SUCH AS BASE )
| |
| PLATE SIZE, CLAMP TYPE AND EDGE DISTANCE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| AN ENGINEERING WALKDOWN (CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033) WAS PERFORMED TO PROVIDE AS-8UILT INFORMATION FOR CONDUIT SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS. THE DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE WHICH CONTAINS GENERIC, MODIFIED AND "IN" SUPPORTS WAS REVISED TO INCORPORATE THE AS-BUILT DATA. THE AS-SUILT l SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS WERE DESIGN VALIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN !
| |
| VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10, SAG.CP25 AND SAG.CP29.
| |
| l A26-1 l l
| |
| . _ _ _ .. . _ _ .: =r . . :, = . - - - _ - - ._ __ _.
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A27 (GIR APPENDIX 27)
| |
| WALKDOWN DISCREPANCIES EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE - A. B. C. D. E. AND_E:
| |
| l CONDUIT SUPPORT DISCREPANCIES EXISTED BETWEEN THE INSTALLED CLAMPS, ANCHOR BOLTS, STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS AND UNISTRUT COMPONENTS AND CORRESPONDING ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS. IN ADDITION, SOME COMMODITY CLEARANCES AND ANCHOR BOLT SPACINGS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN CRITERIA.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION - A. B. C. D. E AND F:
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS WERE AS-BUILT AS PART OF AN ENGINEERING WALKDOWN (CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033). THE AS-BUILT CONFIGURATIONS WLRE DOCUMENTED IN THE DRAWING NO. 2323-5-0910 PACKAGE AND DESIGN VALIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10, SAG.CP17, SAG.CP25 AND SAG.CP29.
| |
| COMMODITY CLEARANCES AND ANCHOR BOLT SPACINGS ARE BEING VALIDATED AS PART OF THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM.
| |
| I l A27-1 l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| 'A CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A28 (GIR APPENDIX 28)
| |
| SYSTEMS CONCEPT EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| 1 IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF TWO-BOLT CONCRETE SURFACE MOUNTED SUPPORTS, !
| |
| THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE SUPPORT WAS ESTABLISHED BY ASSUMING THAT THE MOMENT GENERATED BY THE ECCENTRICALLY APPLIED LONGITUDINAL LOAD WOULD NOT BE RESISTED BY THE SUPPORT. THIS MOMENT WOULD BE BALANCED BY A LOAD COUPLE CONSISTING OF FORCES GENERATED AT THE SUPPORT OF INTEREST AND THE NEXT SUPPORT. POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES IN SUPPORT AND CONDUIT STIFFNESSES WERE NOT CONSIDERED. APPLICABILITY OF THESE CALCULATIONS TO OTHER SUPPORTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SAG.CP10 AND SAG.CP29 REQUIRE THAT LOAD ECCENTRICITY EFFECTS BE INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF ALL CONDUIT SUPPORTS.
| |
| TWO-BOLT CONCRETE SURFACE MOUNTED SUPPORTS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED BY CONSIDERING THAT THE MOMENTS INDUCED BY ECCENTRICALLY APPLIED LONGITUDINAL LOADS ARE SHARED BETWEEN THE SUPPORT AND THE CONDUIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIFFNESS OF THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
| |
| A28-1 1 1
| |
| __ _ _ __._. __.-_ ___ _ ,," . - _ . _ . . - - _ ~ ~ - . _
| |
| | |
| d COMUIT AND CONDUIT W PORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A28 (GIR APPENDIX 28) -
| |
| SYSTEMS CONCEPT (CONTINUED)
| |
| L\ h L\
| |
| J )) ? ?)
| |
| 9\ 9\
| |
| L
| |
| _ L
| |
| : :VP ; ;g p E
| |
| E h h t
| |
| w + . ..
