ML20141E907
| ML20141E907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1984 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601080414 | |
| Download: ML20141E907 (44) | |
Text
I EE'RRW b- 1 ORIGINAL 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
5 6
In the Matter of:
7 8 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 9 COMMANCllE PEAK 9-4 M f44 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Location: 7735 Old Georgetown Rd. Pages: 1-42 Room 10117 23 Bethesda, Maryland 24 Date: Monday, June 11, 1984 25
/ B601080414 840611
() PDR ADOCK 05000445 T PDR FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
I i
(u,l 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10117 6 Bethesda, Maryland 7 Monday, June 11, 1984 g The Commission-met, pursuant to notice.
PARTICIPANTS:
'U SCOFFWORD BURWELL (NRC) 33 GEARY MIZUNO (NRC)
JUANITA ELLIS (CASE) 12 JOHN FINNERAN (TU)
WILLIAM A. HORIN (TU COUNSEL) 13 DAVID WADE (TU) r~ DAVID TERA 0 (NRC)
(_)s 34 JOHN F/IR (NRC) '
ROBERT 10TTI 15 MARK WALSH 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
,~
L.) i FREE STATE REPORTihG INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
2
\_) 1 MR. MIZUNO: This is Geary Mizuno, Counsel for 2 NRC Staff, and this is a telephone conference call 3 primarily for the benefit of CASE, so that they may ask 4
the applicants questions that they may have regarding 5 various motions for summary disposition regarding -Pipe 6 Support Design matters, which were raised by CASE. With 7 me 1 14 Bethesda is Spoffword Burwell, who is the Project 8 Manager for NRC. On the telephone, also listening in, 9 is Dave Terao and John Fair. Will the other parties 10 identify themselves for the record.
11 MR. HORIN: This is Bill Horin, Counsel for 12 Texas Utilities. Also on the line for Texas Utilities
,_ 13 are David Wade, John Finneran and Dr. Robert Iotti.
(/ 14 MRS. ELLIS: This is Juanita Ellis, President is of Case, the intervener in the hearing, and with me is 16 Mark Walsh..
17 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K., I guess we should start by 18 Mrs. Ellis and Mark Walsh, start to ask questions on, I 19 believe there are two remaining motions for summary 20 dispostion that we need to cover. One is involving 21 U-Bolts and the other one is involving safety factors, I 22 think.
23 MRS. ELLIS: Let's see, I think we got through 24 the safety factors. (inaudible) Oh, we didn't?
25 MR. HORIN: No, Juanita, no, we didn't do the
,m
(_) J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
3
(\
\m/ 1 safety factors.
2 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K., what about the generic 3 differences?
4 MR. HORIN: We finished that at the last --
5 MRS. ELLIS: We got through with that one --
6 0.K.
7 MR. HORIN: Were those the ones on your list, 8 Mark?
9 MR. WALSH: Yes, I agree with Mr. Mizuno.
10 MRS. ELLIS: The Richmond inserts, as I 11 understand it Mark hasn't finished going through that 12 yet, so we don't what we might want to ask about that.
7s 13 I'd like to mention, too, that we've received a couple V 14 of letters from the staff, and one dated June the 4th is and June the 7 th addressed to Mr. Phipps, and I think is we'd like to have, you know, the same information that 17 they requested in those also.
18 MR. MIZUNO: Can you repeat that, again, Mrs.
19 Ellis?
20 MRS. ELLIS: We got copies of June 4th and 21 June 7th letters from the staff to the applicant and we 22 asked some questions and asked for some documents; and I 23 just want to be sure that we would be getting those 24 documents and that information also.
25 MR. HORIN: Was that.related to the meeting f3 kl J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 1611901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
4 l O 1 1est vridey2 l
2 MR MIZUNO: Yes.
3 MR. HORIN: A follow-up to the meeting or 4
prior to?
5 MRS. ELLIS: Prior to. We haven't received 6
any.th ing , yet, about what when on at the meeting; and 7
there may be some other things, you know, that we'11 be 8
interested in when --
9 MR. HORIN: Juanita, on those I think the most 10 efficient thing to do is to -- because we didn't receive 11 those until immediately prior to the hearing of the 12 meeting. I ,
think all that we provided in advance or at is O 14 the hearing was a couple of items, which if I understand correctly, Geary was going to have included as 15 attachments to the transcript?
16 MR. MIZUNO: Yes.
17 MRS. ELI.IS : That's right -- very good, 18 MR. HORIN: And you'11 be able to see in the 19 transcript itself what other information might be 20 provided.
21 MRS. ELLIS: Great. That will be real 22 helpful.
23 MR. MIZUNO: It's my understanding that there 24 was one set of documents which we requested which the 25 applicants were supposed to have sent to us as part of -
, O a.t.H.
l NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Balt. & / nnap. 169-6236
5
(~h
() 1 MR. HORIN: Is this the OBESSE?
2 MR. MIZUNO: Right --
3 MR. HORIN: We may have those on Friday.
4 MR. MIZUNO: Right --
and we received those, 5 so --
6 MR. HORIN: 0.K.
7 MR. MIZUNO: Mrs. Ellis, that's one of the 8 things that they are committed to sending to us, again, 9 since we lost it, somehow, and so you should have a copy 10 of that particular set of documents.
11 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K., so we'll be getting that in-12 -- 0 K.
,_ 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bill, did we send that b 14 to Mrs. Ellis?
15 MR. HORIN: No, somehow the staff didn't have 16 it. It would have already been sent to Juanita.
17 MRS. ELLIS: It would have --
18 MR. HORIN: Whereas, Mark, perhaps you recall 19 it was about a ten page document regarding the OBESSE 20 affidavit with a typed discussion on the first page of 21 where to look in the attached computer printout to 22 identify where one or two percent had been used, and 23 where two and four percent damping had been used. Do 24 you recall that?
25 MR. WALSH: I don't remember a particular g\_/ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING H4C.
Court Reporting e Depositions i D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
6
(-
U 1 page, but I do remember a discussion of the affidafit.
2 MRS. ELLIS: Is it a sheet that starts off, 3 explanation of attachment.
4 MR. HORIN: Right.
5 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. Yeah, we've got that.
