ML20150B945
| ML20150B945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1978 |
| From: | Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811100019 | |
| Download: ML20150B945 (238) | |
Text
_ -_ - ______. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ .-_.
(. c_ y , m> .
P
- t w
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIO.
e-r s
IN THE MATTER OF:
i
.__...,.__. - --PORTE.9&-GEtiERAL ELECTRIC Cai %!ri' . e t 2.? . - - - - - -
(Cr:d s.a ru: lear Firn b) 7.... . . . : ., .
.... ..J- .s .
'.:.. -. L u.3.1.:. - . :..: d.d.nej a )
h, w j .
l 4
Sale:n, 0:2gon p ,
'- ' ' ' 'n, "y#
2 Noix..ber 1970 Date - Pages
]-
(!
I ei
'i l
l 1
1 Telephone:
(202)047 3700 p
I ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponers
\.
444 North Capitol Street
. 81110 00 l1 Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY
.-. = : :.2 - -. - . . w :. _ _ __. ; ; -
_ -- 3. _
WRBicom/wb I MPBloom 2064 CR 9927
[] '
1 UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA
- ('7' 2 NUCLEAR REGULATOR'l COMMISSION 3 .- --------..--------- 1 7
4 In the matter of: : 1 e a . , i
\
o .
5l PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPTJi7, : Deeko: vic . 50-344 )
et al. : (Control Suilding 6 -
7 cceedings) pg (Trojan Nuclear Plant) :
7 :
I G
~~ - Heariny Room A, . .w-_.-,
- 9 State Capitol Building, Salem, Oregen.
10 Thursday, McVember 2, J 7 3.
11 The hearing in the above-entitled mattar *.tas 12 g reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 3:30 a.m.
13 V' BEFORE:
14 MARSHALL E. MILLER, Esq., Chairman,
- f. 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing acard.
f 16 DR. KENNETH A. McCOLLOM, Membar.
f DR. HUGH C. PAXTON, Member. I 17 l
I o 13 APPEARANCES:
19 On behalf of Licensees: ,
1 20 ROLAND F. BANKS, Esq., Souther, Spaulding, Kinsay, Will'iamson & Schwabe,-Standard ?laza, 21 Portland, Oregon 97204.
22 MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq., Lc,lenstein, Newman,
! Reis and A::alrad,1025 Connecticut At enua, N.U. .
33 Washington, DC. 20036, 21 RONALD JOHNSON, Esq., Portland denor 1 Electric j
(~N ; Company, 121 S.W. Salmon S uect, Portland, I f., / 25 Oregon.. ,
- u. l i
h
. Mr -66 ag -w w sms.- wr eg-aw,$ F me myNWe m h tu "
.I W 2065 :
4 1
wb 7 On behalf of Donneville Power Administration: 3 O , !
./ 0(i WILLIAM KINSEY, Esq., 1002 N.E. Holladay, ;
Portland, Oregon. )
3i ;
} On behalf of the State of Oregon Depart =cnt of Energy, i 4' Oregon Public Utility Corniscioner: ,
5 f' JOmi U. SCCOLOFSKY, Esq., Dcpart ent of Ju2tice, :
i- State Office Building, Salac r Or3 gen. i
% 6' ! .
On behalf cf the Muelcar Regulatory Cc =isciou. ;
a i 7i i 1 ( JOSEPH GRAY, Esq., Office of Executive Legal )
) G I' Director, Unitud States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. .
O !. '
I On behalf of Columbia En'rironmental Council,
- 0 ;I Intervenor
- l 1
l
!) i
- i GREGORY KAFCURY, Esq., Kafoury 5 Hcgen, ,
.. 202 Oregon Pioneer Building, 320 S.;i. Starh in ,
Street, Portland, Oregon. ,
C On behalf of Coalition for Safe Pcuer, Intervenor, j and pro se: """"
1
.,i e, - ,
i f EUGEME ROSOLIE, 3926 N.E. 12th Street, j 13 ' Portland, Oregon.
l
} j,3 On behalf of Consolidated Intervenors, and pro se_: !
ge Ii NINA BELL, 2018 N.W. Everett, PorticnG_..O.regon.
t
. :s l' i .
i -
} ;
- s 3
r 6
- i *
) I. j ;
i '
1.' j .'
s9, i h
= ri;i i
.e
/
I c t
i I
4> _ . . . _ . ... . - . . . . ~ -----~z~_-;_~~_
.w. . _ . . - , . . . . . _ , .
- __ , . _ . _._-. u. -._------------------------------ _ _ _ .
4 11/2/70 2066
, wb 1
.C .O _N .T E.N .T .S s,
/
._2 2 Witnesses Direct Cross Redirect, Roeross 3 card
' 2095 3 Harold I. Laursen 2068 2072 2112 2113 C.
4
- Kar.nath 5..Ihrri:.g' 1113 2 ^.2 9 2 2 .~ 7 2 0. ' ; 227". 4 5 Charles Traccoll )
Jcmac E.:' night )
A 6 1
7 l L.
3 Enhibits Iden. E ti .
Prepar2d testimony, H.I.~1cursen
, . . ~
9 Stats 1 1.006 ^~2 0 6 9 to Lic. 18 PGE (771111er.s) ltr to DCE DiillerS 11 4/26/73 ^lla
. 2.115 i
12.. Staff 2 Prof. Cun1., Herring 2117 2123 j 13 Staff 3 Prof. Qual., Knight 211G 2128 j
14 Staff 4 Prof. Qual., Trar.sil 2119 2128 t 15 Staff 5 Herring test. re: structural cdequacy 2122 2122 f
) 16 of Trojan CB for IO 17 Staff 6 Herring te3t. re: sup. STARDniE ana2. 2124 2123 18 and effect on strue. capacity of Trojen C3 19l 20 " Staff 7 Knight test., 10/13/7G '
2'.25
. 2120
, 21 Staff 8 Gretenhuis nemo to Schwen/;22,2/13/70 2127 212E ;
I i 22 -1 ,
i i ,
4
- - 20 I
e i
\
2067 MPB1 h MADELON/ 1 P .R O. .C E E- D
. . - - I- N- . G S -
/ 2 CHAIR!mN MILLER: All right.
p.
3 Are you ready to put on your first witness,
~
4 Mr. Socolofsky?
i 5 MR. SCCOLOFSICI: Yes, we aru.
[ 6 I call Dr. IIarold Laursen.
. 7 Whereupon, 8 IIAROLD. I. LAURSEN
-- g - was called to the-stand to testify as a witnecs on behalf--of 10 the State of Oregon, and, having been first duly sworn, was l
11 t e::amined and testified as follous:
1
- g ' MR. SOCOLOFSitY
- T7e'11 cch that Dr. Lc.urcen's 13 direct testimony be given an e:thibit numhar for identifica-I' tion.
34 15 CI! AIRMAN MILLER: Very well.
i*
16 You may proceed.
l
,1 97 MR. SOCOLOFStY: What e::hibit number arc ve going
/
to assign to this?
18 39 CHAIR!!AN MILLER: Oh,'I guess that wculd be the l 20 Stats of Oregon Exhibit number 1, wculdn't it?
g MR. SOCOLOFSKY: All right.
CIIAIR!GN MILLE'R: You don't hc7s r/J 7: vitus
{ 23 exhibits that are identified, do you?
g MR. SOCOLOFSKY: No, i CILURMAN MILLER: All right.
25
} ../
,, _,, . .. ---.4 . ..-- ..-.-
. ~ ~ . ~ . - . , -. . . . . . . - . - . . ..
.[, 2063 mpb2 The Intervenor State of Oregon Exhibit number 1.
'. (Whereupon, the document 3 referred to was merked as 4 Stata of Oregc.,n E:iibit 1 1
5I for identificction.) ,
. i
- 4. 3 I
DIFICT E:7.UIUATION i I
". 7 SY MR. SCCOLOFSI"la 4
. 8 0 Dr. Laursen, you have hofore you what hea been g ~ marked as State of-oregon Exhibit number 1, purporting to br-10 the prepared direct testimony of Harold I. Laurren, concisting e
i 11' of 12 pages. ,
t 12 Was this testimony prepared by you?
t 13 A Yes, basically it was prepared by =2.
14 0 And if I were ta ask you all of the questicas 15 appearing on the exhibit, would your answers be the same? I i* ...
A Y88*
f 16 i O I believe you pointed out on page 9 of the a:chibit,i
- 7 ;
I
. 10[. in y ur first ansuor, that word "inclued" should be "includad";;i .
9! that's a typograph.ical error, is that correct?
l.
M g A That's correct, on page C. .
, i : G Are there any other corrections be tha :a:::iceny?
s s.
t A No, other thr. c typo error en tha dis,ribution '
.! s'
- o list; but I don't believe that is incluici in s.a tu tiz:ny.
-' Q That's that LcWanstain 0 n II".a _ 1.0 3 23 :.ll .d
.N A. 0
(
/\ '
, . correctly?
s )
i
- =
59 T.W WA% %e ' k . hg.mq g g
^
I 2069 4
1 I
mpb3 1 A That's correct, i
)
4 2 0 I believe you said that your answers would be 3 the same if I asked you these questions.
4 A Yes.
5 MR. SOCOLOPSKY: We'll offer C::hibit number 1 l
,, 6 into evidenco.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Exhibit 1 will be received I
. 8 into evidence.
9
- - - (Whereupon, the document 10 previously narked as 11 State of Oregen Exhibit 1 ,
12 , ias received in evif.ance.) .
. l 13 MR. SOCOLOFSRY: And Dr. Laursen is available I.
14 for. cross-oxamination.
15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very well.
.' 16 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, would it be agreeable, l .
/ 17 since we seem to have the burden here, that we fcilow the J
/ other people? I don't think we'd have any questionc--
- g 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER
- We'd prefer for th3 Licansae i
J 20 l to be first in the cross-exaninatien., j i.
~1 MR. BANKS: You irant un to go first in cr:Es-
- 22 c:: amination? :
. CHAIRMAN MILL'IR: Yes -- '-
- u, i i
jf
, MR. DA!TJS : I'd prefer to go laatr if thuti: all ;
i right. j 25 l :
? -
5 s,
(a J
" M *W96 - m wwMw" pePu=eG'mMe'- .g4w ,g . f
2070 i mpb4 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you want to toss with the I,2 2 Staff on that one?
3 (Laughter. )
I 4 MR. GRAY: The Staff would have no objection.
51 l;
e 5 CHAIRMAH MILI3n: On uitnesses other than your
+ 5 cwn, then, on behalf of Licenses, Mr. Banks, you scy have the I
~
7' last, following, then, the Staff on cross-ensmination in the d
a 0 order.
~~
9 MR. KAICURY: Can I'bbject to that',~Mr." Chairman?
10 It seems to me that gamacmenship in the crdar of 11 witness-calling should not ha c11cutd l:0 benefit cny party. l
' i 12 And that would go for the Licensee as well as for the rast of i t
13 us. And thero may be technical reasons why any of us might i 14 want to arrange the order of any questioning. ,
Ii i 15 But I think that a prophylactic rula makes more
- i. l
[ 16 sense and more fairness. l I
/; 2 17 CHAIRMAM MILIIR: ITell, we believe in prophylaxisj
- c also. And where you have a party which either has a burden (
. t 19 of proof or appears to have the burdan of proof, namely the 2 Zo Licensee, is the element we feel it vould bo f air to let i: hat !
. 21 party be last.
22 The Staff position is becauca of 9.2 try C. t.'.cr:1 g role of the Staff, which is to represent in n a.cra sac'.:.1 24 way the public interest than partin; therefr e S2j c.c r e ti e 7.5 benefit of examining or responding z.nd given ediiuien:1 i:ir.2,
+'**=
- N eia- g p. m,,., ,, , , , , ,,
,i .
- 2071 {
i i
i mpb5 1 as you know, to respond to additional motions and the like t 5
,m, 2 because of their additional roles in the public interest j f
3 responsibility as both traditional and as spelled out in our 4 regulations.
S Those are the reesenc for the final 2012.
6 Now as far as any strategy is concernod I would 7 hope -- we would like to conclude the testimony of all wit-8 nesses today. I would hope that all parties and Counsel Tiould cooperate 1n~tkat effort.
~
~
9 to I think that as trial lawyers you all know that 11 as you get farther along in the trial that the cuestions can 12 and do tend to becomo chorter in the conce that your procpoctus 13 has now changed. Nobody knows in advanca in a trial exactly g
14 how it's going to 1cok.
- l. 15 By now I think all of you have a faeling and a 16 judgment for the significant issues. If you go directly to
,/
ty those and try to eliminate those things which you may be 18 entitled to ask but which are really not necessa / at this 19 point, I believe it would ha helpful to the Board and probbly I jd of assistance in your own case. '
, 2;} There are seme matters oC offers that v2 would
- g j like to go into tomorrow. If we can proc 2cd on; ;dition
- 1y but fairly with tha cross-ex r.ination of witacr.nc, wa "4
23 :
s.m be able to do that.
I think that all parties, inciuling Intar rancrs, t
f.
a .
.. n. . -- .. -. . . - - - . . .
__ _______-_.___a. . _ .
2072 ;
I I
mpb6 1 would find that helpful to them. But we're note where we're l
'N i I!,,
2 having to adjust matters. I c _, ,
3 And I think as you, Mr. Kafoury, scid, you wanted t
- 1 l 4 to see your son; we too -- we're 3000 miles frcm here, two ;
5I weeks on the road, and while our conc may be gr .m up- se they l
,, 6 ara, we would also liko to proceed now, with 1:ar cocycratien.
7 as expeditiously as we reasonably can. !
i 8 MR. KAFOURY: I appreciate the Chair's position.
~ ~
CH1tIRMAN MILLER: "I think now under our present ~ ~ -
s' 10 i order of crosJ-examination, Mr. Kafoury, that you cre number 11 ona, unless you would wish to drop to a differsnt position 12 with the Intervanors, with the cther Into: 7 ncra.
13 MR. KAFOURY: No, that's fine. -
l 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Ne would have no objection to 15 a rearrangement in that sense.
l'
/ 16 CROSS-EKAMINATION
/
17 DY MR. IGFOURY.;
is O Mr. Laursen, on page G of your testimony, tottard tg the bottom, your final answer, you say:
V 2o
...ny attention was directed primarily
. 21 to theory and application of sound engineerinej 22 principles. I necessarily us3d data from
_ 23 Dechts:1, such as as-built weights, and actu 1 l
24 l s trangth of reinforcing steci and ccacraze uc2.i.'
- 1 l ) 25 l And then back on the pricr pEga, teucrd the tcp, 4
%-- -m= .. - . - + ..e . -_
- - +
uwsuseeese. _,y..%,. . . _ . _ . _
---_-..__'M'____..__'_"_____m_
2073 mpb7 1 after mentioning that you received the LER Report 78-13 and l 's j 2 Reportable occurrence of May 5, 1970, together with the supp-3 lement of May 24, that you received design drawings for the 4 control building.
5' '
Aside from design drawingc for the control build- l 6 ing, what raw materials wera you givan to work uith? I 7 A Well, as you say, the raw materials that I saw
- 8 would be des , drawings, and, of course, I took the unights i 9 as computed by Dechtel and simply reviewed thoco.
to I did not go through and evaluate th2 figurco on )
i 11 their weights from the design drawings. l 12 Q And thosa are weightc as computad in the reanaly-i 13 sis of last spring?
}
14 A Yes.
f
- l. 15 Q Did you have any other raw material to work i i
/
' 16 with?
) ;
/
[ 17 A Not to my knowledge, no -- or not that I recall,
, ta excuse me.
19 0 on page 7, the second paragraph:
y li 20 ll, "I did not reconstruct the mathematical y .
. 21 computer model of the building from the snjincar-22 ; ing drawings. That uculd be a practical i- ossS-23 ility, but I was able to determine that the 24 results provided by Bechtel are reasonabis."
L- 25 Which commuter model are you talking .hout thers?
1 l
g.
+ 5em e,y - .g m. a . .t.sy. we. mw.r- --w-w... .-%v . . . . .
._ ._ .. . _ . . . . . _ . ._: u_ -
2.a_;_.
] 2074 mpb8 1 A' At that point I'm talking about their earlier !'
- Q4 <
s 2 stick model, and then later I checked,the STARDYIm model.
~
3 0 What do you mean when you say " reasonable"?
4 A Weli, in the stick model, for e:: ample, it's an ,
i 5 approximation to the true structure, and what I looked for j t ,
e 6 there was to see that the masses were located in an appropriate?
7 position. ,
3 As we moved on to the STARDYN2 model wo icoked to ,
l
~'
o 'see th~at~ the finite elements do~ in ' fact rasomble what you"cee l t
10 on the design drauings. For example, the shear walls cra j s
11 properly represented by the finite elements, and oc forth.
12 Q Have you ever worked with the STARDr m program?
- 13 A Not with STARDYNE, no. . I know of it, but I have s
" not had hands-on experience with it.
14 l
. 15 Q Do you know anything about the litoraturo dis-16 cussing STARDYNE analysis as applied to earthquakes? )
I A Yes, I have brochures on it. I keep this sort
[ 17 l
/ !'
' of thing in my files. I have general evalttation sheets on
- 13 !
. / '
gg ;
these programs, yes.
b ' l. -
20 Q How extensively has STARDYtm been ussd in earth-21 quake analysis?
5 g A I can't answer that definit:1y. It's M:n arcund
.and used for around seven to ten years, I beliava.
23 y Q It's used, it's my underst:nding, 2:r a vary wida N
) ICAge of analyses, iS that Correct?
\
. - . . . . - . . . . . - . . _ . - -- - --- : : . = - _. _
2075 mpb9 1 A Yes.
I 2 O And earthquakes would be merely --
3 A It's just one of them, yes.
4- Q -- of a great many of them. ,
5 l A Yes.
e 6 Q tiere you present for the tectir.ony o ? Profascoru 7 Holley and Bresler?
, 8 A I reviewed the transcript the day following their
~~~ 0 testimony, except~~f5f^ yesterday's. I" ha ren't rond thaEyot. "~
10 1 0 Professor Holley said that in looking at the
!i STARDnm analyses that he took a look at the final results and 12 said, "That's about what it should be", and that "One has i 13 a sense of about what it should be".
, 14 '
Is that the same mental process that ycu were 15 using when you looked at the TABS analysic -- at the' stick
.6 model and found that it was reasoncble, and s: hen you locked I
37 at the STARDY 2 analysis and according to your testinony you ,
t
,/ ;g came to the same conclusion? l I
jg A Yes. .In particular I think we're referring there
'd 20 to the mode shapes, since it's a dynamics problem. "cs, you
. 21 i look at the mode shapes as they're ind!!.ccted, and they do 1cok ,
t
,, i
- r recsonable. ,
1 i t
! Q There was testimony that STARDrJS was noc considerh l
! ed early en, and this problon arece, I believe, in May -- it g!
gj
- i 3j arose eight years defore, but it was reccanized in
- :ay. Ane j I
I IJ !
I
____.____m_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
- . . - . . . . . :_.a - : .- . . - . . _ _ _ .
I 2076 I i
1 mpb10 1 this STARDYtm analysis was apparently not run until August ,
l
..1 m 2 for the purpose for.which it's being used in these hearings.
3 Do you have any insight into why it wouldn't have 4 been used a lot sooner?
9 l'- A Well, this wot. d be personal opinica in sci.e S regard; but I think it would be a question of econs.ica and 7 a matter of time.
o 8 STARDRE is a more expensive program to run; it
_ . _ . _ . . _ . t 9 does take more time to set such a program up. And I think it 10 is also a more sophisticated program, mora comprohonsive.
11 Q What kind of money -~
f 12 j A It's pretty much personni opinien. I can't speck for Bechtel.
- 13
}, . -
14 Q Did you make any suggestions in this regard?
. 15 A What was your question?
to O Did you make any suggestions as to the use of 17 STARDDE?
A No, I did not.
to
/
, 13 0 How much money - what kind of monsy, very roughly,
'1 j/ .\
go are we talking about? '
i 23 A I don't think I can answe'r that. I'm not sure j i
.,; what their cost structura is for computer progrn=3 and this 23 sort of thing.
[
i y Q Would you say closer to $1000, er $10,000, or i g ,
$100,0007
. - - . . + .~. .. s-
- G w.%sime.-- .
._-_-_'___'__-____m-
. . .- _.. .. . - ~ _- . . . . .. .. . ..
2077 i t ,
mpb11 1. A Well, we're in excess of 10,000, I'm quite certain.
2 . For. example, our system on campus runs around S3-'or $400 an 3 hour. That's without programmers and staff.
4 0 Do you have any idea how many man-hours it would 5 take to program.the STARLYME analysis for the purpose it was !
e a
5 used in this case? .
~- 7 A Do you want man-hours? '
' 8 -O or whatever appropriate units would be cognizabis
, , . - ~ . . _ ,._ -
. g ,,
10 A I would estimate it would prchably tche three men :
11 four weeks.
12 0 What are these men doing with their tims? I'mI 13 very unsophisticated in-these matters.
y A Well, a problem like this, you'd have'to start 14
. 15 from the drawings. From the drawings you'd have to pick off 16 your weights, which is probably-the time of one man for a l 17 couple of weeks.
,, 18 once this is done.you have to what we call " code" jg Ehe problem, .and that is you set the prchlem up such that the .
20 ' computer can accept the information, and this I think is whera
~
2 the majority of the time would be spent. "he actual ecmputer
,. running time is not the big factor. Cnca it cemec back cff a
23' the computer it ' has to be properly interpratad.
y I would say that dsts preparc.tien is a b:'; part
- of the total time.
. 2.
j
- W- at -m N mr= -we,.ce- .#.p.- .
_m-______A- m w ===
I
= ------------------=---
1l r 2078 s mpbl2 1 0 This process of spending an enormous amount of '
l)
./ 2- human effort to program a very sophisticated mode of analysis, 3 and then getting back an answer and looking at it and saying t "That's about what I think it chould be"; deco the icgic of 5 evaluating the result on that kind of a basis give you Ony I 0 difficulty?
7 A No. You used the words "this is about the way it
= 8 should look". I think when you say that to the person who's 9 "doing i.his, he's really caying "I have confidence E EFI have 10 approached the problem correctly". I think he ac:apta the 11 results with more confidenco than the word "cheut".
12 0 I was using Prof. Holley's words.
i A How, again, did he use it? i 13 I, l 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, I thinh this is collaterali.
i
. 15 I think the important thing is what the witness knows, says, j
?
I 16 or did. And I don't think he should be required to compare 17 or even to construe Prof. Holley.
. 1.220 13 BY MR. KAFOURY:
19 0 Does it trouble you that to an c:: tent you are
"~ 20 Il using a preconceived notion of what the answer should be to ;
i '
I .
. gtl evaluate the answar that you're computing? j 4
- t. .
2:' A tio. I think the reversa is true. If it's used correctly, it gives you confidence in the fact that you've g4 ,i set it up properly. I think that's the way pe pla lock upon 25 this, that you could not 'mcept a wierd 1 coking 2nsvar, I I.
1 5
t
. - . . = - .: . _ . . . = - - - - - - - - - = . _a 2079 {
1 mpb13 1 believe.
i g 2 O So when you get the answer you decide that either l'
3I itlooksprettygood,inwhichcaseyoutendtoacceptallthat{
4 went into it and the final answer, or you find that it's S wierd, out of balance, out of the range of expectoney, and !
S you assume that ocmoons screwed up and you tecs i': "way. . T. c d
- 7 that correct?
8 A Yes, in part that's corrsct. But I don't think
.- . . _ . ~
9 _that we should emphasi::e that we aro using thic that Ic'oks 10 about right as our judge of the methed, because we have other }i 11 things within this whole process that are mere definite than that. I 12 For example, we use plots now. We plot the 13 14 structure to'see if the thing has been assembled correctly .
l as the computer sees it. We tend to plot down many of our
. 15 16 results, as you've seen on the mode shapes. So it's not an 17 avowed process.that we're talking, but it's much T. ore precise i 18 than that. l 39 We use this judgment to just get a general trend i
' I of whether we're in the ballpark. , ,
20l
- 21 ! O But once having used you'r kno elefge and e:Garience 22 to determine whether or not you're in the ba'_1 park, that dec.:i-g3 sion plays an ess'ential role in deciding whether or not fundamentally the thing was done right, is that correct?
24 l.
/% j 35 A That's correct, it's a facter .
\
- p-<* r*%%.. , , , , , _ , _ , ,
j
e-2000 mpbl4 1 0 okay.
2 On page 8, the second half of the page, you speak t
3 about dowel action, and you say:
4I "Dased upon detailed information later il .
f provided by Eschtel, I becam convinc2d thnh !
i
- I 6' dowel action of the reinforcing steel and the j
. ~ '
7 steel columns would provide additional strangth 3 to the wallo."
9 And this apparently a51cviated ccm3 of you-10 l earlier concerns of last spring.
11 It's my understanding that the drtal action was i 1 12 ; not originally factored in to determina the ctrangth of the 1 13 shear walls, is that correct, in your origincl analysis?
}
14 A That's the way I interpret it, yes.
15 0 And at that time it was known, was it not, that 16 the dowels, by general engineering principlas, wculd contribute 17 , some strength to the shear resistence of the walls, correct? ;
l 13 ,
A If they were appropriate steel thcy could be used '
19 for that purpose, yes. l 20 0 So when the dowel actien'was act factored in
, i l
21 initially, that was a deliberately conservativt totion, isn't -
l 3 that correct?
23 MR. SOCOLOFSICI: Mr. Chairman, I think Sha questier j
y is asking what Bechtel knew; and I don't think Dr. Laursen is
\
3 qualified to speculate on what Bechtal knew.
1 su#95't*4'* ew summe -
-- _-___________._m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 , , _ , , _ _ ,_ _ .x ;
2081 !
1 mpbl5
- Q, 1' l'
. ite can testify to what he saw on the original '1 s%j 2 analyses and the drawings that came through. But I wouldn't I.
3 ask him to speculate about what Dechtel thought.
CIIAIRMAM MILIIR:
4 We've alrandy indiccted that 5 we are not going to permit the uitness to b3 coked t: !:sstify ,
(
6 on the basis of what he thinks someone else thcught. To want
~
7 it limited to his own studies, analyssa, and mental prccessec.
- 8 MR. KAFOtmY: I'll ask another question, Mr.
9 Chairman.
10 DY MR. KAFOURY 11 0 A design engineer of reasenchia cometenca in l 12 1970 looking at those design drawings uculd hava i:ncun that 13 there was some strength in the dowels, correct?
l s- ' .
14 A~ If you were looking to those dewels for that
. 15 ' purpose. ,
i 16 0 L? you were looking at the shear resistonca of 17 the walls and ho did not attempt to computo devel action, you 18 would say tnet would not indicats that he wasn't aware that the t gg was some resistence there, but that it was simply not being
^~
20 computed in for some deliberate reason, right? Is that a 21 proper inference to draw?
22 A It is not usual practice to use acsal action as 33 I your prime mcchanism in earthquake designs such as this.
,y 3 Dowel action is used -- is the prim nachanism O(
g Q .
25 in composite giSder design of this thing. In this casa the 4
.O.
ame
-- - - ~ . . -
_. _ _ _ _ _ . . . ,_. , .. _ . . _ _ . _m. . _ . . .
1 2082 !t i
]
p - mpbl6 1 dowels simply served as a backup. 1 MA 2 Q And the time has come to' draw upon backup reservee 3 in order to evaluate. the strength of the building isn't that
)
- c .
j 4 corrtct?
l .
,! 3 A To me it provided comething tM.t 7. :s 1 coking i j- .
~* .
6 f:r it provided the reserva strength in tying the structure 7 f.ogether.
8 Q There is a wide range of reascns why any building.
T I is--when. analyzed ~for its earthquake ~~ strength might Kavo"
~
10 conservative elements not figt: red in, isn't that true?
l i
l' A Yes, I think that's a fair statement.
2 0 For instance, therc's always the possibility 13 that workmanship won't come up to the standard that you hoped?
s 14 A That's usually covered by the raduction factors
. 15 in the codes, however.
16 0 And there were reduction. factors in the codes 17 applie1. originally in this case, weren't thera?
, 18 A Yes. If they followed ACI code thoro is a so-19 called feed factor.
20 0 And there's always the possibility of miscalcula-
- 21 tion in the design itself that is inobvious? That's an alament 22 e that ons has in mind uhen one builds in conserva:. ism, isn't 3 that true?
24 A tiell, I'm not .sure I entirely agree with that.
e s
)
(
- g I don't think we accept the fact that mistakes are cicing to be s
a 4% wa s=-emanammenWga gighaus ge$>
- 4#'tr=Wer*+" = **wggspaa a. , , ,,
w -_
===:--.=.....-
2003 mpb17 1 made.
2 2 Q Dvt it's one more reason for having conservative i 3 elements in, for not trying to cut the line too fine, for not 4 trying to make it too close a quettion?
Sl A In part I agree with that. I'd say it's more due l
G to cartain approximations that are made in your analysis.
7 ) Q That's another reason, then, that a let of your 4 0 figures are not exact.
- -~. .- _. . , . ..
g A We're talking about ordinary building design now, to that soma buildings are drasigned by sc-called fairly appro::1-t 11 mate techniques that don't go through the cceputer analyses 12 ' that we've seen in this case.
13 Q And one might take into consideration, mightn't
}
14 ne, the cost-benefit picture in building in conservati:n into
. 15 a building?
16 For instance, if a building were to house straw
- 7 -- or more realistically, if a building was to be a uarchouse
, ;g for property, and this property was of reasonable value, and 39 one wanted to make sure that the building would be earthquake-E proof because it was in an earthquake zone, ycu still wouldn't 33
.3
,, use the same approach regarding conservatism necessarily, l
1 '
n would you, if you were building a structure which acul-1 affact -
I g the lives, health, and property of hundreds of thoucands of y people; and that's an element too, isn't it?
)' ^ " 8 ""
- j 25
- w. m = = =sa w. e =% . --, --e - . . . . . . n .5..
B 2084 g3 mpb18 1 I'll give you an example of this. In the Uniform t' )
N4 2 Building Code they have now what they call an importance 3 factor reflecting what you're talking about.
4 Q On page 10, you say in response to a quection:
~
5 "STARDUT/: is a finite elemont modal l 1
l
,* 6 which can determine accurately the forces I 1
7' generated in various parts of a building 8 complex during an earthquake. The model T
' ~~ ~ ~ ~
is'much more sophisticated"than those~
10 ordinarily used in building conststetion.
11 !!ince the stresses can be predictad accur-12 ately, we need not rely upon the consar7c-
[-
13 tism inherent in most building codec."
l 14 Isn't it fair to say that the sophistication of
. 15 the model in predicting shear forces is only one of many 16 reasons way one might want conservatism built into a building 17 such as the control building at ths Trojan Muclear Plant?
A No, I don't quite interpret it that way.
1S 39 I think that if you have a process whereby you 20 can accurat.aly predict these forces you do not havo to rely
. 21 n the usual high concervatism that de uce in ccnventional 2?.
designs.
23 Q Conservatism is not to be throun onu the wind:V~
a
, h No. '
s
[ndMADELOM; Q -- post-STARDDIE, right?
~ Q WRBLOOM f1wa A Mot completely, no.
" * * * * '
- 4 +wg e '- d .-.m c . , _ , . ,
- ~. u : .z z.. _2:=:. ,,._=.. _,__ ;- ; - -
l T150 S2 h 2085 e
WRBloom 4
- fis HPBloom ,
la ebl 1 Q And in fact, there are a lot of considerations
]
!%j, 2 that go into earthquake safety that STARDYNE does not even i
I 3 address. Isn't that true?
p _.-
i Ajd A I'd have to ask you to repeat th.".t. i i o ,
(,
5 !! Q STARDYN3 doesn't tell you all that ycu nasd to l
!! 6j{ know about how safe a particular building is gcing ' c o be? {
d d *~ i I
0 + 70- ~A No. STARDYNE only predicts the enticipated i
4' '4 3L stresses. )
p -. _g ,_. ,._. __, -_ __ . _ . . . __ _
'g It doesn't, for instance, tell you anything about i 9i O !
1 i
, to i the' strengths? y ,
- ( l
}
1.335 *; [
. A No. 'l )
12 i G Cn page 11, teuard the top, Humber 2, it raads: i, i
, , i
- i
- 2 nf "The effects of cyclical leading. . . . " Do you mean " loading"?
1 i' ;4 Is that a typographical error? :
I t
- ;5 A Yes, that is a tiypcgraphical error. . I.'m sorry 3
, ;a l I didn't catch that. {
'7 Q In the second answer two-thirds of tha way down (
3 J. -
I i
' - ,3 ,1 the page, will you read that and tell ma if that has been I l
il } l
- g ' properly transcribed or not? !
il 2a ! A Beginning with the word "Yes"?
i . ,
ng Q Yes. Read it to yourself. .
g (Pause . ) l 3 A Yes, that's the way I meant it to ha rittr..
y Q Can you interpret it for =s?
N Okay.
( e j }
A At this point I'm referring to tho . f act t.
1
- - :a x....: ~ . = = = . = a:= . : .. .
.i ,
y 2086 .
-; }
l e j eb2 1' that deeign criteria' were established, based on the three
'\
{]
2 tests that we are referring to. These are included in the
. l' -
documents that we've seen.
, 2 ili; What I was looking for there was that So allowabic!
i' 11 :
S- ' stresses -- the design criteria now in.{icated alle1161a i
- l t* 5b +
stresses, that these allowable strcases that tht-y new wanted l 1 , 4 3 '
7 to use did not. exceed a certain level of straca resulting l a A
f
-
- E from thesa PCA tests and the Schneidar tests. And the one r 4 - . - ,1 __ _.. . ______ _ . . . . . . .
1._
34 gauge that I stresses rather heavily there was this indi- ;
t to cation of first cracking from the PCA tests.
'i 1 ,
i it What I'm saying hers is that it scams to na that ( ,
l i n
12 j, they did not use allcwable strasses that vers shove the l I first cracking, which to me means that the concrete core is n j v~ j i ,
not going to experience even first cracking or go beyond j 4 {' j i, . .
in that by their calculations. And inthe event they did not j 1 is have steel in the walls, they dropped their value of allow- !'l 1
i l -
l ---
a able down much lower than that. i l
a ..l Does that answer your question?
]
! ;gi A I beli' ave so. -
!,e" g Suppose that these three or four paople itho trere-- .'
- i .
. e, ., i Strike the question.
[ on page 12 toward the midd'e ycur an:wr: cays.
ge, i a-w
" Based upon the STAPD":C analeis 2nf.
y the related material I have reviatted, cynin I Onn
/ ,7 state with reasonabis assurance th 1 the shear walls l
f Iei I
4"~**~ ' * * * ~ .en.+- mmmo.,,, ,.w,. .
1
2087 y eb3 1 of the control building can withstand a .25g. safe I)
- 2 shutdown earthquake."
3 You used the phrase " reasonable assuranca." I i
.i give you the opportunity, if you would like it, to strengthen ;
5 that, or would you like to leave it right whore it is?
3
? .
S il A I'd like to leave it like it is because these are i
.. g 7 the two words that I think are most c.ppropriate to this
- ;j ; situation.
9 Q Thank you very much, Doctor.
I l
10 l MR. ROSOLIE: I only have a few questions, 11 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very well.
- BY MR. ROSOLIE
p Q First of all, Doctor, can you tell me the PCA !
I 1
}4 tests, what they are?
15 A The PCA tests that are referred to in hare?
j3 Q Yes. I
,7 .) A These were a series of tests run at the PCA Labs,
- g Portland Cement Association Laboratories. The tests ware
., g intended to research the strength of shear walls, the shear 3l '
walls to be made out of concrete in this case.
. .s i
4 0 On page 8 of your testimony in the tcp half, which l
1
, .,, i is a continuation of the answer from paga ~. you are con-I.
- t. cerned because vou felt that the re-evaluation s udy did not, a . .
t g in your mind, meet the requirements of tha Unifor Building A l g+ Code of 1973, and Recommended Lateral Forco Rcquirements l I '
11 )
l- 1 11 4 -w,,mesewe . .=%w. -e m. mr m.. w s . . - - ww w.
. --____m__._._____-_____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.9 2088 0 ,
I fp eb4 y and Commentary, which is 1966.
I Is my understanding of that correct?
n N $
A You used the words "The re-evaluation atudy showed l 4 that this uns not true." The actual design of th 2 at-b';ilt 4
, Ifh structure did not show that they met thaac re"uiremants. l' :
4
. .1' ,
l I think that's probably what you meant. That's correct. )
{
- .. 1 C I was trying to understand what you meant. ;
Eh A What I'm trying to say here is that the problem, ,
, ...._ .. { _ . -
- J ' as pointed out last May, keyed on some questions that U d not l - i M hlsatisfy these two particular codes. That's what I'm caying. !
, ,. H.
3 0 And those codes were or arc less stringent than i
!2 (i ).he codes in the FSAR. Right? >
l f-'D %.
I A That's correct, the end result is. l
!4 O Can you tell me by a factor of what?
1 l
f 13 }; A No, I can't put a number on it. l 6
M ,' D can you celarify for ma what the importcnt factor 4
r .
I C i is? !.
- '. */ !.!
- 6
- ; )
l- 'G i A~ The important factor as now used in the Uniform
- i i
'; O . ,
19 0 Building Code is a measure of the base shear that you should I ll
.,. , i anticipate in a, structure and design for. It's denoted by
, 20 cf .[
j ';1 ji the letter "I" in the earthquake section of thc.t code. It I, j' , M 'j ranges from 1 to 1.5. The more important your structurs is, ,
M}n .
the more you incroase that value.
24 I! Q on page 11, at the bottom of the ps.ge you state :
A '
It Sf " Evidence indicates that adcquate
^
d..
g n
7 7 1. ._, _ ,
2089 :
A eb5 1 reinforcing steel is present in the concrete blocks
/ I e 2, o'f the control building walls...." j 3 , What evidence? .; ;
4 A To me, that evidence I obtained from the design i'
. f- drawings.
5! O And that's it, to you; to your kncwledge that's
. I !
7 the only evidence you've seen? ;
- 8 A Well, I compared what we believed to be in th.e -
g walls to what were used in these tests, and 7. dreu the con-to clusion that there is sufficient steel, the.t that is in the 1: 1 walls, to relate them to these test results; yes.
I T2 l I'm talking about the blocks now, not the core. l i \
n) '
t; j .Q Is my understanding correct that if you do not j t4 consider the dowel action in your mind you would doubt 15 whether the building can withstand an earthquake, not con-t3 sidering the dowel action?
g , A No, I don't necessarily say that. AFter the
'4
. ;g L STARDYNE results and the corresponding evaluation cf these I test results, I don't have to rely as much on the dowel
- tg l..
.;c ; action now as'I did earlier this suber. AFter the is-
.j .
g; j evaluation or the stick model results, I felt mera comfort-
~2 g able relying on the dowel action,an our raserve.
23jl At this point, after the STARDYME analysis and tho jN examination of test results, I don't have to puz tlw.t much reliance on dowel action. It's there only as added reserve 3
l h
. sn, _ .- i _ . , , , . , . ~ . . . . . , .~ . - , ..
,,-,m- - ,- -
. - - - - . . . - - - - - - . - . _ = - . = - - - - - - - = . - - - = _ . . . _ - - . -
2090 P.
A eb6 1 ! at this point, to me.
~ 3 Q Does added reserve mean conservatism? ,
Yes.
3 1 A You can call it that, yes.
I a Q On page 12 of your testi' eny, in the answer to the Oy first question on that page you ctata:
h
? fj "Because of the ecmprehensive compa::i-j!! son of wall capacities and predicted strenses...."
{ ,
v and you finish that sentence by saying it .:
t{ -- . _ _ _.,_.
l . .
9', ....is no longer necessary to support my con- ,
f ic !, clusion." i l' '
11 ;s: What do you .msan by that statement? I have a b
,0 J hard time understanding it.
o y
13 j A It goes right back to .what ! just cnzwered in your ', -
s i I previous question and that is that I do not have to rely
,4 e,i il4
. ;3 on the dowel action to make the etatement as I believe there is , is reasonable assurance that the structure will withstand i
The dowels are there and I believe that p/ th .25g shutdown.
i they are an added reserve at this point.
. s .!!
1.-
- g - Do you want me to comment en the ocuparisons there?
eg No.,That's okay.
Q 1
l' .
. :; y 10 So what you're saying, by just ico?:ing at the
- l 3;} forces that would be applied to the building vhich du L
11 gd STARDYNE analysis dcos, gives you roasenchie confide.ica thau '
u I f the building could meet safe shutdcun? I gi
/ \
3 A No, I compared these forces to tha capacitie,s of t!
l
. \i .. _ __._ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ . -__..1 i
l
- ~~
- 1 2091 !
g ab7 i each of the components within the structure. That's what
\L .j 'I mean by a comparison betwaen capacity and the predicted 0[ ,
).
3 forces. If the capacity is higher than the predicted forces, i
- t. then we're in good shape.
'l ,
ll 5!i Q And the capacity is .caced en the ccupczition of N
ll
- Sf the wall and the dowel action?
d I
- . t 7 A No, I didn't include the dowel action in this part j
- i. g O t' of the evaluation. The dowel action is only an added feature
,- i s W l. - _ - . . _ . . . ,_ .
l ., that we can rely on. .
l 9[t '
ii ic! t O What did you include? j
- A Well, in this caso, based on the test results,
[
5: :l the three test results, we have a pretty good indicater now
'l 3 of what we can expect for capacity in this type ot' structure.
- ,1 And I believe their values that they are suggesting are t
, :3 reasonable values as expressions for capacity, i ja l MR. ROSOLIE: That's all I have.
} !
. -, [ CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Rosolia. i
> 1
.v Ms. Bell?
- g -1 BY MS . -BELL
. I Q I have one concern that you expressed on page 5 of i 30 ]lyour l *
. gp testimony, the third part of tha answer to a question ,
t
'e i about the parameters of your evaluation. It states that:
1
- 23 !! "The general features of the design and 6
2/. construction sequence...." {
, ~
y '
]j 23 Ana then in parentheses:
Il n
d
...w-..~~,.- . . . . . . - ._ . _ _ . . .___w
--.w. . ~ . , ,
< ~ . . - ,
-..-.u - - . . . = ._a : = .. = . : = =:.=:
1
.]
2092 -
1 i i rg eb8 1 "....(the sequence affects the perform- ; )
'! 2 ance of the structure);...." ,
t I
3l I would like you to enplain to na how the sequence ;, '
_. l-a q affects the performance of the structure and in ; irticulcr, ,'
, 5 (( if you would have any corments regc-ding the saquenco th t l II . i 5 :1 was used at Trojan, and also break that into dasign cnd 1 i
11
. . : 1 7 lj construction.
l
- E !j CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, now, is this a multiple f O.! --
3i question?
h +
l.
10 1 MS. BELL: Okay. j ts * '
ll'
- . 1
't.
