ML20151G201
| ML20151G201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151G199 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807280202 | |
| Download: ML20151G201 (45) | |
Text
-
9 e UNITED STATES ORIGdl//i i f
NUCIJLAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION 6
In the Matter of: )
)
PUBLIr SERVICE COMPA';Y OF ) Docket No. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE, SEABROOK )
)
(MEETING ON CONCRETE CRACKING) )
f Pages: 1 through 43 Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: July 8, 1988
, s.. .-
\
3
s E
- y. . . . . . . . ..-...n . . .
- HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION osuuamenm 1220 L Stred, N.W., same des i b. WasWagton, D.C. 20005
. i 8807280202 880719
( e ) 6M f PD ADOCK 05000443 PNU
e 1 1 UllITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO11 ATOMIC SAFETY A!1D LICENSIl1G BOARD 2
TaxCOTtl
. I. 3 In the Matter of: )
4 )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPA!1Y OF ) Docket No.
5 NEW HAMPSHIRE, SEABROOK ) 50-443
)
6 )
(MbETING Oil CO!1 CRETE CRACKING) )
7 )
8 9
Friday, 10 July 8, 1988 11 Conference Room Chadwick Building 12 184 High Street Boston, Massachusetts 13 The above-entitled matter came on for meeting, 14 pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.
15 BEFORE: D O !1 A L D B R I !1 K M A !1 ,
g% 16 Senior Reactor Operations Engineer 17 APPEARA11CES:
18 On behalf of 11uclear Regulatory Commission:
19 NORMAll D. ROMNEY, P.E.
Civil Engineer 20 SURES!! K. CHAUDHARY 21 Region 1 22 23 24 25 aeritage Reporting Corporat3on (202) 628-4888
(
t t-
~-
r
.'g 1 APPEARANCES:
<. 2 On behalf of Brookhaven-National Laboratories:
-f 3 MORRIS REICH, Ph.D.
Department of Nuclear Energy 4 Upton, Long Island 11973
. 5 On behalf of New Hampshire Yankee:
G BRIAN E. BROWN ROBERT SWEENEY 7 ROBERT E. WHITE Division of Public Service 8 P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 9
On behalf of Altrant 10 JAMES A. FLAHERTY, P.E.
11 .Vice President DR. STEPHEN C. TUMMINELLI, P.E.
12 Senior Consultant TOM ESSELMAN, President 13 184 High Street Boston, Massachusetts 14 OBSERVERS:
15 DOUGLAS E. RICilARDSON, Researcher
.l 26 Employee's Legal Project P.O. Box 633-17 Amesbury, Massachusetts 18 PAMELA TALBOT, Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place 19 Boston, Massachusetts 20 JANE DOUGHTY Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 21 5 Market Street Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 22 23 a
,' 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( '
_, 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. BRINKMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I 3' my name is Donald Brinkman, I'm a n.9mber of the NRC staff 4 and project manager currently assigned to assist Mr. Victor 5 Nerses, the NRC project manager for Seabrook.
6 This meeting is being recorded and a transcript 7 will be made and copies will-be.provided to all parties on 0 the Seabrook service list. Since the meeting is being 9 recorded, please, only one person speak at a time.
10 And now that I have passed an attendance list 11 around, will-everyone niease sign it.
12 I will now like to go around the room and have 13 everyone introduce themselves before we proceed with the 14 meeting.
15 MR. TUMMINELLI: Steve Tumminelli, Altran 4 16 Corporation.
17 MR. FLAllERTY : Jim Flaherty, Altran Corporation.
, 10 MR. MILLER: Charles Miller, Brookhaven 19 Laboratories.
20 MR. ROMNEY: Norman Romney, NRC Structural and 21 Geo-Sciences Branch.
22 MR. REICil: Morris Reich, Brookhaven Labs.
23 MR. ESSELMAN: Tom Esselman, Altran Corporation.
24 MR. SWEENEY: Rob Sweeney, New Hampshire Yankee.
25 MR. BROWN: Brian Brown, New Hampshire Yankee.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
4 1 MR. WHITE: Robert White, New Hampshire Yankee.
2- MR. RICHARDSON: Douglas Richardson, Employees I 3 Legal Project.
4 MR. CHAUD9ARY : - Suresh Chaudhary, Region 1, NRC.
. 5 MS. TALBOT: Pamela Talbot, Assistant Attorney 6 General, State of Massachusetts.
7 MS. DOUGHTY: Jane Doughty, Seacoast Anti-8 Pollution League.
9 MR. BRINKMAN: This is an open meeting. The 10 meeting notice was issued for this meeting on June 9th. The 11 participants in'the meeting are the NRC staff; the staff's 12 consultants, Brookhaven National Lab.; the licensee and'the 13 licensee's consultants, the Altran Corporation.
14 In addition to the meeting participants Jane 15 Doughty; Pamela Talbot; and Mr. Richardson are here today as 16 observers.
17 The purpose of this meeting is for the NRC staff 18 and its consultants to review certain details of the 19 licensee's report on concrete cracking. The licensee's 20 report on this issue was submitted to the NRC on April 21, 21 1988. The report was prepared by the licensee's consultant, 22 the Altran Corporation.
23 The staff is particularly interested in some of I '
24 the detailed calculations in the report, and the assumptions i 25 that form the bases for some of the calculations in the o
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( ('
l i
f 5
1 report. Therefore, the staff' felt it would be'most useful 2 to hold this meeting here at the Altran Corporation offices.
~
t- 3 With that as an introduction I would like to now ask Mr.
4 Romney, who is the staff reviewer for this issue,.to take
. 5 over and begin to explore the issue as he wishes, and I 15 understand that the Altran may have some presentation for 7 us, also.
8 MR. ROMNEY: The issue stated regards the 9 submittal that you provided the staff on April 21st 10 regarding your resolution'of this issue and the calculations 11 that are referenced in there is what we want to look at.
12 MR. WHITE: What we would like to do is have Steve 13 Tumminelli who performed the work for New Hampshire Yankee 14 run through a description of our approach to the analysis 15 and the details of the analysis and the results; and the b~ 16 results of the analyses would show that the pattern which 17 exists on the wall is the result of normal construction 10 shrinkage.
19 MR. SWEENEY: Dcn; if I could add something, this 20 is Rob Sweeney. I just want to make a couple of points 21 before we start off on this thing. In the inspection report 22 that the NRC issued on this issue 87, inspection report 23 8707, NRC had a follow-up inspection and I will be reading 24 some words from the inspection report.
