|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| .y g '
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM RESULTS REPORT
| |
| \
| |
| DSAP VIII TITLE: CIVIL / STRUCTURAL - CABLE TRAYS AND SUPPORTS REVISION 1 i
| |
| O
| |
| : b. y W, ,
| |
| e,,
| |
| ' O Discipline Coordinator Date f
| |
| (
| |
| Review 'feam Leader e
| |
| V
| |
| $f 87 Date W. $ 1 /o/z//6 7 Johnf. Beck,ChairmanCPRT-SRT Date gaiggg$yggs A
| |
| 9
| |
| | |
| ,O l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM f
| |
| DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC RESULTS REPORT:
| |
| CIVIL / STRUCTURAL - CABLE TRAYS AND SUPPORTS
| |
| . . g O
| |
| DAP RR C/S-001 Revision 1 September 25,1987
| |
| ~
| |
| l TENER A, L.P.
| |
| 1995 Universty Avenue Berkeley,Californlo 94704 O 415 845 5200 1
| |
| | |
| _r Q SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE COVER -
| |
| TA B L E O F CO NTE NTS . . .. ..... ..... . . . . ... . ..... ..... . . .. .. . . .. . ... . .. .. ..
| |
| LIST OF FIG U R ES AN D TA B LES ................................................... I V PAG E C OU NT S U M M A R Y .............. ................................... .... . . .. ..... . v 1.0 EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................1-1 2.0 SCOPE..........................................................................................2-1 3.0 ' EXTERN AL SOURCE ISS U ES ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 Review Met h odo log y
| |
| .m.... ... .. . . .. . ... .. . ... ... .......................... . .... . .. . .. . . .. 3- 1 3.1.1 Extemal Source issues identification..................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification.......................... 3-3 3.1.3 As-Built Procedures Review ................................................ 3-3 i 3.1.4 Design Validation F
| |
| .edu res Revie w ................................. 3-4 3.1.5 Special Studies Review ....................................................... 3 5 3.1.6 Test Programs Review ........................................................ 3 5 3.1.7 issue Resolution Review ...................................................... 3 6 3.2 Results...........................................................................................36 3.2.1 Extemal Source issues Identification..............................~.....3 6 3.2.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification.......................... 3 7 3.2.3 As-Built Procedures Review ................................................ 3 7 3.2.4 Design Validation Procedures Review ................................. 3-8 3.2.5 Special Studies Review ....................................................... 3-8
| |
| , 3.2.6 Test Prog ram s Re view ............... ........................................ . 3 9 3.2.7 Issue Resolution Review ...................................................... 3 9 3.2.7.1 Controlling Load Case For Design ..................... 3 9 3.2.7.2 Seismic Response Combination Method ......... 310 3.2.7.3 Anchor Boit Desig n ..................... .................... .. 3-1 1 3.2.7.4 Design Of. Compression Members ................... 3-14 3.2.7.5 Vertical And Transverse Loading On Longitudinal Type Supports .......... 3-17 <
| |
| 3.2.7.6 Support Frame Dead And inertial Loads .......... 317 3.2.7.7 Design Of Angle Braces l Neglecting Loading Eccentricity ....................... 318 TN 87 7259 i DAP.RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ,y o k V TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
| |
| SECTION PAGE 3.2.7.8 Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF)
| |
| And Ratios Between Continuous Tray Support Reactions And Tributary Tray Support Reactions .................... 3 20 3.2.7.9 Reduction in Channel Section Properties Due To Clamp Bolt Holes ................ 3 21 3.2.7.10 Syste m Co ncept ........... .................................... 3 21 3.2.7.11 Validity Of NASTRAN Models .......................... 3 23 3.2.7.12 Working Point Deviation Study ......................... 3 23 3.2.7.13 Reduced Spectral Accelerations ...................... 3-26 3.2.7.14 Non-Conformance With AlSC Specifications ... 3-27 3.2.7.15 Me mber Substitution ........................................ 3 30 3.2.7.16 Wald Design And Specifications ...................... 3-30 3.2.7.17 Embedded Plates Design ................................. 3-31 ?
| |
| 3.2.7.18 Tray Clamps .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... ....... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 32 3.2.7.19 FSAR Load Combinations ................................ 3 34 3.2.7.20 Differences Between The Installation And The Design / Construction Drawings Without Appropriate Documentation ................ 3 35 3.2.7.21 De sig n Co ntrol .... . .. .. .... .............................. ..... . . 3-35 3.2.7.22 Design Of Support No. 3136 Detail "5" Drawing 2323 S-0905 ....................... 3-37 3.2.7.23 Loading in STRESS Models ............................. 3-38 3.2.7.24 Design Of Flexural Members ............................ 3 39 3.2.7.25 Cable Tray Qualification ................................... 3-41 4
| |
| 3.2.7.26 Base Ang le De sig n ........................................... 3-43
| |
| {
| |
| 3.2.7.27 Support Qualification By Similarity ................... 3 44 I 3.2.7.28 Critical Support Configurations And Loadings .. 3-45 3.2.7.29 Cumulative Effect Of Review issues ................ 3-45 3.2.7.30 Cable Tray System Damping Values ................ 3-46 3.2.7.31 Modeling Of Boundary Conditions .................... 3-46 1
| |
| 4.0 S ELF INITIATED R EVIEW ............................................................ 4-1 5.0 C OR R ECTIVE ACTI O N ...................... ........................................... 5-1 6.0 C O NC L U SIONS ..................... ... .. . . .. .. . . ... . .. ......... . ........... ...... ... ...... 6-1 7.0 R E FE R E N C E S .. ..... ............ . ........... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . .. . .... ......... ........ 7- 1 l
| |
| O l
| |
| TN-87 7259 li DAP.RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| I Q TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
| |
| ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENi A: EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS ..........................
| |
| ATTACHMENTS:
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF CABLE TRAY / SUPPORTS-RELATED
| |
| * EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES:
| |
| DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR)
| |
| REPORTS BY SOURCE AND ISSUE GROUPS ............ B-1 ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT AND THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE CROSS REFERENCE LIST .......... C-1 ATTACHMENT D: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST ..................... D 1
| |
| , O l
| |
| l l
| |
| i O
| |
| 87-72 % lil DAP RR C/S-001, REV i 1
| |
| | |
| 4 O NUMBER
| |
| ' LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES PAGE l
| |
| i FIGURE 3.1-1 TH.lRD PARTY OVERVIEW ACTIVITIES ............................... 3 2 I
| |
| e .
| |
| O O -
| |
| TN-87 7259 IV DAP RR-C/S 001. REV.1
| |
| | |
| =A1'
| |
| .~
| |
| (A)'
| |
| PAGE COUNT
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| SECTION SHEETS COVER..............................................................................................................1 TA B LE O F C O NTE N TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
| |
| LIST OF FIG U R ES A N D TAB LES . . . ... . . . . .. . ... . ...... ...... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..
| |
| PA G E C O U NT S U M W RY . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
| |
| SECTION1.........................................................................................................2 SECTlON2.........................................................................................................1 SECTION3.......................................................................................................47 SECTION4.........................................................................................................1 SECTIONS.........................................................................................................1 SECTION6.........................................................................................................1 SECTION7.....................................................................................................if AWA C H M E NT A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| |
| A
| |
| .ACHMETB...............................................................................................,,
| |
| \ +...................................................w ATTAC H M E NT D . . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| |
| TOTA L . ........ .
| |
| .. .. . ........ .... .... .. .... 1 1 7
| |
| +
| |
| l 1
| |
| I TN-87 7259 v DAP.RR.C/S-001. REV.1
| |
| - - - - _ - i
| |
| | |
| O 1.0 EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| AND CONCLUSIONS- ,
| |
| This Resuhs Repon summarizes the results of a Third Pany review of the design adequacy of cable trays and cable tray supports (cable tray / supports) at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Srarion (CPSES). This review was performed as a pan of the Design Adequacy Program (DAP) i under the chaner of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan (R<f. 7.1.1] by a Third Pany Organization (TENERA, L.P.). The approach, methodology, and scope developed to accomplish this review are described as pan of the Civil / Structural Discipline Specific Action ;
| |
| Plan (DSAP VIII), which is contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan, with additional modifications as defined in Revision 4 to the CPRT Program Plan, Appendix A.
| |
| DSAP M encompasses all of the Civil / Structural design review activities performed under the DAP, including both Project and Third Pany activities related to major conective action 1
| |
| programs and Third Pany self-initiated review activities. This Results Repon is limited to summarizing the Third Party review activities associated with the overview of the CPSES cable tray /suppons corrective action pegram.
| |
| *"In CPSES cable tray / supports program described in DSAP VIII consists of a 100% design validation effort performed by TU Electric contractors (Project) with an overview of these -
| |
| ~
| |
| activities performed by the Third Pany. The contractors responsible for design validation are "
| |
| Ebasco Services lacorporated(Ebasco) and Inqpelt Corporation (Impell). These organizations share the scope of work for Unit I and Ebasco has full scope for Unit 2. The Third Pany as noted above is TENERA, L.P.
| |
| 1he purpose of the DSAP W cable tray / supports program is to pmvide reasonable assurance that the cable tray / supports at the CPSES are adequately designed and that the design validadon effon resolves extemal source issues related to the original design by Gibbs and Hill. " Design Adequacy" is defined as conformance to the CPSES FinalSq(ety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Ref.
| |
| 7.1.2) and licensing commitments,includmg appropriate codes and standards. The purpose of the Third Pany overview is to provide an element of this assurance thmugh overview of selected portions of the program. This Results Report documents the results and conclusions of the Third Pany overview defined in DSAP M (as modified in Revision 4 to the CPRT Program Plan) with respect to both the M7 of the cable tray /suppons design and the resolution of external source issues.
| |
| The scope of the1hird Party review activities that were performed is as follows:
| |
| * Isme Review (DSAP VIII, Section 4.1.2.1)
| |
| Calatsia/ Commitment Verification (DSAP M. Section 4.1.2.2)
| |
| * Cable tray /suppons design validation procedures and supporting documentation review (DSAP VIII, Section 4.1.2.3)
| |
| Briefly stated the review identified extemal source issues, established applicable criteria based on the CPSES FSAR and licensing commitments, compared both Ebasco's and Impell's procedures and supponing documentation with those criteria, and evaluated the resolution i
| |
| methodologies for the issues. Overview of the implementation of the procedures for cable
| |
| . ray /suppons, including verification of design input such as construction as built data, will be ;
| |
| covered under the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program. i TN-87 7259 11 DAP RR C/S-001, REV 1
| |
| | |
| n v
| |
| The identificatiorhof extemal source issues was accomplished by conducting a doc of over 40,000 pages of NRC docketed material. This effon resulted in the issuance of approximately 200 cable tray /suppons related Discrepancy //ssue Resolurion Reports (Dins) to i
| |
| documern and track concerns raised by extemal sources. The primary sources of cable l
| |
| tray / supports concems,were the results of the Independent Assessment Program (IAP) performed l
| |
| by Cygna Energy Services (Cygna). Most of the concems expressed by other external sources were similar to, or a reiteradon of, the concems expressed by Cygna. 'Ihese DIRs were consolidated into thiny-one (31) issue groups to facilitate resciution of the concems. Discussions of these issue smups are presented in Section 3.0 of this report. j
| |
| 'Ihe assessment of the overall adequacy of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation effon was accomplished by'Ihird Party review of the procedures, supporting special studies and tests, and resolution methodology for each extemal source issue. These reviews were performed to evaluate the adequacy of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procr4ures and to assess their compliance with applicable FSAR and licensing criteria. Based on the firviings of these reviews, it is concluded that the design validadon procedures and issue resolution methodologies are in conformance with the appropriate criteria.
| |
| In summary, the 'Ihird Party has concluded that the Project's cable tray / supports design
| |
| .~
| |
| validation program is comprehensive and capable of resolving known technical issues and -
| |
| assuring that the design will meet the FSAR and licensing commitments. '
| |
| 4 0 .
| |
| TN-87 7259 12 DAP RR C/S-001. REV.1
| |
| | |
| 1 Q 2.0 SCOPE This report addresses the 1hird Pany design adequacy overview activities performed for cable tray / supports under the guidelines of DSAP VIII. The overview activities completed are:
| |
| External' Source Issues Identification - The Third Pany identified, documented, and tracked issues that were raised by extemal sources regarding the original Gibbs and Hill cable tray /suppons design.1his effon was performed to provide reasonable assurance that extemal source concems regarding the original design have been fully identified.
| |
| Design Criteria / Commitments Identification The Third Pany identified the design criteria and commitments that govem the design of cable tray /suppons for the CPSES.
| |
| 1he primary commitment sources included the FSAR [Ref. 7.1.2] and the AISC Specification [R<f. 7.6.1]. These criteria were used for the developmeru of checklists and engineering evaluation acceptance criteria for the review of specific program areas.
| |
| As built Procedures Review - The 1hird Party reviewed the procedures of the as built pmgram. This review was performed to provide reasonable assurance that important design antibutes are pmperty identified for use in design validation activities.
| |
| Design Validation Procedures Review -The Third Pany reviewed the design and .
| |
| analysis pmcodures developed by Ebasco and Impell for the performance of cable 5 tray /suppons edgn validation. These reviews were performed to provide reasonable l
| |
| assurance that the design validation pmcedures are in compliance with CPSES design cnteria and commitments.
| |
| O e Special Studies Review The 1hird Party reviewed special studies that were performed by Ebasco and Impell to pmvide a basis for the technical methods and assumpdons included in their pmcedures or to resolve extemal source issues. These reviews were performed for the same purpose as the procedure reviews.
| |
| * Test Programs Review The Third Party reviewed test specifications, procedures, and results for cable tray / supports tests that were perfonned by the Project to pmvide a basis for design validation pecedures or to resolve extemal source issues. These reviews were perfonned to provide reasonable assurance that the tests were conducted properly and that the resuhs were interpreted conectly.
| |
| j
| |
| * Issue Resolution Review- 1he 1hird Pany reviewed the methodologies used by Ebasco 1 i
| |
| and impell in the resolution of the identified extemal source issues. The review included the special studies, test results, and portions of procedures that were related to the speciSc issues.1his review was performed to provide reasonable assurance that the sesolution methodologies used by Ebasco and Impell adequately address all identified issess.
| |
| "Ihis scope included the review of the items noted above for both Units 1 and 2. 'Ihis included l
| |
| the review of both Ebasco's and Impell's documentation for Unit I and Ebasco's documentation for Unit 2. i
| |
| {
| |
| The method, exters, results, and conclusions of the Third Pany reviews of the above scope item I' are described in the remaining sections of this report.
| |
| This scope is consistent with the scope of Third Pany design review activities for cable O. tray /suppons denrad in Section 4.1.2 of DSAP VIII as modified by Revision 4 of the CPRT Program Plan.
| |
| TN47 7259 21 I DAP RR-C/S-001, REV 1
| |
| -- l
| |
| | |
| O 3.0 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES This section of the report describes the Third Party's activities performed in the overview of Project's resolution of extemal source issues. These activities, which relate to Sections 4 4.1.2.2, and 4.1.2.3 of DSAP Vill for cable tray / supports, include the following:
| |
| Extemal Source Issues Identification.
| |
| Design Criteria / Commitments Identification.
| |
| As Built Procedures Review, Design Validadon Procedures Review,
| |
| * Special Studies Review,
| |
| * Test Programs Review, and a
| |
| Issue Resolution Review.
| |
| These activities were performed to assess the overall adequacy of the Project's design validati methodology and approach for resolution of specific extemal source issues.
| |
| i The conduct of the Third Party overview activities was in acconiance with DAP procedures (Reference 7.5.92). These procedures control the developrnent of criteria lists and checidis implementation of checklists, preparation of engineering evaluation repons, and the identification, documentadon, and resolution ofissues. Figure 3.1 1 is a flow chan of the overview acdvities performed by the Third Pany.
| |
| Section 3.1 describes the review methods and Section 3.2 provides the results for each of the overview activities. For each of the extemal source issues, Section 3.2.7 contams a discussion of the issue, the Project's resolution methodology and the results of the Third Pany's evaluation.
| |
| 3.1 Review Methodology The Third Pany review methodology for the activities noted above is described separately for each activity in the following subsections.
| |
| 3.1.1 Extemal Source issues identification Extemal source lasues were identified and documented in the following three steps:
| |
| : 1) idensincation of extemal source documents,
| |
| : 2) source document review and preparation ofissue records /DIRs, and
| |
| : 3) consolidadon of individual issues into issue groups.
| |
| The initial identification of source documents focused on documents judged to include summaries of relevant issues, panicularly information either presented to the Atomic and Sq(cry Licensin Board (ASLB) or originated by the ASLB. ASLB hearing transcripts were used as a basic source of information. In addition to the ASLB hearing transcripts, filings with the board by the NRC staff. Te.xar Urflities Electric Company (TU Electric, previously Texas Utilities Generating eO Company or TUGCO), Citizens Associationfor Sound Energy (CASE), and Cygna Energy Services (Cygna) were iricluded. The documents also encompassed transcripts of meetings1 between any of the above mentioned panies, the NRC Sqfery Evaluarion Reporr (SER, NUREG.
| |
| L___ __-_ _ _
| |
| | |
| IDSFmFY EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS REVIEW LICENSING COMMITMENT DOCUMENTS i ,
| |
| 5 REVIEW DOCUMENTS &
| |
| PREPAREISSUE DEVELOP CRITERIA LIST RECORDSOIRs
| |
| , r 4
| |
| IDENTIFY ISSUE GROUPS DEVELOP CHECKLIST AND EVALUATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i l TEST PROGRAMS l SPECIAL STUDIES
| |
| , ,l PROCEDURES EVALUATE PRCUECT DESIGN -
| |
| VAUDATION PROCEDURES AND ISSUE RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY DOCUMENT THIRD PARTY REVIEW N ENGINEERNG EVALUATIONS AND CHECKLISTS SUMMARl2E CONCLUSIONS IN RESULTS REPORT FIGURE 3.1-1 THIRD PARTY REVIEW ACTIVITIES
| |
| '"*"" " "'"'"~'
| |
| E "^''""
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| I 0797) and supplements thereto (SSERs), and the Cygna reports and letters resulting from the I Independent Assessment Program (IAP). A listing of all source documents used by the Bird Pany for externalissue identification is provided as Attachment A.
| |
| ll Each source document listed in Attachment A was reviewed and extemal source issues were documented on Issue Records to capture a minimum of one citadon of each distinct issue. For every Issue Record, an E-type DIR was issued to assist the Third Pany in tracking closure of the - {'
| |
| issue. '!he document reference and specific page(s) on which the issue is discussed were recorded on each DIR. Following the identification and documentation of each individual issue, j
| |
| DIRs related to cable tray /suppons were gmuped into common issue categories. Dere are thiny-one such categories.
| |
| Extemal source issues were not evaluated for safety significance because the Project is performing a 100% design validation of cable trays and has incorporated issue resolution directly into the design validation procedures. In essence, all issues have been treated as potentially safety significant and addressed accordingly.
| |
| 3.1.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification Introduction
| |
| / ,
| |
| The Bird Pany identified design criteria and commitments applicable to CPSES cable tray /suppons to establish acceptance criteria for the subsequent review of Project procedures and suppornns documenu O n. i..u.ia.ooio.x De design criteria and commitments applicable to CPSES cable tray / supports were identified from a review of the PSAR, applicaMe Regulatory Guides, and referenced industry codes and i standards. This was done as part of the Dird Party identification of all Civil / Structural design criteria and commitments applicable to DSAP VIII activities. His effort resulted in the l deveW_ of the design criteria list, DAP CR-C/S-001 [Rqf. 7J.85]. De criteria and commitmer.ts applicable to CPSES cable tray /suppons are a subset of this criteria list.
| |
| De desigr. criteria fbr cable tray /suppons were colleedvely evaluated for completeness, accuracy, and conssewy. Dis was accomplished using the design criteria review checklist, DAP-CLA C/S-012 [R<f. 7J.8d).
| |
| 3.1.3 As-Built Procedures Review 1 l
| |
| introduction Design validation of cable tray / supports is based on as built information for 100 percent of the cable tray systems installed in CPSES Units 1 and 2. The program for obtaining as built information was undertaken by the Pmject in response to extemal source issues that questioned the conelation of the original design drawings to the actual constructed conditions. This program ensures that the information used in design validation accurately represents CPSES cable tray t systems.
| |
| \
| |
| O t
| |
| | |
| O a. vie u.ia o i av i The Third Party aview of the program for otxaining as-built information included the review of TU Electric engineering walkdown procedures, TU Electric QC inspecdon procedures, and those special studies related e defining appopriate physical properties for inaccessible anributes (i.e.,
| |
| attributes that are covered by fireproofing material, or are otherwise inaccessible, and cannot be visually examined). The scope of the review was limited to evaluating the adequacy of the engineering walkdown and QC inspection procedures for those attributes of cable trzy/suppons that are specifically related to design. Field reviews of selected suppon and span length drawings were performed as well, to provide additional assurance that the procedures could be effectively implemented.
| |
| The Third Party review was performed using engineering evaluadons. The acceptance criteria for review of procedures were based on the physical attributes judged by the 'Ihird Party to be important to design validation. The acceptance criteria for determining appropriate physical properdes ofinaccessible attributes were based on lower bound or worst-case estimates of each i
| |
| type ofinwessible attribute. The acceptance criteria for review of as built hanger and span i length drawings were based on conformance with the requirements of the applicable inspection
| |
| =
| |
| procedures.
| |
| ?
| |
| The specific Project pmcedures reviewed and the corresponding DAP documentation are listed in Anachment C.
| |
| I 3.1.4 Design Validation Procedures Review O introduction Ebasco and Impell have developed independent procedures to govem their regective portions of the cable tray /suppons design validadon program. These procedures define and control the design validation process, interfaces, and technical methods employed.
| |
| Review Methodology A design review evaluation checklist was developed for review of cable tray / supports design validation proc 6dures using the applicable criteria and commitments of DAP-CR C/S-001 (See Section 3.1.2 above).1he applicable criteria were bmadened into checklist attributes, as appropriate, by stating the specific requirernents of the codes, standards, or regulatory guides.
| |
| Additional anrlbules stated e resolution of extemal source issues or pemnent results of special study reviews wess also included in the checklist.
| |
| All procedural documents used by Ebasco and Impell in design validation were reviewed using the design review evaluation checklist, except for a few documents or portions of documents that i
| |
| were examined using engineering evaluations. Engineering evaluations were used to augment checkhst review of certain aspects of design validation, such as tray and fitting qualificadon, where a review of specific iterns was desired.
| |
| i Application of the design review evaluarlon checklist to a specific design procedure document involved assessment of the document's compliance with the checklist attributes. For each p antibute, the review determined if the design was in compliance with design commitments. If
| |
| \
| |
| compliance was satisfactory, the reviewer indicated "S AT". If the design was not in compliance, or was indeterminate, the disposidon was "UNSAT." Each UNSAT determination was followed TN 67-7259 3-4 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| L l .
| |
| by issuance of a C-type Discrepancy / Issue Resolution (DIR) Repon that docum for future evaluadon and closure tracking. An attribute that was not applicable to the sp document or design was marked "N/A." If an attribute was outside the denned scope o was marked "N/C"(Not Checked), indicating that it was not evaluated.
| |
| 'In addition to the review of pmcedures, the Third Pany evaluated the organization, tra contml of the design validadon process used by both Ebasco and Impell.1his was done in a qualitative manner and documented in engineering evaluations. The purpose of this review w to assess if the Ebasco and Impeu organizations could perform effectively with the level of detai provided in their respective pmcedures.
| |
| The specific Ebssco and Impell procedures that were reviewed and the contsponding DAP documentation are listed in Attachment C.
| |
| 3.1.5 Special Studies Review introduction Ebasco and Impell have performed numerous special studies to support the
| |
| :: design validation of cable tray / supports. These studies provide bases for the 5technical meth and assumptions included in theirprocedures or are used to resolve specific extemal source issues.
| |
| Review Methodology The Third Pany review of special studies was implemented using engineering evaluations. The acceptance criteria fbr engineering evaluations were developed on an individual evaluation basis and,in general, consist of the applicable pomons of the design criteria and commitments, = i discusaed in Section 3.1.2, as well as additional criteria deemed by the reviewer to be pertin the special study. AB of the special studies used by Fhaarn and Impell as bases for theirj validanon procedures or to resolve extemal source issues were reviewed by the Third Party '
| |
| The specific Ebasco and Impell special studies that were reviewed and the con **panding documentation am pesemed in Anachment C. j 3.1.6 Test Programs Review L
| |
| Introduction !
| |
| A series of test programs were performed by the Pmject in support of the cable tray / suppor design ymmtarian program. These tests were performed for the following reasons:
| |
| to resolve externalsource issues,
| |
| * f to validate engineering parameters and analytical modeling assumptions employed in the design validation process, and e )
| |
| to pmvide infonnation and data required for specific component qualification.
| |
| The tests were defined and controlled by test specifications developed by Ebasco with the exception of tests of clamps for which the specification was developed by Impell. The tests wert performed by Anco Engineers,Inc. (ANCO) and Corpyare Consufring andDevelopment Company, Ltd. (CCL). The tests performed by these two testing laboratories were as follows:
| |
| TN 87-7259 35 DAP RR C/S-001, REV 1
| |
| | |
| ___ _ __ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ __
| |
| ANCO e
| |
| Dynamic Tests of Cable Tray Systems, and
| |
| * Load and Modal Tests of Cable Tray Hangers.
| |
| 1
| |
| {
| |
| l CCL '
| |
| * Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray Clamps, and
| |
| * Static Tests of Cable Trays and Fittings.
| |
| i In all cases, the organization performing the testing developed their test plans from the test specifications, conducted the tests, and produced test results reports. 'the test results have been used by Ebasco and Impell in related special studies and/or have been incorporated into their i respective procedures for design validation.
| |
| Review Methodology The ' third Party review of the test specifications, procedures, and results was performed using engineering evaluations.
| |
| '!he specifications and procedures were evaluated for their capability of achieving the5 specified objectives of the test programs. 'the results were reviewed to verify that the tests were performed in accordance with the procedures and that required data are documented in the test reports.
| |
| The specific test program documents that were reviewed and the conesponding DAP documemation are presented in Antar hmerit C.
| |
| 3.1.7 lasues Resolution Review The '!hird Party activities associated with the review of extemal source issue resolution included the review of Ebasco's and Impell's procedures, special studies, and teit program results as they relate to each issue group. 'Ihese reviews were performed as an integrated part of the Third Party review activities previously described in Sections 3.1.3 through 3.1.6.
| |
| 3.2 Results The results of'!hird Party review are described separately for each overview activity in the following sections. .
| |
| 3.2.1 Extemal Source lasues identification From the review of external source documents listed in Attachment A, approximately 200 issues related to cable trayhupports were identified. Most of these issues were identified from the review of Cygna documents generated as part of the JAP. A number of the same issues and a few additional issues were also idersified in ASLB proceedings transcripts, the NRC CPSES Safety Evaluation Report, and public meeting transcripts.
| |
| 'Ihirty-onc issue groups were established based on the twenty nine issue groups that Cygna had used plus two additional inue groups. Cygna's grouping ofissues was adopted for all related pd extemal source issues since their documentation pmvided the most comprehensive description of -
| |
| cable tray /suppons issues. 'the issue groups and the conesponding DIRs that were generated to document and track the issues are presented in Attachment B. It is noted that a specific DIR
| |
| (
| |
| TN-87 7259 3-6 DAP.RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| number may h undermore than one issue group. This indicates that certain aspects issue relate to different groups.
| |
| 'Ihe extemal source issues can be classified into two broad categories of concems:
| |
| : 1) concems 'that a specific FSAR technical commitment, industry code or standard requirement, or regulatory position was not implemented in design methods, and
| |
| : 2) concems that as built conditions were not adequately reconciled with the design.
| |
| There is sufficient information for each concem in the public record (documents listed in Attachment A) to enable the Third Party to delineate each issue. The list of documents reviewed is extensive and the level of repetition high, providing a high degree of assurance that all concems are identified.
| |
| 3.2.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification 1he design criteria for cable tray /suppons, explicitly delineated in the CPSES criteria and commitment source documents, were determined to be consigtnt with the expected level of detail generally provided in the industry in such documents forcable tray / supports. Many of the
| |
| - detailed criteria were dedved from the AISC specification, which was specified in the FSAR as ,
| |
| 1~
| |
| the goveming documert for structural steel design.
| |
| Based on the results of the design criteria review documented in checklist DAP CLA-C/S-012 q [R<f 7J.86), the Third Pany concluded that the criteria list. DAP-CR-C/S-001 (Ref. 7.5.85], i Q together with the extraction of detailed criteria from the committed codes and standards, provides j a complete, consiannt, and adequate set of design criteria for CPSES cable tray / supports.
| |
| l 3.2.3 As-Built Procedures Review 1he results of the 1hird Party review of the TU Electric engmeering walkdown procedures for Unit I and Unit 2 are documented in DAP E-C/S 102 [R<f. 7J.2] and DAP-E-C/S 7.5.22), respectively. The resuhs of the review of the TU Electric QC inspection procedure for Unit I and Unit 2 are documented in DAP E-C/S-155 [R<f. 7JJO] and DAP E-C 7.5.64), respectively. These aviews identified apparera discrepancies, which were documented in C-type DIRs and communicated to the Project. All Third Pany concems related to the engineering walkdown and QC Inspection procedens have been satisfactorily resolved by the Project.
