ML20140C786
| ML20140C786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/14/1984 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1324, NUDOCS 8406190449 | |
| Download: ML20140C786 (58) | |
Text
y i
1 ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
A LA ORY COMISSION 3 i O
4 I
r, I
G In the Matter of:
7 THE 20th GENERAL MEETING OF p
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR g
SAFEGUARDS 9
10 l
11 i
12 1
13 l0 l
V 14 15
{
l 16 l
17 18 19 l
Vol. II l
20 Location: Washington, D. C.
Pages: 115-171 21 Date: Thursday, June 14, 1984 l
22 i
Ofl A h' M
24 25 8406190449 840614 1
jJ i
PDR ACRS T-1324 PDR FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annap. 169 6136
1 115 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,/]
2
'Q)
NUCLEAR REGULATOR"Y COMMISSION 3
THE 290th GENERAL MEETING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
PUBLIC MEETING S
Nuclear Regulatory Commission G
1717 H S treet, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
7 Thursday, June 14, 1984 8
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9
,:g.
8:30 a.m.
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
11 JESSE EBERSOLE, Chairman of the Committee 12 DAVID A. WARD, Vice Chairman of the Committee J. CARSON MARK,. Committee Member I^)
13 CHESTER P. SEISS, Committee Member ROBERT C. AXTMANN, Committee Member 14 DADE W. MOELLER, Committee Member WILLIAM KERR, Committee Member 15 MAX W. CARBON, Committee Member HAROLD ETHERINGTON, Committee Member 16 FORREST J.
REMICK, Committee Member GLENN A. REED, Committee Member j7 DAVID OKRENT, Committee Member CARLYLE MICHAELSON, Committee Member 18 ig STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABL 20 R.
SAVIO 21 22 23 24 C\\
t n
\\2 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine
- Depositions D.C. Aree u
161 1901
- Solt. & Annap. 169 6136 L-
P 116 l
l 2
f..
2 v) t 3
DISCLAIMER 4
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 5'
June 14, 1984 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.
C.
The meeting was 6
open to public attendance and observation.
This trans-cript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and 7
it may contain inaccuracies.
[
8 The transcript is intended solely for general infor-mational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 9
not part of the formal or informal record of decision
..-]t of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in 10 this transcript do not necessarily reflect final deter-minations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be 11 filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument 12 contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
13 14 15 16
~
17 18 1
19 1
20 21 22 23 24 25 3
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions
{
D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6136
117 p'
~(_/
1 MR. CROUCH:
. where we pick up in both of 2
these circles, we cross that FM-1 and FM-2 line and 3
pick.up the distress in cutting the sections at an 4
angle oblique to' the rest of the setting structure.
5 So, and this line is several kilometers east of map so this is a lot of confidence that 6
the 7
we're on the right track. Again, just to the north, and 8
this is the northern most line that we show, we see 9
thrusting in the offset.
io Now, some people have cited the amount of off-and that we 11 set or displacement along this 12 show on our paper, and as we indicate the amount of 13 offset, and I would point out that our purpose and our
('3,
'% /
14 focus in this paper was not to establish the amount of is offset vertically, that is and not an offset on the is 17 And so INAUDIBLE on this side of the is
-we didn't have good and so I was being somewhat conservative and 19 20 as well as not really addressing that particular problem.
21 So I would say that that's the sort of study that needs 22 to be undertaken and it shouldn' t be drawn as a conclusion 23 from our paper.
24 Just to summarize these different types ot 25 thrust that we see primarily, one is in the sense that A
. \\s 'I Ad FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
NRC/40 court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Bolt. 46 Annop.149-6136 1
T4
118
/t j )
i we get thrust and reverse holding coming back above the 2
major thrust and in these..in many cases, 3
we see this reverse becomings very close 4-to the surface up here where the thrust will die out 5
in the older part of the section.
6 And the same is true for normal vaulting which 7
could be just simply a releasing a
vault as you thrust out this block.over the..on the line g
block..
in So, the point here is that in many cases we n
think,the is met, is represented by this Portion of this system and not the actual thrust itself.
12 f_s 33 So, it has implications not only as to the character of 1
kJ 34 the default and the placement of it in that view, but is it also has implications that..how that fault actually 16 lo ks; in other words, it's not as a straight trace in i7 many cases, and in fact, if you've considered a thrust, is you get quite a different interpretation along a trend ig in terms of a map view because you're tying this horizon 20 to this horizon and not this one and this one.
21 MR. JACKSON:
You might mention so there's no 22 confusion that's a rotating..we've rotated those figures relative to the INAUDIBLE 23 MR. CROUCil:
Right, like we said we we're not 24 25 making implications to Diablo.
Okay, in other words, O
v AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
2 T4 C'"" "* tine e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
119 j"%
t
)
(,/
1 to summarize the evidence, the thrusting we see reflection data.
2 of these faults on 3
Cross section, symetry to faults and below the faults suggest there's depression going on.
Parallel from 4
5 the poles of faults from the mapvielnd then the first 6
motion of studies which 1 understand you see a copy 7
of Jerry Eaton's paper and there's a number of others 8
that we cited in our paper that suggests that indeed 9
there are stress motions in this part of the world.
10 Just to show that this is not only the case 11 offshore but surprisingly enough it's been long-known 12 onshore, in the San Maria Basin area, for example, we've
- profile, fw 13 got a lot of well information on b
14 it cuts right across the San Maria Valley field and is, and it shows is the orchid field where is major thrusting along with they call the orchid frontal 17 fault, and they're now presently drilling wells in the 18 subthrust clays underneath the orchard f ronbl f ault.
19 This has been well known by all industries for 20 a number of years.
What we did in our paper was to 21 also summarize some of the fault history of the power 22 coaster engines, some of the work done by a number of 23 workers, classic papers by Ben Page and Thompson, and 24 a number of others that have argued in the past. 1 think 25 very well,a that a lot of these faults that are here in s~s g3 NRC/40 3
T4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Repeeting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
n 120 Ix/
1 the coast ranges, are not only parallel to the San 2
Maria's faults, but they also show a lot of evidence 3
of compression, in terms of reverse and thrust type 4
character.
5 And we've also taken from the literature to 6
the trend of fold axis and you might think of these 7
also as being parallel to those faults that you saw a
in the sense that they are very close to being parallel 9
to the San Maria system, usually less than 10 degrees to diversion from that trend.
This is not the character is that one would expect along a system.
i2 So, to sort of summarize what's going on or
(~T 13 at least what we think is going on that causes the
.LJ 14 stressing because we know from a lot of studies that is indeed the San Andrea's f ault is a major transformer is strike slip fault.
So we know we're in a strike slip i7 regime, then how do we conclude or come up with some 18 kind of thrust motion.
is Well, the answer I think is reltively simple, 20 and that is the San Andrea's fault strikes this way 21 about north forty west and that vector is shown by this 22 vector here in both its direction and magnitude; magni-23 tude being about 37 millimeters per year as been 24 measured by a number of people.
25 And the Pacific North American relative OG AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 4
T4 p.C. Area 261-1902 e soit. & Annop. 269-6236
121 p
(_,)
1 motion is 56 millimeters per year has been determined 2
by people like Jordan Minster and that is shown here 3
in this vector, in order to solve that vector loose, 4
we're left with the conclusion that we have to have s
some kind of compression to get back to the North American overall pide motion, and it's really simple as 6
7 that.
8 Now, notice that this compressional vector, if
.9 you will INAUDIBLE io you'll notice that it becomes larger as we get opposite in the curvature of the big bend, simply because the San 12 Andreas is now strking at an angle that's even left in line with thE*N8Eik American Pacific glate motion.
f-13
~
14 So, we summarize these solutions on this specter is diagram showing in brown here the San Andreas motion is with the various solutions I won't go into but it depends 17 on how one :looks at the base of the range opening that 18 sort of controls some of the overall North American 19 Pacific plate motion, but anyway this is what generally's 20 accepted and the variability of that, and that's shown 21 given the offset motion of San Andreas over the last 22 5.5 million years.
23 And so, in order to get back to this North 24 American Pacific plate motion vector, again we can divide 25 that up into unresolved motion as residual strike slip 3
I
\\
V AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
5 T4 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6136
122 1, ~)
(,/
i and residual conversions.
And our sort of preferred 2-values here, if you will, is the average of these 3
vectors, is roughly 68 kilometers of strike and slip 4
and 47 kilometers of conversions over the last 5.5 5
million years.
6 So, in other words, we're saying instead of 7
just strike slip motion, we get a roughly 50-50 situation a
here where we're getting depressiion, basically perpen-
)
9 dicular to the strike slip.
10 And we also felt like if this was the case, then it we have to have something more going on than just a system, and what we 12 simple thrust along the t
13 suggested in this diagram based on a number.of papers k )g 14 that have been written in the coast ranges on depth to I
is the 6.8 kilometers of the second layer, depth limits of is the San Andreas, earthquakes, depth limits of earthquakes as well as some of 17 in the coast ranges by 18 the data from the old French out_here, and data from 19 places like San Lucia banks and onshore, is that perhaps 20 we've got some kind of decoulmont (phonetic) that de-21 taches this upper plate from the underlying plate.
