ML20010C893
| ML20010C893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1981 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Drey L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010C889 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108210180 | |
| Download: ML20010C893 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:(p neuq(o UNITED STATES g NUCLtiAR REGULATORY COMMISSid ,,y .y, g g f. c WASHINGTON, D. C. 20sSS ~ r O g MAY 2 81981 Mrs. Leo A. Drey 515 West Point Avenue University City, MO 63130
Dear Mrs. Drey:
This is in final response to your letters of June 28, 1979, June 9, 1980, and June 23, 1980, regarding the embedded steel anchor plates at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant. Previous NRC letters that were sent to you on this subject were dated October 30, 1979 and July 8, 1980. In addition, a copy of IE Repsrt 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980, was also sent to you. A final review of this matter by hRC Headquarters staff has now been completed. While that review was underway the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the OL proceeding issued a Special Prehearing Conference Order (dated April 21, 1981). That Order outlines the petitions submitted, defines the intervenors and describes the contentions that have been admitted for the hearing. Joint Intervenors' Contention lA stating that, " inadequate and incomp'ete inspection and testing on embedded plates were performed during the plant's construction" has been admitted. This contention will assure Board review of the resciution of the matter of embedded plates. This reply will provide you with the staff position on this issue. While preparing this response and the specific items in the enclosure, a review was made of the various questions and concerns that you had expressed in the past related to the embedded steel anchor plates that may not have been specifically addressed. These items are listed and a response or the reference to a document you have received previously is provided. We hope that this information will satisfactorily answer your questions and conce.ns. We are of the opinion that the questions and concerns related to thL concrete embeds installed prior to June 1977 at the Callaway facility have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the staff. Sincerely, ,,f ( _ A ,~, o y j ,l I Victor Stello, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
1 Specific Responses 8108210180 810604 PDR ADOCK 05000483 U ppg
e d Enclosure SPECIFIC RESPONSES Q1. Isn't it possible that some anchor plates embedded prior to June 1977 are defective? A1. Yes. It was NRC's continuing concern about the integrity of the anchor plates embedded prior to June 1977 that caused the initiation of the random in place test and representative test programs that were reported in IE Inspection Report 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980 (see 3rd paragraph on page 6). Considering the small number of defective embeds detected by the re-inspection and testing effort, the NRC has concluded that an equal proportion of defects in installed plates would be well within the tolerance limits of the system design and no more special efforts are required for the installed plates. Q2. Is it possible to find and replace defective anchor embedments already installed into'the concrete? A2. The use of a visual examination is precluded when embedments such as these in question have, in fact, had the concrete placed around them, unless destruction of the surrounding concrete and reinforcing steel matrix is accomolished. No nondestructive techniques we are aware of could, in this instance, be utilized to provide meaningful results. Therefore, in this case, the first action we deemed necessary was an examination of anchors not already embedded. We concluded that the data obtained in July and August 1977, supplemented by some later information on embeds not yet cast in concrete, could be considered representative of those anchors already embedded. Consequently, a destructive program would become necessary only after it was evident that the failure rates in the ability to carry and respond satisfactorily under load were too high in a similar and representative sample. Wita high failure rates, it would become necessary to execute extensive load tests or ccmplete the removal of concrete to obtain samples on which to base a conclusion. Although removal of concrete and replacement of embedments is possible, it is a difficult task and requires close control and consideration of the potential for additional damage. In the past, NRC has required the removal of some very complex concrete structural components consisting of many cubic yards of concrete. This situation was certainly not precluded in this case. Q3. What assurance is there that anchor embeds not already cast into concrete are renresentative of those niready embedded? A3. From the records available revealing that the anchor embeds had been fabricated, inspected, released, and accepted under the same specifica-tions, contract, and work procedures with the only variable being the time the work was completed, we concluded that those units not yet embedded were representative of those already embedded. Q4. With regard to the results of inspections performed on manually welded anchor rods for embeds, did the NRC believe Daniel or Bechtel?
