ML20097J399

Reply Opposing Case 840806 Answer to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition Re Consideration of Friction Forces in Pipe Supports W/Small Thermal Movements.Supporting Affidavit of Jc Finneran Encl

ML20097J399
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/19/1984
From:	Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20097J401	List: ML20097J399 ML20097J403
References
OL, NUDOCS 8409210228
Download: ML20097J399 (16)

Text

- .. .

>- 00tK5t!"D o U;w .

'84 SEP 20 A9:14

,, September *19, 1984

,a., .., ,

UNITED STATEhiOF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 oG COMPANY, ~et~ al. )

) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES I. INTRODUCTION Texas Utilities Electric Company, ej al. (" Applicants")

hereby submit their reply to " CASE's Answer to , Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Consideration of Friction

• Forces in the Design of Pipe Supports with Small Thermal Move-ments," (" Answer") filed August 6, 1984. The Board authorized Applicants to submit replies to CASE's answers to Applicants' motions for sununary digposition in the August 22, 1984, con-forence call (Tr. 13,995). As demonstrated below, CASE has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue regarding i

[ the material facts set forth in Applicants' motion. Accordingly, the Board should render the decision sought by Applicants.

3 2-

,s s .

.. c ,: ti. . . , . . . . +.. ..$-. ., . . . . .  : .

.. r. :. .. . . ~ y . .'s..'

?;* <~....

r.

II. APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S MOTION A. General i f.....

... CASE's" answer'to' Applicants' motion" fails to'demonstrat's.the ' ' '~'- ' '

existence of a genuine issue regarding any of the material facts

~

mv.e e. . .sete.for.the .in . Applicants ^ < motion.> v.Thus.yunder.'the e d usual . standard t " u //v "

....s....

.. for. granting

. summary

,...:.,.. .. dispo. sit. .

. . vion . . Applicants would be..en.t.itled

.  :.. ~ .- t,o

~

n- -

judgment as a matter of law (see 10 C.F.R. 62.749(d)).1

.. + .. The. Board has,.chowevery established a-more lenient standard '

^-

• in this phase .of the. proceeding for granting summary disposition.

As the Board noted in its June 29, 1984, Memorandum and Order2, the Board intends to ask questions, r.equest briefs or otherwise seek - t'oc " larify in'a ttiefs 'so' .as 'to"d'etermitieJwhether' sufficient" .

information is available to make a " reasoned decision".

. w..;;A ". . ;. . .. .: . ,.:. : + . . . .%. id :..: :.?,.: :

. :s .+. a.....<... :- . :,.N  :.L . .-:. dn .4 !.c m' e:G ~a % I.;

'Accordingly, - We addresi "b'elow 'eacho'f"dISE'i' ass ~eYtilo'risw' ith ' ' " " ' ' **'

4

, respect to Applicants' statement of material facts which we perceive to require clarificatf.on and/or rebuttal to assist the Board in reaching a sound decision. We believe there clearly is sufficient.information before the Board for it to reach a v

. reasoned decision on this issue.

1 . s 1

We note that CASE has failed to file a statement of material

-facts as to which it contends there is a genuine issue to be heard, as required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a). We do not stand on thic technicality, however, but note that this failure makes-it all the more difficult to discern precisely what CASE's assertions are.

2 -.

Memorandum and Order (Written-Filing Decisions #_l; Some AWS-ASME. Issues) (June 29, 1984) at 2-3 (" Memorandum and

. Order").

4

- y -

e,.,-.-m. .rr - - . -

1---- -,,-- , ~ vr, --ww., ,o , -.--w_ - . , - -

--v-. .- -

. ~;. ,

,. , c . ,. . k .. .

4 q' *.,

.' ..: m ...:. .. .. ..,;. . . . . . a. .

. . . - s: *....e. .

j.'..~..*,.+...,*,.>..., ,

.: , y, . . . .

..~.~~ , :. .& : .l .

Before responding to CASE's answer, we feel compelled to, comment on CASE's inability to focus its pleadings on the' issues 1 a.~m. 3 2.:g.disbdNdNCASENKili 'iN YiaNy"frisManIss ' tb $56ifIo~"th$

' 'Y Board's. admonition in its Memorandum and Order that CASE m....co, Oggm6n' strate Myit'sfobfectild6s 'aidie' levan't"tF ens'is'idi'ss ';3 thwe'Wo*edeh

~

.-Purther f'iCASE ;41so7fai,ls . to . demonstrate ;the . exist'ence off' .- . * ~ ' . : l ^

important' issues that affect the public safety.4 CASE pursues

.g. . . e . . .

