interim technical report - nrc: home page · 2017. 2. 28. · 3.0 idvp methods 3.1 hvac ducts and...

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

Interim Technical ReportDIAHlD CARI UNIT 1

IDVP VERIFICATION OF CORR1ZTIVE ACTION

HVAC Ducts, Electrical Raceways,Instrument Tubing andAssociated Supports

ITR 963, Revision 1

Docket No. 50-275License No. DPR-76

/c> z 83Pro ec eer te

Tectzd.cal Review

83i0070i55 83i002 ',PDR ADOCK 05000275R PDR i )

/0 2/F3Pro ect Manager teApproved P 105-4-839-063

DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT lINDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM

INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT

IDVP VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONHVAC DUCTS'LECTRICAL

RACEWAYS'NSTRUMENTTUBING AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORTS

This Revision 1 to Interim Technical Report, ITR-63,is one of a series of ITRs prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP forthe purpose of providing a conclusion to the program.

This report summarizes the IDVP verification of theDCP corrective action for HVAC ducts, electrical raceways,instrument tubing and associated supports. This effortconsisted of an independent IDVP design review of aselected sample of each of the above categories ofcommodities which were analyzed by the Diablo CanyonProject as part of their Corrective Action Program aswell as a field verification of modifications.

Based on the verification effort, the IDVP concludesthat the DCP corrective action on the above commoditiesis acceptable. The IDVP verification results in this ITRwill be reported in Section 4.6.6 and 4.6.8 of the IDVPFinal Report.

As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne EngineeringServices has reviewed and approved this Interim TechnicalReport as well as the verification process, results, andconclusions reported therein. The methodology followedby TES in performing this review and evaluation isdescribed in Appendix D of this report.

ITR Reviewed and ApprovedIDVP Program ManagerTeledyne Engineering Services

R. WrayAssistant Project Manager

IDVP Verification of Corrective Action

HVAC Ducts, Electrical Raceways, Instrument Tubing andAssociated Supports

Contents

Program Hanager's PrefaceList of Tables

1.0 IntroductionPurpose and ScopeSummary

2.0 DCP Corrective Action Program

2.1 HVAC Ducts and Supports

2.1.1 Description2.1.2 Scope of DCP Review2.1.3 Methods for Qualification2.1.4 Criteria for Qualification

2.2 Electrical Raceways and Supports

2.2.1 Description2.2.2 Scope of DCP Review2.2.3 methods for Qualification

2.2.3.1 Transverse Analysis2.2.3.2 Longitudinal Analysis

2.2.4 Criteria for Qualification2.3 Instrument Tubing and Supports

2.3.1 Description2.3.2 Scope of DCP Review2.3.3 Nethods for Qualification2.3.4 Criteria for Qualification

11ll1213

11

3.0 IDVP methods

3.1 HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports

3.1.1 Sampling/Design Reviews3.1.2 Completion Sample Review


3.2.1 Sampling/Design Reviews3.2.2 Completion Sample Review

3.3 Instrument Tubing and Supports

3.3.1 Design Reviews3.3.2 Completion Review

4.0 HVAC Ducts and Supports

4.1 Description of IDVP Sample

4.2 Review of DCP tlethods

4.3 Results of Review

14

14

1415

16

1617

18

1019

20

20

20

22

4.3.1 Result" of llethodology Review 224.3 2 Results of Analysis Design Reviews 224.3.3 Results of Completion Sample Peview 30

4.4 EOI Reports Issued 31

4.5 Summary of Conclusions for HVAC Ducts andSupports 32



5.2 Peview of DCP llethods

5.3 Results of Review

33

33

33

34

5.3.1 Results of h1ethodology Peview 345.3.2 Results of Analysis Design Reviews 355.3.3 Results of Completion Sample Review 42

5.4 EOI Reports Issued

5.5 Summary of Conclusions for ElectricalRaceways and Supports

6.0 Instrument Tubing and Supports


6.2 Review of DCP Methods

44

45

46

46

46

6.3 Results of Review 47

6.3.1 Results of Methodology Review 476.3.2 Results of Analysis Design Reviews 476.3.3 Results of Completion Review 52

6.4 EOI Report Issued

6.5 Summary of Conclusions for InstrumentTubing and Supports

7.0 Summary of Review Results

8.0 Conclusion

9.0 References

Appendices

Appendix A — Sample Checklists

Al — HVAC Ducts and Supports

A2 - Instrument Tubing and Supports

53

54

58

59

Appendix B — Sample Checklists/ElectricalRaceway Supports

Bl — Transverse Analyses

B2 — Longitudinal Analyses

Appendix C — EOI Status

Appendix D — Program Manager's Assessment

iv

Round Ducts — Sheet SteelGage

Rectangular Ducts — SheetSteel Gage

Round Ducts — Stiffeners

68

69

Rectangular Ducts — Stiffeners 69

Longitudinal Analysis Sample 70

HVAC-Field tlodificationsCompletion Sample

Raceway Supports — FieldModifications Completion Sample

71

72

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This interim technical report summarizes theIndependent Design Verification Program (IDVP) review ofDiablo Canyon Project (DCP) corrective action performedat the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (DCNPP-l),for:

HVAC ducts and supportsElectrical raceways and supportsInstrument tubing and supports.

The IDVP verification described in this interim technicalreport (ITR) covers the HVAC ducts,. electrical raceways,instrument tubing and associated supports reviewed by theIDVP which are designated as Design Class 1.

The Corrective Action Program (CAP) is defined inthe PGandE Phase I Final Report, as a "...broad review..."which "...envelopes the various findings of the previousIDVP and ITP reviews, and provides proper correctiveaction to all open items found by the previous reviews..."The program was intended to "...provide more complete andconsistent documentation of the design work, with all newwork performed..." (Reference 1, p. 1.5.2-2).

The IDVP review of this work is defined in ITR C8,Verification Program for PGandE Corrective Action,regarding Hosgri aspects and ITR 035, Verification Planfor Diablo Canyon Project Activities, regardingnon-Hosgri aspects (References 2 and 3), In summary, theIDVP review consists of verifying the scope andmethodology of the DCP work plan, and the adequacy andcompleteness of DCP analyses and corrective actionsaccording to the planned scope. In addition, the IDVPfield verified as-built conditions.

This report is one of several interim technicalreports of the IDVP. Interim technical reports includereferences, sample definitions and descriptions,methodology, a listing of Error and Open Item Reports,concerns and a conclusion (Reference 4). This documentwill be referenced in the IDVP Final Report (Reference 5)and serves as a vehicle for NRC review.

This report describes the IDVP verification of theDesign Class I HVAC ducts, electrical raceways,instrument tubing and associated supports addressed bythe DCP as part of their Corrective Action Program.

IDVP verification is complete. Results, EOI Reportsand conclusions are presented in the individual sectionsof this report. The IDVP has found the DCP work to begenerally complete and in compliance with the licensingcriteria.

2.0 DCP CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM

The PGandE Phase I Final Report presents the DCP

plan and procedures for qualifying HVAC ducts, elec-trical raceways, instrument tubing and associatedsupports. The DCP Corrective Action Program (CAP) forHVAC ducts and supports is described in Section 2.5;electrical raceways and supports in Section 2.4; andinstrument tubing and supports in Section 2.6.

2.1

2.1.1

Design Class 1 HVAC ducts and supports wereinstalled using generic design details contained inPGandE drawings and design specifications (References6 and 7).

The ducts are made from light gage galvanizedsteel. Depending on the duct dimensions, round ductsare made from 16 to 26 gage sheet steel (see Table 1).Rectangular ducts are made from sheet steel ranging inthickness from 18 to 24 gage (see Table 2). Round ductsover 37 inches in diameter are stiffened with rolledangle sections placed circumferentially at intervalsalong the duct. The size of the stiffeners and theintervals at which they are placed are shown in Table 3.Rectangular ducts with a larger side dimension of 13inches or more are also stiffened. The size ofstiffeners and spacing intervals are shown in Table 4.

Duct supports are constructed from steel anglemembers. The members are bolted and/or welded togetherand connected to the ducts with bolts, rivets or screws.The majority of seismic duct supports are attached toceilings or walls with 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch concreteexpansion anchors (Reference 6).

In the CAP, the duct supports analyzed were thosedesigned specifically for seismic loading. Rod hangersand other deadweight supports were assumed not effectivefor seismic loadings.

2.1.2

The DCP initially reviewed seismic analyses of allDesign Class 1 HVAC ducts and supports to determinecompliance with the seismic design criteria. As a resultof this DCP initial review, the DCP implemented a programto analyze all ducts and supports. Field walkdowns wereperformed to assure that as-built configurations wereincorporated into the analyses. As part of the analyses,the DCP considered any revisions to the seismic responsespectra.

2.1.3

The DCP methods for qualification are described inthe PGandE Phase I Final Report, Section 2.5. Thespecific details are contained in Design CriteriaMemorandum (DCM) C-31, Revision 0 (Reference 9). Adetailed algorithm for ~ performing the analyses is givenin DCP HVAC Calculation No. HV-4 (Reference 10).

The DCP analysis was performed on a generic basis.Similar supports were grouped so that the analysis of theworst case support was sufficient to provide genericconclusions for all supports in the group. To providequalification for the ducts, the duct associated with agroup of supports was analyzed.

Specific ducts and supports which could not bequalified on a generic basis were analyzed on a case bycase basis. The procedures and criteria forqualification of a specific support and associated ductare the same as those for the generic qualification butwere based on specific rather than envelope as-builtduct/support size, span, weights, member sizes, pressureand plant location.

2.1.4

Design qualification criteria are presented in thePGandE Phase I Final Report, Section 2.5 and DesignCr iter ia llemorandum (DC') C-31, Revision 0.

The floor response spectra used for the review andanalysis of HVAC ducts and supports were the DDE and Hosgrispectra contained in the Design Criteria Memoranda (DCN)C-17 and C-30 (References ll and 12).

For generic calculations, worst case (envelope)spectra, for all areas where the support type exists, wereused. For supports evaluated for the specific as-builtcondition, the applicable directional horizontalacceleration was used. The duct and support(s) frequencywas calculated on the basis of a coupled duct/support(s)system. This frequency was used to determine the seismicacceleration from the appropriate response spectra. Thedamping values used were 2% for DDE and 7% for Hosgri.

The horizontal acceleration was calculatedseparately for East-West and North-South directions.These included their respective torsional contributions.

The higher of the two horizontal accelerations wasused to calculate the response of the duct or support.This response was then combined with the response due tovertical seismic acceleration by absolute sum (ABS).Alternatively, the total response was calculated bycombining the response due to each of the two horizontalaccelerations and the vertical acceleration on a SRSSbasis.

Load combinations for ducts included deadweight,seismic and pressure loads. Pressure loads were taken asthe maximum negative operating pressure for a given HVACsystem. Duct supports were analyzed for combineddeadweight and seismic loads.

Load cases included transverse horizontal plusvertical and longitudinal plus vertical.

Allowable load and stress criteria for the ducts andsupports are documented in DCH C-31 (Reference 9).

Duct sheet steel allowable stresses for faultedconditions were taken as 1.6 times the working levelallowables as defined in the AISI code (Reference 13).In addition, shear stress shall not exceed 0.58 Fy. Plhenaxial and bending stresses occurred simultaneously, thefollowing interaction equation was to be satisfied:

f +fb10F F

where:

f and fb are the calculated axial and flexuralstresses and

F and Fb are the allowable axial and flexuralstresses.

For duct supports (structural steel), the criteriafrom the AISC code (Reference 14) were used. Provisionsfor increasing working level stresses for faultedconditions, the interaction of axial and bending stress/and the limit for shear stress are identical to those forthe duct sheet steel.

The AISC code was also applied to structural boltsand welds. Provision for increasing defined allowableloads for faulted conditions and for addressing tensionand shear interaction are documented in DCl1 C-31. Ductsand supports which did not meet the acceptance criteriawere modified.

2.2

2. 2.1

Electrical raceways consist of cable trays andconduits. Cable trays are rectangular metal trays andconduits are steel or aluminum tubes that houseelectrical cables. Raceway supports are constructedprimarily of cold-formed steel channel sections and arespaced 8.5 feet apart or less according to the designstandard (Reference 16) . Exceptions (longer spans) weredocumented and analyzed separately. There are over21,000 Design Class 1E raceway supports in DCNPP-1 whichwere constructed from approximately 460 standard supportdetails.2.2 '

The DCP initially reviewed the seismic design of theelectrical raceways and supports. Based upon this initialDCP review, it was decided that all supports would beanalyzed. This analysis included a field walkdown anddocumentation of the type and location of each support.