6 MR. HORIN: 0.K.
~
7 MRS. ELLIS: 0 K..-- 0.K., I guess that's all 8 I have. Fire away, Mark.
9 MR. WALSH: The first item in regards to 10 safety factors, that will be the applicant's Statement 11 of Material Facts.
12 MR. MIZUNO: Hello --
MR. WALSH:
(,) 13 And to expedite everything, 14 there's only one request for discovery. That request is 15 a copy of all the references that are utilized for this 16 job. Discussion of how they came up with their factory 17 statement (inaudible).
18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bill, I can obtain all 19 copies of the references.
20 MR. HORIN: Well, good.
21 MR. WALSH: Bill.
22 MR. HORIN: Yes.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It will take us some 24 time to put them altogether (inaudible). It is my 25 understanding that Mr. Walsh has requested all o
O J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
7
,c k> 1 references to the safety factor's affidavit, right?
2 MR. WALSH: Yes.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 0.K. That's no 4
problem. (Inaudible) 5 MR. WALSH: It's a very large volume of 6 documents. Very large.
7 MR. MIZUNO: Dr. Iotti.
8 DR. 10TTI: Yes..
9 MR. MIZUNO: You're going to have to shout, 10 because I can barely hear you.
11 DR. IOTTI: (inaudible) Can you hear me now?
12 MR. MIZUNO: You sound like you're in a cavern f, 13 -- very far away, t i 14 DR. 10TTI: Bill Horin.
15 MR. HORIN: Hear, --
16 DR. 10TTI: Why don' t you just translate for 17 us. We haven't said anything very technical, yet.
18 MR. HORIN: Does that mean I can't translate 19 technical, also.
20 DR. 10TTI: No, it~means it's just hard for 21 you to remember it.
22 MR. HORIN: Give me a break.
23 DR. 10TTI: (inaudible) We have all of the 24 references. It will be sometime to pull them together, 25 get them duplicated and sent, but you can have them all.
,a k-) J.L.H.
NRC/46' Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
~
I 8
(3
(. / 1 MRS. ELLIS: I think we heard that.
2 MR. HORIN: Did you get that, Geary?
3 MR. MIZUNO: I hope the reporter caught it.
4 MR. HORIN: What he said was that they were 5 going to get the references and supply them to Mark.
6 There are quite a few, so it may take a little bit, but 7 we'll get on it.
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think there's over 40 9 references in that document, so it will take time to put to it together.
11 MR. HORIN: That is correct.
12 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K. The reporter tells me that f.s 13 you will have to identify yourself before speaking.
14 MR. WALSH: 0.K. Well, this is Mark Walsh, 15 again, and the next area, the last one left on the list, 16 and that's the U-Bolts.
17 MR. HORIN: That was it on safety?
18 MR. WALSH: That's it, that's it on safety --
19 factors.
l 20 MR. HORIN: I don't like this progress. Bob, i 21 can you hear Mark.
22 DR. 10TTI: . Mark, this is Bob Iotti. 1 can 23 hear everybody very well, but apparently you cannot hear 24 me.
25 MR. HORIN: Oh, good.
,q j bi J.L.H. '
NRC/46 Tape 1 l FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
9 ,
l
(~h x; 1 MR. WALSH: All right. Under this item of l 2 cinched up U-Bolts --
3 MR. WADE: Excuse me, Mark, this is David 4
Wade. Are we talking U-Bolts that are cinched or is it 5 two-way restraint? These are two different issues as we 6 classify them.
7 MR. HORIN: The only affidafit, this is Bill 8 Horin, the only affidafit we've filed so far, Mark, is 9 the regarding U-Bolt is U-Bolts acting as two-way to restraints. MR. WALSH: I assume we're 11 talking about that one. We have yet to file, the
- 12. U-Bolts with cinching.
,s 13 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K., so what you're saying is
()
14 this one isn't really designed to address that issue.
15 DR. 10TTI: Yes, maam. That is correct. That 16 will be forthcoming in another week or so.
17 MR. WALSH: All right. Well, the question 18 that I read -- this is Mark Walsh, again -- include 19 items that would be covered under the cinched up 20 U-Bolts, and (inaudible) should be done, or if you'd 21 like, is that will be covered under that document.
22 MR. WADE: This is David Wade, again. I think 23 items 3, 4, and 5 are planned to cover cinching of 24 U-Bolts, and we have yet to file that one. It will come 25 out in the very near future. The one that we did file,
()
Ks J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136
10
,.m
(_) I and I've forgotten the plan item number covers the 2 U-Bolt used as two-way restraints.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's item 14.
4 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. Why don't you go ahead and 5 give them the questions that you have, Mark, and then if 6 they are not really applicable to this, then when you 7 file the other affidafit, you'll probably save some time 8 if you've read them in there.
9 MR. WALSH: I think that would be helpful. In 10 the applicant Statement of Material Facts, item number 11 one, the first sentence -- we would request 12 documentation showing why U-Bolts need to be cinched up,
,s 13 and (inaudible) inserted by design programs, but not in
( ')
14 the original analysis.
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Did you hear that, Bob?
16 DR. 10TTI: Let me rephrase for you and then 17 --
18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Holler, maybe they can 19 hear you.
20 DR. 10TTI: This is Dr. Iotti. I will 21 rephrase the question to make sure that I've understood.
22 Mr. Walsh is asking us to provide documentation as to 23 why U-Bolts need to be cinched up.
24 MR. WALSH: Yes.
25 DR. 10TTI: If this is in relation of the
,r~.
(j J . L.H .
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annap. 169-6136
11
()
k/ 1 Statement of Material Facts, item number one.
2 MR. WALSH: Yes, all set.
3 DR. 10TTI: Well, that statement specifically 4
says that these do not need to be cinched up.
5 MR. WALSH: Well then, that's the 6 documentation we're looking for.
1 7 DR. 10TTI: Doesn't the statement tell that 8 there is a 1/16 inch gap already designed into each of
~
9 these particular U-Bolts.
10 MR. WALSH: Yes, but continuing on with the 11 second paragraph or second sentence, the cinched up 12 U-Bolt does not consider the 1/16 inch gap.
- 13 DR. IOTTI: Yes, but we are not talking about
'# 14 the same U-Bolt.
15 MR. WALSH: Well, that's apparently, that's 16 what I'm looking for -- the statement stating that this 17 was not considered in the original design.
