ML20211D347
| ML20211D347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1288 OL, NUDOCS 8610220175 | |
| Download: ML20211D347 (168) | |
Text
ORIGINAL G.
UN11 ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY .
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
~
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 14747 - 14912 DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1986 78.0/v\
Re% o DocM"1 # %'c e H # / - // ST -
! & ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.
i Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street 86102f;@bs $kkOoNs6 Washington, D.C. 20001 jDR "" FDR (202)347-3700 NATIOMVIDE COVERAGE
28610 14747 5
v' 1
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
__-___-___________x 6 :
In the Matter of: :
7 : Docket No. 50-456 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 8 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
9 and 2) :
__________________x 10 11 Page: 14,747 - 14,912
, -, , 12
(_ , '
United States District Court House 13 Courtroom 1919 Chicago, Illinois 60604 14 Thursday, October 16, 1986 15 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 17 at 11:00 A. M.
18 BEFORE:
19 JUDG E HERB ERT G ROSSMAN, Ch ai rman 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D. C.
22 J UDG E RICH ARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
24 4 25 J UDG E A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sonntag Renor tina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14748 r,
i \
'\_/
1 Washington, D. C.
2 APPEARANCES:
3 On behalf of the Applicant:
4 MI CH A EL I. MILLER, ESQ.
PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, E90.
5 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaz a 6 Chicago, Illinois 60602 7
on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 8 Commission Staff:
9 GRDGORY ALAN BERRY, E SQ .
ELAINE I. CHAN, E SQ .
10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 11 Bethesda, Ma ryland 20014
,m
(' 12 On behalf of the Intervenor:
%/
)
13 ROB ERT GUILD, E SQ .
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
! 22 1
23 l
24 25 SonntaLReporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14749
! l
%J l EXHIBIT INDEX MARKED R ECE IV ED 2 Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 164
.and 165 14759 14768 3
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 166 14760 14768 4
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 167 14768 14778 5
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 168 14799 14804 6
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 169 14807 14844 7
Intervenors' Exhibi t No. 170 14839 14844 8
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 171 14851 14862 9
Intervenoru' Exhibit No. 172 14864 10
! 11 LJ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l 24 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14750 O
1 TESTIMONY OF 2 THOMAS B. TH ORSELL KENNETH THOMAS KOSTAL 3
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 4 BY MR. GUILD: 14752 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
)
12 13 14 15 16 i
17 i 18 f
19 l
- 20 i 21 22 23 l
24 i
Sonntag E porting service,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14751 (w ./
)
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 75th day of hearing.
3 I take it your discovery was f ruitf ul and the Board 4 isn't being called upon to resolve any problems?
5 MR. GUILD: No, si r.
6 Applicant was helpf ul, and Mr. Kostal's associates 7 spent time with me, and it was quick, and we'll see if 8 we can communicate the substance of what we identified 9 were the basis for a number of changes.
10 I understand that, again, with the cooperation of l 1 11 Applicant, copies of a number of documents that we
\ _-
12 discussed this morning are available in suf ficient 13 number that the aoard and parties can follow along, and 14 I appreciate their assistance on that.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Eine. Thank you.
16 Any other preliminary matters?
17 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, it's just that 18 last night in reviewing the bases for the changes, we 19 got a better understanding of what they were.
20 I think Mr. Guild will take the witness through 21 those changes.
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I think maybe we should have 23 taken yesterday af ternoon of f and started this morning.
424 But, in any event, let's proceed now --
Sonntag Repor tina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14752 J,
i LJ l JUDGE CALLIH AN: I have a correction.
2 I would like to refer to Intervenors' Exhibit 155B, 3 Page 14, that we discusded yesterday afternoon, also, 4 and I'd like to withdraw, and apologize, my challenge of 5 the unit f or torque or f or moment.
6 What is there is correct; and yesterday I thought 7 the moment of iner tia was moment of force.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
10 Mr. Guild.
( ) 11 CROSS EXAMINATION v
12 (Continued) 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 0 Mr. Kostal, let's start there, if we can, where Judge 15 Callihan pointed us to, Page 14 of Inte rvenors' E xhibit 16 1558.
17 Now, in the lower right-hand corner, there is an 18 X'd-through portion of the calc, the original calc.
19 And th4.s calc again refers to the analysis of the 20 defect with respect to weld size for the connection of 21 the longitudinal member, the brace, to the gusset plate, 22 which, in turn, is attached to the vertical hanger 23 com ponent ; correct?
424 A (WI TNES S KOSTAL) Correct.
Sonntag_Reportino service. i.t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14753 YJ l Q All right.
2 Now, do I understand correctly that because this --
3 that in order to evaluate this weld discrepancy for its 4 design significance, you have.to consider the effects of 5 the discrepancy at the centroid of the two welds that 6 are relevant? Those are the welds on either side of the 7 gusset plate, either side of the gusset plate -- the 8 portion of the gusset plate to which the longitudinal 9 brace is connected?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
[ ) 11 Q And, therefore, th e r eviewe r -- or the evaluator
' wJ 12 performed a calculation using two systems of 13 coordinates, and that in order to translate the analysis 14 performed initially, using a series of coordinates, to 15 the appropriate reference point -- that being the 16 centroid of the two welds -- that there were two --
17 there were analyses using two sets of coordinates, a 18 global coordinate and a local coordinate, and the 19 analysis had to be translated f rom the global-coordinate 20 analysis to the local-coordinate analysis reflecting the 21 analysis at the centroid of the two welds?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Correct.
23 0 All right, sir.
24 Now, the first evalua tor in the marked-through Sonntag Repor ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14754 i
')
1 portion of the calculation did, indeed, make tha t 2 translation to the centroid of the two welds, and that 3 analysis using the initial assumptions, initial data and 4 initial methodology produced the calculated value of 5 design margin of 1.03, 3 percent design margin?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Correct.
7 Q All right.
8 Now, I believe there's a -- you were kind enough *o 9 prepare a drawing reflecting the orientation of the 10 local and global coordinates with respect to this
[ j 11 particular discrepancy.
12 Perhaps if I could -- well, sorry.
13 MR. GUILD: In any event, Mr. Chairman, 14 members of the Board, Mr. Kostal has a diagram that he 15 described to me today that depicts those two sets of 16 coordinates, the local coordinates at the centroid of 17 the weld and the global coordinates with reference to 18 the longitudinal brace, and I think it would be helpf ul 19 to look a t that.
20 I understand it's being copied, and we'll have that 21 momentarily.
22 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Fine.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
424 Q All right, sir.
Sonntag_ Rep _Qrting Service. Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14755 i
1 Now, let's talk a little more generally about the 2 bases for 'the two calculations.
3 First, as you noted properly yesterday, the calc 1
4 refers to a Revision 4 to your Calculation Procedure j 5 19.3.17
{ 6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
l 7 .Q And yet I take it that. the revision to the calculation 8 procedure, to the best of your knowledge, does not j 9 account for changes in the calculations? You didn't 10 make any change to the calculation methodology by those 11 revisions to the procedure, did you?
(
! 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
l
- 13 Q All right.
i 14 You surmised yesterday that the change in the 4
~15 calculations might have depended on the use of a l
16 Braidwood-specific seismic response spectra.
! 17 I believe overnight you determined that, inde ed, i
18 the Braidwood-specific seismic response spectra was used I 19 for the initial calculation as well as the revised i
20~ calculation?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
22 0 And, therefore, consideration of a Braidwood-specific 23 seismic response spectra does not account for any 24 changes in the calculational result?
i l
Sonntag_Reptor ting service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
(312) 232-0262
14756
[. !
'J l A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
2 0 Now, you also told me that you identified that the 3 changes did not result in any change in the computer 4 model or the methodology for analysis between the first 5 calculation and the second calculation?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
7 Q All right.
8 That the changes are -- were f rom two sources, 9 having to do with the data that was used in the second 10 calculation, and that the data represented the analysis
( ) 11 of the cable loadings on the cable pan hanger in 12 question, Cable Pan Hanger 104, and differing values 13 used in the second calculation as compared to the first 14 for those cable loadings?
15 A (WI TNESS . KOS TAL) Tha t's correct.
16 The first calculation was based on the -- a unit 17 load of 45 pounds per square foot in the pans, which was 18 the initial assumed load at the beginning of the 19 pr oj e ct.
20 The second computer analysis took into account the 21 actual cable pan -- cable weights that existed in the 22 pan at that point in time.
23 Q All right.
424 The 45-pound loading was the design basis for the Sonntag_Repor ting Se rviceulAd.
< Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14757
)
J l cable pan hanger in question?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, the initial design 3 basis, yes.
4 0 All right, sir.
5 One set of data that accounts for the change in 6 calculational result was dif ferent loadings.
7 And as I understand the additional piece of data 8 that was considered in the second calculation, not in 9 the first, was a change in the location of one of the 10 cable pans that runs through the hanger?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
12 Q And that that change in location of the cable pan 13 running .through this hanger was based on an inspection 14 or identification of the as-built location of that pan 15 in the field?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) What I said was we would -- I didn' t 17 know the source of the change in the location, but we 18 would go back into our data base and determine that 19 change, where it originated from.
20 0 Well, I appreciate that, and that's right.
21 You said, in particula r, tha t you didn't know 22 whether it was a result of the Rev A Sargent & Lundy 23 walkdown identifying the actual location of that pan or 4 24 whether it was, for example, a result of the CSR Sonatag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14758 l
'v 1 inspector who inspected the cable pan population for the 2 attributes of location or some other source.
3 But, indeed, you do understand it to represent the 4 as-built location of that cable pan from whatever source 5 you got that information?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7 0 All right.
8 And I appreciate you did say that you would make an 9 ef f ort to determine where that came f rom.
10 All right, sir. So that the two changes that
) 11 account f or the new calculation are the loadings of the
(
12 cable pan hanger, the cable loadings, and the location 13 of the one pan?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
15 0 All right, si r.
16 Now, I saw some of your associates come in, and 17 perhaps they have copies of the documents.
18 MR. GUILD: If I could have a moment, Mr.
19 Chairman.
20 Cff the record.
21 (There followed a discussion outside the 22 record.)
23 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Back on the record.
24 MR. GUILD: Judge, I'm going to hand up one Jonatag_Rcporting_se rvice,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14759 a
1 other document.
2 The first document I handed up says "DV-22 3 Coordinate Systems" on it, and I'm now handing up a 4 document that says " Local Coordinate System" in the 5 upper lef t-hand corner.
6 (Indicating.)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. The first one is 8 Intervenors' Exhibit 164, and that one, as you 9 indicated, has a DV-22, and then Inte rvenors' E xhibit 10 165 has that " Local Coordinate System" on the left side.
[' )
~~
11 (The documents were thereupon marked 12 Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 164 and 165 13 for identification as of October 16, 14 1986.)
15 MR. GUILD: Does the NRC Staf f have a copy of 16 both documents?
17 MR. BERRY: Yes. Thank you.
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) All three of them; right?
19 MR. GUILD: Yes. I haven't handed them all 20 up yet.
21 And, Mr. Chairman, 166 is --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. B ut you kn ow tha t th e
, 23 Reporter hasn't yet gotten his copies of 164 and 165?
l 24 MR. GUILD: All right. I'll get them.
SonntaG_RepMtino Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - .. - ~ . . = _ - _ _ - _ . - - -. .- . _. . _ - . - - . . .
14760 1 The third is entitled "DV-7 Coordinate Systems. "
- 2 It's the third series of documents.
3 (In dica ting . )
4 And I'm providing copies to the Reporter, Mr.
l S Chairman.
6 (Indicating.)
7 (The document was thereupon marked 8 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 166 for 9 identification as of October 16, 1986.)
i' 10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q All right.
12 Mr. Kostal, I believe the Board --
13- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Have you given the Reporter 14 time to mark it?
15 MR. GUILD: He's got them marked.
I 16 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the i'
18 Board and parties and the Reporter all have copies now 19 of what have been marked as Intervenors' 164, 165 and 20 166,.
i 21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q And, Mr. Kostal, can you start with 165, please, and 23 tell us what the two syctems of coordinates are that are 24 depicted on that drawing?
I.
I Sonn_ tag _Repor ting se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14761 kv 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r.
2 The system in the lower right-hand corner is the 3 global coordinate system which defines, the n , th e 4 location of that hanger within a global framework, and 5 it defines it in terms of X, Y and Z, which relate to 6 the -- looking at this particular hanger -- the X is in 7 the direction which would be east and west as you are 8 looking at this hanger, the'Y is in the vertical 9 direction and Z is in the perpendicular direction to the 10 hanger, which is in the north-south orientation.
( ) 11 The local coordinate system is the system used to L ,/
12 define the individual members within the hanger, and the 13 local coordinate system defines A along the axis of the 14 diagonal member, B perpendicular to the A axis and 15 perpendicular in the vertical direction, and C 16 perpendicular in the horizontal direction to the A axis.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 Now, the drawing that you have depicted for the 19 local coordinate system depicts the fit-up gap weld 20 discrepancy related to the diagonal member of the 21 hange r --
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
23 Q -- for Cable Pan Hanger 104?
424 All right. Now, applying that local coordinate to SonntaG_ Reporting se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14762 7
\ ]
v 1 the other principal significant defect that was analyzed 2 in Cable Pan Hanger 104 -- and that was the longitudinal 3 brace to gusset plate -- or the gusuet plate connection 4 involving the longitudinal brace, look at Intervenors' 5 164, and would you describe the orientation of local 6 coordinates with respect to that discrepant condition, 7 please ?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
9 The key is the -- is located at the bottom of 10 Exhibit 164.
-~
[s) 11 It shows dashed lines, which will represent the 1/
12 local coordinate system for the longitudinal diagonal 13 member. Those are large capital letters A, B and C 14 If you look at the sketch, you will notice, in the 15 dashed lines, the local axis A is along the axis of the 16 longitudinal diagonal member; the local coordinate axis 17 B is perpendicular to that longitudinal axis A in a 18 vertical direction; and the local coordinate axis C is 19 perpendicular to the local axis A in a horizontal 20 direction.
21 Q All righ t, sir.
22 Again, the global coordinates are with respect to g- 23 e as t-we s t, north-south and ver tical?
/ \
( ! 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct. The X is in the v
Sonntaa Repor tino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois' 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
14763
]
us 1 east-west direction, th e Z is in the north-south 2 direction and the Y is in the vertical direction; and 3 that is a consistent orientation that exists on Exhibit 4 165, also.
5 Q All righ t, si r.
6 And how about the shif ted axes, the lower case a, b 7 and c, with regard to Intervenors' Exhibit 164?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That defines, based on this dashed 9 dot line, the -- and it's using the lower case a, b and 10 c -- that represents the axis at the centroid of the
( ) 11 weld in question, which is the weld made between the wj 12 gusset plate and the vertical tube steel membe r.
13 That local system shows a being --
14 Q Let me interrupt you for a second.
15 You said centroid of the weld, singular, or welds, 16 plural?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) W elds.
18 Q Welds, plural ?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) there are two welds on this particular 20 attachment on either side of this gusset plate.
21 Q We are considering the effects of the discrepancy on 22 bo th of th em ; th er ef or e, the centroid of the two welds 23 is the relevant point of reference?
424 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's corr ect.
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14764
)
(' _/
1 Q All right.
2 A (WITNES KOSTAL) The A axis is in the north-south I
3 orientation, the B axis is in the vertical orientation 4 perpendicular to the A axis, and the C axis is in the 5 horizontal orientation also perpendicular to the A axis.
6 Q All right, sir.
7 Finally, Intervenors' 166 depicts the fit-up gap 8 defects -- again, the diagonal brace -- and represents 9 .the application of the local and global coordinates to 10 that particular discrepant condition?
[ 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
12 0 All right, si r.
13 Now, for . that particular discrepancy -- that is, (
14 the fit-up gap discrepancy -- there is no necessity for 15 deriving a shifted axis -- that is, by analogy to f 16 Intervenors' 164, a lower case a, b, c coordinate 17 system -- and that is because the analysis is 18 performed -- you don't need to derive the centroid --
19 the centroid of the -- strike that.
20 The point of analysis is, indeed, the local (
21 coordinates that are shown on Intervenors' 166?
22 A (WITNESS .KOSTAL) Maybe if I could clarify it for you 23 just a little bit.
24 The reason you don' t have to shif t the axis is Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14765
( )
1 because the work point of the load from the diagonal 2 brace coincides with the centroid of the various welds 3 that are being analyzed.
4 Q All right.
5 The work point is the point that's relevant for 6 analysis ?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
8 Q And that's true for both defects? It's just that for 9 this defect, that work point coincides with the centroid 10 of. the member in question?
I' ) 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
s-12 Q And, th er ef or e, you don't need to make a shif ted 13 analysis for a shifted set of coordinates to account 14 f or -- to account for the work point not coinciding with l 15 the center of that member?
! Yes, sir.
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) 17 MR. STEPTOE: Excuse me.
18 " Center of the member," you said?
19 MR. GUILD: The memLit.
20 MR. STEPTOE: Thank you.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 .Q Now, why do you have to make the analysis --
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) M ay I -- the centroid -- the centroid 4 24 of the weld root coincides with the applied load f rom Sonn_ tag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14766
\_ ,/
1 th e m em be r.
2 Q All right.
3 Now, why do you have to make the shif t for the 4 UI-22 connection that appears in Intervenors' E xhibit 5 164 in order to analyze the significance of that --
6 those discrepancies, those weld discrepancies?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The reason you make the shift is 8 the - given that the work point doesn't coincide, there 9 is some additional stress in the weld as a result of the 10 load being applied slightly of f the centroid of th e 7-
! i 11 w eld.
\ /
12 So what you are accounting f or is the translation 13 of the load back to the centroid of the weld, and in the 14 process of that translation c you also induce a moment 15 when you shif t the axial load back to the centroid of 16 the weld.
17 0 Is that because of the -- here the longitudinal brace is 18 not attached at the center of the gusset plate or on the 19 edge of the gusset plate, it's attached to one side of 20 the gusset pla te ?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It -- no. It's because the 22 longitudinal brace -- when you take the axial load, the 23 centroid of the axial load, in the longitudinal brace f 24 and reflect that onto the weld, it is located below the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14767 7-(
L:
1 centroid of the weld, and the -- my Exhibit 164 shows 2 pictorially where the centroid of the -- where the work 3 point is of that brace load coming down to the weld.
4 Q And that's the designation " work point of brace"?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
6 Q All right.
7 And the other set of coordinates, the A, B and C, 8 are above that point?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
10 Q And it's the translation of the load to that work 11 point -- that is, the higher work point, the center of
)
12 the dis crepant weld -- tha t r equires the use of the two 13 sets of local coordinates?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r .
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN: And j ust to complete your 16 description on Intervenors' Exhibit 164, you have a 17 " center of" and you have a designation there.
18 What does that stands for?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It's the center of plate.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Center of plate ?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right. "PL" stands for plate --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) --
which also coincides with the 24 center of -- center of weld -- of the two welds.
Sonntag Reporting _ Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 4
14768 l s
v 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
2 MR. G UILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that 3 Intervenors' 164, 165 and 166 be admitted into evidence.
4 MR. STEPTOE: No obj ection.
5 MR. BERRY: No objection.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Received.
7 (The documents were thereupon received 8 into evidence as Intervenors' Exhibits 9 Nos. 164, 165 and 166.)
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to hand
(
lV 11 up a series of documents. We're making -- scrting T i 12 additional copies -- or Applicant is -- and I'd ask >
13 these be marked as Intervenoro' Exhibit 167.
14 The top page is entitled, "Horiz ontal Floor f 15 Response Spectra, North-South Component"; there is an 16 East-West Component on the second page; and there is a 17 Vertical Response Spectra on the third page, 18 Byron-Braidwood, Enveloped, Enveloped, Response 19 Spectra."
20 (I. dica ting.)
21 I'm getting copies for the other parties.
22 (The document was thereupon marked 23 Inte rven or s' Exhibit No. 167 for 24 identification as cf October 16, 1986.)