'manf argiinents9 si'tho6tr' reach'Isg"' t 'coribidsidrFat' al'I.' ' Iii 'sNoitk *** '

CASE's answer makes it extremely difficult to discern what l information need be provided to assist the Board in reaching a

. decision. Accordingly, we ask the Board to again admonish CASE -

• l to$fo' cus it's lansbra on'. the ^ genu'ine l'safues. Furtberi the'Bo'ard ' #^

shou 1'd caution CASE that failure to address clearly relevant

.: ,':.,;.l,,.

.[,.

...: 3 ,.l.@ Q: ,z_'G .. _,

.. .*, - y ,d,-};. , ;\ '. ).y _ l :l-l.' r.<:; f i' ' : ~ i ( , 'l,O'..l1.:N &QQ.

' issues,' works to'the detrimen,;t of rational decisionmaking and will

.not be viewed with favor by the Board.

B. Applicants' Reply to CASE's Arguments ~

f l- Applicants focus below only on those arguments of CASE which are at least superficially relevant to the issues at hand.

. , , , However,;- as alread,y noted, , CASE. gen.erally,does no.t vdem,onstrate s<.

why even those arguments.should be considered to raise important safety. questions. Thus, it is difficult to predict whether the i

Board might consider any of those particular arguments to raise l

l 3 Memorandum and Order at 6.

l 1

.-4  : Ld_. at 7 .

p

4-

m. .. ,... .. . , .

. . .2 .

~. . . .-.

.. +. .

- .. - . .  ;,t. ...r ,

. > . y. : __ .

.. ... A important issues. Accordingly, we address each even potentially releva..nt issue below regardless of its apparent lack of safety

. .-. .: s.; signi.ficance .. . ..,. ;;, :. v n::.> :. .; .. :. 4 7 ,

. a.. -= . . . ; c.n . 4. .m.w i q:p ?

ge, . s ec..4,w r A b .,,. RIPS. Support, . Design prganizations' ;. Practice.- . ..-

, ,,. . ,. .p.. 9,.. y.. . ..: g , . .

s' CASE argues .-

with respect to, Applicants' first. material, fact that Applicants should have (because Gibbs & Hill designs moment

~. . .. . restr,aints,).g ;,but,.,did,. not ..fa, incl,ude,.Gibbs s.& . Hill .as...a.;"p.ipe .supporto .. ;, .e . .,+..

design organization" (Affidavit at 1-2). Applicants will not spend time quibbling with CASE on this matter. Applicants have never contended that Gibbs & Hill did not design moment

s. restraints . (see ' CASE.' Exhibi.t .669B, . Item 90 g9 S ). . .'lri[fa. .ct', we.P.

." .~.,.

previously provided CASE with information regarding Gibbs &'

1 .bc.4 H111 ',s".jraEtiEUithlNf sfe c tb to N.he'. c6ridIdera ti$'ril of.'.~fricUioN for% I.b' i ".

these restraints.5 Thus, we fail to see CASE's purpose in addressing this, particularly because CASE does not dispute the technical validity of Gibbs & Hill's practice. Rather, CASE takes issue with certain tangential matters not directly material to the resolution of this issue. Nevertheless, we address these briefly below to assure a clear record for the Board to reach its

. .... ,, ./ .. . , -

. . y.

decision.

CASE asserts that because Gibbs & Hill designed the upper lateral restraint, Applicants' statement that the only supports Gibbs & Hill designs are moment restraints is somehow in error.

5 See June 28, 1984, letter to CASE (Ellis) from Applicants (Horin).

.. + .. .

. 7

\

t

• <r- ,,3.' u. '

...s:o

..e '.*. . .

. ,.[ ,s' . . . ' !' ' '- '" ' .-

, .1 '. ..

_.p.  :; - ' ': !. ' _

,.,. s . . '..'.. .  ;. . ..

.....~.

Further, CASE argues that the STRUDL group "was under Gibbs &

Hill's supervision," im... plying that the practic.e of that group, . . .

.;..<.;,e s .,viz.,ato:. include, friction (effacts.Anly.when2 instructed,:.was?'+.

. n e ,rb

'som'how inconsiste'ntw 'ith Applic'an..ts'. position in'their mot' ion.

e

~

s.,@c.c.N. In. the, .figat instance ,.g t.he .. upper.. laterQ, Jestrainty is , note a . piper.y..,....

e. u/>

support, , .it .is. a r,estraint

- - for,, movement of_ .the . steam , generator. . ,, .

-n ,' - .

Further, although the.STRUDL group was under Gibbs & Hill super-s.. , . ;.;p. Vi%9S,(.i

• e.dhe. sup,ery.isor.; waa,. a.3.Gibbs; & . Hill . employee) ;it ,.was p; ..s M,,.w not a Gibbs & Hill organization. The STRUDL group performed analyses for each pipe support design organization and, thus, friction was included'in those analyses consistent with each

.p . ,

organ.izati.o.ns ', inst'r'u.'cti.ons . . . Ea'.

c h :.of jhese "ma,tters , ar'e 'ful.ly'.

