ML20210B491
| ML20210B491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1986 |
| From: | Selleck K ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| CON-#386-725 OL, NUDOCS 8609180096 | |
| Download: ML20210B491 (165) | |
Text
r-DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Jg gg3J7 pg g4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFFICE Or :::::
,s before the
- s
.j. " ' '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
50-446 COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO
" CASE'S 7/29/86 INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$$ 2.740, 2.740b and 2.741, the Applicants respond herein to CASE's July 29, 1986 Interrogatories and Request for Documents.
These interrogatories were served by mail on July 30, 1986,
[
and the time within which responses were due was enlarged by informal agreement with CASE.
I L
General Responses 1.
The Applicants have disregarded the instructions contained in paragraphs numbered 1-2 and 4-7 under the heading " Instructions," which are inconsistent with the Rules of Practice.
In each case, p
8609180096. 860915 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR k
.m
e.
i the information provided in response to interrogatories is based either upon the personal knowledge of the person. signing these interrogatories or upon infornation that is not within his personal knowledge but is known to Texas Utilities Generating Company, for itself and as agent for the co-owners of_ Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
. Supplementation will be provided under the circumstances described in 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.740e..
2.
With respect to requests for the production of documents, to the extent set forth herein in response to specific requests, the documents in question will be made available to CASE for inspection and copying at a time mutually convenient to CASE and the undersigned counsel for the Applicants at the offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas.
l 3.
With respect to documents contained, or that will_when the Issue Specific Action Plans ("ISAPs") and Discipline Specific Action Plans ("DSAPs") are completed be contained, in the files of the Comanche i
Peak Response Team ("CPRT"), your attention is directed 1
to section III(j) of the CPRT Program Plan (6/28/85) i for a description of the files maintained by the CPRT.
l The CPRT Central Files will be made available upon i
l i
l :
i
7-e t
r request at a time mutually convenient to CASE and the undersi'ned counsel for the Applicants at the offices g
of Texas Utilities Generating Company, 400 North Olive Street, Dallas, Texas.
The CPRT Working Files with i
respect to individual ISAPs and DSAPs will be similarly P
made available for inspection and ccpying at such time as the files have been sent by the Review Team Leader
("RTL") for the ISAP or DSAP in question to the SRT for inclusion in the CPRT Central Files.
The CPRT Working Files are maintained by each RTL during the performance of the ISAP or DSAP in question and are necessary to e
the implementation of the ISAP or DSAP.
There does not exist any means by which these files can be produced for inspection and copying prior to completion of the ISAP or DSAP without interruption and delay of the work being done on the ISAPs and DSAPs.
To whatever extent-4 1
these interrogatories and requests for production might l
be construed to require something different, the i
Applicants object to them and request a protective order.
l Specific Responses l
Interrogatory No. 1:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
5 j
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) was i
retained by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) to requalify the ASME Class 2 and 3 piping 4
and the ASME Class 1, 2,
and 3 pipe supports for I
i l
l i l
t
r.
Comanche Peak Steam. Electric Station (CPSES)
Units 1 and 2; -(See Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) Generic Technical Issues Report, hereinafter referred to as Report, page 5, first paragraph.)
An swe r.-
Yes,' Applicants concur with the statement.
The scope of the SWEC reanalysis effort is explained in detail in Attachment 2, DSAP IX, of the Comanche Pekk Response Team Program Plan and Issue-Specific Action Plans, Rev.
3, January 27, 1986.
("CPRT Program Plan")
Interrogatory No.J :
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
As part of SWEC's scope, SWEO is required to develop administrative and technical project procedures to guide the work.
(See Report, page 5, first paragraph.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
These procedures are identified as Ccmanche Peak Project i
Procedures (CPPP) No. 1 through 21.
The scope of t
the SWEC reanalysis effort is explained in detail in Attachment 2 DSAP IX of the CPRT Program Plan.
1 l
h
-,..---,_.+.r-
-yr.
-.., - - - -, - - -. - - - - -, - -, - - -,, < ~,
-,,.+,a
Interrogatory No. 3:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
The Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation's Evaluation and Resolution of Generic Technical Issues Report (SWEC Report) relates only to the resolution of pipe stress and support issues which were raised by groups external to TUGCO/ Comanche Peak Project Organization.
(See Report, page 5, at 1.0, second paragraph.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
As explained in the Introduction of SWEC's Generic Technical Issue Report (SWEC Report), SWEC has identified the concerns, allegations, and evaluations raised by groups external to the TUGCO/ Comanche Peak Project Organization.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
i From the preceding, it follows that the SWEC Report i
does not address any additional generic areas identified by SWEC or the CPSES Project Organization.
~
Answer:
l Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
The SWEC Report was not intended to address any additional generic areas identified by SWEC, TERA, R.
L. Cloud Associates (RCLA), or by the CPSES Project Organization.
However, any additional generic tecnnical concerns' identified by SWEC, TERA, RLOA, or the CP$ES Project Organization are addressed through the SWEC Project Procedures and Project Memoranda on an ongoing basis as part of the SWEC piping system requalification program.
Examples of how such concerns are addressed may be found in SWEC's CPPP-8 walkdown report.
Any problems or potential problems discovered during the SWEC requalification program are processed in accordance with Project Procedures for control of nonconforming items, and evaluation and reporting of items events under 10 C.F.R. 21 and 10 C.F.R. 50.55e..
CASE receives copies of the ongcing correspondence from Applicants to the Nuclear
~
Regulatory Commission ("NRC") of items / events reported under 10 C.F.R. 21 and 10 C.F.R. 50.55e..
This answer is further clarified by referencing Applicants' Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Requests for Documents and Motion for Protective Order, Qucation Nos. 6 and 7.
Interrogatory No. 5:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
The generic technical issues discussed in the report originated from outside the TUGCO Project Organization.
They were identified by Citizens Association for Sound' Energy (CASE), an intervenor i
organization; CYGNA, a consulting firm, originally involved in the project review as consultant to the !
NRC;t the NRC; and consultants to the NRC staff, through staff reviews and Site Investigations Team (SIT)2 reviews.
(See Report at page 5, section 2.0, first paragraph.)
Answe r:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement with the following correction and clarification:
The sentence referring to CYGNA should be corrected to read:
"....CYGNA, a consulting firm, originally was contracted by the Applicant to perform project review for the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) that was requested by NRC;....".
The Site Investigation Team (SIT).should read NRC Special Inspection Team.
The use of the word " originated" means
" originated in the licensing proceeding."
i 1
It is CASE's understanding that CYGNA was originally involved in the project review as consultant to Applicants, rather than to the NRC.
[ Footnote in original.)
2 It is not clear to CASE whether the SIT review referenced was intended to refer to the review by the NRC's Special Inspection Team (SIT), or whether it perhaps was also intended to include the NRC's Technical Review Team (TRT).
The terminology is i
somewhat confusing as written; although these are relatively small matters, we request that Applicants clarify them for the record when they respond to our Interrogatories.
[ Footnote in original.}
i
.,, _ _ - ~.. _ -. - -..
-m.. --
It should again be noted that the SWEC Report was intended specifically to address externally generated issues.
Interrogatory No. 6:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
All issues have been discussed previously in hearings before the Atomic safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) or NRC and have been documented in correspondence, reports, supplemental safety evaluation reports (SSER's), and affidavits and transcripts of testimony before the ASLB or NRC.
(See Report, page 5, Section 2.0, second paragraph.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement with the following clarification:
The phrase ".
all issues have been discussed previously in hearings
" should be understood to mean " identified and communicated to the ASLB l
and/or NRC in hearings, discussions, or document submittals."
Interrogatory No. 7:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
i TENERA has been retained by TUGCO to review the above documentation and to ensure that all issues / concerns are clearly identified and resolved.
(See report at page 5, Section 2.0, third paragraph.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
The function of TENERA is explained in the CPRT Program Plan Appendix A and DSAP IX, paragraph 4.2, Third-Party Review Actions.
These sections discuss the objectives of the CPRT and Design Adequacy Program ("DAP").
Interrogatory No. 8:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
SWEC, however, will evaluate and address only those issues, both technical and administrative, that affect the pipe stress and. pipe support requalification program.
The scope of this report is limited to those issues.
(See Report, page 5, Section 2.0, fourth paragraph.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
The SWEC Report addresses only those externally raised issues that affect the pipe stress and pipe support requalification program.
However, TUGCO may, from l
time to time, assign work other than pipe stress 1
and supports to SWEC.
Such work normally will be handled by groups.other than those~ responsible for the piping system requalification program.
SWEC l
Will also address concerns related to piping and 1
1 t
l o-
pipe support qualification'which were not externally raised (see Response to Interrogatory No. 4).
Interrogatory No. 9:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
For.each issue that affects the SWEC requalification effort, SWEC reviewed the associated documentation to gain an understanding of the' background.
SWEC then summarized its understanding.of the issue.
(See Report, page 5, item 3.1.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
As stated in Section 3.1 of the SWEC Report, this was the process followed by SWEC.
SWEC's understanding is summarized in Section 2.0 "SWEC's Understanding of the Issue," of each appendix in the SWEC Report.
The document's reviewed which formed the basis for SWEC's understanding are listed in Section 4.0,
" List of Relevant Documents," of each appendix in the SWEC Report.
I Interrogatory No. 10:
Do Applicants concur with the following statement?
With the issue thus summarized, SWEC developed an action plan to resolve the issue.
This action plan was then executed and a resolution obtained.
(See Report, page 5, item 3.2.)
Answer:
Yes, Applicants concur with the statement.
Satisfactory resolution of external source issues, as stated in Section 3.2 of the SWEC Report, is one part of the scope of the SWEC piping system requalification program.
Interrogatory No. 11:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The fact that bolt bending is not addressed in any original design criteria has led TUGCO to assign RLCA to review, evaluate, and recommend a Richmond Insert bolt interaction equation.
TUGCO is committed to modify the connections that are single tube steel members subject to torsion and/or shear, and any inserts that have an interaction ratio of greater than 1.0.
(See Report at page A-1, item 1.3, second paragraph.
See also CASE Exhibit 669B, Attachment to Jack Doyle Deposition / Testimony, 8-T.)
b.
Prior to the listing of bolt bending as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings,a CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of bolt bending as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to bolt bending.
Response
i a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page A-1, Section 1.3, second paragraph, of a
The phrase "during the licensing proceedings" should be construed to include not only hearings, but pleadings, filings, meetings, letters, etc.
[ Footnote in original.]
the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is now being considered in the'requalification effort as described on page A-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
To identify and examine the design criteria / procedures in effect at all times prior to the concerns boing raised on this issue and on other issues in Interrogatories 12 through 85 and to determine the answer to be yes or no, would be unreasonably laborious and nonproductive.
Furthermore, formalized procedures are not necessary in certain cases to address the specific. issues, so a simple yes or no answer would not necessarily be meaningful.
The questions on whether procedures were or were not in place prior to the implementation of SWEC requalification program in mid-1985 are presently moot, because SWEC in its requalification effort has developed techniques that are inherently unique solutions for piping systems without relying upon the previous procedures.
These techniques are described in SWEC Project Procedures and Project Memoranda.
12 -
a
- (.)
Accordingly, the Applicants object to this interrogatory.
To the extent required under the Rules of Practice, the Applicants request a protective order in respect of this
~ objection.
a Notwithstanding and without waiving its objection, Applicants acknowledge that for some of the issues discussed in Interrogatories 11 chrough 85,-CPSES Project procedures might not have addressed or were inadequate to address these issues prior to their identification as a concern by CASE, NRC ', or CYGNA.
c.
To identify and examine all (100 percent) calculations for piping supports / stress at CPSES, which exhibited the characteristic in effect at the time for the concerns being raised on this issue and on other issues in Interrogatories 12 through 85 and determine whether all, some, or none of the calculations contained a reference to the issue, would be unreasonably laborious and nonproductive.
For some issues, more than 10,000 calculations. _ _ - - _ - _ -
might have to be revi&wed to provide a definitive answer.
What the calculation did or did not reference prior to implementation of the SWEC requalification program is no longer relevant, because SWEC has been chartered to requalify the ASME Class 2 and 3 piping and the ASME Class 1, 2,
and 3 pipe supports for CPSES, and will perform the reanalysis calculations to document the adequacy of the piping and pipe supports within its scope of responsibility.
Accordingly, the Applicants object to this interrogatory.
To the exent required under the Rules of Practice, the Applicants request a protective order in respect of this objection.
Notwithstanding, and without waiving its objection, Applicants acknowledge that for some of the issues discussed in Interrogatories 11 through 85, the calculations for piping support / stress at CPSES might not have contained any reference to these issues prior to their identification as a concern by CASE, NRC, or CYGNA.,
+
..~ - -.
---m
,.-e-,.
,,i,_-,_,.,,we--.--,
..-,7-,
,m g-
Interrogatory No. 12:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
A procedure, which incorporates the proper safety factor, modeling interaction, and spacing requirements to evaluate and modify (if necessary) the Richmond Insert designs, including designs used in conjunction with-tube steel, is needed.
(See Report at page A-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of proper interaction equations for Richmond Inserts as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES.had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support
- loading, c.
Prior to the listing of proper interaction equations for Richmond Inserts as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to proper interaction equations for Richmond Inserts.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page A-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
l This design attribute is being considered in i
j the regulification effort as described on page A-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
l -
r
=
Interrogatory No. 13:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
'If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
Single tube steel members subject to torsion will have outriggers installed at the connections to eliminate the moment on the bolt.
(See Report at page A-2, item 3.1, end of third paragraph.
See also CASE Exhibit 669B, 8-T, 8-V, and 8-W.)
b.
Prior to the listing of bolts acting as cantilevers as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support stress levels, c.
Prior to the listing of bolts acting as-cantilevers as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to bolts in bending.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page A-2, Section 3.1, end of third paragraph, of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort l
as described on page A-3, Section 5.0 of the i
i SWEC Report.
1 i
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
i c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
l l
l l
, i t
Interrogatory No. 14:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The effects of thermal expansion on long tube steel members anchored by two or more inserts will be evaluated.
A limit on tube steel length will be established and. issued by means of a project memorandum.
(See Report at page A-2, item 3.1, last paragraph.)
b.
Prior to the listing of constraint of free-end displacement as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of constraint of free-end displacement as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characterstic contained no reference.to constraint of free-end displacement.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page A-2, Section 3.1, last paragraph, of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page A-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC
- Report, b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
r Interrogatory No. 15:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
Local stresses induced by radial thermal expansion of piping on the pipe, frame, and welds need to be evaluated.
(See Report at page B-2, item 2.1.)
b.
Prior to the listing of constraint of free-end displacement as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the local support loading and stresses.
c.
Prior to the listing of constraint of free-end displacement as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to constraint of free-end displacement.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page B-2,.Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page B-4, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
l l
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
It should be noted, however, the local stresses induced by radial thermal expansion of piping are not l
related to the loading induced from constraint of free-end displacement of piping system.
!.-. - ~
t c.
See Responses to Interrogatory lle and Subsection b of this Interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 16:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain _your reasons.
a.
Radial thermal expansion of pipe needs to be considered in anchor design.
(See Report at page B-2, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of constraint of pipe by support anchorage or opposing trunnions as a CASE concern during the-licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
~
c.
Prior to the listing of constraint of pipe by support anchorage or opposing trunnions as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to constraint of pipe by support anchorage or opposing trunnions.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page B-2, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page B-4, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
It should be noted, however, that in the context of the SWEC Report, this statement applies to a special type of anchor design with opposing trunnions. _ _ _ - -,
1 b.
See Responses to Interrogatories 11b and 15b.
c.
See Responses to Interrogatories 11c and!15b.
Interrogatory No. 17:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Local stresses in the walls of tube steel members induced by welded _ attachments need to be addressed.
(See Report at page B-2, item 2.3.)
b.
Prior to the listing of punching shear as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of punching shear as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to punching shear.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page B-2, Section 2.3 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered i
in the requalificaton effort as described on page B-4, Section 5.5 and page U-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
I c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
l l !
l
r-Interrogatory No. 18:
Do. Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The flexibility of all member components need to be considered when calculating overall deflection of the' support assembly.
(See Report at page B-3, item 2.4.)
b.
Prior to the listing of combined stiffness considerations as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of combined stiffness considerations or stiffness per se as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to combined stiffness considerations.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page B-3, Section 2.4 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page B-4, Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lic.
Interrogatory No. 19:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
21 -
l a.
The effect of differential seismic movement upon supports which span from floor to ceiling, from wall to wall, or from wall to ceiling / floor should be considered.
The effect of building loads on floor-to-ceiling supports that may act as building columns should be considered.
(See Report at page C-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of differential seismic displacement problems, differential creep problems, and posts acting as building supports rather than exclusively as pipe supports as CASE concerns during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of these contributors to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of differential seismic displacement problems, differential creep problems, and posts actir.g as building supports rather than exclusively as pipe supports as CASE concerns, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to differential seismic displacement problems, differential creep problems, or posts acting as building supports rather than exclusively as pipe supports.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from I
page C-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
l These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on l
l page C-6, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report and clarified in the answer to Interrogatory 20d.
l b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
I c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c. L
Interrogatory No. 20:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Due to the unusual nature of floor-to-floor and wall-to-wall supports, displacements due to both thermal expansion and SSE may not be adequately provided for and must be assessed.
Therefore, for floor-to-floor (F-F)/ wall-to-wall (W-W) supports, differential' seismic shall include differential due to SSE and thermal expansion of the support structure.
This position can be similarly supported by a review of the ASME 1983 NF Section 3121.11, 3322.7(3), and Table NF-3623b.-1, Notes 4 and 6.
(See Report at page C-5, item 3.4.1.a.(1),
second and third full paragraphs.)
o.
Prior to the listing of differential thermal displacement and differential seismic displacement as CASE concerns during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of differential thermal displacement and differential seismic displacement as CASE concerns, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to differential thermal displacement and differential seismic displacement.
d.
The current status of the above types of supports is indeterminate.
Answer:
1 a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page C-5, Section 3.4.1.a.(1), second and third paragraphs, of the SWEC Report.
These ;
- =
design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described in Response d of this Interrogatory.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
d.
No.
It is true that cn1 June 28, 1986 (issuance date of the SWEC Report), an administrative procedure was still under preparation for qualifying the floor-to-floor (F-F)/ wall-to-wall (W-W) types of supports in accordance with the design criteria described in Attachment 4-19 of the CPPP-7, Revision 2 (April 25, 1986).
Current status is, however, that a F-F/W-W and Corner Supports Task Group has been formed within the SWEC piping system requalification program.
Project Memorandum No. PM-039, Revision 2, Administrative Procedure for Qualifying F-F/W-W and Corner Supports, was issued on July 21, 1986.
Interrogatory No. 21:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Stability of supports must be assured to meet the following definition:
Stable means that a support cannot shift or move to an unqualified position.
Unqualified position means a position that exceeds the specified tolerances from the position assumed in the piping stress analysis.
(See Report at page D-4, item 2.1.)
b.
Prior to the listing.of the basic stability of supports as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to disruption of the support functional capablility, c.
Prior to the listing of basic stability of supports as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES-which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to basic stability of supports.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page D-4, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page D-6, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 22:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements? -If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The following support configurations are potentially unstable because they may move axially-along the pipe and/or rotate-about the pipe creating a three-pin linkage system:
1)
Zero-clearance box frames supported by.
single or multiple struts 2)
Uncinched U-bolts on a single strut or snubber 3)
Multi-strutted frames, both single support and gang support 4)
Trapeze supports with U-bolts (concern of NRC staff)
(See Report at page D-4, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of zero clearance problems, uncinched U-bolts on main steam line
~
(instability problems), and multi-strut frames as found in the yard tunnels (instability problem) as CASE concerns, and NRC staff concern with trapeze supports during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to disruption of the support functional capability.
c.
Prior to the listing of zero clearance problems, uncinched U-bolts on main steam line (basic instability problems), and multi-strut frames as found in the yard tunnels (basic instability problem) as CASE concerns, and NRC staff concern with trapeze supports, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to zero clearance problems, uncinched U-bolts on various systems including the main stream lines (basic instability problems), multi-strut frames as found in the yard tunnels (basic instability problem), and j
trapeze support problems.
l Answer:
l a.
Applicants agree with the statement from l
26 -
page D-4, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page D-6, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report, b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 23:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The overall piping system stability must be ensured.
(See Report at page D-4, item 2.4.)
b.
Prior to the listing of basic stability as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the disruption of the support functional capability.
c.
Prior to the listing of basic stability as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to basic stability.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page D-4, Section 2.4 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page D-6, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
e c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 24:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statement?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
SWEC maintains that if each installed support is individually qualified to be stable (in accordance with the definition ~in Section 2.1), and the system integrity is analyzed for deadweight, thermal, applicable occasional loads (fluid transients), and seismic excitations in three orthogonal directions to be within the code allowables, then the overall system will be stable.
(See Report at page D-5, item 3.4.)
b.
Prior to the listing of stability as a CASE concern during the licensing-proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the disruption of the support functional capability.
c.
Prior to the listing of stability as a CASE concern,. the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to stability.
d.
The statement in a. above complies with the intent of XVII-2221a. of the ASME Code, l
Section III', which states:
i
" General stability shall be provided for l
the structure as a whole and for each compression element."
Answers a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page D-5, Section 3.4 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered (
i
~_
t in the requalification' effort as described on page E-4, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report, b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
h c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
[
d.
Applicants agree that the statement in Item a i
)
of this Interrogatory complies with and
{
addresses the intent of Appendix XVII-2221a.
t of the ASME Section III Code, 1974 Edition.
However, it should be noted that I
Appendix XVII-2221(a) addressed support stability only, while the statement in i
Subsection a addresses the overall piping system stability.
l i
i Interrogatory No. 25:
l-Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Assurance should be provided that assumed generic stiffness values adequately represent the stiffness values of installed supports.
I (See Report at page E-1, item 2.1.)
[
t b.
