ML20151G840
| ML20151G840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105260124 | |
| Download: ML20151G840 (10) | |
Text
]
05/21/81 U4ITED STATES OF AliERICA ph g j Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
C; p/d BEFORE THE AT0f11C SAFETY Al4D LICENSING BOARD k-P
- q h, q,,
10 In the Matter of
)
w
)
V m s
\\ 46k.,.
TEXAS UTILITIES GEiiERATIi1G C0iPAilY, ET AL.
)
Docket h.
[7% q 'f)
)
(Conanche Peak Stean Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
fidC STAFF ANSWER TO CFUR MOTI0il TO C0tiPEL APPLICANTS TO HOLD THE DESIGN AUDIT OF COMANCHE PEAK If1 REASONABLE PROXIMITY TO THE C0f1ANCHE PEAK SITE INTRODUCTI0l4 On ilay 11, 1981, CF'JR filed a " Motion to Coapel Applicants To liold the Design Audit of Comanche Peak By The Structural Engineering Branch of the f4RC In Reasonable Proxi+1ity to Conanche Peak" (hereaf ter "CFUR's Motion").
CFOR states that it filed this notion "in response to the refusal of the Applicants to hold that audit at or in the vicinity of the site where CFUR and otner interested nenbers of the pJUliC Can attend" (CIdR's Motion, di 1).
As stated below, the NRC Staf f (hereafter "the Staff") opposes CFUR's Motion on the grounds that the motion is naat and that the Atolic Safety and Licensing Baerd (hereaf ter " Licensing Board") lacks jurisdiction t) grant the relief sought.
BACKGROUtlD The meetings which are the subject of CFUR's Motion, supra, are part of the review by the Staff of tne Final Safety Analysis Report (FSM) sub-aitted in support of the Couanche Peak Stean Electric Station (CPSES)
!8105 2 60l/ b g
operating license application.
In addition to reviewing the information provided in the FSAR for CPSES, the Staff Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) conducts an audit of the structural design of the safety-related structures within the station.
in a letter dated April 23, 1931 from the Staff (here-af ter " Staff's letter") to Aplicantc (Te<as Utilities GeneratiiIg Company or "TUGC0") rep rding this audit,M the Staff stated that "this design audit will consist of a review of the design reports and drawings prepared for the Category I structures with the objectives of confiriaing that basic design criteria, analysis raethods and codes and standards were properly utilized in the design of these structures" (Staff's letter, at 1).
As stated in the Staff's letter, the Staff suggested to Applicants that tha neeting be held at the offices of the CPSES architect-engineer, Gibbs and Hill, in New York City during the week of Play 11, 1981.
The Staff stated that "it. sill be important to have available at the netings the design engineers who authored and are thoroughly familiar with the design reports and drawings supporting the structural desigo" (Staff's letter, at 1).
The Staff diso requested that Applicants " select a site which will not preclude me.1bers of the public froa attending" (Staff's letter, at 2), since interested members of the public inay wish to attend the meeting (Sta#f's letter, at 2).
On April 29, 1981, a neeting notice was issued by the Staff, ":ieeting With Texas utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) on Licensing leviea For N See letter dated April 23, 1981 froa Robert L. Tedesco, (NRC) Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing, to Robert 1. Gary, Executive Vice-President and General ! tanager, TU3:0.
A copy of this letter is included as Attachment 1.
t I
Conanche Peak By the Structural Engineering Branch".1/ This notice stated that the design audit meetings would be held tionday through Friday, flay 11-15, 1981 at the offices of Gibbs and Hill in flew York City, and that as NRC neetings, would be open to interested nembers of the public.
'q accordance witn Staff,)olicy and practice, copies of this meeting notice were sent t3 dll individuals included on the Conanche Peak operating license hearing service list, including the parties to that proceeding.
Tne neetings were held at the Gibbs and Hill offices in New York City on Itaj 11-15, 1931.
DISCUSSION 1.
CFUR's Motion Should Be Denied As Moot As indicated above, the neetings which are the subject of CFUR's notion began on May 11, 1931 and concluded on flay 15, 1981.
Therefore, CFUR's notion, v'hich was not #iled until the first day of the neeting, is noot, since the neetings have already concluded.