' ~

. , , ; . , . .[. (-

cohsistent with Applicants' position throughout the proceeding.

', [(iinribrai$'.'kffid[vlSfat '.I .'.)I T( Apsirlfc'a'nt Nah'e.'aNachiebh'e I'k N

~ '

?

Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr. in support of their reply.)

Accordingly, the Board should find that CASE provides no basis for disputing Applicants' first material fact.

j- 2. . Calculations'of Friction Loads l

l.

CASE does not dispute Applicants' second and third state-

. .. u .:. . g . u o, .s ; .: . . a . . . ' . . . . . . . . c.

?, - . . c .s . .. ,. . .

.' - : +. ~ . . ,  :~

ments of~ material fact (Affidavit at 2-3). Accordingly,

[

Applicants have no comment on these portions of CASE's Answer.

L.

I l

a. . :. . . .,:., . , .

- ~

4

. .~ .-. ; ,'

., ., . .s. . . s: - .~ .

- .. - .. .: i .

,s. ..a .- . . . . p '. < . *

.,.- - .O.. .

... . . -: . e. .

3. Application of' Procedure for.

Calculation of Friction. Loads s . , .

l. CASE. states.that,it. disagrees,with Applicants' fourth

.. . .u.

.; i.,. . .; , .. ,:.. 2 +,.a ,o . j c: .s.1 s'9: o.. -}. y ya '. . n a - .:.. >; M . - " <: . o.; " *:. &s . . . i .-m *.

~

.. -:m

.s.tatement of material . fact. only "to a' certain. extent" ..( Affidavit. e .

at 3). However, Applicants are unable to discern to what extent

+ + r.:r.t .,:r.. J n O -w%. w ; v- . 4~r m 5s u . n . " ? Lv.;:%.vr 4 $ . nV:. .>~M-%: 6. :#%* ': > wi M~v4 %

CASE disagrees. CASE simply restates Applicants' position and

. a- . . ~

t.. .

.' draws noJconclus.. ion'. ' l- Ac' cording'ly, CASE has not presentied any' "l justification for disputing Applicants' position. CASE also does u .y.-. c w' . m'no.:

^ ~ '

t'..t." h:.v; .;;.~WAppl'icants'-flfth dispute vs 4F >v:c.+ oi? :.V a.u.r . i:; -::v> v 4 y.ry4 : .'.v: '. a i. :.n.w. : ~ *::n ~.a.h statement of material fact (Affidavit at 5). CASE simply reasserts its basic position, to which Applicants' entire motion is directed. Ac'cordingly, Applicants do not address these aspects of CASE's Answer.

-s.

e. . ~ ; , ; . ,

~

. c- ,

. 4.- CASE's Proposed. Guideline... -

. ...'. ,. . y . ; ,., . . ; ' . :. ..:..~, :'..:^ .a d w.

. .. .

• V .: : .. - . T ' ...'. ' . . ~*.

.. -. :. ' . C*. 5:2. . T- '

Applicants address in 'their sixth statement 'of material fact the need to consider a guideline such as'Mr. Doyle suggested be used. CASE presents several arguments regarding this fact, none of which disprove Applicants' position (Affidavit at 5-10). CASE first argues Applicants misinterpreted Mr. Doyle's statements. A review of Mr. Doyle's testimony will demonstrate that Applicants

. . .. ,.havet notr. misinterpret.ed :-that testimony.6... ..In addition , < CASE . now ,- e

'6 Applicants strongly object to CASE's characterization of our summary of Mr. Doyle's testimony as being "very misleading and either constitut[ing] or border [ing] on material false

. statements" (Answer at 2). We do not take lightly such charges. The Board has on many occasions cautioned that such unfounded attacks will not be countenanced. CASE, however, still seems to consider such charges to be the matter of course. Several of its " Answers" to Applicants' motions incorporate the identical attack on Applicants' (footnote continued)

L

~ ^^

- .. - . ;. ~ . . . . . . - . . . . . -

, . . '~ _ , '.

h . .'.. e , ,

,. . ; . . , ;.7

.); .

f

',c . .

4

• . . . , . . p . . p. .

. . . . e .n . ~ ~

. . . . c . . :.; . . . ~. . .. ;.. q.

. a:..,. .