| |
| I The resuhs of the review of cable tray suppon drawings are documented in engineering evaluadens DAP-E-C/5144 [R<f. 7339) and DAP E C/S-157 (R<f. 7JJ2] for Units 1 and 2, respectively. Both of these reviews concluded that the procedures were adequate for implementation. These reviews also concluded that the as built drawings reviewed were being produced according to the applicable procedures and reflected actual field conditions within E"p88Me tolemnces.
| |
| The results of the Third Party review of the Project's methods and related special studies for determining design validation attributes forinaccessible cable tray / supports components are documented in DAP E-C/S-126 [Ref. 7.5.25], DAP-E C/S 160 [Ref. 7.5.54], DAP E-C/S 181 m (Ref. 7.5.74], and DAP E-C/S 182 [Ref. 7.5.75]. All Third Party concems related to inaccessible t> attributes have been satisfactorily resolved by the Project.
| |
| I TN 87 7259 3-7 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| 'v In summary,it is conc!6d that the engineering walkdown and QC inspection procedures are adequate and that, if pv. My unplemented, they will result in obtaining attributes for design validation of cable t syngpris that accurately represent as-built condidons at the CPSES.
| |
| 3.2.4 Design Validation Procedures Review The results of the review;s of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures are summarized separately below.
| |
| ESASc0 1he results of the 1hird Party's review of Ebasco's procedures are documented in DAP-CLC-C/S-204 [R( 7J.8E). This checklist represents the most current of four rounds of procedure review performed by the Third Pany. Owcklist review of certain aspects of Ebasco's procedures was augmented by engineering evaluations, as indicated in Attachment C. A number of apparent discrepancies were identified as a result of these reviews, Mmented in C-Type DIRs, and communicated to the Project. All Third Party concems rehted to Ebasco's design validation procedures have been satisfactorily resolved either through procedure revision or by Ebasco's provision ofjustifyirig informadon.
| |
| : i 1he Third Party review of Ebasco's organization Kning, and design control are documented in DAP E-C/S 148 [A<f. 7J.4.f). This myiew conclue that Ebasco's organization is capable of implementing the design validadon procedures pit,gdy.
| |
| In munmary, it is concluded that Ebasco's design validation procedures are adequate and, if
| |
| .O properly implemented, will fulfill PSAR and licensing commitments.
| |
| IMPELL The results of the Third Pany review ofImpell's procedures are documerned in DAP-CLC-C/S-404 [A<f. 7J.89). Again, this ehwHier represcrus the results of the most cunent of four rounds of promdure review that were perfbreed. Checklist review ofcenam aspects ofImpell's <
| |
| procedures was augmented by engineering evaluations, as indicated in Attachment C. A number of apparent discrepancies were identified as a result of these reviews, documerned in C-Type DIRs and communicated to the Project. Allihird Party conums related to Impell's design validation procedures have been satisfactorily resolved either through procedure revision or by Impell's provision ofjuG/.Lg infonnation.
| |
| t The Third Party review ofImpell's orgaruzation, training, and design control is documented m 1 i
| |
| DAP-E.C/S 158 (A<f 7JJJ). This review concluded that Impell's organizadon is capable of j implementing the design validadon procedures properly. '
| |
| In summary, it is concluded that Impell's design validation pmcedures are adequate and, if properly implemented, will fulfill FSAR and licensing sim' .itments.
| |
| 3.2.5 Special Studies Review 1 i
| |
| The 1hird Pany reviews of special studies performed by Ebasco and Impell are documented in numerous engineering evaluadons. The specific studies reviewed and the corresponding 1hird Pany evaluations are listed in Attachment C.
| |
| "~""***""" l
| |
| | |
| 91 c{
| |
| l Concems raised by these reviews were documented in C-Type DIRs and communicated to the y
| |
| )
| |
| Project. AllThird Party concems related to special studies have been satisfactorily resolved j either through Project's revision of the pertinent special study and related procedures or by provision ofjusdfying information. i In summary, it is concluded that the special studies performed by Ebasco and Impell provide adequate back up for Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and resolve specific extemal sourte issues.
| |
| 3.2.6 Test Programs Review !
| |
| The ' third Party review of test procedures and results is docunented in engineering evaluations.
| |
| i 1he specinc Project documents reviewed and the contsponding Third Party evaluation are presented in Attachment C.
| |
| Concems raised as a result of Third Party review of test procedures were satisfactorily resolved I through procedure revisiort Third Party evaluation of test reports determmed thai the test '
| |
| procedures were executed properly and that the test results are accurately presented and are sufHeient to meet test program objectives.
| |
| In summary, the Third Pany concludes that the cable tray system /componerns test programs have) been performed adequately and provide the data required for design validation and issue resolution. ,
| |
| l 3.2.7 lasue Resolution Review 1he results of the Third Party review of the Project's methodology for the resolution of extemal some issues are presented in individual subsections below for each of the thirty-one issue groups. These include a description of the issue, a description of the Project's resolution methodology, a discussion of the Third Party's evaluation and a conclusion. !
| |
| For brevity of p =i'm the specinc references for Project and '!hird Poty documents are ohen omitted in the text. All pertinent Project documents and related Third Party review !
| |
| documents are listed in Anachment C and cross-referenced with each issue.
| |
| 3.2.7.1 Controlling Load Case For Design ISSUEDESCR9 DON In the origlast design of CFSES cable tray supports, the OBE was assumed by Gibbs and Hill to be the govening seismic load case for all suppon components (e.g., members, welds, and {'
| |
| anchorages). This assumption was based on the comparison of the 60% increase in OBE
| |
| ! allowables, permitted by the PSAR (Ref. 7J.2] for SSE design of most structural steel oornponents, and the r so of SSE load to OBE load which is,in general,less than 1.60. Concems were raised regarding the use of the OBE as the goveming load case, since the 60% increase in allowables is not appspriate for some support components (e.g., Richmond Inserts and Hilti I expansion anchors).
| |
| O i TN 87 7259 39 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l I
| |
| RESOLUTIONWENHODOLOGY Ebasco and Impell addressed this issue by evaluating all cable tray support components for both OBE and SSEload cases.
| |
| i THIRD PARTYEVALUATION l
| |
| The 'Ihird Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that all cable tray support components are required to be validated for both OBE and SSE load cases.
| |
| CONCLUSION Evaluation of suppons for both OBE and SSE adequately addresses concems raised in this issue.
| |
| The contmiling load case for design issue is closed.
| |
| I 3.2.7.2 Seismic Response Combination Method ISSUE DESCRIPTION
| |
| . Concems were raised regarding the consideration of seismic loads in Gibbs and Hill's Working Point Deviation Study [Ref 7.63) and in original design calculations performed by Gibbs and i Hill. The specific concerns were the following:
| |
| * Closely Spaced Modes -In the response spectrum analyses performed as pan of the Working Point Deviation Study, closely-spaced modes were not combined in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.92 [Ref. 7.65).
| |
| * Seismic and Dead Emed Combination - In design calculations, a 1.0g acceleration for dead load was impraperty ad.ded to vertical seismic acceleration. 'the sum was then combined with the two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS method, RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY Ebasco and Impell have addressed these concems as follows:
| |
| * Closely-Spaced Modes Ebasco and Impell combine closely spaced modes in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.92 when response spectrum analysis is used to validate the design of cable tray system components.
| |
| * Seismic and Dead land Combination - Ebssco and Impell add dead load response to the SRSS combination of the three orthogonal seismic response components, considering both the posidve and negative sign of the seismic resultant.
| |
| THIRO-PARTYEVALUATION Ebasco's and ImpeB's methods for addressing the concerns of this issue am evaluted below:
| |
| }
| |
| * Closely Spaced Modes *!hird Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confinned that closely-spaced modes are required in be combmed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.92.
| |
| * Seismic and Dead 14ad Combination 'Ihe Third Party review of Ebasco's and O Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that dead load respolue is required to be added algebraically to the SRSS combination of the three orthogonal seismic comporents.
| |
| TN 67 7259 3 10 1 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1 j
| |
| | |
| O CONCLUSibN
| |
| :V 1
| |
| Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures adequately address concems raised in this issue. The seismic response combination method issue is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.3 Anchor Bolt Design ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding Gibbs and Hill's " Structural Embedments" Specification 233-SS 30 (SS 30) and other attributes of anchorage and/or anchor bolt design. The following is a summary of these concems.
| |
| Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point - Design calculations for anchor bolts did not address eccentricity between frame connection point and anchor bolt pattem centroid.
| |
| SSE Hilti Safety Factors - The safety factor for Hild expansion anchors may have been violated at specific locations, considering the goveming load case (OBE vs. SSE).
| |
| Inconsistent Application of ACI 349 76 Criteria from ACI 349-76 (Ref. 7.6.7],
| |
| Appendix B, were used to qualify some anchorage designs but were violated in other
| |
| - designs (e.g., design of anchorages with single expansion anchors). I Richmond Insert Factor of Safety - The design safety factor for Richmond Inserts may have been violated at specific locations, considering the goveming load case (OBE vs.
| |
| SSE).
| |
| O V
| |
| e Richrnond Insert Design - Prying action was not considered in design of Richmond Inserts.
| |
| Certain connections that use Richmond Inserts were qualified using the results of an on-site testmg program that provided higher allowable loads than the original design criteria.
| |
| Allowable load reductions were not applied to Richmond Inserts in cluster arrangements, Richmond Inserts embedded in the sides of concrete henmm, and Richmond Inserts that had less bolt-to-bolt spacing than required by design criteria.
| |
| Connection Designs - Installation tolerances for anchor bolt spacing and member placement on base connections were not considered in design calculations.
| |
| Design drawings allow the use of either Hilti expansion anchors or Richmond Insens for certain base connections However, design calculations were only provided for Hilti expansion anchors.
| |
| Prying Feetor Justification - No technical justification was provided for a prying action facsor of 1.5 used by Gibbs and Hill in base connection design calculations.
| |
| Anchor Bolt Substitution - For certain details on design drawings, notes and design 4 changes allow substitution of Richmond Inserts and Hild expansion anchors, and mixtures of the two. Anchor bolt substitution may be inconsistent with design calculations due to differences in minimiun spacing, tolerance, and embedment length requirements for each anchor type. As a result, allo wable tensile loads in Richmond Inserts and Hilti bohs may be over esdmated.
| |
| p
| |
| * Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumption - For trapeze type supports with two-bolt l Q base angles, design calculations assumed, without appropriate justification, free rotation TN-87-7259 3-11 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| -.g I
| |
| k
| |
| :- i of base angles about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the hanger, ignoring the ]
| |
| stiffness of the base angle.
| |
| * Installation of Expansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes Construction procedures allowed re installation of Hilti expansion bolts in pre used holes. Anchor strength may be decreased due to an oversized core bore bit being used to remove previous bolts. Bit diameter was not controlled during installation. No records of which bolts were installed in core bored holes exist.
| |
| * Reduced Allowables for 1" Hilti Kwik Bolts Revised (reduced) allowables for 1" diameter Hilti Kwik bolts were not considered in the re evaluation of existing supports.
| |
| Designs performed since the revision should have addressed the reduced allowables.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY l
| |
| 'the responsibility for resolving concems related to SS-30 has been assigned by TU Electric to the Civil / Structural portion of the Corrective Action Program (C/S CAP) which is being performed by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporadon Ebasco and Impell will revise their design vaudation procedures as remry to incorporate pertinent changes to SS-30 made by the C/S-CAP. The following summanzes Ebasco's and Impell's resolution of other concems raised with respect to anchorage and/or bolt design: 3
| |
| * Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point - Ebasco and Impell consider eccentricity between the frame connection point and the centroid of the bolt panem iri design validation of base anchorages and anchor bolts.
| |
| * SSE Hilti Safety Factor - Ebasco and Impell design-validate Hilti anchor bolts using a factor of safety of 5 for OBE loads and 4 for SSE loads.
| |
| * Inconsistent Application of ACI 349 ACI 349 76 [Ref. 7.6.7]is not used for design validation of art.horages.
| |
| * Richmond Insert Factor of Safety Ebasco and Impell vaudate the design of Richmond Insert anchorages using a factor of safety of 3 for both OBE and SSE loads.
| |
| * Richmond Insert Design - See " Prying Factor Justification" below for discussion of prying action factors.
| |
| Resolution of concems related to on-site testing of Richmond Inserts and reduction in allowable due to clustenng, spacing, etc., will be addressed by the C/S CAP. j 1
| |
| * Connection Designs - Ebesco's and Impell's design validation of base connections is \
| |
| based on as-built information that includes the type of anchorage used and the actual bolt j and rcemberplacement. j 1
| |
| * Prying Factor Justification - Prying action factors were developed in special studies by Ebasco and Irnpell for certain CPSES anchorage configurations and were incorporated into their respective design validadon procedures. For anchorage configurations not addressed by the special studies, individual finire element analyses are perforced to determine bolt forces directly.
| |
| * Anchor Bolt Substitution - Ebasco's and Impell's design validadon procedures specify the use of as-built information for qualifying anchorage and anchor bolts. See also
| |
| ( Section 3.1.3. j I
| |
| i 1
| |
| TN 87-7259 3 12 \
| |
| DAP RR C/S-001, RW 1
| |
| | |
| a 1
| |
| * Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumption - Ebasco and Impell have performed special studies to determine base angle stiffness including rotation about the strong axis -4 of the angle. Dese stiffness values are incorporated into Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures.
| |
| a 1 Installation of Expansion Anchor in Diamond Cored Holes - An Impell special study concludes that there is no reduction in anchor strength due to installador, of Hilti expansion anchors in diamond-cored (pre used) holes.
| |
| Reduced Allowables for 1" Hilt! Kwik Bolts - Ebasco and Impell have incorporated reduced allowables for 1" Hilti Kwik Bolts in their design validation procedures.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION ne Third Party has conArmed that Ebasco's and Impell's design validadon procedures will be revised,if necessary, to be consistent with future changes made to SS-30 by the C/S CAP (Refs.
| |
| 7.2.48 and 7.3.85]. ne following summarizes the Third Party review of the approach used to 1 address anchorage and anchor bolt concerns other than those related to SS-30:
| |
| Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point - De Bird Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's procedures confirmed that anchorage eccentricides are appropriately considered in design validadon of base angles and anchor bolts. Prying acdon factors developed for ,;
| |
| design validadon of anchor bolts (R(s. 7.2.jp and 7JJ6]were found to include the e17ects of the eccentricity between the frame connection point and the centmid of the anchor bolt panem.
| |
| +
| |
| SSE Hilti Fafety Factors - De Tturd Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design O-validadon procedures confirmed that Hild safety factors of 5 and 4 are appropdately speciSed for OBE and SSE load cases, respectively.
| |
| * Inconsistent Application of ACI 349 De Third Party concurs that it is not
| |
| - y to use ACI 349-76, since this document is not a CPSES FSAR commitment.
| |
| * Richmond Insert Factor of Safety - nird Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that a Richmond Insert Safety Factor of 3 is appropriately specified for both OBE and SSE load cases. !
| |
| * Richmond Insert Design and Prying Factor Justification De Third Party has evaluated the prying factors developed by Ebasco in Volume 1. Book 3 (R<f. 7.2J9] and suMy factors developed by Impell in M 25 [Ref. 73J6]. De nird Party )
| |
| concurs that these factors are appropriate and has confirmed that these factors are properly incorporated into Ebasco's and Impell's design validadon procedures. De efisces of prying action on base angles and anchor bolts are computed directly when ,
| |
| finhe element analysis of specific anchorages is performed.
| |
| * Connection Designs - The Third Pany concurs that the use of as built information in design validation of base connections fully resolves the concems raised in this issue regardir g spacing and type of expansion anchors.
| |
| * Anchor Bolt Substitution The Third party concurs that the as built program adequately addresses the concem raised in this issue. See also Section 3.2.3.
| |
| * Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumption - Base anchorage flexibility coefficients developed by Ebasco in Volume I. Book 12 [Ref. 7.2.29] and by Impell in M-04 'Ref.
| |
| TN-87-7259 3 13 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| .() ''"'"*****"''''"''"'"''""""'"''''''"''"'''''"'
| |
| flexibility coefficients are properly incorporated into Ebasco's and ImpeU 's procedures.
| |
| Installation of Expansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes The Third Party has evaluated M-68 [R( 73.67] and accepts the justification provided for not reducing the allowable for Hilti anchors installed in diamond cored (pre used) holes. The instaUation of expansion anchors in diamond-cored holes will not have a significant impact on ultimate capacity, provided the minimum torque required to s-t the anchor during installadonis achieved.
| |
| * Reduced Allowables for 1" Hilti Kwik Bolts The Third pany has confirmed that Ebasco's and Impell's procedures contain the reduced allowables for 1" Hild Kwik bolts.
| |
| CONC:.USION C/S CAP has the responsibility for resolving anchorage and anchor bolt design concems related to SS 30. All other concems raised by this issue have been adequately addressed by Ebasco's and Impell's design validation pmcedures and related specir! studies. The anchor bolt design issue is closed.
| |
| {
| |
| 3.2.7.4 Design Of Coinoression Members m 7 ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding the original design of cable tray hanger compression members.
| |
| The specific concems follow; i - .
| |
| * Slenderness Ratio - In calculating the slendemess ratio (KI/r) of charme! section compression members used for trapeze type suppons, unrealistic assumptions were made for unbraced length and end conditions. As a result, the minimum slendemess ratio specified for compression members by the AISC Specification [R( 7.6.1] may have been violated.
| |
| * Sidesway Restraint - In calculating the slendemess ratio of compression memters of trapeze supports, the effectiveness ofin-plane sidesway restraint was not validated for various suppon designs.
| |
| * Cantilever IAngth Por cantilever suppons, a distance from concrete face to tray centerline was used as the cantilever length, instead of the distance to the outside clamp.
| |
| Also,in calculating the minor axis slendemess ratio of the cantilever member, the tray was assumed to provide lateral bracing at clamp locations, without properjustification.
| |
| Wald Underent - Por trapeze suppons, the reduction due to weld undercut of section properties ofcompression members at in plane brace attachment points was not considered.
| |
| Out-of Plumbness - The installation tolerance of 2 degrees from plumb for vertical members was not considered in design calculations. Nojustification was provided for the acceptability of a 2-degree tolerance.
| |
| Hanger Post Effective Length In the Working Point Deviation study [Ref. 7.63], the !
| |
| unsupported lengths of trapeze suppon posts were reduced by 5 inches (i.e., the width of p the base angle's leg). The assumption that post length can be measured from the tip of
| |
| \ the base angle's outstanding leg may not be proper for cenain post / base angle cornbinations. l TN 87 7259 3 14 i DAP-RR-C/S 001, REV.1 I
| |
| * Brace Slope - In the calculations for compression braces, the largest axial load was found as a funcuon of the brace slope. However, cases with lowerloads but reduced axial capacities due to longer member length were not considered.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY The following methods were used by Ebasco and Impell to address the concerns discussed above: I e
| |
| Slenderness Ratio - Design validation of hanger members is performed in accordance l with the AISC Specification /Ref 7.6.1] using K-factors and KIJr(idendemess ratio) limits determined by special studies.
| |
| K factors fcr transverse hanger members are based on the assumption that trays restrain hangers against out of plane buckling (i.e.. buckling about the weak axis of channel members). This assumption has been confirmed by full scale dynamic tests of cable tray systems [Rgf. 7.4.2] which showed that little or no slip occurs between trays and transverse hangers during seismic shaking. K-factors and slendemess ratios forin plane buckling (e.g., buckling of posts in longitudinal hangers about the weak axis of channel members) are addressed in the issue concerning the effectiveness of siderway restraint, which follows.
| |
| i Slenderness ratios for compression members have been limited to 200. Tension members -
| |
| are allowed slendemess ratios up to 300. A member is considered to be a tension member when it is normally subjected to tension under stade load, and static plus !
| |
| dynamic load results in a compressive stress less than 50% of the allowable compressive O e Sidesway Restraint - K factors used by both Ebasco and Impell in design validation are based on studies that explicitly account for in plane sidesway. In these studies, springs were used to model the restramt provided by trays.
| |
| Cantilever IAngth - Impell uses a member length from the face of the concrete to the outside clamp. For cantilever supports with Type A or O clamps, Ebasco uses a member length from the face of the concretc to the inside clamp; for cantilever supports with Type C clamps, Ebasco uses a memberlength from the fax of the concrete to the outside clamp.
| |
| 11ie K-factors used by both Ebasco and Impell are based on studies that justify the ,
| |
| assumption that the tray prevides lateral support to cantilevered members.
| |
| Wald Undercut - Ebasco has perfonned a study of the base metal defects identified by QC inspection of CTH's and has concluded that the effects of weld undercut on CTH capacity are not significant and can be ignored in design validation.
| |
| Out et-planboess - Out of-plumbness in excess of 2 degrees is noted on as-built drawings and explicitly considered in design validation calculations. The effect of 2-degree out.cf plumbness on member stresses was shown to be insignificant in special studies performed by Ebasco.
| |
| Hanger Post Effective langth - Ebasco and Impell measure the length of hanger posts
| |
| ' from the face of the concrete.
| |
| A e C Brace Slope - The design adequacy of bracing members has been validated using as built infonnation by both Ebasco and Impell.
| |
| I TN 87 7259 l 3-15 DAP RR C/S 001. REV 1
| |
| | |
| 'i 1
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION i
| |
| 'O-The Third Party myiew of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and relate studies concluded the following:
| |
| l I
| |
| * Slenderness Ratio -De nird Party found the K factors and KlJrlimits resulting from special studies (Rgs. 7.2.22, 73.72, 7J.74, and 73.76) for transverse hanger members to be acceptable and properly incorporated in Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures.
| |
| De hird Party concurs with the assumption that trays provide lateral stability to hangers.' See also Section 3.2.7.18. :
| |
| Impell's design validadon procedures [R( 73J] include K factors and Kl/rlimits for most hanger conAgurations, but in a few cases (e.g., for very long hangers) explicit rules l are not provided. Third Party review of selected Impell calculations (Rg. 73.91) conarmed that conservative K-factors wete used for hangers not explicitly covered by the design validation procedures.
| |
| * Sidesway Restraint - The Third Party found the K factors resulting from special studies (Rgs. 7.2.22 and 7J 70) to account forin-plane sidesway adequately and to be properly
| |
| .. incorporated in Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures. The nird .
| |
| i Party concurs by trays.
| |
| with the approach used in these studies to model the sidesway restraun provided
| |
| * Cantilever Langth - 1he lengths specined in Ebasco's procedures for cantilever members were reviewed by the Third Party and found to address this concern adequatel The lengths speci5ed in Impell's procedures for cantilever members and the related K-facais determined by special studies (Rgs. 73.74 and 7J.76) were reviewed and found acceptable. De Dird Party concurs that trays provide restraint to cantilevered compression members. See also Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| * Weld Undercut - De hird Pany has reviewed Ebasco's special study on base metal defects [Ref. 7.2.49] and concurs that weld undercut need not be considered in design validation of CTHs.
| |
| * Out of plumbness - De nird Party reviewed Ebasco's special study on dimensional tolerances (R(. 7.232) and corcurs that the effect of a 2-degme out of plumbness tolerance on Icember stresses is insignincant.
| |
| q
| |
| * Hanger Post Effective langth - The Third Party review of Ebasm's and Impell's procedens conSrmed that appropriate memberlengths are used in the design validation of tripene hangers and cantilevers. l Brace Slope - The Dird Party concurs that use of as built information by Ebasco and Impell in design validation resolves this concern.
| |
| CONCLUSION Ebasco's and knpell's design validation procedures and related spec.ial studies resolve all concems raised by the issue of design of compression members. The issue of design of compression members is closed.
| |
| O .
| |
| TN 67 7259 3 16 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| _ _ - - - l
| |
| | |
| ! 3.2.7.5
| |
| ~ Vertical And Transverse Loading On Longitudinal Type Supports ISSUE DESCRIPTION Gibbs and HH1 considered only longitudinal seismic load in the design oflongitudinal trapeze type supports. Concems have been raised that these suppons should also be designed for transverse and vertical seismic load.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco and Impell address this issue by evaluating suppons for the combined effects of venical, transverse, and longitudinal seismic loads.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUATION The Third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that longitudinal trapeze-type supports are required to be validated for the siraultaneous application seismic loads in all three onhogonal directions.
| |
| CONCLUSION .
| |
| Design validation oflongitudinal suppons for three components of earthquake motion ade addresses concems raised by this issue. The issue of venical and transverse loading on longitudinal type supports is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.6 Support Frame Dead And inertial Loads ISSUE DESCRIP710N Concems were raised regarding Gibbs and HiD's design of cable tray suppons for out-of-plan inertialoads and deadloads:
| |
| e i Out of Plane Inertial lmads - Outef plane inertial loads (parallel to tray) were not considered in design of two way supports. Out of plane loads transmitted fmm two-way i suppons through trays were also neglected in design oflongitudinal suppons. '
| |
| * Dead leads - Support dead loads were not considered consistently (e.g., suppon weight was ignored, treated as additional load on tray, calculated based on actual member l j
| |
| weights, or applied as dead load equal to one half of the support's weight). When design "
| |
| changes occuned, designers arbitrarily reduced the weight used in analyses.
| |
| RESQLU110NMETH000 LOGY The following meshods were used by Ebasco and Impell to address the concems described above:
| |
| * Out of Plane Inertial lands - Ebasco makes bounding assumpdons for out-of-plane inenialloads in the design validation of transverse (two way) and longitudinal suppons when ESM (Equivalent Static Method) analysis is used. For design validation of transverse supports, out of-plane response of transvene hangers is evaluated using longitudinal hanger displacements and accelerations. For design validation of longitudinal supperts, out of plane load from transverse hangers is assumed to be transmitted through trays to longitudinal suppons.
| |
| TN47 7259 3-17 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| Ebasco amiImpell model support mass and assume that transverse suppons are connected to trays in all directions for design validadon of cable tray systems when RSM (Response Spectra Method) analysis is used. '!he assumption of full connectivity between tray and transverse suppons was validated by full-scale dynamic tests of cable tray systems and related analytical studies. See also Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| * = Dead Loads Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures require suppon dead loads to be used in design validation.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUATION Methods by which Ebasco and Impell addressed the concems of this issue are evaluated as follows:
| |
| Out-of Plane Inertial 14 ads - The Third Pany review of Ebasco's design validation procedures found that out of plane inenial loads are adequately considered in ESM analysis of cable tray systerbs.
| |
| The Third Pany concurs with the assumption that hangers are connected to trays in all directions when RSM analysis is used. See also Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| Dead Loads 'Ihe 'Ihird Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation
| |
| " procedures confinned that suppon dead load is appropriately considered for design of i cable tray supports.
| |
| CONCLUSION O Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures adequately address all ccncerns raised in this issue. 'Ihe issue of suppon frame dead and inertial loads is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.7 Design Of Angle Braces Neglecting Loading Eccentricity-
| |
| {
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION l
| |
| Concems were raised regarding Olbbs and Hill's design of angle braces neglecdng loading eccentricity:
| |
| Longitudinal Braces - Bending stresses induced in longitudinal angle braces due to end-connection eccentricity were not considered in design calculadons. Also, double angle braces without lacing (fillerplates) required by the AISC Specificadon [Ref. 7.6.1] were improperly analyzed as composite members.
| |
| * In Plane Braces - Bending stresses due to end connection eccentricity were not considend in the design ofin-plane angle braces of transverse and longitudinal cable tray supports. Also, the arigle members were not checked considering principal axis section moduli.
| |
| * Twist Buckling For some angle brace connections, welding is used along one leg of the
| |
| - angle, at one end of the brace, and along the opposite leg of the angle, at the other end of the brace. Braces with such end conditions were not evaluated for twist buckling which can occur for some brace geometries at load levels below the critical Euler buckling value.
| |
| O TN47 7259 31B DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| _ _ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| T RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco and Impell addressed the concems raised above as follows:
| |
| Longitudinal and In Plane Braces Ebasco validates the design of angle braces for momer.ts. induced by end-connection eccentricity.
| |
| Impell investigated the effects of end-connection eccentricity on angle braces in their study M 12 [Refe>ence 73.23), and found the effects to be insignificant since the braces do not carry large axial loads. On this basis, Impell does not model end-connection eccentricity and ignores the effects of such eccentricity in design validatiori of angle braces.
| |
| Ebasco evaluates single ang!e braces ucing principal axis properties. Impell evaluates single angle braces using geometric axis properties, and applies a correction factor to account for the difference between geometric and principal axis properties.
| |
| Ebasco and Impell evaluate double angle braces as a composite member only if filler plates am provided in accordance with the AISC Specification.
| |
| Twist Buckling . Ebasco and Impell evaluate angle braces for twist bueding when twist buckling is more critical than Euler buckling (i.e., for angle braces which are shon and stocky).
| |
| s THIRD PARTYEVALUATION Approaches used by Ebasco and Impell to address the concems raised in this issue are evaluated below:
| |
| Longitudinal and In Plane Braces The Third P=y review of Ebasco's design validation procedures confirmed that angle braces axe required to be checked for the effects of end-connection eccentricity.
| |
| The Third Party concurs with the findings of M 12 which showed that the effects of end-connection eccentricity of1.agle braces are small and can be ignored in design validation.
| |
| Impell's use of geometric axis properties with correction factors, rather than principal axis properties, was found acceptable.
| |
| The Third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that double angle brarces are required to be evaluated as a composite member only if filler plates are provided in accordance with the AISC Specifications.
| |
| Twist Buckling The Third Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and selected calculations [Refs. 73.90 and 73.91] confirmed that single angle braces are adequately checked for twist buckling.
