ML20148E605
| ML20148E605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1978 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811070065 | |
| Download: ML20148E605 (250) | |
Text
.
C> .
Records Facilities Branch (2) 016 Phil NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .THIS n
DOCUMENT CONTAINS e [% %
PCOR QUALITY PAGES I
_m I%. mw 12 ve v 1 E
7U =
' E h,)g4 f
.i IN THE MATTER OF:
g
'%b b \
PORTLN1D GE!;EPAL ELECTRIC CO:5'd!Y, c '. c a . 1 (Trojan I;uclear ?la.nt) l D:c::a : :-:o . :i G - ;' .' .
(
t p g ,,, , Salem, Oregon 24 October 1970 J' - 10.0 Date - p ,,,
l l
I Teiephone:
(702)347 3700 ACE . FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
' OfficialReporters 78110700Q5 444 Nor*h C p.itol Street .
( Wcshington, D.C. 20001 NATIONW10E COVERAGE . DAILY
WK31oose/wb CR 9920 634 1 UNITED STATES OF AltCRICA
' 2 ITUCLEAR REGUINIT)!!Y CO!!MISSIOt1 I,
3 - ------------------ .
( 4 In the matter. of: .
5 PORTLAND ' GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPA!Pl, : Dochet !!o. 50-344 et al.' :
6 : (con trol P.ccm (Trojan nuclear Plant) : Proceedings)
- 7 :
o e '4 3
Hearing Room A, State Capitel. Building, l 9
Salen, Oregon. ;
l Tuesday, October 2/, 1970.
i 11 The hearing in the above-entitisd matter was '
' r .e / *t 12
.. . resumed, pursuant to adjournment. st 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE: t 14 MARSHALL E. MILLER, Esq., Chairman, l e afey and Wensing Ecard.
15 DR. ITUlm A. McCOLLOM, me.de'-
16 l DR. HUGH C. PAXTON, Member, r 1.,, .i.
I
. APPEARAUCs'S: '
18 :
On behalf of Licensees: i 19 ;
4 ROLAliD F. BANKS, Esq. , Souther, Spaulding Hinscy, {
20 Uilliamson & Schwabe., Standard Flaza, ;
Portland, Oregon 97204.
4, MAURICE A*CLRT.D, Esq., Lowenstein,1iewman, P.cis '
and A:<c' rad,1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. ,
(
iTashington, E.C. 20923.
( ,.,
~., ,
. 1,!
RO:TlO..JCHUSCU , Erg., Forticri C'.ncrr.1 Electri'
'~ ; C:= 3. r, i n S.x. z:.iman sercet Perti a..
Crg.q n.
I e
'S t$
- _ - - . - , - , ....._-.-.,--.....-..,....__.m___.. , , . , , , - _ , . _ , . -__,.e , , ,_, _ ..,,. ,,, .-
i II !
635 ;
I t
wb I On behalf of Bonneville Power Administration. I 4
^ 2 NILLIAM KINSEY, Esq. ,1002 !!.E. Itolicday, ',
( Portland, Oregon.
3 On behalf of State of Oregon Department of Energy, 4 Oregon Public Utility Com=issioner: ;
5 JOIUT H. SOCOLOPSEY, Esq., Department of Justice, State Office Building, Salem, Oregon.
On beh'alf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: l ,
7 JOSEPH GPAY, Esq. and JANE Ar.LimD, Esq. ,
8 Office of Exocutive Lee;al Director, ! '
- United States 17uclear Regulatory Comission, j i 9 Uashington, D. C.
On behalf of Columbia Environmental Council, I, 10 Intervenor: I >
11 GREGORY KRFOURY, Esq., Kafcu..y & Hagen, 12 202 Oregon Pioneer Building, 320 S.U. Starh j Street, Portland, Oregon. I i
13 On behalf of Coalition for Safe Power, Intervenor, 14 and pro se,: ,
15 EUGENE ROSOLIE, 3926 N.E.12th Street, j l
Portland, Oregon. {
16 i On behalf of Consolidated Intervenors, and pro 3: l 1
I MI!!A BELL, 2010 U.U. Everett, Portland, Crsgon.
f . '
18 ;
, i 19 l
{
20 21 i
2?
a :'
ii b '.. l 0 i Uf. '
f Lt t <
l l !
_ . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . - - - - - _... . . . _ . - - . _ , _ _ . . _ . _ _ - , . ~ . . , _ , _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . . , - _ . _ , , , _ _ _ . _ _ . , _ . _ , . . . - , . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . .
4 . . .
636 10/24/78 4 1 EEEEEEEE
- Witnesses Direct Cross Redire ct Zeeress Board '
(
Richard C. Anderson ) 637 860 3
George Katanics ) ;
C.. 4 Theodcre E. Johnson)
William H. White )
5 (Continued) ;
6 i
7 9 l 9 j i
10 {,
11 i i
I2 Exhibits Iden. Evi.
CEC-1 Bechtel-PGE contract 683 14 .
L 15 i !
t 15 l 4
17 10 19 2!
22 ea ,
6 y
~
i 25 I
t G37
) '
i *
' I 1A agb1 .P .R_ _O C. .E .E .D. .I .N. .G _S.
o }
(
' The evider.tiary nec.:i.N <?ill '
011AIIUiAd MILLda:
3 resume, please. ;
r '
I believe that the panel may resume their places.
Mr. Kafoury, I believe you were examining, were you not?
6 MR. KAFOURY: Yes, thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: You may proceed.
B Whereupon, 9 RICHARD C. ANDERSON, 10 GEORGE KATANICS, 11 THEODORE E. JOHHSON, 12 and 13 WILLIAM H. W11ITE 14 ware recalled as witnesses on behalf of the Licensees, ant, 15 having bean previously duly sworn, testified further as 16 follows:
17 CROSS-EXAIIINATION (Continued) 18 EY MR. KAFot1RY:
19 Q Gentlemen, in the re-analysis of April, 1973, 20 you found that the connrol building was lighter than had been 21 believed -- than had been estimatcal ..in tha original calculatic:
22 is that correct?
A (Witnesc Johnson) The building 'ta nct .'? c t.l!.y
=h. .
2?. ;'; lightc.: thr.n the cr.lcriationc indic.'.tec. T' :.: :cy- . . .2 ',
u
- ".he Calculatio!.O.
+
3 h was CCusistEnt '#1tu i.t 4
h I
l
.__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . . = _--. _. . __ . _
638 I
1 8 agb2 our problem was that we believec tha ncre vers .l 2 !
(- ; some misunderstandings when the calcula.tions. were put togstnerl ,
that resulted in a structure that was lighter in reinforcing ;- '
,/^ s !.
. taan it should have been, based on the FSAR conmitmOnes. !
5 t Did you mean weight? ( ,
6 Q I meant weight.
- 7 A Oh, I'm sorry. .
s 6
Height, yes, it was lighter than the original O
~
weights used. }
10 0 And some 13 parcent lighter, is that correct?
II A Yes, that's correct.
12 Q Why was that?
13 A Originally, they used criteria that was the ;
I4 dead Icad plus a high percentage of the live load. Live I.
15 load being equipment weight, just general floor requircinents, ;
16 And when we re-evaluated, we had bcuter l' i
17 information than was originally available e.s to actual weighte,f 18 and could then use those values. !
1 19 Why was the information better?
Q _
20 A Becaush by then the structure was built, and 21l .
we could go in and determino just exactly what was thsrc. l i
"I Q Is there any particular reason uny that '
1.
k 22 f cr1:ulatien cocid not hcvs bacn mud 2
- uacditta!.:' aftC- :.u .
24 hailOing hit b *.a O!. p u'~, *40 E Othar LOC ;;O 2/.]uil,1*.nt r.0 ".c ..'~>
.t: t 13 i I5 en6:e any reason Wny thC aOtual hS-huilt Unit *nt 0 ~., ;.lu .~.0%
~lI
. '4 ..
. . . ..,,._-,7,_.v.. ,,_ ,,,.- ,, ,..-,,. ...-.,,,,.. , , m .,,,.m..--.._.,,_-....-.. . , . . - , _ . . , - - , . .._ _ . , . , . - _ _ _ . . _ -
. . _ . - ~ -- - ' -
{
i t
2 ., ,o i. .
.; I I f agb3 I havs been recalculated then and plugged bach-int :nc origir.al ; l i ,
2 i
1
,. calculatien? I
(, ;
3 A There is no reason why that couldn't have bcon .
4 e ,
', t done. But there is no necessity for it at that tine, since 4, .
t t
E by then the struc ure was already designed and tenstructed. f I li .
6 C But that could have served as an additional- !
t t
7 check on your original calculations, isn't unau trus? j j
S A Only with respect to weight. 1 6
i 9 O Ind the fuel building was re-analyzed in a ci c.ilcr *l :
I i
10 fashion and it was found to be 28 percent lignter than hau =
j li l 1
I originally bean calculated, is that ccrrect?
- t 12 I'm referring to Page A-3, Appendix 3 of the !
i 13 STARDYNE analysis. i 1/. A (Witness hihite) That is not associated with tna i j4 ,
15 weight? That's a forco reduction.
1 16 g Q What was the weight difference of the fual l i
. I I building, did ycu calculate that?
17 l tg A As I recall, the fuel building stayed about ena ;
I 19 same or increased a little bit, as I recall. I den : h:va 2 !
20 ! those figures in front of me right now. ;
21 ' O So the 28 percant reducticn thtt we're :21 king ;
I !
about in the fuci building is the bcsa sacar, cnd :N.u's .
23 l .
1 i
g e.
e d we o '. . .e ma b y e.*4e 'b e be. en e[ ) b~ [h [
s . ,
a*
C.E01W " ** # } .'.rth TJnN O ,. iG th h'd c0rrOcti l
- d kJS.
_. n .. ;
r n
[
l , ,
1 i
e i
. < . .,.....,,-=.-m--.. . - . - - .._.-.,--,_.,_ - _. . , _ . . . . . . . - . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ - _ . . . . . ... . _ . _ . . - . . _ . . - _ - _ . . _ .
'I 640 1
agb4 Q Is that 28 percent reduction within the range ;
n 2
( 3 of errors that would be expecued?
A (Witness Johnson) No, this 28 percent was 4
strictly the difference in using a squcre root sum squaro 5
technique versus an absolute value techniquo.
6 .
Q Now you said yesterday that the generally accepted, 1 7
principles of your discipline will accept either the sum of 7 the square root technique or the absolute sum technique on 9
the basis of parity, one is just as good as - the other, is .
I 10 that true?
I 11 A Back at tho time the analysis was dons, it was !
12 left to the choice of the designer. It has been established i
! t"s up to the present time that the square root sum squares is N the :. ore realistic technique to use. -
t je" That range, then, of a 28 percent difference j
+
Q i
16 being acceptable, is that an indication of the primir.ive 17 nature of the state of the art in 1970? If you calculate i 18 it one way you get a 28 percent. difference in load, than if I If you calculate it another way -- but that each werc considered ,
20 to be interchangeable l 21 A Uell I wouldn't call it c primitive state cf the. l 1 ; i 2' ' art. At that tinc, you were -- I
' 23 0 2 kncu you're a lot bctic now.
24 ' -' "CU W;rs c.110nc:i to use ciL-bt.: Onc, : ".0 -
25 h kncun tha - the absoluta value war ucra conecrvc.ti7e.
!cC. -
- i ;
l i l' ;
P; ' >
\\
53
_ _ , ,..m_,__....,,..~,,., . - . . - . _ - . . . . ,, ,,-,__.m.-...~........_..,m, . ~ , . . . , _ , , - . . . . . ,
I 641 '
agb5 since then, various studies anct research have indice:ed tae.t 2 i i the square root sm. square which is tr.e :. Orc realictic -- J.Ld ;
f 1 3
that is now used, to my knowlt.dge, by the inductry in genarci i j 4 I on present-day plans. i 5 So to sor.s antant, the absolute base figure wcs O
6 a means of building in conservatism which has now been f 7
abandonad, is that correct?
l 8
A I wouldn't say that it was a means of building I i !
9 in conservatism.
10 -
0 But it had that effect? i l
U A It did result in higher loads. 1 12 And you were aware at the time that you were Q
13 using it, that it did have a built in conservative fcctor?
14 A Yes, i
15 Tchle A-1, which is found after Page A-12 --
, O l
C' l will you refer to it, plcr.se?
l 17 Could you describe briefly what the chart thers i IB reflects, whichever ene of you wants to respond?
19 A (Witness White) Really what it is, it's just a !
1 20 tabulation of the base shee.rs calculated by various technique:.t 21 Several models are includsd, as well as varicus tocr.niques.
22 1lg O And the base cher.r, again, is the lateral 1::.rca a
't 2- that WCu.l.d bC uppliOd in F.n 35E. 02rdaquO.h37 ,
a ;; a .uyhe.
D 25 ' e z.nd the figurs for the Tars anal: eis ::ra ct:.c in 4
4 h - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
h 642 ,
' June of 1978 for the control building pluc tua fuel building agb5 I was approximately 15,000 KIPS, correct?
CHAIRMAN MILLER: May we have some definition of A
these terms, please? ,
WITNESS WHITE: What? KIPS? Base shear?
6 CHAIRMAN MITAER: No, base shear is all right. I i ,
1 7 WITNESS IGIITE: KIPS is a thousand pounds.
O CHAIRMAN MILLER: What was tna other term % at t 9 was used?
10 The TABS analysis. j i
II WITNESS WHITE: That's the program, an s.lte,rnative i
12 program for analyzing structures subjected to carthquakes. ;
/ 13 I'm trying to ramamber what TABS stands for.
14 MR. BANKS: It's an abbreviction, isn't it, TAES? l' l-i 15 WITNESS WHITE: Yes, but I don't reme:rter right i
16 cff what it stands for.
17 BY MR. KAFOURY:
1B Q So the TABS gave you a figure of 15,000 unjts or ,
19 KIPS as a base shear. And the original analysis gave.you a 20 figure comething over 26,000, is that correct?
i 21 ! A (Witness Witite) Yes.
22 O Arad the otner figures, the - c-r. valuation: z.ro f
' 27 about 13 000; STARDYN.5 chcut 20,00 0 ; ST.C'.IYK," fi:::: . a. ...:. : "
I:
I.? f L S r D C ', ?
h
' Right. ;
IE 3 ..
i t
i.
i I .M
1 I.
60 '
agb7 ICt. BANKS: Just for the Board's benefit -- I
(
don't know if you know -- this is L:hiisit licic.: Eigne, if 3
that's of any help to you in following this.
i 1
end1A l l
5 6
7 0 i 9 ,
0 10 .
I 11 12 13 14 l
15 16 '
17 i 18 19 i
20 !
21 l j 22
- w - ,
.1
!1 28, c
li
~
- 5
- 'l i i h l 6
b..
T
~~
644 lb ebl 1 WIT TF.55 WIIITn: The reference for TABS is on page i
.' 2 12, Reference 1-S. i
( f.
3 UIT1TESS A!!DERSO:i: It is al'so defined on pago 12 l
s- t 4 of our testimony, Footnote 7. TADS, a Three-dimensional !
t'.
5 Analysis of Building Systems. It's the acronym for that. j 6 BY 13. KAPOURY: I i
5 7 0 Itow these different anal: isis description, you l i
8 simply have different models or different metaphoros for l 9 the buildings and thase different models give somewhct dif- l t
10 ferent figures for the amount of force that would b2 exerecd 2 i
11 during the maximum earthquake. Is that correct?
12 A (Witness White) Correct. .
13 0 And the range that you have on Table A-1, in-14 cluding the criginal, the reevaluation, the TAES analysis
- g and the two STARDYITE analyscs, the ranga of total br.se 1G shear forces ranges from 15 to 26. Co rect 7 17 A Yes.
13 O And your final response is that the truth, to the 19 best of your estimation, lies somewhere in betwee n the 20 .
STARDYliE analyses of about 20. Is that correct?
I But at the same time we 21 A Yes, that's correct.
nt i haven't said that all of these analyses cre enes uhat havs II il
' CSen One by us. In other werd , the TA35 analysis vcs not O e 22 ! pdrfo CSI hy uS.
0 0 Who perfc=ed i ?
25 ll t
e l
T 1
I 645 eb2 A A consultant of ours.
, CImIntWT HILLER: named what, or when?
( P!G, and I don' t renenber the names 3
17ITMESS WHITE:
t 4 that go along with it.
'?" E ' M hU CS* '**9"* '" *" "" **
5
\
CHAIR!iAN MILIER: Where are they locatad?
6 WITNESS KATANICS: In San Francisco. ;
7 NMWT ER: Mank you. ,
6 WIT!ESS JOmISON: I might point out here that we {
g
}
know the 26,000 number was an upper limit, an c:ctreme upper j 10 t j
limit, based on the absolute values. l
, 11 '
The TADS was run and was considered at the time l g g
an interesting number but never used in the study, so that
~
we'really have a spread. It's more like 18 to 20 thocsand, I which is an extremely close, spread.
g i
BY liR. KAFOURY: >
i 1G .
O And that's because you have made the decision to g
throw out the high and the low figures, based on all of your g
knowledge?
A (Witness Johnson) Well, again we know the high g
was conservative, based on the absolute value. The lo;:-- We :
l 21 .
It was run !
won' t say we threw it out. We never used it.
u, , s as a confirmation. If it would have been higher than tie real',
(' .l E3 y
.! valuation figurc, then i.a would have donc semathine .'.02. z, l but since it was lower. it gnve us addad in2 rmation the.t the
~
25 I.
ii I h
,1
l 646 eb3 I 15,000 figure was a good figure, t
9 O Dut the range between the low calculation an.'. the 3 high calculation is the range between, say,100 percent and 4 167 percent roughly?
5 cmHRMTJi MILI.ER: Percent of what? ;
6 MR. KFJOURY: Percent of the low figure.
7 WITICSS JO!!NSON: Yes.
8 BY MR. IGJOURY:
9 0 I used the word primitive" earlier. I did not ,
10 mean to denigrate you gentleman's work. It's certainly 11 sophisticated. But would you say that generally carthquake 12 analysis is a field which remains in its infancy?
13 A (Witness Johnson) I would say there's a certain 14 degree of truth to that in the fact that we are using, back _
15 in '70 and even now, very conservative techniques that are based on predicting upper limit elastic ve. lues. Chere =cy 15
!? be a trend in the future to do more realistic analyses that '
18 allows the structures to go into the non-linear range, and 19 we will,see reduction of required forces similar to what
~
P.0 l one observes in applying the Uniform Bui3 ding Code.
i 21 l Q New when you speak of inslastic'ity and non-i EI .!
lincerity, you are referring to cracking, aren't you?
L
' 22 ti v
C:'AIRMAii MIIIEP.: Mew let's have com dafiniticar ;
V 2f f[ Of thCSe, plC!:$C.
1 8:
MR. HAPOURY: That's tic.at I n sashing.
15 !!
O 1
i l
- . . ~ . . . .- . . - - . - _ _ - - - - - ~--
i 647 eb4 1 BY MR. KATOURY:
2 O lihat you' re talking abot.t is -- ,.
(
3 CHAIPJfAN MILLER: You used the terms, and.I think I r
i 4 the record should indicate, se people sitting here know what t
5 you're talking about. You sound very expert, but we'd like 6 to have it reduced to laymen's terms, please.
7 BY MR. KAFOURY: i 8 0 Is a reasonable definition of that process that 9 occurs when one goes beyond the inelastic respense level, !
10 is a reasonable definition of that cracking, and the building I
11 cracks?
12 A (Witness Johnson) The way the building would work -
1 P
13 under a very low loading which would remain what we call l
14 linear, which means under repeated leads it would follow the :
15 same type of deformation, now even before cracking there i i
16 would be some degree of non-linearity, which means thzt if i i,
17 one would make a plot of the displacement of the building 1
f '
10 versus the force applied, it would not be a straight line,
{ t i
19 it would start to have curvature. Some time, at a certain j i 1 20 lead level, there would be cracking. I 21 Q Whatwouldthecurvaturerepresentifnotcracking?l ,
i 22 Bending would be linsar, wouldn't it? !
s 23 - A i: ell, it's the fact that concrote in gcnarci, cnt.
g N, shear va?.is, would not rams.in tractly linscr. It'c '._ rd t:
I 2f . find with con =rsta; even in perfcrming sylinder tar:s,.
f
. 9 J _ . _ _ . . , _ _
I 648 t 1
(
I eb5 I simple conpression cylinder tests, they only remain in a 1 e '
(
2 linear range under a fairly icw load level. So then i' i.
i 3 as you load them they start to beccmc non-linear. ;
0 Y
I
( 4 Cracking would lead to more non-linearity and i.
1 5 later, when the reinforcing steel would yield, then one uculd j I,
6 be into the upper inelastic or non-linear range.
i!
l' 7
Now concrete structures, the reason they have j g reinforcing is to carry the load af ter cracking so that cracking does not really mean much in a concrete structure. j g ,
10 It's designed to crack, and then the reinforcing resists the {!
i' I
3; load.
12 Q And the only real risk of the cracking, assuming 13 that the steel held and the displacement was not e::treme, j, i
14 the only risk at that point would be the effect of falling
,i o-concrete if there 'were to be any inside the building. . Is that correct? .
.S g7 A No, that isn' t. .;
There is very little significance to cracking. [
- g s j Structures crack without load, just due to shrinkago of the 19 ii concrete, so that again cracking means very littig in ;
20 ,
I' :
evaluating a reinforced concreto structure.
21 ll .
O Isn't one of the risks of cracking that chtnhs
+2 1
~ ,, h.i w
of the wall would fall ento people or snchinse?
1 i
,., A 3 0 .- n0.
,. i: o ne're talking about c different kind of cra: king?
_a !
8
'l
1 i-I 649 l -
eb6 3 A Yes. This is cracking- The. type of cracking 2 we're talking about would ba like through the thickness cf
(.
3 a wall, and there is reinforcing that crosses these cracks. 3
( 4 This is not cracking which would be in pienes thct weald 5 then result in falling concrete. ;
6 For a slab to have that happen it would have to j {
i 7 haveanextremelyhighdeformationandeventhen,verylittlel .
g concrete would fall, f i
,+ t 9
0 And what you were saying earlier is that cracking l 1
39 is a good thing because that increases the ability of the
);
building to dissipate the shcar forces? Correct? i A Well, again, cracking is-- The structure is l 12 designed to crack. rnae's why the reinforcing is put in. ;
1 94 0 Thank'you.
I I direct your attention to STARDY!E analysic i 1n '. 1 .
e , a e e s n 8, jue before W j j 16 l
Appendix.
- l 17 : s
, l Would one of you describe generally'what that i i
,8 8
i i t
, table represents?
19 A (Witness Eatanics) I will describe it. I 20 o :
The first column identifies the wall as it is '
shown on Figure A-1. I i The sec:nd colurn cerrslates the Figura A-1 vith j
s- _
c: 9 )
, , l'I Pig--e ' ' since on ?igurs 3-2 there are unlis i:Ecnhicied a, -l, P
as 1,. 2 3, 4, and so ca and points out that th t:his gives 25 ;- 3 4
I 4 i '
4 1
1 !
- t
4 g ,wa #
651 l
ob8 1 together and this total is probably a more representative j i
2 number than either the 1.24 as the minimum or the 2.5C as the l l
s
)
3 maximum. i 4 0 tiow for vall R where you have the icv figura, am I i i
5 correct that what you have is a total figure labeled " Total" l
6 ,
which represents base shear, the lateral force, and-- Excuse ,
7 28. i g That represents the resistance and the base shear r
i 9 in hips represents the lateral force, so the ranges of '.
10 safety margin, the ratio of those two figures ranges from 11 a factor of safety of 1.24 up to 2.58? l A Correct. !
12 g 0 And you think it is unlikely that the 1.24 is g antirely accurate as an indication of what might happen 15 becausa of the fact that all of these have some 'phycical i 16 connection? ,
A There is more than one reason for na to believe !
$7
- g that the 1.24 is a conservative number. One of them that I !.
- g tried to point out previously is that we believe that there j i
20 is an interaction among these elements to resist f-he shear.
}'
There are also the base shear columns and equally i 21 I
22 l imp rtant, the total columns. The numbers were based on a
- ., series of conservativa c.scumctions. -
a.o ,
.0 lb H 24 !!
P
~
25 l
,I
, , _ . . . - - - . - . - _ . . - ~ . _ _ - - , - - - _ , _ . _ . . . . . . . , . . . , _ . , _ . . . _ , , - . . . . - . . .,_., - - _ . - _ - . - . - _ . _ _ _ _ - , _ . . -
i i
us; 1 1
1C agb1 O But you're saying you did not factor in ycur 2
assumptica thtt thay would all tend ec hold ( ch Othcr 3 for that factored in, is tnat together. There is no figure 4 '
correct?
5 !
A I'm not exactly sure I fully understand your 6
question, but I'll try to answar it.
i Q Should I raphrase it?
O I ballsve the last number, the 1.87, that's the I I.
I closest to showing. They're all f actored together, t:.c.n IO what kind of facter of sr.faty exists?
II Q And that's ci= ply adtiing up the various rows c.nd ,
,2 average them? !
I "* A I wouldn't call it averaging them. I would 14 call it relating the tett.1 base shear to the tott.1 rasisting - i 15 capacity of the foundation.
16 Q Is it possible that ene of these wcilu could 17 fail to resist and slide without the cthere also going, ;
18 would that happen? ~!
19 A It's unlikaly that it would happen.
20 ~0 But it could? i 21 A I would say carttinty c.nd uncertainty uitusu ac:: l 12 cxcessive Enr. lysis is a dubicus matte: . I u0nid rapck.2, it' .2 -
3 }j unli% 1y it w u;6 h:: pen.
e it 24 ii 2 ~:ut for the - 5.hr rt - : 11,. r.e r ; nm.;t..: : :: ;.: :
I f
- 25 ' sc2cty is only 24 p:::: ant by your calcus2=. E , :. =.:. : ce rra. '. r
+
P s
- i .
e
~_. _ . . -. _. -. - . . - -
'l l-I 653 $
l i ,
)
j agb2 A By the calculations, yes. i
- 0 '
Q Thcnk j ou.
I Would it be catastrophic if that hapy:ned, :.2 cns i
, 3l 4I
![
of the walls gave th.:ough, say Wall R? t-5 And I don't A This, of course, is a hypothesis. L 6
think it is catastrophic. \
I l
7 Q Why not? !!
I O
A Because there would be just differential covament j f'
- between the wall and scma other part of taa structurc. I jl 10 somcwhat visualize this, obviously, as an inclastic behcvicr. j
.c II Q And a non-linear behavior as wcil? -
12 And a non-linear behavior, f -
A I3 A (Witness Johnson) I might point out, in Saetien 7 M in some of our lead examinations that wo havs icohed 0.t E.n l
,5 ' unlikaly event of this type in Load case one, as e.n ::cample.
15 We derated the capacity of the -- of una.t is .';now.. .
17 as the North Hall, and also that was done in Caso Five, and 16 '
has shown very little differences in the structure.. The 19 structure has excallent ability to redistribute er carry loads li 20 in the event that one of the elements doss not function as f
21 estimated.
22 O One of the elements, you maan one of the :talls?
I E ;. A One of enc we.ll:, All t'u 4:.l.'.e are ticd t:qc.th n-t li Vith 1E.7?*"" cOnO!StC fr1c.h5 f $10 er C lf.DC .
1
~
25li C I draw your attention to the con:rcl builcing 9
i H
U ,
. . . - - . _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ . , _ _ , , , _ _ _ - . , _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ --
1 G54 ,
' docket correspondence, it's a Licensea 1 vent acpert of P.ay 5.
agb3 t
2 MR, LANKS: That's Exhibit Mc:6 a r S i::. j e '
~
BY MR. KAFOURY: !'
4 I'm referring to the document icbeled, "Rcportable!
0
- i' '
5 occurrence," which is in four pages, and I'm referring to the 6 first completa paragraph on the third page.
7 Did you gentlemen, or any of you, prepare or review I 6 this document, " Reportable occurrence?"
9 MR. EANKS: There are t.fo questions there, vould i i
10 you mind asking them separately?
i 1I BY MR. KAFOURY:
12 Q There cre four questions, actually. .
6 13 Did any of you play a role in crocting this I 14 document? :
1.
15 A (Witness Anderson) He prepared . repor: from i 16 which this documsnt was taken. He did not prepara tnis :
17 document, the LER, and we did not review it before it was 1 18 submitted. However, the information contained in here, much 1 1
19 of,it, comes from a document that wa've submitted to Portland l 20 Gcneral Electric.
21 j Q Now in the paragraph indicatsd in the mic'ile, 22 ) it reads:
- a1 22 !j "All sc.f e.ty-r :ltted equipmrn is s
- t 04 '; qu:lifiad e p ric:m :.t c .5:ty tr.c; cn f:.:-
d h
1.420 25 H carvhquar.:e cp te the 531."
?
l4 I
- i
. - - - . - - - .. . . .- .~ _-_ -. - - . - _ ~ ..
+
655 1
agb4 Now, am I correct that, based on the infern.ation j 2
deve:.opad over une las: ' few vaaks, thn: that is no longer
( :
an operative statement? :
4 A We are investigating that right noJ, as Uc h vs ,
5 new information from the STARDYNE analysis, there's a slight :
I 6
frequency shift and we have to go back and look at the l 7 ;
equipment to find out if it is still tuned so that it does 6 resonate with the buildings' natural frequency.
not ;
9 Is it a fact that the analysis which led to thesc 0 ,
I I
O ancmalit.s which led to this present concern had never baan ,
11 done before? ,
12 A (Mitness White) Will you say that again?
13 I'm referring to the potential difficulties Q
I# with the safety-relcted equipment with the ficor respenso 15 spectrum ancmalies.
16 Ic it a fact that these concerns which hc.ve 17 arisen in the last couple of weeks were the result of test: ,
18 which had never been parformed before the last coupls of 3
19 weeks?
~
20 A (Witness Anderson) No, that's not true.
El O Had the tests been performed with the sc e 4 :'
U- degram of dott.iled anclysia that has been initiated within !
I
- t 23 1 -% ' = d- :cutic. of ucche? i f).
20 y A Wel.'. this crices cut el ser t c of 2.: 2 % '_ . 2 [
1 !
~
25 i
ccepute:: progrcm, and that prcirc= had not bczn run .:cforc en {;
- r
! t >
i it, !
3 d ' >
in P
- +~,.-.e.- .- i,,.<,,r. .,m.--ee .-+--n. ,~ry vu ., ww w r . , ,+w-w ,,m.,,---- ,ryr....,v,.,..r--- v-,-3-----.~,-~, - . - = .s..-w --+ver.-r=-,- .,---.--e, - , . - , - - - - - - -
f r
1
- 1 L 1
6 G56 -
. ,I 1 4
~
agb5 this project, if that's what you're referring te. .
2 O It is, tharsfore, the case tan the kind Of .
l* f; a
analysis which led to tbs new concern about the safet.r cr.uip- 5 !
i 4
ment is, in fact, an analysis which had not bean dons until 5
very recently? :
. t o i A That's true. .
7 4 Q Repeatedly through the literature, we see dis- ;
i S
cussions of the fcet that whereas the safety cargin for onc , ;
o .
i
~
wall may be somewhat questione.ble taken individually, t.ct f
' l 10 .
cf buildings has the cccccit' 20 !
l the building - N comple 1 l-1 :
11 ;
shift load cround so tnat it responds cerc c: a unit and lcc:: !! t i
' as individual ele = ants, is that a fair statement?
)
i 13 Yes, that's c fair statement. i A (Witness Johnson) (
14 i I might also point out that this f actor of sLfetf j i
, i tr~ t !
or margin is only required to be ona. '
16 0 And where do you make your ner.e, sir?
- l :
1 17 A I don't quite understand. !$
,i I ,
to O Do you live in California? !
s to -
A Ch, I did until three conths ago. ;
l >
20 Q Tn.anx you.
i 21 A New maybe I can clarify that, i 3 l
22 hu Unen we cet up critaria and 100k at a carrin c; ens
'lI I
" I,! t:t h s bE;;d Ot D.e Oriterit thth %12 72t t: 7;; hec _ ,. 2.d t a ;t 3
I
.* *a e e g. =e up e e* w .. . . h. ' b e ,
H l se v E" 5 3 *tIO AgObO, *iN O3 I'.i"* 7 E OCC[CZb!On O $ Ihc OZiOOril.
I I
tt l'
h f > !
li e :
it l r
- . . , - - . , - - . . . . . _ , . . - _ , . , . . . . . , , . . . . , , . , _ . . . . - ~ . . . _ , _ _ . . . _ , . _ . _ . . _ . . , , _ . _ . _ . , . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . - , . -
_ _ - - . = - - - _ - . . .~. -. ._ . -.. - _
l 657 1 j agb6 that is conservative with the loads, one only has to satisfy ,
2 l a one. I i 3 i Q And no less? j ,
4 A Yes. ,
Q So the critical question, than, dccc bacone, does 6
it not, the actual margin of error as it relates to that 7
magical figure of one? Is that a fair statement?
8 I'm not fa:.tiliar with the term, " margin of error."
A 9
O Margin of, safety, then. , ,
i 10 A Well, again -- l t
U Safety factor. If you say that a wall by'your ! l Q i ,
12 calculation, say, is designed to withstand a force of 110 ,
U and it has a resistance of 100, then its safety margin is I4 10 pcreant, right? The calculations have 10 percent Of !.
O give to them. l I6 A Would you repeat that, the numbers?
17 Q If, for instance, we have scmething that's 18 important to all of us that it not fall down an(., if it will M receive, under foreseeable circumstances, a forca of 100 units ;
i and if you tell us from your calculations,that it has tne 40l 1
21 ' strength to withstand a force of 110 units, thc= your margin ,
22 cf errer is 10 percent, that's th2 way I:n ucing zne term.
23 .i 2. h11-rignt. Mc 2:ua'.ly call that -
- c ra: m;.::.in
,, o
} . . ,
s:_ t a.;: ::y , u m. c. ec t _,.- oc
-a .t. ,
i i 25 F3.t tn sig.ifi:nr.cc of nc nc.ber, it:; 1:e l b.
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . - . . . - . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . -....._...._.._...._._.._.,___--_.....m..-.,....
653 1
agb7 important,if that was the single element, a building with one 2
i, wall, then che nucayer is mu,:h more iLport:nt the. if it's '
~
a -}
a building with many walls.
r s t
So that if the upper limit predicted load is 5
higher than the resistance and other' members can carry the 6
load, the one can have factors of one and there ic no concern.
7 A (Witness White) I would like to add another 8
point, too.
a \
In your analogy of 100 units versus 110 units I.
'O if the element, for instance, did totally fail e.t 100 units, II than the 10 percent margin that you were talking ab0ut l 12 would have some significance.
' 3 'When comparing to the loads predicted by a MI structural criteria as were put tagather, when that limit i
15 is reached,' there ic no catastrophic failure. ;
16 Q Because other factors como into play?
17 A Because the criteria for establishing the 100 18 units or whatever is a conservative criteria.
19 0 So again, you give us figurcs, you give us i
20 margins of safety, and then you continue to hold in reserve f 21 conservative elements for all that we're discussing, right? i>
22 , A (Witncss Johnson) There are many Ocnserve.tivo ?
33 h sle aents th:,g are built into une nuclec.: iricat- y ,
4 E ?. Sh ul;, thcre be par'ncu.'.ar 00a' '.r'. _U. l ;
- 3' i
- OCar.s to 'd.O p15.02.S t'horE WallO CGCt 0.LCh Other if GC CO i ol i .
H
659 agb8 going to be relying as heavily as we apparently are en s .ron?
s walls to help chare the load with weth ic:.ds, or in your 3 s sar.
analyses of the way the thing has been built, are the r 4 connections of no concern at all?
5 A As far as walls sharing load, that depends if 6 they're all tied in to the various structural slabs in tac 7 system. And we have examined the connections of the varicts 8 walls.
9 Q In person and on the scena?
10 A Many of us have been out to the site to inspr.ct 31 the plant, however, one cannot see too much becausc e of course 12 the reinforcing and so forth is inside the outer surface. ,
13 Q So there is some difficulty in telling just how 14 good the joining is, the joining of the walls? You ca.n't IS see through the walls, you don't have machines that enable 16 you to do in, and there is some degree of risk therc?
17 A : wouldn't call it risk.
IB Q Some degree of lack of h.nowledge? ,
10 'A To my knowledge, the constructicn procedurcs and 20 sequences used resulted in prcper concrete plccanant rnd propc 21 construction joints.
4 Q I direct your attention to the SOS.DYIIC ant. lyric, 22.i .l 16
- 20 -i P e.g: 5-1 t.nd the 0.cconpanying tablo 5-1.
a' e 2:, y
- s. , _. ;u
=.%. . .. :
.:x. u c a::,.u:.: . n' . . :r
- .r:.1 cndlC 23 N;' belirxe.
t 1:
n' li, t
~ , , , . -., . . . . . . - , , , . - , . - _ . . . . ,
660 l 1D mpbl DY ?!R. 1;ArctiRY:
c9 0 Cable 5-1 relates tc a north-sout'.) earthnut.':a at I
- " hat is the largest cencern, is it not?
.25a.
A (Mitness .Tohnson) " hat's the safe shutdown earth-5 cuake.
6 -n And the north-south notion is the direction of most 7 concern, considerinn the wav the buildinn is constructed, is 8 that correct?
9 A ves.
10 m And we have the walls numbered 1 throuch 15 "e 11 have the shear #orce in hips, the capacity in hips, and tha 12 capacity load as the ratio between the shcar force and the 13 capacity, correct?
14 A Correct. j 15 n And we see a variation of the figures. I under- !
16 stand that ratios of less than one indicate the lead is 17 ficticious since the load cannot exceed the capacity.
- hat IS r.eans that those walls which have a load creater than capacity' 19 vou're countino on other walls te carry the load for then, 20 rinht? i i
21 A *To r that's not -- !
22 n "o share the load.
23 !I, A "o chars the load. " hey can carry un zu ^nsir l
!i lir-i n .
- 4
- n Ohcy.
25 ,
i i
I !
M r
661 ,
I which mpb2 So we see that the rances fron wall number 9, t
2 up to uall can carry only ?.1 percent of the expected load [
3 number 5, which can carry 106 percent cf the cnpceted load,
/
4 is that correct? !
5 A Yes.
6 O And that when the total shear force and total 7 capacity of the various walls is added up, we conc to a total 8 ,cacecitv load Figure of 1.40, and that represents a 40 percent 9 narcin of safety, is that correct?
to n i to ,
11 mhin finure is shown #cr conparison, and it's ;
12 really not, I would say, nreper here to refer to it as a up a 13 nar71n of safety because we set basic criteria in 14 evaluating the capacity that had significant narnins in it. ,
15 And the only requirenent is that the capacity be larger than 16 the force for the overall system. These numbers are racily 17 shown for infornation, and they are not indicative of the 18 safety narcin which is much larner than this.
