ML20099D121

Reply to Case 840926 Answer to Applicant 840411 Response to Partial Initial Decision Re A500 Steel.Case Failed to Prove Existence of Genuine Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20099D121
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/16/1984
From:	Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-185 OL, NUDOCS 8411200206
Download: ML20099D121 (48)

Text

e m

v'

.av g,

)n g,

I CD-

~ 00CKEJC s

USN y~

11.. y y

.r:

.g4 j0'l 19 L A1(p46-

.v

. November 16, ~~1984 1e' l M, ~... - n &:

?

UNITED STATES OF~' AMERICA Jl6 I/c ~

c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETYLAND LICENSING BOARD

.i In the' Matter.of~

')

~)

' Docket Nos.

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC

)-

50-445and.f{

50-446 U

COMPANY, ET AL.

)

-)

'( Application for --

(Comanche Peak Steam'Electrica

)'

Operating-Licenses)

Station,-Units 1 and 2) l

.)-

APPLICANTS' REPLY.TO CASE'S ANSWER.TO APPLICANTS'i RESPONSE TO BOARD'S PARTIAL.

INITIAL DECISION-REGARDING A500 STEEL I.

INTRODUCTION Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (" Applicants")

hereby submit their reply-to " CASE's Answer to Applicants' Response to Board's Partial Initial. Decision Regarding A500 Steel,"' filed September 26, 1984 (" Answer").

Applicants filed their response

• .o the Board's Partial Initial Decision on April 11, 1984 (" Response").

The Board has decided to consider this issue with the other topics being addressed through summary disposition procedures.

The Board authorized Applicants to

~

submit. replies to CASE's answers in the August 22, 1984, l

conference call (Tr. 13,995).

In accordance with that authorization Applicants file the instant reply.

As demonstrated ObNd 3)S03

'o )

below, CASE has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue regarding this topic.

Accordingly, the Board should render.

the decision sought by Applicants.

II.

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER A.

General The Board has established a different standard for disposing of the remaining issues in this phase of the proceeding than that established by 10 C.F.R. $2.749 for formal summary disposition.

As the Board noted in its June 29, 1984, Memorandum and Orderl, the Board intends to ask questions, request briefs or otherwise seek to clarify matters so as to determine whether sufficient information is available to make a " reasoned decision".

As demonstrated below, there clearly is sufficient information before the Doard for it to reach a reasoned decision on this issue.

However, as with each of CASE's answers to which we have replied, CASE fails in the instant answer to adhere to the Board's admonition in its Memorandum and Order that CASE demon-strate why its objections are relevant to the issues.2 More importantly, CASE also fails, contrary to the Board's further admonition, to demonstrate that its points of disagreement with Applicants constitute important issues that affect the public 1

Memorandum and Order (Written-Filing Decisions # 1r Some AWS-ASME Issues) (June 29, 1984) at 2-3

(" Memorandum and Order").

2 Memorandum and Order at 6.

OE hMh h 1,b Y

y.,

v _ - m g,g; v wr'WR,.welW

[

k Y,b h;,.

^

~%v

, k(( tAV,'. w*

s >

-7 gf m&

b.

a n$ ',>%

mm%Yp'

• f t,, n:

n W

N,"y&g.'1 ; &.q MOh 4

.,'r e

ww s

A.

~~

%.L %:L b ' [

s gh.

n

%; y e m ~ %,gp% )' ' m

. jp(y/ $ A ??}

- 4 7

[, - '

• y,h

-YJ "

MW &,n,

W 2 my M 3_z y Q 'u w,'o j jg j@@QQR { f]'"pl g. yf' c)

,L n

. ~ (; V

)

f f

.i &

w pgj, gi;

<. y 4

~

3 m

c ?g_a *.

3 pg :

1_

~

u g

m 4 gn..,.,,>

%gg ;ep w,

y m- -

e, m@ =+

e,~.

.~ws;w n3 gg.,g;;. ;.,. W

~-y~

s,

, n

~.

++e

~-w n.m i. e.n 'q ;;p]

^

yv.

m.g y w

%u ? ' n-,

pf

';b n

,?

+

o n

a f LOW b ;?;

f, y, y

>u 6Lt "

v 3y

t 9 9

-?3 9 w,Q4e[w. a m[,.

c

,,e y

,, y a -n

., e v,

vey s... m

. -7 ?. a 'Mre r<

w m,

e e r_W Q) u

... ~ 7,

- I s

2n safetf'x.3L t ntshortfaCAsstsieriewer!makes(itiextranelyidifficul'tjtoM, "~

c.

ay

. ;. 5 W c.

's

,q

_ ;q' c WC J,

?

,=_.g_,

b;g

.l $%.. _., *.,., ;.

p i.

ggy y wn;

, m.

73

.,w

, 9y.

1 discern lwhetherXan% ~d51f i sof what D' addi'tionadi~n formation 5 n s.

m

<> _ -.. ~

y

-..-m e

5 m

~.

~-

xs w

n NIC M

's, m

[t jy h Y

-,.4

,,._..c-:

4 w

og %, av sprovided N'for? the / Boar,d ito reach l a t reasoned )d ecis io,n$n Nonethe-) P['

- C($ o 4 q,..

,e

[-

u ym A ea 2-1 n -

,, a ea u.x

+a a 4

c.

MM$w

',=less M e;t,addre'es bel'ow leach (ofJ CASE 's das'ser tion's Ninich. we M 36>N

-W,

-w3 w,',~

m-,

g, c 4 3

,;y

-~8

<4-

- srs-m m my,

a e

g

,,o n

n

, - 1p g M B M perceivefto) require clarification <and Mry=,rfbuttal{to a'n At s

, s.s c-ssi'st{the:

o, n

ys

.c.

.u

n. ;g. x.y,,,

y, M"^?

jBoard Kin reaching 1a ;soundJdeci!sion,

. ~

s y

x x l: y, J,, Mt g.

- w; a

s, e, ; > -

- ; + x

- co m;

a;s x

p

,w>

s...,

m m

y f,

y w, g'.-

m=

m w

, m', g, ;w.,

..,;. ; ; q, M.7.:

4; a. -

,3%

ev

,9 v,

.u n

-.w

~ h sv x;

+

k,-

, LB; q Applicant a f Replbo CASE's' AnsNr, h,v;[,f y.

~

i I i' '

ons

.:c

>u--

m.

u a.

%, o,., %

.3,..

e

.stv 4 s

3 CApplicantsMfocus here'on! CASE'.s/a'asertions' @ich Larel cle'arly'

?-

.t e

7 g*

C e

, i 4i 4

, 7,?

i u/-

- V t

s.

m

k' ~ _ }, s

'i 7, T%'

relevant tolthe issues =atEhand'.1 /AsIalready~Tnot0dFCASE:}9.~

- v c

w. M l~

t p. > ;,

y 1

L ';

f ;,,. _,

y(,

doe's inot demonstrate why/ its ~argumentsishould,be ?_ cons,ideredito" '"

m

,g, raise.:im( portant l safety [ questions. 4, Thusi,? itFis/hf.fficult L to ppre- ~

'c P fl "6

g

' i 5. i.

l--,,

g r- -

3 fY v

dictz hether' the Board might consider ariye particul'arNrgument?tol w

n.

l!

raisefa safety issue.!.

4 r

o

-Accordingly,Lwe have,; addressed-e,ach s

f.

7 r c t

potentially relevantiissue regardless of_its apparentilackTof;

,i

.o a

+

safety significance.

A l'

L.

1.

Discovery Regarding A500 st;eet

,,l.'-

In its motion CASE contends that Applicants were not:

+

i t-

~

responsive ' to CASE's requests for. dist:overy regarding Applicants'-

t.

L reply to the Board'.s partial initial decision.

CASE' argues both, r

J that Applicants were not timely in their responses and that, t

'certain documentation was " incomplete".

-(Answer at 2-3.)

T f

e

.a 3-Id.E at'. 7.

6

!i t

p, 4

" CASE's Answer is' supported by the affidavit;of Mark W l h'

'.p.i

[

'(" Affidavit").-

as

-i Y

c-g.

, ;f aw 3

s i

i i

'b 4

L L.

q h-w w-

, fN

$ Y!

,-$ 5l -

• ,. k b..

j&

,x~

av n

[]

4 V

~

Q. '

i L

q lo% p g O flm% Q M <,g,,,n -

~ -

j' u~

+ a ce

=

, os; '

Qf AQf I;n%

f; \\"" [j@, 4

- - t t

/

3 4Q7 V l

a W' 3m.n F

. ;g.

M-VAs Wmx W

.-r p g.c @d, S u Mb,.W ' '

-e-

- 4%

~

q-

, < w_ ;<

~ - '

,gf t

A m-if lk& i 0>

~ l' 6G'lW Qf yQg};;yf t,~

fn I~~'

f

["

s n

,p s

~_

Q[

jQ47 -

~ <

+

nM; ~ Wn..W J: ~;

J

~

m ag.

',' d '

+

8-

.c

~.. ' - ; I" @,$ W Uy.

"i

~

^

'" ~

s g

r S % Cwf, "t

5-1.

,., ~

..) O W CASE'fs! concerns 1regardingfthe} timeliness lLof.? Applicants *3

~

n, am, :y t ' n _.

._,.s

._,1

, _, ;. _f. -

.c e

's n

~

\\

e s

.c

-a gd; w

v

~

N responsesJarebirr,.elevant' tof thel dispos'ition ? of1 thef technical?

v'om 2

s m~

Q, -]Lissues theforeithe(Board,$particularly.(given th'elabsenceiof, Tor ? '

'?>.L

.. ' ': \\

(,l..,

J7, __.

th

,~

,(

$ {e'vsn claiMofl (pre'judiceito $ CASE ((.eveniassuming 3its c chdrge's[to[be i

, (;

4 uw w.

x I

<~

g A

\\ A ii strue)Tb'causeiof(the(lack'of.any;deadlinei,for CASE ltoifile ai e

v x

m t

[

fresponse'.c JThusW we willf, not' dwell on CASE'sf charges. -- [However,7 -

[

,[

4 m

,1:

~

,s y

1. 2 wejdc ; note i tiutt# CASE's1briNf summary; of ftheidiscov~ery on this ;

J m.. _

m w in e

~

'~

stopic doesEnot mentionfthe~ extensive delay of CASE's)ownidoing.,

n

~,.

' ~

Applicants;providedithe: documentation 1forjall'buttonetcategory(ofc -

3 f CASE'si requesti byf July? 5,' ;shortlyfafterdhe L Bhard ruled -'on; c

r

~y JApplicants'Yobjections.

Applicants (suggested _at~that time that:

with respect to;this;largost category of-_ requested'l documents that

~ CASE! select a representative samplecfor; production.JCASE[took?

over a month to decideswhether'.to accept this proposal 1and-to n

identify the ' criteria for selecting the Tsample.(Julyc29,.1984)..

'[

In short, CASE's description of.the' discovery process.on this.

g issualis. incomplete.5 A final point made.by CASE regarding discovery on this' topic r

is.that, documentation requested did "not exist".

CASE notes that s

certain calculations were prepared recently.

CASE suggests'that the; subject. calculations should have-been', but were'not, retained a

^5

The. Board Litself. inquired into the reason for the " delay" in d'

- providing;the documents requested by CASE following CASE's:

identification:of the ' criteria for selection of a ' sample..

As: explained by-Mr. Finneran, the press of other matters,-

iincluding preparation.of~ material for-the Staff and.Cygna and-other documents'for CASE,'as well as.his performing ~the.

' routine responsibilities of:his position, '

simply prevented Applicants <fromEimmediately.providing the requested.infor-mation'(Finneran. Affidavit-at 15-16).

4 N,

>l O.

[!

<h(

'h, r

C 1

5, f

e

.-j

,- 5

=

i

~

when' originally l performed..

^

-(Answer. at 3.')/ ~Again, CASE.com-(pletely; misunderstands,thelpurpose of?the-calculations requested

=..

and'provided.-1Those " calculations" tare sample comparisons.

(ration) of.o data -from the ' design? calculations and were'.' performed '

~

z strictly-for the. preparation ofLApplicants' -reply.;LTheyiare not-partiof < theidesign ' calculations for the' individual supports.

There wasino! purpose or' requirement,Etherefore,:for retaining.

.these calculatic.s,'and they^were:not.

In' or' erL to respond :to:

d CASE's discovery requests theLinform'ationtwas3simhlyfregenerated and sample calculations-(which aref.the calcula'tions' CASE' references that were pe' formed in July),

r were.provided~to CASE.

-(Finneran Affidavit at~2.)

In sum, CASE's3 assertion'is simply in error.6 2.'

Satisfaction of GDC 1 and>4 CASE agrees with-Applicants', position 1that neither GDC l'nor GDC 4 dictate. a particular methodology for accounting for the c

revised yield valuesnfor A500 steel (Answer at 3)'.

As Appli' cants stated in their. response, the Board-incorrectly interpreted these1 regulations to require specific detailed analyses of the effect of the revised " values (Response-at 4-lO).. CASE does assert,

-however,.that

" documentation" must exist to demonstrate-that J

6'

.Even!had the " calculations" CASE questioned-been design calculations, possibly subjectL to some retention requirement, CASE's general reference to.various criteria of.

10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix.B, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance with NRC"to name a few" is paten requirements.

b

<y

t :

v-p:

^

N 6.-

4 Applicant's,7 in$ fact,; considered the revised'. values whenjissued

( An'swer' at 3-4 ). (CASE does;not point to any,re'q'uirement. man-i

~

-dating'.such documentation.;; Applicants have producedfa sworn

~

af fidavit' stating.'that timely consideration' wa's l given to-the,

revised. yield values 1as wel1Eas documentation demonstrating:.ASME.

~

1

' ' agreement with Applicants'Econclusions concerning1the applicability of the' Code Case-at issue'and evidence.that

- Applicants..' original' judgment as to' the impact of the ! change -on Applicants designs;was,.findeed,1 justified.

.As' demonstrated in this reply, JCASE-does ' not; demonstrate that any' of-- the evidence produced by, Applicants.is incorrect.. In shorti Applicants have

~

produced documentation which fully: demonstrates 1the1 validity-of their position'.

The Board should-find, therefore, that CASE' arguments to the contrary are unfounded.

3..

NRC Staff Response CASE. argues, again incorrectly, that' Applicants did not consider the effect of the revised A500 yield strengths by any of' the-means suggested:by the NRC Staff,'viz., engineering judgment,

. scoping calculations, assessment of conservative design practices (Answer at 4).

ContraryLto CASE's claim, Applicants '

t

-appropriately utilized each of those methods in considering the i

effects of thefrevision.

