ML20128A298
| ML20128A298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-119 OL, NUDOCS 8505240180 | |
| Download: ML20128A298 (12) | |
Text
} ).
C A S E==
~
214/946-9446 DOCKETED (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
USNRC May 20, 1985
'85 MY 23 All :07 cmcE c: srn7.
"gu, L r.
c:: V Mr. Stuart Treby Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Subject:
In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Comps..y, et al.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 00-Corrections to Transcript of Meeting of March 23, 1985 Please send out the attached corrections to subject transcript as a Board Notification.
I have checked with Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh regarding any changes they identified; these are changes which were immediately identified, and there may be a few additional changes as they read through the transcript more thoroughly. As you will notice, the changes range from typographical or spelling corrections to others which change the meaning of the entire sentence.
(We have also indicated by an
- where we believe changes should be made in the transcript regarding statements attributed to Applicants' or NRC personnel; you might want to check with them where indicated, as well as include any changes they may have.)
Thanks much.
Sincerely, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)
(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis President cc: Service List 8505240180 850520 PDR ADOCK 05000445 T
pyg
\\
Corrections to transcript of meeting of March 23, 1985 (from CASE):
- = Need to double-check with Applicants or NRC Staff.
- Page, Line Line should read (changes have been underlined):
5 22 Dr. Chen mentioned something about that, I think, 6
-24 the Staff position is on what he had to say in his 7*
23 comprehensive response plan to a number of CPRT issues.
9 15 point in time we're not really sure if they have reviewed all 30*
17
' standard pin-ended supports together with conventional 33*
3 non-rigid box frame - that's the box frame on pin-ended 34*
10 position, would tend to displace further, per the 34*-
14 at Comanche Peak 'which can also cause system z
36 14-17 what have you, with a conventional clamp, if you undo the clamp because of the double pin, the support would collapse; however, when attached to the pipe with up and downstream supports to assist, there would be no instability. It is only in 36 22 Report came out, an attachment had not been tested, and 37 1
And from what I understand right now, the 47 14 -
way they're going to operate that plant.
50 14 the bumpers was bound up and picked up moment 50 17 or any acceptance goes beyond just an uncoupled analysis 51 9
thing for almost three years, that many of the issues that I'll 51 11 insignificant, but when coupled a half a dozen to a 2
i 56*
17 anug the U-bolt, and the second one was to add the 56*
20 stability bumpers was not acceptable because the support 58 161 you get into -- what is it, 1.25 (Sc + Sh)?
2 I
L
3 :-
l 4
60*
1 expressed concern about the out-of plane excitation of the 72*
4
'I-beam and a base plate. And the Applicants' revised
' 72f 20 particular case of open section or the wide flange or an 72 22 it's actually on either flange on which the member 73 19 I ever allow it to just go totally unaddressed on a -
75 25 don't include it.
I've been in places that I will
. 76 11-regard to friction, more or less to do with the weld.
76 14 assumptions, and_they don't consider compression forces on 76, 19-qualified them, because they don't consider these 78 3
have on compression forces on the welds.
80*
3 constrained free-end displacement that allows you to 81*
14 The next issue I had was damping values for 81*
15 the SSE. This started out as a very narrow issue.
I 81*
25 inappropriate damping values per ]tej[ Guide 161.
82*
11 the input spectra, they seemed to be fairly similar but 83*
9 from which they were able to pull out the member properties 83*
-16 corner radiuses that could affect the weld throat area, 83*
25 evaluated the concern with corner radius and weld throat 84*
5 Cygna question when calculating throat area for welds 86 3
But the drawings, a lot of them were issued in 1978, 87 8
It's a member property problem.
