ML19312D677
| ML19312D677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003250178 | |
| Download: ML19312D677 (45) | |
Text
--
q pf "*%,
(Wb YA?
v..oo.
UNITED STATES
~
N UCLE AR 2 EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION in the matter of:
Portland General Electric Company, et al e
N. 50-344 (Trojan Nuclear Plant)
O l
Pl ace:
Portland, Oregon Date:
March 12, 1980 Pages:
3591-3639 lNTERNATIONAL VERBATIM REPORTERS. INC.
499 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET. S. W. SUITE 107 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 202 484-3550 1
3591 lll1 OMITED STATES OF AMER]CA 2
UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMrilSSION 3
4 In the Matter of:
)
l S
PORTLAND CENERAL ELECTRIC COriPANY,)
Docket No. 50-344 d-6 et al.
) (Control Room Proceedings) 7 (Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
d llearing Room 103 9
Interstate Commerce Co araissian Pioneer Court Ilouse 10 Portland, Gregon
,)
11 Wednesday, March 12, 1980 12 The above-entitlea matter came on for hearino, 13 pursuant to adjournment at 9:00 A.ft.
)
14 SEFORE:
MARSIIALL E.
ftILLER, Esq., Ch airinan 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Daard
)
16 DR. KCNNETH A.
ticCOLLOM, Me:abe r 1/
DR. l! U G!I C. PAXTON, Member 13 D
l ')
APPEARANCES:
REGULATORY STAFF LICENCEE 20 Joneph R.
Gray, Esq.
Maurice Axelrac, Esq.
21 Jay McGurren Alberto Carr, Esq.
])
Kenneth lier r ing Lief W.
Erickson 22 POyjCVILLE POWER ADM.
STATC OF OREGON 23 Rober t Jones, Esq.
Richard M.
Sandvik, Esq.
)
24 COALITIO!M OR y FLLPO',1CR Frank W.
Ostrander, Jr.,
Esq 2S Eugene Rosolic CONSOLIDATED IftPERVENORS Nina Bell I
BEOVICil & RO3YCKI L
=-
J
35'32 x) lll1 2
PROCCCDINGS 3
4 CHAIRMAN ftILLCR:
The prhearing conference will
)
5 resume.
6 Mr. Gray, I thought you asked to go first on some 7
matters involving --
)
6 MR. GRAY:
This is with regard to the consideration 9
of +; hat's'oeen termed the wall problem.
First, Mr. Chairman, 10 I would like to ask that the Board indicate what its 1
/
11 questions were yesterday with regard to that problem.
12 CHAIRMAN :tILLCR:
Yes, Dr. t!cCollom.
])
13 DR. McCOLLOM:
That's a dirty trick.
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
If I did it, he wouldn't l$
understand, 16 DR. McCOLLO51:
I think I can descrioe it somewhat 11 succinctly and not necessarily the same way I did yesterday.
la I suggest we need to concribe the same kind of
)
19 mortared double block masonry wall which will be the result 20 of the so-called quantified data from the proposed test to be 21 done, iJentify where those walls are in the complex, and
]
22 descrice the amount in some way that they contcibute to the 23 sheer capacity ascribed to tne type of walls that are in the 24 Stardyne Analysis.
And then as part of that, I wish you also 25 would describe what is meant by the collar not being filled DCOVICH & ROZYCKI
3593 hI with mortar.
I don't think we have really had a good 2
description of that.
)
3 And then in some way indicate to us whether the test 4
results have any significant possibility of changing the
}
5 nurabers derived for use in the Stardyne Analysis for the 6
structural capability to withstand the OSC and the SSE.
7 tiR. GRAY:
Okay, thank you.
u First of all, as far as this longer-term -- what I 9
would call lon g e r -te r:a tests -- as I understand it, they 10 would include not only the mortar double block wall, but also 11 possibly some testing on composit type walls, also.
12 How, then, I would have Mr. ilerring look at these 13 questions and see it we can give some indication of answers
}
14 to those.
15 I would like to, though, try to put in context what 16 we Delieve the wall problem is with regard to this Control 17
- Building, ld CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes, we would like to have some 19 definition on that.
20 MR. GRAY:
This Control Building proceeding problem 21 got it's start and earlier rose from the May 26, 1978 order 22 issued by the Director of Nucicar Reactor Regulation.
That 23 order defined or identified a series of what have been termed
)
24 Control Building design deficiencies.
25 Those design deficiencies were the existence ci UEOVICH & ROZYCKI
3594 1
discontinuous steel in Control Building walls, the use of the 2
wrong value ot conc r e t.e sheer strength and an algebraic
)
3 mistake in hand calculations of the amount of reinforcing f
i steel required in the wall to resist cheer loadings from
}
5 earthquakes.
That order indicated that the Control Building o
was to De fixed, was to ne modified to, in effect, correct 7
those design deficiencies to substantially restore margins a
that were missing, seismic margins that were missing occause 9
of those design de ficiencies and to bring the facility back 10 into compliar.ce with the -- uunstantial compliance with the
)
11 license t.ecause of those design deficiencies.
12 CHAIRMAN MILLCH:
Did that conte.npla t e t
}
13 ditierentiation cetween the SSC and the Operating.lasis 14 Earthquake values or was it limited to the one?
l IS Mis. GR AY:
That order, of course, co n te r.pl a t ed that 16 the margins, the seismic cargins had to De restored.
The 17 fact of t he.aLi t t e r is however, there were sufficient seismic la margins in the structures to withstand the license to SSE, 19 but because of the eriterla that are used to determine 20 loadings from the SSC versus the OBE, it dio not have the 21 capacity to withstand the license to OBE.
Of course, we did 22 go into this in great detail in the interia phase of this 23 proceeding.
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Pestoring scismic capability, if 25 you are looking at the SSE, no restoration was necessary.
It BLOVICH & ROZYCKI
3S95
)
. $1 remained, perhaps at a lesser value but nonetheless it 2
reiaained within safe li.alts as your evidence showed.
J 3
So really what you were getting down to was the OBU 4
and that was not a seisiaic issue at least in the term your 5
experts told us but rather here what you told was it would be
}
6 snut down inspected and so forth.
Clearly just by loaning 7
the value of OBE to whatever it is now, why wouldn't that bc
)
3 aufficient, keeping the SSC within what it is, well within 9
the satety liaits.
10 GRAY:
By rectoring the OBE capability back to 11 0.15g,.Jc also aJd in additional capability to take the SSC 12 and larger -- over the Sse.
13 CH AIic1 AN MILLEH not your ev.dence showed it was 14 One and a half ti;les that anyway as in, as built with the 15 design Dasis as written.
16 MR. GHAY:
I believe that is correct.
17 CHAIRMA1 MILLCR:
That's what your range of evidence 18 was.
)
19 MR. GRAY:
I oclieve that's correct.
However, in 20 licensing a plant in approving a particular design in the 21 initial stages, the intent is for the structures to con 1 ply
)
22 with various building and structural codes with the idea that, 23 in point of fact, that would provide substantially more
)
24 margin than the levels of earthquake for compliance with the 25 license to comply with uncertainties that are not known about
)
DEOVICH & ROZYCKI
3596
-( j) I the structure or possible problems.
For example, the Control u
2 Building design deficiencies.
3 CilAIRMAN MILLCH:
Yes, but that still is not 4
-answering my question because when we now have a 5
sophisticated type of analysin and we.can in fact tell, and b
your evidence snows it being incapabic of precise and 7
sophisticated analysis and well within the range of.SSC you
.6 are one and a half to'two times over it, those being the o
9 f acts aren't we really going down getting to this whole 10 exercise to restore this as they said it would do as a 11 building matter not that which is required from a seismic g312 safety point of view?
To no they ate two different things.
V 13 I-am glaa you brought up this history, 30 to npeak, 14 because it does get down to what are we truly looking at, 15 what are the issues, narrow the issues to what must be done 16 to build it to what they said they were-going to build it for i
17 reasons which now may no longer be controlled because of the 18 increased sophistication of testing for Geismic or are we 19 doing it for that, perhaps, but also to enhance neconsary 20 seismic capabilities, and there we have to differentiate 21.
between'"your own evidence on the RSE capability and the 22 l' esser one, which maybe it's just a building, maybe you are
'23 saying you've got to do it'because you said you would, rather li
(,124 than Decause it's necessary from a seismic safety point of
~
25 view.
That's'what's oeen troubling me a littic bit.
I am
.BE0VIC1 & JRO7.YCKI.
+
3597 h1 glad you really got to it when you started out on it.
2 ti R. GRAY:
It is difficult to answer that.
I should J
point out that I do recall testimony as to the capanility 4
anove and beyond the SSC and the testimony said capability
}
S about 50 percent, on the order of.
o I will say, though, as I recall, that was judgmental.
7 It was the Judgment.
d Ci! AI Rt1 Atl MILLER:
A lot of people's judge aents, the
-)
professors, some of the Oregon people, the Oregon witnens, 10 It was between 50 percent up to 180 percent.
One of the.n 11 sa id it was a fortress.
There was a witnena or a serles of 12 witnesses.
Ana I don't know anybody that said to
'.h e 13 contrary.
I < ton't think Mr. derring ' a id it.
Ile a n a l y:v?d it
}
la very fairly.
And the experts said, it se e;ited to me, we got 15 down very close to, very close to in the J udgaie nt a l range,
)
lo very close to those similar values.
I am trying to find out 17 where are we in the safety matters.
There is'no question the la paramount significance of safety, where are we getting to do D
l ')
it occause you nade a condition or a contracture or,
20 coa.m i t ment to do it.
And you said you would do it.
But the 21 reanon for it may no longer be there or be of significance, 22 if it's possible.
11a yne it's not possible for you to take a 23 position on that,
't r. Gray.
24 DR. McCOLLOM:
That really couples to the problem of 25 what are the criteria going to ne which you will say we have
)
BEOVIC!! & ROZYCKI
3593 1
restored it.
2 ilR. Gl<A Y :
It is, as I say, a difficult question to 3
answer, Decause, in fact, we do believe right now that the 4
plant is safe, when we take the SSE.
It will not do what it S
should do on the 08E.
}
6 CilAIPMAN MILLEP:
So the remedy is to shut it down 7
to lower the ground force acceleration.
Do that which you
)
d would do at a lower level than you would with the Oa2, it
()
that oc the theory and the sole theory, I suppose, and the 10 function of the Onc.
Mayce not.
The appeal board started to 11 sound a little different when they analyzed it.
12 MR. GRAY:
But Mr. lierring do<rs point out that one 13 purpose is to restore margins because of uncertainties that I4 we do have.
One uncertainty which has, in fact, come up is IS this wall proolen.
That was something that was not known 16 anout, it was not contemplatea.
And yet because thd facility 17 did have some margin of capability, it continues to be safe lo despite that pronlem.
D 19 CH AI BM At1 MILLCR:
Then the wall problem does have 20 some logical linkage or significance to our original series 21 of problems in this hearing, because you have just cited as 22 an example.
23 MR. GRAY:
I have cited it as an example of an
)
24 unknown that it is desirous to have margin in tne plant form.
2S There.nay ne other unknowns.
By unknowns, I mean we 4on't 1
BCOVICil & ROZYCKI J
3599
)
h1 know now.
