ML20078S032
| ML20078S032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1983 |
| From: | Doyle J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078S028 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311150367 | |
| Download: ML20078S032 (37) | |
Text
.. - ~_- _ _ .
UNITED STATES OF Af4 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf1 BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AllD' LICENSING BOARD In - the Ma tter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I GENERATING COMPAtlY, ET AL. FOR I Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446
'Atl OPERAT!flG LICENSE FOR COMANCHE PCAK STEAM ELECTRIC !
STATION UNITS #1.AND #2 I (CPSES) i AFFIDAVIT OF JACK 00YLE 1 Q: Have you read Applicants' Brief Regarding Board Inquiry Into Appli-2 cability of AWS and ASME Codes to Welding on Pipe Supports at Comanche Peak?
3 4 A: Yes, I have.
5.
6 Q: Do you agree with the contents of the Applicants' Brief?
7 8 A: No, I do not. But prior to getting too involved in specifics, I 9 must make a general comment in regards to this brief and other areas of problems 10 generic to CPSES.
i 11 First of all, the Board must be aware of the basic handicap faced 12 by the Intervenor in this case, which has a small non-paid volunteer staff, 13 most of whom are only able to contribute their efforts on a part-time basis 14 because they have to work.
15 On the other hand, the Applicants are blessed with unlimited resources 16 and personnel dedicated to the hearings. The third party to these hearings 8311150367 831110 PDR ADOCK 05000445 )
G PDR
1 un the Walsh/Doyle matters (the NRC Staff) also has huge resources and numbers 2 of personnel dedicated to the hearings.
3 With these handicaps we are constantly under fire for: submitting evidence 4 not in the record, using logical evaluation to make a point, and generally taking 5 advantage of the Applicants. Perhaps if the intervenor in this case (and others) 6 had the resources to hire the legal staffs possessed by the Applicants and the NRC, 7 weav ould not make such blunders, and could perform within the parameters 8 of legal niceties. I am not sure, however, that this would result in a safe 9 nuclear industry. If I am wrong, I apologize. In this regard I would like to 10 point out that the Intervenor's limited resources are being unnecessarily strained 11 by spending vast quantities of time arguing technical points which have been dis-12 missed as negligible by Applicants /NRC witnesses on spurious bases such as "Indus-13 try Practice", " Engineering Judgement", or as the result of statements based on 14 the individuals' credentials. For example:
, 15 (1) Problems with the cinched up "U" bolts used by Applicants were dis-16 missed as a non-problem by both the Applicants and the NRC based on 17 (among other things) " Industry Practice" and "No Thermal Differential",
18' only to have it shown much later (See NRC Board Notification 83-105A) 19 that the very points made by CASE Witnesses were confi'rmed. (No one 20 can state what the safety factor or spring rate of the "U" bolt assem-21 bly is at CPSES.)
22 (2) The Problem of instability with supports at CPSES was dismissed 23 as no problem on the basis of the argument that the up and downstream 24 support would alleviate the instability. However, the fact that rota-25 tion of the clamp is permitted results effectively in no support for 4
-- - . - - ,- , -, _ _ . . , , . . ~ ,
I for one direction. The Applicants finally recognized this and have 2 removed the gap (at static conditions) by cinching up the "U" bult.
3 Now they have (excluding the A-307 friction problems) cured this' problem 4 by adding more support problems to item 1 above.
5 Now we are faced with yet another example of dismissing problems through 6 the back door by describing how perfect oranges are when-the topic of discuss-7 fon is apples.
8 The problem with failure to consider the provisions of AWS that I cited 9 in all of my testimony had nothing to do with qualified welds vs. non-qualified 10 welds, testing of welders or the weld per se. The problems I cover relate to 11 the weld parameters; that is to say. if at a "T" joint the angle is 150 degrees, 12 do you have a fillet weld and if. so, is it as described on the documents? If 13 a 20' inch dia. tube intersects 'a 24 inch dia. tube, is it fundamentally correct 14 to call for a fillet weld all. around to secure the joint? Can a weld be executed 15 (mirror weld) in areas where the proper drag angle and work angle cannot be
- 16. insured? etc, etc.
1 17 The Applicants answer my' critique by' going into great detail on testing 18' -and procedure s which never addressed the problems. For example:
19 (1) Have tests or procedures been established prior to construction
, 20 to determine the minimum ' space requirements to produce the weld desired?
21 (2) Have tests or procedures been developed for design, to outline the 22 max. and minimum _"T" joints which may be fillet welded and result in
- 23. the effective throat presumed?
24 . (3)-Have tests or procedures existed prior to construction for determining 25' what ratio of pipe (round) may exist for a fillet weld to be called
I and calculated as all around?
2 Q: On page 4, II. Discussion "A", General, the Applicants refer to 3 extra-record material. 'Do you have a comment on this point?
4 A: Yes, I do - it seems incredible to me that material which relates 5 to the safety of a nuclear power plant is classed as irrelevent, not based .
6 on its merits, but because it was not timely. Are we to assume from this that 7 . in the course of hearings every pertinent document required for design and 8 construction must be entered into evidence or its value is negated?
9 Q: In reference to note 4 on page 6, do you agree with Applicants?
10 A: Absolutely not. First the Applicants try to insinuate that I know 11 nothing about welding because I was not involved with weld design at CPSES.