Prior to the listing of variation from generic i
stiffnesses as a CASE concern during the i
licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the change of support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of variation from generic l
stiffnesses as a CASE concern, the t
caltalations for supports at CPSES which i
exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no 1
h h I i
o
reference to variation from generic stiffnesses.
Answer:
a.
. Applicants agree with the statement from page E-1, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page E-4, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 26:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
For a support consisting of several components, the stiffness of each component should be included in the stiffness evaluation (See Report at page E-1, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of combined component contribution to stiffness as a CASE concern j
during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this
[
contributor to the support loading, i
c.
Prior to the listing of combined component j
contribution to stiffness as a CASE concern, j
the calculations for supports at CPSES which i
exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no
{
reference to combined component contribution to stiffness.
l l
Answer:
l I
i i
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page E-1, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page E-4, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
I c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 27:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The effect of oversized bolt holes in a base plate on the stiffness of a support needs to be considered.
(See Report at page E-1, item 2.3.)
b.
Prior to the listing of oversized holes as affecting the stiffness for dynamic loading as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to stiffness variability, c.
Prior to the listing of oversized holes as affecting component stiffness as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to oversized holes as deleterious to component stiffness.
Answers a.
Applicants agree that this concern needed to be considered (as stated on page E-1, Section 2.3 of the SWEC Report) in the Generic - - _ -
Issues Resolution Effort because it was raised in Licensing Proceedings on the CPSES docket.
However, as described on page E-3, Section 3.3 and page M-3, Section 5.0, of the SWEC Report after being duly considered.in the Generic i
Issues Resolution Effort, SWEC's resolution is that the concern does not need to be included in the support stiffness assessment.
b.
See Responses to Interrogatory 11b and Subsection a of this Interrogatory.
c.
See Responses to Interrogatory 11c and f
Subsection a of this Interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 28:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
l a,
Minimum Acceptable Stiffness for Use of the General Value:
The piping responses calculated based on generic stiffness values l
may not be valid if the pipe support stiffnesses are significantly lower than the generic value, To ensure that the use of 3
generic values will produce valid pipe stress 6
j analyses, a minimum stiffness value has been r
established.
(See Report at page E-2, i
item 3.1.3.,
first paragraph.)
b.
Prior to the listing of generic stiffness an a 1
CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, l
CPSES had no procedure defining the i
dioposition of this contributor to the i
cumulative increase in the support loading.
t c.
Prior to the listing of generic stiffness as a t
j CASE concern, the calculations for supports at l
j ;
1 l
CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic-contained no reference to generic stiffness.
d.
.CPSES Project did not have a minimum allowable stiffness prior to the introduction of the generic stiffness concern by CASE.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page E-2, Section 3.1.3 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considere'd in the requalification effort as described on page E-4, Section 5.0 of.the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
d.
We agree that prior to the introduction of generic stiffness concern by CASE /NRC/CYGNA, CPSES Project did not have a minimum stiffness requirement for ASME Class 2 and 3 piping i
systems.
However, CPSES project procedures did require the actual calculated support stiffnesses to be used for all ASME Class 1
{
piping stress analyses.
A minimum stiffness requirement has been established for the SWEC piping system requalification program, described in Section 3.10.8.2 of the design criteria CPPP-7.
33 -
f' Interrogatory No. 29:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
Uncinched U-bolt suppcrts attached to rigid frames that are analyzed as vertical restraints will offer some lateral resistance to pipes.
(See Report at page F-1, item 2.1.)
b.
Prior to the listing of one-way supports which actually result in two-way constraint as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of one-way supports which actually result in two-way constraint as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to one-way supports which actually result in two-way constraint.
Answers a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page F-1, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page F-2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
1 b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
- However, it should be noted that on pages 28 and 29 of the NRC SIT Report (dated Feb. 15, 1983), it stated "This concern was addressed by review 4
.m.
procedures established in a Gibbs & Hill interoffice memorandum dated July.16, 1982."
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 30:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Uncinched U-bolts must be assessed for the interaction of lateral normal, and axial (friction) loads.
(See Report at page F-1, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of the interaction which must contain all contributors acting on supports as a CASE concern during.the licensing proceedings, CPSES had'no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of the interaction which must contain all contributors acting on supports as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic did not reference loads which were other than in the restrained direction.
Answers a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page F-1, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page F-2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lle.
Interrogatory No. 31:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, d
a.
Friction needs to be evaluated for static and/or steady-state pipe movement in the unrestrained direction, even if the movement is less than 1/16 in.
(See Report at page G-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of lack of consideration of friction for pipe movement of under 1/16 in, as a CASE concern during the s
licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree that this statement from page G-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report summarizes the generic issue with respect to friction on pipe supports.
- However, applicants also concur with the statement on page G-1, Section 3.0 of the SWEC Report, "Although SWEC also believes that friction loads for movements less than 1/16 inch are insignificant, the CPSES requalification design criteria include a requirement that friction loads be considered for signed loads (i.e.,
static and/or steady state loads),
regardless of pipe movements."
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
- However,
.~
it should be noted that CPSEG procedures did exist that addressed the disposition of this contribution to the support loading, prio.r to the listing of the CASE concern.
t Interrogatory No. 32:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statement? _If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Prior to the introduction of A500 steel allowable as a concern by CASE, CPSES had no procedures regarding the disposition of the conflict between ASME Code Case N-71-9 and N-71-10.
b.
The acceptability of a stress level of 42 kai is contingent on a ruling for a revision to Code Case N-71-10, which has not yet (as of this date) been issued.
AnsEer i
a.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
b.
Applicants disagree.
Code Case N71-14, l
approved by the ASME on December 5,1985, is the current revision of code Case N71.
In t
Table 5 of Code Case N71-14, the minimum yield strength of A-500, Grade B, tube steel (tubular products) has been revised to 42 ksi.
Interregatory No. 33:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statemento?
If you disagree, explain your reabons.
[
(
1 4
1 '
I I
i 4
~, -..., - ~
--c..,.,.
-,--..w-
,,,nn....-.,,.,n
,n.,
a.
The appropriate section properties of the cold-formed tube steel supplied by the vendor to CPSES need to be determined.
(See Report at page J-2, item 2.1.1.)
b.
Prior to the listing of improper section properties for tube steel as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support stress levels.
c.
Prior to the listing of improper section properties for tube steel as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to improper section properties for tube cteel.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page J-2, Section 2.1.1 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on i
page J-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 34:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If yo disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The section properties to be used for design assessment of CPSES pipe supports need to be established.
(Gee Peport at page J-2, item 2.1.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing cf large diameter holes through tube steel not concidered in section f
a w
)
properties as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support stress levels, c.
Prior to the listing of large diameter holes through tube steel not considered in section properties as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES whicn exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to large diameter holes through tube steel not considered in section properties.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page J-2, Section 2.1.2 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page J-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 35:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The adequacy of pipe supports designed using section properties from all three source documents needs to be evaluated.
(See Report at page J-2, item 2.1.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of variable sources for section properties as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support final stress levels. L-
~
c.
Prior to the listing of-variable sources for section properties as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to variable sources for section properties.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page J-2, Section 2.1.3 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalificaton effort as described in page J-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 36:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statement?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
The effective throat of flare bevel welds at CPSES needs to be established.
(See Report at page J-2, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of improper consideration of throat for flare bevel welds as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, l
CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support i
- loading, c.
The treatment of flare bevel welds was not addressed in a consistent manner in the calculations for CPSES.
r Answer:
l _
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page J-2, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page J-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 37:
Do Applicants tr'- e or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The major concerns regarding the practice of cinch 4ng U-bolts have been categorized into the C llowing eight areas:
2.1 Stability of the installed single-strut / single-snubber cinched U-Bolt restraint design must be confirmed.
2.2 The forces and stresses that are induced in the cinched U-bolt must be considered.
2.3 The local stresses induced in the pipe by the cinched U-bolt must be considered.
2.4 The local stresses in the crosspiece due to the U-bolt nut and possible galling of the tube wall must be considered.
2.5 The thermal transient load between the pipe and the cinched U-bolt must be considered.
The worst condition could occur when the pipe is heated up suddenly while the U-bolt is at ambient temperature.
2.6 SA-307 material was not used in cinched U-bolt designs. __ --
2.7 AISC Codo 7th Edition Table 1.5.2.1 prohibits the use of SA-307 as bolting material in friction connections.
SA-36 and SA-307 materials are similar.
ASME III Code Inquiry NI86-030 clarifies that cinched U-bolts are not friction connections.
However, since the U-bolt design relies on friction to provide stability, the bases of the AISC prohibition need to be understood and addressed.
2.8 SA-36 material used in cinched U-bolt designs is subject to load cycling, which must be considered in the qualification.
ASME III Appendix XVII, Table XVII-3230-1, Footnote 4 and AISC 7th Edition, Appendix B, Table 32, Footnote 4 state "where stress reversal is involved, use of A307 bolts is not recommended."
Material fatigue is the primary concern.
(See Report at page K-2, item,2.0.)
b.
For the first eight items above, prior to the listing of cinched-up U-bolts as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support final stress ratio.
c.
For the first eight items above, prior to the listing of cinched-up U-bolts as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to adverse effects caused by cinched-up U-bolts.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page K-2, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on pages K-4 and K-5, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lle.
Interrogatory No. 38:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If your disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The rotational resistence induced by eccentric trunnion supports should be incorporated into the pipe stress analysis.
(See Report at page L-1, item 2.1.)
+
b.
Prior to the listing of eccentric trunnions as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of eccentric trunnions as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to eccentric trunnions.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page L-1, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page L-9, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory llc.. _ -,.
Interrogatory No. 39:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Axial frame supports utilizing lugs must be assessed for the proper distribution of load between the lugs and frame.
(See Report-at page L-1, item 2.2 b.
Prior to the listing of load distribution on axial restraints as a CASE concern during che licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor
~
to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of load distribution on axial' restraints as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to uneven (unequal) load distribution on axial restraints.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with'the statement from page L-1, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
This design atttribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page L-9, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 40:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If your disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
For trapeze-type supports, the' load in each leg should be designed to account for the effects of differences in stiffness of structural attachment points and differential snubber lockup.
(See Report at page L-1, item 2.3.)
b.
Prior to the listing of trapeze variable leg and variable lockup of multiple snubbers as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had.no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of trapeze variable leg and variable lockup of multiple snubbers as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to trapeze instability.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page L-1, Section 2.3 of'the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page L-9, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 41:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If your disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The potential twisting of trapeze supports with snubbers and struts may be assessed in the designs.
(See Report at page L-2, item 2.4.)
b.
Prior to the listing of trapeze instability as an NRC Staff concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support functionability.
c.
Prior to the listing of trapeze instability as an NRC Staff concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to trapeze instability.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page L-2, Section 2.4 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page L-9, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report, b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 42:
Do applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Prior to the Summer 1985 Addenda to ASME Section III, Sub-Section NF 4721a., the hole sizes for 1" diameter holes at CPSES were oversized in relation to the existing code.
b.
Prior to the listing of oversized holes as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support dynamic response.
c.
Prior to the listing of oversized holes as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic -.
contained no reference to possible adverse effects caused by oversized holes.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree, with the following clarification:
"The base plate bolt hole size of 1 1/8 in.
for 1-in.-diameter bolts at CPSES were 1/16 in, larger than allowed by NF 4721a. prior to the Summer 1985 Addenda for bolting material with minimum ultimate tensile strength in excess of 80 ksi.
This would include selected bolt groups of 1-in.-diameter A-193 threaded rod used with Richmond inserts and 1-in.-diameter Hilti bolts used in CPSES when
- the bolt hole diameters were 1 1/8 in.
No deviation would exist in this bolt group when the base plate bolt hole diameter was 1 1/16 in."
b.
See Response to. Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 43:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
! l
a.
Proper damping should*be used in the analysis of piping' systems that contain active valves.
(See Report at page N-1, item 2.1.)
b.
Prior to the listing of'OBE/SSE damping values as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of OBE/SSE damping values as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to OBE/SSE damping values.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page N-2, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in
.the requalification effort as described on page N-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Inte.rrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to-Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 44:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Proper damping should be used in the analysis of mixed-size piping systems.
(See Report at page N-1, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of OBE/SSE damping values as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
Answer:
4 a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page N-1, Section 2.2 of th SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page N-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory No. lib.
Interrogatory No. 45:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Pipe support mass should be considered in the pipe stress analysis.
(See Report at page 0-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of inclusion of support mass on pipe for stress analysis as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES'had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
i c.
Prior.to the listing of inclusion of support mass on pipe for stress analysis as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic did not address the disposition of mass of the support on the pipe.,
Answer:
~
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page 0-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in
'the requalification effort as described on page 0-1, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 46:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The piping design organization must be involved. continuously during the iterative design process (pipe stress analysis / pipe support design / construction /as-built verification) to reach a satisfactory design.
(See Report at pages P-1 and P-2, item 2.0.)
.b.
The procedure in a. above effectively was not in place at CPSES prior to the raising of the concern by CASE.
c.
The procedure in a. above is still not in place at CPSES.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from pages P-1 and P-2, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
This design process is being considered in the -
requalification effort as described on pages P-2 and P-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report, b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
No.
Implementation of the piping system requalification program, as defined in DSAP IX of the CPRT Program Plan, and as implemented by SWEC's Comanche Peak Project Procedures, is 4
in conformance with Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report and follows the effective procedure of integrated design process described on pages P-2 and P-3, Sections 3.0 and 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 47:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Some analyses of CPSES piping did not include mass points between supports in the'same direction or between anchors.and adjacent supports.
Adequate mass point spacing spacing of piping model for CPSES requalification program must be ensured.
(See Report at page Q-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of mass point spacing as a Cygna concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor.to the support loading.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from.
page Q-1, Section 2.0*of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page Q-1, Section 5.0 of_the SWEC Report.
b.
Applicants disagree.
CPSES procedure for mass point spacing did exist prior to the listing of this issue as a CYGNA concern.
CYGNA's Observation Record PI-09-01 of the Phase III Report (Section 4.1, page Q-1 of the SWEC Report) verified.this procedure was used but
-was not always consistently implemented.
Interrogatory No. 48:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The 33 Hz cutoff frequency used by Gibbe &
Hill in the pipe stress seismic analysis may not meet the acceptance criteria of SRP 3.7.2, paragraph II-A-a-(5).
(See Report at page R-2, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of frequency cutoff as an NRC Staff concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page R-2, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on pages R-2 and R-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
Interrogatory No. 49:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Fluid transients should be adequately considered in the pipe stress evaluations of critical CPSES piping systems (See Report at page S-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of fluid transients as a Teledyne concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no. procedure defining the disposition of this contributer to the support loading.
c.
The effects of fluid transients are not idddressed in the calculations for critical
~
piping systems at CPSES.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page S-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
l Thuse design attributes are being considered I
in the requalification effort as described on pages S-1 and S-2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC l
t Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
i l
c.
See Response to Interrogatory llc. l l
Interrogatory No. 50:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The self-weight excitation load of the supports should be considered in the support design.
(See Report at page T-2, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of self-weight excitation of support mass on the support-as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support-loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of self-weight excitation of support mass on the support as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to self-weight excitation of support mass on the support.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page T-2, Section 2.0 of the SWEC. Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page T-2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
l c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 51:
Do Applicants. agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
CASE also raised the concern that short structural members were incorrectly analyzed -
in full flexure.
CASE stated that more localized stress distribution due to plate behavior would result.
(See Report at page U-1, item 1.4.)
b.
Prior to the listing of non-flexural members analyzed by flexural procedures as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support stress levels.
c.
Prior to the listing of non-flexural members analyzed by flexural procedures as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to non-flexural members analyzed by flexural procedures.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page U-1, Section 1.4 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page U-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 52:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Local stress in tube connections, which is addressed in the AWS Code Section 10.5 but not explicitly in the ASME Code, needs to be considered in the requalification of CPSES pipe supports.
(See Report at page U-1, item 2.1.) -.
~.
T b.
Prior to the listing of punching shear as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of punching shear as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic did not address punching shear in a significant number of cases.
- Answer:
~ Applicants agree with the statement from page a.
V-1, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page U-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report, as supplemented by SWEC Project Memorandum PM-076,' July 7,.1986.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 53:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The local stresses in tube steel walls induced by nuts on U-bolts and Richmond inserts, rear brackets, and other attachments need to be considered in the requalification of CPSES pipe supports.
(See Reports at page U-2, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of local stressco as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, '
CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support stress ratio.
c.
Prior to the listing of local stresses as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibited this characteristic contained no reference to the probability of pull-through of the nut.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page U-2, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page U-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report, as supplemented by SWEC Project Memorandum PM-065, July 24, 1986.
l b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to-Interrogatory lic.
Interrogatory No. 54:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?- If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The stress analysis is short members and their welds must be properly assessed.
(See Report at page U-2, item 2.3.)
b.
13rior to the listing of non-flexural members analyzed by flexural procedures as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
i l
l I
c.
Prior to the listing of non-flexural members analyzed by flexural procedures as a CASE concern,-the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained analyses based on flexural procedures only.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page U-2, Section 2.3 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page U-3, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 55:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
All generic technical issues must be resolved before CPSES could invoke the' inherent design margin (safety factor) accumulated from the built-in conservatisms in codes, input, and regulatory positions that typically provide sufficient margin so that small loads that might potentially occur during normal operation can be neglected.
(See Report at page V-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of cumulative effects of neglecting a multiplicity of shall loads as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of cumulative effects of neglecting a multiplicity of small loads as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to minor contributors to stress which were not included in the
- analyses, d.
At this point, such determination (of the cumulative effects of neglecting.a multiplicity of small loads) cannot be made.
Answerr a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page V-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
- However, as described on page V-2, Section 3.0 of the SWEC Report, SWEC has evaluated all the generic technical issues (that affect the pipe stress and support requalification effort),
which have been included into the CPPP-7 design criteria for the CPSES requalification effort.
With all generic issues appropriately addressed, there is sufficient margin to justify the neglect of small potential loads during normal operation.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
d.
Applicants disagree.
As stated in Response to Subsection a of this Interrogatory, SWEC has.--
\\
i resolved all generic issues.
Therefore, there is sufficient margin in the design to justify the neglect of small potential loads during normal operation.
A quantitative evaluation is not warranted.
Interrogatory No. 56:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The material for the target component used in the above-described tests (item 1.0 of Report) must be representative of the actual material used onsite to ensure that the test results are meaningful.
(See Report at page W-1, item 2.1.)
b.
CPSES did not have a procedure or guidance addressing the above problem in the past.
c.
CPSES does not have a procedure or guidance addressing the above problem at this time.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page W-1, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report, b.
Applicants disagree.
Selection of actual material used for testing samples is part of engineering process, which does not require a formal procedure.
c.
Applicants disagree.
See Response to Subsection b of this Interrogatory..
..--,e-
Interrogatory No. 57:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
The material allowable used in the design assessment of pipe supports at CPSES must be derived from the code minimum yield strength.
(See Report at page W-1, item 2.2.)
b.
Prior to the listing of exceeding code allowables and manufacturers' load data requirements as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of exceeding code allowables and manufacturers' load data requirements as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to exceeding code allowables and manufacturers' load data requirements.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page W-1, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
As described on page W-5, Section 5.1 of the SWEC Report, the allowable stresses for the material used in the CPSES supports are t
determined from the minimum ~ yield strength specified by-the Code in Section 2.2 of CPPP-7.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lle.
! t
Interrogatory No. 58:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
AISC Code 7th Edition Table 1.5.2.1 prohibits the use of SA-307 as bolting material in friction connections.
SA-36 and SA-307 materials are similar.
ASME III Code Inquiry NI86-030 (Reference 4.6) clarifies that cinched U-bolts are not friction connections.
However, since the U-bolt design relies on friction to provide stability, the bases of the AISC prohibition need to be understood and addressed.
(See Report at page W-2, item 2.3.)
b.
Prior to this point in time, CPSES has had no understanding in relation to this particular AISC prohibition.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page W-2, Section 2.3 of the SWEC Report.
The basic of the AISC prohibition has been understood and addressed as described on page W-3, Section 3.3 and page W-5, Section 5.2'of 1'
the SWEC Report.
l b.
Applicants disagree.
The level of l
understanding on a given topic is a subjective matter and cannot be measured on an absolute j
scale.
Furthermore, consideration of this subject is presently moot.
The basis of the AISC prohibition has been understood and j
addressed in the SWEC Report and has been
( 1 l
~
incorporated into the'SWEC requalification effort.
Interrogatory No. 59:
Do Applicants agree or disag;;.e with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
SA-36 material used in cinched U-Bolts as two-way restraints, and as rod threaded into the Richmond insert are subject to l'oad cycling, which must be considered in the qualificiation.
ASME III Appendix XVII Table XVII-3230-1, footnote 4 and AISC 7th
~ edition Appendix B Table B2, footnote 4 state "Where stress reversal is involved, use of A307 bolts is not recommended" material fatigue is the primary concern.
(See Report at page W-2, item 2.4.)
b.
Calculations for U-bolts at CPSES did not address the effects of cyclic loadings.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page W-2, Section 2.4 of the SWEC Report.
This design concern is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page W-3, Section 3.4 and page W-5, Section 5.3 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Responses to Interrogatories 11c and 59a.
Interrogatory No. 60:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following ctatements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
63 -
a.
U-bolt trapeze support modifications must address the potential for the rotation of the crosspiece that would result in twisting of the U-bolt..
(See Report at page X-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of the trapeze rotational concern as an NRC concern during-the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support stability.
c.
Prior to the listing of a trapeze rotational concern as an NRC Staff concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to a trapeze rotational concern.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page X-1, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
Supports of this configuration are being eliminated or modified as deceribed on page X-2, Section 5.0~and pages L-4, L-S, and L-6, Section 3.1.3 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lic.
Interrogatory No. 61:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The issues of stability, rotation restraint of the pipe, and the twisting effect on U-bolt trapeze supports must be addressed.
(See Report at page X-1, item 3.0, first j
paragraph.)
1 I I
-v.
