ML20207M050
| ML20207M050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1987 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2104 2.206, OL, NUDOCS 8701130072 | |
| Download: ML20207M050 (29) | |
Text
c .
3-4 2Mf January 6, 1987 00tKETED U$f!"C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
-8 P 2 M4 '
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION CFR CCV-:
In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) (10 C.F.R. S 2.206)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
SUPPLEMENT TO LICENSEES' RESPONSE TO CASH /EDDLEMAN SHOW CAUSE PETITION On December 15, 1986, Carolina Power & Light Company
("CP&L") and North Carolina Eastern M'unicipal Power Agency (collectively " Licensees") filed " Licensees' Response to CASH /Eddleman Show Cause Petition," in response to an October 17, 1986 petition under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206.
The enclosed CP&L letter NLS-87-002, A. B. Cutter to H. R.
Denton, January 5, 1987, with Attachments 1, 2 and 3, is hereby filed as a supplement to Licensees' December 15, 1986 response.
Respectfully submitted,
% == .
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY l P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 f (919) 836-8161 l "
8701130072 B70106 Counsel for Licensees PDR ADOCK 05000400 G PDR h SO
I o
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Supplement to Licensees' Response to CASH /Eddleman Show Cause Petition" were served by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 6th day of January, 1987, to the following:
Mr. Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Bart Buckley Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Karen D. Cyr, Esquire Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman 812 Yancey Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH) 604 W. Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Mr. David M. Verrelli U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 W _ -_ = .
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
l
e Carolina Power & L!ght Company SERIAL: NLS-8 7-002 January 5,198 7 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-400/ LICENSE NO. NPF-53 FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE TESTING
Dear Mr. Denton:
On December 15, 1986, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) filed " Licensees' Response to CASH /Eddleman Show Cause Petition" (10 CFR 2.206) which is fully responsive to the allegations raised by petitions and demonstrates that Petitioners have not presented.any cogent evidence of the existence of significant health and safety issues at the Harris Plant. Nevertheless, in order to further refute the basis for Petitioners' allegations, CP&L initiated additional testing, although such tests were not required to resolve the allegations.
Attached are the results of further investigative tests conducted on Phillips Expansion Anchors (Attachment 1), Maxibolt Expansion Anchors (Attachment 2),
and Emergency Service Water Intake Structure Shear Plates (Attachment 3).
This information should be considered a supplement to CP&L's December 15, 1986 res ponse. Each of the investigative tests further demonstrates that there are no health and safety concerns with respect to these Petitioner's allegations.
Yours very tru A. B. Cutter - Vice Pre ident Nuclear Engineering & Licensing ABC/SRZ/cre ( SRZ-28 )
cc: Mr . B . C . Buckley ( NRC) l Dr. J. Nelson Grace (NRC-RII) l Mr. G. F. Maxwell (NRC-SHNPP) l l
l l
411 Fayettevene Street
- P O Bon 1551. Aaieign N C 27602
Attcche:nt 1 INVESTIGATIVE TESTING FOR RESOLUTION dF PETITIONERS' ALLEGATION, SECTION III, ITEM 2, PAGE 12 (EXPANSION A'?CHORS) r DATED OCTOBER 17, 1986 DOCKET NUMBER 50-400 OL TESTING AND REPORT BY: WILLIAM 0. PRIDGEN TESTING OBSERVED BY: GEORGE MAXWELL, NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR (1304NEL/ mmh)
I Attachment 1 (Cont'd)
SCOPE:
The purpose of this report is to document the testing conducted in response to petitioner's allegations of " sandbagging" Phillips expansion anchor holes in order to achieve minimum required torque values.
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 1986, petitioners CASH and Wells Eddleman alleged that the integrity of Phillips expansion anchors was compromised by
" sandbagging". Specifically, the allegation states that on anchor placement numbers 1RA305003, 1RA305006, and IRA 305007 the expansion anchor holes were erroneously drilled oversize and fine sandblasting sand was p'oured into the anchor hole alongside the body of the anchor. The alleged purpose of this action was to cause the anchor to bind against the sandblasting sand and thus enable it to be torqued to the required minimum values.