First,.as CASE should know, consideration of the effect of material properties.on designs is inherent in the design of 1

~ piping'and support systems.- Thus, contrary to CASE's unsupported

'v r

e-m h-=ry

+==pe wM

'dW-Omtr 4-9 7

up>

v w

y e

y-w p

yspur--'-N t*

• • wT*

F'-

w

.g-c6

..7-

,0 g y-1 y

--c 0

- p

)

g j

r_ s 7 <-

["

f s

claim,f Applicants '5 init'ia'If engineering judgment Jwas ? found' 'd L on

~

e iextensivelexperience,and:knowledgelconcerninglthefeffectLof--

' changes in materialL. properties Applicants lfurther demonstrate through"an_. evaluation of ailarge saniple-of supportsiusinglA500g tube steel,that-none would befsub' ject to' stres'ses: which ex'ceedf the allowables'calculatedLus'ing<thel revised:yieldistrength, a'nd,;

~

s

in, fact, L all but 'a..small percentagelare l far below thatifallowable.

~

This large sample -is' 'c_ertainly. a rea'sonable method for iassessing(

~ the' 'impactJ of l. the -. revision onL the isupports-'ati' Comanche Peak..

Finally, Applicants:did' assess their design: practice's'and~found-them'toiproduce' conservative. calculations of stresses.'

In'short,

- Applicants properly - employed -each of the :means ' which the Staff'

~

suggested wereLappropriate for considering.-the-revised. yield

~

, values.

The Board should' find-that' CASE's assertions to the-4-

contrary are unfounded.

4 4.

CASE Affidavit CASE raises numerous additional arguments in the. affidavit

..s attached to its answer. -As demonstrated in the attached Affidavit of_ John C. Finneran, - - Jr. ("Finneran-Affidavit"), those arguments are either~ invalid,-irrelevant to the questions raised by.the Board or p'ose no serious safety question which warrants.

further; consideration.

Mr. Finneran's response..to CASE's arguments are-se't-forth-below.-

E Y

'b *b l.

.m.

4 En-

/s

..g

c..p, a

8 -;

' +

~

+~

Y g

a.

1 cyclic-stresses-CASE as's'erts thathanyjcalcUlations}using.theforiginallyield 2value for: A500 tubeisteel:are?in " error" by 15%,. including' cal-!

i

'culations1considering ; cyclic :stre'ss' s ( Affid$vit 'atkl)l.1 e

AsiMr.

fFinneran explains / the ASME;didTnot' adopt;the: revised Yieldi

~

strength value because - the ' origina'12value' was! in '.'. error"' an'd does -

not ' consider ' the revis~ ion :'to constitute; a potential ( safety. con-- -

Further,?Applicantsido'not take! advantage:..ofithe; increases cern.

1 l n allowables for cyclic stresses permitted (byjthesASME. Code,3 i

and,-thus,. CASE's-argument;regarding:c~yclic3 stresses is1

. irrelevant:to Applicants' practice.. (Finneran; Affidavit! at-j2.-),

The Board 'should find CASE's arguments in this regard 'without' merit.

i b.

PSE guidelines

-CASE contends (Affidavit at 2) that Applicants should.have-

" included consideration" of the revised yield strength in the PSE

~

guidelines.

CASE apparently believes that-the date those -

. guidelines were adopted is important for determining the

~

applicability of the code case.

CASE apparently does-not. recall that the1 applicability ~of.'the. code cases-is determined by Regulatory Guide'l'.85, which provides that-code cases are not to be, retroactively applied-to components contracted 'for prior to the effective dateiof the code case.

In fact, the Board' 1

-,.,.,.-----.-,-.J._.s,

.,1..

.6..

M4>>

i

~

~

,s c

m ge

- - 4

Q' b -

J:

~

~ _ L

9 s

- y

. ^

r

^m' 3

m.

r. s.,

w'

.c.

pJs

~

d? -

(

g

_ ;9 _ ;,

}y '

}

q

)"

-n 1

4 d

y-jg w

t

~

s,,.

c

....... : x

-,7 recognized this!factiwhen itJoriginallygruledf.th'at further/.

}

1_.

3 d.

7 3

m,,

m 1.m

,S

~

m

. x

. consideration ~o$[theNodecaseLwas;nokhappropEiate'.:j(Tr.[6803,7

~

g.;

^

'l

'w 26806-09,.6816.)?

~

. j

'~

~

3

- Furtheri f CASE 'siclaim ithat "thef PSE[gro'. p Lh'adf noT guideline's

((

u 1

a; t

s

~

1 -,

.. ? i %,

~

m.

_, prior,to lEtel:1981 is i mislead' ingt jCASE.fshouldi be,: aware : tha' t ? >

~ *

- ~ i.

4 s

W,.

m

-..<v

_k

"PSE" was :' formed ?in11 ate [1981?: inn alruorganization' 'of(site d > -a e

L, 2

ts," _'

1 (engineering ' groups Land essentially! ado. pted?th'eiguldelin'es J.ofIits; c

1*'-

,...~

u< ;

a v

~

l predecessor, J the ! P'ipe" Support l Design. GNoup l(Finnerani kffidadi$ -'at ; v '

w

, 3 ), ;. Thu's,c the;. premise.-for CASE's. argument:-regarding 'the

= *

,j, J'

M v

w 3;

.^

t applicability; ofL the L code case Ils,t itEself, J-inco, rre,c-lt. ; ' Th" e. Board e

r 1should e firid, ; therefore,c that CASE's argumenPregarding th'eDPSE :

~

' guideline'iszmeritless.

4 t

c.

bending stress-CASE' claims,fapp'arently[as an(indication that Appiican'ts'did-not consider the revisedTyieldistrength, that Applicantsfusecan.

4-allowabl'e for bending stress of tube - steel which is noti appli-cable : to. cold formed steel.

CASE also~ implies that it isLnot

= appropriate to use.A500 Grade'B tube steel in. situations where'~it:

p

-is subje'ct.to bending., ( Affidavit at 2-3.') ~

BothLof these. assertions'a're irrelevant to the< issue of

=

whether Applicants properly ~ considered the revised yield strength.

CASE is(simply seeking.once again.to inject new issues

-t into the Tproceeding.with no :more. justification than thati they.

bw

'concernigenerally~aftopic involvedLin the proceeding,-here A500 tube; steel,-regardless of their relevancy to the allegation at

,+ <'

g A

• 6

~

D.rf g

.Jo IN

(

m

+

a

'w,-, -- :-

N~

+~'"A*"

~ ~ * ~ ""

,y 3

p 6

1 7.:

.10V-4 1:

9

' issue? - viz'., a ppropriate, yield strengthl fo'.;7 A500f tube steel.

a r

'In canyj event,f Applicants.. respond briefly: to Lthes'en-latest ' assertionsi

'in order-to demonstrate 2theiriinvall'dity.)

As ' Mr..-- Finneran demonstrates,..'use i of[.S'ection. XVII--2214 of the_ ASME Code tol calculat'e bending ' stresses.ffor cold / formedJtube -

steel isentirelyiappropriate.' TherCode's; reference-to hot-rolled steel does-not preclude its.applicationLto' cold formedi steelLan'd, in fact, ' the f AISC (from which Code :the : ASME adopted:

this provision) ' acknowledges"~ the'..; appropriateness.of applying L this

-provisionLto cold.Jformed. steel, as does;the Welded Steel'. Tube

~

~-Institute, which is the organizationco'ff cold formed E tubing producers.

As for the' appropriateness of using-A500 tube' steel in applications subject.to bending, neither the ASME, AISC,anor the Welded Steel Tube In'stitute place an'y restrictions on the use of cold formed tube' steel in bending and,'in fact,. expressly provide for such application.

(Finneran: Affidavit at'3-5).

~

In sum, CASE's arguments regarding the use of cold' formed-tube steel in bending are. false, and-the Board should so find.

d.

NRC Staff' comments CASE misunderstands comments made by Mr. Terao~of'the NRC Staff in a meeting =with Cygna, claiming-that he had "some con-cerns regarding the' use' of A500 ' tube steel" ' (Motion at 3-5).. Mr.

~

Terao simply was not' addressing yield: strength for A500. tube-

steel'and, thus, his. comments are irrelevant to this-issue.- In

~

any event, it :is interesting to note that +1r.

Terao also indi-

.-....m

z-.

~

W p

o p.

+

,m

-Ell; -

n a

f

-' cates,. as ' di'scussed. above, th'a't'_the~AISC-accepts the uselof its P

4 l design 1 equations : for 5 ube hateeliand: those - same. provisions werel t

simply: adopted byithe'ASME.;((Finneran'Affidavitiat-6.)

+

e.

_ applicability of?ASME code' cases:

CASE asserts f that Applicants 11ncorrectlyfinterpreted -ASME u,

-- practice regarding.: application'ofj' ode cas'es.-l CASE asserts:thatu c

r

ASME" code cases are~not'madeJmandatory.' '(A'ffidavit'at 5.)i g7 Applicants-could:have been,more precise incdescribin'g ASME p

. practice regarding.'.~ code cases. _ As explainedcby,Mr.;Finneran,lif the ASME revisesLa' code 1 case, thatirevision is-neither; mandatory L

.norcretroactive.

Most'. importantly, however,Lthe ASME will use various notice mechanisms-if a code' case raises.a potentialE safety' concern','which'was not.the situation in'this' case.

(FinneranJAffidavit at 6.). Thus', although CASE's assertions-concerning the mandatory nature of code cases are not incorrect,_

the implication that-the ~ ASME will not take specific -action if a -

code case raises a potential-safety' concern _is not. valid.

.f.-

conservatisms CASE disagrees with Applicants' description of the

conservatisms inherent in Applicants' design practices.

CASE argues that these conservatisms do not justify Applicants' determination that no reduction in A500 yield: strength need_be taken.

-(Affidavit at 6-9.)

CASE does ot disagree that these

- conservatisms exist.

- Rather-CASE contends for a variety.of

~

-g y.-

-,e

-r.

.y9-

--myp

-we-n

n:

zv-

~

L

$%g.:' +

lC

~

~

s

+

l r

l}

g Ou w >

, W' W &

1

^*

A N

012x-..

g 74

.; r s

S-J r.1 6

. j.;

.g.

..u.

4 f

I

~-~

NM dreasonsjthatLtheyishouldinot5bs;conEideredh LAs demonstrated:in;

~

.j-.

Ib.

. : Mi... Finneran'sfaf fidavit A and f discus's' d >below,'.JCASE's Cassertions f e

%...,,u,.

^

"areieltherEirrelevantior~ invalid,lorJboth.'-

~

26 L-i 4

4 ;..

,j.

~

1 ~.

il/16") deflection. criterion' -

~

iCASE 'd,o'es not$ disagree with Applic'a'nts * ' position Lthat1the'

~

i/16"ideflhetion: criter-ion 4 isi mostE likely to ~ govern ; the des'ign i m.

rath4$ ithan< member stres'ses,f thtis keeping Jtubel steelistresses,

~~

~

.weli belowiallowables. lFurther, JCASE 's ( a'ssertion : -regarding -

g generic 'stiffnesses.'is. irrelevant to ' this; fa'ct.

~(Finn ~eran

~

A'ffidaviti'ato7.) LInVany event,fApplicants..have demonstrated'the-

' appropriateness lof the"use.ofLthese generic ~ stiffness valueslin:

their motion for

summary dispos' tion < regarding; this Missue, filed i

'May-21, 1984.

' 2.'

anchor:bol't design:

CASE ~again misses'thetpoint. ' Applicants'noted, and CASE

-does not" dispute, that because anchor-bolt stress ratios a're-

. generally higherithan'for tube steel, the anchor bolts are.

another-design 'consideratiorf which provide assurances that tube

steel-stresses are well below allowables.

CASE asserts-Applicants can only claim" that anchor bolts are "more likely to beKoverstressed" than=-tube steel and not that anchor 2 bolt. design Tis...a controlling: design-consideration.

CASE infers that

'.ApplicantsTdo not check'other stresses when the anchor bolts are

-found to.be' satisfactory.

(Affidavit at 6-7.)

.. s N

-~\\

l 1

7 n~*'

+

l$k.'.n 3

~

g'

+

IfN

l/

v.

s W,-

s

'3 =

--13 -:

.Y t

sc.

x 33

~

<' c.

~

g.. _

? CASE's-assertionlis illogical. : CASE does-not[disputeith$tti

^

~

canchorsbolts.areDlikelyitobe'morehihhlyfstressed[thanl tube-L 1

isteellmemb'ers.:

r

' Byf definidion J then, the' : anchor) bolt? design [is J 1

~

(controlling.with respect to the: tube steel' design.7 ;However,othisE n.

,factidoes notimean~,;andLit11s'not. correct as) CASE suggests,'that.

~

' Applicants: do not check allistresses :in the; design of' a7 support

~

.regardle'ss of.whether one~is...likely.to be co'ntrolling..." CASE's

" comments;are,.~therefore,? invalid.~((FinneranLAffidavitnat 7-8.)'.

s

'3 level lB allowables/ levelC? loads

~ Applicants have stated'that their support designers--fre-

. quentlyT:use level LB allowables for - level ^ C loads, which-provides an added. degree ~of conservatism to, Applicants'i support' designs.

(Finneran Affidavit'at'8).

CASE asserts --that~ Applica~n'ts - should '

use this approach attall times, claiming that Applicants' may' us e R

.this approach-only'on members with low stresses.

CASE goes on.to claim that it has never seen calculations which support Applicants' - statement and that based on " personal knowledge" it-does not believe Applicants are truthful.

(Answer at 7.)

In the first instance, Applicants' practice is a' common

' approach employed regardless of-the magnitude'of the load.

More

. importantly,~however,. CASE's claims'that it has never seen 1 documentation supporting Applicants' position and that based on

" personal knowledge" it believes this is not Applicants' practice 1,

are both-false.

As discussed in Mr. Finneran's affidavit, l..

[ T

severalJealculations in CASE exhibits utilize this approach.

s r

y

-4 a

.gr---

,-e--

...t--w.-.#.

n,,.-e-s.

-ve.r

,.-,,--,--,-----y-w-w-

yi:

F G.

f~

?

m l

m-

r; 7 Gj,

~'

_mW

+

g.

