ML20094A166
| ML20094A166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1984 |
| From: | Oldag D CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84042.031, NUDOCS 8411060302 | |
| Download: ML20094A166 (8) | |
Text
.
E Stevere t 101 Cahfornia Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco. CA 941115894 4'$ 31' %^r)
October 11, 1984 84042.031 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Comunications Report Transmittal #13 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84042
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed please find comunications reports associated with the Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours, D. Oldag Administrative Assistant Attachments cc: Mr. D. Wade (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. J. Van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr.S.Burwell(USNRC)w/ attachments 0411060302 841011 42 *hu'"")
PDR ADOCK 05000445 7, f.c A
PDR g,
{ pf San Francisco Boston Chic ago H4Nand
Communications Report di t i 111111111111 a
4 Telec n g conference Repod To
,e ti+414,4 e Project:
Job No Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M6N o,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 33 9n, m Subject; Time Rana?
Place e s., e m,4,,m Participants.
of u, ugetet pu D.
Ietti Eberce C. n4 erb =?n, M. u4114 3ms, L_ uging3-t cy g., s Required item Comments Action By
Subject:
Mass Participation Gordon made the following comments to the Gibbs & Hill June 29 letter regarding mass participation.
1.
Selected problem AB-1-23A appears to be only a pnrtion of the problem being reevaluated for missing mass.
Henry stated that the entire problem would be rerun. This would be true for all selected problems. There would be no changes from the previous geometry input.
Henry explained the selection process in more detail.
Each of the selected problems would exhibit one of the following attributes:
a) low mass participation across the board b) low mass in one direction c) Selected problem with SAM d) Selected problem without SAM 2.
If only seismic and SAM are run, how can load combinations be evaluated ef ficiently?
I l)tl /1/1r A
?
><sm 1
N. Williams, D. Wade G. Grace. G. Bjorkman, L. Weingart. S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.
_Burwell, Project File..-.__ - - _.- ---
Communications Report 4L i i 111111111lll11111111114llll111 UcIIn"If, item comments Henry stated that this would be done by hand due to the fact that there is uncertainty by GAH as to whether the newer version of ADLPIPE would af fect other load cases.
3.
Why were 41 problems deleted when mass fraction calculations could easily be corrected?
Henry stated it was done solely as a matter of expediency (in these 41 cases the concentrated weights were in the execution decks).
e Page of
?
'0M e t t
Communicatigns Report h
6 i ummmmmmmmmi companr Texas Uti11 ties 2 Teiecon a conference neport N
Comanche Peak Steari. Electric Station 84042 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oate 7/2/84 Pipe Support CC-1-028-024-S33R 7:00 a.m./8:00 a.m.
Place g,p, Participants g gp TUK of J. Minichiello Cygna nwea item Cornments Action Dv In response to Cygna's question on this support, Texas had
)
referenced the Affadavit of Messrs. Finneran, lotti, and Deubler on Richmond Inserts. Cygna requested an explanation of the
" maximum design capacity" shown in Table F-1, specifically column C.
In addition, Cygna requested that Texas Utilities rerun the STRVOL model for this support with the bolt at joint 10 taken out.
In the later telephone call, Mr. Grace stated that the torsion tests were performed by placing a shear load 7" above the concrete surface (i.e., 2" above the tube). Thus, the " maximum design capacity" is based on torsion (with 1.25" to point of tangency) + shear.
({Tra7j% 2
[bMDdC X7 2
MDC 1
s-
+
28.11 )
MDC = 4.828 kip As shown in Table F-1.
For the shear test, the load was placed at the center of the tube.
t
[/N[)2 Lait /)
/ms
"*8" 1
'[
1 oistribution N. W1 llams, D. Wade, G. Grace, J. MInichtello, 5. Treby, J. Ellis, 5. Burwell, n_;_m ci,_
e---
~-
p
Communications Report A f.
ti 1111111ll11161111111111lll1111 Texas Utilities q Teecon conference Repon 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 6/22/84 Subject.
Time.
10:45 a.m.
Cygna Support Stability Evaluation Place.
Calculation Set No. El Dr. Robert Iotti Ebasco Dr. Gordon Bjorkman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Dr. Iotti mentioned that the calculation only considered the static application of load and that there was no assurance that during the dynamic application of the load that the support would not remain stable.