| |
| i E d d ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESENT DEMGN P = ECCENTRICALLY APPLIED CONDUIT LONGITUDIWAL LOAO L z CONDUIT SPAN LENGTH I
| |
| E
| |
| * ECCENTRICITY FROM CENTER OF CONOUIT TO BASE PLATE A28-2
| |
| . _ , _ . _ , , - _ , - . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . - _ . . , , , _ . . - , _ _ _ . _ , , , , _ _ _ _ , _ . ~ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ , , . . _ _ , . , _ _ , . . . . , , , . . . , , ~ , _ - _ . _ , _ . . , , - _ _ _ , . . _ _ _ , _ _ , _ , _ , . _
| |
| | |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETE_R PSR SUBAPPENDIX A29 (GIR APPENDIX 29)
| |
| CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| I SMALL UNCONSERVATISMS RESULTING FROM SEPARATE ISSUES MAY HAVE l SIGNIFICANT CUMULAT2VE EFFECT FOR SUPPORTS IMPACTED BY MORE THAN ONE ISSUE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THERE IS NO CUMULATIVE UNCONSERVATIVE EFFECT OF ISSUES BECAUSE:
| |
| OVERALL DESIGN VALIDATION APPROACH HAS ADDRESSED EACH ISSUE BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION WAS BASED ON AS-BUILT DATA.
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES $AG.CP10, $AG.CP17 SAG.CP21, 3
| |
| SAG.CP25, AND $AG.CP29 PROVIDE CONTROL OF THE DESIG*t PROCESS.
| |
| ALL FINAL DESIGNS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES.
| |
| I A29-1 !
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| i CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX A30 (CPRT - 000 ISSUE NO. 1) : !
| |
| CONDUIT UNIONS ,
| |
| i EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| CONDUITS JOINED TOGETHER BY UNIONS WHICH ARE LOOSE COULD RESULT IN THE TWO EHDS OF THE CONDUIT BECOMING FREE UNDER VIBRATION. THE STRUCTURAL CONTINUITY OF THE CONDUIT COULD THEN BE AFFECTED AND THE CABLE HOUSED THEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT TO LOADS NOT CONSIDERED IN DESIGN.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY THE SPECIFIC UNION TIGHTNESS VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION /
| |
| INSTALLATION AND QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES (ECP-19 AND NOA 3.09-2.03). THIS VERIFICATION IS PART OF THE POST CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE VALIDATION PROGRAM.
| |
| A30-1
| |
| | |
| l CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS ,
| |
| 1 TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER ;
| |
| l PSR SUBAPPENDIX B1 (SDAR CP-85-19) -
| |
| CONDUIT SUPPORT SPANS l
| |
| CAP ISSUE:
| |
| THE ORIGINAL DESIGN USED THE CONDUIT YIELD STRESS DATA FROM' VENDOR'S TESTS IN WHICH THE YIELD STRE74 VALUE VARIES WITH CONDUIT NOMINAL SIZE. THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED,TO BE APPROPRIATE.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP10 SPECIFIES THAT THE CONDUIT YIELD STRESS SHALL BE 25,000 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH (PSI) FoR ALL CONDUIT SIZES WHICH IS THE LOWEST YIELD STRESS FOR ANY CONDUIT USED AT CPSES.
| |
| B1-1 l
| |
| | |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX B2 (SDAR CP-85-31)
| |
| ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SUPPORT SYSTEM CAP ISSUE:
| |
| SEPARATION BARRIER MATERIAL (SBM) AND RADIANT ENERGY SHIELD (RES)
| |
| MATERIAL WERE INSTALLED ON CLASS 1E CONDUIT IN ORDER TO MEET THE FSAR AND REGULATORY GUIDE 1.75 ELECTRICAL SEPARATION CRITERIA. HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE SBN AND RES DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT IMPOSED.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION: !
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS WITH SEPARATION BARRIER MATERIAL (SBM)
| |
| AND RADIANT ENERGY SHIELD (RES) MATERIAL wsRE DESIGN VALIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SAG.CP25 WHICH INCLUDED SBM AND RES WEIGHTS.
| |
| IN ADDITION, THE PROCEDURE GOVERNING DESIGN CHANGES (ECE 5.01-I3)
| |
| REQUIRES THA7 WHEN SBM OR RES MATERIAL IS ADDED TO ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS, THE CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS DISCIPLINE GROUP BE NOTIFIED.