But we have sufficient margin and aargin as 2
originally intended when the plant was licensed that will
)
3 account for some of these unknowns.
Excuse me.
4 Of course, just because the wall proolem is a S
structural proolem and also has something to ao with seismic
}
6 capacity or seismic aspects of a facility does not mean that 7
it is part of what may oc considered here.
)
d CH AI Rf! A!1 B1 ILLER:
That's what we are trying to pin 9
down.
Sometimes it looks like it does.
Sometimes it looks 10 like it doesn't.
And when idr. Axelrad talks it doesn't, and
)
11 when you talk sometimes it does and s oir.e t irc.e s it doesn't.
I 12 haven't sorted it out with everybody, out it kind of glimmers 13 there.
14 t1R. GRAY:
ilha t I was going to get into was that the 15 purpose, we believe, of that order that originally
)
16 established this proceeding, the purpose of the part of the 17 order that said do modifications to substantially restore the 10 attendant margins and bring it into suDstantial compliance s) 19 into the license.
That was directed toward those design 20 ceficiencies that were the subject of that order, those threa 21 that I mentioned.
22 And in judging whether the modifications will do the 23 job that the order says that they should do, the question is
)
24 will they restore the cartfins lost by, lost because of those 25 identified design defficiencies.
)
BEOVICil & ROZYCKI
.~
3600
)
h1 There may be other probleins, the wall problem, for 2
exampic.
But that was not part of what that order 3
contemplated.
4 C!! AIRMA!J IILLER:
That's what we have ocen just Deen 5
talking about.
Do we have tunnel vision or do we pick up the
}
6 periphery of those matters where you use the example of the 7
walls and other things this come to life?
Is it not our
)
3 responsibility of the Board observing the charter 9
jurisdiction to not realize the tunnel vision?
10
!1R. GRAY:
It's not that those problems will De 11 ignored.
It's that what has to ne considered here is the 12 proolems the order was directed to, and that is the design 13 deficiencies that were 'dentified, not others.
14 CUAIRt1A4 MILLCFa Nell, not others, now, that's 15 where you started to restrict, if I an. following you
)
16 correctly.
17 fin. GRAY:
I should point out also that the Control 18 Building design deficiencies affected what's called in-plane 19 capacity of the walls.
The wall problem is related to 20 out-of-plane capacity of the walls.
There is not a direct 21 linkage there between the two, so there is a, somewhat of a
}
22 separate 'proole:_
23 The Staff is of the view that the wall problem has 24 been satisfactorily resolved.
Uc have asked for these 25 additional tests to confirm and quantify the margins UEOVICil & ROZYLi I
3601
)
lh1 resulting fro.n that.
2 C11 AI Rt1 Ati MILLCR:
What if it doesn't do so?
Unat
)
3 if on the contrary they raise doubts?
4 MR. GRAY:
If on the contrary the data, for exa;nple,
5 raises doubts or, in fact, is very bad, then certatrily some
}-
6 additional action would have to De taken.
7 CliAIRMAN MILLCRs By us or administratively by
)
a Staff?
9 ilR. GRAY:
Initially, well, I would say 10 administratively Dy the Staff.
That would include possibly
)
11 ahut down of the plant.
It would inclade --
12 Cil AIRM AN MILLCR:
Yeah, but at whose order 13 MR. GRAY:
At tne order of the Director of Nuclear
}
li Reactor Regulation.
15 It could include a require.aent for additional
)
16 modifications.
Those would be different modifications than 17 the one we are talking about here to correct this different 18 problem.
We do not expect that the data coming out will be
)
l ')
bad because if we did, we would not have in the end of 20 December, we the Staff would not have permitted the -- or 21 concluded that' the problem had ocen' resolved.
22 Cfl AIRM AN MILLCR:
Yes, but that would not have been 23 in the adjudicatory context.
You see, if ve are going to be s)
/24 precise in our use of jurisdictional terms and relevancy and 25 peripheral matters and the like, we've got to be consistent.
)
BCOVIC!! & ROZYCKI
)
$1 If you tell us the data c'r information which would 2
be very, very negative, to oc logical, you would have to say
)
3 it would still not be the ousiness of this Board in an 4
adjudicatory setting.
5 MR. GRAY:
That is true, that would be my
}
ti understanding.
7 CUAIRMAN MILLER:
In that event, wny do we nother 5J 8
going into some of the ; natter" that are related to those 9
stucies, for exaraple, even if the studies are saying, my gosh, 10 shut it down, we would have neither the jurisdiction or the 11 power to do so.
Why should it not ce, then, the 12 responsibility of the technical staff or the ott.er elements
}
13 o f th ~' and not this adj udicator / board?
14 MR. GRAY:
tie Delieve at thic point that it 10 the,
15 responsibility of the Staff.
16 CHAIUMAN MILLER:
Oh, you think it is the 17 responsibility of the Staff?
13 MR. GRAY:
Yes.
)
19 DR. McCOLLOM:
- 01. this Board?
s 20 MR. GRAY:
No, the Staff.
21 CHAIliMAN MILLUR:
Then you are telling us that we 22 don't need to eset nor to be concerned eith these additional 23
- J tud ies.
24 G.
GRAir That's true.
25 CHAIre1 AN MILL 6a:
Mayce we ought to resolve it one BE0VICil & ROZYCKI J
3603 1
$1 way or the other, we don't want to do use lesser unnecessary 2
things when we've got other controversies in dispute.
)
3 DR. PAXTON:
Is this true of the short-term test as 4
well as the long-term test?
5 MR. GRAY:
Yes.
}
6 DR. ficCOLLOM:
Why don't you go ahead and address 7
the specific questions that I asked now?
s) d MR. GRAY:
As to the first ouestion on the 9
description of the kind of mortar, we said mortar double 10 block walls.
Let's say the kind of walls will ne the subject 11 of this testiaony.
Mr. IIe r r ing, I believe, will describe 12 that.
13 fih. lIERRING:
Well, there are two phases now to the 14 test prograa.
First the short term etfort that's going on 15 right now should be c"mpleted within the next couple weeks.
)
16 And that is addressed, addressing itself towards the vertical 17 uheer capanility of the layer of mortar or the collar joint ld in th is. case, you know, as it's termed, between double block, 19 double wythe block walls.
20
- 08. McCOLLGd:
Is that the definition of collar?
21 MR. !! ERRING :
Yeah, collar is the double joint 22 that's holding the two layers together 23 DR. McCOLLOM:
And what's that called -- the morter
)
24 double block wall 25 MR. !!CRhING:
Yes 5
DCOVICtl & RO3YCKI d
3604 lll 1 DR. McCOLLOM:
Is it a collar in a composit wall?
2 MR. HERRING:
The mortar double block wall is two Y
~
3 layers side by side with the morta.- supposedly nonding them 4
together.
Composit behavior of the two wythes is assumed.
S It is a composit wood wall but it's not a composit wall in
)
6 the sense it's used in this proceeding.
In this proceeding, 7
composit wall is referring to the walls where you have the
).
8 two*wythes, however a thicker layer of either unreinforced or 9
reinforced concrete octween the two.
10 DR. McCOLLOM:
Do you refer to that as a collar?
)
11 MR. HERRING:
That is not really a collar joint.
12 It's a multiple wythe wall.
13 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Can we start using these terms
)
14 with precision.
There is some confusion in the record
'15 because they ate used a little loosely.
Can all you experts
)
16 agree we are going to use these terms in one way and one way 17 only?
13 MR. HERRING:
Okay.
)
-19 DR. McCOLLOM:
Okay.
20 MR. HERRING:
So the short term program is 21 addressing the adequacy of the collar joint, the mortar 22 between the two wythes to hold the two wythes together such 23-that they behave as one unit as it's assumed in t%e analyses.
'24 Tne long range testing program is to substantiate 25 what margin or to confirm which margin and quantify the BEOVICH & ROZYCKI
3605
)
llh1 margin that is-present in the, not only the mortar double 2
block, but also would include composit walls, e
3 DR. McCOLLOM:
Margin for what, now?
4 MR. HCRRING:
To withstand all appropriate piping
)
S support reactions and gross loadings on the wall acting 6
simultanaously 7
DR. McCCLLOM:
What are the variables that enter
)
d into determining that?
9 I don't want a complete technical description, out 10 what enters in to the measurements that they will De making h
11 that will allow them to come to that judg:aent of what the 12 quantity is.
13 MR. HERRING:
The cetails of the testing program
)-
14 haven't ocen worked out yet, but the goal of the program 15 would ne to quantify the amount of strength that's in the
)
16 wall to witnstano in addition to just gross loading from its 17 own weight out-of-plane to just the earthquake, you know, 18 moving the structure back and forth.
19 Simultaneously with a support reaction, you know, 20 the local effects of the support reaction, and in the case of 21 the composits would be concrete expansion, anchor bolts due
)-
22 to a certain amount of tension has to De transmitted along 23 the-interface netween the concrete inner portion of the wall
).
!24 and the clock.
25 DR. 11cCOLLott:
Will there be any new data generated BEOVICH & ROZYCKI
3606
~
..e's
( ) 1-that results in a. change in your conclusion of what the
'2
-capacity of the in-plane sheer capacity is?-
.3 MR. HCRRING:
We don't anticipate that there would 4
.be a significant impact on the capacity to force ratios which 5
.have ocen and are being presented right now.
6 DR. McCOLLOM:
However, there are measurements being 7
made that could influence that; in that true? -Or will be
'8 made in anticipation of a. planned test that hasn't yet been 9
descrined?
10 MR. IICRRING:
It could impact, yes.
It could change 11 the numbers that you are looking at right now.
We don't 7-(12 anticipate that it wlli, but, you know, anything la possible.
U 13 DR. McCOLLOM.'
Would anything, like for instance the 14 amount of mortar between the walls and the lack of it, enter 15 into this?
Will the test include.that variable?
16 HR. HCHRING:
Yec.. We have had some very broad 17 preliminary discussions as this has been going along and I've
)..
18 in'dicated some of.the things that we are looking for and~the
-19 '
licensees, once this is over'with,'they have indicated to us 20
~ they are going to sit down with their people-and come up and
.21 propone-a testing program and meet with us to work out the 22 details.
23' DR. McCOLLOM Do'you have~any feel at this time --
24f let me ask again -- where are..the walls that are.the double,
~
25 mortared double olock masonry wall, which I assume is the 1 BEOVICII' 6 ROZYCKI i
4 3607 (kl primary. wall oeing tested.for the'out-of-plane reaction; is 2
that true?
Arc these so-called mortared double block masonry k;
3 walls the ones that you are really concerned about?
4 MR. IIERRING:
We are interested in quantifying the
[
5 margin in all-the walls.
!!owever, wnat's turning out right
- 6 now'to oc the most critical.to, you know, quantify is'the 7
mortared double block wall.
8 DR. McCOLLOM:
liow much does that enter into the 9
. ability of the structure to withstand a sheer coming from the 10 earthquake,.
a wall sheer.
.11 MR. IIERRIllG:
I can't quantify.that right now.
7312 Ilowever in the north-south direction, maybe ten percent, the fv
.13
- overall capacity.
And in the east-west direction, I would 14 guess about the same.
