ML20083J977

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Response to 840222 Summary of Generic Problems from Case Witness J Doyle,Items 2 & 8
ML20083J977
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 03/14/1984
From: Williams N
CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To: Ellis J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
84042.06, NUDOCS 8404160012
Download: ML20083J977 (12)
v • d • e


Text

. .

Subject:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station independent Assessment Program -

Response to CASE Ouestions

Reference:

(1) Brief Summary of Generic Problems from CASE Witness Jack Doyle, 2/22/84.

(2) Brief Summary of Cfoss-examination Questions from CASE Witness Mark Walsh,2/22/84.

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find our responses to reference (1) items 2 and 8.

Further responses will be forthcoming.

Very truly yours, t o kGo Noncy H. Williams Project Monoger NHW:eam

Enclosures:

Attoch'ment A, Partial Responses to CASE Questions cc: See ottochment 8404160012 840314-

'{DRADOCK 05000445 .PDR I

. San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland

=-

$4WKf5 Mrs. J. Ellis March 14,1984 Response to CASE Questions Attachment Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Mr. John T. Collins Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds U.S. NRC, Region IV 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. 611 Ryan Plazo Drive Washington, D.C. 20036 Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 7601i Robert Wooldridge, Esq.

Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Mr. Lonny Alan Sinkin 2001 Bryan Tower ll4 W. 7th, Suite 220 Dallos, Texas 75201 Austin, Texas 78701 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt B. R. Clements Monoger - Nuclear Services Vice President Nuclear Texas Utilities Generating Company Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Skyway Tower Dollos, Texas 75201 400 North Olive Street L.B. 81 Mr. H. R. Rock Dallas. Texas 75201 Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

393 Seventh Avenue Peter B Bloch, Esq.

New York, New York 10001 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. A. T. Parker 4350 East / West Highway,4th Floor Westinghouse Electric Corporation Washington, D.C. 20814 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Renea Hicks Ook Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Dean, Division of Engineering Architecture and Austin, Texas 78711 Technology Oklahoma State University Mr. James E. Cummins Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074

. Resident inspector / Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Station Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director P.O. Box 38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C. 20555 3MES.IBurwellt Mr. J. B. George Licerising Pr'oject Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comanche Peck Steam Electric Station 7920 Norfolk Avenue Highway FM 201 Bethesda,' Maryland 20014 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mr. H. Schmidt - Mr. David H. Wade e/o Westinghouse Texas Utilities Generating Company 4901 Fairmont Avenue 2001 Bryan Tower Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. David R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Son Francisco, California 9411I

Comanche Peak ASLB Hearings Response to CASE Questions Question No.: Doyle (2 Exhibit No.: 897 1.0 CASE Ouestion Local ef fects on tube walls:

o Punching shear o Effect on welds o Resultant effect due to wall flexibility on moment at tube weld 2.0 Cygna Interpretation When tube sections are employed in the design of pipe supports, how were the following local effects considered:

a. Punching shear?
b. Effect on welds?
c. Resultant effect due to wall flexibility on moment at tube weld?

3.0 Response Consider pipe support RH-l-062-002-S22R (CASE Exhibit 897). It is designed using a tube section, TS 4" x 6" x l/2", welded to a baseplate at one end and to a strut clevis at the other end. Punching shear and welding stresses are discussed below:

a. Punching shear stresses are within allowable for all supports reviewed by Cygno.

This is evidenced by the punching shear check provided in Enclosure D2-1.

Adequacy can also be determined by inspection through a simple comparison betwen the weldment shear stress and the punching shear stress in the flange, as illustrated below:

Based on force equilibrium, tc = (Fx* .707* t,)/(.4* Fy)

~

.111llll111111111111!I1ll1lllll I

Comanche Peak ASLB Hearings Response to CASE Questions Question No.: Doyle //2 Exhibit No.: 897 where te = tube wall thickness, inches F=s 11 w ble weld shear stress, ksi(use 18 ksi) t, = fillet weld leg size, inches Fy= allowable tube shear stress, ksi(use 31 ksi) substituting, tc = (18* .707* t,)/(.4* 3I) = 1.0 t, Therefore, if the fillet weld' leg is equal to the tube thickness, punchout shear stresses will be satisfactory. For support RH-l-064-S22R, the tube thickness (1/2")

is twice the attached fillet weld (1/4").

b. Each welded connection in support RH-l-064-01 l-S22R is discussed below:

Tube to-Baseplate This connection is a standard beam-to-column detail, as evidenced by the AISC Manual, Part 4. Furthermore, the flore-bevel weld detail has been properly evaluated and sized by the designer.