12 To clarify this argument, I have designed all types (configurations) of welds 13- for the aerospace industry, the petro-chemical industry, and the nuclear industry, 14 including the following:
15 (1) Russelville 16 (2) FFTF (Hanford Engineering and Development Lab) 17 (3) Duke Power, McGuire Unit 18 (4)MillstoneIII(Stone & Webster) 19 -(5) Diablo Canyon, I and II; etc.
- 20. In addition, during my Deposition / Testimony (CASE Exhibit 669) I stated 21 I was not an expert in welding. The Applicants have used this admission on 22 several occasions to indicate that an admission of a lack of expertise is
.23 tantamount to an admission that one is without knowledge on the subject. My
.24 remarks in reference to the question on expertise in welding were intended to 4
25 convey the facts as related to the question. I am not an expert on welding for 4
a .
- 5~-
I the following reasons:
2 .(1)' I' have minimum knowledge of the interaction between the base metal 3 and the filler metals; 4 (2) I have minimum knowledge of the development of residual stresses at-5 weld joints; .
6 (3) .I have minimum knowledge concerning crystaline alterations due to 7 welding; 8 (4) I lack full knowledge on the welding variables involved (joule 9 ' rate / feed rate, etc.);
10 (5) I lack a full understanding of the brittle effects induced by welding; etc.
11 An' expert on welding can (or should be able to) comment on these items.
.12 But, if the question had been "Do you know how to design welds for structures?"
13 I would have answered "yes". But that was not the question. The key word was 14 exoert and again I state, I am not an expert on welding - - nor are any of the 15- people who seem shocked that I am not. In fact, none of the engineers (except
'16 for welding engineers) I have met on over half a dozen nuclear sites are welding
'17 experts.
18 Q: Do you have a comment on Applicants' statements, page 8, 2. Applicable 19 welding standards?
20 A: Yes. The first sentence, referring to the fact that specific minimums 21- are not mandated by the NRC, is without relevence because 10 CFR Part 50, Appen-
.22 dix A., Criterion 1, states that:
23 "Where generally recognized codes And standards are used, they shall be 24 identified and evaluated to determine their applicability, adequacy, and.
25 suffi:.iency and shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure
6 --
I a quality produ.ct in keeping with the required safety _ function."
2 The-second sentence indicate that Section III, subsection NF of ASME estab-3 lishes appropriate design criteria. Again,- this a code and it is not ade-4~ quate and must be supplemented in accordance with GDC-1. (See fig.1 and 2 attached).
5 Q: On page 10, 3. Welding Qualfications Under ASME and AWS Code, Appli.-
6 cants-quote from ASME subsection NF 4311. Do you have any comments on their 7 conclusions?
-8 A: Yes, I do. First, I must state that I have never argued over the tests 9 and procedure policies of CPSES because I do not have full knowledge of these 10 i tems . What I argue is: If a fillet weld is evaluated in the design of a sup-11 port and assumptions are made based on the assumed size and configuration, then 12 the weld as constructed must meet those parameters. The Applicants cannot produce 13 the assumed weld in many instances, but have proceeded to base the analysis 14 on effective throats which do not exist. (See figs.1 and 2 attached.)
15- Q: Are you stating that the Applicants are actually considering welds 16 that are not representative of the actual as-built condition?
17 A: Not exactly, because as a result of many complaints that welding was
, 18 improperly analyzed, the Applicants started to institute corrective measures.
19 The first of these of which I am aware occurred as a result of an NRC inspec-20 tion (99900531/81-01) in 1981 which addressed undersize welds. (.See for examples L 21 CASE Exhibit 669B (Attachment to Doyle Deposition / Testimony) Items 13X and 13Y 22 - 13V and 13W - 12H and 121 - and you must recall that these three examples 23 are drawn from only about 60-supports which were submitted by myself in these 24 hearings.) The next corrective move was in relation to the Beta constant for 25 pipe / pipe (round) fillet welds which was introduced (signed by Mr. Finneran)
1 after May 5, 1982. This cor' ; tion to the problem required a re-analysis 2 of those supports which violated the Beta criterion. However, since so many 3 of these supports were constructed and turned over, I am not certain if this 4 . criteria addressed supports which did not come back to engineering for a change 5 or just affected new supports and reworked supports. (See CASE Exhibit 716,.
6 copy attached.) I am no't aware of any other corrective actions taken by CPSES 7 or the NRC.
8 Q: On page 13, the Applicants refer to the AWS D 1.1 code and state that 9 "any welding process may be qualified by testing." Do you concur?
-10 A: Yes, but; 11 (1) I do not agree that undersize welds may be qualified by testing, 12 because the material thicknesses and stiffnesses comprising the stucture 13 affect the level of constraint to the shrinkage of the weld; and I do 14 _ not believe the Applicants have attempted the massive test program which 15 would be required; 16 '(2) Welds which do not represent the configuration as-built vs. the 17 assumed weld have not been tested; and 18 (3) Tests have not defined the minimum clearance for (mirror welds) 19 achieving proper drag angle and work angle..
20 Q: In reference to weld cracking, page 18 of Applicants' brief, do you 21 have any comments?
22 A: Yes. The Applicants make a big point of the fact that the welding.
23 manual cited is over 20 years old. The principles of physics and engineering 24 fundamentals do not change with time. For example, at the time of the revolution, 25 a bell was cast which had a variable wall thickness. Due to improper cooling
- ~. - - - , ,_ _ _
I procedures,~ the thicker portions of the bell constrained the thinner portions 2 and the result was cracking at the edge (See Liberty Bell, Philadelphia, PA).
