ML20213D529
| ML20213D529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1527 OL, NUDOCS 8611120132 | |
| Download: ML20213D529 (52) | |
Text
o .
U UNI 1ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OR GINIL IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
O .
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 16661 - 16709 DATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1986
, k\
o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Ca i wesagton.EtelStreet C. 20001 11 h 0CW g gg, Ppa (202)347-3700 T NAEONWIDE COVERAGE
, , . , . _ _ .,,-- . ~ , . _ - - _. , . . . . .
~
13301-t
~-.-
).
1 2 UNITED STATES Or AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CT! MISSION 4 3EFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 3OARD 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 6 :
In the Matter of: :
7 : Docke t No. 50-4 56 COM'!ONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457
- 8. :
(Sraidwood Station, Units 1 :
9 and 2) :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 10 11
. Page: 16,661 - 16709 12 i3=f'/) United States District Court House 13 Courtroom 1743 Chicago, Illinois 60604 14 Wednesday, November 5, 1936 15 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 17 at 2:00 P. M.
18 3EFORE:
19 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 hashington, D. C.
22 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
gg 24 l , (,)
JUDGE A. DIXON CALLI 3AN, Nember, i 25 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sonntag nonor ting corv4co. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
15502
>n. i
- - (-) - )
i l
1 l *Iach ingt o n , O. C. I 2 APPEARAMOSS:
3~ On behalf of the Applicant:
4 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
5 Isham, Lincoln & Beale ,
Three First National. Plaza l 6 Chicago, Illinois 60602 l l
7 On behalf of the Nuclear Regula, tory 8 Commission Staff:
9 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CHAN, ESO.
10 ~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 11 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 zA
- ) 12 On beh'alf of the Intervenor
(
13 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
14 15 16 17 la F
19 20 21 22 23
()
(/ 25 annne_,9 on7n-*4ng anrrtco; r.ea -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. .. - .J312) .232-0262
.15533
, m_
x/
1 EM"I3IT I CEM Ia r't ed Received 2 Applicant's Exhibit "o. 172 15570 15G91 3 Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 173, 174 and 175 15670 16691 4
Applicant's Exhibit No. 176 16678 16G91' 5 .
Applicant's Exhibit No. 177 16G80 1G691 6
Applicant's Exhibit No. 178 '16681 16691 7
Applicant's Exhibit No. 179 16683 16691 8
Applicant's Exhibit No. 180 16685 16691 9
Applicant's Exhibit No. 181 16687 16691-10 Board Exhibit No. 8 16693 16693 11 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 187 16702 16706
.(')
id:
12 Applicant's Exhibit No. 164, .
13 Intervenors Exhibits 178 and 179 16709 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 r(
(, 25 sonntag Reporting enrvice. r, ta .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
13534
-V 1' TESTINO;"I 07 2 EEMMETII TIIO?iAC EOCTAL THOBiAS SURTON THORSELL 3 NARINDER KAUSHAL GEORGE MICHAEL ORLOV 4
DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. STEPTOE 16666 6 BOARD EYMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 16687 7
CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. GUILD: 16693 9 BOARD EXAMINATION DY JUDGE COLE: 16706 10- _
11
, 7~,
,U (j 1
12 13 14 15-16 17 18 i
19 20 l
l 21 22 l
23 l
i 24 (f) v
, 25 ennn*,7 popn-ei g ceir.,4cn; r. e 4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'335!
%j 1- JUDG" G"OssMAM: The hearing is reconvened.
Thic is the 06th day of hearing.
2 Are there any preliminary matterc before , e get to the witnesses?
3 MR. STEPTOD: The only preliminary matter I have, Judge Grossman, is that I should say that I have 4 looked at the blacked-out portion of the QCIRP final r ep or t , in response to Mr. Guild's request, and 5 confirmed that that blacked-out portion doesn't have anything to do with the -- is not relevant to the 6 comparison that he was drawing in his use of the document between the Comstock agreement rate and the PTL 7 agreement rate.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Anything further on that, 8 Mr. Guild?
MR. GUILD: Not on that item.
9 That certainly suits me and suffices. That's responsive to my question, and I appreciate the 10 Applicant checking on that.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
11 Anything further, then? ,
r MR. GUILD: Apparently we're unable to, at Iw/
f~') 12 this point, review Mr. Hii's documents.
I understand that arrangements are now being made 13 for Mr. Hil's documents to be brought to Chicago some time later this afternoon.
14 Mr. Miller and I have discussed that matter, and we expect to confer further about that when they arrive.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: These documents have not been viewed by anyone yet, I take it?
16 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: If there is nothing further, 17 we'll proceed with the witnesses.
We have Mr. Kostal, Mr. Thorsell -- well, why don't 18 you, Mr. Steptoe, introduce them again.
MR. STEPTOE: Sure.
- 19 Would you just please identify yourself for the I record, Mr. Kostal.
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes. My name is Kenneth Thomas Kostal.
21 O Mr. Thorsell.
A (UITNESS THORSELL) My name is Thomas Burton Thorsell.
22 O Dr. Kaushal.
A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) My name is Marinder Kaushal.
23 Q Mr. Orlov.
A (WITNESS ORLOV) George Michael Orlov.
rg 24 MR. STEPTOE: Now, all these four witnesses have previoucly been sworn, l((_)
s,,, 25 I will just remind you that you are still under oath, conneng engnreing Anruice, r. e d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15 CGS 3,
\]-
1 '"""TETH TUOMAS XOSTAL 2 THOMAS 3URTON. THOR 3 LL 3 NARINDER KAUSHAL
.4 GEORGE MICHAEL ORLOV 5 recalled as witnesses by the Applicant herein, having been 6 previously duly sworn, were examined and testified further as 7 follows:
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9, BY MR. STEPTOE 10 Q Starting with you, Mr. Kostal, why did Sargent & Lundy 11 recount weld discrepancies and discrepant welds in i=%
12 October of 1986?
w) t(
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In preparation for testimony, I 14 reviewed Cable Pan Hanger Observation Package 104, and 15 in reviewing that package, I could not come to the same 16 number of discrepancy points and welding points that 17 were indicated in the package.
18 I, therefore, asked my engineering staf f to go back 19 and recount the discrepancy points and weld points in 20 the same manner as had been done in the past.
21 As a result of the -- of that, the findings from 22 that were greater than I would have expected in terms of 23 differences. They were in the order of a 10 to 15 24 percent dif ference.
(-}
.v 25 As a result of those findings, in consultation with annneng nopnev<ng nornten, r. v a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-02G2 . - . - -
15057
,; 3-
.s 1 Edison, Nith Concon'realth Eiison and with ILS2, tnd in 2 an effort to create a more readily -- readily.auditabla 3 trail of discrepancy points and welds discrepant, we 4 recounted the four populations in the electrical area, 5 cable pan, cable pan hanger, conduit hanger and 6 electrical equipment, where welds were present.
7 0 Mr. Thorsell, were objective discrepancies recounted in 8 October of 1986?