| |
| CONCLUSION Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and related special studies adequately address all concems raised in this issue. The issue of design of angle braces neglecting loading eccentricity is closed.
| |
| O TN 87 7259 3 19 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| g l
| |
| \
| |
| 3.2.7.8 Dyrisimic Amplification Factors (DAF) And Ratios Between Continuous Tray Support Reactions And Tributary Tray Support Reactions ;
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION
| |
| \
| |
| In the original design o'f cable tray suppons, Gibbs and Hill detennined seismic response using equivalent static analysis with a dynamic amplification factor (DAF) of 1.0 times the peak of the goveming design spectrum Concerns have been raised regarding the use of a DAF of 1.0 since the FSAR [Ref. 7.1.2) requires a DAF of 1.5, unless additionaljustification is provided. An additional concem addressed the use of the tributary span method, which may not adequately consider the effects of system response on the distribution of tray load to individual supports.
| |
| RESOLUTION METHODOt.OGY f
| |
| 'Ihe designs of the majority of cable tray supports within Ebasco's scope are validated by Equivalent Static Method (ESM) analysis. In ESM analysis, seismic response is determined by multiplying the goveming design spectrum's ordinate at the lowest frequency of the cable tray system by a response multiplier (i.e., DAF) of 1.25. If the lowest frequency falls below the peak of the spectrum, then 1.25 times the peak of the spectrum is used to determine seismic response.
| |
| - Special studies were performed by Ebanco to assess the limits of the applicability of the ESM i with a multiplier of 1.25 to account for both multi mode and system type load distribution effects.
| |
| Outside these limits a muldplier greater than 1.25 is regaired for ESM analysis, or response spectrum analysis is perfonned.
| |
| /
| |
| Impell determines seismic response by equivalent static analysis, with a DAF of 1.5, only for '
| |
| certain complex ganged hangers. For all other cases, seismic load is determined by response !
| |
| spectrum analysis.
| |
| When response spectrum analysis is used by either Ebasco or Impell, system effects, including stiffness of trays relative to hangen, varying span lengths and configurations, and different support stiffnesses, are explicitly accourned for by a dyramic model of the cable tray system.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION l The Third Pany review of Ebasco studies contained in Volume I, Books 9 and 10 (R(s. 7.2.26 and 7.2.27) found that the use of the ESM with a response multiplier of 1.25 is appropriate for determining seismic response of cable tray suppons that are part of regular cable tray configurations (e.g., straight tray runs with equally spaced, identical supports). Additional stud;es were performed by Ebesco to assess the applicability of ESM, with a response multiplier of 1.25, to suppons that me componeras ofirregular cable tray systems or otherwise not covered by the work contained in Volume I, Books 9 and 10. These trudies, which are documented in Volume I, Books 15 and 23 [Rgfs. 7.2.31 and 7.2.37), and a supplementary screening procedure (Ref 7.2.43]
| |
| defend and delineate the limits of applicability of the ESM, and prescribe methods for determining response of cable tray system components falling outside these limits. The results of these studies and the requirements of the screening procedure were reviewed by the Third Pany and found to be acceptable.
| |
| 'Ihe Third Pany review of Impell Project Instruction PI 02 [Ref. 7J.4] concluded that the use of A equivalent static analysis, with a DAF of 1.5, is appropriate for determining response of complex
| |
| 'V ganged hangers.
| |
| TN 87 7259 3 20 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1 ;
| |
| | |
| t CONCLUSION Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and related special studies adequately addre all concems raised by this issue. The dynamic amplificadon factor issue is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.9 Reduction in Channel Section Properties Due To Clarnp Bolt Holes ISSUE DESCRIPTION Gibbs and Hill's original design calculations for channel members did not consider the reduction of the section moment ofinenia, as required by the AISC Specification [Ref. 7.6.1], when bolt holes are present in the flanges of these members.
| |
| RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY Ebasco and Impell evaluate cable tray support ders using channel section moment ofinertia properties reduced to account for the presence of either a used or unused clamp bolt hole.
| |
| Reduced section propenies were calculated for various channel sizes assuming a clamp bott hole to be present in one flange, and these reduced section propenies were used to derive limits on interaction ratios permitted for design validation of cable tray support tiers.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The derivadons of reduced section propenies documented in Ebasco's Volume I, Book 25 (Re 7.2.11] and in Impell S:udy M 65, [Ref. 73.65], and the contsponding limits on interaction ratios pV were reviewed by the 'Ihird Pany and found to be cortsistent with the AISC Specification. The
| |
| 'Ihird Pany confirmed that the limits on interaction ratios and the associated procedures for j
| |
| j applying these limits have been appropriately incorporated into Ebasco's and Impell's respective design validation procedures.
| |
| CONCLUSION Design validation of cable tray hanger tiers for section propenies reduced to account for the presence of a clamp bolt hole in the flange adequately addmsses concerns raised in this issue.
| |
| The issue of reduction in channel section properties due to clamp bolt holes is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.10 ' System Concept ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems west raised regarding the assumptions associated with the " system concept" used in analyses by Gibbs and Hill tojustify cable tray suppon design assumptions. Specific concems were as follows:
| |
| Load Eccentricity on Support - Assumptions were made that the moments caused by the eccentricities between the load application points (i.e., tray centroid) and the suppon members (i.e., center of resistance) would be balanced by force couples at adjacent suppons. These assumptions are inconsistent with cenain assumptions taade regarding tray to-hanger clamp behavior. See also Section 3.2.7.24 (Vertical Eccentricity, Horizontal Eccentricity, Torsion of Tier Members) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| * Lateral Bracing of Cantilevers -In the design of trapeze and cantilever support members for conipression loads, trays were assumed to provide lateral bracing to the TN 87 7259 3-21 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| f q support members, withoutjustification. See also Section 3.2.7.4 (Slendemess Ratio) and C/ Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| Transverse and Vertical Loads on Longitudinal Supports For the design of '
| |
| longitudinal trapeze supports, transverse and vertical loads were not considered. Only longitudinalloads were considered. See also Section 3.2.7.5. .
| |
| (
| |
| Prying Action It was assumed that the hanger attachment to the tray minimizes additional tensile forces in anchor bolts that' would otherwise occur due to rotation of base angles about theirlongitudinal axis. See also Section 3.2.7.3 (Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point).
| |
| Self Weight Seismic Loading Out-of plane seismic loads from self weight excitation of two-way trapeze support frames (i.e., transverse suppons) were not considered in the design oflongitudinal supports. See also Section 3.2.7.6 (Out of Plane Inertial Loads),
| |
| e Eccentrkities of Tier / Post Lap Joint - Bending and torsion introduced in support members due to the eccentricity between section neutral axes in tier / post lap joint connections were neglected without sufficientjustification. The tray was assumed to resist a portion of the additionalloads caused by the eccentricity.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY ~
| |
| c 7he following is a summary of the Ebasco's and Impell's methods for addressing these concems:
| |
| Load Eccentricity on Support - Ebasco assumes the longitudinal load to be applied on the supporting tier member at the centeriine of the clamp-to-tray bolt for one bolt OV connections and at the top of the tier flange for two-bolt connections. Impell assumes the longitudinalload to be applied coincident with the mid-height of the tray. These assumptions are jusufied by special studies. See also Section 3.2.7.24 (Vertical Eccentricity. Horuontal Eccentricity Torsion of Tier Members) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| Lateral Bracing of Cantilevers - See Section 3.2.7.4 (Slenderness Ratio) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| Transverse and Vertical Loads on Longitudinal Supports - See Section 3.2.7.5.
| |
| Prying Action - Ebasco and Impell consider the additional tension forces on anchor bolts due to prying action of base angles. See also Secnon 3.2.7.3 (Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point),
| |
| e Self Weight Seismic Landing - See Section 3.2.7.6 (Out of Plane inertial loads).
| |
| Eccentricities of Tier / Post Lap Joint - Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedmes account for tier / post eccenuicity in the analyses of supports.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION I '
| |
| 7he Third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validnion procedures and related special studies concluded the following:
| |
| Load Eccentricity on Support The justification for Ebasco load location assumptions, provided in Volume I, Book 7 [Ref. 7.2.23), was reviewed by the 7hird Pany and found I acceptable.
| |
| f Impell study M 12 (Ref. 7J.23), which provides the justification for loM location and other modeling techniques, was reviewed by the "Ihird Pany and found acceptable. See j
| |
| TN.67 7259 3-22 DAF'-RR C/S-001, REV.1 l
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - - - - - -- 1
| |
| | |
| also Section 3.2.7.24 (Vertical Eccentricity, Horizontal Eccen.ricity. Torsion of Tier J. Members) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| '
| |
| * Lateral Bracing of Cantlievers See Section 3.2.7.4 (Slenderness Ratio) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| * Transver'se and Vertical Loads on Longitudinal Supports - See Section 3.2.7.5.
| |
| Prying Action - See Section 3.2.7.3 (Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point).
| |
| * Self Weight Seismic Loading - See Section 3.2.7.6 (Out-of Plane Inenial Loads).
| |
| * Eccentricities of Tier / Post Lap Joint - Attachment E of Ebasco's design validation procedures [Rg. 7.2.1), and Impell's Project Instruction PI 02 [Ref. 73.4], which specify eccentri: joint modeling methods, were evaluated by the nird Pany and found to be acceptable.
| |
| CONCLUSION ne concems raised by this issue are adequately addressed by bcth Ebasco and Impell. The system conaptissue is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.11 Validity Of NASTRAN Models i
| |
| ISSUEDESCRIPTION NASTRAN models used in censin generic studies performed by Gibbs and Hill in suppon of the original cable tray support design assume a row of identical supports. A concem was raised that these models were not representative of actual mixed suppon and span configurations. Hence, system ficii i.edes and seismic responses obtained using these models may be incorrect.
| |
| RESOLUTCNME7H000 LOGY nis issue is specific to generic studies performed in support of the original design and is not relevant to the present cable tray system requalification effon.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION ne Bird Party concurs that concems raised in this issue are not relevant to the present design validation effon.
| |
| CONCLU8CN De issue of generk, sudy wwwtak is not relevant to design validation work by Ebasco and Impell. j The issue of validity of NASTRAN models is closed.
| |
| i 3.2.7.12 Working Point Deviation Study l
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION in the original design of supports, Gibbs and Hill assumed that the neutral axes of connected members intersected at a common point. nus, connection eccentricities were not considered.
| |
| The Working Point DeYiation Study [Ref. 7.63] was performed by Gibbs and Hill to provide i
| |
| TN-87 7259 3 23 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ i
| |
| | |
| rO allowable woridng. point deviations for generic acceptance ofinstalled supports. 7he following are concerns raised regarding this study:
| |
| V e Effects of Design Change Documents - The effects of all design change notices for individual suppons were not considered in the study. See also Section 3.2.7.21 (Design Changes and As Built Conditions).
| |
| * Vertical and Transverse Loads on Longitudinal Supports 'the effects of vertical and transvene loads on longitudinal suppon frames were not considered. See also Section 3.2.7.5.
| |
| * Evaluation of Connections, Base Angles, and Anchor Bolts The portion of the study that evaluated longitudinal suppons checked only member stress interaction; the adequacy of connections, base angles, and anchor bolts was not evaluated.
| |
| t
| |
| * Modeling Assumptions Concerns were raised regarding cenain modeling assumptions as follows:
| |
| - Instead of modeling a longitudinal support along the tray run, one end of the tray was assumed to be fixed.
| |
| - Multiple trays per support level were not considered.
| |
| 7
| |
| - Eccentricities were not properly modeled. See also Section 3.2.7.24 (Venical Eccentricities and Horizontal Eccentricity). *
| |
| - Trays were modeled as fixed to suppons without adequatejustification. See also Section 3.2.7.18. Run configurations (systems ofidentical suppons, unifonn support spacing, worst case frame dimendons) were not representative of actual installations.
| |
| - Base angle connections with two bolts were modeled as simply supponed beams, ignonng the flexural restraint provided by prying action. See also Section 3.2.7.26 (Stiffening Effects of Concrete).
| |
| - Excitation in longitudinal tray direction was not considered. See also Section 3.2.7.6 (Out-of-Plane Inertial Loads).
| |
| On trapeze supports, out of plane transnational degrees of freedom were unrealistically restrained.
| |
| * Support Cornponent Governing Design - Not all suppon components were checked to determine the governing component.
| |
| i
| |
| * Working Point Location for Two Bolt Brace Connections - Two-bolt brace connecdoes on longitudinal suppons, for which the working point location does not coincids with line of action of brace load, were not evaluated as pan of the study. See also Secdon 3.2.7.3 (Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point) arx! Section 3.2.7.7 (Longitudinal Braces and In Plane Braces).
| |
| * Arbitrar9y ADowed Working Point Deviations - Allowable working point deviations specified for some suppon braces were not justified by supporting calculations.
| |
| * Working Point Deviations by Similarity - Several suppon types were qualified by similarity to supports that were later found to be overstressed. Overstressed supports were included in a case by-case review; however, suppons qualified by similarity were not re-evaluated. See also Section 3.2.7.27.
| |
| O TN 87 7259 3 24 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| +
| |
| O. Use ofEnveloping Cases - Several suppon types were evaluated by grouping with an
| |
| " enveloping" suppen type of similar configuration. In some cases, not all grouped support types were m-evaluated when the " enveloping" suppon type was found to be overstressed. See also Section 3.2.7.27.
| |
| - 2 Compressive lead Capacity of Members - The buciding capacity of hanger members subjected to multiple, discrete axial loads was not properly computed. See also Section 3.2.7.4 (Slendemess Ratio).
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY Ebasco's and Impell's methods for addressing the concems identified above are discussed below:
| |
| * Effects of Design Change Documents - See Section 3.2.7.21 (Design Changes and As-Built Conditions).
| |
| * Vertical and Transverse Loads on Longitudinal Supports - See Section 3.2.7.5.
| |
| * Evaluation of Connections, Base Angles, and Anchor Bolts '!he designs of all suppon components (members, connections, base angles / base plates, and anchor bolts) are validated.
| |
| * Modeling Assumptions - Ebasco's and Impell's modeling and analysis procedures i resolve all concems raised in this issui:
| |
| - Longitudinal suppons are modeled appropriately alonp:ay mns.
| |
| - All trays shown on as-built drawings are considered in design validation.
| |
| - Eccentricities of significance to design validadon are based on as built drawings and modeled moi & ugly. See also Secdon 3.2.7.24 (Vertical Eccentricity and Horizontal Eccentricity).
| |
| - Trays are assumed to be fully connected to supports based on the results of full scale tests of cable tray systems. See also Section 3.2.7.1g. Run configurations used in design vahdation are based on as built drawings and am representative of actual installations.
| |
| - Plexural restraint provided by prying action is considered in design validation of base
| |
| .ang)4 connections. See also Section 3.2.7.26 (Stiffening Effects of Concate).
| |
| - longinviinal eacitation of tray is considered in design validation. See also Section
| |
| ' 3.2.7.6 (Outef Plane Inertial Loads).
| |
| - Outef-Plane transnational degrees of freedom of trapeze suppons are not restrained in design validation.
| |
| * Support Component Governing Design - 7he designs of all suppon components (members, connections, base angles / base plates, and anchor bolts) are validated by Ebasco and Impell based on as-built data.
| |
| Working Point Location fbr Two Bolt Brace Connections - Offsets, eccentricities, and '
| |
| end-wrisuon details of significance to design validation are based on as-built configuradons and modeled accordingly. See also Section 3.2.7.3 (Eccentricity of Frame Connection Point) and Section 3.2.7.7 (l. longitudinal Bracts and In Plane Braces).
| |
| O i i
| |
| l TN47 7259 3 25 DAP RR C/S 001, REV 1 ,
| |
| - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - J
| |
| * ArbitrarEy AUowed Working Point Deviations - Offsets, eccentricities, and end O- connecdon details of significance to design validation are' based on as built configurations and modeled accordingly.
| |
| . Working Point Deviations by Similarity and Use of Enveloping Cases - See Section 3.2.7.27.
| |
| * Compressive lead Capacity of Members - Ebasco and Impell have considered the effects of muldple, discrete axial loads in the calculation of K factors used for determination of member compression load capacity. See also Section 3.2.7.4 (Slendemess Radoh THIRO PARTYEVALUATION
| |
| 'Ihe Wodting Point Deviation Study was performed as part of the original design effon by Gibbs and Hill. Becat.se the results of this study are not used by Ebasco or Impell, this issue is not directly applicable to the present design validation efforts. Nonetheless, the methods proposed by Ebasco and Impell for resolving this issue were reviewed by the Third Party and found to address the generic aspect of all concems adequately. !
| |
| CONCLUSION i i
| |
| Ebasco's and ImpeH's & sign validation procedures and the use of as bulh data in modeling and design validation of cable tray systems adequately address all concems raised in this issue. 'the ;
| |
| issue of Working Point Deviadon Study ir closed. )
| |
| 1 O s.2.7 's a auc o sa cir iace i r tiaa-ISSUE DESCRIPTION in the original design of certain supports, Gibbs and Hill used redmi spectral accelerations (i.e.,
| |
| accelerations less than the peak of the goveming design spectrum) bued on assumed cable tray system weights and geometries. A general conoem was raised tha'. the assumed cable tray system weights and geometries did not represent cable tray installations of the CPSES. The following specific concems were raised regarding the calculations perf Amrd to arrive at the reduced spectral accelerations:
| |
| * Tray Walght and Span - Tray weight and tray span um 1 tr frequency calculations for transverse supports did not represent, or envelope, all si pport installations.
| |
| * Tray MaulbDity and Escentrielties 'Ihe effects of tray flexibility and eccentricities between tray and suppons were not considered in frequemcy calculations for longitudirial supports. See also Section 3.2.7.4 (Vertical Eccentric 4y and Horizontal Eccentricity). ,
| |
| * Flexibility of Base Angle *Ihe flexibility of base rigles was not considered in frequency calculations oflongitudinal supports. Sre also Section 3.2.7.3 (Base Angle Boundary Assumption).
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY Phaam knd Impell evaluate cable tray supports using as built, rather than as-designed, cable tra O discussedbelow: system weights and geometries. The resolution methodology for each sp TN 67 7259 3-26 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| Trmy Weight and Spar - For Unit I cable tray systems, Ebasco and Impell use as-built C
| |
| \ tray weights and as built span lengths to determine respnse of transverse supports. For i
| |
| Unit 2 cable tray systems, Ebasco uses as-built span lengths and full tray design weight (including fireproofing when applicable) to determine transverse suppon response.
| |
| Trey Mexibility and Eccentricities - Ebasco and Impell include the effects of tray flexibility in calculations oflongitudinal suppon responec, and model eccentricities between trays and suppons, when such eccentricities are significant to design validation.
| |
| See also Section 3.2.7.24 (Venical Eccentricity and Horizontal Eccentricity).
| |
| Flexibility of Base Angle - Ebasco and Impell include base angle flexibility in calculations oflovgitudinal suppon response. See also Section 3.2.7.3 (Base Angle Boundary Assumption). I l
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION I
| |
| {
| |
| The general concem of this issue, use of support design accelerations less than the peak of the goveming response spectrum, is not directly applicable to RSM analysis which determines support load based on dynamic analysis of cable tray systems. Section 3.2.7.8 should be referred ;
| |
| {
| |
| to for'Itird Pany evaluation of the dynamic amplification factor used by Ebasco in ESM l
| |
| - analysis. The 'Ihird Pany's evaluation of specific concerns regarding the appropriateness of tray weights, tray spans, etc. used in design validation is given below.
| |
| k The 1hird Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that as-built weight and geometry are adequately prescribed for design validation of cable tray systems.
| |
| In addition Ebasco Volume I, Books 2,7, and 12 [Refs. 7.2.18,7.2.23, and 7.2.29], and Impell q M-04 [Rqf. 7.3.17] were reviewed and the following assessments made:
| |
| * Tray Weight and Span The Third Party confirmed that Ebasco and Impell use as built weight (design weight in Unit 2) and as-built geomeuy for design validation of transverse supports.
| |
| * Axial Tray Frequency and Eccentricities - The 1hird Pany found that Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and modeling techniques adequately consider the axial stiffness of tray and the eccentricity between trays and supports in design validation 1 oflongitudinal supports. See also Section 3.2.7.24 (Vertical Eccentricity and Horizontal Eccentricity).
| |
| * Flexibility of Base Angle *Ihe Third Pany found that flexural stiffness of base angles is adequately considered in design validation of longitudinal suppons. See also Section l
| |
| 3.2.7.3 (Base Angle Boundary Assumption).
| |
| j CONCLUSCN l i
| |
| i Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and the use of as built properties adequately l
| |
| addicss concerns raised in this issue. The issue of reduced specual acceleration is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.14 Non-conformance With AISC Specifications ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concerns were raised that the original design of CPSES cable tray supports did ret conform to i
| |
| cenain requirements of the AISC Specification [Ref 7.6.1]. These concerns are summarized i below:
| |
| TN-87 7259 3 27 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| I . Slenderness Ratio -The slendemess ratio limit of 200 for compression members may have been violated due to inadequate restraint by tray clamps (i.e., friction type clamps may not provide adequate restraint to suppons in the longitudinal direction). See also Section 3.2.7.4 (Slendemess Ratio).
| |
| Unbraced IAngth -incorrect assumptions for unbraced length resulted in overestimated bending stmss allowable for channels.
| |
| Bolt Holes - Reductions in section properties of beams due to bolt holes in flanges were not considered. Set, also Section 3.2.7.9.
| |
| Composite Compresion Members - Double angle braces were designed as composite members, without providing lacing. See also Section 3.2.7.7 (Longitudinal Braces).
| |
| Connection Eccentricities - Design of suppon members with axialloads did not consider connection eccentricities. 'This concem primarily affects single angle bnces and gusset plates. See also Section 3.2.7.7 (Longitudinal Braces, In Plane Braces) and Section 3.2.7.16 (Eccentric Connections).
| |
| Oversized Bolt Holes - Oversized bolt holes for anchor bolts and tray clamps were specified without adequatejustification. See also Section 3.2.7.31.
| |
| Bracing Members - A longitudinal brace was improperly designed for compressive stress as a secondary member.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Actions taken by Ebasco and Impell to address the concems related to AISC Specification requirements are summarized below:
| |
| Slenderness Ratio - See Secdon 3.2.7.4 (Slenderness Rado).
| |
| Unbraced length - Ebasco and Impell validate the design of cable tray supports in accordance with Equadon 1.5 7 of the AISC Specification, which requires allowable flexural stress to be determined on the basis of the unbraced length of the compression flange.
| |
| 1 Ebasco and impell consider the unbraced length of the compression flange of tmpeze support posts to be the distance fmm the face of the concrete to the centerline of the first tier and the distance between centerlines of adjacent tiers for other support levels. For L- ;
| |
| shaped hangers, tier 40-tier distance is considered only temeca tiers supporting a tray.
| |
| Unbraced length und for design validation of cantilever suppons is described in Section 3.2.7.4.
| |
| l Bok Helms- See Section 3.2.7.9.
| |
| e t Composite Compression Members - See Section 3.2.7.7 (Longitudinal Braces).
| |
| * Connection Eccentricities - See Section 3.2.7.7 (Longitudinal Braces,In Plane Braces) and Section 3.2.7.16 (Eccentric Connections).
| |
| . Overslaed Bolt Holes - The effects of oveniud bolt holes are considered by Ebasco and Impell in qualification of tray clamps and in design validation of their connection to supports. Seismic qualificadon of tray clamps is based on t sts of clamps that are representative of as-built conditions, including oversizing of bolt holes. Design validation of the tray clamp-to-support connections is based on a reduced capacity of the 1
| |
| I TN-67-725tr 3 28 1
| |
| DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| k 1
| |
| ~
| |
| tier 5ange to resist tear out when the distance from the oversized bolt h flange is less than the minimum required by the AISC Specification.
| |
| 1he effects of oversized bolt holes in base angles and base plates have been examine i Ebasco and Impell in special studies. These studies conclude that the effects of oversized I n
| |
| holes are ' ot significarn and can be ignored in design validation of base ang!cs and base plates of cable tray supports. See also Section 3.2.7.31. ;
| |
| e Bracing Members - Ebasco's and Impell's procedures require that all bracing members be qualified as primary members.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION
| |
| \
| |
| Third Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's procedures conArmed that the applicable AISC J
| |
| i Specification requirements are used for design validadon of cable tray supports. The followingi pmvides the Third Party findings for specific concerns:
| |
| Slenderness Ratio See Section 3.2.7A (Slendemess Ratio).
| |
| Unbraced Length The Third Pany review confirmed that Ebasco's and Impell's design validation pmcedures require the use of Equation 1.5 7 of the AISC Specification to )
| |
| determine the allowable flexural stress as a function of unbraced length of the '
| |
| compression flange.
| |
| 1he 1hird Pany concurs with the unbraced lengths (e.g., distance between tiers for trapeze hanger posts) used by Ebasco and Impell to determine allowable flexural stress. i e
| |
| Bolt Holes - See Seedon 3.2.7.9.
| |
| Composite Compression Members - See Seedon 3.2.7.7 (I. longitudinal Braces).
| |
| * l Connection Eccentricities - See Section 3.2.7.7 (Longitudinal Braces, In Plane Braces) '
| |
| and Section 3.2.7.16 (Eccentric Connections),
| |
| e Overslaed Bolt Holes The '!hird Pany review of tray clamp tests [R<fs. 7.4.5 and 7.4.6]
| |
| confirmed that results of the tests are valid and representative of as buih conditions, including oversizing of bolt holes. The Third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures [R<fs. 7.2.42 and 7J.8) confirmed that the ten results are properly incorporated in the qualification of tray c! amps.
| |
| 'the 1hird Party review of Fhearn's and Impell's design validabon procedures and related special studies [Rgfs. 7.2J0, 7J.8, and 73.55) concluded that flanges of hanger tiers are f adequately checited for reduction in tear-out capacity due to oversizing of clamp bolt )
| |
| holsa, l
| |
| t i
| |
| The Third Party concurs with the findings of Ebasco'r and Impell's special studies (Refs. I 7.2J2,7.2J&, and 73.46), which concluded that the effects of cversized bolt holes can be ignored in design validation of base angles and base plates of A :le tray supports. See also Section 3.2.7.31.
| |
| * Bracing Members - The Third Party review confirmed that Ebasco and Impell treat all bracing members as primary members.
| |
| O TN-87 7259 3 29 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| CONCLUSION
| |
| (
| |
| Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and related special studies and tests adequately addmss all concems raised in this issue. The usue of non cortformance with the AISC specification is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.15 Membei Substitution ISSUE DESCRIPTION A concem was raised regarding the original Gibbs and Hill design specificadon for cable tray supports which allowed substitution of structural members with members having potentially lower section moduli. Documentation of member substitutions was not adequate.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco and Impell validate the designs of cable tray suppons using member sizes obtained %.a as-built drawings. When the member's size cannot be obtamed due to inaccessibility, a conservative value for the size of member is assumed.
| |
| THIRD PARTY EVALUATION The "nurd Pany review of as builting procedures, including the determination of propenies for inaccessible attributes, confirmed that appropriate member sizes are documented on the design drawings.
| |
| CONCLUSION Use of as-built propenies for cable tray suppon members adequately addresses concems raised in this issue. The issue of member substitution is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.16 Weld Design And Specifications Concems were raised regarding censin discrepancies in Gibbt t.nd Hill's design of cable tray supprt welds. Specific concems are described below:
| |
| Weld Details - The design drawings were missing the weld details for several suppon types.-
| |
| Weld Slaes 1he weld sizes shown on the assembly d.mwings differed from those shown on the design dravcgs and from those assumed in the design calculations.
| |
| Eccentric Connections - Load eccentricities were not considered in design of welds for brace / gusset plate / base connections, lapjoints between channels, and base angle conr=:' u-o Base Metal Thickness - The weld designs did not consider the thickness of the connected parts. Fillet welds with throat dimension greater than the connected plate dimension were specified.
| |
| Minimum Weld Length - The design calculations assumed an incorrect minimum weld length for beam / hanger base angle connection. ;
| |
| i O !
| |
| 4 I
| |
| TN-87 7259 3 30 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| i .
| |
| f a i
| |
| RESOLUTIOkMETHODOLOGY The concems identified above are resolved or addressed by the following methods:
| |
| Weld Details, Weld Sizes, and Minimum Weld Length - Ebasco and Impell validate the designs of welds based on as built details, weld size, and length. For welds that are inaccessible, as-built properties are based on as-designed properties reduced to account !
| |
| for potential discrepancies in weld size and length.
| |
| Eccentric Connections - Ebasco considers load eccentricities explicitly in the design validation of welds. Impell does not explicitly consider all connection eccentricities.
| |
| Some eccentricities were evaluated on a generic basis and shown to be insignificant.
| |
| Base Metal Thickness - Ebasco and Impell design validate welds considering weld and base metal thicknesses shown on as-built drawings.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The nird Pany review of as-built procedures (Refs. 7JJ and 7.1.4] and Ebasco's and Impell's i design validation procedures confirmed that the designs of welds are properly validated using as-built data. Specific review findings are summarized below;
| |
| * i Weld Details, Weld Sizes and Minimum Weld Length - The Third Pany confirmed that as built procedures require the documentation of all weld attributes necessary for design validation of welds (e.g., weld size. length, thickness and geometry). Concems regarding weld details and dimensions are adequately addressed by validating welds using as built properties.
| |
| .O
| |
| * Eccentric Connections - The Third Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's procedures, related studies, and selected calculations confirmed that the designs of welds are adequately validated forloading eccentricities when such eccentricities are significant.
