ML20140E161

Requests Response to Listed Questions Re 840411 Motion on A-500 Steel,In Addition to Any Further Info Provided to ASLB in Connection w/A-500 Steel

ML20140E161
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/31/1984
From:	Hunter D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Spence M TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8501100592
Download: ML20140E161 (3)

Text

y- _

~

~ ~ '

, r

-+

.. 1 Dockets: 50-445 50-446 1

Texas Utilities Electric Company ATTN: M. D. Spence, President, TUGC0 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:

In connection with an April 11, 1984, motion filed by Applicants with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board relating to questions raised concerning A-500 steel, an attached affidavit by Mr. John Finneran indicates that

" Applicants apply level B stress allowables in assessing the more severe level C leads" (Affidavit, p.5). The NRC Staff consultant on this matter, Dr. W. P.

Chen, has agreed that such a practice is generally reasonable and conservative since generally level C (emergency) loads are larger than level B (upset).

loads. However, as he points out there may be instances in which level B

-loads are larger than level C loads. In such cases, it is the larger level. B

' load wnich should be compared to level B allowables.

During the course of his review of certain calculations relied upon in Mr. Finneran's affidavit, Dr. Chen reviewe'd a number of instances in which

' Applicants had used calculated level C stress to compare with level.B allowabl.es to conclude that the calculated stress was within allowables. In.

one such instance the calculated level B load was in fact higher than the level C load,'and the level B calculated stresses should have been compared to level'B allowable stresses. However. in this case, Dr. Chen found that the lower. level C stress, rather than the higher level B stress was compared against the level B allowable. Nonetheless, Dr. Chen determined that the.

. higher level B stress was still within.the level B allowable. Dr. Chen indicated the Applicants should confirm that, for the cases covered by Mr. Finneran's affidavit, that the proper level loads and stresses were considered within allowable.

The statement in Mr. Finneran's affidavit appears to'be generic and not restricted to the 182 pipe support assessment, or to pipe supports fabricated-with A-500 steel. Accordingly,-the NRC staff requests that in addition to any further.information provided'to the Licnesing Board in connection with A-500 steel, you provide your response to the following:

RPBl. h NR ~

DRHunter:gb

_VNoon ,

11/p/84 1%/p/84' < -

2 -

o g 8501{0 g P

/gj/ , 0 1 .

s t

o .

9

. Texas'Utilitics Electric Company 2

1. In design cal'culations for pipe supports, are level B stresses in all instances. compared to level B allowables? If your answer to this question is. affirmative, provide any engineering procedures or guidance documents which contain or reflect instructions to designers to assure that such comparison is done in all cases, and any procedures or guidance documents.which contain or reflect procedures for reviews of such comparison.

2. In design calculations for pipe supports, are level C stresses in all instances compared to either level C allowables or level B allowables?

If your answer to this question is affirmative, provide any engineering procedures or guidance documents which contain or reflect instructions to designers to' assure that such comparison is done in all cases, and any

- procedures or guidance documents which contain or reflect procedures for reviews of such comparison.

3. To assure that ~the instance identified by Dr. Chen does not reflect a widespread problem, we recommend you select a sample large enough and diverse enough to represent the full range for pipe support designs and materials used throughout the plant and have competent engineers determine

-if. the calculated stresses for all loading conditions (levels A, levels B, levels C and levels D) are acceptable when compared to the applicable allowable stresses. You should provide a report of this work to NRC Region IV within 30 days after completion of the work.

Within 30 days from the date of this letter you should provide a response to items 1 and 2 above, and provide a statement regarding your intended approach to item 3. (Either indicate your acceptance of this recommenda-

' tion, or provide full justification for not doing so. This justification should fully demonstrate that the instance Dr.' Chen identified was an isolated case and should include specific documentation.)

h

?

A v 2 ' '

. s o; -

.- .. ~

Texas Utilities' Electric Compani , 3 e r e

Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsregardinsthismatte'r,pleasecontactD.R.

Hunter at.817/860-8103ll 1

o

Sincerely, ' r <

,j

~

Guh:V

. g, .

f(

~

D. R.. Hunter,-Chief-Reactor Project Branch 2 cc: __

'l, Texas Utilities Electric Company i ATTN: B. R. Clements, Vice - t

' President, Nuclear

Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street.

. Lock Box 81 Dallas Texas .75201 Texas Utilities Electric Company ATTN: H. C. Schmidt,-Manager Nuclear Services Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street-

' Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas-- 75201-Texas Utilities Electric Company -

ATTN: B.~ R. Clements, Vice

~

-President, Nuclear-Skyway Tower-400 North Olive Street

-Lock Box 81

. Dallas,~ Texas':75201 ,

-Texas. Utilities Electric Company ATTH: J..W. Beck, Manager, , ,

Licensing Skyway Tower '

400 North Olive _ Street Lock. Box 81'

Dallas, Texas !75201 bec to DMB (IE01)~

r

bec'distrib. by.RIV

'RPB1: '

.RRI-0PS 'TX State Dept. Health RPB2 'RRI-CONST.

EP&RPB .. .

R. Bangart, Task. Force J.'Gagliardo-(CPSES) :R;;, Martin, RA. - -

D.JHunnicutt, Task Force - . t , '.

R. Denise,-DRSP

.V. Noonan,'- NRR ,

1RIV File , cS..Treby,' ELD: ,s . ..

t x ~ , ~

_ -j'N . tJ '

k, #