ML20138K600
| ML20138K600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1984 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512190003 | |
| Download: ML20138K600 (70) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . .. . ._ . . ..
~
~ '
ORIGINAL UM1EU STATES
] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ?O!..
~
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: IMEETING ON THE TEXAS UTILITIES MOTION'
'FOR'
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION-ON THE UPPER LATERAL ~ RESTRAINT s b
~
O 5 LOCATION: ;NEW-YORK,'NEW YORK PAGES: 1 - 69 i DATE: : WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER ~5, 1984 P O ;
\. . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j OffM Reporters \
444 North CapitolStreet l Washington, D.C. 20001 I (202) 347-3700 0512190003 851205 PDR I ADOCK 05000443 NATIONWIDE COVERACE PDR
1 y + 1 L M E E T I N G ' O N -- T H E TEXAS UTILITIES MOTION
'N FOR'
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION 2 ON-THE UPPER-LATERAL RESTRAINT
?" .3 0-)/- ' Held at Gibbs &1 Hill, Inc.
4 393 Seventh Avenue New York,'New' York
.5 .
Wednesday, December 5, 1984 6
-P'-R' E S E N T:
'7 .
SPOTTSWOOD--BURWELL'
-8 TERRY -LANGOWSKI .
9 SUSHIL.SHARMA 10 PRANK-RINALDI 11-RALPH MC GRANE 12 t P. T. KUO [(_'/
" :13
,: CHARLES MILLER 14 CARL COSTANTINO
'15 MORRIS REICH 16
-JOHN EICHLER
_, 17 C..M. JAN 18 ANIL KENKRE 19-SEBASTIAN MARANO (part-time) 20' 21 74
'V ;2 2-REPORTED BY:
1 23 MARGARET J. TEILHABER, C.S.R. S v. - 24
-25 l
1 2 1- E x- H I B-- I'_ L s 1
'. 2 .- NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE < . -%l;}.
F~f f . 3 .1 Description of: outer walls.of 31
,~ 7-steam generator compartment e '4
'2 . Cross-section of outer wall of- 69 5 -
compartment 33
- 6 1 7
'i- 8
.c
.9
.10
-11
- .12
[ .:
- %' - -)-
13 ,
- 14
.15
-1G 17 18 19 20 21
'].
v . y 22 23
.m, .-
- O 24 25
1 1 3 l
'o 'l ,MR. BURWELL: Good morning. My name is 2 Spottswood Burwell. -I'm with the NRC and we are !
7q
; /: 3 nere ~this morning to review-a portion of the 4 , applicant's motion for summary disposition on the 5 upper-lateral restraint. I believe'we have met on
- 6 this particular-item a number of times before and I
'7 will not attempt._to summarize those meetings.
18 The purpose of this meeting this morning 9 'i s to provide an opportunity for our consultants at 10 . Brook Haven National Laboratory to examine the
.11 structural design of the walls supporting.the upper
.g^ 12 lateral restraint. Do I need to say more, Morris? & 13 MR. REICH: No, I think.that's okay unless 14 JP. T . wanted to say something.else. 15- MR.-KUO: No. Whatever statement you 1G would like to-make.
'17 MR.- REICH: Pertaining I think to the last
-18 meeting or should we start a new meeting?
.19 MR. KUO: I believe this meeting has
-20 nothing to do with the previous meeting. Like Spot
(^T! 21 :just mentioned, the purpose of this meeting is to
- t 22 review part of the design calculations on the 23 reactor cavity wall which supports the upper lateral
- s. 24 restraint. I think that's the only purpose for us 25 to be here. If'anybody else has anything to add,
7 4 but'that's'the way I understand it. ]} l
- 2 MR. REICH: Fine. In that case, let us go
' j3 3 andLtalk about the design calculations of the beams, V 4 of the lateral support-beams. First let's talk 5 Laboutsthe_ upper lateral support. As you remember,
-6 we talked: to you last time about.the worst case 7 scenario, and if I recall correctly, the worst case 8 scenario _was a main steam line break with a-9 temperature rise of approximately 355 degrees 10 calculated 1with the RELAP codes if I'm not mistaken
'l l and we will take that temperature as the correct
,s 12 temperature instead.of the design temperature of, p ry I 13 -let's_say, 370.
14 Under that condition, could you people go 15 over_with us exactly the pedestal design, the wall
-16 design, and all the things you considered, how the 17 walls move and the safety of the beam and the walls.
18 We would like to review that with you because first 19 of all, we didn't_have the exact drawings, we
~20 .couldn't make heads or tails of exactly what
'21 pedestal sizes are, how the anchors are and so forth.
Q' ' ' 122 I-see you have some of these here. We would like 23 you to discuss these. We had some that he sent that Si/ 24 but not everything, not all the details. We would 25 like to go.over it with you.
. . . ._- 4 _. - . _ . . . . .- .- . . .. . ~ . _.~
, + ::-
e M # 5 i . il MR. KUO: In addition we would also-like -- r 2 to have you tell us the missing rebar issue 3;J 3 identified by the TRT, where.the locations are and-
> -L J ~
4 Lthe numbers of those missing rebars. lWe would like 35 toimake an assessment-of the impact'of those missing 6 'r'e b a r on.the conclusions that'our consultant makes 7 about the upper. lateral restraint.
-8 MR. REICH: There's one more item I would-i 9 like'to sort of; verify today.and have it-down on the 10 . record:and see.ifI'm-correct. When I asked-last
- 1' 1 week about calculations regarding the lower lateral
, .y 12 cupport, 'I. .wa s told that none are available. These 1 (-f~
is. '13 . weredone by Westinghousecand it's something-I just
~
M- .14 want to verify or make-sure it's on the record, l' f 15 that's the case. Maybe I didn't understand it right. I16' MR. KENKRE: The lower level restraint [17 beam has been designed by Westinghouse. It has not
- 18 "been. designed by Gibbs & Hill and it is true-that we '
l' 9 d 'o . n o t' have those calculations for.the beam.
?20 MR. MILLER: Have you put those loads i nto 121' - the concrete walls?
- 22 M R .- KENKRE: Yes. The embedments of.the
[23 lower lateral beam is in Gibbs & Hill scope and we lLk 2 -24 do have calculations for those embedment design. , 25 MR. EICHLER: May I make a suggestion. I m 4 O + g--,-- w -
<,wg- ,y- ---,-*-.e, - -
w
~- 6 b~ 41 'think that Anil, who has the background on this, is 2 'best'to get into a description. I would suggest
^ .. ( E 3 that since we are all here at one time, we have .~_)
4 -these-drawings laid out so that there's no questian 5 at all.about the physical configuration of'this
~
6 -structure, to have Anil take you through it from .. 7 bottom to . top or top to bottom,.show where the
=8 lateral restraints ~ are, show the area-of the missing 9 rebar and then we can.get into the discussion of 10_ design bases, both. original and more importantly in 11 regard to the upper and lower lateral supports,
--g 4
- 12 these analyses and designs we have been going 2 !. I
'~'
- 1 3 -through for the last nine months.
14 MR. REICH:' We would also like.you at-the 15' .same time-to discuss with us the loadings and all l'6 the. inputs for these designs if you could.
'17. .MR. EICilLER: Yes.
- 18 MR. KENKRE: What I would do is take them 19 through the~ physical description.
; 20 MR. BURWELL: Anil, could I ask you to be v
,-g 21 careful to identify things like compartment numbers aJ 22 and the wall, the purpose of the wall and so on so 23 we can get some, so that the record will be meaningful
\id 24 to someone reading it with the drawings at some
. 25 future date. l-
7 O ; 1 MR. KENKRE: Yes.
.2 MR. BURWELL: I'll give you a hand with r'~N - .3 .that every now-and then. It's hard to do.
L) ' 4 -
.MR. REICH: For the record, I would like
-5 t o' say that I spoke to Anil a few times last week 6 and'I received from him eight drawings thus far.
7 MR. KENKRE: Not nine? 8 MR. REICH: I think it's eight but'I'll 9 check the. number. Several drawings came in the day 10 before-and I left the office and I haven't been back 11 so it could be nine.. I.was told there were_two,
,, 12 .maybe three. However, a lot of them are included.
- ((3
\
N ') 13 here but I'm sure not all of them because I called 14 you and I know we didn't have all the details. Some I S' of them were missing. 16 MR. BURWELL: Okay, sir. 17 MR. KENKRE: What I've got.here on the 18 wall are some of the drawings which will help 19 explain the geometry. They are not all of the 20 -drawings. We may have to go and bring the other l 21 drawings from our area down there. This drawing
.7 )
22 number is 0553. p 23 MR. KUO: That's the drawing number. 24 MR. KENKRE: This shows a cross-section to L 25 -the entire containment building including the i. _ _, . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ..- ,_ . , _ _ , , . _ _ _ _ y
- - ~ ~ -- - -
!y 3 _
, - 8 l '1; 2 internal structure.
-2 _
'MR. BURWELL: This l's an elevation ~ drawing, i l
- i
_ %d J'}
,3' MR. KENKRE: This is the' containment
~4.. str.ucture and what is inside .i s ' th e : so-cal-l ed 5 -
L nternal' structure. i These two' structures are
.1
;G separated-from.each other. .This: is the reactor.
7 iThese.a're-the steam generators. . This-and this..are
=8 'what we callothe-steam generator-compartments. This 19 ti sLwhat we' call-the reactor-cavity.
.Tnese are the L1' 0~ .reactorscavity walls. Tnese are the steam. generator
~" ..
-, di: walls.- .
I guess from here.we can go to some of_the-l'2 . plans. 7b c '13
'MR. COSTANTINO: .On the outside you.have 14 floors-between the-steam. generator cavity and the 15' reactor. walls. Are those continuous'on the outside 51 6 'on both sides?
o 17 'MR. KENKRE: These?.
?l 8 MR.: COSTANTINO: Yes. Are those 19 continuous walls? . _20 MR. KENKRE: Continuous all around. .They
' $ ,_e 21 1 don't touch the containment. These are continuous- , 1 ). 22 a l'1 around. In some places, there may be openings
~2 3 -andJthings.like that.
Ib,6 c24 MR. COSTANTINO: But they are free on the , , 25 'outside? i-1/
7
.9 1 MR. KENKRE: They have columns on the
-2 outside. These floors are supported steam generator
- x,[] 3 l wall's on one side and columns on the other side. 4 Can we g o. to the next plan drawings.
=5 MR. KUO: Can you identify for the record.
.6 where-is the upper lateral restraint in terms of 7 . elevation?
8 MR. KENKRE: This is the upper level
;9 restraint. The elevation is -888'8". That's the F
10- upper lateral restraint. 11 MR. R E I C il : You may as well show the lower 7 12' one, too,~right there. . I think'it shows it.
