ML20205H350

Affidavit of Rc Iotti & Jc Finneran in Response to ASLB Request for Info Re Variation of Field Configurations of Pipe Supports Utilizing clinched-down U-bolts.Related Correspondence

ML20205H350
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/12/1985
From:	Finneran J, Iotti R EBASCO SERVICES, INC., TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205H327	List: ML20205H322 ML20205H350 ML20205H407
References
OL, NUDOCS 8511150112
Download: ML20205H350 (14)

Text

-

., o DogtiEe gIgocogRESM T5 NQ/13 A9:55 November 12, 1985 0FFICE "r SECRfita -

~

UNITED STAfsshOfR% RfC .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, ET AL. )

) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT C. IOTTI AND JOHN C. FINNERAN, JR., IN RESPONSE TO BOARD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON VARIATION OF FIELD CONFIGURATIONS OF SUPPORTS UTILIZING CINCliED-DOWN U-BOLTS We, Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr., being first duly sworn, hereby_ depose and state as follows:

(Iotti) I am Vice President of Advanced Technology for Ebasco Services, Inc. I was retained by Texas Utilities Electric Company to oversee the assessment of allegations concerning the design of piping and supports at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station in accordance with Applicants' February 3, 1984, Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design)".

A statement of my educational and professional qualifications was l

transmitted with Applicants' letter of May 16, 1984, to the Licensing Board in this proceeding.

(Finneran) I am Project Discipline Supervisor-Pipe Support Engineering at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. In this position, I oversee the design work of all pipe support design l 8511150112 851112 i

hDN ADOCK 05000445 PDR

_________-______-_-_a

t i'

i organizations for Comanche Peak. A statement of my educational and professional qualifications was received into evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 142B.

The purpose of this Affidavit is to provide information requested by the Board as described in Attachment A,1 hereto.

Therein the Board expressed a concern regarding the extent to which the tests that were done on U-bolts could be generalized to the actual configurations found in the plant. That concern includes a question regarding the effect of variatio'ns in l

dimensions of pipes'and support components and configurations.

As discussed below, Applicants' program of tests and analyses assured that results of both the tests and finite element analyses, described:in Applicants' Affidavit supporting their motion for summary disposition of cinched U-bolts,2 may be applied to supports in the field. Variations in actual suoport configurations and dimensions are accounted for in Applicants' program.

1/ Statement By Chairman Peter Bloch, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (January 9, 1985).

2/ Affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr., Regarding Cinching Down of U-bolts (June 29, 1984) (" Affidavit").

_e i

• 1 1 4

3'-

APPLICANTS' EVALUATION METHOD It-is important to understand that Applicants' approach-in utilizing U-bolt tests was not a simple empirical one of .

- performing selected tests and employing the test results directly for evaluating field conditions. Rather, the tests were utilised for the purpose of deriving, then confirming, a general theoretical model for predicting the torsional moment necessary-to overcome the' frictional restraint of the U-bolt / cross-piece assemblies employed in the plant, as well as local pipe stresses, U;-bolt stresses, and crosspiece stresses. After verification with the test results, the general theoretical method is employed to predict the stability of actual pipe supports (i.e., predict torque requirements), and the acceptability of pipe, U-bolt and l cross-piece stresses, accounting for variations in dimensions of support components (Affidavit at 4.).

In addition to verifying the theoretical method with the tests,,it was also verified against results obtained by computer analyses using the finite element method (which provided

. additional information not directly available from the tests, e.g., stresses in the pipe immediately below the cross-piece).

The finite element models' ability to provide a realistic representation of the actual behavior of the components was also verified against the tests.

In summary, Applicants' method for evaluating the behavior of support configurations is ultimately based upon the use of a theoretical method. This method was verified by a series of

't u

tests on a cross-section of the relevant support configurations in the plant 3

and by comparison to results of analyses using advanced computer methods. The theoretical method enables a determination of the torque required for stability, as well as pipe, U-bolt and cross-piece stresses, for each individual support configurat'on oncountered in the field.4 RELEVANT PIPING / SUPPORT PARAMETERS With regard to the Board's specific questions concerning the representativeness of test supports to field configurations,5 we 1

discuss below how the support configuration parameters were l

accommodated by Applicants' program of tests and analyses.

A. Representativeness of Pipe Size in Test Specimens The piping in the plant on which supports with U-bolt / single strut or snubber configurations are located varies from 1/2" to 32" diameter. The tests were conducted on piping of 4, 10 and 32 inch diameters. (Affidavit at 12.) The 32" pipe is the largest 3/ Support configurations discussed herein, and at issue in the Affidavit, are those consisting of cinched U-bolts on single struts or snubbers.

-4/ Applicants committed (Affidavit at 34-35, 74) to inspect 100 percent of the torques on cinched U-bolts on single strut or snubber supports in the field and to establish torcue values for sizes dif ferent f rom those testec. and analyzed. The status of this review is discussed hereinafter.

