ML20081H996

Affidavit of Ma Walsh Re Ji Tapia (NRC) Affidavit on Changes in Section Properties for Tube Steel

ML20081H996
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/02/1983
From:	Mary Walsh Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:
Shared Package
ML20081H953	List: ML20081H950 ML20081H954 ML20081H961 ML20081H964 ML20081H972 ML20081H996 ML20081J012
References
NUDOCS 8311080235
Download: ML20081H996 (7)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I I

Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR and 50-446 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC ,

STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) g AFFIDAVIT OF MARK A. WALSH 1 Q: Would you like to comment on the Affidavit of Joseph I. Tapia of 2 the NRC Special Inspection Team (SIT) on Open Items Relating to the Walsh/

3 Doyle Concerns?

4 5 A: Yes. First, regarding the Applicants' reassessing the changes 6 in section properties for tube steel resulting from changes between the 7 7th and 8th Edition of the AISC Manual, it is stated that all large bore 8 and Class 1 small bore pipe support designs are being re-examined by the 9 Applicants using the member property values in the 8th Edition of the AISC 10 manual, and that only small bore Class 2 and 3 supports are affected by 11 the variations (NRC Staff Exhibit 207, SIT Report, page 52). However, while 12 it is clear that the PSE group is supposed to be reassessing the changes, 13 it is not clear that NPSI and ITT Grinnell are also making such a reassessment.

14 In fact, CASE Exhibit 781 from NPSI (admitted at Tr. 6862) and CASE Exhibit 829

~

15 from ITT Grinnell (also admitted at Tr. 6862) indicate that they use member 16 properties from the 7th Edition.

o!h$dN3 PDR

- 2-1 This is of vital importance, since NPSI and ITT Grinnell are the 2 two groups who provided the majority of the pipe supports (and are therefore 3 our primary concern). There is no documentation in the record to contradict 4 CASE Exhibits 781 an'd 829 (which are from the companies involved themselves);

5 therefore, the record at this time reflects that both NPSI and ITT Grinnell 6 are using the 7th Edition values.

7 I would like to add that the steps used by th'e PSE group (that is, 8 reassessing the supports for the 8th Edition) are proper. Since the PSE group 9 is a recently formed group, the tube steel used in their designs will be 10 the 8th Edition. The other two groups (NPSI and ITT Grinnell) have been using 11 the 7th Edition properties in their analyses, although what actually exists 12 in the -field may have 8th Edition properties.

13 14 Q: What do you mean "may have"?

15 .

16 A: NPSI and ITT Grinnell have been utilizing both the 7th and 8th 17 Edition tube steel in the field, depending on when the tube steel was formed.

18 However, the drawings do not indicate which edition the tube steel conforms 19 to.

l 20 21 Q: Were the NPSI and ITT Grinnell procedures for flare bevel welds 22 addressed in Mr. Tapia's affidavit?

l 23 l

24 A: No, they were not.

25

1

. 1 Q: What is the difference between the 7th and 8th Editions as it relates 2 to the welds?

3 4 A: This can be illustrated by the following example. Consider a 5 6 x 6 x 1/2,in. tube steel member. If the tube steel confonns to the 8th

~

6 Edition properties, using the value of 5/16 R, as referenced by Mr. Tapia, 7 the effective throat would be (5/16)(2)(1/2) = .313 inches. If NPSI and ITT 8 Grinnell are using the PSE procedure to the 7th Edition properties, the 9 effective throat will be (5/16)(3)(1/2) = .469 inches.

10 11 Q: What is the significance of the above calculations?

12 13 14' A: The significance is that using the PSE procedure the use of the 15 7th Edition properties will indicate a weld size which is 1.5 times what the 16 weld size would be using 8th Edition properties. That is to say, a weld using 17 the 7th Edition properties will indicate a capacity of .469 kips, but if an 18 8th Edition member is used, this value would actually be only .313 kips.

19 In this instance, use of the incorrect Edition properties would lead to the 20 erroneous conclusion that the capacity of the weld is greater than what 21 it really is.

22 23 Q: Are you aware of what the standard industry practice is in this 24 regard?

25

_4_

1 A: I do know that at Bechtel, they took an even more conservative 2 approach. There, we disregarded the flare bevel weld completely and always 3 designed for the capacity of the fillet weld alone. The reasoning behind 4 the disregard for the flare bevel weld is that QC inspectors do not nonnally 5 inspect if full penetration is achieved.