A transverse analysis was performed for allsupports. To provide longitudinal qualification for allClass lE conduit runs, the DCP conducted a field walkdownof each run. Worst case raceway runs were identified,their as-built conditions documented and analysisperformed. All longitudinal cable trays supports werealso analyzed.

In addition, the DCP evaluated raceway stresses formaximum spans as described in Section 5.4 (EOI 983).

2.2.3

The overall DCP approach for qualification ofelectrical raceways and supports is described in thePGandE Phase I Final Report, Section 2.4. Specificdetails are documented in Design Criteria MemorandumC-15, Revision 3 (Reference 15).

2.2.3.1 Transverse Analysis

Generic analyses were performed for the 460 standardsupport configurations as they are snown on the standarddetail drawings. The generic analyses were based onmaximum allowed member lengths, weights and spectraacceleration from all areas where the support type existsin Unit l.

As-built analyses were performed for those supporttypes which could not be qualified generically.Procedures and criteria for as-built analyses areidentical to the generic analyses; however, they are basedon specific rather than generic support dimensions,loading, member size, and plant location.

Transverse analyses considered 7b damping forconduit supports and coupled support/conduit systems.For cable trays, 7" damping was considered for supportsand 15~ damping was considered for coupled support/cabletray systems. Spectral accelerations were determined foreach damping ratio and the controlling accelerations wereused for the stress evaluations.

These transverse analyses considered combinedtransverse and vertical loads.

2.2.3.2 Longitudinal Analysis

Worst case longitudinal conduit runs were identifiedand their configurations documented.

A conservative simplified procedure was developed toevaluate the conduit runs. The total seismic load in theconduit run was calculated by an equivalent staticanalysis method taking into account the appropriate floorresponse spectra. This load was distributed among thesupports in proportion to their longitudinal stiffness.

The most heavily loaded and longitudinally flexibleraceway/support systems were selected by the DCP fordynamic analysis. The dynamic analyses used finiteelement methods to determine response behavior and tocalculate support loads and stresses.

These longitudinal analyses considered combinedlongitudinal and vertical loads.

2.2.4

Design qualification criteria are presented inthe PGandE Phase I Final Report, Section 2.4 and DesignCriteria Memorandum C-15, Revision 3. These criteria(summarized below) apply to the transverse and1'ongitudinal support analyses.

The floor response spectra used for the review andanalysis of electrical raceways and supports are the DDEand Hosgri spectra.

For generic calculations, worst case (envelope)spectra for all areas where the support type exists areused. In determining the spectral acceleration forgeneric analyses, the peak value is used if thecalculated raceway/support natural period is greater thanthe period corresponding to 75% of the peak. Otherwise,the spectra ordinate corresponding to the calculatednatural period of the support system is used.

For supports evaluated for the specific as-builtcondition, the applicable directional horizontalacceleration is used. In determining the spectralacceleration, the spectral ordinate corresponding to thecalculated natural period of the support system is used.The damping value used is 7% except for the coupledcable tray/support analysis (transverse plus vertical).For this coupled analysis, 15% damping is used.

The horizontal acceleration was calculatedseparately for East-West and North-South directions.These included their respective torsional contributions.

The higher of the two horizontal accelerations wasused to calculate the response of the raceway or support.This response was then combined with the response due tovertical seismic acceleration by absolute sum (ABS).

The raceways and supports are analyzed fordeadweight and seismic loads. Directional responses arecombined by either ABS or SRSS as discussed above.

The AISI and AISC codes were used to review thedesign of the steel members. The faulted conditionallowable stress given in the AISC code is increased by60% as recommended by NRC Standard Review Plan, Section3.8.4 (Reference 17).

Allowable loads on UNISTRUT bolts are taken as 90%of the manufacturer's recommended ultimate values. Theallowable loads on concrete expansion anchors are takenas twice the working load specified by the PGandEEngineering Standard (Reference 18). Thefaulted condition acceptance limit on fillet welds oncold-formed steel members is 60% greater than theallowable given in the AISI code. Unbraced ceilingmounted joints made of angle fittings are checked forrotation and low cycle fatigue.

10

2.3

2.3.1

Design Class 1 instrument tubing is small diameterstainless steel or copper tubing which contains a fluidand runs between a transducer and a sensing device. Thefluid (or gases) permit remote indication of sensoryinformation such as temperature or pressure. This tubingtypically has very low mass.

Instrument tubing is supported by welded and/orbolted cold-formed steel members and fittings. Themajority of Design Class 1 instrument tubing is withinthe containment structure..2.3.2

The DCP corrective action included review andanalysis of all tubing and a representative sample of 88tubing supports to determine if they were affected byrevisions to the 1981 Hosgri spectra.

The sample for review consisted of all tubingsupports located in the portions of the containmentannulus structure that were adversely affected by thesespectra.

2.3 '

The DCP review of instrument tubing and supports wasperformed by reviewing a sample of 88 supports located inthe containment annulus structure. The individualsupports selected represented the worst case configurationswith respect to support loads and seismic spectra inputsfor that configuration type. In addition, tubing spanswere reviewed on a generic worst-case basis.

Design of instrument tubing and supports was basedon standard drawings. Thus, qualification of a supporttype was performed by analysis of the worst case.

For the corrective action sample review, the DCPperformed field walkdowns to determine the worst-casesupports with respect to the longest cantilever sectionsand largest load on the support. Results of thesewalkdowns were then used by the DCP in theirqualification analyses.

The DCP corrective action work is contained in sixanalysis packages, designated ITS-1 through ITS-6. ITS-1addresses the tubing span qualification on a genericbasis. ITS-2 through ITS-6 cover the supportqualifications, both on a generic worst-case basis andspecific as-built basis.

For the supports, each was analyzed to determine theresonant frequencies. In those cases where the resonantfrequency was greater than 33 hertz, no further reviewwas performed. If the resonant frequency was less than33 hertz, a structural analysis was performed withrevised spectra to qualify the supports.

If supports did not meet criteria, they werereviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine theimplications for supports outside of the sample, andwhether further samples or modifications were required.If necessary, further sampling and modifications wereperformed to ensure qualification.

12

2.3.4

Spacing of instrument tubing supports was originallydesigned to maintain tubing natural frequency above theoriginal 20 hertz criteria. For the DCP correctiveaction review, a worst case analysis was performed toassure that tubing stresses met criteria.

Tubing supports were reviewed with a similarfrequency criterion. >lhere support natural frequencyexceeded 33 hertz, the support was considered qualified.If the natural frequency was below 33 hertz, a structuralanalysis was performed to assure qualification.

3.0 IDVP METHODS

3.1

The scope of the DCP CAP work, as described in thePGandE Phase I Final Report, was reviewed forcompleteness and consistency with licensing commitmentscontained in the FSAR, Hosgri Report (References 20 and21) and other licensing documents.

The IDVP reviewed specific details of the DCP

procedures for CAP work contained in DCP DCN C-31,Revision 0, Design Methodology HV-4, and individual"design aids". These criteria and procedures werereviewed for satisfaction of licensing commitments aswell as correctness and applicablity of engineeringmethods.

3.1.1

The IDVP verification of DCP implementation wasperformed by reviewing sample DCP analyses forconformance with established DCP procedures and criteria.

The IDVP randomly selected samples of DCP reanalyses.A design review checklist (see Appendix A-1) was developedcovering all required criteria and procedure items.This checklist included separate items for applicabilityof methods, completeness and correctness of engineering.

This checklist was supplemented with assessments ofthe completeness, applicability, consistency and adequacyof the DCP reanalysis methods and results. Whererequired, alternate calculations were carried out by theIDVP to'verify the conclusions of the DCP analysis and/orIDVP assessment. Samples of actual duct and supportlocations and configurations were field verified.

EOI reports were issued in accordance with IDVPreporting criteria and procedures (Reference 22). Asummary of EOIs issued for HVAC ducts and supportsis contained in Appendix C.

14

The IDVP performed a completion sample review forHVAC ducts and supports. The purpose of this review wasto insure the incorporation of the latest design inputsand their compliance with current design criteria andmethodology.

For the HVAC ducts and supports, the design inputsinclude seismic response data, design pressures andas-built data. The design criteria and methodology haveremained essentially unchanged since the initiation ofthe DCP corrective action program; therefore, onlygeneral compliance was verified.

The DCP analyses were also reviewed for properdocumentation, status of qualification, and documentationfor any required modifications. The IDVP performed fieldverification for a sample of required modifications, toinsure their on-site completion.

For each type of completion review, analysis andfield modifications, the IDVP chose a random sample anddeveloped checklists. Comments were provided asnecessary to clarify or expand upon the checklist.

15

3.2

The IDVP reviewed the DCP CAP for electricalraceways and supports as described in the PGandE Phase IFinal Report, and the actual implementation of correctiveactions. The DCP procedures and criteria were reviewedfor completeness and consistency with licensingcommitments contained in the FSAR, Hosgri Report andother licensing documents.

The IDVP verified the implementation through reviewsof DCP analyses.

3.2.1

The DCP performed transverse analyses for each ofthe existing support types. Engineering judgement wasemployed by the DCP during site walkdowns to determineconduits runs requiring longitudinal analysis. The IDVPrandomly selected samples from among the DCP analyses ineach of the two separate areas for review.

The IDVP performed design reviews of each of thesample analyses. These design reviews were performedusing checklists (Appendix B) developed to reflect allrequired DCP criteria and procedure items. Thesechecklists included separate items for applicability ofmethods, completeness, and correctness of engineering.

These checklists were supplemented with assessments ofthe completeness, applicability, consistency, and adequacyof DCP analysis methods and results. Where required,alternate calculations were carried out by the IDVP toverify the conclusions of the DCP analysis and/or IDVPassessment. The as-built information used as input tothe DCP analyses was field verified by the IDVP on asample basis.

EOI reports were issued in accordance with IDVPreporting criteria and procedures. A summary of EOIsissued for electrical raceways and supports is containedin Appendix C.

16

3.2.2

The IDVP performed a completion sample review forelectrical raceways and supports. The purpose of thisreview was to insure the incorporation of the latestdesign inputs and their compliance with design criteriaand methodology.

Field modifications found to be necessary byDCP analysis were also verified on a sampling basis. Thesamples of analyses for review and the fieldmodifications verified included selections from bothtransverse and longitudinal types of analyses.

For the verifications noted above, the IDVP selectedsamples and developed checklists. The checklistsreflect the IDVP review of documentation, seismic inputs,as-built inputs, compliance with current criteria andmethodology and documentation of modifications wherenecessary. Field modification checklists were developedto verify completion at the site as documented onappropriate design change notices (DCNs).

In addition to the completion review, the IDVPverified DCP's consideration of longitudinal conduit runsin the Corrective Action Program. Four runs wereselected at the site and their disposition relative tolongitudinal analyses was confirmed by the DCP.

3.3

The IDVP reviewed the DCP scope and plan forcorrective action for instrument tubing and supportsas described in PGandE's Phase I Final Report. The DCPCAP involved DCP review and analysis of all tubing and asample of supports.

The DCP corrective action plan and procedures werereviewed for completeness and consistency with all designcommitments. Licensing criteria contained in the FSAR,Hosgri Report and other licensing documents contain nospecific structural requirements.

The IDVP reviewed all DCP CAP qualificationanalyses. This review examined both the appropriatenessof the DCP plan for sample qualification based on worstcase assumptions, and correctness of the actual analyses.

This IDVP verification by design review was appliedto both the generic worst case DCP analyses and theas-built analyses for individual supports that could notbe qualified generically.

The IDVP verified the DCP CAP implementation usingreview checklists and alternate calculations.

These checklists included items for conformance withdesign commitments, established DCP procedures,applicability and correctness of engineering methods, andconsistency of results. A sample checklist is shown inAppendix A2.

Alternate calculations were carried out in caseswhere checklist review results were insufficient toverify that supports met licensing criteria. Thechecklist was supplemented with assessments of thecompleteness, applicability, consistency, and adequacy ofDCP analysis methods and results.

18

3.3. 2

The IDVP performed a completion review forinstrument tubing and supports. This review wasperformed to determine if any analysis results wereaffected by revision to the seismic input data and toestablish completion of required modifications byfield verification. The completion review wasaccomplished by review of both the IDVP design reviewpackages and the DCP calculation packages. Currentapplicable seismic coefficients were compared to valuesutilized in the DCP calculations or IDVP alternatecalculations as necessary to determine the impact of anyrevision to the seismic input.

4.0 HVAC DUCTS AND SUPPORTS~

~4.1

The IDVP sample for design review consists of sixgeneric "Design Aid" type packages and twelve specificqualification analyses.