| |
| Review of selected Ebasco calculations (Ref. 7.5.90 ] found that eccentricities are explicitly considered in detennining loads on welds. Review of Impell's design validation procedures found that load eccentricities are explicitly considered in design validation of gusset plate welds and base connection welds. On the basis of the results of M 12 (Ref. 7.3.23], the nird Party concurs that the effects ofload eccentricities are insignificant and can be ignored in design validation oflap joints (e.g., tier-to post welds).
| |
| Base Metal Thickness - The Third Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures [Ref. 7.2.1 and 73.5] confirmed that the base material thickness is adequately considered when checking stress in welds.
| |
| CONCLUSION All concems raised in this issue are adequately addressed by design validation of welds using as-built properties. his issue of weld design and specifications is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.17 Embedded Plates Design 1 ISSUE DESCRIPTION This issue addresses concems raised regarding certain aspects of Gibbs and Hill's design procedures for embedded plates. Specifically: j" l
| |
| TN-87-7259 3-31 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1 !
| |
| | |
| 3
| |
| * Prying Astion Capacity calculations for cable tray suppon attachments to embedded strip plass may not have considered the effect of prying action en the tension in Nelson studs.
| |
| * Stithning - Conflicting criteria may have been used by different groups for the stiffening ofembedded plates.
| |
| * Capacity Reduction - Calculations for cable tray supports attached to embedded plates did not consioer the capacity reduction for cenain attachment locations, as required by Gibbs and Hill's " Structural Embedments" Specification 2323 SS-30 [Ref' 7.6.2].
| |
| * Separation Criteria - Certain supports violated the minimum separation requirement of 12 inches between two adjacent attachments to an embedded plate.
| |
| * Tributary Span - Design calMations for embedded plates were performed assuming a 7'-6" tributary cable tray span. For trey spans exceeding this design value, embedded plates may support loads larger than those considered in the design calculations.
| |
| * Expansion Anchors No criteria were found regarding the minimum spacing requirement between embedded plates and expansion anchors installed on a surface gig.dicular to the embedded plate.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY i
| |
| Re responsibility for addressing the concerns raised in this issue, with the exception of tributary spans, has been assigned by TU Electric to the C/5-CAP. Ebasco and Impell will revise their design validation procedures, if necessary, to incorporate pertinent changes to SS-30 made by the C/5-CAP.
| |
| , V-De issue of tributary spans is addressed by the use of as-built cable tray spans in design validation.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION De nird Party has continned that Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures will be revised as ~~~ y to be consistent with changes made to SS 30 by the C/S-C/J [Refs. 7.2.46 and 7385}.
| |
| De as-buik procedures [R<fs. 7.13 amt 7.1.4] were reviewed by the Bird Party and found to l
| |
| contain W=> requirements for determining tray span length.
| |
| CONCLUSION i
| |
| De C/S-CAP has the responsibility for resolving anchorage concems related to embedded plates.
| |
| ! De concem regssding tribctary spans is adequately addressed by the use of as built tray spans in design validation. De issue of embedded plates design is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.18 Tray Clamps ISSUE DESCRIPTION i Concems were raised about the assumptions used by Gibbs and Hill to model load trantfer between cable trays and supports at friction type clamps. ne load transfer assumpdons used to l i
| |
| snodel fricdon type clamps and related concems are summarized below:
| |
| 1 TN 87 7259 3 32 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| < e y
| |
| Trayhpmvide out-of plane bracing to trapeze supports to reduce the buckling length of the verticalhanger members.
| |
| Trays pmvide lateral bracing to the compression flanges of the horizcntal beams.
| |
| e Trays provide outef plane bracing to suppons to prevent frame transladon, which would result in increased anchor bolt tensile loads.
| |
| Trays transfer out of plane inertial loads fmm tmnsverse supports to longitudinal supports on the same tray run.
| |
| The development of minor axis bending moments in the beams due to the horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the clamp bolt is minimired by a bending
| |
| ! moment in the cable tray.
| |
| l
| |
| * For venical loading, the development of torsion in the beam due to the eccentricity between the clamp location and the beam shear center is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This assumes a full-moment fixity between the tray and the suppon beam.
| |
| For heavy duty clamps, all of the above assumpions were applied, and an additional assumption wr.s made as fonows e
| |
| lhe development of torsion due to longitudinalloads on three-way suppons using _
| |
| composite beam sections is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This implies a full- 5 momen fixity between the tray and support beam.
| |
| The a?"wJons described above are valid only if the clamps can provide suitable displacement and mtation compatibility between the tray and support beam. In order to provide the assumed compatibility, friction type clamps must be emched sufficiently to develop friction between tray / beam and tray / clamp interfaces. The existence ofinstallation gaps may preclude the development of the normal contact force required for friction resistance, and hence invalidate the aforementioned assumptions.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY Full-scale dynamic tests of cable tray systems were performed to evaluate experimentally the capacity of friction-type clamps to transfer force between trays and suppotts. . Subsequently, special saidies were performed by Impell to evaluate the tests and to conelate test results with vanous analytical modeling assumptions. Based on the test results and correladon studies.
| |
| Ebasco and Impeu have developed tray clamp modeling procedures that assume friction-type clamps to transmit fbree Intween the tray and the support in all directions.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUATION 1he Third Party review of the results of full scale dynamic tests of cable tray systems [R<f. 7.4.2]
| |
| fotnd the reladve longitudinal slip between the tray and the beam at the transverse supports to be small, even when instaBation gaps between clamps and tray were deliberately incorporated into the test specimens.
| |
| The Review ofImpeu System Analysisfrest Conelation Study (R<f. 7J.71] found that displacemera obtained from the full scale dynamic tests were, in general, enveloped by displacements predicted by analyses that assumed trays to be connected to supports in all directions. On the basis of the results of the tests and the conelation studies, the Third Pany TN-87 7259 3 33 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| -(- concurs that friction-type clamps may be assumed to transmit force parallel to the axis of the tray
| |
| ? and are appropriately raodeled as such.
| |
| i The 'Ihird Party concurs with Ebasco's and Impell's modeling procedures, which assume that friction-type clamps transmit force bety een trays and supports in all transnational directions.
| |
| CONCLUSION i i
| |
| . The full scale oynamic tests of cable tray systems confirm the tray clamp modeling assumptions i
| |
| ' used in design validation of cable tray systems. The issue of tray clamps is closed. ;
| |
| i 3.2.7.19 FSAR Load Combinations 1
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION For cable tray systems installed in the Reactor Buildings, the loads associated with a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) may be applicable, including pipe-whip, jet impingement, and thermal loads. A concem was raised that Gibbs and Hill considered only dead weight and seismic inecia loads in the original design of cable tray supports.
| |
| . RESMUTCNMETH00MOGY i 1he TU Electric Systems Interaction Program has the responsibility of demonstranng that safety-i related cable trays are either shielded from, or not in the path of, pipe whip and jet i:npingement !
| |
| . loads postulated by the PSAR (Rg 73.2].
| |
| The PSAR states that thermal loads may be neglected when they are secondary and self limiting and the materialis ductile. Impell venfied in M 27 that these conditions are applicable to cable tray systems. Explicit analysis of cable tray systems for accident thermal loads is not performed by Ebasco and Impell.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUATION I
| |
| The Third Party concurs that shielding or re routing of all the cable trays potentially affected by postulated pipe-whip and jet impingement loads adequately resolves concems for these loads. i 1he1hird Party also conuars that accident temperature loads are not applicable to cable tray i
| |
| systems that possess the capacity to absorb thermal movements without brittle failure of their components. Impell M 27 [Rg 7JJ8), provides adequate validation that thermal growth will not cause brittle isDwe of cable tray system anchorages.
| |
| CONCLU$CN The TU Electric Systems Interaction Program has the responsibility for shielding and relocating all cable trays potentially affected by postulated pipe whip and jet impingement loads. Concems related to accident temperature loads are addressed by Impell in M 27. The FSAR load combination issueis closed.
| |
| O TN-87 7259 3 34 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| 3.2.7.20 Differences Between The Installation And The Design /Co'nstruction
| |
| - Drawings Without Appropriate Documentation O' ISSUE DESCRIPTION A walkdown of cable tray suppons lay Cygna raised concems regarding cenain diNerences between the as built suppon configurations and Gibbs and Hill's design requirements.' Specific concems were raised for the following topics: 4 Differences Between Installation and Design Drawings - Differences between cable tray hangerinstallations and design / construction drawings were found.
| |
| Expansion Anchor Embedment - For suppons installed on floor slabs with 2 inch toppmg the toppmg depth was not considered in selecting the length of the anchor bolts.
| |
| As a result, the required embedment for anchor bolts was not achieved.
| |
| i e Minimum Separation - No specific criteria existed for minimum sepr. ration between cable tray synems and other non attached componentt RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY 1he methods used to resolve the above concems are as follows:
| |
| Differences Between Installation and Design Drawings - Ebasco and Impell have j 1
| |
| perfonned design validation of cable tray suppons based on as built data. See also -
| |
| Section 3.1.3. ;
| |
| e i Expansion Anchor Embedment - Both Ebasco and Impell have validated the designs of O anchor bolts for an effective embedment length which excludes the 2-inch topping.
| |
| * Minimum Separation - The responsibility for the resolution of this issue has been assigned by TU Electric to the C/S-CAP.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUA110N The following paragraphs desenbe the 'Durd Pany evaluations of the resolution methods for the identified concems:
| |
| * Discrepancies Between Installation and Design Drawings - The as-built procedures
| |
| [Refs. 7.13 and 7.1.4) have been reviewed by the Third Pany and found to be adequate i for the purpose of design validating actual cable tray system conditions. See also Section 3.2.3. 1
| |
| * Expansion Anchor Embedment -The Third Party review confirmed that Ebasco's and Impeu's design validation procedures consider appropriate embedment length for anchor boks.
| |
| CONCLUSCNS 1he une of as built data in design validation of cable tray system components adequately addresses concems raised by this issue, with the exception of minimum separation which is the responsibility of the C/S CAP. The issue of differences between the installation and the design / construction drawings is closed.
| |
| TN47 7259 3 35 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1 i
| |
| | |
| 1 3.2.7.21 Design Control 1 i
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION nis issue includes numerous concerns regarding control of design change documents issued against Gibbs and Hill's original design drawings and suppon layout plans. The following description summarizes these concems and groups them into categories with similar implications:
| |
| j
| |
| * Design Changes and As Bul:2 Conditions - This issue is concemed with the lack of adequate control and validation of design changes. Other concems relate to tolerance limits and the use of as-built information.
| |
| * Evaluation of Supports with Thermolag - In the evaluation of cable tray rystems with Thermelag fire protection, the following items were not adequately addressed:
| |
| - Tray cover weights were not considered.
| |
| - Fire protection weight was not considered in longitudinal suppon analysis.
| |
| - Tray spans with excessive tray weight were not evaluated as required.
| |
| - Special evaluation of side rail extensions was not performed.
| |
| * Design Control and Quality Assurance Procedures -his concem is related to the
| |
| - improper control of design changes, the filing system, and the retrieval of calculation I packages.
| |
| * Design Criteria Consistency with FSAR - The design criteria used in the original design were inadequate to ensure compliance with FSAR commitments.
| |
| RESOLUTlONMETHODOLOGY De following summanzes how Ebasco and Impell address these concems:
| |
| * Design Changes and As Built Conditions - The concerns raised under this issue are resolved by the use of as-built informadon in design validation. See also Section 3.1.3.
| |
| * Evaluation of Supports with Thermolag - Unit I cable fill weight is based on Cable Tray Fill Data Drawings. Unit 2 cable fill weight is taken as the full design weight.
| |
| Additional weight of Thermolag and tray covers is included, unless as builts confirm that hermolag or tray covers are not present.
| |
| See Section 3.2.7.25 (Cable Tray Modifications) for side rail extensions.
| |
| * Design Control and Quality Assurance Procedures - Ebasco's and Impell's procedures i for conna! of design validation calculations are consistent with the requirements of their respective company's QA manuals.
| |
| * Design Criteria Consistency with FSAR - Ebasco's and Impell's design validation proced.i. ensure conformance with CPSES FS AR [Ref. 73.2] commitments.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION
| |
| ! The following is a summary of the Third Pany evaluation of the approaches used by Ebasco and Impell to address the concems related to Design Control:
| |
| I TN 67 7259 3 36 DAP.RR C/S-001, REV.1 I
| |
| (.
| |
| | |
| j Deden Changes and As. Built Conditions The Third Pany concurs that concems raised under this collective issue are adequately covered by the as built pmgram. See also Section 3.2.3.
| |
| Evaluation of Supports with Thermolag - The Thirti Pany has confirmed that Ebasco's and Impe11's procedures contain adequate provisions to ensure that the weight from Thermolag and other tray components is appropriately considered.
| |
| See Section 3.2.7.25 (Cable Tray Modifications) for side rail extensions.
| |
| Design Control and Quality Assurance Procedures The Third Party has confirmed that Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures are govemed by the requirements of their respective QA manuals [Refs. 7.2.!J and 7.3.15).
| |
| e Design Criteria Consistency w!th FSAR 'Ihe '!hird Pany has confirmed that the criteria in Ebasco's and Impell's pmcedures are consistent with the CPSES FSAR. This was accomplished in accordance with the commitment review effort described in Section 3.1.2 of this report.
| |
| CONCLUSION The use of as-built data in the design validation of cable tray system componerus and Ebasco's
| |
| )
| |
| and Impell's QA programs adequately addresses concems raised by this issue. The issue of 7 -
| |
| design contmlis closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.22 Design Of Support No. 3136, Detail"5" Drawing 2323-S-0905 O - oEsCR - '
| |
| Suppon No. 3136, located at the Auxiliary Building / Safeguards Building boundary, is embedded in a fire wall. Concems were raised regarding the original design calculations for this suppon:
| |
| e
| |
| *Ihe support is classified as Seismic Category I, while it is embedded in Seismic Category D wall. Justification for this conflict in design classification was not provided.
| |
| * Nojusufication was provided for not considering tomado depressurization loads.
| |
| * Errors were found in the finite element model and in the calculations.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY 1solated caans of cable tray hangers supponed from Category II structures are identified and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The designs of Seismic Category U structures are validated the CE>-CAP, which has the responsibility for addressing concems related to tomado depressurisellen loads and errors in finite element models.
| |
| Support No. 3136 is in Ebasco's scope of work. For design validation of this suppon, Ebasco assumed that the Seismic Category H structures do not provide suppon for the cable tr.., system.
| |
| However, the effects of structure response on the support were considered in design validation.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUATION Third Pany review of Ebasco's calculation for Suppon No. 3136 (Ref. 7.5.90] confirmed that the effects of structure response wets considered in design validation of this support.
| |
| TN 67 7259 3-37 DAP.RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| CONCLUSION ._
| |
| O Concems relatedIo design adequacy of Suppon No. 3136 are resolved by de considering the effects of secondary wall response on attached suppe ts. Concems related to design adequacy of Seismic Category 11 structures are the responsibility of the C/S-CAP. The issue of design of Support No. 3136, Detail "5" Drawing 2323-S-0905 is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.23 - Loading in STRESS Models I
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems wem raised regardmg the analytical results obtained from finite element analyses of follow: hangers using the computer program TIRESS. Specific concems regarding thsie analyses some Tray Load AppHcation Points - On standard suppon models, tray loads were applied at the beam / post intersection instead of at an appropriate location within the span.
| |
| e Tributary Lead Calculations - Applied loads were based on tributary tray spans that did not account for installation tolerances.
| |
| Modeling of Support Frame Height - The standard suppon models did not use dimensions from the face of the concrete to the centeriine of members.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY Ebasco's and Impell's approaches to address these concems are summarued in the following p e Tray lead Appucation Points - Ebasco's and Impell's procedures require load to be y applied at the centerhne of the trry for RSM analysis. For ESM analysis. Ebasco's procedures mquire vertical and longitudinal loads to be applied at the centerline of the )
| |
| tray. Transverse loads are applied at the beam / post intersection. )
| |
| Tributary Lead Calculations shn and Impell validate the designs of cable tray supports spans.
| |
| based on as-built drawings which document actual hanger dimensions and tray Modeling of Support Frame Height - Ebasco and Impell design validation procedures specify the use of centeriine to centerline d!mensions for model development. )
| |
| i THIRO PARTYEVALUATION The computerpsogram STRESS has not been used in the design validation of hangers by Ebas or Impell. '!he Third Party review of Ebasco's and impell's methods for addressing the general concems of this issue were evaluated as foHows:
| |
| Tray 14sd Application Points - The Third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation pmcedures and related special studies (R<fs. 7.2.23 and 73.23) confirmed that load from trays is applied to the suppon beam at the actual location of the tray on the suppon, in all cues, except for the application of transverse load in ESM analysis used by Ebasco. In this case the Third Pany concurs that transverse load may be appropriately applied at the beam / post intersection of hangen, rmher than at the true tray i location. See also Section 3.2.7.24 (Vertical and Horizontal Eccentricity and Torsion of Tier Members).
| |
| TN47 7259 3-38 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| e Tributary Imad Calculations - The Third Party review of the as built procedures (Refs.
| |
| 7.1.Jand 7.1.4) confirmed that appropriate hanger dimensions and tray spans are i obtaified for use in design validation. l Modeling of Support Frame Height - The Third Pany review confirmed that Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures prescribe appropriate dimensions for elements of cable tray suppon models.
| |
| CGNCLUSION Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures have adequately addressed the generic concems raised in this issue. The issue ofloading in STRESS models is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.24 Design Of Flexural Members ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding Gibbs and Hill's design of flexural taembers for the effects of load application eccentricities, bolt holes, weld undercuts, and torsional shears on member !
| |
| capacity, as well as the use ofimproper unbraced lengths of compression flanges to determine allowable bending stres6es. These concerns are discussed below:
| |
| e Vertical Eccentricity - Major axis bending of tier members under transverse load due to vertical eccentricity tw&a,;a the tray center and tier member neutral axis was ignored.
| |
| SuWnt analyses used tojustify this position were based on questionable assumptions about tier end fixity and unrealistic tray clamp behavior, e
| |
| Horizontal Eccentricity - Minor axis bending of tier members under transverse load due O
| |
| to horizontal eccentricity between beam neutral axis and clamp bolt holes in the top :
| |
| flange was not considered. Hole gage tolerance was not considered, and the assumed behavior of tray clamps may have been unrealistic.
| |
| Torsion of Tier Me=r@ers - Torsion in the tier induced by vertical loads due to horizontal eccentricity between tier shear center and clamp location was ignored, and torsional moment under tray longitudinal loads due to vertical eccentricity was ignored.
| |
| As a resuh, tiermembers were only evaluated for direct shear. Combination of direct shear and torsional shear should have been considered.
| |
| Bolt Holes and Wald Undercut - Reduction in secdon property due to flange holes was no't considtred consistently and the effects of weld undercut in reducing section ,
| |
| l properties were ignored. See aho Section 3.2.7.9 and Section 3.2.7.4 (Weld Undercut). '
| |
| L e
| |
| 1N ; f 4 langth of Compression Mange - Capacity reduedon due to the unsupponed length of the compression flange, per the AISC spectication, was not property crweidaed. Unrealistic tray clamp behavior assumpdons were used to justify l Ignosing capacity reduction. Compression of the bottom flange due to sidesway and seismic uplift was not considered. See also Section 3.2.7.14 (Unbraced Imgth) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco and Impell have addressed these concerns by providing requirements in their design validation procedures as discussed below:
| |
| TN-87 7259 3 39 DAP.RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| i c
| |
| Vertical Siid Horizontal Eccentricity - Ebasco and Impell pmcedures require that O. eccentricities be modeled in the analytical models to produce realistic major axis and minor axis bending of tier members.
| |
| l Torsion of Tier Members - Torsion due to vertical loads and horizontal loads has b addressed by Ebasco and Impell by incorporating eccentricities in their analytical models.
| |
| The torsional stresses (including warping effects) are required by Ebasco and Impell to be combined with the direct (flexural) shear stsesses.
| |
| Bolt Holes and Weld Undercut - See Section 3.2.7.9 and Section 3.2.7.4 (Weld Undercut).
| |
| * 1 Unsupported Length of Compression Flange See Section 3.2.7.14 (Unbraced Length) and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| THIRO PARTYEVALUATION
| |
| 'The Third Party nyiew of Ebasco and Impell methods addressing the concerns of this issue are discussed below:
| |
| e Vertical Eccentricity For equivalent static analyses, Ebasco applies a major axis bending moment equal to the applied transverse load dmes the vertical distance from the
| |
| < j tier centmid to the bonom of the tray. For system analyses, both Ebasco and Impeu include a vertical eccentricity equal to the distance from tray mid height to tier centroid. j
| |
| '!he ' third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures and related special studies [Rgs 7.238 and 73.23] confirmed that the effects of vertical eccentricity between the tray and tier are appropriately accounted for by incorporating such eccentricity in the analytical models.
| |
| * Horizontal Eccentricity - For equivalent static analyses, Ebasco applies a minor axis bending moment equal to the applied transverse load times the horizontal distance td a. the tier centmid and the clamp bolt location. For system analyses Ebasco includes a horizontal esw ;cky equal to the distance from the centroid of the web to the shear center of the tier. Impell neglects the honzontal eccentricity between the tier centroid and the location of the tray clamp and has shown in M 12 (Ref. 7J.23] that the effect of this eccentricity is not significant.
| |
| The % Party review of EbasWs and Impell's design validation procedures and related special studies [Rgs. 7.238 and 7J.23] confirmed that the effects of horizontal ie- ;&isy between the tray and tier are appropriately accounted for by irmorporating such eccentricity in the analytical models.
| |
| * Torsion etTier Members - Methods for calculating torsional stresses (including warping) hr various sections, e.g., channels and T- channels (Refs. 7J.23 and 7332),
| |
| were reviewed and found acceptable. The design validation procedures for combining torsional shear with flexural shear were also reviewed and found to be adequate.
| |
| Bolt Holes and Weld Undercut - See Section 3.2.7.9 and Section 3.2.7.4 (Weld Undercut).
| |
| * Unsupported Length of Compression Flange - See Section 3.2.7.14 (Unbraced Length)
| |
| [ and Section 3.2.7.18.
| |
| l l
| |
| TN 87 7259 3 40 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1 i . .
| |
| | |
| m7 CONCLUSION All concems related to the design of flexural members have been adequately addressed b Ebasco's closed.
| |
| and Impell's design validation procedures. 'Ihe issue of design of flexural members 3.2.7.25 Cable Tray Qualification ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding Gibbs and Hill's qualification of cable trays. Specifically:
| |
| * Dynamic Amplification Factor - Cable trays were qualified by equivalent static analysis without using a dynamic amplification factor.
| |
| Cable Tray Capacity - Testing and qualification of trays was based on an 8'-0" simple span. For evaluation of trays with rpans greater than 8' 0", a capacity comparison was made based on the total load on the tray (rather than on the bending moment in the tray Capacity comparisons based on tray bending moment would result in lower tray ca for tray spans g1 eater than 8'-0".
| |
| Cable Tray Modifications There are several instances of modifica' ions to cable trays without justificadon or documemadon.
| |
| - Side rail extensions were added to increase tray depth, but no qualification for the modified tray segments was available.
| |
| - Modificadons were mede to standard splice connector plates without any documentation tojusdfy acceptability.
| |
| Cable Tray Moment ofInertia - Cable tray moment ofinerda for horizontal transverse loading ofladder-type trays was based on observed tray deformadons in tests assumin that all deformations was flexural; shear deformations were not considered. This assumption affects tray properties used in support frequency and displacement calculations.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY Ebasco's and Impell's methods for addressing these concems are described below:
| |
| Dynamic Amplification Factor - When ESM analysis is used (by Ebasco) cable trays are qualified using a 1.25 dynamic amplification factor. When RSM analysis is used (by! '
| |
| either RSM analyses.
| |
| Ebesco or Impell) cable : rays are qualified using loads obtamed directly from the Cable Tray Capacity Ebasco and Impell qualify cable trays with simple spans greater than 8'-0" based on the ultimate moment capacities obtained fmm tests of trays with 8' 0~
| |
| simple spans. Cable tray capacity for spans greater than 8' 0" are based on comparisons of tray bending moment, rather than total load on the tray.
| |
| Cable Tray Modifications Cable trays, fittings, and splice plates are qualified based on as built data which includes documentation of modifications to cable tray components.
| |
| e Side rail extensions are relatively light components and stmetural credit is not taken for these extensions. Ebasco includes the weight of side rail extensions in the qualification ,
| |
| l i
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| 1 of trays. Impell excludes the weight of side rail extensions, based on the results of a special sandy.
| |
| Splice plates are qualified separately fmm trays and fittings based on a combination of test and analysis. Modified splice plates in Unit I were identified through walkdowns and dimensions were obtained by as-builting. Specimens representative of modified splice plates were tested to detennine capacity. A similar appmach is in progress for deviant splice plates in Unit 2.
| |
| * Cable Tray Moment ofInertia In the moment ofinertia computations, the measured test deformation, which includes both shcar and flexural, is equated to a flexural formula for a simply-supported beam. In the design validation procedure, trays are considered as Dexural members using these properties. Impell provides justification for this approach in a special study.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The '1hird Party's evaluation ofEbasco's and Impell's methods for addressing the concems identified in this issue are discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| * Dynamic Amplification Factor *!he Third Party concurs with Ebasco's use of 1.25 -
| |
| dynamic amplification factor for qualification of cable trays by ESM analysis. i I
| |
| Ebasco's and Impell's cable tra) qualificadon procedures (R</s. 7.2.41, and 7J.8] were reviewed and found acceptable. Loads obtained from RSM analysis inherernly include the effects of dynamic amplification. )
| |
| j
| |
| * Cable Tray Capacity - The 'Ihird Pany review of Ebasco and Impell cable tray
| |
| (
| |
| t quall Acation procedures [Refs. 7.2.41, and 7.3.8] and related special studids (Refs. 7.2.14, ,
| |
| 7.2.15,7.2.16, and 73.66) confirmed that capacities of trays with spans greater than 8'-0" are appspriately extrapolated from the results of tests of trays with an 8' 0" span on the basis of the bending moment in the tray.
| |
| * Cable Tray ModlAcations - The 'Ihird Party review of cable tray, Atting and sp12e plate qualiAcation procedures [Rgfs. 7.2.41, and 73.8) and related special studies (Refs. 7.2.14-7.2.17,7.239,7.2.40,73.42 and 73.66) confirmed that these components are properly quallAed using as-built properties.
| |
| The 'Ihird Party concurs with the findings of M 39 [R<fs. 73.47) that the weight of side rail extensions can be ignored in qualification of cable trays.
| |
| 'Ihe Third Party review of Ebasco's and Impell's qualification procedures for splice plates [Agfs 7.2.41, and 7J.8) conArmed that modified splice plates are property q= Mad by test and analysis. Review of the selection methods and test results (Refs.
| |
| 7.2.40 and 7.4.9) conRaned that the capacity of modified splice plates in Unit 1 (T.J.
| |
| I Copy trays)is properly established. Use of the same approach (Rgf. 7.2.45) will resolve modified splice plates concerns for Unit 2 (Bumdy/ Husky trays).
| |
| * Cable Tray Moment ofInertia The 'Ihird Pany review of M-66 (R<f. 7J.66) confincad that trays may be appropriately modeled as flexural members (i.e., shear need not be considered in deterrnining response in the transverse direction of the tray).
| |
| O TN 67 7259 3-42 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1 1
| |
| | |
| a CONCLUSION O All concemsIalsed by this issue are adequately addressed by the use of as-built da Ebasco's and Impell's cable tray qualification procedures and related special studies and tests. !
| |
| The issue of cable tray qualification is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.26 Base Angle Design ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding Gibbs and Hill's design of base angles. SperLal]y:
| |
| Stiffening Effects of Concrete - Base ang!:s were modeled as simply supported beams, ignormg stiffening effects of concrete, e i Principal Axis Properties - In design of base angles for various loadings, the principal I axis properties were not considered.
| |
| I Richmond Icsert Spacing In the " Working Point Deviation Study" (Ref 7.63] of brace connection eccentricities, the most critical spacmg of Richmond Inserts was not considered in determinmg base angle lengths.
| |
| Design Adequacy - Assurance was not provided that the base angles for all supports were adequately designed.
| |
| 3 RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY I Ebasco and Impell have addressed the above concems as follows:
| |
| O e Stiffening Effects of Concrete - Ebasco and Impell ignore the stiffening effects of concrete in stress analysis of base angles, since this is a conservative approach for design validation. Concrete stifthess is included in calculations of base angle flexibility and used in the deter:nination of support stiffness.
| |
| Prindpal Axis Properties - Ebasco considers the principal axis properties of angles in design validation. Impell evaluates base angles using geometric axis properties and applies a correction factor so account for the difference between geometric and principal axis properties.
| |
| * Richmond Insert Spacing -The designs of base angles are validated based on as built data, which include Richmand Insen spacing.
| |
| * Design Adequacy 'the designs of all base angles have been validated in accordance with EbesWs and Impell's procedures.
| |
| i THIRO PARTYEVALUATION '
| |
| Ebasco's and Repell's methods addressing the concerns raised in this issue were evaluated by the Third Pany as follows:
| |
| * Stiffening Effects of Concrete - The Third Pany concurs that ignoring the stiffening ;
| |
| effects of concrete is conservative for stress analysis of the specific base angle '
| |
| configuration of concem. See also Section 3.2.73 (Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumption).
| |
| * Principal Axis Properties Ebasco's use of principal axis properties of base angles in
| |
| (< design validation has been confinned by a review of the General Instructions [Ref 7.2.1].
| |
| l TN-871259 3-43 DAP RR C/S 001 REV.1
| |
| | |
| The1hird Pany has reviewed Impell Study M 12 (Ref 7.3.23] and concludes that ImpeH's use of a conection factor and bending stresses based on the geometric axis of r' base anglesis acceptable.
| |
| Richmood Insert Spacing - The Third Pany has confirmed, through reviews of as built pwceduwe [Rgfs. 7.1J and 7.1.4), that Richmond Insert spacing is being documented.
| |
| The use of as-built data in design validation addresses this concem adequately.
| |
| * Design Adequacy Since the designs of all angles are validated, this concem is not applicable. j j
| |
| CONCLUSION All concems identified in this issue are adequately addressed by Ebasco's and Impell's design !
| |
| validation procedures and the use of as built data. The issue of base angle design is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.27 Support Qualification By Similarity ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding Gibbs and Hill's qualificadon of supports based on similarity to other suppons. SpecificaUy:
| |
| * Qualification by Similarity - In design calculations, some suppons were qualified by their similarity to other suppons, without adequatelyjustifying the assumpdon of mellarity.
| |
| * Allowable Working Point Deviations - Allowable working point deviations for i
| |
| i individuauy designed zuppons were established based on similarity to standard suppon types, without adequate justificadon.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETN000 LOGY j
| |
| Ebasco has smuped cable tray supports on the basis of similarity, considering support geometry, l connection details, and other relevant amibutes. When details of a gmuped suppon differ from the representative support, separate design validation of such details is performed.
| |
| Impeu does not use the PWon by similarity approach irs design validation.
| |
| i THIRD PARTYEVALUATION i
| |
| The 1hird Party review of Ebasco's grouping preadures, documented in Volume I, Books 4 and
| |
| {
| |
| 8 (R<fs. 7.2.20 and 7.2.24), found that the suppon selected to si,.at a gmup of suppens is conservatively diossa with consideration of all relevant cable tray hanger attributes.
| |
| This issue is not applicable to Impell since each suppon is qualified individually.
| |
| CONCLUSION Concems raised in this issue are satisfactorily addressed by Ebasco's procedures for grouping !
| |
| suppons. This issue is not applicable to Impell's design validation procedures. 'the issue of
| |
| * suppon qualification by similarity is closed.
| |
| O TN-87 7259 94 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1 i ..
| |
| | |
| c , -ui 4:
| |
| 3.2.7.23 TriticalSupport Configurations And Loadings
| |
| \
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION
| |
| 'lhe original design calculadons for trapeze type suppons considered only a limited number of critical suppon configurations and loading partems. Other suppons were qualified by comparl to these critical conngurations and loading patterns. *The following specific concems were raised I reganting these calculations:
| |
| * Critical Connguration - Aspect ratios used in calculadons for trapeze supports may not represent critical configurations for all suppon components. Frame width assumptions were unrealistic.
| |
| * Critiesi IAnding - Design calculations for frame members in trapeze suppons assumed l symmetricalloads; actual tray loads are often asymmetric.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY I Ebasco and Impell address the concerns described above as follows:
| |
| {-
| |
| * Critical Configuration - Aspect ratios have not been used to validate the designs of l
| |
| suppons. The conHguration of supports used for design validation are based on as built drawings.
| |
| * Critical Leading - Suppon loading conditions are based on as-built drawings which show the actual location of trays on tiers.