%' ~ ')
13 M R .- KENKRE: The lower one is right here 14' and the elevation is 834'10". 15 MR.'COSTANTINO: Is that on both s' ides? 16 MR. KENKRE: Yes.
'1 7 MR.-COSTANTINO: 834?
18- MR. KENKRE: Ten. Now we are on 19 drawing 0519. This drawing shows the plan at the 20 ' lowest elevation, which is 808 and 812. 808 is the-
- ,2s 21 floor elevation outside the compartment walls and N] 22 812 is the elevation inside the compartment walls.
23 'This-is compartment number one. X. .24 MR. E I Cil L E R : You are at this elevation, 25 -depicting with the ruler.
10 1 MR. REICH: He is at the elevation that he 2 is pointing to. 3 MR..BURWELL: Is that tne 832 I believe ()'E x, 4 you said? Correct? 5 MR. KENKRE: 812. 6 MR. BURWELL: 812. Excuse me. 7 MR. KENKRE: This is compartment number 8 one, two, three, four. These are the compartment 9 walls. We also have a well here and nere. This is 10 the reactor. cavity wall.
- 11 MR. BURWELL: Could I ask for a 12 clarification, please? You said that there was a f i
\# 13 wall between steam generator compartments two-and 14 three and between steam generator compartments four 15 and one. Is'that correct?
16 oM R . KENKRE: Yes. 17 MR. BUHWELL: Is this all the way up and 18 down? 4 19 MR. KENKRE: This wall, what you see here 20 is an opening, a local opening, but this wall goes 21 all the way up and we will show that as we come to [v . 22 the next plan. ( 23 MR. BURWELL: Fine. Then the opening is l p ' , 'm i/ . 24 down below? l 25 MR. KENKRE: Right. The opening is down l l i
11 s 4 1 below. 2 MR..BURWELL: Below the 812 elevation.
- / y 3 MR. KENKRE: Excuse me. Not below the 812.
4 The opening is starting from 812 to a certain height 5' above 812. 6 MR. BURWELL: Oh, right. Thank you.
;7 -MR. KENKRE: In here and here we have.the-8 refueling cavity and these are the walls of the 9 refueling cavity.which are connected with the 10l- -reactor cavity wall. These are the columns on ene
- 11. periphery which support several floors of the 12 internal structure. Any questions on this plan? We l(/,}
13 will now go to 0522 which is this plan. 14 MR. BURWELL: Excuse me. Could I enter 15 'into the record-that this is a plan of elevation 1G 832'.G".
.17 MR. KENKR8: That's correct. This floor 18 has got, slabs all around right up to here and in 19 here th'ere's a local opening in the floor. This 20 floor supports other equipment like an accumulator, ,3- 21 et cetera. ! J v- '
12 2 MR. COSTANTINO: Is that a concrete floor?
- 23 MR. KENKRE: These are concrete floors.
24 MR. COSTANTINO: What about the members
.25 underneath? Those are beam supports?
M 1r 33 . , < <
,; . 3
. 3 _
.'A,
'l
?
m "N ' 41. - MR._KENKRE: The ones shown dotted are the
~+
f2 beam supports.- t . k)~
+
'3 MR. COSTANTINO:
.How thick is_the floor?-
L4 , MR.-KENKRE: There-are=several thicknesses t
;5 o f. t h e~ - f 'i o o r , 18 inches,.2 feet, 3 feet.
's _ . . -
t
, -6 ,
- MR.-COSTANTINO: The. floor,'3; feet thick? ;
J7 MR.-KENKRE: There-may be 18 inches, 2
,n 8- .f e e t . t h i c k ,~ . : 2 ' f e e t , 2' feet, 2' feet. There's no 3 '
9 -. , feat. 'I
- l' O ' M R .- REICH: .Let me-ask you. _So tha W311 li varies at-different-lower lateral supports. . In ,
~.
11 2 Lother_words, there'are four. lower lateral supports- - 1 L '- >
' l'3
~ .thatnare-pushing against the wall 'a t this j unctur e' --- .
l _ : 14_ this is for-my own information -- and you-have.
; :15 - different wall sizes at each one.
Am I correct? -i i
# '16' '
Wall ^thicknes'ses I just ~ said._ I mean= floor -
~ '
11 7 thicknesses intersecting that wall.
- m 18 ' MR. KENKRE: Yes. Floor thicknesses are 19 -different, that's right. ,
20 .MR.. REICH: The wall thickness is the same , , 7 '. > l21 - butTthe floor: thickness intersecting the wall'at ! LA; " ? = 22 that-level varies. i l i- ! 23 MR. KENKRE: That's correct. 3 i- 's_[ 24 - MR. REICH: It's not the same thickness. I p 25 MR. KENKRE: This floor system comprises t-
*+-wgr"v.W g i ,w .p--w 4, y9,--99 wg y 9 , ,M t-e*, 9 e p 9 yy 9q--9_,,,,y,9_gm.,y,7,-..,,.,yppmy , 99 m.9 g- q.yyy9.t 94 y p ---.9y,. e9 war e f w- - - Mw 9+
- F yv ir W 7 W y 7 7 y y' ='= git---ir it' W ur +e*, e.t 4
e.- - 13
- 1- of. concrete-beams roughly about four feet deep 2 supported on one end on the steam generator 4
.w')
ss
. 3 compartment wa'11s and at the other.end concrete 4 columns.
5 MR. REICH: Anil, can you tell us anything
'6 about the perpen'dicular or the side walls, the 7 , compartment walls that are coming perpendicular to 8 the structure, those, that are coming all around
- 9 like that?
10 MR. KENKRE: These? 11 MR. KENKRE: No. The ones outside of the 12 walls. These, yes. Those that are coming all
@ 13 around.
14 MR. KENKRE: These are not walls. Those 15 are concrete beams. These are the ones -- 1G MR. REICH: That's what I wanted to know.
. 1,7 Fine.
18 MR. KENKRE: This is the refueling cavity 19 now, which is on the top of the reactor cavity wall 20 pedestal here, which is at this elevation here on
.(4 21 the drawing.
(> 22 MR. BURWELL: Could you read that number, 23 please, sir?
.3 '24 MR. KENKRE: 834 feet oh and a half inches,
'25 Any questions on this plan? We will now go to the
p 14 1 next' elevation at1860. The-drawing is 0525, 2 MR. COSTANTINO: What's the elevation of v[ 3 the next floor before you get to1860?
- 4 2MR. EICHLER: You are talking about this 5 one?-
6 MR. COSTANTINO: Yes. 7 MR. E I C il L E R : 851'6". This is 860. That 8 851'6" -is a-very local. area. It just happens to go 9 through that cross-section. 10 M R . ' R E I C t! : It only effects one steam 11 : generator compartment or it doesn't even effect one? 7- 12 MR. KENKRE: It effects two of them.
;N) - -
. 13 MR. R E I C il: On two sides only, number one 14 and four?'
15 MR. KENKRE: One and four, right. Now we
'15 are on 0525. This is the elevation at 860. These 17 -are upper. lateral beams, one in each compartment.
18 MR..COSTANTINO: Anil, two of the upper 19 lateral beams are above the floor and two of them 20 are at the' floor, according to that drawing? ri 21 MR. RINALDI: The floor elevation is N) 22 different. 23 MR. COSTANTINO: Coming in on cavities one 24 and four, the upper lateral beams are above the 25 floor. See, right over there, is that a temporary
~ '
. 1 e
15 ((3 yJ . 1 floor or -- 2 MR. RINALDI: What direction is section O w) 3 2'- 2 ? 4 MR. KENKRE: This is-the direction, . 5 ' east-west. 6 MR. BURWELL: Vertically. 7 MR. KENKRE: East-west. 8 MR.-BURWELL: Vertically on the drawing, 9 . excuse me, is a better definition, right. 10 MR. COSTANTINO: The answer is? 11' MR. KENKRE: The answer is yes, on this 12 side it is at 860 and on this side is'861'6". k, ; '_ 13 MR. COSTANTINO:-So the answer is 14 compartments one to-four, the upper lateral 15 restraint becomes above the floor.
-iG Ma. KENKRE: Below.
'17 MR. COSTANTINO: The floor at compartments 18 one and four is-at elevation 851. Right, Anil?
19 MR. EICHLER: Could you show the outline 20 of the lower floor at 851'6" on that plan? That 21 drawing isn't here. ()fv 22 MR. MILLER: Could you make some sketches 23 of the cross-section through the lateral support t-
$/ 24 bea as showing the intersection of lateral support 25 beam with the vertical wall and locate the floors on
a 16
% 1 -that section?
2 MR. KENKRE: I need the other drawing to ((v^') ; 3 be correct. I know roughly where it is but I need 4 the other drawing. L5 MR.: REICH: But you can sketch it sort of 6 on the board. 7 MR. KENKRE:- (Sketching.) Roughly this is 8 the upper lateral beam. There is a floor at 851'6"' 9 and then there's one at 861'5". 10 MR. KUO: This is for all four 11 compartments?
,,J
, 12 MR. KENKRE: Just one and four.
l(' ' '
)~
13 MR. COSTANTINO: Anil, the picture on-the 14 other side. 15 MR. KENKRE: It's something like this. 16 This is at 8G0 and this is 858. 17 MR. COSTANTINO: So that would be 18 . compartments two and three? 19 MR. KENKRE: Two and three. 20 MR. RINALDI: Excuse me. Looking at the J,a3 21 first sketch that you made and looking at the figure V 22 0553, that floor that you indicate, 861'6" really 23 shows a half floor, and elevation eight, I believe i 24 '73 or 75, shows a full floor. Is that correct? 25 MR. KENKRE: Yes, that's correct. This
p 17 1 861'4" if I show on the plan will show where the
-2 opening is, why it is short. This is the slab that j'~N - you see here and this is open.
u) 3 4 MR. RINALDI: Thank you. This 860 floor 5 also has a floor system which consists of slabs, 6 beams and-the beams are supported again on the steam 7 generator compartment walls on one side and the 8 columns on the other side. This floor has got slabs 9 of thickness 3 feet, 3 foot, 3 feat. Some of them 10 are 12 inches, la inches. 11 MR. COSTANTINO: Where the upper lateral
.,, 12 beam is, it is three feet, i
)
13 MR. KENKRE: It's three feet. 14 MR. COSTANTINO: On both sides. 15 MR. KENKRE: Three feet, three feet. 1G MR. REICH: But then they are differently 17 located, am.I correct, by looking at it right no w , - 18 some of them are located directly under the support, 19 some of them are sort of at some angle to the 20 support. Not all the same.
,cq 21 MR. KENKRE: You mean the slabs?
x/ 22 MR. KENKRE: Yes. 23 MR. KENKRE: This is all 860 elevation. (_3) 24 This is the only one which is 861'G" that we see 25 here but below that there is another floor at 851.
