ML20127E175
| ML20127E175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8505170569 | |
| Download: ML20127E175 (93) | |
Text
ORGhAL UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-445 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (Comanche Peak Project.)
LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 1- 71 DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1985 4
x.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Oficial Repcrtes 4-M N' orth Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (262)347 3700 8505170569 850422 PDR ADOCK 0500 5 N,,TicNw1DE covtRAGE
7
- r --
. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .___.m ..
.._.m.
8540'00 01
~
1 1 WRBwrb 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 -----------------------------------:
4 In the matter of: :
5 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-445
, 6 (Comanche Peak Project.) :
7 -----------------------------------:
8 Room P-422, 9 Phillips Building, 10 7920 Norfolk Avenue, 11 Bethesda, Mary' land.
12 Monday, 22 April 1985 13 Technical Conference between Texas Utilities and
( ,
14 Comanche Peak Project Team, re: Applicants' U-bolt sample, 15 whether it is representative of Unit 1.
16 IN ATTENDANCE:
17 For Texas Utilities:
18 Jack Redding, John C. Finneran, Jr.;
19 Robert C. Iotti, Ebasco (Tugco consultant):
}
20 R. L. Cloud, R. L. Cloud Associates, 21 (Tugco consultant) oa 22 Nicholas Reynolds, Esq. and William Horin, Esq.,
23 Eishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds 24 For Intervenor Citizens Association for Sound Energy:
(i 25 Barbara Dinehart i
I
- L. S ci i O z w .
., .: :.u -;- : . . -
1
-s a,.. ...L,. .. .c . A_ =: z.c aw+
s .
?
.. 4 f8'540 00'02 2-b . 2 ;WRBwrb :l- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: .
2 Vincent'S. Noonan,~ Director, Comanche Peak.
~ ' ~
=3 Project, Division-of Licensing p
I 4' Charles'Trammell; L. Shao; David.Terao; 15 ,
W. ' Paul Chen: . Richard-H.-Vollmer; Robert Bosnak; 6
- ' + --
E. Holler.
7 Jane Axelrad, Esq., J. Lieberman,'Esq.,.
V
-8 S. Treby, Esq., Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.,
.L .9 Office'of Executive Legal Director, NRC.
. .. 10 11 -
- , 12-
- 13 14 .
15 16 17.
18 19 ,
- e~
20 21
. n-22
,23 I 24 ,.
.'(/..s, i 25 4-9 I~
I' 4eW @y A f$ .P.M*s. 44 9' -
-- M- 9 $' - ' " '" " ' ~'
. u; -. . , . .
..s ,n w a.- a .w.. u. x . Ln . . -, w ,:. ..v...- .u: :~.. .. ~.u . . i.:.
i
,854'O'01 101 3
[ f1".WRBagb 1 P R O C E E D I N G.S q
!; 2 MR. NOONAN: Good morning. My name is Vince 3 Noonan, I'm the Director of the Comanche Peak project and we
^'
4 are here to talk this morning with the Applicant on the-5 U-bolt sample.
- j
,. 6 For the record, I would like to read into the it 7 record about-12 items that we plan to discuss in various 8 forms'this morning. One is the sampling plan and
'I 9 procedures. Number two is randomness, statistical versus 10 otherwise. Number three is Unit 1 versus 2 samples. We are 11 going to talk about the Table 2, the torque range,'the lI 12 average torque, that's the table of the summaries, .
13 representative tests, equal versus unequal torques, torquing
( 14 procedures, the practice for Unit 1 versus Unit 2 and the 15 turnover of. personnel performing torquing on Unit 1 and Unit 16 2.
^
17 Also of some.importance, but we will discuss this.
', 18 as to how you want to handle it, is the SA-37,.SA-36, b' 19 material similar or different mechanical performance, the b~
r
- 20 test of material, representative steels employed in the 21 plant, the statements on variability of A-36 composition, 6
22 the test U-bolt configuration versus field configuration and-23 the use of cinched-up U-bolts industry practice.
24 With those items on the record I will ask people
. (,. .
25 to please identify themselves as they speak in this meeting:
, . , , . ~ . . - - . . . -. .
V
-.: . . a a.:.u . L: . b . , . u :. E- :.Laam 3 - .
=L ' a. a 1
Lt s i - 8540--01-:02 -
4 1- WRBagb 1 ~it is being1 reported and I will~ plan to send.this to the 3
2 Board.
i- 3- -With that, Jack.-- I am goina to go ahead and
. ,e, -
4 turn it over'to Jack Redding.
.5 MR. REDDING: I'm Jack Redding of Texas a
. 6 Utilities. Thank you, Vince.
7 You know, we appreciate the opportunity to talk 5
8 to you this morning to clarify what we think is simply a.
9 mis' understanding. It has been alleged that we, Texas 10' Utilities, have made a misleading or false statement and 11 that possibly it's a material false statement. We' don't
- 12. believe this~to be true.
13 (Slide.)
14 On this chart, a shown statement, taken frdm the r{ .
15 original affidavit that is alleged to be false or 16 misleading. Let me read it:
17 "To determine the range of torques 18 which exist in the field, Applicants inspected 19 the torque of a randomly sc:.cted representative
} .
20 sample of cinched-down U-bolt supports."
y 21 I think that some of the misunderstandina occurs 22 when you take the statement out.of context and then just 23 look at how the sample was taken and what we want to do this 24 morning is clear up this misunderstanding.
25 (Slide.)
~~
. . . u. J . . _. : . . - . . . . . : .. a . . - . _ . _ u. .. .
8540 01 03 5
- 1 WRBagb 1 This chart is a preview of what we want to 2 discuss with you. We'll talk about the torque sampling work 3 and discuss why it was done.
4 I want to emphasize the purpose because I believe 5 that focusing on the purpose and remembering the comeltecnt 6 that we made in our original affidavit, w'iich is on pages 34 7 and 35 --
D 8 (Slide.)
9 --
of the original affidavit. And that 10 commitment was to retorque all of the U-bolt assemblies at 11 issue. I think that's going to clear up this focusing on 12 the purpose and this commitment will clear up a lot of the 13 misunderstanding and put this issue to rest.
14 ,
(Slide.)
15 We will tal,k about how the sampling was done, why 16 it was done that way and what was done with the data, which 17 simply was to be used in a test program. We'll also talk 18 about the test program, the reasons for it, how in part it 19 was done, what the results were -- which again I think will
= 20 further help clear up this misunderstanding.
21 We also are prepared to briefly discuss some of 22 the other subjects that relate to this that Vince mentioned.
23 By the way, the information that we are 24 presenting has been provided previously and it's available 25 in documents filed with the Board.
.-m i s.
w... .-< .
- ~....- , y . .. .
~ ~ '
c . y. .
.~ .a
- w-+v - o u~ m
- - . - us. -w.u~.---a.
ma..-_ ..-..m t 2 1854001 '04' 6
~2=EWRBagb. 1 I would.like to now introduce the. participants in-2 this presentation who are here with us. You know,-when we 3 . found out about this alleged false statement,'that it might a
4 even be considered a material false statement, we were
, 5 really surprised. In fact, to the point of.almostLbeing
~
6 bewildered. When we reviewed the material, we just couldn't .;
7 understand how the question of a material false statement
- =
8 could come up. So to make sure that we weren't overlooking 9 something, we went to an individual who is new with the
'! 10 project and asked him to review this for us. He'll be '
11 making a statement later on. I think most of you know 12 Dr. Cloud of Cloud and Associates. ,
3 13 Also we have Dr. Iotti, Vice-President with
_( 14 - Ebasco, who originally worked on this issue. And John r
15 Finneran, a Texas Utilities engineering manager who, at 16 Dr. Iotti's direction, had the field sampling done.
17 Also with us to review with you where this matter 18 is with regard to the Board is one of our attorneys, Bill 19 Horin of Bishop, Lieberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds --
20 and Nick Reynolds just walked in also of the same firm.
21 Bill will lead off our presentation.
22 MR. NOONAN: Before you get started I think what '
23 I wanted to say here, when we finish the meeting today we're 24 - not basically going to give you our answer today, but we
\. . '
}
25 will draft up a response and we'll be addressing the L
I l
I r
r
- . . . . m. +
8540 01 05 7 1 WRDagb 'l question of randomness and representativeness and I will 2 draft the response and send it to you and I'll do that 3 probably by the end of the month.
4 MR. REDDING: I understand.
5 MR. HORIN: I just want to briefly set out for 6 those of you who aren't familiar with the issue where the 7 matter stands procedurally before the Licensing Board.
6 8 Dr. Cloud and Dr. Iotti and Mr. Finneran will explain the 9 technical issues to you.
10 The issue that gave rise to this meeting arose as 11 a result of an assertion by the Intervenor in this' 12 proceeding that a statement that Applicants made in the i 13 affidavit accompanying their motion for summary disposition
( 14 regarding cinched-up U-bolts was a material falso 15 statement. CASE made this allegation in November of last 16 year after receiving information which we had provided at 17 the request of the Board regarding the sample that was 18 generated and used for establishing some test values in the 19 original motion.
. 20 The Licensing Doord also issued a memorandum in 21 December questioning -- raising certain questions regarding 0
22 this issue. Applicants provided on January 7 a motion for 23 reconsideration of that Licensing Doard memorandum wherein 24 we explained fully our position regarding this and other 25 issues that the Licensing Dcard raised.
a
-? ;a . . - .a := . a. . . . ... - -
. - ~ ,;.~.;;z : :. ..~... - - . . - .~ .. - .-.
8540 :01 - G6 8 l- .l> WRBagb 11 : Shortly after we' filed our' motion for
,2 . reconsideration, the. Licensing Board. chairman, on January 9, 3 requested some additional information and before he ruled on 4 our motion for reconsideration. We are preparing.that 5 additional information and it should be transmitted some 6
~
time in the not too distant future to the Board.
7 However the Board placed on hold its
- 8 consideration of this issue until it receives that 9 information and therefore there has been no further Board 10 action on the issue since this original memorandum.
11' Now I would like to turn the technical 12 presentation over to Dr. Cloud, who will present the first 13 portion of our presentation.
14 DR. CLOUDr Thanks, Bill.
15- What I would like to do is to give you my view of 16 the matter and Dr. Iotti and John Finneran will discuss the 17 whole lasue on a blcw-hy-blow basis. But the issue of a 18 material false statement arose out of the discussion that was presented in the summer of 1984 regarding work done in
~
19
- 1. 20 response to the ASLB memo and order of December of '83.
21 Now I was asked to review the work done, the f
=
22 discussion, the context in which it was made and form my own
- )
23 opinion on the issue, which I would like to share with you.
24 I would say first in my review which, of 25 necessity, is limited to an extent, but in my review of the i.
" -' _ . _. f ~ . . _ ... J.L.1 _ __ _. ._. .
8540 01 07 9 1 WRBagb 1 testimony, the transcript and the affidavits of all the 2 parties, I found no false statements related to the torque 3 sampling, the randonness or the representativeness. But 4 having read all of that, I could see how a misunderstanding 5 could have developed. The basic thing that I noticed was
, 6 that -- it had to do with the way the data was used and let 7 me explain.
8 The issues of randomness, representativeness of 9 the U-bolt torque sampling data would be very important 10 indeed if any of the data had been used directly in an 11 empirical manner to qualify any of the piping or supports or 12 any of the other equipment. But as you will see in abundant 13 detail, that was not the case.
14 When I say "used directly," what I'm talking 15 about there is when you use the data itself as the basis for 16 the qualification of equipment or piping or whatever -- and 17 you know sometimes we do that, we did not do that in this 18 case. The results of the torque sampling were not used in 19 an empirical way to qualify any of the equipment. As we e 20 will discuss in detail, the torque sampling effort was an 21 exploratory affair to gain an understanding of the range of m
22 the torques t, hat existed in the field and it was used to 23 provide guidance in the development of a test program in on 24 analytical effort that was subsequently conducted.
25 The test program that followed the torque
n- w & .:.=u:w . ... . a.- - .=--.:~..-.~..-.. - .- .~ . :. . . = . c. = . . - ,
3- ,
- 7 i
8540 01 08' ~
10 ;
1 .WRBagb 1 sampling'and the'results of that were, in turn -- and this 2 is also important~-- in turn were used to aid in the
, 3 development of an analytical method which was applied and is
)
4 'still under review but has been applied to the U-bolt- !
5 assemblies at the plant. And the test results provided
.- 6 guidance in.the development of the analytical method and it l t
7 provided confirmation that the method worked properly.
- 8 In summary, the torque sampling data obtained 9 from the exploratory program were not used in an empirical i
10 way to qualify any equipment. Whether taken from Unit 1 or !
11 Unit 2 simply didn't. matter.
- 12 In addition, at another point that will be dwelt 13 on in some detail, the work had advanced to the point that a
( -
14 decision to retorque all of the U-bolt assemblies of the l 15 . type that were in question had been made at the time the !
16 affidavit in question was written.
- t. ,
l; ' 17 So it appears to me that, as has happened in the l l' ',
ll . 18 past and undoubtedly will happen in the future, that a
- i.
19 misunderstanding has developed and we made a mountain'out of e 20 a molehill. That is my view of the issue.
ti
[
21 With that, Dr. Iotti will discuss the work that :
l'
- 22 r
, he did and take us on a point-by-point basis through the ;
f' l 23 whole affair.
i j 24 DR. S!!AO: Can you explain the safety I
- 25 significance of U-bolt tightening if it is too tight, what i i
I l l* .
{'
I
- -+ m-w e - * ~ <+....*.4-.. a ,
I
- a a a...._. ..~.
_.;2.- .
_._.... _ . :--- y . c ; -- - = - ;
4
.t L 8540 01 09 11
'l- WRBagb 'l .does that mean, if it is too loose,'what does that mean?
l 2' How sensitive isLit?
l-3 DR. CLOUD I think Dr. Iotti will discuss ~that 4_ in great detail. But one thing I can say is' that the safety 5 . significance of-the torquing,' exploratory torque measurement 6 effort was nil.
7 DR. SHAO: You have by a factor of two or three, i
- 8 what does that mean?
,1 -
! 9 DR. CLOUD That's-a separate-issue. The thing 10 that counts for the present purpose is that was the value, 11 what was the use -- what use was made of that data'.