22 That is to say that if we've got this conversions 23 going on, we're basically arguing that the Pacific plate 24 is still being pushed underneath the rug, so to speak, 25 and if that's the case, we've got to detach it in some way.
C\\
l U AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
6 T4 c,,,,,,,,,;,,, g,,,,;,;,,,
D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
123
{.
(-
k And so,,
that's our basic thesis or our model, if i
I T
you will, of'how we c'an do ail this.
Now, the implica-2 3
tions
' It6e here, just to 4
summarize how that'looks closer to home, here's Point 5
Duchon (phonetic) where Diablo sits here and what we're
)
suggesting,is that-the Hasgrie is: some kind of thrust 6
systema %1that ties into left lateral faulting in the 7
8 western --
ranges and_this is a conclusion that's
/
l 9
been made a number of years ago by people like Dick Johns to and Dick We11ingham and a number of others suggesting 11 that instead of Hasgrie,'there's always been a problem forworkersarguingstr'iL[e that the Hasgrie suddenly 12 O
ends al the south, and somehow merges with the system
.t 13 b
14 here'because we knew all thest faults were left lateral.
is Well, if we now accept that fact that they are 16 left' lateral, then we've got a very easy solution for
^
i
7 moving these blocks westward and releasing that westward L
i 18 push by thrusting along the fault, such as the Hasgrie.
to The same is true for f ault's along the, for example, 20 the San Ynez fault, as well as the..something like the f
,2 v# - Northern Channel float faults, some of those, where we
.?
/
2pj get combined Icft lateral and reverse < solutions
/
,1
/ 27 We think that this is a sort of a time transgressive 24
$ituation in that the major compression as I pointed out 25 e;irlier is opposite Big Bend, and that may indeed diminish Q
? Y AJ l
I NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
7 T4 Coct Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136 L
124
,~
(
)
1 it if we go northward along the San Andreas because 2
we're aligning that fault more closely to the overall 3
[ late motion.
4 MR. KERR:
5 What is meant by time transgressive?
6 MR. CROUCH:
Okay, by time transgressive, it's 7
something transgressing time; that is, what I'm trying a
to say is that if..if we had a point here, for example, 6
9 if we moved it back in time, that it would undergo 10 maximum compression opposite Big Bend whereas now it 11 would be undergoing lesser compression as a result of 12 moving past Big Ben, so we're tape tracking that point 7s 13 in time.
t
)
14 In other words, one might conclude, for example, is that Point Bouchon area was undergoing a much more intense is activity when it was opposite Big Bend than it is today.
l 17 But that's not to say, again, that it's not still under-i8 going some activity.
19 There is some indication that we learned from 20 our studies that indeed the activity is dying down some-21 what in terms of distressing type activity as we go 22 northward.
And we basically see most of the thrusting 23 as the greatest activity just opposite Big Bend; at least, 24 that's what we think, but I think it's going to take a 25 lot more seismic activity type studies to really determine
("
AJ NRC/40 8
T4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
125
.O l
1 x_J 1
that.
They're just now putting out stations in the 2
Point, Conception released in the last 3
few years to really track some of these earthquakes 4
whereas in the past, there really hasn't..there really 5
hasn't'had the numbers of stations to do it adequately.
6 And-that concludes my presentation.
7 MR. KNIGHT:
Thank you very much.
Other 8
questions that a couple asked at the end..more?
9 MR. JACKSON:
I might make just one comment, 10 Dr. Marks comment, that might be very useful to the 11 Committee'if you happen to have one, look at one of 12 the actual records.
One of the. things we've found over i
/}
13 the years,is that interpretation -f the question j
(.,/
)
14 INAUDIBLE is an art and requires high
)
is skill and I have no reason to doubt the interpretations 16 that are here, but you might ought to take a look at one 17 of_those if you happen to have one with you.
l 18 MR. SEISS:
Do'you think we might do better?
19 MR. CROUCH:
I didn't bring any with me..I tell 20 you one of the reasons why is because I've been told 21 that in order for me to show you a record, it becomes 22 a part of the public record which 'a cated is proprie-23 tary; it's stated NEKTON's col u i
and sell to the 24 oil industry and other concerne.
So, (L's something 25 tint in order to release it, it essentially is not up O
- k.,)
AJ NRC/40
-9 T4~
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
I 126
.nc i )
I to me, and we're allowed to essentially do line drawings s_
2 and if you notice in our paper, we showed an example L
3 of that data as an illustration of the quality of the 4
data.
5 So, I swould say that, indeed, if requested, 6
we could show members of the Committee or PG&E or who--
7 ever, lines in our offices, and we'd be glad to.
8 MR. JACKSON:
I..we understand.
No one's chal-9 lenging that; that's what the Committee said..it's not l
10 a given factor INAUDIBLE 11 MR. CROUCH:
I agree.
We could these line 12 drawing interpretations because they're just that..I
-w 13 could answer that we..I have been involved in a number 14 of wells offshore as well as looking at a tremendous is amount of industry data, and I feel like as good a 16 hypothesis as one can make in terms of support, I think 17
_we have an awfully strong case for what was presented 18 and..
i 19 MR. SEISS:
I don't think that's the only aspect 20 of geology that's subject to interpretation.
In the i
21 paper, as I recall, you did reproduce one of these; it's 22
-a very small..what's the original size of one of those l
23 things?
24 MR. CROUCH:
Well, we basically select those 25 and process them at 5 inches to the second, so these are...
rN N
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
10 T4 court Reportine e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
127 j)
b
(_/
1 MR. SEISS:
That'll get INAUDIBLE 2
engineer.
How many inches of a...
3 MR. CROUCH:
Well, we collec t basically in 3 4
seconds, so one vector would be roughly 15. inches..
5 MR. SEISS:
15 inches very, very 6
long.
7
_MR. CROUCH:
And then depending on how many 8
miles wide.
They're basically just about true to 9
Scale at the center of the profile so that, you know, 10 you guesstimate how long it would be, but they're 11 basically like so.
12 MR. WARD:
Your records terminated several rx 13 miles south of the region.
(~)
14 What kind of an operation would it be to extend such is records up to several miles north..if you go at 8 miles is an hour, if you'd may be available.
17 MR. CROUCH:
Yeah, it's no problem; we simply 18 didn't collect data up there because it's not a data..
19 an area that the oil companies were especially interested 20 in.
21 MR. WARD :
Are you sure nobody has data there?
22 MR. CROUCH:
I didn't say that.
23 MR. WARD:
Oh, I know you said you didn't.
24 MR. BROCUM:
This is Steve Brocum.
We showed 25 a view graph from a company called Western Geophysical q
J AJ FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
NRC/40 Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 11 T4
128
\\,)
.1 at the May 24th meeting which showed a line 10,000 miles 2
of data in the Santa Maria Basin and that included lines 3
right offshore at Diablo Canyon.
4 MR. CROUCH:
One' thing I might point out, the 5
geophysical..the Western Geophysical data, some of it 6
dates back to as far as 1974 and so there is various 7
qualifications one could put on that data as to its a
sort of the state-of-the-art,.if you will.
9 MR. BROCUM:
The data would be of variable to
' quality and I guess 1974 is considered by oil industry i
11 standards.
12 MR. SEISS:
A recent geological study.
l
-13 MR. CROUCH:
The data's that been shot since g
14 1974 is far superior.
15 MR. SEISS:
Yes.
16 MR. MAXWELL:
I just wanted to say that Dr.
17-kindly showed a couple of these slides to 18 George Thompson and myself, and satisfied us, at least, 19 that the interpretations were quite reasonable.
20 MR. SEISS:
Thank you very much.
21 MR. SCHWARTZ:
Sorry, I'm not sure that 1 should 22 be' bothering you with this question but if you can answer, 23 that would be fine.
24 1 am vaguely aware of correlations between earth-25 quake magnitude and lengths of activity or break on a AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
l
T4 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 i
129 1
strike slip fault.
The relationship between magnitude c.
f 2
and lengths will be different as far as thrust faults 3
and..
4 MR. CROUCll:
As I understand it, that's probably 5
so, at least that would be interpreted as such.
MR. WARD:
You're not dealing with that kind of 6
I 7
a..
MR. CROUCil:
It's not really my forte'.
I have g
read papers and generally understand the problems..
9
+
MR. WARD:
Well, I'll carner Maxwell and ask 39 him..
,)
MR. SEISS:
Don't bother to ask because we've 12 g t experts that..
A 13 i'v)
MR. CROUCil:
I might add that our study begs 34 and the question of whether or not the is are in fact, domestic.
I don't believe that 16 if one considers the recharacterization of the llasgrie 17 is true,.then one could also still assume that the few faults are indeed one major fault.
