Text

Argument Vs Current Nuclear Power Generation Based on Experiences of Engineer
	ML20076E985
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/21/1983
From:	Markowitz G; AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20076E979	List: ML20076E976; ML20076E985;
References
	NUDOCS 8308250165
	Download: ML20076E985 (76)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. r P AN ARGUMENT VERSUS CURRENT. NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION BASED ON THE EXPERIENCES OF AN ENGINEER 8308250165 830823 o PDR ADOCK 05000443 A PDR

g-. } APPIDAVIT

~ ~.

My name is '. George T. Markowitz;.and I.have written this. affidavit-under no. threat,.:.and because of no promise of material benefit. I am of the following qualifications: ..g u, -- Bachelor.'of. Science in Mech 5nical Enginsering, Pennsylvania. State Univ'ersitys:1970 -. y. ~ Profes,sional' En~gineer, N'awf J'ersey Llcense No. 26647 AffidaYit Titie :'"Azr Argument Versus Current Niiclear Powei Generatiozr Bassd. on the Erperiences' of an. Engineer" 7 Affidavit Table' of Contents -Qp5's Descriptiozn: l f. ~ S x Eksic Problems......... 1 & 2 l Introductidn:, Background, List of i Gilbert,las6'es./ Inc..: HVAQ(Syst. Design,& Strt-up & Tat Dvlpant.2 & 3 J '34..Loneyjpzffo : Seabrook Station..Saismic Calculations.. 3.to 10 '.UT.' BOiLoninggai POos (JELCO):WArkansaatPower Hawork;...J.h e.'a....... 6 JELC.0' YaIvet ModeI'~ LOT-IPTschni'caltDl'alusaion(CisprsansEtiddMSv& 10 EDS. Nun {esir 'IncO:12ilgria:I. Exhaust Stack Retrofit...<#... 118 to 13a i

131, E.& Gi Plaht Tourk ERASCO Employment :Interviev APPENDII.h PE License;?. GIA7,. JELC.0,. &EDS W-2's, Stubbsp etc..Als to 15 -

APPEEDII R(' ELCO. - Seabrook ' Job-): JELCO Exceptions to UE&C Sysd., J ~ Quotai - jelco.1stters......~..... 33 to 35, 39 to B11 ;.^313, 314 ; B22 JELCO : Inter-offi'ce Correspzrdnc.36 'to 38, 312, Et2A,. 3.18, H18K, 321 SeismicE;,(- 17111.5:&.End Load Chics O 1st&2nd Propslas plus LCT-11& Rela EndVLo~a Jgummm7 UE&C; Spec.'& Latters..,..........HT,' B2; 315 to 317, H19, 323 to 329 APPENDII.eC(ADS - Pilgrim I Stack Retrofit): Crouse Review. 31 & B2 Documentation: Handling by the Unemployment Office...... 33 to B8 The pages of this affidavit, including this page, have been glued and otherwise fastened together, along their left margins. I have ini-tialled each page.. I have read this affidavit, and to the best of my knowledge, it is true, accurate, and comple te. l .., - r f O T A / )- GEORGE T. MARK 0WITZ / l I' U C \\ bd...bSQ h AND SWOP' before me, this N day of

1983, g..

y / /dnr qI mosLy a ed

l. INTRODUCTION I am a licensed professional engineer (verified on page At of Appendix A). During the past ten years I have worked with-in the nuclear power plant industry for two engineering con-sultant firms and a manufacturer (verified where possible, see. I have interfaced in a variety of capacities and Appendix A). situations with numbrous employees from other companies inclu-What I will disclose in this ding power generation companies. report supports the argument for a moritorium on nuclear power plant construction and power generation, or at very least, a ra-dical reversal in predominant and established ethical deficiency, I will disclose a wide variety existing within this industry. of ethical and priority failings involving intracompany and inter-company relations and management, nuclear power plant system design, nuclear power plant components design and verification, and nuclear. power plant maintenance and operation.. My experience has not been directly involved with the most critical areas such as the main cooling loop and control rods, but it has in-These volved what should be considered very critical areas. had been for the most part safety and relief valves of back-up cooling emergency and other piping systems.cand ventilation systems. Some of the cases of technical negligence are such to pos-sibly indicate the necessity of remanufacture or reinstallation., If, however, it can be determined that for given safety stan-dards, no actual rework is required, these disclosures certain-ly illustrate the following basic problems: In general, today's. increased requirement of ethical prac-( 1) tice within the technical sector of society is not being Instead, the moral code of our society is 1 met, too often. disintegrating and people are becoming more pragmatic, sel-fish, conforming and ruled by the " law of the jungle? The engineer's traditional "only doing my job and taking 2) state of mind. The attitude of the engineering es-orders tablishment toward a zealous ethical approach is character-iged by the aggravation of an inner resentment toward burgeon-These ing quality control requirements of many industries. requirements are held as a type of legislated moral ~ity, brought about by technically uninformed pressure groups.. The engineer's traditional deficiency in self-realization 3) This is a_ type in areas other than self-survival matters. and it is one with the pragmatic tendencies of number 2)of This subjugation is exacerbated by the lack of res-pect that society has for engineers, mad our acceptance of above. an unquestioned " buyers'" market for engineering services self-re-and the corresponding erosion of many engineers The fact that piping systems in the nuclear power plants spect. 4) to the fossil power plant systems are physically similar and that there is a tendency to naintain the same stand-ards. Increased quality assurance programs which require in-5) creased amounts of personnel allow for diffused respon-sibility and can defeat the original purpose. Page One l

~ f = 6) Ethical problems place limits an the effectiveness of added or expanded quality assurance programs. DISCLOSURES The specifics of my experiences will be disclosed by listing organizations and projects by employer or other relationship, in chronolo6 cal order. 1 EMPLOYER: Gilbert Associates Inc.(now called Gilbert Common-wealth) 525 Iancaster Ave., Reading, Penna. TIME SPAN: Pall, 1971 to late summer, 1972 PROJECTS : Florida Power Corporation Unit No. 3, ventilation system start-up and test procedure development; Chi (Japanese nuclear plant) ventilation system calcula-tions During this employment stay I was a member of the Building Service Department of the Utilities Division of Gilbert Associates. This company, to my knowledge was about the tenth largest con-sultant firm which designed nuclear power plants. My department was responsible for design and contract development of heating, ventilation and space cooling systems for the plants.. My work involved duct system calculations and design of these systems; and start-up and testing procedure development in conjunction with other departments. The purpose of many of the ventilation syste=s was,to main-tain safe maximum levels of plant airborne contaminants.

Also, measurement of the contamination-level in the exhaust air at the tops of the plant stacks was involved.

There seemed to be 's loose attitude in ventilation design at times such as in decreasing the minimum amount of air changes per hour in an area to meet criteria such as a prespecified fan flow rate. As a young engineer, I asked a number of questions within this Building Service Depart-ment, to a Walter Steidle, the project engineer to whom I direct-One ly reported at times, and to other experienced engineers. question related to the possibility of high and low density areas or pockets of this airborne radioactive contamination within given plant areas. It seemed to me at the time that this consi-deration required a detailed analysis by the ventilation design team since the air flow patterns which greatly influence these pollution gradients depend on the particular architectural ge-After ometry and the details of the ventilation system design. answered questions in this vein asking a number of partiall{the run around,", I was told that the and apparently being given nuclear department addressed this concern. Another question arose involving a "make-up" air damper within the Florida Power Cor-poration ventilation exhaust system, which I was studying for test procedure development. I was informed that the purpose t of this damper was to allow a constant vclocity of plant exhaust air flow which was a requirement of the radiation measurement device of this system. The damper controlled the flow of air from outside of the plant, into the main exhaust duct and hence, Page Two

l. DISCLOSURIS Gilbert 12scciatos Inc. continued the main exhaust stream of air, before its passage through the radia-tion measurement device. My question was,how could this measurement reflect an average plant pollution level, if the true plant exhaust was diluted, or mixed, with outside air? I was given an explanation which I could not verify from the drawings I was reviewi36 They included the. building service dept. ventilation drawings;- and corresponding instru-ment and controls, and electrical drawings. Then, only the net radione-l tive pollution entering the atmosphere, m16ht be measured - and this re-I quired accurate maintenance of the constant velocity. However, there were no alarms, indicator lights, or other feedback, associated with this velocity, to my recollection. EMPLOYER: J. E. Lonergan Co., Phila., Pa. (JEICO) TIME SPAN: Spring and early summer, 1979 PROJECTS: Seismic and stress analysis calculations to verify safety of safety and relief valves to be shipped to Seabrook Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2(25 of NH) and I New England Electric Plant. Verification calculations for Arkansas Power Corp. secondary cooling loop, steam valves rework. ORGANIZATIONS: United En'gineeers &_ Constructors Inc., Phila. (UI&C ), l Seabrook Station design consultant and purchaser of valves; Public Service of New Hampshire (2S of NH); Yankee Electric My role in the activities of this disclosure was that of engineer, formally Design Engineer, ( Mec hanical), - employed by J. E. Lonergan Co. (JZLCO), a manuf acturer of saf ety and relief valves. For reasons addressed in this report (section # d of this disclosure), my final relationship with this company was that of consultant enzineer. Since virtually all of this disclosure involves the above Seabroc project, and it is complicated, it is catezorized by these aspects: history of UE&C interaction with JELCO, affairs and events more internal to JELCO, and the relationship I had with UI&C as ven-dor engineer re'sponsible for preparation of the Seabrook Station s eismic calculation report. My position or perhaps better stated ~ the apparent purpose of my hire by JELCO was a cohsequence of the lack of communication between JILCO and UI&C concerninz this seismic calculation report as early as 1976. I therefore, will begin with the first category mentioned, history af U3&C interactio with JELCO. JILCO inter-office correspondence, the UE&C spect-fication for sellers of nuclear power plant components, the JILCO exceptions to these specifications,and correspondence between the two companies beginning August 26, 1976 and ending August 14, 1978 reflect this problem and are included in Appendix 3. The lack of communication seems to have been due to an unyield-ing stance by the manufacturer that safety calculations will not be improved beyond existing legal Americad Society of Mechanical Engineers code requirements and the stance by the engineering firm that JELCO must comply with a UE&C " catch-all" specification (pages 31 and 32) which was vague and unreasonable. The new and vague loads to be considered were end or nozzle loads addressed by #4 Page Three

DISCLOSURES J. 3. Lonergan Co..- Seabrook job continued of JELCO exceptions to the specifications and JELCO inter-office correspondence (Egg]E(d item 2 of UE&C letter dated 8/14/78 and36,312(A fication(page B1), an JELCO inter-office correspondence dated 11/13 68(pages B15 and 318). In that infinite combinations of "azial, bending, torsion and shear loads"(UE&C letter, item #2, page Et9 of Appendix 3) form failure curves depending upon particular inlet and out-stiffness ratios and these ratios are a characteristic of let the particular piping system in which a given valve is installed as opposed to only the valve itself, compliance with the speci-The nero-fication required a monstrous on infinite calculation. tiations had reached a sta11 mate-and the causes of safe and cost effective power generation were left unattended or as last priori-To add to the problem, the format was unsatisfactory to ~ ties. some of the UE&C engineers and the UE&C engineers were not unani-meus as to whether or not the seismic loads to be considered should The " shear shape factor"(pages 316,&318(1), be added to the end loads.. item #4) issue which went unresolved, referred to a simple ~ j calculation refinement within the scope of undergraduate It strength of materials courses involving moment of inertin. should be noted here that probably more than half a million dol-lars worth of valves would eventually be involved (pages 313 and The number of valves per plant unit had increased by the 314). time I had begun the calculations in 1979 and probably would in-In addition, the calculations would crease again, I was told. apply to a new job, New England Power. ' This meant an' approxi-mate doubling of the number of valves involved, Mr. Glowacki, the Lonergan Sales Manager, had said(page 38). For the purpose of chronological continuity all three of the afore mentioned categories will now be addressed in the fol-icwing discussion. My hiring by JELCO came on 3/12/7% During the Chief Engineer, had my employment interview, Mr..Schmidt,briefly mentioned the seismic cal or so Mr. Schmidt gave me a copy of JELCO standard seismic cal-Also, during this period, Mr. Glowacki, culations to puruse. the JELCOsales representative and some other of the JELCO e= ploy-I I ees had casually inquired as to whether I was confident concern-ing the seismic calculations. Though I was not told so, I infer-red that this was to be the major thrust of my initial efforts The history of JELCO-UE&C transactions and documents at JELCO. discussed thus far, however, had not been disclosed to me. After becoming technically familiar with the calculations and some other ite s, the quality assurance manager suggested I at-m auditor. This was my first centset tend a meeting with a UE&CThe UE&C 8/14/78 letter (pages 319 and B20) with this quagmire. The auditor indicated that a problem existed and was reviewed.. that I should call Mr. Parisano of UE&C for a technical discus-Instinctually, I supported my employer'-s stance, since I s ion'. felt this a basic requirement of the position and I especially wanted to make a good impression; and the seismic loads tended to yield stresses well within the safety region in the cases I had examined. A position with a manufacturer, I felt would be After more stable than those I had had with consulting firms. Page Four

DISCLOSURES J. E..Lonergan Co.-Seabrook job continued bein6 informed that UE&C field expediter Joe Bergan had asked for Eventually, I had lengthy me, I made my first call to UE&c. discussions with Mr. Skolnick, Project Engineer and Mr. Zimmatori, There seemed to'be a lack of complete consist.ency Lead Engineer. between what each claimed was required by the UE&C specifications involved, but they both seemed to insist on addition of an end Mr. Morrison the engi-load section to the seismic calculations. neer I had replaced had been injured. in an auto accident and was recuperating according to Mr. Glowacki. Mr. Schmidt, the l JELCO Chief Engineer, seemed to indicate that it would be ac-captable to try to please UE&C, the customer, but he stated that his approach, should my assignment be his responsibility would In one of our remain the JELCO stance (page 321, Appendix B). telephone conversations, Mr.. Zimmatori stated that the calcula-1979, since this tione should be completed by the end of May, To make was when thay were to be shipped to Seabrook Station. the best of this situation, at a meeting which Mr. Glowacki and I attended with UE&C engineers, I attempted to have all of the At best UE&C engineers agree with my format and assumptions. l the calculations would be a time consuming project with a fair chance, but far less than certainty that they would be accepted l Also, it was during this by all of the UE&C engineers involved. period of time that Joe Bergan UE&C field expediter insisted on I was, at my giving him a completion date for the calculations.. this point, still interested in impressing my employer and I re-member working about fifteen hours unpaid o'vertime, some of the weeks to make this deadline. Ethical and other deficiencies.I witnessed, spanning the three categories of this employment experience. listed on page

3 of this report, will be outlined.. The periods before and after my first seisgic' report submittal of May 15, 1979(page 322, Appendix 3) will be covered.

The following contain some restate-l 1 ment of items covered above and some additional items including af fairs internal to JELCO. Imbalance of self-interest vs. safety priorities on the part a. of both JELCO and UE&C as evidenced by the lack of techni. cal resolution of the end load question over the years prior to my being hired by JELCO. The lack of structure and manpower of the engineering depart-b. ment controlling JELCO nuclear. matters.. I 1. The lack of general direction I was given such as not in-forming me of the end load quagmire. Under the pressures l of the UE&C inconsistency, the deadline and the expediter, l maintenance of JELCO obstinacy or say a thousand page re-Port were possible outputs. 2. Lack of JELCO engineering back-up. A second engineer is a minimal necessity for a project like this. Morrison had been unable to resolve the shear shape factor" question (pager There were eversight mistakes in the 55 6,318( A), item #4). Code Case 1711 calculations which had been in UE&C posses-These mis-sion(page B16, item #3D.) before I was hired. takes were detected by Mr.. Jacklitch, apparently, a new _ enginser to evaluate the Lonergan Seismic Calculations. f He detected the mistakes just prior to my second proposal The errors were in selection of. - _m report submission.. Do ne D4ve

l DISCLOSURES J. E. Lonergan Co -Seabrook job continued 2.(Continued) constants to be used to calculate spring washer and valve disc bending stress due to loads induced upon preliminary adjustment... Upon recalculation, it was found that while discs (page 330 ) were not overstressed, for one model(pages 331 and 332 ), spring washer would be per-manently deformed and a thickness dimencion was increased. There were no g na_ted_ individuals to check my arithmetic and I had to be very insistent to have Mr. Glowacki do this. Also, there were no designated individuals to check my engi-neering assumptions. This is very important. This was also so for the Arkansas Power rework, in which case Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Glowacki were at the site aiding in the testing of JELCO steam generation loop safety valves. These valves were in the process of redesign by JELCO designers, under the JELCO president, Mr. Anderson. Parts were being redesigned and manufactured so that valve performance c6did be slightly improved and project blowdown standards, met. One part, the compres-sien screw, was redesigned but the designer referred to me for verification of the strength of the material and dimen-sions. There was no p_ replanned sequence by which every new component was to be' verified. 3.Mr. Schmidt seemed to be overworke'd and in the office less than half the time. Could this be the reason he signed the first submittal of my report while I was preparing it, with-out reviewing it to my knowledge, when an auditor required this for his check-off sheet?

c. UE&C expediters seemed to exert more pressure than necessary such as requiring a completion date before I knew what was desired by UE&C.

There seemed to be a fear of them on the part of one of the JELCO members of the quality assurance de-partment, charged with their reception, which had possibly brewing in the past over the calculations. When I completed the calculations, however, and inquired of UE&C non-technical personnel by phone of.the particulars of delivering the re-port to UE&c. there was very little effort on their part to help me accomplish this

d. Unacceptable behavior by some JELCO non-technical employees and management's tolerance of this..

1. Sales department:

When I inquired here as to where the Sea-brook Station records were kept, I was told that I must ask the clerk in charge of nuclear records and she would bring them to me. When she brought them to me this tall young woman raised my hand from my desk and slammed my hand back to the desk, dropping the Seabrook package where my hand had beer. This individual also had harassed other employees.- She established a pattern of banging her feet or snapping her finger to annoy me, throughout my stay at JELCO. When I asked her whether a particular portion of the shop order she bad procured.was current, she gave me wrong information. Dan When I discussed the matter with Personnel Director, Harris, he reproted it to her acting department head, Mr. ~ Page Six

l DISCLOSURES J. E. Lonergan Co.-Seabrook job continued I l d.1. Continued Lavery. Mr. Lavery then told me that I should not ask her any more questionc, but that I-should ask him.