12 DR. IOTTI: Good morning, my name is Robert 13 Iotti.
14 About a year and a few months ago I was asked to 15 help Texas Utilities formulate a plan that would he 16 responsive to some of the issues that the Board had raised 17 in its memorandum of December 28, 1983. There were several 18 issues and amongst those there were issues concerning the 19 effect of cinching U-bolts and, because of the question that l
, 20 Dr. Shao has just raised, I will try and place the 21 presentation that I am going to make this morning in that ,
22 context, what is the safety significance also of the 23 cinching process of the U-bolts and all the possible j
. 24 ramifications thereof, t
.- t
! 25 (Slide.) !
i e
i i
i
+
l t
- s. . . . . ,
i
r.c 8540 01 10 12 1 WRBagb 1 The topics I intend to cover this morning are, 2 first of all, the origin of the issues and the Applicants 3 program that resulted from those issues, to present an 4 overview of the U-bolt testing and analysis programs. Now, 5 this overview may be too simplified for those of you who 6 have been involved in the review of the work that we have 7 done for the past, oh, at least a year. But I'm sure that o
8 some of you have not been as deeply involved in this program 9 and to understand better some of the statements that I will 10 be making and, in particular, to assess in your own mind 11 whether anything we have done could have safety implication 12 it's important to understand what the program consisted of, 13 how it was performed and ultimately what conclusions were
( , 14 derived from such a program.
15 Thirdly, what was the purpose of this exploratory 16 sample of torques, why did we take this sample to begin 17 with.
18 Finally, how wo intended to use this samplo and 19 how ultimately it was used, which are two different things.
}
20 I will jump ahond to the conclusion, the ultimato
, 21 resolution of U-bolt cinching issues does not utilize any of 22 the information derived from the torque sampling, once we 23 mado the decision to retorque all of the U-bolts, they would 24 be cinched in the field. And lot me place it in 25 perspective.
4
.._.____--___-._.---..-----_-____._a
T-. . - .
8540 01 11 13 1 WRBagb 1 The decision was made that those U-bolts which 2 are on supports which utilize single struts or. snubbers, 3 there are other U-bolts in the field that are cinched but 4 our decision is strictly confined to those U-bolts which 5 presently are on single struts or snubbers, all of those
, 6 Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 1 and 2 in common are presently 7 being retorqued. We maintain that with ultimate use of the I
8 sampling that at the point in time we made the decision to 9 retorque that the sample we had was certainly adequate for 10 the use that we made of it.
11 DR. SIIAO : Why did you make such a decision to 12 retorque? -
13 DR. IoTTI: It would be difficult for me to 14 explain to you right new. If you permit me to go forward in 15 my presentation, it will become evident to you why that 16 decision was made and why it was, in essence, unavoidabic.
17 Maybe I should ask you, unless you have 18 questions that are for purposes of clarification, lot me go 19 through it because particularly for those of you who haven't
}
= 20 been following this program directly, you will probably get 21 the answer to your question as I go forward with my 22 presentation.
23 This was one of the most complex of the issues 24 that we had to face and it was the one that resulted in the 25 most testing, the most analysis and perhaps the most l
8540 02 01 14 1 WRBagb 1 elaborate of all of the affidavits that we submitted.
2 (Slide.)
3 Let me start, first of all, with the origin of 4 the issue.
5 The origin of the issue, quite simply put, was
. . 6 the Doard memorandum of December 28, 1983 on quality 7 assurance for design. In its memorandum the Board cautioned 0 applicants that there was, in their opin' ion, inadequate 9 evidence regarding the effects of cinched U-bolts.
10 Now let me state what those effects are one in 11 related to the stability of the assemblies. If thero exist 12 insufficient preload in the U-bolts, then it is alleged that 13 the assembly itself will not maintain its position, may 14 rotate around the pipe or may slide around the pipe and 15 therefore not be able to perform the function as intended by 16 the piping analyst. That has been defined as an issue of 17 stability.
la perhaps most important at that point in timo, the 19 ancillary issues were related to the effect, once you
}
20 cinched a U-bolt, even if you achieved the desired 21 stability of the assembly, could you possibly introduco s
22 loads which would be unacceptable to the U-bolt, cause high ,
23 stresses in the U-bolt, because once you cinched it and the ,
24 U-bolt might have been cinched to a pipe that could be 25 thermally hot and be cycled betwoon room temperaturo and ita
8540 02 02 15 1 WRBagb 1 operating temperature, could that expansion process plus the 2 external loads introduce stresses in the U-bolts that might 3 prove to be unacceptable and in parallel with the stresses 4 on the pipe itself caused by the cinching process thermal 5 expansion, pressure expansion and external load all added
, 6 together in some fashien, could that also result in i 7 unacceptably high stresses in the pipe, particularly local. ,
8 So those were the principal issues related to the 9 einching of U-bolts.,
10 The Board suggested the Applicants develop a plan 11 to provide this. additional evidence that, when Applicants
. 12 have stated that U-bolt cinching would in fact work, was in 13 fact the caso. Applicants responded with a plan which was L .-
, 4 14 filed -- nt11, you will have to help me -- on February --
, 15 MR. Il0RIN : February 3, 1904.
16 DR. IOTTI: The plan addressed many issues.
17 Amongst those issues, throa directly reinted to the U-bolt 18 cinching and I will road them for you. Part of our plan was 19 to "...porform indopondent review and assessment..." of the 20 cinching of U-bolt issue and to "provido evidenco that the 21 use of U-bolt cinching is appropriato to eliminate 22 potential local instability without introducing 23 adverac offects in the piping and U-bolt itself.
i 24 This evidence will be generated by a combination 25 of testa and analysen."
l 1
i l .
( .
8540 02 03 . 16 2 WRBagb 1 We plan to " provide evidence that there 2 are no adverse long-term effects from U-bolts 3 caused by heatup and cooldown and related 4 friction on the pipe. This evidence will be 5 generated by the tests and analyses noted in
. 6 Item 3 above."
7 And finally to " provide evidence of the 8 acceptability of stresses on pipes caused by 9 thermal expansion in local areas around 10 cinched U-bolts. This evidence will be 11 generated by the tests and analyses noted in 12 Item 3 above, supplemented by a field sampling 13 of torque values."
14 (dlide.)
15 Now to understand how the program evolved, it is 16 necessary for you to understand how the test program was 17 formulated because that will'pormit you to understand what 18 was in our mind as we formulated the plan. We obviously had 19 some opinion at the time. Amongst those opinions was that
}
20 what was in the field would be adequate for the stability.
21 We were more worried about the offects of the pipe stress 22 and the U-bolt stress than wo woro on the issue of 23 stability. We plainly felt that almost any torque out in 24 the field would assure stability, any proload.
25 Now the tests were performed by Wontinghouse
' 8540 02 04 17 1 WRBagb 1 under our direction. They were performed for selected pipe 2 .and U-bolt sizes. Obviously we knew from the very beginning 3 we couldn't test all configurations. We selected 4 configurations that were representative of the 5 configuration that exists in the field insofar as piping e ad
. 6 U-bolts are concerned. The decision was made to select the 7 pipe that would represent the small-bore and the sma:1er 8 sized pipes and the pipe selected was a four-inch Schedule 9 160 stainless steel pipe which would be subjected to 10 considerable cycling in temperature during its operation. A 11 pipe was selected which would represent the intermediate 12 pipe sizes and we ultimately picked a ten-inch because there 13 was more cinched U-bolts on ten-inch sized pipes than there
- 14 are on 12-inch and 14-inch. We finally also picked the 15 largest pipe size that has a cinched U-bolt on it, and this 16 happens to be the 32-inch main steam. So the tests were 17 performed on three pipe sizes and U-bolt sizes corresponded lo to the pipe sizes that were selected.
~
19 Decause naturally the test was limited to just 20 three specimens, we had to have from the very beginning a 21 parallel effort, a detailed finite element analysis ef fort 22 that would permit us to do two thigns: number one, to 23 extract information from the tent and derive relevant 24 information on the condition of the pipe strenses, U-bolt 25 stresses, that would not be readily available from the test i
n 9
@ *mm _. . - - p eeG46 4 pgng me.
/
8540 02 05 18 1 WRBagb 1 results themselves, thus provide information just at 2 selected points, and you need a tool to extrapolate 3 information to other points.
4 Dut more importantly, through an extension to 5 perhaps a more simplified analytical mathematical model
- 6 would permit us to extend the results of the tests, as well 7 as the detailed finite element analysis to configurations 8 that have not been tested or analyzed. We always knew from 9 the very beginning that ultimately we would require a model 10 that would permit us to extend results of tests and detailed
~
11 analysis to any other configuration in the field.
12 Now because of that, the test was not done as a 13 singlo-shot affair, it was dono in a series of tests, and I
( 14 will describo each o,f the tests fo,r you and why they woro
, 15 done. ,
16 The test series involved a test that was to 17 establish a correlation between the torque that supplied tho 10 nut of the U-bolts to each of the legs of the U-bolts versus 19 the proload that results in the U-bolt. As we formulated 20 the test plan, wo only had the Intervonors' say-so that a 21 cortain torquo would result in a cortain proload. Clearly 22 correlations betwoon torques and preloads have boon l- 23 ostablished in the literaturo before but we wanted to 24 establish what the corrointion would be for our particular 25 configurations.
i l
[ e
^
8540 02 06 19 l WRBagb 1 A second series of tests which was directly 2 related to the issue of stability was one that was to 3 establish for a given preload what was the' slip force 4 required or the moment applied to the assembly that would 5 overcome the frictional resistance to the torsion of the 6 assembly around the pipe. Obviously if we established a 7 certain threshold value and all of our torques were above O those values, then we wouldn't have an issue of stability 9 but we didn't know what the results would be prior to 10 performance of the test.
11 The test provided two results, one, the' moment 12 needed to ovorceme the frictional resistance to the assembly 13 rotation as a function of the preload applied to the 14 assembly and, secondly, it also provided information on tho 15 friction co-officient that would then be used in the finite 16 element analysis and any other analytical model. We noodod 17 to know that because thora could be substantial variation in 18 the frictional co-officients.
19 A third test that was called a load distribution
^
20 test, it's an unfortunato nianomer, was performed to 21 establish the joint stiffness characteristic. t 22 Now I want to clarify that point. We did not 23 establish stiffnens of the U-bolt or stiffness of the pipe, 24 we really wanted to determino the stiffness of the assembly 25 per se, how it would behave as a partially preloaded joint 6
8540 02 07 20 1 WRBagb 1 or a fully preloaded joint. The reason the test was 2 conducted is that the Intervenor had alleged that all loads 3 would be strictly adequate. If you had a preload and then 4 subsequently a pressure expansion, thermal expansion load 5 and an external mechanical load, all of those would
. 6 absolutely combine into a large load to which the U-bolt and 7 the pipe would be subjected.
8 Wo know that that could not be the case because 9 once you proload an assembly there are certain p.Toload 10 characteristics that an assembly will exhibit and the 11 purpose of this test was to find out those characteristics.
12 And then from the results of the test we would know how to 13 best model those characteristics both in the finite olomont 14 analysis model and, particularly, in the other analytical 15 models that would lator on be used for other configurations.
~
16 A fourth test was devised to determino the of fect 17 of thormally cycling the assembly. We woro interested in 18 two results from that test, one, to dotormino tho thermal 19 expansion load and, secondly, to determine the long-term 20 loss of proload characteristics of the assemblies as they 21 were thermally cyclod.
22 tiew perhaps it is unfortunato that tho word 23 "rolaxation" has toen used to denote this loss of proload.
24 "Rolaxation" has a fairly straight definition among the 25 material nelontista. Dut wo have used it kind of
8540 02 08 21 1 WRBagb 1 indiscriminately to describe general loss of preload. So 2 whenever I refer to " relaxation," please bear in mind that 3 what I'm really addressing is general loss of preload, 4 however it might be caused in the assembly, some of which is 5 due to actual material relaxations, some of which may be due t-6 to assembly adjustments and so forth.
7 A fifth test was to test whether creep could have 8 an effect to assess the long-term loss of preload and, as 9 you see there, the same mistakes I used the word 10 " relaxation," characteristics of the assembly under 11 long-term exposure to high temperature. I will got ahead of 12 myself.
13 The results showed there was no creep offect
( 14 whatsoever, that the maximum operating temperature of these 15 assemblies are well below the temperatures at which creep 16 could have any influence on the results.
) 17 The final initially planned test was one which l 10 was intended to assess the long-term loss of proload characteristics of the assemblics under the normal 19 20 vibrational lovels, the pipo experience was in the plant 21 becauso we could not simulato it for the life of the plant.
22 At its own vibrational level we onded up simulating it in 23 accolorated fashion by subjecting the assembly to a very 24 high load and swooping the assembly through a set of 25 frequencies starting from five florte up to 200 !!ortz and l
8540 02 09 22 '
1 WRBagb 1 back and forth for a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. But the total test 2 simulated more than 10 to the 6 cycle of vibration that the 3 assembly could experience and we ran the amplitude of the 4 cycle at close to the load that the assembly would 5 experience as a result of the operating basis earthquake.
. 6 That answered part of our question. We 7 recognized that the asnembly could see higher cyclic loads 8 oven though for a much shorter duration, so we extended the 9 test to a second test which we called a simulated seismic 10 test which tested the assembly under the worst expected 11 cyclic load that we could see for the particular assembly 12 tested, and that's the load corresponding to the safe 13 shutdown earthquake.
14 (S11do.)
15 Itaving gone through this very simplified ,
16 description of the tests, let me get on to the rotations of 17 the field torque, the exploratory sampling of the field 10 torque to those tests.
19 The first throo testa nooded a range of torques.
20 I mean, when you test the correlation betwoon the torque 21 that you apply and the proload that results, you don't want 22 to run that test to an infinite range of torques, you need 23 to establish some minimum torque and some maximum torque at 24 which you want to run the test.
25 Likewise, the test for the friction or the slip,
8540 02 10 23 1 WRBagb 1 we needed to have this range of torques.