It's like a wide flange, 87 9
dimension for a wide flange. You get a mill test report, 88 2
in the affidavit -- is the Applicant used a Cleveland or 88_
13 January, and the Hog House dec'.ded to go to the Eighth 90*
12 to do with the effects of gaps on the bolt hole 93 2
What we're most concerned with in that particular type 3
95*
21 the computer analysis of the piping, and identified eight 99*-
'5
??? (not sure what this should be, but don't believe it's correct as.is; need to check with Mr. Fair) 100*
8 steel members for bending stresses and loads in the 100*
10
. procedures such as bolt hole angularity and bolt hole gaps, 100*
25 bolt, for example, was your concern with that approach 104*
20 DR. CHEN:
It wasn't 142, it was another --
105 15
. torque. And in a friction joined connection, until you 105 16 reach separation, there is no shear involved, although
-107 17 under the new SEAOC codes, they took an equivalent 107 25 And I noticed a number of the supports
.108 13 anywhere, except for perhaps, you know, a coathanger or 108 24 that column has sufficient pressure, of course, on that 111 9
exceed 30 percent of the friction, then you go to shear 112*
4 dispositions. The first one has to do with force 112*
10 To expand a bit on that, the concern is 112*
13
??? (Don't believe CHEME is correct, but not sure what is; need to check with Dr. Chen.)
'112 21 specific g loading -- for example,.02 g.
Any 3 113 11 cantilever off the wall a foot long, and the same tube steel 113 22-23 ??? ratings or what have you, have those two considerations, you should also go into snubber loadings.
(Mr. Doyle stated that he is not sure exactly what he did say, but he didn't say this as written. He suggests that lines 20-23 just be deleted, since they are just a-summary of what he said above.)
114 14
??? time. The result is, the (unintelligible). And once (Mr. Doyle does not remember exactly what he said here, and if the court reporter doesn't even make a stab at what was said, there's no way he can figure it out.)
115*
14
??? notion contains analyses for (unintelligible) piping (Need to check with Dr. Chen; but unless he can remember, there's no way it can be figured out.)
4 i
v 117 4
inch..I wonder what'Bjillard would have to say about.
119 11 information which the Applicants provided for the Staff?
119 21 know, actually along the pipe, but?also on angularity 120 15 going to do a Bjillard type analysis additive to MNS 120 16 existing in the pipe, then'again we use about the same 120 23 like Malcon/ Hobbit does with bolted conditions. You 122*
8 to discuss is with regard g local stresses and 122*
11 systems, local deflections, and compression in the walls
. 122*
13 The last item is the compression in the walls 123*
15 stresses in anchors in piping systems..That's 123*
23 CASE's concerns relate to unusual design issues, A36-A307
- 123*
25 related to stability and stresses in the pipe and the
~ 124 9
things where you have cinching first, then thermal. You 125 7
MR. D0YLE:. There are many cases of 125 8
plate as the cross piece.
126*
4 the normal vibration and simulation test and seismic
- 126*
5 loading simulation tests, I have a lot of questions 126 16.
so many times about the time constraints.
- 126*
22 raised in CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact which were 127*
-1 and wall-to-ceiling pipe supports. Again, during a 127*
6 are more critical for thermal in as-built conditions.
127 16 And there was never any consideration obviously given to 127 19 run any firm numbers on it.
In the first place, I don't 127*
22 question is because in the Proposed Findings of Fact, I 128 15 particularly as you pass the points of countercurvature in the 129*
3 the Proposed Findings that treating wall-to-floor and 5
A+
,r v
129'
-14 _tupbuildingloadbecauseyou')egoingtogettime-dependent-
~
129
'15-displacement. you're going to get whatever live-load is 2
129 17~
building column.
MR.:WALSH:
In regards to that, go out
~
129.
-20 pre-cast members are failing in,. shear to support the, and they 129-21 are using tubeo just like pipe supports from floor to 129
.23 support = the building, tube steel members used to
'129 24
-support the concrete members.
130*-
6.
of. steel-NFR.
(Don't believe NFR is correct; need to check with Mr. Landers.)
-130*-
14 of the order of.006 of an inch, would you consider the 130 21
. 006, you are ' going to get time-dependent displacement which 130-25-you want to look into it, you've got a hell of a
'131
~4 first put it in and pull the forms, you get a certain' 132 4
~15,000 lbs..
I'm talking about they put the plate up here 133*
'2'
.there is no slop between the pipe and the box frame?
133.
9 tolerance, then there was no tolerance, zero.
133*
12 clearance box frames, they did assume that' zero meant zero?
135-13 But u'nfortunately, the strut was so long and the brackets 135 18 overloaded, particularly when you talk numbers like 80 or more 135-24 with an' axial to the walking type of an instability.
135 25 (Delete " finding.")
136 4
zero inch gap which created a thermal condition in the
'136 5
frame.
136-11 manufacturer's LDS.