9 A (WITNESS THORSELL) No, sir.
10 0 Why not?
11 A (WITNESS THORSELL) The nature of objective
,.$) 12 discrepancies makes the counting of discrepant points 13 simpler than it is counting weld discrepancies, and 14 these discrepancies were recounted during preparation of 15 testimony.
16 There were some changes made, but these changes did 17 not result from errors of a repetitive nature, and it 18 was my judgment that no additional recount wac 19 necessary.
20 0 Were the changes that you discovered in preparing to 21 give your testimony brought to the attention -- to the 22 Board's attention the first time that you took the 23 stand?
24 A (WITNESS THORSELL) Yes, sir.
( '
25 Q Okay.
sonntag noporting snevien. Lea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15553 V,
1 'tr. Kostal, could you briefly describe hott the 2 racount was performed?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The initial recount in the cable pan 4 hangers was performed in the similar manner as the 5 original counting.
6 The recounting of all four of the populations, 7 cable pans, conduit hangers, cable pan hangers and 8 electrical equipment, were performed under a procedure 9 that was used to -- for the recount, and people were 10 trained in that procedure to assure that the recount was 11 .done in the same consistent manner by all people.
it%j 12 Q Okay.
13 Dr. Kaushal, what was your involvement, if any, in 14 the October, 1986, Sargent & Lundy recount of weld 15 discrepancies and discrepant welds?
16 A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) I was initially involved in the 17 decision to go ahead with the recounting in the four 18 populations that Mr. Kostal described.
19 I also then requested that Sargent & Lundy carry 20 out an additional 10-percent overcheck, done by
-21 individuals other than the individuals involved in the 22 initial recount, and then I personally went to Sargent &
23 Lundy offices, talked with the individuals who were 24 involved in the 10-percent overcheck, selected a few t
(j 25 packages at random, and went over them in collaboration ennnEng on7nr64ng enrufen, tua Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15:09 g
J 1 with 'ir.-Crlov, and I also looked at some of the
~2 packages that had -- that had undergone a rochack in 3 this 10 percent that I had asked for, and in all cases, 4 I found the work to be satisfactory.
5 Q Okay.
6 Mr. Orlov, what involvement, if any, did you have 7 with the October of 1986 recount by Sargent & Lundy of 8 weld discrepancies and discrepant welds?
9 A (WITNESS ORLOV) I reviewed the procedure employed by 10 Sargent & Lundy in their recount of the weld discrepant 11 point data; I attended a training session for the
{A! ,( 12 recount efforts; I attended a training session for the s_.
13 group of people who did the sample overcheck of the 14 recount efforts; I reviewed a number of packages that 15 were prepared by Sargent & Lundy, tabulating the weld 16 discrepancies and welds discrepant; and I also assisted 17 Dr. Kaushal in his review of a number of packages at 13 Sargent & Lundy that had gone through both the recount 19 and a few that had gone through the -- the additional 20 check of the recount efforts.
21 MR. STEPTOE: Mr. Kostal, you've referred to a l
22 new procedure which was used during the recount.
23 I'm going to distribute a document, which I would 24 like to have marked as Applicant's Exhibit 172.
}
l( 25 It's been previously made available to Mr. Guild in i
sonneng unpo-efng cervico, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
15572 t%
_(_L 1 -discovery.
'2 (The document was-thereupon marked 3 . Applicant's Exhibit No.-172 for 4 identification as'of November 5,.1986.)
5 BY MR. STEPTOE:
6 -Q Mr. Kostal, is what-has been marked as' Applicant's 7 Exhibit 172 the procedure which was, in f act, u sed by 8 Sargent & Lundy in the recount?
9 A- (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
10 MR. STEPTOE:. At Mr. Guild's request -- I 11 guess at my own, too, what I will do now is go through a f ) 12 copy of_the documents that were generated in the recount 13 for _ Cable Pan Hanger 104, which illustrates how the 14 recount was done. We'll try and keep it brief.
15 Would you pass them out.
16 The document which is now been passed out, which 17 is -- actually, I'd like it marked as three documents, 18 Applicant's Exhibit 173, 174 and 175, and I will 19 explain, as we go, which ones are involved.
20 (The documents were thereupon marked 21 Applicant's Exhibits Mos. 173, 174 and 22 175 for identification as of november 5, 23 1986.)
24 BY MR. STEPTOE:
\ 25 Q Mr. Kostal, let's turn first to the first document,
, u.
cnnne,g nnpnreing servien, raa.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10 71
.o '
N-]
I which in Applicant's E::hibit 173.
2 ? ould you identify it and state -- ctate hou many
-' 3 pages it is.
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
5 It's identified as a discrepancy type counting 6 form, and there are four pages.
7 Q And which BCAP observation does this relate to?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This relates to Observation Cable Pan 9 Hanger 104-004.
10- Q Okay.
11 Were similar documents prepared for other -- for
.( ,) 1 12 the other BCAP welding observations?
3 13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
~
14 Q Would you please explain -- the lef t-hand column, there
- 15 is a column marked " Weld No."
16 Would you explain what that column shows?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This shows the -- this numbers all 18 the welds in this observation package that had 19 discrepancies acsociated with them.
20 They are sequentially numbered from 1 through 36.
21 There are 36 welds with discrepancies associated with 22 them.
23 0 Okay.
r- 24 Now, how do you tell what the -- what the l 'kj)
,1 25 discrepancies are asrociated with those wolds?
conne,g nnporeing enruf-a, t. e a .
Geneva, Illinois G0134 i (312) 232-0262
15:72 (n
't w ,-
)
' 3 (WITNEOS ZOSTAL) Okcy. Ranfing the column across the 2 top, you -- there are various attributes that were 3 inspected.
4 For example, under Weld 1, under " Size," in the box 5 there is a -- the first discrepancy that's noted is in 6 that little box in the corner, which is 1. It's a Y 7 discrepancy in size.
0 Also associated with Weld 1 is another discrepancy 9 under " Undercut." It was labeled Discrepancy No. 2, and 10 it is also a Y discrepancy.
4 11 And if you read further across the line to the
{ ) 12 right-hand side, under R, it provides you with the 13 lowest R value associated with the discrepancy for Weld 14 1, which is equal to .91.
15 0 And if we went through all 36 welds, would your 16 answers -- would you be able to tell which discrepancies 17 were associated with which weld?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
19 0 Okay.
20 Are there any totals shown on this form?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There are totals shown on Page 4, and 22 the totals that are reported are totals of discrepant 23 welds in Categories X, Y and Z, and there are totals 24 associated with discrepancies also under the Category X,
, 'l.
25 Y and ".
l ennneng 7apn-*fng co-t.4-n; r.
- a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0252
l15G73
. y] .
's_/
1 0 O!:ay .
2 This is Applicant'c Exhibit, marked for 3 iden tif ica tion , as 173.
4 Now, going on to the next document, Mr. Kostal, 5 would you identify what that is and how many pages there 6 are to it?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is the -- it's identified as the 8 BCAP Verification Package for Cable Pan Hanger 104, and 9 this is the observation record, and there are 1, 2, 3, 10 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 pages.