...e.-,-.-,-
-.-.,.n d
b, Prior to the listing of a trapeze rotational constraint as an NRC Staff concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor tu the support system loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of a trapeze rotational constraint as an NRC Staff concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic did not address trapeze rotational constraint.
_ Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page X-1, Section 3.0 cf the SWEC Report.
As stated in response to Interrogatory 60a, r
supports of this configuration are being eliminated or modified.
b.
See Respon.9e to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lle.
Interrogatory Nos 62:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
SWEC's review indicated that extensive en71neering iterations may be required to demonstrate the ability of this type of support to satisfy all three concerns.
(See
~
Report at p&ge X
~1, item 3.0, second paragraph.)
b.
The qualification of supports with the above-listed phenomena are at this point.in time indeterminate. _
Answer:
9 a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page X-1, Section 3.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
Applicants disagree.
As stated in response to Interrogatory 60a, supports of this configuration are currently being eliminated or modified.
Therefore, the concern on the qualification of.the' original supports of this configuration is presently moot.
Furthermore,
+
SWEC is in the process of qualifying these modified supports as part of the requalification program.
Interrogatory No. 63:
r Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
'SWEC judged it to be mora prudent to modify l
the U-bolt trapeze supports as discussed in Section 3.1.3 of Appendix L, and CPPP-7, Revision 2, Attachment 4-8.
(See Report at page X-1, item 3.0, third paragraph.)
b.
The supports with a potential for rotation which have not been addressed by CPSES are indeterminato.
$nswer I
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from l'
page X-1, Section 3.0 of the SWEC Report, i
t I
?
E,
t
,r
=
b.
Applicants disagree.
All supports with a potential for rotation have been addressed'on page D-6, Section 5.0 and page L-9, Suction 5.1 of the SWEC Report.
Accordingly, the current qualification status of each support with potential for rotation is being determined as normal course in the CPSES pipe support requalification production effort.
'I Interrogatory No. 64:
Do Applicants agree or dicagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The effect of unbalanced loading due to unequal discharge forces from steam exiting the SRV [cafety relief valve] ports should be evaluated.
The vendor has suggested a ratio of 60:40 for the discharging elbow and venting design.
TUGCO analysis used a 55:45 ratio.
(See Report at page Y-1, item 2.1.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants disagree, Although the above statement is a direct quote from Section 2.1 of SWEC Understanding of the Issue of the SWEC Report, SWEC's Issue Resciution contained in Section 3.1 of the SWEC Report clarifies the above records and CYGNA's misunderstanding of 1
, 4 t
---s.
%#---...~.-.y
,..~..m_
.,7 m-..
the issue.
As further described in Section 3.1, the Vendor specified the flow characteristics of the valve to be 50/50.
In the Implementation of Resolution, Section 5.1 of the SWEC Report, SWEC uses a conservative load distribution ratio of 55/45 in the requalification effort.
interrogatory No. 65:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements? _If you disagree, explain your rea. Sons.
a.
Compliance'with Regulatory Guide 1.67,.which requires the worst condition lo' ding design a
basis of multiple valve acuating combinations, is needed.
The TUCCO analysis did not consider this requirement.
(Gee Peport at page Y-1, item 2.2.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page Y-1, Section 2 2 of the SWEC Report.
Compliance with the intent of Regy.latory Guide I
1.G7, which.has been superseded by Appendix O of the ASME Section III Code in July 1981 (in accordance with NUREG-0800, 3.9,3, Appendix A), has how been achieved.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on pago Y-3, Section 5.2 of the SWEC Report.,
7 o
.' o Interrogatory No. 66:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The Fisher relief valve branch connection used snubbers to mitigate the steam discharging load on the valve top-works.
The load transmitted to the snubbers must be within the limits of the valve structural capacilities.
This load must be addressed in the valve qualification.
(See Report at page Y-1, item 2.3.)
Answer:
.a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page Y-1, Section 2.3 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page Y-5, Section 5.3 of the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 67:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with-the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
CYGNA has identified discrepancies in the pipe stress calculation which, by themselves, have a negligible effect on safety, but may be amplified when combined with other findings.
(See Report at page Z-1, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of effects of neglecting a number of assumed minor contributors as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of effects of neglecting a number of assumed minor contributors as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) these characteristics i
contained no reference to the number of or type of contributors which were not considered in the analyses.
~
d.
-Prior to the introduction of Code Case N-413, minimum weld violations in respect to ASME Section III, Sub-Section XVII-2452.1-1 (Table) were incorporated in the designs of welds at CPSES.
e.
The effects of eccentricities on weld stress due to three-sided welds was not addressed in the CPSES' analyses prior to the introduction of a concern by Cygna.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page Z-1, Item 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
However,this is now a moot point in that all Class 2 and 3 piping aystems are being evaluated as part of the SWEC requalification effort, and guidance on piping modeling has been provid9.d as described on pages Z1 and Z2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
d.
Prior to the introduction of Code Case N-413, CPSES procedures did contain the minimum weld requirement.
However, minimum weld violations were not permitted by the CPSES design as a matter of standard practice.
Any minimum weld..
d violations in weld designs must be considered the isolated cases.
This_ design attribute is considered in the requalification effort as described on page AA-2, Section 3.1 of the SWEC Report.
~
e.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 68:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The sizes of two fillet welds were found to be less than the minimum requirements of Table XVII-2452.1-1 in Section III of the ASME Code.
(See Report at page AA-1, Item 1.1.)
b.
.The actual number of minimum weld violations of CPSES was in the hundreds.
c.
Prior to the listing of minimum weld violations as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
d.
Prior to the listing of minimum weld violations as a CASE concern, the calculations for supporte at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to minimum weld violations.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page AA-1, Section 1.1 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is considered in the
- i
(
requalification effort as described on page AA-2, Section 3.1 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Answer to Interrogatory 67d.
c.
See Answer to Interrogatory 67d.
d.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 69:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Detailed welding configuration and analysis concerns as identified above [ items 1.1 through 1.8 of Report] need to be addressed.
(See Report at page AA-2, item 2.0.)
b.
Prior to the listing of undersized fillet welds, penetration weld subsurface cracking, fillet weld cracking on trunnions, and one-third increase of weld allowable stress for emergency and faulted conditions (items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.8 of Report) as CASE concerns during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of these items as contributors to the support stress ratio.
c.
Prior to the listing of undersized fillet welds,. penetration weld subsurface cracking,
~ fillet weld cracking on trunnions, and one-third increase of weld allowable stress for emergency and faulted conditions (items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.8 of Report) as
' CASE concerns, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) these characteristics did not address the dispositioning of these problems which justified not considering them in the
- analyses, d.
Prior to the listing of eccentricity of three-sided welds, attachment of base plates to building structures with both bolts and welds, and crosspiece trapeze cover plate welds (items 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 of Report) as Cygna concerns during the licensing
)
proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining
..the disposition of these contributors to the
. support loading.
e.
Prior to the listing of eccentricity of three-side welds, attachment of base plates to building structures with both bolts and welds, and crosspiece trapeze cover plate welds (items 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 of Report) as Cygna concerns, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) these characteristics contained no reference to eccentricity of three-sided welds, attachment of base plates to building strt4tures with both bolts and welds, and crosspiece trapeze cover plate welds.
(f)
Prior to the listing of linear versus plate and shell weld design for base plates (item 1.5 of Report) as an NRC Staff concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
(g)
Prior to the listing of linear versus plate and shell weld design for base plates (item 1.5 of Report) as an NRC Staff concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to justification for selecting l
linear versus plate and shell weld design for l
base plates.
Answer:
l a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page AA-2, Section 2.0 of the SWEC Report.
1 These design concerns are being considered in the requalification effort as described on pages AA-2 and AA-3, Section 3.0 and page AA-4, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report. l
=
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
d.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
e.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
f.
See Response to Interrogatory 11b.
g.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 70:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The embedded plate must be evaluated to verify the assumption of a moment connection.
(See Report at page BB-2, item 12.1.2.)
b.
The rationale for assuming a moment connection by CPSES was not derived mathematically or by test.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page BB-2, Section 2.1.2 of the SWEC Report.
b.
Applicants agree.
However, with the qualification that the validity of assuming a moment connection will be verified by TUGCO as described on page BB-2, Section 3.1.3 of the SWEC Report.. _
~
Interrogatory No. 71:
Do Applicants agree or disagree-with the.following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Anchor bolt embedment depth must be accounted for in the support design.
(See Report at page BB-2, item 2.2.2.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page BB-2, Section 2.2.2 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page BB-3, Section 5.1 of the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 72:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
.a.
Analysis of base plates must consider the anchor bolt edge distance tolerances.
(See Report at page BB-2, item 2.2.3.)
b.
Analysis of base plates must also consider the member connection tolerance.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page BB-2, Section 2.2.3 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page BB-3, Section 5.3 of the SWEC Report.
75 -
I J
b.
Applicants agree.
However, the 1/4-in.
tolerance specified for the member connection to baseplate in CPSES is considered to be insignificant to the baseplate analysis.
Interrogatory No. 73:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Anchor Bolt Edge Distance.and spacing violations must be documented for evaluation during the pipe support as-built verification effort.
(See Report at page BB-2, item 2.2.4.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page BB-2, Section 2.2.4 of.the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 74:
Do Applicants agree or -disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The effect of the load component that results from the plus-or-minus 5-deg swing tolerance of a strut / snubber, due to construction tolerance and pipe movements, should be considered in support design.
If the plus-or-minus 5-deg tolerance is exceeded, the adequacy of the componet [ sic] load rating and paddle binding of the strut / snubber in theh
[ sic] clamp and rear bracket should be evaluated.
(See Report-at page CC-1, item 2.1.)
b.
Prior to the listing of swing angle of struts and snubbers neglected in support loads as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, l
CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support' loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of swing angle of struts and snubbers neglected in support loads as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to why swing angle of struts and snubbers were neglected in support loads.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page CC-1, Section 2.1 of the SWEC Report.
These design attributes are being considered in the requalification effort as described on page CC-2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory llc.
Interrogatory No. 75:
Do Appl -; ants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The installed struts / snubbers with angular swing exceeding plus-or-minus 2-deg should be documented.
(See Report at page CC-1, item 2.2.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page CC-1, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report. a
r-This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on-page CC-2, Section 3.2 of the SWEC~ Report.
Interrogatory No. 76:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
All static and dynamic piping movements, including the responses from seismic events.
and applicable fluid transients, must be considered in the support design.
The movements are as follows:
2.1.1 Frame Gaps in the Unrestrained Direction 2.1.2 Strut and Snubber Swing Angles 2.1.3 Snubber Travel 2.1.4 Spring Travel (See Report at pages DD-1 and DD-2, item 2.1.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from pages DD-1 and DD-2, Section 2.1 of the SWEC l
Report.
These design attributes are being l
considered in the requalification effort as described on page DD-3, Sections 5.1 and 5.2 j
of the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 77:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following i
statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
. I
a.
Standard component-type pipe supports shall be verified or designed by comparison to load capacity data sheets (LCDs) or certified design report summaries (CDRS) furnished by the vendor.
(See Report at page DD-2, item 2.2'.)
b.
Prior to the listing of staying within manufacturers' recommended load ratings and considering all contributors as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
c.
Prior to the listing of staying within manufacturers' recommended load ratings and considering all contributors as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to why certain contributing factors (cinching, thermal, etc.)
were not included in the design analyses.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page DD-2, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
However, as discussed on pages F-1 and F-2, Section 3.3.2 and pages K-4 and K-5, Section 5.0, U-bolts are uniquely qualified by analysis by SWEC.
b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
l Interrogatory No. 78:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
l
P
~
a.
The effects of-undocumented and uninspected-plug weld repairs in some critical-area
. support members need to be evaluated.
A sampling inspection and/or bounding analysis of-the plug welds for pipe supports [ sic],
cable tray supports, and baseplates is needed.
(See Report at_page FF-1, iten 2.1.)
b.
For plug welds as described-in a.
above, flaws inherent.-internally cannot be detected by
' visual methods.
c.
Prior to the listing of undocumented and uninspected plug weld repairs as a CASE.
concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure defining the disposition of this contributor to the support loading.
d.
Prior to the listing of undocumented and uninspected plug weld repairs sus a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES which exhibit (ed) this characteristic contained no reference to undocumented and uninspected plug weld repairs.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page FF-2, Section 2.4 of the SWEC Report.
This design concern is being addressed by CPRT ISAP V.a as described on page FF-2, Section 3.4 and page-FF-3, Section 5.4 of the SWEC Report.
b.
It was not SWEC's scope to determine weld quality.
Applicants disagree that flaws are inherent internally in all welds.
The plug weld issue will be resolved by CPRT ISAP V.d.
I i
- so -
1
as described on page FF-2, Sections 3.1 and 5.1 of the SWEC Report.
c.
See Response to Interrogatury lib.
d.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 79:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The MS system was not evaluated for the deadweight during hydrotest and flushing operations.
The Unit 1, Loop 1, MS line was shifted during hydrotest and later required substantial cold pull force to be restored to its installed position.
An evaluation of the full sequence of events leading to this
/
incident and the effects on the Unit 1 MS and
- f FW lines is needed.
NRC TRT staff requested a report to justify the adequacy of these lines.
(See Report at pages FF-1 and FF-2, item 2.2.)
b.
The lines mentioned in a.
above, at this point in time, are indeterminate as relates to qualification.
c.
Prior to the listing of the forcing of the main steam line into position as a CASE concern during the licensing proceedings, CPSES had no procedure to address the root cause or effect of this issue.
d.
Prior to the listing of the forcing of the main steam line into position as a CASE concern, the calculations for supports at CPSES did not include any reference or consideration of this issue.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from pages FF-1 and FF-2, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
This design concern is being addressed by CPRT ISAP V.e.,
as described on page FF-2, Section 3.2 and page FF-3, Section 5.2 of the SWEC Report.
b.
Applicants disagree.
These lines are being qualified by SWEC to the criteria contained in CPPP-7.
Upon issue of the CPRT results report for ISAP V.e.,
SWEC will include any and all adverse findings of the results report in the line qualification.
c.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
d.
See Response to Interrogatory 11c.
Interrogatory No. 80:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Piping routed from the seismic safeguards building to the nonseismic turbine building must be isolated from the effects of nonseismic piping and the nonseismic turbine building.
The anchors or restraints used for isolation purposes must be designed to withstand the combined loading imposed by both the seismic and nonseismic piping.
(See Report at page FF-2, item 2.3.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page FF-2, Section 2.3 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in the requalification effort as described on page FF-3, Section 5.3 of the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 81:
Do Appliants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The lack of inspection criteria and procedures on Type 2 skewed welds could lead to undersized welds.
Documented inspection results of Type 2 skewed welds on NF supports are necessary to ensure its intended function.
(See Report at page FF-2, item 2.4.)
b.
CPSES did not have a procedure or, guidance to address the skewed weld problem' referenced in
- a. above prior to the issuance of the NRC Staff's SSER No. 10.
c.
CPSES'does not~at this time have a procedure or guidance to address the skewed weld problem referenced in a.
above.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page FF-2, Section 2.4 of the SWEC Report.
This design concern is being addressed by CPRT ISAP V.a as described on page FF-2, Section 3.4 and page FF-3, Section 5.4 of the SWEC Report.
i b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
r I
c.
Applicants disagree.
This concern is being r
addressed by CPRT ISAP V.a.
As discussed in I ;
?
this ISAP, inspection. procedures have been revised and issued which establish the inspection methodology which addresses Type 2 welds.
Interrogatory No. 82:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons, a.
The NRC classified (in SSER-11] the as-built concern into hardware, procedure, as-built, and weld-related problems.
Specifically, the NRC listed six generic pipe support construction deficiencies in Unit 1 as follows:
1.1.1 Excessive snubber spherical bearing clearance.
1.1.2 Strut and snubber load pin locking device miscing.
1.1.3 Pipe clamp halves not parallel.
1.1.4 Snubber adapter plate bolts not fully engaged.
1.1.5 Hilti-Kwik bolts installed with less than minimum embedment.
1.1.6 Absence of locking devices for threaded fasteners on NF supports.
(See Report at page GG-1, item 1.1.)
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statement from page GG-1, Section 1.1 of the SWEC Report.
1 Interrogatory No. 83:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?- If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Design Engineering did not always use isolation anchors in the design of seismic-to-nonseismic piping.
The isolation anchor must be designed to withstand the combined loading imposed by both seismic Category I and nonseismic Category I piping.
(Allegation SRT-13, Reference 4.2.)
(See Report at page GG-1, item 1.2.)
b.
No procedure existed at CPSES for the installation of terminal anchors prior to the issuance of the NRC's SSER-11.
c.
Procedures exist at CFSES at this time for the installation of terminal anchors.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree with the statet.ent from page GG-1, Section 1.2 of the SVEC Report.
However, these design attributes are being conriidered in the requalific:t.on effort as described on page FF-3, Sect ion 5.3 of the i
SWEC Report, b.
See Response to Interrogatory lib.
c.
Applicants agree.
The design procedure for the analysis of interface (terminal) anchors separating Seismic Category I and Nonseismic Category I piping is contained in
. -10, CPPP;7, Revision 2 for the SWEC requalification effort.
Interrogatory No. 84:
Do Applicants agree or dicagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The design of the main steam lines in Unit 1 did not take into account the stresses caused by repositioning the line after flushing and by the [ sic] settling of temporary support.
(Allegation AP13, Ref. 4.2.)
(See Report at page GG-1, item 1. 3. )
Answer:
a.
See Responses to Interrogatories 79a and b.
Interrogatory No. 85:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
Inadequate analysis consideration pertaining to radial shrinkage of girth welds in thin-walled stainless' steel pipe was one of the concerns or deficiencies identified by SSER-ll in the design process that are related to piping design.
(Allegations AQ-50, Ref. 4.1; and AW-52, AW-59, AW-62, Ref. 4.2-)
(See Report at page GG-1, items 1.0, second paragraph, and 1.4.)
Answer:
a.
Applicanta agree with the statement from page GG-1, Section 1.4 of the SWEC Report.
This design attribute is being considered in o
the requalification effort as described on page GG-2, Section 5.0 of the SWEC Report.
Interrogatory No. 86:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
The Report fails to address several points raised by CASE, as follows:
(1)
Instability due to perpendicular single trunnions designed to act as lateral restraints.
(See, for example, support No. CC-2-Oll-A63K; see also pages 62 through 65 of the 3/23/85 meeting between CASE and the NRC Staff, with Applicants in attendance.)
(2)
Questions related to the Inservice Inspection,Section XI, as noted in CASE's 8/22/83 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations), hereinafter referred to as CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings,Section XX.
(3)
Effects of large holes in tube steel flexural members installed to insert the threaded rods to the Richmond Inserts.
Such holes can alter the section properties by over 20%.
(See CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, pages XVIII-3 through XVIII-5.)
(4)
The effects of cumulative neglect of contributors to loading (for example, self-weight excitation on the support, local stresses on the support, friction on the support, variations of stiffness resulting in higher loads, etc.).
(See, for example, CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings:
page XVIII-1, last sentence; page I-6, last paragraph, page I-16, line 7 at seq.)
(5)
The problems associated with the upper i
lateral restraint.
(See CASE's Walsh/Doyle Findings, page XIX-6(1).) i
(6)- The problems with the mcment restraint, as depicted in CASE Exhibit 669B, Attachment to Doyle Deposition / Testimony, pages 9-Q, 9-R, 9-S, and 9-T.
(7)
The problems with the moment restraint, as depicted in CASE Exhibit 669B, pages 9-U, 9-V, and 9-W.
(S) -The lack of testing under simulated realistic conditions (including the concrete, threaded rod, tube steel,-and support) of the 1-1/2" threaded rod / Richmond insert / tube steel connection for a dynamic or a cyclic event.
Answer:
(1)
Applicants disagree.
CASE's concern on the perpendicular single. trunnions Support No. CC-2-011-63K pertains to eccentricity of support attachments and to the piping system stability.
Modeling of eccentrically loaded supports with trunnions is addressed in Sections 3.2.2.1 and 5.1 of Appendix L of the SWEC Report and in Sections 3.10.6.2, 4.2, and -8 of SWEC Procedure CPPP-7.
Piping-system stability is addressed in Appendix D of the SWEC Report and in Section 4.2.4 and Attachment 4-9 of CPPP-7.
(2)
Applicants agree.
Inservice inspection is not within the scope of the SWEC Report.
Applicants will address this issue separately.,
(3)
Applicants agree.
The effect of holes in the steel flexural members on the section properties is considered'to be an existing Code requirement and not E generic technical
-issue.
This effect is addressed in Section 4.3.2.1 of CPPP-7 of the SWEC Piping Systems Requalification Program.
(4)
Applicants disagree.
Contributors to loading, such as self-weight excitation on the support, local stresses on the support, friction on the support, variations of stiffness resulting in higher loads, etc., have not been cumulatively neglected.
These contributors are addressed in Appendices T, U,
G, and E of the SWEC Report, respectively.
(5)
Applicants agree.
The upper lateral restraint for the steam generator is not within the scope of the SWEC Report.
Applicants do agree that CASE's concerns need to be addressed, and we are addressing them separately.
(6)
Applicants disagree.
CASE's concern expressed in Exhibit 669B in that the analysis / design of this moment restraint should account for l
4 l
' i i
l
~
\\
thermal stresses, since the support spans between a wall and the floor.
This support is classified as a corner support in the SWEC Report, Appendix C, Section 3.2 and Project Memorandum PM-039, Revision 2, and will be evaluated to the criteria discussed in Appendix C, Section 3.3 and CPPP-7, Attachment 4-19.
As described in Section 3.4 of Appendix C, and in accordance with ASLB Memorandum and Order LBP-83-81, dated December 28, 1983 citing LBP-83-33, 18 NRC 36 (1983), evaluation of thermal stresses in the support is not required.
(7)
Applicants agree.
However, the support referenced is a pipe whip restraint, which is not within the scope of the SWEC Report.
Applicants will address this issue separately.
(8)
Applicants disagree.