Sonntaq Regor ting Service,_ Ltch Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14769
! l 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 0 ~ Mr. Kostal, do you have a copy of this?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Did you give this an exhibit n umber ?
4 0 Yes.
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, what did you call them?
6 0 167.
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay. All three of them are 167?
8 Q Yes.
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Did you have them in order?
10 Q Mr. Kostal, the order I have is north-sort, east-west (n) s -
11 and vertical.
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Fine.
13 Q And that's Intervenors' 167.
14 All right, si r. Now, as you stated a moment ago, 15 you determined overnight that both the original 16 calculation for Cable Pan Hanger 104 and the revised 17 calculation that appear in Intervenors' Exhibit 155B 18 included the Braidwood-specific seismic response 19 spectra?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
21 Q All right.
22 And that that change in the result in that 23 calculation is accounted for by any change in seismic 24 data?
Ssnntao Reporting _Servicet_Itd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14770
% ,../
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
2 Q All right.
3 Now, can you describe the three documents that 4 comprise Intervenors' 167, please.
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
6 The documents are of the various spectra in the 7 horizontal north-south direction, in the horizontal 8 east-west direction, as well as the vertical direction 9 for the auxiliary building, turbine building, heater bay 10 a t El eva tion 4 51.
m '
11 The individual spectra have a series of lines which (V) 12 represent tiye spectra across various frequencies, and 13 these lines. move up and down based on the G level 14 associated with a given frequency.
15 0 That's acceleration?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I'm sorry. A G level is 17 acceleration, yes, sir.
18 The solid heavy line represents, as well as the 19 lines above the solid heavy line -- represents the 20 enveloped Byron and Braidwood response spectra.
21 This was the spectra that was used for the initial 22 calculations on the cable pan hanger population.
i 23 The other lines --
24 Q Excuse me.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14771 I
v 1 When you say " initial calculations," you mean the 2 design calculations that were used?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The design calculations and 4 subsequent calculations that were performed over a 5 period of time till such a point in time that the unique 6 spectra for each plant was used.
7 Q All right.
8 But when you say that the enveloped spectra were 9 used in the initial calculations, that doesn't mean the 10 initial calculation for the evaluation of Cable Pan i 11 Hanger 104 ?
V 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. What I mean by initial 13 evaluation and analysis is the analysis that was 14 performed on this particular hanger as well as any other 15 hanger at some point in time, which was the first 16 analysis to determine the various members that would be 17 used, the various connections that would be used and the 18 loads that existed at that point in time.
19 0 All right, si r.
20 The --
21 A (WI TNESS KOSTAL) Th e --
22 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Excuse me.
, 23 When you used the envelope of Byron /Braidwood, you 24 did have available to you the unique spectra for each of Sonntao Regor ting Se rvLc_e,_ktd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14772 n,
1 those plants, didn' t you?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
3 The reason we used the enveloped spectra is it 4 conservatively designs the hanger at either station and 5 envelopes both spectra, so' it allows us to make one run, 6 which saves engineering man-hours, and it conservatively 7 then sizes that par ticular hanger for each plant.
8 J UDG E G ROSSMAN: Okay.
9 I'm sor ry I interrupted your answer.
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The dashed portion of the line, where
,n
( ) 11 it's shown, represents that por tion of the spectra that w/
12 is unique to B raidwood.
13 In addition, there are other spectras for various 14 damping values that are also shown on this exaibit.
15 In the cable pan hanger population, the damping 16 value of 7 percent is the assigned damping value for the 17 pop ula tion.
18 These various damping values are defined by the 19 NRC, and they also define where you can use dif ferent 20 damping values depending on the types of component that 21 are being analyzed.
22 In the case of cable pan hangers, 7 percent damping 23 is the allowed damping spectra that can be used in the 24 design.
Sonntaq Repar_ ting lcIrice,_1td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14773 i
i 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The higher the damping -- I 2 assume the higher damping reflects the loss of motion 3 from the ground to the particular item that you are 4 applying the spectra to; is that' correct?
5 A (WI'DIESS KOSTAL) In essence, tha t's correct.
4 6 Maybe a little further explanation is the damping 7 normally also takes into account the ability of the j 8 component, due to its characteristics, to absorb a i 9 seismic load.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay.
11 'Ihe point is the higher the damping, the less 12 motion is imputed to the item that you are considering; 4 13 is that so?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
! 17 Q And does that have to do generally with the rigidity. of
, 18 the component in question?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's one of the elements, yes, sir.
j 20 0 All right, sir.
j 21 Now, taking ar. example, for a given component, a 22 given design, there is a known frequency; is that 1
23 correct?
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir, you can calculate the
_Sqnntag RepKting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14773 m
i
~-
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The higher the damping -- I 2 assume the higher damping reflects the loss of motion 3 from the ground to the particular item that you are 4 applying the spectra to; is that correct?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Ia essence, tha t's correct.
6 Maybe a little further explanation is the damping 7 normally also takes into account the ability of the 8 com ponent, due to its characteristics, to absorb a 9 seismic load.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay.
(g) 11 The poic* is the higher the damping, ' t he less y~~ /
12 motion is imputed to the item that you are considering:
13 is that so?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 And does that have to do generally with the rigidity of 18 the component in question?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's one of the elements, yes, sir.
20 0 All right, si r.
21 Now, taking an example, for a given component, a 22 given design, there is a known frequency; is that 23 correct?
h 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Ye s, si r, you can calculate the SonntAG_RepKting Se rvicedtd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14774 1 fr equency of a component.
2 Q All right.
3 And you calculate -- Sargent & Lundy does that or 4 the computer does that for you?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
6 0 You have a program that does that?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
8 Q All right.
9 That value is f ound in this exhibit along the 10 horizontal axis right at the top of the page, f r equency ?
/m
( ; 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
N /
12 Q All right.
13 For a pa rticul 3r component, then, with a given 14 frequency, you find the point on the horizontal axis.
15 And is 10 a representative f requency for a 16 component of the sort we're talking about, cable pan 17 hangers?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I didn' t go ba ck -- you know, we 19 talked about this this morning. In o ur e xample, we 20 chose 10 as an example; but I can't speak to the exact 21 f r equency level of this par ticula r hange r --
22 Q All righ t.
23 Can you --
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- in question.
Sonntac_Rcnorting_S e rv i c.c,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14775 1
%._,./
1 Q Can you tell whether 10 is a representative frequency 2 for cable pan hangers, would 5 be more representative or 3 do you know?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I would have to go back and check.
5 I t's a n um be r tha t I can ge t f ai rly easily, but I 6 just haven' t done that check since you asked me that 7 question this morning.
8 0 All righ t, all right.
9 Well, let's take 10 just as a value for f requency.
10 You then run down that line until you intersect the 11
( ') appropriate response spectra curve.
12 In this case, we're talking about a cable pan 13 hanger. It would be the 7-percent curve.
14 And it's the same for both Braidwood unique and the 15 Braidwood/ Byron enveloped response spectra?
16 A (WI TNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's corr ect.
17 0 You read over to the vertical axis to the left, and you 18 get a value for acceleration expressed in G units ?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
20 0 All righ t.
21 And for 10, it's 2 --
22 A (WI TNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
23 Q -- 2 G ?
24 Now, how is that value, the acceleration value of 2 S on att9_Re D.pr_ tin g_Smic_c,__1 ti .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14776
\m, >
1 G, applied in the design of a cable pan hanger? 7 2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's applied at the note point 3 where the loads are put.into the ' computer model.
I 4 The note points represent the attachment points of 5 the hanger to the horizontal members, so at a given 6 attachment point -- let's assume that we have a . weight 7 at that attachment point equal to 100 pounds.
8 What you would, in essence, do is apply.a 9 horizontal load at that note point in the north-south ,
10 orientation equal to 100 pounds times 2, because there 11 is an acceleration G 1evel of 2 associated with the 12 frequency of 10 and a damping value of 7.
- 13. So, in essence, from a simplistic point of view, it .
1 14 applies a 200-pound reaction in the horizontal 15 north-south direction a t that note point.
16 0 All right, sir.
4 17 And in order to derive a full evaluation of the 18 seismic stresses imparted on a member, you would look 19 not just at the north-south, but the east-west, and 20 derive the value in the same fashion?
! 21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
I 8 l 22 Q And then in the vertical direction from the third page :
i
! 23 of Intervenors' Exhibit 167?
l 4
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r, l
i Sonntag Repor ting service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
14777 y,'
1 Q And the combined ef fects of those forces on those axes 2 would give you the resultant seismic stress for the 3 particular member in question?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
5 0 All right, sir.
6 Now, what accounts for the difference principally 7 in the Braidwood-specific or Braidwood-unique response 8 spectra and the Byron /Braidwood enveloped spectra?
9 A (WITT1ESS KOSTAL) Each of these plants is founded in 10 different soil media, and the difference that exists l } 11 between the two spectra is a result of the inclusion of
'N J 12 the various soil media at Byron and Braidwood.
13 Q Byron's on rock, Braidwood's on soil?
14 A (WITNESS K01TAL) That's correct.
15 Q Now, although tha t's h elpf ul, but while a factor that 16 influences the evaluation of defects on components --
17 hangers, in this case -- again, no changes in seismic 18 stresses are reflected in the revisions from the 19 original to the revised calculations for Cable Pan 20 11 anger 104 ?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If I could, can I restate the i
22 question and answer?
23 The only changes that exist between those two h 24 analyses is tha t the loads, the weights, tha t we l
l t
Sonntag_RcDorting_lervice,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14778 O
L) 1 referred to in the last example are multiplied by the 2 seismic response spectra values, and that results in a 3 unique change, purely because if the weight is slightly 4 less, the applied G 1evel to a slightly less weight will 5 be different, which will result in a dif ferent stress --
6 0 Understood.
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- associated with the seismic loading 8 condition.
9 0 Understood.
10 The spectra have not changed, though?
[ )'
%s 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The spectra have not changed.
12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Ch ai rm an, I ask that 13 Intervenors' 167 be received in evidence.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any obj ection?
15 MR. STEPTOE: No objection.
16 MR. DERRY: No obj ection.
4 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received.
18 (The document was thereupon received into 19 cvidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
20 167.)
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I take it the reason there's 22 a dif ference between the soil readings for Braidwood and 23 the rock readings for Byron is that it's assumed that
() 24 there's some damping value to having ground waves Sonntag Repor_ ting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14779
,c ,
[ )
a 1 propagate in soil at Braidwood versus the ground waves 2 propagating through rock at Byron; is that so?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
4 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : And,I take it in the FSAR 5 you have consistently used the envelope of 6 B raidwood/By ron ?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
8 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : And that's not changed, has 9 it?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay, fine.
12 And I guess one reason why you have that 13 conservatism for the envelope of Braidwood/ Byron is that 14 these ground-motion calculations or the understanding of 15 what happens is not as exact as perhaps some 16 seismologist would like to believe; is that so?
17 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) No, not quite, Judge Crossman.
18 The rea.1 reason for the enveloped spectra is the 19 initial analysis -- the engineering ef for t required 20 would have been doubled if we did an analysis based on 21 the Byron spectra and then a separate analysis on the 22 plant based on the Braidwood spectra.
23 It was a decision on the part of Commonwealth 24 Edison that we would envelope the spectra, which is a S o n ntag_Jlc orottina_S crLLc e,lt.d.
Geneva, Illinoir 60134 (312) 232-0262
1
(
14780 s_s
)
1 more conservative criteria, and use that as the 2 design -- for the design of the plant, which was similar 3 at both sta tions, and only use the unigae spectra when 4 we had unique conditions at either of the two plants.
5 (Indica ting . )
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0 All right, sir.
8 Let's turn to Intervenors' Exhibit 155B again.
9 That's the cale package for Cable Pan Ilanger 104, 10 Now, again, there are two discrepancies that have
/
(m) ._-
11 dif ferent points for the bounding or limiting case 12 depending on whether we are looking at the original calc 13 or the r evised calc.
14 The first of those appears beginning at Page 7, and 15 that is the fit-up gap and weld size associated with 16 that 1/8-inch gap for the diagonal brace; correct?
17 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r.
18 0 And the second of those is beginning at Page 13, the 19 undersize weld, Section BB; that is, for the 20 longitudinal brace, the gusset plate attachment to the 21 ver tical hanger member ?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
23 There are other cales that were made with the 24 second run.
___S o n n t a g.le po r_ ting _StrXice ,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14781 I )
n-1 Q Yes.
2 And let's look at the second of those two defects; 3 tha t is, beginning at Page 13.
4 Now, if you would, let's start with the revised 5 calc, and can you now, having had a chance to r eview the 6 basis for the changed calculation, explain to me what 7 the steps were and the data utilized in the revised 8 calculation for this particular detail?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The original calculation that was 10 performed demonstrated, and on Page 15, that the design n
/ 11 margins remaining in this par ticular connection detail L j) 12 were greater than the code allowables.
13 Q It was 3 percent greater, 1.03?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It was greater than the code 15 all owa ble s.
16 So we had already determined this to be a Z 17 discrepancy, and we have already determined that the 18 design significance consideration was taken into account 19 and that there was no design -- no design significant 20 discrepancy based on the f act that the as-built 21 connection met the allowable code limits.
22 In performing the -- this first analysis included 23 all the parameters that we would include in our normal 24 calculation analysis, meaning the forces resulting at So n n t a g._R9 D o tt in g_S e_ty_i c e ,_1tsL Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14782 7m 1 the weld and the transferring of those forces to the 2 centroid of the weld if the work point was not at the 3 centroid.
4 The second calculation was performed based on the S use of the loads that were generated from the second 6 seismic run on 8/22/85, and those loads were less than 7 the loads applied to this par ticular connection in the 8 computer run that was performed on June -- let me get 9 the date -- on June 1, 1985.
10 Since those loads were less than, we performed a
,~
( ) 11 check to see what the new range of design margins are, m
12 which we knew, based on the fact that the loads were 13 less, the design margins would be even greater.
14 In that particular second calc, we performed the 15 calculation associated with the loads in the -- applied 16 to the member in the global coordinate system.
17 We didn't perform the second phase of that 18 analysis, which was shifting those loads to the new --
19 to the centroid of the weld.
20 So what you see in the second calculation is a more 21 simplified calcula tion, which showed the range of the 22 increase in margins that occurred as a result of that 23 cimpler -- that simplified calculation.
24 That showed that the design margin with that Sonntag_ Reporting _Senire,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14783 i
~-
1 simplier calcula tion would be 1.89.
2 Q All right, sir.
3 Now, let me interrupt you.
4 If you, indeed, had done the full calculation the 5 second time around, made the translation to the work 6 point, you would have derived a design margin not of 7 1.89, but of 1.2 8 ?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
9 I explained to you when you were in my office that 10 we performed that additional calculation to show what (m)
's 11 the ef fect would be, and it still was -- based on our 12 original design being greater than 1.0 and given that we 13 knew the loads were less than the original loads, it 14 gave it -- we performed that analysis last night, and 15 that par ticula r value of design margin is 1.28.
16 0 All righ t, sir.
17 So as I understand, you did not, then, replica te 18 the use of the local coordinate analysis that appears at 19 Page 14 when you did your revised calculation, and, 20 therefore, it's simply -- the original calc for that 21 calculation -- the original calc for that set of 22 coordinates is simply X'd through here and replaced with 23 the results of the computer run?
24 A (WI TNES S KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
S o n n tFLR e portin g_S e tyl c.e , __Ltd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14784
! l w/
1 Q Okay.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If I could clarify further, that 3 computer run does contain the shif ting of the loads to 4 the local axis and does contain that interaction 5 coefficient within the computer run for that location of 6 weld.
7 Q All right, sir.
8 A (WITNES KOSTAL) Maybe if I could explain a little 9 f ur the r, one of the considera tions in perf orming 10 reassessments is reviewing the time that is spent on
[O ') 11 these r e-evalua tion s.
12 There is a certain judgment on the part of the 13 engineers that is used in determining the level of the 14 detailedness of the calculation.
15 Given the fact that he already knows that the exact 16 calculations with a higher set of loads had a design 17 margin greater than 1, in an effort to save engineering 18 hours and cost, this particular simplified version was 19 used.
20 Q Well --
21 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : Excuse me.
22 What figure did you use instead of the 45 pounds 23 per square inch that you had used originally?
24 A (WI TNES S KOSTAL) We used the actual.
Bonntag_ReportinglemicL_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14785
/,
[ I
'w y 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Per square -- per linea r 2 foot, is it?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Square foot.
4 JUDG E G ROSSMAN: Per square foot. Okay.
5 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) There are nine cable trays in this 6 particular hanger. There is actual cable weights 7 associated with each cable tray; and we used the actual 8 cable weights that are tabulated in what is known as our 9 CIS 4 or Cable Inf orma tion System, and that is a system 10 which tracks all cables in and all cable trays, and p)
'O 11 provides an output of the load of those cables at 12 specific discrete points along the cable.
13 Using that information, we derived the actual 14 weights for these cables associated with this particular 15 hanger.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I see.
17 DY MR. GUILD:
10 Q Nov, junt returning to the last point, if the computer 19 did the translation, in your revised calculation now, 20 f rom the -- involving the use of the local coordinates 21 to the work point in question, why didn' t you state the 22 value of 1.2 8 as the resulting design margin and not 23 1.89, when you documented this calculation ?
24 A (WITNESS MOSTAL) The computer will give you the value Sonntag_ Reporting _ScIvice,ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
14786
(_
1 based on the connection being per as designed.
? This is a calculation to take into account the 3 discrepancy that exists.
4 Q I see. All right, sir.
5 So when you say that the computer made the 6 translation f rom the two coordinate systems, it didn't 7 do that for the defective as-built condition?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
9 Q All right, si r.
10 So you eliminated the calculation, the original (a
) 11 calc ula tion, as pe ct s , the coordinate transla tion aspects U'
12 of the original calculation, appearing at Page 14?
13 A (WI tiles S KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
14 Q All right.
15 tiow , Page 15 of the cale package, again, focusing 16 on the revisions, what are the revised values, 17 therefore, that are utilized in the cale at Page 14 --
18 Page 157 19 Excuse me.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The revised values that are utilized 21 are the forces that are shown in the cloud on Page 14, 22 and those forces are, in the global coordinate system, 23 FX equal to 0, FY elual to 12.22 kips, FZ equal to 3.4 93 24 kips, and moments M?,, MY and i X equal to 0.
- Sonn t 39_Ileporting_S.c ryicc,_Ltd. _.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14787 wli 1 The calculations on Page 15 reflect the stresses 2 along various planes.
3 For example, PZ is the stress that exists along the 4 Z axis based on the load of 3.493, which came out of the 5 computer analysis, divided by the area of the weld 6 group, which is 2.34.
7 That stress level revised is equal to 1.49 in the 8 cloud.
9 The stress along the Y axis is in the next 10 calcula tion, which shows the Y force, 12.22, also 11 divided by the area, 2.34, and in the cloud is the 12 stress of 5.22 kips per square inch along that axis.
13 The next line performs an analysis to get the 14 resultant of those two vector components, and in there, 15 under the square root sign, is the value of 1,49 squared 16 times the value of 5.22 squared. 7he square root of 17 that gives you the resultant utress of -- in the cloud 18 of 5.43, and that's compared with the allowable for this 19 particular weld of 19.75 kips per square inch.
20 The as-built condition is the next set of 21 calculations, which, again, goes through that came set 22 of calculations, defining the PZ stress, which is the 23 area of -- which is the force, 3.493, divided by the 24 area of the as-built weld, which is 1.219, and tha t
____ ___Sonn t a g_Repo r ting _Ec rzice ,_Ltd. _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14788
-s 1 stress level in the cloud is 2.865.
2 The next line represents the stress in the Y 3 direction, which is the Y force, 12.22, divided by the 4 area, again, which is 1.219, and that stress is equal to 5 10.024.