7 a

.J-qw i

4 E_ y1'4 _ :

4

n w

[ E(Finn'eran? Af fidavit at 8 -9!)- ;In: short,: CASE 1' cincorrect iniit's:

i 7

Y s

Lasserti'onalregardingi this(practicei and :h' sl-either::.knowinglyf

-)&

=

a J.,mikr) presented [the' [fabts.- or/its[" personal 5 knowl' edge"Yis --Lvery i

~

1 7

Olimited.: J Applicantsk a~ddress~ below: the'! implications; of ;. CASE's;

+

.c

~ ?in:co.rrect: assertion,i based Jon? personal ? knowledge".c s.

g.

s

? 4.;

. stronger? tube is' eS1(members t

f CASE - poses an riillog'icallargument.in"responselto / Applicants'-

statementithatuit-;is normalEdesign: practice to utilize stro.nger-e i

.tubeist' eel 1 members;than necessaryiin orig'inalidesigns:#to; provide-for.possibl'e } load changes.at Llater s'tage'sio'f ithe.' design t process :

T(AffidavitLatL7-8). 1 Contrary to:the.'implicStionlof CASE's assertion ~i prov'iding.such a contingency'is' simply. good de' sign-practice.and.does.not adversely, impact satisfaction'..of other 4.

design requirements (Finneran Affidavit at 9)..

(

5.

ITT-Grinnell practice CASE argues that-it is its " understanding 1that ITT-Grinnell.

did not use. tube steel in.its original design"-(Affidavit-at-8).--

CASE-does not demonstrate-how this assertion is relevant to-the' I

E issue at hand, and its' relevancy is not' apparent.' In any event, CASE's." understanding"-is again incorrect:(Finneran Affidavit at-9).

Applicants note that-this. type of assertion, founded'on f

'nothing more than:ancinvalid " understanding", coupled with the Epatently false claim discussed above regarding the use of level B

= -

l

,.._..._,-..,,,.A-m,-_,_,.,

p R;

+'

~

p(

.,'N '; -

a g

4'

- '15 -

4-x

1 l_.

P.

g

?allowables purporte'dlylpremisedJon "personhl knowledge"lare-

~

Y~

' simply:.further :-examples of CASE's laggregious abuselof the ' admini -

tstrative' process. - CASEjhas ' repeatedly. raisedl such : frivolous t

< arguments:in(this:proceedingLwithout1 fear'of sanction. ' CASE-

, risk'slnothinglmore than'having-the' Board' decide agai'nstjit ona T

particular issue.. Applicants.on thefother hand are' forced to-

. waste : time - and J re' sources - reb'utting -'such claims',1.or irisk ai s'imilar-

-adverse ' decision:with billion'. dollar 1 consequences.. Further,.had' c

~

~

Applicants posedJsuch patently false. claims-they wouldtsurely have been subjected'to swift'and severe castiga' tion,-if..not

~

penalty.

ApplicantsJurge the Board to hold' CASE to'the.same standards-of honesty and professional conduct as itLdoes-

' Applicants.-

(That CASE is not represented by counsel-in!this phase of the proceeding is~ irrelevant given the technical nature

^

of the issues and CASE's use of supposed expert witnesses.)

Only

-by doing so can the Board have any assurance that claims raised

'by CASE are not frivolous _or false.

6.-

actual yield strengths

~

CASE asserts that Applicants may not rely on actual yield 4

strengths of A500 material ~as documented on Certified' Mill Test

-Reports l("CMTR"),. or' assume the same yield reduction assumed by the ASME to demonstrate the conservatism inherent in Applicants' designs using tube steel' ( Affidavit at 8-9).

As discussed in Mr.

Finneran's affidavit,. CASE apparently misunderstands both the

~ purpose of Applicants evaluation using CMTR data, as well as the w

q ev w

ey(,

91 e

wo?-u'=g e$

v--

+- ww mr eg

,er-w v y

?>-r--t-er me-*-q*-

tevT---T

.~.

.w+

'{ hb h M2._ Q '

Er *}

Ag@:y '{g@p')[

. M

W[,

• q f...

'y

)'

M, s

T

r W

3 1

..g

.' ': 3 9 lv -

" % ~,y, Qc.epg n, =,

- ~

y c

w

_.7 g

,r,"

y e wQg a:.

y+ v a

m-x,

- v:y 3.

3,&

gww

.il ET +

/

, 7 3-wp N Q f e.50[. [,h j "

c

.ar

. ' '( yh..

m[ ' ' %d b

-wc

,<m,a c

., +

'k.8[k. )

S h ~ 7;.

y{ [-

T 3

y

, g r

't Wwq@.

m..

ty y'

~ ;-

- y.-V16

b s'

S -

e,:c,_

_e u

q ;' c,

s

.s

-.e e -

m s.g jY l'

$f. *

.J.k' l ': f

,'s i

^*~

s =

M-

,p'

- y r '

'-u q

~m",na..,

n r

X s.l ' i,

[

p

~

s t

e.

m

,(I yASME!posi~ionfregasdingjyie d{strengti redudtionjan'dftheiASTMfjf ~ g A

4 mm

< m..v(America.,-n JSociety? for? Testing. Materials) fspecifications for3 A500.=

p-au;y

.c..

=

f; M

"d,.?

~~4

^

.. ; p h +..n. o r

z

<_,c

.t 4.

y i. - -

^

RAsrMrEFinnerani. demonstrates,LApplicants/properlysassessedi he'~

l t

w

. fac tuNdie.Ydi str eng'th'.[forj A5002 tube fsteeliin#demonsEratinglyetr s

~

~

m

~

%s m

~

N'

~ ^ e 7pgQrgglf

~~

1 another/ conservatiism5-inherent Nn [thdih.~designTpractice.3ICASE's1 J' j.YC$:

^ '

~

y.

3 assertions (do not"demonstrateathat 1thiseasse~ssment<was' incorrect.y '

~#

m

. J(Finneran,4: Af fidavitMat 9.-11.') ^

s'

._ j,

y

-m

-y

, l f

s o,

/

i % '-

y I) r,,,y. f I

r ykg.

icalc lations 4

, Wh{ nest)a'ssertion' made by CASE lwhich[wa'rrants' reply is[its : -

~

.rw J

+

<'=,...

~

y f cl' aim?that "Applic. ants :shouldnhave. retained j the* " calculations" -

~

originally performed ?forH Applicants '. : Response [( AffidaYit ? at Lll---

Fx

\\.,-;

e12).-fAsiMr.JFinneran?explainsf:-those " calculations"lwereisimpleE ratios, f readily reprodi2cible, shich Lare;not' part' of; the de'signi calculafions.s No : sound'. r'eason, let:alone?requireme'ti-exists n

which)would have Applicants'retainDthose'" calculations".' -

+

. (Finneran AffidavitLat 11-12.)

hl.

level'B allowables with level'C: loads-

- CASE ~ again asserts 1 that Applicants may not: takeL credit. for their7 practice of'usingLlevelB allowables with level C loadsjin' i

. demonstrating.the conservative nature-of their practice-(Affi-l u.

.l 1 davit at:!12)2.; 'As already explained,.and as-demonstrated once-aga'in byLMr.>Finneran, Applicants' practice.is appropriate and.

u.

W

< - fevidenc'es.of.a conservativeLdesign approach which provides

]

,m,'

., r f -

g. -

,?

1'

,n,

]

1

~

s J

'g

} ?

+

g 3-'

1 ar.

=, +.

;=m

~

~

{

p 9:.,

my

~N '. s

~

a.-

s,

y

.~

y w.

y.

. or Ewf

~

^Y$

y

-l '_.

_ f 9_ "

=17

w r

.q; h:

,n, T'

c:g'L N

-further assurance.'thatFthere[is'e noisafety. significance.to" 1/

? Applicants!Eus'e of Ethejoriginal A500; yieldivalue (Finneran:

t

~

E Af fidavitiat il3'-14 ). --

~

CASE! also TassertsD hat Applicants Lare :incorrectI f ?they:

t 1

E "want to. convince thelBoardOthat levelcC? loads ~Oith leveliB

allowables will always give.;; satisfactory results,'" claiming that iti has Ifound an example where use 'of : the [ level. B ' allowable with a

~-: level C load-~ would = produ'ce : unsatisfactory - results.n ( Affidavit iat.

L12).

AlthoughL: Applicants-haveLneverlmade:the;claimiattributedit'o

them by~ CASE, Mr. Finneran' reviewed' CASE's " example" land,Tas:

shown in his' affidavit,zfound.-that'CASELhad Incorrectly., performed its calculation.

Had CASE ' correctly performedithe ': calculation ~it

):

would have found that'evenif the level B'~ allowable had been-~used:

1 the support would have.been qualified.- '(FinneranfAffidavit at-13-14).

Thus,-CASE is also' incorrect in this assertion regarding.

,1 i

the use'of level'B allowables with level C loads.7' i.

ASME inquiry CASE's final arguments concern'the ASME response to the code inquiry; Applicants submitted.

First, CASE claims that response

-7:

' CASE's related assertion that these' calculations are

" incomplete" (Affidavit at-13), is also unfounded (Finneran-

- Affidavit at 14).

v.

.,,-s-.-

y

.W'-.; f.-

R V-^yg

• 4

~

h f,

,,u g f.

m.n gA;,4 s

, y

(

r mq

'hi.hh iy' MS $ [%

[ < % ?;j a_

8 i

s.

j

( l "N9>

E,,'

f.?

s

- ) ) % '. )j. *

,'?g',.',

~

~

1 -

s j

Q. -

L' n

'-?'-

u is

~ h' 3 C

t

~ t '

uu

~^ N'

$??[p

^

s

._z_.

j;:

.f.;f.,

% : % ~ ;V; c<

t

^' ' '

.aK

• ,f-

..f

_ - [_ _18 ; -:

c>-

'"y,' ',pf.

+

, - w-v

-q w

r

?

t

~r,

.,7, w

a D

. f, p+_'

xv.

i

(

< np.

a.

5

.,,.:(yl_ m.'

s s

-gu 1

y (t">

" 2.f -

'3 4

.N

~

e

[.

~

1

..,9

'j j r

M,,33 requires Applic~antalto have? performed -teste%eforeiciontinuingc:toj 4

~

,~

.s a<

i.,..

7 r,,

m a

~

Furth0T:dithoughh,,..C.ASE i. does ? _

s Cuses the : original} yield L:st're.ngths'.

s M'nbbc$ aim tSatEres'pon efisi ncorrect,NiUchdllingesftiNAi ~

.i o

y

~,...

proc'edures ?by whichl Applicants treceived : the : replyftof theirc t...

,1

.A'

'_;e'..,

,s..*

.(

4 r

rinquiry.

"( Af fidavit eat:14215.')

i LAs;Mr.fFinneransdemonstrates, LCASE 's 3 as sertions.

c

...ca.

. are linvalid 1 ( Finneran,'t Af fidavit r at : 15 ). L

_ _. ~

i >

+

a y

=

J.

. 8 l Applicants are deeply disturbed by CASE's wreckless-accusation regarding the integrity of the'ASME and it's members.

CASE' argues'that the Board should " consider";the

" credibility of [the] ASME" ~ ( Affidavit at -.14).

Although~not identifying any. aspect of the ASME's response it-believes is

-incorrect, CASE infers that members of the ASME.(CASE specifically-mentions _two individuals, both well-recognized experts in1various fields of engineering, viz.,-Mr. Reedy-(a

. former^ witness 'for Applicants) and. Mr. Bressler' (who was scheduled to'but was-unable to serve as an expert witness for Applicants)) wouldLinfluence the outcome of ASME

-deliberations for the purpose of reaching an invalid

technical. position.

These accusations not -.only are false, but' wholly; improper.. The Board has previously found that such unfounded accusations concerning the integrity'of

. Applicants witnesses:.are inappropriate'(see Memorandum and y

Lorder1(Motion _for Clarification on Thermal Stress in Pipe Supports), Augus t c_19, 1983).

Applicants urge the Board to

_l'.

1 admonish CASE for'such i false charges and demand that CASE fcease.from any further' slanderous claims.

+ ++

a

p

- g x

s

' 's

p:-

=

=.

1

. : c, -

• -. 3.%

'+

t9

_ "

1 C-

j

'III.

.' CONCLUSION r

. For: the ' foregoing l reasons,. the : Board should'. find ~ that (there -.

.'is: sufficient ev'idenee.before.Iit~to reach aLreasoned decision on

-CASE's allegations.regarding%A500'. steel ~and that evidence

[ demonstrates that Applicants practice is! appropriate:and-based on sound engineering' principles.-

Respectfully submitted, Oid.

~

-Nicholas S.

ReynoTds William A.

Horin-

~ BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOKv PURCELL'&.REYNOLDS-l1200. Seventeenth Street,:N.W.-

- Washington, D. C.'. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Counsel fort; Applicants November 16, 1984-f t

=

9 f

wie r

3-t T*'.

---

T rrw w

r e

T

-td

==*'--

)[-

ll-Y([,

v,

' (

g..

f

'. iY Y

0g E EDL _

~?['

I

' ~

UNITED STATES;OF. AMERICA.-

6' NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION.

t 7

m._-.

'~-h.

BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING' BOARD;-

s In-theiMatter of.

):

-~)

' Docket Nos. 50-445 l and ]'

.L' m

TEXAS UTILITIES-ELECTRIC-

-)

50-446 1

COMPANY /.ET'.AL.

)~

)

-(Application for.

'(Comanche 1 Peak Steam Electric

-).

Operating Licenses)

Station,.: Units:1 and:2).

.)

AFFIDAVIT OF. JOHN C. FINNERAN,IJR.

'REGARDING CASE'S ANSWER CONCERNING A500 STEEL' I,' John'C; Finneran, being; first duly sworn -herebyl depose and state as folloss:

I am employed by' Texas' Utilities Generat-ing Company as Project Pipe Support Engineer for ~ Comanche Peak.

Steam Electric Station.

In this pcsition'I oversee the de' sign sork 'of all pipe _ support design organizations'at Comanche Peak.

A statement of my educational and professional qualifications is in evidence as Applicants' Exhibit'142B.~

Q.

What is the purpose of. this affidavit?

A.

I address belos CASE's assertions set forth in its Septem-ber 26, 1984, Ansse.c to Applicants' Response to Board's Partial Initial Decision Regarding A500 Steel, filed ~in the form of an affidavit-of Man Walsh (" Affidavit").

Appli-filed. their response on April 11, 1984, supported.sith

. cants imy affidavit ("Finneran Affidavit").

)

i w.,,

4

, - ~. - -.

m m

}

_fi lk

.,(.

-e l

,, Yd

. ~

ms l i D '* [

a r

b gee

' pp & : ' eg,

-m l

,s

s. -

_ !* f ! > ly

,s m

bN -

1 a

Q

-N;;h

, f.

s s,

%_ _ p s '. -

. ;.w am n

r

'W' Py '

j._

" >:n g

n 3W Y ;

y

,r w w

--g Ol

.. c:'g.,

c,

. x.

- m -

'="+

i v

w

-.Q %

f. M - _

' _ [ Q.3 ~

y,

->2 L

-x

}

.r y

M y;&

l :-'y

'g:

, ' G,?

. < /;;' -

r

.e

~ ' '

s

.y r*

' ~.

6E'

,.7, i

r-3, e.

.t, t.