I'm not saying it one way or the other, I'm just saying we haven't studied it, but it's a question I ask myself now is whether or not 21 may connect with some other f aults.
the San 22 For example, what they_ call Palo Colorado and i
23 some of the other f aults that cut into the coast ranges 24 rather than naturally connected to liasgrie because the o
()
r AJ-NRC/_40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
13 T4 Court Reporting e Depositions t
D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
130 t
- /
rks/
1 Ilasgrie was considered a it was a very 2
natural sort of step.
It goes from there to the 3
San but now it seems an unnatural step.
4 MR. SEISS:
Thank you very much.
The staff 5
has considered the implications of these findings to-6 gether with that of consultants in the USGS and somebody 7
on the staff is going to tell us what they think about 8
it.
t 9
MR. JACKSON:
I think we're just going to make 10 a few simple points and leave it at that and leave it 11 open for questions. It's basically..it's obvious from 12 Dr. Crouch's presentation that his article is of high 13 quality, but I think based on the context we've had
{"]
A._s 14' is that we still feel that the basic thesis contained i
is in it needs to be reviewed in the scientific community 16 before it's considered to be accepted fact.
l 11 The most significant implications of this side 18 is that if you assume that thrust fault hypothesis is i
19 true, and then you project the difference of faulting 20 to the east or east northeast, but it could pass under 2.
the site and beneath the site at closer than 5.8 kilo-22 meters.
23 Now, in the Subcommittee meeting, we made-i 24 estimates of 2 kilometers at the worst case projection 25 and dragged along some sort of sole thrust, but because
("'y L
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
14 T4 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
131
- ( ').
5/
1 the data ends quite a ways offshore and it is indeed an 2
extrapolation to be used, we don't know, and it could 3
just as well INAUDIBLE 4
as much as 15 percent.
5 The other observation we make is that 6
ground motion may be different and it could be higher, 7
lower or similar, depending on the magnitude, distance 8
or fault type.
And this is the compensation you're 9
just getting into, and if you make the assumption that u) it's a thrust off, then it has implications as to what 11 it connects to and also the size magnitude earthquake 12 you could generate, and although there is
(~'s 13
~ data for-thrust fault that indicate smaller faults and GI 14 smaller magnitude, you could get some on higher ground relationship, you also can is motion.
The u;
get some-lower motion.
17 One part in our consideration is that the seismic i
18 design basis for the plant already considers a close 19 in nuclear larger earthquake.
And that has implications 20 in terms of the ground motion and may change somewhat; mentioned earlier that we 21 I think as 22 would be compared by the future study that's ongoing to 23 try to address that through the PRA.
24 An important consideration also is the faults 25 that are mapped in the site area are not capable and
/O U
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
15 T4 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 6t Annop.169-6136
i 132 indeed, based on what we know, that should not change; that gives us confidence that we have some distance 2
from where the earthquake possibility would be before 3
4 MR. SEISS:
Bob, before you leave that item, as 5
I recall, there was something in Dr. Crouch's paper 6
that suggest that the thrust movement on the Hasgre 7
had not been recent, and by that, I mean within our g
criteria of movement for capability.
Is that correct?
l 9
MR. JACKSON:
I think that's..let me see if
,g I can paraphrase it a little bit, if Dr. Crouch s.;i 3,
correct is that what he's indicating is that by utiliza-37 tion ofthe seismic reflection lines themselves that you 33
()
may not always be able to know whether or not that 34 material is the offset or not in terms of the degree of 39 MsoMon dat he has it in de data.
16 That presents a little bit of a dilemma for us 37 since capable fault criteria..
~
is MR. SEISS:
So, you wouldn't be able to say ig it's not capable?
20 MR. JACKSON:
I wouldn't be able to say it's not 21 l
capable; I think..let me go on, though, if you'd bear 22 with me for a second.
I think there is an obvious 23 implication, though, is that if this fault has been l
24 active for, possibly 2 million years, it has been moving 25 I O
()
AJ.
l NRC/40 16 T4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. 66 Annep.169-6134
133 p
(
1 at any reasonable rate of activity, you would have to 2
see some considerable movement offshore or a displace-of a 2 million year old date.
3 ment of.
4 I think what Dr. Crouch is trying to say is 5
that what's really hard is 6
take some movement on this and I think it's quite 7
reasonable we recognize that.
A recent paper came out earthquake that indicates 8
on 9
and the Regulation actually addresses monoclonal io as possible capable faults in terms of not displacing 11 the upper horizons, but warping them, if you like.
So 12 I think it's been thought of for quite a while 13
. INAUDIBLE t
14 MR. SEISS:
If that fault had occurred on land, is would you have been able to make a determination under is your rules as to whether this was capable?
You know, 17 25..what is it, 50,000 year type of stuff..
18 MR. JACKSON:
I think on land you can certainly 19 see it.
I think you'd see one of two things, either a..
20 if it is capable, you'd see an offset and cicar breakage If it were 21 of that particular horizon 22 not a clear break., you would see a considerable flecture 23 it would bo like a stair step, or 24 scmething above where the fault occurs and so you'd be 25 able to have a good handle on what the rates of movement AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPOkTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 17 T4 D.C. Aree 141-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6134
134 t%
(_,/
I had been onshore..
2 MR. SEISS:
So, being offshore, there's no way 3
to prove it's not capable and the assumption is made in 4
view of a lot of the information we had that it was 5
capable, right?
6 MR. JACKSON:
It's my understanding the..I think 7
what Dr. Crouch is saying..he probably should be answer-8 ing, but indeed what might have been that previously as 9
"the fault coming to the ocean surface and to offsetting the sea floor bottom may be telated to the fault in depth but what you might be seeing 11 12 is the gas bubbles that INAUDIBLE 13 Is that a correct intepretation g-%g
\\' 'J 14 MR. CROUCH: Well, only that it should be a is subsidiary fault to the 16 MR. SEISS:
That's right.
17 MR. JACKSON:
The earthquake did 18 not break the surface, that's..
19 MR. CROUCH:
That's the point we're trying to 20 make here is that, you know, something like the 21 quake did not break the surface; it's on land, and I 22 think we see a clearer view this same type of thing off-23 sure and that the false ramp up may go into bedding 24 planes thrust or they may cut out; they may 25 go into flecturing or they may go into deep water..all bNj AJ FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
18 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Belt, da Annop. 169-6136
135
/m I
1
's_,/
1 those aspects could lead one without the accurate handle of predicting the age of the faults by looking 2
3 at size and reflection of those faults.
And I think one has to look at seismic activity 4
5 to determine the activity of the fault system and not s
seismic reflection profiles.
I think it's been used 7
wrongly in that regard.
8 MR. JACKSON:
The..it's an important point, there is recognized seismicity.
A recent paper was published
[
_9 io by the USGS indicating thrust solutions it for a number of the faults INAUDIBLE 12 MR. SEISS:
That's Eaton's paper?
f w' i3 MR. JACKSON:
Eaton's paper, yes, that was handed
(\\-
i4 out earlier.
So, seismicity is a factor...
is MR. SEISS:
My question wasn't directed so much is at the capability fault, but at the validity of our definitions of capability in terms of number of 37 is years since the last movement.
19 MR. CROUCH:
I really think the Regulation ade-20 quately addresses that if you clearly considered this type of thing happening and it does combine both seismicity 2
22 and geologic observations in trying to reach a decision 23 on capability. I know we always try to factor all those 24 things in and reach a conclusion on capability.
25 MR. SEISS-But again, you reach a conclusion on (x_)
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
19 T4 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6236
136 Q
1 capability as a small f aults nearby; is that based on 2
seismicity or geology?
3 MR. JACKSON:
Well, the o nes that have been 4
done so far is geology and they can be seen to be 5
capped in cross cutting relationship with 6
So, the kinds you might see in soft sediments, ductile 7
sediments offshore, probably you would not see onshore 8
exactly the same way.
9 MR. CROUCH:
I would agree with that point is are much older, intensely to that rocks that it brittle INAUDIBLE 12 essentially transmit to their breakage to the surface, 13 and the fact that they are covered up by younger terrous
\\
V deposits could say we're looking at a different situation i4 is as to those faults right near the plant than we are is offshore.
17 MR. EBERSOLE:
Dave?
~
18 MR. OKRENT:
Despite that, I think George Thompson 19 stated that he thought that one would have to re-look 20 at the onshore faults in the vicinity of the plant to 21 reassure yourself that you had been looking for the right 22 thing, that was one of his specific points.
23 If I can ask a question to any of the seismolo-24 gist or geophyscists have a basis for estimating the 2s likelihood of a substantial earthquake on this fault n
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
20 T4 c..,, n.,, ting. p.,..iti...
D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annep. 169-6136
137 O
(x -)
1 near Diablo Canyon in the next 100 or 1,000 years.
And 2
if so, what do they get and how?
3 MR. BROCUM:
Yes, you can get estimates..I'm sure different people will give you different estimates.
