ML20199H560
| ML20199H560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1986 |
| From: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A302 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-299, FOIA-85-59, FOIA-86-A-18 NUDOCS 8607030373 | |
| Download: ML20199H560 (17) | |
Text
_
OR)G NAL c
UN11ED STA1ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM FEEDEACK INTERVIEW OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL
$NbhNb kkhbhh'k~~99fd sr%Qe'i4MP4jpj!;gj.gk PAGES: 1 - 15 LOCATION:
.ibARRQO?W4=I
'E
, M:
' i.5M?n;GQW;;M$$r*-
v FJ
- *n
- WR4:V '
CCi
^
M53 8607030373 860623 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-A-18 PDR ace-FEDERAL REPORTEss, Ixc.
^'
~ ~' ^
Ft m Nenh Cri:ct Sueet s
I Q ;' 3 Washing:On, D.C. 2CC01 (202) 347-37CO M
35/6.23 1
L....
- .D S,,-.S 0:
n..,
2.
.n
._. un i
2
....-.. R R.,a,...
O.e.v. C
.,,.,u,; e - 0..
cw-.n vuni v.
o-3 4
COMA'iCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEA *4 5
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW 6
7 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
8 Suite 402 444 North Capitol Street, N.E.
9 Washington, D.
C.
10 II
? ie telephone interview commenced at 10:03 a.m.,
12 Chet Poslunsy presiding.
I3 PRESENT:
I 15 *!-
CHET POSLUSNY fj ER'1IE THOMPSON 16 SHOU HOU l
NRC Technical Review Team 17'-
18 10.'.
I; i
20 1 21 j
23 i!
ii 3 *,
ftcerai Returters, inc.
1
}
25 j!
lIi
__._._m.
m
23009.0 2
PIE 1
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2
MR. POSLUSNY:
We will start here.
For the d^... e.q w%%..
~ ~.g an interview (M66,y'ro6&.;.d#DR6,4Q c
th e 3
record, this is 4
purpose of providing f eedback regarding the technical 5
review T[am assessment of certain concerns raised about 6
the Comanche Peak facility.
Present at this interview are 7
myself, Chet Poslusny of the technical review team; Ernie 8
Thompson, also of the team; and Tao Shou Hou; and we are 9
talking to hMN$3< lMSEAk 10 As agreed, this interview is being transcribed and a copy'will be provided to hh$ff$52hNCII.mswN0k In 11 L L - nu me,u 12 addition, we will be providing a co~py of our SER, safety 13
- evaluation report, which will include this item that we 14 are going to discuss today.
We will send you a copy of 15 that also.
16 We would like to s art a discussion of the 17 technical concerns.
Mr. Thompson will begin.
1S MR. THOMPSON:
Let me first of all be sure thar 19 we have characterized your allegation correctly, sir.
As 20 we understand it, your allegation was that an improper 21 weld design was us ed to attach Cadweld sleeves to 2-inch 22 thick A5SS steel plate details on stear line penetratien 23 assemblies of the reacter containment building.
I believe 24 your assertien was tha: the steel plate details usel fere 25 susceptible to laminar tearing when tensile-loaded in
.h e
'23009.0 3
REE 1
thickness direction.
This is a condition which you felt 2
would result if Cadweld sleeves were welded to A3 58 steel 3
plates.
Is that correct, sir?
(((khkihh Partly.
4 5
MR. THOMPSOU:
If it is not correct, wculd you 6
clarify.
MQQ
. 7 The fact that wh en th e memb ers 8
came to the job site, they were already showing signs of 9
laminar tearing at the welded joints of the members 10 themselves, not in the cadweld sleeve area.
We had cracks 11 from 2 to 3 inches long -- I don't know how deep in the 12 welded areas -- but in the members themselves, shcwing 13 that this seal, whether it is 588 or not, is definitely 14 susceptible to laminar tearing.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
Are you now talking about th e 16 material of which the penetration sleeve assembly itself 17 was made?
f.T $ $)l; W f
- Yes, 18 sir.
n
- a 19 MR. THOMPSON:
Because that threw us off a 20 little bit.
There was no A588 steel specified for the 21 penetration sleeve assembly itself.
