ML20197B252: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
ORlG hAL UM1ED STATES
  ) O        NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:                                  DOCKET NO:  50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON CCMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
D.                      .
V l
f            LOCATION:    CHICAGO, . ILLINOIS                  PAGES: 15,020 - 15,270 DATE:          TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1986 i
l
      /
9 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official St.We-s i
444 Nonh Cacitol Street j                                        Washington,'D.C. 20001 i            e61028029'3 e61021              (202)347-3M
;            PDR  ADOCK 0500{]']~ 6
                                          .NAEC.NwTCE COVERACE
(              ]
i
 
4 15020 4
            )
2    (
Nm-1 2                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' 4          BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
__________________x 6                                                :
In the Matter of:                          :
                -7                                                : Docket No. 50-456 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY              :            50-457 8                                                :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1              :
9      and 2)                                  :
i                __________________x 10 11 Page: 15,020 - 15,270 12                                                                            '
United States District Court House 13                                        Courtroom 1743 i'                                                      Chicago, Illinois 60604 14
;-                                                      Tuesday, October 21, 1986 15 l              16              The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened l
17      at 9:00 A. M.
18 i                  BEFORE:
19 JUDG E HFRD SRT G ROSSMAN, Chairman 20              Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i              21              Washington, D. C.
22              JUDG E RIQ1 ARD P. COLE, Member,                              '
l                              Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23              U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
24 J UDG E A. DIXON CALLIH AN, Member, O'      25              Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i                              Sonntaa Recor tina Se rvi ce. Ltd.
l G enev a', Illinois 60134 L                                        (312)        232-0262
 
                                            .    =. --        . -          -    - -
1 1
15021 e                                                                                    ;
1                        Washington, D. O, I            2          APPEARANCES:
3                  On behalf of the Applicant:
;            4                        MI CH A EL I. MILLER, E SQ .
PHILIP P.      STEPTOE, III, E SQ .
i            5                        Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 6                        Chicago, Illinois 60602 7
!                                On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory l            8                  Commission Staff:
l l            9                        GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
10                        U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 11                        Bethesda, Maryland 20014 l        h .12                  On behalf of the Intervenor:
13                        ROBERT GUILD, ESQ .
i
!            14 15 16 7
17 18 19 20 i
+
21 I
l          22
:          23 l
t 24 25 l
i                                      Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134                  :
!                                                (312)      232-0262
 
15022 0
1  EXHIBIT INDEX                            MARKED  RECE IV ED i
2  Applicant's Exhibit No. 157              15031 3  Applicant's Exhibit No. 158              15031 I
4  Applicant's Exhibit No. 159              1503N    15145
      -5  Applicant's Exhibit No.160                15056    15074
,    6  Applicant's Exhibit No. 161              15064    15074 7  Applicant's Exhibit No.162                15138    15140
: 8. Applicant's Exhibit No. 143                        15140 l      9  Applicant's Exhibit No. 144                        15141 10  Applicant's Exhibit No. 146                        15142 11  Applicant's Exhibit No. 147                        15142 12  Applicant's Exhibit No. 148                        15143 13  Applicant's Exhibit No. 149                        15143 f
14  Applicant's Exhibit No. 150                        15143
!    15  Applicant's Exhibit No.151                        15144 l
16  Applicant's Exhibit No. 152                        15144 17  Applicant's Exhibit No.154                        15145 18 19 20 l-    21 l    22 23 24 j
snnntag nonnreing snruico, r+ a Geneva, Illinois 60134 L-                          (312)  232-0262
 
  ,      , ..  .      . .    . _ - .      .              ~.      =_
d 15023 a
i 1                                    TESTIMONY OF 2'                                THOMAS B. THORSELL KENNETH THOMAS KOSTAL 3
i              REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 4      BY MR. STEPTOE:                                  15026
!      5      VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD:                                    15064 1      6                    ~
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION            (Continued) 7      BY MR. GUILD:                                    15069 8-      BOARD EXAMINATION BY J UDG E COL E:                                15106 9
I BOARD EXAMINATION            (Continued) 10      BY JUDGE COLE:                                    15146 b  11      BOARD EXAMINATION BY J UDG E CALLIH AN :                            15164 BOARD EXAMINATION
!      13      BY J UDGE GROSSMAN:                              15174 i
14      RECROSS EXAMINATION
,              BY MR. GUILD:                                    15242 l      15 16                                              .'
!      17 18 19 I
20 l
21 22 23 24 t
;                    snnneac nonnreina servico. r+a _
Ge d eva', I1115ois 60134 g                                    (312) 232-0262                        ,
 
