ML20141E690
| ML20141E690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1984 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601080280 | |
| Download: ML20141E690 (150) | |
Text
-
I '
ORIGINAL 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L'~/')
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIDiISSION 4
5 6
8 "'
O* kh
~
In the matter of : [
9 COM'1ANCHE PEAK 10 TEXAS, UTILITY 11 12
. 13 d 14 15 16 l l
17 18 19 20 Iccation : Bethesda, MD. Pages 1-- 14 8 21 Date: Thursday, August 9, 1984 22 23 24 8601080200 840809 O PDR ADOCK 05000445 T "D"
() 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6136
i I
N g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 In the matter of: '[
5 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING :
COMPANY, et al.- : Docket Nos. 50-445 6 : 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
7 Station, Units 1 and 2) :
s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9
- 7735 Old Georgetown Rd.
in Room 1713 Bethesda, Maryland 11 Thursday, August 9,1984 12 13 Hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 B:05.a.m.
15 APPEARANCES:
16 On behalf of the Applicants:
17 PAUL CHEN 18 WILLIAM A. HORIN, ESQ.
ROBERT IOTTI JOHN FINNERAN 19 DAVID WADE 20 On behalf of the NRC Staff:-
21 J. BRAMMER HANK FLECK 22 DAVID TERAO JOHN FAIR 23 SPOTSWOOD BURWELL 24 25 O
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
O 4
E S S E E E E E E S O.
(3 2 M R. FURWELL: My name is Spottswood Burwell.
'm) 3 This is the second day of the meeting with the Texas 4
Utility Company and the NRC to provide the staff an 5 opportunity to ask questions concerning the summary 6 disposition filed by Texas Utility and the response of 7 June and July.
8 At the close of the meeting yesterday we were 9 -discussing the motion for summary disposition entitled,
'O App licant's Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding 11 Stability of Pipe Supporty. This is- a continuation of 12 that item. With that introduction I will turn the meeting 13 over to Mr. Terao.
N 14 M R. TERAO: I believe yesterday we left off 15 after discussing the Type I restraints and specifically 16 the modifications made using index lugs and an additional 17 strut. I .would to now discuss the third modification 18 which is the addition of the U bolt, a cinch down U bolt.
19 My question is, for this modification were there any 20 frames that would have a gap in it originally that was 21 then modified by adding a U bolt?
22 MR. FINNETAN: No.
23 M P. ERAO: Okay. So then the addition of the NEC 106/224 U bolts were only on those frames where there was zero
(] Tape 1
\/ LAR 1 25 clearance?
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. Et Annop.169-6136
0 I
M R. FINNERAN : That's correct.
2 M R. TERAO: Then I don't see any potential (v"')
3 safety concern with that modification but I would like to 4
state that I do not necessarily accept the modification 5
in the sense that I would approve that modification.
6 What I am saying is that I don't see any potential safety 7
concern from that.
8 MR. HORIN : Are you saying you may not have 9
done it that way yourself but you don't see any problen to with having done it?
11 MR. TERAO: I am saying I would not like to see 12 this design come out saying that the NRC approved this 13 design.
g
\._/
14 MR. EURWELL: Is there some basis for that Dave ?
15 - M R. TEPAO: Well, we don't approve any designs.
16 So, let's go to the Type II restraints. Now, the Type II 17 restraints are the U bolt single struts with thermal gap.
18 I believe you said there were 15 of these restraints, 13 19
~
were found on the main steam, 2 on other systems and in 20 order to improve stability you cinched up some of the U 21 bolts and you added structural steel to the others. Could 22 you explain what the additional structural steel was?
23 MR. FINNERAN: You look at Figure 5, this is 24 NRC 106/2 only on the main steam supports that this had occurred,
() Tape 1
'# 25 LAR 2 .and on 4 of the main steem supports there was supplementary FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. da Annop. 169-6136
4 1
steel added on each side of the backing beam that served
/"x 2 as provention of rotation of the backing beam. On two of
'd 3 those 4 the U bolts were also cinched down. So, U bolts 4 were cinched down and supplementary steel was added that 5 would abutt up, not against it, but very small gap, up 6 against both sides of the backing beam to prevent 7 rotation of that backing beam.
8 And, on two of the supports the U bolts were not
~
9 cinched up and the supplementary steel was added,on two-10 U bolts were cinched up and the supplementary steel was 11 added.
12 MR. EURWELL: Did you want to just sketch up s 13 something?
14 (Multiple conversations) 15 M R. FINNERAN : This particular line has 16 virtually no movement in the,- you want to call this 17 directions and this direction, horizontal direction. All 18 the movement is actually,- for these mai- steam lines, 19 they are the ones that are about 50 feet long and there 20 is perfectly straight lines and they run between the 21 penetration and the containment building to the --
22 restraints just before they go out of the safeguard 23 building out on to the turbine, out in the George NRC 106/224 Washington Bridge area. So, the only. movement on these
(';
V Tape 1 LAR 3 25 things is'the thermal growth actually.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
b 1 This is basically the modification that was made on
(~') 2 4 of these supports. On two of those the U bolts were V
3 also cinched up in addition.
4 HR. TERAO: This modification was made only for 5 the main steam piping?
6 MR. FINNERAN: That's~it. Just for 4 of them.
7 MR. TERAO: And this ties in with your 8 supplementary analysis where you ran the main steam pipe 9 and with all of the restraints removed and the main steam 10 pipe still passed code allowable stresses ?
11 MR. FINNERAM: Yes.
12 MR. TERAO: And so would these restraints have 13 been on that portion of the supplementary analysis ?
(v! There was, on the four main 14 M R. FINNERAN :
15 steam lines. There was one of these on each of those 16 lines.
17 M E. IOTTI: I think his question was whether you 18 removed that particular one when you ran the analysis-19 MR. FINNERAN : Oh yes, we did.
20 MR. TERAO: No, well, my question was, were 21 these on',- was this particular modification on that part 22 of the main steam line that you ran where you took off 23 all the restraints ?
NRC 106/224 MR. FINNERAN : Yes.
() Tape 2 U' LAR 4 25 M E. TEPAO:: Okay. I guess my comment would FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6136
G 1
be,- I guess my comment would still be, for this type of
() 2 configuration, I would not like to see this restraint 3 being used as a seismic restraint. It can be used, of 4 I have no problems with course, as a weight restraint.
5 that. If your analysis shows that you don't need it as 6 a seismic restraint and that you want to incorporate it 7 as a weight restraint I would have no problems with that 8 either. But, if you want to try to take credit for that 9 as a seismic restraint and in both directions, I think 10 we are going to need more discussion on that.
11 M R. FINNERAN: No. It is not intended to take 12 It is intended to stop rotation horizontal seismic load.
13
,q of this member from a vertically up load where it might C/ 14 tend to try to rotate, where the cross piece might tend 15 to try to rotate and then become a three-hinged pin.
16 Ckay? That's the intension.
17 MR. TERAO: Well, I think my position is still-18 my position 1still, on this restraint is, because of the gap 19 in there, going back to my criteria so to speak on 20 whether or not that clamp is functional, if we can' t rely I
21 on the clamping function around the pipe then I am not 22 going to allow credit as a seismic restraint even in the 23 vertical direction. But, what I am saying, because your 24 n
NFC 106/2 analysis show that you don't even need this restraint for j
( ) Tape 1 25 IAR S a seismic then I have no problems with you using this FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6136
7 1
restraint for a weight tender. But, I would not approve 2 the restraint for a seismic restraint in the vertical
[v]
3 direction.
4 M R. IOTTI: Well, what is your basis for not 5 approving it? I think the only basis, from you have, for 6 not approving it as a seismic vertical restraint is that 7 if the clamp does not fulfill its fuction it can rotate-n 8 and that whole contrivance can rotate around the pipe, 9 then, in fact, your moman (phonetic) arm of the strut is 10 in fact altered. The loads are changed because the 11 angle is changed. Where there were the two bumpers, 12 if you will, preventing that rotation, whether there is 13 a gap or not, why wouldn't that accomplish the same c) 14 thing?
15 MR. TEPAO: Because you still have a gap between 16 the pipe and the backing beam.
17 M R. IOTTI: Oh, you mean for gap, gap affects .
i
)
18 you mean ?
19 M R. TERAO : No. It's not clamping. There is 20 no positive clamping force-developed between the pipe 21 and the support.
22' MR. IOI'TI : Fine. Let's assume there is no l 23 positive clamping and let's further assume that you are HRC106/224 going to have the seismic event occurring. Now, there
/7 Tape 1 LAR 6 25 is no credit taken for this restraint in the horizontal FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136 1
1 direction or the actual direction with regard to seismic.
2
(}
%_)
Let's just look at the vertical direction. What would 3 happen now when the exidition (phonetic) comes through 4
the support or through the pipe? The pipe can either 5
move downward with respect to the support and I don't 6 think you will have a problem with that, but there is a 7 positive action downward in any case. The U bolt will 8 restrain the pipe in the downward direction. Your concern 9 is in the upward direction looking at it. Okay, so that to you have a seisnic force coming this way or possibly 11 downward through this way, and you now have a gap. What 12 can happen here can be, at most, a slight rotation of 13 the backing beam and there will be an impact between the g-)
%)
14 pipe and the backing plate because of the presence of 15 the gap. Where is that pipe going to go? It will make 16 contact with the backing plate or the backing tube steel 17 I guess, at this point,- there is a ....on the tube 18 steel?
19 There in a built up plate underneath the tube steel 20 so you will then have, during the instance where the 21 seismic drives the piping to the backing plate, you now 22 establish-23 MR. TERAO: Yes. I understand what you are NRC 106/2 24 trying to explain me from an engineering standpoint and
() Tape 1
\' LAR 7 25 I would agree on an engineering standpoint that tha t in FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportina e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
l 3
1 probably what is-going to happen. My problem is still l
l
/'- 2 that analytically it is very difficult to show what will l Q'i 3 happen to that pipe during a seismic event without some 4 type of testing or without some type of nonlinear analysis 5 to conclusively show what will happen.
i 6 I agree with you on an engineering sense. I think 7 this support will work but the problem is that it is not 8 a controlled mechanism for assuring the stability of 9 that,- of the clamp around the pipe.
l 10 M R. IOTTI: Well, I don't think we are claiming l
11 that the,- in the sense that we had defined stability, 12 that that particular support would in fact be stable 13 because the clamp would rotate about the pipe and rotate Os within a very limited angle permitted by the two bumpers.
.14 l
! 15 On the other hand I guess what we are relying upon is l
16 that engineeringwise we holieve that particular support i
17 will work in the upward direction as well as the downward 18 direction. We only have two of these?
! 19 MR. FINNERAN: Two that don' t have a cinched 20 U bolt.
21 MR. IOTTI: Can we go off the record for a l 22 second ?
23 fiP. BURWELL: Off the record.
NRC 106/2 24 (OFF THE PECORD)
(~S Tape 1 l V LAR 8 25 f1 P. IOTTI: I guess way to summarize is that FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. et Annep.169-4234
l 10 I
we agree to disagree at this point and just restate the
() 2 3
fact that we really ultimately do not need that particular support for seismic. Werce that support not to be there 4
we would still meet all the code allowables.
5 I'm not sure what we are disagreeing M R. TE RAO :
6 on. I think we agree that the system is okay. What I 7 said was that because of your analysis which shows you 8l don't need that restraint, I'm saying tha t the piping 9 system is fine if you don't take credit for it as a 10 seismic restraint and you only take credit for it as a 11 weight restraint just as if you were to have a spring 12 hanger in that location. And with taking account of the 13 other snubbers on the system I see no safety concerns 14 with the piping or with the system.
15 Now, we are splitting hairs when you are asking us 16 to accept that restrair t as seismic restraint, and on that 17 matter I say, no, I cannot accept that restraint 18 inclusively as a seismic restraint but that has no bearing 19 on the safety of the system. I think that is where we 20 agree to disagree. Not about a safety concern but 21 whether or not we will accept that restraint as a seismic 22 restraint.
23 MR. FINNERAN: Yes. Your position would be NRC 106/2 24 that it would function as a seismic restraint.
("'1 Tape 1
\# LAR 9 25 M R. TE FAO: Oh, I don't even disagree with you FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4136
I that it would probably function as a seismic restraint.
2 My disagreement is whether or not you can analytically
(~')
v 3 prove it a nd whether or not this restraint will then 4 negate your linear analysis that you run in your typing 5 analysis.
6 MR. IOTTI: I think that clarifies it. We 7 are not in disagreement in the sense we both agree there i 8 is no safety concern but we are only arguing about whether 9 this particular support would function as a seismic 10 restraint during a seismic event in the vertical direction.
11 MR. TERAO: Well, I would still like to point 12 out I don't even think there is a disagreement on how it 13 is going to function. The disagreement is whether or not 14 you can analytically show it and whether or not your 15 analysis is valid. Whether you can rely on your present 16 analysis to show that this restraint is going to conform 17 to that analysis.
18 MR. IOTTI: Okay.
19 MR. TERAO: It-is a very ninor point.
20 M F. IOTTI: I have no comments about the Type 21 II restraint. The Type III restraint, this is the large 22 single plain frames.that are hung on in supports. I 23 believe the misnomer is, double strutted frame because NRC 106/2 24 it does have three struts on there.
3 Tape 1 (V LAR 10 25 Now, this is the frame that I would have the most FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aros 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269 6136
12 1
concern about as far as potential instability. First of 2 all, it is not common practice, I've never seen in any
( ~]s L..
3 other plant, the use of large single plane frames being 4 hung on hin pin (phonetic) struts. I have seen large 5 frames but they are all welded so essentially you have a 6 rigid connection.
7 The problem that I see with the large single plane 8 frames on him pin connections goes back to my concern 9 that the out of plane motion of the frame is not been 10 taken into account and that it can, indeed, move several.
11 inches during a seismic event. The concern ~is that 12 behavior of that frame is unpredictable and that even 13 the strudel:modeling cannot predict this.
e) 14 The strudel modeling I believe models the frane 15 from the brackets on. It does not account for the struts 16 themselves. So, in that sense that analysis is not valid 17 for this type of configuration. What, in actuality, will 18 occur during a seisnic event is a twisting motion of 19 that frame and that twisting motion can then effect the 20 responses of the piping systems in it. And, it could 21 even fail, possibly at the brackets themselves or at 22 the pins because-of the twisting motion. And,-if that 23 would occur then the frame could fall down and affect NEC 106/224 all the systems that are, type of systems that are in that Tape 1
(]
V LAR 11 25 frame.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. 66 Annop. 269-6136
13 1
In order to :show conclusively that this type of l)
v 2 frame can work, again would require, probably, a non-3 linear analysis, possibly beyond the range of conventional 4 computer programs to date. I can only think of one 5 possible program that can analyze this defect. But, I 6 don't even think the program can account for the friction, l i
7 the dynamic friction, if you want to take credit for it, 8 that would occur with the pipes fibrating within the gaps 9 between the pipe and the frame.
10 I don't agree with your use of .3 friction factor 11 between the pipe and the frame because that's strictly 12 a static coefficient of friction. I'm not aware of any 13 industry that takes credit for friction of the pipe on 5,)
14 It is only for thermal a frame for seismic loading.
15 loads.
16 So, with that, I would say that we disagree that 17 this frame is still stable and at this point we believe 18 that the frame is still unstable.
19 M R. FINNERAN: I have to say that we don't' 20 agree with'that assessment at all. It would be very ;
21 slight out of plane loads that would be created for this 22 frame during a seismic event. I would disagree violently l
25 with your characterization of this frame possibly twisting l NFC 106/224 and breaking and falling down. I don't believe that could l
(]
'~'
Tape 1 l IAR 12 25 happen at'all. - I FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportleg e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. 66 Annop. 269-6136
I 14
> 1 M E. TE FAO : May I ask why you think the seismic
(^y 2 movements are very small?
kJ ',
3 MR. FINNERAN: I sa id , I think the out of plane 4 forces that would be developed to cause this twisting 5 that you are talking about would be very small because of 6 the slight angularity that is caused by the thermal 7 movement of this frame.
8 MR. TERAO: I'm sorry, the thermal movement of 9 the frame?
10 MR. FINNERAN : Well, the frame is hanging plum 11 when installed. The thermal movement of the pipes on 12 this frame is an eighth of an inch so the only thing
, 13 that could happen to the frame as far as when a seismic
] 14 event occurred and you did get a. compressive thrust in 15 the struts, would be to develop, in this case, about 20 16 pounds of out of plane force that would cause this 17 twisting that you are talking about.
18 M R. TERAO: That's how I read your write-up 19 here and what I'm saying is that the inertia movement, 1
20 the inertia movement of that frame is not caused by the 21 struts but it is caused by the building movement itself.
22 MR. FINNERAN : Well, I disagree with that i 23 completely. There is no way that t_ hat force can be l NRC 106/2 24 delivered to the frame except through the struts.
{VLAR13'} Tape251 MR.'TERAO: Do you understand how systems behave e
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
s . Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
15 1 under a seismic event?
(~'} 2 MR. FINNERAN : Sure. You get exitation of~the ,
v' 1 3 building that then excites through the supports of the 1
4 pipe. But also, another pipe support down the line '
5 exciting the pipe, you can get some reaction in other 6 supports from the pipe itself. And either way, the only 7 way the force can be delivered to the frame is through 8 the connection. There has to be force developed between 9 the connection of the struts to the frame.
10 MR. TERAO: No sir. I disagree with that 11 totally. Inertia, the inertia force exerted on piping 12 systems any compliment within the building is not delivered 13 pursay through the supports. It is caused by the movement
( !
14 of the building, the back and forth movement of the 15 building causing the inertia of the component to want to 16 tend to go in one direction. And when the building backs 17 up, inertia is going in one direction and the supports 18 pull the components with it.
19 MR. FINNEFAN: So ' the force is delivered through 20 the supports.
21 MR. TERAO : No, it is not delivered through 22 the supports, it is delivered by the movement of the 23 building.
NRC 106/224 MR. FINNERAN : Well, how can the movement of
{V~] Tape 1 the building get to the piping except through the supports?
LAR 14 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
I l
1 That's where I don't understand your argument.
2 M R. IOTTI: Well, we are split *ing hairs again.
(]
m, 3 I don't think we disagree that there is inertia but the 4
way that the inertia is~ reacted, you know, there is no 5 force inertia pursay until it is reacted by something.
6 When it is reacted, it is reacted again by the strut and 7 the frame. I agree with you. The frame will lag behind 8 as the building moves because of its own inertia. But, 9 at that point, it has a force which,- well, it has an to energy which does not convert back into a force until 11 it is reacted by something.
12 MR. TERAO: Well, let me just compare it with 13 a very simple analogy. You are in a car, you hit a brick U,s 14 wall and you have got a seat belt around you, your head 15 is going to go flying forward because of the inertia.
16 MR. IMTI : That's right. But you don't get 17 hurt until you hit something.
18 MR. TERAO: But if you didn't have'a seat belt 19 there is no force-exerting, there is no inertia force 20 so to speak.
21 MR. INTI : -There is no inertia force. There 22 is an energy that is stored in you which is not converted 23 into an inertia force until you hit something. Right?
NRC 106/2 24 M R. TERAO: But what we are saying is, is the
(] Tape 1 U LAR 15 25 seatbelt is equivalent to pipe supports, inertia force FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. Et Annop.169-6136
17 1
is equivalent to the car stopping suddenly which would be 2 equivalent to the building after moving several inches
(^)
v 3 or moving back and forth.
4 M R. IOTTI: We are not disagreeing with.that.
5 MR. TERAO: Well then, the point is that when 6 you have a large frame hung on.hin pin (phonetic) cupports 7 that there is nothing holding that frame from moving, 8 swining, so to speak, like a chandelier except for the 9 pipe friction. And that frame then can then twist back 10 and forth like this, in and out of th e plane. And that 11 is not accounted for in any analysis. I don't even believe 12 in acceleration response spectra analysis is applicable 13 to evaluate that type of affect.
'w/
14 What you have to go into, because the frequency is 15 so low, you have to get into either a velocity spectrum 16 or a displacement spectrum.- So, the analysis itself to
.17 determine what the affect is on that frame during a 18 seismic event is not a simple matter. The analysis that 19 you have currently done now whien completely decouples 20 this frame from the pin supports does not accurately 21 predict what the movement of the frame will be in the 22 opposite direction.
23 MR. FINNERAN: I don't think we have decoupled NFC 106/2 24 it from the pin supports. What we have assumed is that
(~/') Tape 1 the only way that the frame will tend to move down the
'- LAR 16 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6236
IS
' pipe is if there is some force tending to push it that 2
(~') direc tion ~.
V 3 Well, there will be a force, that's MR. IOTTI ::
4 the inertial force.
5 Well, the frame is connected to MR. FINNERAN:
6 the pins. And, if there is some kind of force on the 7
frame tending to move it anywhere there has to be a 8 reacting force in the struts. We haven' t decoupled the 9
frame from the struts.
10 M R. IOTTI: What Dave is talking about is, 11 think of it as a pendulum, if you will, hung from the 12 ceiling. If this point moves and you have a massive 13 p frame behind it, this mass will lag behind. That is G 14 what he really believes we haven't accounted for and 15 that's what tends to cause this twisting motion or 16 movement. And the substance,.I guess, of our disagreement 17' is, that provided there is friction between the pipe 18 and the frame, we don' t believe tha t. occurs because the 19 pipe is'also mLving at the same time.
20 Ultimately, what he is saying is that he doesn' t 21 agree that you ought to take credit for any of the 22 friction. And, if you don't take credit for any of the 23 friction then of course you don't have a mechanism that 24 NRC 106/2 allows you to react.
f)' Tape 1
'~ IAR 17 MR. TERAO: And what I am disagreeing with is FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6136
O
' that a .3 friction fractor which is the static coef ficient 2
(]
'w )
of friction. I agree there is friction in there but . .
3 MR. IOTTI : Okay. Suppose you use .1, wha t 4
would happen? You still would end up with an extremely 5
low force.
6 MR. TERAO : I don't know. We are talking about 7
a very complicated interaction between the vibration 8 modes of the piping system. These are gaps, by the way, 9
between the piping system and the frame.