2 Similarly, the test that was done for what I call 3 the stiffness characteristics of the joint or the preloading 4 condition of the joint needed to have.a certain range of 5 torque established. We could have used a totally arbitrary
, 6 torque range and, as a matter of fact, when I wrote the 7 initial test specification on January 9, which was almost O two or three weeks before we took any samples, that was what 9 was specified, an arbitrary torque rango. !!owever we always 10 felt it wculd be more appropriate if that torque ranno were 11 consistent with what exists in the ficid. And that should
'. 12 procondition you as to why we took the torque sample the way 13 we did, we made it relative to the pipe sizo because the 14 test was done on different pipe sizes. We didn't do a i
15 torque sample relative to U-bolt sino or other 16 characteristics.
17 Now for the thermal cycling and creep tests, you 10 would ideally like to conduct those tests at the high 19 proload valuo, the high torque valuo, because this maximizos 20 any offect that might result from the test. Again you could 21 conduct those tests at some arbitrarily high torque valuor 22 wo felt it would be more roanonable if we could have somo 23 idon as to what the maximum torquo values would be for the 24 pipe sinos that we wore testing in the field.
25 on the other and of the epoetrum, when we ran the i
L r
W- [ _
8540 02 11 24 1 WRDagb 1 accelerated vibration and the seismic tests, we wanted to 2 run those tests at about the minimum torque values that we 3 could expect.
4 As it turns out, that is where there might have 5 been, Larry, some safety implication. !!ad we been 6 successful in those tests and had we found that the assembly 7 behaved stably at the torque values which were corresponding 8 to the low values we had gotten from our sample, that could 9 have had a safety implication. But as I will show you, the 10 test result immediately told us that wouldn't work so 11 ultimately the tests were run at values which we.
12 progressively established would be required for the 13 stability issue and those values had nothing whatsoever to
, 14 do with what we sampled.
15 DR. SIIAO: 1 don't get you.
16 DR. 10TTI: Let me go back.
17 These tests are there to determine whether the 18 assembly loses load over long-term or whether the assembly 19 behaves stably under the maximum conditions of cyclic
, 20 loading, okay? Ideally you like to run these at the minimum 21 values of torque that you can expect to have and if they 22 show stable then wo say ch, this in great, you know, the 23 assembly will work. tiow had that been the case, there could 24 have been a safety implication and we continued to use the 25 field data that we had acquired but we didn't and the reason
r 1
8540 02 12 25 1 WRBagb 1 we did is the tests showed that was not the case.
2 I'm getting ahead of myself and I will have a 3 slide showing to you the tests showed that at those low 4 val 2es the assembly walked around, okay, and therefore we 5 kept increasing the torque values until we found the value
, 6 at which the assembly would stay put and that's the value --
7 at that point in time is when we made the decision to 8 retorque all of the U-bolts in the field. I have a slide 9 that takes you through --
10 DR. SHAO: So you had trouble with the lower 11 end. How about the upper end?
12 DR. IOTTI: I'll get to it shortly also and I 13 will explain to you why the upper end we never use the l
14 values from the ficid.either. ,
15 MR. TRAMMELL: For clarity, why don't you tell us 16 what the safety implications would have been had you donc 17 that?
18 DR. IOTTI: The safety implication, at least in 19 my mind, is the following suppose that we had taken the 20 field sample, okay, and suppose that the field sample had 21 shown the minimum torques that we find anywhere is five 22 foot-pounds. I want to make it cicar that I am now 23 speculating in order to answer your question.
24 MR. TRAMMELL: I understand but I just don't know 25 what you meant w: 9n you said --
r - - --
,J9.[3 . . .
.,r. . .b e . . ~ . . se # ,%'.1 . * - *
+.m s -;.*...?- a= m.. ,_d+o%...--.4 , i, , w %
A
,. s -
I s i
i 4
' 8540 02 13 26 Let's further assume that the Eksts
~
1 WRBagb 1 DR. IOTTI:
i '.
L '2 that we ran at Westinghouse had shown that the assembly; 3 behaves stably at five foot-pounds. Now we could have gone.
4 forth from there and said See, what we told you or what we j l '
l 5- had surmised was correct, the field data confirms that [
6 '
1
- g. everything out there is fine. Now from that standpoint the 7 sample that was taken would not have.been adequate enough to
^*
8 make that conclusion. We would not have had enough' 9 assurance that there were not torques out there possibly 10 below five foot-pounds, okay, and we would have been led to.
11 ' a conclusion that yes, all assemblies were stable.- But 12 there may have been some, however few out, there that would 13 not have been in a stable fashion -- would not have behaved 14 in a stable fashion. And at least without having done any 15 analysis of what the effect of that lack of stability would I 16 have been during a seismic event, to that extent there could 17 have been some safety implications.
18 Did I explain myself sufficiently well?
. o 19 As it turned out, the test results completely 20 negated any possible idea that we may have had in regard to 21 that approach.
22 DR. S!!AO: Where do you get the original torque !
23 range values? ,
24 DR. IOTTI: Let me go on to the historical.
25 evolution so you will know how we got the torque values. r i
.-% -;;rsa.ZZ __l. _.i . %_ . . _m ._ .n. Aau - ..u.a. c_ ;. . ,
(. ,
p: 8540 02~14 27 t 1 >WRBagb l' MR.'FINNERAN: I would like to interject one
\
2 point: Dr. Iotti-has used the term " behaved stably." He 3 did not mention that the test we observed on these cinched
~
l a4 U-bolts at the low torque ranges that the assembly did move 5 around or walk around on'the pipe and.that's kind of a j .
6 concept that we have come to identify with.Mr. Terao's l
( !:
7 definition of' stability. But the assembly-that we tested at
. 8 low torques, which did' walk around and'did continue to carry 9 its load, we noticed that also in the test. So the movement 10 that we observed we decided was unacceptable but it was
'll still carrying the load in the test. -
12 DR. IOTTI: At that point in time we really had 13 two choices --
1,4 MR. NOONAN: Let me ask a' questions when you say
.15 " motion," how much motion are you talking about?
16 DR. IOTTI: You could not predefine what the 17 motion would be. It would behave in an erratic fashion, it )
18 was not suitable for prediction and that's.why we considered I 19 it unacceptable. At that point we had two options: we
,a 20 could have tried to continuously lower the torque until the 21 point in time where the assembly would no longer be able to 22 carry load, that would be one approach. We preferred not 23 going that way and we opted to torque.
24 DR. S!!AO: You said you had trouble on the low 25 end but --
e
(
- , , . - . - - - - -- ~ s . .a 'w ss :. -- ..a. - -....d.6+ >-.r,
- 8540 02 15 28.
- 1. WRBagb L1-DR. IOTTI: I'll get to.the high end.
2 MR. CHEN: When you say that the assembly behaved 3 stably, _I think you~ indicated that you mean by-that that.it 4 was capable'of taking'the load, is' that correct?
'5 DR. IOTTI: No, let me clarify that. We have
.6 .always used in our own mind the definition'of stability as
- 7 one where the assembly carries-the load that it's intended
->. 8- 'to carry. We recognize that other people would not share!
4 9 that opinion. Therefore the definition of stability that we 10 had in mind at the time when we opted to retorque was one
-11 that would cause the assembly not to move.
12 13
(- 14 ,
15 ,
16- ' f.
17 1
~ 18 19 20 21 l
22 l i:'
23 l
24
. 1 25 s
w.__ + & +_, Ae. + , ~ . :O N ~ wy. ., .- ~ A < . - . -
....--a.
s . . - - _ _ . . . . .
, , . i f.,, , , , , , , , ,,,,.;,., , , . , .
'8540'03 01. 29 l' WRBeb l- MR. CLOUD: Excuse me. I would like to say
.2- something. ,
3 We are here to discuss the use of the torque 4- sampling data in the' test, and I don't think we are here-to 5 discuss whether or not any given gecmetry is. good, bad, or-6 indifferent, or the capability of that but, rather, to-s 7 discuss theLeonsequences that ensued-from the statements 8 about-the use of the torque data.
9 And I think it would be-- I just don't want us 10' .to get off the track. That's all.
11 MR. BOSNAK: Bob, excuse me.
12 I think we got.off on it because John Finneran 13 introduced, you know, his definition of what stability or 14 ; instability means. So that's why we got off on this.
(
15 MR. CLOUD: Yes. Okay.
16 .
MR. IOTTI: -I guess since we are digressing I 1,7 - will digress for a few minutes more. I need to clarify ~that 18 because'in our affidavit we have made a statement' that is 19 directly relevant to the issue that is being raised here,
] *-
20 and I don't want anybody to leave this meeting with any 21 confusion.
22 At the point when we wrote our affidavit, we 23' were using our own definition of stability. A redefinition 24 of that stability issue did not come forth until after we H2 5 - Lhad met with the Staff. And once we had agreed that a e
IT l- - - -
= - - - .-- .- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _
v . + .. n m e a iw,,. p , . , , , . ,_--r
, , . -pe.,m
- 8540'03102 30
- 3. WRBeb -1 'different definition would be used, then we have used it 2 consistently.
3 Nevertheless, even by our own definition of
~
4 stability, we.already knew that we would get ourselves into 5 trouble if.we tried to fight that battle, and we chose not 6 to fight.it.
-7 We. chose the easy way out,'that of retorquing 8 every U-bolt configuration in the field. As I said, we did 9 have the option of trying to prove to everybody-that 10 regardless of the low torque, the assembly could carry 11 load. We chose-not to do so.
12 MR. SHAO: A lot of the NRC Staff are not
- 13 familiar with the problem at all.
14 MR. TRAMMELL: I appreciate that, John, because 15 instability to most people means something collap,ses, and 16 what I hear you telling me is that the thing walked-around a 17 little bit but it still held the pipe. Instability to me 18 means collapse.
19 MR. IOTTI: Let us all agree on the fact that
.~ 20' presently asTee have redefined torques that need to be 21 applied to the U-bolt configurations in the field, those 22 assemblies will'not walk around. Okay?
- 2:3 And then I will address Larry's concern at.the 24 -upper end of the torque and the possible effects on pipe 25 stresses, U-bolt stresses and the lik'e separately.
c
- . - ..a w. . . . . .a. = :., . . . . .. u .x -,.
- 8540.03 03' 31 1 ~WRBeb l' (Slide.)
- q. '2 Perhap particularly for those of you who are not 3 familiar _with the whole history as to how this issue has 4 ' evolved, let me go through an historical perspective. And 5 I have' separated out the historical perspective on_two 6 sides.
. f7 There is a tendency of confusing tests with
, 8 samples. On your right-hand side is any action that we took 9 that directly relates to sampling, the exploratory sampling 10 of the torques-in the field.
11- On the left side I have listed the actions that 12 pertained to the tests and finite element analyses' conducted 13 by Westinghouse under our direction, so that there is.no 14 ' confusion between the two.
. 15 MR. CLOUD: Chronologically? , ,
16 MR. IOTTI: Chronologically.
17 Now the very first thing that took place after 18 the Board memo and order and even before the applicant's 19 plan to respond to the memo and order was in fact formulated
~
20 and sent--to the Board, I had already generated a test
~
21 specification on January 9th, and in that test 22 specification, Larry,-I actually used an arbitrary torque 23 range. I'had no idea what I would find in the' field, but I 24 used-- I. told the people that would bid on the test 25 specification that we would have a torque range somewhere O
4
'---=^p, -* m
.. . . _ . . . . . _ 2 . ._ . _ . c. _ . _ . . . . . . . .. .-,m- u 8540 03-04 32 1 . WRDeb 1 between,5 and 125 foot-pounds for all pipe sizes.
-2 However, we also cautioned that some torque 3 levels would be maximum for certain tests and minimum for 4 other tests, and that we would define those later on.
5 Now implied verbelly was the fact that even 6 though this was the total torque range, for certain pipe
.. 7 sizes the torque range may be smaller; for other ones it 8 might be' larger. All of those were to be defined later.
9 We took the first field samples to get a better 10 idea of what existed in the field on the 21st and 28th of 11 January 1984. This exploratory field sample was to provide 12 the data to use in the program, to provide the range that 13 would substitute for this arbitrary range.
14 The data that came back to us showed considerable 15 scatter of the torques as they existed in the field. It 16 also showed the presence of low torques, which was 17 surprising to us.
18 I'll get. ahead of myself and I will ask 19 Mr. Finneran-later on to address this issue. But as we took 20- the field samples, we had also issued an instruction to the
>}
21 people collecting the f,ield samples to continue sampling 22 additional U-bolts as these U-bolts were being cinched. And 23 as I.get to that point in time, I will ask Mr. Finneran to 24 speak to that.
25 MR. SHAO: Five to 125, that's a big range.
l-w --_.:.
. . ,. . ~ -..a.. . .; :..- .... ..: 2 a .~ .. -.,2: --.. .
8540 03 05 '
33
!2_LWRBeb l MR. IOTTI: Well, believe me, the field sample 2 'came back with'a larger range, a larger.. range. .The field 3 sampl'e ended'up from'five to 160 ---I'm. quoting from memory 4: -- or higher than 160.
-5 MR. VOLLMER: What did installation procedures 6 call'for?
. ~7 MR. IOTTI: We will have slides that address.
8 that, Mr. Vollmer.
9 At.that point, considering the scatter of the 10 data and considering that the data already showed a higher 11- . range-than I had picked arbitrarily, I felt it was no longer 12 necessary to take any further samples. As it turned out, we 13 got a little bit more data later on because of the 14 instruction issued to the field forces that was never
-15 rescinded until we started getting some of that-information
(
16 back.
17 But the decision to take-further sampling was 18 made at that time because'I had all of the necessary 'ata, d 19- in my opinion,.to establish the test parameters, the range
{ 20. of torques that I would use in the test.
lp 21 MR. CHEN: Before you go on, Bob, do'the samples 22 show with that you have quite a spread on the two. legs of 23 the U-bolts?
24 MR. IOTTI: Yes, in some instances it showed that 25 one leg of.the U-bolt was torqued to a higher value than the 1.
h; L_ .. _ _. _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .__ _ _
.. . - - . .~..
.--.a. . . : -~ : .:. - . a . . . . _ - . . ,
8540 03 06 34 2 . WRBeb 1 other leg. 'And we had a few, not many, where in some 2 instances one leg of the U-bolts was torqued at twice the 3 value of the other leg.