15024
(    )
G' 1            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    The hearing is reconvened.
2      This is the 77th day of hearing.
3      Do we have any preliminary matters?
4            MR. STEPTOE:    Judge G rossman, the only 5  preliminary matter I have is I think we have provided to 6  Mr. Guild the documents and information he was seeking 7  last week.
8      He's made one further request for us to copy -- or 9  produce documents that we've already produced once, and 10  we're doing that, but essentially all the new
  ,m
(      ) 11  information he asked for has been provided to him.
  \,_./'
12            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.
13      Anything f urther?
14            MR. GUILD:  I'm not sure what Applicant's 15 . plan was, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the corrections 16  and revisions of the weld discrepancy count that Mr.
17  Kostal has under way, whether they intended to elicit 18  further testimony of Mr. Kostal at this point on this 19  subject -- that was the subject of some of our 20  discussion yesterday af ternoon -- or whether they plan 21  to await the completion of that work before they present 22  its results to the Board.
l          23      Perhaps I could just ask --
;  /
l
(%)
N_/
24            MR. STEPTOE:    We were anticipating the 1
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134                              i j                            (312) 232-0262
 
15025
    ~
  \  J' 1 latter; that is, we just won't get into weld discrepancy 2 recounting in this redirect and we will bring Mr. Kostal 3 back when the count is complete.
4      I should inform you that the count is almost 5 complete now. It was expanded to all welds rather than 6 just the welds in the cable pan hanger population, and 7 it's almost complete or being completed now, and it's 8 being checked and --
9            JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Okay, tha t's fine, 10      Mr. Berry, anything f urther from you, preliminary
  /
n i 11 matter?
N.,l 12            MR. BERRY:    Yes, Mr. Chairman.
13      It's my understanding that the Office of 14 Inspections and Audit issued their report, and the Board 15 knows the report I'm referring to.
16      I'm informed, though, that Mr. McG regor's attorney 17 has not -- still has not yet received the report.
18      We' re looking into that to see why -- or what's the 19 holdup on that, and hopef ully that Mr. McGregory and his 20 attorney will have a copy of that report soon so they 21 can -- so Mr. McGregor can return to the stand.
22      We'll keep working on that, and we'll let the Board 23 know.
g
( ,)    24      I only bring this up at this time because I think Ronntag Repor ting Se rvi ce, Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15026 i      \
\  /
1  last week we mentioned that Mr. McGregor and his lawyer 2  may be available the latter part of this week, and that 3  may not -- that may or may not be the case, depending on 4  the availability of this report to Mr. McGregor and his 5  attorney.
6              JUDG E GROSSMAN:    Thank you.
7        At this point, since there are no further 8  preliminary matters, we'll return to the panel of Mr.
9  Kostal and Mr. Thorsell.      Both of you gentlemen remain 10  sworn.
  ,a
(      ) 11        We'll continue with Mr. Steptoe's redirect
  %/
12  e xamina tion.  .
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Excuse me.
14                    REDIRECT EXAMINATION 15                        (Continued) 16                      BY MR. STEPTOE:
17 Q The first subj ect this morning, Mr. Kostal, is Cable Pan 18  Hange r 104.
19        I believe you stated at one point, in response to 20  Mr. Guild's questioning, that your calculations were 21  performed on a connection basis; is that correct?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, si r,  they were performed on a 23  connection basis, and within that connection, they were
[~')
(    )  24  performed on a stress-plane basis.
Ronntag Reporting Rervice, Tid _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
k 15027 N) 1      Q Would you please describe what a stress plane is, sir?
4 2-      A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)                          If ~I could use the Board to 3        illustrate.
4                We'll take the example of the DV 7 that we talked 5        about, which was the internal diagonal brace.
6                In that particular detail, we had a piece of tube 7        steel with a plate -- with two gusset plates and a 8-        horizontal member, a diagonal member, as I'm looking 9        down in plan.
10                  This tube steel -- this entire area in the circle 11          is defined as a connection.
[%)T    12                                        (Indica ting. )
13                  There are three locations to transfer load in this
              ~4 1          connection to various components of the connection.
15          These are defined as stress planes.
16                  For example, this member is connected at Point 1
:            17          and 2 by welding, and Point -- that would be Points 1 18          and 2 up here, and underneath this member, there's Point i          '19          3 at.d Point 4.
20                                          (Indicating.)
;            21                  These four locations define the welding of the --
~
22          they define the first stress plane.                                There are four
!            23          w elds.
          \
1    .  /  24                                          (Indica ting. )
l      V k
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illir ois 60134 (312)                232-0262
 