The combined effects of the concrete, threaded rod, tube steel, and support are considered in the analysis methods developed by SWEC that are described in Appendix A, Section 3.1 and CPPP-7, -5.
As stated in Appendix A, Section 3.1 and Appendix W, Section 3l5.3, insert allowables were based on the April 1984 tests of the Richmond inserts (which included the 1 1/2-in, insert) and were adjusted to reflect the concrete design strength of 4,000 psi.
The combined effects of the support, tube steel, and threaded rod are included in the structural modeling technique required'by Section 3.1 of CPPP-7, Attachment 4-5 and produce shear, tension, and bending on the threaded rod which are considered together in the interaction equation contained in Section 3.2.1 of CPPP-7, Attachment 4-5.
As described in Appendix W, Section 3.4, the number of stress cycles due to cyclic loading on the threaded rod are expected to be less than 20,000.
Therefore fatigue is not relevant.
Interrogatory No. 87:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
In addition to the current list of problems as indicated in 86 above, a large number of supports which were alleged by CASE to be inadequate individually (for example, not to code, overstressed, excessive deflections, etc.) contain the following, which were not addressed by the SWEC Report:
i o
(1)
Fix (which proved ineffective) for instability by the use of clip angles by Applicants.
(2)
Fix (which proved ineffective) for instability by the use of bumpers by the Applicants.
(3)
Fix (which proved ineffective) for instability by the use of lugs by the Applicants.
(4)
Fix for instability by cinching of U-bolts without procedures governing torque requirements, which proved ineffective.
(5)
Cross-bar on support CC-008-006-S22K was a bar 3/4"x3" and was overstressed as a result of pipe load without considering the cinching of this potentially unstable support.
(See CASE Exhibit 669B, items 11-00 and 11-PP.)
(6)
Failure of the 16" diameter diaphragm on support No. CC-08-709-A43K.
(See CASE Exhibit 669B, items 11-FF, ll-GG, 11-HH, for example.)
(7)
Failure of the web of the W6x12 support No. CC-028-039-S33R.
(See CASE Exhibit 669B, item 4-H and item 4-I.)
(8)
Failure of plate supporting bracket on support No. CC-107-008-E23R.
This was a torsional problem with the plate.
When proper analysis was applied, the load increased 660%.
(See CASE Exhibit 669B, item 11-TT.)
(9)
Support CS-1-239-007-A42R had a 1x4" bar for the U-bolt securing the pipe which was overstressed.
(See-CASE Exhibit 669B, items 13-DD, 13-EE, 13-FF, and 13-GG.)
(10) Not only the individual items or issues in Question 86 and 87.(1) through (9) above, but the cumulative effective of these items when considered in conjunction with other items or elements.
l 1 l I
6 Answer:
With the exception of Subsection 10 of this Interrogatory, Applicants agree that the SWEC Report l
does not address the concerno expressed by CASE on a support-specific basis.
However, the SWEC Report does address the specific concerns identified by CASE on a generic basis as follows:
(1)
This condition (fix) existed on zero clearance box frames, whose stability is addressed generically.in Section 1.2.1 of Appendix D, Pipe Support / System Stability, of the SWEC Report.
These supports require generic modification in accordance with Section 3.2.1 of Appendix D of the SWEC Report.
(2)
This condition (fix), which existed on U-bolts with single struts, had been removed prior to SWEC's involvement with the pipe stress and support requalification effort.
However, all single strut / snubber U-bolt supports must be either modified or cinched for stability in accordance with Appendix D, t
'e i Section 3.2.2 and Appendix'K,.
Section:5.1.
(3)
This condition (fix) existed on zero clearance box frames, which require generic modification in accordance with Section 3.2.1 of Appendix D of the SWEC Report.
(4)
All single strut / snubber U-bolt supports must be cinched for stability as required by Appendix D, Section 3.2.2 and Appendix K,'Section 5.1.
The torque required for stability is determined in accordance with Project Memorandum PM-083, July 21, 1986.
(5)
CASE addresses the evaluation of crosspiece stresses on a cinched U-bolt.
Crosspiece stress evaluation was addressed in Section 4.4.2, -12 of CPPP-7, as amended by PM-083, and Section 5.1 of Appendix K of the SWEC Report.
It should be noted that pipe support CT-1-008-006-S22K was deleted prior to implementation of SWEC requalification effort. !
.a (6)
CASE's concern involves the evaluation of stresses on an end cap plate welded to a trunnion experiencing load from a strut bracket.
The generic issue of local stresses on a pipe'aupport member is addressed in Appendix U, Section 3,0, The design of end plates used in this application is addressed in -13, Section 4.6 and -15 of CPPP-7.
It should be noted that pipe support CC-2-08-709-A43K has been deleted.
(7)
CASE's concern as expressed in Section 4 of CASE Exhibit'669B involves thermal constraint of a zero gap box frame and the potential instability of the support.
The generic issue of zero gap restraints is addressed in Appendix B, Section 3.1.1 and Appendix D of the SWEC Report.
The generic issue of pipe support / system instability is addressed in Appendix D, Section 2.2 of the SWEC Report.
Appendix D, Section 3.2.1 zero clearance box frames will be modified to alleviate i
both' concerns..CACE's concern rogsrding web failure of W6 x 12 has been j
eliminated as this support has been deleted.
However, Appendix U, Section 3.0 and CPPP-7, Attachment 4-13, Section 4.7.2 provide-guidance for the evaluation of web crippling on open f
sections.
(8)
CASE is concerned Vith the design of a plate welded to a wide flange.
Plates i
used in this type of application are designed by using standard engineering formulas that are part of the normal pipe support design process addressed in Section 4.3 of CPPP-7, and are not addressed in a generic technical issue i
report.
This support has been redesigned, and the condition in question no longer exists.
(9)
CASE's concern involves the design of a l
1-in. x 4-in. bar on a trapeze-type support consisting of two struts and a U-bolt.
This type of support is identified in l
l i
i
e i
Appendix D of the SWEC Report and -9 of CPPP-7 as potentially unstable, and will be modified in accordance with Attachment 4-8, as described in Appendix L, Section 3.1.3.2 of the SWEC Report.
Evaluation of crosspiece stresses for single strut / snubber cinched U-bolts is addressed in Section 4.4.2, -12 of CPPP-7 and Section 5.1 e
of Appendix K of the SWEC Report.
(10) Applicants disagree.
SWEC has evaluated all the generic technical issues that affect the SWEC pipe stress / support requalification effort and has included their resolution into the CPPP-7 design
. criteria.
Therefore, the reanalysis performed in the piping system requalification program implements the resolutions of the generic issues in the SWEC Report, which include the individual issues in Interroga*,c,ry Nos. 86 and 87(1)-(9) above, with the exception of Subsections (2), (5) and (7) in Interrogatory No. 86.
Applicants will i
T address these exceptions separately since they have no direct impact on the SWEC piping system requalification program.
Therefore, if any piping system or pipe support exhibits one or more of the attributes identified in the SWEC Report, the cumulative effect of these items will be considered in conjunction with other items or elements not addressed in the SWEC Report but which are part of the requalification procedure CPPP-7.
Interrogatory No.uB8:
Do Applicants agree or diagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
The SWEC Report does not address the root cause of any of the problems or potential problems identified in the report.
b.
The SWEC Report does not address the generic implications of any of the problems or potential problems identified in the report.
c.
The SWEC Report.does not address the design quality assurance issues previously covered in Applicants' now-withdrawn 7/3/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Allegations Concerning Quality Assurance Program for Design of Piping and Pipe Supports for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station and responses.
d.
The SWEC Report does not address any new problems or potential problems identified by SWEC during their review, analyses, etc...
r Answer:
a.
Applicants agree.
The main purpose of the SWEC Report is to resolve the potential-generic problems in order to implement its resolutions to the piping system requalification program.
This question was answered in Applicants' reponse to Interrogatory No. 25 of CASE's June 30, 1986 set of interrogatories.
b.
Applicants agree.
However, SWEC Report addresses identified problems or potential problems that aro unique for pipe stress and pipe support qualification only.
Implementation of the piping and supports requalification program is comprehensively specified in DSAP IX of the CPRT Program Plan, which includes the Project (SWEC) Actions and Third Party Review (TENERA) Actions.
Piping system analysis is inherently a unique discipline, and we expect that there will be very few generic implications found by TENERA in the Third Party Review throughout the requalification effort. _
d
(
c.
Applicants agree.
However, Appendix P of SWEC's Generic Technical Issues Report does address design QA implementation for the SWEC's requalification effort.
d.
Applicants agree.
This is not within the scope of the report.
See Response to Interrogatory 4.
Interrogatory No. 89:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree', explain your reasons.
a.
SWEC is performing what are or will be analyses of record.
Answer:
a.
Applicants agree that SWEC is performing the analyses of record as identified in Response to Interrogatory 90, below.
Interrogatory No. 90:
If you agree with 89a. above, identify specifically what areas, systems, components, etc. (by whatever designation or breakdown Applicants use), will be covered by such analyses of record.
Answer:
SWEC's responsibility for the analyses of record is described in Attachment 2, Section B, of the CPRT
- 100 -
\\
Program Plan and Issue-Specific Action' Plans, DSAP IX, Rev.
3, January 27, 1986.
Interrogatory No. 91:
Do Applicants agree or disagree with the following statements?
If you disagree, explain your reasons.
a.
None of issues which pertain to problems or potential problems identified in the SWEC Report are issues which arose because of changed NRC regulatory requirements following Three Mile Island.
b.
All of the issues which pertain to problems or potential problems identified in the SWEC Report are i'ssues which were covered by Applicants' original commitments (to the NRC, "
in Applicants' FSAR to industry codes or standards, to the use of standard industry practice, etc).
Answer:
a.
Applicants disagree.
See answer to Subsection b, below.
b.
Applicants disagree.
We readily admit that many of the issues were covered by our original commitments.
However, since about the time of Three Mile Island, numerous requirements and more importantly, expansions of existing requirements have been promulgated j
by the NRC.
In particular, refer to various 1
i Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Bulletins issued during the 1979-1981 period and to the
- 101 -
l 1
i 1981' revisions to the' Standard Review Plan.
In addition, TUGCO's new senior nuclear management has directed SWEC to address not only existing issues, but to ensure that all work is clearly justifiable.
Thus, some modifications to presently employed design practices are being made to assure all potential technical issues are resolved, regardless of whether the previous design practices satisfied Applicants' original commitments.
Interrogatory No. 92:
On the fourth sheet of the SWEC Generic Technical Issues Report, there is a page 1, which is marked at the top "J.O.No.
15454.05-llH, Revision O, Dated:
5/8/86 Please identify each of the five individuals who signed this sheet; include in your answers for each name:
a.
company by which employed (SWEC, TUGCO, etc.);
b.
summary of each individual's duties (both normal and, if different, specifically with regard to the SWEC Report);
c.
to whom each reports and is responsible to; d.
resume including educational and special training which qualifies him for this specific work; e.
any past or present (please specify) connections (such as:
his/her having previously worked with or for other individuals or consultants now involved in the CPRT effort and his/her now working for SWEC; etc.) between him and any other individual (s) involved in the SWEC, CPRT, or CPSES efforts.
- 102 -
g 9'
Answer:
a.
P. Dunlop, R.
R. Wrucke, C. A.
- Fonseca, A.
W.
Chan, and R. P.
Klause are employees of SWEC.
~
b.
Summary of each individual's duties are described in response to Item d of this question.
c.
P. Dunlop, Assistant Manager and Engineering Mcnager, SWEC-NY, reports and is responsible to E.
J.
Siskin, Vice President and Manager, SWEC-NY, who has been designated as the corporate officer responsible for SWEC's TUGCO work.
R.
P.
Klause, Project Manager, reports and is responsible to E.
J.
Siskin.
R.
R. Wrucke, C.
A.
Fonseca, and A.
W.
Chan report and are responsible to R. P.
Klause.
d.
Resumes of the above individuals are enclosed in Attachment 1.
In addition, resumes of key SWEC technical personnel that actively support and participate in the requalification program are also enclosed in Attachment 1.
e.
None of the above individuals have previously
- 103 -
f
~ -.,.
s o
been employed by TUGCO or consultants (TERA and RLCA) now involved in the CPRT effort in the piping and supports discipline Action Plan
'DSAP IX.
Interrogatory No. 93:
a.
Was the SWEC Report reviewed by anyone outside the SWEC organization prior to its being submitted to TUGCO?
b.
Is the SWEC Report in the same form and format as it was originally prepared by SWEC (i.e.,
has it been changed in any way (deletions, additions, etc.), from the condition it was originally received from SWEC)?
c.
Were any changes made in the SWEC Report between the time it was discussed with or submitted to TUGCO (either in draft or final form) and the time it was sent to the Licensing Board?
d.
If the answer to any of the above questions a.,
b.,
and/or c.
is yes, provide all details regarding all such review and/or changes (i.e., who reviewed it, who changed it, what specific changes were made, etc.).
If the answer to any is yes, also provide copies of any and all drafts and changes which were made.
Answer:
a.
No.
The final SWEC report was not reviewed by anyone outside the SWEC organization prior to its submittal to the Applicants.
- 104 -
\\
meetings with the Applicants and Consultants (TERA and RLCA), where discussions and comments were exchanged and additional information and understanding of the issues were communicated.
It is the policy of SWEC to provide the Applicants and Consultants with periodic progress and status of work performed for the Applicants.
The NRC Staff and its Consultant, Teledyne, also audited SWEC and reviewed and commented on the progress and development of SWEC's resolutions of the generic technical issues.
Various segments of the SWEC Report or its draft might have been used to facilitate discussion during these meetings and could have been retained by the various organizations.
However, SWEC independently finalized the main report and twenty-three (23) appendices on May 14, 1986.
The remaining ten (10) appendices were independently finalized by SWEC on June 28, 1986, thus completing Revision O of the SWEC Report.
b.
No.
The SWEC report has not been changed in any way from the condition in which it was originally received from SWEC on July 2, 1986.
- 105 -
e N
c.
No.
The SWEC report has not been changed in any.way between the time it was submitted to TUGCO and the time it was sent to the Licensing Board.
d.
Not applicable.
Response to Request for Documents:
The documents identified in response to Interrogatories Nos.
2, 4,
52a, 53a, 87, and 92 will be produced as stated in General Response number 2.
The documents identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4 have already been provided in response to CASE's ' interrogatories of November 15,
'1985.
- 106 -
_ - _ -., _ - _. _. - _. - - _ _ -. ~ _...
3EP 5 '56 17:03 LICEreEE TUGCO FAGE.02 e
1 Signatures As to Answers:
I, Debra L. Anderson, being first duly sworn, do depose and say that I am a Project Manager for TUGCO and, that I have assisted in the preparation of the foregoing answers, and that the foregoing answors are true, except insofar as they are based on information that is availablo to the Applicants but not within my personal knowledge, as to which I, based on such information, believe them to be true.
Da i
Sworn to before me this 5th day of September, 1986
~.
%'Yt k M-(<
Notary Py511e u y esem Weion Expires:
3/12/90
- r. -
'G.
'.... :?
- ~ ', ',
c)
As to objections:
Thomat G.
Dignan, Jr.
R. K. Gad III William S.
Eggeling Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street.
Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for the Applicants i
1 1
4 c-
?
DOCKETED USNRC 86 SEP 17 PI2:24 ATTACHMENT 1 0FFIC c'NG'7 C F t i'
~"
00CKOI Si? M.r (ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 92)
BitA:e COMANCHE PEAK - PIPING SYSTEM REQUALFICIATION PROGRAMS KEY TECHNICAL PERSONNEL - RESUMES 4.
e i
l
y August 1986 DUNI.0P, PETER ASSISTANT MANAGER ENGINEERING MANAGER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EDUCATION University of British Columbia - B.A. Sc. in Civil Engineering 1964 University of California - M.S. in Geotechnical Engineering 1965 University of California - Ph.D. in Geotechnical Engineering 1967 Adelphi University - MBA Program Courses 1975, 1976 Various Stone & Webster Continuing Education Courses and Management Workshops LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS i
Professional Engineer New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, Alaska, %io,
Ill.isois, Texas EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
As Assistant Manager, SWEC-NY and Engineering Manager, Dr.
Dunlop is responsible to the Manager for overall policy and technical guidance of the Engineering Department and responsible for overall quality of engineering and design in New York.
Dr. Dunlop is also the Engineering Sponsor for the Comanche Peak Piping System Qualification /Requalification Effort.
. Dr. Dunlop was previously an Assistant' Engineering Manager responsible to the Engineering Manager for engineering division and project performance.
His major - responsibilities included Civil, Structural, ' Geotechnical, and Engineering Mechanics aspects of projects. He was the Project Manager for a pipe stress and pipe' support reanalysis effort for Zion and for an l
Independent Seismic Design Verification for piping at the V.C. Summer station.
He has also been responsible for pipe stress and support efforts l
for Beaver. Valley, FitzPatrick, Millstone, Salem, North Anna, Shoreham, and Surry.
Dr. Dunlop's extensive experience also includes work on fossil-l fueled power plants, dams, tunnels,- railroads, bridges, and process and industrial plants.
During the spring of 1980, Dr. Dunlop was an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, l
Dr. Dunlop was previously Manager of the Geotechnical Division, where he was responsible for all geotechnical engineering in New York, including field investigations, laboratory testing, analyses, and design.
i w ~.
- - - - ~ - - -
Dr. Dunlop has been responsible for investigations, studies, designs, and engineering on a number of hydro, fossil, and nuclear power plants.
Dr.
Dunlop was responsible for all foundation aspects in an extensive site selection study for the Government of Iran.
As Lead Geotechnical Engineer on a nuclear power project, Dr. Dunlop had responsibility for the soils and foundation engineering.
Before joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Dr. Dunlop was Vice President of James P. Collins & Associates and had extensive experience in the planning, design, and construction of engineering p roj ects, including dams, bridge and building foundations, and tunnels in the United States and Canada. Prior to that, Dr. Dunlop worked with H.G. Acres and Co.
Ltd.,
Niagara Falls, Canada, where he was responsible for geotechnical analyses and design for dam, tunnel, and canal projects in Canada and South America.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Boston Society of Civil Engineers U.S. Committee on Large Dams
, N PUBLICATIONS J.M.
Duncan and P. Dunlop, "The Significance of Cap and Base Restraint,"
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
94, No.
- SM1, January 1968.
P. Dunlop, K.L. Lee, and H.B. Seed, "Effect of Moisture on the Strength of a Clean Sand",
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93, No. SM6, November 1967.
J.M.
Duncan and P.
Dunlop, " Slopes in Stiff-Fissured Clays and Shales,"
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 95, No. SM2, March 1969.
P.
Dunlop, K.L.
Lee, and H.B.
Seed, " Effects of Transient Loading on the Strength of Sand," Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1969.
J.M.
Duncan and P.
Dunlop, " Behavior of Soil in Simple Shear Test,"
Proceedings of the Sixtih International Conference on Soi.1 Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1969.
J.M. Duncan and P. Dunlop, " Development of Failure Around Excavated Slopes,"
Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, No.
SM2, March 1970.
P.
Dunlop, " Finite Element Analyses of Seepage," ASCE N.Y.
Metropolitan Section, April 1974.
i 2
i riww105yirigivyWwpm
e a
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD DUNLOP, PETER 26663 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NY (Feb 1973 to Present)
Appointments:
Assistant Manager, SWEC-NY - Apr 1986 Engineering Manager - Dec 1984 Assistant Engineering Manager - Nov 1979 Manager of Geotechnical Division - Nov 1979 to Sept 1980 Assistant Chief Geotechnical Engineer - Aug 1975 Assistant Chief Structural Engineer - Apr 1974 Senior Soils Engineer - Nov 1973 Soils Engineer - Feb 1973 As an ASSISTANT MANAGER - SWEC-NY responsible to the Office Manager for implementing policy and direction for the New York office.
Engineering Department (Nov 1979 to Present)
As ENGINEERING MANAGER, Dr. Dunlop is responsible for overall policy and technical guidance of the Engineering Department and responsible for overall quality of engineering and design in New York.
He is also the Engineering Sponsor for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station piping system qualification /requalification effort.
As ASSISTANT ENGINEERING MANAGER, Dr.
Dunlop was responsible to the Engineering Manager for assigned engineering divisions and projects to ensure clear lines of accountability and responsibility.
His responsibility included overall quality of engineering and design, as well as development and utilization of corporate resources.
i Dr. Dunlop has been responsible for pipe stress and pipe support engineering analysgs projects for Beaver Valley, Units 1 and 2; FitzPatrick; Millstone, Unit 3; Salem, Units 1 and 2; North Anna, Units 1 and 2; Shoreham; Surry, Units 1 and 2; and Zion, Units 1 and 2.
He is responsible for review of the
- Civil, Structural, Geotechnical, and Engineering Mechanics aspects of i
l projects.
Dr. Dunlop was the PROJECT MANAGER for the piping reanalysis effort in response to NRC IEB 79-14 on Commonwealth Edison's Zion Station, Units 1 and 2.
He was also the PROJECT MANAGER for the Independent Seismic Design Verification effort on South Carolina Electric & Gas's V.C. Summer Nuclear i
Station, Unit No.
1.
He has also worked on the ethylene modernization for l
Mobil's Beaumont, Texas facility and on Getty's Delaware methanol plant.
l As MANAGER of the GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION, Dr. Dunlop was responsible for all geotechnical engineering in the New York office.
His responsibilities included geology, seismology, rock mechanics,. soil mechanics, foundation engineering, embankment design, underground facilities, and groundwater t
hydrology.
3
PD During the spring of 1980,;Dr. Dunlop taught Foundation Engineering as an ADJUNCT PROFESSOR at Columbia University.
Structural Division, Geotechnical Section (Apr 1974 to Nov 1979)
As ASSISTANT CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEER and subsequently as ASSISTANT CHIEF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, Dr. Dunlop's responsibilities included the technical and administrative management. of the Geotechnical Division, which provides engineering and design effort in geology, seismology, and geotechnical engineering.