. . . . . ,.:  :,.. m

.. , c .

y,. ..,,.: '

. . . . .. , - . . , . . . , a:- ,

, asserts that..its concern on.this is'ue.is.with . .

s the.. .. , ,

" survivability" of supports over the period of time the plant a : . w..,: a : .. : > .x . ,%. ,w. ~.<::.L . s..u. , .v.

must operate. CASE..d. oes

< w. . 'V : >:..U-::i. & w.. e .ci.:'.:' M G !i w -Ma . '.a.:

. not attempt . to relate this 'c. .c L:-:. r

~ '

.r,..>._. .,,,..; .. w.w. , r..,.~.-

laim to or

, . - m. . .

.t..= ...:...xw. .

. .~.w..... . e : ~. e. : :;.-m. s..,.s y y otherwise demonstrate a safety concern. Thus, this assertion

,,. ;. n;g. : : . :g f. w;u:..A :,i. m m .k .s .M.:.,x.n %  %.wg. W; g ves no ba.s s t o' q u.i.uestion

. .. . A .Appl A . G can. .*is .. rts .,. 's 2 w .s. statement.

sixth

..; u .m ..v.a We note,

-.,. . howevey that' thissclaim appe'a rs' to conflicti"directly *with CASE's l ~ ' " '

~

position at the hearing. As-Mr. Doyle testified, CASE was not v.u. i s. #

s -y--. - -

.w~.."

1:s.m.e sconcerned.w ;p > u. H .&.. nfD1.. . . .attIv. ly.r repet. e -:a' app

• l.ied';:l'oa. ds< v('Tr>w ow' .-w- v%. u-H~.%:xo 6826)'&, even'where

.the' stress ratios.for normal allowables approached or slightly exceeded one (Tr. 6826-29). CASE's present assertion to the contrary affords no basis to question Applicants' sixth' material

. . . . . L .>. m r

. , .., fact.'kD ? ** W "d'd '

. ~~'?<'" .

'J' ' " " J *

~ ~ -

CASE'also contends.(Affidavit at ,7),lthat Applicants.have.o.:5 .Q.'. l' . C. ; - ' .l.1 & ~.%.';.% v . ' ' . l. lY. . ' . *'

^

. j h m ~ ., l',.~ 4:?.

..,'.A '.; .

misconstrued Section NF-3231.1 of the ASME Code. Applicants  !

.. position is that if.the effects of friction were included in the design of'these supports, the allowables applicable to such loading. combinations could be increased pursuant to NF-3231.1

.(Finneran Affidavit attached to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition, at 4-5). CASE ~ construes Applicants' position-to be that friction effects can be included in all analyses in order to obtain'a general increase in allowables for all loading (footnote continued from previous page) motions. As we demonstrate here and will demonstrate in our

other replies, CASE's assertions are unfounded.

Accordingly, the Board should strike each of these charges from CASE's answers and admonish CASE for making such baseless claims. The Board should also put CASE on notice that similar unfounded attacks in the future could result in more severe sanctions, including striking CASE's entire pleading.

n, 1

l

c. v - - , + --.,,.yx , . , - . , . . , . , , . . . . ,,

-...-.,..i--,.-,-%,-.m -.,.--..-,.,,--,.me--.,r-_m,m , _ . , - , _ _ - - - - - , - - . - -

1

)

,.. '. ~

y

. I

. i

.. . . . ~a, __. .... . . ..p. .

.:. .,i. . '. ~-:.-~~,.  : ,. . ..

. ,, 1.'- .

. .  :. u. 3 combinations . - 'To the contrary, mechanical loading combinations must satisfy applicable allowables, without any increase. If

.s  % frictionceffectslare. included, those.iloading combinations mays 9 3 ^ -@'

... . . ~

.e * * ->

..-utilize 'the"Tnc5 eased" allowable '(Finneran Affid'avit' at 3) . CASE

, , . , .z,..apparentlymmisunderstands. Applicants.'<.positionc w .u M..t.'c>O n",o

+ me.,L CASE next. asserts that,when.the effects.of friction.alone , .....

are considered,' the stress ratios are of such magnitude that

& ., , . . , .,s.,

inclusion, ofh,mechanicald31 oads, would create can overstressedEcon~. ,yt.2 *in: 6:e dition (Affidavit at 7). To illustrate its point CASE evaluates a calculation Applicants prepared for the NRC Staff which showed

-that when the effects of friction alone.are calc.ulated for a

'partic.ula,r .;s'upp$t. ti h{,s'tgess., ratio'was ' determined: to. b'e. .I7751

^

.. Q 2 L4 .s ., ;

CASE erroneously contends that this leaves only .225 of the ratio 2+

~

e z.

n .. , . ..

+

.. . , ,.~*~ ,

forJmechanical-loads'. -CASE does not*acknowle'd@e"th'at'('as"shatsd' #

by Mr. Finneran in his ' statement to the NRC which is referenced by CASE) friction forces do not act alone, and that when the normal load (which gives rise to the friction force) is included in the calculation it tends to offset the effect of the friction force. In this instance, when friction and the normal load are combined for the above support, the stress ratio actually drops from that calculated for friction alone to .46. '(Finneran Affidavit at 4.) Thus, CASE's assertion simply is invalid.