15028
      .< ~g-1 1                The second stress plane is the weld that's here and 2          here, which we will define as Point 5 and 6.                              In this 3          view, it would be 5 and 6.
4                                            (Indicating.)
5                There are two welds that attach these two gusset 6          plates to transfer the load to this plate.
7                                            (Indica ting .)
8              The third stress plane is the weld that's here and 9          here, which we will define as 7 and 8.
10                                            (Indica ting. )
i 11              So within this connection there are three stress 12          planes.
13    Q    Mr. Kostal, let me just stop you there.
4 14              Would dif ferent engineers define the stress planes 15        -differently for that connection?
16    A    (NITNESS KOSTAL)                                No, si r.
:              17    0    Why did Sargent & Lundy perform evaluations of weld 18          discrepancies on a stress-plane basis?
j 19    A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                                Because the -- what ycur -- what you 20          want to review and what you want to determine is that at 21          each transfer of load from one type of member to another
              '22          type of member or from one plane to another plane, we l              23          accounted for the discrepancies that were noted, and 24          that the design is -- the design integrity between the l
l l                                Ronntag naporting snrvice, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l                                                    (312)                    232-0262
 
15029 (y
i x.
1    load of this member to the transfer to this member 2    transf ers through all those welds.
3                      (Indica ting . )
4            So in order to do that, you have to perform three 5    unique analyses to assure yourself that the load that's 6    in the diagonal member is, indeed, transferred to the 7    ver tical member.
8                      (Indica ting. )
9  Q Mr. Kostal, in your judgment, would it be appropriate, 10    in performing engineering evaluations, to aggregate the
    ,m
{Jj 11    weld discrepancies across stress planes; that is, all 12    three stress planes in -- all the weld discrepancies in 13    all three stress planes would be -- would be aggregated?
14    Would that be appropriate?
15  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No, it would be totally 16    inappropriate, because you are reviewing discrepancies 17    at a stress plane.
18            By aggregating all the discrepancies, they really 19    have no bearing on the transfer from one plane to 20    another plane, because they are uniquely characteristic 21    to tneir plane, so you would never combine them together 22    in any analysis.
23  0 Mr. Kostal, I think you also referred to this kind of l /''N i
qj      24    connection as a pinned connection, which you said meant l
Sonntag Reporting Service. T1t d .
l                            Geneva, Illinois      60134 l                                (312)  232-0262
 
n                                                                                                                    .
15030 Y
i          _l-    that there is no capability to transfer moment or to 2      take moment.
E          3            Do you recall that examination?                                                                ,
4  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, si r.
5- 0  Are there any circumstances -- for example, an 6    earthquake -- in which - that connection -- that pin                                                  ,
.          7    connection --'could be subjected to moment forces and be 8      required to take moment?
9  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Well, our computer program does 10      account for the local self-weight excitation within the 11      design of these particular connections.
(
,        12            The amount of local moment is almost insignificant.-
13      Therefore, it's basically considered zero.
14  0  Hell, Mr. Kostal, what do you mean by "self-weight 15      excitation"?
c
!.        16  A    (MITNESS' KOSTAL)      This is the -- in a seismic event --
i 17      we design a. hanger -- -- let's take, for example, our j        18      104 hanger.
19            In plan view --
20                  MR. BERRY:          Mr. Chairman, do you want to mark 21      this Exhibit Applicant's 158 and the preceding one as
,        22      157?
23                  MR. STEPTOE:              Yes, we should identify the s
24      first sketch, which you just finished, as Applicant's l
l Sonntaa Reoortina Service. Ltd_
Ge 5 ev a', Illi5ois        60134 i
L (312)  232-0262
 