| |
| I l
| |
| B2-1
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| l l :\ ,
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS j l TRAINS A & B, AND TRAIN C l.ARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER l l
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX B3 1 (SDAR CP-85-34)
| |
| CONDUIT SUPPORT DESIGN CAP ISSUE:
| |
| DISCREPANCIES MAY HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN AS-BUILT AND AS-DESIGNED CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CRITERIA MAY NOT HAVE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED CERTAIN DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. A DESCRIPTION OF THESE CONCERNS IS PROVIDED IN SUBAPPENDICES Al THROUGH A20 AND A23 THROUGH A29 0F THE PSR.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION:
| |
| TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, TU ELECTRIC INITIATED THE CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP). UNDER THE CAP, RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE WAS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSING COMMITMENTS, ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES (SAG.CP10, SAG.CP17, SAG.CP20, SAG.CP21, SAG.CP25, SAG.CP29 ANO SAG.CP35), THAT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWfMG:
| |
| 0 USE OF AS-BUILT DATA AS DESIGN INPUT FOR CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORT VALIDATION.
| |
| B3-1
| |
| | |
| }
| |
| Y CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS i TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER PSR SUBAPPENDIX B3 (SDAR CP-85-34) -
| |
| i l
| |
| CONDUIT SUPPORT DESIGN (CONTINUED) 0 VALIDATION OF CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TO DESIGN CRITERIA THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPSES LICENSING COMMITMENTS, AND RESPONSIVE TO ALL COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSC j TEAM (CPRT) AND EXTERNAL ISSUES. l l
| |
| 0 TESTING TO ESTABLISH ALLOWABLE LOAD CAPACITIES AND SUITABLE METHODS FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDUIT. l 0 ENGINEERING STUDIES IMPLEMENTED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE CONSERVATISM 0F THE DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES USED FOR CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS.
| |
| O IMPLEMENTATION OF HARDWARE MODIFICATIONS AS llECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT ALL CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS COMPLY WITH THE VALIDATED DESIGN.
| |
| RESOLUTIONS TO THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS ~ NAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES Al THROUGH A20 AND A23 THROUGH A29.
| |
| l l
| |
| B3-2 l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| .- . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ __ -_ .-- . -- - _ - . - . ..: L... - - . - - _....
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A & B. AND TRAIN C LARGER THAN 2 INCH DIAMETER l l
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX 84 l (SDAR CP-85-53)
| |
| SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONDUIT CAP ISSUE:
| |
| A NUMBER OF FREE ENDED CONDUIT ELBOWS ARE CONNECTED TO THE REMAINDER OF THE CONDUIT VIA A THREADED COUPLING, WITH NO SUPPORT BETWEEN THE COUPLING AND THE FREE END. THE COUPLING DOES NOT PROVIDE TOR $IONAL RESISTANCE TO MOTIONS INDUCED BY SEISMIC EVENTS.
| |
| ISSUE RESOLUTION / IMPLEMENTATION: l i
| |
| i THE ENGINEERING WALKDOWN PROCEDURE CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033 REQUIRES THE {
| |
| IDENTIFICATION OF THREADED FITTINGS IN THE RIGID OVERHANGING CONDUIT. l TESTS (CCL REPORT NO. A-746-87) HAVE SHOWN THAT WRAPPING THE THREADED FITTING AllD ADJACENT AREAS WITH FIBERGLASS CLOTH IMPREGNATED WITH SCOTCH CAST PRODUCT PRODUCES THE REQUIRED TORSIONAL RESISTANCE.
| |
| ACCORDINGLY, ALL SUCH INSTANCES ARE BEING CORRECTED EITHER BY FIBERGLASS CLOTH WRAPPING OR BY PROVIDING SUPPORTS IN THE' OVERHANGING PORTION OF THE CONDUIT.
| |
| B4-1
| |
| | |
| f t .
| |
| CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAIN C 1
| |
| 2 INCH DIAMETER AND LESS l PSR SUBAPPENDIX Al TRAIN C CONDUITS AND SUPPORTS EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE:
| |
| THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE INSTALLATION FOR NON-SAFETY-RELATED CONDUITS TWO-INCH DIAMETER AND LESS WAS NOT ADEQUATE FOR SEISMIC LOADING.
| |
| ACCORDING TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.29 AND THE CPSES FSAR, THE NONSEISMIC ITEMS SHOULD BE DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEIR FAILURE IdOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FUNCTION OF SEISMIC CATEGORY I SYSTEMS, l STRUCTURES, OR COMPONENTS, OR. CAUSF. INCAPACITATING INJURY TO OCCUPANTS OF THE CONTROL ROOM.
| |
| l ISSUE RESOLUTION: :
| |
| THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP) FOR TRAIN C ASSURES COMPLIANCE WITH THE LICENSING COMITMENTS FOR THE SUPPORT OF TRAIN "C" CONDUITS AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS. THIS CAP ASSURES THAT TRAIN "C" IS DESIGNED !