3 The mirror for the 200 inch Palmar telescope required years to cool after 4 casting. Because of the honeycombing (used to reduce weight) which caused thick 5 areas to constrain the thin surface areas, a controlled cooling rate was required 6 to prevent cracking of the first surface area.
7 The same is true of structural welding. If the constraint to cooling of 8 thin (weld) sections is sufficient, then cracking will occur due to overstres-9 sing. There is also an interaction between welding-induced stresses induced on 10 one portion of a stiff structure and a thin weld in another area.
Il These cooling problems associated with constraint of thin elements have 12 been known for centuries in foundries, where care must be taken to prevent 13 the hub and rim of pulleys or gears from over constraining the cooling of 14 the thinner spokes.
15 Q: Do you have any comment on the material pr_esented by Applicants on 16 page 19?
17 A: Yes. First, the last sentence conveys a false premise. The test 18 described is for normal welds and not undersize welds. The problem with under-19 size welds involves constraint, and this is a problem with so many variables 20 that testing is not practical; therefore, AWS, AISC, and ASME have established 21 minimum weld sizes, obtained by experience and practice.
22 Q: Do you have any other comments on the Applicants' brief?
23 A: No, but I have a corr.nent in general . All of the quantifying and 24 qualifying procedures are supposed to be in place prior to the construction 25 of the nuclear power plant. In the nuclear industry, it is apparent that the
. - =.
1 plants are constructed and then justification is established for why it was 2 done in a certain way. To intervene on behalf of the public safety under such 3 circumstances amounts to shooting at moving ' targets.
4 Q: Have you read the NRC Staff Response to Board Question Regarding 5 Applicable Welding Codes at CPSES?
6 A: Yes, I have.
7 Q: Do you have comments on this response?
8 A: Yes, I have. First, I must make a response on the term " applicable 9 welding codes".
10 Regardless of which' code is selected, or if in fact a code is developed, 11 the resulting parameters utilized in design and, construction nust be of sufficient 12 adequacy so as to protect.the health and safety of the public. This is mandated 13 by-10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 1 (GDC-1). (If Code is 14 inadequate, it must be modified.) What this means is if an additional parameter 15 is known to exist which is not among the criteria in the code being used, it 16 must be incorporated.
17 Q: Do you have any comment on the NRC response on page 2, second para-18 graph?
19 A: Yes, I do. First, the NRC states that new arguments have been intro-20 duced relative to the inadequacies of ASME. This in not in fact true. What 21 we have in fact is that the inadequacies existed within the ASME code and as 22 a result require that ASME be supplemented by incorporation of both Sections 23 of AWS which are not included in ASME.
24 Q: Do you have any further statements regarding this response?
25 A: No, I do not. But I have several comments on the affidavits of
I Dr. Rajan and Mr Smith.
2 Q: In reference to Dr. Rajan's affidavit, do you concur with his con-3 clusions?
4 A: No, I do not. First, it must be emphasized that if a criteria is 5 not embodied in the. code of use and this missing element would have an adverse 6 on the welds, then it must be incorporated.
7
~Q: Do you have any coments on Question and Answer 4, p. 2, of Dr.
8 Rajan's affidavit?
'9 A: Yes. Dr.Rajan makes my point in his answer. He states that GDC-1 10 applies to welding but then goes on to state that the NRC has no specific Il requirements as relates to codes.
I2 Q: Do you agree with Dr. Rajan's comments in Question and Answer 6?
13 A: Not completely. If Applicants have committed to ASME, then it 14 must be supplemented by AWS in those areas where ASME is inadequate.
15 Do you agree with Dr. Rajan in Answer 8 of his affidavit?
Q: .
16 A: No, I do not, for several reasons. First, Dr. Rajan agrees that 5 l 17 - of the 10 elements mentioned in the findings of fact by CASE are not covered 18- in the ASME code. At this point, he does not get involved in the other five-l9- points. He qualifies his remark by stating that "the designer considers the f
20 design configuration and the resultant welds needed in his evaluation of struc-2l tural integrity required by the code."
22 This statment is misleading since it implies that the designer has.
l.
l 23 considered the elements which are not addressed by the ASME code (for example, 24 the Beta requirements of 3 to 1 for round tube to round tube). This require-l= . 25 ment, which was adopted by a British code which dates back to the Second World l
T F
1 War, was never addressed at CPSES until after June 1982 (See CASE exhibit 716, 2 copy attached.)
3 .Beyond this, as was pointed out.in the inspection report by.the 4 .NRC(99900531/81-01), minimum weld size violations occurred on a number of
-5 supports. (This minimum weld requirement is required under any code in use: ,
6 AWS, ASME, or AISC.) If almost 400 violations of known code requirement were 7- committed bythe Applicants' engineering staff, how does this general statement 8 by Dr. Rajan have any meaning when many of the objections by myself and others 9 concern parameters which are not part of ASME? What Dr. Rajan's statement 10 resolves into is a commentary on what the engineers (and this includes the 11 "somewhat knowledgeable" engineers) should have done, not what was in fact 12 done. The previous statement is best appreciated if one considers the last 13 statement by Dr. Rajan in answer no. 8, where he cites the Code section for 14 minimum welds, but fails to note that this criteria has been blatantly vio-15 lated at CPSES as shown above. ,
16 Q: Do you have any comments regarding Question and Answer No. 9?
- 17 A: Yes. Dr. Rajan (as others have been) is too involved in the pre-18 qualified versus qualified question of the codes. Unless every weld is tested, 19 any program (whether performed by ASME or AWS) results in prequalifiation of l .20 a specific weld for future use. The problem to be found in the position of 21 Dr. Rajan and other includes a simple question: Is the as-built weld repres-22 entative-of the as-tested weld? This is the basis of my argument. The weld 23 configuration or condition is not representative of any tested weld.