Tube-to-Clevis Attaching the strut clevis to the tube flange introduces no adverse effects into the connecting fillet weld,

c. Flexibil;ty of the tube flange produces no significant additional loads on the weld due to diaphrogm action. This welded connection compares favorably with certain standard weldments shown in Blodgett's Design of Welded Structures (see Enclosures D2-1 and D2-2). The connections shown in these enclosures are more

" flexible" than the tube-to-clevis detail in support RH-l-064-S22R, and are not evaluated for added weld stresses due to diaphragm action.

ENCLOSURE D2-1 Punching shear check for Support No. RH-1-062-002-S22R.

Reference:

American Welding Society (AWS), D1.1, Section 10.5.

j ube T

.____________ 3

~

$ h Attachment 3n  ; t 6

t I If R

-t I i

p_-_--__ - _ 4 y_

s - 1/4 1 1/2 -

FIGURE D2-1 Applied axial load = 5092 lbs.

Since the attachment is not a tube and only welded on the 3" side, the calculation of F, in the following equation for Acting Vp (AWS Section 10.5.1) will be conservatively high, because the loads shared by the 1-1/2" sides of the tube are being neglected.

f sin e f Acting V p =T (a K ,

b

)

a

1..

r ENCLOSURE D2-1 (continued) where f, = 5092/(3+3) tb = 849/tb fb =0 0 = 90 degrees t = t b/tc 8 = b/D K

a = 1.0 Acting V p = 1698 Basic V p = Fy /(0.6y) where y = D/2t c

= 31350/(0.6)(6) = 6/2(1/2) = 6 U = (f a + I b)/0.6 Fy (see Note 1, Table 10.5.1) f a = 849/tb = 849/(1/4) = 3395 psi (Note: f ais conservatively calculated using tb of 1/4", i.e., the weld size).

U = (3395 + 0)/( 6)(31350) = 0.18 Since U less than 0.44, Qf = 1.0; and, since beta (0.5) is less than 0.6, Qb = 1.0.

Allowable Vp =Q0b f (Basic Yp )

= (1)(1)(8708 psi) = 8708 psi

9 ENCLOSURE D2-1 (continued)

This is considerably greater than the Acting Ap = 1698 psi.

Design margin = 1 = (1698/8708) = .80 = 80%

OK.

Comanche Peak ASLB Hearings Response to CASE Ouestions Question No.: Doyle //8 Exhibit No.: 893 1.0 CASE Ouestion There is no documentation in calculations to support the conclusion that flare welds are stronger than fillet welds--no calculations; therefore, why did Cygna accept this statement?

o Flore weld strength depends on radius of flore (depth).

2.0 Cygno Interpretation Why did Cygna consider flare welds stronger than fillet welds when no calculations were mode?

3.0 Response in the case of a welded beam attachment for S1-1-079-001-S325, flore welds are stronger than a 1/4" fillet weld for two reasons:

1) - Minimum effective throat thickness (te) is greater o For flore weld:

te = 5/I6 R = 5/l6 (1-l/4") = 0.39" where R = minimum weld groove radius

= l-l/2 (1/2") + l /2" = l-l /4" o For fillet weld:

t, = 0.707 (!/4") = 0.18" since 0.39" 0.18", a flore weld is considerably superior to a 1/4" fillet weld.

w

Comanche Peak ASLB Hearings Response to CASE Questions Question No.: Doyle /!8 Page 2

2) More weld length For the welded beam attachment considered, the weld length is 2" along the square side versus 3" along the beveled side. Consequently the installed flare weld along the bevel will give this support 50% more capacity for the same te .

o- Communications i t4 L n i Repod

lilli
. "'""'I company cx Telecon a conference Report CASE Job N Project: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program March 6, 1984 T' **

Subject:

ASLB - Clarification of Technical Questions 3:00 p.m.