-4 I will get ahead of myself here again. But you
-5 .have to bear in mind that torque is not what is important 6 here; preload is what is important. And there is a
- . 7 correlation betwecn torque and preload but the correlation 8 has a variable coefficient. So just because you may in-fact 9 have two torques which are vastly different and end up with 10 the identical preload on both legs simply because of the 11 variability of the correlations. And I will get into it a 12 little bit later. '
13 (Slide.)
14 Now Westinghouse-- The people were asked to
.; 15 respond to the request for proposals. ~And Westinghouse
- 16. responded on the 17th of February. This is purely for 17 historical perspective. At that point in time, the test
, 18 range had'yet not been communicated to them. They still
. 19 were going on~the basis of the arbitrary range.
20 We selected Westinghouse to perform the tests,
~
21 and I don't recall the precise date but it was early in 22 March of '84. And Westinghouse then requested formally tha~t- l 23 we inform them of which torque-range to use for each of the 24 specimens that they.were' going to test.
25 We provided the torque ranges verbally some time
- .. l2 . .. - .:. .- ...'.i..' . . . . - . .
u 8540 03 07. .
35 l~ WRBeb 1 'in March. And the first evidence that:you find of the 2' torque ranges that'were actually used in the-test, which are
. completely correlated to the field sample that we got, was-4- on the 27th of March where.the first test procedure from
'S .' Westinghouse came out.
6 In that test / procedure you will find that the 7' torque range.for the four-inch pipe'was to'be between five 8 foot-pounds and 60 foot-pounds.
9 Now if you were to look at Ta.ble 2 of the l
10: affidavit you will find that the minimum torg'ue - and we 7
- 11. quoted average torques, the. average of the two l'egs -- was 12 between seven and a half and 60, so we chose to lower:the 13 low end to five. So we'ran-the test from five to 60.
- 14 For the ten-inch pipe, the field sample had given 15 us evidence that the average torque ranged from ten to;85,.
16 and we chose to run the test from ten to 100 foot-pounds.
l 17 For the-32-inch pipe, the-evidence was scanty.
l
.- 18 We didn't even have a particular sample of the 32-inch-19 line. We had samples from 40-inch lines, 30-inch lines, and'-
20 large-lines. But we looked at that~ sample and decided that
, _, 21 a' good range for the 32-inch line would be from'20 22 foot-pounds to 160.
23 Westinghouse came back in the test procedure and 24- had actually given us a sample, a range of-torques-from 20 l'
25 to 260, so we immediately commented back to them that we i
L.
w.- r-- ,
- e. -. -
a . . . - . - ~ ..:..+. -. _.
. . ~ . . ~ -
,8540'03'08 36 2 WRBeb 1 felt that the 260 was too high.- We told them to lower it to 2 -160.
3 Subsequently we rethought the upper range of the 4 ' torque and decided to disregard anything that the field 5- sample had given us and actually go to 240 foot-pounds. And 6 the 240 foot-pounds quite simply was determined by the
-. 7 testing practice -- by the torquing practice that was in 8 existence at Comanche Peak which calls for cinching the 9 U-bolt by making it snug tight, " snug tight" being defined 10 as the full force of a man using a torque wrench.
11' We thought for a 32-inch line, because of the Ei 12 size of the nut, you would use a three-foot torque wrench
^
13 and therefore, three foot times the full force of the man is 14 80 times three which gave us 240 foot-pounds. That's where
.l ,
15 we got to the upper limit.
16 MR. CHEN: But none of your large size--
17 MR. IOTTI: None of them got that high, none in 4
18 the field sample.
1, 19 MR. SHAO: What was original piping analysis'that 20 this analysis was based on? When you did the original L{
- 21 piping analysis, what--
22 MR. IOTTI: The original piping analysis did'not 23 address these issues other than incidentally by assuming-I 24 that the assembly would carry load and would function the 25 way,that the analyst assumed it to function. There was no s .
5 L'.
k __ __ _ -. - :._= - . . . - . . - _ - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
g, _ ,
. J. aw . , . . . ;.,~.,._-....*-.. _ . . ~ . - -
'8540.03 '09 37:
-1 .WRBeb 1' preload imposed on the pipe at that point. It just is a 2 simple restraint, a rigid restraint at that point.-
3- MR. CHEN: Defore you go on, you are saying you
-4 based the 240 foot pounds based on this three-foot wrench.
5' MR. IOTTI: Right.
6 MR. CHEN: How about for the smaller diameter
- 7 pipes?
8 MR. IOTTI: For the smaller diameter pipes we 9 used the upper range of what we saw from the field, perhaps 10 augmented to make it-- Like on the ten-inch, we went up to 11 100 rather than stop at 85. For the four-foot--
12 MR. CHEN: Why wouldn't you use the same argument-13 there?
'14 MR. IOTTI: Pardon?-
-l ,15 MR. CHEN: Why wouldn't you use the same
-16 argument thre?
17 MR._IOTTI: We could have. But you have to 18 actually look at the field data. For instance, for the
- i_ ,
19 four-inch, most of the data was around 25 foot-pounds.
~'
20 There were one or two that went up to around 60. In fact, 21 one of those had a 50 foot-pound on one leg and 70 on the 22 other, and I averaged them and we ended up with 60, and 23 that's what I used.
24 But if you were to plot a curve -- and I am not 25 representing here that there was statistical significance to E
_____m___
e S s.
y 6 ram. e - % *r% ks =wk:= a- , =ewJ, en~# *-'d-a -- a -e ' p oe. + ,eu,. e.,,_,, , , , , , , .
- 8540103 10 38 l':WRBeb .1 that sample. But if you were to plot a curve to get the 2 view of the range, you would yourself pick the low end of 3 five, which is very few, up to 60.
4 MR. CLOUD: The fundamental point that is being 5 - made is that the torque sampling results were used only as a 6 guide. They were not the basis for the test.
. 7 MR. TRAMMELL: Bob, I haven't been that close to 8 this but is all this pertinent really? If we are going to 9 confine this meeting'to whether or not the U-bolt sample 10 regarding Unit 2 was representative of Unit 1, this stuff --
11 this discussion seems like it has gone darafieldfromthat.
12 MR. IOTTI: Not really, because that is'ene of 13 the concerns, but the Board has introduced some other.
14 ancillary concerns. For instance, was the sample, 15 regardless if taken in Unit 1 or 2, was it random,.and was 16 it representative?
- 17 MR. TRAMMELL: Well, let's talk about stuff like 18 that then, j 19 MR. HORIN: For those of you who have not been t'
- } 20 involved in the process from the beginning,-I think Bob is
]* 21 presenting a detailed discussion but I think it is important
- 22 for people like Larry and for everybody here to understand
+
23 exactly what the sample was used for.
24 MR. IOTTI: I am trying to put it in-- I am g-25 trying to answer his question,as it relates to the safety
- xg i
D l
. _.__m_ __,
V
.#4 .ae-, l A* .-es- - ._
8540 03 11 39 1 WRBeb 1 significance. Now I think I have gotten myself ahead last 2 time in answering the low end. I still haven't answered his 3 question, what about the high end? Nhy does the s.9ple have 4 no importance at the high end?
5 And if you will permit me I will go through that 6 also.
7 MR. NOONAN: I would like to ask a question here.
8 It is kind of hot in here and we need to give the Recorder a 9 break point, so when you are at some place where you think 10 you can take a break--
11 MR. IOTTI: I think a good time would be as soon 12 as I have finished the historical perspective which I will 13 go through quickly.
14 MR. TERAO: A point of clarification.
15 When you said you're taking the U-bolt torque 16 values from the nuts, could you explain just for 17 clarification which nut you are taking the torques from, or 18 the procedure you took? There are two nuts apparently.
19 MR. IOTTI: Yes. We took it from both.
~
20 MR. TERAO: Two nuts on each U-bolt leg?
21 MR. IOTTI: Oh, no. There is an initial nut 22 which is the one that is being torqued, and then there is a 23 lock nut. We took it from the one closest to the 24 cross-piece, the one that provides the interface between the 25 cross-piece and the first nut.
~ . 2 , .e .
} . . . . , .. . -.- .
- n. ,
8540 03~12 40 1 WRBeb .' l MR. TERAO: All right. So first you would have 2- to take off the lock nut. .
3 MR. IOTTI: You take off the lock nut, right,.and 4 -then you examine the other nut. Okay?
5' (slide.)
6 Well, just very briefly, the first result that
. 7 directly invalidated any idea we might have had of using the
'J field sample data for any conclusion was the accelerated 9 vibration test which showed at low torque levels the 10 assembly to move about. Even though it carried load, we 11 considered that this motion was not acceptable.
12 And at that point in time we decided to' torque 13 the U-bolts to certain torque levels that would be 14 established by both the test, the finite element analysis, 15 and the other analytical methods. Okay? At that point in (a's 16 time,'the field sampling became no longer of importance.
17 At the upper end, the decision as to what is
- 18 acceptable is not predicated on the field sample; it is
. . 19 predicated on what the finite element analysis shows us to'
!'[. 20 be leading to acceptable U-bolt stresses, pipe stresses, l- 21 cross-piece stresses, and from the finite element analysis 22 to the other analytical method that is used to extend those j 23' results to all configurations.in the field.
24 sometimes those results can show torques to be 25 lower -- the torques that we choose to apply will be lower
[l e
i
~
_il-_~_Ei____.--_--_--~--'---------I---_-l-_-_-l-_ E
---i----- ' --
t 8540 03 13 41 1 WRBeb 1 than actually the torques that will be acceptable from the 2 standpoint of pipe stresses, U-bolt stresses, cross-piece 3 stresses.
k 4 DR. SHAO: What allowable do you use?
5 MR. IOTTI: That can lead us into a long, 6 elaborate discussion. We have used two-- Well, from the
. 7 U-bolt standpoint, -- okay? -- we used an allowable that
- 8 ultimately says if the U-bolt is stressed to less than half 9 of yield it will not relax. From the piping standpoint, we 10 had to develop a criteria because the code provides no ,
t 11 guidance. The criteria are clearly spelled out in the 12 affidavit. -
13 We used a dual approach, -- okay? -- but I will 14 just get ahead of myself because this is really going to
( 15 take un out from what we are discussing now. Maybe the best 16 bet would be after we finish this is for those of you who 17 are interested, we can continue the discussion and get into 18 the nitty-gritty details of the--
j ,
19 DR. SHAO: You are talking about the allowable
~
. 20 for the upper end?
21 MR. IOTTI: Right. What allowable we chose for 22 pipe stresses, for U-bolt stresses, those are the upper-end 23 allowables.
24 DR. SHAO: You say the code doesn't cover that?
25 MR. IOTTI: The code doesn't provide guidance
8540 03 14 42 1 WRBeb 1 for local stresses, other than it cautiot.. you against 2 excessive flattening. So you really can't use that per se.
3 You have to develop a quantitative acceptance 4 criteria. We did, and we explained it in the affidavit.
5 After the meeting or even during the meeting but at the end 6 of this we can get together and discuss it. Okay?
. 7 Now this was the comment I made:
8 Even though we felt there was no longer any use
~
9 for the field sample, still some data kept filtering in to 10 us because of the directives that had been qiven to the 11 field forces way at the beginning that hadn gotten turned 12 off. As soon as we realized that we turned them o'f. f And 13 so the data that was acquired like in April and May is very 14 little, and we included it in our affida it, but in effect,
( 15 we almost wished they hadn't taken it.
16 MR. DOSNAK: Bob,'before you leave that, what is 17 the threshold for the vibration torque value? Did you 18 establish one?
19 MR. IOTTI: Yes, we do have them. As a matter of 20 fact, each configuration in the field now has a specific
}
21 torque value to which it will be torqued, and they are 22 presently torquing each of the U-bolts.
23 Even though we understand that you haven't 24 finalized your conclusion, that we may have a lot of 25 questions to answer, we are proceeding at some risk to 9
ic
_.__._._____.________________,_s
m.:. e.
8540 03 15 43 2 WRBeb 1 retorque all of the cinched U-bolts or single stresses 2 numbers in the plant right now.
3 MR. BOSNAK But you feel you have a lower limit 4 on vibration?
5 MR. IOTTI: That's correct. We are applying a 6 torque value that ensures that the assembly is stable and
. 7 still does not cause undue stresses in the U-bolt, in the 8 pipe and the cross-piece. Le me get ahead of myself.
~
9 A few of the assemblies didn't pass all of our 10 criteria so we will be modifying seme of the assemblies.
11 It doesn't mean that every one of the -- how many?
s How many 12 did we have? -- 380-some U-bolts-- There were a few that 13 required modifications.
14 MR. BOSNAK: What kind of lower range and upper 15 range are you talking about?
16 MR. IOTTI: It depends on the U-bolt sizes, as 17 well as the pipe size. Let me give you a for intance.
18 For a Schedule 164-inch pipe, the torque of 24 19 foot-pounds will satisfy the stability condition and not 20 cause any problem with stresses. This is with a half-inch 21 U-bolt. If the U-bolt is a larger size, you will apply a 22 proportionally higher torque.
23 If you have a pipe which has a thinner schedule, 24 that torque may cause you a problem with stresses in the 25 pipe, and since that particular assembly may not require as
I
, . . ~ . . - - - . . . - - .
8540.03'16 44 1 WRBeb .1 high a torque from the stability standpoint, you apply a 2 torque of ten foot-pounds.
3 The point is each assembly, each specific l.
L 4 . assembly in the plant has been reviewed by an analytical 5 method which correlates very well with the finite element 6 analysis results.
7 MR. S!!AO: What's the upper range?
- l. 8 MR. IOTTI: It doesn't matter because you can l
9 apply higher torques and not still have problems, but we 10 don't need them.
11 MR. SH10: You say the upper end is no problem?
12' MR. CLOUD We're not communicating. Bob is.
13 saying that there.is-- The analytical method being used to 14 establish the right basis predicts a single value, and he 15 gave an example of that.
16 New your question is about ranges. What is the 17 question?
L 18 MR. SHAO: Do you have any results?
l/
19 MR. IOTTI: It's a single number.
l
{ ~20 MR. CLOUD: That comes from the analytical method-
.- 21 which was the end result of all of this work for setting the 22 torques for each assembly in the plant.
23 Do you follow that?
24 MR. SilAO: No. You have a single number for.
25 torque?
O
8540 03 17 45 2 WRBeb 1 MR. CLOUD: No, each unique assembly has a unique 2 value.
