ML20150C032
| ML20150C032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1978 |
| From: | Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811100054 | |
| Download: ML20150C032 (163) | |
Text
2,R~IBE_B.-M-B
.,wkm.m.m a,,,a,$k@dN!hdO )
n$$phyl(f}{MEkh upp.ppNMi
$wMkhe$saw!@mm$$panuwaucmescomweesm.M wnsaww a
$a j kkNdl a
M d pba hyp4ap ww uue m s bb hbh h
m s m e n a ~ a. w r m e a n n c,d b,+a ub
~o ~.
waw 4mawaampwwm wsmaw aas w m nn e,
- m. u a n a w n!
wm@ p%Sg;%w,2530ctohehplS78@&
~m w a
n Q#pu$r@
tfif' i w$ss$$r
$e M %
v agadnN#@
D tusSWpM Mgln A vaq $ 2*cy M; e
t i
3-h Ik l
i 'b -
a mY k a b.k. n n w m a m b b h[,
9
,w wyaee@w)gyktg.
s~
mpi agggme,gg,ggomooopa!y4,gggpii:%n@
n e g y N+gs;pq2 g gs gggg
,1 s s n,m M W 2 W +'M O W Wg g.
janyggg
, n i ?
. ~, Sg g
gj fiq HMMhvM n
+ jpR i;
w%Wy;P-:m
$4
'hi
.;.....--.-....-~-.~.~.-
GE4 I'
WRBLOOM/-
. UHITED STTanM OF JERICh ub
'9921 UUCL1W1 REGULATORY COL'MG'iG,
3
- o.
=
4 In the matter of:
O PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Da ci;c'. ?!c, S0~344 et al.-
6 (Control Roon P roc er ding s. )
.(Troian iTuclear l'lant) i 7
8 Hearing Room A, 9
State Capitel Building o
Salcm, Crugon, 10 l
Ucdnonday, October
<5, 19'!F.
11 The hearing in the above--entitivI nat.ter :es 12 resumed, purcuant to adjournment, at 9:00 a n.
O 13 BEFORE:
14 MARSHALL L MILLER, Ecq., Chai:aan, 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing naara.
10 DR. KEN!TETH A. McCOLLOM, Memb A 17 Dr. HUGH C. PArt'ON, Membar.
18 APPEARAMCES:
10 On bahalf of Licenscen:
20 nGLAMD P.,
DANKP i' c li.,, Soutimr, Spu'n d.ing, Kinacy, i
Millinmcon & Schwabe, Semidard Placa 21 Portland, Orugen 97204.
22 MAURICE' AXELRAD, F,ug., Lo'.:cnctain, Mc;;zian, Rei: 3 and Axelrad,. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, U.U.,
23 Uachington, D.C 20035
.24 RONALD isOHMSON, E uri., Portland.G " n a l ~:, l e :,, '. a Company, 121 S.W. Sab on St1er Dortinud.
25-Oregon.
p 305-p' wb I'
on behalf ~of BonncNille Power Administration:
z 2
Ig-WILL17W En?SEY, I;aq., 10 0 2 ' ti. Ii. Jiolladar, Portland, Oregen.
3 On behalf of State of Oregon Dapartmant-of Enorgyf 4
. Oregon Public' Utility Concaiscioner:
4 i
5 gottu. 'It.
SOCOLOPSKY. Esq., Departriant of Juccico, i
9 tate Offico Building, Salen, Oregon, j
'6
'On hahalf of the Nuclear I;egulatory Corniccion:
7 l
I JOSEPIY GUAY, Eng., and JAME AXELTtAD, E L:q.,
ll 0
Offico of Executive Legal Director, j
- United Stateri Huclnar Pegulatory Cc:aiccion, 9.
'Machington, D.C.
j..
On behalf of Columbia Environnental Council, 10 Intervenor:
f 11 1
GREGORY KAFOURY, Ecq.e Kafoury n I!agmi, 12 202 Oregon Pioneer Duilding, 320 S.W. Stark Street, Portland, Oregon.
!h 13-l' On behalf of Coa 3ition for Safe Power, Intervenor, 14 and pro so:
15 30GEME ROGOLIE. 3926 H.E.
12th 5 treat, i-Portland, Oregon.
16 j-
'On behalf of Consolidated Intervancrc, and reo ce:
17 l
MIMA DELL., '2013 N.W..Everett, Portlend, Oregon-I 10 l-I l
20-i.
l~
l 21 22.
O 23 i
4 24L l
23 i
I I
l 1
W i
t -10/2S/781 JG f
I i
i I
4 f
wb C O. ll T E N '1 S i
i i.
i
'9-lf
}
'Witnesseti Direct Crnen E1 W l-f
- h 3
Richard.C. Anderson)
U07
?g George Katanics
)
993 4
Theodore-E. Johnson).
l:
William'U. White
).
S-
-(Con'titiuod) 1 l-b Myle J. Holloy, Jr.)
1024 1035' I
l-Loria Bronler-
)
7 -.
6 i
i 9
10 f
I
.11
},
}
12 Exhibits GM n 4 Wi i
g 13 Licenaco:
i 14 11 Flexibility Suruay Rosponse 9
f.'
9%
j l'
- 15 1
Protective agreement Kafoury 95C DS6 t
j 16 PGE'lict, 8/14/78, RDCs 95E So 1
t l
17 3
PGE lict, 10/10/70, RDCs 950 99n 2
18 4-PGE lint, 10/23/78, RDCs
%D 990 19-Board 1-acchtel-PGE contract (prev.CE C -1)
Edl 961 4
.20 Licensee:
,21 12 Written direct, Holley and Bresler 30;.9
.'030 l
t
'2C-2a t
24' to.
25
(
- l i
i_
J a
I A
g g
8 t
t 007 !
I j
lA agbl~
P,R O C,{ E 0,I H-C; S,
.. p'
~
j
.CHAIRMAP dILLER:
Good. morning, ladiec anu 3
gentlemen.. Ne'll resutae the evidentiary hearing.
I'think 4
i Dr. McCollom was asking some guestions of the panel.
3 S
Whereupon,.,
1.
I 6
RICHARD C. ANDERSON,
-i GEORGE IWTANICS,
'8'
'dHEODORE U. JOHHSON, i
i and l
8 10 j
WILLIAM H. WHITE i
11 were recalled as witnacces on behalf of the Licenace, and, 12 having been previously duly sworn, testified further ad 1
13 follows; i
1 #*
MR. - BAIMS :
Mr. Chairman, we were also to. provide i
16.
this morning the survey.
It's presently beind copied, no 3
16 that we can.have enough copies.
Mr. Anderson does have a 1
17 copy with him, and we chould have copies for overyone in the 10' appropriate number by 10:00, I would guess, 10-CaAIIGIAN MILLER:
Fine.
Let us know when you're 20
!able to produce them.
Thank you, Counaci 21 Dr. McCollom?
i 22 EXAMIi4ATIOil BY THE BOARD (Continued) 9_l l
2'.
23 BY DR. MC COLLOM:
24 O
Mr. Johnson, toward the end of the seccion yesterdaj
=O
'25 we were' talking about the responso spectra and how we achieved i i.j 4
i e
s
f 1
UUB t ll
{
L i
.g.
agb2
=getting that response of the building..
On Page 880 -- Do you have a copy of~the transcrip 3'
from yesterday?
L 4
CHAIRMA14 MILLElt:
We'11 pasr' down two Board I
i
- 5 copics, maybe you can share-them..
.g (Documents handed to the panel. )
.y' BY DR. MC COLLOM:.
l 8
l Q
If I go back to 879,'you indicated the nature i
9 of placing a recponse spectra.
togetbar by the whole systam 10 of simple. oscillators.
And at that point I inquired about 1
4 I
- II an input to tho system.
I In.your answer,. started on Line 14 on Pago.880,
, g 13-you say that:
I4 "The fundamantal mode of the control i
15
. building
- complex,
,1.n a north-south direction, 16 has a' frequency of 6.8."
17 You 90 to the response spectra, dow I would like 18 j
for you to describe what. variables are on tne response I9 spectra to go to.
20 A
(Witness Johnson)
All right.
21 The response' spectra is determined by ---it's a i-i j.
22 plot of frequency'versus response amplitude for various l
i t e.
(23
~ damping ralues.
In' other words, with damping held constant,
);
- i l
24 then~ the plot is made of the responsa amplitudo as a function l
25 or frequency.
l I
.i 5
j' I
l'
-.. - ~.. ~
_ __~_
l-ll 7
389
{
L 1
agb3
-Q That is a maximum responce amplitude?
A Yes, of a system of simple oscillators.
3 O
Now then, in that same paragraph yo: Jay:
4 "You go to the responsa spectra and
.5 you soo that, for the SSE, 0.259...."
6 Now where did you get that, or how did you enter 7
the responso spectra with a 0.259?
9 A
Okay.
A rc.aponso spectra at the high frequency 9
end would converge on the ground acceleration.
In other 10 worda, in general, cystema over 30 to 33 cycles per second 11 would just nove with the ground.
j 12 l
O I still don't 800 where I get entered to find 9
13
~
that acceleration.
You havo it number of plots and I want 14 0.259 A
Right.
0.25g - On this plot of amplitude 16 versus frequency, when the frequency in high, the plot would 17 then converge on 0.259 If the frequency of the structure, 18 or a fundamental modo, were 6.0 --
19 Q.
I th# k I coc.
The 0.25g is the acceleration 40 that that plot was made for?
21 A
You.
2 Q.
In other worda, you have a s ngle plot of a 23 responso apoctraLfor a given 0.25g acce.cration o.; come 24
.other acceleration for another plot?
20 A
The given input.
In other words, if one were to
_..__,_____________77 1
890 i-1 agb4.
tako a -- let's. talk about a real carthquako time history that had,a peak ground acceleration of 0.25g.
We take this 3
actual record and do a timo hisoryy step-by-step analysis,
' O-2 solving the equations of notion for a wnolo'cystem of S
oscillators, one cycle par second, five, ton, twenty, and we i
plot the response.
So it in like free.sorking the problem j
1 l
And you have, call it a graphical solution, you can then
'O look up the answer for any given frequency.
4 9
.O In it crua diat -
you said 0.259, five percent i
l 10 damping, spatial acceleration -- instead of "special" --
U spatial acceleration.
12' CIIAIIUMN MILLER:
Look at the words in the 13 transcript.
l
'l4 WITNESS JOIINSON:
It should be " spectral."
15 CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
Leh the record shown then
[
16 that on Line 17 the word " spectral" should replace the word I
17 "apecial."
i IB DR. MC COLLOM:
That's also true on another i
j
- 19.
pago lacer on.
l.
I
- 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER
We might as well identify it i
J
,21 and correct the record at the moment.
j
!22-
- DR. MC COLLOM:
Page 882, Line 2.
l' O 23 CHAIPJ1AN ' MILLER:
The'name correction.
N4
-BY DR. MC COLLOM:
.;.:O
. 25 Q-Now you still haven't told me how I pick off tho
~
h, 9
i.O
891 1
1 i
l agb5 other acceleration which is a characteristic of the building.
l l
In your example, you said,
"....the spectral acceleration is 3
0.48g's.
4 l-A (Witness Johnson)
Yes.
That ic on tho l
5 i
plot.
4 6
l Q
Where?
i 7
i A
We have vertical and horizontal axon.
The 1
8 i
spectral acceleration axes would be the vertical axca, 0
the frequency wou)d be the horizontal axes.
10 This plot, again, trould converge at the high frequency and at 0.259 At other frequencioc3 except the II t
l 12 very Iqy frequencies, say belou one cycle por accond, there h
13 would be tuaplification.
a l
Id Q
What does that mean?
15 A
That means that the response of the syctem or l
ctructure would be greater than the input ground motion, as E'
j I7 far as the peak ground motion is concerned.
l I8 0
But this curva doca reprecent what it would be, e
l 19 though?
w A
uu.
i f-21 Q
Hot inaccurately prasented on the graph?
It i.
.22
.just says -- you're just telling mo that wo're able to got bh 23
- greater than 0.25g acceleration, whereas 0.25g acceleration s
24
'is what the ground una moving at?
' g.
l 25 A-That's right.
I w w-h awye v esrw w1*sw ee-t h w--w w vaeeww#
-isr-me w w'-=
ae+ Ne c e s- *e+ = =- te ww e * *-e-ue-.--a m ed
+ me-e rh+
~ - -
m-=-
r e me *W
'wwMwr-O'
=*wew
-N=
e m -W f-~"-'
'W T*F '
"'FTf*
"O'
092 agb6
- O This is a' characteristic of the building and
-2 2
the ~.
modos?
3 A
Right, and the particular earthquake..
4-0' Okay.
j 5
Now, when you have done this for the one modal I
frequency, that is, we've found out there's more than one, c
a
- y tnero's a fundamental frequency and another frequency, 8
describe what happens to combine those into. soma appropriate j
D result.
i j
I 10 A.
The system mathematically is, we'll cay, broken 11 down into a system of simple systema that have a cortain 12 portion of the weight or the mass of tho abructure and they 13 also have.a. frequency.
Now, based on this curve and tho'frequencios, 14 we can look up to see what the spectral acceleration is.
15 i
We c uld then multiply the acceleration times what we call 16 the'offective weight of that particular modo.
j7 And that givca us, thon, what I call a resultant 18 l
l l
gg
. inertih' force for that particular mode.
0 What ic the modal effectivo voight?
20 A
That's the amount of weight that would participat'e g
.g
' in that' mode.
As an.examplo, a structure -- any it had two-l i
g frequencies, one was around five cycles per second'and anotner one wouhl:be ten.
80 percent of the weight might participate in-the'first. modo.
25-l
'[
5 b
.;-...,a,..-.,-.,
.n
--a,.
I 093 arth7 1
0 How do you determine that, though?
A It's a mathematical expression that determines l-3 haw friuch of the weight participates.
And it'n it function of 4
f;he distribution of weight in the model and also the mode i
5 3hape of the model.
6 I
Now, again, we'vo c2 cated a och of simple systems.
1 We now know the innetin force for that simplo cystem.
We can i
8 then re-expand that force and find out the forces that each 9
<'~
L of the particular, say, floor levolo or mano pointa.
Now I
to we can do that for cach mode shape or each mode and ccme I t-i up with a cystem of modal forces of these, what started to i
12 be cimplified cyatems that we have re-expan'ad.
h-And after we have all the modal forocc, that we p'
combine them and that's when terms like square root sum D
square or absolute value have their meaning in combining tha 9
modal foreca.
Q' And the result is what you call" the control
]
s M
building floor response apoctra?
1
.O A
No.
The result of that particular analysin 3
- y results in~ shears, forocc, shears, noments that wo una in 3
l
[I a structural design.
i Now, to obtain a floor respouac spectra, ' we cannot xe E3 fuse that previous technique.
'Wo must taka the building in a 1
- 4 dynamic' mathematical modal and sabject it to an carthquake
. e 25 itime history of which, for the typaa of ground spectra that arc l.'
-~.........L.....
.. ~. -.., _. ~. _. ~
394 1
ago8 used in the nuclear industry ~~ since they were based on 2
0 a aroup of carthquakes and the results were superimpcand, 3
we then have to generato an imaginary, very conocrvative
,7 t
i
/}
earthquake to envelope enic ground ronponse opcoti.L 5
Ue then take this carthquake, which we call a 1
nynthetic earthquake, and then mathematically shake the 7
ctructure Uith it like you would on a shakar table or working 0
in a harmonic system like applying a narr:;onic forcing functicn. l 9'
And then we datormined that responce at the 10 various floor levels, and that responso now is tho accelerctior 11 versus tr.ae.
12' We can then taka the accaleration versus tinc O
U and run n act of nintple oscillators through that at a parti-l "'
cular damping value and plot the ficor responno npoctra.
D And that in the information that is uaal in..pnrforming analyned E
of equipment, piping anc things of that type.
17 So un use one type of analynis to determine M
building foraco and another ona, the tin history Dolution, D
to determine the floar reapons, ap. tetra.
20 )
O Uhen you got thi:,.nvelopa no includo all of the I
i 25 i frequencica and artplitudea, that Imano that it's re:0.ly 22 largar in terms of amplitudes and parhaps anergy than tho
'7-m)
/
U
'd, actual earthquake that is requirad?
2'I A
IT definitaly han higher peake, because --- the 7
)
25 carthque.kes we usa, the imaginary synthetic earthquakoo, have 1
I
895' 4
ll '
agb9) a' broad band-frequoney content o'f,. cay, two to seven-cycles.
7 I
- h.
per second.- When we excito the structure, it will'.bo 3'
excited in its own particular modes.
And that would be, then,
- h-4 l
built.into the floor acceleration tima historica.
Then when 5
wo run 'those spectra, we will sco fairly high~ ped:s because L
6 itilat than acaumes that what'if a piece of equipment had tho 7
L came frequency as the structure, then it vould ctart to-I
'8 reach a state of reconnuca.
It won't have amplification S-factors as high as harmonic type motion, but the amplification 10 factors will be higher than what~you would see from the II '
base or'the ground' response spectra.
I endlA 12-
. h
'13 14
).
I0 16 4
17 i
10 i
19 20 e
1 23 22 -
- e 23 1
l O
t n
23 e.
q-j 4
4j.
..._.,_-.._...-___._2
~. -
I 4
.- 89 6 -
lo ebl.
-1
_.0 Thic'envelopa can be represented mathematically?
2-A It' a detornined mat-hematically by taking ~ the 3
floor acceleration vercus time plot.
-4 0'
I'm back at again the input of the spectrum.
i_
5 A
(Mitness White)'
You're back at the ground.
l.
I'm back at the ground, and I want'to find out 6
.O
~
7 if - whereas you said you said you can put it on a shaker 8
table and shake it, I'm asking'can you put it into a
's mathemat'ical formula.and use that as the input, or is that i
j 10 the way it was done?.
- I 11
.A
.(Nitness Johnson)-
There really aren't, I would i
l 12 say, closed form solutions.
We use numorical analysis tech-g 13 niques.
)
j-14 0
But that is a mathematical technique of analysis, i
I 15 not experimental.
16 A
Right.
17 0
I would like to quote a passage out of the John 18 A. Bloom and Associates report of June 23rd, 1970, entitled l
19.
" Review of the Seismic Design Criteria for the Trojan Nuclear 20.
Plant," on pago 107.
r 1
21 MR. KAFOURY:
Excuse me, Dr. McCollom.
Where I
b 22
'is that'to be found?' The reference, uhore is that to be 23 found?
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:.
That's the John A. Bloom and
. Ass ciates dngineering report dated June 23rd, 1970, which 25-l, o
E
_______________i_____.._a_.____,____.____.
_._.-,..._____.__,_t.._m..-_,_.
i e
i' 897
!t-f'
~
eb2 1
appears in Appendix G'at page 107 The John A. Bloom study l
l l.
2 review is entitled " Review of'the Seismic Dasign Criteria 3
'for the' Trojan Nuclear Plant."
l f'
'4 MR. BANKS:
It's attached an an exhibit to the i
5
'NRC's answers to-Mr.~McCoy's interrogatories, and it's f
6 attached to interrogatory number 27.
7-CHAIRMAN' HILLER:
Thank'you.
B BY DR. MC COLLOM:
1 i
9 0
Doca the panol have it now?
l-l.
10 A
(Witness White)
What page?
\\
the second paragraph, 11 0
Page 107, and it's Item 5, 12
~ and it states:
i g' 13 "The Applicant has not demonstrated l
14 that the response apectra; proposed 'are applicable a
.18 to the site or that they are conservative.
It is 4
1 16 our opinion that the use of responce spectra that j-17 a::e smooth and that do not exhibit peaks and valleys 1
l.
18 is reasonable and appropriate for seismic design 1
1 19 criteria.
11owever, the smooth spectra nelected L
20 must be conservative and relatable to the seismic-l 21
. history of-the regional area.
22 "In addition,. spectra from tine his-E.
i 23 tories of. ground notion used in the time history i.
'24 analyses of.atructures must not. deviate below
- ..g 23 approved smooth spectra."
i c
.~.
l i __...._ ___ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _... __ _,,,. _ _ _,,. _. _
,,,_..u._.,,,
l;
'U9 8 I
- eb3 '
1 I would like to have you corraent on thi's as to 1
'2 your judgmentsiin creating this responso spectra.
l-3
'A-(Witness Johnson)
Okay.
h-
'4 I'm not familiar with the history here.
I think l
5 PGE can answer in rnore detail.
j.
6' MR. BANKS:
We will have witnesses.that can
[
'7 respond.
If this is material, the Bloom report, we vill have 8
witnesses who can respond to thic I think.
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, the Bloom report has been 1
l 10 gonc into.
I think it was excluded when Ms. Dell wan going t
? l i
11 into it for another purpose.
12 This is to datormine or to test the methodology
, g 13 and to explain come of the techniques ~used in the study for 14-this particular issue.
It will not go beyond that.
4 15 MR. BANKS:
I don't wish to' limit the questions j
16 to this panel but we will have people who can respond to 17 this.
18 DR. MC COLLOM:
It seemed to me this did bear 10 on this.
20 BY DR. MC COLLOM:
~'
2]
Q Can you, fron1 your judgment of the comments 22--
- that are made there,.make any' recommendations as to how
~
!23
.we shouldllook at what you've.done.as compared to what was 24'
.aaid here, from your judgment?
[g n
. W
'25 ;
Al (Witness Johncon)
To my knowla.dge, these S
1 wr--.-
4.ea'.__,
[....'.
,y.,,.,__,7,,,,..m.,
y Mw,7=_,,,Ys,,__,,_d,
,,,_m,,,,._
,_,)
d G99 L'
1 1'
ob4 1
requirements were satisfica as the project progrensed, but 2
that will have' to be confirraod.
3 p
0 I'm-concerned _about the method, not what'the 1
4 spectrum is.
I accept the spectrum as input, and we're not l
l 5
challenging that in.any way.
Now that you have that you j
6 cmooth that in your model.-
i 7
A No.
The way -it works is that throughout the last 8
15 years t; "e have been a variety of design responso 9
spectra.
I believo poscib]y the first one the tms gererated 4
I 10 was by Professor Hauunor from Cal Tech.
l 11 He took four earthquakec, determined the response
!2 spectra of those earthquakes,-I believe Taft, El Centro, 13 possibly Olympia, and then superimposed the results of the 14 spectra which are very, let's say jagged in nature because i
r l
15 the earthquake is a more or less randem phenomenon.
4 y
l 16 Hausner then made a cuooth spectra and said l
17 this is a good design spectra, and that was the first one
~
]
la that I remetaber.
i 19 Then, over the years, other people have created 20 response spectra, and the latest one is in Regulatory 21 Guide 1.60, and that was determined, as I remeruber, by 1
2 j
22
'Newmark and Bloom.
So there has been work--
nnd these are 23 all'cither smooth or straight line.
24' Q
They are already smooth?
'6 25 A
That's right.
That's the starting point for the 4
1-
[
900 1-ll eb5
~ 1.-
..designor because we just do not start, as an A&E, with uay 1
2'
,g a' rough: response spectra.
3 Q
I think that completes'the questioning on that
- 4 a r e a'.
[
5 When you went-to the STARDYNE model it was 6
determined that there was a greater torsional motion than was 7
' apparent in previous models I believe.
4 i
6 A
Yes, that's correct.
9
.O How is that accounted for in terms of the forces 4
10 on this building?
Is it summed along with the other forces?
j 11 A
Yes.
The.STARDYNE analysis or any dynamic
[
12 analysis for a structure of this type--
When doing the i
13 dynamic analysis it actually adds, we'll say, two components.
14 One would be a translation, as an example, in the north--
15 south direction, a translational component of response,and 16 a rotational, and then those two are mnamed. 'And that's how 1
17' the torsion is accounted for.
j' ja O
I questioned yesterday some on the small walls, 4
1 gg that the forces exceeded the capacity.
One other thought 20 on that was the cycling.
i-21 Is it possible'that cumulative offects could be i
l 22:
more in those walls because they are c::ceeding the capacity
.23 than they'would be in come of the other walls that did not?
l 24 A
Yes.-
I would say that over a great number of
' g.
25
. cycles tliere,would be.some reduction in the small walls.
a h
r a.
901 L
eb6.
1 In.other worda ue cannot say they would remain esuontially
.2~
constant in their ability to recist.
3 As,an example,'the Berkeley testo have shown 4
what tho' possibilities of racistanco drop-off would be.
)
i:
5 0
Was there-any investigation into the forces 6
predicted by GTARDYNE if each of those wall's capacity went 7
to zero where the forces exceeded the capacity?
8 A
No, we did not perform that exact analysis, but I
9 ~
one can see from inspection of the tables where we listed
- 10 the elastic loada that vanld want to go to those walla and I
4 4
1, the total of all thoue loads, if you removed the amall walls 42 you would still have plenty of capacity to maintain equili-h 13
- brium, 14 0
Would you expect any redistribution of the 15 inertial forces by the removal of those walls?
16 A
Not really, because the inertial forces are-17 They're a function of the distribution of weight or the maac 18 of the system.
19 Q
Aren't they also a function of the constraint?
20 A
To some degree, but they are mainly.a function i
~
21 of where the various masses are located.
There could be somo l
be very small.
22 small changes but I'd say they'd 23-
.A (Witness White)
We also mentioned that if thesc 24
- walls got to the point,.as you mentiened, that the stiffness j
c O.
25 deteriorates, this cauces a damping which means the loads
......t..
.._____.u._,..;_.___
.._._________,.___,,_,,,,)
- n l
l i
902 j
y.-
i l
eb7 I
are: lower than.what we're actually predicting with the very
)
f i
2
. conservative low damping values.
So again thic is a para.
3 meter that fits in.
i ih l
4-0 I gucos I'd like to understand a little bit 5
better what to expect in au carthquako.
For instanco, we l
c 6
talked yesterday about the fact that the earthquake motion f
1 1
7 is measured at the ground level in the north-south direction j
1 8
and the east-we'st direction.
What about the vertical direc-I
. 9
. tion?
Is there any measurement of acceloration in tho l
i 10 vertical direction?
I i
i 11' A
I'm assuming that--
PGE can address the cues-l 12 tion, but most facilities do have accolorometers oriented l
j h 13 in the three principal directions.
l 1
l 14 Q
All right.
We 'll follow ' that up later.
l 15 What would I expect in a typical earthquake in 1
i i
16 this area in terms of horizontal and vertical motion di.c-l 17 tribution, if you wish?
18 A
(Witness Johnson)
That's a difficult question to i
-19 answer because there has been a variety of opinionc over the l
i 20 years ' that have verticals from half the horizontal motion 21 '
..all the way up to escontially equal to the horizontal motion.
(
i 22 O
In one of the interrogatories I belteve there was i
23_
a number for the acceleration in the vertical componont of 24
' <2g.
Do you recollect that?
. O.
'25 A
(Witness Whise)
Yes.
-0 l
l i
')
Is 903 n
eb8 l'
' O' What was the source of that?
How was that' deter-2
. mined?
g.
'3 A
. In 'the FSAR,; the vertical motion is taken as
.4.
two-thirds. of the horizontal, so you start off with.25, s.
t 5
take two-thirds of that, and it gets you down to.167, and.
0.
then-in the vertical. direction we took the kind of amplifica-7 tion that we expected in the vertical direction and that I-
.O
-increased it from the,167 up;to the
.2.
l 9.
