ML20055B452
| ML20055B452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207220354 | |
| Download: ML20055B452 (106) | |
Text
__--
l NUCI. EAR PIGULATORY COMMISS CN
~
rh "
l O s : . . . Inb.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
In the .v2. = cf: :
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : DOCKET NOS. 50-237 OLA
- 50-249 OLA (Dresden Station Units 2 and 3) : (Spent Fuel Pool Modifications)
DAmr: July 20, 1982 PAGES: 1192 - 1284 A*: Bethesda, Marvland W Qfte : Yt2-el REPORTUG O MDERSOX^! k "
400 Vi.rginia Ave., S.W. Washin gen, C. C. 20024 O releshc=e : (2o2) 554-2243
- m., o x x r, r;,; ggcr g:,ggp ,
I i,
1192 O u"trzo sr^tzs or ^"ta'c^
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 -----------------x 5 In the Matter of: a Docket Nos.
50-237 OLA 6 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY a 50-249 OLA (Dresden Station Units 2 and 3) s (Spent Fuel Pool 7 s Modifications)
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
Room 550 9 4350 East-West Highway Bethesday, Md.
10 Tuesday, July 20, 1982 11 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 12 convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.
13 JOHN F. WOLF, Chairman O 14 Administrative Law Judge 15 LINDA LITTLE Administrative Law Judge 16 FORREST REMICK 17 Administrative Law Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1193 APPEARANCESs
(]) 1 On behalf of Licensee, Commonwealth Edison Companya 2 DAVfD 5. STAHL, ESQ.
ROBERT G. FITZGIBBONS, ESO.
3 I S H A'd , LINCOLN C BEALE
() 4 ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 5 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sta ff a 6 RICHARD J. GODDARD, ESO.
DOUGLAS GALLEGOS i 7 PAUL O'CONNOR Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Washington, D. C.
9 On behalf of Intervenor State of Illinoisa PHILIP L. WILLHAN, ES O .
10 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 11 188 West Randolph Street J
Room 2315 12 Chicago, Illinois 60601 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
() 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, s 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1194 O 1 CONTENTS CROSS ON 2 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD BOARD Owen Rothberg and 4 Gunnar Harstead By Mr. Goddard 1197 5 By Mr. Willman 1199 By Mr. Goddard 1202 6 By Judge'Remick 1203 By Judge Little 1226 7
By Mr. Stahl 1240 8 By Mr. Goddard 1241 9 Thomas J. Rausch, Quazi A. Hossain and 10 Krishna P. Singh 11 By Mr. Stahl 1245 By Mr. Willman 1252 12 (Afternoon Session .. page 1256) 13 O m Tuomee 3. neu cu, Quazi A. Hossain and 15 Krishna P. Singh (Resumed)
By Judge Remick 1257 16 By Mr. Stahl 1262 17 Ronald M. Ragan By Mr. Stahl 1264 18 By Mr. Goddard 1267 19 By Judge Remick 1268 By Mr. Stahl 1272 20 By Judge Remick 1274 21 Thomas J. Rausch (Resumed)
By Judge Remick 1275 23 g 1 g I g 1 T_ g Q 24 NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECr.IVED 25 Staff No. 3 1203 1203 O
G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, a
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
fI 1194-A O EEE'"EIE 2 gggigils i
3 '
NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 4
Staff No. 4 1227 1230 l 5
- Staff No. 5 1229 1230 6
Applicant No. 7 1246 1250 7
8 Applicant No. 8 1247 1250 g Applicant No. 6 1249 1250 10 11 12 13
" Testimony of Owen O. Rothberg and Gunnar Harstead Regarding Commonwealth Edison's Proposal to Install i O 14 33 High Density Fuel Storage Racks , " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page 1201 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
. 23 O 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1195 O " " ocero1"cs 2 JUDGE LITTLES Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. We are meeting this morning pursuant to a 4 notice that was placed in the Federal Register, and we 5 are taking up the question of the Staff's SSER. At the 6 end of today's session or by the end of today's session, 7 we would like to update the information on.the Board's 8 Question No. 1 and also the question raised by the 9 Applicant regarding the 9 by 9 fuels and any other 10 matter that may come up during the course of the hearing 11 today.
12 The Board is, as usual, composed of Dr.
13 Little, Dr. Remick, and I am John Wolf , an attorney.
14 Will the counsel for the parties state their 15 a ppea rances for the record, please.
16 HR. STAHL: Good morning, Judge Wolf, Judge 17 Little, Judge Remick. My name is David Stahl of the law 18 firm of Isham, Lincoln & Beale of Chicago, appearing on 19 behalf of the Applicant, Commonwealth Edison Company.
20 With me this morning at the counsel table is Mr. Robert 21 Fitzgibbons of the same firm. ,
l 22 MR. WILLMANs Good morning, Judge Wolf. I'm 23 Philip L. Willman, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf l
() 24 of Intervenor, the State of Illinois.
25 MR. GODDARD: I'm Richard J. Goddard, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 s l
1 l
1196
() I representing the Office of the Executive Legal 2 Director. I represent the NRC Staff in this 3 proceeding. With me at the counsel table is Paul W.
4 0' Conner and Douglas Gallegos, both of the NRC Staff.
5 JUDGE WOLF 4 Thank you.
6 Are there any preliminary matters that we 7 should take up at this time?
8 (No response.)
9 JUDGE WOLF: If not, Mr. Goddard, are you 1
10 prepared to offer the SSER?
11 HR. GO DD AR D s Yes, sir, the Staff is. The l 12 content of the supplemental safety evaluation report is 13 virtually identical to the testimony of Messrs. Owen 14 Rothberg and Gunnar Harstead who prepared the bulk of 15 that document. Accordingly, at this. time I would like 16 to call Messrs. Bothberg and Harstead to the stand.
17 JUDGE WOLFS Very well.
18 Whereupon, 19 OWEN ROTHBERG 20 GUNNAR HARSTEAD, 21 called as witnesses by counsel for the Nuclear 22 Reg ulatory Com mission Sta f f, having first been duly 23 sworn by the Chairman, were examined and testified as
() 24 follows:
25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1197 1
DIRECT EXAMINATION i
({} 1 I
2 BY MR. GODDARD:
3 Mr. Rothberg, would you state your name and l 0
O 4 organization?
5 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I am Owen Rothberg, and I l
l 6 am with the Structural Engineering Branch of the NRC. <
7 0 And Mr. Harstead?
8 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) My name is Gunnar 9 Harstead, and I am a consultant to the Structural 10 Engineering Branch of the NRC.
I1 0 I would ask you gentlemen if you have seen the l
12 document that has been placed before you entitled 13 testimony of yourselves "Regarding Commonwealth Edison's 14 Proposal to Install 33 High Density Fuel Storage 15 Racks." Have you seen that document before?
16 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes.
17 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes.
18 Q Was that prepared by the two of you?
19 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes.
20 0 Did the two of you in fact prepare the 21 supplemental safety evaluation report on the 33-rack 22 proposal in this case? l 23 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I did personally.
1
() 24 0 What was your basis for preparing that 25 document, Mr. Rothberg?
j
! C) l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. .:4C, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
- - , . - - , . . - _ - . -__ . - - . _ . .. _ - . ._. - . - . -._ -___- - . - . - _ . - - - - - - - . - _ _ _ ~ _
1198
() 1 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) The basis was the 2 submittals by the Applicant, Dr.'Harstead'c independent 3 analysis, and some investigations that were performed by 4 the Staf f.
5 Q If you would address the Licensing Board, it 6 sight be easier for them to hear you.
7 The testimony which ';ou gentlemen have 8 prepared is based upon the items which you have 9 mentioned; is that correct? -
10 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Ye s, sir.
11 Q Are there any corrections you would like to 12 make to that testimony at this tiue?
13 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) No.
14 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) No.
15 Q Do you gentlemen accept that testimony as your 16 own? Are you willing to sponsor it at this time?
17 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir.
18 MR. GODDARD: I have no further questions and 19 the two witnesses are tend e red for cross-examination by 20 the parties and examination by the Board. .
21 JUDGE WOLF: Does the Applicant have any 22 questions?
23 MR. STAHL: The Applicant has no questions of
()
^
24 these witnesses at this time.
25 JUDGE WOLF: Does the Attorney General have O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1199
() 1 any questions?
2 MR. WILLMANs Judge, I have just a few 3 questions of Mr. Rothberg, if I may.
4 JUDGE WOLFS Will you please begin, then.
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON BEHALF 6 0F THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 7 BY MR. WILLMAN4 8 0 Mr. Bothberg, in the supplemental safety 9 evaluation report that you prepared, you state that a 10 comparison between the Quad Cities and Dresden analyses 11 indicates that the latter analyses is consistently 12 conservative; is'that correct?
13 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) For the Dresden pool? ,
14 0 Yes.
15 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir.
16 0 Is it not true that the allowable uniform load 17 used in the Quad Cities ~ analysis is greater than that 18 that was used in the Dresden analysis?
19 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, but the actual loads 20 in the Quad Cities pool are slightly higher, and the I
21 pool slab itself is slightly thinner. So I considered '
22 that it bounded the Dresden pool, that is that the i l
23 Dresden pool would be conservative when compared to the I
() 24 Quad Cities pool. l l
25 0 So what is the relative conservatism in the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1200
() 1 Quad Cities analysis?
2 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I'm not sure I 3 understand.
4 0 Based on what ygu just testified to.
5 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, specifically, the 6 Quad Cities pool is virtually identical in configuration 7 as far as size is concerned, as far as the wall 8 thickness is concerned. The slab of the Quad Cities 9 pool is 5 foot, 8 inches thick, and the slab in the 10 Dresden pool is 6 foot, 3 inches thick.
11 The Quad Cities seismic load is slightly 12 higher than the Dresden seismic load, original seismic 13 load. They are virtually the same reinforcement. It 14 appears to me that the Quad Cities pool is slightly less 15 reinforced.
16 JUDGE WOLF Slightly what?
17 WITNESS ROTHBERG: Slightly less reinforced.
18 There are some differences in the reinforcement, but 19 they are minor in my opinion.
20 And so, based on that, we looked at --
when we 21 looked at the Quad Cities pool for its licenso 22 application, we saw a conservative analysis and 23 something that showed that it was well within the
() 24 allowable stresses. And when you compare that to the 25 Dresde'n pool, why, you see the same thing.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1201
() 1 Basically, if you can say that the Quad Cities 2 pool is okay, then the Dresden pool is certainly okay.
3 MR. WILLMANs I have no further questions.
i 4 kR. GODDARD Bef ore you begin, Judge Wolf, I 5 think I might move at this time that the testimony of 6 these two witnessas be received into evidence and bound 7 into the record at the appropriate point in the
- 8 transcript.
9 JUDGE WOLF Are there any objections? ,
10 MR. STAHLa No objection from Applicants.
11 MR. WILLMAN No objection.
12 MR. GODDARD: The reporter has been furnished 13 30 copies of the testimony .
14 JUDGE WOLF: Without objection, the written 15 testimony of the witnesses will be received and bound in 16 the record as if read.
17 (The document referred to, " Testimony of Owen 18 0. Ro th be rg and Gunnar Harstead Regard'ing Commanvealth 19 Edison's Proposal to Install 33 High Density Fuel 20 Storage Racks," follows:
21 22 23 '
() 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
\
UNIED STAES OF ABERICA NUCIEAR REGUIRMY COMISSION t
1stFORB EE A'IIMIC SAETY AND IENSING BOARD 1
iO l In the 1$tter of ) Docket Nos. 50-327
)
l CGinMEALE EDISON COPANY 50-249 f ,
(DresdenSt$ tion, Units 2$nd3 ) (Spent Feel Pool Modific$tions)
)
ESTIMONY OF 04EN 0. ROI1 BERG AND gut @MR HARSEAD i REGARDING CatDEEALTH EDISON'S PROPOSAL '
'IO INSTALL 33 HIGH DENSITY FUEL SICRAGE EACKS
- I,OwenO.Rothberg,dost$teasfollows
- ,
I $m employed by the United St$tes Nucle $r Regbl$ tory Cmmission $s a I
Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch of the '
i Dihision of Engineering. A st$tement of my profession $l qE$lificAtions iO is$ttachedesenclosure(1)tothis$ffiddhit.
I,GbnnarHarstead,dost$te$sfollows:
I am $ consult $nt to the StrbetEr$1 Engineering Br$nch of the U. S.
Nbele$rReguldtoryCmmission. Ast$tementofmyprofession$l qualifications is attached as enclosure (2) to this testimony, l
i j -
! l lO I
i ll
- L v.
v t ' f / ]a./
. Commonwealth Edison Company, the Licensee, originally proposed to increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel pools at Dresden 2 and 3. This proposal involved replacing the existing spent racks with 33 high-density poisoned racks. A Safety Evaluation Report was issued.on June 6, 1980, the essential conclusion of which was that the proposal was acceptable to f
l the staff. The SEP Branch review of TOPIC IX-1 for Dresden 2 revealed that the seismic analysis of the new rack installation conducted by Commonwealth Edison did not adequately address several issues. Subsequently, all but one issue was resolved and the Licensee was allowed to install five new racks in the Dresden 2 pool in order to support.a refueling outage.-
The single issue which remained unresolved was that it was not adequately demonstrated that the spent fuel pool floor could withstand the loads, including impact, which would be imparted should all 33 racks rock (tip) during a seismic event and fall back simultaneously. This testimony addresses that issue.