11 Q Now, how does this verification package, which we'll 12 mark as Applicant's- Exhibit 174 -- how does that relate
)
13 to the weld discrepancy recount and discrepant weld 14 recount?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This observation record has a weld 16 map for all the welds that were discrepant.
17 If you turn to Page 1 of 3, which is the third page 10 of this document, you will see marked up along every 19 single discrepancy a circle, which represents the weld; 20 a square, which represents the discrepancy. Adjacent to 21 the square is a nomenclature indicating the type of 22 discrepancy.
23 It's also marked in terms of whether or not it's an 24 X, Y or Z, and the appropriate R value is also marked.
r' G
(%j 25 For example, under Meld 1, which is on the lower sonnen7 noporting servico. Lea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1G574
.,/
'q ,/
1 lef t-hand corner, you will notice that it sars, "731?
2 1." Discrepancy 1 is undersize, it has a Y, the 2 is 3 equal to .91.
4 The other discrepancy. associated with that same-5 Weld 1, you have to read across. Kind of in the middle 6 of the hanger at the bottom, you will see a' Box 2. It 7 says "UC," meaning undercut. It also has a Y, but its Y 8 is equal to R equal to .98.
9 As I indicated, we record the lowest R in 10 _
Applicant's Exhibit 173.
11 Q Now, finally, turning to the third document, which is n
( ) 12 Applicant's Exhibit 175, would you identify this 13 document and indicate how many pages there are in it?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This document is the Structural 15 Engineering Division calculations for Cable Pan Hanger 16 104-004, and there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 --
.17 there are 24 pages.
18 Q Okay.
19 Now, how does this document relate, if at all, to 20 the weld recount?
21 A (UITNESS KOSTAL) Using the calculation -- turning to 22 th e f i rs t -- the second page, which is the first page of 23 the calculations, adjacent to each of the calculations 24 that were made for each of the discrepancies for each of
}
( ,. ' 25 the welds there is a circle and a square, and that, e nnneng o n gnreing co-ufen, r. ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15575 p
%.)
I then, correlates to Applicant'n- Enhibit 173.
2 For example, in the case of Ueld 1 for undercut, if 3 you look at- the bottom of that page on the lef t-hand 4 . side of the third line up, you will see a circle with a 5 1 in it, and next to that circle there's a square which 6 is a 2, and it indicates a UC.
7 That refers to Applicant's Exhibit 173, under Weld 8 1, under undercut.
9 0 Can you tell me where the evaluation for undersize for 10 Weld 1, Discrepancy 1, appears?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That is found on Page 17. Towards the bottom of that cale on the lef t-hand side, there's a
) 12 13 circle with a 1 and then there's a' square with a 1 and 14 it's circled around the undersize weld, and the box i
15 right below that where the R value is indicated of .91 16 also indicates the Circle 1 for the first weld and for 17 the Square 1, which is the Discrepancy 1, for the 10 undersize.
! 19 Q Going back to Applicant's Exhibit 173, which is the 20 total -- the total in chief, the discrepancy type 21 counting form:
22 How many discrepancies are there -- on Cable Pan 23 Hanger 104, how many weld -- how many weld discrepancies rx 24 are there?
, / \-) There are 41 weld discrepancioc.
(,,, 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)
I nonneng naporeing enevicn. r, ea .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1557G
\_)
9 1 0 Chay.
2 I'believe you previously testified that there ucra 3' 43.
4 Can you explain what the difference is?
5 MR. GUILD: Excuse me. Hold on one second.
6 Where is the total?
7 MR. STEPTOE: It's at the last page of 8 Applicant's Exhibit 173.
9 MR. GUILD: I don't see a total figure.
10 _
What do you do, add the three columns together?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The bottom right hand where it says, 12 "No. of Discrepancies," there is 3'X's, 30 Y's, 8 Z's.
13 That totals up to 41.
14 MR. GUILD: I see.
15 BY MR. STEPTOE:
16 Q Could you explain what the reason is for the difference 17 between the 41 and the 43?
j 18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The reason for the difference is in 19 the counting of discrepancies associated with gouges, l 20 which are associated with Weld No. -- it's Weld 36 found 21 on Page 19.
22 There were 3 gouges, and our criteria assigns, for l 23 gouges, 1 criteria -- a criteria of 1 gouge per weld, i
24 and multiple gouges are still defined as 1 gouge in --
{}
(,,j 25 0 One discrepancy point?
sonneng poporting snevien_. r.* a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262 . . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13G77
.7~
's 1 4 (UIT"2SS ZOSTAL) One discrepancy.
2 MR. GUILD: The reference to Page 19.vas of 3 what?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Page 19 of Applicant's Exhibit 175.
5 MR. GUILD: The calculation.
6 BY MR. STEPTOE:
7 Q Now, Mr. Kostal, as a result of performing this recount, 8 were you able to determine why the weld discrepancies or 9 discrepant welds were counted differently the 10 -
previous -- previously?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I was able to determine there was 12 dif ferences. The exact reason for the dif ferences is
}
13 somewhat subjective on my part.
14 Some was due to out and out error. Others is due 15 to different interpretation of weld maps and other 16 manners of counting.
17 (Indicating.)
10 0 Were any of the reasons repetitive or otheruise 19 significant in terms of the total number of changes?
20 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) Yes.
21 Q Okay.
22 Have you prepared a document which summarizos some 23 of these repetitive or more significant reasons for the 24 changes in weld discrepancies?
l /(
i (,,j 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, I have.
sonneng popor*ing Anruicn, t. e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262~
7 1C572
,q L) 1 MR. STEPTOZ: I'd like this to Se -- the 2 document which is being passed out as -- I'd like-it to 3' be marked as Applicant's Exhibit 176.
4 (The document was thereupon marked 5 Applicant's Exhibit No. 175 for 6 identification on the 5th of November, 7 1986.)
8 MR. STEPTOE: I believe this document was 9 previously mailed to the Board on October 31st and the 10 parties.
11 JUDGE COLE: You say this was mailed to us on I 12 October 31st?
b)t 13 MR. STEPTOE: Federal Expressed, I'believe, 14 yes.
15 You haven't seen it?
16 JUDGE COLE: No, sir.
17 MR. STEPTOE: Oh, okay.
18 JUDGE GROSS:1AN: Yes, I have gotten that.
19 MR. STEPTOE: Okay.
20 BY MR. STEPTOE:
21 Q Mr. Kostal, would you just -- I don't mean to take you 22 through this page by page, but would you please explain 23 what's shown on the first page.
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The first page is a summary of the N(~T k;/,
25 changes in the weld discrepancies and discrepant welds ennneng nopnreing novuten, r. e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
15570
\v/
1 ass ocia ted with the cabla pan hanger population, the
- 2 cable pan, conduit hanger and electrical equipment.