! 25 The inspection team performed an onsite inspection I
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- . (202) 628-4888
6 1 -during the period of April 6th through 10th, the 20th 2 through the 24th and May 4th through the 8th of 1987. Based
, (* 3 on the new informatior, the team was able to more accurately 4 identify the specific areas of concerns relative to the 5 original allegations.
6 The team determined that the allegations that were 7 previously inspected remained as originally characterized 8 and do not represent a safety concern. Okay.
9 I just want to make those points. And one of the 10 open items that we are here to discuss was the second issue 11 of the inspection report, and we just want to note that in 12 the inspection executive summary the NRC noted that the 13 second issue is an in-depth issue of review in the concrete 14 cracks in the structure such as the waste processing 15 building and the cooling towers. Neither of these items 16 represent or present an immediate concern to the operation 17 of the facility. I just want to make those points before wo 18 kick off. If anybody has anything to add, we would like to 19 hear it on that issue.
20 MR. BRINKMAN: Thank you, Rob, does anybody from 21 the staff have any comments or questions?
22 (No response) 23 MR. BRINKMAN: Let's go ahead with the 24 presentation then.
25 MR. TUMMINELLI: My name is Steve Tumminelli from i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
L
.- 7
~1 Altran.
2 The intent of the calculation that I performed
, (~ 3 which is detailed in the report was to construct an 4 analytical model to simulate concrete shrinkage'for the
- 5 various pores in the wall, and see if I could reproduce the 6 crack patterns that exist on f s wall.
7 Just briefly, the se .n that we are talking 0 about is from elevation 22 to elevation 44, which is the 9 first lift of the wall above ground. The wall here is two 10 feet thick. The foundation wall is three feet thick, and 11 was cast in place and cured-a fair time before the wall in 12 question was constructed.
13 The wall was coastructed in five pores with four 14 cold joints between them, as shown here. The first one was 15 put in on 5-4-79; the second one was put-in on 7-23-79; the 16 third 8-24-79; the fourth, which is at tr.e far end, is 17 6-30-79; and the fifth, which is between three and four, 10 9-18 79, 19 There are four cold joints. One here, here at 20 line D; another one at line K; and another one to the left 21 of line M. The wall is in total 301 feet long and 22 feet 22 high and it is two feet thick.
23 I used the ANSYS engineering analysis system, and 24 I constructed a model that is essentially five separate 25 models in one. And they're shown here, and they're numbered
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 C
1
o 8
1: exactly _the way_I described them in the first overhead with 2 the cold joints numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4.
( 3 There is a hundredth of an inch gap between each 4 of this phasen that represents the cold joint, and I will
. 5 explain why that was done a little later.
6 An overview of the procedure was to construct the 7 wall model using the placement sequences which I have just 8 shown you in outlining the five different sequences.
9 I calculated shrinkage strains based upon 10 information in Wang and Salmon's book. I converted those to 11 equivalent decreases in temperature, which is what I can 12 easily input to ANSYS, where I cool the concrete in a 13 certain temperature that equateu to the shrinkage strain 14 that I calculate at the various times as I start from -- I 15 start from the beginning of the first placement at 5-4-79 e
- I; 16 and I indexed the shrinkage strains on all of the subsequent 17 placements to that time.
18 I calculate therefore the shrinkage temperatures 19 for each of the five phases and I analyzed the five separate 20 phases with simulated temperatures.
21 Now, for example, phase one is installed and it 22 begins to shrink; it is analyzed separately. When phase two 1
23 is put on separate temperatures for phase ole are added and 24 phase two are input, and the wall is constrained at cold 25 joint one, namely, -- if I can try and show this one. Right Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( .
I
~ - , , ,
,g g 9 1 1 here when I analyzed for the phase two calculations _I 2 applied constrain equations here, and I physically then
, (- 3 analytically, anyway, hook up phase'one to phase two and I
~
4 end up with one solid wall;_and I continue that process out
-. S to_the end of phase five. All right.
6 DR. REICH: Can you do one alone? What-are your 7 boundary conditions?
8- MR. TUMMINELLI: For one?
9 DR. REICH: Yes.
10 MR. TUMMINELLI: The bottom is fixed. The bottom 11 is fixed. These are isoperametric point stress elements, 12 okay, two degrees of freedom per node. I fix the base and I 13 leave this free, it's free to shrink on its own, and all 14 these degrees of freedom are set to zero.
15- DR. REICH: Now, when you put number two on, you 16 fix it somehow that one and two are. connected.
17 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right here. Right. I 18 constrained the deflections Ux and Uy with two enplane 19 deflections, one to the other, and I forced them to be 20 equal.
21 MR. ROMNEY: You put the node numbers along the 22 cold joint.
23 MR. TUtiMINELLI: That's correct, I just coupled 24 them.
25 MR. ROMNEY: The two enplane.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
is .
- ;10
. 1 DR. REICH: Would you say that one has a higher 2 stiffness than two when you are doing that? Are you putting.
- l. 3 in~the same stiffnesses?
4 MR. TUMMINELLI: They all have the same stiffness,
. 5 yes. It's conceivable that as the' concrete cures it has 6 somewhat higher stiffness than before. You have a 7 situation, though, where the shrinkage is very rapid and you 0 may get some plastic flow prior to phase two stiffening up.
9 DR. REICH: But I was thinking that one was more 10 stiff around because it has been through it before.
11 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right. That's right. It s not, 12 that particular refinement is not in here.
13 DR. REICH: Oh, you don't have that refinement.
14 MR. TURMINELLI: I have them all the same 15 stiffness.
. 16 MR. ROMNEY: So you just relied upon the change of 17 boundary conditions from the previous --
10 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right.
19 MR. ROMNEY: Okay.
20 MR. TUMMINELLI: Now, when -- the differences in 21 temperatures, though, for phase one are reduced because on 22 higher up in the strain curve, okay, so Delta T for one is 23 much, much less than Delta T for two. There is a Delta T 24 for one implied in the model when I do this portion here, 25 because this is still shrinking. All right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
n; 11 1 ' Details _like changes in stiffness as_the concrete 2 curee; changes in stiffness as the cracks would form, for (I 3 example, they're not included, and in my judgment, not 4 considered to be of practical importance.
. 5 Mr goal was to try to simulate, if I-could, what 6 the crack pattern would be. 'And so, whether the principal 7 stress trajectory-is off by five degrees, in my ri.nd, was 0 not something I was looking for.
9 I analyzed the five separate phases separately,
- 10. and there I add up the stresses for the end of each phase.
11 So the final. calculation for the end of phase-two is the sum 12 of phases one.and two out to the end of phase five.
13 Once I did that, beginning with the end of phase 14 one I plotted the principal stress trajectories. And I 15 plotted them for the ends of phases one, two, three, four
( 16 and five.