i . Enclosure A4. The reinspection performed by a team of inspectors consisting of personnel from Daniel, Bechtel, and Union Electric Company, in order to identify the cause for the original rejections made by Daniel, was accepted by the NRC as representing the facts. The findings were discussed in IE t Inspection Report 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980 (see pages 8 and 9). Q5. Compare'ASME, AWS and Union Electric criteria on weld undersize for accepting manual welding of anchor rods for anchor embeds. AS. As noted in the March 10, 1978 letter from Union Electric to which you 1 referred, the ASME Code does not apply to this type of safety-related component. In referring to the ASME Code, the licensee was addressing the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 which addresses Class 1, 2 & 3 components, metal containments, component supports and core support structures. These componeats do not include general structural framing supports, of which these manually welded anchor embeds consisted. The comparisons of AWS and Union Electric criteria were provided in IE Report 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980 (see page 7). NRC accepted the criteria used by Union Electric. Q6. What is the applicability of AWS D.1.1-75 for machine stud welding? A6. As noted in Answers to Questions 6 and 7 of Attachment B, IE Inspection Report 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980, the above standard was intended for application to machine stud welding and acceptance testing. Q7. Are the requirements for the acceptance of machine stud welding on bridges more stringent than those applied to nuclear power plants? A7. The following comments are based on a comparison of specifications of the American Welding Society (AWS D.1.1-75) and the American Association of t State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO Interim Bridge Specifi-I cations for 1975). These listed items constitute the primary differences. 1 l a. AASHTO allows welding when base metal is below 0"F but requires l preheating to 70*F and maintaining the base metal above 32*F during i stud welding. Two additional 45" angle bend tests are required per j 100 studs. i l AWS allows no welding when the base metal is 5elow 0*F and imposes i additional inspection / test requirements when the base metal is below 32*F. b. AASHTO requires the contractor to submit the following informa-tion to the engineer for approval: l (1) name of manufacturer, i -(2) detailed description of the stud and arc shield, i
- m....
. Enclosure ~ (3) certification from the manufacturer that the stud has met AASHTO qualification tests, and (4) notarized copy of the qualification test report as certified by the testing laboratory. The purpose of the qualification testing is to prescribe weldability and strength tests for a given type, size, and arc shield. If all factors that could affect stud performance remain unchanged, such initial qualification tests remain valid. AWS does not require qualification testing, unless requested by the engineer. Such a request would typically be done in the written specification. The number of tests to be performed is left to the engineer to specify. c. AASHTO production acceptance inspection for the first two studs on a beam requires bending to 45*, whereas AWS requires only a 30 bend. d. AASHTO, as you indicated, requires that "each stud shall be given a light blow with a hammer" ard "any stud which does not emit a ringing sound when given a light blow with a hammer.... shall be struck with a hammer and bent 15 from the correct axis of installation. Studs that crack either in the weld or in the shank shall be replaced." In summary it can be stated that there are only minor differences between the AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges and the AWS Structural Welding Code and that the AASHTO specification is a bit more stingent, undoubtedly because of the need for fatique life. The two specifications / codes are intended for different types of structures which undergo distinct service conditions. Fatigue is a major concern in the use of studs in composite bridge design as a result of the many load repetitions a bridge receives as opposed to a building structure. It is NRC's position that the requirements placed on a licensee (in conjunction with use of the AWS Code) that include operator training and qualification, quality control, inspection, and correction of identified deficiencies are more than adequate to assure the proper level of safety. Q8. Will manually welded anchor rods with undersized welds be able to withstand the maximum design load, vibration, and durability requirements? A8. The analytical calculations completed by the licensee as reported in IE Inspection Report 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980 (see page 8), as well as the additional testing requested by NRC (see page 9 of the above-referenced report), demonstrate quite clearly that the maximum design load can be met. Tne load-strain curves that reflect the behavior of the six specimens cut from actual anchor embeds clearly illustrate a ductile behavior under load that provides the energy-absorbing capability for response to dynamic loading. Vibratory loads with respect to fatigue-related problems are not considered to be of sufficiently high numbers of