4 5
I can remember the experience we had with the original 6
probability studies with Diablo Canyon.
To what extent 7
you can converge or be uniformed at this point, you 8
just can't know.
I think that's one of the things we're 9
looking at in PRA, try to incorporate...
io MR. OKRENT:
One is systems.
MR. BROCOUM:
I'd like to quote the gentleman 12 in the back of Geological Survey, answer to you and me, hearing, there's a low probability i3 said in I\\s i4 that I give you a probability..I just don't know that is and I would be not certainly,not making good service u;
to INAUDIBLE 17 MR. OKRENT:
Can any of our consultants or Dr.
is Crouch provide any help there?
19 MR. MAXWELL:
Mr. Maxwell.. Dave, I think..I can't 20 give any help on when it might happen but a probably 2i more important question is, what's the nature.of the 22 basement rocks and how deep they are there because the 23 critical question in terms of a large earthquake is the 24 storage of elastic energy which is not..can not be very 25 large, particularly at shallow depths and sedimentary O
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court m.perting. Depositions 21 T4 p.c. Ar to1-1901 e sett & Ann p. 149-4234
138 p)
(
i rocks or a highly broken basement rocks, but if the 2
crystalline rocks of the are close to 3
the surface there, then you could have a major earth-4 quake, and I don't know how you'd predict the interval 5
on that.
6 UNIDENTIFIED:
Doctor, one of our consultants, 7
Dr. Stewart Smith, is here and would like to add 8
to your question.
9 MR. SMITH:
Well, all the answers aren't in but to some things are very clear already from this 11 that Dr. Crouch has spoken.
One can compare the size 12 earthquakes that might occur in this framework with 13 what has been assumed in the past.
It's clear that g-~s
'\\ ')
14 the displacements on the Hasgre are much less than were is assumed in the past.
is It's also cicar that it's not nearly as long ti in terms of sustaining a continuous rupture during a is singic event.
So, whatever's happening, I think that 19 the..it's clear the direction of the possibic earthquake 20 is going downward.
21 Mk. OKRENT:
Does the staff agree that it's 22 necessarily downward?
23 MR. BROCOUM:
It looks like that there's a greater 24 chance that it would go downward than upward, based on 25 the INAUDIBLE O
v AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC, 22 T4 Court Reperting. Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Selt. & Annep. 149 6134
139
)
i MR. WARD:
Downward in magnitude is possibly 2
closer to the plant site, is that correct?
3 MR. BROCOUM: Well, there are several factors 4
that pull different ways.
It looks like it's probably 5
go downward..there's more chance going downward than 6
upward and that would attempt to pull the ground motion 7
up.
8 If the fault were to be closer, that would attempt i
9 to push..and the magnitude would push the ground motion 10 down, if it's closer, and again, it would depend on is what configuration we're talking about that would attempt..
12 could pull the ground motion up and if it's a deep 13 thrust, that would also tend to pull the ground motiion 14 up.
15 So, the question is, I think as Jim Crouch is pointed out, the combination of strikes with the thrust 17 all these things have to be sorted out and your dif-is ferent elements put in your different ways.
Tha t's the is kind of thing we want-to sort out.
20 MR. OKRENT:
It was with this in mind, I was 21 wondering how you were going to get your deterministic 22 SSC1
^
23 MR. BROCOUM:
Uncertainty has never limited us 24 in the past and I don't see how INAUDIBLE 25 O
LJ AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
23 T4 Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6136
140
,/~y
(,)
i MR. HAMILTON:
I'd like to say in connection with 2
looking at Dr. Crouch's paper like the earlier work 3
we had done on the configuration of fault on the site, 4
we notice the INAUDIBLE i
s apparently does steepen northwards along the fault line.
6 It does between the examples that Dr. Crouch shows and 7
we find our earlier determinations near the plant show a
the fault dip about 40 degrees; the most northerly of 9
Dr. Crouch's section shows dipping about 35 degrees, as to I measured from this line drawing.
ii With the dip of 40 degrees and the location of 12 the fault as we recognize it, the distance f rom the 7-s 33 closest point on the fault to the site is about 6
"'--)
i4 kilometers and the distance from the fault to the site is vertically downward is about 10 kilometers compared to is the distance of 5.8 kilometers that was used as our 17 previous measurement is the closest distance from site u3 to fault.
ig MR, WARD:
Mr. Maxwell, I think., you spoke of 20 the governing, one governing factor being the nature of 4
pi the rock.s in which 'the thrust motion would be expected 22 to occur.
Is there a correlation between the depth of the thrusting layer and the magnitude; if I had this 23 thrust right on top, I get only a small earthquake because 24 25 it relieves more easily or not?
i AJ NRC/40 24 T4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
141
/i i
's_,/
1 MR. MAXWELL:
I think.that's true but of course l
s 2
if the thrust is actually cutting the surface, you also 3
have the problem of disrupting the surface in either
-4 section of the plant site would be a different problem.
s But Ben Page in his write-up makes the point that any..
6 you would not expect a major seismic event from movement, 7
showers in say, three..three and a half kilometers, and a
that would be particularly in a sequence f
9 we have here, io If it were breakage in a solid rock. segment, such is as probably occurred beneath San Fernando, then that wouldn't That's why I think. it's critical 12 f-~3 33 to find out what's underneath the plant or to try to 14 find out how close, if any, rigid may is approach the surface there.
is And also obviously the relationship, the possibic 17 relationship of any faults that had been mapped to some l
is master thrust at depth such as Dr. Crouch showed in his 19 k
20 MR. SEISS: Are you saying that we don't know how 21 deep the good, sound rock is in that area?
22 MR. MAXWELL: 1 think. it's more complicated than 23 that.
The geology is..
24 MR. SEISS:
And that's one thing we don't know..
r i
25 MR. MAXWELL:
That's one thing we don't know, yes,
- O i
k.J AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
f 25 T4 Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. Si Annep. 169-4136
[
142
'O (s-)
1 and I'm not qualified because I haven't done the subsurface
'2 rock in there..the subsurface studies, but looking at 3
the surface geology, it looks like some rather broken 4
stuff that we call a Franciscan should be forming the 5
basement there in which case it would not, I would think.,
6 be capable of storing clastic energy in the same sense 7
that crystalline rocks of the sellinium rock.s that defini-8 tely do.
That's about the only guess 1 would make.
9 MR. JACKSON:
The ground motion elements are 10 controlled by the propogation of the moving fault zone, 11 so even if the earthquake were to occur at depths on the 12 fault, the energy would be propogating from long fault 13 zones, so the approximity still is an important factor.
14 MR. MAXWELL:
That's very true.
15 MR. SEISS:
I don't there's any question about to proximity about being an important factor.
t 11 MR. JACKJON:
No, but I meant by putting the 18 magnitude, earthquake is occurring in some ways deeper, 19 I don't think.that that necessarily is an important 20 factor; it's something to be considered.
But what is 21 important is where the energy is being radiated from the 22 fault zone to the plant.
23 MR. SEISS:
I guess I don't understand 24 MR. BROCOUM:
Let me give you exampics from San or Jerry 25 Fernando and maybe Mike O
AJ NRC/40 pREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions 26 T4 D.C. Atee 141 1901 e Belt.& Annep. 149 4134
143 k -
could comment on that.
San Fernanda, we had fault 2
rupture..a thrust fault eruption of surface with high 3
grouni motion at the surface, and many interpretations 4
that I see interpreted it as follows..that the very 5
high peaks of exceleration, the high frequency which 6
were not considered particularly disruptive, came f rom 7
near the surface part of the fault.
8 But the disruptive part of the ground motion 9
is long period was doing a lot of the to damage came from the area where the fault initiated si the depth of around 12 kilometers, and I guess Bob is 12 saying it's sort of a complex picture and the i3 where the fault goes and how it ruptured; these are the
{}
i4 kind of insights once we get this...
is MR. SEISS:
I never questioned that..
is MR. BROCOUM:
We hope the modeling study can ir help us..
18 MR. SEISS:
INAUDIBLE you can say to it's any more complex INAUDIBLE 20 MR. JACKSON:
I think.one point that we wanted 2:
to finish up with is that based on all these considerations 22 we don't see any reason to modify previous conclusions 23 on the seismic designer and therefore 24 we recommend that the licensing actions proceed and the 25 information that we acquired, we packed it into this V
AJ NkCAO FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
27 T4
- c. vet a.,.etin,. D.,..iti.no D.C. Ar.e 141 190 1 e Belt. & Ann.p. 149 4134
144 I
i 1
re-evaluation in the future.
It's an interesting thing r
2 to note that about a month or two before Dr. Crouch's i
i 3
paper came down the street, is that we had begun thinking 4
about a licensed condition use for this kind of
[
5 I think it's a necessary evil, if you like, for 6
a California sites; maybe East Coast sites, too in the
[
i 7
future. Have to have some way of dealing with new informa-i 8
tion.
i 9;
MR. SEISS:
It seems to me that we probably are i
io neither more nor less ignorant than we were at the time 1:
we selected the original SSE.