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION
| |
| .O The 'Ihird Party review of as-built procedures [Refs. 7.1J and 7.1.4] and Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed the following:
| |
| * Critical Connguration - Suppon geomeuies used in design validation adequately represent actual as built configurations.
| |
| * Critical Imading - Suppon loading condidons used in design validadon are based on the actual locadon of trays on suppon tiers.
| |
| CONCLUSION The use of as-built support configuradons and loading conditions adequately addresses concems raised in this issue. 'Ihe issue of cridcal suppon conagurations and loadings is closed.
| |
| 3.2.7.29 Cumulative Effect Of Review issues ISSUE DESCRIPTION A concern was expressed by Cygna that small nonconservatisms resulting from separate issues may have a significant cumulative effect for supports affected by more than one issue.
| |
| RESOLUTION METH000 LOGY
| |
| '!his issue is inherently addressed by the comprehensive engineering approach to the design validadon of the electrical cable tray raceways. 'Ihe overall design validation approach has addressed and resolved each of the generic technical issues both individually and collecti TN47 7259 3-45 DAP.RR.C/S 001, REV 1
| |
| | |
| Jl I
| |
| {
| |
| provided 100% as4uilt documentation of the cable tray system designs including resolution of improperinstallation or construcdon, and confinned the conservatism of the approach through extensive testing. '!his ensures that the margin of safety in the cable tray systems is acceptable. )
| |
| 1 THIRD PARTY EVALUATION I The Third Party concurs that the overall approach followed by Ebasco and Impell, namely the as-builting program, design validation procedures, and confirmatory testing, provides reasonable assurance that CPSES cable tray systems possess adequate safety margins.
| |
| L CONCLUSION The issue of cumulative effects of review issues is closed.
| |
| j i
| |
| 3.2.7.30 Cable Tray System Damping Values !
| |
| ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding the validity of 4% damping for OBE and 7% damping for SSE used in design validation of cable tray systems.
| |
| RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY l
| |
| Results of full-scale cable tray system dynamic tests have demonstrated the validity of using 4%
| |
| and 7% damping in the evaluation of OBE and SSE seismic loads, respectively.
| |
| THIRD PARTYREVIEW The Third Party review of the usults of the cabic tray system dynamic tests (Rg. 7.4.2] and Impell's System Analysis / Test Conelation Study [Ref. 7J.7/] found that the effective damping of CPSES cable tray system configuradons exceeds the 4% and 7% damping ratios permitted by the FSAR for design of bolted-steel structures. The Third Party concurs with the use of 4% l i
| |
| damping for OBE and 7% damping for SSE design validation of CPSES cable tray systems. {
| |
| )
| |
| CONCLUSION '
| |
| Full scale dynasn' ic tests of sy.eaative cable tray systems confirmed the validity of design validating cable tray systems using 4% damping for the OBE and 7% damping for the SSE. 'Ihe issue of cable tray system damping values is closed. j 3.2.7.31 Modeling Of Boundary Conditions ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised agarding anchorage boundary conditions, including the effects of l
| |
| oversized bolt holes, and the techniques used to represent anchorage behavior in analytical '
| |
| models.
| |
| RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY i I Ebasco and Impell include anchor bolt stiffness and base plate flexibility in modeling boundary l
| |
| conditions of support anchorages. See also Section 3.2.7.3 (Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumpion).
| |
| TN 87 7259 3-46 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| \
| |
| The effects of oversized bolt holes on anchcrage behavior are not explicidy considered{
| |
| validation. 'The cable t ay system dynamic tests have shown that dynamic response of a cable O. tray system with slightly loose anchorages is no greater than the response of the same cab system with tight anchorages. i 1
| |
| THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The 'Ihird Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures confirmed that appropriate boundary conditions are used to model base plate flexibility in cable tray suppon anchorages. See also Section 3.2.7.3 (Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumption).
| |
| 'Ihe review of system test results [R<f. 7.4.2] confirmed that dynamic response of a cable tri system with slightly loose anchorages was no greater than the response of the same cable tray system with tight anchonges. The Third Pany concura that the effects of oversized bolt holes on cable tray system response need not be considered in design validation.
| |
| CONCLUSION Ebasco's and Impell's design validation procedures adequately address concems raised in this issue. The issue of modeling of boundary conditions is closed.
| |
| 1 i
| |
| )
| |
| (]
| |
| t TN 87 7259 3-47 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| ==
| |
| 4.0 SELF-INITIATED REVIEW O All of the Third Pany review activities required by DSAP VIII for the review of cable tray / supports design adequacy are extemal source issue reviews or corrective action overviews.
| |
| There are no self-initiated reviews associated with this scope.
| |
| O O
| |
| 1 l
| |
| TN-87 7259 1 4-1 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| s 5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION u
| |
| For the purposes of this report, Corrective Action is defined as Ebasco's and Impell's implementation of theirprocedures for their respective cable cay / supports scopes defined in Attachment 2 of DSAP VIII. This includes obtaining as built data and requalifying 100% of the cable trays and supports for both Units 1 and 2.
| |
| The Third Pany review of Ebasco's and Impell's cable tray / supports design validation p c:edures and supponing documentation for overall adequacy and resolution of external source issues is discussed in Section 3.0 of this Report. This Third Party review concluded that these procedures contain the appropriate methodology to resolve extemal source issues and are in conformance with applicable CPSES criwita =d commitments.
| |
| ' The responsibility for overview of Ebasco's and Impell's Conective Action has been transferred from the Third Pany to '.he TU Eleerric QA Technical Audit Program (Reference Revision 4 of the CPRT Program Plan) before any substantive review work was concluded. Documentation of the limited Third Pany Corrective Action overview that was completed has been transmitted l
| |
| [Refs. 7.5.78 and 7.5.94) to the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program.
| |
| 1-i i
| |
| O l
| |
| l i
| |
| O TN-87 7259 51 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| (3 D
| |
| | |
| ==6.0 CONCLUSION==
| |
| S This report presents the results of a Third Pany review of the design adequacy of cable tray / supports at the CPSES. The scope of Third Pany overview included evaludon of the Project's resolution of external source issues, as well as assessment of the Project's design validation pmcedures for compliance with FSAR criteria and TU Electric licensing commitments.
| |
| The Third Party identified thirty-one extemal source issue groups that encompass the issues discussed in the extemal source documents listed in Attachment A. For each issue group, the Third Party has reviewed pertinent Ebasco and Impell design validation procedures, special studies , and test program results that address and resolve the concerns raised. The Third Party has also reviewed these documents for compliance with the CPSES FSAR and licensing commitments.
| |
| i The 1hird Party has concluded that the cable tray / supports design validation program being conducted by Ebasco and Impellis comprehensive and capable of resolving known technical issues and assuring that CPSES cable tray / supports designs will meet the FSAR and licensing commitments.
| |
| V(h i
| |
| l l
| |
| l i TN-87-7259 61 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV '
| |
| | |
| e n
| |
| -V
| |
| | |
| ==7.0 REFERENCES==
| |
| 7.1 TU ELECTRIC DOCUMENTS 7.1.1 "CPRT Program Plan", Rev. 4.
| |
| 7.1.2 TU Electric CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
| |
| t 7.1.3 l
| |
| TE FVM CS 001," Field Verification Method Unit 1 Cable Tray Hangers As.
| |
| Builting and Design Adequacy Verification Program", Rev. 7, with Interim Change Notice OCN) No.1.
| |
| 7.1.4 TE FVM CS 003,"Pield Verification Method Unit 2 Cable Tray Hangers As-Builting and Design Adequacy Verificadon Program", Rev. 2. .
| |
| 7.1.5
| |
| ! QI-QP-11.10 9, " Modification, Rework and As Built Inspection / Verification of Cable Tray Hangers in Unit 1", Rev. 6. I 7.1.6 t
| |
| QI-QP-11.10 2A, " Inspection of Unit 2 Cable Tray Supports", Rev.10. I
| |
| ~
| |
| 7.1.7 CP-El 4.0 68, " Cable Tray Hanger As Built Drawing Development". Rev.1.
| |
| 7.1.8 TU Electric 1.mner'!3G 19043, dated 7/2/86.
| |
| 7.1.9 CP-El 4.0 49, '' Evaluation of'thermoLag", Rev.1.
| |
| l 7.1.10 CP-El 4.5-23, "CTH Unit 2 Engineering Walkdown" Rev. O. 1 7.1.11
| |
| ( CP-El.4.0 71, "CTH As Built Bolt Hole Verification, Unit 2", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.1.12 ECE-AIM, " Control of F2@maring h= ants" Rev.13, 7.1.13 ECE-1.01, "TU Electric Co. Engineering and Construction Engineering Procedures", Rev. O. ,
| |
| ! I l
| |
| 7.1.14 k TE FVM CS 019 " Field Verificadon Method Unit 2 Cable Tray Selected l Attributes As-Builting Program", Rev.1. j l
| |
| i 7.2 EBASCO DOCUMENTS 72 1 SAO CP34, " General Instructions for Cable Tray Hanger Analysis for Comanche Peak SES Nos. I and 2", Rev. I1.
| |
| ! 7.2.2 SAG-CP03, " Seismic Design Criteria for Cable Tray Hangers for Comanche Peak SES Unit 2", Rev. 9.
| |
| 7.2.3 SAG-CPO4, " Seismic Design Criteria for Cable Tray Hangers for Comanche Peak SES Unit 1", Rev. 6.
| |
| 7.2.4 SAG-CP05, " Specification for Dynamic Test of Cable Tray Hanger System for CPSES Units 1 and 2", Rev. 3.
| |
| O .
| |
| TN47 7259 71 DAP-RR-C/S-001, REV 1 ;
| |
| _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ l
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| 1 f
| |
| g- 7.2.5 SAG-CP08, " Specification for Static Testing of T.J. Cope Manufactured Ccble l
| |
| ( Trays and Finings for CPSES Units 1 and 2", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.2.6 SAG-CP09, " Instruction for Re Evaluation of Cable Tray Hangers Affected by i l
| |
| the longitudinal Tie of Transverse Hansen to the Tray for CPSES Unit 2", Rev.
| |
| 0.
| |
| 7.2.7 SAG-CP11. " System Analysis of Cable Tray and Hanger Assembly for Comanche Peak SES Units 1 and 2", Rev. 4.
| |
| * 7.2.8 i SAG-CP13. " Specification fcr Static Load and Hammer Test of Cable Tray j
| |
| ! Hangers" Rev.O.
| |
| j 7.2.9 Volume 1. Book 9. Pan 7. "Multimode Response Multiplier for Tray Clamps",
| |
| Rev.2.
| |
| 7.2.10 Ebasco Procedure PJ-2 CP, " Project Communication", dated 10/10/86.
| |
| 7.2.11 Volume 1, Book 25 " Reduced Section Pmperties for Channels" Rev. O.
| |
| I 7.2.12 Fhnem Study, " Effects of Bolt Hole Oversize on CTH System Adequacy", Rev.
| |
| , 3.
| |
| 7.2.13 Ebasco, " Manual of Procedures", Rev. 20, Appendices A. C, D, K. H. N, and Y.
| |
| 7.2.14 Volume 1 Book 1, Pan 1. " General Input Data", Rev. 3. 1 7.2.15 Volume 1 Book 1. Pan 2,"GeneralInput Data" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.16 Volume 1, Book 1, Part 3, " General Input Data", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.17 Volume 1, Book 1. Part 4 "GeneralInput Data" Rev. 4.
| |
| 7.2.18 . Volume 1, Book 2 " Computer Related Information", Rev. 3. I
| |
| (
| |
| 7.2.19 Volume 1. Book 3 " Prying Action Factors and Formulas for Evaluating Anchor
| |
| , Bolts" Rev.1, l
| |
| 7.2.20 Volume 1. Book 4 "CTH Geometry Grouping", Rev. 3.
| |
| i I
| |
| 7.2.21 Volene 1. Book 5, ' Torsion and Related Studies", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.2.22 Volume 1. Book 6. "CTH Buckling Study". Rev. 2.
| |
| l 7.2.23 Vohune 1 Book 7,' Cable Tray Hanger 14ad Application Location Studies".
| |
| Rev.1.
| |
| 7.2.24 Volume 1 Book 8 " Cable Tray Hanger Geometry Grouping", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.2.25 Volume 1, Book 9. "Orgamzation and Original Scope Summary Repon for MRM and Related Load Distribution Studies". Rev.1.
| |
| 7.2.26 Volume 1 Book 9,''Multimode Response Maltiplier Studies" Part 1, Rev. 2; g
| |
| Pan 2. Rev.1; Part 3 Rev.1; Pan 4 Rev. 2; Pan 5, Rev. O. ; Pan 6. Rev. O.
| |
| TN-87 7259 72 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| m
| |
| /'
| |
| > 7.2.27 Volume 1, Book 10. "Muldmode Response Multiplier Studies", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.2.28 Volume 1, Book 11. " Concrete Compressive S:sesses Under CTH Anchorage Shims and Base Plates", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.29 Volume 1. Book 12. "CTH Anchorage Base Plate Flexibility Study", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.30 Volume 1, Book 13. "CTH Tier Bolt Hole Edge Distance Study" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.31 Volume 1, Book 15, " Cable Tray Dynamic Load Redistribution Effects", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.2.32 Volume 1 Book 16 Secdon II,"Out-of Plumbness of L-Shaped Cable Tray Hangers," Rev. O.
| |
| ! 7.2.33 Volume 1, Book 17 " local Evaluadon of Cable Tray Mounted with C Clamps and Shims", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.34 Volume 1 Book 20,"CTH Weld Related Studies", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.2.35 Volume 1. Book 21 "CTH C1mnps Qualification Methodology Developraent",
| |
| Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.2.36 Volume 1 Book 22," Statistical Analysis of Bolt lioles/ Edge Distance in Cable Tray Hangers", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.2.37 Volume 1, Book 23, "MRM Studies for Actual Complex CPSES Cable Tray Systems", Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.2.38 Ebasco Services Inc., "CTH Anchor Bolt Interaction Ratio Inycntory", Rev. O, desed 6/17/87.
| |
| 7.2.39 Volume 1, Book 1. Part 5, " General Input Data", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.2.40 Volume 1 Book 1 Part 6 "GeneralInput Data".Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.41 SAGO 18, "Pmcodure for Qualification of Cable Trays for Comanche Peak SES Units 1 and 2", Rev.1.
| |
| 7h42 SAO-CP19. " Design Criteria and Procedures for Design Validation of Cable Trsy Omnps !br CPSES Units 1 and 2", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.2.43 SAGO 28 "Pmoedure for Screening of Cable Tray Hangers to Assess the Applicability of A 1.25 MRM in Equivalent Static Method Analysis in Hanger Design Validation for CPSES Units 1 and2", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.2.44 Valmne 1, Book 26 " Study of SAG-CPI 1 Modeling Procedure for CTH System Boundary Conditions" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.2.45 Ebasco letter No. EB T-3185, dated 7/1/87.
| |
| 7.2.46 Ebasco letter No. EB-T-1184, dated 10/21/86.
| |
| 7.2.47 Ebasco Letter No. EB-T-2860, dated 5/15/87.
| |
| TN-87 7259 73 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| i j
| |
| \
| |
| 7.?. 48 p Letter No. EB-T-3043, dated 5/22/87, 1 t
| |
| 7.2.49 Rhaun, " Position Paper on Base Metal Damage in Thermolagged Cnis ",Rev.
| |
| 7.2.50 Ebasco letter No. EB T 5620, dated 8/24/87.
| |
| 7.2.51 Ebasco Letter No. EB-T-5270, dated 7/1/87.
| |
| 7.2.52 Ebasco Letter No. EB-T-5297, dated 7/13/87.
| |
| 7.3 IMPELL DOCUMENTS I 7.3.1 Impell Report 0102101462, "CPSES Unit 1 Cable Trays and Supports Design t
| |
| Criteria and Methodology". Rev. 4.
| |
| 7.3.2 Impell, " Interface Control Instruction", Rev. 4.
| |
| \
| |
| 7.3.3 M 47, " Study of Predicdons Using 21, Tray Properties", Rev. O, l 7.3.4 Impell Instruction PI 02, " Dynamic Analysis of CaWe Tray Supports", Rev. 5, with Addenda 20 and 25. }
| |
| 7.3.5 j
| |
| Impell Instruction PI 03, " Design Validation of Cable Tray Supports", Rev. 4, .
| |
| with Addenda 17,22, and 34.
| |
| ,. 7.3.6 Impel 11nstrucuan PI 04, " Procedure for Obtaining Site Information". Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.7 Impeu Instruction PI 05 " Development of Buckling Coefficants for Cane Tray Suppons".Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.3.8 Impeu Instruction P! 06. %y and Clip Qualification" Rev. O, with Addenda 13,19,23, and 32, 7.3.9 ImpcD Instruction P!47, " Design Validation of Base Plates, Base Angles, and /
| |
| Embedment Planes", Rev. 3, with Addenda 14 and 18.
| |
| 7.3.10 . . . lmpell Instruction PI 08, " Cane Tray Fdi Loads", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.11 Impeu lastruction PI 11. "CaWe Tray System Analysis and Qualification s Clomeout". Rev. 2, with Addenda 25,30, and 31.
| |
| 7.3.12 tupou Instmetion PI-12, " Control of Design Changes to Cable Tray Hangers",
| |
| Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.3.13 Impeu. " Quality Assurance, Procedures", Rev.17.
| |
| i 7.3.14 M 01, " Component Propeny Data Base", Rev 4.
| |
| 7.3.15 M 02, "Fdlet Weld Properties", Rev. O. I 7.3.16 M 03, " Cane Tray Properties", Rev. 4.
| |
| 7.3.17 M-04, " Base , Angle Stiffness", Rev.1.
| |
| TN 87 7259 74 0Ap.RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| T I (i
| |
| 7.3.18 M-05, " HANG 10 Suppon Data Base", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.19- M-06, " HANG 10 Spectra Data Base", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.20 M 07, " HANG 10 lead Case Data Base", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.21 M-08, " HANG 10 Verification", Rev. 5.
| |
| 7.3.22 M 10. " Cable Tray Clip Angle Stiffness", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.23 M 12. " Qualification Procedures for Cable Tray Support Evaluations". Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.24 M-13, " Verification of Overlap Pmcedures", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.25 M 14 "Stiftness Approximation for Typical CTHs", Rev. 4.
| |
| 7.3.26 M 15, " Base Angle and Base Plate Interaction", Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.27 ' M-16. " Tray Properties y Verification", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.28 M 17. "TrayTorsional Resistance" Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.29 M 18, " Mass Point Spacing. Material and Section Propenies", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.30 . M-19, " Clip Stiffhess Production Values", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.31 M 20 " CHANGE Program Verification" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.32 M-21. "K-Value Data Base", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.33 M-22. "SUPERPOST, Automated Suppon Evaluation Program Specification",
| |
| Rev. 5.
| |
| 7.3.34 M 23, "SUPERPOTT Secuon Properties", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.35 M 24. "OE'!? ROP Support Data Base" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.36 M 25 " Prying Action Pactors for 2 Bolt Base Plates". Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.'37 M-26, " Evaluation of Seismic Anchor Movements", Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.3.38 M-27, "Ihennal Land Evaluation", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.39 M-28," Day Clamp Behavior" Rev. C.
| |
| 7.3.40 M 29 "Bsondening of Design Spectra", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.41 M 32,"VAX SUPERPIPE QA Verification" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.42 M 34,"StraightTray Allowables" Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.43 M 35," Elbow ABowables",Rev.1.
| |
| l 7.3.44 M-36 " Tee & Cross Allowables", Rev. O.
| |
| I i-7.3.45 M-37, "SUPERPOTT Properties of Miscellaneous Cross Sections", Rev.1.
| |
| TN 87 7259 75 DAP RR C/S-001, REV 1
| |
| | |
| 7.3.46 M03," Oversized Bolt Holes *, Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.47 M 39, " Side Rail Extensions", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.48 M-41, " Gusset Plate Allowables", Rev. 2. l 7.3.49 M 42,'" Stress Check for SUPERPOST T-Channel", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.50 M-43, " Cable Bus Section Pmperties", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.51 M-44, " Tier-to Post Weld Study", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.52 M 46, 'T-01annel Warping Behavior". Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.53 Not Used.
| |
| 7.3.54 }
| |
| M-49, " Seismic bad Combination Study", Rev. O.
| |
| {
| |
| 7.3.55 M 51, " Clamp Allowables from Test Data" Rev.1. l l
| |
| 7.3.56 M 52, " Cable Tray Torsional Moment Allowables", Rev. O.
| |
| , 7.3.57 M-53," Cable Tray Allowables-Reducer" Rev.1.
| |
| i 7.3.58 M 54, " Cable Tray Interaction Equations", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.59 M 56, " Refinement Techniques for Effective Length Factors", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.60 M 57, " Refined Out of Plane Bending for Loaded Tiers", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.61 M-58," Hidden Attributes Qualification Procedures: Evaluadon of Hidden Welds and Members Substitution", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.62 M 59, ''Evaluadon of T-Channel Stitch Welds and Web Czippling", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.63 M 60, " Verification of Project Specification Fortran Program", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.64 M-61, "PI-07, Spread-Sheet Program QA Verification", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.65 M-65, "Evaluadon of Potential Bolt Holes in Tier Members", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.66 M-66, 'Tr.i.isiac Behavior of Cable Trays", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.67 M-68,"Evaluadon of Diamond Cored Bolt Holes", Rev. O.
| |
| {
| |
| 7.3.68 M 69, " Evaluation of As Built Measurement Tolerances", Rev. O. t 7.3.69 Impell Letter No. IM-T-0210 040 238, dated 5/15/87.
| |
| 7.3.70 l Impell Study B 04, " Effective Length Factors for Longitudinal Cable Tray Suppons," Rev. 0.
| |
| I 7.3.71 Impell Repon 09-0210@l7, "CPSES Cable Tray System Analysis / Test Correlation" Rev.O.
| |
| v 1 s
| |
| i TN-87 7259 7G l DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| 7.3.7L Impell Report 09-0210 0018, " Slenderness Ratio Limits for CPSES Cable Tra Suppons", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.73 Not Used.
| |
| 7.3.74 Impell Repon 010210-1470, " Effective Length Factors for Buckling of Cable Tray Suppons", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.75 Impell Special Study No. 5.9, " Oversize Bolt Holes", dated 6/6/86.
| |
| 7.3.76 Impell Study B-03, "Effeedve Length Buckling Factors", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.3.77 Impell Report 01-02101484, " Specification for Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray Clamps", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.78 SUPERPOST, " Verification Procedures", Versions 1 A,2A,2B,3A,3B and 3C.
| |
| 7.3.79 Computer Outputs for Verificadon of SUPERPOST Versions 1 A,2A,2B,3A, 3B, and 3C.
| |
| 7.3.80 SUPERPOST, " User's Manual", Version 3B, Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.3.81 Hand Verification for SUPERPOST Versions 2B,3A,3B, and 3C.
| |
| 7.3.82 SUPERPIPE Computer Program, Version 19A, Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.3.83 Impell letter No. IM T 0210040122, dated 9/11/86.
| |
| ( 7.3.84 Impell letter No. IM T4210 040160, dated 11/13/86.
| |
| 7.3.85 Impell Letter No. IM T 0210440 244, dated 5/3W87.
| |
| 7.3.86 Impell Calculation No. TCl PTI, " Post Test Analysis, Test Configuration #1",
| |
| Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.87 Impell raladarion No. TC2 PTI, " Post Test AnrJysis, Test Configuradon #2",
| |
| Rev.1,
| |
| ~
| |
| 7.3'.88 Impell Calculation No. TC3 PT1,
| |
| * Post Test Analysis, Tes: Configuration #3",
| |
| Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.89 Impell Calculation No. TC4 PTI, " Post Test Analysis, Test Configuration #4",
| |
| Rev.1.
| |
| 7.3.90 Impell Calculation No. TC6-PTI, " Post Test Analysis Test Configuration #6",
| |
| Rev.1.
| |
| 73.91 Impell Calculation No. TC7-PTI, " Post Test Analysis, Test Configuration #7",
| |
| Rev.1.
| |
| J 7.4 TEST LABS DOCUMENTS O 7.4.1 ANCO N==nt No. A 000150, " Test Plan - Dynamic Testing of Typical Cable Tray Support Configurations" Rev.1.
| |
| TN 87 7259 7-7 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| , 7.4.2 ANCO Document No. A 000181," Final Summary Repon Comanche Peak Cable l
| |
| l
| |
| , TriyTests" Rev.1.
| |
| ! ((/
| |
| 7.4.3 ANCO Document No. A 000173, " Test Plan - Load and Modal Testing of Selected Cable Tray Raceway Suppons", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.4 CCL Pmcedure No.1903.20-1, " Test Plan - Static Tests of Cable Trays and Fittings", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.4.5 CCL Pmcedure No.1903.22-1, " Test Plan . Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray Camps". Rev.1.
| |
| 7.4.6 CCL Repon No. A 717-86, " Test Repon for Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray Camps for CPSES",Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.7 CCL Repon No. A 719 86, " Test Repon for Stade Testing of Cable Trays and Fittings for CPSES", Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.4.8 ANCO Document No. A-000179, " Test Repon for Static / Cyclic Testing of Selected Raceway Cable Tray Suppons", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.9 CCL Repon No. A 744 87," Test Repon for Cable Tray Deviated Splice Test with TJ Cope Trays" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.10 CO Repon No. A-738 87, " Test Report for Cable Trays Shim Test for CPSES",
| |
| Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.4.11 ANCO f*=nt No. A 000182, " Data Package for Case 1; Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.4.12 ANCO h nt No. A 000183, " Data Package for Case 2; Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests". Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.13 ANCO N-:- - - ; No. A 000184, " Data Package for Case 3; Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.14 ANCO M-:=--E No. A 000185, " Data Package for Case 4; Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.15 ANCO R- =; No. A-000186, " Data Package for Case 6: Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests", Rev. O. f 7.4.16 ANCO k-: =4 No. A 000187, " Data Package for Case 7: Comanche Peak CableTroy Tests " Rev.1.
| |
| i 7.4.17 ANCO Dem No. A-000190, " Tests to Determine Dynamic Characteristics of Case 7 Bart Supports", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.18 CO Report No. A443 87," Summary Ten Repon for Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray clamps for CPSES", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.4.19 CCL Repon No. A 721 86, " Test Repon for Additional Monotonic and Cyclic lO Tests of Cable Tray Camps", Rev. O.