.24 Q: Do you have any other comments regarding Dr. Rajan's affidavit?
25- A :~ I could comment further, but the statements would reflect points
I already made in my ' affidavit in. response to Applicants.
2 Q: Have you read the affidavit of David Smith of the NRC Staff?
3 A: Yes, I have.
4 Q: Do you have any comments regarding this affidavit?
5 A: Yes, starting with Answer'4; the precise category of design versus.
- 6 fabrication has little if any value. For example, if a welder cannot main-7 tain the proper drag angle, then the very high~ probability of flux entrapmer.t 8 within the base / filler joint exists. Therefore, if the designer fails to 9 design joints with adequate clearances to perform the welding using proper 10 drag angles and work ang?,s, then faulty welding will result. (Referer.ce
11 Mirror Welding Procedures.) The designer must be aware of the limitation 12 placed on him by the welder's abilities. -
13 Q: Do you agree with Mr.- Smi'h in reference to Question and Answer 14 No. 5?
15- A: Partially. He does concur that the points that I have made in ref-16 erence to AWS vs. ASME criteria do exist, with the exception of Item 2. Item 17 2 is a design requirement because of the clearance required by the welder to 18 perform his function and, although not directly found in AWS codes, is known 19 to every welder performing his trade by the use of mirrors. There must be room 20 for the stinger and the welder's hand or the weld will develop problems. ,
21 Q: Do you have any further comments on Mr. Smith's affidavit?
22 A: Yes. On page 4 he incorporates a caveat, inferring that some of 23 my points do not appear in the 1975 AWS Code. While this is true, it must 24 be pointed out that they were incorporated in later codes due to neglect of 25 consideration by less-than-competent engineers. Most of the missing elements f
l
. 1 in the ASMC code are comon-sense requirements known to most engineers involved 2 in designing welds. The fact that they are not explicitly referred to by a 3 specific code does not preclude the consideration in engineering based on the 4 fact that no one else has done so. This fact of consideration regardless of 5 past practice is we,ll established in the Board Notification 82-105A in reference 6 to stiff clamps. Beyond this, "past practice" will not eliminate the effects 7 of defective, or variations in, configurations from what is-intended, 8 Q: Do you have any other comments in reference to the NRC's answer 9 or the accompanying affidavits?
10 A: Yes, one more thing. Since there appears to be a c anflict between 11 the Applicants /NRC on one hand and CASE on the other in reference to the pro-12 visions of GDC-1, it is suggested that a further hearing on this matter would 13 be required, since CASE's position appears to be in line with the findings of 14 BN/105A.
15 Q: Do you have any more comments?
16 A: Yes. In reference to the vast array of expert witnesses appearing 17 at these hearings, an expert witness means one who is capable of giving a 18 proper evaluation. It does not necessarily mean that he will.
19 Q: Do you have anything further.
20 A: No, I do not.
21 22 23 24 25
I have read the foregoing affidavit, which was prepared under my person direction, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
. /20 , : 1 Jac Doyle"// /
DATE: 7]ez9 d/97B STATE OF 'U\ e- mL.h COUNTY OF Mmh On this, the Sh day of November,1983, personally appeared before me Jack Doyle, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed on the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.
Subscribed and sworn before me on the 5 % day of November, 1983.
cm 0- hr c.
Notary Public Ln and for the State of \Dc d .
My commission expires: 'NY ccMMISStoN EXP1RES 'fANUARY 9.1Q47
FI G us2 E i SEE cMi 6698 DGS/GM PROBLt?
17&45 IlR AHO ChlLED '/4 " FILLET We'J D 414 Tot' cxAHn'E5 Fofz I 60*Ys oINTHAS EFFECT1VE TWPJAr 4e.
LESS 77thff N"G('!0*) FIUS~
bETAIL '9' SHOWS APPP0X A
WELD CONFIGURATioM REQ 'D k" ,T,[g fg, TO HAVE EFFECTil/E THRORT EQ U AL TO STD, 1/4 F/ ULT WE!D ,
.V!GLC F&CE MfGTH EQUALS (2) ./7(o6/rav /So = /.32 "
sl 6' '.=
/
/
/
\,sQgYb /
tv/' // l/
' *341 '.
8
/
/
newrA y I. 2 ~ 5 ,_
, ~ DETA ll h '
/
/
/
/
. /
o150, U h* s' .// ' , f_'
t e= GFF. THRO AT
- U'
- R
'l' W= W LO =1/4
,(za$b .f(\
/ DETAIL B' he = 0l4k WbblM150*
= Y4 ( 5/8) = .1295" 8V NSPECTION GAGE T1415 1,4,jjlll WELD I 5 GiK, te. = .2 s(7071I)= . t1< 8 "
i nGURE-2 50(L ERhMplE set c+sG EXMIBIT
,f} }ln A$y
, DJn , Sm TOBE = SrS65 hMD R g99995 6 " 70BE v)/5/a Pi,D = 3 687 "
@ r 7. S 15/S.56 3 = I, 3 Z G < 3
./
[ .. y
/ ,Y
\ p N %,, '
~ -
1 I
I l
/
l a s s u/A.T %
FILLET WE2D (tdEFftCTHO WELD g Exists McARDiess or TEsn oft PRocceWB) i >\ x l N
N Nf,c,, s.