e < Enclosure repetitions for these embedded elements to be of significance. Durability is not a major problem with these anchors since the backs of the embedded plate, the weld and the anchor rods are embedded in concrete and are not subjected to an adverse environment. Q9. Have specifications changed to meet the deviations which were found? A9. As noted in IE Inspection Report 50-483/80-14, dated September 16, 1980 (see page 7), certain revisions were made by the licensee as Revision 9 to Specification C-131. We do not know the motive for the change, but we .iave establi-hed the technical validity of the revision as noted in the response to Qi.estion 8 herein. Q10. A dangerous percentage of the manual and machine made welds are defective. A10. During the reinspection of over 81,500 machine-welded studs on 7543 anchor embedments not yet installed, only 0.08% of the studs failed the bend test. It was rlt? found that 0.13% of the anchor embedments had more than one stud failing during the bend test. Testing a sample of 2.5% of the embedded anchors with machine-welded studs to design loads resulted in no signs of distress or indications of inadequacies. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in the frequency of studs failing the bend test on anchors that were embedded or on those anchors that were not einbeaded in concrete. Our conclusion is that the failure rate to bend tests on individual machine-welded studs was low and would not cause technical questions related to the functioning of an individual anchor as shown by the in place testing program. We determined that 10% of the manually welded anchorage rods remained in question and required further study. The further study included &ctual testing of individual welds of the anchor rod to the embed plate that were cut from the group of anchor embeds that had been on hold since August of 1977. The welds sustained the ultimate failure loads of the base material. Analysis of the weld deficiencies also indicated that the embedments as built would sustain the design loads. There was no evidence to conclude that manually welded anchorage rod to anchor embeds already cast in concrete in June 1977 contained any different or more frequent weld deficiencies than the group examined and tested. Our conclusion is that there is no danger in the manual or machine-made welds in the anchors embedment cast into concrete prior to June 1977. Q11. Does -telitel have a lack of faith in the ability of Daniel inspectors in areas other than the inspection of manually welded anchor rods? All. In this case, the Daniel inspectors were being more cautious than necessary, so the problem they identified was brought to the attention of the licensee who in turn obtained the design expertise of the engineering disciplines who resolved any safety questions to the satisfaction of the NRC, We are unaware of any Bechtel concerns; however, we are certain that ;f there were concerns, Bechtel would report them under 10 CFR 21.
. Enclosure Q12. Who bears the burden of proof regarding safety at the OL proceedings? A12. As defined in the NRC regulations, the burden of' proof rests with the licensee. i .)
r..s ~ ~ +. - - ~ ~ u .o.- ,,, g vf, .} :f. .~.. a v. t.~ p *.p 'p i -.~---,,m , ~ ^e e.-4-;yf.;' ?, s s.: ' ' N. Q _..;* ~ - ' ~.Q=Q., .H' 0 ACTION CONTROL }- VATES ICON ROLN ~'~ p 7QM: ' 6.,1
- 1..c.
- r. p. '- y j. A.T.,.
<~ oet oc^ouN E. I d =..,,= 2. w. v c ~7,) Q / hO D ATE,OF DOCUMENT J Rdp; Psichard A. Gephardt..:. ; ACKN OWLEDGMENT G. ?.k'j. t . - 6/25/80 - .. ~.. '.f. #.. .[:.'.. .3 ,y,,,,,,E,uy. (c':f PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE .c ~ ~.. FINAL REPLY OF' ~ TO: c. O CHAIRMAN Vi ctor..SteTl o.' ' Ul " J '.. N.J. :A'. - f N... = ,, fl r FILE LOCATION Q EXECLTTIVE DIRECTOR
- s.:J y ; ' N.~. '..'-W'&@r.%.'?-3.Ch..
orsERi v 2 ...T '. M.-: % h. d.Z-;6 M-73A2.1D(f D tETTE R
- Q MEMO,1Q RUCRT ' O OTHER. SPECI ALMTRUCT10NS OR REMARLS., E.D..O-677
.i-- .-=
- 95..
m. a.... - .;g.;.- N.4;i_:,.. - a ssCRamON.4..-.. - ,..u . 5. %.,.'.m.;.....7 y. W Ltr-1 rom Kaf"Drey-concerning4enoedde'd.MM-J'q.p.@w'5."E.f, 9. E ~ sten. ed ab plates si.t..h f.aul.tp stud'.weldsM.n,offyeview; Y.'; --~ ~ f 8 z.~. . 4 :7. - ~/ ', 7 ~2,: = .~. ..g. f. y, -.. .r.. : ;s the Callaway p'hntM.. req status; .of the:. situation and :an..y finaPdetsmina6 ~ .- e.-
- w. n=~.
~ v. ,. ~. - i 9 [ y {f )'- I, CLASSIFIED DATA ':$g NN. [ [iO ^ I E ,, g,,,, j f[ },.. -[.k*,(. 30CUWENT/ COPY No. l r.W. Ct p6BCA180Nf -.. d-gy,- NUM*,CR Ol' PAG ES.- '/ CATEGORY.Cgg*,O rRo r -<.'-v-1.- -O usi? O Ro' 'NSTAL R EC15T RY NO., f LEG AL REVIEW O FINAL 0 cor'y A55tG N ED TO: f' D ATE. INFORMATION ROUTING NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS DATE AssicNEo m NOTIFY >.T. - Q 01.' 77/80 J f-k c.:.5 gg.;..
