Text

Affidavit of Rc Iotti & Jc Finneran Re Issues Raised by ASLB in 841218 Memorandum Concerning Sampling of Torques in Cinched Down U-bolts & A36/A307 Steel.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
	ML20111C690
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/07/1985
From:	Finneran J, Iotti R; EBASCO SERVICES, INC., TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20111C644	List: ML20111C642; ML20111C690;
References
	OL, NUDOCS 8501090396
	Download: ML20111C690 (147)
	v • d • e

f ,m;

.- e

~

q

! Doc @ D 0,

!-l bgcJ e- --

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ! JMIO ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \

g T.

\ \ U2[hksa,G,S G /

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD /

@/

~I $Y In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and 1 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, ET AL. )

) (Application for

'(Conanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT C. IOTTI AND JOHN C. FINNERAN, JR. REGARDING THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECEMBER 18, 1984 MEMORANDUM We, Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr., being first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows:

(Iotti) I am Vice President of Advanced Technology for Ebasco Services, Inc. A statement of my educational and pro-fessional qualifications was transmitted with Applicants' letter of May 16, 1984, to the Licensing Board in this proceeding.

(Finneran) I am the Pipe Support Engineer for the Pipe Support-Engineering Group at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.- In this position, I oversee the design work of all pipe support' design organizations for Comanche Peak. A statement of

my professional and educational qualifications was. received into evidence as Applicants Exhibit 142B.

The purpose of this Affidavit is to provide information L

regarding various issues raised by the Licensing Board in its December 18, 1984, Memorandum, e.g., sampling of torques in cinched down U-bolts at CPSES and A36/A307 steel.

~8501090396 850107 l- - PDR,ADOCK 05000445 G PDR ,

_m --

t.

h:".,7;;/,

.I. Sampling of Cinched Down U-bolts While Applicants committed to retorque every cinched down

.U-bolt'on single struts and snubbers to alleviate any safety

. questions about this issue, it-was our view that the cinched down U-bolts in the field would not likely have excessive preload and ,

would have been able to support the necessary loads. The basis for'our position was not the sampling, but rather (1) the relaxation characteristic of the material used which would provide a reasonable upper bound on U-bolt preload values and (2) the ch'aracteristic of U-bolts at very low preload values to carry loads even if not stable in the truest sense.1 In short, the torque sampling at issue here was not reported to demonstrate-that. work in.the field was acceptable or that no additional work needed to be done. In this regard, given the decision to retorque, the results of the testing program and finite element analyses.were ultimately used only to determine and provide assurance of the acceptability of the torque values to be used in retorquing. In retrospect, these results could have been

obtained without taking a sample. In sum, for the ultimate use of the testing program and' finite element analyses, the adequacy of the sampling is moot.

~1 While we did not attempt to define by test or finite element analysis an absolute minimum level of preload necessary to carry-load, it'was our judgment that even at a very low preload value a U-bolt.would be capable of supporting-the necessary -load. Instead of attempting to confirm this by.

. test, Applicants opted to retorque the affected U-bolts, as noted above.-

l I,~ .

7 d

q l

1 i

l We maintain that reporting and using the average torque values in the sample data was appropriate because of the following:

~

1) the-forces on the pipe and the resulting local stresses I wouldLbe highest at the cross piece to pipe interface and these are determined by the combined tension in the two legs of the U-bolt, i.e., the local pipe stresses are not affected by asymmetry in the leg torques;

2) the'" stability" of the configurations depends on the overall frictional resistance at the pipe cross piece and pipe U-bolt interface and this overall resistance is not affected by asymmetry in the leg torques; and

3) the: difference in torques between the two legs that can exist in the field is limited and there would be a tendency for.any difference to be equalized when the assembly is exposed to vibratory motion (such as due to normal-vibration or earthquakes).2 We have supervised the review of construction packages

! associated with the sampled U-bolts and have identified 43 of the

- appoximately 160 U-bolts sampled which were torqued prior to i.

October 8, 1982 and not retorqued prior to the sample.3 see 2 The limitation in difference occurs because the difference F in leg tension must be. counterbalanced by the frictional i resistance ~at the cross piece to pipe interface to satisfy i moment equalibrium. External loads of a vibratory nature momentarily reduce at each cycle the normal force and hence the frictional resistance at the cross piece to pipe

interface. This reduction,.in turn, reduces the difference I, . between the unequal tension in the two U-bolt legs.

'),'

L 3 .The construction packages of 122 of the approximately 160 U-bolts sampled were reviewed. (We limited our review to construction packages which were readily retrievable.) The date checked in each package was the date of final QC L acceptance of-the associated support's initial installation.

(In that QC acceptance occura after a U-bolt is torqued, l- .other U-bolts sampled may have .been torqued prior to October h 8,11982 and not inspected until after.this date.) Further,

{: the packages associated with the U-bolts torqued prior to October 8, 1982 were checked to assure that subsequent 3

! : modifications-had not caused the U-bolts to be retorqued.

e

i l } i, . .

Table 1 which notes which construction packages were reviewed and l which were torqued prior to October 8, 1982. (Installation of

' pipe supports in Unit 2 began in-late 1977 and continued concurrent with pipe support installation in Unit 1 until late 1983 when virtually all of the Unit 1 pipe support installation was completed.) The torque values of such U-bolts are basically in the same range as those torqued after this date. Accordingly, there is no merit to'the position that construction practices regarding torquing.U-bolts were different for Unit 1 and Unit 2.4

. II. Additional Information Regarding A36 and A307 Steels In response to the Licensing Board's December 18, 1984, Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement) we have

~

reviewed previous testimony by Applicants in this proceeding to identify instances where Applicants discussed the relationship between A36 and A307 steels. We have identified three instances where Applicants discussed directly or indirectly the relation-3 sh'ip between.A36 and A307 steels, including the statement referenced'by the Board in its Memorandum.5 We agree that to the

, <4 Based uponidiscussions.with crew foremen, many of the.same crews that torqued Unit 2 U-bolts also torqued Unit 1 U-bolts.- In this regard, the vast majority of the-construction packages of sampled U-bolts reviewed stated the construction foremen whose crews installed the support (and, by practice, torqued the U-bolts). Of the 45. construction foremen mentioned in the 122 construction packages reviewed, 28 still remained at CPSES. EAll but 3 of the 28 foremen stated that their installation crews worked in both Unit 1 and Unit.2.

(5 See (1) Affidavit accompanying Applicants motion for (footnote continued)

I in 1 l

- 5- ;

extent those previous statements imply that A36 and A307 steels

. are identical materials, they are inconsistent with our

statements in our December 5, 1984, Response.6 Accordingly, we clarify those comments below and address what we believe is the reason for that inconsistency.

First, however, we apologize for this inconsistency. At the time we prepared-.our Response we did not recall these previous ,

statements. If we had, we would have addressed the matter in our Response. We trust that the additional information provided below will satisfactorily clarify the record. We think it is important to note, however, that correcting this apparent inconsistency does not indicate that CASE's assertions which we were addressing are correct or that any conclusions we have drawn in our motions are incorrect. i As we explained in our Response, the specifications for the mechanical properties of A36 and A307 steels are different (Response at 2-3). We provided this information for the Board in our original response because the important consideration for determining representativeness is the relative mechanical

~ (footnote continued from previous page) summary disposition regarding cinching of U-bolts (June 22, 1984), at 5 n.3, (2) Affidavit accompanying Applicants'

. response to CASE's answer to Applicants' motion for summary disposition regarding the effect of gaps (October 26, 1984) at 8-9, and (3) Affidavit accompanying Applicants' motion for summary disposition regarding Richmond Inserts (June 2, 1984), at 43-44 and Attachment A.

6 . Affidavit of' Robert C. Iotti and John C. Finneran, Jr.

accompanying " Applicants'. Response to Board Memorandum (Information on Composition of A36 and A307 steel),"

December 5, 1984.

__ . _ . . . _ _ _. ,. __., _ _ _ ~.___._ _ ..___

c .

properties.. The actual chemical makeup of the steels is not, itself, relevant to the issues involved. However, to supplement our response, with respect to the actual chemical composition of the steels we note that their chemical specifications are not the same. As can be seen in the attached ASTM specifications, there l l

0 are several chemicals in A36 steel which are controlled. The )

l chemical composition of A307 steel is, however, controlled only

. with respect to two chemicals, phosphorous and sulfur. Thus, the chemical compositions of these steels are not necessarily similar. The limitations on their composition are not, however, mutually exclusive and, in fact, a steel may actually satisfy

_ both specifications. Therefore, it is not accurate to state

, without qualification that these steels are the same, t

Consequently, to the extent Applicants' previous comments in this l proceeding implied otherwise, they should be modified.

Nevertheless, as discussed below, in certain applications the 4

steels are, in effect, equivalent because of additional 5

limitations imposed by specification and design requirements.

a.

In our further review of this matter we have concluded that

' our earlier comments on this topic were premised on a -

presumption, in our case held by ourselves and those working for us whom we consulted, that the materials were, indeed ,

E equivalent. As we demonstrated below, for a number of reasons I

this presumption is valid for- certain application of the steels.

W

- ,-g - ,.-3 ,3.__- -v_r, ,v.. , ...r,- , , _y, ...%,,--._-,__,...._,_,4_.-mem,_...., .. , . _ . _ , , , - . , _ , . _ _

J In certain circumstances, by specification and/or ASME design requirements, steels designated as A36 or A307 must have

~

the same mechnical properties and chemical composition. In these situations the steels must satisfy the more extensive A36 chemical and mechanical property limitations, even if they are specified'as an A307 steel.7 Specifically, Section 1.3 of the ASTM Specification 8 for A307 steel (Attachment A) requires that for nonheaded anchor bolts, used for structural anchorage purposes, the material shall conform to the A36 specification.

(Applicants use nonheaded bolts'in their Richmond Inserts but order them as A36 in the first instance.) In addition, ASME provisions governing bolting material properties require that SA307 steel used for this purpose satisfy the chemical and mechanical requirements for SA36 steel.- To illustrate, we have attached applicable portions ~ of' ASME Code Cases 1644-1, 1644-4 and N-249_(which superceded 1644) (see Attachments E, F and G).

The tables establishing yield strength values expressly provide that SA307 steels shall meet SA36 chemical and mechanical 7 An exception to this situation arises with respect to A36

. headed' bolts used for anchorage purposes which are also required to conform to the_A307 Specification (see Section 3, ASTM Specification for A36 (Attachment A)). (See our affidavit'regarding U-bolt cinching, at 5, n.-3 (cited by the Board in its Memorandum, at 4).)

8 .inue ASTM specification is applicable to bolts used in Richmond Inserts. The ASME specifications for A36 and A307 (under which these steels are. designated SA36 and SA307) are essentially equivalent to the ASTM specifications (Attachments.C and D). The "A" and "SA" prefixes have also been used interchangeably in this proceeding.

'u:

requirements.9 Thus, for design purposes, SA36 and SA307 bolts l which are governed by these requirements may be considered l

" equivalent". In summary, the presumption that A36 and A307 steels are " equivalent" is based on restrictions imposed by both specifications and design requirements. Again, however, the steels are not the same but only equivalent in certain contexts.

We wish to reemphasize that Applicants use only A36 steel both in U-bolts and bolts used in Richmond inserts.10 CASE's t

repeated assertions to the contrary are incorrect. We hope the additional information we have provided regarding both A36 and

'A307 Uill assist in clarifying the subject for the Board.

The Board commented in its Memorandum (at 5) that:

Applicants' tests related to friction, stiff-ness, relaxation and creep, characteristics

'of steel that are not readily assertained from data on yield and tensile strength.

We'are not certain what the Board's precise concern is from this

- comment. We~ surmise that the Board also is interested in information to demonstrate the representativeness of steels'in

~

the field with respect to these properties. Accordingly, we

- provide information below to respond to that concern.

j; D

9 ~ We recognize that there'are differences in-the manner in-which requirements for different grades of A307 steel are established under the Code Cases. We do not address those differences here because they are not relevant to Applicants' practices at issue.

r 10 A single exception to the use of A36 steel in bolts'used in l Richmond Inserts was noted in our affidavit regarding I Richmond Inserts (at 9).

(

- 9-With respect to friction, it is true that friction may not be-readily ascertained from data on yield and tensile strengths.

The most'significant factors affecting friction are surface roughness, component geometry (e.g., out of roundness) and the presence of surface imperfections.ll We believe that the tests performed in connection with our motion regarding U-bolt cinching accounted for the effects of friction in a manner which accurately reflects possible variations in components used in actual supports in the field.

There are two reasons for this conclusion, as follows:

(1) the components used in the test were take directly from the Comanche Peak site and, thus, surface and geometrical conditions-would be representatiave of the '

supports in the field (see discussion below at 11),

(2) we accounted for possible surface polishing by running repeated friction tests, producing much greater polishing than would be anticipated in the field (because of the numerous.retorquings of each U-bolt in the tests) and employed the lower values of the friction coefficients obtained from either tests (with or without polishing) (see Attachment 1 to our affidavit regarding U-bolt cinching (Westinghouse Report) at 24-28).

.With regard to creep, it is not an important factor for the supports in the field. Specifically, for the A36 steel used in U-bolts, creep in not an important consideration until 11 One-can postulate that yield strength'will have some, albeit relatively insignificant, effect on friction. As a contact surface is cold worked (e.g., as may occur between a U-bolt and. pipe), its surface can be rendered smoother and, therefore, the friction coefficient can be lowered. The i lower the yield strength of the material the' lower the load at which cold worked (surface-polishing) occurs, all other effects being equal. However, this effect on friction is minor compared to the other characteristics noted above.

j.

I

k 4 % $

0

- temperatures exceed approximately 700 F (see Attachments H and f I).12 The tests demonstrated that the peak temperature of the cinched U-bolts used at the plant will be less than 500 F (see Attachment 3 to our affidavit regarding U-bolt cinching at 16).13 Thus,' creep is not'of concern for the actual supports in the field.' For the same reason, creep also is of no concern for the .I nuts used on the U-bolts. I With respect to stiffness, the Board is incorrect in j 1- concluding that our tests related to stiffness. We drew no conclusions regarding stiffness from the tests at issue here.14 With respect to relaxation, the Board correctly recognized that Applicants' U-bolt tests did address this factor. The Board is incorrect in assuming that relaxation is "not readily ascertainable.from data on yield and tensile strength" (Memorandum at 5). Yield strength is a very important parameter in assessing relaxation characteristics. In fact, we noted in

~ 12 Another. reference suggests that creep is not discernable below 0.4-times the metal absolute melting temperature,.

which would correspond to 524 F (Attachment J). Attachments H, 1 and J will be transmitted separately.

.13 Of course, at the contact point in the vicinity of the apex of the U-bolt the temperature will be near the temperature :

of the pipe. The maximum pipe temperature at issue is approximately 560 F. The temperature of the U-bolt rapidly decreases from'this peak value (see Attachment 3 to Affidavit regarding cinching of U-bolts at 15-16).

14 . Applicants'did perform tests to determine the actual

stiffness of six specific supports. These tests were used in'our motion for summary disposition regarding generic stiffnesses (affidavit at 4-5, Attachment 1). However, these tests involved specific supports (the entire support structure was tested) and were used only for comparison to the calculated and assumed generic stiffnesses.

. . 1

- 11 -

our original Response (at 2-3) that because a test for yield strength was not required by the specification for A307 steel,

-there was no basis for determining the relaxation characteristics of components using A307 material. Thus, our discussion of the

representativeness of yield and ultimate tensile strengths is responsive to the Board's concern.

The Board has also indicated that it would like additional information regarding the representativeness of U-bolt configurations used in Applicants' tests to those in the plant (Memorandum at 5-6). We would first like to note that we did not intend to withhold any information in this regard. As we discuss below, the information which is responsive to the Board's question is already included in information presented to the Board.

As was stated in the test report accompanying Applicants' motion for summary disposition regarding cinching.of U-bolts (as Attachment 1 to our Affidavit at 3-4), test items were provided by Texas Utilities to Westinghouse. These items included pipe segments as well as the U-bolt supports. Further, insulation ,

struts, pins and clamps were also provided by Texas Utilities so that test configurations could simulate as closely as possible

-the actual field installation configurations. To be clear, these s - - ,- --g,-- e-- - .-:-,, ..-~vg,,----w-'m ~w-r- -w nor-w -n ,-~---w-,- ~~w -,-~---vvm'e'--*,-'=---n~ww-a-+-v=-mm m-wev~~- , e w-r " n , e v

items were taken from stock materials for use in the tests.15 HThus, test items were representative of the supports in the ,

I field.

With respect to the actual dimensions of the supports, the l

tested configurations were taken directly from support drawings and, thus, were typical of field configurations (Appendix I to Attachment 3 of_ Applicants' Affidavit regarding Cinching U-bolts). Further, because the individual componelats, including U-bolts, were taken from stock materials, their specific

-dimensions are standard (subject to fabricating tolerances) and, thus,-representative of components in the field.

-With respect to the Board's apparent concern regarding "the extent to which test results may be applied to actual configurations found in the plant" (Memorandum at 6), we note that in establIishing the preload to which each support in the

' field will be torqued, the actual configuration of each support in the field will be used. Specifically, for each configur--

ation all relevant dimensional parameters will be taken from the actual configurations, i.e., pipe size and schedule,'U-bolt size, uns well as the lever arm between the outer surface of '

O r

r 15 Except for one size of U-bolt (2-3/4"), which was obtained

~

from ITT-Grinnell because it was unavailable at Comanche -

Peak at the_ time it was required-for the tests.

q

1-x the moment tending to rotate the assembly about the pipe), and inclination angle between the strut or-snubber and the U-bolt assembly. -

The Board has suggested that Applicants had not provided ;

information regarding the " statistical error" of the sample i (Memorandum at 5). We provided the standard dev/.ations for both distribution curves in our original Response (Flytres 1 and 2). - g

( ,

7 The standard deviation is ai, measure of the statistical error of --

the sample. To explain further, we provide additional' y .

\ . 1 information below which is applicable to ' both Figures 1 and 2.

Thestandarddeviationfiscomputedf[tm.

(I = ( Sn 2)/n - S,y 2' 1/2 _ .

4

. n ,

where n is the number of items sampled (e.g., the, number of bolts i

/* for which the actual yield strength is noted), Sn is the value of

(

each []rticular sample (e.g.,4the actual yield strensth for the n th UJoolt sampled), and S ayg is the average value of all samples combined (e.g., the average yield strength, which is'normally called the sample mean). As already noted, the standard deviation is a measure of the statistical error of the sample.

Applicants recognize that the sample taken is only a limited sample of a much larger population of U-bolts.- Thus, other Had other samples been taken, I samples could have been taken.'

their mean values and sta'ndard deviations would have been, in all likelihood, different. We recognize ~that there are many other i

measurements of error rates in statistical sampling (e.g.,

t. /

1 u.. ?

t variance of sample mean and variance of the standard deviation of the sample). If the Board requires additional information in this regard we can provide it. However, given that we assessed in our previous response the maximum effect on the conclusions in our motions for summary disposition from variations in materials the field (by evaluating the impact assuming field specimens had the minimum specified yield and tensile strengths), we believe our assess' rent was fully adequate.

't Finally, the Board should note that the histograms refer to the actual sample values, e.g., the peak of the histogram in Figure 1 corresponds to the number of U-bolts which have yield

. strengths between 44500 and 45500 psi. Each square represents 9

one U-bolt. The curves, f, are the Gaussian (or normal) fit to the histogram. In addition, the actual properties of the t-materials employedcin the tests are written in Figures lA and 2A (attached). The figures are resubmitted with symbols in the histograms reflecting where 7.he strength of the test items would fall.I We have also corrected the histograms, which had a few minor plotting inaccuracies in the totals reflected in the histograms.16lI I 16 Thevafueofthepeakofthecurve, either C, has no effect on particu(the standard 2ar sample willdeviation or the probability have a strength in excess that of a any strength value. For the former, it is obviously particul'ar;C true since does not appear in the equation for the standard deviation. For the latter, the probability is given by the area ~under the curve up to the particular strength value, where the area under the total curve is normalized to unity.

f 't

~

\

Robert'C. Iot;l N

Cd M p C. Finneran, Jr.

Fn L STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF SCNERVELL Subscribed and swom to before me this 7th day of January,1985.

.8a CG he 1%tary Pultic U

~

s.<y cemesswou expu.s mca .21, /98 g 4

~

W

' ' ~ ~ ,, , , , . ,.

i TABLE 1 ' ~~ ~' ~

f ,1e ** g f~02Gud l0f* so(W

// W# Bo&T */

g ,

8xT* f

/, c 2- 012- 4/7 .34-zs T 2o zd

.t- .V , f, . c - oI2 4ll- 547. K. 4 C 2- 32

.h [Y.) ch- 0I4 912-S dz S

$O 25

. 3,- V }{cshol4-4I9-S4%[ 2. 0 So

//, ,! (+0- FM - 2.87 - 54 t-)

l 'Z. //

$ J Mc p 54 M -e>c 4 0

~

V /, J Do ,z $Yi- 4a - s, x 20 l7 N A- -

I 2 - z - oz.i 4-o.4 - 5 Sz (-- 4'q/ /7 2o h e

/--

2,i^ 1 -

o /3- 1/5 - s 3 z /<

et go 4 c, <: '

t- V O/8-4/5-3432' 4'f 48 52 /

-ol8 -4/ 7 -SG7$ "

30 L 2, - V J,' / - 004 - Gol - 5 Ceg2Y 4.s.

~

.S] $0} ;

v ? 3z G- d / o- 5 S~GE co d> 25 j '2 4 /

p V ,! c5 3 z.c 4o/ .,554[ " 2'z- 7 'l >

y C5 - 2 <> u 9 - 100 ' 5 5'il~ l ('yy , 3- jg -

~1 ' 'V , ,?I :.I Q2 c 3gg- 4c t.- SS %K

3'O> 25- *z S g,,

'4 o/c Q

~ .. .j. c 5 - z - 7 2 o - 7os - 5 53 /2 3h 2o / -

.: }

M/): SM - l 299 - ,- l '8 c , & 5~ ' '

V d5 C;T '2. - o z I ,405 -3 5 btk 43 @f

< - 2 .z 2 6 - d2 5 - $ 3 (i d) 3C g,/ :

- Z - C// - 9o a z (6h 2O b -

V

M' 2* 2.7]o 410- --kh$b 25 2# l Checks indicate the construction packages which were reviewed.

- Checks indicate the construction packages containing cinched down U-bolts which were torqued prior' to October 8,1982 and not subsequently modified and reto.r.qued prior to .the sampling.

5 Ys-. .~ ~:

f ~T~

0 200d*

ce? 3 fplf It'4 A /6 6 2 W o . l gar # / bat *2 L- OG 3 - 4 / (, - 5 2.ElI 'dj 2D /5 Ibz-o/z 4to- s zEb t$y

: :. 35 4o. /

.[:. ih[. .k .

Noc3 - 4/ 7- S z.t $ hp oic 41 30 / $;

..g i ,r.z.Os,-sot- s ur 8'f w do 4S <- '

y'" . # a- t - osc - coi- sz20"8y ou ,,

so go /

TD ,

+

>r

- ofs 3- 4/8- 5%I2 /04 75'

t o83- En -5 3sr#hiv 56 58 - -

- E '

2. - 069 - co i- S 3 3 k#/8) 50 65 /

V

$2- oM- do? - 5 555 *IS} 30 40 '

& l $p-i- zia- 459 -Szce *be w 27v* W

~

3- y t zc - o7-Szd,/2 # 4"$ fo 4o /,

0 2 fo J

t. -' V - z.- G44 -9 3 I - S u fl k {.So V

h 2 - of1 - 440 *S%IC l$h 3.5~ 'l. ~1 W Z o ' Wi [

i@f/-/ 1- o2.8- 403 -332[B') /o I

s. . ..'

s-l

...,- . . , j ..

.:- , ~J .

[

...1

, , , . . -3, l

t.

T l -

/- 2/ 89 ; *'t

. .t k

V

?

T ',

q

...a 1

9 .'

. - c. .- . . .

~

$D$

< H AIG7 Efl Afo- eccr

1 goc 7+ e D k C' S

NA6 8to Mdu w A /

S R 6 f//o M o<J ;z $ 5~o gg .

. .?

l9.*.?;.j':

. l-,b .lk 2*'d'(3} 17.55 <f $ f'.) '

' y' : r

,7gyn , g 9_ j$ /

l$

5 o'Zd)op }O /

ll ' ' ' .' .O 4'o(S) 14 s 30' $ ~2 ./

/0b)ll$

E

'zg }o /

O

. . I, (0 .$ @- o ,.

O M) 9.6 5 27 27 '

I

[G Y

, a y c.s. ae go wa.(Y)} h "O a $

4$'

..l SAN $*U $ C)YS)

$ Y,33 N h[ l

.! 3'-o73)9;M 26- 2f v

' /

/(>TS}9.}S l .

9p

\ G d'( a) MS Y 2

l$ /

zg _ ,

~

i clots) ,0, 3;, .

% $ ' j.c 6'-o"60 n s k .., t b -

-s. *

( .

8

..-1

.' 1. ; .

f af. m- . n

'i i - _.

/- 2t - 84 t

.E D

4

. t.

. ..c _ . _;

1

.~

ficlp t

iMd6crt A/c. roapuc Cf.

~

' O'- E - o/ 3 - 7 /4 - 5 3 z rt. /6 Ne Z //o / M

. $.. .;.; 1.! . . . . . . .,

i h CF 2 - oi5 4-/ 2 - 3 39fl /fo t 05-66 50 *

.' D5E o 7f - 4o4 - s e, i K.

~

K 25

~

r l'. l{ .?.f!b, IG4

'lb / %

k ,

bcc-g p37 44 543g jgy $//O / z5 ,

. . ,V. .

iOct - t-759 - 407 as? !-l2's

$23 87; ;

e _ . .

r i

i e

,t

. 1

. . . .,. . ~ ..

j. j 8

6

. ..s.

. . . . . . .a. ..

- . s

~ %' 0 m /.2884

.. t-t 1

. 4 .

A I

,o .. .. . ,

3s

, , -, ,,-,--,,,,,.c--.

r-c ur , i nia v . iwa . w -- - . .

a 702Gl./E O)' nW '

M&tz. Alb. ear =/ exraz

.W. V $ 2.- (9 5 - 4 L4 - c 5 i. tz"'n

,r------*

48 3 5~ v

'pg:bc *

t - . ,- . , . ,

.,s a . .

,, ,. ?. - . . ,-

.,?..Y. ~

~ EO ~ 'f U G % )) i" Of "i .

y .'.wsz9:y 2 sg y

.; . ' ?.~ V . :

,. .g;;w.;;s. .v

. : . :.i. d:%. 3 t-oQ

- L5'l cc.. \n **)"4 1

/o zb :s

..: . .~3 '. //O- 55/ - /2 6 '2. 71

', ,'l

'Z / '5~

~l O 2 'd 'IO' 5l-) '

.. . . ~O ... ..: :- . . :." .6 H O - T'[l '2 I3 .

l.