There were specified 22 two other materials, I believe.
That is A516, grade 70 23 and ASME SA 537, class 2, and then an SA 533, grade 6.
24 The reinforcing plate was SA 537, class 2.
So ycu are 25 saying then that th ese materials which were par-cf th's 1
23009.0 4
REE 1
penetration sleeve proper showed laminations?
mig. W$@e".7,bceC;;R 9;uspw.j%m Yes, sir.
2
~~ t _.
3 MR. THOMPSON:
Did you say that thes e had 4
already been repaired prior to receipt or that you had to 5
repair them af ter receipt?
gg g g g g They were repaired at th e job site, 6
7 after it was determined that if the members were remade or 8
remanufactured, it would cause a job delay of at least six 9
months.
10 MR. THOMPSON:
Were these repairs in the guss ets
.11 themselves or in the pipe section?
Ij$kSQ In. th a gus s ets th ems elv e s.
12 13 MR. THOMPSON:
There are some standing guss ets.
14 I think they were not too high, maybe 2 or 3 inches high.
15 Does that sound about right for the gussets?
16 j';;:Yy.6(e,ff5yh I am not sure what you are 17 referring to as " gussets."
18 MR. THOMPSON:
If the penetration sleeve itself 19 is a pipe, correct?
b*:Jb[h)Nf!h.] No, sir.
Not what I am talking 20 21 about.
We must be talking about two different things.
22 This is not a pipe.
This is a rectangular member or a 23 square member, it is made out of 2-inch plate f abricated 24 up.
It is an I-beam-like section which mak es a perfect 25 square with a square hole through the middle.
23009.0 5
.o e.e w
1 MR. HOU:
I think you may think that AESS steel 2
plate is part of the penetration assembly, is that right?
f g ly',pf g I do not 3
remember exactly.
4 MR. HOU:
But your concern is about the 5
integrity of the plate, th e 2-inch plate?
6
% Qg23rgsh The 2-inch plate used, regardless 7
of what material it is.
Because it is definitely 8
susceptible Eo laminar tearing, as was demonstrated by the 9
~ laminar tears in the plate when it was received at th e job 10 site.
11 MR. HOU:
You think the plate is us ed for th e 1
12 containment penetration?
l h
Pardon.me?
l 13 14 MR. HOU:
You think that the plate is part of a l
15 penetration assembly?
f t; $- -@V$,$,$ $.,
..,.w.r.
16 Yes, sir.
It is a part of this
'u 17 plate assembly.
That is what was repaired, this 2-inch 18 plate assembly.
19 MR. THOMPSON:
Did you say thes e were I-beams ?
h 020NNlbisff} They'd be fabricated pieces out Of 20 21 2-inch plate that form more or less an I-beam.
22 MR. THOMPSO":
You said they were a square 23 member when they are through with it?
24 I
- - 7 It forms a square bc::.
t.-.
. \\
25 MR. HOU:
I think Mr. Thompson is trying to i
1
N 6
23009.0 REE 1
explain to you that if the plate itself is not a part of 2
the penetration assembly and also the plate is subject to 3
compression, you will not cause the concern of the laminar 4
tearing.
(( M h k N The mechanism I'm talking about 5
6 had Cadweld sleeves that were to accept number 18 rebar 7
attached to it top and bottom.
The welded tubes, th e very 8
outside of the member and therefore any stress applied in 9
tension would be through the Z direction.
I cannot 10 believe that a force inside the containment building 11 itself would not put pressure in a tension direction.
12 MR. THOMPSON:
I am confused now.
What you are 13 talking about is not what we were looking at.
14 I do not have a set of plans, 15 obviously.
You should have.
It is a scuare member that 16 was fabricated up out of 2-inch plate.
It is a not a 17 member that the main steam line goes through, but it is 18 the member that the number 18 rebars are attached to.
19 MR. HOU:
I can explain to you, one, th e 20 penetration sleeve actually is a pipe type, the pipe shape.
21 These are 2-inch plate is not the penetration.
They are 22 not welded to or is part of the penetration assembly.
23 This plate is actually the anchor plate.
You 24 attach the rebar to it.