10 MR. FINNERAN: Well, current design for this 13 frame, there is one of the pipes is not gapped. One of 12 the pipes is not gapped of the four, 13 Well then, I think my concern is p MR. TERAO:
U 14 on that one system that that entire frame is going to be 15 reacted on that one piping system, 'if that is what you 16 are saying. The twisting motion is going to react on 17 the.one system where there ish't a gap.
18 Again, this falls _ into the realm of, if an assumption 19 was made and designed in this frame which tends to 20 negate the validity of the analysis that was done, the 21 pipina analysis. We coul'd agree to disagree, but I can't 22 accept this design. And I can't say conclusively that 23 there is no potential safety concern either.
24 NTC 106/2 MR. B RJWELL : I think we are very close to h)
~'
Tape 1 25 LAR 18 having the video ready to go. Do you want to take a FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6236
20 l break at this point in time?
(O
<)
2 MR. IOTTI : Yes. It would permit me to do some 3 things . . .
4 Fine, would someone.from the M R. BU WELL:
5 applicant explain exactly what we are to see during this 6 course of the . .. or narrate it for us.
7 Reporter : Do you want this on the record?
8 M R. BU RWELL: I don't think it-is going b 9 make much sense on the record. Perhaps someone from the 10 applicant staff could just give us an overall description 11 of what will be shownnon the tape and what you intend 12 to show by showing this tape. Then I think we'can go 13 off the record and take a break while we watch the show.
N.)
14 (CFF THE RECORD) 15 M F. IOTTI: During the past 5 of 10 minutes 16 while we were off the record a video tape has been shown 17 which depicted the testing conducted on.a cinched up 18 U bolt on a 10 inch schedule 40 stainless steel pipe.
19 The particular test sequences that were shown were, 20 first, a seismic test conducted at 9 herts with a force 21 of approximately 8500 pound applied through the strut 22 to the assembly and the result indicates that there was 23 no rotation of the assembly around the circumference of NRC 106/2 24 the pipe. That there was a movement of appoximately O. Tape 1
> LAR 19 25 one quarter to a half inch axial along the pipe which FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. 46 Annop.169-4136
21 3
tended to go toward a more stable position if you want to l
^
2 call it that, by shortening the angle, actually reducing
( ')
v 3 the angle'between the strut and the pipe.
4' Similar motions were observed in later tests 5 conducted for, and also shown in the video, which were 6 conducted by sweeping the frequency of the exciting 7 force from low frequency all the way up to approximately 8 200 herts and back down. And, for the last test, at a 9 frequency of approximately 27 herts which happens to 10 coincide with the. fundamental frequency of the system, 1 1 and at that particular-frequency the only force that could 12 be imparted to the system was approximately 1,000 pound.
13 The acuator was not capable of delivery higher force at n
V 14 the very low displacements that were being obtained.
15 Again, the conclusion. that we reached from these 16 tests is that as long as the U bolt, backing plate, I'll 17 call it the clamp assembly, is prevented from rotating 18 around the circumference of the pipe, there is no 19 instability pursay. If there is any motion it is a 20 motion which will tend to reduce the angle between the 21 strut and the pipe so that the horizontal component of 22 the force due to seismic is, in fact, reduced.
23 However,,in prior tests conducted at a much lower NRC 106/2 24 pre-load, it indicated that the pipe, that the clamp
(^)IAR 20 25 assembly could rotate about the pipe, and in that case the FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. 66 Annop. 269-613 6
22 l clamp assembly could walk not just toward the center of
, 2 application of the force,.but away from the application 3 of the force, and in that sense, even t.he force was still 4 being transmitted to the pipe, and I'm stating that 5 because that meant that the support was still performing 6 its function of reacting to what was transmitting the 7 force, but still the support would walk along the pipe 8 as well as around it. And I think that concludes the 9 Summary of the tests.
10 M R. BURWELL: Thank you Dr. Iotti. Are we 11 ready to procedd with our discussions on stability?
12 While we are on the last item, we have agreed to disagree 13 or are you planning to submit us, submit further analysis LJ 14 or something to us.
15 MR. ICTTI : If I may characterize the substance 16 of the disagreement, it seems to again be related to 17 the perception on staf f's part as to whether it is even 18 possible by analysis. to demonstrate that what we believe 19 engineering wise to be correct. That in fact, this 20 particular, what is called the double strutted frame, 21 depicted in figure 6 of page 19 of the affidavit, is 22 in fact stable.
23 The applicant's position is that we believe analysis NRC 106/224 can demonstrate what we have stated in our affidavit.
(~'T Tape 1 LAR 21 25 That the system behaves as a stable system. I guess I FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. 46 Annop.169-6236
23 I would like to turn this over to Mr. Terao.
2 MR. TERAO: Okay. Our position on these double
(]J 3 strutted frames is that I believe analysis that in order 4 to show the acceptability of these frames using analysis 5 would be a very complicated and involved process. I 6 further believe that use of engineering judgment on these 7 frames has not been substantiated or even concurred with 8 in the industry because they are not typically used in 9 the industry. So, on that basis it is really, it's not to a well justified design in my view. I just don't believe 11 there has been an adequate review of this type of 12 restraint to assess the dynamic impact of that frame on 13 the piping systems, or even assess the impact of the f
14 dynamic loads on the frame itself during a seismic 15 event.
16 MR. IOTTI : At this point applicants would 17 like to attempt to demonstrate to Mr. Terao through an 18 analytical means that regardless of the narrow view of 19 the stability issue, if you will, there would be no safety 20 concern with this support functioning as a seismic 21 support. And for us to do so we would require some more 22 time because we would have to perform an analysis of-23 the system which accounts for some of the affects that NRC 106/2 24 Mr. Terao has brought out.
O 'fTape 1 25 LAR 22 MR. TERAO: Okay. I would just to, again, FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions .
D.C. Area 1611901 e Bolt. da Annap. 169 6136
24 1
express my views about the type of analysis that you may be proposing.
(] 2 3
Again, just because I disagree that this support can be shown to be acceptable, I do not want that 4 to be ascued to mean that I believe that further analysis 5 should be done. I only believe that more analysis that 6 is done on this frame, the more questions that are going I
7 to come up.
8 If we agree to disagree, I would not like to see 9 extensive analysis done to prove the validity of this 10 frame at this time.
11 M R. IOTTI: I.would like to request that we 12 go off the record for about 5 minutes so that the applicant 13 has a chance to caucus.
v 14 MR. BURWELL: Fine. Let's take a 5 minute 15 recess. Off the record.
16 (5 Minute Recess) 17 MR. BURWELL : During the recess the staff 18 caucused to search for some type of analysis which might 1
19 be directed at responding to this question concerning 20 the support described in . . ,
1 1
21 MR. IOTTI : In page 19.
22 MR. BURWELL: On page 19, thank you.
23' M R. IOTTI: Of the affidavit.
NIC 106/224 M R. BUIMELL: Dave, are you prepared to address
,q Tape 1
's J LAR 2 3 '25 that? '
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
l' 2b 1
' M P. TE PAO : We have discussed the type of
(~) 2 analysis that staff might find to be acceptable. In some V
3 sense it is not an easy analysis and maybe better 4 judgment depending on the cost of the analysis for the 5 applicant to consider other viable approaches, but the 6 type of analysis that we can accept would not be a static 7 analysis but would have to develop a time history of the 8 displacements or of the accelerations where the support 9 effecting the piping system . . . support. It could 10 be done in eit'cr a single phase or, if it is found more 11 practical, it could be done in two phases.
12 Of course, the most detailed modeling would be to 13 model in the entire piping system which has the zero gap Li 14 with the frame including the pin supports and to run a 15 dynamic analysis. I'm sorry. And, also including the 16 effective masses of the other piping systems on that 17 frame and assess what the dynamic motions of that frame 18 is and it affect on the piping system itself.
19 This may require a costly analysis. It may. require 20 even a non-linear analysis. A more conservative way to 21 assess the problem would, perhaps be, first to couple 22 the frame from the piping in the modeling but to include 23 all the masses of the piping on the frane itself to Nm 106/224 determine what the dynamic motions of the frame are
(~)'
Tape 1 LAR 24 25 without any other affect of the piping on the frame.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236
2G I
Then to assess those motions on the piping system I')
%s 2
themselves. On the worst case piping system.
3 MR. BURWELL: I understood from our earlier 4
discussions, I believe, and I wanted to just clarify a 5
point, maybe 1 did not understand it correct. You said 6 first do a dynamic analysis of the pipe support decoupled 7 from the pipe. I believe we also were going to suggest 8 that the dead weights of the pipes be added to the mass 9 on the support. Can you do that? Is that desirable?
10 MR. TERAO : That's just what I said.
11 M R. BUBiELL: Oh, I thought you said otherwise.
12 .And then, from that point, you would then couple the 13 motion of the support to the critical pipe, or worse case v
14 pipe, and see th'e impact of the loads on the pipe. Is 15 that the way you want to do it?
16 MR. IOTTI : That's not the way I would do it.
17 I can tell you that much.
18 M R. BUH1 ELL: That's not the way you would do 19 it?
20 MR. I UI'TI : No. I'm listening to what the 21 Commission is suggesting. First of all, let me sta te, 22 if we are talking a complete time history modeling every-23 thing, yes, you can do that. I would very much doubt NRC 106/2 24 that we would use that approach. I can put in an awful pTape1 d 25 LAR 25 lot of supports at that plan for the cost of a time history .
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting u Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt.' & Annep. 149-4136
v 27 1
In particular, the results Mr. Terao, would still 2 be challengable. So, that is the one option that I (a~')
3 would strongly recommend to the applicant not to pursue.
4 So, if we are going to pursue the analytical approach it 5
is going to be on more of a bounding basis, more in line 6 with the second alternative that David is exponding.
7 I've kind of lost track and I think he was saying 8 something and I kind of got lost. Fould you mind starting 9 again cn that second option where, if I believe you 10 correctly, you would start out by modeling the frame 11 itself time history wise from the point of connection to 12 the floor. And you would model in with the frame the 13 Clearly gs affective mass, participating mass of the pipe.
\]
14 not all of the pipe.
15 That would produce two things. It would produce 16 the max imum displacement of the' frame, displacement and 17 time history or . . . time history of the frame, 18 considering the inertial effects of the pipes in it.
19 M R. TERAO; That would give you the forces, 20 the movements, the displacements and the rotations of the 21 where the piping would be attached.
22 M R. IOTTI: The problem with that is it includes 23 the inertial effects of the pipes. It does not include n NFC 106/2 24 any relative displacement of the pipts which could be
( ') Tape 1 25 LAR 2 6 far more important inertial affects of the pipe because FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6134
28 inertial affects for these type are not going to be very p 2 large and that is the default with the seond approach.
U 3 Now, what are you saying the MR. TERAO: . . .
4 Well, those pipes are also MR. IOTTI:
5 supported at anchorages by putting in the affective mass 6 of the pipe you get the inertial affects contributions.
7 11 R. IANDERS: The displacement af fects of the 8 othe pipes are there. They come out of the existing 9 analysis you have there.
10 IOTTI: Alright. So, what we are going to M R.
11 do is then later on we are going to have to couple those 12 back in. I'm just getting ahead of myself.
13 MR. LANDERS: Look at them anyway, a
14 Okay, alright fine.
MR. 10rTI :
15 MR. LANDERS : Look anyway. I don't think 16 anyone . . . to see if the problem exists.
17 MR. IOTTI : Okay, fine.
18 MR. TERAO: Once you have those movements 19 and rotations and displacement of the frame, of course, 20 we would agree that would be very conservative to take 21 those results of the frame and impose that on your 22 piping system and to determine what the af fect is on the 23 piping system. That's the worse it could be.
NRC 106/2 24 M R. 10rTI: That's right. Tha t 's wha t we would --
p' v
Tape 1 25 LAR 27 propose to do. In terms of, if all possible, on a legal FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4134
L 2{]
I approach that would be one.
3 2 Now, why do you feel it is not possible to do so (G
3 with response spectrum approach as a bounding condition 4 as opposed to using the direct time history since we are l
I 5 going to do a bornding calculation anyhow?
6 M R. TERAO: A response spectra on just the 7 hanging train?
8 MR. IOTTI : Right. To compute the rotation -
9 MR. TERAO: Because the computer would kick it i 10 out.
l 11 (Multiple conversations) 12 M R. TERAO: I'm sorry. The non-linear analysis 13 was in the first suggestion. That would be the most 14 complicated and detailed but the second approach was to 15 determine what the dynamic motions are of the frame 16 itself without, first of all, by coupling them on the 17 piping system. And for that, I said it was' not possible 18 to run an acceleration response spectra analysis.
19 UNIDENTIFIED : (Inaudible) 20 (Multiple conversations) 21 M R. TERAO: We are talking about the. displacement 22 of the entire building and including up to the point . .
23 MR. IOTTI: That's what I was saying. What is NRC 106/224 Wr0 ng, rather than running a time history, what is wrong
,Q Tape 1 D LAR 28 25 with taking an absolute displacement basis? Wouldn't that FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 149 6134
30 1
be bounding? We all agree it is a very low frequency 2'
(]
v system and remember you and I agreed we wouldn't run a 3
response spectra pursay, but almost on a static basis 4
you can determine the maximum displacement for that 5
pendulum, right? With all of the masses of the pipe 6 included. And then add that.
7 MR. LANDERS : Only because the pipe is 8 You continue to rock that restraining the pendulum.
9 floor and there is a potential for amplifying the 10 motion in the pendulum. And I would agree the pipes 11 are going to restrain that. .You take the pipes out and 12 you begin to rock the floor the pendulum is going to be 13 getting out of phase and you are going to be getting 14 amplification and that is what you are not going to get 15 by going, just puti.ing a displacement on.
16 M R. IOTTI: No, no. I amplify displacement.
17 W hat would you .. time history analysis?
18 M R. IANDERS: Well, if you amplify displacement 19 then you know the motion of the supports.
20 M P. IOTTI: That's the whole point. I mean 21 why do I have to do a time history analysis . . .
22 MR. LANDERS: You don't have to do anything 1 23 if you can tell me what the amplified displacement of 24 Nrc 106/2 the support is because that'n what you have to put in in O Tape 1 25 LAR 29 a static analysis on the floor. The same answer. You FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Ceart Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4134
31 1
tell me that, you have the answer.
2 M P. IOTTI: No. You are saying that you can't f]
v.-
0 use the response spectra because there is no frequency.
4 When you begin to use the response MR. LANDERS:
5 spectra I don't know how you are going to get phasing 6 of rotations and all that.
7 MR. IOTTI : On the pendulum?
8 M P. LANDERS: On anything. On the pendulum, 9 on the fact you may get an out of plane rotation-10 Well, if we are looking for the.
M R. IOTTI:
11 maximum in all directions, why can' t you use those ?
12 I must be missing something.
13 M R. TE RAO : But the acceleration response v
14 spectra does not include' the gravity weight so basically G it has no frequency so your computer is not going to 16 pick up, is not going to be able to calculate any 17 displacements or movements of that mass. It can't 18 calculate a frequency.
19 ICYrTI : You can input a M R. But it does.
20 frequency. You can calcula te the f requency manually.
21 MR. TERAO: It would be like trying to run a 22 piping system with three ball joints in it. It is just 23 going to go round and rou J, round and round.
N FC 106/2 24 M P. IOTTI: I'm a little puzzled. I must be . .
/ Tape 1 k LAF 30 25 I'm not suggesting we are going to use the computer to do FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4136 J
32 1
it. I mean, maybe if you put it into a computer you cannot r 2 get a solution, but it seems to me if you know the V]
3 frequency vf your system and you cau 9v Lu Line 1.esponse 4 spectra at that frequency you can calculate its maximum 5 displacement.
6 M P. TE RAO: You have to go to an amplified,-
7 you have to go to an equivalent of the ground tripod 8 tied scale where you would go to the displacement and 9 or velocity spectra, that becomes the limiting of forces 10 but on an amplified scale. You may have it for your 11 ground response spectra but you don't have it for the 12 6th floor elevation that this is on.
13 M P. IOTTI : Well, I would assume that we have 14 it someplace. We must have all of the ficor response 15 spectras.
16 M F. TE PAO : Floor response spectra but, or 17 acceleration but not velocity and displacement.
18 Mn. 10rTI: But -
19 20 21 22 23 NIC 106/224
( Tape 1 25 LAR 31 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depeeltiens D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
~ .~ - . _-_
33 1
MR. IOTTI: -- displacement as a function of fre-pv 2 quency for the particular flow response that you have. When 3
the civil peuple detIve i,ha t , i, hey've Fat to check it in any l 4 case so they have that information and I guess that's the 5 part that I'm missing. Do you see anything wrong with pick-i 6 ing the maximal amplified displacement out of that chart? Do 7 you see something wrong with that?
I 8 MR. LAIIDERS : I don't know how you get the amplifi-9 cation at the bottom of the pendulum. What's the frequency ,
j 10 of that system?
I l 11 MR. IOTTI: It's about 5 hertz.
12 MR. LAIIDERS : In what direction? Out of plane?
13 MR. 10TTI: In the axial directions of the pipe, if
' O 14 you will, where it acts as a pendulum.
j 15 MR. LANDERS: So that's the horizontal direction, i 16 horizontal spectrum that you're referring to.
1 l 17 MR. 2: Well, what are the end connections like i
! 18 here on these pins?
l
~
19 MR. IOTTI: They're just - in that direction they're 20 just --
1 21 MR. LAIIDERS : Solid as motion in the plane direction 22 also.
23 MR. : Pardon?
24 MR. FINMERA!!: There is motion in the out of plane
! A
, V 25 direction also.
I NRC #106 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
T*2 0KW C"' " 3"'
- 8"3 ' 3'"'
D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6136 1.
1 MR. IOTTI: No, there isn't. - '3 #
2 MR. LANDERS: Well, one of the supports is shown witt.
(O~)
2 a pin 90 de6rees to the pin on the I beara, so it's free in 4 this direction up at the beam and it's free in this direction 5 down at the support. So there is some motior, come freedom 6 in that direction, unless there is a brace going back here.
7 MR. FINNERAN: There is a brace.
8 MR. LANDERS: So it's not fully in that direction?
9 MR. IOTTI: So what I'm saying is that the acting 10 pendulum would be in the horizontal direction and you can 11 compute the frequency to be very low.
12 MR. LANDERS: I would be with the -- analysis at 13 this point. I didn't know this strut was in here.
14 MR. 10TTI: That's what I - I was confused because is I couldn't see anything wrong with proceeding to calculate.on 16 the maximum amplified displacement. If anything, the only 17 thing that I see wrong with that in that we're likely to be 18 very, very conservative because there is effect of the re-19 straining, but if we end up Ok under those conditions, which 20 is what you and I had started discussing, I don't see that, 21 you know, at least engineering-wise one can disagree because 22 there is no problem.
23 And that analysis can be done in reasonably short 24 fashion, short time and reasonably inexpensively and.it's
()' 25 worth doing. The other ones I wouldn't even propose doing FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
p* Court Reporting e Depeeltlens D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
35 1
that. Now, if we can agree on that, I would suggest that the
. t"S 2 applicant would like to perform that analysis and attempt to
(/
3 prove to you that the statements made in the affidavits are 4 correct and we would utilize the floor response spectra of the 5 floor to which the pendulum is appended, if you will. Calcu-l 6 late the frequency of the pendulum. Apply the maximum dis-7 placement at that frequency to calculate the maximum displace-l 8 ,
ment of the pendulum and, from that standpoint, calculate on t I 9 e static basis the rotation and then all the reaction forces to on the piping. And then superimpose that into whatever other it loads we get on the piping system, independent from seismic j 12 at this point, horizontal and --
i 13 MR. TERAO: Again, you have to recognize the found-O 14 ing assumptions are that one is - there is an excellent dis-15 placement that the frame can move --
is MR. 10TTI: Before it engages the pipe.
17 MR. TERAO: Well, there is a maximum displacement 18 that the frame can move and then there is also a maximum 19 twisting motion that the frame can have and both of those 20 would have to be looked at.
21 MR. 10TTI: Yeah, well - that would be a problem if l
22 your static analysis, you know, when you go and look at the i 23 maximum displacement, that maximum displacement turns out to
{
24 be larger than what phycically the frame can experience. I'm l
- (' 25 n t so sure that's going to be the result. I, frankly, expect l
l l l -
l FRH STATE REPORTING INC.
3* C"'"***d'"**'"
! D.C. Aree 141 1901 e Seit. & Annep. 149 4134
.'l fI 1
that displacement to be relatively small. It's a very low ,
pd 2 frequency, you know, you don't have much or a response if 3 thorn in low frequency, cc --
4 MR. TERAO: You don't have very much response, but 5 you're got a large displacement in velocity. Velocity in-6 creases when this frequency goes down and so does your dia-7 placement.
8 MR. IOTTI: So make a square. Well, all we can do 9 is do the analysis. We can speculate around what the results i 1
10 would be, but, yes we would not just leave sight of the fact it that there is come physical limitation to how far that pendu-12 lum can cwing.
13 MR TERAO: The previous question that I naked earl-O 14 ler was --
15 MR. 10TTI: Well, before we leave that , there la to another --
17 MR. TERAO: Well, it doen tie in because I want to i
18 know how many other framen there are like this and whether or to not just becaune we're talking, about one frame here, whether 20 or not other framen may need more bounding or need to have 21 worse ennen.
22 MR. 10TTI: My present understanding, David, in that i
l
$ 23 we know of two framen including thin one, total. Ok? We'll l
j 24 have to check on that, but we know of two, including thin one.
25 MR. TERAO: And the other one in cracked 00 degreen t PRSE STATE REPOltflNG INC.
4' Cawt Reporting e Depee646 ens D.C. Aree 141 1901 e Selt. & Annep. 149 4134
\
J<m I
to the piping?
2 MR. IOTTI: I don't know. I'd have to go back, but 3 there are similnv type configurations.
4 MR. TERAO: I think what we would like to have, first 5 of all, in that request for documentation I had one of the 6 frames listed and I'd like to have all of the similar frames. i 7 MR. 10TTI: All of the similar frames?
8 MR. TERAO: Yes. The latest drawings.
9 MR. FI?!NERArt: Would you say that on the record?
10 MR. IOTTI: After he sees what we've done.
11 M R . F I ?illE R A N : No, he has - he didn't know about the 12 , restraining strut that you're addressing. He han a different 13 opinion of this frame.