7 t, ; '*i y ,

c -z. - 1b(p '- QIQ - C 5 Y '(o + (O /O

".N -M ~. h-t. - 246, -4 2 3 - c 5 3 ;1 *(, ', /O / c) / :

' '5 W

%-: ': : R. i t57 - qqz . c5 z tc.W 544 l2' h

L;. ;-

~

'. 'l

- z. - lSI- 4 / JC - C 5 L fl d A2 50 Kf;.- ;

.: - I g y- ~f . ; mS- 2 -iff- 9 4o- CS z tco /c 1 *'w Z. S 5 &> l l V W }/)- z -o4'c,-4c+ -C55(c 5y

'l ') l l

._ , _ - ---r u>w wy y G47 ;

. : gw, . a <, - n i

'l I

L *** :

111 2- (Sl- Gil CS z /

4') 5 f0 l Z7 25

-h p . ' ., cc Zo r - 4to - c 5 3 /t 3 p U*bh

. 'ta .

&7- 2 :ogg-4oz ccis ' US ' zs .

2 l l%

y.Vf i:-l.&f h. .z-3s-425-cqzf $ 1$ 30

. . s

f. h.. .Y ...~..,:.,

-;- . . . ~ . - .!I .': .i h ^2 -027 -40,- C42 A 8$,

3S AS ,. .

Z 2

- 'a . ff.[.~$h?39-E w . g cd hit, -(4c ,z. 9t,3'*e -

2 *2-W :.' \ h. 2- oot- 4 zt, c 9c,it T l'd W 5c) si/n /

- -m

' 1. ~. - .. .;.

1 A.' z - or 7 -40 9 -ff z/2 5 e/c q{ #0 U-)

f# g .- )

.. * '-Mn (l) p* 1,p 70 k - . . ' :f!f-i r-2 42.3- C424o t ,4 o J.p s ,f r.t Y

~~

^

Y 'h E N5'W j'.

l.lST2-30(a$0i* C # 2 IE __ _ _ __

- 4 r#

' ~ -

~.: .

"l. .-

1

_ - . . t:.i .o i ~: . . i. ' &

Ih 7^o2Gud

[h & H'ddCr&E do. gou-#; y7 *g

' s?z-og7- k c4za W'& ci o go /

. .. u . _ . :. -.

h.t g -i . 50s, - 9 zi -4')

-; c 4z se 25 z.o / /& 1,

.. . . . . v. s . .

g'k

.~. .

. $':.f \/ *I ~ OY3~ 405 ~ ( Y& A 4 /O /5 /Af-

}g3,.g.;og,J,z__c4.z,g6Kf.

lj,,; [' _

~.'... .

4 , 3, zg ,

)I~300' Ib* '4~ 2 I?- Y 'b 30

.. ...:. c. .

3L

~~

f~ z -ogg- 4-t 0 - C124 (,0 / .{

't 8'f g g =g * , -

n

. ,. .>1* -L 01o- fo~p -C 9( }tagW % 20 5 '

hr 0Q5- gog c4a &O'y- 40 So '

W 5 .f6 ' 50 l

- nl - 4 ol- c42.K O"6 l

l. -

U '~

t. - b-z.109 - 4n - cesn 0%y jh 2 -lof -goy -cg/ K OK $'b 20 zWN l 8q & s-w h in 7-o3 - c.9 28 Oo*4K c' " "

ok isp t 75

,Jo) po)/

'. 45-

' F we-z- 030 - qzz.- COGx # 3'@ 2. 6 - 3 f :/'

5 ~~ - E -o74 - 4// - c 4z./ CON 3 'S Zo yo /

.y.-

/

z ,;.p. .. .

.;; ., yo.2z.7 1g g, .

zr4 5 4

. e

.-c IO

.e '

i ,';',[ '" //0- 2 7- ?.4 E Z- 7- /0 2 '.

I I40 927 27 E Z 24 5 6

[140-7,17 27K2 2'S S 5 i ., !

5 5

~

l

, ld Q- $ 7.7- % K 2 () h ?. . ,

zy .5' E ,! y o .Sz7 -id t_ 6 <

I 1._. . . . . . -- .-. . . . .. . - . .

S 4

. : * . ,' ' , *1

~

7hecus a -

ff4d&&d A/O.^ tSocy */ %;rW,g.

~

(-l Q - 50 7 -lo 7 -86 L S 4

. . .. . e

.c

. , .e.. ,. .a.dy .: . .' lje- 501 -l ($ 5 5

(.'. . . -b. . 'QW.:.

~: t.I o - Scq - I 21 iy 5 (o z.; g .p . Q.7::l:..

.y .

,. s~ Hr) - 507 - log- (Zty-t 9 9 (o-

. r;. e .:, .. .: : . 3 IJ O - So 3 - 106 n 4- 5' '

u n. 501 - 109. [26 L Z9 5 5 a n . 5o 1 - L. V,7 4 5 y. .

H o- sol I 7/4 6 ') -

. p I)-q(,4-7_ %p /o 7 /

.1

- (40 996-3-102 }l4f 4 4 &

I-i I

l

, .. j , .

. ,. . . y. u.;. .

. .g.. ; .. .;

.s.-.

.;. p. . g

. * .1 . . . A

.. . .. .. .........,..".,.<..s.-

r. .. m. .. : ,-:..

. 9. . ,

e ,

a=r- ~ _

...: _ . *.- . . ( . .>, .

/- 2/ .

.. .u. .. . . . ' .. . ' . -..

. .c

. .. + .

/ /$(. /d / l0 TC /. . l 'E r .9 ,

<)(r top

\

65,.i 62, + 1

%p- ~ 0

~

,P

/$ 0 'L.- g i 3 dsa D c%- *.-" ' * '6

'af $d' o a

=c

~~W j. ,~~

~~t~ -~~
.'fy0-z-%=go4.-T4.55rz{ DC 56 Y
..;... :$.nh/ 0 2. - 055- 407 -745s
/Of
~~70 97 l/~~
'O '
.6,a 4: 1,5-ivi ,is: : l. aisNo. a
.. .. .-g .-
~ 19.__.
~w is- ^ >
.$k . C< ab ?: .:- C zu " f yo & 23 Y
~'
. by 037-9oq - T455t z"f ? 25 27 l L'~ V /doko - L- Oto -quL-745L) 30" l ? I'l 6 '85 -
V- $x- 2 cbt 4.'oI- T4ss I 4[4 7 ~L6 I9 /.
l- V 0'2- o3z - 4by pd5D 2+ f f 2'S 55 I-V AS-L-097 - 401 - 745S
~
(4'f , 60 ll D /6i
~~()w.~~
r t- oor- Gov- res2 20 9,,5 f, 12 5 3a so f
~~ I F~ /rp-z -oM40.s.nsA- 5 o l2S 1oo Y W23 V ~
t$$$54+4 -7358 30 $1 l Y
i
.z G.:# p O. z . 044.- goz - 7;55 jg .
IM-2 *odf*405 - 7%) l4 " l2 6 IZS L. -
'$= .C :. a
. t ~ .??$.? k t 10- 2 O *1* dO' - 1555 llo'.' 05 6'S I'*
f //f I
~
t, k '
'Tm f.; 9 9 , 4ot. . -t 2,5 g l4" ,
60 ,
y .
v/) 011 an - 7 55 3 SO" 55 (o7
% L' L -- f. ~'S _
b'O-z-o7o- do:)- T~350 do " '75 .
~
L-b .t#'## .. ...-.. .
G
... . T O .
I J
~***
. 2 -* e * . $
1 m
., .. c ...
(,f '
/JAd W AIO ToSGt18 Y V O- t - 015 + 0 2 - T 5 5.5 ^ llo c;,o /
l/O-L o*7 *L - 40 z- - T % D k!f 46 /30
~~3.. . . .T~~
}'f...W 4.o j fw-t- 0o 4. - go t - TSS 5 tfg po Q,
?*f. .$h.::.
53 /,
-~
.~: P. . ' - . *
~
~~{ fw- z - m+- 40z.- 7555 zQ 35 U 4c) +7 I~~
~~a. .... J ., . ..f i% 009 - 904- T5SS~~
)
29'y .~
'O
~~'V ' do 04 7 ,4 59 4151). - 12 'p (,oo 55 / -~~
- f y. - h 'V Co - 2 OA z.- 459 - rig 0- tzf 95 75 /
75 bO l
~~Q y go .z. cSg . got . TISS , 24).~~
~~. - /> ~ V l 140- L - 045- 4cs. Tt52- Id4 3 fo V / .~~
W .
V I-10 044 - Gota - 7ise (U'<l Go 18 L, ~ V 044- - ToS'- TI5 R IU'k 70 76
,I l(1)- 2
. f,,,
-- 'V l ,'l0 z - off- fo 9 - 1455 /c'd, /7 25 / ^
j, - l, J.[t). 2.-- 318 - dat - 7455 - l2"h 10 &O /
-V ;; Ex 012 - 402.- 74 SS- 30'$ 50
~.*.
60 -
y
, V,
.l N/)-z-s 14 - qui - 74ss -t6 y &S 80 / .
..y;. 79.,: .;
55
. :; f. * .
. 5 7 :t oo 4.- got - 7%S S -(4"p 6o ./ ..,
';' . ' M: ,,
f Alo-2.- 32 3 4o3 -7455 - /i'f 37 45 / '.'
.c e . .- .. .. ..
~'.g,.. " .: -
.s -* '[ *. * ~ h bX- /
~~000 * $Oh~~
~~Tk5h* ik,. --~~
kb $b l h, 4
{ ,
+ t*
-1 '
~ 5 h; . .
. , , , - __ . _ . lOY_ .
m 4* A; y -:
I
. .- 3
.9
~
le
.. r I
m u-s*< T
^fuPPoR T 4 ptP8 b TYP5 TORav E GWe R . o n7-2 V c s 2 o2 - vo2-saa 3" 20- m -" g y/m,/gy p(is-go h t) cc Mo- vo/- 9$ Gl*g"" <.E C ks &A y//v/sY Le /
Vir/sy WV e -2.- no -yto- 9h f,',~*}*
, < 2 cn-a .2'P-.
-2-g4 so-as".-)'a Al.L 4 Md1" ggy le . Ar-2-o%- 410- ssax 4"4 Pas o40 g 4g73y (VE9) 10"r*f-w PUS-040 5-/0 ,gfr-a ygy g M y AF-2-103-44I- SS3M 4"$
(S') g-io"*
25 .v"'*
AF-2-079-4I9- 555K 4."$ ,'g h//]f 5'- 7-8f L.- ,
L. ' cs-2-079-4/ O-MS S'$
'O~
hk$l 5~- 7-84 '
(b c) r-io"::
eus.oso ~'
ng, )))7) g-g-8+ !
V CT-2-053-444-d k 3V (yg -,
Fr-tr II RIS-046 V ST-2-306 -425-c41x 4 $ g4 sgW-" hAOI g-/044- ,
l fus-04-0 2 3"^ #
V AF-2~joz-423-ses 4,,$ g,4 ,
,7 p. ppy g _ ,g 9 4 7dH415' 53W4 ,g y 3 .Si-2-RB-049- 709-1 pl ),"$ ,,
n @ f} W-* ,, ,
W
, ,_ p V AF-2-102-4zz-SS.s g 4g ,
5 L
,2
4=
<- (
u-cosv
}(' aw.a r ,, ,,,a g rvon rwaa a, a . oaa l W' ~ ' .-
,e y.
f /Q Y '*' ~ W " YCL '$/ M /O (/ *$) fs .s1 -16 ("#' }, t . ['
i h #T-/$ _
,d* e 5 -te o D'~ P r-/L to ' (pp) ?* '^'4 ( g- S~- 2. Y - P y' gy.t-or:-ut-sc?A fus zvo & f* PT-ts .
4 0 o =r-ts gq V~ L Y~ Y C C. - 2. - 0 L P - Wlis}.V : 1- 4 " ( g "p) c
~?e a:r-ts
~~lb f h t. /4 y 1s* s~r-/s C T- 2. ot>~. us? ClaK N" {N'f los~ k-/G f 4*- t'r /L h C ~ J. '-l - f f t~~
3 e
G e
l l
J I
ATTACHI!ENT A f Designation: A 36 - 81a an.e,.c.a anac,ar.ca sia o
- e.=an =
4 Standard Specification for STRUCTURAL STEEL' This standard is mued under the 6med deugnauon A 36. the number immediatelt touceing the deugnanon indicates the year
~~' or enginal adoption of. an the case or reviuon.the wear or last revisson A number in parentheses indicates the year or last >~~
seapproval. A superscnpa epulon set indicates an eddonal change since the last revision or reapprosai sfacaine s appro*edfor aae bv egencers of she Department of Defense endfor listong en she DoD Indee of I. Scope A563 Specification for Carbon and Alloy 1.1 This specification' covers carbon steel Steel Nuts' _
shapes. plates. and bars of structuralqualitv for A 570 Specification for Hot-Rolled Carbon .j Steel Sheet and Stnp' use in riseted, bolted, or welded construction of bridges and buildutgs. and for general strue. A 668 Specifcation for Steel Forgings. Car- 7 tural purposes. When the steel is used in welded bon and Alloy.for Generalludustnal Use' construction. welding procedure shall be suit- 3 Appurtenant Materials abic for the steel and the intended service.
j l.2 Supplementairequirementsareprovided 3.1 Unless otherwise provided in the order. 1 where improved notch toughness is important. the current edition of the specifications of the ** %g These shall apply only when specified by the American Society for Testing and Matenals purchaserin the order. Inted in Table I shall govern the delisery of 1 l
1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units otherwise unspecified materials not avadable :
are to regarded as the standard. tn the product forms cosered by this specifica- *%
tion when included with matenal purchased
2. Applicable Documents under this specification. Unless otherwise spec-2.1 ASTNStaridardr ified, all plam and threaded bars used for an-l A6 Specification for General Requirements chorage purposes shall be subjected to mechan- i for Rolled Stect Plates. Shapes. Sheet Pal. ical tests and shall conform to the tensile re-ang. and Bars for Structural Use' quirements of Section 8; headed bolts used for A27 Specification for Mdd to Medium. anchorage purposes shall conform to Specifi. ]
cation A 307. and all nuts shall conform to the l s Strength Carbon Steel Castings for Gen.
l l l eral Applicauon* requirements of Specification A 563. Grade A
! A 283 Specification for Low and Intermedi.
~~1. Cmral %uirements for DeHin) ate Tensile StrenEth Carbon Steel Plates.~~
4.1 Material furnished under this specifica-Shapes, and Bars' l
l A307 Specification for Carbon Steel Enter-nally Threaded Standard Fasteners' ' Tasa spuincanon is unider she iuniamuon on astu A325 Specification for High Strength Bolts Commin" A 8 on 5'eet 5'a'a'e= 5'ees aaJ Reta'ed Aliots i
lor Sirattral Steel Jomts' ,'
"d l,,,',",' 3, d ','"'
"'P""" *d" ? 5" *"'"""'"" "'*'; *"
A 300 Specification for Cold Formed L urrene eduson appro*eJ July 31 anJ Oss W lot P"*bhed #*""* '*'2 " '"838? P"*h'hed *' * * ~ '"' T Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Struc. Last pre == sus eduson A M 7 tural Tubirg in Rounds and Shapes' ror Asut so ier and Prewure venet code Spris,.
A 501 Specificanon for Hot Formed Welded "' *ee 'el*'ed SPeutications 5446 en 5euion 11.4 shas
~~
and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural T inn , sos ,r Asru s. t,d . ran a Tubing' l Annui ses ot A stu sraa,. , ran :
d""** 8'*4 of Asru stand,as. rans i and 4 A 502, Specification for Steel Structural Riv- .' Annuo' sus of Asyv soana rds. para 3 and a ets ' An.at auk of Astu sneaards.ran s ;
4 j
137 j
um l
~
y Y -
($1 A36 ,,,,
tion shall conform to the applicable require- requirements presenbed in Table 2. except a- n.nn-Ttie sr g ,,,,. ..ien.a ments of the current edition of Specification specined in 5.2.
A 6. 7.2 The steel shall conform on product anal. "**
5. Bearing Plates ysis to the requirements prescribed in Table 2 pm, m 3,3,nn subject to the product analysis tolerances in sieei nwn 5.1 Unless otherwise specined. plates used Specincation A 6. except as specined in 7.3. Bonn as bearing plates for bridges shall be subjected to mechanical tests and shall conform to the 7.3 Product analysis is not applicable for bar-size shapes or flat bars b in. (13 mm) and
[,f]"l,"I'*
casi ssut tensile requirements of Section 8. under in thickness. F ors'at$ '*
5.2 Unless otherwise specified. mechanical 7.4 When tension tests are waived in accord. H r ds ng ie tests shall not be required for plates over I % in. ance with 8.2. chernistry consistent with the noi.rormee tus (38 mm)in thickness used as bearing plates in requirementsin Table 2. and with the mechan.
3,,,,,,,
structures other than bridges. subject to the ical properties desired must be applied.
requirement that they shall contain 0.20 to 0.33cr carbon by beat analysis. that the chemi. 8. Tensile Requirements 14' h
W cal composition shall conform to the require- 8.1 The material as represented by the tesi
~
Procact 5 "* P
ments of Table 2 in phosphorus and sulfur specimen, except as specified in 5.2 and 8.2. ',,
3 .,
content, and that a sufHeient discard shall be shall conform to the requirements as to the gii ow .
made from each ingot to secure sound plates. tensile properties prescribed in Table 3. D*""""* iad 8.2 Shapes less than I in.8(645 mm')in cross
~~6. Process~~
~~' section and bars, other than flats. less than b carbon man~~
~~O 2' ' '.~~
6.1 The steel shall be made by one or more io. (13 mm)in thickness or diameter need not wanpa'* 5 of the following processes: open-hearth, basic- be subjected to tension tests by the manufac- om t '
oxygen. siectnc-furnace. turer. ,,,,po,,, mat c s gur mit s 00 -
$.2 No rimraed or capped steel shall be used 8.3 For material under b in (8 mm) in silico*
for plates and bars over b in. (13 mm) thick or thickness or diameter. a deduction from the ccpp,,, ,,,, g o n,e o:0 0 :0 for shapes other than Group 1. percentage of elongation in 8 in. (203 mm;. w p ,ieciaira.
~~specified in Table 3. of 1.25"c shall be made for iiied~~
~~7. Chemical Requirements each decrease of % in. (0.8 mm) of the specified a uangnew wniem d 0 85-I M 8""~~
7.1 The heat analysis shall conform to the thickness or diameter below % in.
St'PPLEMENTARY REQt'IREMENTS These requirements shall not apply unless specified in the order.
Standardized supplementary requirements for use at the option of the purchaser are hsted in Specincation A6. Those which are considered suitable for use with this specification are hsted below by title.
~~55. Charpy V Notch Impact Test. SI4. Bend Test.~~
ADDED StlPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS In addition the following optional supplementary requirements are also suitable for use with this specincation. .
SI. The material supplied shall be other than rimmed or capped steel.
S2. The material to be supplied shall be silicon-killed fine grain practice.
(}
l I
2 J
l 138
< ~
h A36 TABLEI Meiertal Spectacetimes O NOTE-The specifier should be satsfied of the suitabilitv of these matenals for the intended apphcation Matenal
^
Dessgaation 1
1 B
A 283. Grade C* l Plate in be bent or formed cold A 502, Grade ad 1 Sicel niets A 307* ;
Bolts A 325 '
High.sirength bolts A 563 Steel nuts A 27. Grsde 65-35' C ase steel A e6A. Class D F orgingsicarbon steelt Hot rolled sheets and sinp A 570. Grade 36 Cold. formed tubing A $00. Grade B Hot-formed tubing A Sol
~~These base to.cr peld point than A 36 steel-t T ABLE 2 Chesucal Bewweinents Bars shapes~~
~~Plases Product Over '.~~
Over % Over Over Over l's to 2*a to 4 To1 to 15 D' # D #
To 5. to l's #
~~19 to All 4!9h e19so 2';i38 464to #102) 196 s102k sl02:~~
Tiucknen.in immn to u s. 102k mcl. 381 inct 3sk act.
'"'I' inct inct inct 0 29 0 26 0 27 0 28 0 29 0 25 0 26 0 27 Carboa. man. % 0 26 0 2$
0 IS- O to- 0 60- Oe4 0 k0 0 no- 0 85-Manganese. 4 0 90 0 90 0 90 1 20 1.20 1 20 1 20 0 04 0 04 0N O 08 0 04 0 ne o 04 0 64 Phosphorus. man. 9 0M 0 04 0 05 0 05 0 05 0 05 0 OS 0of 0 09 0 05 0 05 0 05 =
Sulfur. man. 4 0 15 0 15 0 15 Silm;onM 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 20 0.20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 Ou 0 20 0 20 0 20 Copper. min.". mhen 0 20 copper steelis spec.
ified
~~Manganese content of 0 s3 4 35 c. and sibcon content of 0.15-0 40 r, is required for shapes over 426 lb e~~
b E' 139
_e w -,ww- --
ee-----,- - , , - , _ . , . , ,,e- ,- , ,- ,ww---- -
~
h A36 *
.q noN NAnCrv.t ASTH TABLE 3 Tensee Rw._.us* STANDARD Plaies. Shapet* and Bars Teasda strength. ksi s MPas 58-50 Yeeld poine. nun. ks:(MPas i M 550s Plates and Bars *
~~h t250f Elongatum m 3 an or 20u mm 20" min. 5 Ed*'4. m 2 m or m ea 23 Standard Specificaggog {~~
shapes Elongauen an 8 in or 200 ma min. g 20
HEAT TREATED CARI Elonganon an 2 sa or 50 mm. Thn atandard n minA 21e ed undct the fined Jeutut'"" A I ont N m ,onre,nion.I
]s ,p ,,
~~For plaies enfer than 24 in. to 10 mm s. the test specimen a~~
~~A6iaken m the uans.erse direcuon see s i.2 of specincaison~~
~~1. Scop'~~
~~For wide flange shapes over 4:~~
6 lb/ft sensde sirength minimum of 58 ks, saud MPas only and clongation an 2 an 1.1 This reedication cosers heat tre of av 5 minimum apphes Carbon steel Ioint bar for genera e
' Yield point 32 ku (220 MPai for plaies over 4 m in standard railroad tr.ick
'h, kneu 3ct s 3 1.2 The Joint bar, ma> de u ed ior
~~Elongauon noi required io be deiermsned for floor plate produci,on of insulated point-~~
For plates aider than 24 m e610 mmt, the elongsuon Norg--The salues stated in inch pound unit requiremens as reduced imo percentage points go M regarded as the standard
~~2. A PP cable Documents li~~
~~.onneenen motk ans urre mennonedm asths of ans standard pairer roghis asseriesL~~
~~eers olukos saandardarr eip~~
.1 ASISI StanJarJ elanv suchparent rights, and the nsk of unfengemens ofssuch rogkrs.
p adourtshat are ennrelssaMe teternmarsenefshe theer own responsabelstn A }70 Method, and Definitu,n, ,,
Tkas standard se subject to er><soon er ano esme bs the responsable rechn ,m 3c\ggg gg $tggI produitW and ef not pressed. ruhre rrappreseder methdrawn }eur commenss are savar<calcommuner and must be revermedesers C.e stars A*"""
respoossble technocalcommetter ohnh now emas anend if van feelchar u consoderaroonat a merrung olene sourstand.ntds ggymy Slanstal. ' endshou make pour rsens anamn to the A STsf Commettre on $randardJ.1916 Race $acomments haer non recereede fear heanng m mgodgd }lc.udeau shou la t s 'r L.e'CI'1cnt
,turther aranng regardrog sour comments feelsag sansfacnon ihere. seu mas app. Phdadelphea. Bars pa 1480L skwh sdl sch ealto che ASTM Soardof Derectors
~~3. Ordering information 3.1 Orders for ioint bar under thi -~~
fication shall melude the follow mg mte tion as appropr:Jte.
3.1.1 Quantsty -number of pair et N 3.1.2 Tire -de ign or ts pe bar along wction designation a.3d weight o' raii t 1 joined.
? 3.l.3 Dimcitison -oserall length.
3.1 3 hencitsn.e - t3 pe s elbrtical.
, round, or combmationsl. si.e. number.
il tion spacmg and clesation of' punched h with dimensional Jrawmg il nece ars.
L 31.5 Hrad faiement -if required. an
[
3.1.s Cerlorisauron artJ lest Repor:
querements vec l t I and ll 1 s i
~~4. Manufacture L~~
l
-l.1 The steel shall be made bs one et i r
of the following procenes open hearth. t l osygen. or electne furnue.
h I'
b L
1 f
I ) hydQh ASTM A 307 - 80 O ,i Standard Specification for
! CARBON STEEL EXTERNALLY THREADED STANDARD FASTENERS' i
Tbs Handard is assued under the tised deugnanon 4 30'. the number immeasatelv rolloming the deugnauen indmates the starof unginaladopuon or.in the case of reusson.the star or1. reumaon A number in parenthessuna,caienne year of tau reapprosat
~~1. Scope 1.5 The values stated in inch pound units I.I This specification; cosers the chemical are to be regarded as the standard.~~
and mechanical requirements of two grades of 2. Applicable Documents carbon steel esternally threaded standard f s-teners. in sizes '/a in. (6.35 mm) through 4 in. 2.1 ASTV Standardt 3 ;7; g , ,,
7 t (Ill4 mm). This specification does not coser requirements for esternally threaded fas- A I 3 Specificatnin for Zine Coating tHot-tenen hasing heads with sioited or recessed Dip)on Iron and Steel Hardware
drises or for mechanical espansion anchors. A 370 Niethods and Definitions for Nie-The fasteners covered bs thinpecification are chanical Testing of Steel Producre.
frequently used for the f'ollowing applicatione A Specificatnin for Carbm and Ahoy 2* 1.1.1 Grade A Bedt3 for eeneral applica-cel Nuts 3 B 454 Specification for Niechanicalh De-
p n 1.1.2 Grude B Bo/rs. for flanced joints in P"'ited Coatings of Cadrnium and Zone N tems where one or lutii llanges are 7 fA ,ric n . at e al .\tandardr' i
I.., If no grade is specified in the inquers. AN51 Bl.1 Unified Screw Threads contract. or order. Grade A tw,;ts shall be -\NSI BIM.2.1 Squ. ire and Hes lloits and I furnished.
1.' Nonheaded anchor bolts, either straight b ' '
~~3. Staterials and Stanufacture 8%~~
as or bent. to be used for structural anchorage purpows. shall conform to the requirements 3.1 Steel for bolts shall be made bs the of %ccification A 36 with tenuon tests to be open hearth, basic osygen. or electrie.fu'rnace p,ggew,
_made on the bolt body or on the baryck used for making the anchor bolts.
j 1.4 Suitable nuts are covered in Specifica- ' Thn specericarnm is under the surndicuon of 45Tst
, comm,nce r.th on Fueners. and is the Jarect repm+
tion A 563. Unless otherwiw specified, the believ of %=bcommitter F In o2 on strel Holung i C *' 'd"**
PP'***d ^ P"' " "' "'d #""'
Erade and style of nut for each Frade of Ivso""o'nginativ puntahed 4u 307 - 47 T.""'ui preu.
L fastener. of all surface finishes. shall be as ediuon A mt tu
[ogg g'.
~~8 For A%ME Boiler and Prewure Vewel ride afWia honn ser reisicJ Spcofgauon >AJu? en section ll of that Iauener Grade and kre Nut Grade and Sisle* C'de.~~
~~A. % io 5"a sn A. he a~~
AnnualBook of ASTM frendards. Part 4 e A,,,,,g gawk of A siM.%Meds. Part 3 l A over l'/a to 4 en. A. heavy hea a A.,,,f p,,.4 ,f A g rgf w s,g , p ,,, g ,,a 4 i 'd B. % to 4 m A. heavy hes