He had full 1.echnical responsibility in these areas.
The following are several representative projects for which Dr. Dunlop was responsible:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Power Authority of the State of New York (Apr 1979 to Sept 1979)
Responsible for review of Category I piping systems and supports f'o r a
nuclear power plant to ensure compliance with NRC requirements.
Crude Oil Transshipment Facility - Little Cayman Island, BWI, Cayman Energy Limited (Feb 1978 to Dec 1978)
Responsible for preliminary siting investigations for a 10,000,000 barrel transshipment facility.
Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, Power Authority of the State of New York (Oct 1975 to Mar 1978)
~
Responsible for the geotechnical effort, including field investigations, laboratory testing, analysis, design, and preparation of specifications for this 1250 MW unit.
l Astoria, Unit 6 - 827 MW Unit - Oil-Fueled Power Plant, Power Authority of the State of New Yor't (Feb 1975 to Oct 1975) l Responsible for the geotechnical investigations and engineering on a 36,000,000 gal fuel oil storage facility.
l Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection Study, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Imperial Government of Iran (May 1975 to Aug 1975)
Responsible for foundation aspects of an extensive site selection study of 200 km along the Rud-e-Karun River in southwestern Iran.
Geotechnical Division, Boston (Feb 1973 to Apr 1974)
As SENIOR SOILS ENGINEER and GROUP SUPERVISOR in the Geotechnical Division, Dr. Dunlop was responsible for the following engineering efforts:
i 4
e-PD Surry Power Station, Units 3 and 4-Two 950 MW Units, Virginia Electric and Power Company (May 1973 to Aug 1974)
As SENIOR SOILS ENGINEER and LEAD GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, Dr. Dunlop was responsible for the soils and foundation engineering on this project.
Dr. Dunlop also had engineering responsibilities on the following projects:
330 MW Unit Coal-Fired Power Plant - Wyodak Station, Pacific Power and Light Company / Black Hills Power and Light Company (Nov 1973 to Apr 1974)
Koshkonong, Wood County, and Haven, Wisconsin, Site Studies, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Nov 1973. to Apr 1974) 1100 MW Unit - Nuclear Power Plant - Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Nov 1973 to Apr 1974) follo2ng As SOILS ENGINEER, Dr.
Dunlop had responsibilities on the projects:
i Public Utility District No. I of Chelan County, Wentachee, Wash. (June 1973 to Aug 1973)
Dr. Dunlop's responsibilities included seepage analyses around an abutment of a cellular and embankment cofferdam.
t Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (June 1973 to July 1973) i Dr. Dunlop analyzed the stability of discharge dikes leading to an offshore diffuser system.
i i
JAMES P. COLLINS & ASSOCIATES, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
(Aug 1969 to Feb 1973) 1 As VICE PRESIDENT and CHIEF SOILS ENGINEER, Dr.
Dunlop was responsible i
for the soils and foundation investigations, design procedures,
[
laboratory testing, and field instrumentation for buildings, industrial f
plants, bridges, tunnels, and tanks.
He prepared
- reports, foundation l
specifications, recommendations, and design criteria for many projects, I
including a.geotechnical investigation of alternate routes for an extension of the Boston MBTA " Red Line" subway system.
I Dr. Dunlop also had responsibility for the design and instrumentation of pile foundations for a railway bridge over the Welland River and for i
foundation investigations, analyses, and recommendations for the Salem-Beverly Bridge over the navigable entrance to Salem Harbor.
l
~
l l
l 1
5
1
^
c PD H.G. ACRES & COMPANY LIMITED, NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO, CANADA (July 1968 to Aug 1969)
As SOILS ENGISTER,
Dr.
Dunlop was responsible for various soils and
. foundation studies.
His duties included field investigations, laboratory testing, analysis, and design for approach cuts, dikes, cofferdams, and disposal areas for a major road / rail tunnel 'in Welland, Catario, Canada.
Dr. Dunlop also had responsibility for deformation studies of a 140-meter-high concrete faced rockfill dam in Colombia, South America.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BEPJCELEY, CA. (Sept 1964 to June 1968)
As an ASSISTANT RESEARCH ENGINEER (Nov 1967 to June 1968), Dr. Dunlop used the Finite Element Method for slope stability analyses, bearing capacity analyses, and simulation ' of ' soil test conditions.
He investigated the prediction of soil properties from high-speed projectile entry into soils and the potential for projectile use in lunar soil mechanics.
As a GRADUATE STUDENT (1965 to 1967), Dr. Dunlop researched and wrote his Ph.D.
dissertation on the use of the Finite Element Method in slope stability analyses.
As - a RESEARCH ASSISTANT (1964 to 1965), Dr. Dunlop performed laboratory tests on clays and sands, in particular, cyclic triaxial tests on liquefi-able sands and plane strain tests on clays to investigate clay anisotropy.
PHILLIPS, BARRET, HILLIER, LTD., VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA (May 1964 to Sept
,1964) j
~As a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, Dr.
Dunlop's principal duties included the structural analysis and design for a 250-ton per-day pulp mill.
- Timber, j
steel, and reinforced concrete structural systems sere designed.
^
+
1 1
1
(
l l
l f
6 L
01662-30 DUN 26663-N1 08/13/86 a
CHAN, ALAN W.
August 1986 ASSISTANT ENGINEERING MANAGER EDUCATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMEhT Harvard University - Ph.D.,
Applied Mathematics and University of California - Bachelor of Science Mechanics - 1971 1963; Master of Science, Applied Mechanics - 1965, Mechanical Engine
_ LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Massachusetts, Texas
, New Jersey EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Dr. Chan has 19 years of experience in the engineering industry.
rently, as Assistant Engineering Manager of the Cherry Hill Operati Center's Engineering Department, his duties includ Cur-J, Assistant Project Manager to Texas Utilitiese special assignment as ons Comanche Peak Steam Electric. Station Generating Company's technical policies and procedures for thProj ect.
He is responsible for e project.
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Co has been assigned as an Engineer in the Nuclearporation (SWEC) in 1971, for Major Supports in the Power Division r Division, Lead Engineer gineer for the Wisconsin Project,
, Lead Engineering Mechanics En-the Engineering Mechanics DivisionSupervisor of the Engine s on, Assistant Manager of ing Mechanics Division.
, and Division Manager of the Engineer-Special assignments included representation of '
SWEC on the ANS 20.1 Committee for Development Against Pipe Whip, Condition Evaluationthe ASME Section III, of Criteria for Protection Appendix F Rules for Faulted task force, and the Piping Design, and as Allowables.
Chairman of PVRC's PVRC's Technical Committee on Task Group on Dynamic Stress As the Lead Engineering Mechanics Engin l
cigar Project, Dr. Chan was responsible for directing the initial deer assigne
{
5 of the project in the areas of mechanical engine ics, and pipe esign chanics Division staff and management, stress and pipe support engi As Engineering Me-viding technical directions and performing engineeringDr. Chan was respons Engineering Mechanics Station - Unit 2, areas for Nirgara Mohawk Power Corporation's services in the Mile Point Nuclest j
River Bend Station, and other nuclear projects Gulf States Utilities Company's e
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Co i
on the analysis of intersecting shells rporation, Dr. Chan worked j
Division of Engineering and Applied Physics at H as a research assistant in the taught Engineering Mechanics in the Divi i arvard University, and he University of California at Berkeley. He also wo k d fs on of Applied Mec the design and analysis of high-vacuum re or two companies on the optimal design of vibration shakers electron-beam equipment and on
AWC LEAD ENGINEER of the Major Support Analysis Group of the Mechanical As Section of the Power Division (Jan 1974), responsible for the seismic and rupture dynamic analysis of all major equipment supports.
Repre-pipe sented SWEC on the ASME Section III, Appendix F Rules for Faulted Condi-tion Evaluation Task Force.
As ENGINEER assigned to the Analysis Section of the Mechanical Group (July 1971), responsible for the development of elastic-plastic dynamic analysis of pipe whip restraints and missile impact. Represented SWEC on the ANS 20.1 Committee for Development of Criteria for Protection Against Pipe Whip.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA (June 1967 - June 1971)
As RESEARCH ASSISTANT in Applied Mechanics, responsible for all duties assigned by Professor J. L. Sanders.
Presented a Ph.D. thesis entitled Analysis of InPlane Bending of Mitred Bends in Cylindrical Shells.
IBM CORPORATION, SAN JOSE, CA (June 1965 - Sept 1965 and June 1966 -
Sept 1966)
As GRADUATE ASSOCIATE working on the design and analysis of high-vacuum...
electron-beam equipment, responsible for assigned duties.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERRILEY, CA (Sept 1963 - June 1965)
As TEACHING ASSISTANT in Applied Mechanics, taught several subjects, in-cluding Engineering Mechanics, Advanced Dynamics, and Elasticity.
I As RESEARCH ASSISTANT in Applied Mechanics, responsible for numerical f
computations in vibrations of shallow shell,s.
and June 1963 -
LTV-LING ELECTRONICS, ANAHEIM, CA (June 1962 - Sept 1962 l
=
I July 1963)
As ENGINEER, responsible for analysis and design of vibration shakers for optimal design studies.
I June 1986 MtUCKE, R0nLD R.
PROJECT ENGINEER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT t
EDUCATION University of Minnesota - B.S. in Civil Engineering 1965 University of Minnesota - M.S. In Civil Engineering 1967 REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Rhode Island EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Wrucke is a Project Engineer with 20 years of extensive experience in project. engineering and licensing through participation in the design",and construction of power plants, petrochemical processing units, and civil engineering projects.
He has been responsible for the total scope of project engineering functions associated with new unit construction and expansions in both the power and petrochemical industries.
Mr. Wrucke is the Project Engineer for Unit I at Comanche Peak responsible for pipe stress reanalysis and pipe support requalification.
Other recent assignments at Clinton, Braidwood, and Zimmer Nuclear Power Station were associated with the establishment and management of on-site utility licensing departments during the construction of nuclear power plants.
Primsry responsibilities included resolution of construction - related issues thru interface with NRC resident inspectors and construction supervision, ffr. Wrucke' was previously Project Engineer for the development of a grass-roots chemical plant ' in
- Texas, His responsibilities included the coordination of all engineering and design activities, including interface with support services, such as procurecent, scheduling, and cost control.
Mr. Wrucke was also a Project Engineer on the Green Cour.ty nuclear power plant project where he was responsible for engotag licensing, design, and project administrative activities.
Mr. Wrucke has completed numerous assignmnts during which he was respon-sible for the project support efforts of a team of environmental engineers and specialists.
These assignments included the development of environmen-tal assessments for power generation plants (nuclear and coal), industrial facilities, chemical processing units, and coal conversior. technologies.
Activities within his scope of work included the design and coordination of environmental field studies, the preparatica of environmental reports and permit applications, and the optimization of treatment systems. He was also responsible for the development and implementation of witness preparation programs and the coordination of technical support functions associated with both safety and environmental hearings.
Mr. Wrucke has presented expert testimony at environmental hearings on syreril occasions.
n
1-CETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD WRUCKE, RONALD R. 98748 STOVE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NY (Dec 1971 to Present)
Appointments:
4 Project Engineer, Engineering Department - 1978 Assistant Project Engineer - Environmental Division 1976 Senior Hydraulic-Environmental Engineer, Envircnmental Division - Dec 1974 Hydritulic-Environmental Engineer, Environmental Engineering Division - Aug 1973 i
Engineer, Environmental Engineering Division - Dec 1971 Mr. Wrucke has been assigned to the fellowing projects:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, Texas Utilities Generating Company (Aug 1985 to Present)
Mr. Wrucke was assigned as PROJECT ENGINEER.
Project scope included the pipe stress reanalysis of all ASME Class 2 and 3 large bore piping and all ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 large bore supports.
Small bore piping and supports vere also evaluated.
In conjunction with the reanalysis /requalification tasks, the project also reevaluated system modes of operation, conducted transient analyses and as-built verification walkdowns, and resolved technical issues raised by the NRC and intervenors during licensing hearings.
Site interfaces were required to support construction completion and station start-up.
r Clinton Power Station. Illionais Power (May 1985 to July 1985)
M. Vrucke was. assigned as CONSULTANI to the site Naclear Licensing Group.
Primary responsibilities were to provide guidance and assistance in tracking innd resolving. issues associated with SER open items and 1&E bulletin, 5
circulars, and information notices.
Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2, Ccimonwealth Edison Company (Apr 1984 to Apr 1985)
Mr. Wrucke was assigned as CONSULTANT to the Licensing and Compliance Department.
This department, which reported to the Project Manager, was established in April 1984 at the Braidwood site to improve relationships with NRC regional inspectors and expedite resolution of open deficiencies.
The department also has interface responsibilities between other onsite organirations and CECO corporate headquarters relative to NRC-related issues which were applicable to other CECO facilities. Primary responsibilities include open item definition, statusing and resolution; file estrblishment; development of tracking systems and procedures; and personnel training / supervision.
w
-=
' ' ' " * ~ " ' * * ~ ~
' ' " ~ ' ~ '
i RRW Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (May 1983 to Jan 1984)
Mr.
Wrucke was assigned as ASSISTANT MANAGER of the utility's Nuclear Licensing Department (NLD).
This department was established in April 1983 as a result of a CG&E reorganization caused by the NRC's termination of all safety related work at Zimmer in November 1982.
Work stoppage was due primarily to Quality Assurance problems and related construction deficien-cies.
Reorganization transferred the responsibility of interface with NRC-Region III from the QA Department to the newly established NLD. Primary interface requirements included resolution of reportable deficiencies; Inspection Report open items; and Bulletin, Circulars, and Information Notices. Departmental responsibilities also included FSAR-related work such as commitment tracking, addressing SER open items, responding to NRC questions, and the development of document revisions.
Mr. - Wrucke, in addition to coordinating departmental daily activities, was also responsible for preparing procedures for the newly-formed department and establishing departmental credibility with the NRC and other onsite organizations.
10M MT/yr Nitroparaffins Plant, W.R. Grace & Company (Jan 1981 to May 1983)
As PROJECT ENGINEER, he was responsible for engineering activities associ-ated with the development of capital cost estimates; project schedules; plot plans and models; design of process and utility systems; and the purchasing i
of equipment and materials.
I Hat Creek Coal Utilization Study, British Colambia Hydro & Power Authority (Oct 1980 to June 1981)
As ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MANAGER, Mr. Wrucke assessed environmental considera-tions of direct and indirect coal liquefaction technologies. The assessment included development of water balancec, emission summaries, and--solid waste.
quantities.
Toxic and hazardous concerns were discussed and cost estimates
^
of major treatment systems were projected.
Preparation of Solid Waste Disposal Permit Application, Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Sept 1980 to May 1981)
As PROJECT MANAGER, Mr. Wrucke coordinated the development of State (New York)' permit applications'for the land disposal of ash wastes generated as a l
result of conversion of two large utility boilers from oil to coal.
The l
applications included environmental / economic ase..sments and site development / closure plans. Following submittal of the applications, expert I
testimony was presented at State environmental hearings.
Ethanol Plant, D.V. Smt;11 (Sept 1980 to Jan 1981)
Mr. Wrucke was assigned as LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER for the development l
of environmentti assessments associated with the construction and operation l
of an ethanol plant in Maine.
1 3
RRW Ethanol Plant, C.B.A.
Inc. (July 1980 to Jan 1981)
Mr. Wrucke was assigned as LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER for the development of environmental assessments associated with the construction and operation
~
of an ethanol plant in Minnesota.
Boiler Conversion Study, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. Inc.
(May 1980 to Nov 1980)
As STUDY MANACER, Mr. Wrucke was responsible for the investigation of environmental regulatory requirements and concerns associated with the conversion of two industrial boilers from oil to coal firing. The scope of work also included economic and equipment assessments.
700 MW Coal /RDF Power Plant, Power Authority of the State of New York (Sept 1979 to Nov 1980)
AsASSISTANTPROJECTENGINEER,Mr.WruckeassistedinthecondactofongIng State and Federal licensing activities associated with the proposed ccustruction of a 700 MW coal /RDF power plant on Staten Island in New York City.
He coordinated project efforts related to the conduct of State Site Certification hearings and the preparation of the PSD descastratton, Corps of Engineers dredging permit, and the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (402) permit.
Greene County Nuclear Pcwer Plant, Power Authority of the State of New York (1978 to 1980)
As PROJECT ENGINEER, his responsibilities included, in addition to over-seeing ongoing hearing-related licensing activities, coordination of the j
NSSS contract and. associated review of contract documents, asymmetric cavity pressure analyses, neutron streaming investigations, seismic /gectechnical studies, and site plan development.
Greene County Nuclear Power Plant. Power Authority of the State of New York (1976 to 1978) l As ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, Mr. w'rucke was responsible for the develop-l ment of State and Federal Environmental Impact Statements, ccordination of Licensing activities, including witness preparation and hearing suppert i
functions, and supervision of Environmental Engineering Design.
He I
presented expert testimony at joint State / Federal environmental hearings in l
the area of water quality - erosion and sedimentation control.
Nuclear Units, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (1974 to 1976, 1981 to 1982) i As LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, Mr. Wrucke was responsible for Environmental l
Report prep.aration, coordination of environmental studies, acd the hydraulic design of circulating water systems.
l 4
men-nwre^L-m arvatum
~.
RRW Fulton Generating Station - Units 1 and 2, Philadelphia Electric Company (1972 to 1974)
As LEAD ENVIRob?1 ENTAL ENGINEER, he was responsible for Environmental Report preparation and coordinating environmental studies and circulating wa.ter system design.
Fulton Generating Station - Units 1 and 2, Philadelphia Electric Company (1971 to 1972)
As a SUPPORT ENGINEER, Mr. Vrucke was responsible for Environmental Report preparation and coordinating environmental studies and circulating water system design.
ENJAY CHEMICAL COMPANY (1967 to 1971)
I Mr.
Wrucke was assigned as PROJECT ENGINEER, providing a va rie ty :.,o f services, as outlined below, associated with the construction of chemical processing unfts or the expansion of existing units:
Preparation of cost estimates associated with proposed projects.
Coordination of the mechanical, civil / structural, instrumentation, and electrical design of construction projects on both an in-house and contract basis.
Proj ect execution planning and c.itical path scheduling of construction projects with as-needed updating through project completion.
Inquiry, bid evaluation, and requisitioning of equipment and*
fabricated material.
Preparation of specifications fer material and equipment procure-ment, soils investigations, vibration studies, and field construc-tion.
Specifications were also written for design and material procurement contracts.
Preparation of project progress and status reports.
Review of design drawings an'd integration with contract bid packages.
Contractor ' liaison during construction and evaluation / approval of contract extras arising during construction.
Preparation of project completion reports and tax exemption documents.
r 5
01671-30WRU98748-N1 08/17/86...
s t.
a s
RRW t'
Mr. Wrucke also conducted ' maintenance studies on existing chemical process-ing facilities to define a known problem; he developed and - implemented solutions..The responsibilities were similar to those of project engineer-ing except the projects were smaller in scope (under =$5M) and included those of a Process Designer when required. He coordinated a survey to define and quantify all solid wastes generated in the plant'for the initial phase of a waste reduction / disposal' study; coordinated the testing and evaluation of a.
solid waste incinerator; conducted a site screening study for a secondary wastewater treatment plant; and acted as company liaison for several waste disposal firms.
SAINT ANTHONY FALLS HYDRAUI.IC LABORATORY (1965 to 1967)
~
As RESEARCH ASSISTANT, Mr.
Wrucke conducted permeability studies on saturated porous media.
His responsibilities included apparatus design and the development of experimental techniques.
s TOLTZ KING, DUVALL,,' ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, ST.
PAUL, MINNESOTAL MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, ST.
PAUL, MINNESOTA:
FARIBAULT COUNTY
- COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, BLUE EARTH, MINNESOTA (1960 to 1965 summers)
Mr. Wrucke was responsible for a survey crew in conjunction with providing contract engineering services to the City.of Hastings, Minnesota, and design i
and survey work associated with State and. County: road construction projects.
s
.f f
1 I
i l
f l
/
l 4
'I a
.s,
(
)
l l
l 6
01671-30WRU98748-N1 08/12/86 k
7 t
l August 1986 FONSECA, CARLOS A.
PROJECT ENGINEER ENGINEERING MANAGEMEhT DEPARTMEhT EDUCATION Northeastern University '- Bachelor of Science, Chemical Engineering - 1971 Various Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Continuing Education Courses and Management Workshops I'[XPERIENCE
SUMMARY
[
Mr. Fonseca has more than 19 years of experience in the enginearing in-S dustry.. Currently as Project Engineer for the Comanche Peak Steam Elec-tric Station - Unit 2 Project, he is responsible for tne administration, coordination and overall management of the piping as-built verification analysis, and pipe support certification, production activities for the(
project.
In this capacity, he is responsible for the planning and sched-uling, as-well as budget development and control, of these activities.
He also provides appropriate technical and administrative direction to ensure that all project activities are completed in accordance with the project's technical and administrative procedures established to control the adequacy, correctness, and uniformity 1 of the Engineering effort.
i s
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in 1966, he has been assigned to a 790-MWe pressurized water reactor plant project as y'
Lead Piping Engineer and Assistant to the Lead Piping Engineer; an 840-MWe pressurized water reactor plant project as Principal Power Engi-neer, Assistant Manager of the Field Engineering Office, Assistant to the Project Engineer, and Principal Piping Engineer in the headquarters of-fice; and an 820-MWe boiling water reactor plant project as Assistant s
Project Engineer and Manager of the Site Engineering Office. He has also
,[
been assigned as th'e Ass;stant Manager of the Engineering Mechanics Divi-sion, Cherry Hill Opeimtions Center, responsible for the technical direc.
tion, administrati'on', and overall management of the Mechanical and Design Sections and the Division's Care'er Development Program, with collateral l
duties as the Division's Engineering Assurance Coordinator and the Divi-sion's Sponsor of all Division activities for three boiling water reactor plant projects.