'NT N
's N
\
i l
.4S MAY es sE6N THE EfMCMVE THRonT FOR A 'h INCIL SC(90*)
FILLET WESD IS NOT ACHje%C'D SEE chSE EXM16)T 'M/ AHb
, FIGUR.E / OP mE56 PLSDlWGS HOTEi l h3 FAR. AS THE CDRRECT10Al(csse 5xHisir %rl15 Gor /CERHED,IT IS FOR THE YAST MI)JORnY OF~ CASES, TO 00MRECY IHPRO12ER. DES /GM, MOT
- TD PRODUCE A^)
CRIG/W/tL. ADEGuA'nE~ PRODUCT ~
C
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of l l
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Q GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, FOR Q Docket Nos. 50-445 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR Q and 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) l
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, .I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Response to: (1) Applicants' Brief Regarding Board Inquiry into
' Applicability of AWS and A5ME Codes to Welding on Pipe Supports at Comanche Peak; (2) NRC Staff Response to Board Question Regarding Applicable Welding Codes at CPSES have been sent to the names listed below this 10th day of November . 1983__,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
Administrative Judge Peter B. Block. Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. , Chairman '
O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member
- Division of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C. 20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 881 W. Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomi,c Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 - 17th St. , N. W. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 l
Docketing and Service Section Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Office of the Secretary Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
-,w .
Certificate of Service Page 2 David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 1
Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
-John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dr.' David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 73224 '
Lanny A. Sinkin ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- --- - 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 g,
r
.1
.1 i
f i
l 1
'I
.i bha O/1
.) Juanita Elfis, President I SE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk i Dallas, Texas 75224 i 214/946-9446 e
f I
. . - . .+ -
~. ,, .,- , .
C A S E (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
==
9 November 10, 1983 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT:
In the Matter of i Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. for An Operating License for l Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 CASE's Response to: (1) Applicants '
Brief Regarding Board Inquiry Into Applicability of AWS and ASME Codes to Welding on Pipe Supports at Comanche Peak; (2) NRC Staff Response to Board Question Regarding Applicable Welding Codes at CPSES Attached hereto is the original signed and notarized Affidavit of Jack Doyle, I which is an attachment to subject pleading.
Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)
&w Mrs.) Juanita Ellis President cc: Service List
p * CASE tXHIBIT _7/do 1 '
i
{ TEXAS UTILITIES '
SU SERVICES INC.
- REV.i 'ha',E DAGE ENGINEERING GUIDEUNE TITLE COVER SHEET 4 II/-P2, iVi FOR APPROVEC GUIDELINE s SECTION XI WEIS CAI,CULATIONS * '
REVIS!ONS d[p i
PSE PROJ. ENGR. f I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING GUIDELINE PAGES
- 1. Replace the existing sheets 1 thru 7 with the enclosed sheets 1 thru 17.
- 2. Replace the existing cover sheet, Rev. 3 with this cover sheet, Rev. 4.
l l
l ( .
l l
l '
l II. STATUS OF GUIDELINE PAGES PAGE ~REV'PAGE REV PAGE REVIPAGE REV PAGE REVlPAGE REV t
1 5 10 0 i l 2
1 4 111 0 ! j i 36 O* l 12 0 !
4 4 8 * ,
13 o .,
5 4 14 0 l .
6j* 94 7 ,g4 f.5 15 0 g 16 0 8 .59 17 0 9 0
.- - ~
e
- Page 1 of 17 Rev. 5 o * .
E. .
4 SECTION XI: WELD CALCULATIONS
. l 1.0 GENERAL This section supplements weld size requirements as address.ed in reference "C".
2.0 REF'ERENCES l
A. Design of Welded Structures, Blodgett B. AISC Handbook (7th Edition)
C. ASME Section III Division 1 1974 Edition with Winter 1974 Addendum.
D. American Welding Society Code D1.1
(
3.0 PROPERTIES OF WELDS For analysis of a weld, the weld will be considered as a line.
Some general configurations based upon this assumption with their corresponding properties are indicated.in figure 1.
3.1 Weld Size Selection The calculated weld size is found by determining the actual re-i sultant force on the weld and comparing it to the allowable force for that weld size.
The largest loads are to be used when determining the required weld size.
The allowable stress for linear component support welds shall be in accordance with Table NF-3292.1-1.
The minimum weld based upon structural member thickness is as inidceted in figure 2.
3.2 Skewed Joints
-( Fillet welds may be used at skewed joints where the angle 0 is equal or greater than 60 but less than or equal to 135 .
(Figure 3) r
r 1 Rev. 4 SECTION XI
(;
If a member is to be joined at an angle greater than 300 or less than 600, a bevel groove weld is to be used. (See Figure 3). The.
effective throat is indicated in parentheses.
If a member is to be attached at an angle greater than 1350 , the member should be machined to yield an angle less that 1350 but greater than 60 0. (See Figure 3.)
3.3 Welding of Structural Tubes When two tubes of equal size are welded together, a flare bevel weld should be specified. The effective throat is as shown in Figure 4.
When two tubes of unequal size are welded together, a fillet-weld shall be specified in all cases. The effective throat is indicated in. Figure 5.
For combined fillet and flare bevel welds the effective throat is as indicated in Figure 6.