However, he was either unavailable or unable to answer me when I approached him, once.

2. Engineering department and other: In the words of one new employee in our department, I was " buried with abuse" by the typist when I was trying to make the May deadline for , my first submitta14 To make a compound problem, the indi-vidual of the qualmy assurance department charged with reception, began to annoy me after the first submittal. Another employee of the qual,ity assurance department, seemed to treat Mr. Schmidt in a derisive manner. A lack of res-pect for the engineering department existed on the part of. other employees. Also there was the derisive manner in There seemed a, treated Mr. Anderson which the president of the company,. general Mr. Schmidt, the Chief Engineer. lack of cognisance of the importance of the calculations with which I was involved as well as the special role of engineering in nuclear work.. Mr. Glowacki' summarized this by stating "nobody knows what you're doing." 3.. Discussion of these problems with the president of JELCO, l Mr. Anderson: I presented my problems of #d.1. and #d.2. above to Mr. Ander. son. Also I mentioned a particular non-nuclear employee in charge of a: stock area who had tried to make life miserable for*me during lunch with Mr Schmidts Mr. Anderson stated that this individual had offered to meet Mr. Anderson in the parking lot apparently to settle ( a grievance or a dispute. The only action Mr. Anderson l took was to offer to fire the secretary who had been causing me as well others difficulties. I thought this would be l cruel and would not help, but worsen the situation, I faced. l Also, I suggested a meeting to improve relations between l myself and these employees, but this was never apuroved l by the president.. JELCO president, Anderson's attitude toward the f act th' t a e. nuclear power plant safety requirements are of a much more crucial nature than non-nuclear applications: His words ( were that he " believed in being op.timistic." In the final segment of my disclosure concerning JELCO-UE&C interactions and my role in the Seatrook job, the above outline is continued. At the conclusion of this outline is a tech-nical discussion of the UE&C handling of model "LCT-11",end load calculations with regard-to areas which require further analysis, in my opinion.. Chronological continuity will be maintained. f. Evaluation of the first proposal by J. J. Jack 11tch, a new UE&C engineer to interface with JELC07g. 323 to B19 Appendix 3). The following changes and additions were requested by this engineer at two meetings with me and Mr. Glowacki. [ Page Seven

DISCLOSURES J.-E. Lonergan Co.-Seabrook job continued f.1. Code case 1711 calculations must now be combined with the seismic and operating) loads for certain loads. (pages 333 and 334 The fact that these were separate calculations had not been questioned to my knowedge since 1976. This required extensive rework on my part. 2.. Gasket loads per code requirements must be includsd with the seismic and valve operating lead calculations. These are loads created by simply screwing the nozzle or base into the body of the valve as is done by'the JELCO assem-bler. In every case these were calculated by me and accep-ted by UE&C engineers to be atleast ten times as great as the seismic plus operating load. When I talked with the JELCO assembler, responsible for this task he stated that there was no measurement of torque or gasket force involved. This force'probably should not be included with the calcu-lations, since it is much less than that calculated; or the assembly procedure should be improved for nuclear valves upon determination that this is necessary, which intuitively would be unlikely, i g. The stance taken by Mr. Jacklitch that the consultant, UE&C, is not responsible for any check of the Lonergan stress report when I suggested that all of the required information had been included in my first submittal, for a check on certain I stresses. The type of check to which I refer, was a simple multiplication or addition. h. The position taken by Mr. Jacklitch that a calculation to verify transfer of a UE&C specified compression end load across valve model LCT-11, body tnrust ring *( pages 335 to B461 would not be required with my second submittal, when I sug-l ) gested this. The technical ramifications of this situation will be discussed at the conclusion of this outline, as stated a b ov e,. f. The position of UE&C engineers that the situation df #h above, is of concern only if the valve would leak or rupture or lose " valve integrity and operability"(UE&c. letter page 319, Appendix 3). Ibeir lack of concern evidenced by their lack or response to my statements indicating the following: The stiffnesses as cetilevers and resistances to horizon-tal and vertical loads of the v.alves might not be as great if there were significant plastic deformation. These stiffnesses might not be as great as the stiffnesses at these points as-sumed by the UE&C piping system stress analysis computer pro-grams. As a consequence, other points in the piping system could have str. esses higher than calculated by the program. j. The suggestion of' Mr. Jacklitch that optimistic values be used in the. calculation corresponding to item #h of this list to bring the stress values below yield point. ( pages 335 to 3 46 ) See discussion below. k. The decline of JELCO to allow =e to proof read my second proposal of the Seabrook seismic report or to see it whatso-ever. The dismissal of this seismic calculation matter as being no : longer of concern by the JELCO president and other employees and UE&C engineers Zim=atori and Skolnick in the fall and winter months of 1979. st_- Page Eight

DISCLOSURES, J. E. Lonergan Co.-Seabrook job continued This discussion concerns LCT-11 compression end load men-l tioned in items #h thgough #k of the above outline. Also, the tension end load the threads and the pipe failure bending load across this model is included. At the second meeting with Mr. Jacklitch we were to discuss the rough draf t of my second pro-posal to expedite the approval. I had found that the thrust ring would be overstressed or nearly so when transferring an axial com-pression end load specified by UE&C for schedule 40 pipe failure and using 30,000 PSI as the yield point of the piping material. I calculated the ring bending stress three ways, with each suc-cessive attempt becoming less conservative (335 to 338, 342 ) The yield point of body material in question, SA 216 WCB cast steel (ASME classificatior), is 36,000 PSI (pages 344 and B45) This means that in general at this tension or compression stress or in this case, at this ring bending stress, permanent deforma-tion begins at the outermost fibers of the plate in question. In addition to the beginning of permanent deformation and more relevant in this case, is the percentage decrease of the load absorbed by these outermost fibers as they become weaker and the integrsl weakening or decrease in stiffness of the element in question.. My first attempts were with the ring bending form-ulas.of Marks Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 7th Edition, and the calculated stress was over 40,000 PSI.( B42 3 '.. The yield stress of the material in question is 28,800 PSI when a casting factor of.3 is considered. (used in first seismic report) When I tried Formulas for Stress and Strain, Roark, 5th Edition, again I was unable to use the more exact formulas of this text to obtain a ring bending stress of less than 40,000 PSI, unless the assurptions were what I considered less than"beyond a shadow of a doubt" conservative.(pages 342 and 343) The assumptions in this case are the distance along the radii from the circle of effective application of compression force through the soft iron gasket between the nozzle and the body (ie. the exact location of g ) to the body wall (effective outermost circle of the thrust ring); and the degree of fixity of the body wall to receive the moment. The optimistic values chosen by Mr. Jacklitch for the former were outer ring diameter of 1.44 inches (vs.1 5 inches) andi)beginches or the outermost gasket diameter for the circle of effective force application, l thus defining the shortest distance of moment development and the least moment. For the degree of fixity, a fixed cantilever was chosen lesoening the calculated moment: Using case t e(B36 ) of Formulas for Stress and Strain, the cal-culated bending stress then dropped below 10,000 PSI (339) Though no bending stresses either tangential or radial would appear to be greater than say 50% over yield upon reinspection, I this is a very complicated problem which merits more attention for the following reasons. The most optimistic diameter for the circle of force applica-tion ir 1.394 inches. This is the outer diameter of the nozzle according to my records. The wrsher elastic modulus, yield strength, and deflection relative to the thrust ring should be considered to determine the load distribution over the surface of the soft iren l washer.The avera6e shear stress is about 12,000 PSI throughout the ' thrust ring (B43). This means that the high or neutral asds is probably over 17,500?SI. The tensile yield stress of 28,000 PSI l Page Mine

DISCLOSURES J. E. Lonergan Co.-Seabrock job continued should be multiplie'd by a factor between.5 and.8 depending upon the particular material. This exact information is not readily available. If the factor is .8, this yield stress i is 23,040 PSI, but if it is.60, for example, the yield stress is 16,800, and shear deformation occurs.. It occurra across a sec-ond plane to the extent that the bending stresses influence this. The not effect is a decrosse in stiffness. Ia is stated in #1 in the above outline, if the stiffnesses of the valve points in the piping system' are sufficiently less than assumed in the UE&C computer program, .other points in the system may be over stressed to the point of leakage or rupture, without this being reflected by the program output. Another possibility is for example, increased bending load on the valve due t'o plastie deformation of the valve under the compression load. An additional concern is that the allowable stress for oe-casional Class II piping system loads (page B46 ) is surpassed.Por a.8 shear factor, the ASE 1.2 safety factor yields maximum shear stress of 14822 PSI. Though the valves are only Class III valves and not of the more stringent requirements of Class II piping, this is an indication that some further atten-might be in order. Similiar concerns exist for this model for the tension end loads on the threads, of this model subjected to pipe failure load.(340) Thou6h the pipe failure bending load is far below yield point for the valve, ring bending is balanced by the relatively stiff bending of the threada.The thread loads should be chec,ked. A plastic study if necessary, along with sophisticated studies ~ of the ring bending mechanisms and their end conditions, lond distri-bution over the crossection of the valve, and the effects of the new input on the UE&C piping system program output, should be checked. It should be noted that there should be atleast fifty valve tage numbers or individual valves of this model in this jobs (B41, LCT-I t tag numbers, first proposal) t al.. q A i s-Q , < v:.. s ~ s 0 Page Ten

DISCLOSURES EMPLOYER: EDS Nuclear Inc., Long Island, NY(EDS) TIME SPAN: Aug.13, 1979 to Aug. 27,1979 PROJECTS : Pilgrim I, Exhaust Stack Retrofit ORGANIZATIONS: Boston Edison Company (BECO); Crouse Co., Maintenance & repair contractor; 3ECHTEL, the original A & E to design the plant; Pennsylvania Bureau of Em-ployment Security, Levittown, Pa. My work involved coordination with Boston Edison comuany(3ECO) and contractors' employees and preliminary engineering design, for the restoration of the Pilgrim Unit I nuclear power plant exhaust stack, including the ventilation duct component. It would involye installation of a temporary stack to function as normal, whilparts were refinished or replaced for the existing stack. This was necessary because of the effects of corrosion at the top of the plant =ain stack. The stack consisted of a chamber for an auxiliary boiler exhaust pipe, an' access chamber' for clim'b'- ing and the main plant ventilation exhaust duct. According to the l reports I received, the corrosion was due to original material sa-lection and the collection of rain water and its reaction with chemically. The collection was due to the de-boiler exhaust, i tachment of an auxiliary boiler exhaust pipe rain baffle and the treughlike orientation of horizontal structural "I"

beams, which were structural elements of the stack..

Some of the relevant aspects of the project were the isokinetic probe (radiation measuring device near the top of the ventilation' l exhaust duct) and its transfer to the temporary stack, means to iden-tify exactly what was the situation at the stack top concerning the baffle and corrosion damage; and the pollution situation in and near the atack. An additional point of interest which I will relate was,thM_bandling,of my related claim by the unemployment of-f ic e.. I had been terminated by my supervisor for not entering the stack to make an investigation. There seemed to be a mixed attitude associated with 3ECO and related companies toward the importance of the accuracy of plant, exhaust air pollution, measurement at_the stack discharge and danger of high airborne exposure.. The original plant speci-i I fications stated that the exhaust air discharge to the atmosphere-must be atleast at 180 elevation, and the dis. charge must be in the upward, vertical direction. The drawings obtained at the BECO office in Boston showed the isokinetic probcat roughly twenty feet below the stack top. These seem,to indicate a concern for the degree of airborne radiation contamination in the immedi-ate areas of the plant and stack. At a meeting with BEC0_ engineers in Boston which my supervisor Mr. Bowles and I attended, the sug-gestion:to lower the height of the temporary stack belcw eleva-tion 180 feet to satisfy other engineering criteria was rejected by one of the SECO employees. He stated that the roof area at the base of the stack was " polluted" at present. It was neces-sary to determine just what the condition was of the stack. The 3ECO microfilm drawings available through their office did not include the baffle. Information concerning design and materials of the stcck top, exhaust duct was hard to find or not available, in some cases. Page Eleven W w --~-- -, - - - -, - - -,,,,,. -,

o DI3CLOSUPES EDS-Pilgrim I stack retrofit A couple of days after coming to EDS Nuclear, Mr. Bowles, my supervisor at ted that it was necessary that I accompany him on a trip up to the top of the stack chamber for an inspection. I raised the airborne pollution, safety question, and I think, suggested other means, but he insisted there was no pollution danger. He made statements to the effect that there is more exposure to ra-diation in an airplane or at the top of a high rise. He did state however, that Pilgrim I was one of the " dirtier" plants due to the fuel which was used. Other possibilities of risk connected with the detached baffle and the corrosion existed.. They were the possibility of flow from the exhaust duct into the access cham-ber. due to the corrosion and the possibility of flow blockage and this effect on the pollution levels.. These, I thinki I re-lated to Mr. Bowles. On the night prior to the day I was to climb up the stack, I phoned my uncle, Dr. Aaron Miller, who was of twenty-five, or so, years experience in working with radioac'.ive isotopes both in research and medical settings. .I told hin of what was planned for the next day, concerning my climb up the stack. He stated in the second paragraph of a letter which he sent to the levit-town, Penna. Bureau of Employment Security office, the following: "There appeared to be atsolutely no infor=ation as to what the usual level of radioactivity in the stack was.

Secondly, the nature of the isotopes present was also an unknown.

That is, whether the risk was one of contact, inhalation or both.. For these reasons, I told him that there was a definite potential risk for receiving an excessive exposure to dangerous radio-isotopes." At the Pilgrim I site meeting the next day in Plym'outh, Mass, wit.. BECO employees, I brought up the question of the isokinetic T ere would be a new system friction loss in the case probe. h of the temporary stack due to obstructions and two ninety degree turns.and a slightly different flow rate would be a consequence. The only information I remember receiving at this meeting concern-ing the probe was that EDS was responsible for mounting and the manufacturer, General Electric would furnish any nycessary data. The Crouse Co. Assistant Supervisor (Pg. C1, App'r C)who had made the climb stated that he looked into the exhaust duct top opening and took off the mask he was given. My impression was that he was either not informed about the potential risk, or had resigned himself to this risk. When I filed for unemployment after being terminated at EDS and claimed conditions hazardous to my health, the office made l two denials, one before and one af ter.a hearing.( Pages C3 to C8 ) The relevant point here is that to place the burden of proof it was ruled that on me rather than on EDS by Pennsy(lvania law,C5, C6 and C7). And I quit rather than was terminated this was contrary to what the employer's letter had stated and what Mr. Bowles had indicated at my hearing which was taped. Mr. Bowles seemed to indicate that he had ultimately t rminated me," early in the interview, in response to the interviewer's question. LaterMr.Bowlesnoddedagreementt%ewhenIstatedthisand did not express disagreement as he had at times, during the taped His letter had described my leaving as by " mutual interview. Page Twelve l.

DISCLOSURIS EDS-Pilgrim I stack retrofit continued agreement" which was my initial description also.

However, technically the termination came after a discussion and after the termination I agreed that the position was not what I had had in mind..

All of the relevant data above,. along with other facts T e positions h were included in my presentation at the hearing. taken by Bowles that my stack assignment was safe by virtue of a Pilgris I safety clearance and that I was told that I was to climb in a nuclear power exhaust stack on the day of my inter-view were unquestioned by the unemployment office. During the hearing, Mr. Bowles stated that he had made the climb with "only a teashirt, a flashlight and a hard hat." IMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW: ESAS C O S ERVICES Inc., Jer.ic o, N.Y. TIMEt Week or so prior to accepting EDS offer. When I made the statement to Personnel Representative, John Riffle, that diverse engineering experience would be of value in switching to alternative technologies for power gener-ation, he stated,"The people won't get what they want." This was in reference to switching from nuclear power generation, l apparently. i INFORMAL TOUR OF MANUFACTURING PACILITY: B&G Mfg. Oo. Inc., Hatfield, Penna. Formally JED'or similiar of Ger=antown section of Philadelphia 1 This company manufactures standard and exotic fasteners. 1 When I noticed a pile of fasteners in a remote corner of the p1' ant, the fact that nuclear stock was required to be Jocked in a ca6e at J. E. Lonergan Co. came to mind. At this point produc-l tion supervisor, Lou Rosenberg, seemed to express a lack of ap preciation, of 'the importance of nuclear standards for his stock. z Page Thirteen ,.-,___,..,-----.,.,_,g- -y,--,--. _,, -,-,-,,,,, - --,-.m_,. -m .,.-,.-+,,e

APPDIDIX A / I I l A 1 a O l l = 1 1 l l l l l 4 ( 0 ,,-_,--,--,.,,,,..,,,,,----------wg- .g,.- o---,-,-w.- gr- - -

e

( 1 ....,. h. : *. . 3..:.d..."2r-g. .,', * * ??. '.'.",n-VG. >r...,vl r .':.,.'2 l ..<r ..s ,;w.:,,,.v.s,,.s.*. % s. 2.' .c .e>

s...

..f- ~ ..s.a. 3 ~ s. ...... g%. Q. = 4,.,. ....v. ... c., r..,.s, c. g.s y"... - ~~. n. . q.r-.,- ....r.., - r ;,. y,3 s -- (;.. V ; 3 - ', DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY 3'@;,;. ? p'){,Yi'T STATE OF HEW JERSEY 4f/. ~4I!7['pflQI .4 J t' '., '8'[ ;- [ 'i' '.l- . DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS s,'{h.{~. g- .j

2. '

.,['). f r.) ,5,

y * ',..,

THIS 15 TO GRTIFY THAT 3 "f. 3,?.4 V ^..,* y,

pj ' '

.L .r." ,h.' k ~ :. BOARD OF PROF ENGDEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS .,c. 1 +^Yi.l.M . NhN-* '. d,? *'.; ,: M EAS LICENSED 3.iP..: i., I,. Q,yn: nQ , k..) n . : io s... ;. ~ c. ii GEORGE T. MARKCWITZ M D -N.$\\ U. b [ h.'%D3..,J'. k'i.;.....,,1 p,..