6 To get the resultant stress, you multiply -- you 7 square those two forces and you get the square root, and 8 the resultant stress is 10.425, and the interaction is 9 the resultant stress over the allowable stress, which is 10 in the cloud as 10.425 divided by 19.75. That gives you rm
- 11 a value of -- in the cloud of 0.52 as compared to an
(
v 12 interaction value of 1.
13 The next calculation in the R value calculation, 14 which is the ratio of -- I've got to find that. Oh, 15 it's the ratio of the stress, 5.28, which is over the 16 previous interaction coefficient of 2.- .275, and the R 17 value is in the cloud equal to 0.52. The design margin 18 for this particular methodology is 1.82 as defined in 19 the cloud ne xt to --
20 Q l.897 21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I'm sorry.
22 --
1.09.
23 Q All right, sir, h 24 Now, looking at the as-designed portions of that
_ . _ ___Sonntag_Repotting_ Service,_itd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14789
(
.Q i
l calculation that appear towards the top of the page, , ,
2 that is the result -- the revised calculation is a 3 computer product as opposed to the result of the hand 4 calc as was the case with the original?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is a hand calc. The product of 6 the computer run are the forces.
7 0 All right, si r.
8 I just don't see you replicating -- look at the 9 first line for the force at Z, formerly the force at a.
10 Originally you had a multi-component equation O)
(
x_/
11 there, and you simply X'd through all of the variables s
12 in that equation and replaced them with a circled value 13 of 4.393?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right.
15 Q You didn't pull that out of the air.
16 I take it the computer generated that number?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. As I indicated before, this was 18 a more simplified version of the calculation -- the more 19 exact version of the calculation was the original 20 calculation that was done on 6/1/85 -- as a result of 21 the run on 6/1/85, which did take into account the work 22 point location of the force translated to the centroid s
, 23 of the weld group, fx
( ) 24 Q I see.
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd. _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14790 x_,-'
1 So now in your r evised calcula tion, the simpler 2 method, the force at Z is simply equal to -- well, is it 3 force of Z divided by A?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right.
5 F -- little fz is actually a stress --
6 0 I see.
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- in the Z axis.
8 Q All right.
9 The same -- similar -- similar principle applies to 10 the calculation of the f orce at Y --
7x
) 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
v 12 0 -- the next calcula tion ?
13 All right. Now, you didn't recalculate an R 14 value -- or the reviewer didn't recalculate an R value 15 using the revised data.
16 Again, you had already done the calculation; you 17 didn' t need to have a new R value.
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) W e --
19 Q Why didn't the reviewer recalculate the R value?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We calculated an R value.
21 As indicated in the second to the last line, it was 22 equal to 0.52 in the simplified version.
23 0 I see.
24 You didn't recalculate the R value using the Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . .. .-. . - . . - . .. - .. - ~ . .. . ._
t 14791 0
4 1 original calculation methodology, the -- involving the 1
2 translation of coordinates?
r 3 You did that in your . office this morning, though?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, I did it for you in ;
5 my office this morning, and the value came out to be 6 0.528.
7 Q All right', si r.
8 Still less than.9 -- less than .9, still required i
9 evalua tion ? i 10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Correct.
11 Q All right, si r.
12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kostal and his 13 people were assembling a package this morning that 14 talked about the computer model, and we did not have 15 . time to get through -- get to. that or it wasn' t 16 available at the time we completed our discussions.
17 It is a topic I'd like to speak to Applicant off 18 the record about, and'perhaps return to, but I'm going 19 to pass from that subject at this point with the Board's 20 permission.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, okay.
22 Then I have just one or two questions.
23 Back to the response spectra. Did you say that you 5
24 don' t recall a t this time wha t fr equency was used with t
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
14792
! )
w,'
1 regard to this item?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The -- what -- the f requency exists 3 within the computer output. It's not normally printed 4 out, because it's automatically taken into account in 5 the analysis.
6 In essence, what takes place within the program, 7 there is a subroutine step which calculctes the 8 f requency of the given hanger geometry. Then with that 9 given fr equency, it goes to the appropriate spectra 10 curve and takes the appropriate G level from that f ; 11 spectra curve and does the analysis with those q ,l 12 particular acceleration levels.
13 We can pull out -- or we can ask the -- for a 14 print-out of that particular value.
15 We didn't do it because we -- it's -- you know, 16 it's normally built in.
17 I would have to go back, put the run in and 18 generate that particular value to know what the exact 19 f r equency is of this hange r.
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, I would like to find 21 out what that figure is, so if you can do that --
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Sure.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: --
we'd appreciate it.
24 N.ow , I take it, then, you used the unique value Sonntac Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14793 h
V i
1 with regard to that individual item? You did not use 2 any kind of suggested value for that particular item; is 3 that correct?
i 4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) A unique value relative to seismic 5 response spectra?
4 6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Yes -- well, a unique value i- 7 for the frequency to which you applied the response 8 spectra.
- 9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The f requency that's calculated is 10 calculated based on the as-designed welds. - ta e w
} 11 frequency is not calculated based on the discrepant weld
/
12 conditions.
13 So the f requency is the -- in essence, is the 14 frequency that has existed in the -- in the computer 15 runs calculated based on the members being built' as 16 exactly as we --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's not exactly
~
18 what I was driving at.
19 It was my recollection, and perhaps erroneous, that 20 there were valuco that are cuggested with regard to 21 frequencies in the Reg Guides for particular kinds of 22 eq uipmen t, and my question was whether you used those 23 recommended values, those guideline values, or wh'ther e
,) 24 you used a unique value.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd_
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a l^
14794 i A.
1 And I understand you to say you used a unique 2 value ?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No.. We used the recommended
- 4 guideline value; and for cable pan hangers, the 5 guideline recommends 7 percent damping.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
7 But does it also recommend -- I recall that there 8 are some different damping values.
9 But are there also recommended ranges of . frequency 10 for dif ferent equipment or not? ,
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, no, sir.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, there aren' t. Oh, okay.
13 Mr. Guild.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Well, will the frequency of the hanger as built with 16 defective welds be the same as the frequency as designed
- i. 17 with the welds assumed to be as specified?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In order to input the welds, you then 19 have to input the geometry properties at the connection.
20 Our model is based on the properties that this 21 particular connection is a pin connection. The other 22 mem be r s , the horizontal members, are fixed connections.
- 23 In order to'take into account --
24 'Q Stop one second.
I I
i Sonntaa ReDortina Service. Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
14795 1 "This par ticular connection" meaning what, th e 2 longitudinal --
3 A (WITNESS KOSTA) The longitudinal diagonal brace we've 4 been talking about is a pin connection because it acts 5 as a truss, and truss members are stiffer in the axial 6 direction as compared to the flexural capacities of the 7 vertical member. Th eref ore, it carries no load and 8 transfers no load. It really acts like a pin, pin 9 meaning transferring no moment.
10 In order to get a fr equency -- an exact frequency
[ ; 11 for this particular hanger, we would have to make a more 12 refined computer model, taking into account the joint 13 stiffness characteristics of each joint and also taking 14' into account the characteristics of these particular 15 discrepancies.
16 In essence, what would happen in this particular 17 detail, since the discrepancy is associated with the 18 size of a weld, you will' have a joint that will be less 19 stiff, ther ef ore, more flexible, and you would input 20 that more-flexible condition into this more refined 21 detailed computer analysis.
22 What would basically happen is, since it becomes 23 softer or less stiff, it will pick up less loads than 24 the previous computer run, and it will redistribute the Sonntag Repor ting Se rvi ce Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14796 7,
( !
%J l loads to other joints that are stif fer and can carry the 2 load.
3 So what you vill get in a more detailed refined 4 analysis ls an optimizing of the stresses in all the 5 connections, because the stiffer connections will carry 6 a larger load than the less-stif f connections, just 7 based on purely stiffness characteristics, so what, in 8 essence, will happen is you will show that the stress 9 level in the weld is going to be less than this 10 par ticular calcula tion.
/m 11 We have done those calculations in the past, and, N )i 12 in fact, we had done' those at Byron in support of my 13 testimony under system control, and we did them on three 14 hangers, taking into account the unique discrepancies 15 that existed on the three worst hangers that we found at 16 Byron.
17 The results of that analysis that were performed 18 showed tha t --
19 Q Let me stop you right there.
20 How about this, Mr. Kostal: I always ask one more 21 question than you want me to.
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) W ell, can I finish?
g, 23 Q No, you can't.
/ - , ,
( )N 24 JUDG E G ROSSMAN: Well, I would ordinary let Sonntag Repor ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14797 (O) 1 you finish an answer, but that's beyond the response to 2 that question, and --
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Fine.
4 JUDGE G ROSSMAN: -- it's j ust not a f air way 5 of getting in that testimony.
6 MR. GUILD: I'd be happy to have you educate 7 me on what you did on Byron of f the record, too, Mr.
8 Kostal, and then perhaps we can talk about that on the 9 record; but that's the protocol.
10 We are going to enter a new section and --
A I 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Fine.
x.s,1 12 JUDG E GROSSMAN: One more question on these 13 items.
14 You indicated that in your recalculation you alse 15 took into account the changed location of the item; 16 isn' t that correct?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In the recalculation, we took into 18 account the changed location of the cable pan.
19 One of the cable pans was located differently than 20 in its original location, and that basically moved the 21 note point on the horizontal member from its original 22 loca tion.
7- 23 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, did you get an 8
( ) 24 increased or a decreased load from moving that?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14798
,~
t !
LJ l A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I can' t -- I didn't look.
2 Locally what would generally happen -- and I'd have 3 to go into the calculations -- the pan moved slightly to 4 the center, which would mean that you would have locally 5 some changes in the connections, end connections of the 6 horizontal member f rom which that pan had been located, 7 so there could be -- would be some dif ferent stresses in 8 that connection.
9 Exactly how that changed, I would have to look at 10 the two note points to determine what that new stress
,~
11 level is in the end connections, (w/ ~)
12 But, also, at the same time, when we did shif t the 13 pan location, we also inputted the actual weight -of the 14 cable, so that would also, then, modify the end 15 reactions.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q Well, let me just be clear.
18 If you -- you've got a horizontal member suppor ting 19 two pans, and it's --
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) One pan. That is one pan.
21 Q Okay. Supporting one pan.
22 Then if the pan -- and as the pan is designed, it's 23 supposed to be in the center of the. horizontal?
(
7s
(_)24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. The pan is located in space in S_qnntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14799 i
1 some loca tion.
- 2 0 Wherever - it's' supposed to be ?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Relative to where it is on the 4 horizontal member of the hanger.
5 Q Yo u ' ve go t . two w elds, a weld a t either end of. the 6 horiz ontal .
7 What's the effect on the stress on Weld A at the 8 north side of the horizontal if the -- if the cable pan 9 is closer to Weld A than as designed?
10- A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You would get a greater shear stress i
[\ 11 on Weld A. If the pan was located closer to Weld A, you
-12 would get a slight -- you would get a shif ting of shear 13 and moment in each of the joints. ,.
14 0 All right. !
15 And less stress on Weld B if Weld B is at the i
16 opposite end?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Further away, yes, sir.
18 MR. GUILD: May I have one moment, ple ase,
- 19 Mr. Chairman. i
- 20 Mr. Chairman, I've handed to the witness and Board 21 and parties a document that I'd ask be marked as 22 Intervenors' 168, pl ease, j 23 (The document was thereupon marked t \
) 24 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 168 for ;
l l
! Sonntaa Renor t'ina Se rvice. Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
14800 1 identification as of October 16, 1986.)
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q Now, Mr. Kostal, I've handed you a multi-page document.
4 It's Bates No. AR006904006904through 09.
5 (Indi ca ting. )
6 These are documents that you had prepared at my 7 request in discovery, and they list the R values and the 8 design margins for the electrical items, th e B CA P CSR 9 sample items that Sargent & Lundy evaluated and 10 perf ormed calculations on; correct ?
} 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) These are the values I prepared for
\_,/
12 you at your r equest when you came into our offices, 13 which formed the basis of my conclusions that are 14 documented in my testimony for each population regarding 15 the lowest design margin remaining and the average 16 design margins in the various populations.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 Well, that I understand; but reflect on my -- the 19 question I asked you, si r.
20 Are these not the R values and design margins 21 calculated f or the electrical items in the CSR 22 population that were evaluated by Sargent & Lundy?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
24 Q They also happen to be the basis for your testimony?
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14801 s
e s_ d 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r .
2 Q All right.
3 The first page is conduit hangers. On to the 4 second page, the third page, is cable pan hangers, as is 5 the fourth and fifth page. The last page is electrical 6 eq uipment ; is that correct?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
8 Q All right.
9 We have no cables and we have no conduits.
10 There were no calculations made for those
- ) 11 popul ations ?
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, si r.
13 Q Now, sir, if we turn, pl ea se, to Bates No. AR006906006906 and 14 that is the first page for the cable pan hanger 15 population.
16 Do you see Cable Pan Hanger Sample Item 104?
17 It's the second to the bottom.
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
19 Q All right, sir.
20 Now, on the basis of your testimony today, you 21 would agree, would you not, that the design margin for 22 104-4, if you used the complete calculational method 23 used in the initial calculation for 104, th e 1.89 there 24 should be changed to read 1.28?
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14802 y-g l
l~ 'A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Correct, si r.
~
2 Q All right, sir.
3 I want to make that change in my exhibit.
4 And that the R value, using the complete 4 5 calculational method consistent with the original 6 calcula tion approach, should be increased from .52 to -
7 .528, or .53 if you round up to two significant digits; 4
8 correct?
9- A. (WITNESS KOS'TAL) Yes, sir.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, 11 You say consistent with the original calculation 12 approach?
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q The first calculation done in the calculation package -
15 for Cable Pan Hanger 104 that used the two local 16 coordinate systems to translate the load to the work
) 17 point as opposed to the revised calculation, which used j 18 the simplified approach, which did not make that 19 translation?
I 20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) May I -- actually, we would not 21 change it at all, because based on that definition, the i R value still remains at 0.52 based on the original 22 23 calcula tion.
73
!( 24 Q All right, sir; all right, sir.
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14803
,s
\ !
NJ 1 1.28, though, would be the calculated value.for the 2 design margin using the new data but the original 3 calculation' method?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
5 Q How many other electrical equipment CSR sample items, 6 Mr. Kostal, are there for which you made revised 7 calculations; tha t is, for which there were original R 8 values or original design margin values that were 9 calculated that are not the values that are shown on 10 Intervenors' Exhibit 168?
\ 11 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) I don't have that data in front of
.g /
12 me.
13 I would have to cg> back and tabulate that number.
14 Q Are there any?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, there was at least one, because 16 we looked at one which was Hanger -- Cable Pan Hanger 17 104.
18 Q All right, si r .
19 You don't know whether there are any others?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, si r.
21 Q I may have just shot blind and hit the target on that 22 one, fs 23 All right, sir. How ma nti are there on this
('\) 24 e xhibit, Intervenors' 168, where, in the second revised Sonntaq Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14804
(%
1 calculation -- or the r evised calcula tion, you used a 2 simplified calculational method that, by analogy to the I 3 instance of Cable Pan Hanger 104, produced a value that 4 is higher than the value that would be produced if you 5 used the complete calculational method utilized in the 6 original calculation?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Again, I don' t h ave tha t r!a ta with 1 .
8 me.
9 Q All right, sir.
10 Are there any others aside from Cable Pan Hanger
\ 104?
[U 11 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I would have to look through the 13 data.
14 -Q All righ t, sir.
, 15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that 16 Intervenors' Exhibit 168 be received into evidence.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Any obj ections?
18 MR. STEPTOE: No objection.
19 MR. BERRY: No obj ection.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Received.
21 (The document was there received into 22 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
- fg 23 168.)
\
()
/
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Whenever you want to go on Sonntaa Repor ting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
C e
i 14805 f
i
'l j 1 to a new topic, it's time f or lunch.
2 MR. GUILD: I believe it's appropriate for a
- 3 luncheon break at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, i
t 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
l 5 Why don' t we reconvene, then, a t ~ 1:4 5.
i' 6 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was continued to
- ~
, 7 the hour of 1:45 P. M.)
1 i 8 l'
~
9
- j. 10 11 I
I 12 13 l
> 14
! 15-I
}
16
.I i 17 i
[
18 I i i 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 Sonntag Reporting Service. Ttd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
, __ - . ~ - . . . ~ . _ . .
, = . . ~ . . . -
14806 r
- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 3 . BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4-
__________________x
- 5
1 In the Matter of: '
- . 6 .
- 7.
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__' ________________x 9
} 10 Met purcuant to recess.
11 Thursday, October 16, 1986.
1:45 P. M.
12 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
14 Mr. G uild. '
]
15 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
1 17 Q Now, Mr. Kostal --
1 l 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Before we ' start -- okay,
! 19 fine.
, 20 BY MR. GUILD:
1 21 Q Mr. Kostal, I had asked you earlier about Sargent &
22 Lundy's role in supplying the lists of 23 more-highly-stressed components- for the BCAP sample 24 ' selection process, and you were kind enough this morning i
! Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
14807
%/
1 to make available to me a list of the items from the 2 populations in which you' identified more-highly-stressed 3 items, lists of those items to represent- items 4 identified by Sargent & Lundy, items supplied to the 5 BCAP Task Force, and I'd like to show you some of those 6 lists and ask if you can explain a little bit about 7 th em, please.
8 Let's start with a list of cable pan hangers, if I 9 might, and let me see if I can round up enough copies 10 for the Board and parties, r~s 11 Do you need a copy, Mr. Kostal?
(V )
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
13 0 Okay.
14 (Indica ting. )
15 MR. GUILD: It looks like it's Intervenors' 16 179, Mr. Chairman, if my notes --
17 JUDGE COLE: 169.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN: 169.
19 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. 169.
20 Excuse me.
21 (The document was thereupon marked 22 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 169 for gs, 23 identifica tion as of October 16, 1986.)
/ 4
!v) 24 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14808 j%
1 Q All right, si r.
2 Now, I take it this document was prepared in 3 response to a request that I made?
4 It's a newly-created listing, is it not?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
6 Q All right.
7 The lef t-hand column, I take it, is the CSR package 8 identification number?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
10 0 %e next column is the support number.
11 That's the number that's used to identify the 12 hanger on the Sargent & Lundy drawings?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
14 Q Then there is the drawing number, the -- f rom which 15 the -- on which the hanger is shown.
16 Then there are a series of columns, one headed 17 "By ron, " the last "B raidwood. " In the "B ryon" column is
19 What are the data in the Byron column, the first 20 Byron column?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This data represents the interaction 22 coefficients from the list of highly-stressed that was 23 based on the data base of more-highly-stressed in the j 24 cable pan hanger population which has in the past i
i Sonntac Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
14809 c
1 referred to the number of 1,433 hangers.
2 These are the interaction coefficients that existed 3 in that point in time at' which the -- the point in time 4 at which this particular list was created, which was a 5 Byron list of ~ hangers which were in the process of 6 fur ther analysis, and these are those interaction values 7 on these particular hangers that became part of the BCAP 8 sample.
9 Q All right.
10 Now, that was the list that was used for the 11 selection of Braidwood CSR highly-stressed sample items?
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
13 0 All right.
14 Now, what was the threshold value that was used to 15 derive a list of Braidwood -- Byron highly-stressed 16 items?
p '17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The threshold value was supposed to
, 18 be .8.
19 0 Again, the interaction coefficient here is the l
20 reciprocal of the design or safety margin?
i t
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, j
! 22 Q All right.
l 23 So a value of greater than .8 reflects a higher 24 level of stress relative to the allowable stress for the Sonntag Reporting !Iervica d td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14810
(-)
k v
1 particular component?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
3 Q All right.
4 And 1 -- a value of 1 for the interaction 5 coefficient reflects a value of stress equal to the 6 design allowable?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
8 Q Above 1, exceeding the design allowable?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
10 0 All right, sir. ,
(h
%J
) 11 Now, are there values in here -- are there items in 12 here with interaction coefficient values of lower than 13 .8?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There are a few.