3 MR. IOTTI: Which is high enough to assure 4 stability and low enough not to cause problems with 5 stresses.
6 MR. SHAO: Well, but you don't have a range any
. 7 more?
8 MR. CLOUD: No.
9 MR. SHAO: It doesn't--
10 MR. IOTTI: That's correct. The range no longer 11 matters because we have a specific torque to which people 12 can-- -
13 MR. SHAO: Your twenty-five 25 foot-pounds 14 satisfies the stability and also satisfies the load is that 15 correct 16 MR. IOTTI: That's correct.
17 MR. DOSNAK: One more question on the lower range 18 again:
19 You are confident that your test program has 20 enveloped the vibration amplitude that might be present all
}
21 over with the combination of sizes? In other words, you f
22 have that ervelope?
23 MR. IOTTI: I am very confident on that. And 24 what makes me so confident is when I correlate the finite 25 element results with the test, I have good agreement.
8540 04 01 46 1 WRBwrb 1 When I correlate the analytical method that is 2 used to extend those results to all other configurations, I 3 also have very good agreement.
4 So I feel very comfortable that we have 5 encompassed all possibilities in the field.
6 MR. CLOUD: That's true. And I think a lot of 7 people feel that it is a very good method. But still and 8 all there is, as you know, a program that is under 9 development, and much of this will be re-confirmed as well.
10 MR. DOSNAK: I guess I didn't know that.
11 MR. IOTTI: Let me conclude the historical.
12 Westinghouse completed the testing in June of 13 '84. We correlated the finite element analysis to the 14 tests, the tests were evaluated, conclusions were drawn, and
- 15 we prepared the affidavit.
16 We began the effort on this analytical method 17 that would extend those results to all configurations. The 18 analytical method is complete. We have established now a 19 toroue level for each individual configuration in the
~
20 field. And, as I told you, some configurations did not pass
. 21 all of the criteria, and we will be modifying them.
22 Now, you have not seen this analytical method, it 23 has not been submitted. All you have seen is a commitment 24 on our part to establish the historic levels in our 25 affidavit. But you haven't seen this.
6540 04 02 47 1 WRBwrb 1 The reason you haven't seen it is, presently that 2 method is being verified by an independent organization.
3 This is Bob Cloud Associates. I gave you my opinion as to 4 how confident I am with those methods. Someone else has to 5 share my opinion.
6 In any case, we elected to start torquing the 7 U-bolts in the plant, even though we are doing so at some 8 risk. Bob Cloud may come back later on and say "I'm not 9 satisfied with this." The Commission may come back later on 10 and tell us they're not satisfied.
11 This is a good time, Vince, to break, if you want 12 to break. -
13 MR. VOLLMER: I thought during the historical 14 part you answered a question I had, and that ist Did 15 installation procedures specify this torquing?
(
16 MR. IOTTI: Yes. I will get into more detail as 17 to the specific procedures used.
18 I prefer starting with the Conclusions after the 19 break, because that will summarize all of this.
l} 20 MR. NOONAN: Let me ask one more question.
. 21 On this analytical method, do you plan to--
22 MR. IOTTI: The analytical method will be 23 submitted as part of a reply to the Board. The Board asked 24 us by memorandum to give them reasons as to why the 25 configurations that were tested were, in fact,
8540 04 03 48 1 WRBwrb l' representative of all the configurations in the field.
2 What we have done is, in fact, looked at every 3 single U-bolt configuration in the field that belonged to 4 the category of cinched U-bolts on single struts and 5 snubbers. We have looked at all the dimensions of all the 6 configurations, all the attributes, and we have prepared 7 tables that actually compare-- Well, I don't want to show 8 the slide right now: I have one. Part of the reply will
- 9 address the method that is being used to establish all of 10 the torques.
11 We will not give to the Board as part of our 12 reply the actual torques because the method has not been 13 fully verified yet. But the actual method itself that has 14 been used to arrive at the torques will be part of our
( 15 submittal. ,
16 MR. CLOUD: In the final analysis, you will 17 obviously have to know the entire basis for the 18 qualification of these.
19 MR. NOONAN: I understand.
~
20 Let's go ahead and break for a few minutes.
. 21 (Recess.)
22 MR. NOONAN: Let's resumed.
23 (Slide.)
24 MR. IOTTI: A good place to start is to summarize 25 the conclusions from the historical evolution that I have t
I,
++ e
8540 04 04 49 1 WRBwrb 1 presented. Originally the expectation was that the field 2 torques would prove adequate from the stability standpoint, 3 and that's why we oriented the applicants' plan the way we 4 did, if you look at the words of the applicants' plan.
5 This, of course, required confirmation by test, 6 so that the original field sample, the exploratory sample
. 7 that we took, was for test purposes alone, and was 8 incidental to the adequacy of verification until the test 9 results became available. So we collected that raw data to 10 set reasonable parameters for the U-bolt testing program.
11 And that was its sole purpose.
12 The test results as well as the scatter'of the 13 data that we get from the sample prompted us to decide to 14 re-torque all of the U-bolts in the field, those on single 15 struts and snubbers, but for the sample adequacies, for
(
16 purposes other than intended it became moot.
17 (Slide.)
18 Let me address a few other issues that the Board 19 has pointed out.
20 As I said, we were very, very surprised, almost
}
21 bewildered, at this allegation of having made a potentially 22 material falso statement. We think the words that we have 23 used after the facts when we used those words we had already 24 filed our affidavit, or we were filing our affidavit, we had 25 already decided to re-torque the U-bolts. Sample was the 1
l*
l
8540 04 05 50 1 WRBwrb 1 furthest thing from our minds, the adequacy. So we used 2 words that in our opinion got misinterpreted.
i 3 For instance, " random." We didn't use random l 4 sampling in any statistical sense. First of all, we said 5 " randomly selected." And it was never our intent to 6 indicate that this was a random sample in the way that a 7 statistician would define " random sample." ,
Randomly 8 selected.
9 MR. LIEDERMAN: What was it?
10 MR. IOTTI: It was randomly picked. I mean, even 11 today, trying to come up with a different word than 12 " random," I have difficulty.
13 A statistician has a well-defined meaning for 14 the word " random," a certain thing that it has to mean.
, 15 That was not o,ur intent. Ne randomly picked U-bolts, and as 16 Mr. Finneran will tell you later, he will tell you the 17 instruction he issued to the field force.
18 MR. CLOUD: It's perfectly clear in the context 19 of the statement.
20 MR. IOTTI: Let me define what I mean by
}
. 21 " randomly picked." To me, " randomly picked" is a picking 22 that was done without any intentional bias. That doesn't 23 mean there wasn't bias, but there certainly was none 24 intentional.
25 considering the actual use of the data,. which was
8540 04 06 51 1 NRBwrb 1 to provide information for test parameters, a statistically 2 significant sampic was not required, and as long as that was 3 not required you certainly didn't need a written plan or a 4 procedure or anything of that sort.
5 Had we, of course, intended to use the semple for
'6 other purposes, we would have evaluated the same adequacy in
. 7 that other context but we didn't, we had no other context.
8 Now, we were also picked on the word 9 " representative." Well, the torques that are applied to the 10 U-bolts depend on the torque application practices, and they 11 depend on the configuration of the assembly. Now, if the 12 configurations are the same, or similar, and the torquing 13 practices used on those samples are the same, then to me 14 it's obvious that it's representative. I don't know how
, 15 anyone can quarrel with that.
15 (Slide.)
17 Now, I'd like to ask John Finneran, since he is 18 the person who actually caused the data to be collected, to 19 tell you how he issued the instructions to the engineers.
20 John.
}
21 MR. TREDY: Could I ask a question?
22 You said you were going to be re-torquing all the 23 bolts, all the U-bolts.
24 MR. 1077I: On single struts and snubbers.
25 MR. TREBY: Even those that are painted?
l
U,
- c8540 04-07 52
~1 WRBwrb 1 MR. IOTTI: Even those that are painted.
2 MR. CLOUDS Especially those.that are 3 painted.
4 MR. IOTTI: We're going to have to-- Well, we're 5 going to have to have written procedures for cleaning up the 6 threads and re-torquing them, so that the paint will have no 7 influence. And then, of course, they will be repainted 8 after the process has been undertaken.
. 9 MR. Ti<EBY: I asked the question because paint i
10 apparently was one of the considerations.
11 MR. IOTTI: We'll get to that. Absolutely.
l 12 MR. FINNERAN: For those of you who don't know l 13 me, I'm John Finneran. I work for TUGCO', and I am the i
14 . project pipe support engineer at Comanche Peak.
(
, l
- . 15 Dr. Iotti requested that we take a sample of 16 torqued U-bolts in the field for our testing, and I was 17 responsible for getting that sample. As' indicated on the 18 previous slide, there were no written procedures or l- 19 instructions to gather the sample data. The instructions' 20 were verbal, and they were issued by myself.
- 21 I instructed the engineers to go into Unit 2 --
22 and I'll explain to you in the next slide why Unit 2r to go
. 23 into Unit 2 and find all of the cinched-down U-bolts they-24 could find, unpainted, in the two days that constitute the 25 majority of the sample that was taken.
l l
.= 3
- e
[._ 1
_. . . a .. -.~_u ' ' ... - _ w - . . _ . . :-
,- 8540 04 08 . .
53 1 WRDwrb 'l They were to test the torque on each leg of the
! 2 'U-bolt and record that torque reading. They were to report 3 .also"the size of the pipe they were taking the torque 4 reading from.
^- 5 'To reiterate, it was all the samples that they.
6 could find in wandering through the plant.
l
. .7 MR. NOONAN: Let me ask you a question before you l 8 go any farther.
., 9 This transcript is going to the Board, and'I want 10 to make sure that you tell us why you went into Unit 2. I 11 want to make sure that that'sontherecordveryclea'rky.
12 And if you're going to talk about paint'I want 13 you to describe for the record why you can't use -- why you 14 could not do what you wanted to do with the painted U-bolts.
15~ MR. FINNERAN: Okay. .
16 (Slide.)
17 One of the important issues, of course, is the 18 representativeness of the sample that we took from Unit 2.
19 The first thing I want to talk about is why I 20 directed the engineers to go to Unit 2. At the point in
}'
- 21 time we were taking the sample, we knew that virtually all 22 the supports in Unit I had been painted. And it was my 23 direction that they go to Unit 2. And the reason was that I 24 I didn't think that any sampling data that we took from
, 25 torqued U-bolts that had been painted would be that valid,
~
~. '9,
, + e.- + - d. - . - , . nn. ..-m-- w r, ..-.....+...,....a
^
- s. , - '.
8540 04 09 54 1 .WRBwrb 1 because you never know, once you get the torque reading, how 2- much of that torque was due'to the original preloading of
!, - 3. the joint prior to painting and how much of that torque 4 reading would be due to the adhesion.of the ,aint between 5 the mating surfaces -- the mating surface and the nut that
- 6. it was cinched down on. You would never know what that 7 impact would be. We still don't quite know what it would ;
8 be. But we felt like that it'would have an adverse impact j 9 on the torque readings that we took.
10 And, as I will explain to you later, I really ,
i 11" didn't have any problems in my own mind in taking a sample !
12 from Unit 2, because I had confidence that that was' i 13 representative of the plant.
14 Well, let's talk about construction practices
. s 15 now.
(. . .
16 The construction practice is the same in both 17 units. There is not a unique construction procedure for 18 Unit 1 and then a separate construction procedure for Unit 19 2. There is one common procedure, and it's followed by the
-' 20 crews that work in either Unit 1 or Unit 2.
21 So the construction procedures are the same.
22 Now, while I'm on construction procedures, I
. 23 would like to talk about a point that has been at issue in 24 these proceedings, and that is the modification that i 25 occurred in October of '82 to the construction procedures.
I 1
l h
!* r I.
O' m U@lNC %- S .R f W "
c .
. . _ . . . ~ ~ . -..w- _ . . .
8540 04 10 55
~1 WRBwrb 1 There have been implications that U-bolts torqued 2 prior to October '82 and U-bolts torqued after October '82 3 were torqued by different means because of the revision of 4 the construction procedures. So I would like to'make a few 5 comments about that.
6 The construction procedure was revised, first of 7 all, due to a verbal request from the resident nuclear 8 inspector, NRC inspector, that we change the procedure. And 9 the resson for changing it was to document the way that we 10 were currently torquing those U-bolts, and the way that we 11 had been torquing them all along. So the revision of the 12 construction procedures did not represent a new wap of doing 13 business as far as torquing the U-bolts, it just represented 14 the documentation of the way they had been torqued all 15 along, so that there would be some words in the construction 16 procedure related to what was occurring with these things. ,
1 17 Now, in order to verify this for ourselves in 18 support of one of our affidavits that we filed later on, we ,
19 examined the installation construction packages for over a 20 hundred of these U-bolts that we sampled in Unit 2, and we
}
. 21 were able,to identify that 33 of those packages actually had 22 the U-bolts torqued prior to the revision to the l 23 construction procedures, prior to October the 8th, 1982. !
24 A review of those torques indicates quite clearly 25 that there is no real difference in the torque ranges L... . . . .
1 a . . - :.--. - . . - . _ - . - - ,. . . - . - . - . . . - - - - --- . - ------
.-~.. - - . .
8540 04 11 156 1: WRBwrb. 1 achieved prior to that-date and after that date. And on the 2 next slide I will show you.we have~a graphical illustration 3 of that that I think will make it even more clear.
l-4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Did you get the data after the 5 affidavit was filed, or did you check that data before the. I i
15 affidavit-was filed?
7 MR. FINNERAN: We have to know what affidavit
.8 we're talking about. We're not talking about the original
.4
.- 9 effidavit in support of the_ motion for_ summary disposition, !
10~ it's'ene o'f the following affidavits that we filed in' answer {
s i
11 to the questione from the Board. Or it might have been in j 12 answer to CASE's motion concerning the material false-
'13 statement. I-don't' recall exactly which one.
-14 But we reviewed those construction packages prior
,- 15 to[ filing that particular affidavit. But it was after we l 5
\l 16 -had filed our original affidavit in support of the motion' l l '7 for summary (dispo,sition. l 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: So when the terms " randomly I
i 419 selected" and," representative" were first used, what-20
~
, knowledge did you have to form the view that they.were 21-representative?
s v22 MR. FINNERAN: Myself?