19 0 Do you acr,ee that it's helpful to have sone hind 20 of finure on just what the safety narcin is so that paonie 21 can calculate how hic an error vou centlenen have to nal e 22 he# ore we're in trouble?
23 3 A ves, thez's an intersstine nurber. l 0
,n incertseine nunker naa u:":.+' us *re ,
24[o -
"eu .
~
25 in *ahle 5-1 with conservaticns that "cu chc'se e ce rescr7e a -
I a _ _._
-,v,, , , - - , , , ,,.m.,,,,,,,,,-,emaw,,,me,, mar- a ,mnw--no,-eew,v,-<,w~,-,_w-,,-.n ,6~,r,,,..,v,,,,,, ~,.-,--,_n,a,,.-,,r-s ,-,,n,c-w, w e- , e y a
662 mohl I and not # actor in. Mut what von've ci-ren un is a #icure which savs that we have /D morcent co sacre. a nar~i. e#
3 safety of 40 percent on the sa#etv narain fer the control e
4 room, is that. correct?- . ,
5 A nell -
6 0 Conservatism granted.
7 A Conservatism above that originally -- that built 8 into our basic criteria that we used here. And we discucs 9 in other pcrts of our tastinony those type cf conservatismc.
to n "he ansuer is yes with additionci conservatisms?
11 A Correct.
12 o I direct vour attention to "able 9-3. "his is
( 13 similar. It deals with the elevation o# 61 to 77 #eet in 14 the control buildine; and otherwise the layout o# the; chic 15 is similar to the one we've just been discuccinq cr. 5-1,.s .i 16 that correct?
17 A Yes.
0 And here we have in walls one through si:: we have 18 19 the capacity load ranging from .34 in wall number two, as 20 high as 1.44 in wall number three, is that correct?
21 A YC5-22 n And the safety narqin for the buildin at that 9.e i,,
sievctier vich Sc concer"atisn that s ers_nt f.s 1. ?'7 F.:
uy c:n: v r:r. e -:: cv n.: - u, e = .- - . u n :. ,:,: . r. . : -
i
~'
gc h EI'bonal
= cenEGl*vL ei.WiC erg no! #
8 ct" **SO i.*, , i* *)'.Et corr 30 ;
I J
s if
~ . . - . . ~ ._ , . _ . . _ . . ~ . . _ _ . _ _ . - _ - - . . ,_
r r
c, 653 mnbd I A Yes.
2 n Suppore at the clerction 61 to 7'~ fcet therm "cre, 3 co d #orbid, an error in vour calculations o", say, a rannitude, t
l 4 of Sn nercent on the dounside.
5 Uhat would that rean? Creat rish, or no nroblem, 6 or what?
7 A It would nean that our narnins, overall total 8 margins would be reduced. j 9 11ow here we have a situation where ue have evc3 uat-
.i 10 ed the loads based on an acsunption of ele.stic respensa and I i
s 11 lou dampinq. So these are e::trens upper linit loads. The i 12 capacitle= are really, let's cay recistent. They are how 13 much the walls can push back with. And even if one exceeds 14 that value, thev still have the ability to nush back.
15 tiow we have nentioned narnins in our tastimony, ,
t 16 really ninimun narnins that we could resist an SSE Sn cercent 17 nreater than even the .25n.
16 ?!ow, two very significant items. Me've done this 19 elastic analysis. "e have used a very low dampinn value.
20 As.the response would increase, the danping uould increase.
2; If the dampinn would go fron fivs percent to seven percent, ,
22 the forces cenerated would drcp to about 80 parcent. ,
f
. r 2' .
.HE h3VG diScuSSCd also in OMr ZO101E .; -
s si !
il 24 - ::ppmu - .en a struc.are sne.r:: to r2:7:-f :. u 1/2 T :l.a -
r i
gg mannsr. "nen this hr.nnens the #erecs aise drop of# cinni;.'ican I; i
i I
a !
!y
\. ,
.. n , ,y...
664 mpb5 I And if one only axceeded yield by the ranns ef, say, 25 ner-
~
2 cent, that would he ancther 20 percent re?uction in 10a:"
3 So that with the overall techniques wo use hora, i
4 and even if these nunbers would be -- only have the capchility 5 to be 50 percent of what is shown here, which we consider, 6 let's say absolutely unlikely, the structure would still t
7 survive an SSE earthquake, 8 m And without assuning any terrible nistakes, it 9 is vour belief that it could in fact withstend an or.rthquake l
f 10 o# one and one-hal# tines the SSP., is that correct?
11 A Pasilv. Fith these capacities, up to that, or 12 under your hypothesis of a lower capacity, then it could also
, 13 resist the present earthquake.
14 0 I direct your attention -- I don't know if you haca 15 a copy of it -- to uhe subnission by the Staff consicting ;
16 f the testinony of Kenneth S. IIerring,. office of nuclear 17 Reactor Regulation.
18 PTR. DANKS: "
here are two of those. Which cne arc 19 you referring to? ;
20
.1R. KAFOURY: It was served on Octchcr 13 It's I 21 entitled mestinony of Kenneth S. iterrinn, Office of 'Iuclear 22 Peactor Renulation nacardinn tha Supplementn1 S*ARnYim ,
23 Analvsis and its Irnact on th? 9:ruervral Cartci:- of ?.he !
t O b Ua $b rO E . .N t o 1 6 i
CriAI","s'd1 CLL"": " hat wca uhe later of ti.e tu:
3 .
i h'
(
t t
_y--,..e.v,.. g ,y.. ,_,-_,,,y,, ,s.,,,,,.., -
,w-
665 mehA 1 t6e*iled testinonies.
- 2 nn, swit,g: yen, 3 DY itn. YMotm7:
4 O At page 10, about three-quarters of the way denn 5 the page, in the niddle of the second paragraph, it se.ys:
6 "For the most realistic case raentioned 7 above the lowest ratio of capacity to load 3 for the nest critical north-south wall be-e tween elevations 45 and 77 was deternined to to be 1.153, and uas associated with the 11 west well of the control building between 12 elevations 45 and 61."
13 Do you qantienen actree or disagree with that?
14 A (Hitness Johnson) '1' hat particular number, to my 15 knowledge, included the vertical earthcuake and e r::duced ,
16 dead load, or the lead acting down in the wall. I can't 17 say we disagree with it. He think it is a lotecr linit number
- g based en all the infornacion available.
ig 0 And the nargin of safety for that criticci norch-20 south wall would be 15 percent?
21 A Correct, with all the ether narcins cvc.ilable.
i 3 ?!R. 7UJotinY: If : nicht have just a ncncnt, "r.
+I .
.a ,
Ch ai: : .an-
'! - - - - ~ >
- ' *; - n . %,. g. ,
c., .
( U.*. E l.J . .
i A
b
.. - - r----
. . . .~ , - . , - - . . _ . ,
666 mob 7 I CifAIRrW7 MILLER: i:e're goina te tche a recces in 2 "
about 13 - .inu ten . '*ould it accist yo --
3 'in, n1&otin?: Me, that's fine. I'll cen inue, 4
Mr. chairnan.
5 cnArmwt MILLgrt: All riqht. '
6 ptP , W OURY: I will be one nonent. I'm loohinn 7 for a particular document. "
8 CHAIPJWI MILLER: Very well.
G (Pause.)
10 BY tin. KAroriny:
11 0 Gentlemen, how important is the integrity of ths 12 contrcl room and its equipment to the threat of catastrophic 13 accident?
14 A (t71tness Anderson) 17e say in cur testinony that 15 the clant is desiansd to have the capchility of rcnote shut-16 :!own fron the renote chutdown panel outside o# the centrol 17 building comp 1,e::. And the plant can be shut do.in fran that 18 panel.
19 And obviously the control buildinci is impt ' tant 20 to plant operation. But,there is a provision built inte the 21 design of the plant that would allow the plant to be a folv 22 ; shut down from outside the centrol buildinc.
a 4 8 *O U 4 6@ e W g W $ e- e
!?
2 'e nOO s'.11 D iri *[o'." 11 ii:*.d '; .
p 1
M I S. b.~ *23
- St ' s t.". C 7#.C rc.T;'.CnC E- Zo th3 ' 0 C 0',' .
i I
i.
Il t'
667 ,
mpb8 I interrogatories, I believe. This is the Tranne11 affidavit 2 dated June 24,-1970. Is th:t the ene?
3 MR. KAFOURY: 20, that's correct. ,
e !
4 Mn. nANKS: That can be found as an attachnent i
5 to the answer to McCoy interrogatory -- the MRC's answer to.
6 McCoy_ Interrogatory number 2. It's the second attachment.
7 MR. GRAY: I do have one copy here, if it would ,
i 8 he useful.
9 MR. BANKS: I think it's'Iten 11 in the witness's 10 books up there.
11 BY MR. KAPOURY: ;
12 O I'm looking at page 3, the center pcragraph. I'd 13 simply like to read it and ask for your reaction in light of 14 your view that the plant can be safely shuu down using nanur.1 I 15 controls in local areas euccide the building. j 16 Mr. Tranmell says:
t 17 "The consequences of gross failure of the 18 Trojan control building resulting from a severe !
19 earthquake vould be very. difficult to predict,
~
+
20 and even harder to quantify. The Licenses has 21 net previded a safety analysis of such an nceur- ;
12 renec. Even though the plant is designed to be :
i h3 crOu .#t DO 4.0 6 I uI ONn r C.I oU E a t$d CCntII.
l 24j :::r 1:salf 2:.:-n errecency cenniuie. tai _ i i
~
25 capc.hility plac2s_ reliance en the reisni:
k y- =ee*,*we- *+--+----*u----=*=-enew--e-e~,en,uwe--+-e--a---
( 668 r
moho I integritv of the control huilding under severe '
(-
2 earthquake conditions cince it houses esser. tic.1 3 equipment and perconnel necessary for thic fune- ,
4 tion. Thus the control building intearity is a i
5 vital aspect of the overall safety of the Trojan l ,
6 Nuclear Plant."
7 Do you gentlemen have a genuine disagreement or 8 not?
O A (Mitness Anderson) Well, as our analyscs have !
(
10 pointed out, we do not enpcet a catastrophic failure of the i 11 control building. And I think we're quite convinced that that!
12 just will not happen. !
i 13 0 Well, the question -- !
14 MR. BAfiKS: Encuse ne, Mr. Chairman. ;
15 I've been putting up trith this interrupting of 16 the witness's answcr, but I think it's important th:t he he allowed to answer the question addresced to him in total. !
17 l 18 CHAIRMAM MILLER: Yes.
I gg MR. KAFOURY: In that case, Your IIenor, I would ,
20 ask that his answer be stricken as non-respensive. ,
21 CRAIRMAM MILLER: Let's let him finich first and 22 than we'll analyze the responsiveness, I think the firrt unrzien pr.rhapc '.:.s ,0: conn 10tz-
. a
- r6 5 '.0 0.*. S $ * *?. . E u t 's "
- iC"a h* UES e .'O i'/,C
~
- 2" T ? '.f *.,' Y g
. . ', ; if f
- a5 dirGet response i.
.I
669 -
mpblo 1 Pinish your answer, please.
^
2 wI w nps Annnngos;; In our opinion, the picn: can s
3 be shut down from outside the control roon without any of f
(. 4 the functions provided by the control roen.or the control 5 building actually in operation. The remote shutdown panel 6 allows that. Mater sources are available, and it can be 7 shut down from outside the control roon.
8 DY fin. KAPOURY: .
9 Q Had you reviewed the Tranne11 affidavit prior to 10 today?
11 A (Witness Anderson) Ue've read it. g 12 O Did any of you make an attempt to discuss the 13 differences you have on this question with Ftr. Tranns11 to 14 see if you knew sonething he didn't know, or he knew somethinc ;
E ;
15 y u didn't know, or to see whether or not there was a factual i ;
16 basis underlyinc your disaareement? l 17 Mas any effort nada to work this out with the !!nc Staff? !
18 19 A N , we did not discuss this with the ?iRC Staff.
20 0 Do you think it is inportant?
,1 A We didn't think it was that i=portant to thic ;
I :
particular issue because we believed that those hind: of I 22 g3 l cataStco? hic ICilureS Cnnnot and Will not HEP?dn. $
0 In ethar trio, sine; the .:ut_ ;ir~ i: *u t, 34l c ir - 'x ,
I f
,_ have a cress fai'ure, thzr<_fers it'c nc: necessary t: ds;ra g
1 -
> 1
(
i
670 t
I I too deeply into the consequences of what "crocs failura" !
mobil 2
(s~ would mean? Is that 'that you're sayinc? l 3 A no, not exactly. .
> l 4 We felt that it wcs worthwhile looking at. We 5 did look at how one vould shut tha plant down from outside j 6 the control building, and we vere catisfied that it coul6 be 7 done, and be done safely. And that was all we felt was [
t 8 necessary to do. ;_
9 CHJtIR!iAN 11 ILLER: How do you reconcile that 10 response ~with the affidavit of It . Trenns11? It docsn't i
11 seem to me that they are congruent by c,ny nsans. j.
12 WITNESS ANDERSOll: I don't think there's that much I i
13 difference. He says it's difficult to predict, harder to 14 Guantify. We ve not done quantitative analyses on how eno 8
15 would co about = hutting down the plant from outside
- 1 1 16 control building.
17 However -- 5 1
- t 18 CHAIRMAM MILLER: But.... !
19 WITNESS N!DERSON: Pardon? :
I 20 CHAIRl!A!! !! ILLER: He indicated the difficulty but 21 he also exorossed an opinion or a view, didn't ha?
i g2 WITNDSS idiDERSON: Yes. ,
"HJ,IR'1JZI I" ILLER: What uu; the vi:.'.9 23 2g h ITFESS MIDEREr r: ~~h e v i v. s c R. it ' .1 : 2. . ' ue:. u.
4 i
be shut dcwn 25j safely fren cutsida the centro..iuildinc.
I I1:
671 mpb12 CIIAITU!A!1 liILLER: It can be shutdewn safely fron 2
outside the control building.
A.
3 ifI'minns A?innnsati: Yes,
,e
-(' 4 CRAIR!tAti MILLnRt Very well.
5 37 yp, ggpg.7py 6
O Sir, whose view are you stating?
7 A (tfitness Anderson) I'm stating ny view.
8 O And that is not Mr. Tranmell's view?
9 A I can't speak for Mr. Trammell.
10 0 tiell, but assuning Mr. Trame11's affidavit is in -
li goed faith, it's his point of view, is it nou,, that even ,
12 though the plant is designed to be brought to hot shutdown 13 from outside the control room itself under emergency condi-14 tiens. this capability places reliance on the scismic intag-iu 15 of the control buildinc under severe carthquake conditions 16 since it houses essential equipment and personnel necessary 17 for this function. '
18 Is there equipmenu inside the control buildin 19 which is essential to the shutting devn of the plant fren 20 outside the control building?
21 A There is safety-related equipment inside ths ;
22 control building; but we believe the plant can be shut down ,
t 23 j fren cutside ths centrel building withcut urinc tha: ter.-i -
24le r.in .
G Eut ycu C:n't think it's necassary for ycu to try 25l l
d n
672 11 mpb13 I to resolve your differences with Mr. Tramnell on this since , ,
I 2
(^'
ft is such e.n unlikely event of any occurrence,. right? !,
3 A That's essentially corre'et. l
- l 4 CHAIR 11A11 MILLER: Let the Board undcrztand. f 1
5 Are you basing your conclusions which you've just !
I I
6 stated almost exclusively on probabilities rather than upon 7 an analysis of wl at would, or reasonably could ha c::pected to 8 happen in case there ware catastrophic failure? To r.e uhose ,
9 are two different concepts and I'n not certain that I hers l 10 had a conplete response as to the latter. And I would like 11 you to think about it.
12 WITMDSS AliDERSON: Well, as I'said, we analyzed l i
13 the building and we do not expect the building to have any j' i
14 kind of catastrophic failure.
15 CHAIR!mt1 ICLLER: Mcw that doesn't matter. That's is immaterial to what I asked you.
17 I'm asking you to assums that there could be a Is catastrophic failure, which I think is what Mr. Trcmms11's 19 affidavit goes to. If you assume that, you forget abou 20 probabilities.
WI"' MESS AMDDRSON: Oh, all right.
21 gg ; Then we cay if there wac a cctastrophic frilurt g in the centr:-1 buildine. it is posrihic t: "i nt u:.c :. =
yQ i, do.m 'ror cu: L6e the c:.t. : huild: .n t:
' Provid0d ;t.rt?
2.o-CUAIR11AM MILE R:
it t
. - . , . . . . . . . - . -. . . - . - - = - . .. -- -- - - - . . . . . - , -,
673 mpbl4 I WITMESS ANDERSON: Provided the operators --
2 CCAIPJW1 !! ILLER: Survive?
3 He points out the question of personnel being in 4 there when this catactrophy occurs. Nou what are you geing 5 to do, hypothesize that there's someone who is too injured to 6 operate, or someone else? I want to know how you really 7 looked at it, because we are now confronting the issuc that 0 *ir. Trammell raises of a catastrophic failure. Apart from 9 probability that it may never happen, but if it cheuld we'd 10 really like to know what are you takinn into concideration, 11 uhat are the factors, negative and affirmative?
12 MITNESS ANDERSON: Well, one of the factors would 13 be that there are some people outside the control building, 14 that they're not all congregated in the control building.
15 I've been to the site. I have asked pecple at 16 the site who would not normally be in the control building i how one would shut the plant down if they did not have the I 17 18 availability of equipment inside the control building. And !
)
1 jg I was given a very satisfactory answer: that they knew where 1 20 thic remote shutdown pe.nel was and they knew the stcps that ;
1 21 they would have to take to shut the pla nt down safely. I g2 I, parsonally, was saticfied that there wculd ha
_ 9, d enough ocopla there as lonc cs they til *.urtn't ir .2
~ '
-, cen ro_ busla_n, . hat tr.;r ::uld -.u; ahe -lar- ;c = m=.
w 25 from et: side uhs buildt.ng. And thau's what I b:. sed ny --
1 l
l 1
- 1 674 l
I Well, it assumes that there is mpbl5 CHAIR? TAM MILLEn:
2 no panic, there are no prcblems, phycical or otheruice, vith s
3 personnel, that there are no problenc with whatsvcr thz contro[..
4 panel has, and things like that that parhaps you've described 5 in your written testimony that I haven't heard about.
6 yem thinking now about the details when an actual 7 catastrophe occurs. And when one visualizes that there are 8 many things that one can't just take for granted.
9 We're going to tahs our racess and I would like 10 for you, panel, to think about that, because I n not satisfied i 11 that it has been explained at least so that I can understand 12 it.
13 I'll go no further than that because -- well, I 14 won't cro any further than that.
15 We'll have our norning recess. .
l 16 (Recess.)
17 l
18
?
19 4
20 t
, 21 f' t
22 23 24 ..
I 23 ! ;
i J
a i.
l
.-. - ,. - , . , - . , -. - . . - . . . . . - - . - ~ . , . , . _ ,- -,
t,
- 675- f
- I r a
o 131 ebl I' CEAIPJW MIIIZR: Is the panel ready to respond i [
I :
2 *i to the question the Docrd had raised? s e,
t s .
3 ]. ,.
gg;7c33 yengasc;; nell, I e M ne veu c es tzinly:r <
4 not dicagree with Mr. Tra. cell that the centrol buiMing is j
. t 1
5 ,
in. fact a very i=portant building. It is.an inportant g. ,
i 9
6 building. ,
. e ,
7 1
- We had put togsther cur analysis based en the i.
i 1l C I strength of the building and I would like, after I finish j 1
9 ,. here, te =cybe call en Mr. Johnson to go ahead and talk chout ; ;
10 h the conservatis: that is built into the building, se that II 11 j! we really are cisar es to the f act that s.e do not c::poc: cry -
l
hind of a :najor failure of this building.
12 l1, ,
4 13 CF.AI.Wi IULIZR: That wasn't the question though. ! '
14 WITESS AMERSON: If you asked the questien what i ,
i.
15 I happens if the building fails, vs satisfied curselves that j j t
i r
it 16 I the pl:nt could be shut devn f c= cutsids this building !
s 1
without uce of equip =ent inside the building. It's not ecsy I .
17 : .
t
. . 6 gg
( to do and I think that any =cre infer =ation in this really i j
19 should co=e from Pertland General ?.lectric, who are riuch .a l l
- s t yI.
We arc sctisfied l 20j .
- ore familiar with coerating the plant. <
l, l
21 y(
that it could be done. *
- i h
CIIAIPJWi ICLIIR: Well, if it is cuisids 21.e crsa l
. 22 'j 8 t
t '
I 3)=. c-tise er vor c'--M "S , fine. "": %n n$p cither of veur -
r i
.#e ,
- [6,n
. O O r$rO IC O O 1Ce ;
3P
- 3y If, en the other heni, yen ecs
- :re 2rci:.y 'cives j 9
g t l I
a e
d i l I". >
e -~~+,~,-ee,..e,m.--w..,,, A--.---, - - , , , ~ . , - - - , + - , , - - . . , - . , - , , - . , ,
-m.-...--,--~v,.<1 . , . ,e ,,--n, + , , - - - -,,,,w,--.ww ,~w,, ,ee -+ ,.-a,. ,....---..e
._ , _ _ = . ._ - .__ . . _ -. - . . .- . - -
676 B
eb2 1 setting aside your beliefs as to the improbability of a 2 catastrophic event e.nd assuming or thinking the unthinkable, '
(
5 so to speak, did you gentlemen, as a part of your work on i ,
/ .,
f 4 your studies'make analyses of that situation or docs that 4'
5 lie somewhere else, . so that your views really shouldn't be ;
i S
6 expressed above and beyond the high degree of improbshility l1 i >
7 as you see it? !
1 S WIT!!ESS ANDERSO!!: .I think the views on the i 1
l i
I ability to shut down the plant from outside the cont ol l 9
i 10 building should be more properly addressed by the Applicent. !
1 11 CIIAIRMPJi !ELLER: All right. !'
12 Now let me inquire: I don't recall clearly ;
i!
.. 13 whether your written testimony purports to go into that ,
f y manner or express any views or conclusions. Does it?
jg WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes, it docs, to some degree.
16 Our written testimony says -- ,
CIIAIRMAN MILLER: What page?
97 l
- g MR. KATOUIUl
- Page 32, Mr. Chair-'.an. ;
gg WITNESS ANDERSO17: We did not postulate total collapse or total failure of the building. Wo said if there 20 was damage to some specifia equipment'in the control 21 [I .i s
building, then the plant had the capability of being shut 22 h h detm from outside of the control room.
I 3 l CIRI%iAN ICLI.ER: ?:stult. ting even #"-w" m
,, I 30Lia SUhSBOu2nt dCnace to ?lDotrical aquipr.2nt and 3G
~
$s 4
- . . , . . _ . , . _ , . - . - . . . . ~ - , . , . - . , . - . . _ , - . . . . . _ . , . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . , -.-. . ,..._..
677 i i
e i
eb3 1 forth.- Is that the part you're referring to?
2 WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
3 CHAIR!GN IIILLER: Is this the only refercnce :..n !
4 your direct written testimony?
5 WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes, it is. i 6 CHAIR!%N MILLER: Well, in fairness, I think that 7 you should take a position on whether or not you conducted 8 sufficit.nt studies or whether it was in the area either of ;
t 9 your assigned duties to come to such conclusions or not i
10 because it would not be fair for the record to have you re- .
I 11 flecting views which were not the result of a cericus and l.
r 12 substantial study. ,
s 13 If indeed that lies in the purview of other
( ,
14 witnesses we would accept that and look to other testimony .
15 y when we review the record, but we don't believe that your is testir.cny should be geing into matters that you wish to ex- !
17 clude yourselves from expert testimony on, or if you do, then 18 we expect to have the depth of it set forth in your di.~. ct 19 examination and probed by cross-examination.
Ec So I think we are going to have to ask you gentle-2; men who r.re testifying as experts which it is to be.
, WITNESS ANDERSON: Us studied the pl. tnt systems {
22 23 3} and equipnent to support this statorent tv.rt.t if th:. .T. i.:.
o I
g; { C 010 da100.CO to 00r00 0.7CipCI12 infiM Ci ths 00nt Ol n.i.!. a.W ,
.I I 'd.O 312nt Oculd DS Chut Gch. .m oUtSide thO cOntrO1 D ild[.n M 3
1
}
~
I i
678 l t
a i eb4 1 I think we can support that with having done a i e
2 ,
detciled investigation. However, we did not inva tigate >
3 what would happen i.f the entire cont c1 building coll psed g
4u and that was the questien that you ware- .[ ,
5 CHAIE'R7 MII.IIR: I was asking for a catastrophic 6 occurrence which I suppose would asstne sc=c r.ajor degroc of .
7 collapse, yes. ;
- i 3 WI'1TC:SS ANDEI! SON: No, va did not lock at the accident sequence or the results of c najor cellapse. .
S .!! -e to CHA R!G.N MILIER: And where you speak of s -' .
damage to sene equip.v._nt, without geing any further, that i 11 12 .
really doern't tell us much, does it? For that to ha mean-
.)
t t
t; ingful, we would have to know what damage to what equip cnt, e t
t
- 4[ its relationship to over-all, it's relatienchip to the ;
4 g- l personnel capabilities, and nany other natters.
i I
g3{ I'm inferring now from your answer th:t ycu did 17 not purport to do that.
gg WI':' NESS A"DIESON: We can't really imagine how gg this dansge would occur.
20 CHAIR"RT MILI.I'R: Well, imagine. Inagin a 2,. y a
catastrophic carthenahe and whatavar cight be the result.
Il e !' As I said, think the unthinkable, if this is to bc your i
l a -
- . te c timOn'.J .
w
$ e w7 en e %s . == w e
- e ha wee e em f U en - e op . e se * ** si E **4
- eO N, i ili et
.0 c
U n
a l
.m., _ . - - . . . - . - ,. ., ...,r ..m. - , - m ..
679 h.
i eb5 1 is. He don't want you just to dabble your feet a little hit i s I
and co=e to certain conclusiens which are not fellcwad ..
~
2 {
3 through in any depth, and so=o are not defined. :t's'not -
(
4 fair to what you're testifying to. ;
i 6
5 We don't want to put you in any unfair position i I
6 but we want the record to be clear how far you purport to go j t
7 in cordng to conclusiens as experts. I 8 I think I've got the answer but I want to be sure !
i 9 that you concur with what I'n inferring. ;
10 WITNESS 72iDERSON: ticil, again our primary }
tt emphasis was on proving that the building would withstand I 12 the SSE with a substantial margin. We only looked at this i
< 13 under a postulated occurrence that some equipment was damaged i ?
inside the building, and we scid that the plent eculd be 14
}
15 shut down from outside the control building, and that's all ts the fu-ther va took it.
CHAIRMAM MILLER: Very well. Ihank you. !
17 s
18 Mr. Kafoury. :
19 HR. DANKS: Mr. Chairman, just to assict i
20 Mr. Kafoury in his cross-examinaticn, I think maybe I would i 4
21 like to make a couple of -- cnswer a couple of things that 22 came up yecterday at this point. I don't knew whether this
,3[ uce scmet'.ing he was concerned cheut but the Stata cf Orager.
k
.e, ,3, did uh a c.uoction. Ths" wanted to un r -ino th sa centr::t:f l1' for er:ction of reinforcing ster,1 wts.
3.:: ilp I'
'J J
680 ab6 g on behalf of my client I would have to say that I g think any questions concerning who contrceters were, rince t
- we're not dealing with any problem here with the construc-
- l 4 tion of the building, is probably irreic' rant, but we'ra 3 5 Willins t 8UPply the information anyway. ;
i I
6 It was Tri-M Erectors of Kent, Washington. They [
f 7 were subcontractor under Hoffman Construction Company in I
Portland, Ore an.
8 Again I say as far as we're concerned, and I be- ,' ,
10 lieve in interpreting the Board's orders ' that I know of ne !
r contention or issue in this matter that relates to any de-11 *
.i -
12 fects or problems with the contruction of the building itself. j 13 The other matter that came up yesterday and I consumed about the inst half hour of the day was the question {
of the Bechtel-PGD contract. It came up when I objceted to l a question relating to any conversations the panel had had , ,
17 about liability to PGE. And I pointed out to the Socr6 after k
- 18 some discussion that if the only basis for that inquiry was
- 19 to test the credibility of the witnesses, I had no ebjection I' i
to that question.
20 i '
We likewisc have no objection to any proviciens l 21 '
- I 1 in the contract that may relate to the credibility of thesa
+
22 .' .
e n,w : witnesses, providad howe ~ar that it is first estchlif.ed 6 tt r[
l
\
l theCe UitnOCESs or.n iiOntify the con'",r200 00cturE the qu1SciCnL.',
M ;j rel?. tin? to the Ccr.truct Ere differ 3nt ~.h2r. UC qussuiOn .
3 .i l
il l
1'.
If
,._.- - - . . . - ?-- ---- - - -- - - - -- - - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ " ~ '
- -. . - - ~_ .. .. . . - - . --
t I
'l . 681
- t i .
ab7 1 relating to any conversations in the halls or otheritise. l j
i 2 7ners was so=e problem about the rels* ancy of the i f
I :
3 rest of the contract and how we're going to den 1 with that j ;
- , e t 4 matter. i
- i 5 In order to get over all of those hardles and not l.
1 1
6 conceding that.the rest of this contract is relevent, and {
l 7 agreeing with Mr. Gray that we might be adding some cdditionalf 1
8 documents to the record that don't need tr be there, I asked j i
9 Mr. Kafoury this norning to hand me tha contractus1 documents l! .
' 3 10 )l that he was intending to offer in evidence at whatever tin:e 4 i
i 11 '! he was going to offer them. '
i t
t t 12 We have examined them and we, for the purposes of -[
i 13 going on with the hearing-- We have already set a meeting e r ,
s 16 this ncon to go over this. He are willing to forget the .
15 meeting and uc'ra willing to let the doct cnts which !
t 16 Mr. Kafoury has handed to no go into evidence as in genorc'.,
the contractural documents between Bachtel and PG".:. But : .
17 !
i 18 want it clear for the record that we do not feel that this -
~
gg doccment is relevant except in those areas and as it may test 20 the q..slifications of certain witnesses, i 21 ; And befora the document is used to cross-e):anino i ,
i n j these witntesses I would hope that they would be as*:ed whether i 23 I th 2Y hEVf' 0"tr seen ho docu-2nt htfore. 2 i l
.c n. .,.._
c ~.- zu - u u:. :. : . ,c ..._? * : e .t.
y, I ,
t I'E. DA:?T.5 : don't hnc 1 tien ho vents tc cffar i. ,. {
g i !
t ik'
682 1
eb8 1 but that's our position.
~
2 CnIPJGII MILLER: Very well. Thr.nh you. Ec 3 appreciate any steps thct counsel and the parties can take, ,
7 4 both to expedite the proceedings and to function more 5 effectively.
6 While we're at it, I think I would like to have .
7 the record show also that Mr. Eugene Rosolic cnd the coclitien 8 for Safe Power have complied with the Board's order, and have 9 established the status of the organization. It is our under-10 standing Mr. Rosolie will represent the Coalition for Scis ,
g; Power while he's here and that at such times as he may n:t s
t 1, be here that Susan Garrett may be authorized to act in that i
13 capacity.
ja MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, one other =ntter.
I ig i I would hcpc that the statement I just m:de ratic- ;
i fies the ansucr to the question frem the limited cppearance 16 i
g individual. I'm a little concerned, and my client is con-16 cerned about some of the statements that were mcds in that
~
gg limited appearance about trying to hide behind a contract.
20 And that's ancther reason we want the contract out in the ep:n: ] 1 41 ,,ij to satisfy that gentlemen or anyb0dy else who hcppens to tche !
those positions.
3 fl l cnIpym: MIL 2 R: verv v311. ::e eers nc c.:nc :
l l
i: !
whorever it is rc12 tant and dossn't cic; up the rccer.2 ::: t r
-.4
- l
,, e
~
such. ThC3% you.
l ]
l 1
l gii
$. .l N
n i
(
I 683 eb9 I Now is there anything further on the matter before f i
2 this panel, Mr. Kafoury? {
l 3 tiR. 17&oURY: Very briefly, yes, your Ilono . ;
r 4 CHAIR!%U !! ILLER: Go right ahead.
! t 5 MR. KAPOURY: Dased on the stipulations of Counselv d I would offer -- I would ask to have marhod and then effor
' l 7 the Agreement for Engineering and Optional Construction 8 Management or Construction Services, Portland General Electric. :
o Company and Bechtel Corporation.
10 CHAIRMAN ICLLEn: The doc =.ent may be marked for j ,
i 11 identification. noti do you wish it mcrhsd? !
12 MR. KAFOURY: As an e:chibit submitted by the - )
s 13 Columbia Environmental Council.
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Colebia Environmental Council .
i 15 Exhibit Number 1 for identification. i i
I 16
. (Whereupon, the docu:nent- ;
17 referred to was marked as 18 CEC Exhibit Nurber 1 ,
19 for identification.)
20 CI! AIRMAN MILLER: There being no objection, as I 21 understand, --
MR. BANKS: There is no objection to Exhibi':
22 l
23 j Mober 1. He has taken it apart.
.t 4
21, f IIR. IGJOURY: It C0 Oi3hS.- Orr 'i riOf 4'r Of 20C 25 parts, the basic contr:ct and Amendment nurier 1, dated i
1
-r- .4m.
684 ab10 1 July 18, 1968, a General Services Agreement with cover letter ,
i !
J 2 dated November 25, 1975, and an outraged letter from the !
j 3 vice president of engineering =onstruction of Dechtel to .a t
- I
- 4 Mr. R. D. Allen. - 4 i
4 5 MR. BANKS:' 11e're not going to agree with that l l.
6 characterization. '!
I 7 MR. KAFOURY: -- and a letter from PGE to Becht31. f:
1 '
8 CIIAIRMAN MILLEP[:, fie will' strike the adjective, .)
s expletive, or whatever 'it was, and the description will stand 10 to identify Exhibit Number 1 of the Columbia Environmental ,
tt Council.
'i 12 nave all Counsel and parties had a chance to see i 13 it? If not, please pass it among you before you offer it. -
~
MR. KP.FOURY: One moment, please.
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: tie may point out that under ,
15 15 the rules, you know, if you're going to effer docum2nts into 17 evidence as distinguished from identification for the rec:rd, 18 a certain number of copies must be provided, and that :11 {
~
19 parties must observe it, and so forth. l MR. KAFOUFJ: I understant;l the rule, your Eoner. t 20 i 21 I apologi=e for our incbility to comply with the rule and j g ask a waiver pursuant. to the relevant statute on the ground 0 that the protective cgreement which I was required to sn-23 ll..
y 'j dOrCe aS a COndi*11Cn for ICC3iving 'Ch6 dO r.DCnt prEOludGi r.2. ;
i
.n EU.
] $ m SaI CO[ 1.h i t
y 1
t
,,,4 ~ _~,...$ . - , . . . .. ..~.... .~ . - ~~... ~ . .. ._-___.~. _ ~..- --.,- ~ - _ ,,...- - - - . . .~. ,
685 ,
ebil 1 CHAIBMAM MILLER: We understand. So the status 2 of the record is clear, I was just pointing out i.n the 3 event you wish to offer it into evidence-- It is now carked 4 for identification. In the event you vish to offer it, then 5 ve would expect you to comply, c.nd give you reasonable tine, 6 but expect you to comply with the requiremants.
7 MR. KAFOURY: If I :dght have one moment to sort 8 that out, Mr. Chairman?
O CHAIDIAN MILLER: Yes.
10 (Pause.)
12 O Gentleren, is it fair to say that recent concerns 13 about the safety of the equipment in the control room which 14 arose as a result of the inquiries of ths Staff to the 15 Licensee concerning the flowed response spect t= in the ,
16 control building, is it a fair statencnt to say that those 17 new santy problems with that equipnent would not have been 1S in the ordinary course of things, discovered but for the fact that the control room was found to be below the FSAR
~
19 20 standard and this general inquiry was at that point ini- ;
.e.1 ,.
tiated?
A (Witness White) Yes, we vculdn't have rirl the 22 r
n STARDY::E analycis otherwise.
.i ,
e.
a \,'>
r !
23 I'I i
666 1
lE2 agbl Q Then we would never know about the possible se.fety e
proble.ms ctnerwise?
3
,_ A We don't knew there c.re safety probler.s yet.
A Q Potential safety proble2:s, safety conca n.3 and 5
continuing investigations, right?
6
- A Yes.
7 A more approprinte terr. is A (Witness Johnson) 8 probably to verify that the equipment meets the intent of the 9 And this does not necessarily lea.c FSAR and applicable codes.
to to there are major safety probices.
11 Q My final line of inquiry -- isn't it : acre 12 philosophical - I hope it won't be objected to -- what I s.
would 13,ke to know is --
14 MR. BANKS: You'll find out.
1 ":
BY M.% RAFOURY:
16 Q What, in your gentismen'c knowledge and c:9::.rianOc I7 is the function of safety margins, what are they designed to 18 protect us against? ,
19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Referring tc the Trojan 20 facility?
- EI MR. Y2JOURY: For instance.
22 WITNESS JO!lNSON: Well, let !ae str.rt 1= .h t uctur. >
] ,
,,* .d
- A CatnCd Cf OtrCOtural Gnf ni/.;ri.'.{ i h.7.~ U.!**'.' C' J L 11 is OY di D.I [ 7d ~. 3 EST.d N.e ",3Obd.b UC Q b3 b I.3 b O h [ M J.*:
C'?.'.*'.*....
i OCdes and Ok*bOEria C.re written Cn hCh OnS detOrZiLOC #~.r. '
ll*
1
_ ._ . , . . . . _ , _ _ . . . , . _ . ~ _ _ . . , _ . . . _ . ~ . . . ,,
e ,, -
UUl i
agb2 strength of a member, which very soldo.'. it a.cr the citic te
>[ .
- j. strengE.1, it's the yisld strength wnica ue.y b2 nr..lf cf
.I .
> n
- I j
ultime.te, so ac other allowable that cay be enc-third of 4
i ultimate.
.r4 These codes and critari.a are cet up, then through 6
. analyses one detartines the loads or the uccher forces and makes a comparisen. And this is the wr.( we :.crv. l'.y do the 8
jcb. .
.c Originally, these types of things wcro set up fcr y~. . . .. .
stctz. e .oads, lor.n.z :nt.: are appl.,22, unc rema:.n en nc stru:r.
l 11 l for very long periods of tims.
12 Now, when dealing with an earthquaks or sven a 13 static icad, a load doas not cause failure, a displaccmcnt 14 causcs failure. iou've get to push on something er pul'. en .
- t .a. a,.
en,., ug.n , , u. : , ,,o u , , ~.. .u e . , sr y, ..u.
