ML20096A639

Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence

ML20096A639
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	08/30/1984
From:	Hooks R SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20096A623	List: ML20096A619 ML20096A626 ML20096A639
References
OL, NUDOCS 8408310199
Download: ML20096A639 (5)

Text

p - -

7

"' ,s t? wsy..u.yyumyg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~ bYC

)

In The Matter of ) "

) Docket No'84 .g COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power. Station, )

Units 1 &'2) ) rGC3fff ep;j$gfj{py( ,,'

1

~

=.4 A tlCH

. i.

HOOKS _ ,2 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ROBERT W.

Q.l.

Please state your full name and place of employment for.the record.

A.l.

Robert W. Hooks, Assistant Division Head, Structural Engineering Division, Sargent & Lundy, 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603.

Q.2. Please describe your job responsibilities.

A.2. .As an Assistant Division Head, I manage and coordinate the work performed by the Structural Engineering.

Currently, Division for the projects assigned to me.

these include Byron and Braidwood. Personnel from the Structural Engineering Division are responsible for preparation, review and approval of nearly all structural design engineering calculations.

Q.3. Please describe your educational background and work experience. _

8408310199 840830 PDR ADOCK 05000454 PDR \

T j l

p. ~

,c ,-

- :A.3. I-graduated _from-the Ohio State University with La_B.'S.iin civil 7 engineering in 1971. I have thirteen years

'of experience in' structural-engineering and design of

~

l fossil.and nuclear' power plants. . I.am a Registered Structural

': Engineer.in Illinois. I am a member of~the American ..

Concrete Institute.. I began my career as a Structural- ~

-Engineer at Sargent & Lundy in~1971. I worked on several In 1973,

' fossil projects and on the Clinton Nuclear Station.

p

.I was promoted to Senior Structural Engineer and continued ,

to work on Clintoni where I was responsible for design of 1 i

several,cf the structures. . In 1977, I was promoted to Supervising Design Engineer. In that position I was responsible for the a structural: design ' activities for Carroll County and then for d Marble Hill. In 1982, I was promoted to my. current position and became responsible for Byron, Braidwood, and Marble Hill.

o O.4. Are you familiar with the Byron Reinspection- 5 Program?

i A .~ 4 . Yes. I directed the preparation of some of the i

engineering calculations for the evaluation of discrepancies. {

Q.5. Were you involved in the preparation of the report?

A.S. Yes, I provided input to the final report.

fm

. =W y-Q.6. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony? j~

6 A.6. My rebuttal testimony addresses the validity of _-[

the information contained in Attachment 7 of Mr. Stokes' -E testimony. *

,dr i

Q.7. Mr. Stokes, based upon Attachment 7 to his testimony, l __

suggests that Sargent & Lundy may have used a design assumption of R=2T which may not be valid. Would you describe Attachment 7 and the applicability of that document to the Byron plant?

1 A.7.

Attachment 7 is a series of pages extracted f rom a voided section of calculation book No. 12.2.94BR, "Braidwood J" Non-Conformance Reports". The information contained in "

Attachment 7 is neither applicable to Byron nor Braidwood.

_g Q.8. Can you explain why not?

[

A.8.

N Prior to the start of weld discrepancy evaluations for the work covered by this calculation book, one of the a engineers involved began preparation of the design control r summary for this work.

In the course of his preparation, he prepared several pages of instructions and methods for weld

[

.k discrepancy evaluation and made copies of several pages of a presentation concerning welding which were presented at an  ;

=

internal Sargent & Lundy technical meeting. These pages ^

included Gayley-stamped pages 39 to 41 concerning flare- i bevel groove welding.

Some of the instructions and methods __

a

_ _m__ _ - - - - - - - - -" ._

Neu \  ;,

L forfweld discrepancy evaluations that were prepared by the engineer were approved and. included in the operative sections of the Calculation Book No. 12.2.94BR. The remaining pages,. including all those in Attachment 7, were not approvad for use. These were. voided and placed in the " Void" section of the calculation book.

Q.8. What-is the' genesis of the page in Attachment 7 entitled " Flare Bevel Groove Welds"?

A.8. That page is one of several visual aids prepared

.by'me in preparation for a technical information meeting for the structural engineering supervisors. At that meeting, I discussed the subject of flare-bevel groove welds and tube steel radii. The statements on that page reflect preliminary information concerning tube steel radius measurements that '

I had received from the Marble Hill site. As I indicated in A.B.,

this information was gathered by one of the engineers for possible use in connection with the evaluation contemplated in connection with the work on Braidwood. However, it was discarded because effective throat size was specified on the drawings.

Q.9. Was the volded flare-bevel groove weld information '

in Attachment 7 included in any calculation book provided to Intervenors during discovery other than No. 12.2.94BR7 t i

A.9. No. It was only included in the voided section of Calculation Book No. 12.2.94BR. I am certain of this

f - ,,

b ,; ..--

l would have been diccarded Ctatement because it ordinari y i n of the calctylation "

'rzther than'maintalbed in the void sect o h my engineera and book. Moreover, I checked this matter wittion was not includ they assured me that this-informa .sg cny calculation book involving Byron, .

I* , y y

• $$$$db N?)@

h

-:9 l .

M i

i , OB

. c:,;g l

l .:. si l

n l -

l L[

-9 .

I I

l 9 4 j ,%"

f -

,,, ...e.;, ' 4 ,;4 'i c - ,;.__,,

_