BY MS. BELL: l
- 2 O First, why don't ycu enplain to r.3 how the design .j o
(O ) isl sequence would affect the performance of a structure, in 3
a particular, Trojan? (
l
. ;3 A Well, I think in this case this building was {q: I
- e constructed under the process where the steel frcm3 was f 1
, j .4 erected first, and the reason for that was primarily protec- f 1,
, ;g l- tion against the weather, so they could get a rcof system on t
.9 it.
, };
~
tcj The steel frame was then i'n pi2ce and the biochs l
!! . l .
. 2; 'r} were then placed in the concrete and the concreta was in-L il ng filled. What this really means to me that we have sc-called li
. 7,3 i, non-load-bearing walls. In other words, the cegmants of the l
24 !,; walls do not carry all of the load from above.
3 j This really in offect is an indicator .: to hou I
I l l
..! .. . . . - - . . - . . - . . . _ . . . - . - - - -=
y _.
f 2093
?
C. eb9 1 much these walls can carry;because we have more of a normal ,
i I [ !
-% load acting down on material, it can take a larger lateral !
34[ !
I 2 1 load. 7his is what i mean by all this.
~
d'. ! I looked for this when they set up their design n
30 critestia as to whethar or not they were including a lot of ,
d l
. a se normni load when they pradicted their a11cuable stressos.
. 4 .
~
7 0 So in your : ind does that answer include both the ',
I 1
- - Gt design and construction soquence? Was there anything dif-l
[__farent between what you meant -- between design and con-s to ;', struction? .
y 1 il 4 .
- h A .Well, the two are related. The buildin; ve.s
P
's {' designed that way and it.was constructed according to the 3 g; design. And the calculations for strength were basad on p i; that process; yes. I u ;
4 So would you agree with this statement, that the 1
- 5 l 0 building's design did take into account the fact that it was l
- s g o l
- 7 [ going to constructed with the sequence of putting up the 3 1 l
. ;3,I steel and then putting the walls the way they did?
i.. j jg A I have no reason to believe that that was not the g
- I, i
- c h way it was intended. l 1 .
0 Would you have anything to add to your c: ren!:
zt k t-p
- g ll that the sequence affects the performance of the ctructu .3, }
i:
n[,; any clarification? i yh A Not specifically, no, unless you have a c;ccific ;
. g question. .
i I
.. . - .s . - ~ . . . - - . -
...~.'i . , . _ , _ - _ _.
2094 4
eb10 1 Q No.
b I' ,
2 '3 MS. BELL: I don't have any more questions. '
9 3 CHAIRMAN !4 ILLER: Thank you, Ms. Bell.
?- The Staff?
9 5g MR. GRA*l: The Staff has no questicns.
N 6 ij MR. BANKS: No questions, Mr. Chc.irran.
- ? ,
. r<
~
7i i-
. la 3s l '
t . .
S, .
i
- 0 .l
- s 6
. . ,f fe og
=- i
'N .t ar I s
~
i.:
o
. 15 I l
16
. 7 i'r l
s 1
' t '
20 :
i
. 21 ;
0; i' l
e: i l N
t Le l !
v' / ( I (l l
- s. :
- I. .
e_q,p# ,,,y_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _4**se
i 4 2095 1
.i
$d
'I
- IB agbl CHAIRMAN HILLER: We have a few questions for .
.L.V. , ,,
4 1
I the anlightenment of the Doard. This is not, however, in the i.
3 '
nature of cross-examination, Dr. Laursen.
s 4 a '
.Dr. McCollom?
5r
- l EXAMINATICM SY TEE UCARD G y( BY DR. MC COLLOM:
. Q When did you ,first use the mechanica of finite e g element analysis in soins of your own professional structural
- ~ .. . - _
4 design work? i I
10 i, A It goes back into the early 'GOs is when I first had experience with it.
fs 12 il' Q And you have been using it extensivc2y .:incs -
j ,f T k,j that time?
)
'i A Yes. Right now we're using it very entencivaly. j 14 l I i . 15 this, and we do quite a bit I heach the graduate course in l I
16 of work in finite element work, yes. l U Q Why do you think this is a goed ucthod, just t
~
'. 16 l in general? ;
1 1
UI (
~
A I think it gives probably some of the best E insight into some of tne complex problems that is availabla
"' I taink it is probably the lacet coup :ahonaiv:
.. l. right now.
El ' technique we have to investigate compisx situaticas.
E3i Q Do you have anything to add that has airce..y b
M' been asked in the way of how you feel that tais is 10. ora s
M actually descriptive of what is available in tha way of ctranc d
r.
.. . 1. - . _ . _ . . _ -. _ . . - - . - . . . - - ~ . _ .
1 - ~ ~ .- . _ . . _. ._ , , _ _ .
=_u - a.. r . , , , ; _ _
t i.. 2096 '
agb2 s in a building, as compared to say, the STICK tacdel and.
2 l
- earlier models of construction? !
,j 3'
A No. Except to any that when you use finite l 4.
~l slantant, you have that ficxibility cf going in and tryimj l n.
. ~ j. '
to represent as close as possible all cle:c. ants within your a
s!
struccura as they really are. !
The STICK model has certain approximations in I, it. Adlaittedly, there are few left when you get through 9:' 4 l
. wAth the finite element model. But you can model your l
.n .
~l 3tructures so much mora closely with finite element than
' l
! you can with previous models.
I
'2
' i 0 You indicated that you cid -- I':0.not cure hcw J, , you worded it, but you did not commit yourself on uhat
, reduction in safety margin :11ght have occurred over what I
'5 l was intended in the original design and what resulted in 6
l 16 the original design of the control building.
i -
U' By what mechanism might you eval,2ata thic, in
, i.
.' 3 4
your mind?
I
< g - l Do you understand my cuestion? l 1
t 20 It was intanded to have a cortain dssign capability
- e. I,
' and the. discovery of these disecntinuous staal in the :2-i
.inforcementiand ce.xtain calculational hechniques say that l
~ ." i . it,doesn't have that much. Ilow do we decids what red 2ction
,- ' 24 !
in' design margin, or however you wish to -- or whatever you D wish, safety margin, could you calculate?
.. .. . 8 . .dh. . . , ~ . _ . , , , . **..w..
. . . ....~~-~~*=9's:a.A.a.-r+++*e- t L-
2097 l
.i
-l
,r., '
Wii.h regard to the SS2, can I answer with regard
) ago3 A
, (V, - 2
! to that?
3 .
-) ^
Q Yes. That would be all right. -
- i 4,
- i '
A I think it has to ba kind of c. be.11. car.'. figura.
5!
.; . I think thare ars two factors in tais: cne, you can actually l
coms up with some number indicator -- and I tend to think 7
- j ,
that the figure of 1.5 that has been suggested in the
, O
- documents is appropriata. But I think it's more important 9
that you also recognize whether or not your system, your 10 i
as-bu.'It system has thesa reserv2 levcis that esvarybody
-; <<l
- r wants 1.n an earthquake structure. And you can't put a nucoor 12 of this. The purpose of that steci in thorc was to previde g
' (6) N these levels of reserve.
14 Now, to me, I'm comfortable because I think the I
dowel action will provide this reserve, and I can't put a 16 number on it, it's just kind of common sense in carthauake engineering that some reserve be there.
~
q" l
', So, to answer your question scmewhat specifically,
).
- 9 l I would say that there is -- I tend to agree with this 1.5.
' 5
% v r
^'" i Plus, I also see a reserve there that can be drc',n u;0n in n,
case things really get rough, Q Have you examined buildings that havn been U. soms - some similar constructicn than bad baan thr: ugh 2h earthquakes of some similar capacity for tae kinds of damage i
r I '3 -
that might have occurred?
sO 1 h
...a. . .- -. .
e in . . . . . . _. %,,,, -
A., , . , . . .
. - - - - . . ~ . . . _ _ _ _ . . ,, , __, , _ _
.w. . - - -- -
== ==.. - :- -
2098-O agb4 A No, not that type. Nor firsthand, no, I nave not 2
examined them.
9 Q What would you expect to observe if this building 4 '
. went to a 0.25g or.rthquaha? What wculd you anpect trithin 8
il
- h1 the building and itself in torns of its dacign with respect 4
i 6!tt to how it. holds up?
i -4 7
A I think you would notice, or you would seo visual
- b cracks in the blocks. But I personally wouldn't get too w.. _. j _ , . - - . . _ . _ . . _ _-
o uptight about that at first, because I think that tus ccncrete m* ,
4 cora is your final line of defense.
.l U And even though you may ses crac:cing in your 12 blocks, I think you're probably bettor off chan ycu might r
U think' at first because the core is stronger. If you experienco
'4 a very large quake, I think you could possibly sen residuc1
<a displacements occur in the structure.
16 What do you mean by that?
Q
- 7
! A Well, after the earthquake passes, you may see i
t
,- e.
permanent deformation in the structure.
I,9- Q In what way would you guess, in your -- as your E .
technical evaluation, what yould you expect to lech for then
- 2' .f in this building, if you were going to saa thab?
,A E A .Well there may be slight uist.ligeneant: -- I don't
~
2-l think they would bs severs, becau e this structura ia :o H
2.240 W ll rigid.
T> .
But, in general, for example, in men.anh-resisting c
l yi
('
l
. . b.
(-
= . --.: .
2099 !
l l
1 agb5 steel frames that had been subjected to large carthquakes, ;
' } 2 i (s you see some permanent deformation in eleve. tor shafts, for i l 3 l example, there is some out of alignment there.
i 4
- l ) I don't think you'd see this in ::his bui?. ding "a \
because this building is so rigid. I think ers.ching is s B l probably your best indicator. ~; i
- l y
- ! , 0 You referred to cracking in your testimony I
-; . 3 ,-
l think on Page 10. It's already been referred to,as "first
' - .__ _ _ _ . . l shear cracking." Would you tell me, what point 1,s that in 3 I
10 .
the stress-strain relationship, or is that a recscrable e question?
. 12 i A Well I can anauer it the way I lochad. Cc it as i I
- ,h 1 13 I was trying to key off this.
V,; , i 14 Q All right. That's fine.
A PCA results indicate that the first major cracking 16 is occurring somewhere around five times the square root of
'7 ji P prime sub-c in almost every tast they ran.
.3 ;l
~
=
il
. Now, I relate that bac,k to the fact that in j Bechtel's re-evaluation, they dropped down to two -imas me 2O square root of F prime sub-c. And the design itocif we.s j
% [l-conducted, I beliave, using 3.5 tines the squar2 root of F e.
'" prime sub-c.
j..
s The PCA tests indicata that both od these are J ;
,- M! conservative. And there a$e indications frca nsas r.csts
- O' 25 that major cracking,first shear cracking is net cccurring until
_= . . .
..-e*-- ..,ws,e- ...en-- -w, .w.,%.m - _ , - . - -
- .- - . __ - . ~ .-
~
4
.' 2100
.'1 4
[A agb6 's somewhere of around five times the square root of F prime k 1 T' sub-c. 3 3
Now, again, I'm looking at the concrete core.
)
4i
- ; I'm mora comfortabla with that. I look upcn that as the
, l final lina of defense.
I And if we don't er.perience first cracking thera -- I remember, we've got a ways to go yet before wo finally get ;
I.S s
!* U in trouble, because it goes then into non-linear behe.vior l 9 and we have a wide range beyond that. !
4
.n l
Q For my own interast hers, how far are you from ,
+
tne non-linear range when you go through first-sh sa.r cracking?
yR .i* I don't think we've gone into the non-linear A
( ) ,
1a range, s
. 15 0 Wall how far ars you from it, do you think?
16 A I think once the crack forms, you e::periance a 4
U .y slight non-linearity.
=, 'Sl Q All right.
'9 A And it gets worse as it proccada.
00l Q So it's a sort of a gradu'al movenant into
- 7.
- the non-linear region?
.E l A That's correct. I interpr:t unis prctt-f mucn I3 , as being linear up to that first crack. l 0.t i Q In terms of the concept of radictribution of
\ f-
- e ~T/i j
.( 25j forces, once a force has exceeded the capacity of a wall, 4
4
- t. - -.. . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . - . . _ _ . . , _ _ _ , , . _
^ ^ * * ,.,on. ._m,,, . , _ _ , ,
- --_-_'--+.-
- c. -.-
.__ ._ . 2 _ _ _
1 y v c t
i 2101 i:
p
-s a f q agb7 would you comment on what allows us to assume that that ,
j capacity -- the force gets to that capacity and then that I [
3 ) j wall continues to hold tnat capacity without soms kind of c !
4 ! , l
[ degradation?
- 5 ld A 'h11 let's take the wall the.t c::cacds its so- ,i G* !
called capacity. Our capacity now is defined as, hopefully, i 7 something that hasn't taken it up over tne hump. I
~
i O
3 _. l If_there's_any amount of steel in there as we 9
come over the hump we're going to go through sono pintaau, ,
I i 10 there will be a plateau of stress that can be attainsd in . !
! 1 11 I this wall. ;
12 i And I think this is what's he.mening to sone of !
D) , l f
3 And if you have a lot of stac1 in there, I !
5, 4./ the smaller walls. i l v
" of course, your plateau is very long. It can go up to -- .
?5 as you probably know, it goes up to about 15 times that that l 16 you ordinarily see.
i i This is the way I view those smallar ualls that ,;
h e' -l are being overstressed is tnat they may go up into tnia
- 1
- i I
.p [ 1evel, but it is not taat much to be concernad about, j l
! Q And there's no reason to think that it would
. m. ?.
}
. go over the hump, in your mind? l
'~
i A Not if there is a cartain acount of stici. kn f.
~i
": indications ara that thesa scal.l. walls arc fr.iling and Sendiag, l Y' [land they indicats that there is enough etaal to take up thase
~^
') .
D bending strasses. The ste21 does have this long piatanu. '
'1;
.j
'b . . . . . ~ . - .- ,_... . . _ , y , ,
~ ~ . ~ . - . _ . .
W '- v w y ygy-, ,, w -c----- .---1
. := .-. = --
- .a.. m = u:-
I 2102',
f l agb8 Q And your statemeht thats
- 2 l .
"The shear walls of the control b 3 buildin3 can withstand 0.25g safe shutdown . i t
4 i earthquake...." ,
a Is a conclusory stataluent. You are talking about
- 6, the building per g, you're not talking about oquipment or .
l.
.. 8 anything of this nature inside it?
4 - _
A I was only asked to start looking at'the equipment 9'
about two weeks ago. And I have' acquainted myself now with 10
, j tae evidence as it's coming in. j
" Q All right.
l "
Then I'd like to go back to whe.t you he,vc ',
I3 said on the mode shapes being reasonabic.
14 I assume by that that thess mode shapss includa :
i
. 15 the frequencies that we are interested in against which !
i 16 l equipment has to work?
II A Yesi I interpret it that way.
I8 Q All right.
1 18 Do you consider the change -- would you comment
[, ,
- on the differences in the mode shapes that hava come out of 2[* the STARDYNE analysis, as compared to previous modo chapes?
21 - g I think the differences that we sec hera are U simply the fact that we're using a more Ocmpucher.sive w.cdel rs *' of the structure, and it doesn't disturb ma that much. He b
25' have a more precise mo(el than we had before.
Q-I o.
+ em**+y --wg- . ww, % .% ,y ,g _
- - ~ ~ - - y
.= == .: = ._ =..- -
1 2103 ;
o ji
[ N -
agb9 2
Q Ali right. .
1
- 73 Now having that precise model, and having equipment 7
- 3 that we know has been qualified in a certain way and knowing j 4 that new frequencias are available that nicht be challenging
- I ,
=
those capabilities, is the change in the modo shaps e, sig- ,
- 6 nificant one, a very significant one, an insignificant !
7 on inyour mind at this point?
p- 8 -
7,m not trying to get you to be too quantitative, 4 - . . _ - _ -
8 but is there a significant change in the apparent design j l' s 1 10
[
demanded?
- j II A Well there are a ntrabar of thinga that have ru.
4.
12 through my mind in the last few days uith ragcrd tc,that, l
l 13 and I'll see if'I can recall them.
. 14 One is, I think there's a possibility that the shift in frequency may cause some concern ac to whether or i
. 15 '
3j 16 not some equipment, you know, meets its previous qualifica-
!!' tions. ,
18 But I'm personally a little concerned thct we i
- t; 19 don't have presented - we hava not 'bcen presented anything, 20' for instance. In other words, I wouid Jike to asa a "for 1
- 21 instanca"that this pipe, under the previous analysia and 22 under the design condition, has now bean indicatad tc 23' exceed a certain value. So that's ona point I'n still 4
,q 24 looking for.
25 The other thing that I think is a possibility is s
J t
\
~ . - . ~ , , . . . . . - . . , . . . .,%, .. , , _ _ , _ , , . , , _ , , , , , , _ , ,
e - +
i i . :
i 2104 i.
l
. - ~.
. ,m ;
t
'tx abl0 that these shifts in frequencies may have, as I say, caused
- n. . A, s.
I this question about some equipment.
3 ,
But I think also'we have to 1cch at the technique 4l' that I believe la adopted in this proceca, wh?r.92y they ;
j 5 3 1 - widened or they spread out this envelope to account 2cr the .
l* '
6l possibilitiss that we aren't predicting the frequeacies j
7,- ,
- right on, and that maybe that is something that should be I
<* 8 s j ._ _
_ looked at, that procedure of developing a.n envelops because, !
i
~
9 frec,um.cies . 5 4
we know in all cases that we can't pinpoint tha ,
i '.
to I think in STARDYNE we're probably pinpointing ther. c. littla j i
l 11 closer. Now, if this process of widening the .c.721:ps for !
' design purposes were improved on, maybe that '.cculd c.cccunt i
~
'Is 13 -
for this. ,
14 Right now, I just haven't seen enough hard 1
15 avidance to indicate - and again I will use that word, !
16 This is what we saw in this pipo. And it "for instance." ,
17 is,.in fact, new overstressed from what we saw before. I ;
18
'. think Bechtel is still working on that.
19 We s l* 21 23 24 C -
).
( . 25
- 4
..4., e
=r%"" TATE tt's * ._ ge My v4 +.--- , .,
-e,-
^
^
~
8 9, ,
i ! '2105!
n l
'{
NQ \
Ic obl If Q There's one statement that has been made that I j 2 would like to check with you here. This has to do with the
- v. !
, I ability of the building to withstand a significant earth- j.
ll 3{ ,
4 jj.
quake. I guese I'm going to have to paraphrace it:
1 ij 9 -
5h .P That the ability of the structure and its conusate J ' '
..e .
3 to have a safe shutdown was primarily due to the displace- l l
. . i I
7' ments, not the ability of the building to just support its Y* ? l N* BI. weight and the shear walls to retain their strength, so dis- l
- ..a .. . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . - .
e 3 placement is a key point.
0i Let's just say if we assumed that the equipment l )
l s l
- l. 11 h within the building is properly qualified, do you have any !
l ,
g 10 p' , fear -- and you don't have to answer this if you 6.cn't want
.i 44 j
i to, but what if it were twice the safe shutdown earthquake,
)s 13 j i' what would you expect of this building, .5g, for instance?
'4 f j
p 1- . 's ! We did this to Professor Bresler and Professor ,'
t 16h. Holley, too.
L
- 7 '
A Well, I don' t think I'd want to put a number en j t
. "3 !. it, but I feel confident that that building will take ceme- {
. . I !
~3 f, thing much more th'an .25. Because again I look for tnese }
d:[' ' . d S 3 reserves that I think are in that building and I thin': the reserves are there through dowel action as the final inserva.
ii li i 20 1; I think that's the best I can enswer your ques- ,
a fi tion. I feel confident to the .25g.
, 24I .Q All right.
) pg Let me ask one-other question that has been v
I
_ _m._.--. --__.___m a- --- r-_ ^ - g
-~
a: . .n. . . _ _._ : 1
_. _2.;
1 m - - no --- r -- - -- - u i
2106 p ab2 1 discussed quite a bit here, and that's with respect to spall-k'
- y- 2i ing of some of the concrete off the inside in the case of a l
"3 3 severe earthquake, say a .25g earthquake. "
i t
4 You have expressed a conclusion uhat in your mind !
l 5 't i.t was the concreto core that was the impertr_nt part, and i
S. you might see come crccking in come of the biccks. Do you , 1 3 r, i ~
7 ..
fee 7 like that those blocks would be pretty well fastened ;
s.
}
3 t, to the wall, or are they likely to chip off 2.nd if so, in ,
1 a .p.
5; some way that you might conceive of? What's your ccament i
it with respect to the possibility of spalling from the inside l 6
i 1 of these walls?
i 6 '
! 2 :.l A At a .25g earthquake I don't think you wculd cce T ,3 [ much spalling. The first spalling that we might see would be Nh on the high stressed small walls that we referred to earlier,
- 4 r
{
, ;= j but their mode of failure is anticipated to be one in bend-
! I ;
, s! l
ing and I still am not really concerned that there would be l l
, 7 that much spalling.
! I
- j. g I On the major walls I just don't anticipate there
- I l
., 9 I would be much spalling at all, if any, at .25. If it went f,,
20 ',h 3
to a much stronger earthquake, we kne'w that scme of these l',
- l
- ;i
.. 2; blocks do experience spalling.
1 , ,
32, b Q Do you have any comment about, say, whether there 0
would be any spallingi in your view, if it had a .15 cr a 23 ft il -
._N -
gj 1
.11 OBE7 ,
- e. A No.
v t :
i I. ' .
i! ,- .- . - _ . __. .._:.
._ _ _ ._. . . __i - -
- u. - ..
2107 A eb3 1- Q You do not think that there would be spalling at is .
2 all?
t j 3 A I do not think there would be, no.
~
i 4 Q You have reviewed the three or four documents that b were submitted by Bechtel as their evidence and in it there t
j G is a-- This is Exhibit Number 10; and I don' t know whether I. ~
I 7 you happen to have it or not. There are a grcup of assuttp-4
- B tions in there that undoubtedly you have reviewed. It starts
! 9g on page 10, and they are listed as A, B, C, D and E, and it !
10 includes the concrete strength for the control building and !
, 11 , the assumption of the use of that, the mill certificates l
tr.: l and the like.
t .:
} g3 Haveyoureviewedthosefiveassu=ptionscarefully?f G '
I
.1 A Yes, I think I recall those. Yes. i
. 15 Do you want Ice to dig them up? j go -
Q I believe you had better. I would like for you to-l -
t
\
17 A In this document? !
- l a
t
. ;1f; CHAIRMAN MILLER: It's being handed up'to you, i 1
l Jg Dr. Laursen.
't ,
go (Document handed to the uitness.)
- . 21 MR. SOCOLOFSKY
- What's the title of uhe dconcent?
.g DR. MC COLLOM: The title of it is Licansee's 3 Testimony of Richard C. Anderson, George Katanics, Thicdcro yl E. Johnson, and William H. Whits on Capab:.lity of Trojan Nuclear Plant to Withstand Seismic Evants, Licensee's EnMibit J) g L
. a syw ncme :- ww-
-,, _ _t-----.a-a m-4. b M-e e.-e.s .= -*e- -
m,,w e e = .e ,be e-n - . - - . -
- a- ==-
- .. -- - . :x. . - - - - . . . ._.w: ._ __ _ . . ,
i I'
, 2108 l'
eb4 1 Number 10. It is the testimony part which has.several attach ,
,h)'
4 n '
[ 2.422 2 ments to it, referred to as references.
3l BY DR. MC COLLOMr i i i t
i 41 Q I would meroly like to hava ycu reviou these five li t
- 5 ') assumotions and tell ma if these are ::acenah".a and are they .
i 5l the ones that you would accept and even, say, racemmand as ,
.j- -
7 the assumptions that should be used for these analyses. [
( a i
- l. 8 A Take them one by ona? ;
'~
' Yes, would you please, i
D Q 10 , A "A" concerns the actual strength of the con': rete .}
t :
I as compared to the design strength. I thinh de 5,000 1.a j 1: ; '
I
- 2 acceptable. I think it has been proporly doctr.ented that ,
12 it does in fact have that strength.
A 4 14 The.second one, "B," refers to the actual yield ;
i
. 15 strength of the steel as being 45,000 psi and the specifiad ;
16 40,000. AGain I can accept that without much reservation.
I 17 a "C" refers- to-the-weight, the actual weight of the !
, !8 , control building, and they have indicated that it's 13 per-
, . i I
cent less than the original anticipated weight. And again ts l !-
i
.
- II '
20 ' I can accept that. ;
e t
, 2; Q Now they re-assessed that again, did they not, for
= the STARDYNE, and found loss than 13 percent when they re-1 33 I 1
distributed it? Are you aware of that?
- ,c A I must not have caught the f act that it was loss
/ e than the 13 percent; either that or I'va forgottan it. ;
\
) ,
,.-g - .
= : ._ - - - - .. _ _x -
i 2109 '
eb5 :1 Q All right. '
V"*%
, b, 2J Proceed on to (D) . .
3 A (D) refers to the fact that some interior walls in the auxiliary building are new being used for laideral 4
! 5 resistance. I did find thece on drawings. In dcot, I ccde
. 'S a particular request to have additional drawings :;uppid ad to s
t '. 7' me, and that appears ~ to be a proper conclusion there, that
> e 6 there are walls that can be used for shear strength; yes.
. - - - - - _. . ~
g Q" ~ ~ And ' (E) ? 7 .
- c A (E) has to do with the process of using the squara '
- 3 root of the sum of the squares. I can parfectly acespt l
12 } that as hru. n become the accepted practice new.
1 a,3 ud. MC COLLOM: I think that's all my questions.
L' g, CHAIRMAN, MILLER: Dr. Paxton. j i
- u. .n BY DR. PAXTON:
16 Q Professor Laursen, you referred to a very largo I
.,. i earthquake might be associated with displacement, perma. ant i j
i I
- 3 ' displacement, if I understood correctly. On mcyha a sema- ll i Jg what related subject, you did not cara to characterise uhtt
.. go might be termed a "very large earthquake." Dead th-t apply j n to this statement?
- 'j ! ;
I
. ,7 Would you, for exe:nple, bc willing to say or mahe
. )
g any statement about the ground acceleration that night he t
associated with this very large earthquake as comparef. to the
[ s
.25g7 l l
I
- ~~
- e. . . . . 4 7 . . . . . -p. ,
, y4 = ,* g*;q - ** 7 ; , ;; ,.
.-.s.~_. - . _ - . ._ .. , , . . ._._ ,_. _... ,..,
~ - - -
~ = _ . .
- ._= = _:. .._z_ :;.;
- ! 2110 I
hs
\
eb6 t l A' I would not care to put a number on it.
l
,d, 2
- Q Not even whether it might be a couple of times, f,I 3 several times-- Well, this is pushing things a little too {
- I
- I
't far.
- 1
, ! i 5 j A If you need that to, you know, dre.; a conclusion, - -
l ,
l I
- 8' I think I'd be comfortable talking about nemething like .35 i j, l j 7 or .4, up in there, and possibly a little beyond. It's just j l l - S , off the top of my head here.
!l _ _. ___ - . , , . . . ..
! 9 Q I was going to say then on the large, the very 10 , large scale-- Would you call .25 a large earth;usAc?
i.
!! 11 A It's moderately strong by definitions of earth-11 3 L quakes. '
ll i
13 Q A moderately strong earthquake? ll I l 14 A Yes. It's a level of earthquake that's used for l J. '
. 15 the design in southern California in some areas, and we know 15 that they can expect moderate to strong earthquches thera. ,
4 17 . O So at least you would not ec11 it very large? 4 I
No, I.wouldn't call it very larga. l 10 A -
l 19 Q Fine.~
20 Now you do refer to the finite element tochnique
- i
. 21 ! for accurately predicting forces. And for a building such 2l :
as the control building, wIlat is ycur feeling about'ths 23.! inherent accuracy of STARDYNE, for exemple? 2nd I mean 11 '
independent of any allcwances for safety, margins of safety 25{ . 'like. probable error.
3 V
N[
t t
!}
.c
. - .2. . . -. _ ._ _ _ _ _ . . . _
4 2111 '
es ab7 1 A I think you're getting down to low percentages ,
j .
2 on this. I think a ballpark figure might be that you're J
3 within 5 percent on your major parameters. I think you have 4 to be careful in drawing that conclucion to all aspects of 5 your analysis.
- 6 For example, higher frequencies sematimes are act 4
+,
7 as well predicted as low frequencies, but for the things that
, 8 we are concerned with here, I think that we should be ccm-I _ . - - .
9 fortable with a ballpark figure of 5 percent or less.
10 Q Would you be willing to-- Or do you have a l
-j 11 / corresponding estimate for, say, the stick modsi?
12 A No, I really don't. I'm not that cccfortablo with 13 the stick model. Again, that's kind of a personal prejudice
?'~55 '
U 14 I guess because I work more with finite element and can see
. 15 what they do for you. So there is some personal prejudice 16 in this I guess.
l 17 It's done its job I think but it is only as good 4
. 18 as the engineer sets it up to be. In other wcrds he has to i
19 approximate the stiffness between his masses and in doing 20 that, the results are only going to be as gcod :s ha apprc::i-
- j. -
21 mated that.
22 . We don't have to use so many approximations in the 23 finite element technique. I simply can't give you a figure 24 on that. I tend to think that it's not as accurcts as the
/ ;) 25 finite elemant technique.
N 4
- ***- **"4-- ~ , c - _w+ 4-w. .-%,_ , , _ , , ,, . , ,
miwa <-~ ,-.-i e- - -.
=- -
i
! 2112 ib8 I That's fine. Thank you.
O ,
- 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Dr. Laursen.
l 3 MR. BANKS: Before the recess, I thought I would 1
4 bring to the Board's attention cnd the parties' attention ;
I: 1 5" that we have tha answoro and we will also ces that they are j i*
!* 6 telecopied or telefs::cd to Washington, D. C. for Mr. Pollard. !
l.
7 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: Defore Dr. Laursen leaves, could l.
t . . . _ _ ._
8 I ask him one question?
I just want the record clear on
' 9 one point.
l a
10 REDIRECT EXAMIMATION 11 BY MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
12 Q Dr. Laursen, you were asked about a very la ge 13 earthquake earlier in your response to questions from the 14 Board, and I believe you made some statements about residual 15 cracking in connection with this answer. Do you recall that?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Was this very large earthquake above .25g that
, 18 you were thinking of when you were alving that answer?
' 19 A When I'was talking about that I was talking about 20 a very large earthquake.
. 21 Q Above .257 22 A Yes. You'll seo some cracking at .25 het 15 tion't 23 be very large cracking.
24 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: I just wanted that clsar.
r.. .
g ,
25 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very well.
4 *'MM'h88' -
M et* .,.mmagne. ,ggg,,g, ,yg,, s , ,
6
- ___mm__ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _
=
t i 2113 i
eb9 1 MR. SOCOLOFSKY No further questions.
!/O
)
- ~
- (7,, 2 MR. KAFOURY: .One question on recross?
1' l
- 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER
- All right, one question.
RECROSS-EXAMI11ATION 4l 5 BY MR. KAFOURY:
i 1 .
. 6, Q On this matter about big earthquches, do you know l
. 7 much about large earthquakes? j i
l) 8 A Well, it's a relative term. I claim to know 9 something about themryesr~ ^ --"
1 10 Q Is it a fact that in the great enithquake in China i
i 11 a couple of years ago where there were some three-quarters of; l)
> t <
' t 12 ,
a million people killed, that it was a vertical scrthqucke , !
. 1 13 and that people were found in the trees? !
iU 14 MR. BANKS: Are you so testifyirig?
t t r, BY MR. KAFOURY:
Q Do you recall that event? i es 17 , A No, I don't recall the earthquake and I couldn't 18 comment on that, j tg MR. KAFOUR7: Thank you. l
! I
- 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Dr. Laursen. You're !
21 excus'ed. {
22 (Witness e:tcusad.) i i
23 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We'll have.our morning racess 24 DOW*
J 25 (Recess.) [
1:
4
. -.s-y .b ww ,, ,.._ , ..w, r & _ ,,
i.
l! 2114 1
.: t i 1D :
yw WRB/mpbl 1 -
CHAIRMAN MILLER: On the record. I it j c3 '
Y'N 2 Is the Staff ready to proceed?
3 sR. GRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
4j MR. BA!TKS: Defore we d7 that, sonabody y2sterday
- l 5 asked us, and I don't recall Nho it uns, to provida the PGE
- 6 response to that letter.
i;
- 7 CIIAIRMAli MILLER: Oh, yes.
ll< 8 MR. BANES: We have that. I'm not sure we have l e
- + - - - ..m ~ . . . .- -- ,
il j . - 9, enough copies to satisfy the a::hibit requirement. We wa11.
10 And I would like to have it marked ac E::hibit i-
!. 11 number 18 and admitted into evidence to make the racord com-
! 12 plate.
j' j 13 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right.
1 v} 14 You will supply the copies?
l
. 15 MR. DANKS: Yes, we will.
,e
!I (Whereupon, the document ll 16 i 17 referred to was marked ac
{ , 18 Licensee D:hibit number 18 4 19 for identification.)
~
20 CIAIRMMI MILLER: Do you have a copy to be marked i 21 as your Exhibit number 137 22 MR. DANKS: Yes, we do.
2' 23 It's a letter from PGE, Mr. Williame,. to Dr.
24 Fred Miller of the Department of Energy, dated April 26, 1970.
m
, ) 25 GIAIRMAU MILLER: Is it in response to the lettar i
,...r. .. .
e,*-w.- + ..s--+ .-. . . , _ ,,,, _ , _
- . .:.=; .= = -.::. ._z _: 7_=:. . .=;, ;_z. -2 ; ;;- -
i l 2115 i
upb2 1 that was admitte.d into evidence as Consolidated Intervenors'
[j,
\ '. .
2 Exhibit number 27 3 MR. BANKS: I think it's supposed to'be. Ies.
l
~
i 4 I was wrong when I made the statement:, Chat ;
5 was not a January lettar, it was an April lettai . Cleir j exhibit is an April 13, 1978, letter, and the first paragraph
- 6 i
I I
. i.
7 of this indicates that it's in rasponse to that letter.
. S CHAIR!!AN ICIIER: All right.
,. g Any objection? - .
10 (No response.) j 11 It will be admitted into evidenco.
12 (Whereupon, the i:cument 13 previously marked as 14 Licenses Exhibit number 18 15 was received in evidence.)
16 CI! AIRMAN !! ILLER: Mr. Gray, you may proceed.
-- MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I had indicated prev-17 iously that we intended to have Mr. Trar.nall and Mr. Herring 18 19 on as one panel, followed by Mr. Knight.
i
~
6- It occurs that in fact it may- sava sema time 20 ,
21 with regard to repetitive questions and so on if in fact we 22
- i. also have Mr. Knight join this panel nnd havo r.11 threc vih-23 nesses available.
y CHAIR!W1 MILLER: Very well. You may call them
.m m )3 25 as a panel if you wish.
N e i
-T -
. . = == --
2116 i
h- mpb3 1 MR. GRAY: At this time the Staff ' calls Mr.
( I
[ 2 Kenneth IIerring, Mr. Charles Trammell, and 11r. James Knight.
l 3 Whereupon, t
/+ KENNETH G. TIER 2ING, 5 CHARLES M. TR.MEELL , III, 1
- 6 and e
- 7 JMIES E. KNIGHT ,
. a were called to the stand to testify as witnescac on behalf of
.4 the Regulatory'Cornissicn Staff,'and, having been first duly 9
10 swc,rn, were examined and testified as follows:
11 DIRECT E%A!!INATION 12 BY MR. GRAY: g Mr. Herring, wil. you state your nmae, give I h'
i /
13 Q 14 your business address and your job title for the record? l A (Witness Herring) My nans is Ken IIerring. I'm 15 1
16 employed at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ,
j7 20555. And I am an applied mechanics engineer.
, 18 Q Do you have before you a statement of your j
- I gg professional qualifications? j 1- A Yes.
20
- 21 Q Did you prepara that stat'ement of qunlifications? ; l 1
g A Yes. j i
23 Q Do you have any ad I.tions or corrections to make l l
y to it?
) 3 A No.
1
, i i
4 t k . _. . . _ . . . .
-.~ -- _ . . . , . _ . . _ , _ . . , , _ , , , _ _ _,
- - - . =. -
l 1
2117
- l
-1
}p mpb4 1 Q Is it true and correct?
4 t i 2 Yes.
[w[
A t
' i
' 3 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, 7 trould ask that the i
- 1 i 4 statement of qualifications ha identified as Staff E:iibit 2.
5 I will ultimately ask that it be incorporated I
c 6 into the record, but we'll do that at the end. ;
l 4
7 CHAIR!!AN MILLER: All right. )
8 The statement of qualifications of Mr. Herring lI pi
< 10 (Whereupen, the document i
11 referred to was marked ac 12 NRC Staff E:dibit numbs: 2 1
1 I
13 for identification.)
ed 14 BY MR. GRAY:
1 1 . 15 Q Mr. Knight, would you state for the record your je name, your business address, and your job title? l l 17 A (Witness Knight) My name is James E. Knight. l i l
) 18 I'm employed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at tha
. 1 19 Norfolk Avenue offices in Bethesda, Mar-fland. And my job
'.* 20 title is engineering systems analyst.'
, 21 Q Do you have before you y$ur statement of pro-22 fessional qualifications?
. 23 A Ye s .,
It 24 Q And did you prepare that statement? j
( ,) 25 A Yes.
(
?
. L '
i
=
-...--.v._
-%.y , ,_.,,_ _ , , _ , _ , ,
w v .- -
s' i
.- _ _ . _ - . _ . . . - =__... =_=.--;==..___-
f I
2118 i
mpb5 1 Q Do you h.sve any additions or correi:tions to make lk 1
2 to it?'
3 A No.
4 0 Is it true and correct?
1 5 A Yes. ;
- i i
o 6 MR. GRAY: I would ask that Mr. Knight's ctate-l 7 ment of professional qualificaticus, copieu of which have
- . 8 been provided to the Board and all the parties, be identified ,
'i .._._l_
g ,_ _ _ . _ _ _ . -.. - _ .
10 CHAIRMAN MILLEM: It may be marhad for id2ntifica--
11 tion as Staff Exhibit 3.
12 (Whereupon, .he decur.ent d)
\
13 referred to tras marked as i 14 NRC Staff Exhibit No. 3 l
. 15 for identification.)
l l 16 BY MR. GRAY:
17 Q Mr.'Trammell, would you state your name, business la address, and give your job title?
gg A (Witness Trammell) My name is Charles M. Tramell
- ' 20 I*:I . I'm employed by the U.S. Muclea'r Regulatory Comission 21 !n Jethesda, Maryland. My title is senior projoet manager.
22 O Hr. Trar=r. ell, do you have a statement of ;ro22s2-23 ional qualifications before you?
24 A I do.
g- N )
l Do you have any additions or corr 2ctions to make 25 0
(
4 1
- . ~ . _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ , . _ _ _ _ . . . _ , _ ,_ ,
. .. . . . . - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - = . = . - _ . ~ . . . - . - .
t 2119
. . mpb 6 1 to that statement of gaalifications?
A
- U), 2 A Mo, I don't.
3 Q Is it true and correct?
4 A Yos , it is.
i ;
5 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairnan, I den:t beliwa that [i I
- 6 this statement of qualifications has includr.d in whct was j 7 distributed before, so I will now pass this out to the Eccrd ll :
8 and the parties.
!i . - - - . _ . . _ - .
. (Distributing documents.)
. .m .
9 to CHAIRMAM MILLER: Thank you.
I 11 MR. GPAY: And I ask that it be marked as Staff i
12 Eraibit number 4 for identification. i 1 ,.
l
} 13 (Whereupon, the document 14 referred to was marked as 1 i 15 NRC Staff Exhibit No. 4 j 16 for identification.)
i :
17 BY MR. GRAY: ;
,, 18 Q Mr. Herring, do you have before you a dccument jg untitled Testimony of Kenneth S. Herring, Office of Uccisc*- .
- Reactor Regulation on Structural Adeqbacy of the Trojan Control.
20
. 21 Building for Interim Operation?
2.'! j A (Uitness Herring) Yes.
23 L Q Did you prepare that testimeny?
24 A Yes. l Q Do you have any additions or corrections to make 25 t
lM B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _
- - ~
- - =: -
-. .. u.-- =._:: := : - -
- = - - - - - -
I
~
<< 2120 l
mpb7 1 to it?
$ i 2 A Yes, a few corrections.
- ) V( 4'
!! S O Will you state what they are?
- i _
4 A All right.
i' s S Page 2, at the fcctneta at the bottem .:2 the i
ll 4 6 page, the end of the sentenes shculd bs 'ACI 31G-G3" instad
'l l L* ;
7 of "818-63".
. ;, 8 on page 20, the 12th lino from the hep, the line l N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- t g '
starts out "s/L of 1" and it talicc'ibout "a first crack shear 10 stress of 4.2 square root-FC'". It shculd be "4.3 square rect 11 of FC'".
12 At the next to the last line at the bottom of j 13 that paragraph which now reads:
" ...below the point at which the tests 6
14
. 15 indicated substantial cyclic degradation."
16 " Substantial" should be changed to " severe".
37 Page 22, the second line from thq tcp, the j 18 sentence that starts on that line "Between Elevation 45-61 in
~.
w the east-west direction," between " direction" and the cor:.a
- 1 20 insert the phrase ",all of the walls" - excuce me, insert 1
21 "f r all of the walls". .
I t
= The same page, the lith line from tho top, 48 [
t a percent should be "67 percent". It continues ou ...of this l
i
.y capacity". Insert at that point"between elevaticas 45 cnd 61".
Page 23, the second line from the tep, before the '
U) 25
, . , _ ~ - - , - - - - - - -
- = .a ..__.:-.. - -~
=:. .
4 2121 mpb8 1 period insert in paren'.hesis "(based on the full block thick-A)-,
(
2 ness and effsetive wall length)".
3 Page 26, the eighth line from the bottom, where 4 it reads 65 and 89 percent, the 89 percent should to 79 per- ,
5 cent.
- 6 The fifth line from the bottom it hcs 20 percent i 7 and 5.5 percent. The 5.5 should be changed to 11 percent.
- j. 3 The fourth line from the bottom, again the 89 i
a - - - .
! 9 percent should be changed to 79 percent.
1 10 Page 27, the first sentencs, after "a 10 percentj i
11 reduction" and before the conma, insert "in the north-scuth 12 direction".
13 The fif'th line frcm the bottom, in that paragraph -
14 it should be dowel, d-o-w-e-1.
15 CIIAIRMAN MILLEit: hhe same in the folicwir.g line?
16 WITNESS IIERRING: Yes.
17 .That's all the corrections I havo.
18 BY MR. GRAY: l r
. 19 0 With those additions and corrections, is this I l
~ s t
" testimony true and correct?
20 l i
. 21 A (Witness Herring) Yes. l O And do you adopt it as your tactir.cny in 01:
22 t
l 23 proceeding?
)
24 A Yes.
25 -Q Mr. Harring, did any person or perscas assist t
I I l' !
1 1
-1 2122 l mpb9 1 you or help you.in the preparation of this testimony or par-by . 2 ticipate in the Staff evaluation which is set forth here?