3.4 Weld Symbols Subsection NF weld inspection procedure paragraphs must be specified
( in the tail of the weld symbol using the following codes:
52 "A" "B" 4
"A" ASME CLASS NF- 5232h ~ - - - -
- ' SUPPORT TYPE "B" 1 1 Plate &-Shell 1 2 & MC 2 -----
- Linear 2
+
3 3
_3 ' Component Std. 3 h
No NF weld symbols are required for class 5 supports or for welds to the pipe.
Only welds that connect two plate and shell elements shall be desig-nated as plate and shell.
P 4
7_ .
, OLu s av.s AA Rsv. 0 3.5 Pipe to Pipe Welds 3.5.1 New Designs Fillet welds shall be used when the ratio of the diameter of the stanchion over the diameter of the pressure boundary-pipe (or . pipe plus a pad)is less than or equal to 1/3. See
. Figures 7 and 9.
A combination bevel / fillet partial penetration veld shall be used when the ratio of the diameter of the stanchion over the diameter of the pressure boundary pipe (or pipe plus a paf)is greater than 1/3 but less than or equal to 2/3. See Figures 8 and 10.
Welds for a stanchion to pipe ratio greater than 2/3 shall be treated as a special case. Depending on the required strength, a partial or full penetration weld could be used. If a partial penetration weld is specified, care must be exercised to determine the actual effective throat. Full penetration welds shall be used with discretion as this type of weld requires greater Q.C. in-volvement.
3.5.2 Evaluation of Existing Fillet Welds Figures 11 thru 15 give acccptable methods to evaluate fillet welds
(, . which exceed a stanchion to pipe ratio of 1/3.
1 e
V e
e
-, SECTION XI Pags 4 of17 Rsv. 4 FIGURE 1 PROPERTIES OF WELD TREATED AS A LINE Outline of welded 3,,4,n g Twisting Joint b ewidt h d .de pth (about horisontal a sse s.el I
d 1
t~~ >~~s S, , [
6 in.*
- J. s~iT in.
t-6-i t r- 3. a J. s N t,
-]
3
~
,bv. !, s. . ,, d ,. 4.3 b
3 bdi
_t ef- 6 --e 34, ( ,4bd+d2,42(4h +di y , (b 4dl4-6b2d2 d y aff*,h,,43 6 6 (2b ( di 4 2 (b + di L. ., . . , g*,,3 top bottom
.,.,L_.i._lI s. ,,d .1. 2
,. . <zb + di 3 42 b2ib - 4 1 (2 b 6dl bT a. 6 f=-6 M, g , Zbd + d l, dz(2b + di 3 2 2 l a -- 8 J ) (b ,di J. . -
,,, d ,
!, a top bottom
( ,_._,
g- - a ka bd f N J. e (b +dp 6
_f 3
.Y,] 3_
2bdfd l d2(Zb + di l
l e, < 3 3 ii, . d > J. .<b.2di3 dz(b .d>2
.e'3d ._1 top bottom 12 (b + 2d) l --
E: I ClE l 4bd2+d3
( *4bd4d ,d teb sd) , L
/~ -'s(
- ' 3
> 6b . ,d ,
( 6(b + d) 6 N*E fes-) 1 teP bottom 4
~~
-m .
7 l b3 + 3 bdl + d3 g-. - ..a 4 S.abd+d J. s
, . ,, l no-m p I" T s_ 3. Z bd + d l 2b3+6bdl+d3
- a J. e f e1 i
- y. . TT d 3
,_ _ _ _, s. . Tr d ! 4 4 ,
,s . z.-9-(='4) .
- s, u - +-
o % , ,V D*-e-de f
(. .
i SECTION XI Rev. 4 ;
i
. g\ .
I T Jn
- FIGURE 2 k.. .;
Thickn'ess of Pl. A Min. weld is smaller of the do
'a' values * 'w' inches {
I s
- s.
To h inclusive 3/16 or b '
' C over to 3/4 h or b '
1 J l 7 over 3/4 to 1-14 5/16/ or b '
, over 1- to 2-h 3/8 or b I J w over 2- to 6 h or b over 6 5/8 or b 7'.
- If calculated weld size is greater than "b", use full penetration weld.
I Y'-
'l tb -
, b j-. -
crewesee & .
. Nl$$f / b
- a
- s. .
h ,
\ I,{^*_
,4 : \
k .
+,
-~
l e l
9
. 1
..s s
- n. - , ,--._ - . . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - , ~ , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - . - .
r .
- SECTION XI
( -
FIGURE 3 6
l 60*> e > 30*
6 i
/
h/
l -
' 0, 25'2 9 2 60*
8
.I MACM,K ,
'A/}4 l l r .
/, .
J
[ .
i G > /35 *
[
r save ..4, l
SECT 10t1 xl Rev. 6
. t Figure 4
( ~
Two Structural Tubes of Equal Size.
l t,
l s
i l ' Ef fective throat "te" for
( .
design shall be:
te= .625t2 " E l TK f whichever is less.
i j
R: 2t 2 l l
l l t : tz i
p gure 5 Two Structural Tubes of Unequal Size
( 1' h d ,,
l min. \ i 1/8" max. i
- b 'd 45 o l f
min.45 minh j ! , y '
(t min.)
!- t X t) 7 A l l r >](min.
(\t min.)
l .