We are talking anout in the Control
- 1. 5 -
- nullding~itself the mortared double olock walls are the R and
.15 N line walls between column lines 41 and 46 and elevation 61, 17' 67.
16; in the Auxiliary Building, it's the 46 line wall'
).
19.
between elevation 61 and 93.
And there are some of these 20' walls as far as you are talking aoout walls modeled in F-
.21 Stardyne, are up in the fuel building end of the complex.
22 ',
DR. McCOLLOM:
In-your judgment at this time, how 23 much could that in-plane capability change from that test?
I 24-What would you anticipate?
s 25--
'MR.
HERHING:
We believe that the~ results of the
):-
~ BCOV.'Cli & RO3YCKI
~
o
+
a
3608 s
( ) 'l testing program would-show that-there is no signific~ ant 2_
' change < on :the in-plane capability of the wall, whatever the v3' in-plane capability would conflict.
4
'DR. McCOLLOM:
Are you satisfied that'the numbers 5
.that are being...used that might oc-changed ~through this test 6
are well into the conservative range in the way that it's now 7
ocing used in the Stardyne Analysis?
~
8
.MR.
IIERRING:
I Delieve that there is enough margin 9
in what we'are looking at now such that there shouldn't be 10 any significant impacts, you'know, in the ochavior indicated 11 oy the new or this additional testing-program.
f~s12
'UR.
McCOLLOM:
What is11t that caused you to -- what N]
13 concern did you have that caused.you to ask for tne 14 additional test?
15 MR. IIGRRING:
There han -- well, concrete design
. 16 Codes are based on.a substantial amount of. testing through 17 the years, and that's the' basis-for the development of code
- 13
'allowables and so forth.
This1particular area that we are
[
. 19 dealing with~as'far.as-talking-about the vertical sheer 20:
stress capabill'ty and composit-Dehavior of-walls, there has'
{
- 21:
not really bee'n any testing done in the code, in the masonry-22 modes 1that.are available. ~And composit behavior is not
-:23i really' addressed by the codes. -There have.to oc a'dditional
}.
p
^ \\ 7 24 '
measuren or1 measures taken.
IS' DR)
.LLOM:
I would guess, though, that you h
.BEOVIC11:&-it0ZYCKI-t
3609 1[ ) 1
.didn't do it just so that'you could verify the codes.
I mean 2
just because the codes did not have a method of doing that,
)-
3-but that there was some aspect.of this design that you wanted 4
to' confirm that was not confirmed in your mind at this point.
S
.That's what I am searching for, the nucleus of what it la
~
6' that caused.you to~say, and Trojan for this -- whatever it is 7
you are concerned about, we.nced to do these tests.
)
B CilAIRMAN MILLER:
Yeah, that's what bothers me.'
9 MR. IiERRING:
It's important.that you know how much 10 these. walls are good for.
I mean we are -- a lot of what we
):
11 deal with every day 13 how much margin is present i.n. thin c~s 12 structure.
Now, it the walls -- it this delamination were to k
I m
13 occur, there is not that much steel acting as ties.
In fact, 14 it's pretty n*J 11 1ble, as far as going through the wall to 9
15-hold the wythes together.
There really isn't a significant
)-
16 amount of rebar.
17 DR. McCOLLOM:
In the mortared double block masonry
-18 wall.
19 t!R..IIERRING:
Or in the deposits.
In any multiple.
20
-wythe wall it's got very minimal cteel reinforcing going in a 21.
transverse direction acting as ties between the wythes.
So
+.
22 if the delamination were-to occur, there 'is really not too 23~
much to hold it together.
.. n.
)-
(24 DR. McCOLLOM:
You don't give me a great deal of 25 confidence that this shouldn't be ~ 1ncluded in our concern DSOVICtl & ROZYCKI
- 2.. -
p 3610 V
k.
f%
1 with that statement..
2 MR. IIERRING:
We Delieve that there is margin there, F
g; however we don't know how much-because in masonty, you --
4 depending on which set of test data you can look'at, you can g
S.
pretty much prove or disprove anything you want.
We'are in
-6 an area.
L7 Ct! A I R:t A N tlI L L E R :
What do you mean by that?
I-8 DR. McCOLLO!1:
That doesn't' help me, oither.
9 CIIAllu1AN ttILLCR:
I'd like an explanation of that-10 one.
11 flR. GRAY: -Cxplain it.
-5 12 t1R. IIERRING:
Por example, we looked at one set of k_)
13.
data and made certain judgements whit.h att indicated in the j
14 SCR basco on data presented by Bechtel.
Our consultant, Dr.
--15 Colvile,-looked at another set of. data and came to a h
16 different conclusion.
I have talked and our consultant have 17 talked to other: people who have done work in, masonry in the 18 country'and'they say, for exampic, at the collar joint, they
/
~ would~ assume zero strength.
19
'20 I've talked to~other people on the other hand who 21.
say that masonry will savelthe world, so to speak, and you
~
22 can do-know harm and there is no problent whatcoever.
23 C11AIRrtAN MILLc14: -But that's not the same as what
.t 1 24 you said, I don't think, Mr. tiercing.
I understood you to
' 2 5' say that you can.take data by the eay in which it is handled
[
DE0VICll & ROZYCKI c-
3611 llh1 you come out with different results even to the the results 2
that you might seek.
,)
3 DR. McCOLLOM:
I didn't read him that way.
4 MR. IICRRING:
It depends on which set of data you 5
want to take.
Dr. Colvile took a set of data and came up 6
with the recommendation for 12 PSI for the strength of the 7
collar Joint.
)
8 Da. McCOLLOM:
lie also made certain assumption that 9
somebody else taking a set of data may not have made.
10 MR. HERRING:
Correct.
N
/
11 DR. McCOLLOM:
And when you take different 12 assumption you can end up with a different result.
Is that s
13 what you had in mind?
)
14 MR. HERRI:4G:
Yes.
15 Cil AI Ril AN MILLER:
Is it the assumption or the data
)
16 or both that permits you to come up with the different 17 results.
la MR. liERRING:
It's a combination of ooth.
s
')
19 CIIAIRMAN MILLCR I see.
20 DR. PAXTON:
Suppose you assume complete laminition.
21' Am I using the right term there?
22 MR. i! ERRING:
Delamination.
23 DR. PAXTON:
Delamination, okay.
Then are you in
[
'24 trouble?
25 MR. i! ERRING:
On some walls, yes, that would be the BEOVIC!! & h0ZYCKI
\\
m 3612
)-
$1 walls higher up in the complex as far as the double block 2
walls go where. you are getting lacre significant inertia
)
3 acceleration, the higher, the higher the loading becomes.
4 DR. PAXTON:
Would they be entirely coraposit walls 5
or'do they double?
)
6 MR. IMRRING:
I am speaking to the double block wall 7
right now.
The.composit walls from the form that's been done, d
I think our feeling is that they are the least likely to have 9
any kind ot problem or that the testing prograd will indicate 10 a problem as a result of thela.
11 DR. PAXTON:
You are confident that there would not 12 oc delaminanion there, but just in the double bleck walls.
}
13 MR. HERRING:
We don't think there i- ;oing to be 14 delamination this either one right now.
15 DR. McCOLLOM:
But it's less likely in the composit 16 valls than it is in the double walls.
17 MR..HEdRING:
Yes, the bonding is much better and if 18 it s vibrated you just get better contact in reinforced
-19 concrete.
Whereas the mortar is more susceptible to, you 20 know, workmanship and how well it was placed and so forth.
21 DR. PAXTON:
Well, assuming -- let's change my
}
22 question a little oit, then -- assuming delamination in just 23-the double block walls, would this constitute a very serious 24 matter?
25 MR. 11 ERRING :
In the double block walls, the valls BEOVICll & ROZYCKI
y I'
lwh'ich - h' ave ' the. highest; stresses in them are a limited 21 percentage of-the total-number of walls.
As far as wnat the
)c
'3_
consequences of the delamination'would be, I can't answer 4'
that question now because I don't know what systems are 5
hanging off the walls.
5 6
The.first order impact would De on any safety
'7 related piping or equipment that was attached to the walls.
8-That would'bc the first order impact.
9-The second order. impact is gross wall failure and, 1 01 you know, in-plar.c strengthened going to zero, so to speak, k
~
11 just the wall collapsing.
12 DR. McCOLLOM:
Now, the licensee has made
'73) 13 considerable study on this as part of the procedure for 14 perr..i t t ing them to start up again and did a lot of
'15 modifications. -Did this not completely satisfy you that f
16~
these, indeed, would not be a problem in terms of safety 17 related equipment?
18 MR. 11 ERRING:
They satisfied us that there was
)~
19
. sufficient margin that-this should not ne a problem.
- However,
.20
'again, we are dealing with an area where we non't know what 21f that margin is.
And when prc'alems come up down the line and 22 for'other~ reasons, we de re.'y uoon margin being there and do 23 find yourself in positions cef times when-you have to know
\\ 24:
/
what that margin is in-order to make judgements for other 4
25 reasons.
BE0VICil 4 RO2YCKI C
3614
~)
1
.I miejht also add that there is an INE bulletin that 2
is being prepared to g o to all licensee's regarding nasonry s).
3 wall design criteria.
4 CilAIRAAN MILLER:
Reg a rd ing what?
}-
S MR. IIERRING:
Masonry wall design cri teria.
6 DR. McCOLLO9:
Wo uld that have an inpa c t r eg a r d ir 7
the par ticul.ar problem we have as responsibility of this s
J 8
aoard?
Th i s wo uld be going to other 10 f acilities besides Trojan.
11 MR. CHAIRMAN:
Well, will it include any of the g2 probleus that are connected directly or indirectly 'fith the
)
13' Trojan problea?
14 MR. IISHRING:
Ye s, but it will be add ressing other 16 facilities.
)-
16 CliA I RA AN MILLER:
Is this an appropriate time to 17 here from Mr. Axelrad and the licensce's views on the subject.
18 MR. AXS LHAD:
Yec, Mr. Chairman.
Ma y I hav e a 19 recosn?
20 CilAIRM AN MILL By the way, was there anything
)
21 further f rom the Staf f before we proceed with the licensee's 22 viewa, I assuaed we covered it pretty fairly.
23 MR. GRAY:
No.
)
O C2 4 -
CllAIRMAN MILLER:
Tnank you very much.
2S (Recess)
+)
dCOVICii & llOZ YCKI v
gn 7 ; ; 1-3:' ~ x/J ~ ~ >
i
~
13615?'
~
~
r D.'.
2 d
>x_
"'4'
.y;y;-c+
4 4
,, e
~-
~
t0-/,T'
,t 3.x
- ?
m AfN
?, A. /1.
g MR.D ROSO'LIC. ';Mr.i chairman,' fI looked. over,these
- L..,
~.
t
+
fiftter rogato ries /wi th : the Sta f f clast night and I. no ticed ! iha t' --
..^(2d cm
'i
- 31' >
- well, Linterrogatory, No. 4 3, dealing'l with.our > contention 1No. L3',.
~
, f? gj g
ention ' wasE irown ou~, : we would.at thi s ? t'im e -
tl t
1 051 basicaily withdraw our; contention No'.