| |
| l
| |
| {
| |
| 4 TN-87-7259 7-8 l DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1 l
| |
| l
| |
| - - 1
| |
| | |
| 7.5 DAPPEVIEW DOCUMENTS 7.5.1 DAP-E-C/S-101, "1.25 Multimode Response Multiplier", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.2 DAP-E-C/S-102, " CTS As-Builting Procedures-Unit 1", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.3 D'AP-E-C/S 103,"K Factor Studies", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.4 DAP-E-C/S-104, " CTS Component Propenies Drabase". Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.5 DAP-E-C/S-105," CTS NCIG Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.6 DAP E C/S 106, "Slendemess Ratio L!mits", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.7 DAP-E-C/S-107, " Prying Action Factors". Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.8 DAP-E-C/S-108, "Ebasco Torsional and Related Studies", Rev. 4.
| |
| 7.5.9 DAP-E C/S 109, "Ebasco Cable Trey Hanger Load Application Studies", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.10 DAP-E-C/S-110. " Cane Tray Clamp Stiffhess" Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.11 DAP-E-C/5-111. "Modeling of Cable Tray Systems", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.12 DAP-E-C/S-I!2 " CTS-Computer Related Studies", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.13 DAP-E C/5 113. " Cane Tray Stiffhess". Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.14 DAP-E-C/S-115. " Hanger Support Qualification", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.15 DAP-E-C/5-116, " HANG 10 input". Rev. 3.
| |
| 7.5.16 DAP-E-C/S 117. "SUPERPOST and GETPROP Review", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.17 DAP E-C/5-118. "Rebroadened Response Spectra Darshaw", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.18 DAP-E-C/S-119, "7hermal I. cads", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5;1.9 DAP E C/S-120," CTS Anchorage Qualification" Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.20 DAP-E-C/S 121 "CTH Bolt Hole Edge Distance", Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.5.21 DAP-E C/S-122, " Side Rail Extensions", Rev. 2.
| |
| 73.22 DAP-E-C/S-123 "CTH As Built Procedures-Unit 2", Rev. 2.
| |
| i 7.5.23 DAP-E-C/5-124. " Cane Tray / Fining / Splice / Clamp Qualification", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.24 DAP E-C/S 125,"Impell As Built Measurement Tolerances", Rev.0.
| |
| 7.5.25 DAP-E-C/S 126 "hwMsible Fillet Weld Sizes",Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.26 DAP-E-C/S 127. "Impell SUPERPOST Computer Program", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.27 DAP-E-C/S 128, " CTS Dynamic Test Plan", Rev.1.
| |
| TN 87 7259 79 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| .. 3 7.5.28 DAP E-C/S-129 " Cane Trayfitting Stade Test Plan" Rev.1, 7.5.29 . DAP-E-C/S 130, " Cable Tray Cltmp Test Plan", Rt.v.1.
| |
| 7.5.30 DAP-E-C/S 131," CTS Dynamic Test Results", Rev. O.
| |
| 1 7.5.31 DAP E C/S-132, " Cane Tray / Fitting Test Results", Rev. 2.
| |
| 1 7.5.32 DAP-E C/S-133, " Cane Tray Clamp Test Results", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.33 DAP-E-C/S 137,"Suppoit from Category II Structurts" Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.34 DAP-E-Cs5-138, "Mllet Weld Properties", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.35 DAP E-C/S-139," Base Anchorage Stiffhess",Rev.0.
| |
| 7.5.36 DAP E-C/S 140, "Sdffness Evaluation of Typical CPSES Cable Tray Hangers",
| |
| Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.5.37 DAP-E-C/S 141, " Seismic Anchor Movements". Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.38 DAP-E C/S 143, "CTH Out-of-Plumbness" Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.39 DAP-E C/S 144," Unit 1 As-Built Drawings", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.40 DAP-E-C/S 145, "CTH Cyclic load Hammer Test Plan", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.41 O 7.5.42 DAP-E-C/S 146, "CI11 Cyclic Load Hammer Test Results", Rev. O.
| |
| DAP-E-C/S 147, " Test Venfication of Aralytical Methods", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.43 DAP-E-C/S 148, " Evaluation of Ebcsco Design Verificadon Pmcess", Rev. O.
| |
| {
| |
| 7.5.44 DAP-E-C/S 149, "Ebasco's Considerwion of System Effects in ESM Analysis",
| |
| Rev. 0. '
| |
| 7.5.45 DAP-E-C/5-150, "SUPERPIPE Cornputer Program - Impell". Rev. 0.
| |
| 1 7.5.46 ''DAP E-C/S 151, "Ebasco Twir. Bucklmg". Rev.1.
| |
| 1.5.47 DAP E C/S 152, " Attachment W, Ebasco Design Criteria". Rev. 0.
| |
| j 7.5.48 DAP-5 C/S.153, "Ebasco Kl/r Requirements", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.49 DAP-E C/S 154, "MRM for Cable Tray Clamps", key.1.
| |
| .. l 7.3.50 i DAP-E C/S 155, "As-Built Inspecdon/ Verification", Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.5.51 DAP-E-C/S-156, "Mmimum Weld Size", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.52 DAP E-C/S-157, "Unh 2 As Built Drawings". Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.53 DAP E C/S-158, " Evaluation ofImpell Design Verification Process", Rev.1.
| |
| O J
| |
| TN-87 7259 7 10 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| --_ J
| |
| | |
| 7.5.54 !
| |
| p g DAP-E-C/3160,"Impell Pmcedures for Hidden Welds and Mernber Substitution," Rev. O.
| |
| x) 7.5.55 DAP E-C/S-161, " Cable Tray Component Capacities", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.56 DAP-E-C/S-162, "SUPERPOST Properties of Miscellaneous Cross Sections",
| |
| Rev.2.
| |
| 7.5.57 DAP E C/S-164," Gusset Plate Allowables Impell",Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.58 DAP E-OS-165, "SUPERPOST T-Channel Bendmg Stresses" Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.59 DAP-E-C/S 166, " Tier-to Post Weld Study -Impell". Rev.1. f 7.5.60 DAP-E-C/S 167, " Cable Bus Properties - Impell", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.61 DAP-E-C/S-168, "T-Channel Warping Stresses". Rev. O. l' 7Ji.62 i DAP-E-OS-169, "Ebasco Guidelines for the Stmetural Analysis of Cable Tray Systems", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.63
| |
| . DAP E-C/S 170, " Evaluation ofImpell Project Instruction PI 11", Rev.1, i t
| |
| 7.5.64 DAP E-C/S-171, " Unit 2 QC Procedure",Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.65 DAP-E-C/S 172, " Unit 1 Cable Fill Loads". Rev.1. i A
| |
| t-7.5.66 DAP-E-C/S-173, "Unh 1 Span I.cngths" Rev. O.
| |
| {
| |
| 7.5.67 DAP-E-C/S-174, "Impell Project Instruction PI-12", Rev.1. i 7.5.68 DAP-E C/S-175, " Seismic Imad Combination Methodology Review", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.69 DAP-E-C/5-176,
| |
| * Refined Outef Piane Bendmg Study". Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.70 DAP E-C/S 177,'T-Channel Stitch Welds and Web Crippling" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.71 DAP-E-C/S-178, "LCOMB Computer Program", Rev. 0.
| |
| 7.5.72 DAP-E C/S-179, " Engineering Evaluation ofImpell Report M-61, P147 Spread Sheet Verincation",Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.73 DAP-E-C/S-180, "Im,xll Calculation on Bolt Holes in Tier Members", Rev.1.
| |
| 7.5.74 DAP-E-C/S-181, " Bolt Hole / Edge Distance Statistics", Rev O.
| |
| I i
| |
| 7.5.75 DAP-E-C/S-182, " CTS -Inaccessible Attribute Design Verification Criteria",
| |
| Rev. 0.
| |
| l 7.5.76 DAP E-C/S-183, " Oversized Bolt Holes in CTS Anchorages", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.77 t DAP-E-C/S-184, " Reduced Section Properties for O'anrels" Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.78 'IENERA 1.cuer No. DAP-L-243. dated May 8,1987.
| |
| Os ;
| |
| 7N-87 7259 7 11 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ~i
| |
| () 7.5.79
| |
| -s DAP-CLC-OS 203,"Ebasco Design Procedure Review Checklist", dated v 4/15/87. -
| |
| 1
| |
| {
| |
| 7.5.80 DAP-CLC-C/S-403, "Impell - Design Procedure Review Checklist", dated i
| |
| 4/15/87, I 7.5.81 DAP CLC-C/S 201, "Ebasco - Design P4ccedure Review Checklist", dated 7/31/86. i 745.8 2 DAP CLCG202,"Ebasco Design Procedure Review Checklist", dated 11/24/86.
| |
| 7.5.83 DAP-CLC-C/S-401, *1mpell - Desi nS Pmcedure Re. view Checklist", dated 7/31/86. ,
| |
| }
| |
| 7.5.84 l DAP-aC-C/S-402, "Impell - Design Procedure Review Checklin", dated 11/24/86.
| |
| 7.5.85 DAP CR-C/S-001,"C/S Design Criteria List" Rev.2.
| |
| 7.5.86 \
| |
| DAP-CLA-C/S 012, " Design Criteria Review Checklist for Cable Tray / Conduit Suppons", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.87 DAP-E-C/S-190, "K-Factors for I. longitudinal Supports", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.88 DAP-CLC C/S-204, "Ebasco Design Pmcedure Review Checklist", dated o 9/25/87.
| |
| 7.5.89 DAP-CLC C/S-404, "Impell - Design Procedure Review (%+i"", dated 9/25/87. ,
| |
| 7.5.90 DAP E-C/S-187, " Review of Ebasco's CTH Procedure Related Issues", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.91 DAP E C/S-188, " Review of Impell's CTH Procedure Related Issues", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.92 Design Adequacy Program Procedures.
| |
| 7.5.93 ' DAP E-C/S-189, "Impell System Modeling Techniques", Rev. O.
| |
| 7.5.94 TENERA Letter No. DAP-L-246, dated May 22,1987.
| |
| 7,6 OTHER DOCUMENTS 7.6.1 AISC " Specification for the Design Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings",in Manual of Steel Construction,7th Edition.
| |
| 7.6.2 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323 SS-30. " Structural Embedment". Rev. 2.
| |
| 7.6.3 j
| |
| l Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323 SC3-215C, " Working Point Deviation I Study" Sets 2-6.
| |
| 7.6.4 Nuclear Construction Issues Group (NCIG-01), " Visual Weld Acceptance
| |
| ( Criteria", Rev. 2.
| |
| TN-87 7259 7 12 DAP RR-C/S-001 REV.1 L__-_ - - -
| |
| | |
| -~
| |
| 7.6.5 ,, USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Rey,1.
| |
| 7.6.6 CYGNA Cable Tray Supports Review Issues List, Rev.12, dated 11/20/85.
| |
| 7.6.7 American Concrete Institute " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related C,ancrete Structures"(ACI-349 76).
| |
| 7 l
| |
| 4 O
| |
| V TN-67 7259 7 13 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| O ATTACHMENT A EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS f
| |
| 1 i
| |
| O !
| |
| l I
| |
| O .
| |
| TN 87 7259 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ._g
| |
| ;O
| |
| ~
| |
| ^rr^ca ~r ^
| |
| EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS i
| |
| -l
| |
| (
| |
| som.
| |
| Docwnsnt Dese l
| |
| B-- -;. Tide ASLB1 09/01/83 EOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND TO STRIKE ASLB 2 12/28/83 BOARD ORDER AND MEMORANDUM LBP-83 81:
| |
| (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN)
| |
| ASLB-3 02/08/84 MEMORANDUM AND BOARD ORDER LBP-8410:
| |
| (RECONSIDERATION CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANG POR DESIGN)
| |
| ASLB 4 06/29/84 ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP 84-25 (WRITIEN FILING DECISIONS,#1: SOME AWS/ASMEISSUES)
| |
| ASLB 5 12/18/84
| |
| - BOARD MEMORANDUM CONCERNING WELDING ISSUES ASLB 12/18/84 BOARD MEMORANDUM - REOPENING DISCOVERY: MISLEADING STATEMENT ASLB-7 07/29/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFr ASLB 8 07/3W82
| |
| .i ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-9 09/13/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-10 09/13/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-11 09/14/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT i ASLB 12 09/15/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFr ASLB-13 09/16/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 14 04/25/83 ;
| |
| ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB15 05/16/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT '
| |
| ASLB-16 05/17/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-17 05/17/83 )
| |
| ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRPT ASLB-18 05/14/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFr ASLB-19 05/19/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFr ASLB-20 05/2W83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-21 06/13/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT ASLB-22 06/14/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIPT ASLB 23 06/15/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-24 06/16/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFr ASLB 25 10/17/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 26 10/18/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr i
| |
| i TN47 7259 A1 DAP RR C/S-001, REV
| |
| * ATTACHMENT A- Continued O Source Document Das Documem Tide ASLB-27 02/20/84 ASLB PROGEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB 28 - 02/21/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-29 02/23/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 30 03/19/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS'IRANSCRIFT ASLB 31 03/20/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-32 03/21/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIPT ASLB 33 03/22/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB-34 03/23/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRIFT ASLB 35 03/3W84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 36 04/18/84
| |
| ! ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRPT ASLB-37 04/24/84 ASLB PRO EDINGS TRANSCRPT ASLB 38 04/25/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT ASLB 39 04/2W84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFr l ASLB40 04/27/84 ASLB PRO EDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB41 05/01/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT ASLB42 05M2/84 O- . ASLB43 05/03/84 ASLR PROGEDINGS TRANSCRFT ASLB PROGEDINGS TRANSCRPT ASLB-44 02/22/84 ASLB PROGEDINGS TRANSCRPT ASLB 45 iQ/31/85 ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP 85-14 (PROCEDURAL RULING BOARD CONCERN ABOUT QA POR DESIGN).
| |
| ASLB46 02/28/84 1ELEPHONE CONPERENCE-TO DISCUSS SCHEDULING MATTERS RELATED TO MARCH 12 THROUGH MARCH 16 HEARINGS CASE-1 (T//29/82 CASE EXHIBIT 659 - WALSH TESTIMONY (EXH 659A H)
| |
| CASE 2 08/19/82 CASE EXHIBIT 669 DOYLE ORAL DEPOSITION (VOLUME I), EXHIBIT 669A - (VOLUME II). AND EXHIBIT 669B -(DEPOStrION EXHIBrrS)
| |
| CASE-3 09/13/82 CASE EXHIBIT 683 - DOYLE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY CASE 4 07/28/83 OBJECTION TO BOARD'S FINDINGS AND CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS'(T//15/83
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF THE RECORD REGARDING WEAVE AND DOWNHILL WELDING CASE-5 08/22/83 CASE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TN-87-7259 A2 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| ATTACHMENT A - Continued O sowce Doewnant Dese Doewnen Tide CASE-6 09/03/83 CASE'S MOTION REGARDING 09S7/83 CONFERENCE CALL CASE 7 11/10/83 CASE'S RESPONSE TO (1) APPLICANTS' BRIEF REG /JtDING BOARDINQUIRYINTO APPLICABILITY OF AWS AND CODES TO .
| |
| WELDING ON PIPE SUPPORTS AT CPSES: (2) NRC .i RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION ON CPSES WELDING CODE CASE 8 11/23/83 CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (AFFIDAVITS ON OPEN TIEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) I CASE-9 08 S 6/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING '
| |
| CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES IN THE DESIGN OFP!PE SUPPORTS WITH SMALL THERMAL MOVEMENTS CASE 10 !
| |
| 0846/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALI2GATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME O CASE 11 0846/84 CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO DESIGN ISSUES CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmONREGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADE IN DETERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS CASE-12 08/13/84 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS'MODONFOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSMONREGARDING CASE 1
| |
| - AU20AT10NS REGARDING SECTION PROPERTY VALUES CASE 13 08/20/84 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING U BOLTS ACTING AS TWO-WAY RESTRAINTS CASE-14 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING THE UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM CASE 15 08/27/84 !
| |
| CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OF FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN AXIAL RESTRAINTS TN-87 7259 A3 OAp.RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| b ATTACHMENT A - Continued O' Source Docurnent Dese Nment Tide CASE 16 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FALT AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING APPUCANTS' USE OF GENERIC STIFFNESSES INSThiAD OF ACTUAL IN PIPING ANALYSIS CASE 17 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO WALL AND FLOOR-TO-CEILING SUPPORTS CASE-18 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPUCANTS' STA'IEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING -
| |
| SAFETY FACTORS l CASE 19 08/29/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPUCANTS' STATEMENT OFMATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES d CASE 20 09/1W84 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT i OF MA'!ERIAL FACTS RELATING TO RICHMOND j INSERTS AS TO WHlCH THERE ARE NO !
| |
| MATERIALISSUES CASE 21 10SI/84 {
| |
| CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES CASE-22 ,
| |
| 1048/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDINO CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING DOWN OF U-BOLTS CASE-23 1Q09/84 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPUCANTS'REPLYTO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPUCANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES CASE 24 IWI3/84 ATTACHMENTS TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| f j
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDINC CONSIDERATION OF !
| |
| CINCHING DOWN OF U BOLTS I
| |
| TN-87 7259 A4 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| - - - - - - --- -----~-~-- - -~-- ~ -~ -
| |
| ~1 o
| |
| ATTACHAENT A - Continued s_.
| |
| Documem Date Document Tide CASE 25 10/15/84 DOCUMENTS ANDINFORMATIONREQUESTED BY CASE REGARDING APPLICANTS' MCmON FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS CASE 26 10/18/84
| |
| ; CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OFPIPING ANDPIPE SUPPORTS FOR CPSES CASE-27 10/18/84 CASE'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO APPLICANTS REGARDING CROSS OVER LEO RESTRAINTS CASE 28 10/30/84 CASE'S 2ND PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS CA%29 11/20/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS' CD '"""^*' "''" '* * *" ^*"'" MOTION ' " "FOR LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM CASE 30 12/19/84 CASE'S 4TH ROUND ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING THE EFFECTS OFGAPS CASE-31 01/17/85 CASE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE-32 02bl/85 CASE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE:
| |
| CREDIBILITY CASE 33 02/25/85 CASE'S FOURTH SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE-34 02/25/85 CASE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE 35 03/04/85 CASE'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE 36 04/26/83 SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE (CASEEXHIBIT761 AND ATTACHMENTS)
| |
| CASE 37 04/28/83 SUPPLEMENTARY SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE (CASE EXHIBIT 762)
| |
| TN-87 7259 A5 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT A - Continued O Sowce Document Dem Documers Tide CASE-38 05/04/83 SUPPLEMENTARY SURREBLTITAL TESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE (CASE EXHIBIT 763 AND ATTACHMENTS)
| |
| CASE 39 11/04/83 CASE RESPONSE TO NRC AFFIDAVITS ON OPEN j TIEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE l
| |
| ALLEGATIONS CASE-40 j 11/28/83 CASE'S ANSWER TO BOARD's 10/25/83 .
| |
| MEMORANDUM (PROCEDURE CONCERNING !
| |
| QUALITY ASSURANCE)
| |
| CASE-41 02/01/84 f CASE'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS FOR $
| |
| RECONS"S ERATION OF BOARD'S MEMORANDUM t AND ORDER (QUALTTY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN)
| |
| BY APPLICANTS ANDNRC STAFF CASE-42 08/13/84.
| |
| CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STA1EMENT i OF MA1ERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF l GAPS ON STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR UNDER SEISMIC LOADING CONDITIONS 6 CASE-43 05/04/83 SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF MARK ANTHONY WALSH
| |
| , CASE 44 10A2/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASES'S ANSWER TO APPLICARTS' MOTION REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADEIN DETERMINING DAMP!NG FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSELOADING CONDITIONS.
| |
| CASE 45 12/19/85 CASE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' 11/12/85 CHANGES TO AFFIDAVTTS IN SUPPORT OF '
| |
| APPLICANTS' MOTIONS FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSITION.
| |
| IAP-1 10/12/84 COMANCHE PEAK INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT TR 83090 01, REV. O IAP-2 11/20f84 COMANCHE PEAK INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT (PHASE 3) TR 84042 01 IAP-3 03/14/85 TUGCO/CPRT MEETING TO DISCUSS FINDINGS PROM INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM l IAP 4 04/04/85 1 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - PIPE STRESS & PIPE SUPPORTS {
| |
| IAP 5 04/04/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS & CCNDUITSUPPORTS IAP-6 04/04/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMITTAL -
| |
| ELECTRICAI/l&C TN 87-7259 A6 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| 4 L-
| |
| ]v. source ATTACHMENT A -Continued Document Dess N _ w tTide IAP-7 ' 04/04/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMITTAL -
| |
| MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 1AP-8 04/04/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - DESIGN CONTROL IAP-9 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST 1RANSMTITAL - PIPE STRESS (REV.1) & PIPE SUPPORTS (REV.1)
| |
| IAP-10 04/23/85 REVIEWISSUES USTTRANSMITTAL CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV. 9) & CONDUIT SUPPORTS (REV.1)
| |
| IAP-11 04/23/85 REVIEWISSUES USTTRANSMTITAL-ELECTRICAUI&C, REVISION 1 IAP-12 04/23/85 REVIEWISSUES UST1RANSMTITAL-MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, REVISION 1 IAP-13 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - DESIGN CONTROL, REVISION 0 1AP-14 06/21/85 REVIEW ISSUES UST TRANSMTITAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS, REVISION 10 IAP-15 06/21/85 K tqEWISSUESUSTTRANSMITTAL-DESIGN COl , .0L, REVISION 1 IAP 16 08/13/85 RW &WISSUES UST1RANSMITTAL- CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV. II) & CONDUTT SUPPORTS (REV. 2)
| |
| IAP-17 08/13/85 REVIEWISSUES USTTRANSMTITAL -
| |
| MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, REVISION 2 IAP-18 08/13/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMITTAL-ELECTRICAUI&C REVISION 2 IAP-19 05/15/84 IAP PHASE 4 - SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANTS' PLAN TO RESPOND TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUAUTY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN),
| |
| MARCH 13,1984 IAP 20 1Q09/84 CYGNA LTR. 84056.032 - REACTOR COOLANT T!! RAMAL B ARRIER RUPTURE l IAP 21 1W22/84 CYGNA LTR. 84056.035 - Ri'iACTOR COOLANT 1 PUMP THERMAL BARRIER RUPTURE-CLARIFICATION IAP 22 01/18/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.022 OPEN TTEMS ASSOCIATED %TTH WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS IAP 23 01/25/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.050 STATUS OFIAP CONCLUSIONS ALLPHASES TN47 7259 A7 DAP RR-C/S-001. REV
| |
| * 1
| |
| % 1 ATTACHMENT A - Continued O ,_
| |
| Document Dune Document Title i
| |
| IAP-24 01/31/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.025 PHASE 3 - WALSH/DOYLE I ALLEGATIONS (RICHMOND INSERT ALLOWABLES AND BENDING STRESSES)
| |
| IAP 25 01/31/85 CYGNA L11. 84056.053 - PHASE 4 OPEN ITEMS (PUNCHING SHEAR)
| |
| IAP-26 02M8/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.021 - PHASE 3 OPEN ITEMS (MASS PARTICIPATION AND MASS POINT SPACING)
| |
| IAP-27 02/12/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.041 - CABLE TRAY SUPPORT REVIEW QUESTIONS IAP-28 02/19/85 CYGNA L'IR. 84042.035 - STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS IAP-29 03/08/85 CYGNA LTR. 83090.023 - RESPONSE TO NRC i QUESTIONS IAPPHASES 1 AND 2 I
| |
| IAP 30 03/12/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.058 - PHASE 4 OPEN ITEMS (PUNCHING SHEAR)
| |
| IAP-31 03/25/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.036 PHASE 3 OPEN ITEMS O
| |
| 4 (CINCHING OF U-BOLTS)
| |
| IAP 32 {
| |
| 03/29/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.060 - GENERIC ISSUES
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| IAP- ALL PHASES i IAP-33 11/2Q/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV.12)
| |
| IAP 34 11/20/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - CONDUIT i SUPPORTS (REV. 3)
| |
| MAC-1 05/17/18 MANAGEMENT QUALTTY ASSURANCE AUDIT NRC-1 02/15/83 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM (STT) REPORT (50 445/82 26X50446/82-14) AS A RESULT OF WALSH/DOYLE CONCERNS NRC-2 04/11/83 CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL INSPECTION (CAT) ;
| |
| 50 445/83 18.50 446/83-12 i NRC-3 08/29/83 NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED INTTIAL DECISION NRC-4 08/3043 NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION NRC-5 10m3/83 REGIONIV CAT FOLLOW-UP REPORT NRC-6 10/28/83 l NRC STAFFRESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION REGARDING APPLICABLE WELDING CODES AT TN47 7259 A-8 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| .I A'ITACHMENT A - Continued sowce Os Docenen: Dess honent Title NRC 7 07/13/84 1 COMANCHE PEAK SPECIAL REVIEW TEAM REPORT NRC 8 l 11/02/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSITION ON AWS AND ASME j CODE PROVISIONS ON WELD DESIGN NRC-9 09/30/85 STAFF EVALUATION OF CPRT PROGRAM PLAN, REVISION 2. DETAILED COMMENTS / CONCERNS NRC-10 07/01/81 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG 0797)
| |
| NRC-11 104)1/81 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.1 NRC-12 01M1/82 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2(NUREG 0797)SUPPLEMENTNO.2 NRC 13 03/01/83 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG 0797)SUPPLEMENTNO. 3 NRC 14 11/01/83 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG-0797)SUPPLEMENTNO. 4 NRC 15 11/01/84 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO. 6 NRC-16 0141/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT- OSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO. 7 NRC-17 02/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG-0797)SUPPLEMENTNO. 8 NRC-18 03/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT- OSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG 0797)SUPPLEMENTNO.9 NRC-19, 04/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| 2 (NUREG-0797)SUPPLEMENTNO.10 NRC 20 05/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT- CPSES UNITS 1 &
| |
| ' 2 (NUREG 0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.11 NRC 21 09/02/82 NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH I. TAPIA AND W. PAUL CHEN IN REBU' ITAL TO THE
| |
| *mSTIMONY OF MARK ANTHONY WALSH h CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS NRC-22 05/13/83 INSPECTION REPORT 50-445/83-12: 50446/83 07 -
| |
| INSPECTION CONDUCED BY J. I. TAPIA AND W.
| |
| PAUL CHEN j
| |
| NRC 23 12/13/83 AFFIDAVITS OF JOSEPH I.TAPIA AND W. PAUL l CHEN ON OPEN ITEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE CONCERNS NRC-24 01/12/83 NRCINSPECTION REPORT 82 30 TN 87-7259 A-9 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| 4 0
| |
| ~ ATTACHMENT A -Continued sowce
| |
| ((~~)% Document Due Docu= a2 Title NRC 25 01/08/85 NRC LE~ ITER TO TUGCO RE: TRT QA/QC FINDINGS (ATTACHED TO NRCT 6).
| |
| NRC 26 05/30/85 NRC REGION IV INSPECTION REPORTS 2/17/84 THROUGH 5/30/85.
| |
| NRC-27 10/11/84 NRC INSPECTION REPORT (50-445/84 22)(50 446/84-07)-INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED UNDER RESIDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM 05/19/84 THROUGH 07/21/84 NRC 28 02/27/79
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF FEBRUARY 13,1979 MEETING ON AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH QUESTIONS NRC-29 11/17/80 LETTER, Ri. TEDESCO TO R.J. GARY RE: SERVICE INSPECTION OF PRESSURE ISOLATION VALVES -
| |
| NRC-30 01/14/81 LETIER, R.L.TEDESCO TO R.J. GARY RE:
| |
| PRESERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF SNUBBERS NRC 31 10/14/82
| |
| 'IRIP REPORT-AUDTT OF TUSI DOCUMENTATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATIONOF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR CPSES 1 AND 2
| |
| NRC-32 10/29/82 SSER INPUT ON SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELA 1ED ELECTRIC AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT NRC 01/31/83 REGION IV RESPONSE TO R.J. GARY LETTER ON SYSTEMA 11C ASSESSMENT OFLICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
| |
| NRC 34 07M/83 SUBMITTAL OF INTERIM STAFF E7ALUATION OF
| |
| * THE ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN DESIGN FOR THE CPSES NRC-35 01/24/84 SER UNRESOLVEDISSUES REQUIRING RESOLUTION PRIOR TO LICENSING CPSES UNTT 1 NRC 36 01/24/84 SER OUTSTANDING ISSUE (1), " PROTECTION 1 i
| |
| AGAINST EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WTTH THE POSTULATED RUPTURE OF PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT" j NRC-37 02/13/84 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION NRC-38 05/17/84 TRANSMTITAL OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE SER FOR COMANCHE PEAK NRC-39 STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (UNITS 1 AND 2) 09/12/84 ,
| |
| - NRC STAFF CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW '
| |
| REPORTFOR THE CPSES TN47-7259 A 10 DAP-RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| F 4
| |
| ATTACHMENT A - Continued sowce Docwnen: Date Document Tide NRC-40 , 09/18/84 COMANCHE PEAK REVEW ' '
| |
| NRC 41 11/13/84
| |
| ' ACCEPTABILITY OF ASME CODE RELEF REQUESTS PERTAINING TO THE PRESERVICE INSPECTION (PSI) PROGRAM FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 NRC-42 11/19/84 ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 6 TO THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT NRC-43 06M5/85 USE OF ASME CODE CASES N-397 AND N 411 FOR THE CPSES (UNITS 1 AND 2)
| |
| NRC-44 0607/85 '
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OFMEETING BETWEENNRCSTAFF AND TUGCO TO DISCUSS THE COMANCHE PEAK FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM NRC-45 06/10/85 ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENT NO. I1 TO NUREG-0797 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC-46 07/24/85 RESPONSE TO L.D. BtJITERFIELD'S MAY 16,1985
| |
| /~~ s REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ONTHE WESTINGHOUSE OWNERS GROUP (WOG)
| |
| GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING SUBMTITALS REQUESTING NRC APPROVAL OF REACTOR TRIP TECH. SPEC. CHANGES NRC 47 09/25/85 4 USE OF ASME CODE CASES N 397 AND N 411 FOR THE(PSES (UNTTS 1 AND 2)
| |
| NRCT-1 09/18/84 NRC 152 TECHNICAL REVEW EAM BRIEFING:
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK REVEW NRCT 2., 11/01/84
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OFMEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICANTS' PLAN FOR RESOLIJTION OF REQUESTS FOR ADDrTIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMANCHE PEAK ECHNICAL REVEW TEAM EFFORT DESCRIBED IN LETTER DATED 09/18/84 i NRCT-3 .12/2044 TRANSCRIPT CYGNA/NRC MEETING -
| |
| INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM !
| |
| NRCT-4 01/10/85 MEETING WITH CYGNA ON CPSES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (PHASE 3)
| |
| NRCT-5 01/15/85 MEETING WITH TUGCO CONCERNING THE 3
| |
| MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSITION ON QA/QC !
| |
| PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK !
| |
| TN-87-7259 A-11 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV 1
| |
| | |
| n
| |
| (,/
| |
| s.a.
| |
| Doewnem t
| |
| Dew '
| |
| ATTACHMENT A - Continued Documem Tide NRCT-6 01/17/85 MEETING TO DISCUSS TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM STAFF FINDINGS - COMANCHE PEAK NRCT7 02 S 7/85
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF Mr.ETING WITH CASE, TUGCO AND I NRC CONTENTION 5 PANEL CONCERNING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 AND TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE ASLB HEARINGS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1985 NRCT 8 02/26/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILmES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION- PIPING AND SUPPORT DESIGN NRCT9 02/27/85 MEETING BETWEEN1EXAS UTILmES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK S1EAM ELECTRIC STATION PIPING ANDSUPPORTDESIGN NRCT-10 03/06/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILmES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING CPSES - TRT TESTING PROGRAM ISSUES NRCT-11 03/07/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILITIES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING CPSES - MECHANICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS NRCT-12 04/26/85 CYGNA BRIEFING TO NRC MANAGEMENT ON COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM NRCT-13 06 S 6/84 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CAIL (06/06/84) TO DISCUSS VARIOUS MOTIONS FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON ON PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN AND QA l ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE !
| |
| APPLICANT '
| |
| NRCT-14 06/08/84 MEETING IN BETHESDA ON TECHNICAL DATA AND SUPPORTING MOTIONS FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmONS NRCT-15 06/11/84 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (NRC, CASE, TUGCO)
| |
| TO DISCUSS MOTIONS FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON ON PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN AND DESIGN QA TN47-7259 A 12 1 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| )
| |
| l
| |
| ~
| |
| - \
| |
| l - ATTACHMENT A-Continued Document Dess Ds .m Tide NRCT-16 , 10/23/84 MEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICANT'S PLAN FOR RESOLimON OFREQUESTS FOR ADDmONALINFORMATION FROM THE COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT) EFFORT 1
| |
| NRCT 17 03/23/85 MEETING TO CONDUCT FEEDBACK DISCUSSION
| |
| %TTH MESSRS. WALSH AND DOYLE REGARDING CONCERNS ABOLTTTHE COMANCHE PEAK PLANT NRCT-18 04/19/84 MEETING WTTH CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES ON INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (IAP) FOR COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-19 07/03/84 MEETING BETWEENNRC STAFF AND CYGNA -
| |
| 07/03/84 ,
| |
| NRCT 20 03/05/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UITLTTIES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - QA/QC, APPLICANTS' PROGRAM PLAN NRCT 21 06/20/84 NRC MElmNG TO DISCUSS SUBMTITED
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmONS NRCT-22 10/19/84 TUGCO MEETING WTTH NRC STAFF NRCT-23 11/13/84 PREHEARING BRIEFING NRCT 24 08/06/84 DISCUSSION ON MOTIONS FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON FILED BY APPLICANT, COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-25 08/08/84 QUESTIONS ON
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmONS FTLED BY TEXAS UTILmES ON COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-26 08/09/84 (HEAPJNG TRANSCRIPT) IN THE MATTER OF COMANCHE PEAK, TEXAS UTILITY NRCT-27 08/23/84 COMANCHE PEAK MEETING BETWEEN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND TEXAS UTILITIES-MOTIONS FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON '
| |
| I NRCT-28 06/13/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING OF 06/13/85 AND 06/14/85 NRCT-29 10M2/85 PUBLIC HEARING RE: HOMOGENEOUS HARDWARE POPULATION FOR CON 5"IRUCTION !
| |
| ADEQUACY REVIEW AND SWECREANALYSIS PROGRAM.
| |
| NRCT 30 06/13/85 NRCfTUGCO MEETING - VOLUME I - MORNING SESSION O
| |
| l I
| |
| TN-67 7259 A 13 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1 j
| |
| | |
| *i O Sowce Document Due ATTACHMENT A -Continued Document Tide NRCT-31 06/13/85 NRC<TUGCOMEETING VOLUMEII- AFTERNOON SESSION NRCT 32 06/14/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING - VOLUME I - MORNING !
| |
| SESSION NRCT-33 06/14/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING - VOLUME II - AFTERNOON SESSION NRCT-34 06/18/85 MEETING ON RECALCULATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA: COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-35 08/14/85
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL, THE APPUCANT, AND THE INTERVENER TO BRIEF THE COMANCHE PEAK PANEL ON THE ALLEGED DfTIMIDAT10N ISSUES AT COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-36 09/17/85 MEETING BETWEEN NRCSTAFF AND TEXAS UTILTI1ES GENERATING COMPANY TO DISCUSS
| |
| - THE OFFICIAL INSPECTION OF PAINTED SUPPORT WELDS n NRCT-37 10/18/85
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF 10/2-3/85 MEETING - B ASIS POR
| |
| () ESTABUSHING THE HOMOGENEOUS HARDWARE POPULATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REVIEW, AND THE STONE AND WEBSTER PIPE AND PIPE SUPPORTREANALYSIS PROGRAM NRCT-38 11/05/85 TUGCO MEETING WTTH NRC-CPRTMONTHLY STATUS -NOVEMBER 5 6,1985 - VOLUMEI NRCT 39 11/06/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC.CPRT MONTHLY STATUS - NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 - VOLUME !!
| |
| NRCT-40 11/05/85 HANDOUTS PROM PUBUC MEETING IN GRANBURY MOVEMBER 5 6,1985 NRCT-41 11/12/85 TRANSCRIPT OFPUBUC HEARING HELDIN DALLAS 1EXAS NRCT 42 12/18/85 TIJGCO MEETING WITH NRC CPRTMONTHLY STATUS NRCT-43 02K%/86 TUGCO NRC PUBUC MEETING, ARUNGTON, TEXAS TUGC-1 08/05/83 APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN j
| |
| THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION TUGC 2 08/29/83 TRANSMITTAL OF " DIRECTOR'S DECISION O UNDER 10CFR2.206" DENYING PETITION FILED BY MRS.ELLIS ON BEHALF OF CASE TN 87 7259 A 14 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV.1 L__---_--_
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMEM A - Continued w -.
| |
| ( Document Date Document Title TUGC-3 08/3043 APPLICANTS' MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR SPECIAL PROCEEDING, FURTHFR PROCEEDINGS (IP NECESSARY), AND FOR CLOSING RECORD AND FOR EXPEDITED REPLY TUGC-4 08/31/83 APPLICANTS'(1) ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD (REGARDING i WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) (2) REQUEST FOR EXPEDTTED RULING AND(3) MOTION FOR NOTICE OFINTENTTOIMPOSE SANCTIONS TUGC-5 09/06/83 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW (WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS)
| |
| TUGC-6 10/28/83 APPLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING BOARD INQUIRY INTO APPLICABILITY OF AWS AND ASME CODES TO WELDING ON PIPE SUPPORTS AT COMANCHE PEAK TUGC-7 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DEPOSIT REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADEIN DETERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS TUGC 8 05/17/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO DESIGNISSUES TUGC-9 05/18/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSMON REGARDING THE EPPECTS OF GAPS ON STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR UNDER SEISMIC LOADING CONDmONS TUGC 10 05/18/84 APPLICANTS' MCmON FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON OF CASE ALLEGATION RLJARDING SECTION PROPERTY VALUES TUGC-11 05/2044 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM TUGC-12 05/2044 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SAPETY FACTORS TUGC-13 05/21/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSMON REGARDING USE OFGENERIC STIFFNESSES INSTEAD OF ACTUAL TTIPFNESSES IN PIPING ANALYSIS O ~
| |
| TN 87-7259 A 15 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT A - Continued sowce _
| |
| Document Dese Doewnen: Title TUGC-14 05/23/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING U BOLTS ACTING AS TWO-WAY RESTRAINTS TUGC-15 06/02/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING DESIGN OF RICHMOND INSERTS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO SUPPORT DESIGN -
| |
| TUGC 16 06/I7/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSITION REGARDING STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC 17 06/18/84 APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES TUGC-18 06/22/84 APPLICANTS'MCmON FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON OF CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO-WALL. AND FLOOR-TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-19 06/29/84 O APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CINCHING DOWN OF U BOLTS TUGC 20 07/03/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmONREGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM POR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK S'IEAM EIECTRIC STAT 10N TUGC-21 07A)9/84
| |
| ', APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OF FORCE DISTRIBUTIONIN AXIAL RESTRAINTS TUGC 22 08/31/84 CORRECTIONS TO THE RICHMOND INSERT MCTTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON TUGC 23 09/19/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS'MOTlON FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF PRICTION FORCES TUGC-24 09/21/84 l APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO l APPLICANTS' MOTION REGARDING ALLEGED f ERRORS MADE IN DETERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS TN47 7259 A 16 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| _ __ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ' ' - - - - - ' ' - --
| |
| ATTACHMENT A -Continued Document Date Document Title TUGC-25 09/28/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES TUGC 26 104)l/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL l DISPLACEMENTS OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO-WALL, AND FLOOR TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-27 10/26/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING THE UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM TUGC 28 10/26/84
| |
| ., APPLICANTS' REPLY TO (1) CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF GAPS AND (2) BOARD CHAIRMAN'S " PRELIMINARY VIEWS"REGARDING ADDmONAL PLEADINGS O TUGC 29 11/02/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS TUGC-30 11/12/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING SECTION PROPERTIES TUGC-31 06A)6/83 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY
| |
| - REGARDING ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS FOR PIPING TUGC 32 09/14/82 *!ESTIMO.U.' OF KENNETH L. SCHEPPELE, ROGER F. REEDY, WTER S. Y. CHANG, JOHN C.
| |
| FINNERA) . AND GARY KRISHNAN REGARDING WALSH AI.L.EGATIONS TUGC-33 09/14/82 SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF KENNETH L.
| |
| SCHEPPELE, ROGER F. REEDY PETER S. Y.
| |
| CHANG, JOHN C. FINNERAN, AND GARY KRISHNAN REGARDING DOYLE ALLEGATIONS TUGC 34 09/13/84 DISCUSSION BETWEEN CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES AND TEXAS UTILmES GENERATING COMPANY AND EBASCO SERVICES,INC.
| |
| TUGC-35 05/21/85 TEXAS UTILITIES CPRTMEETING CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 05/21/85 AND 05/22/85 TN 87 7259 A 17 DAP RR C/S 001, REV '
| |
| | |
| O -
| |
| Document Dese ATTACHMENT A - Continued Document Tale TUGC 36 10/01/32 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, SELF-INITIATED EVALUATION TUGC 37 08/Oln8 LETTER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C SCHMIDT RE:
| |
| PRESSURIZER DISCHARGE P! PING CLASSIFICATION TUGC 38 08/1708 IEITER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C. SCHMIDT RE:
| |
| LICENSING QUESTION TUGC 39 08/24B8 MTTER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C. SCHMIDT RE:
| |
| CONFIRMATION OFINSTRUCTIONS -
| |
| CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURIZER S AFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PFING TUGC-40 03/1909 2 TIER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: UNrr NO.
| |
| '. 1 REACTOR VESSELNOZZLE WELD METAL DEFECTS TUGC41 08/10/79 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PPE SUPPORTS TUGC-42 09/11n9 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PPE O TUGC43 01/23/80
| |
| * = " - ===
| |
| LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDG RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC44 03/28/80 MTTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PFING MINIMUM WALL TUGC45 04/21/80 IE!7ER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: CLASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC46 04/15/80
| |
| " LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC47 06/19/80 IE!1ER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: PPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC-48 07/14/80 LETIER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE Rh.. . ASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC 49 09/18/80 LE1TER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: CLASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC-50 10/21/80 MTIER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SEIDLE RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC 51 12/16/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C SE!DLE RE: PFING MINIMUM WALL TUGC 52 01/12/81 LETTER, R.J. G ARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TN47 7259 A 18 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT A- Continued sowce n~,-3 Dess Documem Title TUGC-53 <
| |
| 04/13/81 LETTER, J.S. MARSHALL TO R.L.1EDESCO RE:
| |
| PRESERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF '
| |
| SNUBBERS TUGC 54 07/29/81 GTTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-55 06/03/81 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC-56 10 S 2/81 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-57 03/31/82 GTTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO S.B. BURWELL RE:
| |
| FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY OF CLASS 2 AND 3 BENDS ANDELBOWS TUGC-58 08/16/82 IEITER, RJ. GARY TO H.R. DENTON RE: DESIGN l up .
| |
| CERTIFICATION ' '
| |
| TUGC-59 05/13/82 GTIER, H.C. SCHMIDTTO S. BURWELL RE:
| |
| STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL CONTROL TUGC40 03 S 8/83 21TER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| ACCIDENT MONTTORING - S1EAM GENERATOR SAFETY VALVE POSITIONINDICATION TUGC41 03/29/83 IEITER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: VENDOR INSTALLED HVAC SYSTEM (SDAR 106 CP-83-06)
| |
| TUGC42 06/21/83 LETTER, RJ GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE:
| |
| COMPONENT COOLING WATER CLASS V PIPING {
| |
| (QA FIM: CP-8311,SDAR-111)
| |
| TUGC-63 M/22/83 ALTERNA1E SHUTDOWN-INTERIM STAFF EVALUATION TUGC-6'4 08/31/83 RESPONSE TO NRC NO11CE OF VIOLATION -
| |
| INSPECT 10N REPORT NO. 83-23, FINDING NO.1 TUGC45 100V83 SER TABLES ON EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION TUGC-66 01/05/84 IETTER H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| HIGH/ MODERATE ENERGY PIPE BREAK ANALYSIS TUGC47 02/17/84 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| REQUEST FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION TUGC48 0328/84 HUMAN FACTORS CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW- FINAL REPORT TUGC-69 04/06/84
| |
| } TUGCO COMMENTS ON CYGNA'S INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM O
| |
| TN 87 7259 A 19 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| i o
| |
| =
| |
| ATTACHMENT A - Continued Document - Dana Document Title TUGC 70 06/29/84 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION -
| |
| JUSTIFICATIONS FOR INTERIM OPERATION TUGC 71 09/28/84 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| IMPACT OF TEMPERATURE DUE TO MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT ON EQUIPMENT THAT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION TUGC-72 01/17/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT TUGC-73 02/14'B5 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| MAIN STEAM LINE BREAKS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT TUGC-74 04/09/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TUGC-75 04/23/85 LETIER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YCUNGBLOOD RE:
| |
| TEMPORARY CHANGES TO PROCEDURES O' TUGC-76 05/02/85 LEITER, J.W. BECK TO V.S. NOONAN RE:
| |
| ARBmtARY INTERMEDIATE PIPE BREAKS TUGC-77 06/07/85 12 TIER, J.W. BECK TO V.S. NOONAN RE: NRC GENERICLEITER 83-28 TUGC-78 07/10/85 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE:
| |
| RESOLUTION OF TMI ACTION TIEMS II.K.3.30 AND H.K.3.31 RELATED TO SMALL BREAK LOCA ANALYSIS TUGC-79 .. 07/15/85 12TTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE:
| |
| CLARIFICATION TO TEXAS LTTILTTIES LETIER TXX-4426 TUGC-80 IWI4/85 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE:
| |
| RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETIER 85 06 l
| |
| (ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOLTT SCRAM)
| |
| TUGC-81 12/2W85 LEITER, J.W. BECK TO E.H. JOHNSON RE:
| |
| DAMAGE STUDY EVALUATION OF l WESTINGHOUSE SDAR: CP 85 46 I TUGC 82 02/28/86 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: USE I
| |
| OF ASME CODE EDmON AND ADDENDA TUGC 83 12/15/86 TRANSCRIPT OF CYNGA/SWEC MEETING IN GLEN ROSE, TEXAS O v -
| |
| TN47 7259 A 20 DAP.RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| 9l 1]
| |
| 1 l
| |
| O Sowcs Document Dese A1TACHMENT A - Continued Document Tide TUGC-34 04/05/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATEDTO WELDING ISSUES REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE XASL 001 08/19/83 j MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -MOTION FOR i CLARIFICATION ON THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-002 07/06/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-003 .10/18/84 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - MORE DETAIL ON INDIVIDUAL PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-004 11/10/83 APFIDAVITOFJACK DOYLE XASL 005 10/06/83 PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (CHANGE IN
| |
| {
| |
| MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR A500 STEEL)
| |
| XCAS-001 08/16/83 l CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR l CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I ONTHERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS !
| |
| XCAS@2 07/15/83 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 07S6/87 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - THERMAL ;
| |
| STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XCAS @3 05/09/83 CASE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD's REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ASME APPENDIX XVII,2271.3, TO REST OF ASME CODE XCAS@4 10/06/84 CASE'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO
| |
| .. WHICH 11IERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CASE'S FIRST M0110N FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICANTS' DESIGN XCAS 005 09/26/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD'S PARTIAL INmAL DECISION REGARDING A500 STEEL XCAS@6 - 05/14/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO WELDING '
| |
| ISSUES XCAS-007 01/17/85 CASE'S 01/17/85 SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S t
| |
| ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL
| |
| , DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES i TN 67 7259 I A 21 DAP RR C/S 001, REV '
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| -)
| |
| 1 O
| |
| ATTACHMENT A-Continued
| |
| - j Docurnent Dess Cw.4n; Title XCAS 008 11/05/84 CASES ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD REQUEST FORINFORMATION REGARDING CINCHING DOWW U BOLTS XNRC-001 05/11/83 NRC STAFFRESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY REGARDING APPENDIX XVII OFTHE ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE XNRC-002 05/03/83
| |
| ! NRC STAFF REPLY TO CASE'S BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCA IN DESIGN CRITERIA POR PIPE SUPPORTS XNRC-003 04/29/83 NRC STAFF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER '
| |
| XNRC-004 04/20/83 NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CASE MOTIONS SEEKING ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS XNRC-005 06/02/82 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER SUPPORTING
| |
| ~
| |
| APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 5 XNRC-006 03/15/82 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO CPUR'S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL XNRC-007 09/28/84 l NRC STAFFRESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' AND CASE'S FINDINGS OFFACT ON WELD FABRICATION XNRC-006 0242/84 NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CASE'S (1)
| |
| DECEMBER 23,1983 RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' IDENTIFICATION OFISSUES, AND (2) JANUARY 16,1984 CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES IN 12/23/83 PLEADING 4 l XNRC-009 02/06/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 12/28/83 l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUAIJTY ASSURANG FOR DESIGN)
| |
| XNRC-010 01/27/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN)
| |
| XNRC-011 12/13/83 NRC STAFF MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD TO ADMTT THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JAI RAJ N. RAJAN XNRC-011 12/13/83 ,
| |
| NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (AFFIDAVTTS ON OPEN TrEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS)
| |
| XNRC-013 10/28/83 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION O REGARDING APPLICABLE WELDING CODES AT CPSES TN 87 7259 A 22 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1 L__________
| |
| | |
| 4 O -
| |
| Doewnent Dese ATTACHMENT A-Continued P- ,- . ; Title XNRC-014
| |
| * 09/12/83 NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-445/83-24,50-446/83-15 XNRC-015 02/17/83 LETIER FROM G. L. MADSEN, CHIEF, REACTOR PROJECT BRANCH 1. TO R. J. GARY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, TUGCO XNRC-016 04/13/83 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
| |
| DOCKETNOS.50 445 AND 50 446 XNRC-017 03/17/83 LETIER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK S'!EAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
| |
| DOCKETNOS.50 445 AND 50 446 XNRC-018 02/22/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF - IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILT!1ES GENERATING COMPANY, ET O AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNTTS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50446 XNRC-019 02A)8/83 LETTER FROM NRC STAFF COUNSEL TO ASLB IN
| |
| 'IME MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS.50 445 AND 54446 XNRC-020 02/18/82
| |
| ~ LETTER FROM NRC STAFF COUNSEL TO ASLB IN THE MATTER OF'IEXAS UTILTTIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50 445 AND 50446 XNRC-021 03/27/83 LETTER AND REPORT EN'ITILED " REVIEW OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY usitzNS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY ABOUT CONDUCT OF REGION IV INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTION TO ASLB" XNRC-022 11A)4/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF IN 'IME MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET l AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) TOCKET NOS. 50 445
| |
| ^* ' ' ' ' '
| |
| O TN47 7259 A-23 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| {
| |
| I
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| }
| |
| h ATTACHMENT A -Continued f sowce .
| |
| Document Due f Dw .a.; Title l XNRC 023 11/01/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFIN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.(COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC tiTATION, UNTTS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50 445 AND 50446 XNRC-024 10/14/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFINTHE MATTER OF
| |
| *IEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50446 XNRC 025 12/31/84 LETTER FROM D. R. HUNTER, CHIEF, REACTOR PROJECT BRANCH 2,TO M. D. SPENCE, PRESIDENT,TUGCO XNRC-026 05/17/84 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND . )
| |
| XNRC-027 05/11/84 O ADDENDUM TO PAGE 27 OF NRC STAFF 1ESTIMONY ON WELDING FABRICATION CONCERNS RAISED BY MR. AND MRS STINES.
| |
| XNRC-028 04/24/84 LETTER FROM NRCTO APPLICATNTIN THE MATTER OF THE NRC STAFFREGIVING ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, ET. AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, UNIT 1 AND 2). DOCKET NS.50445 AND 50 446.
| |
| XTUG-001 - 02/18/87
| |
| ! APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENER,(SET NO.1987-4)
| |
| XTUG-002 08/02/83 APPLICANTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON THERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-003 05/11/83 APPLICANTS' SUPr'LEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF REGARDING PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN XTUG 004 05/03/83 APPLICANTS' REPLY BRIEF REGARDING '
| |
| CONSIDERATION OF LOCA IN DESIGN GITERIA FOR PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-005 04/21/83 APPLICANTS' BRIEFREGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THERMAL STRESSES IN DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS O
| |
| TN 87 7259 A 24 DAP.RR C/S 001 REV.1-
| |
| | |
| w ATTACHMF.NT A -Continued O Sowce Docwnent Data Documem Tide
| |
| _ l XTUG 006 , 07/03/84 I APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE RE APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR -
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION XTUG-007 06/29/84 APPLICANTS ' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING U BOLTS XTUG-008 06/18/84 '
| |
| APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OFLOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES XTUG-009 06/17/84 j APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS j AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-010 06/02/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO RICHMOND INSERTS AS TO WHICH THERE ARE NO MATERIALISSUES XTUG-011 05/20/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
| |
| {
| |
| AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE '
| |
| XTUG-012 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE i XTUG 013 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STA*IEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF PRICTION PORCES IN THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS WITH SMALL THERMAL MOVEMENTS XTUG-014 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING APPLICANTS' CONSIDERATION OF j
| |
| DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDITIONS -
| |
| XTUG 015 0641/83 COUNSEL FOR TUGCO RE: TEXAS ~UTILTTIES GENERATING CO., ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2)
| |
| DOCKET NOS. 50 445 AND 50-446 XTUG-016 11/19/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S MOTION CONCERNING INFORMATION REGARDING CINCHING DOWN U BOLTS O -
| |
| TN 67 7259 A 25 DAP-RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ? ATTACHMENT A -Continued O - soum Document Dese hv rat &
| |
| XTUG-017 11/16/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION REGARDING A500 STEEL XTUG-018 11/05/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (MORE DETAIL ONINDIVIDUAL PIPE SUPPORTS)
| |
| XTUG-019 07/11/84 1
| |
| COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS RE: 1EXAS LTTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2),
| |
| DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 XTUG-020 06/29/84 COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS - SUBJ. TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
| |
| - DOCKETNOS.50445 AND 50 446)
| |
| XTUG-021 06/17/84 LETTER FROM APPLICANTS' COUNSEL TO ASLB -
| |
| SUBJ.1EXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL.
| |
| (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNTTS 1 AND 2) DOCKETNOS. 50 445 AND 50446 XTUG-022 04/11/84 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION REGARDING A500 STEEL XTUG-023 06/02/84 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS, ET. AL.
| |
| (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, l UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2) DOCKET NOS. 50445 AND 50-446.
| |
| 4 O
| |
| TN-87 7259 A 26 DAP-RR C/S 001,9EV.1
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| ~"
| |
| O l
| |
| l ATTACHMENT B f
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF CABLE-TRAY / SUPPORTS-RELATED l EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES:
| |
| DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR) REPORTS BY !
| |
| SOURCE AND ISSUE GROUPS O
| |
| l 4
| |
| l O
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| DAP-RR-C/S-001, REV '
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| - ATTACHMENTS
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF CABLE-TRAY / SUPPORTS RELATED EXTERNAL SOURCEISSUES:
| |
| DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR) REPORTS BY SOU Issus Osoup No.
| |
| DIRs Related to and Deswapuon Issus Groups by Source Issues identified by Other Cygna Independent Assessmau Program QAP)
| |
| Sources (1)
| |
| IAP 16(13 1AP-33(1) Other LW13 _
| |
| 1 ControllingImd Case E-0185 forDesign E-0768- E-1019 (IAP 32) (NCRT-3)
| |
| E-1022 (NCRT-12)
| |
| E 1216 2 (ASLB-43)
| |
| Seisnic Response E-0186 Combination Method E4723 E 1023 E 0187 (IAP 23) (NRCT-12)
| |
| Q U
| |
| E 0764 GAP-32)
| |
| E 0766 3
| |
| QAP-32)
| |
| Anchor Bolt Design E4188 E-1064 E4724 E-1027 -
| |
| E 0189 E-1065 OAP-23) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E 0190 E-1066 E-0726 E 1028 E 0191 E-1067 GAP 23) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E 0192 E 1068 E4742 E-1031 E4193 QAP 32) (NRCT-18)
| |
| E 0194 E4747 E-1034 E 0195 QAP 32) (NRCT 19)
| |
| E-0196 E 0748 E 0827 QAP 32) (ASLB-41)
| |
| E-0749 E4828 (IAP 32) (ASLB-41)
| |
| E 0750 QAP 32)
| |
| E 10ll GAP 27) m sowas document codes are dsGnsd in Attachment A.-
| |
| O TN 67 7259 B1 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV,1
| |
| | |
| =
| |
| (
| |
| ATTACHMENT B (Continued)
| |
| Issue Group No.
| |
| DDts Related to and Desaiption ,
| |
| Issus Geogs by Source Issues Identified by other Cysne ladspendent Assessment Program (IAP) Sources")
| |
| IAP 160) IAP.330) OtherIAP(n 4
| |
| Design of Compression E-0197 E 1069 E-1008 E-1215 Members E 0198 E 1070 (IAP 3)
| |
| E 0199 (ASLB-42)
| |
| E-1071 E-1016 E-1072 E-1073 QAP-27) 5 Vertical and Transverse E-0200 E 0744 E-1025 14ading on Longitudmal Type Suppons GAP-32) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E-1006 CAP 3) 6 Suppon Frame Dead and E-0201 E 072.2 E-0826
| |
| '~'
| |
| Inenial Loads E-0202 OAP 23) (ASLB-41)
| |
| E 0746 GAP 32)
| |
| E 0766 QAP 32) 7 Design of Angle Braces E-0203 E 1074 E-0750 E 1027 Neglecting i ^= ding E 1075 Eccentricity GAP-32) (NRCT-12) 8 Dynamic Amplification E 0204 E4766 E-0254 Factors (DAF) and Ratios Between Ceremwma GAP 32) (NRCT-17)
| |
| Tray Support Reassions E 1227 and TributaryTsay (NRCT-3)
| |
| Suppon Reactions E-1029 (NRCT 12)
| |
| E-0824 9 (ASLB-41)
| |
| Reductionin Channel E 0205 Section Propenies Due to E 0258 Clamp Bolt Holes (NRCT-17)
| |
| E 1214 (ASLB 42)
| |
| O G
| |
| TN 87 7259 B2 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| 1 A'ITACHMENT B (Continued)
| |
| Issue 0 oup No-DIRs Related to and Desmpuan Issus Groups by Sowce Issues identified by Other Cygna Independent Assessment Program (IAP)
| |
| Sowees") !