Sc 7: g. t..,.,p.3.,,:.;,,,,, y.,,,..,,,.,

..s.. ,..%.e3 .l je 4

h j;

S. r. ~..; i, }5. A .. $'$?.$.. p.>' (L j'$ FOR PRACT'CE IN NEW JERSEY AS' A(N). ? PROFESSIONAI., ENGEEER %-?.* d.%. ,- M '22't.f. e. l .W'i-%~ %.gi'r...:gMWW. ~.1 --' 7...g..E.~.' w.q y.". ;i...,.;. s* u Q 5* l

~

W. ' y.* (t.A< y w/ en S7.e "bL r \\ h . Ex% r.7 944h-!

'u c/t /BL i

?YSI' % ? ' d )..$ k ? ? }"!~$ f* .l.,'f Y'* tw .a-A c,- w m m.4 ?;.ff/..:.l '.n.k; a.iu.at*59Lss tx w l ^ f% w ,--L , 7 8'T Tr?:"'2 d..t. A M UDIE 5 c ' ' * *,,. ;,, ; ;N. .t. ,~ ' t 'a *

' ' )?,.%.'f.s,...s:y" *....*^..~..N

a..%

ee . s. ' y.' '....c.- r,., .,. m t.'H,.. .~ 2 , ~... c-,{2.y.,, .. t .-..a.. _s. 7.x ;. s ;,f.... ...., y. y,., _ y ? w _ .a STA'TE OF NEW JERSEY l OEIP ARTMENT of LAW AND PUSUC SAFETY ~ ' DIVISICM OF CONSUMF.R AFFAIRS ..s - n.. l' -t THIS 15 TO CERTIFY THAT C W ~ I 80 ARO OF ' PROF ENGINEER S AND LAND SURVEYORS . 1.' '1 HAS LICENSED .{

t

..,j 3 . j

..s.. g',4 GEORGE T MARXOWIT'l i

e

.y. 1e y y ....g.. 2 ) 1 I 6 g.T= I ?. q!. a,,- I. FOR PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY AS A(N) PROFESS 10NAL ENGINEER g.- ..,=o .7"9~ 04/30/84 GE26647 [a. g,,;titY [::,"/, w ,JG 9._5 /01/a 2 .D '; ;:,. v.. T t. 9 emenvi cart wouo. oAn ume.o. e.. 1.. @, gy/4 .w. n- .,.4 ... 3yw y.p_. yy 3,pyj. .-=. r... , 1+ Addrrras not appli-86 e. M - cable.for complaiAt. APPINDIX A

e r=

~* .4 v

O.

v,., p 4-3 d .. a. g G. .s= .g. 's -.,,,r, r /

r s s t ....,>,.. t,.:.,.. c,4. *4.";;;%;g...,,,,- ,.,. h i., * , g;. ,.*=.-Q. __.. r ~ ' ,;. *!2.5. 9~. it,. f. 9:" '..$. i t..-.+: - : :.,..... fy.. + N 4 .. n . ;.b:....,,. . f*y, -e. ?, ~ o. . : ps. e o ~ '

1 g' I'S

. 4v.. ..., f;. , '. g. /,, * - 4 Gil.5ERT ASSObATES,INC. '*'>'f ,. - E4 WLQYE15 STATEsatNT OF EARNNOS AND DEDUCMONS j a Aomo, nNN:RVANLA - j DETACH ANO ttTAIN FOR Tout RECOR05 - O <.'i.'. . miao evo.*s.l ( 1 m. s. T.P,;',' oen. -- ~ < t..- 5468 411 10-31-71l' . 'e I- '947*. -l * -' .m;%, h{ 4- '.a:e r ' '9h ' ' 'ancru ( ' ' 5' 1 MWil','u 'IU' ilRIAs I g.,q. g "@;s I ".437 ed.PS j.*sumarca ' 647.86 33 43 9197 14 79 643 496 2 h!.' i ~ 64'56\\

f...

i oe0E*mu etki J.s 5".M G*c !Fs' 's '?'.Ja? I.".effJ2,1.!Jah, o.mMe I =$c t. amaace i o ##e~s V> ,8 v l id33 '. f. l' j 9 353 -i ' E915% i '9ff i NU' 1 I o 'cI " "' I oars utt .A b .rl81As ac^ '" I 6492e 10 26 71 4d2j917 -1 . #.T 64 86 3.143 91,97 643' 1479 f.o I ' :-l Gt pr. } n , ' v..: 9.. y J., ' r. GIL8ERT ASSOCIATES, int.". WLOYtf 5 STAftfaENT OF EARNINGS ANO DEDUCDONS f' ttADING, MNNSMVANu OtTACH AND RETAlH FOR TOUR RECOto$ .f meo ~o e j ^ p".. c,P;<,a i een, k' mal411 Os-1s-rzi i .,2%, .e. s m.e er u.m. ,laza, ! m.s-aW m.,i w, m e i -,u .1 j i -a i xsas, 4 o,en s, :, Yn amri'ev 1.s/C xma, i mcNe~ i ( !l l l l3at!o0l 345!a0 ~ o_ f i.. ,K't, I aca su i d'/Jii'T Nft' NU' T cao -a i o^'s I NET I 06l15f72 34540 , h getatl34 '2 6,113 h 4 6 1 15139 'O.0727 , f. I T( NZ21EE!IF o i.. o , ~, ~ ~ , fr - - = tv.t s iosutwic.sios. s.us.ese 7-== susse memi c.ma.swaness '""""'" ~ ' ~ ~"""'"~'"""'.I'?, $ 4, ?5 1 } r. ( - 23*0623899. . 6"5479 . '. WAGE AND TAX STATEMENT 1972 jj'* ~'. - 5 -e f, li 0100 un 2 to u nus 'in umis of. '. - 5".... s.)J 3l..Q!L8CP.T A550c ! ATE 5 e,INC.,- 5f ait CR (Iff leQut fu tifuss 3W, i,Y >.. [-[<j-525 LANCASTER AVE. ,-g .. ~,,, -.... e C. ~ c . c.~ c.-* .. '... REA0!NGe PA. '19603 I '+ . m.. < ~ c...., ~. c,. c .,u.- c.... o. .m ..ni. .,u r r ~a ' 4.. a. ...c.. ,ic .6 = = na jj. 1 g , c.. mi. '. = = =

a. a i.ers ia i

p. .. = > -7 ,., - e, ,. = - i I N.... a '- '!I.. 122 3. *f 5 7162.72 2 20 172.46 7162.72 1 ' ', '"".'"""""'*."~"",(.8' "'~'**'1-

k.. h Q

.m.os .**unu.* C A 182 38.332.4 7,:q.y i n a.151 *. - ) PENNSYLVANIA .oci ucwom m

i.,j. -

'""''**"~~j ~~ GT MARKCWITZ r JJ 71.a2 ...i. READ M e {7.; g, e . *g 7g; y, e.,> w+. 1 .l. e 9 Eb.~- p 1

Address not applicable Page for complaint.

A2 APPENDIX 1 1 .e... - r. O, e'

1 7-J. E. m7er.Utr COMPANY MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY-RELIEF VALVES C.. 10050 SANDMEYER LANF_ PHILADELPHI A. PA. letts P. O. BOX 6167 a.s e77 s7to TELEX 845-131 rQ -~w.-. -n 7 Ag_ tit v. y; : %f.. t

March 5, 1979 Mr. George T. M.rkowit:

1*

Dear Mr. Markowitz:

\\ This will e nfirm the J. E. Lonergan Company's offer to you of the position of Design Engineer (Mechanic.41), at an annual salary of $20,000.00, effecttve Monday, March 12, 1979. Please cont ct me as soon as possible with your decision. Sincerely, r\\ A Daniel P. Harris Personnel Manager DPH/seg g, ,7=,,g, n r_n n,,7 swi.wg 4 s. c. m m m w.= ... = J.T. LOMTROAN T. C9 115 2'47M5'*.' 10050 S A4McVFR 93&O 21 netrt.oo u svaau bceava=ai i pyga, og 1njic se..<ea,.... een,.n vree. gia r== *o -.s= n eo us -ma.e .a.--- ,

r.au u.

e l 4e w. 1.1c4_oni c.A'n.14 174 17I c.'77. i-,_3,_3274 is oo 6ai u on,=v u l,;l,g, ;/g., un r,F09GF T MARK 0WTT7 s. iss...in.. .c n a.m... 7DiU ,,,. r. e. e. s ., c. . e..., 1 e Ll aa...i l 21 tac = am ias meno. 22 Lacas.sg.s. tios..ic. 1 #^"" ^" 1

Address not applicable for

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,, complaint. Page 13 APPF.NDIX A v ~.

(T NDS, NUCLEAR INC. , c, ' a0; N acAo wottow noAo. ustvitts. ksw venn,sirer. <s, 4 4.o 7 b .\\ f A Q [6 s A (T' 'f Ns o s SMJO(~ ^"8"'t8-4 x. %e \\x. 8 n Mr. George T. Markowitz . h. n-, ~~ k. g, w. g. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " Dest Mr. Markowitz: In reference to your discussion with hn Bowles EDS Nuclear Inc.d is pleased to offer you a position in our New York,0ffice aN, Senior EngineerY Your initial assignment will be to perform the engiacering rektred to implement, .s. repair of the Pilgrim Nuclear Station, Reactor Building vent stack. (' / It is our desire that you begin employment with us on August 13 J979 ,9 at the New York Office. Your starting salary will be S2,335.00 por month. / Should you decide to accept this offer, please notify us as soon as possible. O We are looking forward to a mutually beneficial association at EDS. If you have any questions about our offer, please feel free to call us at anytime. h 4 Sincerely. EDS NUCLEAR INC. ( { 3 / Paul R. Jacobs i Nuclear Division Manager I./. T 'd f', 2a 1J 4 Plu/vr l 1

Address not applicable for complaint.

\\ SAN FRANCISCO

NEW YCRK e ATLANTA e PARIS Pag'e AA' APPFNDII A

A?PENDIX B J. E. LONERGANiCO. P SEA 3 ROOK STATION SEISMIC CALCULATIONS l l l i 1 l l l ~ a 6 + -

e

- we e

g )., I 'd. ,/ 1 ~ i b) ~ Upse t Plant Conditions are based on the maximum upse t temperature, pressure and flow conditions as listed in the attached valve data sheets. Valve weight and orientation shall also be included along with the imposed nozzle loads defined in Paragraph 2.6.5. c) Emergency Plant Conditions (if any) are as indicated in the attached valve data sheets. d) Faulted Plant Co itions are based on the maximum faulted temperature, pressure and flow conditions listed in the attached valve data sheets and also on the seismic loading requirements described in Paragraph 2.6.4.1. Valve weight and orientation chall be included along with the imposed nozzle loads defined in Paragraph 2.6.5. Note: Regarding valve " orientation" as listed above, the Seller shall assume the " worst" case position in his calculations. 2.6.4 Imposed Loads (Nozzle Loadings) The Seller shall submit. the maximum load (1bs) to which the inlet and outlet connections (of each safety / relief valve m s type) may be subjected. V' / Spec. No. 9763-006-248-7 Page B1 Page No. 7 l APPENDIX 3

( s / TABLE 2.6.4.3 j' / LOAD COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS / FOR SEISMIC CATEGORY l COMPONENTS p ACTIVE PIANT LOAD T.IMITS LOADS CONDITION PRIMARY / SECONDARY ANALYSIS INCLUDED PRIMARY + NOTE 2 BENDING CLES 2 DESIGN ,P NC3500 r P+T CLASS 3 ND3500 NORMAL + UPSET P+T+ EMERGENCY S /1.5S - 3S UB3500 NB3647.1 SSEL FAULTED P = Pressure Rating of Inlet Side r P = Pressure T = Temperature OBEL = OBE Loads on Valve Body and Bonnet SSEL = SSE Loads on Valve Body and Bonnet EPL = Emergency Plant Condition Loadings S = Allowable Stress Value as Per Code Case 160.7 Note 1: Primary Membrane and Pri=ary Bending must be computed for c valve inlet / outlet and Bonnet Bore Area - General Membrane 4' per NB 3545.1 - Body to Bonnet per NB 3647_.1 9 Note 2: The pressure and ec=perature are the highest of E=ergency or Faulted Conditions (as NB3526(h) & NB 3527) Note 3: P and T corresponds to plant load condition Page B2 L ~~ 'n APPENDIX B l snee. ?:n. 97c1-on6-72 -7

1 l J.. , L Q N E R G A N CO M f* A M Y g 7 EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATION t ^- . \\, All. valves are quoted as per Section VIII and Section III of the 1a, All procedures and documentation will be submitted as ASME Code. per the above mentioned codes, because the specifications far exceed the ASME Code requirements for non'-destructive examination. This would have to be reviewed with yo'ur engineering prior to quoting as an extra, since we feel that many are not applicable to I safety-relief valves. [ Q ~

~

Par. 2.6.4 Seismic. E):ception is taken to seismic testing and only our standa$ d' static 4, calculations will be submitted. Any additional testing would have' ,to be reviewed with your engineering and quoted as an extra charge. .3 Para. 2.6.2 ANSI B16.5 is not applicable to safety relief valves. s . +,.. < .N. Par,' '2.6.5 Exception taken to this paragraph. No. specific data is given. Par. 2.7.5 Exception is taken because it is rather impossible to determine fatigue life. Bellows pressure ratings 1% ti=es specific ' pressure is our competitors design. Bellows J.ro not available in come cases of the valves we quoted and in many cases are not required for the conditions stated in your specification. Para. 2.8.5.4 Weld repair records for non-nuclear valves will be the same as nuclear valves as per our foundry standard. ~ Para. 2.13.1 NB number required. This para. needs clarification because it may require a special nameplate. This will have to be,, negotiated and quoted accordingly. 1 963 -0,AS -1 Pata. 4.1.2 We question how this can bc.erified. v IL, Page B3 APPENDIX *B

__,(. .g. ..r. g /- ' EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATION ~ ,. ~,

g. 9.976h-WS-1Welding and NDE' Class 1,2.3

~' 3, Para. 3.5.3.2 (b) Socket Welds - We use SMAW process for root ..1 1ayer. Para. 3.6.3. -Socket Wolds We use E-309 for carbon steel to . stainless steel. E-308 for stainless steel to stainicss steel and 7018 carbon steel to carbon steel.

Para. 5.1.2 Weld documentation is not cicar and exceotion is taken.

This applies to only a few valves. Liquid penetrant or cagnatic partical examination would be supplied. y', ~ (O. 9763-US-2 Welding and NDE non-nuclear. - -4. Sale as 9763-US-1 applies. . \\- '1. 9763-MPS-1 Para. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 3.2 is not availabic because we deal , with supply houses only and not the mill. ., Para. 8.6 Exception is taken to this paragraph.

' Para. 9.1.4 Exception is taken since we deal with supply houses and this examination is not availabic.

Mill will.not deal with us, u'nicss we purchase car-load quantitics and this is not practical, ' because of cur requirements. Para,.10.3 Stainless steel coatings. PT after final hydro test is .nct practical. Exception is taken until clarified by your engineering Para, 14 Cleaning This would have to be negotiated to meet your requirement and quoted as.an extra charge. Para, l5 Packaging and shipping will be as per our attached Procedur.- No. PS-101. p ~9763-MPS-Z Same comments as under 9763-MPS-1. 13 We will furnish all valves for Section III as per Code requirements a-- as per our attached procedures. Section VIII valves will be furnishc. as per attached procedures. e e Page B4 APPENDIX B-2

l .g...,,.-.. / 6

EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATION Item !4, Tag #1-SW-V71 and V-72 and 2-sW-V7 and 72.