The anchors in question are now no longer accessible for tension testing due to the proximity of electrical control cabinets. Therefore, the testing program outlined below was initiated to simulate the " sandbagging" conditions alleged and to subsequently tension test the anchers.
TEST PROCEDURE: -
. 7 A review of the subject anchor placements revealed that the majority of the anchors installed were 3/4" diameter Phillips expansion anchors.
Thus, 3/4" diameter anchors were chosen for the test sample.
The anchors were installed in the elevation 236' concrete slab just west of the intersection of N line and 44 line. Prior to anchor drilling, the area was scanned by the Radar Rebar Locator to determine the location of top mat rebar. The anchor holes were then drilled to avoid contact with the rebar. In addition, prior to drilling, the drill bits used were measured by a micrometer. The drill bits were again measured by a micrometer after the completion of drilling.
(1304NEL/ mmh)
. Attachment 1 (Cont'd)
A total of nine anchor holes were drilled. Three of the holes were drilled in complete compliance with WP-33. The anchors were then installed through a 4" x 4" x 1/2" A-36 plate and properly torqued to the minimum required torque value of 150 ft-lbs. No sandblasting sand was added to these holes.
Another set of three holes was drilled in compliance with WP-33. The anchors were installed and then fine sandblasting sand was swept into the hole. The anchors were subsequently torqued through a 4" x 4" x 1/2" A-36 plate to the minimum required torque value of 150 ft-lbs.
The last set of three anchor holes was drilled and then purposely oversized. The anchor craftsman drilling the holes was instructed to a
"w~llow" out the holes by placing lateral pressure on the drill bit during the drilling. Following the drilling, the anchors were placed in the holes and fine sandblasting sand was placed in the hole alongside the
- body of the anchor. Then the anchors were torqued through the 4" x 4" x 1/2" A-36 plate to the minimum required torque value of 150 ft-lbs.
The anchors were allowed to set undisturbed for a minimum of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in order for anchor relaxation to occur. Following the 24-hour relaxation period, the anchors were tension tested as prescribed in WP-33 and TP-39, Appendix A.
The anchors were tension tested by applying 'nsile load on the anchors via a hydraulic ram and threaded rod couples that attached to the top threads above che nut on the expansion anchor. The ram was supported on ,
a rigid stand. The ram hydraulic pressure was measured using a calibrated pressure gauge (gauge number CPL-5365B). Per Appendix A of TP-39, a 3/4" diameter anchor is considered to be' acceptable if it can withstand a tension load of 5980 lbs. This equates to a hydraulic ram gauge pressure of 1265 psi (for 4000 psi concrete) using a hydraulic ram having an effective area of 4.725 in . See Figure 1 for a depiction of the entire tension testing assembly.
(1304NEL/mah)
.- Attrchment 1 (Cont'd)
A uniformly increasing load was applied to the expansion anchor via the hydraulic ran un'til"the minimum tensile static test gauge pressure of 1265 psi was obtained. At this time the washer under the expansion anchor nut was tested to see if slip had occurred. Slip is defined as the point at which the washer can be rotated using only finger pressure.
No slip occurred at the minimum tensile static test load on any of the nine anchors tested. The tensile load was then uniformly increased (with the concurrent test for anchor slip) until a maximum gauge pressure of 1600 psi was obtained. The slip gauge / pressure (if any) was recorded.
CONCLUSION:
This testing demonstrated that there was no loss of anchor performance as a result of oversizing the anchor holes or due to the inclusion of fine sandblasting sand into the anchor hole around the anchor. Three anchor holes were wallowed out by the use of vigorous lateral pressure on the drill bit combined with a circular motion of the drill motor.
Sandblasting sand was then poured into the anchor hole. Another set of
-three anchors had properly sized holes and then fine sandblasting sand was poured into the anchor hole around the anchor. A third' set o'f three j anchors was properly drilled and installed without the inclusion of
- sandblasting sand.
4 The nine anchors in. stalled tested to the minimum required gauge pressure .
of 1265 psi without slip. The anchors were tested as required in TP-39, l
Appendix A, for 3/4" diameter Phillips expansion anchors in 4000 psi l
design concrete. At the request of the NRC Resident Inspector, George Maxwell, the anchors were then further loaded until.either slip or a l
j - gauge pressure of 1600 psi was attained.