! . n23 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right.
i 24' ,
. MR. FINNERAN: I have personal knowledge of all
, 25 these points that I'm making for you. The review that we t $
4 h
,e
,-3
- - - = < = *~-..--+--m~ --2--+-*-*"-- e + 4 e-+- - -
, a.- - . -. - . - - - -. .- - - . . - - - . ~ - - . . . .
, '8540 04 12 57 1 1;'WRBwrb 1 did was'to offer some other supportive evidence of that. I
'i . ; +-
- 2. myself knew at that point in time when we wrote the original i
3 affidavit why the'NRC inspector had asked us to change the t
7 4 procedures. I also was aware that the practices before and
.h 5 after were the same. But the review of the construction 6 packages was done in order to gather some-additional facts, E 7 independent type facts, not just my personal opinion.
1
- > ' 8 MR. VOLLMER
- How was that procedure changed;
- q. 9 would you go over that briefly again?
( 10 MR. FINNERAN: There were some words added to the N.
.s <
11 procedure that said when a pipe support, a U-bolt pipe-
\
bI _
12 support called for z'ero clearance between the U-bolt and the
.' i
\; -'- 4 ~13 pipe, that it was to be installed snug-tight. And there A +
A 14 were already words in the procedure defining " snug-tight."
- q. 15 And I think-that Dr. Iotti touched on that.
?* ~ , 16 " Snug-tight" was defined as the full effort of a
's
' 17 man with a stud wrench. I think he said " torque wrench,"
c 18 but I believe the procedure says " stud wrench." j 19 Also I think it also says "or a few impacts _with i
j 1
20 an impact wrench."
, , 21 MR. VOLLMER: So there were no specific torque l l
1 1 22 values given for any specific hangers? !
1 1
23 MR. FINNERAN: No , no specific torque values in l
<i
}- 24 the construction procedures.
25 MR. HORIN: Wher,e did the definition of r '
'NJ
^
i i
~ '
1 . c- . _an m .- _ . . . ... _ _. ...._.___m___w._ ._. . _ . . . _ :..
, 8540 04 l'3 58 I; . 2 'WRBwrb l- " snug-tight" come from?
[
j'. 2 MR. FINNERAN: That definition of'" snug-tight," I k'
[ 3 don't remember the exact manual that it comes from. But 4 it's a fairly common definition in the-industry, the 5 ' construction industry. I have1seen it in a textbook, and I 6 can't' recall the exact textbook. But it is the full effort 7 of a man with an ordinary stud wrench.
8 MR. REDDING: When he talks about changing
- 9 procedures, he's just talking about changing the written
10 procedures. Because the practice itself is the same.
11~ MR. LIEBERMAN: You said that every accessible 12 bolt was sampled in Unit 2. Is that what was selected--
13 MR. FINNERAN: The instructions to the. engineer l'4 who went and took the sample was, in the period of time that 15 he had to do the' sample ne was to find every cinched U-bolt 16 he could find and take a torque reading on that U-bolt.
17 MR. CLOUD: Wait a minute. But all the'U-bolts t
18 in Unit 2.
19 MR. FINNERAN: There were only about 160 U-bolts 20 in our sample, and the list of those is now in some of the 21 subsequent filings that were made.
].
22 MR. CLOUD: Is that clear?
, 23 MR. LIEBERMAN: What's going through my mind -- I <
24 hate to belabor the point, but I guess we're here to look at
! 25 these words; that if the instructions were to look at all t -
- as - %
.. ~.. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - - . . . . . . . -. . - . -
-a _, L 8540 04 14 59 4 WRBwrb 1 bolts that were. cinched, what is the random aspect of that?
- 2. -MR. FINNERAN: The random aspect, as Dr. Iotti
. 3 indicated, is that there is no intentional bias or biased 4- instructions given to him. He wasn't told to look-at 5 .particular U-bolt. sizes or pipe sizes or anything, just to
,; 6' find all cinched U-bolts'he could find. Cinched U-bolts is 7 the: issue here: to find all the cinched U-bolts he could 8 find,. unpainted. And that's really the only specific 9 ' instruction he-was given, he was given no other bias than 10 that.
11 MR. CLOUD: But "all" in the context-.you just- .
- 12 'used it does not -- it doesn't mean complete, not byery one 13 in the plant. .That is used in the vernacular.
14 MR. FINNERAN: There are more cinched U-bolts in
- +
15 . Unit 2 than were sampled.
16 MR. VOLLMER: Unpainted?
17 MR. FINNERAN: Oh,.yes.
18 MR. VOLLMER: I guess I can't understand Bob's 19 clarification of "all."
20 MR. CLOUD: I'm saying it wasn't all: that's:the
}-
[ .. 21 point I'm trying to make.
22 MR. FINMERAN: The question was, were all the f* 23 unpainted cinched U-bolts in Unit 2 sampled? That's not the 24 : case.
m 25 MR. VOLLMER: You gave him so many hours to go
C ._.v. _-- - . . - . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . - . _ _ _
8540 04 15 60
, 2~'WRBwrb 1 find all he could; is that right?
2~ MR. FINNERAN: Yes; the bulk of the sample was 13 taken in two days. And you can see that if you'look at-the i;
4 list.of the sample, i 5 MR. IOTTI: Maybe that's a good definition of 6 " random:" as you run across them, take them. Through your 7 walk-down, whenever you see a cinched U-bolt that is 8 unpainted, go sample it.
. 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: And-that tells you what 10 percentage of of all of the.U-bolts in the plant were--
11 MR. FINNERAN: I don't have the information to
' 12 answer that_ question. But we'll try to get that.f6r you if.
- 13 it's important.
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Was it 10 percent or 60 percent?
9 15 MR. FINNERAN: I hate to try to give you a figure
.t .
16 off the top of my head. The have sometimes done that in the 17 past and have suffered for.it. so I don't want to do that
-' 18 again.
19 If you want a more specific answer I'll give it 20 to you. But I would like to go back and get it and give it g 21 to you.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Fair enough.
23 MR. FINNERAN: There has also been a lot of 24 discussion in these proceedings about the people involved--
25 MR. HORIN: Before we go ahead: Is that a O
.-..,w.., .-...E..y_.. o- + . -c. -
% e - - - . - ~
r-
- . , .- . ~. .. .-.~.- . = .-.--..-.u- .-...-.--.---.~a.
8540 04~16 61 l'
WRBwrb l' . request, that we go back and do that?
2 MR. LIEBERMAN: No, no.
-3 MR. TRAMMELL: It might have had some bias. . But , -
4 - you know, any sample is biased. .You gave-them two days to 5 to do that; is that what I heard? Was it a two-day effort?
6 MR. FINNERAN: It was basically a two-day 7- effort. And it was all that they could get in those two 8- . days.
-- 9 MR. TRAMMELL: Obviously they were going to get 11-0 the ones that were easiest to get to. That's bias, bat I 11- don't know'that that is necessarily significant.
~
12 MR. FINNERAN: I don't know if they got the ones 13 that-were easier to get to or not.
14 MR. TRAMMELL: I would suspect that they did.
p 15- MR. FINNERAN: Well, I don't know if that would 16 have some bias.
17 MR. TRAMMELL: I don't know either. I say they 18 probably got those that were easiest to get.to.
19 MR. FINNERAN: They got to as many.as they could 20 get to.
. 21 MR. IOTTI: Let's not lose sight of the fact that 22 we were to look for a range under which the tests were being 23 performed. We couldn't care less whether they were all. easy.
24 to get access to or not.' We might have a problem if the 25 information all came back and had nothing at all in the high 4
I. .
. -- , _m , --,,,y... ..
i.
, .. .. . . ~
. . . - . ..; {; - . . . - _ . _
.y.
-8540 04 17 a 62 1 _WRBwrb'
~
l- pipe sizes, ' which wei knew: we were going to test. But as 2 long as there wa's.information, it.wouldn't bother us.
3 MR. TRAMMELL: Well, what I mean'is; I-understand 4 your statement, but it just might be that all the ones that 5 are easy to get to are all the ones that'were very nicely 6 torqued. Who knows?-
7 MR. IOTTI: That could'be.
8' MR. TRAMMEL: That's not necessarily true,
.- 9 either.
10 MR. FINNERAN: I can' t think of ' any reason why 11 that would be the case. The construction procedure would be 12 the same-regardles.. of where they are. ,
13 Let's move on. ,
14 Another issue in these proceedings, as I said 15 .before, has been that the people involved in torquing the i
16: U-bolts in the construction crews were somehow different in
- 17. Unit 1 than in Unit 2.
18 There appears to be some misconception. That l
19 construction en Unit 1 took place.in some span of time, t :.d 2
20 then construction on Unit 2 took place in kind'of a separate 21 span of time, with maybe a small overlap.. In actuality, 22 just the opposite is true. The installation of supports in 23 Unit 2 started in late 1977, the installation of supports in 24 Unit I was not complete until about 1983. So there;was
- 25. about a six-year span of overlap there of on-going work in 26 both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
,0 1:
..,,--,_., ., - ; :,:_~_ - ~~~ ~' --~ - :- , o ,: > i.
~L -
- a. . a. . - .- - . . ;.'m.: . ...w. . . -. l_l , Jc . z. ._.a._ a.. - .: .-
8540 05J01 63 1- WRBeb 1 My own personal knowledge is that there is a 2 movement of construction crews in that common span there' 3 between the units, because the work. efforts are not always 4 the same in each. unit. That effort' kind of ebbs and--flows, 5 and the majority of the crews move back and - forth between
- 6' units as work needs dictate.
7 To further verify this fact, and again in support 8 in one of our later affidavits that we filed, we looked c
9 again at the construction packages that we had' reviewed, as or 10- I mentioned earlier, and we were alle to identify about 45 or so crew-foremen, lead men associated with-those-12 construction packages, and about 27.or 28, I think"it was, 13 of those crew foremen were still at the job' site.
14 . We personally interviewed them and we were able 15 to determine that 25 of those guys had worked in both Units-16- 1 and 2, so this further supported our feeling that'the 17 sample in Unit 2 was representative of the torques in the
, 18 plant.
19 (Slide.)
20 I think I indicated to you that I would show you
. k 21 a. graphical representation of the torque values that-were 22 taken prior to the revision to the construction procedure in
- 23 October of '82 and those afterwards.
24 The vertical scale on this chart is the number of 25 -torques, and the horizontal scale represents the torque
-,#. ' , , y -m . . ~, -
, r
n- -
,. , -- . ,.. w w.- a ::. . ~. . . u ..- a_ _ , ....-.a._..a~.-. . -
I, 8540.05'02- 64 1 .WRBeb 'l range for: those number of torques.
i '
21 You can see-here right at this point,is 50 L3 foot-pounds.-and this chart here indicates that in our total E 4 sample there were some 18 supports taken that were in the 50 5- foot-pound range, and there-were about-- It looks like t
6 about six here supports previous to October of '82 that were.
7 in that same range. And these supports are included in this-8- ' total sample, this total here.
'~*
9 So what you can see here is kind of a graphical 10- representation of the range of torques, and this is for all 11 pipe sizes. And there was no real difference in the range 12 of these torques for the ones before the construction 13 procedure changed and the ones after. You see about the 14 same distribution in the range.
15 -
MR. CHEN: Excuse me, John. Are those averages?
. (.
16 MR. I,OTTI: No. Those are actual for each nut, L 17 for each size.
18 MR. FINNERAN: I have other charts that are 19 broken down by pipe size which I can show you if you want.
20 They show about the same type of distribution.
.. 21 MR. VOLLMER: This difference is after the 22 procedure change which specified snugging?
23 MR. EINNERAN: Well, the implications were that 24 the procedure change resulted in a different way of 25 installing cinched U-bolts. Our point was that they were
-?
8540 05 03 65 1 WRBeb 1 always installed that way, and they weren't installed any 2 differently afterwards, that there was juct now 3 documentation in the construction procedure indicating how 4 they always had been done.
5 MR. VOLLMER: Well, let me ask a further 6 question. .
7 Do you draw any conclusions as to why there is 8 such a gross spread in the torquing values for a given --
.- 9 quote -- procedure?
10 MR. FINNERAN: Well, we have talked about that, 11 and the only conclusion we can come to is that people are 12 different, and how they do things is sometimes different.
13 But our bottom line conclusion and why we didn't discuss it 14 any further was we had made the decision that we were going 15 to go back.and torque these to specific measured torques, so i
16 it kind of lost meaning for us.
17 MR. VOLLMER: Well, I don't understand the graph 18 too well, but it looks like before '82 is better than after 19 '82, like you have more low torques after '82. You have a 20 lot of low torques after '82.
21 MR. FINNERAN: This is prior to '92.
22 MR. VOLLMER: Yes, prior to '82 seems to be a 23 little better.
24 MR. FINNERAN: Now wait a minute. This is not 25 the torque reading over here. The reading is down here.
{ . s. "
~ ... .. . .. J - . .- . .x . . . -. .- ,
8540 05 04 66
'l WRBeb 1 MR. VOLLMER: The torque reading is the other-2 way.
3 MR. FINNERAN . So the distribution of torques is 4 the same i.r-- You have a high number over here and a low 5 torque range, and a low number.over here in the higher 6 ~ torque range, both before '82 and after '82. It's the 7 relative distribution of this line down here to this line.
8 MR. VOLLMER: What I see is you have a lot of low-
. 9' torques after '82.
10 MR. IOTTI: You also had it before '82.
11 MR. CLOUD: To a certain extent it.is distorted 12 by the size of the sample. The sample after '82,is a much
_7 13 bigger sample. And all this is really saying is that most 14 of the torques are low.
15 MR. IOTTI: There's an answer for it, too. The 16 absence of the low torques for the prior to '82 is that.not.
17 a single one of the one-inch, one-and-a-half-inch and
. 18 two-inch pipe were -- that-fell within our samples fell into
- 19 the-prior to '82. And that is what fills this part. Okay?
}- 20 MR. SHAO: Ok ay . -
~
21 MR. IOTTI: The point is there is no statistical 22 trend that would lead you to believe that there is really.
23 any difference.