O V 14 MR. FLECK: Well, you know, it's very hard to make is any decisions on whether you're really bounded without neeing is it.
17 MR. IOTTI: Be very careful, John, because engineer- ;
la ing judgment 10 a dirty word.
19 MR. WADE:Tlere'itlifference in engineering judgment i 20 and practical knowledge.
21 MR. LA?IDERS: You're leaving out the most -- re-l 22 straint, which in the fact that in order to move along the 23 pipe it han to lift the pipe --
24 MR. 10TTI: No, no.
Dear in mind,
that'n what we 25 have done. The one thing that I was attempting to nhow him ..
PROE STATE REPORTING INC.
Cemet Repeetene e Depeelteene 5 oc.A,ee set.teet . ode.& Anne,. 249 4234
3S 1
because Dave's concern is, in order for that to occur - and.
2 he agrees it does occur -- the pipe, now you're creating a
(
3 reaction of the nice which may not have been considered proper-4 ly.
l 5 MR. LAllDERS: I understand that.
6 MR. IOTTI: So if we, on a bounding basis, can ,justi-7 fy --
8 MR. LAtlDERS : I think you have to do something in 9 order to address the overall allegation and I have sympathy l 10 for Dave's position with respect to responding to that, but I 11 have significantly less concern than I had before the break l
12 after I found out you had a horizontal restraint on this 13 cupport.
O V 14 MR. TERA 0: That's why I asked for the other frames 15 because if they all have a' horizontal support then we can say l 16 the problem is in bounded, and if they don't, I have no iden 17 what is out there in the field without knowing all these 1
18 similar type of frames.
19 MR. IOTTI: We will provide you with the frrimes and 20 we'll also provide you with this analysis that will give you 1
1 21 a better feeling for what it is that's in the -- ,
l 22 M R . F Ill!!E R A !!: Dave, did you think that these two l
l 23 numbers were frames of that type that you gave me here?
l l 24 MR. TERAC: One was. I can't recall what the other l
I 0
k./ 25 one is.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
g* Court Reporting e Depeellions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Selt.& Annep. 169 4134
39 1
MR. FINNERAN: You're still looking for that one?
2 MR. TERAO: Right. It's possible that it could have O(~x 3 just come out of Doyle's deposition and, ac you cointed out.
4 a lot of the frames or a lot of the supports were changed in 5 the course and that number could be -- at this time.
6 MR. FINNERAN: He does give another number in that 7 section of the deposition, but it's not that one.
i 8 MR. LANDERS: If you have any of these without that 9 side restraint, that has to be the worst case and I would 10 suggest you put a side restraint on it.
11 MR. IOTTI: We don't know. That we can find out 12 pretty rapidly.
13 MR. BURNELL: Ok, are we ready to go forth on the O 14 next one then?
15 MR. TERAO: I just wanted to clarify one last point 16 on thic frame, on the type 3 frames, was the last statement 17 you made in your affidavit where you caid, "Obviously there 18 ic no question about the stability of thic frame" and that ic 19 where we disagree, but I think the question really becomes 20 as you pointed out, John, la maybe the definition of stabil-21 ity in this conce. Obviously, to the staff, there is a ques-22 tion of instability, but it's not the came type of instability 23 that you're talking about. Alright, let's go to the type li 24 which in the aingle ntruta or anubbers with onug U-bolts.
25 This type of restraint, there are about 380 identified in I i
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Deposittens 7- D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149 4136
'I O 1
unit 1 in common. Do you have a number for unit 2?
(~}
\_/
2 MR. FINNERAN: No.
3l MR. TERAO: From a stability standpoint we would 4 agree with you, especially from what we've seen also in the 5 video of the testing. We would agree that from a stability 6 standpoint a snug U-bolt is acceptable. I do want to point 7 out another concern related to this design which was brought 8 up by Mr. Fair regarding generic stiffnesses. In the sense 9 that we would agree that it's no problem with stability, but 10 we would still have questions about the stiffness of U-bolte i
11 on large bore pipe.
12 MR. FINNERAN: And in relation to that, the actual 13 stiffness calculations that we did for these supports that O 14 were used in our affidavit on generic stiffnesses and also in 15 the subsequent reply to Mr. Fair's concerns, we included the 16 affect of the U-bolt in calculating those stiffnesses.
17 MR. TERAO: Yes, we would that, but I'm only pointing 18 out that from a stability standpoint the staff is accepting 19 it, but Mr. Fair is commenting on the use of the U-bolts from l 20 the generic stiffness standpoint and I recognize that you i
21 have addressed his concern, but I will leave his response as '
22 a separate matter.
23 Yeah, I would also like to point out regarding our ,
24- comment on generic stiffnesses of a U-bolt on large bore pipe
() 25 is ne of the reasons we asked the question yesterday regardir c l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
l g* Court Reporting e Depositions l D.C. Area 2411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
'll l
the test results is that we had a concern of the stiffnesses
{} 2 that were showing up in the tests versus analysis. But as 3 Dr. Iotti has pointed out that the U-bolt test results for the 4 large bore pipe are not valid anymore so we would - we are 5 looking to review the final test results when they come in.
6 Because it definitely has an impact on the generic stiffnesser 7 of the supports.
8 MR. IOTTI: I'd just like to clarify that statement.
l 9 The results that Mr. Terao referred as not being valid were 10 results obtained in part of the ITT Grinnell testing program 11 which was testing for the ultimate capability of the U-bolt 12 in tension.For the large bore pipe, the particular load ver-1
. 7, 13 sus deflection curve that had been included in the affidavit ws 14 - and there's 3 such curves, figures 28, 29 and 30 - of the 15 particular attachment on to that report were incorrect and is they are going to be replaced, so I just want to clarify be-17 cause there is also another affidavit on U-bolt tension which 18 also has test reports and it gets very confusing when we talk i
19 about U-bolts anymore as to which one is the one we're talk-l 20 ing about. That test had to do with the affidavit on the i 21 later - lateral capability of U-bolts.
22 MR. FINNERAN: I might point out, Bob, that the ITT l
23 test was not on a snug U-bolt.
24 MR. IOTTI: Well, it was snug when they pulled it, I l')
\_- 25 evidently. l 1
l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 9- D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136 i
l
1 12 MR. FINNERAN: Eventually. To start out with it was 2 not snug.
(O"') ,
3 MR. TERAO: In your affidavit you had identified 4 4 different -- potentially unstable support configurations and 5 that is what we've been addressing. I think one of my basic 6 concerns is beceuse of the differences in definition of in-7 stability, at least the differences apparently between the 8 staff and between, Case and between the - , it's not obvious 9 in my mind that perhaps all of Case's instabilities or per-10 haps all of the staff's instabilities have been addressed.
11 These 4 different types of instabilities are how the appli-12 cant would describe as potentially unstable, but there is
_ 13 another support that was identified in Case's - well, Mr.
14 Doyle's deposition that I would like the applicant to address 15 in terms of stability. And this is shown in Doyle's deposi-16 tion 669D, item 13XX.
17 The concern with this particular stability is the s 18 fact that the pipe is not welded to the trunion and because 19 it's a vertical run of pipe the only method for preventing 20 the instability of the support, itself, is the cinched up U-21 bolt and if you were to have any. vertical excitation of tnat 22 support, without exceeding the allowables of the U-bolts or 23 without even exceeding any code allowables on this support, 24 whether or not the U-bolt can deflect enough so that the ex-25 tended mass can then collapse onto the pipe.
', FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions
- 10. D.C. Area 161-1902 e B olt. Et Annop. 269-6136
_, i J
l 1
'13 MR. IOTTI: What was the last part, I don't under-2 stand extended mass collapse.
}
3 MR. TERA 0: It's an extended mass, the cantilever 4
out to the double channels and if you were to have any seismic 5 excitation in the vertical direction, the support will then 6 pivot around the connection to the pipe, which is, again, is 7 not welded and the only thing --
8 MR. IOTTI: Oh, you mean disportion of the support?
9 MR. TERAO: Yes. That's not welded and the only 10 thing holding it to the pipe is the U-bolt itself. And if you 11 were to have any excessive deflection of that U-bolt that the 12 support can then collapse.
13 MR. IOTTI: By pivoting against the pipe.
(__) 14 MR. TERAO: Yes.
15 MR. IOTTI: Well, the deflection would come out of 16 two portions. One is the pipe's deflecting with respect to 17 the frame and the other one, again, the inertia of the frame 18 with respect to the pipe. In general, the deflections are 19 very, very small, but I guess we have to back and get you the 20 answer to this one. Why don't we make it an action item.
21 MR. TERA 0: What I would like to caution you on that 22 is that the acceleration of that support is dependent on the 23 acceleration of the pipe where it attaches. There could be ---
24 MR. IOTTI: Ok, it's both, both would be included n(_/ 25 in that regard, because you're really talking the relative I!AM STATE REPORTING INC.
- 11. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 241-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
<11 1
motion of one with respect to the other which is what would 2 cause that. We know for a fact that the piping displacements 3 are extremely small, that's all. You're talking about a 32nd 4
of an inch and now the frame I'd have to look at.
5 MR. TERA 0: We did request this support and.the 6 stress analysis package for the system. We w'cld like to re-7 view the modeling of that support in the system. It was in 8 that list of documents that we asked for.
9 MR. FINNERAN: I think I can pretty well tell-you 10 this support was modeled as a restraint in this direction.
11 MR. IOTTI: I think he just wants the whole package, 12 I Cuess.
, _ . 13 MR. FINNERAN: We didn't - unless Henry brought it 14 in, we don't-have it. Did you want just the hanger location 15 isometrics that this support is on or do you want the whole 16 stress problem that this support is on?
17 MR. TERA 0: I'd like the whole stress problem in-18 cluding the hangers, all the hangers. Dr. Chen has pointed 19 out that the stress _packege does not include the piping analy-20 sis. That's what I'm asking for is the piping analysis, the 21 etel pipe analysis. I thought that was included in the 22 stress package.
23 MR. FINNERAN: I thought so too. If you asked for 24 the piping stress package, that's what you would get.
77 V 25 MR. TERAO: I- was thinking in terms of those FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- 12. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
45 1
packages that you sent to Gibson and Hill. That was all you 2 intended to give Dave. .I don't think that was all he needed.
3 He needed the analysis as well.
4 MR. TERAO: I think we would also like to know how 5 many other of these types of supports are out there. As I 6 understand, there is at least one other.
7 MR. FINNERAN: By other you mean with the short stan-8 chion in between the cross beam and the pipe?
9 MR. TERA 0: The short stanchion. It was about the 10 same length. It was about a 6 inch or 8 inch stanchion.
11 MR. FINNERAN: Well, don't look at the length on 12 the bill of material. This is the critical dimension. It's 13 5 " from there to the center of the line of the pipe, so you v
14 have to take off - what is this, a 3" pipe? 6 , so that's 15 about'4' from there to there.
16 MR. TERAO: I believe some out in the field are 17 longer than that. '
18 MR. FINNERAN: It may be. This drawing is not to 19 scale that's how you get deceived sometimes.
20 MR. TERAO: I think wh% I'm saying is there is 21 other supports like that that have a longer stanchion and 22 also --
23 MR. FINNERAN: You're interested in the supports that 24 have this --
(o) 25 MR.1TERAO: Yes, that configuration not~ welded to the FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 13 D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
db 1
pipe, that have a stanchion on it. Some of them use double
~'s 2 channels and some of them, apparently, use .T beams. Some
(\_/
3 have single U-bolts and some have double U-bolts. Some of 4 them are braced and some of them are not braced where it 5 attaches to the pipe.
6 MR. FINNERAN: Now this would have to be on a verti-7 cal line of pipe -- but 'ou're not only interested in one 8 like that that may be on a vertical like that. If it was on 9 that configuration and on a horizontal run, you would also 10 want that?
11 MR. TERAO: Yes, I believe the vertical would get 12 the worst case loadings, but yes, we'd like to see tne hori-
_ 1a zontal ones too.
( ')
MR. IOTTI:
14 Ok, we've got this as an action item, 15 Dave.
16 MR. TERAO: That, bascially, concludes stability.
17 MR. IOTTI:' Bob, if I may, before we leave the 18 subject of stability I would like to go over the listed ac-19 tion items that applicants have to provide the staff. The 20 cirst action item I have written is that we are to provide 21 the staff with the drawings for the support which uses indexed 22 lugs. There's 4 of those supports, right, one on each steam 23 11De?
24 MR. FINNERAN: No. There's just one, one support.
A
(_) 25 MR. IOTTI: One, ok, I stand corrected, just a single FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
g* Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6236
I support. 'I 7
-('}
v 2
MR. FINNERAM: A CT support, he wanted a drawing of 3 that support.
4 MR. IOTTI: That's the one, the type 1, the one that 5 had that indexed lugs, you wanted the drawing.
6 MR. TERAO: Oh, yes. I thought --
7 MR. IOTTI: I was confusing myself with these other 8 ones for which we only have 4, ok.
9 The second action item that I have is that we are to 10 provide you with a number of those frame supports which are
! 11 hinged or double strutted - double strutted frame. Actually 12 the triple strutted frame when you come right out to it, so 13 why don't we redefine it in terms of double or triple strutted V 14 frames, hopefully tripled. We are to list all of the similar i
15 frames and it wasn't clear whether you wanted to be -- and l 1
16 provide drawings? l 17 MR. TERAO: Yes.
l 18 MR. IOTTI: Now, the next item that we would perform 19 a limiting displacement analysis to demonstrate that for 20 those triple strutted frames the piping system would not be 21 adversely -- by any motion of the frame and that the frame 22 would behave in a " stable manner".
23 The final action item that I have is to provide you 24 with a list and drawings for the type of supports which are g
L/ 25 characterized by having unwelded stanchions connected in a FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
15 Court Reporting e Depositions p.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
'lb !
I variety of manner back to the pipe and the entire stress
'} 2 problem and details of all the hanger calculations for the 3 CC - I think I wrote down the number right - CCl2341523 4 MR. FINNERAN: Actually, he wants the stress package 5 for the stress problem that support - oh, dang - that's sup-6 port CCl234017C3R.
7 MR. TERAO: Which is the support shown in Doyle's 8 deposition 669B13XX.
9 MR. IOTTI: Those are the only action items that I 10 have with regard to instability.
11 MR. TERAO: That looks like it should be it.
12 MR. BURNELL: May I take this opportunity then, since 13 we're ready to move on to ariother to raise the question of b,_s 14 agenda for the next portion today and as I see this, we have 15 basically the - that there are two major areas remaining.
16 One relates to your motion on pipe support design process and 17 the other area relates to some questions that Mr. Fair had on:
18 I believe, generic stiffness and a couple of the other items 19 that he was handling. As I understand in talking with Mr.
20 Fair that his need for time is on the order of an hour or so 21 and, Don, could you give me any idea of yours or do you want 22 to just play it by ear?
23 MR. LANDERS: I would guess at this point that I 24 don't have more than 15 minutes to a half hour. I have some
(_) 25 very basic questions.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions
- 16. D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6236
d [I I
MR. BURNELL: Ok, in that case perhaps what we should.
2 '
do is proceed with yours and I will alert Mr. Fair, who is not 3 with us this morning, to be prepared to go forth this after-4 noon immediately after lunch.
5
[ END OF TAPE )
6 7
8 ,
9 10 11 12 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions
- 17. D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. 6t Annop.169-6136 i
. . _ . . _-.__-__.__,.._.~....,._..,____._,s,_..._...-,._____m_, _
JED NRC106T3 .
'5 0 '
~
1 MR. FINNERAN: That three, which is, a small number l 2 has been blurred in to look like a one.
,~,
3 MR. FLECK: Don't look so good as a one.
4 MR. FINNERAN: But, in looking at the drawing at 5 the site, the original drawing at the site, and in the field, 6 this is a three quarter inch plate. Now, perhaps we need to 7 give you an up to date copy of the thing where you can see 8 that it is three quarters.
9 MR. FLECK: In the affidavit, you're gonna bring 10 that up to date, too. Because that's where that drawing ti came from.
12 MR. FINNERAN: Okay.
13 MR. FLECK: It's in your enclosure for cinching of bolts, so.
[J) 14 15 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah. Okay, well, that's..
16 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Thank you.
17 MR. HORIN: Spot, we have one other quick item 18 just to clarify questions from yesterday, if we could. We'll 19 get all that out of the way and we can move on to..
20 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: All right.
21 MR. FINNERAN: John, we had some questions on 22 Attachment E to the local stress affidavit yesterday and got 23 some clarifying information on that that I'd like to pass 24 along to you now, also. Do you have Attachment E, it would
/^N 25 help to look at it to, as I tell you now.
I !
%.J FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6236
l nl 2 -
1 Go to page 6. l 2 MR. BRAMMER: Okay.
,e
(._) 3 MR. FINNERAN: And, in the middle of the page where 4 it says extra loading existing analysis, what Mr. Quo had 5 do, who is the fellow who did this calculation, in previous 6 Passes at this calculation, he had come up with the S of Z 7 of 4355 pounds, as shown there, in the or S of 2, and in later a working on the calculation, he actually had come up with a 9 thermal load of 5908' as shown back on Page 4, earlier.
10 But, what he had done, and that's what the note at ti the bottom of the page means, is this loading that he's trying 12 to calculate here is he wants to go ahead and use to analyze 13 the base plate, that's _the next calculation that he's going (n)
%.j' 14 into there.
15 MR. BRAMMER: This loading of 4355?
16 MR. FINNERAN: Loading of 4355. And, as you see, 17 what he has done to come up with both the sheer load, you can 18 look, see, from the configuration of supports, that that load 39 would wind up on the base plate as a sheer load and a' moment.
20 Okay. And, in calculating his moment, you can see that he 21 conservatively assumed that that load would be transferred 22 to the base plate as a cantilever beam, of, where he calculates 23 S of Z times nine inches there and comes up with 39,195 inch 24 Pounds.
(~'T 25 MR. BRAMMER: Yeah, okay.
Q)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236
3
' 0 1
MR. FINNERAN: Okay? '-
2 MR. BRAMMER: Yeah.
(,.
3 MR. FINNERAN: And that's what his note means there 4 that since the load increase generally in the sheer force 5 direction, but decreased on the wire moment, therefore analy-6 sis is conservative.
7 Well, wait a minute, let me finish. What he really 8 should have done was take that load and transferred it as a 9 guide in beam and the moment would be half of the cantilever to calculated moment. So, what really should have been trans-11 ferred to the base plate was the load in sheer of 5908 pounds 12 and a moment of 5908 pounds times nine inches divided by two.
13 And, so he decided that his earlier analysis that g
Q 14 he had done with 4355 pounds and 39,000 inch pounds was con-15 .servative as far as the base plate was concerned.
16 MR. BRAMMER: It doesn't look like, where he has 17 his load listed on the next page, he even has the 39,000 18 inch pounds.
19 MR. FINNERAN: Well, he took them and right after 20 there where he lists S of Z, 4355, and MY, he added those 21 two which were the results from the thermal effect, to the 22 existing loads from the packing analysis. You can see he 23 added to S of Z, he added 4355 pounds, 1749 plus 4355 pounds, 24 on page 6.
jO 25 MR. BRAMMER: Okay, where did the 1749 pounds?
Y FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 169-6136 i
4 i
[53 1 MR. FINNERAN: That's the current packing analysis 2 load for this support.
() 3 MR. BRAMMER: Oh, okay, this is not the 5900 pounds 4 that he calculated?
5 MR. FINNERAN: No, no. And you can see in the MY, 6 he added the 39,195 to the MY from the packing analysis, 7 38,622, to come up with a total MY moment.
8 And those totals, then, are what he used as input 9 to the base plate analysis.
10 So I guess the guestion that you would have to ti resolve is is this analysis with 4355 pounds and a moment, 12 assuming it acted as a cantilever, conservative compared to 13 5908 pounds and half of the moment calculated on a cantilever
,m
( ) 14 basis for 5908 pounds. Because, the, that particular beam N .J 15 doesn't act as a cantilever, it acts as a guided cantilever.
16 A moment is half.
17 MR. BRAMMER: Yeah, okay, I guess I understand 18 what he did. He didn't use the numbers as calculated in the 19 first part.
20 MR. FINNERAN: He said he'd previously done it 21 with some other loads and he felt that that was still conser-22 vative enough for the 5908 load. Granted, the note is not, 23 can't get that from reading a note. I.have to explain it to 24 you.
/~N 25 MR. BRAMMER: Yeah, well, I have a bad copy here,
( ,
)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting . Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
5 1 I can't even read what's'in it, about half of it. i Ud !
2 MR. FINNERAN: Well, I'll be glad to give you a (p ,/ 3 better copy of the thing.
4 MR. BRAMMER: That doesn't still explain some of 5 the questions like we had on Page 11.
6 MR. FINNERAN: The packing sheer calculation was 7 only done with the loads from the piping analysis.
8 MR. BRAMMER: Okay, well, why didn't he, the loads 9 from this analysis is higher than than the piping analysis.
10 Think it wasn't necessary?
11 MR. FINNERAN: Yes, he decided that his, he's got 12 enough margin in his allowables and the fact that he's using 13 emergency loadings here and he hasn't increased those emer-
,m 14 gency loadings. And AWS Code, I believe does say that if (u) 15 your design specifications gives you increased allowables 16 for different loading conditions, you can use those, you can 17 apply those to the AWS allowables also.
18 AWS Code does say that. And, he just decided that 19 he was well enough within his margins as he was that if you 20 added those in and used the increased allowables, he was still 21 okay. I think you would find that to be the case.
22 MR. BRAMMER: On this punching sheer, you used a 23 load of 4240 pounds, for instance. And, don't you have to 24 add this 5900 pounds to that 4240 pounds to ge t the total
/7 25 load on that?
b FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aroo 241-1902 e Belt. & Annop. 169-6236
6 - .-
l; I
1 MR. FINNERAN: You would have, to, yes, that's why '
I 2 I'm telling you. If you did that and used the increased al-( )
(_)
i 3 lowables, you would find you were still within the margins.
4 MR. BRAMMER: Okay, well, I'll see what you've 5 done.
6 - MR . FINNERAN: You can take this allowable here 7 the AWS allowable and you can multiply it times 1.33.