IIastelloy "C" required as per spec for disc and base. This material is not listed as approved by Section III. Monel is approved and quoted. It is also excellent for sea water. i Balanced bellous are not available on ther=al valves and your conditions do not warrant its use. Exception is taken in all cases.- Constant back pressures do not require balanced bellows, but only variable back pressures and developed back pressures. t ,Y l s s s t -.,w Page B5 APPENDII.B 3

l ~ u J. ';i LONERGAN.CC. inter-Ofice Qon cspondcuce pgaz t og 3 Date: June 10, 1976 'g Tc A. J. SCHMIDT cca R. M. ANDI?. EON W.'A. ROACH e From: R. L. MORRISON D., L.BRECHT

7. S. GIOJACKI

Subject:

TRIP TO U.E. & C. 6d/76 to discuss quote for Public Service of New Hampshire. 01ouacki and Morrison visited the U..E. & C. offices at 30 South 17th Street and met the following engineers: Mr. John Parasano Mr. Walter Chapla Mr. Chaeles Hecksher Mr. R. Kaplan Mr. P. Sheth .They ware curcriced at the number of a :sptions to the specification we had taken and thry wanted to go over them point by point (See copy attached). 1. We made the statement that their N.D.E. requirements "far exceed" the code. hey wondered wha t we meant. We had to admit we didn't know and that we would discuss it again with our Engineering and advise *iam later. 2. Soismie -- leave until last. 3 What they meant to 'say was that the flanges should be in accordance with ANSI - B16.5. They said sorar of our co=potitors a:e quoting non-standard flanges. h. Bis paragraoh in their stec was confusing, hhat custoner i.s talking about is external end loads on outlet flange. This is the same as the r probism wo are having with Sargent & Lumy. We went thru our usual dis-cussion but they insich we must give..them a n=ber and the valve =ust not leak. 6. Wo tried to tell them that bellows fatiguo life is not a significant f factor in safety valves but hero again they insist upon a figure which we will have to get from the bellows manufacturer, f 6. No particular discussion. ~ v 7. N.B. number is not required in New Hampshiro. Page B6 APPENDIX B'

.,,., h. L O N E R C A N " C O M P A N Y PAGE 2 of 3 / June 10,1976 8. This concerns the matter of design control and is one of-the eighteen criteria in 10 CFit-50 and has rever been clearly defined to our satis. faction. Our fccling has bcon that this applies to a system that has been just designed for the present job and not for equipment that has been in existonee for many years without essential change such as safety valves. Our point of' view is that the fact that we have the A.S.M.E. Sta=p (N, V, or UV) means that the capacity has been verified by the National Board. The eceration is verified by our production tasting and the ceisnic calculations verify its use under earthquake conditions. All theso things verify that the design is correct in addition to the many hundreds of prior installations. 9 & 10. No argument here. They accept the SMAW process and we could not see any orabics in weld documentatio'n. 11 & 12. They agree that P T af ter final hydro is impractical and they will remove this from soec. In lieu of all the other requirements about steel mills we are to perform tests per A S T M A-262 Practice "E". for both Class 2 and 3 valves on each heat of material. We pointed out that wa cannot predict how many tests this would involve but we would try to have our Purchasing Cept.1:eeo the number of heats of material to a minimum thru negotiation with tre suppliers. 13. No comment. lis. We will requote tho valves concerned with Haste 11oy "C" trim since we have later found an A.S.M.E. number for this material SB-336. They claim that in a stagnant condition Monal does not hold up in sea water only in a. flowing condition. 15 'Ihoy insist on balanced bellows on all valves with back pressures listed. This means about 17 valves will have to chango from LOT Series to 1a x F x 2" - DD Series. These will have to be requoted. As a pneral comnent they want Keelcr & Iong #7107 caint 3 mils thick. g We agreed since we have furnished this paint on previous jobs. 2. SETSHIC RECUTRT!TS We spent quito a lot of time discussing this subject with Mr. Sheth. First of all we chruld have sent them a copy of our Seismic fu= mary. Sineo no didn't they were not sure what is meant by static calculationst They did not like tho way we calcu, late the natural frequoney of the valve as a whole. Instead they want us to calculate the natural fre-quency of ea:h individual ensconent independently such as, bonnet. ste=, t l dise, etc.' Also they want us to nake all the calculations called out in code case 1711. i l Page B7 APPENDIX &

-/ J. E. L O N E FI G A N COMPANY PAGE 3 of 3 / . June 10, 1976 '2. SISMIC REOUIRE4EITS - (Continued) In regard to testing they said we didn't take a specific exception to it and neither did we suggest what testing we muld be willing to Vinnie is to advise them about this testing and ouote them consider. It looks as if there would be three (3) tests required a price for it. and since at least tuo (2) of them are socket weld ends, we couid not sell the valves to the custor ce after the tests. Based upon this, the \\ i tost valvec need not be certified mater:.als although they must be carbon-copies of the actual valves; i.e. cast bonnets. As a final nota we must remember that anything decided hers applies also to the New England Power quote. r 1 l l l l b k 9 .e Pare E8 APPENDIX B

i ..m J.E.LoNcRGAN COMPANY C ,/ August 23, 1976 e RXCEPTIONS TO TIIE SPECIFICATIONS 1. All valves are quoted'as per Section VIII and Section III of the ASME Code. All procedures and documentation will be c.ubmitted as per the above mentioned codes, because the specifications far eneced the ASME Code requirements for non-destructive examination. This would have to be revictied with your engineering prior to quoting as an entra, cince ue feel that many are'not applicable to safety-relief valves. 2 Par. 2.6.4 Seismic. Exception is taken to scismic testing and only our standard static calculations uill be submitted. Any additional testing would have to be reviewed with your engineering and quoted as an extra charge. _ 3. ' Para. 2.6.2 . ANSI B16.5 is net applicable to safnty relief valves. 4. Para. 2.6.5 Execption taken to this paragraph. No specific ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ . data ls given. ' 5. Par. 2.7.5 Exception. is taken becauce it is rather impossible to determine fatique life.. Bellows proccure ratings li times specific pressure is our competitors design. "6 Para. 2.8.5.4 Weld repair. record for non-nuclear valves will be the same as nucicar valves as per our foundry cuandard. 7. 9763-QAS-1 r Para. 4.1.2 We question how this can be verified. 8.' Para. 4,4.1.1 Hydrostatic Test. As per our Procedure #T-110. 9. Para. 4.4.1.2 Scat Leakage Test ..As per our Procedurc GT-110. Page B9 - A APPENDIX B ,n

[.Ed.LONERGAN COMPANY ,1 ' August 23, 1976 7 4 EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS 10. 9763-WX-1 Welding and NDE Class 1, 2, 3. Para. 3.5.3.2. (b) Socket Welds,- We use SMAW process for root layer. Par. 3.6.3. Socket Welds - We use E-309 for carbon cecel to stainicss c:ect and 7018 carbon etcel to carbon steel. Para. 5,1.2 Wcld documentation is not cicar and exception is taken. This applies to only a feu valves. Liquid penetrant or magnatic partical examination would be supplied. 11. 9763-US-2 Welding and NDE non-nuclear. Sale as 9763-US-1 applics. 12. 9763-MPS-1 Parn. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 3.2 is not available because we doul with supply houses only and not the =ill. 13. 9763-MPS-Z ',Came comments,as under.9763-MPS-1. ~..,. ~ 14[ We will furnish all valves for Section III as per code requirc= ente and as per our attached procedurcs. Section VIII valves will be furnished as per attached procedurec. l . 15. Item #4, Tag #1-SW-v71 and V-72 and 2-SW-v7 and 72. '. ~ ' Hastelloy "C" required as per spec for dice and basc. Socket Weld ends will be supplied. l 16. Seismic Para. 3.5.1 a) Standard Static analysis calculations will be provided. b) Propose test will be done as follows on a full size valve. l Para. 6.0 ~ j Propoucd Seismic Test for S c 10 x 10 Cencrator Valvec. Valve will be mounted on a shaker tabic in connection uith a procsurized chamber in cuch a way that it can be preocurized with air at 907. of set preccure (approximately 1242 psig). A resonant frequency scarch uill be conducted in a range of 5 t'o 40 hert=. This will be donc in each of three axes. Page B10 '42-A2?ENDIX B i l

..s C Q f4 P A N Y d. E. L O N c !t G A N August 23, 1976 t a I 16. -continued- ' Valve shall then be subjected to a seismic dwell et each resonance. observed during previous testa. If no resonances were observed less than 33 hertz, the dwell test will be m.,.de at 33 here=, 3g accclcrations 14.11 be applied simultaneously both horicentally and vertically at the center of gravity of the extended partc. The dwell will lace for one (1) minute and at the end of this time the inlet pressure will be raised to the cet precsure to pop the valvo during shaking. Valve will be observed to make sure that there is no apparent dc;nage. Dacil test t. rill be held in each horizontal axis along uith the varticle axis. The cost for the above mentioned test is $20,000.00 (extra charge) for a one ti=2 test..If any edditional test is required, the coct for came, shall be negotiated between Buyer and Seller. 4 me, O O -* e s.s e~ ,e s ,,w. e O e i O e O e .F-e e e O e q e e 9 e e i s O 9 Pare 1.. Bil " APPENDIX B

J..E..'LON ERG AN CO. l- ~ ^ . liticr-Ogice Corrcspondcuce Date: August 26, 1976 To. A. J. SCIDIIDT cc R. M. A!!DERSON W. A. ROACH D. L. BRECHT V. S..GLCNACKI From: R. L. MORRISCN

Subject:

TRIP 70 - U. E. & C. to discuss Public Service of New Hampshire Quoto. 6/25/76 Glowacki snd Morrison visited the U.S. & C. offices at 30 Fouth 17th Street and not the following people. Actually this is a follow-up necting on our trip of 6/h/76. Mr. John Parasano Mr. Charles Hecksher Mr. Walter Chapla Mr. Eduard F:olnick Mr. T. C. Chang 'Mr. Skolnick and Mr. Chang were interested in the seisnic requirenents and we discucsad that first. Their ancroach to this was slightly different than that nentioned in our crevious report but just as involved. They want both "snalysis . <.and to. sting.. The static.. analysis that we.do is not. enough fo r..the.t...They a also want all the calculations called out in code case 1711 (We mentioned this

ri our last report).

' ' ' ~ ~ " ' ' i As far as testing pes they accept shnker testing but they uant randon notion not sino waw. We have had indicatSns from the test lab that this is note involved than clain sine wave testi:/g and therefore nore exncnsive although we have no idna hon much. We uill have to check. Ihey want tto (2) vnives tested; one D3 and cna (1) LCT-ll. 7.e valves shsuld be pressuriced with / water and ocened fi.e (5) times while cycling. They want to dwell 22 seconds betwcon ocenings. .~ These tiro r.en t:cre then excused and we proceeded to go over the other exceptions to snees. (see copy a ttached). 1. Th only coint by which the spces exceed the code is that they went P E on the hard-facing on both the Section III and Section VIII valves. 2. Seisnic (covered cbove). 3 Thin was covered in our ::revi.ous mna. All they mean is tha* v they want to bc sure our flan 6c co nfo rt: to B16.5 Page B12 M-APPENDIX B

s ,. s

3. R.' L o N C R O A N COMPANY Augu st 26, 1976

'!O: A. J. SCIEEDT Mt0M: R. L. MORRI.TN 2 h. This is the bit about external end loads. We should send 1, them our usual explanation about these loads being "e5sentia117 zero". 5. On this subject of bellous fatigue life we promised to check with bellows manufacturers. 6. No comment. 7. This matter of design verification is mostly coverad by the seismic calculations, etc. 8 to IL. No ccanent. Either covered by previous meeting or is not applicabic. 15 This was covered in previous memo. We will furnish either Haste 11oy "C" or Inconel base end disc. 16. Covered above. Basically this meeting was a rchosh of the points covered in our June hth meeting with further clarification of seme points. \\ l t l Page B12(1) APPENDIX H-8 i L = O

i p ,n v J.~i~. 7.n/ ci:i,a. t me-. -.7 t<.Y::i...! LioMPANY uarturscre. ins ce sarerv.nei.ier vat.. zs

i r r.

r=cr.. <mw #nzw::.m=rr.-

c 10050 S[f 40MEYEft LA$E "PHILAoELPHIA. PA. 19985 P. O. BOX G I G7 als c77.t7to T,ELEX 045 131 c;.. ,,, s.-

==n=:= n:.-:.m. ew. c.:s. n r.w ::. =:mmr.

. -....=1 r.- r: m =: w:- w - m / March 21, 1978 United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. i 30 South 17th Strcot Y Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Attention: Mr. E. H. Case Manager - Purchasing

Subject:

Safety Relief Valves Reference SBU-15646 and SBU 16301 Public Service Company of New Hampshire Scabrook Station Units 1 and 2 P. O. SMH40-9763-005-248-7 Loncrgan Order Number 609318-1 and 2 Add #1 lonergan Quotation No. 8054-C Gentlemen : We are pleased to submit our proposal covering Loncrgan Safety and Relief Valves in reply to your inquiry dated Deccaber 12, 1977 and January 18, 1978. The total not value of Unit.1 is......................$70,023. 95 The total not value of Unit 2 is......................$70,023.95 Delivery 36-40 wecks after final approval of drawings and proceduren. Approval drawings have been submitted 2/21/70. All procedurca will be the same as the ori inal order. Prices are firm for a period of 90 Days. Escalation Clause-- Sarac as the or.ginal order. All foundry procedures and NDh; will be the same as the original order. The scismic calculation will be supplied as per your specifications. The calculation will be static analysis. , All other paragraphs remain the same as the original quotation. Page 313 APPENDIX 3 s -1

, E'. L a n c n a h N COMPANY / j _. [ _ ~ March 21, 1978 United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.. P. O. SN1140-9763-006-248-7 i Lonergan Quote # 8054-C United Engincers and Constructors, Inc.. Philadelphia., Pa.19101 TERMS: Not Thirty (30) days or as per mutual agreement between buyer and seller. ASTM-A-262 will be supplied on stainless steel valves only for Section III Class 2 and 3 valves. Prices quoted are net F. O. B. Jobsite, Seabrook, New Hampshire. We trust that this information meets with your approval and that we may have the pleasure of being of se,rvice to you. Very truly yours, J. E. LONERGAN COMPANY O J/nfMdk. IhACujtte!2<-- Vincent S. Glouacki VSC/rsr District Manager OUR REPRESENTATIVE IN YOUR AREA IS : George K. Kerisher Company P. O. Box 18427 Boston, Mass 02118 l ~ Paae B4 v' APPEND 1X B ,--s.,, .-,,-.__-.m

a ,1 y s' & V - .s 9) fij ~.. p p. M. , aRESTM2 COMPANY " MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY REUEF VALVES - w gsar,ury:ysump l0050 SANoMEYER LANE, 9 PHILADELPHIA. P'A. 19885 \\ i P. O. Box G I G7 ass c77. 7to TELEX 845-131 mr; w. a a% g~===~~===~1=mm=m =a.m==== =u "~ --c==umm===<=m te%., ; l oct'ber 24, 1978 s o ~Unii:ed Engineers and Constructors, Inc. l 30 South 17th Street P. O. Box 8223 .s Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Attenti.on : Mr. J. J. Parisano P,iping Discipline ~. Subject : . ' Public S'ervice Co. of N, H. Seabrook Stat. ion nitja 1and 2 UE and C P. O. 9 o3-006-248-7, SNH-40 ,1 ASME III Safety and Relief Valves P. O. File 248-7 Gentlemen: In response to your letter dated August 14, i978 we would liR= to add the following comments: ' h,c ITEM # 1 Seismic Load. \\. In an carthquThe the ground does not shake in three directions ~ 1. at once. It will be one horizontal and the vaitical. We consider the worst horizontal which would be in line wi'th the reaction force due to valve blowing. We cannot test in all three directions at onco, therefore, that is the reason our calculations are as submitted for your approval. The tests will be made using aimultaneously one horizontal and a vertical. The test valve will then be rotated ninety degrees using the other horizontal and vertical position. 2. We do not consider nozzle loads in all computations and we refer .you to para. NC-3521-1977 code states that'a valve is considered adequate to withstand the piping end loads if the section modulus and arca of the neck is 1107,of the attached piping. This is also stated in code Case 1711. These calculations can be subaitted if you give us the schedule of the connecting piping. Past e - BI5 (- APPENDIf 3

.h.I E.. L o N C R G A f4 C O M P A N [ October 24, 1978 United algineers and constructors, Inc. Phila., Pa.19101 2 1 The body minimum wall requirements are.shown in the code ~

3. A.

case 1711 calculations which na cubmitted for your approval. The inlet and outlet flonges are in accordance with IL-16.5 B. as required by Para NC-3512 of.:he code. The loaded portion of our spindle or stem is a short stubby C. block and cannot. buck 1c. The longest portica of the stem has no L load on it and it just goes along for the ride. The bonnet is covered in the Code Case 1711 calculations D. which were submitted for your app cial. r

4. A., We have no idea as to what you maan by " shear shape factor" and we suggest a meeting to discuss this point.

We have agreed on this point and this project was quoted B. to include the vibration tantings as por your purchase order and the tests are now in the process of being made. It will be witnessed by US and C representatives.. The" bonnet bolts analysis is included in the Code Case 1711 - C. l calculations which has been submitted -for your appwal. D. A sketch of the bonnet belt arrangccent is included in the seismic calculations that were submitted for your approval. ITai # 2 We are confused by your statement. "The calculations do not include strecscs due to scismic loading". The seismic . calculations as submitted considered the r.:cchanical and seism'.c . loads in combination. If any additional calculations are required j by you then please advise with an explanation of your requirements. All calculations will be updated as items are added to this order. I feel that perhaps a meeting uith you cnd your people would be in order that uc may review all of the above points and resolve thea as soon as possible. You may contact me at: (215) 677-1710 in order to arrange the meeting. l ~ e yQ : .s B16. APPENDII 3 l

5 O - (s. 1 J. E. Lc N E RG At4 C O M P A N Y '. - e s / October 24, 1978 !,Y t United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. Phila.. Pa. 19101 3- 'Very truly yours, ~ / J.

E.

LONERCAN C01@ANY %M d. /J/Ac VINCENT S. GLOWACKI-VSG/rsf DISTRICT MANAGER o e O p.

s f

e 1 6 e t e e e l g y h O en. O Page. +. BU e A2PENDII B. em e y . +.., m..%_ ,.w --,9 -s-,.m-- 7y

J.. E.. LONERG AN CC c [ .. Intcr-0.(iica Corre.spomience t - Date: November 13, 1978 R. If. AUDEREON ec: To: A. J. SCHMILf W. A. ROACH D. L. DRECHT R. L. MCRRISON From: V. S. GIDh'ACKI Subicct: Trip to U.E. & C. to discus:. Public Service of Nc r Hamurhira (Seabrook) Order S.O. No. 609818 11/7/7S Brecht and Morrison vicited the U. E. & C. offices at 30 South 17th Streat and mot the following people: Mr. John Parasano - Project Engineer Mr. Joseph Zinnatori lead Engineer Mr. Edward Skolnick - Project Engineer Md. Y. C. Chang - Q. A. Group The purpoce of the meeting was to discuss in detail the U. E. & C. latter dated 8/lb/78 and the Iccorgan answer dated 10/2h/78. h t he Codo doe s Basically, they want a stress analysis report from us althouC Their contention is that it is pcrt not require it on Class 2 and 3 valves. of the seismic analysis report. We started to nay that we would want raora in tho origins 1 money for this but they said no, claiming it was included,[an argument Ior,cer,an This is a matter of interpretation 'and itj specification. cannot possibly win, so ue agreed to try to satisfy then. They acceo that their cpecs,probably go beyond any code. are listed Paragranh by paragraph the agreements made, as we renceber them, below: l 1) They agreed that we could not test threc (3) ares at once but they wan:,ed l We agreed to uc1 5_g horizcntal, which h then covered in calculations. is the resultant of two 3.0 g forces at right angics to cach other in our calcula tions. This seemed to satisfy their requirement. We are still a little confused about this paradraph. The Code in Sec.UC-35'21 2) says that uhen the crea and section modulus of the valvc neck is 1107, of We aro not sut*c t:hather r.the attached piping, the valve is considered acceptabic. this will satisfy U. E. & C. or uhother they want mere' involved calculatica:. One coint they did Make is that they da not unnt separate cots of calculaticus but they must be all one under the heading of."Scismic Cal _cul..ations". 3 Here again, we pointed out that the body wall thickness juctification cas 3) in the set of calculation. diended " Code Case 1711" but they want this incorporated in the seismic calculations. They agreed that our ctem ucs E clio7t that it could not bucklo. However, they do tarrt;/ttrecs cciculatim ~ ~ of the !3onnet neck caction. ~ Page B18 APPENDIX B ~~ ~

a 6 J. E. L o n a n a A il C C M P A H h,

~

? No'vember-13, 1978 TO: A. J. SCID1IDT } Mt0M: R. L. MORRISON i I I h) 17e know nothing of a "chone shape factor". Mr. Chang gave us a pago from a book he had which mentions it but it has to do with besma. As far as pipe sections go, it seems ycu chould une a factor of 2. kThe rent of their letter is un-clear to us, other than the fact that they want only one set of calculations to cover all the points mantioned rather than tuo and that the added items should be included in the calculations. ( k ~ 1 ~ / 4 Page 318(A), APPENDIX 3 3 (-

e Q. g, e. m!Mid SEginSSLcenstrucos,nc ~ 30 South 17th Street. Post Offico Box 0223 Philadelphia. Pa.19101 s August 14, 1978 SBU 20453 File: 4.1.8 ,_y. 3 P.O. File: 248-7 Ref: VUO6868, VUO6869 VUO10153, VUO10154 g Cagegory: VPRO g J. E. Ignergan Co=oany 10050 Sandmeyer Lane P.O. Box 6167 Philadciphia, Pennsylvania 19115 Attcution: Mr. V. S. Giovacki Centlemen: Public Service Company of New Hac pshire Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2 UE&C P.O. 9753-006-248-7, SNH-40 ASME III Saf6ty and Relief Valves ,Scismic Calculations UE&C has reviewed the seismic ~ calc 51atiens submitted with your letter dated May 17, 1977 (VUO666S and VUO6869) and April 18,1978 (VUO10133 and VUU10154) and we have the following comments: Item UE&C Issue Lonergab No. F.P. No. No. Document No. Rev. Title 1 90819 01 609818-1 &,2 0 Seismic Calculations for Units 1&2 2 91098 01 609818/1711-0 Calculations per Cede Csse 1711 1&2 Item 1

t '.