7-We note that Applicants' standard practice is not to take advantage of this increase in allowables, even when friction is included. (Finneran Affidavit at 3.)

^

.. . , .:,. - .. ~; ' s . t . . - . -

.:. . p '

. ,.,a. .-

~: <. <. 2 - ~

l .. ' '

.p:*

CASE's ne'xt claim concerns ' Applicants' use'o'f a 5:1 safety factor for Hilti bolts (Affidavit at 8). CASE notes that a list

- .,. e w.bfC Hilt'i allowalsles" usingr a " faiitor of ' safety J of"4 r1 is ' included"~' MT

^

..,c #

.. .r .

-- *v-in the PSE design manual. . CASE says nothing more, but leaves the

...veimpression> that: Appl:icants n incorrectlybstatedSthe-' safety" factors"

.n. "C4S

, ,they. employ for Hilti bolts.- CASE-fails-to point out.thatithe;. .

list CASE refers to is simply a letter from Hilti, Inc.,

. , ' . .<4 . furnished..by NPSIW containingeload i capacityo data N'< ( Hilti: P . d'4RRd*U*

recommends therein the use of a 4:1 safety factor.) This

.information is for use by organizations which order Hilti bolts from NPSI (which Applicants do not) and is included in Section

.. . c .

, XiI. of'. the manisaldimplyf forf"g'e neral$nformation'. .The. actualL 6 ..

'(. . '. W. ' .@ l design requirements'for Hilti bolts, using a 5:1 safety factor,

' ^

.~ ,.': . 1: . . ; . ... .  ; :

~.1. . . .

>'~-  :.'. . . >-X '

J *~ , c: * , ~ .' *

-ife"re flected' in. . . -Sec'tlen 'V Mf "th'e PS2. 'mandal. . In ' fa'ct, ' CA'SE '

itself uses .the data from Section V only two pages later (Affidavit at 10) in its own illustration of these effects.

(Finneran Affidavit at 5-6.)

CASE next attempts to demonstrate, using a hypothetical support, that the effects of friction are significant and that-failure to consider these effects could result in failure of l

arichor bolts ( Affidavit at 9-10) .- CASE's hypothetical is premised on the same fundamental misunderstanding of friction loads discussed above with respect to stress ratios. CASE either

! misunderstands, or chooses to ignore, that a friction load does L

l not'act alone. 'A friction load must act with the normal load L from which it results.

l In CASE's hypothetical the normal load l

.-ep- - , , , - - , . _ , _ ,, . -, .,-__,,m. 7 , p . . , - . y - - - - --

.- l

.. ui. .....,p..

..- .- r:

~ ~ .e .<. . u v. ' :. . .

.d

. }.n  ;. . i . .

. ~ . , , . ,

has simply been neglected. ~As demon'strated in Mr.'Finneran's *

'N Affidavit.(at 6-7), concideration of the normal load in this

. % a r,xg,p y, e sh'oW thit the;bolfshich d 'CA'SEM1'alnis"would' p611' 'odi'* W'*D '

, . u g,: .,;- ,

. r -

In short, CASE's hypothetical is, cannot even be put'in tension.

...- n; .? simply"iinval-id .* '" *'v.-

• M @- M ' 4.W *: - "*""**Y- -

M "VP " 403 ~' ' '""#'

~

~ t

.We are.. deep 1y troubled.by. CASE's handling of.these last,few .

~

assertions. The fallacy of using data calculated with only st .: rWpfriction.'iloadsjfo$ theFpurposeslCASE"?tnedTthem ishould*be:F# N i bt*F.d AM immediately obvious to CASE. Even if this error was not immediately'realir,ed, Mr. Finneran's reply (to which CASE refers)

~ cautioned against such usage andzCASE should have so recognized i th;e. er. . .ror..o'f.cits approach 4.. '.Furthe, r; 4pplicants - informed CASE.. .: of the purpo'se~o'f the.Hilti~ allowables ln Section XII of their

.,n . l. .Jq ': . .: . .: < .

. a . .:. ' (. i q X* .; 6 . .

, 'f ' { -

.. T .. ' . .w' : ; ::

-man'uaf~,uring d the- p..,' June-6,"1984~~ conference' call (Tr'. .

41). ~ That',- ,.

-CASE would-include in any filing before the Board, let alone a sworn affidavit, a statement which, although not false in-and of itself, creates an impression in any reader's mind which CASE

should know to be false, is disengenuous, at best. The Board and

(-

parties are faced with resolving many issues. To waste others' l' time-in addressing this type of claim suggests a desire simply to -

cause delay rather than to reach the truth. Indeed, Applicants seriously question whether other statements by CASE as to which providing a few additional basic facts (which we would expect CASE to know) would clarify the point and demonstrate that no i

valid concern exists are not also intentional. Such a practice i

, .. ..a.