0
' Now then, uichin that same interrogatory it said 1
l 10 that this resulted in a reduction of equivalent dead weight l-11 of 20 percent.
2 12 A
Yes.
13-O How was that determined?
14 A
Well, if you-taka a look at the vertical load 15 on this structure, if there wern no accolcration at all you d
16 would have 100 percent of your dead load if the earthquako j
17 is pushing the building up.
Nou the inertial loads are i
ja pushing down on the building so you have the original 100 il' 19 percent of your dead load plus whatever additional load you j:
20 have due to the vertical acceleration.
}-
21 So'ycu might have 1.1, 1.2 times the original
{'.
.)
22
' dead load.
^ 23
.Now if the building in moving down, this endo up 24' in a reduction. essentially in the' dead load,.co this is the
.h-
-25 original 4100 percent dead load minus'whatever the vertical 1
l 1
l y 1.....--a....-.----
. - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -
- - ~
~ ___
i I
904-l eb9 1
acceleration is, and we've taken that to be up so ac to re-2
. duce '.the ' ~ vertical.
'3
-Q WhrAt happens--
When it goes up-it increases the 4
.. vertical? -
5-A Yes.
l.
6 0
Now what does that do compared to the forces l~
f
'7 already present?
IIov does.it compare in magnitude?
8 A
'About 20 percent.
In other words, if you had--
i
.9 Q
Due to other components of the earthquake I'm i.
l 10 speaking.of, horizontal and vertical components.
i h
.11 A
Okay..If I understand your question, the 12 vertical acceleration induced by horizontal motion--
Is j
')
h 13 this what you're talking about?
That's usually a very small i
14
~ quantity.
I'm trying to remember the actual numbers, but 15 it's a very small quantity.
i 1G Q
I assumed it was but I did not get that out of 17 the question, - and that's why I'm seeking it now, i
ja A
(Witness Johnson)
It should be in the range l
19 also of.about 20, 20 percent.
In other words, the vortical 20 loads from the horizontal earthquake at the ends of the 21 structure should be about five times higher than the vertical b
h.
22 response due to the vertical carthquake.
23' O
There. ban been some discussion about cumulative 2 11 offects on the walls' abili+ y to maintain their capacity.
. h?
.I'd likelto understand what'happens-to reinforcing steel in 25 i'
j l',
I
..).
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - -.. - _,.. _ _. -. ~. - - - _ - -.... -.... - _... - - - - -.
L l
j-905
.cbl01 1 tha niaconry wall when the ctrain goes to three, four, five, 2
g
-rix times yield in thin cycling. arrangement.- What can be
~3 expected?-
g' T
4 A
Well, in my opinion, in that situation there's L
and I mentioned it the 5
one thing that's.important here, 6
other day,.and--that is as far as tha small walls are con-7 corned, they cee what we call a displaccment-limited input.
8
'In other words, the structure only moves so far because tha 9
large valls resist.
i 10
'Now these smaller walls are dominated by bending.
11 That!s what controlo, and not shear.
So cince thic ic a 12 displacement input.in the range of two, three, four times h
13 yield, we would expect - call it a shakedown condition.
14 The walls would start to crack; as they got up-to peak yield 4,
13 or the maximum amount over yield, you would get the maximum j
I 10 cracking relativa to the amount of cracks, the width of the l
17 cracka.
And I would. cay those walls should literally chaka 13-down.
19 In'other words, after a few cyclea, they should i
20 not experience much more cracking after that.
That would be a 21 different situation-- If it was a load that pushed the system 22
.over yield. and then you kept repeating the load, there could b'e a falloff.
But-for these small walls,'it's a displacement l-
.23 input.
. 24 ll-0 What aboutlthe' larger walls?
- 21,
[
3
.. a
l-i 906 b
ebli.1 A ~
The larger walls, if one were to go over their 2
yield : capacity, their resistance would drop of f.-
They woul'd g
- O.
3 tend'then to push.-- have a lower resistance as the dio-
'4 placements kept increasing.
lb 5
L 6
7 8
9 10 i
.11 12 13 i
14 15 16 17 18 i
19 l
20 ll 21 22.
a 24
..e.
i 25 l
4
.,ew,.,
,,=~.*.--i.m
.c-we,r+-
f,-,---.-
,a..
+
-m-
..r,-...-
-rra y,-...-
---e,-
- ee,-,
+w,,
,,.v..
-*v v w, w,
e-cm, w
v-
l 907 i
1-ic mpbl 0
Are there experinents which indicate hou many l
times you can atrain in a cycling fora up, say, to aix tinac 3
l yield and the nteel reinforcenent bar without having it, I quess, fail?
5 A
Oh.
He can got sono correlation with the ttniversit >
0 of California tentn.
When we say nix tims yield, that wan c?
an upper limit estinate.
8 one can naka a conpurinon on the amount of shear 0
Strain.
In other words, you taho the displacement at the top j
10 oc.the specinen and divide by the height, and call that the
'11 shear strain.
12 In the Berkeley tents and the PCA testo those g
13 specineno that are in the range of 40 inches high reach 14 paak renintence in the range of one-quarter of an inch, as 15 I remonber, which in a tramandous anount of displacement IG relative to onr: n:ructure.
That would be wel] over an inch, 17 an inch and_a '.alf in 15 feet.
18 Berkeley, when they did their tests, I'd say they 19 had at least 20 to 30 cyclan, full reverno evalec of load in 20 the range of peak resintance.
tiow our predictions indicate
.i 21 that - that wan 30 cycles of load both hafore, richt on the 22 peak resistence, and right after.
nverall I think they had l
23 in tha range of 60 cycles of full reverse load out to very 1
24 large displacements.
25 tiow that's an indication of the effect of rebar I
J L.
_ _ __ _ _ ____ _._ ___ _....._.. _ _.;_. _ __--- -- _. - -- ~. _.
'908.
'I mpb2 yielding.
But the~reharn,'of course wura enhedded and it was r
g not n' direct. correlation.
3
'So far as steel.is concerned, six times yield in 4
juat.a steel-specinen,'that's a calf-linited displac'ement.
1 5
One could have thousands of cycles of load.
6 ll 0.
I'd like to now get back ' to the OBib 7
There was some discussion yesterday about how you 8' l could nonnure the damping ' factor, and I think you responded, 9
Mr. Johnson, that it would be impractical to got the hind of j
10 loads on an actual building to reprenant a system that you 11 could measure that danpha factor in.
12 Let na ask a question about that, then.
' j
-13 Am I right about yesterday's --
14 A
'Right.
U l
15 0
The question 1a:
16 Does the damping factor or the damping value change i
17 in ene u.near region of operation of those structures?
18 A
If we define " linear" as up to the firat cracking, 19 there vould be a dampinq value annociated with tha uncracked i
20 composite structure.
There would be another danping value 21
'that would he associated after cracking up to yiciding.
And i
22 then after that even a further increase in damping.
- e-23 So we nicht say theru are probably at least.three-I
. rangen where'the.danping would chanqe and increase as the lead 25.
increased.
l N,...-.,.,- - --,,.... a.... ~..----.... -. _ _,,--...----- - --- - - - --.. ~
,,-..,,.......,.J..
.---.~.---.--:-
. =.
i s
i 909 4
1 I
m951 o
All in the linear rangn?
I a
A 90, tue in hat in
" linear" ir nomein a definad i
)
as yield, But concrete nyctens really start to go nonlinear 4
j after cracking.
S O
What in the bent estinate you could maka as to the 6
change in the aanping value when it went from linear to arcck-f 7
ing for the ODE?
i G
A My opinion would be fran probably - it uauld ba
]
9 down at two perce;nt or possibly a little Iowar in the cracked I
i 10
-- uncracked con lition,. up to four or five porcent after i
11 crackinn, no the t the two that han lmen used in the lower 4
12 limit nunbcr in observinq' a cracked concrece structure.
C 13 m
Are 700 aware of anyone attemptinn - or in any i
14 of the panel nuare of anyone attempting to mondure thin very 15 low, lowent va7un of the damping value in a buildinn by core 10 activatien technique experinentally?
A Theca have been teats that have been :un on build -
17 i
2~
13 inga.
Unleas you take them up to very high load levals then 19 you don't got as much damping as they're capable of, I
,79 beli.ove, a
Thare have clan been correlations nado, as Mr.
99 Katanica nentioned, after an earthquaho, whun the structurc
~~
O
' wan modeled, and then attenpted to correlate its renponce 3
24 durinn the earthquaho, they could then find the damping.
And O
25 y rk also ha3 heen donc on tent specimana w:wre they have p
l l
i l
l-910' I
- mph 4 "
determined - small test specimens *where they have determined 2
danping.sy looking at thingo like. the historenic loops.
--3 0
Uhat I was scarching for was to assure myself
. h' 4
that the selection of the damping value was indeed very con-l 5
corvative, as you have suggested.
And it seems that - ny 6
fooling was that it was a building codo statement of 'this l.
7 in what is appropriate, and thia is what is appropriate', and 8
I need to have a little feeling of hou that wac decided and'
+
9 how it was confirmed.
10 A-All right.
11 There is nothing in,, we'll cay building codes.
12 They simplify naismic ane. lyses so that one doca net need 13 damping.
They have certain coefficients that you use.
One 14 reference is Regulatory. Guide 1.61, which addresses danpino, j;
15 And,that particular Dagulatory Guide allown four parcent
~
3' 10 damping for an ODE for a reinforcod concrate aeructure.
17 0'
I understand that we hcve net thoco.
My' concern 18 was to figure out just how concervativa they were with 4
l 10 respect to actuality.
I think that that a probably act nuch i
20 as we need to cover on that.
21 As'an aside, nro you eware -- any of' the panel -
1 22
.of any of the 'saisnic iactivity recordcA at Trojan?
- g i
23 A'
110 -
d i!.g 24; A
(Mitness Katanica)
No.
1 i
- 25 L DY ClIAIRIIA'I ITILLUR
- -
f' ;..
.a.n., _ m. ;--..a. _.... a 1:
..--... -----...2...
i 911 i
'I f.
npb5~
O Is ruch data available, or would it,have bgen
[
- 2' available to you?
?
i 3
'A' (Uitness Johnson)
If there would have been any 4
l significant - and I would say....
Uc11, anything other 1.
5 than some very low level 2arthquake, I would think we would 1
6 have been notified to examine the information.
j i
7 Q
The data was available had you needed it, or had i
l 8
it been'of'any significance in your studies, but you deemed
(
9 it not, and.it is therefore available fron others.
In that:
10 about'the state of the matter?
j.-
11 A
Well, to my knowledge there hasn't been any earth-l l 12 quakec at the Trojan site.
4 i
13 0
Have the instruments picked up any tremors?
14 A'
I can't answar that.
IS 0
That's what I understood you didn't know, and 16 that.we would get it from PGF..
17 Thsnk you.
j
~18 BY DR. MC COLLOM:
19 Q
In your tectimony, pago 26, under C, Strength of 20 Materialu, the very.first ntatemdnt sayo:
- 20
- "Under a dynamic loading environment 22 such-as. earthquake loadings, the= dynamic
!g j '-.
23 strengths of building materials-are higher f-
$~
than the static strengtha."
- .'g 1
-25 Mould you give us somd insight into that?.
e
- \\
f
912
]
I
.mpb6 A'
(Witness Katanicui I vould.like to answer this 1
2 question.
I 3
Under thia A, ni C, 0,
and so on, ve.tried to
- 'g 4
come up with some of the factorn of conservatinm.
This 5
- particular one identifics that materials generally have a 6
comewhat higher ronisting capacity under a sudden impact
'7
-dynamic loada condition,
'"his is not a significant contribu-8 tion in an carthqanke environment.
It means some plus, but 9
l not a signif.tcant, 10 0
What's the mechaninm that resulta in this?
11 A
Well, my understanding of this mechaninm is that 12
-in terms of short-term impact loada or dynamic loada the 13 strength of tha natorial is increased.,
14 I cannot elaborate farther the ansvar.
15 one of tho most significant exampics, ehich in 16 not related directly to carthquakes, of cource, is in the i
i i
17 woodon timber atructure where we know that an impact load 18 twice ao much as the static lond can ho taken.
19.
Now again, this in just a far away twample, and I 20 don't imply that it nac a very direct relationchip to this 21 particular situation.
i 22_
O The last sentenea in the same paragraph saya:
23-
"Also, thn acturtl ultimate strengths are 4
l' 24' larger than the ultimate ntrengths of natorials O-j 25 -
used in the re-evaluation etudy and supplementary I
z g:
913
'I
{'
mpb7 evaluation."
2 g
Does that refer to the te9ts on the specinens after i
the fact?
3 4
It refers' partially to the-tests that are slightly A
5 higher.
It also.raflects the aging procosc.
It's well known c.
6 that special concrete -- well, concrete, cfter years, is 7
getting stronger than at the time of the testing.
It alco 8
l reflects that in.the reinforcinn stoel testing we applied J
9 the single very lowest valuo that wa picked up from the test-
.10.
ing' process.. Engineering-wise would have been appropriate i
11 to use a mean and ninus sona sigma value.
12 So we'believe there is extra strength in the 13' reinforcing steel in our evaluation.
i 1
14 0
110w if we can go to Exhibit number 8, the STARDY:In 15 analysis.
It's called Trojan Control Building Supplemental 16 Structural Evaluation, September 19, 1978 1
17 I believe that it would be useful to surmuarino 18
.the four seiumic analysis.
This is donc sonowhat on pages 19 2.1 and 2.2 4
20 But. I'd 3 ihe to have yoti -- have someone ao down
'l
~
21 the.four casen and nake conments about the strengths and l.
j
-22
'appropriatenasn'of having made those, what the weaknesses
'h 23 might he compared to'the later STARDYME analyses.
And I'n 24
- particularly.intorested in the TANG.
Ih
'25"
.Is that cufficient to give you a direction to go?
l q
l k
a-
.a
o O
l 914 I
l mpb8 :
' A sort 'of sunmarv is what I'm interested in 2
A
- (Witness White)
The Ecur :malycen are like the 3
. flexible based, fixed base, TABS, and then the stick modol?
4 0
The original upachral response.analysia, the 6
roanalysis, the TADS, and the STARDY!E fixed base.
6 A-Okay.
7 The original analysia done back in '70 and '71 0:
used the stick model, the lateral recistence in the entire D
complex, the control building, the auxiliary buil(li~r, the 10 fuel buildinn was composed of three primary aleman'c.
One 11 is the control building at the went end, cnd then at the east-12 end the resistence was assumed to come from the spent fuel O
is 9"o1 med ene we1 dun emc1o"ure eean-maese were ene three 14 primary lateral rasisting elemnts.
15 In the model they made a very concervative assump-16 tion that the wallo in the auxiliary building did not offer 17 any lateral resistence;in general - there's a couple of walls 18 near the west edge of the auxiliary building which wan in-19 cluded.
But in ganaral the lateral reniatence of the auxil-20
-iary building was neglected.
end lc' 21 22 23 2d
- .]'
23
,,_.,,.,_._...9-
....m-.
m... -.. - -.,,.
~ - --
1 g
L 915 l
I I
-1Dlagbl,
.The modeling technique thero, between floora of the, control building, that entire stiffness was represented 3
4
. by. a beam element.
That L clement included bendisg de-l formation ao. well as shear deformation. - And in terms of the 5
6j
'. analytic capabilities that wore available at that time, that was as good'as anyone could do.
7 j
I'm not quite sure how much dabail you unnt on 8
those.
e
~
O I think that's good.
Why don't you proceed?
]
10 A
On the re-ovaluation, na took.a look at the results l
11 of this stiff model and mado some comparisons with what we i
12 j
vould expcot the base shear to bo if we wore, you know, to 1'
13 rebuild thic model, cosentially.
And we found that it'wns a 14 very reasonable emalynia i
6 15
)
So we took those results from the stiff model g
and then combined them on a square root sum squares approach, 17 or at least the original analysis combined modal results on 18 an absoluto num basis, And what we did is we took 20 percent 4
-19
.. reduction, going: from an oJasoluto value to the aquare root' o
20 of cum cquares, and this was the ocurce of the loads' that yo j
used in-the re-evaluation,.but essentially coming from the 22 8
i
!.g-original stiff nodel'..
W g.
The TABS analysia.
This is a modeling technique i
that' attempts to use finite elements to reprosent the stiffnesu y-25' offthe walls.
......--6-+.-~-...m.-z,
.... d. 4,.
- .m._,,~.,...-,-..._,,,,..___.4
,~
m
. _ - -_,. - = - -..
. -. - -. +
1
916 I
agb 2 Ono limitation that the TABS analycia has which 4
STARDYlm does not have is, at a given ficor level, that floor r3 10 accuraed to bu infinitaly rigid.
Nou, what tnat means is x_j 4
that the motion of that entiro floor is represented by three b
.l.
parameters:
a north-south displacement, au cach-uest 6
displacement and than a single rotation.
7 Now for inany structurcs, this is a very reaconable U
kind of an assumption.
If you were to take a high-riso 9
structure:
concretc elab floorc, steel framing for lateral 10 resistanca, thcn the concrete floor ic vary rs.gid relativo 11 to the other a bif fncou ulcmenta, so it' n a f airly common 12 assumption.
( >)
13 x
t'or a structuro cuch as the control auxiliary 14 fuel building complex that we have hora, where it's only 72 fact tall cud the lateral dimension is nutch larger then 16 thin, making the ascumphion of a rigid diaph?agm it'c definitely 17 an c >roximation.
But it's a very aingle program to uso, 18 one that in many cases givaa very reliable results.
19 The muss dictribution within the TABS model 20 auffers the same limitation, in othar vordo, you only he.ve 21 7 three paramotors to describa the ansa:
concentration in thu 22
']
north-nouth direction, cast-west dirce' i on, and then a. mass c
p,3 moment inertia about a vertical c.wa.
24
(~' 3 In the STARDYllE model -- vell lot ne back up and C/
25 cay a few more words about the TABS model.
917 i
agb3-In the TABS model, the. actual walla are modeled O
in char aceua1 g-1uee.
In the eue moau, mae 3
-total ~ lateral. resistance is reduced down to a single plane, 4
ecaontially, and in the TADS model-the walla are left in thui:
5 actual positions.
6 In the STARDYNE model, again the walla are left 7
in the actual pocitions.
The rigid diaphragm ascumption ic 0
oliminated, the actual stiffnoss of the floor syntom is 9
included, such that we have in-plano bending of that slab 10 system,1whereas TAES doaa not have that capability.
11 As we mantioned earlier, the masa distribution 12' in the STAPSYNE modal in much better than is possible with O
1 V
TABS or the original utick nodol.
This means a mu:h better 14 distribution of the masp over the ficor syatam is possiblo 15 using the STARDYNE model.
10 The problem with STARDYNE is it in a much more 17 expensivo program to use and much more difficult to use.
The model is mora diffi. cult to build.
You don't got your to increased refinement free is what it amounts to.
!E 0
-Do I underatand that when you taka this require-2.t mont of n' rigid floor off - and that in that the floor
.now can-bcnd?
2"5 '
.A We're more concerned with the in-plano bending M
of this. thing,'rather ths.n.....
.O D'
- (Demonstrating. )
w__________-_______
l nu Lo l
- ag1N -
J
'Q-Were you involved -- or who was involved with h
arranging'for.the TABS ovaluation?
~
i.
i 3
A (Witness M tanics)'
I'm probably the one to answer l
4 this question.
U I'd like to know who it was that made the cnalyces, Q
+
i-O whab relationship' they had to Bechtol, and what information i
I was ' provided to them in order > for them to make.it.
I 0
i
-A When we were faced with the problems that
(.
9 l
us are discussing-today,'our management felt that'it vould 10
- be approoriate to have como sort of check ana.r.yais to be made s
4 Il j
by.an outsido consultant.
1 12 And we colected a reputablo San Francisco 13 structural engineering consulting company wno have been 14 deeply-involved for many years in scismic design, seismic 1
j' i
analysis, recualification and'a requalification program.
j' 15-F 16
. So we selected PMB -- and wo spelled yocterday i
17
-for the record all the namen -- Pregnoff, Matthew and
[
IG-
-.. Be eb e, and wo catablished a consulting.-contract with them to b'asically; assist us mostly in our re-inforcing-our fix2d
'i9 program, but also;the opportunity was there to provide a
. j20 s
j i
21 check analysis on the existinef structure and uco this inforna -
22 tion as_somo sort of roinforcement for our acquisition.
So 1
[.;
1.
- 23 this-company was responsible for conducting the TABS analysis.
i:
2 '
i 24f Wo received!a report from them and como information
- -.k U
g ll 125 l from this report are incorporated in the supplements to-our be i
l^
L__,,-u..,_.~-a,.un._LL_,.__._____._._..__.____,._
9 19 l
1 i
.agb5 testimony, l
_ O O
zn earticu1er, z weue to x ou wh=e iud of informaeiom 3
did you give them so that they could run.the TABS report, drawing a -
5 A
(Witnoso iTnite)
We gave them the full set of 6
drawinga that vo made our model fro:a, the architecturel 7
~
drawings and the civil drawings.
0 0
Juict tha testa from tho strength of the concrote 0
and masonry and the tests from the mill?
10 A
Yes.
sg O
So they really started in their computational 12 proceduro --
O
'3 A
2 hey stareed f ma ecraech.
j Q
-- with the basic raw mterial.
15 A
Right.
16 0
And then they came up with the aucuors and gave 17 them back to you in the form of a reporb.
10 A
Yes.
There were a couple of checkpoints clong 19 the way.
7,0 -
Whnn they calculated the voight of their model, 2I for inattuice -- well, let's see, they also had a copy of the original ceiamic analysic done in 70-71, so when they mada O
U their indepandent ucight evalunt. ion, they mado a comparison
d' with what was arrived at tofore, just as a choch, and they O
25-were antisfied with their weight calculations.
I
- - =
920 l
- 1 l
agb6 0
co 'you concider this to be a completely independent. <
evaluation, even thcugh by a different method, of tha.abilitiet l'
3 of the plant to withstand the earthquake -- that'o incorrect
, ;n
'- U 4
'the ability oflthe.... Lot mc start over.
5 An. independent calculation to provide forces G
that would result, based on the TABS capability, to do that.
I 7
that verifies ;the.other results that you have, is this the 8
way you used that?.
~
B I
A (Witness Johnson). Yes, that'n true, i
.10 j_
0 There was a question about, has acmabody donc 11 any checking of tha calculations.
I'm searching the TABS 12 as a possibility to reaccure uc that an independent-calculatior O=
13 by a separate company hac,-indeed, given-us another
]
V 14 roaacuranco that there might not be another avenuo that g
15 we haven't looked at yet.
A When wo first encountered this problem, since 1970 f U
we have' performed many noismic analyses of structurea, 50 or 75.
We have quito a backlog of infomation that'wo know U
faifly;uell,within an accuracy of probably plus or minus i
6
'20
- 10 porcent, we ' can :;eview a structure visually.'and look at 1
21 the results'of a scismic analysis.
22 So that'n.what Mr.-White meant,when wo looked
- 0 23
'at the original analysia, we then could compare,it with
~
24 recent analysos of other structures to look at the accelera~
O
>25
.tions as a function of pipe to ascure ourselves that there
._,,_-.m_+
922.
l l
agh7 was nothing that una done that una, we'll cay, way oub of 2
- lina,
'a The TABS vac run as a further check.
And, of j
i j'i courco, cinco then uo have the STARDY11E annlysca to provide r#
- 2. 3/10 even moro checks.
i 6
j Q
If you go to Page 3-1 of thic camo D:hibit Mumber Eight, there's a chatcuant in cubparagraph tiro aboub I'.
the' middle of the page that, "... radiation datping 9l conaervatively was not concidcred....."
tbuld you de.uc.cibo N
radiation duraping and how doca it af fect the oystsn and l
what magnitude it io?
)
12 A
(Witneun Unito)
I laigitt mention thah radiation demgina 1e a eerm ehat'm used eo c=ecriue eme f ace thae O
w I
onorgy coming from the utructure going into the foundation 14 t
f 15 radiates nuay froa tho base of the building, and it han nothing 10 to do with nuclear radiction.
(
1..
/
i n
well put, i
10 A
Thic is a term uacd to decer:.be the 4?act that I
f.
energy colaing from a structure aa 4.t vib):ccr.o; 19 back and 1
M forth is dali'?cred to th foundation.
Ii: nc as we're talking i
21 about an olactic half-opace.
This energy r <iaun away E?
frert the structure and nevc.r returna.
So thin is a it.ched i
l 23 of dinsipating energy.
So dumpino is a collectiva term to o
24 deccribe loca of enorgy.
25?
In terms of the ittagnitude of thc radiation dumping,
j.
i.
a 922 l
1 agb8
.it's a function of the stiffnous of tho' media that is supportir 9 the structure, the coil or rock or what have you, i
3 i
For a rock foundation, there is como noticeablo i
4 decreasa in utructural' forces uhen the actual flexibility and 5
radiation damping 10 included.
For the structuros 6
i that uc ' ve. looked at under siv ' '. :" conditiona,.I would say i
7 i
that the reduction is in the five to ton porcent category.
0 2
0 On Page 4-1 is where I'm going to nont, ccpacity 9
l daterrnination.
j' 10-In the second paragraph it aaya:
4 11 "The coue provisions for detarmining i
1?-
e chear capacity in walls are based on wallo which i O 13 -
i W
have a height.sufficiently largo, when compared i
14 to the ' base dimension, ao that 45-degrca type.
i 15 diagonal tension cracks can develop which oscentially run to both outer edges of the wall."
17 Ilow do you get that additional strength, what is 18 the mechanism by which you get additional strength?
A (Witnesa Johnson)-- Whan you chear a wall, chcar 9
"--;0 creatos tanciona and they are called principal tancions, and 2'1 this in what causes the cracking in the wall.
22 l
Now,-if you picturo a tall vall, at least one --
9 n
i 23 4
where the height is.one timec.the width or the height is i
k4
.two times the width and no push on the top and the bottom h.
ad' in differont dircchiona,-then those, we will say, clean i
E... a
~
.m.....
I l
v 1:
'923 e
l
-1
.. f agb9 simplo cracks in the wall can' develop and the wall can separato.
3 Now, when the wall gets quite short, these o
cracko cannot cleanly develop.
If they were at 45 degrees, 1
'S'
- they would run into tho' upper and lower surfaces.
C' N
How-the reason wo know.the ualls are stronger 7
when their height decreases, wo have test resulta'to show that. -There really' ion't,,I would sc.y,.any clear-cut thcory, 9
it's pretty much empirical ~.
10 There are postulated theories that truss'cystems U
chivolop in the long-short walls thct cannot develop in tall 12 walls.
Scmo people even believe in a littlh bit of a
- I3 sort of r.n arch action, y*
The vertical reinforcement becomes quito important
~
U relative to dowels that we talk'ediabout the other day.
16 Compreadion fields develop:in thdsc walla that also create I7
'rcaistance which might even be tormed as friction.
So there IB
-has been a. variety of mechanisms postulated, but the
'Ik ob'servatisns are primarily based on~what tests have-20:
.shown.
21--
22 23 24 O:
23 1
i
.---.. a-..
i.
i-j.
924 I
- q You've annumed that the walla, an you evaluato
. 2a - rnpbl -
2 them herei to maintain their capacity, are one floor height,
[..
instead of from the foundation to the top of the building.