3 A Yes, some input was factored in by Dr. Aler. .
4 Gluckman, Vincent S. lioonan, and Dr. D. D. Lico.
1 And who are these personc? l 5i Q
. 6' A Plus there was management review icr mainly ,
l
'- 7 editorial-type comments. l 4
8 Q The percons that you mentioned, who dre they?
9
~
A Dr. Ale:: Gluckman is a concultant for cur-branch, to the Engineering Eranch. Vince 17oonan is bres.ch cnief. (
1 11 Dr. D. D. Liao is section lecder. j 12 Q Did any of these persens who aided you in the S preparation of this testimony and evaluction have sny dissent-
[0 t3 14 ing views from what is set forth here? i
. 15 A No.
16 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would ack that this
- document be marked for identification as Staff Ey.hibit 5.
17 I
18 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: It will be so marked. !
~.
j 19 (Whereupon, the document ,
I 20 referred to wa: =arked as !
21 17EC Staff E::hibit No. 5 g for identifi:r. tion.)
g BY MR. GRAY:
Q Mr. Herring, do you ciso have beders ycu a 24 j docuant entitled Kenneth S. Herring, Offics o5 ::: clear Reac :cr.
25 v .
= :. =:- ==:: - - - -
. I 2123 mpb10 1 Regulation Regarding the Supplemental STARDYNE Analysis and
/ 1 its Effect on the Structural Capacity 'of the Trojan Control 3 Building?
4 A . (tfitness Herring) Yes.
5 O Did you prepare that?
. 6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you have any additions or corrections to maka 1 *
, 8 tc it?
. 1
- c. -
g.n ... . . . . . - . . . .
i f'
to O And is it true and correct?
[ A Yes.
11 .
I
- O Do you adopt that an your testimony in this pro-ll 13 ceeding?
14 A Yes.
. '5 Q And did any other persons assist you in the pre-16 paration of that testimony or in the evaluation set forth 17 therein? ,
l I i 18 A My previous responses would hold regarding this i j 19 .tes'timony also. - 1 3
I
- i 20 Q The same persons? '
. 1 t
A Yes, 21 j i, n Q Did those persons hava any dicsanting tia rs trith 3 regard to what is set forth in this testimony?
y A No.
L ).s y MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, at this ti:.3 I ask that ,
s I
l '
f '
l , ._ _. ,._ _ . - _ .__ . . _ - . _ _ _ __ . _ _ . . .
e
- I' 2124 j
- ! t ii~ '
.mpb11 1. this testimony of Mr. IIerring be marked as Staff E:thibit
~hr-a
' ( ,
.3 2 number 6.
3 CHAIRMAN MII1ER: It will be markad Staff Exhibit- , l l 4 g 6 for identification.
l l
i! 5 (Whercupon the docu:r.ent ;
, i
. $* referrod to was marked as ,
7 NRC Str.ff E::hibit No. S
.i
[ 3 for identification.)
l 3: 10 0 Mr. Knight, do you hava before ycu a docutent ii I I entitled Testimony of Jamas E. Knight, Office of liucicar I
, 11 d
12 Reactor Regulation, on Licensing Board's Question negarding j ![ 13 the Effects of A Seismic Event on Features Important to
\ \
14 Maintaining the Safety of the Trojan Facility?
- 15 A (Witness Knight) Yes. l
~
) 16 Q Did you prepare that testimony?
- I ty A Yes.
, ;g Q Do you have any additions or corrections to make
- ! 19 to it?
'{ .
j '# 20 A NO-21 Q Is it true and correct?
22 , A Yes.
23 Q And do you adopt it as your testimony in this ,
y proceeding?
.[ 3 A z c.o.
=: .
=.--: ___. .=: . = . . . . .
<j. 2125 I ll _
mpb12 1 Q Mr. Knight, did any other person help or assist 2 you in the preparation of this testimony?
,' 1 3 A Yes. l t
l 4 Q And will you identify who that wac and indiosta i 1
1 5 what their function was?
s .. 6 A Mr. Trammell; his involvament was to cze uhethor i
'- 7 he agreed with the things -- he was with me on the site visit, s ,~ .
.; , a and see that he agreed with me in the state = ento that I made 9 ~ifthe testimony.^~ And tir. IIeFring; I looked $6'him' for the information regarding the amount of motion that was involved l 10 l
l 11 in the buildings at various elevations. l 1 Q And did any of those persons who assistaa you 33 iri the preparation of this testimony indicate they had dis-
.g4 senting views with regard to the testimony?
. 15 A HO-16 MR. N: Mr. Chairman, I requact that the 97 testimony of James E. Knight, dated October 13, 1973, ba 18 identified as Staff Exhibit number 7. .
gg CHAIRMAN MILLER: It will be so markad.
20 M areupon, the document l
33 referred to was markac as 22 Staff ::xhibit numbar 7 for ident:ification.) l 23 l
24 f
> 1
/ 25 '
C i , . . . . . , - . . . 4 m.e.****=,
- _ , , , _ . ,n- , ,,.m ,, . . , . , - ,. , , , . , , _ y -
- _ . - - - - . -_- ,_- s _
r.. ...L - -'. :'
si,'.n ~ .. , . - n,..m~.-.. - - - ,
1 2126 ! l i
f 1 1
g 1E agb1 BY liR. GRAY: g l
[; Q 2
Finally as to Mr. Tra.'unell, I ask Mr. .Tratamall, 3.210 Q 3
do you yhave before you a memorandum from clarshall Grotenhuis 4
of the Office of Nuc12ar Raccter P.agulatten, Robert Whacncor
~
n Chief of tne operating Reactor Divicion, graca 1. dat d i l
. 6 i August 15, l')787 7 Yes, I do.
A (Witness Trammall) l s 1 l
- 8 Q Are you faciliar with that document?
,j __- _.m_ . . . _ _ l
! A Yes, I am.-
10 Q Can you briefly describe for us what that is?
11 A Briefly, it's a statement of the basis on which 1'-
the Str.Jf decided that an Snvironmantal Impact Str. tar. nt I3 V) \ or an Environmental Impact Appraisal, a negativa declaratin .
14 was neat necessary with respect to intorim operatica of
. 15 the Trojan facility.
16 And are you prepared to sponsor that memorandum Q ,
l 17 and to respond to quections with regard thereto?
18 A Yes , I am.
~
19 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I finally ac.1 that this
-l 1 20 .aamorandum from Martin Grotanhuis thus' identified, ha marked 21 ~
j for identification as Staff Exhibit Eighc.
22 a Now, I will point out that this document was pro-
-)
23 vided to the parties and the Board in respense to en inter- l 1
24 rogatory of Mr. David B. McCoy that was filed oy the Staff :
(., .
i 23- on September 18, 1978. It has been in the Board and the
-O i
i se ag 1 m. g e- m e%,ngew s - aemaggy.es. 8*
- wmiggeoggesg e. e
__p, %.menges-- 4 ege. + we m. y - s.p y w -
2w- -rsy w=w-w w
_ . . :_ . ac ,. 2___ ; - _
u:- :---- .7c -- n.n- . - - - n---
! 2127 I
l hands since that time, and it was a response to parties' agb2 2
lA McCoy Interrogatory Number 71.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very well.
4
('.'Thereupon, tha documcnt j 3 previously referred to j
- 0 l was marked for identifi-7 cation as Staff U::hibit S.)
8 MR. GRAY: At this time then I would ask that 9 the statement of professional qualificctions cf Mr. Herring 10 which is identified as Staff Exhibit Tuo, the statement of 11 qualifications of Mr. Knight identified as Staff 1:::hibit Throe, t
12 the statement of qualifications of ;1r. Trcma ni identified as 13 Staff Exhibit Four, the testimony of Mr. Ilarring which has
'G' 14 besn identified as Staff Exhibit Five, the testimony of
. 15 Mr. Harring which has bean identified as Staff Exhibit Six 16 as. well as the testimony of Mr. Knight which has bean 17 identified as Staff Exhibit Seven, and tne memorandum of 13 Mr. Grotenhuis, just described by Mr. Trammell and identi-19 fled a.s Staff Exhib'it Eight, I request that each of these
, s 20 be admitted into evidence as the evidenco of the HEC S tz.f f.
, 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Any objections? ,
i 22 MR. BANKS: No objections.
l i
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
23 They'll be so adtaitted.
u 4'W "i * *EWhf M blu'lE'P9 i * "' *WMWgE b * 'M i gpe.
2128 I
j s 1
.; agb3 (Whereupon, the documents
. 2 previously marked for identi-3 fication as Staff E:dtibits 4
Tuo through Eicht, were 5
radeived into avidance.)
6 l MR. GRAY: I have just one or two questions for Mr. iterring on direct examination. And actually, this i
- 8
, . ~ . -
is for purposes of clarifying questions which wera raised I
, with rugard to some of the chher witnesses that we've heard I
' 10 previously.
II BY MR. GRAY:
12 Q Mr. Iforring, were you present la.st wc:J: when I3 Dec;ttel witnesses were being questions with regard to the 14 Juae 29, 1970, affidavit of Mr. Charles Trat'raall and the 15 gg ,27, 1978, affidavit of Lawrence Shao on the estimated 16 caductions in safey margin?
17 A (Witness IIerring) Yes.
L 18 Q What was the reduction in safety margin that 19 was estimated by the Staff?
e >
E A In those affidavits, tha estimation wcs made on e 71 30 percent. Since at that tir.2, there was the order of 22 no real safety significance in our minds attached to 23 '
determining the exact reductions in nargins, and ws wars ,
24 primarily focusing on the adequacy of taa building in its -[
. ]
25 . existing configuration.
N O . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ __.
-- .~, -
. : = ..:.= = = = - :. : :. . = = - .._=..: . =.. =.- :.:
2129 1
> j 1
l agb4 Given that they used a concrete strength approxi-h;' .2 mately 2.5 times what they should have, the fact that there 3
was discontinuous steel in the wall, couplod with the benefits 4
and mass reductions and reductions of force.c dus. c: 2.2 5
techni.Iue of combining modal responses,without he.ving any I, 6' specific numbers as to the exact contributions of concreta
' 7 and steel and so forth, it was - a rough approximatien of 8
!* 50 percent was made and it was stated on the order of -- to y _. . . . . . . . . _ . .._ . _ . . . _ .l l
indicata that there was a great deal of error associatad 10 tiith it.
l 11 Q Did you participate in the darivation of that 12
. estimata?
U A I made that estimate, yes.
i' 14 MR. GRAY: The Staff has no further questione
. 15 and the witnesses are now available for cross-examination.
16 C11AIRt!AN MILLER: Very well.
17 The State of Oregon?
18 CROSS-BXAMINATION
', 19 BY MR.'SOCOLOFSKY:
- a. " '
20 Q Are any of you gentlemen representing yourselves
[
21 as structural engineers here on this panel?
22 A (Witness Herring) I am.
23 i Q All right.
\
- 24) I'd like to ask you a couple of quastions first f._., .)
25 about the techniques that the Staff uses to avaluate an
\
_. . . .. _ . . . . . . _ . _ . _ . . L
~ ,._ _ . - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _.
- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ -___ , w, . , _ , _ . , , , . , . _ ,. , _ ,
- .... =. .= : . _..: ._: . - - z :: ---
1
?
? )
! 2130 j (
- 1 l
(
1 g agb5 application. Let's take this one, for instance.
-{
N 2 Would Dechtel have been required by some NRC 1 I
- 3 - '
rule or regulation to use a particular analysis in dotar-J, ,
I 4
miningthecapacitiesandtheforcesofitsproposedstructurcsj '
5 No particular analysis is required.
, A
- 6 g. !
Okay.
~.,
7 Do they, then, proposa something which the NRC f
8 i
Staff reviews and then approvos or dicapprovas, comething s -- -.
0 like that, is that the procedure? ,l t
i 10 r A Yes, they propose the analysic and we ask questionci i 11 ' whers appropriate, whers there are sono indications that ;
l 12 it may or may not be an appropriata model we get 0.hri2ication 13 on it and so forth. i d' 14 Q Taking the strength of the concrata which was
. 15 talked about here in this case for another anample, it's my ,
t 16 understanding that two times the square root of F prims over 17 c is what you accepted in this cace, is tha,t right? - - - -
10 A originally?
J 19 0 Yes.~
20 A That version of the code was accepted originally.
. 21 I don't recall seeing an 4hera scheta we approved 22 the number two square root Fc prima, howevar that was in-23 dicated in that code as being the appropriata ntulcer to i
24 I usa, unlass a more sophisticated analyais wn: done.
/ )[
f
%/
25 0 Had Bechtel come in with its original applicatien
'~;'
- <wom=*+ -
eyww .ww d. , y s ,p., . . . , , , , . ,, ,, .
u.- . .. .
- - . . - ..; =. .. - : - - .
.. ..= -
= -- = = . . . - - -
- 2132.
I I ..
i 1 I[ ' agb6 and, let's say, produced the PCA tests and tha other tests
( ,, 2 that they have since examined and asked for, let's say, three
.! 3
-( ,..
instead of two times, is it possible that the St d f might have I
4 I appro' red the unc cf that?
l 3'
A Yes.
Q Mr. Herring, in your sacend sat of testi:acny here, which is Exhibit Six, I think, you computed an O'dB of 0.00
' as appropriate for the case?
I .-..- ~ . . _ .
A Yes.
10 E::hibit Fitts, isn't CHAIRlWi MILL 3R: That's 11 it?
12, fir. SOCOLOFSKY: Or Si :, I think it's Exhibit Si::.
I That's the STARDYN3 analysis?
) CHAIR!W4 MILLER:
14 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: Yes. It's Pages 11 and 12.
. 15 BY im. SOCOLOFSKY:
16 Q The testimony says, at the bottom of Page 11:
17 " Under the assumption that non'.inear behavior -- first cracking -- begins tthan a I9 member's load reaches approximataly ona-half of
- 20 itu total capacity...."
21 And than you computs your 0.08, 22 Ic tnat assumption based on use of the tWc ti.cs 23 the square root of.F prime over c, instaad cf semabhing c.sa?
M A No, that is based upon information supplied by NI . s.o ' the Applicant in their Septsnber 20th submittal, in ,thich
.g I'
.:.=~- -
- .=.- = : :_: .=_= - - - - - - -
I
. 2132
.J '
i I 1
they made the assumption that half the ccpacity for strass (g agb7 h- i
'2 in the concrete was approximately 130 psi - which is not l 3
i-
.,3.360 confirmed, but that's about the range it would be in.
p
)
4 -
l If you coupled that with the chor' ctrs.:s versus 5 shear strain diagra:as which are presented in Appendices C ,
J f* O and D of that report, you will notice that tua concrate j
- a. -,
block indicates shear cracking occurs at around 100 psi in
[ 8 that particular diagram.
. - ~ . - . _ -. .. _-
9 Q You're talking, than - the cracking you're 19 referring to here is block cracking?
11 A Well, you're talking about composite walls, and i
12! you're not really governed by stress in thoso ' walls. Due f'\)
V 13 14 to displacement compatibility, the block is gos.Es' to have to displace as much as the concrete cora.
15 Now, you can see in those two diagrams that there
~
16 is a larga difference in the strainc at which chear cracking 17' will occur in the concrets in the block.
t 18 Factoring all those together, the 130 pai is a, i ~
19 reasonable point at which one would want to take a lech, ycu 20 , know, if a major, wall were to reach those levels, not the 1 -
21 minor walls. }
4 22 Q Okay. ,
\
' 23 Do ycu have any reason to believc that the 24 cor'e will.first crack at one-half its capacity?
/
A Again, it's not tha cora itself. You hace to
'Y) 25 s . L . _ ..- . . _ . _ _ _ .
. .. . ~ . . -
. 2133~
1 l l :' 'g agb8 consider _that it is composite and each will will be strained
'i
} 2 at the same point in time, so it's poscible the core will l
l 3
crack before the block cracks. significantly.
- ( ,
4 Q And does the cre.cking level of the cora -- In ;
I 5 i-
- '. the cracking level of the core that is at one-half its
< l' l
.1 -6
!. capacity affected ~~ I taka that back. I don't want to put it that way.
4 .
- 3 4
' What I'm trying to determine is whether or not u _
l the determination of the 0.08 OBE here takes into account 10 the results of those PCA testa which wara introduced late 11 into this case and the other tests that affect 2d the capacitiesj i
' of the various materials? !
h 13 A Yes, the curves in Appendices C and D are derived 14 from both the PCA test and the Berkeley test.
. 15 Now, as I recall the testimony of Professors Q
16 Bresler and Holley, they felt that 0.11 -- 0.11g CBE was a II conservative number. That 0.08g was more conserve.tive.
18 And I'm trying to understand the necassity for l
U choosing, let's say, 0.08 over 0.11, under those conditions. ;
3 j 20 A Wall.again, I'm looking a the strain and n
21 compatibility between the concrete and the masonry as far as 22 at which levels you're going to get mora severa de7:edation 23 in either material.
M
-And the 130 psi level seamed a reascnable icvel
\
/
25 which, when reached in a major shear wall, one wculd want to gd i
a
.~.e . . , , . . +.. _., , ,
,a e--
g -m, enwoa
1 .!
2134 9
4 1
>1 x
- take a closer look and be sure that it was benaving appro-
. agb9
- 5 2
- priately. l
! 3 i . Q What experience has the Staff had until this case
! 4 With the STARDYMS progrcm?
! 5 A It has bean used on other nuclear structuros. j 6
j
- Q That you have reviewed? -
7 A Not that I've reviewed personally. '
ij.
8 That have been reviewed by other .membe'rs of the
- l 4 Q
?1 .- - _ . . - . . . . . _ . . . _ _
I4 9 Staff, you mean?
'O A Yes.
4 , i i
t 11 Q 11 ave you done any work with it?
1 '*
4 A I've done work with other finita 21:nsat codes
- 13 ind STARDYNE is typical.
[]'
j 14 Q Are there any cases, up to the present, where 15 the Staff has insisted upon the use of that particular I 16 analysis?
i
- 17 A Not to my knowledge.
18 Q And I take it from your testimony so far that l ff there's no requir'amant that any analysis in particular be
- .1 "- "
1; 10 used, so long as the Staff, accepts it as suitabic?
J 2Y A Yes.
, n 24
,/ ) a
(. .
'"**fe' r 5+ wow g _ ,, ,,,,
l
,- _ . . . ..1
..=.= . :._; a..u.:
_ . . _.n . _ _.__..._.--- ;
1 l
l
)'
2135 i .
- .f abi .1 Q .In this case I think we can fairly conclude from
} ,
c4-2 the testimony so far that the design defect we have here did 4
i 3 affect the margins of safety that were presumed to e::ist.
I, 4 Is that a fair statement?
5' A' Yes.
l* 6 O And is it also fair to say that thero hr.c been soma
'7 reduction in these margin:37 There has been como reduction? l
~
l 2' '
, 8 A -Yes. .
9 Q I think that one thing we would lika the Staff's
~
to comment on is why the Staff feels comfortable in approving 11 the interim operation of the facility with these aargins 12 reduced from what was originally expected.
O 13 A We have an analysis that has shown that the 14 structure in its present configuration can withstand an SSE.
15 Therefore, since you can shut down the plant in the event 16 of the earthquake up to and including the .25g SSE, there 17 is adequate assurance that the public safety will not be 18 infringed upon.
[ 19 0 Does the Staff view the position of these margins
~
20 primarily as insuring the ability of' the plant to withstand --
, 3: I should say as insuring the capability of the plant to meet r
22 a safe shutdcwn condition over the life of cho facility as 23 opposed to its ability to meet the SSE one time?
, ' 24 A Yes.
) 25 0 So then once you decide that it has tha capacity t 7
1 2136 q eb2 '1 to meet the SSE, and there is a condition attached to the
\
/ 2 interim operation that the plant shut down at the OBE that 3 you have designated, then you are satisfied that it can 4~ meet the SGE and you are not worried cbcut the margins so i
r 5I 6 far as in*arin operation is ccncerned?
. t 6 A Yes.
7 MR. SCCOLOFSKY: Mr. Chairman, should I reserve e a my questions on the equipment response to the frequency
- . ~ . . - -. -
9 changes until later on in the hearing?
10 MR. GRAY: If I may be of help, P.r. Chairman, 11 , Mr. Harring is preparad to testify as to uhat the Staff's 12 conriarns are with regard to equipment response, just as he 13 set forth here in this testimony, Exhibit 6, ao to whether v
14 thes floor response questions are resolved at this point.
. 15 Er. wever, we are not prepared to testify.
16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The Board is inclined to permit 17 interrogation so far as it can be useful. Since we have
, 18 studies that are underway as to the ficer response e7ectra 60 gg as related to equipment and the like, obviously interregatica ,
into those matters would.be premature.
20 . ,
. 21 However, it does occur to 'us that the.re wall 22 mcy be areas of testimony'which wculd be useful at dic timo 23 which would not seek to go into those matters, Wether, as f g the Staff has indicated, expressing their concerns er if j g there be other matters which wculd not ba so ine::tricably
,i n- . , , _ . , . - -
2137 eb3 1 connected with the studies.and the on-going analyses as to k/c i
2 make it unfruitful and-3 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: Since I'm not quite sure of the ,
4 demarcatien here why don't I just confine my questions to 5 the equipment as it relato to the design defects?
- 6 CHAIRIEN MILLER: All right.
7 MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
Before I go on, there is some 8 question in the mind of my staff sitting here about whether 9 tiie record clearly'ihdicates the Stiaff's position on the 10 reasons for the fix.
11 CHAIRMAN MILL 2R: The reasons for what?
12 MR. SOCOLCFSKY: For the proposed modification,
( 12 why they want to restore the safety margins. And I thought:
( 14 we had the answer.
. 15 BY MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
16 Q Would you go over that one more time, why you 37 think the safety margins are necessary-to_.be-_ restored?
18 A (Witness Herring) Again when you're talking about 19 operation over the remainder of the operating license, it's 20 a much longer period of time. And given that you have a
. 21 limited amount of test data which we'uld give you confidence 22 in one earthquake, for a f acility lifetime you w;uld c::pect -
23 I don't know if you would expect it exactly but you should y design it with the expectation that you could get a couple i
25- of earthquakes'at icwer levels than the SSE uhich could have
.. L
'ss-
2138 ,
.I f-~g eb4 1 an effect on its ability to withstand an SSE at a later point ;
(*s[s . 2 in time, subsequent to the occurrence of one or more.
Is that the only reason for requiring -- for the i 3 Q i 1
4 Staff's position on the rostoration of tha margins?
5 A That's the primary reason.
6 Q Are thera any others you can think of?
e 7 A Again, for operation over the life of the plant,
. 8 you would want to restore the margins which were originally g licensed for that plant.
10 Q That's right, but that's not another reasen, as I 11 see it, or are you offering that as another raason? That's 12 the cima reason, isn't it?
/N ; 13 A I guess you could say so. That would be it.
k,/
m 14 0 Do you have an opinion on the likelihood and 15 extent of spelling should the plant experienca a .25g earth-16 quake? We've had several other opinions in this record so 37 f ar, and I would like to hear yours .
18 A I don't think it would occur.
19 0 Pardon'?
A I don't think it would occur at the levels of-20 }lloading we're talking about.
. 21 ,
22 Q Okay.
g How we had some testimony fr:m Prefassor Eclisy, y I understand, that he did not see any connaction betwet:n l' 'i 25 the design -dofect and the anomanlies resulting frca the V'
.1 w
2139
~
f% eb5 1 STARDYNE analysis, the floor response spectra.
2 What is your opinion on-that subject? ANd if you 3 disagree with him, can you tell us why?
,
- l 4 A Could you clarify that?
t 5 0 All right. l 6 We asked Professor Holley whether or not the
, i the STARDYNE analysis, that is, the 7 anomalies resulting in
. 125 8 change in floor frequencies, were caused in cny respect by I 9 the design defect, that is, the discontinuous steel in the i 1
l 10 shear walls and the other items.
11 And his response, as we understand it, is they're
. 12 not related, that the design defect is not responsible fer this new ' frequency problem that we have with the equipment.
[}
\ .
13 Do you agree with that? And if you do not, can l 14 15 you tell us why? l l
16 A I would agree with that.
17 Q All right.
, 18 Then in your own words, Mr. Herring, could you I 19 describe what you'think it is attributable to?
20 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The anc=anlies?
. 21 MR. SOCOLOFSKY Yes. l t
22 WITNESS HERRING: I think there are saveral ran.1ons.
l 23 First of all, the first mods peaks were raised in heth the 24 north-south and eauc-wast direction in the STAnDY1D a.alysis j 25 versus the original stick analysis. I fac1 that the re=on I
51
~
l m d4. % e de danyte 41 ogq3418v N hW==
- g6p e. egwie w- ,a e m e.
y
l 2
2140 I eb6 1 for that is that the original analysis assumed that the
\ 2 auxiliary building was hinged, in other words, only its mass 3 participated in the response and it has no stiffness whereas 4 in the STARDYNE model now you have added a few t/ alls in the 5 north-south direction and you've got substential stiffness
. 6 coming from the walls in the east-west directica that span .
..* i 7 between the control building and the fuel building. i
, 150 8 And it makes sense that the STARDEC frequencies i i.
9 in the east-west direction were shifted more than in the to north-south direction because the aux building is suiffor 11 in the east-west direction.
12 The high amplifications that nro experianca, say,
{)
\ '
13' in the range of 9 to 10 hert=, 12 hortz, the higher fra-14 quencies, that I feel is due to the unsymmetrical nature of 15 the building ccmplex in both shape and stiffness distribu-16 tions. The fuel building is much stiffer than the control 17 building, and the floor slabs, spanning between that -- jou're 13 just picking up some higher modes of vibration in the STARDYNE 19 model due to the bore comprehensive modeling of the structure.
20 Q What effect-- Well, let i'e put it this way:
. 21 ,
Would you expect the difference betw2cn the 22 analysis, the floor response analysis results frcn tha use of 23 STARDYNE to be as much different from the origin:1 analysis 24 if.we were only concerned trith the control building and we
. 23 did not have the auxiliary building or the spent fuel building
(
1
2141 ' I!
eb7 1 as part of the consideration?
2 A In other words if the control building was a stand-3 alone . structure?
4 Q Yes, that's correct. !
I 5 A No, I wouldn't expect the:a, given that a stick ,
r G modt:1 should. be giving an accurate reprecentation of a fairly :
7 sy:rmetrical structure.
8 Q Do you have any experience which would enable you 9 to.make a judgment about how close the :wo analyses would be .
l, to if we only had the control buildirg consider? l l
11 A I have never done a comp tisen of 3D finite ele- i 12 ment versus stick model myself.
13 ' MR. SOCOLOFSKY: I'd like to check my notes for 4 ;
t.: just a minute. I may not have any more questions.
- 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Surely.
It (Pause . ) !
gy BY MR. SOCOLOFSKY: :
18 Q Mr.' Herring, do you believe that the anomalies 19 that are now appearing are due to ST;.RDYNE, or do you think 20 that the problem we have is partly iri the method by which
. 21 the NRC determines qualifications for the equipment? Or, to 22 Put it another way, is the problem that we have with equip-23 mont here in part due to the standards used to qualify tha 24 equipment in the first place?
i 25 A (Witness Herring) To my knowledge, there is no
+
r O r. . . ,%ew. (sr m.gw p ype r- ,.q%%. ,,e _ , , , , , . , , , .
- -. . .a -. . : = = . - . - = - -_ : = . .
l 2142 p eb8 1 problem with the equipment that has been indicated at this I
i i
\ s 2 point in time. There are indications that the piping systems !
- 3. may have to have some restraints added in order to bring then 4 back into code-allowable stresses.
5 0 And is thic piping that we'ra talking about, does h
e 6 it penetrete the control building walls?
s 7 A I'm not familiar with the piping.
8 Q You're not that far yet into tho analysis?
9 .A I have not yat ccmpleted my review of the response 10 spectra.
If 1.1 12 ll a
u !
15 16 17 18 i 19 ;
5 \
, 21 '
22 23 24 .
l v .
1
- e+ ee.4-- -+e.+ .
- 'W""
w+9m ew 'avsnm g- e- w ,
2143 Ig WRB/mpbl 1 Q Let me restate the question, then, using the 2 pipes instead of equipment:
i 4.220 3 Do you believe that the problem with regard to 4 the pipas is a product of STARDYME alon07 5 A I'm not sure what you're getting at by "a product
' 6 of STAR.'JY1!D alone".
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Without going into the details i 1
= 8 of it, could you tell us what these anor.alies and theso prob- .
I l 9 lems that are prasently b.:aq studied are? I don't want you 10 to get into the merits of it because that's comathing that hac ,
11 been reserved.
But I'd like to have a little elecrs: picture of l 12 13 just what we're talking about. I G WITNESS IERRING: It was the higher amplification 14
. 15 factors at frequencies higher than the predominent modes that 16 were: indicated by the STARD mE analysis.. And in addition to 17 tha , we're looking into nonlinear, possible nonlinear behavio$
18 and what its effects would be, and broadening the spectra to to account for that type of behavior.
20 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Well, where, what buildings
= 21 cr what portions of buildings are you looking at the nonline r 22 :22havior that you mentioned? ,
23 WITNESS IERRING: It's primarily going 20 occur l 24 in the control building. However the whole building cenple:: i 25 is being investigated because , the buildings era ti2d tegather. {
G
'u.- -* manue n.<, a e g c a. < - sea.wme =w-.e..m . .www, %%4w. #.%,, ,
w t ,
ca 1. m _._ .22. u __- . _2 .2.._. _
2144 mpb2 1 CHAIRMAN MILLER: It is, you say, largely or
., 2 primarily in t'ae control building?
3 WITNESS HERRING: Yes.
4 CHAIRIWi !ELLER: Which portionc of the control 5L building, if you can deceribe it by areac?
. '6 WITNESS HERRING: It would only be a function of 7 the farther west you would go in the control building. It a would be minimal in the fuel building, and it will be a fun-ctionasyouincridseoutinthefuelbuild).ng.
~ ~ ~~ ~
g to CilAIRIIAN ICLLER: Toward the contro". building?
11 UITNESS HERRING: Yes. .
12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: CTust What is it you're doing
, 13 wiuh the use of the STARDYNE dynamic analysis?
p 14 WITNESS HERRING: You're analycing the structure 15 to Predict forces and acceleration levels.
16 CHAIMAN !ELLER: Yes. That's generally, isn't B
it. -- that's the normalr-the general use e' it with raference 17[)to a' building or structure, if I understand, is that correct? l 18 s
jg WITNESS HERRING: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Now, the Staff, then, is rais-
. 21 ing questions and 1 coking at the so-ca'iled anomalies which do }
i I
j gj ;
not relate to the structure directly, is this cerract?
f 2.3 q WITNESS HERRING: They are indirectly roltted to f, y the structure. It'sjustaquestionofthelovalcfscphisticah
'N tion in the original stick model to capture the b ahavicr of I
{
l i
l l 2145 l
O ~
mpb3 1 .this particular building complex. So in that way it will be
,s 2 indirectly related to the structure.
, 3 CHAIR 2W1 liILLER: Then ! suppose the ancvsr is 4 it's not directly related in that sense.
l 5 . WITNESS HERRIiG: Right.
,, 6 'iR. SOCOLOFSKY: Okay. Iill maka cnother try 7 here. I think I understand what the question of the Staff is
- - 8, here. And that's the DOE staff; not the 11RC Staff.
6 l
9 BY MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
to If you're not going to insist on the use of 11 f' . 5.nTE in the future for analyses of thesa hinda, could f r a, still accomodate, let's cay, these anomalies Ly broadening
- 13 or by changing the requirements for qualified pipes and equip-14 nant and broadening this envelope that we're talking about 15 that will accomodats rore frequencies than they presently do?
10 A (Witness Herring) You could do it that way.
17 0 Don't you have to do one or the other on the
- 18 state of this record? I mean, because this point has baan 19 raised, isn't the board and the NRC in the position of doi
- g 20 'one or the other?
21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: You mean ac to Trojan en the 22 1 precont state of the proceeding?
I 23 MR. SOCOLOFSKY Right.
I .
WITNESS HERRING: We're doing a combination of f, '
y i
both. We're taking the linear elastic STARDYNE anclysis, then t
1 1-
'^
. iTL --,. .-..:'-- ,~ - -.. . , ~ _ , ,
2146
- 1 mpb4 N -thatisbeinglookedatfortheoffectsofstiff$1essdegrada-
,3, h tions and any possible, you know, upper bound estimated non-i 3 linear behavior. And they're lieing broadsned according to
?
\
4; that critorion.
I .
5 CHAIR:Gi MILLER: Wa have a qu2ction, Mr. H,rring(
. 6 while Counsel is conferring. ;
! l t 7 Dr. McCollom?
i
. 8 DR. MC COLLCM: Several questions have been asked I
~ ~ ~
9 as to if you had not 'done STARDDE, or if you did nol:~have the to new information from STARDYIE, or if STARDY!E cnly werhod for 11 :he control building and not coupled together with the others.
i I
- 12 The question I would ask is
- l 13 In your opinion, which is the more realistic 14 model of the real world that exists of these combinations?
9
. 15 WIT!ESS IERRING: STARDYME.
16 DR. MC COLLOM: With the buildings coupled to-
! 17 ge :her? '
18 WIT!ESS ! ERRING: Yes.
DR. MC COLLOM: Therefore I cssune that you say !
l tg
- 20 we need to design all the equipment i:t some manner r.nd corract ,
, 21 ;
fe.: that with respect to the current $TARDYME analysic of .he 22 colplex of the threa buildings.
23 WITNESS IGRRING: Correct. ;
4 24 BY MR. SOCOLOFSICI:
l fc
/^ 23 o one other question. I think I have the ansvar, j'
I .
i 1
w = , + - + e-ry w --w-' = - ,e,- y r- wtvm -
Ig r tyrev
- - ._.__~___._ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _
. I 2147
\
(~ mpb5 1 but I want to make sure.
N , 2 Would you explain why a change in the 03E doesn' t 3 cause a corresponding change in the SSE7 4 A (Uitness Herd.ng) It's primarily due to the two 5 different danping levels that are associated with the 03E and
- 6 the SSE.
7 Q Two percent with the ODE and --
j , 8 A Two percent with the 03E and five percent with the
_- . ~ . . _ _
9 SSE.
10 0 Do you have any reservations about the use of 11 that Schneider-Derkeley or TCA tests in this casc?
12 A No.
13 0 or do you have any reservations -- and this is 14 implicite in that questions
. 15 Do you have any reservations about departing from 16 codes formerly used when you have an analysis which is this 17 precise?
18 A I agree with what has been done as far as the 19 use of the Berkeley test data, the PCA data and so forth in 20 this case, the way it was used and coI:!bined rith the analysis, 2f and it doesn't bother me.
22 MR. SCCOLOFSKY: I think that's all I hate.
l 23 CHAImiAN MILLER: Thank you.
l 24 Mr. Kafoury? f
/ BY MR. KAFOURY: )
( 25 i
i
?
i .
i j
% - - .,e- aw, e.. .w.. . .-
^ -
.___.1. r- :n 2140 mpb6 1 Q on the floor response spectra, I will wait until 7
V. ,
2 the ball stops rolling, escept for one question:
- 3. Did I understand Mr. Gray correctly yesterday
.n 4 to suggest that the STanDY?TS analysis done on tM cor.ple:< of 5 buildings at the Trojan tiuclear Plant with regard to the ficor 6 response spectra may have idantified a range of gnnoric prch-7 lems which may cause concarn for a large nu: car of other
. a nuclear plants? Is that true?
9 A (Witness IIerring) Thera is a potential for diff-10 erences.
11 Q And that is prasently being --
12 A Yes, that's presently being addressed by t:he
. 13 Staff.
14 0 Du2.ing the discussion with Dr. Laursen this 15 morning he said that the importance of a building in tarts of 16 what happens 3.n 'the event of an eatthquake is ene of the ele-
- 17. ments one' takes into consideration in deciding the amount of
, 18 conservatisms that should be built in.
19 In reg'ard to that, do you know how much radia-20 tion are we . talking about in the worst' case analysis that could
- 21 be released from this plant in some tekus that ne could readilyi 22 understand? What's the worst possible outecte where every-t g tKing in the world goes wrong?. ]
g MR. BANKS: I'll object to that, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me we're talking about carthquakas 3
t I
1 1 . 1 - . - . - . .. -- .
I l
l 2149 l I
mpb7 1 here, not overything in'the world going wrong. 1
[mT i
,s 2 MR. KAFOURY: The risk -
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think it does have to be l
\
4 related to the seismic risks and capabilities, which are the 5 subject of this proceeding.
- 6 BY MR. KAFOURY: l
~'
7 Q If there were an earthquake which caused a wide 1
. 3 range of d,amage and which ultimately led to the inability to 9 shut the plant down, and you had a neltdown, how much rsdia~
10 tion is in the containment vessel? i 1
11 MR. BANKS: I'll object to that.
I 12 I I don't think thero'o any foundation fer that, i l
13 anything in the record to support the hypothesis. !
/.
Anything -- ;
14 MR. KAFOURY:
CHAIRMAN MILLER: That's true. You have to lay
. 1J 6 a foundation with this witness. You have at least three assump -
17 tions.
18 So, if you will, lay your foundatien.
19 MR. GRAY: Also, Mr. Chairman, I would point out 20 that Mr. Herring is not qualified to ecmment on the amount of 21 radiation or what-have-you. He's a s buctural engineer.
I 22 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, he's undcr eath. "'cu'ra
. 23 not and I'm not; but I'm sure that if ho isn't he'll pr:ceed I
y to tell us.
/
n We'll allow the quastion. We'll see 'inct the 25 (V)-
~' * * " " - m wmege . . , . , , ,,p _ , ,
r 2150
,7 mpb8 1 witness's response is in an effort to lay the foundation.
V ,
BY 101. KAFOURY:
i I 3 0 ,
If I fight my way through a procedure with it an 4 I going to get an answer en the question of whether er not --
4 ,
5 what would be the answer on whether or not yout ra qu:lified
~
.i a
6 to answer the questien?
j 7 A (Witness Harring) I'm not.
- j. . 8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, on that noto, va'll take v.....-,.._. _., . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ,.._ _.
l 9 a recess. It will be a short one, ten minutes. I
! 10 (Recess.) l
- I
- l I 2a flus 11 1 J
, 12 I] 13 14
. 15 16 17
., t8
, 19
.. s I
i
. 21 22 {
i 23 i i
=
l O
T y.%y-
2191 j
2A wb1 CIIAIRMAff itILLER: You nay continue. l C3 ;
1
[
\m T-151/S1 2 DY f!n. KAFOURY: .
CS 3 m tir. Iterring, what are the limitations on the data 4 that has been assenhied and on which you are ralying in the !
l l
5 area of anal /z.aq 4 the responce of the conplei: cF hui~_dinia i
. 1
- t a series of earthquakes, or nultiple aarthcuahas? i l 6 l '
7 A (Mitness Iterrina) Well, acain, when vou're talkinc over -- I cuess there's thirty-three voarn.left in tho
- 8 -
-. '~
g enerati7n licens7. IE vou were to E ve a #cw earthquakes , ;
1 1 1
around the 0".U. level o# . 19n, that is, vou nicht net sone j 10 denraditions of the structure. And, you know, this is not j;
recl?ded even at .nq totally. It's essentiallv clactic 12
~ ;
but rot totally elastic either. And the tasting is linited
["'x /}
13 ,
in the nunber of cycles through which the test specinen wnuld l 14 be put throughe So therefore you can sit bach with reason- t 15 (
able assurance and talk about, you know, it'll take an SSn !
6
'aven after you had say one .OnU. Dut ibr' the life of the 9gl niant, with the test data available now and the linited' nunber of cycles it would be put through you nay have changes in the 19 I
- response characteristics of the Structure alSo, the Stiffness decradations, naybe not even strennth decradations es ruch as stiffness, 23 n one f the innlications of that answ:r, would
- 24 y u say, is that there is, at least indirectly, a genuine A T safety conponent in ont considerations?
b .
25 4
e
,.g.s _,,m, ,_
" * +h AaiE+e--
- ees .,
4 % e ms- ,_.w- , , , , ,
2152 wb2 1 A In this particular case, since we are noing well 7-'s i T 2 beyond code allouables really and using tect data, there I
3 could be a safety significance to the occurrence of an I
4 earthquake at sena level in uhich you could decrad: the c:1.d# J )
- l l
nesses and could shift ranponse characteri2-ice, i 5
6 n And that couldha within tho, at leact cartciniv l
. o 7 within the cricinal One rance?
. 8 A Ye8
~-- .
.- . . . . - l
- . . . - .Ascune for the nonent that the Atardyne analysis 9
n ;
10 was based en an accurate compilation of facts and securate 11 pr gramming of facts, the richt selection of the program, j; the machine worked properly, and so on. Would ycu expect
~
"'N that the results you got fren Stardyne, particularly with i 13 t.s ,) # I ;
34 regard to the floor response spectra, would bo in any way l l different than if you had used other finite alenent analyses?
. 15 M , I w uldn't expect to see a significant 16 g7 difference. Any finito elenant nothod, if appropriately usad i
and, at that level of sophistication,should he able to pick
., 18 gg it up. -
l s
0 ~n w nany different nethods are there that are j 20 i
s newhat similar to Stardyne that you would expect to nive {
-21 similar results to Stardyno that could hava hoen selected 22 .
23 f# Dh* E"rE ""?
A NASTRAM, STRUDL, SAPP-4, AMSIS. The list can go 24 r
h' I on and on. f
\(j s
25 ;
I I
1
2153
,p wb3 1 0 no sone people nake their living thinkinn up
\ !
2 all these narvelous nalwas?
! l 3 A v es, n.
4 (Launhter) 5 n Mr. Dodds, in telling about the Utaholdt nlant, 6 said that it was ultimately shut dotm by the U.S. Geolonica.1 i
~
7' Survey, I believe it is, the U.S.G.S.
. 1
. 8 A Yes.
Wh5t's the relationchip between their 'jurisdic-
~ ~
~~ T O 10 tion and the jurisdiction of tha MRC in the area of earth-33 cuake? i 12 A It was shut down by the ?1RC due to sona discevaria.1 by U.S.G.S. that there was a potential for surface faulting
- 13 14 in the innediate vicinity of the site.
. 15 n Is there a iurisdictional overlap? or, in such 16 case would they sinply tap veu on the shoulder and say, "This g7 is whatwe think you should do," and "this is our de.ta"?
- g !!R. GRAY
- Objection,tir. Chairman. Ohat's not 39 relevant to what we have here.
. We'll allow'it praliminnrily.
20 NIftAMMILLER:
MIT! MSS IERRIMG To my kn'wledge o the U.S.n.3.
. 21 is an independent geological survey. And the. Staff in elf 3
g has a~Geo-scisness Group that evaluates U.S.G.S. inferr.ation, y sometimes uses ti.S.G.S. as a consultant, and also nakts independent assessnents other than nade by U.S.O.S.
3 l
'm* a se -y-<emme.... , u% e . _. , , m e w. , , _ , _ , , ,_ ,,
W w 7 e- * . - -r -w.w.w ., -,y-,9 r,.-.g ,,,,,y -y-. -v. --.yy ,., p
.-__ = _
2154 wb4 1 0 'In it a fact that tha ?iRC is presently taking 2
- steps, soliciting applications and so en for grants to take 3
j .
a second look at the earthquake potential of the Trojan site?