17 In addition to thtt I plotted the element outlinas 18 for all elements at the ends of each phase.that had a 19 principet stress in excess of 500 PSI elastica 11y, which is 20 a number that I chos- which is in excess of what ACI would 21 recommend for a design but it is a nu.ube' that I used 22 whereby I am very reasonably assured that the concrete would 23 crack, whether tha numbers 450 or 550, though, for my 24 purponos was not a detail to be refined.
25 Then what I did was I overla'd the element outline Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
-12 1 for principal stresses in excess of 500-PSI'on the stress 2 trajectories. And_I drew a crack pattern perpendicular to
(* 3 those trajectories. -once I drew a crack pattern it. stayed 4 :there even if subsequent olactic analysis would'show that
. .5 the stress trajectories may have changed their angle 6 somewhat, the premise is that-once I. hit 500 I crack and the 7 crack doesn't change its direction.
8 DR. MILLER: In one of the single wall analyses 9 that was done previously, one of the problems was that the -
10 cracks went perpendicular to the smaller of the two 11 principal tensile stresses, did that show up?
12 MR. TUhMINELLI: No.
13 DR. MILLER: So you are pretty confident when you 14 made these plots they were -- the crack directions were 15 perpendicular to the maximum, i 16 MR. TUMMINELLI: TST.'s correct. Signal one by 17 definition in ANSYS is maximum positive principal stress. ,
18 DR. MILLER: And that is the trajectory.
19 MR. TUMMINELLI: That is the trajectory that I 20 drew.
21 And once I did that and I overlaid the end of 22 phase one to two to three to four to five, et cetera, I then 23 developed the principal stress -- the crack patterns that !
24 exist in the report. We took the crack patterns out to the 25 wall and they correlate over the whole length of the wall 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ - --, - , ~ , - , . .. - - ~ . . - . . . . . _ , . .
- , 13
- 1. .and up as fargas the cracks extend in the wall.
2 For example, if you look in the wall you will see I, 3 in this area here a very small crack this way, which the 4 analysis.done previously did not predict because it-was-a f
. 5 continuous thing. If you look at the end of the phase one ,
6 : calculations you will see highest principal stresses in the 7 analysis for the end of phase one alone to be right here.
8 It makes sense that you would have a small crack ,
9 like that there. Then on the other side of the cold joint 10 the cracks go in a completely different fashion.
11 So when we took the crack patterns out to the wall ,
12 and we walked the wall with the analysis we saw a 13 correlation on all five placements. We saw correlation with 14 regard, roughly, to the length of the crack as well as its 15 direction. We saw correlation with changes in crack 16 direction.
17 Here, at cold joint between phases two and three 18 there la an angular crack here, the small one, which would i
19 result from the maximum principal stress at the end of phase 20 two. It is very highly localized; it's on the bottom.
I 21 'When I added phase three and four, which is a
- 22 long, long wall where the maximum principal stresses on this 23 wall are horizontal for its entire length and it hooks up to 24 the end of the phase two and begins to pull o~n it, the crack 25 changes direction. It changes direction analytically and it l
Heritagc Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
14
~
- 1 does in fact change direction in the flold.
.2 So the analysis was.able to predict that type of_ >
' ll 3 detail, and we were very confident therefore'that this crack 4 pattern was the result of concrete shrinkage.
.- 5 DR. REICH: As your third analysis, was.that the 6 second one from the left -- from the right rather.
7- MR. TUMMINELLI: This one? .
8 DR. REICH: Yes.
9 MR. TUMMINELLI: This is the last piece to go in. ,
10 DR. REICH: But you poured that one 5-18.
11 MR. TUMMINELLI: No, that's a 9.
12 DR. REICH: That's a 9, okay.
13 MR. TUMMINELLI: 9-18. That is phase five. This 14 piece here is phase five.
15 DR. REICH: It's the fourth one that we saw -- ;
16 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right. But this.ls the one here .
17 that I was talking about. When that goes in it pulls on 18 phase two as it shrinks and the crack changes its direction 19 from a 45 degree off the base to a vertical. And the i 20 analysis predicts it, and it does in fact exist in the ,
21 field. ,
22 Su given that we proceeded to write the report and 23 submit it. We are fairly confident that this is in fact ,
24 what happened.
25 DR. MILLER: Steve, do you have pictures of I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( '
i
.. 15 1-- the crack patterns after each of the phases?
2 MR. TUMMINELLI: The report -- no. You would have
( 3 to --
4 DR. MILLER: You can get them from the report or 5 from those big pictures, especially, that you sent with the 6 report.
7 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right.
O DR. MILLER: But you don't have those. ,
9- MR. TUMMINELLI: I only made one picture. The 10 crack pattern -- I have, you know, E size plots of the
-11 principal stress trajectory which, for example, would be 12 figure 21 and e .ments in excess of 500 PSI which would be 13 figure 20.
DR. MILLER:
14 One over the other --
15 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right. And I had my crack 16 pattern drawing which was the third one, okay, which showed 17 an outline of the wall and I merely just maintained a 18 perpendicular to the principal stress trajectories. And I 19 did not go outside the outline of the elements as predicted 20 in figure 20, 22, 24, et cetera. So I just kept adding 21 them. l 22 You would have to go back and put --
23 DR. MILLER: Put those two one over the other.
24 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right. I have those vellums if 25 you would like to do that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
I l
p r 16 1 Are there any other questions?
2 DR. MILLER: The value you used was like 3500 PSI, I; 3 something like that?
4 MR. TUMMINELLI: For the concrete?
. 5 DR. MILLER: Yes.
6 MR. TUMM.TNELLI: On that order. The seven and a 7 half F prime C is the highest value ACI would tell you, you 8 could rely on tension. So at 3500 thet value comes to a 9 little over 400 PSI, so I chose five. Very typically the 10 concrete comes in stronger than what you specify anyway.
11 DR. MILLER: The peak shrinkage strain you also 12 used I think was like 10 to the minus three or something in la that ball park?
14 MR. TUMMINELLI: What I did for that was I pulled 15 the garden variety shrinkage equatione out of the standard 16 text -- .8 ten to the minus three inches per inch. A little 17 bit lower than what you used.
18 DR. MILLER: And your coefficient of expansion was 19 like -- probably .7 or .65 -- I mean, six and a half ten to 20 the minus six.
21 MR. TUMMINELLI: The value I utad for Alpha?
22 DR. MILLER: Right, so you get the equivalent.
23 MR. TUMMINELLI: Yes.
24 DR. MILLER: I have this number and then I can get.
25 the Delta T. .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
w
4.
17 1 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right.