The rebar goes through the hole 25 and then there is a Cadweld sleeve, but that is after you
23009.0 7
REE 1
w eld,' and that weld is a weld that is just temporary to 2
hold the rebar in position before putting the Cadweld.
3 After that, you pour the concrete.
This is subject to 4
compression because the rebar, the end is through the hole; 5
the compressing force would not cause laminar tearing 6
effect through the plate.
7 MR. THOMPSON:
He is not talking about that.
He 8
is talking about something we haven't looked at.
9 MR. HOU:
He is concerned about th e effects to 10 ths penetration of the integrity of the plate itself, 11 subject to laminar tearing.
12 MR. THOMPSON:
Not the hardware we looked at.
13 He is talking about something different.
= =.w r
14
- s 15 1
Yes, sir.
a
~
v 16 MR. THOMPSON:
That square structure, was that 17 since you said Cadweld sleeves and bars were welded top 18 and bottom, it must have been encased in concrete.
m :...,;.g m.
qgg'Qggge.y
- Yes, sir.
19 20 MR. THOMPSOU':
These are associated with the 21 main steam line penetrations?
f(E 4-i-i2 F">; w.9 That is correct.
22 23 MR. THOMPSOU:
Is this part of a pipe, by any 24 chance?
t 25 Sir, it has been a lanc r i:ne since sL
f 23009.0 3
REE 1
I was th er e.
It is hard for me to remember all the 2
terminology.
3 MR. HOU:
This is for tension on the rebar, is 4
that correct?
[jj,3Sil$M"a$$]
I didn't understand you.
5 6
MR. HOU:
This is for tension on the rebar.
ff [ h 7N i(G
- Yes, sir.
7 8
MR. HOU:
But this is anchor plate.
9 MR. THOMPSON:
It can't be, he said it is a 10 scuare member.
11 d
9' this square member -- we are having 12 a little difference of opinion here.
We did find an A585 13 material which was used as an anchor plate to the ends cf 14 rebar, and these anchor plates were anywhere from 12 15 inches scuare to somewhat larger.
They varied in size.
16 It was just a single piece of plate with a hole cut in the 17.
middle.
It was slipped over the rebar and a cadweld 18 sleeve was pack-welded to it, then the Cadweld joint was 19 made.
Thos e were what they call anchcrs fo r th e ends cf 20 rebar, which were not attached to the penetration 21 as s embli es.
These were later encased in concrete.
Is 22 that what you are referring to?
I Encased in concrete?
I am no-
,.{
23 24 sure if we are talking abcur the sama member er nc~.
25 MR. THOMPSCII:
These plates had nc welding or_.
23009.0 9
ore
.~~
l They were square pieces of material.
When I say "no
.2 welding," I mean they were not made of several members 3
welded together.
f/[My [f This is a fabricated member made 4
5 out of several pieces of plate.
6 MR. THOMPSON:
Do you have a drawing that you 7
could reference for us?
8 8 @lThi4W DQ No.
It is made out of about 12
-y 9
pieces of plate.
10 MR. THOMPSON:
12 pieces, boy.
[.,/.$U$.n_$~. y where the welds were made holding
, - WG $;Si; 11 12 the member together is where it started tearing, coming 13 apart.
14 MR. THOMPSON:
Were these welds -- do ycu know 15 whether the welds were either all fillet welds or 16 primarily fillet weld or groove welds?
-..a g(;>.ijih4;fy.,.6-The welds at the ass e:dbly its elf 17 r
18 are full penetration welds.
They were made in such a 19 manner that they pulled on the plate in the ; direction, 20 and that is what started pulling it apart.
That is what 21 showed the tendency to laminar tearing.
22 MR. THOMPSON:
Do you happen to know who 23 fabricated that structure?
Was that f abricated by an 24 outside vender?
t_
e e
a e'
e
23009.0
- .0 REE 1
vendor.
2 MR. THOMPSON:
Do you know the company that made 3
it?
@ $. " g-y N K.. h.
9'
(;'gg No, sir, I do not.
4 5
MR. THOMPSON:
At this moment I have no further 6
questions to ask him.
I don't know what to look at now.
7 We did not look at this type of a structure at all.
8 MR. POSLUSNY:
Would it be helpful -- how would 9
you be able,to find it without any further information?