..,I.

f

+

y 2

6>,

sQ.( ;Whatfis yyou, rf response 2 to ! CASE's". comments # regarding0the,y ".i

• O 1

c

., +

~

od$sc,ussioniirbyourf originaitaffidavitfconcerdingjcon-i 4

w t..

t _

o

~

x.

g, w

a fsiderationyof? cyclic 4 stres'ses? i

- x o

t;.

s U

),.'

A; i

• ...,:,7A.y iCASE.~ddeslnot; disagree with,the;subst'ance~ofEmy;originalz ^

p y

J a

q-e

- R {'

.- diiscussi'on, i thati bhca'u~se / Applicants --dol nots take? advantage.o f.

d k I-.

s -.i- -

s>

.S is.

~

?-

..i I

' the Jincrease L, int alleiables : permitted :by.:;the :ASME Codelfor:

~

icyclicistresises,3th ir_evisiod[toithe ? A500l y'ield st'rengtM

raises!lno Noncern ffor l Applicants ' = considerat' ion of f:' cyclicf

~ o stresses.; SCAS$(simply claimsithathcalcuiation' ibasedjori-1'the'-

s

~

-original;value,Tincluding(calculations (considering cyclic m

o t s tress'es 4 are ' 'lin : error". : :( Affidavit ?.at i1. )1 My originallaffidavit demonstratediboth that theJASME-

~

does not consider 'use-_of'the originalfyieldfvaiuescfor?A500"

~

tube.steelI o be':an " error" or;to'.present a'serio'usTsafetyle t

' concern and that, in fact, Applicants'_use of;those values-poses no safety.c'oncern.'

Thus, CASE's general assertion

~

~

that use offthose._ values-is an " error" isLunfounded..

Further, CASE's specific claim that consideration'of

" cyclic? stresses" will be_"in error by 15%"_is not relevant

'to Applicants'~ design practice.

As-I stated in my orig'inal affidavit (at 2)," Applicants do-not take advantage of the

~ increases.=in,allowables for cyclic. stresses. permitted by the

' ASME Code'(NF-3231.1(a)).

Thus; Applicants' support designs.

~1 1

imaintainEstresses well below the stress levels of concern ifor' cyclic stresses even if-the revised yield ~ strength'would.

' d be. utilized.

T f

1>

i k

-r e-v-,--m*umw--e-,,*=-ac.

i-ee-

{pic

% 4;?.. * *W_~___g>,

r,,y-_

.-"- ~. ~, '

N 5\\ -$

($t hh' J $

h.

s

~ ' z, ~,,

WC 2

i N

s..

%g, y

+

~'

4

~

i

~

_ y 3 ~E

: -

y.,

.n m

f

- l 'm.

[:-

+

=

~,

i-

?

~

e, 3,' Q >

gj M4

.- y 2

[

5l

.~

~

M' g

{g; Dolyou'have fanylcomments?re,gardinh CASE's Jasdertionsj A'ffi c a

- g D..

dNJ/(, '

. ~..

z.

• ;davitiaf 2)? reg'rdindithefneed}toincludefevidencelofJAppli -

a w

.~

m.

9 a

L f

.fcants'sconsideration.o fthelrevised A500fyi,ldtvalues'inDthe' e

r s

4

~

u.

PSE guidelines?.E-

~

~

^

r, e'

m-je: '[

l A'.y 1Yes.- [CNSEiincorrectly represent'sithei actsisurrounding the:

f (formation' Jof 2 PSE ? andIestablis 1 ment of t i

M>'

~

ts guid$linesk.Asl CA$iEI should j recognize ( see' Applicants ' : July I3, f198'4,.1 f

p,,,

• MotionT ifor Summary Dispositi$nl/RegaUding; Quality 1 Assurance for[De

sign? isupporting? affidavitiati44,3 n.~22), -(PSE(was "formedTin a

.s

' reorganization;'ofl existing] engineering groupsjonTsite,:.which

. included: the? Pipe Support : Design Groupf(PSDG).' lWhen!that?

,. ~

r'eorgariization : occurred iri-late.1981,. LPSE essentially 4dopt '

~

1 ed.~ the ; guidelinest of 1-PSDG) which wereiiniexistence T forR some' time.. Thus, CASE's3 claims _-in this regard are.~ unfounded; 4

)

e Q.-

. What are your.~ comments concerning' CASE's discussion.(Affi-

}

. davit :at 2-3) regarding consideration of -allowable bending -

> v stresses?-

A.

CASE's argument regarding the establish' ment-of bending y

str. esses'for A500-tube steel is-irrelevant to the issue at hand.. The method of calculation of the bending stress allowable.'is independentLof.the particular yield ~ strength which may be employed for A500 ' tube steel.

l Further, Appli-

-cants did not and were not required to adopt the revised 4

. m

.a e

-#e

=

e

Els$m?yg9P91r ".L : - -

p w -

p'

&... 4,

,w m

u e v._

.o n

m^

'M "9W _ T}, n -

^

w : ~-

per.,

pyyst

~

+n

=

u _.

.[

p:^

% a g", :,-

a F

,Gl?n _Y, %i, y ^l>

< ;;4' &

r, f

U:f;r~.

1, s s

i

~ '

h s

t

^!

&c sj,;Q

~

n s:

w 4

. L : 4l3 '.

4

~,-

g FD-E.

v

' :s.

's

,c

~.-

+

,4.y;1s ;m.

w.

~

w s.

m

~

s x

v

v

.

g; -

~

- ~

^

p.v. r;

..lk:A

.L

h K

M" Jyieldsstrength yalue2forlA500?and;ithus,(:therelis?no reason' '

m

~

~

A c

cr p.

e q".

g-s

-ititattEhe $stredslall.osable Uin? t, he" PSE ? Guiddline'sJ should 4

1-

-[

l > ref1'ect, Cas y CAhE{seems t6[ imply, J.thelrevis'Ed)valuks.;

N-LInlanyj event,iCASE :neithe' jproNdess norf:suggeist'afan'y)

}+

2

~

r y

• ~

,.3 3E.

i.techni' cal ~ ratio ~n' le =_for inot tusing s Applicants! !; method f of?

~-M rw a

3

':dskermining ?the ?allosable:.ibending istress L. fora cold i formed; i

fA500Nubeis, teel'., CASE'suggestsApplicants;should'have:

~~

~

2..

employed 'another; sectionHof 5the ASME Code ?toi;! calculate 1 a 1 s

-1berEdings dress [al losablejs.bu'tinot[does ddenti fNanyi particu-- -

~

w

- l arisectihn. - 5 Contrary [toiCASEIs ' c1 Nim,Q the (provi'sion'. ofithel

~.

. ~

' 'ASME Code' Applicants' employ [forithisypurpos'e?is1appropriatei-i

' for iuse eith coldiformed: tube steel. -

The; use of the term;"hothrolled"- iny thisL section ofxthei I

l t

. ASME Code-arises only because ? th'e L ASME adop$ed ;v'irtuallyfdhe exactfsords'from the.AISC-Specifications,' shichifocus on hot

~

v

-rolled shapes.

Hosever, this does;not mean it is inappro-:

priate to use this section' of the Code for cold-formed steel.. In fact, ITT: made' an. inquiry.to-the AISC on this subjectiin April.1983.

See ITT letter'of April 4, 1983 and AISC reply, datied April 8, '1983 ' ( Attachments A and B).' 'The

' AISC1specifically acknowledged the applicability of.this provision 'to cold. formed A500 tube steel despite ~ the reference only-to hot-rolled steel.

Further, the Welded-Steel: Tube' Institute, the organization of cold formed tubing

~

1

' producers,; expressly recommends using these AISC allosables i

^

for 1 cold. formed' steel 'such as A500 - (see pages ' 95-96 of the e

4 b

i

?

?

s, k,

gl c

'h n-Y o

.c w:

af.ff)

%.Vj

.w

~

(*

u y

m

.r.,,

$~';

J :. ;

{

-n

, p --,

y.

y, ', 3 -.

= 9 ~.

f T

. m

.v

. 5;_,.

cc.

r 7

3 s.g, 4

w

(,.

1 i

- 3 (1974rMaAualIo'fL Coldi $'ormedIWelded :StructuralLSteel' Tubing r

p

)

2 iis s

_ N g.

1( Attachme'nt\\ C)). ;Inf sum,j Applicants'{useL ofI Section XVII-n.

7

- ~

+

(22I4 of :.th"e ? ASME ~ Cod'e "for"determin'ing. bending. atress '

?.:

4. '

- allowables - forfcold) formed ( A500 ; tubeisteel s is Lappropriate. t 4

CASE's a'rgument~to the contrary (hasinoktechnicalfmerit".

- Further,-CASE'.slassertionz(Affidavit' ate 3))that in 2

' +

~

normal. construction Itub'essteel.fis-orily Esedias. a Jcolumn inia

^

non-rigid 1 frame.- and,7. thus'i1.is Enoti to jbe - used in ' bending,.-. is -

J incorrect.

Both the ASME_:and AISC.haveLapprov.ed A500fasHa.-

structural st' ell.withlabsol'utely-'no;restirictions on its; use e

=as-aimember-'in' bending;(see'AISC. Specification Section=1.4--

' Material: (Attachment D'))LASME C' ode C'ase.N-71-10-((CASE Exhibit 751)).

In addition; pagel1-lO3nof the?AISC manual (Atta'chment E) clearly-indicates that tube ~ steel was fintended for use 'in bending when it distinguishes' between shapes which are 'coinpact or. non -compact,. a. fact which is used to determine l the bending. stress allowable.

'In addition, it is quite clear that the Welded Steel Tube.

Institute itself-intends' tube steel to be utilized in bending, since they have developed allowables in their manual for tube steel'used as beams (see Attachment C);

which are subjected to bending.

Thus, there is no validity.

to CASE's argument that'A500 tube. steel.is not to be used in bending.

tQ..

What: comments do you.have regarding CASE's characterization

L

_ ( Affidavit.at 3-5) of Mr. Terao's discussion with Cygna?

W A ',W+ fa.jW~%%'

W.

l

,,I.-% ? *, Q, + S < w., -

- ~-

j;y;+n^

~

p..

, u.

+ '

n%.~

~

J$:W~> c

~

WGh h W * :

?,, ~, h '.

~, 1

1. g'

N y', l}g,:'

+

g yAWyp ' s :y1.W er

~.

Wa,

~

l

+

W

%E' d g. '- g' e gg6

..a

~-

'y

.L i, g,

- +

W,%

_3

-- 6

.. -

i y-,

W m, n.. m '..

w

! 'f ? ? :

g" " ylN 4

' ^

C

, N j s i

l^ '

L *s ~

,;3 % 8

~ '

h--

~,

6;.py.

• 52, ; _

s,

3y.

!z i

1 a

y kah [ 7, y,,.

9/I 5

s.

,_ s

_7 s

(

?

} AMM(CASE.inisunders'tAndkMr {Terao',s j comments.i iMr.l.Terao wa's Dno,tl 1

s 7,h,,' addres'singi stress"allowablesl for[tubejatleel~.- (ThusNNis ~

s L,

8@i1 a

gp

.. 3..

s 1

- ~-

y y

+

icommentsnaretirrelevant?tolthefissue^atThabd.,(Nonetheless,7

. s

1. o 4W

~ ~ N. _.n :. +

...s,

~

~

....4 w

s

.A-c.

w

, g.g> c 7 -

, q, tit *issinstructive itoinote : that" Mr' eTerao f observed, f as/ I, w"

" =a

..~

v:

- m

.. s.-,

Wt idiscussed;above,'thatLAISC believes.~;_sthat9the:usesof-its:

,g e

, =,

~

s.

-u

-,..1 r.

..s s

.., <., 1 -

Jdesign equa,tions -were ; appropriate l fo; r ttubeJsteel,T and the i

>w u s

m -

g 7

, ' i

?ASME simplyjaxc..

r

.y

.,e

~

. erpted 1 portions - of 3 thei AISC Codeffo' r ? design;-

I

' Q. l,

? What?are j you.,-

o.

x;

, r; comments.regardingl CASE'sEassertionc(Affidavit?

~

~

's at15)ithatiApplicants[did,notiaccura'ely'de' scribe the?ASME' t

r' -, f, e

,. = -

r 1 '

1

~l practice (regardingnapplicationfof code.Ecases involving.-

changes;in provisions?

TI?could have been more preciseMin.my ihitialIdescriptioniof; A.

m

'ASME practice regard'ingfcode cases._iAs stated by;.the=ASME' u

,in:their response to' Applicants' l'nquiryv th'e;provisionsLo'f_

later revisionslof code cases are;neither mandatory.norf retroactiv'e (see-Finneran' Affidavit,: Attachment).'

The:

important. point of'my-original. answer, however,~'was thatLthe ASME:will take specific a'ction if a. code case raises-a-s potential. sa fety. concern. - The ASME did - not take such action' in this: instance..(Finneran Affidavit at 3.)

Thus, although' CASE's;iassertions concerning the' mandatory nature of code cases-.are~not incorrect, the implication that the LASME will'not take specific action if a code case raises a

. potential safety concern is not valid.

~

-J d

q, 4

m-mm 4

vaya

. ~

Em.

'.g 7,

lgc

=8

. ;m,

4

,,k q

g y.x 4

s, g,..

~"

-y r

s s

~,J n g';g. 5 04^

s

+

, fig,

4 Nr

,s

_ (.? :

, p;,

,l

=.

J

+

l 1

x.

2, r '}.t_ ;%g,

~n

. ; v.

', ;( '

,s y

' ' 'M b -

t,

___ f ]

e lT

'lR

,;p\\

s

- ~:w, y

r cza s

+

s v

.?

St...,.

.- -v

+

,_ 7a,

1 g%l.[ M ' he p:

mv y

g j

~ '

i i

h$

,4 2

rg gg 7,

, s ': <

7,[

, -[ \\ * '

c.

+,,

l' C-

'..fI

' i w

- ?-

3-Q.; [Whatlcommentsido j ou;;have regarding CASE', sidi,scussiond}{Affi-J 7

u ~.

+

V

-davit /at?6-9) ? of! the s cons, rv.. :atisms+1nheren.tLin! Applicants'?

a e

,.c a

. am r.

,. s s

sdesign^ofr =

a g.

4 oupportsrusingitube/ steel?b '

c

-t s

+

. A.

sCASE'sH arguments 1are 2eitherL irrelevantitof thel. xissuefat ha'n8 q

l' I

J or : are $ founded ' on :a Mi s' understanding Lof-. the[princ'iples.

s

involved.:

M y

/

• S g

I

Fi$st, J CASE's[ discussion,of the' 1/16'" :deflectionl s

fciiterionfappears:to!be based"on a'Misunders'tandingfod[my)

.... f..

s

, i.0 <J 1.I E..

originaltaffidavit.) ; Asgindicated :in that l affidavit 6the s

~

ideflection1critierion,n{andinot. member,Jstress'es,S governsf the -

i esign 'inL manpfinsta'nces, i hus ' keepingt!ube ;st' eel f stresses':

E

~

d

~

t

~

14 ell;belos allodable values.- Thereiis'no' relation betseen-s

{

, this ifact ' and the; generic.-sti ffness"is' sue ' CASE attempts to; j

raise.