2 DR. MILLER: That doesn't make any difference.
f 3' MR.-TUMMINELLI: Right. I chose to pick values 4 =that were as real to the particular structure.as possible,
. 5 but it doesn't matter because it all comes out in the wash 6 with the values for Delta T anyway.
7 DR. REICH: When you attach item three to item two 8 you already have the cracking in two, right?
9 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's correct.
10 DR. REICH: You did not reduce the E and the 11 stiffness in that either.
12 MR. TUMMINELLI: No. The reinforcing bar is going 13 to pick up.
14 MS. DOUGHTY: I just have some more elementary 15 questions to ask.
16 MR' TUMMINELLI:
. You have to use a microphone.
17 MS. DOUGHTY: I just wanted to ask some more 18 elementary questions so I understand this issue a little 19 better and not about the specific analysis you did.
20 MR. TUMMINELLI: Go ahead.
21 M'S . DOUGHTY: I want to understand what the 22 implications are, you're saying that this was as a result of 23 natural shrinkage that this cracking occurred, but what 24 would be other mechanisms that could cause cracking and what j 25 is the conclusion you draw that it's caused by shrinkage as 4
! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, (
? - -- -. , . . _ - . . ,-. -- ,, - . . - . . , , - . - . - . , . - . - - , - .
. 18 1 opposed to one of these other mechanisms? Why~is it more 2 benign that it was a shrinkage caused crack, I want to
, ( 3 understand that.
4 MR. TUMMINELLI: The other mechanism that was 5 considered was the possibility that the building could be 6 settling.
7 MS. DOUGHTY: And the concern about that is what, 8 if the building was settling?
9 ,
MR. WHITE: Why don't you run through what would 10 1x) an indication, Steve, of settling.
11 MR. TUMMINELLI: If tne building were to settle 12 you would have cracks at an inclination. You would see 13 inclined cracks that might look random in nature, depending 14 upon how the building was in fact settling.
15 And the question that is of concern is if the 16 building is settling when will it stop settling and at what 17 settlement will it finally stop.
18 There are two things about that. One is that the 19 crack pattern angles change as you walk along the wall. At 20 the end of -- in phase one near the cold joint they're 21 inclined 45 degrees upward to the right. In the third of 22 th- in phase two they're inclined approximately 60 23 degrees upward to the left. You work your_way down to the 24 right hand side of phase two they reverse again.
25 So there's an implication that if the buildino, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.f
19 1 for example, had been founded on spread footings, which it 2 is not, that some of those spread footings might have been
- , i[ 3 giving and there may be some uneven settlement in this wall, 4 that would be an indication the building was settling.
5 When we did the walkdown we did not see anywhere 6 near the number of cracks in this three foot wall, at any 7 inclination, as we observed in the two foot wall.
8 The two foot -- if the building was settling the 9 two foot wall could not exhibit significant cracks without 10 _the three foot thick wall below it, also exhibiting the same 11 kind of cracks; we didn't find that.
12 MR. ROMNEY: Where is the grade elevation of that 13 wall in relation to determination of the three foot wall, 14 and the two foot wall starts?
15 MR. TUMMINELLI: Well, the grade is here, I think 16 roughly elevation 20.
17 MR. ROMNEY: The grade is 20. And the upper 18 tcrminus of that three foot wall is what elevation?
19 MR. TUMMINELLI: 22, so it comes out two feet.
20 MR. ROMNEY: Now, when you did the walkdown of 21 that three foot wall you're just looking at the --
22 MR. TUMMINELLI: Top.
23 MR. ROMNEY: -- portion of upgrade.
24 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right. But what we saw was this, 25 a lot of these cracks come down in the two feet wall and Heritage Reportie.g Corporation (202) 6?H-4888
20 1 .they terminate. They_ don't go into the three foot wall.
2 MR. ROMNEY: At any time during construction and
( 3 before you backfilled that wall, did you see'any cracks in 4 that three foot wall, either on the outside or inside of the
. 5 pull.
6 MR. BROWN: There was no record of any, no. I 7 mean, not everybody -- I don't know who was there at the 8 time, I don't think anybody here was, but there was no 9 record of any. It was all normal QA process.
10 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right. There isn't any -- that's 11 not a normal inspection procedure. As long as the concrete 12 that goes in conforms to the design specifications you 13 wouldn't check for that.
14 MR. RICilARDSON: Check for what?
15 MR. TUMMINELLI: Check for crack patterns in the e
l 16 wall.
17 MR. CHAUDHARY: Of course you do. Those placement 10 examination is done for concrete up to 28 days.
19 MR. TUKMINELLI: Well, I understand that, but it's 20 not something where you would record crack patterns, for 21 example.
22 MR. CHAUDHARY: If there are extensive crack, if 23 there is extensive shrinkage that ought to be recorded. -
24 MR. TUMMINELLI: Then it would be documented as 25 such.
Heritage Reporting Corporation +
(202) 628-4888 g-i a
.-: 21 1 MR. CHAUDHARY: Yes, sir.
2 MR. BROWN: As far as cracks, they would not
, (~ 3- document it on non-conformance reports and so'forth, if 4 there were any.
. 5 MR. TUMMINELLI: It's extensive enough to worry 6 about.
7 MR. BROWN: If they had an engineering review.
8 MR. TUMMINELLI: Sure.
9 MR. SWEENEY: And I might add, I believe the NRC 10 staff who came up to the site and reviewed that did have 11 every opportunity to go through all the documentation from 12 all the pores,- et cetera; am I correct?
13 Is.that a yes?
14 MR. ROMNEY: Yes. But the point is that when wo 15 did the walkdown we were just looking at that portion of the I 16 wall that you could s<ae above grade surface.
17 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's correct. That's correct.
18 But that's enough, because in order to get cracking in this 19 wall due to settlement of this one, this one has to crack.
20 And it must be visible at the intersection between the two, 21 because if this were to go rigid body, the lower one were to 22 move rigid body for some reason or other, there would be no 23 cracks like this in this wall, there would be one some place 24 perhaps. We didn't have any of those indications.
25 MR. WHITE: To address one question, Jane, why we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O,
- , , - . - , -- - - - ---e---- r,-,, ,e,- ,n-, - , . , -.,-.-,--m--, - , - . ~ . + - m---- , ,,.v-, , ,- -v-- - , - - ~ ,- - - ---
22 I consider shrinkage cracks more benign than some other 2 mechanism. These cracks are extremely tight. You couldn't
( 3 put a pin into-the crack; shrinkage cracks are extremely 4 tight and not of a structural concern there. They can be
. 5 just a result of the normal concrete curing process.