8 MR. BRAMMER: It looks like you still have an 9 allowable of over 50%.
10 MR. FINNERAN: Yes.
11 MR. BRAMMER: Okay.
12 MR. FINNERAN: That's all I have.
13 MR. HORIN: Spott, that finishes up our clarifica-7.~
( ) 14 tion.
v 15 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Do you have a better copy of 16 this?
17 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah, I'm gonna get you a better 18 copy.
19 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Okay, does that complete that 20 item?
21 MR. HORIN: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: With that, suppose we move on to 23 a discussion of your motion for summary disposition entitled 24 - " Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Allega-(~N 25 tions Concerning Quality Assurance Program for Design of i Q ,)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
f 1 Piping and Piping Supports for Commanche Peak Steam Electric M;i ;
2 Station."
g 3 This Motion for Summary Disposition was filed on 4 July 3rd, 1984. And, with that, I will turn the discussion 5 over the Mr. Don Landers, who will be our reviewer on this 6 item.
7 MR. LANDERS: I have to admit that, two things. One 8 is that just recently been involved and I have more reading 9 to do that I can get to, at this point in time. And secondly, 10 p I'm sure that the ap'licant has been asked the same question 11 9,000 times with respect to the design process.
12 And, I've gone through the submittal and I haven't 13 finished coloring the Chart I in yet, with the different
! ) 14 colors for the different organizations, that's a brilliant 15 submittal.
16 MR. IOTTI: We were gonna do that in color for you.
17 That was a simplified chart, Don.
18 MR. LANDERS: And I really am not interested in grea :
19 detailing in going through that because I think in any situa-20 tion we can go and we can find verbally a process in place.
21 And, really in looking at the design process at this point in 22 time, I'm, to a large degree, more interested in the responses 23 to all of the other questions that we hear. Because I think 24 that that is really a demonstration of satisfaction of the process that was in place, O) b 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1902 e Belt. & Annop. 249-6136
8 .~
t) 9( i 1 And, so, I would guess in the final analysis that !
2 my response is gonna be heavily based on the responses to (j 3 those questions. It doesn't make sense for me to go back and 4 redo independent design reviews and all of that stuff, is 5 really what I'm saying.
6 However, I have two major questions todrr that some 7 one can answer rather quickly for me. And they may well, in 8 fact, are answered, I think, in great detail in the, or to a 9 degree I think, in the submittal.
10 And that is, the interface between supports and n piping design. Who, or what organization is responsible for, 12 except for the non-NSS systems, what organization is respon-13 sible for accepting support design with respect to impact on the piping for the initial design process. Because I see that
[J) 14 15 on the chart and I read that deposition and I read other stuff 16 and I'm not sure that they say the same thing.
17 And then, what, the same question, what organiza-18 tion's responsible for doing that with respect to the field 19 change process that occurs.
S , can I get an answer to the first question? With 20 21 respect to the initial design process that we go through, 22 what organization is responsible for saying yes, that support 23 is representative of the assumptions I've made in designing 24 the piping?
I MR. IIORIN: I think our answer would probably be 25 (l
w/
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-4136
9 SS l!
I broken down into the, by the different orrac.izations. ButI'dl 2 like to have John be the quarterback to have each of the or-V 3 ganizations respond with respect to their specific activities.
4 MR. FINNERAN: I'd just like to conference with 5 Henry here for just a second first before we answer this.
6 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Would you like to go off the 7 record?
8 MR. IOTTI: Don, am I correct, you ask from the 9 piping standpoint, right, your question?
10 MR. LANDERS: Yes.
11 MR. IOTTI: See, let's not loose perspective. You 12 don't need to pull all of these..
13 MR. LANDERS: The other one's coming.
MR. IOTTI: I figured that's next. But, the next (v) 14 15 one is a different person and~all.
16 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Why don't you go off the record.
17 (Off the record discussion) 18 MR. FINNERAN: Okay, I believe your question, Mr.
19 Landers, was al.,ut the interface between the pipe support 20 designers and the piping analysts in the initial design, is 21 that correct?
22 MR. LANDERS: Yes, who is responsible for accepting 23 the support design with respect to the assumptions in the 24 P ii P ng design, in the initial process, that's right, yes.
i
"'s l 25 MR. FINNERAN: Well, I think as you'll see in our
%/
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aroe 161-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 269-6136
10 DO 1 affidavit, that the Gibson Hill and I believe this, we're on 2 Pages 17, 18, 19 of the affidavit, well, actually, start on
() a page 16 to 19, talks about the original design process. And 4 how the interface works back and forth in that original pro-5 cess between the Gibson Hill and the pipe support vendors.
6 MR. LANDERS: Excuse me for a minute. I'm looking 7 at the wrong page 16, I think. I'm looking at corrective a action.
9 MR. FINNERAN: I'm looking in the affidavit.
10 MR. HORIN: Don, that's the motion itself, the n affidavit is what John's referring to.
12 MR. LANDERS: Yeah, that's the problem. Now I 13 have it.
) 34 MR. FINNERAN: You've got the, as explained in those v
15 pages, I believe, it says that the piping analyst will make 16 will determine the particular supporting configurations that 17 he needs to satisfy his requirements for pipe analysis. And 18 I'm just summarizing it here.
19 And he will feed those support types and functions 20 and locations to the pipe support vendor and there's an inter-21 face back to the analyst if the vendor has a problem with 22 that pipe support type or with the location of that support 23 to allow him to approve moving a support from a location 24 where he had it pegged in the analysis, or change his support type if necessary.
Q 25 Qi FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Belt. 6L Annep.169-4136
I JED NRC106T3 t
{ ()
1 MR. LANDERS: Could I step in? As I read, now that 11 2 I have my copy in front of me, it brings, comes flooding back.
/;
~ 3 As I understand the initial process, if I 'm wrong, please in-4 terrupt me.
5 Gibson Hill does essentially a free thermal analysis ,
6 They locate the anchor, it goes down to applied mechanics, 7 applied mechanics locates it. That information is trans-8 mitted to either ITT Grinell or MPSI who locates dead weight 9 and seismic supports.
10 And that information comes back to Gibson Hill 11 and Gibson Hill does a complete analysis to demonstrate that 12 yes, those support locations are acceptable. The loads are 13 then transmitted back to ITT Grinnell to design the supports
(
(3) 14 in detail?
15 MR. FINNERAN: Yes.
16 MR. LANDERS: And now what happens to those support 17 designs? Do those support designs then go back to Gibson 18 Hill, or what' happens to those? Again, I think I've read 19 they go two ways. They go to the site for installation and 20 to Gibson Hill, but I'm not sure of that and I need someone 21 to tell me that.
22 MR. FINNERAN: I would think they do go to the site 23 for to be entered into the program at the site for construc-24 tion of the support.
O 25 I believe copies of tilose drawings are sent to b
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 241-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269-4136 i
I
12 Gibson Hill also. l 2
,~ MR. LANDERS: Okay, on page 19, page 18 and 19, we f ;
' 3 get to the point where Gibson Hill has done the analysis, as designed, dead weight thermal and seismic analysis of the 5
piping system. Upon completion, the loads and the locations 6 of the supports are released to the support vendor. Vendors 7
design and fabricate.
8 If changes to types of locations are required, 9
Gibson Hill's request to approve the changes before design 10 procedures.
11 MR. FINNERAN: Right. For instance, a particular 12 pipe support, once they got the finalloads, they might not 13 have access to some structural component of the building g
V that they can attach to for those loads and they may want to 15 move a foot or two down the line to get themselves in line 16 with a beam or something of that nature, better so.
17 MR. LANDERS: Yes, I understand that.
18 MR. FINNERAN: Okay.
19 MR. LANDERS: What I don't find, at least in these 20 pages, is, and maybe it's in the ITT Grinnell and the MPSI 21 response, I've designed the s'upport, I've fabricated the 22 support, I don't see now where this piping designer has 23 looked at that design. In these pages, and I want to see 24 where that is.
(' \ 25 MR. FINNERAN: Okay, you're aware that he sees all U ',
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6134
13 g()
1 the designs in the as-built portion of the program.
2 MR. LANDERS: That's my second question. I I' )
( ,/ 3 MR. FINNERAN: Okay.
4 MR. LANDERS: I'm looking at this initial design 5 process situation and now I've got a completed, I've got a 6 Package of supports, 20 supports that go with this piping 7 design, which, to me, includes analysis but is not limited 8 to that. And, I'm building them and I want to know where in 9 the process these drawings go back to this piping designer, 10 Gibson Hill, and he says, yeah, that's what I was thinking of 11 when I designed this pipe. Is that in here at all?
12 MR. FINNERAN: I know it's in here in the as-13 built cycle. And I don't know for sure that that occurs i,, ,) 14 in the initial cycle.
%.J 15 MR. WADE: I think in the initial cycle, piping 16 person has submitted a stress isometric or whatever showing 17 the loads and their functions, the supports, the responsibi-18 lity in the initial analysis is for pipe support supplier to is assure that his design will meet those functional require-20 ments that have been specified by the analyst.
21 MR. FINNERAN: But let me ask that you change your 22 wording there, because I am sure that he didn't consider func-23 tional requirements. And I think it's important that ...
24 MR. WADE: To support, okay, to support the load.
In the directions that are specified.
O 25 LI FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Deposittens D.C. Ares 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4136
i b3 14 1 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah, I don't want you to fall in a 2 hole. I C 3 MR. LANDERS: So, what I'm hearing is that the pro-4 cess relies on the support designer to develop a design that 5 in fact is what the piping designer was thinking when he de-6 signed the pipe. And sufficient information is given to him 7 to do that.
8 MR. FINNERAN: Yes.
9 MR. LANDERS: If that's not the case, and you find to that out later, would someone let me know?
11 MR. FINNERAN: Yes, initial process, let me reiterat e 12 that's what we're talking about.
13 MR. HORIN: Don, we'll get back to you to be, you tN 14 know, to make sure that that is indeed the case. I just
'Q) 15 wanted to point out that because of the last minuto notice, 16 we didn't have an opportunity to get Mr. Ballard down here 17 and we have Mr. Mentel, who's quite knowledgeable in the 18 area, but we may not have all the information that you're 19 asking for, so.
20 MR. LANDERS: I understand that and I'm certainly 21 not prepared either.
22 MR. MENTEL: Unfortunately, I was not involved in 23 the initial design process. So, I can't really comment as 24 to a review of the final support designs as they came out O 25 of the design supports analysis, r o LJ FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269 4236
15 1 MR. LANDERS: But at this point in time, what I g
2 will assume, unless someone yells differently, is that the re-C 3 sponsibility for making that support comply with the piping 4 designers ...
5 MR. IOTTI: Functional requirements.
6 MR. LANDERS: The piping designers approach to de-7 signing that system, is the support designers and the process 8 provides him with sufficient information to do that.
9 And is that also the case for the nuclear steam 10 supply system?
11 MR. FINNERAN: Unless we determine it differently, 12 I'd say that same process has to apply to the Class I systems 13 also.
/'~~h 14 MR. LANDERS:
(v) That does clear up some differences 15 I've seen in the the quick reading I've been trying to do.
16 MR. SIIULMAN: Don, can we respond to the ..
17 MR. LANDERS: Oh, sure.
18 MR. SI!ULMAN: The question of the nuclear steam 19 supply system, the reactor coolant system are Class I also.
20 I was asking for a repeat on the question as to whether or 21 not the question was specifically addressing the reactor 22 coolant system or the Class I auxilliary piping?
23 MR. LANDERS: Since in my previous discussion I 24 referred to Gibson IIlll, then I would say all of the piping fm 25 that Westinghouse was responsible for. And if there is a h
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.149 6134
16
[j[j 1 difference between main coolant and the rest of that, I'd 2 like that answer. f
'd 3 MR. SHULMAN: Yeah, on the main coolant system, 4 there are no supports'on the pipe. The equipment is suppor-5 ted, there are pipe rupture restraints along the pipe, but 6 there are no supports on the pipe itself.
7 MR. LANDERS: None attached to the pipe?
8 MR. SHULMAN: Right.
9 MR. LANDERS: I understand that.
10 MR. SHULMAN: The components are supported 11 MR. LANDERS: Yes. And who's responsible for 12 those designs? Westinghouse?
13 MR. SHULMAN: Westinghouse support design, permit V(^3 14 equipment support, interface with the primary equipment 15 MR. LANDERS: As far as, let me just add something ,
16 that includes the bumper that you have on the elbow? I 17 don't know if you have that at Commanche Peak. It's not an 18 equipment design, it's not attached to the pipe, but you do 19 rely on that bumper, with respect to..
MR. FINNERAN: Yeah, seismic.
20 21 MR. LANDERS: Seismic, yes, it's a seismic bumper.
22 MR. FINNERAN: I don't recall...
23 MR. LANDERS: But that's a Westinghouse supplied 24 support?
25 MR. SHULMAN: As far as I know.
[ )
\J FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Cemet Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
17 l
1 MR. LANDERS: Okay. '
Cfj f 2 MR. SHULMAN: Unfortunately, there's nobody here !
,e_3
~ 3 from analysis.
4 MR. FINNERAN: I'm in the same boat as you are.
5 MR. LANDERS: If the possibility may exist that 6 the bumper doesn't exist in this plant, then that's fine. I 7 j;ust want to get the record.
8 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Are you sure that bumper is..
9 MR. LANDERS: Because the bumper there is the 10 seismic bumper.
11 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Is the seismic bumper? It's a 12 pipe whip bumper over there.
13 MR. SHULMAN: I don't think it's a seismic support.
em
) 14 MR. LANDERS: Fine.
15 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct.
16 MR. SHULMAN: Now, pipe whip was not designed by 17 Westinghouse.
18 MR. LANDERS: That's not the isuue. Okay. Now, 19 all of the other piping that Westinghouse would have been ..
20 MR. SHULMAN: Westinghouse is responsible for 21 analysis of all the other piping. We had no support design 22 responsibility in that area.
23 MR. LANDERS: That's right, so..
24 MR. SHULMAN: The interface that was described for
/^'i 25 Gibbs and Hill was identical in terms of the information is V'
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4136
18 ,
G "/
' given to support design in sufficient detail so that he can l 2 design support that meets the intended function as represen-
's) 3 tative of the piping analysis.
4 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: John, just a question. I believe 5
your specification MS46 was used as a contract document with 6 ITT Grinnell and MPSI. And am I correct in saying that also 7 that the Westinghouse supports, I mean supports for Westing-8 house auxilliary piping was done, I believe, mostly by ITT 9 Grinnell, was it?
10 MR. FINNERAN: No, it was done by MPSI.
11 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: MPSI. Okay, and it was done 1 2 under the same contract?
13 MR. FINNERAN: Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Okay, fine,'thank you.
15 MR. FINNERAN: Spott, to clarify for the large core 16 auxilliary piping, the supports were done by MPSI under that 17 same contract. Small core, those were done by PSE.
18 MR. LANDERS: Okay, so, what I've heard is that 19 unless we get a change, that for all supports except for the 20 Westinghouse equipment supports, that the support design 21 organization was responsible for supplying a support that was 22 representative of the piping design concept.
23 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct.
24 MR. LANDERS: Once we get out into the field and l
('T 25 supports were installed or attempted to be installed and lb l
l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236
19 03 l 1 modifications had to be made, as I read the submittal on page l 2 20, the site stress analysis group of Gibbs and Hill, was V 3 responsible to evaluate and approve changes and modifications 4 to pipe routing, pipe support locations and/or pipe support 5 types.
6 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct.
7 MR. LANDERS: And that was throughout the process 8 of the' job so that any modification to any support, SSAG, 9 was responsible for approving that.
10 MR. FINNERAN: No, I think you have to read that in 11 light of what it says here, any modifications that involve 12 the rerouting of pipe or pipe support locations or pipe 13 support types.
MR. LANDERS: Excellent, okay, good. So, the
[V 14 15 fact that I've changed a support but not..
16 MR. FINNERAN: Its location or type.
17 MR. LANDERS: Yes.
18 MR. FINNERAN: Would would not be reviewed at that 19 by Sasaic, no.
20 MR. LANDERS: Who would review thar.?
21 MR. FINNERAN: Well, the vendor responsible for...
22 MR. LANDERS: That support.
23 MR. FINNERAN: That support design would review that 24 change.
,o 25 MR. LANDERS: So that going from a, and I don't know
'u)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e B olt. Et Annep. 269-613 6
L O!)
20 1
that this happened, going from a pipe clamp to a box would not 2 get into the SSAG group?
(
()
3 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct, not at that time.
4 MR. LANDERS: I understand. Ilowever , if changed 5 from a snubbit to a strut, SSAG would be involved?
6 MR. FINNERAN: Oh, most definitely.
7 MR. LANDERS: Yes, okay. The, when then does the 8 piping designer get involved in this total process with res-9 pect to where you are today and where he may have been a 10 year ago or six months ago,.or two months?
11 MR. FINNERAN: I think that is covered in our 12 as-built programs. What occurs is that eventually modifica-13 tions that might have occurred to supports in the field or g
14 documented and incorporated in the support drawings, so that 15 you have an as-built drawing of the support as it exists and 16 looks in the field. Also, as a result of our program on site 17 that we have as a commitment to the 79 pipe built, to the 18 7914, we have sent survey crews out into the field to survey 19 the as-built geometry of the piping and the locations of the 20 supports on that piping.
21 A package is then developed that includes drawings 22 that have been up dated to include that survey information 23 and the as-built and as-installed support drawings and that 24 whole package is forwarded then to the analyst responsible for
[</ '
25 that stress problem. It's done on a stress problem basis.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
JED NRC106T3 -
70 ,
21 1 MR. LANDERS: It's at that point that a support l 2 could be tagged'as-built verified, is that true? l
,w N.s 3 MR. FINNERAN: Don't want to get my misnomers, the 4 nomenclature confused here.
I 5 MR. LANDERS: Well, I know, I want to make that 6 clear because I think there's been that problem has gone 7 through here. The as-built verified, I think, and please 8 correct me..
9 MR. FINNERAN: I think that's, as the drawing has 10 been as-built and the survey team has verified that.
11 MR. LANDERS: That's right, but we're not through 12 with ..
13 MR. FINNERAN: Not through yet.
f~% 14 MR. LANDERS: Reconciliation.
( s) s 15 MR. FINNERAN: No.
16 MR. LANDERS: Okay, so now it's at that point that 17 Gibbs and Hill or Westinghouse gets what is required for 18 them to make some . decisions.
19 MR. FINNERAN: They get those total packages, 20 correct.
21 MR. LANDERS: And then they make a decision and 22 come back either with a rer -lysis or say it's acceptable s
23 because, and you now co - 7: nel design thoroughfied, design 24 verified.
f~N 25 MR. FINNERAN: Well, they'11 come back and let's t
'w.-
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
22 l ' 71 I
say everything was okay.
2 f MR. LANDERS: Yes.
'w' 3
MR. FINNERAN: Then they'll come back with the 4
as-built loads. Piping analysis may have been rerun because 5
supports location is changed, pipe routing may have changed.
6 The analysis was rerun, a new set of support loads generated 7
then to reflect the as-built condition. Those loads then go 8
to the vendors responsible for the support design and they'll 9
review the design for those loads. Then if everything's to okay, then it will be what we call vendor certified.
11 And that means that it's been reviewed to the 12 as-built load.
13 7, MR. LANDERS: So engineering is not complete until
(
~~
I4 I see vendor certified.
15 MR. FINNERAN: On the supports.
16 MR. LANDERS : And anything at that point, up til 17 that point, is subject to change?
18 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct. Well, things can 19 occur that might cause even, if further piping ~ modifications 20 may be required, let's say there's a piece, a pipeline had 21 been as-built analyzed, all the supports been certified, 22 but maybe we were trying to finish up some of our Three Mile 23 Island Commitment work and we had to move that piping again.
24 If you go back to the process again.
(
l 25 MR. LANDERS: Is there any way of recognizing that FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportins e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annap. 169-6134
23 72 1 when I'm out in the field, that this system that I'm looking
,e'3 2 at that has design verified on it is in fact being worked on i )
'a 3 for some other reason? Do we get rid of the verified labels, 4 or what do we do?
5 i MR. FINNERAN: Well, what would occur would be i
6 additional change paper would bo entered into the system on 7 those things and then they're no longer vendor certified.
8 MR. LANDERS: Okay.
9 MR. FINNERAN: As long as there's change paper in 10 they system against them, then that label is meaningless.
11 MR. LANDERS: The possibility exists then that the 12 P i ping designer does not see change to a support which may have 13 substituted a box frame for a clamp until as-built verifica-
\/ 14 tion is complete?'
15 MR. FINNERAN: Okay, you're calling as-built verifi-16 cation when we have surveyed the piping and sent that informa-17 tion in to the office. That's correct.
18 MR. LANDERS: .That's right.
19 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct.
20 MR. LANDERS: Because, certainly the support de-21 signer sees it and he says yeah. The piping designer doesn't 22 get to see that until, the.only thing that would get him to 23 see that would be as-built verification?
24 MR. FINNERAN: Correct.
r~N
( ) 25 MR. LANDERS: I don't have anything else right now, i
l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
I Court Reporting e Depositions l D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. 66 Annop.169-6136
24 mr 1 unfortunately, or fortunately.
I gy 2 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: We can come back until you dig.
! ' /
3 All right. Any other members of the staff have questions?
4 Applicant? If not, it is now slightly after 12. I suggest..
5 MR. LANDERS: Excuse me, can I just add.
6 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Of course.
7 MR. LANDERS: Somehow or other, and I don't know 8 how to get to'it quickly without asking for a whole lot of 9 stuff that I'm never gonna find, I need to find in the pipe 10 support organizations the procedures, or get to look at those 11 that address this initial issue. Okay? The fact _..at here's 12 the information you have and, whether it's stated or not, 13 that it's their responsibility for banging out steel that's
(%
> 1 C/ 14 representative of the piping design concept.
15 So if I could somehow or other get a look at those, 16 that would be good. And, the other stuff is in here, with 17 respect to field stuff. And I misread that page 20, 18 MR. HORIN: Have you received the package from 19 Gibbs and Hill?
MR. LANDERS: I've received some packages. I don't 20 21 think we asked for that. I think what I've asked for here is separate from anything.. I have received some packages 22 23 yesterday and I don't even know what's in it.
