ML20084B962
| ML20084B962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1984 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084B959 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-1, NUDOCS 8404260492 | |
| Download: ML20084B962 (17) | |
Text
4 4/23/84 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCHETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARS 4 AP In the Matter of i
l W CE M EECn.":
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING l
Docket Nos. 50-445-li>SEP 1
COMPANY, et al.
l and 50-446-l l
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD'S REQUEST REGARDING SATISFACTORY / UNSATISFACTORY CHECK LISTS IN CYGNA REPORT Pursuant to the Licensing Board's verbal request to both CASE and Cygna, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) here'y files this Response to b
Board's Request Regarding Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory Check Lists in Cygna Reports. The information contained herein covers only those items reviewed by CASE Witness Jack Doyle; we anticipate supplementing our response regarding those items reviewed by CASE Witness Mark Walsh at a later time.
It should be noted that of the ten calculations reviewed, all ten are included here. They are all from Volume 2 of Cygna's Independent Assessment Program, Appendix H, Pipe Supports Check Lists.
PS-07 Under Item 2, Design Assumptions and Design Methods, we would have marked this as unsatisfactory and the reason is we have a 6" diameter pipe stanchion which is about 4" long. Therefore, standard flexural calculations are not applicable without a multiplier.
Under Item 10, Base Plates and Anchor Bolts, we would have again marked that as unsatisfactory because:
gj$$
0 G
m
PS-07 (continued):
Item 10, Base Plates and Anchor Bolts (continued):
(1) The bolt holes are not standard; therefore, two bolts take the total load until deflecting 1/8".
Then all the bolts share in the loading.
Note:
This make the 14 kip inch moment itemized under Cygna comments become more critical and may not be discounted as was done by Cygna.
(2) The bimetallic weld must include the effects of thermal constraint or at a minimum address the problem.
PS-08 Item 2, Design Assumptions and Design Methods.
We would have marked this unsatisfact
'acause:
(1) The rw f the hardware and the box frames, U-bolts, etc., were not added to desigt. Ioads.
(2) Clamping force required to develop U-bolt friction will fail clip angles.
(3) Constraint of pipe by the box frame causes stresses in the box frame which exceed yield.
(4) Approximate 20,000# reaction load effects on pipe were not considered.
By a rough calculation utilizing Table 31, CASE 9B, page 496, from FORMULAS FOR STRESS AND STRAIN, Fifth Edition, by Raymond J. Roark and Warren C. Young, Published by McGraw/ Hill (CASE Exhibit 983), stresses are indicated in the vicinity of ultimate capacity of the tube without considering internal design loads.
Bearing surface far too short in length for load indicated.
Item 5, Restraints. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because o
PS-08(continued):
Item 5, Restraints (continued):
the entire support is not in compliance with MSS-SP69 (CASE Exhibit 920) which indicates pipes supported from below require rigid supports.
Item 8, Design Input.
We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because a 1,000# kick load is induced in the pipe, basically by frictional resistance (which we considered to be an illegal method of transferring loads in view of ASME Section XVII and MSS-SP69, CASE Exhibit 920) which is not accounted for although it will be picked up by the first axial restraint-(or several f
axial restraints, depending on stiffness).
Item 10, Anchor Bolts and Base Plates.
We would have marked this un-satisfactory, because plate stresses in the calculations (page 9 of 9) are in conflict.
While the FUB II calculation shows the plate stresses as 21,750 psi, the designer's calculation uses 18,741 psi.
PS-09 Item 1, Design' Input Data. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because the weld calculation for the quarter inch fillet weld (the original weld).-is based on wel'd 3" long.
Item 2, Design Assumptions. ~We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) The statement that flare welds were. stronger than fillet welds is not justified without addressing the point '(actually -10% stronger).
'(2) Flexural analysis of 4" deep beam which is~ only 3" long is not applicable.without a multiplier (actually the structure involved in trans-
.mitting the loads is a. plate with a' stiffener effectively a T-section).