5/ See note 3.

I t

pipe relevant to the issue.6 Also, the issue of stability is progressively less significant for smaller and smaller size pipes, in that the externally applied load that could cause the .

instability is progressively smaller and the lever arm through which the load acts is also smaller, resulting in very low torque requirements. Thus, the 4-inch ~ pipe represents a good upper bound for the small pipe sizes. It is subject to comparable, but generally larger external loads, and its support configurations also have comparable or larger lever arms than those on 3-inch and small bore pipes. The 10-inch diameter pipe was chosen as representing the mid-size range of pipes primarily because the support configurations at issue here are more numerous on this size pipe than on 12, 14, 16, 18 and 24 inch sizes.

In summary, the chosen pipe sizes suitably represent small and intermediate size pipes and bound the large size pipes.

These sizes span the range of actual pipe sizes.

B. Representativeness of Support Configurations in Test Specimens There are 392 ASME safety-related pipe support configurations in Unit 1 and common piping utilizing U-bolts on single struts or snubbers (60 on small bore). There are an additional 94 (1 on a small bore pipe) in Unit 2 piping contained within the Unit 1 secure area boundary. 0f this number, 139 are either 4" (79),

10" (49), or 32" (11) in diameter.

6/ There is a support on a 42" line, but the U-bolts are attached to smaller diameter (24") trunnions welded to the line.

These pipe support configurations do have a degree of variability in specific comoonent dimensions such as U-bolt diameter and piping wall thickness. The specific range of some of the principal parameters, compared to the test parameters, is shown graphically in Attachment B. It may be seen that the test configuration parameters are within the range of values existing in the plant. This figure illustrates the representativeness of the test configurations. We reemphasize, however, that the evaluation method used by Applicants to apply test and analytical results to the field configurations accounts for variability in support configurations.7 STATUS OF SUPPORT EVALUATION Applicants completed their initial evaluation of the supports on Unit 1 and common piping. That initial evaluation indicated that of the 392 supports at issue, less than 15 are likely to require some modification to assure that stresses remain within acceptable limits at torques necessary to assure stability.

Applicants originally intended to submit this evaluation with this affidavit. However, we have requested that Stone and Webster also review this evaluation as part of its program to requalify piping and supports. Consequently, the ultimate determination as to the adequacy of those designs has not been

~/

7 As indicated below, because Stone & Webster will review the specific formulas used for these purposes Applicants will submit the formulas in the context of that review.

T

made. Accordingly, Applicants will present the details of those analysis in the context of the Stone & Webster program.

SUMMARY

We have explained in this affidavit the method by which test results'and computer analyses concerning cinched U-bolts have been applied to U-bolt configurations in the plant. In short, the results of those efforts were employed to verify a general theoretical method which, in turn, was used to evaluate individual supports in the field taking into account variations in dimensions. We have also shown that, although they would otherwise be accounted for by the analytical approach derived by Applicants, the dimensions of support configurations employed in

, the tests fall within the variations in dimensions of actual

, support configurations.

L- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o -

{

State of Texas County of Somervell P

'Rober't'd. Iotti Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of November, 1985.

$A ik.s-n

' Bill Hddges "

My commission expires March 28, 1988.

b Q

r 9

h e

• A-technent.A e -

1

@R21629.0 DRT/ajg I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 WJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:  :

5  :

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,  : Docket No. 50-445-OL 6 et al.  : 50-446-OL 7 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric  :

Station, Units 1 and 2)  :

8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;

9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 10 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 11 Wednesday, January 9, 1985 12 A Statement by Chai,rman Bloch was made for the

- ~

I3 record in the above-entitled matter at 12:45 p.m.

14

^

BEFORE:

15 JUDGE PETER BLOCH, Chairman 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board JUDGE WALTER H. JORDAN, Member II Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 20 APPEARANCES:

On behalf of Applicants:

McNEILL WATKINS, ESQ.

22 NICHOLAS S. REYNOLDS, ESQ.

Bishop, Liberman, Cook,

23 Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 24

>F es er.: n porters. inc.

25 -- continued --

2 ,

1 APPEARANCES (Continued):

2 dn behalf of Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission Staff:

4 STUART A TREBY, ESQ.

Office of Executive Legal. Director 5

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

6 On behalf of Citizens Association ,

7 for Sound Energy: ,

8 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQ.

BILLIE GARDE, ESQ. '

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 9

2000 P Street, N.W.

Suite 611 10 Washington, D. C. 20036 11 On behalf of Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, 12 Joseph Lipinski, and John J. Norris:

- JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.

13 PETER THORNTON, ESQ.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale

' Id 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

~

16 17 ,

18 19 20 .

21 22 23 24

c. Fed:r:: Reporters. Inc.