On October 2, L98L, Commonwealth Edison submitted to the staff a report entitled " Evaluation of the Effects of Postulated Rocking of Racks on Spent Fuel Pool Structures of Dresden Station Units 2 and 3." In that report the results of a non-linear time history analysis of the potential effects of a seismic event, including the modeling of rack impact on the pool floor due to tipping, were presented. The development of the pool floor motion time-history used in this evaluation consisted of the following steps:
- 1. The building structural model developed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in NUREG/CR-0891 (Seismic Review of Dresden 2 for SEP) was modified for the as-built condition.
- 2. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectrum scaled to 0.2g was selected as the basis for the input motion at the ground Level.
A synthetic time-history matching this response spectrum was developed.
O 3. A time-history response analysis was performed using the building model (Item "1" above) and the synthetic time-history (Item "2" above). A seven prcent building structural damping was used per USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61.
\
. 4. A response spectrum at the spent fuel pool floor level was developed using a two percent equipment damping. The use of two percent damping is conservative since Regulatory Guide 1.61 recommends four percent dampings and NUREG/CR-0098 recommends five to seven percent damping.
- 5. The floor response spectrum developed as outlined in Item "4" above was {
smoothened and peak-broadened by i 15 percent to account for building modeling and response uncertainties.
- 6. A synthetic time-history was developed matching the peak-broadened floor !
I response spectrum (Item "5" above). The peak acceleration for the syn-thetic time-history is about 20 percent higher than the actually computed' ,
peak acceleration. This provided additional conservatism in the input motion.
The mathematical model of the rack / pool floor used in the analysis accounted for the non-linear effects of fuel bundle " rattling" within the cells and of rack tipping on the pool floor. The results of the analysis indicated that the pool floor structure was weLL within its capacity under simultaneous
- Loading from 33 racks. On December 14, 1981, the Licensee submitted additional arguments and responses to previous staff questions which supported his choice
! of seismic loading and method of analysis. It was found that these j presentations demonstrated suitable conservativism in the Licensee's analysis.
A con-linear analysis of the pool and rack system for Dresden 2 was performed.
It was found that the spent fuel pool. structure is conservatively capable of withstanding the postulated loads imposed by the full 33 rack installation.
'(G. Harstead; Report dated 5/19/82.)
A comparison was also made of the recent Quad Ci. ties spent fuel pool expansion seismic analysis with that used for Dresden2. Both plants are MKI BWR's founded on rock in the same tectonic province. Althougli the Quad Cities plant is arranged somewhat differently than at Dresden, the spent fuel pool structures are identical in dimensions and very similar in construction. The seismic . event postulated for Quad Cities was a 0.243 maximum event based on the 1957 Golden Gate Park earthquake time history.
The floor response spectra at the Quad Cities pool floor was developed from this event and used for construction of the plant. The Latest seismic event
used for the Dresden analysis is as described previously.
Although comparisons are somewhat complex and judgemental, it was considered that useful conclusions could be made regarding the adequacy of the proposed 33 rack Dresden installation by studying the results of the analysis performed for Quad cities. The Quad cities 2 pool structure was found to be conservatively capable of withstanding the loads imposed by 3970 fuel modules which wiLL be arranged in 20 racks. The Dresden pools wiLL dach hold 3537 storage locations arranged in 33 racks. Since the Quad Cities structures were found to be acceptable, it is considered that this providessome additional assurance, in -
the form-of yet another analysis, that the Dresden spent fuel pool structures -
are adequately constructed to withstand the loads which are postulated for their seismic event under full 33 rack load. ,
Accordinly, we fired that the spent fuel pool expansion as proposed by the Licensee for a futt 33 rack installation is acceptable.
O e
j l
r O
I I
O i
1 i 1
l l
I a l
t i O l
Ab f ,
i k, Owen O. Rothberg Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering U.S. NRC Sworn to before me.this 2 k4
/ffe2.
- ,0 Notary Pubt c O My Commission Expires:
/, / b '
l i
i l
1
~
O l
O i
l l
/
Gunnar Harstead Consultant to U.S. NRC Structural Engineering Branch O sworo to de< ore this
, b?S
/ 'l Notary Public -e s w
My Commission Expires:
BETTY JANE TAYLOR MOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission Empires Sept. 9,1986
___.._L-.._____._ -,._ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ , . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ , . _ .
i,
~
ENCLOSURE (1)
OWEN 0. ROTHBERG l
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT
! STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
'O
- DIVISION OF ENGINEERING f
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
- I am a structural engineer for NRC and responsible for review of the safety i analysis.. report for the Floating Nuclear Plant. My background is as follows
4 1961- GraduatedUnihersityofFlorida,BachelorofCihilEngineering.
- 1962-1964 Graduatecoursesinnahalarchitecturestrengthofmaterials andmathematicsatUnhiersityofCalifonia, Berkeley.
O 1961-1973 NahalArchitect(Structures)andSuperhisoryNahal Architect (Structures)attheSanFranciscoNahal Shipyard. Designedandsuperhisedthedesignofship I structuresforalltypesofnahalsurfaceshipsand conhentionalsubmarines. Designed and analyzed complex steel structures and components.
1973- NahalArchitect(Structures)atM.Rosenblatt& Son, NahalArchitectsandMarineEngineers,SanFrancisco, Ca. Performedstudiesofproposednahalsurface-effect ship structures and deep ocean mo'oring projects.
' )
1973-1977 SuperhisoryNahalArchitect(Structures)atMareIsland Mahal Shipyard, Valljo Ca.' Designed; and superhised O the design and installation, of equipment mounting.and
~
ship structures for nuclear submarines. Designed and analyzedshockandhibrationisolatedequipmentmountings.
1977-1978- HullEquipmentEngineeratNahalShipEngineeringCenter,
- Arlington, Va. Designedandsuperhiseddesignofall types of ships hull equiprhent (doors, hatches, ladders, gratings, partitions, ramps,dahits)"
1978-1980 SeniorEngineerforSerhiceCraft,NahalSea' Systems O Command Headquarters, Arlington, Va. Project Engineer foralltheU.S.Nahy'sbargesandserhice_ craft (about4bb)inchargeofcherhaulplanningandcon-figuration control. '
1980-present Structural Engineer at U. S. Nuclear Regulatory bommission, Bethesda, Md. Performrehiewandehaluationofnuclear 1
l power plant structures including all SEP plants, Floating l Nuclear Plant, Bellefonte and Riher Bend.'
I I
O l
t l
1 -
! i i
- l l
ENCLOSURE (2) .
. Gunnar A. Harstead Professional Qualifications Statement STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
() DIVISION OF ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION I am a consultant for the NRC and have assisted on strnctural audits for Midland, Commanche Peak, Waterford, and Dresden.
. My background is as follows; i
19'54- Graduated Columbia University, BS i
i 1954-1957 Commissioned officer U.S. Navy
' O 1957-1959 Structural Detailer of highway bridges and highway systems. Howard Needles Tammen, l
and Berenelott I
i 1959-1963 ,
Structural designer of buildings Served Associates 1963 Graduated Columbia University, MS 1963-1965 Research Scientist on structural Buckling of beam-columns New York University O .
e 4
l 1965-1967 Senior Engineer on structural systems of l nuclear power plants Westinghouse Corporation
(
1966 Graduated New York University, Ph D 1967-1974 Sr. Supervising Engineer on nuclear power plants. Burns and Roe Inc.
~
1974-1975 Assistant Chief Structural Engineer,
)
Stone and Webster 1975-1979 Vice President in charge of mechanical and structural engineering for components of nuclear power plants. S65t and Harstead Associates P.C.
(]}
1979-Present President, in charge of all engineering which includes many nuclear projects.Harstead Engineering Associates, Inc.
)
l l
l
1202
() 1 JUDGE WOLF: Mr. Goddard, what about the 2 consultant's report? I think that should be offered.
3 Who is going to sponsor that?
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. GODDARDs 6 0 Mr. Harstead, I show you a copy of a document 7 with the letterhead of "Harstead Engineering Associates" 8 and ask you if you have prepared that document? !
9 A (WITNESS HABSTEAD) Yes, I did.
10 0 Have you reviewed that document recently? l 11 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes.
12 0 Are the statements contained therein true and 13 correct to the best of your k'nowledge?
( 14 A (WITNESS H ARSTE AD) Yes, sir.
15 MR. GODDARD: The Staff would offer the 16 consultant's report in this case as the Staff exhibit 17 next in numerical order.
18 JUDGE WOLF Would that be Exhibit 4, Mr.
l 19 Goddard?
20 MR. GODDARD: I believe it is. I would have l
21 to refer to my prior transcript. I believe it is l
22 Exhibit 4.
23 JUDGE WOLF And the written testimony wot.1d
() 24 have been Exhibit 3.
25 MR. GODDARD: The testimony was not offered as O o ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 l
1203 l
an exhibit. It was offered as testimony.
(]) 1 2 JUDGE WOLF: In that event, then, I think the 3 report is number 3. . 1
(
4 (The document referred to i l
5 was marked Staff Exhibit 6 No. 3 for identification 7 and received in l
8 evidence.)
9 JUDGE WOLFa Dr. Remick, do you have 1 l
10 questions?
11 BOARD EXAMINATION 1
12 BY JUDGE REMICK. '
13 0 Mr. Harstead, looking at your professional 14 qualifications statement you indicate that you graduated 15 from Columbia University with a B.S., but you don't 16 indicate what that degree was in. l l
17 A (WITNESS HABSTEAD) Well, the degree at 18 Columbia at the time was just to call it a. bachelor of 19 science degree. I was in the department of civil 20 engineering. That is also true of the M.S.
21 0 Both in the area of civil engineering ?
22 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) That's correct.
23 0 You do not indicate whether you are a
() 24 professional engineer or not. Are you?
25 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, in New York, New O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l l
1204 )
l l
() 1 Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
2 0 Thank you.
3 I would like to refer to your consultant's 4 report. I have some questions for clarification.
5 Starting off on the first page, the first paragraph, 6 under " Introduction," you refer to a " time history 7 nonlinear analysis." Would you describe a time history 8 of what that you are referring to there?
9 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) The time history -- in 10 other words, one of the inputs to the problem was a 11 record of floor motion, horizontal floor motion of the 12 pool floor. The nonlinear aspect of it is due to the 13 fact that the structural configuration, if you will, 14 changes.
15 In other-words when the racks are in contact 1
16 with the pool floo r, the system is analyzed as if the l l
17 slab or.the racks and the slabs are actually fused 1 18 together or anchored. Now once the racks begin to slide 19 or tip, it is now a different condition and the 20 structural response of the racks to the motion is l
21 different if the configura tion changes. !
22 Ihe term " nonlinear" means that you just -- in 23 other words, if the floor motion was twice as great, the
() 24 result would not necessarily be twice as great.
25 Nonlinear means that it depends upon the time factors.
O l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1205 So does nonlinear have anything to do with th o'
(]) 1 0 2 fact that the fuel assemblies are loose within the racks 3 also?
- i.
O 4 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir. I didn 't ' 2 5 mention tha t , but that's also a factor in the s 6 nonlinear. '
7 0 Let me go back to the time history. The time 8 aspect I understand, but a time history of what? Is it 9 of motion, of acceleration, of velocity? When you.say j
10 " time history," what specifically are you referring to?
11 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Okay. It is an {
l 12 acceleration, and I think it is every thousandth of a i 13 second, or something ?.ike that. I'm not absolutely O 14 certain on that right now, but in other words, at each
)
15 point in time of an increment of roughly say a 16 thousandth of a second there is an accelera tion given. l 17 This information was sent to us on tape, I 18 computer tape, and then we have it printed out as well.
19 But with that information, then, at each point in time a 20 solution is -- in other words, there is an actual I
21 structural solution for each point in time to state what 22 is happening.
23 0 You say this was sent to you. Is this what l ) 24 you're referring to as being sent to you by Mr.
25 Hothberg? '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1206
() 1 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir.
2 Q Ihat was a time history of acceleration of 3 what? The ground motion?
4 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Of the pool floor.
5 0 I see. So the Staff provided the acceleration 6 versus time for the pool floor itself?
7 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir, right.-
8 0 Now, when you talk about time history, did you 9 then develop a time history for the racks also?
10 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) It would be part of the 11 solution, but we did not print it out.
12 0 I see.
13 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Because the volume of --
'14 for example, I don't know how long the earthquake record
^
15 is for, but if we have increments of say a thousandth of 16 a second and we're dealing with a ten-minute record, 17 that's a tremendous amount of data. So even though it 18 would have had to have been calculated in the program, 19 we didn't list it. We weren't really interested in 20 that. We were interested in the maximum ef fects.
21 0 So when you referred to time history, you're 22 talking about time history of the floor level where the i 23 bottom of the pool is located? Is that correct?
() 24 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) That is right, sir.
25 0 You, on the same page under section 2.1, you O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1207
() 1 talk about the "approximately fundamental frequency 2 assuming the base is fixed to the floor." Now are the 3 rack bases actually fixed to the floor physically?
4 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) No, sir.
5 0 What is the purpose of that assumption?
6 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Well, it wasn't an 7 assumption, really. As I said, the nonlinear aspect of 8 the analysis doesn 't require us to calculate the 9 frequency as such, the natural frequencies, as long as 10 we have masses and stiffness. But during part of the 11 nonlinear analysis the racks themselves are not sliding 12 or they are not tipping. Therefore, they are as if ther 13 were anchored to the floor.
14 0 I see.
15 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) And it was done just as an 16 indication of the structural stiffness of the racks.