15 0 All right.
16 And let's -- the first I notice is for 042, about 17 two-thirds of the way down in the first page.
18 Do you know why that particular hanger was included 19 in the more-highly-stressed list despite that lower 20 value ?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) At the point in time, I do not know 22 why this one was -- I do know why it was chosen.
23 We had a list of 1,433, which was the list that
\
q j 24 existed a t Byron, of more -- of hangers tha t were being Sonntan Reoorting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14811 I )
~;
1 evaluated at Byron, and that list represented hangers 2 which were believed to be .8 or greater - .8 or greater 3 interaction values.
4 0 Now, let me stop you a second.
5 That list of 1,433 you believed, using this 6 measure, to represent those hangers with interaction 7 coefficients of .8 or higher?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right.
9 Q All right, si r.
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In looking at this list, there are a
( ; 11 few.
\_/
12 016, which is the fifth line down, has a .53 13 interaction.
14 Q Yes, I just missed that one.
15 A (WI TNES S KOSTAL) 042 has a .74 interaction; and there 16 is -- on the third page, 141 has an interaction of .59; 17 and there is another one on the -- on the fourth page 18 which has a value of .45 for 164.
19 0 164 or 5?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) 165. Excuse me.
21 Q Yes.
22 And, again, do you know why those items with lower l l
1 l 23 interaction coef ficients than .8 were included in the 24 list of more-highly-stressed cable pan hangers?
i Sqnatic Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
14812
/~'s
( 4 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Again, they were on the list of 2 hangers; this 1,433 at that point in time we believed 3 had interaction values greater than .8.
4 Q Well, now, as I understand it, you reconstructed this S list in the present time; correct?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
7 Q Because you didn't retain the data from the original 8 list when it was sent over; it was just sorted and sent 9 over without the values for interaction coefficients 10 being retained, I take it?
<x 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. We do have a list of interaction 12 coefficients associated with this 1,433.
13 0 You have the original basis interaction coefficients 14 that you --
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r .
16 Q Oh, you do?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, si r.
18 Q Oh, is that what this list is?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is an extract from it of the 20 ones that are in question, which you asked for, which is 21 the 68 that were in the population inspected by BCAP for 22 the cable pan hanger.
23 Q Indeed.
() 24 So it's not a reconstituted list? This is the Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 14813 1 original list, original interaction coefficients;
! 2 correct? '
i 3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes.
4 Q' Now, then, I was, I guess, surmising about an
- 5 explanation for why these 4 items with lower than .8 -
6 interaction coefficients might be on a list today if it 7 was a reconstituted list, but it was the same list you I
8 had when you went over the BCAP.
9 Presuming those same items had at that time the i 10 same interaction coefficient,.why did you send them ones i
11 with less than .8?
j 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) My only explanation is there were a i 13 f ew that were less than .8.
14 The original intent of BCAP was to sample at least 15 60 highly-stressed, and excluding these few, we did,
- 16 indeed, sample 60 highly-stressed.
i 17' Q All right.
18 I can count as well, too. I accept that's true.
l 19 But we just don't know why they are on the list? '
i 20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
i 21 Q Okay.
)
j 22 Now, as I gather f rom your testimony and f rom the I
l 23 testimony of others in this part of the proceeding, 4 24 Applicant's rebuttal case, the design of the use of I-1 Sonntaa Reoortina Se rvi ce . Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 E (312) 232-0262
14814
- O i
1 more-highly-stressed sample items was to test items in
! 2 the field whose design margins at the outset were i
3 smaller, where discrepancies might be presumed to have a i
i 4 more -- a higher likelihood of having a significant i
l '5 effect, from a design standpoint, on the ability of that 6 item to perform its function in service?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct. ,
8 0 All right, i .
9 Well, bear with me a moment, Mr. Kostal.
10 If you would look at Intervenors' Exhibit 168 --
i Lil that's your listing of the R values and design margins 12 for the BCAP discrepancies evaluated -- and help me a -
13 moment.
1 14 Let's take -- do you have that document, sir?
f 15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, I've got to find it. Hold on l 16 for a second, i 17 Yes, sir, i
j 18 Q Do you need a copy?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, si r.
! 20 0 You've got one?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
i 22 Q All right.
i 23 If you turn to the cable pan hanger population in 24 that document, and let's look first at Sample Item 41,
! Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14815 A
U 1 please.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
3 0 Okay.
4 For Sample Cable Pan Hanger 41, I see an R value of 5 .53 and a design margin of 66.7.
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7 Q All right, si r.
8 That's 66.7 times the design requirements for that 9 particular hanger, even after the notable defect?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Not the particular hanger. It's the
~11 particular -- the most notable discrepancy, which was 12 the discrepancy who had an R value of .53, and this is 13 the associated safety margin for that particular 14 di scr epancy .
15 0 Oh, I see. All right.
16 Well, so it doesn't relate to the hanger as a 17 whole, it relates to the particular discrepancy on the 18 hanger?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
20 0 All right. .
21 Well, let's look at that same sample item in your 22 list of more-highly-stressed cable pan hangers.
23 Now, for 041, f ar 41, I see a Byron highly-stressed 24 interaction coefficient of 2.10; is that correct?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14816 J
l A (WITNESS KOSTAL) At the point in time when this was 2 created, that's correct, that particular hanger had a 3 connection which had an interaction value of greater 4 than 2.1.
5 Q Well, it had a connection with an interaction value of 6 greater than 2.1, not the whole hanger?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It had a given element within that 8 hanger which had a connection equal to 2.1.
9 0 Okay.
10 And what element was that?
11 One of the elements within the
{m) v A (WI TN ESS KOSTAL) 12 hanger. I don' t know which element that is.
13 Q All right.
14 So one of more than one connections; is that the --
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This list was created based on the 16 interaction -- the highest interaction value that 17 existed on some portion of the component of the hanger 18 that were being evaluated, so this reflects the 19 highly-stressed interaction coefficient of the -- of one 20 element of that hanger.
21 Q Oh, I see.
22 So that the CSR discrepancy does not necessarily g- 23 occur at the same connection of the component that was
(! j\ 24 the connection analyzed f or purposes of declaring the Sqnntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14817
, O_s
\
1 component more highly stressed?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
3 We used -- in a hanger, you have multiple 4 connections. Therefore, you have multiple analysis and 5 you have multiple design margins or interaction 6 coefficients.
7 Q All right, sir.
1 A.
8 (WITNESS KOSTAL) We characteriz ed the hanger as highly 9 stressed if, in fact, there was a given joint or
'~
10 connection that had an interaction value that exceeded
()11 the value of .8.
12 Q Well, then, sir, this particular connection, the 13 particular connection in which there was a defect --
14 that particular connection was obviously not more highly 15 stressed, because even after a reduction in its capacity 16 of almost a half, 47 percent, it's got 66.7 percent --
17 66.7 times the design r equirements at that particular 18 connection?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct.
- 20. Q Well, what would happen, Mr. Kostal, if the BCAP 21 dis cr epan cy, the R value, the reduction in capacity of 22 almost 50 percent, occurred at the point on this 23 particular hanger where it had the more-highly-stressed T
c
() 24 connection, and that was the connection with, at least Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14818
/
( N,)
RJ l
1 for screening purposes, an ' interaction coefficient of 2 2.10?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We would have to do an analysis to 4 determine what the new. interaction value was on the 5 Braidwood-unique hanger.
6 0 I see.
7 So for purposes of providing more-highly-stressed 8 items for the BCAP sample, the likelihood of a defect 9 adversely affecting the design margin of the component 10 is also a function of whether the defect occurred at the 11 particular connection in the component that was the (nV) 12 basis for selecting that component as more highly 13 stressed in the first instance?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) State that question again.
15 MR. GUILD: Could I have it read back?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, Mr. Reporter, please.
17 (The question was thereupon read by the 18 Reporter.)
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q So it's a joint probability function here? It's not a 22 cample probability of the occurrence of a defect; it's a s 23 probability of the occurrence of the defect and then a
(; \
probability of the occurrence of the defect at the weak 24 v/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14819
/
N~J' 1 link, at the point that's the basis for the 2 more-highly-stressed identification?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. The basis for the j 4 more-highly-stressed identification was based on hangers
.5 that existed at a point in time in -- at Byron, which 4
6 were under further evaluation, w ~ hich were fur ther along 7 in their design and assessment than Braidwood was.
8 Q Now, you are --
9 .A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That par ticula r ~--
10 Q I don't think you are responding to my question.
[)
V 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I am.-
l 12 0 It's a function, first, of where the defect happened and 13 the probability of the defect?
, 14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, that's not how we chose the 15 sample of highly stressed.
16 We chose the sample of highly stressed based on the 17 hangers that had joints whose interaction coefficient 18 exceeded .8.
19 Q You are still missing me here.
20- I think what I am trying to f ocus on, Mr. Kostal, 21 is not how you picked the more highly stressed. I think 22 I've got that clear now.
23 The question is:
p)
( 24 When you couple your selection of more highly Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
i e
14820
\_
1 stressed, as you now describe the way you sampled more 2 -highly stressed, with the BCAP discrepancy, what was
.3 found, and the way you evaluated those discrepancies, 4 the likelihood of a discrepancy having design 5 significance is a joint probability function? Th e 6 function in the .first -instance is the probability of the 4 7 defect occurring and in the second instance the
! 8 probability of the defect occurring at the point of the 9 more-highly-stressed connection ?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's true, 11- The results of BCAP program demonstrated that 'for 12 highly-stressed connections, the level of the '
13 discrepancy found was assessed, and determined in those 14 particular connections not to -- were determined to show 15 that the results of those discrepancies in the 16 highly-stressed joints still resulted in the joint being 17 within the code allowable.
18 Q All righ t, sir.
19 Well, let's take cable pan hangers as a population 20 now.
21 In how many instances did the def ect, .the notable 22 defect, tha t was subject to eval ua tion occur at the 23 connection which was the basis for selecting the item as
) 24 a more-highly-stressed sample item, if a ny ?
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262 j
r 14821
s
( )
t_/
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I don' t have that data.
2 Q Do you know if it happened at all?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We -- I don' t h ave -- I'd h ave to 4 look at the population in the data base.
5 (Indica ting .)
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
7 How many connections are there usually in the cable 8 pan hanger?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, in a -- in a -- in the hanger 10 that we discussed this morning, there are -- which is
[ )
%j 11 Hanger 104, there are -- there are 10 horizontal 12 connection s, there are 4 vertical connections and there 13 are 4 diagonal connections, so in terms of total 14 connection s, there were 10, 12, 14, 16, 18; and in each 15 connection, you have different stress planes for 16 transferring the load through the connection, so there 17 were, you know, a multiple of the number of connections 18 in terms of the number of evaluations that were 19 performed.
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN: So do I understand, then, 21 correctly that the odds are at least 17 to 1 against the 22 highly-stressed connection, on which you base your 73 23 selection, being the one that has the defect?
/
(N) 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In that particular example, that's Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14822
.m I
1 correct.
2 But in another example, which is a cable pan 3 hanger, which' is a cantilever of f of a wall, there.is 4- only one connection.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
1 6 0 Okay.
7 Now, going back to Intervenors' Exhibit 169 --
4 8 tha t's. your list of mor e-highly-stressed cable pan-
. 9 hangers -- the screening basis for this selection, the 10 Byron highly-stressed interaction coefficients, does not 11 represent the . final' calculated interaction coefficient
(
12 for those items?
, 33 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They represented the -- that's 14 correct. '9tey represented the interaction coefficient-15 for those items at that point in time.
- 16 Q I see.
17 .Now, under the Byron column in Intervenors' 169, 4
18 we've got current -interaction coefficient.
f 19 I take it that's the current Byron?
I 20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Tha t's correct. Tha t's the j 21 calculations that exist on Byron today of the 22 interaction coefficients on those par ticular hangers.
I 1!3 Q And for cable Pan Hanger 41, the sampled so-called g ) 24 more-highly-stressed cable pan hanger, the basis f or
- Sonntaa ReDortina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14823 1 Vl
(
l 1
1 identifying as more highly stressed -- that is, that it 2 had an interaction coefficient of greater than .8 -- no 3 longer would qualify that item as a more-highly-stressed 4 item, since, for Byron purposes, the current interaction 5 coefficient was calculated to be .53?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
7 Maybe if I can clarify --
8 0 Well, let me just round this out and then I'd be happy 9 to have you explain.
10 And yet for Braidwood, if you used the current 11 Braidwood interaction coefficient for that particular
[ 12 cable pan hanger, it's .98?
C~
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) .That's correct.
14 0 All right, . sir.
15 Do you want to add something?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) What I wanted to add was the fact 17 that the process in time is a fluid process for the 18 analysis of these hangers.
19 There are mab analyses on a given hanger, based on 20 changes in conditions on the hanger, which could be as a 21 result of as-builting the hanger. It could be as.a 22 result of a field problem that was determined to exist 23 on the hanger. It could be as a result of additional 24 loads applied to the hanger. So the hangers in the ,
25 analysis are updated and kept track of over time.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14824 (V
1 So at any point in' time, the list of 2 highly-stressed hangers or the state of stress that 3 exists in any given hanger is fluid; it will change, 4 depending on the loads that exist on that hanger today 5 versus the conditions that exist on the hanger.
6 If we look back at the time of Byron when we 7 created this list, it was based on conditions that 8 existed in the 1984 time frame. We now have a set of 9 conditions that exist in the current interaction 10 coefficients based on the 1986 time frame, almost two 11 and a half years later. Things have occurred to these 12 hangers over that two and a half years.
[v')
13 Our responsibility is to keep track of those and 14 make sure that those calculations are updated and stay 15 condition code allowables or else repair the given 16 hanger such that we stay within the code allowables.
17 0 And looking at just the first page of Intervenors' 18 Exhibit 169, I count 19 items on that page. These again 19 are 19 items that became more-highly-stressed sample 20 items out cf BCAP.
1 21 Would you agree with me, sir, that looking at the 22 last column, the current Braidwood interaction 23 coefficients, that only 10 of those 19 still even meet 24 your screening threshold of .8.0 or higher interaction coefficient to be qualified as a more-highly-stressed
(_ ) 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 14825
(
1 sample item?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) At this point in time, if we were 3 creating a list of hangers to inspect and using the same 4 threshold of .8, we would have only 10 hangers that now 5 meet that threshold.
6 0 And would you expect that that relationship would remain 7 generally the same: that a smaller number, fewer than 8 originally identified through the rest of the 9 population, would still qualify as more-highly-stressed 10 after you iterated through the current interaction 11 coefficient calculation?
A
( ) 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) What we would have is a different U
13 list of hangers because as the hangers change over time 14 and loads are applied to them, different hangers will 15 replace these as being more-highly-stressed.
16 0 But those.different ones are not on the list, and they 17 weren't part of the BCAP sample?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
19 0 My question is: Would you expect that the relationship 20 would remain the same through the rest of the 21 population?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The relationship of this population?
23 0 10 of 19 on Page 1 would still meet the screening 24 criteria.
25 Would you expect that that would represent t' e Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14826 O
N~-]
-l relationship if we went.through the rest of the cable 2 pan hanger population and counted them up?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, it's 13 on the next page, and 4 4 it's 13 on the next page, and it's 7 out of 11 on the 5 last page.
6 0 All right, sir.
7 I take it that -- well, strike that. Let's look at 8 cne other item, Mr. Kostal.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are we going off this 10 exhibit now?
11 MR. GUILD: No, sir, no, sir. One other 12 example I'm going to look at, if I might.
(v) 13 BY MR. GUILD: .
14 Q Let's look at your Intervenors' Exhibit 168, the BCAP 15 result; again, the R value and the safety margin 16 calculation. Let's look at it for Cable Pan Hanger 123, 17 please.
18 I show at that point, for Cable Pan Hanger 123, 19 that the R value, the capacity reduction, is .63, and 20 the design margin was 1.5; correct?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct. That's based on any 22 given joint within that particular hanger.
23 0 All right.
-24 The same principle applies to that item as it did 7s
, ) 25 to the last one that you've described?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 14827
/3
\
x_-
)
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
2 0 Okay.
3 Now, looking at Intervenors' Exhibit 169 for that.
4 same item, that item,.using the Byron highly-stressed 5 interaction. coefficient screening, had an interaction 6 coefficient of 2.13; correct?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
8 0 All right.
9 It has a current Braidwood interaction coefficient 10 of 1.0?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) .Yes, sir.
12 O Now, would you expect that the same principles apply to Os_-
13 all the items . in the population; the more-highly-14 stressed selection is based en the weakest link, if you-15 will, the.most highly-stressed connection at-the time 1 16 that evaluation is made?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) At the time that sample was chosen, 18 yes.
19 0 At the time the evaluation was made, given the i
20 methodology and assumptions made at the time of the 21 evaluation; loadings, et cetera?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
23 0 All right.
, 24 And the BCAP CSR discrepancy that's evaluated for 25 design significance, capacity reduction, is only by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i l
l I
14828
\v 1 coincidence the same connection that got the item, the i 2 hanger, into the more-highly-stressed sample in the 1 3 first instance?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It's not by coincidence. It's by i
5 choice.
6 0 By chance?
7 'they' re not necessarily the same connections at 8 all?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) What it represents is the fact that i 10 when we do the analysis on the connections and if there 11 are discrepancies on it, the discrepancy then determines
() 12 13 0 what becomes the more-highly-stressed connection.
All right, sir.
14 The fact remains, though, that the BCAP 15 discrepancies don't occur at the same connection that 16 was the basis for the sample item being identified as 17 more-highly-stressed?
i 18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They may not.
~.
19 0 They may?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They may.
21 0 Now, does that same principle apply to the other 22 populations for which you supplied lists of more-highly-23 stressed items?
24 We've talked about cable pan hangers.
t 25 Now, if we move to the other populations --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ . . _ _
14829 V
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The principle isn't the same in the 2 others because of the fact that the number of 3 connections that cou1d exist are fewer.
4 For example, in the cable pan population, there are 5 only two locations where connections occur, and that's 6 where the pan is tied down to the horizontal member.
7 In a conduit hanger, the number of connections is 8 limited because normally conduit hangers are cantilever 9 members supported off walls or floors where you have 10 single welds, single connections.
11 0 The principle doesn' t app 1y at all, so let's just talk
, (
) 12 -
about this other population.
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Sure.
14 0 You don't analyze it on the basis of the weakest 15 connection for conduit hangers; you use another approach 16 altogether. That's the approach you described the other 17 day:
18 You compare the actual weight load on the hanger 19 with the maximum allowable, and the relationship between 20 the two is used to derive a ratio which is the screening 21 factor?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, sir.
- 23 0 Ali right, sir.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Excuse me.
! -25 Are you off 169 now?
Senntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. - _ _____ . _ -- --__ (312) 232-0262
14830
[
l MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Were these original values 3 for Dyron based on the as-built condition of those items 4 including the discrepant condition?
5 WITNESS KOSTAL: Some of them are. I can't 6 speak to each item, but what it represented at that 7 point in time was those hangers that we knew required 8 additional analysis to reconcile whatever had occurred 9 on that hanger.
10 A number of them were due to as-built conditions 11 and could in some way have been due to increased loads 12 because they attached more things to the hangers.
(
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, weren't all of these 14 items subject to rework?
- 15. WITNESS KOSTAL: No, sir. They're subject to 16 at least re-analysis to determine what the interaction 17 value is.
18 In some cases, rework could have been recommended.
19 In other cases, the re-analysis, refined analysis, 20 resulted in the interaction coefficients being less than 21 .1.
22 So it could be either one.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay.
24 Dut the analysis depended upon the discrepant 25 condition?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14831 O
b 1 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
3 Now, I notice that --
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I don't 5 think that's correct.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0' The Byron analysis is simply a design evaluation of 8 these hangers.
9 I don't believe it includes any discrepant 10- conditions, does it?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It included -- if there were
[)
V 12 discrepant conditions, it included those as being the 13 reason for the interaction values to be at this level.