24 MR. VOLLMER: I guess what you're saying is -- if 25 you will pardon my use of the word -- it is random in both
________..__Y..
. . . - .u. a. , . w.
'8540 os 05 67 1- WRDeb 1 cases.
2 MR. IOTTI: You are absolutely right.
3 MR. FINNERAN: I would like to turn it back to 1
4 Dr. Iotti'for further comments.
< 5 MR. IOTTI: . Well, I guess there is one more issue 6 that I would like to address before I present conclusions,--
lr 7 (Slide.)
8 -- why we used the average torque for-the two legs. This is
- r. 9 something else that had perturbed the ASLB Board.
10 The reason in my mind is rather simple. We had 11 always intended to use those torque samples for the test. I 12 knew that I would apply equal torques during the test to 13 both sides of the leg. Now this does not'necessarily mean 14 that the same preload will result on each side, but I would 15 use the same torque on both sides of the leg.
16 And the reason for that is that insofar as U-bolt i 17 stresses are concerned, insofar as the pipe stresses, 18 thermal expansion loads, cross-piece stresses, it is the 19 total load at the interface between.the U-bolt and the pipe
}- 20 and the pipe and the cross-piece which matters, and that in i 21 turn depends on the total load, you know, a combination of i }.
22 the two legs, not on each individual leg.
23 Likewise for stability reasons, it is the 24 frictional resistance to rotation which matters, not 25 individual leg resistance versus the other.
9
- - . - , . .e,a..-. v ~ * . . . + ~ . - . -
. . . . . ,. a, ..%. .4.... +s ,~<e *:...s ...~,_u ..
8540 05 06~ 68
.1 .WRBeb l'- That is why we summed up the test that way, and 2 that is why I felt it appropriate to average the torques.
3 Now ultimately the issue again is irrelevant. We 4 had decided to torque all of the U-bolts. The way we 5' decided to torque them is to apply an equal torque to both 6 sides. We are not going to go torque one side higher than 7 the other. Again that practice may result in unequal 8 preload but the torques will be the same.
. . 9 And bear in mind that during the test, even 10 though we started with equal torques, some tests did in fact l' -11 . start with unequal preloads. And you can see evidence in
- 12. the test reports of Westinghouse which are attached to our 13 affidavit, we applied the same torques but some legs were 14 preloaded higher than other legs.
15- So the test did address this effect'to some 16 extent, certainly to the extent that we intended.
17 (Slide.) ,
18 Now conclusions. Here are the conclusions.
19 Because of the decision to retorque,.the field 20 torque sample and whether the sample was random or
~
21 representative is moot.
22 However, there was no question ever in our mind 23 that the sample was random enough or representative for the 24 use that we would make of it. You may disagree with the i
- 25 choice of the words, but it is our choice of words, of i
r .
4 m..... _ .y .y..- .. .... _ _ . .. . .
x= - - . . . . . . . , . .. ~ e. . -.. ~ ~u. . . : . . . . .
8540 05 07 ~69 1 WRBeb l~ random or: representative, - and what we intended to mean.
2 In retrospect, for completeness perhaps we should 3 have mentioned all the things that we mentioned today, such 4 as sampling'only on Unit 2, the averaging of torques. That 5- we.didn't even consider it may have been an oversight which, 6' from my point of view, was really caused by'the 7 insignificance of the sample to the ultimate conclusion that 8 we presented.
,, ~9 That's.it I guess.
10 Jack, if you want to add any further words to 11 this?
12 MR. REDDING: I would like to add to your 13 conclusions, Bob.
14 (Slide.)
, -1_5 Again we want to emphasize and ask you to
.r 16 remember what the purpose of the torque sample was and that 17 is the torque sampling work was done for exploratory 18 purposes only, not to show adequacy.
' 19 The data from the torque sampling work was used 20 as an aid in the establishment of an in-depth experimental
~
21 and analytical effort. So for the purposes of the use of 22 the data, the torque samples were sufficiently random and
. 23 representative.
. 12 4 The results of the experimental and analytical 25- effort led to the decision to reinspect and retorque all of
{'
l l
t'. .
- .;.... a - .-.
.. _ ....._...a. .... ._. : ._ --- ---- ; c 1 1-;- T -- ..
t 8540 05 08 70 1 WRBeb 1 the U-bolt assemblies at issue, and further, this decision 2 was made prior to and communicated in the affidavit of June t 3 29th, 1984, that led to this issue.
- 4 The torque sampling data was not relied upon in i
( 5 any way to demonstrate the adequacy of any Comanche Peak 6 hardware.
[ 7 MR. TRAMMELL: I.have a question, and that is was 8 the document in which you stated that the sample was
,, 9 ' randomly selected and representative -- or maybe those 10 aren't the exact words you used. But is that the same
.11*
document in which you said you were going to retorque 12 everything? ,
13 MR. CLOUD: Yes.
14 MR. TRAMMELL: What type of document was that?
15 AR. FINNERAN: That was in the affidavit that wa's t- \
16 filed in support' of our motion for summary' disposition 17 regarding cinched U-bolts, and that was filed June 29th, L. 18 1984.
I 19 MR. TRAMMELL: Thank you.
~
i i -
20 MR. NOONAN: Are there any further staff '
'l.
,j 21 questions at this time?
q 22 (No response.)
4 , 23 Basically what I will do is ask the Staff to 24 write up their answer as to the randomness and 25 representativeness of the samples, and I will communicate
(
i I
i r
m..._._ .a .
. m .u - . z . . . . . ~ . . . _ . , . . .- . . ,- _ _.
8540 05 09- 71
'l WRBeb 1 that back to the' utility.within in about -- oh,-probably 2 next week some time. Before the first of May I plan to get 3 it to-you.
4 With that, I guess I don't have any further
..s
- 5 questions, so I guess we will call the meeting to an end.
6 .And I thank you.
7 For the' record, since this is a public meeting, I' 8 wanted to offer the CASE representative an opportunity for
. 9 public comment. She is not here at the present time but she 10 told me earlier she would have no comments, so let the 11 record show that.
12 (Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the meeting Gas 13 concluded.)
14
,- 15 ,.
16
-17 18 -
19 e
~'
20 21 22 l:-
23 l' 24 l; 25 i
l l
j,.
i.
. , .+
n-. . + m e w.. , , , . . , . . . -
5::- + . . :-. .. R - . -
' CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
, c,.
This is to certify that .the att, ached proceedings before
~'
the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY ' COMMISSION in the matter-of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (Comanche Peak Project.) .
DOCKET NO.: 50-445
- PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND
( .. S' . ,
DATE:
. , MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1985 ,
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
- l Regulatory Commission.
(sigt / f
, (TYPED)
WILLIAM R. BLOOM Official Reporter Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
,- Reporter's Affiliation
- (i) t e
- gnp
."+>+n a e- s, o .s a -,.s- + ~s - - s ~+'
~. : a , ... .. . . . . . . . ..- - . . - . . . -. - - - . . .--- --- - -- -
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION REGARDING U-BOLT TOROUE SAMPLE l
{ ,
ORIGIN OF IS,SU,ES AND APPLICANTS' PROGRAM _
OV3RVIEW OF U-BOLT TESTING / ANALYSIS PROGRAM PURPOSE OF EXPLORATORY SAMPLE OF TOROUES, I . E. WHY SAMPLE OF FIELD TOROUES WAS UNDERTAKEN ORIGINALLY B
INTENDED USE OF SAMPLE t
ULTIMATE RESOLUTION OF U-BOLT CINCHING ISSUE DOES NOT UTILI2E INFORMATION DERIVED FROM TOROUE SAMPLE, I.E.,
DECISION TO RETOROUE (PRESENTED IN 6/29/84 MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION) MOOTS QUESTIONS REGARDING SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
(
~ SAMPLE ADEQUATE (APPROP'RIATELY RANDOM AND REPRESENTATIVE)
FOR ULTIMATE USE, AS DESCRIBED IN MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION P
{. h s*
't .
I 4
m.
O h
~' ~ ^ ~
l~
~
_L - _ _ . _. - -__ __
ORIGIN OF ISSUE BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN),
DECEMBER *28, 1983 '
INADEQUATE EVIDENCE REGARDING EFFECTS OF CINCHED U-BOLTS
.'
- SUdGESTION FOR DEVELOPMEh7 PRESENTATICb 0F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE APPLICANTS' PLAN TO RESPOND TO BOARD M ORANDUM AND ORDER 4
INDEPENDEST REVIEW Ah"O ASSESSMEh7 0F SEVERAL ISSUES PLAN REGARDING CINCHED U-BOLTS
"(3) PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT TE USE OF U-BOLT CINCHING IS APPROPRIATE TO ELIMINATE POTEhTIAL LOCAL INSTABILITY WITHOUT INTRODUCING ADVERSE EFFECTS IN THE PIPING AND 1 s
,- U-BOLT ITSELF. THIS EVIDENCE WILL BE GENERATED BY A
(
COMBINATION OF TESTS AND ANALYSES.
- (4) PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE NO ADVERSE LONG-TERM EFFECTS FROM U-BOLTS CAUSED BY HEATUP AND COOLDOWN
',, AND RELATED FRICTION ON THE PIPE. THIS EVIDENCE WILL
~
BE CEhTRATED BY THE TESTS AND ANALYSES NOTED IN ITEM
, (3) ABOVE.
- (5) PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF TE ACCEPTABILITY OF STRESSES
- ~
ON PIPES CAUSED BY THERMAL EXPANSION IN LOCAL AREAS AROUND CINCHED U-BOLTS. THIS EVIDENCE WILL BE CENERATED BY THE TESTS AND ANALYSES NOTED IN ITEM (3) ABOVE, SUPPLEMEhTED BY A FIELD SAMPLING OF TORQUE VALUES."
1
SUMMARY
OF TEST / ANALYSIS PROCRAM ,
- WESTINGHOUSE'S SERIES OT TESTS WAS PERTOMfED POR SELECTED PIPE AND
~
U-BOLT SIZES.
TESTS NECESSITATED A PARALLEL ANALYTICAL ETTORT (TEA) TO AID IN
- TEST RESULT INTERPRETATION AND IN EXTENSION TO OTEER C0hTIGURATIONS NOT COVERED BY TEST.
- TEST SERIES INVOLVED:
TORQUE VERSUS PRELOAD - TO ESTABLISH CORRELATION SLIP PORCE VERSUS TORQUE (PRELOAD) - TO ESTABLISH AS TUNCTION OT PRILOAD
. A. MOMINT NEEDED TO OVERCOME TRICTIONAL RESISTMCE To s
ASSEMPLY ROTATION B. TRICTICd COETTICIENTS LOAD DISTRIBUTION - TO ESTA3tISH JOINT STITTNESS
, , CHARACTERISTICS AND BDIAVIOR AS PRELOADED JOINT THEM1AL CYCLING - TO ESTABLISH A. THERMAL EXPANSION ETTECTS
- 3. LOSS OP PRELOAD (RELAXATION) BEHAVIOR CREEP - TO ESTABLISH LONG-TERM RELAXATION BEHAVIOR ACCELERATED VIBRATION - SAME
, SIMULATED SEISMIC - VERITY BEHAVIOR UNDER WORST CYCLIC
, LOAD EXPECTED i
\
1
. _ ..f_ ; 1T:E-e USE OF TORQUE SA.PLE DATA IN TEST ,
7 e
FIRST THPIE TESTS NIED A RANGE OF TORQUES TO DEFINE TEST BOUNDARIES -
RANGE COULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SAMPLES GIVEN THE OVERALL PROGRAM OF TESTS AND ANALYSES. kT TELT IT WOULD BE MORE APPRCPRIATE
. IT IT kTRE CONSISTENT WITH RANGE EXISTING IN TIELD.
THERMAL CYCLINC/ CREEP TESTS - TO BE CONDUCTED AT HIGH PRELOAD LEVELS.
USED VALUE EQUAL TO OR HIGHER THAN OBSERVED IN TIELD SAMPLE. :0ULD RAVE USED ARBITRARY VALUE. FEA/ TESTS CORRELATED EVALUATION MET!10D Ui.TIMATELYDETERMINEDACCEPTABLEVALUE.
ACCELERATED VIBRATION / SEISMIC - WERE TO HAVE USED MINIMUM VALUES 0F TORQUES SEEN IN THI SAMPLE. FIRST RESULTS INVALIDATED THIS APPROACH. VALUES UNRELATED TO SAMPLE kTRE USED.
e W
t
- e ,
9
r-4.a e e4 61 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SAMPLINO AND TEST / ANALYSIS PROGRAM TEST / ANALYSES TOROUE SAMPLE *
- TEST SPECITICATION (REQUEST TOR PROPOSAL) , ISSUED 1/9/84 A. TORQUE RANGE SPECITICATION o SET AT 5-125 TT-LB.
B. TORQUE LEVELS FOR CERTAIN TESTS TO BE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM VALUES TO BE DETINED LATIR FOR TESTED PIPE SIZES.
- FIRST TIELD SAMPLES TAKEN ON 1/21,28/84. EXPLORATORY SAMPLE TO PROVID'E DATA TOR USE IN PROGRAM SHOWS SCATTER OT VALUES AND PRESENCE OF LOW TORQUES.
g
- TURTHER SAMPLING NOT WARRANTED.
SAMPLE TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH TEST PARAMETERS.
- E, ITT RESPONSE TO RFP ,
(2/17/84). PRECISE TEST
- RANGE NOT YET COMMUNICATED.
- SELECTION OF E FOR U-BOLT CINCHING TESTS (3/ /84). . . .
- 3 REQUESTS TORQUE RANGES FROM niGC0 (3/9/84). - TUGC0 TRANSMITS TORQUE RANdES TO E VERBALLY.
- FIRST H TEST PROCEDURE (3/2'7/84) INCLUDES TORQUE RANGES (THESE ARE CONSISTENT
( WITH FIELD SAMPLES. SEE, -
TABLE 2 of 6/29/84 AFFIDAVIT). - TUGC0 COMMENTS ON 32" MS UPPER LIMIT - FROM FIELD SAMPLING (3/28/84).
- TUGC0 FURTHER REVISES 32" MS UPPER LIMIT OF TORQUE RANGE (VERBAL
~
COMMUNICATION APPROXIMATELY 4/13/84) -
240 FT-LB PREMISED ON RTLL FORCE 0F MAN WITH 3 FT WRENCH (NOT FROM SAMPLE).
- _ . .. . . . . . .. m. _ _ _ . . _ _. . . _ _ . - _ ;
I f .