. ...'i'u;.  :~ . .c  :. . - - - '

_ .11 _

.;,.... . . . ..~..,,.:~... . .,r: . i,>. . . .. .y . :; . , v.~. ... -

- ~  ;*

. . . . * . ;;. .y .- .

, should not be coun'tenanced-by the-Board. Accordingly, we urge

' f.h'a Board,$o caution CASE that such tac' tics will' result' in prompt.

~

.. % ; ?.wr aanctions .8,a : m s. .-+

• u....r y ; *,-c. ~ y.y sk. n .'. .' ; ; ic&? .~ .:i * * ' m 'u a ' - A A..' . m.~.i e. -

. .s ...m:.:. '

.- 7 t. ..<. .;ca.r . . . . , .

.= ~  :, : . , , ;.

,.. . p_. ,' cw .3@ . ,,,yEvaluation of.; a CASE < Supportx. .. ... .,.,1.: a.: . i. . .; . .!- -. '. p a ... y .;. u . .. ,. ,.y

,, .' Applicants' . seventh material fact addresses the evaluation. 4. 7

. . . .: _c.... . :.. . ..:<. . .. . . - . . .

of the support referenced by CASE in its proposed findings. CASE

y. .j . , y .Ais,agr,ees...with,, Applicanta'.,..conclusi.on.. that ,eyen,.with ,; m . ;.;f . .g;;,. ..o p ,. .ya ;:q .

~

consideration of friction forces the stresses are all within applicable allowables.

CASE first contends that Applicants employed an incorrect momeri{ arm [in. :the e. valuation 'of'.th.i's;.}suppo.rt; ,'. CASE . argues. . that.y,., ., j . ;C ..

~

-use of.thencorrect moment arm would' result in'"a 37% increa~se of U :f 1 1:Yt 'a ul$ tied 'valu bI.EkkffldkdiNat iSI)' CANE'k rr'echii its calculation of the moment arm. However,-CASE incorrectly asserts that the increase would be applied to "all" values. That increase actually applies only to one moment term (My).

Correctly including this revised moment arm in the calculation demonstrates _that-the stress remains below the applicable allowable. ' (Finneran Affidavit at 7-8. )

CASE also contends'that the increased moment arm would cause the stress ratio for the anchor bolts to exceed one (Affidavit at 11). However, as already noted,-the increase in moment arm only

.affects the moment about one axis. Contrary to CASE's assertion, 8 See note 6, supra.

3 -

u U , .. , . .. ,, . .. . :.. :. . . . . *.< . . . . -~ . ~~ s** .n -

.~.. .c

... . h .. -  :.r a.; .

'~.

• _- ., , '] . .

-the stress ratio 'for the anchor bolt only changes from .81' to

.89, which indicates the. anchor bolts are not overstressed.

', y ;. 4. u ,-(:Finneran,. Affidavit 3at :8.-)% R. m. a 9. d.M . *f ~ '* *'>M W d4''h D" ^~

. .. .. . , . . . + , . , . . .

. . . . .. ... a... . .. . . . . . , , . . . . . c. ~ ~ . w .u ..

ce -

. .s':%+,.

-CASE also questions the dimens' ions employed in Applicants'

. _ e c,.z,.gg;, calc.ulation,7;( Affidavit .at.11-12) .r .. Although ..CASErdoes not suggest4."*.? . e. 'r * .

the discussion is, relevant to the issue at hand,

.,. . ,. . . . . ., ,c . .. a. .. .

we,.nonetheless ..

.~ - . ], . -

note that the dimensions Applicants employed are correct. CASE

-w.~a,%.% simply;.mi.sread,,.the., drawing. .e(Finnier.an.cAffidavit'.at.' 8.. ).

R ' .:sbv.? in, .X p r CASE next contends that Applicants utilized an incorrect allowable in assessing the shear yield stress (Affidavit at 12).

CASE'apparently does.not understand the nature of the shear yield

. , sitress/ check. employed. ;in .l.'ths. 'subdect'.cIlculathion'.. ;.Thathcheck. .,.' o , "'-@? -

utilized'a formula from the AISC' Code and was performed simply to

<. ~., ,.' .- . . . '. .

. ..F . :. .::... ... y .. .

.....'n. 6 , %. : . .