10 MR. THOMPSON:
All I c,an do is look for 11 something else that is associated with the main steam 12 penetration assembly what is not a square structure.
/i@ M 2=$/ M djy Let me.tell you that it is about a 13 14 3-foot square.
The plate itself is an I-shaped member.
15 It is about 6 to 8 inches wide, as I remember.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
Through and up and over?
Ch jp.ON!l$yj)[ Yes, sir.
They started up, are 17 18 penetrated, and they continued on up.
This member is made 19 to connect where those bars are cut.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
Was this associated perhaps win'.-
21 the George Washington bridge?
Do you know what I mean by 22 that?
23
[~~
No, sir.
24 M P.. THOMPSON:
Then we will forget that.
I':-
25 trying to get th e structure.
I don't know where i-is
230d9.0 11 P_e r 1
located.
I don't know where it is.
2 MR. HOU:
According to the drawing, all those 3
penetrations appear to be pipe-shaped.
We are going to 4
look more.
If we are not able to find any penetration 5
ass embly and a square plate with it, then maybe th e square 6
plate is not used for the penetration.
We --
[-f.
I know it was for penetration.
7 8
MR. HOU:
You know that the square plate is for 9
the penetration?
- g. h j
Yes, sir.
I saw it.
10 11 MR. HOU:
How do we know this?
How do we know 12 it is not a square place but used for attaching the rebar?
13 If not, is for the penetration.
Also, the material appear 14 to be the same materials you called as A588.
So ar this 15 moment I feel maybe to yourself, the square plate is for 16 the penetration, but maybe it is just for attachment of rebar 17 at the anchor plate.
18 These anchor plates, th er e is no concern.
Tha 19 was the subject of compression instead of tension.
20 E9 h 3w1 A No.
This was attached to number 21 18 rebar at the top, and 3 inch es further down on the -- 3 22 feet, pardon me, further down en the as sembly, number 13 23 rebar were attached to the bottcm of this fabricated 24 member.
25 M2. HOU:
In th a t case, that means very lii el)
.e a
23009.0 2
REE 1
this one is at the anchor of the rebar, so is not for 1
2 penetration.
Is anchor plate for rebar.
3 MR. THOMPSON:
There is just one thing I am 4
still confused on on this structure you are describing.
5 You said it was both a square assembly, built lik e a 6
square about 3 feet square out of maybe a dozen pieces cf 7
plate, but you also mentioned it was an I-shaped member.
8 Did you mean that you had built-up sections of I-beams 9
that were welded together in the form of a square, or do 10 you mean that when the square was completed, if you look ed 11 at the cross section.of it, it was an I-beam?
12 No, sir, it is more or less an 13 I-beam section built up into the form of a square.
14 MR. THOMPSON:
If I took this square and sliced 15 through one side of the square and looked at that cut edge, 16 is that the I-beam shape looking at the cut edge?
17 9 G./l:p.[h3#$J The I-beam shape would be if you
/
.w.
.n 18 made a horizontal cut through the member and icoked at the 19 end section.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
Okay.
So it sounds to me like was fabricated by 21 you are describing something that 22 welding into I-beam shapes, and then the I-beam sections 23 were welded to f e rr. a square.
24
' 17 ' 't Yes, sir.
25 MR. THOMFSON:
And you said the I-beam secti:n; m---
r 1
o 23009.0 13 v.w= =
w I
were about 6 inches wide, I believe?
[J$$sNT3/iijf.]
I said as I remember.
2 3
MR. THOMPSON:
Right.
Okay.
Let's see if I had 4
any other questions.
5 Did you see the piping through these, or were 6
these just being installed before the pipes were there?
.[h j]
They were being installed before
[
7 8
the pipes were there.
9 MR. THOMPSON:
I see.
Okay.
/#f! M M %jk3 They were just starting up with 10 11 the containment wall, when thes e were installed.
12 MR. THOMPSON:
So this goes' through the 13 containment wall, then?
14 Yes, sir.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
And by " containment wall" we are 16 talking the concrete structure?
l$mg.x. e6fy ;. M MYes, sir.
17
. g 18 MR. THOMPSON:
You said they are 3 feet in 19 diameter.