'3 4
A-
- yea, 5
0
-now do.you justify that when the wall'really is i
.6-ono solid structure on tho outside going up, as I understand 7
it from the. drawings?
1 0
A'-
The testa that have been run-were run on, we'll 0
lsay, single' walls of a certain height.
When it comes to the.
10 masonry tecta there were really, ve'll say, no end wallc.
11 When we were exanining these varioun pieces of the 12 walls wa did use the minimtm amount -- ua correlated our 13
' results'with tests that have low reinforcement ratios that 14.
are simi?.ar to what we have in the structuro.
Between the i
15 floor levels we have much higher reinforcement ration.
But 16 then the reinforcing is discontinuous.
I 17 In the overall walls, when you get into the large 18 system, they're tied into the end walls, and thic providea lg an added degroo of restraint on the walla.
The end walls 20 provide a restraint that makes'it very difficult for the 21
'overall wall-cystem to fail or deform c::cocnively..
22 O
Excuse me.
'23 But-I'm'not real cure that you're heading toward v
24 the: answer that'I'M interested in.
25-
-A (Hitneas White)
Maybe I can interject a comme.nt h..
i
-we m e **re O e
,w w w a=--
e eFw
-e*-r wm****'=----**-"e'
- - - ' ' * - - * ' * * - ' ' ' ' * * - - ' ' " " " " * " * * * * * ' ' ' ' " * ' ' " " * " " * " " " * " " ' ' " " * ' " " " ' " ' ' " ' ^ - ^ ^ ^ ' " ' -
925 1
that will help clarify.
-mpb2.
'2
- g There are intermediate floor alabs tha t provant -~
'3 l
in other'worda, in order for a 45 degree crack to go the 1
4 entire - from the upper corner to the' lower corner it' a 5
- going to have to go through these floor-slaba, which prevent b
4 th'at'..
7 g-How far did the floor.slaba go into the vall?-
i 8
Are the walla - are the outside of the walla completely on 9-
'the floor slab, or is there an area where the outside wall-c l
10 extends over and goes down on top of the wall below it?
11:
A~
Reinforcing steel from the slabs go into tha wall j-i.
12 and it'varics.
But in general it goes to nearly the canter
[$
13
'of that wall, 14 0
Whan you calculato the ueight on a given floor i
1 j
15 are you: calculating.juct the wa!.1 that is between the floora 1
i l
16 as the weight that'n loading at that point?
Or do you stack i
l i
17 it up all the way up?.
18 A
For dotermining the contribution of tha dead load
~19 in the capacity 'of that chear wall, we're taking the - if 20 wo were at elevation 61, for. Instance, we vould'..tahu all the
' 21-
. wall directly.above that.
22 0
.All ot~'the=vall from 61-to the top of tha building?
23-
- A Right.
24_
0 I'd like-to refer one more time to the two walls 25 on a1 ovation 61,.that worn assumed not to he.ve the steel l-i l'.
L_-.--.-.a..-.-.:.~.,,,-
926 I
mpb3
-reinforcing rod.
j Aro' thuao the only two walle that are accum.d not 3 -
to.have steel reinforcing rods, and therefore you used 150 l
4' psi' limit?
d 5
-A:
Are you referring to a particular tablo?
6 l
0 Table 4-2.
1 I'
7 A
Yan.. Thace are the only two walla on that eleva-O
. tion, major.ahear walls at that elovation which does not have l
9' reinforcing in the core.
i 10 0
What about at other elevations?
Are there any l
II othur
)
12 A
At elevation 45 to 61, all the walls in thu control i
h.
13 building havo reinforcing steel in the core.
And in the 14.-
control 1)uilding, elevation 61 -77, those arc the only two.
'.15 This in ths west wall and the north wall.
l 16 South and cadt have reinforcing stoel in the coro.
[
17'
'O Itava you calculated what the capacity would be 18
'in those two walln if you did have steel reinforcing in it?
ID A
Yec', wa calculated the capacity.of both walla 1-
- 20
.and 7 uoing.the bacic criteria that's referred to here, e'
21-0 All right.
i-22
.A.
. And they ' ware considerably higher then the munbara 4
23-shown'here.
'I' don't remember the exact number, but it'wan 24-higher.
! G-.
1 25 O
' 50:percan:, 20 parcent?
I:
l j.1 d, 3
-a--...-.
LJ
......-..-.--.1
- - -. ~. -.. ~. - - - ~ - - -... - - -. ~.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - + - -
~, - -
I e j-
[
927
[
<mpb4 I
A~
Like wall number 1, for instance, I think that E
wan like or 10,000 kips.
3 0
Then it appears to no that it might be worthwhilo
- 4' to really'know whether there'is steel in there if we're S
trying to assura ourselves that the building will withstand 9
6 the seismic forces.
7 And my next question, then, would be:
0' Are there nondestructive ways to determine if therc 4
9 is' steel in there?
10 A
Even with the valuen listed in the table, those i
11 capacitics are greater than the loads that are being predicted' 12 by the very conservative clustic analyaic.
1 j g 13 0
You but you'ra talking about radiatribution of r
14 loads, and the more capacity you have, it appaars to me, the J
4 15 better safety margin, if I can use that word again.
a 16 A
That uould ha true.
17 CHAIRMMI MILT,ER:
I don't believo we got the answer 18
-to the question.
19 Aro there nondcatructiva nothods of asc2rtaining 20
.whether there is steal.in theco walls, where you arc, for 21 present purposos, asnuming there is not, based upon the da-22 sign?
23 UITNESS MHITU:
Ualla that arc of this thickneas, 24
- I'm not. familiar with techniqueo.
25 BY CHAIRMAM MILLnn:
?
4 gsJ 4*F fMF.. w.t-9 $ 4&$ "#g~df Ft* w-F'e$ supiee*
=WGP AfM-h***P*****-**N'W**8"*'*
"*"""""~~#" - " " - " "
- ' ~
I
'920
[.
f mpb5:
0 LAnybody alsa on
.the panel?
2-A (ilitnaus Johnscn) 17all e there are technicues 3
available that havo been used to determine, I think, in voids j.
4 and rebar in walls.
2 5 -
Mow due to the compicec nature, I don't know if j
6 they would be-reliable here because we do havo inner and outer 7
reinforcing in the. blocks.
And then what would be in the i
B t could be very difficult and I'rt not sure it could
- core, i
9 bo dono reliably with ultrasonics or some other technique.
10 0
1 tow about X-ray, cophisticated X-ray techniques?
i' 11 A
.Peopic havo tended to go more toward the ultra-12 sonic techniques in thic area than X-ray.
h 13 DY DR. MC COLLOlh 2
14 0
If you will turn to page 7-3, what in the defini-15
' tion of " bilinear capacity or resistance relationship" in 4
16 that first major paragraph?
I 17 A'
tNitness Johnson)
Bilinear vould just be a 18 system-that would respond linearly for the first phaca, and 19 then change the slope of its resistenco dinplacement curve i
I 20 in'the second phase.
That could be considered as yielding, j'
21 Now in these computer programs due to the riumnri-22
. cal techniques that ara used, it's advantacrocus in making O
23 the-analysis--to have a
. bilinear curve where the resistance j
i
?
24
'just incroaces slightly,'so the program can achieve equilibr-'
l h 25
. lum.
That's why in cur tables you still see a slight.incronce s
t u
..2t.....
.2..-..
.. 2 a
. 2
h 929 l
mpb6 1
.in the small imllo avan under those kind of-analysen, and 2
O.
We say that's dua:to the nunorical technique that was used.
3 g:
On page 7-4, in Casta 3 at the very top of the page, j g I
4 l
would you describe the effect that is boing demonstrated in
{
i 5
that Caso 3?
i I
6 A
All-right.
7 In a box type structure the sido ualls that are B
parallel to the. direction of motion, or direction of loading, 9
they recist tho' carthquake nhaar. - The and valle reniat the j
10 bonding moment.
And it's necessary for the end walls to 11' resist the bonding moment, They have to be tiod to the cide 12 walls along the vertical joint.
4 13 So this case was merely investigating what is the 14
- sensitivity of tha vertical joint at the intersection of 15-walls 1 and 13 from elevation 45 to 61;if capacity was lower than anticipated, what would this do to the structura, and 16 i
17 that's why the case was studied.
18 0
Would-you do the same thing nou for caso 4 and:
10' Case 57 20
'A All right.-
I 21 C a c e 4'. w c: considered as the mont realistic of all j-22 tho'casco.
He had chovn in previouc sectionc'that when 23 comparingLthe various wall capacities with the predicted
' elastic loadn,. come had predicted loads higher than capacity, 24-l g'
j'
,,T,
,6 Ya e
l L
1 l
1 n
--..-..u.
.:.~ -
r.
i.
4 930 t
j I
1:
['
mpb7 loads predictsd by liTAnnmn and did a compute.r ans. lysis to i
2 i
show,.then, we can call it redistribution.
3 lIF the small walla did not have enough capacity to 4
resist'the elastic predicted load, then where would the load 5
flow to; and ;that'wasLthe-purpoco of Casa.4.
j 6'
QL
'I believe you described this as the most realistic 1
7
. ca s e'.
1
'6-A.
- YoG, 0~-
Case'S,-to even further investigate the' ability
)
-10 of this structure, being a multi-clement structure with many
{
11' elements'that connect together, we further reduced the capa-l 12 city of the wont wall from elevation 45 to 61 to say'if that g
13 Wall had slightly lower capacity than determined by our 14' criteria that were haced on tecta, then what would happen.'
l 15.
And that wan the main purpose of that one.
1 i
16 So that also limited capacities to the determined 17
-values; but in addition further limited the west wall.
J 10
- O with that, then, would.you turn to Table 7-11 and l
19 7-12, respectively?
[
4.135' 20 would you explain what-was demonstrated hors by q-21 those-two cases?
l
?.?,
Cl!AIRtiAN tiILLER:
We're going to tako our morning e
23; racesa.
It might giva you gentlemen a chance to study thoso
~
24 two tabloc.
So we'll recons at thic point.
l r
ecesb4 '
.m I
l
. -.. - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ ~ _ _
4 e
i L
3 -.
~
931-
{
2b ebl-II CHAIRMA?!. MILLER:.
Let the record show that t
.Mr. nanks has provided copics of a response which was alluded c5 2
3 to yesterday on..the record.
I think.copios have been fur-
,..h 4
nished to'allJparties and counsel.
We will have some ques-a L
5
' tion _s concerning it at the end of Dr. Mccellcm"s questioning, I
but the. record should reflect-I think that "The Flexibilbi.ty 6
i
- 7..
Survey Reaponse - Trojan Nuclear Power Plant - Survey to 8
Determino Capability of Equipment to Withstand Building i
i
,9 Displacemento,-Control Building and Surrounding Structuren,'
l.
10 dated September 18, 1970, has been furnished, both to the 11
- Board and to the parties and counsel.
- )
4 12 You nay proceed.
13 MR. GRAY:
-Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt just i
14 a minute?
15 I vac just handed a piece of paper by a person gg by the name of Linda Wernor, and she - asked that I relav it j7 to the Board'as sort of a written limited appearance. state-
.jg mont.
yg CHAIN 4AN MILLER:
Very well.
20 MR. GRAY:
It contains some questions as to the i
21 procedure for the-limited appearances in the next two days,
.22' so I indicated to her that I would get it to you.
l 23 CilAIRMAN-MILLER:
Thank you.
[.
24 (Document handed to the Board.)
e CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Let'the record indicate that
.25 i
i.
j i
., Pf.
TPM M*.* M9""*
f.*MT.
PTrtW
-*C3 TT*.',NQ MW 7,.t" # 3P.* JP4'F 'Pt:NT9'4% 5'% EMT *eG7 F# *W 99* O f8 te -e e4 hW**4 ft-* % MEWee +429 e ***e se #6*eFuree e-18'888 6 N b *** dire e misw"We *W'#W *** N WW8F FF
i i 932 o
7 eh2 1
' fir r Gray, / STaf f Counsel, hat handed up a handwritten document t
2.-
entitled " Questions from Linda werner of the columbia 3
Environmental Council Concerning Limited Appearances."
f4 The queation is:
L 5
"What will be tho'procedura for schedul-(
6
'in'g persons giving limited appearances on Thursday L
7 and Friday?
Will people who can only be.available 0
at certain' times be given preference for those J
9 times?
Fow will the order of appearance be-handled?
i F
10 Could you answer before adjourning for the day so
\\
11-we may inform the people of Columbia County?"
12-That's a reasonable request.
13-Our plan of procedure una simply to, first of all,
['
34-go through the list of.I believe it is 60 percons who, in l
15 accordance with the notican previously given for evidentiary 4
i
- g hearing _ and indicating the opportunity, at the discretion 17 of the Board, for limited appearances by metabers of the gg
-public so requesting, because the Tioard felt that the order 1
19 of priority shov1d go to those who have indicated their 20 desire to make cither written or oral cppearances.
L 21 Now we don't know how many such: persons vill be l
22 present, but wo would consider, firnt of all, tihat personu 23 on that list should have prior opportunity, connidering the 24-
. fact that we have two days of hearings which should -be
.g sufficient to accommodate both those persons who have so oe r
r
+
1-.
.w.......m--,,~
- --------------~~.---------------a-
c---'
_-/"
cb3l 11-
\\
2 Eequ'ested and if there are additional ones k4 933 t
che Donrd uould exerciae ' liberal discretion for p i
J 3 } - the time. ani the circumstan eople to be heard se far ac p
i 4
cec permit.
If;there are people-who can only b 5
for certain, times, e availablo this la difficult to answer in th i-6 Wo.would not aant to'have a la e abstract.
'7 -
rge number of such persons who were then assuming' a priority over th 8
probably be antitled to priority ose we believe would
, but it may well be 9
a-lit $1ted bnsis and for good 7;cason that on accommodatec.
that they could be 10 11 I
3 I right as well tell you also t
1 12 tion has ccme
, cinco the ques-il i
Ip,
there in a possibility, perhaps 13 possibilit'r a slight j
b thic point, c-that we might not hold thoaa 4
14 limited a' podrances. as schodul d f e
15 Portland.
or Thursday and Friday in
\\
K r 'll know more before we rec 10 know.
ess.
I ' l.L lot you
}
But. question end a matter ha 4
our recusa s just come up during 1
17 ind I thought it fair to lot all of ta The poMibility'_ conters on s you know.
19,
' free to gc into.
ecurity reasons which I'm not I
)
They are being explored.
i~
1 20 j i,
Bu t I don ' t know a
regard mu,y be made by the Boardnow what firm 6ec 21
\\
But since people arc 22.
plarnin;,.and we hope to be able t i
o have the limited appear--
23 j
.ancos with something. of tha ' procedure I h i
l 1
in accordance with our notic
~
24,
\\ &l
~\\
Anow m the -carliest opportunitye, we wanted to let 25
[
of this recent development.
\\
I
^
L i
a t
~
l
\\
1 i
e
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _.
i 934 l
.ob4L
-l Are the m any questions?
l-2 (No recponse.)
r; 3
Very well.
Uc.will proceed, 4
BY DR.-MC COLLOM:
L.
1 5'
0
'I believo we were ready to havo a' review of G
. Table 7-11 and 7-12 which summarines the base case load and i
7 the case 4 and.the-Case 5 comparisons.
1 0
B A'
.( itness Johncon')
On Table 7-11 under the first 9
colunm under the base load caso, wo see all the loads licted-10 fromitho~STARDYNE' analysis.
These~are the loads that werc P
11 determined by an elastic distribution.
-12 Now in Cace 4, this is the situation.where we g:
13 have ' accounted for the actual capacity of the valls and then 14 applied the system of loads to see when a particular small 15 wall had a resistance less than the elastically predicted 16' lokd,: what.other elements would tend to racist this load.
17' There we see. Wall Number 2 and 3, 6 and 7 and C, 18-When they have limited capacity, the. loads would then be
_19 '
carried by Walls 1, 4'and 5, the slight differenco at the 20 bottom being the.snmmation for the north-south wallo.- The
'21 difference o'f 300 kips uould be some load that would be 22 resisted in other partu of the complex cuch as the auxiliary 123
' build'ing.
.24 Now in Case.5, that's the case whure we further 25 limited. the capacity of 'the West Wall Number 1 to. 3410 kips.
{
l
t 935 4-eb5 1
Then've'see'an.increace in Unlls 4 and 5, and looking'down i.
'2
- at' the bottom in the cast-west walls wo see an incroaca in i
23 Walls 10 and 13.
Since. the north-couth walls are recisting 4
both a translation: and a torsion, if some of them-- _The
~
5 north-south walls resist all the lateral force from'trann-it l
6 lation but torsion i's resisted not only by the north-south i
7 but by the. east-west wal.ls that form the bom cysten and 8
that's why, down in the lower portion of the table on the 9
enst-west walls, when we limit Wall 1 ue do sea an increase y
.10 in load pickup in Walls 9, 10, and 13.
11 Sn & hat's basically what that table is illus-12 trating'.
l-g 13 BY DR.'PAXTON:
i j'
14-0-
In Table 7-11, is the first capacity figure 15 under Case 5 in error?
1
~
16 A
(Witness White) 3350?
17-
-Q Yes.
It's the only one that docan't agree with 18
.tho' capacity figura under Case 4.
~
19 LA-
.The capacity of that wall was reduced to 3350, 20 O'
And'~it's'the only.one that was reduced?
r i
21-A
'Yos-22' O
.I.see.
,Thank you.
~l
. A
. (Witness Johnson)
How going to Table 7-12, now
.23'
,[g 24 Ewe're/up'at: elevation 61 to 77.
Walls, ri:ainly 2 and 5, had.
i '
25; a' capacity that was less than the clastically predicted l-L L
.].-
f J
n 1
l 936' eb6' i
forces and in.thic particular Cace 4, there ren11y vaan't-'
3
' too ranch change 'in the load. -Wall 1 went up by 110 hipc, j
. Wall.3', 30 kips, Wall 4 went down.
So this particular cystra 3-4 was. not too affected by - call' it. redistribution.
.5 -
BY DR MC COLLOM:
l
-6 Q.
Let me-ask,'to make cartain:
The only wall thab f
7 was changed:was the wall down at the 45 foot level.
]
'8 A
-That'n true.
I i
9 Q
Ar.3 this ic ~ the ef fect on the 61 foot lvol, y
r l
10 A
Yea, sir.
That's when, comparing cates 4 and 5.
1 j
11 Case 4 just looks at the situation with the craall walls 12 limited in capacity.
l f-
'13 Case 5 then shows the effect, as you stated, of F
14.
' a limited capacity at the lower elevation.
We get-a slight 15-increase in force in Wall 1 of 100 kipo.
In Wall 3 it i
16-increased slightly by another 110 kips.
And if we look at d
1 1
17 the bottom we see in Wall 7 - that it did increace by 330 kips.
i '
ta Q.
Okay.
39-New if you'd turn to page 7-67 You have to go 20
. backs 2f Where is the critical part_of the buildings' 22 possibly oscillating with different dicplacement periods L
23 and coming into contact with each other?
j a
';24_
A I assume you're referring to the control and the
.l'-
25 turbine building?
i 1.' '
, j(
t
~'
,..~.,......,,,/,.
.m.,.
.e_*,.,~,,,L.
..,..._._......m_.._..._,.i
...,,,,-...m.'.-.
.m.,
-____.--...---3--7--.______...-_.__-------------
j 0
I t:
.s 937 1
i-eb7-1
- O.
I ~ think - that 's the. answer, you.
l
' s
- 2.
A
^ %ay.
That would be up nt elevation 117, the
_W 3
highest elevattien in the. control building.
'4
'O Sine:o the floor slabs tie the control building, 5.
auxiliary. building and. fuol. building together, there is no 6-concern c f buil' dings hitting each other. in that direction.
7-Io that correct?
0 A
'Not the complex.- The entire complex is tied i'
'9 together, of control, avx., and. fuel building.
10
'O ',
So the only' p.1 ace. ubere two buildings might hit,.l i
11' oscillating.soparately in displacements if ue were to a
1 have.an'<arthquake, would be betunen the generator building
-12 i
i g
13 and the control building?
14 A
Right.
Of course tha:ce in also a neparate i
15 structure of control and aux and containment, but there we've 16
- shown dis placements are quito small.
17 0
How close is that to the sontrol building and the 18,
containmaat?
19 A
We'll'show you a figure.
20
.O A air.plo build 1ng layout in Reference 1 shows a
~
21
.considc6Mle distance b tween any part of the control build-jg2 '
ing'and the containment.
23-A.
That's right, but there is-an /trea, a fillor 24
. area there that Mr. Andernon-can say more about.
25 Q-What'is in be ween the two there, and at'ihat D
..\\
l l
, mjd i_..?,,.. u~.-..t E-
" - - - ~ " - + ~ ~ * " ' " ' " " ' ' ' " " ' '
- ~ ~ ~ ~
a i
l 933 I
'eb8 al levels?
-2" l\\
(Nitnesa. Anderson)
Well, there's a structure in i
i i
between that holdo piping, piping that would run across 3-
[g T
4 from the aui:lliary building ' toward' the containment, but down 5
'nt a low level.'
8
[
6
.0 At how. low?
7
-A
'At. ground-level.
I 0
Q.
Up to
--?
1 j
t 9
A
'(Witnoes White)
The electrical penetration to structure is what you're talking ~about, isnt it?
k
- 11 A
(Witnenn Andoraon)
Yea.
12 A
'(Witness Whito)
.That's got some slaba at ele-
'{
13
.vation 93.
- 1 -
14-0 That'n the highes b slab?
c J
[
15 A
I'm trying to remember if thors is anything
- g above that or not.
I don't think there in anything.above I
o 17 that that gets close to the containmt
't.
It acems -like to n.
i 18 mo that's. the highcot, alab that does gut close to the con-1 I
- 19 tainment,. arid - I ' don ' t recall ~ what that ' gap ' is.
i 20 0
That was the next question.
it.
Mr.-Johnson I believe:you said you had shown e
2 :
i-.-
22 ithere V ould not be any poccibility of the displacentants 23 touching there.
Do you ' havo.a reference ac to where that l'
24:
was covered in your testimony?-
gf-
'f That's Question 29 of the l
.25 A
(Witness Johnson)
September;20th cet'of.questionn.,
.That woulil be the last cet.
o
)
')'
.w.
t.
i 939 i
1 l
I 2c mpbl O
- Okay, t
i 2
2 That cays:
i 2
"What are the displacenantu betucen the I
I 4
control building and the conte.inment ct eleva-I
.i i
5 tion 77 foot?
State the loadings concidercd l
6 for containment deflection. -
4 1
l 5.190 7
That doesn't toll hou far they are apart, I don't 0
- believe, 4
]
9 A
I don't hava that figure.
The ge cral requiremants i
10 were two or three inchen.
We would have to verity that.
3 1
1 11 I know the comparisons have chown that there in 12 no concern in that area, but I don't know if it ic two inchea i
i O
'3 r three-i 14 O
All right.
1 15 Dack, than, to pago 7--5, i
16 I'm not aura that I follow the criculntions in 4
17 the paragraph at the bottom of the. page; in pc,:ticular ther,.
1 18 it otates in the middle of the paragraph where it nvs:
1 19 "Thorofotro the elactic displac:ncut 20 when the capacity would equal the loan ic 21
(. 60) (. 026) equals.016."
2 22 Would you give me tha information as to how theca 23 numbern were arrivca at?
4 ii
{
24 A
It will take r:e a mot >.nt.
25 0
I think it may ba earlier in that enac naragraph.
i 1
i
av 940
'mpb2 L
see tha numbern there.- I'm not sure how they vero put to-I
- gether'to make this actuality.-
3 j
A Okay.
l g
For the fixed hace case the dicpincoment uac'.026.
5 Thiri had a capacity divided by load ratio of~.6, Therefore
~
6 the.cmall wall vould roach capacity at 60 percent of the dia-7
- placement of the fixed bace casa; and that's where we get the 0
-- in other worda, if the load were only 60 percent, then 9
the capacity-load ratio would bo one, and tisa displacecont 10 then at that level would be.6 times the.026, or.016.
Il O
The.026 is at the 117 foot level?
12
'A' UO.
That would --
)
g 13 Q
According to Table 7-13, that's the --
14 A
that's the displacenant at alovation 59.
So
)
15 there we'ro looking at the difference in displacemsnt at 45, 16 elevation 45 and the hace, and elevation 59, which in the 17 top of:the maconry wall'where it joins into the more maccive 10 concrete beamco 19 So.if the load were only 60 percent, then the 20 displacement would.bc.016.
21 -
-- Q -
.In that all?
22 A
If t. hat's all you wanted.
9-23 0
I.think that clears it up.
24 A
IOkay.
G'-
)
25_
Q '.
It follows in that paragraph that the maximum a
21 1
j
4 941 I
' strain is estimated to be 3.76 times yield.
And in case 5 mpb3 l a
- h 2
' it would bo 6.4 tines yield, 1
3 So what docs this chow or prove, and ic it good 4
i or had?
5 A
All right.
6 Just to continue there, the calculations go on and i
- 7 show that from a grosn tenne we would go 1.80 timen the 8
capacity of the wall.
But wa've shown in ertriier calculationc that since it's a uniformly reinforced wall, that the base 9
10 capacity was set on allowing the outor rebar to go to twica l
11 yield.
That's why va then multiply the 1.00 by tuo to coma 4
12 up with 3.76.
13 That would be a very cuall limited yielding.
Any l
14' of those valuen ' hore, when talking - and that's only the 15 reinforcing stsol that's cloce to the outer edges, these IG cxtremo limita.
So no concider that quite small.
l 17 0
On pago B 3, Appandir B, paga n-3, uhat is the i,
18 definition of cigna ?
n j
19 A
That's the normal or axial load or streos.
20 -
0 In equation fiva, I'd like to underntand that 3
,b ^
i 21 Sigma right below equation five that says it's equal to r
n 22 axial stresa; plus comprension - that'c the :;ocond term?
' 23 I. don't understand thoac.
j 24 A
- Okay, j g.
F 25 That'c. a definition uhich maana in the c::pression i
e f
e s e=re se m - e vw,=-
m-,4 w$w h e e,+ e =
-,-----=-=----m--c--
=w---
+-
\\
'l-942 l
s
(-
S n equation fiva, if the nnini or. normal stresc is a com-mpb4:
i 2
. pre:::sion stress.on the concrete, then pluc.
h
'O-All.right.
I understand.
4-On page B-6, in paragraph 3.2, there's.a statcmant 5-there that cays:
6 "The recognition of_the incroace in
'7 strength with the aspect ratio..."
8 Am I nisinterpreting this?
U/W is tho aspect 9
ratio?
10
.n
- yen, e
1 -
11 Sonetimoc that'c also exprenned an this H/VD I
I 12 ratio also, ff' g.
13.
.O All right, i
14 But va were talking about the fact that tha low l
15 aspect ratio had a stronger vall, and by looking at come 16.
other function huro than the strength that in~ allowed 17 because you can get thoaa'4B degrco cracks?
l l
18 A
No, thin particular reference is some formu--
1 19 Intions instead of expressing a formulation in terms of HMb 20
.have dona it in terms of M/vD.
l j
21 O
.I'm nc't as worried about vhat na I am about the i
22 following. statement'about what happenc.
"The recognition 2
23'
.of the increase in strength with the aspect ratio.. " and 24 I was under the opinion that high walls had Icas strength
~
25 than the' low.walle for a given H/W with ovarything else held j.'