Place. g ,g Participants '

Juanita Ellis CASE Nancy H. Williams Cygna 4

Required Comments Action By item ,,

I called Mrs. Ellis to clarify some of the questions transmitted to Cygna on 2/22/84 as follows:

1.

Reference:

Mr. Doyle's Questions, Item 5 Please explain what is meant by "the inaccurate conclusions."

2.

Reference:

Mr. Doyle's Questions, Item 5 What is meant wide / thin ratio? What is the 1:4:1 ratio?

3.

Reference:

Mr. Walsh's Questions, Item 4 Is the reference to PI-02 correct since there is no table on this checklist?

of signe /eam Page 3 y f f Distribution- 'See attachme'nt mer.

4 t

y '

Mrs. J. Ellis March 6,1984 Communications Report Attochment Nicholos S. Reynolds, Esq.' Mr. John T. Collins

, Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds U.S. NRC, Region IV 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. 611 Ryon Plazo Drive Washington, D.C. 20036 Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 760II -

Robert Wooldridge, Esq.

Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Mr. Lonny Alan Sinkin

.2001 Bryan Tower i 14 W. 7th, Suite 220 Dallos, Texas 75201 Austin, Texas 78701 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt B. R. Clements -

Manager - Nuclear Services Vice President Nuclear Texas Utilities Generating Company Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Skyway Tower Dallos, Texas 75201 400 North Olive Street L.B. 81 Mr. H. R. Rock Dallas, Texas 75201 Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

393 Seventh Avenue Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

s New York, New York 10001 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

. . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Mr. A. T. Parker : 4350 East / West Highway,4th Floor

- Westinghouse Electric Corporation - Washington, D.C. - 20814 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Dr. Walter H. Jordon -

881 W. Outer Drive

,Reneo Hicks Ook Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom .

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station . . Dean, Division of Engineering Architecture and Austin, Texas 78711 Technology Oklahoma State University

- Mr. James E. Cummins Stillwater, Oklahomo 74074 Resident inspector / Comanche Peak Nuclear

. Power Station -

Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

-c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director P.O. Box 38 U,5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C. 20555

~

. Mrs. S. Burwell ' ' Mr. J. B. George Licensing Project Monoger~ . Texas Utilities Generating _ Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 7920 Norfolk Avenue . Highway FM 201 Bethesda, Maryland . 20014 Glen Rose, Texas 76043

.Mr. H. Schmidt - Mr. David H. Wode

c/o Westinghouse Texas Utilities Generating Company--

L4901 Fairmont Avenue . . 2001 Bryan Tower -

. -Bethesda, Maryland . 20814 Dollas,1 Texas 75201 Mr. David R. Pigott -

Orrick, Herrir.aton, & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery. Street San Francisco, Californio ~ 941'l I

, , . _ . . _ . - _ _ _ - _ _ ,_ _- . 2_ _ _

.. l Communications i i AL% i Report  !

'& llllllllllll!lllllllllllllllll Company: a Teiecon a conference neport CASE

"' i"' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program March 7, 1984

""' 2:00 p.m.

subject. ASLB - Response to questions on 3/6/84 telecon Place: p

Participants:

Juanita Ellis CASE Nancy H. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By I called Mrs. Ellis for CASE's response to the above referenced telephone conversation. She provided the following clarifications:

Reference:

Mr. Doyle's Question, Item 5 Mr. Doyle will be sending some information within the next day which should clarify his question. Mrs. Ellis will express mail this information to Cygna.

Reference:

Mr. Doyle's Question, Item 9, second sentence The wide / thin ratio is the face width of the weld / effective throat. The 1:4:1 ratio was a typographical error. The correct value is 1.4:1.

Reference:

Mr. Walsh's Question, Item 4 The correct reference should be PI-02-03 rather than PI-02.

signe

. /eam " 1 1 Distnbution: See attachment ,

. 1000 01a

. . ,,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20083J977&oldid=2746502"