.In'additio'n, CASE's argument ( Affidavi't ;at 6--7) ? re :

(

garding anchor bolts misses the point.

I stated previously-g that the anchor bolt stress ratios are usually' higher than l'

the tube steel stress ratios.

Thus, the' anchor boltsisould-1=1; control the design... This - fact; shich CASE does not' dispute, provides additional evidence'of the conse'rvatism of Appli-v 1

cants'- designs. and further assurance that u'se of the 5

- ' original' yield-values for A500 steel presents no safety n

U

" concern.

Further, contrary tosCASE's assertion, Applicants 4

recognize the need_to and indeed check all stress'es regard-i n g

.?%.'

_ ~

m-

?

L s

e-

-e

.,..hs

~-,,.,.e-.

,s-~.,,,-na--

,s.,.c-c',-v,-.,.m,_wm,,,w.nne.,

,...u,---~...es.~e,~se-,-ww w w=-

-. w w

--w -u s n e --n. v

y' gg ' ~('

==g ;

• ~

_, :? j ;y yy -

.K

^

};M yy g

99:=

>f i

t.

n:

m

s.4

,~ ~

- x

~

H ec 1

m

~

+

_;g'_:

, 4' ~ = '

9 w

- 2

< s 21'esd Cof 7dhether' one fis ?likel' ygto ie Econtrolling. :

I CASE's:

.. comment fregarding !" inadequate? engineering ([j udgmerit. and f philosophy"(( Affid' vit atD);;!is,-.;therdfo e, basel'ess'. *

,s a

' lWi th ( regard to :. CASE 's ! commentsi:concerning ? the.

o..

~

tuse;of.

I

~

P ileyf1 B!lallosables Sith levell Clloa'dsj( Affida'v'it atI7'), :I{

,s.

previouslyg indicated : that ' Appl ic' ants 'Q support. de' signers :

y lfreque, ntly.use such 'conserva, tive,desig+n ; assumptions -

q-

'(Finneran1 Affidavit at'5)l.-

This:is a" common) practice 1

employed regardlessf of thefmagnitude ' of. the

: load.. (CASE's.

~

Ja'ttemptato; turn'this' practice ~into~an absolute' rule is

' misplaced.- Further, - CASE's 'statementi that' it has not seen.

calculations'. shich sould.sulistantiate. Applicants' cl a'im" '

regarding, this practice is ' false.-

There are several example's of this - approach in thelcalcul ations : furnished to CASE on discovery:regarding=the Cygna-hearings (CASE Exhibits'928'to.939).

For instances in CASE Exhibit'928 L

(calculation for. support SI-1-325-002-S32R), :page 2 of 13 4

(p. 20 of exhibit), the strut level-B N/u'(Normal / upset)

. allowable (38.7 kips). is compared to the level-C-load.-

1 (19.169 kips).

On the next page, the level B (N/u):allos-able - (50.~ 6. kips) ' for; the XRB rear bracket is compared to g.

the level'.C-load'(19.169 kips).

Additionally, in this calculation,- the. tube steel (folloeing tso;pages) and the s

4 '

. base ' plate. ( sheet' 13 o f.13) are designed using. level B allowables and Level-C loads.

Additional examples of this

. practice-just-from this group of supports are in CASE E

m,._..,

a yy s

..,.. t...

. g.

• \\

~

^

^lj-u

~

d._

x

+

y m

.?.

s s

4::

-q i

?

-p 9 ( b

' l, j' Exhibits ;929i 931-34,;f936, 9371andl 939.'.-

Thus,JCASE has, vin

fact,?seenmanyfsuchcalculationsish'ichshb'stantiatefAppli-cants' practice,:. contrary:- to CASE's. claim. [I-di scuss.- this

-allegation ; further ! belos.

~

/ CASE's ! arguments concerning ; App 1'ica'nts' = practice of.

~

. providing in original. designs: for. ~ ossiblejlo'ad changes.at'~

p later - stages of the idesign? process' -( Affidavit.?at 7-8) : is -

. illogical.=fSuch changesfin loads may occurJfor any number-of reasons.. To provide aJcontingency for possible changes-

~

e

later on in the processEis. simply a good! design practice and' does not adversely; impact satisfaction" of other; design requirements.-

Further, CASE's " understanding"Iregarding-ITT design practices ( Affidavit at 8) is:not relevant to the' issues at hand.

CASE drass no conclusions and-no logical conclusions are apparent.

In any event, CASE is simply #rong shen-_it states that ITT did not use any: tube steel in-its original

-- d e si g n. 1(see Attachments F and G)), original ITT designs ahich utilize tube steel.)

In addition, CASE's arguments ( Affidavit at 8-9) relating to the Certified Mill Test Report ("CMTR") yield values are not only erong but demonstrate. CASE's misunder-standing of the ASME Code and the ASTM specifications.

CASE-apparently. believes that - Applicants should not have assumed a 15% ' reduction in yield strength due to selding and demon-strated the minimum actual yields for all cases.

In the

^

.,-- ~-,.

,, ~,.

-r.~._

.,m_~,,

.h_.

-=%?twg.

-L'L af b :,9

g f

~

,.5 s

. y m qn p p x,

q mg

", ' ",, L~y 7+:s:

. /

,s

~

+

'~

p -

g{

v _:. : is -yz i.

7~

(' 3~'

,Ay

,Q*

'.g y

}p y

,, _ y q? h_

..e am p

s N

gy{g[g r

3

,r u

f.

N!'s 9

4

,4 i

. p,',

- ' ~~ -

4

'g 2

lp q y.

g p

ze,

47 e:

g, w lo3.

Q:_1}^:'.. tl t

.J; =

L '-l%

y..

c- ;y s

.,p e-

's.

~

l

~

' ~ g, ~__

t {:_

_3,

y g.

z p

~

,4 t

(fg'rst* instance [ithe3p' rpdse of!my; origirial:($ffidavit wasYto;.

u a.

v:.

r x

+

w.

~

m.

... z. >

/,

demonstrate

the f appropriateness s of ? the ~continu~ed? use L of (the~

~

c

=,

r r

7 c.x '

4 3

o.

~

S

.,_.+Ts

-m L

J 42 5 ksi J yield i streng thifor[A500 Itube ateelk, The[CMTRidata:

. sp o :

t m

s..

presented Lin my,forigi'nadaffidavit was /forJ thel woraticasai 4

o V

s y

+.

.1 e -

t

/.

., - J(most highly' stressed,)isupports;_offthe samplefexamined.

6

-, w

~

1 -

'This~was;alreas'nablefapp. roach tofassess..the" impact"of the o

'.reductioniin) Yield, sti ength ;on ' the tube 'adeel fused fati Coman-' ~

u,,

t

$mw che Peak.;y Further'ifthef assumptionif 15%1redu~ction in :

,s

-b..

strengthiwas. re~asonal51e.. It ' was based on th~eireduction for; y e r1 '

i we'ldingfconservativ" ely" na,ssume'diby-the ASME. iIti simply was j

-= -

not necessary1to'perforh actual-' testing of the effect^of:

• ?

s i

welding ~to'make;aJconservative'assumstion.

In facti,fthe ASME :itself. had: not, performedf actual.. tests but made s - con-servativeoassumption'i-fa's. indicated.in it's reply to Appli-cants' inquiry (Reply 2, : Attached 1 to original: Affidavit):

"The Comm'ittee:: recognized that~the' yield strength ofLA500'in the cold wrought con-dition Jma be-slightly reduced in the heat affected zone ofaweldments.

The revised values, given...in N-71-10,'for A500 were those

-)

used for A501 and-A36 material which were l

selected as conservative values for A500 tubular shapes in the, welded condition.=

The revised values..may be changed at such time when material data -for the welded condition,-

a

as required.by,the Code, is presented to the Committee'for consideration." (emphasis i

added)

These facts are. simply more evidence of the conserva--

_tive nature of. Applicants' design and provide additional e

o assurance of the adequacy'of those designs.

In sum, x

L

=,..,

.w,,

,4._.,,.%._,~.y.4,,

,-.,,,o,_-y

.4 %..

.~..,,_...wc.,

,.%..,_%_,w.n

,,.,,ym...,_,mm..,,

w,

.n n X;-

p

% gy-7

- 1

'T

,m

- x A T ".y_.','*,g y g "u"

C van

< 3:. n.

- m n

' f j l_/,

j ;' }q,'

. y./.

~

-- L-vc:,.

- l[, Y3-Q'[ tK j 3

q

lN

' :.y W h ' 7m kr e-t s

1

• n

,7

~a

.. r

~ ' ',.

, _ f, Nlf ' ' -

- f 112 -

v

^,'.~,,

y

.+,

c

- )..

(, e

?.{,.

5

^'

?.

i r

Y

-4_

g jn

.,,s--_

i g-

Appl icants assumptions? regarding iactual?:pield J strengths fand,

_y

.sa e,

5 theTamounttofireductioniincy'ield strengthicaused'by M 1 ding s

w

~ u

~.

keere i botheasonablei and E conservadive. ;

u 3r

~

.ic:

1 -.

s

.s.

s gge x "

cAnEimportant?:additionala fa'ct concerningitheiactualx.

\\^

~

fyie.ld 1 strength 1 of - A500; tube f steelJis.that:: the L ASTM Speci f-

,.,,,3

' {icstion". from 3 shich the. ASME selected 1 the' 42$k$i: value.

Jt

.,+

~

.., ~

c Jactuallyf sets )forth -- two ; minimum :va'1_ueslofSyleid : stress Lfor

/

I'

. i A5'00- Grade. B Ltubing. E ( ASTM L Speci fication, / p. 5377 [( Attach--

d

+

g u.

.e

-. menti fH)). l The valuei or. round; structurali tubing;Iis d2 iksiM

~

f The vduel'for shaped } structural'_ tubing [('s' hich: Applicants T e

use)iis 461ksi'.1 The ASME:conservativelyfus'ed:only the11oser7

~

~

value.-for-allsA500 tube st' eel'.

Thus, tlie ASM'E's; reduced minimum _ yield; strength for.A500 tube steelTis actuallyi T

premised.on > a '.very conservative, yield value ein ' the -first-instance for shhped structural tubing.

Q.

Has CASE correctly characterized the calculations Applicants i

performed to -determine the interaction values using the'.

~

reduced aliceable stress?

.A.

.No.

CASE's allegations (Affidavit at-11-12) relatingfto Applicants' calculations are totally misleading.

CASEIN'-

correctly asserts that these calculations are part of the

' design calculations and should have been retained.

Hosever, Las indicated in Applicants' letter to CASE (quoted lin CASE's 1-1 Affidavit.at 11),fthese calculations-sere not part o'f the t.

design calculations-for the supports.

In fact, the r

a

-" calculations"' generally 1 nvolve the? simple matter of 1

t 1

P

. 4 -

+k, i

s 1

4 a--,

.-e.

.+6

+w -

a

[M-

'47.,E bO,

-. ~

z.,

.,.c-.-

5,_ L, L.3,. -.. y,[. E[

w,i

-,-...,m.m_.,,y...,_,,,w.,,

,yw,,,-

'L. g.,, ~r.g...

j U" g < l G p'~1

--q mt n

a-

.s m

h,y frW -

7[.k (j gl u

.;g, N ' bN N

h, } [k

..M.

i '

e 3

• -'AN n5

.~~n Jyp:-Q::. ?sy@ g,

sv c

r

=

s

", -.sQ^ X=

.:*r^:

j Q [3 j -? (

bk '

MuGf '

'a.

< (

-f

' '~

MJ

~ '

5 c.

N- _'~

fi

W

ww " '

r hkc-

~N_1

,D'A c

g r

i n

L*

'~

Sh.(

,b 5

c' k

, ~ - y, m~

+

s

\\p y[ y'f ;Ls,

u~e-

, e _ ; 12 3 _ "

i- ' : bO,,g

. M

,*T'

• N

+

g

+

~w"* Q's : 3p -

- y ~u

,, a, n.

sp: _ ".

x

f., Y '. w

~

s q

(

4 gng g'<

-b,s x--

1 3

i e

~

s s

.e q O

n 9

y f -,

," N 9'

4 J /7% P !.,

e 4% s._ <

.' lratiding; theistres's valuelfor?thei,higheistfitr%ssed' tube (

1

(

~

.n e,[g ah hY y

.r

(

.e..

,M. '

7 e., '"

J V

.T n.

s, f r ateelL memberi(,as ica,lcula ted Nin L the ' ex,, is ting,... [h9 support /designf

_7g ;

4..

e'..

s1 0.

c 7

W ( calculations;)....m.f with (thel. revised 7(u' sin _g,gthe revi,sedlyiAld( f 1

we

.1 w 2.

m..

-g.

m w

s 4

x, -

.~.,J6 y t.

.' cQ:: ' '

W ~

@0 istrength;forfA500)1 allowable.'?TheseVediculatio.ns'Ewere

^ '

x se::of p & L 3 M n l

. ~

(performed-s'implyz for;the purpo,

+

.,. J roviding;@atalfor?th&

.~

~

n

A500replyLand!arevnot)partfofstheL;suhp$htPediculation;J c.

pg

,._m.

-W p

~

~

- packages ( :Aistress ratio?s'ummaryishest;wassthen; prep _ared 4

~

.-t..

w :

lus'ing the fresulting - datia.-- : This [sunanary iway supplied : to?

m.

'C :...

e

s. o :

a y, '..,

iCASE): alongiwith additionalMsampleD"calcu'.Lation.. -

.... e....- _ c.w t., -. s";J to.5 s

a s. !

P' jde'monstratel to CASE _ h' w thel originalicalcula'tionisJwere? -

o s

s-v 4

, operformed.? (Theref was :noine~ed :or? purposeDto; retain 1 th'ei

+

..e.

originali ratios,f particularly/ becatiselthey could Ebetreadily;

~

v reproduced! fromcthe existingL d"esign -_ calculation's <att anyj s

time.; CASE is JincorrectilinD assertings( Affidavitf at l'2) 'tbat

~

t

- Applicants'should have retained f.hesei"originallcalcula-=

I

~tions". i n. addition,=Dr.'Chenfalso did'not review those:

original calcdlations, because ' they were not? retained.

Dr.

1 Chen che ed Applicants' data'by1 performing the. ratio ^ing

' described above and comparing those results with the stress--

ratio' summary, sheets for the supports, *hich have '

s supplied to CASE.