3 In addition to those summary changes, there is a
- 4. statement regarding the reasons why I believe the 5 changes occurred , and it references the various-6 attachments which then go into an explanation as to 7 those reasons.
8 Q Is this document accurate, Mr. Kostal?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
10 Q Do you believe that -- well, are the explanations which 11 are attached to the first page for typical reasons -- or 12 typical situations for changes in the weld discrepancy
) ~~
13- count -- are they representative of the kinds of 14 situations which -- which you encountered during the 15 recount which led to the changes in weld discrepancy 16 numbers? ,
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
10 Q Mr. Kostal, have you prepared a revised version of 2C 19 Kaushal-3 using the results of the October, 1986, 20 recount?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
22 M2. STEPTOE: The document which is being 23 distributed now is entitled " Attachment 2C Kauchal-3 24 Revision 2 dated October 30, 1986.
, f3 i
, i L.)
! ( ,,; 25 I ask that it be marked as Applicant's Exhibit 177.
sonntag poporting servico. r+4.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'16530
(' i V
-1 (The dccument vac thereupon marhad 2 Applicant's Exhibit Mo. 177 for
.3- identification on the 5th of November, 4 1986.)
5 BY MR. STEPTOE:
6 Q Mr. Kostal, would you just briefly indicate what numbers 7 changed?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The changes occurred in the column 9 heading " Insignificant Discrepancies" and " Notable 10 Discrepancies," and they' occurred under conduit hangers, 11 cable pan, cable pan hangers and electrical equipment.
.e ,
( 12 I have mailed to the parties and to the Board, too, a
) Q 13 marked-up version of the old Attachment 2C Kaushal-3.
14 I can go through the specific changes, if that's 15 necessary, but I'm -- I was not planning to do it now.
16 As revised, Mr. Kostal, is this Attachment 2C 17 Kaushal-3 accurate?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
19 Q Dr. Kaushal, this was your exhibit.
20 I believe you previously testified that you were 21 relying on Sargent & Lundy for the inspection point and 22 discrepancy point notable discrepancy point information 23 on this exhibit.
r^ 24 Do you recall that testimony?
.i )T (s ,g 25 A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) Yes, I do.
Annneng nnpn-eing envufco; r.ea .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15501 p
O 1 0 Do you agree to thoce changoc?
2 A (NITNESS "AUSUAL) 'l e s , I do.
3 I'm, obviously, relying on -- primar ily' relying on 4 Sargent & Lundy's work in coming up with the changes, 5 but my -- I have checked the data, as I indicated 6 previously.
7 Q Mr. Kostal, did Sargent & Lundy provide to Mr. Orlov the 8 results of the October, 1986, recount of weld 9 discrepancies and discrepant welds?
I- 10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
!. 11 Q Mr. Orlov, using those results, have you prepared a
(?~'hj 12 revised version of Attach' ment 2C Kaushal-47 13 A (WITNESS ORLOV) Yes, I have.
14 MR. STEPTOE Okay.
15 The next document, which is being distributed, is 16 Attachment 2C Kaushal-4 Revision 2. It's entitled "CSR 17 Database Vercion 10/30/86," which I would ask be marked 18 as Applicant'n Exhibit 178.
19 (The document was thereupon marked 20 Applicant's Exhibit No. 178 for 21 identification as of Movember 5, 1986.)
- 22 BY MR. STEPTOE
l 23 Q Mr. Orlov, is this document accurate?
(' 24 A (WITNESS ORLOV) Yes, it is.
Ls) 25 Q Did you perform any additional apportionment or other l
sonntac Monertinc Gor"!cn, LFA.
l Geneva, Illinoic 60134 i
(312) 232-0252 _ _ _ _
15522 m
i a
1 manipulntion of the data other than incorporating the 2 results of the Sargent s Lundy w2ld recount and 3 discrepancy recount?
4 A (WITNESS ORLOV) No.
5 Q Dr. Kaushal this is your exhibit again.
6 Do you agree to these changes?
7 A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) Yes, I do.
8 0 What, if anything, have you done to confirm the accuracy 9 of this document?
10 A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) As I indicated previously, for the 11 data input, I primarily relied on Sargent & Lundy; but I
([~)
sne 12 have personally manually checked all the changes to this 13 ~~ data, this Attachment 2C, against the computer print-out 14 of the -- of the data base provided to me by Sargent &
15 Lundy.
16 Q Mr. Kostal, has your own direct testimony changed as a 17 result of the October, 1985, Sargent & Lundy recount?
18 A (MITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
19 MR. STEPTOE: The next document tha- is being 20 distributed, your Honor, which we would like to have 21 marked as Applicant's Exhibit 179, is antitled "Robuttal 22 Testimony of Kenneth T. Kostal on Rorom Q. A.
23 Subcontention 2, Harassment and Intimidation."
g3 24 (The document was thereupon marked i (J,jU 25 Applicant's Exhibit No. 179 for ennneng nnpnr*4ng mer.,1co, r+a.
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10C03 q
A, ,'
1 identification as of November 5, 1905.)
2 3Y MR..STr?TOS:
3 Q Mr. Kostal, does this document reflect the changes that 4 need to.be made to your direct testimony as a result of 5 the S & L recount in October of 1986?
)
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7 Q Would you just identify briefly where those changes are 8 found?
A (WITNESS KOSTAL) They are found on Page 11,-they are 9
(
10 found on Page 19 --
11 Q Did you miss one on Page 16?
[()
. x .-
12 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) 16, Page 19, Page 20 -- vait a 13 minute -- 19, 21, 22, 23 and the table marked Attachment 14 2C.
15 0 With these corrections, Mr. Kostal, is your rebuttal 16 testimony -- strike that, j 17 With these corrections, is Applicant's E::hibit 179 18 true and correct to the best of your knowledge and 19 belief?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, just for point of 22 clarification, the last reference is "Kostal 1, Summary 23 of subjective Discrepancies, Clectrical Construction 24 Categories."
j
)
k ,f' 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir, sonntag nn70reing sa-vicn r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
13G01 7
N.)
1 37 "R. ST2?TO2:
2 0 :!r. Kostal, have any of your conclusions e::presced in 3 your testimony, with respect to the. quality of the work 4 performed in the electrical construction categories or 5 the effectiveness of the Comstock QC inspections, 6 changed as a r.esult of the October, 1986, recount?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
8 Q Mr. Thorsell, have any of your conclusions, with respect
-9 to the quality of the work or the ef fectiveness of QC 10 inspections,. changed as a result of the October, 1986, 11 recount.
.<e-(
12 A (WITNESS THORSELL) No, sir.
13 Q Mr. Orlov, to the exten,t that you did offer any opinions 14 or conclusions in your testimony.previously, with 15 respect to the quality of the work or the ef fectiveness 16 of QC inspections, did any of those opinions or 17 conclusions changes as a result of the October, 1986, 13 recount?
19 A (WITNESS ORLOV) No, sir.
20 Q Dr. Kau., Pal, have any of your conclusions or opinions, 21 with respect to the quality of the work or the 22 effectiveness of QC inspections, changed as a result of 23 the October, 1986, Sargent & Lundy recount?