. e_ c, s. . _.: .. .t :-v.., = a.:. , -. .~ ,~
.a . t, Typically for steel, the amount cf dicpln:::.a.:.nt i
to failure could be 100 to 200 times the amount of displactmr
- i
! tnat would occur when just looking at the forcs or the strcnd
. l levels from a particular code.
Now this is why 1: is somcwhat c:. :1 cult to pin 20
~
c,.wn o , .<... c. v-u- ..,,z u, . s uci..
. s s.s..e c...,:. . .
a..m .c... .4.
. . . . . . . .. . .a. . .. >
r ,,us r ,.uc 2e . w e,e
.. .. .. ~. .. ..q.... ;
-A p, p* L. .s L
. g g g.,
44.
. w e
c.- ,...,j.
. s.
.u y .. . g.4, i gu , . ,, ~. .-...- ,
s.
- I h
.3. a4 y u.. .. .-st. . ...-
. s._.~.
. .. g.,. .. ,.
. a .::,:...s. c. .
.e. . .
i
. e
...,.,c...s. .: . . . . ,.
e, y t. .....
... ,.......,....s.
. v .. - - ,
3... .. ..
y . ..v,, . . .
i ge 2 5 j{) .
e, .e t. v- M. . .. ,., .6 . c. 4..up w .s. r we..?. ,.y....s., c. .,
s, c .~ .~. .~t.. ;c . .. . . . .
t I
~f
.ti .s
~ . . . .
4
.c. ,.
r t.
avb3 Q "*here's 11 inches c the roof te spa a, *
.sn't ,
_ 2 i:riere? '"f a wall were n-ovcd 11 inches, the re:f vecli re .
t l
j' in danger o' cellcpce, isn't thct correct?
A A I've never seen that fign: c.
5 HR. *W ES: Can be ce=plete his answer now?
C
. MR. KAFO~RY: Excuse r.o? .
7 4
NT1".ESS JOENSCN: So the inscrtant thing, hen ;
de.aling with an earthqu.ka, is displacer:nt. . hic in wny o!
~l we have a hard '#
= t.: ring to aven e. cst.*. late E.rr could this !
I 10
,,4
-. 3 ,4_4 .,,.3,. o ~ _4.s .g, , Oc _3 e. . . e v.w . a e _4 ' .<.> _- _ ' e ' c .>
- - -- 4
- c' 5 11 i
' i du .'_4 _1.* *1* '- *
- 4.t .c . e. . ,
12 I '
We just have no vcy that tre : n visualizc an 4 ,
. ~ .
earthquake h ga enough, even several SSEs, that vccid c*.use >
1 ~*
u .tS ,.-.3u Ca. ;,:.w_ - 4en . ~ -
rc + ua u s, ..u..,- .
~ .
a , ,z , u a -- . ,_ .-
jr N .
1 g
3.# % ek.gt g*e- g l n - .. 3 - e..-e.e
- f. - n.e .k Ic,-ho - 36 .e .
4-.--
-- 6h. - . .e. e --
- c; 8- , s '.. . 3.* e. .c. e "." .
S:*.* C #--. # # *# So~" .
17
.=. t ,,,e , c d e a.' 4 .,- v# '". dis, .'_.. ..,.'.. .
2 a <-. ,
! r IO deal with force and capacity levels.
U B Y 3G.. TM CURY:
20 ll Q y co n cean - -sue - r , .. , .
u, ,. _, , u ,,
.- -. .t. ..,,,
. _+#.
4 21 I
zhe questics. It is not really a respcssive ans- cr.
,I!
e4 9 M.k.
- 99 $ eI
.d * . I*f .Jh.d .d .C, .sm **
""y*% .9 m2 .e.n A, S
._'e'*-_.**
g . .;,-- .. . , . 4.e em .w .3 y- .
t4 j
4 6
- ) ate . .g eY g e 4 Weg.d
- 81. -
..g = 3 6-* .a e ,
e, eb
- .=e. p ..e hb e %9 T.'-.e.
- a g." .-d.
w...- '
...#- e. ' .- -s a .*s
+ -
(
}
- 2L ,ej .
. , . ,.. . .. . *....:. .se- 4 w.e.,...=.-.
l
_,.. . .r... 2. ; . .*
La 4
2h ,f1 .
/, g*4.._.
. c.e .g g.% ,.m. . _3 . j w( .y r*g I
V I
4 k'
tl++ .
q t
. . . . It . -.
689 1
agb4 items.
2
- One would be your ability to p cdict *.oaJ.r cr 3
your confidence in a load and the relctivo to safety r.e.rgin, 4 .
that'is handled as a load factor. So you're ability to 5 .
predict the load - If you feel uncomfortable that you do not ;
6 know the magnitude of the load, then you uould use a largar ;
7 t load factor, or, if you wanted, you could ec11 that a se.fety i
8 -
margin. The reason we use onc on an SSE is 'cecause it's ,
9 considered to be an upper limit value. ,
v.)
Another thing that would affect safety margin j, 11 would be just the basic construction techniques and their 12 allowables are used that are less than the ultimata strengths,ti 13 again due to basic construction techniques. i t
f 1 **'
O Will you expand on that a little bit? ! ,
15 A Well I nentioned earlier thac in the originc1 .
I6 criteria back to the codes, you see what's calicd the PEI ,
17 factor, and that's the capacity reduction factor, and the.t's i !
I6 based on workmanship.
19 If pocple thought the workmc.nchip was exactly l i, ,
'O like they anticipated, the PHI factor would be. cue. Eut -
1 2I margins are put in anticipating that there could be r , i U variation in workmanship, so t'lat's wherc ancther ranrt;in c:mer ;
. }
"- into p cy. l F !
ne f:
- ^ " .: w, checc r rs ti; vc_.f trai;Infc.rar?.t...;.
25 dealing ;;ith static-type locds and thE.t!s why I gavt 2.c j- j i .
. _- a y e e e-=-< - -- , ew -,-w-, me ,,--y* e wim -m-- y w w -- -
690 1
agb5 initial introduction that more or less pointed out that 2 i coisr.ic 1 cads - are somcwhat different.
3 A (Witness Katanics) I would like to expand.
4 You said it was a philosophical cuestion, and 5
naybe the Board will allow me a little bit of a philosophical 6
answer.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Go ahead.
S WITNESS KATANICS I believe the safet that you ,
9 ask is really what society and people espect, something 10 extra to make sure that they are indccd sr.fc -- how the soci .'
11 sets their own rula. And there are various dif.~crances in the 12 rules, even within this country.
I3 We assign much higher factors of safety to 14 nuclear power plants than cnything else in the whole ucrld.
15 And that safety gives e.n assurance, a good feeling, if you 16 will, and we do have this good feeling.
17 You should recognize there are societics in the 18 world where they build nuclear power plants without contain-19 ments, so there human life or something seems to have probtbly>
20 less concern, or they have more confidence in it.
21 So, it's a philosophical question but it is only 22 a philosophicci answer - is to give something : rc uht: :
El i j necoscary to give. j uct :. tchen cituation , . nnt c.t.:.n. :
_.a. '
a 24 2j, fe 1 th:.: indc.ci they h vs no pr:1:~.2. C.d x..cy i -
0 25 i having any problems.
i I
b<
. . . . . . , -- tt
691 >
_go6
' And the degree of it is very, very different o
and I we.nt to emphasiza this because it is mewhat artczi '.y 9
' to see the different societies, how they treat ycur questica, . i, i
4 how differontly. !.
5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: To be fair about it, the 17 6 society you mantioned in Nuclear Facility Number Fivo is new, t
7 for the first time, constructing containments.
U WITNESS KATANICS:' Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN HILLER: Which may be the recult of r.w.ny 10 factors internationally or societal.
11 WITNESS KATANICS: Yes. j I2 CHAIICGN MILLER: Thank you.
13 DY MR. KAFOURY:
14 0 And there is a considerabia spectrum of opinion, 13 is there not, en the consequences of gross fe.ilure c.? n ,
t 16 nucioar power plant and tha.t is the ultimcts considerc. tion, 17 correct? l l
Did I make my question clear? f 16 -
1 I
19 A (Witness Katanics) Would you repeat your cucsuion?:
20 Q There are a lot of people who ought to knov i
21 ,
who think that the ccusequences of gross failure of a nucicar j 0
2I j pcwar plant would be catastrephic in the c::treme, isn' tht !
i I3 I truci I;
I believ2 c:.2 2 , true E j{ A (h' tnc3: Entcaise; i.
thct a lot of peopic believe, ycc.
25 I
?
I i
.I
. e II - 692 !
1 agb7 Q' And among the considerations that we weich in creating margins of safsty are the possibility that there 3
may be design orrors, that a wrong formula may hcVe been used
/-
4 at some stage of the process, that's one reason why wo 5
want margins of safety, isn't it? .
, A (Witness Anderson) That's one of the reasons.
7 And another would be that even if the right O
formula, ttie right model is chosan, that the calculations 8
might have some error in them and that's another thing uc 10 guard against when we create margins of safany, isn't thc.t II true?
12 A That's one of the factors, yes.
'. 13 Q And there may be well-intentioned but erroneous I4 decisions made en cost efficiency bases which may lock gcod 15 at the tima but which may coma back to haunt one, and that's 16 something of a concarn that we'd like to guard againct with 17 safety margins, isn't that true?
. 18 A There is certainly a relationship between cost
[ 19 and safety that has to be considered.
20 0 And there can be, as you say, bcd workmanship, 21 fe.ulty construction on-site by negligent or cost-cuttint, 1
22 cubcontractors, that's one of the risks uc gucrd agt. inst
- . 1 i in our acrginc of scfety,. isn't it?
23 [
24 i I'.n. ha.:F.S : :*'i ebject to t.nu qu:::ie,c
_ : ~ . ..n i
/
25 totally irrelevcn in this prceecding.
h ti
f L
693 6 1
agb8 CHAIRMTd4 11 ILLER: Ovarruled, ,
s 2
You may ansi.*er.,
3 Do you understand the question, gentleme.n? :
r 4I WITNESS ANDEPSON: Would you repeat the question, 5
please?
BY MR. KAFOURY: 4 7
Q Isn't one of the things that we choose to guard 8
against by generating margins of safety, the possibility that 0 subcontractors may do poor workmanship or may try to cubatitu-a ,
'O materials or cut costs, that's one of the ricks tnat us try I II to guard against with margins of safety, isn't it? >
'2 A (Witness Johnson) No.
I3 A (Witness Anderson) That's one of the considerations:
I4 but in this case we have very good quality assurance records ;
15 and good quclity assurance progrcr.s at the site, cnd ue think !
16 that the need for margin then would certninly be very 17 minimal.
18 A (Witness Johnson) I would like to spsak en this 19 subject.
20 I
. would say codes are not set up for what you ,
21 term faulty workmanship. tTnen I talked about a thing such j E as feed factor or capacity reduction factor, thct is to l I !
23 marsly account fcr the f act that bhe structvr:1 -;lem.: Int m?.y ;
E4 bc 1,ligati-f 10,rtr in stre.ngtn. :
1 i p,
25 l As for :n; cnample, you buy steal with c 7'acrr.nteed l .
I
. - . . - . . . ., . - - . . . - . - . . - . . . . . -- . ~ , - . - - - - . . . . - . .
=. ~_ .. - -
694 I
agbf minimum. But you don't chech every piece of steel, some may be five parcer.t less, so codes consider those s tli rec.ccuiol:s.
3 iTnen it comes to the so-called faulty workmanship, 4
that is covered by the quality assurancs and quality centr:1 5
systems that are set up and the inspections at the jcb 6
site.
7 And that is an area in which, am I correct, you 0
8 people have earlier demurred that you wanted ma to direct S questions about the supervision on-cito of constructica tc ths 10 Licensee rather than to yourselves? -
II A (Uitness Anderson) Yes.
12 When we seek safety margins, is there also good Q
13 sense in factoring in a margin for the unknown, a.ll thoco s
14 things which we haven't thought of?
15 We uant a certain additional margin of snfety >
16 just to maha us, as Mr. Katanics says, fcel more comfortabic 17 about it because we don't have perfect knowicdge. That's a 15 reasonable element in generating a safety margin as wcil, is O
19 it not?
20 A That's onc of the factors too.
I'd like to read from a respense to questient fr c i 21 ) Q 22 the Nuclsar P.cgulatory.Cormission, dated August 30, .57C.
}-
23 l' The f.at: Of the cubmission was Septe ,her 20. l?? P..
2.; O n2. 2:_;ns: hat . ould. Uc F;d.ibi - ;t-';.- : :l. 2 ' .
it C10 25 E' MR. I.AFOUT.Y:
!j 6 ,
,. t e
a
,-,,-n- - e- -- w -- -e+e --mr - - - r - , - -,- - - - , - , , - .-e --,m, ew , -~ e- - e r
695
' O I'm reading at Page 5-2.
agb10 2
The first paragraph ree.ds:
3 "The more conventional ane.lytical techr.i-r 4 ques do not have the capability to predict the S response of individual elements in a structure.
6 Recognizing this, they are employed with conserva-7 tisms inherent in the ACI and USC codes.
8 "With the STARDYNE analysis, these 9 limitations are eliminated, and it is possibic to to predict more accurately the loads seen by 11 elements of a structure.
12 "Accordingly, the need for code 13 conservatisms no longer exists, and it would be 14 inappropriate to apply these conservatisms to 15 predicting capacities, thus, the use of more tG realistic capacitics is justified."
-17 That's your gentisman's statement?
16 A (Witness Johnson) Yes, it is.
19 Q I understand that STIJtDYNE is purported to be extremely accurate and that we should all take solace from 20 21 that fact. But the.re are other reasons for codc conservation l
22 besidas those which you dismiss in that pare. graph,aren't therc 23ll and isn't thtt what uc'vc her '-r
- king :. bout?
24 ii :D., c. css: A; in ce h r e cre. questi n.s.. .-.r.
2C Chairman. It would seca to es they would vant ta Sr.mc.: the I
l
- . , - y vw, -g,,.----e,. -- r w- -- .-y , . .y = - , - - . - -c , -- ,
. t 9
696 agbli first question to be on track. ,
CF.AIP.MMI li1LLI.R: Well I think tne questiCn uns 3 the nature of the STARDYN3 type of ant. lysis cnd its relction-4 Wasn't that it, Mr.
ship, if any, to code conservatism.
5 Kafoury?
6 MR. KAFOURY ' Yes. ,
O I
BY MR. KAFOURY:
8 Is it a fact that with the STARDPJE analysis, the f Q
9 need for code conservatisms no longer er.ists?
IO A (Witness Johnson) I'd say the intent of that .
Il stctement is that the conservatisms in the codo in spcci-12 fying the expression that was used in our initial submiter.1 (s 13 of May 5th, which referenced back to the AOR 310, 1963, code Id and the resulting squation is that with the advent of the 13 STARDTJE cnclysis, that pr.rticular formulcticn is no longer k
16 i applic:.ble. 7.sd, therefore, sinca we are using en u:.: dated 17 analyses, a more refined analyses, it is more prcper to usc 0
18 updated allowables.
19 Mcw this approach is not uncommon. The ASME 20 pressure vessel codes, as one uses more sophisticated c.nclyscc ,
21 then you rro allcwed to use highar allowcbles t.'hich :.rc 22 consistent with the approach you'vc used, a
e
- 2.0 t! G i.nd isn 't it trus tha.t it *:'..::: y:tr erstairc.tir:.
't i
sj h' cI.*. , 3 .h .'.U %(.O$ Ct C (O[ N f fCOQZN *,*13,$ C*";,,; f Ohy ~ O
, '7.C 3(,{110; 1
h 2I g- T. OcnE c:~7 ativt formul;., c cOpt a less conscrvre.ive fc::*.ule.,
i N
e N i it
697 agbl2' and isn't that ultimately what has brought us all hare ,
i n
together today?
3Y A (Witness Kctanics) It's pc.rtitlly-tres only
(
4 because we identified two deficiencies and only one was l 5
relahd to the code formula. .
6 I would expand this, I would safely add that the
- I lesser problem is associated with the code for=ala.
8 O Mr. Andersen, Mr. Katanics, Mr. Johnson, Dr. !
o Enite, thank you vary much. ;
i 10 CHAImiA14.C M R: Who next wishes t0 crecs- ;
11 examine?
12 MR. ROSOLIE: I do, Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIREGN MILLER: ' lou may proceed.
end 1F 14 15 ,
i 16 i
i t
j .
18 19 -
21
. I U s li i
h ,
24 !;
ii s
23
- I t
698 f1ws if 74 mpbl I BY tm. ROSCLIC:
2 n tYve heard a lot of talk about censcrvatici r.nd 3 on page 2 of your testimony you say:
4 "We idantify and discuss sienificant factors 5 of conservatism which underlie our confidence that 6 the Trojan Centrol Building will safely withstand 7 an actual earthquake with a substantial margin J
8 e.bove the SEE.,."
9 Ilow is the TABS analysis one cf those conservctism:
10 A (Witness I*.atanics) ?!c .
11 O How about the absoluto sum, is that ona of thoso 12 conservatisms?
13 A I believe to answer the question, the correct 14 answer is no.
15 q But didn't you say earlier to t'.r. Kafoury that the 15 absolute sun is a conservatite --
17 A may not fully appreciate how you asked your 16 question.
19 You said whether the sum of the squarcs is a 20 conservatism. In fact, the absoluta is a conservatisp and 21 the square root of the sums of the squ:.res is not. But this is not the conserve.tisr. that wc are referring t: hu:12 i 22 23 , in this pagc 2. ,
- , ! 1 . -us0
- v;r.O C . c fr.*. y c . ;c tr:00'ert:r
- ' rur 3 tasti:acny. pe ro 3.
't l ti
. _ - - - _ - _ . - ~ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - .- _ . . _ . _ _. . - . . . _ .
699 C
mpb2 UR. LAMES: There's a whole bunch of page 3's. ,
2 Is it 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, or what?
MR. ROSOLIE: Page 3 of 7 it says at the hop, I 4 I reference 1.
5 MR. DANKS: That's Exhibit number 6.
O '
ffITMP.SS KATANICS: A-27 7
gy gg, ggggg73, 8
O Page 3 of Attachment 3. It says Attachment 3, 9
page 3 of 7 up at the top.
10 MR. banns: Reference 1, Attachment 3, page 3.
11 BY ttR. ROSOLIE:
12 O The last paragraph on that page states:
13 aThe FSAR referenced Bechtel Topical Report i 14 - i BC-TOP-4, " Seismic Analysis of Structures Er.d 15 Equipnent for Nuclear Power plante", April 30, ;
16 i 1971, for acceptabic methods in combining modal '
17 responsen."
18 It says:
]
1
. 19 "The topical states that either the absolute 20 modal summation or the square root of the sum is 21 acceptable."
22 Now, acccrding to the FSAR, 30 the way it sttads j f
22 right now. that we could use either of those tv mathsic !
I
- h. bE
- hI .C f OO7 rect ,
25[ .L.
. Witness Johnsen) That's correct.
I a
lY 4
i s
4 !
I '
700 mpb3 I O Mow, Attach?. ant 3, pags 7 ef 7,'the sar.e rsference. !
' e And if we look at the absolute su-. te.chnique a-4 thc SRES {
3 I techniqua, under each one under actuti load ced actual caps- l g .
city, actual loads and actual capacity for bo n , and ue loo % l 5
at the equation for the safe shutdown earthquake at five ;
6 percent da:sping, and we go to colu=n three ws find that 7
using the absolute sum technique, it's .2; and using th,e !
8 SRS technique is .25. Is that correct?
g 1 9 A Correct.
10 0 So according te the FSAR Ws can use any one of 11 those techniquas, is that right? ,
12 A Either one was acceptable. '
t i- 13 0 Now, how would you pich which one? Which one ,
14 would you pick, and for what reacon? '
15 A Uell, the question is to de a hisuory. Ecek in
-1 ,
I-15 the early '70s hoth tschniques were availabic. I bel:tevc 17 the designs- here chose the -- he chess the absolute v:lua. '
18 It did give a higher answer, or it gave higher forces.
l
. 19 In today's world with the knowledge gainE # " '*V.
i 20 last seven years, people would use the scuare root r=a scuare! !
I 21 0 Considering your last ann.*ar, are you scyin; Sat i 22 perhaps naybe we should ge back and re avr_lucte tha rheir I picnt, all the rtudisc dens in the whola p*a.t he. cur; :.;/
i 23 ,jg- _
l ,
r .
2.4 ] in#: =ttion is an il:31e nor? i i
s 25 l 25- GR": OhdSCriOCr 2 *:~ . ChaiCC- i f
P 3
. t. f I
,. -om, ,.n- - , ,- .--. - , , , . . , - , , .,.m , ,=m,me. ,m.,.,-. ,,.-m,,..,,a- --e,em-e,--,- ,v-,.e,--,,,, un.. .e,-.w,--,.,m,- ..,, . - > , , . , ,, .-n
701 mpb4 I CHAIRtiA!! MILLER: Sustained.
2 MR. GRAY: I'm sorry, had you completed you-E question, Mr. Rosolie?
4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I assumed he had, e.nd I sustain-5 ed your objection.
6 MR. ROSOLIE: You sustained my question?
7 CRAIRMAN MILLER: No, I sustained his objection to 8 your question.
9 BY MR, ROSOLIS:
10 0 Would the problems found here likely occur else-11 where in the plant because of the change in techniquc?
II A (Witness Johnson) I don't balieve these p:oblems 13 have eccerred due to changes in techniques.
14 0 What, then, do you see the probicm r.s being if 15 it's not a change in technique?
4 16 A Im afraid I just don't understand the question. -
l 17 A (Witness Katanics) I'll try to answer the question ,
1 18 The problem identified in our testimony was that ;
1 to a formula was misapplied and the rebars are not continuous. ;
1 20 These are the problems that we identified.
2! VOICE: I didn't understand the inst pr.rt. Would ,i 1l l
7.2 ' yet repeat it? fi 44
- 3 !l "I7"TE55 KAImi!C5
- formult W::. 2 ::.ist." p5.ic. ;3
I 24 'f1 A :::b=s arc. n=2 ~~ sca.: o f c h u r a b :..:-' 5:': ::.c c c 4 .: : ." *: -
1 t
25 i
DR MC COLLUM: D0 fin * "2Gh17E"- '
I I
702 mpb5 I WI52.SS K7CANICS: Reinforcing steel.
E BY F.R. ROSOLIE:
3 0 Now, how does that relats to "rbla i of Attac1=en :.
4 3, page 7 of 7?
5 A (Witness Ciohnson) I would say he: it relates is 6 the fact that all of these numbers were determins.d based on 7 our reevaluation study using a criteria that we thought was 8 more appropriate at the time of the design.
9 Mow I think one thing the.t's important hors, it's 10 been pointed out that the designer made some nisjudenants at 11 that tine. He also did some overly-conservative things. So 12 here va are, seven years later, when evaluating what are the 13 concequances of this relative to the plant, or what is the 14 conditien, it's important to loch at the total picturc and- .
15 not only what might have bsen alightly unconsarvativa in enc 16 area, to cico enamine where he was overly-censervatiJe in 17 another.
18 A (Witness Katanics) One addition:
19 All information on this ttble is based en the 20 rebar as it is - the reinforcing stasi as it is in the 21 structurc now.
22 O Phank you. That's uhat I wanted to knou.
I n? So e.:: til,- vo cono up t-iuh t : 0 dif.~crcr.t p h is r
it '
24 ,ii 2rSt 700 0020~02 for :6e th r.1.. e can tn6 "..L E T6 ' ;1:.mi nu .
1 1
I 3' w: ccms up with .~. respectivcly and .25?
l i
I i
u
7 703 ,
I moL6 A (tfitness Johnson) Yea, that's correct. I 2 And the PSAR scyc ve could chcosa one of th:,=.
O 3- A Tite PSAR references the Bechtel report BC-TAB-4, !
4 and it allows the choice of either one.
5 0 And you would pick the square rcot of the sums 6 of the squares, because, in your words, an in your testimony, 7 it gives a more realistic method since it agrees with the time i 8 history solution?
9 A Yes.
10 0 And I believe you ancwored this earlier, but 11 exactly -- that's kind of vague to me, the time history solu--
12 tien.
13 Can you be more specific? ;
14 A There's two ways to do seismic analysos,. Tharo l~
I 15 is referenced in the documents a response spactra thct's ! ,
16 becn devcleped by enamining a whole series of ccrthquakc 17 motions, and than taking single systems and seeing how they 18 respond; and then superimposing all of these responses or
~
19 motions to the earthquake that the structure might see, c.nd 20 making a plot of it. And that's called a response spectra.
21 So you might say in a way the problem was scrt of 22 prst.'orhed. re.d you could look up the ansucr.
I i
2, ! Tu doing the st:nicturci cntlycir. if One tNs tht 34[ spcctrun rs.cpense taculi.7ue. in diri; Q gci.F : a s:.: . .ur' sc g i
25 of accalcration vercur frequcacy Ett it' c der:0 on a uof.:.1 li l .
I
( i ,
y ' .k
, . . . _ _ . .. . - _ . . - . . . . - . . . . . , . , , - . . _ _ . . - ~ . . _ . _ . , . . _ _ _m,.. , , - , , . . _ - . - _ . . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . ,. - - , . . . . .
704 mpb7 1
basis, which means we have broken the structure down mathe-2 So when we talk matica11y to a system that we can handle.
2 square root sums square, or absolute value, it's how we add 4 the pieces of that analysis. i ,
5 Now another ' type of analysis would then take 6 an earthquake motion and mathematically shake the structure.
7 Now since the response ir+i.i.a we use in nuclear plants is j 8 so conservative, being the summation of a whole lot of earth- !
9 quakes superimposedr we have to then derive what we call a 10 synthetic earthquake that would fit this, because we er.not 11 find a real earthquake that would have this type of ansrgy 12 content.
13 Now when comparing, then, that time history solu-14 tion with the spectrum response technique, that's where it hac 15 been shown that when using the spectrum response technique 16 it's more rzalistic to sum up the modal responsos.on the 17 square root sums square. And I've given you all that to try 18 to tie it all together.
19 Q How far does that time history go? -
20 A These time histories are usually 10 to 20 seconds 21 long in motion that are created.
22 Q So time history doesn't necessarily mean - I guese 23 this is my problen, I'm not too familiar with it. Tima histor- -
I 24 does not refer to over a perica of years?
25 A No, it's a computer solution that takes an
705 mpb8 I earthquake that laste in the range of 20 to 30 seconds and 2 celver a dynanic probica.
3 0 On page 8 of your testimony, toward the mi6dia e
- j of the pace, at the end of the first pararireph you scate:
5 "It is wall recognized that the probability 6 of such a large earthquake occurring during the 7 lifetime of a plcnt is extremely remote."
8 What did you base that cuatament on?
9 A (Witness Katanics) I'll try to answer this ques-10 tion.
11 Like almost everything, we ~ . learn frem senebody 12 else, and there is no reason not to admit here that discussic 13 with geologists, knowledgeable peopic, they assign sometiras 14 numbers to the occurrence of the safe shutdown earthquake.
15 I have sesn numbers betueen 1000 year and 10,000 16 years. And both of those I believe cre well within the 17 category of what I would classify as entremely remetc.
18 How this is not, of course, an exact tehat I would 19 call mathematical approach. And we're talking about safc 20 shutdown earthquake. But these are the nunbers that I hrppc:
21 ed te learn from others whom I respect c.nd know cs kneuladp-22 able people in this arca.
23 I O D;actly whc?
24 . ? P r o f . 14 E' T t r h W I S '9' l l i n :i V : 052C: 'c
- LC "
25 parcicuir.: number.
b - .-. . . . .__ . - -. . -.
7G mpb9 I And where did ha get the number from?
Q
.. g A I cannot answer this question.
3 So it was just a verbal cormunication from him Q
e
- to you that the possibility of an earthquake occurring e.t a 5 nuclear power plant is one in a million, and you just acceptt-6
&at? ,
7 A I did not say one in a million. I said once in 8 1000 to 10,000 yearst.and I accepted that.
9 Q And you have looked at nothing else?
10 A This was my very latect informction. I recall 11 discussions with our own Staff geologist in this arca, and i
12 at least he did not contradict these nunbers. Maybe their 13 numbers are even higher, and 2a 14 ,
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
't u .h.
l 25 l
A
707 23-1 wbl 1- O Have you ever seen-a report entitled "The Risk C-ll 2 of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review of the MRC Ree.ctor 3 Safety Study, WASH-1400," by the Union of Concerned r
4 Scientists?
5 A (Witness Anderson) I haven't read that report.
6 I've heard of parts of it but I haven't rea,d the rep-ort.
7 Q Has anyone on the panel read the report?
s A (Witness Johnson) No.
g (Witness Katanics) No.
10 (Witness White) ho.
11 Q Are you f amiliar with the conclusions in that 12 report, or any section of that report?
A (Witness Anderson) Only very generally. Not 13 14 with any specific--
15 Q What in general are you familiar with?
CHAIRMAN MILLER: You're covering a rathar 16 broad area, Mr. Rosolie.
$7
' 1 gg MR. ROSOLIE: Well I want to know if ho is, !
l l
g g, you know, f amiliar with a particular part.
20 CIIAIRMAD MILLER: Well why don' t you ask him?
21 BY MR. ROSOLIE:
0 Are you familiar with the section, Chcpter 5, 22
_ Safety Issues not Considered in RSS, and, pe.rticularl' th a 3
i
., , h .secticn 'T.5S Tractmant of '?.arthrunha Ric.':0"
<.~
^ ^*** "d * * " ' "O' *" '
25
D 708 vb2 I (Witness Katanics) I'm not either.
2 (tfitne ss Johnson) No.
3 (Witness h*hite) No.
r 4 Q Do you feel it would be valuable to read that, 5 considering your statement on page 87 6 MR. BANKS: How could they answer the question?
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Objection sustained.
8 BY MR. ROSOLIE:
9 Q On page 10 of your testimony once again we he.ve 10 a reference to the FSAR which says the basis for the shear 11 walls would be 5000 psi by the review of concrete cylindar 12' test results en concrete, actually the control room, shows 13 a strength of 6000.
14 Did any of you participcte in those taatc?
15 A (Witness Johnson) No, we didn't participace 16 directly. As part of the overall construction procedures 17 one samples concrete as it is either produced or brought on 18 the job site. And concrete cylinders are made. And then 19 at different intervals these concrete cylinders are tested.
20 And very complete records are kept of the strength at, I 21 believe, 14 days, 20 days and 90 days. And based on thess 12 records, then, we were able to determine what the in-place g3 s trengch wculd be.
24 (Ui'Cte23 KE;1LiO3) YCO 17 ' P70 0i O 22 .- 0-~ 0022~'
l 15 thesa are net recent tests. Thece cre tarts that were nar: c 1
11
__ __. _ _ _ . _ _ , . . . _ _ - _ . , _ _ . . . _ , _ , . . , _ . - ~ _ . _ . . . , . . _ _ _ , __ - . . _ . . - _ . ~ .
709 wb3 1 the regular construction procedure. ,
2 0 I understand. They took pince, I hel:.cre, 3 between 1972 and 1973; is that correct?
4 A When the building was constructed.
5 0 Do you know who did those tests? ,
6 A I don't know the person who made the tests.
7 Q On page 19 of your testimony you talk about the OBE, operating basis carthquake. And you refer to Appendix A 3
9 to 10 CFR Part 100. ,
t 10 Let me know if I understand you correctly: Wnat it you're saying, what it seems to me you're saying is that <
12 since nuclear power plants are being licensed today to less l than half the SSE that therefore there's no problem with 13 14 having Trojan operate the way it is because that is the 15 practice today.
A (Witness Anderson) No, we're not scying that.
16 L'e're using that as one of the illustrations or arguments 37 to consider when one is evaluating'the plant's capability ;
18 gg for ODE. It's one of the factors.
0 Isn't it true that earthquake standcrds have i 20 be con.3 more stringent over the years?
21 22 A (Winness Johnson) Well I don't knce if uc could ;
- ., m ke thcc cenerni statement. Beccuse tnere ure sc renv ea ,
l Ihb.*.9 C .IN 01 "'3 i , FUOh OE hhe GE13OOiOT O l' .h2 C 'Kl . 2 Ea '0..G: '
i a ~
g the shape of the rnsponse spsctra, the dct. ping that's al_:se 61 i
I$
.- - . - _ - . -. - - . . - - - . - - - - ~ .
710 wb4 I to be used. Sc I can't personally say that there's a ,
~
2 definite indication that things have boco.mc rr,rc concurrative 3 in some areas possibly, in other areas our knowledge may hav: ;
r 4
( increased and there is less conservatism necessary. :
J 5 0 Do you know if Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 was ,
6 in effect when Trojan was originally licensed?
7 A (Witness Anderson) Yes, it was. l 4
4 8 O And is it the same as it is today? ;
9 A (Witness Katanics) I can give a qualified ;
10 answer. I believe it has been changed, and it is not the i
o 11 same.
12 O So which are you referring to, the new one or tne 13 old one? You didn't say " Revised" or " Unrevised," ycu 14 didn't date it, I guess is the problem I'm having. ,
15 A -(Witness Andersen) We simply vere trying to ;
16 define here what an OBE is and trying to make it a little 17 c'learer, more clear why the 03E in this ense happens to 18 govern the design. I don't think that was the original i
19 intention, that the OEE govern the design, but, for some l
' i 20 reason, it does. And it's very difficult to explain how the 21 plant is good for the safe shutdown earthquake, a larger 22 ear thquake , and yet it doesn't meet the requirements for the j s
n sn.clier earthquaks. Chtt's what wc're erfing to expir.in in ,
4 ,
- t, "hiS part of th6 COStimony.
+
i
\.'e refer to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 sinply 25 I
It i*
~- _ _ _ , _
711 wb5 1 to try to better define what an ODE is.
2 O okay. I guess the problem I'm :1cring is that 3 since it has been revised, if I looked at the revised I
- l. 4 edition it might be different than the original. And so I 5 vant to know which one you're referring to when you make ,
6 that statement.
7 A We're referring to both of them. Both of them 8 require that the plant be shut down if an earthquake at or g above the OBE occurs. That's the statement we're making.
10 Q on direct from Licensee'c attorney, he asked 1; the question: Were there any dissenting views to any of 12 the studies you did. What I would like to know, What is 13 the procedure inside Bechtel for getting dissanting vieds, 14 and then what occurs to those dissenting views once they are 15 aired, if you are encouraged to air them? What's the 16 procedure for handling dissenting views?
17 A There are many different ways of handling dis-gg senting views. If an employee feels like he is not given ,
gg an adequate hearing on his views he can go to higher 20 levels of management. We have essenticily a syctem cf dual 21 reporting roles: it's very important: so that ens person dec:
I gg not have complete control as a supervisor over anctner 23 .
persen, but that the person that's beins surer h et ci' cya l 1 g; 3 ncs me. Ebility to gc to his chisf c.,ginser. .; : ciaf '
o enginscr's staff, and talk over cny hind of prchier. thre 25 1
I s
i i
I 712 wb6 I might arise in this way. Tnere just are many avenues availabl4 ;
~
2 to make dissanting views very well known cr.d make t!.cc.
3 heard by top management.
l' 4 Q Licensee's counsel also mentioned nincrity 5 statements. Were they encouraged in this case? Did jou ,
6 go to people and says Listen, do an independent. study, .
7 come up with something different. We'd like minority 8 statements.
9 (Laughter) 10 A No, we did not encourage minority statements.
11 We did hcVe various discussions. The objective of the-12 whole program was to establish what capability the building 13 had.
14 O' Now in that process do you sit down and-- Suppos 15 ing they came up with something different than you did. And .
16 we're vorhing together. We cit down and we discuce it and ,
17 we work it out, don't we?
18 A We would discuss it and work it out. If va 19 could not work it out we would go to a higher level of t 20 management, or a higher level of expertise, until it was.
21 satisfactorily rssolved between us.
22 0 What wculd happen if I still held out for my 23 minority cpinion?
25 .i I CuPuoco it ~0t.ld 70 to 07.0 ver tu? lYcn C 3 l 25 the c:ap:.ny for resolut.cn. If you still felc you wre rici.rc l
i
. 1
\
. .I
~ .. . . . - . . - . . , , - . . - . . .. . . . , . . . . . . . - . . , _. . . - . _ . . _ , . . - - - . ~ ~ . . . . _ . - , - - .-.m..- . . . . - - . . _ , - . . . - - . _ . - - - , . _ . . -
713 wb7 I and the company was wrong, you could in this case write l 2 a letter to the Nuclear kegulatory Commission explaining 3 your postion. l 4 There are many ways for you to' be heard if this 5 hypothetical disagreement occurred. j l
6 Q Has this ever occurred, to your knowledge?
7 A It has occurred.
1 8 (Witness Katanics) Yes. Not on major items.
9 But sometimes there are, I would say, considerable smaller 10 problems that one individual may feel that he has differcnt 11 thoughts. And we carefully consider his pocition. And 12 what we generally do, we at least want to hear more than 13 one additional more knowledgeable individual before we 14 overrule this particular individual position.
15 But it would be foolish to say wheremany hundrei 16 of People are working together that there is no ona single 17 occasion when somebody feels differently on a technical 18 probism than some of the others.
19 (Witness Anderson) If we felt this could not 20 he r<?olved in-house, we would go to an outside concultant 21 and have the consultant look at it and help us resolvo it 22 if we had a major issue.
23 I can't think of any cf there h_ada of . rucs gj, ! car,t havt occurred.
25 i,
714 2b 2ebl 1 A (Witness Katanics) . Something important to know, 2 we are not talking about now the Trojan Studios. We are 3 talking more about generalities within our operation.
/
4 0 Well, then, were the Trojan studies troated 5 differently?
6 A- No. What I'm saying, we did not idontify dissent 7 on the Trojan studies.
8 MR. ROSOLIE: I have no further questions at this 9 time, but I would reserve my right to further crosc~
10 examination of these witnesses.
11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, I don't know about the 12 reservation but we'll accept the fact that you're through at
. 13 this time, and if the occasion arises in the future, you 14 or anyone will show good cause of coursc.
15 Ms. Dall, do you wish to examine?
Is MS. BELL: Yos, I do. ;
17 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: Go right ahead.
O 18 BY MS. BELL:
19 0 My first set of questions should be answered by 20 cvery one of you, so I'm going to ask two at the same time.
21 I think they logically go together.
22 Eas any of you gone to the Trojan Plant, and hcw ,
?
n1 many times h ve von visited the Troian Pler.2, nd *,a n wt.s l
g.; the most recent time that you visited !.t?
gg MR. BANKS: Co you wtnt to start wich Kr. And rst:
I l.
H h4 715 eb2 1 and go down the line?