In-sumi; CASE's-claims regarding these calculations'are e

-invalid..

~

we+

,af-Y,-

y s'

+

a y;, _

e.

'/

,'4',

g e

1 s

1 s

',. M +.-

4.J.s -

.,.m

, - m 4 4

+4--

.m..-s

--.-,w..,,Am 4

,4

.. 4., e.,.m

+

y l

abf i,

N 0AW A

Q;'~; ~

==

&g - s.

x,

w" y_d ',.

s

_ ;13 ' ' f

~

m 4

t4.

A w

iQ.; LWha'thi'sl;your response tol CASE's;assertionsy ( Affidavit L at:

s

.12--13)l;regarding Applicant's' use tof'. leve1 ~

B'allosablesisith-

'leveliC? loads?-

r A'..

, CASE. Sgain; misunderstands the ' facts -concerning; Applicants' o

tuse ofJ these allosables and. the' purpo's'e Lof : noting ; this'.

~

6 practiceiin1.our reply? Again)}as I previously stated,-

. Applicants;frequentlyi-although--not:alsays,e use suchL

~

conservative' assumptions.-

Forfexample, 16 of the,19

supports.Dr.t Chen~ reviewed, or about 84%, used~ level B'

allosables 'sithLlevel C loads. -Thus,.although; Applicants do-

not alsays use this~ method, it's' frequent.use is an'-

additional 1 conservatism.-in ' the' design ' of a majority of the -

supports and provides further as'surance thatithere is no safety significance ~ to the use of the original A500. yield value..

With respect to CASE's comments regarding support CC- 028-704-A33A (Affidavit at 12), CASE has again erred-in their assessment.

To illustrate, se have attached the

~

sample ratio calculation for this: support-(Attechment'I).

In that calculation, the cending stress term uses a level C allosable of 28800 psi.

CASE, hosever, incorrectly claims

.that the stress ratio sould exceed-1 if level B allosables sere substituted.. CASE fails to point out, hosever, that

the axial stress 1allosable used, Fa, is already the level B 7

)

^

,. l-t s

T:

p.g

=

-~;

- - =

4

+

g,Y#33 n

y.1 yf i'

+

l

+

~,

p w-s+

~-

n

'il

> m,

e T

c_ ;14 y_.

s

'm 8

i3

-}

~

)

>.. - ^

z

(;;

Tallowable.V"Substitutingjtheilevel B.lallowablefforlbendir g.

~ ',

~

• 4, rJ'-'-

l y.

(stress $(21,648 $psih does' yieldf anYint'eractioniof 61ess ' than :-

..["

+

6

.f-

, Ll. 0, i contrary ;j to LCASE ' s 0 cla'im; '

[

(

i ' s

.r

.g.

b i

+

~

f17655i+ 62899WOj97 '

y 121648> t18900:,

3

^

. :A.

Thisi.is ifurt!her evid$nce of !the Econservatismiof Applibantsf

[

'I design prcicess[inithAt eve'n using5the ;1ower:f leveljBlallow- -

l able with theirevised$ A500) yield? strengtih k(neither?of?.which:

. assumptions ar'e-frequired)J in aTdesign Lfor which thei assump -

4 i

3 tions;were,not' originally..made, the int'eraction value'!l's

~

1 still lessi than 1.0.

Finally,J.with respec't to CASE's comment.-(Affidavitaat c

13) that;the calculations (providing ? the, above-described'-

ratios) were " incomplete" because they did not note the.

particular level of allowable.!or stress, I'Lnotelonly that'

-these.are not design calculations'and, thus,'_there was-no need to specify such information Mr the limited. purpose.of.

these calculations.

O.

Wh'at'is-your-response to cat.?'s

., 3nt (Affidavit at 14) lthat the ASME int' ended-that testing "as required by the c

. Code- be performed before - use of the original A500 yield '

strengths would..be permitted?

A.-

As.I previously.noted,-the ASME stated in their response to 3

Applicants' --in~quiry that if they had considered'there to be Ja potential--safety concern with the use 'f the original

- o l%;;

p as:

9 t^;

~

3( '

j.

-N

y'

,y

~' q,.h l.

_w.

+"-

if.

~.

c

' ~ -^

J l'

$, +;~

a

-_ n

~'

y

151.-

s.:

N

~

y-t s

e C

b,

yieldL values, Lthey would shave 1 published a?noticef to; th' t?

F a

e'f fec t.

It appears]thatfin'- thelq'uot'edIport'ioniof ftheir

~

li terprehation the ~ASMEjsimply meantithktOif tests tare

~

c-m Jperformed, on: A500.::st'eeC 0theyi should b' Lconducted - in '-

e i

.n accordance':with ASMEstest procedures.-

~

f.Whatjis your;responseTto1 CASE's!c.ommentsyregarding-Q.-

J

^

(Applicant's'.' l inquiry.to f the. ASME? -

~

g A.

?

.I:have.~only'a-brief~ comment regarding-CASE's remarksi concerningithe ASMEfand: Applicants'-' inquiry'(Affidavit ati s

14$15).:- ?Not - onlyfis j CASE totally ' incorrect inr its -

~

~

~

assertions, : but? theEimplications. of its remarks lare wholly -

Jimp' oper'..

r Further,I Applicants' - in~quiry was 'submitited just be' fore

.the ASME quarterly meeting, addressed at that meeting and:

the determination then forwarded' to Applicants.. Finally, Applicants' inquiry, including the suggested reply, was in-accordance with the ASME's standard procedure.

Thus, CASE's claims in this regard are unfounded.

Q.

Finally, the Board has inquired as to the cause of the" delay in providing documents to CASE regarding A500 steel.fol-lowing CASE'.s selection of the criteria for providing calculations for a sample of supports.

What is your-

- response to that ' inquiry?

a A.

cAs indicated by the-dates of the-ratio calculations provided to CASE, and attached to their Affidavit, Applicants begin s..

gathering - the. material 'for-CASE promptly after CASE provided q

~

+

(

gy g

=

=;

h Q.

c 5I"

.1 ; '

~'7;

7. )',-

w-

,a +

a

~

r

g

.

t, i,.w.,

_ 3;m _

c y/

r -

u...-

s 1

- 16? -

~

+,

~

~

. thejeriteria !.for'. its isample on Julyf29,U1984. ;' Simply-~

1 ibeca'useioffthe'. press:of other' matters,jincluding' preparation >

1 x.

.. ~

j loflother materialifor? the : Staff f and c Cygna,j.:and ' documents (for'.

+

l-CASE, as wellLasip'erforming the routine -responsibi'lities' ~of? '

my position, w' re 7we. not tabl'e'. to, provide n..the material '

7U

.e sooner.-

A

.' John. C. '. Finneran, -. Jr.

v I

Subscribed f.and " sworn ! to -:before meD this :jday of. November,i 1984 i.

l

Notary Public Al s2.gned.. signature page will 'be forwarded : under separate cover.

~

4 i

s 1

4

_O

~

s

.-: 3

-E

,r ~ ~..

1Attbchm:nt AL

/

y

.c

. n

il ;.}y

.b Jf,

~,ITTGiinnal!Corpomfitur

'L c:-

Executive Oll ices /

I2bD WestExcIssycStreet I Providence,;BlunicIsidnd0?901; PipeHange?Dhhion (401) 831-7000:

m Apri l [4,- ~ 1983 --

+

x American LIn:.titute of "StcelhCons'truction, Inc.

'400 HortirMichign Aveinici Chicago, '!L ~ : 606il Attention Mr.-W.-A. Milek,-Jr., Vice President, Director of-Engineering'-

Centlemen:

Rc: - Lisage of cold-fornied welded and seamless carbon steel structural tubing in rcunds and shapes,-ASTM A500.

The purpose of this correspondence is! to confirm, 'in writing,)ths results of-

- cur teleplant conversation of 3/30/83.

Those result's will:be;sumarized.es:

~

1) cven t hough the A!5C Manual of Steel" Construction 'in specification section-l.5. I'.4.1 si.isultics that r::cmbers must be hot-rolled, ityisithe _ intention. of A1SC that' AF.i? 1400 is' applicable for usage with respect to the provisions of '

tir ' AISC spvification fur the design, f abrication and erection of structuralL

-teel.f or lu:ii di,c e : and 2) the AISC specification re:; sires that tu material yiel,1 p) int used in cm.ign, F. is the ASTM specified -yield point'_of tha y

= n:qerialititiM-cny credit being taken for the increase in yield pair.t t hat v e>ults f ras u.lc s.oi kirig; i.e. 42 ksi for ASTM A500 at 103* F.

A -lriter of coni,ir. ration would be appreciated. Thank you for your assistritice and cooperation.

Very~truly,ou{s,.

..y,,.c G Il a :. 4 / A Rayn:ond E. bandeville, P.E.

Senior finalysis Engineer In f:/r .i

Attachment.B 4 *

!*g.

m j o, ; '

O I

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ~ STEEL CONSTRUCTION,INC.

e y

/[

. The Wngley Building'/ 400 Notth Michigan Avenue / Chicago. ithnois 606114185 / 312

• 670 2400-

+

f April-8,fl983 Raymond E. Mandeville, P..E.-

"^-7.'

Senior Analysis Engineer

~

I'lT Grinnell Corporation 260 West Exhange St.,

Providence, RI 02901-

Dear Mr. Manderville:

- The interpretation stated in your letter of April 4 is 'an = accurate summary of our telephone conversation of March 30, 1983, and is an accurate statement of the intent of the AISC Specification relative l

to ASTM A500 steel.

Very truly yours, fffhn W. A.~ Milek Consultant WAM/jf R

un6n EW6Ki L

RECEIVED 8 1

PIPE H.tt:GER DIVISIO APR1:11983

~

no n c P/S ANALYSIS i

j

,,-,..,.~_.v,

.m._.we-.-n,,,....

-,w--

Attachment C

_r a

weksed bog

!=-

=-

Division

~

Manualof Ferried Blded

~

Struiral Steel

~

' Mlu FIRST EDITION

~

ge 3,

T s

g.

4 BEAMS

,1 Cold Formed Welded Structural Steel Tubing 2

. Allowable loads in the tables that follow, used as simple beams, give the total allowable uniformly distributed loads in ' kips for laterally supported steel beams. The tables' are based em the nilowahle stresses in necordance with the American Institute of

.9 Stcci Construction Specification for the Design, Fabriention and I:rection of StructuralStect for 13uildings, dated February 12,1969.

Separate tahles are presented for F, = 46 and F, = 50 kni. The

- tabulateel lomis include the weight of the beam, which shouhl be derluctcel to nrrive at the net loarl the beam will support.

^

Unless noted with an asterisk, all sections tabulated are com-pact scetions as defined in Section 1.5.1.4.1 of the American insti-tute of Steel Construction Specification for the Design, Fabrication und h*rection of Structural Steel fluildings. dated February 12, IDG9.

~

. wit h an nilowable beniling at ree 'of 0.66 F,.

The value in paren-theses at the bottom of the lumi column inclicates the allowable stress (in ksil used to taliutate Llye lonels for non-compact sections.

The tables are also applicahic to laterally supporteri simple henms for. concentrateel loneling conditions.- Refer to the AISC Manual of Steel Constructirm. Seventh Edition, " Allowable I.oarl on Beams," concentrated load contlitions.

It is assumed in all cases of rectanguhir sections, that the loads are applied normal to the X-X axis. shown in the tables of properties of rectangks and that the beam, square or rectangle, deflects vertically in the plane of hending only. If the contlitions of loading involve forces outsitic of this plane, allowahle loads must he determincel from the general theory of flexure in accorrlance with the character of thr lonel anel its moric of appliention.

r inclurled in the tables nrr the elellections for the beams of various spans supporting t he full inhulated allowable lumix. These deficctions are calculated with the tabulated allowahle loads.

It is to be noted that in some cases the rlellections nre in excess of 1.360 of the span length.

l Wpt.950 STEEt, TUBE sNSTITUTE

y:

3 y

t a

e

..s 4*

Where spans are short. the loarls are limitcel by the shearing strength;of the webs inutcarl of. the maxiiiumi lu mlitig st resx per-

..L J-mittert in the flanges. This limit is inclicaterl~in the tahh s hv a 5

siirl horisontal line. I,omis shown above Ihese lines will procluce Ihe maximum allowahle shear on ihe wch< of Ihe iubes. ' ~

The loarls in the tables.wcre computerl on the basis 'timi the compression flange was laterally supporictl. Tubes are. torsion-ally very stifT. 'especially when conmarcel in W beams, Since a-square tube is symmetrical about the two principal axes, it is not subject to torsional lateral buckling anel clocs not require lateral' braving for the compression flange. ' Deflection will le the govern-ing contlition, llectangular ; tubes, timugh highly resistant to torsional Interal buckling, shouhl have lateral supimrt for the por-tions of the' compression flange in hentling. Section 1.5.l A.4 of the -

American Institute of Steci Construction Specification for the Design.

- Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel fluildings, <latcri Vchru.

ary 12.1969, requires lateral bracing for non-ccmipact - box-type flexural members at intervala not exceerling 2500 7, times the flange w irit h.

At time of this printing. the AISC Specification Ativisory' '

Committee is consirlering an appropriate provision for lateral brac,.

ing npplicahic to compact imx. type flexural members in hentling.

Colci Formeel Welricci Structural Steel Tubing is prottucert to minimum yicht strengths of 46 ksi anel 50 kai uncler specifications ASTM A500, Grnric 11 nnel ASTM A500. Gratic fl mortifierI* respec.

tively.

• At time of this printing, a proposal has been submitteri to The Amerienn Society for Testing anel Ma t erials. Subcommittee A01.09 requesting a Grarle C, with a 50 ksi minimum yichi point.

\\

_ p phm_stM i > H 88 * '" ? !t H" -

.:;--~ M *.=*

Attachment D s.14

• AISC Specification

-;q 1.3.7 Minimum Loads 1.4.2 In the absence of any applicable building code requirements, the loads C

referred to in Sect. 1.3.1,1.3.2,1.3.5 and 1.3.6 above shall be not less than.

editio those recommended in the USA Standant Building Code Requirements fo,. a Minimum Design T=h in Buildings and Other Struhures, USASI A58.1, ~

latest edition.

? P.;

.1 SECTION 1.4 MATERIAL j

1.4.1 Structural Steel 20

(

with 1.4.1.1 Materialconforming to one of the followinglisting (latest date >

ofissue) is approved for use under this Specification-editic i

' N Structural Steel, ASTM A36

\\

Welded and Seamless Steel Pipe, ASTM A53, Grade B

- d.!{

High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel, ASTM A242. ~ ~ '.