I 24 A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) No, sir.
1:,'
l\ ,,
, 25 Q Now, Mr. Kostal, you will recall that Mr. Grossman asked ennn*3g nn7n-et g en-yice r.
- 4 ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - __.
15535 r3 1 : qu2stion uith roepect to the use of a 3rciducoi-unique 2 spectrum in the structural analysis of Cable Pan Banger 3 104 DV-22 connection versus the use of an enveloped 4- Byron and Braidwood spectrum.
5 Do you recall that question?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7 Q Has Sargent & Lundy.run a computer run or analysis to G enable you to respond to that question?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
10 Q Have you prepared a document which shows the results?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
f 12 MR. STEPTOE: The next document, which is 13 being distributed, we'd ask that it be marked as 14 Applicant's Exhibit 181.
15 (The document was thereupon marked 16 Applicant's Exhibit No. 100 for 17 identification as of November 5, 1986.)
18 JUDGE COLE: 180, isn't it? Did I miss one?
19 Was it 130?
20 MR. STEPTOE: I'm sorry.
21 We happened to -- all r ight. I skipped one.
22 JUDGE COLE: So you want this marked as 180?
23 MR. STEPTOE: Tha t 's f ine .
24 BY MR, STEPTOE:
a j (,,) 25 Q Mr. Mostal, is this document accurate?
l Sonntag Reporting Servica. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15505
,m h
1 A (MIT'!ESS KOSTAL) Yen, cir.
O Q. What does it show?
3 A (NITNESS KOSTAL) It chowc that, in performing a Byron 4 and Braidwood enveloped spectra, the axial load in the 5 horizontal brace at the DV-22 connection, the Fa force,
~6 is now 14,331.3 as compared to the Braidwood unique 7 response spectra analysis done in 1985 of 14,330.5, or a 8 dif ference of 8 tenths of a pound.
9 It also indicates that -- we put a footnote in the 10 bottom that in the ~ calculations we had rounded of f f or 11 analysis and used a value in our calculations of 14.3
()
12 kips or 14,300 pounds.
13 Q So did you perform any new calculations based on this 14 data?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No, sir.
16 Q Finally, Mr. Kostal, have you prepared a table, which is-17 a revised version of Intervenors' Exhibit 145, which 10 takes into account the results of the october, 1986, 19 Sargent & Lundy recount of weld discrepancies and 20 discrepant welds?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
22 MR. STEPTOE: I ask the document being 23 distributed be marked as Applicant's Exhibit 191.
24 (The document was thereupon marked j(, ~ 25 Applicant's Exhibit No. 131 for ennne,n wennruinn ce-vine. r.
- A .
Gedeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15337 JM V
1 identification as of tievember 5, 1936.)
2 B'l M2. STEPTCE:
3 Q Mr. Kostal, is this document accurate?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
5 MR. STEPTOE: That concludes my supplemental' 6' direct examination of these witnesses.
7 I have used a number of exhibits here. Let me.make 8 sure that I of fer them all into evidence.
9 We offer Applicant's Exhibits 172 through 181 into 10 evidence.
11- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, any objections?.
12 MR. GUILD: I have no objection, Mr.
13 Chairman.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
15 MR. BERRY: No objection, Mr. Chairman.
16 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
13 Q Mr. Kostal, with regard to Applicant's Exhibit 180, did 19 you make'those calculations yourself?
!20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) No. I had one of my senior engineers 21 perform that computer run.
22 Q Did you review that?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
! r- 24 Q Did you use the same damping value in this as you used r
,) 25 in the original calculations?
sonntag 9nporeing en-vico, r,
- a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
13503-1 A (WIT'.'E3 S . KOSTAL) 7en, cir.
2 .Q Nas that that 7 percent damping value?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
4 0 Okay.
5 I believe you indicated to me that that was the 6 damping value prescribed by Reg Guide 1.61; is that 7- correct, sir?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I don't remember if I gave the exact 9 Reg Guide.
10 It is defined in our FSAR, and we do have -- it
=11- is -- the actual damping value for that is included in 12 our FSAR document.
13 Q Okay.
14 I referred to Reg Guide.l.61, though I have to 15 admit that it may not be the up-to-date version, but it 4- 16 appears to me as though the damping values here are 17 considerably less than that 7 percent damping value that
, 10 you used for the type of component that we have here.
19 (Indicating.)
20 Could you refer to Reg Guide 1.61, of which I have
- 21 given you a copy now, and tell me whether I'm incorrect i 22 on that.
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Well, this document only defines fs 24 damping values for basically structural steel used in l (* 's_)25 l ,,
build ings . These are structural steel structures, and snnnen7 pnnnreing gn r.H co , r, ea .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15599 p
l%Y 1 alco for piping.
2 It does not specifically addresc any 3 electrical-type components nor hanger-type arrangements 4 we are referring to.
5 That is specifically covered in our FSAR.
6 0 Okay.
7 Now, are we talking here about safe shutdown 8 earthquake for one or operating basis earthquake?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We're talking about safe shutdown 10 earthquake, sir. -
11 Q Okay.
12 Well, if it's in your FSAR, I'm sure we can refer
(
13 to that.
14 But it appears to me, from reading 1.61, looking at 15 that chart, that only massive structures, such as 16 reinforced concrete structures and bolted steel 17 structures, are those that have that 7 percent damping, 18 and all the lesser structures seem to have considerably 19 less damping value, from 2 to 4 percent basically.
20 Is that a correct observation on my part?
21 A (WIT'iESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
22 Q Okay.
23 There's no further explanation, other than the fact r~g 24 that it's in the FSAR, that you can use a 7 percent l'u)
(,,./ 25 damping for your cable pan hangers and other electrical snert,g napnruing go-vicn_ T+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l I
15590 i
) '
1 ctructurec?
2 A (UIT!!ISS "03TAL) .'cll, maybo I can just br iefly --
3 'I'm -- I'm basically speaking from the general term now, 4 but, you know, the -- there has been an evaluation of 5 hanging-type components in all the older plants, and 6 tests have been done on the appropriate damping values 7 to consider for hanging-type components, such as 8 rod-supported type hangers, and these tests that have 9 been conducted, of which the NRC has participated, has 10 shown extremely high damping values.
11 Now, this is from memory, but in the case of some 12 tests that were done that I'm aware of for, you know, (w)}
13 these electrical type of components, damping exceeding 14 15 percent was observed; and so there's been a lot of 15 discussion in the Commission relative to the appropriate 16 damping values for hangers, such as a cable pan hanger.
17 Now, these damping values are basically for 13 structures, except for piping systems, and it -- this 19 basically indicates the damping values that should be 20 done for the piping system analysis and the main 21 structural analysis.
22 The differences here are in, for example, welded 23 structure material, meaning a welded large, wide flange 24 section, versus a bolted wide flange section. The same
(,;) 25 is true for the other two for concrete. That's sonne,g enpnrting enrvinn, r, e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16331 V
l~ r.rc9tracce-T large alements of concrete versun reinforced 2- elements of concrete.