The design aid packages include the detailedalgorithm for performing the qualification analyses(HV-4, Reference 23), data tabulation with supportingcalculations (HV-1,-2,-3,-72, References 24-27), and ageneric calculation generated to address the duct tosupport connections (HV-290< Reference 28). The designaid packages are discussed in detail in the "methods"sections which follow.

The sample of specific analyses selected for IDVPverification includes two round ducts of 24 and 48 inchesin diameter and the associated seismic supports. Theremaining ten packages include 14 different sizedrectangular ducts and associated seismic supports. Theducts range in size from 10 x 12 inches to 72 x 100inches; some ducts are covered with fireproofingmaterial or insulation. The specific analyses aredescribed in detail in subsequent sections.

4.2

The IDVP reviewed the DCP methods for performingduct and support analyses as documented in calculationpackage HV-4 and supported by calculations HV-1, HV-2,HV-3, and HV-72. HV-4 presents a detailed step-by-stepprocedure for analyzing the ducts and supports based onthe more general guidelines and criteria documented inDCN C-31, Revision 0.

Package HV-1 provides a tabulation and HV-2 back-upcalculations for the determination of rigid lengths ofround and rectangular ducts of all sizes, with andwithout fireproofing. FIV-72 is a compilation ofenveloped spectra for flexible slabs in the auxiliarybuilding. Each of these generic design aids was reviewedin detail by the IDVP (References 29 to 31).

20

Calculation HV-3 contains the development of an "N"factor for use in 'determining the effective duct sheetwidth for the Hosgri analysis of rectangular ducts.

As a result of the IDVP HV-4 review, a sixth genericcalculation, HV-290, was generated by the DCP, whichaddressed the duct-to-support connections. This packagewas also reviewed by the IDVP.

21

4.3

4.3.1

The results of the IDVP review of HV-4 (Reference 32)indicate that the DCP methods are complete and sufficientto provide for qualification of the duct/support systems.One item was noted concerning lack of procedures foranalyzing the duct-to-support connection devices (i.e.,bolts, screws or rivets). This was subsequently resolvedby HV-290 which specifically addresses these connectionson a generic basis. HV-290 was reviewed by the IDVP andfound acceptable.

The input data for calculation HV-3 is presented intwo proprietary Bechtel documents which were reviewed inthe DCP offices. The purpose of the review was toverify the applicability and extent of the testingprogram from which the data was derived. The results ofthis review indicate that HV-3 is generally complete,accurate and applicable- (Reference 33).

Additional "design aids" (HV-1, HV-2, and HV-72)were reviewed by the IDVP and found acceptable.

4.3.2

The IDVP reviewed 12 HVAC duct and supportqualification analyses. A description of the subjectanalyses and the results of design reviews are presentedin this section.

Design analysis HV-34 is the qualification analysisfor a new support 59352-23N and the associated duct(Reference 34). The 24 inch x 12 inch rectangularfireproof duct and support are located in Area H of theauxiliary building at elevation 150 feet. The IDVP foundthe analysis to be generally in accordance with the DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklistrequirements.

The IDVP determined that the duct and support meetcriteria.

22

Design analysis HV-53 is the qualification analysisfor two new supports, 59352-37M and -38M and theassociated ducts (Reference 36). The duct is comprised ofnon-fireproofed 24 x 12, 24 x 8 and 22 x 22 inchrectangular ducts located above the false ceiling of thecontrol room, Area H. The IDVP found the analysis to begenerally in accordance with the DCP criteria andconsistent with the IDVP checklist requirements.

The IDVP determined that the ducts and supports meetcriteria.

Design analysis HV-59 provides generic qualificationfor supports 59352-05, -06, -07, -13 and -14, and theassociated duct located above the false ceiling of thecontrol room, Area H (Reference 38). The analysisqualifies the support type with the largest tributaryload and the section of duct with the longest span. TheIDVP found the analysis to be generally in accordancewith the DCP criteria and consistent with the IDVPchecklist requirements. The following item was noted andresolved in the review:

o The IDVP field verified that only three of thesupports existed in the field (-05, -07 and -13).Support 07 was analyzed as the worst case supportwith a duct tributary length of 15.75 feet. Thisworst case analysis enveloped the IDVP iieldverification information.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP and theduct and supports were determined to meet criteria.

23

Design analysis HV-73 is the qualification analysisfor new support 59352-32M and the associated duct(Reference 41). The 24 x 8 inch insulated duct andsupport are located above the false ceiling of thecontrol room, Area H.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist requirements. The duct and support weredetermined to meet criteria.HY~

Design analysis HV-81 provides the qualificationanalyses for three supports, 59353-14, -15, -16, andassociated duct (Reference 43). The duct is located inthe auxiliary building (Area H, elevation 154 feet -6inches) and is comprised of 36 x 24, 16 .x 22, 16 x 18 and16 x 10 inch sections of insulated rectangular duct.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist requirements except for the frequencycalculation.

As a result of this IDVP design review, and thereviews of HV-86, 87 and 96 described below, EOI 1134 wasissued. EOI 1134 reports a concern that theRayleigh-Ritz Method used in the STRUDL computer code tocalculate the ductwork natural period does not predictthe first mode fundamental frequency in all cases. Inthe case of analysis HV-81, this concern has no impact onthe results since the support loads used in the DCPanalysis are larger than the loads calculated by theIDVP ~

The DCP analysis calculated a maximum duct bendingmoment of 73.7 Kip-inches by multiplying the maximummoment from a static "1 g" computer run by the seismicacceleration applicable to the Rayleigh-Ritz frequency.

24

The IDVP performed a modal analysis using theappropriate seismic response spectra. A modal super-position method was used, combining the first six modalresponses by absolute sum. The maximum duct bendingmoment determined by this method was 58.9 Kip-inches.The IDVP therefore determined that although thefundamental frequency had not been determined, the methodfor calculating moment and loads did yield conservativeresults (see Section 4.4 — EOI 1134).

The duct and supports were determined by the IDVP tomeet criteria.EELY

Design analysis HV-86 is the qualification analysisfor supports 59353-2, -3, — 4, -30, -32N and -33K, andthe associated ducts (Reference 46). The duct system islocated in the mechanical equipment room (Area H,elevation 154 feet 6 inches) and is comprised of 24 x 16,24 x 48, 12 x 10, 36 x 20 and 70 x 20 inch rectangularducts without fireproofing.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist requirements. The following item wasnoted and resolved in the review:

o The frequency resulting from the DCP analysisusing. the Rayleigh-Ritz method is different fromthe alternately calculated frequency. Thefrequencies differ by less than 10%.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP (seeSection 4.4 EOI 1134) and the duct and supports weredetermined to meet criteria.

25

Design analysis HV-87 is the qualification ofsupports 59366-51 through -59, -67N, -69N and theassociated ducts. The duct system is orientedvertically, running from elevation 100 feet to elevation140 feet in the auziliary building. The duct system isneither insulated nor fire proofed.

The IDVP design review noted minor discrepancies(Reference 46A) which were resolved prior to issuance ofthe final design package. None of the discrepancies werefound to impact the analysis results.

The IDVP performed alternate calculations to assessthe conservatism of the Rayleigh-Ritz method used todetermine the natural frequency of the duct system. Thisassessment was performed as part of the resolution of EOI1134 (see Section 4.4). It was determined that HV-87was conservative and therefore satisfactory.

The IDVP determined that the duct system and supportsanalyzed in HV-87 meet the applicable criteria.

Design analysis HV-88 is the qualification ofsupports 59322-13, -14, -15, -24N, -25N, -26N and theassociated ducts. The duct system is located above the4KV switchgear at elevation 135 feet in the turbinebuilding. The 24 x 36 inch ducts and supports includefireproofing, which is accounted for in the analysis;

The IDVP review of HV-88 resulted in the issuance ofEOI 1143 citing the misapplication of seismiccoefficients. The DCP subsequently provided the IDVP withthe seismic coefficients and satisfactorily demonstratedthe adequacy of the supports.

The IDVP thereby determined that the ducts andsupports analyzed in HV-88 meet criteria.

26

Design analysis HV-96 is the qualification forsupport 59366-70N and the associated ducts (Reference 47).This duct system is located in the auxiliary building,Area L at elevation 125 feet. It is comprised of asection of 48 inch round duct 3/4 inch thick, a largebutterfly valve mounted in line, and a cantileveredsection of 48 inch round duct, which is 0.0359 inchesthick (20 gage). The 48 inch duct penetrates the containmentexterior shell at elevation 122 feet, and the ductsupport is located at the containment wall penetration.


o The duct frequency calculated by the STRUDLcomputer code differed from first mode frequencyby 60%,. The design analysis shows a frequencyof 317 Hz compared to a frequency of 192 HZalternately calculated by the IDVP. Bothfrequencies significantly exceed the 33 Hzrigidity criteria.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP (seeSection 4.4, EOI 1134) and the ducts and support weredetermined to meet criteria.

Design analysis HV-104 is the qualification ofsupports 59357-35 through -39, -57, -60, -62, and theassociated ducts. The duct system is located in themonitor tanks and pump room at elevation 69feet of the auxiliary building. The duct system isneither insulated nor fireproofed. The IDVP found theanalysis to be generally in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklistrequirements. The following item was noted and resolvedin the review:

o Ceiling connection detail for support 59357-38shows a gap under a ceiling mounting plate. Themethodology used to analyze the plate did notadequately account for the gap.

27

The IDVP performed alternate calculations whichdemonstrated that the support is adequate as designed.

No other items were noted as a result of the review.Therefore, the IDVP determined that the duct and supportsmeet criteria.

Design analysis HV-116 is the qualification of newsupport 59367-7 and the associated duct (Reference 50).The duct system is located in the purge air supply fanroom in Area L at elevation 127 feet. The 48 x 60 inchrectangular duct is neither fireproofed nor insulated.The IDVP found the analysis to be generally in accordancewith the DCP criteria and consistent with the IDVPchecklist requirements. The following item was noted andresolved in the review:

o DCP sketches and as-built data did not correlatewith the support analysis. In addition, DCNs formodifications were omitted from the documentationpackage.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP and theduct support was determined to meet criteria.

Design analysis HV-119.is the qualification analysisfor new support 59353-34N (Feference 52). In this case,the associated duct was qualified by calculation HV-81described above. The IDVP found the analysis to begenerally in accordance with the DCP criteria andconsistent with the IDVP checklist. The following itemwas noted and resolved in the review:

o Analysis did not include weight of insulationin determining duct frequency.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP and thesupport was determined to meet criteria.

28

The IDVP field verified seven specific HVAC duct aridsupport details from four HVAC calculation packages inaddition to the completion sample verifications describedin a following section of this ITR.

These supports and associated duct systems wereexamined to clarify or resolve items noted during designreviews of specific analyses.

The results of these verification efforts show thefollowing:

o DCP analyses reviewed had properly incorporatedactual as-built data.

o DCP analysis HV-59, which noted an as-builtdiscrepancy, did properly account for worst-caseload and span data.

o All modifications deemed necessary within the DCPanalyses were complete and conformed toconfigurations analyzed in the DCP calculations.

Based on this field verification and as-built datareviewed as part of IDVP analysis design reviews, theIDVP determined that the DCP adequately incorporatedactual as-built data into their HVAC ouct and supportanalyses.

29

4.3.3

The IDVP completion sample of HVAC duct and ductanalyses included three individual calculation packages:HV-18, HV-150 and HV-153.

Results of these completion sample design reviewsshow that the analyses are complete and current withrespect to design inputs. Documentation was not in allcases complete, but was acceptable. DCNs formodifications required as a result of calculations HV-150and HV-153 were not included in the packages originallyprovided to the IDVP, however, they were subsequentlyprovided to the IDVP; this is acceptable. Nomodifications were found necessary in HV-18.

A random sample of 12 supports requiringmodification was selected by the IDVP for fieldverification. The 12 selected support numbers and theRLCA file number for the field verification documentationare shown in Table 5.

The required modifications included new supports aswell as structural modification of existing supports.

The IDVP found all modifications complete and inaccordance with documentation (DCNs).

30

4 '

Two EOI reports were issued as a result of the IDVPreview of the DCP corrective action with respect to HVACducts and supports (see Appendix C).

EOI 1134 was issued as a result of the IDVP reviewof the DCP Corrective Action Program. The DCP used anapproximate procedure to determine a response frequencybased on the Rayleigh-Ritz method as performed by theICES STRUDL II computer code. This procedure was usedfor the seismic analysis of HVAC ducts and supports.

The EOI was issued because, in some cases,frequencies reported by the DCP were significantlydifferent from those alternately calculated by the IDVP.This difference occurred because the DCP frequencies didnot always correspond to the first mode naturalfrequency.