4.3 icilAIRMAN' I4 ILLER:--
- Which one is tha t, Mr. HRosolio,
L6" '
r y
,1-
' n ' substance?-l b7{
i -
3 W- ) 81
! 4R.- ROSOLIB:' lit ' deals with the NRC Staf f review of' I
! 9. :-
the : Troj an - techn ical. spe.ci fica tions.
o J10 MR. CHAIRMAN: - Le t - the record ' show that.the 11[
~ consolidated intervenors'ori theLintervening parties hava
[2 Lvoluntarily wit'hd rawn their contention No. '4.
'lience -'any
+ v..
J 13 ~.
interrogatorles directed towards it will b'e moot andLwe need
~
11~4:
znot* worry"about it.
Ei S _
MR.. ROSOLIE:
As far-as the other interrogatories go',,
J 161 we : would.. liken to: request some ~ additional. time to'-respond tor 6
r
/
(*
,~
the tremaining'. inter rogato ries.
.: 4 17, -
How'much t[iine will you'need?
318/'
CHAIRMAN-MILLER'-
7
- 19?
MR. -ROSOLIS: - fAc tually~ a Lweek, f rom Fr iday wo uld be
- $20~
igood.
i l
~
g~
2 17 [
I4RnGRAY:
-In fairness,fif ~ you did. not get-those :in E
)l22; thelma11, fobviously you ;should have ;some = time tio'- respond Sto
~
3
$ w' -1 3 w
' them., ie certainly;would~not; expect.wi thin - the next ; couple.' ~
2 a
w.
- -'+
, 14 7 s.d4 ;
s o f:L da ys.. - A!Twee k, f rom '--
1
->-w 4
2, c
, s s
o-1_
- 22 5' '
"E : MR4 ROSOLIB - ; Fr iday?
1
_ m a
c 1,
b
- j kjh 5y 1,
i
'M NJ OBE0VICH.FROZ YCKI..
1
$; p'..
i mu l
h s
w u'
v o
. 3g g (y
'gM g}?
g
,L 7, ' ;
p M: ; -
T b-77. < ' g' e
s W N !1 d
MH.1 GRAY: 1This~ coming l Friday.
~
~m.
q:J'_
32:
n MR.. AXE LRSD:. 21. ~
,:]
e p
1
... f EMR. l GRAY :
21st. m
$m-3 K ':
m
.: E
.,.+
~-
JCHAIRMAN MILLERt' All'right,tyou may have.to;and' r4r '
.g y fs to reJpond
- o' the
- k. :.g,
JS" includ ingf March f 21st of" 1980 recently: received ' f rom the ' Sta f f.
N interrogato rios that' you s E[
- ~Anythin'1further now.on.the inte r roga to r le s?'
7 L
g p
y:
,81 MR. ' ROSOLIE s-No.
ta 4
+
37 1
191 cCilAIRMANtMILLER Mr. Aleirad,. I believe your'.
~
H
.10 :
' wi tness iis here now, o r1your ' consultant.
h illI
~
MR.d AXBLRADs From1the.-:standpo in t o f the l icenseo, 2;
- obviously;the; question that the Board wi shes ' to address is'-
}-
[;, ~
!l131
.the? relationship, 'if any, of the LER 7915 questions that ~have e
la' isen7 o ithe; matters bein.g addicsced.by tho Board in 'thi s 11 4s r
t m
[wW*
L15 proceeding.P g,,
' >16
=
,Mr.4 Gr ay ; has pointed.out1 the ~ o rig in. o f these.
i I
./*
L17"'-
proceedings:andothe matters.that the? Board; was to _look r into -
m'
/ 1 81 Jun'd er n thbrorikinal. notice o'r hearing and-the orde'ri that gave h
~
L19 :
riseito it.s s
. w.
l20
[
^
' Thb 7 paj ticul'ar. design ' defic f encies that were Lthe
~
~'
K subj ect;.!o f [the se proceedings ' arose :in composit walls.- As L.M r. -
v.
[-.
3 11
~
,,J fzC 022 ),,
L Graylor' Mr. 511e r r ing : have po inted out, the principic que'stions
+-
923 +
j beinf (alsed latCthis: time under' LER 7915. relate to ' double-
~
~
L-H.
n$. p g 4/'
"bl'oc k Wall s, fno tl to = composi t 5 walls.
Dr. McCollom hhs raiso'd
/
4.c.
G-125 _
vaj guestion as-tb these double > block walls, however, being 5
1
~
q; g
- p:
I C
t 3_
7 I I V~
/.r. '
4 i1E0VICiiM..ROZICKI4 - -
n
[,
y A.;., f-h y
,.a
.-.p3
,(,.
)*,
,r
.MM, r+
.-s
,e
..+e
+
4 d
'4.-
bi T-tE/
.Ji a
3617
)
J incl ud ed within the Stardyne model.
But the Stard yne model 2
is used to ascer tain overall in-pl a n e sheer capacity y) 3 perfornance.
4 CliAIR:4 AN 4ILLBit:
Wait a minute, i n-pl a n e.
)
5 MR. AXS LRAD:
Sheer capacity performance.
6 CHAIRMAN f4 ILLER:
Th a n k yo u.
7 MR. AXSLRAD:
The out-of-plane loads, which are the e
U questions being exanined under LSit 7915, are not a direct 9
input into the Stard yne model.
The questions that are being 10 lookea at now would therefore not e f fec t the results of the 11 Statuyne model which are being relied on to determine the 2
taodifications that were presently contemplating in this
)
13 proceeding.
14 If the additional reviews or look a t out-of-plane 15 loads would result in the need for any additional inprovement,
)
16 shall we say, they would not e f fect the pa r tic ul a r 17 modi f ica tions, fixes, which are being proposed and r ev ie wed 18 in this pr oc eed ing.
And it is impo r tant, we believe, to kee p 19 that par ticular perspective in nind.
20 The par ticular question that was raised before with
)
21 respect to whether or no t equipmen t might be a f f ec ted, safety 22 related equi pmen t on the, walls might be affected has already 23 ocen looked at in the Trojan plant.
And as the in fo rma tion G.
).
bb4
/
we previously submitted to the Sta f f and to the Board shows, 2S all the safety related equipment which was hung on double
)
dE0VICH & R0ZYCKI
... ~
c
3618 1
block walls has been taken care of, either through bolting or 2
through relocation.
s.)
3 The Staff pointed on you before --
4 DR. McCOLLOM:
Ex cus e rae, but even incl ud ing in the
)
5 walls did delaninate?
6 MR. AXCLRAD:
Tha t's t he reason that the particular 7
fix was done.
The through bolting or the relocation was to 3
assure that.even if delamination -- well, d elanination would 9
(pause) the analysis that was done was on the assucaption that 10 only a single wythe supported the equi pment.
Only the m) 11 analysis with a single wythe supported the equipment showed the equipuent was not suf fic iently sup;>o r ted.
Then it was ggg2
)
13 through bol ted and relocated so that you would get the 14 support of both sides or adequate support otherwise.
It was 15 the -- the conservative analysis was made te cover the 16 si tua tion wha t if there was delamination.
17 DR. McCO LLO:4 :
If that's true, wo uld you say 18 categorically, then, even without the test, that if a Safe s) 19 Shutdown Earthqua ke occurred, that there would be no loss or 20 dafety related equipment due to any delamination that might
)
21 occur i f at all 22 MR. AXS LR AD:
Yes, wi th respec t to sa fety related 23 equipnent on double block walls, our analysis don' t take 24 credit for the walls acting tog e t he r.
25 CilAIR4AN 41LLER:
It does not, you say?
It does in N}
aCOVICil & H0ZYCKI
3619
)
I the take credit?
2 i4 R. AXCLRAD:
Yes.
From a capacity standpoint.
)
~3 CilAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, are there any other 4
standpo ints we are not looking at?
I am no t technically
)
5 quali f ied to _ pursue the questioning, but I want to be sure 6
that everything is coming out, that the qualifications are 7
understood or any tacit assmaptions are made explicit.
6 It wo uld be helpf ul, pr o babl y, i f you don' t mind.
9
!4 R. AXE LRAD:
Ted Bushnell of Por tland General 10 Electric.
)
11 4R. bOSilNS LL:
There ar e sone facets o f the analysis 2
o f the out-o f-plane response where the assouptions o f
)
13 composit action of both eythes are im pl ic i t.
14 r1 R. CHAIRMAN:
Assumptions o f wha t?
15 MR. BUS HNB LL:
Couposit action of both wythes,
' 16 nasonry wythes are im pl ic i t.
One assumption is with regard 17 to the frequency calculation for that wa ll s ' s inertia 18 resiense determination.
Therein the consideration was made 19 that both vythes, as far as the frequency calculation is 20 concerned are ac ting together, not delaninated.
)
21 From a capacity point of view, however, as was --
22 DH. McCOLLOM:
Capacity for what?
23
-MR.
BUSHNCLL:
To resist the pipe reaction, the k24 safety related piping or equipment or whatever is attached to 25 it.
It was assumed. that the r e wa s no transfer or no ca pac i ty y
/
BSOVICH & ' ROZ YCKI c
3620 1
credited to the collar joint mor tar, and all the 2
modi fications tha t wer e pe r fo rmed recently use that as sy 3
criteria and a lot of through boltinj or removing o f 4
restraints from the walls was pe r fo rmed in the plant.
]),
S.
DR. McCOLLon:
Mr. Bushnell, would you tell us, g ive 6
us a little insight as to how you are involved with this 7
particular test or the prospects fo r it?
Are you involved 8
with and have been with the Sta f f on this?
9 Ma. BUSUNSLL:
Yes, sir.
10 DR. McCOLLOM:
0.<ay.
Wha t d o yo u expec t to get out
,J
~11 of these tests with respect to the in-plane capability o f the walls that we are talking about?
g2
])
13 MR. B US H t4 S L L :
With respect to i n-plane capabilities,
14 I don' t expect to get any information that wo uld contr ib uto 15
.to any~further understanding of the i n-pl ane performance.
16 The te sts we are pe r fo rming are strictly with regard to 17 o u t-o f-pl an e per fo rmance.
18 MR. AXSLRAD:. Th i s i s sho r t-to rn test.
D 19 MR. B USHNE LL:
Short term, well, I will speak of the 20 short-term tests only at thi s po int.
])l 21-DR. McCOLLO4:
Well, the sho r t-te ra tests that are 22 going to be considered i f we wa n t to.
The ones we really are 23 worrying about is the long-term tests, you don' t even start
].
g24 planning thou until may?
Th a t ' s t he o n e we are concerned 2S abo ut that if we don' t need to solve our problem.
)
BLOVICil & ROZYCKI
~
3621
)
1 MR. B USUNS LL:
The thoughts pretty much parallel 2
those of the Staff with rejard to demonstr ati on o f marg in,
s) 3 consid er ing out-o f-plane performance.
And we had n' t 4-contemplated, though we at the sane time have not subnitted a
)
'5 p ro po sal to the Staff as yet with regard to the scope o f 6
those te st s.
but my view is that we wo uld be looking to 7
d e.aonstrate by cer tain appro pria te tests the e f fectiveness in s
8 double wythe nortar block walls in the collar joint.