Annuar A<wa of A TTM hadards. Parts e and 9

Nuts of nther grades and styles having specified prnuf and ined strevies 6peoncetann A %). Table 3) greatee than
~~, the specareed grade and sevie of nut are also stutable. a blaw be obtamed froen Amencen %:nmat %:andarJs Instnute,lar 1410 Broedesy. New iork, N ) . IUuis P 251 l~~
l N B
h A 307 3.2 Bolts mav be produced by hot or cold forging of the l$eads or machining frommachined bar thespecimens bolt makes machine oil to present galling and dama shall full-size be tested andtesting sha' impractied-
~~, the page. These in pects n when stock.~~
conform to the requirements shown Niow. ' in resohe di putes. sh. pC 3.3 Bolt threads may be rolled or cut. g Elong frequency and quahty descri 3.4 When specified. galvanized bolts shall '"" * ; streninh. ksi I be hot-dip zine coated in accordance with the 6tPal " n,,", [l 1. Test Methods requirements of Class C of Specification A 153. When specified by the purchner to be creae A and crade a boirs no es t si min in mm Grade a toin en#3 :ou(690pm** 7.1 The matenal shan ance with Supplement 111 of be te e mechanically galvanized. bolts cosered by thi' specification shall be mech.mically zine coated In the esent that bolts are tested by both ful ~
'AM and the coating and coated fasteners sha!! > ze and by machme test specimen method, 7.2 Standard square and hn head bot' conform to the requirements for Class 50 of the full-size test shall gosern if a controseru shall be tested by the wedge Specification B 454. or to the coating thick- between the two methods esists. except as noted m 5.1. Fracture shall be body cads of the bolt without any f' new. adherence. and quah.tv requirements for 5.4 For bolts on which both hardnew and Clan C of Specification A 153. tensi n tests are performed. acceptance based uncuon of the head and body-on tensile requirements shall take precedencc latth . head o a shall be tested by the aual
4. Chemical Requirements in the esent that there is contrmersy m er low g method readings of hardnew tests. 4 '-. S I'W of tesnne e determined 4.1 Steel shall conform to the following '
free runmng cow'hedd'sh"11 he J chemical requirements: 6. Dimensions 1 in (23.4 mmbmin for the ten i,e Grade A Grade B 6.1 Unlew otherwise specified. thread, j test af t'olto Bdts Bdh Phosphmus. mas. ca shall be the Coarse Thread Series e specif ed I 0 06 u nd
~~suifur. man. 9 o is u 05 in the latest iwue of ANSI Bl.i. haine a '~~
8. Number o* Tests and Rete'Is Claw 2A tolerance. I g) The requirements of thw p 4.2 Resulfunzed material is not subject to 6.2 Unlew otherwise specified. Grade A "
~~rejection based on product analwis for sulfur~~
- shAl be met in contmuou mae p bolts shall be hes bolts with dimensions a- ' (Jr stock and the manutaeturer 4.3 Bolts are customarily furmshed from given in the latest iwue of ANSI B 18.2.1 stock. in which case indiudual heats of steel Unlew otherwise specified. Grade B bolt- ' sample m'pec'I""' '" '"y"'#3 t h cannot be identified. conforms to the speu Shall be heau hes bolts uith dimensions e dinonal tests of mdiuduA shipmeng 4.4 Application of heats of steel to which gnen m the IJtest iwue of ANSI B 18.2.1.
bismuth, scienium. tellurium. or lead ha j na are not ordmanh contempt i 6.3 Unlew otherwise specified. bolts to be ud heat of sted d'# "' been intentionally added shall not be permit- used with nuts or tapped holes which hac ted for Grade B bolts. fimshed product been tapped mersize. in accordance with , 8.2 w hen speafic Specification A $63. shall hee Claw 2A ufacturet shal turni h .* te
5. Mechanical Requirements threads before hot dip or mechamcal gahan- go be the les complete 5.1 Bolts shall not esceed the mai num izmg. After gAvamzmp, the maimum hmit te ts foi each tock IC '" #d' hardnew required in Table 1. Bolts lew than of pitch and major dumeter may esceed the ,q g g.,1 w hen additiona three diameters in length, or bolts with driUed Claw 2A hmit by the followmg amount.
~~or undersize heads shall have hardnew salues Dumeier. m O*enue Lma. m imme~~
- ihe purchec 0'd#'}*d 'g een not ten than the mimmum nor more than the t'p in hi6. met o ole to 40 sdeCit]a materi i ' }'"[( ,'hcuen a' maumum hardnew hmits required m TaNe 1. O*" h so . mcl 0 03 o' 5 'l that he the follo**"9 Common cha as hardnen is the only requirement. Over i n o): (O N) g i [ One 1)pe of ite .
5.2 Bolts 1% in. tn diameter or less, other *N'**'""'"'"*''M"""'*"""'"* i,ize.and peg requireJ tot pivanueJ nuis m specificainm A Srii S I 2 U"# than those excepted an 5.1, shall be tested full 6 t i One nominM length of ts
^
size and shall conform to the requirements for 6.4 The gagmg limit for bolts shall be 8d *# h lot. the numt'ei tensile strength specified m Table 2. edih '#4"#"[ent hAl l'e e senfied durmg manufacture or use by awem. 5.3 Bolis larger than 1% in. in diameter. bly of a nut tapped a nearly a practica io other thr .oose encepted m 4.1. shall pref- the amount oversize shown above. In cae of ciably te tested full size and when so tested, dnpute, a calibrated thread ring gage of that shall ranform to the requirements for tensile same size (Claw A tolerance, gage tolerance streagth specified in Table 2. When equip- plus) shall be used. Awembly of the page. or t .ent of sufficient capacity for full-size bolt the nut desenbed above, must be powiNe sating is not available, or when the length of with hand effort followmg apphcation of hght 252 m
(h A 307 Number al Pieces m le' Nume' af Samples 9 machine cil to present galling und damage to the page. These inspections. when performed to resolse di putes. shall be performed at the noo and under
~~",",3',','",,',",'"~~
mer :: nuu uiin s j P frequency and quahty desenbed in Table 3. H.5 If any m.ichmed test specimen shows t Test %letM deteetne machinmg it may be discarded and 7.1 The materi.it shall be tested in accord- . mother specimen substituted. ance with Supplement 111 of %1cthods and 8.6 Should .iny umple fail to meet the g 4 370. requirements of a specified test. double the 7.2 Standard square and hes head bolts only number of samples from the wme lot shall be shall be tested by the wedge tension method tested. in which case all of the additional escept as noted in 5.1. Fracture shall be in the umples shall meet the specification. body or threads of the bolt without any fracture at the junction of the head and body. Other 9. %Iarking headed bolts shall be tested by the anal tension 9.1 Bolt heads shall be ma: Led Iby raised emens method. or deprewed mark t the option of the manu-
'.3 Speed of testing as determined with a facturer) to identif3 the manuf acturer. The free runnmi: crowhead shall be a masimum of """"Id"'" *"' "'e additional markmp for I in, t25 imm) min for the tensile strength hn oun use.
~~tests of bolts.~~
10. Inspection

8. Number of Tests and Retest, 8.1 The requirements of this specification 10 l If the inspection descabed m 10.2 is shall be met in continuous maw production required by the purchaser it sha'! be specified for stock. and the manufacturer shall make in the inquiry, order. or contract.
sample inspections to ensure that the product 10.2 The inspector representmg the pur-conforms to the specifra sequirements. Ad- chaser shall hase free entrs to all parts of the Jitional tests of indn bual shipments of mate- manufacturer's works that concern the manu. " rial are not ordmarily contemplated. In Inid- facture of the material ordered The manufac-turer shall afford the inspector all reasonable aal heats of steel are not identified in the fmished product. facihties to satisfy him that the maternal i being 8.2 Wl en specified in the ordet. the man- furnished m accordance with this specifkanon afacturer shall furnnh a test report certified All tests and inspections required by the pec-gismeng o be the 1.nl completed set of mech.mical ification that are requested by the purcha cri ests for each stock size in each shipment. representause shall be made before shipment. ; M.3 When additional tests are specified on and shal' be conducted as not to mterfere un-he purch.ne ordet. a lot, for purposes of necessanly with the operation of the works.
.clectmp test samples, shall consist of all naterial offered for inspection at one time 11. Rejection hat has the following common characterntict 8.3.1 One type of item. II.I Unlew otherwne spenfied. any retec-8.3.2 One nominal sire, and tion b.ned on tests speched herem shall be M.3.2 One nominallength of bolts. reported to the manufxturer within 30 mork-N. l From each lot the number of tests for ing d.ns from the receipt of wmples by the ach requirement shall be n follows: purchaser, erwy. --
~~253~~
=
~~h A 307 . TABLE I Herdeens Requireements for Seats Designation:A 325 - B TABLE 3 Saeipse Sises and Aenepiance Numbers ter~~
~~Hardnew " ** *"* *d' I~~
m Grade Bnnen flock.en B W Size S4mple Size' * ^[,',$" , j rrun man min man ; io go a3 An A 1:1 241* 69 100 91 to 150 20 : B 1:1 69 ISI80 280 32
~~!: 95 .81 to S00 50 3~~
~~3 Standard Specific:~~
Encept when tested bv medge tenuon test. Sol to i 200 80 7 1 01 to 3 2o0 33 to HIGH-STRENGTI-3 :0iioiU 000 2" TABLE 2 Teensie Regetrements for FelF54 e Belas 10 001 and over 3t$ 2 JOINTS' Tenule 5 rength. It'f*

Sample sites of acceptance numbers are entracted Bolt I" Tha standarc is issued under the fited d'5 Threads I'Om '5'ngle 5amphng Plan for Normal Inspectson" Table
% e*
per mch A re'a"* Grades Grade year or onginal adopuon or. in the ca e os re m m8 A and . B" llA. MIL 5TD 10$D reapprosal n r tempect ail boits in the lot if the los site is less than the ma g 3,,, ,,,,gj ,a s, . :U o U3l8 l vm 3 lso Sf *' ** *U 5'*" =
*i. Ia 0 05:4 3 1oO 3 240 *%. 16 0 0775 4 690 ? '50 ** Nom Paragraph I 7 *as editonalls da ... 14 0lue3 6 350 to 63o
1. Scope "s I) o14tv 8 soo 14 19" I UN

5. 10 I$$
~~0 3t4 N Ys$~~
~~o Oso 32 4m 1.1 This specification: cosers and mechanical requirements of o 46:~~
of quenched and tempered stec . .. 9 :7 voo 46 :00 a moni1 known as "high streng i a o aos 16 33n no un bolts. ' intended for use m structu e-. ? u 763 45 suo 76im are covered under requirements <
~~p. 7 0 969 sn so va ein l's 6 .t35 av tm i15 3~~
cations for Structural Joints t A 325 or A 490 Bolts ' issued by iN a i 4os n4 .tm

i4o 3m Council on Structural Connectio
i. 3 i vu si4 iw avo uou e : 4N : so iso enc :So Uno gineering Foundation. The sar:

'. 4N .* 25 aviom 323 om bolts cos cred in this specificatter 1.1.1 Ti

rs bon steel.' pe 1-Bolts in sizes %mad 4 4m :40 tuo 4m om

t. 4 4 9t :44 nm avi ono supphed to 3 4 59' 3*n :m 397 imi" sive, m diameter.
y.. 4 su 4:n mu tiuum l.1.2 TiPe J-Bolts made fror n, erally described as low carbon m 4 s 3.1 aww nm su ao supp'hed m sizes % to l's m.. ti . 4 y ein 474 600 4An (Wo 4 4 :: un ca4 mm e ion inn, diameter.
~~' Area calculated fnim the formula g.13 Tape 3-Dolts. % to 1%~~
~~in diameter having atmospherw A, . 0 7a54 tu - (0 974),ai? sistance and weathering charai~~
= here A. = seress mo parable to that of the stects cose 0 - nomman diamner of eoit.and cation A $88. Spectfication A 2-e = threads per mch fication A 709 (these steels has a I lbf e 4 44N N '
~~Corrosion resistance approuma,.~~
~~' Based on 60 ku 1414 MPal~~
fle=ed on 100 ku ( A89 MPa) J ghag o[ carbon structural steel w' l.2 When the bolt type as 74* A=.eme $*r**rv enther Type 1 or Typc 2 ma?be e wrone .ns e, ura,.am,,m ud M*'enes' f.or Tru7m *** ** ** r*=*nm u4a amnead L ser. errrrrus ej .4u she ** *d**era r. punt, sansars et ** m eas,urd No**saur"e 4'> '
.* **'.erord **
~~mas o oone option of the manufactuter. T? l~~
~~.e4enf of m, an4 pe'em aran. e.d in, m4 of.af, .ge cm of we agass. a ,weer en,ir m ny, amas"'~~
be supphed by the manufaetur Ths mederd a e.6jue se n nen er my a.it of ,4, reye=nat, en4a.<er <= nw e.d ma 6, ,, r.,4 e.,r. fi., the purchaser. Where elevsted te wars and ( est rreurd. ewhar reerpresed or mer4dre.= rear temments era enrwed rueer fee pressees of #4ss staaderd or pbcations are Lavol%ed. Type I for adeneeel sendards and steedd se eddressed no ASTM liredrenerrors Teene tenements u<ll reverse terrfad tesadtverson er e marreeg of see regneenNr fer4aere/ tosiaurser. sesr4 pone sier errand // pose feel #4er wone teatments 4 eor mer reree ed g ggd yI the purchaser on th a efar hverng yee should nee 4e reent rarws enenne se ser A$1M Cenemurer en $sendards.1916 Rect St. P4dedelpnan. Pe 19101. mesr4 t] % tn M MUM WO aesao e. a. eeN o- arhehle e furrher 4earneg regardag feine remairera fedang seragerrase #4 err. you see, spreal se #4e is required. Type 3 bolts shall I 254 I e. E
~~- ,g ,~~
ATTACHMENT C SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL SA 36 . (Identical with AST14 Specifkation A 36 77e except for deletion of 2. Apportenant Meterials and Table I) Seepe General RO_ " for Delivwy L (s)'Diis speci6mtion cows carboo 3. Material furnished under this speci-steel shapes, plates, and bass of struc- 6 cation shall conform to the applicable tural quality for m in rivead, bolted, requirements of the current edition of or welded constriaction of bndges and the Speci6 cation for General Require-buildings, and for general structural ments for Delivery of Rolla! Steel Purposes. When the steel is used in Plates, Shaps, Sheet Piling, and Bars welded construction, welding procede for Structural Use (ASTM Designation: sban be suitable for the steel and the A 6). intended service. (6) Supplemental Requirements are B** % M *'** provided where knproved notch tough- 4. (e) Unless otherwise speci6ed, ness is important. These shall apply plates used as beanas plates for bridges only when speciaod by the purchaser la shall be subjected to =ha=Ir=1 tests the order. sad shall conform to the tensile require-ments of Section 7. TABLE IL -CHEMICAL REQUIREMENT 3. Shapes
~~Plates mars Product Over % Over Over Over % Over~~
- To % to l% 1% to 2% to To % to l% 1% to 4 Thicknees,In.(mm) All 4 (64 Over (19). (19 to (102). Over (19). (19 to 2% (38 incl. 38), to 64) to 102). 4 (102) incl. 38). Incl. 4 (102) incl. incl. Incl. incl. 0.26 0.2 $ 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.29. 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 Carbon. maa. % 0.60 - Manganese. % ... ... 0.00 - 0.s0- 0.8$- 0.85- ... 0.60- 0.60-1.30 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.90 0.90 0.90 Phosphorue. mas.% 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Sulf:st. maa.% SiMeon.% ... ... ... 0.15- 0.15- 0.15- ... ... ... ... 0.40 0.40 0.40 Copper min.%when 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 copper steelle specifled 8 Manganese content of 0.85 8.25% and agicon content of 0.8 5-0.40%le required for shapes over 426 lb/ft. I13
SA.36 SECTION II - M ATERI AL SPECIFICATIDNS (6) Unless othewise speci6ed, me. TaaLa nL-mWEE m3GUIM4EIGE
~~hanical testa shall not be required for plates over 1) in, la thickness used as ,,,,,, n,,,,,. e s.,,,~~
~~tensas seismesh. sms. . .. . bearing plates la structures other thea M ss,seswy. se, ass yg,,',88,,", ,,*"'~~
,, s . . . .
bridges, subject to the requirement that Emmensism h 8 la min. they absE contain 0.20 to 0.33 per osat ",,, carbon by ladie analysis, that the chem- g ;"., g*lg,
~~,,rens.... .... .. ad Ical compeltion shall conform to the Shape:~~
requirements of Table IIla phosphorus and sulfur costsat, and that a suscient Nsmai m h h mb.,I!.I.N. se' i shan k d b d @ to secure sound plates. are eine same shasse =er e8s 8b/h tansas se,emeek ahis== et assos only and sismanaism an a h. et to paresma minimamm ep. 5.(e) The steel shall be made by one or more of the fouowing processes: open-O "'"
' mas essaiss Neb hearth, basic. oxygen, or electric-furnace. 8 Boesselse not ressered to be deterssiaea (b)No rimmed or capped steel shau be '", '"' '
~~' used for plates and bars over % in. (13 mm) phtw wwer thea M k~~
~~unas.~~
~~thick or for shapes other than Group 1. vores eloneseloa reeutrement is reduced two percentage poista. Cheesleal P==r ana be made for each decrease of & la. of~~
6. (s) 'Ihe heat analysis shall conform ' ' '
~~to the requirements prescribed in Table II, except as specined in Section 4(6). (6) The steel shall conform on product~~
~~, ,,9 ,,~~
analysis to the requirements prescribed 4 in Table II, subject to the product 8. Two tension tats shall be made from each heat, unless the Saished mate-analysis tolerances in Speci6 cation A 6, rial from a heat is less than 50 tons, when except as specined below in Paragraph one tension test win be suf5cient. How. (c). ever, for material 2 in. and under la (c) Product analysis is not applicable thicknees, when the material from one for bar-siae shapes or sat bars i in. and 4 heat differs } in. or more la thickness, under la thMn==. oos tension test shall be made from both j (4) When tension tests are waived in the thickest and the thinnest material accesdance with Section 7(6), chemistry roued regardless of the weight repre-consistent with the requirensents la sented. For material over 2 in, thick, ' Table 'II, and with the mechanical when the material from one heat differs properties desired must be applied. 1 in. or m m in dicknem, me tensi n Tanelle A-J-7.ss test shan be made from both the thickest and the thinnest material roued that is
~~7. (a) Da material as represented by more &an 2 in. &ick usardless of the~~
the test specumen, escept as speci6ed weisht represe:ited. la Section 4(6) and Paragraph (4) of this Section, shau conform to the require. Test Repods l ssents as to the tensGe properties pas. l 9. (e) When test reports are required scribedla Table III. by the purchase order, the report shall ( (6) Shapes less than 1 sq la. la cros. j show the results of each test required by section and bars, other than data, less Section 8. except that only one test need
~~i l~~
than { in. la thickness or diameter need be reported when the amount of material not be subjected to tension tats by the from a heat in a abipment is less than 10 l manufacturer. teos and when the thickness variations (s) For material under & la. la thick. described in Section 8 are not escseded. nees or diameter, a deduction from the (6) The thM-of theproducttested percentage of elongation in 8 in., speci- may not necessarily be the same as an i 6ed in Table III, of 1.25 per cent shall t individual ordered thkknees since lt is the i 114 l'
~~- _ ~ . , _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ -~~
PART A- FERROUS MATERIALS SA 36 beat that la tested rather than each or- 52. The material to be supplied shall be dered item. suicon-killed fine-grain practice. Standardized supplementary require-SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS ments for use at the option of the purchaser These requirements shall not $pply un- are listed in Specification A 6. Those which less specified in the order, are considered suitable for use with this St. The material supplied shall be other specification are listed below by title. than rimmed or capped steel. S14. Bend Test. By publiestton of this stenderd no position is taken autth respect to the monktity of any potent virkts in connection therewith, and the Amerieen Society of Mechenteel Eneineers does not eundersake to ensure anyone utilisine the spenderd eseenst nobility for inf>imement of any Letters htent nor annume any such hebiNty. 1I5
4 ATTACHMENT D SPECIFICATION FOR CARBON STEEL EXTERNALLY AND INTERNALLY THREADED STANDARD FASTENERS SA-307 (identical with ASTM Spectrication A 3o?.76a except ror Pers. 2.6 and 4.1)
1. Scope 2.6 Galvanhed bolts, nuts and washers 1.1 This specification covers the chemical shall be hot dip galvanized in acconlance with and mechanical requirements of two grades of the requirements of ASTM Specification carbon steel enternally and internally threaded A 153, Class C, for sinc coating (Hot Dip) on standard fasteners in sizes % in. (6.35 mm) Iron and Steel Hardware. Nuts shall be tapped through 4 in. (104 mm). This specification oversize, after galvanizing, by the diametral does not cover requirements for enternally amounts listed in ASTM Specification A 563 threaded fasteners having heads with slotted for Carbon Steel Nuts unless otherwise or recessed drives. The fasteners covered by specified. When specified by the purchaser, this specification are frequently used for the fasteners may be mechanically salvanhed following applications: provided that the coating and coated product 1.1.1 Grade A solu, for general applica. meet the coating thickness, adherence an.
tions, and qual ty requirements of ASTM 5pecification 1.1.2 Gredt # Aolu, for flanged p. .nts .in A 153, Class C. Mechanically salvanhed nuts ping systems where one or both flanges are 7,, gy g 1.2 If no grade is specified in the inquiry, bo!ts shall be tapped oversize prior to mechan-contract, or order Grade A bolts shall be ically galvanizing but need not be retapped furnished. after :nechanically galvanizing. Nuts shall be 1.3 Nonheaded anchor bolts, either straight provided with a suitable lubricant. or bent, to be used for structural anchorage e purposes, shall conform to the requirements 3. Cheeleal Requiremanes of ASTM Specification A 36, for Structural 3.1 Steel for bolts and nuts shall conform Steel, with tension tests to be made on the to the following chemical requirements: bolt body or on the bar stock used for making c, a. A cr.4, a the anchor bolts.
**"' "*" **"* N
Non-The values stated in U.S. customar) units are to be regarded as the standard. Pherphorus, man. % 0.Os 0.13 0.04 0.12 Seifer. man. s 0.15 0.23 0.05 0.15
~~2. Maeorials and Maester. tere esu u mat al not n et to 2.1 Steel for bolts shall be made by the~~
*Ct 8 08 produt anaWor mUur.
~~open-hearth, basic oxygen, or electric. furnace 3.3 Bolts and nuts are customarily fur. Steel for nuts shall be made by the~~
" I" ** ** * *
~~I* **** "*'~~
**f4g, ope arth, ba -oxygen electric. furnace,or ,,,"i[n o h ts o steel to which bismuth, selenium, tellurium, or lead has been 2.3 Bolts may be produced by hot or cold forging of the heads or machining from bar intentionally added shall not be permitted stock. for Grade B bolts.
2.4 Bolt threads may be rolled or cut. 2.5 Nuts may be prodaced by het pressing. 4. Mechanical Requirementa cold punching, cold forging, or machining 4.1 Bolts shall not exceed the maximum from bar stock. hardness required in Table 1. Bolts less than 339
SA 307 SECTION 11 - M ATERI AL SPECIFICATIONS three diameters in length shall have hardness bolts with dimensions as given in the latest values not less than the minimum-maximum issue of American National Standard B13.2.1. hardness specified in Table 1. 5.3 Unless otherwise specified. nuts for 4.2 Bolts 1% in. in diameter or less, other Grade A bolts shall be hem nuts, and nuts for than those excepted in 4.1 shall be tested full Grade 8 bolts shall be heavy hes nuts with size and shall conform to the requirements for dimensions as given in the latest issue of tensile strength specified in Table 2. American National Standard for Square and 4.3 Bolts larger than 1% in. in diameter. Hez Nuts (ANSI 813.2.2). other than those cacepted in 4.1 shall prefer.
6. Test Methods ably be tested full size and when so tested, shall conform to the requirements for tensile 6.1 The material shall be tested in accord-strength specified in Table 2. When equipment ance with Supplement lli of ASTM Methods of sufficient capacity for full size bolt testing and Definitions A 370 "or Mechanical is not available, or when the length of the bolt Testing of Steel Products.
makes full size testing impractical, machined 6.2 Standard square and heangon bolts specimens shall be tested and shall conform to nly a e tested by the wedge tension the requirements shown below: method. Fracture shall be in the body or threads of the bolt without any fracture at the I*8[ ,,, junction of the head and body. Other headed Ta==le 2 is. ee bolts shall be tested by the asial tension
~~$magth. So mm. method.~~
Grade A and Orode 5 boks 40(41 )mse 18 min 6.3 Nuts shall be tested by the axial proof crede s tens eeir too teso> mas .. load method. 6.4 Speed of testing as determined with a free runn ng crosshead shall be a maximum of In the event that bolts are tested by both full size and by machine test specimen methods,
'"' ** " ' " *"* '# 8 the full size test shall govern if a controversy I
between the two methods exists. 4.4 For bolts on which both hardness and tensile tests are performed, acceptance based 7. Nemeber of Tests and Retests l on tensile requirements shall take precedence 7.1 The requirements of this specification in the event that there is controversy over low shall be met in continuous mass production i readings of hardness tests. for stock, and the manufacturer shall make 4.5 Nuts shall meet the hardness require. sample inspections to ensure that the product ment specified in Table 3. Hardness shall be conforms to the specified requirements. Addi-the only requirement for jam, slotted. and tional tests of individual shipments of mate. ( castle nuts and for nuts larger than 1% in. in rial are not ordinarily contemplated. Indi-t size. videst heats of steel are not identified in the 4.6 Nuts I% in and under in size shall finished product. meet the proof loads specified in Table 3. 7.2 When specified in the order. the manu. 4.7 Nuts Ite to Ib in.. inclusive, in size facturer shall furnish a test report certified to shall preferably meet the requirements for be the last completed set of mechanical tests proof load specified in Table 3. but when for each stock size in each shipment. equipment of sufficient capacity for such tests 7.3 When additional tests are specified on is not available they shall meet the hardness the purchase order, a lot, for purposes of se. requirements specified in Table 3. Iecting test samples. shall consist of all mate-rial offered for inspection at one time that has S. DDsessions the following common characteristics: 5.1 Unless otherwise specified. inreadj 7.3.1 One type of item, that is. bolts or shall be the Coarse Thread Series as specified nuts, in the latest issue of the American National 7.3.2 One nominal size. and Standard for Unified Screw Threads (ANSI 7.3.3 One nominallength of bolts. Bl.1), having a Class 2A tolerance for bolts 7.4 From each lot, the number of tests for and Class 28 tolerance for nuts. each requirement shall be as follows: 5.2 Unless otherwise specified. Grade A bolts shall be het bolts with dimensions as Nember of P=en N.m ber given in the latest issue of the American Na. '* l *' of5*=P* tional Standard for Square and Hex Bolts and sm ..d ..ser i Screws (ANSI 818.2.1). Unless other*ise ,[ean 2 specified. Grade B bolts shall be heavy hez one 22 000 s 340
~~- - ___ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - -_ A~~
~~j 9~~
PART A - FERROUS MATERIAli; SA 307 7.5 If any machined test specimen shows 9.2 The inspector representing the pur- . defective machining it may be discarded and chaser shall have free entry. at all times while ! another specimen substituted. work on the contract of the purchaser is being 7.6 Should any sample fail to meet the performed. to all parts of the manufacturer's l requirements of a specified test, double the works that concern the manufacture of the number of samples from the same lot shall be material ordered. The manufacturer shall af-tested, in which case all of the additional ford the inspector all reasonable facilities, i samples shall meet the specification. without charge. to satisfy him that the mate- l rial is being furnished in accordance with this
8. Marking SPCCI C8ti n All **515 (8KCCPt Product analy-sis) and inspection shall be made at the place 8.1 Bolt heads shall be marited (by raised of manufacture prior to shipment. unless other.
or depressed mark at the option of the manu- wise specified, and shall be so conducted as facturer) to identify the manufacturer. The not to interfere unnecessarily with the opera-manufacturer may use additional marking for tion of the works. his own use. g g, ,,),,,,,, 10.1 Unless otherwise specified, any rejec-
~~9. Inspecties tion based on tests specified herein shall ,bc -~~
9.1 If the inspection described in 9.2 is reported to the manufacturer within 30 required by the purchaser it shall be specified working days from the receipt of samples by in the inquiry, order or contract. the purchaser. TAsLE1 Hesh Ragmireesses Ier asks Hardness sek sue. in. crede annein Rect.es a men man man man AU A 121 241* H 100* 8 212 2o7 H 95
~~Encept eben tested by wedee tennon test.~~
~~i l l l l l l 341~~
. SA-307 SECTION 11 - M ATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE 2 Temste Bagskommum 8mr FuHime Been TABLE 3 m and Pmsf land Depirusses Ier Ness Tenede Strength,IbP U, Thmeds Satm Am'. g,,g,, g,,g, g,g g ,, is, L,eed. ,
is. Per d N. A and B. 3 om4 F aans, nun i mas 7 men *
% 2- 282 g 30 0.0318 1 900 3 180 % 18 4 700 b 18 0.0$24 2 800 $ 240 g to 7 000 g to 0.077$ 4 650 7 750 h 14 9 $30 L I4 0.1063 6 330 10 630 M 13 12 750 M 13 0.1419 8 300 14 190 M. 12 16 400
m. 12 0.182 II 000 IS 200 g 11 20 350 g II 0.226 13 $50 22 400 t 10 30 050 E 10 0.3 34 30 0$0 33 400 g 9 41 400 g 9 0.462 27 700 46 200 1 8 M SM I 8 0 606 36 390 60 400 Ig 7 68 650 ...
Ig 7 0.763 45 000 76 300 Ig 7 87 200 los 14 7 0.969 58 ISO 96 900 14 6 103 950 104 Ig 6 1.15$ 69 300 113 300 14 6 124 450 los i E to 4. iact 104 14 4 1.405 84 300 140 300 14 5 1.90 lie 000 190 000
tened on 90 kna (621 MPal mandret stress for nun nues 2 44 2.50 150 000 250 000 % to 2h in.. mclaspe; 77 km ($31 MPal for 3 iaa and 67 25 44 3.25 195 000 325 000 km (462 MPs) for 3s to 4 in incInswe.