6 Whereas a settlement crack, as Steve was saying, if it 7 continued it may grow bigger and become a concern.
8 So the reason to identify these and verify they 9 were shrinkage cracks was to verify that this very, very 10 pattern -- that this pattern very tight cracks was that. r 11 DR. REICH: Visibly, you saw no crack on the lower 12 portion.
13 MR. TUMMINELLI: We saw one, perhaps, for every 14 ten of these.
15 DR. REICH: Were they connected?
I 16 MR. TUMMINELLI: Yes. Which would indicate that 17 as this cures and begins to stretch it might in fact stretch 18 below a pinch.
19 DR. REICH: The two walls, the thicker one and the 20 thinner one were pored together?
21 MR. TUMMINELLI: No. The bottem was pored a 22 significant time prior to these placements. So for the 23 purpose of the analysis it was considered to have been 24 cured.
25 MR. CHAUDHARY: Are these walls connected --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
23 1 MR. TUMMINELLI: -?es, to the best of my 2 knowledge. MR.
'. 3 CHAUDHARY: The walls are continuous rebar, how long ago it-4 was pored becomes kind of a little less importar.a. Because
. 5 if there is a shrinkage crack which is shrink stress is very 6 large enough to cause so much crack up, those stresses ought 7 to be transferred down. Just because there is a 8 construction joint in between does not completely make it a 9 free body from each other.
1U MR. TUMMINELLI: It was considered fixed in the 11 analysis. The bottom of the wall in the analysis was 12 considered fixed. The fix coming from the three foot thick 13 wall in the continuous reinforced steel between.
14 MR. CHAUDHARY: My question is, the interface of 15 three feet to two feet wall, now you are saying --
~
16 emphasizing that the cracks are stopping at that interface.
17 MR. TUMMINELLI: By and large, that's true.
18 MR. CHAUDHARY: By and large. And those -- that 19 wall is actually connected tight so the interface -- the 20 construction joint which you keep reference as a cold joint, i 21 the construction joint went in the two feet and three feet i 22 wall is actually a fixed joint.
23 MR. TUMMINELLI: Yes.
l 24 MR. CRAUDHARY: Why cracks are stopping at that 25 point? Why isn't that being transferred down?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r
t i
, . _ . _ -.,,.,,e--__ ._.-___.__c_. ,...r,_. ..._,.y. _,._.,_r,,, .--._.,_,--r%mcy. e,m. _ , ,y.y.,._,.- .,,y,_m, ,
~'
. .24 1 EMR . TUMMINELLI: Two reasons. One, this way has
~
2 cured, and this is what is shrinking, the upper portion is
, (' 3 shrinking.
4 Secondly, this wall is 50 percent thicker.than the
- - 5 upper wall. So to maintain force equilibrium I must have 6 two-thirds of the stress down here as up there. So if I 7 -have the same strength concrete, a particular -- when the 8 concrete tries to develop force, and therefore begins to 9 . crack because it can't take the tensile stresses, you <
10 necessarily have to transfer that -- if I transfer that 11 force across the cold joint into the three foot thick wall
- 12. the stress in the three foot thick wall will only be 13 two-thirds as great because it is 50 percent thicker.
14 MR. CHAUDHARY: I'll have to think about it a 15 little bit more.
k 16 DR. MILLER: Actually, if the top section of the 17 wall is shrinking, that's going to be restrained from 18 shrinking, so it's going to put tension by the bottom wall ,
19 and just the opposite is going to happen to the bottom wall, 20 the bottom wall is going to be put in compression.
21 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right.
22 DR. MILLER: Because the top wall is trying to 23 shrink together and it's trying to push the bottom wall 24 together.
25 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4988
(
1
25 1 DR. MILLER: So'you would expect --
2- MR. TUMMINELLI: Termination of the cracks.
( -3 DR. MILLER: Less shrinkage.
4 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's right.
, 5 MR. BRINKMAN: Norm, did you take part in the 6 'outside visit inspection of the wall?
7 MR.'ROMNEY: No. The original inspection was done 8 by Region 1, then they turned it over to NRR. I did look at' 9 the inspection report. But I did go up and take a look at 10 the wall as a part of my review, and it was basically to 11 observe the crack pattern and to review what has been-done 12 by the region previously.
13 MR. BRINKMAN: Suresh, maybe you could give me 14 some -- in Region l's inspection did the region examine the 15 pore records and inspections or ask the licensee to look to A
%i 16 see li there was any records of cracking? Was there any 17 records that cracking was observed or not observed?
10 MR. CHAUDHARY: Records of cracking was not 19 observed. We did examine most of the placement records, as ,
20 much as we could. And at that time we were not able to find 21 any crack records from the regional --
22 MR. BRINKMAN: Into a three foot section?
23 MR. CHAUDHARY: Three or two, either way.
24 MR. DRINKMAN: Okay. ,
25 MR. CHAUDHARY: Either way.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
. 13 6 1 DR. REICH: You're saying that you didn't -- your 2 records don't indicate cracking in the two foot wall either?
, (- 3- MR. CHAUDilARY: Not to my knowledge. I don't 4 recall seeing any extensive record for that. There may be, 5 you know, I did not -- we looked -- I did not go 100 6- percent, you know,-the records of the cooling tower; we did 7 random. Of what we found I don't recall we have seen any.
8 DR. REICH: When did you do your inspection? How 9 long after the pore?-
10 MR. CHAUDHARY: In 1986, '87.
11 DR. REICH: And there were no cracks?
2 MR. CHAUDHARY: Oh, there were cracks --
13 DR. REICH: You didn't report it.
14 MR. CHAUDHARY: We're talking about, there is no 15 placement records. See, what we found, that's why we are f; 16 here.
17 MR. BROWN: Is there a question in that?
10 DR. REICH: No, my question was if he saw 19 anything. Obviously the records -- he didn't have records 20 period. He doesn't know whether he saw them or not --
21 whether people saw something or not.
22 MR. BRINKMAN: But I think the point is that he 23 looked to see if there was any previous records of cracking 24 and did not see any.
25 MR. ROMNEY: Now, when we went up and Iceked at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 g.
27 1 the wall, during our part of the review, it was consistent 2 that the cracks were, for the most part, confined to the two
, ( 3 foot section of the wall. Although we aid find a few much 4 less in the three foot section. But weldi-d havs a question 5 about, you know, what was the pattern below grade and we 6 really couldn't get into that.
7 MR. BRINKMAN: And that's exactly what I was 8 getting at is, at least the pore records and subsequent 9 inspections did not disclose, at least no record, of cracks 10 in the three foot section.