18 1 MR. R E I C il : But the beams are not exactly
'2 always in the same location. ._ f') ,- 3 MR. KENKRE: The beams are always at-the y
I4 - same - el eva ti~on . 5 MR. KUO: Same elevation. By that you 6 ' mean horizontal?
;7 MR. KENKRE: Right.
'8 MR. KUO: For compartments-two and three, 9 - the beams are at elevation what?
10 MR. KENKRE: 858'G". 11 MR. R E I C il : So they are almost directly,
. . , _ 12 they are not'directly opposite the support.
/N
'T'~'-)
13 MR. KENKRE: No.
'14 MR. R E I C il: Okay. . A little bit below i t.
. .15
. But they come at different angles towards it, 16 radially speaking. You have some coming almost, I
-17 don ~'t know, the angles from here look different.
18 . MR. KENKRE: They come at, well, the same 19 according to the center line of the containment. 20 MR. MILLER: Are the beams all radial? 7- 21 MR. KENKRE: Some of them don't look (._) 22 exactly. [ 23 MR. KENKRE: No, they are not radial
! ) .24 because the internal structure is not, the center of 25 the internal structure is not the same as the center i.
- e. e-w _
gr --* 9 ,-e y y. *-w- v --.w- w my -y- --w- -y ,p
19 1 of the containment. There is a three-foot offset.
-2 -MR. RINALDI: Excuse me. For f
3.,)j 3 clarification, this elevation of-858'6" that you 4 referred to before, that was the elevation of the 5 upper lateral restraint beam?
-6 MR. KENKRE: That's correct.
7 MR. MILLER: What's the wall thickness in 8 those compartments? 9 MR. KENKRE: .These? 10 MR. MILLER: Right. 1
-11 MR. KENKRE: From 850 upwards, it's 2'9" 7-5 12 here. Here it is 3'6". 3'6" here, 4 feet here.
Qi 13 2'9". 14 MR. COSTANTINO: It's 2'9" where the beams 15 come in? 1G MR. KENKRE: 2'9" where the beams come in 17 for two and three. 18 MR. COSTANTINO: And one and four? 19 MR.EKENKRE: Right, one and four. 20 MR. COSTANTINO: So it's 2'9"? (' 21 MR. .KENKRE: Right. These wall 9). 22 thicknesses,-2'9",.are above this elevation 860. 23 Howeve'r, if you go back and try to find out what is j.7 , Oc) 24 .just' below this, there'is four thickness, 4 feet and 2 'S 4'9", four feet for compartment one, two, three, and t.
. . . . _...y._.__.___..,__. . _ _ . _ - . _ , .
20 "O ~ 1 4'9" for compartment four. 2 MR. REICH: That's that's for the lower 3 support. 4 MR. KENKRE: This is just below the 860 L5 elevation. The lower support is at 834'10". 6 MR.-REICH: The' thickness is four-feet. 7 over there the thickness is four feet. 8 MR. KENKRE: Any more questions on this
. 9 floor?
10 MR. REICH: So there's sort of a section 11 change right near the support. i 12 MR. KENKRE: Close to the support, yes. ((^}-
~ ; 13 Just above it.
14 MR. REICH: From.4 feet to 2.9 feet. 15 MR. KENKRE: 2'9". The change in'the-
=16 thickness of the wall is depicted on this
'l -7 cross-section and this is where they come in. This 18 'is the upper and the change occurs above the upper.
19 MR. REICH: This is on the inside. I 20 thought-he was asking you the outside thickness. 21 .MR. KENKRE: That's also the same thing I(NY [ 22 hereibecause'the upper lateral beam top is 858'6" 23 and the floor elevation where the wall changes its A- .. Si/c '24 thickness is 860. 25 MR. REICH: And it goes --
mp . ; . .a . v - . . . = - =. .:= = = c.::. .-a.=-- . -:-- ---
- - x. . ;. . .
21 1 MR.~KENKRE: It goes from 4 feet-to 2'9". 2 MR. REICH: Inches. Ju/" 3 MR. KUO: On this section drawing here, it
'4 -seems that the upper lateral restraint beam there on
, 5 both~ sides shown are at the same elevation. I 6 understo'od before that in compartment one~ and four
? they-are at elevation 851'6" and on the opposite 28 side it's 858'6".
9 -MR. KENKRE: No. That is not t r u e'. The 10 upper lateral restraint beams, all compartments are ' m
'll the same elevations, 858'6".
- g' . 12 MR. KUO: Good. Okay. I thought that's 4- '
1~ 3 -what -- 14- MR. REICH: Whatfhe was saying is there
'15 are two-walls hcre.. There's local floors over there.
.16 MR. KUO: .Thanks.
'17 MR. REICH: Am I - correct?
18 MR. BURWELL: Just one minor detail. You 19 said that-the lower walls-in compartment four were 4
- m. 20 tfeet on one and 4'9" or what? What were they?
p-( ,21 MR. KENKRE: 4 feet on one, 4 feet-on-two, o 22 4 feet on three, and: 4'9" inches on four. 'Any p 23 questions related to this plan? I don't have the L. ,x L < s /.- - 2 4' 9059 plan here. Would you like me to - bring that in? L 25 It ~is very high-above. I don't believe it is p L. ' L- _ ___ - . . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _
22
~1 relevant.
2 MR. R E I C il : I don't think so. This (3 (,/ 3 basically describes the geometry of the internal
'4 structure.
. 5 MR. MILLER: Something I would like to see 6 and maybe you have to get some more drawings for it 7 are details of the support between the lateral beam 8 and.the vertical walls. In particular I'm 9 interested in the details that will be required to 10 make someLestimate of punching shear response.
11 MR. KENKRE: This is one of the drawings
',f w e 12 which is 0550 and this area here gives the detail of id '
13 the upper lateral beam. Section 14-14 gives the 14 cross-section of the steam beam. Section 13-13 15 shows the end base plate which is connected to the 16 concrete wall- by bolts. 17 MR. BURWELL: Could you give me a height 18 and width of that beam approximately? Is it on the 19 drawing? 20 MR. KENKRE: Yes. The height is 3'6" (~} 21 inches and the width is 3 feet. It is a box beam. ws 22 MR. COSTANTINO: Could I ask you again a 23 geometry question. The upper lateral restraint beam Am .) 24 has a cross-sectional area of-about 357 square 25 inches and the lower lateral restraint beam has a
23
. 1 cross-sectional area of 8 square inches. Is that 2 true?
3 MR. KENKRE: Yes, that's true. (s)
~
4 MR. COSTANTINO: Why the big difference in 5 the size of the members?
'6 MR. KENKRE: We have not seen Westinghouse' s 7 calculations on their beam. This beam, upper 8 lateral beam is designed by Gibbs & Hill with loads 9 provided to us by Westinghouse.
10 MR. REICH: What loads? All loads? 11 MR. COSTANTINO: Does Westinghouse take 73 12 the main steam line break temperature in their 'Q). 13 analysis also? 14 MR. KENKRE: We don't know. 15 MR. R E I C il: They just -- 16 MR. COSTANTINO: If you make an 17 approximate number, the upper lateral restraint beam 18 was just barely qualified for the high temperature 19 and you get, and the lower lateral restraint beam is 20 also longer, r%- 21 MR. REICH: You have to qualify what you
- (J 22 just-said. You made a very conservative approximate 23 number.
~
24 MR. COSTANTINO: Yes. I was just 25 wondering if you had looked into it at all.
24
-{' 1 MR. KENKRE:. No.
2 MR. MILLER: I would like to go back to (j 3. 'your sketch up there, so if I wanted to look at the 4 punching shear requirements on the wall, that's
, :5 saying that the axial load in the beam comes out 6 into-a 2'9" wall? There's nothing behind that that 7 increases the --
8 MR. KENKRE: If you look at the 9 cross-section, we will find that the diaphragm, that 10 the slabs are very close to that and the punching 11 cone would probably intercept the floor. r-~ 12 MR. MILLER: That's the kind of detail I'm k)3 '
~^
13 really looking for which doesn't show up, I don't 14 think, on any of the drawings we have here. Maybe 15 you could, maybe it could be put together. At some 16 point, 'I will like to see a sketch like over there
.17 like you have on the board, an elevation through 18 tha t joint showing.what that cone might intersect.
19 MR. KENKRE: I think in this case we will 20 have to make a specific sketch for this purpose the L A./ ~ ('t 21 way we know it because we have the floor elevations, 22' we know where they are and the upper lateral 23 restraint locations.
.ki 24 MR. MILLER: I guess this may be jumping 25 ahead into the~ stress evaluation but was such an
25
-( 1 evaluation done?
- 2 MR. KENKRE: Yes.
;y . .
i : (,): 3 MR. MC GRANE: One correction, though. It 4 is'not a 2'9" w a l'1 abutting into it. It's a 4 foot 5 wall-at-that level. 6 MR. MILLER: There's a transition -- 7 MR. MC GRANE: The transition will be L8 above the beam. 9 MR.-MILLER: Out of the cone. 10 MR. MC GRANE: I don't know whether it's 11 out of~the cone or not. I haven't plotted the cone 12 but it is above the beam.
~(V,-( "
13 MR. KENKRE: I will make a note to make
'14 some sketches.
15 MR. R E I Cll : In this sketch, you should
- 16 also include the pedestal that this thing sits on 17 the way it sticks into the cavity. There's a
-18 pedestal there.
19 MR. KENKRE: Where? 20 MR. EICHLER: There's no pedestal there. l
~ ~J
j 21 MR. REICH: I see a pedestal.
22' EM R . EICHLER: What pedestal are you ! 23 speaking of? 24 MR. KENKRE: Okay. You are talking about 25 this. Yes,- I was coming to that. Let me make a
26
~
1 note.- 2 MR. EICHLER: I'm think of pedestal. This (): 3 is a pedestal. 4 MR.-KENKRE: The base plate, which is 15 shown on section 13-13 on 0550 bears on a pedestal, 6 concrete pedestal. Details of that pedestal are 7 shown on 0544. Detail F on 0544 gives the
'8 _ connection detail between the upper beam and the 9_ concrete. wall. Detail A on the same drawing
-10 provides the connection between the lower beam and 11 the concrete wall.
- f. ~12 MR. BURWELL: Can we go off the record for Y)q 13 'j us t: a' minute?
14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 MR. KENKRE: Any questions so far?
'16 'MR. KUO: I would like to go back to the 17 loads provided by Westinghouse. At the beginning of 18 the design you get the loads from Westinghouse. Is
.19 there any, did you check with Westinghouse in the 20 design process later on whether the loads you got at
}~y 21 the beginning of the design was indeed the finalized i L/
22 . loads or it was their original estimate? 23 MR. KENKRE: I will have to verify if h ' 2 4' .there's a record of that. 25 MR. KUO: Please do.