I
)
(
L-.- -.. e w - ---..E.-----~*-----------i----------*----*----~'i+~>L'~
- 'l e
943 i
'l mpb5
- 1 the same.
i-l 2.
A (Witnaan White)
Well, the incroace in strength -
{
.3' the. increase doesn't go to both of them.
The aspect ratio 4
isn't also increasing,
'S O
Say that again?
!6-i
.A
. I may be
' mistaken, but I think you're th nking 7
that the increased atrength goes with increased aspect ratio,:
l 0 --
O That's what I'm trying to interpret.
9
. A No, that isn't it.
j 10 A
(Uitness Johnson)
Ho, that isn't the intent.
i i
I
- 11 O'
What is the increase in strength hero?
12 A
(Witness Katanics)
We should have caid increasing i g 13 strength.with decreaced aspect ratio probably would have bean
- 14 more correct.
15 The strength is decreasing with the change of.the
[
10 aspect ratio,,
17
- A (Witness White)
Increnco does not go with both l
- 10 terms.
l i.
19 A'
(Witness Katanion)
Increano is for.the strength 20' and not for the acpoct ratio.
a 4
21-
-0.
In it appropriate to ack dtis panel about the 22 sennitivityiin other aspects of measuz.caent of seinmic acti-23
' vity.in Trojan?
j 24 A
- (Witness Anderson)
I think that should be directed i
25 to the ut.ility.
L a
I.
4
,v,.w-n.,saw,e-re w,,.
n
,.--e,.
+.,..m.
..n..,-..,.n..,e,--n..-..-~-..,-.,-.,...--~----..-..-~-w.-.sv--w.--~..
944
'l 4-I mpb6
._O What about tha location of the aencora:to measura 2
g this as it ic dependent upon kncuing that an accaluration.at 3
that point calls for an accion of come kin 5.
Is that pertinent 4
l to the designer?
5 Uhat I'F1 getting at ia comehow or other there is 6
an alarm that says that your decign limit han bacn reached, i
7 like SSn equals,.25g.
8 IIava you participated in the decision an to whm;o 0
to put those to assure that you got the proper cignal at 10 the proper tima?
5 1
11 A
(Witncan Katanics) tiot the acnbers of this panel.
17-But originally when the plant una decigned Dechtel indeed j. h 13 participated in this decision _
I believo it was mentioned 14 once today that as wa see it the davice controlling the 15 Lihutdown should ha put on bano level becausa the OBE is de-i 16 fined ae ground acceleration.
There.Eorn when this particular 17 instrtruant that controln when the plant uill ha chut doun 18 ue think it should be on the basc leval.
10 0
All right.
20 In your judgment as the desicinarc, the inctrumnnt i
21 to make the measurement should be on the ground, it chould 22 be on the bace?
23 A
Tho particular instrument that would show how nuch 24
,was the ground acceleration.
25 0
which in your deaign parameter, that you're daying
{
l
945 1
mpb7 it's safo up to that point, and beyond that, that's by 2
g' definition-of the SST;, is not to be operrted.
3-I mean you can't ba guarantsed that it will be 4
able to withstand that seismic' load.
That's your doaign 5
parameter.
6 g
yin corry to say we never.said we would never he 7-able to operate.
I think t'11s is a criteria -
8 O
No.
9 You're right, I shouldn't have acid that.
You 10 have decigned to.25g, therefore.25g should bo measured on 11 the base.
12 A
Yes, sir, h
13 Q
Uow we alco caid earlier that the inctrumentation 14 is cuch that it monaurea in one direction, north-south, or 15 the other direction, east-west.
16 Do you have any concern that there might be an 17 earthquake como from the north-cact to the couth-wact in 18 terms of what it cays you have had in the way of an carthquake 19 in.the inctruments?
20 A
(Uitacca Whito)
Looking at the random nature of 21 cn earthquake, if you at each instance in tino determined 22 the vector num of the north-south component and the cact-ucat P.3 component during the duration of the carthquake, that resultant 24_
will not otay in the anna direction, it will vibrate around 25
~And'uc feel that during the duration of tho
,j.
- 946 I
mpb8
earthquake the resultant will; approach, if not.line up with,.
2.
g-one of: the axes'of 1he inctrument.
So during the life of the 3
-oarthquake ~~ not the life, but in the duration of the 4
carthquako one'of the principal axec will record zonething
- 5
- very. close
- to the maxiraunt acceleration.
6
.ga'we ro not concerned about missing so'<cthing like e
7 that.
0 0
As I'see the picturns-of a random event like that, 0
'I do nec that at the beginning there are some greater paaka
-10 and it docays very fast, and thoso peaks don't stay up there 11
.Very long.
12 Do you feel like that indeed they would ba measured 13 reasonably accurately to the.25g that the SSE is supposed to g
1
-14 be?
15' A
(Witness Johnson)
Maybe I simuld point out that I
16 the inctrumentation is all set up on the OBE.
So-it'c going.
l 17 to shut tho -- start the action to shut the plant down.
So
-1 I
10 I guess that's a more appropriate thing here.
j 10 So anything over the OBE would cause this action.
)
i 20 As Mr. White said - Dr., White - and I mentioned 1
21 the other day, that in studios wo-have made we've seen usually i
j 22 one peak.
But there arc other peaks up in that range.
l g
.23 You've got to not only look at onc record, but a ij
~24 '
' record'of both the cact-wont-and the north-south direction, L
25 we'll say, since there are two primary axon that can bc
.j
~
1 j
947'-
i
. 1 I
mpb9-excited.
2 f-h There's.a~ fairly narrow window, and it'just doesn't I-3 seem probable that all the spiken would come'in at a diagonal; i h.
L 4
that the most rcalistic thing that would happen ic that it 5
would trigger one of those sensors.very close to the OBE 6-level, if not right on it.
end 2c 7-
[
G t
?
9 s.
j 10 i
1-11
! ?.
h' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
.21 22' -
. O:l.
y i
24
- O 25-l
<o
...g v,svu
-w e
-ee,%-,'
cr-..a...
y,
,,, j
t.
- p 944
'u ji I :
3 aqin Thtdo m you who nave analyze m e reor&.
il -
ord, in order to get a peak unpl i cue
~ do you combin x l
l t
00 two: in como combination, the north-souu ariti the e,wt-vest A
- d. in noma' kind ~of a' vector 1orm?
ti i
l-e"'
i That hann t bcon dons A
6 Q'
It is not traditional?
7' A
It's more corcaon to look at the two clirections:
1 4
.g' 5 430 O
Have you had a chance to revisa thune m::.tariaL3 9
that ware lprovided to us this morning on, " Flexibility Survey 10 Response, TL'ojan Nuclear Power Plant?"
1 II
'A (Witnoca Anderson)
Yes, wo have, 1
a p^
j Q
Yesterday, wo talkud about -
]
t g~
13 CHAlmLAN MILLER:
What's the status of the rec:>rd M'
withregardtothisflexibilitysurveyreshonsa?
t 15 gn, 33gg3 : - It's just been hunded to the Board j,
members and to all the partics, j.
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Helle we're going to have to put IB a number on it to identify it Who would like to have thu l
19
-sponnoring numbar?
The.noard will, if no one else.
j
[
20 MR. ENIKS:
'!: hat
- a all right,
,.i 2I Why don't we make it our Erhibit Numhar 11, w:0 ch e
F-would be our ner.t oshibit.
And'I think we hnvc addit:ional I
-.g 1 -
23 copion for the purpose of making as an.cMbibit.
I b
24
.cnArm4AU ELLER:
Very well, Thank you,,
'li
.-g.
2k' It' Mill DC Marhed fOr identifiChtiCD as Lic:!nM:0 I
.i
..n.aa.
_, ~.
m....-mm..-..m
._m_,~
~. _.,,.,, _ _.,.. _ _ _ _
-,,,..,m...,3.--.,
r 4
t.
+-
- + a. m
949 3
agba Exhibit 11.
2 g
(Whereupon, the' document
()
3 previously referred to was
^
O
">=*ea ro= iae=eiriceeio=
=
5 Licensee's Exhibit Number 11.)
6 BY DR. MC COLLOM:
4 7
0 He voro concerned yesterday about uhat kind of G
examination was used in thic survey.
Would you more 9
explicitly tell us now, having revieued thic?
10 i
A (Witness Andercon)
Yea.
Uc sent a team of 11 engineers up to the Trojan Plant, and each akilled in a 12 disciplino that would be appropriata:
nochanical, electrical, 13 O
piping design and nuclear.
(/
14 And they made a visual curvey of the plant, 1G noting the equipment in its actual location, the connactions 16 between equipment and then visualizing hod a displacement between floor and coiling of a given part of the building E
would affech that equipment.
l to Q
How I'd like to know what is maant by analysic.
0~0 A
Well, in como casoc, whoro they could not, by a 21 visual inspection, assure themselves that the piping or 1?~
~
. electrical or whatever it was would withstand this kind of U
O).
movement, then the information wac taken back to San M
Francisco and an analysia or a calculation was performed.
O)
D' O
What was included in that analysis, in thoca kind u
V!
f-e w
-w-
-telmh-'^rM mrevy'w w
u.
m
'iwwi.,w-
- w e
s
>ma
-rvrwg w't-'-
p
950 3
- agb3-of.analyacs?'
A' h ll-in'the case of a pipo, tho'pipo strous was 3-l
!analyzod based on that kind of a movement.
(
4 Q.
Again the-movement is just a simple' displacement?
5 A
A aimple displacement.
~
6 l
0 It does not.have frequency componente of the i
7 t
modal analycio involved?
i O
A No, sir, just a simplo displacement.
f 9
O Did any frequency of the earthquako and its 4
i 10 l
movement on the building, was any of that taken into con-11 aidoration in thic survey?
12 A
Not in thin curvey.
Just maximum displacement.
0 Wac thera any picco of equipment or piping i
~14-discovered that necded to have some correction made for it to withstemd the sciamic loads that are being concidered?
a A
Well wc. weren't considering scismic loads, wo 2
17' were juat considering this hypothotical manimtun displacement.
18 And we found no equipment that needed to be modified or m' ~ '
changed to withatand this maximtua displacement.
1-
. O O
Nhat ucra you referring to yesterday uhen you 21' 1
caid there was.a cooling vator pipa?
22
.A.
That was part of an additional paragraph in our
- O
~
testimony.
That unc a response problam.
That was not part i
.q.
j.
of thic curvey nor identified by thic atu:vay.
~
i I-Q What was being done when you found this recponse f
i' a
\\.-
7.._.___-----
c l
951
'p i.-
-)
4
-1
)
ragb4 Lproblem?
Was this part of another comprehensivo evaluation?
]
)
A It was part of the revicw of equipment that was l
l:Lh donc along with the other ovaluations.
And this is.refcrred
}
4 to ino tho ' answer to Question 3-E of the-septeraber 20 cub-
,J f
5 L
mittal to the NRC.
i 6
Q And that survey covered uhat?
7 A
That covered a review of equipment and how 8
cquipment, piping and electrical, would be affected by the N
results that we had developed to that point from the 10
_STARDYNE analyaia.
M
'I might comment ~~ mako one clarification on 12 ~
the survey here:
I3 I bolievo' 1 esid thc' other day that the distance 14 between the wall -- the distance from the wall that we 10 investigated for this postulated 10-pound picco of concrete 4
I6 block was three to four feat.
Tno survey says two feet.
'R Obviously, we didn't chalk a lino at tho
~
M l
oract. distance.
We looked at what was in the area and hoa I
'M' 4t could be affected by such a.picca of falling debris.
20 '
O In this in-plant survey on Attachiaent Two, 21 1 assumo that thone'are the resulta and remarks that were L.
22l made as a result of that curvey?
ee--
23l A'
'yos, 20 0
These are the results of the survey that was
! h a
25(
covered in this flanibility survey, i-
952 Al
?
agb5 A
Displacement survey, yes, sir.
O vie au to no cuecaea.
s a
waea se ear = euere, 3
tao very first item - tell me, what would havo happened O
4 because that was stated in that manner?
'5 A
Ucil they just - they reviewed t!!ab.
- However, 6
that's a Soismic Catagory 2 item cud really was of no 7
algnificance, it just was listed c.2 the tablo.
O CHAIRMNI MILLER:
He'll tako a short receso at 9
this timo.
10' (Recess.)
II 2D 12 O
's 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 P1 22 O.
23 24 25
.k
\\.
l' 993 f
[i g
i 2e ebl, 1
CIIAInti'di MILLER:
Is there any objection to the i
2-admission into evidence of Licensees' Exhibin 11 for ilen-J 1 -
)
3
.tification, thic document we've just buen discussing?
4 (No response.)
i S
There being no objection, it will be admi'ted 6
into evidence as Licensees' Exhibit Number IL.
7 (Whereupon, Licensees ' 11, b
8 having been previous 3 y 1
9 marked for identifica ticn, 10 wac received in evidence.)
11 CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
By the uay, what are the
.l l
12 exhibit numbors so far, so we keep our records straight?
E h
13 know we have 6 through 10.
14 MR. DANKS:
Exhibit 10 in the testimony of the i
15 panel, with their qualifications.
Exhibit 11 ia the dc cu--
L 16 ucnt you just indicated.
\\
17 CHAIRMAN MILZ,ER:
Wel.L, what nr2 1 through I?
I 16 MR. BANKS:
I was not at the pri3 hearing con-f 10 forence but apparently t.hore were five exhilaits nterhed and
- l 20 identified in the prehearing conference.
CUAIRMAN MILLER:
So that's uhat the numbers 29 22 were reserved for?
Is that it?
MR. JOHNSON:
I can identify those for you.
23 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
What is the status of the 24 record?
Are they marke d for identification?
In other woi:dc 3
o
- -... - -.,,, -. _ _,.... _.. -. ~. -.
.. -. - -... - - - ~.. ~ -. - - - -
954 eb2 1
'cTe those identificati on numborc 1 through 5?
In that ovant 2
we had better noe whether we have the exhibits.
O 3
MR., AX.~LFAD :
They were marked for identi-' ca-4 tion Mr. Chairman.
We do not plan to move them into evi-e S
dence.
j ti C H A I PJiAt1 M I L L E R :
Well, what are they?
y 21R. AXELEAD:
They were materials uhich were E
being submitted at that time.
We thought they night have e
been certinent to coma of the natters that waro being dis-10 cussed at that ti.me.
I? it became neccanary, ue would have 4
11 moved them into evidence, i
{
12 CHATRMM4 MILLUR:
What's the nature of them?
I h.
1.3 don't now recall.
),;
MR. AXELEAD:
I'm sorry.
Item Number 1 is the 15 Index of the Trojan Control Building Document Room.
16 C W W N MILLERS And that was ucca I believe ir.
37 discovely?
MR. AXEhRLD:
That's right.
It identified all gg 39 the documenta that have been available since I believe July 20 27th in the Discovery Room, t
CHAIRIWJ WILLUR:
LS:t oc iaquire now of any of 21 a
the counsel or partica.
,33 Do an/ of you desire to have that Index of documents in the Trojan Document Foom, the Trojtn Centrol 24 BLilding Document Roon, doec anybody wish to have thic in
.5 ti l
955 ob3 1
evidence?
2 MR. GRAY:
The Staff does not 3
- fin, KAFOURY:
No, Mr. Chriraan.
4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Very well.
In timt event we 5
will leave it as an identification ntu:15cr and it is not no-6 of course available for uso.
It ic not part of tha record.
7 You understand that.
8 What's the next one?
9 MR. AYELRAD:
Ite:n Nurcher 2 uau the Visitor 10 Register.
11 CIIAIRMidi MILLER:
Oh, yes.
12 Does anyonc vich to have that jn evidence?
13 I think that con remain m it is.
14 Uext?
15 MR. AXELEAD:
Iten Mu%ar 3 var; a ra:-a.:arandum 16 dated July 20, 1970, from Ronald Crohnron to Docum2nt Room 17 Usera, identifying the procedures for use a:
nho Docunant to
- Room, i
19 CIIAIRMiiN MILLER :
Ve: y wall, I think there ia 20 no nocausity to encumb. the record with tha.
21 The next ono?
i 22 MR. AXELP2D:
II:em Number 4 una the protectiva 23 agreement which had been executed by Mr. Kafcary.
,y CIIAIRM?& MILLER:
It ha bean execubed?
25 MR. Am,I D:
Yes.
l 11
....... - ~.. -. - - -. - _.
956 s
eb4 -
I-
. o
~ CHAIT41AN MILLER:
All right.
I think we'll adutit i.'
'2
'.that then.
l 3
Well', 'since we have a gap, let's make that 4
Exhibit. Number 1.
~
5 (Whereupon, the document' G
referred to was marked as l
l 7'
Licensees' E:d2ibit 1 for l
l 8-identification and received I
.9
.in evidence.)
i i
10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Is that the total?
- 11 MR. AXELRAD:
Number'S was the statement that 12
. Counsel for the Licensee. handed up for the record, dated g
13 August 14th,1970, which inclufed as an attachment a list of 1
14
. requests for design changes for which-field work would be 15 performed in the next one to three months.
16 CHAIRMAN MILLER:.Woll, we'll mark that then as-17 Exhibit Number 2.
18 (Whereupon, the document I
19 referred to una marked ac 20 Licensees 8 Exhibit 2 for 21 identification.
22:
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
So we now have 1, 2, and then
)
23
- -5 ~ through ll'.
- And ac We" have any, let's fill in the 'gapn no
_p4
. we have ainice, neat sequence.
MR. BANKS:
G through 11.
25
+
i j
957 eb5 1
CHAIPMAN MILLER:
G through 11.
Thank you.
2 MR. ROSOLIE:
What was the lant one again?
3 Exhibit Number 2?
l 4
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The last, Exhibit thimber 2, 5
was I think an indication at any rate from the Licencec as 6
to the nature of any work to be porJormed or measures taken
]
7 during the next short time period with reference to the a
control building.
9
. MR. ROSOLIE:
And what was the date of that?
10 MR. DAUKS:
August 14th.
11 Cf1 AIRMAN MILLER:
August 14th, 1978.
12 The Board would like to have that so we have a-g g3 complete record of what is done or not dono, so you necon't ja worry about sponsorship.
15 That will bc Exhibit Number 2.
In that right?
16 MR. BANKS:
D:hibit Number 2.
MR. AXELRAD:
Since that time, Mr. Chaira;an, g.y gg there have been I believe at least one, and perhaps two, 99 additional such lists which have been provided to all the 20 partios, but we have not. brought them to the-
.21 DR. MC COLLOM:
There's one dated October 10th, il 22 1978, that I was going to refer to in a question right away CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, what are the dates of g
f g
- the other two such lista?
No will mark them as exhibits
' k also.
e.5
--w,....,,,,e.
-~.,-_,,,,,,.,,.,,_,,.,.-,.-w,-_...,.
--_,n
i 958:
5 I
1
- MR. AXELRAD:
There was ate dated October 10th' l'
' ob61-2 and there'is one dated October 23rd.
3 l-CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
All right.
'ihe ong' dated
!g 4
]
' October 10th then will become.' Exhibit Number 3.
5 (Whereupon, the document J
l 6
referred to was marked an L
7 Licenscos ' E:chibit 3 for 8
identification.)
4-i, 9
CIIAIRMhN MILLER:
And the one dated October 23rd 10 will 'become E:chibit Number '4.
i.
11
- (Whercupon, the document 12 referred to was marked as
).- h Exhibit 4,for 8
13 Licensees l
14 identification.)'
v.
j' i
15 MR. BANKS:
May.We have the lunch hour to get i
i 16 the neconnary copies and so forth?
l L
1 17-
.CEAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
Surely.
l 18 MR. BANKS:
There was another item that I believe 19 was Supplied to the. Board but we did not receive and that Vcs P
20 the matter that Mr. Rosolic had.
I don't know whether.that's 21 somothing.we're suppoacdi to get copics of or not, but we p
I.
22 Idid not rocaiva.a copy of that.
. g r
- 23 CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
The motion?
i l
24 MR. BANKS:
No,-it waaithe response to the f'
It was a lict.of
)
25 request of the Chairman with rer; poet to-i I
I.~.--,-,_..a__J_~a.._.-_,..._,._.m
....___.._..._....a..____,,n_,.,___,.,_,__-.,.__,_,..i
Y 959 i
eb7I1-personnel.
2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:- You have copies of that, 3
Mr. nocolie?
h 4
MR. noSOLIE:
Yes.
I already gave Counsel a lJ 5
copy.of the letter-to the Board explaining my representation j
and Ms. Garrett's reprocentation in this matter.
- HowcVer, l
6 i
7 I would request that' the Applicant sign a protectivo order i
0 as to tho names -- as to receiving the names of the other 9
memborn of the Coalition due to - ac requested at Icact 10-by Ms. Soulenai in her letter to the Board.
1 You have'already given her 11 CHAIRMMi MILLER:
l l
12 name for the record.
It is now public knowledge.
1 g-13 MR. RAFOURY:
Don't spell it.
14-(Laughter.)
i i
15 MR. ROSOLIE:
It also has her address, too.
l l
16 CHAIRMAN HILLER:
We wish to respect any such 1
l 17 request, Mr. Rosolic,._but do you really think it is necessary 1
18 in view of the fact that we haven't anhed for and don't j
gg want your membership list and matters of that kind.
Those 20 nro juct people who I think have indicated they are members
- 21 to show the bona. fides of the organization and the authori-1
- 22 zation.
I' can 't really see any harra.
Some of it is already J
i 23 public now at any rate.
I' i
ROSOLIE:
It is just that in the past the-24-MR.
25 Applicant has brought peoplo to court and--
i i'
l
~
I.- ____.~ -. _ __./ _;
..__a__.._.-_m:._--_,.___.._-_.....,,,-.m._.._._._..._....._..-.........--s
- .-_.-.-.~.....-~.-_.--.-.-_.--.-.__-._..--.-...-
- -=.-
960 1:
l eb 8 -
11 '
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I don't think you'll find-that l.
F l
. problem here.
We're trying to keep people out of court,
'2' B
l-S not:in court, in the scuse that'we wish to havo the pro-4 4
~ceedings addressed to the issues here.
{
.5 Your request was fo1 copies.
I take it there's f.
'6 no necessity-Mr. DAnks, I take it you have nimply asked i
l i
7 for copies.
You haven't requestod that it be admitted in j
t j
8 evidence or put into the recoJ:d as such?
f 9
MR. BANKS:
No, cir, 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Mr. Ecsolie will furnish 11.
copies.
Very well.
-12 Now is there anything else in the way of 13 exhibits that should be either mc.rked for identification or 14 motions as to admisnion?
l 15 MR. BANKS:
My co-Councol questions whether 1
10 the CEC'n Exhibit Number 1, which in the PGE-Dachtal Number i
s l
17
- 1 was received.
I have a note that it was.
18 MR. KAFOURD I don't believe it has been 19 offered yet.
20 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I think that's correct.
It han i
1 21 not been offered yet.
l9 i
22 Do-you wish to offer it?
23 MR. BANKS:
No.
4 l
34 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Since thic hao achievad a Le 23 certain; notoriety, I think perhaps it would be well that it 4
,_.,__..~.J.It _-_..-_,.__....... _.-._.
.. ---.--.1.......
961 f
I eb9 1
-be reflected.
Mark it Board Number 1.
And the contract i
l
'2 alluded to, which may be described by title by ifr. Kafoury, l
3 will be roccived in evidence as Doard Exhibit Number 1.
l 4
(Whereupon, the document I
S referred to, previoucly i
6 marked CEC-1 for identifica-l 7
tion, was marked as Board 0
Exhibit 1 for identification t
0 and received in evidence.)
10 CHAIRFUiN MILLER: Will you just road in the title 11 or the identification?
12 MR. KAFOURY:
It consisto of four doctucents, h
13 the first being Agrooment for Engineering and Opticnal i
14 Construction Managemont or Conctruction Services, Portland 15 General Electric Company and Bechtel Corporation.
16 MR. BANKS:
Do I understand that Mr. Kafoury i
17 is not offering-that as an exhibit?
gg Ci! AIRMAN MILLER:
I'm accepting it as a Board 19 Exhibit so that no one need be involved in the aponsorchip 20 thereof.
This is Board Exhibit Nuraber 1.
d gg MR. KAFOURY:
I believe, your Honor, Mr. Chairn an, j
22 the documento have already been doccribed when the documenta l
a 23 were marked.
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
If they have been described, 25 that's sufficient.
It has been admitted into evidence.
a ir
., JL. _.
.m
962 ebl0
.1 -
MR. GRAY:
Just for the record, I believe they 2
have been identified ao Columbia Environmental Council 3
Ex'aibit 1, previously.
4 MR. KAFOURY:
I'm changing.that on the face to 5
show-Board Exhibit 1 for identification.
6 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
No, not for identification.
7 It's admitted in evidence.
Copics I'm suro will be avail-1 J
0 able to the Doard.
'l MR. DANKS :
I understood that he made the copicE;.
10 MR. KAFOURY:
I have the copics here.
They're 11 not bound together.
12 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, you may hand them up u g 13 when you deem them appropriato.
14 MS. SCOTT:
Excuse me.
Columbia Environmental 15 Council has run into a clight problem in the fact that wa 16 have the copies but we haven't paid for the copies.
Uc don't 17 have any funding to pay for the copies.
As it stands right to now, for $2.64 we'll be very happy to call our copics of 39 the contract.
According to my calculations, it's 44 pages 20 at six cents a copy, or it coacc out to $2.64~.
21 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, someonc requested copict.
22 TL2re was como effort to naka it a part of this-record.
)
23 Therc'has been soma use made of it.
I think that the reques t--
24 ing party, whether it be Columbia Environmental Council, so 25 be it, should file cartainly with the Board and with the-4 I
9, I
l 963 i
obil 1
parties the minimal number of copien.
(V3 2
!4R. KAFOURY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
)
3 CHAIRMAN MII-LER:
All right, wo'll proceed.
!NU 4
I think Dr. McCollom has a few more questions of the panol.
5 DY DR. MC COLLOM:
6 Q
Uc just now have had Exhibits Ntadaer 2, 3, and 7
4 placed into evidence, and they are commonly referred to 6
as RDCs.
I'm not sure what that symbol stands for but what 9
it amounto to in that they are design changes that PGE 10 intends to do at the plant.
11 My question to you is:
In your knowledgo, have 12.
you had any inputc that would have resultad in having thcao O
13 that are particularly coicmic kinde of changea for PGE?
g 14 A
(Witnosa Andercon)
I don't have those Ri.]Cc in 15 front of me.
We have had some input to on-going work at the 16 Trojan plant, yoa.
j 17 Q
Arc any of them that you can recall related to 18 the problem at hand in this interim operation?
19 A
I really can't ancwer that without looking at 20 the specific paperwork hero.
21 Q
Would you review copies of that over the noon hour 22 and make a statement following that?
(~i V
23 A
Yes, cir.
24 DR. MC COLLOM:
Dr. Paxton.
. q( /
25 DR. PAXTON:
I have junt a few questions.
l 964 4
chl21 BY,DR..PA% TON:
2 O
On page 8. of your tectimony, Footnc*to 4, my g
3
. question-is:
Is this cort of intensity-acceleration. rela-4 tionchip available in a publiched cource?
I'm wondering 5
apacifically whether it would appear in Fundamentale of G
Earthquake Engineering by Newmark and Rosenbluoth. Do you 7
huppen to know?