The DCP provided additional information explainingthe basis for their approximate method for determiningfrequency and consequently for determining system seismicresponse accelerations. The following information wasprovided by the DCP (Reference 54):

o The method uses an assumed mode shape that resultsfrom a static imposition of uniform inertial loadswith a 100% participation factor.

o The Rayleigh-Ritz method as applied is notintended to necessarily predict the firstmode frequency.

o Hass participation of modes at frequencies lowerthan those calculated by this method are low ornegligible.

o The DCP method uses highest acceleration at orabove the frequency calculated by this method.

o Accelerations are applied to 110-:- of the systemmass to yield a conserva'tive uniform load.

31

o Use of Hosgri effective duct cross sections forboth Hosgri and DDE when using STRUDL. Theeffective cross section is smaller than theactual cross section.

A conclusion is drawn by the DCP that, based on thethese points, the method used provides for conservativeresults.

The IDVP reviewed the DCP response and performedalternate calculations to test the DCP conclusion(Reference 54A). As a result of these alternatecalculations, the IDVP concurs that the approximateprocedure does give conservative estimates of themagnitude of duct stresses and support loads. The IDVPfound no 'cases where information provided was incorrect,i.e., the conclusion held for several cases investigatedby the IDVP. Therefore the IDVP resolved EOI 1134 as aClosed Item.

EOI 1143 was issued as a result of the IDVP reviewof HV-88. The DCP incorrectly applied revised seismicinputs in the duct/support analysis. However, the DCPhas subsequently shown that allowable criteria are metfor the revised seismic inputs. This conclusion wasverified by the IDVP. Since allowable criteria weresatisfied, EOI 1143 was resolved as an Error Class C.

EOI 1003 had been issued and classified as an ErrorClass A or B as a result of the initial IDVP sample.This EOI included the IDVP concern with specific analysesalong with overall criteria definition. Following theIDVP review of DCP criteria and CAP implementation todate, this EOI was closed (see Appendix C).

4.5

The IDVP reviewed the DCP corrective action,including scope, for HVAC ducts and supports. The DCPwork reviewed was found to be generally in accordancewith the DCP criteria and consistent with the IDVPchecklist requirements. Differences were noted a'ndevaluated. All ducts and supports reviewed meetlicensing criteria. Analysis criteria were properlyapplied, and design analysis methods were found to beacceptable.

32

5.0 ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS AND SUPPORTS

5.1

The IDVP sample selected for the transverse andvertical qualifications consisted of 17 analyses selectedfrom a total of approximately 460 support types. Thesesupport types were chosen as representative of a varietyof configurations, locations, loading conditions, andanalysis types (i.e., generic, as-built, or modified).

For the longitudinal qualification, the IDVPselected a sample of seven analyses of conduit runs invarious areas of the plant with emphasis on those areaswith high seismic response spectra. Five of theseanalyses are static equivalent analyses performedinternally by the DCP. Two are dynamic analysesperformed by a service-related contractor to the DCP.

5.2

The IDVP reviewed the overall DCP methodologycontained in the PGandE Phase I Final Report, Section2.4.3.1. The specific methodology and procedures aredocumented in DCM C-15, Revision 3.

The IDVP reviewed the specific methodology in DCM

C-15, Revision 3. This review assumed that themanufacturer's load values were not affected by theMidland Ross Superstrut weld concerns (Reference 68).

The purpose of this review was to determine theadequacy of the DCP methodology and procedures in'satisfying the licensing requirements.

33

5.3

5.3.1

As a result of the IDVP Phase I initial sampleseveral concerns involving the DCP methodology werereported in ITR 07 (Reference 57). In addition, severalquestions resulted from the specific review of DCll C-15Revision 2 a'nd Revision 3. The resolutions for theseconcerns and questions are documented in the designreview package for DCH C-15, Revision 3. Resolution ofIDVP previous concerns is discussed in detail in Section5.4 (EOI 983).

The conclusion of the methodology design reviewis based on review of DCM C-15 Revision 2, Revision 3,and the review of the resulting analysis packages. On thebasis noted above the IDVP finds the procedures,methodology and criteria fo'r performing the qualificationof electrical raceway supports to be consistent with thelicensing criteria and acceptable.

34

5.3. 2

The IDVP reviewed 15 transverse analyses, 2 genericanalyses, and 7 longitudinal analyses. A description ofthe analyses and the results of the design reviews arepresented in this section.

Support analysis S-15B is an as-built analysis usingthe worst case configuration of three actual supports ofsimilar type. The analysis used generic weights for theattached cable trays and conduits based on sizesindicated from as-built data.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist requirements. In addition, the IDVPperformed alternate calculations which yielded the samefrequency (17.7 Hz) as the design analysis. The IDVPdetermined that the supports met criteria.

Support analysis S-80B is an as-built analysis basedon generic weights and the worst case configuration ofseven similar supports. The IDVP found the analysis to begenerally in accordance with the DCP criteria andconsistent with the IDVP checklist. The following itemswere noted and resolved in the review:

o The design analysis did not consider the supportdeadweight.

o The design analysis did not explicitly evaluatecolumn stability.

The above items were evaluated by the IDVP and thesupports were determined to meet criteria.

35

Support analysis S-116 is a generic analysis basedon the standard detail drawing 050030, Revision 29,configuration. The support was qualified based on amodification to the as-designed configuration. Thedesign change notice (DCN) is included in the package anddictates the addition of an S-6 type brace.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist. The support was determined to meetcriteria.

Design analysis S-184 is an as-built analysis of asingle support in the cable spreading room. The analysisused generic weights for the attached conduit andaccounted for a modification indicated on a DCN includedin the package.

The IDVP design review found the analysis to begenerally in accordance with the DCP criteria andconsistent with the IDVP checklist. The IDVP determinedthat the support meets criteria.

Design analysis S-262 is an as-built analysis of sixsupports of the same generic type within the containmentstructure. The analysis is performed for an envelopeworst case configuration.


o One of the as-built supports had a member lengthslightly longer than the length used. However,this support had smaller loads compared to theenvelope case analyzed, and therefore, analysisresults are conservative for all six configurations.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP and thesupports were determined to meet criteria.

36

Design analysis S-314 is a generic analysis of theas-designed support configuration from the PGandE standardsupport drawing (050030, Revision 25). The support isqualified using the maximum allowed number of attachedconduits at the maximum span, and generic weights wereused.


o The design analysis did not consider the supportdeadweight.

The above item was evaluated by the IDVP and thesupport was determined to meet criteria.Zi-'B2

Design analysis S-340 is a generic calculationqualifying two supports in the auxiliary building area Kat elevation 100 feet.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist. The IDVP determined that the supportsmeet criteria.

Design analysis S-345 is an as-built analysis for 28actual supports in various areas of the plant. A genericanalysis based on maximum generic loads, maximumdimensions and an envelope of spectra from all applicableareas did not provide 'qualification. Therefore, as-builtconditions were analyzed by the DCP for the sevendistinct areas of the plant where the supports exist.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist requirements. In addition, design analysisand IDVP alternate calculations agree.

37

Frequencies (hertz)

262 JJK2

XY

6.0920.49

6. 0920.49

The IDVP determined that this support meets criteria.

Design analysis S-356 is a generic analysis ofnine supports located at elevations ll7 feet and 140 feetin the auxiliary building and one support at elevation123 feet in the turbine building.

The IDVP preliminary design review was based onrevision 1 of calculation S-356. As a result of thisreview the following items were 'noted:

o The generic calculation was not based on maximumgeneric conduit weight as required by DCH C-15,Revision 3.

o Stresses at key support connections werenot evaluated.

o The analysis did not account for themanufacturer's allowables in the analysis ofUnistrut.

The DCP provided the IDVP with a revision to theanalysis which addressed the above items.

Based on the review of revision 1 and subsequentrevisions of this generic analysis, the IDVP determinedthat support type S-356 meets criteria as installed inthe plant.MU.'i

Design analysis S-415 is the analysis for 859individual supports located throughout the plant.The analysis was performed on a worst-case as-builtbasis for each of the 36 distinct locationswhere the support type exists.

38

For each of the areas the DCP tabulated load andcantilever length data. The worst-case support wasdetermined for each of three configurations of thegeneric support design. The three worst-case supportswere then analyzed in accordance with DCH C-15 for theparticular area/elevation group.

The IDVP review of S-415 noted a number of minordiscrepancies which were evaluated and determined to haveno impact on the analysis conclusions. In addition, theIDVP noted several cases of conduit overspan documentedin S-415 without explicit qualification shown. The DCPsubsequently provided a final Revision 2 (a preliminaryRevision 2 was initially reviewed) which addressed theoverspans using the same methodology as presented in DCPCalculation C-1 described later in this section.Although it was determined that the inelastic method didnot provide a conservative evaluation of the conduitstrength capacities, the IDVP verified that the conduitoverspans do not exceed criteria by a combination ofreview and alternate calculations. Calculations C-1 andS-415 are the only cases where this methodology wasused. The IDVP determined that the results of theseanalyses are acceptable.

As a re ult of the IDVP design review, it wasdetermined that support type S-415 meets criteria asinstalled at the plant.

Design analysis S-424 is an as-built analysis forone support located in the cable spreading room. Ageneric analysis based on generic weight and as-builtconduit sizes and spans did not provide qualification.Therefore, as-built weights were used in the analysis.

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist.

Based upon the review together with alternatecalculations, the IDVP determined that the support meetscriteria.

Design analysis S-426 is an as-built analysis for llsupports in various areas of the plant. Of thesesupports, 10 were qualified without modifications usingas-built configurations including conduit spans andweights. One support required modifications to meetallowables.

39

The IDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist. The IDVP determined that the supportsmeet criteria.

Design analysis S-562 is a generic analysis of eightelectrical junction box supports located in thecontainment structure. The IDVP found the analysis to begenerally in accordance with the DCP criteria andconsistent with the IDVP checklist requirements. Thefollowing item was noted and resolved in the review:

o Analysis neglected deadweight of the supportstructure and did not apply peak accelerations.However, the DCP analysis used twice theapproximate weight of the attached box.

The above item was evaluated by the XDVP and thesupports were determined to meet criteria.

Design analysis S-599 is an as-built analysis of asingle support located in the auxiliary building in Area Jat elevation 115 feet. The analysis uses generic conduitweights and actual conduit spans to determine loads.

The XDVP found the analysis to be generally inaccordance with the DCP criteria and consistent with theIDVP checklist requirements. The IDVP determined thatthe support meets criteria.

Design analysis S-623 is an as-built analysis fortwo supports inside the containment building atelevations 140 and 117 feet. The IDVP found the analysisto be generally in accordance with the DCP criteria andconsistent with the IDVP checklist requirements. Tnefollowing item was noted and resolved in the review:

o The DCP computer model did not fully account forproper boundary conditions and for all restraintreactions.

40

The above item was evaluated by IDVP alternatecalculations and the supports vere determined to meetcriteria.

Calculation C-1 is a generic analysis for Class 1conduits based on generic weights, span lengths andenveloping assumptions. This analysis vas applied torigid iron and aluminum conduit 3/4 inch to 6 inches indiameter and electrical metallic tubing (EHT) conduit 3/4inch to 3 inches in diameter. These conduits are locatedthroughout the plant. The conduits were analyzed with anelastic analysis approach using the applicable envelopingplantwide acceleration. For those conduits which wereshown to exceed the criteria by elastic analyses methods,an inelastic analysis method was employed to demonstratethat the conduits could adequately withstand the FIosgriand DDE accelerations.

The IDVP review found the DCP elastic analysismethods to be adequate and acceptable. Review oi theinelastic analysis method determined that it did not inall cases provide a conservative estimate of conduitstrength. Therefore, alternate calculations wereperformed to verify the results and conclusions of theinelastic analysis. Results of the alternatecalculations showed that the DCP conclusions wereacceptable, and that the Class 1 conduits currentlyinstalled in the plant and qualified on a generic basisare acceptable.

Design Analysis T-1 is a generic calculationperformed to demonstrate the adequacy of the cable trayson a plantwide basis (Unit 1).

The trays were evaluated for stresses due to DDE andHosgri earthquakes combined with deadload. Interaction ofaxial and bending stresses caused by two-directionalearthquakes and an increase of allowables by 60~~ forfaulted condition was considered. Tray bottoms wereevaluated separately from sides.

The IDVP design review found DCP Analysis T-1complete and in accordance with criteria.

41

The IDVP design reviewed seven longitudinal conduitanalyses as shown in Table 6. The analyses selectedincluded both computer analyzed dynamic analysesperformed by an outside service-related contractor to theDCP and static equivalent analyses performed by the DCP.