27 l' MR.-RINALDI: On the other hand, they
'2 might have used original estimate and then confirmed
)(]
~
2 3 the final one was much more different than the 4 estimate' loads.
=5 MR. KUO: Y e s ,. that's all right. That's 16 -what I'm trying to find out.
7 MR. EICHLER: This is not a unique
~
8 situation.. All: loads from vendors go through a 9 process of.an original submittal, updates and final. J10 - MR. KENKRE: Usually they are envelope
. 11 1- loads that -they1give in the beginning which are
, ._7
'12 . -suppose'd to-be much' larger than.the final one for
\(
11 3 that.- 4
. 14 MR. KUO: Just check it. That would be 15 h e'i p f u l for us making the evaluation. ,,
'16 14 R . KENKRE: -Yes.
- 17. MR. MILLER: What type of reinforcement-do 11 8: 'you'have inothe outer ' wall compartment, outer walls 19 of the compartments?
'20 MR. KENKRE: In general there are two ge; .'21 ' layers of reinforcement going horizontal and-
- d. -ve r t i ca l~.
- 22 These drawings that I've'got here do not
~
23 :show --the ' actual reinforcement size. -There are
- s. :24 separate drawings of the individual walls. I don't
- 25. :have them here. I'll have to get them and give the
28 1, exact reinforcement. 2 MR. SHARMA: Are there shear [} mj_
.3 reinforcements perpendicular to the walls?
4 MR. KENKRE: Yes. All walls do have shear
-5 reinforcement. Any other questions on these?
6 MR. KUO: Any other questions? 7 MR. REICH: How deep are those anchor 8 -bolts that you have there? They go all the way in? 9 .I couldn't tell from that drawing. 10 MR. KENKRE: They go all the way in up to
'l l the end of the, up to the other side of the wall.
gq 12 MR. REICH: They go all the way across? Q. 13 MR. KENKRE: Yes.
.14 MR. REICH: -Through the whole thickness?
w , 15 MR. KENKRE: Right. This is the other
~16 side of.the wall. Let me explain about this bolt.
17 You said anchor bolt- just now. What we have is the 19 ; upper lateral' beam has got a base plate and to match 19 that base plate, there is an embedded plate into the 20 concrete'and the embedded plate in the concrete has
.fg '21 .got cad welds l welded through the embedded plate.
iV '
'22 The welds are embedded to the embedded plate and
~23 then there are reinforcing bars into the welds.
'_ 24 That is the-arschoring system. Any questions? Now 25 I'll try to come to the area about cavity rebars, L I
29
. ' J, , , 1 missing cavity rebars. This is approximately the 2 carea where the rebars are missing. -[Jl 3 MR. KUO: That is between elevation --
4 MR. KENKRE: 812 and 809 and this happens 5 to~be that area. 6 MR. KUO: All around or at one location? 7 MR. KENKRE: In this cavity.
'8 MR. RINALDI: There was a concrete pour 9 :made and bars were deleted and perhaps you could 10 tell us the dep'tn of that pour and the number of
- 1 1' ' bars that were' deleted and I believe some bars are
- 12 added to the following concrete pour.
L -( Q( _ 13 MR. KENKRE:. Yes. The deleted bars were
- 14 .from 812 to 819, and from 819 to around 834 15 additional rebars were provided.
16 MR. BURWELL: This is the reactor vessel 1 7. cavity that you are talking about? 18 MR. KENKRE: That's correct. 19 MR. BURWELL: Or the inner wall of the 20 steam generator compartment. f-( '21 MR. KENKRE: I want to show the relation
; L v
22 of this area where some of the reinforcement was 23 missing ~ with respect -- ). (_, 24 MR. COSTANTINO: Before you get into that,
- 25 were the bars horizontal, vertical?
30 1 'MR. KENKRE: Horizontal. 2 MR. EICHLER: If I may interject at this (j -3 : point. Is there any question about what the 4 configuration of the missing rebar or what happened? 5 Maybe we.should run'through that so that this 6 discussion isn't out of perspective and out of 7 context. 8 MR. COSTANTINO: We would like to know the
'9 story.
10 MR. EICHLER: You are not privy to the
'll story?
is 12 MR. RINALDI: No, we are not. hs 13 MR. EICHLER: Anil,_do we have a
- 14 cross-section showing the reinforcing down at the 15 slotted area the intended reinforcing? Two and 16 three-of a drawing whose number I don't recall at 17 this moment will show the-intent of the additional 18 rebar and will then identify, will be able to use
_19 that drawing as a means of identifying what took l 20 place, what was left out and what was put in to i
.)
-('} Lj. 21 compensate-for it'and the reasons why all of this 1
~22 happened.
23 MR. KENKRE: Yes. Those drawings are xs 24 available. I'll have to go and pick them up.
.25 MR. EICHLER: Maybe at this point it pays
31
'_ 1 to bring them in.
o 2 MR. BURWELL: Why don't we take a .[)- '3 ten-minute break or so. v 4 (Short break.) 5 (Exhibit 1 marked.) 6 MR. KENKRE: The way that we will try to
~7 explain ~this missing --
8 MR. EICHLER: Can we go off the record for 9 a moment? 10 (Discussion off the record.)
-11 MR. KENKRE: We have got two plan drawings and three cross-sectional drawings which we will (a_.,
'r -
.13 need to explain what is happening in this area in 14 the. cavity wall. We have revision two of this 15 drawing 0572. This drawing shows these slots in the 16 wall for the neutron detector tubes. Revision three 17 was made to this drawing, and if you see the
.18 difference between the two, it is these reinforcing 19 . bars'that were added. A pour was made up to 20 elevation.819'but these bars were not installed.
,ew 21 MR. RINALDI: Can you describe the bars?
%,] '
22 MR. KENKRE: The two layers of number nine 23 bars. m. (;[ 24 MR. BURWELL: They are laid essentially 25 circumferential1y around the periphery of the
32
']l 1 reactor vessel cavity.
2 MR. KENKRE: 13 inches roughly. j#'i 3 MR. COSTANTINO: Two a t 13 inches. L.J
~4 MR. KENKRE: The pour was made without
'S these bars. Going to the cross-sectional drawings, 6 0574, we have revision two, which did not ask for 7 these bars which would be somewhere here. We have 8 revision three of the same drawing which shows these 9 bars placed in here. This is the slot -location 10 which is marked up on 0574. - It extends to about 11 11 feet height from 8'10" to 822'3" and this is the
. _- 12 area'where those original horizontal bars were shown 13 "on revision three-of these drawings.
14 MR. BURWELL: These slots are in the 15 inside face of the reactor biological shield. 16 MR. KENKRE: Right.
-1 7 MR. LANGOWSKI: Excuse me, but I think you 18 are referring-to the wrong reinforcing bars. Do you 19 mind if I get up and --
rather than the ones on the 20 --l e f t here, it's the.ones on the right in here. 7, 21 MR. KENKRE: Yes. That's the one I UL 22 referred to. 23 MR. LANGOWSKI: I couldn't see from over q
-W 24 there.
25 MR. KUO: Between elevation 812 and 818,
- . . -,a v -~ - . - - - - <
33 (j 1 supposedly this is where the bars are " missing." My 2 question is are really these bars missing by design
,cq =
(_) 3 or'was-it really overlooked? 4 _MR. KENKRE: Revision two of these
-5 . drawings did not ask for these reinforcement.
'6 MR. KUO: So it's by design?
7 MR. MC GRANE: No. 8 MR.. KENKRE: By revision two. 9 MR. MC GRANE: Excuse me. I think what 10 Lyou are asking is were they accidentally left aut. 11 The answer is yes. There was a foul-up in z-y 12 -communications where the field was advised. verbally L) 13 that this change was coming but before they actually
~
-14 had'this drawing in the fie1d, they didn't hold up 15 the pour. They went-ahead and placed the concrete.
-16 MR. KUO: Thank you.
17 MR. CO'STANTINO:- Anil, were all the
.18 circular bars missing or just on one side or 19 alternate bars?
20 MR. KENKRE: All these bars. ad (~( 21 MR. COSTANTINO: The whole ring?
-22 MR. KENKRE: Right. These bars were in.
23 The bars somewhere in the middle, they were all I) 24 missing, inside face. 25 MR. BURWELL: Then in essence revision two
,x 34 "i 'll shows.the way it'was poured and revision three of n? i
~2 _t h a tL d r a w'i n g is-the delayed revision that did not
]f 13 getfto ~ the construction crowd sufficiently.early, i4 crowd or crew.-
>5 MR. COSTANTINO: What was the purpose of 6 .the;bar? ; W h'a t is the' impact of leaving.those out?
. ,7 MR..MC GRANE: You want me to answer-that?
8 MR. .KENKRE: Yes. 9 MR. MC GRANE: The-bars were put.in there.
; 21 0 at my, direction. Whe'n'I looked at this drawing, I
~ 11 noted that we had a slot- cut in here and since this 12 cavity--of this ring is designed to withstand the to 13 : internal pressure of a pipe rupture ~ and the 14 pressurization of the cavity, I questioned whether
- p
.15 or not.there was a need for t h'e m . The answer.wasono, 1' 6 -that' the calculations showed that there wa s' : no ~ need 11 7 .for the rebars. However, I had thought that.as a
.18 result of the internal' pressure, we could, even 19 :though the. strength lwas there, we could get some
'20 cracking, was a potential for cracking and I
?fq-- '21 directed that to ~ avoid that possibility --
.there
%).
.22 lwere that calculations performed --
but just to 23 . avoid that possibility, that we add additional rebar
..,~
,,I(( 24 toEcompensate for~the break that occurred here.
-25 -These.were merely an eyeball judgment on my'part
35
- (Q
-w I that-this would'be prudent to put them in. There
-2 Lwas no' demonstrated need for them.
43 MR. COSTANTINO: Would the fact that they -/ } - 4 are11 eft.out violate any provisions of ACI-code?- 5 MR. MC GRANE: No.
'6 MIR. COSTANTINO: The face seal 17 ' requirements for concrete members, there's no 8 .requ'irement'for that.
-9 MR.JREICH: You made a calculation.with-10 the STARDYNE code, for specifical-ly, a pressure case.
' ~l l 'Right?
'12 MR.. KENKRE: Yes.
/f.')
'13 MR. REICH: And ye't you had in there-this
-14 case without-the bars, right? You have the results?
II S M R .- KENKRE: The pressure ~in the- cavi ty l' 'G ' itself, you~ do notohave a STARDYNE code .f or :the
-17 pressure.for: t h i s' -particular l'oading. The STARDYNE 11 8 code has loadings, other loadings like Seismic,
.19
~
other.-loadings. 20 MR. REICH: No pressure case? g Ls [21 MR. KENKRE: No pressure case. The
- 1-M . .. .