2 MS. BELL: Okay.
3 WITNESS ANDERSON: The last time I 'ficit:0 the 4 Trojan Plant was last Friday. I visted the Trojan Plant 5 several times during the construction. I don't rc:nember the 6 dates, but I was there several times during the construction 7 period.
8 WITNESS KATANICS: I visited the Trojan Plant last 9 Friday, and I also visited -- I cannot exactly tell the date 10 as far as months and days - in the startup period, probably 11 four years ago.
12 WITNESS JOIMSON: I visited the Trojen Plant inst 4
13 Friday, and prior to that, during construction.
14 3Y MS. BELL:
13 0 Ones, or many times?
16 it (Witness Johnson) Once or twice. Once ct lecct.
17 A (Witness White) I was there about three or fou-ta weeks ago, and on two previous occasions bach in about ' 72 19 or '73, sometime back in there. That was part of -- not part 20 of Dechtel but on other occasions. .
21 0 So three of you were there -- four of you were 22 there during constructica at some tinc.
I3 A (Witns:s ::atanics) I wcu'.6 eay ry ciri: Jas er n the tail end of thc- con:truction. y:3.
25 O So heu ncny of ycu went and saw cenet n. tion then i.
~ .e w ,rr, ..--,,y-- , -- mc- , ,--- , . < , . . . , . , - ~ . - r- --e-.--
ll 716 ab3 1 it was still the steel frame before they put on the concrete,_
2 the block slab?
3 A (Witness Johnson) I was out there.. At that time the containment base slab placonent was complete. I don't 4
recall the date. And some steel framing was up, and I don't S
know if it was the control building or not. I was not on 6
11.190 7 a general inspection.
g A (Witness Anderson) During construction some of i these walls were left open. Holes were left to equipmsnt g
could be moved in and out more easily, and I scw that part o; g
it. I did not see the etcel frama per se,. e I uns not there at that early a phase of construction.
12 Q Each individually, what was your capacity when yet went out there during construction?
was e .u e u eng neer in W San ~,
15 Francisco office. fnis was one of the jchs that I had sens-thing to do with and I was interested to see exactly what was going on, to see how things looked that we had only looked at on drawings before. It's very helpful to go out tc the site, to the plant during construction and actually view l 20 1 l
it.
21 A (Witness Katanics) As I pointed out,. I visit?d 22 the plant at t'u and of the constructien st ?: and the rtart-
[ : ace.
In wz.: Onzt of a visit
"'.'.n mur ::,wr car.0- m ';
i l
?.*i -
[ cnginzer: frer.vericus Esc?.tel effiacc.
c
n 717 eb4 1 We have regular meetings every other month that 2 we combine with a particular job site vicit and this happenec-3 to be within this framework.
( 4 A (Witness Johnson) When I was out there I was on 5 the chief engineer's staff in charge of more or less re-6 search and development criteria of containment structures, 7
and I was out there early in construction to observe the 8
various techniques they were using at the start of conen Nmer g construction.
A (Witness White) When I went to the plant on 10 33 previous occasions I was teaching at Oregen Stato at the 12 time, and I went through, along with ' some students.
~
g3 Q But none of the four of you had any direct in-4 14 volvement with the control building as a spacial part of the 15 construction?
16 A (Witness Johnson) No.
g7 A (Witness Katanics) I was not.
~
O Are you aware of the person who was in chcrge of ,
to g
checking that out during construction, the person from Bechtel?
, 3 A (Witness Anderson) Well, there were many pecple g
involved in checking various phases of construction, and I'r.
i not able to give you a list of those ncmec.
_ l c.a
,, O For each cf you, how 1cng hr.vc ysa hcea :cr%ing ;
L vith Lecht21? And I presune 311 cf you c=capt Mr.C.ite ac'70 ,
25lll
,1,
. . . . . . ~ . . ., _. __ _- , . - . . . . , _ , _ . , , . . . , , . _ , _ . ~ , _ _ . , _. _ ., . _- - . . . . - , , . _ . - . , , ,
t 718 eb5 I been involved with working with Trojan from the very beginning 2 Is that correct? 5 3 A ito, that's not correct. At. the beginning of r
( 4 Trojan the design team was set up and I was not involved in 5 the original design team. I was working on another project 6 at that time.
7 I have worked for Bechtel for 21 years.
S A (Witness Katanics) I am with Bechtel for 17 years 9 and about seven months.
10 At the time when the Trojan Plant vac designed 11 and constructed, I had an assignment that had no direct 12 relationship with Trojan. I was a project engineer on another
. 13 nuclear project.
14 A (Witness Johnson) I have been with Eechtel 13 15 years.
16 My only involvement with Trojan was to review come 17 aspects of the containment design.
- g A (Witness White) I have been with '3echtel apprc
- :i-1g mately two years. I also worked for them two sumers back i 20 in '70, '71, and did not work on Trojan on those occasions.
21 O Is there any way for you to tell no what parts 22 of your testimony were prepared by whcm, or did you t.* rite 23 separate parts of it, :r did somebod/ writs the t/ncio thing It, frca other people
- c notes, er hou did that u:rh?
25 n (Witness Andersen) We all wars involvti in i
l l i'
_ .__ n _. - - - - - . . .- _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,
719 eb6 1 preparing our testir.ony. We had various drafts. Parts were 2 l written by different people, the four of us, that is. And S through the cou se of several revisiens and a great deci cf 4 meetings and discussions, we concluded that this was cur 5 joint testimony, although we all had different areas of ;
5 expertise and would be able to speak to differenti parts of 7 it.
s O So there isn't any way that you can broah down. ;
9 the sections and say that -
{
[
n -hat's correct.
2b2 io {I 11 -'-
12 13 14 15 16 17 I 1 16
~
19 i
I l
20 21 ! l i <
.1 1 22 B '
i f! l 2
- li k! 7 f
.: i
720 2c mpb1 1 0 To your knowledge, has Rechtel Power Corporation 2 worked on the desien or the constructi:n of either the 3 Humboldt Nucienr Power Plant or the Dicblo liuclucr Powar 4 Plant located in Califernia?
i 5 '12. BATIKS: I object to that as being irrelevant, 6 Mr. Chairnan. .
7 CHAIRMAN !ELLER: Ynat's the purpose of this linc 8 of inquiry?
9 MS. BELL: Well, I want to know some of their to e>:porience. And also, specifically in terms of the Humboldt 11 Plant, that's brought up, I believe, in the Staff testimony.
t 12 And I'm trying to pursue that as an interest of mine, to make :
13 some connections between the design of Humboldt Plant. ;
14 CHAIRfiAti MILLER: Well, the issue really isn't a comparison with other plants. The iscue, as you know, is ;
15 10 fairly narrow ts est forth in our Notice of Hecring. Mhich r
17 is to say, at this Phase 1 stage whether or not interim operation is reasonably safe. It does se?.m as though you 18 Ig would be getting beyond, Ms. Bell.
MS. BELL: What I'm looking for is to find out scr 20 ,
21 of the reliability in terms of looking at the background of >
22 both these er.perts and of the whola Ecchtal Pewar Corpcratior.
E3 in termo cf building nuclec.: powsr pa:.aus und dacirn for g4 n.isci.: evante Ona:~UtRM it LLER: Why don't you cenfor with 25
i 721 l
mpb2 I Mr. Kafcury? I think you're getuing beyond, but perhaps there 2 would be sor.e arer. in which you conif question.
I I
3 So why don't you confer.
( 4 (pause.)
i 5 MS. DELL: Well, then, I would like to ask another !
6 question, which is about the same thing, but it's regarding 7 their personal professional qualifications.
i 8 My question vould be addressed to each person.
9 CHAIRMAM MILLER: It would have to be, You'11 10 have to take them each in order seristiq. You nay inquire 11 as to their qualificatiens.
12 BY MS. BELL:
13 Q Ha.e v you worked -- t s
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: To whom? l t- !
15 BY MS. DELL: l .
t i
16 O Mr. Anderson first, and then on down the lina 8 -
i t I ;
17 Have you worked in any capacity on the plans, the !
18 design plans or overseeing construction on the !!umboldt ,
L 19 Muclear Power Plant or the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant? l t
20 A (Mitness Anderson) No, I have not.
21 MR. BANKS: I object. I had better state ny objec-i [
I 22 tion. , j r
23 Jusu frem the su .ndpoint cf 'd.e. :Tarnion.9 - 6." ' ~ . !
~
24 l 333 30W th3 '; F003 20 r.nybe?'/ 's q'.. liri :2...ic as r 'lh e. . ; .:
I, .
25 v. rked on a parei=u ar pl= e. '
f
'q
\
( '
_ . _ _ ~ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ . _ _ , , _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . - , - _ , . . , - . , -
14 2 l
Wn3 r
I r_. Lm. *c*.n. .s. e.-, ,.u.R ..
u s ypose b -
<.Aig. .v
.m a.-a -
2 l L
r
.E., C.. . . . m
_, .,;s.. . .
. , , < e -. - 4 ., . - .
.. ....s . - <... . . -.-. -
t' e'
- f **nc
- has VorhEd on OnS.
. 1.
d -
r.._ s , <.- - ..c ._.
- u .
.e.:s .
a*,,, cuy,.h.,
-#11
- -- ,.o .. . _.sa. , %. .
. . .a ._
5 p m $g so ss5 ,
6 37 gg, g g3:
7{ O - Mr. 7.at:nics?
I t
i A (IIitness T.at.anics) 6.id net s.orh en the .** d idt L
91 Say Firnt as c chief enginear, althengh two er th ae yen s i
4 10 .' . a o, y..w , . +. .a ...- .~ .: . ..as. .w. .,e.-.-- ,
. e r ca..-: . -.t : . . . .,. .m. -
. . . r. ,
1, 11 ;?; u. vs.c ~sta u < a. .
s, t n . .v. z .,c_- -.....,
=.~-n=.
r .
11 14- 1: s==a oversacing an: sone reviewing aut.ner ty over tn.e re-13 qualification work.
w b< .Q . - . v o..ns
- p. -
r..4 - , 3 a a c h:.e~- .'t . '.' ~--5. = a. .e. d o . e. .. r .. . . .. -
n..
9i 1e il,, - .
- a 1.a.:ca.a n, a a.
.... , us pa. s.-- a - . - . . . . - . . -
~~...n
-- -. . ~ . . . - - .
n it 17 !! with the project people.
. I 16 l O Mr. *dhite?
I.
19 I) A (Witness White) "hs sr. a an ':.he praviour 'r. 0 7 I
{
20 I worked en the requalification. As proble .s ca- : cp they can'i c1 g .I ,.
s .i
, gr.a ga.y to y.-ious ~r..~ '- ch- ~'.- *.. -a=. ' . :. c - c ' . * - . . --
.i h %
1, %..$ . 3 - - . . . . . - . . . .
I,.
m b g:
x e.. u.. .s .- -
. ..s.. ,. n., : ::
_. ---..1 :
. . . . . - .-. u.
u.. . . . . . . -. ;
g
- G
-, g, , M.
w .,. a ...SM.-.%.a .e
-s k"
- =,..J 3:. . . -.'r--..- - - ~ ~ - .'
- 9 .- 1. 4. - h f. 2 J .a. 4.
c5 it - - n-~~= -- ~~~ - - - - - =- -- ~~
OS
(
l n
_P
723 mpb4 I the last paragraph:
2 "This deficiency resu3ted from -ht 3 discontinuity of some wall reinforcing
/~
4 stec1 and misapplication of some design 5 formulae."
6 Did you not state before that these two were not 7 related in terms of ycur discovery of them?
D 8 A (Witness Anderson) They are somewhat related as 9 we look at the overell building design.
10 0 But the discovery of the three thinge -- I gueise 11 two formulae and one - and the diccentinuity of the ucli 12 reinforcement, the discovery of those three things was 13 separate?
14 A It was all in the same time frame and it uns all 15 under the same purpose of invartigating the capability of 16 first t.his wall for the viewing port or viewing window to be.
17 cut in it, and secondly, then, the whole structure.
10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think wa 1), take our lunch 8
19 re. cess .at this time, and recenvane at 1:30, please.
20 (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the hearing in the 21 above-entitled natter was recscsed to reconysne at l
I 1: 30 p.n. , this sanc day.)
22 23 J i
21 i 25 i
l 1
1 1
- --- ~ - .
724 2d abl 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1:30 p.m.)
3 CHAIR!M MILLER: You may proceed, Ms. Bell.
4 Whereupon, 5 RICHARD C. ANDERSON, 6 GEORGE'KATAMICS, 7 TIIEODORE E. JOffMSCN,
~
8 and ,
9 WILLIAM II. InIITE to resumed the stand -on behalf of the Licensees and, having 11 been previously duly sworn, were examined and testified 12 further as follows:
13 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 14 BY MS. BELL:
15 Q Mr. Anderson, can you please give ns an indientic' 1G cf your background in designing for what would be called 37 seismic design in terms of education or a::perience?
is A (Witness Anderson) Well, as my resume says, I'm 19 not a structural or civil engineer. I'm a mechanical and 20 nuclear engineer by background, and registered in those ,
! disciplines.
21 22 In the 21 years that I've been working for Bechte.
g I)
- I've bean involved in nany nuclear power plant desiF.:
1 24 ! including cne of the high reismic design: for the propcsed h
3 Mandocino Nuclear Power Plant in California.
7I5 I do not pretend to be a structural expert. That eb2 1.-
E area is covered by other people on the panel. ,
3 0 okay.
4 I would like for each of you to answer the se.m2 5 question and give me some idea of your background on seismic 6 design. ,
7 A (Witness Katanics) I'm a practicing engineer for
~
8 more than 30 years, and the great majority of this time was 9 spent in structural engineering design.
10 I came to California about 19 years ago, and I p ;
werked in various offices where we designed buildings and 12 structures for all loads including seismic forces.
Within Bechtel, I started as a job engineer and 13 later on as a senior engineer. This assignment included 14 on-board design work.
15 Later on I became a supervisor and I was working rs 17 very directly w.th the individuals who did structural design 18 including seismic analysis and seismic design.
gg For a while in my experience I was a project 20 engineer, having departed from the every day involvement in 21 structural and civil engineering design although later on, 22 as a chief civil engine:ar. in the past four and a half years, 3 f I'm not claiming that I de direct design but I uork re..y
\
. .\
- closely with the many engineers, reviewing their ,tork.
"e. h,
't n
- - evaluating their problems on design, including of course
- 1 s
o i
726 ab3 1 seismic design.
Something I want to add, even if seismic design 2
3 is more pronounced in California, every structural designer
'r .
4 considers lateral forces. They are not too far away from 5 the seismic design, and these are basically wind forces.
6 So ever since I'm practicing as a structural engineer I'm 7 dealing with lateral force designs. ,
8 A (Witness Johnson) I originally got into.the arce o of seismic analysis :.nd earthquake-resistant design about to 10 or 12 years ago. I was involved in some of the first 11 seismic analyses that Bechtel did back on the Palisades, 12 Point Beach, and Arkansas Power Plants.
13 Several years ago I taught some in-house courses 14 in that particular area and also to one utility.
15 I have also taught the professional engineering ,
16 course at the University of California, of which design 17 for lateral forces was a part of that course. :
18 In the last five years I've been in charge of a l 19 group of which about a third of our responsibility on that 20 group was to provide guidance and develop techniques to de :'
i 21 seismic analysis and earthquake-resistant designs, and in i 22 that capacity we dealt with many projects, recent enes such 3 as ?ilgrim, Shagit, Hope creek, and many others.
y C Mr. Ynite?
A (Witness White) I started into ths dynr.:ic g
I
=.
e- .m e3 +-ewe--- c ome e-e ee w +-e *.e emms e sam 8 4"
- W .e- - m*W = ****a * * * * * * -ner -*- ,
-,.-w,.-w-, yvy*- -yw-- 4,.-y w-- .w,yymy-,,.,-,. , ~ - - , , -u -= -- ~ , - - --y.---,,-y-- p + , . -
727 e:)4 1 analysis area after leaving school. My first job was doing 2 the shock analysis of nuclear reactors. So I have some 3 exparience in that.
4 I've taught courses in structural dynmics. I have 5 also worked on the Mendocino Plant that Bechtel did some 6 work on, a very high. seismic area.
7 I was with' TVA for two years where I had the 8 responsibility of doing the seismic analysis of all Category 9 I structures.
to And in the last two years with Bechtel I've been 11 working on Mr. Katanics' staff in the seismic analysis crea
- 12 giving support to various projects.
13 Q Mr. Katanics, to your knowledge, was there any 14 one person or a small group of people in particular respon-15 sible for making sure that the Trojan Plant seismic design 16 was correct, or was there one person responsible for looking 17 at the lateral resistance of that plant, or is that in te general part of the engineering?
1g A (Witness Katanics) Are you questioning r.e on the-20 reevaluation or the original?
21, O I'm sorry, the original.
A. I was not chief civi.1 engineer when the original 22 23 Trojan design was made, so I cannot ansuer cpecifically.
g
- 4 Q 5et do you have any idea whether it was in the 25 t hundreds of peop'.e, or tenc, or --
4 m-
, , - , , , - - .,.r - ,, -ec , . ,-.,,...e-. - . - - -,.,,w ,, , ,,,- w. y- , , ,.,v,-s.m, w
i 728 eb5 1 A I have a very good idea I believe hcw it was 2 ccnducted. Generally Bechtel has project organizatien. Each s.
3 major project consists of a unit headed by a project s 4 engineer who is not necessarily a civil structural engineer 5 or a seismic analyst.
6 Under the project engineer there are various 7 discipline groups, several structural groups, mechanical 8 electrical, and headed by what we call group supervisers.
S These group supervisors cre responsible for the discipline-to oriented work within the project. The professional guidance, 11 supervision, review of the group supervisors co. mss from the 12 various chief engineers' office, I mean civil structural 13 engineers, chief nechanical engineer, chief electrical, et 14 cetera.
13 So as the Trojan original design was conducted, i i
16 it was within the civil structural group of the Trojcn i l
17 project, the pro. ject group. This group was organized ac : !
. l 18 tried to outline, and of coutse the project civil group l
~
19 had various engineers conducting the actual desip. And l l
20 the Trojan design was done within this project group.
I would like to add that if we distinguish betwest 21 ,
g seismic design and seismic analysis, my recollection is that n the seismic cnnlysic that provided the loads and forces for ,
l w ,,
the designer to establish wall thi ::: ssac 2nd. reinferring I I
l' l
,e 5 steel cuantities ..ss cene cy a star: r. armer.
l I
I
729 eb6 3 0 Would anybody else have anything to add to that?
2 (No response.)
3 Mr. Johnson, would you say that generally 4
lateral -- that one designing for lateral resistance or lateral strength of a building or any kind of structure 5
g would be the same for wind and for. seismic design and if not, 7
what would be some of the basic differences?
8 A (Witness Johnson) It's possible to have people that are quite familiar in ene area and not the other. They are two different areas. I.nd when decling with seismic g
g analysis and earthquake-resistant design, that ' general g category would involve a knowledge of dynamic analysis and also knowledge of the over-all characteristics of the s
13 g structure.
But I think the key point is some fundamentals 16 l 1
When dealing with design for the effects of winds, 1 17
~
it's fairly well documented in the literature, one has to be i IS proficient with various what we call drag coefficients, pressure coefficients that act on the building. So I would say there is quite a difference relative to the loads.
As far as what the loads do to the buildings, that 22 j back into, with both creas, a more straightforucrd ctructural l P.3 ij 4 analycis.
UG Q Mr. Anderson. er any other perron on that p:.nc ., i i
25 J
s i
730 eb7 1 are you aware of whether or not the Trojan Plant is supposed 2 to have a certain amount of resistance for tornadoes cad s
3 hurricanes and large wind events?
$ 4 A Yes, that was part of the criteria, to design for 5 the effects of a tornado.
6 Q Given the geography, the geographical regien, 7 was that an important consideration?
8 A Uhen we reviewed the job in May, I believe we g found that the over-all loadings from a tornado being what 10 we call a velocity pressure would be about 25 percent of the 11 .25g SSE.
12 0 on page 2 of your testimony you refer to --
13 quote "other important buildings in the Portland area."
What other buildings are you referring tc? Which 14 15 are those important buildings?
A (Witness Katanics) We are referring here to a 16 17 later statement without specifying any specific building, 137 18 buildings built in the very same tir.e period in the Portland jg area when the Trojan Plant was built, without specifying the buildings.
20 We somewhat assumed there were buildings built 21 12 in this four, five, six year period and we generally u .- ;i refer v.o these buildings.
w :I l-2J A (Mitness Andersen) I thi:2 that refers bcch t:
1 page 20 in the testin ny. In Footnote 12 vs t:1h abcut the 25 i
i g!
8
'1
731 ab8 1 Uniform Building Code requirements for schools, hospitals, 2 and fire stations.
3 0 Right. I'm aware of that.
4 So this was just surmising on your part that ;
5 there would have been other large, important buildings with 6 a certain amount of public importance and that those built 7 in the same time period as Trojan would be according to the 8
l Duilding Code and have certain' relative seismic capabilities?
9 A Yes. It was just a point of comparison we were 2d to trying to make.
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 -
20
! 21 i
23 L i
j 24 r
( .
.,---,,,---,r , a v , e-e., << ~ -- ,-~, ~*~-~-~*rr* '
i.,.
2s apb1 I o Uhy was this point of conparicen put in; what was
- 2 the purposs of it, at least on pace 2? ,i s
3 A On page 2, it's simply the introduenion. And we
,~.
4 really covered that back en page 28. It was put in jurt ac 5 a point of reference, to let people have a better understand-6 ing of where we stand relative to the capability of other 7 buildings.
8 0 Are you familiar with the Portland ares, and other c3 9 buildincs in the Portland area?
10 A (Witness Johnson) Not in detail, but ws are 11 faniliar with the Uniforn Building Code that pertains to thic ,
12 particular area.
13 0 In the next paragraph you say that:
s 14 "On the basis of these evaluations we 15 conclude that the centrol building is entirely 16 suitable for safe operation of the Trojan 17 Nuclear Plant in that the plant can be safely 18 shut down under design basis earthquake condi-19 tiens."
20 Does part of this phrase " entirely suitable" in-21 elude the reference nade to the seisnie design requirencnts 22 of ether important buildings in the Portlanf. aren?
23 A Mot really. It's Sased on ou- E .udies and tvalut -
24 tions.
The reason ve rcfarenced the Unifer- Lui~ ding cods 25 i
.,JJ
' reb 2 I: is that that is a code that allows takinc full advantace 00 a structure's ability : e:tceed yield and resirt the earth- l 3
cuake forces.
s .
And as I pointed out earlier, this is not done in >
5 the nuclear industry.
6 Cn page 3 of your testimony you stata that: '
Q 7 ="'he maj or reason. . . "
8 I guess you're referring to the construction, the 9 type of ccnstruction used, and it says:
10 =The r.ajor reason for this type of Il construction was the desirability of crc:t- l I
12 ine a steel frane building te a11ew protee-13 tion from the weather for the continued work 14 inside."
15 This tras brought out before, I balicva, on cress-16 exanination. ;
17 Could you tall me in ts:ns of the major reasen 13 whose decision that was, how that decision veuld have cena ;
19 about, or how that reasoning? ,
I 20 A (iiitness Andersen) Well, it's hard to reconstruct 21 that exactly. It was brought up by the desien group that r
I 22 first began designing the Trojcn Plant. Alvcys wa 100% at }
22 h. the .
Iceci cenditions, the local ree:iren?nts, the. schedul: -
Th".y faOt0rS ar3 Wei0he rd hnd COnsidersi,- 10? :."?! 'E E iL C i-2.1 24 e'! !.
25 that, censiderine; tha schedula and tne parti: nit.: tin: thz J !
i i
n
734 I this building would be under construction, that this was a
. mob 3
'~ 2 cood kind of construction to cet a building up out of the 3 weather and be ahic to work inside during the wintertime.
r 4
( A (Witness Katanics) I think it's proper to add this.
5 point:
6 Bechtal was not the constructor of this building, 7 and we just try to serve our client as architect-engineers i.n 8 the very best way to provide the type of building that serves 9 its purpose.
10 Q So would that mean that Bechtel hcd no part in'the 11 decision to build part of it'for weather protection and then 12 continua?
g 13 A Mo, I wouldn't say that. I would say Bechtel was 14 very much a part of the decision. I don't think we exactly 15 can identify who initiated the decision; but we were part of 16 the decision.
17 nut I wanted to point out, rather, that we did not 18 build this building as contractors. But we provided the 19 drawings and the plans for this type of construction for our 20 client to be constructed by others.
21 A (Witness Anderson) In other words, wo were not 12 building it to keep our own people dry in this weather. Mc were thinking that -- trying to take bes: tdventage of the 23 ]
24 laber availchility in the arca, kee,7 neop:.e working durizig 25 the winter. And it was just a desien censidoration. It had
W 73!
.npb4 I nothing to do with how we would be building the plant because 2 we didn't build the plant.
3 0 When you say " steel frame building", it may be
(- 4 very obvious to you; I'm somewhat confused. The stesi frame 5 building, was that just steel, because I quess it says here ,
6 that you put the concrete between the blocks afterwards. 'So 7 I'm just confused about what " steel frame building" meano.
8 A (Witness Katanics) Let me try to explain.
9 The steel frame building are columns and baans, 10 as you can see all over when they build a building. Now 11 after this steel frame was built, then they built the slabs.
12 The slabs are supported by the steel beams. And 13 than we had a building that had columns and slabs, but not 14 walls yet. And as Mr. Anderson outlined, this building gave 15 a great convenience for continuing construction because it 16 provided a roof and protection fron the hecvy rain for the 17 workers. And as the construction progressed, the airy spaes
. 18 between the steel franes and the slabs was filled up by
,' 19 concrete bioch walls, and the core, as is well described.
20 0 So at any point was there an abnormally long time 21 elapsing that you had bare steel exposed to the weat.her?
~
22 A I cannot exactly identify the time. I somewhat 23 suspect it was rather months cnd not years, tha tire periM 24 that 7:u are identifying. l
~
25 O That goGF to my neXt question:
I,
?
736 mpb5 I You say later, this is what happenad: you put the
\
concrete block walls.cnd continued. Ecu long vac "1Eter"?
3 A (Witness White) From the time the steel framc was 4 erected until the building was complete.
Q IIo . f i
6 How long was it between erecting the stesi frame j
. j, 7 building and puttinc in the block walls? j,
. 1 8 A (Mitness Anderson) Well, the block walls were put i t
9 in over a period of time. Some were left over so there would ;
10 be access. ;
+
i 11 We'd have to go back and look at the dstailed ,
I 12 schedule to really answer that question. There was a consider:
13 able time, though, between the time that part of the atesi ,
14 frame was aracted and the walls were filled in. [!
15 Q And it was an unusually long period of time reic- l 16 tive to other kinds of construction? Is that why it's i
17 important here? !
. i 18 A No, that's not why it was important.
19 0 How long would you say in comparison to usual 20 construction, how long was it, sort of a relative amount of time?
21 22 A (Witness Katanicc) I'm trying to c.nswer the ques 23 tien. But you chould appreciate those questions ara not as 24 ciscr for un.
25 First of all you mentioned the "usuni cenceru: tion: ,
, i i
737 apb6 I I believe'if you're asking the time period that the building 2 steel was erected and everything was cicsed -- and this is er.
3 estimate in my nind, and it's not a statement that I have en 4 the record -- it probably was around two years.
5 Now whether you call this an unusually long or 6 short, of course that's somewhat subjective. There are 7 buildings partially open or slightly open in any period of
~
8 time in the nuclear construction.
9 MR. BANK.ci: Mr. Chairman, I have no objsetion to 10 this line of questionin'T, but I just thought I would let 11 Ms. Bell know that we do have witnesses, such as Mr. Brochl i
12 with PGE, that were directly involved and are directly fard1-13 iar with the construction phase and the times, if she would 14 like a more accurate answer.
15 PS. DELL: Thank you very much.
16 I will continue.
t 17 DY MS. DELL:
18 0 On page 4 of your testimony you say:
19 "Thus, the building is designed with 20 the steel frane carrying nest of the normal 21 vertical floor load, and the block and con-22 crete walls carrying most of the lateral 4
23 leads ccused by carthqual:es." j i
24 And I jurt w:ndered if y:n eculi previi. a i%it-l explanation fer that as a conclusion. I ascune it' c !
25 ,
s t
738 I conclusion because you start with "Thus"; and I would like mob 7 a little c:: plication there.
2 A (Witness Ynite) So far as the steel frama is l'
4 concerned, the beams were there first, the concrcte slab 5 was put in, it's going to take the dead load of the steel 6 frame itself plus the dead load of the slabs.
7 As you bring the concrete block walls un any load +
8 that -- of course the concrete block walls are going to 9 carry their own load. The steel frame itself isn't capable to of resistine nuch of the lateral load because it's fairly it limber. So the concrete walls are very stiff, .and therefore 12 will carry the lateral load.
13 So the dead load goes to the steel frame because 14 it was there first. The concrete walls catch the lateral 15 load because it is very stiff.
16 O Thank you.
17 Another point that I would like a certain amount 18 of explanation on is how the reinforced concrete floor slab
[ 19 act as diaphrages. I mean, I have a basic understanding 20 why that would be, but a little explanation would help.
21 A (Witness Johnson) Well, those floors act as 22 diaphragms, and a diaphragm is considered as a fairl'/ rigid
~
23; hori: ental picte or slab. And tha diaphracm2 basically he p g t
24 the walla crientatad in the shape cf tha dic.thra m . !
25 , "he diaphragm is attached to the stesi members by
.t
_. ._ . . - ~_. _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . ,
739 mpb8 I a systen of studs, and all the various va11c are tied -
2 there is an intersectinn renher that the elab tier : , ar.d 4
so do the walls that are on the tcp and thc. hotten. So, <
l 4
again, the diaphrar;m primarily keeps the walls oriented i
5 relative to each other. It keeps them moving as a unit.
6 A (Witness Katanics) If I can add an illustrative
~
7 example:
8 You have a table with four legs, a regular table 9 ' like this one here.
10 (Indicating.)
11 And one leg is loose, and you start to shake the 12 table. It doesn't necessarily mean that the table will be 13 easily shaken because the other three legs transfer the --
14 are transferring loads through the upper part of the tabic.
l-15 The upper part of the table is the diaphragn, and the leg !
16 are representing the walls, if you wish.
t 17 Q Thank you.
18 When you speak about the reinferred concreta
. 19 floor slabs, do all the buildings, the fuel building and the 20 auxiliary building also have reinforced concrete floor slabs )
21 like the control building? '
22 A (17itness Jchnson) 7as, 9.ey do, in various portion {l . !
n -
O t ,
O C CCuld yOU Clarif*J What '10U Tsain by "",*ari:UE gortionh" t i 14
]e A in u css Ichi N Ther're cr-n thich r. The floorr jl of the anniliary build 4-- - - '" ane:.bs anou': the fuel
- 25 g
-r . - - - - - e----= y- - + - . - , - S -v -,--
't ,
740 I building, but in the auxiliary building thara are shielding mpb9 2
requiraments on the flecrs, e.nd their thickners variec frcm like eight to tan inches to three and one-half feat.
(
a n Is there any such thing as a reinforced eencretc 5
floor slah on another elevation besides the bettem one?
1 E 6
A All the' slabs are reinforced concrete. .
7 so when you talk about all of them -- when you 0
8 talk about them acting as diaphragms, they all act as. t I
9 diaphragms on every elevation? 1 10 Yes.
A (Witness Johnson) 11 Thank you.
0 12 Could you explain how - well, I'll ash a questien r 13 first.
14 Does the reinforced concrete floor slab,on the ;
, 15 bottom, I presune, link up with the soil such that ths 16 damping that you talked about that has to do with damping 17 through the soil -- could you explain how that works? ,
18 Does that make sense?
19 A Well, we have run one analysis with a flexible 20 foundation, and later performed another analysis which wa 1 21 say is fixed bass, and showed that the tvo ware conparable.
22 Uc did not perform an analysic which would con-9 23 sider the founfation damping as such. So the v:.y w: have j ;
I ,
24 done in, u:ing enly s: uctural damping, is : cear c- rs.::.~a l 25 way to do the analysis. So va really ha"en't relied en a:.y -
1
_ _ - . _ - - _ . _ ,_. _ _ -_. . . _ . , , - . - _ - . - . _ . _ - _ - . - _ _ . ~ . . . . . . _ , . -
741
- mpb10 I foundation d:nping.
i 2 Camping through r.he soil is dens by whct manns?
0 3
~
A It's not considered as an anergy dissipator.
(~ :
- You talk about in your testimony tnat the ~ateral 0
5 resisting menbers of the fuel building up to an elevation of 6 4R feet are used -- well, exist;that there are lateral .
7 resisting members in the fuel building.-
8 I'd like to know how that affects the lateral 9 resistence of the control building given that the euxiliary to building'is in between.
11 A (Witness Katanics) The auxiliary. building is 12 indeed in between the fuel building and the control building. !
13 They are interconnected by the diaphragm slabs as we tried to 14 describe before. And the main lateral resisting buildings 15 are the fuel building and the control building,and the 16 auniliary building is what I would say spanning _in between 17 thess two, although several walls in the , auxiliary building 18 were considered in the seismic analysis.
19 In the fuel building, of course, the main lateral 20 resisting elements are the walls of the fuel pool and the 21 walls of the holdup tank enclosures. Those cra reinforced 22 concrete walls, quite heavily rainforcod. Percentagewisc t
I ) ,
23 .i mcybe three or fcur tinss :s many reinforcarents in the l 1 i
24 ' , ccntinucus reinforec: ent in uhe cent ci huilding n110., l 1
25 They are very conventi:nal, whe.u we'r=. ctiling der i
t
i i
742 ;
1 i !
3 mpb11 I concrete structures. I tried to describe in z.nswer to For j 2 question; I'm not so sure I did or did not.
3
/,~
- 4 5 ; i 6
7 8
9 to 11 12 ,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 e
21 22
~
23 ,
24 25.
a
- . , . - , . . . - ~ , - - . , - . . . - . _ . . . ,,,,..~... . . .
743 2F abl
' Q I presume when you talk about the lateral resistanc e
( C4 of the fuel building, that its primary importa.nce is that 3
'i t helps hold up the auxiliary building, and the reason
( #
why you bring it up is that the auxiliary building is next 5 to the control building, is that right?
6 A No, I wouldn't say that it to of a primary 7 importance. The primary importance'is that it acts as part 8 of the lateral resisting system, including taking -- what 9 should I say -- its own lateral forces and having some 10 lateral forces, if you wish, kicked back from the auxiliary 11 building but it is not solcly for supporting the auxiliary 12 building.
13 Q Do the holdup tank enclosures that are 14 found in the fuel building go from floor to ceiling, or 15 are they only partway up?
16 A (Witness White) They go from elevation 45, 17 which is the base of the fuel building, to elevation 93.
16 And in between there's -- well there are three slabs, one 19 at 61 and one at 77 and one at 93, so tnere's three slabs 20 tied into the holdup tank enclosure structure above the base 21 slab.
l 22 l Q And how high is the concrete fuel pool?
23 A 93.
24 ! 2 93?
25 A Yes, both of them top out at 93. That'c elevati:n k
1
744 I
agb2 93.
2 Right.
0 3 Generally-- becaum '. presume, it's 1carthy and 4 detailed--could you explain to me or give me an outline of 5 the criteria of the FSAR in terms of continuous reinforcing!
6 steel in the control building shear walls? What are the
- 7 basic ideas that are put forth?
- Well I wouldn't say that 8 A (Witness Johnson) o 9 there's a definite requirement. There's a requirement taat-to enough continuous -- we'll say any concrete code or masonry (
11 there's a ganaral requirement that one provide enough 12 continuous reinforcing so that the load may be passed on 13 from one element to another, and that's the general 14 requirement. There's nothing to prohibit having discontina 15 rainforcing steel, it just may not in certain situations 16 provide as much help as it would if it was continuoas.
17 0 In your testimony you say that the discontinuit 18 could be fixed by, " . . . welding to... . . ," -- well, you' re referring to the reinforcing steel bars and you suggest the 19 20 they ought to have been welded to or run i:.nrough the steal 21 beam columns or run outside the steel framing.
22 Are there any other methods cf making thesc 23 )
steel reinforcing steel bars continuous, aside frola the rad it 4
24 1, tnat you menticned, e.d if so what ar e ta r./,'?
25 A Nc, I believe that covers all practical ways td I
1 1:
1
4 --e, m
US l f
i I
i <
ll i
C 0
E 4
745 1
agb3 do it.
2 Q Is there a method of ca.ing sote.e sort of anchor that would rot be included in one of these three ways?
k 4 Anchoring the steel rei.nforcing bar to something else, to 5
another part of the structure?
A (Witness White) You J..now there may be, 7 Dut bas'ically you you know, a lot of variations of this.
8 weld it so you're providing continuity or you run the bar 9
straight on through so you have cantinuity, you run it 10 around the steel column. Now there's a lot of mechanical II variations of these, but basically this gadgets that may be I2 is it.
I3 Q When.you state, on Page Five, the second para-14 graph, that: !
15 "We now believe that they cither 16 should have been welded to or run througn....," et 17 cetera.
18 Is this in reference to -- How was this dis-l 19 covered?
20 7 When you say, "We now believe....," are you ,
9 21 talking about the f act that you locked at the design anc l
}
22 did not see continuous reinforcing, or is that one of the --
}
23 ;
or did ycu d.iscover that througn the crror i: thz foru.uls.?
it a c. (Wit.e.sc Johncen) The ccnditica cf the : cc=rs ,
25 was basically determined by our re-evaluation in May, where i
746 1
agb4 we examined the the loads on each of the walls and reconaputed {
2 .
tne capacity. And from that de.terminacion, or fro:n thct sucay !
3 !
We determined that there was not enough reinforcing to meet 7- j 4
tne original FSAR criteria.
5 Q Could you tell me_what Appendix A to Part 100 6
of the Commission's regulations say?
7 MR BANKS: I think thet's a little broad, 8
Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN ICLLER: Yes.
10 MR. BANKS: I think I would have to object.
11 CHAIRMAN !ELLER: Wa'll sustain that. It's 12 also a question of what they are, but we'd rather not get into
' technicalities.
14 If you have a special section you want to refer .
I
- 15 to, please do, Ms. Bell. ,
16 MS. BELL: Not right at tnis point.
II BY MS. BELL:
18 On Paga Seven of your testimony in Part Three, Q
I8 the second paragraph on the page, you refer to:
20 "....particular structures,. systems !
21 and components of the plant whose design must i i
1 22 reflect....," the considerations tnat you talk about ;
l i in the beginning of that paragraph. ' '
M ' Ocn.$utellmewhatarethosestructarn,systen:
25 and components you wer.: referring to? i
( !