                                                                          . _~
L 15031 1    Exhibit 157, please, Mr. Kostal.
2  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    All right.
3                      (Indica ting . )
4                      (The document was thereupon marked 5                      Applicant's Exhibit No.157 for 1,
6                      identification as of. October 21, 1986.)
7  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      This .will be 15 8?
8                      (Indicating.)
9                MR. STEPTOE:      The new one 'is 15 8.
10                        (The document was thereupon marked 11                        Applicant's Exhibit No. 158 for
(        '
l            12                        identification as of October 21, 1986.)_
i            13    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      All right.
I
;            14                        (Indica ting. )
15            This is the plan view.        The hanger -- quality 16      orientation of this hanger is in the north-south l            17      direction.
l            18            These are longitudinal braces, this is the vertical 19      tube steel and these are the horizontal members.
20                        (Indicating.)                                    c 21            Now, if we look at this in the same way as it's l            22      looked at in the weld map configurations, this hanger 23      looks like this.
O
( ,) 24                        (Indica ting. )
i Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. T,td .
;                              Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15032
    ,n
  !      l Ns 1          I forget the orientation of the diagonal; but just 2      so I don' t get it different than what it shows in 3      here -- so this is Eleva tion View A.
4                      (Indicating.)
5                MR. STEPTOE:      Mr. Kostal, don't stand so the 6      Board can't see.
7 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Okay.
8          Now, there are -- another view I have to take -- I 9      can't draw lef t-handad.      I'm sorry.
10          This is the other elevation view.
          ) 11                      (Indica ting .)
i  ld      12          The -- in designing this hanger, we account for 13      seismic in two directions, north-south, east-west, as 14      those spectra that I showed you last week, and we also 15      account for it in the vertical direction.
16                      (Indicating.)
17          In modeling this, the prime reason for the diagonal 18      brace is to take out the seismic load in the north-south 19      direction. The -- this is in View B.
20                      (Indi ca ting. )
21          In View A, the prima ry reason for this geometry is 22      to take out the seismic load in the north-south 23      direction ex k    )  24 BY MR. STEPTOE:
sonntag neporting service, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15033 7
l    1 LJ 1 Q Excuse me.
2        Did you say north-sort?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      I'm sorry. East-west direction.
.          4  Excuse me.
5        Now, the individual members themselves can also see 6  local self-weight excita tion.
7        The model is made such that you -- this represents 8  a cable pan, and at two locations in the cable pan you 9  have note points, and at these notes -- note points, you 10  input weight.
    <-'st 11        Within the analysis, this weight is excited both (G    12  vertically and in both horizontal directions, so it's 13  excited in all three directions.
14                    (Indica ting . )
15        In addition to that weight being excited, the 16  individual members within the frame are excited just 17  locally for their own little weight that they carry.
18        ihis  ittle weight in a hanger of a given frame 19  member is vert small compared to these note-point 20  wei ghts th:4!- are being inputted.
21        That's what I meant when I talked about self-weight 22  excita tion of the individual member as well as 23  seismically designing this hanger for both -- all
    ,m
(    ) 24  components of the load for seismic.
    %J Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15034
,\
/
N.s')
1 Q Now, my question is:
2          Are there circumstances in an earthquake in which 3  motion could be imparted to the internal diagonal member 4  such that the connections would break because they, 5  accoriling to your analysis, are pinned connections and 6  do not take moment?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No.
8 0 Why not?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      And the reason is because that small 10  amount of load is in -- for example, the load at a given s
(J~--
      \ 11 12 joint may be in thousands of pounds and the self-weight load would be in a matter of a f ew pounds.
13          So the relationship between that self-weight 14  reaction and the actual reactions that are in the 15  connections are in -- they are extremely small, so, 16  ther ef or e,  the connections can easily accommodate that 17  for another reason, 18          Because we do take, in designing the connections, 19  which are standard -- we do take the worst case in any 20  location to design the connection.
21          For example, in this par ticular member, every 1 of 22  these connections at these 10 locations is exactly the 23  same, it's the same detail, and in order to design that C 'N
()    24  detail, we take the worst reaction at any given Ronntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15035 i    N~ )
i 1      connection and that is the design for that connection 2      within the hanger, and that envelopes all the other 3      smaller reactions that occur.
4                      (Indica ting. )
5          That envelope can accommodate these small
'l 6      self-weight excitation loads.
7  Q  Thank you, Mr. Kostal.
}            8          Let me just find another exhibit here.
9          Mr. Kostal, Mr. Grossman asked you -- Judge 10      Grossman asked you the other day what were the actual              i l        h 11      weights .in the cable -- in the cable pan for Cable Pan i
L
    . G[  12      Hanger 104 as compared to the assumed weight of .45 l          13      pounds per square foot.
1
            .4            You prepared an exhibit which indicates what l          15      that -- what those actual weights -were that were used in i
16      the second calculation?
:          17    A. (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, si r.
18                MR. STEPTOE:            Okay.
19            If we could have a moment, Judge Grossman, I'll try 20      to find it.
21    A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Oh, good.
22                MR. STEPTOE          Mr. Kostal, I've just handed you l
23      a copy of a document which I would like to have marked g    24.      as Applicant's Exhibit' No. 159.
!                        sonntag nepor ting se rvice              Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois          60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15036 f    i
  'w.)
1                      (In dica ting . )
2                      (The document was thereupon marked 3                        Applicant's Exhibit No.159 for 4                        identification as of October 21, 1986.)
5                JUDGE GROSSMAN :        Excuse me.
6          Did the Reporter get a copy of this?
7                MR. STEPTOE:        The Reporter will get a copy, 8      yes, sir.
9 BY MR. STEPTOE:
10 Q    would you please describe what is shown in this
  ;(,,)  11      document?
    'u 12 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      This document is the Elevation View A 13      in Exhibit 15 8. It shows the loca tion of -- in 14      illustrative form, the location of the 9 cable pans that 15      are supported by Cable Pan Hanger 104.
16          The top -- or the top value that you see at any pan 17      elevation is the original load in the original analysis 18      based on 45 pounds per square foot of cable tray load.
19          The recond value underneath the first value is the 20      actual weight of cable and pan that exists at this point 21      in time for these par ticular trays which is supported by 22      this particular Cable Pan Hanger 104.
23          The value at the bottom of this exhibit gives you (Q)
    %_/
24      the total cumulative weight in the original analysis, l
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 t                                (312) 232-0262
 