22 pressure was done locally by hand calculation. 23 MR. COSTANTINO:- In the STARDYNE run, the - -5 . \ : '; 24 properties you assume for the concrete were cracked 25 section properties?
a, j!j h-36
^
A
)' . 1_ MR. KENKRE: No.
f . 2 MR. REICH:: This is elastic run.
.(~3
- j 3 M R .. COSTANTINO: But the modulus would 4 assume no. cracking?.
5 MR. KENKRE:' Right.
- 6 MR. MILLER:~What size are'those cracks?
7- MR. KENKRE: The slots? 8 MR.. MILLER: Yes. 9 MR. KENKRE: They are about nine inches
, 10 ' wide, roughly 18 inches deep.
'll- ' M R .. EICHLER: What's the minimum thickness s - -.
- 12. ;in the shield of.the areas where we are talking k-13 about?
14 MR.'KENKRE: This is"over:'eight feet thick. 15 MR. MC GRANE: I.think are might want to 16 fpoint out,_too, just to get the picture correct 'i n 17 your : mind as to this thing being a pressure, e "18 concrete pressure vessel, is that in the 19 calculations that were performed to verify it or to
-20 Ld etermine the reinforcing requirements in there, the j~4 21' ~ assumption was made that this-was just a thick O .- .
,22 . cylinder, eight. foot thick wail, and no L23 _ consideration was given to the very substantial
~
24 stiffening e1ements that occur all around that wall. 25 In other: words, we took a cimplified and very
37 N[l'- u.. 1 conservative approach. 2- MR. . KUO: Ignoring everything else, just [l ~.) 3 an-eight foot thick cylinder. Ji MR. MC GRANE: Yes. 5- MR. MILLER: What kind of-pressure is 6 inside there? 7' MR. KENKRE: This varies but the maximum
.8 is around 40 PSI.
9 MR. R E I Cil : For the accident case..
-10 MR. KENKRE: This revision four of this 11 drawing 0574 shows in cross-section the fact that gs 12 these bars were not provided here, and above the 819 1~ .f 13- elevation, they are' bunched up.
'14 MR. COSTANTINO: What was the point of 15- that? Just to make - up'the total number of bars?
-16 MR. MC GRANE: This was a suggestion tnat 17 they make up the total number or half the total 18 number at the level above the slots so they could 19 proceed with construction and at that point there 20 was'not much else to do but say well, go ahead and gS 21 do it since we knew that there was no design V'
22 requirements -for these in the first place. 23 MR. KENKRE: I think this more or less
,m.
A) C 24 covers this discussion on this rebar. 25 MR. COSTANTINO: I'm confused by one thing,
._. . - _ - . _ _ - - . . . - - - - . - ~ . ...,.--~,.....a-.:-a..:_-a-.. 38
~
'O :1 The analysis' of the cylinder was a hand calculation-2 for a thick ' cylinder. Is that right?
- /y) 3~ MR. KENKRE: 'For the' pressure, right.
4 MR. COSTANTINO: What is- the relation with
-5 STARDYNE?
6 MR. REICH: Nothing. 7 MR. KENKRE: The ,STARDYNE module for the
'8- total internal structure.
,9 MR. COSTANTINO: And that included 10 internal pressure, seismic?
11- MR. KENKRE: No, not' term pressure.
,^ 12- Seismic.
I~' 13 MR. COSTANTINO: STARDYNE was only seismic 14 run. 15 MR. KENKRE: Seismic and it ' included live 16 loads,-dead loads of the entire internal structure.
~
17 MR. COSTANTINO: In that run, what were
-18 'the assumed properties of the shell elements you
'19 used'in the STARDYNE run?
1 20 MR. KENKRE: We had modeled vertical and 21 horizontal beam column elements. q}
- 22. MR. COSTANTINO: Not'shell elements?
23 MR. KENKRE: Not shell elements. ( 24 MR. COSTANTINO:' So the steel had no
-25 ~ impact on the STARDYNE run?
39
. 1 li R . KENKRE: Right.
+.
2 MR. COSTANTINO: The beam stiffnesses that f"j 3 -were used in the STARDYNE run were base'd on uncrackec, v. 4 ' gross concrete section properties? 5 MR. KENKRE: Correct. Would you like to 6 see the relationship of this area-with respect to 7 the upper and lower restraints? 8 MR. EICHLER: I think you should. 9 MR. KENKRE: This shaded area is-the area that we were just talking about and the lower
-10 11 --l a t e r a l restraint is somewhere here and the - upper 12 lateral restraint is even higher above that.
V,,, ) N 13 MR. BURWELL: What approximately is the 14 , top elevation where you left the reinforcing rod out?
-15 MR. KENKRE: 819.
16 MR. BURNELL: 819. 17- MR. REICd: Right. 18 MR. KENKRE: The lower restraint beam is 19 at 834'10" and the upper beam is at 858'6". 20 MR. RINALDI: I wanted to ask you, giving
,, 21 us all this information on the design for this i ).
22 missing rebar and explanation for omitting these 23 bars, was all this provided to the TRT team that p_ _ (s[ 24 investigated the allegation, this type of 25 information about, that you are giving.us now on
p .u. w; -m p . . _ - :._. - . s .u. _ .. _ ._ _ _ . ~ .. _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . - . . . - _ . , _ _ _ . . - 40 S l1 this missing rebar, they have already been'provided?
-2 MR. KENKRE: I do not know. We had 3 provided this information to the site and we do not 4 know whether this information was --
5 MR. RINALDI: The site means Texas
-6 Utilities?
7 MR. K E N'K R E : Yes. 8 MR. EICHLER: Let me add something there. 9 .The TRT team has identified that they understand the 10 problem. The correspondence that took place at the 11 time in essence, paraphrased, they asked us then to
, (~l 12 provide, despite all of that, our approach to hj ^^
13 .providing numbers that it's no problem and we are in 14 the process of-doing so. That will be forwarded
~
.15 .through ~ the normal course, normal. channels.
16 MR. REICH: Essentially what-you are doing 1 7. is putting-in the analysis that you just spoke about, 18 In other words, you made a thick cylinder approach. 19 Mk. EICHLER: The load in that area, 20 instead.of being assumed to travel or will be 21 assumed to travel vertical to the reinforced [) 22 portions of the cylinder; that is, that portion 23 above where half the missing rebar was placed in the J24 next pour. 25 MR. COSTANTINO: I'm confused.
41 [ l MR. MILLER: You are not confused. You e 2 don't understand.
,n i ). 3 MR. COSTANTINO: Right. The thick 4 cylinder analysis, internal pressure, you look to 5 see if the cylinder blows up. Right? What does 6 that have to do with transferring loads up and down?
7 Either it works for that analysis or it doesn't work. 8 Your implication was it worked for that analysis. 9 MR. MC GRANE: I'm going to make the 10 assumption that it doesn't work in that they are 11 going to see if they can carry the-load or they are
<ms 12- going to show, if it didn't work, .it's a what if, kw]"
13 even if it didn't work, you can carry the load from 14 here vertically up to the ring above there. 15 MR. COSTANTINO: Before you get to the 16 what if,-does it work for carrying the internal 17 pressure? No internal rebar. 18 MR. MC GRANE: No rebar across the crack 19 or slot. 20 MR. MILLER: If you onlyfhave 40 PSI (N -21 internal pressure, it sounds like you can't have
\-)
22 stresses bigger than 40 PSI, PR over T. R is about 23 equal to T. Maybe you have 80 PSI tensile stress. k) 24 That would cause the concrete to crack. 25 MR. COSTANTINO: T is eight feet? L- - - -
. . - . - . . . - . . - . . . . . . . ~ . _ . . . - - .~ - .~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . ~ . . . ~ . . - ~
r- . 42
^T 1 MR.-KENKRE: Yes, about eight feet, eight 2 -feet six or something.
I( ~3 MR. REICH: Take it as seven because of
'4 the crack.
. 5 MR. BURWELL: Just roughly, the wall is-6 eight feet thick, correct, roughly? What is the 7 diameter of the internal diameter of the cavity?
8 What is the diameter of the cavity? 9 MR. KENKRE: 17 feet diameter. 10 MR. BURWELL: Thank you. 11' (Discussion off the record.)
- f 3. 12 MR. -EICHLER: While off the record, a-
~()
13 discussion ensued as to how the analysis would be 14 performed in order to establish that the effect of 15 .the missing rebar, establish what the effects of the 16 . missing rebar would be. Gibbs & Hill indicated that 17 as a result of the TRT findings, that they 18 understood what took place and why it took-place and
.19 the context in which it took place but they expected 20 Gibbs & Hill to provide calculations showing or 7^y 21 ' identifying what the effects, if any, of the missing LJ 22 rebar were on the stresses in the structure. Again 23 to recapitulate, the discussion off the record di, 24 discussed the possible case that Gibbs & Hill would 25 employ in order to address this. Does anybody care
~ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ . . _ .m ,.
43 1 to add anything else to that?
.2 M )R . BURWELL: Shall we continue, tnen?
7 () 3 Does that wipe out our need for further discussion 4 .on the missing rebar or are there further questions
. 5 concerning that matter?
6 MR. REICH: No, we have no questions on 7 it right now. 8 MR. BURWELL:- All right. Where does that 9 leave us in our agenda now we are through the 10 physical description of the cavity in considerable 11 _ detail and of the location and placement of the }r$
~
-12 upper a n'd lower lateral restraint.
VG 13 MR. COSTANTINO: Can we go off the record 14 again? 15 MR. BURWELL:- Off the record. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 MR. BURWELL: We have a request to go back 18 on the record to say what we would like to see after 19 lunch.
'20 MR. KUO: After lunch we would like to see
-[)_ 21 the' calculations pertinent to the portion of the u 22 concrete wall supporting the upper lateral beam and 23 that's it and any related information that could 24 help us to make a better assessment. 25 MR. BURWELL: I might add that you might i
- .. ._ ...m.__... . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . . -
44 1 also. include the analysis that was done for the
}
2 aarlier sessions of_ the hearing in which this () 3 allegation was first discussed. Off the record. 4 Let's break for lunch. 5 (Luncheon recess.)
-6 7 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 8
9 MR. BURWELL: - I believe what we were going a- 10 to :do this afternoon is start taking a look at the v: SP ~ l' 1 analysis. With that gentlemen, I guess it's your
,a 12 'show.
' ,a .
~ ~ ~
13 MR. REICH: Anil was going to start off. 14 MR. KENKRE: Do we want to s e e' the hand 15 calculation that were done as a result of the 16 NASTRAN analysis?
-17 MR. REICH: Not only the NASTRAN 18 calculations but-any; hand calculations that'you've 19 dona.
20 MR. KENKRE: Okay. () H21 MR. BURWELL: Would it be a good way to 22 start off with the evolution of the design? How. do
'23 -you have it arranged? Any way you would like. -; y:.