3 So it's just not explicitly covering that -- all 4- those other ranges of components that are in the plant.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, we'll expect, of 6 course, that Staff will verify this'and and come back -
7 with some answer on whether this is a correct 8 understanding or a correct interpretation of what's 9 happening with regard to damping values.
10 MR. BERRY: Fine, Mr. Chairman.
11 The Staff hadn't anticipated presenting testimony
(~
(,
- s. /
~) 12 on this point, but I guess,'if the Board so directs, we 13 would.
14 We suggest that we would look into it, contact 15 responsible people in the Staff that have knowledge of 16 this matter, and either submit an affidavit or Staff 17 Counsel could come back and represent what we found out.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAU: Fine.
19 Applicant's Exhibits 172 through 181 are received.
20 (The documents were thereupon received 21 into evidence as Applicant's Exhibit Nos.
22 172 through 181.)
23 MR. STEPTOE: Thank you.
/~Y 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does that complete your (U ,,,' 25 examination, Mr. Steptoe?
9n nem7 99po-*fng 90rvica, r,6 9 .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-02G2
15502
(~h V
1 .. STEPTOE: Yes , J'adge Gros sman .
2 JUDGE GROSS:IAN:- Mr. Guild.
3 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, did the Soard 4 intend to mark this document as a 30ard exhibit?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, why don't we do that, 6 though, of course, it is a Reg Guide, and it is easily
- 7. referenced by the parties.
8 I hesitated to look back to see what number we were 9 up to.
10 _
MR. BERRY: 9. I believe we're up to Board 11 Exhibit 9.
) 12 JUDGE GROSSMAM: Pardon?
r.- _
13 MR. BERRY: 9.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Board Exhibit 9. Okay.
15 . JUDGE COLE: Could you tell me what Board 16 Exhibit 8 is, Mr. Berry?
17 MR. MILLER: I thought it was just Board 18 Exhibit 7.
19 JUDGE COLE: That's all I can find.
'20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All I have is Board Exhibit 21 6 here, so I would like to know, also.
( 22 MR. BERRY: I believe Board Exhibit 7 is an l
l 23 in-camera exhibit l
j 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, that's right, that's an
(, 25 in-camera.
l conn &mm 7nnnreinn a nrni-n. f.
- a l
Ge d eva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262- .. .. .-
15093
%)
1 M2. 3ERRY: I beliovo the other one the 2 Intervenor had cched that it travol with the raoord, 3 Board Exhibit 8.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Those are in camera.
5 Tha t 's f ine .
6 MR. BERRY: Now that I think of it, I believe 7 the next one would be Board Exhibit 8.
8 The request was made by Intervenor to mark this as 9 Board Exhibit 8, but we indicated that it had already 10 been included in the in-camera transcript.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So t.his one should be 8
) 12 rather than 97
%d 13 MR. BERRY: Yes.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So we'll mark Reg 15 Guide 1.61 as Board Exhibit 8, and we 'll admit that into 16 the record.
17 (The document was thereupon marked Board 18 Exhibit No. 8 for identification on the 19 Sth of November, 1986.)
20 (The document was thereupon received into 21 evidence as Board Exhibit No. 0.)
I 2 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
23 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, you may examine.
O 25 CROSS EXAMINATION b_.-.
l 1
i sonntag Enporting garvien. Tsa.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
155??
~
l(
l 3Y MR. GUILD:
2 0 Wolcome back, gentlemen.
3 Dr. Kaushal, do the corrections or errors that have 4 been identified this af ternoon and L are reflected in 5 Applicant's Exhibits 172 through 181, in your judgment, 6 call into question the quality of work-or accuracy of 7 Sargent & Lundy's BCAP-related efforts?
O A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) No. In my view, the overall quality 9 of the work is suf ficient to support the kind of 10 conclusions that we drew.
11 Q Yes, sir.
12 In your opinion, Dr. Kaushal, do the. errors and 13 corrections made this afternoon call into question, iN 14 your judgment, the effectiveness of your oversight of 15 Sargent & Lundy's work?
16 A (WITNESS KAUSHAL) As~I indicated to you before in my 17 previous testimony and described the nature of overview
- 18 that we had, I still believe it was sufficient for the l
19 kind of work that we were doing, yes.
20 0 Mr. Kostal, in Applicant's Exhibit 173, we have a new 21 form -- that is, a discrepancy type counting form --
L
- 22 correct?
l 23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
I L 24 Q And I take it that this is a form that is being used or
, ,. 25 has been used to count the discrepancies anew for the ennn*,7 ongnreing cervico, r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 , .._ _ _ __
1350E 1 populations that contain ucida?
2 A ("ITNESS KO3TAL) Yes, sir.
3 Q All right.
4 That form was created for purposes of the October 5 recount?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
7 Q And that form replaces the form previously employed --
8 if you will pardon me one second -- the former 9 discrepancy point counting form?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir, 11 Q All right.
7; ) 12 And you've abandoned the use of the discrepancy 13 point counting form, which had previously been the basis 14 for counting weld discrepancies and discrepant welds?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
16 Q Now, if you look at Applicant's Exhibit 175 -- that is, 17 the calc for Cable Pan Hanger 104, Intervenors' Exhibit
-18 155B with recounting notations -- Page 1 -- do you have 19 that, sir?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
21 -Q There's a box in the left-hand margin that's circled --
22 or under -- or got a border around it. It's a 23 rectangular border, and it reads, "See discrepancy point l f"N 24 counting form, Page 245"?
! ((V ,,i 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
snnnu ng ongnrefng enruic,, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
15590
+
\ l 1 2 1;u, this discrepancy point counting form is no longer a 2 basic for counting discrepancy points for any of the CS2 3 population items, including Cable Pan Hanger 1047 4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
5 0 Why is it referred to there, then?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I -- I did that for your benefit when 7 I was asked by the Board to explain where the 8 differences occurred in the discrepancies as I 9 determined them to be versus the way they were reported 10 ,
in the discrepancy point counting forms.
11 Q Yes, sir, i p) 12 So this refers back to the original discrepancy 13 point counting form for purposes of illustration of the 14 changes for Cable Pan Hanger 104?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
16 Q That reference would not appear in the recounts for any 17 of the other items, a comparable reference to the 18 original discrepancy point counting form?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It would not generally, no.
20 (Indicating.)
21 0 3ut for the other -- for the other items, other than 22 Cable Pan Hanger 104, would there be the referenced 23 citations in the cale package as in the example for 24 Cable Pan Hanger 104?
, i (v')
( ,j 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We would note, as the circlec Annneng nnpn-Fing sneufen, r. e A -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15G?7
~.
(
l indicate and the nquaren indicetc, tha t information in 2 overy single calculation package.
-3 Q I see.
4 But there would be no reference, then, to the 5 discrepancy point counting form?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) There was no requirement to have that 7 correlation referenced.