~
4 fin. GPAY: Objecton, ?tr. Chai..: :n.
Tuyend the 5 reopa of tais proceeding.
. 6 CitAIR11M1 f tILLDR: Yes, it would appear to ha.
7 ITou is it related to the issues in this proceeding?
8 ftR. TAPOURY:
One of the conservative slaments-- ,
- _,_, p>w+a ' * * ' ' '
9 f# ell, let ne ash a prelininary question, if I nicht.
10 CIIAITUtA'1 f1ILLDR: All right. . .,
i 11 nY ftR. KA70 tin?:
12 0 Uhan an original :qoological surve'-f is done fcr a
[ '
13 sice,prelininary to the decision of whether or not to put a 14 nuclinar plant at that si,te, there is a practical limit to how
. ^15 exha.1stive that studyr isn't that true?
16 A (Uitness IIerring) I'm not really a geologist gy or a seismologist, so I couldn't ansver as to- It's just 1g conmon sense that there is a limit to what you can do.
19 0 And there ara nany reasons, is it not true, for 20 buildina in conservati3n in the reouirene.its for carthouake
, 21 . strength of buildings at nuclea.: power plants?
A 22 't'here would be several reasons. "hera no just !
23 ne reason for dasioning conservatively. !
24 0
/
And those reasons coalesce around considcrations
[
25 n w.ich there is genuine uncertainty?
\ '
...... . - - . - . . \
q
.._n. . , ~ ~ ~-
. - - . ... .. . . -. - - -.. ... i i
2155- ! .
I'
[] wb5 1 A Correct.
N/I 7.
, 2 n And is it not a fact that one of those areas l h
3 where there is a certain decree of uncertainty is the actual 4 earthquake notantial of any niven aren? I l
5 A yes, i
6 0 With that in nind , is it not a fact chat tha ?;RC 7 is presently asking for applications for grants for a 8 second study of the earthquaka pot'ential of the cito of the 9 Trojan liuclear Plant? i l
10 CHAIR!!A?! MILLER: We will sustain the objection.
11 BY f1R. KAFOURY: ,
i 12 O Thers were several errors, design arrers, made 13 at the plant. Can you tell me about what percentage of the 1
14 shortfall, the total shortfall that resulted fron those l 1
15 errors is attributable to that error whichtas algebraic? -
16 A (Mitness Herring) I couldn't nive you a good 17 cuantitative nunher for that.
. 18 0 Would you say closer to 2 percent or 10 parcent !.
, l
~
19 or 25 percent?
il 20 A On the order of 20 percen?t mayha. I gg Q .Are there any logical li.its to how nuch an ,
1 22 algebraic error could affect a result when ue're talking ll 23 about analysing the strangth of a large cenple:: huilding? i 24 Isn't it a fact that the only limit is oither the structure l 25 and extent of revisw to nick up the algebraic arror, or, at x_ / .
i 1
mW%ti=i 4 -- wd-g en.eN .e
.~^ _- _. _ _ _ ~ _ --
__ ._ __1 _ _ _ . _
2156 wh6 the other end of the line, comeone taking a loch at the e
p's 1
\
- a. 2 figures and saying "They look about right to ne?"
3 A I'm not sure I get what you're driving at.
l ..
4 0 okay. l I
l 5 One way you can find an algnbraic arror is that
. g someone is looking over seneone alca's shouldar and they ,
7 see its right?
8 C11 AIRMAN MILLER: Wouldn't it take a little mora
... i. . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ - _. , _ _
10 ftR. RAFOURY: Hell, I'm aching.
I jj DY fir. IGFOURY: l i
12 n Mould it take nore than that? iI 13 A (Witness Iterring) It would depend on who was l 14 looking over whose shouldar. l
. 15 DR. MC COLLOM: And what he saw.
16 C!! AIR!!AM !! ILLER: And what he saw. And what he g brought to bear. -if you want a meaningful answer. jj 1
DY 11R. IULFOURY: !
18 ;l ,
, \
39 0 Onewaytopickupthesekindsofalgebraicerrors,j '
.- and I'm talking about calculatioral arrors which ha'ta a very 20 substantial effect on estimating the
- arthquake e resistance ' of ,
a large and conplicated building. ' Tow-- ,
g ;
A (Witness Ferring) First I would liho to ravise it. Probably around 10 percent. ,
/
A 0 One way in which such an orror could he found would.
25 i
4
, 4
2157 wb7 1 be through the institutional process whershy people review
.(' \
2 other people's calculations! right?
3 A That's one way.
o And another way 1;ould be that when the fina' 4 O 5 figures cone out and us have, say, a total number in tens of
- 6 thousands of hips for the shear resistanca of tha huilding, I
- say, that someone takes a look at it and says " Mall I've been 7
8 in this business for twanty years and that figure just
~'
i g 'doesn't look right to me," and that micht alco"1~ead to the' 10 discovery of an algebraic crror; isn't that true?
I gj A Yes.
O But between those t:wo possibilitics of picking 12 UP an error isn't it possibis to have rather largs mistakes 13 34 which nobody picks up? It's entirely possibic, in fact,
""
- D2
. 15 A Given that you've got someone checking the 16 calculations, you know,-- Anything is really possible.
t I don't know how highly probable that a large error 13 gg would no by without beinq found.
v g 0 Mow I direct your attention to Licensae's g
Resoonses to Colunbia Environmental C'ouncil Interrogatories dated October 16th, question and'nesponsa Mo. 2.
g -l
!!R. KAFOURY: Will someone provide 12 for tho g ,
witness?
pj (nocument handed to the panel) l I
' O :
, i e
4
-1 w w
- w w r-- -- v ir- = - -
- - . - .~ . . . . ,.
l
'l i
l l 2159 I l who 1 WI"tmSS ImRRDid: That was Response No. 2?
\
2 ftR. MPOITRY: Yes.
3' BY 119. MFOffRY: l 1
r* j !
4 'n '"he question, very briefly: l l
l 5 "What methods of supervision ' tore. I
- 1 1
s employed by those who have the duty to supervisa ,
, : I
~
7 the man who nade the errors?" !
1
. 8 And the answer: , l
_ .. . . _ t.
l 9
" Individual design engineers ucrh 10/ under the supervision of a group leador. The 11 design enginear for the Trojan Project control 12 huilding' shear walls was subject todiract lino daily supervision by his supervisor. In this z ') 13 w/
14 capacity the suparvisor provided cruidance and
. 15 specific instruction as necessary to the designer.
16 Ite did not, however, perform a detailed daily 37 check of tha work produced within his group.
Checking is part of a separate progran whose
- 18 gg implementation is the responsibility of the 20 supervisor. Checking is perforned by engincors 21 with experisnce at least equal'to that o2 the designar."
22 23 In th:t kind of an institutional frantwork would yu rdinarily e:cpect that the kind of alychr2ic trrar which 24
[3]
s / 25-contributed such a large portion to the shcrthil would hiva v
.-es.. -m
.w4.=es.- -.--
wee s u ** ..mo m-. .-
-e.-m
. - . - un . . . - ' ...-.. .:.--. iL :" ,- .l T i.' '~ ,X,'.~'~~~.-' ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' ' ':-'~~'~~~
i l
j .
2159
. wbo 1 been picked up?
2 A (Witness !! erring) The chances are good that it 3 would be plched up. Obviously in this case it escaped tha 4 procedure. ;
5 q Looking at that cot-up institutionally, 13 it i
'l e 6 not a fact that it's extrenaly difficult for anyone to knov i) i
- 7 how good a job the checkers are doing?
a A I don't see that you could draw any conclusions l
I 9 from what is stated there whether - about the controla jl
- l 10 that are put on. ;
$l 11 O But assuming no controls they didn't tall us 12 about, there is no institutional mathed of dete :-ining how well the people who ara supposed to check theac calculations
} 13 14 are doing their job; is there?
5.,200 A Well, again, they're supposed to he checked by 15 16 somebody that is at least as experienced as the person who ;
j7 originated than. And you would he relying upon his a::pertise 18 and also his professional integrity.
+
19 n And would you say that institutionally- Itow Y 20 would you compare that system to a cystem where ycu required-
. 21 independentderivationsandlaterco$parisonsofvary 22 imp rtant information?
A Checking can take several forms. Ona form is to 23 7 y
simply review the calculations that were donc to chech for numeri al a uracy and s f rth. Another nethod that you can 25
( . ..
l 2160 '
wb10 1 do a check is to do just what you said, choose another nethod
{-
\
I
,, 2 and'see if you get the same answer. It is really up to the l l
3 discretion of whoever is doing the checking as to wh2ther l
1 1 4 or not that is necessary.
5 If he sees what'c going on ha n:7 chcosa not to 6 do a. completely independent calculation, t
,' 2a 7
- 8 F-e* =t99*48W;mH .,.-- %,
9 10 11 l
12 :
13 14 -.
I t'
. 15 16 17 i 18
~
19
- 21 .
22 ,
23 24 t 25 V
t I
'W--**** . , . - . . . - , , , . . _ww. - .
- ~ -
- - - ~
._ ;_;7 2161
[ -2b ebl i )
1 Q Which way is safer?
2 A I don't think you could say either way is safer, i .
3 you know, that one way is safer than~.the other. I cannot 4 see, you know, one way being safer than another, really.
5 Q Isn't it safer to have duplication of the same 4
- 5 derivation of the figures that you're going to rely on as I
7 opposed to simply giving a stack of calculatiens to someona
. 8 and saying check on it?
5.220 9 Isn't it safer to say here's the rst data, you to come up to your own conclusions and then you bring them to 4 11 me and I'll look at what the other guy came up with and we'll 12 make a decision that way? Isn't it c lot better to do it 13 that way, a lot safer to do it that way?
v A I don't think you can say that as a generality.
14 15 Q Did the NRC Staff independently derive any of 15 the information that is being relied on in their ' testimony 1 17 today?
i 13 A Some information I independently derived.
13 Q What information did you independently derive?
20 A The first round testimony / the first 34 pages.
. 21 0 -That has been substantially superceded, he.s it not?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And did anyone in the NRC do any of the wcrk or
-y duplicate any of.the work that lad up to the 5Ta2.D):ME con- ;
) 25 clusion?
i i
~ .. A m .
> > - - ..w.,_ ,.____ . . ,
I I
~
2162
.p s ab2 1- A No, I did not see a need for duplication. And one
( )
2 step further, I mean the stick model does provide some of f
3 your -- quote - " duplication" -- quote -- because any .
4! differences between, say, you know, especiall'y th2 forces
. 3., and so forth we'd expect to have, you can sit bech and the f
6* differences are logically there.
O. And isn't that the final line of d=fonse, that O when you take a final figure, STARD'RE gives you an output .-- .-
9 and you take a look at it and you've got scma other analyses, ,
10 ;,. one of which was initially wrong but it gives you ccme 11 l information, another was a re-analysis which was of somo
' I i
12 value, you have TABS which is largely thrown cut, and frcm j
) 13 all these you kind of take a look at STARD'RE and you say 14 it looks about 'ight to me? Isn't that the last lina of 15 defense?
16 A Not true, because I don't think the initial 17 analysis was that wrong. There were anomalies in the response
, 18 spectra. However, if you look at the gross base ahears on 19 the structure, it "is only about a 5 or 6 percent difference. l
. . 1 20 You look at-- A 20 percent increase in torsion is not (
I
~
21 really that significant when you consider the differance l I
22 in the model, you know,,the tyio differant schniques, cnd i.'
l f
23 ,
you were to design within gode, you wou1C no.m. .r.lly 52 ,
24 covered for that 20 percent. ,
V' 25 Q But your original estimate of thc shortfall i
8 4
11 -
n . _. ,_ !
1 2163 p ob3 1 between what was designed and expected and what was built hx) 2' was 50 percent.
3 A on the order of 50' percent. ,
f~r.
4 0 Cn the order of 50 percent. i 5 A And you can put an error band on that of about
- 6 .plus or minus 25 percant. ! l 1
7 0 so it could be 25 percent er 75 percent?
. 8 A From what I have reviewed and seen now, based upon 9 the test data also, all things considered, it is probably l 10 below 50 percent.
iTnat precisely was the error that' led' It Q )
12 ; the original designers to calculate the strength of.the i
' 13 concrete at two and a half times the strength that they should l l
have allowed? I 14 15 A It was using 3.5 in combination multiplying by 1.4. .
I 16 That gives you I believe 4.9 and you divide that by 2 and 17 that gives you about 2-1/2.
, 18 Q Is it .your understanding that there is any con-19 fusion about the aimount of steel in the walls of the centrol
~
a building?
. 21 , A The wall you're referring to, I believe, there was i 22 no steel called for in the core, and they are ascuming there 23 1 is ncne there although, from what I hear, there are rumcrs j 24 running around that there may be soma steel that got put in 25 there. I don't know. !
v , ,
I i
. . . . . . _ . . . .. ... . _ .. I
. ~ . . ~ ..- _ -
- w
'. 1 2164 l-l l
1 A eb4 1 0 Are there any rumors floating around about walls i j 3
\
, 2 that are supposed to have steel that don't? l 3 A Not to my knowledge.
4 Q co you draw any conclusions chout quality control 5 from that?
6 A Froin what?
~
7 Q From the fact that they don't have a count of
. 8 steel bars that you feel comfortable with, a count of steel
~
9 bars that are in the building, or do you feal ontibely con-I i
10 fortable with the count of steel bars in the building? ;
11 A I feel ccmfortable that the steel that'c boing !
1 12 relied upon to be there is there.
But as to whether or not more steel was put in j 13 Q 14 somewhere that was not designed for, do you have an honest
. 15 uncertainty about whether or not that's true?
16 A Based upo'n the information, I don't-- It could be l
17 there and it might not be there. I I
i 18 Q Would you list for me, one at a time, which facts !
19 you're relying on'to compute the strength o'f the building
. r 20 which were not included in the original analysis, which were
- 21 not factor'de in as, elements, given weights and so on?
22 ,, A Now we're relying upon -- ,
23 0 E:ccuse me -- or where you have 24 made an increase as with the strength of various.. materials .
O' 25 and so on. 'could you list them one at a time, and then we
(
s d
am a aume v em ease 4 --
e.. -- .
- - -- --- - - - _ _ m _.7. ,,. , ,, ., y _
~~
-.L -- ~ . . . .:: . - :. :=::.:
1 2165 !
,p eb5 1 can discuss them one at a time?
2 A Well,- the difference is that you're using a dif-3 ferent set of criteria nou to evaluate the strength of the 4 ,
walls, based upon modified Schneidar criteria, so-called, !
i 5- and backed up by the Berkolay data and the PCA testa. ft G Q And what are all the various elements of that?
~
7 You're assuming a different strength, for instance, for
. 8 masonry, for ons, as a result of the Derholey tests. Right?
. -. - - __ ._ - . ~.-. - -
9 A Well, the analysis that's being dono now assumes 10 that the whole wall is masonry. They are not tC:ing inta i i 11 account that the concreto cora in the Trojan val..3 hr.s got i 12 a compressive strength of around G,000 poi vhareas the '
13 masonry tests were dons on materials which had compressive I
14 strength down in the range of 3,000 pai. I l
l 15 0 And it's being treated all as masonry? ;
16 A It's being treated all as masonry.
17 0 And that's a deliberate conservative f actor?-- -
, 18 A Yes.
19 0 . Nonethialess, that plays a part in your anal' sis ,
when you say that you think it's saf5.
20 '
Right?
- . 21 A To some degree, yes.
. I e' O And was dowel action given any initini weight?
- 7 A Yes.. .
t
, j
. 0 It was factored in initially for shst wall strengt?
O 25 A Initially --
\ i I
l
[
..n,- ,
' ~- ~
2166 Initially in the original analysis? l eb6.- 1 Q 2 A originally? 17 o .
3 Q And it was known at the tino the.t it had sone , .
j 4 .
strongth but it uns deliberately 1sft out as a cc:carvC.iva ' (
l l
3 element. Right? They didn't try to assign soca kind of l
. I t
veight to it? They instead said well, va'll put that one on 6'! the shelf for conservatism? Essentially is that correct?
7 ]
- 1
. O i- A I don't know if you can really rafhr to it 'as I 9 i,.' conservatism'that was originally there. The reason that I 10 wanted to look at the dowel action really is to m ne suro ;
11 that if there were some type of potential for a cusch to form ,l 1
12 in the construction joints or thereahcuts that thera was !
still adequate steel in there to be able to transfer tha
) 13 14 loads down into the shear walls.
. 15 Q And has the strength of the steal you're using 15 } been changed any from the original analysis tc the analysis 17 that you're relying on?
18 A For the dowel action there was never an original 19 analysis done, so'it is changed in that respact.
20 0 So that's a conservative elemant e.ich is cdf.ad in i
- 21. j now for your conclusion? !
4 i
22 , A- What do you mean by " conservative alement"i i 23 0 I mean an clement that was not -- that usa knc>n i 24 ' to hava soma strength criginally that was not faccorad in p,
-r originally, and which is new being relied uten to sema e:: tant !
25 C, 1 i
e i
i
'{ _ _]
-_________. - ,,-y. .,
[ _ _ . - _ _ . ~ ._. _. _ _ _ _.- --l 2167 eb7 by you in your conclusion that the building is safe.
(-') 1 s- 2 A Co rect, because the steel is discontinuous in 3 the vicinity of these construction joints so you want to make .
4, sure the discontinuitics in the steal wouldn't he.va a 5 significant effect.
- 6 O The as-built building is 13 porcent -- iJ th2t 7 correct? -- lighter than the originally designed building?
8 A The one used in the re-evaluation was 13 percent 9 and in the STARDYME model I beliAvY it is 8.2 percent' lighter, fc the control building portion.
11 Q What's the relative impact of tha lightness? Does 1
12 that make the building 13 percant or 8.2 percent less lihaly to -- less able to withstand earthquakes, or what do those
[
.)
, U3 14 figures mean in terms of our ultimate consideration?
. 15 A If you reduce the weight you're going' to reduce 16 the inertial -- the seismic loadings on the structure.
17 0 You also reduce the strength of the structure?
18 A Just reducing the weight would not imply strength 1
19 reduction. You're lowerin g the forces so if you want to look !
. s 20 at ib that way, it's a strength incre'ase.
. 21 0 Professors Holley and Brosler said accathing that 12 I didn't -- I perhaps didn't get down accurately, anf 2 l 13 1 certainly didn't understand as well cc I would like to. They j i
24 said that the three major undertainties ac they saw tham wera
[ [
\,
25 m deling, stiffness, and I believe they said time history. l i
,m
< 1 2
2168 l
eb 8 ' Did you happen to be present for that testimony?
. ,A. 1
, 2 A- I was present for portions of it, and as I recall, 3 at'that time he was. referring to uncertainties in the varia- ,
4 tion in ground acceleration versus tice; in other '. fords, i
1*
5 hcw the ground shakes.
i 6 0 What does codeling refer to in that conuidc. ration? I '
I 7 A The mathematical model that is uced to reprecent )
. 8 the real structure which -- tho stick model or tha finite '
g element model. -. e 10 0 So that has nothing to do with the uneartainty 11- as to reality, it's just uncertainty as to your ability to i
12 predict reality, --
13 A Correct.
14 0 -- to analyze reality.
15 And stiffness?
16 A That is-- Well, thers are just uncertainties in the stiffness property and the stiffness propertian are 17 18 , related to how much displacement you're going to get at a 19 given force'applie'd to it. In other words, the stiffer some-
' l thing is when you put a set force on it, the stiffer it gets, 20 [;
the' deflections go down, so there is uncertainty in the 21 t i
stiffness properties'of concrete and steel and so forth
. 22l
- more so concrete. l 23 ll I 2b yl ;
~ 25 t .
l l
w .y- - -
9 p... y. y_,-4 gr e- y,yp-,-< 9 7
_. , ._;-.. .. .m _ _ . , __ ; _ .; . . __; _ .;
1 2169 ,
2e WRB/mpbl i Q You said earlier regarding the sandwich walls ,
.t3 ;
bwp 2 - that the core could crack before the block, is that correct?
3 A The figures I was referring to in Appendices C ,
n :.
i- ai N. and D indicate that ycu will get a stiffnacc de-radation in f
J 5
the concreta core at'a lovar st ain than a cerrasycnding 1 i' t I d
4 Il stiffness degradation in the concrete bicck.
I
- c6 7- 0 Am I correct that Dr. Laursen said that the il
, 01 concrete core was our last line of defense; and if that's I, 9 true, do you disagree with him on that? -
l l
10 l A I don't disagree with him whelly. I think the 4
1!}o l whole wall is being treated adcquately. I'm not just rely-12 ' ing on the fact that the concrete cora is thsre, baccusa I e ll l O, is t the masonry has been shown to exhibit desirable charactaris- l
>t '
1 J
L' tics. ;
i Does the distinction you draw between the core '
15 o i gd; and the blocks have implications for spalling?
\\
j ;7 .i A Not at the displacement levols tha+. we're talk- ;
- }
18 ing. And I concur with everybody else who i Tat cracks !
i y;. are not going to be that big. You know,t- i. king about f 23 g fine cracking. ,
- i i}
, 3; ij Q Is the best figura you have for - an the crack- }'
S ,
i,llingwillstart.89g? Is that the figure you accept? i 33 i A In that vicinity, yes.
y[ CHAIRMAN MILLER: What was that digure again?
. . ;!.{l 11R. KAFOURY: .89g - .389g, e::cuse n2.
i l
{ e b:! ._ _ _ - - .
1 i
2170 I 1
-' C' cont'd CHAIRMAN MILLER: You ought to have somcbcdy icokin.9 I gbl.
lusmpbl over your shoulder.
e l- - i (Laughter.)
!L% ;'GuoU2Y: I can cr.k2 2.11 '.Q.2 inict:. hat; in the
., i.l
.- * [.; world, Mr. Chairman, and they're harmless.
! C11 AIR 11AN MILLER: You're entitled. ,
I d
I WITNESS HERRING: It's 0.087.
, BY MR. KAFOURY: '
Q We're onl/ about cue-third of the wcy to the N
SSE there. What's the stata of tilo art in predicting crac::ing ,
Il as you move from that level all the way cp to the SSE level?
i
[ A (Witness Ucrring) I think us hav1 a good handle 13 on it.
g, v 8 4 Q Does your handle becoms less secure the higher 15 i up, in terms of g-forces, that you go?
16 icing is going to be a function of g-lavel 17 onca y isD,d the first cracking stage.
18 L Is it going to be a linear function of g-level?
19 I A I don't think it would be linear,no. I rcally I
~! 20 don't have a handle for -- .
21
, 0 Is that the curve for it'up there.(indicating 22 the blackboard)?
g s i 22 MR. IGJOURY: For the record, I u rafarri;g 10 l
24 the curve drawn by Professor Brcsler.
p 25I WITNESS HERRING: The upper right-hand corner, C
g s,--, - --* ~
.,,. -~
-w, y- --- . ,,
. . - . - . .. , .. ;.-: . -.w. . a= = u.= u : -.: -
t i
2171 l
1
[,i agb2 you can call it the parabolic-type shape, yes. ,
- , 2 '
BY MR. KAFOURY:
, 3
', Q Is that the curvo -- Is that the shape of the j 4,
1 curys?
5
. A (Nitness Harring) That uculd be a locd daflection
- G l i
curve and you could infer cracking from that, yac.
. Q And it would, in other words, be a curva which j
' 8e would initially be nearly vertical and would turn rather j R '! sharply to the right and achiave something of a platanu as i
10 you went along tho horis: ental anis, rii_7ht?.
11 A Yes, you could look at it than way.
12 i' Wera you here' during the discussion o; centainment Q !
,) I3 vessel cracks the other day?
v 14 A Yes.
15 Do you know anything that we don't know?
Q 16 Objection, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GRAY:
17 CllAIRMAN MILLER: Sustained.
18 BY MR. KAFOURY:
I8 Q Have any of you gentlemen ever recaived rapre-20 santations from any employees at PGE regarding th pot.r.tici
- 21 Aiability of Dechtel Corporation for the prezant prchi.rs?
o U' MR. BA' IRS : I'll object as being irra". ave.nt.
I 23i CHICERMMI MILLER: Sucts.in:d.
I M MR. KAFOURY: It would be a cartv ainission, Mr. l f
(O
,v j
25 Chairman, if I might, on a subject relevant to the ralative
,~- -.n n ~ , - - . . .n n. - . ~ . ,
. . . . , . . . .. - - - - . . ~ . . - - . ._ . -
1 1
-t 2172 1
agb3 interest that some of the witnasses have had.
(Cs %' 2 i CHAIPJ4AN MILLER: Wall you were permitted to put in the contract itself, which I think you were quoted as saying 4 l i establishas samathing c other, so thcrnfor I thich yce'72 g
a
- ~ k- had the full benefit of whatovar inf arenc:s nny -!1cv.
MR. KA?OURY: I'm just wondering if they'ra telling 7
.the truth about this all.
8
+ MR. BANKS: h haven't sc.id anything. You were O
the one who said it.
10 ' i DY MR KAFCURY: f U Q The 0.087g, as the figuro when cr ching starth 12 were you surprised at how low a figura that was, or W.s that 13
\
)'
~'
about what you expected?
14 A (Witness Harring) It really didn't surprise me. .
i Ib As I state there, the forces and base shears going up in IN the control building --
17 ' Q I didn't hear you.
I8 A I previously estimated that it was 'at about 0.11g's
- 9 the base shaar, the one going up 20 percent in the central :
20 building implied that cracking had occupred at a 12.or i 21 g-level than previously.
c
}
~.
"- Q I have, in my notes, a quote frca Prefessor j i
T3 Holley or Bresler which I'd liha to check .rith ; ..c !
24 Do ycu racall one of thsm saying that tal cracking j
O' '
25 t'
(s effect on stiffness may be great or small? Do you recall k
i 1
re
~ - - .- . . . . . _ . . . ... _
i 2173 1
I 1
(O; u
l' ab4 2
them saying that?
I A I recall them speaking about cracking affecting stiffness, yes,. And that's indicated by the figuras presented'
~
I in Appendices C and D of tha test anta.
5 Q What are the implicationc for th.t? That is, g
6e 1 the cracking effect en stiffness may be grert or smc11.
tihat 7
are the implications of that for the degree to which you are
' able to predict the dissipation of energy during an earthquake?
- . . . .. ~ ~ . - . . . ._
9 A There are techniques that have been developed 10 which snable you to estimate th mount of reduction in load 11 and so forth that you would get from non-linen: behavior.
1 Q What, then, does it mean to say thtt tha craching j l
- ) I3 effect on stiffness may be great or small if the formulas l V r 14 I have all the answers on that?
15 A I don't see the significanca you're attaching to 16 the statement that cracking affects on stiffnesc could be
. 17 l great or small. Would you please clarify that?
18 g g,11 _
IG I MR.GPkY: If I could suggest, if you could ;
E possibly direct this to a part of the,transcrip',c that mignt j
- 21 . be helpful. I i
E ! MR. IGFOURY: I don't have my notes annotated ,
U to the transcript. !
g N BY MR. IGFOURY:
25 Q Is it possible that -- has your understanding of m i.
4 l
l.
...e ,w. .e- . , , _,
- = . . . . .- : .
. a 2174 l 1
.4 T agb5 this discussion about the cracking effect on stiffncsc may , ,
a 2 .
l I' be great or small, did that mean that the same degree of S'
cracking at the sama g-level could have an effect on stiffness 4
f that was either great or small, wr.3 Elst re.tr ud.tr m.ndinE?
3 !
A (Witness 1 ferring) My undarste.nding was that 6
they were just speaking thr.t, as you usnt up in applying load M. ,
to a wall, that you are going to be changing in stiffacss as i
- I
, a .
a function of that load. J 9
Q Okay.
10 '
The plant superintendent, Mr. ?7ithars, said )
1 11 4
yesterday that if it were impossible due to equipt.:nt failura l
. I j9" I l to snut the plant doun by using the equipment in the control I f-t /
13 building, t% cutomatic squipment, that the plant could be l i
14 brought to a shutdown from cutside -me plant by manual I 1
15 operation of the auxiliary pumps in the turbine building.
16 j When questioned about whether or not that could ,
1 1I be done without the batteries and soms 'of the othar quipment I 18 from the control building control rocm, he said that at that l D point, the Staff "could develop schemes" to shut tha plant 20 .,
, down. *
'l Do you have confidenca that, in the.t situr. tion, no the people en the scens could develop schemes to su==csofu117 ,
' )'
U ,
bring the plant to shutdown? l M A (Witness Knight) I'll answer the question. l j
.c D-g 25 U m net quits sure what you meca by shu down, i l 1
1 t . .. -. - . !
v -v - - - -
I 2175 I
pIs g
1 ab6 what degree of' shutdown are you spea'<ing of?
2 Q Successful cold shutdown, ultLw.tely.
3 A Well the first thing that one would han to do ,,
4 i i
would be.to. provide water to n a atscn 9.:nor230r7 J.nd tanh .
5 i could be dcue by manual operation of tha anniliar/ fac&iater 6
pump, steam-driven pump.
7 Once you havo the plant in the condition that !
8 e
you're blowing down steam .and just' cupplying *.ie.tcr_j;o that, i'.
91 ;
1 you have sufficient ties to go about and do oY:c:: T.:.nga ct i 10 a more leisurely rate.
11 2 And while those acticns certainly .;ouldn i 12 be easy to perform, you would have time, I bolivia, to bring 13 Q) additional people in to aid you in doing that. It would not i
be a very easy task, though. -
Q Are you gentismen comforhabic with a requirement 16 that you be notified in writing uithin 10 days after en 17' OBE or SSE and that no hard regulations exist for any prior 1
' 13 i notification to the 11RC?
10 ' Does that tend to give you a probica, do you
, i
- s .
20 j' perceive prob 1cma with that, or can ypu liv: vith th:.t
. o "g
comfor'.-ably?
i
~i
L MR. BISXS: I'll cbject to 2.a 20.m c.? the t
23 ' *1 :"iC:na; j questi:n as net in confomance with 2: Y E.an70. ,
i r .
Ml is that the technical soscificaticns requira no"4 ~- "' * "
M 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. And I think che witnsaces' tastim:ny ras thnt it i
b
2176
, i agb7 _j would probably be given witnin an hour or two.
2 J' CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, I believs that is the j 3 i state of the evidence.
/-
4I .
MR. 72J0172Y: Can I inquire rh"' " ^" = raccrd y-
- it'says that they're required to give notics within 7.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />?
I can't giva you the citation to it 6l MR. B?21XS:
but I haard that testimony frem Mr. Withers yacherday; 8
particularly in answer to some of the questions from the
- ~_. ._ _ _ .. _,,_
9: ~ l Board.
CHAIR:WT MILLER: Yes. It's ny recellaction l 10l 11 I i:. that that is corrset, that @cre was such tastirray. _
i l
- t. ,
- l
}9" '
DR. MC COLLOM: Yes. [
13 r- ) MR. BANKS: We may be able to get you an answer for tha record in a minute. l l
- 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think that was a different .
(
16 .section that you were referring to, the more leisurely 10-17 day or whatever. I think when he testified to that, at 18 that point, ha did then give the citation.
I9 MR. BA(KS: I think Mr. Withers said a written Df; report in 10 days was required for cny carthquake that -
EIl registered, which would be over 0.01. You an': d about t
an ,
I-UI t OBE, {
I3) MR. KA70URY: That's correct. Do you ha.v. a
.,' M cLtation?
O) 25 The discuscion *.:egins on Pe.ga 1373.
MR. JOHNSON:
( [
t i
i a
4 M -
R4 Mahp.*M. - .w pmm .g .
- . , - - - r.-y , - , , - -
- a. w =.. .a :.-.
._ n . . . :~
.;. - :.- }
i 1
l l
2177 l l
l 1
[% agb8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: There were tuo different places
_' 2 ,
in the technical specifications, I thinh, that wore referred l 3 l to by Mr. Withers -- by the witness who was testifying.
~ q e i I'.R. S M U'S If you lcoh ct Pc.ga: l '. 7.9 . st r* 4' 4{
3:
! at the bottom, and go over to the top of 1 S '!4 . ,
, 6 CHAIRMAH MILLER: Uc11, could you giva us tha ; , '
4 ,i ?
substance of what the witness said at thosa pagss?
' ai i MR. DAliKS: !!e says -- this is part of th-2 answer:
._.1
- 9) .-
"In Section 6.9 of the tacir.ical 10-li specifications where it deals with reporting requiremento, there is one item i.tuder tha l i
12 $'
immedd ate or within 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> reporting . - i
__ l
/ 13 requirement which talks about natural pheno-t /
s A v
N mena, acts of nature, which would result in the 1
15 plant being shut down as being immediately IO ' reportable.
I# '
"So we vould consider the occarren=n 13 of a seismic event which resulted in our shutting i
, j Dl the plant down as fa). ling within the definia s
20 tion covered in that section of the technical i, .
. 21 specifications and would consider it to be .n 22 innediately reportable item,"
23lIv CHAIRM.Vi MILLER: Yoc. I do reen11 that. I
'4 -
c BMR. KAFOURY: Does the Licensee have S3ction ;
'3.200 :
25 5.9 of the technical specifications? !
i
= ;_ . _ ~ a m._ : -
- . ._:_ : ._; ; :_ u. .- ;. .. __
1
. 2178' ;
[D agb9 (Document handed to Mr. Nafoury.)
(~ 2 MR. 13ANKS : The answer is yes and it's being
'i presented t.o you now.
c.
! 's i C12_I?! E I MITJu R: Ma' 7.1 ts.'.e. Our 1 .2 re nt :
Si
. ! and restute at 1:30.
(Whercupan, at 12:15 p.m. , the hearing i.n c.no above-entitled catter was recassed, to reconvan 3i 1 ,
at 1:30 p.m. , this sar.e day.)
-- .i ... --
9i and2C .
10 .I ,
I ?
' i 11l ;
i ,
i
. ,. 1 12 ; .
i ,l 13 !,,
) ;
14 .:
i
. 15 16 17 i
ISl 19 20 l
21' ! I 1
22 23 t'
l
. 1, 25 )
1
- 7-
. 1 217BNl 1
I p yDELON/ AFTNRNOOH GESSION t
l
( '.j7 mpbl ,' (1:30 p.m.)
i 3 CHAIIU1AN MILLER: We will recume the hearing.
4I Whereupen. ,I l
5I KEIn1ETil S. HERRING !
i ;
- 6 CHARLES M. TRAKELL, III, j 7 and .I
. 8 JA!ES E. DTIGIIT D resumed the stand an witnesses on behalf of the Esgulate f 10 Comraission Staff, and. having been praviously du y su::rn, .
I.
11 I
ware examined and testified further as fo11cwc: }
12 CHAIR 2WT MILLER: Mr. !(afoury, I holiava you I 13 were questioning.
J 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continusd) , { l i
15 BY MR. KAFOURY:
16 Q Is it a fact that during the design of nuclear i t 1 17 plants perfect safecy is not achievablo, of course, icn't I l I i
. 18 that right?
t 1 19 A (Witiless Herring) Right. I I .
~
20l Q And that at a cortain point marginal considera- 4 I
- .I '
. 21 li tic.s of safety confront cost quesbiens and N- +he inter-- l .
I 22 ! play of these factors tends to play a role in decivicns that 23 , are made by utilities, for instancs, in thair yrepcanis?
24 A Cost-benefit analyses are.
I
~ l
\# i Q And is it not also tru.S. that MRC ragulatienc can 23 h I
- 9"'*D *' hts W ' "NJ # % m,,
2179 i
l f ~:g mpb2 1 be designed ar.d interpreted so as to provide to scme extent I
( W) 3 incentives or disincentives for safety considerations?
1 3 A Could you rephrase that? l em \
4 0 The Nuclear Regulatory Commisnien regulationc l l
5 can be desigaed -- to come extent are de. signed and intarpreted
. 6 in such a way that they can either provide an incentive for 7 utilities to give more weight to safety considerations, or if
, e they are designed and interpreted the other way, they could 9 have an opposito effect.
10 That's true, isn't it?
11 ' A Mo. The regulations are designed and n de up 12 for safety, and a safety cost really dcasn't enter into formu-.
j} lating reintions.
V} 13 14 0 Well, they're not , aimed at perfect safety?
l 15 A They're atmed at as perfect a safoty as you can 16 . achieve.
17 Q Well, if they were aimed at as perfect a safety 18 as could be achieved, then the requirements, for instanco, 1g for the control bdilding would not be .25, but would be geared.
20 - to the worst . earthquake the world has' ever known, isn't that :
. 21 true?
22 A Mo. The worst earthquake potential et that site.'
23 h It would be ridiculous to look at the worldwide record.
74 0 Dut again, you said in response to an earlier
./
' question that there are limitations in the ability to analyze !
[ j5
's i 4
a.MM see e
- - =
=- _. . =. ; = =.: 2.= :; --- =: -: .--... .~
l t
.2180 p' mpb3 7 and predict what kinds of earthquakes -- the magnitude of V) 7-earthquakes at any given site, and so there was a certain 3 safety margin that is built in partly to account for that ,
. - I 4l uncertainty. That's true, isn't it?
, 5l A Yes, conservatisms are input into the design of i
61 the structure.
.. l 7l Q And is it your understanding that in this case l
- l l l
- . 8 PGE had a certain amount of discretion in suggesting the level' l
9 of OBE that they would like in the FSAR7
- 10. ; A Yes. l 1 -
11 0 .And is it also your understanding that economic ,
?
12 - concidorations played a role in that it was detarmined by PGE
'l ll '
13 management that since an OBE earthquake would require a shut-14 down and since a shutdown would cost money, that therefore I 15 they would prefer to have a higher OBE sat so that they would i
16 not have to pay the financial cost of a shutdown at a low {
17 level earthquake?
, 18 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think this i
witness's understanding is relevant.
19 The fact that'c before 20 us already -- i.
l
. 21 MR. KAFOURY: Well, I'm just setting it up fer !
22 i another question.
23 CHAIPEAM MILLER: If he doesn't hr.ve an under- !
, p' standing he can indicate it. On the other hand, if he dcas j
} I
- /
25 have some information based upon his e::perience, he may !
U !
i
-w--r %
-e -= r n -
i .2181 mpb4 1 testify.
- t b4) (
2 IfIT!!ESS IIERRING: My information is what I E 3 heard in testimony from Portland General Electric.
4 1
4 EY MR. KAFOURY:
I 5I Q 7.nd that's what you heard, isn;t it?
6 A (Witness Herring) Yes.
- 7. CHAIRMAN tiILLER
- In that event I think there
, 8 would be nothing further, because it is not bhsed on his cwn
_ . . _ _ _ t_ .
D knowledge or experience.
10 DY !m. 7GSOURY:
l 11 Q Taking that as a party admiscion -9 12- CiU\IRIGN MILLER: An admission of what?
[ 13 MR. KAFOURY: An admission that PGE set the V 14. rate of ODE so that they wouldn't have to shut down and pay P
15 the financial costs at a low level, they wanted a high level 16 OBE.
17 CHAIR!!AN MILLER: Why is that an admission, is 18 my question.
19 MR. KAFOURY: It's an admission of a fact which 20 is relevant to other facts. i 1 .
i
. 21. CHAIR!iAN MILLER: Well, i# 4 ^- 'fould be an asnis-22 sion, it's not an admission against intarest, ic it? l i
23 13. I'J20URY: What I'm gatting at ic this, Mr. !
i 24 Chairman: l i
The question is, as I see it, since PGE dacided !
}- 25 V
I,
2182 l I
Q mpb5 1 to'save itself noney by having a high rate of OBE and they 2 therefore cut it a little thin at that point, and then a 3 problem developed so that they couldn't meet the OBE, the 4
high OBE that they'd insisted upon, are theie pt:blic policy 5 l considerations or MRC policy considerctions that would enveigh 6 against them giving then a waiver of that requirensnt that they uillingly incisted on which did cut into safety margina 4
7
- 8 and which was then willingly for their own financial benefit.
- =__ m.. _ _ _ _ . .._,_
That's what I'm trying to get at. '
9 to CHAIRMAli MILLER: Don'tyoucentendonbOhalfoff
}
t1 your client that tho CDE should bo set higher rather than f 12 lower for safety reasons?
I o) 13 14 11R. KAFOURY: tio, I think the OBE cheuld be set lower for safety reasons, so that uith the lower lovel earth- l 15 quake they would stop and inspect,rather than setting a high 16 OBE level so that they would not have to shut denn and inspectg I
CHAIRMAN !ELLER: Well, then the higher OBE }
17 I f
d esn't mean their greater safety under your interpretation. :
- 18* t i
- 9 MR. -KAFOURY
- I think that's true.
CHAIRMAM MILLER: Then what are the safety con-20
- siderations to OBE at either higher or lower icvels?
21
? MR. KAFOURY: I think that the safety considera-
[j tion of an CBE was a::plained by Mr. Herring earlier this i
2g l morning, and that the charts which - by which eno calculatse O)
V . 25 I successive denigration of the earthquake capaci'cy of the t
P
'6* t . > . . . , , , , _ _ - .
'M4*N*
- EIEB e @#**ML1 , , ,
^~ -
2183 ~!
l
[ '\ mpb6 1 plant are not well designed to deal with the problem of
- U 2
recurrent earthquakes, several small earthquakes. And that 3 therefore the possibility of small earthquakes folloued by 4I a largar earthquake is a safety cenciC.cration to which the 5 OBE addresses itself.
6 And to that extent the can is a cafety considera-
, 7 tion.
8 But our position --
9 CIIAIIUiAN MILLER: Well, then, you don't contend 10 that there should be a higher OBE in order to have a safety 11 factor, is that correct?
I 12 I understood you to be taking the counter-pocition
(""%b .
i 13 and that's why I'm asking this.
14 MR. KAFOURY: Well, I uould like to see coming 15 out of this hearing -- if interim operation were eventually 16 to be allowed I would prefer to see a louer ODE co that 17 various inspec'tions would occur with the lesser carthquakes.
- - 18 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Well, wouldn't you want the --
19 MR. NAFOURY: That is not to be --
20 CILUR!!AN MILLER: Pardon me.
~
21 I have a continuing question that I'm net 22 explaining to you very well.
t 23 Isn't it the position of yourself and ycur client i 24 that you want these modifications to be made co that there
/ 25 will be a higher OBE level?
s' m ,
i I
I l '
i 1,
2184 l 1
pg mpb7 1 !!R. KAFOURY: Well, there are two considerations 2 here. One is the eventual OBE level. And it has been 3 suggested by the Staff that ultimately the Licanceo should C 4 be required to bring the earthquake strendth of the comple::
i
~
5 of buildings up to .15. j j
6 CIIAIRMAM tiILLER: Do you agreo with that?
7 MR. IGFOURY: I think that would ha a goed thing, l
. S yes.
- ,._ , . _ . . - ... _rI ..