2 4~ MR. KENKRE: I would suggest we start with 25 this first and this is the hand calculation that
45 3 1 - were done as a result of the recent NASTRAN analysis, 2 MR. RINALDI: Were there any calculations
. ( ') . 3 before that, before the NASTRAN program was run, to 4 evaluate 58 thermal loads?
5 MR. KENKRE: Yes. These were hand 6 calculations that were done at the time of the 7 ' previous testimon~y. I don't remember the date
- 8 exactly and those were the calculations which they 9 felt were.not- complete enough and that's why we'are 10 - here.
- 11 MR. KUO: Can I suggest one thing. Can
.cq . - 12 - you go through this calculation back-here, spend D- ~
13 about five or. ten minutes, and tell all of us what "14 you'have in there and where we can find.certain P 15 -things. Then we can break and then let us take a 1G look at the calculations ourselves. 17 MR. KENKRE: .Okay. 18 -M R . RINALDI: The-other item I think -- 19 MR. REICH: This was a good point. 20 MR. RINALDI: -- that we were trying to 73 21 clear this morning was the verification of the loads. A._/ 22 I think-they would help us making the conclusion on 23 any points that we get from either this calculation kJ 24 or the other one that you were referring to before. 25 MR. .KENKRE: Yes. Okay. Fine.
# 9" + g 4 , --,e , e , - - . . , - - , , - - - - , . - . . . - .
r
___ ___ _ - _. .--- . -. ... . - . . . ~ . . . . - 46 1 MR. RINALDI: It's a possibility that the
.2 -loads may be, considering the analysis, may be much i 3 . larger than the. actual load that you may have.
4 MR. KENKRE: I will need a little time to
, 5 .go and see what the situation is because somebody is 6 looking for that. documentation.
7 MR. EICHLER: As a clarification for that, 8 Frank, the loads that we would clarify or verify 9 would-be the status of the Westinghouse loads and 10 those are not thermal loads. 11 MR. 'KUO: I understand. Whatever the
,cs. 12 loads you'got from Westinghouse.
- v) 13 MR. EICHLER: Whatever loads, okay.
14 MR. REICH: Let me ask you this. You 15 mentioned before that there was a time that you did 16 do some calcu'lations for the thermal loads which you
~17 showed I guess at some hearing and you said it was 18 rejected or something like that or you were told to 19 redo- it. I think Anil just mentioned that. Am I 20 right?
(^^- 21 MR. KENKRE: Right.
.'u 22 MR. REICH: Could you show us those, too?
23 MR. EICHLER: Yes. They are a matter of k_! 24 the record actually. They were simplified 25 calculations done during the court hearings, the
-y - - s 47 1 : licensing hearings, in which we made an assessment
-2 of the stiffness of the walls and the thermal thrust f(xs') 3 .- o n a purely manual basis.
4 MR. REICH: We would like to see that, 'too, 5 'That sounds like -- in fact, we would like to see 6 those first. 7 MR. EI Cl!L E R : That was the thing which in 8 effect ended up with being inadequate and going on-9 to better, even better things and a real realistic 10 analysis,_resulted in a request-by the licensing
-11 judge that a more definitive analysis considering j 12 the' actual stiffness and physical configuration of M') 13 the term structures be taken into. account in serving 14 the interaction between the lateral supports and the 15 -structure. Yes, we can. Would you rather see those ?
1 6' MR. REICH: We will see both. 17 MR. EICHLER: All right. 18 MR. R E I Cil : We can start with these while 19 somebody is looking for the other ones. 20 MR. EICHLER: Fine. Go ahead. I'll get 21 them. g' _)
-22 MR. 'KENKRE: These calculations are 23 calculation book number SRB-167C, set 3, sheets 1 l 2.4 -through 52.
25 MR. REICH: Could you go over that? You
my . _< - 48
~
; 1 went:. pretty fast.
2 MR. KENKRE: SRB-167C,. set 3, sheets 1 l%
$/ 3 .through 52. .These calculations were' included in the
-recent s u b'm i t t a lt to_NRC.
~
14 .These'are the calculations ~
. 5 that1we went through'~the last time we were'here in I
;6 -thinkDthebAugust meeting or whatever. What these
-7 caIcu1~ations are,1as a result of'the NASTRAN 28 . analysis,-we have taken out-from those outputs the
-.9 thrust 'from the lateral beams and-computed ~ by. hand
'10 - :the-punching stresses, punching shear stress i n' .th e 11 1. walls,t and also the diagona'l tensionfin'the plates.
1 12 f("} o iMR. RINALDI:.. Excuse m e .. -Based'on your
~ .- ~
13 .. discussions with Brock Haven, any changes have be.en
' l' 4 ~
~ made-to these calculations or.any changes have.been 37-15 1-co n templa t ed .on .:these calcula ti ons ?:
11 6 MR..KENKRE: Based on the discussion in,- ,T 11'7- Lwas'it. August-or -- 18 MR. BURWELL: That was the meeting.
- 19 MR.: KENKRE: Was it' August or October?
20 August, I' think. We.had made some additional i
' S'#T 21' calculation ~ and submi tted :them..
M 22 MR..BURWELL: You submitted those to 1 23 Brookhaven and to the NRC? ri :. D'- J24 -MR. KENKRE: Right. 25 MR. COSTANTINO: Those were the back of
- .r .
i l 1 49 ) i 1 the envelope numbers we were talking about before? !
-2 MR. KENKRE: Yes. But they were done on ' . (a[
3 the-same sort of calculation sheets. 4 MR. REICH: Anil, the set we have, though, 5 is called SRB-4C3. That's one set. Let's see what 6 the other set is. Now, we have the 167 but we are 7 ' starting off on, I think,.page 50, yes,.53. 8 MR. KENKRE: 53 is those additional 9 calculation-that resulted from our discussions.
'10 ~MR. REICH:- But I don't have the other 11 page. Okay. I may have them someplace but I don't
,12 know for sure.
.g -%, } 13 MR. BURWELL: Perhaps when you look at it,
-14 you'll be able to recognize them now.
-15 MR. REICH: These I went over in detail.
16 MR. KENKRE: Right. These calculations 17 also include some calculation on the embedment of 18 the upper lateral, as far as these hand calculations 19 are concerned, just to say what they contain. Now 20 is the right time to go to the old calculations 7 $. ,21 which were done for the licensing?
\.)
22 MR. REICH: Before you go ahead even to
- 23 .the old ones, can you sort of summarize for us, when ku 24 you did these calculations and you looked at the 25 -upper.latera --
let's first go to the upper lateral
?
_ _ - . .. . . . . - . . . . . . . , . ..- . .., n. . - -, 50 1 support -- and you made the calculations for the, 2 let's ~ say, punching shear and things like that, what
. a L j,. ) 3 did you ~ use? What kind of numbers did you use? Do 4 .you have that summarized?
5 MR. KENKRE: Yes. The thrust that we got,
.6 the maximum thrust that we got from the NASTRAN
~
7 analysis, the maximum thrust in the beams, we took 8 those thrusts and evaluated the punching shear on 9 the walls.
= 10 MR. REICH: What was the case? What was 11~ the maximum case?
. ,~3 12 MR. KENKRE: The maximum case was the main 4 i, i 13 steam break. Let me just verify that. With 450 14 pounds per square inch, tensile strength in concrete, 15 MR. R E I Cil : Is that calculation on s'h e e t 16 50? Is that the one?
17 MR. KENKRE: No. The one that I'm looking 18 at here are the calculations prior to calculations 19 that were generated as a result of the meeting. 20 MR. REICH: ' Fine. Go ahead.
/'N 21 MR. KENKRE: We took the thrust from the d
.22 NASTRAN analysis and we put them on the concrete 23 walls and evaluated the stresses. There were only ;
f 24 'two areas where we did not have diaphragm
, cf 25 -immediately behind these beams and those were the !
- . 51 s 9 1 ones which were considered as the most critical ones 2 and we looked at those.
f s.
.(, ) 3 MR. REICH: Okay.
14 MR. COSTANTINO: How did you decide on
, 5 most' critical?
G MR.-KENKRE: First by looking at the 7 geometry, first of all, the thrust on both walls 8 were identical. One of the wall had diaphragm 9 immediately beyond, behind the bed so that was not a 10 critical because it could never punch through that 11 area. The other side wall did not have the
.f ew l' 2 diaphragm. .That's how we concluded that should be 13 the-critical'one as far as the area is concerned and 14 we had picked the maximum thrust which was as a 15 result of main-steam-break.
H 16 MR. COSTANTINO: Is punching shear'the 17 only-item you looked at? 18 MR. KENKRE: No. We looked at diagonal 19 tension shear also and those we looked at a distance 20 D from the supports and load point and there we took 7T 21 the value from the NASTRAN code. L) 22 MR. MILLER: Did you do that element by
'23 element?
k 24 MR. KENKRE: Yes. 25 MR. . MILLER: So you satisfied the
52 j' .1 al'lowable shear within each element?
'2 <
MR. KENKRE: Right.
}. 3 MR. REICH:'But the case was the 450 PSI?
'4 MR. KENKRE: Right. That is as far as 5 these calculations.
6 MR. KUO: What else in your calculation 7 book there? 8 MR. KENKRE: That's all. I'm referring to
'9 these calculations.
10 M R .- HEICH: Let's take a look at that 11 -first.
,j 12 .R.
M COSTANTINO: How about looking at k 13 stresses and rebar.
-14 MR. KENKRE: The stresses in the rebar-
'15 were looked at directly from the output of the
-15 NASTRAN'because the stress in the.rebars is one of 17 the - - - -
18 MR.~COSTANTINO: One of the outputs from _19 .the ~NASTRAN?
- 20. MR. KENKRE: Right.
A 21 MR. REICH: But you have to remember that
) 22 the rebar stress from, according to what we know 23 about the NASTRAN, cannot do any inelasticity in the m
- m. d): 24 rebar. Right?
25 MR. KENKRE: We don't know because we have
(, . ~ . , , , . - =- . ~. - ~
~
53
, lI 'not written --
- 9,r .
2 'M R . COSTANTINO: In any situatio'n did the .
> /G .
.i_).? 3 rebar yield?-
4 MR. KENKRE: No.
. 5 MR. REICH:- It.couldn't because it just 16 :doesn't1 work that way.
7 MR. COSTANTINO: 'The stress output was 2 8 less than yield?
'9 M R .- KENKRE: Yes.
41 0- MR.-SHARMA: Those-rebar stresses were 11 based on this 450 PSI concrete strength?- PV ;12 M R .. KENKRE: Let me take a look at the
^
':)-
' 1'3 ' table which gives --
the question was: whether these r -
- 14 maximum' stresses-were from a certain. loading-15 :c omb i na t i o n ?
16 MR.-SHARMA: No. Whether those.rebar 17 stresses were' based on 450 PSI tensile strength
.18 concrete or zero strength tensile strength concrete.