The results of, the IDVP design reviews show allthe DCP analyses selected to be generally in accordancewith the applicable criteria and consistent with IDVPchecklist requirements. The raceway support in each ofthe analyses was determined to meet criteria.

The IDVP field verified a sample of 26 racewaysupports to ensure incorporation of as-built data intothe DCP analysis. These supports were chosen over thecourse of the analysis design reviews. The IDVP foundall 26 supports to conform to as-built data, or to DCHsif modifications were necessary.

The IDVP therefore concludes that the DCP correctlyaccounted for as-built conditions in the analyses forelectrical raceways and supports.

5.3.3

The IDVP completion sample of analyses includedthree transverse analyses: S-83, S-104, and S-312, andthree longitudinal conduit analyses: TA-119-T3,AK-154-1, and AGE/GN-140-T3.

The IDVP found five of six DCP analyses to becomplete and current with respect to design inputs,documentation, and compliance with the latest revision ofthe design criteria and methodology (DCl4 C-15).

42

It was determined during the review of AnalysisS-312 that the conclusion reached for one group ofsupports was not consistent with the results for thatgroup as shown in the body of the analysis. The DCPsubsequently provided a revision to the analysis whichclearly substantiated conclusions stated in the previousrevision. This was verified by the IDVP and foundacceptable.

The sample for field modification included 12required modifications as shown in Table 7.

The IDVP found ll of the required modificationsto be complete and in accordance with DCNs.

The IDVP field verification determined that aconduit clamp modification for support CSR-127-6-471 hadbeen incorrectly implemented. DCN DCI-EC-3604, Revision0, specifies changing a conduit clamp on conduit K7218based on Analysis ACSR-127-Tl. IDVP field documentation(Reference 8A) shows the new clamp to be on conduitK8375, which is adjacent to conduit K7218.

The DCP subsequently provided Appendix A to AnalysisACSR-127-Tl. This appendix showed that when as-builtconduit weights and specific area accelerations were usedin the analysis, the particular support is acceptablewith no modification required. The IDVP reviewedAppendix A and found it to be acceptable.

The IDVP examined this item as a possible genericconcern. It was determined that this discrepancy was aresult of an inconsistent DCN, i.e. the support sketchshowed one change and the text called out a differentone.

In addition to the 12 DCNs examined as part of tnecompletion sample, the IDVP examined 13 DCNs from DCPanalyses outside of the completion sample. Ten of theseDCNs were also field verified by the IDVP.

As a result of this review, the IDVP determinedthat this discrepancy represents an isolated case not ageneric concern.

In addition, the DCP demonstrated that no licensingcriteria were exceeded and hence an EOI report was notissued.

43

5.4

No EOI reports were issued as a result of the IDVPreview of the DCP corrective actions with respect toelectrical raceways and supports.

EOI 983 was issued and classified as an Error ClassA as a result of the initial IDVP sample, to document thefollowing:

o Installation Concern

o Criteria Concerns

1. Longitudinal support for conduits is notspecified in any installation drawings andwas not checked by PGandE in the qualifi-cation .analysis.

2. Raceway stresses calculated for the largestdesign span may exceed allowable.

3. Joint fatigue and local joint flexibilitymay result in more flexible supports arecharacterized by higher seismic accel-erations.

4. Flexibility of adjacent supports may changethe effective load distribution of thesupport being examined. This may result inhigher seismic accelerations.

V

5. The design methodology does not considerthe coupling of support and raceway indetermining frequency. This may result inlower frequencies and higher seismicloadings.

o Response Spectra Input Concern

These concerns have been addressed by the DCP andEOI 983 has been resolved (see Appendix C). The IDVP hasverified design analyses addressing the installationconcern. In addition, the revised raceway and supportcriteria have been verified by the IDVP to addresscriteria concerns 1, 3, and the response spectra inputconcern. Items 4 and 5 have also been addressed by theDCP as documented in the IDVP design review of DCH C-15,Revision 3 (Reference 83A). Criteria concern 2 isaddressed by DCP design analy es C-1 and T-l, whicn wereverified by the IDVP.

44

5.5

The IDVP reviewed the DCP corrective action,including scope, for electrical raceway 'supports. TheDCP work reviewed was found to satisfy licensingcriteria. The seismic inputs used were consistent withthe date of the analysis and were determined to becorrect. The IDVP subsequently performed the completionsample review and determined that the DCP analyses wereacceptable with respect to current design inputs.Analysis criteria were properly applied, and designanalysis methods were found to be in accordance withlicensing criteria.

45

6.0 INSTRUI1ENT TUBING AND SUPPORTS~

~6.1

The DCP selected a representative sample of 88 tubingsupports for analysis to determine if they were affectedby revisions to the 1981 Hosgri spectra. All of thesamples were taken from portions of the annulus structurethat were adversely affected by these revised spectra.

All the DCP analyses were contained in sixcalculation packages, designated ITS-1 through ITS-6.The package ITS-1 addressed tubing span qualificationthrough the spacing of tubing supports; ITS-2 throughITS-6 were for the purpose of qualifying the tubingsupports themselves.

6.2

IDVP verification of the DCP CAP includedexamination of DCP sampling methods, analysis criteriaand procedures. Sample size requirements were examinedto determine if generic conclusions for the instrumenttubing and supports could be drawn through applicationof the sampling methodology. The sample space fromwhich the DCP selected their corrective action reviewsample was the entirety of instrument tubing andsupports for Design Class 1 instrument systems.

The;IDVP reviewed the DCP criteria against licensingcommitments contained in the FSAR, Hosgri Report, SafetyEvaluation Reports and supplements, and other licensingdocuments.

Verification of the DCP corrective actionimplementation was carried out through reviews of sixqualification analysis packages, ITS-1 through ITS-6.These reviews were conducted using IDVP checklistscompiled to reflect technical items in the DCP planprocedures.

46

All tubing supports were originally designed to asingle standard (Reference 69). This standard specifieddesign details such that supports had minimum first modefrequencies of 20 Hz. The DCP review used a basiccriteria for the adequacy of the supports based onminimum frequencies of 33 Hz. If the natural frequencywas greater than 33 hertz, the support was qualified.llhere the natural frequency was less than 33 Hz, astructural analysis was performed for qualification.

The IDVP field verified selected details anddimensions in the qualification calculations. Inaddition, overall modeling techniques and methodologywere verified on the basis of familiarity with theinstalled configurations.

6.3

6.3.1

The IDVP reviewed the DCP sampling methodology toverify the appropriateness and adequacy of the sample as abasis for plantwide conclusions. The majority of tubingand supports in the annulus represent worst caseconfigurations. Therefore, the IDVP concluded that theDCP sample methodology was appropriate, and that thesample of 88 supports and review of tubing was adequateto provide plantwide qualification conclusions.

6.3.2

Instrument tubing calculation ITS-1 is a genericcalculation which.,shows that for the maximum tubingspans, as given in the design specification, stresses dueto the postulated 7.5ll Hosgri earthquakes meetallowables.

In reviewing ITS-1, the IDVP found it necessary touse the following three step procedure:

that contained in the applicable design documents.

8kSRJ'ormulas were applicable to the purpose of thecalculation and were utilized correctly.

47

assumptions and results, and ensure that results meetallowables.

that:From this design review of ITS-1, the IDVP noted

o All input data were identical with or directlyderivable from documented values.

o Methods and formulas applied were correct.

o Calculations were accurate, assumptions andresults were valid, and allowables were metfor stainless steel and copper tubing.

The IDVP therefore considers ITS-1 is adequate andmeets licensing criteria for Hosgri loadings for theinstrument tubing span.

Instrument tubing support calculation ITS-2,-Revision 1 qualifies three generic support types bycomparison to 'maximum loads and cantilever arm lengthsgenerated in ITS-2, Revision 0. ITS-2< Revision 0 is ageneric calculation, which modifies allowable loads andcantilever arm lengths as given in the standard tubingsupport drawings, based on a conservative supportflexibilitycriteria of 40 Hz. To qualify the threesupport types in ITS-2, Revision 1, worst-case as-builtconfigurations were compared to the modified allowables.

The IDVP reviewed ITS-2 using a written checklist.The results of the review indicate that ITS-2 does notfollow the established DCP analysis methodology.

Therefore, the IDVP performed alternate calculations,following the DCP procedures, to verify the structuraladequacy of the three support types. The IDVP calculatedthe natural frequencies of the three support types anddetermined that they all met the qualification criteriaof 33 Hz.

The IDVP concluded that the subject supports meetthe qualification criteria.

48

Instrument tubing calculation ITS-3 qualifies foursupport types using as-built configurations.

The IDVP review of ITS-3 was performed using awritten checklist. The results of the review indicatedthat DCP calculation ITS-3 does not follow theestablished DCP analysis methodology. The IDVP thereforeperformed alternate calculations to verify the structuraladequacy of the subject supports. The results of thealternate calculations indicate that the four supportspresented in ITS-3 meet the qualification criteria.

Instrument tubing support calculation ITS-4 containsthe qualification analyses for five support types. Eachsupport type is an application of generic support drawingFS-342-149-29. The IDVP found three of the five supportanalyses were generally in accordance with the DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklist.

The remaining two support analyses contained thefollowing differences requiring further IDVP review:

o Incomplete support weight

o Unreferenced seismic acceleration coefficients arelower than the latest spectra acceleration values

o Analytical methods which may have providedunconservative results.

The IDVP was able to resolve these differences byalternate calculations and further review, as documentedin the final design review for ITS-4. The IDVP concludedthat the five support types are structurally adequate andmeet established criteria.

49

Instrument tubing support calculation ITS-5 is a twopart package consisting of Revisions 0 and 1 whichtogether provide qualification for seven support types.Revision 1 of ITS-5 considers the effect of revisedseismic inputs on results reported in Revision 0.

The IDVP found four of the seven support typesincluded in ITS-5 to be generally in accordance with theDCP criteria and consistent with the IDVP checklist. Onesupport type was removed from the plant.

Calculations for one support did not account forthe tubing tributary load in either the frequency orstress calculation. However, IDVP field verificationdetermined that this 'particular support configuration wasnot installed in the plant. Thus, the tributary loadconsideration was not significant.

The remaining support used an assumed member sizeand section property which did not agree with the as-built member size. The DCP showed that the originalassumption was conservative and all stresses were belowallowables if the actual as-built member properties wasused. This discrepancy is reported in EOI 1123.

The IDVP concluded that all existing supportsanalyzed in ITS-5 meet the qualification criteria.

Instrument tubing support calculation ITS-6qualified eight types of supports. The analyses werebased on as-built information.

The IDVP performed the review using a writtenchecklist. The results of this review indicated numerousprocedural and computational differences. In addition,the DCP as-built information was field verified by theIDVP with the following results:

50

o One support type did conform to DCP as-builtinformation.

o Two of the supports analyzed no longer exist.o Four of the supports carried loads greater

than those used in the DCP analysis.

o One support could not be located in the field.The IDVP performed alternate calculations, using

IDVP field verified information and following DCPprocedures.

For the support not located in the field, alternatehand calculations were performed by the IDVP to justifythe DCP as-built data, specifically the attached load.Results of these calculations (contained in the designreview package) indicated that the values used in thequalification analysis are conservative and results meetestablished criteria. The alternate calculationsindicate that the subject supports meet the establishedcriteria.

The IDVP selectively field verified sixteen supporttypes in designated areas of the annulus region. Thesesupport types were documented by the DCP with as-builtdata used as input to the calculation packages ITS-2through ITS-6. The DCP field information representsworst-case configurations when more than one support of aparticular type exists in the area under consideration.These supports were documented by the DCP as a result ofa walkdown in specific areas of the containment annulus(Reference 95).

51

Tne purpose of the IDVP verification efforts was todetermine validity of worst-case data by verifying generalconfiguration and loadings of support types.

Where possible (i.e., where support types representone or few actual supports), the IDVP verified thesupport-specific data as documented by the DCP. Spheresupports were identified by the DCP as unique or heavilyloaded configurations, specific worst-case supports werelocated and verified.

The results of the IDVP field verification effortindicate that the DCP as-built information is acceptablefor twelve of the sixteen types documented. Either theDCP as-built data accurately represents the supportverified by the IDVP or the supports no longer exist.

The four exceptions to this were unique configura-tions on one particular run of instrument tubing. Thesesupports were found to carry loads greater than thosedocumented by the DCP. The IDVP field verified datawas taken into account in performing the review of thequalification analyses for these supports (see ITS-6review). In no case did the increased loads affect theresults of the review.