- TEST RESULTS TROM ACCELERATED VIBRATION SHO*dS ASSEMBLY ,
ASSEM3LY MOVES *tTP TO TORQUES ,
ABOVE MINIMUM, VALUES OBSERVED- ..
IN SAMPLE.
FIELD SAMPLE NO LONGER OT 1.9 0RTANCE.
APPLICANTS DECIDE TO RETORQUE ALL CINCEED U-BOLTS ON SINCLI STRUTS OR SNUBBERS IN UNITS 1 AND 2 AND COMMON ARIAS. (APRIL-MAY, 1984)
ADDITIONAL FIELD S4PLES
(~ , (4/14 - 5/24/84)' .
[
1EERE WAS A CO.NTIMJING EFFORT TO SUPLE A FEW CISCHED U-BOLTS AS THEY WERE INSTALLED,10iICH WAS TER\lINATED AFTER THE DECISION TO RETORQUE ALL -
U-BOLTS AT ISSUE.
- f N
4 9
b l
0 6
9 e
e
--' b- % $_.-..' ._-.L*O'L._2___.._OD_.__.. 94 D- L_.- - DO 2O t 1OL n
+
i d
W TESTS ARE COFLETED (JUNE 1984)
FINITE ELDENT ANALYSES ARE CORRELATED TO W
- TESTS. TESTS ARE EVALUATED. CONCLUSIONS XRE ,
DERIVED. AFFIDAVIT IS PREPARED.
EFFORT BEGINS ON ANALYTICAL bE E OD TO SET -
1 TORQUES LEVELS FOR ALL' CONFIGURATIONS INCLUDING'U-BOLTS, PIPH, CROSS PIECE STRESS EVALUATION AND CONSIDERAT]ON OF RELAXATION. .,_
e ANALYTICAL hem 0D CGFLETE. INDIVIDUAL TORQUES SET FOR ALL CONFIGURATIONS. FEW REQUIRE FDDI-FICATION.
ANALYTICAL FEEOD BEING VERIFIED BY INDEPENTEhT ORGANIZATIOh' (RLCA) . U BOLTS BEING TORQUED IN PIANT AT SOE RISK (UNDERNAY PRESENTLY).
L O
e O
1 r i
)
4
- i 1
9 g.
_____________________..._____m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
CONCLUSION PROM HISTORICAL EVOLUTION l
ORIGINALLY, THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT THE FIELD TORQUES WOULD BE ADEQUATE THIS REQUIRED CONFIRMATION BY TESTS
~~
ORIGINAL FIELD' SAMPLE WAS FOR TEST PURPOSES AND WAS INCIDENTAL TO ADEQUACY / VERIFICATION UNTIL TEST RESULTS BECAME AVAILABLE COLLECTED RAW DATA TO SET REASONABLE PARAMETERS FOR THE U-BOLT TESTING PROGRAM TEST RESULTS AND SCATTER OF DATA FROM SAMPLE PROMPTED ULTIMATE DECISION TO RETOROUE SAMPLE ADEQUACY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN INTENDED (SET PARAMETERS FOR TEST) BECAME MOOT
, , s
\
- e e
e o
e O
E .
i h
a a . se f+ tv i .691
.l. .l . . ... - . - . _ . . _ , _ . _ _ . _ _
WHAT WAS MMNT BY " RANDOMLY SELECTED. REPRESENTATIVE" SAMPLE 7 TERMS ACCURATE AND APPROPRIATE IN CONTEXT TERMS APPLIED TO SAMPLE ONLY IN CONTEXT OF Ah3 ATTER ULTIMATE DECISION TO RITORQUE i- . , .
A. RANDOM (" RANDOMLY SELECTED")
"RANDOEY SELECTED" WAS NOT INTENDED TO INDICATE " RANDOM SAMPLE" IN STATISTICAL SENSE RAND 0EY SELECTED !!EANS PICKID ,"AT RA!.T.OM" WITHOUT ANY " INTENTIONAL" BIAS , --
. . s CONSIDERINGACTUAL.USEOFDATA(PROVIDEINFOR$ATIONFORTESI ,
PARAMETERS) STATISTICAL SI(;.NITICANT SAMPLE d.S 'Nol' REQUIRED, H'.*NCE. I *H NO WRITTEN PLAN OR PROCEDi!RE FOR SAMPLING , ,
- HAD WE USED SAMPLE TOR OTUR PUhPOSES, WL'WOULD lLWE EVd.UOED SAMPLE FOR ADEQUACY IN THAT ,0,TH,E,R,I'ONTEE NIGHT HAVE BECW (E.C., IT USED TO SUPPORT ADEQUACY OT W T UAS IN TIELD (VHIcti 1T WAS NOT) w ",
k WOULDHAVEREQUIREDSUPP$E.TNTATION)'3UTSUC.kEVA REQUIRED GIVEN ACTUAL USE F SAMPLE .
,. s %
- 3. REPRESENTATIVE , s P
TORQUES APPLIED TO U-BOLTS DEPMm ON --
, TORQUE APPLICATION PRACTICES .
^
- CONTICURATION OF ASSEMBL'i ,,, .
- ~
- IT CONTICURATIONS ARE SAME OR- $1HI?,4f. AVD '10RQUING PRACTICES USED
', ON SAMPLES ARI IDENTICAL, THIN SAP.TLES ARE REPT.LSENTATIVE b
S. ! 4.
, M
.f
F ... , _ .. __ - _ . . . . , . . . .,_. _ ... _ _
s METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS TO ENGINEERS l
s .
RECORD TORQUES OF BOTH NUTS ON MiY (SAFETY OR NON-SAFETY)
CINCHED U-BOLT FOUND UNPAINTED IN UNIT 2 r; L .
_ TORQUES CHICKID BY TIGHTENING NUTS USING CALIBRATED TORQUE n.
, WRINCHIS 4
(~ , ,
k b k 4 ,
e
- e
%' . t O
I i
.s- +
e f.. a=
I
?q I
Vs ,
hy.
.} ,,
'ku
'5_ y .
4 c, - s
- r #
49
- 9 k,, *9'W % .
1 2L( .k_ . . .
. - m u . .J_. . _m : ._ .. --_-.e....-u.... -- ~ ~ ~ ~ . - - _ - x..--..,.. ~~ -- - - . - - - --
. .~~ ..,
la:d. .p. .
r- S ,.
t f,
MEPRESENTATIVENESS OF UNIT 2 TORQUESr i, . x' [( v l 9t ii LN -
- NECESSARY BECAUSE' ONLY UNPAINTED. U-BOLTS WERE IN UNIT 2 J
=
=
t- ,
- g, -
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES'ARE.SAME IN BOTH UNITS <
/
3 .. .
- PRdCEDU.RE._S , -
PROCEDURE DOCUMENTED PRACTICE
/
.i 'J AT REQUEST 1 0F NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR RESULTING TORQUES AFTER PROCEDURE SHOWSTNO DIFFERENCE L >-
d FROM PRIOR TORQUES I I r .
+
1 P
PEOPLE ' -
- t .f
~ OVERLAP OF UNIT 1 AND 2 SUPPORT INSTALLATION l-CREWS SHIFTED BETWEEN'dNITS
.1
- e e
- j _ .',},
'4 'b t
j,
.I sf ,
. i 1 y : + .
,' : jr' ? .l s
- n. (.-s- ,
g ,,
J lh- '
Q ,? , f .l '
W
?
4
. /
f n. Q_ b
--t .
. A mps
[-[
fN v.
>, ' \ -/ > -
( L.b . t ',
?f
- g f v .
4.!
f .- *
i .
i n; .
9 3 2,-.
,7 nha .. . ~: & 1 =- ,--~=~~--h-- _ _ _ _
- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - --
4 .
. t-W
~ k . .
7' M
g . ,
e 3 .
G.
N .
t,
{
. t -'
i
- c. *+=
?' I
. I SJ
[ %% s%% \ \ s s.
! ?. . s s s % s % s%s %s: ,
I i
',\\ *
. ,s
- s A
+ .
[ '{
l -
. g%u
, %%\
I \
- f
\
(g.ss g% s t.s %% %
- ss s %s g s ,
j
- t
d l -. - s F
j , -s%Ns%N%%%N I' =s
, s%.s ss Ax 6
e gs%%gNssss s .gNs s'
% % % %sss, N-s
-e k ,
~
s
- s . . g\
i s. . .s* .
,4 ' 'f
-s
,%%%%
- s s % %s h s .
.am. %
N
- / . ,% $ s % % s gNb
- gg s%% , sg i
N e
.s% ,s . i ss %s * =s= s s w %% . g '. s s s s s * *ss
..s .s .. . . sQ
' ~
%s
.one?u.r'o,y-g , , y :r . - . . - - - .
, ,a w qw wb %"*>%
= * '
e O
9 e ,
e D t%
s w- ,
o-
-- rs g h as w.
. . ,mM --
' D s,
a
.- u co T
uk W
N L% u o ebm 5
b
- v.
5
('r - -
sum o D
s .s 434 h
a f"
m E a
bs s% ~ ,%,
\ '
O
=
us%% . t\ 9
},% .
gg *T
=
% % % % % \t \
- %%%s'
\
, ." O \
%% \\\ \
m
} , e-va
- 4 .-
~
d o ss s'
, ,~
..m o
I w k
sworx.10.#
O
+-
, , e e + e,. * *=e aw4mem+-awee% g w
- w-+ -- ** 9-+
7- . . . . _ _ ._. . . . . - . . . ~. _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ . . . _ , , .,,,1, _, _ . . _ , ,
or sr 6 - /4 Pitt.s Y
s 1
-h
- V 4
. .. r3 -
~
k .-
g _
/ d
/-
/ 4 o 4 o
e s, j s s
W t
r , 7 ,,
, e ,
l l
< , i s i s,
< -~.
i <
- 's
~
rim, S.w.vr, <
s ! i s s '
9,,,,
s, l ..i lg
- ,; sm
?, * .
re ,. , .c f- <
/0 . 30 50 70 fo !!O /3 O
(.,
~~~
13/sucw e;0cf U-200~UL4 ('/743)
S
~
O
> /6 Ncs 4
-W ~
e
.,s .
a f.
hJe MC R, R,
- , ", F%,
@ for -
- ..,,,,,,o s' '. ,,--,,d -
~
.- -, m ;C
.a. 1 I < - -
t I 5 . , , , ,1
,.s C
V- '
', .d , , , f . '. ,
, i l
$O' O /gg /$O l'
- 3, 7bd evY m EAcH u k w it6 67:43 )
F f
Ir /
NJQk. O l $U
- .o
,-v u Msw.M " W ,,,- weg... ;,w ,m. ,m ___..,._,y_ . _ ;a;, . . , _ ,.a- . *,j ; ,;,,, ,y. ..vw,
~ ~
., _.> - . - - - _ . ~ . . _ .. .. ._.. ,_;..
e
- e
'5
. WHY AVERAGE TOROUES OF TWO LEGS? T -
~i ALWAYS HAD IS' TENT OF USING TORQUE SAMPLE FOR TEST TEST WOULD APPLY EQUAL TORQUES ON BOTH LEGS - THIS DOESN'T MEAN
.e ..e SAME PRELOAD (PRELOAD CANNOT BE READILY DETERMINED IN FIELD)
- TOTAL PRELOAD OF U-BOLT IS THE IMPORTANT PARAMETER FOR ASSESSING PIPE STRESSES, THER$AL EXPANSION LOADS, CROSSPIECE STRESSES.
THAT IS WHY TEST WAS SET UP WITH EQUAL TORQUES ON BOTH LEGS .
EFFECT ON " STABILITY" 0F UNEQUAL TORQUES IN TWO LEGS IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE RETORQUING PROGRAM WILL ENSURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN
- EVEN WHEN TORQUES ARE SAME, PRELOAD CAN BE DIFFERENT. THESE e . . .
- DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED IN THE TESTS i
4 e
e ii
- a
, :i .- ,.
e am +, =.s * =e. m * .m e a , e =+e.e,== + -e.+-m* --a +-.-eew --*** em. **.swe**-
- e7'--**
- ewe ev. mmw n ywem, e. .+~a~.,. ewe,..,ws,.~a - -a.+e-.n s.. -
-.>.n_ , ,--ws . .~ . < w - + o, m e. n e-e .-
, ., 3 .,.,
'
- cT.'.
a, .
.O ,
a i
CONCLUSIONS L
4
- BECAUSE OF DECISION TO R.ETORQUE, FIELD SAMPLE AND km.t.ac.1.x SAMPLE e __ ..
RANDOM OR RI?RESENTA~IVE IS MOOT
- COSSIDERINO REPRESENTATIVENT.SS OF SAMPLE AND ITS INSIGNIFICANCE g TO ULTD'. ATE DETEFJ'.INATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS, TEE NEED FOR NETHER DISCUSSION OF SAMPLE n"IRIBUTES WAS NOT CONSIDERID l
- e
(
h e
e
?
e-
,f 9
e 9 -
s
- * * * " * * *.**- see e en aem ao . .,..., ,
- ** " * * * * * * ** - + ee * .e at e- e ,,
i *- e n w =, . , , ,.
CONCLUSIONS I .
THE TOR 0VE SAMPLIllG WORK WAS DONE FOR.EXPOLORATORY PURPOSES,
, -NOT TO SHOW ADEQUACY.
+
THE DATA FROM THE TORQUE SAMPLING WORK WAS USED AS-AN AID IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IN-DEPTH EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL EFFORT.
~
(.
THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL EFFORT LED TO THE DECISION TO REINSPECT AND RET 0RQUE ALL OF THE U-BOLT
- ASSEMBLIES AT ISSUE. FURTHER, THIS DECISION WAS MADE PRIOR TO AND COMMUNICATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF JUNE 29, 1984.THAT
-o LED TO THIS ISSUE.
t t
THE TORQUE SAMPLING DATA WAS NOT RELIED.UPON IN ANYWAY TO l}
DEMONSTRATE THE ADEQUACY OF ANY COMANCHE PEAK HARDWARE.
- v. ;. , , , _