! ~1 1
747 agb5 A (Wit: ness Anderson) Those are safety-related 2 structures, systems and components as defined er 10 CFR ,
2
~
Part 100. >
4 I In other words you're saying that - Okay.
Q 3 In Appendix A to Part 100, does it say -- does 3
it use the phrase, " safety-related squipnaent," or is it in 7 :nore detail what tJtose structures, systems and componants 8 are?
I 9 A It doesn't go into detail what they nre, it stys 10 that they are structures, systems and compencnts that arc 11 ; required to mitigats the consequc.nces of accidente.
12 The words -- If you have it there, you can I i
13 read it right out of 10 CFR Part 100.
14 0 In your work, do you have any personal knowledge 15 what these structures, systems and components vould be, t
16 what they would consist of? {
17 A Yas, each project has a very clear definition 18 of what those structures, systems and components are.
19 At Bechtel, we use the form of a cue list to 20 define what structures, systems and components fall under 21 this program. And there ate also methods of 'clascifying ;
22 these structures, systems and compenents as Categcry 1 fcr
~
22 : seismic design.
h 24 !;! O Would ycu be r_ble to give ua Nic :.uf .r-:n:m c e d
i.
25 l what that list would'be, how would that be classified in 1
]
a-- - + - - - - x wm*, , - ~ - w -r-
748 !
I 1
agb6 terms of wnat you're referring to in your testimony? l 2 i A I'm afraid I don't understand the question. l 3
0 You refer to particular structures, systens and l 4
components. And I'm trying to find oun how or where one 5
would be able to find a list of what this is, or is this just some sort of nebulous concept?
7 A They're idennified val,y clearly in the FSAR.
Q .Would you agree that the scismic characteristics g s
I of a site are important in determining the %ind of design !
I 10 and the kind of -- designs for construction of a nuclear j 11 l
i power plant? i i
1~S I A (Witness Katanics) Yes. '
13 Q Do you have any personal knowledge of the history ,
14 l of assessing the seismic potential of the site on which ths g.
15 '
Trojan Nuclear Power Plann is built? '
IO '
MR. BANKS: I think I'll object no that question 17 as being irrelevant and beyond the scope of this proceeding.
18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I believe we'll sustain taat..
19 These matters were,
.' as far as the record presently shows, 20 were considered in the -- not the construction permit, but ,
f 21 the operating license proceedings and we don't wish to reper.t I 22 what has been done in tnat regard. l i
- v. , i
~4 35. EELL: I'd like to qucte frcir. R.gc deven ,
hl 1 '
24 which says:
I 25 8 a che regulations describe the approach uscd ;
e i*
l a
1 749 l
' to assess conservatively a site's potential foy agb7 2 sGiSrd.c actiViry. . . . "
3 And as long as they're including that as part of ,
f'
( 4 their testimony, I want simply to know not what the history 5 is, but if they are familiar with the history.
0' CHAIRMAN MILLER: Oh, well if you're limiting 7 it to that qu2stion -- Are you or ware you fr.milicr with tne 4
8 history -- you may answer.
9 WITNESS ANDERSOU: We've rend the FSAR relative 10 to the original siting condition cnd we have no reason to 11 disagree or dispute what was licensed originally in the FSAR. :
t 12 BY MS. BELL: ,
Have you read any -- are you r. ware that there x ..
13 0 14 have been any further updates of that -- assessing tne site j
15 potentic1, scismic potential?
16 MR. BA1TKS: I have the same objection to that, 17 Mr. Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We're probably going to sustain L 9
e 19 it, but I will give you one question if you have somstning 20 specific that you want to get at without trying to review the !
1 21 ,
seismic studies which have been made previously and which 22 are not at issue here. f:
23 i l
N5 BELL: Again, I'm net trying to find cut whr.t !
24 4 1
tnose arc, I'm juc t t ying to fi: d cut if than g enti-: .:.-
l' 25 have a.ny kncwledge of an updated history of the scier.ic .
I i
i i
.\
.. ....,-.-,.m. . . . , . . . _ . . _ . . . . . , , , _ . . .,,_m._._ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ , , _ _ _ - , , - .
.v. ,, , , , . . , , . - . .
I 750 1
agb8 potential, which was my first question.
2 CHAIRMidi FlLLER: All right. ;
3 l Do you have any knowledge of an updated history i,
( .
4 of the seismic potential?
5 1 WITNESS ANDERSON: No. !
6 4
CHAIRMAN MILLER: NO.
7 For me, the most updated is WITNESS KATANICS:
8
- the FSAR.
9 MS. DELL: Thank you. l 0 On Page Eight, in the first parc-6 BY MS. BELL:
. I 11 graph, you say: :
t 12 "It is well recognized that the possi- ,
I
( - 13 bility of a large earthquake occurring during I# the lifetime of a plant is axtremely remote."
15 By whom is it well recognized?
I 16 A (Witness Katanics) This is recogni=ed by all ;
i 17 individuals and exparts who are working in the seismic l 18 design area. l 19 Q Would you be referring to all the experts,within j 20 your knowledge, within the Bechtel Corporation?
21 A, I, of course, was addrossed this quection today 22 once already. I obviously an answsring the very came question.:
E3 l That I perscnally discussed thic with wnom I consicer l
24 '
rno<. ladgcccia people, and I have ay percon :.1 convicticn be.2e:.d i
25 that. I dcn't think anybcdy ever sau an SSE earthquakr., so i
I
751 1
agb5' that's probably one of cy reasons to say that it's rer.ote.
2 O Thank yea.
3 7
- Waen you say, "-2e lifetime of a plant. . . . ," ,
4 does that mean any plant, any efivan plant? ,
5 A Yes.
6 Q Are you aware of the discrepancy between the , .
I 7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission analysis and the Union of 8
Concerned Scientists' analysis of the probability of cata-9 '
strophic nuclear accidents?
10 ,
A No, I'm not.
11 :
Q I'm only a layperson. Can you explain to ms 12 what "'... dowel action' of the reinforcing steal and 13 embedded steel columns....," is? And you use this phrase en 14 Page 12 of your testimony. -r 15 CHAIR"AN MIIJER: It's a gosd question. I was i
15 wondering about that ::!yself.
(Laughter.)
18 WITNESS JOHNSON: Dowel action of reinforcing 19 steel would be - Here's a concrete block, here's another 20 And if one and there are pieces of steel that run through.
21 we push on this one this way and the other one - put shaar i
across it, these dowels would then resist the lead similar
" ,it t; the techniquer used in wood;7:rking to d:ue.1 two pice: 2 cf ,
1 l
-,h t
'i vood together. ,
ti I
25' :G. GFJa': E::cuse me, Mr. Jeansen, but you mcrec
I 752 I your hands around and that's not going to show up on the recor:
aJb10 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, could you describe for 3 the record the motion taken by the witness' hands? You r.ay .
(
t 4 do it yourself, if you wish, since they were yo'ir hands. j 5 (Laughter.)
6 WITNESS JOHNSON: Considering two blocks, one :
7- on top of another one, with vertical pieces of steel <,
8 connecting the two blocks together. And with -- pushing 9 on the lower blod; in one direction and the upper block to in the other direction, the mechanism of resisting thase 11 opposite loads would be the forces in the steel dowels. l i
- f and2F 12 13 14 15 3
16 i 17 .
I 18 19 l t
20 21 .
g 24 25 E
9 753 2c ebl i BY MS. BELL:
2 O You described the finite element model as -
3 quote - "an excellent representation of the actual mass and a stiffness distributed within the complex."
5 Why do you say that it's an excellent represenra-6 tion? Ifhat are the reasons behind that term?
7 A (Witness White) I think one of the main reasons 8
or the idea behind that statement is in reflecting the g
finite element model versus the model used back in the origi-10 nal analysis of '70 and '71 referred to earlier as the stich jg model, in the stick model the mass is concentrated at a single location. Like for the control building, all the r. ace 12 at elevation 77, for instance, was concentrated at a single 13 g point, normally the center of gravity of the floor slab, half zg the walls above and half the walls below.
In the STARDYIE model or the finite element model, 15 there are a number of points over the floor at which mass 37 gg is concentrated so another representation of the distribution of te mass is provided in the STARDYME model.
39
,,That takes care of the mass.
20 In terms of stiffness, I think it is a wcil-21 g j I established fact that for this kind of structure the finite elament representation is more realistic than the stick a1 .
, , , u medci uhere in the stick model, ths toce.1 stiffness is u, y c5 b characterized be a becm Mnd of action, and in the STAF.*TP.2 25 i l.
l 754 eb2 1 model, a more realistic representation of the stiffness is 2 given. The walls are located in their actu:1 position,. actucl 3 continuity between walls at one elevation and the upper r
I
( 4 elevation tied in with the floor slabs are established nere 5 explicitly than is possible in the stick model.
6 0 So this quality of excellent representation is 7 a conceptual matter rather than something arrived at numeri-S cally?
I think it's both. ,
C A 10 0 At page 19, under Paragraph 3,.ycu'ra talking 11 about the operating basis earthquake in this section, Section 12 4, and you state:
13 "For the majority of the nuclear power i
14 plants in the United States, the maximum vibratory 15 ground acceleratica of the selected Operauing 16 Basis Earthquake is one-half the ma::inu= vibratory 4 l
17 ground acceleration of the Safe Shutdown Earth- 1 18 quake."
What is your reference for -- quote - "the 19 20 majority of the nuclear power plants"?
2 A (Uitness Andersen) This is well known in the i l
1 industry. It's in each one of their licenses, what their !
22 !
t nettel requirements vero. Usually it'c aboub one-half. Soms i 2
]1
..u, e eC t'.a n ;r pl:.r te have Sr.:n *_i:ensaf. --inh it u ::.:m c. / ?.:.. .
- a i
33 {l- 40 porcent, for ODE requiremsnts.
5, o
a ,
i
!! 1
\
l l
755 ab3 1 Q For you to get this statement for the najority, 2 does 3echtel have a compilation, a list of all the nuclee.:
3 power plants and their OBE versus their SSE? <
4 A Yes. l l
5 0 Have you seen that yourself or did you just take l l
6 that knowledge because everybody knows it?
7 A I've seen various lists on that.
s A (Witness Katanics) At various times -- I'm not ,
g so sure I've seen the very newest, but in the past several 10 years we looked into the list and it's very safe to say that .
jj the majority, in fact much more than 50 percent of those 12 are licensed for 50 and 100 percent OBE versus SSE; 13 not all of them.
s 14 O Later you continue to say that
. 1 "Recently, some nuclear power plants 15 have been licensed by the !!RC with an OEE of less than.
16 17 one-half the SSE."
First of all, in reference to the sentence, can 18 l
19 you tell me when "recently" is? Is that within the last j i
20 couple of years?
CUAIRMAM !CLLER: Pardon me, Ms. Bell. Wouldn't gg j
22 this information better come from the Staff witnesses who i I are the licensing authcrity? I think you can get it more l1 33 1
! irectly Irrm tnam. Thers ic n: enjecticn a y:ur rer.r inq '
l 24 f it but I balieve if that's the f_nformaticn ycu wt.n:, you I 25 , i
)
1 l
l 1
il
~=6+
756 ;
ab4 1 could get it very directly.
E BY MS. BELL: j 3 0 I would like to know, taking that into acccunt, -- l
' 4 that's a good point -- where your knowledge about this cenes f i.
5 from.
6 A (Witness Anderson) We have written infomation 7 on the licensing of the Byron and Braidwood Plants, Davis-8 Besse. Some of the plants'are not through, completely 9 finished with licensing yet, but I think Byron and Braidwoof 10 are, and they were licensed for less than one-half the SSE.
I 11 Q Are the plants that you're referring to mostly l.
12 either past the licensing stage, in the licensing stage but 13 not constructed yet?
s 14 A They are both. Some are past the licensing stage, I i'
15 seme are still in the licensing stage, and in constructien. f I
16 Q And what would be your estimatien of how c:ny i I
17 these would be? !.
f 18 A I'm not prepared to give you that answer. .
i 19 Q Thank you. 1 1
20 Why, in your opinion, is this true that there are i 21 new plants that are being licensed with an OBE of less than 22 one-half the SSr7 A Well, we believe that it var ns'esr reallj inten "ed 33 )
j; jtd Oht: 022 COVO**n th9 dOSip Cf nucl Cr power 712T.t!. Ec jurt l'
25j happened thc the ucy the requirerenus were put togethcr, 1;
E if
- 1
.i-757 !
I eb5 1 OBE did govern the design. And obviously a client starting l I i 2 a neu power plant wenid like to have CE: set t. such e leva *.
3 it would be -- it would result in the sane requirenents as .
i t
4 the SSE, so the two are censistent.
5 i You design for one level of earthquakes, an SSE 6 with its requirements and the OBE vith its requirerants, and -
7 perhaps if possible the SSEsthe larger earthquake, govern the ,
8 design. W at certainly would be a ecre consistent. position ,
9 than having the larger earthquake not gevarn the derign, f 10 that . the design be governed by a smaller earthquake. ; ,
r i- t 11 '*he OSI is primarily an econcr.ic considerction, l l 12 when the utility would be willing to shut down the plant 2 13 and make a fairly elaborate inspection. We higher that CBE 14 is, the less often or the less chance they vculd have cf l i
15 having to shut down the plant. So there are scenenic con- !. -
16 ' siderations involved in the CBC anrl, as va ses ic, =0t safett- .l !
I ,
17 issues. Safety is strictly the SSE. l 4
gg Q on page 20, the second paragrnph says: ;
"In centrast, the OBE selected for the 19 t go Trojan plant,...." j 4
et cetera. It says: t 1 ;
21 lj i i "The "rojan plant thus is ene of the few nl e :
. i
~ --
-1 p2 cver pir.tc in the ' Unitef S:cter f whi:h the O*II !
b I sel2cted is grettor 2.c en:-half :he SC." ;
7; }j :
4 5
i; La. I.
f Would -rou Eas' 9. t this stata.En: is c c0:01:sion i.
j.
t i
Y. ' [
i 750 eb6 ; about the site in any way?
2 A I think Portland General Electric would be in a 3
much better position to answer the -- to give you the reasons I 4 why that OBE was selected. I'm not familiar with that.
5 Q Can you tell me why this is in your testimony?
A We're simply stating a fact. We're simply point-6 7
ing out that this was a somewhat unique requirement for this
- plant.
8 Q But the Applicant is the party to whom I should 9
address why that--
to A Yes.
Q On page 22 you state that:
Since the structure satisfies the g
design requirements for the SSE and since the significance of its capability to resist an ODE of 0.11g, rather than 0.15g, is that it will be necessary to shut down the plant and evaluate its integrity following an earthquake with the analler 18 acceleration, there will be no undue risk to the health and safety of the public from operation of the Trojan plant in its as-built configuration."
21 l What kind of significance are you talking cbout? !
22 1-
. J. We're talking choutthe OBE e.s si= ply an ecrzhczne.he
- 23 l3
. a 7hich you hav2 to rhut 5-m the pinnt s.nd ~.Ce an /.27 ? - !
24 nion. In other 1crds, this is this enn:spt that 03E does not :
25 i
i
759 - 779 eb7 1 relate directly to public health and safety but that 'ha 2 major consideration is the safe. shutdown eartnquahe,. the 3 SSE. t 4 O Further down that page you talk about placing ,
5 the Trojan control building's ability to resist an SSE, in ;
6 your opinion, you talk about putting that in perspective.
? What is the perspective that you refer to? l 8 A (Witness Johnson) Well,the perspective comes .
9 next in the items that are discussed in detail.
10 0 Okay. ,
To put it in perspectivo you i lg A (Witness Anderson) 12 have to consider ovar-all conservatism in the design, and that's what this section is trying to do. It's trying to s 13 g4 put into perspective what.some of the over-cl1 conservatisms 15 in the design really are, and that's what follows. ,
l 16 0 What is the rearon for over-all conservatisms in f g7 nuclear power plant design?
A It relates to the question this morning en margins.
18
. jg over-all conservatism I guess I would say is what is over i 20 and above what is technically necessary to make people foci better about nuclear power. l 21 22 Q S when you talk about putting the Trojan contre.1 >
d r g building in perspective, that's scying that it, toc , sh rct- !
i 14 in the over-2.11 conce-vttivt pproacb to c;claar p ;c . ' ::.ra l that Becht21 buil:is er designs and NRC licansas, et ce tr:7 l
( !
i
, - . - - . . ~ . . - - . . . .- - ,- . -
- - - . . . . -~ .., - - - - . - - . . - , - - - . . . - - ,
i i
780 t eb8 1 Is that what you mean?
' 2 A Yes. It sharac the conservatism that's listed ,
I in thisSection V.of our testimony. !
3 4 0 Thank you.
When you talk about-- In your section on Damping 5 -
6 y u talk about damping characteristics. Is that a kind of i
value, a numerical value?
7
. A (Witness Johnson) Yes, it is a numerical value, g
g Q Could you tell me how those values are determined nms des @ and consmetior.? I rean damping *talues -l to .
g follow and they sometimes seem to be somewhat arbitrary to me, and I'm curious as to how you determine damping values 12 in both design and construction.
A We, Bechtel, in general do not determine dcaping g
' values unless we have run specific tests. The damping i f
15
}
values used in the indust:f have pretty much been based on i i
16 i
- work by others, researchers, people like Newmark, Housler, 17 that have compiled information from testing and have pub-lished these valuer 3 At the time the Tro-)an plant was being originally 20 licensed, the values for the OBE and Ssn vere the acceptchlt: ,
21 l values at that tir.2 for the industry, j l
?
O navs thoso, - het uced to be censidered aces;t- 5 Dd C#.>1e hav~ d ?e Onang3d?
24 D A They hav2 taan mersared. ,
25 ll' .
I i
.t
a 1
781
- eb9- 1 0 They have been increased.
2 Could you giva no a rough idsa of how nuch? )
1 I
3 A The 2 for that type of structure presently would 4 be I believe 4 and the 5 would be 7 cr more. .
I l
.5 0 Is there any way of determining the damping value, ,;
6 the damping characteristic of something that is already 7 constructed?
8 A only low level damping, which isn't too meaningful. l l
9 In other words, it isn't practical to attempt to take an j i
10 existing structure up to the force levels that it would ;
1 11 attain in an earthquche. So only lou level.
12 O You refer to internal frictions. Could you define t 13 exactly what a friction is, and also describe the frictions 14 at the three points that you mentioned, both structu ci 1S joints and connections, air resistance and dissipation .cf i
1G energy into the foundation and soil?
17 A (Witness White) Well, internal friction on the
. l 18 joints, here you've got a steel beam coming to a column, !
l 19 and that's a bolted connection and under high loads you l i
20 eventually get to the point where there is some working in 21 that connection. This dissipates energy. ]
Z2 ,
O Ecw does that work with air resistance?
a 23 i! A tiell, that isn't tied in with ci.r resist. tace ht t
% W 6e -a$ ee W . a e b b 'e e ! l 4
gg I separate iten. ,
I
\
i .
. = . - . - -- .
- = -
782 ab10 1 In other ucrds if you started a pendulum swinging 2 it eventually comes to rest due to air *scistance, for in-3 stanoc.
4 A (Witness Johnson) Maybe to clarify that, when 5 you're in an automobile, whether the wind is blot-incj en you 6 or you're moving relative to the air, it all.has the sane 7 effect of creating a force on you.
6 The last item, foundation damping, is the ability 9 of the structure when subjected to earthquake motion of to passing the energy down into the foundation materini to 11 dissipate energy, and we have not used that effect in doing 12 any evaluation of this plant.
13 Q- Can you explain to me how air resistance was 14 used in the design of Trojan?
I t r. t A It wasn't used. It was merely mentioned hers as I
i 16 i a factor.
17 0 okay.
ja So the only important thing would be the internal
. 39 friction in the structural material and the friction in 20 the structural joints and connections?
A What we normally call structural damping.
21 3 O Can you explain to me what you mean by " higher yo damping chility" in the sentence starting at the bottem of L
/ hbh3 he bb[b OI$ sd e il "Thnt is, a structure unfer more cavars 3 h 5
4 ;
1 1
703 l
_ ebli i vibratory motion will manifest higher damping ,
2 ability than that of the same structure undar e 3 smaller vibration." .'
1 4 A In structures, as the level of response incr cces J 5 Let's take a concrete structure with a low-level input and 6 then a low level of response of the structure. If there was 7 no concrete cracking, then the damping value would be at 8 its lowest.
9 After the concrete would crack then the demping 10 would increase, and as the structure would respond even y 11 higher with more cracking, there would be a further increase 12 in damping. So damping increases in general as a function 1
( 13 of the response level in the structure.
t 14 Q And is that responsa level basically on the i i-15 amount of cracking, or are there other facters included? !
16 A Well, that response level is based on a dynamic 17 analysis which assumes a particular level of damping and 18 in general, the analyses we do, they casume a low level of
. gg damping relative to the response reached.
20 0 Can you go over that again and tell me what the 21 role of crachign has to do with that? i t
i 22 A Cracking would load to an increase in damping. ;
I' 23 l 0 Can you tell me uh:t methods are used to il '
24h increase dnapi..; values by the use of r:ructural matarit2.c l
25 j types, construction, and the level of vibratory notion es
'l
784 eb12 I referred to on page 24 of your testimony?
2 A Me don't really use nethods cf increasing dr.nsing.
3 I think we're just stating here that the damping valuer do 4 have a large range and the values we've used in this re-5 evaluation are on the conservatively low side. 17e know muen 6 better damping available -- should be available in the 7 structure. ,
8 0 Later you go on to says 9 " Masonry structures usually have even 10 higher damping, i.e., in the 10 percent to 15 per-i i 11 cent range."
!!ow is that measured? Is that running an anclysis, 12 13 some sort of an analycis? ,
14 A fio, testing, based on dynanic testing. There are 15 techniques that can be used to measure the damping of the- :
1 16 particular structural element that's being tested.
17 0 In other words you actually do physical tests?
A Yes. You can deterrtine damping from dyncaic 18 ,
19 tests.
20 0 Are there dynamic tests donc on reinforced con-21 crete structures? ,
i A. ':'here have been tectc on the past on cencrete l 22 I I
eier.3ntG, SOMO on OCnc ste st"uctureS, but I don't b31ievt en I
g3 a t=ul s= ==ure, n 2 to a hah uva e ru= m e. ;
yt ,
Let Es add Onc 0;her g n ("ite. ass !*atanics) ,
l
'k t
,_ - . - , - . - - - . . . . . ~ - - . , . ,. -
t 785 ab13 I infornation. Of course earthquakes are occurring all over 2
the world, cnd any time a nsjor ecrthquake is sen2where in i
3 the world, a whole group of knowledgeable structure engineers ;
4 are evaluating the effect of those carthquakes.
5 The Structural Engineers' Association of Morthern .
6 California, and I'm a member of it, very. faithfully visits-7 every major earthquake site in the world,. and these earth-O quakes of course very measurably, their characteristics are 9 well known, and their effect on buildings can be rolled bach 10 and many, many cenclusions. Thsy give a pretty good indi- ,
11 cation of the damping values, too.
205 12 I
O So when you do that do you actually go out and 1
13 look at the structures that have been destroyed or par-14 tially destroyed?
15 ,
A I did not go personally but many of my ccileagues 16 with whom I maintain a very closo profescional relationship 17 indeed went, and they came back and they gcve lectures and 16 papers on this subject.
1
- je Q Are they able to know the original design and 20 seismic capacity of those buildings before they are des-21 troyed or --
22 A In many cases, yes; in a few cascc, they're not.
1 In severci cases they can estimate.
23 y 3g f. O Ocn yce give no an ir.ficatic; c2 h. h h_n f.: Of
[i cases? I m cn art thecs like perticular buildings and 26 c
..m , . . , . _ _ , . -. .___ __-..,,_ . __, ___ .._. __._ . ,, ,., , , . , _ , _ - . . _ . , , , _ , , _ . . . _ , , _ _ . . . , . _ .
786 ebl4 1 particular earthquakes?
Y 2 h Well, the Caracas earthquake about ten renre ago, 3 where reinforced concrete buildings were vibrating and some r
4 stayed there, some'of them not.
5 In Skopje in Yugoslavia there were two earth- i 6 quakes, not a long time ago, and in Turkey, and again I --
7 O Do they examine things such as the designs and 8 the blueprints?
9 A Yes. .
10 0 And the mill certificates of the steel robar, 11 et cetera?
12 A Very definitely the design and the blueprints, g 13 and I think design and blueprints is a pretty good indica-14 tion about material properties, too.
2g 15 3a fis p3 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 4 i 24 !
~
25 1
lt w ,v . - - - - - - -- - - -
t l
? 787
- 3a epbl I O In footnote 11 you refer to two phrases, "at 2 workine stress level" and "at yield peint". Could y:u give 5.370 i
3 I ma e definition of both of those?
4 A (Witness Johnson) The five percent - yield is :
5 defined as when a - har continues to deform with no increase 6 in load. Normally as you load a member up, the more load, 7 the more deformation. But when you reach a point that it 8 continues to displace under the same lotd, that's yield.
? Working stress level ic usually taken somminert-10 between 50 to 60 percsnt of yield.
11 0 Could you define the phrase "clas -d'"S' 12 A Elastic limit has several definitions. It's
?
13 usually whare the structure starts to deviate from linsar-14 ity. In other words, I think I e.:pl-Ned earlier it would 15 j be similar - let's say we pushed en somethine with a five l i 16 pound load and it moved one-half an inch, e.nd we pushed en 17 it with a ten pound load, and it moved an inch it doublef.
1S If we pushed on it with a 15 pound locd and it 4
19 moved two incher, then it's starting to go nonlinear. It's 20 not proportional.
21 l So elastic limit could be censide: ad cs thi: liner 22 ) :
limit.
? Hou do you mns . it i: uhs firsu icnt.n=e unfcr 2; /.I yy'l (
Mczic: I' Inci u ic h io =.:.tL:ni I' "'ho s.lastic linit thera I w: 21d Is.y would hs 25
.1 l'I h
780 I similar to a definition of when the structure yields.
mpb2 2 When the structure yields in whe.t way, at all, cr--l
( O 3 A' That woulu be -- well, an element of tho structure, r
1 4 in other words, we're not proportional any nero, or possibly 5 wtre close to a yield. state.
6 What is inelastic deformation besides cracking?
0 7 A Inelastic deformation could mean yielding of o 8 reinforcing steel or structural members.
9 O Are you familiar with the foundation, that is the 10 rock and the foundation underneath the Trojan Plant?
11 You say on page 27 of your testimony, you talk 12 about 13
" ...the plant is founded on rock with 14 infinite rigidity."
15 Are you familiar with the details of that founda- f 1
16 tien? j A (Witness Katanics) We are reasonably familiar to 17 .
18 the extent that is required for structural design and 19 structural evaluation. ,
t 20 This is not a direct reflection to D; this is an !
5 21 answer for your question.
22 Q Are you familiar with a paper produced by 23 John A. Bloem and associatss, enginecrs, locrted in 24 ] San .*rancisco that was pr:deced Juns 23, 1970, callei The j i
25 Review of the Scisnic Design Crit 2ria for tha Trojan nuclear i
i 1
. ~ .- - _ . -
I 789 i
mpb3 I Plant?
2 !
A Yes, I'm f ar.iliar.
3 Q Do you reen11 at all any details on the foundation l
4 of the Trojan Plant?
5 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, again I will object to 6 this being beyond the scope of the hearing. The report 7 she's. referring to was involved in the original qualification 8 of the plant. .
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, I believe it was.
10 What's the purpose of the inquiry?
11 MS. ECLL: They talk in their testimony about the 12 foundation of the Trojan Plant, and I'm trying to find oun v 13 if they know anything more than what it just says here, 14 which is that it's founded on rock with infinite rigidity. .
15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I think the statement is that 16 the analyses assumed it was, so they took it from there. I 17 think the precedant was established by the former seisrJ.c 18 studies and so on in a previous hearing.
19 BY MS. BELL:
20 0 could you tell me what kind of degrse of conserva-21 tism you refer to when you say it is a conservative casumption.
22 or ic that just an overall statement?
A ("itnc0s Cohnson) No, there's two itC.S two {
23 >
8 6 '
un .;22 2if.
24 l miljer itSr0 t!" Et '..*oul d d.J*.tCr hir O . '. h 2.t Of ~.J'C '.?' k 25 Frsviously is that no credit hcs becn ta':sn for what ir i
t 1
790 l
1 mpb4 I commonly called foundation danping, or the ability of the e g vibrational energy to be transferred into the 5 .ndauion. l l
3 And with this type of structure, the shape of the vibration 4 modes with the fixed condition asstrnption should lead no 5 higher - at least higher bending moments being applied to 6 the structure.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Pardon me, Ms. Ball. Do you 8 think you'll be through in five or ten minutss?
D MS. BELL: No.
10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'm not pressing you.
11 MS. BELL: No.
12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We'll take our recess now, then.
m 13 (Recess.)
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right.
15 Ms. Bell, you may proceed.
16 MS. BELL: Thank you.
17 BY MS. BELL:
18 0 You stated before that you're familiar with the 19 review of the design criteria for the Trojan Nuclear Power 20 Plant produced by John A. Bloom Associatos, correct?
21 A (Witness Johnson) We have read it.
22 O Did you use that as a basis for your testimony en i
23 the founds.tien cf the Trojan Plant?
24 II
.> (Viidusc Anfarson) Mc.
I 25 We used ts c. basic the FShR. I 1
1 1 . _ ,
I 1
i 791 mpb5 I O And that was all?
2 A That was all.
l J
9
- I Q Are you familiar with the section in which it 4
outlines how the various buildings will be stabili::ed into 5 the foundation?
6 MR. BANTS: I guess this is the same objection, 7
Mr. Chairman, concerning the Bloon report and its contents,
. 8 since it wa.s considered as a part of the original qualifica-9 tien and license procedure.
10 CRAIRf 7di MILLF.R: I thought this question related 11 to the FSAR. -
12 MS. BELL: No, this relates to the John A. Bloon 13 study.
14 CHAIRMAN .*N.ER: Then I'll sustain the objectio: .
15 BY MS. BELL:
16 0 Could you tell ne how you ner. cure the actual 17 elastic properties of the foundation naterials as refa red 18 to in Section D, paga 27, Rigid Versus Nonrigid Foundation?
. 19 A (iTitness Ea**nics) This is not withi.1 cur area 20 of erpertise.
P 21 ife are receivincI *b "#c: nation cs test results 22 by geciccists, m:de by geclogicts.
I, 23 li O I"hich gecicciets?
fi 2/. !l A '?_11 tchecvsr is mzting thc ti.-tr. "2 %:. :~ - -h t l t
25 kind cf :csts the/ arc, sai:nic wave rect: ind coaprascien i
792 I
mpb6 tests. But this is not in our area of expertise.
,- 2 0 You refer to this in your testimony. Where did 3
you get this information?
?
MR. B7dIKS: Here again, Mr. Chairman, it says in 5 the testimony they assume what the FSAR says.
O CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, I don't quite see it in 7 those terms. It is assumed, according to the first sentence, 8 that the seismic analysis assumed that it was bedded on rock 9 with infinite rigidity. Then we take that as the assumption, 10 and we've discussed that before.
11 Ms. Dell, you're not going back to that, e.re you?
12 MS. BELL: No, I'm referring to the third sentence 13 in that same paragraph that says:
~
14 " Incorporating the actual elastic 15 properties of the foundation material and 16 the energy dissipation characteristics of 17 the foundation system in the seismic analy-18 ses would lead to lower but more realistic 19 seismic responses."
20 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. So I understood.
21 And you may answar that.
I2 WITNESS JOH?7 Soli: We've not done this analysis.
23 The ?SAR states shear wave cvc.lo.::itie in uht 24 r:nge. of 5:30 fast per se:end. It ir corr.cn 4.n nra indue ry 25 to clessify a foundation as rigid whan the chear wave '
i
}
i I __
f f 793 I
mpb7 velocity is greater than 3500 feet per second. j ,
i -
p
(._
s.
IIowever, we have run studies on other plants anc Ii ,
3 have included the actual foundation material properties, both f
( 4 the stiffness anil damping properties. And from those. studies 5 we noticed that the response will decrease when one properly 6 considers the foundation properties.
7 And if what is done -- such ac what was done on f 8 the Trojan str.dy, which is the assumption of infinits rigid-8 ity, that is conservative.
10 BY MS. DELL:
11 O Would you agree with the following statement: +
12 That from some studies you determined that:
13 " Incorporating the actual elastic properties
(.
14 of the foundation materit1,.." et cetera "...would -
15 lead to lower but more realistic seismic responsas."
I i 16 Is that a Bechtel statement? I'm reading from !
17 your testimony at page 27. ,
18 A (Witness White) It's the last sentence in Section f 19 D, right? ,
20 0 Right, the first paragraph of Section D. ,
21 A (Ultncss Johnson) Yes, that's a Eechtel statement. ,
22 O Then I'm trying to understand why you can't answ--
t t
23 my question about how one macsces actual clastic prepr.rtica.
24 Let m+. ask anc ther cuestien. ;
25 Where did you get this infc =ation der thic la00 t _ _ , _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ .
. . _ . _ _ ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ .
P -
794 mpb8 I sentence? )
2 A Okay.
3 we e ve done studies on other plants, and through
' 4 these studies have seen that when one unkes the assumption of 5 infinite rigidity, does an analysis and then compares that 6 with an analysis that utilizes the foundation properties, 1 1
7 both the stiffness and the damping, and makes a comparison j i
8 of those two, then that's whst primarily backs up my state-9 ment that by including these properties one would get more 10 realistic responses.
11 0 When you say "we did these studies" you mean you, 12 Bechtel?
. 13 A Bechtel.
14 O And you are familiar with those studies? .,
15 A Yes, I've seen them over the years.
16 0 Could you give me the reference, what thosc studic:
17 are that you're referring to?
18 A I don't have a referance right now. There have 19 been a variety of reports over the years that have looked 20 into this.
21 0 You can'u give me anything more specific than just 22 a variety of reports?
g3 , A tio . f g4 O Could thos be providad?
25 A They could be. I don': rcally know tehtt 20 i l
1 i i I
795 1
mpb9 I significance here is. And I don't know the cotur1 status of 2
( those.
3 'Q Could a-list of the documents that you used to l 4
prepare -- to arrive at this last sentence in your testimony I
5 be provided?
6 A (Witness Katanics) I don't believe we can fully 7 commit ourselves. These are made for specific clients from ]
i 1
8 all over the country, and in fact all over the world. And .]
l 9- I'm not exactly sure what the legal and contractual implica- ;
1 to tions of work being done for various clients, that it can he 11 provided, ,
1 12 I think we would need here help from both our 13 legal counsel and from our own management. This panel I ;
q i
14 don't think is in a position to commit ourselves to provide -
1 15 information -- cpecific studies made for othar clients for
.i 16 other projectc.
17 Everything, of course, that is on file with the -
18 NRC in the Public Document Roc:a wa can provide. And I thirJ:
19 we can search for some information in this area that probably i
20 you will find in the public record already. .
, 21 G Thank you. ,
22 In arriving at this last state annt in this para-i '
23 ! graph did you ute cverything that is cvailicia to you en th: l
.k. Cr i: '= i :
34 [ cubject. or did ycu .:se specific doctrcnts? i 1
25 someuhing that ycu just decided was trus?
- i. :
_. - _ .~ - __ . . . _ . _ . . _ - . . , _ . . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . . . - , , , _ . ~ , - . . . . . _ . . - . _ , _ . , _ . . . , . . . . _ _ .
r j- !
796 i
t i
=pb10 I A Or'itness Johnsen) Mo. Like I've sEid, v6've e s.
- I l
i seer threuth studies that this is true. O r :ecert :t ::.1; 3 i
- [ backs this up. lihan it co= pares the response, using c fined i. .
1 I i 4, base analycis and that of a flexible bcce anslysis, ths ,
5 flexible base had a two percant, apprcx'-*tely a tw: percen:
6 higher response level, but did not use the foundatica dampiEg 7 charactaristics. I 1
. 6 So I think good proef has bean previded for this ]
i .
9 right in our s" Wttnis.
to , O So this statenant is basad c: yeur raport?
11 L) A It can be censidnred to be based c= the repc t. l t '
I 12 O And would you be able to provide additiona' : '
13 references that you usad to come up with this statc: .cnt?
l* '
14 CEAIFF.A*: KIL F.R: Ms. Scil, we're let yo == into s
G a Board, hewever, h:s serious d nhts n l 15 )
I this quite a bit. .
t i
16l ,
to its natariality. :
We really doubt, given the fae: that the infe 2.-
17 ) . ,
tien cane fron the FSAR, assuming that, the other state =2nt l , :
18 '
I
. 19 to us doesn't seer. to be natarial one vay or the other. l. :
20 MS . SE.*.L: I'n enly trying to figure cut where !
l
- 21 t they cans up with thic statenent, cad they cas.
- to first say :
22 O it was the ?SAR; =cv the" say it is only their rancrt. And l 11 I i N
23 f, ~
i= b:r cen th:2 thsJ stid i conid hrvc h2en e~r ything t':: !
t i I Il f.I:. is cynil bl3 :: th m. . }
a,.O m~...,.,._
.-a - =.. ef 2 m. ...
. . ... .u_._._. .
I !
p f
f< .
i !
l, .
I r
....__c___. _.
797 1 I explain the basis for our reasoning, both to the panel and mpbil l 2
to Ms. Dell. .
l DR. Mc COLLUM: First, is it not true that the 4 thing you got from the PSAR was the 5500 number?
5 WITNESS JOmTSON: Yes, sir. -
6 DR.' MC COLLUM: New once you had that'and you 7 made your flexible and fixed base analyses, the 5500 gave 8 you the basis'for doing the flexible base analyses? -
9 WITNESS JOmiSON: Yes, it did.
10 DR. MC COLLUM: Then that's an example of saying 11 if there were only two percent difference, that is assentially 12 a good approximation to say that it is a fixed base.
13 WIT!TESS JOHNSON: Yes, sir.
14 DR. MC COLLUM: That's his rationale for conclud-15 ing that he is right here. But nevertheless our rationalc 16 is that a person who is knowledgeabic in the seismic field 17 is indeed knowledgeable of this kind of activity which led 15 them to the point where they took these two tests, evaluated 19 them, and concluded, then, from that quantitative analysis 20 that indeed their assumptions were right.
21 That's the way I rationalize it.
22 CimIRMTJi MILLER: Do you follow our roasening, t
23 Ms. Bell? We're not trying to cut y=u off. Wa're just l
g simply saying in docs.:t recily ack2 E.ny differ n et'. in : r 23 decisionmaking, which is ancthar way of referring ::
1 i
.. ~_ _ _ . , - _ . _ . ._ . _ _ __ _ _
i l
798 i
- pb12
' materiality or relevance. And the fact they put it in here 2
- you don't have to contradict it or question it if it 3
doesn't mLke any diffarance to the roard.
l 4
De you understand that concept? l 5
MS. BELL: 7as.