Dr. Bjorkman expressed his concern that the support could be in the constrained (cocked) position at the initiation of a seismic event and that lateral thermal movements alone were sufficient to cock the support into the constrained position.
Dr. Iotti said that it was his impression that the lateral thermal movements were very small.
Dr. Bjorkman indicated that Cygna calculations showed a Z (lateral ^?) movement of approximately 1 1/4" and an X (axial ?)
movement of 0.0003".
Both agreed that if this was indeed the situation, then the support apparently had not beer, designed to accommodate these deformations.
Dr. Iotti said that he would check the deformation information at this support location and call when the information had been confi rmed.
l 1
Signed:
Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, G. Bjorkman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, D'stneution:
,m oi, eroject, rise
Communications 4 Ld t Repod i
191llllll1111111111114llllll11 Telecon D Conference Rem Toras Utilities Project:
Job No 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 6/15
Subject:
Time Pipe Support Question (5/24 Telecon, Item 18) 10:00 Place' Si t o
Participants:
of D_ Ranchor Tt!FC J. Mi ni chiello Cya na Aequired item Comments Action By In reviewing the question on embedded plates, Cygna noted that the load distribution calculation is done quite conservatively (see CC-1-031-008-S33R). The designer has used the dimensions of the wide flange (-4 x 4) rather than the plate weld separation
(~4 x 9) to determi ne the force couple. While no written procedure exists, Mr. Rencher stated that it was normal practice at CPSES to analyze the embed conservatively when deterinining the loads due to the moment.
1 i
l 1
1 i
l hbl I). flak /)
/ss 1
1 D'" b"
N Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, so m i.
F r oJ eCT. N l e
I Communications Report AL t i 1tll1111llll11110ll!lllllllll companyTexas Utilities o Teiecon tX conference neport Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*te:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 5/24/84 sumect:
10:30 p.m.
Inspection Reports CPSES
Participants:
of TUSI S. Bibo, N. Williams, D. Smedley Cygno Aequired item Comments Action By Cygno asked to meet with the above listed TUSI participants to discuss the use of Inspection Reports (IR) at CPSES.
We asked what the basic difference is between on NCR and on IR.
Tony Vego explained that basically NCR's get engineering review and IR's are cleared by a "use os is" or nonstandard repair, then engineering would issue a DCA/ CMC. He stated that regardless of the document used, the bottom line was that any unsatisfactory condition dispositioned "use os is"/"or repair" must receive on engineering evoluotion.
Mr. Welch explained that if an attribute listed on on IR was determined to be unsatisfactory, the QC inspector would make o determination that the condition should be " reworked." Construction would then rework the item in accordance with the document they originally used to install /fobricate, l
or use on established standard repair / rework procedure. Once the item was corrected, QC would re-inspect using the attributes of the criginal IR, l
or a separate IR specifically generated to address the requirements of the standard repair / rework procedure.
I' In addition, it was explained that construction had the option of going to engineering and asking for DCA/ CMC to be issued to accept the unsatisfactory condition ("use-os-is").
GC would then be colled to re-l inspect the item. The DCA/ CMC (issued by engineering) would serve os on engineering evoluotion of the nonconformance with a disposition of "use os is."
L W
.,.. li" l
I
- n. n uoun o, v. n uuc, u. u uw, v. m newey, o. ma, a. i mw, o,,,n,,,,,n J. Ellis, Project File r,an
t To:
Dec.o mea T Co ATc.o e Ffl o r<u b. 8. 8 Urvae //
xt7sc3 5eeaec-r :.
Cy 3,1x Re.oe,< (Pho.se sb Com.seke Ped.
A b clie d I s. 6e & fla sin 3 ele eu.m ent :
HEN 5eA //, /7 8% _
2r</ o y a. o.s /
cyyx. (ofdg). $c ci %sm,6f + [3 c~a m muica%w /
~ ~ ~
C A S E ( Etli- )
P/ews< 21 ster 4de n &lleas:
Rep Ale LB */lDu
- 3. B. Bu.cweif (+)
AIK.C POtR MESlDE D. Terso L P D R..
SG E6lDE f.. AirtoJJ:
M Tt 3 Q JA 6f EE J. S rod p
AI S / C EG C6/IE -
J. Par lleg an if cEl D S. Treb i
y R9;en W: D. I k nieu.1t l
Of h6 L Ili 14
~_
~. -