14 0 For Byron?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Sure.
16 The whole basis for this was we had a population of 17 hangers that we were reconciling for various re'asons:
18 either they had outstanding nonconformances associated 19 with them that we had to do an analysis for, meaning 20 they had some type of field problem, or they had an 21 as-built drawing associated with them that we had to 22 still reconcile, or they may have had an additional I 23 load.
24 That's what --
25 MR. GUILD: I apologize for interrupting, Mr.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
w -- -- -
(312) 232-0262
l 14832 l
[^\
(s-) ,
1 Chairman. I really didn't understand that to be the 2 case at all. Excuse me.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, now, it seems to me, 4 from looking at this list, that a great number must have 5 been subject to rework.
6 Is that your understanding, too?
7 Let me point out to you that except for one 8 instance -- and that is, with regard to Item 141 --
9 every single item here, unless I missed some, had 10 considerably lower values for the current than for the 11 initial determination. In that one exception, there was
() 12 13 a very slight increase from .59 to .60.
It would seem to me that a repair or rework of a 14 discrepant condition could very well account for all or 15 almost all of that because the magnitude of change was 16 so great in almost every single instance that I would 17 jump to that conclusion.
18 Is that unfounded, Mr. Kostal?
19 WITNESS KOSTAL: I believe, sir, that a i 20 majority -- that a large -- I'd have to validate it, but 21 many of these were dispositioned through analysis.
22 Whether or not repairs were required on these particular 23 hangers, I do not know that at this moment.
24 But given the margins that are in our hanger 25 designs, I believe that many of these would have been 2
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 14833 I
v 1 dispositioned by & further refined analysis.
2 It, in essence, would show that -- the refined 3 analysis would show that there are substantial margins 4 in the refined analysis technique.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I see.
6 But if you were to eliminate the discrepant 7 condition existing in all of these items here, you would 8 expect, wouldn't you, that-every single one of these 9 items would reflect a much lower value than the original 10 value shown here for Byron?
11 Is that so?
WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
( 12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 So, Mr. Kostal, the screening basis for more-highly-16 stressed items was not simply whether the item as 17 designed, because of its design, was closer to the 18 margin, closer to the design allowable.
19 The screening device was given the chance of a 20 defect occurring in that item as built at Byron, how 21 close that item with that defect came to the design 22 allowable?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I didn' t say that.
24 I said that some of these could have had that as a 25 reason for being in this population, amongst many of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14834
/N V
1 other reasons.
2 0 All right, sir.
3 But these represented the as-built conditions for 4 the Byron hangers, with all of the flaws that may or may 5 not have existed in those hangers?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. They represented the interaction 7 values at a point in time at which a particular analysis 8 existed, and that additional further analysis was still 9 required.
10 0 But it would have included the as-built condition of 11 some of those hangers?
, 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It may have.
%J 13 You asked me what could have been the reason for 14 these existing in this fashion, and I gave you a 15 multitude of reasons why I thought that could exist for 16 these values.
17 One of those was NCR's that were being 18 dispositioned, one of those was additional loads, and a 19 variety of other reasons.
20 0 All rioht, sir.
21 Well, don't you recognize, Mr. Kostal, that by 22 injecting the element of defective construction into 23 your screen for more-highly-stressed components, you 24 insert yet another multiple or joint probability -- that 25 is, the likelihood that there was defective construction i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ;
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
[ (312) 232-0262 ]
14835
(
%/
i
.1 at Byron -- to determine whether or not a sample item, 2 in turn, got picked to be reviewed at Braidwood?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I didn't characterize it as 4 " defective construction." I characterized it as a 5 condition that could exist at Byron. It could just be a 6 different as-built condition.
7 0 It could be also a defect in welding, for example?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It could possibly be.
9 0 All right, sir.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, but I think we 11 could make a further generalization than that.
() 12 13 Each one of these items was re-evaluated, Mr.
Kostal; isn't that so?
14 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
15 Part of our commitment is to review each hanger and 16 to assure that each hanger, when construction is 17 complete and prior to fuel load -- that the interaction
]
18 coefficient is within code.
19 So we have to do an additional analysis to complete 20 the cycle to show that all connections on all hangers 21 meet the code requirements.
i 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Even those hangers in which 23 no discrepancies have been observed?
24 WITNESS KOSTAL: If no discrepancies are 4
25 observed, there would have been a calculation already in i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14836 I
v 1 existence that would have dispositioned that hanger- at 2 some previous point in time.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And so you wouldn't have an 4 initial calculation and then a recalculation, would you?
5 WITNESS KOSTAL: These hangers have all gone 6 through more than one cycle of -- I believe that these 7 hangers have all gone through more than one cycle of 8 analysis primarily because the original calculations for 9 these hangers were performed in the late '70s. t 10 We were constructing the plant over a period of 11 years, and various conditions occurred to the hangers
() 12 13 over a period of years. So there are subsequent analyses that exist on these hangers.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, when you have your 15 initial value for the initial Byron value here, you' re 16 not talking about a 1970s figure, are you?
17 You're talking about a figure that you used at the 18 time you can the Braidwood CSR review; isn't that so?
19 WITNESS KOSTAL: These were the calculations 20 that existed at Byron. Some of those calculations could 21 have been calculations that were, let's say, made much 22 earlier in the time frame. We may have received them 23 just recently, meaning "recently" in the time f rame of 24 '84, that needed to have an additional calculation made 25 on them.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 f (312) 232-0262 l
14837 O
V 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, but the point is: You i
2 were using the 1984 values, whether or not they were l
3 originally calculated in the 1970s?
4 WITNESS KOSTAL: That's correct.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And that's shown on that 6 first column, "HS IC"; isn't that so?
J 7 WITNESS KOSTAL: That's correct.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, to the extent that you 9 had an item that did not have some discrepant condition 10 that required a recalculation, you wouldn't have made a 11 recalculation on that item, would you?
() 12 13 WITNESS KOSTAL: We could have made a recalculation on the item because additional loads were 14 being added.
15 One of the ongoing processes is the addition, for 16 example, of cables into cable pans. That report I 17 mentioned earlier, the CIS-4, which is the Cable 18 Information System report, tracks the routing of cables 19 and ' pans and the change in load at node points along the 20 cable.
l 21 That tracking is updated on a regular basis, and we 22 assess the impact of changes in loads at given points in i
23 the cable pans as they associate with hangers.
24 So if we had routed, let's say, a hanger that was f
25 previously analyzed and found to have an interaction
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
14838 O
V 1 value less than .I and now we route in a given cable pan 2 an additional amount of load or we attach to that 3 hanger, let's say, a piece of lighting -- maybe we want 4 to attach lighting -- we would go back and, at that 5 point in time, assess those changes in load on that 6 particular hanger and perform another analysis.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN : So it's possible that you i 8 _ covered some subsequent occurrence which would require i
9 you to recalculate; is that what you' re telling me?
! 10 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN : But assuming that the item 12 was not changed at all or the loads were not changed on I 13 an item or there was no discrepant condition, there i .
14 would ordinarily not be the obligation to re-evaluate?
j 15 WITNESS KOSTAL: That's correct.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN : So what we' re talking about 17 here are basically anomalous situations or -- I'm not 18 sure " anomalous" is a correct word, but not the norm.
19 These are situations in which there was some j 20 condition that required re-analysis, a change or a 21 discrepant condition; is that so?
22 WITNESS KOSTAL: It could be it required a ]
- 23 change because either additional loads occurred or any 24 of those other f actors.
I 25 What it did represent, at that point in time, was a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14839
(
1 known population of hangers that were indeed highly-t 2 stressed at Byron.
3 Given that as being a known large quantity of 4 hangers that were highly-stressed, that was the basis 5 for the choice for the sampling at Braidwood, because we 6 hadn't been that far along in the Braidwood cycle.
7 We hadn't finished routing, let's say, all the 8 unique cables at Braidwood. We hadn't finished adding 9 additional loads for a variety of -- whatever could be 10 added to it.
11 So we didn't necessarily have a set of highly-() 12 13 stressed which reflected an almost as-completed plant.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
14 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 0 Let's talk about conduit hangers. Let's approach that 17 subject, Mr. Kostal. All right, sir.
18 This is a list again prepared by you in response to 19 a request I made, identified " Conduit Hangers More 20 Highly Stressed. .
21 (Indicating.)
22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask this be ,
23 narked as Intervenors' Exhibit 170.
24 (The document was thereupon marked s 25 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 170 for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I l
14840 l O
U 1 identification as of October 16, 1986.)
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 Now, indeed, as you've testified, the conduit hanger 4 more-highly-stressed items were selected in a fashion 5 that is different from the way you selected cable pan 6 hangers.
7 These items were selected on the basis of the 8 comparison of the allowable weight loading on the hanger 9 compared to the then-projected actual weight.
10 A percentage was computed, and you used that 11 percentage to screen for more-highly-stressed conduit
() 12 13 A hangers; correct?
(WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
14 0 And what was the threshold for identification of a 15 conduit hanger as more-highly-stressed for this purpose?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) 70 percent.
17 0 All right. Now, the percent figure is shown in the 18 second column from the right.
19 It is a comparison of the actual weight, as then 20 projected at the time you made this selection, to the 21 maximum allowable weight, correct, the first two 22 columns?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
24 0 Dut there may be further evaluations performed with 25 regard to the particular conduit hanger. i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
deneva, I1Finois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262
i 14841 0
1 I take it the projected loading may change, and 2 that may be the basis for a changed value in the far 3 right column, " current Weight"?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
5 0 And in the instances where the percent of maximum 6 allowable exceeds 100, I note by your asterisk that you 7 had to perform unique calculations?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
9 0 All right.
10 Now, if you turn to Intervenors' Exhibit 168, the 11 first page is the DCAP results, the notable 12 discrepancies that were subject to Sargent & Lundy's 13 evaluation in the conduit hanger population.
14 At the bottom of the page, you note " average design 15 margin 9.90; say, 900 percent of design margin 16 remaining."
17 And I take it, from the notes appearing in the 18 remarks above, that you derived that average figure of 19 9.90 by eliminating the extreme item -- that is, the 20 30.50 for Conduit Hanger 026 -- and summing the rest, 21 dividing by the number?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
23 0 All right.
24 Now, if you'd look at Intervenors' 170, the more-
/
( 25 highly-stressed conduit hangers, can we agree that none Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITfnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14842 0
1 ~o f the CSR sample results, sample items, for which a 2 design margin exceeded your average value of 9.90 --
3 that none of those items represented more-highly-4 stressed conduit hangers from your more-highly-stressed 5 conduit hanger list?
6 Let's go down the list. The first is 30.30 for 7 Conduit Hanger 24.
8 Can we agree that 24 is not on your list --
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
10 0 -- of more-highly-stressed conduit hangers?
11 The same is true for 26, the 38.5 value; it's not a
() 12 13 A more-highly-stressed item, is it?
(WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
14 0 Let's see. Let's give you the benefit of rounding down 15 to be conservative.
16 For conduit Hanger 050, you've got a design margin 17 of 9.06, slightly below average.
18 Dut it's not on the more-highly-stressed list, 19 either, is it?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
21 0 062, the 18.70 value.
22 It's not more-highly-stressed, is it?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
- 2. O Por 112 you get a value of 14.10 for the design margin.
/
25 It's not on the list?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, ITTlnois 60134 f (312) 232-0262 j
)
14843 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
4 2 0 121, a value.of 29.50 design margin.
i 3 It's not on the liat of more-highly-stressed items?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Correct.
5 0 Nor is 121, the second observation, also 29.50, listed 7
i 6 here?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Which number?
i 8 0 There are two Conduit Hanger 121 sample items shown on
! 9 your list --
! 10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Oh, I'm sorry.
I 11 0 -- with the same result.
12 Neither are on your more-highly-stressed list?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
i i 14 0 Finally, again rounding down for conservatism, 127, 15 design margin of 9.50.
)
16 It's not on your more-highly-stressed list?
l 17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
18 0 Do you know what your average design margin remaining 19 would be if you averaged the results only of the
} 20 more-highly-stressed conduit hangers?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I would have to perform that 22 calculation.
! 23 0 Would it be significantly lower than the value of 900 1 24 percent that you calculated?
l 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It may be. i i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14844
.I 1 Q All right.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure how 3 many dangling exhibits I have, but I would ask that 168 4 and 170 be admitted. I intended to offer --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 16 8 already was. 169 and 6 170 were not. We'll receive them now.
7 MR. GUILD: Okay.
8 (The documents were thereupon received 9 into evidence as Intervenors' Exhibits 10 Nos. 169 and 170.)
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There are still some
() 12 13 dangling exhibits from yesterday --
MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
14 MR. STEPTOE: Can we have all the sketches 15 returned?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- because most of them are 17 sketches, and I'm looking to see if any are other than 18 sketches.
19 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, my notes reflect 20 that Intervenors' Exhibit 155-D --
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry? Pardon?
22 MR. BERRY: My notes reflect that 23 Intervenors' Exhibit 155-D has not yet been received in 24 evidence.
25 MR. GUILD: That would be the calculation Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
deneva, Illinois 60134 L (312) 232-0262
14845
)
%d 1 package, Mr. Chairman.
2 I certainly intended to offer it.
3 MR. BERRY: 155-A as well.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Intervenors'-155 -- they 5 were all admitted. 155, 155-A and 155-B I'have as being 6 admitted already.
7 ,
MR. BERRY: Do you have a date on that, Mr.
8 Chai rman?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't want to mess up the 10 transcript.
11 If they weren't -- we'll just assume they are.
Ib 12 There's no reason why they wouldn't be, and I'm not V
13 going to receive them again and cause the Reporters any 14 problem.
15 Now, I take it we're not prepared to admit those 16 sketches because we don't have them yet; is that 17 correct?
18 MR. STEPTOE: We have all but a few, but I 19 don't think Mr. Guild and I have had a chance to discuss 20 them.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. We're not pushing 22 on that. I just want to remind you that you have them 23 outstanding now, and I'm just looking through my notes 24 to see if there are any nonsketches that --
b)
( 25 MR. STEPTOE: There's a drawing and a --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 . - - _ -
l 14846 l
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, there's Intervenors' l
I 2 Exhibit 162, which is a BCAP evaluation summary of l l
3 discrepancies, which I don't believe was offered. i l
l l
4 MR. MILLER: 162? I I
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You have it received?
6 It's on Cable 130.
l 7 MR. MILLER: Our records show that it was l
8 received.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It was received? Okay. I 10 stand corrected on that.
11 All I have missing now are sketches and Applicant's 12 Exhibits 151 and 152; that is, the proposal of technical 13 data for that 600-volt -- there was one large item and 14 one small one.
15 You have to reproduce that along with the sketches, 16 so we won't take any action on that now.
17 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I believe that we've 18 deferred on Intervenors' Exhibit 141 as wel1.
19 MR. GUILD: What's that?
20 MR. MILLER: That is the Sargent &.Lundy 21 print-out of inspection points and discrepancy points.
22 MR. BERRY: My records reflect that that was 23 received on October the 9th.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I have that as admitted.
25 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 f (312) 232-0262
l l
)
14847 lN 1 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, my records also 2 reflect that Intervenors still owe us Erhibit 163.
3 MR. GUILD: 'And what's that?
4 MR. BERRY: The Bojan letter.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes.
6 JUDG E ' GROSSMAN : Plus we do need a copylof 7 Intervenors' Exhibit 163, which is that Bojan letter to 8 Bartolucci of May 13, 1985.
9 But you'll have a chance to review this transcript 10 over the weekend, and you can supply us with everything 11 on Monday.
12 MR. GUILD: May I continue, Mr. Chairman?
[V\
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, please.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Now, with respect to Intervenors' 170, Mr. Kostal, the 16 conduit hanger population, do I understand that the 17 values that were used for screening were Braidwood-18 specific values?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
20 0 All right.
21 And did those values include as-built conditions of 22 the conduit hangers?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They included the loads of the 24 conduit.
k,) 25 0 Well, did they --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14848
]/
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's the weight of the conduit 2 attached to1the hanger.
3 0 Right.
4 They' included the weight as it was projected at the 5 time you did the screening?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
7 0 All right.
8 You didn't go out to the field and actually look at 9 the loading of the conduits and base your screening of 10 conduit hangers on the as-built condition, did you?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
12 0 And, therefore, the conduit hangers by definition 13 wouldn't include such things as as-built discrepant 14 conditions, weld defects, workmanship problems?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They may have.
16 The reason they may have is at that point in time 17 there may have been adjacent hangers, let's say, on a 18 given hanger that had been moved.
19 We would have calculated the appropriate weight 20 associated with the hanger in question, which could have 21 then accounted for an as-built condition.
22 I just can't say effectually whether or not it did 23 or didn't include as-built conditions.
24 0 For conduit hangers?
( ,/ 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) For conduit hangers.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14849 A
1 Q All right, sir.
2 Can you say categorically that it did not include 3 weld discrepancies?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is purely. a weight calculation, 5 so it had nothing to do with weld discrepancies.
6 Q I see.
7 Let's round out this discussion, if we might, and 8 talk about electrical equipment, the last --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wait.
10 Before we get to that, I'm not sure whether you 11 used what you took to be the actual weight or whether
( 12 you used a set figure like that 45 pounds per square 13 foot kind of figure.
14 Which was it?
15 WITNESS KOSTAL: What we would have used, 16 Judge Grossman, is -- we would have used either one of 17 two things:
18 We would have used the cable pan -- the conduit 19 hanger drawing, which shows the various locations of the 20 drawing, which then would define the tributary length of 21 conduit that would be attached to a given hanger.
22 We would have also have used the number of conduits 23 that were attached to that hanger.
3 24 The unit load is the load associated with the N
,,,) 25 diameter of the conduit that's being attached. So we Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. ~. _ ._ _ . .- ._
14850 C
l I would multiply the unit load for that particular conduit 2 and its tributary length; and that would be then the I'
3 weight that we wculd calculate, that we would review for 4 the load table.
i 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And there was no -- '
6 WITNESS THORSELL: Could I --
. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- factor included with 8 regard to cable that goes through that conduit?
9 WITNESS KOSTAL: It includes the weight of r 10 the cable.
11 WITNESS THORSELL: .Could I make a 12 clarification, Judge Grossman?
.13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
1 14 WITNESS THORSELL: The weights are based on a 15 full conduit whether that conduit is full of cable or 16 not. It's just a standard weight for the conduit, i
17 assuming that the conduit is full of cable.
18 Many conduits are not full of cable, so it's a 19 conservative weight in that regard.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
21 So when it comes to actual calculations later on 22 for design margin, you would then have whatever factor 23 would be implicit in having less than a fully loaded l
"% 24 conduit? l
( ) 25 WITNESS THORSELL: Depending on the level of j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14851
! [
l refinement to which that calculation was performed.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. .
3 BY MR. GUILD:
.4 0 Let's turn to electrical equipment, if I could ask 5 Applicant's assistance if they have a copy.
6 MR. STEPTOE: (Indicating.)
7 MR. GUILD: We're not threatening to burden 8 the record with this stack, but we want to dissect.some 9 documents here.
10 Mr. Chairman, I've distributed to the Board and 11 parties a document entitled " Highly Stressed Electrical Eq ui pment . "
( 12 13 Mr. Kostal, do you.have your own copy?
14 I'm short one.
15 WITNESS KOSTAL: (Indicating.)
16 MR. GUILD: Great.
17 I request we mark this, please, as Intervenors' 18 Exhibit 171.
19 (The document was thereupon marked 20 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 171 for 21 identification as of October 116, 1986.) l 22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q Now, the document that I extracted this two-page exhibit g 24 from, Mr. Kostal, is a list. l
' l 25 I take it that it's a list that was used to derive l 7
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) -232-0262 l
l l
14852
%- ')
l 1 the selection of more'-highly-stressed pieces of -l 1
2 ' electrical equipment ~ for submission to the BCAP Task 3 Force?