'19 MR. KENKRE: The. answer to the question is 20 we1will .take a look at-the table that was put forth.
N:A_f
. 21' I~ don't remember'off the top of my head.
MR.'JAN: Very likely it's the case
.22' L2 3. _because it will give you very less flexibility in :
L . 24 theEwall because you assume higher tensile strength l 25 in'the concrete. Therefore, you have-less degree of l
]
4 54 4[. {1 cracking.
./
2 MR. EICHLER: Already on the record-there ((M)( . 13 is a table in Iotti's testimony and which'we
-4 ! discussed -last time,-.I think we provided some
. - .5 -clarifying tables in addition ~to that which 6 ' tabulated'the stresses.from the NASTRAN output for 7 both zero and.450 PSI but not necessarily in every
.8 . case, every' load-case. Both were looked at. Both
- 9
-.were considered.
10- LM R . KENKRE: Any questions on this as to
' l l' 'what this calculation is? g 11 2 MR.' REICH: Maybe weishould getfoff the Oo .13 -record, look at this first, and then come back to 11 4 the'next packageJafter.thi's.
15 ' MR. BURWELL: Fine. Could we go.off the
-16 -record.
17 (Discussion off the: record.) 18 -(Short break.) 19 MR. BURWELL: Let's go back on the record-u 12 0- .and I.believe you gentlemen had one or two quick.
] 21 ~ questions on what.some of the-things in the analysis ]
~
22 were.
- 23 HM R . MILLER: On page 36 of that d ; 24' .ca'1culation,~ SRB-167C, what I would like to have 25 .someone-do'is to sort.of walk through the drawings
9. v ,j .55
?^1 l' relative to the dimensions,-the dimensions of the M;'
2 . shear. punch *o~ut section. It seems to me it's the
~ (3)..
3 northeast wall and-if you could sort of relate 4 ^'mensions'on di here to things on-the drawing, I-think 5 that4would - be 'o f' help. I think in doing'that, it 6 'wo u ld a b e nice :if ' you could sort of sketch a section 7 .through that wall.
- 18 MR. RINALDI: Compartment three I believe 9 'he is indicating, compartment three..
10 MR. MILLER: It looks like that's-tho'one 11 :tha t is really of.most- interest. rs :12: MR.-RINALDI: I think if we indicate by b6
, 13 . compartment, I think that would be clearer.-
14 MR. KENKhE: This one? 15 MR. MILLER: 'The one above that. 1' 6 MR. KENKRE: This 66 inches, which is here.
-17 that,is this distance and we have~ taken the 45 18 degrees dispersion and the section-that is checked 19 .i s D by two and this is what the section looks like 20 over,there.
Y '21 MR. MILLER: Where in there do you get the
- (]/ .-
22 77 inches thick section?
'23 MR. KENKRE: This is not a 77 thick k) 24 section. This distance is 77. This is the 25 periphery at the D by two.
56
'3- 1 MR. . MC: GRANE: Go up a little higher.
~
2 MR. KENKRE: This 77 is from here and that D>J 3 is 38. This is 38. 4 MR. MC GRANE: Okay. 5 MR. MILLER: So you are saying that above 6' Lthe support'that wall is 2'9" or ~33 inches-thick. 7 MR. KENKRE: Yes. S MR. MILLER: On that wall below is four-9 feet thick. 10 MR. KENKRE: Right. 11 MR. MILLER: And the slab that comes in -- 11 2 MR. KENKRE: This one is 18 inches thick. l i~.s 1 13 MR. MILLER: 187 If that properly
- 14. describes the geometry, then I can make my own --
15 MR. KENKRE: We are making sketches for 1G you, the 16 sketches. You have 4 upper, 4 lower,- 8, 17 has got 2 ends, so 16, we will have 16 sketches 18 showing the geometry. 19 MR. MILLER: Then this is sort of 20 redundant. Sorry about that. fS 21' MR. KENKRE: We are making cross-sections Q} 22 exactly at the junction of the beams and the walls. 23 MR. BURWELL: Through the center line of
/N Tc) 24 the support as it is attached :o the wall.
25 MR. MC GRANE: That's a three-foot slab.
57 t> 2 1 'M R . MILLER: As long as.he is preparing
-2 the' sketches, then this is sort of not too necessary, i_) 3 MR. REICH: You are also preparing 4 . s o m e t h'i ng on the-lower one like that?
e
. 5 MR. KENKRE: 4 lower beams, 4 upper beams, 6 we have 8 times 2, 16 sketches.
7 MR. BURWELL: What is that 19-inch
.8 dimension?
~9 MR. KENKRE: That is the dimension from 10 the pad to where the critical section intersect's.
11 MR. BURWELL: Fine. f- 12 MR. RINALDI: Maybe I guess we are at the h 13 point where you could explain all the calculations, 14 .the one before the NASTRAN, to see if we have any 15 problem with that or questions. _15 MR. KENKRE: This hand calculation was_ 17 making a lot of assumption as far as stiffnesses of 18 ~ the walls were concerned and the basis was, the 19 basis is really depicted on this graphical solution 20 here where what we are saying is if the supports ('s U
.21 were not moving at all, then we will have a certain 22 load, depending on the differential temperature, and 23 if they are fully flexible, is allowed to grow 24 'without any restriction at all, then the growth
'25 would be so much. We draw a line and then we have i
- n. a +. .~ . - ,.a w aw pa- . s - . . . - .
58 L( ^ ,
, 1- t h e's e lines 1 going from the' origin which showed the 2 ' assumed stiffnesses of each of the two end walls.
n D l3' 'Then we~ draw an' imaginary line here.which would be 4 the balancing' load. The-load will be somewhere 5 'between.zero and this maximum of 14,402 and we' find 6 :this graphically of how much that balance and load
- 7 would be and then we.use-that. load and verify,what 8 -the1 stresses.in the walls would be only due to that-
- 9 ' thrust. Those stresses were then added --
I'm sorry.
.: 10 'Due-tc~ that. stress, we found out how much
- 11 reinforcement-would be required and then to that we f~y 12 added.the reinforcement that was required for.
~W _
'13-originals which was done for all other loadings 14 except the thrust.
15 MR. COSTANTINO: .Can you repeat that? 16 'This does the thermal load component only? 17 MR. KENKRE:-Yes. We found out what i s-18 the. reinforcement required for that' component. To
-1 9 that we added the reinforcement that was required-in 20 the original STARDYNE calculations.
21- MR. COSTANTINO: For seismic? 22- MR. KENKRE: For seismic and other loads, 23 dead. load, live load and so forth, seismic and so bv ' 24 forth. 25 MR. RINALDI: What controls this 4 4
f 59~
, 'l ' computation is.the differential temperature that.you Sud" 2 take in design?
) 3' MR. KENKRE: .Yes.
4 MR. RINALDI: It's very important: to pick
. 5 the correct-differential temperature.
6 MR. KENKRE: -Yes. 7 MR. RINALDI: Because if you-underestimate 8 ~or overestimate, you might get considerable change 9 in-results, less reinforcing or much more than you "10 required.
. 11. MR. KENKRE: Tha t 's : correct.
if* 12 MR. RINALDI: 'Is this temperature in 'IV.,.). 13 agreement with all the calculated temperature values? 14 MR. KENKRE: The answer is this
- 15 . temperature is-based on LOCA break. For example, we 16 'have seen several values. At the last meeting, I
-17 think we referred to the calculated value of 355.
18 This calculation, are they consistent with that 19 value? 20 MR. KENKRE: These calculations were done f'}~ 21 prior to the HEATING 5 code used. This had v 22 approximately 220 and this was for LOCA.
- 23 MR. KUO:-220 instead of 355?
k /. 24 MR. KENKRE: 220 instead of 210 that we 25 have now got for LOCA. The main steam was not
- w. - 60 Q-f ~' -- I considered.here.
(Lp
-2 ,
LMR. KUO: How did.you determine the (m)l - 3 position of t h a t' horizontal line there, balancing 4 the loads you mentioned before? _ '5 MR.- KENKRE: This'can be-;done graphically' 6 by-trial ~and error or you can make two equations and 7 find that out also. What shows here is the 8 graphical approach. 9 MR. KUO: So you draw the line by triale 10 and error? 11 MR. KENKRE: Right.
,q 12 MR. COSTANTINO: The two displacements
)
~ ' ~
13 have_to equal the thermal growth. potential. 14 MR. RINALDI: So basically you are saying-
-15 that the v a l u e , -: the differential-temperature that 16 youLused in this calculation is more conservative
-17 than the one derived 1from the HEATING 5 code?
18- MR. KENKRE: No. I think we had used 220 19 as the differential temperature. The one that we
~2 0 got after the HEATING S code was done is I think 282 r
rsy ,21 or-something like that.
\,.. . .
22- MR. RINALDI: For the upper lateral 23 restraint beam and LOCA condition.
., 24 MR. KUO: There were several values 25 mentioned. Let's clarify that once. You mentioned
wi .. . . . - L/ 61 1 a number 210 and there's a 220,'there's a 285 and 2 there's 355. Can you clarify each of these values, 1,- ) ~ v 3 .what they are? 4 MR. KENKRE: I would need all the 5 documents that go along with it, which is the tables 6 and the testimony. 7 MR. KUO: Just give us a description.- 8 What is_210? What is that number? 9 MR. KENKRE: That's why I will need that
~ 10 document which will show that figure 210.
11 MR. E I C il L E R : You are talking of 12 ' differential temperatures, aren't you? f'~') w, . 1.3 MR. KENKRE: Right.
-14 MR. EICHLER: We are mixing apples and Ib 15 oranges.
-16 MR. KUO: That's what I'm trying to 17 clarify for the record.
18 MR. COSTANTINO: 285 and 355 are both main
. 19 steam break. 285 is differential temperature and 20 add to that 70, the ambient, gives you the 355, (Gj 21 which is the main steam break temperature, is that 22 right, and the LOCA temperature is 220 plus 70 which 23 is 290 which is the absolute temperature. You are <-- 24 saying there's maybe a 210 instead of a 220?
25 MR. KENKRE: Maybe 210 is not the right
~ - ~ . . . - . . . - ~.... --..... . - - - . . - . . . - - - . . . . .
L L s 62 F. ..
./ number.
1- I don't recollect. There are so many F , 2 numbers.