I don't suppose you knew th e s iz e of th e pipe 20 that was supposed to go through them?
21 f c M W. e d i Uo, sir, I don't.
22 MR. THOMFSON:
Okay.
I can't help any further.
23 Those are all the questions I have.
24 MR. PO S * "S:.~Y :
There is no value in talcng 25 about our findings.
14 23009.0 o r e.
1 MR. THOMPSON:
No.
He is talking about
- a. piece 2
of hardware we haven' t even found.
3 (Discussion orr_. _ the record.
higi[%...
we are going to have 4
MR. POSLUStPI:
5 to check this out.
We will have to get back with fcu in 6
the future.
7 Q.;}.fys@di,tyi'1,47 If I can be of any more help to 8
you in describing it, I will say it is on the west side of 9
the containment building.
It goes from the containment 10 building to the turbine building.
11 MR. THOMPSON:
Okay.
This went frcn the west 12 side of the containment building to the turbine building.
13 Do you know whether'that is unit l'or unit 2?
s 14 hsM MGD a - -- It was the first unit built, 15 whichever one that is.
16 MR. THOMPSOli:
Turbine building of unit 1.
All 17 right.
That might help us a little further.
18 MR. POSLUSiri:
Just in case we need to f: th :. 3,
19 would you be available to show it to us on the sita?
/h.f[I N/85i*i3 Yes, sir.
22 v
21 MR. POSLUS:TI:
Okay.
So you wouidn't ha.e a 22 problem with doing that?
m -
23 g(
No, sir.
24 "R.
P O S ~.*.* S'.Tl :
I want to t'.a.
. ycu fcr y:ur t '. n u.
25 As I said, we will lock into this and get b a c ?.
- .cu anu
f 23009.0 la 1
REE 1
appreciate your help in clarifying this.
I would like to 2
go off the record right now.
3 (Discussion off the record. )
4 MR. POSLUSNY:
Thank you very much.
Thank you 1
i 5
for your time.
6 (Whereupon, at 10 : 17 a. m., the interview was f
l 7
concluded.)
1 8
9 I
10 1
11 12 13 l
14 l
l 15 1
16 17 4
18 4
19 20 i
21 22 i
23 i
24 25 i
e I
i 4
e e
a c v. O.v.e..~..n.
CC.,.m. I.:.. cam.. O = O =. =. r C r., e
_w c e.-. 4.# v.
t ".w=
- ". a.
c.
.= c ". o d
.- r c a_ a_ d #.~. :.=
"c.#--=
'P.". _i s
_is
-v v.
e
~^
w.
.w C r e.e _c.e r C u 4
...a s..GC.r.e e.
o..r. C u r n-m. C.o.v.
L.. -. m. e D.
S us..eS m
t.w. e 1
a.
matter of:
NAME OF PROCZ2DI'1G : COMA'!CHE PE5K TECIINICAL REVIEN TEA'1 I
.. ui.s.;.': >.f>h..,)i &, l%, v.,
- ~..
FEED 3ACK INTERVIEW OF.;i,77 t,JGFr,.4.
m TELTPHONE CONFERENCE CALL C C*.%'..
^I U. -
yjfgpi@gf. Wmig 8.MSW$ff*"
- kfMp p.a c ;
3 ~
' W.
jg:
jwcwr 1
ww carz:
h6.- = 4.. a y y L= =
.a p a..e
.."4 s.4 -
.". 4.a
.is
..".a.
c..4 ; d... w.'
w o..- a w o.,* e as a
w 6.
.-,.,.,.4
+. w a.,
3, e
.aC a e41a C :.
w, ts.
4 34
.e
,., a.r
- v. 4, 1 a.n o.
w
.. -.. a w _.
y.
a p a,; 1 3.,. j. Cw 4..2..4m...
a
,/
/
/
I r
/
i I s i C*~~ o.. L..' G 0 ( 1 L L"
,/ l1 ? ! 'l
/C*
/
/.99.f g M e.h
/
s...uo Rebecca E.
Eystar C.#..#..'.". ' '
- c. a c - "..
Ace-Fedaral Raporter::, I :'...
- v.. a e.- a e g n.c a..s. _.,_..
~,
...