24 MR. HORIN: It is a-different request, but I just Oj 25 wanted to make sure you had gotten that package.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
2s 7.j l MR. WADE: Don, are we safe to assume that this is e'^N 2 l ) all the questions you'll have today, so we can send these v
3 people back to work? Or will you have additional this afternoon that you need these people to be here for?
MR. LANDERS: No, again, any, I will have questions 6
which relate to specific issues as I feel they impact the 7
design process.
8 MR. WADE: But not today?
9 MR. LANDERS: I don't know what's coming up next.
10 I mean, I had questions on the frame support which, in my
" opinion, had an impact on the design process.
12 MR. WADE: Oh, okay.
13 (m)
MR. LANDERS: You see. And really my resolution of
%s' 14 how I think the process is working, in my mind, is the res-15 ponses to the questions that have been asked. I'm sure, I 16 can see the process is there.
17 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: In view of that, I would rec-18 ommend you hold them until we get through with Mr. Bass' line 19 of questions. I think several items in there might be, might 20 involve that.
21 With that, I'll start off again and say it is 22 slightly after 2 and I believe this is a good point in time 23 fc us to break for lunch. 'May I recommend that we try to 24 return by 1:15, that's all. Okay, off the record.
L ,i 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Iteperting e Deposittens D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
26 75 l 1 AFTERNOON SESSION o 2 MR. LANDERS: I have, one more question came to me !
! \ !
3 while you were all out eating. With respect to changes that 4 are made at the site, that do not involve SSAG, who is it 5 that is involved in making the determination that that's 6 acceptable, at the site?
7 MR. FINNERAN: Well, as far as the acceptability 8 of those changes goes, whoever was responsible for the ori-9 ginal design of that support.
10 MR. LANDERS: Their site representative?
11 MR. FINNERAN: Will review and reject or accept 12 those changes.
13 MR. WADE: Let's make it real clear. Our approach lD, t 1
'v' 14 in putting up pipe supports was to have field engineers who 15 can make a quick assessment and a decision as to the accepta-16 bility of a change. However, he did not document all the 17 calculations at that point in time.
18 He was simply'to assess that there's a high degree 19 of confidence that when we finally do these calculations, 20 then it would be acceptable. At that time..
21 MR. FINNERAN: Those calculations are done.
22 MR. WADE: Well, there's some done, but it's not 23 the final set of calculations that the vendor will certify.
24 At some point in the future, then, those calculations, those c
) 25 support changes get back to the vendor and he does the final FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169-4136
27 76 1 certification of the supports.
f- 2 MR. LANDERS: Those engineers, those field engineers
! )
3 who make those judgments and do those calculations to back 4 them up, are they representatives of the fabricator, the 5 manufacturer?
6 MR. WADE: Not necessarily.
7 MR. LANDERS: Not necessarily.
8 MR. WADE: May or may not be.
9 MR. LANDERS: May or may not be. They are just 10 field engineering personnel who can make those judgments in 11 general.
12 MR. WADE: Document what is there.
13 MR. LANDERS: Yes, document what is there and then
<O Cl 14 things get sent back to the appropriate vendor. Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: How much review does the changes 16 get back at the appropriate vendor, ITT,'I guess? MPSI?
17 That's done on site, isn't it?
18 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah, unless, of course, yeah, those 19 PeoPl e are on site.
20 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: The originating designer for the 21 support is not on site.
22 MR. FINNERAN: Yes. No, as far as that individual?
23 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Yeah.
24 MR. FINNERAN: No, he probably isn't, but he may be.
n
(/)
x..
25 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: He could be?
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
28 77 1 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah.
7- 2 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Okay. All right, I guess we are
]
3 ready to move on to Mr. Fair's stuff and Mr. Fair isn't here 4 yet, so let's take a short break.
5 (Brief recess.)
6 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: We are joined by Mr. John Fair, 7 of the Staff. Mr. Fair has a few questions on some of your 8 more recent submittals, I believe.
9 MR. FAIR: Yes, I'll start off with the follow up to on generic stiffness which you gave a submittal on July 16th, 11 1984.
12 MR. IOTTI: Yes, that's the answer we provided on 13 July 16th, yes, I have that.
p k- 14 MR. FAIR: I understood you picked four additional 15 P ii P ng analyses and took a look at the actual calculated 16 stiffnesses of the supports, redid the analysis, found one 17 additional case where the snubbers would be considered, or 18 at least one snubber would be overloaded. Then, on page 10, 19 you stated that for two problems in which the snubbers were 20 loaded above their allowables, that included the one original 21 face and one of these additional four.
22 MR. IOTTI: Yes.
23 MR. FAIR: You took out the snubbers and reanalyzed 24 the systems and the stresses and the loads were acceptable.
/m What does that mean exactly?
l
(
%,/
) 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
l Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136
29 ,
78 1 MR. IOTTI: That if the, that support hadn't been
,em 2 there to begin with, okay, what we would have found is that
( )
3 everywhere, using the actual stiffnesses, the nozzles on the 4 nozzle loads, the reaction of the supports and the stresses 5 in the pipe would have been within Code allowable.
6 MR. FAIR: All things were within allowables, then 7 with those snubbers out?
8 MR. IOTTI: Yes, correct. We are comparing, when 9 we say acceptable, we are comparing against allowable loads.
10 We're not competing against failures and so forth.
11 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Detail.
12 MR. IOTTI: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: You took the support out, you
!O
'v' 14 ran the pipe stress analysis.
15 MR. IOTTI: That is correct.
16 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: And the stresses in the pipe 17 were within allowable.
18 MR. IOTTI: Correct.
ig CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Did the loads change on the other 20 supports, redistribute..
21 MR. IOTTI: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: In such a fashion that you had 23 to check the design of the supports or some of the others?
24 MR. IOTTI: In some instances we had to, yes.
,9 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: And you did that and those stressas
() 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
JED NRC106T3 .
7b ;
30 1 re na a s?
l 2 MR. IOTTI: Allowable, yes.
l )
3 CHAIRMAN BURWELL: Thank you.
4 MR. IOTTI: And we felt that that would probably be 5 the conclusion because the ones that, the supports that are 6 in question is the one that was shown to be overloaded, are 7 very likely those that support. So, not much of the load 8 goes to the supports to begin with.
9 So, that's the interpretation to be attached to 10 our conclusions.
ij MR. LANDERS: Is the snubbers significantly stiffer 12 than the other supports in the system?
13 MR. IOTTI: No, it turns out to be generally the p
(,) 34 lowest. In fact, one of the conclusions we reached on is 15 that the ones that always are in trouble are the ones that 16 have the lowest stiffness relative to the generic stiffness 37 and are also the very lightly loaded.
,g We have some lightly loaded ones that do not have 19 low stiffness, and those don't have the same..
20 MR. LANDERS: This lightly loaded one, this wasn't 21 lightly loaded, right?
MR, IOTTI: Yeah,.very very lightly loaded.
23 MR. LANDERS: The snubber, I thought, was over-24 loaded.
(')
Lj 25 MR. IOTTI: Yeah, well, this was a one-quarter inch, FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.149-6136
l 31 1 so l 1 you know, PSA one-fourth snubber. Don' t remember, wha t was fw 2 the' low, John?
k)
'~'
3 MR. LANDERS: Yeah, it doesn' t take much.
4 MR. IOTTI: It's, you know, they're minute loads 6 to start with, but if you double the load, whether the load 6 is 100 pounds initially, even if you make it 200, you can send 7 it over.
8 ' MR. FAIR: Did you intend to actually remove these 9 snubbers from the piping systems?
10 MR, IOTTI: We could if we wanted to. It's not our 11 intention to do so, not presently. We might. The reason 12 that that hasn't been done yet, is that there is a snubber 13 reduction program that's being contemplated in the long q
J 14 term. And maybe that's the appropriate time to do so.
15 MR. FLECK: Do the piping frequencies change much 16 without that?
17 MR, IOTTI: No. Locally they did.
18 MR. FLECK: But you still didn't come close to any 19 sharp amplitudes.
20 MR. IOTTI: If we did, it was just local. And that' a 21 another thing that we looked in this. Remember, we had dif-22 forences of opinion and turned out that you were right, so.
23 We did do that also, to make sure that we address your con-24 cern. There is an effect due to the local frequency shift, n
oven though the whole overall piping motor response doesn't (v) 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Deposittens D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
32 I gg i
1 change much, locally you can put a span or a sequence of (m
\
2 spans near residence, or in residence with with the response 3 petrol.
4 So you do see those effects. Or, that there is a 5 potential for that to occur.
6 MR. FAIR: I had another question on the reevalua-7 tion of the stiffnesses of those supports we discussed last 8 time where the test showed a significantly lower stiffness 9 than the calculated. Why, what was that data submitted 10 originally with those low stiffness values and exactly what 11 was the problem?
12 MR. IOTTI: I guess the fundamental reason was 13 time pressure, we needed to get this in and we really didn't O
U 14 have the time, the luxury to take stock, find out exactly 15 where we were. We had been under the impression that the 16 test had been conducted in the field were all donc properly, 17 that they had applied sufficient load. And, remember my first 18 reaction at your questions is I bet you anything that they 19 didn't apply sufficient load to take up the slack.
20 So we caused them to go back and apply sufficient 21 load to make sure that the support was loaded sufficiently 22 to take up any play. That's when we saw the increase.
23 But, you're right. Why were we sort of lackadaisical 24 about the first submittal. And the only answer I have for f3
( ) 25 that is that wo were trying to submit, what was it, 22 or v
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6134
33 82 i whatever things, all within a certain timeframe, 16 of them.
2 It was simply time pressure.
( ')
'd 3 MR. FAIR: Well, what types of deflections were 4 you testing to the first time on those? Were you only 5 loading that up to a 16th of an inch deflection at the end?
6 MR. FINNERAN: No, we had only loaded it to the leve:
7 below for the particular support design. And, in some of a those cases, that turned out to be a very low load.
9 MR. IOTTI: There was no deflection limit. In a to sense, you know, we didn't test out to achieve a certain 33 deflection.
12 One of the things that we did that was wrong, to 13 be frank, instead of taking load and deflection, what we n,
y 34 should have done is do the load deflection curve. That was 15 not done, it still hasn't been done. Again, because of time.
16 We wanted to get the answer to you.
37 The proper way to answer your question would be
,g to take a load, progressively increasing and monitor the 19 load deflection characteristics of that particular support.
20 MR. FAIR: Well, let me ask you again, what were 21 the deflections at the two different test loads? Apparently 22 y u us d a higher test load the second time around?
23 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct.
24 MR. FAIR: What type of deflection did you get at 25 the first time, before they stopped the test?
w' FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens ,
D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136 '
34 l' S3 1
MR. FINNERAN: Well, the only thing to do there is 2 to take the values that were given you and I have the loads, 3 and we can calculate them. Calculate the deflections.
4 MR. FAIR: .. ell, let me understand, in both cases, 5
case two was a higher load level, but in both cases you 6 assumed a linear load deflection characteristic from the 7 Zero point to the load?
8 MR. FINNERAN: That's correct.
9 MR. IOTTI: And in the first instance, that would 10 be incorrect.
11 MR. FAIR: So, we have no idea what the actual 12 free play in those supports is right now.
13 MR. FINNERAN: Other than you know there is some.
G) 14 That it's taken up with the first initial part of the load 15 and you don' t carry the load on up, it can have an effect 16 on what you would determine under these circumstances as 17 what would be the stiffness of the support.
18 If you carried it on up to a load where those 19 effects would not be as significant, then you get more a true 20 reading of the stiffness of that support.
21 MR. IOTTI: Well, what is obvious is that it's not 22 a linear relationship between load and deflection for that 23 particular support.
24 MR. CIIEN: Did you write a procedure for that test?
(3
{) 25 MR. IOTTI: No.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4134
I 35 l'
b'l!
1 MR. FAIR: Your basis for sticking with your origi-l p 2 nal conclusion now is that you've looked at a sample of a O 3 seven, a piping analyses and.been able to show..
4 MR. IOTTI: Consistency in the prediction where 5 the problem would arise, so that we can actually predict where 6 in which support might be in trouble. And the fact that those 7 supports are always the lightly loaded ones and the fact that 8 also if you were to remove it, it is not likely to change 9 the, if the support weren't even there, it wouldn't change 10 the conclusion that the piping is in a safe configuration.
11 MR. FAIR: But it would be difficult, I'll take 12 the assumption that there's a potential you could fail to 13 support.
14 MR. IOTTI: Well, we haven't conceded that point, 15 but it was obvious we weren't making much headway in that 16 regard. We don't believe that those snubbers would neces-17 sarily fail. However, there has been some information that 18 I haven't been able to get ahold of that might indicate 19 otherwise.
20 Our predicated position here is that we have a 21 test that is being conducted in a particular snubber. That 22 test indicate that we have ample capacity to exceed the 23 allowable loads on the snubber by almost a factor of, well, 24 in our test, four to five. Okay. So if you want to lower it
) 25 because of the namic events to a lower value than that, but xs FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt.& Annep. 169 4136
36
$5 l l' it appears that the snubbers, at least the PSA I for which 2 we conducted the test, would be able to accommodate a load
%)
3 that is two and a half times larger dynamically than what 4 the snubber was designed for, or it was rated for.
5 I told you in my letter that we don't have a test 6 for the PSA one-quarter, however, it's built the same way, 7 it has the same load path. I would expect a similar 8 behavior.
9 MR. FAIR: Okay, my conclusion, based on these 10 current studies, hasn't changed. I believe that the second ti sample, being about the same size as the first sample, 12 identified an additional problem with a snubber being loaded 13 above its capacity. And I won't say that I would predict it 14 to fail, either. But I don't know whether it's good at that 15 level or not.
16 The second issue is that you've demonstrated that 17 you were within allowable stresses and loads with the snubber 18 out. However, with the snubber in, you don't know what the 19 characteristics of the piping would be, if you exceeded a 20 load which would cause it to fail.
21 MR. IOTTI: That I would, actually. What do you 22 mean by were it to fail. It either fails, okay, or it doesn't 23 fall. Then we have to determine how a snubber fails.
24 A snubber fails by seizing, this particular, and 25 then acts as a rigid strut. As a rigid strut, with regard to FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Cowet Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 161 1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149 4134
37 t sc !
1 a seismic, it's not failed. So failure in the system is for l
2 the strut to actually come apart, break.
( )
3 MR. FLECK: Wouldn't you have failure from a 4 thermal expansion?
5 MR. IOTTI: No. Why?
6 MR. FLECK: Because now it's rigid.
7 MR. IOTTI: Yeah, but who cares. I mean, we only 8 have to take one of the seismic events, right, I hope.
9 MR. FLECK: So you're saying inspection occurs to and everyone sees the failed snubbers and they replace them?
it MR. IOTTI: I mean, ...
12 MR. WADE: Does it exceed the load that causes it 13 to fail until you have the event.
(D
(.) 14 MR. IOTTI: Right.
15 MR. FLECK: But right after the event, when it's 16 failed, you can't take a thermal cycle..
17 MR. IOTTI: That is correct.
18 MR. FLECK: hell, you might, but you might damage 19 the pipe.
20 MR. IOTTI: No, no, I totally agree with you. We 21 would have to inspect if we had an carthquake. I'm not 22 disagreeing with you. Because it fails its snubbing function, 23 it does not fail its ability of restraining rigidly. Of 24 taking load as a strut, until it actually mechanically fails,
[]
V 25 snaps, bends, whatever.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 6136 L
38 !
JED NRC106T3 1 MR. FLECK: And there's been enough reports, I t
$7 l ;
2 think, and the event was that the snubbers get locked up..
[m) 3 MR. IOTTI: You see, from the locking up, as far as 4 seismic concern, it's not a concern to us. It is a concern 5 to us if it were, to answer his question directly, can I pre-6 dict the behavior of the piping system if the, not the snubber 7 now, but whatever it became to, a rigid strut, were to fail.
8 Now, it is true that I would have, if it fails and 9 it breaks, I got a mass that ridos with a pipe that I haven't 10 considered before, so in that sense, you're correct. IIo w e v e r ,
11 if it fails by just seizing, then it's just like I had a 12 rigid strut, which is what I assumed to be there to begin 13 with, because that's how the snubber was modeled.
I' C)/ 14 MR. LANDERS: llave you looked at the snubber design 15 and satisfied yourself that that is the failure mode that's 16 going to occur?
17 MR. IOTTI: We tested it.
18 MR. LANDERS: The whole assembly that's in place?
19 MR. IOTTI: And, let me tell you how we tested it.
20 MR. LANDERS: There's no extension tubes or any-21 thing on this snubber?
22 ( END OF TAPE )
23 24 j 25 U
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt.& Annep. 169 4134 1
o SS O 1 MR. IOTTI: The weak lead fair is never, that 2 is my question. The way we tested it, we determined 3 what he load path would be and then it tarns out that 4 the load path dynamically is through the cast and 5 spring, the mandrel, the drum. Then what we did, we 6 logged the inertial mass of the static lead that 7 simulated the mass and the drum were, in fact, locked 8 in the spring and then we took it up until some of the 9 internal raceways of the bearings started breaking. In 10 fact, they could have taken a lot more load than what 11 we finally stopped the testing, because we started 12 worrying about the safety of the personnel around.
13 MR. LANDERS: You did a static load?
14 MR. IOTTI: It was static, yes. It is very is dif ficult to test this thing dynamically to 16 destruction.
17 MR. LANDERS: Yeah, in place.
18 MR. IOTTI: Huh?
19 MR. LANDERS: In place.
20 MR. FAIR: I don' t believe I had finished.
21 MR. IOTTI: No. No. I didn' t imply that you 22 had. I was trying to answer your question as to why I 23 wouldn't be able to predict the' behavior of the piping 24 system if it fails. I was trying to define it goes 25 through failure to occur, and one failure, in fact
> BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 1
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6136
so O I would put me right back to the analysis that I would 2 have if this number is expected to be there. The 3 failure that has the snubber snapping, and breaking 4 into pieces, whatever, would say that now I have a 5 force due to whatever stored energy you had in the 6 snubber that has not been accounted for in my analysis, 7 plus a portion of the mast that rides on the pipe.
8 That, I don' t have an analysis for.
9 MR. FAIR: I guess there are two parts. One, I to don' t know that that is the case for the snumbbers that ii the first failure mechanism would be locking the 12 snubber up. That may be the case, but I don't happen to 13 know that. But the other, now you have two examples of (Vl 14 piping where the snubbers were overloaded. You have is been able to demonstrate on these two cases that you 16 met loads and stresses for the adjacent supports in the 17 piping. But, I don't know that that is the case. It is appears that you have hit a couple of them in a sample 19 of seven. I would expect there would be more cases.
20 MR. IOTTI: Everyone of them I would suspect.
21 Every single snubber which happens to be very very 22 lightly loaded, which happens to have a very low 23 stiffness. Okay, the combination of the two 24 simultaneously is a very likely candidate to suffer the 25 same failure. That is correct. That is one of the b) BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901
- Belt. 46 Annep.149-413 6
') 0.
i things we found from our study. So, there is 2 consistency in the result. We haven't found any 3 surprises in the new sample that we had not seen in the 4 first sample. I don' t recall, what was the first 9
sample, sixty supports? The second one was 180 or so.
6 So, all together we haven't seen any new surprises.
7 But, you are right. All we did was look at what would g happen if we removed those two snubbers that we had 9
found. We found no adverse consequences from doing so.
jg MR. FAIR: I'll sum up again. I am still not ji in agreement that studies demonstrated that all the 12 ther piping systems are acceptable, and there would be 13 n problems. ,
l]
34 MR. IOTTI: Would a further identification of
,3 the lightly loaded snubbers in...I don't know how large 16 a sample of the other piping system short of all of 37 them, and ...
18 MR. FINNERAN: Actually, we have looked at ig twelve test problems here. We came up with the four 20 that we analyzed, based on your desires that we try to 21 identify the ones that have lightly loaded supports.
22 That was the selection match here.
23 MR. IOTTI: The prc'.?lem here, John, is the 24 short of reanalyzing every piping system in the plant.
25 It may be impossible to ever satisfy it. One thing that O BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 3
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depeeltlens D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
Ol O" 1 we can do, and it can be done within a reasonable time 2 is to go back, take additional piping system, maybe 3 more. But, rather than calculate all engineering 4 statistics and all that again, which is time consuming, s just select those numbers which are very very lightly 6 loaded, and do a calculation of the stiffness of those 7 numbers, the actual stiffness. If they also come out to a be very low with respect to generic stiffness, then the 9 next number would be an candidate for being calculated to as possible overloaded if you were to redo the 11 analysis. Then, for a sample of those problems, redo an 12 analysis with those numbers out and see what the p 13 results are again so you have no problem.
i V 14 That, is doable. Anything short of that is 15 going back to analyzing every pipe in the system of the 16 plant.
17 MR. FAIR: I think that was exactly the 18 approach that I had recommended the last time we met 19 here.
20 MR. IOTTI: I thought we had done that. I 21 think what you seem to be disagreeing is that we didn't 22 take enought vibrant systems.
23 MR. FAIR: Well, I read your submittal. You 24 took a sample, you didn't screen all the piping systems 25 for lightly loaded supports.
'n BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 4
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Cevet Reporting e Depeeltions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt & Annep. 149 4134
s (j s s.9
- MR. IOTTI
- Well, again, because of the timing 2
issue, we had to do it in a certain time. Understand 3
that there is a lot of piping system here, and what I 4 am saying is that we can still go back and screen the
. 5 ther one. But, we are not going to be able to l
6 reanalyze every one of them. We will still, even after 7
identifying the lightly loaded number, we still will g only be able to do a certain number of reanalysis. So, 9
you will still have to contend with a sample again,
,g maybe a larger sample, but still a sample.
MR. FAIR: .Well, I would think that you would be able to get a more scient.ific type of sample that if 12 y u had developed a screening criteria based on results i
] 13
,, of your studies.
,g MR. IOTTI: But, on this basis, I already have 16 a certain confidence level in a certain prolimity. I 37 have 90% confidence that I have less than 1%
is probability of finding anything that is amiss.
39 MR. FAIR: I don' t know that I agree with 20 those statistics. I think out of the number of piping 21 systems that you looked at, you have a fairly good 22 pr bability of finding an overloaded snubber. I don' t 23 know what the probability of finding what actually 24 caused problems with the piping analysis if it were 25 taken out.