Additional loading was not required and was performed strictly for the l purposes of demonstrating the reserve factor of safety available.
i Results of the tests are shown in Table 1. In the three sets of bolte, one bolt in the " controlled" set slipped at 1400 psi, one, in the
" wallowed" set slipped at 1600 psi, and one in the " sand only" set I
(1304NEL/ mmh) i
o
. Attachment 1 (Cont'd) slipped at 1500 psi. The remaining bolts experienced no slippage at 1600 psi. As noted, all of the bolts exceeded the r'equired gauge pressure of 1265 psi before slip.
In conclusion, the test conditions simulated the conditions that allegedly exist as detailed in the intervenor allegation. No compromise in anchor quality resulted when the alleged anchor conditions were reproduced.
4 (1304NEL/ mmh)
. Attachment 1 (Cont'd)
TABLE 1 TEST RESULTS l
ANCHOR I.D. GAUGE PRESSURE (PSI) REMARKS C1 1400 slip C2 1600 no slip C3 1600 no slip WI 1600 no slip W2 1600 slip W3 1600 no slip SL 1600 no slip S2 1600 no slip S3 1500 slip NOTES:
C- Controlled - holes _and anchors drilled and installed per WP-33.
- W- Wallowed - holes were purposely oversized by poor drilling practide (i.e., wallowing out the hole). Sand was then poured in around the anchor body.
S- Sand Only - holes were properly drilled and then sand was poured in and around the anchor body.
7 (1304NEL/ mmh)
9
. ~ -
Acccchment 1 i
-* FIGURE 1 (Cont'd) a B
e
. \ O
/
,/ , ..
...--=: $4". . ad ._;-
~
\
s s m
- 5
\\ /
\ \
\
'./
i c y Nu
Attachment 1 (Cont'd)
NOTES FOR FIGURE 1 A. Threaded Tensioning Rod B. Tensioning Nut C. Hydraulic Ram (Area = 4.725 in )
D. Rigid Support Stand E. Expansion Anchor F. Expansion Anchor Nut and Washer G. Internally Threaded Coupler H. Calibrated Pressure Gauge I. Bearing Base Plate J. Hydraulic Pump (Hand Operated) .
1 (1304NEL/ mmh)
.. Attccht:nt 2 INVESTIGATIVE TESTING FOR RESOLUTION OF PETITIONERS' ALLEGATION, SECTION III, ITEM A, PAGE 14 (UNDERCUT TOLERANCES ON MAXIBOLT ANCHORS)
DATED OCTOBER 17, 1986 DOCKET NUMBER 50-400 OL TESTING AND REPORT BY: WILLIAM 0. PRIDGEN TESTING OBSERVED BY: GEORGE MAXWELL, NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR i, .
+
(1304NEL/ mmh)
. Attcchment 2 (Cont'd) i SCOPE:
1 I
The purpose of this report is to document the testing conducted in '
response to petitioner's allegations of inspection failure to check undercut tolerances on Maxibolt expansion anchors.
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 1986, petitioners CASH and Wells Eddleman alleged that inspection personnel failed to check the undercut tolerances on Maxibolt expansion anchors. In order to fully address any concerns as to the integrity of installed Maxibolts, a test program was initiated. The testing program was designed to simulate the worst postulated case where no undercut was made in the Maxibolt hole.
TEST PROCEDURE:
A review of subject anchor placements revealed that a large percentage of the Maxibolts installed to date were 3/4" diameter. Thus, 3/4" diameter anchors were chosen for the test.
The anchors were installed in the elevation 236' concrete slab just west of the intersection of N line and 44 line. Prior to anchor drilling, the area was scanned by the Radar Rebar Locator to determine the location of tcp mat rebar. The anchor holes were then drilled to avoid contact with the top mat rebar. The anchor holes were then drilled to avoid contact with the top mat rebar. In addition, prior to drilling, the Maxibolt drill bit was checked and found to be within allowable tolerances.
A total of three anchor holes were drilled. The holes were drilled in complete compliance with WP-42 using the proper size drill bit. However, .
the holes were not undercut in order to provide the worst possible scenario for anchor performance.