9 DR. McCO LLOM:
In holding the t wo wythes together.
10 This is the so-called delaaination.
11 M Ii. BUStiNS LL:
Fo r o u t-o f-pl an e.
This is again, further in my view, for whatever needs to be f ur ther done j2
)
13 sith regard to cooposit walls.
You are aware that we have 14 donc te sting already on composit wall construction to 15 d emon stra te at least to ourselves the capability of that same 16 in ter f ace between, in this case, the concrete core and the 17 blocx.
Those values indicate to us, though they were direct 18 tension values that we tested, tha t adequa te, more than s
)<
19 adequatd sheer capacity also exists.
20 DR. McCOLLOM:
Is there a reasonable po ssibil i t y
)
21 that you can give us assurance for a Sa f e Shutdown Earthquake 22 that ther e would be no delanination that wo uld ef fect safety 23.
related equipuent without these tests?
24 MR. BusuNSLL:
Yes, sir.
Tne -- again, the 26 asswaptions that were used speci fically going to that s'
dEOVICil & ROZ YC KI C
3i22
}
l question were that the collar joint mort.ar provided no sheer 2
transfer capability.
)
3 DR. McCOLL&4:
Tha t's not the --
4 MR. BUSnNELL:
tia y I add one additional pa r t?
)
5 DR. McCO LLost :
I reacmber now what I wa s go i ng to 6
say.
I am not, I ara not concerned that yo u we r e ta ki n*J only 7
r.ne sinjle wythe into consideration when this thing hung on
)
8 there.
I am concerned that the wythe falls apar t.
Tn a t ' s 9
the part that hurts our part of our responsibility as I 10 visualize it r ig ht now.
If it does, and then you lose of
)
11 sa fety related equipment, we don' t sh u t d o wn, po s s i bl y.
74R. ' BUS iiNd LL:
No, sir, that is definitly a pa r t o f g2
)
13 the analysis as well to de;c.onstra te that the single wythe, 14 under this assunption we are using, is capable of taking its 15 own inertia loads and in addition to those loads required 16 from tha stand po int o f pi pe reactions applied to it.
17 DH. McCOLLO 4:
In a Sa f e Shutdown Earthquake.
16 MR. t$US UNS LL:
Yes.
19 DR. McCO LLO'4 :
Without having some delanina tion, is 20 the wo rd we hav e been using, that would cause the safoty
)
21 related equi piaent to be e f f ected.
22 MR. BUL iiN d LL:
l'n sorry, could yo u a sk your 23 question one more time.
I believe I hoard it, but I would 24 like to be sure.
25 DR. McCOLLO:4:
Well, I am concerned both about the
)
BSOVICil & ROZ YC KI
3623 1
fact that the hanger would hang on to the wall with any 2
dafety related equipment and that the wall wauld stay up with 3
a Safe Sh u tdo wn Earthquake.
4 MR. BUSilNE LL:
Ye s.
)
5 DR. McCO LLoi4 :
Both of those things have been taken 6
into consideration in the analysis that ha s been resolved 7
that. is up to this date.
8
- 4 R. BUS 11N S LL:
Yes.
9 Dit. McC3 LLOM:
Now we are making some tests and that m
10 test is supposed to quanti f y tha t pa r t ic ula r thing, the
)
11 aoility of the wall to withstand a Sa f e Sh utdown Earthquake 2
and hold the equipment o n to the wall.
)
13
- 4 14. d VSii N d LL :
be intend to d emonstra te by virtue oC 14 these sho r t-to rn tests initially and then the longer-tero 15 te st s so.aetime down the road is that the margin, or let's say 16 the omount of capacity above that relied upon is inherent in 17 the constr uc tion.
This will be the objective of those tests.
18 DR. McCOLLOM:
Would yo u sa y tha t again, please.
4) 19 MR. BU3flNCLL:
Fron our standpoint, my s tand po int,
20 we are confortable that the values we are using in the
)
21 analysis, nanely 18 PSI as a limit, it's a very low limit, 22 tha. that is a reasonably low enough value that we can rely 23 on the confort that we are not pushing the mortar joint i
G 24 ca pac i ty r equ i r em en t.
But as the Staff put it, there is 25 further desire to demonstra te, the marg in t ha t' s a s soc ia t.ed
)
BBOVICil & it0Z YCKI
3624
. t" 8 V1 with that. colla r jo int.
2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:- Anything further?
3 MR. B USilNd LL:
I wo uld li ke to add one thing, if I 4
may.
5 In an earlier question when you asked whether the 6
SSE ~ capacity was aaintained by our analysis as we saw it, I 7
neglected to mention at that po in t that those analyses were 8-per fo rmed ' pursuant to the load equations ~and requirements of 9
t.he NnC thereaf ter we looked at the OaC together with the 10 thurual and the other load cases that just result, not just 11 the SSE.-
In some cases the f ac to rs wo uld be gover ned - by 'tha t.
O(' 2 I wanted to taention that earlier.
)
13 CHAIR 4AN MILLER:
An yt hing fur ther, Mr. Axelrad.
14 MR. AXELHAD:
I don' t believe so.
I just want to 15 make sure that we have' addressed whatever questions Dr.
16 McCollom and whatever other members of the Board have with 17 respec t to reasons why we believe that this particular 18
, question is a separate one not-directly related to the 19 original design deficiency and the _ fixed design deficiency.
20 There are obviouslyz subi tems under that.
I am not sure
)
.21 whether we add ressed all of the things Dr. McColl on had in 22 mind.
I tried to do that in my opening remarks.
23-DR. t4cCOLLOM :
I don' t think I have any more problera
)
, ~~1 -
\\-----2 4 with.that.
As an-engineers, I don' t worry about the same 25-thing that-your chairman lawyer does.
And he may ask some
)-
.dSOVICH & ROZYCKI
~
)
1 different kinds of questions as to whether i t's under our 2
. j ur isd ic t io n.
I am concerned that whe n we g e t through that
)
'3 we have really accounted for all of the uncertainties that we 4
possibly can that have to do with the sa fe operation of this
)
S reactor in the modification of the building.
Sometimes I 6
de pa r t into areas that sometimes I think Mr. Miller wishes I 7
had n' t.
That's my posi tion.
And I would l e ave it to him to
)
8 define the other.
9 MR. AXELRAD:
I ag ree, Dr. McCollom, I just wanted 10 to be sure that in addition to satisf ying your general s) 11 interests in those areas that we have also given yo u eno ug h 2
in foraa tion that when you discuss the subject with the
)
13 chairaan yo u a r e abl e to distinguish one aspect from the 14 other.
15 DR. Mc COLLOA :
I hope so, I don' t think there is 16 anything further at this moment.
17 CilAIRM AN (4 ILLER:
Does the State of Oregon wish to 13 De heard on this?
)
19 MR. OSTRANGER:
Br ie fl y, ter. Chairman.
Ra the r than 20 just cons ult with our expert, I thought it would be wise for
)
21 the expert to appear.
22 Ci!AIRMAt2 l4ILLE R :
We certainly appreciate it.
23 MH. OSTRANDER:
I don't think I could survive two
)
-24 seconds wi th Dr. McCollon's questioning.
I brought Dr.
25 liarold Larsen from Orejon State University that oar t ic i pa ted N
/
BEOVICli & ROZYCKI
~
3G26 gm, in most of the meetinjs these two subjects.
V1 2
Br ie fly. it's the Sta te's pr esumption tha t the LER 3
7 915 problem luus been sa tisf ac torily resolved through the 4
var ious NRC o f fices that have been working on it fo r, sometime,
)
15 and we are pres uming it to be a resolved proolen subject to 6
the final te st ing that will be done.
But we also believe 7
that that testing, there has been enough evidence to show 8
.that this testing.will not change our presumption.
And I 9
wo uld. l i ke to o f f er. Dr. Larsen to the Board at this time for 10 any questions.
11.
MH. CHAIRM AN:
Dr. Larsen, wo appreciate any of your comments'.
You have heard discussions that have been going on
-{ }2
)
13 fo r en ho ur o r so.
We night have a few questions.
Yo u 14 recall the testimony before, and.we ce'rtainly are plea sed to 15 have the benefit of your analysis.
)
16 DH. LARGE N:
I tend to agree with what Ken said, I 17 believe that the out-of-plane behavio r is adequa te.
I 18 Delieve this was pretty well resolved in San Fransisco.
I 19 think enough evidence was provided to convince me that they 20 would r es po nd properly.
And - I therefore do not see then 21 coupled. in with the response in-pl a n e.
22 DR. McCOLLOM:
Why do you, in your mind, think~that 23-these additionali tests aren' t necessary, particularlyi I' will 73 L
Lhave to say the long range test since the short range test-
-24 25 can be part' of: this hearing if we so desire.
BEOVICH & ROZYCKi-
3627
)
1 DR. LAdSC N:
I guess I quite frankly have to say I
)
~
I haven't been inv olv ed 2
con' t und e r stand the need fo r them.
3 in fo ru ula t ing the tests nor have, to my knowledge, has the 4
Stata requested such tests.
I have relied most heavily on
)
5 the tests that were done on the s a,a ple walls that were in the 6
PGG 1020.
The sho r t-te rm te st, I think, wo uld be a 7
comforting factor to know the sheer stress capability in the
)
8 collar joint is what we think it to be.
9 DR. 34cCO L LQ4 :
Then both the Sta f f and the licensee 10 have suggested that the r ea so n fo r the tests are to establish 11 margin at safety, not establish whether it is sa fe, then.
Do you oJree in general with that po si t io n?
g2
)
13 DR. LARS Ei4 :
I think if tests were pro pe rl y 14 conducted this could be done, uut I personally would prefer 15 to see modified wall s am ple tests run -- Vell, I shouldn' t
)
16 comacnt, because I haven' t seen exactly wha t they proposed 17 for their tests, but that would be what I would look for if I lb wanted to have more confirmation on that.
19 DH. i4cCO L LOi4 :
nould you describe that further, I 20 didn' t understand.
)
I think one of the questions that has 22 come up about the tests that were per formed was the manner 23 that the upper level and the lower level were restrained.
)
24 durinj the test process.
They were essentially as'sumed to be 25 r ig id.
And wo uld he know in that building the floors do have b~
BSOVICil & RO4 YC KI
3628
).
91 some ro ta t ion al gossibility, and there fore I think an 2-improvement to the test wo uld be to model a floor in the
).
3 upper part and over part of these saae tests.
This is done 4
in many such tests on sheer walls.
I would see much more
)
S value in that than individual sam ple tests or. pull tests and 6
this sort of thing.
But that's an opinion.
7 DH. i4cCO LL&4 :
Dr. Larsen, I know you have had
)
8 different, let's say, I don' t know wha t you have been doing 9
in terms o f all o f these evalua tions, but in the discussions 10 that we have had this morning, we have been talking about s) 11 delaaination, the possibility o f delaaina tion.
Are you coaio r table wi th what we call the margin of safety of not ggg 2
)
13 having delamination from your analyses of what these walls 14 are able tv do?
15 OR. LMGCN:
Ye s, I an.
It's hard ne to define 16 complete delauination, because delamination would occur first 17 in the area of high sheer strenjth and that's a local ef fect, 18 -
as you knas, from any way you want to suppor t a beaa.