8 A
(Mitneos White)
There are a number of correla-9 tions that had been published by various authors, attemptinc-10 to relate maxinium grotmd 'acceloration and Modified Mercalli 11 Intensity.
They may be summarized in that text.
I'm not 12 really cure, but there are a number of cunrtaries.
a g 13 0-I had not run into one.
I was wondering about 14 that.
.15 A
(Witness Katanics)
There is a generally used 16 correlation which they call Newman.
It is not Neumark but 4
g Nowman.
It's really a band, not a strict number, and then 13 the geologiats comcwhat ovaluate thic, haced on some of tho 19 opecific site conditions.
But the no-called Newman 20 band or Newman curve gives a direction relation although not c 21 specific one number but a band type of relationship between
.[162 22 the ground acceleration and the Modifica Mercalli Scale, a
23 I somcwhat believe that the Newmark book 24 -
pr bably publishes the -Nowman curve but I cannot e:-:actly 25 l
state that that is the cace.
g e r-4 4
-o
,r++
- +
d h.,-. r.
r-,-4
>-,v-----,--,--,e-,
w,-
-e--
-,:r-m
--em,-e------.-----ere w,"--e
--wa=r
- +re,m-r*
i'~'--
1; ;
965 r
ebl3 1 O_'
LC see.. Well, thenk you'..
~
~
2-Un page'?.B, Footnote 12, I would appreciate a 3
definition of,the tbrm "ceismic capability."
In other worda,
/'.
4 does.this ref er to-Well, what sort;of'a scale does thic 5'-
refer to?- An acceleration scale,.or something else?
6 A
(Hitnous Johnson) liere we made:a comparison 7-betwoon the fcreon calculated due to scismic response on t
8 tho' control building and compared thoso with the Uniform 0
Building Code of forces that would be required that those 10' sorts of structures be designed for.
>l 11 Assuming both structures would have that' force i
l 12
- capability, thah's what than led to that otatomont.
O is a
waetx vou-14 Then it.is a force scale instead of an accolcrc-13 tion acale?
A Yes.
16
.I 17 0
My no.<t reference is to Tablo 4-1 ~ and Table 4--2.
.Is Would any of the values, capacity values, in those tables 10.
change on the asshuption.of continuous reinforcement, all 20 reinforcement bar continuouo?
21
'MR. KAMURY:
Excuse nie,, Dr. Paxton.
What is
-22.
the reference?
23 DR.-PAXT)N:
Tablen 4-1 and 4-2.
'24
.MR. KAFOURY:
Of which document?
25' MR. BANKS:
Exhibit 8.
1 f
.b
B lj
'966 p
.i l'
t
{
ebl4:<
'.I WITNESS JOIINSON: - Based'on the criteria that we
~2 j, g.
used, if somo'of the' discontinuous reinforcement would have 1.
.3 been continuous, then items.nuch as the bending moment i
41 capacity would probably have 'gone up.
- 20-5.
L
'6 i
j
.y 1
0 J-
~
9 4
I to
.i d
12:
4 4
14 i
y
?
15 i'
16 i
17 l
IO i
to I
s l
1 7.0.
i,
d k
2I
[13 '
J
.23 F.
- 24. :
- gg
f 1
967 I'
i 1
I
.2F agbl BY DR.
PAXTON:
Q-And these don't seem to be govorning qualities, 3:
do they?
I A
(Witnees Johnson) 11 0, those are tha-amaller S
walls-here.
l 0
[
'O And that would bo the only influence, then?
..f A
Right.
But that does tiu in to the criteria that i
6 I
was used.
O Q
Well, as far an overall capacii in concerned, 1
'10 dous this imply that such an acsumption have a negligibld j
a' 11 effect?
i=
12 I'm having a little trouble understanding your A
LO is question.
Q You say it would influence the relatively small 15 values that have bending moment as the controlling critarion.
3 16 Then, on the overall capacity of the structure, I presumo that theco would have relatively small contribution, the 18 change in thoco values, h-jg 4
A That's correct.
20' To clarify this, though, we'va'uued a criterin i
21' in this supplemental information that la based on laasonry i
i' 27.
. testing that uses, we'll'say, lower levola of reinforcing 23 than what one might uce. under a concreto code.
.I 24 - '
- O So when you're talking about thic criteria, 25 '
t hdving como of the rein 2 arcing continuouc -
that was
)
L e
1 t
968 l
agb2 discontinuous, would not change things much.
But if we went f]
' back to our May submittals, where we were looking at the
~
3 l
concreto code as a criteria, an increase in reinforcing world
' O V
4 load to a definito increase in strength.
j i
5 Q
I cee.
1 I
About what wou.td the - Can you actimate the 1
7 effect here roughly, definite increase?
I?m juct: referring i
6 to the discontinuities.
9 A
Possibly 20 to 30 percent.
10 Q
It coul'd bc :d.gnificant thero, th 2n?
II A
Yes.
12 Q
Thank you.
s]
13 My nont queahion has to do with Tablo A-1 in i
i 14 this anme ~~
ucil, in f 2: ney.t aschion, I guess it is, i
1S Is it possible to put crude error barc on each 16 of the valuos for total chcar in this tabla?
Or, if you wisa, j
i
{
17 the origina3, ro-ovaluation and fixed base STARDYNE value, 18 TADG if you' feel equal to it.
1
\\
\\
1D Now I realize that, thin would be composed of twa i
I 20' components, an estimate of bias and what might bd: considere1 l
l 21 probable error just associated with modeling inaccuracies.
22 For the first component, does your esti ate O
\\
G
! 23 50' percent'over the SSE, have any relationship to this, or 24 does it have to do mare with building capacity?
This is tilo O
\\
l
'~f 25 biaa.
l
-a
E p.
[
569 I
P Iy 7
agb3 A
Our comment of 50 perccat would be applicable i
to a.' total chcar in the range o'f 20,000 kips,-which would bo similar to what'was found in the STARDYNE fixed base analysi.s.
4' i
'Q So it doas apply'more to total chear than -- it 3
c, could'b'e a combination.of total nhear and capacity, but it
~
6 doen rofer more to shear value, is that it, shcar bias?
5 A
Are you going back to cua of.your provicua quenior c?
8 Uc ro not curo uc understand
[
8 A-(Witness White) 9'
^
your comment.
10 Well I'm wonder _r, whether this minimuni of 50 0
U
~
]'
percent margin over SSE doco really define pretty well the y
12 bias in some of thoco total shear valuna on Table A-1.
I3 A
(Witnosc Johncon)
No, I would ~~ our 50 percenb Y'
-was considered as a lower limit estimate.
l 1
15 0
I realizo.
I.6 A
And I would say that that lowcr limit cotimato i
l7 would tie to a number cloco to the average of thic tc.ble, i
18
-if one would includo both the ~~ even including the TABS lI9l analysis, becauco then we would have an average in the range
[
I
[
[ 20
.og.20,000 kipa as far as the total shear applied.
i.
iEl Q'
That's the minimum value.- can you guess what i
y
\\;
k22 the. actual bias might bc?
e a
73 A-
. We're not entirely clear on your definition of j
1 24
~
bias.
le 25"
- Q The built-in conservatism of theco, na compared to I
l 4
970 agb4 probe.ble error of simply modeling.
,e s g
Do you understand what I'm trying to got at"?
3 I'm trying to get at arror bara that could be attached to (o
'")
4 cach of these figuros.
You knaa, plus comething, minuo 5
comething alce, and we figura that there ought to be at leat.t 6
a 50 percent chance of the -- well, better than that -- of 7
the true value falling within that span.
O A
All right.
o Baced on this table, wa kncu the original analynis
~
10 was high due to the abnolute valuo ammation that was 11 modified in the re-evaluatica atudy, hnd TAes, dua to the 1 P' modeling techniquca an Dr. White explained, didn'b, looking AV l
back, saam applicable for this typa of structuha.
So comparing then the re-evaluaticn that could 15 havo been the original if they uced the square root sum square, having been donc seven years ago, and the STARDYtlE, t;7 oven using the ficxible base case, than wo are looking at 18 a difforence betwcon 18,500 and 20,000.
That would be a 19 difference of about plus or minus five porcant.
20 I would any that would lead one to a conclusion 21 that, using a variety of computer prograna, adcquate compt.t zr 22 i
n programa, you dhould coma up with a band-width of answere
()
23 betucen plus,or minus five and plus or minua ten percent, l
f 24 would be roy opinion.
n I
U i
25L Q
So that definco the probable error -- somethinc l
4' 971 1
.agh 5-like probable error -- associated with the modeling?
4
-A ifell I would cay that uould be thn overall 7
3 1
technique,which would includo modeling.in the numerical O
. analysis techniques there being used to predict the forcoa.
'g And then about biaa, one can say that it would bo
-Q U
I about the aamo for the re-ovaluation and the STARDYME?
Just
\\
7 absoluto bias.
furgin of orror -- cafety.
Thero'n no reason O'
for saying that there would be much difference in bina there, 4
)
io there?
9 j
-IO A
(Witness I?hite)
Dotween TABS and STARDYNE?
U Q
No, re-ovaluation of STARDYME.
I s
i 12 A'
(W tnoos Johnson)
I would say there is a differtoga, 13
-ainco the level of mathematical sophistication has increased
[
M when using the STARDYNE, the band width on that particular j
l 15 number -- let's call it confidence loval - should be tighttr 1
16 than it would have been on the analysis that was' performed i
d 17 several years ago.
1
.IB Q'
Let's coe.
Now you're talking aboat the probable
+
!)
10 orror associated with the method, aren't you?
i.
20 n-The method, yec.
l El!
O' Yes, the probable error.
Okay.
I i
i M
How, on the original evaluation, I think you-lh l
~23 mentioned comething liko n 20. percent effect as a result i
24 '
of the straight summ. tion techniqua that was used.
- 0 Eb
'A-Yes.
4 b
I
\\
si
.. ~
,_.,_d l i, u.
r L
i 972 1
l agb6-0 And so that chould bra.ng hhingo down to purhapa h
still-a lit.tle above the evaluation, 21,000 comething like I
3 that?
j' A
Yes.
5 0
Is there anything clco specifically that you can l
1 6
l pat your fingar on to account for the rest of that difference, 7
rir is that just the cort of, thing you might onpoct from 0
31fferences in ovaluation technique?
i 0
A Mo there ucro two differencea between'the oriiJinal r
10 1
and the re-evaluation.
One was the 20 percent reduction in i
11 the combination techniques and then also we deternined that
]
[
the control building ~~ the complex down at the control 13 bnilding end was 13 percent lighter than originally used.
I i
14 So that number should - that was the control building and.
The fuel building end una acsume.d the sa:r.c.
13 So it would be similcr to ~~ it's over a 20 percent reduction.
17' O
This difference in load docc not enter 12' linearly, does it, or does it?
A The difference in weight?
I 0
Yes.
4 1
i 21
.A Fairly linoar.
4 i
Q.'
Fairly' linearly.
j
?.3 So that would bring the 26,000 down, essentially, i
- 2e
to the 18,000, those two effectn, would it not?
\\
i l
A-Yes.
I l
l j.
-t l
a t.
I,
973 I
agb7 Q
Do you aea my interest in thic?
I'm interested 2
in knowing whether there is any real differench among these 3
numbera.
Usually, if one crn ascociated some sort of a probable error band to a cet of numbora, you can toll whether there 'is technically agrecLat alcong them or disagreement Y
6 as to whether they fall within this band or'outcide the
^
7
- band, a
U If, indeed, the probable error between -- the 9
probable error band, taking into account both tha re-
't 10 evaluation and ' STARDYME, would be betwocn fivo and tan percant, II then -- well, one can't quite say that the two figures, 12 18,500 and 20,000, fall within that band or not, whether 13
- there's a real difference.
14 Well, maybe we've gone far enough with this.
15 I know it's a difficult thing to judge what something like 16 probable error in this type of evaluation, but the only 41 7 person one can hope to got a feel from is en cmport like i
IU one of you.
'10 A
Well wo do focl we have excellout agroement
,i j20 considering the difference in techniques and tho timo from i 21
'n the analyain was first run.
2P We do not usually make extensive studios of the Is typos that you're talking about, I think the reason beincJ 24 that we calculate our loado,ac we've mantioned coveral timea, O
25 be-d - ameuo enaveee and xmow eha umy are autee a-,
t
~
'j e
l 974 I
I j-ngb8-to extreme upper limitsi.
And based on that, I think that's I
I 2
i
[ g-our main reason for'not doing catonnive studica, i
3
.Q I understand that.
And uctally things liko
- 'g.
4 W
estimates of probable error have to come more from gut 3
l feeling.than-from extensivo analysis,-actually.
6 i
Thank you.
I think.we've gone far enough with i.
7 J
- thin, 0
and2P 4
D 10
]
11 12 14 I
kb
)
ij:
10 17 4
j 18 4-19 i'
i 20 4
j 2I 8
it i
22 2
- 23
(
24 e
i e
n
._..o._,,,
I w
975
,s f
2 2gl.mpb1-Nou on page B-3,.a few pages over, there in the
]
!g astatemant that the aacumption that sigman.18 C4"^1 t Y'
18 e
conservative.
And does that introduce much of an effect, in your opinion, about what should be the order of thic conscrva-
" l'1 1
tiam?
4 I
l 3
i A'
Thic information was based on the testing that is referencco which was performed by Schneider.In those test i
specimens.
It was a sort of a cquare ohnpe'overall looking like an I-heam, and the load was applied diagonally en tho l
cornern. And there was come uttempt in these tcuta to try to u
1i
- make sura that in hic test rig he only got ahear acrosa the 1
1 l
12 specimona,
'ho 13 Now the worst cituation that Schneider could 1
14 have gotten would be a shear and a compression of equal maw-J 1
.nitude, which then would have incransed his test results'in I
f 16 shear.
l Now we made sono computer studies of hic test 17 IB model'and found that ho really shouldn't get as high a-a
[
10 "
compronsion'an we annumed hero.
But cince wo did not have l
i 20 detailed information on some of the thingn he did, wa could
!.I 21 conclude from his tect that if we mndo this conservative
]
I 22 assumption we'would then ha able to modify hiu criteria in a i
1 '
23 i
conservative. manner; which meant basically to reduce it to 4-j i
24i[
three-quarters of what Schneider had originally formulated an r
h$
L to-tha strength of the specimen.
b
' JP
.y.
p q
976 i
I 1
1 mpb2:
So actually we coult' drop 25 percent of what ha 2
claimed from his original formulation.
- i hc8 Since we reduced by 75 percent, it'c pocsible 3
h 4
that the factor could be-an high as.05 or.90 In other 2'
words, we did not have to reduce as far an wo did, but wo 6-did lack dotalled information to juntify that.
So we had 4
i i
7
- no choico but to take the most conservative method.
..i e
l 0
0 Does the correlation in Figuro B-3 toll us any-i i
i thing'about this?
In other words, is not the criterion 10 L
there your conservative criterion, uhat is labeled as the 4
1 causevvativa ;riterion?
1
~
12 A
Yes.
Thic shown that our formulation which was g
13 the modification to what Schneider did, when compared to hio 14 own tecta and also the Derholoy testo, it shows the overall 3
i 15 conservaticm.
I think it alco shows our fact:or of.75 also
,3 16 takes cara of cyclia effects, becausa the Schneider tests in 17 (Teneral vore static; but-the Berkclay tecto involved many 4
18 cycles of load.
~10-l So the inportance here is the comparison with a
]
20-the iferkoley tostn.
5 i
i
'21
-Q Uell, thic looks to ma like a ona-to -ona correln-
.22 tion.' And I don't cao'where the concervatiam is auparent.
I g.
l 23 A
-Well, yes, it's a one-to-ons -- not quite one-to-24 one phon comparing thc' Ucrhelcy tosto.
i
- b.
i1 25-
- O They do come a little. higher.
4 q
J t
j-t-
'wwwmm,<
mam $. -
esmm.<as s, ems,wem -
- - ~ ~ -
l 1
i '
i' lt 977-lmpb3 A-Right.
.2-0 And does that represent, then, the degrea of com-g 4
3 servaticm that you would ansign to -~
A
' tTo.
As far as the determination of recictance in 4
5-4 concerned, the correlat an in close to one-to-one.
But 6
th testa did show a high degreo of ability to deform the 7
panels.
And they also,.in our analyais, chowed tbo ability 0
of. loads to rediatribute.
i D
Now, we created a critorion here based on masonry i
10 testu that'had strengths in the range of 3000 pai.
Our wal.le 11 have.in-place strengths up to 6000 psi.,
And these types of P
12-items wera never used, h
13 So the correlation hero is. strictly that checking 14 the testa that used inatorials of a lowar otrength than what 15 we'have.
16' O
1 coe.
17 Then the entire story isn't in this corrolation, 10-A 11 0,- this is only for approximately 3000 poun'd
.19 masonry.
20 0I
~ Pine.
.21 Are you familiar.With an affidavit of Lawrence 22 Shao'which was notarized on June 27?
h 23
'A Yos.
24
.O-Would you.agroe with the final-statement in thac
~
25-4 P
i
\\
n - A.
-.-,?'.--...
... -.. ~. ~,. - _....,
....-- -.-. _ ~._,-,-..-,..-
970 I
mpb 4 A
Well, as we caid in our tentd:nony, we do not ---
')
our opinion in that the utructure han a capacity in the 3
range of about 70 percent of what wau originnlly intended,.
'i'his statement cnys 50 percent And really there isn't that
- r-much rnoro I can nnya 6
fir <, Shao would have to --
7 0
I guccu I niused the fact that your 70 percent 0
related to this.
4 O
It Well, my 70 parcent comec from the fact thst no 10 have stated that we feel tha otructaro can resist an 01U: of II
.,11.
Now that'a ollg factorod, that'c uith incroaccd nnter-12 ial strengtho, If wa vould drop back to noral strengths Q
13 wa're looking at.10 14 So than there'n a range of t'o-thirds, and thin 15 aayo one halfo 16 O
So thin in not relating to a margin, but to the B
17 ahoolute valua?
There are two otatcm.nts in thic af fidavit 18 of Rhno's, and I don't underatand the relai ionship bnt';&n 19 them.
20 The reference to cac-hol.f tla roi unic capa ~ it y ---
21 and I'm not aaking you to interpret thi n -~ and nisa, refor-22 once to cafety margin on the crdar of 50 paracnt.
So what O
23 you are comparing uith ia really tha reicuic c{.pacity, I thiik 24 You would nay 70 pareant -
25 A
Yon o
?
1 979 l
npb5
'O
- capacity and not cafety nargin?
o A-Right.
1 3
O Thank you.
4 That's all I have, gentlemen.
CliAIFJtAN MILLER:
I have just a couple of short 6
questions.
Y BY CfIAIRMAM MILLEn:
a 8
.Q If I underatand your testimony,'the panel in of 9
the belief that the construction of a building auch na thia 10 should be related to the SSE and not built to the OBE rc~
1 e
11 quirements, is that correct, en a' matter of danign?
4
'l2 A
(Mitness Andercon)
As a matter of design it le h
I3 our opin4.on that SSE requirements should govern.
However ut J
14 believe that the structure muut ha Puilt to the requircmento s
15 of the FSAR, which includen both SSD and ODE.
16 O
Dut that's not from a safety standpoint.,
Ae you 17 reviewed it, I think you said it developed that way, that tha 18 OBE nhould not really be the function that ceta the design 19 quality.
20
.n
.That'a correct.
21 Q
I ceo, 22 I belicyc also that you testified that these O-23 walls are designed to crack.
Do you recall that tastimony?
24 Thera's no big curprico if they crack at a cartnin point; 25 theyi're designed and monnt to crack at a certain point.
Did s
i s
l
[
' f(.'
980 mpb6 T understand you correctly in that regard?
- h
_A' (Mitness Johnson)
Yes.
3
.Q
'What 10 the purpona?
Could you explain that to ma 4
a little bit?
5 3
Well,Lin reinforced concreto or naconry, unleus l
6 it?s a compression member, a wall holding up a building, the i
7-tonsile strongth is lasually not relied en; it'c not that E
8 reliable an iten to entimatr.
And that'a why reinforcing e
9 L
steel is put.in the maconry or the reinforedd concrate 4
10 structure.
i 11 So when it coman to shcar that results in a' tension, 12 or tancion or bending, the rainforcing steel is pr.t in thero h
13 to carry the load after the concroto cracho.
14 0
It's intnnded that the masonry should crack at 15
.a certain point I thought was what you said.
16 j
.A-Yes.
1
]
17 0
In what conse illa you mean it was intended to?
18 A
Well,'that's,-wn'll say, the intent of the design.
19 If one gets the design loads then the syntsn should crack i
20 and transfer the loading over.
to the reinforcing etcol.
i 21 O
I-sec.
i 22 Looking at it from a safety factor, with referenca L9 j-23 to an OBE scisnic force -- I'm corry, DDE - at what point l
24 in the judgment of the psnel should the facility have a cold 25 shutdown and.the kind of inspection and so forth that are 4
- =
I l
l 981 l
mpb7.
. called-for?
I i
2 A
Well, based on one testimony' it would requirci n.
3 chutdown at.119 O
4 o
yee the eeructure 1eee1f in your 3udgmene w111 5
withstand SSE with'or without modification-for the life of' I
the plant,.in that right?-
)
i 7
A Ye s..
E O
SSE, nafo shutdown?
0 A
Right.
10 j
Q Uell, at what point -~ a structure so designed, so 11 built 10 capable of withotanding an SSE of.25.
At what point) 4 i.
- 12 from a safety standpoint,with coismic forces of less.or cub-13 atantially lean than the USE, should there be a cold shutdova?
14-I'm looking at it nou.from safety.
I'm not ask-15
.ing you to consider the nature of the Regulatory requirensnha, d
i 16 Or chould it ever he shutdown short of an SSE?
d 17
,A I gueno my personal opinion would be in the ranga 18 of two-thirds of an SSEo 19 L.Q I see.
20 A.
And that's based on'the fact that uhat are known
]
21 as working stroun allowables are in the range of 60 porcent 22
'to two thirdo'of the kind.of strength limits that are used 23 in the inductry for factored conditions.
24.
O In the case of.Trt.jan, then, is it your bnlief 225 that ed>ld shutdown vould not be required chort of what level o
e l.
1
.. - -.. -. -.. - -...-....- -..- - - - - - -. - ~.. -.~.
d 982 mpb8
'of sciamic forces?
1 i
A.
Under that criteria that uculd put us up at.15g, 3
0 And this would be regardlena of tha period of tiro 4
during which there were colomic forces of less than, say, 5
1.5 g, whether it be over a perice of one year, five years, 6
or whatever?
7.
G 0
10 l 11 -
12 u
15 16 e
17 i8 1
19 20 21 22--
43 24 25 I n~
s e,,..
wa.~
, ~ --., -, - -.., -- --
'.-}
v
)
- DC3, I
2g2 ubl-n-
That'a' a difficult qubstimt no annuor.
I.think 1
I 2
9 th'at that should ha ovninnted as a funcs. ion of tima.
If a oitesuch(asProjanencounteredtwoor'threeOBEsata.lg h
[I vould ' think -at that time that the involved parties would 4
"1 be re-ovaluating the-situation.
4 1
0 0f
' Thin is now from the standpoint. of safety, that 7
you would put it at that level and upon that basic?
I' a I
1 8
looking. at -- if there should be interim operation for a
'D certain period of time, ati. What point in your judgrant 4
10
' io it ' safe and at what point ia it not safe to have an 1
11 OBE-type -- DDE-type of cold shutdown?
i 12'
'A' What'I said'hefore about.15.
However i
l-13 if one ' encountered multiple.15s or lower, I would think 14 at thatttima, based on what has hoon observed, that one i
15 might look at modifying ' the critseia.
But to set a
{
is criterin of conething like.10 anticipating this type of f
W 17 thing I don' t feel is nocessarily rationa.li nince tio do hav2 18 the ability in thic. industry to modify.and re-look a things 19 ac. tire. goon by.
20 Q-
.I see, Thank you.
i 21 A
'(Witness ' Andorson)
Can I commant on that, too?
22.
Q'
- Yea, I'd apprceinto it.
r P.31 A'
..'I think the inaua.here is one of cold shutdown i
^
2(-
- an'd' inspection.;
-h 25
'Q-
'Yes..
j
.['
I 73 t
.,-_ m. _
.m.
w -m.
.m.
__..,L_.
.n.
I l
984 wb2 1
A We wculd certainly expect if any major earth-A 2
quako -- and we're talking about even at lower levelo than V
3 the ODE -- accurred at the Trojan site that we would cer-1 4
tainly do inspection, the owner would inspect. There vould l
5 be a great deal of interest in how their plant responded to G
that carthquake, 7
Q Is that cold shutdown and inspection?
8 A
No, that would be a shutdown while the plant is -
9 an inspection while the plant is incperation.
10 0
Explain that.
I'm interested in what you fool 13 on minimum safety levels for such apparuatly two different kinds of inspections.
Now what are your views ao an expert 12 n that.
And at what level of foram are you relating eac1 O) 13 or either?
14 A
Well I think I would go along with what'c been 15 said about the level of forces in the 60 percent range-10 0
That's for cold shutdown inspection?
17 A
That's for cold shutdown and inspect.
18 0
I think you got into another slightly different 19 area.
20 h
The lower areas would cartainly roccivc noma 21 attention.
22 m
.tj Q
Short of cold shutdown, but inspect 2.on?
23 A
- Yes, 24
~
0-All right.
25 L
1 i
935' l
About what levels are you speaking of there, on j
l
.wb3 3
~
'the. Trojan plant now?
2 A
Probably in the.05 range.
.3
!O l.
4 O'
I sce.
Very well.
Thank you.
Does anyone clse care to coirzacnt?
This ia'an
.g arca that I'm intorested in. It's probably been coverad by.
6 you, but.if' there's anything unsaid, why, please feel frco 7
to' volunteer.
g l
A (Witness Johnson)
Well'I could add one more 9
l comment, that more than likely' an inspection would be n: ado 4
g in an operating conditicn of any carthquake that triggered g
a the concors.
g 0
~And-we don't know what that is, do we?
..g A
I understand on:the Trojan job it takes.019 --
a f
0 0lg?
15 A
---to recognize that the event ic taking place.
1 16-a l
O But from your information we don't knou whether l,e, i
or not'such han occurred?
10
'A I checked during th3 last break. - And it has not y
s 1
occurred.
O It has net occurred.
We haven' t had, then, 21 a.0lg during the two or threcycar perica that the instru-22 b
mentation hno bcon thoro?
e-g3 l
'No, we have not.
A t
~24 h
.Q.
Thank.you, c
L 1
i.
..-.m 4_,___..,..,l,4ml_.,,.
_. _.. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ~ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -. - _ _.
l l
930 l
i wb41 CilAIIVIM MILLER:
Thank you, gentleren of the 2
panel.
We appreciate your consideration of our questions we i
3 and your willingnons to testify.
h I think we'll be taking our recess.
Will counsel a
5 be ready' to ctart with the next witness?
g MR. DANKS: I do have sorce questions on redirect; i
7 not many, but I lo have a few.
And I think Dr. McCollom 8
wanted them to look over a document du"ing the noon recess 9 -
and then respond to his question.
So
.:tey' 11 have to come 10' back for that anyway.
CHAIR!WI MILLER: Yes, I understand.
gj MR DANKS: And I have a couple of questiona I 12 w uld like to ask.
g 13 MR. KAFOURY:
As well as the inte,rvenor.