4 (Indicating.)-
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The document you're holding, yes, 6 sir.
7 0 Yes.
8 The list is entitled " Equipment Loads for Floor i 9 Slab Foundation Design Status Report," and it lists a 10 number of pieces of equipment.
11 - Now, can you tell me how the item got f rom that 12 rather voluminous listing to the listing of the items
[)
13 ~ that appear on the two-page exhibit of more-highly-14 stressed electrical equipment, please?
15 (Indicating.)
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If I could have the document, the 17 explanation is in that cover sheet --
18 0 Sure.
19 (Indicating.)
20 A (WITNESS FIRST) -- so I don' t misquote it.
21 What this document is is it's a component -- this 22 is a document of the equipment that we have information 23 on at a point in time. This particular run was made on 24 1/10/1985. This document reflects all the equipment 25 that we had data on within Sargent~& Lundy.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 14853 (q
J' 1 This equipment includes both safety-related and 2 nonsaf ety-related equipment. It also includes equipment 3 that is nonsaf ety-related yet seismically qualified.
4 This list was the list that existed at the point in 5 time of all equipment when BCAP asked for a list of 5 more-highly-stressed.
7 What was done with this list is we reviewed the 8 list; and the first thing we did was, since we were only 9 evaluating safety-related equipment, we struck out all 10 equipment that was not saf ety-related.
11 The next thing that we struck out is those items
[d) 12 13 where no calculations existed; and that you would find under the heading " Item No.," which is the sixth heading 14 in the column. There would be an "NC" listing, which 15 represented the fact that there was no calculation.
16 (Indicating.)
17 The next thing that we did was we took the 18 remainder of the pieces of equipment that were screened 19 by these two criterias, and we've reviewed the 20 calculations that we had in-house on the remainder of 21 the equipment.
22 From that remainder of equipment, reviewing those 23 calculations, we used a screening of .8 interaction 24 value or an allowable stress equal to 80 percent -- the 7s 25 actual stress equal to 80 percent of the allowable Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14854 A
( l LJ 1 stress. As a result of that screening process, we 1
2 obtained a list of 38 pieces of equipment that met that 3 criteria.
4 This list then was submitted to Braidwood in the 5 form of two lists: one which was Unit 1, representing 6 20 pieces of equipment; and one which was Unit 2, 7 representing 18 pieces of equipment. So there was a 8 total of 3 8 pieces of equipment.
9 What Exhibit 171 has is a listing of all that 10 equipment and whether or not BCAP chose those in the 11 sample and whether or not the interaction coefficient
] ) 12 was at the point in time at the time we selected the 13 component as well as the elevation at which the 14 equipment is located.
15 Q All right, sir.
16 Were the 3 8 that appear on Intervenors' 171 all of 17 the items of electrical equipment that met the screening 18 criteria that you've just described?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) To my knowledge, they are.
20 0 Now, are there items of equipment with an interaction 21 coefficient of .8 or greater for which you did not have 22 a calculation at the time the list of equipment items 23 was prepared in January of '85?
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) These represented all the fx 25 calculations we had with interaction values greater than Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14855 O
V 1 .8 at that point in time.
2 0 That's not exactly my question, Mr. Kostal.
3 The question is: Are there Others for which you 4 didn't have calculations which had interaction 5 coefficient values of .8 or greater?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I don't know. We only had what we 7 had, and what we had is what we evaluated.
8 0 All right, sir.
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Speculating on things that we didn't 10 have -- I can't.
11 0 I don't want you to do that, sir.
O} 12- Now, again, these are items that are stressed --
13 these are items of equipment that are analyzed for 14 stress on the basis of their attachment connections?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
16 0 Now, does the listing that was the basis for the 17 more-highly-stressed electrical equipment, the 18 screening,. contain items of equipment that are not 4
19 electrical?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
21 Q Does it contain all equipment items that were identified 22 at the time: electrical, mechanical, other?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir. They're the complete 24 population that existed on equipment at the 1/10/85
, 25 date.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
14856
. [v\ l l
1 O It includes tanks, for example?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I don't know. I did not review this 3 complete list to determine whether or not tanks is noted 4 or not.
5 0 Well, I saw diesel fuel tank, boron injection tank.
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay. The description of the 7 equipment is provided. If we we were to read through 8 it, there would be a variety of equipment, both 9 electrical and mechanical.
10 0 And who decided what was electrical and what was not 11 electrical, for purposes of making the more-highly-12 stressed evaluation?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The list that was created for -- I 14 don' t have the name of the individual in f ront of me.
15 There is a memorandum that was authored by an individual 16 who created this particular list of 38.
17 Q And the memo does what; it describes how that choice was 18 made?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No.
20 It lists the electrical equipment that met this 21 screening criteria; and that memo was created and 22 authored by an individual, listing all those pieces of 23 electrical equipment.
24 You asked me who did that, and I don't at this 25 moment ' know the name of that individual.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 14857 0
1 0 All right, sir.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) But it was an individual within 3 Sargent & Lundy.
4 Q All right, sir.
5 And someone made a judgment about which items met 6 the criterion of being electrical equipment?
7 Mr. Thorsell, can you add to that?
8 A (WITNESS THORSELL) You can tell by the equipment 9 number whether it's an electrical piece of equipment or 10 not.
Il Q How can you tell that?
12 A (WITNESS THORSELL) In this particular case, the first N
13 piece of equipm'ent on the list is 1CX13J. J is a 14 designation for an electrical panel.
15 If you go down the list, you'll see -- ,
16 0 I just didn't see the one you have.
17 I see; it's the first on Intervenors' 171?
18 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Yes, the first piece of equipment 19 on Intervenors' 171.
20 0 All right, sir. Understood.
21 A (WITNESS THORSELL). If you go to the second item on 22 that list, the lJB00 8A, JB is a designation for a 23 junction box.
24 0 Yes, sir. Well, that's helpful; and.there's also, on 7s k,- 25 the longer list, a narrative description.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14858
.O V
-1 But someone has to decide that a tank is not a 2 piece of electrical equipment, unless you included tanks 3 as pieces of electrical equipment.
4 Is there a judgment that a piece isuor a piece 5 isn' t electrical equipment?
6 A (WITNESS THORSELL) To the degree that judgment is 7 required, I think most~ electrical engineers are familiar 8 with what pieces of equipment are electrical and what --
9 0 Well, how about a pump? How about a pump with a 10 junction box on it? What's that?
11 JUDGE COLE: You mean a motor with a junction f- s-
/ 12 box?
13 MR. GUILD: That's what I mean: a motor with 14 a junction box, a pump motor with a junction box.
15 A (WITNESS THORSELL) That is listed as a pump motor --
16 or as a pump, and the motor is a sublisting associated 17 with the pump. The junction box would be a sublisting 18 associated with the pump motor.
19 That entire assembly is considered a piece of 20 mechanical equipment.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0 So somebody has to make a judgment that that junction 23 box is not a piece of electrical equipment; it's a piece 24 of mechanical equipment?
I q j 25 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
g Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 ]
14859 N
1 0 Well, I don't want you to agree with me for the sake of 2 agreement.
3 Is that a true statement or not?
4 A (WITNESS THORSELL) That's a judgment.
5 That judgment is also based on the knowledge of who 6 is responsible for the installation of that piece of 7 equipment. It comes as a single assembly, and one i
8 contractor is responsible for the installation of that 9 assembly.
10 In the example that you gave where you have a pump,
, 11 a motor with the pump and a junction box or, actually, a 12 motor termination box on the motor, that entire assembly
(
13 is installed by the mechanical installation contractor.
14 0 Except, of course, somebody has to hook the wires up, 15 and'I guess they don't do that?
16 A (WITNESS THORSELL) That's true, but this is electrical 17 equipment installation. The connection of the wires is 18 covered under cable.
19 0 But that connection, that termination, would be an
$ 20 electrical contractor's responsibility?
21 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Correct, and that's covered in the 22 cable population rather than the electrical equipment 23 population.
24 0 Well, let me ask you a question more generally:
s j 25 Was the sample of more-highly-stressed items from Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14860
,rm 1 this listing made for use by BCAP'more generally than 2 just for the Comstock scope of work?
3- Did you select more-highly-stressed pieces of 4_ equipment that were also sampled in mechanical, for 5 example?
6 MR. STEPTOE: Can you define "this listing" 7 for me?
8 MR. GUILD: The listing that was the basis 9 for the electrical equipment.
10 HMR . STEPTOE: The full document that you have 11 not marked?
. fs
( 12 MR. GUILD: Indeed.
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There was a list of mechanical 14 equipment prepared and given to BCAP on mechanical 15 equipment.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q From this same source document?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes.
19 O Someone went through and picked more-highly-stressed 20 items, whether they were electrical or mechanical; 21 someone else made the cull of whether they were 4
22 electrical?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. I didn't say that.
, 24 0 Well, that's what I'm asking.
(b) 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I think it was one and the same Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 14861 ;
1- individual. I just don't know that individual.
2 0 All right.
3- A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I believe it to be one individual, 4 and I believe-it to be an individual from the Component 5 Qualification Division.
6 That division is responsible for qualifying all
)
7 equipment, both mechanical and electrical; and these 8 engineers are familiar with the differences between 9 mechanical and electrical equipment.
10 0 I'm sure they are.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that 12
( Applicant at a later time provide a copy of this ,
13 memorandum, the document that apparently will clarify 14 this question?
15 MR. STEPTOE: Bob, I think you already have 16 it.
17 Do you want to take a moment to look for it, the i 18 one he's referring to?
! 19 MR. GUILD: That would be fine, sure.
( 20 MR. STEPTOE: He's referring to this and the 21 other one, too.
j 22 (Indicating.)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you wish to take your 24 break now, Mr. Guild?
\
25 MR. GUILD: It would be a convenient time, l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
14862 s
)
1 Mr. Chairman.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Fine. 10 minutes.
3 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 4 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
6 MR. GUILD: I-think we established off the 7 record that the memo in question was not a memo that's 8 available at this point.
9 MR. STEPTOE: We're trying to get it.
10 WITNESS KOSTAL: It's not in the courtroom.
11 It's being brought over.
() 12 13 MR. GUILD:
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
All right, sir.
By the way, Mr. Kostal, did 14 ~you ever get that figure on the f requency?
15 WITNESS KOSTAL: I forgot. I apologize, 16 Judge. No, I didn't get that.
17 MR. STEPTOE: We've got somebody working on
- 18. it, Judge Grossman.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, you do, okay. That's 20 fine.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd offer 171, the 22 more-highly-stressed equipment.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received.
24 (The document was thereupon received into 25 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 14863
,- m ss 1 171.)
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q Now, Mr. Kostal, let's shift gears a bit here.
4 The CSR people derived checklists to conduct their 5 CSR inspections. The sample items to be inspected were 6 identified with Sargent & Lundy's contribution to a 7 certain extent that we've discussed.
8 After those two steps in the process, Sargent &
9 Lundy thereaf ter undertook the task of counting 10 inspection points and counting discrepancy points; 11 correct?
O} 12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
13 0 Okay.
14 Now, did Sargent & Lundy participate in the process 15 of reviewing and responding to the NBC's comments on the 16 Braidwood draft program document in the May-June-July, 17 '85, time frame?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
19 0 Were you aware, when Sargent & Lundy undertook your role 20 in BCAP, that the NRC had expressed a concern about the 21 use of inspection points to evaluate the results of BCAP 22 and that such a concern was expressed in a letter from 23 Mr. Keppler to Mr. O'Connor?
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
25 0 Were you aware, when Sargent & Lundy undertook its role Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 14864 O
1 in BCAP, that Commonwealth Edison Company, Mr. O'Connor, 2 responded to that NRC concern from Mr. Keppler and 3 asserted that the BCAP results would not be evaluated on 4 the basis of so-called inspection points but would be 5 evaluated on the basis of items found discrepant?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
7 Q Did Commonwealth Edison Company discuss either those NRC 8 comments or Edison's response to those NRC comments when 9 you, Sargent & Lundy, were asked to undertake the 10 counting of inspection points?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Not to my recollection.
()
o 12 13 0 I show you a document on the subject of inspection point counting that you made available to me in discovery, Mr.
14 Kostal, a Sargent & Lundy document.
15 (Indicating.)
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask this be 17 marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 172, please.
18 (The document was thereupon marked 19 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 172 for 20 identification as of October 16, 1986.)
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 O Now, Mr. Kostal, do you recall me asking you whether or 23 not there was any written procedure for the counting of 24 inspection points by Sargent & Lundy?
N
( ) 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir, when you came in to our Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 f (312) 232-0262
14865 1 offices.
2 0 Yes, and I asked you whether or not there was any 3 written description of any training given to the persons 4 employed by Sargent & Lundy who undertook the counting 5 of inspection points?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7 Q And the documents that I've had placed before you, 8 marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 172, represent the only 9 documents that are either Sargent & Lundy procedures or 10 memoranda of training for' inspection point counting?
11 A (WITNESS 30STAL) It's the'only document that I had 12
( that I could supply to you.
13 0 Well, sir, that's one of those answers that leads me'to 14 want to ask another one, because it doesn't seem that 15 you responded clearly to my question.
- 16 Is this the only written document that either is a 17 description of the inspection point counting procedure 18 .
or the training given to those who did the . inspection r
19 point counting for Sargent & Lundy?
20 Are there any other documents?
21 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Perhaps I can answer that more .
22 directly, Mr. Guild.
23 0 Yes, if you would, sir.
24 A (WITt1ESS THORSELL) I undertook to search our files to 25 determine if any such documents at reqcested by Mr.
2 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14866 rh U
1 Guild existed, and this is the only such document that I 2 was able to find.
3 0 All right, sir.
4 Mr. Kostal, as far as you know, these are the only 5 documents that are responsive to my request?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) For training, yes, sir.
7 0 How about written procedures for inspection point 8 counting?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There are documents which discuss 10 inspection point counting, various memorandums: the 11 development of the inspection point counting form that 12
) was used --
13 0 The forms I --
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- memorandums transmitting those 15 forms, the evolution of the forms. Those types of 16 documents exist.
17 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman, at the risk 18 of missing something with that answer, I would ask that 19 Applicant produce for inspection whatever documents 20 exist above and beyond what was produced in response to 21 my request on the subject of inspection point counting.
22 MR. STEPTOE: The request was for training. I 23 I have no problem in seeing what documents exist 24 and what Mr. Kostal is talking about producing, but the 25 request was for training and not with respect to ,
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
I 1 1
14867 1 l 1 counting.
2 But we'll see what Mr. Kostal is referring to and s
- 3 get them.
I 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. You'll attempt to 5 supply --
6 MR. STEPTOE: Yes.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- what Mr. Kostal was 8 referring to?
9 MR. STEPTOE: Yes.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine.
- 11 BY MR. GUILD
i 12 O In the document that's before you, Intervenors' 172, the 13 first page is an attendance list.
14 I take it that documents the training that you were 15 able to find any documentation of?
- 16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) For these particular individuals,
, 17 yes, sir.
18 Q Well, was there other training?
- 19 At least Mr. Steptoe heard that part of my request.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There was other training, informal 21 training, that was conducted on the job; but it wasn't
) 22 documented in this fashion.
23 0 Was it documented in any fashion?
I 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Per the review that was done by l 25 Mr. --
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva,~ Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
.. -. _ .. -- _ . = . - . _ - . . _-_ - . - - - . - . . _ -
14868 O
1 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Well, this is the only documented 2 training that I was able to find in the files. Whether 3 the other training was documented or not, I do not know.
4 I have been told that there was additional 5 training; there were other individuals trained at 6 various times.
7 0 You' re not aware of any. other documentation of that 8 training?
9 A (WITNESS THORSELL) No, sir, I am not.
10 0 All right, sir.
11 Then the second page and the pages following appear
[ ) 12 to be " Inspection Point Counting Guideline." That's the v
13 title on the cover page.
14 Does this represent the procedures, the Sargent &
15 Lundy written procedures, for inspection point counting?
16 A '(WITNESS THORSELL) No, sir.
17 That, to my understanding, represents an outline 18 that was used in the training session. There never was 19 a formal documented procedure for inspection counting.
20 What followed from this was an evolution of the 21 inspection point counting checklist.
22 When you examine the inspection point counting 23 checklist, it carries many of the line items, 24 particularly the line items that aren't 25 self-explanatory, the methodology that could be used in Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
14869 I q
.b 1 counting.
2 For example, if a label has a required location, a 3 required identifier on it and is required to be a 4 certain color and that was going to be counted as three 5 inspection points -- in other words, did you get it in 6 the right place? Does it say the right thing? Is it 7 the right color to indicate the right safety division?
8 -- if that was going to be counted as three inspection 9 points, it would indicate that that should be counted as 10 three inspection points on the inspection point counting 11 form.
12 So what evolved essentially was that the 13 instructions were contained on the counting forms 14 themselves, and the additional training that was done 15 was merely a clarification of those items for the 16 individuals doing the counting.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 The final page of this document -- can you identify 19 it, sir?
20 A (WITNESS THORSELL) I believe it establishes the 21 inspection point counting form numbers and which 22 population they relate to.
23 In the electrical area, for example, inspection 24 point counting form E-CND is the form to be used for 25 counting inspection points in the conduit population.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 66134 (312) 232-0262
14870
(~%
1 0 How abou' the dates that appear in the columns to the 2 right? What do they represent, sir?
3 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Well, the column heading is 4 " C - O- M- P- L . MONTH," and there are months listed under 5 that column. I presume that it means " completion month" 6 and that this at one point represented a schedule.
7 All of that appears to have been crossed out, and a 8 one-time schedule or draft schedule was merely used as a 9 convenient way of generating a list that tabulates the 10 inspection point counting form numbers.
11 0 Well, to the right it says " fit on one page." It A
12 appears to be a markup of what was a schedule.
(}
13 Was that the schedule?
14 A (WITNESS THORSELL) I don't know actually whether it 15 was or not.
16 0 Was there a schedule?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
18 0 Is this the schedule, Mr. Kostal?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It's the beginning of the schedules.
20 They were evolved as time went on, and the 21 schedules were discussed on a weekly basis at meetings 22 that I held at the site with the key people in each of 23 the disciplines. That included Mr. Thorsell at those
-s 24 same meetings.
25 0 All right, sir. Well, I see a date in there of April Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ;
60134 Geneva, Illinois
( (312) 232-0262 l
14871 Ch O
1 for the preparation of the conduit checklist.
2 Did you prepare a conduit checklist in April?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We prepared a conduit checklist.
4 Whether or not it was in April, I would have to review 5 the records.
6 0 Do you know, Mr. Thorsell?
7 A (WITNESS THORSELL) I do not know.
8 0 All right, sir.
9 The third page of the exhibit states under 1.0, the 10 guideline purpose, "This guideline is for the tabulation 11 of construction elements inspected under the 12 Construction Sample Reinspection, CSR, area of the 13 Braidwood Construction Assessment Program, BCAP.
14 "Its purpose is to generate an inspection result
~15 data base which will be used during BCAP's assessment of 16 the quality of construction at Braidwood Station."
17 Now, was it Sargent & Lundy's idea to accomplish 1 -18 that purpose by counting inspection points, Mr. Kostal?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir. That's Edison's idea.
20 0 Edison, in turn, contacted Sargent & Lundy and asked you 21 to accomplish this; they stated this purpose and asked 22 you to accomplish it?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They asked us if we would perform the s 24 inspection point counting function.
(, 25 0 All right.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0252
i 14872 i
i
- 1 I take it you agreed to do that?
, 2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
3 Q Now, you also'did discrepancy point counting?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
, 5 Q Do you have a copy of Intervenors' Exhibit 155-A 6 available to you?
f i 7 That's the discrepancy type counting f orms for 8- Cable Pan Hanger 104.
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is -- hold on one second.
10 0 Sure. 155-A is entitled " Discrepancy Type Counting i 11 ' Forms."