's provi'de ;added. ,assurance , of 6h'e ~' a dequacy of the' weld.9 As Mr. . . ~ -

Finneran demonstratert in his affidavit, that method yields an allowable which is equivalent to that which CASE argues should be employed. .In any event, CASE's claim is premised on an interpretation of Regulatory Guide 1.124. Without addressing the l validity'of CASE's interpretation we note that this Regulatory Guide applies only to class 1 supports. The subject support is a

u. y ..a .e a: . : .. .' u s .~ .c .. ** + : i . :. . ^ :- p : r . s ;rM:

wm :n

Y~'

• class 3 support (Finneran Affidavit at 9) .

1 9

Contrary to CASE's claim (Affidavit at 13), Applicants are not " committed" to any edition of the AISC Code for weld design. Applicants.do not reference the AISC Code in their specifications for the purpose of establishing weld design criteria for ASME supports. (Finneran Affidavit at 9, n.4.)

l

'..,. - ia '- ' -

... * .). ., o

.;'y . *. *

, . '..~. *

.. ~

• *

• f. ' '

. , - , , ..i.v,  : .

- . .6  :.r., * * . - . c

~.. -

^ - .

~In~' sum,'none of CASE's' arguments regarding Applicants' sev'e nth' material fact are valid'.- Accordingly,' the Board should s.4 w.r,.g acceptiApplicantsU.positioni "Pe P.* . "< % -

- t. - . * *

• Gi w:.- P ' .H ' :'

n,. ,

.n . . . . . ,

.. .. . ..n

. .s; ,:.~.<,.<. ..

..m ~

. ,. : a

. cs .v.m.:; .-i,1.v , 6. ,,.. Evaluation of esample.: supports .<o M' ~ % .W.~ " M u. ++/ W - A 's

. CASE challeng.es Applicants', eighth . statement of materialL 2

j fact in two respects.- First, CASE suggests that Applicants' s,.-c.g ry,isamp1.e e og supporta..was.j not '"ran. dom."< ?)eSecond, .. CASE.arguesy that,e- @ *.:hiny Applicants' calculations of friction effects for these supports was inadequate. Both-of CASE assertions are unfounded.

CASE claims that it does not know "how random Applicants'

.j -( sample Nad.or tliE u 9i:rit%5 ia.[used!:for. .their.; selection [('A5iidav.it.. at e r

V.' e  : ,

~

14)." As discussed in ~Mr. Finneran's affidavit attached to

, .T . ' . ' ...

' ~ . . . .. . . . .- .... , . 3 ,:

hs , * *

, c .

• -*.C'd,Y * ';:. . .*.'s."

,.h.,,7Applic..*.La n ts ' . .. . . / -motion.. ~fo,r's,ummary disp!,::~. .osition (at'p5- 6 ) , A' plicants# ' '

sample of supports was selected by applying two criteria which assured the supports were of the " worst case" type and for which friction would not-have been previously' considered. To identify supports which satisfied these criteria, Mr. Finneran simply requested that his engineers review support drawings at random to

!. identify these supports. The resulting supports were, therefore, E~- ,c - . , ;; . . " :-. ... ? . :. .> '; v . g . _ : ,^ .v:s:- \.. % :;,. >

a- ~ - M .

v '

.O - '

randomly celected in accordance with the established criteria.

n fi (Finneran' Affidavit'at 9-10.)

L

. - . - _= . .

~

7 .,

.g . ,'l *-

.j o.

.: a .. ... . . .. . . ..~. . . - . - .

~....~. .y : ~ .~. *

- . ~  ;

, To discredit' Applicants' calculations regarding the sample i supports CASE selects.one such support for examination and

. - '. . s - .tcontende.:thate ita"will" illustrate the shortsightedness' of^ t n '

' ' L' * - '

~

. ... .. - 3 s -

. - v~

neglecting . . --assumed min...or effects"-(Affidavit at'14-13). 'As

.... .. . i .3 .u..'.demonstrat.edmbelow,, . CASE.. fallsa to . doe so.w. < c. ~ <- w: pur. v.

. r. -r . : 9 . ... e:.. - .

. CASE.r..

first asserts.(Affidavit at.15, paragraph.(2))..that'.the stress ratio. calculated with the effects of friction included was

, .9 "almoste,four; timese.as;high." - am... that.;without ofriction .m However, p.-y .x M 6.9h

. . . n. .

given the initially low stress ratio for this support, even with f

the increase due to friction the stress ratio remains well within the acceptable range. ,

Thus, there.is no significance to the

'" perce'ntiage' i'ncreaderlti..str.ess.Jratio.., ;CA'SE .also .;n'egl'ec'

, t s to': point' -.A'

out that the ' allowable when fri'cti'on was included could have

'

.~ c b o.'? . i - . :.

, . 'b. . . .;. but

. . L .was L . L ndt; . . . L. fn.

-- <; h W :-

- . C . .:. % ' -c ar e ave s ethe d a normal" een, allowable ~. *

(Finneran Affidavit at 10.).