We have additional informa-I 12 tion from Dr. Crouch's interpretations p
13 but geologically in terms of the seismology and earthquake l
V 14 engineering, then the additional information is offset by f
is a large number of questions, you can about is it now.
17 I don't know how much comfort that gives everybody,
[
I don't think.I know more than I did but I'm not'sure I
{
ig 19 know less INAUDIBLE l
20 MR. LIONS:
I just wanted to give you an opportunity
[
as I came down, but I did have a couple of 21 to 22 summary comments that I thjnk maybe..to..one of the things 23 if nothing else that I've learned from the Diablo 24 Canyon experience in the last 16 years is that the story's 25 never the same two times in a row.
l AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
28 T4 C wt Reportine e Depositions D.C. Area 2411901 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4134 E
I
145
/\\d 1
The edge of Icarning has been very sharp through-2 out the last 16 years and there's no reason tn believe 3
-it's going to stop now.
So, I think one of the important 4
the points that comes out of Dr. Crouch's s
paper is that we must have..we and all of us in this 6
room a mechanism for dealing with new information without it being a catastrophic crises-type of analysis because 7
a l'm convinced that crisis-analysis of new information is 9
usually worse than no analysis at all.
10 So, I strongly endorse the concept of licensing -
ii conditions that allow this new information, from whatever 12 source it comes, to put it into the system rationally, 13 evaluate it, reviewed by peers, and consider the context p
i4 of all the other information, and handle it in that is manner, rather than a late-night crisis phone call to is NRC.
i7 So, I do believe those license conditions are is indeed the way for us to go; not only here but elsewhere.
19 Seconclly, I would support the comments made that Dr.
20 Crouch's work looks like good work and it's certainly the 2:
kind of information that ought to be considered why all 22 of us involved in this business.
We have information 23 coming from our own shop, and Mr. Eaton's paper is only 24 one, and they'll continue to be information.
2s We have a large program in California.
They'll O
L./
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
29 T4 Court Ree, rting e Depositions D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. 4 Annep.149 4?.36
146 1
obviously be more information development.
If you notice 2
the earthquake epicenter is dealt with by Dr. Eaton and 3
his paper all occurred since 1978.
And pricr to 1975 4
as you..some of you may recall, but we could find no 5
epicenters that we could put unequivocally on or near 6
the liasgre fault.
7 We had to do some transferring of earthquakes a
nearby in order to have data to deal with.
We now 9
see 4 or 5 from our standpoint that enable to us to evaluate what the flasgre is doing.
This plain of it information is going to continue to command and probably 12 with an increasing rate rather than a decreasing rate.
13 So, we must be able to deal with that.
And p
14 finally, the USGS just mentioned often in passing here is
..let me make a quick summary statement where we feel we is are. We have a large program to evaluate the regional 17 seismologic techtonic conditions of California. We are 18 charged with that by Congress and we hold that to be 19 indeced our mission.
20 llowever, we are not charged with taking that 21 information and following through all the steps of 22 geologic, seismologic, techtonic ground motion 23 of action, and so forth, to continually advice NRC and 24 you people as to the whole picture relative to Diablo or 25 any other plant; that is not our function, and., consequently, O
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
30 T4 C**'t #***' tine
- Depositions D.C. Atee 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
147 I
we do not do that.
Only in the conditions where..only under circumstances where we have been specifically re-2 3
quested by NRC and agreed in a mutual negotiation on 4
doing such an effort, so we do not have at the moment such a full-scale plan available, underway, for Diablo, 5
6 So, what you will hear from us in the next years unless but the plan right now is again you'll see lots of regional type information such as the a
9 Eaton paper and not much else with one caveat.
We to recognize that it's our responsibility to advise NRC when we see information that we think really is critical 3
12 to a site and must be considered, we hold that responsi-13 bility very sacred.
14 We would indeed notify NRC that information we is obtain and see and feel that it's important to continue is the licenses under way.
But that does not mean if we 17 didn't make a phone call that it can't be there..we will is report what we see but we don't take responsibility for monitoring every other bit of information that's gathered to 20 and see that it's handled properly; that's beyond our 2:
capability; beyond our mission.
22 MR. KERR:
llow many seismic stations per square 23 mile INAUDIBl.E 24 MR
- l. IONS:
I don'L know it per square mile but it's..we have approximately 500 seismic stations operating 2s O
AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
31 T4 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 141-1901 e selt.& Annen. 149 4134
148
'(D V
1 in California.
Now, depending on the budget used, that 2
can go as low as 400, and when we have good years, we 3
of course, higher than that, but it's some-4 where between 4 and 500.
5 MR. KERR:
And you need more.
6 MR. LIONS:
For what you want to do, yes.
You 7
never have enough to do everything you want to do.
We a
probably have what we need in specific areas for that 9
budget, but that would not include Diablo, for example.
10 We do not have a really tight net at Diablo and that's 11 not our mission.
We do have a very tight net at Park-12 field which is on the San Andreas and which is our n
13 mission.
U 14 MR. WARD:
Jim, you said one thing which perhaps 15 I didn't understand..it alarms me with respect to my 16 friends on the coastal part of California.
You say u
the information is going to come at an increasing rate.
18 Does that mean we're going to h.ve earthquakes popping 19 up more frequently?
20 MR. LIONS:
No, I was meaning good interpretation 21 evaluation; not necessarily earthquakes.
6 22 MR. SEISS:
Are there any more comments PG&E would 23 like to make?
INAUDIBLE 24 UNIDENTIFIED:
Dr. Sciss, we did have several 25 points, but I think they effectively have been made in O
AJ NRC/40 32 T4 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
l Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4136
.,-----,--_--my--.---n-m,-c.-,
.-,-,,---,,,-,--r-vram-, - --..
.n,n,-,,._..,,n-
.--,--_.,,--,e
,,,,,-------g~
149 mC 1
this Q&A that we've had in this recent half hour or 2
forty-five minutes, so with the interest of time, we 3
will end our comments right here.
4 MR. SEISS:
Thank you. Dr. Maxwell, do you have 5
anymore you want to say at this point?
6 MR. MAXWELL:
I don't believe so, other than what 7
INAUDIBLE a
MR. SEISS:
And Dr. Trifunac is here, one of our 9
consultants, might comment on anything.
10 DR. TRIFUNAC:
Well, I can repeat INAUDIBLE it MR. SEISS:
We'll get you to the microphone.
We don't have anything in writing yet from you, do we?
12 i3 UR. TRIFUNAC:
Not from me.
U 14 MR. SEISS:
Okay, so you can make them now and is we'll put them on the record. your evaluation and whatever extent you want to i7 DR. TRIFUNAC:
My comments are generally negative.
is What I hear is that routine and I don't i9 think that it will work in the long run.
So far, I just 20 see repetition of what INAUDIBLE 21 1 think what is required is not more details, in geological 22 relation because that information as we've just heard 23 INAUDIBLE a long time, forever.
24 But we need new ideas and more aggressive, much 25 more aggressive modern methods applied on the re-evaluation n
V AJ NRC/40 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
33 Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236
150 (m
()
I to circumvent INAUDIBLE 2
for interpreting the procedures as 3
literally as we often do.
For example, not to be 4
complete, we must consider INAUDIBLE 5
an analysis.
6 1 keep talking about magnitudes, magnitudes don't 7
matter very much in INAUDIBLE.
You must consider things 8
like all points of INAUDIBLE Whether we are at 9
three kilometers from the fault, or five kilometers from to the fault, we have talked about that fault for ten years, 11 not just recently.
There are etitain features of the ground 12 INAUDIBLE that have all been considered, and we waited 13 for a complete invocation INAUDIBLE consider.
So I 14 strongly think action should be considered.
The much more is important feature in re-evaluation is whether, how in effect 16 or alike, analysis, allowed or not INAUDIBLE the fault it going to have managed six an amount for six point a year, 17 18 looking at this from the end point result of engineering, 19 response analysis is not just INAUDIBLE 20 Another example is that I think normal linear 21 structure, as shown, response should be considered, and I 22 think it would be to advantage of applicant INAUDIBLE 23 to give a much more realistic picture.
There are certain 24 things, I assure, that cannot be analysed in the linear way, so trying to force the issue in the Kramer Rule cutting 26 U)
RLII
,e NRC/40 34 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161 1901 e Belt & Annop. 169-6136
J.
r
,.7 151
() ~
V 1
procedures is not going to solve this.
2
$R. KERR:
Excuse me, when you say non-linear, are yo8 talking primarily about non-linear effects in the rock
, soil or non-linear effects in the building?
4 5
DR. TRIFUNAC:
In the building.
6 MR. KERR:
Thank you.
7 DR. TRIFUNAC:
Next item, it seems to me that, in 4
19, i'n, ah 1989 somebody can publish another paper and then a
(.4 3 9
what happens with the next eva.1.6ation.