8 Q Because that form had been abandoned and replaced by the 9 new discrepancy type counting form, Applicant's Exhibit 10 1737 4 11. A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
s
) 12 0 Mr. Kostal, who performed the recounts?
13 A (kiITNESSKOSTAL) Structural engineers within the 14 Structural Engineering Division of Sargent & Lundy's 15 Structural Department..
16 Q How many?
17 A (WITNSSS KOSTAL) Over 50.
IP Q And how long did it take them to perform the recounting 19 and make the corrections that are the basis for your 20 testimony this afternoon?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We started on October 18th, so, in 22 essence, two weeks.
23 (Indicating.)
i g- 24 MR. GUILD: All right.
l (D) ,
25 Mr. Chairman, may have one moment, if I may, l
sonntag neporting snevic9. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6 15693' 7,,
1 -plenne?
2 JUDGE GROSGMA:i: Sure.
3 Meanwhile, Mr. Steptoo, could 'you just get us that 4 reference to the FSAR for the 7 percent-damping value?
5 MR. STEPTOE: Yes, Judge Grossman.
6 BY MR. GUILD:.
7 Q Just for'a. point of clarification, Mr. Kostal, if you 8 would turn to- Applicant's Exhibit 176, please -- that's 9- the summary of changes -- and also Intervenors' Exhibit 10 145 - that's Intervenors' calculation of discrepancy 11- rates on an item basis and weld basis.
. A,
). 12 Do you have those documents, sir?
-12L A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I have 176. Let me pull out --
14 Q It's Applicant's 181. It's 'the revised version of 25 Intervenors' 145.
16 A (WIT'7ESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir.
i 17 0 Okay.
18 on the basin of your recount, are there any changes 19 in the number of welds in the populations?
20 Those are figures that appear on Intervenors' 145, 21 now Applicant's 181.
22 A (MITNESS KOSTAL) The number of discrepant welds?
23 Q No, sir.
_ 24 The number of welds, welds inspected for the
(, ,
25 population categories.
i gnnnemg nnpnruing en*uinn, r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 i (312) 232-0262
15009'
.m b
1 A ("ITNESS "OSTAL) Number of. welds incpected?
2 Q ?c s , sir.
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We didn't, no, sir.
4 Q There are no changes on Applicant's 181, but your 5 recount does not affect the number of welds inspected?
6 Did you come up with a dif ferent count?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) We didn't recount the number of welds 8 inspected.
9 Q All right, sir.
10 The number of discrepant welds for each of the 11 construction categories, those are.the figures shown on 12 Applicant's 176, are they not? .. 13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's the -- 14 Q Or are those on the changes? 15 Those are the changes, are they not? 16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Those are the changos, yes, sir. 17_ Q All right, sir. 18 Can you tell me what the values are for the total
.19 number of weld discrepancies and discrepant welds after 20 the recount?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Total number of welds discrepant? l 22 O Uhat I'm looking for, Mr. Kostal, is looking at 23 Applicant's Exhibit 176, you have two data source -- two 24 data points, weld discrepancies and discrepant welds, '(_ 25 and you reflect the changes resulting from your recount. ennntag napnreing enevinn, r+a. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
10700
.V-1 Mow, cnn you give me tha total nunbero, after thoce 2 changes have been nado, for weld discrepancioc and 3 discrepant welds for each of the af fected populations?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) If we go back to your exhibit, 5 Intervenors' Exhibit 141, and we add these values to 6 that,- that will give you the totals. 7 0 All right, sir. 8 Can you provide me with those totals,-sir? 9 I'm not asking you to count them individually. 10 Do you have the figures for the totals? 11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) - In the -- let's see. In the conduit 12
.fs_ . )-
hanger population -- 13 Q Hand on one second, Mr. Kostal. 14 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to 15 clean up some loose ends here. 16 I think we have a revised Intervenors' 141, which 17 is Mr. Kostal's original print-out that has these 18 changes. 19 If can we put that document in, then I can save us 20 a little time. 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. 22 By the way, just to understand this correctly, 23 Applicant's 176, where you have a minus sign, that's 24 minu s , where you have no sign, that's an addition of T _j 2S those amounts; is that correct? gnnneng onpne*4ng co-vice, r+A Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
15701 7
-Q 1 A (UITCSS 20STAL) That'c correct, cir.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAU: Could you juct answer one
~3- question.
~4 How could you add 265 weld discrepancies and out of 5 that get 343 additional discrepant welds?.
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The difference that exists there is 7 in the original data base on weld discrepant versus the 8 present data base on weld discrepant, that is a -- there 9 was a dif ferent ,-- that counting was done at a dif ferent 10 time than the-discrepancies were counted, and it's 11 just -- that's what the dif ference occurs there..
) 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
13 In other words, the -- 14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) It's not -- 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- the discrepant welds were 16 not a direct function of the additional weld 17 discrepancies? 18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct.
'19 JUDGE GROSSMAU: Some of the additional j
20 discrepant welds were because of that, but not all of 21 them? 22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. l 24 B'l MR. GUILD: (,,,- 25 0 All right, sir. l l l sonntaa nonoreine go ving. r,
- a .
l-Gen eva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15702
'k )
1 r e t me sho.i you a d ocu men t that Applican t ma?.e 2 available, Mr. Mostal. 3 (Indicating.) 4 Is this a revised version of what has been 5 previously received as Intervenors' 141? 6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir. 7- 0 And that summary page, the top page, lists the total 8 after the recount? 9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir. 10 _ MR. GUILD: All right. 11 Mr. Chairman, I think I'm up to Intervenors ' 187. () 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's correct. 13 MR. GUILD: I would -like to ask that what Mr. 14 Kostal has just identified be marked as Intervenors' 15 187. 16 (The document was thereupon marked 17 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 187 for 10 identification on the 5th of November, 19 1986.) 20 BY MR. GUILD: 21 Q Now, Mr. Kostal, if you would just direct my attention, 22 .please, on this document to the values I was inquiring 23 about, and those are the total weld discrepancies and 24 discrepant welds for the af fected populations after the (3)) 25' recount. l c snnn e ng onpn 6 4 ng en-.7 4-3; r.
- a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15703 g
'\ j 1 A (MITNESS XOSTAL) If you read acrosc the top, under 2 " Insignificant Discrepancy Points" and " Notable," on the 3 far right-hand side, there's a heading called " Total."
4 0 Yes, sir. 5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Under each population there is a B 6 and a C. P 7 C defines the count as dated October 30, 1986, 3 which is the recent count. 9 The difference between B and C -- for example, in 10 cable pan, there was 289 discrepancies and now there are 11 288. The net change as indicated is C minus B, which is
, >=:o 'l 12 a minus 1.