17 Because of the way they are constructed, with the tubes 18 being welded together at their corners, it is a very, 19 very stiff structure, and the indications are that the 20 motion of the rack would almost be as a rigid block, 21 practically, because of its stiffness.
22 0 So by " fixed" do you m ean that it moves with 23 the floor at least until the forces exceed friction
) 24 during that time?
25 A (WITNESS HAPSTEAD) Yes, or the overturning
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1208
() 1 effect comes in.
2 Q At the bottom of the page you talk about a 3 " haunch." That must be a civil engineering term I'm no t 4 familiar with. What is a haunch? l l 5 A (WITNESS HABSTEAD) That's at the perimeter of 6 the slab, where the slab frames into the surrounding 7 valls. There is a 45-degree -- at the bottom face of
- 1 8 the slab, there is a 45-degree slope to the wall. That
- 9 is called the haunch. That is the sloping part.
10 0 I remember this. I think there are some 11 drawings in the record from, I think, last September 12 that showed that.
13 A (WITNESS HABSTEAD) Right, and that's what I'm h) 14 referring to as a haunch.
15 0 On the top of your second page, you talk about 16 the slab is reinforced at the bottom face with number 17 11 -- is that rebar or is that wire mesh, or what do you 18 mean by " number 11"?
19 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) That is rebar and that is 20 one and three-eights inch diameter reinforcing bars.
21 The number 11 actually refers to 11 as 11/ eighths.
22 0 In your modeling of the pool and in your 23 discussion here, you talk about the pool floor. But you
() 24 do not mention the sides of the pool. What are the 25 assumptions you aske and what in actuality is in effect ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1209 l l
l
() 1 the relationship between the pool walls and the pool 2 floor? Do they move as one or do they move 3 independently? You seem to make no reference about 4 whether the pool moves as a rigid body or what your 5 assumptions are.
6 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Well, the way we did the 7 analysisa During our time-history analysis, we assumed 8 tha t the floor is rigid. And we obtain our kinetic 9 energy impact into the floor under that assumption. Nov 10 once we have that kinetic energy calculated, then we 11 then take that kinetic energy and say, now we are
?? pplying it to a floor with a certain stiffness, a sass 13 and a stiffness, because the mass of the pool floor is, O 14 I think, you know, considerably greater than just the 15 moving mass of the fuel assemblies in the fuel racks.
16 0 I understand, but that wasn't quite the answer 17 to the question I asked. Maybe Mr. Rothberg can answer 18 that, since he provided you with the time analysis on 19 the floor.
20 What assumptions were made by the Staff in 21 arriving at a time analysis about the rest of the pool?
22 Did you assume the floor moved as one with the rest of 23 the floor?
} 24 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) I misunderstood your 25 question. I'm sorry. It basically moves rigidly.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1210 O i tver1thino moves tooether. The 11oor a d the ve11s 2 wou1d be moving together.
3 Q I see. Just because you talk about the floor, 4 there is no inference that I should make about the f act 5 that the walls are not moving with it?
6 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) They are moving with it, 7 yes, sir.
8 9
i 10 11 12 13 0 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l 2C O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
l 1
1211 l
i
() 1 0 In the middle of the second page, 4-C, you 1
2 talk about a friction force, but it is not clear whether 3 you referred to a sliding friction or a breaking point 4 friction or a breakaway friction or whatever you want to 5 call it. It is not clear what friction force you are 6 referring to.
7 Do I make myself clear on my question?
8 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) I understand, yes. It's 9 actually a very good question because friction values 10 are very difficult to come by. We are talking about 11 stainless steel against stainless steel in a wet 12 condition. It depends on many things. I don't think a 13 value of friction is very easily calculated or
() 14 determined whether it's breakaway or sliding. So what 15 ve did was we looked at coefficients of friction of .2, 16 .5 and .8. We took an extreme. We know probably the 17 likely value is what the applicant selected in one of 18 their later analyses of .5 as probably a good result, a 19 good value; but we looked a t various bounds.
20 0 I see. So you approached it with three 21 different values then, not saying which friction that 22 was?
23 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) I think it is too
() 24 difficult to make that distinction.
25 0 All right. At the bo ttom of that page you O
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1212
() 1 say, "When the tipping rack returns in full contact with 2 the floor, all the rotational energy is transferred to 3 the floor slab." Would that be the actual physical case?
4 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) No, sir. This is a 5 conservatism. The rack when it comes back down like 6 this (Indicating) would probably tip up like that 7 (Indicating). In other words, the kinetic energy would 8 still be momentum. Our assumption was that it comes 9 down, and the entire kinetic energy is transferred to 10 the slab.
11 0 That is a conservative assumption you say?
12 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir.
13 Q In the next sentence you say, "A value is O 14 computed in the program for elastic impact." Elastic 15 impact of what? Is it the elasticity of the floor or 16 the racks or both?
17 A (WITNESS HARSTEP.D) In other words, by 18 " elastic impact" we use in essence -- it's also, let me 19 say right off, that is conservative -- but the way I try 20 to explain it is that the elastic impact would be of two 21 bodies colliding elastica 11y. There would be a maximum 22 transfer of energy. On the other hand, a plastic impact 23 is when bodies collide and they stick together, like
() 24 billiard balls would be elastic impact. In other words, 25 if one ball was motionless and another one comes at a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1213
() 1 certain velocity and strikes it, then the other ball 2 tskes off at exactly that velocity. If it's a plastic 3 impact they stick together and energy is lost. In other
, 4 words, the energy before impact is less than the total 5 energy after impact.
6 0 Kinetic energy is conservative?
7 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Kinetic energy in the 8 plastic impact is lost.
9 0 No, excuse me. In the elastic ca se --
10 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes.
11 Q So this does not refer to what you assumed in 12 the rack or the floor?
13 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) No.
14 (Pause.)
15 0 I apologize for taking time, but I wrote my 16 questions on my copy and it is very dark. I am having 17 trouble reading them. .
18 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) I am sorry about that. I 19 could ge t you better copies.
20 0 My comments are already written on there.
21 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) I think I sent it out i
22 better than this.
23 ( Lau gh t er . )
() 24 'O My question relates to the next sentence there 25 also as to whether this is a conservative assumption or O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
1214
() 1 not. The statement is, "After the transfer of energy 2 rotation and the tipping rack returns to the slab, the 3 rack has no rotational momentum and further rocking 4 ceases."
5 My question I think I was trying to get a t is 6 is that what you would expect actually or is that a 7 conservative assumption?
8 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) It's a conservative 9 assumption. As I was saying, the rack comes down, it to strikes, and then it stays there. We did not track ,
11 through tha t it is going to come up again and rock back 12 and forth.
13 Q All right. Then you on G there on the same 14 page you say, "The vertical seismic motion of the slab 15 was ignored. " I was wondering why you ignored that and 16 whether that is a conservative or not conservative 17 assumption.
18 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) That would te an 19 unconservative assumption. It is a question -- it 20 really makes the problem extremely much more complicated 21 than it already is because we would be dealing with a 22 horizontal motion as well as a vertical motion, 23 so -- but the vertical motion in order for there to be
() 24 any impact effect would have to exceed the dead load or 25 1g. This is not likely, particularly since the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINCTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1215
() 1 frequency is vertically particularly, it is basically 2 rigid. So we would expect -- the expectation would be 4
- 3 that the racks would accelerate vertically exactly the 4 same as the floor slab. So we did not do it as a time 5 history because the complexity of it would not have 6 yielded anything. .
7 Q let me make sure I understand wha t you ' re 8 saying. Are you sayino let's picture initially that the 9 seismically-induced motion would be downward vertically, 10 and you're saying that because it would probably be less 11 than 1 g, the rack would fall to the floor?
12 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Without lifting off, yes, 13 sir.
14 Q Without lifting off. So it's important that 15 they move together.
16 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir. And then I 17 think the values that the applicant had provided for 18 dead load, live load, and seismic load includ ed the 19 vertical effects that were already included; so there 20 wasn't any point to adding them here.
21 Q Do we know what the estimated vertical motions i
22 of the floor are in g's? Is there a value of that that 23 was predicted? The two-tenths of a g is horizontal l
() 24 motion; is that correct?
25 A ( W ITN ESS HARSTEAD) I probably should not be O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1216
() 1 answering that. I do not really know. You see, the 2 ground acceleration is probably .2 g. But I am not 3 sure. It is going to be greater up at the pool floor, 4 but I really do not know.
5 JUDGE REMICK: Do you know, Mr. Goddard, how 6 we have that question addressed? Do we have a witness?
7 HR. GODDARD: I believe Commonwealth Edison 8 has witnesses who can speak to the determination of the 9 acceleration, sir.
10 JUDGE REMICK Okay. Perhaps we can have that 11 answer later.
12 BY JUDGE REMICKs (Resuming) 13 0 Under your dynamic analysis on that same page, 14 Section 5.1, you say, "For the purposes of this study 15 the entire pool is assumed to be covered with fuel 16 racks."
17 I have two questions there. When you say it 18 is assumed to be covered are you referring to 33 racks 19 in place, or do you mean more than 33 or less than 33 ?
20 I'm not quite sure what you mean by " covered."
21 A ( WIT NESS H ARSTE AD ) More.
22 O More?
23 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) More. In other words, we
() 24 didn't try to take advantage of the fact th a t the 25 perimeter was without fuel racks.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1217
() 1 Q Is that a conservative assumption also?
2 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir.
3 0 What did you assume about those fuel racks?
4 Were they filled with f uel assemblies or half-filled?
5 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Completely full.
6 Q At the last paragraph you indicate that the 7 results indicate that the impact effect of the rocking 8 racks on the slab floor is not as great as originally 9 thought. It is not clear who though t that.
10 A (WITNESS H ARSTEAD) Me.
11 Q As a consultant to the staff ?
12 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir.
13 0 In the next sentence you say there is O 14 agreement. The question comes to mind agreement between 15 whom?
16 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Well, I guess what I'm 17 saying, there is agreement on my part with the 18' submittals that the applicant had made.
19 0 One more question on your report, on the ,
20 Attachment No. 2. You refe rred to allowable moment, but l
21 you do not explain how you arrived at that allowable i 22 moment. You indicate allowable moment is greater than 23 what you actually found to be the slab movement.
() 24 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Okay. What I did was, I 25 did it very, if you notic'ed, after the M I have a sign O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1218
() 1 to indicate approximately equal. What I basically did, 2 this floor slab is what is referred to in civil 3 engineering terms as under-reinforced, which is good 4 even though it may sound like -- in other words, it's a 5 very ductile-type of structure and under bending the 6 reinforcing bars would go into tension, and on the 7 opposite face the concrete would be in compression. But 8 because the area of steel is quite low, number 11 is at 9 6, even two layers , it 's still a small percentage of 10 steel.
11 So I got a moment arm almost equal, between 12 the compression and the concrete and tension in the 13 slab, almost to something very close to the full height 14 of the depth of that slab. So I took an arm of 60 15 inches; then I took a force. If the number 11, two 16 layers of number 11's at 6 were at yield stress, which 17 is 60,000 pounds per square inch, if they went to yield, 18 I would get a moment, it would take a moment of about 19 20,000 foot kips per foot.
20 0 Those are the questions I have on the 21 consultant's report. Then going to the prefiled 22 testimony I have some additional ones.
23 The first question is at the bottom of what I
() 24 believe is page 1, I guess, unnumbered. At the top of 25 that page it starts out, " Commonwealth Edison Company,"
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ;
1219 O ' t= taet correcte ra t ou14 de ee aumder , , ar -
2 Rothberg?
p 3 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes.
U 4 0 We'll call that page number 1.
5 Now down in number 2 at the bottom of that 6 page you refer to the response spectrum scale to 0.2 g.
7 A (WITNESS BOTHBERG) Yes, sir.
8 0 . 's not clear whether you' re ref erring - I 9 assume that is a ground acceleration you're referring to?
10 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) That's right.
11 Q .2 g?
12 A ( WITNESS ROTHBERG) That's right.
13 0 Is that ground acceleration for what event?
O 14 The safe shutdown earthquake, the operating basis 15 earthquake?
16 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I believe that's SSE.
17 0 That's the SSE. No mention there is made of 18 m ag ni tud e . Is there a reason why the magnitude of the 19 earthquake is not mentioned?
20 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) The magnitude would be a 21 .2 g. That would be the definition.
22 0 I thought magnitude usually talked to l l
23 something else. i 24 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Oh, I see.
25 Q Let me phrase my question differently.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1220
() 1 Was the design for Dresden before the current 2 Part 100?
3 (Pause.)
4 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I am not sure. I think 5 that this 1.60 response spectra scale 0.2 g was greater 6 than the original earthquake that was used at Dresden.
7 It was arrived at to use this because of questions from 8 the staff early on. In other words, the applicant 9 decided that in order to avoid any further controversy 10 about whether he was using a conservative earthquake or 11 not. He went to this load. I do believe that is a 12 'little more -- a little higher earthquake than he had l
13 originally used.
D
'J 14 Q So from your standpoint the .2 g is not
~
15 necessarily related to the design basis earthquake, the 16 safe shutdown earthquake?
17 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) It is higher I believe 18 than the original safe shutdown earthquake.
19 JUDGE REMICK: Maybe the applicant could ,
20 clarify that point for us with the witness later.
21 BY JUDGE REMICK: (Resuming) 22 Q So you're just referring to the fact that the 23 response spectrum was scaled or anchored at .2 g in that A)
(, 24 statement?