11 DR. REICH: Can I just clarify for myself. I 12 understood him correctly, he didn't have a record for the 13 two foot section either of cracks; am I wrong? Are you 14 saying there were no records for both?
15 MR. CHAUDHARY: I cannot say for sure. I don't 16 recall whether I saw it or not.
17 MR. TUMMINELLI: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you 10 would only find reports like that if when the forms were 19 stripped the cracks were judged to be excessive. If you did 20 not see latents coming out of these cracks, I doubt whether 21 yoo would judge these cracks to be excessive.
22 MR. WHITE: On the end of the building in the 23 variance of left or right end,.the eart and west sides of 24 the building is the electrical room which does not have 25 water as in the basis, obviously, and there is some very, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
o, ,
28
~
1 very fine tight indications. They're also:very difficult to 2 see.
, (' -3 That would be the sarne thing in the middle part 4 where the basin is except, you know, there is water behind
. 5 it. We got a little bit of a leaching which has since.
6 stopped. So that's why it was visible at the time Norm and 7 Suresh were up.
8 DR. REICH: Which was about a year later at the 9 time which he said he saw it.
10 MR. WHITE: It was eight years after the pores 11 were done and about a year after water was put in the basin.
12 MR. CHAUDHARY: Region 1 saw the crack first time 13 when we were on site on the first week of November '86, and 14 since then we kept looking and investigating. Our final 15 report came out in July -- our last inspection was there May k 16 of '87, and that was '87 or '-6 report.
17 And whatever we found that is in the report. I 18 believe we have to hold this stuff for documentation which 19 the review is also attached in there. And it is so long --
20 I can't say for sure what I saw, what I didn't see at the 21 time.
22 MR. WHITE: 8707.
23 MR. CHAUDHARY: 8707, thats right.
24 -
DR. REICH: '87 is -- I know that chuck Miller saw 25 the cracks. We had an internal report.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
3 E
--. 29 1 MR. TUMMINELLI: More?
2 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes, I do have another question.
, ( 3 These records that we're talking about of-cracking that 4 .there would have been, they would have been developed fairly 5 quickly after the concrete pores; is that right?
6 MR. TUMMINELLI: The majority of the cracks would 7 have developed 30, ;aaybe 60 days at the most.
d 8 MS. DOUGHTY: If there was settling?
9 MR. TUMMINELLI: If there was settling, can occur, 10 usually as soon as the building begins to build up dead 11 weight. So in that case it would have begun after the 12 building was constructed and perhaps tha basin fillet with 13 water.
14 MS. DOUGHTY: So you wouldn't expect that the 15 settling might have been a phenomenon that developed some (J 16 time thereafter and that the original inspection for ll 17 cracking might rat have showed up anytning, but now that 18 time has passci you might have cre.cks you wouldn't ~have ..
19 expected te what you saw initially from settling?
20 MR. SWEENEY: This is Ron Sweeney, I have one 21 question. Jane, if you have any information with regards 22 to, if this is a settling issue, please identify it so we .
23 can get it into our discussions here.
24 From my understanding ELP has submitted to the NRC 25 and we've had some opport_nity to discuss what they had Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888
(
._, 30 :
1 ' brought up. If you have some additional information which 2 the NRC should know about with regards to this issue, maybe
, (- -3 being a settling issue, please identify it and bring it 4 forward.
. 5 MS. DOUGHTY: Well, my questions are just about 6 the analysis that's done. I don't have any additional 7 information --
8 MR. SWEENEY: You have no additional information.
9 Thank you.
10 MS, DOUGHTY: -- other than what ELP has, no.
11 MR. BRINKMAN: At this time I have copies of the 12 attendance list and I will provide.a copy to everybody that 13 is here. I'll hand them out now.
14 MR. WHITE: That's the outline of the analysis and 15 we'll entertain specific questions on the techniques, j 16 results. If you want to see the details of the calculation 17 we have them here. If you want to see the computer output 18 we have that here. We have the model on file on machine 19 right now.
20 MR. BRINKMAN: Go ahead.
i 21 MR. ROMNEY: Yes. I would like if you get into a 22 discussion of the constraint equations that you had at the j 23 boundaries and how they change each time you ran a different 24 phase.
l 25 MR. TUMMINELLI: Okay. The full model is shown l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l ( '
~---,y e .._.---,- 4.,_-,-,.n._,m, ,,.,_,,,7y, ,,y, ,,p,.,, - _ , . , , . , , , _ , , . _ , , , , _ , , . _ , _
.- 31 1 here. 'You can see I have a~significant number of plane 2 stress elements in this model. At these tick marks they are
, ( 3 the cold joints. This line here, for examplo, is_really two 4 sets of nodes one-hundredth of an inch apart, you cannot see
. 5 on this-plot.
6 This table shows the phase analysis, the applied 7 ten.perature which are always itegative, cooling temperatures 8 for each of the phases, and the constraint equations that 9 were applied at the time.
10 These analyses are done for the end of eac' t hase, 11 okay. For example, phase one there were not constraint 12- equations.
13 When I did the analysis for the end of phase two I 14 applied full constraint equations at cold joint one, Delta 15 X, Delta Y, both in plane displacements constrained one to k 16 the other.
17 MR. ROMNEY: Wait a minute now. When you did the 10 analysis of phase two the constraint equations between one 19 and two, at the cold joint between one and two they were 20 fixed.
21 MR. TUMMINELLI: They were imposed.
21 MR. ROMNEY: At the beginning of the analysis --
23 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's correct.
24 DR. REICH: So you assume there was no movement, 25 relative movement?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m3 6'
$.. 32 1 MR. TUMMINELLI: Gentlemen, after one_or two days 2 the concrete is pretty much up there. That's true. In_this_
, ( 3 type of calculation would also impose a stress distribution 4' in the vertical direction, for example, which is the result
- 5 of the phase one cured wall applying constraint to the phase 6 two. That's what causes the stress trajectories to turn 7 around.
O MR. ROMNEY: I guess what I'm getting at, when you 9 say constraint equations, you're really talking about the 10 nodal points _ that you're fi: ting them in terms of the 11 displacement or movements.
12 MR. TUMMINELLI: The word constraint equation is 13 ANSYS terminology, okay.
14 MR. ROMNEY: But what -- just fixing the nodes for 15 then movement or --
h 16 MR. TUMMINELLI: No. I define -- what I say,by 17 constraint equations is that I define that along the joint 10 all of the nodes at cold joint one from phase two must 19 displace exactly the same as all of the nodes at cold joint 20 one from phase one.