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The title is " Discrepancy Type 13 Counting Forms"?
i 14 0 Yes, for Cable Pan Hanger 104.
i i
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay.
16 And this is your Exhibit --
i 17 0 155-A is the number.
f 18 Now, Sargent & Lundy also undertook to do.the
?
19 discrepancy counting for the BCAP CSR sample items?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
21 Q All right.
22 And I take it that for Cable Pan Hanger 104, this 23 package, Intervenors' 155-A, represents the counting of 24 discrepancies for that cable pan nanger?
25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
14873 A
1 Q All right.
2 Now, can you describe for me, Mr. Kostal or Mr.
3 Thorsell, either gentleman, how the discrepancy counting 4 was performed with regard to Cable Pan Hanger 104 with 5 reference to these documents?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You have to work with the discrepancy 7 point counting form. You also work with the observation 8 package, and you also work with the engineering 9 calculations associated with this 104.
10 0 I see.
11 So you've already got the engineering calculations at the point where you start counting the discrepancy (s_-) 12 points?
13.
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
15 0 All right.
16 You know what the answer is, in terms of what the 17 evaluation has been of the item, before you start 4
18 counting discrepancy points?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
20 0 -Okay.
21 Now, InLurtenors' 155 is the observation packages 22 for that c b2 g can hanger, and 155-B is again the 1 23 Sargent & Lundy calculation package. If you can turn to 24 155, let's look at Observation 04, the weld s ,j 25 discrepancies.
l
~ ~ ~ ~
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14874 O 1 1 Before we get there, do you have'155, Mr. Kostal?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir. l 3 0 It's the first series of documents in 155 for 4 Observation 01 for that cable pan hanger, 02, 03 and 5 finally 04.
6 Do I understand correctly that with regard to the 7 first three observations, which are configuration 8 observations, there was no discrepancy point counting 9 done because discrepancies in the configuration area for 10 cable pan hangers were all declared out of scope?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes.
12 0 All right, sir.
13 So the first time for this item that you got down l 14 to counting discrepancies was with Observation Cable Pan 15 Hanger 104-04?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
17 Q All right. I've got that.
18 If you would, help me relate that observation to 19 the discrepancy point counting.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There are attached. to your Exhibit 21 155-A the individual pages, Pages 245 through 262, which 22 document the discrepancies point counts for various 23 welds.
24 0 All right, sir. Let's look at the first page. That's 25 245.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ _..
(312) 232-0262
14875 v.
1 What weld does that refer to?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That refers to the undercut welds, 3 and it refers to Page 11-of the calculations -- I'm 4 sorry -- to Item 1 in the calculations found on Page --
5 this is your Exhibit 155-B.
6 0 Right.
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It would be found on Page 1 of those 8 calculations.
9 0 Page 1 of the calculations?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right, at the bottom of the page, 11 reference to " undercut."
r"
( )j 12 0 Just one second. Excuse me.
13 All right, sir, Page 1 of the cale package.
14 And this is undercut?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
16 0 And where do you derive the counting of 10 discrepant 17 inspection points that appears --
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You derive it from the -- well, you 19 use this particular page along with the weld maps. You
~
20 can count item by item what's reflected on the weld 21 maps, which represents a discrepancy in the undercut 22 area.
23 0 Well, you could do that, but what I'm interested in 24 knowing is: How was it done for this particular item? *i 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) For example, if you go to the --
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262
14876 3
(J ,
1 let's take Point 1, circled "1."
2 0- Now, we' re on Page 1 of the calculation package,155-B?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right.
4 And if you were to go to Page 3 and you look for --
5 Q Page 3 of what, now?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Page 3 of the calculations.
7 You look f or the indication "1," which is U/C, 8 which is the top diagonal on the lef t -- on the right --
9 on the right-hand side --
10 0 All right.
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- it shows the point where this 12 undercut is being counted.
~
13 If you then go back to the weld map, it points to 14 an undercut on the underside of that connection. This 15 is in the weld map on Page 1, and it shows undercut 3/8 16 of an inch long,1/8 inch wide,1/32 of an inch deep on 17 the north side of.the Unistrut.
18 0 You lost me there.
19 You're deriving that data from where, sir?
20 A .(WITNESS KOSTAL) I'm deriving it f rom the weld map, 21 which is your Exhibit Bates Stamp 4667, which is the 22' Page 1 of 3 of the weld map which has formed part of the 23 discrepancy observation.
24 0 It's an attachment to the observation form.
N
, ,) 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14877 p
1 MR. MILLER: Intervenors' 155.
2 MR. GUILD: All right.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q So we've gone f rom the counting f orm to the calculation 5 package to the observation form attachment?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
~
7 0 All right.
8 A -(WITNESS KOSTAL) That's Point 1. That represents one 9 discrepancy.
10 0 All right, sir.
11 Now, what does the parenthetical mean on the 12 discrepancy point counting form for the Item 11,
(
13 undercut?
14 It says "one per weld," paren, "(depth end) ,"
15 paren.
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You're looking at the depth of the 17 undercut. That's all that'c referring to.
18 An undercut has three dimensions: a horizontal --
19 two horizontal dimensions, which define the planar
, 20 section, and there is a depth to the undercut.
21 Q All right.
22 So why have we got depth here as a parenthetical in 23 your discrepancy point counting form?
s 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's what represents one undercut, N
, ,) 25 one weld with depth, meaning the depth of the undercut, 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 9 ry , --
- rw w (312) 232-0262 e-,-w w- --- - - - - - - - m-w w-- w --- yw -- ,
l 14878 A
\
l 1 which affects -- you take the horizontal dimension and 2 the depth.
3 That defines the cross sectional area that's cut 4 out of the given member, which then reduces the cross 5 sectional area of the member that you evaluate for, 'the 6 remaining area.
7 0 That all sounds helpful, but what's the purpose of 8 noting depth when you're counting discrepancy points for 9 undercut, if any?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There is a criteria which defines 11 undercut in terms of a depth.
fm 12 You have to go back to BCAP and the checklist and
%/ )
i 13 look at what is considered acceptable undercut versus 14 unacceptable undercut.
~
15 0 What if there is intermittent-undercut on the same weld, 16 undercut in more than one place on that weld?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It's defined as one discrepancy. If 18 you have on a weld more than one -- one weld, you have 19 more than one undercut, it's defined per the weld as one 20 discrepancy in that weld which is related to undercut.
21 Q All right, sir.
22 So this particular discrepancy point counting form 23 counts all of the incidences of undercut reflected in 24 the observation for Cable Pan Hanger 104 with the
( j 25 measure that you only count one instance of undercut, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois .60134 J- (312) 232-0262
. 14879 1 one discrepancy point, per-weld; and you get a value of 2 10 discrepancies points?
3- A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes. That's the logic of where the 4 10 is derived, yes, sir.
5 -Q Now, what's .the basis for the value that appears to the 6 right-hand margin, .98, and the categorization of this 7 discrepancy as a Y on this discrepancy point counting 8 form?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's the R value associated with
- 10 this particular -- if you recall, when I went through 11 this example, we didn't individually analyze each of
[)
'O 12 these undercuts.
13 We took the worst case of undercut; and we 14 accumulated that and performed one calculation found on 15 Page 4, which determined what the R value was for that 16 worst-case condition, that R value being equal to .98.
17 We assigned then that .98 for conservative method 18 to all those undercuts, and the .98 that you see over on 19 the right-hand side of the discrepancy point counting 20 form reflects that value.
21 Q I see. You didn't sum up R values or average R values; 22 you took the R value for the' case-that happened to have 23 been calculated.
24 In this case, it was the R value for the most
( 25 significant undercut?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ _ _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14880
.O V
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) For the most -- correct, for the 2 greatest amount of undercut.
3 0 All right, sir. Let's flip through. ~You have two weld 4 size discrepancies.
5 Now, which two weld size discrepancies are 6 reflected on the second page of your discrepancy point 7 count?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is the next discrepancy point 9 count?
10 0 ~Yes. It's the second form in the package.
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This relates to Item -- now, you go 12 back to the weld map. This relates to Item 2, which is f]
w the next item in the calculation, which is found on Page 13 14 -- found on Page 5.
15 0 Page 4?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, the calculation is f ound -- it 17 starts on Page 4, but it proceeds to Page 5. .It's 18 actually the connection associated with the diagonal 19 brace.
20 0 11ow do you know that's the one they list on this page of 21 the discrepancy point counting form?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The way you can determine that is by 23 looking at the R value that's indicated in the lower 24 right-hand margin and also the SM value.
( ,j 25 If you turn to the bottom of Page 6, you will see Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l- (312) 232-0262
j 14881 0
1 that R value of .695, and you will see that SM value of 2 5.18.
3 0 And that's from your. revised calculation?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, it's the same discrepancy in 5 the original calculation or the revised calculation.
6 0 Yes, but the R value that's indicated as the revised R 7 value for the revised calculation?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
9 Q Now, .the first page of your discrepancy point count 10 appears to have been completed on September 5, 1985; the 11 second page, October 1, 1985.
[
V) 12 13 I gather that that-reflects that a single person didn't sit down and count all the discrepancy points at 14 a single point in time?
15 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
16 0 Why did you do it, at least in those two instances, over 17 about a month's period of time?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, one thing that was happening --
19 I don't know exactly why in this particular case this 20 counting was done over a period of time. It does date 21- when each of these forms was prepared. Some were 22 prepared in September; some were prepared in October.
23 The process took a long time in terms of the 24- tabulating of all of the data and filling out all the 25 appropriate discrepancy point forms and inspection point Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2 14882 v
1 forms. For some reason, it was done in a two-step 2 stage.
3 Q Do you know whether or not-there was a discrepancy point 4 count made'before you revised your calculations?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Based on the dates that are indicated 6 in each of these re as, there would have been no 1
7 discrepancy point counts prior to the date that we had 8 performed the calculations.
9 I think the earliest date that any of these 10 discrepancy point counts are filled out is 9/5/85. The 11 date of the revised calculation was approved -- it was 12 prepared -- started to be prepared on many sheets as
(
13 early as 7/25/85, and the approval dates were 9/3/85.
14 So this would reflect that the calculation was 15 indeed revised for that second run prior to any of these 16 forms being filled out.
t 17 Q 1 see that.
18 My question really is: Are there any dry runs in 19 the discrepancy. point counts for this item that don't 20 appear in the documents that we have before us?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Not to my knowledge.
22 Q Did you do any more than once? Did you do revised 23 discrepancy point counting?
i 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In the process of the BCAP validation
) 25 of observations that were out of scope versus valid Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14883 O
1 observations in scope, there was an iteration in the 2 counting of changes that occurred.
3 0 Something was counted as in-scope first; you counted 4 those discrepancy points.
5 If it became out of scope, you deleted those 6 discrepancy points?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
8 0 But for individual items, did you do more than a single 9 stab at counting discrepancy points?.
10 MR. STEPTOE: Excuse me.
11 Counsel, are you referring to the time period here?
() 12 13 BY MR. GUILD:
0 During any time period, did you count discrepancy points 14 more than once for a single item and come up with 15 different results and revise your discrepancy point 16 counts?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) At this point in time or at any point 18 in time?
4 19- 0 At any point in time.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
21 0 You did?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, we provided you changes with 23 the -- I don't know. This is the BCAP discrepancy point g- 24 counting.
25 0 Right.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _
1 l
14884 I
V 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There were changes in five of those 2 populations.
3 0 Right.
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You are aware and we talked to you 5 about the fact that we are and we have just completed a 6 reassessment of the complete cable pan hanger 7 population.
8 0 I'm going to ask you about that in a moment.
9 So you did do revised counts, more than one 10 discrepancy point count, for BCAP CSR population items?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
12 0 All right.
[V) 13 Not this one in particular; this one appears to 14 have been gone through once and all done af ter the 15 calculations were made and revised?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
17 0 Now, is there any identification on the discrepancy 18 point counting forms of which particular locations on 19 the component are the subject of the count or are you 20 inferring the association based on the R value number?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, utilizing the discrepancy point 22 count, utilizing the characterization of that 23 discrepancy, utilizing the R value that's given and the 24 M value that's given, I can correlate each of these
_,) 25 pages to the appropriate calculation that was made on a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14885 (D
b 1 given connection.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll take five minutes.
3- (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 4 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record.
6 WITNESS KOSTAL: We did bring over that 7 computer run for the f requency. The f requency of that l
8 hanger in question,104, is 6.2 cycles per second.
9 So it's close to that 10 that we were talking 10 about, which is the flat portion of the spectra.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Now, could you tell me why, 12 if that is the case, you or whoever made the calculation
[%))
4 13 used the Braidwood-unique response spectra?
i 14 WITNESS KOSTAL: The response spectra for the 15 project. In this particular case, it's the location in 16 the enveloped spectra. This particular f requency of the 17 hanger is in an area where the Byron /Braidwood spectra 18 is the same.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I take it the 1
20 calculation confirms that you used a factor of 2; is
, 21 that so?
22 WITNESS KOSTAL: Well, the calculation -- I 23 just don't have the spectra in front of me, but it would 24 confirm that if I went up to that --
25 MR. BERRY: (Indicating.)
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14886
,Oi V
1 WITNESS KOSTAL: -- in this particular 2 example for the north-south direction, we would have 3 used 2. We would have used then on the east-west 4 direction a value of 1.5; and on the vertical direction, 5 we would have used a value somewhere around 3.
6- JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. I was misled by
, 7 just looking at the north-south, but there is a 8 difference, then -- no. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. There is 9 no difference -- oh, yes, there is on the vertical 10 spectra.
11 WITNESS KOSTAL: Right.
(O)
%d 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There is a difference.
13 WITNESS KOSTAL: No. The vertical spectra is 14 still in the range of the enveloped Byron /Braidwood.
15 I said it was 3. I see I was reading slightly off.
16 It's probably more in the range of 2.2, 2.4.
17 See, that's still the enveloped portion of the 18 spectra with a frequency of over 6.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. You're looking 20 at the --
21 MR. GUILD: The vertical, I believe.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- at the vertical spectra?
23 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
-s 24 (Indicating.)
' Now, I see that there is a 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ;
I 14887
,O 1 dif ference at 6.2 cycles per second.
2 WITNESS KOSTAL: Oh, I apologize. There 3 would be a slight difference, yes, sir. I was reading a 4 little too far over to the lef t.
5 But in that case, there would be -- it's close to 6 one another, but there would be a slight difference.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 0 Let's return to Cable Pan Ilanger 104 and the discrepancy 10 point counting exercise. If you would, sir, look at 11 Page 252, and that is 252 in the Intervenors' Exhibit 12 155-A.
N/
13 Do you have that, sir?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
15 0 Now, for this particular discrepancy point counting 16 form, this counts one weld size discrepancy and one weld l 17 length discrepancy on the same form?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
i 19 0 Why did they aggregate two different attributes on one l 20 form in this case when they used the first form to I
21 aggregate only the single attribute of undercut?
22 A (WITNECS KOSTAL) There are two welds that are i
23 documented on this particular form. You'll have to go l 24 again to -- this is Weld G and Weld 7 that are 1
25 associated with this form.
l 1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l ._ -_ -- . _ _ . - _
(31?) 232-0262
}
14888 O
C' 1 Q How do you know that?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Because I worked back and forth 3 between the calculations and the discrepancy point forms 4- and the observation and derived that.
5 0 You matched the R value?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir. I matched the -- well, I 7 matched the weld size, the weld length and the weld.
8 The R value in this case is indicated as .906, but in 9 reality it's .91.
10 0 Rounded to .917 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
12' Where does that appear in the calculation? Where did
) O 13 you trace that to in the calculation?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay. We have to go to Page 12 of 15 the calculations.
16 Along with Page 12 we look at what's defined as 17 undersize Weld G, as Weld G. The Weld G location -- you 18 have to go back to the figure on Page 3.
19 0 Let me just slow you down here. At Page 12 we have an R 20 value of .91.
21 How did you get one more significant decimal place 22 when you listed the R value on the discrepancy point 23 counting form than you did when you did the calculation, 24 if the calculation was the basis f or putting the data on 7s
( ,) 25 the discrepancy point counting form?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
14889 N/
1 'A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, if you go to Page 17, it was an 2 error in translation.
3 If you go to Page 17 and if you look under Weld 7, 4 that's the second phase of the reported discrepancy, 5 which relates to weld length.
6 Now, if you go back to the weld -- if you go back 7 to Page 3 --
8 0 Page 3 of what?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Of the calculations.
10 I want to show you where Weld Size G and Weld Size 11 7 appear.
12 0 All right.
(
13 A (WITNESS THORSELL) (Indicating.)
J 14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Thank you.
15 Okay, If you look at the bottom of that figure, on 16 the lowest horizontal member on the left-hand side, it 17 reports a length not welded of 1/16 inch.
- 18 0 Yes.
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay. That's Weld 7.
20 If you go back into the calculation, Page 17, it 21 reports that same length undersize of 1/16 on the north 22 side.
23 If you go back to the --
24 0 Wait a minute, now. You lost me.
25 Where does Weld 7 get evaluated on Page 16, then?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14890 I
(
(
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, on Page 17 -- excuse me.
I 2 Q Page 17?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- there is a calculation on the 4 length not welded.
5 Q Right, and an R value of .91 is derived.
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It also includes in that the 7 undersize weld associated with that same connection, 8 which is Weld G.
9 You have to look at those --
10 0 You know that from looking at the diagram on Page 3 of f
i 11 the calculation?
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The diagram on Page 3 of the 13 calculation shows the f act that there is a weld -- a 14 vertical portion of the -- there is a vertical weld 15 that's undersized.
16 That's the Weld G, and it's undersized by 1/32 of 17 an inch for its length. You can find that description 18 on your Exhibit 155, Bates Stamp Page 4667, which is the l
19 welder's map.
20 (Indicating.)
I 21 0 I've got you.
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) You'll note over on that welder's map 23 in that lower corner, there indicates a note on that 24 horizontal member that the weld size is 1/32 of an inch 25 undersize 7/8 of an inch for 7/8 inch on the south side.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14891 O
1 0 I follow all that stuff.
2 Now, what I'm trying to figure out is: How did you 3 happen to get an R value of .906 on your discrepancy 4
4 point counting form when you only calculated an R value 5 to two digits in the calculation?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Like I said, it was a translational 7 area. It's 9.1, per the calculation.
8 0 Somebody put "06" down'in error?
f 9 Where did they get that from?
10 There's no translation involved. It's a matter, as 11 I understand your testimony, of simply taking data off
() 12 13 of the calculation for the discrepancy and transferring that data onto the discrepancy form.
14 No one made an additional calculation, did they?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. This is the calculation on that 16 given connection, which is represented in this 17 particular discrepancy form.
18 0 But the numbers ".906" don't appear anywhere in your 19 calculation.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
21 0 So somebody made it up?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) He translated it wrong. It should 23 have been indicated as 9.1. The calculations still 24 define the 9.1 on Page 17.
f( ,/ 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You mean .91?
i
) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14892 D
1 WITNESS KOSTAL: I'm sorry; .91 on Page 17.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 The fact of the matter is the discrepancy point counting 4 form can only be associated with a particular weld or a 5 particular discrepancy by the process of inference that 6 you're making right now.
7 That is, comparing the character of the discrepancy 8 counted and a numerical value and trying to find that 9 numerical value stated in some other document to help 10 you associate that discrepancy with a particular portion 11 of the observation or observation evaluation?
() 12 13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
I went through that exercise and was able to 14 determine each of the welds that are represented in 15 these particular discrepancy point counting forms.
16 0 Well, sir, is there any control for the process of 17 counting discrepancy points that states that one must 18 use the discrepancy point forms in a consistent fashion; 19 let's say, on the one hand, either to aggregate all of 20 the same discrepant attributes on one form or to use one 21 form to count all of the discrepant attributes for a 22 single weld?
23 Is there any control and requirement for a uniform 24 application of your discrepancy forms?
( j 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) People were trained in reporting the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 14893 m
U 1- data on discrepancy point counting forms. Sometimes 2 you'd have to look at a given, let's say, observation 3 package.