I Ibf . 4 448 N.
24 4 4.00 240 000 400 000 2E 4 4.93 295 000 493 000 3 4 S.97 358 200 597 000 34 4 7.10 426 000 710 000 3M 4 8.33 499 000 833 000 3E 4 9.66 579 000 964 000 4 4 11.08 664 000 l 100 000
~~Area calculated from the formula:~~
~~A 0.7834 (D - (0.9743/s)]* where.- A . strums area. O . eenunal diameter of bolt, and a . threads per inch.~~
I lbf . 4.448 N.

Based on to km (414 M Pat

Based on 100 kai(689 MPat By pubiketion of this stendertf no positten is asken with respect to the welidity of any potent rights in conneetton therewith, and The Amerteen Sortery of Mechenseel Engineers does not undertake to insure anyone urtitsing the standard egeinst liabilityfor inf>tngement of any Letters Potent nor asrume any such j anbsary.
l l I l t 342 i I
ATTACHREny g CA5m 1644-1 CASES OF ASME R0ll.ER AND PRESStJRE VESSEL CODE Approved by Council, April 28,1975 Case 16441 materials and combinations of other materials with th' eve Additional Materials for Component Suppo ts materials. When joints are made between two different Section lli Subsection NF Class,12,3, and MC Con- types or grades of base material, a procedure qual;fication struction must be made for applicable combinations of materials Inquiry: What materials, in addition to those listed in even though procedure qualification tests have been Tables 111.0,112.0, and 113.0 of Appendix I of Section made for each of the two base materials welded to III, .nay be used for Class I,2,3, or MC component itself. (Materials of the same nominal chemical analysis and mechanical properties range even though of different supports constructed to the requirements of Subsection NF of Section ill? product form may be considered as the same type or grade.) Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the additional materials, design stress intensity and allowable (c) The following, in addition to the variables in Sec. IX, QW-250, shall be considered as essential vari-stress values, and the yield strength values listed in shles requiring re-qualification of the welding process. Tables 1,2,3, and 4 may be used in the construction of Class 1,2,3, and MC Component supports for Section til 1. A change in filler metal SPA classification or to a weld metal not covered by an SPA specification. in addition to those listed in Table NF 2121(a)-1 of
~~2. An increase in the maximum or a decrease in Section III.~~
the minimum specified preheat or interpass temperatures. The,following additional requirements shall apply: The specified range of preheat temperatures shall not (1) All other requirements of Subsection NF shall be exceed 150 F. met including NF-2825, where applicable.
3. A change in the heat treatment (procedure (2) Until rules are added, welding is not permitted on carbon and low alloy steels containing more than qualification tests . hall be subjected to heat treatment cuentially equivalent to that encountered in f abrication 0.35 percent carbon,nor on PH' or a;;e-hardened' steels, nor on materials to Specifications ASTM A514-70 and of the vessel or vcocl parts including the maximum total aggregate time at temperature or temperatures and cool.
~~SA 592. ingrates). (3) When the Nominal Composition column refer.~~
4. A change in the types of current (AC or I)C) ences AISI grades, only materials meeting the chemical polarity, or a change in the specified range for amprrage, composition requirements of the specific AISI grades listed shall be u ed. with the exception that 0.60 masi. s oit, or tra$rl sperd,
~
n A change in the thicknra (T)of the wchling mum silicon is swrmitted for castings. proc, lure qualification tr t plate a., follows: (4) When welding on A487 72 Graile 10Q, SA 508 ! Cla,s 4, A50849 Class 4a and A54S72a Clau I and 2, (a) For wehiril joints which are Q ani! T the following ailditional requirement, shall apply: after wciding, any increa r in thicknm (the minimmn l. (a) Welding pnwedure qualification and wchler ihirknen qualificil in all cas r i % in.). ami wrkling operator qualification rhall be maile in ar- p) y..r wrbled joint- whi.h are not Q anil T rordance with pertion IX as mo.lifir.I 1.y 8ection 111 ,,fter webling. any rh.ing, a f..llow,- and a.- given herein. - T (b) 8rparate w eldin - procedure qualification '"" than N8 in. Any dnrra-r in thicknm pin-of 8r, tion - l\ rhall I.e requirni for tier-r rHJ\imnm thit kne,* quJIifiMI i*
' The de icnrr > hall son 4 der the effret.nf trmt-raturr.rnviron. 2T) ment and appled >trew on tir matrnal properlers of prrespita- . ,, g g g yI ,gg ,, g lion or age hardenma allop. or on other high strength heat- .~e/3 in. to 2T.
treated allop. Meeting of March 7 1975 f, *, *, y " + ~t
i CASE (continued) l 1644-1 ,
- i CASES OF ASME 110ll.ER AND PflESSt:llE VESSEI. CODE (d) Welding filler metal containing more than given in Table 4, multiplied by 0.40 and 0.15 to obtain 0.06 percent vanadium shall not be used. allowable tension and shear stresses, respectively. When (e) In addition to the requirements of NB4410 the shear plane does not cross the threaded portion of of Section lit, the materials may require re. that bolt, a factor of 0.25 may be used for the allowable baking in crder to minimize moisture. The procedures shear stress.
for doing this for covered are welding electrodes are (6) When the ASTM specification referenced in given in Specifications SFA.5.1 and SFA-5.5. Tables 1 through 4 does not specify minimum tensile (f) The radius of the mandrel or die used in the and yield strengths, the values listed urder the appropri-guided bend tests of Section IX, Figs. QW466.1, ate columns shall be met by the material. ,- QW-166.2, and QW466.3 shall be: * (7) Materials in Tables I throurh 4 whose nominal Thickness of - C mPosition is referenced as an AISI composition may Specimen, in. A in. 8 in. C in. D in. be accepted as satisfying the requirements of the ASTM specification provided the chemical requirements of the 3/8 2j 1 3j 1 AISI specification are within the specified range of the t 6jt 3jt 8jt 4 designated ASTM specification, and certification of the ds d material shall be in accordance with the requirements of 86 NA-3767.4(e) or (f). The term "each picec of stock material"in NA.3767.4(c) may be taken to refer to that
-(g) The final postweld heat treatment shall be at a portion of the. material of the same heat and lot which minimum temperature of 1075 F and a maximum tem- has traceability established by the Manufacturer through perature limited only by the ability to meet the specified his program. Where Certificates of Compliance are ac-mechanical properties. \linimum homing time at the ceptable under Subsection NF, testing of each piece is final ystweld heat arrating temperature shall be one not required.
hour per inch of weld thickness, one hour minimum. (8) All supports and component standard supports (5) Design of Botted Connections shall be in accord- used under the provi> ions of this Case shall be marked ance with Appendis XVil 2460, using yield strength with this Case number. e 554 __ .__ _ . _ _ m
.. .e I ij-TABLE 4 Yeeld Strength Values.Sy for Bottens Materials for Classes 1. 2,3 and MC Supportss Type Mm Men Yield Strength kai (multiply Iny 1000 to obtain peil. For metal Nominal P- Group Specif:ca- or Class Notes Yield
~~temperatures. F, not to exceed Composet.on No. No. tion No. Grade Strength gg, ,~~
kse ksa 100 200 300 400 500 600 660 700 750 800 .n Carhon Steek 3 en I I S0307 18 36 58 36 0 318 31.9 30.8 29.1 26.6 26.1 25.9 - 1 e': Low Alloy Steels > AISI 9 m 1180.1350 S \.35 % IIB 2 83 105 83.0 77.5 719 718 70.6 67.5 65.5 63.0 - - [ ll>l ~ 1310 >b358 Ital 2 73 100 78.0 719 70.4 68.5 66.4 63.5 61.5 59.3 - - I4 AISI [ w 2 5310 S b35 8 llc 2,6 109 125 C 199 0 1010 98.5 95.6 92.8 88.7 86.0 82.9 - - ,, AISI := 1310 S A.35 8 ltC 2.6 99 115 E 99.0 92.5 89.4 86.9 84.3 80.5 78.1 75.3 -
~~- if AISI ~~~
13 50 St358 Itu m 2.6 125 150 125.0 116.9 112.9 109.8 106.5 101.8 98.6 95.0 - -
AISI 1131 7 li tit. l lite Al'Mk?I - -
11.6 130 150 .Q 130.0 121.5 117.2 114.1 110.7 108.7 102.5 98.8 - - - 9. Precepitation Hardened Steels O C
~~. M A56172 Mt.13 - 2.3,6 165 175 165.0 151 6 148.5 143.0 138 1 133.3 131.1 128.4 -~~
~~Notes~~
1. ("I

2. NoA!!weIJang A307 bolts shalt,in addatson, meet both the chemical and mechanical requirements for SA 36 bar material. Welding is permitted.
~~permitled. >~~
3. A564. T)pe Ul-I 3. shall be modified so that age hardening shall be at 1050 F only. Ut

4. Mensmum Tempering Temperature shall be 850 F. IUt S. Allowat4c tension and she.ar stresses may be obtained by multiplyeng these yieIJ strength values by 0.40 and 015 respectively. When the shear plane does m not cross the thecadeng.a factor of 0.25 may be used for allowable shear stress. a

6. The massmum tensale strength shall not esceed the minimum specified tensile strength by more than 40.0 ksL Where the Specification does not famit O hardness. the 3 cable Tables in masimum SA.370. surface hardness shall not esceed the hardness valises corresponding to the maximum tensile strength, as determined by the appli-b "**
C
~~. a.~~
~~3 % s w v ' I~~
~~~- a~~
. . . . . . - . . ..;...-..- . . . . . . - . . - . . . ~ . . . . , - a e I -
. TABl.E 4 j Yield Strength Values,Sy, for Botting Materials for Cleeses 1,2,3, and MC Supports' . Type Min Min . Yield Strength ksi (multiply try 1000 to obtain psil. For metal Nominal p. Group Specifica. or Class Notes Yield ** teenperatures, F, not to enceed ' -
Composation No. No. tion No. Grade Strength e Strength, kai ksi 100 200 300 400 500 600 650 700 760 800 Carbon Sreek A307 74 A - 2 I I SA.307 B - 1 36 58 36.0 32.8 31.9 30.8 29.1 26.6 26.1 25.9 - - Low Alloy Sg AISI 4140.1110 SA.354 IIB - 2 83 105 83.0 77.5 74.9 72.8 70.6 67.5 6: ; 63.0 - - AISI n tilti SA 358 BB - 2 78 100 78.0 72.9 70.4 68.5 66.4 63.5 61.5 59.3 - - g AISI O 4310 SA.35 8 !!C - 2,6 109 125 109.0 102.0 98.5 95.6 92.0 88.7 86.0 82.9 ,, AISI D 4310 SA 354 BC - 2,6 99 115 99.0 92.5 89.4 86.9 84.3 80.5 78.1 75.3 - - AISI $ 4310 SA.354 BD - 2,6 125 150 125.0 116.9 112.9 109.8 106.5 101.8 98.6 95.0 - - i: f*1 AISI 1135 A a 4180,1380 A 190L71 - - 2,4,6 130 150 130.0 121.5 117.2 114.1 110.7 108.7 102.5 98.8 - - o w precipitatio* Hardened Steels :;o A56172 XM.13 - 2,3,6 165 175 165.0 154.6 148.5 143.0 138.1 133.3 131.1 128.4 h c= Austenatic Stainless Steels g 2 W M,7 U.3 M AI. l8 SA-l 3 A IA 3 75
a
^lll' 3 "tl" l"; ;, _ gL 30.0 22.5 25.6 23., 22.5 2i.4 2i.0 20.6 20.5 20.3 R ',l'l ll'. "tl:' llA lA - - ': 0! '0 a 2s;'i =>.2 = i .4 19.9 la.8 > =.5 > = . ' i7.a >7.6 i AISI 321 8 St193 lulT 1 - 30 75 [ 30.0 25.4 22.7 20.6 19.1 18.2 17.8 17.5 17.3 17.2 n AISI 321 8 S4 193 tulTA IA - 30 75 l y Al5130t 8 SA.320 tul - - 30 75 30.0 25.0 02.5 20 7 19.4 18.2 17.9 17.7 17.3 16.8 see Aldl 3 87 8 SA.320 lulC - - 30 75 30 0 27.* 25.6 23.9 22.5 21.4 21.0 20.6 20.5 20.3 8't AISl325 8 SA.320 Il8T - ; 30 75 30.0 25.4 22.7 206 17.1 18.2 17.8 17.5 17.3 17.2 - ^
AIS130.t AISI an 8 SA-320 SA.320 lulF IISM - y 30 30 75 75 30.0 25.0 22.5 20.7 19.4 18.2 17.9 17.7 17.3 16.9 30.0 25.8 23.3 21.4 19.9 $18.8 18.5 18.1 17.8 17.6 -s 3 > g oh : e Notes \. M3
t. All A301 bi,Its shall, inn aJJitism, meet both the chemical and mechanical requirements for SA-36 bar materlat. Welding is permitted.

2. No welJing permitted.
~~ME 0 t 3~~
~~3. A564, Type XEl-a 3, shall be modsfieJ so that age hardening shall be at 3050 F,only.~~
~~4 hfinimum Tempering Temperature shall be 850 F.~~
~~4 *& Irj Z~~
S. Attombie tcsinde, shearing and bending stresses for the bolt and threaded part materials of Table 4 shall not exceed the values given in paragraph (g) of d this Caw.
6. 1he erasimum tenule strength shall not exceed the mluimum specified tensile strength by more than 40.0 ksi. Where the Specification s'oes not limit hasJam. the matemum surfue harJness shall not eacted the harJaess values corresponding to the maximum tensile strength, as determined by the appli-tal.le T t.tes in SA-370
~~I ATTACHMENT G. CA5E N-249 CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE Meeting of November 2,1979 Approved by Counca, January 7,1980 This Case sh sll expire on January 7, I983~~
~~. unless previemsly annuled or reaffirmed.~~
Case N-249 , _ The fo!!owing additional requirements shall apply: Additional Materials for Component Supports Fabricated (1) All other requirements of Subsection NF shall be without Welding met including NF-2586, where appliable. Section lit, Division 1, Subsection NF Class 1,2,3, and (2) Repair welding is not permitted on carbon and MC Component Supports low alloy steels containing more than 0.35 percen t carbon, nor on PH2 or age-hardened2 steels, nor on materials to Inquiryr What materials, in addition to those listed in Specifications ASTM A514 75 and SA 592, nor on the 2 Tables I-II.0, I.12.0, and 113.0 of Appendix I of Sec. free rnachining steels permittedin (3) below, unless per-tion III, Division 1, may be used for Clau 1,2,3, or MC mitted by the material specification. Weld repairs of base component supports constructed to the requirements of material shall be made on annealed material and such re-Subsection NF who the items are fabricated without Paired material shall be reheat treated in accordance with welding? the material specification. (3) When the Nominal Composition column rrferences Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the AISI grades, only materials meeting the chemical compo.
' additional materials, dr.ign stress intensity and allowable sition requirements of the specific A!!! grades listed ahall strces saines, the yirld strrngth, and the ultimate tensile be uged, with the exception that 0.60 maximum silicon 2
strength salues', listed in Tables 1,2,3,4, and 5 of this _ is permitted for castings. Free machining modifications Code Ca,c rnay be used in the construction of Class I,2, of thespecific AISI gradeslisted may be used at the :ame 3, and MC Component supports fabricated without wcid. design stress intensities, allowable stresses and yield ing for Section Ill, Division 1,in aildition to those listed strengths of the reference grades but their use is limited in Table NF.2121 (a) .1. to 400 F maximum temperature. (4) When the ASTM specification referenced in Tabics I through 5 does not specify minimum tensile and }icld
~~'The tatulated values of tenaile strength and pictd Strength are tho e which the Committee believes are suitable for une m.~~
S trength4, the i aluc$ listed under the approEriate columns de,ign calculatmn. required by Section Ill, Diiiiion I. At the shall be snet by the material, temperature, almve room temperature, the talues of trn ile (5) \ late rials in Tal.lcs I through 5 who c nominal strength be as much ten'
a. tomarJ anthe Itri alme aierare tensileorStrength espretedtrend salue which rurir, ed ma'. composition i.* refs renced as an AISI comEosition may ju,ted to the mmimum *pecified room temperaturr ten ite be accepted as satiefying the tripiirements of the ASDI
+tren:th 41 temperatures al.. e room temperature, the peld specification prusided the chemical requirements of the strength safur torrespond in the yield $ttrngth trend rurse ad-ju+ted to the minimum
~~probed room temperature )ir!J etrength.~~
Neither the ernsde strength nor the yirld strength talues entre-epond esartl> to rither "airra.:r" or "minirnum" as the c terms 'The masimum mea ured ultimate ten,ile strength (UTS)of arr appbrd t. a stati tical terstment of a homogenenu. ,rt of the component support material should not escred 170 K.i m d a t a. iiew of tl e su ceptibility of high. strength materials to bnttfrnew Neither the AB1E or ANiil 4tarcrial Specificati<m. nur the and s treso corrosion eracking. Certain applic a tions ma) e si.: wherr Hule, of S.rtion 111, thii. ion 1. trquire elevated temprrature a UTS salue of up to 190 ksicould le con +idered aneptable for te, ting for ten.dr or p,ld runcthe of production matrnal for a material and, under this condition, the Design Specification
u. in C..le e umpournt3. It o en.t intended that trault. of urh should spreify impart triting for the material. For the,e ca c*,it tr.t.. if perfeamed, he inmpan d with thew tabulated trn ite amj .hould le demon trated by the applie ant that(1) the impact test
)srld ,trength sature for AMll. Code ae reptante/rejectum pur. results for the maternal meet Code trquirements and (2) the pu-r* for materiata. If towne eIrieted tempe rature test tr nit. on material i* not subject to attr$s corrotion tracking by tirtue of productuwe snatcrial appear lume r than the tabulated satur. ley a the fare that (a) a corro ite enstronment is not ptrwns and large anmunt (more than the is pecal tanabbly of material *ug. (b) the conq= ment that contains the material has e entsall) no ge tme the pu..ihtety of unne e tror) further intestigatum 1.s sc. rr,idual attra e* or a* emlJy stret es, and it ducs not esperirnte tr e or other ruraris shunhlle run idered. frequent amtamed loade in ocnice.
~~698.1~~
~~$UPP.16 - NC o~~
w- l cAss (continued) l N-249 ,. CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE , AISI specification are within the specified range of the are acceptable under Subsection NF, testing of each designated ASTM specification, and certification of the piece is not required. matcrial shall be in accordance with the requirements of . (7) This Case shall be identified on the Certified NCA.3867.4(e) or (f). The tenn "cach piece of stock Matedal Test Report or Certificate of Compliance, as material" in NCA 3867.4(e) may be taken to refer to applicable, and'all supports'and component standard sup. that portion of the material of the same heat and lot ports constructed under the provisions of the Case shall which has traceability established by the Manufacturer be identified with this Case number. through his program. Where Certificates of Compliance e s 698.2 suer. is - Nc
~~. , . e.~~
C O 8 TABLE 4 g gg Yield Strength Values.Sy, for Dotting Materials for Classes 1,2,3, and MC Supports Min. O Min. Ultimate Design Strese Intensity, hst (multiply try 1000 to oestein poil . k Nominal Specification Type or Yleid Tensile Strength, Strength, for metal temperatures, F, not to saceed y C Composition N o. Grade Ctess Notee kol kai 100 200.300 400 500 600. 650 700 750 800 3 Carbon Steefs S.
~~%e AISI 1015 A108 73 1015CW - 1,2 100 125 100.0 91 2 88.4 85.6 - - - - - -~~
AISI 1050 A108 73 1050CW - 1,2 125 140 125.0 114.0 110.5 107.0 - 2,6 Q m AISI 1111 A108 73 1141 - 81 105 AISIII(4 A108 73 1144 - 2,7 81 105 81.0 73.9 71.6 69.3 - - - - - - AISI 1214 A10tl.73 1214 - 2.6 11 1 105 g AISI 114 % A108 73 till - 1,2,6 105 125 105.0 95.8 92.8 89.8 :- - - s - - 3 SA.19 8 211 - 2,5 - - 81.0 73.9 71.6 69.3 - - - - - -
~~A307 76b A -~~
2.8 36 58 36.0 32.8 31.9 30.8 29.1 26.6 26.1 25.9 - - E Al.Ci l030. S A-ll9 - <lin. 2 85 125 85.0 77.5 75.'1 72.8 - - - - - - 9 1n35,1050, S A.ll9 - <l<!% 2 76 105 74.0 67.5 65.4 63.3 - - - - - - p 1045,10.0 SA-ll9 - 1% n3 2 55 90 55.0 50.2 48.6 47.1 - - - - - - :D S AISI 1080 A57477 1080 - 2 135 170 135.0 123.1 119.3 115.6 - - - - - -
$ 158I 1551 c Low Attoy Steels AISill37.lll0 SA.320 I. 7 11 <2% l .2 105 125 105.0 98.0 94.1 91.5 - - - - - -
E 10, 310 Al90 76a - - 1,2,4 130 150 130.0 121.5 117.2 114.1 110.7 108.7 102.5 98.8 - - AISI 1137, 4110.4380, A57877 - - 1.2.4 135 170 135.0 126.2 121.7 118.5 115.0 112.9 106.4 102.6 - - h en 1037,4012 E o Precipitetton Herdened Steels 13Cr.BNi-2Ma A56174 X M.13 - 1,2,3 165 175 165.0 154.6 148.5 143.0 138.1 133.3 131.1 128.4 - - Notes
1. Scr footnote 2 in the lest for maximum ten dc etrenath limitations.

2. No webling pennitted.

3. A561 Type XM-13,shall be modified o that age hardening twatment shall be 1050 F,only.

4. Mimmum Tempering Temperature chall le 350 F.

5. Nn yirld or tensic strength specified. Acume to be the same as A325 typc 1 bolts for nut design calculations.

6. 3 in maumum diameter, cold drawn and tempered.
~~7.10 m. maumum diameter.~~
~~8. A307 In.II. ,haII mera !=th the shemical and mechanical propertirs of SA.36 bar materia!..~~
B
. 8
~~..._...._...._...._....._............_... j roans om.s !~~
~~TarAS IMIMEE SERVICES INC. .* COMANCHE FEAK 3.E.S. Dan -./ -g gp- Agent For~~
~~. - . . - - .DA&,LAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANf stems cada - - " ' 8' g~~
~~Q'- ---- TEEA5 ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY TEXAS F0WER & LIGHT COMPANY MA "~~
"M 8F e a a teh. A ~ ~ ~ - " D49#8pe. h _ ___
~~5) m /A _~~
~~f- ce-14-9'ae-], J a= 4t?9'S3~~
~~7. JWe c . si ja - "~~
~~W 6erw//firsk s~~
/
~~87[4,Mdg3~~
~~%"Ao/- 9%30, YS3h>~~
~~4 h / - e.i m , e n Yn"Ao/ Ys~s.s e 2%*fod- usnq wsse 2, . y~~
" fs G J,-e u .a g O f.- N4/ -) cem, e<~4dj 4/ \ ) ' \ /0 g l4': / ', ' \' ,h-n 'e \ / \
~~7 /~~
~~/ I l~~
~~('*4 ' g s (% l~~
/
~~s' W~~
~~#( "rp f i s '-~~
~~d W"' g/ \./ / W g }8~~
~~-. , / 3 j .~~
~~y N 7 \,~~
~~&... .% a . .. u.~~
~~t' tab.sincuerd (xsz) . . . . . . . . . . . ,~~
L , __ . _ . . _ _j v FOSS IME4 TEXAS UTIIJTIES SERVICES INC. / COMANCHE PEAK 3.E.S. M ' DAtl.A8 PCWM t.1 T COMPANY Fame " TEXAS ELECTRIC BERVICE COMPANY h5
I
~~# 4- TRIAS POWER & LIGitT COMPANY l~~
cnrca m.sr oaaw- _ ._ .w -24 w - -- Grortn<)l71s}5 - Q Gs/ft 14 l'Ro.I - 73 9m maa l'U Y
%"Ad - ssosa, acie .Ss a GK74f T ., H 78 }Vbshaf booseT.as$~ W C = L f. * &N . 6Til), 67CJf '/$Aed . 6JoJo 4%"#es/ . 6fvoo,4 free ~
T $* - fo U U. & (e m e w aud e.r!) k 7 [
~~/ -~~
~~A9 .~~
~~~ -~~
~~NW E: m<,w, m 4 W - I k $,' w p' c:n . ' / .; ' p~~
~~.e , s . t i > . - . - . . 5 3 . ".. .. ... . . .. . . ...N .~~
O
~~. '~'. . TVNNt.c SMsyd (hse) ,~~
~~~ $3'II'3 # ,~~
6905 1 Off the record. * ' 2 (Discussion off the record) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Please resume your olaces, d Mr. Reynolds. 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman,wewkuldoffer 6 Mr. Reedy to comment on this. t
> 8 .7 l JUDGE Bl.OC!!: Mr. Reedy.
~~6 MR. REEDY: Could I go to the Board? 0 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you going to use the already uj drawn things that we have had trouble with? t1 !~~
~ JUDGE MC COLLO:1: And not alter the drawings? -l. '2 i MR. REEDY: There will be no alteration, 13 -no chalk.
~~14 JUDGE BLOCH: One moment. 15 Off the record. M (Discussion off the record) 17-JUDGE BLOCil: Bake on the record. 18 Let the record reflect that the exhibits beinq~~
~~! M prepared by the Staff include 209 on the right side of 7C the Board, 210 on the left, and 211 in the middle, at! w.,~~
~~25 will use those' numbers for reference. 22 i Mr. Reedy, please go ahead. 23 MR.. REEDY: First of all, I'm yofnq to t : f. 24~~
~~philoaophieslly to begin with, and point out that 6,~~
~~- 25 Mr. Doyle's uackground is in'the aerospace industry, !~~
~~1 l Ii~~
'/
J 4 4 4
C 6 6910 1 he has worked in it for some time, at least from the information that I have received. I
~~'I The difference in philosophy and acrospace and 4! A3ME is safety factor. 1.1 acrospace, 3 and 4 ASME.~~
I 5 If you are workina on a 1.1 nhilosophy for safety facter, you must consider every nit and grit. If l you are working en a safety factor or 3, then you get into o i 3i the assuinptions that are made over here. I
~~'I JUDGE SLOCil: Let's clarify that.~~
L'
~~'4 R . RCEDY: That is, in drawing 209, l l~~
by the Staff. JUDGE DLOCll: 1.ut's clarify a little bit. t u What is the philosophy on why aerospace has
'd ! the lower safety factor? '5 MC. REEDY: If aerospace had a safety factor 'c of 3 or 4, the airplanes in the space shuttles would not-taka off. The purpose in ASME is that our structures de 's not take oft.
JUDGE BLOCil: Please continue. 3 MR. REEDY: If we go into a detailed 2' philosnphy to try and see what the difference is, fra.- l 2' I the assumptions rade by Staff on 209, thure has be6n in 2-ausaritten of rigidity or movement of a rcrcnt a rr. d :n t2 icea1 deforr.ation. 25 We take Mr. Doyle's assurption, lle 's sa ssu; . :
a- s
- d . o:.. ___ - . . - - - - . ,)i1 g:
t thatJthe tube is rigid and will transfer loads at a certain 2 point where there is no basis for that assumption, but it 3 -is very conservative. a' What will happen, in looking at drawing 5 210 is that the initial point of contact will deflect and l-e _the moment' arm will move outward to the point where i
~~/J it is shown on drawing 209, due to local deformation or e, deflection.~~
~~t e This is all taken into account in the different to safety factors.~~
~~'11 JUDGE BLOCll: Local deformation or deflection 10 of what, c' oth the tube and the washer?~~
~~u, MR. REEDY: No. Of the tube. +~~
~~.I i- 'UDGE MC COLLOM: 'It deflects out to the outer j ti dimension in 209.~~
t e. MR. REEDY: That is correct. 7 JUDGE MC JOLLOM: You had your finger'on that 1 point. I [ n" MR. REEDY: The deflection will move, this i -n tube will deflect so that the moment arm willifinally ' 2'- reach the transfer point that the Staff nald they would use
~~I as their assumption.~~
It is this basic difference in philosophy that 24 is really at the core of a lot of discussion that we ar. M having all this week. When you take an aerospace ongu :<.r i .i-- _._______,____.__m_-
~
~~211.-S _ . _ . __ 6912-l who has to-analyze every nit and grit and apply it to '~~
~~'an industry,that can't take into account that the. concrete 3~~
is not-machine surface.. You couldn't even sand it d to a plane that would satisfy the type of analysis 5 that Nr. Doyle is asking be done. 0 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. 'Jal sh , I'll give you a choice 7 of cross-examination or further testimony. 8 MR. WALSH: Mr. Roedy, you stated that if the-aerospace industry did what you suggested, used a 30 factor of safety of 3 or 4, that things wouldn't work. llow about this plant? MR. REYtOLDS: Objection. What does that mean?
~~'3 JUDGE BLOCII: What he said was this~ plant 'd wouldn't fly; that this plant-was not designed to fly.~~
~~M And he said that was a- good thing. 4 l (Laughter) '~~
~~'7 MR. WALSil: To put it another way, you have l~~
~~e stated that that doubling of the load was taken into~~
j. account in the factor of safety; do you have any documenta- 4 20 tion to back that up?

7' MR. REEDY: ' Mr. Walsh, you are wrong.
22 , 1 didn't say the-load would double. 23 What I said was that the load on the bolt would 2d be decreased as the moment arm moved out. It is IS a self-evaluating, self-adjusting thing. 1
11_9 69l'3 JUDGE BLOCH: To put it a different way: Is 2 this conclusion that this-is within the code --lthat this is-the way the code anticipates it be done, based on "i particular code sections? I 5 MR. REEDY: I have been designing
~~.Section ASME Codes for almost 30 years. This is-the way that it.has been done. This is 'the basis of the 8~~
assumptions, and if we were as an ordinary practice in the ASME Code using the type of design that Mr. Doyle has suggested, we would never get anything built, , because there wouldn't be time to do all the work. That is why we have the safety factor. I3 JUDGE BLOCH: The Boiard's problem is, and has been on a couple of occasions now, and we would
~
~~t ~<~~
~~like to'stop having the problem, that-in order to~~
~
4
~~, find out whether somethina is in the code, we don't look to the code; we look-to Mr. Reedy to find out what i~~
~~the practice is. So we can't tell whether the practice~~
,^
~~4 was supposed to be o'ne under the code unless we find out what the practice is.~~
*t i
~~In fact, what you are saying is that in most 72 cases the code doesn't count for a lot. The only thing 43 that really counts is practice.~~
~~R. - REEDY:. No, sir. I would like to' clarify.~~
~~?$ . _ - - = - -~~
i '-- 10. 6914 l 1 that point. . i 7 There are -- for example, let me use an 1 3 illustration. In section 8 of the code, which is really-4 equivalent to sections 2 and 3 of ASME section 3, the 5 safety factor is 4. Design is done by formula. In
~~'6 other words, thickness is equal to pressure times radius 7~~
~~divided by an allowable stress. That is far from an e exact formula. 9 10 11 17 13~~
~~- 14 lb 16 17 + .y 3 9 !h i.~~
20
~~?J 74 25 6~~
in m' '
1
~~~2al; 6915' i~~
~~i If I want to get more refined than that, I can-~~
~~? oo into a Lamo, L-a-m-c tyoc anproach. This will tako 3l f ar more into account as f ar as details and movements~~
~~! 4 and everything. l l .~~
~~.5 The section 8 or section 3, class 2 and 3 l t~~
L o formulas, are based on the maximum conditions of the- . 7 Lame formula and arrived at a simple formula that 8i anyone, even a nonennincer, can arrive at the required 1 thickness. So it is on the basis of bounding assumptions
?l I 10 that the formulas are made up in the code. And this is M the type of bounding assumptions that are made, simplified 12 analysis. Somethino that you can do without being a 12 Ph.D. or a Master's Degree in Engineering, something Id =that people can understand and work with.
~~i 15 Acrospace works on a different philosophy.~~
? - 16 JUDGE BLOCII: Sounds like a good principlc. ,
~~17 What ynu are saying is there is a sinplified formula ~in~~
~~' i8 ' the code that is to be afsplied in this situation?~~
10 MP. P.EEDY: There is not a formula.for.cVery I 20 aingle thing in the code. They do recognize, and in the l i i
~~; 21- appendix, refer you to good enoincerine practico, or standard ' 27 practices. There is a' commentary on the code written in +~~
~~I M 1969, and I think which is in this -- has been entered~~
~~'2d 'in this hearino that com.ments on the difforences of 2+ analysis and why we need to use nore refined analysis, l.~~
~~i 6. 4. p-~~
~~.eal asan j .using 1cwor safety factors.~~
2 If you like, I do have the document with mc and 3 we can oive it to whoever wants to road it. JUDGE BLOCII: What you are saying is that in 5 any onc instance, in order to know when you use a simplified calculation, or a more detailed calculation, I 7 "i you are likely to have to resort for reference to 8 industry practice? MR. REEDY: No. The code where you use a
~~'O detailed analysis, the code specifies a type of ,~~
~~i analysis to us. l For example, for class 1 nuclear reactors, there~~
'3 I is a description of the tyre of approach to use. r ; JUDGE BLOCII: I'm re:ac.nberina Appendix XVII, i
~~5' which has a lot of formulas.~~
~~'O MR. REEDY: Piyht. There are no fornulas for class 1. It is all an iterative process of design and ?~~
~~analysis to build or design a nuclear reactor.~~
l
~~! JUDGE BLOCil: Well, can we do it by analony?~~
~~20 Arc the class 1 formulas supposed to ue more detailed t than the Appendix XVII formulas? M P. . REC 0Y: Yes. There are no formulas, but~~
~~23 the method of analysis is far more detailed, far more "s~~
~~explicit ir. cach type of detail you cet into fcc nuclear reactors. I~~
+%e e I .
1 I JUDGE DLOCll: When you 3ay this is industry i J practice, we said that onc.' before, but what does that ' 3 nean? Is that two-thirds of the industry, the whole 4! industry, everyone in it does it the same way? i t th.i t I l 5l does that mean? tl MR. RC20Y: Everyone in the industry does it the same way, but there are guidelines in section 3 as to 8! the appraich to be used for class 1. It is design by analysis for the nuclear reactor. ic For class 2 and 3 it is primarily designed by 11 t formula. Where f ormulas aren' t provided, good engineering I? practice may be used. l 3 There is a paraqraph in the code that points id to this. I don't have it with r.c. It is in documents
~
15 that haven't even been discussed here, but it ia a l i t '- philosophy that is in the code. 17 There is also a co:smentary on the concept i l 18 of decreasing the allowabic stress from 4 to 3. I 10 believe the document is in the record, but I do have it
^^
~~if you want it. s~~
~~; 0' JUDGC BLOCll: In terns of your connent, if 22 class 1 is by analysis rather than by formula, does your D comment also apply to class 1 elenents?~~
24 MR. RCCDY: Class 1 nuclear reactors. For 25 class I nuclear reactors you do desion by analysis that t
e
~~.234 6918 I are in the guidelines both by appendix and in the text 2 for class 1 pressure vessels.~~
~~3 JUDGE BLOCII: Should this type of analysis, which came as you say for aerospace work, be anplied in 5 class 1 analysis?~~
~~'- MR. REEDY: Not for supports. But, yes, for ? the design of a nuclear reactor, you would take that 8 into account.~~
~~MR. SCINTO: You are talking about the 10 pressure vessel; right?~~
~~MR. REEDY: I'm talking about the nuclear 12 reactor pressure vessel. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Just the pressure vessel. Okay.~~
~~'d I did not understand when you said reactor, because '5 these are all parts of the reactor in a sense. '6 MR. REEDY: Let me oive a further illustration.~~
~~17 If you were to take the larne diameter sphere, cet it on 16 columns, the enaineer would assume that 18l~~
~~' I cach of the 16 columns took an equal load.~~
f 20 I have personally strain gauged columns and 2' found that in fact some are in tension rather than 2; I compression, which means that other columns have to take 23 up the compression that the first one didn't. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I found that with tables at 25 home.
n
~~.; a5 6919~~
.. l-l-1 MR. REEDY: This is no problem, even though 2 you may doubic the load on one column, which I did find 3 through strain-gauging, that schere stayed in service -- ! i d it has been in service for 20 years now with no l-5 problem, because as the load decs cet greater, there is i o- an' adjustment among the other colunns. They tend to 1
~~-7 compensate for each other.~~
6 It is the same principle-that I'm using here. 9 It is the same principle in five bolts, and two are~in 30 contact and the others moving over. I JUDGE BLOCll: Is this industry practice based i
~~2 on some notion that the magnitude of effect is too small !~~
'3 to be worth analyzing? I ' -8 MR. REEDY: That is correct. '5 JUDGE BLOCil: I'm sorry. I just used a J 4 leading question.
~~1' MR. REYNOIDS: It is a good one, though. ,~~
~~18 (Laughter.)~~
~~10 JUDGE BLOCli: I really am just trying to 70 !~~
;- understand what the witnessos are saying. ' }, 71 f1R. REEDY: There are also textbooks on pressure 20 vessel and piping, desian ar.d analysis. ASME publishes .; 23 texts to Jover this type of analysis and other types, ' .e.
~~24 have bebn publishing them for the last 30 years. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it possible that there is~~
~~.e-a6 .-~~
~~c)2C~~
~~' some variation in the industry as to whether the practice 2 -is:this-way, or as,Mr. Doyle indicates?~~
1 MR. REEDY: Sure there is, but there is 4 also the philosophy in the ccde that.weLcannot put 5 into handbooks everything so that the engineers don't think. 6 We must rely on good engineering practice, and a 7l _ concensus of the field of engineering in the United e States helps establish good encincering practice in the
~~' United States.~~
~~10 If you were to go to Germany, you would find~~
~~'I a different philosophy on design, a different philosophy '2 on analysis, and a completely-different philosophy on '3 safety factors.~~
~~14 We base our safety factors in'ASME on ultimate--~~
~~. 15 strength. In Germany they place it on yield strength. 'o JUDGE BLOCil: 'r. Walsh. ,~~
~~17 MR. REYNOLDS: Should he be addressina you 18 at this point, Mr. Chairman?. Do we really have an. issue~~
~~" here? --s 20 MR. WALSil: I believe so, i~~
23 MS. CLLIS: This is cross-examination, 22 I believe. i 2J MR. REY! OLDS: But this is an unorthodox 2d proceeding, too. 28 JUDGC BLOCil: We have been asking. I will-t
+ '
~~.a 7 - M 21 a'~~
~~'c I~~
-j
~~(..~~
~~'i' try to see-that your, legitimate questions are answered. ?~~
~~Tell me what it is you want to cross-examine 3 about. MR. WALSil: Onc point to get across first, I J~~
~~-5H believe, isothat this, I believe what we have been 'o talking about, is a general MPSI configuration, '~~
~~7 although PSE 'does use: that configuration, and MPSI uses 8~~
~~-this configuration pretty-much in containment.~~
Is that correct, Mr. Reedy? bl JUDGE BLOC 11: Well) so what is the point l' about that? ,I 12 MR. WALSH: Well, Mr. -- 33 JUDGE BLOCll: He's saying it is safe, so-
' '8 / MPSI uses it. Why should we be-worried about it?. ,' 15 MR. WALSil: During the hearings of last ^ '6- ' September, Mr. Reedy stated that he had not seen this~ .confiaurationianywhcre'else. Therefore, it is not
industry practice. -

