ML20023C084
| ML20023C084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1983 |
| From: | Terao D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C059 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305090654 | |
| Download: ML20023C084 (5) | |
Text
_
Q b
UNITFn STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et _al.
50-446
)
Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID TERA 0 I, David Terao, being duly sworn, do depose and state:
Q1. By whom are you employed and what is the nature of the work you perform?
A1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a mechanical engineer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Branch.
Q2. What is the nature of the responsibilities you have regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES)?
A2. My involvement in the CPSES review results from my current work assignment which is to investigate allegations raised concerning possible deficiencies in Class 1 piping design.
Q3. What is the subject matter of your affidavit?
A3.
I will address the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board question regarding Board Notification 82-105, " Alleged Design Deficiency."
Specifically, Dr. McCollom noted that this Board Notification B305090654 830505 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
refers to "some newly developed dynamic application pipe clamps."
He asked whether these clamps have been installed at Comanche Peak, and if so, how they were evaluated. See Transcript of Telephone Conference Call, April 7,1983, at 24.
Q4. Are there any " stiff pipe clamps" used on the CPSES?
A4. Yes, there are 17 stiff pipe clamps used at CPSES. Three of the clamps are located on a 12" residual heat removal ("RHR") system line, which is Class 1 piping. The remaining 14 clamps are used on the Feedwater System which is Class 2 piping.
Q5. Are the local stresses induced by these clamps being evaluated by the Applicants?
AS. Yes, the Staff has been advised that the Applicants are performing an analysis of the 3 stiff clamps located on the Class 1 piping.
In addition, the clamp-induced pipe stresses will be accounted for in the final as-built Class 1 piping design.
For the 14 stiff pipe clamps located on Class 2 piping, the Staff has been advised that the Applicants have not performed any analysis, l
as the allegation addresses only Class 1 piping. However, the Staff is presently evaluating the generic implications of the issue raised by the allegations in BN 82-105 and will determine whether to require the Applicants to evaluate the local stresses resulting from
the use of stiff pipe clamps on all classes of piping to ensure the pressure integrity of piping systems.
I certify that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.
David Terao Subscribed and sworn to me this # day of May, 1983 M t-b Notary Public My Commission expires:
~~7///N 1
i l
i l
I i
. ~..... _. _.. _ _. - _. _ _ _.
David Terao Professional Qualifications Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I am a Mechanical Engineer in the Mechanical Engineering Branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am responsible for the review and evaluation of the structural integrity and functional capability of safety-related mechanical equipment, piping systems, components and their supports for nuclear power plants.
I graduated from the University of Illinios (Urbana) in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering.
In 1980, I completed the PWR Technology Course offered by the USNRC.
From 1974 to 1980, I worked at Sargent & Lundy Engineers in Chicago, Illinois.
I held various positions in the field of nuclear piping design and analysis. My work assignments included several boiling water reactor l
plants (Dresden 2 & 3, Quad Cities 1 & 2, Bailly N-1, and Zimmer 1).
l During 1976-77, I participated with the BWR Mark II Owners Group in the development of the technical justification for using the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) method of combining dynamic responses in piping systems in BWR Mark II plants.
In 1979-80, as project engineer, I l
was responsible for directing the reassessment of the piping systems in the Zimmer-1 plant for the Mark II hydrodynamic loads and load combinations.
l r
I joined the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff in July 1980. My responsibilities as technical monitor include overseeing the DOE laboratory contracts involving the review of final safety analysis reports for plants under construction in the area relating to the design and analysis of mechanical components and component supports and the preparation of safety evaluation reports. The operating license applications under my responsibility includes the following plants: Waterford-3, LaSalle 1 & 2, Fenni-2, Wolf Creek 1 & 2, Callaway 1 & 2, Shoreham, Palo Verde 1, 2 & 3, Clinton 1, Grand Gulf 1 & 2, Susquehanna 1 & 2, Perry 1 & 2, Seabrook, Catawba, and River Bend. As part of the licensing review, I oversaw the independent piping analyses performed for each of the above plants by our contract laboratory.
Additionally, I am working as technical monitor for a contract involving the review of various nuclear plant design specifications and design reports as required by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for nuclear components and component supports.
Since January 1983, I have been involved with a generic investigation into allegations concerning design deficiencies in ASME Class 1 piping analyses.
l The specific allegations were essentially that piping designers were ignoring the clamp induced loadings in the piping. The investigation included visits and discussions with several architect-engineering firms, NSSS vendors, and pipe clamp manufacturers.
I~
.