21 I impose that on the stiffness matrix at the phase 22 two calculations. And I continue to do that as I go 23 through. I never remove the constraint equations once 24 they're applied. For example, when I do the end of phase
. 25 three I apply constraint equations -- I add constraint fleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r
R l _ ._.__
..: ~33 1 equations at cold joint two; the constraint equations at 2 cold joint one remain.
, ( 3 DR. REICH: But when you're doing three you're 4 ~ saying that the end two has the same movement as two had
. 5 before when it ended. When you finished your analysis of 6 two that movement remains, right* is that what you're 7 saying? Clarify it.
8 MR. TUMM1NELLI: Each calculation is done with a 9 separate set of temperature reductions. When you look at 10 the total displace patterns, as I add them up, you will see 11 an opening between two and three which results from the 12 deflection at cold joint two from the phase two 13 calculations They were allowed to move at that time, 14 perhaps, a tenth of an inch or on that order.
15 DR. REICH: There were three.
16 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's correct. Obviously, when 17 the phase three wall was pored it filled the gap.
18 Analytically I cannot reproduce that with this type of 19 analysis.
20 DR. MILLER: Steve, you had mentioned a couple of 21 times the hunocedth of an inch --
22 MR. TUMMINELLI: Right.
23 DR. MILLER: -- difference.
- 24 MR. TUMMINELLI
- Why did I do that?
25 DR. MILLER: Why did you do that?
i .
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 1
e <
/.
34 1 MR. TOMMIHELLI: Okay. ANSYS has a feature that 2 allows me to select various nodes as a function of their i, , 3 geometry. All right. For exemple, let's say -- I can't 4 remember the. exact number, but let's say that.the left hand
. 5- side of cold joint two is en X coordinate of 800 inches.
6 The X coordinate on the right hand side of cold joint two 7 would be at 800.01 inches.
8 Now, to apply temperatures on phase two I can 9 select nodes that has an X coordinate between cold joint one 10 and 800.005 inches. I pick a number that's in the middle of 11 the cold joint.
12 ANSYS, the program then goes in and selects only 13 those nodes. Then I can apply Delta temperatures to all 14 celected nodes, and it's really an analytical convenience 15 for me as opposed to going in and specifying every node 16 number. I have 610 node numbers, I believe, and I would 17 have to specify them number by number. So this really 18 allowed me to take advantage of some of the capabilities of 19 the ANSYS program. It minimizes my potential for error.
20 I say to the program, just pick all of the nodes 21 in here and it goes and does it and it leaves the right hand 22 side of cold joint two alone.
23 DR. REICH: You assume uniform temperature of each 24 phase?
25 MR. TUMMINELLI: Yes. For every phase. Only for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
35 1 the various phases, yec, and hore'they are hero.
2 DR. MILLER: The spaciant cracks that you get, I especially in segment three where you use a function of the :
4 other jam, I presume, pretty much it cracks every element.
. 5 MR. TURMINELLI: .The calculations only show 6 principal. stresses horizontally across. The actual 7 distribution of cracking is a function of the size and 8 spacing of the reinforcing steel.
9 DR. MILLER: That's what I wanted to get. Yes, 10 that was the point I really wanted to get to, to look at the 11 correlation between the model results and the picture of the 12 wall, you really should only look at directions and not ;
i 13 really how --
14 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's correct.
15 DR. MILLER: -- something you know ever getting 16 out of your analysis.
17 MR. TURMINELLI: That's correct. The analysis to 18 predict something like that would be far more sophisticated i 19 than what was used here.
20 DR. MILLER: Yes, other kind of considerations.
21 MR. ROMNEY: Did the output give you the 22 direction. You just said that it shows the stress as being 23 horizontal, but does it also give a Delta in there in terms 24 of an orientation of the principal stress angle?
25 MR. TUMMINELLI: I can plot -- I plot them.
lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
o- 36 1 MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you plot them.
2' MR. TUMMINELLI: I can plot them. I can pull the -
. (' 3 specific angles off the file if I have to.
4 MR. ROMNEY: I see.
5 MR.-TUMMINELLI: But the program has a very i 6 powerful feature. For example, in figure--- figure 25.as an 7 example, those are arrows -- the length of the-arrow is 8 proportional to the magnitude of the stress and its 9 direction is the direction of the stress on the element.
10 So it was very easy. I plot these up A size and I :
11 plot them up E size, and then I get something that-I can 12 work with by hand to draw the cracks in.
13 DR. MILLER: These plots, Steve, are already some 14 stresses?
15 MR. TUMMINELLI: Yes.
16 DR. MILLER: So you go through --
17 MR. TUMMINELLI: I just add -- I add one to two 18 and get an equivalent for the end of phase two.
19 DR. MILLER: All we would have to do is look at i
20 these plots and really see where the cracks are. [
t 21 MR. TUMMINET.LI : I can bring up any one you like; 22 I'm on line here.
23 MR. ROMNEY: Why don't you. ,
24 MR. TUMMINELLI: What would you like to see?
25 DR. MILLER: An interesting one would be really Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 ,
i
.- 37 1
1 the wall five. I guess wall four after phase four -- four 2 and.then after phase five.
(, 3 (Computer being used.)
4 MR. TUMMINELLI: In the individual phase data, and
, S you can see that titles como up. For example, a. low step l 6 two is phase two which is from day 79 to day 110; three is f 7 from 110 to 116. '
i 8 DR. MILLER: So the whole model is there for every.
9 node step. I note that the zero and nothing happens.
1 10 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's right. I fix -- in f..ct, 11 in order to maintain speed I just fix the DOF and the 12 program never deals with it. It just sets into zero.
. 13 For example, this is the display shape for load 14 case five which is the bottom line. Everything is cooled to 15 those Delta Ts and the model is fiilly constrained.
16 The most displacement is at four, five which is 17 cooled to minus 145 degrees. The ends come in a little bit.
. 18 MR. ROMNEY: That is the deflected shape. -
19 MR. TUMMINELLI: That is the deflected shape. I 20 can bring up the principal stress trajectories for load case 21 five all by themselves don't have any meaning. I have to 22 add them to the preceding placement. -
1 23 Let me bring it up and put the outline of the
! 24 undeflected shape on the plot.
25 What I did here you see the stars next to these D i
! Heritage Reporting Corporation .
j (202) 628-4888 l ( !
1 l
E
. 38 1 scales, I set those. That's not a star. Further down here, 2 I. set these parameters so that this comes out to exactly the
, ( 3 same' scale. The program would have given me this full size.
4 As you can see the maximum shrinkage is~at the
- 5 145. The 96 before is still significant.
6 Just to really -- two or three days the -- I used 7 all of the generation techniques. In fact, what I had to do 8 was after I generated the model I had to go in at every cold 9 joint, blow it up and get the node numbers out, so that I 10 could constrain them.