(1304NEL/meh)
+- Attachment 2 (Cont'd)
The 3/4" diameter anchors were then preset in the drilled holes using a hydraulic ran as outlined in WP-42. The ram gauge pressure was steadily increased until a pressure of 4350 psi was attained. A 3" x 3" x 1/2" A-36 bearing plate was then placed over the anchor and a nut and washer were also placed on top of the plate over the anchor.
The anchor was then tensioned per WP-42 until a gauge pressure of 4350 psi was obtained. The nut was snugged down on the washer by hand and then the load on the anchor was released such that the anchor was fully pre-loaded.
Two of the anchors were allowed to set undisturbed for a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in order for anchor ' relaxation to occur. The third anchor was tested immediately after the initial pre-loading. The anchors were .
tension tested as p.rescribed in WP-42 and TP-39, Appendix B.
The anchors were tension tested by applying a tensile load on the anchors via a hydraulic ram and threaded rod couples that attached to the top threads above the nut on the expansion anchor. The ram was supported on a r'igid stand. The ran hydraulic pressure was measured using a calibrated pressure gauge (gauge number CPL-5889B). Per Appendix B of TP-39, a 3/4" diameter anchor is considered to be acceptable if it can withstand a
- tension load of 12002 lbs. This equates to a hydraulic ram gauge pressure of 2540 psi using a hydraulic ram having an effective area of 4.725 in .
See Figure'l for a depiction of the entire' tension testing assembly.
i A uniformly increasing load was applied to the expansion anchor via the hydraulic ran until the minimum tensile static test load gauge pressure of 2540 psi was obtained. At this time the washer under the expansion anchor nut was tested to see if slip had occurred. Slip is defined as the point at which the washer can be rotated using only finger pressure.
No slip occurred at the minimum tensile static test load on any of the three anchors tested. The tensile load was then uniformly increased j (with the concurrent test for anchor slip) until a gauge pressure of 3000 psi was obtained. No slip of any anchor was noted.
i l (1304NEL/amh)
. - . - - . . _ . _ , ~ . _ . - _ , - - . _ - . _ _ _ _ . .. , - . - , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ ,
Attachment 2
, (Cont'd)
In' addition, Anchor No. I was loaded to the maximum gauge pressure of 5000 psi at the request of the NRC Resident Inspector. No slip was noted-at the maximum gauge pressure.
CONCLUSION:
This testing demonstrated that there was no loss of anchor performance as a result of the failure to undercut the drilled hole. The test results are provided in Table 2. The three anchors installed tested to the minimum required gauge pressure 2540 psi without slip. The anchors were tested as required in TP-39, Appendix B, for 3/4". diameter Maxibolt expansion anchors. At the request of the NRC Resident Inspector, George Maxwell, the anchors were then further loaded as indicated in the test results. This additional loading was not required and was performed strictly for the purposes of demonstrating the reserve factors of safety available.
The test results achieved on 3/4" diameter anchors will be equally applicable to the other anchor diameters. The test results of the anchor having a gauge pressure of 5000 psi show that no slip occurred at a load of approximately 23,000 lbs. This load.actually exceeds the average slip load of 20,000 lbs that can normally be expected from a properly undercut and preset 3/4" 9 anchor. Thus, the absence of an undercut does not appear to detrimentally affect the anchor. performance. Similar results can be expected on the other ,3nchor diameters as all anchor diameters are loaded to a uniform stress of 81 percent of yield.
In conclusion, the test conditions represent a worst case postulation of Maxibolt undercut tolerances where no undercut exists. Thus, the alleged failure of inspection to check undercut tolerances would in no way have affected the anchor quality.
(1304NEL/ mmh)
. Attachment 2 (Cont'd)
TABLE I TEST RESULTS ANCHOR I.D. GAUGE PRESSURE (PSI) REMARKS 1 5000 no slip 2 3000 no slip 3 3000 no slip NOTES:
Anchor No. I was tested initially to a gauge pressure of 2540 psi and then allowed to relax for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. It was subsequently tested to the maximum pressure reading of 5000 psi.