Surely, CFUR nJst be aware thdt seVeral days aust be allowed for nailing and that a notion nailed on 'iay 11, 1981, would probably not reach the Licensing Board and the parties until May 15, 1901.
In any event, as ex;>1ained below, the Licensing Board is without jurisdiction to grant the relief CFUR sought in its "1otion.
E/ ee Menorandun dated April 29, 1981, from S. Burwell, (NRC) Project S
flanager, Licensing Branch No.1, to B.J. Youngblood, Chief, (NRC)
Licensing Branch.'10.
1.
A copy of this nenorandun is included as Attachment -,
l
11.
The Licensing Board Does Not Have Jurisdiction To Grant the Relief CFUR Seeks Although CFUR's motion is directed at Applicants, the meetings in question were conducted by the Staff as part of its review of the CPSES operating license application.
The Staff suggested that the meetings be neld at the Gibbs and Hill offices in New York, but requested that Appli-cants insure that the site selected "wi~ii not preclude interested members of the public froa attending" (Staff's letter, at 2).
In accordance with the Staff's suggestion, the meetings were held at the Gibbs and Hill offices in New York.
While CFUR's apparent interest in attending these neetings is under-standable, CFUR's notion represents confusion on CFUR's part between the Commission's policy and practice to begin tne evidentiary hearing in the vicinity of the site of the proposed facility,E on the one hand, anJ on the other hand, the Staff's autonomy in conducting meetings which are part of the Staf f's independent license review process.
In requestinj that the Licensing BoarJ compel the Staff's Jesign audit neetings to be held at t!1e CPSES site, CFUR seeks relief which the Licensing Board lacks jurisdiction to grant.
The Licensing Board does nat have the power to direct the Staff in the performance of its independent responsibilities, nor would it be dppropriate for the 'icensing Board to exercise such supervisory functions E See 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A. " Statement of General Policy and Pro-cedure:
Conduct of Proceedings For the Issuance of Constructin Pernits and Operating Licenses For Production and Utilization Scilities For Which a Hearing Is Required Under Section 189A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended," Paragraph I.(a).
a if it had the power to do sa.
New England Power Company, et al,. (NEP, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-9, 7 HRC 271 (1978). As the Licensing Board there i
noted:
The authority to adainister the licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act has been vested by Congress in the 4wclear Regilatory Commission (42 U.S.C. 6 5841(f) and (g)). The* Coa-mission is euposered by that Act to appoint Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards to conduct adjudicatory proceedings and "to cond act such hearings as the Commission may direct" (42 U.S.C.
% 2241). Accordingly, licensing boards are delegates of the Commission and exercise only those powers which the Connission has giveq them.
[ Footnote omitted] NEP, supra, 7 NRC 271, at 279, citing Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170 (1976).
The Connission has established a carefully articulated regJlatory scheme for the processing and adjudication of appli-cations for the licensing of nuclear power plants.
The Staff is responsible for an extensive and continuing review of massive anounts of data and plans related to the construction and operation of nuclear plants, including radiological health and safety, environnental aspects, site suitability, and -other dspects of the licensing process [ footnote onitted].
The Staff, among other documents, produces the Safety Evaluation Re,inct (SER) and the Draft and Final Environmental Statements (DES and FES).
The studies <and analyses which result in these reports are nade independently by the Staff, and licensing boards have no role or authority in their preparation. The reports then-selves are subject to review and amendment by the Board in an i
adjudicatory setting, in Which all parties with a devinstrated interest nay participate in evidentiary hearings. [ footnote onitted].
Initial decisions on these matters are subject to appeal or sua sponte review by the Appeal Board, and by the Commission itself if it so elects.
Accordingly, it is apparent that the Board does not have any supervisory authority over that part of the application review process that has been entrusted to the Staff.
[fo]tnote omitted] (enphasis added), NEP, suora, 7 HRC
?71, at'279.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.718, the presiding officer in NRC adjudicatory proceedings has the duty "to conduct a fair and inpartial hearing according to law, to take appropriate action to... naintain order" anj "tu regulate the coJrse of the hearing and the conduct of the participants".
Mo aver,
. _.- -___,..-_.,_.~ _._ ~
- ~.
. that regulation applies only to the hearing process and is not an all-purpose delegation of power to licensing boards to control or direct the work of the Staff in carrying out its pri lary responsibilities.