4 t
PS-09 (continued):
Item 2, Design Assumptions (continued):
(3) Load acts principally on lower' flange and weld at lower flange.
(4) Flange bending due to welds must be combined with other normal stresses to determine actual stress in this member (current analysis indicates that just checking bending in the flange 70% of stress ratio is used).
PS-12 Item 1, Design Input Data.
We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) Support was moved 2'7-3/4" east out of tolerance; therefore, it is not in compliance with the provisions of IE Bulletin 79-14 (NRC Staff Exhibit 201C, being supplied to Cygna with CASE's 4/23/84 pleadings).-
(2) Flexural' analysis for 5,000# load on tube wall (.5 ratio) was not considered.
.iem 2, Design Assumptions. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) U-bolt is locked on the pipe; therefore, manufacturer's qualification for allowable loads is no longer applicable. U-bolt therefore has to be i
requalified.
(2) Stresses on the pipe wall have not been determined.
(3) 'This application of a U-bolt with or without gaps is not in compliance
- with MSS-SP69 (CASE Exhibit 920).
Item 4,-Gap.
We would have marked.this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) No gap is provided.
PS-12 (continued):
Item 4, Gap (continued):
(2) Support becomes unstable if gap is present either intentionally or if pretension is lost due to permanent deformation or localized yielding.
Item 10, Base Plates and Anchor Bolts.
We would have marked this un-satisfactory, because:
(1) Sheet 3 of 4 of the weld calcs fails to consider one component of the torsion and a 15,000 inch _ pound moment about the local X axis of the pipe.
(2) Anchor bolts analyzed without including tension induced due to coupling of 20,000 inch pound moment caused by local X moment mentioned in Item 1 (moment increased due to' base plate thickness).
PS-13 Item 2, Design Assumptions.
We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) U-bolts on insulated lines are not in compliance with MSS-SP69 (CASE Exhibit 920), manufacturers' standard practices developed and approved by the Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fitting Industry.
.(2) Manufacturer's approved loading is based on design loads only.
For this application of a U-bolt, qualification is required which includes l
the effects of pretensioning and thermal restraint loads.
(3)
Instability will result if pretensioning of the U-bolts is lost.
Therefore, there is no positive means of engagement.
Item 4, Gap. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because no
- gap is considered.
- Item 9, Strut. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
e
,-,u
w PS-13 (continued):
Item 9, Strut (continued):
(1) Angle of strut is actually 5.01 degrees, which is greater than the allowable 5 degrees. The designer shows the angle as 4.9 degrees, which is less than 5 degrees and therefore accepted.
(2) Component of 5 degree incline must be considered in pipe stress analysis or by some means transferred to the supports which it will affect.
Item 10, Base Plate and Anchor Bolts. We would ha've marked this un-satisfactory, because due to oversized holes and in this case, the full load may be taken by the two bolts which are in t'ension and will include a coupled moment.
PS-16 Item 10, Anchor Bolts and Base Plates. We would have marked this un-satisfactory, because the bolt holes are oversized in violation of the Code, and the probability in this case is that only two bolts of th.e 8 bolts shown could be active in shear until such time as the deflections bring the remain-ing 6 bolts into activity.
PS-21 Item 8, Snubbers. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) Two snubbers positioned as designed will restrain the moment in the pipe during seismic lock-up. This increase in loading is not considered in the support calculations.
(2) With variable acceleration, there is' no indication that simultaneous lock-up will occur for the two snubbers.
PS-26 Item 1, Design Input.
No calculations were included in our package; therefore, our comments are limited to visual observations of the drawings.
However, at two design assumptions we find that it probably is unsatisfactory because:
(1)' The Beta ratio for the stiffeners is.12, far below the.4 suggested by Korol and Mirza (tube wall 3/8" thick and 6x4"; therefore this will present punching shear problems and flexural problems in the tube walls).
(2) The pipe thermal growth is restrained due to the configuration of the support.