| |
| IAP-160) IAP 33W OtherIAPm 10 i System Concept E 0206 E 1076 E-0722 E 1027 E 1077 (IAP-23) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E 1078 E-0746 E-1079 QAP-32)
| |
| E 1080 E 1006 QAP 3) 11 Validity ofNASTRAN E4207 Models E-0741 GAP 32) 12 Working Point Deviadon E-0208 E 1081 E4724 (WPD) Study E-1025 E 0209 E 1082 GAP-23) (NRCT-12)
| |
| A E-1083 E4725 E-1084 GAP 23)
| |
| E 1085 E-0742 E 1086 OAP-32)
| |
| E-1087 E-0743 E 1088 QAP-32)
| |
| E-0748 OAP 32)
| |
| E 0750 QAP-32)
| |
| E-1007 QAP 3)
| |
| E 1039 OAP-29)
| |
| E-1006 GAP 3) 13 Reduced Spectral E 0210 E 1089 l Accelerations E 1023 1 E-1090 (NRCT 12) i TN 87 7259 B3 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1 w_-_______- _
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| - - - - . - -- y ATTACHMENT B h,y (Continud) lasus Group No.
| |
| DDts Related to and Desmptaon Issue Groups by Sowce Issues identined by Other
| |
| \
| |
| Cysna Independent Assessment Program (IAP) Sowcas0)
| |
| IAP 160) IAP 33(D Other IAP(D 14 Non-Confonnance with E-0211 E-1091 AISC Specificadon E-0750 E-1026 E 1092 0AP 32) (NRCT 12)
| |
| E-1093 E-0751 E-1027 E-1094- GAP 32) (NRCT-12) l E-1095 E-1008 E 1214 E-1096 (
| |
| (IAP-3) (ASLB 42) 15 ,
| |
| Memher Substitudon E 0212 E-0747 QAP-32) i 16 Weld Design and E-0213 E 1097 E-0750 E 1226 Specificadons - E 0214 E 1098 OAP-32) (NRC 20)
| |
| E 1099 E-1036 E-1027 E 1100 QAP-29) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E 1013
| |
| . }
| |
| GAP 27)
| |
| E-1014 OAP-27) 17 Embedded Plates Design E-0215 E-1101 E-0747 E-1102 OAP 32)
| |
| E 1103 E 1009 E-1104 OAP 27)
| |
| E I105 18 Tray Clamps E 0216 E 0742 E 1025 GAP 32) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E4745 OAP 32) 19 !
| |
| FSAR Load E-0217 l E-0767 E4256 Combmadons GAP 32) (NRCT 17)
| |
| O TN 67 7259 1 B4 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ] ATTACHMENT B
| |
| .) (Continued)
| |
| Issus C.w No, and Descripuan DIRs Related to Isaus Ormes by Source issues identified by Other Cysna Independent Assessment Program (IAP)
| |
| Sources 0)
| |
| IAP 16(U 1AP 330) Other !AP(U 20 Differences Between the E-0218 E-1106 E 1010 Installation and the E 1002 E 1107 GAP 2T; Design / Construction (NRC 20)
| |
| E 1108 Drawings without E iG02 E-1109 Appropriate (NRC-20)
| |
| E-1110 Documentation E 1004 E-1111 (NRC-20)
| |
| E-1112 E-1005 E 1113 (NRC 20)
| |
| E-1033 21 (NRCT-18)
| |
| Design Control E 0219 E 1114 E 0743 E 1226 E-1115 GAP-32) (NRC-20)
| |
| (~
| |
| \
| |
| E-1116 E 1117 E 0765 E 1003 GAP-32) (NRC 20)
| |
| E 1118 E-1012 E 1004 E 1119 GAP 27) (NRC-20)
| |
| E-1120 E 1015 E 1024 E 1121 GAP-27) (NRCT-12)
| |
| E 1122 E-1018 OAP-27)
| |
| E-1037
| |
| ., (IAP-29)
| |
| E 1038 QAP 29)
| |
| E 1039 22 OAP 29)
| |
| Design ofSupport No. E-0220 3136, Desau "5" Drawing E-1017 2323-Sfi905 GAP 27) 23 Loadingin STRESS E-0221 Models O
| |
| TN 87 7259 B5 DAP RR-C/S-001, REV 1
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| ~=
| |
| ( ATTACHMENT B (Continued)
| |
| Issa Gump No-DIRs Related to and Descripuan Inw omups by sowce Issues Identined by Other Cygna ladspendent Assessmerit Program (IAP) sowcastu IAP 16(D IAP 33(u Other IAP(D 24 Design of Flexural E-0222 E 1123 E 0750 E 1212 Members E-1124 OAP-32) (NRCT-42) l E Il25 E-0751 E 1126 OAP-32)
| |
| E 1127 E 1128 25 CableTray Qualification E 0223 I:-1129 E-0824 E 1130 (ASLB 41)
| |
| F 1131 E 1003 E 1132 (NRC 20) 26 O B.nse Angh Design E-0224 E 1133 E 1134 E 0724 (IAP-23)
| |
| E 1212 (NRCT 42)
| |
| E-1135 E-0742 OAP-32)
| |
| E 0748 >
| |
| OAP-32)
| |
| E-1011 f' OAP 27) 27 Support Qudification by E 1136 Similarity E 0727 E-1137 OAP-23) 28 CriticalSupport E 1138 E 0725 E 1213 Configurations and E 1139 OAP 23)
| |
| Loadings (ASLB-42) 29 Cumula:ive Effect of E-1140 Cygna ReviewIssues i
| |
| O e
| |
| 1 I
| |
| TN47 7259 B-6 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1 ,
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 1 l
| |
| i ATTACHMFNTB (Continued)
| |
| Issus Crw No. DIKs Related to and Desenpuon hsus Groups by Sowce haues Identified by Other CygnaIndependent Assessment Progen(IAP) Sources 03 IAP 160) IAP 330) Other IAP(D 30 Cable Tray System Damping Values E-1021 (NRCT-3)
| |
| E-1032 (NRCT-18)
| |
| E-1035 (NRCT-19)
| |
| E 0825 (ASLB-41) 31 Modeling of Boundary E-0194 E-1090 E 0728 E-1219 Conditions E 0209 E-1101 GAP 23) (TUGC-69)
| |
| E 0224 E-1095 E-0724 GAP 23)
| |
| "~ '''
| |
| C) GAP-23)
| |
| E-0742 GAP 32)
| |
| O
| |
| - TN47 7259 B7 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| _ ____a
| |
| | |
| c1
| |
| )
| |
| I ATTACHMENT C PROJECT AND THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE CROSS-REFERENCE LIST O
| |
| f O .
| |
| TN47 7259 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT C PROJECT AND THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE CROSS-REFERENCE LIST Relevant External Source Thini Party Review Project Docurnent Issue Group (s) Document l
| |
| : 1. A5-BUILTING PROGRAM 5 IA. Unit 1 TV TE-FVM4/5 001 p.13] 3,4,12,13,15,16,17 DAP-E-C/5-102 [7.5.2) 20,21,23,25,26,28 TU QI-QP 11.10-9 p.1.5) 4,24 As Built Dwg's DAP E-C/5-155 [7.5.50)
| |
| DAP-E C/5144 [7.539]
| |
| : 18. Unit 2 -
| |
| TU TE-FVM.C/5 003 p.1Al 3,4,12,13,15,16,17 DAP-E-C/5123 [7.5.22]
| |
| 20,21,23,25,26,28 W TE FVM.C/5 019 [7.1.14) DAP-E C/5123 [7.5.22]
| |
| TU Q1.QP 11.10 2A U.1.6) 4,24 TU CP EI.4.0-68 DAP-E-C/5171 [7.5.64]
| |
| p.1.7)
| |
| TU CP EI.4.5 23 DAP E4/5123 [7.5.22]
| |
| [7.1.10) DAP-E-C/5-123 TU CP El-4.0 71 [7.5.22)
| |
| (7.1.11) DAP E-C/5-123 As-Built Dwg's [7.5.22]
| |
| DAP E4/5157 p.5.52) 3C. Inaccessible Attributes Vol1. Book 20 [7.234)
| |
| Yol 1. Book 22 DAP E-C/5126 [7.5.25]
| |
| p.236]
| |
| M 58 DAP E-C/5181 [7.5.74]
| |
| O $A0 4P34 Pl.02
| |
| [7 3.61)
| |
| [7.2.11 (7.3A)
| |
| DAP E-C/5160 DAP E C/5-182 DAP.CLC C/5 404
| |
| [7.534]
| |
| [7.5.75) 14aar EB-T 1184 p.2A6] [7.5.89)
| |
| Laner EB T 2860 p.2A7) DAP E-C/5182 [7.5.75]
| |
| 14ust EB T-5620 DAP E.C/5-182 [7.5.75)
| |
| (7.2.50]
| |
| Laser EB T 5270 DAP E-C/5182 p.5.75]
| |
| (7.2.51]
| |
| Lanar EB T 5297 p.2.52) DAP-E-C/5182 p.5.75]
| |
| DAP-E-C/5182 [7.5.75]
| |
| LacarNo.0210040 238 [7 3.87) DAP-E C/S.182 Ebesco Base Meul [7.5.75)
| |
| Darnage Paper p.2A9) 4 DAP E-C/5182 p.5.75)
| |
| : 2. EBASCO DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES Ebesco.
| |
| Manualof Procedures p.2.13] 21 DAP-E.C/5148 [7.5.43]
| |
| SAG. CPG 5 p.2.2) DAP.CLC-C/5 204 [7.5.88) 1,2,3,4.5,6,7,8,10, DAP.CLC C/5-204 [7.5.881 13.14,15,16,17,19,20 DAP E-C/S.120 21,23,24,26,30 [7.5.19]
| |
| SAG CPO4 p.23] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.8,10, DAP.CLC-C/5 204 [7.5.88]
| |
| 13,14.15,16,17,19,20, DAP E-C/5-120 21,23,24,26,30 (7.5.19)
| |
| O
| |
| . - __--__ _ _----- ?E """~"""
| |
| | |
| l A'ITACHMENT C O
| |
| (Continued)
| |
| Relevant Extemal sowce Third Party Review Project Doewnent Issue Group (s) Dw.nent 1 ESASCO DESIGN VAIJDATION PROCEDURES (Coetiened)
| |
| SAG CP34 [7.2.1) DAP Cir-C/5 204 [7.5.88]
| |
| Generalinstructiors 1,t3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.
| |
| (Attaciunents A thru Z) 12,13,14,16,17,21,23, 24,25,26 Anachment B Anachment E DAP-E-C/5112 [7.5.12]
| |
| 4,14 Anachment G-8 & G.9 DAP E C/5153 [7.5.48]
| |
| 3,13 Anachment V DAP E.C/5139 [7.535]
| |
| 7 Anachment W DAP-E C/5151 [7.5.46)
| |
| Anachment X DAP-E-C/5-152 [7.5.47)
| |
| Anachment Y & Z DAP-E-C/5-182 [7.5.75]
| |
| 8 SAG 4P09 DAP-E C/5149 [7.5A4)
| |
| [716] DAP CLC.C/5 204
| |
| $AG CT11 [717] [7.5.88]
| |
| ' 2,4,5,6,10,11 14,18 DAP-E C/5169 SAG CP18 7.2.41] 25 [7.5.62]
| |
| 5AG4P19 DAP.E C/5124 [7.5.23]
| |
| [7142] 14 DAP.E4/5124 SAG CP28 [7.5.23]
| |
| U143) 8 DAP-E-C/5149 [7 5A4]
| |
| : 3. IMPELL DESIGN VAIJDATION PROCEDURES Design Criaatia &
| |
| O Methodolo8y Interface Concol
| |
| [73.1) p3.2) 19 DAP.E-C/5158 DAP C14-C/5-404 DAP-E.C/5-158
| |
| [7.5.53]
| |
| [7.5.89] l Instructaans [7 5.53]
| |
| PI-02 DAP CII-C/5 404 [7.5.89]
| |
| [73A) 1,13,4,5,6,7,8,10. DAP4LC C/5 404 1113,14,15,16,17,18, [7J.89]
| |
| t 19,20,21,23,24,30 PI-03
| |
| [7.3.5) 1,4,7,1114,16,24 DAP414-C/5 404 P!04 [7.5.89]
| |
| [73.6) DAP C14 C/5 404 P! 05 4 [7.5.89)
| |
| [7.3.7]
| |
| P!-06 DAP CIIC/5 404 [7.5.89]
| |
| [73.8) 14,21,25 DAP C1f.C/5 404 [7.5.89]
| |
| P!-07 DAP E C/5-124 [7 5.23]
| |
| [7.3.9) 1,3,10,26 DAP CLC.C/5-404 [7.5.89]
| |
| Pl.08 DAP E-C/5-120 [7.5.19]
| |
| P3.10) DAP Cif-C/5404 PI 11 3,9,14,24 [7.5.89]
| |
| P3.11) DAP.E-C/5170 PI 12 [7.5.63]
| |
| [7.3.12)
| |
| Qualiry A- DAP.E.C/5-174 [7.5.67)
| |
| [7 3.13) 21 Procedums DAP.C14.C/5 404 [7.5.89]
| |
| DAP E C/5158 [7.5.53]
| |
| TN-87 7259 C2 DAP-RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| .p "
| |
| ATTACHMENT C
| |
| \.
| |
| (Continued)
| |
| Relevant Exwnal Source Third Party Review Project Doewnent Issua Group (s) P-: = nant
| |
| : 4. EBASCO SPECIAL STUDIES Vol. L Book 1, Part 1
| |
| [7114) 25 DAP.E-C/5 124 Vol. L Book 1. Part 2 25 [7.5.23]
| |
| [7 2.15) DAP.E-C/5124 Vol L Book 1.Part 3 p116) 25 [7.5.23)
| |
| DAP-E-C/5124 [7.5.23]
| |
| Vol L Book 1.Part 4 p.2.17) 25 DAP E C/5-124 [7.5.23)
| |
| Vol L Book 1.Part 5 [7139] 25 DAP E C/5-124 p.5.23)
| |
| Vol L Book 1 Part 6 [7.2AO) 25 VolL Book 2 DAP E-C/5124 [7.5.23) pilt) 10,13,23,24 VolL Book 3 DAP E-C/5-112 [7.5.12]
| |
| P119] 3,10 VolL Book 4 DAP E C/5107 p.5.7) p120) 12,27,28 VolL Book 5 DAP CLC C/5 234 [7.5.88) p.2.21)
| |
| VolL Book 6 DAP-E-C/5-108 p.5.8)
| |
| [7122] 4,10,12,14 VolL Book 7 DAP-E-C/5103 p.53)
| |
| [7123] 10,13,23,24 VolL Book 8 DAP E-C/5109 p.53)
| |
| [7124] 12,27,28 VolL Book 9 DAPC1f-C/5-204 [7.5.88)
| |
| * p125 & 26) 8 DAP-E.C&l01 p.5.1)
| |
| Vol L Book 9.Part 7 U19] DAP E-C&l54 p.5.49)
| |
| ~ YoL L Book 10 p127] 8 DAP-E-C/5-101 VolL Book 11 p.5.1)
| |
| [7128] 3 DAP-E C/5139 p.535]
| |
| VolL Book 12 p129] 3,13,26,31 DAP E-C/5-139 VolL Book 13 [7.535)
| |
| O VolL Book 15 VolL Book 16
| |
| [7.2.30)
| |
| P131)
| |
| [7.2.32]
| |
| 8 4
| |
| 14 DAP-E-C/5121 DAP E-C/5149 DAP E-C/5143
| |
| [7.5.20)
| |
| [7144)
| |
| [7.538)
| |
| VolL Book 17 [7.2.33] DAP-E-C/5-124 [7.5.23)
| |
| VolL Book 20 p.234)
| |
| DAP-E-C/5126 [7.5.25]
| |
| VolL Book 21 DAP-E.C/5156 p.5.51)
| |
| [7.2.35] DAP-E-C/5124 VolL Book 22 p.5.23)
| |
| [7.236] DAP E-C/5181 VolL Book 23 [7.5.74)
| |
| [7137) 8 DAP-E C/5-149 p.5.44]
| |
| VolL Book 25 [7111] 9,14,24 VolL Book 26
| |
| ~
| |
| DAP E-C/5184 (7.5.77) p.2A4)
| |
| DAP E-C/5187 [7.5.90)
| |
| EKeces of Bok Hols Overeisep112) 14 DAP E-C/5183 p.5.56)
| |
| Anchor BokIR bevasnary p138] 14 DAP-E-C/5183 p.5.56)
| |
| Saleesed Ebasso Calculadens 7,14,16,22 DAP-E-C/f 187 BassMesalDenney Paper [7149) p.5.90) 4 DAP E-C/5182 pi?5)
| |
| Laem BB-T 3185 [7.2A6] 25 DAP-E C/5124 p.5.23)
| |
| Laser B .T 3043 p.2A8) 3,17 DAP-E-C/5120 [7119]
| |
| : 5. ERASCO COMPUTER PROGRAM VERIFICATION P DahaSuuS [7118) DAP E C/5112 [7.5.12)
| |
| TN 87 7259 C3 DAP RR C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| s ATTACHMENT C O (Continued)
| |
| (
| |
| Relevant Extemal sowce Third Party Review Project Docenent lasue Gmup(s) Docenent
| |
| : 6. IMPELLSPECIALSTUDIES M-01 [7 3.14) f DAP E C/5104 p.5.4] I M 02 p3.15] DAP-E-C/5138 [7.534]
| |
| M 03 [73.16) DAP E-C/5113 [7.5.13]
| |
| M 04 P3.17] 3.12,13.26,31 DAP-E4/5139 [7.535]
| |
| M-05 P3.18) DAP E-C/5116 [7.5.15]
| |
| M-06 P3.19] 3 M-07 DAP E-C/5116 [7.5.15] !
| |
| P3.20) DAP-E-C/5116 M 08 p3.21) [7.5.15]
| |
| DAP-E-C/5-116 [7.5.15]
| |
| M 10 P3.22]
| |
| DAP-E-C/5110 17.5.10)
| |
| M 12 [7 3.23] 7,10,14,16,23,24,26 DAP E-C/5-115 [7J.14]
| |
| M-13 P3.24) DAP-E-C/5189 [7.5.93)
| |
| M 14 P3.25)
| |
| M 15 DAP E-C/5189 [7.5.93]
| |
| P3.26) DAP-E-C/5107 M-16 [7.5.7)
| |
| [7 3.27] DAP E C/5113 M 17 [7 3.13]
| |
| P3.28] DAP-E-C/5113 M-18 [7.5.13]
| |
| D3.29] DAP-E-C/5115 M 19 p.3.30) [7.5.14]
| |
| DAP-E-C/5110 [7.5.10]
| |
| M 20 P331]
| |
| DAP-E-C/5116 [7.5.15]
| |
| M 21 p.332) f DAP-E-C/5116 O M-22 p.333) [7.5.15]
| |
| DAP E C/5117 [7.5.16]
| |
| M 23 [7 3.34] DAP E-C/5117 [7.5.16]
| |
| M-24 p335) DAP-E-C/5117 [7.5.16)
| |
| M 25 p.336) 3,10 !
| |
| DAP-E4/5107 [7.5.7]
| |
| M 26 p.3.37] DAP-E-C/5-141 [7.5.37]
| |
| M-27 P3.38) 19 DAP E.C/5119 [7.5.18]
| |
| M-28 [73.39) DAP E4/5-124 [7.5.23]
| |
| M 29 p3A0] DAP-E-C/5118 [7.5.17]
| |
| M 32 p.3.41) DAP-E C/5150 [7.5A5]
| |
| M 34 p3A2) 25 DAP-E-C/5161 [7.5.55]
| |
| DAP E-C/5124 [7.5.23]
| |
| M 35 , p3A3)
| |
| M 36 DAP E4/5161 [7.5.55) p3A4) DAP-E-C/5161 M 37 [7.535)
| |
| [73A5] DAP-E-C/5162 p.5.56)
| |
| M 39 p3A7) 21,25 DAP E-C/5122 [7J.21]
| |
| M41 D3A8) DAP E C/5164 [7.5.57]
| |
| M 42 p.3AP)
| |
| M 43 DAP E C/5165 [7.5.58]
| |
| D3.50) DAP E C/5167 M-44 [7.5.60]
| |
| D331) DAP-E.C/5-166 [7.5.59]
| |
| M-46 p332) 24 M-47 DAP E C/5168 [7.5.61]
| |
| p33) DAP E C/5113 M.49 [7.5.13]
| |
| P3.54] DAP E C/5175 [7.5.68)
| |
| M-51 p335) DAP E-C/5124 M-52 p356) [7.5.23) 14 DAP-E C/5161 I M 53 [7.5.55]
| |
| P3.57) DAP E C/5161 [7.5.55)
| |
| M 54 p.3.58]
| |
| M.56 DAP E C/5124 [7.5.23) ;
| |
| [7 3.59] DAP E-C/5103 [7.5.3)
| |
| O 11 1
| |
| TN-87 7259 C-4 DAP-RR-C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| __-_________-_-__-___~D
| |
| | |
| l 0
| |
| A'ITACHMEhrr C (Continued) l Pr6 ject Docunent Relevan EatemalSowce Third Party Review !
| |
| Issue C y s) !
| |
| R-:=nent l
| |
| : 6. IMPELL SPECIAL STUDIES (Continued)
| |
| M 57 p3.60]
| |
| M 58 DAP E C/5176 (7.5.69]
| |
| P3.61]
| |
| M 59 p3.62] DAP-E-C/5 160 (7.5.54]
| |
| M 60 p.3.63] DAP E-C/S 177 (7.5.70]
| |
| M 61 p.3.64] DAP E C/5178 [7.5.71]
| |
| M 65 p.3.65] 9,14.24 DAP E-C/5179 [7.5.72)
| |
| M-66 DAP-E-C/5180 17.5.73]
| |
| [7.3.66] 25 3 DAP E-C/5-113 (7.5.13]
| |
| M-68 (7J 67] 3 DAP E-C/5124 (7.5.23] l M-69 p3.68] DAP E C/5120 [7.5.19]
| |
| M 73 p3A6] 14 DAP E.C/5125 (7.5.24]
| |
| )
| |
| Report No.09 0210 0017 DAP-ECS-183 (7.5.76]
| |
| (7.3 71) 4, 6,10.14,18, 24,30 Report No.09 02104018 p.3.721 DAP E-C/5147 (7.5A11 4.14 ReportNo.010210-1470 4.10,12,14 DAP E-C/5-106 p.5.6]
| |
| (7.3.74] - !
| |
| Study No.5.9 DAP E-C/5103 p.53]
| |
| ; [7 3.75] 14 !
| |
| Sandy No.B-03 p.3.76] 4.10,12,14 DAP-E45121 (73.20]
| |
| i 5:udy W.3 04 DAP E45-103 }
| |
| p3.70] 4 p.53] j Salemed ImpellCalculaticew DAP-E C/5190 (73.87]
| |
| 3,4,7,9,14,21 ;
| |
| LaserNo.0214040-122 DAP E C/5-188 (7 3.91]
| |
| j PJ.83) 22 I Lamar No.0210 040160 DAP E C/5-137
| |
| ! T Lamar No.0210 040 244 p.3.84] 22 DAP.EC5137 (7.5.33] l
| |
| ! p.3.85] 3,17 [7.533]
| |
| Calculation No.1Cl-PT1 DAP E-C/5120 (7.5.19]
| |
| (7J.86] !
| |
| cahd-No TC2-PT1 DAP-E C/5147 [7.5A1]
| |
| (7.3.87)
| |
| Calculamen No.TC3-PT1 DAP ECS 147 (7.5A1]
| |
| (7.3.88]
| |
| r=wdh No.TC4-PT1 DAP E-C/5147 (7.5.41]
| |
| (73.89) rak J-No.TC6-PT1 DAP ECS 147 [7.5 All (7J.90] {
| |
| l r=6dh No.TC7 FT1 DAP E-C/5147 [7.5A1]
| |
| (7.3.91]
| |
| DAP EC5147 (7.5All
| |
| : 7. DtPELLCOMPtTTER PROGRAM VERUTCATION SUPERPOST Varinsedan Proceduse i
| |
| (73.78] l SUPERPOrTCsaipuser DAP.E-C/5127 [7.5.26)
| |
| Ouiput p3.79]
| |
| SUPERPorr User's DAP E-C/5-127 (7.5.26]
| |
| ! Mammal p3.80]
| |
| SUPERf05TMand DAP EC5-127 (7.5.26]
| |
| VertEsegun (7.3.81]
| |
| $UPERf95 DAP E-C/5127 (7.5.26]
| |
| (7.3.82]
| |
| DAP EC5150 (7.5A5]
| |
| O -
| |
| TN-87 7259 C5 DAP-RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| =_.
| |
| ATTACHMENT C (Continued)
| |
| Relevant Extemal Sowce Third Party Review Project Document IssueOro*.ys) !
| |
| Doewnent I 8 TESTPROGRAMS SA. Systems Ebesco SAO-CP05 [7.2A] DAP-E C/5128 [7.5.27]
| |
| Ebesco SA 0 4 P13 [718) DAP-E C/5145 [7.5A0]
| |
| ANCO A 000150 PA.1) DAP-E-C/5128 [7.5.27)
| |
| ANCO A 000173 [7AJ) DAP E4/5145 p.5AO)
| |
| ANCO A 000179 [7A.8) DAP-E.C/5145 [7 5A0)
| |
| ANCO A 000181 [7A.2) 4,6,10,14,18,24,30, DAP E C/5146 [7.5.41)
| |
| ANCO A 000182 [7A.11] 31 DAP-E C/5-131 [7.530]
| |
| ANCO A 000183 [7A.12]
| |
| ANCO A 000184 DAP-E4/5131 p.530)
| |
| [7A.13] DAP E C/5131 ANCO A400185 [7A.14]
| |
| [7.530)
| |
| DAP E C/5131 [7.530)
| |
| ANCO A 000186 [7A.15]
| |
| DAP E-C/5131 p.530)
| |
| ANCO-A 000187 [7A.16] DAP E C/5131 p.530)
| |
| ANCO-A 000190 [7A.17]
| |
| l DAP E4/5131 [7.530J
| |
| : 88. Troys and Fittia8s Ebesco 5AO C POS [7.2JJ DAP E-C/5-129 [7 5.28)
| |
| CCL 1903.201 PAA) DAP-E-C/5 129 [7.5.28)
| |
| CCL A-71946 [7A.7)
| |
| (
| |
| 5 CCL A 738 87 PA.101 25 DAP-E C/5132 DAP-E-C/5 132
| |
| [7.5311 CCL A 744-87 [7A.9) [7.531]
| |
| DAP-E-C/5124 p.5.23) sC. Casaps haps 110142101484 p3.77)
| |
| DAP E-C/5130 [7.5.29)
| |
| CCL1903.221 UA.5) 14 CCL A-717-86 DAP E4/5130 [7.5.29)
| |
| [74.6) 14 DAP.E-C/5133 CCL A 743-87 [7.532)
| |
| UA.18) DAP E C/5133 CCL A 72186 [7.532)
| |
| UA.19] DAP-E-C/5-133 [7.532]
| |
| : 9. OTHER DOCLNENTS TU CP-EI-4.0649 p.1.9)
| |
| TU ECE-AB.'4 DAP41.f-C/5 204 [7.5.88) p.1.12)
| |
| DAP-E-C/5 148 [7.5A3)
| |
| TU ECE-AD-1.01 p.1.13)
| |
| PJ 2 CP DAP E-C/5148 [7.5A3]
| |
| P110) DAP E-C/5-148 [7.5A3) i O
| |
| TN 67-7259 C-6 DAP RR-C/S 001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| O i
| |
| ATTACHMENT D l ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST i
| |
| O 64 0
| |
| 0 ,
| |
| - 259 DAP-R9 C/S-001, REV '
| |
| | |
| . .s 4
| |
| ATTACHMENT D ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST Abbreviadon or Acronym Explanadon ACI American Concrete Institute AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ANCO Anco Engineers ASLE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers AWS American Welding Society C/S-CAP Civil /Stmetural Corrective Action Program CASE Citizens Association for Sound Energy l
| |
| CCL Corporate Consuldng azul Development Company, LTD.
| |
| CPRT Comanche Peak Response Team CPSES Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stanon CTH CableTray Hanger CYGNA Cygna Energy Services DAF Dynamic Application Factor DAP Design AdequacyPmgram DIR' Discrepancy / Issue Resolution Report DSAP Discipline Specific Action Plan EEASCO Ebasco ServicesIncorporated ESM Equivalent StadeMethod l FSAR ,
| |
| Final Safety Analysis Report IAP IP Assessment Program IMPELL IMPELL Corporation LOCA Less of Coolant Accident NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE Operedng Base Earthquake QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Contml
| |
| )
| |
| RSM Response Spectra Method SSER Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report SAT Satisfactory SER Safety Evaluation Report TN47 7259 D1 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| =
| |
| ATTACHMENT D-Continued Abbreviation or Acronym Explanation SRSS Square Root Sum of the Squarts SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake l TUGCO Texas Utilities Generating Company l UNSAT Unsatisfactory WRC Welding Research Counsil 1
| |
| O TN-87 7259 D2 DAP RR C/S-001, REV.1
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _}}
| |