NEP, supra, 7 WRC at 280.
See also Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Huclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 1 and 4), ALA3-577, 11 4RC 13 (1930).
It is thus clear that the Licensil.) D >ard has no authority to order that the Staff design audit neetings be held at the CPSES site, since these neetings are part of the license application review process that has been entrusted to the Staff.
.l d_.
For CFUK's information, the Staff would e,:1phasize that nany Meetings between the Staff, Applicants, Applicants' subcontractors and other organiza-tions are c-]nj;cted by the Staff as part of the Staff's application review process.
The site of these neetings depends on a number of factors, includ-ing the location af tle ' principal participants and of the volutlinous docu-
.1ents that are frequentlj revieseJ at these neetings.
flany such Staff neetings are held at or nur the facility site, since access to the site itself or to documents and personnel located at the site is necessary.
In other cases, the location of personnel and docunents dictates that such neet-ings be held at the Staff ]fficer in Bethesda,fD.
In this case, the Staff suggested that the neetings be hel." At the offices of Gibas and Mill in 191 York City, since it Was hecessary to have access at the meeting to the Gibb-and Hill design engineers and nunercas Gilds and Hill design reports and
. drawings, all located at the Gibbs and Hill offices there.N Thus, it made sense to hold the acetings at the offices of Gibbs and Hill in New York, where the design engineers, design reports and drawings are located and readily accessible.
This neeting, like many other Staff neetings can.luctei as part of tne Staf f's license application review process, was open to interested nenbers of the public, including CFJR.
In CFUR's notion, supra, CFUR states that "should the neetinj be held in New York, interested nenbers of tne public will be precluded frora attending", citing the " prohibitive cost of travelinj to and from New York for a week" (CFUR's Motion, at 1).
In this regard, the Staff makes every effort tu acconnodate interested neabers of the public at Staff.neetings, by issuing meeting notices well in advance of tne neeting, as was done in this case.
However, the factors outlined by the Staff above re'arding the lacation of personnel and documents, and not j
necessarily tnose cited by CFUR, nust be considered by the Staf f in choosing the site for a,> articular n-:eting and nay dictate that neetings be held at locations not in proxinity to the facility site.
Moreover, contrary to CFUR's statenent that "CFUR will be precluded fro,a obtaining the data presented and the substance of the conversations which occur during the audit" (CFUR's Motion, at 1), 'auch of that infor-natiun will be available to CFUR through the meetir] sunnary or ninutes 4_/
In addition, the Staff indicated that in choosing the location of the neeting, care should be taken to insure that interested nenbers of the public would not be precluded fro <a attending.
By this, the Staff neant that the actual caeeting roon at the suggested location for the neeting (the offices of Gibbs and Hill in New York City) should be adeqJate to acconnodate any interested nenbers of the public who wisheJ to attend.
1
\\
3 unich are prepared with respect to such meetings and which are servej mi all the parties on the CPSES service list, including CFUR.
C0fiCLUSI0ri For the reasons set farth above, the Staff urges that the Licensing Board deny CFJ'<'s notion.
Respectfully sublitted, Al
&k b$t$dic]
Marjor,ie Ulnan Rothschild Counsel for 'iRC Staff Dated dt Bethesda, llarylaqj this 21st day of :i3y,1981 l
l l
1
Ul41TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY C0l1 MISSION BEFORE THE AT011C SAFETY add LICENSING BOARD In the Hatter of-
)
)
TEX 43 UTILITIES GEi4ERATIWJ COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No. 50-44)
)50-44b (Couancne Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)-
)
t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CFUR MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANTS.TO HOLD THE DESIGN AUDIT OF COMANCHE PEAK IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY TO THE COMANCHE PEAK SITE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail. system, this 21st day of May, 1981:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman Dwight H. iiocre, Esq.
Administrative Judge '
West Texas Legal Services Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 100 Main Street' (Lawyers Bldg. )
1001. Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Fort Worth, TX 76102 Washington, DC 20036 David J. Preister, Esq.