JUDGE BLOCII: .Mr. Reedy, was.that ycur testimony?
2X
. MR. PEEDY: My tc.nir.ony was I had never reen p the confiquration. I had never seen that type of 22 detail. I hadn't looked at that many.
~~23 I-have now seen the'm. I understand it, and 7 I feel I can comment. 25 JUDGE BLOCll: When you say you have now seen~~
/
~~;a8. 64'- ?:~~
i them, just at Comanche Peak or ciscwhere? MR. REEDY: I'v< seen the calculaticns ar.d I 13 .have seri the drawings. .I'va only looked at them here. il JUDGT; BLOCH: The-logical question is, .if ycu
~~~ 's Lhave'only looked at them hero, how-do you know what industry 6 practice is?~~
~~7- MR.. REEDY: Industry practico is the~~
~
~~e philosophy of analysis and the difference between o acrosnaco and nuclear.~~
10 JUDGE BLOCH: You are talking philsophical.

p. You don' t kivv what percentage of the industry would do u 'the calculations Mr. Doyle suggests? l
)
~~1,1~~
~~'MR. . REEDY: 'I do not. I'm talking about an I~~
~~n f overall aspect of types of calculations for N3ME, and~~
~~, :s my knowlddge of the aerospace and their~ types of I~~
4 . calcula tions, and the basic philsophical difference of 67 the engineering approach in acrospace or in ti airplano design versus-the approach in items that are f ic' designed to stay on the carth.
} 20 JUDGE BLOCII: Okay. But that is not to say. ' .; :t that overy analysis done in acrospace would bc 2 inappropriato in the nuclear _ plant? ,
~~f 23 MR. REEDY: No, I'm not saying that at all. l'm sayina,the basic philosophy is'a low safety factor,~~
~
Ja
~~;$ and their philosophy is very consistent with ASME.~~
1 _ _ _ - - l t s L . _ _ _ - - , -
a 6323 R~ 1-As you lower the safety factor, you must 2
~~' increase , knowledge, and the safety f actors that are -3 high are because of unknowns or because of assumptions.~~
~~4 JUDGE BLOCil: Mr. Wa1sh. 5 f tR. WALS!!: The allowable tension that is e allowed for that bolt, is that the same as in the 7~~
~~'AISC code and the ASME code?~~
e
~~-JUDGE BLOCH: Why does that concern you? Why .0-is that a concern?~~
10 ; a- 31P . UALSH: Well, tir. Reedy keeps on stating, 11 about a factor of safety that they have been doinc in 17 ASME, but 1 they are using the same factor of safety that 12 i the general industry uses in building homes. It is the
~~'ti same allowable.~~
~~l , 15~~
~~JUDCE BLOCll: Is that true, Mr. Peody? 3 I'~~
~~to MR.. REEDY: Tbc stresses-from AISC on bolts 17i may be the same or.may be different. 6 We have' alternated-~~
~~'s a little bit in the committee -in which ones we pick up, ic so-I can't answer that without goino to a reference book.~~
N JUDGE BL,0Cil: It is not the stresses, it is the u 2; factors of safety? 22 i MR. REEDY: Yes. The factors of safety, however, 23
~~-are consistent with each other. AISC generally haces it M on yicid.~~
~~We do have a criteria on yield in ASME as a- ' 25 limitina facter. The maximum factor is on ultimate. l t t M l'~~
~~- ---- -- - 1~~
~~; ; _ .- : 7,~~
~~f. ,~~
~~9 d .JUCCE BLOCll: .And when you say they are consistent. .~~
~~.with each other --~~
~~[ MR. HEEDY: There is a dual safety factor-in y ASME. The primary one is ultimato strength. The secondary~~
~~- ,3-~~
~~!i 3 ;back-up'is~ yield. 1 f~~
~~6 This usually comes into account when'you work with ~ _~~
~~# stainless steels, because they are a different characteristic l ,~~
~~8 Jin their material proporties. Mc have to use that as a- .t-~~
~~back-up.~~
~~1$ JUDGE BLOCil: And in home construction, there is~~
~~3. :.~~
II 't- ~ no ultimato strength criterion? , t. 12 MR. REEDY: . On-the bolting,;I don't believe so. . b
"- 13 MR. WALSil: In the rahilosonhy the desion is i 1-s .4 -18 i based on an. elastic analysis. Under-normal onerating condi- l 15 tions., you have to stay'~ below the yield and not attempt . 'l to get to ultimate. The philosophy as going to the ultina*.e
~~^ ' l' would not be appropriate for the normal operating conditions p [:~~
-t !e of the olant. JUDGE BLOCif: Mr. Reedy, would you.ccreent c: :* nat?! .
e Yes, I would. I feel like I'm civ.ng 23 MR.-REEDY: T a course and I don't want to bore you with that. ll . } -[, ' T- ' JUDGE BLOCil: I may need a course. 1 Everything ir based on the ~ 11 . v ib.m ' M MR..' REEDY: t t
~ ,:, ; *d that have been t:alked about here on-e!..stic detoir.it i as it has been pointed out by Mr. Vivirito several t:- , a I' 25 f '
p _._.____m_._..._-____me,.
e --
~~! l l.~~
~~t i elastic analysis doesn't mean that the- material is going~~
. to actually work that way. Ultimate is a far greater .t ; clastic calculated stress than wculd ever be i l lowert i . anywhere.
~~t Excuse me. I should say ntrain. The strain is~~
~~,i approximately 25, 30, 40, 50 times greater thin the i ,' allowaole cicstie strain. Just because calculations are g~~
~~donc elastica 11y doesn't mean that you are depending on a y certain value before you have collapse.~~
,0 .IUDGE BLOCit: Well, the question originally was ,,I addressed that whether there is a greater safety factor .! in AS:1E, does the use of ultimate mean that there is a greater safety factor ir. ASME? .t o.. ,'g MR. i(EUDY: In most conditions, yes.
~~gl JUDGE BLOCll: O'.a y . Now, why? You were just~~
~~., telling me why you neicr re. illy cet to the ul timte.~~
l
~~. .. ! MR. REEDY: Well, rrost conditions are --~~
~~and I'm~~
~~-1 i .i talking about ASME. flos t of that is pressure boundar; ' 'l nl material.~~
l j 1 When you talk pressure boun'ary natorial, * ..:e e l
~~! .,' types of materials that you ate talking about are '.there ? j ,, j the yield strength is very ruch closcr to the -- or is ,~~
i
,. I; close to *he ultimate. l Ar.d ainest all allosable stresses in ASMi' is .t eith( 0:.v-t hird or one-f oa th th.' ultirate r. ether t h..
_ _ . _ l
o . 6929 m > p
~~. 'two-thirds.or five-eighths of the yield.~~
~~L- JUDGE BLOCil: So it actually, in sone instancos, I d ldoes add an extra factor cf safety?~~
~~. .. l ' MR. BEEDY: That's corrhet.~~
V
*~
~~m, ' JL'DGU !!!,0Cil: -1'n not sure I a1Iowed it in the I~~
~
~~_6 e first-place, now that I have done it. .~~
~~!!ow does it Lear on l'~~
~~the question before us?~~
-7f p' Mii . WAI.Sil: ,M r . Reedy stated that the re would g Le some inclastic movement. lie also stated that the tube 10 :would'have to deform.
~~n1 Prior, we were talking about thc , turning radius d of the tube shapes and'the proporties,- if you' recall.~~
;; Well, forLthat toloccur,.it-would have to scuash the_ tube. .,. ,,, ' steel to go' flat on the washer. ' )!;
t-
~~3 JUDGE BLOCil: Now, this..is a-different.problen,~~
~~... but I:want:-.to' listen to -- I don't'sec'how thiserelates b to the factor.of' safety question'at all. -~~
~~1_j ; ,;g;- MR. WALSil: ';le stated - that the factor of safety. 5 J . I;.. '~~
~~;j was high because.of-the inelastic action. ];:[ ;cf ~ JUDGE :BLOCli: Yes..~~
~~I? g~~
; i- MR. WALSH::Mell, .'for the stress ~, or- the component: ..q; - ;i7, - of force to be under tho' tube to natch the co:cponent :orre ofi ;; I -the.:cencrete,-the;whole side of that tube'. stec t ' wou.l d ? ice 3
n
. tojcollapso duo'to inelastic action'. .u ! ,3 JUDGE MC COLLOM: Mr. Reedy, if<I understood- ,a t i .-
~~a-l.~~
~~- - - . _J-e '. 'f.-~~
_ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ lb
s: I e [ l 3 you said about the calculation, if we ao to drawing number
; 209, you are saying that you are using the number which ~ '3 shows that the diameter goes clear out to include the 4 rounded. corner of the pipe.
~~5 Y u justified that on the basis of the safety~~
~~," factor and s'implifying the calculation. You are not i~~
~~7 saying that the rounded part flattens out? l-~~
8 MR. REEDY: "o, I'm not. I'm saying in the l n- dorst e:<treme before collapse, that would be the mechanism 10 that would have to be accomplished.
_i; JUDGE MC COLLOM: But the saf.ety factcr that you i; use suggests tihat you will not get to that pcint. e 13 MR. REEDY: That's correct. i,2 ..jUDGB MC COLLOM: Mr. L'alsh does that - are you is insistinc that it does have to collapse so that you can-use i n, those calculations, then? . j7 MR. WALS!!: Yes. 18: fdODGE BLOCil: Oke;y . But he's act saying.-- jJ :;n he's relying on the. safety factor, ite's : not sayiner that
~~, li~~
~~' ~ -; he has. accurately depicted'the physical mechanism that~~
,e t j ;. 7 ,. actually occurs.- lle's. sayina t. hey ha.y simplified with , . :: -the formula and used'a-method ~which is less. accurate, but. . . ,3 tha t they are. doino '.that because the safety f actors nincludc d 25 in'the code allow them to use some simplified formula's of 1 ;3 -that-kind.
W- - a - ____ _N-
+ 6928 - _~ b g..
;- MR. WALSH: Mr.' Reedy also neg'lected to state - , j that when they use that factor of safety that's lowering the n. ~
~~3 aerospace industry, _they. test every item out of the group~~
. of -- they.take, for example, a sheet of: metal and before 3 they ' install it -- or af ter. they have installed it, e do th'y test 1- - ~
~~9 JUDGE BLOCII: That's consistent with what he's 8 saying. lie,'s saying the aerospace is going to use a~~
~~..^ 'much more refined analysis and you are saying, all right, 9~~
~~10 they also do tests.~~
L
~~n He's saying that because the factor ofHsafetv~~
~
~~[ 12. in'this-industry is greater, they don't have to be so.~~
~~-13 precise; there are a lot of simplifying assumptions and .y this.is.one of them, is what he's saying. ~~~
~~i5 MR. WALSil: Th'c= idea-of the factor /of-safety-is-~~
~1' - - ,3 , tolerance, construction:tolerancei not engincer.ing- -a . . . ;ip tolerance. There is a-fabrication ~of.the' material itself, l 18' tolerance. They have to. test.'the material.
~~They" don.' t~~
- n[ - -tg , test cvery ten' feet of~it. .They.~ may test only f once out iof; a wh'1e: heap, which was -- ~
~~[ p o 44 JUDGE MC'COLLOM: What-does that have to.do wtth~~
~~;y ?. _~~
f;2-the calculations here?- _ , y. 73 MR. WALSH: That'is~theffactor of sa'fety. The. E ' 12t
~~. factor'of safety'is independent ot tho' calculation. They 25 assume titat youc are goings tof do the calculations -right. - r~~
~~y - .~~
'[
~~c: - - -~~
~~.. o-6323 .es i They can't assume that you are not going to -- you are not 2 going to do a free-body diagram of your calculations and make 3 . assumptions all the time.~~
~~JUDGE BLOCil: Well, Mr. Walsh, you do agree-5 don't you, that there are different degrees of refinement o of calculations? There is no automatic stopping point, 7 isn't'that right?~~
g MR. WALSil: Not in this case. This is pretty 9 straightforward. There is no complicated issue here, I don't io believe. The only part that would be conplicated is the. 11 stress distribution underneath the concrete. It's not 17 linear, it's more parabolic.
-13 JUDGE BLOCil: No, but in general, isn't it the i4 case in engineering.that you can continue doing either is calculation so that you can further refine what you've to done before, and that as an engineer, you use your judgment 37 and 'you stop 'at some point before you've done trerv calcula-18 tion you can think of? I mean in general, that's.the cane, 19 isn't it? You don't do every calculation you can think 20 of as an engineer? .h:
~~j- 21 MR. WALSil: On a point like this, you would, 22 I believe. It's. apparent. Doesn't it --~~
~~>. 23 JUDGE BLOCil: In general, not for this subject, ;ust; ~~~
~~L 24 in general? 25 MR. WALSil: In general, yes, you do consider~~
~~b ._~~
L h
FT I? 6930- [ [ .. . i the items. i . [
~~; MR. REEDY: Mr. Chairman, can I make --~~
[ MR. WALSil: 3 I-You go to formulas that are established , 4 The prime action is established in the code and the only _s question that Mr. Reedy's brought up or, excuse me,
~~e. Mr. Doyle and myself brought up, is the location of the 7 moment arm.~~
8l Mr. Doyle has, in'his deposition exhibits, the o reason why MPSI went the way they did. Instead of drawing m the radius.of the tube, they drew it as square as if it was 11 ' in-bearing, and they neglected the radius, t 12 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that 13 the Board, through its questioning of Mr. Walsh, has ia focused exactly on the principles involved, and it further I
, is ! seems'to me that the Board has an obligation to satisfy. -16 itself that it understands the issues, and that there are no -17 ' safety problems involved. / ; ie But the Board doesn't have the obligation to a
g; o satisfy Mr. Walsh or Mr. Doyle that what we see is correct' [- -20 and that they are wrong; and that's where we get to the c j M- point.of diminishing' returns, where we continue to'ask these 22 men questions and they continue to protest when everyone a. 123 else in the room understands it and agrees with it.
~~2. JUDGE BLOCil: Okay. Well, I have only one hore 25 problem and'that'is that as I understand, we are beinn a_.ed I '~~
l v :
6931
~~, to accept this as a matter of industry practico, but wo 12 really have only-testimony about the practice in one plant.~~
~~, -y MR. REEDY: Can I answer that response, also? y JUDGE BLOCil: Yes.~~
~~-5 MR. REEDY: This is very pcrtinent to the safety 3~~
factor issue. ASME:has recognized some of the problems with , 7 fanalysis and the fact when you don't use formulas, that g you really need an engineer. We have strengthened the 9 . code,1we have put out a new document, N626.3. That document g, requires that any. engineer who certifies that the design 33 adequacy of any ASME design report or stress report that 3, requires design by analysis must be a registered professional 33 engineer-in a state in the United States and have four years 3 ,. j experience-in his field of nuclear desian application. i3 I do meet that criter'ia. l q JUDGE BLOCil: I would like staff's reaction,-to tel]
7 'me whether they are satisfied that the-cimplified analysis is which applicant and staff have previously relied upon ic is adequate or whether you would like to work l ec through this problem that we were discussing previously 21_ before you make a conclusion on,that point.
32 MR. SCINTO: Mr.' Chairman, are you asking 23 whether they can respond now or they want to think 3 about'it, is'that'-- 25 JUDGE BLOCil: Well, that's-always open. If jaa l
~~-1 t~~
I i
f ej - . ,
'13d9. 6932 -
~~M i want to think about it and respond later, that's also okay.~~
~~-2 WITNESS TAPIA: Think about it.~~
3 JUDGE'BLOCH: They would like to think about it.. 4 Please make sure that we get them back on this question 5 at some point during the hearing. e MR. SCINTO: Yes, sir. 7 MS. ELLIS: Mr. Chairman? 8 MR. SCINTO: In fact, I wanted to ask a leading o question. 10 JUDGE I1LOCil: Yes, Mr. Scinto. 11 MR. ECINTO: In connection with the prior question, 12 they said they were going to think'about it, and Mr. Doyle 13 said get together with Mr. Walsh about any other questions 14 he may have. i 15 I want to verify any questions he may have, what ar o
-to the ones he was just asking Mr.-Reedy was that if we' fully 17 agree with Mr. . Reedy, that if our. position is .that we- fully 18 agree with'what Mr. Reedy said, that sounds like the end of- ] 10 further discussions; is that correct? .j . 20 JUDGE BLOCII: On this subject?
21 MR. SCINTO: Yes. 7 3 22 JUDGE BLOCli: I thought -- yes, that's correct,
?
23 because the previous discussion we had was based on staff's-2d primeLdetermination that they were going to investigate it. 25 If they now decide they are not going to investigato c___. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ -_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -
~~, \~~
9267 t 1 words we chose, that EBASCO came to the process totally 2 independent from Comanche Peak. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Does the word ' coordination' as 4 used, is it with respect to EBASCO? 5- MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Involved with respect to either
~~-7 the professor or SIGNA?~~
8 MR. REYNOLDS: What we envision for the professor 9 is as distinct portions of this plan are completed, and ' 10 as we attempt to meet with Walsh and Doyle to discuss 11 them, we also will provide that information to the professor 12 for his independent review and analysis. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: This is really a paper shuffling 14 effort that EBASCO is doing. 15 MR. REYNOLDS: No, it is more than paper 16 shuffling on EBASCO's part. We are using EBASCO's 17 resources for some technical analysis. 1 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. That is not with respect 19 to independent matters. 20 MR. REYNOLDS: Not at all. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Further proof you want to file. 22 MR. REYNOLDS: Exactly so. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Ellis? 24-MR. TREBY: This is Mr. Treby. May I interrupt? NF This is one of the areas that we were going to talk about.
l
9268 1 I think maybe this would be an appropriate time. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Please. 3 MR. TREBY: That is, it was our understanding 4 that this list of items on pages 5 through 8 are the 5 design hardware questions that is referred to in the 6 Board's- December 28th Order, on page 74. And as we 7 understand it, the only independent review being give to 8 that is by the professor, and that SIGNA will have nothing 9 to do with these items that are listed on 5 through 8. 4 10 JUDGE BLOCH: That is what the plan is, is 11 that correct, Mr. Reynolds? 12 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. I think it is an over-13 statement to say that SIGNA will have nothing to do with 14 these issues. I think that SIGNA, as part of its review, 15 since it has received the Board's Memorandum and Order of 16 December 28th, in accordance with the Board's direction, l 17 will obviously have to review the systems chosen in light 18 of the Board's decision. 19 And the items listed on pages 5 through 8 in 20 our plan include the issues that the Board raised in its I i 21 Memorandum and Order. It includes other issues as well, 22 but it certainly encompasses what the Board decided in that l 23 Memorandum and Order. , 24 JUDGE JORDAN : On page 3 of your plan, you 25 say at the bottom of the paragraph: We believe that
9269 1 the plan envelopes all significant issues raised by the 2 Intervenor and the concerns raised by the Board on the 3 pipe support' design matter. I, therefore, presume that 4 this plan is not meant to be all inclusive. Is that 5 correct? Mr. Reynolds? 6 MR. REYNOLDS: All inclusive of what? 7 JUDGE JORDAN: All of the Walsh-Doyle matter. 8 MR. REYNOLDS: Are you focusing on the word, 9' 'significant?' Is that -- 10 JUDGE JORDAN: No. I was focusing on the pipe 11 support design matter. You are limiting it to design. 12 Not the inspections thereof. 13 MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, no, no. That is not correct. 14 Item 1 in the tasks to be addressed, is that action process. 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that satisfactory, Doctor 16 Jordan? 17 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes. I just wanted to point 18 that out to Ms. Ellis and the parties, that there is that 19 statement. Can you hear me now? 20 MR. REYNOLDS: Dr. Jordan, I don't like to l 21 get hung up on the words. Maybe the pipe support design 22 matter, which you quoted from page 3, should be stated 23 as something else. The Walsh-Doyle issues, however you 24 want to phrase it, we intended it encompass all of the 25 issues that have been litigated by virtue of these witnesses. i
l l 9270 g 1 JUDGE JORDAN All right, fine. 2 MR. REYNOLDS: For example, you might consider 3 that Richmond inserts were not, per se, pipe support ) 4 design matters, but they should be covered by this plan. 5 JUDGE JORDAN: Thank you, that helps. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Ellis? 7 MS. ELLIS: All right. In regard to the 8 independent expert which the Applicants propose, the plan 9 appears to be deficient at this time in that they have not 10 identified who the expert will be, and there is no 11 identification of the criteria which will be used to select 12 this expert. 13 It is conceivable, for instance, that the only 14 criteria might be that such an expert say what they 15 want to hear, and it doesn't explain how an expert, who 16 will be presumably selected by the Applicant, for purposes 17 explained to him by the Applicant, after discussions held 18 with the Applicant and paid by the - Applicant, can be 19 considered to provide additional independence. 20 MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I have no response to that. 21 It seems to me-she is challenging the integrity of someone 22 not even selected yet. If she seeks to challence this 23 person's integrity she can do so by cross examination. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I think she did a little more. 25 She basically was raising a question about the approach
9271 I that would be made to the person, and how the parties and the 2 Board would know that the approach is to seek someone who 3 is objective rather than, for example, explaining litigation 4 posture, and seeking someone sympathetic. 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Let's put it this way, Judge 6 Bloch. This is our evidence. It is going to be our proof, 7 and if, for some reason, through cross examination the board 8 is not satisfied that the professor is not, then that would 9 go to the weight of the evidence. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Ellis, you are going to be 11 free on cross examination to pursue how this relationship 12 was formed. That there is some assurance of independence. 13 In addition, Mr. Reynolds is saying that while the Board 14 has urged that there be independence, that we are not 15 requiring that. 16 And I think with respect to this matter he is 17 correct. The independence would be helpful to the Board is in lending weight to the evidence, but for the most part 19 the Board tries to understand these technical issues 20 - itself anyway, and we don't pay great weight to the 21 asserted independence of an individual like that. It would 22 be helpful to the feeling of the matter, but not really 23 essential to the point whe,re I think the Board would 24 require that a particular procedure be followed to find 25 this independent person. I
9272 1 MS. ELLIS: All right, sir. Thank you. 2 Shall I continue? 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Please. 4 MS. ELLIS: The next point is regarding SIGNA 5 Energy Services to perform the independent design review. 6 Applicant cited the Board's Order and being in accord with 7 the Board's recommendation. However, the Board's Order 8 clearly did not recommend SIGNA, contrary to the Applicant's 9 a.ssertion. The Board only stated that SIGNA appeared to be 10 one criteria of the criteria listed by the Board in its 11 Order. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: We do think that our Order issued 13 approximately two days ago on reconsideration, spells out 14 where we think the question of the independence of SIGNA 15 lie. Have you received that Order yet, Ms. Ellis?
~~.16 MS. ELLIS: I have received it. I have not 17 read it.~~
18 JUDGE BLOCH: There is a portion near the end 19 that deals with the status of this. It explains basically 20 that you are not precluded from arguing, either now in 21 response to the plan, or in evidence later, that this 22 organization was not independent. We urge that it be 23 independent . It would helpful to our confidence in the 24 work that is done, but it is not a precluded matter of 25 proof for you.
9273 g MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, may I state for the 2 record that the relationship that the Applicants and SIGNA 3 will be the same relationship that existed for the first 4 SIGNA review, and the criteria for independence for that 5 review were scoped by the Staff. 6 Applicants didn't create the standards for 7 independence in that review. The Staff proposed them. 8 The same procedures will be followed here. g JUDGE BLOCH: You will also see in the Motion 10 for Reconsideration, in a footnote, we indicated that on 11 the present state of the record there is no evidence 12 that persuades us that SIGNA is not independent. We 13 understand that there may be new evidence that we have 14 not yet seen, but at the time that we issued that decision 15 that was our judgment on the present state of the record. 16 Ms. Ellis? 17 MS. ELLIS: We expect to change the state of 18 the record in that regard. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. And Applicants are now 20 on notice of that, I am sure. 21 MR. SCINTO: Mr. Chairman, this is Joe Scinto. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, sir. 23 MR. SCINTO: I,just wanted to point out that 24 in connection with the original SIGNA review run at the 25 behest of the Staff, the Staff did not establish maximum
?.
9274 1 ' standards for independence. I just want to make sure the 2 Applicant whatever he uses in this proceeding later on, 3 in the relationship with SIGNA, it will be the Applicant's 4 burden to demonstrate that the relationship with SIGNA was 5 adequate, not the Staff's burden. 6 JUDGE BROCH: Ms. Ellis, will you continue? 7 MS. ELLIS: Yes, sir. Another of the matters 8 which concern us is the Applicant poses to address only
~~9 the Walsh-Doyle concern.~~
~~Clearly , from the Board's Order, 10 the Board's concern -- there appears to be no attempt by 11 the Applicants to address those further concerns on the~~
~~. 12 part of the Board.~~
13 JUDGE BROCH: If I understand, the SIGNA -- 14 does SIGNA look at two other sections of the plant, are is to be similar kind of independent design reviews as the 16 first one they have done, is that correct? 17 l!R. REYNOLDS: That is correct. 18 JUDGE BROCH: So to that extent, other parts 19
~~.of the plant other than just Walsh-Doyle, is that correct?~~
20 or are they just going to look at Walsh-Doyle issues in 21 those portions of the plant? 22 MR. REYNOLDS: They are going to look at issues 23 that were both Walsh-Doyle issues, and issues that were 24 raised in your Memorandum and Order, j 25 JUDGE BROCH: You know, we suggested that we