And if
%)
19 you talk about total delamination, you would have to progress 20 throu-jh the whole'lonjth of the system to talk about total
[
21 delamination.
You have friction between the severed surfaces.
22 And I think there is another plus that you should keep in 23 aind when you consider this.
I think,I am correct in the
)
24 walls that we are talking about, there is cell grout.
2S OR. McCOLL0M:
inere is wha t?
BEOVICh & ROZYCKI
y _
)
1 D i<. LARSCN:
There is cell grout.
2 DR. McCOLLO;1 Why don't you define that for us.
.)
D ii. L AitSCN The cavities in the Olock walla that 4
contain the reinforcement proble.a have been grouted and I 5
don't c er.:eabe r the strength of the grout but it's an added
).
tactor to the final performance of cuen a wall and you have 7
to deatroy, I think, tne cell grout Defore you can talk about
)
3 destroying your system.
The concept of delamination, an I 9
cay, in Juut hard f or :ne to picture totally, particularly 10 under dynamic motion, because I think things are utoving back 11 and torth.
You mignt experience local delaaination, but I 12 think you would a-Jtee there,
%t we can only experience O 13 d e l a cr.1 na t ion if we experiance high nueer stresa acrosn that
)
14 collar joint.
It would have to pro';reas along tne entire 1S length of the beam and we shoa that the uncer is varied along
)
lu.
the entire length.
17 Cil Alidt AN fiILLEf<:
Intevenora have anything they wiuh In to ado?
')>
19 MR. ROSOLIC:
Well, we don't have any expertn, but 20
.we feel that this is within the Board's jurisdiction and that 21 the Iloard should feel that the issue han noen resolved in its D-22 own mind.
And if that take0 waitinJ for the test to be 23 c o.n p l e t e d, then we feel the Boarcs should do that and han
- 24 every right to do that.
25 Cli All::4Au MILLCR:
Anyone clue wish to be heard on y
UbVVibd la iiu a, YC h I,
g this?
g1 2
- ut. GitAY
- r. Chairman, just one point of 3
clariticatloa ac to what :i r. 3anhnell h a:t been 7.cntioning 4
aoout tne things that were considered.
I celieve that when S
walin were throu4h boltad, wasn't it then asau:amt that
)
6 c o ca p o c i t, the cap;. city was Daced on the cc:nposit action?
13 7
that correct?
u ilH. BUSlHIELL:
Yea, that's correct.
}
9 Mh. GRAY:
And the load itetermination assu neit 10 co.a po s i t.
action.
I think you naid fIequency, vnen
)
11 trequencies were <1 e t e r m i n e d, i ts co.::pos i'; :.,oh av ior was 12 assunear in that it?
O 13 tth. BUS;i1 ELL:
Yes.
)
14 18. GRAY:
In that also true for the loada?
la rth. SOS!!"CLL:
Clarification therc }ust so the terms lu are clear, again, as we use them.
' hen a wall was through i
17 noited, f or e xa.r.pl e, it was then concidered that noth wythes Id ot the wall would be effected in tne enpacity aenae to reduce
)
13 the loa.ts out actin.] separately, so that isn't as we 2d characterize co.nposit earlier.
But in a compression cence 21 and a tension sense.
y) 27 Dit. McCOLLO:4 3 But acting wparately, would you 23 clarify that a little oit further?
)
24 HR. GUSdNLhL:
Acting as Geparate wythes or 25 incividual wython.
In other words, the capacity for the
)-
a t.u v t C d a iU4 r cn J
)
g1 total nyctes, then, in the condition where the wall in 2
throu9n colted canaidered that each wythe could develop itn
)
3 strengtn individually, nut not au a complete --
4 DR. McCOLL0i4:
To withstana the out-of-plane load?
L MR. !3U3 Hili: L L :
Yea.
)
0 0 11 acCOLLon:
In esser.sc, twice the value of one of
?
then?
)
0 1111 BUSHNCLL:
Yen, sir.
9 Cil A llit1 A:J MILLCH:
4011, now, is that conaistent with 10 the Staft's assumption?
IL
- ih. IlBitHING:
ile l l, it's the Staft's underStandinq
}2 that they are relying on 16 PSI wrtical sheer being there.
@13 And_it you are relying on la PSI vertical sheer neing there,
)
14 fou implicitly acaume your positive reaction.
that 1 :. t b.c 19 criteria that was net DeCore the Staff, that there was Id PSI
)
16 vertical uneer transfer capaollity at that interface for all 17 walls supporting significant safety related piping and 13 equi.aent.
)
1)
Cil AI hMAN llILLCit:
I act not sure that's exactly --
2U do you have any coa,1cnt, Mr. Buchnell?
21 MR. AxCLRAO:
Mr. Chairaan, could we have a recean 22 for a f ew :ainuten?
23 MR. Cil A I 8M A ti Yes.
)
g 24 C H A i re! AN MILLCH:
The prehearinq conference will 25 resu'ac.
An a pre ll.a inar y.na tter, in there ny limited om,vtea w svolui
NJ l
appearance a ta t ca:e n t s.
Any li,itea statraents 2
I think there was an opportunity for the experts to
)
3 confer or counsel to confer or both.
Do you wish to report?
4 NR. A:< C Ll'A D :
Yes, Mr. Bushnell is prepared to 5
addresa the matter we dist oded nefore the recens.
/
6 tut. IlusliNCLL:
In our response dated Novemoer 17, 7
1979, a letter to str. Cngelhen from Mr. Don Brochl
)
d transmitted supplement number 1 to LCR 7915.
9 M il. AXCLaAD:
If I nay interrupt luct a minpte.
10 That was one of the exhiDits at the Dece.uner 2d hear in't.
I 11 don't have that tranacript, so I don't have the exhibit 12 nus:ce r.
Sut it':, the one where the LCR 7915 and its G
13 nupple:r.ents appear.
He are talking aoout a supplement to LC8 14 7315.
15
- Ut. 3US!!NCLL
In attach.aent 4 thereto, the criteria
)
16 unoa to evaluate pipe restraint reactionc on douole wythe 17 ansonry walls arc described.
If productive at this point, I la raij ht Just quickly sum:aar ize those so that the point that wat 19 questioned earlier aay ce clari[ied.
20 DR. ticCOLLO;t:
C aphas ize the quickly.
Don't read 21 any :nore than you you have to to resolve what we have Decn 22 talking.acout 21
!!R. IlUS!!N ELL:
iiith regard to conditions where it
)
h 24 was requirca to through colt for a pipe rentraint reaction, 25 the use of a ld PSI limit in collar joint mortar was used.
1 BCOVIC!I k h%YCK1
3633
)
gi believe that's the resolution.
2 DR. iic C O L L O 1:
Does that comply with what tne Staff
)
3 a s s unte d ?
4 i nt. HEhRING:
Yes, the capacity was calculated on 5
the casic of co.: posit failure.
6 DR. ficCOLLO:1:
Okay.
1 CHAIRMAN 1 ILLER:
Anything further now on the
)
J auuject ladios ar.d gentlemen?
IL not, Dr. dcCollo a will
()
indicate what information or procedure the Board has for the 10 parties anel counsel in that regard.
11 Dh. McCOLLO!i:
I thing the noard would like to have 12 the results fron the short-tera tests including the 9
13 concluaions made on t n e.a qtven to the 90ard and includ.d as
)
14 art of the evidence for out hearing star ting ;iacen 31st, v
19 1930.
)
I ta In addition, we'd like to have a description of what 17 is proposed for the so-cal' led long-term test, why it is ld proposed, and what is expected out of that as part of the N
/
1 ')
record.
20 We would expect that the technical, technically 21 qua11 tied people that are witnesses during the hearinq tnen 22 would critique wnat is ceing asked for tiiere and would, in 23 turn, te able to counsel the Board on what impact it han on
}
24 the Board's responsioilitien-to assure that the complex will 26 withstand a Sate Shutdown Earthquake which, in turn, implies
)
acovIcti a itu a ic s 1
l i
1 that tne aalety related equipcent is sorkin3 2
C!! AI F.1A'; MI LLCil:
Let le in q u i r e.,
i!ow soon to 3
cuannel witnesses nelieve that they can no <!one?
unat ir the 4
reasonable t14e for un to expect?
i I
5
+1 k. AXCLPAD:
lin l l, Mr. Cnatraan, an we explained j
l 0
yesterday for purpouca 01' the chart-term teats, the 1
7 demonstration of the setup was oein) run t a tla y, I br>lieve.
d Mll. BU3iWCLL:
Yen, that'n correct.
As of the J
present tiae, we expect th it de nonotr at ion of the setuo to 10 bejin Go.ac t iae this atternoon.
)
11 CH Allat AN.tILLChi That's the chort-ter.a tent.
12 18 AXLLHAo:
That'n tne shor t-te r ra tant.
O 13 C H A I i.n to niLLCH:
1.aa thinking. io r e of the innJ
)
14 teta.
13 cit. :!c CO LLu:-: :
Then the completion of that la two
}
lo seexa/
17
- P. AX E L!t AU :
Depending on tne deaonstration.
13 Dis. McCULLON:
dow everythin; goes.
Then after that
)
19 an Analynen or conclusion woul<f have to be prepared?
2J MH. AXELHAD:
Yes.
21 OR.
IcCOLLO:1:
So when would you expect Lnat that
).
22 oula ne availante?
23 Mit. AXCLHAD:
That would be con.lec tor i nt), Dr.
24 ncCollom.
The test is Joing ta take a couple wacks.
The
}
25 write up and analycen will depend upon what the resulta are, U QVI G3 t.
F O /,i c s 1
3635
)
L g1 I would assume.
I 2
DR. McCOLLUM:
I would hope 30 f
)
3 71 H. AXCLHAD:
I mean tha poriod of t i r.e that would j
l 4
take to do tnat would ocpena upon the resulta.
It t' a a to Oe 1
S at least Geveral weeks.
3c conaidering that,
>1 arch 17 is f
O tnis cc:aing Monday, it's difficult for on to visualize that 7
that would ue available any time before the start of the
)
d hearing.
It aight well be that so.n e time netween March 31 9
a n :) April 16 would be a
- x. ore logical t i.no to expect the time 10 frame results.
)
f 11 DR. McCOLLOM:
Noe, how much has already been laid I,
12 out in teras at the cenct1ption 01 tne tento that are :a c ing 13 to ne done in the so-called long term?
14 CH AIR:1rci MILLI'h:
I hope that you ladien and 15 gentle :en reall:e you are talking acout now tne conclusion of
)
16 this Phase 2 hearing.
I get into may, I told you I've got an 17 anti-trust hearing whien is scheduled for several months, lo coulo run for six months easily.
You better keep in inind the
)
19 iactors of these tests and results is going to ne factored in, f
20 How are you going to do it at the peril at having thin 1
21 hearinj extended over and the findings extended over.
You
{
)
I i
22 are talking about serious matters.
And we get a lot of l
t 23 letters, the whole thing, the whole State of Oregon on down.
)
24 When coacthin:j happens, or i.s it up.
I am trying to call 25 your attention now to a timely fasnion.