. and 3a 7
8 9
10 11 12
. 13
- f I :
14 l t .
I 10 ,
16 17 18
~
19 20 21 l 4
22 s !
23 i ac . .
- l .
. , , . .,_;,., -. --- n, , . . - w -e, - ..- -, . . -.. r- - -- - , .-, --.e - - - , . , ,
- ~ . . . . . . . . - .
)
799 I
3B agbl BY MS. BELL:
2 Q Am I to assume that in the Trojan control building 3
supplemental evaluation, Page 8-1, when you refer to rock, s 4 that this is the same assumption of rock with infinite 5 rigidity that was provided from the FSAR on Page '27 of your 6 testimony?
C6 7 A (Witness Katanics) No, this is not the same
- 8 rock. This is a very shallow layer of lesser quality of 9 rock which was conservatively assumed in this particular 10 . analysis, when you refer to the tuff, I believe, it's not the 11 same rock.
12 Q Is this some sort of hypothetical rock?
13 A It's a rock that, as I was e.yplained by the 14 geologist, is found in some quantity in the area and, therefort. ,
t I '
- 1 15 -
it was assumed to be there for this particular annlysis.
!G The scismic wave vel.ecities that are -- based on
- 17 other types of tests are reflecting the true composition ;
1 -
l 13 on the full rock.
1 i
. .9 Q You said the geologist. Who are you referring l
l 20 to?
21 A These are our staff geologists, Bechtel staff 22 :
geologists.
23 Q Did you personally ccnfer crally with all c:sff 24[ gcciogists at 3schtti, or did they produce nas reper; taac ;
I '
25 you used te write this or what?
i
. - , . - - . . . _ . . , . . - . - . . . . , , , , . - - - , _ - , . ~ . - - _ - - . . - - . . - . .
800
' I'm doing both. I'm having a report, and I'm agb2 A 2
personally conferring with them.
, O You have a report? Or there is one being preparsd?
4 A Yes, we have a report.
5 And does that report have a name?
0 6
A I can tell the name of the individual who made I Two persons contributed who reported those the report.
- 8 particular properties. One is Mr. Adair, and the other is 9 Mr. Cole McClure.
10 CHAIRMtd MILLER: As in C-o-1-e?
II WITNESS KATANICS: C-e-1-e, yes, sir.
12 BY HS. BELL:
13 Q On Page 29, the last paragraph of your conclusions, 14 you say:
15 " Based on e.11 our investigations and 16 evaluations...." '
17 What does this include, and is it the four of you 18 that you mean by that?
. ; 19 A (Witness Anderson) It includes all of that ,
I
'20 described in the references to the testimony.
! .i
- 21 Q Okay. Anything that's attached to .his and no e 22 more?
20 A Everything *7e've done which is bacically feceribat f
24 I in these documants.
25 Q Your last sentence ends: ;
I e
f
_ _ . . . _ . - . . _ -. _ . . . _ . - . - . _ . - . . _ . , . . . . . , _ . . _ . . - , _ . . ~ _ ~ . _ -
801 1
~
agb3 "....we conclude that the control 2
- building is entirely suitable for continued p safe operation of the plant."
4 Do you maan this forevar and, if not, how long?
5 We believe that it's suitable for safe operation A
of the plant, without regard for interim operation. That's
~
7 That's what we have written down, it's the way we see this.
safe to operate this plant.
9 For no period -- it has no period of time?
Q 10 A Without specifying the time period.
i 11 0 You do not specify a time period. Does tnat mcen l 12 forever?
I A For the life of the plant. i 14 For the life of the plant.
O 15 In Appendix.A on Page 30, about related investi- ;
, 16 gations, you refer to -- halfway down you refer to:-
17 "A survey was conducted to determine 18 the capability of safety-related equipment,
- 19 !
- piping and electrical cabling to withstand
, 20 dispiacement." i 21 Who did this survey? l 22 A A ter.m of engineers from Bechtel '.7ent to the. sits !
and made a . survey.
23 .ill '
24h G h"n n did this nappen?
b 25 l A I believe it was sometime in Augno . -
1 !
f I
.-- .-,-,,v ,,,- ,- - -
-m.-.- v,v-,-,. ,.w-- ,.-,.w, - , c ,-----v-s, w: w
I.
002 f
Did this team have a name of any sort? I agb4 Q l
2 Just some engineers who were workinc on the
(
A ',
3 project that we sent up there that were f amiliar with the
(_' 4 project and understood what they were looking at and locking i
for. - ,
I 6 Q Does the survey have a name?
7 A No.
- 8 Q Have you read the survey?
9 A Yes, I have.
10 Q Have the rest of the panel read the survey?
11 A (Witness Katanics) I don't recall.
12 A (Witness Johnson) I have not.
o 13 C A (Witness Katanics) I was informed on the content.
14 Q Who was it you were informed by, by'Mr. Anderson 15 or somebody else?
16 A (Witness Anderson) And the project people who 17 made the survey.
19 O Do you know personally the names of the people
- 19 who did that? Who did the survey, the project people?
20 , A ,For the most part, yes. Carl Gross, the civil 21 structural engineer, was involved in the survey.,
22 I'd have to look at my notec on this. I don't 23 havf thosc winn me.
24 d Q Wculd t!uz surve y be t vc.ila51c. to us 2.n :. :
Il 25 hearing, co 11d that be provided by you?
I
'.4 i
_ 1 !
~. _ , . _ __
n 003 agb5 A If PGE directs us to do that, we'll provide it.
I O Mr. Anderson, since you are the ene person who 1
has read the survey, it says -- after that it says:
4 " Conservatively, the survey investi-5 gated the sensitivity of the safety-related 6 components...," et cetera.
t 7 How was this investigation conducted?
f 8 A These engineers that are familiar with the plant 9 went to the plant and physically looked at the equipme.nt, 10 looked at the connections between components of equipment II and estimated that if the building did have very large dis-12 placements much larger than we expect, in the range of one
\ .,
13 inch oetween floors and three to six inches at the top of the 14 building, they verified that the equipment would be able to .
15 withstand those large displacements.
, 16 Now we don't expect displacanente in that range 17 but we investigated this just to provide additicnal informatic 18 as to the capability of equipment in the building to withstar.
19 earthquake -- possible earthquake conditions. .
20 Q A clarification: When you say they went out and 21j physically looked at it and then you say they estimated 22 -I certain things, ara those linked, or was estimation separate r fi.i from --
il 24 ' A Ho, they looked at it .nd er:ia.ated ch:. c:nditJ : .
25 ' of .his equipment or piping or ciscr.rica'. rignt at tha sir.s.
l
}
t; e
9 OUT 1
.I 1
And do you have any personal knowledge of what 4
agb6 O
/.~ vent into that estimation?
3 A Yes, I do. I looked very carefully at the i 4 pictures that were taken and put into their report, and I g .
verified some of their work when I was at the site last 6
Friday. ;
7 Did you provide a written verification of that Q
~
. 8
. report?
i ,
9 A No.
10 You continue to say: I Q
I1 " Conservatively,.the curvey investi-12 gated the sensitivity of the safety-related ,
13 components...."
( ,
14 How was tne sensitivity measured?
I 15 A We instructed the survey team to assume that ;
lo there was a'one-inch movement between floor and ceiling, 17 a one-inch displacement.
18 They looked at what was connected between the l ,
. 19 floor and ceiling, and evaluated or analyzed what it would 20 mean to that equipment if these kinds of displacements were l
. 21 to take place. ! ,
22 Q In the overall, would you be able to say hcw
'~ 22 _
sensitive unose components are?
2' A They'rs nOt vary sensif.ivr. to inuse. iizyli.0:w tr.
25 There's a let of give in the electrical cabling, piping cyct =
i
-...s. -.. .
i 805 1
agb7 have a great deal of flexibility, it's just not sensitive r 2
~l to these kinds of displacements.
3 -l O Enat is the extent of your knowledgo of safety-4 related equipmsnt and operation of -
5 A We understand what safety-related equipment is 6
and what the systems are that are involved in safety. They're 7
clearly defined in the FSAR.
B Q so, if you were to be "given these pictures cr.d O
~
l the survey and an explanation you would he fa=ilic witt.
10 the function of all the safety-related equipmsst cad pipc?
11 i A Yes. Yes, I would, and so were the engineers 12 that went up and made the survey.
1 ~'
CEAIRMAN P m R: Pardon me. Let me inquire
~
14 t- just a minute. !
15 I thought safety-ralated equip ant as an issue was deferred pending the giving of the infernation botn I7
- to the Staff and to the parties, including Intervenors. Is 18 this the same arca of inquiry now cr is this different?
r
- 19 MR. BANKS: I think what's being inquired into, 20 1*. Chairman - I would agree that that should be deferred - ,
El
{ but this is a survey that was conducted before the request 99
- i i that is presently being worked on. If I'm nct ed.sta. hen, I 23 think this survey was 0 nduOtad DECh in EEOCD. DC CEO N1 n
4
] !!ATC'."1..l. 25 ?.1"LiS JJd 303n pf.020l** lod 3r.d D1dO.~1 t h ~.- I ~.E d 2 e .t "
e.
D. I;t ashed thLt qu35tiCn. ,
g 1
1 Ik 1 .. __ -
._ _. a. ._._ _ . - . .
l' S06 l agb8 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: My inquiry is whether we're I gains to be doing this thing piecenical or is this is s sparabia 3 subject that is proper to be gone into now, in light of the ,
- fact that we have deferred the STARDYNE impact.
5 I think it's a separable subject. I MR. BANKS:
6 think' the amount of displacement is probably -
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very well.
8 DR. PAXTON: Is it fair to say that this relates 9 to static displacer.ent and what is deferred is a dynamic 10 study, is that correct?
11 WITNESS ANDERSO'!: To some degrec I think that's 12 correct. This relates to a study of what hind of displaceraent:
-- 13 the building could -- the equipment in the building could 14 take.
15 The other relates to more frequency qualificaticns 16 tuning of the equipment and piping, which would be dyna'aic.
f 17 DR. MC COLLOM: Your study in this one, did it
.16 include judgments of whether the equipment would continue 19 -
to operate?
20 WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes, it did.
21 C1! AIRMAN MILLER: I hope you're all sure that 22 it's separable, and that ycu're not going to be dismayed L
23 4 when we start sustaining objeections if yce :. tart dein;; it 4
ti 24 li again.
Let's go anead. You seem to know whe you're doi:
25
. .i.
.-- - . . - -- ,- ,,--,e
807 4
1 agb9 MS. BELL: I'.d have to say I really don't.
' (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'm with you on that, Ms. Dell.
4 MS. BELL: I know what I have before me is 5
Appendix A which is testizaony prepared by this panel and my 6
questions are pretty directly related to that.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The question is whether they 8
impact upon other deferred matters or not, and I guess the 9 concensus seems to be not, so we're letting you go ahead.
10 But we're cautioning everybody that we're going i
II to go around the track on it once and not twice.
12 You may continue. ,
\ 13 MS. BELL: When PGEs testimony comes in about 14 the cafety-related equipment, will this panel be available 15 to 15e questioned on this part of the testimony and, if so, 16 Isd be willing to skip over it.
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER: They will either be available 19 or there'll be agreemen", among all parties - I don't know 19 the circumstances, whether it could be done by deposition - j 20 but we require agreement. If not agreement, the panel will f
21 be recalled. ,
22 MR. BANKS: I'm not sure r. hat cll the members of i
i 23 p. the pcnol thct are here 'teday woul.! really bc :-ble to spoe.h 3 I!
24 h to what you::s talk:.ng abcut, rue I ccn :..;surc yeu that :.nc {l l
25 peopla who will be able to spesh to it, some of whcm may be l l
l
-l
\ \
! ) ,
, . . , - - - - ,, - - - - , - . , . -.-r- - , , - - ,. ., -,, , ,,.,...n., - . , , -
808 agbl on the panel right here, will be made available if that's 2
agreeable.
2 MS. SELL: Could I find out, then, who prepared 4
- Appendix A?
5 BY HS. BELL:
O Could you respond to that, you on the panel?
7 A (Witness Anderson) We all contributed to Appendix S
A. I probably made the greatest contribution to it.
9 MS. BELL: Then I'd be willing to defer en to continuing in this area.
II CIIAIRMAU MILLER: Very well. You may defer.
12 yogell have the opportunity, then, when the material is i 13 available and in whatever form it takes, tnen you.may conduct 14 your inquiry to include the entire subject matter. .
15 MR. BANKS: The only thing I'm concerned about, 16 fir. Chairman -
17 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, the Staff views this 18 as being a severable matter. This appears to be dealing herc 19 with relative displacements' for example, between floors of
, l l
l 20 the control building, relative displacements between the control l I
21 building and the other buildings, and the safety-related
- 22 , cabling and piping considered in view of those relative i 4 i
~
22 !.l ; displacements, which is severable -- n dif ferent mattar thr.:
I i.
l 24 lj the me.tter Of the :.ffeg s Of fic$r rc ponse spectra.
CEAIR:"ui ILLER: Describe taa differenca for us.
%S Yl l ,
i i-li i;
809 1
agb11 I've been accepting the terminology when it was described 2
originally, but I think now we had better find out what you're 3
talking about. Fnat did we defer?
1 4 Mr. Chairman, we do have a gentleman MR. _GRA'l:
5 who, I believe, can describe the difference, if that here
- would be helpful.
7 Very well.
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
3 Well the floor response spectra MR. HERRING:
9 are a measure of the response of the equipment so far as to vibration and how the ground motion is going to be emplified i
II through the structure and transfer initini loading, acceleratiori!
I 12 type loading, on equipment, pipes and so forth. ,
l I
\ II The displacements are focusing more on the responsel l
I4 of the structure itself and would not be as sensitive as the [
f5 response spectra to the anomalies that have been noted.
N CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'm going to call on my angert I7 to walk to your expert. Dr. Mocollom will. inquire. i 18 DR. MC COLLUM: Aren't the frequencies present 10 in the floor when you get the displacement, isn't that what.
20 causes the displacement?
21 Isn't it a form of sequence of pulses which contan.
22 frequencies? ,
I i
- i
! 22 MR. HERRING: But in the dispiccc:ncetc, you're p
.I 24 l, looking mere. at peak respons:s.
25 '
DR. MC COLLUM: However, they're concluding the.t f
4
010 agb12 the equipment will continue to work. Is that not related to
- 2 the frequencies that were present, that struck the equipacnt?
3 A ' There are two effects that are going to effect 4 '
and one is the inertial loading that you're going to get 5 from the motion of the floor, and the other would be the relative displacement that that equipment is going to be 7 subject to.
- 8 You know,
. They're two different types of loadq.
9 are things going to pull apcrt, whereas you can look at it 10 that the response spectra are really breaking down the U motion into its frequency components, finding out at what 12 frequencies you're going to have significant energy content.
( 13 DR. MC COLLOM: Could I ask if there was any 14 consideration of the motile frequencies' affect on the IS operation of equipment as your people investigated it?
16 Just as a folicw-up there, in what I understand 17 the Staff is coming through with, they said the first 18 frequency, the first motile frequency had been considered in >
19 terms of whether the equipment would continue to operate.
20 And the conclusion was it would. .
21 And then they said, But look, there's a second 22 motile frequency which we think may have an impact that hasn't ,
22 i - bean looked at. !
i, t
24 Iid your people. lock at that firrt motile fr quency.
25 when they were saying, Yes, the safety-related equipment will j ,
i e
is,
---.m.. ,, __. - .e_, . . . _ . . . . . . _ ,.~....._. . .- _ . .-
011 e agb13 work after this displacement?
2 .
WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes, we did and that was given in Answer 3-B to the NRC Staff questions.
4 MR. BANKS: Our position is exactly the same 5
as the Staff's, if the Staff's is understandable. But if you can't see the separation, we do not plan to provide any 7
additional information on the matter that's contained in
- 8 Appendix A. It's on this other point they were investigating 8
that we will supply the oral testimony and probably sens 10
. written testimony.
II (The Board conferring.)
I2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We do believe that there's a 13
\. close question as to interconnection but that there is I4 sufficient differentiation, especially in view of the prepared .
15 written testimony, that whil'e the panel is here, as a 16 practical. matter -- and Mr. Kafoury will understand, 17- lawyers are pragmatic - you may continue and cover that
- 18. matter with the panel here and what will be reserved will
- 19' . be that which has been described by the Staff and concurred in 20 in substantial part by the attorney for the Licensee.
21 Proceed.
22 MR. ROSOLIE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I guess 23 I don't fully understand but it seems to me thst -- I' don't 24 want to get into tne testimony or anynaing, but it woule, i
25 seem to me that there would be some connection in that, at
. _ _ ._. 1
812 1
agble one point you have the safety-related equipment vibrating
< 2 and you would have some sort of displacement and perhaps there might be a relationship of the two that when you t
i 4 combine the two something may occur, that's what I see offhe.nd.
5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Let's take the displacement ,
first. Provide a displacement expert who testifies. And 7 then if there .be some additional factors, because you're B
going into the dynamics of it, let her second group, whoever they may consist of, take care of the interstices. How's {
that?
" MR. ROSOLIE: Okay. .
12 You may go ahead, Ms.. Bell.
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I3 MS. BELL: Let me see if I can figure out I# where I was. ,
C7 I3 16 !
i 17 18
- 19 20 21 ,
22 14 25 i 11
813 3c mpl i I BY MS. BELL:
2 O on page 31 you refer to that:
3 "The survey concluded that the cafety-4 related equipment located in the control 5 Building can withstand large displacements..."
O How would a large displacement affect different 7 types of safety-related equipment, or would you just lump 8 all the safety-related equipment together and say it would 9 have the same effect?
10 A (Witness Anderson) We just looked at all of it.
11 We do not expect these large displacements, but we looked at 12 tr safety-relate. nuipment to see if something was connected
(' 13 in such a way that large displacements would affect it.
14 This just has to do with displacements; not with 15 frequency and moving back and forth. But if the building had 16 a it.rge displaecment what would happen.
17 Wo.found, for example, a fire pipe, a fire line 18 running from floor to ceiling straight, and grouted into the 13 floor and grouted into the ceiling; what would happen to that 20 pipe if the flow moved one inch relative to the -- or the 21 ceiling mcved one inch relative ~;o the floor. And we inves ti-22 gated that kind of thing. We tanted to be sure that if ther:
23 .
were ecvaments hetucan floors there wasn't comething that i
34 was connected in Tch a way that it would rip out er 2cil.
25 And we found tha; this was the case, that the equipment was--
j' 614 mpb2 I* that it was not the case, I should say; that the equipment
' 2 has great ability to withstand these la ce displacements. ,
3 0 In the study is it laid out in detail what safety-8 4 related equipment you're talking about, and how a displacement;I 5 or a large displacement would affect each one of those things?.
6 A Me defined which equipment we looked at. And we !
- 1 7 also state that large deflections would not affect them.
t 8 .O And does that go for all the safaty-related eculp- l 9 ment, or is that a geiefalization ande frem a few e::amplas 10 that you locked at and exardned? ,
11 A It covers all the equipment that vac identified ,
12 in the control building and was M of the survey. :
i
(' 13 CHAIRMAN Fin: Pardon me.
14 DR. MC COLLUM: May I interrupt a minute?
15 I'm going to try again, because I think this is 16 still getting into sc=ething that I'm not sure the survey 17 covered.
18 Did you take the modal frequsncies that would 19 have resulted in a one inch movement between floors, apply 20 that to the safety-related equipment, and conclude that it 21 would withstand the frequencias that were present in that 22 and continue to operate?
23 :I WI"!TI.SS ANDIESC'I: !io r we just si=cly leched at f
24 if for ser. reasen you have a def12cuien bewcan fic::s cf I
25 ene in=h, would the eclipment withettnd uhat deficctica. It ,
l
. k __
815 mpb 3 I had nothing to do with frequencies.
2 DR. MC COLLUM: All right. That's fine.
3 Go ahead.
4 BY MS. BELL:
5 Q You state in the second paragraph on page 31:
6 "With one exception, it was concluded that 7 the original seismic qualifier. tion of the safety-
~
8 related components, equipment, and systems are .
9 not affected by the deficiency." l i
10 Did you in fact look and analyze eve.m./ single 11 safety-related piece of equipment, or did you examine and 1 12 analyze a couple of things, a partial number of things, and
'. 13 than make a generalization?
14 A (Witness Anderson) We analyzed some equipment .
15 that we thought.needed to be analyzed. Most of it you can 16 see by inspection. A qualified stress analyst or c qualified ;
17 engineer can look at this kind of equipment and see by 18 inspection that there is plenty of capability to withstand ,
I 19 differential movement.
20 Let me give you another example. This may be a .
1 i
' s 21 little cicarer.
22 Between buildings we have electricci cable trays, 23 and the cable trays are broken betecen buildingc. And there's N
24 a kind of n icep in the cablos, and thr.Fs whct they lech for: is that icop thcrs. If one building mems rclative te !
25 n.
i 816 i mpb4 I the othar building, that loop will allow that movement to l
' 2 take place without affecting the operation of those s1cetrical 3 cables. Thau's the kind ( . thing they were doing. !
/- i t 4 Now if they found a pipe lika this one that appear I 5 ed to be overstressed from this kind of condition, then it 6 '
was looked at in further detail. -
7 A (Witness White) Well, it r.ay not have appeared g i
y 6 to have looked overstressed just from the field survey, but i 9 it was something that was ebcarved that needed some analycis.
10 I mean you couldn't tell by inspection that it was chay .or '.
i 11 i if it wasn't. !
12 Q Could you give me an idea which safety-related I i
( '
13 equipment needed analysis rathat than just a su::r.ary incpec- i
(
14 tion? '.
I 15 A (Witness Andcrcon) I don't have that survey with 16 me, and I'm just not able to put that togather. I coulc get 17 that information. l 18 CHAIRMAN MILIIR: When can you provide that? l 19 WITNESS ANDERSON: I'm sure we could get it tonight!
i 20 that information.
21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Vary well. Eave it temorrow, if l 1
22 you would, please. l 23 MR. LANKS: The rcquest shoulf probably be addrcLsd 2t. I te me, but we vill have. it tonorrow.
25 CHAIRMTG: MILI.ER: e you.
Th-.h I
4 eeem ehe w -.. - - - - - e ,-_m . . - - - .
817
=pb5
' DR. MC COLLUM: I would like to find out if the 2
people that made the analysis did it on the basis of concept-3 uclizing a movement of one inch and not on the basis of wh:t s
kind of an inertia would cause it.
5 WITNESS ANDERS0?i: They just conceptualized the e
6 i movecant of one inch, yes. .
7 DR. MC COLLUM: And then caid does that equipe.cnt 8 - did it disconnect, or did it break in that sense?
9 WITNESS ANDERSON: That's correct.
10 DR. MC COLLUM: It's a very si=ple model.
II WITNESS ANDERSON: A very si=ple evaluation.
12 WITNESS KATANICS: Maybe we nhould add, though, f f
13 that we did not identify based on any cale=1ction a one inch I4 relative displacement bet .taen any of the floors.
15 CHAIRMAN ICLLER: Your state = ant it without 16 prejudice. .
17 proceed.
IS SY MS. BELL: :
- i 19 Q In this analysis or cenceptualization of movemen , ;
20 was anything taken into account whnreby thsre nicht bs a 21 , mevenent ene way and then the other way, hew that would affect 22 I the safety-related equipnent, such as the pip: ths.t you, yen 23 d kne'.4, lika a sharp jsrk en way and than snether " y:
U 2"I CEA'KG.E " ILLER: A whiplash cfIs :?
)
i 25 I (Laughter.)
I t
l e
t !
818 .
I MR. BANKS: That's not very popular any more.
tapb6 2 I know that was abandoned years CIIAIRMAff !! ILLER: g 3
,9 ,,
' 4 WITNESS ANDERSON: Dynamic effects wara not con-5 sidered. But you have to consider if the pipe was connected 6 between floor and ceiling, if it moves one inch in that 7 direction or one inch in the other direction, whatever move-
- 8 ment could occur. ,
l I BT MS. BELL:
10 I'm a layperson, right? f Q
11 Would it make any difference, the speed in which i
12 a piece of equipment was moved one way or the other? .
13 A (Witness Anderson) No. The survey'was just 14 looking for maximum displacements that equipment could take. I t
15 Q If thn survey did not take into account the amount 1i -
16 of tima clapsing between movement, in general would the 1 17 amount of tima - could the amount of time affect - or could ; ,
18 the speed at which there was movement affect the integrity of 1 i
' I 19 a system?
20 A I don't see how it could. < 21 Q Page 31, paragraph three, you refer to "all of 22 our analyscs". l 23 Uhatdoesthatinclude,asidefremthiccncstudy,f I i 24 curvey? j , 25 - A Well, that incluins all thb work Wvs dona ~to icohf I. .-.:
s 019 mpb7 I at control building safety-related equipment and the effset 2 of the structural analysis on that equipment. It's all part 3 of this analysis. l 4 Q Could you explain to me what Dr. McCollum's ques-5 tion, Transcript 6589-90 refers to? 6 A Well, we were trying to respond to the question that Dr. McCollum raised in the prehearing conference. It 7 8 was a question really directed to the Staff. 9 "In the event that any failure due to the I to reduced shear capacity caused by a seismic event [ l 11 were to occur, what are the most likely events 12 and what plant features important to safety may (
- 13 not be left functional, in particular those plant i i
14 features necessary to assure the integrity of the i 15 reactor ccolant pressure boundary,'the capability 15 to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a 17 safe condition, and the capability to prevent or 4 18 mitigate the consequences of accidents that could 19 result in potential outside exposure comparable 20 to the guideline exposures of 10 CFR Part 100." 21 0 Thank you. I In your footnote B, could you explain simply ' 22 s 23 What the cooline water lines in som3 room ecols s was, what 24 that means? Also what hinds cf restraints you moan whe. ycu 25 say "rcquires sms.11 restraint "? l
U20' mpb8 I A Well, as I recall, this was a three inch copper
~
2 pipe. And the kind of restraints we would put on that kind 3 of a system would be very similar to a clamp on the muffler 4 of an automobile. It's a kind of a U-joint that sculd go 5 over and just change the natural frequency of'that line. 6 0 What are "some room coolers"? What does that mean? 7 A 'These are heating and ventilating coolers to keep l 8 the room cool. 9 Q Oh. Okay. ! 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Air conditioning? 11 WITNESS ANDERSON: An air conditioning system, 12 yes. 13 BY MS. BELL. 14 Q So you're talking about not displacement of -- 15 not movement of a safety-related system, but the frequcncy? 16 A (Witness Anderson) Now we're talking about 17 frequency, on that page, page 31. 18 0 on page 32 when you talk about ". . .if some local 19 structural failure were to occur..." would this be other 20 than cracking of walls and dislodging of pieces of concrete, 21 or is that a direct reference to those two concepts brought 22 up later in the sentance? g3 A I think that was discuared sarlic- this =cening, 24 what vs were referring to thero. We don't c:Gect local fail- j i 25 cre. But, again, to try to answor this quection, es would j
821 apb9 I expect no more - M Jt were to be local failure, we would 2 expect no more thtn cracking in the walls and possibly scme 2 i dislodging of pieces of concrete from the structu a. , 4 0 okay. I So there's nothing else hypothesized in that 6 phrase " local structural failure'? 7 g yo, 8 0 All right. Thank you. 9 When you refer to "elsetrical equipasnt insida the 10 Control Building, what equipment wonid this bo? I procume 11 it would include cables; and what other things? 12 A Cables e.nd control panels. 13 Q In other words, everything electrical inside the 14 control building? - 15 A Yes. That's the definition, electrical equipmant. I 16 I'm net quita sure I understood the question, , 17 0 I was just trying to make sure if you meant 18 av m/ thing in terms of electrical equipment, or some electri-19 cal equipment. 20 MR. BANKS: Could we have reference to the scntena? 21 WITNESS ANDERSON: The question is still not clear. 22 1C4. BANKS: It says to the aur. ilia: f fecivatcr , t i 25 pump.
~
P.S . LE2: I was talking chout the recend sentene: l 24 l. 25 f on the page that scys: lt
- ,,,- , .,r- , -=r+ - - -
e
822 mpt10 I " Postulating even further that if some 2 cubsequent damage to electrical equipment in-3 side the Control Building were to result, the ! g
'- 4 plant can be safely shut down using manual I 5 controls in local areas outside of the building." i 6 '
WITNESS ANDERSON We were talking there - electri-7 cal equipeent would be the controls, connecting wiring. 1 8 BY HS. BELL: 9 Q And including the wiring itself and cables? 10 A (Witness Anderson) Wiring itself, cables, tray l
)
Ii supports. 12 O Do you know where the manual controls are that k 13 you refer to as being in local areas outside the building? 14 , A Yes, I do. 15 0 Have you seen these?- 16 A YeG. 17 O Could you tell me about where they are? 18 A They're locatad in the auxiliary feed pump area in 19 the turbine building. 20 0 And could you give me any idea of distence from, 21 let's say the control room?
- 22 A You'd have to go down some staire and --
23 Q It's one clavation rc=cved? l 24 A I'd have to :.hink of which c.leve. tion. It uccid bc 25 down from the control room and eve.r - it': in the adjacent
823 r
- 1 I '
mpb11 building, right next to the control building in the au::iliary bay of the turbine building. ', 3 would you say that the operation of the nanual 0
# controls inside the turbine building depend upon the seismic 5 capability of that building in which they are housed?
6 Inside the turbine building? e A 7 O That's correct. 8 A Yes. t 8 0 In what way would somebody in the turbine building ' to be told to go to the manual controls? I scsume they're not } II automatic. 12 Are they. automatic? 13 A They're not automatic. , 14 Q In what way would a person be told, or would that
?
15 person run out from the control room? 16 A I think that question would be better addracssd 17 to the operators. They're in a much better position to answer 18 that. 19 0 You talked about, as an illustration, thtt the 20 auxiliary feedwater pump could be operated manually from a 21 remote station located outside the control building. 22 17here is this remoto statien? 23 A It's in the turbino building. l 24 _Q Ch, it'c the same-one? j i 25 A Yes. a 3
f l 824 mpbl2 3 Q Why do you use the word " remote"? What does that 2 mean? i 3 A Remote from the control building, in a different t ~ r j d building. : 5 0 Are you aware of any studies done on the seismic ! l 6 capability of the turbine building? l-t I 7 A (Witness Katanics) I can answer the question. I will object, Mr. Chairman. i J 8 ME. GRAY: 9 Seismic capability of the turbine building isn't ; 10 an issue.here. It hasn't been establishad anywhere that i 11 there.are any design or other problems. 12 CHAIRMAM MILLERS Collateral estoppel? MR. KAFOURY: Can I be heard on this subject? ( 13 14 CHAIfetAN MILLER: I want to lie sure I've haard i 15 from Mr. Gray completely, 16 Had you finished? 17' MR. GRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Kafoury? 18 1 19 MR. KAFOURY: The question the Board has to 20 consider is all things considered, is operation safe. And that's a pretty broad area. And the question is clsarly 21 1 22 relovant to the very broad question the Board has to decide. MR. BANG: The Licensee would join in thO objec-n tion of the Staff for the :::ne reacon, that it's byend the 24 25 issues of the cace. I i
825 e I CHAIR $ TAN MILLER: In what way is it beyond the-mpb13 2 issues of the case? 3 MR. BANKS: The question is whether - the questionk r. 4 as I understand it, assumes, having been developed front Dr. 5 McCollum, that the control building er something in the
. 6 control building fails. In other words, +4:e wcils collapse 7 or something of that natura.
8 But even Mr. Kafoury has agreed before we started 9 that the control building is capable of withstanding tha 1 to .25 SSE earthquake. And if f.te control building is capable 11 of withstanding that, we're dealing now with a situatiion 12 that's beyond the mestion of whether interim operation and 13 the safety of the control building is involved. 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: It is, then, beyond the SSE, is 15 that what you'ra contanding? t j 16 MR. BMIKS: Yes. i CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. 1
- 17 i
.a basic question I 18 MR. KAFOURY: He's assim ,
1 19 you have to decide in his answer, and he's also quoting me 20 out of his own imagination. CHAIRMAN MTTMR: Thank you. 21 22 Well, were you spsaking metaphorically when you 23 said before the hearing consanced that Mr. Kafot:.y had agreed? l , i 24 I take it you were infarring that rather tha. refsrring to } any specific stipulaticn? { 25
026 mpbl4 I MR. BANKS: No, I recall the Chair asking him that 2 question. g 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Oh, in this hsaring. j f 4 gn, pygg. yog, S CHAIRMAN MILLKR: Oh, les, that is correct; I did.. 6 MR. KAFOURY: And I responded, I'm sorry, I'm 7 supposed to have said that the building can withstand an SSE? ; 1 8 I had not intended to testify to this effcet.
}
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, I think I inquired whether - i 10 there was any contention by any of the parties that the build il l I 11 ing was not capable of uithstanding an SSE of .25. 12 MR. KAFOURY: In an entirely different matter, as ( to whether or not I choose to make a contention and stand my 13 14 ground on the quartion is entirely different from whether l t 15 or not I conceded. 16 The whole point of my opening statemsnt was that ! l i we did not pretend to have the facts. We're here to ses l
. 17 l
whether or not other people do. j 18 i 19 MR. BANKS: I will ge bach and see whether he 20 concedec it or not. 21 My point still is the issue is whether the control
, u 22
' building will withstand the .25 SSE, and we're new dealing l 33j with the turbine building. And I think that* the pcinc of y
;4 the S :aff's objection. f CHAIRMA's MILLnR: We don't take it as a concas:icn,I 25 l I
i 1 I
@27 mpbl5 I but I did ask you and other counsel specifically whether or 2 not there was a contention about the adequacy of the SSE of 3
.25. And it was in that sense that --
4 MR. KAFOURY: We make no contentions of anything. 5 We stake out no positions on anything. 6 On the contrary, we are here simply to examine 7 issues and to raise questions. But neither do we concede 8 anything. 9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: But you don't take positions? 10 MR. KAFOURY: No, I'm not presenting any cvidenc1. 11 CIULIRMAN MILLER: I didn't ask for evidence. 12 But you do tche positions, do you not, or else I 13 misunderstood your opening statement and the thrust of it. 14 However, I guess it doesn't mche that much difforon 15 MR. KAFOURY: My position ic, I do have a position i 16 which is'I would like to see a particular outcome from the { i 17 hearing, which would be an interim order denying operation 18 and requesting a safety audit to find out what other defects { 1 I 19 there may be in the plant which we haven't happened to stumble r 1 20 acrosa yet. CHAIRMAN MILLER: You just remind m". Let me tell , l 21 ;1
]l 22 all counsel and parties that within abeut a veck after the E I conclusion of this ph.se 1 ints. rim operation hc=.ing, ws'rs.
I 2t, going to c::pcet to rcecive proposed findings ~ fcet. We l 25 don't think this is a,n occasion that chould take a leng tim:. 1 I j
828 I We wanted counsel and parties to be aware so they mpbl6 I could be working on it, because they know pretty much what 3
,r- the evidence will be.
i 4 MR. KPSOURY: Certainly. l c8 5 May I be heard very briefly, Mr. ch=4 = n? 6 CHAIRMAN MILLCt Are you sure you want to be? 7 You don't need to be. : We believe that, were it not for the question 8 8 that is before us, namely the safety of interim operation to during the period of modification, that this inquiry would , 11 not be relevant because we a.re not determining whether any 12 other buildings are safe in a seismic sense. 13 However we do believe that the matter has come 14 into issue in the regard that the contention, the position l 15 l being put forward by sono of the parties is that interim [
]
l i i 16 operation can be conducted with reasonable safety to the
- 17 public and to everyone involved during this operation because 1 18 in part we don't know how extensively, but because in part
~
certain of these safety mechanisms and the like can be handled;! 19 , 20 ever though there were a seismic catastrophe in the present 21 state of the control building. ,, 22 In that event it's reasonable to inquire whether i
~
23 or not you could have scfre shutdown crid. the like because tha control IOO"a iD locCt3d olSOWhCra, and it'E ~~or thCO !~aI.CoR
~
24 ud that reason only. Wa're not going to go into the whole 25 ; e
829 mpb17 1 matter of the safety of the control building er any other e 2 buildina, but we do think it does have linits6 rclevance 3 and we will therefore pernit. 4 WInmSS KATANICS: Should I answur the cuestion?
'5 MS. BELL: If you remember it.
6 WITNESS KATANICS: Yes, I remamber, and I read 7 from the material that is in front of you. So it should not f 8 be a great surprise. g As stated in the FSAR, the turbine building is a 10 seismic category 2 structure. It was designed to withstand
;) wind -- I'm sorry, not from the FSAR. I'm reading from 12 Ouestion numbar 1 that was addressed to us by the NRC:
g3 "It was designed to withstand wind, tornado, 14 and UBC seismic ?oads. The design was evaluated 15 for SSE seismic loads to ensure that it would not fail and affect the adjacent category 1 structure, 16 j7 or internal seismic category 1 areas." That's the answer to the question. 18 19 and 3c 20 21 22 23 , 25
)
)
I I l
830 3d ebl 1 DR. MC COLLOM: Excuse me. There vas that? I 2 haven't found it yet. 3 MR. BN7KS: Exhibit 9. 4 Is that where you got it, from the 17RC questions? . 1 5 iCTtTESS KATANICS: Yes. ; i MR.. BANKS: Exhibit 9. What page is it? 6 7 WITNESS KATANICS: Question Number 1. l ICTMESS NTDERSoti: The September 20th submittal, 6 9 Question Number 1. . 8.030 MR. ROSOLIE: Is-there a page number en that? 10 I ICT!TESS KATANCIS: Page 1-1. gg DR. MC COLLOM: You do have to find the right 12 13 report before you can use it. MR. BANKS: Do you have the colored pages in yours? I4 Go down three colored pages and you'll come to the report, 15 the response dated September 20th, but it is in the questions
!S dated october 30th, and it's the first page.
97
. O E M: May I request d at my issue be 18 ,
put in here? I don't have that in my group.
, g CIIAIRMAN MILLER: There's a damping effect that g
crept in somewhere. g (Document handed to the Board.) DR. MC COLLOM: Thcnh you. -
" p, !
Cn?.!R: Uni ::ILLCR: Mr. 2n11,. c:, y.v; ~;irc 2: be f } I- finished in five or ten minuter 7 i l ES i l
.-. .-_.-., _- _- - . .,_,_ ~ ... .,-..._. - . . _,. ~ , _ . _ _ . - - .. -
831 eb2 MS. BELL: Maybe more like 15 or 20. I really 1 - g can't say. I don't think.it will be five or ten. s 3 CHAIR"AM MILLER: All right, we'll take a recess 4 then. We'll be running a little bit late. We do want to finish the panel insof ar as we can today. 5 6 This will give you a chance to study the matter 7 you're into,, but we'll run later if we need to. . 8 We'll take a ten-minute recess. p (Ret 9ss.) CHAIRMAN !! ILLER: You may proceed, Ms. Bell. { 10 BY MS. DELL: 0 Eas there been any. study updating the seismic 12 resistance of the turbine building since this reference to 13 the FSAR? 94 I A (uitness natanies) There was no full-fledged -
,3 16 study to update the seismic analysis of the turbine building. ;
We reanaly::ed the deflection of the turbine building.