i 9275 I wanted two other sections of the plant to be looked at 2 to assure us of the design of the plant based on our findings 3 on Walsh-Doyle. 4 If I understand you correctly, you are not 5 accepting that suggestion. 6-MR. REYNOLDS: It wasn't clear to me that that 7 was the suggestion. These people will be looking at piping 8 and pipe supports on two other systems. 9 JUDGE BROCH: That was not the scope of the first 10 IDVP, was it? 11 MR. REYNOLDS: The first IDVP was more than 12 piping and pipe supports. 13 JUDGE BROCH: Ms. Ellis, that is the answer. 14 MS. ELLIS: All right. I believe that basically 15 covers our concerns with it. 16 JUDGE BROCH: Is the Staff there? 17 MR. TREBY: The first Staff concern I guess has 18 been touched upon. 19 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, that clicking, 20 is that on your line? 21 M$. ELLIS: I am sorry. That is someone trying 22 to call in on my line. I tried to call as many people to 23 tell them not to call as possible. 24 MR. REYNOLDS: Is there a way you can turn it 26 off for now? MS. ELLIS: There is no way that I can turn it
s 9276 1 off. 2 JUDGE BROCH: Continue. 3 MR. TREBY: I am not giving a preliminary 4 comment in accordance with the groundrules the Board set 5 up at the beginning of the conference call. The first is, 6' we had understood the Board's suggestion that there would 7 be independent reviewers responding in detail to each of the 8- allegations of CASE concerning hardware design problems. 9 As we understand the proposed plan, it is going 10 to be CASE's allegations concerning hardware design 11 problems are going to be addressed by a panel of the 12 Applicant's NTSI, ITC Grannell -- it will be coordinated 13 by EBASCO, and the only independent reviewer, and we are 14 not quite sure what his function is, or her function is, -- 15 will be this professor. We are not sure that that was the 16 suggestion that the Board had made. 17 MR. BROCH: I think it was, Mr. Treby, in terms i 18 of the Board's authority to gain confidence in the answers 19 and the Staff's ability to feel comfortable. How important l 20 do you think this difference is? 21 MR. TREBY: I think perhaps we can consider 22 that further. I guess it depends on how much details this 23 panel gives us as the bapis for whatever their conclusions 24 are, and how complete their review of those matters are. 25 JUDGE BROCH: I take it that the Staff would l
4 9277 r 1 try to analyze technical responses for itself whether the 2 responses are adequate? 3 MR. TREBY: Yes. 4 JUDGE BROCH: Will you continue. Would you 5 continue? 6 MR. TREBY: The second comment is we notice 7 on page 8 that the areas that SIGNA is going to look at 8 relates to segments of two piping systems. Our comment 9 is we don't have very much information as to what the 10 segments constitute, and just how extensive they are 11 going to be looking at these two systems, so it is hard 12 for us to come up with comments at this point. 13 JUDGE BROCH: Mr. Reynolds, can you clarify 14 that at all? 15 MR. REYNOLDS: It seems to me it is perfectly 16 clear. I couldn't understand what more we could say to 17 help the Staff understand the scope of the review. From 18 the steam generator to the main steam isolation valve. That 19 is distinct and clear to me. M With regard to the component cooling water, that 21 scope has not been finalized, to my knowledge, right now. 22 And with regard to the scope of SIGNA's assessment, that 23 also is quite clear. They will assess the piping and pipe 24 support systems on the segments selected. I don't understand 25 Mr. Treby's problem with definition.
t 9278 9 1 It may not be pages and pages, but it tells you 2 exactly what they are going to do. 3 MR. TREBY: I guess we aren't clear as to the 4 pipe and piping support systems on the main steam line, 5 and I guess our other comment is we will have to look at 6 it first.' Our comment goes to what our views are as to 7 its sufficiency. 8 JUDGE BROCH: Mr. Reynolds, do you know how 9 many supports we are talking about; pipe supports? 10 MR. REYNOLDS: I really don't. What we tried 11 to do was assess the issues in controversy and then pick 12 those systems where most, if not all, of the configurations 13 would be found. I think we are talking about many, many 14 supports, but I don't know how many. 15 JUDGE BROCH: Mr. Treby? 16 MS. ELLIS: Mr. Chairman?. 17 JUDGE BROCH: Yes, Ms. Ellis. 18 MS. ELLIS: 'May I make one comment in that regard. 19 We are a little concerned about this particular matter, f 20 because it appears to us that the Applicants have had more 21 than sufficient time to have gone back and corrected many 22 problems which were brought to light by the Walsh-Doyle 23 allegations on these particular lines. And it appears to 24 us that it might be more-appropriate to look at one that t 25 is more of a virgin line, you might say. E.
F( _ 9283 4 1 On page 8, where SIGNA's work is outlined, we 2 hope consideration will be given to having the check list 3 that SIGNA uses include the concerna expressed by Mr. Walsh 4 and Mr. Doyle in prefiled testimony, particularly in Mr. 6-Doyle's testimony, at pages 7 through 8, and page 16, where 6 there are two additional criteria. 7 On the first paragraph of the section on 8 independent design review, the statement is that SIGNA' 9 will be requested to employ the same methodology as it has to previously used. This does not address the Board's concern 11 for a measure of observer reliability, which is of great 12 concern to us, because we want to know when we are done how 13 we know whether the independent reviewers reliably detected 14 most, or all, of the design errors available. 15
~~.Second, this does not accept the Board's-16 suggestions concerning the degree of independence during .the 17 review period, and it anticipates the possibility, I think, 18 3.~~
t e. of informal meetings that are not documented during that t 19 time period. 4. The Board is concerned about whether that l 20 -affects independence. 21 And~ third, we hope the Applicant intends to
~~-H comply with our suggestic t on clear presentation and 23 full documentation. ,~~
~~24 And fourth, we hope that each of the conclusions~~
~~- 25 will'be-independent, and independently explained and.~~
~~O'.'~~
~~,,,,,-.-,,-,-,,,.y,,-,.w...,,-,-r.c,,..-v,'~~
m-,. --- ..-....__. _.. .,- ,r-...- % ,, , _.w.,,- ,,w,..,--- c.,,-.,,,,.. ..,-,,yy-,,,,,-,,%,
'5 i 9284 e 1 evaluated, and will not rely on unanalyzed portions of 2 Applicant studies. 3 I would particularly like to urge the use of 4 tables, charts, and matrixes, because many of these 5 issues involve large samples, and the ability to follow 6 the sample to see the kind of errors that are detected, 7 and what the outcomes are, can be greatly facilitated 8 with a graphic presentation. Large masses of data are 9 hard to analyze in written text alone. 10 There is a question that is raised by Mr. Walsh 11 and Mr. Doyle that the Board will have to face, and we 12 hope it will be covered either in briefs or testimony. 13 This involves how you evaluate different error levels 14 that may be found in an independent design review. 15 One way, which the SIGNA Report follows, is 16 to try to test the safety significance of each of the 17 errors. It is not clear to me what happens, though, 18 about errors that happen not to have safety significance. 19 If there are errors found, as we would expect in any 20 design, there is some level of numbers of errors that 21 make people uncomfortable about whether it was luck that 22 there was no safety significance in this particular segment 23 of a plant. , 24 We will need assistance in knowing how to 25 interpret the likelihood that non-costing errors, errors i
L-- 9285 I. A with no safety significance, in one area of the plant 2 ! might be indicative of other errors that have safety 1 3 significance in other areas of the plant. l l 4 That is all that the Board has to say, and l 5 those comments were made for all the members of the Board 6 after extensive discussion. 7 Mr. Reynolds? 8 MR. REYNOLDS: I have no specific responses 9 to what the parties raised. You allowed me to comment 10 as we went along, and I have no need for clarification 11 on the points that you discussed that the Board has. And 12 we do appreciate the prompt attention that was given to 13 our request for response to our plan, and we will factor 14 into our efforts the comments we have received. 15- JUDGE BROCH: We are hopeful that after all 16 the evidence is pleaded, that this will be the end of the 17 proceeding on design. At some point, as we pointed out 18 in our reconsideration decision, repeated testimony that 19 comes in is an undue burden on the parties, and due process 20 is at stake. We have accorded, we think, a lib ral right
~~, 21 to the Applicant to continue sending evidence here, but 22 our patience in that regard is not unlimited.~~
23 Are there any other necessary comments before 24 we adjourn. 26 MS. ELLIS: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of
9800 19 joy 4 i still have the same statement that you are talking about 2' the materials. i 3 JUDGE BLOCH: So in your opinion, Note 1 does not . I 4 prohibit this particular use. 5 WITNESS WILLIAMS: That's correct. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Doyle. 7 BY MR. DOYLE: 8 Q But the U-bolt, which in this case happens to be 9 a single item -- it's a PUS 160 which wraps around the u) pipe, comes to a box frame and actually provides a u clamping force between the two -- still suffers from the 12 same relaxation; is that not correct? 13 A (Witness Williams) With time, because of the 14 metals, it will relax. So will a pipe clamp. 15 Q The pipe clamp has nothing to do with the U-bolt. 16 Is the U-bolt intended for cinching up by the manufacturer? 17 A I would have to go to the catalogues. i la O Isn't it a fact that all U-bolts are built with 19 a radial clearance for pipe expansion? 20 A Again, I don't have all of the information in front 21 of me. If you want me to check on that, then I will. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether these items -- 23 what the intended use of the manufacturer was if the item 24 of radial clearance were considered by Cygna? 25 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I know that sometimes they are
9801 19 joy 5- used more like guides. 1 In this case there is no clearance. 2 .For that reason they are saying they think it develops 3 sufficient friction forces to resist rotation. I think you 4 have to evaluate what those forces are before you can judge
~~5 whether you are really at the limit.~~
~~6- JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Doyle is asserting that this was~~
i. 7 not an intended use by the manu'facturer. I just want to know I i ,
i a whether Cygna examined the question of whether this is an ! 9- intended use by the manufacturer. J 4 10 WITNESS WILLIAMS: We did evaluate the situation. i ! 11- JUDGE BLOCH: So would this be somewhere in the
~~12. documentation you have with you? !-~~
13 WITNESS WILLIAMS: No, not what I have with me. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: How .do- you know that you looked at - 15 whether or not this was an' intended use by the manufacturer? 16 What lets you.know that? i 17 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I guess I'm not saying whether i is we asked an intended use. We are saying we felt it would
~~- 19 develop sufficient strength to resist the rotation, and on 20 that basis we felt it was acceptable.~~
l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: -Would it be acceptable even if the 22 manufacturer stated that that was not an acceptable use? 23 WITNESS WILLIAMS:. I guess we would want to i 24 ? valuate that. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether or not you looked O
9802 19 joy 6 i at the manufacturer's specifications before drawing a conclu-2 sionabout acceptable friction forces? 3 WITNESS WILLIAMS: No, I don't know right now. 4 I would have to check. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Doyle, continue. 6 JUDGE JORDAN: Did you say that in your opinion 7 the U-bolt could be clamped down sufficient to prevent a rotation? 9 WITNESS WILLIAMS: That's what we are saying. 10 JUDGE JORDAN: Now, what is the basis for that if statement? Did you make a calculation or you saw a calculation 12 made? 13 WITNESS WILLIAMS: This was our evaluation. 14 JUDGE JORDAN: This is an engineering judgment in 15 this case? 16 WITNESS WILLIAMS: In this case. 17 BY MR. DOYLE: 18 Q Do you know what forces are required to develop 09 sufficient clamping pressure on a system in which the pipe is 20 clamped between a point and a line? 21 A (Witness Williams) A point and a what? 22 Q And a line. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: First, do you agree that that is 24 basic to the situation you are analyzing, clamping Letween a
~~.25 point and a line?~~
s
9873 8 mgc 4-2 1 correct - prohibition for Note 1 as against friction 2 connections using that bolted material loaded in shear? 3 MR. REYNOLDS: Does she have the document? e4 WITNESS WILLIAMS: No. , 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Let's see if we can make the 6 document available. 7 Mr. Ward? 8 WITNESS WARD: A point of information, Mr. Chairman. 9 The SIT evaluation, was that evaluated before 10 this Board? - 11 JUDGE BLOCH: We had hearings on it, and the 12 4 findingt that we reached in our design decision were findings 13 that-considered what the SIT findings were. We didn't 14 accept all the SIT findings. 15 WITNESS WARD: I understand. .And are we now about . t 16 to continue that discussion on-some of the issues that you-17 did not accept the resolution of? ' 18 JUDGE BLOCH: What I am going to do now is to 19 question the basis that was given for the engineering 20 judgment that this particular U-bolt was satisfactory. I 21 want to know more about what Cygna now knows to support the 22 judgment that was presented in the report. That's not the 23 question of whether it's ultimately correct. It's the 24 question of whether you knew enough to reach that engineering 25 judgment when you reached it. e' !' 4
9874 a I mgc 4-3 JUDGE JORDAN: That's right. We don't expect you 2 to defend the Applicants' calculations. We expect you to 3 defend your saying that everything was satisfactory. 4 WITNESS WARD: I understand that. I guess my own 5 prediction is that we're plowing the same field that you properly plowed before and will grow the same bitter fruit. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: If it is that kind of bitter fruit 8 and you say that, we will stop. I mean, we just want to know the extent to which you thought about these issues. 10 Now the question thatI want to ask about this section is, the prohibition, you say, is limited to friction 12 connections loaded in shear, but the reason given for it is 13 that the steel produces an uncertain clamping force, and 14 my question is whether the same reason given for that 15 prohibition doesn't also apply to the use of the same steel 16 in a U-bolt for the purpose of exerting a clamping force 17 that will prevent frictional rotation, that will cause is enough friction to prevent rotation? 19 WITNESS WILLIAMS: The beginning of your statement 20 again was -- were you correlating that to a clamp? 21 JUDGE BLOCH: No. Applied to the bolt. But as 22 I understand, the steel being used is the same steel, and it 23 produces uncertain clamping force, so that the ASME Code 24 expressly prohibits its use in a friction connection loaded 25 , t i l t
9875 1 mgc 4-4' '
~~.in shear.~~
2 Now the question is, is this analogous? That is, 3 even though it's not exprusly prohibited, doesn't the same d rationale prohibit its use in this other context? 5 WITNESS WILLIAMS: Okay. Our position on that was that you can also apply that rationale to clamps, and we 7
~~-feel it must be discussed in that context, and we did not a~~
~~evaluate this any further last night, since that is our~~
~~~ position on it.~~
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So basically you don't know whether the underlying rationale should also be applied both 12 to U-bolts and clamps. You are saying it's a general 33 practice, and that was really the basis on which you decided Id you wouldn't challenge it further. That's part -- 15 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I agree it's a general practice. 1 to Yes,.that's part of the basis. It's not necessarily-
~~'7 implicit-that that's the only basis. We did evaluate the is materials. We did think about it.~~
~~~ I' JUDGE BLOCH: Do you now have a reason for 20 believing that the rationale on friction connections is not 21~~
~~- applicable to the U-bolt using the same material in this use?~~
~~22 L'S2BU WITNESS WILLIAMS: We have not changed our position 23 on this. JUDGE BLOCH: . I-understand you to be saying that~~
~~-you. don't have any further rationale on that; is that correct 1 9:~~
k
9877 P
~~-s mgc 4-6 the course of,this review state to you that.of their '2 personal knowledge, this was industry practice, particularly 3~~
~~with U-bolts now, not box frames or anything of that kind -- 4-U-bolts cinched down around pipes?~~
~~'$ MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to these 6~~
witnesses', I must state that they have come in here with a two-volume report, and now they are being asked the most 8 minute details in that report. It was sprung on them s yesterday. I think it is patently unfair to be asking 10 Ms. Williams these kinds of detailed questions without notice 11 that this. is the level of detail that she is going to have 67 ,
~~, to be testifying to.~~
~~Os JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Reynolds, it is my opinion that 14 the report is as good as each engineering judgment made l in it and no better. 16 MR. REYNOLDS: I agree with that.~~
~~.,. [ JUDGE BLOCH: All we are doing is asking about one i~~
i 18 a engineering judgment made in the study. J l ~e 19 l MR. REYNOLDS: I agree with that.
~~. 20~~
'e 3 , JUDGE BLOCH: We want to find out the extent and 7)~ r- .* .4 % - 21 depth of' analysis for that judgment. l% \ 22 ' MR. REYNOLDS:
~~, Again, you are talking to the l.~~
~~23 1~~
~~s 4 project manager. You are not talking to the engineer who did l~~
~~,V ?~~
the. job. - 25 .} % , ; JUDGE'BLOCH: 'She said she didn't want to produce N '%.. ', i ? ,l r-4 e 9 e
~~>>1 l~~
~~r-9878~~
~~-s ~~~
I mgc 4-7 the engineer that did the job, and we are therefore relying -- 2 MR. REYNOLDS: It is a matter of notice on the 3 issues. WITNESS WILLIAMS: Our engineers will not provide 5 any further basis on that, and it's not a matter of whether 6 g I want them to step forward or not, or that I would want to 7 fly ten people here. It's still going to get down to the 8 point that you are going to have to do a very detailed analysis of this thing to determine whether -- which side 30 is correct. And, in fact, I have some analyses going on back in the office right now. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I just wanted to know the
~~'3 basis for stating that it is industry practice with respect to U-bolts. If you don't know, just say you don't know.~~
15 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I personally don't know. You 16 asked me about my engineers. 37 JUDGE BLOCH: They assured you that it was industry is practice to cinch U-bolts down around pipes. End 4 0 Jimmy follows 21 22 23 24 25 6
G5JRB:jrb fla MM 9879 e i JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, let me as you another 2 question: 3 You said that over time the nature of this materia] 4 was such that it would relax. What time period do you have 5 in mind for this relaxation to occur? 6 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I can't answer that question 7 right ncw. 8 We are, as I said, evaluating it in more detail. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: If it is a material that relayes, io isn't it necessary, at least, to have a rigorous maintenance 11 program to retorque bolts from time to time? 12 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I think before committing to 13 something like that, you should evaluate the extent to which 14 that possibility exists. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: When you think about what the 16 frictional forces that are developed by this U-bolt, at what 17 point in time is it appropriate to consider the frictional is forces? 19 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I'm not sure it's clear in my 20 mind how great those frictional forces are in this particular 21 case. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: What is the rotational force that 23 must be resisted? 24 Do we know that from the diagram? 25 WITNESS WILLIAMS: No. t Y - ., j
5 9880 def O! 1 JUDGE BLOCH: How could you decide in your 2 engineering judgment that it was adequate to resist it, if you 3 don't know what the force is? 4 WITNESS WILLIAMS: This gets back to my statement 5 yesterday: 6 We were dealing with an entire set of documents 7 in doing this review, not the information that is before us a today, solely. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: How do you know it had rotational
~~.10 forces on it, just because you--~~
11 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I am not sure that--okay, 12 rotating--it displaces a--I don't know if that is a point that 13 is really important to this question; but: 14- We have the stress analysis in front of us. 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Are we talking about translational 16 forces or rotational forces? 17 WITNESS WILLIAMS: And it should not have--I'm 18 sorry--that was an engineering detail that's really not 19 pertinent to this disucssion; I really should not have 20 muddied the waters on that, on that technicality. 21 The--we have the stress analysis there, which gives 22 us the information on displacement loads at the various load 23 points; we had criteria documents; we had specifications; we 24 had allowables; we had manufacturers' catalogs. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I aE just asking: 0 6-.
~~- .. - -. . ~ . - - .- .- - - . . --.~~
5-3 9881 er 1 If the document that was placed in fzont of you 2 yesterday was shown to you then? 3 WITNESS WILLIAMS: No. i 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 1 i 5 'MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, may I make a point? 6 I think what you just did was have Mr. Doyle 7 testify about " industry practice". We didn't define the e term " industry practice". 9 Then you asked Ms. Williams about " industry 10 practice". 11 What is." industry practice"? 12 There is a serious problem,'I think, in the proce-13 dure which allows.the cross-examiner to testify while he is 14 cross-examining; and yet, not subject him to cross-examination 1i 15 on his own testimony. , la JUDGE BLOCH: Please ask questions of Mr. Doyle, 17 .if you'd like, right now? 18 Whereupon, 19 JACK D(1TLE 20 having been previously. sworn as a witness for CASE, was 21 further examined and further testified as follows: 22 EXAMINATION (XXINDEX 23 BY MR. REYNOLDS: 24 Q Mr. Doyle,.what do you r.ean by " industry practice"? 25 A That would be a practice which would be common h a .
f . _1 throughout the industry. :
~~-2 Q Now, when you say that this is industry practice, 3~~
on what experience do you draw to make that conclusion? 4 A From having walked through numerous sites through-5 out the country. 6 Q By walking through you can make a judgment on 7 the adequacy of bolts in this configuration? a A ' I would say so, yuh. - 9 Q . Let's talk about the " numerous sites"? 10 What sites? 11 A FFTF, Washington; Davis-Bessie in Ohio; Comanche; 12 and also in the office designing U-bolts for plants: 13 Russellville, Arkansas; Millstone, Connecticut; and--is that 14 enough? 15 0 Are you suggesting that you designed supports
~~~ 16 for ANO and Millstone?~~
17 A I beg your pardon? t is 0 You just testified that you were involved in the 19 design of supports for-ANO and-Millstone? 20 A f ANO, I didn't say that. i ! 21 l Q What about Millstone? You just mentioned l 22 Millstone? What did you do there? 1 23 A I was designing supports for Millstone. l 2d Q For whom? What organization? 25
~~A Stone & Webster.~~
~~l l' l i r- .- --~~
~~,n,,. -a g.-- ,n-.,e_-,._,,.-,,-,,--,-.--y - , _ , , , , , . .,,,,,---.-.,,.,,-.n,-------_. . , - -, , - - - ,~,a,, , ~ .-,,,~~
5-5 9883 ar ' ' t Q You were the design engineer for supports for I 2 Millstone? 3 A I was one of the design engineers. 4 MS. ELLIS: Mr. Chairman, I think-- 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, may I continue with 6 my cross-examination? 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 8 But would you please define "ANO" so that Mr. 9 Doyle can answer your question? 10 BY MR. REYNOLDS: 11 Q Arkansas Nuclear-1. 12 If he knows Russellville, he should know ANO. 13 A I worked for Bechtel on Russellville. 14 Q And you designed pipe supports there? 15 A I designed pipe supports in San Francisco for 16 --when they had the shutdown at Russellville. 17 Q And Millstone was Stone & Webster, did you say? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q Now, you cited Comanche Peak as one of the bases 20 for your conclusion of an industry practice? 21 A No, you asked me where I had been; and that was one 22 of the places I had been. 23 0 I asked you where you had been that allowed you to 24 derive the conclusion that this was--
~~' 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Now, Mr. Reynolds, now you're getting lW L~~
5-6 9884 l APr I 1 a little argumentative. 2 You and I both know that he wasn't making a 3 conclusion about not cinching up U-bolts from here. 4 BY MR.*REYNOLDS: '* 5 Q' What does FFTP have to do with this? Is this a 6 power reactor? 7 A It'q the government Fast Flux Test Facility up 8 in the Hatel(phonetic) . i 9 Q Where? 10 A Richland, Washington. 11 Q Hanford? 12 A Yuh. 13 And that particular plant they had cinched down 14 U-bolts, and we down and uncinched them. 15 Q Who is "we"? 16 A The personnel who were designing the supports 17 and taking care of the task force, the corrective actions. is Q Again, you were a design engineer there? 19 A I was then what they called the SMART ICE (phonetic) 20 group which was--I was the original individual that went out ' 21 on-site and visually inspected the pipes to determine if 22 there were problems present. 23 Q For what organization did you 'ork? 24 A I was working for Westinghouse, but I was contracted 25 there PDS. I' i a ='