- -d. -."'.
O EDO ADMIN & CORRES B R .g ~7 7 $0_ a. c... w. ) N"1 Mf.A Q.f J l L. ;. COMMENTS. NOTIFY: . y,. c, " ~ Exp. _j -.} [ - - r-v... O vEs O NO '.I . h..O.- M Gf_':.' N.JCAE NOT]FICATION RECOMMENDED: EXECUTWE DIRECTOR FOR' OPERATIONS 7 00 NOT REMOVE TN/S' COPY ~ r
- 2.C F O R M ~132
~ 6 PRINCIPAL. CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL (11-73)
- _=.___.=._.
c
- =--.... = =.. _.. -..
~ 7:.---'- % ..u.-.. _...... _.,.. _...
==;.,._..._... i._ - f=_. _. m:...=. L. =:- =
- w..._.
..sz;%.3t:.. /--- = =. =g,....,-.--._ ..:===---
- r__
-~- - q._ ? __=-.=..=.y....._ . ;.m5.~f -== =[_- -l-- 2 _ f- --- - . -?.:...._ & -.;= 4. W_ q =. p = =z::. = C}. ~E*E~.Gi=h.:, :K .._.:===l - -lm=1:
- -i 7= p-
~% -% nR = =-.. d_p:..... " -- f_=.........._ g==-= - 'L q,.=} =/ 1.5 x- -- ---- 5 ^ . =i' ?:=== =~. ^ ..-.._...~J..
- c==
"-=== = =:=
.._...- y 2 t:== 4 --- -~~-[H..... . /= 11:== ;.4 .z.: = = = - - - - - ..,..=_..--.. r-y- . ~.. - - - - = - - n- =. =.. _ =. - - _ w W~
=====.:
== -"=-- ...x f..;=_ 2 =... - - .a _ j%y =r--=_. 5~=..._.T~==p~.~=.=_=.=._.=...=. -?. z. ;.==== =- .._...$=._.:-.... . =... =.. .=..?.... / =
- ==== = -.. w 5
j^ - - ~ "~~'4==P = =.... ....-.."._._~.~.-..._"._..=*=.";:=55
- ~ [2'
- ? 5.
%a*- . l. .* - ^ ~ ~ x.
- ._... _ _t*_$ ~ %
ry_;; I". =.'=p ^.~ ~_;~.~'=~~*...... ~ -.. ". -..... _,=. ' " *. ". ~'-...__"..;;=~'."::.'=-
- j; ;;,
- $. ~k
---.l='. 5==L..-. - =. ~.. ~ ~ _ -~;;;;. =_..._.,; ;- h1.... _,, _, _ _, ^ ~~"7 0_)p. %=_.r,.,; A. ',~-~__ :=.== ;~2 :." ~ h5$ .r;== --- - -- ~ .. 3;.-- '= " I.~ ":^=::~.' ~ - ~ ' ' ~. - = - __ s_i"~---.--- 1 y= : _=== == r- - :=y f ~==: :: = _._ y
L.:
__q==.: = - -- - - ~...:.;.. ;.:...;;_ ..=:=_--- _f }.l_.5=2.==. .-._.,.;._......._.;___._y -{.=. - y ;*- ' ~ .==t*- _... - - - - -;. _..... _,., ; - f.. __. 3 -.g....-- lf d.__.
.~r
, " ' - " - " - -...g====:--... ^ .rf jf3_~ ^^=~~~~~=__.
- s..::y'AY.$:..'TL.}2~ =.t~; ~= lj&~~ -..
= :: = 2::-...: : _ ::. :==.. :_...._._.:... ~ = = = -. - - -............. - ... _ = ;. --f..f Y_ Y Y-===-giW-
- =
- h=y-~..e-. ;_...,, =..- -.
== s.-__ .+ .===t===...--- - = =. =: :... 4:. . f.. = = = -==. - L_ _u -_._ _.= = _. =.. = .s.E:..
==
=
-=====;:..n._-.... -t.=..._.____ ..=====r=n="t::
====,; t...... - " - -.... _.. =.