18 MR. WADE: Mark, I think we're complicating 19 things here, because the question really doesn't relate 20 to this particular affidavit. The question relates to 21 the other affidavit, which we're about to file.
22 DR. 10TTI: I think the question does relate.
23 I think the convusion here arises, that certain U-Bolts 24- were always intended to be cinched up. Certain other 25 U-Bolts were never intended to be cinched up.
A/ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
12
(_/ 1 MR. WADE: Precisely.
2 DR. 10TTI: The U-Bolts that we said we are 3 discussing, under the present affidavit in that 4 particular Statement of Material Facts, were never 5 intended to be cinched up, so there's no corelation to 6 be made. These were simply not intended to be cinched 7 up, as a matter of fact, these were intended to have a 8 gap -- so I don' t know what other documentation we can 9 provide, other than telling you that these particular 10 U-Bolts were intended to have a gap, and never intended 11 to be cinched up.
12 MR. WALSH: Well, I guess a way to show
. 13 docilmentation is to show that the U-Bolts were 14 intentionally cinched up were considered in the original 15 design to be cinched up, and that these items were also is shown in that documentation -- that's why it would be 17 different than what we're looking at now.
18 DR. IOTTI: In regard to your later statement, 19 we will address that in the next affidavit, you've 20 cinched up the Bolts because properly speaking, those 21 that were always intended to be cinched up will be 22 addressed in this affidavit'. Here in terms of 23 documentation, the only ones that are pertinent to the 24 -documentation which indicate that these U-Bolts are not 25 intended to be cinched up, and are not in fact cinched A
(J J.L.H.
HRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
13 A
U 1 up. Is that satisfactory?
2 MR. MIZUNO: This is Mr. Mizuno. Now, Mrs.
3 Ellis?
4 MRS. ELLIS: Huh.
5 MR. MIZUNO: Applicants correct me if I'm
~
6 wrong, but what I understand that I'm hearing is that 7
there are some U-Bolts, there are some pipe support 8 designs using U-Bolts which are specifically designed to 9 'be cinched up for whatever reason, and that applicants 10 will be addressing the technical aspects of that kind of 11 design in another affidavit or another set of filings or 12 summary disposition. In that the U-Bolt acting as
,, 13 one-way versus two-way restraint question, involves 14 designs where U-Bolt cinching has never been part of the 15 original design concept, I guess. Is that correct, 16 applicants.
17 MR. WALSH: I believe that's correct.
18 MR. FINNERAN: This is John Finneran. I think 19 what Dr. Iotti said that is in these particular 1
20 supports, the U-bolts were never intended to be cinched.
i 21 They were always intended to have 1/16 inch gap. l 22 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K. So therefor --
23 MR. FINNERAN: The information is on the
'24 drawing, some of which are in cases on exhibit.
25 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K. Mrs. Ellis?
t'3 U J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. 46 Annop.169-6136
14 ym.
\)~
1 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. I think one of the things 2 we're going to see is documentation that there was an 3 original intention that some of these U-Bolts should be 4 For instance is cinched Tip and some of them shouldn't.
5 that in the PFP Manual somewhere, or --
6 MR. WALSH: I believe this is specified on the 7 drawing, Mrs. Ellis.
8 MR. FINNERAN: This information is on'the 9 drawing.
10 MR. WALSH: Yeah, but we want to see a 11 criteria, that would say which ones need to be cinched 12 up and which ones need not to be cinched up.
13 MR. FINNERAN: -Mark, this is John Finneran~,
7-
\'^'/
14 again. What better criteria could you have than the 15 fact that the drawing shows it to be cinched up or not?
16 MR. WALSH: We want to know why on the drawing 17 it says to be cinched up.
18 MR. HORIN: Mark, I think, this is Bill Horin, 19 what John is indicating is that the determination of 20 whether or not to cinch up or not to cinch a U-Bolt was 21 made by the original designer and his decision is placed 22 on the drawing. The correctness of that decision is 23 addressed in this affidavit and the one that we're going 24 to be filing shortly with respect to both uncinched and 25 cinched U-Bolts.
(s) x' J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. 4L Annop. 269-6136
15
() 1 MR. WALSH: All right, the beginning statement 2 says a 1/16 inch gap was designed to each U-Bolt, now it 3 says each U-Bolt.
4 MR. HORIN: --
covered by this affidavit.
5 MR. WALSH: -- in this statement of material 6 facts.
7 MRS. ELLIS: That is one of the problems that 8 is not clear, that its for this affidavit.
9 MR. WADE: I believe that this whole subject 10 of' discussion this U-Bolt's acting as two-way 11 restraints.
12 MR. WALSH: And we indicated in our cover
- 13 letter that this was addressing. item fourteen of
\~'
14 applicant's plan, as Mr. Wade indicated the cinched is U-Bolt question is addressed, will be addressed shortly 16 and that covers items 3, 4, and 5 of applicant's plan.
17 MRS. ELLIS: I think, my feeling is that it's is going to be awfully hard to address this adequately 19 without seeing what's said in the otherone also.
20 MR. HORIN: Well, I don't think it is. This 21 is Mr. Horin. I think it's simply a matter of Mark 22 noting as he goes down his questions and perhaps the 23 best that he decide on his own, if the question is 24 directed at some effect or some consideration relating 25 to cinch to U-Bolts, he should hold those questions.
J.L.H. .
I r3 NRC/46 i
(,) Tape 1 1
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. l Court Reporting e Depositions l D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. da Annop. 169-6136
16 l) 1 If it's relating to U-Bolts used as two-way 2 restraints, which as we indicate here are U-Bolts which 3 are not cinched down, then we should go ahead with that, 4
those questions as well as the other ones, until the 5 other affidavit comes in .
6 DR. 10TTI: Bill. Bill? This is Bob Iotti.
7 I have no problems with Mr. Walsh and or the answer to 8 his questions if he feels that they're best addressed in 9
the next affidavit (inaudible).
10 MR. HORIN: Fine. Did you hear that, Mark?
11 MR. WALSH: No.
12 MR. HORIN: He said that, he doesn't have any 13 objection or problem with your just going through each
%~i 14 of your questions, we'll indicate as you give the 15 question, whether we think it's best answered or the 16 answer can be best given if we will await the coming 17 affidavit, or whether it's one that we can answer now in 18 the context of this affidavit.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 0.K.