25

3

.21424 0 4~1 0 1 ^

BRT t

1 PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE BLOCH: The purpose of this statemen.t is 3 to issue a request for information and to temporarily stay 4 the obligation, or the opportunity of the parties to 5 respond to Applicants' motion for reconsideration of l'984, and 6 Licensing Board's memorandum dated January 7, the accompanying affidavit of Robert C. Iotti and John C.

7 8 Finneran, Jr. t 9 On this particular matter I would like to make it clear 10 that there's no indication that the Applicants have done 11 anything intentionally wrong, but the matter is a matter of lack of communication.

12 the

~~

13 We had mentioned that we were concerned about 14 extent to which the tests thht were done on U bolts could 2, 15 be generalized to the actual configurations found in the-16 plant. What we are concerned with there, for example, is 17 with variations that might occur in the dimensions of the .

18 pipes, the configurati'ons of the pipes, or the size of the 19 base plate or the spacing of the holes'. And, as I read 20 the answer, the Applicants just having addressed the 21 possible problem, the answer appears to state that the U 22 bolts themselves are somewhat standardized items and that 23 the dimensions of the supports were taken from support 24 drawings, and, thus, "were typical of field configurations."

25 That appears on page 12 of the affidavit. ,

_ . . _ _ , , . , , . . _ . - . - . _ - . . _ . . _ . _ ~ . , . ~ ,y.

Skh,#!Y0, 4

....... ~

- -- ~

BRT ,

1 The concern is that unless we know what the variation 2 in field configurations were,'then all we know is that 3 these configurations existed in the field, but we don't 4 know that they were typical or representative of the range 5 of conditions under which the U' bolts have to perform.

6- There's no response _necessary at this time.

~

7 MR..TREBY: Can I just clarify just what it was What is the impact 8 that you said at the very beginning?

9 of this notice?

JUDGE BLOCH: Until the Applicants file a 10 11_ supplementary statement or a statement.that they don't think it's necessary, there's no need to respond to the . -

. 12 ,

~

2,

~

13 filing; should respond after the supplementation a,nd 14 r sponse to the board's request is made.,

i 15 MR. ROISMAN: Does it mean the time for response S

16 will begin to run at some date in the future?

17 JUDGE BLOCH: When the information is filed.

MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, will it be clear 18 19 from your statement exactly what it is you are requesting 20 Applicants to produce?

JUDGE BLOCH: I sure hope so.

21 22

~

MR. WATKINS: It was all Greek to me.

23 MR. TREBY: Does your statement have any impact 24 on.the timing that was set out in your order, which I 25 believe set February 28th as the ending date of discovery?

a

-_--_,-...._.m.. , oc ,,

2{S.Y$*JO ww.e 5

BRT - . ~. .

1 JUDGE BLOCH: No. Because there's no stay related to this motion for reconsideration. The 2 .

3 obligation to respond and the opportunity to file 4 discovery is in effect until we should rule on the motion.

5 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, when would you like 6 Applicants to produce the additional information?

7 JUDGE BLOCH: There is no d'eadline. The only 8 problem for, Applicants is, if they want a ruling before 9 the period for responding to requests runs out, they might t 10 want to do it promptly.

11 MR. WATKINS: I take it this order is the 12 Chairman and Dr. Jordan sitting as a quorum?

13 JUDGE BLOCH: No , it's the Chairman sitting in.

14 under the condition that the other board is not in session.

15 The Chairman acting for the' board. -

16 Dr. Jordan has in fact not conferred with me on this 17 because he hasn't yet received the documents which were 18 sent to him in Florida.

19 MR. WATKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

20 (Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the statement was 21 concluded.)

22 .

23 24 25 - .

4

\

m we

t .

.CCMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Attachment E': Coniiguration Parameters Range-J ' APGS ES '" fS J.S 4.5  ?

3S

/$

' . E APE Tx/cxWiss(lW) .237 3 .f .5#

v o

U.8047 Da. 6a) ,%,, ,,,

O GoSSArcf WiorM6d) j , ]' 4 },*

co Arc

^ '" o 73

/. g

&cssArc6 THf. 6W) Jpb W /

• one supiport CC-1-258-002-C53R has an 8" width

/O" RPES

^":* .

o

=

Lever /!m 6a) S to is' Ars 7mcasss da)

? . 9' ^ 9 U-Boii ba. na) ,, = A ,;, ,,o j l

a I

" o Ctess Ara WiDrs Gs)

- 7

/

=

^'" o Cast Arct 7x*t. 6a) i.o 8 32' Arts o

t i LEvce Aex 6a) =*

/s

^ '

45 Seasce T w aessc t.45 "

Ars Taierness64) d UBotr Dix. 6a)

^

,, l7, .

• '  % ts ace"Mord L'tess 19ece Niciiffs) 4 8 9

9 ' o M a foen'ic/3 l'Esss Arcs 782. (la) /0 /$

L EGEAlb _

o Mn. hwe v festbwe w ifesnewhw a Most hete.

e Ma hwe N

.