25 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHING 10N, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1221
() 1 0 You say, "A synthetic time history matching 2 this response spectrum was developed." I have the same 3 question. Time history of what? Is this the floor 4 response that was referred to ea rlier? A time history 5 of what?
6 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I believe that from the .2 7 g earthquake they did an analysis of the buildings, and 8 they came up with a floor response spectra, and from 9 that floor response spectra they established a synthetic 10 time history that enveloped that floor response 11 spectra. If I am wrong about that, I would like to be 12 corrected.
13 0 Who would do that correction?
14 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I'm not sure, but I think 15 somebody from the applicant could.
16 0 If you are wrong, I hope you will be 17 corrected, because I wish to understand wha t you're 18 saying here.
19 A (WITNESS ROTHBERC) That's the way I 20 understand it, sir.
21 0 On number 4 on the top of page number 2, you 22 referred to a response spectrum at the spent fuel pool 23 floor level was developed using a2 percent equipment
() 24 damping, but you do not say for what types of equipment 25 that you're referring to here that you assumed damping.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINlA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1222
() 1 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) This would refer to any 2 f ab rica ted equipment that would sit on the floor. The l l
3 racks would be equipment. j w i 4 0 So it would be things like the rack? !
5 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir.
6 0 Two percent damping for the racks. What other :
7 type of equipment might you -- I assume you're just 8 talking about equipment in the spent fuel pool?
t 9 A (WITNESS BOTHBERG) Yes.
10 0 In this particular instance?
11 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Right. Equipment damping 12 is a generic term in my mind.
13 0 Statemes.t number 5 I am not sure I completely O
w/ 14 understand. When you say that the response spectrum was 15 smoothened and peak broadened by plus or minus 15 16 percent to account for bu.'.1 ding modeling and resporme 17 uncertainties, I'm not suri I understand what that 18 process is and what its purpose is.
j 19 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, the response i
. 20 spectrum tould be a curve of acceleration versus time, I i
! 21 and the abscissa might be a point at one point given the l l
22 maximum acceleration. What would be done would be at ,
- 1 23 that point to draw a horizontal line cf that maximum
() 24 acceleration and go 15 percent on either side, and then 4
25 you would have a broad peak so that anything with a i
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1223
() 1 natural period of -- within that peak would have that 2 same high acceleration even th ough if you were to look 3 at the actual curve and when it was displaced slightly 4 to the left or the right, it would have a much lower 5 acceleration because of the slope of the line. That is 6 the best I can explain it without drawing a picture.
7 Q As I understand it, you're saying this better 8 enables you to compare the natural frequencies of items
! 9 of equipment and so forth to the time history?
10 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I think it is merely a 11 conservative assumption to account for uncertainties in 12 the establishment of the floor response spectrum, and I 13 think that is a --
e l 14 0 What does the smoothened refer to ?
! 15 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, an actual floor 16 response spectrum might be a series of squiggly lines 17 going up a curve. When you smoothe it, What you do is 18 you draw a straight line , a nd the conservative 19 assumption is that tha t straight line has to be 20 enveloped by the jagged line that would come from the 21 time history. So again it's a concervative assumption.
22 Q All ri gh t . Thank you.
23 24 25 l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1224 s
() 1' After Item Number 6 then, the paragraph says, 2 "The mathema tical model of the Rack / Pool Floor used in p 3 the analysis accounted for the non-linear effects of the V fuel bundle rattling within the cells," and I was 4
5 vondering if you could explain how that was 6 incorporated, how the rattling was incorporated in the 7 model.
8 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, as I recall it, the 9 model had a gap element, and that gap would be between 10 the rack, the fuel stored in the rack, and the rack 11 itself. The rack is modeled as a series of springs and 12 masses, and damping elements and gap elements. One of 13 those gap elements is the gap between the sides of the 14 cell and the fuel element, so the gap would in'the 15 mathematical model be allowed to open and close.
16 Q And this would determine then the spring ,
l 17 constant model of the damping effects? '
l 18 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, no, springs are a l
19 little bit different. Wha t would happen is that when l 20 the gap closed, there would be an impact load on the 21 side of the fuel cell, and that fuel -- tha t would take '
22 care of -- that would model what was happening. That 23 is, when the fuel element smashed against the side of
() 24 the cell, it would impart load to the fuel cell, and 25 that would impart in turn load to the pool floor and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
1225 amplify the tipping.
(]) 1 2 0 I am trying to understand sim plis tica'lly. Are 3 you taking the gap dimension and then you look at the 4 relative action between the rack and the element?
5 A (WITNESS BOTHBERG) Yes.
6 0 And when that motion was zero, then you would 7 assume impact?
8 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG ) Yes, sir. I believe that i
9 is so.
10 0 At the bottom of the page, in reference, I 11 believe, to Quad Cities, it refers to the 1957 Golden 12 Gate Park ea rthquake time history, and it talks about a 13 .249 acceleration. I assume that is ground f O 14 acceleration.
i 15 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir. ,
16 0 Is this the 1957 Golden Gate Park? Is that 17 the Golden Gate Park in California?
18 A (WITNESS ROIHBERG) Yes, sir.
i 19 Q Why is reference made to a California quake, I
i 20 apparently? What is the reason for that?
21 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I am not an expert on 22 this, but. as I understand it, what was done in those
[
23 da,ys was, a particular earthquake was chosen, an
() 24 earthquake that had a particular time history was ,
i 25 chosen, and the plant was modeled af ter tha t. That was I
O I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L. . . _ . _ . . , - . _ -._._.m _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _
1226
() 1 the accepted curve, if you will, the accepted time 2 history that was used for the design of the plant.
3 Q Is California in the same tectonic province?
4 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) No, not at all.
5 0 Is there an explanation why that particular 6 earthquake, the response for a particular quake in 7 California was being used at Dresden?
8 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) My understanding is, the 9 reason it was used is because there was none or there 10 was thought to be none. Again, I am not an expert on 11 why they chose that particular earthquake. It was 12 accepted, however, and it is the design basis for the 13 plant.
O 14 JUDGE REMICK: Mr. Stahl, do you think your ,
15 witness could address that?
16 NR. STAHL: Yes, I think we have a witness 17 that can address that.
l 18 JUDGE WOLF 4 Dr. Little?
1 BY JUDGE LITTLE. )
19 I
20 0 Mr. Bothberg, I notice on Page 2 of the 21 SSER -- I am sorry, the prefiled testimony, Page 2 of i'
22 your prefiled testimony, it indicates that the licensee I
23 submitted additional arguments and responses to previous 1
() 24 Staff questions which supported his choice of seismic l 1
25 loading and method of analysis. This is the first f ull (s
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (D2) 554-2345
1227
() 1 paragraph on that page. Is this information in the 2 record, or is it going to be placed into the record by 3 the applicant?
! 4 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I believe it is docketed, 5 ma'am.
6 Q It is?
7 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes. I have a --
8 JUDGE WOLFS Would you speak up, please?
9 WITNESS ROTHBERG: Yes, sir. I believe it is 10 docketed. I have a docket accession number 8112180367, L
11 dated December 14th, 1981, and that is what I am 4 l
12 referring to.
13 JUDGE LITTLEt That is correct, Mr. Goddard.
\- 14 This has been served on all the parties.
15 HR. GODDARD: I do not believe it has, and I 16 will offer it as an exhibit at this time for the record, 17 since it does help explain the witness's testimony. I 18 That will be offered as Staff Exhibit 4.
19 (The document referred to {
20 was marked for 4 21 identification as Staff 22 Exhibit Number 4.)
23 JUDGE LITTLE: Do you want to give a title and
() 24 number?
- 25 JUDGE WOLF If he is making the offer, please
() -
i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHl.iGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . , _ , _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - , , _ _ . _ _ , _ _ , , _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ , , _ . _ _ , __.____._m._ , . _ _ . _ _ . _ . .-_ . _ . .
1228 l
() 1 describe the exhibit and state what the purpose of the 2 offer is.
I 3 WITNESS ROTHBERG I can read the subject.
h I 4 JUDGE WOLF: I am talking to Mr. Goddard. t 5 MR. GODDARD: The exhibit itself begins with i
6 handwritten notes. It is a collection of documents l
7 transmitting questions to the applicant from the NRC i 8 Staff, and the applicant's response thereto. I believe 9 Mr. Rothberg has already stated the accession number in 10 the NBC docket files. The subject matter on the RIDS I
11 cover sheet indicates that this document forwards 12 additional background information on high density spent {
i 13 fuel racks. Fifteen proprietary enclosed oversized f
O-' 14 drawings are withheld. The aperture cards are available 15 in the central files. This is the document on which Mr.
16 R o th berg indicated he relied in part, and the staff 17 would offer that as Staff Exhibit 4 for identification 18 at this time.
19 JUDGE WOLF: Any objection to the offer of 20 Staff's Exhibit 4 as described by Mr. Goddard?
t 21 MR. STAHL: No objection, Your Honor.
22 May I just ask to take a b rief look at the 23 exhibit to make sure I have the same thing?
() 24 MR. GODDARD: Also, in order to neaten up the 25 record at this point, I would o f fer the SSER itself, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1229 1 albeit similar in almost every respect to the testimony 2 of these two witnesses, as Staff Exhibit 5.
3 (The document referred to O 4 was marked for 5 identification as Staff 6 Exhibit Number 5.)
7 JUDGE WOLFa Will you show it to the State, 8 please?
9 NR. GODDARD Oh, I am sorry.
10 HR. WILLHANs The state has no objections 11 either, although I have not seen the exhibit.
12 (The documents are distributed.)
13 MR. GODDARD Counsel for NRC staff would 14 indicate on the record that it is my belief that the 15 state of Illinois has in f act been furnished with this 16 docket material as a routine service.
17 JUDGE WOLF 4 You have not f urnished the Court 18 Reporter with the documents in connection with your 19 offer of two exhibits, and I wish you would do that, 20 please.
21 (The documents are handed to the Court 22 Reporter.)
i 23 MR. GODDARD: This is the consultant's report, O 24 watch 1 St ff Exaidit 3, eaa tne uon1e e te1 reer 25 evaluation report, Staff Exhibit 5 for identification.
!O i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1230
() 1 Copies are not available at this time, but will be made 2 available immediately af ter the close of this hearing as 3 to the document referred to as Staff Exhibit u.
4 JUDGE WOLF: Is there any objection to the 5 exhibit of f ered by Mr. Goddard and described as Staff 6 Exhibit 4?
7 MR. STAHL: No objection.
8 MR. WILLMAN No objection.
9 JUDGE WOLF Without objection, then, that 10 Exhibit 4 is received into the record.
11 (The document referred 12 to, previously marked for 13 identification as Staff 14 Exhibit Number 4, wa s 15 received in evidence.)
16 JUDGE WOLF: Is there any objection to the 17 offer of Mr. Goddard of the document described as Staff 18 Exhibit Number 57 19 MR. STAHL No objection, Your Honor.
20 MR. WILLMAN No objection.
21 JUDGE WOLF: Without objection, then, the 22 exhibit described by Mr. Goddard as Staff Exhibit Number 23 5 is received into the record.
() 24 (The document referred 25 to, previously marked for O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1231
() 1 identification as Staff 2 Exhibit Number 5, was 3 received in evidence.)
O 4 JUDGE WOLF: Off the record.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 JUDGE WOLF Are there any objections to Staff 7 Exhibit Number 37 8 ER. STAHLs No objection from applicants.
9 MR. WILLMANs No objection from the 10 intervenors.
11 JUDGE WOLFS Without objection , then , Staff 12 Exhibit Number 3 is received into the record.
13 Off the record.
O 14 (Discussion off the record.)
15 JUDGE WOLF Back on the record. Go ahead, 16 Dr. Little.
17 BY JUDGE LITTLE: (Besuming) 18 0 The problem with the seismic analyses are 19 raised because of some studies being done under the SEP 20 program. Does the information which is now available 21 and which has been filed as evidence in this case close 22 out the questions from the standpoint of those 23 performing the staff analyses?
() 24 Off the record.
25 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1232
() 1 record.)
2 JUDGE LITTLES Back on the record.
3 BY JUDGE LITTLES (Resuming) 4 0 I presume Mr. Rothberg is the person to whom 5 this should be addressed.
6 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, I consider it does.
7 0 You consider it what?
8 JUDGE WOLF: I didn't understand the last part e
9 of your answer. Yes, what?
10 WITNESS ROTHBERG Yes.
11 JUDGE WOLFS You qualified it in some way.
12 Did you say "I presume it does"?
13 WITNESS ROTHBERGs I said I consider it does.
O 14 I am not quite sure I understand the total question.
15 Could you repeat it, please?
16 JUDGE WOLF Let's get an undert,tanding before i
1 17 you answer.
18 BY JUDGE LITTLES (Resuming) 19 0 When issues arise under the SEP program and 20 are iden tified , there is some ef fort made to close them 21 out. And so this question has now been closed out.
22 This particular issue about the capability of the pool 23 addressed to withstand seismic events a rose under
() 24 investigations conducted by the SEP program. Does the l
25 information which has now been placed on the record in j l
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
1233 i
r
() I this proceeding by you and Mr. Harstest today, is that 2 considered closing out this particular issue from the 3 standpoint of the SEP program?
4 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes.