I really could not to agree more with just some of the Eastern congressman.
We have to have a mechar. ism of being prepared for the geo-si 12 formation.
g]
- 33 I believe that an independent group should conduct
/
'^'
i4 this investigation.
A lbc of wor;k should 1e done the ap-is plicant, but, ah,duringth$lasttenyears, I have not 16 been impressed with the innovation and INAUDIBLE (back-si ground noise) search better appro' aches in the team is member, degree of C applicant' INAUDIBLE So there will be a lot to be getting fro'm an, independent group that 19 20 worked with start, and an applicant with lots of, who really 21 has brains.
t 22
'I fool that methods and knowledge are available 73 now.
They just nood to be applied, carefully and with consideration of the overall package, not constrained by t
24 25' Appendicts A and the ususal procedures; it is a situtation RLl!
NRC/40<
35 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Cow,t Repo, ting
- Depositions D.C. Aree 1611901 e Belt. & Annop. 169 6136
152 I1 V
where wo do not Have the ususal procedures.
I don ' t mean 1
to say we shouldn't contine such a challenge, certainly 2
should study geological INAUDIBLE transmission and every-3 4
thing else.
You name it, it is going to continue to como 5
and we shall be prepared for any decision without means 6
INAUDIBLE It seems to me that re-evaluation
.y could be dono in two to three years.
I think this is a s
decent time frame.
This is all I have to say.
9 MR. SEISS:
Alright, Mike, I don't understand in your reference to Appendix A.
Maybe I didn't hear some-l thing that the staff said, but I question that this was i,
being done as a aesthetical attempt to determine the siesmic
_,7 potential of the site without any relation to Appendix A.
,3 i
,4 DR. TRIFUNAC:- You know, it appears so, but I p,
don't have that impression myself.
I think that--
MR. SEISS: I don't really soo how they can bring 16 37 Appendix A into it.
is DR. TRIFUNAC:
Well, perhaps I should be more precise;in what I wanted to say, and, ah what I wanted to say-p, 20 is that if you look at the stops and procedures that havo 21 been employed, A) They are, how shall I say, what is heavily 22 influenced by tho, ah, procedures that we follow in Appendix
^*
23 74 MR. SEISS:
Now, when you say, "have boon employed "
23 what you're addressing now is not what has boon dono, but RLil
'NRC/40 36 I
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
f Ceu,t Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 1411901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6134 i
t
i f
153 fyV i
what is proposed by the staff to be done in the re-evaluation.
f 2
DR. TRIFUNAC:
But that again is the old story.
3 I don't see anything new that I haven't seen before. We are re-evaluating that wh'ich we have re-evaluated before 4
5 at lenght.
We are re-evaluating where the fault ends; we 6
are re-evaluating the shape of the fault, the..easurement 7
of the fault.
8 MR. SEISS:
And the ground motion of the site, l
t 9
9 which it the bottom line.
10 DR. TRIFUNAC:
Yes.
11 MR. SEISS:
And your concern here is that the 12 '
ground motion will not be done using the most modern tech-ia niques.
14 DR. TRIFUNAC:
No.
No, I didn't mean to say that.
is I believe the evaluation will be reviewed in the most modern l
16 way.
The thing is that this is just the beginning of the 17 story.
You have a situation where you are one way or l
18 another sitting on the outmost side of the fault.
Certain 19 features of INAUDIBLE must be considered.
In order to 20 consider them, you can't fake the kind of response analysis 21 that has been done historically have the details INAUDIBLE 22 For example, do the INAUDIBLE simultaneously.
Ahk there is 23 a long period, large amplitude, long lasting pause, that 24 may be seen here.
That house can be totally obscured by f
25 linear analysis, may> turn out to be devastating with no s
O
. RLH f
s V'
NRC/40 37 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136
154
/
i i
linear analysis.
2 MR. SEISS: But now you're in to the analysis of 3
the plant, right?
4 DR. TRIFUNAC: Yes.
I 5
MR. SEISS: If they do a DRA, a seismic DRA, their
(
6 going to have to look at the inelastic behavior, unless they 7
just arbitrarily assume something fails when it reaches the I
g elastic limit.
Now, if they can do that, and come out with i
9 a low enough probability, I guess that's alright, but I l
don't, ah, that isn't really been the case in most seismic
{
10 t
PRA's.
ii DR. TRIFUNAC:
Well, PRA's, in a way, again l
12 primitively speaking, have been linear systems across the 13 m
/\\b i4 trunk, and, ah, in this situation, you have, ah, a certain type of ground motion and a certain type of response which ig 16 y u cannot handle with the linear systems, oft. course, you have to take, ah, time response analysis, and you have to i7 is consider a fairly sophisticated drawing system. _
l 19 (END OF TAPE 4) 6 20 21 22 l
l 23 24 RLII 25 NRC/40 n
U l
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Balt. & Annap. 169-6136
+
.~..
1 155 7 j t
i MR. WARD:
Dr. Seiss, I understood you to say that y
2 what she called for is okay for faults; consider the
(
3 magnitude, the length, the whatnot, but all of that does 4
have to be done in time.
What you want to see is a much i
5 more, um, specifically adapted application of those things 6
to the plant, rather than now taking a spectrum from, ah, 7
some textbook and define that at the plant.
8 DR. TRIFUNAC:
That has been done for the last 43 9
ten years, and it will be done again, and there will be 10 uncertainties associated with whatever comes out these.
My suggestion is that the standard deviation of the ii 12 distribution width, with uncertainties, as they were for the last ten years, is not going to change next year or i3 k '\\)
34 two years from now.
I think there is INAUDIBLE once you look at where the difficulties and uncertainties and 33 l
and signification exist at the present state with the is if present method of analysis take advantage of that, we admit is no INAUDIBLE
~
l MR. SEISS: Leon.
i9 20 MR. BROCOUM:
Yeah.
I just like, the way we, in the program, I,
unless I'm mistaken, I think we are going 21 22 to a lot of the things that Dr. Trifunac suggested.
In fact l
23 I see no contradiction with what he said with Appendix A; it 24 seems to me in the spirit of Appendix A.
Um, for example, l
25 the general approach we've had, we're trying to get at is,
/N RLH
()
NRC/40 l
l i
I FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136
156
(,)
i use all, as many methods as we can, those theoretical and y
empirical, to attack these questions.
This idea of a pulse, 3
we're well aware of this, ah, pulse that seems to occur 4
very close to the fault, and certainly someone will be 5
looking at it.
We're well aware of the problems of Tau 6
Effect, and that's, one of the objects, the, I think the original purpose of the HRS letter was to simply direct it i
g toward looking at the so-called Tau Effect and seeing what g,,
9 the impact is.
That's the whole idea of the sub-structure interaction analysis, to look at different approaches to in see if we can determine to what extent and how large is this 3,
effect.
Um, the word magnitude is the key word, and it's 37 the one way of estimating the size, and it's in developing
/-~T 13 t
8 N/
relationships we think that a combination of magnitude or i4 moment or meta-moment, stress drop, or whatever you want
,g is a m re appropriate way to go, and we'll do that.
Ah, 16 the PRA, I think Dr. Seiss is correct, the PRA assumes if is looked at criteria against failure and looks at, and failure ig is essentially a non-linear aspect, so we will be looking into that.
Now, the question then comes up, we come up with 20 very sophisticated details, suppose we come up with this, 21 22 this idea that a pulse will be a very significant problem, ah, the PRA we're doing here in a high seismic area is new.
23 I'm 24 nly aware of one older now that was done or is being 25 done now and that's in Tawain.
This is, we've been very O
RLH k,,)
NRC/40 2
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annap. 169-6136
157
( ^ %
( -)
1 interested in the one in Tawain, the Gwa-shang (phonetic) s 2
Reactor to see if there's any information we can garner 3
there.
We'll attempt to incorporate this in the PRA, and if we cannot incorporate it, then I think it's incumbent 4
5 upon us to address it as to why or why not it's significant, 6
in other words, I think they'll be a concerned effort to take into account all the development that you're talking 7
about and incorporate them in the various aspects of the s
g.3 9
methodology.
If the methodoly doesn't allow us to do it then I think it's incumbent upon us and the utility to to n
address what we think the impact of that is.
12 MR. JACKSON:
I just want to add two other minor r^N 13 comments to that.
I think what Mike i? offering is some-4 thing that really has to be in our mind zone; he's making i4 is a really good point. It was in our minds when we put the 16 program together is that you're always going to have some i7 uncertainty in the end, and that you, as I said at the subcommittee meeting, that you need to back out of the is problem and geologist-seismology group can only define the i9 input with certain bounds about it and sometimes they, I've 20 21 argued often, is those bounds needs to be relieved, at the 22 Pentagon, how important it is to know the information.
Two 23 specific things, though, is the program is clearly, ah looks 24 to having some independent, some panels to assist us in 25 topical areas, such as building of banks in slow structure O)
RLH
's, NRC/40 3
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136
158 7 ~..