Di CIIAIRMAN MILLER: So that mannc e therafore that to your position is that you want a certain amount of eccasiens 11 made in order to bring the strength, as you perceive it, of i. l i
12 the building to resist lower level earthquakes up to .15. ;
[ 13 Well, is that or isn't that your position?
V', i 14 MR. IUGOURY: Oh, I would like to see the plant t 15 strengthened.
16 CIIAIRMAN liILLER: To bring it up to .15 ODE?
17 !!R. KAFOURY: Well, at least.
, 10 CIIAIR!iAN 11 ILLER: Well, all right, uhatever. !
19 MR. RAFOURY: The fact that I would like to ses ,
s 20 the plant strengthened is not the sade as saying that I vculd *
\
21 be happier if the original OBE level had been cet lower, and 22 it's not .to say that I don't think there is a cafety consider-23 ,
ation in the CBE.
2/; CIIAIRIIAN MILLER: Well, if there: S a safety D 1 consideration in it, and that safety consideration obtains by 1
-25 V
4 1
-r- '
-+ --- , , , - - _
' ' ' -- ~
_ - . . . - . . . . _ . _ - . _ . . . . _ . :' _ . .m--CL-'-- .. Z ~~ .T.--~' --~-E. -.Z--
1 2165 l I
mpb8 1 requiring the construction of it to a higher icvel, then that
.g M4 2 is a safety consideration, isn't it? i 3 , MR. KAFOURY: Would you run that by me again, 6 fir. Chairman?
, 5:) CHAIRMAN MILLER: If there is a anfety considera-l* 6- i tion in the ODE, both design, and so forth, and if that con-7 sideration from what you perceive to be the safety. point would
, 8 indicats a higher level of design and construction of the OBE
- . . . ~ ~ .. _.,,. . - _
9 level, then that is the level of safety consideration that to you are contending for, isn't it, whether it be .15 cr 11 higher or lower, or whatever.
e 12 i MR. KAFOURY: Uall, lot na try and ancuor it !
this way .
) 13 14 There are two considerations that go in opposite 15 directions.
16 CHAIRMAN liILLER: Yes.
,f MR. KAFOURY: Humber one is is there a safety
, ,- 18 consideration involved in the question of at what point to
{ 19 shut down and inspect.
20 , CHAIRMAN !! ILLER: Yes.
1
- 21 ' MR. KAFOURY: And I think the answer is yes, 22 that there is a safety consideration thara.
23 ' CHAIR!iAN liILLER: So frem that point of viw y then you are contanding for a lower level OBE so ti.sy'13 have 25 to shut it down at'an earlier stage and inspect. Is tilat what
=
L: , ; .m' . ^.- . ..w... '-~ -->.-n.s :-.m. '44 x a -.. " *.d-- , ..'--' uL 'd ~
218G i
, pg mpb9 you're contending for?
i-( 2
%,$ MR. KAEOURY: That is true.
3' .cIAIR MAN MILLER: How conversely, you're also .
contending for a higher OBE, though, because ycu unnt the 4l U
construction and the nodificatione to achieve tint higher
, 6 OBE level, isn't that trua?
7 MR. xArocRY: Well --
. 3 CIAIlt4AH MILLER: Well, first, is it trus, then, u w.+.
9 that - I think it is from the position you'va taken, Mr.
10 . Kafourf.
11 I liR. KA70URY: Ultimately I would like to see I
i i 12 l the plant restored to the design ODE leval, that's truc. And '
O 13 I don't think that's inconsistent with saying that I would U) 14. also like to see a requirement of shutdcNn end inspect.
15 , CIAIRMAN MILLER: Well, doesn't it cost mors 16 money to construct it -- design and construct it to the 17 .15 ODE level than something lower? That's your theorf also, 18 isn't it?
19 MR. K5FOURY: Design and construction, yes.
~ ,
l 00 CIAIRis MILLER: All right.
, at So, then, when the choice is made to design and 1
22i construct to the .15, that choice, while it affected economics, t
i
- 23. : also, in your theory, affected safety, and both were incrraased,;
i e
'g4 ; isn't that true?
l t t 25 MR. KAFOURY: Well, actually -- I'll hack off I
\
t
~ ~
. , . _ , __ . _ _ . - . n.
= m
2187 mpbl0- I that for a minute because we have --
- 2 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: . Okay.
3 MR.-KAFOURY: Tha testimony, as I understand it, ,
,. 4 is that with the damping fa= tors and these various fudge .
t 5 facters added in --
- .6 CHAIR 2mN ICLLER: Well, thosa don' t cone in
-s
! 7 in the CBE, . thcugh, I don't believe, do they?
D 4 0 MR. KAFOURY: But the ODE and tho SSE ara l j
9 functionally largely the same for the Trojan Plant, as it to happens, so that'I'm not sure.
I 11 In backing off my earlier ancuer, I'm not sure i
12 that in fact PGE was saving money on construction by going to 13 the higher OBE becaw:e it may well be the case that they had 14 to build the same building, theoretically, in order to accomo-l 15 date the ODE. 1 16 CI! AIRMAN MILLER: I see.
17 Your position, then, is, if I understand you, !
18 that it did not cost more to construct - to design and gg; construct to the .15 than to a lower level, such an . 11.
~~
20 ' _Is that what you,'re telling me? .
, =
- 21 j. MR. KAFOURY: No.
What I'm talling you is that since they had to 22l meet the SSE -- !,
23 t i i
g CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes.
i
-)
MR. KAFOUR7: -And since the OBE and the SSE
' l< l l t I i i . . - .._ _ _
- ---- - - ~ . . m, . . _ , _
= = . ~ = - :. :.._..~__. .z;;= ;-.; - 3 __.; ;_
2188 ! , < ,
mpb11 1 with the_different factors taken into censideration as it i
(
2 happens in this plant are very similar,' that it may wall be 3 that they could not have saved any money by -- directly on C ,
4 construction by tinkering with the OBE becauce they had to s
5 make the SSE requirament. l; f
- 6 CHIJRMAli IIILLE2: I see your point. And the .
?
m.
7( evidence no doubt will come to bear. j
. E,1 BJt I wanted to point out a certain inconsistency! '
i s<
as I saw it because I felt that this would beth he helping _
' ~
10I the Board in understanding your position and na undarstending I .
i It your position. !
l 1 I havo just one other co: ment on this sar.e line 1
12 ; '
.l and'for tho.same purpose:
) 13
- 14. If the very first OBE shutdown, at whatever !i 15 level, whether it be .0, .11, . 15, the very first one, if 16 the plant is at a safe and proper SSE level, it's not a
\
l 17 safety factor, is it? The very first one, because all that ,!
gg is is an inspection; and the supposed earthquake event, the g pre-earthquake, then, the very first one is not a safety 1
Y '
factor, is it?
20 '
2; MR. KAFOURY: Well, we' b dealing with areas of 22_ uncertainty. We're dealing with areas of uncertainty as to -- i g3 CHAIRIWT MILLER: I'm trying to got the cafoty connection in so that I can understand your position, 24 MR. KAFOURY: Well, the safety connection. as !
Q 25
. .a . 1 .. . . . . .
_._--___._._-_ . . _ . . ,y -_..ar.-
~1 i
2139 ]
l l
I f inpb12 1 understand it, is that the -- as Mr. Herring ssid, the analyti-( 1 m 2 cal tools which we're using are not well equipped to deal with f 3 the question'of successive structural denigration by successive <
1 4 earthquakes.
, 5 .. CHAIRMAU MILLER: But you don't hava danigration 6 the first time, is my point. That's the subscquent question, 7 isn't it, because as you take a look at it and see, and so l l
- 6 forth, before it happens you don't have a denigration issue,
- _ _ _ _.m__,
9 do you?
10 MR. KAFOtTF1: Well, theoretically you don't have 11 any denigration at the ODE lovel; but thoro's encugh uncertaint<.
- l 12 in that that you want to stop and inspect and see whether j that's true. That's the purpose of the inspection.
( , 13 14 CHAIRMAM MILLER: But you inspect after the !
15 '. first earthquake, not before.
16 MR. KAPOUW1 Correr%
17 CHAIPJ4AN MILLER: So before there's any earth- f
- 18 quake there there is no safety factor in ODE as cuch, is there?
l .tg .[ - Af terwards, yes, y'ou stop and look at it; but no.t before it f
20 happens . .,
e
., {
, i The ODE -- in other words, what I'm suggesting to
- i i* you is an inspection factor which occurs ::fter the ovent I
i g3 and not before, and I'm trying tc get the ralr.:ionship ar i 24 yr.u'are contending of the OBE and safety befora de first
., l' C '
event which would result in a shutdown and a ha::d look. You '
\ 25 1 ,
i . .
ma ee
- .-e.4%%=5 .,.% %.
- - ,.,a, . .. . . _ , . - n& &..~ _~ ,
1 I i 2190 ' l l
l
( mpbl3 1 take the hard look afterwards, not before. l
'y- -4 2
1 And assuming - you always have to assume that 3 the SSE is safe, proper, and so forth, but if you ence assume 1
'4 that, then befora you havo the first carthqunkt thsrs is no !
I i l
- 5 safety factor whatever; now thero's j c.at the C33, ica't that !
6 true?
- l
=
7 MR. KP20URY: If one assumes that -- if ons tak3s 4
l 4 8. all your givens, the answer would be trua.
. - -- ~ . , .
- 9. And in the --
. 10 '
CHAIRMM MILLER: And you aro challenging r 11 probably the SSR and other matters, I take it?
t IE MR. KAFOURY: We have triad throughout the e .
- / 13 testimony to, in our own fumbling way --
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Wall, ycu've done it very well.'
15 MR. KAFOURY: - examina the underpinnings and 16 the assumptions on which the SSE is based.
~~~
1-f' CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. You certainly have, and ;
i the Bo'ard is very interested. I 18 19 Now I didn't go into this just to harass you; j 20 but I am trying at t.his stage almost to got your positiens ;
21 and the relationships of them. I think now that you have {
s'crgive tho n' identified them it helps ma. And so if you'". _
3 interruption, it was not for the pu pose of engaging in a y debate with you, but simply to clarify the positions and th2 03 results that flow from this so that I can bettar follow this t
_. .; _ . _ _ . J ._
. =_;. , _
2191-i.
l- s mpbl4 1 and.other testimony.
-t 1
(
H. 2 Now what was the question that got us started
- 3 off on all this? '
4 MR. KAFCURY: Well, the point has been --
5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: X see. t I
- 6 17 ell, then, you nay proceed.
s 7 (Pause.)
> ~
. 7.250 8. DY MR. KAFOURY:
. . ~. .- . ~ . . -
9- 0 In your second testimony, Mr. Herring on page 3, 10 toward the bottom -- strike that.
11 .
Turn to page 10, toward the botten. Seven lines ,
i 12 from the bottom it reads:
) f3 "For the most realistic case mantioned g <
14 above, the lowest ratio of capacity to load for .,
15 the most critical north-south wall betwaan 16 Elevations 45 and 77 was determined to be gy . .1.153 and was associated with the west wall j
, 18 of the Control Building between Elevations 45 i 19 and 61." -
20 Now that figure would gi've us, by layman !
- 21 computation, a 15 percent margin of error in the st- angth 22 of the wall of the load.
I g are you convinced that even with a trail this y size that that is no problem at all because there will be :
25 a complete sharing of forces amongst all the walls?
,..,u "\ ,. -__,
2192 p mpbl5 I A (Witness Herri!.tg.) Yes. In fact they performed 2 an analysis which limited the capacity of that particular
,7 ,
3 vall and it showed a good ability to redistribute the forces t
4 throughout the structure.
5 G 'Do you think, than, that the strength of any a 6 given ' tall is utterly irrelevant and that the only figures i .
7 that are of significanco are the total figures, adding up of
. O the total forces and the total resistences, total strengths, g l, - _ - .
7 and is that the only figure that means anything. .
10 '. A No.
11 Q Well, what --
12 A The individual capacities and hou vall the londs ,
t
[/
\
- 13. are going to redistribute throughout the structure. It's
- 14. !.11 related. And the double capacity.
15 ,
O And what are your conclusions about the ability 16 of the building to redistributa loads? How perfectly does 17 ! it do it?
)
1g A It shows a good potential for redistribution of tri load. !
+
4 !
What factors tend to limit the ability of the tol 0 i
. 21, i ' walls to redistribute loads? And why isn't it perfect? ! '
22 ' A What do you mean by "parfect"? ~isdistribution?
23 l -Q Yes, y ,' Well, I asked whether the individual walls were 25 Only significant in the contribution they mcde to tha total y 3, o
. .i
-e**a=* -g,me.ip., ,.w%,% --w,. .__%.- .
^-- pe - - - - .--w e
a: .=; -
i e J.v .1 pg v' mpbl6 1 ricture, the total shear forces and total strengths, and you i
N 1 said that that was not true, that the individual walls 3 played soma role. And from that I gathered that the ability .
_c, 4; of the building to redistribute forces vac not perfect. Is 1
5 that correct? f A i' don't think it wculd bc perfect, ycu knew, in 6l 1 s l 7 that sense. But you don't require perfection. It just shows I e
, 0 a good ability to redistribute load.
~~
Q What is a " good ability to redistribiise-~ loads"? ~
9}
A That if you limit the capacity of one wall, 10 11 the other walls show that they pick it up in a fashion such 12 that you're not overstressing ancther wall. Various walls D 13 are picking up their fair share of the load.
14 CHAIRMAN ICLLER: I think we're having a little 15 trouble hearing you. If you would keep your veica up a little 16 bit and get a little closer to the mike it uculd h21p.
17 Thank you.
- g BY 101. KAFOURY
19 Q And my question is:
What are the factors which limit the ability to 20
- 21 redistribute the forces 7 g A (Witness Harring) "'he factors uculd be rhen ne wall fers to reach its capacity, if its load wcre te ;
23 1
g causo faihre to other . major walls; but that is not the case.
/ t
) h, O When you say " failure", are you talking about v i i
~ i b- . . .
+ -
" ~ ~ . - . _ _ _ _ . .
! 2194 [ l mpb17 'l the ability to support a roof any longer? .
s ,
" A Reaching its capacity is a type of failure. .
l 3 Not total collapse of the walls. ,
l 1
4, Q And you say that the failtra of one wall will I i I
E *
'nct cause the failure of another wall? l r
. 6 A Yes. l 7 Q And that:o poccible in soma buildings, but not , l 4
- I B in this one?
9i A I said it's possible in this buildir.g. That, t
[
1 i
10 I you kncu, one wall failure would not cause tha failu~e of {
< j l
- 11 another wall. i I' l Q Prof. Broclor said that -~ used a . e::=nple, a l 12 (
- 1 13 I somewhat t.11msical one where three men are carrying a rail V 14 and the man in the middle cracks and falls and is no longer
. 15 I able to support his weight of it, or any weight at all, and 4
16 this was his analogy for tha distribution of weight, because l'7 now still the total weight is being borne by the other two I
(
1 13 men. I 19j And b that analogy it would seem that there 4 '
20 !, ,
would be perfect. distribution of forces. Eut do I und2rst:nd ! ,
i .
j
. 21 i you to say that it depends on the building heu voli ferees :.
1 22 L are redistributed fron weak ualls to otronger walla? l:
5 n- MR. BANZS I thinh'it wac a log.
- 24 ! IiR. KAFOURY
- A leg. !
" T l
/ ' 25 . WITNESS IIERRING: Wall, if the icg is heavier 1
l
[
- - r .m.
. . . ~ -- . - .. - . -._
2195f' 1
i mpb18 1 than both of those guys are capable of carrying, both of i
)N :% 2 them aren't going to be able to hold it.
3 BY HR. KA700RY: ,
. . ~
4 Q All right.
5 But that'.s ~~
~
6- A (Uitness Herring) You started out with a basic :
7, assumption that the other two guys by themselves could hold l l
- 8 the log without the third guy.
.m . _ _ ... __. , . .._. ._
g Q Well, I don't mean that.
10 In a building each wcil has a certain amount of 11 , ability to -- a certain str2ngth, and it h:s certain forces 12 that would be applied tc it. And for certain of our valla
- ;[ the forces would be applied, theoretically, would exceed the t /
14 strength, correct? 7 15 A First the smaller walls which are governed by 16 shear, and that's why they looked at case 4 which limited 17 the capacity which is more typical of the behavior you would ,
~
s 18 expect from something governed by bending moment behavicr.
19 O could you explain that to me?
20 A In actuality banding moment behavior will be
-1 g verned by going up to seme capacity and then it will just i 21 taper off, and in this case this criteria is such d.at it f I
I wouldn't be a perfect yield plateau. However, ycu knew, it j g ;
g would have some minor slops to it.
O'
- =* *" * '
5
> ** = = >= e "" * ' 1= =*-
1 '7-- % ey----1,a-. r-rg m m .-yvt- evp ---m
- . - -_.: ~ . -
2196' i tapbl9 I _model in that case Four analysis.
y;t 3 'Q page 11 of the sams testimony, the middle 3 paragraph, reading, the relevant section says: in view of
! 4 -the fact that tho above analyses negiscted inersaceI enargy l t l 1 l
- 5. dissipation from any nonline r behavior, thers is reasonable
- & assurance tLa structure will withstand the required 5sE.
7 I'd like to offer to you, an I offered to Dr. l 1
- 8' -
Laursen, the opportunity, if you wish to take it, to go on 3 the record strengthening your phrase " reasonable assuranca".
10 Would you like to stand by that or would you 1 .
11 like to strengthen that phrase?
12 A All I can add is that you ccnnet add a givsn
.-~
h- 13, 100 percent guarantee of anything. And by "reaconable
/
~
14 assuran'ce" it's just that the analyses, the type of struc- ;
15 ture that it is, and what I've seen lead me to believe that ,
1 16 the bt'ilding won't collapse during an earthquaks, and that l l
17 actually the behavior will not be that 3 argo in displacement 1
. 18 and so forth. )
19, Q And w3.th knowledge of the various uncertaintiss i
e , :
20 .that we have discussed, "reascnable assurance" is as far as
- 21 ti you're willing to go?
22 ; A -I think that adequataly describas my pocition. I l- . i
- 23. , .Q Okay.. [
i 24 ,
MR. KAFOURY: If I may have just onc second, Mr.
[N } .
r- Chairman.
25 l
i
- wem n. m. . ,_ m ,
2197 mpb20 1 CRAIRMAN MILLER: All right. Go right ahead.
w 2 (Pause.)
3 DR. PAXTCH: While we have a minute: ,
4 Io not "rctasonable assurance" a term thnt's i 5- borrowed from the Atemic Energy Act?
6 WITNESS HERRI?1Gs Yes. l 7 .MR. BANKS: It's 1.n Section .40 of the Regulations .
- 3 MR. KAFOURYs Perhaps somecne could help me by 9 dredging up the copies of questions that the Columbia 10 Environmental Council submitted to the 11RC Intarrogatorias? l l
11 (Document handed to Counsel.) [ ;
12 ' MR. KAFOURY: I think it's obviour, Mr. Chairman,I 13 that we don't have enough paper around here.
14 (Laughter.)
. 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, we have quite a bit..
16 BY MR. KAFOURY:
17 0 In light of the information that has been elicite6 -
I gg through these hearings and otherwise relative to the operation i 19 of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the last year, and what was e
.go j learned about design problems and so o'n,.have you gentleman 21 to any extent become - concerned about tite degree to which ycu j 22 are forced to rely upcn Bechtel and PGE for your scurces of
'23 ,
raw information in coming to the conclusienc?
1 s
24 A (Witness Trammell) It appears you've escential-l!
i I ly ' paraphrased Interrogatory number savanr and wa took these !-
i
- 25 I
I i.
. . . . . .- .. -.~ ..--...- ..
- 3. * %-... . . ' - - _ . _ ..... . . _ _..
2198 ,
mpb21 1 last two days to prepara written responses to that, which I
(' )
2 would like to read to you. And then if you have other ques-3 tions, perhaps we could answer them.
r "The NRC Staff depends to a large degree 4
l '
f l 5' on the accuracy of information providad by the [
. 6 Licensee and its agents. In any licensing ac-7 tion, such as that involved here, documents are ,
9
. a filed by the Licensee which, like any written 9 document, are subject to mistakes, differant g 10 1 interpretations which could be viewed in a diff-l 1
erent light than that intended by the cuther. g "In order to understand statsmanta mde 12l 13, by the Licensee, or to delve into areas perceiv-
)
14 ' ed as incomplete by the iTRC, the NRC Staff asks 15.
questions of the Licensee to clear up such areas.
16 "In addition, another purpose of NEC
- 7 Staff's review and questions is to tact Licensee gg. statements to independently evaluate their valid-19 ity. -
"In this cace the NRC has acked num2rons 20'[
. 21 questions of the Licensee to reso$.ve areas of cen-
_.[
e cern regarding the information providad. Tho 23 URC Staff has no reacon to conclude that thic
, information is unreliable, but is navarthalass 44 b 4 go d g .
4 n .
. ~ . . , ._
- - -- -~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ --
..::' : - . , _ :.-. _ . - . . - - ---- - - - - -- -: z;;; -
i 2199 i l
mpb22 I which appear to be erroneous. Such areas are !
M 2 pursued by additional questions, oncite inspec-
,I 3 tion'.by a full-time resident inspector, or sito i
" l 4 visits by the personnel involved in the ryn.ew.
. , j
! I Sj "In addition to the above, the Licensec
'
- 6 is subject to severe penalty, such cs revocation e, ,
7 of license for furnishing false information which l l
. 8 is relied upon by Imc in reaching a safety con-9 clusion.
10 "As to the two recent downgradings of 11 seismic capability quoted in the Interrogatorf i
12 referred to here, these are the result of new i .s 13 and different analyses, STARDY!!E, which more
- 14. accurately represents the Centrol Building, and 15 do not reifact on the believability of PGE and snd 16 Sechtel one way or the other."
MADELON; WRBLOOM 17 f1ws
. 18 19 W
. 21 22 23 24 y, O ) 2s h-
. - , . , . . . - . . _ , , - ...,c-
.,,, , p- 3..-.- .y ,
- . - ;= : :: .;= ; ;_ -
- 2.
- - - . - _ _ .
wrb follows 2200 MADELON (y~% 2D agb1 Q Would you say that the first of the downgradings, m 2 i that is, the original re-analysis, would you say that that 3~
^ re'flected on the competence of Bechtel to provide you with 43
information'en which you uould lika to rely in a r.atter cf ,
5 i
this magnitude? l 6
. , A The re-analysis of the STICK medc17 7l Q Yss.
- O .
A- I-think the-information that was provided was j.
9 as accurate as then was kncun by the Licenses at the time. -
10 I don't see anything hidden in what they havo furnished.
11 Q I'm not really aiming at de: sit. I'm :: ally aiming at negligence. .
' j*,
Do you have, a sa result of what you've lee.rned 14 relative to the proceedings in the last year, do you hava any 15 hesitancy about accepting raw material, calculations, that is, 16 from Bechta.1 or PG3 in light of their recent perfonnance?
I7 Does it give you any qualms, do.you feel at all uneasy about s 18 it?
19
.. A Well it's certainly true that in the s
position
~0 such as mine or'in the position such as Kan Harring's that, 21 quite often we take the vicv when we sco sem2 thing that 22l we question it almost automatically.
' 23 'l '
Q Aren't thara very strict --
24 A We don't question the honesty of it but va quastice Q 25 the -- wa quits often take the approach that, can this be
. . . ~ . . , -
I 291 agb2 believed?
v' - Q You gentlemen don't have the resources of 3 Bechtel, do you?- .
4 '
.. Not in numbers, no.
5 Q And would you say, in fact, that in simply mon
, 6 and .naterial and resources, that you are at a substantial a
7 disadvantage institutionally in your ability to indapandently 8 evaluate information of the magnitude that has come at you 9 in this proceeding?
10 A I would say -- I would not agree with that 11 statement. If we thought it necessary to bring mora gens 12 l' to bear on this problem, it ceuld be done.
J) 13 lt We have a research group which could repeat this calculation that Bechtel has done, it could be done.
'5 And I think in terms of talent and the people who have worked 16 on this case, they are certainly of equal rank with Phe 17 people working at Dechtel and PGE.
18 I guess that completes that statsmant.
19 Q But isri't it a fact that your ability to go to c
20 the well for additional information is, considerably limited,
, 21- and to the extent that you sought additional halp here, that 22 would come at the expense of that rasource boir.g abla to bc
. 23 used elsewhere?
24 A That's true.
f 25 Q And if you had your druthers, would you have mors tap - .- w w,. -
- y. w=N'1-ww ir'rwy er
_- . . _ . . ____ . . _- . .__ _ . . . . _ ._. _ _ _ . _ ~ _ . . . _ .
I 2202 I.
f i
/-w\\ agb3 money and'ataff? !
-( 2 . i A That's true.
J Q And would you feel batter if you were abic to 4
l ' bring more money and ataff to ber.r en 'du :cncid .rr.ticns in 1:
E
- ~
this hearing?
A I think that if we thought or felt er any of ea felt that our evaluatica of the Bechtc1 re-analysia was ,in any way defectiva, we either wouldn't bo here today or we o
would have called on additional recources.
10 the degras Q You see an institutional liuitation to
" to which you are, it seems,looking over tha chouldcr after the fact at calculations dona by 3echt21, rtther taan
/
I3 being able to derive the same information independently?
I4 A Could you' state that question again?
3 15 MR. BANKS I don't think it was a question.
16 BY MR. KAFO!JRY:
17 Q Do you not feel a certain institutions.1 dicedvantac s
IG I at being required to essentially look over tha shoulder of 10 Bechtel, tnat is, tahs an overview of informaticn that they 20 present to you and then making ycur cun, you kncu, questiona
. 21 - and coming to your own conclusions on the basis of informe. tion 22l that's already been very heavily processad by Ecchtel, 23 processes uhich you, yourscif, are not rsadily abic 00 24 duplicatc?
- p. 25 '
A I(Witness Tranmell) I personally don't. Mr.
4 y e
~ . - - - . . -.u.:: _
2203 m f i agb4 Harring may want to comment on it also, J
q- 2 But I will say thiss we htve complete freedou to ask questions and there is a considerable amcunt of 4
informatjen that can ba g'b:d and has bacn gained in this l
5} case from what I would classify very penetrating qusations 1
j
?
from Noth the loft and the right to try and sea 15 everything comes together in a coherent picture. ,
- And ce havo considerable regulatory freedom to I
ask these questions. And we havo, in addition, the freedon l-10 to not agree with ths Bechtal conclusiens er the 2G3 con- ;
II clusions. t 1~4 Q tir. Herring? ;
IO A (Witness Harring) If I had any doubts about it, v/ 14 I would have brought resources to bear to check the
(
15 calculaticus in great detail, if I had any reason to doubt 16 them.
17 Q And ultimately you have no reason to doubt them,
, 18 am I correct, because - in rsfarence to STARDYNE, in 4 19 particular -- it falls ganara11y within an e:tpected range 20 and,therefore,hasasuperficialindb.ciaofreliability.
. 21 9 But, in fact, you have act gena back and radons f 22 tneir calculations, you don't have your own ST2.nDnis prograu.
23 You have not derivsd the raw data or progrt=ad the nr.1 24 data or done anything axcept evaluate the end product of that o 25 process, isn't that true?
1
\,
I I
,3
- ..-.g. y 9
2204 I
l D 1 I'm going to obj ect,1ir. Chairman. I J h agb5 MR. BANKS:
U/
C This has been asked at least three or four times of this 1 3
c.
witness. 3 I i e'
MR. K.UOURY: 'Jithdrrun. . !; 1l
'5 I think I have just a few nere questions, Mr. ,
6 i- Chairman.
. \
7 CHAIRMAN MILLHR: All right. l v
l
- 8 BY MR. KAFOURY: - l
._._ j E
Q .Mr. Herring in your originni testimony, Page 14, 10l the final paragraph begins: l
' l U '
"The Licenace also performed an 12 ' avaluation of tha capability of the structura 1
O )j 13 to transmit the seismic shear forces from the 14 modified seismic dynanic analysis across 15 assumed cracks in the reinforced concrete 16 core and grouted masonry."
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
17 And it has an explanation.
- 18 Is it possible -- and if so, could you, in layman't 19 terms, explain the substant' of what follows in your report?
4 20 A (Witness Herring) They $ceroly looked at the 21 structure and, assuming that there was a perfe::H. crack 22 hori::entally across a given elevation, they datormined that 23 , there was. sufficient steel -- including rcber and celu 2s 24 and so forth -- to hold tne structura tcgsther.
O' 0 And hold the structure together is what you C/ 25
' '%~Y* ea- m .y _ ,
, r-
J f
2205 J
T 1 s ) agb6 mean by " transmitting seismic shear forces across assumed
,~
2 crackis?"
3
A Yes.
4 Q Pleasa turn to cn Octcbar 10 doc" ant ;o:..nining 5
Licensee's lettar to Director of Nuclear Reactor P.cgulation dated October 10, 1973, forwarding clarificaticac in response 7
to NRC Staff questions. And that will be Clarification
. O ~ ~ " " " -
Number 19.
9 I believe that may have an MR. GRAY:
10 exhibit number.
11 MR. BA1ES: It's part of Ey.hibit Nina, I believe.
12 and2D Q.) 13 14 e
15 16 17
- 19 a .
19 J s f' 20 l
21 22 .
]
2.
sume # 4 1
~ * *- =*. y% .
we
"'" ~
j
. l 2206 l, p 3s abl. l' BY MR. KAFOURY:
2 Q The last words on the first page:
2 3 "Although there are fractures, shears '
L. -
4 and joints in the foundation, there are no seams 1 5! or fiscures in the rock which would affect the i.
. 6 results of the analysis."
s 7 Will you explain these terms in that content, and
, 8 tell me what that's about?
9.130 9 ,, A .(Witness Herring) That's merely refarring to tEs i
1 10 l fact that there are some hori:: ental cracks in the roch, 11 really, in the foundation. However, they arc not very large
. i 12 3
and don't continue for any great distance; that tha rock is P.
13 fairly competent.
j 14 Q To the best of your knowledge, have all thoso 15 been traced as far as humanly possible, to make that deter-16 mination?
i 17 A Well, in the FSAR you can see they took ceveral l 4
13 core samples around the site and did quite a bit of ig situ 10 testing to determine shear velocities and co forth.
20 0 Mr. Knight, in your testin'ony on page 4, tcwnrd
. 21 the middle of the first paragraph it says:
i 4 2 i ,
"HCwever, if we assume for conna"m M on 23 the worst-cace failure to be that the linos ara l
24.l broken between the buildings, the room coolsra,' f t
h
\.
25 i
l for the suitchgear room in the turbine building
_~m
~ ., ... . ,
~. - .. _. -- .__ __ -.
+$- ~ y -- -
c - .p-. me . ,,.
. . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _c _.. . . _ _ . . _ _ __ :_... _ x. _
l l I 2207 1
l .
ab2 1 would be lost."
, y, 2 What does that mean?
. 3 A (Witness Knight) Well, there are some coolers 1 4 in the turbine building's switchgoar room which are used to I
5 remove heat there, and the water from these lines supplies
. 6 cooling water to ths coolers. j 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, what kind of coolers are
, 8 they? I'm not sure I understand what kind of cooling lines
- - -- - - _ . ..- ,_ _1 9 are irtrolved there.
10 WITNESS ICTIGHT: Well, tha service water lines go l
1; to tne coolers. l 12 C3AIIDIAN MILLER: Service Watar? lhcu d0os that
.~ l 13 rhan? What is it used for?
d ja WITNESS KNIGHT: To provide heat rexcval for the 15 coolers.
16 CHAIPi!AN MILLER: Heat removal for the coolers?
I g7 WITNESS KNIGHT: Yes.
I gg DR. MC COLLCM Would you just call it, in layman's!
s g) language a room air conditioner?
g WITNESS :CIIGHT: Yes, scr.sthing like that.
. 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Is it any more than a room air 22 conditioner? When you're talking about a nuclanr power 23 plant and you're talking about coolers pecpla get all scrts 24 of images in mind.
hI
\
25 WITNESS ICTIGHT: That's what it is. It's jrst lika i ,
<=. l. . . . . . . .-
...-...%.. - , ~ . . .m w. . . _ _ . . -., . . . - , , ,.- ,,_m _.
__r _ . _ . . n . . _ . _ . _ . c_ _. n_ - --
_=-.:
l 2208 r% ab3 1 an air conditioner unit for this rocm.
[f 2 DR. MC COLLOM: And the water is the chilled water 3 then that comes to it and when it goes away it'has heat in 4 it and it carries it away and it's dumped semovhere?
i i 5 WITNESS G1IGHT: That's right.
, {
l
, 6 BY MR. IGFOURY: ) ,
1 l
7 O And you refer to it, at the tcp of that paragraph, 8 as safety-related piping. In what menner is that cafety-9 related?
l l
10 A (Witness I'might) It belony to the service water I i
1 11 system. It connects with the service :ater cyctem. ; l 6
12 j 0 You say it's safety-related because it's defined l i
h, 13 somewhere as safety-related?
U 14 A Nell, the service water systcm is . safety-l
. 15 related, yos.
16 Q From a practical sense point of view, in what 17 sense is it safety-related? ,
I ja A Well, for instance, the decay heat removal --
. i. ,
i 19 Q I'm sorry, I can't hear you. !
i 20 A I'm sorry.
It provides cooling for the Plir. sychen if yo:.
21 f g Shut doVn -- +
n .Q RMR?
i 24 A Yes.
f' g Q What is RHR7 f
( I f
i
- . ~ . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . *
...~.... - - . -.. -. _.
..._;~ - ::: . - :, - : L _ _ . - :_:. . _. .-- : : - - - -- ^ -- z:
I r 2209 '
ab4 1 A Residual heat removal system.
I M 2 To go to cold shutdown you would need the service l
I 3 water system. There are various other cooling requirements.
4 Q For what purpose would you nosd uhe cooling water
, 50 system if you want to safe shutdown, the system which you're
- 6i describing hero?
5 7 A If I went to safe shutdcun? Wall, again it
. 8 depends on' the degros to which ,you're talking about going to 9 safe shutdown, what the conditions are. If we're talking abor ;
10 going to cold shutdown, you would nesd the service water 11 system to provide ths ultiraate haat rsto tal to the river 12 or, in this case, to the cooling pond.
- 13 0 Including this pipe?
Aj 14 A No, not this pipe.
15 A (Witness Trammell) Mr. Kafoury, 'I thin't I ,
l 16 understand your question, perhaps. Let me just say this:
17 THis 4160-volt switchgear room contains safety-
, 18 related switches which are used for turning off and on 1
- 19 important pumps in the plant. There's a certain amount of S heat generation,in this room. - It's r$11d, but there's a 20 l
. 21 certain amount. It's like this rcom here, it gate varm l 22 after a while. j t
23 .
These coolers, of which thera are four, ces in I' y the room to keep the room at a reasonable temperature. I f b- 2; think the design maximum is something like 104 degreec, or V ,
l i
1 l m mwe
-,deD .AMw-e--,- m -.Tadgeo - +Npw -wwp e$m- ;,-wpen.irge w 4p y ,
, ,.n, , ,,,.,-w y ,w -
I 2210 i O .'ab5 1 ' it may be more than that, but the purpose of these' coolers G - 2 is to keep that room cool so that these switchec stay at a 3 reasonable temperature.
? O In the abconca of that system,t.*0nid tha scurce 5 'l of her.t generatien bring the temperaturo o-1 that recm cbove e
6L 104 degrees? Would that be a serious risk?
., 7 A (Witness Knight) Ultimately it would bring the 8 tmperature up if you lef t the door closed, cfter a 1cng 9 pt.riod of. time. But you have another switchgaar rcom which 10 f.s redundant to that. Ii:/an if you lost this switchgear 11 room you could'still safely shut down.
12 ' I'm corry I did not u.derstand your questicning f' 13 was directed'toward that.
.i 14 o Q Would they know if the switchgear wac-- I mean ;
tg[ uould there be an risk if they would take tha switchgaar 4 16 and rig it up and then find out it wasn't working because t- this pipe was broken, cnd is that the sort of thing Ast , ;
i 1
- ,e could cause substantial delay?
. - 4 The other switchgear rcom in the other divi-19 A No.
s ,
a 20 . sion would take care of uactly the same functiona that
\ '
21 this one does, and at the same time. 50 there wculdn' ': ha 22- any-problem in ^! hat direction at all.
23 Q Mr. :IIerring, there is , as I '.inderstand it, no
/ y precise or definite mathemctical definition of th: term f~^I)
(j ^ "rsasonabla' assurance." Does " reasonable assuranca" - Is 25 1
. h
-t 7e e 4W-' w Tt--1 'rrt47t- .
~ ~ . - - . . . . - . - - - . - . .
2211 !
I i
eb6 1 that a phrase which you selected simply because of its formal .
Q*,: 2 significance, or dcas the common-sense meaning of " reasonable ';,
i 3 assurance" also apply tio that assurance which you are giving '!
us tcday? :
4 1
. 5 A It's a common-sense definition. In c.dditica I
- 9.230 6 the regulations apply. .
7 DR. MC COLLOM: How is "reasonablo assursnce" used
. 3 in the regulations? ',
- . _ _ _ .__ _ . . _ i WITNESS HEERING: I halieve PGE's lawyer quoted I 9
i 10 the section. l l
33 DR. MC COLLOM: Were you intending this to be the 12 kind of " reasonable assurance" that is commanted on in the gy, regulations?
s g4 PTITNESS HERRING: Yes , plus the cor.r.on-sense type 15 that says that --
16 DR. MC COLLCM: Well, if you don't know what it meant in the regulations r-how- can you be sure that ycu ara 37 meaning that, though?
. 18 19 WITNESS HERRING: I'm not sure of the precise definition given in the regulations.' However, I have wrote 20 l a several Safety Evaluatiens and it is a 00tcaen form.
21
. 22
.MR. KAFOURY: I just have ona last qu .:.rci:n.
3 BY MR. KAFOURY:
G When looking at the criginal design defacts, a 24 25 new n de o'n analysis has been employed and that has t- 7 t - - % +- e w --<w + %
. .2 . 2.: . - = = := - - =
2212 eb7 1 presented us with a range of unsettled new problems
- 2 regarding the floor response spectra. From all that you
- 3 gentleman know about the operation of the Trojan Nuclear .
m 4 Plant, do you believe that a safety audit of the plant would i
I !
5 '" he likely to turn up other problems of which we are not now
- 3 on notice?
i 7 MR, GRAY: Objection, Mr. Chairman. It's a ques-
, 8 tion asking for information that I don't believe is really
__ _. _ _ _ -~~
9 relevant here.
10 MR. KAFOURY: It's my last quesi:icn. It may bo 11 of aid to the Doard.
12- CHAIDmi MILLER: I think technically your objec-13 tion is probably correct. On the other hand I wonder, from Q~
14 the standpoint of URC Staff's overview cf this if you would 15 waive your objection, uhich I think you are technically 16 entitled to. I 17 MR. GRAY: If the uitnesses understand --
, 18 CHAIE WI MILLER: If the witnesses cru cble to, 19 yes.
go BY MR. KAyCURY:
. 21 0 What is your opinien, gentlacen?
I 22 r A (Witness Trarr. ell) Wculti ycu say it agaf.n?
23 0 We're starting out with a prob
- vs in ene rbsign y ll-eightyears'ago. STARDRE has given us the fl0w rsspense
)I 3, spectra problem and a host of unresclved iscsues along with Nj u
,, .n.._ . .
. . . . .~.. -- ~
,_ _ m. m p w g. t er-Www ~ * ~
^
_._z __
~ -
2213 eb8 1 it.
0 ,_
2 It is your assumption or is it your belief, sub-l 3 jective belief from all that you ?tnow about the plant that ,
4 if a safety audit were to be initiated, that there would be
! . 5 -other problems that that would be likely to uncever, of which 0 we prasently have no knculedge?
7 MR. BANKS: I will object to that question, j O Mr. Chairman, and the assumptions made about what STARDYNE ,
l 9 has done. I think it is an incorrect statement of what this 10 record shows. j 11 BY MR. KAFOURY:
12 0 striking the assumption, with all that ycu know.
13 MR. MC COLLOM: What's your definition of " safety 14 audit"?
15 MR. KAFOURY: Well, I can ask that, too.
16 BY MR. KAFOURY:
17 0 What can be done if the Board were to say it l
. .18 seems that the longer we look at Troj an, the more problems 19 we find, and accoraingly we're not going to allow interim 20 3 operation until the whole thing has had a thorough going-
- 21 ,
over.
22 Could that be done, and if it trare done, would 23! .
you e:rpect to f3.nd new stuff?
24 MR. BANKS: Now that question I'll object v.o as totally irrelevant. That's not the same questien.
(v 25 i
I l .
f
- 22.14 .
I O ab9 1 CHAIRMAN MILLER: No, it isn't the saria question. '
U -
2 I think we'll sustain the objection to that question.
1 Would it be possible to conduct a I 3 MR. KAFOURY: ,
(~' 4nj safety audit with the resourcos of the URI of the Trojen ,
1 l
.. 5l* Nuclear Plant? )
- 6 CHAIRMAM MILL 22: I den't think that's the is.:ue.
7 W' tat you want to know is whether, from everything these
' 8 gentlemen have seen, based en their es:perience, 'if there is l
i D any reasonable ground to believe that there sheuld bs a safei.y 10[ audit, er whether a cafety audit uculd turn up any significant 11 deficiency of any kind or character.
1l. Isn't that what you'ra trying to find out? j i
[ .3 MR. KAFOURY: Yes, sir. i 14 CHAIRMAU MILLER: Can you answer that? l 15 WITNESS TRAMMELL: Well, based on what I know of 16 course, I would say that it is unlikely that you would 1
17 uncover anything of the magnitude of thi. er,d I don't z.ean i 1 1
- 18 to say that this is superhigh in magnituc. :. I say it's a I
19- .significant disclosure, the centrol room nonconformance, the j
- i e s (
- 20. control building. f 21-I think it'c unlikely you wculd find anythin w.
22 as important as that, but I certainly couldn's rule tu(: a ,
i 23 carefully perfor:2d audit from discovering sone other -- scr.e i 24 things wrong. . I just can't conceive of it not, but they'ra :
l/^% really very minor.
(- 25 i
[ !
-- . . - . . . I; ...- --
- - --~ __ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _
2215 b eb10 1 BY MR. KAFOURY:
%)l d
Q Mr. Knight?
3 A (Witness Trammell) I will add I would e::pect they m
4 would be minor, based upon what I just said. ] )
1 5 A (Witness Knight) I have no rea:cn to believa ;
6 that anything of any significant nature wculd be uncoverad.
~.
. 7 I recently was involved myself with the fire protection l
~ --- - - -
8 review of the plant and there we had quite good results and l
9 cooperation with the utility. And so far as I know, they 1
10 have not made any attempts to hida anything, nor did we find 11 anything of great significance there.
12 Q Mr. Herring? l 13 A (Witness Herring) Based on what I've seen so far,
% - 1 i
14 I don't think there would be any major safety problems j
15 uncovered at the Trojan plant, but I agree, there would be 16 different -- some little minor mistakes made sorawhere, l 17 realistically.
i 8
e 18 CHAIR!WI MI'LLER: I think you said that was your 19 last question?