137 3
the extreme "y" distance. '
138 12 earlier.
I think these have been repaired -- (a) 16-inch 6
t
139 4
inches deep, and they're analyzing them flexurally, 139 5
whereas the reason problem was in the plate sections. The flexural 139 22 depth with a very short face dimension. So they g
140 7
There were several supports.
If you would like 140 11 that are sitting horizontal to the base plate -- they 140 12 would put a bracket for a strut or a snubber and load 140 17 side walls are taking all of the load because 140 20 every one of those I've seen have not been analyzed.
I have 141 10 particularly if it's on a hot pipe, you could also 142 2-3 we found with that quarter inch tube wall yielding. You yield, then walk, and you have got your present load and you are back
/
142 9
beams, wide flanges, et cetera.
143 9
problems in the box beams when the thermal pressure and
--q 143 10 loading is at the welds, rather than the major section 143 24 just went through g.
And also they act as a seismic 4
144 14 AISC, they all have the same - everybody carries the same g
m 144 23 can see the plug welding was done properly and it's f
145 1
do a volumetric because on many occasions cracking a;
. 145 2
occurs due to material shrinkage.
- j T.
145 9
problem again. You have a problem of crack
[
145 10 propagation. You have a notch in your veld, you start 145 15 in fact, in my summary disposition, I have heard nothing from Ji, I
148 23 And, if they were straight, not angular, you pick up the sine 149 5
.6 times the D/2T, divided into FY, times QF0B --
4 1497 16-17 (Don't believe " Toe Crack" is correct; need to check with Mr.
b Terao.)
o i
7
{ f 1 1 i
m 150 23 codes or the guidance says you can go to 5 degrees, no sweat,
(
150
_25 that component can be the last straw because.085, if you've
'151
-1
~got a Size C, Figure 211, 4,500 pounds down, just to round 151*-
17^
the support is installed five degrees or less than the 154*
9
.MR. TERAO: Of course, it's derived 155-
'16-17 think too much of the test results. To do a proper testy the first thing you have to do is get the actual 156*
16 itself, at its tensile, a four inch U-bolt at tensile
- 157*
23'
-(Don't believe "the clocks" is correct; need to check with Mr.
Terao.)
158 9
guarantees as his size and his ultimate capacity, S sub u, 158-15 their snubbers up at the 300 area at the FFTF.
160*-
3-sure that you get a copy and we get a copy. But it took 160*=
21
~and I go along with the fillet weld gauge, and I assume 160*
.22 you're talking about fillet welds?
161*
2 examine a fillet weld?
161 7
violation of whatever one you want to use -- ASME, AISC, 161*
12 be a 16th of an inch under for 10 percent of the weld
'161-23 crack the root.
162 7
14-inch wide flange, 426 pounds, and "here.
Use 4.
162 9
serious problems, be it heat affected zone or the root.
'163 20 is, you take a piece of tube steel, you have got to put a one and 164*
16 recomputed the section modulus at that location.
164 17-18 MR. D0YLE:
I was out there for 10-1/2 months, and the only analysis they took was the 166 17 All we were doing, we were doing the STRUDL input.
If 167 6
think I would have ever cared to create more.
So I just 8
MO'
.e
^
s f1:
gt,'iI ~..
167 21-
-cause prying, what we, generally conosider prying.
167 25 (Don't believe " families" is correct; need to check with Mr.
g:e Fair.)
168
.4 a Theta angle in the tube' steel.
I can see that. But
.168 5
then, again, that got you back to another problem, that
-168 17 MR. D0YLE:
No.
It's different from the 168 18 other ones; that's true. But what I'm talking about is 168 20 connection,-you can develop the Theta angle at that point 168 22 stretching the' bolt out.
You don't have the full fixity.
.169 1
. soft that bolt is.
You develop that Theta angle in 170 7-you'll find that adds a percentage.
171 10 those bolts-to 325, it may be a different problem entirely, 171 12 displacement that'you can develop a Theta angle.
If you 171' 13
-develop a Theta angle back here, you have no prying.
171 15 it, all concern with it," you are not going to get 171 22 MR. D0YLE:
No, but what you're trying 172 14 that-bolt moves up, then we have no Theta, and we are 172 16 have a very sof t member back there that's yielding --
-172 23 out here.
It could be that even the dead load is in 173 1
it on the supports up and down.