20 MR. HORIN: You can j us- mark down which ones 21 to hold as we y: through. l 22 MR. WALSH: All right. That sounds fair.
23 Well, let's continuir.g on then. I don't know if we 24 accomplished anything on the first one on this. The 25 last sentence of item number one, the same subject J.L.H.
('; NRC/46
\> Tape 1 i FREE STATE REPORTING INC. i Court Reporting . Depositions ,
D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 l
l
17
,m
(_) I says, all such U-Bolts had been considered only as 2 one-way restraints. We want documentation showing that, 3 that they were only considered as one-way restraints.
4 MR. FINNERAN: Again, this is John Finneran.
5 The drawings, again, that CASE has, and I think there 6 are a couple that CASE has in their exhibits that are 7 being typed only show one-way loads on the load chart on 8 the drawing, so it's obvious that they were a modeled in 9- the analysis from the beginning as one-way restraints.
10 11 MR. WALSH: Well, we would like to know if 12 allowables had been established for these U-Bolts to act 7_ 13 as two-way restraints, t! 14 DR. 10TTI: Well, this is Dr. Iotti. This is is of course the crux of the matter, and it's CASE's 16 allegation that applicant has failed to consider that 17 these U-Bolts would act as a two-way restraint, and that 18 is precisely what we have addressed in our affidavit.
19 We have gone back for those U-Bolts which could mainly 20 shape or form, really act as two-way restraints, we try 21 and determine what the effect of modeling those U-Bolts 22 as two-way restraints would be to answer your specific 23 concerns. So you're now going back to square one to ask 24 the question in reverse. We' ve already conceded the 25 fact that they could, under some circumstances, act as
( 1 J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Report, g e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
18
-w
(_) I two-way restraints and have determined what the 2 consequences would be. !
3 MR. FINNERAN: This is John Finneran, again.
4 It seems that major allegation is that these have been 5 modeled as one-way restrainsts, and they would in effect 6 -act as two-way restrainsts. We have in effect agreed to 7
that allegation as directly accordingly.
8 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. That's helpful.
9 MR. MIZUNO: Mrs. Ellis?
10 MRS. ELLIS: Huh.
11 MR. MIZUNO: This is.Geary Mizuno. 'It seems 12 to me that you ought to have some better idea as to why
_ 13 these motions for summary dispositions were filed in the 14 first place. I mean, I guess I was a little bit puzzled is by the fact, when you responded to applicant's statement is saying that, you know, modeling, you know, to analyze 17 the one-way, the U-Bolts that were originally modeled as 18 a one-way restraints as two-way restraints was, you 19 know, in accordance with what CASE originally alleged 20 should be done, and then you said, that is helpful, 21 indicated to me that you didn't even remember that that 22 was your -- that was the position of CASE.
23 MRS. ELLIS: What I meant was, Geary, that 24 it's helpful for the applicants to admit this, it's a 25 little unusual.for them to admit that they agreed with o
kJ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
I l
19 1
) 1 one of our allegations. I was a little surprised at 2 this.
3 MR. WALSH: I don't think they said they 4
agreed with you.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't think we've 6 ever said that we didn't model them as one-way 7 restraints. In our analysis in our growing showed that 8 we had modeled them as one-way restraints. We' re simply 9 saying that there was no need to model them as two-way, 10 and we have proven that by our affidavit.
11 MRS. ELLIS: I understand what you're saylag 12 -.
,,, 13 MR. MIZUNO: Let's get down to the crux of the e s 14 aatter. Did you find, Mark, did you find some technical 15 problems with your modeling of the restraints as two-way 16 restraint, the U-Bolts as two-way restraints?
17 MR. WALSH: We have, and I think it was in is either in (inaudible) supposition, which is CASE exhibit 19 669D or in PSE Manual, allowable for lateral restraint.
20 Now the question is, there's actually two of them, is 21 that truly a restraint for lateral load or are the other 22 U-Bolts that are acting out there actually restraining 23 the pipe? And that restraint is not considered by the 24 applicants.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's actually two O
x/ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
20 kJ 1 questions here.
2 DR. 10TTI: Let me see if I can rephrase your 3 question. This is Dr. Iotti.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Speak up Bob.
5 DR. IOTTI: The purpose for rephrasing the 6 question is to make sure that I understood the question.
7 I believe Mr. Walsh stated that there may be some 8 technical errors in the modeling of these U-Bolts as a 3 two-way reatraint right now? Is that correct?
10 MR. WALSH: Yeah.
11 DR. 10TTI: I guess I would have to ask you to 12 elaborate as to why you need so for every restraint 73 13 where we have computed that either the thermal or the
(-) 14 seismic or the combination of the two could in fact 15 bring the pipe in contact with the U-Bolt laterally. We 16 have modeled the U-Bolt as a two-way restraint. So the 17 U-Bolt is acting as a two-way restraint in the analysis 18 that you will find submitted with the affidavit.
19 MR. WALSH: When you get to the large diameter 20 pipe with small diameter U-Bolts, the U-Bolt is quite 21 flexible in the lateral direction, and it cannot provide 22 restraint, but when you go down to the smaller diameter 23 pipe with respect to the diameter of the U-Bolt, the 24 U-Bolt provides restraint. And this can be shown 25 through the NPF9 lateral load, that they have o
N-] J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC, Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
21 n
(-) I tabulated.
2 DR. 10TTI: Well, I believe that some of the 3 problems that we re-analyzed to address your concern 4
range in pipe size from, what, six-inc: , sixteen inch 5 and, what, 30 -- 24? So, I don't know. Are you telling 6 me that the six inch pipe is considered now a large 7 pipe?
8 MR. WALSH: What you're saying is'the U-Bolt, 9 when it reacts with, the U-Bolt, when it reacts with to the pipe, is providing a lateral restraint, possibly. I 11 don't know what the load or the stiffness of the U-Bolt 12 is in the lateral direction.
-, 13 DR. 10TTI: Well, we've actually used --
v 14 we' ve conducted testing that insured (inaudible) works 15 that were attached to an affidavit.
16 MR. WALSH: Well, then I guess the crux of my 17 question is, in the statement, all such U-Bolts had been 18 considered as only one-way restraints.
19 (Interrupted by Dr. Iotti -
inaudible) 20 MR. WALSH: Within that statement, I want to 21 know why NPSI had allowables for both directions --
22 documentation showing why they had them.