Forrest J.'Remick, Administrative Assistant Attorney General Judge Environmental Protection Division Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board P.O.' Box 12543, Capital Station 305'E. Hamilton Avenue Austin, TX 78711
-State College, PA-16801 Mr. Richard Fouke
' Richard Cole, Administrative Judge
- 1663-8 Carter Drive Atonic Safety.and Licensing Board Arlington, TX 76010 U.S. duclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20535 Arch'C. McColl III, Esq.
701 Commerce Street hicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Suite 302 Decevoise & Libernan Dallas, TX 75202
-1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington,-DC 20036 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
4021 Prescott Avenue i
tirs. Juanita Ellis-Dallas, TX 75219 l
President, CASE.
1426-South Polk Street
)
' Dallas TX '75224
)
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Panel
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555
(% q sy_; W w ca. h k L 4 ck Marjofie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff
ATTACHMENT I
((*, 5.,ga esc,Ig o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q(Ja%'.,ff E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'.....?
April 23,1981 Docket Nos. 50-445
'and 50-446 Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice' President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Gary:
SLBJECT: DESIGN AUDIT OF COMANCHE PEAK BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH The Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) has reviewed the information provided
- ..,Lr FSAR for the Com:n:h: '::'.: Sta.r El :t-f: Station, Uni t Nos. ' rd 2 As an additional part of its review of an operating license application, tne
-SE3 conducts an audit of the structural design of the safety-related structures witnin the station.
This design audit will consist of a review of the design recorts and drawings prepare: 'or Category 1 structures with the objectives of
- nfirming that basic desi:
-":rd e, aralysis -ethods, and codes anc standards were properly u 414:ed in the design of these structures. The audi t team will also audit the esign of selected structures which are representative of tne types of structure-iuau w.ainations encantered in the station da:i;n.
The audit team will consist of memoers of the SES and our consultants.
Elis letter transmits a design audit checklist developed by SEB for the conduct of the audit. We request that your staff; 1) review the enclosed design audit mecklis t, 2) arrange to make available for review the requisite design information, and 3) meet witn tne SEB audit team at a mutually agreeable time ar.d place. We suggest that ?? eeting be aald at the Gibbs and Hill offices
New York during the week of May 11, 1981.
e anticipate that the completion 0 the audit will require a N11 week of meet ngs.
It will be imoortant to i
Mve available at the meetings the design enoineers who authored and are h: roughly familiar with the design reports
=M drawings supporting the t roctural design.
g?[f D l 9 07El o'fl
i Mr. R. J. Ga ry When the site andJ time have been selected, we will then issue a.T.eeting i
notice.
As interested members of the public may wish to attend the meeting, notice must be issued a minimum of two weeks before the meeting is held.
Please select a site which will not preclude memoers of the l
public from attending.
-l If you have any questions regarcing the conduct of the requestea neeting or the.information included in the design audit checklist, please call us.
Sincerely,
-~
- ]? Ni -G -/
y Rcbert L. Tedesco, Assistant Dirs:::r for Licensing Citision of Licensing
Enclosures:
Design Audi.t Che:klist j
I cc:
See.nex: Dage-m
Mr. R. J. Gary Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Mr. Richard L. Fouke Debevoise & Literman Citizens for Fair Utility Regul.
1200 Seventeenth Street 1668-B Carter Drive I
Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Texas f5010 f
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Resident Inspectorf omance Peak Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Nuclear Station 2001 Bryan Tower c/o U.S.N.R.C.
Dallas, Texas 75201 P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76CA3 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt l
l Manager - Nuclear Services l
Texas Utilitie: Services, Inc.
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. H. R. Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corocration P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15320 David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sounu Energy 1426 Soutn Pol k Dallas, Texas 7522' Geoggrey M. Cay, E:q.
West Tevas Legal Services 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bld;.';
Forth Worth, Texas 76102 l
ENCLOSURE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN AUDIT CHECKLIST STRUCTURAL AUDIT OF COMANCHE PEAK-Dart : - General Analysis I.
BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA
'A.
"g" value - f ree field B.
Spectra (attach figs. for all damping values, cuctilities) i 1.
Zero period acceleration 2.
frsqua :7 '-
eriod) interval C.
Damping D.
Artificial time history and corresponding spectra (attacn figures) 1.
original time' nistory and its -composition, i.e., rising tire, stong motion and tail end.
2.
base line correction, check the integrated velocity and displacement time histories 3.
time interval - compatible with the highest frequency c a.sddered in the spectral calculation E.