(,s) i direction.
How those panels would be defined or designed 2
or who will be on them, that's a program for the future.
3 The other thing is, and we've committed, and we on the 4
record before to come back and meet with ACRS in the sub-5 committee on the program itself and the elements of the 6
program, and at that point in time we could argue about i
those certain elements.
I don't see any problem in having a
the HRS consultants probably sit in and hear some of the J.3 9
meetings or interchange meetings we have with the applicant so doing the evolution of the program.
So, I think there's is a lot of vehicles by which this kind of input could be 12 incorporated.
7\\
i3 MR. SEISS:
Any comments or questions?
Gentlemen, i4 the other item we need to address, at least to some extent, is before we, ah, end this portion, is the appropriateness of PG & E taking the lead in performing the seismic evaluation, 16 37 and Mr. Bernthal would like to have us comment on.
~
is MR. KERR:
Do you mind taking the lead with A and i9 four?
20 MR. SEISS:
Ah, well, I was going to elaborate 21 just a little.
I read the transcript of the commission 22 meeting and as I recall there were two kinds of questions 23 raised about who should do it.
Somebody, and I don't 24 remember which commissioner, requested, having, PG & E 25 should be required to pay for it, and since it's an NRC rN RLH
, ( )
'NRC/40 4
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 Balt. & Annap. 169-6136 L
159
/%. ()
1 question, and maybe NRC ought to pay for it, and the other 2
was whether, paraphrasing this, I'm sure these words weren't 3
used, my interpretation, whether PG & E could be trusted 4
to do it.
Now, staff has come up with a proposal that PG &
5 E do the major work and the staff will do, with its consult-6 ants a very Considerable amount of, ah, independent work 7
as a basis for judging and will do a review of PG & E's a
work.
That clearly addressed the second issue, and it may 9
to some extent address Dr. Trifunac's concern.
to The other issue as to who should pay for it, I in don't really think is any of the ACRS's business.
That 37 doesn't keep you from commenting on it so, ah, 33 MR. KERR:
I was trying to interpret the meaning l
V of take the lead.
i4 MR. SEISS: Yeah.
is IG MR. KERR:
And it INAUDIBLE take the lead, and I g
17 MR. SEISS: Well, I,
I'd have to go back to the l
18 transcript to see which side could, which approach Commission-is er Bernthal had since his name was mentioned in Joe's line-20 up, but, um, 21 MR. OKRENT: It seems to me, ah, it means, ah, 22 to actually direct those who are doing the various aspects of the technical work.
In this case, that's what take the 23 24 lead means, and the NRC would primarily be a review process.
25 im Principle, we could f611ow Dr. Trifunac, (Interruption),
RLH A
NRC/4 3 yi 4
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annap. 169-6136
lbU (m)
/
N excuse me a minute, we could follow Dr. Trifunac's suggest-1 ion strongly and say there should be a completely independen 2
u 3
group doing this independently of NRC and PG & E, but PG &
4 E could pay for it.
Now, because it's their reactor, the seismic situation has changed with regard to their reactor, 5
they have a responsibility to assure its safety.
6
[
y MR. SEISS:
Now PG & E are ah, the PG & E personel, 8
I'm sure will have to be involved in the PRA.
I suspect that with the geological-seismological stuff they would be using
..q g
io various consulting groups.
Some of them they have with them here today.
So, gi MR. KERR:
I don't understand.
12 MR. SEISS:
If NRC were doing it they'd use the 13 p.
i4 same consulting groups.
MR. KERR:
I don't understand the concept of PG &
,3 E paying for sometLng which is directed by somebody else, 16 unless this a grant from the federal government,. who will i,
18[! direct it.
l I
ig MR. SEISS:
Let me suggest that you think about 20 this for about ten seconds, and find out whether you want l
21 to ask any questions of the staff or of PG & E that would 22 you decide this matter, and I think the discussion of it, 23 ah, after we have all the information we need, could well 24 continue later on when we're writing a letter.
- Alright, 25 so I wish to retire my INAUDIBLE.
(Laughter. )
(A i
j l
RLH NRC/40 5
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. (a Annap.16 9-613 6
161 I
j i
MR. KERR:
Give me this respect, how they interpre t 2
the rest.
3 MR. JACKSON:
I think Dr. Okrent's interpretation af the commission meeting was essentially the NRC, ah, was 4
5 referred to is that, sensed the plans wasn't licensed that 6
meets the regulations, the primary burden should shift to th a 7
staff to take the lead, hire the consultants, direct the g
work, and therefore reach the conclusions regarding that q
site, and if there's any change in those basis then the io applicant can do something.
Ah, so I think it is, direct, in take the lead and direct, that, and I know as a manager at 12 NRC that's an exceedingly difficult job to do.
It would i
require many, many millions of dollars, I'm certain to i3
\\ (D
(_,/
accomplish it, which is beyond the budget of the whole i4 division, I'm sure, and, um, those things can be corrected, g
but not easily.
So it would be very difficult to do with 16 the resources, even the manpower we have in, how we could if j
is even direct such a program.
Ah, so I don't think fully workable.
g 20 DR. OKRENT:
I really don't understand one state-21 ment you made that since the plant met the standard, 22 MR. JACKSON:
I'm trying to read the mind of what
- the, 23 24 DR. OKRENT:
I'm sorry.
The applicant presented 25 some geological information which is now in strong question.
i l
f-~
RLH
('-)3
' NRC/40 6
l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
l Court Reporting. Depositions l
D.C. Area 161-1901
- Balt. & Annap. 169-6136 l
162 r^s
(,,)s 1
It's the same as if he came in and said, I'm going to 2
give you a reactor vessel which is fault free.
And now 3
there's a crack half way through it.
Would you say, "Oh, 4
I have to evaluate it," and just keep running?
5 MR. JACKSON:
I'm not saying I agree with that, 6
but, that's kind of the premise I believe was used during i
the meeting.
8 MR. NORTON:
Excuse me, Dr. Okrent, ah, this is 9
Mf. Bruce Norton, PG & E, I looked around the room there in weren't too terribly many people that are here that were n
at that commission meeting, and I think it was, to me it was 12 very clear what Dr. Bernthal, what Commissioner Bernthal 7) 33 was referring to.
Ah, what he was really saying was is it fair to make PG & E pay for this sort of thing.
That's the i4 way we interpreted it, and I think that's the way th.e 33 staff interpreted it.
(Interruption)
It was just, just 16 37 a comment; he didn't get into integrity; he didn't get into, is ah, I don't think he got into any licensing conditions.
He i3 was just asking us if it was fair to make PG & E pay for.
20 Ah, we believe that we should direct the program.
It's our client; a lot of the consultants that will be used on 21 22 this were used in the past.
We are going to get additional 23 facilities; we are also going to have peer reviews because 24 we think that is a wise step to take, in terms of later 25 questions about people we really believe that you have, an
[]
RLH
\\_s NRC/40 7
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Re, sorting. Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annop. 169-6136
163
,f-s
(_)
i independent peer review group, I think you tend to fend off 2
those future questions perhaps.
Ah, but I don't think it 3
was ever the thought of Mr. Bernthal that was a question of 4
integrity, not in any way.
5 MR. SEISS:
I thought there was another commission-6 er that did.
I can read you Commission Bernthal's statement,
7 one of them at least, this is near the end of the meeting, 8
there might have been one earlier.
Ah, "Let me just make g. :.,
9 clear that I have no problem at all with PG & E paying the io bill here for what they ought to doing, and there's plenty 3,
of precendent for requiring that of the utility, but even r
in a free-enterprise administration, it seems to me there 12
,r.s i3 are certain things that the public has a right to expect
( )
i4 the federal government to do, and it seems to me that provid-ing the last word on seismic analysis for the Diablo Canyon 33 is plant is not a responsibility that should rest primarily 37 in the hands of the utility."
Now, as I said, there may is have other words, but that's his summary word. ~ I can't ig find the words where he as.ked the ACRS to comment on it.
20 MR. WARD:
I'd like to ask a question of the staff,
2 I guess Mr. Jackson.
Ah, the licensing has met the, ah, 22 regulations, there are now some questions about the, some 23 new information, apparently, and there are some questions 24 about how adequately those regulations are met.
How unique 25 is that situation, really, to Diablo Canyon at places?
l
/7 RLH
(,,/
NRC/40 8
i FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annap. 269-6136
164
,m(,)
i There are, ah, other sites, ah, where there is a, are, you 2
know seismic conditions which are uncertain.
Is this really 3
a unique at Diablo or not?
4 MR. JACKSON:
Let me make one comment and then 5
Jim will comment.
Ah, I think there's still a, ah, a 6
presumtion here that the Crouch Papers what was driving the license condition, even if we had not received the Crouch g
Paper at all, we still would asked for the license condition.
Maybe it wouldn't have gone through quite so easily, but on p:.3 9
in the other hand we still had fully intended to request that 3i license condition even before that paper; it just happened to be a timely publication, I guess.