Bil v
NRC-106 D-2,t-4 5
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
\(~j) t.
f) )
t MR. IOTTI: I don't disagree with you. All I 2 am saying is if you want to run the statistics on this, 3 if you think a sample of about 200, 184 plus 188 plus 4 60 is 241 or 50. You find none of them has failed the 5 ultimate test that means that the piping system is 6 Still okay. You can derive certain statistical y information based on that. Those are the numbers that I 8 quoted you.
9 I am the first to admit that yes, it is io likely that we will find snubbers on other systems, 33 snubbers that are lightly loaded which would be 12 computed to be overloaded. I am not disputing that
() 13 fact. The question that I have, is how many more g samples do you want to take. I can increase the samples 33 to 750,000. It is still ultimately going to come down is to a higher confidence level, perhaps, and a lower 37 probability of finding anything else being amiss.
ig But, we are already up at the 95% confidence ig level, you know, 95/95 confidence level. I thought that 20 was sufficient, that is why we stopped. I don' t want 7, to leave you with the impression we did not take your 22 advice. That is precisely what we went back to do. I 23 thought that is what we had done.
24 I guess my question to you to put it blunt is 25 what would you like us to do next? Do you like this BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 6
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6136
31 1 approach? I think that is the approach that you are 2 suggesting.
3 MR. FAIR: I have no problems with the 4 approach. I had felt that you had sufficient data in 5 .your studies to screen a criteria to find supports that 6 would likely cause the problem.
7 MR. IOTTI: We did. We found one. It has to be a very lightly loaded and simultaneously be load 9 stiffness. In other words, like two orders of magnitude io less the stiffness.
it MR. FAIR: I would like you to look at all the 12 piping systems to determine...
33 MR. IOTTI: Okay, that is where we did ere i4 from you. We didn' t go back and look at all piping is system. We took a sample and justi looked at those. Now, 16 we can increase that sample, given the time that we 17 have, I'm not so sure it is possible to look at all of 18 them. Maybe what we ought to discuss is how large a ig sample should we have, and where do we draw the line.
20 Are we looking for the 99, 99% type confidence level.
21 Are we looking for a 95, 95. We are there at 95, 95.
22 But, at 99, 99 we will have to almost quadruple or 23 quinduple the same. Or, do you want the whole thing 24 reviewed. I mean, that is going to take a little 25 bit longer.
BH t]v NRC-106 D-2,t-4 7
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6134
n '
g ..
) .1 U i MR. FAIR: Yes. ,I would like to see the whole 2 thing reviewed to determine those supports which are 3 that flexible, as flexible as lightly loaded and 4 flexible supports, and reanalyze those systems that 5 have those supports in it.
6 I think you have sufficient data to determine 7 how to screen the supports?
8 MR. IOTTI: That, we do. Now, lets suppose 9 that we find one in every other system. We are then, io reanalyzing every other system.
3, MR. FAIR: Yes. I would think so.
12 MR. LANDERS: Your reevaluation of n 33 acceptability after you remove the snubber complies V
g with your licensing requirements then?
j5 MR. IOTTI: Well Don, we have a philosophical 16 point here. The committment here is that we would use 37 generic stiffnesses in the plant. Now, we are doing an is analysis because the actual stiffnesses turn out to be, ig in many instances significantly different than generic 20 stiffnesses. We don't debate that issue.
21 Now, ultimately, our goal is to prove whether 22 this plant is safe or not. We are doing an analysis 23 here which indicates these are very lightly loaded and 24 simultaneously load stiffness supports. There are 25 instances where you would predict those supports would O BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 8
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4134
t 96 o
I
\# be overloaded. That is if you do all of your i
2 conservative analysis.
3 MR. LANDERS: It's based on a computed look.
4 MR. IOTTI: We have got, we think we have got 5
a lot of conservatism in the input seismic to begin 6 with. I really wonder .where is this result going to y lead, ultimately. We don' t think there is 'a safety 8
concern. We felt we had established that fact, but 9
obviously not to John's satisfaction.
10 MR. TERAO: May I make a comment, I'm not in 33 any way trying to comment on what John's position is, 12 but I have a concern. It may be the same as John's it 13 may not be. I think my concern with the generic 34 stif fnesses on Comanche Peak is the fact that the only, 33 the only problem that you have identified, the only way 16 that you can say any supports have potential for being 37 overloaded is if they are lightly loaded and whatever, is the other criteria was.
39 To me, that is not a technical justification.
20 There has to be a reason why some of these supports are 21 becoming overloaded. I don' t think you have put your 22 finger exactly. . .I don' t think you have put your finger 23 and told us exactly why some of these supports have 24 such low stif fnesses, and what is their particular 25 design that ended up with, particular design or BH
('
NRC-106 D-2,t-4 9
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep.149-4136
t 97 i q
i component in the design that ultimately ended up in a 2 very low stiffness. If you could tell us...
3 MR. IOTTI: It's not always snubbers, but the 4 ones that always fall in this category are invariably 5 snubbers.
6 MR. TERAO: But it is not the snubber itself 7 that as a load stiffness.
8 MR. IOTTI: No it's not.
9 MR. TERAO: But what component in there that 10 has given you the stiffness.
n MR. IOTTI: No it's not. It is the combination 12 of having the support which is so lightly loaded that Q
V 13 the engineer designs something that can take the load i4 with very little. That is what gives you the load is stiffness.
16 MR. TERAO: What I find very confusing here is 17 that CYGNA had done an IDDP on Grangulf (phonetic) and is asked the same questions on generic stif fnesses. They 19 ended up with quite a few restraints that they had 20 looked at the actual stiffnesses. Those stiffnesses, of 21 course they included snubbers and strutts were all on 6
22 the order of 10 and 10 7 stiffness. Now, I find it 23 quite remarkable that your stif fnesses that you have 24 computed are all in the order of 10 4 , and 10 5 . I mean, 25 there is two orders, the main two differnce from BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 10 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. & Annep. 269 6136
g 98 i another plant. Of course, they are using the same type 2
of snubbers that you are. So, thece has to be some 3 other difference that is calling this load stiffness in 4 the snubbers.
5 MR. IOTTI: I certainly don't propose to look 6 at what Randolph has done. I don't think that is my 7
function.
8 MR. TERAO: I'm not saying that it is, but 9 what we are saying is that something is giving you
,g these load stif fnesses and I don' t think you have put 3,
your finger on it.
MR. IOTTI: Well, I am not so sure that 12 13 (inaudible) hasn' t done their work right either.
f)o 34 Because, we have tested i't. I haven't seen anybody else 33 do these tests.
16 MR. TERAO: With what, snubbers?
37 MR. IOTTI: No. The actual stiffnesses on the is supports. The actual construction of the supports and 19 evaluating.
20 We have got the whole thing built as it is there, and we tested it.
21 22 MR. FINNERAN: When you do the stiffness 23 calculations, it turns out when you have several 24 elements and series, your effective stiffness is always 25 a little less than the lowest stiffness of anything in (N BH
' NRC-106 D-2,t-4 11 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Anr,op. 169-6136 4
,m 00
() 3 the train.
2 MR. TERAO: Let me ask you a question. How 3 many other plants use standard U-bolts on large 4 4 piping?
5 MR. IOTTI: I don't, I am not so sure that I
~
6 want to answer that question, because once we give you 7 the category of all of this plant, it is, the witch 8 hunt is on. There are several plants that use U-bolts.
9 I will let it stay at that. I can provide you a list jo separate.
33 MR. FLECK: Getting back to stiffness, you 12 know the support that Dave showed you, the one that was
,r-s 33 on the risor with the stantion and the U-bolt? In what
(,_)
34 direction do you calculate the stiffness for that 35 support, out of the wall or into the wall? That 16 stiffness is different.
37 MR. IOTTI: Then, it would be calculated.
18 MR. FLECK: Which one do you use, the lower?
ig MR.. IOTTI: The lower.
20 MR. FLECK: Is that in the process?
21 MR. IOTTI: Of what?
22 MR. FLECK: The design process, or in 23 repacking?
24 MR. IOTTI: Only if this were one of those 25 supports that fall into the category of the piping
/^'; BH )
'd NRC-106 D-2,t-4 )
12 ,
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. '
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
(] } U()
V i system that is being reduced for actual stiffnesses, 2
the generic stif fnesses.
3 MR. FINNERAN: Well, I will have to count on 4 what you said, Dave. I have looked at several of the 5 actual stif fness calculations that we have done on 6 these supports and looked at the snubbers. The snubber 7
always turns out controlling the stiffness of the g support, because it is always the least stif f element 9 in any of the series. The effect of stiffness is always 3g just a little less than the stif fness of the snubber.
33 So, I suggest you, if possibly...
12 MR. TERAO: Are you saying that the snubber is 4
ex less stiff than 10 ?
b MR. IOTTI: No, but some of them are as low as g
10 5 , and sometimes the PSA14 is less than that.
33 16 MR. TERAO: That is why we we have concern-37 with your test results in testing these standard 18 U-bolts on small and large core piping. Ycu are 19 testing, you tell me these test are no longer valid, 20 but the test on the large core U-bolt came out with 4 4 21 stiffnesses on the order of 10 ., 5 X 10 .
22 MR. IOTTI: Where is that, which one is that?
23 MR. TERAO: It's the U-bolt test. The 24 difference between a U-bolt used on a 4" pipe is only 25 half of that stiffness, where the U-bolt is on a 24 O BH V NRC-106 D-2,t-4 13 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611902 e Bolt. & Annap. 269 6236
'v 10l i inch pipe-2 MR. IOTTI: Hold it a minute. You are looking 3 at that testitude. You are looking at the plastic 4 portion of that stiffness.
5 MR. TERAO: No. I am taking the average linear 6 portion of that test result.
7 MR. IOTTI: We only reflected those U-bolts to 8
16, it won't take the linear. When you look at the 9 curve that goes like this...
10 MR. TERAO: You have told me now that those ij test results don't mean anything.
12 MR. IOTTI: Forget that, but on the other
( i3 hand, I just want to warn you, when you have a curve g that looks like this, don' t take average up to that 35 point. You are only going to use that portion of the
- 16. curve.
i7 MR. TERAO: Of course, that is exactly what I 18 did-ig MR. IOTTI: No. THose tests are not...
l 20 MR. TERAO: I even neglected the portion where )
21 the_ U-bolt sides come in, because it gives you even-22 less stiffness.
23 MR. IOTTI:' Well, alright. If you are going to 24 do that, use only the first three curves on the last ;
25 three, because those aren' t correct.
( BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 14 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136 l
]
g 102 1 MR. TERAO: That's what I am saying. The first 2 three are for foreign fuels, and the last three are for 3 the larger U-bolt.
4 MR. IOTTI: The last three.
5 MR. TERAO: What we are asking you is have you 6 put your finger on any specific component that could be 7 given you a load stiffness?
8 MR. IOTTI: The specific components were 9 identified so far, that tends to give us load 10 stiffnesses to start. The snubbers tend to give us load ij stiffnesses. If Randolph uses the same numbers, why 12 they are not getting it, because, you know...
/3 13 MR. LANDERS: I don't know if they use the U
34 same stiffness values as we do.
15 MR. TERAO: What you are saying then is all of 16 the supports are stif fer than the snubbers?
17 ~MR. LANDERS: The structual elements of the 18 support are different than the snubbers, that is 19 correct.
20 MR. TERAO: No. Non-snubber support is going 21 to be stiffer than a snubber.
22 MR. IOTTI: Well, the other thing is that here 23 we, as you know, we design by the deflection guideline, 24 whereas Randolph is designed by a stiffness guideline.
25 Stiffness is what they have in mind, and they happen to
/~h BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 15 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6236
O 103 i have a load of twenty pounds, but they said, my god, we 6
2 have a stiffness of 10 But you say maybe a TSA3's a number for a capacity of 15,000 pounds to take a 20 lb.
4 load. What you can see here is a GSA l/4. 1/4 lever, 5 what is that?
6 It is the stiffness that we are looking for.
7 You see, that is the difference.
8 MR. LANDERS: I would tend to see more 9 flexible non-snubber type supports to the deflection jo criteria.
11 MR. IOTTI: Because, that is the fundamental 12 reason, I think why you see the large spread in
,f- i3 stiffness, in this plant, where a plant is designed by v
ja a stiffness criteria you would not see that. So, I 15 guess we disagree with your statement that we haven' t 16 identified what causes the problem. What causes the 17 problem is that we have a deflection guideline as is criterion as opposed to a stiffness. Secondly, of all 19 of the problems that we have looked at, it is always 20 the snubbers that produces the lowest stiffness.
21 MR. LANDERS: What you are saying, then is the 22 snubbers are giving the industry a problem with test 23 stiffness?
24 MR. IOTTI: Not necessarily, because as I say, 25 we could have, let's suppose we take an example. Let's
[] BH
'" NRC-106 D-2,t-4 16 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
101 V i say we have this particular snubber load of 200 lb to 2 start with. When the designer saw 200 lbs., he went to 3 catalog and said what is the closest number, GSA14, it 4 is 350, right. So, I am taking that and I have a 5
stiffness, all he is concerned with is that that 6 stiffness and the stiffness of the structure he builds 7
around that, all he has to do is stay within a g sixteenth of an inch guideline.
9 Let's take the same example at say, Randolph.
10 Let's say at Randolph they are not concerned with 1/16 3,
of an inch. They still have a 200 lb. load. The big 12 criterion is that that support must have a 10 6 cr 10 33 stiffness for the seismic consideration. Do you think 34 he is going to order a GSA14? Probably not.
15 MR. LANDERS: Probably.
16 MR. IOTTI: Well, if he did his job, he 17 wouldn ' t do that.
18 MR. LANDERS: Well, I don't agree with that, ig When one gets to ordering the snubber, the stiffness 20 question goes out in that situation normally. If you 21 1 k at the design process most people use, even if 22 they use a stiffness criteria. When they get to the 23 snubber, they use a load capacity.
24 MR. IOTTI: Well, in that case it is not 10 6 ,
25 no way.
3 BH (V .NRC-106 i D-2,t-4 j 17 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
t 105
'u i MR. LANDERS: On snubbers they would have 2 relatively the same kind of stiffness that you have. In 3 other supports they would have much other stiffness.
4 MR. IOTTI: What I have heard from Dave is 6
5 that Gringoff,.all he could see was 10 , or so. What I 6 am telling you is they ordered the same snubbers with 7
it for those loads, they can't possibly have.
g MR. LANDERS: What I am saying is are you 9 saying that the snubbers have stiffnesses less than 10 1067 33 MR. IOTTI: Well, there are several snubbers 6
12 that have stiffnesses of less than 10 . A lot of them, we had those values. In fact, I don't recall, what are
(')
'v 13 g the generic values that we used for some of the pipe 3g sizes which were below 6" we are talking about 2 X 10 5 16-or less. When you go down as low as PSA14, you are 5
37 below 10 ,
18 MR. SHULMAN: Typically, even in generic 39 values', numbers are already shown to have lower 20 statement values either by another magnitude.
21 MR. TERAO: Alright. I want to clarify one 22 thing. What I said is the U-bolts being used on large 23 core piping, in other words, here the smaller snubbers 24 may have little stiffnesses, but then again, the 25 concern isn' t on this, for me, the concern is not on
/T BH l U NRC-106 D-2,t-4 ,
18 l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting . Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
_ 106
(~)
1 the smaller piping.
2 MR. IOTTI: I think we, I must have lost the 3 train of thought. The concern is on all size piping, I 4 agree with you. What we have been able to identify so 5 far, by doing the actual calculations of the stiffness 6 that where the problem occurs has been invariably in 7 those locations where you have light load and very low g stiffnesses, I mean very low. As the orders of.two g orders of magnitude. In every case, there has been a 30 snubber involved in every particular support. Now, if 33 you are led to a conclusion on the basis of information 12 that it is not accurate yet that the U-bolt and the f'T J
i3 large bolt, those have very low stiffness. Then, you i4 could possibly be right, if, in fact that was the is stiffnes.
16 Right now, that information is not correct.
17 For those type of frames in general, you don't have the 18 large deviation from the generic stiffnesses that the n3 snubber support will have. That is all we are saying.
20 MR. FAIR: Can we get back to the topic and 21 the argument? We have already established, I think we 22 agreed last time you were within a reasonable range in 23 your generic stiffness that we apted.the fact that it 24 didn' t change the piping stresses or support load 25 significantly. It is only those cases where you were rm ty BH NRC-106 j D-2,t-4 i 19 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Balt,66 Annop.169 6236
,, ' 107 L) i significant, two orders of magnitude below the 2 stiffness.
3 That was a consequence of having a very light 4 design load of the analysis.
MR. IOTTI: Correct, the Deflection criteria, 5
6 both.
MR. FAIR: The deflection criteria. Therefore, 7
g I don' t think we are deviating significantly from 9
industry practice because I don' t think that is the ig usual case where you have very low design loads on 3,
supports and a deflection criteria.
MR. IOTTI: I'm sorry, I didn't follow that 12
) 13 John, did you say industry practices such that you g don't have very lightly loaded support and deflection jg criteria?
MR. FAIR: Yes. It has not been my experience 16 g that that type of criteria is generally applicable.
18 MR. FLECK: Most plants don' t have as many ig supports as this one, so your loading is quite higher 20 is what John is saying.
21 MR. IOTTI: No. With that I disagree. There 22 are plenty of lightly loaded supports. What I do agree 23 with them is not many plants use deflection criteria, and that simultaneous of the two. When we design plants 24 25 too, and we don' t use deflection criteria. We use g
(.,) BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 20 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 1696236 l
o 105 i stiffness criteria, and we have lightly loaded support 2 nevertheless. Okay, that just happens to be...
3 MR. FLECK: Wouldn't it obviously come through 4 then, if you do that type of analysis and say I don't 5 need a support.there. You can eliminate a lot of your 6 supports.
7 MR. IOTTI: That's true, if you wanted to do 8
an optimization, but I don' t know too many people that 9 go back and really optimize, because there is no time 10 to do that.
33 MR. FLECK: No, but the plants that I have 12 seen have 1/3 less of the supports than you have.
(~3 13 MR. IOTTI: iou mean here at Comanche Peak?
QJ g MR. FLECK: Yes.
15 MR. IOTTI: Oh. I agree with you.
16 MR. FLECK: Therefore, I would say they 17 probably have higher loads on the supports they have, is because they don' t have as many.
ig MR. IOTTI: It could be. I happen to know a 20 P l ant that has got just as many supports. As I said, I 21 don' t want to mention any names , because, for instance, 22 we were almost making a statment.like the industry's 23 Problem is with numbers. I can' t make that statement, 24 because I don' t know how they design them. However, if 25 they make a statement.that they have stiffnesses of
^'
(V) BHNRC-106 D-2 , t-4 21 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
q l O .O O' i 106 , and they use a 1/4 snubber, I know damn well that 2 is not correct. On the other hand, if you have a light 3 load and happen to use a humungous number to satisfy 4 the stiffness requirement, you are right. I simply 5
don' t know what the people have done. I know what we 6 have done at EBASCO, and I know what is being done 7 here. We thought for this answer we had identified the 8
weaklings, if you want to call them that, that we had 9 followed your advice, and I think the substance of this ig agreement is how far we applied that.
33 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
12 MR. IOTTI: Now, I understand you, what you r-'s, would like us to do is to go back and identify these.
i3 O
i4 weakly loaded, very low stiffness supports in every 15 piping system.
16 MR. FAIR: Let me back up on that. I think 37 that you have enough data to screen certain size pipes, 18 that you don' t have to look at this. I was surprised at 19 your selection of a 2" pipe study, because I would be 20 very surprised if you had such a flexible support on a 21 2" pipe that would get you in trouble.
22 MR. IOTTI: Well, one of the reasons that we
~
23 did it was we thought you had asked for the 2" .
24 Y u wanted an example of a small bore, but 25 maybe we misunderstood you. We would not have chosen
/^': BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 22 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901
- Salt. & Annop. 169-6136
o s i
- i10
'Q i it, otherwise, we agree. Now, we will be looking 2 Primarily at large bore, but there is an awful lot of 3 those. Now, even if we do all of that, the question is 4 suppose we identify them all. Do we then reanalyze them 5 all and the answer is again yes. We would want to see 6 that. My answer would be I think there is a more 7 reasonable position to take. I think you can reanalyze g a sufficient number so that you get a good statistical 9 confidence that the answer would be the same no matter to what you do.
ii If the trend is consistent, and the resultks 12 are always the same, depending on the trend, then you
/;
33 have to believe the result would be the same again and
'V 34 again. Otherwise, the trend would not exist. That is is really where we are in disagreement. To be frank, we 16 are asking this, because it is going to take a long 37 time to do all of it again.
is How many piping systems have we had in this 39 plant?
20 MR. LANDERS: Well, we have got hundreds of 21 stress problems. Does there exist in these piping 22 systems one after another, that is consecutive, lightly 23 loaded snubbers?
24 MR. IOTTI: Yes. There is regions of entirely 25 low load.
(_) BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 23~
F9EE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
n J11 k_) i MR. LANDERS: Is there a feeling that those, 2
if overloaded, would be a worst case with respect to 3 that pipe and the other supports?
4 MR. IOTTI: No. That hasn' t been the case from 5 anthing that we have examined.
6 MR. LANDERS: And if I wipe out three snubbers 7 in a row and I have got rigid supports on the rest of 8
the pipe, I have got a long span of unsupported pipe, 9 you don't think that would be a worst case than just...
10 MR. IOTTI: It's possible, but in general, 33 those do not experience these general, those very large 12 1 ad increases. The ones that there is a very large 13 1 ad increases are the isolated one in between, s
( i 34 relative to the much higher stiffnesses.
15 MR. LANDERS: If you have them consecutively 16 and the first one goes, then maybe you will overlook j7 the second one. Do you know what I am saying?
18 MR. IOTTI: Sure.
ig MR. LANDERS: What I am trying to do is narrow 20 the thing.
21 MR. IOTTI: Well, all I can tell you is if I 22 believe that was the problem area, that is the areas 23 that I would have concentrated on. But, all evidence is 24 that because there is more than one, the load 25 distributes itself, and they all share in the BH k)s NRC-106 D-2,t-4 24 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
/~') .1 $ 2 i increasing load and that proportionately speaking, the 2 increasing load is not as much. When you have got this 3 one and it is very weak and the other two next to it 4 are proportionately higher is when you get this 5 increased...