Motion duration F.
Comoonents of otion including their relative motion amolituces G.
Dead and live loaas for various operating floors and base siao H.
Ground water ievel I.
Back fill eart-erassure, wind, overpressure due to costula:ec i
. external exp'-"--
' s applicable)
J.
0:ncr ::n:i::r:....
. II. ANALYSIS METHOD A.
Seismic Analysis 1.
Mathematical mocel-general description with sketch.
a.
parameters usec (1) concrete cauius (2) rebar modulus and yield strength (3)
Poisson's ratio (4) damping (5) properties of #cundation materials
- 2
--du'un subgrade reactions a
cedring cacaoli1tles e
(6) otne-ara e:ers b.
stiffness calc.;... 3 (1) exterior walls (2) interior waiis 2.
'tethod of Analysis (oime history, response spectrum a,
nethod of analysia wacw methods, etc.) anc ::r:' 2 ration of torsional and transla-tional response (1) general descri;ti...
(2) findings and corrents b.
selection of numoer of.,6sses and degrees of fre.,cr (1) general cescripciun (2) findings and cs,;.,-c. t; i
t c.
nuncer of modes considered general description (2) findings and comments c.
comoining modal responses
'1 ) actual procedures used general findings e.
co siaeration of three components of motion (1) actual procedures used
'2) ceneral findings censideration of soil-structure interaction (1) general description 2;
'....;.3 and comments 2
deccualing criteria for subsystems
'l) general crocedure
' '. ' 'ey iva cles 1
sai sener a: rindings and comments h.
cceiing oc nydrodynamic effects in spent fuei ; col
- i. moceilng or spent fuel pool wells and interior floor 512":
'd
^^"4pment thereof l
3.
develoorent n-structure response soectra d
3.
general 'enrodures (1) smootning (describe specific smoothing.metn:c
- useu,
. _. :ng s;
b.
- jpical i
- =s, 3 (attaen figures,
. j l
l B.
Stress Analysis-1.
shear walls and ficers a.
mathematical model'- general description w/ sketch b.
method of analysis-incorporation of torsion c.
load combinations 2.
foundation mat a.
mathematical model - description of boundary conditions l
b.
method of analysis c.
load combinations d.
key results (figures, etc.)
3.
material to protect against structure - structure interaction
(.
a.
mechanical properties b.
additional pressure on walls l-c.
findings and connents J.
.crtical dynamic analysis a.
mathematical model - general description with sketch D.
d2Velopment of stiffnesses, incluaing floor stiffness, as applicable method of analysis C.
Co...mc i Programs Used in Analysis 1.
- ::ptions and limitations 2.
- licability 3.
verification wnsitivity study in case of numeric:1 ::1;tions (e.g., finite
= > =...ent analysis )
'4
- oac 1tiput Onciuoe ali cases) 5.
- =- (include all cases) 6.
-, uiscussions
. {
k l
D.
Overall Stability
{
1.
forces 14 9ents from. seismic analysis 2.
various cases considered 3.
bearing cressdre versus bearing. capability and safety factor against bearing failure f
4. factors of safety a.
- sliding b.
overturning E.
Interaction of Non-category I Structures with the structure considered-1.
identification of certinent non-Category I structures 2.
consideration given to potential failure of non-category I systems on Category I systems 3.
general findings ard comments l
F.
Design Consideration for Tornado l11ssiles 1.
design requirements 2.
models for a.
local damage b.
overall response 3.
load combinations 4
forces 5.
general coments and creliminary audit findings H;.
CONFORMANCE TO ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA l
- 3..
Identification of deviations, " any l
3.
Justificatien Of deviations :r.: i:::sition of the deviations general comments
.Part II-Audit of Key Designs A.
i.<terior Shear Walls 1.
design requirements 2.
cesign loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings B.
Interior Shear Walls l
1.
design requir: rants 2.
design 1::::
general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4
detailed design of rebar placement at Key sections 5.
general corrents and preliminary audit findings C.
Main Floors and Roofs 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar placement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings D.
Steel Structu.c' 3 racing Systems (if any) 1.
design req. r:ments 2.
design 1c:1:
3.
forces and :::r:s at key sections 4.
generai cocren.3 end preliminary audit findings E.