13 That minus 1 is what appears in my column as 14 welding -- weld discrepancies in my Applicant's Exhibit 15 176. 16 In like manner, under " Conduit Hanger," the C minus 17 B is 1. I indicate 1. 18 Under " Cable Pan Hanger," it's 265 and under 19 "Electr ical Equipmen t" it's 159. 20 Q All right, sir. 21 Then for the appropriate affected categories, 22 taking first conduit hangers, the total weld 23 discrepancies after the corrections are made are 292? lA/ I r3 (, 24 2S A Q (NITNESS KOSTAL) I'm sorry. Why don't you answer the question directly. I'm sorry. sonntag Reporting service. L td . Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 __ ___ E 2) . __ -- _
15704 ixs)m 1 Conduit hangers, what are the total veld 2 discrepancies?
'3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)- Under conduit hangers, the total 4 number of welds discrepant?
5 0 Answer that one, first, and then how about discrepancy 6 welds. 7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Okay. Discrepant welds, it would be 8 90 and 64, for 154. 9 Q All right. 10 And how do you derive that number, sir? 11 .A (WITNESS KOSTAL) I'm only giving you the difference, gr<,
;( ) 12 There was a minus 6 under insignificant and there s.g ,
13 was a plus 7, for a net change of plus 1. 14 Q Right. 15 All I'm asking you now is: 16 For t'he population category conduit hangers, what 17 are the total discrepant welds in that construction 18 category? 19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) The total discrepant welds are -- 20 under the heading " Welds," under " Insignificant" and 21 " Notable," if you add those two together, you will get 22 154 welds that are discrepant. 23 Q All right. 24 And how about weld discrepancies -- 25 Weld discrepancies is -- (. A (WITNESS KOSTAL) ennn * ,7 nnp n-
- 4,7 c a . 7 4 n n , r+a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (3 2) 232-0262 - -
1G705 1 Q -- conduit hanger ? 2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) -- is 2 -- oh, I'm sorry. That 3 included objective. 4 It should be the 95 and the 78, wh'ich would give 5 you 173. 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And 173 for what now? 7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) This is the number of discrepancies 8 associated with welds. 9 You read, under the heading " Insignificant WLD," 10 there are 95, and under " Notable WLD," there are 78. 11 BY MR. GUILD: 12 Q All right.
~~
13 And, again, those are weld discrepancies? 14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) That's correct. 15 0 All right. 16 Under the column " Welds," the far right-hand 17 portion of your summary table, there we derive a total 18 number of discrepant welds for each population category? 19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) Yes, sir. 20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that 21 Intervenors' 187 be received in evidence. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection? 23 MR. STEPTOE: No objection. , s 24 MR. BERRY: No objection from the Staff.
-/s
( ,f 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received. Sonntag Reportir.g Service. Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10705 1 (The document ~ was thereupon received in
-2 ovidence as Intervonors Exhibit Io.
3 187.) 4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have no further 5 ques tions . 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No further questions? 7- MR. GUILD: No, sir. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry. 9 MR. BERRY: Staf f has no questions, Mr.
'10 _
Chairman. 11 BOARD EXAMINATION
,.e---g
( 12 BY JUDGE COLE: 13 Q Mr. Kostal, you indicated that you had 50 structural 14 engineers working on this recount for 2 weeks. 15 Could you tell me why that was necessary? 16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL) In order to document it in the 17 fashion we did, we went back over each package, each le observation package, and each calculation and each weld 19 map and numbered every single discrepancy, every single 20 weld that had a discrepancy on it, and cross correlated 21 that between the weld map and our calculation and this 22 new form that we created. 23 There is a volume of paper that was involved in 24 just tabulating and putting all this data down in an (~3 (s ( ,j l 25 auditable trail, ennne,7 onpn-eing co-ui-a, r+a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15707 hY\ j 1 (Ind ica t ing .~ ) - 2 Q Uell, could you explain to me uhat precipitated that? 3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)' It was -- it was as a result of my 4 initially reviewing the Cable Pan Hanger' Package 104 and 5 finding what -- what appeared to me to be dif ferences in 6 the discrepancy point counts and the number of welds
-7 that were counted, and those differences led me to have 8 my engineers go back in the-cable pan hanger population 9 and review to see if there were other dif ferences of 10 that nature.
11 .As a result of that review -- the differences that fne:.]j. 12
~
came to my attention as a result of that review were 13 larger than I would -- would have expected. 14 I would have expected some clerical errors, but not 15 to the level that I saw; and as a result of that, in 16 consultation with Edison and IL&B, it was felt that -- 17 to have a better trail, a more auditable trail, this was 18 needed. 19 (Indicating.) 20 Q All right. Thank you. 1 21 On Applicant's Exhibit 180, I must say I was 22 impressed with the number of significant figures for the 23 axial force. r 24 And I expect, is it so, that this is attributable l(D 1 25 to the computer, which doesn't have to round off when it GonntRg Popneting coryfep 7uA_ Geneva, Illinois G0134 . (312) 232-0262
15700
~
l vor40 out calculationc? 2 A (UI""!ESS !!OSTAL) Yeah. 3 (Indicating.) 4 Q We don't know the input value to anything close to those 5 significant figures, do we, sir? 6 A (WITNESS'KOSTAL) No, no. You would normally provide a 7 1 or 2 significant figure, and that's the level that we 8 get. 9 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. 10 Thank you. 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe.
..~.,
12 MR. STEPTOE: I have -- b%l? 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Nothing further? 14 MR. STEPTOE: -- no th ing f ur the r . 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. 16 Thank you, gentlemen. 17 You are excused. 18 A (UITNESS KOSTAL) Thank you. 19 (Witnesses excused.) 20 MR. STEPTOE: Could we take a brief recess 21 for a moment? 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. 23 MR. STEPTOE: Thank you, Judge Grossman. 24 (WHEREUPON , a recess was had, after which
,f
( ,) 25 the hearing was resumed as follows:) annn*,7 nn7nret g en-vinn, r. *a . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15709 b t..' 1 JUCGE GP.0SS:1Ati: Okay, f ine. 2 Uhy don't we just indicate that we've received 3 Applicant's 164, the second part of Idtervenors' 178, 4 and Intervenors' 179, all of these having previously 5 been admitted. 6 (The documents were thereupon received in 7 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 164, 8 Intervenors Exhibits 178 and 179.) 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 10 And I guess that concludes today's session. 11 We 'll reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 o' clock. 12 (WHEREUPON, at 3:30 P. M., the hearing of 13 the above-entitled matter was continued 14 to 6th day of November, 1986, at the 15 hour of 9:00 A.M.) l 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 l 23 r~N 24 f(; 4 (._. 25 90nntnc cancrefnc gnefica_ r.ea . l Gen e va', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER J This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED ST TES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 4 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON (HEARING) DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457/0L PLACE: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE: , WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. - (sigt) MM M (TYPED) I hO l Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation 8 1 N l r -
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: I NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 42 COMMONWEALTli EDISON (llEARING) DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457/0L PLACE: CilICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE: , WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the originai l transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l Regulatory Commission. I (sigt) (N [ l (TYPED) [ hb of icial Reporter
>;orter's Affiliation ,x k/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _}}