.?l 3
t
^4 -
3 MR. COSTANTINO: A LOCA which is 220 4 differential and a main steam is 285 differential. 5 .MR. REICH: In the letter that we have r 6 . here,.it says the upper beam temperature will be 282 7 F, the lower one 289. That's for LOCA. At 216 8 seconds, it is 282 degrees Fahrenheit at the upper 9 beam and 209 degrees Fahrenheit at the lower beam 10 - and' finally at the main steam peak temperatures at 11 324 seconds, you have 370 degrees Fahrenheit but l) y 12 there Iotti told us at the last meeting that they
~
13 had calculated-this with the codes mentioned 14 previously and they found.out that, they concluded 15 that there were.355 degrees Fahrenheit, not 370 16 Fahrenheit. 17 MR. EICHLER: For the purposes of 18 discussing this calculation, let me speak of main 19 steam and LOCA. The two should not be used in the 20 same context with respect to this. In hearings at 7.~ 1_)y 21 that time, the allegations were with respect to LOCA, 22 LOCA effects, LOCA temperatures, and LOCA and 23 nothing but LOCA, and until the time that the court
.\ . 24 order December 28, '83, came out, no one had 25 discussed main steam. Main steam was not an issue.
1 b
CY 63 '" 1 LOCA was and consequently everything that has been 2 done with respect to these calculations will refer t n Q_,) 3 only'to LOCA._Tne-differential temperatures of 210
;4 or_220,'the best . point that could be made there, .
5 EchancesEare that we used the more conservative 6 .rather.than d'iminished to be less conservative 7 . differentia 1' temperature, the actua'l beam growth, so 8 if anything, we overstated the effects. 9 Main steam came about only subsequent and 10 during the-NASTRAN analysis where, because'you have-L1- corta.in physical realities, upper beam, lower 12 oeam. Lower-beams have not been mentioned during
.~'
13 the court hearings'. LOCA with its lower temperature, 14' higher pressure, but coincident seismic effect was
.15 one case, but it's obvious, and if we didn't raise 16 it, somebody;else-might, therefore~we raised it.
17 The main steam had to be looked at. liigher
~ 18 temperature, nill pressure,'differencials and, of 19 course, no seismic. That's how main steam got in-20 there. So I just wanted to put it in context since ' N./;
J (~} ' :21 Frank brought the question up. 22 MR. COSTANTINO: Are we going to get a 23 copy of the two sets of calculations or will a copy k_ '.. 24 'be sent? 25 MR. R E I C il : A third set.
64 [ 1 MR. .COSTANTINO: Apparently there is no a 2 ' third set. HK j 3 .MR. EICHLER: You mean the hand < -4 calculations? L5 M R .~ COSTANTINO: Yes, to look at those, 6 .page 1:to 52, 7 MR. REICH: Those are the ones, then, at
-e the hearing which were rejected. Am I correct?
9 MR. EICHLER: Can we go off the record, 10 please. 11 (Discussion off the record.) yy 12 MR. MILLER: After reviewing-the steel
"(( )-
13 that.was Icft out in.the lower portion of the
;14 . containment and considering its distance from the 15 upper lateral restraint beam and the supports of the 16 upper lateral restraint beam, we conclude that that 17 missing beam can have no impact on the stresses in 18 the vicinity of the upper lateral restraint beam or
<19 in the capability of the upper lateral restraint 20 beam to pcrform its function.
,21 MR. MC GRANE: Would you like to contain 22 'that containment to the reactor cavity?
23 MR. MILLER: The reactor cavity wall, b 24' right. 25 MR. KUO: Can we also describe what our u
__ _ .~ _
. _ ~ . . . . _
65 ' f( 2 1 information that we requested and that will be 2 provided by Gibbs & Hill and are we bringing back x_/- 3 with us today.
.4 MR. REICH: Can we have those? First of
. 5 :all,.we are taking a calculation number SRB-167C,
'S set three, and we are taking that from sheet number 7 2 up to 52, those calculations. We have no' cover 8 sheet.
-9 MR. KENKRE: Make it 1 to 52.
'10 MR. REICH: Now it's 1 to 52. We have 11 been-given the cover sheet. Amend it. The next one, r~y ~12 the next bundle of things that we are getting is 1
13 calculation number SRB-111C, set 4, and it starts 14 with sheet 30 and it goes up to number 51 and again, 15 I'll give you the subject is the upper lateral 16 restraint, accident temperature investigation. On 17 the latter, by the way, the first one, the title is 13 Analysis for Accident Temperature (Cracked Model). 19 Now, in' addition to this, we understand 20 that we are going to get drawings pertaining to the (N'; L 21 cross-sections of the upper and lower support, where 22 the beams contact the wall and the wall measurements 23 in the area there, descriptions of the wall and the 3)% 24 rebar area, rebars in the wall. 25 MR. KENKRE: Could we make it sketches 1
L !~ 66 t 1 instead of drawings? o 2 MR. R E I C il : Sketches. Not drawings.
. ,.c3
(,J .3 ! These are sketches. We are getting 16 sketches.
-4 MR. BURWELL: In fact, if you could do-
, 5 those sketches.on an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper,
-6 it's much easier for us to handle and it would be 7 entirely adequate.
8 MR. REICH: In addition, we are going to 9 get a set of drawings which are up on the wall here,
- 10 just to make sure that we have the same set of 11 drawings. -That's about it.
e 12 MR. BURWELL: I believe you are, v , 13 MR. R E I Cil : And the reinforcing detail. 14 'That's the only item which isn't up on the wall. 15 MR. BURWELL: I said I believe you will 16 ' nave to mail us the drawings. Is that not correct? 17 MR. KENKRE: That's correct. We will have 18 to mail. Would you also need Westinghouse drawings 19 on the upper and the lower? Do you need them? 20 MR. BURWELL: Would they be proprietary
} 21 to Westinghouse?
, .22 MR. KENKRE: We have used them to do our 23 calculations.
(s
. 24 MR. R E I C il : Okay.
25 MR. COSTANTINO: The answer is yes.
. _ m 3
67
'T 1 'M R . REICH: Yes.-
2 MR. KENKRE: There was a question about
' q)-g
- t. / 3 =the Westinghouse's-load that were given. I have got 4 ~some information on'that. WPT 1203 of July, 1976.
. 5 .MR. MC GRANE: For the court reporter's 6 -information, that's a letter number.
7 MR. KENKRE: Of' July, '76, the loads given 8 to us by Westinghouse by this letter was used in our
~9 original STARDYNE analysis and here we had assumed 11 0 Ethe peak loads in all the cases without trying to 11 see whether they were occurring simultaneously or (N 12 not. Later.on WPT'6668 of October '83 and 6987 of
;( .-l
~
13 February, '84 provided the lgads which were-
'14 different from the earlier' loads and which were 15 smaller than the earlier loads and these loads were 15 used in Sur latest NASTRAN analyses with due regard 17 'to whether they occur. simultaneously or not.
18 MD. KUO:~ Can you repeat the last part? 19 MR. XENKRE: The WPT 6668 and G937 20 -provided loads which were less than the loads I L( 21 provided earlier by WPT 1203 and these loads were 22 used in our latest NASTRAN analysis with due regard 23 to time relationship between them. 1/ 24 MR. R E I C il : Thank you. That's it. 25 MR. KUO: When can our consultants get
m. 68 "l'- 1 your drawings? You are going to send out tomorrow? 2 MR. EICHLER: Friday it will go in the Q 3 mail. x 4 MR.' REICH: It usually comes within a day. 5 MR. MC GRANE: Our reproduction efforts G aren't as prompt as they used to be.
.7 MR. REICH: Monday we should have it
;8 ~ problem. By.the way, when you send it, last time 9 jau wrote deliver 129 and.it came there, which is 10 . good because otherwise it goes to some building and 11 we have trouble finding it.
_ 12 MR. KENKRE: We used the same address.that (!'~',) 13 .you gave me. 14 MR. KUO: That's all we have, Spot. 15 MR. BURWELL: If I may summarize, which we
-16 did a little bit earlier perhaps, I believe you made 1 7. the statement that with respect to the analysis of 18 the upper lateral restraint, that the missing rebar 19 question would not impact your analysis for that 20 portion and conversely, that your analysis or the gS 21 forces and design of the upper lateral support were
. G' 22 sufficiently removed so that they would not~ impact 23 any analysis-on the question of, on the behavior of N i te ' 2: 4 the wall in the area of the missing rebar.
25 With.that, I believe we are finished and i:
.__ _ - _ _ . . - _ _~._,_ _ _ _ ._, . _ . _ - . _ _ _.
69
~
1 'all I can say'is thank you very much,-gentlemen. I 2 inote we got' the ~information we wanted,.which.was a
;f'N L3 good physical description of the design, and we will .w) 4 .get.the description of the rebar arrangement and so 5 on in forthcoming drawings. Thank you.
6 MR. MC GRANE: Our pleasure.
.7 MR. BURWELL: Would you make that 18 Exhibit 2.
9 (Exhibit 2 marked.) 10 (Proceedings concluded.) 11 12 7 3, j . 13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 20 ( ')i w. 22 23 f s' Eb 25 m
TL.g 41 / 1 C_ E R T I F I C A T E 2
.~
J 3 I, MARGARET J. TEILHABER, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New 5 Jersey, do hereby certify that prior to the 6 commencement of the examination the witness and/or 7 witnesses were sworn by me to testify the truth, the 8 whole truth and n o't h i n g but the truth. 9 I do further certify that the fo reg o ing is a 10 true and accurate transcript of the testimony as 11 taken stenographically by and before me at the time, 12 place and on the date hereinbefore set forth. 4 13 I do further certify that I am neither of 14 counsel nor attorney for any party in this action 15 and that I am not interested in the event nor 16 outcome of this litigation. 17 , 18 /' j 19 h dd ( W / 20 Notary Public of the State of New Jersey [) 21 Certificate Number 856 22 My commission expires July, 1986. 23 (^)\ i s 24 Dated: _-- _ _ _ . 25 WOQO and spinelli certified rhorthand (Teport:^m
g b[
\$FM *
. D ESR(2.WT't64 of ooTE A Matts l 'y cF TAE 'ST'eAen <1sn(eftATo(2
'~
GMPAATff\ENTS (Pt. Nen kr h
\~*
2 ddT5tDE dA'LS . I r__ ' ? ' ' F6 A EMA sd-MTc R comPh 9--TrAelT3
-y w 2 '- 9 "
Eb l -b -- U PPE A N LATERA t-- .
\- sJ0P6A.T o. 6 o d *#8,
L , - l_
?
f m ' { l G - I _--+ C 4' , A ..
- -C ^ lf l
\
44 % 7, ( 4
, +.me es . em
< urn 9Ncr rm(Ts c ernPn AT< M .rdt 3 i 4- LL i 2__ &3
7 N-74Y ~j)I c(2-053- SEcTAL o F CJTEft.ffRLL
. of comPAPsTa\ENT *J - (. A. Kin.kre) ,
---A- z' T h
\
s
-Ebm--O' y U N
; <p ,g -
3 o,,
\ " 17 If7-lo
, y f UFC'EA 77 LATEML
( roPPdT
\]
l.
,r O ll
{-
<-+.
dy) a- c-9 O
% .]
w_}}