6 MR. BURWELL: Off the record for a moment.
7 (Off the record discussion.)
8 MR. IOTTI: I think we reached an impass here g as to we are very reluctant to go as far as where John 10 would like us to go. It is not the work itself that is si the problem, it is the schedule.
12 MR. FAIR: I don' t disagree with your problem.
13 I think there was a problem with the design criteria on 14 the supports. I believe the deflection criteria would 15 have worked had you selected a minimum design load fora 16 given pipe size, but I still think you have to do some 17 screening to see if any of these really lightly loaded is supports on the larger size piping could cause a 19 Problem.
20 MR. IOTTI: I am perfectly willing to do so, 21 it is how many of those that I want to go back. We will 22 identify them as how many we will analyze. That is the 23 Part that is time consuming.
24 MR. BURWELL: If you identified a, in your 25 studies a level of load relationship between pipe size f')BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportir:g e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
e n -
113 i that fit the criteria that was put on, if you did a few 2 more problems and then tried to establish some plateau 3 to that criteria and use that as a screening criteria, 4 would that reduce you work. Do you understand what I 5 am trying to get across?
6 MR. IOTTI: No. First of all, the criteria is 7 not just the load. It is the load ratio to the already a existing load. It is the margin to what it has. That is 9 the two criterion. To use this, don' t forget what. John io is saying that we really picked 12 problems, not 4. The n selection of 4 came out of the 12 applying that top of 12 screening criteria that.permanant was to just look at
() 13 4, yeah, that would simplify our task. But, what I don' t sense from John is if we did that un'i versally, we 34 35 would end up maybe reanalyzing 3 or 4 stress problems.
16 What I am hearing him to say is what he really wants us 37 to do identify it on each piping system. Maybe I am not is hearing you correctly.
19 MR. FAIR: Well, perhaps it was never spelled 20 out what the exact screening criteria that was used to 21 go from the 12 down to the 4. If I saw that spelled out 22 somewhere, I might agree with you.
23 MR. IOTTI: No. He wants it numerical.
24 We can give you the numerical if you want. I 25 have got no problem with that, if that is what you BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 .,
26 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Neporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
l 1
/ \
t ) i11 1 want. The problem is not a constant.
2 MR. LANDERS: If that is a good screening a criteria, what you are saying is that you only have the 4 one problem out of 12, instead of 4, which increases 5 your percentage of acceptability substantially?
6 MR. IOTTI: Okay. Maybe, I guess, I wasn't 7 understanding John. I was hearing him as saying you 8 have got to go back, and on the basis of the first 9 screening criteria says it is slightly has load to stiffnesses, and it becomes a candidate for possibly n being overloaded that had been identified. That means 12 every piping problem, I have to at least identify what C) v i3 it is. Is it lightly loaded, and it can be below i4 stiffness. So, I asked to identify the light load, and 15 asked to do an actual stiffness calculation on those, is okay.
17 If, however, we accept the screening criteria 18 that has already been developed, then, all I have to do 19 is go back and look'at lightly loaded support and use 20 that without necessarily calculating actual 21 stiffnesses. My task has suddenly become a lot simpler.
22 Okay. Then, further, if you then use the screening 23 criteria, and only identify those few who.would exceed 24 it and then just analyze those piping systems, then the 25 problem becomes even simpler. If that is what you want O
t v BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 27 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Bolt. Et Annep.169 6136
q'" .115 i to do, then that is doable within some reasonable time 2 frame.
3 (Whispering) 4 Yeah, we could do that, we could give him the 5 screening criteria in the 12 products that we looked at 6 and have you review it for appropriateness if that is 7 . what you want.
8 MR. FAIR: I don' t think so.
9 MR. IOTTI: That is what he is asking. That 10 means he is doing the work writing the analysis, and I gi don't think that is his intent.
12 MR. FAIR: You want to see the criteria, O 13 though don' t you?
O i4 MR. CHEN: What do you mean by lightly loaded?
35 MR. IOTTI: Pardon.
16 MR. CHEN: What do you mean by lightly loaded?
37 MR. IOTTI: Okay, le t ' s , if you take a piping 18 system, you can generally define an average load per 19 support.
20 MR. CHEN: Okay, it is relative of...
21 MR. IOTTI: Relative to an average load on a 22 per support base it would see.
23 MR. CHEN: Okay, not in terms of.an absolute, 24 then?
25 MR. IOTTI: No. Not in terms of an absolute.
(]
BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 28 FREE 5' LATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1.791
- Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
1IG
()
i That is why it varies from piping system to piping 2 system. For instance, we initiated this review by, I 3 have, I issued a guideline to the people that were 4 doing this work, I said, identify anything tha t is less 5 than 10% of the average load that the support would see 6 on this piping system. That was the first cut.
7 MR. CHEN: How did you determine what the a average load would be?
g MR. IOTTI: By average means, average amount.
10 We have got the loads. You have get 60 support, the ij load is...
12 MR. CHEN: Oh, you mean average load for that
/~') 33 piping system.
(/
14 MR. IOTTI: Piping system, that is right.
15 Piping system...That's right. Everyone of them has got 16 to be looked at.
17 MR. LANDERS: Where did you end up at, you 18 started at 10?
19 MR. IOTTI: At 10%?
20 MR. LANDERS: No. Where did you end up, you 21 didn' t use 10% for your screening, did you?
22 MR. IOTTI: In some instances we were able to 23 meet, we had to up it to some instances like to 12 or 24 15%, but generally it wasn't that far off.
25 MR. FLECK: When averaging has no regar6 to
()
BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. da Annop. 169 6136
I 1 ~7 ry (d
3 north or east as a total?
2 MR. IOTTI: No. It is in any direction. So, as 3 long as there was a support in one particular 4 direction, it would be less than, approximately 10%.
5 That would be a candid, not as a support, but that 6 piping system became a candidate for additional review.
7 MR. LANDERS: Can I ask you a question, did 8
y u say less than 10% of the average load, or 10%
9 difference.
10 MR. IOTTI: Pardon.
33 MR. LANDERS: 10% difference?
12 MR. IOTTI: 10% of the average. Now, bear in p 33 mind how we actually did it so it is clear to O
34 everybody. We weren't trying to pick the candidate 33 that supports to start with in this criteria. We wanted 16 to select the piping stress problems that we would have 37 to look at in more detail.
18 MR. LANDERS: Yeah, I understand. You are 19 saying if I have a support in this system that is 10%
20 of the average support loads, that is the candidate for' 21 a problem.
22 MR. IOTTI: That's right. Also, we wanted them 23 to verify before we made the final candidate that it 24 will also have a very low stiffness.
25 MR. LANDERS: What was the basis for the 10%?
(~'\ BB C NRC-106 D-2,t-4 30 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. 66 Annop. 269-6236
n V
11S 1 Was this something....
2 MR. IOTTI: That was a'rbitrary, initially.
3 MR. LANDERS: Do we know if that was a good 4 number, is 50% a good number, 20%?
5 MR. IOTTI: Well, at 10%, you generally can-6 identify one.
7 MR. LANDERS: At 10% we had a failure in the 8 snubber out of the whole system.
9 MR. IOTTI: Well, I don' t know what that to particular snubber was, what we called, what percentage it it was.
12 MR. LANDERS: Well, I knew. The screen fi v
13 criteria gave it a look at that. ~I am wondering...
14 MR. IOTTI: Well, there was an additional 15 screenig. criteria. Simultaneously, I didn' t want to 16 have a system that had all lightly loaded support, 17 which of course didn't happen. But, in the sense that 18 ' it is all lightly loaded, say on one side, and then 19 heavily loaded on the other side, the stif fnesses may 20 be all high. I wanted to also have a large range of 21 stiffnesses. So, at the same time they were alsc told 22 they had to pick a system that had to have variability 23 stiffnesses.
24 Again, we didn't want to have an answer to 25 come out, okay, everything is fine. What are you
() BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 31 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
p V
119 i worried about. The only intention was to identify 2 Problems we had strong possiblity of supports that 3 would be loaded, overloaded. I guess we succeeded.
4 What you are asking is a single criterion 5 that applies to all piping systems. That is impossible.
6 A numerical criteria would vary from pipe to pipe.
7 MR. LANDERS: I didn't say that, I was 8 saying...
9 MR. BURWILL: No, but you see where my brain 10 was going. I would have thought that a criterion based ii on pipe size and schedule might have come closer to 12 identifying those, i 13 MR. IOTTI: We can give you that.
g MR. BURWELL: those supports that would be in 15 trouble, rather than just going to what is there and 16 taking an average and then looking at it for the very i7 lightly loads in that system.
18 MR. IOTTI: Well, first of all, in this cut we 19 have to do more than just apply the criterion. We had 20 to even establish one to begin with, which had not been 21 established, and then prove to John that this trend 22 that we had the first time was, in fact, the right 23 trend. In fact, that hadn't been fully established in 24 his mind. So, there was that also. It is possible for 25 us, per pipe schedule, and possibly curved elevation bv BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 32 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
n 120 U
1 within the building to establish cut of f criterion in 2 terms of lightly loaded support. That is possible.
3 MR. BURWELL: Into another parameter, ...
4 MR. IOTTI: When you are up high, the loads 5 are going to be higher because the loads and 6 accelerations are going to be much higher. I can have a 7 much higher, larger pipe down on the bottom and have a relatively low loads. So, you can' t separate the two.
9 MR. FLECK: What about if you have a criteria 10 that has a set variation from what generic is, like if n you are 100% off, what the generic is.
12 MR. IOTTI: We already have that. It has to be
() 13 almost 100% off.
14 MR. FLECK: If you are 20 off, you are going is to change your stiffness matrix quite a bit.
16 MR. IOTTI: That's true. But, that is not 17 where the problem arises. It is the combination of 18 having the very low stif fness and the very lightly 19 load.
20 MR. LANDERS: That's why I can' t understand 21 why you would be concerned about a system subject to 22 very large accelerations, because then your deflection 23 criteria is going to be like a distance criteria. It is 24 going to have a big load on-it.
25 MR. FINNERAN: Well, I agree with it.
) BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4 33 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt.& Annop. 169-6136
r3 121
!)
1 MR. FAIR: That's not necessarily the case at 2 all points in the piping system.
3 MR. IOTTI: That is a point that, 4 unfortunately I proved to myself it was correct. There 5 are some localized area, that even though you may have 6 area with large summation, whatever reason, geometrical 7 reason, primarily, you have a light load. There, a because of the deflection criteria, the designer 9 designed you a load stiffness support.
io MR. LANDERS: I can understand having a large si load with all of the supports that you have.
12 MR. IOTTI: Okay. If there were quick answers, 13 I would have come up with them by now, folks.
(U~)
14 MR. LANDERS: I guess one of the problems that 15 I have is not knowing how you got to where you got.
16 MR. FLECK: Well, wouldn't that really come i7 down to the fact they had a generic stiffness is requirement with pipe, but the support people did not 19 have the criteria.
20 MR. LANDERS: No. I wasn' t talking about that.
21 I was talking for the sample.
22 MR. IOTTI: Oh. For the sample, the sample 23 initialy was just arbitrarily. We picked, well that is 24 not quite true either. When the SIT team reviewed the 25 applicants' practice of using the generic stiffness,
[D BH
NRC-106-D-2,t-4 34 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
r^x 122 k/
1 they asked the applicants to perform the reanalysis of 2 what three problems if.I recall correctly, utilizing 3 the actual stiffnesses.
4 MR. FLECK: Well, no. You have got 10% of the 5 average, and looking at flexibilty and, you know, what 6 is the basis for that. You are a nice guy but...
7 MR. IOTTI: Well, no. You have to select a 8 certain value here, right?
9 MR. FLECK: Well, I understand but, are you 10 telling me I go to 40% I won' t have a problem?
11 MR. IOTTI: The premises...Yes, right. I guess 12 that is what I am telling- you.
(-),
q, 13 MR. LANDERS: Well, last meeting we 14 established a criteria based on the analysis that they 15 had to have a combination of things to give you a 16 problem. One was they significantly deviated from the 17 generic stiffness. That was well beyond the magnitude, 18 and since they design with a deflection criteria, it is 19 an obvious fact of life that you will have a flexible 20 support where you.have a low load. That was the basis 21 of...
22 MR. IOTTI: His question is why did I pick 23 that percent of load. I didn't know, so the reason I 24 picked ten, and I felt that was probably high as to
-25 what I ought to have, but I wanted to make sure I p
V BH NRC-106 D-2,t-4
" FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
l Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
123
- o
") didn' t exclude any that might have a problem.
i 2
As it turned out, invariably, it was those at 10 or so that gave me the problems or below. You know, 3
4 since we looked at all of them, and there were 40% or 20%, I do have the answers at 20 and 40%. But, I did 5
6 not have any reason to pick 10% versus 5% versus 2%. I y had a reason to pick a reasonably low value on the 8
basis of the prior studies, okay.
9 Now, what I would propose that we do at this 10 stage, if it is acceptable to you, I would put the 33 proposition on the table, on a pipe schedule basis we 12 w uld provide you with a numerical cutoff criteria to i3 identify the lightly loaded support which will also 34 have load stiffness and identify those piping systems 15 which have those.
16 Then, I would propose we meet again before we 37 embark on a further analysis though we may do sample 18 analysis to confirm again that is the same, if that is 19 acceptable to you.
20 MR. FAIR: I think that is the.most scientific 21 method is to develop a criteria based on a pipe size 22 and schedule, so I agree with that.
23
.Are we ready to move on to the next subject?
24 MR. IOTTI: I guess before we move on, do you l
25 concur with meeting again before we embark on a
/~) BH ki NRC-106 l D-2,t-4 l 36 i FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l Court Reporting e Depositions '
D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 1
~'
121 (d'
\ 3 reanalysis?
2 MR. BURWELL: Keep in touch and let me know 3 when you are ready again.
4 MR. IOTTI: I guess rather than tie everybody 5 up, and I. presume we have to do all of this on the 6 record. Otherwise, John and I could work and avoid all 7 of this. I am asking you, Spot, which way you would 8 like to proceed. Can I discuss things with John or 9 can I not, or must it always be in the record.
10 MR. BURWELL: Let me consult with my lawyer ii and have him check with Mr. Horin.
12 MR. IOTTI: Well, for instance, it might avoid 13 things like we thought would satisfy him and apparently
(/ i4 we misunderstood him or not totally understood exactly t5 what he wanted. We thought that this would satisfy him 16 because we had done in our minds exactly what he asked 17 us to do. Obviously, we haven't. So, it is that kind of 18 communication.
19 MR. BURWELL: I will talk to my lawyer and get 20 back to you.
- 21 MR. CHEN: Excuse cle , Spot. More along those 22 lines, previously we had agreed that Bob would talk 23 about...
24 MR. BURWELL: Yes. I am inclined to believe 25 that there is no problem, but I wanted to confirm it.
BH n NRC-106 i ) D-2, t-4 37 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
125 V 1 MR. CHEN: Could we go off the record for a 2 moment.
3 MR.'BURWELL: Off the record.
4 (Off the record discussion.)
5 MR. BURWELL: A minute ago, I was asked by Dr.
6 Iotti whether or not he and John Fair could communicate 7 further on the question of working towards a resolution 8 on the generic stiffness. I have since talked with my 9 counsel and I am advised that it is, you are perfectly 10 open to make phone calls back and forth, and so on. I it would ask that Mr. Fair or the NRC staff representative 12 make a few brief notes about the conversation and place 13 it in your file.
V 14 Thank you. A're we ready to go on to the next 15 item? Which is this, Richman?
16 MR. FAIR: Yes. The next item is Richman 17 inserts, and it is related to the July 11 submittal.
18 MR. IOTTI: I happen to have the 3, what is 19 the July 11 submittal, is- that the af ternoon? -
20 I don' t think I have that with me. A copy of 21 my draf t should be there. No, this was...it ended up as 22 a separate letter to the commission. Go ahead...
23 MR. FAIR: Okay. The last meeting had a 24 concern about the sheer tests on the Richman's inserts 25 not showing as much sheer deflection as you had used in BH NRC-106 (m)_D-2,t-4 38 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
I26 o/
k- 1 your evaluation in the gap submittal. So, you presented 2 some additional information. I wanted to clarify that 3' in the total. plants you submitted, you have only 47 4 ' inserts using high strength bolts material?
5 MR. IOTTI: Bolts, yes.
6 MR. FAIR: That's the SA193 Grade B.
7 MR. IOTTI: Oh, those, not all of them are 8 193D. There is one that is slightly different material.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is one that is 10 808, and one that is SA325.
11 MR. IOTTI: We will confirm that in a second.
12 All I n.eed to do is refer to the...it is in the
_ 13 affidavit, actually.
~
14 MR. FAIR: I don't think that is total plant 15 though, I think that is ...
16 MR. FAIR: Well, let me try narrowing the 17 question down. Well, of the 47, and that is unit 1 18 common, 15 of them were 1" according to the submittal.
19 I believe that the submittal says that all of those 20 were the A193.
21 MR. IOTTI: Yes.
22 MR. FAIR: And, for the 1" inserts you 23 determined that you had four base plates using the i 24 higher strength, A193?
25 MR. IOTTI: Yeah.
BH (S NRC-106
^) D-2,t-4 39 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Bolt. & Annap. 269 6236
127
?o I
1 MR. FAIR: I had'a question as to why you 2 mixed A136 and A193 bolts.on some of these plates. Is 3 there any specific reason, or were they just put in 4
because they were available, or do you know.
5 MR. DEUBLEI: Generally, the design procedure 6 would be to use A136, particularly on these plates 7
where you would have possibly one of the bolts would be 8 overloaded over the bolt capacity. You would use a 9 higher strength bolt for that.
10 MR-. FAIR: So, these were at per design, and 11 not randomly put in.
12 MR. DEUBLEI: Correct.
-w 13 MR. FAIR: On the one plate where you have 24 b 14 Richman inserts, could you give me an idea of what that 15 is?
16 MR. IOTTI: The 24 inserts? What page are you 17 reading on, John?
18 MR. FAIR: There is no marking, the 3rd page.
19 MR. IOTTI: And you want to know where that 20 is, physically?
21 MR. FAIR: I would like to have some idea of 22 what the plate looks like, physically.
23 MR. FINNERAN: I don't think it is a plate. I 24 think it is frame support. It has several base plates i l
25 on it and here in one direction is taking about 24 BH
)
l
./~'s' NRC-10 6 X / D-2,t-4 40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6236-l l
n 128 i ) ) bolts.
2 MR. FAIR: Okay, so it is not a single base 3 plate.
4 MR. FINNERAN: It is not a single plate, no.
5 We just said bolt pattern here, bolt pattern taking 6 care of the support, that is what that is.
7 MR. FAIR: Okay, do you have any plates, or do 8 you know what that support looks like?
9 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah, I think he needs a plate to for his own two bolts, it is 12 plates around the 11 perimeter of this-design.
12 MR. FAIR: Okay, so it wouldn' t be the same as q
v 13 having a single strip plate with a lot of bolts.
14 MR. FINNERAN: No. No. Not at all.
15 MR. FAIR: Does the same apply'with the other 16 one with the 8.
17 MR. FINNERAN: Yes. Almos c 14, and thesone 18 with the 8, I have got to be sure. I can' t remember.
19 MR. IOTTI: Wouldn' t it be simpler if we just' 20 took this thing...
21 MR. FINNERAN: We can confirm that for you 22~ exactly what that is.
23 MR. FAIR: Alright. I thought it was unusual 24 to have that many bolts in a plate, and,...
25 MR. FINNERAN: . Yeah. We don't have that many BH
(') NRC-106 L' D-2,t-4 41 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6236
129
()
f*%
g bolts.
2 MR. IOTTI: So, the action item-is to send 3 them the details of that 8 Richman insert?
4 MR. FINNERAN: Yeah.
5 MR. FAIR: That was the only question I had on 6 .that. The next item is just for a point of 7 clarification. It has to do with discussion of the feed a backers using the concrete sheer cone pull outs. I 9 believe that you had back calculated, based on test 10 results in your affidavit what a fee factor would be.
ii Then, you tell me in this response that had you known 12 there were no rebar there, you would have used a 65 es 13 feed factor. That didn' t make any sense to me. The only U point of the question was could you demonstrate, i4 is getting around the argument of what type of steel, how 16 much steel you had in there using the criteria that you 17 could calculate a required capacity using the ACI is methodology with the presumption that there were.no 19 steel in there.
20 MR. IOTTI: I'm sorry, I am not sure I 21 understand what you are asking.
22 MR. FAIR: Well, from reading your response, 23 it appears that there was a misunderstanding between 24 you and I on this business of sheer cone capacity. I 25 was simply asking a question whether you could BH
/ NRC-106 O] D-2,t-4 42 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
s-130
\- 1 demonstrate, assuming there was no steel present using 2 the current ACI methodology, whether you had sufficient 3 capacity so we wouldn' t have to argue about what steel 4 you have in what portions of the plant.
5 MR. IOTTI: On the basis of what we know 6 today, yes.
7 We have had a lot of test data now that we 8 could rely and work backwards and scale back to a 9 factor and work it forward in using the ACI for the to concrete and still have the ample capacity. I think 11 that is your question. The answer is yes.
12 MR. FAIR: Yes. Well, I would like to clarify 13 this final paragraph. It says that you would have used v 14 a .65 factor when you were developing the numbers for is the original submittal. I don' t believe that is 16 correct. You were back calculating a feed factor based 17 on a test result.
18 MR. IOTTI: No. I am not so sure now. You are 19 not reading what I wanted to say, or else we would use 20 C.5. The reason we use 8.5 is first of all, we know 21 there is reinforcement there. So, it doesn't make any 22 sense for us to use .65. If there hadn't been a 23 reinforcement, we would have used .65. That is what I 24 am really implying here. There is no such place as 25 having unreinforced concrete where you have these BH q NRC-106 (V D-2,t-4 43 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.? fueo 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
131 r
k)l 1 inserts. That is what I meant to say. Maybe I said it 2 in a bad manner, and I will be glad to change whatever 3 it is, what the meaning is that I am trying to convey 4
to it.