Shown on dw ' -
< [; (1-ht min.)
l t ,
D ,.
l J D l >
w# *Ws Nw -1,.- - --
-~g -
^g 7 . 'c. .- _ _ 1 _ : s; m - . r- f _ _
- _g g, g, - ; r_7 1_
Effective Throat = 0.707 W t = Thickness of thinner material To be used only when the ratio Effective Throat = t l offi0.8 To be used when the ratio of f ).
0.8 or when calculations dictate an l -
l Effective Throat = t. Show the he
( leg dim. on the hgr. edwg.
i t
rac c
. Page 8 of 17 SECTION XI Rev. 5
(-
1 FIGURE 6 an .
f(V! th
%VE-O S .g h&ff-d1'"M te - [-f(-!E-i)
- ff} s ',.,,. . .,
I
+[c-a-o %],v'. ,- -
. Ae O. 73 der (EActcrivE v- - --- -----
TMRCA7~ W FLARE SFv!L N '
/
l I
+ F/LL67*) % , y N /
eIN ,' O- ! :n i
h.
l dI/ yr-j v
\ l N '
W=R '46 R 'hto 2 l (f/LLET) *EF K E' IUEFFECT.
- ftAKE flME
( 8tVEL 82 VEL
FOPM DME4 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
REV.O COMANCHE PEA K S.E.S.
( D ---J
, um DALLAS POWE LIG T COSIPANY r h e C*d* --
TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY
-~V ^
TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY sh..i N._]_C CWd/Appe i_kBy'Ac Io ipc (det os wo-. ,,..
G & H J.h. N.- ,
UEC C3Esiqos ,
/ / o,
@fD l
r LV
'( )-- ,
+
/ ,
D C\ E+ i bl l
1 To S \ AT E k Nu t._ GE -
\ CGL D C iTH u ki=~F=~t:Ec_ t t V E- I AfElo(C i L c Q U A L- Io 707 o! Ad AK. 90sT
% '(kec=@ V3 D c c= ) 3 SEE /~/4UnE /3 FOR WELD FR'oPfR 7~/df .
l l
T TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
g7 COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.
Agtnt For REV.o k.
A-a,gG y ,,- DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY rmas c.de.
E! h~ Trx N N kSa $ [Ic$[T Co.$ Nk N 86* ' 8*- ot U
~,
. . . I.m -
sew.et N Q I b6 _ E.h C_D n ,.g. D., ssp.e. p. -
UEL.O Desicque s
C Q ;:
ee I
2 I
g x I t = ra wa 0 4 rwo l/g"p(ry, l McNJ kAtu. 4
( 45oMm. -
(Wt x t) 7 I '
M i o. IWt A./ _,
k ve t s,v.
h
- 2 RERc!> /33 60i Z D O b 3 *i b I At'G C/Rt-@T' Ni2 k CLELb5 bW-l
!(.
EcmVE \ WROAT EcPOALTo OCLD SVM80u /U[osT 86 S%T6ts t.[l46 kb bAotO O .
bEC lion ~KT FIGURE 9 TORM DHE.3
. . TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
COM A NCllE PEA K S.E.S. ((V, C
( D
-- . u
.M' Agent For DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY N o C+de c.""'v,u u m
-N TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY TEXAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY shui N... f f ___ot l}
Chh'WApped. By G & M Ieb. M -
y Pi P t. To PtPrE. ( M EEt_.r.p s . %o _ ,, _ ,
- _ .. - . . _ . _ . ! m__1..;_ i lN.. EW OEsiqus
- / CP
@es .
l uV l( b . _ . .
/ N
^
~~r~ ~
-i . . .
! \ /
l
~
/ -
O Mob.
OoTE'. , O C.kb.EPL.
Tc; SiA,cer k M u(___ei LCEt ci-Q 6 H k.3 S T=~i=~E C t \JG \
ROCCT* kQU(-\ L- \C3 707 (kscf, tn <= ) 3 o! A.d AK. MosT E Y3 D NobW\Eb ~
dEE R&URE I3 fon WELD PRoPan TMr e
..e -
SECTJON TT F/6 UR E /0 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
COM ANCl{E PEAK S.E.S. 8EV. O Agent For k d. yfC A7 e DALLAS POWER & LIGIIT CO)!PANY mac C*de U *'
- l2-' d 4 TExN SER S [IcnYCo[ TEN $" *w'"
cwas e, o a n r.6. n.
- . PtPE io Pip s W et os . .o . ,,_
~' ~ '
Mdi.D Desiqu s ~
a , g o ,
- I ._ b _J t = THJNNf/L OF 7~/fr~ fyp
. - - _ . M it TER. !NS t
2 N
~
t VeMa. T l Pao 3 'I* f5 Me.
p m '
('/2i x t,)
- h. 7 '/zt A. , ffp_,
I , _ . . .
Q' -
j) -.
A h b iU. t- +
/ /
R ER C > 3D boi -
hP.'M obFtED .
m OoM : \p O RDuR. Io I AtG CRGDtT' NR k C# 3dl bs EFF-GaxwE .\ n6LoAT EcPoM_ To t } i146
(. UG~L D 69 AA80 L-- kOST b6 bN%D ktbl4 0 ta Q .
DEL / Jty i\ ; r o 4.i ', c -
l
-' TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. FORM DME.5 ROM A NCIIE l'EA K S.E.S.