\\

High-Strength Low-Alloy Hot-Rolled Steel Sheet and' ASTM A375

--7 High-Strength Structural Steel, ASTM A440

'*Q Tt High-Strehsth Low Alloy Structural Manganese Vanadiuss Steiil, ASI'M A441 1*

with Cold Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Strudural 7% big lS in Rounds and Shapes, ASTM A500 1

Hot-Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural 7%bing, s Risee ASTM A501 v

1 Structural Steel with 42,000 psi Minimum Yield Point, ASTM A529 f&

Hot. Rolled Carbon Steel Sheets and Strip, Strudural Qualsty, ASTM A570, Grades D and E

,; 2 3,4,4 High. Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-Vanadium Steels of Structural

}

I

' '*J d

Quality, ASTM A572

'I* **

High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel with 50,000 psi Minimuss' YieLi Point to 4 in. Thick, ASTM A588 m

High-Yield Strength Quenched and Tempered Alloy Steel Plans Suitablefor Welding, ASTM A514. (Quenched and tempered alloy steel structural shapes and acamless mWe=1 tub meeting all of the mechanical and chemical requirements of A514 steel, except that the speci6ed maximum tensile strength be 140,000 psi for structural shapes and 145,000 psi for seamless, mechanical tubing, shall be considered as A514 steel.)

g Certified mill test reports or certified reports of testa made by the fabrl -

)

cator or a testing laboratory in accordance with ASTM A6 and the governing fornq specification shall constitute sufLcient evidence of conformity with one of 3,4,3

' the above ASTM specifications. Additionally, the fabricator shall, if quested, provide an affidavit stating that the structural steel furmshed mee the requirements of the grade specified.

j 1.4.1.2 Unidentified steel, if free from surface imperfections, may be y,g used for parts of minor importance, or for unimportant details, where the precise physical properties of the steel and its.weldability would not asy

shd the strength of the structure.

AtL i-e

_ ~ _ _ _ _... _ _

~^

.?

s

- = = -

Attachment E STRUCTURAL TUBING L

Square j'

j" 4

i

, pope es Dimensions.and properties B

e la.*

In.

. DIMENSIONS PROPERTIES

~

,,ye; zee 1 -

s

=

acel-we. T,*,nese 117

.041

.20 In.

in.

th.

In.'

In.*

In.s In.

137

.071

• 336

.10 X 10

.6250 73.98 21.8 104.

60.7 3.74 a

.133

.421

.5000 60.05 17.9 260.

52.0 3.81 23

.235

.5e

.3750 47.03 13.8 208.

41.7 3.88

10

.326

.628

.3125 Me

$39.74 11.7 179.

35.1 3.92

.2500 t32.23 9.48 148.

29.6 3.95 46

.561

.78p

.1875

- Ms 124.50 7.21 114.

22.9 3.98 3

1.06

.90 3 X4

.6250 56.98'-

16'.8 142.

35.5 2.91 2

1.22 1.16 9

2.39 3.34

.5000 47.35:

13.9 124.

31.1 2.995

.3750 36.83 10.8 102.

25.4 3.06 3

3.21 1.51

?

.31.*5 31.24 -

9.19 88.1 22.0 3.10 5.Q 1.88 S

.2500

$25.44.

7.48 73.4 18.4 3.13 8.O 2.25

.1F76

. Me,

.r19.41;:

5.71 57.2 14.3 3.17 16.8 2.94 29.9 3.67 7 ^X7

.5000 "

' 40.55 Y D..

-79.2 AM6 2.58 7, %

31.73 '

L S.33..

65.6 J.8 2.65

.3750 43.8 4.38

.3125 Me '

26.99

'.7.94 57.4 16.4 2.69

.2500 22.04-6.48 48.1 13.7 /

2.72

.1875 Me t16.85 1 4.96 37.7 10.8 '

2.76 i

5

. 085

.321 6X6

.5000 34.48 10.1 48.6 1 2 2.19 0

.044

.258

.3750 27.04 7.95 40.5 13.5 2.26 3125 Me 23.02

' ~6.77 35.5 11.8 2.29 6

.161 407

.2508 18.82 -

5.54 29.9 9.95 2.32 2

.291

.524-

,1875

%e

$14.41,.

1

.su

.606

'.4.24 23.5 7.83 2.35 6

5 X5

.5000 27.68

8.14 25.7 10.3 1.78 8

.731

.766 j

.3750 21.94 6.45 22.0 8.80 1.5 g,34

• E

.3125 Me 18.77 5.52 19.5 7.81 1.88 2.23 1.14

.2500 15.42 4.54 16.6 6.64 1.91 3.14 1.31

.1875 he 11.86 3.49 13.2 5.28 1.95 -

4.27 1.48 4 X4

.5000 20.88 6.14 11.4 ~

5.70 1.36 7 43 1.88

.3750 16.84 4.95 10.2 5.10 1.44 22 2 2.19

.3125 Me 14.52 -

4.27 9.23 4.61 1.4) 24.5 2.88

.2500 12.02 3.54 8.00 4.00 1.50

.1875 Ms 9.31' 2.74 6.47 3.24-1.54 39.4 3.63 N*I 4 33 3% X 3%

.2500 10.50

• 3.09 5.29 3.02 1.31

.1875 hs 8.14 2.39

'4.29 2.45 1.34 3 X3

.2500 8.80 2.59 3.16 2.10 1.10 1.10

.703

.1875 6.86 2.02 2.60 1.73 1.13 2 X2

.2500 5.40 1.59

.766

.766

.694 3.42 1.05

.1875 Me 4.31 1.27

.668

.668

.726 6.79 1.37

• 0utside dim *ae8*as serose viet sides.

12.1 1.72 t Non<ompact sectlen for 7,== 36 kai and 7,== e6 ksi, bending only, 2g,3 3,g g 37,3 g,yg 3 Mon <ompact section for F,== e6 hal, bending only.

I Sectlene evbioeted to estal compreeenen or compression due to bending should be checked for lADerede0erAW1.

eemp4&ence wth Speelfleetion Sect. L9.2.2.

e wimmreacturere er

,e AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ST(EL CONSTRUCTION

...y I

t

v. y..; 3 9 : w., g,. ( l j. _l.

(::( :. q.3.;.y.,;.g a y g (

,.n y p,

...s

l H

jl J)q

]lf 0(3 l

gy

,8 n

d I

v.,

Y.~-

i N%

o F

h

, w

=

=

go[

M O_

y t

1. e

_ E v

i w

v

[

Ja

.f r

R0 T_.

3 R

e i

s s

'n.7 a.

u n%l. A.

e E

s s

t a M

_i w-.s6 n u

E s

• 1 L

t G

. r H'

u t

io 56 e

S e.

n a

r t

b p-QW t

C

. /. i.

p t

F O " a.n t

m g

r U

- i t N. " c. o

.e N-i m v g

s /.

s O

PI

.v.

. i

i. n y

c r

U$

/

n n

H i

g F

e T'i l

T NC F

y

_i et w

g O

- t

. O S

t

\\9 s

g h

C R

F

_r

. i -t e

g, O a

iR E. c_ O A

N

_i4 p

. N I

I t

?

R 1L R

MmO_J e

N F E

I U

O t

~

O A H

Q

. m n

M n

C T

H S

Y E4 O R N-r

_w w n K

T E

C N

C 6e TE H E E.

m r.

T O

N D n

o O

SO RO K H-.

" t a

h G

_m g

n COJmA c_

w M

E E

E I

N

)

f c

N wt M S S-t 7,3,G T e

6 K

T w

v e

t f

I n

1 n

n m

n S

I G

R L

_s l

e A

R.

w"4 Di D

I F

n

/

"" v E.1F

<n,~

U m

k S

f i

e E

_tt t

N f

t E

O E *"

l A

O I/

N ai 1

P t

a E

C D

E C

J*

e h

)

E I

+

N 0

0 m0*M n

E 1

G S

N ?

r S

a 4:

O

• y 1

1 N

1 I

v" 3

e N

T o1 h.

I M

p o*

m A e

S r

0 O

S e

.eu Ft N

f T

o 0

1 D

IT S

P I

2 P

Ct e

C T3 mM R

n n)s, A

tn5.

4a OI a 5 R

3 M

4 4

I A

N

)

)

wt I C H

R i

n T

7 7

R O

C ?.

t e

R e

mR eM a a.

A o o E

C e

G G

S l

r R

t R

S S nE "

Gu o

C 3

ad P

D O

T 0

0

- e B

T 7

h' e

C E

A rhr F

N R

E s

N m TA O

E I

0 0p00o%

k K

atn P

S 1

C O LI B

. ^

5 5

A C

A A. a5Tl 4i A. p-9 g

~-

Rt S M E

(

A i1 w 0

ts LI O

wSmA 6K Y

0 fne T

J L V. c

(

L o eu D EIV t

S S

N EH 1

f

(

M =

BG 2

er N

D L

E S

s S. m (

MA 9

tr A N W i R e S

T t G

=,

1 7 AI E

T.

Te t

ET 0 aea NR N g

P - H SD -

c1w S

E z

a

'X 4 R

r'loAi S

1 o

r w

1e A

'. lf E.

P 4

.. fA AN C L

RIG WI s.

w ya

'4 "6

T I

v

="

ata AIR N A c

t z

xW6-s A C P

A nae GA R r ?

g 3

e 0

g Tx n0 C. #

n w t.

M Cu"

, "e e "4 n o1d I t zl x 45 oi x l HL yeo E

H D I

o 's Mn l

SU K T T o

e,D ;g t "4 l vc e

m O

j g

l" e98 b L s R no A

E F.

7 Sn I 4" e

c

=

v t,

- 8n6=

r

/W / o./W a e/W Lu A nb.

M TP o

i g'f l

t1313T cS 3l 5a M Aas I I E

0 7

I a

Erh R

E b' P

Sr i

u R

MsT O

LD a

A t

F EE.

I 2

}

4 5

6 O

IN PE V 2 3 4 T

ITE O

g p I)

P SR 1

/

1 E.

D.

Q 8 y

f n

• N E'

l f

1. @g' e

~

c 4 o v

S B. A f

~

f a -

R W

.o_

k3 d 1ne O

u n6 r 0i l

R R

/, G S

y.

nLw a

i R

o

.1 P g 'T c O. H e P

t dF 7

P T

t A

6 NE c

m i

T

) E RgS a N.

t n

O ijA oR gP M

o I

E r*

nUsiE S md F

i is a

C M dgo s0 edta 1

eh

- A t

2 f

3 5

e0r c

ES t

5 2

cAuo w o-f_

• i st o

PA 2

^u t

@)

L S

. b s, r, t c

. z 5

n2dt

- c. 1 fly N

c a ece L

F r#c uc I

y N

.gt ePodn oS O A OI T MXT.

l lCroa sI PE.,.

Y S o

1 L

T S oQFrdprm o

! DAE U R A 4E t

y h.

wP T F S A

gC P L

,ltblclialce G

D P I (

I A I N fa C

C

1. k

,4' (r g*4 y AwFAa)l C

O a,{

I DE R

1

))

, 1 23 (I f.

HO gy) h7-l T C f__

k ie ~~

2 r

3 F-u~

y

-.(N.7 ^7 d~

H e

c~

s 2

o r~

o

_t_

S P~

/[i

- ~

F r

m.

p 'I

\\

c 2-Q kN o

3.e.

I I

r F

c 8

1r K_c 0

d 7

%q(\\

T,'

s c'

l t

o e

3

_T I

l 7

(

g

~

., g Ctg N

.W -

o r

t

'y o

d n

e{ 9 l

D. o M

W 8

ge p

o

)

. )

h hrr S

t gl f

(

e I

y @ECC'444 l

!. O > J

{

.=

s

)

)

4

'j

)

,ll'

jdllfI l

, _I[-

Q

~

jl i

l

\\-

i]!

1 11]!

1 lf l

g

_. ~

,y w*

e

• g.

. gg 3

a fg r

'C o_

T F

i 4

3 i

O_

s y

e.

4 V.

g gg J

M s

c x

x u

_1E I

w 'g E

v 1

.e T_

R

e6d 4

_Y -

s.

7I r

a

_ m E

A m

_FL 4

0

/

E E

M H

s0'

• S a

_ n e e

fE a n=

S P#

t d

C 3

t e

iL r

r

/

1 m

F 1

c

/

r n R

t t

n a v IH i

e N. "

I

_0 U 1 n n F

t o u

..O P

r 9

s-i n

5' S

1J R

i w

n T" s

y H

N S

.l 5 a:

eN r-F r

F a

r A

ll!l TO c

.O l

M E

7r WO 2

U O

1 4

I 2

L

.HM 1

e A

N LL

/

C O

x 9

9 m

l R

E

. N

/

7

.1 e

I N

F 1t N - n r

E RM O

Q O A N H

_EI O

M C

H S

Y ORN K

T E

R

)

)

C T

R U C

B 5

)

0 t

C N

C TE R

E_ E B

G E

0 c

s a

T O

N D SDB 5

r R

R R

N l

L5 r

n%E I

N rE t

I l

A K H E

l RO r

1 o

C G

G o

t s

a

.I5 R.

t IG T

COJ M_S S K

T A

n 0

0 0

t l s

.R e n F

5 h

G'sR L h

5 T

e i

O c

0 0

0 t.

S I

yt D

I

.E5 S "I U

e E"uE G

S A

5 5

M i

N

c. w-A h v E

O A

I f

N ct F

I D

E S

I r

e A

A A

G E

C a

N

c. it nh a y -

S N

N T

o t

(

(

(

E i

w t B -

S

1. e e+

O 4

M E

n i s OI I

64 r

a g

e l

S T

S 31 c

n n

n D

I e

O e

T e e A

N n

i i

i N

O AWo b

b b

A o d v

e N

s v

c 3

P K

u b

o

'h o :

M R

I C

R C

STC u

u5 u

r r

a t p

r e I

ro E

(

T T0T H

J T

l o

C P

T

.k 1

r C

4 C

Pt t

t P a A

o S

O N

l ei l9t

- lo T

A E

g f

p s A D R

S F

f E

E #

I enw a1 aWat O

E

. D l' o e u E

N R

A e o. te r -

rTr-K J

(

uWu uW S

L c r P

R Tt T C.

t x

O LI B

^

T S

i tTt

.tT U

E ' 'plf)

C A S

Y a e a LI M

. cec.

BG4 cl e

D EIV U

S t

c L

J S

o

/

unu E

n0t u

L N

E H' L

R o1i r

rn 5

j e r o. t n

MA U N

D

'td nt1 A

b H

t A N i

c r

S oS S o.