Item 10, Base Plates and Anchor Bolts. We would have marked this un-satisfactory, because bolt holes are oversized and therefore not in compliance with the codes.
PS-28 Item 2, Design Assumptions. We would have marked this unsatisfactory, because:
(1) Moment from base plate induces punching at the top of the tube I
adjacent to the run pipe for the 5/16" weld.
(2) The note on the drawing, sheet 1 of 2, indicates full penetration weld; since this is not done with backing bars, it is only a groove weld (effective. throat of groove weld = t -1/8" maximum). AWS 4.10.8 (regardless of applicable code, this is a standard practice).
(3) The tube used in this support is a TS8'x8xl/2" approximately 6-1/2" long completely locked. in by stiffeners along the tube wall. This support therefore cannot be analyzed as a flexural member either with or without the
e PS-28 (continued):
Item 2, Design Assumptions (continued):
stiffeners. The analysis in reality should contain the elements of the structure involved, including base plate, stiffeners, and tube elements which are the actual members that in combination react the loads Item 10, Base Plates and Anchor Bolts. We would have marked this un-satisfactory, because bolt holes are oversized and not in compliance with codes. Therefore, only two bolts are active, not the 6 assumed active in the calculation as relates to shear loads.
PS-30 Item 2, Design Assumptions. We would have marked this unsatisfactory,.
because the pipe constrains the thermal growth which will induce stresses into the pipe, support, and welds which have not been considered in the.
calculation.
4 This information is not in affidavit form, because it was taken from CASE Witness _ Jack Doyle by telephone, and we wanted to get it into the hands of the Board and parties as quickly.as possible. We ask that the Board advise if it is necessary to supply it in affidavit form, and we will do.so.
Respectfully submitted, 0juk $fa
'gpfrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE-(Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224-214/946-9446 4
p-e p
p,
tg y
y--
y 9
p q
.M
-,.-.,f a+a-.
w-y
. ~.
00LKETED T!NPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 84 APR 26 A10:58 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD FFlk 0? SECht t,
~
00CXEIING & SERvici In the Matter of.
}{
BRANCH
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445-1 COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446-?
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD'S REQUEST REGARDING SATISFACTDRY/ UNSATISFACTORY CHECK LISTS IN CYGNA REPORT; and Copies of Exhibits for Cross-Examination **
-[*=
txnioits nano delivered to boara ano parties only) have been sent to the names lilsted below this 23rd day of April
,198 4,
%153#1gXggg% where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
by:
Hand deliver /ed
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor
& Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C.
.20036
- Ms. Ellen.Ginsberg, Law Clerk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor
' Office of Executive Legal Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Dr. Renneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission Division of Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Arch!P;cture and Technology
- Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road Stillwater,. Oklahoma.74074 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 881 W. Duter Drive Panel-Oak Ridge, Tennessee' 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 l
1 k._._=_
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C.
20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member John Collins Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Regional Administrator, Region IV Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C.
20555 Arlington, Texas 76011 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member Lanny A. Sinkin Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Board Austin,' Texas 78701 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Michael D. Spence, President Dallas, Texas 75224 Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Panel Dallas, Texas 75201 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)
- Ms. Nancy H. Williams Office of the Secretary Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cygna Energy Services Washington, D. C.
20555 101 California screet, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111-5894
- David R. Pigott, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco,~ California 94111 DU, hf.)
gkts.) Juanita Ellis, President-CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2
~
~ ~ ~
pr DATE SENT CASE TO EXHIBIT
.CYGNA NO.