Special assignments have included an assessment of pipe stress analysis and pipe support design methods procedures and capabili-i ti'es of two foreign engineering firms; development of standard designs l
and installation 1 procedures for Engineering Mechanics Division-related work; and resolution of problems affecting operating plants under con-struction, including appointment as Engineering hechar.ics Division Team Leader of an, intensive pipe support baseplate effort foi a 934-MWe pres-surized water reactor plant project.
He also served as the Engineering Group Leader for the INPO self-initiated evaluation of an 1150-MWe pres-surized water reactor plant project.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Mr. Fonseca was a participant in the Northeastern University Cooperative Educational
t CAF Program, where he served as the Assistant te both the Chemical Engineer and the Chemist at Felton & Son, Incorporated, MA, a fermentation and alcohol distillation plant.
i a
e t
4 y-w-
,e,-y
.-.,y..y.9g--,-,-r-
.--,n
...._-,---_.-------,--+-r--,-y=--me.
n---,,,,----.w.%,-
.,w
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD FONSECA, CARLOS A.
31499 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL, NJ (Nov 1980 - Present)
Appointments:
Project Engineer - June 1985 Assistant Manager - Nov 1980 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Unit 2. Texas Utilities Generating Company (June 1985 - Present)
As ' PROJECT ENGINEER, responsible for the overall direction and supervi-sion of the piping as-built verification analysis, and pipe support cer-tification, production activities for the Project.
In this capacity, responsible for the planning and scheduling, as well as budget devel-opsent and control, for these activities.
Also provides appropriate technical and administrative direction to ensure that all project activi,,
ties are completed in accordance with the project's technical and admi-nistrative procedures established to control the adequacy, correctness, and uniformity of the Engineering effort.
In addition, reviews and approves all technical and administrative procedures, as well as all technical position papers and/or reports, that establish the technical positions, design criteria, and administrative guidelines that govern the project's production activities.
As ASSISTANT MANAGER, responsible for the technical direction, adminis-tration, coordination, and overall management of the Mechanical and De-sign Sections.
Responsibilities include salary review, promotional review, and performance evaluation of assigned personnel; budget and es-timate review, including technical and administrative reviews of division in-progress work as determined by the Division Manager. Also responsible for the Division's recruiting activities of new college graduates and sponsorship of the Career Development-Program.
As a collateral duty, serves as the Quality Assurance Coordinator.
Seabrook Station - Units 1 and 2, Public Service Ccopany of New Hampshire (Oct 1982 - Dec 1982) l As ENGINEERING GROUP LEADER, assigned to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) team performing a self-evaluation of the project activi-ties.
The evaluation assessed the adequacy of the technical procedures and design implementation and compliance with applicable design specifi-cations, FSAR commitments, and regulatory requirements. Directly respon-sible for development of specific evaluation work plans, the schedule and work plan implementation, and the final review of results and report preparation.
CAF ICA Industrial Insenieria, S.A. de C.V. (ICA), Mexico (April 1981)
Responsible for assessment of capabilities for design of seismic Cate-gory I pipe supports, leading to a joint venture proposal (ICA and SWEC) to the Comision Federal de Electricidad for the Laguna Verde Nuclear Pow-er Station.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BOSTON, MA (Dec 1966 - Nov 1980)
Appointaents:
Assistant Proj ect Engineer and Head of the Site Engineering Office - Sept 1977 Staff Member - Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports Section - April 1976 Assistant to the Project Engineer - Aug 1974 Principal Piping Engineer - 1972 Assistant Head of the Field Extension.0ffice - Dec 1972
~
Principal Power Engineer - May 1972 Engineer - July 1971 Assistant to Lead Piping Engineer - Jan 1970 Engineering Aide - Dec 1966 Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Lona Island Lighting Company (Sept 1977 - Nov 1980)
As ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER (April 1980 - Nov 1980), responsible for maintaining Headquarters / Site Engineering Office liaison; planning and scheduling the engineering and design effort; and implementing engineer-ing assurance, administrative, and technical guidelines established to control the adequacy, correctness, and uniformity of the engineering effort.
As ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER and HEAD OF SITE ENGINEERING OFFICE (Sept 1977 - April 1980), directed and supervised the activities of all site assigned engineering and design personnel in support of the con-struction effort by providing timely and workable solutions to field-re-
' lated problems resulting from the installation, repair, modification, testing, and operation of piping, cable, mechanical and electrical equipment..
Directed activities and provided appropriate technical direction in sup-port of the construction effort involving the erection of buildings and structures; the intake canal; installation of circulating wate; and dis-charge piping; activities in support of the design of seismic and non-seismic platforms, miscellaneous steel and equipment foundations, and nonstandard seismic supports for cable trays, conduits, and instrurenta-tion; the design or redesign of 21/2-inch and larger diameter piping and HVAC duct supports, including piping stress analysis, pipe supports de-sign, and baseplate design and flexibility evaluations; and the routing analysis and installation of seismic and/or thermal instrument tubing and small-diameter piping.
Also directed welding procedures and special welding process qualifica-
- tions, resolution of nonconformances/ violations resulting from ASEM Section III-and ANSI B31.1 piping installations (welding,
- NDE,
CAF materials); review and approval of contractor's/ vendor's welding and NDE procedures and procedure qualifications; and erection and repair of the primary biological shfeld wall.
Also directed and supervised activities in support of the Client, SWEC, and the contractor's Quality Assurance Departasents in relation to the NRC Site Inspections; supported the. construction turnover and startup groups in the completion and preoperational testing of the systems for turnover to the permanent plant staff; and monitored contractor and construction efforts in the preparation of as-built piping and pipe supports drawings for verification with the as-analyzed piping and supports configurations.
As STAFF MEMBER of the Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports (PSAS) Section (April 1976 - Sept 1977), participated in the development of stadard design criteria and installation procedures of seismic instrument systems and small-diameter piping, the resolution of technical problems affecting operating plants and plants presently under construction, and the devel-opeent of administrative and technical guidelines to improve the effec-tiveness of section personnel and to streamline the work performed.
As responsible ENGINEER in the evaluation of SENER's Industrial and Nu j
clear Division PSAS Section, participated in discussions with the Cli-ent's engineering management, stress section supervisors, and stresi engineers at SENER's Bilbao, Spain, offices. Also visited the LEMONIZ l and* 2 Nuclear Station construction site. and had pertinent discussions i
with field personnel and SENER's Project Manager. Prepared and issued a report summarizing the results of these discussions and offered specific recommendations.
i i
North Anna Power Station - Units 1 and 2, Virginia Electric and Power Company (April 1977 - June 1977)
As ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION TEAM LEADER, established and directed i
the implementation of an intensive pipe support base plate design adequa-cy evaluation effort in response to NRC Bulletin 79-14, including devel-opsent and qualification of required modifications.
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit 1, Duquesne Light Company (May 1972 - April 197(,
As ASSISTANT TO THE PRCJECT ENGINEER (Aug 1974 - April 1976), acted on the Project Engineer's behalf on field-related problems involving ensi-neering cossnitments, field engineering and design effort, and manpower requirements to meet the schedule; support of the Field Extension Office
.and Advisory Operations in preparing for and during cold hydrostatic and hot functional testing; and coordination with Client, Construction Engi-neering, and Advisory Operations for the thermal growth and vibration testing programs of reactor coolant system and associated systems and-equipment; technical and administrative direction of headquarters and field engineering and design efforts on the as-built piping and pipe sup-ports versus applicable stress analysis verification program; and support of Client and Field Quality Control with NRC regulatory staff during field inspection.
l l
CAF 4
As PRINCIPAL POWER ENGINEER in the Field Extension Office (May 1972 -
July 1974) and as ASSISTANT HEAD of the Field Extension Office (Dec 1972 July 1974), responsible for providing project engineering retolution of problems identified by Field Construction Engineering, in-cluding proper categorization and disposition of engineering change docu-mentation and engineering interpretation of drawings and specification requirements; providing technical assistance to Field Construction Engi-neering for the installation and/or repair of station equipment, includ-ing erection specifications or field installation memorandums as appropriate; and preparing required addenda to specifications provided by Headquarters Engineering.
Also responsible for engineering temporary facilities or system support services, coordinating with the onsite West-inghouse representative on the installation and/or repair of Westing-house-supplied NSSS equipment, and supporting Client and Field Quality Control during NRC regulatory staff site inspection visits.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, Maine Yankee Power Corporation (Jan 1970 -
April 1972)
As LEAD PIPING ENGINEER (July 1971 - April 1972), responsible for writing and amending the piping and valve specifications.
Also responsible for the design, coordination, and procurement of all fabricated piping and.s, pipe supports as well as selection and procurement of valves, steam traps and strainers, and valve extension stems. Took active part in the analy-sis and resolution of construction problems such. as erection problems, interferences, and field change requests in design and engineering as requested by the Client and/or SWEC field personnel.
As ENGINEERING AIDE and a member of the Process and Safety Analysis Group (Dec 1966 - Jan 1970), participated in accident analysis calculations of two PWR and one BWR projects. Served as the coordinator of the workload forecast for the Nuclear Division. Also participated in the coordination and publication of the PSAR for one PWR and two BWR projects.
1 FELTON & SON, INCORPORATED, SOUTH BOSTON, MA (June 1962 - Dec 1966)
Appointments:
Assistant to the Chemical Engineer - June 1962 l
As ASSISTANT to the Chemical Engineer, participated in the Northeastern University Cooperative Educational Program, serving as the Assistant to both the Chemical Engineer and Chemist in charge of production and quali-ty control of a fermentation and distillation plant.
,,,m...,_w,_m,._,..,,.m.mm_y--
,..__,.-..my._m-..
o L
August 1986 KLAUSE, RONALD P.
ENGINEERING MANACER ENGINEERING GEhT.RAL DIVISION EDUCATION Northeastern University - Associate of Science, Structural Engineering -
Bachelor of Science, Industrial' Technology - 1972 Northeastern University
~ Management Development Program - 1986 LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Delaware and New Jersey EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Klause is Engineering Manager at Stone & Webster Engineering Corpora ',
tion, Cherry Hill Operations Center.
This operations center is involved with nuclear and fossil power and industrial projects and employs 1,500' people.
He is responsible for assigned engineering divisions and is management sponsor for assigned projects.
In addition, he is responsible for coordination of activities for business development for the Engineer-ing Department.
Recently, Mr. Klause was given a special assignment as the Project Manager for the Pipe Stress Reconciliation Project for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in 1969, he has been assigned as Assistant Engineering Manager, _ Division Manager of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Supervisor of the Pipe. Stress Analysis and Support Section, and Lead Stress Engineer for boiling water and pres-surized water reactor plants.
Special assignments have inc1'uded member-ship in the Mark II Containment Owners Committee, a working _ committee of all BWR Mark II owners and their supporting AEs to define the magnitude of the Mark II Suppression Pool hydrodynamics problem and to coordinate interutility communication with respect to the related technical and li-censing issues.
This experience included resolution of issues with the NRC technical review staff and making presentations to the ACRS on behalf of the utility applicants.
Additionally, he served as Project "anager for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem Units I and 2 Pro-jects to implement the requirements of IE Bulletins 79-02, 79-07, and 79-14.
In the 17 years Mr. Klause has been employed at Stone & Webster.
he has performed engineering tasks on 11 nuclear units ' including Surry 1 and 2,
James A. FitzPatrick, Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Beaver Valley P, Nine Mile 2, River Bend, Salem I and 2, and Comanche Peak 1 and 2.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Mr. Klause had experience in the design of highway and railroad bridges, commercial warehouses, chemical processes, and petrochemical plants.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Delaware Society of Professional Engineers - Member l
~ ~ -~~- ~ ~~
I stE a
performed a feasibility study of a high-speed tarbo train between Boston and New York involving new alignment versus asisting, and establishing cost estimates and time tables for each.
THE BADGER COMPANY, CAMBRIDGE, MA (Feb 1966 - Feb 1968)
As PIPE SUPPORT DESIGNER, responsible for the design of pipe supports and checking piping flexibility for several enjor oil and chemical companies, i
' STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, 30STON, MA (Jan 1965 - Feb 1966)
Appointments:
Draftsman As DRAFTSHAN, responsible for layout and design of pipe supports and checking piping flexibility for the Bombay Petrochemical Comples, Bombay, India, and for the Shell Oil Company, Norco, IA.
BOWARD, NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF. CONSULTING ENGINEERS BOSTON," MA (Nov 1963 - Jan 1965)
As DRAFTSMAN, responsible for detailing various parts of highway bridges and field inspection of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
i U.S. ARMY (Oct 1960 - Oct 1963)
RADIO OPERATOR - SECURITY INDUSTRIAL INSULATORS. INCORPORATED, BORGER, TX (1957 - 1960)
As SUMMER IMPLOTEE for three summers, was responsible for applying insu-lation to pipes and vessels on the following projects: Eigh Energy Rockr et Fuel Plant, Muskoogee, OE; Keyes Helium Plant, OK; Philblack Carbon Black Plant, Borger, TX; and Phillips Petroleum Plant, Phillips, TX.
e l
February 1986 FOSTER, DAVID C.
CHIEF ENGIhTER ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION EDUCATION University of Massachusetts - Doctor of Philosophy, Civil Engineering 1973 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Master of Science, Civil Engineering 1966 University of Mass.achusetts - Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering 1964 Various Stone & Webster Continuing Education Courses and Management Workshops LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Massachusetts EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Dr. Foster joined Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in March 1971 as an Engineer in the Structural Division and is now Chief Engineer in the Engineering Mechanics Division.
He has had extensive experience in directing all phases of engineering and design activities relating to the qualification of process and power plant piping systems.
In addition, he has directed and performed the analysis and design of nuclear power station Category I structures under static and dynamic loads.
~
4 He has been directly involved in the licensing aspects of nuclear power stations including:
PSAR and FSAR preparation; meeting with NRC personnel, participation in State, ACRS, and ACRL licensing hearings.
Prior to joining SWEC, Dr. Foster worked a~s a Consultant to the Standard Engineering Corporation, Albany, NY, advising them on safe traffic loads for a concrete arch bridge.
He has served as a Commissioned Officer at the U.S. Army Engineer's Water-ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
During this assignment, he designed and supervised the construction of test components for the static and dynamic testing of underground structures.
In addition to the above-activities, Dr.
Foster has conducted experimental and analytic stress analysis on a variety of shell structures under both static and dynamic loads.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers - Member PUBLICATIONS
- Litle, W. A.
and Foster, D. C.,
" Fabrication Techniques for Small Scale Steel Models," Technical Report R66-45, Dept. of C.E.,
M.I.T, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966.
e DCF
- Foster, D.
C.,
" Elastic Response of Shock-Isolated Cylinders Buried in a Dense Dry Sand," Technical Report N-69-6 USAEWES Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1969.
- Foster, D.
C.,
and Reeves, C.
F.,
" Earthquake Design of the Beaver Valley Power Station," Presented 'at the Spring Meeting of the Structure and Hydcau-lic Committee of the Pennsylvania Electric Association, May 1973.
- Foster, D.
C.,
Chakravorty, M.
K.,
and Wong, A. Y.
C.,
"Probabilistic Prediction of Floor Response Spectra," Presented at the Third Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June 1979.
- Foster, D.
C.,
Van Duyne, D.
A.,
Hankinson, R.
F.,
Budlong, L.
A.,
"A Systematic Approach to Snubber Reduction with Minimum Effect on Piping Systems," Presented at the, 1986 Joint ASME/ANS Nuclear Power Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 1986
.s, e
k
s 4
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD FOSTER, DAVID C.
31543 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BOSTON, MA (July 1971 to Present)
Appointments:
Chief Engineer, Engineering Mechanics Division - September 1985 Assistant Chief Engineer, Engineering Mechanics Division - Apr 1980 Supervisor, Engineering Mechanics Division - July 1977 Senior Structural Engineer, Structural Division - Jan 1975 Structural Engineer, Structural Division - Jan 1974 Engineer, Structural Division - July 1971 Headquarters Group, Engineerina Mechanics Division (July 1977 to Present)
As CHIEF ENGINEER (Sept 1985 to Present), responsible for the management of all technical and administrative work of approximately 400 engineers.and designers within the Engineering Mechanics Division (EMD). Responsible for establishing division design methods and criteria for pipe stress, pipe supports, fluid dynamics, pipe rupture, and mechanical equipment and sys-tems.
Responsible for. providing project-specific technical direction, as required, and the review and approval of the stress and support design criteria document for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Responsible for providing technical direction to Engineering Hechanics division at Operations Centers so that engineering and design activities will be uniform and reflect the same high quality of work and application of technology.
Responsible for ensuring that the Division's performance meets corporate goals, regulatory requirements, - client needs, and provides each client with a technically complete and finished product or service.
As ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER (Apr 1980-Sept 1985), responsible un'de r the Chief Engineer for all Division activities performed'on nuclear, fossil, and operating plant - projects to assure their technical quality and timely completion.
In September 1983, under special assignment, was given the responsibility to prepare and direct the design input /as-built reconciliation program for all ASME III piping and pipe sppports at the River Bend Nuclear Power Station.
This-involved the direction of power and engineering mechanics activities at three offices and the direction of small bore reconciliation at the site.
In August 1982, under special assignment, was given total responsibility for the completion of all Division activities on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This assignment entailed the technical and administrative supervi-sion of 600 people in four offices working to complete and file over 2,000 calculations in order to ' provide the final qualification for all ASME III piping systems, pipe supports, component supports, and pipe whip restreints.
In addition to overall supervision of the effort, he was resp 0asible for providing the technical direction necessary to resolve all outstanding technical issues regarding piping, pipe supports, equipment supports, and pipe whip restrai'nts.
DCF In April 1981, coordinated the efforts, of division personnel in the comple-tion of the process and steam piping for the Assawiya Oil Refiner's Ras Lanuf Complex in Arc, Libya.
i In June o f. 1981, prepared a report on the role _ and work practices of the Engineering Mechanics Division on nonnuclear projects. This report provided an overview of current and past work practices on fossil and process piping systems and contained both administrative and technical recommendations to increase production efficiency and product quality while decreasing engi-neering ccsts.
As SUPERVISOR (Projects) (July 1977-Apr 1980), responsible for coordinating all Division work on major nuclear projects to insure compatibility of budget, scope, and manloading with project schedules; the review and resolu-tion of technical problems; technical consistency between projects; and for making recommendations to the Chief Engineer for personnel assignments.
Sundesert Nuclear Power Station, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (Aug 1975-July 1977)
As LEAD ENGINEER, responsible for all Division work including the anal is and~ design of the containment internal structure, external structure, liner, and common mat; the earthquake analysis of seismic Category I structures; the stress analysis of all ASME piping; and the analysis and design of pipe rupture restraints for postulated pipe breaks. Also responsible for oudget-ing and scheduling the above activities to support commercial operation of the plant, licensing activities on assigned sections of the ESRR and PSAR, and for providing testimony as an expert witness at the State of California licensing hearings.
. Structural Mechanics Section, Structural Division (July 1971-Aug 1975)
Beaver Valley 2 Nuclear Power Station Project - Duquesne Light Company (Sept 1974-Sept 1975)
As SUPPORT / TASK ENGINEER, in responsible charge of the anaiysis and design of the containment internal structure.
Loading conditions included the effects of dead lo a d,' live load, earthquake, temperature, pipe rupture impact, jet impingement, and pressure.
Dynamic analysis was performed to determine time history effects of pipe rupture loads on the shear and bending capacities of structural elements and subsystems.
Stone & Webster Standard Plant (June-Sept 1974)
As SUPPORT / TASK ENGINEER, in responsible charge cf certain portions of the structural analysis, design, and conceptual aspects of the Stone & Webster Standard Plant, also responsible for answering NRC questions on SWESSAR concerning static and dynamic analysis of Category I structures.
Montague Nuclear Power Station, Northeast Utilities Service Company (Aug 1973-June 1974)
As SUPPORT / TASK ENGINEER, in responsible charge of the analysis and design of the reactor containment structure and the earthquake analysis of all
DCF seismic Category I structures, supervised and participated in the analysis and design of the external walls of Category I structures to include not only earthquake loading, but also airplane and tornado-borne missile impact.
Beaver Valley 2 Nuclear Power Station, Duquesne Light Company (Jan 1972-Aug 1973)
As SUPPORT / TASK ENGINEER, in responsible charge of analysis and design for the -containment structure and the earthquake analysis of all seismic Category I structures, prepared sections of and responded to NRC questions on the PSAR of Unit No. 2 and the FSAR of Unit No. 1.
Also, participated in the investigation on the effects of jet impingement forces on the walls of steam generator and main steam valve cubicles of Beaver Valley Unit No. 1.
Wisconsin Michigan Fower Company (July 1971-Jan 1972)
As SUPPORT / TASK ENGINEER, participated in dynamic analysis of a roof distil-late tank system to deterrrine earthquake acceleration response and design criteria to prevent system failure.
Millstone 3 Nuclear Power Station, Northeast Utilities Service
~
Company (July 1971-Jan 1972)
As SUPPORT / TASK ENGINEER, conducted preliminary analysis and design of mat, outside wall, and dome of the containment structure under pressure and earthquake loads.
STANDARD ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ALBANY, NEW YORK (June 1970-Aug 1970)
As CONSULTANT, conducted an analysis of an existing reinforced concrete arch bridge to determine safe traffic loads. A report was prepared and submitted summarizing the results of the analysis and providing recommendations for future use of the bridge.
U.S. ARMY ENGINEERS WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, VICKSBURG, MI l
(Nov 1966-Aug 1968)
As FIRST LIEUTENANT, designed and supervised the construction of high pressure containment vessels and their support equipment for use in small and large-scale model testing of underground structures subjected to high overpressure loads.
Also conducted experimental stress analysis to deter-mine. the response of buried shock-isolated cylinders to dynamic overpres-sures.
Served as Structural Consultant to the Chief, Protective Structures l
Branch.
Received the Army Commendation Medal at. time of discharge from l
active duty.
1 HAYDEN, HARDING AND BUCHANAN, BOSTON, MA (June-Nov 1966) l As ENGINEER, prepared design input for a bridge analysis computer program and selected beam sizes from output for a New Jersey Tttrnpike expansion project. Also performed highway design work which included determination of grades and cut and fill volumes.
