ML20205B090

Summary of 850323 Feedback Interview W/Allegers A-44 & A-73 Re NRC Evaluation & Conclusions of Allegers Concerns in Mechanical/Piping,Qa/Qc,Civil/Structural & Miscellaneous Areas

ML20205B090
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/17/1985
From:	Poslusny C NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:	Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
Shared Package
ML19284C882	List: IR 05000445/1984005 ML20204J047 ML20204J151 ML20204J162 ML20204J174 ML20205B090 ML20206U369 ML20206U374 ML20206U380 ML20206U384 ML20206U389 ML20206U396 ML20206U403 ML20206U408 ML20206U412 ML20206U417 ML20206U422 ML20206U429 ML20206U435 ML20206U441 ML20206U445 ML20206U452 ML20206U456 ML20206U465 ML20206U478 ML20206U484 ML20206U491 ML20206U500 ML20206U506 ML20206U507 ML20206U513 ML20206U518 ML20206U524 ML20206U529 ML20206U533 ML20206U537 ML20206U544 ML20206U546 ML20206U551 ML20206U555 ML20206U559 ML20206U564 ML20206U572 ML20206U579 ML20206U588 ML20206U592 ML20206U600 ML20206U603 ML20206U607 ML20206U620 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8507300376
Download: ML20205B090 (2)

Text

-

I "Y

[r% %~ , , '

UNITED STATES d n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

JUL 171985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project TROM: Chet Poslusny, Program Coordinator Comanche Peak Project

SUBJECT:

FEEBACK INTERVIEW WITH ALLEGERS A-44 and A-73 On March 23, 1985, the TRT conducted a feedback interview with allegers A-44 and A-73 at the Granbury Inn at Granbury, Texas. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the TRT evaluation and conclusions concerning these allegers' concerns in the mechanical / piping, quality assurance / quality control, civil / structural, and miscellaneous areas.

The TRT attendees were as follows: C. Poslusny, Don Landers, Dave Terao, John Fair, Paul Chen, Ron Lipinsky, C. Hofmayer, Bob Bosnak, John Beck, and Howard Levin.

The following is a sumary of each addressed allegation and the allegers' coments on each.

1. AD-6--It was alleged that stability of pipe supports is not adequately considered in their design. One alleger noted one cause of the engineering problems is the Applicant does not have an effective

, technical audit system. In general, both allegers agreed with Terao's suggestion that a summary disposition writeup on piping stability was needed.

2. AD-11--It was alleged that forces generated by friction between the pipe and the pipe support are not properly considered in the pipe support design. One alleger took exception to the Applicant's assumption that friction forces could be neglected where piping motion is less than 0.0625 inch.

3. AD-15--It was alleged that design loads on some pipe supports are in error because the normal and upset loads are greater than the emergency .

loads. This allegation is still under study and was not discussed.

4. AD-17--It was alleged that the Pipe Support Engineering Design Group used the wrong section property values in the design of pipe supports. One alleger said that the crossectional shape of the tube steel, and therefore the mechanical properties, was changed around 1978-1980, and that the Eighth Edition of the AISC Manual listed the new properties.

Steel fabricated before that changeover should use the Seventh Edition properties. Whether Comanche Peak steel was purchased before, or after, or both, is unknown.

raa ,.

po\h45-69 y

5. General: Safety factors, generic stiffness, and the effects of bolt hole tolerances were not discussed.

6. AD-3--It was alleged that Richmond inserts and Hilti bolts are not .

properly analyzed when used in pipe support designs. The allegers say this is especially true when calculating general stiffness. Also, A36 steel is used for bolting material; it is not recommended for dynamic applications. Also, the analysis assumes equal load sharing among bolts, which is not the case.

7. AD-7--It was alleged that characteristic of U-bolts are not being c67isidered when used in the pipe supports. The primary concern was that the Applicant assumed the U-bolt designed as a one-way restraint did not act as a two-way restraint. Also, the Applicant does not address bending stress on the U-bolts.

8. AD-5--It was alleged that different thermal expansion, seismic displacements, and concrete creep are not properly considered in wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling, and floor-to-floor wall pipe support I designs. The allegers pointed out several related factors which must be considered in the analysis.

9. AD-18--It was alleged that pipe supports are designed with support pads welded over pipe girth welds. This had been identified earlier and corrected.

10. General: The alleger said the upper lateral restraint analysis was performed unsatisfactorily.

11. AE-17--It was alleged that the control room ceiling has several deficiencies (field run conduit, drywall, and lights). The redesign was discussec with the allegers, who had not seen the damage study or the redesign. No new comments were made.

12. AP-48--It was alleged that the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) supports have no vertical bracing to accommodate seismic loads. The TRT engineers wanted a specific location, but A-73 could remember only the general location.

13. AC-75--It was alleged that no gap was provided at the doorway between the containment and the Safeguards Building (seismic decoupling). The TRT questioned the alleger as to specific location, but he was unable to .

recall the location.

Conclusion:

A-44 stated she appreciated the effort expended by the TRT at this feedback meeting, as well as the TRT's total investigative effort.

k "---

ChetPosiusny,[rogramCoordinator Comanche Peak Project cc: D. Eisenhut B. Hayes L. Shao J. Calvo desehumm.

Docket Files 50-445/446