173 19 because I could have stress ratio here of
.1.
I've seen
~173 20 them near 0.
I've seen them less than.1 for stress 174 4
excitation," doesn't mean a thing.
If I have a stress ratio
.of.98, 174 18 hammer, steam hammer, although those are usually one 175_
3 the spectra because of the damping effect of the varying 175 9
already are using half our damping factors.
9 d
T L.
.c
~,-
e
,n.,,
- ,~
Y s
175 22 MR. D0YLE:
I didn't address the fatigue t<
175 23 problem, but seismic that has up more than 20 zero crossing.
176 12 sit there and just jump up and down every time the sine 177 1
low frequency vibrations going on for years, it goes 177 2
into the anchor bolts and into the wall eventually.
I never got into 177.-
18 also had higher peaks on some of them. And that's one of the 178 22-23 (Mr. Walsh does not recall exactly what he did say, but does not believe he said " Stiffness does change through the psi values.")
178 25 account that dead band.
179 2
we've got to have numbers; we have no numbers of that joint.
179 9
maybe be just hung from the ceiling.
It's not going to 181 7
used. They tested the A36 rod and at yield point it,was 60 190 2
7th meeting, at the end of the February 27th meeting, and now 190 10 I guess unless the NRC Committee has some other --
192*
1-2 cor. sider two over one, a projectile; for example, going
'.orizontally -
(This was quoted material; I checked the actual quote.)
192*
6 mean the trajectory of the non-safety related components 192 9
MR. WALSH: The trajectory.
192*
10 MR. LIPINSKI: Trajectory. Okay.
194*
18 trajectory. Right.
195-19 to say 2 to 1.
197 3
And when Cygna did their review -- and they reviewed 197.
4 their calculations, that dynamic amplification 198' 4
correspondence. And as,of September of '84, that issue of 198 13 In the FSAR, at the time of the Cygna review, the FSAR 198 15 And they were designed using the equivalent static load 10
.u4-
200 4
over-stressed by 7 percent, without utilizing the dynamic n
200*
9-11 -(Don't believe this-is correct; need to check with Mr.
Lipinski.)-
206 21 I just wanted to be sure that they coincide with what I 207*
2-4 (Don't believe this sentence is correct; need to check with Mr. Lipinski.)
207
'12 bending stress in a member under the SSE condition
.207 can only be.9 F sub y.
208 2
.up the FSAR Section 3.8.3, which is for structures 208
_3 inside containment and Section 3.8.4, which is for 208 15
' elastic behavior."
208 17 cable tray design should be dif ferent inside 208 22 MR. WALSH:
I thought it was.9 of the
'209 3-4
' allowable stresses that they did use.
(Mr. Walsh does not recall exactly what he said here, but the phrase "and they did see-yield strength in-the material" is not correct.)
209*
21 the current Standard Review Plan where basically this 211*
1 temperature loads imposed on the structural members due 211-5 the decrease in the yield strength.
211 14 because the temperatures aren't going to get as high jut n i
211 15 the containment; they won't.
And considering a -- they 214 12 But above the door, there was no gap.
217 9
reduction in the section modulus. And that -- I forget if 217 24-25 being applied,._
(Mr. Walsh does not recall exac'.ly what he said here, but the phrase "by the Cygna in the case; in fact, their result on stress" is not correct.)
218*
1 10 in that transcript was the concern about the 3/8" plate 218*
11 being welded to liner plate and which was overstressed -- I meau 11
.i J.
.r :
,y
(
218 17 those supports GeneLwas working on, and they told us not 218 19-20 Gene modeled it in, it was 100 ksi or something?
(Mr. Walsh does not recall exactly what he said here, but the sentence "Is that psi?" is not correct.)
218, line 25, through 219, line 4*
(Need to check with Mr. Lipinski on this; don't believe it is correct as written.)
219' 5-MR. WALSH: That's not what I was 219, line 22, through 220, line 23 (The drawing under discussion should have been attached to the transcript so anyone reading it can tell what's being discussed.)
220*
5 containment that went from one end of the bridge tct the 220 12 this is an elevation they had farther on.
220 17 overstressed member.
226 23 or whatever you call it,is a calculation, and it doesn't 229' 1
was not the particular support.
I recognized something 12
--. - - -