Based on the field verification, the IDVP concludedthat the DCP analyses adequately incorporated existingas-built conditions. Ninor differences were noted, butthese had no impact on analysis results.6.3.3

The IDVP performed a completion review to establishthat revisions to the seismic design input did notaffect the results of the DCP analyses.

The results of the IDVP completion review asdocumented in Reference 95A show that revisions to theseismic design input do not impact the DCP analysisconclusions.

The IDVP determined that the instrument tubing andsupports meet criteria with no further review necessary.

52

6.4

One EOI report was issued for instrumentation tubingand tubing supports. Appendix C shows the EOI filenumber, revision, data, and status.

EOI 1123 reports a difference between the supportconfiguration considered in the qualification analysisITS-5 and the field verified configuration of thesupport.

The original calculation had used unconservativeassumptions for the support configuration. Calculationsperformed by the DCP and verified by the IDVP that usedthe actual data for the support configuration show allstresses to be below allowable criteria.

Since all stresses were below allowable criteria,EOI 1123 was resolved as an Error Class C.

6.5

The IDVP has verified the DCP program forqualification of Design Class 1 instrument tubing andsupports. The review included examination oi both theDCP plan and its implementation.

Plan implementation was verified through examinationof the DCP sampling, design reviews of completed DCPanalyses, and field verification.

Based on the design reviews and field verification,the IDVP concluded that the instrument tubing and tubingsupport were designed in compliance with .licensingrequirements.

54

SUMMARY OF REVIEN RESULTS

The following results summary is based on IDVPmethodology reviews and analysis design reviews.

The IDVP has issued six final methodology reviewpackages. This represents a complete review of the DCPmethodology, procedures and criteria. Based on theresults of these design review packages, the IDVP acceptsthe DCP methodology as adequate to satisfy licensingrequirements with no further review necessary.

Twelve design reviews of actual qualificationanalyses have been issued as final by the IDVP. Thedesign reviews show the ducts and supports to meetlicensing criteria.

The IDVP has issued a design review package for themethodology as contained in DCP DCH C-15, Revision 3, Theresults of this review indicated that the methodologyemployed in the reanalyses of electrical raceways andsupports is adequate to satisfy licensing requirements.

Fifteen design review packages for the transverseraceway support analyses have been issued as final. Theresults of these reviews„demonstrate that in general theDCP qualifications are complete and in compliance withestablished criteria.

Minor procedural and computational differences werenoted in the design review packages. The IDVP assessedthe impact of these differences and found that in allcases, licensing criteria were met. The IDVP thereforefinds the DCP transverse qualification analysesacceptable.

Design review packages for DCP generic calculationsC-1 and T-1 have been completed and issued as final. Theresults of these reviews demonstrate that the conduitsand cabletrays meet criteria.

The IDVP has completed seven reviews of DCPlongitudinal analyses. The results of these reviewsdemonstrate that in general the DCP qualifications arecomplete and in compliance with established criteria.

Minor procedural and computational differences werenoted in the design review packages. The IDVP assessedthe impact of these diffeences and found that, in allcases, licensing criteria were met. The IDVP thereforefinds the DCP longitudinal qualification analysesacceptable.

As a result of NRC Board Notification 83-14, the DCPperformed an in-depth review of fabrication practicesused for Nidland-Ross "Superstrut" cold-formed structuralmembers at DCNPP. In addition, a test program waspe'rformed, and it is understood that the DCP iscontinuing this work with a study of the structuralrequirements for connections in cold-formed structuralmembers.

Reference was made to this work by the NRC in arecent meeting, relative to the IDVP effort. The IDVPhas considered this work to be outside present scope, andtherefore has not reviewed the DCP work related to"Superstrut" members.

The IDVP has completed all methodology and analysisdesign reviews for instrument tubing and tuoing supports.

The results of the methodology review indicate thatthe procedures and criteria are sufficient to demonstratethe structural adequacy of the subject tubing andsupports. Although no explicit licensing requirementsexist, the IDVP determined the DCP program for thissubject is conservative and consistent with programsdeveloped for other systems and components withinDCNPP-1.

The design review results based on the qualificationanalyses demonstrate that the subject tubing and supportsare adequate to withstand the postulated Hosgri event.The analysis packages were not, in all cases, consistentwith the DCP criteria and procedures. The IDVP was able,in all cases, to verify the structural adequacy of thesupports. This was performed by the combined use ofdesign reviews and alternate calculations. Therefore theIDVP finds the DCP CAP for instrument tubing and supportsacceptable to meet the general provisions of thelicensing requirements.

57

I

8.0 CONCLUSION

The IDVP has reviewed the DCP methodology, proce-dures and criteria for the corrective action program asdocumented in this ITR. Based on the results of themethodology reviews for HVAC duct and supports,electrical raceways and supports, and instrument tubingand supports, the IDVP concludes the following:

o The CAP adequately addressed the Design Class lcomponents noted above.

o The CAP methodologies for these components weregenerally complete and met applicable licensingcriteria.

o The DCP procedures and criteria provided adequateguidance for performing the qualification analysesfor these components.

To verify the implementation of the DCP correctiveaction program the IDVP selected a representative sampleof qualification analyses for the three componentdisciplines covered by this ITR. Detailed design reviewswere performed and selected as-built conditions werefield verified. Based on the design reviews and thefield verification the IDVP concludes the following:

o Analyses adequately incorporated as-builtconditions.

o Analyses were in general complete and incompliance with documented DCP procedures andcriteria.

o Subject components met licensing criteria.The IDVP therefore concludes that the design

Class l HVAC ducts and supports, electrical raceways andsupports, and instrument tubing and supports weredesigned in compliance with applicable licensingrequirements.

9.0 REFERENCES

RLCA

Pacific Gas and ElectricCompany (PGandE), Phase IFinal Report — IndependentDesign Verification Program,Diablo Canyon Nuclear PowerPlant, June 21, 1983.

Independent Design VerificationProgram (IDVP), InterimTechnical Report (ITR) 08,Verification Program for PGandECorrective Action, Revision 0,October 5, 1982.

IDVP, ITR 0 35, VerificationPlan for Diablo Canyon ProjectActivities, Revision 0, Narch1, 1983.

DCNPP IDVP, Phase I, ProgramHanagement Plan, Revision 1July 6, 1982. Revision 0,Harch 24, 1983.

IDVP, Diablo Canyon NuclearPower Plant Unit 1, FinalReport, 1983.

PGandE Specification No. 8827,Specification for Furnishing andInstalling of Design Class IHeating and Ventilation Systemsfor Unit I — Diablo Canyon Site.PGandE Specification No. 8771Specification for Furnishing andInstalling Control PoomVentilation and PressurizationSystem for Unit I — DiabloCanyon Site.

P105-4-200-117

P105-4-839-008

P105-4-839-035

P105-4-436-002

P105-4-410-008

59

RLCA

DCP Analysis Package HV-116,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Support 59367-07,Revision l.DCP Design CriteriaMemorandum (DCII) C-31, DesignCriteria for Seismic Reviewof Class 1 Ducts and DuctSupports, Revision 0.

I

DCP Analysis Package HV-4,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports:Design Verification flethod-ology, Revision 1.

DCN C-17, Hosgri ResponseSpectra for Structures, Systemsand Components.

DC'-30, Double DesignEarthquake Response Spectrafor Structures, Systems andComponents.

American Iron and SteelInstitute (AISI), Specificationsfor Design of Cold-formed SteelStructural klembers.

American Institute of SteelConstruction, Manual of SteelConstruction, 7th and 8thEditions.DCH C-15, Electrical RacewaySupports, Revision 3.

PGandE Drawing Number 050030,Notes, Symbols and TypicalDetails for Design Class lEElectrical Raceway Supports,Change 29.

NRCg NUREG 0800 g

Standard Review Plan for theReview of Safety AnalysisReports for Nuclear PowerPlants, July 1981.

60

P105-4-436-056

P105-4-200-005

P105-4-436-,032

P105-4-200-100

P105-4-200-056

P105-4-410-009

P105-4-456-198

RLCA

18

19

20

21

PGandE Drawing 054162,Allowable Loads for ConcreteExpansion Anchors for Staticand Seismic Loads, Revision 3.

PGandE DCN Yi-9, Design of PipeSupports, Revision 7.

Diablo Canyon Site Units 1and 2, Final Safety AnalysisReport, USAEC Docket Nos.50-275 and 50-323.

Seismic Evaluation for Postu-lated 7.5N Hosgri Earthquake,USNRC Docket Nos. 50-275 and50-323.

P105-4-456-058

P105-4-200--021

P105-4-200-005

P105-4-200-001

22 IDVP, Program Procedure,Preparation of Open Item Reports,Error Report, Program Re olutionReports and IDVP CompletionReports, DCNPP-IDVP-PP-003,Revision 1, June 18, 1982.

P105-4-436-032

23 DCP Analysis Package HV-4, HVAC P105-4-436-031Ducts and Duct Supports: DesignAid, Revision l.

24

25

26

27

DCP Analysis Package HV-l,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports:Design Aid 01, Revision l.DCP Analysis Package HV 2gHVAC Ducts and Duct Supports:Backup Calculations For- DesignAid fl, Revision l.DCP Analysis Package HV-3,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Development of "n" Factor,Revision 0.

DCP Analysis Package HV-72,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Design Aid 03, Revision 0.

61

P105-4-436-029

P105-4-436-030

P105-4-436-031

P105-4-436-033

RLCA

28

29

30

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

DCP Analysis Package HV-290,HVAC Ducts and Supports, Ductto Support Xnterface ConnectionAssessment, Revision 0.

RLCA Final Design Review,HV-l, Revision 0.

RLCA Final Design Review,HV-72, Revision 0.




DCP Analysis Package HV-34,HVAC Duct and Duct Supports,59352-23N< Revision 0.


DCP Analysis Package HV-53,HVAC Duct and Duct Supports,59352-37N and 38N, Revision 0.


DCP Analysis HV-59,HVAC Duct and Duct Supports,Support Nos. 59352-05, -06, -07,-13, -14, Revision 0.


RLCA Field VerificationReconciliation.

P105-4-436-090

P105-4-506-050

P105-4-506-049

P105-4-506-,049

P105-4-506-098

P105-4-506-096

P105-4-436-052

P105-4-506-136

P105-4-436-038

P105-4-506-090

P105-4-436-092

P105-4-506-048

P105-4-591.5-239

62

RLCA

41

42

43

44

45

46

46A

47

49

50

51

52

DCP Analysis Package HV-73,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Support 59352-32N, Revision 0.


DCP Analysis Package HV-81,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Supports 59353-14,-15, and-16, Revision 1.



DCP Analysis Package HV-86,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Supports 59353-2, -3, -4, -30,-32N and -33N, Revision l.RLCA Final Design ReviewHV-87, Revision 0.


DCP Analysis Package HV-96,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Support 59366-70N, Revision 1.


DCP Analysis Package HV-116,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Support 59367-7, Revision 1.


DCP Analysis Package HV-119,HVAC Ducts and Duct Supports,Support 59353-34N, Revision l.RLCA Final Design Review,HV-119, Revision 0.

63

P105-4-436-039

P105-4-506-126

P105-4-436-053

P105-4-506-086

P105-4-506-119

P105-4-436-093

P105-4-506-142

P105-4-506-127

P105-4-436-057

P105-4-506-059

P105-4-436-056

P105-4-506-115

P105-4-506-055

P105-4-506-093

RLCA

54

54A

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

'63

64

65

66

DCP Fesolution Sheet,EOI 1134.

RLCA Assessment of Rayleigh-Ritz llethod

DCP DCM C-15, ElectricalRaceway Supports, Revision 3.

RLCA Preliminary Design Review(C-15) Revision 0

IDVP, ITR 07, ElectricalRaceway Supports, Revision 0.

DCP Analysis Package S-15B,Class 1E Electrical Raceway,Revision 0.

RLCA Final Design Review,S-15B, Revision 0.

DCP Analysis Package S-80B,Electrical Raceway Supports,Revision 1.

RLCA Final Design Review,S-80B, Revision 0.

DCP Analysis Package S-116,Class lE Electrical Raceway,Revision 0.

RLCA Final Design Review,S-116, Revision 0.

DCP Analysis Package S-184,Electrical Raceway Supports,Revision l.RLCA Final Design Review,S-184, Revision 0.

DCP Analysis Package S-262,Electrical Raceway Supports,Revision 0.

P105-4-1134-002

P105-4-506-171

P105-4-410-009

P105-4-597-210

P105-4-839-007

P105-4-434-035

P105-4-506-080

P105-4-434-036

P105-4-506-082

P105-4-434-037

P105-4-506-079

P105-4-434-039

P105-4-506-078

P105-4-434-033

RLCA

67

68

68A


NRC Board Notification 83-14blidland-Ross "Superstrut" Issue.