CASE also claims (Affidavit at 15, paragraph (3)) that inclusion of the effects of friction increases the level A stress

ratio . in the weld from .25 to .96. CASE believes that this demonstrates the weld would not be able to take much increase in load before it exceeds allowables. (CASE asserts that such a load :inci ease "could" be caused by several effects, but does not quantify ics argument.). Contrary to CASE's assertion, the weld stress ratio increases only to .46 when the effects of friction are included. In addition, the stress ratios are premised on the

-- , _ , - , . ~ . - , , - - - _ _ , , . _ - . , . _ ~ _ . . _ . , _ , , , . , _ _ ,m - - . . . _ . - - . - - - - - , - - . , - - .w

~- ' ' -

. s -

.W - ' - ' ! '-"-2 .

15 -

, -- ' . .. ,.. :w

.. : .+ v . . . .. .. . - .

. x. . .. . , ., .

. - 2 . , . ,

..r. -

normal allowable without taking advantage of the permitted

.e .

ie _

ncrease. Thus, ample margin to allowable. remains even when

. . ,9 friction Neffects'-arelincludedf h(Finn'eran ."Affidavitvat 10~-11. F '

4,

'N " *

. . .. . . y..a. .

CASE' fails'to demonstrate either the elevance or ~ .

> .-c-w..v. significance of;1ts.next:.two arguments-to' Applicants'omotion" " '*:3 4 4 (A'ffidavit.at 16, paragraphs.'(.4).and (5).). - c Nonetheless,,we make. , .

the following-points. First, with respect to paragraph (4),

c.-::,, pr . Applicants . note..that' there ais Jadrigidysupport eless i.than"three' eW h %: ,

feet from_the subject support which prevents additional side load p ~ from being imparted to this support. Thus, CASE's concern

'regarding the potential effect of additional side load is

~

, .' w ' .,. i2nfound'edS i(;Fi'n ne$an.: affiditvit.'at' 11). . :Furth'er,". withe ~ respect' ' / .c h' to paragraph.(5), the no'telto'which CASE refers is only a rough

.: . w. ... . . . . . . . . < . . .l....r ' -.- .,...c. '

3.. -

.?.? - 8 .T  : :~ . '

approxiniation of th'e friction #.u. load ~ which' wonld be imparted if ' the' ~.

pipe were.t0 move into at the curvature of the U-bolt. This calculation'was performed merely to confirm that the controlling friction. load occurs when the pipe is against the backing plate.

Further, it is not appropriate to characterize this rough approximation as indicating the U-bolt stiffness. Applicants

-; .have utilized actual test data for these values in their motions

, . -~,, .,..r,.. , n.:?.:. ~. a;. ^:

s; for summary disposition. (Finneran Affidavit at 11-12.')

Finally, CASE disputes a statement made in the Cygna Phase III Report, attributed to Mr. Finneran's original affidavit, regarding the consideration of friction in the upset loading condition l(Affidavit at 16-17). The statement in the Cygna Report is not, however, derived from Mr. Finnecan's affidavit.

C

-.sv-wr*-m-gwy gw-, -

--- v 1--ve--9-*

,... . ., a ^- - , ^~

. .

i

. ... ~ ,. 2 . ;w a .. ... -. - . . - . . ..

. . . ,  :. . :. .. v_ ..- >5. .

-' ..m v .. *

.g . .. -

- - L, ,- .- - . , .

n, - -

3 :. ;

In fact, the statement does not relate at all to the issue at hand, viz., friction effects for small pice movements . for which

~

.'s... c. friction:.was not. considered.under any. loading condition.c - ..

-u. . . JJ- .6

.(Fin'eran Af51dav't at 12.)

n i Thus,' CASE's comments are not

~

w. .. relevant i to..the.. disposition of...this. issue.

- . . . . ..c a . . c . . . c. , . s . .h III. CONCLUSION

,. %:,. m. . .- .: ., . w EOF.,the.,(for,egoing .. reasons , ..the , Board ,.should finde that therey2 + -: . i.y.

is sufficient evidence before it to reach a reasoned decision on _

CASE's allegations regarding friction effects and that evidence demonstrates that Applicants' practice is appropriate and based

, .. . ort sound eng4n'eering..p' r iticiple's - -

u.  ;..... .

.4 Respectfully submitted, -

' ~'

,.? . . <; ,- , .) ,

5>;

, .  ;;u.. n . .. .

kb Nicholas S. Reynolds

0. w.~>

William A. Horin BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK,

. PURCELL & REYNOLDS -

1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

• Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Counsel for Applicants September 19, 1984

_m. _ - . . - . . _ , . - - . - _- __. . , - - - , . , - , . - < . - - - . , - - - , -,.

_._. 3