2/29/84 1/27/84 Letter from George W. Knighton, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, Division of Licensing, NRC, Washington, to Earl J. Woolever, VP, Duquesne Light Company (Beaver Valley-2, Hope Creek, and Limerick),
with
Attachment:
" Staff Evaluation of the Effect of Overthickness in Pipe Fittings" (see also CASE Exhibit 956) 2/22/84 Brief Summary of Cross-Examination Questions from Messrs. Walsh and Doyle to Cygna 2/29/84 Affidavit of Mark Walsh (Attached to CASE's 2/29/84 Motion Regarding CASE's Summary of Cross-Examination Areas Supplied to Cygna on February 22, 1984) 3/10/84 Handwritten Answer to 3/5/84 Comments by Jack Doyle 3/13/84 Further clarification by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle 3/15/84 Further clarification by Mark Walsh 3/29/84 Further clarification by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle, and requests for additional information 3/31/84 Further clarification by Jack Doyle regarding Doyle
- 16 4/11/84 Proposed Stipulations -- CASE to Cygna 4/11/84 4/11/84 Matrix of Exhibits and Documents, 2/22/84 Revised 4/5/84 (Re: CASE Exhibits 891-902, 928-938) 4/11/84 Examples of items which CASE will be briefly addressing in hearings and in proposed findings (based on the Cygna Report itself, which is now in evidence and therefore subject to findings) 4/23/84 NRC Staff Exhibit 201C, IE Bulletin No. 79-14 (original an'd Revision 1), " Seismic Analyses for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems" (During Hearings) -- may be cross-examining on Transcript pages 9391-9420, 9709-9724, 9783-9844, 9896-9905 -- during the hearings, we will provide copies of the pages actually used 1
f.-
r 4/18/84 743 Regulatory Guide 1.124, " Service Limits and Loading
~
Combinations for Class 1 Linear-Type Component Supports," Revision 1, January 1978 4/23/84 851 Board Notification 82-105, Alleged Design Deficiency, in ASME Class 1 piping.
3/10/84 891 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 928 3/10/84 892 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 929 3/10/84 893 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 930 3/10/84 894 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 931 3/10/84 895 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 932 3/10/84 896 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 933 3/10/84 897 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 934 3/10/84
-898 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 935 3/10/84 899 Expanded and' renumbered CASE Exhibit 936 4/11/84 899 Additional pages 3 through 8, to be added to Exhibit 3/10/84 900 Expanded and. renumbered CASE Exhibit 937 3/10/84 901 Expanded and renumbered CASE Exhibit 938 3/10/84 906 Seismic Acceleration Study, by Applicants 3/10/84 920 Standard Practice SP-69, 1976 Edition, MSS, " Pipe Hangers and Supports - Selection and Application,"
Developed and. Approved by the Manufacturers Standardization Society 3/10/84 921 FORMULAS FOR STRESS AND STRAIN, Fifth Edition, by.
Raymond J. Roark and Warren C. Young, pages 220, 221, 226, and 227 3/10/84-922 STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN, Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Lehigh University 3/10/84 923 MANUAL _OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, Seventh Edition, -
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. ( AISC),
' pages 5-12, 5-13, 5-192 through 5-195 3/10/84 924 (formerly erroneously marked CASE Exhibit 906),
of 4 bolts and holes 3/10/84 925
. STEEL STRUCTURES, Design and Behavior, by Charles G.
Salmon and John E. Johnson, University of Wisconsin' 2
3/13/84 926 Inspection Report 83-52 (see especially pages 4 and 5 of Appendix, item 4. Discussion, re: 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) construction deficiency report identifying a generic problem with cable tray clamps 3/15/84 927 FORMULAS FOR STRESS AND STRAIN, by Roark and Young, pages 184-188 3/19/84 928 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 891) Support SI-1-325-002-S32R, cales, etc.
3/19/84 929 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 892) Support SI-1-038-013-S22A, cales, etc.
3/19/84 930 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 893) Support SI-1-079-001-S42S, cales, etc.
3/19/84 931 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 894) Support KR-1-064-010-S22R, cales, etc.
3/19/84 932 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 895) Support SI-1-075-001-S22R, cales, etc.
3/19/84 933 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 896) Support RH-1-010-004-S22K, cales, etc.
3/19/84 934 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 897) Support RH-1-064-011-S22R, C81Cs, etc.
3/19/84 935 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 898) Support SI-1-037-005-S32A, cales, etc.