IDVP Field Verification, SupportCRS-127-6-471

P105-4-506-083

P105-4-5915-273

69

70

71

72

73

74

76

77

PGandE Drawing 049238,Instrument Tubing Supports,Change 9.

DCP Analysis Package S-314,Class 1E Electrical RacewayRevision 0.


DCP Analysis Package S-345,Class 1E Electrical RacewaySupports, Revision 0.



DCP Analysis Package S-426,Electrical Raceway Supports,Revision 2.


P105-4-456-211

P105-4-434-043

P105-4-506-067

P105-4-434-032

P105-4-506-011

P105-4-434-038

P105-4-506-088

P105-4-434-041

P105-4-506-084

65

RLCA

78

79

80

81

82

DCP Analysis Package S-562,Electrical Raceway Support,Revision l.RLCA Final Design Review,S-562, Revision 0.


DCP Analysis Package S-623,Class lE Electrical Raceway,Revision 0.

P105-4-434-034

P105-4-506-013

P105-4-434-042

P105-4-506-,068

P105-4-434-046

83.

83A

85

86

87

88

89


RLCA Final Design Review,DCH C-15, Revision 3.

PGandE Calculation No. ITS-l,Instrument Tubing Supports,Revision 0.

PGandE Calculation No. ITS-2,Instrument Tubing Supports,Revision l.PGandE Calculation No. ITS-3,Class 1 Instrument TubingSupports, Revision 1.

PGandE Calculation No. ITS-4,Pipe Support, Revision l.PGandE Calculation No. ITS-5,Instrument Tubing Supports,Revision 0.

PGandE Calculation ITS-6,Pipe Support, Revision l.

P105-4-506-076

P105-4-506-193

P105-4-438-014

P105-4-438-014

P105-4-438-012

P105-4-438-014

P105-4-438-016

P105-4-438-017

RLCA

90

92

93

94

95

95A

96

97

RLCA Final Design Review,ITS-l, Revision 0.

RLCA Final Design Review,ITS-2, Revision 0.




PGandE Response to RFI 363,Instrument Tubing Supports,As-Built Sketches.

IDVP Instrument Tubing SupportCompletion Review.

RLCA Final Design Review,Instrument Tubing andTubing Supports — Sampling.

RLCA Final Design Review,ITS-4.

P105-4-506-017

P105-4-506-019

P105-4-506-025

P105-4-506-087

P105-4-506-016

P105-4-437-013

P105-4-507-011

P105-4-506-036

P105-4-506-037

67

Duct Diameter Gage

less than 9

9 — 22

23-3637 — 50

51 - 60

61 — 84

24

22

20

18

16

Round Ducts — Sheet Steel Gage

Larger Dimension of Duct Gage

less than 19

19-4849 — 72

73 or over

24

22

20

18

Rectangular Ducts — Sheet Steel Gage

68

Duct Diameter Hinimum Reinforcing flax imum Distance Between

less than 37

37 — 60

61 — 84

1-1/4 x l-l/4 x 1/8

l-l/2 x l-l/2 x 1/8

6 feet

4 feet

Tahe~Round Ducts — Stiffeners

Larger Dimension Haximum Reinrorcing .Maximum Distance Between

less than 13

13 — 24

25-3637 — 48

49-9697 and over

1 x 1 x 1/8

l-l/4 x 1-1/4 x 1/8

l-l/2 x l-l/2 x 1/8

l-l/2 x l-l/2 x 1/8

2 x 2 x 1/8

4 feet3 feet 4 inches

2 feet 6 inches

.2 feet

2 feet

Rectangular Ducts — Stiffeners

69

DCPEa'i'll,M

CF-140-TlComputerAnalyzed

AK-140-TlComputerAnalyzed

AH-ll5-6

140

140

115

K1995K1996

K9103K9314K9403K9312K9234K9113K9114

K7403K7407

HodificationsRequired

No tIodificationsRequired

IlodificationsRequired

CG-117-4

AK-140-3

A-CSR-127-10 CSR

TA-119-0-01

117

140

127

119

K1847K1845

K6093K6094

K8607

K2764

i~lodificationsRequired

IlodificationsRequired

tlodificationsRequired

flodificationsRequired

Tab.le

Raceway Supports

Longitudinal Analysis Sample

70

Elevation

59362-03

59362-63N

504566-10

59352-24N

59352-27N

59357-45

59357-47

59352-41N

59353-30

59353-32N

59357-31

59353-20

153

137

96

151

152

70

140

158

158

154

P105-4-591.5-276

P105-4-591.5-277

P105-4-591.5-278

P105-4-591.5-279

P105-4-591.5-280

P105-4-591.5-281

P105-4-591.5-282

P105-4-591.5-283

P105-4-591.5-284

P105-4-591.5-285

P105-4-591.5-335

P105-4-591.5-336

HVAC

Field llodifications Completion Sample

71

CSR-127-6-404

G-117-7-24

F-117-2-32

G-117-2-63

G-123-6-13

K-100-7-63

K-100-7-64

GE/GN-140-6-26

GE/GN-140-6-25

GE/GN-115-2-153

GE/GN-115-2-154

CSR-127-6-471

S-426A

S-415-1

S-415-1

S-415-1

S-415B

S-202-Tl

S-202-Tl

S-116

S-116

S-116

S-116

S-289-T3

P105-4-591.5-261

P105-4-591.5-262

P105-4-591.5-263

P105-4-591.5-264

P105-4-591.5-265

P105-4-591.5-266

P105-4-591.5-267

P105-4-591.5-268

P105-4-591.5-269

P105-4-591.5-270

P105-4-591.5-271

P105-4-591.5-273

Raceway Supports

Field l4odification Completion Sample

72


Appendix A

Sample Checklists


Appendix Al

Sample Checklists

HVAC Ducts and Supports

(ll pages)

HVAC CHECKLIST

Date Page of

FLCA Reviewer of Class I HVAC Ducts and Supports

Duct/Support:

P TP tt ~

1.1 The design criteria snailbe clearly established.

1.2 Are all assumptions definedand reasonable?

1.3 Are methods reasonable andclearly defined?

1.4 Are computer programs usedproperly and verified.

1.5 . Are results in g'eneralreasonable.

1.6 Have all mathematicalcomputations been executedcorrectly?

1.7 Have all formulae been usedcorrectly and referenced.

1.8 ls the design analysiscomplete?

HVAC CHECKLIST

of

Duct/Support:

Qy Page

RLCA Review of Class I HVAC Ducts and Supports

2.0

2.1 Design verification ofductwork shall conform tothe applicable portions ofthe codes and standardslisted in DC'-31 (Ref.l)Section 2.0, unless statedotherwise witnin Ref. (1).

2.2 Have all codes andstandards, which have beenused, properly referenced.

3.0

3 ~ 2

3. 2.1

Are supports grouped intosimilar (generics) types inaccordance with DCN C-31Sect. 7.0.

l

Selection .of- the criticalsupport; witnin the genericgroup, shall consider thefoilow ing items:

Dynamics — boundaryconditions, location frombuilding center of mass,system flexibility, etc.

3.2 ~ 2 Support location withre pect to applicableresponse spectra.

HVAC CHECKLIST

By Date Page of


Duc t/Suppor t:

3 ~ 2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

System period relative topeak response.

Total weight acting on thesupport.

Strength of supportingconcrete and ancnor bolts.

3.3

3.4

In evaluating the criticalsuppor (s) rod or strapdeadweight hangers shallnot be considered asseismic supports in thegeneric design verificationThe basis for selection ofthe critical support shallbe documented in the analysis.

4.0

4.1 Duct vertical supportperiods shall be calculatedin accordance with Ref. (2)Section A4.1.

4.2 Duct horizontal supportperiod shall be calculatedin accordance with Pef. (2)Section A4.2.

4.3 Have all boundarycondition assumptions beenstated and justified

4 ~ 4 Have all weights beenincluded, duct weight, ductst iffene'r s, damper s,support members,fireproofing, etc.

4.5 Has the total weight beenincreased by 10% to accountfor miscellaneous itemssuch as bolts, gaskets, airturns, etc.

HVAC CHECKLIST

Date Page of

RLCA Reviev of Class I HVAC Ducts and Supports

Duct/Support:

5.0

5.1 — Theparameters for calculatingduct periods differ forHosgri and DDE. Ductperiods shall be calculatedseparately for Hosgri and

ODEUM

5.2 In evaluating the duct.period the maximum spanoetveen seismic supportsshall be used.

5.3 Tne span between seismicsupports shall be obtainedfrom the actual walkdowndrawings.

5.4 If design aids were usedvere they interpreted andapplied correctly?

5.5 Generic calculationspertaining to duct periodsshall be based on Ref. (2)Section A5.0

HVAC CHECi(LIST

Dy Date Page of

PLCA Review of Class I HVAC Ducts and Supports

Duct/Support:

5.6 If the duct's actual spanis greater than the maximumspan ror rigidity the ductperiod shall be determinedas described in Ref. (2)Section A5.0

5.7 Duct period calculationsbased on Ref. (2) SectionA5.0 pertain only to thecase where duct mass isuniformly distributed.Ducts with non-uniform massdistribution shall be,

, evaluated on an individualbasis.

5.8

5. 8.1

In applying Ref. (2)Sec"ion A5.0 the followingshould be noted relative toduct cross-sectional'roperties:For round ducts the entirecross-section may be consideredeffective.

5.8.2 For DDE rectangular ducts, theentire cross-section may beconsidered effective.

5.8.3 For Hosgri rectangularducts, only the stiffenedportions of the ductcorners shall be consideredeffective as described inRef. (2) Section A5.0a

HVAC CHECKLIST

By Date Page of


Duct/Support:

5.9 Have the concerns inSection 4.3 through 4.5 ofthis report been met forthe duct period calculations.

5.10 For concentrated masseshas the load been appliedand/or oistributed in anacceptable manner.

5.11 Has the maximum span beenassumed to act on bothsides, of the support underevaluation?

6.0I

6.1 This section deals withthe dynamic interactionbetween the duct and ductsupports. Since the ductperiod differs for Hosgriand DDE cases, tnenseparate system periodsmust be calculated for eachsituation.

6.2 In determining the systemperiod the maximum spanbetween supports shall beconsidered acting on bothsides of the support under .

evaluation (fornon-cantilevered supports).

6.3 The system period shall bedetermined based on Ref (2)Section A6.0

HVAC CHECKLIST

By Date Page of


Duct/Support:

7.0

7.1 In general the proceduredescribed in Ref. (2)Section A7.0 shall be usedin calculating the Hosgriand DDE seismic accelerations.

7.2

7 '

The Hosgri accelerationsshall be determined fromthe response spectracontained in Pef (3) DC'-17.Damping value for Hosgri shallbe 7%.

7.4 The DDE accelerations shallbe determined from the responsespectra contained in Ref. (4)DCai C-30.

7.5 Damping value for DDE shallbe 2~.

7.6

7.7

7.8

Tne highest acceleration fromeither tne Blume or Newmarkspectra shall be used in theduct and support evaluation forHosgri.

The acceleration taken from theresponse spectra shall be thehighest acceleration at or belowthe calculated system period.

The spectra that was generatedat a point closest to the supportunder consideration shall be used,interpolation is permisible perRef (3) and (4) .

7.9 Supports at or below elevation85'halluse ground spectra for the

appropriate building.

HVAC CHECKLIST

By Date Page of


Duct/Support:

7.10 For horizontal spectra oth theNorth-South and East-$ Uest directionssnail be considered.

7.11 Has the torsional component ofacceleration been considered'?

7.12 For vertical accelerationshas 1.0g been added for deadweight considerations?

8.0

8.1 The following loads. shall. beconsidered in the designverification analysis:

8.1.1 Deadweight loads (D)Height of duct, supports,stiffeners, and any otherpermanent loads.

8.1.2 Pressure Loads (Pm)haximum operating pressurefor ducts, assumed to benegative.

8.1.3 Seismic Loads (E')Loads generated from the Hosgriand DDE seismic event.

8.2 Seismic loads shall be calculatedby the 2D-ABSUl1 or the 3D-SRSSmethod, see Ref. (3) .

8.3 Nhen using the 2D-ABSUP. method,two sets of seismic loads shallbe calculated as follows:

HVAC CHECIiLXST

By Date Page of


Duct/Support:

8.3.1 Set (1):Vertical + Horizontaltransverse.

8.3.2 Set (2):Vertical + Horizontallongitudinal.

9.0

9.1 Ducts snail be evaluated forthe following load combinations:

Total Load = D + Pm + E'.