20 (Laughtor.)
t
- Thank you very much, Mr. Trammell, gj MR. KAFOURY: l i
22 Mr. 12ight, and Mr. Herring. j I
23 - CHAIR 2Gli MILLER: Thank you. I 24 Mr. Rosolia. l 0):
\v 25 MR. ROSOLIE: Yes, I have a few questions.
-- l
. . . z.
2216 I R 1 ebil BY MR. ROSCLIE:
)
"' Mr. Herring, on page 11 of your testimony, I Q
3 believe it is the second edition which in E:chibit Nircher 6, r
i the 1 cst paragraph on page 11,. %e first lina thero, you ,
if
. 3 say:
"ECwever, in the previcuo URC tastimony
. it was indicated that since the 0.15g CBE loads e ai -
are essentially the same as the 0.25g SSE loads...."
9 and the building was designed so at the sar.s time it would i
IU! meet the SSE it would meet the CHE and conversely at the '
I.
Il ' same time it met the OBE it vould meet the SSE, 10 that --
12 A (Uitness Herring) Thu loc.dsfrcm cn unfa:tcred Q 13 .15g OBE are essentially the same as the iciads frem a .25g 14 SSE. The 1.5 load facter that is placed on those loads t
15 would make the OBE govern the design of these walls.
2a 16 !
I i '
17 ! s i !
- 18 l
19
& t 20 'i I.
l - :
2! i 2I i
i 1
} .
M' I f
( 25 i !
A i '
I 1- -_ _ _. . _ . . _ _ , . . _ . _ .
. . ~ - - -- . . . - . . ,_ _ - - - - - - - - - -;3--- ,
2217
(
C, '1 1 b!Fagbl Q But essentially the loads are the same?
, . . 2 A Yes. From both of them having a factor of one
^ placed on them, yes.
l, ,
9.340 ,
Q Dut the OBE uould govarn the design of tha walls? ll
- 5 j i A Due to tha 1.4 loa.d factor, yac. g l
Q Okay. i
. 7 Now I guess this is where I'm having a problem in that how can the plant not meet the OBE but at the same 9 l time mast the SSE? j 10 1 A It does meet the CBS and all carthquahss up to j 11 and including the SSE.
12
' IIowever, I have presented testimony which indicatasi
) 13 !
that we feel that the m int at which you should chut dcwn and !
14 :
look at the walls would be where you would get into a i 15 i possibility of some inelastic action having taken placs j 16 and dagrading tha wall somcuhat. I would uant to check to 17 ;,
make sure that the structure is still capable of operating l;
- 18 ii if they were to excced that level. -
19 '
. Q Which would occur if the buildin'J was desigacd 20 .
correctly, an OBE of 0.15? '
21 A Thereabouts. If it had mat *11 the codes, I 22 guass.- l 23 i 0' It seats to me it sould logical.Ly folic.. t.u.t l
- 24 f whatever would occur at 0.25g would occur 1cas: now.
( 25 A , No. Decause you're icoking for an SSE av?.nt.
-. - :. ._.:: - _=
= . - . . . . . - .:.: .- =. _ .:- - . :: - _ .
-I 2210 :.
f~% 1 agb2 It's a one-time event in which the design bacis is not to
'(s 2
^
go back to operation afterwards and, therefore, you ara taking 3 ,
D materials and strengths up to, you know, approaching ultimates.'l 4;l ; ,
- Whorta
- that ucu1G nct ba d 34-'- '# year l
. 5
- critaria would be to have the building re.nin ec :nt'.cily
= 6
, elastic up to come point, and if it exczeded that scint, !;
7
- tnen shut down and take a icok. i 1
. _ _ Q Now,_ assuming I was_doing a study and I.was. going _,
9 !
on the assumption that logically it would follow, sines tne !
10 '
OBE and the SSE are scr.auhat equal or arc escontially the
'11 same, that if one fall the othar should fall. j l
12 i l
. j Now, is that what you based your origy.cl i 13 ! a' '
conclusions on?
14 A Could you raphrase that?
. 15 CIIAIRMAN IIILLER: I don't understand that question.
16 Does the witness?
37 lI WITNESS HERRING: ilo . Ask him to rephrase the
- I question.
CIIAIR Ad 1IILLER: What do you hr.va falling, Mr.
20 !'
Roso11a? . .
- 21 BY MR. ROSOLIB:
~! Q If ths OBE is 'c ha sama as the 353, and. tha OBE
[
23 ! is reduced by 30 per: ant, icgically it vculd. st?m to 7.2 r.nyuay ,
t 24 I that the SSE would be reduced bv 50 percent, jm '
25 A (witnese Herring) act ic you censider that there
, , - - , . , - - , . ~ - ~e..-- . - , , _ , . . - . , , _ . , . - .
- - - - - - ----,-,------_-____------,---,-------a _
2219 1
f*%h agg3 are two different criteria for the two different ecrthquakes.
(d' ^
2 Any earthquake up to very close to the OBE level, the design 3
Sasis is that the plant can remain operational without any e
4 problzms.
5 Whereas, if you're looking at an SSE, where 6
vou're not assuming that that plant is going to operate after
. the occurrence of the seismic evant, you just want 'to be
' 8 assured that you can safely shut tha plant down.__
9 And those are two different critaris. And, 10 therefore, you are using ccnservs',ive critoria to defino an II n0t OBE lovel,that you ccn just forgst about tha plant and.
12 worry about it, that it could sail through anything up to i
'W i b 33 and including that without any problem.
I4 DR. PAXTON: Is it fair to say that it ucs not 15 necessary that the OBE and the SSE be equivalent, design-16 wise?
. 17 WITNESS HERRING: No. As a matter of fact, j ust
= 18 by Appendix A, Parh 100, if the OBE were taken as half the 19 SSE, you know, you would not even be equivalent. Then the 20 OBE would be less than the SSE.
21 SY MR. RO30 LIE:
22 0 When wcs the first time you hav.: caen 'ih:2 i.s
~23 rafarred to-as the Bar%cisy tasi?
i h
24 I A (Witness Harring) It was a recult cd-the mae. ting g 25 at ths Trcj an sita in July.
' -~
. . , . . . - ~ . ._ _ ;_.
l 2220 1
)
I i
1 agb4
} Q I What review did you do of the Derheloy tests?
l 2 '
m, A I sat down and studied it for several nours.
9 Q Do you have a copy of that? .
l C
l 4l A I think I do.
j l
3 Q Can you turn to Page 10 of that report? 1 l
i a 6 A Page'iO?
s 7 Q Yes.
. 8 In the second paragraph on that page, it states:
MS he W e + .yf @h Mw
- s .e= de.0"W6 9 "
The authors are not yet sura if these 10 discrepancies would inersaso the raaulta." l 1
11 And then, at the end of the paragraph, it cays:
1 12 "
Ecwe'icri it ic clear that thesc 13 deficiencies sitould be resolved before applying 14 Priestley's design methodology."
- 15 I'm trying to understand that, and it doesn't 16 seem to me if there was two different -- if I had one report 1
17 and somebody ' else had another report and there were dis-
. 18 crepancies between the two reports, why would I say, dell, l
\
19 use my report and' don't use their report until thess dis-
~ '
20 crepancies are gleared up? l l
> , 21 j A Well the Priestley data was den 2 on c ntil:vered i l
- 22 i specir. ens and the Barhelcy tasts'wcra dcnc cn finad-chcar I
i 23 ;I piars, which ar.2 more represent:.tivo of the us.11s
'.n the 24 " Trojan control building.
C I believe, Mr. I!crring, in your Strtsment of i _
. 25 ? Q
. l
(.
i f w gr guvr -
-gg.-
2221 1
[,~b. agb5 Qsalifications, you state that your worked for Stone and 2
e Webber?
3 A Stone and Webster. -
Q Stone and t?abster. -- on semo nuc1 car po ter
- plant?
i 6 A Yes.
=
7
, 0 Did you ever work with Dr.1!olicy?
A I was not directly associated, although he was
' 9 a consultant for the Boston office. I worked in the Cherry l l
10 Hill, New Jersey office.
II Q Any one of you can answer this I guasc:
12 What ar2 the H 2 storage cylinders on tcp of the l 13 control building used for?
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object 15 I'm not sure that the use of the 11-2 storage to that.
16 cylinders on top of the control building is relovant to anythir i 17 hero.
18 C11 AIRMAN MILLER: It doesn't sound very relevant, 19 really.
m.
20 What did you have in mind, Mr. Rocolia?
. 21 MR. RCSOLIE: Hell, we might find cut.
22 ~(Laughter.)
23 CIIAIRMAN MIL E2: It's too f,: :: cycd. I'll haw.
24 to sustain the objection. t does not appear to be,.Ir.
b 25 Rosolie.
t
- _ -_. 1 .__e. - - -
.= ;
r -- un- --
2222 :
i I
b\ agb6 BY I1R. ROSOLIE: l 2 l
,'- Q Well on July,6th you went out to the Trojan site, ;
3 is that correct? j 4 4 '
- j. A 071tnocs Trer'.sil) : did , 120 O And in your report, as a aum:e.nry cf that vicit, you listed as major equipment at the Trcjan control building, e \
7 H-2 storage cylinders on top of the control building, is that
' O not correct?
9 A That'a correct. l l
10 Q Why were they listad a major equipment? l II It was listed bacause -- the purpcss of that A
12 list was to, in record form, document for futur use and for IO our records just what we observed.
14 This information is available in the FSAR, 15 there is no need to repeat it, be.t I - one of the purposes 16 of my visit was to refamiliarize myself with the ficers and 17 the storeys and the equipment which was in them.
'. IB Q That would have no effect en the cparation of 19 the plant if it fell down during an earthquaha?
~
20 C11AI.MIA11 11ILL2R: Hardly anything uould, I guens,.
. 21 if it fell down during a.n earthquake, would, it?
22 Aren't you going on the SSE basis here, '2.2 23 safe shutdown earthqua'c?
24 MR. ROSOLIE: CEE or se.f a shutdo'.;n.
tj0 1
23' urruEss TRutesLL: Thase hydrogen storage cylind-2rr
- b. - _ _ _ _
l l
2223 1 i i
r\ r }
( ) agb 7 could be removed from the building and taken off the property 1
- 2 I and it wouldn't have any effect on saf2 shutdown cither front 3
4 i l 37 Iin. ROSCLI; il 2
- 5 0 Is the grouting of the 'r.acenr-j b:.cch: ct Trojz.: l 6;
s full or partial?
~
7 A (Hitness Herring) Full.
- 8 Q -- Mr.-Harring, on Page Two of your testimony --
9 A Uhich ona? !
10 .
Q Ok t.y . Exhibit Nucher Five, which I believe was f 11 your first submittal. ,
12 (
Under tac tit?.c of Surscry c2 Dccign Errorc, .
D ,
l h' Number One,at the end of the first aantence you ste.to: "...as l 14 assumed in design."
15
.I I
i Are you talking abcut the blueprints? Ill 16 A As assumed in the design calculati:ns lor 17 !
strength.
4 18 Q Would you turn to Page Si:t of your testi=eny. ji A The first on.07
- s "O
, Q Yes. ,
21 I .%out 3/4tha cf the way i.cung '::h.c r a L t s c:: : ,
94 t
' -i "4.9" -- ths.t equation thera wcc 2.43 uinos that 'thich cheuld t
. have b3.cn :.saumad.
l .
)
M Is that 'thc.t you based your originni ;".e.:r.ents
\ Mi on as to why therc uns c 5-) percent reducti:n?
l l
I ~.wwwe.e,..,
s .
- ;.... .x -
. _. . 2 _. _ .
0 .
l 2224 f 1
(p%..
agb8 1
2 A On the order er 50 percent, based on that, plus 8 '
the discontinuous rebar.
3
, -Q On Page 15 of your testir.ony -- l 4 t* l HR. GFX?: Mr. 2csoli s, thi; 2.:y.in is D.hibiJ. j
. 5l i Five? j i
1 e 0 1 i l
. 1 MR. ROSOLIE: Right. .
i l 7 l BY MR. ROSOLIE:
. a j
-- I don'.t know if it is thers, but mayun_.you could 9 i
'oini j .a to it -- there's a discussion of the dowel action 10 l and why that was not considered.
11! I j And tha ras. son you said it wasn't censidered l
12 l first is because there would be cracking in the joints? I
,b-.) 13 l
' A (Witness Herring) I pointed out that t:nat uns 14 the reason for looking at it to assure that any kind of 15 cracking in the j7ints would not affect shear transfer into 16 the walls.
17 Q Mr. Knigrit, I undarshand frcm your testimony
- 18 all you looked at were pipes and cables, is that correct?
19
, ; A (Mitness Knight) Yss, eir, e ,
20 !
! Q Did 'you look at L'icensce 3:dibit 7:er.ber 11?
' '3 A I don't know, what is Lice.nsca Scihit litd:sr ll?
^p
.m Q I'll try and find it he 2, I3 i M2. ' DJJug:
I"1 give hi;.: 1 ec7y.
' 7.4 (Document handed to tha panal.)
s,
\ -
e#
V
WIEiESS ICTIGZ.T: Yas.
i 4
- I ti
~ ~
.__.. _.__ _ ~._.,~~'
__. _ i l
l 2225 i
u Oo agb9 1
MR. RosoLIS: I have no further quashicac..
l
. (f
~ 2 g C11 AIR:1All MILLER: Thank you. i
\
3 . . .1 We'll taka our afternoon recess at this point.
,, , {
4 ' 1 g (Rococs.) j
- 5 1 2G ,
C11AIRMM MILLEn Ms. Hell, I guesc it's a o 1 6u .
t C10 your turn. j
- 7- -
BY MS. DELL: - ,!
8 j
_ . ~ ~ -
O '-'~ On Page'"29"~of~your' first testimony, IE "Hcrring, gl Dl 1 you talk about cyclic degradation. And if I undcratand ycu l';l to ' . ,
correctly, you're sr.ying that the sums, or the total cc.pacity ,
11 ,
i of all the walls dcas not give you a ccmpleta 1cck at what ,I e
eq would happan in that condition, is that trua?
i r 12 . I V A (Uitness Hsrring) It's not specifically related ,
to cyclic degradction, but you don't have to look at both 15 i total capacity in the way you would c:4pect it to redistributa. l i 1c Q What I'm trying to figure out is c:tactly what 1 Ii '
you're looking for in the individual walls, since you do go
, <g bayond the sum of capacity.
19 '
s And you say in the accend paragraph on Page 29 20 h that it's not a'conca.'.n for st al rai,nforcement. A.:d then on the next page, Page 30, the first partgraph yce say --
22' about halfway down, you say:
~,
". "As statad prc.vic .'.cl 7, ch'. f. : .m .:
. Y.
e::pected to occur for the signifiannt can'.rcl
"[
25f building walls."
2226
- q. 1 (b ^
q agbl0 o
~
I guess what I'm trying to get at is where, in separate walls, does this cyclic degradation become an 3
important consideration? -
'm 4
,, .A n's moct important Scr the .jcr shnar t1113 from ~<- you got to a limi* c uhers based on t'te STARDYME
. G
[ analyses and the criteria you use there -- that you can sse n
7 you're not exceeding the uttimate capacity such unat you
. 6 -
l get a severe strength dagradation. But there are also 0 stiffness dagradations that occur und2r cyclic lor. ding and I
to ! materials.
1 III O So when you r :for, on Page 29, to:
1 '*'
- "This critorien is no long2r satis-13l fiad for all me bars in the Trojan control ,
\._,/
14 building."
15 "All members" refers to those walls?
i 1G ' A The major shear walls, because the minor snear wal 17 like I stated previously, are gcVerned by bending mouent i 4 I8 and they do not -- they Would not be expected to enhibit a 19' 5ev' ara strength degradation.
20 Q Pages 30, 31 and 32, in separata -- those are
- 21 separate mantions of the probacility or possibility of I
2^. diffarent carthquakes hippaning at the pl:nt site.
23 Ceuld you tell ma ur. era you get t' 2 ganaral 1:
24 '
information about tha possiallicy of carthqu kes, just very A' 25 generally?
(] .
.O s***1+ ~=mw.. +mw,w... .%. . . , . , , , , , , .
- - - .:- l 2227
,G 1 agbli A There were no specific probability numbers put
'(w /'
li Generally speaking, an SS'E is a
~
^
on these earthquakes.
l 3
low probability event thr.t would have, you know, return n
4
- periods acocciated uit'1 it of 1000 to '.0.000 y>:.ra. !
l j This was in response to the Board:c rsqunst to .,
6
, relate what si::e carthquakas we're talking nuout i . nore coImuon terms,that you could understand them. l
-Q Are you familiar with a. document prepared by 9
the NRC and produced this Geptember called " Risk. Assessment ,
t 1 10 '
Review Group, Report to the U.S. Muc12ar Ragulatory Cctraissioni i
11 l (
A Yec. -
I-Q Havo you read that docurt.ent? i Oj 13 A No, I have not.
14 Hava you bean familiarized with either Part Si::
Q 15 on Earthquakes or Part Seven on Rish Perception within the 16 doc,ument?
17 A Without having read the dccument, I may bc j i'
" 10 familiar with portions of it, but -- ycu knew.
19 Q Okay. Thank you. ,
e s ;
20 as,. DELL: I beliove that this docunent I. i
, ,. i' referred to, that the Chairman uight be int = rested in-
~~
'I a 1
21 taking official notica cf this for the r:ccrd, as it has 23 just bean r21:ased by En H2C and could bn censidaret in-24 portant in considerine it.
f'
(,/ 25 CEAIRMAN MILL 2R: Well, whr.t dcas it partain to?
I
.1
( _
2228 i
A t f
) ab12 MS. DELL: -Well, it pertains to a review of
~
ths Rasmussen report. And it has specific sections on what
~
are called disjoint items, including carthquakes and risk 4
perceptien, which I thin.': are reicvs.nt to u .t'.ating licenses
. 5 and just a gancral different attitudo being taken.
' l 6
g CHAIRIGdi t! ILLER: '4 hat dess Staff Counsal hava 4
- to say?
- 8
. _ _ , - - . _ MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman,..I'm not quite.sure.
9 wnat the purpose of this is. ,
i 10 '
Without having revicued it and hncJing the
.t contents, I have sovare raservations about say'ing that it ,.
I 12 should be officially noticed or taken as evidance in this >
x
\
kv l I3 proceeding.
1#
WITNESS HSRRING: May I comment?
I 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: What are you going to i
16 '
comment on?
17 MITliESS ERRI11G: He used a detsruinistic
- 13 approach in assessing the capability of the Trojan ccatrol 19 building whereas that document relates to if you were using 20 a probabilistic type of an analysis.,-- For what it's worth.
21 MR. GRAY: To clarify, dater:ninistic appr. mach 22 moans --
23 g:CH2S5 F.2RRIliG: We did not ase.:: r. c 22 vin M probability of an earthquaka occurrir.g and other asecciatsd
( 25 probabilities of failure, and then calculata a number which 9
- ~~,o .
. - . , - . . . ~ _ .. -,
n - - - - - - - - - -; - - -
- _..___. 1 _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ___
2229 by ab13 said the probability of failure is X and this number is
> \v< '
so small that it is considered incredible.
3 CI! AIRMAN MILLER: Wall then, on Page 32, why
'4 are you discuscing: !
l I
".... probability of an carthquaho }
6' occurring uhich roachos earthquake levels on 7 the order of the OBE...." -- belug more remote?
- 8 What was the purpose of that and what was it 9[ l based upon? j i
10li WITNESS IIERRIMG: That is just a qualitative,.
11 I guess you could call it fact.
12" CHMPalAN MILLER: Uc11 ncv, calling it a 13 qualitative fact doesn't get away fren the fact that you
( j i
14 ' are there talking about probabilitics, improbabilitiss 15 i and remoteness thereof.
16 What were you talking about and what was it 17l based on?
, 18 , I assume that's the basis of your allognd I -
. 19' .l ;
' claim of relevancy?
. j ,
20 ', MS. BELL: Yes, it is, it cartainly is.
t
- I 21 ; WIONESS 11 ERRING: Well that was just speaking i
-22 :.i in general terms as to the fact that there arc icngar raturn ,
i :
23 L pericds associated with higher sciar.ic avants. !
(;
24 CIIAIlt1AN SILLER: 1.~ ell whers dc you get the.t?
O! l'
./ ll
(
25 d. WITHESS FSERING: In IAy converca.tica with a
I 2230+l 1
m 14 '
i agb various seismologists, Dr. Newmark.
d) 2
,'~' CHAIRMAN MILLER: In other words, this is based on scme kind of hearsay that is neither e:cplicated and you 4 1 didn't considor the mera prccise pr0Sabilis",i.c Ot.wica tb.t t l
t \
. 5 are rafarred to, is that uhat it enounts to? l 6 l DR. ?AXTOU: Is it fair to say that this
- statement simply says that the bigger the earthquake, the )
- 8
-- less likely_it is to happen? _ _ _ . . . i 1
9 WITNESS HERRING: Yes.
10 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, really, this part was 11 included, I believa, partially in responsa to Dr. Pa:.: ton's i
t '
requsst that solac c::planaticn be given in layman's tar:13 i
/R '* 3' s I' about what an earthquake is and hcw individuals would feel v
14 it and perceive it. And this really was to try to e:rplain 15--
that.
16 CHAIRMAN IHLLER: Do you really censider, then, 17 this paragraph and the portion relating to probabilities
- . 18 and improbabilities and re cteness thereof of OBEs and SSEs I9 to be relevant in this proceeding?
"O MR., GRAY: Mr. Chairman, if I may say in rasponse a'
- El CIIAIRI!AN MILLER: I know what you said, but 22.J rim asking ycu senathing.
23 . ;.m. GRAY: '"h e Staff does not daycad, in wt way,l l
24 upon this secticn on proba'oilitics for its evaluction. '
O ,'
V :s CuAIzmi :cLLER: It do2G t eneer sneo is and 1
3
-.4
1 I
t 2231 l O'1 agbl5 it wasn't used by the witnesses? j V N 3 MR. GRAY: I can ask the witnesses if that is l
3 the casa. t
- r. l 4 '
. ?, MICICSS HEnRI :G: It uc.:: nct 2::711:1017 considered' .
N l'
- 5' However, I will say that it is iu.plicitly Ocn- $
t
. 6 sidered'in the load cer61nction equations ';; hen you asacciate !
- 2
' a load factor of 0.10 with, say, the SSE and use 1.I with n
- 8 the OBE. It is considered that the mort probable events 9 you do use a graatar load factor on in design.
'~
i 10 '
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Uhat'c this 1.4 factor that 11 you ncntioned? i IE WIT 14ESS IIERRIliG: l'or the shaar walls in tho .
- V
). 13 control building, if you look at the FSAR,there is a specific 14 load cortbination which states tnat you will factor the dead, 15 the live and the seismic loadings by a factor of 1.4 and use 16 that resultant forcs in designing the walls.
17 DR. MC CO.*.LOM: Is that related in any cay to 18 I the 1.4 we've seen earlier that I thought cer.c from a building
~
a 19 code a had load factor la it?
20 WITNESS IIERRING: Varicus building codes have
. 21 d various load factors. This ccr.es from the Troj an : TSAR.
I i
22 DR. MC COLLOM: But you're not cua a of sarlier 23 ,
in this proceeding uhere we were talking about anceur 1.4
\
t or was it tha sa:na? I. guess we could 1cok bach.-
24 lt
]^)
v 23 '
l WITliESS nERRIuG: I think it's tae same.
l I
d
2232 f i.
- 3 1
[ ago16 CliAIRMAti MILLER: Did the FSAR include any code ;
' D.. 2 requirements?
3 WITNESS IIERRING: Yes. The coda that was 4 '
i referanced ims a ec:abine.tien uniform building ccds for the ,
- l
- ~
masonry portions and for reinforced concreto ACI 3/*.8/63, the j
- I
- s ultilcato strength design portion would be the mathed of
, designing for this particular load.
.DR. MC COLLOM:
You don't know what thd loac - , _ _ _
9 factors were in those codes?
10 No, I do act.
WITUESS IIERRI:1G:
II CIfAIR!iAM MILLER: Isn't that 1.4, as used in the l ~'
code, a variable facter '.thich you're simp!.y putting in al:2cet !
s 13 arbitrarily certain conservative or --
N I4 WITNESS HERRIHG: It's not arcitrary. The highar 15 tae probability of a load, the higher the load factor is, 1G. that's a general philosophy. l 17 For instance, you'll see factors like 1.7 on 18 live loads, because that's something that occurs avery day.
19 You'll use a certain load factor on an OBE bacr.uss you're m
20 starting out with the basic assumptic that you could have -- 1
- 21 could reasonably c::pect this event to cccur ever the lifetina 22 .of the plaht.
23 [I ,
Then the SSE is the maximum 90tc.nti.e.1 carthquake .
24 at that sita, and ycu ast.ign a load facter of 1.0 to the SSS (w 25 loads. And that's why I say that implicitly the prehability I
t 2233
'l (O }' of a load does' enter.into consideration of how large a load
- agbl7 2 (
. factor you.put on it.
3 CIIAIRMAll t.1 ILLER: What are the requirements of -
l Appendix A to 10 C72 220t 10017ith US.C.rd t3 th2 d;i tc.inatic
[
- 5i l 1 of th/.OBE?.
6 WIThiESS IIERRIHG: Appsndin A states that tho OLE
' sha.'.1 be at least one-half the SSE.
- 8 And what is your understanding
. . . . . CLIAIRt.iAN MILLER:
9' ' /.s' to the ht'.ndatory nature of that requirement of Appendix A7 10 WITUESS IGRRIMG: There cra situations and 1 11 specific plants in which the.t requirement hc.s bacn waived.
.I ja'
.s. CIIAIR!1Ad MILLER: Well then, what ir the sourca -
s I
of the authority of the Staff or the Board or anyone else to waive such a requirement?
15 Mr. Chairman, I believe thorc's NITNESS TRNC1 ELL:
l 16 a statement in Appendi*c A itssif that says that these ara I7 interim guidelines and, further, that if other means or i i
I IO other levels can be j ustified, that they are frae to try to I9 do so, t i
, t n
- o I would also point out that, in my view, thers's j i
. og almost a methauntical' conflict in Appandix A itscif -- and ;
I U others have had this same view. ,
U tianaly it says that -- in two ; .cecs, it scys
'l M that the OSE uill be ens-half of the SSE. And in another -
O.)
U U place it scys the CBE is that aarthquaka whic.2 hcs a V . . ,
'~
e , . ~ ~ ~ , _ ,
. . . =.- . ... -- . _.- . - - ,
1
.l
'2234 ',-
1 1
l '
1
[.'\ agbl8 recurrence interval of the life of the plant. How you cannot ,;
"' 2 have it both- ways for every earthquake.
3 There are others within the Staff, including e.
4 myself, that -- I'm not a neier. ologist c: a 90010713' : but ,
I can see some mathematical difficulties with having it both ways.
m 7
CHAIRMAN i1 ILLER: Yes, I can t00.
t 8
End2G ~ .
l 9 l l
10 11 12 i j
^ . -
O 13 O 14 I 15 16 .
(
i
- 7
. 18 )
- 1 19 )
4 20 ,
, 21 22 23- )
,, 24 i
, O )' 25 l
'O 4
- *L- - . _ .__ . _ _ _
- - - . . . - -.. .- --. l l
l I
~ 2235 i
1 I Well, under the requirements as you understand
{)%g2hebl
\ , 2- them, and whatever interpretation you want to give to these 3 apparent inconsistencies, does this Board have the authority ,
4 or does t'he Regulatory Staff which issued the original
. 5 order that is now subject to evidsntia* y haaring have the -
l 3f i
-authority to waive the requirements of the FSAR co as to fix e
7 the CBE in this plant for an interim pericd at scro. rango
, 8 of values?
l 9 .
WITNESS TRAIC12LL': In my view the 03E can be l
~10 adjusted upward or downward for any length of time.
I 11 CHAIRMAN MILL 3R: And is tha5 pursuant to ths ;
)
l l 12 provisions of Appendi:: A of Part 100? !
, ), 13 WITNESS TP2.MMELL: As I see it, yes. Appendia A,
%/
14 as I say, is listed as an interim guide and if other levels ,
. 15 can be justified --
16 DR. MC COLLOM: Where does it say in Appendix A 17 that it's an interim guide?
, 18 WITNESSTRAMMELL: I'd have to Icek at it but it's 1
19 in the front. I i
c11 20j CHAI!UmN MILLER: Yes. Woilld y00 he good onctsh j l 1
21 l;. to 1cok at it. Since we have the questi:n up wa d *1ha 1 to 22 - have clarification, and we'd appreciate ycur censidsration of 23 : it. l i.
)
24{i (Document handed to the panel.) i (s 25 WITNESS TRhMMELL: I.Specifically had these a
f a ., e *
- M awwas - 1 mph ers > =. ww** paes s- .6- m epse = -ww.a m . , e w e +. m
2236 }
I
' /~%
eb2 1 questions myself.
t\ f m 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Good. Give us the benefit of ,
3 your. thinking and analysis of these requirer.ents of Appendix 4 A,. Part 100, will you, please?
- 5 I hope, Ms. Bell, that you'll pardon the digras- ,
6 sion.
. \
, 7 MS. BELL: I do .
8 WITNESS TRAMMELL: I guess my quote was not from __ ,
9 the Appendix but, rather, from Part 100 itself, cf which 1 l
l 10 Appendix A is a part. It says under "Purp:32," paragraph '
i 11 100.1-B.
t 12 " Insufficient e:cperience has bocn 13 accumulated to permit the writing of detailed u J' 1 14 standards that would provide a quantitative cerra-15 lation of all factors significant to the question 16 of acceptability of reactor sites. This part is f
17 intended as an intorim guide to identify a number
, ja of factors considered by the Commission in the 19 evaluation of reactor sites and the general cri-
. 20 teria used at this time as guides in approving or l '
21 disapproving proposed sites.
12 "Any applicant who believas that fachcrs l 23 othar than those set forth in the guide shoulf to 24 considered by the Ccmmission will be enpacted to
-(G)') 25 demcnstrate the applicability and significance of I
- . . _ _ _ -__._.__ c.:. __.~_.._ ..; --" -
7 2237
]'ji- ab3 I such factors." i l
-- 2 'Now in pursuing this I contacted'the Project 3 Manager-of -- or those who are in a position to knew on the I l
4 Byron and Braidweed plcnts and specifice.11y nksd if an
- 5 e::emption to the regulation wac ir., ted in granting a cen" a
6
- struction permit which provided for an C33 of less than half
-7 the SSE, and the answer was No, that sufficient justification
= 8 was -- that was justified and the specific exemption was
~ ~
9 'given.
10 ., DR. MC COLLOM: Wait a minute. You said it Uas 1
i 11 not waived but that it was justified z.nd then set at icwer 12 than what is specified in Appendin A then?
O'
- 13 WITNESS TPRCiELL
- Right. Iic exsmption was 14 granted, but the plant'was licensed for 023 levela loca than 15 half the SSE.
16 CHAIPJIAN MILLER: Mr. Gray, can you help us 17 examine the basic, not only regulations but the guidelinss
. 18 and the rest under NRC's practice as well as --
19 MR. GRIY: Mr. Chairman, we do believe that, as 032 ::o indicated by MR. Tra:enell, that the 'guidelir.cs zet for the {
a 1 g
.' g1 criteria and things set forth in.? art 100, including the p, ,
Appendix, can be -- are.to be viewed as guidanco which need l 4
- ,3l not necessdrily be' strictly applied if thora is adequate l i
p justification for dcing scmsthing differsnt.
f
[ ), I t-- ;,5 In this. case , for e: temple, if' tho 3 is adequate l-i
[
I
~
. -~ e - . ~ . . .
...,,w.e-w
- . - ~ . .
2238 pg eb4 1 justification for saying that the plant can operate for an j tQi - 2 interim period but that the OBE level essentially should be 3 set at a lower value than .15 or a 1cuer value than one-half l I
4 the SSE, if it is adequately justified to do that, then we
.- 5 believe it is entirely consistent with Appendin A to allsv j t
t a 6 that to be done, j 7 Procedurally if there are additional difficulties,
, 8 there is also Section 50.12 of 10 CFR which allous enemptions 9 from regulations, again if they are adequately justified.
10 CHAIR".AN MILLER: Under which pr cadure war the I
11 Staff acting when it providec., in your order of May 4th, 12 interim operations but with cold shutdcwn at the .11 level j
, 13 and subject to the conditions?
Q' 14 MR. GRAY: We would have been proceeding under ;
)
15 the interpretation that Appendix A would allow an OBE of j i
16 less than one-half the SSE if it was adequately justified.
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER: And who would make the detarmina-
, 18 tion that it was adequately justified?
e i
19 MR. GRRY: Initially when the ordar hr.d been :
20 issued and had no hearing been granted Ir.d had the Board not been designated, that would have been I made 3'I the Staff.
a 21 i
1 22 ! CHAIRMAN MILLER: In other words then the Staff 23 hcd that power or that diccretion --
24 MR. GRAY: Yes , Mr. Chairman.
m f) v 25 ;
4 CHAIR!?.N XILLER: -- undar your into.rpretaticn of
-s e S . , , n . .e. . . - -
2239 l
/ eb5 1 Part 1007
( T)) 2 l
, MR. GRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Does the Eoard have the same i 4 power or discration?
- 5 MR. GRAY: Ma beliava it does in thc.t regard, i,
6 ,
CHAINMAN MILLER: What limitatione do you con-7 sider that thero are, if any, upon the Board's discretion 8 in an evidentiary hearing of this type with reference to the
~ . . - . . _ . . . . .
O fixing of the operating basis level at uhatsvor figure the ,
- l t i 10 recora might scem to indicate during an intarim period? l l
ll 11 MR. GRAY: We believe that the Board has the j l
12 1 discretion, in f act the duty to fi:: that lavel nt the 10/31 ll lR
\
, 13 at which the evidence shcus is required. i 1
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you consider that the Board il l
15 is bound by the Staff's previous determination of .11, for l 16 example, in the order which was then noticed for hearing?
i 17 MR. GRAY: No, Mr. Chairman. In that regard, t
)
. 1
., since the evidence has in fact shown that there may be other l 18l 19 levels which woul'd be justified, we believe that it is tha Board's determination to make as to Shat level the C33 should 20 ,
21 be.
22 ! CHAIRMAN MILLIR: In your opinion wcult the Scard 23 have the authority or discretion to fi:: a level af .15 er i
.8 2/. Some other value?
(m MR. GRAY: Yes-- Let me take bach my "yes" a s 25 ).
. I i
.~
l .. - - . - -
[
I .
2240
! i ,A s ;
eb6 1 minute.
- i s 2 Generally speaking, I suppose icgically I Uculd f.
3 have to say Yes.- However, I would have to think about that ,
4 to some greator extent becauca that, in fact, is going in
- 5 the oppositz direction of what a waiver-- 1701~ , i t ' s . . . .
, 6 ClIAIRMAN 2CLLER: Let me ha sura I undarstand 7 the reasoning now of Staff Counsel.
. 8 The question before this Board is that of entering 9 an ordar,1f we decide the evidence justified interim 10 operation consistent with safety, which would amount of a i
11 waiver of tha FSAR requiremsnts of an CBE level of .15. Is 12 that correct?
13 MR. GRAY: Yes, and in addition, of the FSAR 14 requirements with regard to compliance to certain design
- codes, specifically'those which deal very c1ccely with the 15l errors, the design errors that are present here.
) 16 17 CHAIRMAN MILLER: But such an order wculd u.ount a to a waiver of FSAR requirements?
+
, 18 (
19 l MR. GPiY: Yes, a temporary waiver.
- *- i
- 20 ' CHAIRMAN MILLER
- Yes.
21 MR. GRAY: And that comes about boccuse the n existing oporating 11censo does have a technical specifica-23 tion which statac~--
y CHAIRMAN MILLER: Pardon ca. Is that part of tha ,
b 23 FSAR, the technical specification?
=
- 2. .- . .
1 2241 l
p% eb7 1 MR. GRAY: No, that's part of the. license.
( !
a l
' ~ 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: It's part of the license?
s l
s 1 3 MR. GRAY: Yes.
4, CUAITJEJ' MILLE?.: It's n5t i?.cltf06 in ch3 FSAF.?
I
. 5 *l MR. GPAY: No.
G l' CHAIRMMI MILLER: Is it referenced?
7 MR. GRAY: It's referenced. And the FCAR is
. O referenced in the technical specificaticns. One came before
. . - .- - - - . . . .\ .-
D the other. The FSAR uns the application document upcn which l 10 the plant was reviewed and ultimately licansed. .
11 Tha technien1 specificatiens then, which are part ,
12 of the license, in sene instancos avecifi: ally rafcr to
- s. ,
m 13 FSAR criteria and sections, and specifically make them a part 14- cf the license.
15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: They are picked up as part of 16 the license, the operating license?
17 MR. GRAY: YEs.
, 16.I CHAIMWT MILLER: Al1 right.
19 MR. GP5Y: So in this case, there is a technical a
20 specification, I.believe it is specification 5.7.1, which
. 21 does refer to sections in the FSAR for the sciamic ?ssign
[,
20 l.' criteria. i C , CHAIR 311 MII.LER: t7hich cc .tr.in 'in 22E icvel c d I
.. I 24 .15 and the SSE of .257 p),
'wd 25 MR. GPAY: I b31ieve thc.t they contain the design
==..'.WWM"4# -gmM'ed
.,,gg, g
= = .= : . -
a_ ._ -. -
t 2242 i
>p ab8 1' criteriaLwith regard to codes which must be complied with.
\,j f, 2 I cannot state, myself, that they refer to the CBE and the 3 SSE.
.4 CHAIR!C61 MILLER: I see Ccunsel is checking that.
3 We will get it in the record in a moment.
6 . Let me inquire one thing further then. If you 7 consider the Board has the jurisdiction to fix, based upon
- 8 evidence and so forth, a level of equivalent 033 by virtue
. . ~ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _
9 of the waivar,. reasonably at ccms level less than tho .15, 10 does the Staff concidar also that the Eccrd w ld be em-11 powered to attach any conditiens to such uaiver of the 033 12 level?
)[A 13 MR. GRAY: Yes, as long as those conditions are 14 -within the jurisdiction of ths Board with regard to the 15 control building design problems. In other words, if the 16 Board finds, for example, that operation of the plant at 17 a certain OBE, let's say lower 03E level, would be safe
'. 18 provided that you used the conditions that were in ths Staff's tg order, provided tliat while such operation was going en for 20 an interim period there be no modific'ation or work on the 21 structure that would weaken it, that certainly wcu!.d ;e a 22 condition,-a' valid condition, we feel, evan if that parti-23 ' cular condition had not been in ths Staff's crder.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Would the Scard be e'pcwsred 24
/ l to add to these conditions contained in the original Staf 5's
-( 25 t I
1
. = - . = . .n-..
. .. : = -- z .__; .=- - - - - - x--
2243
- y. eb9- .I . order, reasonably related to the interim operation?
- m. 2 MR. GRAY: AGain based on the evidence, if there
- 3 is any evidence that's developed that additional conditions,
,~
4 ngain relating to the centrol building deficir.cies and se 5 on, should be required, then Yoc, the Board wculd have that a 5 pcwer.
7 CI1 AIRMAN MILLER. . Thank you.
2h 8 9
10 l l
11 l l
12 1
14 15 16 17
, 18 19 20 21 1
2d 23 ,
24 1; I
,- L
\ n' l !
yw
'1 l
l 2244 '
'3a .
^
WRB/mpbl 1 .I think one of the conditions was in the event f 1-Q, 2 of a seismic event of, say, .11, the plant should be brought 3 to a cold shutdown and not reopened or not oporatad there- ,
O 4 {
.after without Staff' approval. ;
1 !
5'j Is that the substance of enc of the cenditionc?
l
, 6 . MR. GRAY: Essentially, yes, without UP.:: appro- l
! 7 val.
S C11AIRMA'i MILLER: Yes, without NRC approval, 11.140 9 Do you consider 3 hat b e Board would have any 10 power to enlarge upcn that condition with whatever safeguards !
11 might be based upon the evidence, or in any uay to spell 12 out further the nature of review and approval by the ICC7 t{ 7 13 MR. GRAY: Yes, I believe so, within limits.
14 And speaking in the abstract it's difficult to say. But, for 15 example, I believe.the Board could possibly imposa conditions 16 on the type of inspection that might be dono.
17 CHAIRlW1 MILLER: The type of inspection.
18 Could the Board require concurrence therein at tg least by independeht e:cperts in addition to the other require-i .
- go ments? ,
31 MR. GPAY: Offhand I can..ot see a reason why not.
2g . CIIAIRMAM MILLER: Vary wall.
23 We'ro not indic . ting by thic discussicn ths.t ue ,
i 24 have.any view one way or the othar, but us were interasted in '
[
-\
.25 exploring the nature of our jurisdiction vis-a-vis that of tha I ll o! .
.. i
...m. . , .. . . . . -
2245
,['g mpb2 1 Staff'and the URC as you understand it.
,ij' l: 2 m, MR. AXELRAD: May I be heard on some of the 3 matters you just addressed? .
r 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes.
'- 5 MR. A:3LRt.D: I believe that id tha roard r
a 6L wishes to look at Section 2.760 (c) of the Corraicsion's 7 Regulations, which describe to scr.e e:: tent what the initial
- 8. decision by the presiding officer or a board vill centain, ib 9 ref1rs to the decision being based on the whole record support-10 ed by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and thod i
11 1!dicates that the decision will include, neber ens, findingst
)
12 t.onclusions, and rulings, et cetera; ner.bor huc, all facts 8
,.~
p%
( ,
13 officially noticed and relied on; number thras, the appropriato
\
14 ruling, order, or denial of reliof uith the effective date.
b
- 15 j Within the jurisdiction of this Board and within 16 l
the subject matter of this proceeding, the initihl decision t- can contain provisions with respect to the licensa amendmant,
- ,a should it be granted en the basic of the record ccmpiled in 19 this proceeding-20 CIIAIRbmn MILLER
- You would concider, then, thah 21
- that spells out some of the power of 9.is Board in this kind l l
22 of proceeding?
I 23 MR. AXELRAD: In this hind of proceeding within '.
I ;
24 the subject matter of its jurisdiction. i
'l\ .
CHAIR'mN MILLER: De vcu considar thct this - l
~. - . . .
'"~
2246
/^h 'mpb3 1 proceeding is the same for procedural rules as a construction
}' 2
., permit or operating license proceeding?
3 MR. AXET.J.AD: Well, in some offects it is, in ,
r
.4 some effectc it is not.
- 5 It would ha're to be reviewed on tha bacis of its T-153 S2 6 individual question.
a 7 In connection with the questiens that the Board 8 was raising previously with respect to technical specifica- l q- - - . . l I
9 tions, the FSAR and relationship therato, the initial crder l
10 that was issued on behalf of the Commis icn by the Unc Staff 11 did indicate at page 3 and 4 of that Ords: the sp:$,cific 12 sections of the FSAR that the Cc= mission believed ware in-b 13 corporated by reference by the technical specification and (s /
14 were not adequately satisfied. And then the order itself 15 that the Commission then proposed to issue included on pages l
16 8 and 9 the specific waiver of requirements of the technical 17 specification which the order would then have adopted.