15037
    'w, 1  which was 2,340 pounds, and underneath that gives you 2  the new actual weight associated with the cables and 3  pan, which is 1,411 pounds.
4 Q Okay.
5          Mr. Kostal, while we're on this exhibit, 6  Applicant's Exhibit 15 9, there was some testimony that 7  one of the cable pans changed location in the second 8  analysis tha t was done as part of the BCAP --
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      That's correct.
10 0 -- evalua tions ?
    /m
[    't 11          Could you identify which cable pan it was that
., %.)
12  changed locations?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      It's the very top cable pan in this, 14  which has a load associated with it of 180 original and 15  79 new.
16 0 Okay.
17          Now, how much did it -- by how much did it -- did 18  the loca tion change, Mr. Kostal?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Well, from the original to the 20  r evised ?
21 0 That's correct.
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      The original analysis was based on a 23  dimension of 24-3/8 of an inch -- well, 23-3/8 of an (3
()      24  inch f rom the lef t-hand side.      The revised analysis was Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15038
  \,)!
i 1  based on a 12-5/8 inch dimension from the lef t-hand 2  side.
3 0 So it changed by about a foot?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, si r.
5 Q Okay.
6        Now, have you been able to reconstruct why that 7  cable pan changed its location from -- in the models 8  from one revision to the next -- from one calculation to 9  the ne xt ?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      The best that we were able to
['% J
        } 11  r e con s tru ct, based on going over all the drawings, was 12  the f act that this dimension was taken f rom a pan that 13  was located immediately above this pan, which is not 14  supported by this hanger.
15 0 Okay.
16        Now, that pan is not shown on Applicant's Exhibit 17  159; is that correct?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      That's correct.
19        That pan would have been located at an elevation 20  approximately 4-1/2 -- 5-1/2 feet higher, and then 21  there's another pan that's another 2-1/2 feet higher 22  than that, so there are 2 additional pans located higher 23  than this particular pan in question.
(p)24 V
Q Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15039 s
(v    )
1        So that the person who did that, did he make a 2  mistake?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir. He picked -- he took the 4  pan location from the upper pan rather than the pan 5  location which would have been the same -- literally the 6  same as what we had in the original analysis.
7 0 Now, on which -- which calculation was it which the 8  mistake was made?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The mistake was made in the revised 10  calc ula tion.
  ,a (d    i 11 12 Q Now, do you have -- do you know what the effect of that change in loca tion was on the calcula tions ?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
14        The change in that location was negligible in terms 15  of the revised loads at the various connections in 16  question.
17 0 Why is -- why was it negligible, Mr. Kostal ?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTnL)    It was negligible for two reasons:
19        One was, a slight shif ting of this particular pan 20  really has little bearing on the actual connection 21  design, because these connections at this location were 22  enveloped based on the 2 pans tha t are 18-inches wide at 23  the lower elevations.
(j      24        The second reason it has a negligible ef fect is I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15040 i
1 L ' '%
1 J
J l        asked last night that another computer . run be generated 2        _ relocating this tray back to its correct dimension, and
+
3          the result of that computer run confirmed that they .were 4        . negl igi bl e.
4 5                              MR. STEPTOE:    Now, Mr. Grossman, I told Mr.
;                          6          Guild just briefly about this this morning, but he --
7          and I told him we would make that computer run available 8        to him as well as the drawing that was misread, but he 9        has not yet had a chance to see it because we found out-10            about this yesterday evening.
II          '
11                                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:          I take it you would                    '
.                      12            ordinarily locate the items where they would have the 13            greatest effect, and that if there's any deviation, it
                    .14              would almost always be towards reducing the strength of 15            the particular item; that is, its function?
16        'A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)              We would locate the pan as it's shown 17            on the drawing, and that's our normal design
!                      18            me thodology.
: j.                    19                            You can actually locate pans at various locations 20            and actually -- result in actually less load by
$                      21            switching it f rom one location to another.
22                                  JUDGE GROSSMAN :        Well, my question goes to 23            your design rather than to the actual location.
24                            I would --
Ronntag Reporting Rnrvica,. T,td .
-                                                        Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)    232-0262
_-.. - - - - . - .      - . - - - - . -              . - .  . - . _          . . ~ -    . - .      . - _-.
 