The 14 intervenore have a few redirect questionc.
g CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Uait a minuto.
There is no 1
redirect, gentlemen.
The Board's questions are not maant g
to trigger a new round of cross-emmination.
You all had yg your opportunity, g
j 20-.
u haw rodimd, and you hm just n few questions?
g MR. DMKS :- Two.
22 7
CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
Two questions.
Do you want to g
ask them now?
Whichever is convenient for you.
MR. DANKS:
It makes no difference.
25-t i
1
'd
i.
l 987 1
wb5 j
CHAIRMAU. MILLER:
All right.
Since we have a i
2.
question from Dr. licCollom to be responded to-O.
3 MR. DANKS:
He wanted them to look at Exhib',.a 4
2r 3 and 4, and coo if any of those had any relation, I thinh l
1 5
.to the shear wall.
l-6 DR. MC COLLOM:
To anything related to intorim-i
[
p operation and the considerationc on the control roon.
O CHAIRMAN MILLER:
All right.
t How will you be ready to proceed with-Are yorr 9
next uitnessos a panel or ningle?
10 MR. DANKS:
The next witnesses are Professor Ho? ley j$
1' and Professor Brosicr as a panel.
12 i
MR. KAFOURY:
Mr. Chairman, will there be an
" g.
g3 pp rtunity for questions on Exhibit No.,11 uhich we vere
]
14 4
handed after our turn for questioning pacced?
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Probably.
Which exhibit is g
that?
What's the nature of it?
l 17 MSo BELL:
The Plexibility Responce: Trojan 1
Huclear Power Plant.
19 CHRIRIEN MILLER: ~Yes.
g 4
MR. KAFOURY: While we'ro fumbling around looking r
21 for our authority,- does the - Chcirman have authority, or the
,2 h
' Staff have authority' in mind, that recross-examination is r20t 1
generally allowed?
' CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We don't debate these questions.
i
______.x,..__..___..-_d_.._.._...~_._
L 900 i
I' mphl-MS.. DELL:. Could you just give me the basis for f1ws 2-5 your decision that recross is not allowed?
%s 3
CHAIR?WT MILLER:
Yes.
O 4
The basis of the decision is that the Board does j
5 -
not' engage in cross-examination.
There was full crocc-1 6
examination by all partion and by Counsel.
The Board,'at 7
the conclus' ion of all examination, if it has questiona, if G
it has information it desires for the record, it normally, 9
within its discretion, asks the question at that timo.
10 It is not meant to, nor does it trigger a new l
11' round'of questioning.
It ic not cross-examination.
i 12 You havo all b.id the opportunity for direct examin$e-O la eto= and creee-exeminatien.
Ie se erue the ticeneee did uot 14 have the opportunity for redirect following your cross.
He's 1'i indicated it's limited, and we'll give him that.
16 Dut this is just part.of our normal proceduro.
17 So.when you croac-examine a witness, croca-excmine the wit ~
18 ness.,The-Board isn't cross-examining.
19:
MR. GRM:
11r. Chairman, thero will be recross 20 on the redirect of the Licensee.
s 2t' CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yec, an a normal trial procedure.
22 There will be the ncrmal opportunity and thero will be the o
23' Opportunity'for cross-examination on the document that you
'24 didn't have available when you crocc-examined.
25 MR. BNIKS:
I would prefer to withhold my redirect.
1
.1
909 l
I upb2 until that'n accomplichado J
2 C11 AIRMAN MILLER:
Very ucllo Whatever is nost g
3 expeditious.
We're happy to accomodate you, 4
i All right.
'S About two o' clock we'll resumo.
Tha.nk you.
6
-(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m.,
the hearing in the 7
above-entitled matter was racecced, to reconvena at.
8 [
2:00 p.m.,
this name day.)
l 3a flwo' 9
l to 11 i
l.
12 f
14 15 1
16
)
i 17 10 19 i
i
'20 i-i 21 4le 4
23 L
j.
24-25 I'
.--...(..-_,.._.__-......L..._.--,--._.__-......._---.._---.~..,_._..._.,._-;_-----_...----_.__-
._~;..-._-._-_...-
t 990 obl 3c 1
AFTERNOON SESSION 2
(2:00 p.m.)
r^)
N._/
3 CHAIPJ4AN MILLER:
We'll renuno the evidentinry GV.
4 hearing.
5 NR. BAUKS:
Mr. Chairman, we have the exhibito O
now to pass out that we referred to before, Exhibits 1 7
through 4.
O CHAIRMAM MILLER:
Very well.
9 I think the record racy not completely reflect 10 but Licenaco Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been and are 11 adraitted into evidence.
i 12 (Whorcupon, Licennae 2
-4, nU 13 having boon previously 14 marked for identification, 15 were received in evidence )
16 Whereupon, 17 RICHARD C. ANDERSON, 18 GEORGE RATANICS, 19 TIIEODORE E. JOHNSOM, 20 and 21 NILLIAM H. SHITE 22 resumed the stand on behalf of the Licensees and, having nV) f 23 bocn previously duly attorn, wera examined and tactified PA furt. hor au follows
.mb CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Do you have copiec of the 25 L
091 eb2 t-exhibit Ma. Bell wished to croun-c%craino on, Mr. Hafoury?
2 MR. KAPOURY:
I do.
3 CifAIRMAN MILLER:
I don't cecm to havo one.
,1, Havo copies boon supplied?
I don't coem to
)
5 have m.
c, HR. BANKS:
Of uhat?
We can get you another 7
copy.
What ia it?
g CHAIRHEN MILLER:
I guesa we need ano, if we 0
might.
I don't scom to have one.
g It'n Exhibit Number 11.
11 Now that exhibit has not b:an subjcat to crosa-p examination by the partion or Councel, as I undcratand.
10 g
that correct?
g All right.
Who is first in order?
I guacs yol:,
l a~
Mr. Hafoury, for croac-examination.
g MR. UntiKS :
Did you want the panel to addrosa 17 themselvoa to Dr. McCollom's question first?
I think that g
are prepared to do that.
g's l
CUAIRMM MILLER:
IL doaan't iatter.
t
(
DR. MC COLLO.9:
Why don't we do thatY c.0 t
g IEliMINA. TION D~l THE 1302inD (Continuad) l y
DY DR. MC COLLOM.
I c.
i 23 eb
,J.
. h f
/1
,,,h
,g f
f' alld 4.
4, 4r4 MR. BAN 1G :
Do you wa the ques tion repeated?
n:3
r t
i 992 eb3 l-WITNESS ANDERSON:
Yes.
. f; 2
BY DR. MC COLLOM:
v 3
0 Are there eny of these design changou that you A
4 have participaten in or know have something to do with the 5
seismic design of the control room building and the discovery G
of whether this building can withstand the approprir.to 7
scism) q effecto as addrcaned in this hearing?
8 A
(Witness Anderson)
He have reviewed these very 9
quickly over the lunch hour.
There in only ona that uo find 10 that really has any direct relationship with the reavuluation
- l 11 work that we've been doing, and that's the last item in 12 Exhibit 4, the inatallation of pipe supporta to the service
/~S V
13 water system.
14 This was referrcC to in one of our anmtcrs to 15 the Staff Question, Question 3-B.
And we alco mak'e referer.co 16 to this I believe in our testimony in Footnoto B.
That was the only one that was a direct racult 17 r
10 of the work that wo had been doing to reevaluate the cont 2:01 10 building.
i 20 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
l 21 CHAInttAU MILLER:
I bellt.;vo, Mr. DAnho, you 22 wished to havo your redirect c:camination when the cross-Af. )
23 cxamination was concluded.
There is one item on wh!ch crocc-l 24 cxamination has not been concluded.
Ic that correct?
n L i"1 HR. BANKS:
At thin point, subject to the queatior a j
25
I
[,,
1 7
' 3 I
I l-
.ob4 1
. that have boon asked thuo far, I have no redirect.
2 CHAIRMAN MILL?R: 'Very well.,
g 3
Cross-examination as to E:chibit 11.
Mr. Kafoury.
4 CROSS-1TAMINATION
-DY MR.'KAFOURY:
i i:
'O Q
Gentlemen, is tharo a fixed ground displacement t
7 for an SSE carthquake?. That is, can you compute from.2Sg l
O with accuracy as to how f ar, ior a horizontal carthquake, g.
t.
-)
9 the ' ground would move at maxim *,vn?
3; i
10 A
(Witnoss White)
Yoa can' t calculato that nun 0>er l'
11 very precisely.
Estimaten can b3 mado.
12 Q
Well, what's your boot estinate?
I i
.h-13 A~
For this' kind of site, somothing in the neigh-14 borhood of three inches.
13 Q
That la the ground itsoif?
6 Lc
-A That'n the rock.
t
}
17 Q
Would only move.throo inclies in a.25 carthquaFo?
10:
A Right.
19' Now on a soil sito there wo111d be more movement.
i l_
20 Q_
That's because the soi1~.in loose with respect 21 to--
You explain why.
p
'~
l12
.A For-a soil sito, you have big, rolling waven l g' 1
23 hboause'of'the low frequency.tranamincion capabilities of the e
j, 24 soil.
In rock.there's a higher froquency coDtent and 3
25 ithorefore, the' displacements are smaller.
W 1.
c 1-h.--. _... _' s.. _ _ ~, _
......w,._._..._L,__._____...;...,
994 ob5 1 O
Roughly how far would dirt move?
I know it would A
2 vary, but uhat would be the maximum figuro you would expect i
V' 3
for solid, forestod ground to novo during a.25 earthquake?
4 MR DANKS:
Mr. Chairman, I would object to thic.
S I think we're Seyond this with the survey.
6 CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
I d on ' t k now.
What's the 7
connection with the survey, Mr. Kafoury?
8 MR. KAFOURY:
Hall, they're talking about dic-O placements and I'm trying to got some kind of informational 10 background on what kind of ground displacemento we're talking-11 about.
)P.
CilAIRMAN MILLER:
I don't think you should go 13 into it ertonsively but nonetheless, you may pursua it.
~
14 UITNESS WIIITE:
I would imaginc somothing twice 15 that, you know, a aix inches kind of thing.
16 WITNESS JOHNSON:
Maybe I can make a comment that 17 would bo helpful.
1G With this rock cito, the entire local area, 19 theac movements that Dr. White is talking about, ue're talk-20 ing about the entire complex moving relative to como 21 reference point that might be the conter of the earth.
The p.2 important thing that has been inver igated is the relative p
U displacements of the buildings.
23 24 In other words the buildinga at the bottom will 25 not move relative to each other.
This talk of three or six
(
~,.-~._.._..._t_._..._...,,__...____.____.._..__
___.........___,_...___..___...a__
+
L
}l r
995 h
~~ ebd 1
inchesi that's everything moving together, so it really i
2 doesn't affect'the calculation of displacements in the build-3 ings.
4 BY MR. KAPOURY:-
S.
O I' understand your point, I would like to pursua 6
this-a little bit further because it doesn't comport with 7
what'I thought was common knowledge about earthquakes.
O In ny experience there was an earthquake in
/
9 Portland perhaps'15 years ago where a wall which wac about J
10 a foot from me hit me on the choulder, to my recollection.
1 11 I've been tol'd of the great Alaskan carthquake in 1964 i
12 whero people were hit by walla, co thov caid, that woro g
13 several foot away.
And my imprescicn of a very largo earth-14 quake ic very large lateral diaplacement.
T5 Is a.25 carthquake not really that big an earth-16
. quake, or are my cources of information vastly in crror, 17 or what?
is ~
A (Witneas Katanics)
I probably would a to add f
19 to this, to your thoughth.
20 The type of dicplacement that you
'y with 21 a building rolling..down a hill or associated wit 1nd-l 22 slidea or sometimes what they call liquefactions when the 23 soil is changing, this in not' happening in rock.
It is not D
24 the movement-of the earth itself directly as' measured in 23 terms.ofLthe earthquake but, rather,'a consequential I
,M.,
_,km.,m.
= = - - - ' * - - - - - " " ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' * ' - " * * * * ~ ^ '
996 eb7 1 movement due to the earthquake-induced vibration.
Basically O
2 landsliden or liquefaction of the material occura.
v 3
Since you referred to Alaska and you're very
,rs U
4 familiar with the Alacka earthquake, that happencd in quitt 5
a few areas in the A1.
. earthquako.
G 0
Am I correct that there are three aroac of con-7 corn about the safety equipment in the building in terms of 8
the direct effect of the earthquake, and that ic first that D
it would be moved, that the displacement that Exhibit 11 10 refers to, that safety-related equipment vould be moved 11 from one place to another.
And here we're talking about 12 just an inch or tvo, and according to Exhibit Number 11, 13 overything is able to withstand that kind of displacement.
14 Ncw that's one kind; right?
15 A cecond would be the floor rocponse spcotrum 10 arca tha' n hr not y3t gotton into, and that applies tc 17 vibration, cyuipment itnelf as a result of the 18 carth movin Lding moving, and the building having ID a different frequency, a different responso.
Different areac 20 of the building have different responson and different 21 pieces of equipment having their own different responces 22 and their own different vibrational frequencies, and that's (3
V 23 the area that will be covered subsequently.
24 Is that correct?
p V
25 A
(Witnecc Whito)
Yes.
.t J
997 j.
eb8 I-
'O In my explanation of'it, am I in the ballpark?
I E
.' h '
.YoS'.
3 0
Is there a third area.or is it cubsumed in the 4
.cecond area?
Ic there a third area?
I'm thinking in terns i
5 of if you pick up a -radio and shake it real hard, if it's l
6 not working maybe it will atart working, if it is working 7
maybe it will stop
. orking.
w O
Is thct kind of movement which-If ve're 9
dealing with a piece of equipment which is, say, actached 10 to the floor, the ground novec, the building moves, the 1
11 equipment moven, is that vibration that we're talking'about, 12
' a jerking back and forth, is that the rnmia as numbar two, 13 the floor response spoetrum vibrations or is that c' third
'14 concideration independently?
15 A
No, that's the name as number two.
3a 16 17 10 19 20 21
.22 9
23 24 e
2s d
e
).
'998 p
1 lf3Dmpb1:
I-
~
O Dr. Paxton -- I think this is relevant and you may I
explain. why you think-it is - not rel.nvant, if :it in not --
3'
[
Dr. Paxton explaine'd' in his questions - or in his questicna j
1 4
it was made clear that the model by which STARDYNE analynic 5
mado-its conclusions,.the model that-STARDYnn was baned upon 6'
idealized a ' structure that una ~ ~ as I understand it, there j.
7 was a-coparate analysis made for each floor of the structur?,
B co that rather than looking at wallo ao being'100 feet high, 1
9 you analyzed them in cogmonts, 61 feet to 77 fact, and so on, i
- 10. -
and it.was not' treated as if the building uare a largo'cmpt7 i
l-11 box. ~In that correct?
12 A
(Witness Johncon)
No, that's not correct, 13-
'MR. BANKS:
Hero again, Mr. Chairman, it seems to g
l 14 me we're now getting into-the Board'c questions.
i 15 CHAIRMAU MILLI 3R:
Yes.
It does not ceem to be r
16 relevant to croco-examination on Exhibit 11.
17 BY MR. KAFOURY:
18 0-Did the STARDYlin analysia give you figures on ID displacement which you are nou using?
It did, didn't it, 4-J g
20 whj.ch you're uaing-in Enhibit 11?
i 1
l 21 A-(Witness Johnson)
Yec.
!~
[-
'22 O
Well, please explain to me the distinction, whether Ig 23.-
or not_the modelLis based upon, on'the ona hand, a larce L
24
. empty box, that-is high wallo with a narrow-base, a largo 25
. box, as opposed to'a model where you would have n series of
.L
)
1 I
- _ 6_n.,an.m,--Ja w_,,
7,- m.
e
= =--- = :-.= = = ::~; ; z-- -.:=
l l
999 l
1 t-npb2 wide, not very high boxes, atacked one upon-the other and
. glued togethurs l
lin. DANKS:
Again,Iir. Chairman, I'n going to
' h
/'
l object to this.
9 Ac I understand Exhibit number 11 fren the way i
f b
it's been identified, that thic was a curvey that a team Y
l vont out to the sit.e and made, and that theca are their U
observations and their findings.
O CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I thought Go too But your wit-10 nens seemed to respond that they used thn STARDYME analysin 1
Il in Exhibit 11.
3 1 "'
So talk to your witnenae l h 13 MR. DANKS:
I don't think that'u what he said.
M WITNESS.70HMSON:
Let r;c clarify.
4 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
In Exhibit 11 uhat is there that 16 is responsive or reasonably connected with the question asked I7 of you by Counsel which pertains to the STARDYUE nnalynis?
18 WITMBSS JGinTSON:
The uny I heard the quesdien 10 uns this:
i 20 Did anything come cut of the STARDYNE analysin 21 that una considered in the exhibild' 22 STARDYNE prc5icted dicplaccmenta that va later h.
23 further increased to include cia.hing.
Thecc ucr vary leu M
numbern, lens than an inch.
The Exhibit assumed very much 25
. higher numbers, and an investigation uic nado,,
^
1 i
..n...
j 1000 1
mpb3 nY MR.
KAFOURY:
2 1
0
-So in part this document in based upon -- the 3
invoutigations ocacribed in this document 'ere baced upon 4
to s_ome extent the STARDYME analycia regarding displacemente j
5
-correct?'
1 6
STARDYNE-pluo, but --
4 7
A (Witnccc Andcroon)
No, the docunent was based i
1 0
really on a question that nac brought to -- that wac given 9
to us by Dr. McCollem in the prohoaring conference that i
i 10 related to what would happen if coma damage were to occur, Iw 11 and we tried to addrosa that quantion by nahing a survey of l
]
12 the plant.
1!g 13 We ctato very, clearly that our analyses chow that 14 we do not expect thece kinds of dicplaccnento and va do not 15 cxpect anything to damago equipment from dicplacements.
IG CHAIRMAU MILLER:
I think you're entitled to one l
17 more question on STARDYNE.
I think you're beyond it, but l
18 we'll give you one moro in the conse that wa want to extend l
19 you every opportunity; but it is not apparent to us, Mr.
20 Kafoury.
4 A
21 MR. KAFOURY:
The Chair is forcing ne into a va::y 22 complicated quostion.,
i g 23 CHAIRtmN MILLER:
W il, Uithout lack of force, I L
24 haven't really'seen any very simple onec coming forth.
25 But we'll struggio with it.
Go ahead.
.a!
._,l1..~~.---.-.--._~---.-.-_-
--,---b--------
n~~'--
'--~-E"'
l 1,
j' 1001 mpb4-1 (Laughter.)
2 BY Nit. KAPOURY:
~3 0-My understanding of the explanationa that you
'4-gentlemon gava'to Dr. Paxton was that you cuid that the walls-5 in the structure are carthquake-safe in relationchip to tho l
6 height-width ratio, that tho taller a building is with regard 7
to its bane width relatos to horizontal cracking, diagonal 1
I 8
cracking, 45 degree cracking, that that la a major concern 9
for tall walla, but that that was not considered in the analy-10 cia of the control building although the walls are very high, l
11
'because of the intarvening floors, that is the floor niabs 12 at the various levola in the buil.dlng.
And therefore that g
'analyain was made from height 45 to height 61, height 61 to 13 j
14 hoight 77, and so on, as'if those were independent valla l
l-15 rather than.piccos of the same wall.
16 And you explained your annwar on why that van dona 17 by caying that thare were interconnectic..c: between the floor 18 alabs and the wall at the various levaln, and that these i
19 became the breaking points for your further analyciso i
l 20 My quantion is whether there might not be error l
21 there in that it cecmc to ma that what you have is comething 22-
.of a hybrid - It's r:ot simply a box vith no contento of the l
O l
23 height andiwidth of the building, nor is it, an your analysia l
l-24-vould neem to indicate, simply-a collection of boxes of equal j
25 width and longth stacked one:upon another and glued together, i
1
i q
1002 l
L i
mpb5-
'which'beemed to:bo the model which you #are using to evaluata I
.2
[lg the-strengths of the walla.
4 3.
So it acems to mo that somewhnro in betucin woula F-4 lio the more correct analysis.
5 Who would like to runpond to that?
6 MR. BANKS:
The question cama some tina ago, is 7
that correct?
O MR. KAFOURY:. The queation I want to ach is the 9
quention'I just asked.,
j 10-BY MR. KAPOURY:
4
?
4 l
11-Q Was it clear?
Han it muddled or -
t 12 A
(Witneco Katanico)
I will try to give the anovar, 1
! j 13 mostly because I'm afraid if my colleaguca give it it will 14 be overcomplicated.
I try to make thingn simple,,
i
[
15 17 hen you talk about analysis about the STAnDYNL 16 we're using the so-called finite alsment analysis, which 17 very truly represents the ctructure ao it's built hhere j
18 it'n connected, it's connected.
Where there's an opaning i
]
19 thoro'n an' opening.. Whero the clah in connected to the wall l
20 the model recognizes that the club is connacted to the wall.
21 Thon you have this big vall in.onc surface.
It's t
22 connected elements which are physically connected in the way
.h 4
23 nathematically as it in in the real life.
l24~-
So the STARDYNE,analycin, when we'ra talking about L'
25'
.a-cophisticated model, indecd it's a very very good simulation S
q
.L.
- a. =
. ~ a
~..
. _., ~. _. _ _ _. -... _ _. _. -. _ _ _ - - -. _..
m.____________.._..__-_
l -
,l
.y n.3 l
I mpb6
.of tho-real life aihuation.
And I believe the diccussion' 2
j.
that went on when we analyzed the wall - and I have to say ll 3
tha' analysis as auch is used in different terns in thic 4
4-
,4 Once the analysic is - how do va define forect; process.
I l
5 and this is what-STARDYME in doing based on the true model, 6
^
it tolic us what kind of forces, nhearn, and so on, arc on 7
the wall.
8 Now once we arrive at thic point then wa etart 0
to analyze how those walln are behaving.
What in the situa-10 tion.in view of these forcoc.
And we came to this'tcoting 9.270 11 and wo said, of'courne, that we have a criteria here that 12 -
we set up to investigate that, whether the valls are all right,
13 or'they are not.
14 And in thic' criteria indeod the H/U is factored in i
15 based on the tont.,
16 O
I'm carry, haced on what?
i 4
17 A
The test, the Schneider test.
18 Q
But the II/W --
]
i.
10 MR DANKS:
I think he ought to be allowed to i
j 20 answer the question.,
21 WITNESS KATANICS:
In the test, when we applied 22 the critoria' - and I'm talking now at 'ut thei acceptanca 23 criteria or the capacity criteria - then we went to.the area s
4 24-where we wore asked, because the wall in fact is not continuous.
a i
25 If'you think in tern:a of thickness, then the wall s
L-- _. ~..:;- -.
i..a.1--..,..i.--,-,;...,,
-,,-------,-~~-,---,vn~~~
- - ~ - - - - - -
1004 mpb7 i
hau two feet or one foot thickness.
When you arrive to a
?
g 1
alab than suddenly the thickness of the vall, you juct look outside and you know that the sinb bahind it, and it becomes not two #eet, but it becomen 70 feet, because it's II going through.
6 And thic was the arca where wo ucro questionod 7
this morning.
O I havo tried to give maybe a little overaimplified 9
cxplanation, and I don't want to exclude my colleaguen.
But IOL I started with a nomewhat simple matter, first of all ampha~
4 4
Il sizing that STARDYNE is a very true representation of cach I2 type.of connections, whether they're floors or vallc, contin-
'3 uous, diccontinuous, openings, or no on,.
And the accond, that
]
14 thin question van not directed toward analysis, if un recog-j 15 nized in the analysis how wo establich the forces that arc i
IG acting on the wall.
17 I still would like to give opportunity to n) i W
co11caguas to expand beforo I consider your question as fully l
I 19 answered.
i 4
EO WITNESS JOHMSON:
I hava no comment.
j 21 (Laughtcr.)
22 CHAIRIUUI HILLER:
That's the ternest answer I've 23 heard in a long time.
4 24 Very well.
25 I do think you've covered this matter now, Mr. Kafour3
~--,-.m
..m
.~. -
~ ~ - - - - - - ~. - ~ < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
1005 mpb8 Plance addrosa youranif now to matters contained in $xhibit
.1 o-1 11.
-l O
4[
I.
5.i f
6 7
0 h
10 11 12 O
J I
15 16 17 18 4
19 20 21 22 23 24 0
as v
1 J
- -.. - ~ -....... -.
'j t
100G l
l-
{
1 3C agb1 MR. IC\\FOURY:
Mothing further.
Thcnk you very j
l much, gentlemen.
4 e"
CHAIRMAM MILLER:
Who's no::t?
4 MS. BULL:
I8m ready to go beforo Mr. Rosolio.
5 CIMI1UMN MILLER:
Ladion firot.
4 i
G' HS. BELL:
First of all, I Vould like to go on 4
7 record objecting to having a very short period of tinc in U
which to prepara croan-c:camination questions on this document.
CHAIIU!AN MILLEP.:
Objection overruled.
10 Do you wish to cross-c::aminc or not?
II MS. DELL:
I do have a feu gucationc I would 12 like to croac-examine on, but I would alao like to make a h
13 chart statement.
14 CHA1:OmN MILLER:
No, we don't ue.nt statements, l
}
15 just go ahead and croac-examinc, pleauc.
i 16 BY MS. DELL:
j 17 Q
First of all, I would like to kncu who produced j
l 10 thisdocument,itdoesn'thavethenamnofanycorpo$:abion f
1 10 or any individual on it or in it as far an I could tell, j
20 And I'd like to have complate references as to who did this.
i 1
21 A
(Hitness Anderson)
It was producad by Bochtal 22 Power Corporation, strichly as a back-up, a written back-up 23 to the survey that was made.
i 1
i i
24 Q
In other words, you have no idea who the people l
O 25 were involved in this team, who did the curvey and produced I
I l
L
_ _ __ _ _ _. _. ~. _ _ _.
[!
}
1007 t
L agb2' this document?
l A
Yes,'I know who the peop1'e were.
3 Q
Could you please stato those people?
4 A.
Ao.I think tha curvey statec, there waro five
[
ongineers involved.
Thoac were Mr. S. Lynch, Hr. J. McBride, 6
Mr. T. Cook and Mr. A. Ayad, A-y-a-d.
7' Isnd they were. accompanied by Mr. Allen Critchley of Portland General Electric Corapany.
9 0
ITho una responsible for producing the report 10 itself?
All those abovo-named people?
1.
j A
The team of people, the four Bechtel people.
12 Q
When was the curvey first starte.d?
h 13 A
.I think the actual survey was conducted on 14 Auguct 22, 1978 IU Q
Mr. Anderson, aro you reading those answers from I-16, any paper or document?
i L
17 3
I have a list of the namos with the date on it, 18 yes.
19 Q
Io that all?'
20' l
-3 That's alle 3
21 Q,
Could you ropcat the answer.to that question?
22' n'
.I.think it wac on August 22, 1970.
,. h
~
And that just lasted for one day?
23-Q'
.24 -
LA-It'was a one-day survey, yes,
_;h 25 0
And the paper was written when?
1-1__1_.___..._.__......_._,._.._._:
.___..,,,_...;_..~_,,.....,
,,_..,-r..