1
, 18
- And it is within the purview of this Eccrd, we l 19 believe, to revied those types of provisions and determine 20 which ones should or should not be wa,ivad en the basic of tha j
~
21 record which is established bafore it. Thnt's Section 4 on gg pages 8 and 9 was the specific secticn that trould have becoms !
23 effective for the purposes of interim epcration. 3 cl2 g4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Anything furth3r?
,Q+
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
V 25 MR. AZE RAD:
. -. = .
T_-z. _ - - - - - +
2247
- f3!
\
mpb4 I CHAIR 2iAN MILLER: Mr. Kafoury?
,- 2 MR. KAFOURY: On page 9 of the order, four-fifths -
t 3, of the way down the page it says, the issues that may be ,
f 4l raised within the scope of this order, referring to this I .
1 i -
3! hearing, are, one, uhsther interim op* ration prior to tho l 4; modificationc required by this ordar should be permitted.
' t 7 I read that as an c::tremely bread charter to l
- 3 read in essence all things considered should interin opera-
- 9) tion be permittad.
i 10 ! Alac, I think viewing this mattar concophually I
j 11 l, we havo to ask whether the Liconceo is in any sanse zntitled }
i i l
- 2 to a waiver as a natta
- : of right, and if we find tha.t they're
- i. 13. not entitled to a waiver as a matter of right, sinca they are i l
- 4 in violation of their license, then I think that the Board i I' i 1 15 l could condition a waiver upon cuch tarms as it deemed appro-16j priate as long as there was substantial support in the evi-17 dance for any tarns that the Board wanted to apply.
- i
, ;g CHAIRMAN MILLER: Anything further, gentismen or 19 ladies? ,
20 MR..SOCOLOFSKY: I guess it's ny turn. l o 33 CHAIR!*aN MILLER: I guess it is, f 22 'MR. SOCOLOFSKY: I don' t ha'ta any difference of 3 opinion whatever about what has bean acid so far z.h3 t the ,
i 24l ability of the Board to affect conditions, :Ocut the ability l X. i l
.e I (v)' ~
of the Board in this proceading to waive the technical kl t .
J' ,..w. . . - - ._
- 7 --
z= --.~: _.
2248 spb5 I specifications or the regulations that have been referred to
}.
v .,
H " expressly or impliedly in the order of the Commission estab-3 lishing this hearing. .
A< The only possibility '. M ra I can 220 Cat thers I l.
5' might be a restriction of the Board wcula Se if th2 Deard for 6 some reason wanted to raise the 03E leval above .11. I think !
e-7 perhaps the original declaration that .11 was the siting point
= 0 might be limiting in that respect, at least for the purpose 1
9 of interim operation. l l
10 CIIAIRMAN li!LLER: Well, why '.tculd the Board's 11 power and discretion in that rogard be any_ less than that of ,
1 12 the IIRC Staff?
d 13 MR. SOCOLOFSH: Only because it's a matter of k/(-
14 -- it scens to me it'c crguaable, anyway, that it's a matter e5 of notice that was originally published abcut whct the para-16 meters of the hearing would be.
17 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Taking such a narrow vieu, then-
- 18 the Board could not consider anything except .11, cculd it? ,
i 19 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: I don't fool that way at all, 20 i because I believe that's going det.m --
l
. 21 CIIAIRMAN ~ JLIZ:It: *C.r do we have the dicerctionl .
22 ' down and not up?
t 23 MR. SOCOLOFSR'l: Going down but nct up.
24 L CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Uhat do you base that en, in l n .
! O) - 25 tarms of pcuer or discretien, thnt is? . j
. I 4
' m** m---- - = w ss _, , . , ,
4 __ __ ,_,
I 2249 '
i
- 7% mpb6- 1 MR. SOCOLOFSKY
- It's just because at least it's ,
t !
N 2 argueable that going down, for the purposas of when do you 3 stop the plant during interim operation to take a look at it, ,
4 going down is more cencervative than going up. 3 5
. 5} DR. PASTOM: In connection with th.'.s dcwn and '
, 6 up business, Mr. Traxcall, is onc of the strange things about 1 .
)
7 Appendix A, that it gives a lower limit to the CEE7 Frcm v
8- what we have heard of the OBE so far it would scan that the
- .. . . . - - . . . , = . l 9i NRC would be moro interested in establishing an upper limit.
t i .
10 I WITUESS TRAMMELL: As it stcnds, I think it says 11 the OBE shall not be less than half of the SSO.
I i
12 ! DR. PAXTON: Right, which establishec tha lower
(^ )
\
13 limit.
% 1 14 CIIAIR!Vd! MILLER: It shall not be less than; it ! l 1
15, could be more than.
10 DR. PAXTCM And it just doesn't seem that that's l
.17 in the direction of conservatism from what we've heard of tEc &
- ja OBE.
19 Is th'is one of the strange points about Appendix 20 A that you were referring to?
i
, 21 WITNESS TRUD2LL: Mo, it wasn'h. [
i 1
3; The point I was trying to naka ucc th:t two ;
i 3 separate sections of Appendi:: A -- or Appandi:: ?., I belisva, !
' i
- .g says in one case the CBE shall be not less Emn ona-half the l i
b; g SSE, and another section,I believs it's the definition, it sayq b i
- . - - - . . - . , , , - . - . . _ _ . . TC,.. __
l
2250
<O mpb7 'l the OBE is that earthquake which will -- and maybe in differen":
s 2 words -- has an occurrence interval of appro::imately the life !
3 of the plant. ,
C 4 Now depending on the probability C.istribution 5 function of earthquakes and their strength it seems to mo
- that that could happen, or the earthquake which has that 6:
J 7 recurrence interval could be substantially less than one-half
, 1 8 the SSE.
~
9 DR. PAXTON: Wall, this, then, icwer lirait on I 1
to the SSE is at least ene of the things for uhich you find en it inconsistency. But that's not really what I'm ' inquiring abcut; 12 WITNES3 TRMHCLL: Right.
13 DR. PAXTON: Do you understand why the drafters v_. -
14 of this might have established a icwar limit instecd of'an 15 upper limit? One would have thought that it wculd have been 16 more conservative to have established an upper limit for the 17 OBE.
- 16 WITNESS TRMEGLL: Well, in my survey I will 19 just add this, because I think it might be of interest to n
That is, Diablo Canyon, w'nich is not a licensad 20 the Board.
- ;; plant no.7,.Which will be before a Board scon, has a propos:d ,
22 parating basis earthquake of ,2g, and a prcporad scfa shut-i down earthquake level of .75g. I 3
M w here's a case which I think might be of 24 g (Ox -
25 interest because it is not exactly the same, but us see a 4
m_ _ _ __
1 i
. 2251 I
yf] mpb8. 1 . spreading of the oBE and the SSE levels. And the OBE level Qto 2 at Diablo, if'it is licensed that way, will be about 2G per-3 m ,l
- 3 cent of the SSE. ,
i
.A 4 ;, And the Trojan numbors if '.t is .03 and .25
. ; i would be 32 percent of the SSE. I Sl I
L , 6' Now, as'I say, Diablo is not licansad and this i,
7 will be settled.
i . 8 DR. PAZTON: Have I made my concern clear? .,
1
- - . . - . . ~- - .-
! S WITNESS TRM24 ELL: -I think you have. And let me j l
l0 ; answer it in my way. I'll give you iQe best ansuer I can. ]
I l
. i .
! 11 ! It seems to me ac long cs the plant atnys
'12 ' basically elastic and healthy from whatever 032 level is P
lM
- 3 established, that there is no safety concern, and that it's
.. i 14 pretty much a case of utility roulette, as it wsro. l
] l l
{
- 15 If you want to license a plant at .Olg for the )
1
! 16 OBE but still- have a nice safety design SSE, then it scems l
- 1 i '
4 ' to me like that might be a little risky if you have to tc.a I 17 e
, 16 your plant out of service and do a thcrough inspection and I
je furthermore convin'ce NRC that it's still safa 'to raturn to 4
-20 operation. That,might ba a little rishy.
.- 3; . But if I was designing a plant I uould design
. l 22j an-OBE -- I would got the most -- I would design the SSE at I .
1 !
g; 9.tatsver level it had to be, and I would :aaka the OLE as high ;
'l s "24 .1 .
as could be, ence I had set tha SSE.
' /'& DR. PAXTCH: Well, I gather that this m?.y be
( )
.s/ '25l i
1 L
I . . , .
. . ~ -
_ , , : .. .. .J :: . _ _ _ _ . ._ ,
i 2252j f
g mpb9 1- .
asking'you to read the mind of the drafters of this Appendix !
I
,[ 2 A, but I gather t! hat you do not know why they said that the 3 OBE should be at least one-half the SSE when that would seem 1 i
e 4 to be pushing things in a noncenservative dircotion.
5' MR..SOCOLOFSRY: Could I add one mera thing to
, 6 this, !!r. Chairman?
]
J i- 7 CHAIIUiMT MILLER: Yes. !
, 3 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: In response to Dr. Pa:: ten's ;
.___.-...m. m . . ~ = - . . . _ . - _ - -._
s comment there, I can distinguich between the applicatien of 10 a regulation liho that where wa're talking abcut a permanent i
11 operation and in a caso like this vhere the cnly purpose of 12 l .
the CBE is to just' trigger that inspoetion, the plant shuts !
13 down. And I think the Chairman's comment a little earlier 14 in the afternoon was appropriate.
. 15. In a way, the place where ve set the CBE here
- g under, let's say .11, is an academic e
- :ercias. We'ra just 17 looking for a spot at which the plant shuta down. This is l
l
' ;g just for interim operation.
MR. GPAY: Mr. Chairman, I certainly can't. testify l, 'j 13l .
m but I would just throw out for corrant' tha fact that it might
, at{ possibly be for Appendia: A the ODE they're talking chout is 22[ for design. In other ';ords,. when an narthquaha cccurs a I
nj
't facility is going to see certain forces cnd ?.c cortain D.ingu,j g
i and it's goin~ to have to have walls of a cert:.in thickness i
~)- 25 i
i and.uith a certain amount of steel in the walls and so on; it:M
% I
~Mr.- 3+verm,.ms svo w wom,m p + ..,ewme.-- .w---
- _ , ,m . , - - , , . , ,
r, . ~^ ' ^
- ^
.L.
i 2253 mml0 1 going to have to be designed a certain way.
'O+
2 And I think the thrust of Appendix A is to say
(/'
3 Simply design such that it can take an OBE,under the criteria 4 of an OBE of one-half the SSE. If you do it that way, then
, 5l the higher you push it the mero censervative you may be going
, S; - because I guess by definition an OBE level is a lavel at 7 which you can take an earthquake, look to make sure that thing e
8 are okay, and then go back and operate. In other words, it's
~ ~ ~ ~
g the 1siel'Et which the plant is 'not going to be clinificantly affectad, 10 {
l 11 And if you have to design for a higher 032, 12 ' that means you have to design the plant in cuch a way that i
j 13 it must take higher and higher 03Es and not be significantly 14 affected. So from that standpoint pushing the OBE up from 15 a design standpoint when you're originally designing the 16 plant may in fact mean that you may have to strengthen the 17 plant more'and more as you push it up farther and farther.
- g CHAIRMAN MILLER
- ,Does that not ignore, though, to the possible cumulative effect er successive degradation of
.[ 3 . a less than OBE level seismic event?,
21 MR. GRA'It For a prope:'ly designed plant er a 2; plant designed according to critoria those au cassice degrada-g tien mattars should not entar into it at lavals up to and in-6A ciuding the OBE.
i
('] ' 25 DR. MC COLLOM: In fact, that would he ths
)
i
.g *~~*y
-ne* m en s' ,samm n ,, , , , , , , ,, m , , , _ ,_ ___
. _ _ . . . ._. . . _ _ : - = . .z - -
2234 .
?
i-I
, mphil criteria by which you would design it, under this concept, j v ,. ). ,
is~that correct?
i 3l MR. GRAY: Correct.
4 CHAIPJ4AN ICLLER: So with the ODE cot at levels E sufficiently low to prevant cumulative ir. pacta, then a succes ~ i
'i sion of earthquakes at alightly less than that level would 7 neither require shutdown nor cause concerns as to cur.ulative 8' degradation, is that right?
i
- MR. GPXJ: That's right.
10 i'
i 11 I
I l
,-~., , j 15 <
1G 17
, 18 19 -
i a
21 4
23 24
- l. 25 1
- " ~ * * - - -
4 _ . _ _ . . . _ _ - . . _ , , . .,
n: ._ - . _ _ _ _ . . _
I 2255 !
, c.. 3b ebi 1 CHAIRMAN HILLER: And that's safer?
2 MR. GRAY: It's safer because to do.that, to have l
\,
3 that kind of building structural response, the higher that n
4,
! yousettheCBEthestrongeryou'vegottomckethebuilding.j ,
,, 5 Ac I say, I'm not technically qualified to 'alk c about thia
, l t
G, this thjs way, but....
o '
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think I'll at., the witness.
12.160 8 DR. PAXTOM: I think I'm satisfied. It could well !
,, ~a i a be tha': the rules for interpreting the interaction of both 10 ODE ani SSE have changed from thosa ea:-ly days when Appendix I 1
i 11 A was draf ted and very likely, scacthing like the centrolling i' 12 featute of the CBS vas the raason for this. I think that
'/ 9 cl 13 makes sense.
\'
14 Thank you.
, 15 CHAIRMAN MILLEM I'd like to ask Mr. Herring:
16 I believe that some of the earlier witnecses jy ton *.ified that an OBE type level of .08 was sufficiently 18 1ce that one need not be concerned about cumulative or de-gg gradation, even though there might be a series of events 20 s'.ightly lower'than that level. If that were the tastimony, l -
auld you agree with it?
21 l-
. I nf WITNESS EERRING: Yes.
- e, dieITMTMILLER: So that if I understar.d vcu, l
g4 the le al that you feel wculd be appropriate for C3E -- I'm p $ - saying CBE', I realize it's a waiver situaticn but we'll use h
]
, w '= *
. . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ ___ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . ~
I
, \
2256 l 1
1
,r ab2 1 ODE as the level. If it were set at .08 and if that were a (gl .
2 triggering mechanism, the level at which you say shut down l
3 and we'll examine it under the proposed conditions, would 4,. that be adequats from a cafety standpoint, in ycur view?
1
.. 5 'CTMESS HERRIMG: 'los .
s 6 CH.URMAN MILLER: Uccid it ha cdaquc.tc irca u ;
t 7 safety standpoint if the interim period wara tw 9 WITNESS HERRING: o s .
T
~
7 5551UW1 MILLE'R: Three years? ~^I'm going up with' 10 you, 11 (Laughter.)
12 I want to find at uhat level, if there is, where :
m' I you would say no.
I 13 14 WITNESS HERRING: From a safety point of view I
, 13 would say that until the occurrence of the earthquake of i
soma unspecified level greater than .08 cr sonething like '
16 I
jj that , I wouldn't feel too unccmfortable.ui.th._the structura
. ja in its existing configuration. ,
19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That would be for tha life of I
20l the plant then, wouldn't it? '
I 23 ii WITNESS HERRING: If they 'ns*rer hnd an acrthqt.'.aha, ',
6 22 : you cannot get successiva degradation, ycu know. ,.
23 CHAINIAN IC W R: And this is assuming of cour.e that there is an SSE that has been cor.puted and pasced upon 24 fi 25 bsfore the licensing and that it is the safe shutdown 1sval :
'v) 1
2257l:
A ab3 I ' at .257 You're assuming that thrcughout, aren't'.you?
\
O WITNESS HERRING: Right. But I might also add thati s .
3 over the lifetime of the plant, even if you're getting earth-
.< . ~
4, quekes at the .08 level, I think the testimony thct I have i
. 5' given states that the test data is limited in the number of !
6' cycles through which the walls have bsen put. .
i 1.
7 CHAII41AN MILLER: I didn't notico that as a condi '
I, i
8 tion in your interim operation at .08 or .11. Shculd it be?
a i.
-_ If thsy're shutting dmm at
. 9 WITNESS HERRING: :
10 these times if you exceed that level and ccnnot cene in, 11 well, you put the condition on that they cc.n't retu n to 12 operation without our approval.
^"
13 CIIAIMIAN ' MILLER: Wel'1, I'h looking at operations i
t4 for' the life of the plant at .08 of the CBE and from the
. 15 safety standpoint, and I am then inquiring that means that 16 thers are no safety considerations then enthe OBE at any 17 level above that, doesn't.it? .
i 18 WITNESS HERR.ING: Yes.
l Ig CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
~
New I gcass, Ma. 2 ell, you had official notics of 20 l 1
21 , something hers, didn't you? Tall us again
- t it is.
W t
And Mr. Gray, I'm going to ash r.;w, in vieu of 22 i. .
1 some of the discussions ve've had, what the S':aff's cositica 13l I
' 24 - is considering the testimony that is hsre befors 1.s. ?inoce tastimony is it? Mr. Herring's? Tant page in the testimony, 25:
- . \s
..~
2258 cN eb4 1 do you recall? !
/ D) t c i V/ '
2 MS . BEIJ : I was referring to pages 30, 31, and 32.
i 3 CHAIRMAN llILLER: Of the original?
4 MS. EELL: Staff Enhibit 15, the original. l t I 1
MR. DAtGS: It's E:iibit 5.
5l .
a 6 MS. DELL: And I'm r questing that the Board take a !
7 official notice pursucnt to 2.743, Secticn I, :?ection 1.
8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Of our rules of procedure and g practice?
10 MS. BELL: Right, Part 2, thn Rules of Practice.
i 11 CHAIR:fAU MILLER: I'n sorry, I loct the pages of ,
i 6 ,
[
12 , testimony again. l 33 MS. BELL: 30, 31 and 32 in the Octcher 13th 14 testimony.
, 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Which refers to-- .I think I
la Mr. Herring testified that it was cormon knculedga among i
17 experts, or whatever it was, as, to the probabilitier
. gg with reference to en earthquake but without going into any
- i 19 of the seismic data on which he did not profess to be an ii J l 29 expert. '
t g; IS that(Dont the Substanca of your tcStir.Cny on l 22l that point? :
- 1 3 WICIESS HER2IUG: Excusa u? i y i
.MS. BELL: Mr. Chairnan, m:// I ash ic. Harring ena ,
\
25 question to clarify? i t ,
\
\w f r -
i
~
[. -j
.- .~; v_: .- .=.--,.=-----.:.=- - - = = - -
2259 !
CHAIRMAH MILLER:
~
eb5 1 Yes.
(3't
BY MS. BELL:
-(
3 Q Did you not, a few minutes ago, say thct one
/'
1 considers the probability of earthquakes as a factor in
- 5 determining the load facter, which in thic cc32 wza 1.47
,. 6 A (Witness Herring) Yes. !
7 MS. BELL: I would just use that as further evi-
, 3 dence that the informaticn on the' probability of an earth-9 quake shich is included at.least three times in . . his . testi-to mony and was part of that answer cnd was a'.so included in f
11 Licensues' testimony is~of a certain amount of significanco, !
77 12 l
and I wculd use that as a basis for z.sking you to take f' O/
Q-13 official notice of a dccument.
}
14 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman? '
1 15l CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Banks?
I-16 MR. BANKS: I have not seen the document 30 I am :
l 17 not in a position to object or not object, based upon its ;
18 relevancy, based,upon the fact that it'is or is nct an offi- !
i 19 cial record under the section that Ms. Bell talks about. '
~
'20 ' But-it seems to me the si.ple h answ2r to this thing ,
, 21 c is that we proceed in accordance with the section. If she is g asi:ing the .3 card to take official notice--
g, ,
. CHAIRMAN XILLER: I thin'.: it ic 00;niertle undar i
2t; official notice if otherwise admiccible.
O' 25 MR. BANTS: What I'm saying is pursuant to the k
9 l; .
m , -.1. .. , _- -
~
- -.:- _=: . : . . . = . - == .= = ==_: - -
I 2260 eb6 1 section she is to give advice to the parties before this
)
d _ 2 occurs. We're to be entitled to see the document, and we're 3 also entitled to present matters to controvert the fact if 4[ it is-- And that's another prohl.ra, 'thether che'n asking for d
5j something that actually la a fact. It night not be a fact.
I 1
= S: so I would suggest, whethar the 2 card tches a
, 7 judicial notics of it or not, couldn't we just reserve that 8j until .we've had a chance to see it, to see tihether it is a o fact, to see whether we want to controrart it? "It's seme-10 thing we can supply at any tims to the Scard, rather than ;
1 11 holding up the hearing at this point.
And I think she vould have to tell us tihat fact i '
12 f~-
[ 13 in the document she desires to have the Board take official
\ ,
1 14 ,
notice of.
15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, I think. the Rules of 15 Practice do have certain requirements as to asking the Board 17 to take official notice. I assune she's doing it at this jl i
, ;g point because she wants to csk sc=e questions about it of l 19 these witnesses. .
20 Is that correct or not, o do you just wanc
.o. !
official notice?. ,
1 1.100 .
,, MS. BELL: I wanted to find out if Mr. Herring i was familiar .iith tho dem: . ant, with the sectionc that I e-Aap
. wanted to ask questions about, and I found that ha '.ic;n ' t.
,i .
/
-t i So I cwuld still like the Board to tcha official notice of it V Uj t m _ _ _ _ _ _.._ __ -
__ = ._ _ _
e 2261
[ eb7 1 because I think it is important in making your decision.
N]) -
2 G! AIRMAN MILLER: Well, if the witness doesn't 3 either have knowledge of it or hasn't utili::ed anything per-4 taining to it in his testimony, then I don't quite see its '
t 5 admissibility on that basis. ;
- 6 Let me hear frca Mr. Gray just for a morant, while j 7 you're thinking about it.
. 8 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, once again:. as I say I'm ;
4 9 not aware of what sections it la she wants officici notice !l l
10 taken of,.what it says. N!d once again I ba'.iov2 that this 11 portion of the testimony here that tr.I':s abo",t probebility 12 is really to give a . feel agaiu of a r.asponra, apin by
./ [T' 13 Dr. Paxton, for sizes of earthquakes and describing them in
\,j 14 layman's terms. The Modified Marcalli Secle is describcd 15 here, and so on. l 16 Really, in our evaluaticn I believe it did not 17 i depend on the probability of en aarthquake occurring in the l b
- t;;
I next year as a basis for saying interim operation should be l .
19 permitted.
C1!AIPl!AN MILLER: I understand that to be the 20
- 21 testimony of the witnesa, both 11 hi.s written testimony i
22 and in his responses now, Ms. E211. And if that he true, 23 { I don't belie'ra this uculd be adnissibI2.- at l uct in p-24( relation to your a:: amination of this witness.
p MS. BELL: Well, --
(j. 23
- =: . _. . _ _
i 2262
( W, '
eb8 1 MR. KAFOURY: Might I inquire? Might it be ad-t 2 missible as a matter of which notice can be taken as primary 3 evidence, it being an NRC document? .:
CHAIPRAM MILLER: Hell, that dcean't just 2nto-4 ,..'
t 5 matically make it cdmissible. It makc3 it suses:ptible of
. 6? official notice. !
7' MR. KAFOUR'It Assuming its contant to ha relevant. t
- i 1
. 8 CHAIR!WI MILLER: Well, in your case I assume you .
I c
l 9$
might want to go into it+-- in chief.
10 All right, we'll let it lie there.
11l Did you have anything further, M3. Sell. in terms i
12[ of these witnesses?
13 l MS. BELL: Yes.
14 CHAIPJIAN MILLZR: YCu may continuo. J 13 By the way, Mr. Kafoury, if you or Ps. Bell do 16 l' intend to bring it up as evidence in chief, will you then 1
17 comply with the requirements of the official Motico section, l
- 13 give notice to Counsel pointing out, and so forth?
l 3b 39 us, 35LL: Yes, I will. l 6 j j .
- 21 .J J
il M
L l..
" i.y
/ 24 }
-o) 23 i
( .. _,
- . . ~ _ . . . . - -,
2263 L
J3C agbl BY MS. BELL:
>Y ' '
2 Q 1'.r. Herring, in the first section of your 3
testimony, is the section on the Modified Mercalli, is tne 4
relovance cf that be. sed cn the phre.sa c'r.rhing on 7 ;. 32,,
3 the very lasn words says, "none." It goes On to cay:
. S
"....nonc to ma3onry A.'
- Is that what the relevance is of the uhole
- 8 Modi.fied..Mercalli discussion.to this testimony? l i
3 A (Witness Herring) I think it has aircady been l 10 i brought out that it was an z.ttempt to give a general j
description of wnat levels of et.rthquaka ve'ra talking about 11'l 12 I' in very general ts.T..s.
Q I have one last question -- no, a couple of more.
I t, on page 16 of your first testimony, the fourth 15 line in the .92cend paragraph starts:
16 "This is between about three to fivo l l
II times that predicted from the derived 1 cad
.g
- versus displacement curve...."
I9 Is it "that," rather than "ihan?"
g 2D A (Uitness Herring) The so,cond pr.ragraph? !
" 2I Yes, tha second paragraph, the fourht l!.n 2 de in. !
Q U I'm trying to undarstand the santenca. Is this botteen thre: l !
'3 to fiva timas th.'t p radicted? ,
I 24 A That is referring to the displacc: cent.
O h 25 o okay. Thank you. I thcught it could hc.ve bean a
8 l I
E P
i -
m 2264 i <
! )
'v/
s .
agb2 typographical error, which wculd have meant culto a different j It I l
, L' to thing. !'
- I And on Page 12 of that sana tecti. eny, you i r
': talh ah e ct c c,1 :.1 f.c r..::.yc cnf. their pc ,ci;'. rn'. .tienenip c *:
, ~ 1: to the ctructural bch:.vior. km . .n.a j cst c.irice.s if you l u I 6 "j could. give a brief dcacription of how the.t -- wnet tnat il .
i
= - ,
! impo;tance is. lll.
. .! 4 g ll A Ws117 tu~itI2. the subaittalaryou'll nc'.ics that 5 9 t).a strength of the walls, supecially in tha r.ew cricaria
.s a f uncticn of the usi';ht-to-icngt!. r f.ic , :o :/n.: hh2 icv sr 10 .]I,
.,1
'i and longar the valls gic the atrcn12 -.ccy cra.
o
" So the decriays wo21i t:n1 to br:d: a len';
jl
) 13 wall up into severil piscos with icwcr height -- higher v ;;
height-to-length ratios.
N f. .
81 ; Q Uere you here yesterday during the testimony l o- ,I of Portland General Electric -- Ucli, it would be batter l 17 ; if I could have them provided with the transcript.
.li (Document handed to the panel.)
10-h!{
19 h Cn Page 1974 and a few pagsc therca-: tar, thora'c ;
20' !. a discuasien ah0ut wh1' Por'c land Genor..1 Einctric ' .r.aaeir.r.:
- l l
6 l
11 21 y selc.cted 5.u OBE, I maan, why they 34.lactsd. :ha ce
- Wt ws l
= .
' I nn a have. ;.
r Fir 3t on that pag 3, Sh?" C &',
20 o n . . i.:. ; . < :
24 "Uc selected the 0.13g for 2dliti: el j
f
-m s 25 l .
cens ervatism. . . . "
/ I }
s/ l.
B i
)
.. e ~. -
we-6
.x
,A*}
I 1
- I
,. i lt . 1. 1 2265 l l
{
1 i, agb3 on the naxt page on Line 15, they continues:
"At that tima, thero was no as'tablished criteria, very little precedent established for 4
.: th s solochica of ca c' p. :ching b icic aa.r%qu J'a h 1
- c
~
.- c.nd it was, rahher, a balancing of what the l l
6 axpected design criteria trou'.d be for the CBS
- ., 1 and the SSE.
~~0 "And tne idea was to maximize the OBE 9 IcVel so as to preclude having to shut the plant 'I i
i 10 down for the acximum amennt ycu coul!!. gab do:
l Il i the reasonnbic ncnay spent. It 'tas striO417 a 1E prudent operational quest!.ca, sc f..: as =u 1 f\ ,
I3 company was concerned." -
' ~
I l
14 I And than the discussion wont on about the i
15 balance of money and safety and things like that.
16 Were you hern, wera you present during that? l l l 17 i yea, A l l
13 i 0 And do you recall it, to a certain extent? l i
19 A Yes. '
I l
. t
- T Q Con 1d you gat befora you the response .thich was l
1 21 i written by you - the response to ra"id u. I!OCoy in.1 I 21 l ', Consolidt.ted Intervensrs' intsrrogato:.:ics of Japue:200r 1G, f*
li 23 L Uumcer 12? s -
n 24 'l (Docunant handed to to panel.)
E3 C Have you found it?
(
. I
f i
A 2266 I \
z j
\/ j agb4 A Yes.
l
~ .
Q Is K-A-l!, yourself?
N
- , A Yas.
4 . '.
. O I.1 light of ' thai .c'.' h;v2 n:ar: .lu a r.O ::. c:
[.-
o ji the panel -- of ?crtland General 012ctri: Oc/t, 3: i pointed si
+ ! out in the transcript, would you add s.:ms cr. : cencidoraticus 1
7' l
. to the ones that are given in your response?
a . , - . . . - - - t-
'l It says: .
9 '
j "Dased on a considere.ticn of r2giene.1 .
10 'i W toctonics, the gaclogy and scismology cf tho i i. 4,t 4 site and the seismic nis tcrv. . . . " -- as being the b -
12 0 g)
?
\.s
. . 13 l
reason for setting ths 0E3 leval?
A I'm rot sure I understand.
14 0 Uould you stand by that, or wculd you chango 15 j that response in light of what tastimony '.tas given by tha i
16 l App'icant yesterday, as I was referring to in d.e tranceript?
,- A Apparently, the Applicant prasent2d testimony m?.0
, sf.ated ser.e economic considerations and the JSAR,1:hich
> resents the criteria for catablishing this did not go into e
- O i any economic consideraticns thsy j';st n2:aly s% tod e.at --
t-
't' 4
, } you kncr, they dotarminsd one love.1 and chcsa tc 50 to a
- j higher CDI
- level.
23 i ".'he.nk ycu.
e
,t i
- ' l 1 :43. 3F.LL: I thcnk the Scaff fer repre.senwing tat 3:
i l
Q 2", ;f broader public intorast, and I have no fur <.hcr questions, d
- rry A
= *mv .m:.--. ,
)
2267 r%.
/ i V agb5 1
CHAIRMAtt MILLER: Thank you.
2 Let's see new, who do we have left for enamination t 3
or cross-enamination, the Licensau? Who else? -
' ;, 1:R. 3 N 17.5 : I think "" "'a only 0.10. '73 0: 2 i
~
4 may be some redirset yat, but I havs no qu .stions on Johalf
- 6 of PGE.
- 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'm going to daclare a short
~~- 0 10-minute recess soon-because we want to-finish uith the panal 8I Would it be helpful for you to i;c no'1 cr to l 10 "
start lator? Thor 3'11 be s feu qucchiens fr:m Dr. McC llom li l '* I and that'll wrap u? tha panel, so you knew uhers ue stand.
I '* l MR. GR.Yl Mr. Chairman, I just hava cne i _, 1*
l l I -
13 question.
14 ' CHAIR!!Tdi li!LLER: All right.
15 l REDIRECT E GMINATICN 16 BY MR. GRAY:
17 0 Mr. Herring, would you describa any Other 1 '
1 18 factorn besides strength of the structure th:.t anters into 19 the Staff racor:sandation of a 0.03g 032 for intaria r
20 operation?
4 21 A (Witnoss Herring) doll beside the strangth,
= 1 22 you would also be concerned wie. stiffnr.as : agr:.lcticns frc:r. ;
sarthque.%es that could cenenive.bly chift res.;cn.3.:s of :ne 23 }
h 24 E structura to icvels which you may not have concidarad in i' \
25 your criteria for equipaent com?sncnts and cystems, piping. I O
i i
V
. . ?'
. nM_
9 --
l i
2268
\ 1 agb6 MR. GRAY: That's all.
2 CHAIRMA11 MILLER: All right. Ten lainutes, a 9
~
sho'rt recess and then we'll concluds, I think, with the 4.
i panC1. ,
l 5h
. l (Rocess.) f L
= 6 .
. CHAIRMAN MILLER: 3Ach on tha record. ,
1 0 7 t MR. KAFOURY: Mr. Chairman, may I have a little j 8
recross?-
~ ~l-t <
i i g
CHAIRMAN MILL 3R: != it wit'lin tha sc0pa of the , q s
radirect?
11 MR. KATOURY: Yea, sir.
CHAIRMA;I MIL 72R: Ver" wcil.
( '
\
13
- RECROSS-EXAMI:iATION 14 BY MR. KA7OURY:
15 Just one very brici question, gentlemen.
Q 16 tihy do you think it's necessary, in light of 17 your previous answers, to I:cdify the building?
10 e A (tlitness Trammall) I'll start and Ken can --
19 he stay want to add something to it. ,
20 i I was present during ths,entira asc2rce:nt of i
21 i the centrol building non-::nform:.nce fro". d e n;1.. .W .
< l 22 And I cen stata tMt na basis, the f t:.de.:iantd V:.ci: Sr 23 , fi::ing it is t: ractere uf::r rud.ns :: c ; " : nn ;::t :r.- :. ,l E4 Cr, if possbla,. tc rectore the 1e.vns crisin s.'.ly inter.ded in the license. And tint, as a funch.:aental principle, is c a 25 l
\a) 1 1
1 --
4 m,.; -me 5
j
i I
I 2269 O
> \
U '
aqb7 reason we'd like to have it fixed. !
e It's a fine line to draw when one has to drau conclusions that it's all right for interim operation --
well, tha logical qusstion is, uhy isc.'t it 3.11 right:
. 5I
, forovar. And an ovaluatica cuch ss ua hava tri:5 to zalk fl 6 a fine lina, in fact, it doen.
- I Uhathar or not it's implicit or s::plicit in tne
- 0 testimony of Mr. IIerring, it is novartheless a f act that, a r agi.is 9 as I see it, that we taka ser.e comfort from the knowledge ;
! i 10 that there will not be 10 or 15 02I:o Set roca acw snd the ii l !
time the building ic fi::ad. I'm t.ct c. a n!.sr. ologist, but l 11 ] < t
.4 i l
'* ;; I live on planet carth and I can it.:.%2 ths.t tcc iaeny. ;
O'-
t 33 It's difficult, in fact, to 30m darres it's I4 arbitrary what cafety margins -- what number do you want? l l
l 15- 1.75, 1.8, 1.4 -- nevertheleac the codon by .aich us c:n- l l
l 1G struct buildings, plus the additional factors that the L43C l
17 uses do result in safety margins which are substantial.
- . 10 ,1 There's a number of ways to rostor2 these racxgins.
r l
10 ' PGE has indicated perhaps a building addition, in addition
- i
' 20 '
to our tests going on right now on modals of Crojan control
- I i 21l ,
building walls uhich us do nct raly on for our present !
, I i 7.2 I conclusions, but nevartheless may bring fc. sard inferr.'.ati i 2", I which indicates ths.t hacu. uc11:3 v.rc sub ie: At:. .117 rb: nyor i r
t 24 than is indicated by accewhat limited test d=:. m ::ia tinc. i 1 i
23 It's pessibic that these margias could be rastored :7 these ' >
e O. a
,s-
W t -
44 '
. 'k
e I
2270 is -
1 l agb8 tests.
' So our conclusion is that, in some way or otner, it would be desirabia to restore safety me.rgins.
~ ill 4 ',E Q Chank you. i A (Ultnasa Ha:tring) I just would lihs to af.0.,
e G.i
- d you knew, probability we.s brought out'in the se.=2 conco
. i
" that I was bringing out that the load f actors era a.',::o a s s l
o implicitly influenced by probability and ith_not r.n explicit t
,I l
l a F. consideration. ,
l 13 y1 MR. IGJCUn'J: Thank you. ! t d, i cHA:rewt :cLLI:a: Dr. 1:cco11:n? ,
M h. :
i se i's end3c
- I: -
- 1 f
!O _) 13 I g 14l. ,
l
. t5 IG-
- ww....
13 i i
- t
,gg-i i
. 7.0 !
l
?.1 1 :
I w, 't
- )
24 :1 ,
i 25 l ;,
i 3 1
. I' . _ . . . . _
.,; i
'd?
. s,s ,
- . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - _ _ _ - . - - _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ - - _ . . - - - - - - _ - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - --- - . - - - - -JI.
i i
. 2271 s i l \
j 'lD wb1 1 0:2.!!I'IATIO!! BY TIIE UnARD e
2 By DR. itC COT,7,0?!:
3 q I would like to tall: to t'r. Herrinn a littis hit 4, on the actring of thu .cnn as the Onn.. ,
I 5 I holieve vou say that tha reason, c- tho c rationale, I should say, for settiner i: there, fr prepcsinc to
, 7 set it there, in that t'.at'n the first non-linear hahavior, ,
t i
- 0 or the first crackinn. And veu sa" that j.s reachsd anr.ro::i-I 9 metal'r at one-hald of its -- what? -- ultinsts canacitv? ,
1 10 A (Mitnens t'errinn) m'; 2 en!.cula.cd ul ir-ta ;
11 canecitu basan on the nodi #isd Achnoider critaria.
12 i 0 How cood in that estinata? , 7.1 it into tha linear
(~~\i 13 tecion or is it-- Uhat's your best quess? nelate it t'o the s
\d ja west vall, it you unnt to, if it halpa any, A Uell even lookinc at tha wast wall you notice gl . I 16 ne. interpretation given in Appendices C and D in finures is that the nasonry buqins its non-linear behavior, if you wan:
37
, to call in that -- the nore non-linear hehavior, :t around 33
- g 100 psi. And the concreto is nuch ctronner. So vou're in a
. 20 crav area above lan pai, "ow th.9 hal ultimate corrasnonic to r:rarnaa en 21
.2 ths or?er of lin nni. no vcu ne" ".*e cat; int' a ur.211 'nm:a2 .
I g cav, ir the we.st wall, the. rest hishi" s crors :.1 c ' 1, aven a t chat 007 thar. I did calcula:r.
e.4 You know you could not preclude it arl I con't 7_s
' / \
l /
1 x_- l 4 6
I i, t.
'u 4 -
l}
i%.,
o
i 2272 s
K. / wb2 1 anticipato that it would he sinnificant non-linear behavior.
1
- 2 q I believo in sono of tha discussien this afternoon. i 3 it was suggested that as the concrote goes into itn ncn-
/'-
/, j linear portion it gesc in nonewhat cradually. Ie that cor-
}
s .
,I rect? It docan't hava a sharp band in ite W:ru.s-+:rnin
. . j
. g! relationship? ,
~
I r -
A Mc11, in actualitv, neither :.Tuld ::ho raconry.
' i 3 l_AndfronthecenPdataallthatareindicatedarethedic-
-7_. g g niaconent at "irct crackina. So c linear varietion between j t
- o j zerc and the noint at which first crachine benins is ! i i
l asscmad. You can look at it as drawinq a sacant throt:qh the f 11!
i I actual stress-ntrain curvo for t.;o nitcrial. i i
g 'a l
s If there inn't a severo chcnge in the slana I
[
\
) j ~
13 0 1 I
\'~~' r
- 4 wondor, though, what your co nont means, whera you r.aka ie !
i n age 30 f y ur first testin ny where it say " cyclic
. 15 !
i degradation on its load deflection curve" -- neaning the 16 'l 7
I wall and not the stael - "is where thera is a scvars change
, ;g of SloDe. Is this where theru'is a severe changs of slope,
- at this one-half of the calculated capacity, in your opinion? I 10 a.) I
., A Mhere acvere evelic-- Let r.d not ancwer that f>
s
,g ! dirsctiv. T.et ns .iust no ancther way.'
t
- n All right. :
i '
L
,I A Uhare czvers cy:lic decrnAatien, wh:.: I eculd c111' -
cs >
'l severs cyclic degradation is "here you ar.:nl .'.2 c.1 :ina -
2, aA ll I
whers ycu would net ne.:ual canacit"' reduction. 7: lenn la i 2.5
/ \ .
i h h
- /
%s m a me.
.6 l Q.
l
(\
i i
-- 2273 :
4
/ \ !
t } l
\_
wb3 I you are staying short of that point you're noing to have i
- varying anounts of stiffness degradation between shear
,3 3 craching and ultimate. At first it vould hecene -- it vot'.1d j e- ;
4 ba, you know, you could call it substantial. And at scna
, 5 point it would change to savor 2. And thnt's subject te
. G interpretation.
~
e 7 0 pave vou chechad to see what other wall, at uhat 8 point it.uould reach its ene-hal" of capacity, the next wall, '
(
9 i# vou wish, besides tho west vall unen which you haso your L 10 !
calculations?
11 A Mo, I did not. I based nv calculation on the 12 west wall cince it was one of the more,zinnificant valls in
/
\
[- 13 the structure.
\w. /
14 0 nut you don't know whara you run into the next 15 one?
16 A You could back-calculate it. '
17 0 Do you know what the -- have you calculated the
, ja Point at which .114 would he determined as tha onn in terns 19 of the total capacity of that vest wall?
20 A "o, I did not. '
s 01 0 Mell I shouldn't aven have approachsd it tha t gg wav. I have. It is .63 instead of .5.
23 Do you consider that a sicni:'icant 6.i"Forence in i
y' terns of knowing uharo the degradatien w:uld start and in 25 turns of the tor.nl capacity?
p-s 5
.. . r__ _
I
4eW m@*5 . W mis = M, .6W. g,aw s
l 2274
[ h ?
\s_ ,/ wbd 1 A nell, anain, all these are based upon an averane l
2 curve. Also you're nahinn an assunption of averancs. So ,.
each wall in actualitv is coina to behave a little hit dif- I 3 ,
I aj ferent than that curve in relationship te its -- to the
, 5 l thichnena of uha cora in relatienchin to tha thicknesc of the
. 'i e block.
6f
- 7 Uithout going through and doinq sono sort of a 8 n n-linear analysin I don't know uhether that t.*o tid be signi- l g ficant or insignificant. ;
I 10 0 Ohay. ;
{
11 ' I 9"*83 I'"
- littl* hit C "CS#U"d th^t "3 "*010 '
t l
12 ; he asked to m2hu the dacision on the. hasic c! tha analysis 4
g
\
( '
!.3 l f what night hs happaning to one vall not understanding s'
3, reallv what the other walls would be doinc, even considerinn denradation, narticularly since we have seen evidence that
. 15
! savs that tha redistribution of the lead, even when this 10I carticular wall is reduced considerably, does not sunacsa 17 i that other walls will be noino over their capacity. And it
- is good to ha safe, but I'm not cure I can iustifv in nv nind 19 at this point', although I nay when all the evidancu is C.
l 1 reviewed, that it is justified to co 'dcur. ':o 2 00 ha cd on 21 ,
- I' that s'.mple calculation and on the: onc *.2;l sn'. c.: 3 cen:1?.2r-22 '
ing what tha ethar things hava dona, i , I knew you've g'iven a icu nera thought :.: this 24 than I hava. no yeu have any cennent to na%2 en cha:7 i
r s
%/
- r. .