itT-V I 9885 P 1 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board would like to request from 2 the Staff a report on whether or not there was a corrective 3 action program at Hanford to uncinch U-bolts. 4 Was it Hanford or FFTF? ' 5 WITNESS DOYLE: FFTF. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: FFTF. 7 MR. MIZUNO: May the Staff ask questions? 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, surely. 9 BY MR. REYNOLDS: to O Mr. Doyle, why did the FFTF uncinch the bolts, u the U-bolts? 12 A Because in their particular application, when you 13 cinch a U-bolt down onto a rigid frame, it no longer is a 14 two-way restraint; it's a three-way restraint. 15 Beyond that, you get involved with the radial-16 expansion of the pipe. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I want to ask you, Mr. Doyle: 18 Is it analogous to the use being made at 19 Comanche? . 20 Or is the Chairma,n making a mistake to think that . 21 it is? 22 l THE WITNESS: It's not exactly analogous; no.
~~j. 23 It is not analogous to the application we have been discussing, 24 JUDGE BLOCH: So the request I just made may prove 25~~
~~-fruitless and a waste of time?'~~
4 l l.
5-8 ' 9886 o - 1 THE WITNESS: It probably would be, because it 2 was more of an anchorage problem. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Cancel that request. 4 BY MR. REYNOLDS: 5 Q Therefore, we can strike your citation of FFTF, 6 since your conclusion this was " industry practice"? 7 A No, you can't strike it because.while I was on-a site, I did not see any of this type of application. Had I 9 have, I would have directed that they be removed. 10 Q Did you look at every support at FFTF? You are 11 undcr oath, now? 12 A I know I'm under oath. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: You don't have to be, argumentative, 14 Mr. Reynolds; he knows he's under oath. He's taking time to 15 testify. He's entitled to the same respect and considerations 16 as all other witnesses. 17 MR. REYNOLDS: I agree with that. 18 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question? 19 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Reporter? 20 JUDGE BLOCH: "Did you look at every support at 21 FFTF"? 22 THE WITNESS: Of the safety systems, I looked at 23 --no, not every support, but, perhaps thousands. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Would.you say your best estimate is 25
~~" thousands"?~~
e
~~' k',~~
~~5-9 9887 e~~
~~.)"~~
4 1 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 2 JUDGE DLOCH: I'm 'sorry, was there an "s" on the 3 'end of that, or was there no "s" on the end of the word? 4 THE WITNESS: It was--well, well over 1,000. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, thank you. 6 BY M:1. REYNOLDS: 7
~~Q Let's talk about Davis-3essie. For whom did you a work there?~~
9 A I worked for Grinnell through--I have to guess, 10 I worked so many places--Tech-Aide, I believe. 11 I believe that was it. I'd have to check my 12 resume to really find out. 13 Q You were the design engineer at Davis-Bessie? Id MS. ELLIS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 15 I am going to object again. I think this goes back 16 to voir dire. The Applicants have had their shot at that. 37 I think'that we're going far beyond what should be allowed is in this. l' l MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, this is not voir 20 dire.-This is cross-examination on testimony that suggested j 21 this is industry practice. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Ellis, I have to agree with 23 Mr. Reynolds. 24 Mr. Doyle has made,a statement that's of poten- , 25 tially great importance to us. I am not sure how important it
+
~~vuvu n> 1 is in the context of the credibility of the CYGNA finding, 2 I must say. 3 Bat the question really is whether CYGNA had a 4 basis for its conclusion this is industry practice.~~
~~.. 5 Now, I'm not sure how relevant Mr. Doyle's testi-lb mony is to that question. But it may be relevant for other 7- purposes in this proceeding.~~
8 Mr. Doyle, you have a comment? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 10 One of the things is, we're discussing apples-and-11 oranges here: 12 The type of support which exists at Comanche Peak 13 that is replacing a clamp, the normal clamp, that is used 14 with a U-bolt, I will state categorically that I, in all the 15 facilities I visited--and that's what I was referring to-- 16 and all the jobs I've worked on, that I've never seen that 17 configuration. 18 I can answer to the anchorage problem when U-bolts 19 are mounted to rigid frames. But as far as the type of i 20 U-bolt arrangement which we are discussing here at these 21 hearings, I did not see those at any of thegiants on which 22 I worked in the field,.or worked in the design groups. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 24 MR. REYNOLDS: May I continue? 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. -
~~.g.~~
~~w 12,804 g,.~~
~~.nge 19-3 I I' just wanted to make sure if you thought there was any 2~~
further ambiguity, that you could clarify it at this point. 3 MR. PIGOTT: If I discover one, I'll jump right d back in. 5 MR. TREBY: Since we are in the process of clarifying the record, I have a clarification I would like. I And that is, I would like Ms. Williams to set forth in the i a record what she means by Phases I, II, III, and IV? We have used those terms a number of times, and
'O
~~they have never been explained on the record.~~
~~II WITNESS WILLIAMS: Without diagrams, okay.~~
'2 i (Laughter.) '3 Phase I. Phase I and II, first off, are the subject of this draft report. Phase I, the system used '
15 as the foundation for that review is the spent fuel pool 16 cooling system. The activities conducted were a 17 programmatical review of -- I i 18 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't think we need it in that much detail. Stop at that point. 20 s Now what's Phase II? 21 l WITNESS WILLIAMS: Phase II, the system used as 22 the foundation was the RHR system, Train B. 23 Phase III, we are using all four loops of the 24 main steam system, taken from the steam generator to the 25 outboard isolation valve, consisting of eight stress problems. 4 , f 4
12,805' i em mgc 19-4 1 We're also doing a. segment of the component cooling water 2 system, one train of it. 3 Phase IV, we are still completing a scoping d document, in the sense that it is completed internally. It 5 has not been submitted officially. It consists of an 6 expansion of the review of the component cooling water. 7 Now to be clear, I have to separate the disciplines e on the two. For Phase III, we were only doing pipe supports 10 and pipe stress analysis. ' 13 For Phase IV, we are doing a multi-discipline 12 review which includes systems review, electrical review, 13 instrumentation and controls review, walkdown, some additional Id design control reviews. 15 To backtrack a second, on Phase III, we are also 16 doing Criterion 1 and 16 reviews.
~~'I JUDGE BLOCH: Appendix B?~~
18 WITNESS WILLIAMS: Appendix B. I' MR. REYNOLDSt While we are talking about Phases 20 III and IV, can we anticipate some cuidance from the Board 21 during this hearing on the Board's reaction to that plan? 22
. JUDGE BLOCH: We will attempt to make a comment 23 about that. The complexity of giving an adequate resporse 24 to that question is becoming more and more apparent. It's 25 not going to be an easy problem for the Board to handle.
s
12,806 1 69
~~.nge 5 1 MR. REYNOLDS: But we have been promised Board 2~~
guidance on it for some time, and the parties have filed 3 their comments with the Board, and it's imperative to us d that we get prompt feedback from the Board. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: I am very aware of the need for 6 response on that, and we certainly have intended to do that. 7 We just have to consider whether that's going to be possible a under the circumstances. 9 MR. REYNOLDS: What are the circumstances? What 10 do you mean by that, "under the circumstances"? 11 JUDGE BLOCH: I guess I mean that the record on ! 12 the completeness and independence of the Cygna review to this 13 point is relative to the determination of the adequacy of Id the plant, and we are going to have to deliberate together, , 15 the Board is, to determine whether we can adequately answer li I
~~'6 that question for you at the conclusion of this set of 37 hearings.~~
18 HR. TREBY: Which of those phases make up the l' independent assessment program? 20 WITNESS WILLIAMS: I entitle it all the same. It's 21 intended to be i.mependent, and it is an assessment orogram. 22 I guess officially you might refer to Phase I and II as an 23 independent assessment program, and Phase III and IV as being 24 performed for a different audience . 25 So from your standpoint, I guess your question -- 4 k l L .
@ 12,809 b-
~~'s o i MR. MIZUNO: I spoke with Dr. Chen regarding 1~~
2 the statements on page 28 of the SIT report. He indicated 3 it was his understanding that these modifications were i proposed solutions, which the Applicants have under 5 consideration. They had not necessarily decided that either 6 one or all of them are going to be used in any particular 7 situation, but these were the three possible situations a which were acceptable, and that is what the Staff looked
~~, at, and all three were found acceptable by the Staff. Whether io they used one or two or all three of them really didn't ti matter, because all of them were acceptable.~~
i2 JUDGE BLOCH: They had found that all three were 4 13 acceptable? i 14 MR. MIZUNO: The Staff did that independently. is JUDGE BLOCH: The Staff did, but the Applicants to had not at this point. They just said these are proposed -- l 17 MR. HIZUNO: These are proposed modifications is which they at that time believed were acceptable. The 19 Staff did not look at the Applicants' design proposals or 20 any kind of verification that these modifications were in 21 fact found to be acceptable by the Applicants. The SIT 22 just did an independent review of what these modifications 23 were and concluded on its own, without recourse to what 24 the Applicants did, that these were acceptable solutions. 25 MR. HORIN: If I might add just one other point, l l\ 9 L
cr20-2 12,810 + 1 that is that my understanding'is that when the decision was 2 made that these were possible means of assuring stability, , 3 it was recognized that of the supports involved, none had d completed the vendor certification process, and that to the 5 extent individual analyses were necessary for any of these, 6 it could be conducted with respect to each individual support. 7 C= JUDGE BLOCH: As I understand it, Phase 3 will ~ a cover the extent to which those analyses are included in the 9 individual designs? 10 ' WITNESS WILLIAMS: As we find supports that are il subject to that individual concern, we will certainly look 12 at that. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Another matter that the Board had Id taken up was a request for the purchase order. We asked 15 for the contract that closed the agreement between Cygna 36 and Applicants, and we have been provided with a copy of 17 that purchase order. l 18 As I understand it, there were -- you left the l' dollar amounts in our copies. I thought you were going to 20 take them out. j 21 \ MR. PIGOTT: The rates. ' 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, the rates have been deleted, 23 as the Board authorized. The unit prices and total item 24 prices have been deleted because we were not interested in 25 the amount' of money that was being paid. ,
cr20-3 12,811
,+
i MR. REYNOLDS: The total item price is still in 2 there. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: The total item prices are in there? 4 Wait a minute. It was the pricing system that Cygna 5 considered to be a proprietary concern. 6 . MR. PIGOTT: If you are looking at the fourth 7 page of 4, at the top, where the purchase order is not to i 8 exceed $250,000 -- ' 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, you could have deleted that, 10 as far as we were concerned, also. i si MR. PIGOTT: We left that in for humor, I guess.
~
12 (Laughter.) 13 Texas isn't laughing, but other than that -- 14 (Laughter.) 15 No, the only things we considered proprietary 16 were the internal rates. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Pigott, am I correct in my , is understanding that there is no explicit addressing of 19 possible liability on the part of Cygna in this purchase 20 order? ; 2 MR. PIGOTT: Now that you mention it, I don't 22 see the reverse sides of these, and I will have to check j 23 to determine whether or not there are conditions -- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: It says terms and conditions on 25 the reverse side of this purchase order do not apply. That's 1
[ Cy0 12,825 L e 1 3 now, that the Staff has any criticism as to the manner in 2 which information has been developed and conveyed to them, 3 either in meetings, in telecons or in the report itself. JUDGE BLOCH: Of course, we don't know what the 5 Staff's reaction to that will be, either. But until this 6 hearina, the Staff did not know that analyses were done on 7
~~. Doyle #1 and on this last concern that were not given to 8~~
the Staff, so bey had no opportunity to know whether they 9 thought they were relevant or not. end 22 10 11 i 12 l 3 13 14 15 , l 16 17 18 19 [ 20 21 l 22 23 24
~~. I 25 ,~~
l l L_
31bl- 12,826 4' 1 MR. PIGOTT: The problem with -- that's another 2 aspect, and that is when you start talking about thir.gs 3 like Doyle 1 and many of the other CASE questions, you're 4 not talking about purely examining this two volume document 5 that came into existence through a rather limited effort. 6 You're heaping on top of the reviewers many of the questions 7 i that appear to have been developed over the course of a year 8 and a half, in these proceedings, and without really a lot 9 of the history. 10 You've heard the testimony of Ms. Williams, as to 11 i how we dealt with the SIT reoort and the CAT report. That 12 was because that wasn't even within what we were expected 13 to do, but now somehow or other, because we didn't go back and, 14 look at them and examine them and ferret out their validity 15 and report it to someone, we get the feeling we haven't done 16 our job. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't think the Board has drawn 18 that conclusion at all. The relevance that we see to the I 19 issues, that CASE has been bringing forward, is to the ! 20 question that the Board earlier referred to as reliability. 21 If a group of people go through a plant, they may or may not i 22 i catch all of the significant issues. The importance that I 23 we see, to the cross examination here, is an attemot by 24 CASE to bring out in CASE's review, which was limited to i 25 l eicht sunports, their argument that perhaps Cygna did not ' I
~~, i )~~
cl b -
.= 12,827 plb2 1 catch all of the significant issues in that area of the 2 plant. In terms of independent assurance to the Staff and 3 the Board, it seems to me that's a relevant consideration. 4
~~-It-has nothing to do with bad faith or lack of competence 5~~
y 'but it does have to do with how much confidence can be taken 6 from the Cygna review, with respect to that portion of the 7- plant. 8 MR. PIGOTT: I think our problem is we cannot 9 agree that that is what we conceive as being our burden. I 10 mean, we have been hit -- we feel -- with things that are 11 new, with things that we do not feel that we vere properly l 12 required to have responded.to. And the feeling is that we 13 should have. i 14- JUDGE BLOCH: To the extent that these thinas i 15 were either relatively unimportant or somehow fell without
~~I le the scope of what Cygna's study was, they do not at all !'~~
17 reflect on Cygna's competence. But they may reflect on the i 18 { other question, which is the extent to which the Staff and
~~59 the Board should draw assurance from the review about the h i 1 -~~
20 adequacy of that portion of the olant. t 21 I see two separate issues. One is how well Cycna 22 did the assigned job. And then the question of whether 23 there's more work to be done, either by Cygna or somebody 24 else. 25 MR. PIGOTT: You raise an interesting second , ! i s 1
12,828
~~'531b3 1~~
point and that is despite our request for guidance, we have 2 been moving through the last days and what would appear to 3 be another several days with no real guidance a s to what 4 our future function is. They were asked yesterday if 5 something is now an observation when the revelation has only 6 come out of the litigation in this proceeding. I find that 7 to be somewhat unfair. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: I think I would agree with that. 9 There's no reason why, in the course of developing these to things, you would be making observations. I agree with
~
11 that completely, i 12 ! MR. PIGOTT: All I'm sayino is there is an ! 13 accumulation, to use Mr. Doyle's phrase, of these kinds of
~~~ 14 incidents that leave us, at this point, extremely concerned '~~
15 that we are being responsive to what the Board perceives. I 16 We are doing a defense of our judgment. We are, frankly, f 17 in a position Where I'm not sure what the Board wants. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, that's one reason why we 19 were hesitant to give a further response to Mr. Reynolds when ; 20 he asked where does the Board stand now. Obviously, this 21 issue has been hotly litigated and it's never easy to make 22
$udgments in the middle of hot litigation, as to the 23 significance of what happens. That often requires deliberation 24 !
and findinos. I 25 MR. PIGOTT: But I g't e the feeling that just the fact-that it's hotly litigated weighs against us.
I' 12,829 4 :: d mac 24-1 1-
~~. JUDGE BLOCH: I'think what the parties and the 2~~
Board have been trying to do is to find out the facts. , 3 Finding those facts and deciding what they mean is very 4
~~' difficult. That's part of what judging is.~~
5 MR. PIGOTT: But the procedure that's being ; 6 followed is that the more we seem to defend our judgments, 7 the more we seem to be pushed into a corner where we are e accused of not being independent, and I find it certainly unfair to cygna, which was brought in in a defensive
~~'O posture. I t~~
II Now after having said that -- and we say it with [ 12 greatest sincerity, because we are greatly concerned with 13 , ! the course of the hearing -- I would like some guidance back I'
, to Cygna as to what it is the Board perceives as our role, 15 ! t irrespective of the scope of previous work. f 16 !
JUDGE BLOCH: Your role with respect to Phase I and ' 17 II issues, or with respect to Applicants' plant, which are l [ 18 l r the Phase'III and IV issues? i -
f MR. PIGOTT: As far as we are concerned right now, t 20 we are only here on Phase I and II, and for that matter, I 21 only a draft. report of Phase I and II. We have not submitted 22 i i our comments on Phase III and IV, and I will tell you that l 23 is primarily because we are so snarled up in protocol and 2d 1 who we can talk to that'we really can't do it properly.
~~I 25 So as we sit here, we consider this to be a !~~
l 'o j
12,830 t J mgc 24-2 1 defense of the document contained as Phase I and II, plus 2 an attempt to respond to the questions that have been raised 3 in writing by Mr. Doyle and Mr. Walsh on February 22 of this d year. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: I guess I'm not sure what kind of 6 guidance we could provide, short of trying to determine the 7 issues before us without the benefit of argument. 8 MR. PIGOTT: Well, I can ask you a simple question, and that is, is it this Board's perception that CASE -- 30 or that Cygna is responding to its role when it outs forward l Il testimony and exhibits which are designed primarily to 12 justify their_ position, as opposed to presenting a pro and 33 con discussion of how they got to that judgment? Id JUDGE BLOCH: I believe that on the record last i 15 time, we attempted to address a portion of that, and we had , to some remarks about how Cygna should approach Mr. Doyle's 37 concerns and Mr. Walsh's concerns. And we said we hoped
~~'8 you would look at it independently, that even though it is l'~~
hard to admit mistakes, we hoped you would be objectively 20 evaluating the concerns and oresenting your views objectively 21 about the concerns that were being presented. We didn't 22 look on it as an adversary effort, but that you were still i 23 independent reviewers, looking at concerns that were presented 2' to you and evaluating them, an.d if they were correct, that 25 you would say they are correct. l o
11,831 O I mgc 24-3 MR. PIGOTT: We are independent, but we are 2 justifying our independent judgment, and we are apparently 3 forced into a position where we have to do it in a very d' adverse manner. What I am afraid of is that when this 5 Board looks at what we're doing, the fact that we are 6 defending ourselves seems to erode our independence in your 7 eyes. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: What I meant by independence was that you have no particular oosition with respect to
'O supporting the Applicants for the safety of the plant, opposed to finding deficiencies in the plant. i 12 l MR. PIGOTT: We have a position, though, that's l '3 been attacked.
~~JUDGE BLOCII: Does that mean that in the course is of analysis, if you were to find things to question that , 16 position --~~
'I MR. PIGOTT: No. But there have been some new '8 things added. For one thing, the U-bolts. It is still our position that that comes as a result of looking at 20 installation procedures, and we will maintain and do maintain 21 that that was not properly within the scope of our very 22 limited charter.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: We're going to have to consider 24 whether that's true, because there is a question as to what . 25 should have been in the design documents, and whether that I 4 4
N CY3 12,846 - O'
~~' is some sense of judgment; are there peoole with reasonable 2~~
engineering judgment who might look at the considerations 3 which Cygyna considered, and learning about the factors that d t went into that decision have come to a different result. 5 The real question is whether there are important 6 matters of potential importance in considering the merits 7 of Cygna's conclusions. And I think to the extent that the 8 Board has asked for a disclosure of potentially adverse data or analyses, it is that that we are talking about: 10 potentially important analyses, data runs, particularly i
" those in which Cygna has invested substantial amounts of l 12 money or which Cygna has asked to be run that cost substantial '3 amounts of money that could bear on understanding the I l 'd decision process that Cycna went through and the validity ;
~~I5 of the conclusions that Cvona nas reached. ,~~
'o With that understaliding, is it possible for you, '7 Mr.Pigott, to proceed to try to bring out, without further is delay or recess, what it is that the Board is interested in?
MR. PIGOTT: Let me say first of all that the l 20 Board's statement are extremely helpful, and the proof of 21 the need for this discussion is perhaps best reflected by j 22 the fact that it certainly changes or will change the style j 23 in which we present our evidence. Because in all good 24 faith, we have considered ourselves here as advocates of ,
~
25 our conclusions as set forth in our report. And I don't c - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 12,847 s . I think that you disagree that those were attacked in its pure 2 sense. And we are thus put on the' defensive. 3 4 We will attempt to proceed with that guidance in d mind, and if it's appropriate, we may expand on what might 5 normally be considere,d the proper scope of redirect in order 6 to go back over some of the previous questions rather than 7 ao back and rehash them on further cross examination, and a perhaps take you throuch each -- or at least the significant I
' I questions with more of a description of the thought processes. ! 'O I understand what you say about de minimus.
~~I hear what you're saying about the rigor being imposed upon 12 us by Messrs. Walsh and Doyle, and we are not complaining~~
~~'3 one whit concerning the depth of the analysis that they want us to do.~~
~~15 I would like the Board to reflect on the depth of~~
'6 analysis and rigor being requested by Mr. Doyle and Mr. Walsh, f and weigh that against the burden of our judging the '8 instances wherein Messrs. Walsh and Doyle could disagree with our judgments, given the fact that they get to the levol 20 , of minutiac almost in some instances that they go. -
2: Which will mean if we are to address pros and 22 cons, we have to address them to the level of detail that i 23 Mr. Walsh and Mr. Doyle want, which is much deeper than 24 would ordinarily be the instance. 1 - 25 Ue do not complain with any of that. I would
~~.._________ _ ____s~~
~~F % tt 12,848 1~~
, still say with respect to our independence we still see 2 r-r le as n t judaing between Applicant and CASE, but simply to render professional judgments on specific , questions-that have been presented to us. And until we are , requested to do something further than that, -- and we're going to get right back to whether or not we do anything 7
~~beyond Phase 1 and 2 in this proceeding -- we are still~~
~~, confining ' ourselves to that document and the 30 Walsh-Doyle '~~
questions. i But perhaps that's enough talk, and forward. I will say that it would have to result in some change in ' our style. I hope the witnesses can adapt as quickly to g this as we can talk about it, because these are very difficult technical issues. .And when one has preoarei for literally 8 or 10 weeks in a particular direction and a particular line of thought as an advocate, I. don't really think-it's reasonable to expect to be able to pick up a different style in five minutes. { JUDGE BLOCH: I understand the vagaries of I human speech. I did have a colloquy with Mr. Ward at the 21 last session which'the Board took quite seriously, and it had to do with whether you defend yourself. And we had
~~! 1 tried to communicate our feeling about this at that time, but obviously there was a' failure of communication between j~~
i Cygna and ourselves. . MR. PIGOTT: I guess so. And maybe perhaps it
cy6 12,849
~~.g i * . .e.~~
~~o 1 was lost in all the rather high level rhetoric and e 3~~
~~~ : .~~
~~2 'i'ntensivA questioning and scrutiny that has followed since 1 3 -that time.~~
,; t ). .4 'Again, I will not and do not apologize in any !
~~4. s 5 sense for-the '~~
~~a'oproach that we' have taken, because we Y 6 think that is the situation we found ourselves in. But we L 7 now will take the guidance of the Board and conduct~~
~~.y 4 8 ourselves accordingly. s s_~~