Anchor Nos. 2 and 3 were allowed to relax for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and the tested to a gauge pressure of 3000 psi.
e e
(1304NEL/mah)
mm e
s xn
' s
( /
A : ' '"
g == ,
)l 8
(
~
4a i \
NN/
\ s \ '
m y we ~..
Attachment 2 (Cont'd)
NOTES FOR FIGURE 1 ,
A. Threaded Tensioning Rod B. Tensioning Nut 2
C. Hydraulic Ram (Area - 4.725 in )
D. Rigid Support Stand E. Expansion Anchor F. Expansion Anchor Nut and Washer G. Internally T'readed h Coupler H. Calibrated Pressure Gauge I. Bearing Base Plate J. Hydraulic Pump (Hand Operated)
(1304NEL/ mmh)
Attachment 3 4
INVESTIGATIVE TESTING FOR RESOLUTION OF PETITIONERS' ALLEGATION SECTION II, ITEMS 3 & 4, PAGE 13 (SHEAR PLATES)
DATED OCTOBER 17, 1986 DOCKET NUMBER 50-400 OL REPORT BY: JOSEPH W. McKAY 4
f 5
e h
4 (1304NEL/mah)
)
Attachment 3 SCOPE AND BACKGROUND The objective of this analysis was to address the allegation of material substitution and documentation falsification as it pertains to the emergency service water intake structure (ESWIS) traveling screens'
" shear plates". The shear plates were installed to provide full bearing for the traveling screens' frames where the embedded guides were out of alignment. The term " shear plate" is correct since the plates are attached to the concrete walls with expansion anchors and serve only to restrain movement of the frame to the north due to the water flow by transferring shear load to the anchors.
.The plates are designed to be fabricated of ASTM A-36 rolled plate. The plates were located based on elevation and spacing from the downstream face of the frames.
TEST PROCEDURE AND RESULTS To confirm material type, it was decided to use har,dness tests which would be correlated to tensile strength and then compared with that for
.A-36 steel. .
A representative sample of 20 plates was selected. Ten were selected from Bay 6 and 10 from Bay 8 7 Five of these were selected from each of the two guides in each bay with three selected above the water line and two below, reflecting the part of the guides above and below the normal water level.
Bay 6 and 8 were de-watered to the extent necessary for in-place hardness testing and sampling. In-place hardness testing was performed by CP&L Materials Lab personnel with an Equotip Portable Hardness Tester, Serial No. 480844, using the "D" impact device. Hardness values are obtained as L values and converted into Brinell hardness numbers. Shear plate placement locations and in-place hardness testing results are presented in Table 1.
(1304NEL/ mmh)
- Attachment 3 in addition to the in-place hardness testing by CP&L, Law Engineering Testing Company (LET) was requested to perform hardness testing of the same plates to provide independent verification of test results. Tests were performed using a New Age Industries Metal Tester and a standard penetrator. Tests were performed by LET personnel Donald B. Chandler and Connie Boyette. Values were obtained using a standard penetrator (D2) and the impact load procedure. An ocular glass scale was used to measure the impression left by the test specimen. Results indicated a Brinell hardness range of 130 to 164. Test results are presented in Table 2.
To provide additional verification of the material type, test specimens of each of the eight below water level plates were taken for lab testing.
Each specimen removed was divided in half with one half retained for testing, and the second half turned over to the NRC Resident Inspec. tor for his information.
Tensile test specimens were prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM A 370, " Mechanical Testing of Steel Products". Testing of the eight ESW shear plate tensile specimens was performed on a Tinius Olsen Universal i Testing Machine, Serial No. 128625. Tensile test results of the eight ESW shear plate specimens are presented in Table 4.
Laboratory hardness testing was also performed on sections obtained from the eight submitted ESW shear plate samples. This testing was conducted to provide data for correlation between the hardness and tensile strength of the shear plate material. Laboratory hardness testing was performed on a Wilson /Rockwell Hardness Tester, Series 500, Model 524-T, Serial No. 80565503. The results of these hardness tests are presented in Table 3.