11 MR. TUMMINELLI: Tour straightened out, five 12 is --
13 MR. ROMNEY: Right.
14 MR. TUMMINELLI. Which would lead you to small 15 angular crack here which terminates as phase four cures, 16 when phase five is put in and close it again, the crack may 17 start up again, indeed, it would most likely start at the 18 termination of the previous crack but it would be vertical.
19 MR. ROMNEY: That's why you're getting the second 20 pattern.
21 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's why I get the second 72 pattern, both at cold joints four and at two. Cold joint 23 two there. On phase two there's a tank.
24 (Pause) 25 MR. TUMMINELLI: Tne shrinkage strain with time heritage Reporting Corpolation (202) 628-4888
( '
. l
.- 39 i
1 goes acidotic, rises v0ry fast. The end of phase one, just ;
2 graphically now, 101 degrecs, maybe a coincident with it f,1 3 being at that point on the shrinkage strain curve.
4 A certain period of time must elapse to calculate 5 the end of phase two which would be this distance in time ,
, 6 out to here. Okay.
7 Phase one Delta T is calculated based on a 8 shrinkage stre.in from here.to here for that calculation ,
9 which gives me the nine degrees.
10 Phase two Delta T, however, is calculated using 11 that same length but starting at the beginning. So its 12 Delta T would rise up something like that to 68.
13 All of these have to be indexed on the stressed 14 strain, on the shrinkago strain curve beginning from zero 15 but indexed in time. That's where these temperatures come 16 from.
17 MR. ROMNEY: What -- phase five, it jumps back up [
10 to 30, is that because of the difference in time? !
?
19 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's because phase five goes ;
I 20 from the end of phase four to infinity. Wherever I was I 21 took it all out at the end. ,
22 DR. MILLER: If you add up all those columns it i
23 would add up to 145.
24 MR. TUMMINELLI: That's correct. They all add up 25 to 145, one of the checks we made. l i
j lieritage Reporting Corporation ;
- (202) 628-4888
! t i
i ( \
t f
,: 40 ;
1 MR. ROMNEYs Where is that? ;
l 2 MR. TUMMINELLI: First chapter it Wang and Salmon, q
, ( 3 (Pause) l 4 MR. TUMMINELLI Rather than sit there and l 5 correlate lengths of lines to stress,_the program has the
'l
[
6 ' capability to simply select all elements in this analysis :
7 with the maximum-principal stress between 500 PSI and 9
0 infinity. And then it has the capability to plot the ;
9 outlines of that element accumulation, which are the figures 10 that go with the principal stress plots in the report. ;
t 11 I plotted those up E size. I lald that line, 12 those lines over this plot. I laid that on top of it. At 13 the end of phase one I simply drew lines perpendicular to !
14 the principal stress trajectorier, but I never went outside f
- 15 the boundary of the elements selected by the program.
'k 16 So, for example, on this one, these cracks here l 17 occur during the phasc- one pore all by itself, which is 18 there. These cracks here occur after I put phase two on it ,
19 and add them up.
l 20 The trajectories changed and the number of f 21 elements that have principal stress in excess of 500 PSI I h
22 grows. I have a different boundary to work with. And I i 23 simply draw from the line I had previously drawn to the new t
i 24 boundary. [
25 MR. BRINKMAN: Anything else you would like to
[
i i
! Heritage Reporting Corporation [
- (202) 628-4888 ;
)
{' i r
i
o 41 1 look at?
2 DR. REICH: This is something that Chuck had gone
, , 3 over of what we want to be done. Maybe for the record just l
4 put down that the basin wasn't filled with water until '87 l 5 or so. So just that you know that it's one year of that, 6 and that's why you notice the leak change after one year.
7 Before that you couldn't see the leak change. l l
8 MR. BRINKMAN: Norm, anything eles you want to I 1
9 look at, at this time?
10 MR. WHITE: Just to correct that for the record, I 11 think we filled the basin in '86. It would have been late.
12 DR. REICH: So it took a year for the leak change 13 actually to nrose, visibly form.
14 MR. BRINKMAN: Where it was visible, yes, 15 MR. BRINKMAN: Suresh, do you have anything you k 16 want to --
17 MR. CHAUDilARY : Not really.
18 MR. BRINKMAN: Are we done then? Have you seen 19 everything you want to?
20 DR. MILLER: I think based on our visits a year 21 ago I think what we asked for was to do some kind of 22 analysis that would demonstrate that shrinkage could have 23 caused cracks to occur in directions that were observed, And 24 I think this analysis certainly does that.
25 MR. BRINKMAN: Anything else, Morris?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e
.. - 42 .
1 MR. BRINKMAN: Charles, anything else?
2 Mr. Reich?
I, , - 3 DR. REICH: No.
4 MR. BRINKMAN: I guess we might as well adjourn
. 5 the meeting then.
6 MS. TALDOT: May we ask some questions? !
7 MR. BRINKMAN: I'm sorry, it is not permitted in 8 meetings of this type. You are here as observers and I 9 believe that's it. That's the policy of the Commission.
10 MR. ROMNEY: I think that's noted also on your 11 June 9th memorandum to Dick Westwood on this meeting, noted 12 as a footnote down at the bottom of the -- notice is a note 13 to that effect of the NRC's policy statement.
14 MR. BRINKMAN: If there's nothing further then 15 we can -- go ahead.
16 MR. ROMNE'. : In terms of what we're going to do 17 internally from here on out.
18 MR. BRINKMAN: Internally now the staff will --
. 19 NRR has been requested to assist Region 1 in this [
t 20 investigation. NRR will provide Region I with a report on T 21 this which will -- I believe Region 1 will then use that to l 22 resolve the issue and issue a final inspection report on 23 this. ,
24 If that's it, then the meeting is adjourned. .
42 5 Heritage Reporting Corporation f l (202) 628-4888 l 1
i
o 43 1 Thank you.
2 (Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m. the meeting was
, ( 3 adjourned.)
4
. 5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 k 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lioritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I e
a .
e.
1 CERTIFICATE 2
. -( 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the :
( United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of
- 5 Names. Public Service of New Hampshire, Seabrook 6
7 Docket Number: 50-443 8 Placer Boston, Massachusetts 9 Date: Juay 8, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and tho- nis is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the dirst ua 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate record of the orego ng proceedings. ;
16 /S/ -
- F c< m M f 17 (Signature typed): K. C. Sekander ;
E 18 official Reporter l
19 Heritage Reporting Corporation i
20 ;
21 22 ,
23 <
24 (
, 25 I i
f
( Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation !
.,- _.-..,.., ,._ ,