| |
| SUCH THAT ITS FAILURE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FUNCTION OF SEISMIC CATEGORY I SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, OR COMPONENTS, OR CAUSE INCAPACITATING INJURY TO OCCUPANTS OF THE CONTROL ROOM.
| |
| Al-1
| |
| . l 1
| |
| .. - - - - _. - _ - ~. ~ i
| |
| | |
| B 4'
| |
| , CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAIN C 2 INCH DIAMETER AND LESS PSR SUBAPPENDIX A1 I
| |
| TRAIN C CONDUITS AND SUPPORTS l (CONTINUED)
| |
| TO ASSURE THAT LICENSING COPO4ITMENTS FOR TRAIN "C" WERE MET, THREE DESIGN VALIDATION METHODS WERE USED.
| |
| VALIDATION METwon 1 -- No INTEnACTroN POTENTIAL. VALIDA[ED THAT TRAIN "C" CONDUIT SUPPORTS IF THEY WERE TO COLLAPSE WOULD NOT STRIKE SEISMIC CATEGORY Z SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, OR COMPONENTS.
| |
| VALIDATION METwon 2 -- ACCEPTABLE INTERAcTIQM. VALIDATED THAT TRAIN "C" CONDUIT SUPPORTS IF THEY WERE TO COLLAPSE WOULD NOT REDUCE THE FUNCTIONING OF ANY SEISMIC CATEGORY I SYSTEM, STRUCTURE OR COMPONENT.
| |
| , VALIDATION METwoo 3 -- STRucTunAL INTEGRITY. VALIDATED THAT TRAIN "C" CONDUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS WERE EVALUATED AND DESIGNED TO PREVENT FAILURE UNDER SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE (SSE)
| |
| CONDITIONS. .
| |
| Al-2 1
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| : CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAIN C 2 INCH DIAMETER AND LESS PSR SUBAPPENDIX Al TRAIN C CONDUITS AND SUPPORTS (CONTINUED) ,
| |
| I 1
| |
| DESIGN MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE WHEN TRAIN "C" COULD NOT BE DESIGN
| |
| )
| |
| VALIDATED USING THE THREE VALIDATION METHODS DESCRIBED. THREE DESIGN MODIFICATION METHODS WERE USE.
| |
| MODIFICATION METHOD 1 -- MODIFY SUPPORT. THE TRAIN "C" CONDUIT SUPPORT WAS STRUCTURALLY MODIFIED TO ASSURE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, OR ELSE ADDITIONAL TRAIN "C" CONDUIT SUPPORTS WERE DESIGNED TO FURTHER SUPPORT THE CONDUIT. I i
| |
| MODIFICATION METHOD 2 --
| |
| PROVIDE SEISMIC RESTRAINT CABLE.
| |
| RESTRAINT CABLES WERE USED TO RESTRAIN THE CONDUIT AND PROVIDE CONDUIT SUPPORTS IF THEY WERE POSTUi.ATED TO FAIL. !
| |
| MODIFICATION METHOD 3 --
| |
| REROUTE CONDUIT. THE CONDUIT WAS i REROUTED AND SUPPORTED BY NEW CONDUIT SUPPORTS. THE CONDUIT AND NEW SUPPORTS WERE EVALUATED AND DESIGNED TO PREVENT FAILURE UNDER )
| |
| THE SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE (SSE) CONDITIONS.
| |
| Al-3
| |
| | |
| e j I
| |
| j CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAIN C 1 2 INCH DIAMETER AND LESS 1
| |
| PSR SUBAPPENDIX A1 TRAIN C CONDUITS AND SUPPORTS (CONTINUED)
| |
| IMPLEMENTATION I l
| |
| THE DESIGN CRITERIA REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF SEISMIC LOADS ON THE UNIT 1 AND COMMON TRAIN "C" AND THE USE OF THE AS-BUILT DATA FOR DESIGN INPUT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AND DOCUMENTED IN THE TRAIN "C" DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT DBO-CS-093. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRAIN "C" TWO-INCH DIAMETER AND LESS CONCUIT AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES. '
| |
| I i
| |
| *We Al-4
| |
| ._ . . . _ _ _ - _ . _ -_ - --. - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . - - _ _ - -}}
| |