- Y * * ** * * * "***
f8 , g A It has no special name. It was done like most of i 20 the other Bechtel calculations. O ilow would one reference it? Doesn't it have n i 21 l title or a nunber or a date? i 22 A The reference that uc nade thrt the turLina 4
,, , [ huilding L*CS Ch0chGd IOr SSE T'J2CrrGd Oc th% Cr gin t.~ f. 3 0 *.
9
?.5
) calculctions.
l
;t
]
S32 eb3 1 Q And there was a second updating study? 'Is that ! ,- 2 true? 3 A I will try to repeat, it was not a second up- , 4 dated study. It was a new check calculation made to chech the deflection of the turbine building. 5 6 Q And what would that new calculation be called? l 7 IIow would one go about referencing that? 8 A It would be called the deflection calculation g on the turbine building. i_ i , 10 0 Would you be able to get your hands on that if fl I f
;3 you needed it?
A Yes. , 12 0 What date was that,done?, 13 A Since our answer went to the NRC on September 20th, 34 I believe it was made between August 1st and maybe September 15 1G 10 0
- 0 Could you tell me what other Trojan Cauegory I g
g Structural designs would be included other than the control l building? , 99 Other Category I structures are of course the 20 \ auxiliary building and the fuel building, the diesel build- , 21 i l ing, the containment. I cannot identify more. ! 22 I f A (Witnces An ers n) Pa-ts of the intake structure, w 23 l the nu::iliary faedpu..p crea int.,id the ::rbir? r ;.iliir ; . u, , I O And those were all investigneed during the 2a i I f i et ; _ __ - , . ., . , - - .-.. . _.. . - _ . . . . . - . _ . ._ .~, _. . , ~ . . . . . _ . _
S33 eb4- ; reevaluation study?
' MR. BAIU;S: Mr. Chairman, --
2
. 3 CHAIRMNT MILLER: I don't think he said that.
tis. DELL: Hell, this is a question. 4 MR. BANRS: I would object to her getting into all-5 . 6 these other buildings. CHAIRMN1 MILLER: Sustained. 7 a You see, you have been permitted to go into one 9 other building because of the location of the manual controls to but that does not include a reevaluation of all. the other buildings. 11 MS. BELL: I'm simply tt"fing to see what is. 12 meant on page 32, the second paragraph, the first sentence 13 u ja by:
" All other Trojan Category I struc- j 93 tural designs were investigated during the re-16 evaluation study...."
17 ' I didn't mean to get into what'the studies say. 93 I simply wanted to have a clarification of that sentence. 99 CHAIRtWI fiILLER: Well, that sentence in the 20 Board's view does not pertain to the question or to the 21 issue of interim operation, and I don't suppose you want to Any matters that are in here that cre f take the ' time now. ;
. h:.
u ' l
;l; no : n .terir.1 could be ruhject to c mtion tc striho; i:- ',
2,.. p and e q/_o e colle.tsrt: I
~
N other werf.s we. den t need to go into 8 g { ff . - . ~ _ . .-~- -, , _,.-......__........_._._......,__m._,-. . _ , -
1
' (
}" l l
834 ' eb5 j matters. If they are truly collateral we'll strike them.
<- 2 We don't have to spend a lot of time investigating them.
( At least as far as the interim operation issue is con-3 4 cerned, it is not material. 115 5 BY MS. DELL: 6 Q Could you tell me who prepared Table B-1 in 7 Reference 1 on page B-4? MR. BANICS: It is also the last page. 8 g WITNESS JOIDISON: The individual's name that 93 prepared that table was Julius Rot =. BY MS. BELL: O Could you give me an indication of how -- where the certificates are kept, or by whom would it be? Would 13 1.,.
. it be by the subcontractor or by Bell or the Applicant?
I i A (Witness Johnson) I believe thece were-- These - 15 [,
! certificates were kept by the utility an'd I believe for-16l warded down to Bechtel while we were makin'g this investiga-g tion.
g
, O Thank you. . 13 You said in cross-examination of Mr. Kafoury 20 that test results on postulating spalling, the probability of spalling, you said it was very unlikely. Could you 22 l /
t, , , , . cuantify what "very unlikely" means? 4 t, . if A "*1:ry unliksly" mean: that ws dcr ~ t believe that
.-J it will occur und2r the .25g SSE.
ll 25 i
I l -- 335' t eb6 1 0 That there is no probability that it will occur? [ , e Well, I'n not prepared' to tclk cheut probabilitiar i 2 A ', v. j 2 as f ar as an exact number. j j r * , N 2 Q I!cw did you deter:::ine that - or how was it ! 5 determined that the probability was - apparently did- not 6 exist that a piece of spalling would fall beyond three or . 3 7 four feet of the wall, of any given wall? , l l 1' a A Going bach to the unlikely event that such a thf ng i 9 would happan,-it wculd be caused by a motion that would he l t to in the direction of the length of the wall and under that , t 1 particular motion, since there would not be a sizable motion , l 11 l- I 12 perpendicular to the wall, there would really be no enerev i b 13 source to expel this object away from the wall with enough g , y velocity that it would attain a great distance from the vz.11. l t In other words, it should just fall off and lend j 15 . 16 within 6 to 12 inches of the wall itself.
;7 Q I!ow do you get from 6 to 12 inches to three or t >
18 four feet? Is that just to round things out? i 19 A No. I think Mr. Anderson said that earlier. That I, t , i , l 20 was just an extreme upper limit that was looked at in the 1 1 5 21 investigation.
. A (Witness Andersen) We just lechad at wht: war i !
u, n ,
,, !j nec: the unils. Ce didn't pracis:1y maarcra thir.
- 5. ..
C; Ch De O r SOUL' d91; i? [ uS '. 5 3 r'; o$ ENi'Or?.1~_'
- 9. .,- r' 7 8
s b ## YE**h*ti*'1 iI'~' th*"* f_l
'dl - .
9 e' < n ,
..,,e,,--w,.-,,,..n-,,..,.,--w, ,,.,,.,,,,,,..m.,m-
s > 836 eb7' 1 Would you tell me what hinds of ef fects the impcet ; 4
' 2 a piece of spalling would have, deoending on the height that
- the block was f alling frem, and have you looked at this 2 .
( problem? 4 : 5 A (tritness Cohnson) Well, the energy wculd be a 6 function of the height of the fall. Tne examinations in-the . 7 field, to my knowledge, looked to see if there were any ; ji 8 objects in the way of ecuipment that would be susceptibla I 9 to this fc11ing piece of masonry, and to my knowledge, they f i I go dete.. ined they didn' t have any equipment such as sensitive j i
, t 11 pieces of instrumentation that would bo hit and damaged.
I 12 O Was there a height at which the block was : i 13 hypothesized to fall from, such that you would get a certain ; 14 i= pact? . ; gg A I believe they assu=ed that it fell from its ~!' i g highest location possible within the room itself. l 37 0 Can you tell me who "they" is, who hypothesized 18 that? i
. gg A "' hey would be the people who made the field in-ves tigation. !
3 I a A Ofitness Anderson) '"he field survey we were 1 i ! 7, talking about. }, ,
- I h
np Q Uculd you tall =s why the absolute sun .rar chossn. i a.
- g
,, CVEr $7.0 3753 fer thS Originti $35ig77 ;
{ h l} I-I
.a.
A 07itness John:: n) As Va stated earli2r cit.y, na I I i
, , , _ . . . - - . . . . , _ .~. ,,.. ,.~. , .-. . _ . _ . . . . _ . , . _ . _ . . _ . _ _._.__._,,._.._.__-a
837 1 ab8 1 believed that was just the designer's preference at' the time
' 2 the initial analysis - was made.
s 3 0 How extensive would you say your review was of C 4 the Berkeley test that was referred to yesterday? 5 A Well, we had their publications and other infor-6 mation that's been included in the submittal to examine. l 7 Also, there were- Well, I would scy in general that was it. ,
- 8 We had their published information and sorre information was 9 given to uc, more or less informally, that has been included 10 in the document. I 11 Q Is that to say that everything that you based 12 that review on is in-- Could you just go over thct again?
13 It wasn't clear exactly what things you used to base your 14 review on. te A Okay. They had a published paper in the Denver is 11asonry conference. We won also given test information 17 on their recent tests of the lower, longer walls, and that 18 was submitted in one of the answers to an URC question. - " ' 19 , Also, our criteria was not based entirely on the 20 Berkeley tests. They were considered as a confirmation. Our criteria was based on the other work referenced, the work 21 22 by Snider at Cal Poly Tech, the work by PCA on concrete 33 le spccinens, so there was c,stery large data base there in , i h , g4 y, creating the critaria that we finally used. 0 Unen did y u first' look at the Berheisy test , 25 , i 1
t 832 eb9 1 results? 2 A Personally, I guesc sone tima in mid-August, mf-3 self. e 4 O Are the other members of the panel familiar with 5 that, and have they reviewed it? A (Witness Katanics) I personally reviewed that at 6 7 the same time.
, 233 g A (Witness White) I thought we saw them sc=ewhat g
earlier but in terms of in-depth review, that's about tthen 10 it started. 9, O Dr. White, did you personally do an in-depth review f the Berkeley test? 12
^ U*' * "
- 13 0 Who on the panel personally did an in-depth or 34
" * " * * * * "Y
- 15 A (Witncsc Johnson) I reviewed the Derheley tects,
,6 e
Q And when did you do that review or evaluation? , 1 17 A That started in mid-August or maybe a few days later.
, g O And when did that conclude?
c0 A Prc,bebly-- In the second week of September I guess, c2 1 2 G What did you do to evaluate? Did you iust rce? co I
.a
,, {
it n':5 C [?.'06 or ,. 'f Cu .* nOW , 70rt 03-~ 49 ; h L'811, the '_.BrkClGy tCSO3 Cerely preSOnt the test ! I 25 ' i 11
839 , I cb10 1 results. A criteria was proposed in the reference document 2 by Snider as to how one could determine the capacity of I i 3 masonry walls. tiow we then took the Snider criterin based I i p. 4 on observations of what he hadt.ested, and we nodified it l 5 as explained in Appendix 3. 6 We then took this modified criteria and used it y to predict what the Derkeley tests should have shown, and 8 that prediction, which is also known as a correlation be-i g tween a criteria and test results, is also shown in Appendir ! 10 B. And this correlation showed very good comparisons, so l
;g the Derheley test could be considered as a confirmation to 12 our criteria. ;
g Q I believe it was Mr. Anderson who talked about {
~
i g4 the use of a remoto shutdown in case of not being able to t use the control room, and you said that you spoke to some- - f5 g body in PGE. Could you tell me who that person was? A (Mitness Anderson) His name was Gerry Self.
, 7 Q Uhat is his position in PGE7 18 A He's a nuclear engineer assigned to the job. He 99 was just our guide around there, to help us get around 20 easier, an employee. I don't really know anything g
m re than that about his position. 22
. ,_ Q You don't know if he was an operator?
a A I!e Jas not an opsrator. u~ O He was not an perat r. 5 I
\
a
840 eb11 1 Could you tell me what those steps are that he 2 told you? 3 A fio , I can't go through the steps. He seemed to r 4 indicate a familiarity with the remote shutdown panel and generally how he would approach getting into the renote 5 6 shutdown panel and shutting the plant down. He didn't enumerate a bunch of steps. He just simply-- 7 CHAIRf'J21 "ILL7'R: Mr. Dank:, is this the arer.
, 8 g where you indicated there would be a direct witness proffered 10 by PGE7 11 MR. BA!!KS: This is not the area nentioned before.
I think i 's the area, however, that Mr. Anderson said that 12 g he would prefer to defer to PGE. We will have PGC witnesses 14 on this. CHAIRtW1 MILLER: You will proffer a witness 15 knowledgeable in this area? 15 MR. BA?iKS: Yes. g CHAIRMA!! MILLCR: Thtt might be the most direct g
, g way to get the information, g MS. BELL: One last question.
BY MS BELL:
- e. 1
,, O Would you consider Gerry Self c person in public e.2 rolstions rather than in ranctor operations?
g' acrse; i n - 91;. .- 7 (!:r. 7tnde.rscn) ::c, ac wac not ; j relations. 25 l j . l _ } - - .- .- - . . . .
841 CHAIR!'Ri liILLER: Did I misunderstand you, or did ebl2 1 4 2 you say one last question? 3 MS. DELL: lio, one last question on that parti-(" 4 cular subject. 5 (Laughter. ) I'm getting there. 6 CHAIRMNT ICLLER: Okay, 7 t 3c 8 9 10 11 12 1
- q_ 13 14 -
15 l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 U u i f 24 25 t
842 mpbl 1 BY 115. DELL: 2 0 I don't hcVe that much knowledge of the way 3 earthquakes really work. Buu my sense is that sometimes r 4 they, you know, there's a tremor, and then there are continu-5 ing tremors over a period of time. 6 The probability of an earthquake following one 7 that has already happened is - that the probability is , 8 higher. I think it's referred to sometimes as aftershocks, 9 is that true? 10 A (Witness White) That is a term relative to an 11 earthquake that happens after a previous one. The magnitude, 12 from what I know about it, the magnitude of aftershocks does depend on local geology. And that's about the extent of my 13 { 14 knowledge. ; 15 0 Are aftershocks a frequent phenomenon? 16 MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, I think I will object i I 17 to this. , 18 Again, it seems to me wa're getting into the 19 analysis of the seismology of the site, which has already j 20 been considerod. 21 CHAIR!GH MILLER: What is the relevance? , MS. BBLL: Well, the relevance is that I'm tryinc 22 to undcrstand, first of all, thc.t's r.f helief that : hat 23 24 happens, and I'r urying to find out ::.2 -hct's uru.= so tht~ I ca. ask about whenhar or not this has haan included in any 25 9 1
843 I kind of seismic resirtence analysis. mpb2 l 2 CHAIR!W7 MILLER: It's the Ecard's viw that the.t j 3 has already been determined in previous netters which are not 4 subject to rereview here. So if that be your purpose, we 5 would regard it as not relevant to the interin operation. 6 MS. BELL: If which should be my purpose. 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, first of all, your educa-8 tion as to the nature and care and feeding of aftershocks, 9 what that does lead to, as you explained. 10 MS. BELL: Okay. c9 11 BY MS. BELL: 12 O You referred to in cross-examination from Mr. 13 Rosolie, that there is a Staff geologist that you would 14 consult at Bechtel. i 15 Who is that person? ; 16 A (Witness Katanics) I referred to that, and I 17 gave subsequently, some time today, two names. And these two names are the same for your question. One is Mr. Adair, 18 19 A-a-a-i-r, and the other is Mr. Cole McClure, whose nans 20 was spelled earlict today. 21 0 Thank you. 22 Does Bechtal have any -- you spoke about the fact 23[ nhat earthquakes are e :trs . sly remete., i I4 Does Ecchtel hanc any cor ef =:11*f:i: cr wr.ite i 25 , paper on the prcbability of earthquakac that enc urtid use li- -
. ~. .
I G44 i 1 1 l mob 3 as a standard? ;
~
2 A According to ny knowicdce thern 10 no such a white 3 paper prepared by Bechtel. 4 0 would a geologist that you would connuit take 5 into consideration the regional situation, regional geology? 6 MR. BhNKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think -- I will , f 7 object because I don't think it's appropriate to ask one 6 witness what somebody else might have believed or what 1 9 somebody else night have said. 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That w 11 be sustained. 11 BY MS. BELL: 12 O Mr. Anderson, what is your understanding of the 13 liability of Bechtel for the loss of profits on income of 14 pag? It's very litelo. I know 15 A (Witness Anderson) 16 there could be some kind of lawsuit involved. Other than 17 that -- I knew nothing more than that. I've not looked at 18 the centract. I'm not in a position to interpret what tha , 19 contract means if I did look at it. 20 0 Mr. Katanics, what is your understanding of the 21 liability of Bechtel for the loss of profits en income of 22 PGE? t A (I#it .SE E EEtCniOC) I did no'C ! Gad thO COLOR?.Ct ; 23 j 24 and I have nI.vtr :so.n it and I know ver*J lim 14 On h tub - ! 25 dect. L.___.__._,_ ,
1 845 I Have you discussed it with anybody? mpb4 Q 2 A Yes, I believe i discussed proba%1y with Mr. 3 Anderson and with Mr. Johnson and Mr. White, more or lecs as .r 4 a casual topic. 5 Q And do you have an understanding coming from those i t 6 conversations, do you have an inkling of what the liability 7 might be? , 8 A No, I have no understanding of what the liability i 9 is. 10 0 Have you discussed it with anybody else besides 11 the members of the panel? 12 A I can't remember whether I did. l 13 Q Mr. Johnson, have' you ever -- do you have an , 14 understanding of the liability of Bechtel in terms of loss ! 15 of profits on incone to PGE? 13 A (Mitness Johnson) No, I do not have an understandi::g
*7
, of how this situation affects Bechtel.
18 Q But you have discussed it with the other manbers 19 of the panel in a casual manner? 20 A Briefly. 21 O Have you talked to anybody else about it? 22 A Not that I can rsmembar. ;
~
23 O Thnnk you. Or. White? f 24 l I L 25{ A (Witness White) The er.mc. I haven't rcad the I bil .- , ,
846
' contract; I don't have any idea what the situation is ocing mpb5 2
to be. 3 And you've never discussed it with anybody -- have O e 4 you discussed it with anybody else besides the ncnbers of tho 5 panel? 6 A Just in casual conversation in the hall, that kind 7 of thinn. 8 0 I presume you mean casual conversation with these 9 me:nbers of the panel? 10 A And other people that I work with. 11 0 Ch, other people? 12 Could you elaborate on that, who those other 13 people might have been, or in what context, and whan? 14 A This is just the people in the analysis group. 15 0 Is that something that's generally discussed t.ith 1G your colleagues, your working colleagues? 17 A Just the same as you would a football score, or 18 something like that. 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: You win some; you lose some. 20 (Laughter.) . 21 BY 115. EELL: 22 O Has the position of Bechtel me.naqsnant ever been i 23 made clear to you throuch any = cans? . h I u ,!l r ,a: nest .:n ne - a.oct w u:7 j f About tro Lbility, thsir licbility? 25 0 i 4
047 I A No. mpb6 t 2 O Mr, Anderson, have you ever heard of any ycter.titi l 3 safety problem at Trojan that is not of public knowledge? 4 A (Mitness Anderson) Is not? t 5 Would you repeat the question, please? 6 Q Have you ever heard of any potential safety problem 7 at Trojan that is not of public knowledge? 8 A Mo, I have not. I have not heard of any problem 9 that has not already been made public. 10 0 Have you heard of any rumor to thht affect? 11 CIIAIRMN MILLER: Pardon me. 12 Ue're going a little far now with rumors. I t 13 think I'll have to sustain an objection on that. 14 BY MS. BELL: 15 Q Mr. Katanics, do you know of any potential scfaty ! 16 problem at Trojan that is not of public knoalodge? 17 A (Witness Katanics) No, I don't know any. 18 0 Mr. Johnson? 19 A (Uitness Johnson) No. l 20 0 Dr. White? , i 21 A (Mitness White) No. 22 CHAIR?W7 HILLER: Let me ash you, centlemen, fou're f 23 >; under oath. You're tertifyinc; you're baine h:1m d by rf1 24 partiss. 25 Is there anything about potentic.; liabili-" er 17.y ' l 1 b _ ---
840 mob 7 I other matter concerninc the relationship between, your 2 cmployer, Pechtel, PGE, or anyone else which has affected in 3 any way the honesty and validity of the judgments that you've 4 given here? S I'd like to have each of you respond. 6 WITNESS ANDERSON: No. If there ever is a choice 7 between public health and safety and corporate liability and
' 8 profits, as a professional engineer I would have to make my 9 decisions and make my findings and make my evaluations in the 10 direction of public health and safety.
I 11 CHAInftAN MILLER: Is that part of the ethics of l 12 the profession? 13 WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes, it is. 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Katanics? 15 WITNESS KATANICS: I give the same answer. 16 I assure in any conflict I would choose the pro-17 fossional integrity. 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Johnson? 19 WITNESS JOHNSON: I also feel that as a professional 20 engineer that the public health and safety comes first above 21 corporations, and I also feel that way as a personal moral 1 22 obligation. I J CHI.IRrAN HILLER: Dr. Phite? TrCFF 'mIr: Iha c:.. f i:ctrust.1:ns th.; i - 24 ! 25 aware of at all ccming from upper r'anacco:nt his hain that t .i j i
I i 849 { 1 mpbR decisions that we nahe nust be based on our-best profecsional I )
- i 2
- judgment. l 3 p' CITAIRMAN MIILER: Doce that includc the moral if r
not legal obligation of full and candid disclosure of all I facts which could conceivably have a hearing upon this problem 5 or upon public safety? 7 WITNESS WH m Yes, sir. 8 CITAIRMA!T !! ILLER: Is that true for the rest of 9 you gentleman? 6 10 WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes. i 11 WITNESS KATANICS: Yes. l 12 WITNESS JOHNSON: Yes. ( 13 - BY MS. BELL: 14 Q You state in your testimony that: 15 "The existing control building has about 16 twice the seismic capability thct is prosently 17 required for the newest local hospitals, schools, 16 and fire stations." 1 19 And we discussed why you put that comparison in. 20 Mr. Anderson, or any member of the panel, is it 21 your understanding -- or, rather, would deformation or des- , I 22 truction of the walla in either a hospital, school, or a 23 fire statien result in a r21 ease of ionizing radiction? 24 A (Witniss A .derson) Uc put that c:: amp" c in to 25 conpere this building to othc buildings in the area that to + i i i i- ii _ e
850 mpb9 I consider to be important buildings. Buildings that childrsn 2 would certainly e::pect to have high standards for
~
are in we 3 scismic resistence. 4 I'm certainly not in a position to know e:cactly 5 what kind of ionizing radiation might be in a hospital that 6 might be released. 7 0 Thank you. , S 115. DELL: I have no further questions at this time - 9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you. 10 I believe the Staff wishes to be the concluding 11 interrogator? 12 MR. GRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. , 13 CITAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Gray?
~ i 14 MR. GRAY: I just hcVe a few questions.
15 BY HR. GRAY: l 4 16 Q Gentlemen, I'm not sure who this should be directed l 17 to, so any of you that can respond, do so.
. 1 18 On page 16 of your testimony, the first sentence i
19 of the first full paragraph you indicate that a finite elemant l 1 1 20 analvsis technique should provide upper limit indications of ' 21 forces in the structure. 22 Would you describe what you mean by " upper limit , 22 indicctict" forcGG? I i i i cht;': ' y i A (tiimmes Tait:u) Ucil, is. urps liri i 1
)
25 e referred co here is the fact that the etructura vill bc l A
351 mpb10 I responding in the analysis totally elastically, which has 2 eliminated much of the energy dissipation capahi_it) that 3 the structure has. And if this actual energy dissipation 4 would be taken advantage of, the loads would be lower than 5 predicted by the elastic analysis. 6 I might also indicate that the natural frequency 7 of the structure is such that it does lie in the area of the i 8 response spectra where the maximum spectral acceleration is. 9 So you can't get any higher loads on the system than is pra-10 dicted by this particular model. 11 o Mell, what is it about a finite elenant analysis 12 that in particular will give you the so-called upper bound
- US forcec7 Wouldn't they come from other analyses?
14 A In terms of, let's say total base shear on the 15 structure of senathing like that, the finite element model 16 and the stick model would give comparable results. Here not 17 only are we getting the upper limd t on the foreas, but we're 18 also getting an upper limit on the distribution of those 19 forces within the structure. Again, this is based on the 20 elastic response of all the walls, and this is the hichcst-- 21 or the most conservative distribution of those loads. 22 o would that sert of analysic also cive you upper 23 limita on othar structurci paraneters, such c: displaes ant: I 1 24 ,1 int 10c31erations? i 25 b A The elastic model would provide in ucper limit '
i 852 I mpb11 estimate on the accelerations, but not for displacements. , 1 2 In order to get cn upper linit astinate on the 3 displacements, then the -- a more realictic load deflection
- 4 curve needs to be considered.
5 0 Moving on to page 20 of your testimony -- actually 6 page 20 and over to page 22 -- you indicate that in your 7 view a 0.11g ground acceleration is the point at which Trojan, 8 if operated prior to the modification, should be shut down 9 for inspection and for a determination as to whether it should to then be resf arted. 11l What is the basis fer selecting 0.11g, if you can 12 summarize that? 13 A (Witness Johnson) I'll do that.
.4 Under the basic criteria for the plant it used a 15 strength design technique which meant that both the SSE lead 16 combination and the CBE load conbination had the same allow-17 ables as far as how one determines capacity.
18 Now with this particular structure a .25g SSE 19 at five percent damping results in essentially the same 20 forces as an OBE at .11g times a lead factor of 1.4 at 21 two percent damping. So that is the equivclency of the two i sets of loads. And the" both have the same, we will say, 22l l
~
13 acceptines or perforrtace critaria, i Se if cnc can resist the .25g FSt. than ycu :an i 24 25 recist ths .11c OBE.
t 853 i rmb12 1 ' low, to us that approach is consistent with what 2 has been used before in the industr/. 3 I think that concludes my statement. C < t 4 0 Finally, a question to t'.r. Andersen. 5 Yestarday Mr. Kafoury was inquiring as to the natur a 6 of the design arrors for the control building shear walls. ' 7 Isn't it a fact that one of those design arrors was actually 8 an algebraic mistake in manipulating design formulas? i 9 A (Witness Anderson) That's true. 10 However, I think when we find that kind of a probic 1 11 if there are conservative assumptions or conservati re calenla-12 tions that would offset that, we would not consider it e.n 13 error unless it anded up being an unacceptable result. 14 0 Well, what I really wanted to get to was I think 15 you also indicated that the errors generally you viewed e.c 16 being a result of the unique design of the eenposite sheer 17 wall. 18 Am I correct in that? 19 A Yes. , 20 Q Eowever, it seems to appear that, for example, an 21 algebraic mistake is not tied to any design of the cenposite i shear wall. I just wanted to cicrify that. Uculd you agree 22 23 with that? A Yoc, sir, ;! 24 i 25
? tR. o~m? : The S"'aff har ne further Tc.a.etien?. ;
)C
854 I 1 mpb13 I MP.. 90COLOFSKY: Before the panel cats away, I 2 wonder if I night clarify an answer they gave yesterday, r 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. The panel is not about to get away. The Board 5 has a few questions. 6 But nonetheless, you may clarify briefly. , 7 BY !!R. SOCOLOFSKY: 8 0 Yesterday at Transcript page 571 you were discuss-9 ing -- do you have that? It's on line 20 where the answer l* 10 begins. 11 You're discussing I believe the concept of con-12 struction using bnams and columns and you were talking about 13 the reinforcing har that we were discussing yesterday. I 14 wasn't sure if I understood your answer correctly. 15 Was it your answer that it was not necessarily a 16 mistake not to correct the reinforcing bar in this original 17 design? Is there anything incorrect about that?
. 18 A (Witness Johnson) Your question read:
19 "Was the fact that there were obvious 20 apparent discontinuities somathing that should I 2: ; have raised questions at the tir.e?" ) 2 : e ::0, it's ::r. nf=r.- s eucatten. I eicn:t una=- i
- i i
l* l Z3 p s.cr.d >:ur ans' cr 10 nis atleti0n. ' I l - 2c - n :in s rry. i E5 Mow what I was pointing out is that thern are 1 1
's. _ . . - - - _ . . . . , . _ _ . . _ , - _ , _ . _ . -
854 I MR. SOCOLOFSKY: Before the panel cats away, I mpb13
~
2 wonder if I nicht cla-ify an answer they cave yesterday. ,
-1 3 CIIAIIUmN MILLER: Yes.
# The panel is not about to get away. The Board 0 hna a few questions.
6 But nonetheless, you may clarify briefly. 7 BY.MR. SOCOLOPSKY: t
' 8 0 Yesterday at Transcript paga 571 you were discuss- j u
9 ing - de you have that? It's on line 20 whe.ro the ans'..ar 10 begins. , 11 You're discussing I believe the concept of con-12 struction using beams and colunns and you were talking about 13 , the reinforcing har that we were discussing yesterday. I 14 wasn't sure if I understood your answer correctly. b i 15 Was it your answer that it was not necessarily a 16 mistake not to correct the reirforcing bar in this original 17 design? Is thare anything incorrect about that? 18 A (Witness Johnson) Your question read: 19 "Was the fact that there were obvious 20 apparant discontinuities something that should , 21 , have raised questions at the time?" l i 22 0 No, it's Mr. Tafoury's question. I didn't und2r- ; i : 23 !i stand your answer lo his quisti:n. il 2.; 4 ' A I'm zerry. i 23
'ov wha: I was poin.in; out is ths; tbsrc are i
i ll
- l. ,
1
.l . . - . . . . . , , - . _ . , . - .
855 mpbl4 I construction techniques, I've caen papers written en them 2 where the concept is to build a steel fren.e, and yeu'll fill 3 steel frames with X-braced steel members, the bracing mzmbers; t' 4 But to fill these steel fr m s with concrete panels to provide 5 bracing. 6 ' low that's why I brought that up, that it would 7 not necessarily be apparent -just looking at the drawings, a.nd 8 the fact thau some of the concrete core reinforcing was net 9 continuous, that that would lead one directly to a conclusion 10 that the structure was not sufficient. One hac to know much 11 more than that. 12 Q And what did one have to know before you would draw 13 that conclusion, then? 14 A One had to know how much reinforcing was continueu;:, 15 such as that in the concrete blocks. Also, what was the ecpe-16 city of the steel hean connections to the steel columns. Imi 17 also what was the load level from the earthquake. 18 O Mould it he an unwarranted assumption to assume 1
- 19 that that type of information would have been within the 20 knowledge of the person reviewing the design, responsible to 21 review the design, I mean, within the company?
22 A Well, a reviewer chould have access to all infc.~.a-i i 23 i tien he needs to de e.n adsquate design. l O.~J y. 24 O s 3 ';cw if y:n had gene tc the cenetruction sits -- cndi
.I N
P56 mpbl5 1 I recognice that you weren't there -- but if you had been in . I l e cosition to untch the setting of the re.b:.r an ' noti:?? th a t 5 2!. . 3 therebarwasnotcontinuous,woulditnacessrilyhavet.icrt-l. r I ed ypu to the fact that it should have been in this ecsc? 4' I 5 ' A No, I can't say that personally, because, again, 6 it would be - there is other reinforcing, being the rcinfore-7 inq of the masonry block and there is a steel structure there.
- D And there is a concept that would utilice panels without 9 continuous reirforcing. ,
10 So to me this prob 1cm was net obviouc by :.cching i i. I 11 at drawings and observing conctruction. It 17ould tr.hL t i.ottli f 12 of looking at drawings and design calculations and ths. anc.ly- ! 12 sis to determine the seismic loads, putting all those pieces 14 together to determine that thers were ccme deficiencias. ; 13 0 Is that concept of using a discontinuous typ.e t c, cenctruction foreign te Bechtel's construction of nucic.ar 17 plants? 18 A I would say in eeneral to my knowledge ve do not
- e. to use it.
23 We do have non-catacory 1 st uctures and so forth, s..
. but I don't know of anv. situations whcre we use th:u. i, t, -
~b c,
- O Mhon vou .
referref to cracking in your a.. w / lo < 3
?
the wn:ie:: por s:1 to you u fsy t. 6 ice 3..Sz- . :m - ut _::- r 'c e .. s .
.a a ...e : n: .: :: =.cc. m . r. :" . z:- : .
li "
?.*.T .L a ,* "'.1 C. I*. conc l*1C r' 10. .Ln ~~ IC T *.'. . ".C d. ' Y
.,E3.:7 y .. %
I
\
e
?
fi57 mpbl6 1 and the cracking we've been talking about would be tensile 2 cracking. It may result from shear, but shear does -- 3 0 That's what I meant, tensile cracking. - 4 And you're not talking about suparficial cracking 5 that you might see, I think you mentioned this morning, when 6 concrete shrinks somewhat? 7 A No. . and 3e S t 9 10 11 1 12 , 13 t s i 14 15 16 17 18 ,
! 19 20 i
i 21 i 22 23 24 25 ! (,
, ,e . _ , . . . . _ _ , , . . . ._ ,_
I 858 i i U wbl 1 O Hy last quos tion nere ic just to clarify the
- 1. 3E 27.9uur that you gcVe 74r. Gray 014 tac matecr 9 t'..e 2 Oh'. { ,,
t t 3 believe you said that if the building could withstcad a t I ( N .25g SSE then in this case it should as able to withsta 4d 4 5 a -- I should say: it should be able to have a .lig OBE. 6 Am I correct? 7 A Yes. Because that's multiplied by 1.4. 8 0 Does it necessarily follow, then, that if this building would withstand a .15g 03E that its SSE capability l 9 10 is higher than .25?
~
, I, Now we have three things that are ensentially i 11 ?
I 72 equal in this structure; that is that we have the .25g SSE , y 13 at 2 percent, we have a .15 OBE at 2 percent with a load ' I y i factor of 1, and we have the .lly with a load factor of ; l 1 .- . 15 1.4 at 2 percent danping. Now all cf these result '.nassenu-}l ~ ' ally the same lead, so we enn resist an unfcetored .15g . I i OBE right now. If we could resist a factored .15 being 97 l ,
- t 93 multiplied by .14 OBE, then we could resist an SSE higher than! !
I l
! .25. I believe the number is in the range of .35.
gg l t S 0 All right. l l g3 j ; And I think you've already testified that that I,
- 2. f,
~, -,
was ycur design cepcbility, wasn't it? --ccrething like that, l t 1 -
- 1 i t
- c. ,s
'i .15 03E? icd wLs thC.t 0 f 3CtOr&d. . lft ,
[ .}^ 2.'.1 ".", ' ' ' 7 1 IIO$O7 5" . i ., , 9
~' .
EOb- 2 ti'.iT.h -T ' *. 0 0 3 ' ". '.t irOur.' } d i{L'.r 0 Of e 25 f.' . , 1 . e 1 l I, i' l l*6 t l
,r --w ,-w.-r.m -,,-m, ,,y, ,-w., , g,.,., _ . , , _
859 wb2 1 something like, something about .254 was the SSE possibility, 2 too. Isn't that right? 3 A Right. Except in this structure we have the [ 1 4 situation where the f actored OBE originally would require ! l 5 higher capacity than the SSE. 6 0 Yes. C10 7 A I might add this appears on page 21 of the testi-8 mony. 9 Q All right. ; I 10 One other point here. If the Staff has ccme in' 11 in their testimony, which we're going to get later, with a ! 12 .00 OBE recommendation, does that necessarily mean then that l' 13 using the same analysis that you made, that the SSE is same- l 14 thing less than .25? 15 A No. I would say that it definitely does not 16 infer that. The Staff has merely celected.another technique 17 to use in determinina what the interim OBE level should be.
- 1 18 Q And that's just for the purposes of interim f; i
19 operation? . l 20 A Yes; to my knowledge. 21 MR. SOCOLOPSKY: That's all I have. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPAN MILLER: The board has some qacsticus. 23 And rv colleagues who are a:* pert in ser.a of th2s2 fielf.3 24 aave s:me questionc. 25
1 060 wb3 1 D:IJII!;ATION DY TIE 30 ARC .
, 2 nv
-. m..:.. . vw r."w- .r *e.' -~' ..
8 3] O I would like si:aply, as the acn-technict1 exper' 4 4 raember of the Board, ask you to consider t.ie arecs so I can I i . 5- clarify my understanding. They're both based upon the 6 proposed testimony of Mr. Kenneth S. Herring cf the stcff. , 7 The first one is the testimony regarding the ,
- i b
i , ,
- a supplemental Stardyne analysis at page 16, which ic the '.
I 9 conclusion. Could you refer to that plecre? l ,t 10 In the conclusion the Staff ctctes that th_ ; , 11 previou.:1y stated earthquako icvel at which the pl.nt shculd k ' 12 be shut down and inspected, which was put at .11g, Jhich the y l i 13 , prior testimony had indicated was approximately the level at j - h 1 1 14 which the non-linear behcvior of the significant shecr .tcils : j , t I t c 1o ;; might becin, has been altered b.v the sur.e.lenantal informc- t
.i t .
16 tion, which I bclieve refore to the Stardyne ms.' e ned cf l l' t jy analysis, and, a.s a result, this refined earthquthe level 't I, l 18 should be destablished according to the facilit I 's CE ,;
. ;g seismic criteria at 0.08g.
I 20 The Staff continues to conclude thet the cc.'cinal.'.?Ji i 21 +i intencoc margins or safety have been reduced cnd thr prevint<.~; e _' i . 1 ( i
-[
e stated ar.plicable codes are not sati:fied. ,i If : cea::tund yzur te::inen. :.: = . > - .=.:. 2 . :s - r a.. 4
, , , *- gie ; .f s
e .* ...
). 5
-i -., ., . . .
e e-. .. . I gl i e f. . t.) .' $ r ~4' ; Ib rd raC6 . N n.
- 2E. . a .
! ! l l
ti.
' h.; !
I1 t 4 y - --. ,n..~ , - . . ~ . . - _ . . . . . - - - m . - - - . . . - , , --- , - - - - - .. _ - - . . , . . . . . . .