- =::
_.s .f..._.::..... _._. _ _._ J_. T...=.._--- : =_. =....._:::: = A_==...-, _-- :;;.......... _.j: ":!=_L. A._ = = - - - -. .._.f..f., y.g : .2 = .=- ff.. :====.. a.; "..... R. ........ ~.. =............... =._ - u.-_..;: r pm : - - ~= =.... - --: -. - ^rt :. - ~. : _-= =.... = = = - - - -.......:.
.. =
:... _ _ _. _
= = - -.
====_=r=====:==-
,n __=v. =.: 1.g _;p-,....=. =..._ _..=_. _ _=.
=
.. c n....... -..==.=:=---.z====:..==.====:======._u=_=.-.;;-.--;_.... ~... '=.":: -~':=-
- .- :::=:
-:= u :; _-- - - ~ - - - .2 .:.. = :. :-. - ' ~ ~ ~ _.~===~;="=:".',-. -:=--::- ;:,:y ~-- ............ _....,... _. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " ' - _ ^ ~~ " 7... _.; {,,,__,_ " " ' ~ " ....:~=:.=~.='".='*'~.,.~_ 'C~l~.*_=-~=.-~~_=_....._-__.~!'.~ ~. -. (.- i b['.
Qw
- mms,
' 'fnD A. GEPH RDY \\ (of ~ ~ ~ pm, y,,_. ( 21S Cu Houst Om air , l>A f Waseenamnus D.C. 2:311 LF s6 ~ (*") =""' .r,,,e -enas cow-rrrez CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 4_ (/* .u cer co--n zz 3 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
- '"*","*T,3, WASHINGTON, D.C.
20515 "('")**'"'" June 25, 1980 Mr. Victor Sra'lo, Jr., Director Office of Inspecrion and Enforcement Nuclear Regn12 tory Cu 4ssion Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
Recently, you received a request from Mrs. Leo Drey of St. Louis, Missouri, requesti:g the status of a technical review of the Callaway Nuclear Power Plzst, now under construction in Missouri, with regard to fixtures installed in the concrete valls known as embeds. You had indicated to Mrs. Drey that this review had been re-scheduled. Tae efore, I an writing to request that you provide me with any fcher infor=ation you night have with regard to your review of this situatica and any final deterrfrintions you have made. Tnank you for your attention to this matter. Yours very truly, .k Richard A. Gephardt RAG:fc f O i -
- t \\k,i -
OL d.
- J
~ U.iversity City, MD 63130 Juna 9,10SD F Victs: St,n, Jr., Direct== O'fi_te =f Insp: tic.n and Enfc:= ment Naclear Regulate:y Concission b' ashing'en, D.C. 2CSSS Lear Mr. S+=11n: Th:=e years ag: today an PEC inspect =: auditing con,struction re== ds at the Callaway plant here in Miss== i noticed that e= bedded plates with faulty stud welds had been ins',rd. By that time app:cxis:stely five pe==ent of the plant construction had been,,. c:x::,leted, and an esti=ated 400 e: beds had been insta'1-d. To qucte from page one of the St. Louis Fes'-Dis: etch. Cctobe: 16, 1977: "The most sericus c=mplaints, (Nuclee Re: ulatcry) c... lssion officials in-di=ated, involve the fixtures inst ='l-d in concrete walls, *.o, support the. ends 3 cf load-b arin: =: teel bam-=. The fixtures - ter: red 'e= beds' because they are enbedded in ernfc=ced concrete - are steel plates with sh::t steel studs welded to cne face, like the bristles of a brush. They are mounted flush with well surfaces, with the studs (or b=istles) extending into the concrete so that. their exposed faces can serve as peints of attach:ent for girders and other st:urturel me=bers. Should an e=6ed tea: loose f tra a wall, ' the result could be the rm7': pse of an errtire flo== or reef, c xistruction experts say." On June P8,1973, shortly after you be=a::s the dire =ter of the Office of Inspection and Enfc ___,_nt, and th:ee hectic r:enths after the Th ee File Island -a==ident began, I wrote to ask you about the e== beds. You answe..ed on Octche: 30 es follows: "With rege d to the steel embeds at C=1'away we have no new information to for-werd to you on the matter until a technical review is ccrupleted by the staff. P-4dh on other work have prevented the ccrnpletion of