5 0 At the time of the hearing inst September, one-6 of the problems tha t the applicant ind .cated he f aced is 7 that there are no published Staf f crit eria concerning
\
8 how rack uplift and impact are to be analyzed. Is that _,
9 the situation at this point? I know these analyses <
10 arose in particular response to the questions that arose 11 in this proceeding. Now is it still the case that the 12 Staff does not have published criteria for handling 13 these problems in any case which arises, any similar 14 case which arises? \
15 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) To m'y ~ knowledge, the 16 October, '78, criteria does not adequa tely address the 17 problem of rack uplift and impact on 'the floor . The 18 1978 criteria speaks to impact loads on the pool floor 19 only in very general terms.
20 0 And there has not been anything: published. ,
21 since then to account for those in detail?
22 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Not'that I know of.
23 JUDGE LITTLES I have no other questions.
() 24 BY JUDGE WOLF:
~
25 C I have one or two questions. Hr. Harstead, in
( l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1234 answering a question posed by Dr. Remick regarding the
(]) 1 2 first sentence in the last paragraph of your report, e
3 which reads, "The results indicate that the impact 4 effect of the rocking racks on the slab floor is not as 5 great as originally thought." You stated that as 8 originally thought by you?
7 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes, sir.
8 0 Did you have anything to do with the SEP 9 p ro gram which raised the question in the first place?
10 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) No, sir, I didn't.
11 Q You came into this after that? Is that 12 correct?
13 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) That's correct.
14 0 Now when you say that as originally thought by 15 you, what was the basis of your original thought?
)
16 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Some previous analyses 17 that I had done quite separate from this particular 18 matter.
19 Q Well, were you considering the factors that 20 you finally considered in connection with your 21 conclusion in this matter?
22 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) What we actually did was --
23 0 I don't see the relevance of that sentence to
() 24 this problem here, is my problem.
25 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Okay. Well, to me, I O
AwERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W-. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1235
() 1 guess I was more or less speaking to Owen.
2 Q To whom?
3 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) To Owen. I was writing 4 this report --
5 Q Who is Owen?
6 A -(WITNESS HARSTEAD) Owen Rothberg. I.vas 7 mentioning that to him. As far as I am concerned --
8 0 Nonetheless you state, "While there may be a 9 difference of opinion on methodology, there is agreemen t 10 on the conclusion that the slab is adequate." What does 11 that mean? Who agrees now that the slab is adequate?
12 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Well, ba sed on what the 13 applicant had submitted and the analysis that I did -
14 here, I -- and the applican t is saying that the slab is 15 adequate. I am basically saying I agreed with that 16 conclusion. We used a different technique, a different 17 computer program, but that is where I say about 18 differences occurred on how we did it, the methods 19 employed, but the conclusion is that I agree with that 20 conclusion.
21 Q What were the basic factors that led you to 22 your conclusion different from what the conclusion was 23 in the SEP program?
() 24 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Well, I don 't know th a t 25 they had -- Mr. Rothberg can perhaps answer this better O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1236
() 1 than I, but I don't know that they had any conclusion.
2 0 I want the answer from you.
3 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) My understanding is that 4 the SEP program, they raised the questions because ther 5 did not see an analysis that gave them the data. That 6 was my understanding of it. The question was raised, 7 but there were not conclusions reached.
8 Q What I an asking is, what were the elements 9 that caused them to arrive at that conclusion?
10 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) I think because there was 11 no analyses presented. There was no data given on that 12 particular issue. That is my unders tanding of it, the 13 bot t I can answer it.
14 0 Can you help us out there, Mr. Rothberg?
15 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) As best I understand it, 16 the SEP --
17 0 You . vill have to speak up, please.
18 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir. The SEP based 19 their concerns on the f act that there was no adequate 20 analysis that showed that when all 33 racks tilt up and 21 drop down simultaneously, that the pool floor is 22 adequate. Since tha t time, and based on the October 2nd 23 submittal, the independent analysis by Dr. Harstead and
() 24 my own conclusions, we reached the conclusion that the 25 slab is adequate.
f v
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1237
() 1 0 And why do you conclude that the slab is 2 adequate?
s 3 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, again, the analysis
! 4 submitted or the re-analysis, I should say, submitted by 5 the applicant on October 2nd, 1981, was reviewed by us, 6 and we concluded tha t he had in f act answered the 7 question. In the December submittal, he answered the 8 question about the use of multiple time histories versus 9 the single time history, and I believe that had been --
10 their assumptions on that part had been accepted by the 11 SEP, and tha t was said so.
12 0 Isn't what you are saying that you concluded
}
13 that the actual strength of the slab was sufficient to 14 take the force that would be leveled against it if this 15 seismic event occurred?
I 16 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Absolutely.
17 0 Was the concrete in the slab test, did you 18 compare the actual strength or the design strength of 19 the slab?
l l
20 A (WITNESS ROTHBEPG) We were using the design 21 strength of the slab.
I 22 0 How do you know that the design strength was 23 the actual strength of the slab? Were any tests made,
() 24 any corings, to deternine that?
25 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) The slab was built in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1238 1
() 1 accordance with the ACI building cod e . I believe it was 2 ACI 31863. That would have required that they --
that 3 the people who built that slab using'a particular design 4 strength verified that design strength with actual 5 cylindrical tests.
6 0 Did the actual as built record show that?
7 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) I do not have any as built 8 records. What I have is a response to a question, and 9 some of the records I have indicate th a t the design 10 strength was 4,000 psi.
11 Q A response from whom?
12 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) It was a response from the 13' applicant to a topic, an SEP Topic 3.7.B, if I recall 14 correctly.
! 15 0 And that is all you have? You made no field 16 tests?
17 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) No, sir.
18 Q Before you arrived at this judgment?
19 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) No, sir.
20 (Pause.)
21 I might add that if the design strength was 22 4,000 psi at that time, it is probably considerably --
23 the actual strength of that concrete is probably
) 24 considerably higher than that by now, since concrete 25 gains strength over a period of time.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1239 O ' o oo vou xao the rete or a raeasao aa 2 strengthening?
3 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Well, that 4,000 psi would 4 have been at 28 days after pouring of the concrete. I 5 would expect that -- and this is just recalling a curve 6 tha t I have seen in a text - that the actual strength 7 would probably be 1,000 psi or so higher.
8 JUDGE WOLFS Thank you.
9 HR. STAHLa Judge Wolf, with your permission, to I just have a couple of brief questions of Mr. Rothberg 11 at this time.
12 13 O ,,
15
' 16 17 18 19*
20 21 22 23 24 25 0 .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1240
() 1 CROSS EXAMINATION ON BOARD EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. STAHL:
3 0 Mr. Rothberg, in one of your answers to Judge 4 Wolf's question, I believe you stated that the SEP's 5 original conclusion that there was no adequate analysis 6 of the seismic problem was cured in part by two reports 7 you identified, an October 2nd, 1971, report I believe, 8 and then a January 20th, 1982, submittal to the staff.
9 Is that correct?
10 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) There was also the e 11 December 14th submittal. I also used that.
12 0 Which has already been received in evidence?
13 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG ) Yes, I believe so.
14 Q I would like to show you now documents that I 15 have not yet marked but which I will mark as part of 16 applicant's presentation today, an October 2nd, 1981, 17 document which consists in part of a report by the 18 0.uadrex Corporation, and a January 20th, 1982, letter 19 from Mr. Raush to Mr. Crutchfield , and a sk you if you 20 would just take a look at those and identify those as 21 the two reports that you identified in response to Mr.
22 Wolf's question 23 A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) The October 2nd report is
() 24 the one I spoke of as the October 2nd submittal. I 25 don't recall referring to the January 20th submittal,
~
O ALDERSON REPORilNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1241
() 1 1982 submittal before, although I have read this report.
2 Q But in any event, the October report that I 3 showed you is the same October report you identified in 4 your previous answer?
5 '
A (WITNESS ROTHBERG) Yes, sir.
6 MR. STAHLs Thank you. I have no further 7 questions.
8 JUDGE WOLF: Does the State of Illinois ha ve 9 any questions?
10 ER. WILLHAN: No questions.
11 JUDGE WOLF Did you have any further 12 questions, Mr. Goddard?
13 HR. GODDARD: I have no redirect for these 14 witnesses, sir.
15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY HR. GODDARD:
17 0 Excuse me one second. Mr. Harstead has 18 indicated to me he has a correction he would like to 19 make on the final page of calculations attached to his 20 consultant's report. Would you make that correction at 21 this time?
22 A (WITNESS HARSTEAD) Yes. This wa s, Dr.
23 Remick, you asked me a question about the calculation of
() 24 the allowable moment. That should be 2,000 rather than l 25 20,000. You drev my attention back to that. But it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1242
() 1 doesn't affect the conclusions. In other words, the 2 moment capacity is well in excess of the applied 3 moment.
4 JUDGE REMICK4 Are you referring specifically 5 to Attachment 27 8 WITNESS HARSTEADa Attachment 2. Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE REMICK: At the bottom where it says 5, 8 approximately equal to?
9 WITNESS H ARSTEAD: 20,000, and it should be 10 2,000.
11 JUDGE REMICKs The actual calculated value 12 then remains the same?
13 WITNESS HARSTEADs Yes, that is the same.
O ~
14 Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE WOLFS If there are no further questions 16 of these witnesses, they ma y be excused. Thanks.
17 (Witnesses excused.)
18 (Board conferring.)
19 ,
l 20 I i
21 22 l
23 l
, I
() 24 25 l
f l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1243
() 1 JUDGE WOLFS Mr. Stahl, are you prepared to 2 put on a witness?
3 MR. STAHL: Yes, we are, Judge Wolf. In 4 reponse to the Board 's July 3th order requesting that 5 the applicant furnish support for any input they had in 6 the SSER, we have identified two documents which we 7 believe to.consis't of the principal input that the 8 applicant had. They are the October 2nd, 1981 Quadrex 9 reports, and the January 20th, 1992 letter from Mr.
10 Rausch to Mr. Crutchfield. The December 14th memo has 11 already been received in evidence as part of the Staff's.
12 case.
13 I could mark these. He have witnesses here r~\
'O 14 today who will be able to sponsor the admission of these 15 two documents, as well as answer any questions that the 16 Board or the other parties may have concerning these two 17 documents.
18 In addition, Judge Remick raised several 19 questions in his examination of the Staff witnesses 20 concerning the vertical movements of the floor and what 21 I understand to be the input motion question. I believe 22 that Mr. Hossain can respond to those questions. There 23 is also a question about the use of a Golden Gate Park
() 24 earthquake, and I believe that Mr. Singh can respond to 25 that question.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1244
() 1 So I believe we have three wi tn e s se s , Mr.
2 Rausch, Mr. Hossain and Mr. Singh whom we can call <
l 3 really in any order the Board desires, or if you would O 4 like to have all three of them appear as a panel, we can l
5 do that as well. '
6 JUDGE REMICK4 Mr. Stahl, I think there was 7 one other question, and tha t is kind of the 0.2g, to put 8 that in perspective of what the original historical 9 perspective of I guess the seismic design of Dresden, 10 just to clarify the record.
11 MR. STAHL: I believe that may be what I 12 perhaps mischaracterized as the input motion. I think 13 we are talking about the same thing. I think Mr.
14 Hossain can respond to that. If you would like f or me 15 now to call all three of those individuals.
16 JUDGE WOLF Will you call all three and have 17 them come up as.a panel.
18 MR. STAHL4 Mr. Rausch,,Hr. Hossain and Mr.
19 Singh, please.
20 JUDGE WOLF 4 Can the table be moved back a 21 bit, Mr. Goddard? _
22 JUDGE LITTLE: The microphones work best if 23 they are near your mouth.
() 24 Whereupon, 25 THOMAS J. RAUSCH, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1245
() 1 QUAZI A. HOSSAIN and 2 KRISHNA P. SINGH 3 were called as witnesses by counsel for Applicant and, 4 having been first duly sworn, were examined and 5 testified as follows:
6 MR. STAHL4 Your Honor, Mr. Hossain has 7 already testified in this case, so I will not ask Mr.
8 Hossian any preliminary questions, but I do have some 9 brief preliminary questions of Mr. Rausch and Mr.
10 Singh.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. STAHL:
13 0 Mr. Rausch, first, would you please state your 14 full name for the record?
15 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Thomas J. Rausch.
16 Q By whom are you presently employed?
17 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Commonwealth Edison.
18 0 In what capacity, Mr. Rausch?
19 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) My job title is Nuclear 20 Licensing Administrator specifically f or Dresden and 21 Quad Cities sta tions.
22 O In that capacity, do you have responsibility 23 for the spent fuel proceedings for the Dresden 2 and 3
() 24 units that are the subject of this proceeding?
25 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Responsibility from the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINlA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
)
1246
() 1 licensing standpoint.
2 (The document referred to 3
was marked Applicant's 4 Exhibit No. 7 for 5 identification.)
6 BY MR. STAHL (Resuming) 7 0 Mr. Rausch, I would like to show you a 8 document that I ha ve p reliminarily marked as Applicant's 9 Exhibit Number 7 and ask you to take a look at that, and 10 you ca'n tell the Judges whether that is a document that 11 you prepared on or about January 20th, 1982.
12 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Yes. I was responsible for 13 transmitting the January 20th, 1982 letter. It is a O 14 summary of how we understand we have resolved the SEP 15 concerns.
16 Q Thank you.
17 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Also, a chronology of how we 18 got to that point.
19 MR. STAHL: Chief Judge Wolf, I have no 20 further questions of Mr. Rausch at this time. But 21 before I tender Mr. Rausch for cross examination, I 22 would like to introduce Mr. Singh to the panel.
23 JUDGE WOLF Are you offering that letter?
() 24 MR. STAHLs I will be. I have another 25 document which I have marked Exhibit 6 only because it O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1247
() 1 predates Exhibit 7 in time. I would like to offer them 2 both at the same time.