861 ; wb4 1 Could you tell me precisely where the differences : 2 lie and the basis for tne judgment you have come to if it 3 differs from that set forth here by the Staff ? s 4 A (Witness Johnson) All right. In our original J 5 submittal in May we had determined that the structure could 6 resist the .25g SSE within the criteria used at that time. 7 And that criteria that we used, we said that's what was the
. 3 intent of the FSAR. So at that time the structure could t 9
resist the .25g SSE and a f actored .llg CEE with the load , 10 factor of 1.4. j 3ince that time, with the more extensive analyses, 11 , 12 we did have some increase in load and then determined that 13 the techniques that were used were outside of the intent of ; j4 the codes that were originally referenced and used in ene re-1 15 evaluation. , gg We then investigated recenz information and , l determined a new criteria to be applied. Applying the new 37 , criteria and the new loads, we again determined that the { gg structure could resist a .25g SSE at 5 percent damping. And
, gg there was no reason to change our logic that we had used in
- 20 u1 May, and therefore the OBE level should remain at .11g with ;
a load factor of 1.4, since we still showed that we could 22 l l 23 a resist the S SE . . t l
- .icht c1zo peint ru th2: . r. : : _ : #.i ~ ;;;;r !
u, l i 5' f 1'4 "* wi1 ' = **E*=i*"=" # f*=t =#d cL2' ## w=u d f 4
. , _ _ . . , , . . . . . . . . _ _ - . - - - - . . , . _ . . , . . . . . - _ . . . , - - _ . _ , _ _ , _ _ ,,,,.-_,___.__.m _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . , _ - . _ , . , , , . . . , . . , , - _ _ . , - - . +
462 l 1 1 l' l' wb5 1 experience an ODE. 3.nd.then the required cap.tciny'to esi.It i 1 l t g :.a ' t t'.u.t .*:uld be in the range .f :E .'..; 7 0 per.:a nt :f ...a j
, l
* : I being used for the SSE. '
r- ,) I 4 - So wc really felt there wcs 1.o reasor. i.a chc.4e 5 our previous findings. 6J We were asked' a question by the Staff that said: 7- When would non-linear behavicr begin? Imd thht can mean c
- 8 let of things from a load level .i.ust s.U chtiv c. renter tns. .j l
1 6 9 zero on ser:e structures; it could mean crcckin?-- 10 Well w2sn't thic c tar::: being ust?d i:. ^ i r cur - i 0 . 1 11 sionc , written cad otherwise, batueen yourrelves c nd the l 1 I 12 Licensee and the Staff, with some reasonable pe.r tica'.arity7 , t, 13 A Yes. . 14 0 You peepic were all c:i the same v .ve.cac,th, - ueren 't ycu, in. ucing those terms? l l 15 I l 16 A Yec, i vould say co. ) ,! i
*1211, then wherein lies the difference, 15 there !
17 .O . 18 I be a difference, between your expertise and that trhich is & i te represented by the staff's? r-follow in a general 20 y way your e::planatican, but I still don't think you 've rdt!.ressed < t.
'y 7cmr:cives spa'-ifically er pr?cisely to my gess':ics ---.ere t <
}". l .
n ' af, y ths 3tcf / conc i.uc.:c- :2.st une criciar.lly inter.id :c. sis ; M t i 11 -
.. .4-.........., .,_...,,..,...,r.. ., ,. :
..,e..
,.,, .. . .m... . ..
- n. ...a. . . .. . . . . ..
g :: n a). -
'c : t .. c. : . 2 .a.ic: :'^: -
l i s es [
- s. ;
1 1; -
, - - - - ..~...-..,..---..e - - - - - - -, -
863 i wb6 I wherein lies your difference? (~ 2 The Staff is saying to na one thing and you're 3 saying something different, except you're saying a lot of j (~
- 4 words that are bringing in other matters. But what I'm 5 trying to do is to get you eyeball-to-eyeball, and I'm not 6 being too successful. Could you help me?
7 A All right. 8 We believe our original logic is still consistent. l I If you can resist the SSE, the .25, then you can resist the 9 to .llg factored OBE. l i 11 Q Why couldn't you resist the .15g CBE under the : 12 same logic? , (" 13 A Well because we have an equivalency of the .11g 14 OBE and the SSE, and since they used the same performance, l 1 15 or design criteria then we say those two earthquakes are 16 equivalent. i 17 . Now I don't know if we really have a conflict l 18 with the Staff. We certainly have a difference of opinion. 19 And the Staff has elected to set the OBE level on a start of , 20 non-linearity; which to my knowledge here has been defined as 21 concrete cracking. i 22 New I also mentioned in my testimony possibly 23 yesterday, that concrete structures are designef to cr?ch, , 24 that's why we put reinforcing steel in then. And ther:Jors 25 personally I do not agree with the basic logic of setting an .-. - . _ . . . - - . . , . . . . . , . . - _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . - , _ . , . . . _ , _ - . _ . - . , . , , . ~ , , , , . . . , . . . , , . . . . . . . . , _
a g *A Ow t vb7 1 CDE ct ac cracking level. l
'- C Uhat' e the pu p :,2 in hcri".; c.r. Ci ' .. " l : ' c.ll . !
3 as ye u see it, assuming that it can meet the .?5 i,C7 l s. 4 A Well it's the eartha.uche v.ou can c r.iet t , hcc.,.2:n 5 during the lifetime of the plant. I guasc under tna same l 6' logic, then, if you can expect it once you can :::pect it 1 7 several times. And therefore if this occurs you aticuld shut 8 your plant down and inspect the ctructures and equipment tc
;.nd than 9 make sure there has been no detrimental responsac.
10 you are ready to resist another OBE. 11 O I sco. 12 Well, nca, I believe it's the position of you
\ .-- 13 and the colleagues on the panel that it's reasonably safe 14 to cporate during an interim period of apprc::imate'.y one '.
15 yecr, or c year and a half, however long a pericu of time ; I. 15 is nocoscary to complete the mcdificaticnc.tc th',n ccentrcl i j j7 building, and that that can be done with reaconable cafety
- r
;s is that correct? ,
49 A Yes. 20 0 Well is it your view that the plant could be f
,,j a OperLted in its ES-iS ccndition, With no modificCtifinJ, for e
the 1:.fc of the plcnt?
.aa i!..
, t 5
t
- 2. .,* <
t?'. h.O t73 7,'l.*J. C ** f t.1:. I
..t
'le d ,
if O C.' T *
- C*f .
5 I , .. * ~ ,k ,
^*
. .[ ^ ' , , . , - (( . ,,s s %-* p e' m ae m
=
o e. a -$ ' $Y ea b $. s . l
*l I,
t g,. e . ~ . - - ., -- - - . . - . , , . n. . , , . .. v.ne ,r~- , , ,,,n. . , . , . . . , - - - -, - ,- n r-e,-,- -
j l i 865 i
<) ~
wb8 1 year and a half, as you analyze it, is not significantly or .
-(~ 2 logically different from the much larger time period such as i
3 thirty or thirty-five years; -isn't that correct? --the life < L' 4 of the plant, I mean. 5 A Well from our standpoint the plant is safe for 6 the design life. 7 Q So you, then, would not contend that it is safe
- 8 in that regard to operate the plant on an interim basis for 9 a year or a year and a half but less safe to operate it for to a significantly longer period such as the life of the plant?
11 A Would you please repeat that? 11 Q Yes. N; 13 If I understand your reasoning, there is really 14 no difference between an interim operation of this plant 15 and an operation under the same terms and circumstances 16 which is as-is with no modifications for twenty-fivs or 17 thir ty years . 18 A Well we believe the plant is safe for the plant 19 life. However we also believe that the plant should be 20 modified to bring it up to the intent of the original design 21 in the FSAR and restore-- 22 Q Well why, from a safety point of view, in your . 23 own logic, eth'er than the f act that the F5AR and :::e re ulc- . 24 tions =cy raguire yoc te do somathing, hun funn frer y:.:.: o-25 logic, there doesn't seem te be any percapnible differ 2nce, i
't
. . . . , , . - . - . , . . - . . - ~ . - _ . , _ - . - _ . . . . - . . ,
. . q
$6d f- % Wh9 1 Ct'S Safe to operate noV, it'C Safe to OperCoe fOr a /C;r 1
- 1
,.' 2, and e. half, and it.'s safe to enern'a '- acet3; . . u. a 3 as-is condition for thirty years, if I'm fcilowing ycu car- .
1 i e I
\- 4 rectly.
5 A .That's right.
.6 - ..
Q Okay. I just wanted to be sure. y So then as f ar as you're concerned, you ~and your 8 colleagues, I assume-- g, Dn. MC COLLOM: If I may ftllow up fer just u. to minute. , L I y CHAIE'G.N MILLER: Surel j. [ 1 12 EY DR. MC COLLOM: g Q To continue on the CBE that the Staff has , 14 specified in this same proposed toccimony, as I u derstand 15 it, they acv the.t they would base their first crec!:ing, or
- i jg the ncn-linear behe.vior, when a n. ember'r load recchec 97 appro::imately one-half of its total capacity.
10 ihat l's the corresponding point at which you a 99 f say yours is implemented, or what is the decision point, or the criteria that says: Aha, that'c where the ODE is? EO '. i 11 i 21 ki, A Ofitness J hnson) OI:ay . Ocr basi::-- Thors iz g i, . m i anothar criteria developad cvsr the ye:.rc th:t han .2w. {,
~ i
!) *
- j. I
_ ,, J.b t # ' . -> . On? On.t 541 Oh n ; *, i's. e.;;." .'i f .itri 3 . . . E .' r i . ? , , l 1
.~
t 1 l
, . . ;, y 3 ,..,, .. - . .t q..-: ,* ,gf -,. . . . .
i e r .,. . .. t
,. , u. c.. ~. . . ,
3 I s i
't ]
3 i it - I 1 g r ' l
, - . . , , . . . . - - .----,.v. ..e - -c ,,.-..,.-y. -
1
. . . . . . . . . - . _ . . . - . . , 1 i
l 867 CN I That's SSE, yes. wh10 A l f 2 All right. O 2 A Dut when considering an OBE -- and, as I mentionec' , e (' l 4 this has been abandoned -- that there would be a load f actor 5 of 1 on the OBE, and the allowables would be in the range of 6 about .6 of the SSE allowable. Or, referring to a concrete
, 7 code, the OBE would be resisted under what's known in the - 8 older concrete codes, ACI 1963 and a small portion of '71, 9 as a working stress technique. This was accepted for many 10 years, that one could use this alternate approach of 11 unfactored OBE with the lower allowables.
12 Now that particular code, it had no provisions 13 that cracking really meant anything, because it required that 14 you use reinforced concrete; the dif ference being that the . 15 allowables in the reinforcing steel would be in the range 16 of one-half or six-tenths of yield instead of nine-tenths 17 like they could be under an SSE. 18 Now back to our logic. With the load f actor of 19 1.4 on the OBE , that does put one back to a load leve1 of , 20 about 70 percent of what would be an acceptable -- or what 21 would be the SSE condition. So we feel there is no 22 precedent in setting an OBE based en a cracking level. A
, t 23 working stress level has been tred--
l 24 C Let me take cura I understs.nd * .:a.t ;c + : ..ci. - 25 sien was based on there. 1.4 times the OBE puts y:u up c:
- k. .
1
- . , . - . ~ . . . . ,-- --
668 4. wbll I s ch.;,ut reven t.enths of what une SSE vould be. 2 w., ..~..g,, : - . y. . ;. .- ... . .- ~ ;
--a : .,,. ,
~ . - ,
.( ,
3 -Q Cn the ".i807 1 4 i.l A Cn the C5E. That load would b3 apprcxi Etsly I< < S I the same as a .25g SSE. I 6 Now the logic is: you will not get a factored . 7 OBE, you'll get an OBE. And then your lead level .till_be
.- 8 in the rcnge c. bout 70 percent.
j
? 0 5:nare did f actored leve'. gau i,ntc th ;'i n.ct i
I ( 10 (i has caused that t: be e cesatn precedure? l i i ;
. i 1! A The.t was with the -- I guess with tha t.dvant of '
. I-
! 12 the ACI 31S 1963 and the 1971. Concrete desion for years was f
t.3 cased on what was known as working stress anclysis, which s. 14 is similar to ASFS ccdes. All loads have d fr.cter of 1, f, 15 al'.wables cre kept down in tha rcnge of one-hcif to Oix-tanths of yield. I f6 , i As things developed in structural engi_ 3 ring,and 17
] i i
gg h with resoect to reinforced concreto, they deternir.:.d therc
, tg were better ways to do it,l and that would b.e to hrzs the 20 came cet cf allowebles , no matter what the 2.00.6 .ccc ~.iuions . ,
. i ben then cp-ly different lond fcetors on the loc 6.0 fr. ed.in: ,t o} u ,
I p.2 l ur ?.0 7 certain ycu tre es to the enge.it C.e cf th r '.wie. j e t'
- E:c l!. L:' Cv ' ) ..Orl'*
* ' .~ t YC r , . "' .. ? ..
'ct.+
s'. s. l'
* *v E* ,o
- p a . . .i
*. . . - ** p.*. * *
-_9d.,. a, -
.(,. . ....8
.P-
*g f., .6. e_.
'i
%* \
s- ! kI s.
-,,,,-.mer ...,...-.-,..-,-.w ..m_,4,,y # . - . , . , -,.-m_ _._--,.m , --4 e... ,
' 869
, 4h ebl 1 Q ,And the 1.4 was just a nu:.4er deternined back at i e [- 2 the time +.hese factcred leads came into being -- ! i 3 A yes, l (- i t 4 0 -- as a tool? 5 A Well, it was the uncertainty factor at th:t time, j 6 and these facters have fluctuated to some extent over the 7 years. I think they have stabilized now due to the advent 8 of codes. O Q Okay. 10 CHAIRMAN MILL 2R: I have just one more so ny 11 colleague has kindly yielded, and then I will turn it bach 12 over to him. ( 13 BY CHAIRMAN MILLER: 14 Q The last area I have to discues with you is the , i-ti! I testimony again of Mr. Kenneth S. Ecrring, but that would b2 *
, 16 his original tactimcny, not the STARDT.!E cnd the:pcg0 or 17 pages I wish you to look at, if you would be so ened, would ,
I i 16 be pages 30 and 31, and maybe 32. ,.
.t
! c1 to Have you gentlemen had a chance to read that? Finc t-20 If I am understanding the Staff's pecition, and 21 I won't vouch for it, but it appears to no that the Staf-f ;
} l 22 l witness has taken the position that- there should be an CB2 i i r
g rh o ee laval which for an in'ecrir. period, Lchonid *:e - well shenid ; 1 h *-
, nCif ebC , "E .
*Y[ 3C2
- t, . b b g ,. i7.' d ". S t EM4 r.C C.". - Jb O!.c'J.
"'f. i
)
II ) wall, Q at thora ecnid be a cold chundcwn if '3cru r:ere cn
~hfit I
., 7 i
! l i
l' ' il ie I
= !
3
.f
.o
- + . , - . . , , . - - _ . _ , . . . , . . . , . _. ,. __ _ _
.. t.
. .w I
,~ eb2 1 carthqut.he of that ir t nsity during r.he int.2ri." per x , but I i i
/-
2! 4 .%. .. .,. e u ..'.. m. .
".S.'..
e .. 4 ~- .:. " b..=. . _= .c '.'. - " ' A 'm .- - - - . " . ~ . ' . . - .
. u co .._ -
w . . --.. l
- ._4on c< c..e
. . ..we ,. b n_: ., c.3.. c. .. ..m
....e . ..4 ,...
e .. u. .. s
.. .4 .. e. . _4 .
r $- 4 the requiremont, of the .15g and precur nbl,* it ' culf rn:c .in , 5 there for tie life of the plcnt. l 6 Do you underctend the Staff to be saying thic, as l. 7 I infer, so f ar? . t
. 8 Tt (Uitness Johnscn) Yes, we do, e:: ept we fon' !
9: believe thet the .08 chould be inferred cor.:t. red to th: .i? i n-10 I ...,. a. _. ,. .,.- y _ e e. . ..'. n '.. .. _' ,. ' ' _3 M,* w s ."._ ". ' d.. '- e s.e m..d..4.- . _. '_ ' r ....i.. . . i 11
'fe believe that the .0S nerely appliec to a chur.f -:. re-12 quirement.
s . 13 0 Yec, to interin operation, c cold shutdown if it s f 14 occurs at that icve'1. , 13 { A '.'e s .
.l l
., c ,n, t 3, 2. _.; n , n. .. ._. ., t+ . .. M 7 v. .M '. _' .w; ~...v" ".N._.'. . ' . ... " . .
I 1 t .r !,- the necessi'cv. of medification te brina. i.e u.n to the .15. I 18 i Mow setting aside regulatory requirerents, z.s I
. ;;, understnnd it the Staff is taking the position that :.hc 20 plant is sa: e nctr for operation, would ne scfc during ".he
,..or.i.dcw' -
ou h. .#. ..b. i ' c .- i d rM. . " s. .' .. . . :' *.. .OT , . ' ' . . t. .e. . - g- i . . W....~.- . l
- n. :s ,z,,*-..o . . v..- , , - u-- . ..
* *- ]'). r....
1; 1.
. r.
.t
,. '. ,... w r os*_ e_ L. _ c s . . . . :. . ..i. ..f gi t.
.; . * . . .s
,8j .. , a..,.. . , _
.e, s. ..-
* .. .n .J = . .r. . * . s.n.. . . . . ..
* .e n v . .
- .. ~ .- *
,1 - r. . .. .
.A_,.... . . .
.m -.J ,s Il b
4 1 I 19
t
}' o..
I
. c .
t r3 e,? 3 ' I tfitLC3G CO r re c t. .'.' s thcy bECO th S '~. 10 ' T.. T .T . . . <* 03 t'.TC :,. ~j
' I.
t
- ; s%. .e ... _ . .. ., ,..,.,.,. c. , ,,,....c...'-.'.
- e f
I o
,u J u. , e., u y.w.. c. , ... +. . .u
, - - ,w
- . . - _ , t.g. ,. u..: . :- - ,
.,. . y .. . . . ,
t c r . 4 carthr.unho in this ranere or e. rec. tar 'aill bs liPoh to ec.ur ! , a 5 i-in the aporc :imate one .vear period it tahes to repair ths 6 building- " That's at the bottem of paga 20, for e. v npi .t. !
*-- should not significantly affect the structure's nbility .
- - ~
. S- j
- to withstand n subsequent SSE.
i a'
- 9"
.t re e.
- n. o.,. ee._e. o. g g s.q g. e ,, .. f*
<,,. i. [.n '.4 2 J .\. . s. . .. . *; E s.q 1,1.Q... .g.ns q , wa .
y
) . , g ,< cs. . . , ,
. .e.c.. n r , - ge ,.,,.w_ __... , , .,. _ 3 e . _ ,,c u. ..a.,.,.,w._.....
30 i . i
., i c. .:.
_ ._. a n c; '..'. . *_ '_'i o " ' . " ~.%" . .
^
_ c - . -o ... '.+.a .. c- m. .e...i.. . 4.". .m- '..4.'.'. m -f - h. 3 i 12 plant. It is not inconceivable that the plana cct.1:
.N... .
12
! e :perience one or nere earthqud:es near the previously ,
M apprevai OBE icve. fer the cito, follottaF. hy 'n Of7. , I .
..".*.#"_^. ' . ' . ' . ' . '.d.*.".'" '
C '..Ur ".* ' ', '."_ j.. w' b .'*.A~ ~ t.*;* " . 7. l : r iS. . ,. .s. s.,. .3. . 76 e; u.-.3 . t e, .c. , e., . .k. . . 4. . ,,.4.. ,c. .,). u . e. C<.v..._.,.-.
, ..w.
I 1 c. :i . ., . . . . . . . I j7 e arthqud'0. Cr earthquakes' . " ,
. 1 13 I. Thev a-e.Orantiv. cr.'e.ck of the r0st.;ibili b. of C
t t
. j g. successive d'egradation ove- the pinnt life, life cf tha - i l .,
av y_u 1.. l j i w p ..nd on ,r.gz 22 tre get cqc.in the discui. ::icn of t '
.7 .; ......,v.,..3._.,... . .-... . . .. . . .. . _ - ... ,,.....
- s. . ... .. . . . . .. . . , . .
- b. ' .<.. - . . .
,. .,._i.. ,. . , . . . . t s a.
. . ... . ... . . .a
..; .A.. . . ..
t . - . .
.. f
.i - .. ..
- a. * ,f
(. o f (g a n j , , f 4 I p i.' q t
-. . . , . . . . . - , _ . _ . , _ - . . . _ _ . . . . .....,,m , . . _ _ . . , . . _ . , , , . _ , ._,.m.~... . . , , , - _ . _ . . . , , . . _ . _ . _ , , , _ .
l i l. 1 i ELue eb3' 131 acb1 l t.ffected by or impacted by the tvil- ' nt:rs o' --w c., ; ;;. : tio - I
*) 8 i
- n. , ....:....,.,..
( - . . . u-. .. .
- u. , a. . .t. .:..:. _4_s ,. . a. ,. .., ._._. 1 .a a i. s,
.. . .u.... . . , : .s .. _. . ...
e _....,,._...<..;ms. s -. .. . .. . m c ..,.,.
.... . r. _ : .,. , . . .,a,. a. v o < .
.u < .:. - . .
(~
<, d,,
6
.- .y e y ~,,gc. . e.w,
... _ _ , .4.'.y th a" s ur..5'. s mi sr.i .. cv.s .. .. - .~. .~. u '.d
. t..."".
i
.m -
cumuistive effect or i!cpact upon the ability of the ul; a t during, scy, the 20th yair to nuccessfully achin'te the SM !
,. 1 7 :
requiramant? Are not those two fe.ctor: indicatin<.2 the .i O I
# necessity, logier.11y of establishing an OEE r.t scr.mehr:c ;
1, :.cc.r the. levcis that would be indic.f.ta.' by the technice.1 : I 1 i
- e. .* ;. ,, - *
- i. evicic. r .
ij i l h 5 -
.e. s .; g,. . a
. ,c.... . . . . . .. !
n, .s .u. . ,s~.
. . v...o. c ,.., .,. .t. . , c , .. . ...,f .
a : that thoro uould be enough cycles of load to gct inte c t 13 I (. range that you'd have significant strength reducticr.. ; 1 ~,. ' T h. e .,.. u..c.. w,. . . e , ,,,
.. .. _.. , n ,,, .. , g. .r t.. . . . _... . s , u...,. :. _. . i i
.-r 8u .... n .e.1 - .!4 e .& s ,,.. . ,, 1 . -t e -_ I.
p; ..m,, _. ,.,f a.4 ., e. n ..,
. ,,.4..,,,. ),.,.. y.. ..
..,.:.....4.,...,.
f-
.U
.- . . s...., ;. .. , . .; 0 3 , $ ,,. c. ,. , ; C ... w. . , , . ;,. n a C .,. C. ;.....,..,.. :. .
'lo
1 t,~., '::, s' tnc:t '..o ..'..s.'wc.s. ' a' ,= .~.e_. o ..n c c e.c.." . . m- ~ .n. m- " ' .- u::. ~ .' , ~.. - -
- i 1
U usucsily gets one significant peak of structure.1 rerper c , U 3 mtybe another three to ~ive betwezn the m.nimu c. c2 2; f I t n-1.096 ',I say, thrce -cc.; norful .:.plituc;2. And theca di. ..:. n..: l'. o 2I ;; -
.,.. . ,. .: ,3 p
. . e,. _ < s.. w.
6<.. : . . _
. a.. L,. a c,. 6.. Cmeg.,
* *- r cUC E o1.
- - .a,. r -'.c t*
. , . I a.:. . . . ... ,.
- v. , , .. u. -. . .e ..r.,..
L ..
.. '.1. .v. e..
.~;. .... . .. _. . .. .. . - .
- s. . . .. r.. . .. . . . : _.
i .. .. -. L 2, ,~._-n. . , .. . . ... p'.
- I
. t.
= _ _ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
I
r s avb2 Now the. OBE, a single CEE of 0.11 would cal.; .:r:;te i 1
.-. 7 i
/
~
one r.r j;;r epin of lord br.ced on cur studies. I'htt wou.'. . 2e j
- i i 70 percent of the SSE. It rny have set orcl : ora, rub .Jy .
- i ;
.1
'.s
" t
, i 1
would be in the 50 percent rcnge. l E So if we were to see a co:cpound set of GEES, 6 they would still only subject the structure, witn the 7 exception of a few spikes, to leads in the rangc of ebcut 3 I o half of its SSE capacity. 9 Now, with that sequence of evant.s We d:s no .; 10 believe tht:.t thcro would be significanh degrnde. tier c: i 11 1 cnc could not resist an SSE at env tir.e in c.h: future. "u . ! i 12 we certainly don't disagree with the requirc:: tant to sc.ut j r \ . 13 ~. the plant down e.nd inspect it whenever you would get uc an e
,4 i OEE. ,
15j 0 Imd that see requircnont wou.:.d nct :::1.n., t 10 ' hovtsvcz, if c.nc OLE, let uc ce.y, ucrs fi;:2d anc'. ; :._.::.cn e h 17 to achieve 0.15, that tould nct be affected in any >7ny .cy i i
- i 1C three or four 0.14s? ;
, 19 A Now you're talking the OBE? ;
8 1 20 Q I'ra talking about the 02E. l t t i 21 { A Okay. P.nd I guese chc.t'I was t.21 hine cM uu i.e i , h i W $
- a. S fs S<f .H$ .w .2 . <
I ?
?
i. A* A. n,
- f,e e,. . ,s s;e;
.R..** ,s e. . .O .Q
-. e e
p.,
...==....d..
I .w g.. 7 d -. l
..5 1
3i
. I
~
'^c'. ~ :'s
- C.$n] r.D C CT : *b?C*/:.1 L 2:** .O ~ ** * '*. ~ . ' ' ' ' -
*3
_ Q . 1 l l 1 5 8
. i.
- . - , - - . , - . , , , e -- ,,. . s.., --w., y e .. . ,--,r,,,e,m.
._ .i-...- .-.-4_-. - - . .-. . , - . 1 1 .
I. g.3.
- 4 .
l l
- I N ar'n 3 i teng, Y.2.h3 nny n' *loer you ,
*.<f nt, anc Still r.C
- Y. C .~. *.,' .; .
2-"' i-c .' J. 6 ac .'.. .v ' ' .~., u'."6 2 .*v.i. '. n. . " . ..
. ."e ." ~.~.r.. -. ~ . ~ , . . . ^ . ~ . .... . " . " . . . . ..'. .
I. i.
..l-
'l 4.,.e
.w. ., S.c . Ce O.c 4.
. 5Ca 3.cV 3.:. O .,. v ca,. !.
+
s- 4 . . . .. n .:. con,t bolicvs tac.: tney voz. .. c. c::ce c :'. -. . 5
. capability.
6 . O Thank you. . s 7 CW.IRIM MIM ER: - I think Dr. McCcllom has s':ne C
+ cuestions.
n
- e 3. . D. n. . f ,.,, Ct. .%,. .:. . . .
.I . ....
I 10 . s a%,.ieve . w hw.. a..t.,.s :o.
- 4. .. :
ona .3 .
., ,...-..a....,
* * .~. '.- o ~_. c..
. "%. 4". su.. n,, i e ~ .~ . ". .". a t.', '> "' +* '
.m...,-v...~~._...-?'..," ." * '. '. !
i 6 e t> c=minations . 13 I When we were reviewing what would happin in tv. w I 5 w c "w ' -a' #" . .' .'. c " i 14 ts .. 1.4..t,. c.3.. . o.,.... , . t '.V.t . "o'ne .'.'. .. " '.L. .e. w" . .". . . .' e. .". - . 4. _. ,
!C ; e., e. .....e_-.,_
.. . s. , _ a o , i ., 4. . .. .,.,y_p.. ,,, ;s .o t,. . ,,, .: n .. e..'.
. . t.s ."..r.....
- . . ; .r .. .-
,3 ,
ia :l' .a.,.n. .. s ... . .. ..,. , .
,. .. m,a t a ,. ., . , . v.___
.t... u . .,._..
..n w .,.. . . . , .. c . ..: . ..-v. . . -2 c..... :
17 therefore, you could not e.n?act thic to occur, }
. j 13 1
Is that new .evidenca of defc=ntion the.t warn't - e 19 available before, or what was that? e 20 A'"* (Wi'D CSS s7.ChnSon) Uc, that w".$ ~~ Tho'S ! E. ~ 7 Ob; I
- j .j g1,,. . a - . i ,9 .e..o )1c 4. p..:... -.- r c.
e., e. w m. D o...,. .~ n 6. - . e. .- c.c t.r . ..
. . . . ;. o. S s e, . s. c w.. - . %..
i 4 a ii -
- e. . .
9
.e. 5. l m.t. 1.4. - C J ;, ,, .,.eC t...
r S p, sw#. .r. w.3. ..
, J,....
- i. . . .- . . ... -s.. .- y. .. . . .
e t4
~ ~ . . 1;
(. .* . , a. c.; ..
. ,; . ...a .. . . . .. .5.......
4 $ #.e S bg. %e w.. 4 m .g '. . e
-a . > . ~ . . - -
ze l - ..... .. . k
. ty !
1
>. i I
I
- l
. . . ...~. n j
875 1 agb4 If the spalling was possible, 2.t would take 2 tremendous displacements, in my opinion, per stdrey, in 3 the range of possibly feet before you would ever achieve 4 the condition to degrade the masonry to such an e:: tent tnat 5 it would fall off. 6 Q Did you do this in your own tests, as well as 7 the supporting evidence of the Berkeley tests, did I understand you? A No. In the test, as I remember it, they could 10 go to quite high displacement levels, I think possibly an II inch or more in 40 inches of height, and still not get 12 into a spalling phenomenon. I3 (. That's one inch in three feet. For 15 feet, 14 that would be five inches. And we're nalking a half an 15 inch. 16 So, again, the condition was postulated but sto 17 lust don't believe it's possible, our calculated displacements I6 tre too small.
< end4B1 19 Okay.
Q 21 22 23 t i 24 '
~
25 _ 11
- . _- . ~ - _ - -_. - . .. _ -
- i. .t t
- a ; ,
i i I db2 ebli . 3 0 c%cy. !
- l ...
- 2 **-.r>
.r. . ,. .--w ..
. s.,. .. e. n . - +-
.v . . . ..- .~., ....e.. ..- s... 1. . .. 're car ,- t t ,
t 3j under certcin 1 cads, c::ceed their cc.nacit.v. if tnev car. cr :" . . i i a
%, I *. .A ths londr that is, the lecd wcs inro.er tnan thi n r>r ci t.' .
i s
- i
.' cciculttad. .
6 i! hat enn you tell me about. what woulC happen te t t 7 this hind of wall as it reached cac.acitv. and then continue <_ l 4 4
. G ! Iccd ras su7* plied to it? What happens to the wall? U'2 '
1 t En i sec.uen ce. of evanus might occur? ( i a 10 J. rcr uhose tre.lls they're ecvern?.3 by bsr.r:.ing. l
,". i gev. v2 .~.. .#.n #.. r.. . . ~e e .
is p-
- . 3 ,
.s
.. ,. . . . . . .. t* ' '- "w-..",*.
. 'w. a *.. '- ' . '.
- . me.
s.' - e. . t, i 6 l'i[ yielding mechcnicm is thcc til e reinforcing stce'. yieldr. . l
, 13 There is r.ot enough reinforcing steel in thoss walls to .
o s u . cauce ar.y cc.npression problene se r.c they .sculd fu:." hsr yi.-i?.,l . I f * + l . 1.: [... i I wcu M sav. nothing cero would hrp.nen th:n crack -idth: ; 1. a y,.- u.; .,.. 4 . .... c .,..........a
,. , i y. 1- 4. ,. ,d b w- - - .~r - n.. m
. ...i..' 3.>. ' F. . -
i < l i limitad yielding conditien here. , 17 i f
. i :
( Thc totc; ' ts t' hey're part of the total structure. , i
, 19 1 structure displaces and l'.terally pullo them ever yield EnF. :
1 then steps. It is what we corr.only call o sci ~ '.:.r.ito:, j i 20
-e> ,;i., condiuien for the cnallor valle. And as the / uculd c: : ni - ,
e .
. u ,_
n,
.,.,.,s..,,
. .. a : . ., , t
. r.. .s..e. u.- <s.
.. .e...-. . . . .z..
.s - -
& ..W (l2 .
eo e
- u. .. . . . .-. .
., ,u. . . m.
. ......,..e .. . -. .... ..
., t-i i s, U ,
i, p'. t.
r 877 eb2 1 would not centinue to hold that capacity in the load?
^
r 2 A For the ranges we're talking, which an I renaricr 3 were yield values, displacement-wise-- First of all, this 4 yield value is calculated very conservatively as far as the 5 displacement is concerned. I think our predictions indicate 6 that the wall might go three times its yield capacity as 7 far as a gross yieldingrdue to the fact that we have uniform
. 8 reinforcing, the outer reinforcing bars would reach yield 9 first and it would progress inward.
10 Eventually the majority of the bars would be at 11 yield and we would call that generally yield and go possibly 12 two to three times that. s, 13 Q As I recall, none of the loads that you have 14 postulated in ^his c study even go to twice that value, do ., 15 they, twice the capacity? Do you remember any? l I 16 A Yes, I think ue had some, the smaller walls, i 17 that might have had a postulat9d elastic load that was two l 18 or three times their capacity, but in determining yielding, 1 1
- 19 one has to go back and look at the displacements of the l l
20 system to get a better idea of how many times yield would 21 you go. So it can't be easily picked off cf a force table. 22 O Okay. 23 Uce I'd like to tc.lk abcut that west vall thn:
! ne rein 'Orcinc :, ci was asJumsi. I'd :.c.c for "r: te ali .1 g;
~
25 again, wcs in beenuse the drcwings did not call for it? l
L 873 eb3 1
.A Yes. From elevation 61 to 77 on the design drau-I E
l- ing I think there's a cua11 e.r.ount of rcbar. , t i 3d O That's horisontal rebar? l T ll 4 ' A Mo, chere's a snall cmount of vertical rebar -- 5 0 Okay. , 6 A -- that was continued up from the lower elevation, 7i but no specified concrete core rebar.
. 8 There is rebar in the. inner cnd outer layer of G1 masonry. It's grouted masonry. ;
l' .
! O Do you consider that that was intended to La ist ,
10 ',l i
;1 (y way? Was it appropriate for it to be designed in that way?
- 2 A (Witness White) It was consistent with the -
i 13 original design. The calculation did not call for steel in
;4 ,
the core. l1 11
;g I A (Witness Johnson) In other words 'he load level ,
l 76 was low enough tha way it was calculated that the designer i 17l felt that between the concrete capacity that h2 had and the I ' je amount of reinforcing in the block, he had encugh capacity.
- 19 Q Do you have any reason to believe that the steal s
J e0 micht be in there? t li
, 7y I'. We have had comments by people that they think h ,
.[ there night be ser.e in thera. So there is n t>cssibilin r. j ,
b l, a
~ 3Ut dCI.:' 3 D ~) tlVidencO hns7f On CO?.struOticI, s ? ' O s
- T- - '
~
e ' i.*l2'.. in "I ! /. i FI 2 0 L' d l .
..1 .-
ene ao A& W e . g e e , so
,g
.O. .. . ,
,1 I
l' I > y . i
979 s eb4 1 response spectra situation. I think that I get confused by
,e 2 two different uses of the word, and I've heard cora exchange 3 here that leads me to believe that there night be others, r
4 too. 1 5 As I understand what we start with is n. response 1 6 spectra in the ground. Is that the right terminology? 7 A That's right.
. 8 Q That that has been generated by some model, and 9 ,
we now accept that as input into our' building system. 1 10 A Y?S-11 A (Witness White) Determining the response c?ectra 12 from a model. 0 A model of an earthquake, accumulation of earth-g 13 g quakes, or whatever way. 15 A Right. i 16 0 You have a cartain input. ; l A Right. 37 jg 0 And that causes this ground to nove in a certain way which you refer to as a response spectrc. 39 20 A (Witness Johnson) A response soectra is nothing m re than taking a whole system of cimple oscillators with 21 g varicble froquencies ad putting them thrcugh a tire history _ :nd then p10tting the response. And se th:t is *. dict c ha:ic al g [ raspauu aya:t:1 1. g 0 Is tha: wnat is driving :.ha ground? Tha2's r..: : t i
J E33 l
! I i
1 88
^
eb5 ' 1: want to knewf as an input to the systen? . i li I ( 2 i 7, -(Mitners rhius) It's not c.n input in tha 2 n.Tc f' 1 2 ; thau the building novce cecording to som2 prescri'and puttarn j f~ , '- 4 like a displacement tin.e history or en cceelcration time ; 5 history, It's used in detemining the res; onse of the 6 structure when-- I should say it is useful in detemining l . c 7 the response of the structure when the response of thct . l
.I.
. O j structu c is c. 'mpcsed into itc medal respenses. l l
, s
>< 4 9 In other words tha buildine has certain natura.',
I , 10 j cegrees er croecom or cortain natural m: dst of --^ - c i n t
- t. i i and then these are detcrnined using nnlytic .cchnic u: :d. -
11 )
- t 12 the response of these individual modes arc determined frc=
' this response spectra.
- s. 13
~
l 14 .! For instance, the fundamental node of the control . p. l ! is , building cot:ricx in a north-south direction has r. frequency i You go to the recpenso spectra and you sces th .t for ! ts of C.S.
.i l,'
17 j the SSE, .25g, 5 percent damping, special acceleration is . t
' .49g's. So that now deter .ines the respenso of thrit part' ~ 5 ta . 19 enlar mode of the structure. j l
20 0 Where do I find that response on the structurs ; 2; now? Uners Eculd I e::pect it to occur? . 1, u t t' hic .iculd be the accaleration for a sin
.n
'I it 't d:1. r 7 ,
4
"- a.
k-I.. Cf fr& OOC. 2"Ene!. WhcE.1 frJCtenr*' Jt:3 S.I. - UOr 11. G r i r -. I
,* 7 *.' .. 'It'- V ! . . ." ! 2 E C)* ZC 3 E '7.".c *'.~.*
- 71 r 3 5 7 ". b I S.. **
- AI .
- the zcce si. ape s.stociat2d -inh that frequenc :--s. int:
.% ui 3 4
t 1 I 4 *
*\"
- .- . - . - . . . . ~ . . _.
881 I eb6 1 play.
- 2 So then the actual acceleration will very over
/
3 the structure according to its mode shape. In very general e 4 terms, the spectral acceleration associated with that mede 5 will be abcut what the acceler'ation is at maybe the two-6 thirds height of the structure; generally speaking, it's not 7 the maximum. It's not the maximum acceleration. s 4 Los 8 9 10 s 11 12 s 13 14 15 16 17 0 18
. 19 I 2o l
21 22 E3 , I t
~
25 l
881 i I CHAIPlWI MILLER: Excuse me, genticican, asb2 1 E t[ Oar Reporter he.s been working vary nard, he's
'3 one of the best in he business and we want to keep him C
4 healthy. I really don't think we should go beyond t.his 5 time tonight. 6 We had hoped to finish. with you by this evening 7 but I'm afraid we're going to'have to ask you to return at
. B 9:00 in the morning. There are some more question: -- there 9 was cne letter, I think, counsel was going to see if he 10 could get some notes or something".
11 Is that right, Mr. Br.nks? 12 MR. BANKS: I think we were going to try to get 13 that survey of some kind. 14 CHAIR:WI MILLER: There was some matter, at any 15 rate, that possibly could be available and ycu were going 15 to try to obtain it by tomorrow morning, so we would like to 17 finish with them in the morning. 18 MR. DANKS: We'll have it in the morning. s 19 CHAIRIWI MILLER: Thank you. IO We'll be in recess until 9:00 a.m. 2; (Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m. , the hearing in the i 22 above-entitled me.tter was recessed, to re.convana at 9:00 s..:r.., e.., j', the fc11 cuing day.) s e, e e 6
~
u \l u ,
-. .--}}