6 7 Q: So they would be unable to tell from looking just what might be 8 underneath?

9 10 A: _That's correct.

11 12 Q: Is there anything else you would like to add?

13 14 A: Yes, I would like to address the items that were left open during 15 the hearing and those items left open in the SIT Report (NRC Staff Exhibit 16 207) which were not addressed by either Mr. Tapia or Dr. Chen.

17 18 (1) The first item is the releasing of the moment in the tube steel 19 menber at a Richmond insert. This is addressed in Section VII of CASE's 20 Proposed Findings of Fact (Walsh/Doyle Allegations), pages 5 through 10.

21 (2) Another item not addressed is the moment restraint and local pipe 22 stresses due to welded stanchions on pipes. This was addressed in the SIT 23 Report on pages 38 through 40 and in CASE's Proposed Findings, pages XVII 24 - 1 through 8. This is of particular importance since (1) the SIT stated 25 that they would review the Main ateam 1ine; (2) I stated that Mr. Krishnan S

- _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . = . - - - - - - . --

. - 5-1 told me that they would not be evaluating the stanchions (or trunnions) 2 on the containment spray and feedwater lines; and (3) it is my under-l 3 standing that many of the supports for the Main Steam line are now being 4 torn out and apparently are being completely redesigned and rebuilt. This 5 rebuilding of supports would have required the Applicants to report this 6 problem to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.55e when they learned of this problem 7 in March of 1982 (which they did not). (See CASE Exhibit 300, which has 8 been accepted into evidence NRC Guidance - 10 CFR 50.55(e), Construction 9 Deficiency Reporting, 4/1/80; and discussion in CASE's Proposed Findings, 10 pages XXIX - 9 through 14.)

11 (3) On pages 27 through 29 of the SIT Report, the Staff discusses 12 stability. On page 20 (at the bottom) the Staff. states that they will 13 " verify that these modifications are completed in a follow-on inspection 14 as part of its construction inspection program (0 pen Item Nos. 50-445/8226-4 15 and 50-446/8214-3)." These itens have not been close.d. Further, one of 16 the proposed modifications is cinching up of U-bolts, which is addressed 17 in CASE's 11/4/83 Assessment of Applicability of Board Notification 82-105A 18 to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, which I understand will be sent at 19 the same time as this pleading.

20 (4) In regard to cinching-up of the U-bolts, I would like to bring 21 to the Board's attention one specific reference from Board Notification 22 82-105A. This concerns the terminology for thennal stress (which has been 23 discussed at length in these proceedings). On page IV-3, third paragraph,

! 24 it states:

25 "The thermal stresses resulting from differential thermal expansion

..,__.,w.,,mr._-_,, . , _ . - _ , ,-----,,.._.-...-,,_._,-,-~vr-._ .,-% %.

1 of the pipe and clamp should be ca'tegorized as a secondary (medrane 2 and/orbending) stress" 3 It is obvious from this statement that thermal stresses are not 4 considered to be secondary stresses ordinarily (oth'erwise, it would not 5 have been necessary to make this s'tatement).

6 CASE, in its Findings of Fact and related pleadings has argued 7 that stresses due to ' constraint of free end displacement must be considered.

8 Also CASE has argued that thermal stresses are not secondary stresses. It 9 would appear from BN 82-105A that the stresses imposed on a pipe support 10 due to environmental conditions are secondary stresses and are not thennal 11 stresses as the term is generally used. CASE believes that this BN 82-105A 12 clearly supports CASE's position in regards to the terminology of thermal 13 stress, that is, a thermal stress is additive to the secondary stresses 14 (due to a LOCA) and primary stresses.

15 The classifying of thermal stress as being independent of a secondary 16 stress is critical, since the Applicants have repeatedly claimed they do 17 not consider secondary stresses. Secondary stresses are required to be 18 considered for normal / upset conditions for pipe supports as well as for 19 the building structures.

20 Further hearings are needed to clarify these matters for the Board.

21 22 23 24 25 I

. i I have read the foregoing 6-page Affidavit, which was prepared under my personal direction, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Mark A. Walsh DATE: // 83

/

STATE OF TEXAS On this, the # day of November,1983, personally appeared Mark A.

Walsh, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrtment, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.

Subscribed and sworn before me on theO# day of November,1983.

- nw Abm Notary Public in and for the State of Texas My Commission Expires: /Ms//p/

t

. - - _ _ _ .- . . _ . _ . _ . - , _