ET e

I E

a 'O "2 n a e S

A G

a S

E I

R L

t NR N

e m&

P o m t 6

SD

)

1 3"

AN L

m y e o L RG N

e E

"4 C

t o

I a

"2 u / x "4 I

T P

e/

A L

w e,

t1 x

^

A "o s l

v c AIR N

A t

C m

u

/

1"

/

"41")133 GA R

a c g;

M C

tuPx4 x x

x HL s o

^

)

IE f

I i51 ob e

6" t

SD E

A ab E

H O

s H

4 -

IN K

T T e "

" 1"46 "4 "2 )

r S

y na EU A

u A

E F.

21 7

Y

'o o e, E

/5/1 /'/'/'

M TP E

S 161f1i1O1t SB M

s j

P R

E

/s, I I O $

T R

A A %

O iL D

F O

1 2

3 4

EE N

PE V

U 1T E

0 2 3 4 l

P SR g

ak p#

3 b'S

'q N

t I

'L

~4 zs N

8" O H-d-

e

_S

-5

~~

',ol mY ITE

~

T' Z

o r

" N %,

.. c A

CA 5

V f

2 C

EA g

5*

M PS 8

E c.

c_

s O

INA L

S t.

o K

Nb t

i.s G

4 YS y~~-

A. c%

dc-a T S rD R A

{

=

.L s

/

o c

A u,

l o-3 P L y-y) g f

~

• 4 C

C D

I l

fP [

E f

R D

%g gA l

f IH O a

t

, JI

-(

Z T C YI M A~

i.lg

_r>

(~

-[l

, LI

~

y pv g

~

b a

eMQ.;

M, <, 1 ay e

o z

4

M f'. t s

. c.

s j

t n

4 t-4 i.

Am J

u*n w

h h1.d c

A e E' t

i

~

h l

4hh

~

s n*;*.7 t

t

- s l

C

. ~

a 6I

• ., I t

.. * * *. ~ -

- lmY"t g

u n.

e

\\#

- *a i

• 8 o

},

1 m

M4

?

/'

s

- T 2

3 s

I r-M M : - :.

.4 4i Y' E m i s

E u

eR I[t

-_L r

- p A

t

-. w. "T l'.

s I' g

't os Wm g, h g

,l

?

P F.

t 9

yL r

• A a. u 43 t g s

=#

Nin ti O

cgy,OdJ8C

/,

e448 r

p e '

t

.l' l

I 5

..j,

> h n....

f..

,. c5 a.u.'

!,rh@Qg ' ', ?. -i. gg.'f;;ER@., - w xA M W W I M _

J i.

l T

ne g &

c..,.

pir..

^

...,.. n Sw w%k__ 'k. MEE:u m.%, a.,.Q;u.:.

at.

...a

.m.m-

-_.m, m.

h A 500 r

TAstr : o d a-.

place of manufacture to amure conform

• L, the requi,Isments of this specsAcasion.

compoe w AH t:bing shall te free freen defects g,g,,,,,,

c,a, c t'"""

au have a workmaalike naisk.

Hess Produce Heat Produce

,l Surface imperfecteoes shan be classed

^ "'7"'

^ **8 "8

- ^"*'7"'

^ "'7**

7 cts whea their depth reduces the remais- -

C*"***

aH thickness to less thaa 90% of the {

E24 -

aJo o 23 a27 Masasse. mas s.33 a.o Pheophoewt man 5os dO 0.04 oos

' ed Sominal waU.

2 $2rface iroperfections sack as han. f o o.S q

s.tr.r. ma aos 3

aos go 3 e not considered defects providing the a$.

j) 3 arks, light die or roll marks, or shauow CoPPW. *ima #PPn mal u spm2Gd. mm a20 RIs a20 0 is ectaoos are removable withis the mini-a Tast 2 Tenene seipdeman

<au permitted. The removal of such sur j i

Rauas sin.ci.rei T hms

{

- perfectionsisnotrequired.Weldedsub j; i

crede A crede e ordee su be free of protruding metal on the q [

surface of the weld seas.

a Teamie== sin.== pm awP :

45 oso(3 ion se ooo14 con 62 coni 427:

The ends of structural tubing, unless.

l

. Yield usength, man, pre iMPe) 33 con #228) 42 Goo (2909 46 000 (3,73 ise speciGed, shall be finished square cut M]

Elmsmm m 2 m Isas met am 4 23*

23" 2 t' e burr held to a minimum.The burr cas q m Ped sir ci = T.h g noved on the outside diameter, inside -

crede A crede a crede e ter, or both, as a suppleinentary require-Taale maneia. m pa(MPop 43 coot 3 ion se cootaooi 62 0o0a427:

• When burrs are to be removed, it shau Y'dd ""'8'" "* P"s(me't m.m.

• MP) le ooo(2ee:

4e aos13171 50 cos(34s:

Elassanoa = 2 in. tsa 2s' 23' 2"

. c Aed on the purchase order.

g.

^Pphes es spea6ed web thackmasses 0.130 m (3 Os mm) and over. For west inachasenes under 0.120 in ihe menemum (J

rMvest of the purchaser is the e'yes shad he ceiculased by the formula: pement eiengessen in 2 in. = ser + 17.1 4

e C1 or order, a manufaClurer's Certif4Calios Apphes to specs 6sd watt thschaemes 0.8 so in.14.57 mal and over. For weH thectnesses under 0 lso n the manemum

,e mit: rial was manufactured and tested dop^a.a sham he ceas=im.e by ihe r.,==4 Pe== eco=sin 2 in. - ser + 12.

ordance with this specification together.

,,,,,g" ",fjyk=ms ai20 m (10s mas ud out. For bgher eu ihnhanen, alongmien sh.g he les report of the chemical and tensile tags

. Non-The rosa.mg tw. si'a <Mcialmd maai=== eMun ret hinsaadad ariP =

a furnished.

o.

Elongoeson sa 2 is. I50 8 met Wall thecknees, em4 in. tems

i Grade A crede B g

aiso (4.37) 23 Each length of tubing received from the' a16s 44 ts 22 facturer may be inspected by the pur(

c. t48 s176:

21

r and,ifit does not meet the requi

• 'Q,'

g

(

l I sis specincation based on the ',

aice (2.77) 23.s 19

est method as outlined in thespecif 0 oss 42 411 23 is l.

0 082:2 181 22 17 ength may be rejected and the maas shall be notified. Disposite. of rejected

$$3 2

ig shall be a matter of agreement betwest s c o33 to s,i l6 t

i,.3 i,

l 1 Tubing found in fabrication or is is"Q' i

ranufacturst and the purchaser.

g,g,g 3 3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

son t3 be ansuitable for the intended, 5,,,,,,,,y,,,,

the scope and requirements of thie~

22 a sk? m)

T,1,,,,,,,

l on, may be set aside and the end undw

, notified. Such tubing shau be se

al investigation as to the natsse our Undse o.w under of the danciency and the f.

g g

l 1: tion, or both, conditions involvesL.

,,,,,,,,,,,,, g,,

,g

,g,

( on shall be a matter for agreement '

m.a sensin, a tems i

1 j

377

,<4"".*...

4

.~. -

4

...m.v. yx,w y..

.g

.,.-,--.--w*,,,--,,----__,,,,,,-...-..,.--,me,_,,www-v,---

,-..--...-,,y

,. -I

c;

=

.Attachmen't I 7

m SERVM II K -

CDMANDE PEAK S.E.S. -

D "10 M'

- Agust For -

pu e ene, Il e,

DALLAS POWER & UGHT COMPANY

.]

~

c., g y p -

MXAS IUCTRIC IIRVICE COMPANY

.h a

TEXAS POwIR & LIONT COMPANY oroessse. s,.

o a se am m.. -

. QO F-o9A

• 70 4 - A *rM A lA M

' fire / Im=k 111

-l i

l !

l l.

1 Nt 55 PAebab 1

'1 i i-

,,4-

=i.-D/*E 6 I

1ll l

lF -

t i L886d ! :lBabhe "

L I l l l o i 1

-l 1

i-i I L

i i i

i I I i

-l-

. I I

I i i l,l I.

I I

H -l l i WW.

l., L ! ! l a *hA8585 h Li !

J/. I i FA*5e;

=s-

/,

• h 7 S "i / 4 ( A l 'i i 1 I I i !

i 'l lI f !-

-l !

Ii

~ "

i.I i :

l l i ! ausm# 2 l'i/ 9 s M i n n i h r.: koirs i

I '.

I i ! !

i i I '

I I i I 'i - l I i1 I

i i i

ii!

I I i i

'i l 1 l' M i d :A dif*-i.=s de ma b 7.T. /,M :

l.i i i: I ! l.:.l.

t. ; i :. ; ! I 1.J-; 1 I

l l

l-1 1

~

a..,yy.. f-gc. ( pt,...:.. p.y ;.. :; y.yy,. p.y.7.y.r.T'.? *T ;' t 4Wiv'*** '****%

lw.;.w:x.:

~

..,..<., 7.B.200== f $2JE xs d ( 6_M (4 S S b

>2. 4. R

/,. <

.,..,.py.i p..,, 3..,,...,4. p.,,.,.. r. :..,..,,,.,,..,

i

i. :

.: i i : ' : :

i.i.!

j r ; i : ri

.r

.u.

. w,g

... n.3rg, gye, :

75... % ga poo ?.

, ;..a.

~

j

.7

, i,,. i.

4"'.

i.

O. fs /1 ' nn --i.si n=nc. x.t %

I :

i

~-

~ $* $ $ ]

. =

MtU'rlp u e/L 'rD M N D_G;e.5W s u.a.J ii : i i ! i i i

6 i

+

i.

ie i s

i e

1: +.. r.:..<ca..h.~,.<

• t.'L....,,,J 2,'.o m ( 2_.5 6,)t

..., s.'....... I...') A41

==. E s==.

2 1 /A9tf 1

.. ~,..

..-<.s.>-

. '.s... f s.s...a1.a:.

• . ~ ~

a ~.

a..3 a.:

f Wh,6c=#s /== if I /.8S"/JI 14 'I 32A / 3>ul <t P i' '

~;}.,....

...,:.. :t,e..

r...

s l.i. l. l'. l " 1. r. e (..J. i.: 4 '

)

.. :..,,.'e :

.1. i. 1. :l '.

.i. ) il l ' i

.w i i*

i i.

i

~

1!

'l 11 ! ! 'TNic 95 lA'br

/W A).*!-f-as

n *.; i. i.s :..ri e lo... s b o.i o.

• y :$ a I.. ' l. ;&_..p(.. :4f te_$,stNyh ky;W. k. &.s l.&.,/g..x i. *d....,;..

~.. r.. c t I. ;

i ; t t.m u. <.e ?-.

s.g,d,y r i -

t

i. i !1 i !'

! 1 i

l i. I i ! I.

.i 1 l!. i F l' i r '

,,. a..:.i....

c...

,.i

,o

. a.

I I.,

I I

1 L,...:.

!.i...',. !, c. ; :.... >

i..'

',..)

! i.. i t1 l'....

. I 4.. I l.r L I :.1.l. l. l

.l-d. ~l h 1.1.

l..i l. !. 4

1. s a n! J. l. !..!. t., !,. l..:i..i.

J..,. 5 J.1. ', L !. 1 lu i..

l..i..

I ! I I!

I i i i

! 1 i !

l I liI l

l 3 i !

.I l.1 I i I l

l.l i. '. "..I I i

1. I l..

l.I I !

.I P M % 445d dr-d-AsGOs'.3C?**h ^iSFa*C5.CEQ h 43C* W.dt D M, N D' d.

,m, e

- - - ~

4 es

}

~

v 7

-' N

)[

^

. '? i_

1 JC

?. * ' '

r

-- ! t

'J 4 ' -

g-K

~x %

c N

100CXEED "

r U

L

_ 'USNRC G

~+

~ ;.; e vo

~

i Y

l4

(-

, ^

4 NOV 19 Al0:46 m m~

i i j.

4

, UNITED STATES'OF AMERICf!

- +g:... -

. OFFRE OF SECasAM

_ c 7

NUCLEAR REGULATORY; COMMISSION 1 i DOCKETING & SERVIC '

BRANCH

~:

>BEFOREETHE ATOMICUSAFETY3ANDfLIC NSING? BOARD

~

J

?

4 In ? tlie.' Matter 1 of

)

~,

1)

] Docket. Nos. E 50- 445'. and -

ATEXAS UTILITIES _ ELECTRIC-i;) -

50-4461 COMPANYiJetral.'

' )'

M J)

( Appl ication E for.

- 2

~

!f(C6manbhe Pe'ak-Steam Electric !)?

LOperating -: Licen se s )

? Station, J Units :1 -~and f 2)'

)?

.9:

~

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I

g

-.I hereby. certi fy that ' copies of; " Applicants '. Reply:to CASE's:

-Anr.ser'to Applicants'. Response-to: Board's-Partial Initial Deci'sion jRegarding-- A5001 'S te e l.",

served upon.: the. foll~oeing per' son! in : the !above-c~aptioned matter <was -

s byDexpress delivery'(*),

~

or-depositsin the United Statesimail, first. class, postage. prepaid, this:16thl day of' November; 1984, or by hand delivery _.(**) on the=

19th day of November,-1984.

• • Peter B.-Bloch, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic' Safety'and-

. Licensing Appeal Panell Licensing Board U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatoryf Commission' Commission Washington, D.C.

20555-Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. William L..Clements

• Dr._-Walter H. Jordan Docketing &; Service' Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclea'r Regulatory-Oak' Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555:

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom

' Dean,' Division of Engineering

• • Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Architecture and Technology Office of the Executive Oklahoma State University Legal Director Stillwater, Oklahoma _ 74074 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman, Atomic ' Safety 7735 Old Georgetown Road and Licensing Board Panet Room 10117 U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Commission Washington,~D.C.

20555 f

4

gya.- '

~~

p j

0-m o

,I.

b-l-

e

-n.

1.,

- 2:-

E'

\\

s. :

!J

- Robert D.IMartin.

• " Elizabeth B.JJohnson

- Regional ~ Administrator,

'g Oak l Ridge ' National : Lab. oratory;

~

. ' Region' IV :

-Post Office Box X U.S..NuclearJRegulatory.

EBuilding'3500-j Commission-

' Oak: Ridge, Tennessee 37830.

4

. 611-J Ryan-Plaza. Driv'e' Suite 1000

~*

7

Mrs.-Juanita Ellis' Arlington, Texas '7,6011:

President,-CASE.'

'1426-South Polk Street Renea' Hicks,-Esq.

Dal1as,' Texas -.75224.-

Assistant ~ Attorney' General Environmenta l ' Pro tection--

, Division'-

,.Lanny : A.: 'Sinkin g

P.O.

Box 12548 114 W. 7th' Street

[-l Suite 220 Q'

Capitol Station-

~ Austin,.~ Texas - 78701 Austin, Texas. 78711 q

p b

L t

-William A.

Horin cc

' John W.

Beck

. Robert Wooldridge, Esq.