9 JUDGE BLOCH: My sense is that it might be to smarter to commence with the redirect now and hold in 11 abeyance th'e cross, because th'e redirect may help CASE te
~~/ 12 know what cross it wishes to undertake with respect to 13 new matters.~~
~~14 MR. PIGOTT: Well, it would be difficult for a~~
~~.15 - _ witness to change in five minutes. I wouldn't want to 16 tell you how long it would ta'ke a lawyer.~~
f-17 (Lauchter.) y ,. - 18 I'could not -- of 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Under those circumstances 20 I think we bhould continue.with the cross and then we will 21 take the redirect, and then there will be an opportunity 22 for cross on new matters. . 23 MR. PIGOTT: I would ask - and I'm not attempting l i b.
~~~ , 24 to restrict or in any way influence the cross examination 25 of' case, but I would suggest an introductory question from d~~
~~c,- - 13,033 221b1 lfI' 1 MR. PIGOTT: My questioning was I didn't think~~
~~.2 these documents necessarily reflected that kind of procedure.~~
~~3 JUDGE BLOCH: Unless CASE thinks there is an~~
~~-4 issue about manufacturer's specifications being an 5 acceptable way of specifying code allowables, we should just 6 go on.~~
L 7 MR. BACHMANN: The point I'm really trying to make a is that, in the case of a review such as Cygna going down, 9 the purchaser of this particular, let's say clamp, has io no further responsibility at that point to do his own 11 independent analysis of whether that particular -- 12 JUDGE BLOCH: No one has questioned that. But 13 Applicant's are doing further analysis. In further thought i 14- about the answer I got before, I'm a little surprised. My 15 understanding of the interface between Cygna and the Applicant
~~-16 pursuant to the plan, is that Cygna is looking at the 17 adequacy of'certain design -- certain designs in the plant.~~
18 And while they are not reviewing the, tests directly, that 19 you are performing, I assume that if they are going to decide i 20 that elementsrof the plant are acceptable under the test, that 21 you will be providing the' test results to them. Is that 22 correct? 23 MR. REYNOLDS: - No, they are not an independent 24' reviewer of cur plant. The professor who we are going to- , 25 retain will perform that function. 2
~~.,1 , , , , , , _ . , . ----,-w =--~~
~~13,034 221b2~~
~~/ \ 1 JUDGE BLOCH: No, I'm saying if you want them 2~~
to be able to accept U-bolts in the portion of the plant 3 that they are looking at, on the basis of your test, they are going to have to see the test results. 4 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Of course, certainly that's true.
~~-6 JUDGE BLOCH: In that aspect of their work, they're 7 reviewing the test for its adequacy.~~
8 MR. REYNOLDS: They haven't yet. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I 10 understood the interface there, in light of what the 11 Applicant said. Please continue.
~~.12 BY'MR. BACHMANN:~~
13 Q I'm going to continue in the same line of 14 questioning, and this is somewhat of a hypothetical, and I 15 don't need excrutiating detail, but just to the best of your 16 knowledge. If a given manufacturer, who wanted to fulfill 17 ASME requirements for its catalogue items, and developed a 18 new -- let's say a new clamp, a new design -- generally 19 speaking, what sort of test or analyses would the manufacturer 20 have to go through to be able to say, and certify in some 21 respect, that this fulfilled the code requirements, this 22 new design that they've just decided to manufacture? 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Bachmann, the other parties 24 -are.not making objections. We just want to make sure we're ; 25
~
doing something relevant. I don't understand why you're i }k 4 l
SY23;Cyl- 13,037 k- 1 MR. BACHMANN: Let me try rephrasing the i' 2 question and see if we get another objection. I'll try 3 one more time on this one. 4 BY MR. BACHMANN: 5 Q Does Cygna believe that the Applicants, through 6 its architect engineer or wherever else it's designed and 7 fabricated, these particular supports, conducted all of a the analyses that a. manufacturer would do to achieve the 9 fact that it's up to ASME code standards? 10 MR. PIGOTT: I'm going to object to the relevance 11 of that question. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: As I understand it, that's just 13 not the standard. This is a support that's_ customized, and 14 it's customized according to design standards in the code 15
~~which are different from an off-the-shelf item.~~
16 MR. BACEMANN: No, I don't agree with that. I 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you agree with that, Mrs. Williams? 18 WITNESS WILLIAMS: Yes, I do. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Now let's go on. 20 WITNESS WILLIAMS: ,I would like to clarify that, 21 though, and say it's not the allowables and such that are 22 different, it's just a different-approach to assessing 23 the adequacy of the design because you're not mass producing a 24 something for general application. 25 MR.REYNOLDS: In order to be clear on our colloquy _ k
s4ps. 13,038 I five minutes ago about what Cygna's involvement would be 2 with.the test results, I didn't want you to be left with 3 the impression that they were reviewing the test for adequacy 4 of the test program. They would be receiving, if they 5 asked for it, the test results. And they would factor 6 those results into their reviews. - 7 I don't think it was quite that clear before. - 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Now I'm a little puzzled. You .I 9 mean that in the course of their review they would receive 10 the test results and would not - you think it's beyond 11 their scope to look at whether or not the test is adequate? 12 MR. REYNOLDS: I have no control over what they 13 do.once they get our test results. 14 MR. PIGOTT: Ikould contemplate that we would 15 ask for more information, especially if we determined that 4 16 .the tests were inadequate. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, you wouldn't be determining 18 that they're inadequate from just seeing_the results. _ i 19 MR. PIGOTT: Well, we wouldn't accept the 20 results without having some kind of an understanding -- l ! 21 MR. REYNOLDS: By results I don't mean a bottom l l 22 line number; I'm talking about the tests. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. That was unclear. Let's 24 , continue.
~
25 MR. REYNOLDS: I want to make it clear that .' 1 r I l - i
~~. - . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . ~ _.. _--., - ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . ._ _ _-~~
F . UYF 13,039 a lb 1 they're not reviewing the test program for our purposes, for 2 adequacy. 3 MR. BACHMANN: I'll change the line of questioning ( 4 and go'on to a new topic, and this will be the last topic. 5 BY MR. BACHMANN: 6 l Q There was a discussion, series of questions by 7 Mr. Doyle yesterday I believe where we discussed the
~~8 support where you had the two snubbers on either side and 9~~
they were on opoosite sides of the pipe, they were welded 10 attachments connected to trunions, connected to snubbers, 11 connected to base plates. For the purpose of the record, 12 that was CASE Exhibit 933, in case anyone wants to refer 13 back to it. Do you recall that particular discussion? 14 A (Witness Williams) Yes, I do. 1 15
~~. 0 As I also recall, CASE's concern, at least in i:~~
16 part,.was that if you assumed the load on the snubbers to be 17 equal, then you eliminate the possibility of this overturning 18 moment imposed upon the base plates. I believe that was 19 what CASE's concern was. I
~~20 Do you recall the idea of the unequal forces i~~
21 inducing a moment in the base plate? 22 A l I think that I would break that perhaps into two 23 cuestions or problems. There's a question dealing with ( 24- what the appropriate distribution of the loads is on the r 25 snubbers, and another question on the effects of providing n h l 6 . l l I
m-
~~' cy4 13,040 !~~
I
~~' i i~~
this rotational restraint in the stress analysis, which 2 results in a different distributio'n in this theoretical 3 case that we were discussing yesterday. d Q I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that I 5 believe one of CASE's concerns is that the anchor bolts on 6 the. base plate might be under-designed if the moment, the 7 potential moment, were not taken into account. 8 A If you assume a different load on the snubber, 9 then there is the potential that the loads the anchor bolts 10 see would be' greater and you could have a potential concern 11 there. 12 Q Okay. I would like to know in your experience 13 and opinion, or basically in your experience, whether -- is Id this a sort of a common oractice, to have a situation where 15 you could have an induced moment -- induced overturning - 16 moment in the anchorage of a support? Or is this a rather 17 special type of situation? 18 A I think I'm getting confused with the terminology 19 here because as I hear your questions, it's not how I 20
~~interpret the problem. And there could be terminology --~~
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Please clarify it however you 22 would like to do it. i a 23 WITNESS WILLIAMS: My understanding of the 24 discussion was on modeling techniques for stress problems, j 25 p which have suports of this type of configuration, and then, 4 p-L -
v
~~.. 13,113 i~~
371b5 1 JUDGE BLOCH: If that could be cleared up by the 2 parties before we arrive at hearing, it could save us 3 substantial break time. 4 MS. ELLIS: If Cygna has any idee. that we are 5 not looking at the same documents, please let us know. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Applicant's cross? 7 MR. REYNOLDS: We have none., 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Staff?
~~'cnd37 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 1~~
20 $ > 21 1 22 23 24 7- . 25 I lk. i t.
13,114 mgc 38-1 1 MR. BACHMANN: One minute, please. 2 (Pause.) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: On the record. d Are we ready, Mr. Bachmann? 5 (Discussion off the record.). 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Five-minute break.
~~7 (Recess.)~~
8 JUDGE BLOCH: For the r~bcord, we would like Cygna 9 L to describe the portion of the plant that would be covered 10 by the design review pursuant to the Applicant's plan. 11 WITNESS WILLIAMS: Starting with Phase III, two
~~12 systems were chosen, the first of which is the main steam,~~
( 13 all four lines, as taken from the steam generators to the 1d outboard isolation valve, and consists of eight stress 15 problems. 16 The second system-is the component cooling water 17 system. The limits of that are defined as .the flow path 18 between the RHR heat exchanger, the containment spray heat 19 exchanger, and the component cooling water heat exchanger. 20 ( That's one stress problem. 21 Then into Phase IV, we have added on the length 22 of pipe from the component cooling water heat exchanger to 23 the component cooling water pump, and this is one train. 24 MS. ELLIS: One more point of clarification.
~~.25 Will this be a walkdown or analysis or both?~~
~~, s. l i~~
~~~, -- - - - - - ,--we--,--,--. , ,--,,e ,.+n. -~~
e -,- a-we,m---w, m m- e -o-,-+ -
13,115 i 3g-2 WITNESS WILLIAMS: That will be both. 2 MS. ELLIS: On both of them? 3 WITNESS WILLIAMS: On the component cooling water. d I'm sorry. It will be both. We were not intending to do 5 a t:alkdown of the main steam at this point in time, although 6 we have not submitted our scope document for Phase IV yet. 7 The walkdown as a part of Phase IV. 8 MR. REYNOLDS: The record should also reflect that
~~Phase III relates to piping and pipe supports. Phase IV l0 is a multidiscipline review.~~
t (Discussion off the record.) . 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Is the Staff prepared to oroceed? 13 MR. BACHMANN: The Staff has no questions. JUDGE BLOCH: I believe that all of the parties ! 15 have rested; is that correct?
~~'O MR. PIGOTT: It is for Cygna. ,~~
~~I7 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. ! i 18 JUDGE BLOCH: The Board is prepared to rule on a~~
" Our provisional basis on the adequacy of Applicants' plan. f 20 ruling will, of course, be subject to possible new information that we might receive in the course of the 22 hearings to be held next week, and they also will be subject 23 to possible Staff comment next week on the specific system 24 that has been chosen for Phase IV review.
The largest uncertainty outstanding with respect to l l
13,116 1 3 Cygna's independence relates to the Hutchison testimony. 2 But the Board's interpretation of the testimony in what 3 we believe to be the most reasonable and favorable light d to Cygna is that there was poor judgment shown in giving 5 advance notice in this particular case, and that greater care 6 should be taken in the future not to request documents are 7 circumstances where there is a possibility of them being 8 l- modified where the subject of the inquiry is the adequacy of the documents being requested. a 10 4 11' 12 13 14 15 16 ! 17 . 18 19 l 20 21 22 23 24
~~-25 ,~~
~~F 1: I I h' I~~
~~.h t~~
L
/ - 13,117 1 On the subject of independence, the Board was 2 greatly reassured by the statements made by Mr. Picott 3 yesterday and by what we perceive to be a somewhat 4 different approach by Cyana since then. We don't think 5 that there is a basic problem of lack of independence or 6 integrity on Cygna's part and believe that they can be 7 counted on to continue the review activities.
8 We do think there are some procedural matters 9 that could be paid attention to. One is that we have 10 expressed, in our design decision, a desire for somewhat 11 greater documentation than has been the practice. We think 12 .it would be helpful if there were a more conscientious 13 disclosure of even minor discrepancies that are noted by 14 Cygna, even though the discrepancies may not individually 1 i 15 amount to somethina. l l 16 In addition, the understanding that we have with ! 17 Mr. Pigott is that major problems and issues that are J: 18 discounted, but have been seriously considering, should 19 in the interest of both actual independence and the appearance : 20 of independence be disclosed so that they will be subject to 21 Staff and CASE review. 22 .On the~ subject of the protocol for Phase IV -- 23 MR. PIGOTT: tio,. excuse me. It's Phase III. Phase 24 III is still underway. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought that Cygna was involved in i . ~ v
13,118 3 IV and Cygna was not involved in III? i 2 MR. REYNOLDS: Cygna is involved in both phases, l , 3 but Phase III is well along. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. From henceforth, we would 5 suggest that the largest problem we have seen, in terms of 6 the protocol arrangements, from the standpoint of Cygna is 7 a problem of delay implicit in an advance notification a requirement. We believe the purpose of actual independence 9 and an appearance of independence can be served instead by in Cygna promptly mailing, to the parties, the telecons that 3i they now do prepare with respect to exchanges of technical 12 information. 13 This will give the Staff and CASE notice of what ja has been exhanged and will nive them the option of submitting 15 written comments or additional technical materials for i3 consideration, as well as requesting meetings when they feel i7 that they're necessary. 18 We trust that this request for meetings and the i, filing of additional information will not be overdone and 20 believe that everybody can be expected to act in good faith 21 in that regard. Under those circumstances, we don't anticipate 22 that there will be any undue burden on Cygna from giving some 23 access to the ongoing process to the Staff and to CASE. 24 There is one other matter which we don't consider to 25 be essential, but we think should be given some consideration.
I
, l 1 working out of those details would be between Applicants and althouch 2 Cygna and would not involve either Staff or CASE, 3 we would report on the final result.
d JUDGE BLOCH: I accept that modification. That 5 is correct and that certainly is adequate for the Board's 6 purposes. We don't consider that to be a major problem, 7 just one that we think is cosmetic, but would be helpful. i 8 Does the Staff have a comment on that? 9- MR. MIZUNO: Not on that particular item, but the 10 item before that. Just two points of clarification. The l M first is that these telecons would be made of meetings where l for 12 technical exchances take place and not just mere request 13 documents. I That's correct. Basically what we Id JUDGE BLOCH: i 15 understand the procedure to have been prior to the meeting 16 with the Staff, orior to the new more strict procedures that recommended when he cerceived his clients to be 17 Mr. Pigott 18 in jeopardy. 19 MR. MIZUNO: In other words, you adont Cyana's j 20 original interpretation? 21 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, and that the parties receive 22 the telecons. 23 MR. MIZUNO: With respect to the time when the I assume they would l 24 parties meet and a telecon is sent out. . i l f 25 be sent out in a seasonable time period. i i l 1 1 l 1 1
-1.3,119 1 And that is the matter of the contract between the Applicants 2 and Cygna. We believe that there's no intention, between 3 those parties, to impose any massive liabilities on Cyana 4 and that it is their intent, therefore, to have some reasonable 5 . assessment of potential liability between them. I think that 6 for the appearance of independence, it would be helpful for 4 7 them to work out contract terms that would place some a limitations on liability, because of course the potential 9 liability places an incentive to meet the time deadlines 10 rigorously even if Cygna, in its aood faith, thought that it 11 could not on certain issues.
12 We are confident that Cygna would not want to do , I 13 that, but would like to take away the appearance that they'd l 14 be avoiding larae liabilities by meeting time deadlines underl 15 pressure. Similarly, there.'s somewhat of an incentive to 16 find favorably rather than unfavorably, if unfavorable findings 37 are more likely to subject you to malpractice, rather than la favorable findings. 19 We're not sure how this ought to be worked out, 20 but we would suggest conferences among the parties and Staff l 21 to try to determine whether some contract provisions can . l 22 help to approve the appearance of independence in this area. 1 23 Mr. Pigott? 24 MR. PIGOTT: We have no problem with the substance ; 25 of what you're saying. It is our understanding that the , l t
~
JUDGE BLOCH: We're relying on the reasonably 1 2 prompt standard and Cygna's acod faith on that part. 3 MR. PIGOTT: I have one request for clarification 4 that has to do with the type of thing contemplated under 5 Paragraph 3 of the Staff's earlier protocol. Ne talked about technical exchanges and document gatherina. We have not 6 7 talked about discussions where there may be elements of a judgment involved. JUDGE BLOCH: I think for the most part the 9 10 exchanges probably will fall within Paracraohs 1 and 2. 11 If you know there's a major exchange in a difficult policy 12 matter, I think the spirit would call for 3 to be invoked. i 13 But aside f rom that , you should feel that that is not somethinh 14 to worry about, as a qeneral practice, that the posted 15 notification requirement should take care of that. { i i 16 l 17 l 18 l l l l 19 l 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 i l
13,122 40-1 3 I would consider that you could strictly construe 2 what the Board has just said, that you wouldn't have to 3 worry if in your good faith judgment, you did not' consider d it to be a major policy matter, because it could be rectified 5 if the parties disagree with you once they receive the 6 telecon. 7 MR. PIGOTT: I guess I'm to the point where I am 8 anticipating problems, but I would like to have this resolved, rather than lock back at what's been done and
'O decide then what's reasonable, assume observations will Il result from our investigation one way or another, be they 12 minor or major, and should for some reason require discussion I3 to resolve acceptable corrective actions. 'd Those would not, it seems to me, be properly 15 reduced to telecons, because in fairness to CASE, it would to be well after a rather material fact.
37 JUDGE BLOCH: I would think of it as actually 18 corrective action -- that is, actual modifications of the plant. But in my judgment, you have reached the major 20 policy area we are talking about. 21 If it's requests for documentation of the kinds 22 of things that are covered in the telecons you've been 23 covering, you can go ahead as previously. 24 MR. PIGOTT: Thank you. 25 Chairman Bloch, one other thing, now I MR. MIZUNO:
13,123 l
~~,- 1 gc 40-2 that I think about it.~~
2 Our previous discussions on the protocol were 3 off the record, and I wanted to make this on the record for 4 the sake of my client. And I just want to indicate that the 5 Staff considers Phases I and II of the Cygna effort to be 6 in direct response to a Staff request for an independent 7 assessment program, and so therefore the protocol that was a developed and imposed upon Cygna by the Staff was only for 9 the purposes of Phase I and Phase II, and it considered the 10 continuing efforts of Cygna to respond to Phases I and II 11 of that IAP to still be within the Staff's interpretation, 12 whatever it may be, of the protocol. 13 And as far as Phases III and IV, which is what that Id I understand the Board's order only applies to now, 15 while the protocol may be -- the Staff's protocol may be 16 a starting point, the Staff cons'iders the particular details 17 to be something which the Board has indicated are sufficient . 18 to satisfy the Board's concerns within independence, l' JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 1 l 20 Are there any other necessary matters to handle 21 now? 22 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. Are you done with your 23 comments on the plan? 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, with the exception cf what I 25 we've stated, we find the plan, as presented, acceptable.
P 13,124 40-3 1 MR. REYNOLDS: We have no comments. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to thank all the 3 We have been particularly parties for their participation. d pleased by the unexpected speed of this last day. 5 WITNESG BJORKMAN: Mr. Chairman, if it's all right, 6 I would like to make what I think is a hopeful or helpful l 7 suggestion to the NRC Staff in their evaulation of the 8 double trunion problem. When you incorporate the double trunion into the 10 problem, as was done in the Gibbs & Hill model, no other
' effect was included, and because of that, the large 12 I l disparity in loads between one and the other was observed.
~~13 However, if you go to that degree of sophistication, I would~~
~~'d suggest you also include in the model the actual baseplate ;~~
I 15 If you do that, ; and its rotational flexibility in the model. i 16 i I believe what you will observe is that the behavior of the
~~'7 double trunion attached to the baseplate will act very much l8 like a whiffletree.~~
I9 MR. MIZUNO: A what? 20 That's when WITNESS BJORKMAN: A whiffletree. 21 the horses pull the stagecoach, and it's called a 22 whiffletree, and it's to assure that equal force is generated l 23 in all the members. It will act very much like a whiffletree, 24 in which case the forces will be. distributed virtually evenly 25 to both snubbers.
~~; E E $E E D D E D R O O O D D D'Q g'f 4~~
i Definition i i l Category 4 3 l Walsh/Doyle allegations which remain open for reasons other than those l covered by the definition of Category 3. Specific reasons to be provided. 4 a
~~= 2 1 -~~
g
~~~ >~~
M
~~= a N5 s~~
O
t !hiiiti. Category 4 Walsh/Doyle Allegations Allegation Cyano Cross-Reference
1. Inclusion of pipe support LAP Phases I and 2 Final Report, mass in stress analysis. TR-83090-Oi, Rev. O.

2. Pipe support self-weight ex- IAP Phase I and 2 Final Report, citation. TR-83090-Oi, Rev. O. General notes of foched to individual pipe support checklists.
~~IAP Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-Oi, Rev. l. Pipe Support Checklists General Note 7. Meeting transcript between NRC and Cygno, July 3,1984.~~
~~3. Pipe Supp.rt Stiffness used IAP Phases I and 2 Final Report in stress analyses. TR-83090-01, Rev. O. General notes attoched to individual pipe support checklists.~~
IAP Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-Oi, Rev. l. Pipe Support Checklist General Note 8. Meeting transcript between NRC and Cygno, July 3,1984. Q' .I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, ET AL. ) ) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board's Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement)", in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following persons by express mail or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 7th day of January, 1985, or by hand delivery ( ** ) on the 8th day of January, 1985.
** Peter B. Bloch, Esq. Chairnan, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing *ppeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. William L. Clements
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering **Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
Architecture and Technology Office of the Executive Oklahoma State University Legal Director Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman, Atomic Safety 7735 Old Georgetown Road and Licensing Board Panel Room 10117 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 t
*L
~~~, Q~~
Elizabeth B. Johnson Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Region IV Post Office Box X U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Building 3500 Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000

Mrs. Juanita Ellis Arlington, Texas 76011 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Renea Hicks, Esq. Dallas, Texas 75224 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Lanny A. Sinkin Division Executive Director P.O. Box 12548 Nuclear Information and Capitol Station Resource Service Austin, Texas 78711 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
~~4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 William A. Horin cc John W. Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.~~
~~,}}~~

ML20111C690

Text

Navigation menu

Search