August 1986 NIEH, LOUIS C. 3.
CONSULTING ENGINF.ER CONSULTING DIVISION EDUCATION National Chiao Tung University, Shanghai, China - Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering - 1949 North Carolina State University - Bachelor of Science, Textile Engineering -
1951 Columbia University - Master of Science, Mechanical Engineering - 1961 LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia l
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Nieh has 34 years of experience in mechanical and structural systems' design and analysis, including 18 years of experience in power engineer *
~
ing.
Currently, as Consulting Engineer, he is directly responsible for providing technical review and assistance for piping system a, tress analy-sis, structural dynamics, codes, standards, licensing, and computational procedures to the fossil and nuclear power projects within the Cherry Hill Operations Center (CHOC). He has been technical consultant perform-ing design review on piping and structural system stress analyses to Riv-er Bend Station - Unit 1, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2, and to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Projects. He also is a member of the corporate marketing team for the People's Republic of China, a member of the Management Task Force, and the CHOC representative to the Corpo-rate Committee of Codes and Standards.
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in 1971, he has been assigned as a Mechanical Engineer, Supervisor, Consultant, and Con-sulting Engineer, having been transferred to CHOC from the Boston Office in 1981.
Mr. Nieh's responsibilities also have included development of design criteria and. procedures for piping systems, pipe rupture analysis, pipe supports design, flow-induced transients, creep analysis, and ther-mal transient analysis., He was also responsible for the implementation of piping systes design " criteria on ongoing projects, including 788-MW PWR, 821-MW BWR, 940-MW PWR, 1150-MW PWR, 856-MW PWR, and 819-MW BWR plant projects.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Mr. Nieb was an Advisory Engineer with the United Nuclear Corporation, NY, where he de-veloped dynamic analysis methods for piping systects. He also had experi-ence with structural analysis, instrument engineering, and design in the aerospace industry.
2-
o LCN PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Working Group on Creep Analysis -
Member Pressure Vessel Research Council, Subconnaittee on Dynamic Analysis of Pressure Components - Member Atomic Industrial Forum, Subcommittee on Load Combinations - Member PUBLICATIONS Nine papers and reports on structural dynamics, seismic and flow tran-sient analysis for piping systems, and digital computational procedures PATENTS Co-inventor of automatic power-action restoring mechanism, 1960.
t 4
s P
8 9
i 4
e
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD NIEH, LOUIS C. S.
67698 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL, NJ (March 1981 - Pre STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BOSTON, MA (March 1971 - Feb 1981)
Appointments:
Consulting Engineer - March 1981 Consultant - May 1978 Superviscr - June 1973 Mechanical Engineer - March 1971 Enaineerina Department Staff (March 1981 - Present)
As CONSULTING ENGINEER, reports directly to the Engineering Manage.r of CHOC and is responsible for providing technical assistance for stress analysis, structural dynamics, codes, standards, licensing, and computa-tional procedures to various disciplines. Supports Marketing in advanced' technology, fossil, nuclear power, and industrial projects. Particpates in a Management Task Force dedicated to improving productivity in ensi-neering and design processes.
Participates in the corporate marketing team for China.
Served as Consultant to the Nuclear Engineering Depart-ment of Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), from May 1982 to Aug 1984 (averaged 2 days per week), and served as member of the LILC0 engineering surveillance team in 1985.
As LEVEL II TEST ENGINEER in the Shoreham Nuclear Power Ascension Test Program (June 1985 - Oct 1985), responsible for taking and evaluating data on various Category I/high energy piping systems during the power ascension testing. Visually inspected piping systems inside the drywell, reactor building, and turbine building for excessive vibration, defective i
support components and interference / binding. All identified probles areas j
were documented and corrected prior to completion of power ascension.
I i
Entineerina Mechanics Division Staff (May 1978 - Feb 1981) l As CONSULTANT, responsible for providing technical guidance and coordina-tion on matters related to ASME piping system codes; NRC regulatory re-quirements; and pipe. rupture, fluid trans,ient, and dynamic analyses.
Provided special services to the nuclear power projects, including Shoreham, North Anna 1 and 2, FitzPatrick, Beaver Valley 1 and 2, and Millstone 3 projects.
i I
Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Lona Island Liahtina Company (June 1976 - Sept 1981)
As CONSULTANT, was assigned to the Project Team supporting the Mark II Owners Group, and also served as CHAIRMAN of the Subcommittee on Design Criteria and Load Combinations for the Mark II Owners' Technical Steering Committee. This subcommittee was responsible for the generic load combi-nations and design criteria due to hydrodynamie loads for the Mark II
,, -. _ -...,. ~. - - -. _ -, - -... -
m.m.,m__,,.._vy
. _,, - - -.. - ~... - -. - - _ - ~, _. ~ ~ -..., - - _...., _,..
LCN plants that developed the acceptance of square-root-sum-squares rule and the functional capability criteria.
Power Division Staff (March 1971 - April 1978) 1 As MECHANICAL ENGINEER and then SUPERVISOR of the Piping Components Anal-ysis Group, responsible for development of design criteria and procedures j
for piping components in nuclear power plants, prevention of pipe rupture in nuclear plants, pipe support design methods and criteria, flow-induced l
transients and dynamic analyses, creep and inelastic analysis of high-i temperature piping, shell and finite element analyses, thermal transients i
and jet impingement analysis,. preoperational vibration testing of piping l
systess, and safety analysis reports. Performed and technically responsi-l ble for the piping analyses of these disciplines for the ongoing pro-jects, including the Maine Yankee, Surry 1 and 2, FitzPatrick, North Anna l
1 and 2, and the high temperature gas-cooled reactor plant projects.
l UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ELMSFORD, NY (May 1968 - March 1971) l As ADVISORY ENGINEER, developed dynamic analysis methods related to LMFBR.,
l piping systems, an interpretive report for USAEC on seismic design meth
- ods, structural design guide for pressurized water reactor / boiling wa-ter r setor fuel element and fuel assemblies, an in pile gas flux and temper.ture-dependent creep law for Zircaloy, and a study of failure the-ories related to UfFBR piping systems.
AVC0 MISSILE SYSTEMS DIVISION, WILMINGTON, MA (April 1965 - May 1968)
As STAFF ENGINEER, performed thermal and dynamic structural response analysis for complex, multilayered, orthotropic reentry vehicle struc-tures.
Developed digital computer programs using finite element ideal-ization and matrix structural methods to solve linear and nonlinear -
dynamic responses for reentry vehicles.
Performed shock and vibration analysis of reentry vehicles and subsystem ground support equipment systems.
SIMMONDS PRECISION PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, TARRYTOWN, NY, AND VERGENNES, VT (Sept 1963 - March 1965)
As SENIOR ENGINEER (Sept 1963 - April 1964), perfor:ed structural design, analysis, and testing of the electromechanical system of the Apollo space-craft's propellant utilization gauging system.
As RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENGINEER (April 1964 - March 1965),
participated in the development of measurement systems for turboprop and industrial engines.
PERKIN-ELMER CORPORATION, ELECTRO-OPTICAL DIVISION, NORWALK, CT (March 1961 -
Aug 1963)
As ANALYSIS ENGINEER, worked on highly precise space and airborne scien-tific instruments and meteorological equipment.
Performed stress analys-es, thermoelastic deformation analyses, and heat studies.
~
LCN REMINGTON-RAND CORPORATION, ADVANCED RESEARCH DIVISION, NORWAI.K, CT (March 1959 - Aug 1961)
~
As -DESIGN ENGINEER, worked on the design of calculating machines and electric typewriters and ' performed dynamic and kinematic analysis of power-action plates and related mechanisms.
Developed an automatic power-action restoring mechanism which is patented.
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATED, INDUSTRIAL INSTRUMENTATION DIVISION, HOUSTON, TX (July 1956 - March 1959)
As MECHANICAL ENGINEER, designed instruments for geophysical exploration and automatic and remote-controlled instruments for oil refineries.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, GAS TURBINE LABORATORY, CAMBRIDGE, MA (Sept 1955 - May 1956)
As RESEARCH ASSISTANT, worked on a USAF project, performing experimental stress analysis of parachute fibers.
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED, AGAWAM, MA (Sept 1951 - Aug 1955)
As DESIGNER, designed an M-1 rifle barrel straightening and testing ma-chine for the Springfield Armory and codesigned a rocket-crimping machine for the Package Machinery Company.
Performed stress analysis and data computations and interpretations.
e
__...-..-n
-__,,r.
r August 195o VAN DCYNE. DANIEL A.
ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER ENGINEERING !ECHANICS DIV:SION EDUCATION Pennsylvania State University - Bachelor of Science. Agricultural Engineer-ing 1936 Pennsylvania State University - Master of Science, Agricultural Engineering with minor in Engineering Mechanics 1961 Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration Master of Business Administration 19o9 Various Stone &
Webster Continuing Education Courses and Management Workshops LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Massachusetts EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Van Duyne has 25 years experience in the engineering industry with 17 years.related to nuclear pressure vessels and piping. Currently, as Assis-tant Chief Engineer in the Engineering Mechanics Division, he is responsible for the overall management of the Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports Section, selected special studies, technical development and overall supervision of the fluid dynamics work in the division and development of technical positions for the Division.
Upon joining SWEC in February 1980, Mr. Van Duyne was initially assigned responsibility for monitoring, directing and supervising the fluid dynamics work of the Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports Staff G'roup and for the development.of improved techniques for the analysis of waterhammer, check valve closure and safety / relief valve discharge transients.
In December 1981, he was assigned to head the Division's Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports Section and became responsible for all facets of the section's work.
He assumed his present responsibilities in March 1984, while continu-ing work on special projects such as pipe cla p anchor development and snubber removal programs.
Prior to joining SWEC, Mr. Van Duyne was a Section and Project Manager at i
Teledyne Engineering Services, a consulting engineering firm specializing in services to the power generation industry. His Tcledyne experience included i
responsibility for the design and analysis of nuclear power plant compo-nents, including several FFTF vessels for storing liquid sodium and main j
steam relief valve enclosure assemblies; the review of designs and analyses for piping restraints, supports. and anchors; materials - evaluation ' and failure analysis; ASME Code Section III Stress Reports for nuclear Class 1 piping systems and pressure vessels; and thermal / hydraulic load detarmina-tion for power plant piping components.
4 l
l Prior to his Teledyne service, Mr. Van Duyne was employed by Deere & Company j
as Stress Engineer in charge of the Applied Mechanics Section at the John k
DAV Deere Dubuque Tractor Works.
At Deere, he conducted field and labentery stress analysis, instrumentation and transducer selection, and fat:gue lic",
evaluation-s for structural and power-train compcnents.
From 1956 to 19e0, Mr. Van Duyne was a U.S. Naval Aviator and an Assistant Supply Officer in Patrol Squadron 3.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society for Experimental Stress Analysis - Member Past Chairman of the New England Section of SESe Tau Beta Pi; Sigma Ni; Omicron Delta Kappa PUBLICATIONS "A Systematic Approach to Snubber Reduction with Minimum Effects on Piping Systems," presented at the 1986 Joint ASME/ANS Nuclear Power Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 1986.
Coauthor of Welding Research Council Bulletin 316, " Technical Positierr. on Piping Installation Tolerances." July 1986.
" Column Separation and Rojoining Field Study," presented at the AS:1E 198S Winter Annual Meeting in Miami Beach, riorida; November 1985.
Coauthor of Welding Research Bulletin 300, " Technical Position on Industry Practice " December 1984.
" Hydraulic Transient Analysis for Cooling Water Systems in Operating Power Plants," Joint Power Generation Ccnference, To ront;o, Canada, October 1934 i
" Transient Analysis of Water Slug Discharge in PWR Safety / Relief Valve Piping," ASME Winter Annual Meeting, November 15-20, 1981, Washington, D.C.
Van Duyne, D. A., Hsieh, J.S., S&W computer program WATSLUG (used for calve discharge transients when water slugs are present) March 1981.
" Evaluation of Class 1 Nuclear Piping to N9-3603, Including NB-3200 for Thermal Stresses," Pressure ' Vessels and Piping:
Analysis and Corouters, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1974.
"Let's Design Gears Using Measured Torque Histeries," Deere and Cempany Paper, 1967,
" Train your Product Engineers in Stress Analysis Techniques," Scciety for Experimental Stress Analysis, 1966 Spring Meeting.
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD VAN DCYNE, DANIEL A.
93171 STONE & VEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPCRATION, BOSTON, MA (Feb 1980 to Present)
Appointments:
Assistant Chief Engineer. Engineering Mechanics Division - Mar 1984 Section Manage. Engineering ?!cchanics Division - Oct 1982 Section Head, Engineering Mechanics Division - Dec 1981 Supervisor Engineering Mechanics Division - Apr 1980 Senior Mechanical Engineer,- Engineering Mechanics Division - Feb 1980 Headcuarters Group, Engineering Mechanics Division (Mar 1984 to Present)
As ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER, responsible for assisting the Chief Engineer in the management of the technical work of the Division, development of techni-cal positions particularly as related to pipe stress analysis and. pipe support issues, selected special studies, and acting on his behalf..' as directed. Additionally, for the past year he has been directly supervising the fluid transient analysis scope of work for the Comanchee Peak Steam Electric Station.
Pipe Stress Analysis and Supeorts Staf f Groue, Engineering Mechanics Division (Feb 1980 to Mar 1964)
As SECTION MANAGER /SECTION HEAD of the Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports Section (Dec 1981-Mar 19SA). responsible for estialishing the procedures and i
standards for, and assuring the technical quality of, pipe stress analysis, fluid dynamics, and pipe support design work b/ Division engineering and design personnel, and for the selection, assignment, and training of such personnel.
As SUPERVISOR (Fluid Dynamics) (Apr 1980-Dec 1981), responsible for assuring that all technical guidelines, standards, and procedures relating to the fluid dynamic elements of pipe strers analysis and pipe supports design were optimited and maintained current; coordinated the training of the Division's engineering and design personnel in the use of su:h guidelines, procedures, and standards; monitored the use by the Divisica's engineering and design personnel cf such guidelines, procedures, and standards to assure the technical quality of work completed; directed nd supervised the fluid dynamics work of Staff Group members; and perferre ! such additional duties as were assigned by the Section Head or higher autnority.
As SUPPORT ENGINEER (Teb-Apr 1980), participated in the review and optimiza-tion of guidelines, standards, and procedures relating to the fluid dynamic elements of pipe stress analysis and pipe supports design.
TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES, WALTHAM. MA (June 1968-Feb 1980)
As PROJECT MANAGER for system transient identification and piping analysis for two nuclear power _ plants, directed a $3 million effort; as Project Manager for eight FFTF liquid sodium storage vessels up to 38 ft long by
DAV 12 ft in diameter and other projects. exercised responsibility fo r qu3!. :.,.
assurance, client ccmmunication. design, analysis, and materials testing.
Technical work involved use of finite element computer codes for heat transfer and structural analysis. fluid analysis concepts and procedures for relief valve discharge loads. check valve slamming, bulk fluid mixing in large vessels using jets and buoyant plumes, and thermal tests of flew characteristics in branch piping.
Specific tasks have included:
- design, stress analysis and evaluation of pressure vessels, noczles, bolted clo-sures, piping systems, component supports, and base plates.
Ccepletely designed and analyzed a main steam relief valve enclosure assembly which used a unique parallel gasket package to implement, simultaneously, a double seal.
All manufacturing detail and assembly drawings were provided, and six units were f abricated and installed in an operating nuclear plant.
Super-vised and conducted laboratory tests for material properties such as stress-strain, fatigue life at various temperatures and fracture toughness; designed transducers for load, strain, and deflection measurements.
As SECTION !!ANAGER, actively participated in company management meet ings and programs by contributing to financial forecasts, long-range planning, organizational changes, and by recommendations for promotions; directed marketing activities for more than 80 specific requests for quotation, including financial estimates, technical work scope definition, project
- staffing, and writing the finished proposal; follow-up client contact extended through prcposal phase and often as Project Manager when successful.
DEERE AND CO'fPANY. '!0 LINT. IL. AND DUB 00CE. IA (Sept 1,961-Aug 1967)
As STRESS ENGINEER in charge of the Applied 'techanics Section, cc:cp late ly organized, staffed, and executed major laboratory and field structural test programs for new ai;ricultural and industrial equipment. Worked closely with design and development, engineers for the purpose of implementing proposed changes to prototype or production items that would improve structural adequacy
- r. d fatigue life.
Intrumentation duties included selection of transducers, recording equipment, stresscoat, and strain gages, and contact with vendors supplying related equipment; helped design and procure a large field instrumentation van ccmplete with multiple oscillographs, magnetic tape recorder, and calibration equipment; redesigned, with project team, front cross member for two new industrial crawler tractors, using for the first time a cast material which replaced many p 2rts and produced signifi-cant cost savings; and presented papers at company and professional society meetings, and taught many stress analysis seminars for engineers.
L_
August 1986 WANG WARREN Y. L.
ASSISTANT DIVISION MANAGER ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION EDUCATION National Taiwan University - Bachelor of
- Science, Civil Engineering - 1963 University of Western 0.:tario - Master of
- Science, Civil Engineering - 1971 University of Michigan - Ph.D., Civil Engineering - 1975 LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - New York EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Dr. Wang has 16 years of experience in the engineering industry.
Cur-rently, as Assistant Division Manager in the Engineering Mechanics Divi-sion, he is anisting Division Manager in overril Division Administrative and Technical matters, interface with other Divisions and Operations Cen-ters, as well as licensing activities.
Prior to his cur:ent assignment, Dr. Wang was the Fe; tion Managet fo-the pipe stress sr.ction until April 19%. ' He was responsible 'o-the crite-ria development of technical issues related to pipe strese activities, and administrative matters such r;: Salary and Promotional review, budg-et and esttnai.e review, etc.
Prior to his appointment as Section Manager for pipe stress section, Dr. Wang was the Assistant Section Manager for Mechanical Section from December 1979 to Februa n 1985. He was responsible for technical activi-tie: related to pipe rrpture, spent fuel rack, fuel pool liners, and equipment supports.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SUEC), Dr. Wang Senior Engineer in the Engineering Mechanics Section of General was a Public Utilities Service Corporation, NJ.
Before that, he was an Engi-neer in the Engineering Mechanics Division of SWEC's New York Office and was appointed Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer and Engineering Mechan-ics Engineer, respectively, on two nuclear plant projects.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, he was a visiting Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering Department of the Polytechnic Institute of New York.
He also has worked for the McDonnel Douglas Automation Company as Associ-ste Consultant Engineer.
Dr. Wang has direct involvement in the following nuclear power plants:
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD WANG, WARREN Y. L.
94349 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL, NJ (Dec 1979 -
Present)
Appointments:
Section Manager - Feb 1985 Assistant Section Manager - Dec 1979 M,echanical Section, Enmineerina Mechanics Division As ASSISTANT SECTION MANAGER, responsible for activities in the areas of pipe rupture, equipment qualification, fuel pool liners, equipment sup-ports, and vessels and tanks.
Supported activities in these areas for three in-house nuclear projects. Also contributed to the formation.of a generic valve program to qualify the motor-operated valves for hydrody-namic loads.
The projects worked on include Niagara Mohawk Power Corpo,
ration's Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Gulf States Utilities Compacy's.
River Bend Station - Unit 1, and Detroit Edison Company's Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant.
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE CORPORATION, PARSIPPANY, NJ (April 1979 -
Dec 1979)
As ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER, SENIOR I, responsible for stress assi-ysis and field support for both the nuclear and the fossil plants in the areas that are related to engineering mechanics.
Gilbert Station (April 1979 - Dec 1979) 3 As ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER, simulated the thermal buckling phenom-enon of heat exchangers and identified the problem and repairs required for the station.
Three Mile Island Station (April 1979 - Dec 1979)
As ENGINEERING KECHANICS ENGINEER, investigated the cause, analyzed the stresses, and prepared a restoration procedure for a damaged BVST, which was restored successfully to its original design and was capable of oper-ating at the original design condition.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATIOF, NEW YORK, VY (June 1976 - March 1979)
Appointments:
Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer - Nov 1976 Task Engineer - June 1976
.J -
a gy Greene County' Nuclear Power Plant, Power Authority of the State of New York (June 1977 - March 1979)
As LEAD ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER, responsible for all the engiceer-ing mechanics activities of the project including the final approval and release of the analysis and design of the containment structure; seismic analysis of all the Category I structures; equipment pipe stress analy-sis, pipe rupture and restraint analysis and design, and break postula-tion; major component support design, procurement specification, and bid evaluation; communication with NRC and Client; interaction with other disciplines, manpower estimation, budget control, and planning and scheduling.
Santillan Nuclear Power Plant, Electra de Viesso, Spain (Nov 1976 - May 1977)
As ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER, responsible for the engineering me-chanics activities of the project. These included analysis and design of the containment structure and seismic analysis of all the Category I l
structures and equipment. Responsibility also included procurement spec-ifications, PSAR efforts, manpower estimation and control, and interdis,-
ciplinary coordination.
i Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, Power Authority of the State of New York (June 1976 - Oct 1976)
As TASK ENGINEER, responsibie for piping penetration analysis in the con-tainment building.
Activit.',es included establishing design criteria, i
derining analytical procedures, preparing mathematical models, performing
[
stress analysis, and checking stress in accordance with ASME code requirements.
POLYTECHNIC INSTITtTTE OF NEW YORK, BROOKLYN, NY (March 1975 - May 1976)
~
l As VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, responsible for a research project on the seismic design of buildings for critical excitations and graduate courses in the areas of structural stability and structural dynamics.
Also served as a memb sr of a doctoral guidance committee.
MODONNEL D0t?GLAS'AUTOLATION COMPANY, NEW YORK, NY (Aug 1975 - May 1976)
As ASSOCIATE CONSULTANT ENGINEER, provided consultation and guidsace to users of various computer programs for their imple.nentation, coding, and interpretation.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI (Sept 1971 - June 1975)
As RZSEARCH ASSOCIATE, performed research work on structural responses i
due to earthquake motion. Developed failure criteria for structures sub-jected to seismic disturbances by using both the phase plane method and the dynamic stability theory.