Tne aore you build z
r v
O u/ Y A Lil At M V n 4 fi i m _
r.
un g1 in tnene uncertaintics and the time that you take to do this, 2
that and tne other thing and the resultu cannot ce completely
)
3 and l o'J ically excluded f r o.a the review of the appeal board 4
and the coa:aission itself so it has a picture.
You have 5
thone responsibilities.
To discharge those responnioilities o
you all may oe in a situation in the fall that you for
/
various reasons wish you weren't in.
I am trying to tell you
)
d now when something perhaps hopefully can be done aoout it.
l19. AXCLMD:
We understand that, it r. Chairman.
I 10 an sure the Board also realizes the position that all the
)
11 parties except the Intevenors have taken cefore the 11aard as 12 to way these particular resultc and.aatters au to these tests 13 are not an essential inq~ r ea lent to the decision of the Board.
)
1 14 DH. M c CO L LO.si :
That is one of the objectives we are 15 tryin; to achieve is to determine throu;3h additional
)
16 information, both on the snort-term test and even the 17 preli:ainary analyses that colae from that, and the lon;J-term ld tests, and why they are needed and for what purposes will 19 they be used, and the effect of them, oy our technical 2v qualified witnesses.
And froa that, hopefully we can decide.
21 rik. AXCLRAD:
I understand that, Dr. ricColloa.
With 22 respect to the lon3-term tests, there has neen preliminary 23 considerations within the licenace's organization as to the
}
24 possiollities with respect to the long-term test pr o -J r a m.
25 The developaont of that lon:J-tera testing prograa BL'OVICH a HJKYCKI
263) 1
-will, of course, depend, in part, upon the results of tne 2
- short-terra testing program.
So aJain, it's difficult to 3
provide a precise dato as to when in the no r:aal course of 4
cvent that program would have been defined.
5 As we discussed with the Staff laat Saturday, it had 6
00cn our expectation tnat the l o ng-t e r.a testing program would
/
not have to be developed until April, May, so that could take
)
d into account the short-term test results.
That was the 9
oxpectation.of licensee and Staff at that tiae, not being 10 aware of the possinle interest that the Board would have in
)
11 the suDject.
It had not Decn thought up until today that the 12 long-term test program would have to ce developed on a
(
)
'~' 1.1 achedule which took into account the h ea r i n<j procena in this 14 proceeding, Decause in our view the suojects were not related.
16 DP. McCOLLOM:
I hope for certainly the expeditious 16 completion of this nearing that it dcann't have to oe.
-17 ilowever, at this point, we think that a description, not a 10 complete design of the test, and the rationale for it and
)
39 what's expected.to come out of it and even waiting until 20 after the snort-term tent is over if you wish before you set 21 that.down 'and then at least have it as it's placed in 22 cvidence-at-the hearing and not pretile, necessarily.
23 MR. ' AXCLRAD:
We unacrntand what you war't, Dr.
!]24 McCollom, what I was trying to ao was explain way you won't 25 have availaole --
a uv V A va. o, 4,v.4LnA i
._._.).
ok. si c C O L L & l :
Thic 14. a statcaent to allow to un g1 l
2 move in the itirection of wnat wo think is our renponnibilit y.
3 f tit. AX EI.it AO:
I unnerstand.
I I
4 Di!. PAXTO:1:
In there a chance that the cho r t - te r :a i
5 tests would show that the lon:j-term tents are unnecesaary?
O f tH. A X C L i<A D :
In the licennee'n view there is.
i 7
CilAliu1A'i M I LL1:R :
iloa anout the Staff?
d 211(. GHAY:
I oclieve the Staft'n view there tu not;
)
')
lo that correct?
10 MR. AXELHAD:
Tnat is one of the reaaonn why the
)
1.1 long-term t e n t i n i ; t o J r a.n han not yet been fuljy defined, i
1.'
- 08. 'leCO LLO A :
I would uay that we would expect to O 13 have the Statt'r view point on thin a r. well as the, I'd say,
')
11 tne co r.c i n e d a -i r c e,me n t aoout what the tent sould he and why 1$
you are tryin1 to do then.
It there is a :11 t t e r ence et
}
16 opinton on tnia in any way, we want that clarifica at the 17 t i:ne of the hearing.
lu an. AXCLHAD:
we certainly expect to do that, Dr.
)
13 McCollon.
20 CdAIM1AH HI LLI:it :
All right, I Delieve that's as far
.:1 an se.can jo then on that particular proolem.
)
22 Ace th"re any other utters now?
Doen an'/one here 1
l 23 winh to make a linited appear 3nce statement?
'iecond call?
1
)
g 24 What other.nattera have we deterred now tor 25 o v e r n i.j h t.
review that we haven't covered.
Anythin ; elso?
4 dIMVi6ii 44
' ).~. l b N i i ' +.
. ~.
3,.
)
g1 AnythinJ furthcr that any of you war, goin; to study that can 2
De covered at all?
3 Anything tot the good of the order, ar I say, Stand i
4 adlourned.
5 Thank you, tz l
7 (PROCECDINGS CONCLUDED) l 6
')
l a
10
)
11 12 O 13
)
14 in
)
16 17 Lo
)
l>
10 21 22 I
23
)
4 s
25 l
l Oi,v y A bil a ba se l w h
~.
~.
)._
g1
)
STATE OF DRCGON 2
County of Multnomah
)
na.
3 4
I, Pamela W.
Rozycki, a Court Reporter and Notary 5
Puolie tot the State at Oregon, :10 hereby certify that, the
)
6 partica appearea before me at the ti;ae and place, iaentioned 7
in the caption herein; said aroceedings were taken down ny ate d
in stenotype anc thereafter reduced to type wr i.t ing ; and, that j
3 the toregoing transcript, Pages 3451 to 3639 Doth inclusive, 10 constitutes a full, true and aceutate recora of said 11 proceedings, and of the whole thereof.
12 kiitness ay hand and notarial seal at Portland, O 13 Crogon, thia 12tn day of March, l'Ja0.
li la
)
'lo Pamela d.
hozycki 17 Motary Public for Oregon 13 My comraission expires: 1/15/82 Y
19 20 21
)
22 23 24
)
25 e
duJ v ic ti a ov4 xCril
g
(
)
{gi DR. L ARS C:::
Tnere is cell grout.
2 UR. McCOLLGH:
Why don't you define that for us.
3 DR. LARSCN:
The cavities in the block walls that 4
contain the reinforcement problem have been grouted and I 5
don't reme. Der the strength of the grout Dut it's an added 6
f actor to the final performance of such a wall and you have 1
to destroy, I think, the cell grout before you can talk about
}
I 8
destroying your nystem.
The concept of delanination, as I
}
9 say, is lust hard for oc to picture totally, particularly 10 under dynamic motion, because I think things are moving cack
)
11 anc forth.
You might experience local delaminacion, eut I 12 think you would ajree there, that we can only experience 13 delanination if wo experience high shoer stress across that 14 collar joint.
It would have to pro.Jress along the entire 15 lenqtn or the neam and we snow that the sheer is varied along lo the entire length.
17 C!! AICHN4 MILLCH:
Intevenors have anythinJ tney wish Id to add?
)
19 M!i. RO3OLIC:
Well, we don't have any experts, but 20 we fee' that this is within the Goard's lurisdiction and that 21 the 130 3 rd should feel that the issue has been resolved in its D
22 own mind.
And if that takes waiting for the test to be 23 completea, then we feel the Board shoulo do that and has
}
, 24 e'ery right to do that.
25 CHAIstAN MILLER:
Anyone else_wish to be heard on D
owmu
- 2. mo mu
g
)
g l' this?
2 HR. GRAY tir. Chairman, }uat one point of
)
'3 clarification 3n to what !)t. iiu ah he ll had been n:entioning 4
atso u t the thinga that were considered.
1 Dellove that when walls were throu'h colted, vaan't it then a n nu:no.1 that
)
6 co.a po s i t, the capa;ity wan osued on the conposit action?
Is 7
that correct?
)
d MR. UUSlittl:LL:
Yes, that's correct.
9 MR. GPAY:
And the load determination assumed 10 cu.u po s i t ac t. i o n.
I think you caid treguency, when 11 frequencicG we r e d e te r :' lined, its composit bohavior was 12 a n n u.n e d ; in that it?
13 Ms. numM!:Lt.:
Yea.
14 Mn. 01: AY :
In that J130 true tar the loadc?
13 MR. '1U 3 H U E L L :
Clariticarion there just so tne ternus
}
16 are clear, again, as we u.3 e t h e.a.
When a wall was througn 17 Dolted, for example, it was then considered that both wythe3 h
18 of the wall would be etfccted in the capacity sense to reduce 19 the loads out actinJ onparately.
'io that inn't an we 20 Characterize congotsit earlier, uut in a compres tion sense 21 and a tension Sonne.
22' DR. deCOLLOM:
But acting separately, would you 23 clarify that a little Dit t'u r t he r ?
)24 11 9. HUSilNI;LL:
Actinq au separate wythes or
)
25 individual wythes.
In other wordn, the caoacity for the a aWI C r.
te twiiCX1
m-g
);
l total' system, then, in the ::ondition where the wall is
()
q 2-throujh Dolted censidered that each wythe could develop its 3
strength individually, but not'as a complete --
4 DR. FicCOLLOM:
To withstand the out.-of-plane load?
5 f t R. ' BUS!!NELL:
Yes.
6 DR. McCOLLOM:
In essence, twice the value of o7e of 7
.them?
j-d-
itR. 30S11ricLL:
Yes, ur.
9 Cil AI PM A!! flILLER:
Well, now, is that consistent with 10 the Staff's oscuoption?
11
^!R. IIERRING:
Well, it's the Staff's understanding 12 that they are relying on 18 PGI vertical sheer being there.
i
' 1 3 And if you are relying on 18 PSI vertical sheer being there, 14 fou 1.nplicitly assu.::e your positive reaction.
That is the
-15 '
criteria that was net oefore tne Staft, tnat tnere was'l>3 P31 16 vertical. sneer transfer capanility at that interface for all 17 walls supporting significant safety related piping and 1
la eq u ip.nen t.
19 CilAIRMAN MILLER:
I am not sure that's exactly --
~
20 do you have-any comment, Mr. Bushnel1?
21 MR. AXELHAD:
Mr. Chairman, could we have a recess 22 for actew minutes?
23 MR. C11 AIRMAli:
Yes.
}-
.[ ; 24 CIIAIRMrd4 tiILLER:
The prehearing conference will sj-re s u:ae.
As a preliminary-matter, is there any limited a c.v v u.ii ou e n.ru
).
(~ ')
1 appearance ntatementn.
Any limited statements
.V 2
I think there was an opportunity for the experts to
,3-confer or councel to confer or.coth.
Do.you wish to report?
4 itR. AXCLRAO:
Yes, Mr. Dushnell it prepared to IS
-address the matter we discussed before the reicas.
).
6.
MR. BUSl!NELL:
In our response dated lovember 17, i
7 1979, a letter to Mr. Engelken _ fro:n Mr. Don Dro :41 a
transmitted supplement number I to LER 7'315.
)
9 M it. AXCLRAD:
If I may interrupt just a minute.
10 That was one of the exhibits at the Decemoor 23 nearing.
1
- 11 don't nave that transcript, ao I don't have the exhibit 12 number.