3/19/84 936 (Formerly CASE Exhibit 899) Support RH-1-024-011-S22A, cales, etc.
3/19/84 937 (Formerly CASE. Exhibit 900) Support SI-1-030-003-S32A, cales, etc.
3/19/84 939 Support RH-1-010-003-S22R, cales, etc.
3/19/84 940 Cygna's Response to Walsh #1 (same as contained in Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE r gna Energy Services)
Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to y
3/19/84 941 ANSI A58.1-1972, American National Standard, building code requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures, pages 7 through 10 3
r.
~
3/19/84 943 Cygna's 3/7/84 Response to Walsh #7 (erroneously marked #6)(same as Response to Walsh #7, correctly numbered, in 3/18/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services) 3/19/84 944 CPSES/FSAR Table 3.7B-1, " Damping Values" 3/19/34 945 WITHDRAWN -- Same as Cygna's Response to Walsh #6, 4/12/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services 3/19/84 946 CASE's Proposed Stipulations Between Cygna and CASE 3/19/84 947 WITHDRAWN -- (ASME, NF-1000 Introduction; NF-1213 -
NF-1223) -- see CASE Exhibit 993, which includes same Page 3/19/84 948 MSS, Standard Practice SP-58, 1975 Edition, " Pipe Hangers and Supports -- Materials, Design and Manufacture, page 1 3/19/84 951 Cygna's Response to Walsh #8 (same as contained in 3/18/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE ~ Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services) i 3/19/84 952 Cygna's 3/13/84 Response to Walsh #12 (same as contained in 4/12/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE Questions-of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services, except 3/13/84 response includes 5 pages of cales, etc. not attached to 4/12/84 Testimony) 3/19/84 953 WITHDRAWN -- (same as Cygna's Response-to Walsh #9, 4/12/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy
._ Se rvices )
3/19/84 954 WlTHDRAWN -- (same as Cygna's Response to Walsh #10, 4/12/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services) 3/19/84 955 Cygna's Response to Walsh #11 (same as Cygna's.
Response'to Walsh #11 contained in 3/18/84 Testimony of Nancy H. Williams in Response to CASE Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 to Cygna Energy Services)
-4
~V Ik l
3/19/84 956 1/27/84 letter from George W. Knighton, Chief, Licensing Branch H. 3, Division of Licensing, NRC, Washington, to Earl J. Woole'ver, Vice President, Duquene Light Company, re: Evaluation of the Effect of
~
Overthickness in Pipe Fittings and attached " Staff Evaluation of the Effect of Overthickness in Pipe Fittings" (see also CASE's 2/29/84 Motion to which Mark Walsh affidavit and 1/27/84 Knighton letter were attached) 3/19/84.
957 Portion of drawing (" Match Line See Dwg. El-0700 S")
3/19/84 958 Cygna's Response to Walsh #2 (same as Cygna's Response to Walsh #2 contained in 3/18/84 Testimony of Nancy H.