But, ah, so from that 12 point of view, I don't think it's because we received this 33 Ix -)
piece of information that that initiated the action we had.
y It just exemplified why we needed such a condition.
Jim 33 wanted to comment on the term.
16 37 MR. LIONS:
I was just going to say as a matter of ta general principle, ah, it's certainly not unique, they have 39 questions arise from various fields, during the lifetime of a plant, and, ah, either we all collectively are content 20 21 with the process that's been in place, and that we use, which 22 is largely to, ah, when a question arises, ask the utility, in essence, ah, tell us, tell the public why the situation 23 is still alright; it's different from what we thought before.
24 25 And, they will do that or whatever work is appropriate to do
<^x RLH
(
)
NRC/40 9
i FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Balt.& Annap. 169 6136
165 k
\\.J i
that, whatever it will take.
Or, ah, we decide that there 2
are some questions, as I think we, the implication is, there P
3 are some questions that, ah, perhaps, go above that, and they say, no, we must go off and do some completely, totally 4
5 independent effort.
That's a, to me, that's a rather severe 6
change of direction.
I'm not saying, it's a judgement to 7
be made whether it's appropriate or not, a rather unique 8
- action, j.3 9
MR. WARD:
I'm not sure what, I mean the need to for this program is the unique action, is that what you're ii saying.
So there is, there must be some, almost qualitative 12 uncertainty with regard to the seismic design of Daiblo
.73 33 Canyon, than there is with the uncertainties which are inherent with the design of any other plant.
For the staff i4 35 to be requesting, or for the ACRS, or the commission, or 16 someone to be requesting this large program.
I mean, are l
if you convinced thht there are such large differences in the I
is ! uncertainties?
i9 MR. LIONS:
I'm, ah, I mean, I can almost give 20 you two answers.
I'm not convinced there are such large 21 uncertainties.
Ah, I think if we really were deeply concerned 22 about large uncertainties, then there'd be further questions 73 about whether, whether the, we should license and continue 24 to operate.
I think implicit in that finding and decision, 25 is that there is a, ah, a lot of confidence we have in
('O RLH NRC/40 10 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting
- Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
166 r~ ~ N
(,,)
I adequate design.
There are certainly circumstances, ah, 2
that are unique here, ah; starting with the fact that it was all the way back to when we had a plant totally 3
4 built, and then had a major change in concept of what the 5
design-based earthquake should be.
Ten men were uxpended, 6
God only knows how many professional man-hours and dollars, 7
and now bring us back to a point where we feel confident 8
that we can proceed.
It seems the question boils down to,
,. 3 9
okay is this, is there yet something else beyond this that to is, that can promise to take a rather divergent path from our usual practice or do we find that the usual practice ii 12 for some reason has not, hasn't worked, time to make a 7-~3 13 change.
That seems to me a little more fundamental question.
t 1
N/
i4 MR. SEISS: I thank you.
is DR. OKRENT: I'm not sure what you mean by usual 16 practice; could you take ten seconds.
if MR. LIONS:
Well yes, I,
by that, I simply ment is that, by and large if a question arises, a the regulatory i9 authority says to the utility, "Here's a question: why does, 20 does it, give us your appraisal of the impact on your facili ty 21 why is it or is it not, ah,
.(Interruption)
Because it 22 gets that answer, and we were looking for it.
23 DR. OKRENT:
With regard to the Charleston earth-24 quake, ah, you're doing your study, and the utility industry 25 is doing its, and there are many such examples of, one does
{-]
RLH
- a,)
NRC/40 11 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions l
D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136
167
(,)
i find exceptions, ah, for whatever reason, and it might be, 2
MR. LIONS:
I think there's something of a 3
parallel here.
We are also planning to engage in a 4
what we consider sufficient independent activity so that 5
we will have a firm basis and not be simply the recipient.
6 DR. OKRENT:
It's conceivable to me here that 7
as you have these meetings with the Applicant and their 8
program becomes fairly solidified in their own mind, you may or may not be satisfied that the kinds of concerns, 8
'O for example, mentioned by Dr. Trifunac or some other, will be covered to a sufficient extent and you might decide 2
to have limited program of your own USGS or something to--
'3
(;
or USGS and some national lab, to have an independent look
\\m l
'4 in some areas, not the whole area.
35 MR. BROCOLid:
I.think that's correct Dr. Okrent, 16 the fact that's an envision effort.
An example of the C
kind of program of the close model we have at Standard
'8 Okree (phonetic) where utility did the work to the extent
'9 of modeling, etc., profiling, etc., we commmission an 20 independent panel.
We felt that there were some additional 21 sensitivities in the model that needs to be done.
We 22 commissioned the independent studies.
I think we integrated 23 many of the elements that we are looking at here were done 24 in Standard Okree (phonetic) and that altought it might 25 be different, that seems to be about the closest model we l [s')
NRC/4 3
\\_/
12 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annap. 169-6136
168 m
(
J-have to doing a good program in.
I might add that the 2
difference the Charleston earthquake had a generic 3
impact upon many plants and here we have a specific 4
problem with one plant.
I think that's a reflection of 5
why we think that the pute that we did, the f "D*that we r
6 ingested, Alysander Okree (phonetic) is the appropriate 7
route.
8 MR. EBERSOLE: Any further information you want 9
to get from the Staff or from the licensee on this?
If 10 not, Mr. Chairman, I declare this portion of the sub-Il committee meeting --
12 MR. KNIGHT:
Mr. Ebersole?
Jim Knight over O
hear, it's getting time to close.
Mr. Bishc.p asked if 14 there was one item in a response he gave this morning that he would like to augment and it had to do with the question of the natural circulation test. At the time he said there g
would be no other tests.
He since contacted the region and
,g 19 scheduled.
20 The test will evaluate more on mixing and will be conducted after achieving 100% power.
MR. EBERSOLE:
Any other comments?
I want to thank all of you for coming and we'll adjourn this meeting.
Oh, one more.
25 l
NRC/40 13 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting o Depositions
(
D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
169 7}
t\\'
1 MR. SULLIVAN:
Yes Mr. Ebersole.
Let me say 2
just a few wet as and we'll furnish you some more informa-3 tion later.
I did drastically over simplify the 4
discussion about thermal insulation.
There are in general 5
two different types of insulation in the containment.
6 One is reflective.
And, as I said, major equipment is 7
covered with it as Mr. Yin pointed out, there is calcium 8
silicate insulation in the containment.
It is in 9
general, covered by a stainless steel jacket and banded to in place, so that any release or freeing of it would be a local phenomena.
12 There are some places where that insulation
(~^
33 is not covered with stainless steel as I found out this
(
'4 morning.
It is encapsulated with wire mesh.
I'm going 15 to have to look at that in a little more detail and I 16 will provide the Committee with that information later.
MR. EBERSOLE:
I just ask that an ordered 18 examination of the potential of that material for filing
'9 the co-- circulatory system--
0 MR. MICHAELSON:
Before you leave this though, 21 7,m a little confused.
Now I thought the Staff had 22 received an earlier answer concerning this question and 23 written off on it as a non problem, but maybe I 24 misunderstood their reply at that time.
25 i
MR. SULLIVAN:
Well I believe you're correct.
l
("%
(_)
NRC/40 14 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting. Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Balt. & Annop. 169 6136
170 b
1 The information the staff h'ad been given.
They made 2
their evaluation.
3 MR. MICHAELSON:
Are you saying that this is 4
new information that the staff-5 MR. SULLIVAN:
No.
I'm saying they were 6
provided with the information.
The information I gave 7
you this morning in response to your question was 8
incorrect.
9 MR. MICHAELSON:
So I should be able to look 10 at the staff evaluation of this question and find this 11 type of insulation involved in a reply and how they 12 wrote it off.
/7 13 MR. SULLIVAN:
That's correct.
14 MR. MICHAELSON:
Okay.
Could you supply the 15 Committee the copy of the Oak Ridge or parts of the 16 document that has this?
17 MR. SULLIVAN:
We'll do that.
18 MR. MICHAELSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
All right.
We'll re-adjourn.
20 21 (Whereupon the proceedings were adjourned.)
22 23 g
?
24 f
25
~
NRC/40 15 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-6135
t
^
171 l
1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS
)
k 2
i 3
i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before 4
the NRC COMMISSION i
o 5
In the matter of:
The 20th General Meeting of the i
Advisory Committee on Reactor f
6 Safeguards l
7 Date of Proceeding: June 14, 1984 8
Place of Proceeding: Washington, D. C.
9 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
[
transcript for the file of the Commission.
i 10 11 12 I
13
[
(;?7 l
d 14 Tom Berry L
Official Reporter - Typed 15 16 Wl W
Of ficial Re]66fter - Signature 18 I
I
(
19 20 l
21 22 r
r 23 l
I 24 O
i 2,
I FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
i Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901
- Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 i
)
- - -,.