1) Seismic Loads (page 2): Per paragraph 272, page 4, of UE&C Specification 9763-VIC-1, the scismic loading shall be 3.0 g acting simultaneously in each of the three principal axes. Therefore, Lancgran should consider the ccismic loads of 3.0 g in e.no horizontal directions as voll as the vertical 3.0 g seismic load.

I

2) Nozzle loads should be considered in all computationc.

For paragraph 2.6.4 of UE&C Specificatica 9763-248-7, the maximia loads (axial, bandit.g, -'r torsion and chear) to which the inlet and outlet connections may be sub- \\ g ' ',', jectc.i and still mair.tain valve integrity and operability shall be sub-l 'g mitted as part of the calculations. As discussed in our aceting of s., April 19, 1978, the maximum allowable valve nozzle loads shall be limited I to the yield of the pipe. For calculation purposes you should assume i , s] the, discharge piping for all yalves eq,bc schedule 40 uith a Sfp=30,000 psi. ,' C '.. d \\/s Page fi9 A?hENDIX,jlL g ~~ ' e c. ?."2 / l s- ,. q', s, .e me --

<7* 1-Augu 14, 1978 2 lir. V. S. Clowacts J. E. Lonergan Company SBU-20453 y!yV[- ) (Ses H&7/3/.1) [

3) The follouing analyses, as a minimum, should be incorporated in the Scismic Calculations.

V ) Valve body-minimult wall requirement, inlet neck and outlet neck. p g b) Inlet flange and outlet flange. Spindle-ch'ck against buckling. c) e @ Bonnet

4) The following is a list of additional comments with regard to the 3eismic Cale lations as submitted.

5, G-t b* f) i f l 0,4 a p. ll 8 Page 6 (- computing stress in sh, ear Ss, a shear shape factor should a) be incorporated, b) Page 11 - The computation alone is not enough to verify that the valve f ,,,/ t natural frequency is above 33 Hz. The resonant frequency scarch as y{,08g' presented in your Seismic Qualification Test Proce [," p should be the main basis for this verification. / e 13

a bonnet bolts analysis is not included.

f/ fh /d / 7// / d) Pages 17, 2 provide a sketch of the bonner bolts arrangement. N s, j Item 2 - The calculations do not include stresses due to scismie loading. / Genera'l - Your submittals each consisted of two sets of identical calculations except that one set is for Unit 1 and one set is for Unit ,2. It i: sufficient that'only one set of calculations be submitted covering both Units L and 2. Also, the calculations should be updated to 'N. include the valves added per Change Order No. 1. If you should have any questions, please contact us. Very tru

yours, G/l///.cs.

J J. Parisano Piping Discipline JJP:JSZ:ms Messrs: di.S ZGlowacR6f,'Lonergan - 2L w/ encl cc: J. D. Haseltinc, VAEC - 4L B. B. Beckley, PSNil - 3L ?. J.11. IIerrin, PSNil - 1L e

t e ~ ^ 4 -p.'/ 4 f/ 7 9 4 . W G,4 c. a. 2//mc Se=edtc& p<= /+C//. 3 c, s/< c c<rees. s I Y J o c.'/-/.5 Yp ,eC,.' 6 7??G. !mE.-+c'.w:n!C ' Y / h t/t-p B2 MM g ~ 4/PiGcA c l 77f& B&S/ c. / M j C bt V f[/?..*sv'.&T ;', /?-C C se' [/:A T/C r* r$s'.,5 f)$lW,1,)Y Oh / Two No* ex vn L .o'2c +~1 A au~r <z-n Es. 7= 2. rp cese,ce,ure rac s w ue.ae w= - c. c. / 7/ / O g .3, $A./CCr2' /htz. sire 77f7 /40.'?/ r/tws t I t//Q.. rn* '.D'7 c ; ~ kDf)EO //.5/f?"2. ~ =, 0 fe f# 'p nP** / 0 t, qy g /M di+ c',1/J G2 V C 2r,=~/ 5 0, f f/2 (ka /tt-M.2 / 7v c>c ce eo //o 2 ci= 7xe cswar,ws P/Mwc, t S; rwe;< par <,c e. i ~,, ,/, c l 5, j'e = (,/. J .i 1 3 } Pace / B21 APPENDIX B e , n. p

s i N o /J,']P - ~ s ,..p;p n...,, e. u i,,,'is

.: 5n 14,,+Le OMPANY

MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETf RELIEF VALVES

.,==..--er - uvre..*c.v.m meew a ~ RED LION ROAD, WEST OF VERREE ROAD PHILADELPHI A. PA.19 15 ,,, -.,'.\\ / P. O. BOX 6167 2ts C?? 17to TELEX 845131 __ =_ me sean .w r. w. ... ~...< t I 4f Har 15 1979 ,, y ~- ys ' ~ ~ .(,,, .Udled Er.gir.ecre & Constructors-Inc. . P.[0, Box 8223 Philadelphic, Pa. 19101 ~~/ ATTS: Preject M? nager Mr.'D. H. Rhoads,'Jr. PUBLIC SEP.VICE N. H. FEABROOK STAT!CN SU3J:, ERAEla EQUESI - ~ Tour P.O. No. SNH h0.9763 006-2h8 7 ~' Lonurgan No. 609818-1 and 609818-2 ~ _Gentlercnt' '.*:..".:;. ~~ E*.c harqrtth ordnts listed below covering the raterial being fumishsd on the abovu order. ~ ' Three (3) copies - ZISMIC CAL"ULATIONS N E9 Pr.'nt,s for Approval Prints for Re' ord Purposas c O F,aintenance a Instruction Manasis If we can be of further assistenco, please contact us. Ycurs truly, J. E. IONERGAN CCHPANT s 'F QA (3) GTM:c G. T. !*.b'EU.GTZ E Et: CLOS.iES EFGINEERING ACCT cc: Yenkee Atenic Electric Co. cc: Mr. J. J. Parasano (U.E.& C) Fonbrook Station 20 Te onike R M .'Pa, g e W r.t t c rc u.u.. Ia GL561 B22 P t.'rtti: ':(..! D. ii.i e= ! t' nc APPENDIX 3 r

e .t / & Constructors inC BOSTON fj[Er 30 South 17th Street Nucama Post Offico Bor 8223 [ Philadelphis. PA 19101 / s[.,,hMj nL se: c. 30 3l p j L C T-I l Q 4 3. l a '. 3 3 . y /- dD X / h f D X. O l-7 June 27, 1979 SBU-27821 3/4xl ! < T "Z c 0 W 3. C,0 6. O I ~1 O File: 4.1.8

3. U e 3 x ?. '/4 L.D. 4 d / p P.O. File: 248-7 Ref: VU-14397 Categocy:

'! PRO !. E. Lonergan 'c. 10050 Sandreyer Lane P.O. Box 6167 Philadelphia, PA 19115 1 Attention: Mr. 7. S. Clowacki i Gentlemen: ?ublic Service Company of New !'uungshire Seabrook Station Units 1 aal 2 UE&C P.O. 9763-006-248-7, Strd-40 AShE III Sciety and P.elief Valves Seism.e Calenlations UE&C hxn reviewed the seismic calculations submitted witit your letter dated May 15,1979 (VU-14897) and we have the following comments: UE&C ISSUE LONERGAN F.P. 50. NO, DOCUMENT MO., REV. TITLE 90819-02 609818-1 & 2 1 Safety and L 11cf Valves Seismic Calculations l 1. Explain why F is excluded from the stress formula for Se on page 8. sp 2. The calculations on pages 14 & 15 apply to the " point of highest stress" in the body. Calculations on pages 16 & 17 for the neck are at a different location on the body. Clarify why different locations on the bcdy are used. i. l or make the calculations consistent with each other. 3. Clarify the exclusion of the following loads from the base to bonnet thread joints on page 18: a) The maximum secondary pressure, where applicable. b) The load of the gaskets. c) The end loads, including seismic loads: 4 The values of factors K and Kd used in the spring washer and disc calcula-s tions differ. from those given in the 7th edicien of !!r.rks Handbook and in Theory of Plates and Shells by Timoskenko. 3oth books use the same values. The values used should be justified or the calculations revised by using Page B23 APPENDII B w e e

~ June 27, 1979 J. E. Ionergan Co.. SBU-27821 values from the sources listed above. The above connents apply to all the calculations for each valve model and not only to the page number listed in the comments. If you should have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, ./ - k J. J. Parisano Piping Diacipline t JJP:JSZ:jm ec: Messrs. V. $. Cicuacki - Ionergan - 2L v/ encl. A. M. Shepard - YAEC - 4L B. B. Beckley - PSN!! - 3L J. D. Kaseltine 03hM - 1L J. R Herrin - PSMI - IL S a Page B2h APPENDIX B ,-w m

blO i J,_, ; fyyw vJ~ v.. c w n.a s vi J. J. ( M e m -- cour p.a (%4 , v 2. D.H.1..fm f G ac 2 I AY)Eb W 2. Q 9. $o.v 4 (.2 V '. ( (? / g .1, S, E.< mora%. bvG + I. 3, 2 + 7,7 (e vt h? n )bt /$.Z~* $ e' - f. @Y //LF .Skie f' ' ~tDJtt - %%d dC1&o ifL . Q.z-d tk' od..a ' !,f % 4 de2 *n,. rf

176 3.o o 0- M 9 - 7..

j 3 % <n v 6 c d s 8 $ <n v2- .SC{sw.<:s: I) 2 w bi O.o.ls var $cw h.E./m/ car /b 7 - 6 o ??I ?'I wI o? ?> F-6 c V. c. t c.gg > fset9 p2., G.,naast .h;f eh V U DI +0 9 7 /so./ Nfo; !r,if 7-l 2) . 1st m ear-rt ' M M 3e76c1.i?' W !. 4 M5k $~$~lh' .IV l l l Wll.4k1 W'$9.yq WM 2 f$? (/ b S) .,. & rm

w.. f. C. cAz. <.g.P~l.o'.7 l

G'l) ,ft,..sl J;'.4/ s.i,. pt,.M s

g. :.. $

A L. W '~th. ,.) (rl/.rW W ' c,.rvM. t fCE,.d( M Page 325 l APPENDIX 3

1 f~11~7G -Q i'~

i

. :.. s. , c.,. / //- zlv N w.~g usuv:r & h .j ;/7l A>( /. p .t l~ W' l"Sl',8)?ch>.4.( AM 4//./J g St k f'?a94 d'

A S'

lls.<.a. k ;t) <y.1(4 k 1.4h.1,.(/./h s y2.w,,z xf.(6d-i n du.du? 4 4G A n!u / A u & = l I ?- /L v. sb.r d b A,4 5)

63. *) G. [ A,c.;. ww,stz,$

91;*,,6 W/?.A,f$'hh ,.f.r-IMr /b d$puw

)

Y ..E .sf.s:m.b~uk / L,Y l 'W.. .3'. t / t.4 p 1 y. A Y o n f.' y. /4- ! { f AY $,/

! }/

W 'f M V' j fu.e. dew ". jA.eshuA.A w~ y ~ ,f'/ }b / /7 $/ /)tdc 0;L 4 0~)A YJl& S r Y M 4L ,.4d/ h f)ft. et M e. <;vt/ ./tA~LL & CAE' W' euSc/ /Zkt A/)A <Y-'.tw N/m ? ~ ._.w.~ ov)4 aa. W.J L w h s .g e & du r-d'YPL / W M' ALG(f ' t'. 4Ab m _ /P 0 ..'71 4 / 440vM j. A) ~ I. W ^ 2 gt g L s,p o,. /M.y c.- S' l l' .sf ~ .L/* 5 .p APPFlIDII B +.,

lJNyht 'itu t.% b 1:.7 9 tj ;/l. ~g G-Yk<. Ecl~ a.- l<1 and IQ aad a xd pq n vbdi~ ct A. clae. c alwAdb oc+ de '4,.... C 44 *' AW Y W t//,N.A$3- &.~fqJh'f'W ' h< h, y,y e j ' $ p g I \\ v VM-U< s~ b /v /kVf .fr C' A4*' A w n & M /.> /a a 7- $e Ja_.aud /r.- zicon(y AG. rod } ,o di e '5

Cgkr.,clf0.l otEt A ~ /U 7.A44$ $ 4 s ' r.& & U t' e

% p.xu).. x. e- / ',r. Yw._ p.I. G~ Sw.7$.:A u e. ;m2b.8.Of<D. / LCv2 -4,n /

ddb

(. Jf- \\(t'1VMc h fA'v1Yd-ek s / J.- f% $7 M, af s 2/ j ${~4.L k. .Y ' 44 s f* s f~ k*' Y Y Mk & W..;.;.;. .U 0 2 'b 7'$Y 27 ,l& /4 @cy}Y<. hC+<0 . k:.l Y4. E~. 4 *1. . h

06. '

'4 L1**/* CY JS hb 'fsK

i._'$*

in.dudd. Pk - :-if py, 4 ad" J L' A'W WN / 5(l S *v. () lr: t1/~OA/. <t L ~ <Sft.4$.

" )*G;fk lf -

W l y e d 'u/ J w 6 d/ s-. w .a../[ 2. _ 1 e,. J Page 327 l APPENDIX 3

ll-..J'y* c<.,,.nd20> 'f g //.. '~' ~

- 9.*:

Y

..I'. :l ' Y Yo A c' " & iy. , 1/4 L., 'M .. 7...u.

,i,. 38

-c.

14. d~.>w- <.mvnr.+n4 Q'~.m.wI $ a fy wsnJe.-

l / a.2At.-.a Ac.uh ?1 + s? x ffda. veAA / M./ N Y,. J$ ,<,ck u. bWnt.,4 hs-b ./ / 4o l .t s i! !:/ ** U. ( ; d / k. 4 tf,' 3.!?r! M. n d $kt- ,r.22Nr.,L.2. ** c h t.t Tit.41 d N r n a 44-- f,A^ bv GAU~ .? ' s 0. /^** hW~{- *.. A ll~ M M-JJ2tv /C ) C ntvhur?) ./Wo 2 Ab*'A $ t b.44W 3 MM.3dS i~ ~ . a / A Ad~ Ce 7%.* //A. d c.h:vi//

wW &ht./~~e r

.y._ z. /3~ hPW / /L 3 < *- 7A r/.^$~ kf W }Y~ 042iMitl'i JL F

- 'U

.5 ,A4- 'J W C.-htts f "*

iWd I

,6 ~ m /, I G A u A k >t

V %,

h Mt 9/#~.- k 4A-AJ W a - l A-G : t.A T!L'I V.!b = ~ t . /$~~ $ l'YI4///fI'l / $.. 5 4, ]5'I, l *l I 'Y 3 .I C.E & ( o.. O I W f 'ti' A 4 / E $ b"l* ?* i 4 / ../ t'.L 'A ).:<:. .s /- /' a .~ /b ' C.< h. ; r ' ? : vs ~f- ? - [ . t ; <. l/ ~ l ? ...........--....y432g--......-.....-.....-..-.....--...--. 3 .APPENDII.B v

. ~.-. ur u.i.v., 4 vy l,.._ f 1..-.. . f.. i Y.7 <nu'A. d.s '.^L koj.2.. 9,y.k'p % v.J & X4 w bd ;n at+?N g 6+Y. Scv$~ ~ Afh a> je>.Se>u S .c .C / O n t..

o. - w&. u. s p i

3 V ~ a i ~ / i...s..,,v c r e v. ,k .. e s _... l .,9 ( l Page B29 . ~. .A..P..P. F_N_D_I_X.. P__. _ _..... _. Q y p,.. -, p.- ..__..-__-._,.__.--.--_.,--,_,..,_,._._,.__m.__

D e z __ U~ -,. p G jmeerem - -. / men t==3r. m i_. r.1. wn 7 e MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY R'ELIEF VALVES CODE CA?E 1711 - CALCULATIONS PACF. 5h m

5. ' Disc (Mark: th Ed. p

) (gg ggg {(gf S \\to e t tF to Trog V (ISITIAL SPRING LOAD) = 81 LDS. Assw.c freely supported arour.d. cdge. Unifer=1y loaded over s=all ec:.ter circle. .314 in. .172 in. R = .445 in, t = r = l9 ~TI k, =.I .f=~3 k = = .38 un

~g3 M4' PSI S

s = 2

314" t

m k,b a 2 7 W,,, x. .s . 0000 kin. ,= 3,,, .n4 x A4 6 33, 0 d Q2f6) h rdCS S M E,. D> ').5-69

c. Ass T bsce $

v5FP [o 8_. C o i\\/ S 6 G A - n V E) m O t-1 d'lGN 'j /04/ bd 7f 65$ UK.6

1. o A D

= [s M1t N G & FULL L.W T W* f5 GT -tr(R.-( s. s (.. w C - q t, 2 q] {', =. Model: / DB-10-F /y- ~)t.% _ .' ',i S :- ), j h> Error T7Pi- .1 l. o '( cal for all .N q but 1 model t-Face 330 [ -, 4 APPENDIX 3 {u - s htL-q

s. / /.a7 i i 7 7

v m

4 i!b W.