the review. The== view has again been rescheduled and we hope to eceplete the project in the near future. Ve will then respond to y=ur conce=ns." I ec writing today, seven acnths later, to ask for the status of that review, and to state ance again the concern many of us here shar about the embeds: - If the embedded plates shipped in 1976 to the D'1away site from the Cives Steel Ccrepany (Gouverneur, New York: Pu =hase Orde # 10466-C-131-2) were in one big "p ' " when constru::tien began; and 3 - If hund:eds of embeds f: xa that p- were installed pric: to June 9,1977, the day an tac inspetor found records indicating that faulty plates had already been insta-d, and the day Union Electri= then issued ordertto stop insta115$g I additional plates; and 1 - If, as the ssult of several m:nths of special inspecticns that su:ner, hundreds of e:6eds were : paired en site and hundreds m::e were shipped ba=k to Cives fer repti: c replacement; l - D0iS IT TE FCU.De' that so=e of the e= beds installe:: pric: to June 9, 1977, may also c:ntain faulty stud welds? That is, steel e= beds fabricated et the sare tice and place as those found defe=tive are s*# in the wic cf the Itwer levels at Cs =way, supposedly supp=-ting whcle fice: syst-and c.her dical structural me=bers. Of particular cen=ern a = those plates en .wt.i=h the studs were welded mechan #-*1'y - that is, in the faster ~. e more _ e==np esw J
,. _,m _ ~ t ,/ "!. Wen the Operating License p_oceedings ft: the Calle-ey plant are held, w"' the burden of proof that the e-leds were fabri: ted and instelled es cesig.ed lie with Unien ilectric, Ee:htel/5ftJFF5, Deniel Interne-tic.el, c= the fiRC7 Th ce years of censtruction ere n:w resting en e-beds whose safety has been questioned. b'ill the questions be res=1ved only after the plant has been put into operation end the er. beds the_ shy subjected to the =sulting vibrate:y st:ssses? Sin =e_- ely, 9 M :. Leo Drey (Kay) Dr. John Ahea ne, A: ting Chaiman, c=: Atcx:ic Safety a.rd Licensing 3oard, NFCsnd Herabe:s, flu: lear Regulatory Cor.wission Advis==y Cercittee on Ree:to: Safeguards, 1i3.0 Ecrve:ncr J=seph Teasdale Senatc= Theces Eagleton Senatc= John Danferth-Congress =an VM, Clay Congressman Richard Gephardt Cong:=rsr.an Harold Volkner Congress.an Fobe:t Young Mr. Janes Keppler, Director, Region III, PGtC ,/B% H,h 2._ P y.c.... - s.-
- p..
T'he average si2e cf a steel e=6ed N,,[-"3Sf4/77 /4I/h at Cellaway is 14' uide, 4 feet long, and one inch thick - with g 3,f f,f /g 4\\ g y + / . [9 - twa ws af studs, ten in t ch rcw. t/CAYU, V/b, !*d,A/Df .l o A stup weld should be strmg enough j N ~ te sh: vive being th::vn 1::xs an airp#1ane. Tradition >y ironw:-kers rr O. h a. :.oner-test eve,y stud weld, and . k ~ s welds a e not repairable, the plate [N, // j $ .[./ reweld every defe::ive one. If the v tIIO g \\ i's'=cie=ted. QhI g } Cn many e:~ beds at Callaway 15% of g$4,!7 gjs/g 'y tWe welds were defe=tive; on scrae [ C J,4G7 !e ceds, 25,. 5:n-e studs b ':e off s. O' 3 s v >-hen ee ely kicked. Cthers fell =ff w!.thout appare::t cause, such as fh$ i 3 f::= a 7 ft. high c: bed that was ~. *. *.
- eing insts-d in February er y
,d', .a ch 1977 as part =f a do:- frazie LCL " d w m
MWMkM A ccilia.:y / X/q')(Jg-O fp gdj TJ. ~
- ildin g s.
I:cwc ka: Ic:==an 8 j -1 C Sr art =vp==ted t.h2 defectiva f.s i t CGd to Rog2= 3enton, his h gi
- 4 O
> e cupe:intendent. Seyg:z g,y, b. 3enton t:1d k art that he, .r:C: e Ocn, had bee. di seted by Andy "h * ' ennsdy, a top Laniel efficia.1, to /
- g a so 5.e:: advise his een te handle
/- 5e e lads mers carefull in the fu: s= that ec:s studs w:n.:1d no: C eff! f 1 D. I, t 1 -. ~ ,____.,_.,___,2.,m I d t .}}