Williams In Response to CASE Questions of Feb. 22, 1984 co Cygna Energy Services) 3/19/84 959 Drawing portion showing Case B and Case C 1
1 3/31/84 969 IE Bulletin No. 79-02 (Revision No. 1) 4/18/84 971 AWS D1.1-75, STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE, American Welding Society, Inc., pages 29 through.33 4/18/84 972 MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, Eighth Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., pages 5-25 and 5-26 4/18/84 973 MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, Seventh Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., pages 5-21 and 5-22 4/18/84 974 Supplement No. 3 to the Specification for the Design, Fabrication & Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings (Adopted February 12, 1969) Effective June 12, 1974, Revised Effective October 30, 1975, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), page 8 4/11/84
.975 3/30/84. letter from Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, NRC
' Division of Licensing, Washington, to M. D. Spence, President, TUGCO, and L. L. Kammerzell, Vice President, Cygna Energy Services, San Francisco, re:
Independent Assessment Program (IAP) Performed by
'Cygna (with attached Request for Additional Information) 4/11/84 976 MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, Seventh Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction-( AISC), pages 5-25 and 5 5
m
~
4/18/84 979 Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," October 1973 4/18/84 980 Regulatory Guide 1.92, " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis,"
Revision 1, February 1976 4/18/84 981 Regulatory Guide 1.100, " Seismic Qualification of Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, August 1977 4/18/84 983 FORMULAS FOR STRESS AND STRAIN, Fifth Edition, Raymond J. Roark and Warren C. Young, pages 474, 496, 508, 509 4/18/84 984 CPSES/FSAR, SEISMIC SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS, pages 3.7B-58,
-58a, ~58b, -58c, -59, -60, -60s, -61, -62 4/18/84 985 CPSES/FSAR, 3.9B MECilANICAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS, 3.9B.3.4 Component Sapports, pages 3.9B-1, -27, -34,
-35, -36, -37 4/18/84 986 3/19/82 letter to J. T. Merritt, Jr.,- TUSI, from Herman W. D'Errico, Project Manager, NPS Industries, Inc., re : Undersized Welds 4/18/84 987 Brown' & Root Procedure CP-CPM 9.10, Revision 8, 9/21/82, pages 1, 3, 7, and 9 of 14, and Document Change Notice No. 1, Effective 10/8/82 4/23/84 988 ANSI /IEEE Std. 344-1975 (Reaffirmed 1980)(Revision of IEEE Std. 344-1971), "IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Eqaipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," pages 7 through 14, and 24 4/23/84 989 IEEE Std. 323-1983 (Revision of IEEE Std. 323-1974),
"IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power-Generating Stations," pages 9 through 13, and 20-4/23/84 990 Regulatory Guide 1.122, " Development of_ Floor Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor-Supported Equipment or Components," Revision 1, February 1978.
4/23/84 991 Regulatory Guide 1.122, " Development of Floor Design Rcaponse Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor-Supported Equipment or Components," September 1976 4/23/84 992 ASME Appendix XVII-2461.2-XVII-2461.5, XVII-2461.5-XVII-2469; see especially XVII-2461.4 Slip Resistance -
Friction Type Joints, equation 6
b
4/23/84 993 ASME Winter 1974 Addenda,Section III -- Division 1, Nuclear Power Plant Components, Subsection NF -
Component Supports, Article NF-1000 Scope and General Requirements, Fig. NF-1211.4-1 Typical Component Standard Supports, and NF-1214 Component Standard Supports (pages 3, 6, and 7) 4/23/84 994 Regulatory Guide 1.89, " Environmental Qualification of Certain Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, March 1984, pages 1 through 6 and 9 through 15 4/23/84 995 CPSES/FSAR, 3.10B-SIESMIC QUALIFICATION OF SEISMIC CATEGORY I INSTRUMENTATION AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, pages 3.10B-1 through 3.10B-7 4/23/84 996 4/18/84 letter to Darrell G. Eisenhut, NRC, from Homer C. Schnidt, TUGCO, re: CPSES Independent Assess-ment Program (advance notice provided to TUGC0 of documentation needed to conduct Cygna's reaudit of Document Control system and whether Cygna followed NRC protocol attached to 9/23/83 NRC letter) 4/23/84 997 ENGINEERING JOURNAL, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION (AISC), Third Quarter,1973, " Commentary on Highly Restrained Welded Connections," pages 61 through 73 4/23/84 998 4/17/84 Memorandum for B. J. Youngblood, NRC, fran S. B. Burwell, NRC, re: Notice of Meeting with Cygna on Independent Assessment Program (IAP) for CPSES, on 4/19/84 4/23/84 999 IE Information Notice-No. 83-80:
"Use of Specialized
' Stiff' Pipe Clamps (resulting from Board Notifications82-105 and 82-105A) t h
7-
- u. _ _ _ _ __. __ _ _ _ _ -. _m._ _. _____
.._____m___m
__m_.___
_.-._.--___-__-_._____.______.____._-...-___m---______.__I.___.___-___-_____-
_a