7 '-+ y

~ MANUrACT URERS OF SAFETY. RELIEF, VALVES f p. i CODE CAE 1711 - CALOULATICUS PAGE 73 ~ ~ 6. CPRIIIG UAUIIDI--- b.987'LBS. d = 2.00 in. t. 312 in.

Cprinc load

= .3i2 = 1.96 in2 .:r x 2.0 x c,e,, t e, ..u d e. sag . E. = 1087 W PSI = c."a A 1.96 ( A$[ G Mhk,K $ ~7-r g E p,', f',(~-(f Bendinq_ 5 u,me oty17 suncried at euter edee(nens seei% qqi,... loaded on a rir.g er radius r. . 5 91, , s,c1 3G .r. m =x x, - p %,.. s.2G ~ fo6 ' .a x m-=. neer 2S1 n . v.e 'd. g h ' l- ,V f ~ b 2 .312 . '... { sg TcARK 5-rH: Eo.-7F :9 33C4 ^* It/. O oR ge=%, . 5Mr.> c,y, !h "I O-

4 5

{ ~ ~. -[ a s'I ,.: e. "J. .) wgwa=gj%'fse-1 ./ A~ t l Q ui s M W f)*y - TAU Cg-&' * *MEs'T~ 41" 6 w-tici 'S Is A1 (=.gcjp g4 g a.<.Efw o

(-5750 l

3 3r 62Sv.Wt Are naII 3.. 5 f L\\ \\ C w -LG.5 ~ t

gym-L. '41 G _ ? c 'S Psi / pI / p. g-5 72 t a .n. u ;. .7.... v ,w ... + ugn v....-. mq...,.. c .n h h I... D ' b b I .( )JJ.~.$ k ~l

Nbk,

\\d \\b ~~ s\\D6 of @f40C2 w Aswe.R$..sys,_3J, t.r - . l. h [ ,* 3' g \\1 ..s e- ,. ' (7 ~ ._ g.. o.. { ,~ {.,; e 'gi f b ~ ~ 7t 6s ,, g,.. - ,.s .c., D ,..i'es'.; " { . y ~~ * ..l,~ ~....?.-<=. Y, ?* *;* e n. *. N : '* /,'. ...p ,_lh..: s' 'k ', * 'E. *' =.3 L.D p_ _. - e.o -,op5' u w 5 f' ' h f [', L . Combined Shear and Bending

YC;E.D

% s a., n . # PSI 8 6 = 101 +- s '.'.%\\ 'i ' N. '~' \\ 'f. STD4-Only spud section is undes load and that only,in ecmpression._..,r?...y. u*Q' py'{ ( .,.,n . -,....,4,, g p., 5 ', ' ~" . N G 6 --* ~ '~); Smallent 'dia=. '. = - ".875 ' "s 4 .ME,7 l = ~ 'l 18064 PSI I, l P P 1987 = = l S

~

9 1, 2 i e a.

785 D

.785 x.375 l l 1 \\. ASME SA -564 GR.630-H-1100 STEM TO DE 17-4 PH, \\ (F- 'Page 332 APPENDIX 3 a. g 1 s l e

g. fu

f. ;L.n C r"..i',MC.:

H~ uu-a s.- w-< s m..,c-m m.n i m.:..- w MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY.R'ELIEF VALVES ~ CODE CASE 1711 - CAIEUU.TIONS Pact 18 . S 9.JD. (opt-nK) . 'o.n. ~ i.2s in. r.n. - 1.237 in. 8-2 1- . ~185(Of2 -cQ) = Ts 5 ().7s* -\\.\\%f) -T $ d. A: ./ A 4 . 5 M mrr-D n f 3 -. 1.w -\\.\\c,1 i- ~ c n 23 -3,s.lb-3 BASE TO 30mi.c JCI'.;T r- '* - er.:i 1-1s'c - 1 c, tnre.'s'7.in,ch nreae c -n A- -z _ 8 (.37 s_ 2 A, -E n -) d (1.s -.o4 ) ,= .as in = ) .Jhk--.l

u

..= _.Outside-Dit= - ~. o;; - )nia=. - in. wests or e e=-nt - i=. I.e = .;-a., g SE.ibMiC._, SEE. C. A\\ _L.0\\ MioWS [o( K A'b i MU @ E\\-\\tl% $T65'$ 0f ~ i l l L) 0 7 7_.L.E 9\\ BADS l t 1 Page 333 .Arizunir a +=

'l:.5.} N k $ 45u$ =_ j. _.,. MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVES g .l COIE CASE 1711- . CALCULATIC!!S PAGE 16 CALCULA"'IO::S PER CODE CASE 1711 . VALVE: 3/4" x 1" LCT-ll - S.W. x S.W. Dvs. A-2614 ~ MAX. SET FPISS. t, E G: 150 PSIG ~@ 3.65 F.. CusTeam sercri_co ~ MAX. SECONDARY TIZSS. & E9: 400 PSIG 100 F. pg pggg o N.I DETAIL DUCS. .k BASE: C-4487, BONHIT: C-4486 STEM: C-4176 CO!EFISSIO!! SC?.: C-4172 s SPPl::G S w : C-4901 SPRING KO: 1228 (ll3#/ inch) 2 9-# Actu11 flev area: .077 in FLO'er = 12 GPM 1. 30DX Wa H thickness at i=.let neck is .31 in. This exceeds required thickness of a. 3000# S.W. Fitting which is.20 in. Rest of bonnet is 3/16" which exceeds 1" '150# B16.5 outlet standard of 5/32". PxS+LxR- .S (seat area) VerticaA.... = = L (lift) - .125 in. 150 x.157 +. 3 38 % '\\ = Neck Sectien A es O.D. = 2.06 in. I.D. = 1.442 in. A =.785 (D2-d)2'=.78,5(2.06 .l.442) 2 2 = 1.7 in 1 4 l Section Modulus O Neck ) s r i 4) -I/c - T [34-d 4 4 )= "g i 2.06 1.44 = .65 in. 32 k D ( 2.06 ) ) bRITlC.6L. PciWf. of topolNG P E.')( A'NA f0Rt)oudk i.N. S6tSM W ( /N\\ < uL.1%Q 64 SEC1 to Q. R. Tic I\\t ' s G(-mciv W O U L O S (__ h P 4 /A @ 6ODM Eiciep faM e W 07.7u:j, i Page B34 APPENDIX B e

(' DRBff8D MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY. RELIEF VALVES ' ~ ~ ENGINEERING PROCEDURE VERTICAL LOADING OF LCT 11 COMPONENTS ~ % DIA-l j DIA-2 DIA=I.44 I ,jfg Fe,t N l c F + F + Fv' y "F+F$F j, g 3p 5 3 y BODY Fo RLE DU_E TO F(AT SEAT) .'OF FLUID AFTEP RA DOWNW ARD MOMENTUM ' f f f,. / F, D ISK 6 ] e s s f 1 f \\ N Ft{gF a FgFyFy d.625 ~ D=1.394 p p t tff9 h-Fp+ Fv j F+F< kt 9 ~ \\\\ V * (N 1.875' DIA = 1,0 7 5 ' NOZZLE Page 335 APPENDII B m

i I'. h~. 9.. 31 ..7 al a t M1) a-n ,t. d. .e_ a ] bs4 tyC a5 $g. Uth

e...

, s. n,. l,. o o,. .. n. n,... u. ..m.m.m.n .u . ~ a. ,a g ...a i

n. a... M 9,.

m. .u u.. ,.n, e.u

m. m. ~

y ..n .J n S. a g 1 S. N. .,o .,o. u. M. 6, n...n-g n# g G. ) c. ,3 M. m.~ o,v - e M. ,.u o. ,.. n 6. s,, 2 ,. m m 1 g - c .n 4. o. a 3 d ( ) 4-3 k. i s e e ,3 m,n n.,,. $ 3, ,.,. n. n. n ..n..~

n. su,=

I e ,.m. 6 , s .u. 9. e. J. g 8 g f ) i '( u. b I. b d ( ( l 6 = K:. ,..- s ,~K, u r, ~ .c. 1 a l*, p f f g a M@i i . M- ) n C e ( s s i e h. d n k = c i e i .%N h, = t 8=. 3 n ,a B = 6 s ,.,C. .~.f. c_.s,. s. s. e ) n ,.,. c. o ) c f, ) f ) a C g ? c. c. ,. _ c. f c, o c, c,_. a . c. c. c e.- a l .,. c. c c. e. s * .c-.r . g. s r,. ,e l .c C i ,. c, s.,. c.. u.(c a D c. c,,. c. h,...n - c.s 1,= _7 ,( Q ( l ( _q.. n' c. p u Ea.. s. . U

7. <.

r a s l u e , M 4 = n

s c

c ,.,, e e r 8 y i q _m u a l g f h J. ,i r 8. o g u. 5 f 6 4 f s i . M n i a ~. a t J. u na n. a., J s

a. 4 F...a l s

v. h. i[.i S r .l a e l F E 1 e s. q, g J.

. _ a.

l o~ A i 4 2 b I .k@i n

u. 4 C,n t

s O.* oe i. ,i I. s. .;.M d h rA1bp w d $ 3g. 5C

b. c.r..s.. 3.ga. j.n +. y. S jN

%g,,. oM'y. q,.. {'# p1 l ~ p a b{)'3. %. ]g.<. (' 4' p h,h,g, W'e)'f. .i b .... v .c.. H..t.3

.g.

F-1 hg. j 3

... /* d

,;- r g. Ihe-s J ui a-

.i,, f'

.5 c.

g iw t-Ahg i l' _.l g'

O e S e?

p-l P

.b .f. . :,t.. .*%.P 2 _ =.... 4. . t,;,.. ....a,-.. eggqs - '. = * - - -. g.x e .m r 9

u. p.

.1% formula.s for S: =>s and Strain (exa. to.).5 ,n r.10.2} ![ m:= t

=

"E. ;..i k. ;- S e E S. .a l E E. E..i.'.3 a ..;7-- -y i I im e .E. e s. t. :.

2: -

4 3. g i i i i .. c. , );l

5*

3 ; ;. ; 'l-

*.: :.r%; ..a#

r c ~ rg t 3 e .s i. \\ l t T g n 3 Er j e l ? -A + . J g %? l I.., r- + .-l- =

1: *. " ; i u

a y q.. M s n. E -et - ".14 o '.$1, ; ej. n 3

a g

, _ g a, e,;. .i o't

s-i e

- l i t s ,5

l-

g

= I, % t [ un:;; ,...-=c T d

, ' r

+ 8 V 1-i 1 =

i

.r.u .' 5 ,.7: .i=.=.= -. 2 's 7:" Qa c e.l -. d i s l- =. m - m. 6g g g

3..a. L

+ 4, 4 g e .I. 3 . j Q T- .n=== t. ji

.e.

^ cw c, .t- + - - ' ' - T Y ".I 2 ,, i s * . = t te + + g e =.sc e J. gja .. a 3 ///J h+f + t J ei - + 4 , + d =e 33 .y i al//J 'i,* =.. et - = r i : + = Y. = + a n g-i - i i +% - - s e + -

# G m'o.A..,

5 cl. 7

'y a.

+ e q 8A 5 "./ a 9.. . ef = 1 r..e ".I g.' = I g4 .i r. f[ 1g: s a e a e v 4 e q' g* U u* ^ T: l =

q l

e e i a

.d e

s j I a 1 .9 Q C o,r o, 'f . M. )& 3 '- c. .g .Wiy a C J j e .!.? j q k N 5 'To a e = s k =

e.,3 a.

.= l -s 1.i ,n,.. e .= g

s..i l

.t e

I a

1 y 1 7 s. .o .w 1I g i.g 3 + s e* d C t u J'~ fl .- J ') -A. d + ,e I ;~ A I sJ e ~g u .3 tu-JJ 4' *

1.. :.

;3

+

i..i.

u r

1 ' _

,,,;,3 3 gv gud-,, a ;- - c

el '

4 J v J g a% J -- 'i.i ild II" I A + J er a. 3 ~ ld ~I!*M ~ i 3 M

} #

.5 l S-e e a a e s T 3 a e s.-p; ' ~ I 8 r i e ; 4 d.1.'s "M g' a c5 4 m' = - eT.. i 4 l + = 1 m ...1 ' i T ( k *+. "A

y 9-

{ 4 b f s .:!.: e e i + + q 1:- .J.*,c i A ga W i. I .c a ] t = x [ s .?.,,.- e a + = { %, '.,d V. sa I,3 T i

T-

'j i y ~ Q 'g, + s 4 L" f ~

.i.

,..s a '---~~'.sh..l ? 1, r = s. [ s* 5 a a i,.-.

,s T *1

. et i,

.-39 3 I'

. g t,., n, e?:- -g, 3;. d.[. w. r i 4 l c. l o d.s w.' s'..+. < a s b v ?g; I s 1 a a .m.s ~ Page 33.7 APPENDIX F M6A 5 f *D,C. ' '!,,V.Q~ 6..%.n :A. +.,,. Q%.m ... ;p ~"'..,Kf,, 7.,.m....;.,, .f.%. %. 7.s . l;q. ..- v. ~.-y:.r. ;..wj.%.c.1...;,.q-w. 9~. g.3 - -n.--.. n. ..,-z. w .v.

s

.. a.. i i v

e .9 .e.

.*f-

.S.

.lt

v.e..

4 v.... ~ ~ w _ _ __. A*. _ * --.* w

7 -.- " -. 1 *..w..

' : s

r w,"...'..

<>..*5 ] ,,..M,. a _ yy_ 'ab EI3

5..

332 Formulasfor Senu and Strabs (cw.10.. Ans.10.2l e t. 7 e. 's u x. m 3, a w gT .E_ w .y s.t x q 37 3 m. 3,, 3-qg ,y c =*7 3 e r. =

a

.5.2.4,w 3 =5 g E ' 3 *o $.-$ 1' g"*S e E *a 4e. s re 3 c t = &= 3 0 gg 4 W e

e G

=. v a w e 3 Gi es.7 g.== ,= - 9 7 = 4.o * .W *.].a v. s 3-g 3 e s L.,e rC o = .3 2.. C 2 t a = .._3 .1 s. a.3 7 , f,. z.r s o-e e a =*33.;4 g2 r . Y 4 s 3 ,g - 3.s.- --s. ;- g.

t..

'4 '* r g " 2 e '.. 3 a c'a't e e M. 3, a - 3 2 4 W. s.

A $,,.e *E *=..I. E ". =, *
E, 4 **
d.

T* u. ..s -39 .=.. -. -.e 3 v s [.a

c.s.. o

.=.=.,-= A 1. .-e w eu gg .t ='r

a.1..O.a eas-m 6

i. a c. Q. . v' 8 6 1 0 .2 o .e 0 = s. W

~

w i ,=g T.=.g 3.E 5, s

y

- o ..= g to i s .2 1.11*4 " 's .I I l Eo -"T

~ O Y g

3 g "q o- . = 11.r. 4.-=- 2 1 -.. *:. = n u 2 i t.s. e. .a 1; =.=c (, - e. l ..- i. x 32 w ae=.3,,,. s y , = - t 7 &4 o 8 1~,i e %= e - - -i s c - = g. =s 3 *.:.= = g -s !.5 =. c a f., .%. F =-

i-1.,-

.c 8 e -i Ca =. -0: - . I =.,i w = es + = w e. 60 + c 4 z .g r el* t J l, q* -c 5-8 . =. .3 2 -i .a.

3..

=.j i..*- 2)--. 2 + 8 e ..- = ... - r -4 i r = =, + w - gg . e - s - a c :38 y a.=. - + + + e

- u -

3 6 + a .- 2 _ s u ~

0. u.2. "un

,,'.sl*;-*

l*"-*

i - 4 .m g '3 4 .a. yu.=<2* .g Jy '- ' '.. + Ji l,O i 'es i. e.e."., - + er-4 . g.i x.x.5.. = -. c .a m = = g w f./_ g. =. 7, it 2,,. M II E ,I* __ x. =. =.== c11 2. a ?. 9., I ' * " +

* ' *. l

+ .e g i .#1 *, _-- - + =i t + .4 ... -o. .5 :.3 = + * - - m.3 -t= *!*, la s. ="3* -m

l,,

-.-sW -ia M *g -,,s'5 x, 2 i : g =, "3 $.. -:- #14 -t= -ia

- l 4

-t= -sa - Ee;a

=E2 4 e

a a e a a s a.. t. a a a a a e e d $r E.'E *i.=* h

="c.- I=

-Y.a: :2 a ~i -* i -i. '.E E. $1 G G C G J d C ." l J G G

d i d u- -

.u

i M

8

8

. M -t sT *. =. c e E. r. a c; v =

N J 0 U
- E S e.. a.. ?

-s.a i '.- .=._-] x..

s3.