3 JUDGE WOLF 4 Thank you.
4 BY MR. STAHL (Resuming):
5 0 Mr. Singh, could you please state your full 6 name for the record? .
7 A (WITNESS SINGH) My full name is Krishna P.
8 Singh.
9 0 By whom are you presently employed, Mr. Singh?
10 A (WITNESS SINGH) I am employed by Joseph Oat 11 Corporation, Camden, New Jersey.
12 0 I would like to show you a document which 13 perhaps we can mark as preliminary Licensee or O 14 Applicant's Exhibit No. 8.
15 (The document referred to ,
16 was marked Applicant's 17 Exhibit No. 8 for 18 identification.)
19 BY MR. STAHL (Resuming): -
20 0 I ask you if you can identify that document 21 for the record.
22 A (WITNESS SINGH) This document is my resume.
23 0 Without going through your entire resume,
() 24 could you just give the Board just a brief description .
25 of your educational background'and your deg rees?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1248
() 1 A (WITNESS SINGH) I received a Ph.D. degree from 2 the University of Pennsylvania.
3 0 From where? University of Pennsylvania?
4 A (WITNESS SINGH) Yes. In applied mechanics in 5 1972. I have been working for Joseph Oak Corporation 6 since 1971, starting as a stress analyst in the design 7 and stress analysis of nuclear power plant components.
8 Sinc 1978, I am Yice President of Engineering for 9 Joseph Oat Corporation. Our activity is nearly entirely to in the area of design and ant 1ysis and manufacturing of 11 nuclear power plant components.
12 0 Thank you. Mr. Singh, I have no further 13 questions of you at this time.
14 I would now like to question Mr. Hossain only 15 about the preparation of Exhibit 6. I will then tender 16 all three witnesses for cross examination and introduce 17 all the documents as exhibits.
18 JUDGE REMICK Is Mr. Hossain from Quadrex?
19 Do I recall correctly?
20 MR. STAHL: That is correct, Judge Remick.
21 BY MR. STAHL (Resuming):
22 0 Mr. Hossain, perhaps for the record you would 23 state your full name.
() 24 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) My name is Quazi A.
25 Hossain. I am with the Quadrex Corpora tion. I have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1249 i
() 1 been working for the Quadrex Corporation for the last 2 eight and a half years. I am Manager of the Seismic 3 Analysis Group in the corporation.
4 1 0 Mr. Hossain, you have previously testified in 5 this proceeding, have you not?
6 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes, I did.
7 0 Mr. Hossain, I would like to show you a 8 document I have tentatively marked as Applicant's 9 Exhibit No. 6 and ask you if you can identify that 10 document for the record.
11 (The document referred to 12 was marked Applicant's 13 Exhibit No. 6 for O 14 identification.)
15 WITNESS HOSSAINs Yes. This document is a 16 report prepared by Quadrex Corporation under my 17 technical supervision. This is on the re-evaluation of 18 the effect of rocking of racks on the spent fuel pool 19 floor.~
20 BY MR. STAHL (Resuming):
21 0 Is that report true and correct to the best of 22 your knowledge?
23 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) yes, it is.
24 MR. STAHLs Thank you. Chief Judge Wolf, at 25 this time I would request that the exhibits that have !
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, )
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1250
() 1 hgen marked as Applicant's Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 be 2 received into the record as evidence.
3 JUDGE' WOLF 4 Very well. May I have them 4 please?
5 MR. STAHLa Yes, certainly. I believe we have 8 extra copies.
7 (The documents are handed to the Board.)
8 JUDGE WOLF: Mr. Willman, do you have any -
9 objection to any of these exhibits, Applicant's 6, 7 and 10 8 marked for identification?
11 MR. WILLMANs I have no objection.
12 JUDGE WOLF Mr. Goddard, do you have any 13 objection to these exhibits which have ~been marked for C
14 identification? -
15 ER. GODDARD: I have no objection f rom the 16 Staff, sir.
17 JUDGE WOLF Without objection, then, 18 Defendant's -- or Applicant's Exhibits 6 marked for 19 identification, Exhibit 7 marked for identification and 20 Exhibit 8 marked for identification will be received for 21 the record as Applicant's Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 22 respectively.
23 (The documents previously
() 24 marked Applicant's 25 Exhibit No. 6, 7 and 8, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1251
() I respectively for 2 identification were 3 received in evidence.)
4 MR. STAlLa I do have one final. question of 5 Mr. Hossain and then I will tender all witnesses for 6 cross examination.
7 BY..MR. STAHL (Resuming):
8 0 Mr. Hossain, I would like you to turn to page 9 5-1 of Exhibit 6, please.
10 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) 5-77 11 0 5-1. I will show you it. At the top of the 12 page is the heading, " Conclusion." Do you see that?
13 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes.
14 0 The conclusion there states, " Evaluation of 15 the effects of rocking of the racks showed that the 16 racks, the pool floor and the pool walls are 17 structurally adequate to withstand the additional loads 18 that might result from racks impacting on the pool 19 floor."
20 Mr. Hossain, was that your conclusion at the 21 time this report was prepared?
22 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes.
23 0 Is that still your conclusion today?
() 24 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes, it is.
25 MR. STAHL. Thank you, Mr. Hossain. I have no O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 ,
l 1252 j
, j
(} 1 further questions of these witnesses at this time and 2 tender them for cross examination either individually or 3 as a panel.
@ 4 JUDGE WOLFa Mr. Willman, do you have any 5 questions of any of these witnesses?
6 MR. WILLMANs Judge, I have a few questions of 7 Mr. Hossain, if I may.
8 JUDGE WOLFa Very well.
9 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. WILLMANs 11 Q Mr. Hossain, referring you to Applicant's 12 Exhibit 6 on page 4.3 at Table -- excuse me, Table 4.3 13 which is on page 4-5. In that table, you calculate that 14 the total uniform load of the 33 racks is 11.07 kips per 15 square foot. Isn't that correct?
16 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes.
17 O N o twith sta ndin g the assumed conservatisms in 18 your analysis, what uncertainty is there in that 19 calculation?
20 (Pause.)
21 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Given the earthquake motion 22 at ground level, assuming that the given motion is 23 correct, all the uncertainties have been taken care of by conservative assumptions, and also conservatism in
(]) 24 25 the methodology. To my knowledge, no other uncertainty O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,IV.;.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2Ca ' (202) 554-2345
1253
() 1 is left out.
2 0 Is there some range of uncertainty in that
, 3 calculation that you have done?
4 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) In all calculations where 5 you have to idealize a physical system with a 6 mathematical model, there are uncertainties involved.
7 But the quan tification of those uncertainties are not 8 always possible.
9 For that reason, in the seismic analysis 10 procedure starting from the ground motion all the way to 11 the equipment motion -- in this case, the rack motion --
12 there are steps and matters which have been followed to 13 conservatively bound the effects of those O 14 uncertainties. And if you want, I can list those.
15 Those are listed in this Exhibit 6, but if you do want, 16 I can go over that analog.
17 0 If you could just identify where those can be 18 found in Exhibit 6.
19 (Pause.)
20 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) The conservatisms have been 21 identified in Section 5 on page 5-1. Also, these were 22 identified in Section 2.0 on page 2-1.
23 0 There are no other conservatisms other than
() 24 the ones in those two sections that you assumed in your 25 analysis?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1254 (WITNESS HOSSAIN) There are a few other Q 1 A 2 conservatisms which we did not account for because it is 3 very complicated, time consuming, and expensive to take 4 account of those conservatisms. For example, the fluid 5 drag force during the movement of the rack under water 6 has been ignored.
7 (Pause.)
8 Offhand, I cannot recall any other 9 conservatisms we have ignored.
10 0 There are no other examples of assumed 11 conservatisms?
12 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Not that I can remember, 13 offhand.
14 MR. WILLMAN: I have no other questions.
15 JUDGE WOLFa Thank you, Mr. Willman. Mr.
16 Goddard?
17 MR. GODDARDa The staff has no questions for s
18 these three witnesses.
19 JUDGE WOLFS Dr. Remick?
20 Off the record for just a moment.
21 (Discussion off the record. )
22 23 0 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1255 O ' 3uoct votr. 8 c* oa the recora-2 If it is agreeable with the parties, the Board 3 would like to adjourn now until 1a00 o' clock and 1
i 4 continue at that time. That gives us a rather long 5 lunch period , but we f eel it is necessary in order to 6 review something during that time..
7 MR. STAHLa Fine.
8 JUDGE WOLF Very well, then. We will be 9 adjourned un til 1s00 o' clock.
10 (Whereupon, at 11:25 p.m., the hearing was i
~
11 recessed, to reconvene at 1s00 p.m. the same day.)
I 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 -
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1256
() 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 ( 14 00 p.m . )
3 JUDGE WOLF Back on the record.
4 Off the record.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
h ,
6 JUDGE WOLFa Back on the record.
7 Dr. Little has questions.
8 JUDGE LITTLES It's more in the nature of a 9 comment. I will note that we were familiar with the 10 majority of the material in the report dated December 11 14th of 1981 that was submitted to the Staff. We just 12 did not recognize the document from the citation that 13 was given in the Staff's prefiled testimony.
O 14 JUDGE REMICK Er. Stahl, I have a couple of 15 questions on Licensee Exhibit 6. Is Mr. Hossain the 16 proper witness to address those to?
17 MR. STAHLs Yes.
18 Whereupon, 19 KRISHNA P. SINGH 20 THOMAS J. RAUSCH 21 QUAZI A. HOSSAIN, 22 the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, I
23 resumed the stand and, having previously been duly sworn
() 24 by the Chairman, were examined and testified further as 25 follows:
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1257
() 1 BOARD EX AMIN ATION 2 BY JUDGE REMICK.
3 0 Er. Hossain, on page 1-1, I think your second 4 paragraph gets into some of the issues I was raising 5 earlier with the Staff, and I thought this might be a 6 convenient way to get to the subject I had about th e --
7 if you could put the safe shutdown earthquake in some 8 kind of a perspective, the 0.2g ground acceleration in 9 perspective to the design of Dresden.
10 The questions I had, when Dresden was originally 11 designed, was there a safe shutdown earthquake defined, 12 or did this predate the Part 100 where we talk about 13 such things? Would you put that in perspective O 14 historically and how it applies, then, in this case or 15 in this matter?
16 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) It is my understanding tha t 17 the original Dresden plant was designed for a design 18 basis ea rthquake of .2g, which was later on 19 interpretated as equivalent to a safe shutdown 20 earthquake of .2g. The OBE earthquake level was defined 21 ss half of that, in other words .19, at the ground 22 level.
23 0 When you say it .was designed to a design basis
() 24 earthquake, didn't the what I cuess what was the 25 previous Part 100 talk about a design basis earthquake O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1258
() '1 and a double design basis earthquake. Wasn't there such 2 a thing as a DDBE? Am I incorrect on that?
3 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) I am not sure about this 4 nomenclature before in Part 100, but for Dresden, the I
5 double design earthquake level, that was .29 Or if 6 they termed it as a design basis earthquake, it was 7 .2g. There are two levels of earthquake for which the 8 plant was designed. One wa s .2g, the other was .1g.
9 Q I see. Now, current Part 100 talks about the 10 magnitude of the SSE must basically be determined. Is 11 there not such a magnitude determined for Dresden? It 12 references only to ground acceleration?
13 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes. The seismicity study O 14 determines the level of earthquake, acceleration level 15 of the earthquake at the ground level. And I am not 16 f amilia r with the seismicity study that has been done or 17 was done for the Dresden plant during its initial design 18 phase.
19 But I am familiar with the later study that 20 was done under the SEP plan in which the site-specific 21 SSE-level earthquake was defined as .13g, which is 22 substantially less than .2q for which all these analyses
( 23 were based on.
() 24 0 If I understand what you are saying, then, 25 Dresden was originally designed for a ground
() '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1259 acceleration of 0.2g, which is equivalent to apparently
(]) 1 2 today's safe shutdown earthquake. Subsequently a site 3 specific design vss made based on .13. But in this 4 particular matter, the review of the pools and the 5 design of the spent fuel racks was analyzed from the 6 0.2g. Is that a correct characterization of what you've 7 said?
8 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes, that is correct, but I 9 want to add a comment here. The original .2g earthquake 10 was tied with what we called Hausner type response 11 spectra , which is a comparatively narrow-banded response 12 spectra. But these current analyses were based on NRC 13 Reg Guide 1.60 response spectra, which is not i 14 vide-banded. And that was decided with discussion.with 15 the NRC, and that is why we used it, and this is 16 definitely a source of conservatism.
17 0 All right, and what is the relationship -- why 18 is the El Centro earthquake in the case of Dresden 19 referred to, and in the case of Quad Cities I think the 20 Golden Gata Park earthquake?
21 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) During the early days 22 before Reg Guide 1.60 was published, in order to 23 characterize the earthquake motion it was very typical
() 24 to use some established ground motion from a 25 well-recorded earthquake, and there are only a few. So O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- .y
,. 1260 1 it was a very common practice to use the El Centro or
(]}
2 Golden Gate or Taft -- these are three earthquakes which 3 are very good in our records -- to use those records and O 4 then scale it to suit the site which you are looking 5 atn 6 Now, definitely the Dresden or Quad Cities 7 sites are not in the same tectonic province as the 8 Golden Gate or in the Taft, but the characteristics of 9 seismic motion, which is kind of random, in order to 10 capture that it was a common practice to use those 11 records, but to scale down or up the acceleration level 12 for the site you are looking at.