The range for hardness for ASTM A-36 material, using the Brinell hardness scale, is 119 to 159. The tensile range is 58,000 to 80,000 psi. A 4 review of the test results shows that the plates tested within accepted tolerances for A-36 plate material, with the exception of minor test deviations which were well within the design allowables for the plate application.
(1304NEL/ mmh)
1 l
l
- ~ Attachment 3 To address the allegation of document falsification, two parts-of the allegation subject-to verification were checked. These were the cutting of reinforcing steel and plate relocation.
While the bays were de-watered, the physical location of each plate subjected to material verification was also checked. A comparison of the design, accepted, and as-built locations is presented in Tables 6 and 7.
Plate locations match the approved design and show no indication of relocation.
The period during which the document falsification was alleged to have taken place was 1982-1983. A total of 1167 "Q" expansion anchor placements we're made during this period based on site records. As a part of the required inspection, the inspector verified whether or t.ot rebar had been cut or damaged and noted this on his inspection report.
Of the 1167 placements, only 50 indicated cut rebar. A check of the design documents which were referenced on the inspection reports as permitting or accepting the cut rebar revealed all were in order and all properly approved.
In summary, the actual accepted field conditions for cut rebar and shear
, plate locations matched the approved design with no evidence of document falsification. -
l i
l l
(1304NEL/ mmh) l
'e- Attachment 3 1
TABLE 1 i RESULTS OF CP&L IN-PLACE HARDNESS TESTS PLACEMENT NUMBER EQUOTIP 13NUMBER BRINELL NUMBER Bay 6 East Wall IIS190032 378 125 IIS190034 378 125 IIS190035 375 123 IIS190037 381 127 LIS190038 , -
391 134
^
Bay 6
. West Wall LIS190042. 383 129 LIS190043 380 126 IIS190044 387 131 IIS190047 383 129 lIS190048 395 137 Bay 8 . ,
East Wall IIS190009 400 140 -
11S190011 417 152
. IIS190014 -
409 146 IIS190'015 390 133 j IIS190017 398 138 j Bay 8 West Wall 4
IIS190020 407 145 IIS190022 413 149 LISI90024 417 152 IIS190026 415 151 LIS190029 390 133 i ASTM A-36 119-159 i
l (1304NEL/mh) t
- Attachment-3 (Cont'd)
TABLE 2 RESULTS OF LAW ENGINEERING IN-PLACE HARDNESS TESTS PLACEMENT NUMBER EQUIV. BRINELL Bay 6 East Wall IIS190032 135 IIS190034 147 IIS190035 130 LIS190037 142 IIS190038 145 Bay 6 West Wall IIS190042 142
. IIS190043 146 IIS190044 130 LIS190047 152 IIS190048 147 Bay 8 East Wall IIS190009 145 IIS190011 145 IIS190014 142 IIS190015 151 LIS190017 132 Bay 8 .
West Wall IIS190020 142 IIS190022 164 LIS190024 151 LIS190026 145 IIS190029 130 ASTM A-36 119-159 (1304NEL/cej)
. Attachment 3 (Cont'd)
TABLE 3 RESULTS OF CP&L IN-LABORATORY HARDNESS TESTS PLACEMENT PLATE ROCKWELL DRINELL NUMBER DESIGNATION HARDNESS, Rb HARDNESS NUMBER IIS190037 211-6-E-001B 72 130 IIS190038 204-6-E-002B 74 135 IIS190047 216-6-W-001B 73 132 IIS190048 204-6-W-002B 74 135 IIS190029 200-8-W-002B 75 137 11S190017 202-8-E-002B 71 127 IIS190026 217-8-W-001B 82 156 IIS190015 218-8-E-001B 74 135 ASTM A-36 119-159, r
(1304NEL/ccj)
1
- Attachment 3 (Cont'd)
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF CP&L IN-LABORATORY TENSILE TESTS TENSILE PLATE YIELD ULTIMATE DESIGNATION POINT PSI TENSILE, PSI 211-6-E-001B 40,800 66,000 204-6-E-002B 41,840 63,878 216-6-W-001B 41,800 -
66,800 204-6-W-002B 41,000 64,000 200-8-W-002B 39,200 65,600 202-8-E-002B 34,000*' 63,400 217-8-W-001B 38,200 64,200 218-8-E-001B 39,800 64,800 ASTM A 36 Min. 36,000 58,000 Max. _
80,000
- Within design allcwables for plate application.