Foundation Ma*.
1.
cesign rec.. _ cc:3
'eneral analysis) ac'gn m=--
. l 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
detailed design of rebar pTacement at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary audit findings
?.
Main Frame Concrete Column Design (Key Colu.ans) 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 2
d:t:iled design of rebar place e-*. ?.! key sections 5
' commetns and prelird-' "
'"dit findings 3.
Seconcary.-:cors l
1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general anaijsis; 3.
forces and moments at key se::i:c.:
4.
detailed design of rebar placemen at key sections 5.
general comments and preliminary aucit findings l
H.
Detailing at Floor-Wall Joints 1.
- .:i;n requirements 2.
- ign loads (from general analysis) and moments at key sections 3.
4 f:t:iled design of rebar placement at key sec 1one I
c.
genersi connents and preliminary audit findings
I.
Dynamic Effects Applied to Floors and Walls by Machinery 1.
design requirements 2.
design loads (from general analysis) 3.
forces and moments at key sections 4.
details design
~
5.
general commen:: and preliminary audit findings L.
Crene & Support 1.
design of bents (columns and roof trusses) a.
design requirement b.
design loads (from general analysis) c.
forces and moments at key sections d.
detailed design e.
general comments and preliminary audit findings 2.
design of girfe:
mascorting. ane rails 2
a.
design reauira-ents b.
design loads (from generai analysis) c.
forces and moments at key sections d.
detailed design e.
general cuouents and prelininiary audit findings 3.
design of spent feel bridge a.
design requirements b.
design loads (from general analysis) c.
forces and mements at key sec,ons d.
detailea cesign e.
general comments and creli~i-erv aucit findings
_g.
M.
Fuel Pool Linear Design 1.
stresses and strain controls 2.
conformance to code requirements 3.
analysis procedure and results l
l 4 ccnsideration of accidental drop of crane loads l
5.
corrosion effects (e.g., pitting) on liner integrity 6.
creliminary findings of audit results 1
i l
l l
ATTACHMENT 2
,p %g%
[ [.\\,,, g h
'JNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.E vvASHING TON, D. C. 20666 7,., g,0 M pillill i
g
.,, ' a p
,,, a 2 J 1981 Docket Nos.:
50-445 and 50-446 "EMORANDUM FOR:
B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 1, DL l
1 ro0M-S. B. Bun >.' ell, Project Mana<jer, Licensing Branch No.1, DL l
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO) ON LICENSING REVIEW FOR COMANCHE PEAK BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DATE & TIME:
Monday thru Friday, May 11-15, 1981 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM l
' ^ ^ ^ T ! ^'l :
Gibbs & Hill 393 Seventn svenue New York, New York l
l r'uKFUbt :
To perform ari euui c vii cite structural enginee....,
l design for Comanche Peak.
1 i
PARTICIPANTS:
Texas Utilities Generating Company i
(J. Marshall. et. al.; 5. Kumar, Gibbs & Hill, n. al.)
NRC Staff i
(F. Rinaldi, F. Schauer, G. Harstead, P. Huang, J. Matra) 1
$/
k n ct S. B. Burwell, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing 1
cc:
dee next page hUit:
- mc meetings are operi to iriter esteu n.cmvers of the public to atter,d observers.
"c.bcr: cf the ::ublf:
ish to attend this reeting m.,
ennuld contact S. B. Burwell (Teleonone 301-492-8535) no later than
' - e of Business, May 7. 1991.
I l
Vtt P 6 0 /r 7t oS oS o 25 3
D.
J. Gary Executive Vice President and J
General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company cu0i Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Mr. Richard L. Fouke Debevoise-& Liberman Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation 1200 Seventeenth Street 1668-B Carter Drive Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Texas 76010 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Worshan, Forsythe & Sampels Nuclear Power Station 2001 Bryan Tower c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, Texas 75201 P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Manager
,,uclear Services Texas 'J:ilities Services, Inc.
2 3 ;... _.,.... e r Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr..:.
T.. '.::h Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O.
- .12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juonita Ellis, President Citizens association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, ietos 75224 r,eoffrey M. Gay, Esq.
"est T-"--
-asi Services 100 Maia c'--et (Lawyers Bldg.)
Tort '.::c....
~. e. a s 76102
_