23 T R. 10TTI: I don't know. I cannot speak for 24 NPSI, but I presume that any manufacturer would want to 25 provide sllowables in both directions, because they n
N-] J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 yREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
i 22.
im V 1 would now want to confine the way the particular 2 U-Bolt is used by whoever wants to use them. The fact 3 that they haven't been used as a two-way restraint here, 4 0.K., would indicate that in that particular 5 application, the allowable in the lateral direction 6 would not be used. On the other hand even if there had j 7
been instances where the U-Bolt was always intended to 8 be used as a two-way restraint, in which case the 9 lateral allowable is used. It really depends on the to application.
11 MR. WALSH: In the PSE Manual it lists the 12 allowable lateral load.
13 DR. 10TTI: And when the U-Bolt was always 14 intended to act as a two-way restraint from the 15 beginning,.that lateral would have been used as the 16 allowable.
17
.MR. WALSH: But that contradicts the statement 18 that is written here in the material facts.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What statement'is that? l 1
20 DR. 10TTI: No Sir, it does not.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And the initial l
pipe-support design -- )
l 23 DR. IOTTI: --
to those U-Bolts which were '
24 invented to act as one-way restraints. This does not l 25 l
cover those U-Bolts which were always intended to act g
O J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6136
23 q
V 1 as two-way restraints.
2 MR. WALSH: That's contradictory to what's 3 ' stated in the Statement of Material Facts. It states, 4
and the initial accordingly, in the initial pipe support 5 design prior to (inaudible) conditions, all such U-Bolts 6 had been considered as only one-way restraints.
7 MR. FINNERAN: This is John Finneran, again.
8 The term, all such U-Bolts, refers back to the very 9 first sentence that says, U-Bolts on rigid frames are 10 intended to act as one-way restraints, so there's no 11 contradiction at all.
12 DR. IOTTI: This is Dr. Iotti. For the sake 13 of being repetitive, 1 think it's important that we 14 clarify there are different types of U-Bolts employed in is the plans. The ones that are referred to in this 16 particular affidavit, the Statement of Material Facts, 17 are only those which are, intended to act, were ir. tended 18 to act as one-way restraints, as U-Bolt restraints on a 19 rigid frame. Now there are other types of U-Bolts, 20 which are not addressed, so if we keep trying to read 21 into the affidavit something that isn't there, or the 22 Statement of Material Facts that isn't there, we are all 23 going to be very confused.
24 MR. WALSH: 0.K., the next question, how did 25 one determine if the U-Bolt was acting as a one-way
' (3
'V J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
24 O
's > 1 restraint or two-way restraint? We'd like 2 documentation to verify that.
3 DR. 10TTI: Well, I.believe, if you read the 4
affidavit, which you have found is a sample, which 5
~
encompasses most of those U-Bolts thich were intended to 6
act as one-way, but which could act as two-way 7
restraints. O.K., the affidavit addresses certainly the 8 ones that are most likely to act as two-way restraints, 9 and concludes that the reason was that effect is 10 tolerable. So that is the best information that we can 11 provide you. We went.back, searched for all of the 12 instances which the U-Bolts intended to act as one-way, 73 13 could in fact act as two-way, where we analyze those
\. )
14 fresh problems which encompasses some of those U-Bolts, 15 and I say some, because not all were included but most-16 in terms of the one's thac were most likely to act as a 17 two-way restraint, and presented to you as a conclusion 18 to those studies. That'is the best evidence that we can u) provide at this point.
20 MRS. ELLIS: Why don't we take a couple of 21 minutes break, and let us kind of talk about this, and 22 we can narrow down some of these questions for tonight 23 and save them for the next round on the other stuff.
24 MR. WALSH: Yeah, I think that would be a good 25 idea.
O kl J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Roporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annep, 169-6136
25 t
\_/ 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Don't anybody hang up.
2 (Off the record discussion.)
3 MR. WALSH: All right, going to item number 4 First' sentence, it references and as built three.
5 review, how does this differ from the vendor certified?
6 DR. 10TTI: Bill, did you receive it?
7 MR. HORIN: Yes, he asked, with respect to 8 item three, in the material facts, how does the as-built 9 review differ from the vendor certification?
10 MR. WALSH: If this is only for the PSE group, 11 I.think it should be noted that including NPSI group for 12 now.
7-13 MR. HORIN: Did you hear that, John?
U 14 MR. FINNERAN: .No.
15 MR. HORIN: He said, if this is for PSE only, 16 we should indicate that or if it's for -- if it includes 17 NPSI, we should also indicate that.
18 MR. FINNERAN: 0.K. I think we're ready to 19 answer his question. Can you hear me?
20 MR. HORIN: Yes.
21 MR. FINNERAN: Can you hear me?
22 MR. HORIN: Yes.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He said yes.
21 MR. FINNERAN: The as-built review referred 25 here in part three is the normal as-built analysis
(~\
t )
Q./
J.L.H. '
NRC/46 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. i g ,,,, ,,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,
D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. 6. Annop. 269-6136 Tape 1 l
26 m
() I program at Gibson Hill, and does not just cover the 2 course for PSE, it covers the course for PSE, ITT and 3 NPSI, so as the as-built review program of Gibson Hill.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right.
5 MR. WALSH: Continuing on that same item, it 6 states, those reanalyses, and that reanalysis performed 7 by Gibson Hill that it's referencing, what did they use i e as the lateral stiffness of the U-Bolt?
9 MR. FINNERAN: Bill?
10 MR. HORIN: Yes.
11 MR. FINNERAN: Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, 12 but isn't the Henryman Hill letter one of the CASE
,3 13 exhibits?
- )
14 MR. HORIN: What?
is MR. FINNERAN: The Henryman Hill ~1etter which 16 documents Gibson Hill's approach to how they're going to 17 model these U-Bolts in the as-built analysis program.
18 Whereas the (inaudible) is over a sixteenth they would 19 Write a thermal analysis of it, that letter -- isn't it 20 one of the CASE-exhibits? -- that letter has a table of 21 the differences that they would assume listed in it.
22 MRS. ELLIS: It doesn't ring a bell with me by 23 that name, anyway.
24 MR. WALSH: Well, it rings a bell with me, but 25 it doesn't ring a loud enough bell ths.t I can point to k,! J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. 66 Annop.169-6136
27
,m D 1 which exhibit it might be.