.a = =.= !: g .U e. . 4: s = .5 = s N,,j' = ;g -5 s -t 2 3

r

'C' 3

-.:= LW = _sa - e = c 3 . ft. - - w=.-o o s 3'-

.ca

.:. 2 C !! *.. h_ v" =9 . *. *M.* =1 l e 9.. .i. s . E I-... =.=- u *

z*.= 2m..=3

." e= = 0, A-9 g-a w .i -*y..,, .s . -

e.

m . u a. w=-aw.2 5 a 2 a .e. .= u d .-@he e. g =n-4 * 'c =to

== vc a -=.=,= = =c.2 = %* 3 = -= = 3 w :. =

gJ.'s;t -.

.3 2.. = = ag. i *F. I 'y,. _ 3., n - a , s s s = sa, 3_'E

5 5*3.! 3 E = _$,E [

3 iM. p...~ w

5

= - E..E o =.,s. n 4 E s.e =E

-

.m =. = : :.,=. 4 .g3

.:.=

= s s t.

9. = - i -i ! y.

'3 =s.3.=, :: 3 - e..-. J 4 .i. se E.,. .. = a =3

34=3;: =i A

t.--- li w - , = = = s I .E. 2. E- ;

8 1.

J q- .i ~ '. ' - g.~; e 2= 3 s w% ag ; e 2 3.% = .5 =r s* v 3 'u. .-% 7 Y* ".s..'. !

1 =

%e 4.: C w.=

== M 1 1 r .g t c= = %); l, :* ii :.i, ! 2-i. ;.2 '3 o '5 3, 5.3 s - i e + 'l O l- " 'j' 'p .'.'O NI.L ' T 'I# + .s il e y - =

3 i g= e.% -g

-5 1 - ** ~ e a ow u. I I 2 ,.= W4 w + J J. 4 J T '. f..,. s.- = -. ~. ~=.;;C 5 ,. a

w.,., g., 7

,s. wa.u. ;

.*). T s= e es. o 0." 0, y + = q...,- i E 4;

c. 2.m

=.=.s E. E + 8 + + . ' - - +

H..f.' !!== *" E -

_. = ' n 's.v2*5=3,,=w= r = ' s.-4 w *{ *.s

l '.- -

q. .a ft.., - el0 - 0 * ',e =42 T **- ~ - = i 4".,M-n; .=. i.. - ,.'.= et. - ,e._t, w + = S. =.s .r-2 ._ c =- e c 3 8

t. - +

.i- - - - a +.. 4..s'., -- + .et. = 3 -= i *i ... =. t + 5 - x,,,f c :=a,,,3.; 2 = o.=.=.==:.= 5 .t ,3 e. + a - a l.. =.,. 9 - m ' i...r. - =

s e a e a r s e:y . ---,l,, i., el ,, c = 5 J " 2 *v.2 e.3. =.,==*:,. -i. 11 1 -sa -m 3 =, '! ,,.. n..., n.,-. + n w %...,u.. = = -s .s e. ..=. = 3 s-w. w. w. = <.e. ,.,,s. N.., Page B38 APPINDII B 4.W ...yh~fl${c,..w g., ;.;,:-s. %.r. m 2.f wm.r* $.& . w$l$n,yf-ym+k E ve fh. n w..es-new .- q .h,.t.+. v.fk... n.h f. b.Ih.' k % C'. Y... .J..;..

.s* " y f.

. y.- *. - s. ' e..f v. '.. t ~ v

e.. -

l \\ l l

.4 ^ g j\\ c.; /

[,i )f[*/{,)]'....x..w, e

..-.. n. . MANUFACTURERS OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVES O.Jji.i \\ A1.E wwe""emems-9W:.'26s / E UD LOAD ^ NE[l}FIQ TIOW' ~~[ C. AG E. & L C0;/f5 \\ hied AX Ai-I A4D \\WERWMi P999aME 0 AGE b.iT!/:MQ s, ragni unant. censgzi -T18057 f ilY, Roog KE-r ' Em c ...P A G 6 3 M ' ....c As e i e. 1 Nyas is i espo s ).._... f1SG D

AT L D 6F-.BcD1 Vh&

c,= c sse 09moe p+ = 303 s = h% Q % 61G : :- y a o p y p. B atov b 6 c M2_, L. A.muu= -W E L b1 b t 9 l g %ra q} _x i 6 fry ( 7 7 d /. a u 2,e c o w u gT m. (,38'L'703 ( cg - ~ l-{ y L 6 -IA./ G 99)( ~YL .wi'- mg e un l draft, sec-r ond proposal '~ j ta ge 337 APP"MI 3 -= M

I. RELlEF N/ALNE END LOAD NEDFKATIOW Pme73 C A%E F _ CON \\BNED AVIAL AND \\MTEGAL PRESSuG LOAbtWG [Cotermueel 't 14017 LE To SOD 4 THVEADS Av 32' %= \\W ses %s W Ss - [8;14- \\puj.;Am\\WA)' S: c s nc'c 6 T + - 4 _g,_ = Y.h\\53 Psi C..ne.ac op VRud of AL. MC6WS. FIAmum 'suae stcess= E ost \\ (S 4%3 % g \\ 2 ( 2,; / r 1.915f + /9 64 3 S 2- ~ 1 = \\ 2. ) ... %g =, \\tJO o 75 MA>i % MemtE2 DICE 5-r b g 8 m Y.." $ $p, + 5 m. ,__7-. U-+4 0P +. Ht5 = 1 Pa e B40 i NEGuc-tGus ccost ar md(,7_Z_ PSI "2 "II 5 \\Ci yve,, . - h.^ N L h '.4A 1 9 9.5..'T h k!P8d ~ m hoz 2.2 Tm/o r

l [ d i i 0 e b. MA JFACTURERS OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVES SEISMIC CALCULATIONS PA G 12 1 37h" x la LCT-l'1 S. W. x S. W. DWGS A-261h { LCT-11 / L3 A-2728 I g ITEM TAG NO. EET PRESS'JP.E L y UNIT #1 - WIT #2 Y 3A 1-E-77h 2-SF-17h 150 PSIo 56 1-CC-7262 2-CC-VZ62 150 PSIG f 1-CC v269 2-CC-V269 f\\ 1-CC-V322 2-CC-V322 f I h8 1-C0-7135 2-Cc-VU5 150 PSIo I. l [ 3 1-7-Vh5 2-SF-VL5 1. 1-SF-77h 2-SF-77h 1 l 19 1-CC-V320 2-CC-V320 ' it f 1-CC-V321 2-CC-V321 i i 1-CC-730 2-CC-V30 i 1-CC-V26 2-CC-V26 l t 1-22-V1h1 2-CC-V1h1 I e 20 1-CC-V3h3 2-CC-V3h3 s l l l e l l Page 341 APPENDII 3 I l k g I g

\\ CT-1L.. C o MPRESS i DM E' N D LOAD S HM M ARY ~ m l D ~TE%T*. M ARE.5 N ANDBooK ~ITI-I bOl'TI0rd Z ~~~- kSSO MPTic NS'. h r~ = 1.5 "[ l '3/5F. ")K =."2.5 )* N o c,A S K E i LOAD May.brJoisc, Stress := .7 s y 7Ms' Las C 2/r e") = 70,ci 75 FST T m. 7_,, ssT'. N nRy S h ANOGec4,~7 rid E onTioM A ssui4e-ficos. R/ r- * !. 'A "/ l,25", k.=.ts ; die G62.rt t o A'6 15 i s9~7F[ (3/i' ")2, g. g,, g 73 p g,f MAy..UEtJONbb'I6555 o / C A5 S' l ? RoAE4,2.337'[AGt6 24i i) ' TsyT: 3['i sc Q. 3c0'(} G = b - 1.'<.tg' t i ,Acns u Tir. Avss?AG6 A550MFTioWS: ..ef GMKrT RAO:I *I 4,a'lI/e., / 3 G R,EA' fit f,, c c f rit - Nc G MKET t.oAp l# >t T3ENoit,)0$XRE55 = (o Y7.~T7f (pit j5/ v.f = 't 1 o'3 5' FSI r GeoY INTERiog.. 9,A i. 3 3 $ 'Te' rf * ['c ARK ' # 3 AGNE Assusemous: W %c coteg. Gases 7 sces'..is Assume.o rds c t Q,c,t.G OF LOAD AFitic.Aflod, AN o A scoy - . C.tNC.k.6 '70 74( 4f W $ -THg. N\\oM6hlT W,l" IV,To . D s A,". I 1['f. ) F 0 9 C44 '-l~7"[3 s G 2.-1 * $o01 W At.t Ress is siwMNE. @ )/ _. m.SeuoNe T f SHooto 56 NoTJD HER5 ~9Fi -ftlE NT'ej2.l4 SocY PIAM( ~ -f6 f,/,> oF ).E" CIR,, l L+4" AGo46 MD $6t.cv] Tag THRg,$T QWre AR6 us6D 10 c.As.c.ut.MwuS jf g Tngoues )# 3). / A sees exAc.T me c.owssavensle oig. sews con susos Auo o ou-Ts\\p6. pi ArnsTE.R5 SHo0t D 56 C ET'6 R N W 6 D. \\as 3 I C.614-tEfLt ) dig OF Ti-\\6. W AM 'T'o TEC.Eh/f Ti-19 ho MEVf-~ is usu Av Y c.-i-sessd) 1:oR. 51Mf%GR. CAsss. Page 342 APPENDII.B I

L cT-il COM P RES,G l o Q __. END ioAD SORMMW 5)$; Ten-Qopse.1(Jc, y3Pc, cAss Ia @.b Assumnoos: Fwuse ecoy 3 most oP MisTic 9Aou osso; f.*t'3/$ 2, n. 21.49 /2., b = \\ \\ / s'/4 Wo GM.k l'l\\4.Es.uons W s$s = W lW6 Cs/t 6,'fr31575 es'l' MM. Seles% sdt ss = 75,'1o1 psi (~fAWGEb!TI A9j A

n.nca 4.bia A w T81% s R' Q Q \\.%.c \\."$ 2 W" T =

Yrd 033r8 t.3?# v 3/t6., V7 )-12 5 PSI C Q O t A. := \\.HH "

v. vrw / 61w.ws ec

\\\\,7 3 T PSl ~~~ -=

T,al>le I.10.1 SECTION !!!, DIVISION I - APPENDICES t. TA8LE I.10.1 I E y DESIGN STRESS INTENSITY VALUES,Sm, AND ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES,S FO I O 9 FERRITIC STEELS FOR CLASS MC VESSELS j. t' ). p Nominal P. C r. ' Product Spec. 1 ? Type V Notch Composstion No. No. Form No. Grade Class Spec' Notes ] ( or Avg 3 i ! i

p.,

Carbon Steel b ) a C 1 1 Smts. Pipe SA.106 A 15 '51 i ? I b: ',' C Mn Si 1 1 Piate i b SA442 55 15 C Si 1 1 Plate iss] ( SA 516 55 C4n 1 1 W!d. & Smts. P'pe hA-333 15 1 eli, (- C-Mn 1 1 Wi f. K Se.ils. Tst.a FA-O's 1 15 5 t, $j y{ e 15 C Mn-31 1 1 Pkw. 84e & E5ase SK6 l 15 53 C.Si t 1 F o 's. S A 268 1 15 C Mn 1 1 F org. SA-350 LF1 15 fl ~ .T ( Si 1 1 Ca nq SA 216 WCA 15 '7y b n' C.Si i 1 For;. SA 181 I 15 '= [f:,' - C Me 13 1 1 P? ate SA442 60 15 b ~ CSi 1 1 Plate SA516 60 15 (5) 'Id (si C-Mn 1 1 Smts. Pir.e EA 104 8 20 153 N ~ ir cmc St 1 1 Wd. S Smis. F.pe SA-333 6 20 itI h ~ C h34 1 1 wid. & Gims. Toes SA-334 6 f 1 1 Sar SA 695 8"as 20 20 '56 1 1 Mar SA496 8 20 j { C 1 1 Wid. Tutw! S A 178 C c 1 1 Sm s. Tut:a SA 210 A? 20 (5 } 20 iS) r-s. C M VS. 1 1 Plate SA 51E 55 20 '5) l [ t ~ C-53 1 1 Casting SA 352 LCS 20 ~ (3D5Q C.Si 1 2 Forg. SA-266 C.Si 1 2 Forg. $A 508 2 20 1 20 C-Si 1 2 Forg. SA 541 t 20

t. i

^' C-Mn-Si 1 2 Forg. SA.105 C-Si 1 2 Casting ,SA-216 WC8 20 (3) l 20 .] C Mn-fi 1 2 Forg. - SA.350 LF2 20 ,1 2 Forg. SA.181 II 20 p ...J C Si 1, 2 Pfate SA-516 70 20 (5) 1 2 Smis. Pipe SA-106 C 20 C-M SSi 1 2 Casting SA-216 WCC 20 13) l 1 2 8ar SA495 840 20 l 1 2 Bar SA 696 C 20 l C-Mn-Si 1 2 P1 ate SA-537 1 20 owe 24 in.-4 sa. t C-Mn-Si 1 2 Plate SA 537 1 20 2% in. and unde 5i i i-C-Mn-S; 1 2 Plate SA 299 l l 20 Owr 1 in. C-Mn-Si 1 2 Plate SA 299 20 1 in. & under C Mn-Si 1 3 Pfare SA-537 2 20 over 2% in.-4 in-C-Mn-Si 1 3 Plate SA 537 2 20 24 in. g and under ( Page B44 APPENDII B / t i .~,_ .,-u w ..py.. sees.secouwei e w

7 9:. r APPENDIX 1 TaNe I.10.1 g. TABLE I.10.1 y t DESIGN STRESS INTENSITY VALUES, S, AND ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES,S, FOR FERRITIC ST EELS FOR CLASS MC VESSELS ,f F. Alloweble Stress, hse (Multiply by 1000 to obtain psil 8 g g,,, f., For Metal Temperatures. F. Not to Exceed m 3

Y g,,ength 100 200 300

,400 500 600 450 700 750 800 Tem *8e { h Carbon Steel J 48.0 13.2 112 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12 2 s 1 55.0 15.1 15.t 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.5 15.1 , p I a~ t .Li y sa f, 13.9 13.9 133 13.9 13.d 13.9 13.9 13.9 1 r 3.~.;;p. --~- I ' " * * *. '; M.' s ; '.s, t .. g;) 60.0 16.5 15.5 16.5 16.5 1G.5 16.5 16 5 15.7 ' 9., s;. .W. 39 3 t ' . ;, t. 3s A. .gJ 60.0 165 1GS 165 16 5 16.5 13.5 16 5 ' 5.7 4 4 .i-r..

w. m: -

-1

Fer'*

f.

' ;sa 60.0 1C5 16.5 163 16 A 16 5 '65 18.5 15.7 . g.. 527.3 63.0 1G S 16.5 16 5 16.5 If. 5 '69 16 3 15.7 q -I 35.J 65.0 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.3 17 1 e 7.8 17.8 16.7 5 f i l 35.0 70.0 19 3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 18.3 I 1 1 5 8 I 70.0 19'3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 18.3 36.0 l g w ( 70.0 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19 3 19.3 19 3 18.3 l N' 38.0' -~ l 7 '4 I i i 40 0 70.0 19.3 19 3 19 3 19 3 19.3 19 3 19.3 18.3 I 45.0 65.0 17.8 17.8 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 l 50.0 70.0 19.5 19.5 18.9 18.9 18.9 - 18.9 18.9 18.9 40.0 75 0 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 19 5 42.0 75.0 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 19.5 55.0 Y5.0 20.6 20.6 20.6 20J 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.2 60.0 80.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 21 A 21 A 21 A 21.8 21.6 133 Page B4 APPENDII,5 y 3 6 9. WW -,---r-.

~ NC.36 89.4--NC.3652.3 SECTION !!!. DIVISION I - SUBSECTION NC ji Step 5: The cumulative usage factor, U, shall not NC.3652 Consideration of Design Conditions exceed 1.0. (h) The Certificate Holder shall submit a report NC-3652.I Sustained loads. The effects of pres-which demonstrates compliance with NC-3649. sure, weight and other sustained mechanical loads 1 (i) Where necessary to carry the pressure, the must meet the requirements of Eq. (8). I 'Ilindrical ends of the bellows maY e reinforced b b i Y 7 suitable collars. The design method used to assure PD* 0'75fM s,,, - + , g 3,0s, (8) d that the stresses generated will not cause premature g failure of the bellows material or weldment shall -l include the attachment weld between the bellows and P= internal Design Pressure, psi d coucions. D,= outside diameter ofpipe, m.

I (f) De spring rates of the expansion joirit assem.