C6
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ __ b
2275 )
,a t i
$s_s wh; 1 o nell the structure does show a good chility to
'l a redistribute forces such that I agree that you'ra not going 3 to be exceeding the ultimato such that you would get -- the 4 ultimate ctrength of onhsr walls auch that you nty be yatting
, 5 into the actual degradation of tha load carrying cap 1 city --
. 5 you know, savore degradation of that espacity.
~
- 7 Itowsver, as brought cut, the othar concern you a , vorry about would he channes in._the ..resnonso of tha structure _ ,
9 so far as chanqes in its stif"nans .rould go, and as that j I
would relate hack to the aquipnont cennonents and cirinn E' IC 11 inside the s?.ructure. I 12 0 'Tave we not scen a int of e ridenca. that shows
(N / g3 that with the redistribution and with the cyclic loading,
'\ ~
14 even if this one wall were to degrade, that the other valls 33 would support the load, the tote.1 load? And have va nou received evidence that that total load will distributo, and 16 dis tributo fairly unifornly? And is that not sufficient 7 i
, ,g evidenec'in your mind that this would be a vary, very safa e
g OBE as compared to, perhaps, a more reasonabla one?
. . tA Anain you scan to be looking at tha tructurs it-s s0 '
sel , and the structure--uhether it's qcinc <a co11 cree or 21 n t, s t sneak, or net e::tr:naly lerna tilznlace.:aez.
12 !
n 'Ic, I really wasn't. rcn thir ' i te : had ston l >
c3 ; ;
i 24
'l evidence that cars for .11e carthrue.has Cu: taarea una not i '
noing to he a significant inpact. And wa heve had sor.c !
15 l,
(< s i
t-1
1 1
i I
1 A 2276 -
/ .
'\% . wb6 1 testimonythatsaysthatthiscouldhorepsatedeverandover!
, 2 again without a significant change in the structuro and its ;
6
- i. l 1
3 ability to hold those and respond each tino. '3 hat's what I ' i n '
was thinhing of, and conparing it to your rory ccncervative....
4 la
, 5l' Me, ac the no2rd, are c;oing o havs to d:cida 4
G what is the nest renconahic evidenco. nad thoco are tuo
, 7 sort of' conflicting enas in ny nindet thia point.
t e 8 A S'oll as you can see frcm thia data also, there
_ _ _ . _ _ _ 6 ,
9 is a strain inconpatability botuaan the concreta and the 10 '; masenry that is quite sinnificant. ;
I l
It ! O Mow let na go on to another .7he.sc.
l
- g i Lot's e.ccur.s that us had a reas'nchla 3im d .
O / I sarthquake, greatar than the CBE, less than the SK:, and
(
5
-) 13l the reactor is shut down and is ready to ha inspacted. And 14li
, 15l this is open to all of you on tha panel to c w.ont en.
16 What kind of inspectir.n procedur:3 and what kind 97 of criteria should you une for evaluating for restart of the ja reactor and sayinc it's all right to no bach. and co back on
. this basis?
gg .
, go A " ell the obvious one is to walh cround the plant a I .
and loch, 21 (
i e 49 C IIdo7 Ih.at G11alificaticl'.37
",.,, A I'd say a structural engincar should ha the ons 44 tihe does it.
,5 Also you hava co r.nanhar i.htt ' era iO a 4
\
8
'%j a . _ . . . _ ... - .... . -s - - - * - - - ~ ~ - * = ~ * ~ - -~+-
,~ ~ . . . . -. , , .
. PA 3 L
i 2377
/ i
'(/
I wb7 1 substantial anount of seisnic instrumentation around the 2 plant that will be recording various tina histories and so I
3 forth. Time histories, peak responses of cartain parte of 4 the structura. .
. S */ou would also go be.ch to your cricinal analytical l l
6 medals with the neasured coi r.ic input. Ycu ::*:1d run that !
l
~
7 tino history throuch thoso nadalc, connare' cha analytical l, i
3-results to what was naasured in the structiro to verify tho l!
g aAenue.cy of voor nodeling. i ;
jo , Mith varified nodels than */cu could no hack and do calculations to find out whara would ha tha neat - you 11
- 4. .
know, what would you have c::porienced no far as strecs g'^ 33 levels in certain areas. And that would dictate uhan level j ~ c
of inspection to do and in what areas to do those inspections. !
1 u. 1 I:nd 3D
. 15 16 37
- 18 19 20 21 u.!
l 23 24 '
25
,n
/ j i
l LJ
.. t . . . _ . . . . _ . _ .
5 m
1
~ . . . - - - . -.. - 1 i
l l 1270 m
i
) 3e l
(.) HRB/mpbl* I Q So you would calculate whether you weht into a 2 significant stress area, then, is that correct, lika if it 3 was a fairly hefty one, say a .2g earthqua':c, and you confirmail l
4, then, that that's . hat it vac, ycu could go back and cay This
,; ; I Sb is what happened. and '.th m you saa that it ucat up over i
. i
, 3l soma kind of a curva, how would you check it? Icu would ycu I.
. 7 know whether you had degradatien in tho stiffness at that 8 point?
i 9
i A That would have to be dete: mined at the time !
10 c::actly how far you wonid go, uhother ao far as dastructive 11I e:: amination or cemething, cutting cut a .:cchic. el the .rall !
l ,
i 12 ' and checking it. 1 i
,1.140 13 Q You see, I'm trying to settia in my own mind
('] (
~~'
14l what was the difference in cetting it at .00 versus .11, if 15 it's going to go up to .10 or .2 or .23 or something like that l 16 anyway; and what aro you going to do to evaluato and inspect 17 it?
. :s We have been accured, reascured maybe, that th'are
- 9 ! are some inspectica techniques. I wonder Uculd you pecple 20 ; expact to be involved in an inspectioh of Trojan in casa !
! I 2 1, there was a reportable carthquahe cbc7e 03E? ,
22 A (MitncSC TraR0ll) 743: 3ir-i i
1 23 ; O IIow uculd ycu e:: pact to be in rel cd?
24l A Frcm a liennaing staadpcin I uct.'.3 s::ps ::2 Oc ha ,'
25 involved from -- to get the pacpic, the structurci a:.;crts cu.-
p ,
4 l c Nj f Yet l $~ $.
2274 l \
( ,/ mpb2 1~ thoro to do their revieu, pretty much along the lines that 2- Mr. Herring has indicated.
3 There is further guidanco in its infancy new, ,
4 . draf t regulatory guides on hat te f.o a.'tcr a :ct:t-CE": aarth-
,1
, 5 i quaho. That particula- itse dcacn't havo 10t cf priority I
- e 1
, Gj becauce it prchably doesn't unrrant 9.o high priority. Dut ,l '
l
. 7 nevertheless, that's under development.
1
- 8L And considerablo work has been done procedurally i
_ . . . . . . . _ >i s!d at Diablo Canyon on just what they wculd dc. That's probably ;I e'
to ' the best information we have. I understand these procedu.re l l l 1 l 11 , are in place at the plant and arc very complete.
it i' Q to you kncu thosa ' tall onctgh tc aurrari:n th:m
(N 13 ; for us?
( '~' /
~
t 14 l; A No, sir. I haven't seen them.
. 15 A (Witness Herring) One other thing, Dr. MCCollen.
I 10 i' Part of my concern over cyclic degradation is the fact that i
the PCA tests were only put through two cycles at each load 17 l
. 13 level, and the load level was two-squara rcot-7C'. And even 19 [ the Berkeley data was cycled at fi::cd displacament at caly
. gol thrco cyclas at each displacercnt, uhare that's enough cyclas
- I ,
21 i to indicata uhat wculd happen, you know, if you had ons 4
22 l earthquake.
i f
23 i
O Uhan you say three cycli:s thct "uns f.uct r: ally is 24 three variations back and ferth is all they tcut through in 3 their --
(
n
> '1 Q,l
- ~N
&.*Q w(
t3
l 2280 I r
/
(
I mpb3 1 A At each -- they had a fixed displacement. There ,
t t ,._ 2 were several displace.nents that they stepped up through.
3 0 All right.
4] t So the total cycle: thct th:t had gens ,ough ;
i
, 5 il even thcugh it were stepped up, we.s ufficiant.'." -- culto a j j i ;
e, i
, 6 bit largar than three? l 1 1 1
. 7 ! A ch, yes.
8 __ O' Do you remember how many total cycles it went .,_ ,
1 O [. through? lj to A No, I don' t.
li 11l CIIAI1U9.11 MIL'E2: I:r. pt:cton? .
t.
10 ; BY DR. ?.MTC;i:
i p)':
V
(/
13 0 My first question is just for rey enlightencant i 14 on this page 32 of Staff Exhibit 5. This page that was suppos-
. 15 ,
} ed to simplify things and apparently had the opposite effect, i i
16 i The referanced boek by Newmark cnd Rosenbleuth, i
if I interpret correctly, was a source cf the definitionc of 37 ]I!
ja lj various intensities, F.odified liarcalli intanzitiss?
'l 9
19 A (Witness Herring) Yes.
- C Was it clso the ecurce o-f the correlcticn be-
- 20 l.
- gj I,I tween ground secoleratien values and intencity values?
h .
,, P A I wac going to ccrrect the raccrf. I inadvart- l
.. .{
3 w ;
ently left out that. 7ohn K:lleher of the 52:ff. t : c la a -
h gq seismologist, gave ce the infcrmatica on Qich I inssd ralat-1 g ing th3 intJnSitieS to the VariouS MCdifi3d MOrcalli intenSiti9.
f D
h} . .. . _. . _ _ _ . . . .,
1 '
' 2231 i \
'l
~
mpb4 1 and that was based upcn the Trifunac and nrady relationships
- E for Modified Mercalli intencity vorous acceleration for uhere 3 to anchor a spectra at; and that is e.pproved by the NRC and r-4; applicable to the Trojan cita. ;
i .
- 5 0 14y interest was in a publiched sc.urca of cuch 6: information. l
. I 7 n there a publication that you *mcw of uhers !
F a4 this can be found? ___ ,_ i l
A I'n not aware of the referan:0. 1:c*nvar, I 9 I..
I 10 i could got it if you daci a to borrow it.
i 11 O Well, if it's simpic I'd apprecista it.
12 ! A All right.
r (p) ;, .. s, 13 0 Thank you.
14 Now there have bacn referencos -- you have had
. 13 references to stiffness degradation. i 16 Is a reduction of stiffness necessarily a de-17 gradation in the unfavorable sense? Might the.t not actually i
18 be in the favorchie sense?
9 tg A It is favorable in that associ2 tad with degrad-20 ! ation of stiffnesa you get nonlinear behavior.
- hich through i I
21! my testimony I refer to it as 1 coking at the arbent of duct- ,
4 .
. 4 22 111ty, which you can alco leoi at it ca an enorrf dissi;c- l
- 3
- tion r.cchanian and analogcus to derping. !t Damping is usun11y the Bern uscd 2.n :ne Ainacr [
24 i. .
s 25 range.
~. .
i
] ie, k
t i
,y l YAi
! ML
l l
2282
( )f s\- 'i '
, mpb5 1 0 So your use of the term " degradation" does not
, 'l 2 necessarily imply in the unfavorable sense, is that it?
i 3 A It's favorable in one conco. Ecwever, depending 4 upon the magnitude of the stiffnesa dngredatien you ticuld
!a!
- 5 i; get corresponding frcquency chifts c.nd rarisue difforsnt
. II
- 5 behaviors in the behavior of the structuro, which may not 1
- 7 be adcquately acccunted for in your cnalycis for the response 8 ,
spectra, and therefore would affset equipment and piping i i '
9j located in the structure.
t 10 !* O But I think you suggested that it would be very ,
n \
- \ :
' i 11 y difficult to tell by inspoetien just what such an rifcet en l I
12 I the response spectra might be after cn earthqucks. l 1
,g f l l ) 13 A Well, that's why I said you could go bach and i 1
\
x/ I- .
l 14 it would be -- at leest in my opinien -- in psetion couplsd l 15 with analyses and so forth using structurni medals and 16 measured time-histories of the carthquake, do an analysis so 17 ! that you could get an educated idea of whors to look and what t
i .
tai you should be looking for.
19 . 0 It so'und's tricky.
b f f
20l My other quastion is about this effidavit of ;
o .
( '
23 ft 3hao's that I understand you preparsd, is that correct?
11
- a 22 't A came up with the nu- er, the 50 parcant, en ,
i
! i 23 y the order cf 30 percent, i 24 ' Q My concern is chout the lacb T;c santenec: of I
- 25 ;t this affidavit. !
s g !
- I
\
l 4 1
/ (' 1
' t il -
n l'
..g e
'YI .
'^. ,0
- , p
1 l
l l
1 ;
2283 i e~x \
l i
I r
l x/~
mpb6 1 tiow this has been referred to before. This is I
~3 l l
% Affidavit of Lawrence Shao, notarized on June 27, 1978, and -- 1 3 well, entitled Affidavit of Lawrence C. Shao. l
(~ 4-l Perhepc for the rscord I chculd ::znd che lac:-
- S two santences:
6 "The as-built structure has on the order 7 of one-half the seismic capacity originally a
a t.
intended and approved. 1hile adaquate marginc--. -
l 9' of safety still remain to allow operaticn with 10 the as-built Control Ouilding the sa:'oty nar -.
11 gin for that building is :aduced on t:te ordar 12 . of 50 percent."
/
<- s T
), i 13 To me those two statements don't mean tha same w/
14 thing.
15 Is seismic capacity -- maybe I should ask for 16 definitions .
17 You give me tha definitiva of 'sai:mic cap city".
I i
18 A It would be the level of seicnic input, say, up 13 to which you would' get a response which hr.d not bcon consider 2d 20 in the original gnalyses. In other words larga dicplacements, 21 :
changes in response which could occur shcrt of buildin-
's
, h l 22 t collapse.
s i
23 , O Eut still major effaces? !
i 24 r A It would have a significant effect on what wr.; l I
25 analy:ed such that the structure bec:::.ec a different structurc, ,
, ~ ,
/ \
, 5
> /
x ./
}Q{
"jM 4%
0 i
i 1
l i 2294 i
i
/ N s 1
i i l I
'V mpb7 1 Q And in what terms '.fould thic be neaccred? In a 2 tsrns of ground accelcration? Or -- do you ce2 trhat I maan?
i 3l I What is the parameter that you are thinhing of chan you cay f f 4; "scismic capacit'!"? - i
, 3 A It irculd Sc in ts as of greur.d .u;;'.or22icn. '
- I 3{ <
Q I sse.
7' So this would any that ths ground :ccoleration I,
3i chet_'.fould load to .these severo effects is .;bcut eno-half of -
F' I t 3i 'ihat it should have bean? ! l i l ,
- C { A On the order of ena-hcif, .re.c . !
t i
- 4 0 On the crder, I sh uld 3 y. .l;;".t h.nl ~ !.s l
I
- 7. ithat I'
- c saying, j 13 And then the ne".t centence say: that consthing x'-
yl else is reduced en the Order of 50 percent, which r. cans that I
. jl ,
it is of the order of ene-half, and this is nr.r7in of cafety, I
i 5> the cafety margin is rsduced en the crder of 50 percent.
i 1
- 7 i Maybe I shculd ask nu.i for a f.ofinition of h
- 3
- " safety margin".
1 i
- 9 i A In tho cense it's used there, "s .f3 by cn- gin" l
- an
- , , 'eculd be analogcus te the seicnic c:.c. deitv. . n c': hor - ordsi 6
2; j you're talking about scmething that .tas en the c;-~ # =0 i
- t. .
< :t 22 ja porcant - '.all, .t ~_oal o f ar.r .hq .:ch t cn "1: ardar cf j
.I :
.j '
23 ; 50 percent 4hich pr3vicuc 'ncti:.ca'; bf 22ch b.~. r- _.:dicat d .
- l
-- - it ticuld be 30 parcent v.ou cav. start r. ac tin .: hshcciar: thich m t ,
l $
ES O you had not anal;:ed f:r and had not ccnsii:ral in the origiru :!
/m i i I h ! .
( -
,/ i, t
i M i '
a f yee a 'ii j '
- T l
i 22S5 I
,m i
f
mpb8 I design.
\'
n O Isn't that en unucual definitien of " safety v
~
margin"? Usually the margin is over and rdoove so:'.ethir.g, which I would : .:r.a rip b: i.a S':~: '.arn. '
.y 1
5- A Ycs.
o .
0 I'm saying you ancly e the pl:nt for .'.5, i:ut !
7 yet you knew by looking at it that there is a laval chevo 8 the .25 that-it would still withstand befera you gat some i 9: different types o'? bahavior which veran't cen idorad in the 1
I
" analysis, not nacercarily huilding ac1'2p.c.. i ,
. I i
., : i i
'; Q Right. i i I
i 12l And o the reductier of that c:foty nnrgin over i l
,- m ,
ix )
, 13! and above the SSE by 50 percent is not the cams as the reduc-Q ,/
14 tien of the seismic capacity by 50 percen': -- neu I'm taking i5 l the 50 percent literally -- unless the caf aty nrgin is i
16{ very much greater than the SSE laval, .-here the oc would be i i 17 ! about the same? ---- ~ r ,
i i
10 A At that tima it ucs esti.neted uh.S ii2 ctrteturo '
s 19 ; would withstand substantially highar than a ..'.Ug nad ona :
20 ' quick and dirty actinate wculd .:e if the C : ica.Is cr: the e . . .
21 i 5
.1anie as the SS2 1 cads of .15g anf it Mcs i:.;; .:-' c. 6 *11 9.-
- 1 20 ,' ,
stand a factored 03C, 2. - would ha 30:0 thin; : " a :;en 1. .
22 h tir.as the .2Eg pr2vicv::.y.
..I Aee .J a bd. .'.' .r D.LsL . . .
- 5 Q Wall, lat's just casr.2 th at -- h:' O see, 1.4
/ ;
i
/ [
I,
!6 (I
43 . _ . . . _ . .
.,y N
lR
2286 r~x
! I s mpb9 I times 2.5 - .25, excuse ne --
. I 2 A .35.
3 O Let's just cay that it wac .35; and you say i
/ I 4 that a safe chutdown earthquake ic .2~. I: the s'.h tr n'.rgin l -
- 5 !j then .1; the dif23ronce bet.tcen .25 cad . J57 i 6' It's tha margin bot teen tiheru it trould ha te ( );
7 fallen apart at .25, which in the safo shutdct;n earthquake L.
e it 3
-~
and how far abovo that you actually thought it vas. [
L i
9! A Well, enc other thing I trould consider in this ,'
t i
10 I' fact. That was just one facter that trould enter into it.
11 Now -Je're using ccde n11cuchlac,trhich wa'va l
. i 12 l already seen are quite conservativa. Sc in actuality :ha
/~N 7 l I
)
13 building would have taken greater than hcif a g.
x,s 14 0 All right.
15 Uell, let's take .5, then.
16 , A Okay.
i 17 ! O .5 and .25. 1:ct; the nargin is .25, safaty rarginj ja A You look at it in tha sense of dividing the .5 19 by .25, and you get two, a factor of tt/o; a safaty factor I i guess would have been a more ao. n. ron. rio.to ticrd to have used. l
, 20 .
i .
~
I 21 CIIAIR:1Tdi IIILLI2: I'n still confused. ;
4 : ,
t 22 ; B'.' C'IAITdiid! MILLER: l 23- Q If the cafety factor is the di2f3rance bat'.risn t
g4 the SSE cf, say, .25, and ceno highar valua is that n
- k. 25 acceptabic tern as it'c haing used 4- "# s prec2eding, =argin ! ,
! i i / ,
'x_l e lt
. i !
jei f
w i&
'hs l'e f _
- - , .a... - .an . . _ . . . . _ ~ . . _ . . . . . . _ . , . . , - .x l1 I i 22f17 A
kj'-
3 mpbl0 1 of safety, safety factor?
' I, 2 A (Witness Herring) Margin of cafoty you can also 3 look at as baing how large is this factor that you can take 1 r 'l 4 -- how n:ny ti:.as ':he earthqunho cou?.d y:". tes t ' c. t r: ?id be '
l 5t an indication of tha acfaty r.argin.
e i G ,i O I wcnt to icok at the sc?cty acrgin, ac I undcr-7 stood some of the preceding witnoscos hcd, and I unferstcod B
3 that-tha safety margin uns that nla s vea the SS2 v lue of" i
9 .25. l Is this an unraacenable definition? >l 10 i 1
11 A No.
1 I
10 0 All right.
p ~
) 13 In your judgment, now, what was the design basis 14 margin -- no, the design basis peint chova .25 ct which a I ,
15 safe shutdown could be anticipatod, that is to say the safety !
16 margin?
17 DR. MC CCLLCM: '2 hat's the .5 that us agr:ed on.
18 WITNESS ERRIUGs Or tharashcuts.
s 19 As I'ststod, on the orfer of 50 porcant was used i
] 20 becausa we did not feel that thera uch any strong cafety
, 4 significance associated with determining he" rud 3-had been Ii V t l
..c. l :sduced exact 1"<. l.
I 23 ' EY CHAI?S P MI" ?.7,: Z l
1 I
3 24 il Q Well, ic it 50 percani: chora .II, fir:t of all !
- ?
s 25j to got that safety ma gin? In other words, nn I talhing l l
/ O. ,
i t ) :
V i
\
b i
, e.
(1-
i 2288 t
,~.
\
(,/ -
mpb11 i about .25 plus .2125, or 37, .37, or am I talking about .57 2 i A (Witness IIorring) They'd be talking of the J order of .5. If you took the 50 percont and go with en the c
4 order of --
g
- 5 :', O Moll, I'c r.rhing you:
I
. 6 Was .5 or .50 the margi;: at ;c.ich thre could
, 7, still be safe shutdown in the e tent of s --
I 3l A._...-._._On the ordor of thtt nurbor una -- at the time.-- i
[
9j of the origination of that documant. l E
to :i BY DP.. MC COLLCM: ;
I
- , O ':' hen it tras .5; and if you rnduced it hy 30
- . i percont, whars dcas it go to, the aclaty f actor or whatever a
p/ (
\
u i
you call it?
A (Ultneca Iterring) A?,cund . ?.5.
1, q I
15I O You nena it goes clear down te where it's a l tg i safe ahutdown carthe,uake? You're saying that it's cut clear I
in hai.f?
37 l l We're taking scmathing abovo .5.
33 j A Un didn't kncu i
)
gg what that number'tias.
o 20 0 Well it keeps growing n'cw.
> 1 .
~1 ii t<
(La .ghter. )
l.
g {! A I'm trying to maks th:::sa nt'; tar.1 - . hat to i!
3 ., worn acching at tac t'u.t --
'.1 i.
end 3e y llt' l '
25 *
(\
J 1
sv' i
[ i W wt I
I
?5 h-
'N
_ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . ~ . . . .
1 2289 ? -
I' O)
(d '
a, min: Mm.m Ma'r q inn to nch N.McCollo.7
- 3P obl 1 i
s e t 2 to addroaa the blackboard. He'll ha referred to an Frnfessor 3t McCollon fer this puroese.
ii
,- t 4y (Launh :or)
'l 3 !i.
(f.t the bic.c'2 card.)
e 11 3 !I; 3Y DR. V.C 00LLCM:
i.
O I'm just going to call that "X." I hcvc to 7 li 3 ;ff a
c."iscribe this, don't-I? -
,' \i O ,j I hcvs a line at the bottom which 10 z;ro g.
10 .' Td1cvo that is n line that is . tar %3d ..5g. Th ::0 ar:: i i
!i 110 cceelerations, ground acccicre.tione.
1 '
12 l Ahevo th:t lina 10 :n-th::; :ino ".:i:h in at sc=c j O
1 I
1., i unknown acceleration, "X."
(j t i
1 If I were to say that uc.3 O c design that 's:s l l
i 5 originally e::pected, and that the safety cargia ic the num- !l l
t
- s :i bers between this line and that lina (indic: ting) then if I s
l
- 7 i i, I say-- If I say thct tha safsby n::.: gia ic :_u di ?!cranca 1 l tc ,1 i between "X"g and .25g, th-an if I cut tha saf.aty urgin in l half, I would interpret it that I would go helf'c.y bot.:acn 19 .I*Il li 20 f, those tt.o lincs,
} l i
! .l i Men that 10 not the kind cf c:f;t.r .u.rgin 'ecu .
v: s I .
r '! :
22 j considering? !
q j
- j A ("itnass :G rrin:)
':c .
. 21 32 t.. : : :nt r c; : fc
- 24 ' contradict each othar. {
/ :
y gg !!
v G- Will '/cu tall us wh!.ch cns in bha rirht -
.( t' i
\ $
v -
t I --
l[
e'
,1,
.g .
2290 7_~. .
i i '
\ '
eb2 1I interpretation?
,- - 'N, s'
2 A The first one.
3' CHAIR!WI MILI.'::R: "The as-built :tructura
<~
4i has en tha ordar of ens-ha".f of "ha sci 7.iic c 3 .-- :
tl t
- i city origin 211y in':sudad cnd L'.Oro T.'.
5 jl: l
. 6i.if Is that correct? <
f e 7 UITUCSS HER?.ING: Yes.
Si y CHAIRMTJT MILI.D.R: 7cu are cgai.n scyin7 that the
~.
o !; as-built structure has a safaty f actor of .25. i ,
'.3 1l 4 '
D.'. PAXTC:i: I'- doesn ' :. h r'/ 2 ::'.y i:cf aq fca tor.- ii 10 d.. ,
- l l
.. . t '
.)
. g j CTtI".
. y'"uI
- 4. .' I.'m._..,""
~. .- "m_'.".. ~,.~,"-4-
_ . . . . . _ _ . l 12 ;ll hcc en the order of ene-half of ths seire.ic ct;n-l
~ i , I N i i
) city originally datended cnd npproved."
[m's)
\. /
13 lty l s ~/ !
14 l *TITNESS HERRItiG: Again uhat vcs a nurler that I
15 was picked. We knew it maant the SSE, there wcc asourance l 16 that it would withstand an SSE cvant. Just iceking at what l
s l l 1
1 factors had changed, where they had allottef centrits. -
37{ .
I
- ja '
l str ngths to match the f act that steal ins discenti.nucuc, e i ,
19 f you can't ta'<a iti away but you cz..'t s;y thab it tc.c fully a
20 t e f f a cti'/e either . ,
n 4tl All these-- It was a ju.1. ent nurbor. A hic. ,
/ i
.a.o.
I if tha: nu~1ar was 20 carcant o- , ". ctt .:ncu it ,,. c a.'."
l l e-
" p reduced b'r a fcctor of four-filEu veu
' .:n:c.7--
CHAIREi MILLER: I'm c.rying .m in ";7 "':a 24 Ih. t s- itl parcen:s bacause than I al.wis ha.s to .="r ':0 figura cut l
' ,/
o \
i l.
/
- x. ,_./
I I
l .- 1
., ..v
, ?l*;*
'!f' yy
-t%
-.-.~
I
! 2231 m
g, i . h eb3 1 percent of what. Can you just show me on the board? You
(
1 2 have a .25g. That was the SSE. And there is sona higher
! 2 fac.:or at which under the design basis the Staff felt it l-1 A! win c wahla of a snds shutdO"n. I:s ^^.-t ri( V l
l "I '1II"7ESS HERRING: '.'s s .
[
6' CHAIRNM7 MILLER: All right. About ultat would i 1
e .
l ? that number be?
l e
+
3j b WITNESS HERRING: The original design, if it was - ,
t 1j designed -- built with all tha critoria, ic '.;c :.1d be sces -
i ,
il I thing greater than, I would gt3cs, thcr. a '.:'..? g comothing I
11 l thereabout 3.
i i l i 12 CEAIRST.N HILL::R: .30g? I
.O ~
) 13 WITNESS HERRING: Semawhere therecbouts. I've l
s
\ -
14 not donc an analysia to datermine thnt.
15 CHAIR!WI MILLER: So then the as-built would be 16 a peint soccwhora midway betusen .25g and .30g, using that 17 as your approximation of the highor number? Ic thc right?
ja - WITNESS HI:RRING: Yes, scmowhere in that range..
4 .
l . 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. .55, .25, semanharc s
20 in that neighborhoed?
3 21 WIDIESS 3EFTIMG: I Nill 9173 YCS 9at 1220:3.
/ ~
22 CR. PAXTCM: ani: did y:n nct m ' .rliar thti 23 3 ycur 50 percent estimata enu icvn cc :/.r..it .u'; r:: :.*cu.'c t
2;; I new say it was--
23 UISTESS HERRIM3: Basad Or, tactimony I hav0 houd v 4 5-
=
-~ . . . . _ _ . . . . _. . . .
I 2292 7,
1 i )
's eb4 1 here, I've heard 30 percent, and that's based on other peoplo
- '3
' ' l 3 who did the analysis, who had a better basic to judge than 3 I do.
4 CP., P?.:CO:T: Sc2 bcay elsa's tacticony.- nc t your .
4 i- ?
. SI opinion? i f l Sl WI'2MZSS lief.!C'G: It scunds rar.centbla.
- 7 DR. PAXTON: Thank you. e i
^
G C:!AI!!!D21 MILLER: Purely as a hcucchcocing mattor, I O have we agreed that in the corning, ?tr. ".'. finks, that you wish to }i to s. ave the witnasses who have performad those ;t'Jdio: and i.
- 1 i are capabla of direct i
- astincny at any rn::o en the 10:1 d '.c or 1
3i response specura inacf ar no it rslets.1 i:c 2.n ?. qui:22nt. u.u j r 1
) 12 ;
safety equipment and the lika? j f v i ,; ,
m .
- .t ; MR. BICIKS
- Wa'll have the witncs 33 arcilchle { l 1 (
l I !
13 ll and alco available for whatever questioning nacple feel that l 0 l
- 9 they are ready to ask them. I would ask, however, that--
I j7q I would hope that either befora wa put- hhem-on er Scfore ve e
9p recess that we'ra clear that all the evidsace that anybody se !
- .; t. is going to be putting in en the structura, as cppocod to tho i
- floor response spectr:, has becn in.
- o j.
) i I
y,) } I'm accuml;.g that except as Hs. 3211 h:2 indicated i
~ .f.I a that che ucy want reca input frc= :;:. Poll rd in c:nnaction -i pI f.
. ,dq with that second i.ssu:c., I'T. c33t=ing, cin : J tr. .M;rd i-t i ..
.e.* :, nothing, u..nat ot.c.r a tn.an me.ybe n. n. .;3 32:.:.c:.c.. nt :.c3 a'.:ts:
i a- ,d that Int:rvoners have no avideaca te cifar. .
i
._x g
5 d 0
- Q:,
d
1 1
1
. . _ -~ ,. - ~
1 2293 - :
> l I l
/~N <
i I
(x l i
eb5 CHAIRMAN MILL 2R:
-] 1i Well, we'll inquire about that.
E MR. BANKS: But if they're going to put some on, s I i
2 I think it would be appropriata maybo to get them en , ,1
, )
4 .
and off and i: hen we can go ahead . tith this oths: natter. 1 ic h
5i CIAIrlmN MILL 2R: h"no nra the uitnccces ths.t you l
i
", 6 would be prepared to call with rega-d to the now ficer l i
, 7 responr.o spectra study?
- 8 MR. 2ANKS: Mr. Anderson eind Dr. t'hite and we may ,'
.q . _ . . . _ _ . - - - .
p.
- 9) call tir. Withors, juct from tha stan<1 point that he may be ; ,
l 10 able to help in tha deceription of sc=2 of this sq"ipment, ;j l l 11( being as fe:niliar wi .h it ca ha 13. l 1
12 We vill probably also h v.a r.copla cv i" a 4f
, 13 ,
nocessary who have dans some of the -- halped us do seca of
\V.) '
14 the work on this, but the ones I intendad to call ara 15 j lir. Andersen and Dr. White.
l
. 1 16 CHAI!SIAN EILLER: About he'.i 1cng Uculd you take
- - to interrogate them er put en that portion of their testi-ge , mony in chief en thic mattar?
a 19 MR. 3ANKS: I think what us're intending to do, 3
i ' ,
. . although we have a coating at si:: ocloch to cit down and l
) 20'lI '
21 [, uork this cut so that we do it in an a:c.editious manner, j
- but right new I foresca effering the material that vts 2
ll l
= ,:l supplied last ?2ifay as a portion of Suir i:cctit. r.", l offering the respcases to the qucations :h:2 they hr.72 cafo -- l 24l l !
I that the NRC has dire'cted to them,. an a part c2 th3ir testic'r.'
_' 25 l 1
iv/ t il 4
... a- . ..
'%T c, ;
- t u.
-- - - - - - _ . . .._ _. .. - w- . . - - - .,,y,, ,
I 2294 I 1:
\
x ,
.3 1 l 3F2 agi .1 CI! AIR WI MILLER: ' o us have copics of tht.t J
L-n .'l 2,
k lattar?
3I
} . .
MR. BAZIKS: ha , and I'll hr.vs them utar::.c 1 aa
-l' 4, i I- ;, enhibits.
s 5p i
'i Alec .-- thia is '.; hat we'ra coi:C to c ct.::s a
- G !!
. jj tonight -- it may be thr.t we will want to he.ro t.%n 1:stif'T {
' 7 i j
' orally to kind of enplain the context, particult.rly of the 1
. j Q q .... ._
- j. questions and an's'uers thct have come up iincc~thay provided.,_ ,
9i -
[ the material last Friday.
10 And Fass I would hepa that thena pc:plc uhc 11
, i feal that they ro in chs positien tc ash qu..22icas, vc 8
l :2 I
.., certainly would -- that the*r 811 be in a positicn to aaswer
- , +m 1I <. o-
- \,,.
-. .s' them.
l 14 ;
CHAImiAli fiILLER: Well first of all, I think, 15 at that point the Board will ask questicas in ordor to 16 clarify our understanding of that testiracny la chief an l
I 17 j that portien, ah any rato, of ".ns rr.sp:nes spcch a st idy.
18 '
i 11R. BANX5: I hopa I've sai!. thic ri;h becauso, e i 19 !'!
e as I say, we're having a maating c.t 6:00 to defins thia, I '
20 I
) : but I think that's bcsically tha way uc'll pr: san 1 it.
t 21 I p t C1! AIM!AM MILL 23: Mov 1.t c pr caci n=:,
.4
'j do any of the IntervaTors intsnd to p".t on :. .y : ..r .in:r.y --
. a.
"( 't wall, d:as 0_.yt.:cdy inMnd to p'..t on t stins.f not just a
e s
Intsrvanor3, that has nct alrct.dy bc. put on?
25 Il-MR. D.FOUR7: It's cy nadarstanding that we will 4,w/ do I
1 3
1 4
k b-w I&
i- ,
I 2295 7-l (x- / .m I i s agb2 have a witness on the floor response spectra, but that that '
'% / '-'
2 witness ce/:tainly would not be ready temorrow.
3 CHAIFJ4Ni MILL 3R: do. And you hcVen't had tina, e
4 3.
I'm sure., to pr , pars 9. : Wri': ten dir:ct i::':!:.1:n" thich 5l P rou file. in advo.nce.
n t'
$ d MR. KAFOUR": I'm spaahing for the Inc.arvancr3 r 7 which !.s to say, in this caso, Ms. Ecll.
'l 8 : i i MS.~ BELL: And I'm interested in --- -
il i
9 0ll CHAIRMAli MILLER: He're not g ing to cc:.sclidato is 10 i you lut we recogni::e your interests are afully cics a and 11(l it 8 :1 perfectly proper.to proccaG. f you cc.-' coordinata, i:
12 ":i thtt 's fine.
ym I3 ;
(
v.-
f( ,) i I
MS. BELL: I'm interested in proceeding on l }i trjing to work this thing out with bringig it.is document in. !
. 15 i CHAIRMAli MILLER: New you have to shcu that, 16 as you know, to counsal and Mr. Kafoury vill help you, I'm 17 - , c..o.
i
' 18 ,I p
MS. BELL: I'll procc:d ccc:rding to ragulatienc.
Ib CHAI.4INI MILLER: All right.
I
\ 20l l
And you'll hwe to do thnt s:,rt cf cim:.1.y, too.
2,8 l MR. SA!!KS : We can do that. I'll b2 glad to I ,., h.
-- i work with her.
i 23 CHAIPJG2 : ILLE?.: Tina. .0v.try::0Cy cc0 gar'.bc.
- 24 lIow let's sac, than, there'll be no core testimony 25 l tomorrcw frca rny of the parties. There will ba only this i %- .
I h l
\ j 1 ,'
Sifl w
'296 t r !,
t 1
L
{ .9 a'
agb3 '
2 official notico matter which Ms. Bell wishes to take up l , tomorrow.
3 All right.
~
Then I cat"ims tharc vill be ac desire on anyona's part to cross-examine on tha pr.rtici direct testim:ny c:
- O elaborated by the Dcard because, if you did, ysu'd be f t precluded later and I ascumo you would pref.r to do it all i*
e a
- at one time in December. Is_that right? - _
l 0I -
MR. KAFOURY: Yoc.
10 CHAI?J924 MILL 3R: The da'a c in 0 :anc:.r, by tas wa,7 ]
II we will reconvens to concluda this evidentiary -- l l g "o MR. BAKES: Is thero c.ny chan=s, Mr. Chair 1.En, i [ ) 13 if it turns out that the parties' crc::3-axa.mination .;ould be r -
1 I4 somewhat limited, that we might be able to pick a day or
. 15 something before the lith of December? That really concerns 16 me that we would have to wait five weeks to get a resolution i
17 of this matter. l l t I3! CHAIRMAN MILLI:R: I've buon trying to get it !
! I IO I resolved since September Gth.
\ l.
, I e MR. 3ANXS:
- 0. :l I knew you have. -
i 1 I .
i 21 i, CHAI.V1Mi HILLER: The Scard hr.s no ra ;0n.:ibility ',
f b for matters that I understand ara necascary cnd~2e fo24.1.
22l:. '
l Ci Dut the Board was rea dy to prec and 3 r.p s usar ~:h rr.d *;Ec 'l 1
going tc do 30.
+
24{ 1 s y 25 ' MR. 3A:TXs: I understand that. j l I I
\v/ l
_. .at ._. . ..
1 1
O S ll l
2297 :,
-w ,
l .
I
\ '"
t
-) agb4 But I thought I heard the Chairman say the other A. .,/ 2 day that, if it was just a one-day matter or scmsthing lika 3
that, there uight be a way we could work it in earlier. And, 4
'. if it is posci'al: -- .
. 53)
CIIAII'l!.Mi IIILLEP.: Lic , I c.'ida'i mor.2. to aay that.
. 6 Thera's no way to work it in becausc ce have conflicting 4 7 schadules in other hearings and the firs'c opcortunity will 8
~ ~ '
be December lith, which is a lionday. Ue-trers thinking o-f mt. king it starting Tuesday, D cace.bar 12, as the earliest 10 d.ita on which we could hold hearing. 11:u ver, if y/arbedy, g .
11 i !
.s cooperativo, j ou could do it hy depocitica, yc'c ?.new. ,-
12 IG. BA!EU3 : 17 ell that might bc to.-t.".uhile .
e
/ i 43 (x/ ) 's-considering.
14 Ci!AIP24Mi IIIILER: Everybody would hrvc a full e
I 15 opportunity of cross-extanination, make your objections '
j 16 we'd rule on them as wo rula on the deposition. This is a j 17 possibility.
~
" After the studi2s arc complcted, you peopla ar 9 .
in touch with as.ch othar and wa're willing to 'c in that way, a "O it could be done at your mutual convani.eaca.
) 1 l
21 ;i And tho Joard wculc'. considar it, ..a c11 aviit.nc ,
Y t 22 L we'd consider whatavar offors yea artdt.
l i
.. I
~ I 'IR. S E C'.3 : I d.cn' W.cw th .=.'n c'- .O c n m 0; i
s' " ;
, Cragon ud the Staff, either ona, night be prapar2d to go
{
l
,m 25 i forward tonor:cw, tee. I deny knew the answer to that.
s s l l
i / .
,ef h
a .. . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ -
"Ng?
/
a .
? . l
2299 r%
f \
O agb5 MR. GRAY: The Staff uould not be prepared.
\%,* #
2 CIIMRMAN MILLER: I'd be very surpriced if anyone 3
were.
4 ,
y MR. 3M;".S: Will tn Occ if US c:n 90.' ': cat it 5 i; j up , so th at --
I 3i ; 4
- la CIIAIX!Aii MILLER: They uculd, by the.h U2.y, pre- '
o y T clude themselves. We'renenot going to give them another opportunity so, therefore, I tnink the partics uo'11d.
9 j probably prefer to do it after they've censidorad ta: direct ,
It to n :
l t evidence.
I 11 * .
9 And the Deard dec; hava c120 qccitiO.- alon7 s l
l*' i I
l
. those lines, but it vill not ha crocc-c::cainr ' i:n h".-: it W, M i will be clarification of the direct evidence. That's t:he
\
% i 14 ! '
way we'll leavs the record. l
'5'
. Now you can proceed from there, either we coma 16 back the week of Decert.ber 12 -- we have tais roca . reserved, I i 1 17l at the acmant - you can proceed by stipulation for a !
1
'8 '
doposition, which would have all the aspects of trial practicej i
, ' 9 'g.l .
MR. Eb!KS: That's fine, if all the parties --
8 gn \! <
Everybody sc a.s.to be-nedding their acado.
- * {4 -
I 21h CIIAImtAIT MILLER: Objactions, Offars of ; roof n .
I ,r and the like the Beard would than rule up:n
"[ 3
'.t. '72 .ituld j
U k, rula upon it just the se.ca .'s . ra'va don: here. c. .N '.s :.n f i
M accomodation and it's up to the parties. I 1
MR. KAFCURY: What tima temorrou, Mr. Chairman?
O 25{ l f
l V ,
n I'
.1 i.
- W
I 1
l l
l 2299 bs lj . 1 I
agb6 C11AIlu1M viILLER: 8:30. l
%, , 2 \
We're happy to see you with your new son 's cigar. ;
1 3
tie'll see you tor.orrow. ,
4 De p u wish to ha.va tha tritn w. u : :~/ =: 2 d. : :'r .
5 '
Gray?
i G,
' MR. GPJ.Y: Yss, I do, Mr. Chair.in.
e
! 7 I (The witnesses excused.)
8 l CHAIF11AN MILLER: Tho witnesses may be excused. . i
- 9. It i Thank you very much. ,l ,
10 i '
('c7hereap n, at 5: 30 p.m. . tha her. ring tin the l l
11 8 elovo-entitled cattar ucc racss. 2d, to rac0nvonc 1 1
10 I l at 3:30 2.m., the folicwing day.'; i 13
- t s.*.4 , .
\ I 14 eI 1 l
I 15 l -
16 l 17 - - - . -
l 18 i !
t -
19.
+
20 I 21 22 1-i
's
~
r 4i M
25
(
-