2 MR. HORIN: It seems to me, Bill, that at one 3 of the hearings that we provided, the proceedure that 4 was still used, for the revaluation of that U-Bolt -- I 5 don't recall whether that was our exhibit or CASE's 6 exhibit, but I believe we did produce that procedure.
7 MR. FINNERAN: This document was produced to l
)
8 CASE in their discovery on the 15th of (inaudible) the j 9 15 references in the said report, and we sent for a copy to of it and got it. And one of the pages of that letter 11 is a table of the stiffnesses that they used.
12 MR. WALSH: All right. Well, we'd like to 13 know or rather we'd like to have the -- another
+)
fs 14 statement stating the reanalysis encompassed in regard 15 to this Statement of Material Facts. That's what the 16 (inaudiblc) report contained.
17 MR. FINNERAN: I guess I missed the question, 18 Bill, could you relay it to us? ,
19 MR. HORIN: He's asking, what the reanlysis 1
20 referenced in item three --
l 21 MR. FINNERAN: -- in the affidavit? I don't 22 recall what the people (inaudible), but (inaudible).
23 It's all in the affidavit. It's perfectly clear --
24 MR.-HORIN: Mark, did.you have a chance to 25 read through the affidavit?
('}
G JLH NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169 6136
28 1
WALSH: Just briefly and the values that were 2 stated do not reflect the testing that I've seen on 3 these U-Bolts.
4 MR. HORIN: Can you provide us with the 5 results of this testing?
6 MR. WALSH: Yes, and I'd like to see some 7 documentation that shows a Gibson Hill, what stiffness 8 Gibson Hill actually used for the systems that they 9 evaluated. It could be a statement in a form of a 10 letter.
11 MR. HORIN: Didn' t John just answer that?
12 MR. FINNERAN: We'11 provide them or tell them 13 when they were given it before.
n V 14 MR. HORIN: All right.
15 MR. FINNERAN: We'11 tell you what CASE 16 exhibit it is.
17 MRS. ELLIS: If you can identify, you know, a 18
~ little bit better -- I can' t just identify from what 19 you've said so far. I don't think I can (noise).
20 MR. WALSH: Yeah, we need you to --
21 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K.
22 MR. WALSH: Item number four, it states 23 applicants decided to replace all U-Bolts. Does 24 applicants include ITT and NPSI?
25 MR. FINNERAN: Yes.
O V J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 yREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6136
i l
l i
29 f 1
MR. WALSH: Now moving on.
2 MR. FINNERAN: (noise - inaudible) item four .
3 The question was asked in context of item four. . Is that 4
correct?
5 MR. WALSH: Yes.
6 MR. FINNERAN: Right. That -- our answer is 7
yes.
8 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K.
9 MR. FINNERAN: (noise) where the thermal to movement equal or exceeded 1/16 of an inch.
11 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. (inaudible) 12 MR. WALSH: On item number six, that is 13 continued on to page three of Material Facts, we would O' 14 like to see some documentation showing that the 15 manufacture allowable values are consistent with the 16 NPSI design of 1982, i.e., the-actual stiffness of the 17 U-Bolt of the support and the struts.
18 DR. 10TTI: Bill, would the repeat the 19 question, please. Bill?
20 MR. MORIN: Yes. (inaudible) Mark is asking ,
21 for some documentation showing that the manufacturer's 22 allowable values referenced in or applicable to item six 23 of the Statement of Material Facts is consistent with 24 that used by an NPSI design in 1982.
25 DR. 10TTI: (inaudible) sum of those values (3
kJ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. 6L Annop.169-613 6
30 m
i ) i (inaudible) 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I couldn't hear that.
3 MR. HORIN: 'He said, that in the affidavit, we 4 state that we did not use those values. Bob, did you 5 mean the manufacturer's allowables.
6 DR. 10TTI: Yeah, we computed new allowables 7 on the basis of values (inaudible) g MR. HORIN: Bob says, that we developed new 9 allowables, we did not use the manufacturer's, based on 10 tests for the purpose of this affidavit.
33 MR. FINNERAN: We so stated that in the 12 affidavit.
13 MR. HORIN: And it stated in the affidavit.
34 MRS. ELLIS: On some of these things the 35 referenced in the affidavit, I'm not sure it's always 16 exactly clear in the affidavit, one of the problems 37 we're having from time to time on this. So we' re j ust is trying to clarify some of these things.
19 DR. 10TTI: The easiest way to answer that 20 question -- this is Dr. Iotti --
is to clarify where in 21 the affidavit.we can find that information , and we ' 11 22 Provide that at the same time that we provide that 23 information that we had promised in regards to Gibson 24 Hill reanalysis. They're acceptable.
25 MRS. ELLIS: Good. ;
/~T t J.L.H.
1 NRC/46 Tape i FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
31
,73
's' 1 MR. HORIN: Bob, wouldn't it be on, perhaps 2
not, would it not be in the affidavit in the pages 3
referenced in the particular Statement of Material Fact?
4 l DR. 10TTI: That's correct. I 5 MR. HORIN:
l I think part of the problem, Mrs.
6 Ellis, is that you have put your emphasis on reviewing 7
Material Fact in much more detail than is provided in 8 the Affidavit, which you may or may not be aware of, and 9
I think that's part of the situation we're coming across 10 here.
l
! 11 MRS. ELLIS: One of the things we've read the i
12 summary statements more closely, but in looking back at i
c3 13 the affidavit sometimes it's not completely clear to us
~
14 on some of these items as well. We ' re j ust trying to 15 clarify some of it, so we're sure we understand what's is really being said.
17 MR. WALSH: In regards to item number eight, 18 states applicant's commission ITT Grinnell, and this is 19 in regards to the testing of the U-Bolt's capability.
20 We request documentation showing why ITT was chosen and I 21 \
not another independent laboratory.
i 22 MRS. ELLIS: I guess what we want to know 23 there is what criteria was used to have ITT Grinnell do 24 this rather than an independent outside laboratory.
25 With independence of criteria, in other words, I guess.
! (~)
\_/ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6136
32
) 1 MR. HORIN: Did you hear that, Bob?