5 MR. FAIR: Yes. All that I wanted was a simple 6 statement as to, let's put the argument aside of where 7 you have steel or where you don' t have steel, and 8 assume the worst case, suppose you don' t have steel.
9 Could you still calculate that you had capacity for 10 Richman inserts based on the data that you have 11 available.
12 MR. IOTTI: Yes.
13 MR. FAIR: That was the...
O 14 'MR. IOTTI: I don' t know what more I can say 15 other than yes. That is the problem that I am having is 16 the answer yes suffice, or do you want more 17 _ embellishment. I don' t know how to embellish that.
18 MR. DEUBLEI: John, on that page there, page 19 98, the first paragraph we say, if there were no 20 reinforcement, and we use, someone used the allow that 21 is based on reinforcement, you would still have the 22 factors of 2-1/2.
23 MR. FAIR: Yes. I did not understand what the 24 purpose was.
25 MR. IOTTI: The subsequent part? Our problem BH (N NRC-106 C) D-2,t-4 44 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
g 132 kl 1- was we couldn't understand what the relevance of your 2 question was because there is no place where there is 3 no reinforcement. That is the puzzling fact to us.
4 MR. FAIR: I thought it was quite 5 straightforward. You wouldn't have to argue about 6 reinforcements.
7 MR. IOTTI: Oh yes you would, because the 8 moment he sees 2.5, and he has got this factor of 9 safety of 3 on his mind, we can get a lot of questions to from both the intervenor and the judge. That is why.
ii You see, we have got to satisfy you, but we also have 12 to satisfy them. So, we wanted to make sure that that message got that across, that yes, we can q 13
'V 14 hypothetically make statements that we have margins of 15 safety with the concrete work that are reinforced. But, 16 there is no such thing.
17 So, that is why you see...look at how we open 18 up, although this answers your question. We are going 19 to go on and tell you whether you like.it or not.
20 Because, other people get ahold of this document 21 besides yourself.
22 MR. FAIR: Okay. That was just to clarify the 23 response. There was some confusion between the two of 24 us.
25 MR. IOTTI: No. There is no confusion on what BH NRC-106
]k- D-2,t-4 45 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
o 1 T,1
, you asked. We replied to it. Read the rest as if you 2 were not reading it but Judge Bloch or the intervenor.
3 MR. FAIR: The next question that I had is 4 back to bolt bending. You did send a derivation of a 5 bending allowable on NB3200. In looking back in the 6 development of the original equasion for the two 7 factors that you used'. Again, one was to a factor based 8 n-comparison of finite element to simple beam bending.
9 When I went back and looked at your evaluation of that,
,g you had a finite element analysis of the bolt in which 33 you had it notalized. In determining the stress from 12 the notalization of the bolt you averaged. For that 33 reason, I would expect the finite element analysis to n" 34 be somewhat less, the result less due to bending than a jg simple beam formula since your average being at the 16 nose. I don' t have the dimensions of the nose at the g outer periphere of the bolt, and not calculating the 18 highest being.
jg MR. IOTTI: At any one note?
20 MR. FAIR: Yes. Across the section of the 21 bolt. So, I don't believe that 1.33 factor was valid.
22 (End of tape.)
23 24 BH n NRC-106 V D-2,t-4 46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
e .134 1
MR. IOTTI: We'll have to agree with you and look at
(~]
s/
2 the averaging. It's going to take a long time and I don't 3 have the material with'me, unless you have it and we can go 4 back on it.
5 MR. FAIR: If you'll give me a minute I can dig it 6 Out.
7 MR. IOTTI: I think the man may be incorrect in one 8- respect. I may have brought - yeah, I do have the final --
9 MR. FAIR: This is out of the attachment EE3 which 10 discusses the -- model.
11 MR. IOTTI: This is the average of the outside nodes 12 of these 14 elements. --you don't have the perfect curvature 13 here and you have to essentially come up with an average of
'A~')
14 these alone, but this is not an average in the center of the 15 element. These are the surface elements.
16 MR. BURIIELL: I guess we could go off the record and 17 then re-summarize it on'the record if it's acceptable to you.
18 MR.- FAIR: That would be fine.
19 (BRIEF RECESS.)
20 MR. FAIR: Off the record we~were discussing the 21 development of the applicant's formula for accounting for 22 bending based on the results of their finite element analysis.
23 I did not think that averaging the nodes was appropriate to 24 compare with an MC over I type of formula for beam bending
,m
(_ ,)
25 and I'll turn it over to the applicants.
liRC #106 T.5 GKW l. FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6236
1 135 MR. IOTTI: I. guess applicants have agreed to provide 2
(~3 you with further information to either convince you or at
%)
3 least put to bed this question one way or the other as to the 4 appropriateness of reducing the MC over I results to more 5
properly depict the behavior of this particular bolt in bend-6 ing.
7 MR. 10TTI: If-you could, yeah, we'd prefer it as 8 an aside because if I had understood the question of where 9 it led us, I probably would have answered it, but since I to don't know. We've tried to keep this within a half hour.
11 - MR. FAIR: I got the hint.
12 MR. IOTTI: No, no I'm not hinting for you. Take
- 13 your time.
~
14 MR. FAIR: If you're looking at primary bending 15 stresses in a finite element model I think you have to plot 16 the stress over the thickness and it's the linear portion 17 that you're_ dealing with, so averaging stresses in the outer 18 surface doesn't tell you anything about primary bending.
19 MR. LANDERS: Well, he's saying you have to get this 20 outside the surface on the top of the surface on the bottom 21 and see if you have a linear distribution. If not, you have 22 a non-linear bending, which is secondary. And you also might 23 have an average and you also have a linear bending.
24 MR. FAIR: That's why they say take MC over I.
th
() _ 25 MR. FLECK: But I think if you're applying bending FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
2.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
136 I without any concentrations or change of geometry it will be 2 all linear. I can't conceive any physical thing that will
(~}
t-3 give you a non-linear portion of bending. It would be really 4 very difficult.
5 MR. LANDERS: I agree.
6 MR. FLECK: If you buy the threads now, you may have 7 a point because you're getting concentration.
8 MR. LANDERS: That's not in the model. You should 9 get linear bending.
10 MR. FLECK: Confirm your model. If we see it in the 11 model, it's accurate f it's not linear. There is a bound-12 ary case going on one side of the circle versus the other
,_ 13 which is not unusual to see happening.
O, 14 MR. : Are we off the record or on the record.
15 MR. BURNELL: We're on the record.
16 MR. FAIR: The next question had to do with the 17 fatigue evaluation that you performed in checking the ade-18 quacy of your formula for beam bending due to those higher 19 bending loads. My question on that was what type of bolt 20 were you evaluating?
21 MR. DEUBLEI: By type do you mean material?
22 MR. FAIR: Yes.
23 MR. DEUBLEI: It was based on the SA36.
24 MR. IOTTI: Let me confirm that because I'm not, you n
! .) 25 know, I don't happen to have'that information with me. We FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 3 D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
1 l
137 l 1
have to go back and take a look at it. John will - I'm not i
{} 2 so sure. I think he's right, but I'm not sure.
3 MR. FAIR: Then my problem after that.would be, is 4 it applicable to any other bolts that you have in this situa-5 tion?
6 MR. IOTTI: Well, there is the 15 or so 1" high 7 strength bolts that are --
8 MR. FAIR: Well, I'm not sure that these are cases 9 that are loaded primarily in bending due to --
10 MR. IOTTI: There are some. There are some, yes.
11 Let me go back and verify it. I think I understand his ques-12 tion. Whether the fatigue analysis done for this particular
_ 13 example is applicable to all bolts and bounding for all bolts
~
14 that's really your question.
15 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
16 MR. IOTTI: Rather than speak out of turn, I'd just 17 as soon go back and look into that very fast.
is MR. FAIR: My next question had to do with your 19 evaluation of what's termed the MZ movement, whether you 20 should release or fixt the joint to bending. I believe in 21 the original affidavit when you evaluated the 20" 4 x 4 tube 22 seal --
23 MR. IOTTI: John, can I interrupt you? I know you 24 are launching on a different subject, but sticking again with e'~N
(_) 25 the " interaction formula" are you in agreement with what- we FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
4* Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Areo 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
u 138 1
have done now other than the 1.33 reduction on the bending?
(~3 2 MR. FAIR: I am still trying to find some additional v
3 data to confirm it. I'm not in disagreement with your devel-4 opment.
5 MR. IOTTI: Good luck because we struck out entirely.
6 Ok? Those things don't seem to exist, but I just wanted to 7 know for my own information as to whether I should now stop 8 and wait until you alert us that we should do anything further 9 or whether there is something further you want us to do.
10 MR. FAIR: I will ask one follow-up question, since 11 you did. And that was, you still, in this affidavit, flagged 12 out a number of bolts where the bending loads exceeded your
_ 13 interaction formula. Have you decided yet what you're going 14 to do with these?
15 MR. IOTTI: Not yet. There is a variety of options 16 and I think that the easiest thing that we're going to be 17 doing to remove the possibility of.that bending existing by 18 some physical modifications.
19 MR. FINNERAN: We are currently investigating in the 20 field what modifications we could make to those supports to 21 take the bending factor.
22 MR. FAIR: I agree with that. Back on the MZ moment ,
23 the model of the original affidavit of the 20" long 4 x 4 24 determined that there was no prying effect and, therefore, (3
N/ the proper modeling assumption for that beam would have been 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 5* D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
e
. k 1
free connection or a pin connection. Yet in the affidavit I 2 believe it was stated that you're still analyzing some of f) v 3 them using the fixed end assumption and that was appropriate.
4 MR. IOTTI: This is the MZ now?
5 MR. FAIR: That's correct.
6 MR. IOTTI: Let me go back to my figure and remember 7 what MZ is. This is not Torgan. Torgan is MX, isn't it?
8- MR. BURNELL: Page 31.
9 MR. IOTTI: Excuse me, John, maybe you guys want to 10 go off the record. I don't know, but we're reading through 11 to refresh our memories.
12 MR. FAIR: Off the record.
13 MR. BURNELL: Off the record.
14 (BRIEF RECESS.)
15 MR. BURNELL: Will someone summarize that discussion 16 and bring it to a head?
17 MR. IOTTI: If John reads his last statement that 18 would help.
19 MR. FAIR: I'd like an explanation on the affidavit 20 on the Richmonds on page 39 where it says that PSE leaves it 21 to the designer's judgment to decide whether the moment should 22 be relecoed and, therefore, it has not always analyzed the 23 joints during the as-built program as penned.
24 MR. IOTTI: And what you want to do is from us a n
() 25 statement as to.whether there are still some of these support i FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
6- Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
e 140 1
which are designed as if the MZ moment were not released?
2 MR. FAIR:
('] That's correct and are you still doing v
3 that?
4 MR. IOTTI: Well, the answer to that to the best of 5 our knowledge is no, we're not, we're releasing it.
6 MR. FINNERAN: I can tell you that that's true.
7 MR. IOTTI: So what we need to do is give you the 8 information if there are-still some designed that did not 9 release the MZ moment. We are always releasing the MZ moment 10 now.
11 MR. FAIR: I wanted to add one more thing to this 12 discussion of fixed versus pinned on these supports and that 7_
13 is, in the evaluation of support flexibility for these sup-
~
14 ports that you're having to look at support flexibility on, 15 that would be an inappropriate assumption and you would pre-16 dict the flexibility of that support.
17 MR. IOTTI: You mean fixing it?
18 MR. FAIR: Yes.
19 MR. IOTTI: That's correct. Let's see. Didn't we 20 give you something personal so at least you had some idea as 21 to how much of a change that would make?
22 MR. FAIR: I did my own little calculation and I 23 believe that the difference between a fixed fixed and a pinned 24 pinned being is a factor of 4. So I presume that's about the fh x_) 25 maximum atfference you could get and I think your study shows FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions
- 7. D.c. Ar.o 261-1902 e soit. sa Annop. 269-6136
141 1
.a factor of 2 on the supports that'you loco . at.
2 MR. IOTTI: Right. Fine, I don't disagree with you.
/~')
v
.3 MR. FAIR: Now, the second half of it was, apparently ,
4 after the last meeting you went back and you found some long-5 er spans and for these cases the fixed assumption would 6 have been appropriate for evaluating the bolt loads, so I 7 don't know that you can consider that type of connection to-8 tally fixed in any case. But I just wanted to make it clear 9' have you determined all of the cases or this was a sample of' 10 3,000 as stated here?
11 MR. DEUBLEI: The question on that was whether or 12 not there was time.
13 MR. FAIR: Yes, I understaid.
14 MR. DEUBLEI: And we have not looked at all the 15 cases where they have spanned 48" to determine whether or 16 not there is - . We've looked at the worst cases, which is 17 your smaller tube sizes and we had more locations.
18 MR. FAIR: Well, maybe I misunderstood somewhat. On 19 the larger tube sizes I understand the argument of a larger 20 size being a stiffer element and, therefore, it wi'11 rotate 21 less. But did you look at longer spans, consider that the 22 larger tube sizes may have a longer allowable span? Or is 23 that the case?
24 MR. DEUBLEI: The span is determined by the location A
(,) 25 inserts and the availability of the incerts and the - where FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 0- D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. 46 Annop.169-6136
142 1
you get into double stands - the inserts are normally on 20-2 24" centers.
(-]'
v In some cases of the 3,000 we looked at, we 3 found supports where they would - maybe an insert wasn't 4
there or maybe it was occupied by something else or maybe 5 it was whatever, where you could span actually 48". 48" was 6 the largest span out of any of the 3,000 supports, approxi-7 mately 3,000 supports.
's MR. FAIR: And then the evaluation was a sample of 9 the ones that had this 48" span or --
10 MR. DEUBLEI: We took the 48" span with the smallest 11 tube sizes, which give you the most rotations and determined 12 what the prime effect would be .
13 MR. IOTTI: I guess another way of putting his ques-0 14 tien is, let's say if you had a 6 x 10 tube steel, do you 15 have instead of a 40" span you happen to have a 72" span.
16 That's what - is 48" the max?
17 MR. FAIR: And you evaluated just the 4 x 4?
18 MR. DEUBLEI: Yeah, because that would give you the 19 most rotation.
20 MR. FAIR: Ok, and you found that you had enough 21 margin in the bolt allowables to take that whatever prying 22 effect you got? And, just to be clear, on the 4 x 4's you've 23 evaluated all of them that exist, at this 48" span?
24 MR. DEUBLEI: On the 4 x 4 we loaded the bolt to the (3
\_./ 25 maximum capacity of two which was its highest load possible.
i FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 9 o.C. a, 2611902 e Belt. & Annep. 249-6136
a l
143 '
1 MR. FAIR: Ok, I did not understand that from that.
(')
V 2 So this was a bounding evaluation for a 48" tube?
3 MR. DEUBLEI: In the statement they are using 4 x 4 4
-- maximum load that you could use just limited by two so 5
it's 9 7 --
6 MR. FAIR: Is that the worst cese then? Is it worse 7 than a stronger tube steel that could take more load?
8 MR. IOTTI: From the prying action standpoint, yes.
9 John, the reason I'm answering from the prying action stand-10 point that would give you the worst prying action. It might 11 not give you the worst case in loading on the bolt or on the 12 insert. We have information on that and it will be supplied 7.s 13 to you separately.
(~' )
1-4 MR. FAIR: Ok, that's really what I'm getting at.
15 Have you determined that --
16 MR. IOTTI: The original question, we felt, was re-17 lated to just the prying action. That's why we took the 18 approach that we did.
19 MR. FAIR: The only concern for the prying action 20 really is to calculate the load on the bolt.
21 Ok, the last item I wanted to discuss on this sub-22 mittal is, you provided a discussion of the effects of angu-23 larity on the Richmond inserts and alignment tolerances and 24 hole sizes and I just had one statement and that had to do (O
_/ 25 with this pictu"e that you've drawn in your submittal. For FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- 10. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. 6t Annep.149-4136
l 'I 'l 1
For this particular case I believe that the bending load that
/q 2 would come out of an evaluation would be somewhat higher than
, C/
3 your evaluation with the load react out at the top and bottom 4 flanges until you bent the bolt sufficiently to load both 5 flanges.
6 MR. IOTTI: Right.
7 MR. FAIR: And that was the only comment I had to 8 m'ake on that. That's all the questions I had.
9 MR. IOTTI: Let me re-read back to you some of the 10 action items that I have on, I guess, both the generic stiff--
11 ness and the Richmond to make sure that we're all attuned 12 with this.
13 First, on the generic stiffness, we are going to i \
14 provide you with the numerical criterion on a pipe schedule 15 basis, pipe size and so forth. Ok? And then we're going to 16 - and then I'm going to talk to you and then we're going to 17 identify the lightly loaded on the basis of that criterion.
18 I mean the candidates for possible overloading on the basis 19 of that. And then I want to meet and decide where to go next 20 from that standpoint.
21 From the Richmond standpoint for the affidavit, we 22 need to send you the details on this pattern of 8 Richmond 23 inserts. The second iten, we have to confirm this averaging 24 of the bending moment from the -- analysis versus the MC over 25 I calculated moment and the appropriateness of using one or FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
11* Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136
l'I[5 I
the other.
2 We have to verify and confirm to you that the fatigue
(~')
v 3 analysis - I call it fatigue analysis - that fatigue disser-4 tation on fatigue that we provided to you on the - in our 5 reply is bounding for all of the bolts and if not, to identify 6 which ones it wouldn't be bounding for and then determining 7 for those whether they are subject to this bending.
8 The fourth item is we are to verify whether there are 9 still some tube steel Richmond inserts combination where the 10 MZ moment is not released in the design and then we are to 11 provide you~with additional information on the~effect on the 12 load on the bolt and the insert due to tube steel that spans 7
13 more than one normal span.
(
14 That's the only action item I have.
15 MR. FAIR: Let's go off the record a minute.
16 (BRIEF RECESS.)
17 MR. LANDERS: As I said earlier, some of the prob-18 lems that I'm going to get involved in are going to result 19 from responses to the current situations like some of them 20 that John talked about. One of the answers I heard earlier 21 was, this is how I heard it, that an SA193 bolt would be used 22 in place of an SA36 for an overloaded situation, due to pry-23 ing, if a bolt was overloaded then I'm assuming the design 24 procers calls for that. I can go somewhere and find that.
A
's_) 25 MR. DEUBLEI: Yes, you can find in the - speaking FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- 12. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
14 f; I
from the NBSI standpoint, you know, our structural design
(-}
2 manual the allowables for the A36 and A193 bolts.
3 MR. LANDERS: Yeah, I understand that, but the fact 4 that you would go in and use one bolt in a base plate that was 5 193 and the reason for doing that is that your design proced-6 ure says if you have an overloaded bolt the way to solve that 7 problem is to stick in a high strength bolt.
8 MR. DEUBLEI: One way of solving that problem. There 9 are others. You can change the geometry -- -
10 MR. LANDERS: Ok, I can find that though. l 11 MR. POWERS: I'd like to respond to that. Dave 12 Powers from Grinnell. It's like designing a pipe plant at a 13 particular load rating on a pipe plant there ic no written O 14 procedure to say what type of plant to use. It's based on 15 the load rating. A particular bolt size, let's say 36, has 16 a load rating. If you can't meet that, then you can go to 17 193, but it's not a written procedure, it's just general prac-18 tice in different componenets.
19 MR. LANDERS: I think that the comparison is weak.
20 I don't think if we take a pipe clamp and take the bottom 21 bolt off and replace it with a higher strength bolt and all 22 I'm really asking is, somewhere I can find the engineers in-23 volved in designing supports had access to instructions that 24 said, here's one way to solve a base plate bolt problem is O
V 25 to use a higher strength bolt.
PREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Depositlens 13 o,c, a,ee 1411901 e Belt. et Annep.149 4134
147 I
MR. FINNERAN: I don't think you'll find that writter t 2 anywhere.
3 MR. DEUBLEI: In an analogous situation is when a 4
Pilke bolt is -- base plate determines that when a bolt is 5 overloaded you use a higher capacity bolt --
6 MR. LANDERS: Bigger in diameter.
7 MR. DEUBLEI: Bigger in diameter, bigger insertion -
8 MR. LANDERS: Yes, which is a little different than 9 higher strength material.
10 MR. DEUBLEI: Well, it's a lot like if you had a 11 light flange of, say, 36 material - a flange, a light flange 12 and you find that you have a bending problem you go to A500 13 tubing.
O 14 MR. LANDERS: Or you might go to 6 wide flange. I 15 mean you said that's what you did and I was just wondering if 16 that existed anywhere in the process.
17 MR. FINNERAN: Our answer would be right now that it 18 - you won't find it as a written option.
19 MR. LANDERS: Fine. And the fact that John has con--
20 cern about bolt bending and, again, I'm not up to speed on 21 all of the things that are taking place here, but I would 22 assume, based on what I've heard, that bolt bending was not 23 originally considered.
24 MR. IOTTI: That's correct.
25 MR. LANDERS: Also I would assume that the procedure FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Deposittens
- 14. D.C. Area 1611901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169 4136
1 148 with respect to the tube steel spanning inserts, it says use 2 fixed end in the design or it doesn't say anything and the 3 engineers judgment was fixed end.
] If'I'm working for you and
! 4 I'm designing these, does your engineering procedure say, s fixed end?
r 6 MR. DEUBLEI: Not in the procedures.
a 7 MR. LANDERS: Ok, so this is a matter for the en-
)
8 gineer or for his supervisor?
i 9 (CHATTER.)
1 10 MR. LANDERS: I don't have anything else.
1 11 MR. TERAO: Off the record. It's 3:45 and the 12 meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.
13 lO 14 I 15 16 17 4
i 18 j 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
y5 Court Reporting e Depositions D,c, 4, 261-1902 e s.it.& Ann.p. 249 4236
1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 2
~J 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before 4 the NRC. "
5 In the matter of: Commanche Park Meeting 6
7 Date of Proceeding: Thursday, 9 August 1984 8 Place of Proceeding: Washington, D. C.
9 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 3 g transcript for the file of the Commission.
11 12 13 14 Joseph flewman Official Reporter - Typed 15 16 4 17 t / v'tY' x[, , c e . . vt a n 18 C Official Reporter - Signature
/
19 20 21 22 23 24 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 m