(1304NEL/ccj)
Attichment 3 (Cont'd)
TABLE 5 ESWIS SHEAR PLATE MATERIAL TEST
SUMMARY
BRINELL HARDNESS TENSILE - CP&L LAB (psi) (psi)
PLACEMENT CP&L FIELD LET FIELD CP&L LAB YIELD ULTIMATE East Wall Bay 8 IIS190009 140 145 Bay 8 11S190011 152 145 Bay 8 IIS190014 146 142 Bay 8 IIS190015 133 151 135 37,600 64,800 Bay 8 11S190017 138 132 127 34,000 63,400 West Wall Bay 8 IIS190020 145 142 Bay 8 11S190022 149 164 Bay 8 IIS190024 152 151 Bay 8 IIS190026 151 145 ~156 37,600 64,200 Bay 8 IIS190029 133 130 137 38,000 65,600 East Wall Bay 6 IIS190032 125 135 Bay 6 IIS190034 125 147 Bay 6 IIS190035 123 130 Bay 6 IIS190037 127 142 130 38,000 66,000 Bay 6 IIS190038 134 145 135 38,000 63,878 West Wall Bay 6 11S190042 129 142 Bay 6 IIS190043 126 146 Bay 6 IIS190044 131 130 Bay 6 IIS190047 129 152 132 39,400 66,800 Bay 6 IIS190048 137 147 135 38,500 64,000 (1304NEL/ mmh)
- Atttchment 3 (Cont'd)
TABLE 6 ESWIS PLATE LOCATION, BAY 6 ACCEPTED AS-BUILT GAP GUIDE DESIGN (1983) (1986) TO PLATE 211-6-E-001, IIS190037 Elevation 211'-10 211'-8 1/4 211'-7 7/8 1/4 Spacing I'-1 l'-0 1/2 l'-1 Elevation 210'-9 210'-7 3/4 210'-6 7/8 3/8 204-6-E-002, IIS190038 Elevation 205'-4 205'-5 1/2 205-4 3/4 1/16 Spacing l'-1 l'-1 1/8 l'-1 1/2 Elevation 204'-3 204'-4 3/8 204'-3 1/4 1/16 216-6-2-001, IIS190047 Elevation 217'-3 217'-1 1/2 217'-0 5/8 1/16 Spacing l'-1 l'-0 15/16 l'-1 1/8 Elevation 216'-2 216'-0 9/16 215'-11 1/2 1/4 204-6-W-002, IIS190048 Elevation- 204'-3 204'-0 5/16 204'-0 1/8 1/16 Spacing l'-1 l'-0 3/4 l'-0 1/2 Elevation 203'-2 202'-11 9/16 202'-11 5/8 1/16 (1304NEL/meh)
- Attachment 3 (Cont'd)
TABLE 7 ESWIS PLATE LOCATION, BAY 8 ACCEPTED AS-BUILT GAP GUIDE DESIGN (1983) (1986) -TO PLATE 218-8-E-001, IIS190015 Elevation 216'-2 216'-3 3/8 216'-3 1/8 3/8 Spacing l'-1 l'-3 5/8 l'-3 1/2 Elevat' ion 215'-1 214'-11 3/4 214'-11 5/8 3/8 202-8-E-002, IIS190017 Elevation 203'-2 203'-0 5/8 203'-0 1/4 3/8 Spacing l'-1 0'-9 3/4 0'-9 5/8 Elevation 202'-1 202'-2 7/8 202'-2 5/8 1/4 217-8-W-001, IIS190026 Elevation 217'-3 217'-1 3/16 217'-0 5/8 Spacing l'-1 l'-0 1/4 l'-0 Elevation 216'-2 216'-0 15/16 216'-0 1/2 201-8-W-202, IIS190029 Elevation 201'-0 200'-11 1/2 200'-9 3/4 1/8 Spacing I'-1 l'-0 11/16 l'-1 Elevation 199'-11 199'-10 13/16 199'-8 3/4 1/8 9
(1304NEL/ mmh)