13 0 So were they just used for the time history, 14 basically?
15 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Tha t's ri9 h t, ye s. In 16 fact, in the Golden Gate and in the El Centro 17 earthquake, both ha.ve ground level acceleration level 18 higher than .24g or .2g, but those were scaled down to 19 sui t the sites we are looking at.
20 0 In the exhibit that you are sponsoring, on 21 that page I referred to 1-1, the middle paragraph, you 22 hada This had a zero period SSE acceleration of 0.13g 23 at the ground level. Now, when you say zero period, am
() 24 I correct if I read that as 33 hertz? Is that what you 25 mean by "zero period"? ,
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
% g
,i,1261 i
- 4. t g e-0 1 A (WITNESS HOSS AIN ) - 33 hertz a nd ' a b'ove .
4 <
2 0 I am sorry? 33 hertz and?
i \= ,
3 A And above.
O 4 Q I see.
And on page 5-2'of the document,'
1 s
5 Licensee Exhibit 6, just for clarification of *the 6 record, you, referred to SRSS. Am I correct that that is s 7 the square root of the sum of the squares method tha t 8 you're referring to when you say "SRSS"? ' i
^
9 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Right.
s 10 JUDGE REMICKs Thank,you. Tha't's all the 11 questions I have. ,
12 JUDGE WOLF Have the Board questions raised 13 any need for further questioning of these witnesses?
O 14 MR. STAHL: May I have one moment?
15 JUDGE WOLFa Yes.
16 (Pause.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.y .
1262
() 1 MR. STAHL4 Chief Judge Wolf, I have just one 2 or two questions I would like to ask of Mr. Hossain at 3 this time.
O .
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. STAHL:
6 0 Mr. Hossain, the attorney for the State of 7 Illinois asked you a question about certain factors that 8 you may not have taken account of in performing the 9 calculations or reachin the conclusions that are I
10 identified in Exhibit No. 6. I believe you identified 11 one factor, namely that of fluid drag force.
12 Do you remember that question?
13 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes, I do.
O 14 0 I would like to ask you, Mr. Hossain, whether 15 in your opinion had you considered fluid drag force 16 would the calculated impact on the fuel pool floor have 17 been increased or decreased as a result of including 18 tha' factor in your calculation?
19 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) It would have decreased the 20 impact force on the full floor.
21 Q Can you provide just a general explanation f or 22 that conclusion?
23 A (WITNESS HOSSAIN) Yes. The fluid drag can be
() 24 considered somewhat equivalent to damping which always 25 reduces the seismic or dynamic response of the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 I
1263
() 1 structures. So if you could have considered the fluid 2 drag force, then it would have reduced the seismic 3 response and reduced the load.
4 MR. STAHL: Thank you. I have no further 5 questions of Mr. Hossain.
6 JUDGE WOLFS Mr. Willman? ,
7 MR. WILLMANs I have no questions.
8 JUDGE WOLFS Mr. Goddard.
9 MR. GODDARD: The Staff has no questions of 10 this panel.
11 (Board conferring.)
12 JUDGE WOLF If there are no further questions 13 then the panel is excused. Thank you.
14 (The witnesses were excused.)
15 JUDGE WOLF 4 Are there any f urther witnesses 16 to be heard?
17 MR. STAHL: Judge We f, we do have some other 18 witnesses a vailable. I believe the Board had indicated 19 tha t it perhaps would like to hear an update on the 20 Board question 1. We do have Mr. Ragan who has i
i 21 previously testified in this proceeding who can provide l
22 an update on Board question 1. I believe the Board also 23 indicated an interest in hearing some testimony on the 9
() 24 x9 fuel, and there is a witness, Mr. Rausch, who was 25 part of the previous panel who could answer any other
()
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1264 questions the Board might have.
(]) 1 2 JUDGE WOLF: Let us take up the question of 3 the Board question 1 first.
4 Mr. Ragan.
5 JUDGE REMICK Mr. Stahl, while we're waiting 8 for Mr. Ragan to come here, I would just like to alert 7 the Staff that I would like the Staff to address the 8 question 2a the le tter f rom the licensee on the use of 9 D1 fuel. There are statements that an amendment has 10 been issued and therefore a future amendment would not 11 be required. It would just need a 50.59 report. I 12 would just appreciate at some point later on to have the 13 Staff indicate whether they agree with that or not. I 14 just wanted to alert you to that so you could be 15 thinking about it.
16 JUDGE WOLF: Mr. Ragan, will you raise your 17 right hand?
18 Whereupon,
~
19 RONALD M. RAGAN 20 was called as a witness on behalf of the Applicant and, 21 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 22 as follows:
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION
() 24 BY MR. STAHL:
25 0 Mr. Ragan, would you, state your full name for O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l l 1265 the record?
(]) 1 2 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Ronald M. Ragan.
3 0 You are the same Ronald M. Ragan who has 4 previously testified in this proceeding, are you not?
5 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That's correct.
6 0 Just for the Board's benefit one more time, 7 what is your present employment? -
8 A (WITNESS R AG AN ) I work for Commonwealth 9 Edison at Dresden Nuclear Power Station. My title is 10 Assistant Superintendent for Plant Operations.
11 Q Mr. Ragan, you've been called to the stand for 12 the specific purpose of responding to Board question 13 number 1. I take it you are f amiliar with Board
< 14 question number 1?
15 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Yes, I am.
16 0 I will now read to you the several parts of 17 Board question number 1 and ask you to respond to each 18 question. What is the current status of the spent fuel 19 unfilled storage capacity at Dresden Station Units 2 and 20 37 21 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Currently, both Dresden Unit 22 2 and 3 no longer have full core discharge capability.
23 Combined, the fuel storage locations in both units total
() 24 to be 1,179 empty spaces, but on Unit 2 there is only 25 508 empty spaces. There would be a need for 216 O
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 1266 additional spaces on that Unit 2 to have a full core
(]) 1 2 discharge capability. Likewise, on Unit 3 there are 3 only 671 empty spaces on that unit, and another 59 4 spaces would be required for a full core discharge 5 capability.
8 0 Subpart B of Board question number 1 asks when 7 will full core distribution no longer be possible, and I 8 believe you have already indicated that is presently the 9 case, is it no t?
10 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That's correct.
11 0 Subpart C asks when will normal refueling 12 discharge no longer be possible.
13 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Assuming each unit on an 14 isolated case, normal refueling on each unit, there 15 would be two more refuelings available on each unit 16 before refueling discharge capability is no longer 17 possible.
18 0 Subpart D of Board question 1 asks what 19 alternatives, if any, exist to shutting down the units 20 when the spent fuel pools are filled to capacity.
l 21 There's previously been testimony in this proceeding l
22 about various alternatives. Those alternatives there 23 was testimony about included transshipments to other
() 24 nuclear stations, reprocessing, away from reactor 25 storage, physical expansion of pools and alternative i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 ,
1267
() 1 rack design.
2 Are you aware, Mr. Ragan, whether there has 3 been any change in any of those alternatives since the 4 prior testimony in this proceeding on those alternatives?
5 A (WITNESS RAGAN) There has been no change.
6 'The only -- besides shutting the unit down, the only 7 method we have for storing fuel beyond the second 8 refueling outage on both units is for this new rack 9 design.
10 MR. STAHLs Chief Judge Wolf, we have 11 completed our presen tation on direct on Board question 12 number 1 and tender Mr. Ragan f or cross examination.
13 JUDGE WOLF Mr. Willman, do you have any O 14 questions?
15 MR. WILLMAN: Judge Wolf, the State doesn't 16 have any questions. I believe there has been some 17 previous testimony given by the State on some parts of 18 Board question number 1. I will let that stand.
19 JUDGE WOLF: Mr. Goddard.
20 CROSS EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GODDARDs 22 Q Mr. Ragan, you indicate that full core 23 discharge is no longer possible at each of the units
() 24 taken separately. However a full core discharge of 25 either unit would be possible if the use of a cask were O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1268
() 1 employed to transfer fuel from one unit to the other, is 2 that correct?
3 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That's correct.
4 0 That is within the scope of the current 5 operating license? Is that also correct?
6 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Yes, that's correct.
7 0 Are you aware of any -- this may call for a 8 question that is somewhat legal as opposed to technical 9 with regard to its response -- but are you aware of any 10 change in the status of the Dresden to Quad Cities fuel 11 transshipment case since the last tiac testimony was 12 given in this proceeding regarding that issue?
13 A (WITNESS RAGAN) I don't believe that there O 14 has been a change on that paper. I am not in a position 15 to adequately answer that. I don't believe there has 16 been a change.
17 MR. GODDARD: Thank you. I can accept that 18 answer as I've qualified it.
19 I have no further questions of this witness.
20 JUDGE WOLF: Thank you.
21 BOARD EXAMINATION 22 BY JUDGE REMICK:
23 0 Mr. Ragan, your figure I believe of 1,079 24 em p ty spaces, am I correct in assuming that that is 25 after the installation of the five racks?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1269 1
() 1 A (WITNESS RAGAN) On Dresden 3, that's correct.
2 Q On Dresden 3. That includes that?
, 3 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Yes.
4 Q Also, do you know when the next anticipated 5 ref ueling outages are for either units or both units?
i 6 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Yes. Dresden 2 has a January 7 '83 outage. Dresden 3 has a September '83 outage. And 8 they are followed by refueling outages every 18 months 9 after those dates. ,
10 0 And has the licensee thought about when it 11 would need permission to inJtall the remaining racks in 12 order that those modifications could be made to meet the 13 January 1983 outage on D27 O 14 A (WITNESS RAGAN) Yes. We have a date, 15 presently a date of July 26 th is what we call a drop 16 dead date for installing the 33 fuel racks on Dresden 17 2. That is based on a five-day work week for station 18 employees. It allows us adequate time for .EJ fuel 19 receipt and inspection before the refueling outage in 20 January. We are presently in the process of shipping 21 out seven casks of poison curtains from the pool, and 22 then we need the time for pool p re pa ra tion s , removing 23 the old racks and installing the new 33 racks and the
() 24 f uel shuf fles associated with them. All that time is 25 predicated on the overhead crane.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1270
() 1 Q Would you define what you mean by the " drop 2 dead date?"
3 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That is the date based on the 4 five-day work week. With all this work we have to do we 5 figured that it would take 66 days to install the 6 racks. We have taken the amount of time for refueling 7 outage preparation, poison curtain shipments, and then 8 the fuel rack installation of 66 days required there, 9 and then figured it back, and it turns out to be July 10 26th based on a five-day work week.
11 Q Is that this year?
12 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That's correct. This year.
13 0 But I'm assuming by " drop dead" you mean -- is O 14 my inference correct that if you didn't get started by 15 then that you couldn 't accomplish it by the time you 16 needed it? Is that what you mean by " drop dead?"
17 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That 's correct. We would not 18 be able to complete the installation work before the 19 January refueling outage.
20 0 Now need you complete the installation of all -
21 33 before you can refuel?
22 A (WITNESS RAGAN) There is a possibility that 23 we could install, as we did on Unit 3, five fuel racks.
24 Then the problem with tha t is that the more discharged 25 fuel we install in the fuel pools, the harder during ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
- 1271
() 1 next year it will be to do the rack changeout procedure, 2 using an underwater diver, to give him the safety 3 clearances necessary to make the fuel moves so we would 4 not take fuel racks across fuel that is already in the 5 pool. ,
6 0 Let me just hypothesize something. Suppose 7 you were given the signal to go ahead and there was 8 insufficient time and in the interval though you could 9 install 20 racks, I do not know, and when it came that 10 you had to get prepared for refueling, is that a 11 possibility? Or need you install all 33 at one time 12 before refueling? I'm not quite sure what your bounds 13 are here.
O - 14 A (WITNESS RAGAN) It is not necessary to do 15 tha t using . tha t July 26th date. We have at possibility 16 of installing a minimum of five racks in order to 17 complete the refueling outage on schedule. I don't 18 see -- there are no other problems until January, and l
i 19 after the next refueling outage for ccmpleting the fuel 20 rack installation in that manner.
21 JUDGE WOLF 4 Are there any other questions for 22 this witness?
23 MR. STAHL Only on redirect briefly, Judge
( 24 Wolf.
25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1272
() 1 BY MR. STAHLs 2 0 M r. Raga n, have you considered what the 3 con se que nce s would be either in terms of additional 4 costs or additional exposure to workers of essentially 5 performing the rack replacement in two segments, some 6 before the refueling outage and some after the refueling 7 outage?
8 A (WITNESS RAGAN) The differences are the same 9 as it would be for Unit 3, as has already been testified to to on the initial testimony last fall, I believe. There 11 would be added exposure from the additional fuel moves.
12 I believe the number was like up to half a rem. There 13 would be additional costs in the next cycle for moving O 14 the additional racks and storing of them.
15 0 If an order from this Commission were obtained 16 af ter July 26th, could the 33 additional racks be 17 installed -- could all of the 33 racks be installed in 18 the 2 and 3 fuel pools prior to the refueling outage in 19 January of 1983?
20 A (WITNESS RAGAN) They could with additional 21 manpower using two shifts and weekends. That was not in 22 this July 26th estimate. But I believe if we go beyond 23 September 1st then we could not install all 33 racks in t - 24 that method either.
25 0 So if an order were entered between July 26th l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1273 and September 1st, all of the 33 racks could be
(]) 1 2 installed before the refueling outage but at additional 3 expense? Is that what you're saying?