.i.~ nominal wall thickness, m. t , bly shall be provided by the Certificate Holder. The M,-tesultant moment loading on cross section y spriq ratrs of a be!!ows can be defined by several due to weicht and other sustained Icads, in. methods due to cl.e hysteresis locp which can occur Ib (NC-3652.4) during defb: tion: a restoring force may be requked 2 = section modulus of pipe, in.3 (NC-3652.4) to return the bdlows to the origina: neutral position i= stress intensiFcation factor [NC-3673.2(b)]. after da!1ection. When appliarble, the Design Spec-Tne product of 0.75i shall never be taken as iess.han I.O. ifcaricas shJ state the maximum allowable force S.=hasic material allawat!e stress at Design that can be imposed en the cormecting partt er shall Temperatore. pu require the Certificate Holder to dete mine the nutxcum fme necesary to deflect the bellows a NC-3652.2 Occasional I.oads.:S Tne effects of given datance, st.ch as the maxunum movemem le be ptessure, wei bt, ctitse sustained loaus, sr.d occ:- 6 absaber'. sienal loads, including earthqude. :nust meet the requireme ats of Ep(7). NC-3650 ANALYSIS OF PIPING SYSTINF i P

le,. ~ - mD,q + G.7hi(g. G + M,} $ Ws

%s 7 e NC.3651 Geceral Requirements 2s (a) The design of the complete piping system shall be anahzed between anchors for the effects of Terms same asin NC-3652.1 except: l ~ / thermal expansion, weight, and other sustained and A, peakpressum, psi occasional loads. The system design shall meet the M,= resultant moment loadm, g on cross section ( limits of NC-3650. The pressure portion of Eqs. (8), due to occasional loads, such as thrusts from (9), and (11) may be replaced with the expression relief and safety valve loads from pressure and 6ow transients, and earthquake, if the PD8 g, Design Speedications require calculation of p,2 2 d 2 moments due to earthquake. For earthquake, where the terms are the same as in NC-3652 except: use only one-half the range. Effects of anchor displacement due to earthquake may be P = P or P. excluded from Eq. (9)if theyareincluded in d-nominal inside diameter ofpipe,in. Eqs. (10) and (1I)(NC-3652.3). (b) When evaluating stresses in the vicinity of expansion joints, consideration must be given to NC-3652.3 Thermal Expansion. The requirements actual cross-sectional areas that exist at the expansion ofeither Eq. (10) or Eq. (11) must be met. joint. 2*The pressure tem in Eqs. (8). (9) and (!!) may not apply for 2*Desip Pressure czay be used if the Demp Specification states bellows and expansionjoints. that peak pressure and earthquake need not be taken as acting concurrently. i 154 I y Page BA6 APPEEDIX B l

1 APPENDIX C EDS NUC724E INC. PILGRIM I EXIILUST STACK RITROFIT f J e e

v C... C. :, <...:. ! N. L; R.C ia.,-. a.. ic c :- LINT:EI.0, FENeGYL'/M.:A l'h: m: C I S G S.M IT h E 5 a *,h / / / / L.,. 1)// h.,..b,,s / --- S Ahussaaatea..Ei M - L/4ac, E.,aa. e < Sz. ex ? / 14--n 25.mM-- ::2

CM.~.Q,u.Lh$,Wsg.J. 05 5U.i - ? y:l 4.f hU$&-.-

- - - - ~ c.n:cc w.ts m;d- 'j-Ead s.$ ?%r; 0 kr.r Sq:::.y--Aud =as------- f .,cl/n.,.: g

w.,ua.x. r_. aud-xcconsommu s.u--.i/suy. sun.r-u4. r-z--

y. w J a.ut+a.-s.u./.Appa &

-:.-- 52 t.5 Ll4.st2] 1,CJ 3fe :::%';; f-L/424--/Z f,.),,2a.:;--pi142naMan'_ 1 air -%,/,sLwns, -nin sowzasha; - o m.,%u. ,W- -- ca.;/p ze-pwac u:.a// w = . :-.---(fb I, ,t;. ctaa---h.a,rs ab.a+d-9i.u: : : %s--spyzwuJj---1?.ih J e c-uc. d+v;.z-p,.t.sa/p-M/d-xi-.zscouassaa,ss}.-c/<.a.ai ts, >../ \\ L--- ..nep,ar n hM., G opps-a.- 1.ss.r.;o.sJ-4s ~ 34* %uc:vm1/-- s.:ss/--1/4s-sp=c.s+ias.------ - Ls. 2ame,.s.--nd-- ren/J--a.s--audsu: rad a-wad W ;G: 7 y u p :. c m uz.r ?.a.- Esphu~/, eo/ u,.p-p.a ru.:. :a/n is wiiurp<.-ssa,e Ma/-u-p,.6ra r -pun ? % -ra s 2-4, u o i o.c. h - 1.c RsOwJeJ -=,we

Pec y - oa wa a i_ p u x p...-l9 h

M.'?7eG ^ < #4s-- uppia-r.se-r.m,J.- Aaa(--74g,2;ss,isc_Myyapgm_j..gz scraas-- A ' 4 "e-plx~ J nicoas-pw J... % s - -%an-e -% r L: -Mee rau :. $ <sc.r'aa-.t.ould-a ju ~Jsf s..>.s -op._ C+e w n, m m.oa.ca ~ :ut,-rurs >pym s. ~s-m+ria 4,o % a e 9,,,a m;.,i,.s. ~ E E APPENDII C e

CROUSE COMPAi "(. 17 - C. UNFIE' D, PENN5Y VAN!A Pluw: CW 4NU7 u a 11 kh so fin,1,w a 2-n.s ? > kr. ll,n. R unaser fr1w / ' f 'TI' r", S,,.,., / .n e .e, s..,,, r- ,C.g Pts,,, m,,,,,,, w r., c.1 I Tr - ?l g> .dh/-. :,1(./4-. d.ud-/.t.'- Co.8.8f-4 M44--.A--,J!A/L1.fL J,d.aM 54u s4-fdVA-A . : ~4's,)- A... Mod. u+t--.V&4-4 TAf:M d - --- -~ ~ r Y.. 2&Ca.w%fw.J, rag 2%d.C CAa,er4-Aud-24j-MirtR;.'ud ul-I, Tn '. J/f ..J.4/.-.4.v-A o-p n n ' ' ? l.-?M?-Pdf-td.N$'l-E<MaC/i !ESJ - NY &W~ ~ xs,J: m,w.p.------ '. 'n'~ ) Lu kas s.1.--.ssu a.1L.2.r a.}r = ,u r.;.,y ,c,au =vs,?hn s.- 1n{.%,..siane-..s1.ac.r-,ew-7pr-R,=-p4wc/ %.-- w c.! l -44ks.p.44oit 2Lu.,,;Lw.6 -4U?.44*L--Aud>h.Pn As2 t 4-- 5.ff ECZEal b J! buu)t.u - -- ~ s.. t

.t.~

v _a n l t .... -...,.,.. u l ~ y l Al*EENDu G' t 1 l r l e

e, o HOTICE comuow.c aL vw or etwasvevan." OF osaantutut or Lason ano n.oustav euncav o zwato rmswi secunity DETEftMlH ATION The Lost Day to File on Appeal from this (vol,,,,,y goi,) Determination is 2/13/80 Social Security Account Number Type Claim I UC I i i 1 8! 9 1 A 't i r ~ oI ~ Mailed Delivered L ~,' Clainon' George T.I Msr'rewitz niou,er i.. cat Nonie er you oisnomat witw Twas ortsmutwaview. vou swouto asu tut Local orric-uvenviewen ron aw And EX PL AN aTION. Ir you anE NLi saTtsrito wtTw THE sept.awattow. vou nav aparat. er you wisw to Addres s gayg g"ue. ..,L. vou must oc so ou on acront f ut " "* E "

- =ta ny g,

,egz_e,,,,n qve ese we e en Stysvagetig.g f1NGM OF FACT: ,, The claimace hst works d with Gft.EINltJE_4 h on C /~7 P'e and : Left this einpf mmeser telwettarily htsk)(. ithout) caa:e of a accessitous and cce,eell;ng namre be..an. I he femd adrSc.~ne TsdQay.j ve e xewgg,,_,,,,Ihg,,g%1111 Ff 1D2dOMd..'Zm_ririlded him before het ficcetied th igj g d the g g g g',3,1p :.cefi g,,f,h g g w,_; gr,. Q Xu nnts c - _. ~. _ {'], N Tceolumenti.* retired .a ~' b for suitable work) because . J "llw Bu.msm: lis)(is noo (abie to work)(availa le "~7 Although the claimant was subsequently empluyed by I and ais separated on due to conditions that are not disqualifying, the claimaat earned $ which does not equal six times claimant's weekly benefit cate ($ ) subsequent to the voluntary separation from employment with DETERMINATION: In accordance with Sectien(s) 401(d); O 40t<f): 4oxdxi) of the i Pennsylvania Unemployment Corspensacion Law, the following are: APPROVED' I DISAPPROVED Applicatinn for Benefits Dated j Claim (s) for Compensable Week (s) Ecding 12/16/70, 12/72/79. 12 /29/79. 1/5 /60. 1/12/6'O. 1/10/E0 Signature Y Date 1/oo/An auntau mEpsets .ie T a T o w s local orrtCE sTAu# i 1 Employe' EDS Nuclear Inc. Nom. .d.5 2roedHollow Ed. M.ml0Fr*,w m E q l'.c:1v111e, H. Y. 117/.7 And 7.,.,r,.g;; g,;f,.; pri,.y;;,y Addres s ! f.ViTTCt.'N. PU4NA. Page C,3' APPENDIX C uc.aatsi nsv.n see Revers. Side f.c Provisions of the Law Address not applicable for complaint. l t ,~.-m-

r f., h.pp ~ PROVISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW l Section 401(d) y This section of the Pennsylvania Une notoyment Compensation Law provides that a claimant E shall be ineligible to receive benefits for any week in which he is not able to work, not available f IE for suitable work. Section 401(f) IEs section of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law provides in part that in order s to remove a disavalification imposed under Section 402(b) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compen sation Lan a claimant must ' earn six (6) times his weekly benefit rate in subsequent employment. Sectio-402(b)(1) This section of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law provides in part that o clair.iont 'sha!! be ineligible to receive benefits.for ony week in which his unemployment is due ~ to voluntarily leaving work without ceuso e/ o necessitous and corrpelling nature. REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION 3 i t 4 Section 401(d) A disqualification under the provisions of this section of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Com-f pensation Law remains in effect as long as the claiment continues to be unable to work, not [ available for suitable work. m Section 401(f) [ A disqualification under the provisions of this section of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Com. - f pensation Law remains in effect until the claimant has earned si, (6) times his weekly benefit rate in subsequent employment. In order to again become eligible for benefits the claimant, in addition to naving ecened six (6) times his weekly benefit rate, must have a valid separation from the subsequent employment. 4b I Section tC2fb)(1) A claimant who has been disqualified under the provisions of this sectiyn of the Pennsylvania [ F-Unemployment Compensation Law concot qualify for benefits until he hos earned six (6) times his weekly benefit rate in subsequent employment from wh ch he has a valid separation. F bec t l APPEAL INSTRUCTICNS Under Section 501(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compsnsatio, L:w, this determination g j becomes final unless on eppeal is timely filed. \\ i 1 e. Your appeal may be filed by mail either by signed letter or a writte.i statenent, or in person at any ..A I office of the Bureau of Ernployment Security. It is preferred that you file any copeal with the local office that issued your determination. If an appect is filed in person, it must be filed on or before s , 9 the last doy to appeal as shown on the face of this form. If the oppnal is filed by mail, it must be Any urther h postmarked on or before the last day to appeal as shown on the face of this form. t i information you may need or desire can be obtoMed, togethee with assistance in filing your appeal, from any local office of the Bureau of Employme-it Security. = o.y, (.h [ e, m l EMPLOY ER: THIS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON RELIEF FROM CH ARGES. i Page C4 . d..).c.< - T I -APPESDIX'C 1

~=-

,7e g ng=*

\\

5 - [ ' -hg ,a u,y g h l. . ~ ~ * ~

w 6 COMMONWlALTH OF PENNSYLV ANI A q DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ANO INDUSTRY UN EMPLOYMENT COM AENSATION BOARO OF R EVI EW NOTICE OF HEARING ON ORIGIN AL APPEAL Natice is hereby giveri that a hearing will be held on the appeal filed from the decision of the Bureau of Employment Security rulin'g on the unemployment compensation claim identified below. PLEASE REPORT TO BB: EPI'IONIST Pt. ace of HEARING: 2h0 LevittoVn Parkway, Levittown, PA .DATEOrHEARINo: Monday, February 25, 1980 TIME o F HE ARINo: 10:10 a.m. IN ftE: CLAIM OF EM pt.O Y ER f~ ~l I l GEORGE MARKOVITZ EDS NUCLEAR, INC. hh5 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 i I _J L. _J $PECfFIC f 55UES TO BE CON 51DERED IN THIS APPEAL - Nos.15, la and 12 - See attached ~ UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW 9th Floor, 131h Chestnut Street, Phila., PA 19107 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ij In Re: Claim Of: Appeal No. 80-1-I-56 CEORGE MARIOVITZ S. S. Acet. No. 182-38-332h Notice is hereby given that the hearing which had been scheduled at 9:15 a.m. On Feb. 19, 1980 in connection with the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 00ARO OF RCVIEW NOTICE OF HEARING ON ORIGINAL APPEAL Nstice is hereby given that a hearing will be held on the appeal filed from the decision of the Bureau of Employment Security ruling on the unemployment compensation claim identified below. ' " "

C '# '" "

PLEASE REPORT TO RECEPTION IESK. i 80-1-I-56 A PPE AL NO. 3 182-38-332h s.s. ACCT. NO. 2-1-80 O ATE THIS NOTICE MAILED Address not applicable for complai*nt. 2 age c5 DATE OF HEARING d22END11 O l FRIDAY, FE3RUARY 8, 1980 AT 11:30 A.M. 1 m,.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARIMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY UNEPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW LIST OF ISSUES ARISING IN_ APPEALS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATICN BOARD OF REVIEW All parties should be aware that in all cases involving the claimant's separa-tion from employment, Section 402(b) or Section 402(e) may be at issue. All parties should be aware that in all cases the claimant's ability to work and availability for suitable work may be at issue under Section 401(d). 1. Secti;n 3-Whether claimant's suspen-11. Section 401(c) as defined in Section sion or discharge was the result of 4(v)(1)-Whether claimant filed a non-work related conduct and was due valid application for benefits. to claimant's own fault. 2. Section 401(d)-Uhether claimant was 2. Section 4(a)(2)-Whether the claimant able to work and available for qualifies for benefits on the basis of suitable work, a movable base year. 13. Section 401(f)-Whether claimant sub-3. Section 4(1) and Articles I, II, and sequent to disqualifying separation XII-Whether claimant's services during er subsequent to self employment has his base year were performed in been paid remuneration for services covered employment. in an amount equal to at least six times the claimant'.s weekly benefit 4. Section 4(w)(2)-Whether claimant filed rate. a valid application for benefits by having required earnings. 14. Section 402(a)-Wether claimant failed without good cause either to apply for 5. Section 302(r.)-Whether employer's request or to accept suitable work. l for relief from charges was filed within period prescribed by the Unemployment N3. Section 402(b)(1)-Whether claimant's Compensation Regulations, Title 34 of unemployment was due to voluntarily tihe Pennsylvania Code. leaving work without cause of neces-sitous and compelling nature. 6. he,4nne if17 /m1 (1) (7) ( Awhe ehas-N 18. Seotion 02(e)-Whether claimant's 31. Section 404(d)(iii)-Whether amount of unemployment was due to discharge retirement pension or annuity paid to or temporary suspension from work claimant, in excess of $40 per week for willful misconduct connected from a fund to which a base yeer en-with employment. player contributed, is deductible from claimant's benefit amount. 19. Section 402(h)-Whether claimant is engaged in self-employment. 32. Section 404(e)(3)-Whether the claimant is entitled to a dependent's allowance. 20. Section 402.1(1)-Whether claimant is a professional school employe and has

33. Section 501(e)-Whether appellant filed a

~ a contract or reasonable assurance of timely and valid appeal from the 0.E.S. s returning at the beginning of the next determination. academic term or immediately following a vacation period or holiday recess. 34. Section 502-Whether appellant filed a

1"*1' ""d "" * """"*' "*" **

i mpurr' tu vu.s. -umuu.o o l UC-58 REV 9-79 Page 06 APPENDIX 0 i

r e aC.so PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REYlEC REFEREE'S DECISION o DArCl540N mast.ING DAT E S.5. ACCT.NO. APPE AL NQ, APPE AL Q AT E February 28, 1980 182-38-332h 80-1-I-56 January 30, 1980 CONCERNING THE CLA6M OFs EMPLOYER 7 I" l f" GEORGE T. EtBKOWITZ EDS NUCLEAR INC. kh5 Droad Hollow Road Melville, New York 117h7 L J L J DOTE AND N ATURE OF SUREAU'S DECIS4ON! NE ARING OATE AND LOCATION January 29, 1980 Lovittown Local Office, Levittown, Pa. claimant ineligible for benefits o,,E ,,,,,,,c,,,,,,,,,E,E,,73 coM, ens..i.E EEn ENom o o, voluntary quit - Sec. h02(b)(1) 12/9/79 W AITING WEEK ENDING DATE i, g NE A91NG # *PE AR ANCE5e C. 4MANT EMPLOYER b CL AIMANT APPEAL ] SURE AU REPRESENT ATIVE OTNERS (SEE 80109) p gMyt.QYER APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Claim:mt was last employed by EDS NUCLEAR, INC., as an Engineer, at $13.h7 an hour, from August 1, 1979 to August 27, 1979 2. Claimant left this employment because he was having difficulty obtaining suitable living accocmodations in the Long Island, New York area, and because he was discatisfied,with his assi ned job duties. 6 3 Also, the cinimant felt the nuclear power plant assignment' presented a potential health hazard. I h. Claimant was aware at the time of hire as to his specific job duties. L l 5 Claimnt also refused to inspect an area around a vent stac15 which was to be modified. This inspection would have required a total of five to six hours over a two day period, and would be performed with several other engineers. 6. A complete heaJ.*.n survey Voald b.vts Leen Me yf o_ to his enterirs this aMa with regard to radiation level exposure. 7 Claimnt was not laid off and continuing work would have been available had he agreed to perform his job duties as directed. eel.SONING: Section h02(b)(1) of the Law provides that a claimant chall be ineligible for compencation for any week in which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necescitous and compelling nature. Cince the claimant voluntarily terminated his employment, the burden rests upon him to chow cause cf a necessitous and compelling nature for so doing. C1.minant has failed'to meet the burden.

Address not applicable Tage C7 for complaint.

Appgypyy g

r r 3,\\ Appeal No. 80-1-I-56 In the instant case the claimant left his employment because he was having difficulty obtaining living accommodations, and because he was <11nna tinfiori vi th hin annimod job dution. Lonving; wor!: for thono vrnnnnr. does not constitutie good cause within the meaning of the aforementioned Section of the Law. The record and testimony will not aus tain a conclusion that the claimant's job duties presented a definite health hazard. Under the circumstances, benefits rust be disapproved pursuant to the provisions of Section h02(b)(1) of the I4w. ORDE: The decision of the Bureau is AFFIRMED and benefits are DMIID for weeks ending December 15, 1979 through Janut.y 19, 1980. .,, vt }Mie le. J0 u T. GAH7EY, Nam m l l l i 1 'M Tage C8 APPENDIX C i 1 -}}

ML20076E985

Text

Dear Mr. Markowitz:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

~g3 M4' PSI S

~

=

3..

- u -

-

.:.=

Navigation menu

Search