2 DR. 10TTI: I guess so. I guess the prime 3 criterion is expediency in the sense that we have to 4
have this done in a short time; secondly is that the 5 devices employed to test for ultimate capabilty are 6 essential, universal and, you know, there is no way you 7
can hide the results of the test, so it's really 8 immaterial who conducts them.
9 MRS. ELLIS: But, doesn't it also, is it sort to of, here I'm a little out of my element, please bear 11 with me, but when you do tests, isn't it similar to a 12 situation where the input, like with a computer program 7_.s 13 for instance, what you put in determines what comes out
\ }
14 to a certain extent?
l 15 DR. 10TTI: No, maam.
16 MR. WALSH: No on a physical test.
17 DR. 10TTI: Not on a physical test, Mrs. '
18 Ellis. The U-Bolt is pushed or pulled, whatever until 19 it either exceeds the deflection that you preordain or 20 it basically breaks. Now, there isn't very much you can 21 do other than simply observe what happens, and we have 22 provided the attachment to the affidavit to complete 23 test results, f
! 24 MR. WALSH: But didn't anybody else contact to 25 do these tests?
I
(')/
t_ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 o Belt. & Annep. 169-6136 t
33 tm
(_) 1 MR. HORIN: He asked, if anybody else was 2 contacted to do these tests.
3 MR. FINNERAN: Mark, could you perhaps clarify 4 it for us what your concern is with the test results?
5 M3. WALSH: Yes. Well, I'm concerned that 6 Grinnell provided the U-Bolts, and Grinnell is also one 7 'of the parties involved.
8 MR. FINNERAN: So you're saying that they lied 9 and cheated. Is that correct?
10 MR. WALSH: Right.
11 MRS. ELLIS: Or that they have a vested 12 interested?
13 MR. WALSH: (inaudible) new design (inaudible)
O# 14 being acceptable.
15 MR. HORIN: I don't think there is any basis is for stating that there's any wrong doing in the test.
17 There's absolutely no basis for that. I think our 18 point, Mark, is that we' ve provided the complete test 19 results, and as you're surely aware on physical tests 20 such as this, the type of testing performed would 21 provide the same results independently of who happens to 22 be performing it. We don't consider.it material as to 23 who carried out the test, as Dr. Iotti stated. We 24 thought a party capable of carrying out these tests, 25 consistent with the schedule that the board and parties (D
L,) J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
34 n
U 1 agreed to and we don't consider it material, a 2 material factor. The fact that is at all, even if 3 disputed material to the outcome of this matter, who 4
carried out the test.
5 MR. WALSH: 0.K.
6 MRS. ELLIS: What do you think about this one, 7 Mark?
8 MR. WALSH: No.
9 MRS. ELLIS: Do you think (inaudible)? .
10 MR. WALSH: Item nine, states these 11 conservative consumptions, it was determined. I don't 12 quite understand how this determination was made, what.
analytical procedure was made.
()
13 14 MR. HORIN: Could you hear that, Bob?
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Play it back for him 16 again, Bill.
17 MR. HORIN: He asked with respect to number 18 nine of the Statement of Facts, how the determination 19 was made,'what analytical method may have'been used to 20 determine that the U-Bolts were within the 21 manufacturer's interaction formula limits.
22 DR. 10TTI: If Mr. Walsh would go through the 23 affidavit again, what he will find is the actual 24 solution of the interaction formula where both the 25 actual normal load, ratio to the allowable normal loads, O'
G J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Iteporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 149-6136
35
,m Cl 1 plus the actual side load, divided by the allowable 2 side is compared to the value unity in all instances, 3 and the value turns out to be less than unity. That's 4
on page fourteen of the affidavit and actual numerical 5 . examples are given for , we believe, the three worst 6 U-Bolts. The affidavit actually lists four, but I 7
believe 1 only worked out a numerical example for three.
8 MR. WALSH: The testing results that were done 9 -- have these been requested in NPSI designs, where they to utilized the lateral restraint of the U-Bolts? Besides, 11 it was utilizing it to my knowledge as well.as PSE, 1
12 using the U-Bolt as a two-way restraint, conside-ing the l 1
13 lateral stiffness of the Bolt.
14 MR. HORIN: John and Bob, could you hear the i
15 question? '
16 DR. 10TTI: The best way to answer that 17 question, were to go back to a table in the affidavit.
18 I think you will find it ultimately, none of these needs j 19 to be considered as a two-way. restraint. We have chosen 20 to do so to alay the concerns of CASE. Demonstrate to 21 CASE that even is they were considered as two-way 22 restraints, nothing would happen to jeopardize.the 23 1
safety of the plant. But we are in no way saying they 24 will' act as a two-way restraint at this juncture.
! 25 MR. WALSH: Well the question here is, for A
V J'.L.H.
NRC/46
<A Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Dep',sitions
, D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. 4, Annop. 269-4136
36 5
(_/ 1 those U-Bolts, the pipe designer is assuming is acting 2, as a two-way restraint. The test results being 3 utilized, showing that they actually don't act as a 4
two-way restraint.
5 DR. 10TTI: The U-Bolt is acting as a two-way 6 restraint, the test results are not utilized. The 7 allowables given by the manufacturer, the side loads 8 were utilized for those instances.
9 MR. WALSH: Is Gibson Hill utilizing these to stiffness values for lateral restraint?
11 MR. HORIN: I think we're getting off the 12 track here. For I think what we're trying to establish 13 with this affidavit is the fact that you don't need to 7s I
~'
14 consider it. I think we've clearly established that you 15 don't need to considerate it, as a result we don't 16 considerate it.
17 MR. WALSH: All right.
18 ; MR. HORIN: Is that right, John and Bob?
19 MR. FINNERAN: Let me answer that question.
20 Gibson Hill did not utilize those test results.
21 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K.
22 MR. HORIN: You don't need to. We've clearly 23 established that the effects are not significant.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's it Juanita.
25 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. Any other questions? Does L-] J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. E Annop. 269-6136
37 1
the staff have any questions or anything?
2 MR. MIZUNO: John, Dave, do you have any 3 questions?
4 MR. FAIR: I'd like to This is John Fair.
5 clarify one point, if we could just go backwards a 6 little bit. When we were talking about item three in 7 the Material Facts as to what you use the analysis for 8 lateral stiffness, those supports were corrected in item 9 four and therefore, those analyses are no longer the 10 analyses of record for those pipes. Is that correct?