4 A (WITNESS RAGAN) It would be monetary expenses 5 only.
6 0 If an order were obtained af ter September 1st, 7 it is your opinion that not all of the 33 racks could be 8 installed prior to the January 1983 outage, is that 9 correct?
10 A (WITNESS BAGAN) That's correct. Not with the 11 time constraints with the use of the overhead crane, 12 they could not be installed.
13 0 Under those circumstances, the remaining racks 14 would have to be installed after the outage of January 15 of 1983 and tha t would result in additional exposure you 16 previously testified to, is that correct?
17 A (WITNESS RAGAN) That's correct.
18 MR. STAHL: We have no further questions of 19 Mr. Ragan.
20 JUDGE WOLF: Mr. Willman, do you have any 21 questions?
22 MR. WILLMAN: No questions.
23 JUDGE WOLF Mr. Goddard?
() 24 MR. GODDARD: No, sir.
25 BOARD EXAMINATION O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1274
() 1 BY JUDGE REMICK:
2 0 M r. Ragan, in response to Mr. Stahl I think 3 you said it would result in additional exposure,up to 4 one rem. Should I interpret that to be one man-rem?
5 A (WITNESS RAGAN) One man-rem. That's correct. e 6 JUDGE WOLFS If there are no further 7 questions, the witness is excused.
8 (The witness was excused.)
9 JUDGE WOLF 4 Thank you, Mr. Ragan.
10 MR. STAHL: Chief Judge Wolf, at this time 11 with the Board 's permission we would like to recall 12 Thomas Rausch back to the stand to respond to any 13 questions the Board may have on 9 x 9 fuel Which is the O 14 subject of our most recent letter to the Board.
15 JUDGE WOLF 4 Mr. Bausch, you're still under 16 oath.
17 WITNESS RAUSCH: I understand.
18 MR. STAHL: Chief Judge Wolf, we really have 19 no direct examination of Mr. Rausch. I understand he is 20 being called at your request to testify about the 9 x 9 21 fuel which is the subject of Mr. Fitzgibbons' July 14, 22 1982 letter addressed to the Board.
23 At this point I would merely tender Mr. Rausch
() 24 to the Board for examination either by the Board or by 25 the other parties.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1275 Whereupon,
(]) 1 2 THOMAS J. RAUSCH 3 resumed the stand on behalf of the Applicant and, having 4 been previously duly sworn, was further examined and 5 testified as follows:
6 BOARD EXAMINATION 7 BY JUDGE REMICKs 8 Q M r. Rausch , in the second paragraph of that 9 letter, which is a July 14th, 1982 letter signed by to Robert G. Fitzgibbons, addressed to the Board, it says, 11 " Commonwealth Edison will ensure that documentation 12 exists, including the performance of any necessary 13 analyses, to verify that the following insertion of the 14 four LTAs in the new high density storage racks 15 K-effective will be less than 0.95. Commonwealth Edison 16 will also verify that the radiological effects of a 17 refueling accident involving a9 x9 LTA will not exceed 18 10 CFR Part.100 limits. Finally, the four LTAs will
- 19 utilize fuel channels of the design described in the i
20 testimon y of ' Dr. Boyle, and therefore will not alter any 21 of the testimony presented to the Board on the issue of 22 f uel cha nnel def ormation."
23 No mention, however, in this letter is made of
() 24 whether the licensee would proceed with either the use 25 of the 9 x 9 LTAs or the storage of the 9 x 9 LTAs in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1276 O 1 the fuel without amendment, whether the licensee would 2 interpret that amendment to this license would be 3 required or not.
4 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) I can clarify that. A 5 license amendment will be required not because of spent 6 fuel pool considerations but because of the need to 7 ascertain reactor operating limits for.those four 8 bundles. We have discussed this with the Staff in 9 m ee ting s . We are prepared to make such a submittal, and 10 the Staff has assured us that they will review it in a 11 timely manner.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1277
() 1 Q As I understand the license amendment would be 2 required for use of the 9 x 9 fuel --
3 (WITNESS RAUSCH) That's right.
g-) A V
4 Q -- but not for the storage?
5 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) That's right. It is normal 6 practice, however, for a new fuel design, for the Staff 7 to review, the storage considerations, and we expect A
8 they would, and we will provide them that information, 9 the results of that analysis to verify the criticality 10 considerations are adequate.
11 Q Would you do this as say part of a 50.59 type 12 of report or in some other context?
13 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) You have to be careful with O 14 that word, b eca us e the 50.59 is the provisions we use to 15 submit any licensee amendment request. Do you mean 16 using the 50.59 --
17 0 The annual report on un resolved safety issue?
18 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) At this point, it is our 19 intent to provide that in f o rma tion to the Staff so they i
20 can review it. I expect they would. I have discussed 21 it with the project manager, and anticipate that they 22 will review it. However, I believe that the provisions 23 of 50.59 would allow us to make tha t determination on G our own, at which time the Staff may ask for the
(_/ 24 25 information that we used. They have already essentially i
i O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH 4NGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 f
l
1278
() 1 asked for it, so we will provide it.
2 0 But the point, I guess, that is not clear in 3 my mind, when you say you will provide it, I think in 4 50.59 you have to provide an annual report. Am I 5 correct? Or more frequently? When I am talking about 6 the matters that you review, and involve no unresolved 7 safety matters. Am I correct, that report --
8 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Are you referring to the new 9 provisions of the FSAR regulations?
10 Q Yes.
11 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) I believe that is correct.
12 The annual report under the new --
I think it is Part 13 50.71. The NRC, when we perform analyses under 50.5 9, 14 they are free at any time to look at that, at those 15 results.
16 0 That is if they come by your facility, you 17 have to provide the documentation. Am I correct?
18 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) Tha t 's correct.
19 Q But how abou t -- isn't there some kind of a 20 requirement of when you have to submit a report to the 21 Staff?
22 A (WITNESS RAUSCH) No, there is no requirement 23 that I am aware of, certainly not right now. However,
() 24 we will be required under the new regulations of the 25 FSAR update that I was referring to to -- I would have O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1279-l
' to read the words again to be explicit, but I believe it
({) 1 2 is to identify 50.59 type analyses on an annual basis 3 that have been perfo rmed.
4 0 I don't mean to be trying to put words in your 5 aouth, but I am not quite clear. Are you saying tha t 6 the-licensee is making the commitment that it will 7 provide -your analysis to the Staff and then send it to 8 them in this case?
9 A (WITNESS R AUSCH) That is right. I can now to say -- I will say now that we will provide that result, 11 the K-effective analysis to the Staff for their review.
12 We will do tha t.
13 JUDGE WOLF Are there any other questions?
14 MR. STAHL We have no further questions of 15 Mr. Rausch.
16 JUDGE WOLF Mr. Willman?
17 MR. WILLMAN: No, sir.
18 JUDGE WOLF Mr. Goddard?
i 19 MR. GODDARD: No, sir.
20 JUDGE WOLF Iou are excused, then, M r.
21 Rausch. Thank you.
22 (Witness excused. )
23 JUDGE REMICK: Mr. Goddard, I wonder if we l
() 24 could have a response from the Staff on the D1 fuel, 25 your views on the question of whether a license l (
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!RGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1280
() 1 amendment has been issued, and therefore only what I 2 referred to as the 50.59 report would be required for
, 3 the storage of D1 fuel, and then your response to what 4 we have just heard from Mr. Rausch on the question of 5 whether an amendment is needed for the use and storage 6 of the 9 x 9 fuel.
7 MR. GODDARD: It is my understanding that 8 Dresden Unit 1 fuel is presently stored in the racks 9 existing at Dresden's Units 2 and 3 prior to -- or is 10 ~ authorized for the racks prior to this modification. We 11 have not analyzed the proposed racks in terms of 12 criticality analysis for the storage of Dresden Unit 1 13 fuel. However , that f uel is smaller. I believe that is
('
' 14 mostly 6 x6 fuel. It is probably less reactive, and it 15 has undergone a longer period of decay, meaning there is 16 more poison in that fuel. It would also be a greater 17 center to center spacing.
18 Accordingly, we do not feel there would be a 19 criticality problem with that fuel. The current racks 20 have not been analyzed for the storage of Dresden Unit 1 21 fuel.
22 JUDGE REEICK What would be the requirements 23 here, if any, from the licensee's standpoint and then
() 24 the S ta f f 's role? There is an amendment to store D1 25 fuel at D2 and 3 pools. Am I correct?
O i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, C C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1281 MR. GODDARD: That is presently in effect as
(]) 1 2 to the current racks.
3 JUDGE REEICK: I believe in the licensee's 4 letter to us they says However, a further safety review 5 by Commonwealth Edison would be required pursuant to 10 6 CFR 50.59 before any Dresden unit 1 fuel from West 7 Valley could be stored in the new racks, which are the 8 subject of this proceeding. Such a review would address 9 c ri tica lity , seismic, and other concerns, to ensure that 10 there are no unreviewed safety questions not considered 11 by the NRC in 1978 and by the Licensing Board in this 12 proceeding. Commonwealth Edison's 10 CFR 50.59 review 13 will be made available for review by the NRC Staff, 14 although ve, of course, cannot promise that the Staff 15 would actually review it.
16 The point I am trying to get to iss Do you 17 agree with that statement in general, that that would be 18 the procedure followed, that they would have the 19 r es po nsibili ty f or criticality review and so forth? If 20 it is not an unresolved safety issue, they could 21 presumably proceed on their own? If they found a 50.59, 22 I guess they would have to require formal license 23 amendment. Do you agree with that process that I
() 24 believe they are explaining?
25 MR. GODDARD: Yes. If it is not considered an O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1282 unresolved safety question and does not violate a
(]) 1 2 technical specification of the license, they would be
. 3 free to proceed on their own. Now, the technical
\
4 specifications, of course, require K-effective of less 5 than 0.95 in the fuel pool. If their analysis indicates 6 that that technical specification would not be violated, 7 they could proceed on their own under the provisions of 8 10 CFR 50.59.
9 JUDGE REMICK: All right. let's address the 10 question of the 9 x 9. I think what Mr. Rausch said is 11 that they would anticipate that a license amendment 12 would be required to use that fuel in the reactor. Do 13 rou agree with that statement?
14 MR. GODDARD: Yes, sir, I do.
15 JUDGE REMICK : How about storage in the D 2 or 16 3 pools? What would be required there procedurally 17 before storage?
18 HR. GODDARD: I cannot believe that the NRC 19 technical Staff would authorize the use of fuel in the 20 reactor without verifying that it could be stored in the 21 available storage, fuel storage facility at that 22 reactor. The letter we are dealing with from, I 23 believe, Mr. Steptoe, indicates that the use of such A)
(_ 24 fuel is a possibility at this point.
25 JUDGE REMICK: Yes.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1283 MR. GODDARD: There is no certainty there.
(]) 1 2 The use of the 9 x 9 a ssemblies does require licensing 3 action by the NRC. The fuel must be shown to be Os 4 compatible wi th the racks as opposed to the racks that 5 are proposed for this facility being compatible with the 6 f uel. tha t ma y potentially be used at that point.
7 Therefore, I think consideration of the storage of the 9 8 x 9 fuel might be considered premature at this point.
9 -
JUDGE REMICKa And not a part of this to proceeding, but would be part of --
11 MR. GODDARD Of a subsequent licensing action.
12 JUDGE REMICK: -- a subsequent licensing 13 action.
14 MR. GODDARD: Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE REMICK Thank you.
16 (Board conferring. )
17 JUDGE WOLF Are there any other matters that 18 we should bring up at this time ?
19 MR. STAHLa I believe not, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE WOLF We, the Board, is of the view 21 that it will not be necessary to submit findings of fact 22 and conclusions of law in this situation as to the 23 matters we took up today, and unless the parties wish to
() 24 do it, we will dispense with them. What is your view, 25 M r. Stahl?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1284
() 1 MR. STAHL: Judge Wolf, applicant concurs in 2 that. We believe the record now can and should be 3 closed in this proceeding. I believe we have previously 4 submitted all the necessary findings of fact and 5 conclusions of law, and our view is that no further 6 findings of fact or conclusions are necessary.
7 JUDGE WOLF: Mr. Willman, do you have any view 8 on this matter?
9 MR. WILLMAN: The state of Illinois agrees as 10 to what issues were discussed today, that there would be 11 no need for further findings of fact. I,cannot say that 12 as to the rest of the proceeding, as to whether any 13 further findings need to be submitted, but as to what we 14 discussed today, the state agrees.
, 15 JUDGE WOLF That is, to these matters this 16 mornino,'you don't feel it is necessary?
17 MR. WILLMAN: .That's correct.
18 MR. GODDARD: The staff concurs in the 19 position of the Chairman.
20 JUDGE WOLF Accordingly, then, we will close 21 the record at this point, and we will proceed with the 22 business of getting out a decision in this matter, so we 23 are now adjourned.
() 24 (Wherupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Board was 25 adjourned.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
x tmCEAR RENTORY COMMISSICN O."cis is to certify that. the attached prcceedings 'cefers the BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3 the.2atter of: Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Stations Units 2 and 3)
Data cf' Proceeding: July 20, 1982 Uccket Mumber: 50-237 OLA,'50-249 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool Mod.)
Place- of Freceeding: Bethesda, Maryland wore held as herein appears, and that this is the crtgical t: anscri;:%
therecf for the file 'of the Com:21ssio n. _
Jane N. Beach Official Reporter (Typed) i <O -
Of . Cd(
/, ,
O cial Reporte.- (Signature) e O .
O .
%d'
.