4 This is a fairly detailed and lengthy observation 5 package; so it was felt by the designers who were doing 6 this particular counting to document them on more than 7 one discrepancy point counting form, since there were 8 multiple discrepancies associated with-this hanger.
9 0 I see.
10 I take it there was no requirement of the Sargent &
11 Lundy program for discrepancy point counting that each
() 12 13 form be associated explicitly with a particular discrepancy that the form was intended to count?
14 In other words, did the form indicate, "We were 15 evaluating the discrepancies contained in Weld No. 1,"
16 if Weld No.1 is a designation used by the CSR inspector 17 or the Sargent & Lundy evaluator of the discrepancy?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There was training, for the various 19 people that were involved in this program, to translate 20 the discrepancies that were observed in the observation 21 packages and document to these types of forms.
22 There was no strict requirement that I'm aware of 23 that said you had to have an individual discrepancy 24 point form for each and every single weld.
k, 25 In this particular case, this happens to be one Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14894 p]
\~-
1 weld; and in general, these represent a corresponding 2 calculation which is on a weld.
3- 0 Except on the first'page, in which case there are the 4 evaluation of 10 welds?
5 A- (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct, and there it just 6 didn't --
7 0 There may be some cases where there is also a 8 combination of the two?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Sure, sure.
10 It didn't make any sense to make 10 single forms to 11 document 10 unique individual undercut discrepancies
() 12 13 0 when one form can summarize that same data.
So I take it that the process for discrepancy point 14 counting that's reflected in the counting for Cable Pan 15 llanger 104 is consistent with any discrepancy point 16 counting procedures or instructions given by Sargent &
17 Lundy, as best you can determine?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It's supposed to be consistent.
19 0 Well, is it, from your evaluation?
20 You've tried to match it up and, I take it, 21 reviewed the counting forms for this cable pan hanger?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
23 I think I told you on this particular one that I 7y 24 found some differences that exist that weren't properly
) 25 reported and that I told you what those differences Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
( . . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
(312) 232-0262
l 14895 0
1 were --
2 0 Well, maybe --
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- and that we were going through the 4 exercise as a result of this and recounting all of the 5 discrepancies associated with the cable pan hanger 6 population.
7 0 I guess I missed that part of what you told me, because 8 I only understood that you were going back and doing the 9 discrepancy point counting all over again for some 10 . unstated reason. Perhaps I didn't hear that it was 11 associated with having identified a miscount for Cable 12 Pan Hanger 104.
(
13 If that's the case, would you tell me what the 14 miscount was that you identified?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, let me refresh your memory.
16 As you recall, when we were in the other chamber, I 17 sat down and gave you an illustration of an item I found 18 that was not counted in this particular population --
19 0 How about --
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- which had to do with the 21 underlength of the weld associated with the Unistrut 22 welded to the plate.
23 0 I see.
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Do you recall that?
( ,) 25 0 I do recall that, but that was associated with this Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232 0262 j
14896 1 particular Cable Pan Hanger 104 item?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
3 0 And you, Mr. Kostal, identified that in the course of 4 reviewing this discrepancy point counting?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) .Yes, sir, yes, sir. That was a week 6 ago, I think, Tuesday evening.
7 Q I do recall you telling me about that, and I didn't 8 understand it was associated with Cable Pan Hanger 104.
9 Well, all right, sir.
10 Now, tell me what you identified, then, or why 11 don't you tell the Board what you identified in the
() 12 13-course of doing.your discrepancy point counting for Cable Pan Hanger 104.
14 What was the error you identified?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In essence, what I identified -- this 16 particular package of discrepancy point counting forms 17 has a tabulation of 37 discrepancies. That tabulation 18 is found in --
19 WITNESS KOSTAL: Does this have a number?
20 (Indicating.)
21 MR. STEPTOE: Intervenors' 141?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) (Continuing . ) -- Intervenors' 141.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 0 Your print-out -- is that what you're looking at?
25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes. In my print-out we documented, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 14897 O
V 1 under the Cable Pan Hanger 104, that there were 37 2 discrepancies, 31 of which were insignificant and six 3 were notable.
4 In the process of my reviewing this package in 5 preparation for this testimony, this particular 6 testimony, I reviewed the weld maps, I reviewed each of 7 the discrepancy counting forms, and I reviewed the 8 complete set of calculations to determine whether or not 9 everything was consistent across each of these 10 particular documents.
11 In the process of that review, I uncovered a
() 12 13 difference in the reported discrepancies as compared to my evaluation of the number of discrepancies that exist 14 on this hanger.
15 0 Okay. I've got you that far.
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The dif ference is a total of six 17 discrepancies. We originally had six Z's and 31 Y's.
18 From my reviewing of these documents, it's been my 19 determination that there are three X's, there are eight 20 Z's and there are 32 Y's, for a total of 43 21 discrepancies.
22 0 All right, sir.
23 Now, how did you find the missing six in the course 24 of your review of this packet?
25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) By comparing each joint, by comparing Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14898 v
1 the discrepancy point counting forms and by comparing 2 the calculations that were performed.
3 In the process of doing that, I located areas where 4 we reported incorrectly the number of discrepancies.
5 0 All right, sir.
6 Where did you identify -- excuse me. Go ahead and 7 finish. I'm sorry.
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's all I wanted to say.
9 0 Where were the discrepancies identified in this package, 10 Mr. Kostal, that were not counted properly in the 11 discrepancy point counts for the package?
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) When you look at the weld map, you 13 can count X number of -- you can count all the 14 discrepancies that exist throughout each connection.
15 0 You're talking about the diagram associated with the 16 observation itself?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Right; in terms of the Bates Stamp, 18 4667 and 4668.
- 19 0 Okay, all right.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In the process of doing that and 21 looking at each joint and looking at the number of 22 discrepancies that exist at each joint and also looking
- 23 at the discrepancy point counting forms on that which
- 24 define each of the discrepancies, I uncovered j 25 differences that were documented.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i deneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
I 14899 1 0 Okay. I'm still waiting.for the punch line.
2 What are the discrepancies that you identified on 3 this weld map or these weld maps that the man who 4 counted discrepancies missed?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay. There is one undercut.
6 0 Where is that?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Let me go over it.
8 If you go back to Page -- if you go back to Page 1 9 of the calculation --
10 0 All right, sir.
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- which is in 155-D --
[)
V 12 0 Yes.
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- and if you look at each of these, 14 there is a -- let me see. There is -- if you -- there 15 is an Item 3.
16 If you go back to the weld map and if you go back 17 to Page 3, Page 3 indicates where undercut is defined.
18 0 Page 3 of what, now, si r?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Page 3 of the calculations shows that 20 on the third diagonal on the right-hand side, it 21 indicates undercut.
22 0 Third diagonal from the bottom?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7, 24 0 The right-hand side; I've got you.
/ ) i l ( ) 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay.
1 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Iffinois 66134 (312) 232-0262 - - .
14900 m
(0 1 Now, if you go back to the weld map and you look at 2 the information that's reported on the weld map at that 3 location, it says there is undercut "on south side of 4 Unistrut top and side."
5 I would interpret that to mean that there is a top 6 weld and there is a vertical weld, and there would be 7 undercut associated with the top weld and there would be 8 undercut associated with the side weld.
9 (Indicating.)
10 0 Two welds?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That would be two welds.
12 0 And how did the discrepancy point counter count those?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The discrepancy point counter, in 14 reading this note -- what I believe he read is it said 15 " top and side," and he read it to mean that it was at 16 the top of the side weld and somewhere further down the 17 side weld.
18 0 You're assuming that's what he did?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, he reported -- by looking at 20 the calculations, you can see that he added those two 21 together as one undercut, which is found on Page 1, Item 22 3.
23 O Oh, I see.
24 So it wasn't just the counter who made the mistake; s
25 it was the evaluator as well?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
deneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
14901 g
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. The evaluator welded all the 2 undercut that was associated at that joint.
3 0 The guy who did the calculation mischaracterized the two 4 instances of undercut as one?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, he didn't mischaracterize it at 6 all. He correctly added the two together.
7 You are looking at the effect of the undercut on 8 the Unistrut, and the undercut is in the Unistrut.
9 Therefore, you lose a certain cross section of the 10 Unistrut at that location as a result of those two 11 undercuts.
() 12 13 0 Oh, I see, okay.
So Item 3 on Page 1 of the calculation in reality 14 shows the sum of two welds with one undercut each?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Correct.
16 0 And the discrepancy point counting man simply counted 17 that as one instance of undercut?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct. Now, that's my --
19 0 You determined he was in error because you looked at the 20 weld map associated with the observation and read it to 21 indicate two welds?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's the way I read it. This is my 23 understanding of where these two different undercuts 24 are.
25 In the spirit of documenting undercut associated
(_ )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
14902 I with a weld, as I told you before, if undercut was 2 associated -- if more than.one place was associated with 3 the weld, we reported it as one undercut.
4 However, if it's associated with two different 5 welds, we would report it as two undercuts.
6 Q All right.
7 In this case somebody exercised some judgment in 8 counting discrepancy points, and they exercised it in 9 error, in your opinion; two welds, not one weld?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
11 0 I' ve got you. That's one out of six.
A) 12 Where are the others?
(J 13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If you look at Item 10 --
14 0 Undercut?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Undercut.
16 0 Page 1 of the calc?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Page 1 of the calc.
18 0 Okay.
19' A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, we really don't have to go any 20 further.
21 0 It takes us-to Page 4.
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That is the one that adds to get to 23 the 11. We had 10 noted. This now becomes the 11th 24 one.
25 Q The one, this undercut?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134
[- (312) 232-0262
l 14903 n
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sira 2 0 All right, sir. So that's one' additional discrepancy.
3 Where are the other five discrepancies?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's one additional discrepancy 5 relating to the undercut.
6 Let's go to 246 of discrepancy point counting form 7 Exhibit 155-A.
8 0 All right.
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That would be the second sheet.
10 Let's also turn, then, tc Page 4 of the 11 calculations, which refers to the check of the
() 12 13 undersized weld on the two diagonal -- on the Point A and B of the diagonal brace.
14 Now, Point A and B -- we have to go back to Page 3 15 of the calculations, and it defines the plane at which A 16 and B are represented.
17 If you look at the top of that page, on the 18 right-hand side, you'll see a circled A regarding weld 19 undersize. That is the weld between the diagonal plate 20 and the vertical member.
21 If you also look at the bottom of that diagonal on ;
1 22 the lef t-hand side, there is a Weld B, which is the weld '
23 between the plate and the vertical member, the same weld s 24 location.
25 Now, if we go back to your Exhibit 155 on the weld Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 ;
14904 O
1 map and you read on the top, which is Weld A, it says 2 the weld size is "1/16 inch under throat size 3-1/4 3 inches of 3-1/4 inches both sides." So that's two
'4 welds.
5 If you read the note on the lower portion of the 6 diagonal, which would represent Weld B, it says, " Weld 7 size 1/16 inch under throat size 3-1/4 inches and 3-1/4 8 inches south side." That is one weld discrepancy.
9 So together between those two locations, there are 10 three discrepant welds.
11 The calculation that was performed was performed on
() 12 13 the worst side. That worst side is what's reflected in Page 4 of the calculations, which is the weld which is 14 the connection noted as A. l 15 That calculation was made based on an R value of 16 two discrepant welds. They were discrepant by 1/16 inch 17 undersize, okay. ;
18 If you go.then to the discrepancy point counting 19 form, which is Page 246 of Exhibit 155-A, it notes there 20 are two weld size discrepancies that are z. It failed 21 to report -- since the calculation was done at Joint A, 22 it failed to report the fact that that calculation 23 represented also Weld B, and it didn't report that other 24 discrepancy.
25 So instead of having two weld sizes for this Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14905 b
U 1 particular discrepancy point counting form, there should 2 be three. That's one more.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Guild.
4 Is there any reason why we have to go through the 5 other six?
6 MR. GUILD: Somebody is going to have to 7 decide they counted these discrepancy points correctly 8 for all of the thousands of welds that are evaluated in 9 BCAP, Judge. It's an arduous process, I'll certainly 10 concede.
11 But it would seem to me that the obscurity and the 12 judgment that's required in order to correctly count
(
13 these discrepancy points should be a matter of record so 14 that appropriate inferences can be drawn about the 15 likely errors that exist in other instances.
i 16~ JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Kostal, is there l' 17 any difference in kind between the other six than from 18 the two that you've discussed?
19 WITNESS KOSTAL: Well, there are basically I
20 those same kind.
l 21 However,-we did double-count some undercut which 22 shouldn't have been. It was counted twice. It was 23 counted once on one form, and then it was counted again I So, in essence, we had two undercuts 24 on another form.
25 reported -- three undercuts reported twice.
l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14906
.s ,
J 1 So there were some deletions f rom the --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But you have a net gain 3 of --
4 WITNESS KOSTAL: We have a net gain of six.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
6 So that's nine that were reported and three that 7 were reported twice; is that correct?
8 WITNESS KOSTAL: That's correct.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don' t really think it's 10 worth our while to go through each of these now.
11 If you, Mr. Guild, wish to go through these with gy 12 the witness on your own time and then decide whether 13 there's any significance over and above what we've 14 already heard with regard to the two, we'll entertain 15 that testimony.
16 But otherwise it just doesn' t seem profitable.
17 MR. GUILD: Perhaps if I could just ask that 18 Applicant supply a description of where the other errors 19 occurred in a documentary form. I don' t mean to take 20 the Board's time unduly, but I'm learning about this for 21 the first time as well.
22 I hesitate only because I don't mean to waive my 23 rights and be in a position where I have to join an 24 argument from Applicant about the degree of accuracy in 25 their discrepancy point counting that I can't completely Sonntag Reporting Servide, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
14907 O
1 meet because I haven't pursued this matter with this 2 witness.
3 But if Applicant will agree to supply a written 4 description of where the other errors existed for this 5 cable pan hanger -- I'm only using one example now, Mr.
6 Chairman. I'm not going through multiple examples of 7 any of these Sargent &.Lundy pieces of work. I simply 8 want to have this as exemplary.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, I don't think we need' 10 to have that by tomorrow.
11 So, Mr. Steptoe, if you can have Mr. Kostal write 12
( out the items or find some way of getting that written 13 out ~~
14 MR. STEPTOE: We can generate such a piece of 15 paper I think over the weekend, not tomorrow.
16 But Mr. Kostal is frowning at me. Maybe I'd better 17 check with him.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, if you were planning 19 on going to Acapulco over the weekend, Mr. Kostal -- j l
20 (Laughter.) l l
21 WITNESS KOSTAL: I'm not going anywhere.
J l
22 I guess I was trying to, you-know -- in the spirit i 23 of cooperating.with Mr. Guild, I guess I -- would he 1
s 24 accept'the fact if I just marked up these discrepancy l 25 point counting forms with the correct values and l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _ _ _ - - - - - - __ --.
l
14908 O
V 1 indicate where in the calculation you would find those 2 given joints?
3 MR. GUILD: That would be fine if you could 4 do that as a starter, Mr. Kostal, and it may make 5 perfect sense and be all that's required.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And then put a short 7 narrative which you think will explain what was done 8 with each point.
9 That's out of the way. Let's get on to the next 10 item, Mr. Guild.
11 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
12 Mr. Chairman, the hour is almost 5:00 o' clock.
(
13 Perhaps if I can collect my notes, I can complete Mr.
14 Kostal promptly first thing in the morning.
15 I do have one other subject that I'm still awaiting 16 inf ormation f rom Applicant on, and that had to do with 17 the computer model that was used for evaluating the 18 cable pan hanger discrepancy.
19 MR. STEPTOE: We can take care of that this 20 evening, Judge Grossman.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
22 Well, maybe I have one or two questions, since it's 23 before 5:00.
24 We have a revision of the BCAP document which has 25 the categories X, Y, Z and D in the document. I think Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
g Geneva, Illinois 60134 f - . ._.
(312) 232-0262
(
14909
' s_ l 1 it's sometime in the middle of 1985.
2 When was Category D put into the plan, Mr. Kostal?
3 WITNESS KOSTAL: Category D was put in at the 4 same time X, Y, Z was put in. It represented the 5 concept of design-significant discrepancies, "D" 6 standing for design-significant.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And that was in there all 8 the time?
9 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Was that similar to the 11 Byron BCAP program?
WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
( 12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And that was in all the time 14 in Byron, too?
15 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.-
17 When you made your calculations with regard to 18 stress, either in conduit or cable pan hangers or 19 whatever items we had here in the six categories that 20 required that kind of calculation, did you take into 21 account items that were not subject to your calculation 22 that might have affected stress?
23 By that I mean items that were right next to the 24 conduit or, let's say, were connected to the conduit.
7-I \
( ,) 25 WITNESS KOSTAL: Yes, sir. Let me give you Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. --
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14910
(
O) 1 an example: a weld.
2 A weld we would take into account ~-- a weld i
3 . represents a definition of a length of weld that, when 4 you make a right-hand turn, you have another weld.
5 So if you're looking -- you don't analyze just each 6 individual weld; you analyze the welds that are 7 associated with the connection to transf er the load f rom 8 one element to another element.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. -But you're now 10 discussing welds on the items that you evaluated.
11 WITNESS KOSTAL: I just wanted to start with
~N (J ) 12 13 that. Then I'll get to the next one.
Let's'take, for example, in the weld population we 14 would include all the welds in that connection and all 15 the discrepancies in that connection and analyze.all 16 those discrepancies on that weld group simultaneously.
17 Let's take the conduit hanger population, where 18 conduit is attached by clamps to vertical Unistruts.
19 In the case where we have an observation package 20 that's reviewing a given hanger and that hanger shows a 21 missing clamp, meaning the conduit is not attached to 22 that hanger, we would look at the two adjacent hangers, 23 which now carry more load. That would be- an example s 24 where we would look at the two adjacent hangers.
q_,) 25 The reciprocal of that would be if we were looking Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14911 p
1 at the conduit population and we were missing the clamp, 2 we would look at what the new effect is of the conduit 3 for that lon'ger span to make sure that the reaction at 4 the two adjacent hangers are still within, quote, 5 "allowables" for the conduit.
6 So yes, indeed, we do take into account, when 7 appropriate, adjacent elements.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, how about cable 9 hangers? Is that the way it's characterized?
10 WITNESS KOSTAL: In the cable pan hanger 11 population, we define every joint as being a
-~s (J ) 12 13 calculation. As long as every joint still stays within code, there is no -- it defines each joint. Each joint 14 stays within code. Therefore, the entire hanger is 15 within code.
16 So rather than looking at the combined effect of 17 all the discrepancies -- which you could, and you could l
18 input that into a given analysis -- we look at.each 19 individual connection and ensure that the connection 20 satisfies the criteria of meeting the code allowable, 21 rather than relying on at least f rom the first cut.
22 We haven't relied upon it in any of these 23 calculations on redistributing the loads by a more l
24 detailed hanger analysis, taking into account the 25 revised stiffness characteristics of each of the joints.
l i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
14912 0
1- We don't have to do that, since each joint still stays 2 within the code.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. I have no more 4 questions now.
5 We'll adjourn until 8:00 o' clock tomorrow morning.
6 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:00 P. M., the 7 hearing of the above-entitled matter was 8 continued to the 17th day of October, 9 1986, at the hour of 8:00 o'cloc'k A. M.)
10 11 13 14 15
, 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
22 23 s
24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STNTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!GiISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: Braidwood Station Units 1 4 2 DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL PLACE: Chicago, Illinois DATE: Thursday, October 16, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the originai transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) 'k U/
(TYPED) NancyIJ. IIbhp Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation
- O
~
4 i
i
. . , . , - - . - -v,,,, - -
c-- - - - - . . , , _.y -___.;-,,,,-n_y .-_, ,.,. ,, ,__._,,.,-,-n- , . _ _ , , - , - _ , _ . . , , , . _ , . , . , , , , . , -