Also developed a condensation method to find equivalent impulses corresponding to given earthquake motions.
s
-e v.
~---,-.--..
-.,,,.,,-w~.-
,m--
,-w_
..4,-.,,-,,,.me,-~.,,---,-,--~.,-,-,,--..w-
.e -
UNIVERSITY OF VESTERN ONTARIO, LONDON, ONTARIO, CANADA une 1971)
As RESEARCH ASSISTANT, due to impulsive loads atdesigned and performed experiments on structures their free end.
compared with theoretical predictions derived from lastic bi theories.
4 9
e 0
4B April 1986 EVANS, ELWYN III PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEER ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION EDUCATION Tuf ts University - Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering - 1976 University of Delaware - Master of Science, Civil Engineering - 1980 EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Evans has more than 7 years of experience in the engineering industry.
Currently, as Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer, he is supervisor of a pipe stress and supports group responsible for the development of the pro-ject design criteria for Texas Utilities Generating Company's Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 2.
In addition, he holds the title of Assistant Pipe Support Section Manag'er.
The Pipe Support Section is comprised of 260 pipe support engineers assigned to various projects at the Cherry Hill Operations Center.
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in 1979, he has been assigned to the Gulf States Utilities River Bend Station as an Engineer and later assigned to Public Service Electric & Cas Company's Salem Nuclear Generating Station as Principal Pipe Support Engineer.
Subsequently, he returned to the River Bend Project as Principal Engineer for pipe support design and contract administration.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Mr. Evans worked for Dr. Robert Dean, Coastal Engineering Consultant, DE.
where he was re-sponsible for correlation of hydrographic and sedimentation field data to analytical models using computer methods.
He also has had experience in the design of underwater pipeline and pipelaying equipment.
LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Delaware and Louisiana
DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD EVANS, ELWYN III 28885 STONE & WE1? STER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL, NJ (Dec 1979 - Present)
Appointments:
Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer - Aug 1985 Principal Pipe Support Engineer - Nov 1983 Pipe Support Engineer - May 1983 Engineer - Dec 1979 Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Unit 1, Texas Utilities Generating Company (Aug 1985 - Present)
As LEAD ENGINEER, responsible for a portion of the pipe stress and support qualification effort.
Also responsible for generation of the project design criteria and resolution of some generic technical issues,.
River Bend Station - Unit 1, Gulf States Utilities Company (March 1984 - AUg 1985)
As PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, responsible for the supervision of a pipe support design and contracts administration group. Also responsible for interof-fice coordination of the as-built pipe stress and pipe support effort.
Salem Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1 and 2, Public Service Electric
& Gas Company (July 1983 - March 1984)
As ENGINEER and later PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, responsible for the supervision of 15 engineers assigned to pipe support design verification.
Engineerina Mechanics Division Staff (July 1982 - June 1983).
As ENGINEER assigned to the Pipe Supports Group, responsible for writing the software for automatic generation of a calculation package.
River Bend Station - Unit 1, Gulf States Utilities Company (Dec 1979 - July 1982)
As ENGINEER, responsible for the supervision of the design effort of up to four engineers. Also developed a pipe support design computer program to be used for either the ASME Code or AISC Code.
DR. ROBERT DEAN, COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, NEWARK, DE (May 1979 - Aug 1979)
Appointments:
Assistant - May 1979 As ASSISTANT, responsible for correlation of hydrographic and sedimen;a-tion field data to analytical models using computer methods.
l i
w EE BROWN & ROOT, HOUSTON, TX (Sept 1977 - Aug 1978)
Appointments:
Assistant Engineer - Sept 1977 As ASSISTANT ENGINEER, designed underwater pipeline and pipelaying equip-ment for offshore installation, which entailed buoyancy, stability, and stress considerations; computer programming; and drafting of construction and material specifications.
Also worked on a computer program for the simulation of typical offshore construction to determine the duration and cost of such construction.
b h
e e
F l
t I
l l
m i
August 1986 OGDEN, FREDERICK L.
SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION EDUCATION i
Drexel University - Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering - 1973 University of Pennsylvania - Master of
- Science, Civil and Urban Engineering - 1976 LICENSES AND REGI'STRATIONS Professional Engineer - Pennsylvania EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Ogden has over 13 years of experience in the analysis and design'of nuclear power plant structures and components. Currently, as Senior Me-chanical Engineer and Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer, he is respon-sible for the resolution of generic technical issues and preparation of 4
applicable sections of the pipe stress and support design criteria for Texas Utilities Generating Company's Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Units 1 and 2.
Previously he was assigned and continues to function 'as the principal Engineering Mechanics Engineer on General Public Utilities Nuclear Cor-i poration's Oyster Creek Nuclear Cenerating Station, a 670-W BWR.
In this capacity he is responsible for the preparation of design specifica-tion and the pipe stress analysis and support design and equipment quali-i fication for the Expanded Safety Systems Facility which houses auxiliary diesel generators and safety-related equipment.
He is also responsible for the mechanical aspects of the design and/or modifications, specifica-tion preparation and procurement for control room instrumentation panels and cabinets.
i He also served as the Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer on Detroit Edison Company's Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2, an 1100-MW Mark 1 BWR plant.
In this capacity he was responsible for SWEC's field and headquarters activities related to the pipe stress analysis and pipe support design on ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 and ANSI B31.1 piping systems.
Additionally, he was responsible for the design of mechanical equipment and their supports and the review of seismic qualification reports for mechanical and electrical equipment.
I He has served as the Mark II Coordinator on Niagara Mohawk Power Corpora-tion's Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2, a 1080-MW plant.
In this capacity he was responsible for the development and assessment of i
thermal-hydraulic vibratory load definitions associated with steam con-densation in the suppression pool of Mark II BWR plants.
i l
O FLO As an Engineer, he was responsible for ~ performing static and dynamic analysis of concrete and steel structures and structural components and the design calculations and drawing review of the same on the Nine Mile Point - Unit 2 Project.
As a Structural Engineer, he performed static and dynamic analysis, both linear and nonlinear, of structures and structural components including soil-structure systems on the Washington Public Power Supply System Units 1 and 4, both 1260-W PWRs. He also performed static and dynamic analysis of structures on Public Service Company of New Hampshire's Seabrook Station, an 1150-MW PWR Project.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers - Member Drexel University Evening College - Department of Civil Engineering - Ad-junct Faculty Member 9
I
(
l e
l
J DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD OGDEN, FREDERICK L.
69565 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL,-NJ (March 1976 - Present)
Appointments:
Lead Engineer - August 1985 Principal Engineer - Sept 1984 Lead Engineer - Jan 1981 Engineer - March 1976 4
Comanche Peak-Steam Electric Station - Units 1 and 2, Texas Utilities Generatina Company (Aug 1985 - Present) l As LEAD ENGINEERING ~ MECHANICS ENGINEER, responsible for resolution of j
generic Technical Issues (technical concerns generated by sources exter-4 nal to the project); the preparation of applicable sections of the'pipp stress and support design criteria, the development of design aids to' 4
facilitate the production effort, and training project personnel in the".
generic Technical Issues.
Duties also include the resolution of NRC and third party comments, and technical support to project licensing proc-l eedings.
f Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatina Station - General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (Sept 1984 - Present)
I j
As PRINCIPAL ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER, responsible for ' the plan-ning, scheduling, implementation, and technical adequacy of the engineer-ing and design effort for the Engineering -Mechanics Division (END) support of the Expanded Safety Systems Facility. Duties include prepar-ing and/or reviewing the designs and qualification calculations for i
piping systems and their supports, NVAC duct systems and their supports, I
equipment supports, the review *of seismic qualification document packages for mechanical and electrical equipment, and the design / modification of control room panels and cabinets.
In addition, prepared and/or reviewed specification in the following categories: design, fabrication, and erection of ' piping supports; design, fabrication and erection of HVAC duct systems and their supports; procurement specifications for mechani-cal / seismic design and qualification of control room panels, cabinets, and mechagical and electrical equipment and its supports.
Also assisted the Project Power Division staff by performing the follow-ing tasks:
served as system engineer on the yard fire protection system and prepared the piping engineering and design specification and its re-vision to include shop fabrication of piping and field fabrication and erection of piping.
FLO i
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2, Detroit Edison Company (Jan 1981 -
Dec 1984)
As LEAD ENGINEER, responsible for the planning, scheduling, implementa-l tion and technical adequacy of the engineering and design effort for the Engineering Mechanics Division support of the project.
The technical areas of responsibility involved pipe stress analysis and pipe support design on ASME III Class 1, 2, and 3 and ANSI B31.1 piping systems. Pipe supports were designed to the requirements of the AISC code and ASME III, subsection NF.
The technical scope also included the design of mechani-4 cal equipment and their supports and the review of seismic qualification reports for mechanical and electrical equipment.
Administrative responsibilities included continued interface with the Client to define new program scope, track existing progras progress, i
assess budget impact, support NRC licensing commitments and questions.
Responsible for the simultaneous coordination of a site engineering office and two offsite engineering offices with a total force numbering up to 130 persons. Also responsible for developing a special program for the engineering evaluation of pipe supports and presented the result af the same to the NRC.
The approach also was used successfully at the'.
l Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Unit 2 in Hanford, WA.,
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2, Nianara Mohawk Power Corporation (March 1976 - Dec 1980)
As MARK II COORDINATOR (Jan 1979 - Dec 1980), responsible for the devel-opeent and assessment of thermel-hydraulic vibratory load definitions associated with steam condensation in the suppression pool of Mark II BWR plants.
Duties included coordinating and directing in-house activities; l
advising Client on technical, financial, and licensing satters; advising project personnel; and directing the EMD/ Safeguards staff in developing methods and assessing the impact of new loads, assumptions, etc; and co-ordinating activities of subcommittee members.
As ENGINEER, responsible for performing analysis and design of the reac-I tor building, a reinforced concrete cylindrical structure, including I
drawing review; prepared design sketches for precast beams beneath the I
drywell floor and checked the analysis and design of the biological shield wall, a cylindrical structure filled with high-density concrete.
Also represented Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) at Mark II Own-ers Group meetings and other program meetings, authorized the expenditure of progree funds, and interfaced with NMPC management, as well as the management of General Electric Company and participating Mark II utilities.
l UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS INCORPORATED, PHILADELPHIA, PA (June 1973 -
1 March 1976) e As STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, responsible for performing static and dynamic analyses of structures and structural components on Washington Public Power Supply system and Public Service Company of New Hampshire nuclear
FLO power plant facilities.
Both finite element analyses and manual calcula-tions were prepared.
Typical analyses included static and seismic ana-lyses of linear elastic structures and components; seismic soil-structure-interaction analysis of the site, in which the soil was modeled as having both strain-dependent shear moduli and damping proper-ties; ~ elasto-plastic analysis of rigid missiles impacting flexible tar-gets; and plastic analysis of bottled mill foundation.
4 0
4+
I b
e i
4 J
e i
'l W
August 1986 CHOW, SHIH-CHI SHELDON DIVISION MANAGER ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION EDUCATION Chungyuan Christian College of Science and Engineering - Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering - 1963 Tennessee Technological University - Master of Science Engineertug Mecha-nics - 1966 University of California, Berkeley - Ph.D. in Mechanica1' Engineering -
1971 Golden Gate College, San Francisco - Graduate Study in Business Adminis-tration - 1972 EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Dr. Chow has 18 years of experience in the engineering industry. Currently, as Manager of the Engineering Mechanics Division, he is responsible for' the Pipe Stress, Mechanical, and Pipe Support Groups for the Cherry Hill Opera-tions Center (CHOC).
In addition, he reviews and monitors the progress and budget for several nuclear and fossil plants in the area of engineering nachanics.
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in 1972, he has been assigned to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Project as an Assistant Proj ect Engineer and to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant as a Lead Engineer-ing Mechanics Engineer.
- Also, he was assigned as a responsible Pipe Stress Engineer and later as the Section Lead Engineer in the Power Division on all BWR projects.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Dr. Chow was a Senior Engineer at Engineering Data Systems.
Incorporated, CA (now EDS Nuclear, Incorporated). He had extensive experience in ASME Section III and B31.1 pipe analyses as well as rupture and jet impingement analyses. He was involved with more than 10 nuclear projects of various types, including PWR, BWR, and LMFBR (Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor).
In addition, he had ex-perience in building construction and design, cemputer applications, en-vironmental studies, research and development, and :eaching.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Mechanical Engineers - Member
g July 1986 CHU, KING-YUEN MANAGER ENGINEERING MECHANICS DIVISION EDUCATION Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany Doctor of Engineering 1965 Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany - Diplom Ingenieure 1963 Chu Hai College, Hong Kong - B.S. in Civil Engineering 1959 LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - New York, New Jersey, Texas.
EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
year $,: of Dr. Chu is a. Structural and Mechanical Engineer with over 20 practical experience, primarily in the engineering and design of powe'r, process, and industrial plants.
He has been involved in the followi.ng nuclear power plant projects in the areas of piping stress analysis and pipe support design and qualification:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Texas Utilities Generating Company.
V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Zion Nuclear Station, Commonwealth Edison Company.
J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, New York Power Authority Surry Units 1 & 2, Virginia Electric and Power Company.
Salen Generation Station, Units 1 & 2, Public Service Electric & Gas Company.
Beaver Valley Unit 2, Duquesne Light Co.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Long Island Lighting Company As Manager -
Engineering Mechanics Division, Dr. Chu is responsible for planning, ' organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling three sections:
Mechanical, Pipe Stress Analysis and Supports, and Pressure Vessels and Tanks.
He is responsible for establishing design criteria for and determining the structural adequac/ of piping systems, mechanical equipment and systems, and pressure vessels and tanks.
In addition to the above responsibilities, Dr. Chu is the Assistant Project Manager for the Comanche Peak piping system qualitication/requalification effort. He was the Project Engineer responsible for the independent seismic design verification for another nuclear power station.
He also functioned as the Project Manager for the piping stress and supports analysis in accordance with USNRC I&E Bulletin 79-14 for a two-unit nuclear plant.
Dr. Chu has performed investigatory analysis on process reactors, heat exchangers, turbine casing, and other equipment for the purpose of evaluat-ing and improving their structural integrity.
n
s Prior to the above, Dr. Chu served in the positions of Division Licensing Representative, Computer Applications Coordinator, Supervisor, and Assistant Chief Engineer of the Engineering Mechanics Division.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster, Dr. Chu was associated with other major engineering and construction companies in capacities of increasing res-ponsibility.
His substantial experience includes design of containment structures, seismic
- analysis, NSSS
- review, equipment support design, equipment seismic qualification, missile impact
- study, pipe rupture
- analysis, dynamic response of piping systems, and other engineering mechanics problems.
Dr. Chu has also had several years of experience as a Structural Engineer in bridge design and in commercial building design.
He was also engaged in research projects in the areas of buckling phenomena, orthotropic plates, and steel structure technology.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Mechanical Engineers - Member American Society of Civil Engineers - Member American Concrete Institute - Former Member of ACI 349 Committee PUBLICATIONS "Prestress System for Concrete Containment Domes," Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No.
P01, July 1974
" Nuclear Containment Mat Design Concepts,"
Journal of the Power Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No.
- Pol, July 1974
" Design of Steel Liners in Concrete Containments," presented at the National Meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1971 "An Iterative Method for Orthotropic Plate Analysis," Der Stahlbau, Germany, 1968
" Buckling of Plane Thin Webs of Circularly Curved I-Beam,"
Der Stahlbau, Germany, 1966
" Analysis of Laterally and Axially Loaded Piles Supported by Soils,"
j Der Stahlbau, Germany, 1964 I
l l
i 1
l
(
I L
q,
(.'.
t DETAII.ED EXPERIENCE RECORD CHU, KING-YUEN 13567 STONE & k'EBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NY (July 1974 to Present)
Appointments:
Hanager Engineering Hechanics Division - Nov 1979 Assistant Chief Engineer - Engineering Mechanics Structural Division July 1976 Acting Assistant Chief Engineer - Engineering Mechanics - Structural Division - Nov 1975 Supervisor - Structural Division - July 1974 As MANAGER of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Dr. Chu is responsible for planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, and directing the mechanical analysis and design, pipe stress analysis and supports, and pressure vess,els and tanks sections.
He is responsible for providing manpower, establishing design criteria, and ensuring design adequacy within his discipline for all projects including power, process, and industrial plants. Dr. Chu also has been personally involved in performing investigatory analysis on process reactors, heat exchangers, turbine casing, and other equipment to evaluate and, if necessary, to recommend necessary steps to improve their structural integrity.
This effort has included making visits to fabricators and plant sites and performing stress analyses for existing and modified design.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Texas Utilities Generatina Company (June 1985 to Present)
As ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER, Dr. Chu is responsible for the production effort of the piping structural integrity requalification program for the two-unit PhR power station.
This project includes a complete piping stress analysis for all ASME Class 2 and 3 piping systems, all pipe support cal-culation and required modification design for all ASME-NF pipe supports including Class 1 piping systems, and review of design input parameters, including seismic structure models, power system design information, fluid transient events and as-built verification.
V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina Electrte & Gas Co. (Hay 1982 to Oct 1982)
As PROJECT ENGINEER, Dr. Chu was responsible for the independent scismic design verification of safety-related piping systems including as-butit field walkdown.
Zion Nuclear Station, Commonwealth Edison Company (Sept 1979 to Dec 1980)
As ACTING PROJECT MANAGER, Dr. Chu was responsible for all as-built piping stress and supports analysis and design modification for the two-unit nuclear plant in accordance with USNRC IfnE Bulletin 79-14 o
e KTC In April 1979, Dr. Chu received the assignment to direct and supervise piping stress analysis efforts in response to the USNRC I&E Bulletins 79-07, 79-02, and 79-14 regarding the structural integrity of piping systems due to seismic and as-built conditions.
As ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER of the Structural Division, Dr. Chu was respon-sible for the Engineering Mechanics Section, including structural mechanics, mechanical analysis and design, and pipe stress analysis and support.
His duties also included the administrative and technical supervision of the Containment Group, Dynamic Analysis Group, Pipe Rupture Group, Pipe Stress Group, and Equipment Group.
As SUPERVISOR of the Structural Division, Dr. Chu was responsible for analysis and design of containment structures, containment liners, spent and new fuel pool liners, and reactor cavity liners.
Dr. Chu's responsibilities also involved work on the following projects:
1250 PN Unit Nuclear Power Plant Greene County Station, Power Authority of the State of New York 950 ?N Units - Nuclear Power Plant - Surry Units 3 and 4, Virginia Electric and Power Company 1150 tN Units - Nuclear Power Plant - Jamesport Units 1 and 2, Long Island Lighting Company 940 tN Unit Nuclear Power Plant Santillan Station, Electra de Viesgo, S.A.
As DIVISION LICENSING REPRESENTATIVE for the Structural Division, Dr. Chu was responsible for reviewing licensing material for completeness, technical
- accuracy, and conformance with company policies concerning regulatory requirements in the structural and mechanical engineering areas.
As COMPUTER APPLICATIONS COORDINATOR for the Structural Division, Dr. Chu evaluated and advised on the applicability of avatlable computer programs, and initiated the acquisition and development
<f new computer programs.
BROW & ROOT INC. (1972 to 1974)
As PROJECT STAFF ENGINEER and SECTION SUPERVISORY ENGINEER, Dr. Chu was responsible for planning, scoping, determining design criteria, and formu-lating design concepts for nuclear power plant structures.
He was also responsible for the training, development, and performance evaluation of engineers working in the Nuclear Structures Containment Section.
Dr. Chu completed a comprehensive containment design program on pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.
Dr. Chu prepared the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and preliminary structural engineering for a major nuclear power project.
4
e
.o*
ATC BURNS & ROE, INC. (1969 to 1972)
As a SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER, Dr. Chu's responsibilities included establishing criteria and analytical procedures for use in the analysis and design of nuclear power plants.
' As GROUP LEADER, Dr. Chu was responsible for the design and analysis of the containment structure, seismic analysis, and other special engineering mechanics problems, including NSSS review, equip-seismic qualification, and dynamic response of the piping system for a ment nuclear power plant.
Dr. Chu was extensively involved in computer analysis, including finite element analysis, shell analysis, and seismic and aircraf t impact analysis.
His major project assignments included work on two nuclear power plants.
FRAN'KLIN INSTITUTE RESEARCH LABORATORIES (1968 to 1969)
As RESEARCH ENGINEER in the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Departme.nt, Dr. Chu worked on the dynamic and static analysis of several nuclear containment structures, including finite element analysis, general she'll analysis, elasto plastic analysis, 3-D frame structures dynamic and static analysis, and thermal analysis.
He also participated in the development of computer programs for general shell, prestressing force, and elastoplastic finite element analyses. His assignments included work on four major nuclear power projects.
MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NUERNBERG AG, GUSTAVSBLRG, GERMANY (1965 to 1968)
As a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, Dr. Chu was involsed in the study and analysis of orthotropic, plates, thin-walled structurer. with stability and fatigue problems, nonlinear structures, composite structures, and cable-stayed bridges.
He was the GROUP LEADER on two 1000-ft orthotropic plate, deck girder bridge projects.
CONSULTING FIRMS, HONG KONG (1959)
Dr. Chu assisted in the design of several reinforced concrete buildings.
5 Ol849-4014601-N1 08/12/86
7__
s J
l s
k 00thE100 USNRC 16 SEP 17 R2:24 jfF g,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0
BRANCW I,
Kathryn A.
Selleck, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on September 5, 1986, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10117 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
o Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental P.otection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Nancy Williams Executive Director Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 101 California Street 2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Suite 1000 Washington, D.C.
20036 San Francisco, California 94111 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1107 West Knapp 1324 North Capitol Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C. 20002 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Project Region IV 1901 Que Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn Washington, D.C.
20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814
~tathlyn A.
Selleck