ML20084N276

Forwards Revised Page 9 of Answer to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Certain Case Allegations on Aws & ASME Code Provisions Re Welding Issues,Adding Addl Ref Inadvertently Omitted from Original.Related Correspondence

ML20084N276
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/14/1984
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20084N279	List: ML20084N276 ML20084N287 ML20084N291 ML20084N295 ML20084N298
References
OL-1, NUDOCS 8405160445
Download: ML20084N276 (2)

Text

c....

HELAiED C0;Gd-Q'0201

,N T

s 75224 214/946-9446 (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) '84 MAY 16 A10:27 May 14,1984LFFict N SEU.<t. -

000KEiluG & SEri:

BRANCH TO: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and all parties in Docket 50-445-1 and 50-446-1

Subject:

In the Matter of Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. for An Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)

Docket Nos. 50-445-1 and 50-446-1 Revision of Page 9 of CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CEl(TAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO WELDING ISSUES (and to Affidavit of Jack Doyle)

After the attached subject pleading had already been typed, printed, and collated, Mr. Doyle telephoned and requested that one additional reference be added which had been inadvertently omitted. The only change is the addition of the reference which is single-spaced at the end of the next-to-the-last paragraph on the page.

Please substitute the attached page 9 for the page 9 included in the attached subject pleading.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)

(A rs.) Juanita Ellis c

President t

ec:

Service List l

8405160445 840514 i

PDR ADOCK 05000445 1 S03

~.

.,..u -

(1) At tr. 10071/9-19, Mr. Baker states that if a downhill weld is l'

ground out and is visually 0.K.,

then that weld is 0.K., although i

i-it is in violation of procedures. This statement indicates that if ons can circumvent the code and pass a visual inspection, then no problem existed.

(2) At tr. 11344, at lines 2-9, Mr. Brandt states that bead width is not controlled by AWS. However, the fact is that the bead width for flat, horizontal, overhead, vertical and root passes are controlled by AWS 4.10.6 et seq. and these criteria are less than the four core wiro diameter allowed in weave bead welding, with the exception of the vertical weld. (See NRC Staff Witness Collins, Tr. 12,215/7-25 and 12,216/1-5.) The purpose of this 1

restriction is to prevent weld cracking.

(See NRC Staff Witness Smith, Tr. 12,216/7-21.) This purpose for a code restriction on i

bead width is of more concern with weave welding than it is for stringer bead welding due to the higher heat input.

But j

Applicants' experts appear to be unaware of this problem since 1

i they are convinced that any fillet. bead width is 0.K. so long as I

it does not exceed four core wire diameters.

(Among others, see Applicants' Witness Brandt, Tr. 11,227/9-16, 11,235/7-11 and 16-l 25,-11,245/17 through 11,246/1, and 11,250/3-10 and 24.

See also Q. and A. 4 by Brandt, and Q. and A. 6 by Brandt and Baker from Applicants' prefiled rebuttal' testimony, referenced in footnote 2 cm page 7 of this pleading.).

However, in all cases for fillet and groove welds (which'are-the vast majority of welds for supports at Comanche Peak), the~

code ' allowable is less than the 8 core wire diameter industry e

I practice mentioned by Mr. Baker in the last' sentence on page.17 of his affidavit.

9 y

.-,r-

-e-

,