But it's the one where the LER 7915 and its
- p V 13 supplements-appear.
ir:c are talking about a ;uppicment to LCR 14 7915.
15-MR. - aOSilNCLL:
In attachment 4 thereto, the criteria lu
.uaed to evaluate pipo restraint reactions on double wythe 17 masonry walls are descriced.
If productive at this point, I.
.18 aight')ust quickly commarice those 50 that the point that was l19 -
questioned earlier may be. clarified.
20 OR. ficCOLLO't :
IMphas ize the quickly.
Don't read-21-
.any more than.you you have to to resolve what we have been f
.- 2 2 talking about:-
23 MR. BUStINCLL:
With regard to, conditions where it
).;
d(~N 24' was required to through Dolt for.'a pipe restraint reaction, 25-the 'use of - a 13 PSI' limit in collar joint mortar was used.-
I diaJv n.ii e hviiluu -
T
/
gggI Delieve that'n the resolution.
f 2
DR. McCOLLod:
Does that comply with snat the Staff 3
a s.s uaed ?
4 dR. HERRING:
Yes, the capacity was calculated on 5
the basis of composit failure.
/
o DR. McCOLLO!!:
Okay.
7 C11 AI Rd AM MILLCR:
Anything further$now on the
)
3 subject ladies and gentlemen?
If not, Dr. McCollom will
')
indicate what information or procedure the Board has for the 10 parties and counsel in that regard.
11 DR. McCOLLCM:
I think the Board would like to have 12 the resulta f r o:n the short-term tests including the O
13 conclusions made on theco given to the tioard and incluled an
)
14 part of the evidence for our nearing starting
.1 arch 31st, 15 1930.
)
lo In addition, we'd like to have a description of what 17 is proponeu for the no-called long-term test, why it is 13 proposed, and what la expected out of that as part of the 19 record.
20 We would expect that the technical, technically 21 qualified people that are witnesses during the hearing then
/
'22 would* critique what is being asked for there and would, in 23 turn, ce able to counsel the Board on what impact it nan on
)
24 the Board's responsibilities to assure that the complex will 25 withstand a Safe Shutdown Earthquake which, in turn, impi2en neuVICil & KOLYCs1 l
.. +.
i1 ttiat the cafety relatec3 equipment.is working.
..w) 2 CilAIRMAN f1 ILLER:
Let'me inquire, flow coon to 3'
councol witneccea nelleve that they can be done?
What 10 the 4
reasonaole tiac for un to expect?
it H AXCLitAD:
Well,tir. Chairman, as we explained,
6 yest.erday for purposes of the abor t-tera testa, the 7
demonntration of the actup was being run today, I believe.
a.
MR. BusitNELL:
Yes, that's correct.
As of the 9.
present ticao, we expect that demonctration of the setup to 10 negin co;aetime this afternoon.
11 Cil AIP!1 AN ttILLER:
That's the short-term test.
12 MR. AXCLilAD:
That's the short-term test.
7_
i
\\
13 Cll AI N4 A'4 llILLER I was thi4 king more of the long k
14 t e r.n.
15 DR. ricCOLLO:1:
Then the completion of that is two j..
.16 weeks?
17 lilt. AXELRAD:
Depending on the demonstration.-
lu DR. ficCOLLOM :
llos everything goes.
Then after that
- .19 an analysen or conclusion'would have to be prbpared?
20 MR.lAXELRAD:
Yoc.
-21' 4Dfi. McCOLL0ft :
So when would yea expect that that
- 22 would no availaulo?.
23-
!1R. AXELHAD:
That would be conjecturing, Dr.
'l
'(
- 24 McCollo
- a.
The test is going to take a couple weekn.
The
).
25' write up anr1 analyses will depend upon what the results are, b
utovicii 5 iwz rc n 1
3635
(
ill I would assume.
^_/ -
2
- 08. McCOLLon:
I would hope 30 3
-HN.
AXELRAD:
I mean the period of Line that would 4
take to do that would depend upon the resulta.
It has to oc at least several weeks.
So considering that, riarch 17 in 6
this coming Honday, it'n difficult for me to visualize that 7
that would be available an'y time notore the start of the a
nearing.
It might well be that some time netween March 31 9
and April 16' would be a more logical time to expect the time 10 frame results.
Il DR. McCOLLOM:
Now, how much han already been laid 12 out in terma of the duscription of the testu that are going 13 to be done in the so-called long tera?
14 CilAIliMAN HILLER:
I hope that you ladies and 15 gentlemen realize you are talking about now the conclusion of
[
16 this Phase 2 hearing.
I got into may, I told.you :'ve got an 17-anti-trust hearing which ia scheduled for neveral months, 13
-could' run tor. six months easily.
You better keep in mind the 4
- 19 tactors.ofl theae' testa and reaultu is joing to be factored in'.
"20 How are ' you going to do'it at the peril of having thin 21 hearing. extended over and the findings extended over.
You 22 are talking aoout aurious matters.
And we get a lot of 23-
' letters, the wnole. thing, the whole State of Oregon on'down.
p
- .24 -
'tihen something happenc, or in it up.
I am trying to call-
)f s_-
25 your^ attention now to a timely tashion.
The more you build 4
4
c -
m in these uncertainties and the time that you take to do thin, g1 2
that and the other tning and the results cannot be completely N/
3 and loJ1cally pxcludeo f r aca the review of the appeal board 4
and the commission itself co it has, picture.
You have 5
those responnibilities.
To discharge thoce responsibilities
)
6 you all may oc in a situation in the fall that you for 7
various reasons wish you weren't in.
I am trying to tell you d
now when so.nething pernaps hopefully can te done aoout it.
)~
9 H it. AXCLRAD:
ile understand that, Mr. Chairman.
I la am sure the Board also realizes the position that all the 11 parties except the Intevenorn have taken before the Ocard as 12 to wny tnese particular results and matters as to those tests O 13 are not an esuential ingredient to t hee decision of the Board.
)
14 DR. McCOLLud:
Taat is one of the onjectiven we are 15 tryin; to achieve in to determine through ^1ditional
}
lo intormation, both on tne short-tera test and even the 17 preliminery analyses that come f r o;a that, and the long-tera la testo, and why tney are needed and for what purponen will N) 1 -)
.they be uned, anc the effect of them, oy our t echnical 20 qualitied witncases.
And from that, hopefully we can decide.
~
il n!t. AXELRAO:
I understana that, Dr. McCollom.
's i t "
22 respect to the long-term tests, there has ceen preliminety 23 considerations within the licenace'n organization as to the
}-
24 possibilities with respect to the long-term test program.
-2S The development of that long-term testing pr ogram D-d GU'll C G k H% 'i C 6 L 3
~
RDTV
)
I will, of course, depend, in part, upon the renults of the 2
short-term testing p r'og r am.
So again, it's difficult to l
3 proviou a precise date as to when in the nor.nal course of i
event that progran would have ceen defined.
5 As we discunced witn the Staff last Saturday, it had 6
oeen our expectation that the long-term testing program would 7
not have to ce oeveJoped until April, May, no that could take d
into account the short-term test results.
That was the
}
'i expectation of licenace and Staff at that time, not ceing 10 aware of the po ss iole interent that the Board would have in 1]
the subject.
It had not Deen thought up until today that the 12 long-term tent proJram would have to be developed on a
- 13 achedule which took into account the hearing proceas in tnis 14 proceeding, occause in our view the sucjects were not related.
15 9n. McCOLLoh:
I hope for certainly the expeditious 16 co.npletion of this hearing that it doesn't have to oe.
17 ilowever, at this point, we think that a description, not a lu co.aplete deuign of the test, and the rationale for it and
)~
13 what's expectea t erme out of it and even waiting until 20 after the unort-tera test in over if you wish before you set 21 that down a'.d then at 1 cast have it as it's placed in J
the hearing and not pret11e, necessarily.
22 evidence at 23 MR. AXI;LRAD:
tie understand what you want, Dr.
1 24 McColloa, what I was trying to do was explain why you won't
/
25 have available --
u to v i s.a = n u e. t u a l
DH. McCOLLO:t:
This is a state.ent to allow to us g1 2
move in the direction of wnat we think in aur responsibility.
I understand.
4 DR. PAXT09:
Is there a chance that tne abort-term 5
tentG would show that the lon!;-term testa are unnecessary?
6 MR. AXELEAD:
In the licennee's view there 13.
1 C:I AIRf! AN MILLCR:
how about the Staff?
!J MR. GHAY:
I belleve the Staff's view there in not;
}
9 la that correct?
10 MR. AXCLPAD:
That la~one of the reasons why the 11 long-tern testing prograa has not yet been tully defined.
12 Ok. Mc CO L LO'-1 :
I would say that we would expect to
@13 have the Staff's view point on this du well as the, I'd say, 14 One combined agreement aoout what the test souid oc and why la you are t r y i n:3 to do them.
If there la a difference of lu opinion on this in any way, we want. that clarified at the
}
17 t i.w of the hearing.
18 r!R. AXELHAD:
We certainly expect to do that, Dr.
)
19 McColloa.
2u Cd AI RMM4 MILLEh:
All right, I believe that's as far 21 an we.can go then on that particula: prooles.
22 Are there any other matters now?
Does anyone here 23 wish to raake a limited appearance statcaent?
Second call?
T 24 unat other m.attera have we deferred now for 25 overnignt review that we haven't covered.
Anything else?
D oco n ca i. wa n est
l g1 Anythin; furtner that any of you was going to study that can 2
be covere at all?
j Anythin) for the 'Jood of the order, as I say, stand 1
{
4 cojourned.
i 5
Tnank you.
b i
I 7
(PRJCCCDI:iGS CO'iC LU D L D) d 9
10 11 12 9 13
)
14 l 's
}
lo 17 la
)
19 20 21
)
22 l
23 4
i g 24 l
25 i
i d rj J 11Gti 6 iu;4 YCd 1 l
i i
O i
-;T A rt. OF OlWGTi
)
91 2
County of
't u l t no at a h
)
nu.
l O
,a "ozycki, a Court ueparter and *:otary 4
I, e c m.c l a a.
5 Punlic for tfm.ita te at -)re g on, Jo hereuy certify that, the O
o partien appeared 0.: fore me at the t i.ae ar.a place, acnt iowd 1
1 in the caption fie r e i n ; Gaid proceedingG were Lagen down by ne
"'""YP"
'h*'""
"d"'"d
'" ' Y P" " r * ' i 4 '
""d' th"'
O J
t n <. L'oregoinj tranceript, Pages 34S1 t o
.3 01 ')
notn inclusive, 1
i 10 constituten a fa11, ttue and accurate record of na 1 -1 O
x j
11 p r o c e.! d i n q c, and at t t.e.shole theceof.
s 12
,iitnean ay hand and notartal acal at Po r t l a n'i,
13
~a
.vu, thiu 12th day at tt a c c h, l>dd.
l 14 t
13 o
rauela a. satycx1 lO i
l ~/
Not,ary Pehlic tor Greaon IJ ny comnission expiren: 1/15/J2 4
2J 21 22 23 i
~
- O O 24 25 l
10 u., w a n. m
_ _... _ _.,. -. _.. _ _ _ _ _