9.2 Duct supports shall be evaluatedfor the following load combi-nations:

Total Load = D +E''0.

0

10.1 Stresses (or loads) at eachcritical location in the ductsupport members shall be checkedagainst the allowable stresses(or loads) specified in Ref. (1)DCtl C-31 Section 6.0.

10.2 Stresses (or loads) at each criticalconnection in the duct supportshall be checked against theallowable stresses (or loads)specified in Section 6.0

of'CIIC-31 Ref. (1) .

10.3 Are the number of criticalmembers evaluated surf icient?

HVAC CHECKLIST

By Date Page of


Duct/Support:

11.0

11.1 Seismic and dead load stresses.

11.1.1 Bending and shear stresses shallbe calcul'ated in accordancewith Ref. (2) Section All.l.

11.1.2 Axial stress and axial bucklingshall be evaluated as describedin All.2 of Ref. (2).

11.2 Pressure stresses in the ductsshall be evaluated in accordancewith Section A12.0 of Ref. (2).

~

~ ~

11.,3 Stresses in the duct sheet shallbe evaluated as described inRef; (2) Section A13.0.

11.4 The duct stiffener stress shallbe evaluated as described inRef. (2) Section A14.0.

12.1 Does the duct meet the require-ments of DCH C-31, Ref. (1)?

12.2 Does the duct support meet therequirements of DCI1 C-31, Ref. (1) ?

12.3 Ductwork that does not meet thegeneric criteria may be reevaluatedbased on the as-built conditionsof each support in the group.When evaluating an individualsupport, consideration shall begiven to the following items:

12.3.1 Actual duct span.

12.3.2 Response spectra for thatspecific support location.

HVAC CHECKLXST

Date Page of

RLCA Review of Class X HVAC Ducts and Supports

Duct/Support:

12.3.3 Actual torsional eccentricitywith respect to the buildingcenter of mass.

12,3.4 Actual duct operating pressure.

12.3.5 Strength of supporting concretefor that specific location.

12.3. 6

12.4

For "as-built" condition, deadweight rod and strap hangersmay be considered effective ifthey meet the requirements of i

DCll C-31< Ref. (1).Ductwork that does not meet tnegeneric or the as-built evaluationshall be modified as requi:red ta-meet the criteria.

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc

Appendix A2

Sample Checklists

Instrument Tubing and Supports

(1 page)

INSTRUI'lENT TUBING SUPPORT CHECKLISTS

SatiszactoryERR HQ CQloII~

Is worst case support location si>own?

Is worst case support length "L"shown:

Is worst case supported load(tributary) calculated?

Is system natural frequency calcu-lated?

Is n=tural frequency below 33 Hz?

Is correct hosgri respon e spectra .

rezerenced? (from DC'-l7 Rev. 6)

Is peak spectra acceleration valueat 4% damping used?

Is support deadload correct andincluded in stress calculations?

Are key stress locations considered?

Are DCI! Yi-9 allowables cited?

Are calculateo stresses below allow-ables?

Is analysis sufficiently completeto provide support qualification?


Appendix 8

Sample Checklists

Electrical Raceway Supports


Appendix. Bl

Sample Checklists


Transverse Analyses

(4 pages)

CHECKLIST FOR RACEWAY SUPPORTS

Page of

Is support modeled from as-builtor DRW 050030, Revision 29configuration?

If worst case generic load con-figuration for a support detailis not analyzed, does as-built caseanalyzed represent worst-case con-figuration?Are sources of informationadequately referenced?

Is support deadload'orrect?

Are raceway„and conduit weightsas-built or max allowable'

Are all locations of genericS-type identified?Is as-built information for allsupport locations included inpackage?

Is tributary deadweight calculatedusing max allowable span orgreatest as-built span?

Are system natural frequenciescalculated correctly?

Is the N-S and E-W horizontalspectra computed per DCN C-15,Revision 3 procedure?

Are these accelerations calculatedseparately for Blume and lies~markspectra and the greater cnosen?

Page of

By

Does calculation use 74 dampedresponse?

Is the vertical response for DDE.36g?

If an as-built calculation, isthe spectral ordinate correspond-ing to the calculated naturalperiod of raceway support used?

If a generic condition is cal-culated, is the peak spectralvalue used if the calculatednatural period of the raceway isgreater than that correspondingto 75% of the peak spectral value?

If more than one set of spectraexist for a floor elevation, iscontrolling spectra utilized foranalysis?

Is ground response spectra usedif the support is at elevation85 feet or below?

Are maximum horizontal, vertical,~ and support deadweight loads

combined by ABS for criticallocations?

Is the acceptance criteria forcold-formed steel members asspecified in OCH C-15, Revision 3followed? (Fg, Fv, Ft )

'oes calculation for axialcompression meet DCll C-15,Revision 3 guidelines?

Bl-2

Page of

If axial and flexur'al stressesoccur simultaneously in a cold-formed steel member, is theinteraction formula of DCN C-15,Revision 3 applied?

Are allowable loads on Unistrut(or equivalent) concrete inserts,channel connection, and bolts usedin accordance with DCN C-15,Revision 3?

For combined pullout 'and slipon Unistrut (or equivalent)concrete inserts, channelconnections and bolts, is theinteraction formula DCN C-15,Revision 3 used?

Are allowable loads'n Unistrut(or equivalent) pipe clampsthose values in Table B of DCNC-15, Revision 3?

Are allowable loads on concreteexpansion anchors those givenon PGandE Drawing 054162,Revision 3?

Is calculation of pullout andshear loads on concrete expan-sion anchors calculated perPGandE Drawing 054162, Revision 3?

Are unbraced joints made of anglefittings checked using AttachmentsG and H of DCN C-15, Revision 3?

Bl-3

Page of

By

Are calculation assumptions valid?

Are analysis conclusions valid andconsistent with calculation results?

Bl-4

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc

Appendix B2

Sample Checklists


Longitudinal Analyses

(4 pages)

CHECKLIST FOR RACE'r'PAY SUPPORTSLONGITUDINAL DIRECTION

Page of

By

Is support modeled from as-builtor DRN 050030, Revision 29configuration?

Are sources of informationadequately referenced?

Is support deadload correct?

Are raceway and conduit weightsas-built or max allowable?

Is as-built information for allsupport locations included inpackage?

Is tributary deadweight calculatedusing max allowable span orgreatest as-built span?

Are support stiffnesses calculatedcorrectly?

Are system natural frequenciescalculated correctly?

Is the N-S and E-N horizontalspectra computed per DCN C-15,Revision 3 procedure?

Are these accelerationd calculatedseparately for Blume and Newmarkspectra and the greater chosen?

Page of

By

Does calculation use 7% dampedresponse?

Is the vertical response for DDE.36g?

If an as-built calculation, isthe spectral ordinate correspond-ing to the calculated naturalperiod of raceway support used?

If more'han one set of spectraexist for a floor elevation, iscontrolling spectra utilized foranalysis'

Is ground response spectra usedif the support is at elevation85 feet or below?

Are maximum horizontal, vertical,and support deadweight loadscombined by ABS for criticallocations?

Is the acceptance criteria forcold-formed steel members asspecified in DC'-15, Revision 3followed? (F b, F v, F t )

'

Does calculation for axialcompression meet DC'-15,Revision 3 guidelines?

Are diagonal bracesadequate in compression?

B2-2

Page of

By

If axial and flexural stressesoccur simultaneously in a cold-formed steel member, is theinteraction formula of DC'-15,Revision 3 applied?

Are allowable loads on Unistrut(or equivalent) concrete inserts,channel connection, and bolts usedin accordance with DCM C-15,Revision 3?

'or combined pullout and slipon Unistrut (or equivalent)concrete inserts, channel.connections and bolts, is theinteraction formula DCH C-15,Revision 3.used?

Are allowable loads on Unistrut'or equivalent) pipe clampsthose values in 'gable B of DCNC-15, Revision 3?

Are allowable loads on concreteexpansion anchors those givenon PGandE Drawing 054162,

'Revision 3?

Is calculation of pullout andshear loads on concrete expan-sion anchors calculated perPGandE Drawing 054162, Revision 3?

Are unbraced joints made of anglefittings checked using AttachmentsG and H of DCM C-15, Revision 3?

,B2-3

Page of

By

Are calculation assumptions valid'

Is analysis complete andmethodology acceptable?

Are analysis conclusions valid andconsistent with calculation results?

S2-4

Robert L. Cloud and AssocIates, Inc

Appendix C

EOI Status

(2 pages)

EOI StatusHVAC Ducts, Electrical Raceways, t Tubirg and Associated Supports

. Corre Action

EOIFile No.

983

Subject

Raceway — Installation,Criteria and InputConcer ns

Rev. Date

2/6/824/21/829/10/828/12/838/22/838/22/838/22/83

By

RLCATESTESTES

RLCATESTES

Type

OIRER/AER/AOIR

PPRR/CIPRR/CI

CR

ActionRequired

RLCAPGandEPGandE

RLCATESTES

NONE

PhysicalYiod.

1003 HVAC Ducts and.Supports-Cr iteria and Procedures

2/6/826/7/82

6/21/828/23/828/25/8210/5/827/21/837/22/838/1/838/1/83

RLCARLCA

TESTES

RLCATESTES

RLCATESTES

OIRPPRR/OIPPRR/OIP.

OIRPER/C

ER/Aor BOIR

PPRR/CIPRR/CI

CR

RLCATES

PGandERLCA

TESPGandE

RLCATESTES

NONE Yes

STATUS: Status iS indicated by the type of classification of latest report received by PGandE:

OIR - Open Item Report ER - Error Report A - Class A ErrorPPRR - Potential Program Resolution Report CR - Completion Report B - Class B ErrorPRR - Program Resolution Report CI - Closed Item C - Class C ErrorPER - Potential Error Report DEV - Deviation D - Class D ErrorOIP - Open Item with future action by PGandE

PIIYSICAL MOD: Physical modification required to resolve the issue. Blank entry indicates thatmodification has not been determined.

EOI StatusHVAC Ducts, Electrical Raceways, t Tubing and Associated Supports

Corrective n (Continued)

EOIFile No. Subject Rev. Date By Type

ActionRequired

Physicaltrod.

1]23

1134

ITS-5; Differencebetween as-built andanalyzed member size

HVAC Duct Frequencies—application of Rayleigh-Ritz method

HYAC Duct Analysis HV-88,application of seismicinputs

0123

0

1

23

56

5/13/836/23/836/27/837/13/83

6/15/838/22/83-8/22/838/22/83

8/16/838/30'/838/31/839/7/839/7/839/8/839/8/83

RLCARLCA

TESTES

RLCA

RLCATESTES

RLCA

RLCATESTES

RLCATESTES

OIRPER/C

ER/CCR

OIRPPRR/CIPRR/CI

CR

OIRPPRR'IOIP

PRR/OIROIRPER/C

ER/CCR

RLCATES

PGandENone

RLCATESTES

NONE

RLCATES

PGandERLEA

TESPGandE

NONE

No

STATUS: Status ls indicated by the type of classification of latest report received by PGandE:

OlR - Open item Report ER - Error Report A - C) ass A ErrorPl'RR - Potential Program Resolution Report CR - Completion Report D - Class D ErrorPRR - Program Resolution Report Cl - Closed Item C - Class C ErrorPER - Potential Error Report DEV - Deviation "D - Class D ErrorOIP - Open Item with future action by PGandE

PIIYSJCAL IIOD: Physical modification required to resolve the issue. Dlank entry indicates thataodlflcatlon has not been deterallned, .


Appendix D

Program Manager's Assessment

(1 page)

PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT

As IDVP Program Manager, TELEDYNE ENGINEERINGSERVICES (TES) has established a Review and, EvaluationTeam, directed by a qualified team leader as decribed inSection 7.4(c) of the IDVP Phase I Program ManagementPlan.

This Team has reviewed RLCA Preliminary and FinalDesign Reviews associated with IDVP verification of theDCP Corrective Action Program for Electrical Raceways andSupport, HVAC Ducts and Supports, and Instrument Tubingand Supports, as described in Status Reports to the TESProject Manager; and has provided comments, thereon, toRLCA for consideration for incorporation into such DesignReviews. In addition, members of the Team haveaccompanied RLCA personnel during data-gatheringactivities and field verification of modificationsperformed at the Diablo Canyon Plant.

The team Leader and the TES Program Management Team,based upon their involvement and participation in theIDVP verification effort is in agreement with thecontents of this ITR.

interim technical report - nrc: home page · 2017. 2. 28. · 3.0 idvp methods 3.1 hvac ducts and...

Documents