,__,_.,._mb,-
. _. _ _ _ _ _ ~ _
1008 lF I
rapbl I
A It van written cubacquent to that, in the next f1ws 0982 l,3; few uecx8-re vroviaca eur necuon to e =eetcmece ve maae in the testimony to ad6: ens Dr. McCollon's quoction.
O "l!
O Thio may cou:n role.tively trivial, but raayba it's it 3
just a matter of my curiodity.
6 Do you know why dio date on this paper in of a I
difforent typa than the rest of the papar?
7 i t "n
A It van typad on ;crobably after, or cono tins efta'
?
9 the original typing wac dons We generally don't put the 10 date on a piece of papar tur:11 it in coracwhat in final form.
It could be drafted firat, comathing like that.
f II IA O
When was this first available to thoco who would Q
13 need it, and Applicant?
14 A
Wo discucced the racults of the survey with tho IS Applicant a feu dayn aftor the curvey.
IG G
In other wordo, a fcw dayc after Septombar 19?
17 A
Yes - no, a few days after Auguct 22.
1 18 0
Mhy ic the date Captember 10 on thic papar, than?
i 19 A
Well, wo discuaced tha survey, tha work that nac 20 dono.
The paparuark takes a uhile to get finished.
21 O
Uhat are your personal qualifications to testify I
22 on thic material?
l O
23 CITAIRf tAir MILLER:
Uhat difference does that mako?
1 1
24 Me're cretting rather tediuc here.
Thic isn't a matter that is I
O of that great significance.
It una brought out, I think, in i
25 1
l m
..i
=-
, _.__~___ _ _, _.
j.
2009 I
mpb21 the"courso offexamination that it was produced at the rcquest i
A' of somebody.. You probably' wanted it produced.
It'a here.
O Dr. McCollom wii s the one, as a matter of fact,
[
4
.who requested.itc production.
I 3
Mow can't you proceed a little more expeditioucly a
l_
G and loss minutely on thin aspect?
7 MS. BELL:
Cortainly.
l 0
I have very few' questions to continue expeditiously, 9
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I'm speaking of the subject j
10 mattor rather than'tho timing.
L 11 MS. BELL:
I'm just trying to find out how thir, 12 relates to tho queati.ons that I ached bafore about thia 4catt-g 13 ment in reference to ~~ Uhen it was reforanced in their tauti~
14 mony 4 15 CHAIRMAti MILLER:
What differenco doon it mako?
j 16 Isn't the important thing that the study van donc, to make it 17 availablo for the information on cross-examination?
l 18 MS. BELL:
I want to know if the people.I'm crost-4 l
10 examining on thic particular survey are familiar with the 20 survey in a perconal way, i
l 21 But I'll continue to ack subscquent questioris if 22 you dont consider that important.
e e' j~
23 BY MS. DELL:
h.
24 0'
Regarding the possibility of having no rebar in the oa
[V
-25 west wall, if this is so, how would that affect spalling?
1 y
...;.__.2.-..-.~._,-..u.--_-__.u__:..----____-..-.____,-------
,.., -. _. _. _ _.. ~. ~
1010 j
mpb3 MR. BA1713 :' IIere again, I don't see what that has 2
Q to do with -
l' 3 -
CHAIN 1AH MILLER:
It does not scom to bu reasonably connected with the Exhibit.
And it also goes into mattarc 1
5 vou previously covered on your crocc-oxamination an a cub-O joct.
7 MS. DELL:
Mr. Chairman, I can't refer to it right 0
thin minute, but one of theco photographs in the back --
9 okay.
10 On the first page of picturca for attachacnt 2.,
11 picturos 2, 3, and 4, it han a caption " Switch coar Room, j
12 Cooling Unter Piping, Elbowa Batween Vertical Runa Allows g
13 For Flexibility, Shows Pipa Protected by Insulation Frca 14 Falling Concroto Block."
15 I una just trying to find out comething about --
10 CHAImDin MILLER:
You didn't neco this document 17 to make that inquiry in your original crocc-examination.
18 That's what I'm trying to ask, for you to confine yourself 19 to matters you haven't coverod.
20 MS. DELL:
All right, 21 BY MS. BELL:
22 0
.Do you have any understanding of what kind of O
23 insulation could protect the pipe from falling concreto block
.24 as seen in Picturec 2, 3, and 4?
25 A
(Witneas Anderson)
It's insulation that has an
...t
= - -
4 1011 I
rapb4 aluminum jacket around noma kind of an inculating m terial.
o It would certainly be adequata to protect the pipo itacif
'2 from a ten pound falling object, 's postulate.d here.
4 O
Do you know Who took uhnee photographa?
Was thic 5
part of the teen?
r 6
A It wac part of the team.
Ora of the pacple on 7
the team had a camnra, I don't rmumbcr which onc.
U 0
Are you awarc of any inctances in uhicit photographn D
of plutonium fuel rods at the l' err-ticGn1 Flant in Crescnt, 10 Oklahoma were altered with a felt pon?
I1 MR. Dia1KS :
Mr. Chairman --
12 CHAIRMAM MILLER:
Suctained.,
g 13 Now, Ma. Dell, you know bett:ar than that.
14 M5 BELL:
No further quest. ions.
15 CHAIRMAi! MILIER:
All righto 16 Who's no::t?
17 Hero you supnrneded, or iuat jinnped ovor?
Do 18 you wish to nok qutStionc?
13 MR. ROSOLIE:
Yes, Mr Chairnan.
20 CHAInitrJI tiILLER:
procced.
21 BY HR. Itos0LIH:
22 Q
Mn Roll asked you tihen thic F,urvey tcok plc.co, s
23 and I believo you said it was Auguct 22.
24 L
(Uitncsa Anderson)
Yen.
O' 25 0
And that van from the picco of paper you vare i
19.12 mpb5 I
reading from, in that correct?
2 A
That's the date I h".d jotted doun hero, ycc.
3 0
Where did you got that date from?
)
4 A
I lact night called the office to verify the S
cract dato.
I didn't have ny calendar uith na that shows G
dates that thingo have takan place, I got that by calling 7
the office last nighto 8
0 Do you have a copy of Exhibit nunber 2?
D A
Yes, I do.
10 0
Okay.
11 The firct pnge naya Stateannt; and tavard the 12 bottom of that ctatcment it says:
13 "Thic typa of,;turvcy unc comp 3 cten on 14 Clanc 1 system prior to initial oprration.
l 15 The curvey has been conplete6 for all CIrws ?
16 '
piping cyctcqc, and completed for all Clano 3 1/
piping systeme by Augnet 38, 1978 "
18 Mow how d-en threc date fit in with tha Augunt 22 19 that thic survey took plac2?
20 A
It'c an entirely different Turvec/,
aj n
Io that a curvoy, ac far as vou kno, vntienef 22 in that Exhibit nunbar 2, that was done by Applic-at?
Wiu t
I 23 that a survey done by ;;.he Tipplicant?
l 2t, A
It uac done, I think, prime"il v hv the Apnlic ant, 25 0
Okay.
1 I
U 1
1015 e
i=
[
mpb6' So in other wordo, the curvey that'Bechtel did i
[
would not relate to anything that in in Exhibit' number 2,
'3, and 4, because they vara not taken from this curvey, but Y h.
g i
from other surveys?;
'O
,A That's correct.
This is a different survey.
i 6
g yf you gould. turn to Erhibit nunbar 2 again --
7 instead turn to Enhibit number 3, and I believe it's page 1, i
0 and'it says -- it's the second page, and it han on top of it 9
Attachment, and under it we cae RDC number nodification
}
, 10 relationship, and the first one in RDC number 70062, job I I.
number 2, and the nodification in removal of one coinsic i
12 anchor from a four inch chemical and volume control cyate.m i
h.
13' pipe.
i r
14' Now, according to your knowledge of this curvay, 4
1-1
.15 the Dechtel curvoy, would that survey pick up that kind of j
a l.
~
16
.- I' guess I don't knou if it's a probicm or modification, f
17 that nacdad to be done?
)
j 18 A
~ bio, that was an entirely differe.nt kind of modifica-19 tion.
It had nothing to do with the building -- the displsac -
.I L
20 ment' survoy.
i-
- 21 0
Do you know what'it han to do with?
o 4
22 MR. BANKS:
Mr. Chaimint, again wn're away from 23-Exhibit number 11, I balieve.
I 4
I }i 24 CHAITGIAN MILLER:- Yec.
4 j
-25
. Sustained.
[
p l-L c
~
h'
l 1014-
]
f i
'mpb7 Let's atick to the displacement curvey, pleaca.
.l DY !!R ROSOLIE:
3 0
!!ow about job number 6 on the came page?
4 MR. DANKS: 'llaybe we can.ask hin about all of them j
5 at one timo and we can savo como tiro.
CIIAIRf Uni MILLER:
What is your question?
MR. ROSOLIE:
Job number G.
i CliAIRMAN MILLER:
What's your question?
O BY MR. ROSOLIE:
10 0
I want to know if that would be picked up in thic j
Il survey,'or should:have been picked up in this. curvey.
12
'A
.(Nitnoca Anderson)
It has nothing to do with thc g
13
-displacement survey.
'I4 MR. BANKS:
May_I ask a question in aid of an 15 objection?
16
'I would just like to find out from the panol 17 whether any.of the things in Exhibita 2, 3, and 4 hr.vo any~
18 thing to do uith the survey Exhibit 11, just to cava soma 10 time.
.20 CHAITamN !! ILLER:
Do you adopt that queation, Mr.
21-Rosolie?-
22 MR. ROSOLIE:
That'c not my question.
i
'O 23 1My question is whether this is.comething that
.24 should have boon picked up by their curvey or not.
Eh
,25
.CHAIRMAti !! ILLER:
Can you answer that'.yes or nc?
4 1-
=
o
1015 i
I o
i-I I
.mpb8 WITNESS ANDERS0il:
They shoulci not have been.
L
. 2' CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Okay.
Thank you.
{l 3
Mext?
'4 BY'MR. RosoLIE: ~
~
S
'o Hould you turn to the ne::t page,. job number 77-I
[
6 Strengthen two. pipe supports in the c6ntainment vont moniter--
i 7
ing cyatem.
y i
d i
G MR DANKS:
I think they8vc juct ancucred'that l
I 9
none of them were involved.
10 HR. GRAY:
I'm going to alco object, Mr. Chairman, 11 for the basic reacon that thin Exhibit 3 appearc to be dated r
12 October 10, and it appears to apply to work that's going to tl'g 13 be dono in the noxt one.to three montha, 14 The curvey that theco gentlemen are now testifying d
4:
15-to occurred on August 22, I believe.
So I think the simplc i
a i
16 answer is that the August 22 curvey certainly would not have i.
17 picked up work that wacn't yet dona.
?
18 CHAIRMAM HILLUR:
Objection custained.
(
19
[
Mr. Ronolio, pleace don't continun the same line l,
20-of inquiry, because it's profitlesa.
I-21 MR. ROSOLIE:
Mr. Chairman, I'vo.got to find out 22 how accui' ate this survey is.
?23 CHAIRMAU MILLER:
Well, that's not the way to do 1-l 24 --
l it. - Your-objectione have been sustained ropactedly.
You are
- 23 hdr.ionished to ' decict from this line of interrogation, Mr.
[end.3c Noso14.o.
7
- 1 1
+-
?,
...l I '
' ' ~ '-
- - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ '
- ~ '
l 1
1016 i
i i
'3D agbl j
- 1 DY MR. ROSOLIE
.Q Could you please turn to Page 18 of 247 Tho top 3
of it is entitled, " SCI piping in the Control Auxiliary Building."
i 4-S i
Have you found it?
l G
i A
(Witness Anderson)
Is this Attachment Ono?
I 7'
Q No, this ic in the survoy.
8 l
l A
.The survey itself?
1 D
Q~
It doesn't say attachment.
10 l
C11AIRMA11. MILLER:
It's Attachment Ono.
I 11 l
BY MR. ROSOLIE:
J 4
12 Q
Under System and Service, there are abbreviations h
there, and I was wondering if you could tell mo what SFPC i
14 stando for?
15
- I'd have to look at my drawings to define for 3
i i
16 j
you exactly what that in.
i
'17 This first part here ic ciraply a licting of l
)
cafoty-related piping in these buildings.
This was to guido IO the team as they went through looking at the ualla.
i-20 l
But they looked at the walls and made a note I
of what' equipment was near the walls.
They weren't going i
1-22 through the list of -- I incan, this is just a list to help j
h-i f
29 guide them.
M\\
Q Well,-hopefully, it would holp guide me, too.
h 1
25 A
Well it's probably spent fuel pool cooling pumps.
i
.l
' 10!.7
?
1
)
l agb2 I don't know, I think that's -~ apent fuel pool cooling pumpo..
l Would that be the same as the other abbreviatiens O
4 in here?
You more or loca kind of guanc?
i-
- U
.A No, wo wouldn't guess, We would look it up in 1;.
6-
'the drawings as we want through.
7 0
I mean if I ask you now, you're jnat kind of takini U
a guess at it, otherwino you would have to look it up.
O CIMIRMitN MILLER:
In uhat way does thin linc i
10 of inquiry aid you?
j 11 MR. ROSOLIE:
I'm trying to understand this 12 document.
g-Now if thin is the person that I need to 13 l'I cross-examinc --
'IU C11 AIRMAN MILLER:
What underatanding do you 16
.need?
17 MR. ROSOLIE:
I would like to know Uhat they 18 have looked at.
It seems to mc what they've looked at 4
1-19 is marked down here on thin attachment.
1-
'20 CHAIRUAN MILLER:
You've been told that this j'
21 was a guide.
I think the document itacif shows the testintnf 22 with rogard to displachment.
Now,'if you have a displacemenh O
23-type quostion or anything reasonably related 60 it, please I
?A :
ask it.
25-
-MR. ROSOLIE:
How can I' ask displacement on SFPC, j_
. : -.. -. 1 '
=
1 I
1013 agb3 when I don't know what the abbreviation in, the witness
- O aoeo='t x=ow waae ene edureviatice ie-3 CHAIIdiM4 MILLER:
WEll then we're getting nauhore, O
a aren't we?
I 5'
MR, ROSOLIE: -Right, j
i 6
~ CHAIIU4AH MILLER:
All right, thon, why don't we
{
-i 7
go into questions that could be nicaningful.
l l
0 i
MR. ROSOLIE:
13ut I had to find that out first.
o.
CHAIRIEN MILLER:
Now you know.
You don't know 10 and they don't know.
Uou go from thero.
11 MR. ROSOLIE:
Well who doca know?
I2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Tend to the document and O
ene wienee=ce-It eher son't unow, ther =im,1r do='*.
et1ere',
I4' no point in going any further.
3 15 MR. ROSOLIE:
Wall can I havo a witncus who 16 doen know?
17 CHAIIUGN MILLER:
You can try to gc.t a witncan 10 but you can't try to get comething the witness hacn't I
!.19 done.
20 Now, proceed.
You're taking'e lot of time,
{
l I21 You want the right of cross-axauination, uc want to give it 1
22 to you.but we want it to ho meaningful.
1 r
i23 MR. ROSOLIE:
That's finco Dut if there's nobody l 24 to crosr.-examine, I don't acc what good that dona ne ii I 25 cantt get answers to my quoctions because this witness is not j
1019 1
-agb4 that familiar with this document that he' knows what those h
abbroviations aro.. -
You' have to take a witness as
~
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
- O o
you find him for crosc-examination.
Why don't you ack him 1
5 what they do know.
i MR..ROSOLIE:
That's uhat I did.
And obviously 7
he'didn't know.
And.what I'm asking is, is it poecibic to 0'
get somebody that does know.
O CHAIRMAN MILLER:
It's not a proper question.
10' MR. ROSOL1E:
-- from PGE parhapn.
CIIAIRMAM MILLER:
It's not a proper question on a
1 cross-examination.
h
.13 Now go ahead and croan-examino or we'll terminato it.
15 BY MR. ROSOLIE:-
16 0
Does the panel know who knowa uhat thoco abbre-
.17 viations-mean?
I6 A
(Witness Anderson)
I'm sure the Applicant knows.
19 If I. had my drawings here I could' look that up very easily.
20 Q
. Well, whichever you want to do.
If you want to 20 get:your drawings out, that's. fine with me.
If the Applicant 22
.would havo nomebody that could -)uct, without going 'through
~
e 23 the problem of going-through the drawinga,'that'e' fine with 24
- mes, j.
- s. 25
' CHAIRMAN MILLER: 'And'if-you will specify the i
..= u.
3.!
1020 I
p g.
'1 l
agb5 materiality it'll be fine with no,' but you haven't.
i Ig Nxf I'm going to suspend your crocs-examination.if you don't i-3 i
iret.into something meaningful. -You're not to play games.
! h.
4 This is a trial.-
MR. ROSOLIE:
Right.
And I'm not tryinrJ to play 1
6 l
J games, I have to know what they've looked at, and that's i
4
~1 '
what I'm trying to determino.
And what thof've looked at 0
in in that attachment, and there are abbreviations in that i-i attachment, and what I'n. trying to find out is what thoco 30 abbreviations are.
i l
11
^
WITNESS ANDERSON:
Wo didn't look at what's in 12*
this attachment.
We looked at the next attachment.
We i
I3 g
1Soked at the walla and what wts near'the unlis.
This is j
I M
simply a list of equipment 'in the buildingc, 'WE looked at U
j how thin equipment connects from the floor to the ceilitig, 5
M perhaps there's no conncotion in thic particular equipment.
17 gy gg, nosotyg:
M Q
Thank you.
That answers part of my question.
i N
So, in other words, Attachment Tuo, then, is the 20 l
equipment that was looked at?
l.
21 A'
.(Witness Anderson)
Yes.
[.
4 22 Attachment Two is notes th.tt -- observations i
23
- and remarks from the in plant curvey.
'24 Q
Once again I have problema because, do pou know 25 what IIKD-250-3 is?
i' 4
4.
,a.sp e eerenw+wese.w.ee.m*,.wh =,a
...-.w.,*.,--.
.e.--.o+,..,....
,..-4,~-.
~. - - -. - - -.. - - -,.. -,. - - - -... - -.,. -.. -. - -
. - ~ ~
7 1021 p
i 1
l agbG.
MR. LW.JKS:, would you mind. telling us wharo you're reading?
l i
c'.
3 ROSOLIE:
It's in Attachment-Two,.I.gutac MR.
4 the second pago, t, '
t s
MR. DAMKSi Thank-you.
g i
'MR. ROSOLIE:. Elevation 77.
I WITNESS AUDERSON:
That's a cooling water
-8 pipe.
9' i
DY MR. ROSOLIE:
J 10 And.when-it in. stated that, "....no problem is Q-
-11 expected...,'" ceniyou cxplain that otatement a little bit 12 moro,.what-t.2cy mecu "....no problem in expected...,"'what 13 degree not expectc'd?
i A
(Witneas Andcraon)
It means that when they were j
14 i
3 at the~ plant they expected to problem, however, they nade a 4-15 4
16 notation to check it in San Frardiaco.
They did, and they 17 found that it was acceptable.
i 18 Knd I guess that Jould be the samo lika over en 0
k 19 j
the next page the CCU pumps.
4 A
Yco, on the component cooling water pumps, 1
20
.tho' piping ~~Ldischargo; piping,.the people that were at the j
1 22 job sito, at the plant, could not determine wrother ; hat p.
Q.
23 particular pipe would be -- would onccad its total allow 91c 24 strescos.or.not if tiiis movement were to take place.
t; 25 And it was checked by; calculation in San Francisco p
j p.
s-
=
1022;
.t Lagb7 1and found' that it would be acceptable.
MRo.ROSOLIE:
I have no'further questions.
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you.
~
Who's next?
~
The Staff,'I: guess, i
MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
I have no questions, Mr.
7
. Chairman.
O MRo - GRAY:- Tho. Staff just has one or two..
E BY'MR. GRAY:
10
-:Q If you could turn to Pago Seven of.the exhibit, Il the paragraph thoro before Section Five talking about,
12 electrical panels and the manner in which they're arranged, 13 Q
such that their facos don't present realictic targets to
- 14 falling block.
15 What does that mean?
Does it mean they're facing l
16
~away from the wall?
17 A
(Witncas Anderson)
Thoy're facing away from 10 the wall, yen, sir.
19 Q
In this curvey, it's clear that you looked for 20 lthe~offeet of inter-atorey displacement.
Wan tho space-21-betwcon the' turbine building and the control building also 22
' examined in the survey, was that part of the survey?-
O 23'
- A' That was not part of this curvey.. Tho connectiorn 1
between tho'two buildings were examined, but not the spaco 24 th-1 25
.'between the two buildings, that was not part of-the curvey.
1 P
f 1
+
(.
?. '} '
I u.
.4..
u i
a
l-if m
1023
- r f
ebl.
~1 0
'Okay.
h,.91e'agb7.
2 MR. GRAY:
The Staff has no further qucntions.
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Ic there anyone who has not
.O 4
.had n chance to'. crosc-c:: amine on this document?'
.5
.MR. BANKS:
no redirect.
G.
CilAIRMAN MILLER:
Vc'y well.
I believo Exhibit l
7-11 has'been admi tad into evidence.
G There is no redirect?.
9 MR. BANKS:
No, sir.
3 I
10 CHAIRMAU MILLER:
Very McIl.
Then I believo 11 that concludes the services of this pancl.
12-MR. BANKS:
May thic panel be excused, subject i
I O
x of -urse to the seat - ne eerner with r erect to if eny 14 of them are involved in the later submitted materials they j
15 will be made availabic?
I
.. CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
10.
17 Thank you.
You.are excused, subject to that.
I-l 10 Ofitness panel e::cused.)
i t
19 You may call your next witness.
4 20
-HR. DANKS:
I call Professor IIolley and
> 21 '
l Professor Bresler.
I-L
! 4 22 Whereupon, u
23
' MYLE J. IIOLLE Y, JR.
!' and
.Oi 25 DORIS-DRESLER l:I-1 t
,i
1 l
k 1024 eb2 1
wererealled as witnossoa on behalf of the Licencoco and, l
2 having been first duly cworn, were examined and testified 3
as follows:
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 5
BY MR. BANKS:
'6 Q
First, Profeccor Holloy, will you atata your
~
l 7
name, your addrosa, and your occupation?
8 A
(Witness Holicy)
My name ic flyle J.
Holley, Jr.
9 My adurces is 1364 Maca Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts.
10 Q
And what 10 your occupation?
11 A
I'm a conculting structural engineer.
j l
12 Q
And aro you employed by a firm?
Is there a 13 name of the organization you work for?
t 14 A
Yes.
I work in accociation with two colleagues 15 under a corporation name, actually Hansen, Holley and Bigg.3.
16 Q
Now you have prepared a report along with 17 Professor Bresler, and attached to the back of the report ts is a summary of your professional qualifications.
You are 19 familiar with that?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And docu that cummary accurately portray your 22 background, educational background and professional back-23 ground-in connection with the specialty you practico?
24 A
.It doac.
25 Q
And would that summary be an eccurate statement
y I
1 1025 1 1
eb3 1
of your qualifications in regard to the work you've done 2
p with relatier. to this particular problem?
, 0 3
A I believe it would be.
l nU 4
MR. BANKS:
Mr. Chairnan, we would ask that the 5
professional qualifications of those witnessen be made a 6
part of the record in this caso, being attached to their 7
testimony, as was done with the prior witnesses.
8 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Very wcll.
9 MR. BANKS:
I might ask, Mr. Chairman, if it in 10 the Chair's desire that after I identify the testimony, if
)
11 I have this offered as an c:thibit like I did with the previous i
12 witnesses?
(V')
13 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes, that will bc very accept-14 able.
15 BY MR. DANKS:
16 Q
Let me ask you, Professor Holley, is the report 17 which is dated September 20th, 1970, and entitled " Response 18 of Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Control Building to Specified 19 SSE Event," by yoursolf and Mr. IJresler, is that an accurate 20 statement of the testimony, tbc direct testimony, which you 21 wish to present in this matter?
22 A
(Witness Holley)
It ic.
r%
23 Q
Are thero any correc': ions or additions that you 4
24 wish to make to that at this particular time?
n 25 A
I think Professor Bresler has one he would point i
I
i 1025 i I
i i
eb4 1
out to you, o
O All right.
3 And docu tne report itself, particularly on the l
4 bottom of page 2 and the beginning of paga 3, gencrnlly f
I 5
describe how you two collaborated and what different areas i
G the two of you wore involved in inaofar as preparing the 7
report?
8 A
It doca.
O O
Woro there any other people, other than the two 1
10 of you, that were involved in the actunl work that you i
4 11 undertook?
I'ra not talking about people that you talked to 12 and so forth, but did you have any assistantc or anything 1
i 13 like that, or was it just the bao of vou?
i I, n l
^
14 A
In the actual preparation of the report, it 'reu t
i 15 just the tuo of us.
There were conversationa going on I
l 10 prior to the proparation of the report, and to a clight 17 degree perhapc during it, but we prepared the report.
13 O
Let me ask come questions of Profascor Brealer.
10 Profascor Drac]er, vould you stato your name 20 for the record, your address, and your occupation, pleace?
l 1
?.1 A
(Uitnecs Branler) fly nawa is Eoria Bresler, P2 My addresc is 5801 Christic Avanue, in Emoryville, California.
O 23 0
What's your occupation, sir?
24 A
I'm a Profausor of Civil Engineering at the i
O
)
23 University of California at Berkoloy, I have boon on le-,.vc j
r I
t=
.l 1027 I i
eb5 '
'1[
for 16 montha on full-time leave, and I'm.a connulting
~
- h
-2 engineer,.at the.present time full-timo.
3 Q
And is the statement of your qualificationa like-4' vise attached to tho. report that I referred to a mcment ago?
y 5
A Yes, it is..
6 O'
' Do you wish in any way to expand on that state-7 ment.of' qualifications?
I f
8
'A This statement is'a general resume of my quali-I D
fications.
Specifically with respect to the iacuoc and f
10 matterc that we considered in our report, it may be relevant i
11'
.to knew that I have been, for the laat 20-odd years.or so, i
12=
. active on many technical committees of the American Concrote h
13 Institute, specifically the Committee on Nuc1 car Reactor
.14 Structures, on Shear and Reinforced Concrete.
I am prosently 15 chairman of the Committee on Research of the American 10 concrete Institute.
And from 1965.-to 1971, I've been chairman of the 2
17 13 Committee on Masonry and Reinforced Concrete of the Americtn l-19 --
Society of-Civil Engineers.
}s-20' I have been involved on ascessment of seismic s
1 21 cafety'on many buildings, and thic in one of'my major arean 4'
y 32-of expertise, ce l
23
. Q.
All right.
L 3d-24 l:h?"
I V
2a 0
').
lI.
,b 1028 f
l-
)
I agb~1 1 Q-All right.
~ 3D2 1
With that expansion, are you willing to adopt 3
the written statement of your educational background and h
4 profcasional experience as your qualifications as an exper.t 5
in thic particular hearing?
6 A
Yes, I am.
7.
-And did you, likewise -- You did assist in the g
U preparation of the report that I identified a moment ago?
O
-A
'Yes.
10 Q
And do you wish to adopt that report as your 11 direct testimony-in this proceeding?
12 3
- yeg,
]ll 13' Q
Do you have any corrections or additiona that you'c.
14-like to make to the report.
15 A
There's a typographical arror en Page 13 of 1G-this. report.