11 DR. 10TTI: Excuse me. This is Dr. Iotti.
12 The other phone chose now to ring, so we missed the
, 13 entire conversation.
14 MR. FAIR: 0.K.
15 DR. 10TTI: Will you please relay that?
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll start over again.
17 MR. HORIN: Are you guys ready? John or Bob 18 are you --
19 DR. 10TTI: No, the phone is still ringing.
20 Can we take one minute?
21 MR. MIZUNO: It's 0.K. John must have picked 22 up the phone to answer and all of a sudden he was --
23 DR. 10TTI: We can't hear anything, can we 24 just have one minute to answer that phone, and then.
25 we'll get back.
V J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 yREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
38 J 1 MR. MIZUNO: All right. John Fair, why don't 2 you' repeat your question.
3 MR. FAIR: I just wanted to clarify a previous 4
discussion on the U-Bolt on item three of the Material 5 Facts, there was a discussion about the modeling of the 6 U-Bolts as two-way restraints and the fact that you used 7
a stiffness for the lateral direction. Was that 8 correct?
9 DR. 10TTI: Yeah, we did use a stiffness for 10 the lateral direction.
11 MR. FAIR: 0.K. Now these same ones that you 12 reanalyze, you eventually took all those U-Bolts out.
,s 13 Is that also correct?
\ )
14 DR. 10TTI: That is correct.
15 MR. FAIR: And therefore all those analyses 16 would not be the analysis of record'for those piping 17 systems.
18 DR. 10TTI: That is also correct.
39 MR. FAIR: I just wanted to clarify that, 20 thank you.
21 MR. MIZUNO: Dave, do you have any questions?
22 MR. TERAO: No questions.
23 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K. The staff has no questions.
24 For the questions, I guess we should end the conference 25 call at this point. I'm sorry, we should end O
'/ J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136
39
()
I the transcript at this point, but I'd like the parties 2 to st.ay on the line.
3 MRS. ELLIS: One more thing before we do tha*..
4 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K.
5 MRS. ELLIS: -- go off the record. Could you 6 kind of give me an idea of when we can get the 7 information we, you know, asked for at the last 8 conference call, and kind of give me an idea of 9 scheduling, since we've got this scheduling conference 10 coming up, Friday. Any ideas on that?
11 MR. HORIN. David, have you had an opportunity 12 to assess that one, yet?
g 13 MRS. ELLIS: I know that you all have quite a U 14 few things to get.for us, and needless to say your is response on that will have to do with the amount of time 16 it will take us from then.
17 MR. HORIN: David, are you there?
18 MR. WADE: Yes.
19 MR. HORIN: Did you have a chance to look at 20 that -- or should we --
21 MR. WADE: I'm sorry, Bill, I've left the 22 phone here for about two minutes and I missed the 23 question.
24 MR HORIN: Juanita was wondering what 25 schedule we might be on for providing the information p
C J.L.H.
NRC/46 l Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Bolt. GL Annop. 269-6136
40 V,3 1 requested on the last conference call. I. talked to 2
John this afternoon, and we're going to review that in 3
the morning to see exactly where we are on providing i 4
those requests. Hopefully, David can get back to you on 5 two subj ec ts , then, tomorrow.
6 MRS. ELLIS: 0.K. Very good.
7 MR. MIZUNO: And I think the staff owes you 8 one bit of information, and that involves talk with Dr.
9 Chin, and I've been unable to get ahold of him, but I'll 10 try tomorrow.
11 MRS. ELLIS: Very good. And, Oh yes, I just 12 wanted to verify the conference call the last time, I 13 guess you all have just now gotten the copies of that 7 .3 14 ready for us, hopefully?
15 MR. MIZUNO: Right.
16 DR. 10TTI: Sorry, Bill, I've lost thia last 17 conversation. What is it all about?
18 MR. HORIN: That's a song title, isn't it?
19 MR. WADE: SPEAKER: Tell him I'11 tell him in-20 the morning, Bill.
21 MR. HORIN: David can tell you, it's not 22 related to the technical stuff. I still don't have a 23 transcript from the previous conference call. Geary, 24 is that coming out very shortly?
25 MR. MIZUNO: Yes. We j ust go t it, I j ust got y
D J.L.H.
NRC/46
-Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bait. & Annap. 269-6136
41 V,9 1 it in my hands, today, and I had a transmittal letter 2
all written out, and Stuart Trebee (PH) is sitting on it 3 right now. He has some problems.
4 MR. HORIN: It's important that we get that.
5 I have reviewed my notes from the last conference call, 6
and I think I know what we agreed to send Mrs. Ellis, 7
but I'd like to review the transcript to make sure that j
8 we've covered all the bases. i 9 MR. MIZUNO: Right.
10 MRS. ELLIS: I'm in the same situation.
11 MR. MIZUNO: Well, we'll send it out express 12 mail.
13 .MR. WADE: Geary, could you put me on direct V 14 distribution for a copy of that, please. This is David 15 Wade.
16 MR. MIZUNO: You'11 have to give me your 17 address.
18 MR. WADE: I'll call you in the morning and <
19
)
give you that.
l 20 MR. MIZUNO: 0.K. Fine. O.K. Can we now go j
21 off the record? 1 22 MRS. ELLIS: Yeah, I guess so. I don't guess 23 there's any point at this point of discussing-too much, 24 when we'll be talking about the rest of these things, 25 until we --
f)
V J.L.H.
NRC/46 Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6236
42 O i MR. MIZUNO: Thank you for the conference call 2
and we'11 end the transcript now, but all parties stay 3
on after this.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1
O a.t.u.
NRC/46 l
Tape 1 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 . Bolt. & Annop. 169-6136 l
1 1
I i
CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 2
3 This is to certify that the attached 4
proceedings before the NRC COMMISSION 5
In the matter of:
6 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE - RE: COMMANCHE PEAK Date of Proceeding: Monday, June 11, 1984 7
Place of Proceeding: 7735 Old Georgetown Rd.
8 Room 10117 9 Bethesda, Maryland 10 were' held as herein appears, and that this is the 11 original transcript for the file of the Commission.
12 13 O 14 15 Official Reporter - Typed 16 Kim Schroeder 17 19 Nr/bbb/ 25 Official Reporter'- Signature 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting . Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Balt. & Annap. 269-6236
--