D q [ 3
/, C i DT DALLAS POWER & LIrliT COMPAN)- ru C{' {"A -'1 W- TEX As EI.I'('Tnic SEr:virE cous ANY c.d. . _ _ . . i TEXAS POWElt & LIGitT COMPANY swee N.._.[__of l] )
ChhWAperd. By s.6i.et _ lN Io 1.P_ L . E L. D. L J .f.Dww.Ap.e.N As Bult, W/Fiu_c rLdeco%got_4. c' > D/3 BuT4 # k3 CAs e_L '
- : d c c_,e 4 I LV k -- m y
%=
D k3 cst <z ' \ O Okbe e \o k I h k s
OI l LLb i d > Y M bu T' 4 kkD) $ 6 [ Nt_t_.c w -
th3Q 3aser, fiavu /2. - '
l l
l
ani.-.. ,, ...,..~. , .
- *
- TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
""" ~
CO3I ANCIIE PEAK S.E.S. k/, C
(- D*.
CW J DALLAS POWE LIGIIT CO3!PANY rm, c.d. . .
c.C, " TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE CO31PANY L.7... g.'Q TEXAS POWER & LIGIIT CO3tPANY sh.e N.--l 4 M l]
Chk*d/Apped. D G & H I.h. N.-
~ Pipe To Roe Rz. ._ce.m ,~. ..-
As Bu.t r "/Fiu.e r L3aoSteot_4 d > 3 Bn * $E CAsc i -
Aieuue d = #f , A-o )
@ =Siu ' "g) = 41. 81 ,
fi-,X }
G = 90 + Q = 131.8 I ol = Yz 060 - 9) =24.095 te =lO(5)u E4.095") p a
- .g te = .408 6-) @ Awr"P"
( 6 e = . 707G > @ Powr "Q" ,
lo A? $ALduLADoo kAA' x:GS, /HG'
~
f 6 F/~Ec7 ouA>b t a.L.G wG T/RRoAT)~0f5Ebe (A GZ.b SHouL < A A s BAceb On gg =. .ac<caM+.?N.a - n
= 5 6 ftst D #
See. De rmu 1
,- [ ( 'k (c D lI
" !(
^
6 W Y
+
5 D eraim - i D Secrice R- A
} -
D C $ l1 Oi& AI t' s . .* $ lb
- TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
COMANCliE PEAK S.E.S. k[Y. O
(,2 Q ~] -
, DALLAS POWE LIGliT CO5!PANY ruin, ced. ..
"- 'E OW R & LIG iT C05 N 8had N' - --M Chk*WApped. By
~ Pi ec To Pipe _M_et_o s m _. ,,
A s B uit..rCA=TLuct tactosmect#cjy@ Bar4 ED 3 Case I TH e I o t._t o ta t e g LU e t.o Pee.o pentTi es Caoutb Be UseD %R l s e P i p e ' r o P i p t=
LU t TH NLLE T- Lt > ELD $YM 8 o t._ j 6 TA nR %
kL.L- k Re>uu D ( kE t b L.cbq& )$ctoT oc ,
to bas,w ow weuwaa~ s ):
(.
y R= dz Queee c 15 IHE DI A4eTER.Ci=
Tse Cooseen % R e e.
- Leo =2itR l R. Ix =_Lv = ll RS .
X JLa =L+IV = 2TfR.S 5 w = ii R-d Y
t l
. ww ..v ., , , a .. o TEXA5 UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
,e g- COh!ANCHE PEAK S.E.S. gg, p
(
~
D='" --
DALLAS POWE LIG T COh!PANY m.o c.d.
" 4 sh..e N... f.. _M TEXAS POR R & LIGHT CO3 NY c, ... ..
W.mos
. . ,.m ..
s
_ Pi pr To Pipe . . . . _
As Suu. r WiTw Fuuc r WeuoSyue,cu 4. d > @
CASE _LL -
Assuac be wem.o Exi s r.s . A,- t s e m* P
- U lMTER_F: AC_E m Au.0% = =
Aec.e PTP a > 2p_
T == : "
T
~ lHea.er oae ) EFFECTIVC
'Tseos, LQitu. Be tac P
( Ef2 _
P SweAs lo ease i 3 ie : f_,e = ,656(6)) 4A>o .
A A d j YIL.L. kC T k L_oA.)Q /H$
Ares & Out-y.
+
D Q -
secriou A-A 4
i -
&?w. o. . joav.* ;:. oo TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
REV.o CO3!ANCHE PEAK S.E.S.
( k*
C& sf ' '
7
~
DALLAS POWER LIG T CO31PANY ruin, c.d..
sh..e M.-
TEXAS PO%ER & LIGH CO3 P i ot ChkWApped. By ' G & H I.b. Na-Piee.To- Pier t A c a m e
As Ebun_ r L3rrs PR.uc r LQeuoSusou4d >5D Case Tr lHE boLLoWt % C ELD (2.OPER_~T t ES Saouun & Uses h i s e Pi p e. t a P t PE.
LOi r s MTt.ue r- LQsun 5vue>ou_.;Sreenog Au__Aee % 3brOpq -
Acue Cem ,-
%ttact o Om Aecs Pc~Pv (Rem L%e rc, SuvuoJ to besiworLQa.tnw~rs ):
C. R=dy3 L0scer o Y lsTae DmueTea.OF
- l. Tae Couvectioq Piee.
9 = c o.c ' '/s g R = 48./9*
. R Lw=(*L~$Y)2T6I187f2 X d X v ,
a W c Ix =2 (fl~ 27'+ Sw 2P' )
y y I>' =d (7/=2Y'-Su 290
, \ UTu = 22'(77~ -2P'.)
Y .
9 l
t . ._ _ _ _ .__ - -. .-.