17 The; third line from-the top on Page 13, the 18 abbreviation at-the beginning of that' lino should read "SRSE,"
19
.instead of 'BSRS."
i 24 O'
Anything eine?
, 21 A
No, I1didn't. find anything else,
, 22 Q
Lot me ack you'both~ jointly, in'ycur discuacionc I'
J 23.
.in your work in this. matter, did either of you file a minority
- 24:
' report?
.g.
!25 A
(Witness Holley)
No.
a
_m____.__m._.. _ _ _ _.. _ _. _.
{
[
t J
?
I 1029 I
e i
1 b
'agb2
'A (Witnoco Bresler)
I haven't.
)
.h-
'A-
.(Witness Holley). If he has, he hasn't told me.
j 3.
O Were'thero any disagreements ainongst you in 4
connection with the matters.you procented hero or any other i
5'
. matters you. looked'into in connection with this study?
j.
6 i
.A'.
No, 'I know.-of no occasion where either of us.
1 7
. adopted a position'and the other said he didn't agreu j-B There may have been slight differences in the uay we carao 9
4 about reaching an opinion, but thera wore no differonces.
I 10 A
-(Witness Drosler)
I would concur.
I never i
11 disagree with Professor Holloy although sometimes.wo engage 12 in diccussions before we coma to an agrecmant.
4 Ih MR. DANKS:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have i'
14 this report marhod as exhibit number -
--as Licensee Exhibit Number 12'and offered.in evidence as the direct'tentimony of Professor Holley and Professor Bresler, 3
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Very well.
'8-It'll bo marked Exhibit 12.
(Mharcupon, the document
)
-20' provi ucly referred to was
' marked for identification ac Licennee's Exhibit 12.)
21
. Is'thorc any objection?
CHAIRMAM' MILLER:
'22
- g
' (No-responso.)
It'll-be~ admitted into evidence as Licensco's 24 Exhibit 12, ig.
.T 25 s
.]
.-.-..--..-a..,..--,w,.,.h._,,-
- ....+...---.....-.:==.........-..-.:....-.-,-.a.
-_r
~ 1030.
-t I agb3 (Whereupon, the-document
. h previonaly marked for identi-3 fication fm Liconace'c
.h
.g Exhibit 12, was received 1
i 5
-.in evidence.)
s-i-
~G-j.
CHAIRt1AN MILLER:
Anything further?
7 1
i O
Yes.
In addition to the report itself, would i
either of you - would one of you be villing.to give us 10 5,
just a short summary of the review and investigation that 1
II you engaged in in connection with this direct testimony?
7 12
' A (Witness Holley)
Yes, I'll do that.
I think 1-
' ~h I3 it will be useful to try.to.doccribe very briafly what ue P'
~did.and what wo.did not do.
i 15-We revioucd those principal details of 10 construction of the building complex bearing on this be-N havior.
And what I nean by that, through many, many hours
~
-Ik of interaction *with the enginecrs, wo familiarized ourac1vor IO-
- i -
with those details.
'Of cource, as'I think our report indi-l 20-cates,.wo alco visited the sito.
21
- Wo also becamo. familiar with the analytiical methoda L
- 22-used-by the
- Bochtel engineers and with the nuacrical results
[ e.
23 they were getting from those methods.
- ~
ll 24' We also familiarized ourselves with the exparimenta.L l g1 l
25 datn.they wero using to judge the porformanco of the walls,
~
+
3--i c.g. g u g yyy we
,ym p, q yg&rwy-ymyg eggey ppeyy-g,-,
,y yy v.y, W
Wm-
-_____m4-esmvespawg aw-e.w
- e. ter
- t e p m--areW&yrey--
q g-wg,,i
,c y.yw m gy n
I 1031.
t i
1 i
and with the-use they made of that data in attempting to i
a i.h'. gb4 2
reach appropriato levels of predicted atrength.
l ehb2 4
5 1
l t
7 3
1 9
10 i
11 12 13 14 h
16 17 18 19 20 21 i
4 23 4
?lk.
r; -
4 i-25 4
b 4
1.i
.,.m._
i f
I r
i 1032
!30. ebl' 1.
Now there wore things wa did not do.
He defi-i g 2
nitely did not attempt to duplicate the techtal analyses 3
which were very entenaive, or indeed, to m:ccute detailed Ig 4
parallel analyacs.
Indcod, we didn't think. that kind of a i
duplication una feasible, considering the magnitude of the 5
4 j
0 Dechtel effort, nor do wo consider it nocosaary as we now l
7 our tank.
i-0
- A word on our inputa.
I think no provided, it i
0 is fair to say, independent judgmento of the cignificanco 1
i 10 of various factora, independant interpretations of numerical
.i 11 results which came out of analynes, c;rtainly.an additional 1P.
perspectivo deriving from our backgrcund, nopefully a unaful h
i 13 additional percpectivo and, from time to time, a auggeutica 14 on some slightly different way perhaps in nthich something
}
l i
15 could be made more clear.
l 1
16 So these then arc our inputs, our experiences l
17 in the way of interactions with the people involved and with i
18 this job.
~
Now perhaps juct a brief word, and very brief 19 20 indeed -- it can be e2:panded ac needed - on what wo judga
-21
' to be the undorlying factors in this problem, and the f actora 1
22 indeed which underlie our concluulonc.
23 In the first place I think thi:t in really quite 24 important to be emphasized.
The SSE structural ccuse-25 quences which we believe to be of intercut -in this matter 4.
-.n--
-e--i-
,-~,e.--
.--,,------u
-w we r v' -
1 I
l 1033 j
eb2 1
'are what we could call the limited time varying diuplacemento,-
i g E
not atructural' collapse.
How the latter conid only really j
3 occur'if you were talking in terms of vastly larger ground 4
motions.
5 I cmphasize the importance of looking on the 6
dioplacement as the significant, final critoria for good t
l 7
or bad judgment'because you have heard a lot, quito properly 1 8
about strength and applied forces.
9 Now the relationship between an applied force i
10-and the strength is a useful indicator, but it is not the 1
1 11 final indicator.
12 Next I ' would like to sny --
And this buuiness
.g i
13 of the importance of displacements as critoria wo 14 recognized early and it underlay a lot of what we did and l
15 thought.
16 Next I would like to mention that the structure
-17 Lexperiences decreasing stiffness and increasing damping as 18 the load ~ intensity is increased.
Now that means, for c);amplo,
19 that the recults of linear elastic analysis, be it stick 20 or STARDYNE or whatever, a linear clastic, which neglects
,-10.S30 21 the, decreasing.stiffnees, that is, it assumec linear elac-941-22' ticity, in-a acnse neglects.the damping -- true that you.
O~
23-may uno.a different damping for an OB1;, lot us say, than for 24.
an SSE, but.it neglects. the increase in damping as you go 25:
tup",.?willitend'to predict upper bound forces and, more i
.c.
~~_-..---.__--._._-_--.--.._._.....____..,_.~..-..,,,..,,a.,,.._
.n
..._..,.,____,-,n
.,,,..i
1034 i
~
ob3 1:
. importantly, will tend to predit.t louer bounds of displace-2 ment.
'3 Therefore it's essential, if the dicplacettents A
are the things of great importance as I say, to account for i
5 this.
And Bechtel calculated increased deflections, in-t G
croaaed displacomants as you've heard them called, associatad 7
with reduced stiffncusec.
i j
O In doing this they concervatively noglected 9
considerably increased damping which occurs na you got up.
i 10 higher and higher in the loading.
\\
z.
l
- 1 Finally, as you have heard very recently in the t
i I
h 12.
. testimony, they surveyed those thingo, safety-related equip -
i g 13 mont, piping, what-have-you, for sensitivity to dispiccament 14 and again, wo judge entirely on what they have reported to 15 us, which we have ovary reason to believe.
J 1G THey found that these displacements, that is, the 17 displaceraento which could be accepted by the equipment, 18 wore. substantially. greater than the conservatively predictcl 19 displacements that might occur.
'20 liow on the -basis of that kind of reasoning, (c),
-21 the importance.of displacements, (b), the ways in which 22 displacement increases due to non-linetaritics, (c), the way i. e~~
j 23.
they carofully calculated the effects of thoso displacementa L
24
' and the degree to which the equipment would be affected by 25 Tit, and their'roports to us.of what they were findingf 4
j' L
1-
-. a
i 1055 eb4 1
I think Profeanor Broclor -- I know Professor Bresler and I 2
concur in uhat tuight be said to be the final conclucion 3
that the control building complex is indeed able to with-DU 4
ctand safely.the SSE.
5 Is that essentially what we had in mind?
6 A
(Witness Dresler)
Yes.
l 7
MR. BANKS:
Thank you, Professor Holley.
O That will concludo our direct testimony, l
9 Mr. Chairman.
10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Very well.
11 What's the order of croca-examination?
J 12 Mr. Kafoury?-
13 MR. KAFOURY:
.I'd be happy to go first.
14 CHIAM1AN MILLER:
Well, in that our order?
I W :tc 15 not trying to el ange it.
Who does go first?
a 16 The State.
I'm sorry.
Proceed.
17 CROSS-EX7tMItMT. ION 10 DY MR SOCOLOFSKY:
gg Q
Gentlemen, in your opening statement you caid P.0 that you did not attempt to duplicate the Bcchtel analyues.
I 21 Doco that includo the STARDYNE analysia?
22-A (Witness Bresler)
Yes, it doco include the 23 STARDYNE.
We did not duplicate it.
pA Q
Was the decision to use the STARDYNE Inodel cada 25 before you gentleman got-into the case hora?
f 1036-l ebS'
- 1
.' A -
(Witnoca' Holley)
No, I think-that docinion was 2'
made after we got into it'.
3 0
And can I asstune that you had come part in the ij 4
discussions before the decision was made?
i S.
A Yes, I think it. is fair to say that our dic -
J I
6 cucsions and perhapo'our suggestions stimulated the use of 7
STARDYNE.
c12 8
.Q.
And I take it from your answer that STARDYNE 9
was, at:least'in part, your recommendation?
10 A
.I think that's fair.
I 11 0
Did you also recommend the use of STAROYNE for 12 the modifications that are going to follow?
1 A
No.
It's very.important to understand that h
i 33 indeed perhaps the reason, one of the rencons why we 14
- recommer.dod using STARDYNE was that at a very early meeting, jg aither the first or second meeting with the Ecchtal Power 16 Corporation engineers, we found that they had boon just at
]
37 the end of'a long process of preparing to use-STARDYNE for 10 99-
.the fla: analyses, co we.came to;it at a time when the thing go Jwas ready, if you see.
4 In other words, with very little modification 21 22 it was;possible to. to run the: program for the as-built g.i h.
.conditionj as well.as for the fix.-
b 23-0 I understood you to mean there then. that Bechtc1 24 wantplanning'on using-STARDYNE for the'fix,
[
25 e
.3
%, a,. :-.+,.,a
j t-t-
'1037 cb6
'I A
That's correct.-
.i l
~
E Q'
Okay.
l-
.3 And you at 1 cast concurrad in the suggention 4-that STARDYNE be uced to tect.the at built structuro?
0 i
5 A
That's correct.
G 0-can I also assume then that you didn't have any-7
. thing to do with modeling the computer?
You didn't do any-l
'G' thing liko'that?
You'd4.dn't assist in the preparation of i
9 the computer for running this analysia?
10 A
Nothing whatever, no.
.j 11 Q
Donc the value of STARDYiiE, of tho.STARDYME 12 program, or the necessity to use it, let'c nay, depend at g
all upon the configuration or the complexity of the ntructure 13 14-that you're going to analyac?
13 In-other worda if you.had, let's say for example, i
1G.
. a aimple building ~of, let'c cay, a rectangle, no ficors, 1 --
17 just a base and' virtually nothing else insido, would tha J
10 value of using STARDYUE voraus let's say the TABS program j
.19 or the stick nodolc diminish?
i 20 A'
I'm not aura'I really understand your building P1 description.
- 22 Perhaps two comtenta vould ' e helpful
I b
I'
-23 First, one could havo reached conclusiono regard-24
..ing the safet'y of_the control building without STARDYNE, i
25
- It was,;in our judgment,.a ucoful thing to dca but not' an-
.. i m i.
- - - - - - ~ * * * ' - * - ' ' " " * " " " * " ' " " " * * ~ ' * ' " ~ ~ * * * * * ' " ~ " " ~ * " " '
~
4 i
1038 ob7 l'
essential thing to do.
2 g
Now if you're asking the question, is the desir-3 ability of using a very complicated, sophisticated program 4
related in come way to the complexity of the building, the S
answer is of courso Yes.
G Q
That's my question.
Thank you.
7-For examplo, here we had a thron-building com-O plex, and as I understand it, the STARDYNE analysis showed D
eithor the location of certain stressos or a torque, for 10 examplo, that the earlier analyses had not indicated.
11 A
I think on the latter you misundcratand.
I 12 think what you refer to as a " torque" is the fact that the 13 buildings didn't simply displace but displace also and rotate 14 somewhat, which I believe would show up in the stick model is as well as -- and probably in all models, to one degree or 16 the other.
17 You had an earlier part of that question which 18 I'm sorry, I may have inadvertontly covered.
But co far 19 as torque is concerned, that is not unique to STARDYME.
20
- Now what was the earlier part of your question?
3e 21 E2 23 PA
_~_____. _..___..__ _ ___.___.__ _ _. _...__
1039 i
I' I'
'3f mpbl.
-But. did the GTMIDYNE analycia then more precisely l
locate and pinpoint the stresces that the building complex 3
would be-aubjected to?
4 Would it ho useful if we just said a word or tuo A
0 as to why it was worth using MfARDYlm?
O
.O Go-right ahead.
A It may nimplify things a bit.
0
-I?vo already mantioned that the choice of the 9
stick model which the ongineers had used at the tima of 10 initial design, as wo undel'atand it, and which they had re-l 11 ovaluated last Hay, I beliove it ic, uan a perfectly appro--
12 priato one, and one could, from the renults of a'shick analy-h 13 sia, reach adequate conclusions regarding cafoty.
14-Now, why, then,.run STARDYtm?
Well, there seemtd 15 to ha at loaat two reasons in our minds why it vould be worth 16
- doing.
17 First of all, if you forget intorim operation at 10 all and you plan to une the program-in order to evaluate 19 certain alternativo hindo of fixca, the best bacolino against
-20
-which to judge them it econed to un vould be the name pro-21 ~
gram run in a nonfixed condition.
So it was uceful to run 22
?.it toigot'n baseline for comparing different kinds of fixing
-23
'and noo which ones vero optimum.
24.
That was one-reason for doing it.
IO.
25 A separate reason, which seemed to' us more dirs<:tly a awwe $ me.e.e eer. H wao em daemw*=wme-m--
- -i-e----u-owmsw4e t s,
- ee.e m W-wv e g
l L
b
'1040 i
related to thic hearing, for example, is that there were I
l mpb2 certain significant'differencen between the results os stick 7
i-and TABS in terms of somo node, shape., and'thinga of that.
o l
4 sort.
5 We were confiuent, both Prof. Brealer and I, and i-6 all of those with whom uo conferrod at Bechtel, that stick 4
7 was.by far the more reliabic.
And I mean by that ~~ it's a l
0 4
i j
littlo~hard to doccribo it in detail to you, the kindo of' i
6 1
.ii a
9 shapes, fundamental modo shapos that no saw from atick looked 4
.10 more rollable'to look more like what we would expect to sea i
j g
r g
11 than what they were getting out of the TABS nodel.
12 The TADS model had norved a ucoful purpose in that 13
.it was a completely different approach and it didn't show i
b 14-anything more covere than ctick.
So that it was -- ao that 1
I 15 it served a useful purpose.
16 But it appeared to us that it would be more sensibl+
i to approach a hearing in which people would-be interested in 17 j
0 18 how these things were done to have a third approach which 19' would provide.some check againct our feeling of TABS versus j
20 stick.1 ~ And indeed tho ' stick modal 'did just that.T,n what I 21 would consider the'important aspects of output, stick and i
i 22
~STARDYNE'do.indeed nutually verify each other.
23-That may'not seem so to you with talk of 20 perc2nt 24 differences, but in point of fact from cur 1 standpoint as we 9
'look at behavior, they did~just that.
And it seemed:to.uc.
25
,.=._.=._=_.=:. _...-_ _. :-
--.a.-.=
['
1041-l l
mpb3-sorthwhile where you had two modnic that differed in some I
i
.h troubling respects, which aro understandablo but n2verthelor,c 2
3
. were somewhat different, to have a third.
And so far as no 4
were concerned STARDYIm was available.
There wiro go'od 4
I
)
reasons for running it. -It did indcod, from our standpoint, l
provide what wa wanted: that is a mutual verification against 6
4 7
stick.
0 j
Is that about right?
l 9
-g.
-(Witnesa Brocler)
Yes.
l 10 0
How we've had como testimony up to this point I
11 that has compared uith that as compared with other typas of l
12 analyses, that STARDYNC 10 a more expensive analysia to
' h 13 make.
14 Is this the typo of analycia that you would 15 recommend, let's say if wa were starting conctruction of a 16 ',,
plant like this all over again?
i-e f " iffy".
(Witneas Holley)
Oh, that'a au i
17 A
l.-
18 0
Well, uhat I mean is is it something'that you usa i
19 in just a special situation'like thin,.or is thic'suppocod 20 to become n.otandard'of the trade?
i 21
.A Mo.
Those more sophisticated and more costly -
22 and-by " costly" I don't mean' costly in dollars necessarily,
- . e L
- 23-but in time and man-hours and a variety of ways - programe
!I 24 como along.
And for.rcasons which some would call bad and Le 25:
some:would call good, they-tend'to become more standard
________._2_._,___.___.
.u
___-- -.__ _ ----. _ 7.- - -. - - - - -. - -.
,.1 1
1042 I
mpb4 proceduroc ac time goes on.
g Dut thic raay not be a good thing.
In nany in-
)
3 stancoa you-can find what you want very casily without going 4
4 to such a sophicticated approach.
i 5
0 Are you recommanding that thic progran be applied 6
to any of the other buildings in this complex - I mean in i
7 thin plant?
O A-I've had no occasion to even consider the question.
J 0
Mn GRA'l:
P!r. Chairman, I want to object.
10 CilAIRMAli MILLER:
Suotained.
l 3f 31 i
12
' g 13
- 4 15 10 17 to 10 20 21 1
22 23 2A 25
.t.
1 1043 i
1 MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
I think he answered lio.
W 3G wbl 2
MR. EA1.iKS: I move to s trika.
3 CHAIRMAM MILLER:
Granted.
It's stricken, l
4 tR SOCOLOFSKY:
I think, Mr. Chairman, that S
thic line -- the last question I acked is perfectly appropri-6 ate.
It's appropriate to know just how the witneas feels 7
thic type of program fits within the scheme of engincoring 3
9 design.
CHAIRMAN f1 ILLER:
Tnct unan t what you acked him t
9 10 nau it?
MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
Hell I think the ortent to gg 12 which they recomend, and the circumstances uncier which they neomnond a prograa like this are within the ccopo of that 13 ques tion.
y CHAIRt1AM MILLER:
Do you uish to open up a nub-
.g joct that hau been hitherto considered by the Boards which 16
,I have licensed this particular plant?
MR. SOCOLOPSKY:
No.
I'm only asking the cir-10 cumstances under which Professors Holley and Bresler recom-yg mended analyais like this.
,<.0 1'
MR. GRAY:
Mr. Chairroan, if the Staff can nocah 21 to that:-
Those gentlemn hava already indicated the cir-g "U
Y I"
23 case. What we're interested in here are the ciratunctances h
in uhich Stardyna can provide whatever resulta it can p.7: ovid'r i
l -, _. _:
L..............
1 i
j 1044 l-Ob2 I
for the control building, fual building, auxiliary ' huildir.g i'
2
. complex, uhich in the ' problem that we are he):e to discuss.
[
3 Now general philosophy on hou nuclear plants 1
4
.should be dacigned, and whether this sort of tool cught to a
e 5
be.used elsewhere, is not the subject of this proceeding.
6 And for ' that reason the Staff continuon to object to that i
7 line~of questioning.
3 CIIAIRIMH MILLER:
The objection is custained.
i.
j g
If you uich to frama questions along the linec of work done, studios rcade, or matters within the scope of j
w 1
g;
- t. '4.s 4 iterim operation hearing, you may.
12
.MR. DAMKS:
May I cay somethinc;, Mr. Chairman?
i It acems to me we wouldn't need to argue.:.uiy g3
)
g further, becauce he said Ho.nyway.
MR, SOCOLOFSKY:.
ThaFa what I thought he cai6.
j gg CHAIRMAN MILLER: ~ We just struck it.
16 l
MR. GOCOLOFSKY:
The Chairman was : going - to atrike l,
e the-answer.
In it stricken or not?
. 18 CHAIRimM MILLER:
It ic utricken.
.s g
d 2g MR. SOCOLOFSKY:
lEacause I vant:to go one step
(
farther. in my address to the ' Chair liero,.
g Let's. assume-and I recognize that interin g
operation;is the question before'the House.
But let's ausum that-thene gentlenen had aomn~ question about the capahility of tha planb 'to cafely operate in the interim, and recomnended
~
. s,,
f ji h5
- L
'.w,,_.,._,_,..c._,,6..~_......
u,....,.._..2.._
-...,_____.__..__.__u___
. ~
\\t j
e e
+
3pi j
l i
i i
l t.
k !,).
,.b
)
i.
Ii..
4 a
2
} i.. i 'l !
~
lu i
(,. ! } ),*_,
,m.,.
_.. r i
' ~.
3.
.1 i
ca.
..c. 5 4
e 3
,s t,
4 1.1,
..L.-. s. ). (
L,: n <
us,,,y)) w+...,
t,,
,\\
t v
11 I
1
'l~
5l L2y, } -'.C ':d tir s?iO'I hh t h t' C ;d"".h t W' M O['-
I l
r 4
r.;
t ri.>.ul tu r:eua.
m,s'
- n,, '.
- q..q L17
,rv
- m...va 2a'7n,
- 2...s a.
y..c mm ms.
f 4
o u m s. m emm e
m n.
J
+
'ov1" Lat'a v ::tur., tha t thqy M th g
s t
i i
i
'; Q C4 r CIl O P 1 3 ' ! 2 I.1 34 s.' O
()
^'"
} '.1 Il
.I -
1 1
.. i..w.,
t,
~+ <, -
u w... tha.v e... c
.m
.i.. -
sc...,..t.
s.
. c.,
- a.,,~
_x 1
3 3
ll US t.lC L^^t.b.;
.d l 1.~.. ' !.L hi J ' 2 Ti'. i" i O ! O1
' ! 1 ',
i ;1. 8 j o,
- l
}
t Y
f
. f, f { l.s. ]_' 7.^3 L f ) ?. y' 2.'.-[,.'(
- 2) e
}1a.
..n-I. g.- T,j.-, ; ).,
.-( { ]. {.
9 8
L.
S i
- v?
s y
I e
g f*
... I k (m-ib m'
gg ba4b- '.
LE 1 LJ. s..)
1 y #
. wl p,
,i_
2,
l il 3
.l C**
il P
s,,,
{
l' 1'l ( f )4 U..a f.) # ' { } ". -U' u!' v !. i,
t v..
. 41 <m 4
.t, g
1i e r-D l
i s il a
- e s 4
I I
g l u i "g *,
f17
! ' \\ T.T
"*Ti 3
3; s_
g.
...i
-se g
m gp IU 1
3.
)
4 b Y.1U p bl 5.
l'
,9,o
)
}
g
. -g, i l:
1,
? '& } J.
6 > ! i r.'{s, (. 3 { eC.>*i r
s,..
r" -
, v 8
e.
( 4 t
,. f.,, i I
r..
tha anu -,. u.
1 c, r o n,,
aa n s, ca 1:
1.i..
g.,
j i
li "l
t i
J l
t
- g. F, a.,
i j!
i.a 4
{
i y,,.-.,
c -,,
, s....
e$ l
,I
'~
l
(.
11 m.
f, Le 'm..(1 l 'f
'. ' %.. 'h' ' J M.
I i
l*
l i
23 p,1 o s s ~g C..-.,...
,cm,.
2 s)t
.t ib.,
,_a...
u I,
- o c
1.
i s2 s
l f
t e
t' q G'..
i : '.t - ~
r e
,,d,--
{I i
i l
i l
k' L-i,n
.l.,.m m,,
.i tu. ;t:
i 31
,. i 1 '. n ;. c tc l
m.
?.4 g'
l'
}
1
"'1 I
ie' Y.
, h, t
a t
i...
i l.
n e
o i
s i.I e
,]
5 t
i. r
..-.f 5,N N,
..1,'.*
? h. ?,1 s i
\\
l
.g e
?.,
t I'T. L t,,,,4 j F
E aMe
. -M / _ 'c ' 4
- w.i i,
r n.
i yj{
.m ty i:ts... -.
rm
- r. corn
.L e m
.. -.c n i. ? "
t, e
s u
f,..
unemt-I i.
g I
l.
I
, r. c..r
,.t c P.a '.
1 '+
n
>w
=-
.i e
8
.a.
1 5
1, <
'y 1
]
1 l
.q
- d., -
Oil MiUd: RJ > 0 :
- rs - d.vc o ' s ; ru" au.. E i
t-o.
{
t ti:u, -
.We'ro i;oing ue ad 'oura ;m 2-il ni.
a
- c) oc a 3.:
- ay J
/
i, J.
.p j
n nornann.. -
9 i
1
$ 'aI.1 -
- g'
- 3
- w - p; p'-
t..
i i,.
~1 Ire R
I t'I t ' i.., D v. s.g g j g ),
e,4 g a *.g s' 1e,- -
.,.pe
..ns.
1.
3ig,s..>
'c a,
n,
's 5
' tC 2Or kli1J'd ? ?ID. G i' IN
,,Pi: '-
a p>
i.
'. j d
f
)
i'(
O b b
L-k 8
a 7
[
I
., I l
i g
.r.ga.
[,
3,"
,g A
h, q,
(
8 y
'(
}
i i p
,4 l
9 6
i r
sy
$. (3
. G.
r 1
,e
..
- A i
i
)I.
j a.
.\\
j ? l.
il r
]',i'n ii
- i '-
(
,j
,q i
r 1.
I l
y
.<.t.
i
)' ;.
JkJ+ c#
,;- o4 A $.,..
i..J., L
.(,.. =
,.,s.
r C
! 'l
>t
.r L d
t r
s 4,
} t, f.
I.
g g
4,'l
- d. 4 L. L.,,;.b.,,
.o I
1' p
+
1,.
4 I*r
,l
. 4
., 3 e
,C,,
,A
(
3 4
4 l'
u 3c s
Y $ h.s<....
-vf N
r 1,%
v.
s.
-t 1'
i i;
t t
c.,
10
.h 1
8' 7
1
'l i 4
i '
N.?
- 1 1.
.i j-
,4 l
&
- o 1
t 4
i
.- +
s 5
f g; s
l'. !
p fi j
!I H3-i
- o a,
f
.I-I
' })
{
1 If b
- -g e-II h_
- l, {.
t ~
t
\\
h
+
a
(
}
1' l
E h.,
r, 4-4 m
(
k 1
4 a
j,
- n..
i I
f '
. i m e-m=1 T m
e'**eena.a.-ee-.-m--e-.imau.s,..
459 ir-rw-+-M4e=F-
.i ebece-m----
c-