T 15041 (D    '
i LJ l  A (NITNESS KOSTAL)        Our design --
2                  J UDG E G ROSS!!AN :    Let me finish.
3  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        I'm sorry, si r.
4                  JUDG E GROSSliAN:      I would assume 'you would 5    design it for the maximum function, and that ordinarily, 6    if there were a deviation in the as-built location from 7    the design drawing, it would be in the direction .of 8    having a lesser function?
9  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        We would initially design it as it's I
10    shown on our drawings, and if it is relocated as a
    .-m 11    result of an as built, we would check to see whether or
(    ')
    'w/
12    not it was felt that that slight relocation really meant 13    a ny thing.
14            If, in looking at it -- based on the f act that, 15    le t's say, these par ticular connections were enveloped, 16    an engineering judgment would be made in a number of 17    cases to not rerun it because the engineer 'would know, 18    based just looking on the previous run, that the 19    connections had sufficient margin remaining to 20    accommodate any slight deviation f rom the original 21    calc ula tion.
22                  MR. STEPTOE:        That's not Judge G rossman's 23    question.
p                                                  No.
  \wj  '
d 24                  JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15042
:        s
-. t t
Q)                                                        ,              .
1 ll                                                You seem to have some reluctance -to tell me you
: 2.                                        design it for the maximum effect.                                                        Maybe you don' t.
3                        A                (WITNESS KOSTAL)                  Well, we do design it for the maximum 4                                          effect.
5                                                I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question.
;                  6*                                              But, yes, the answer to your question is we do 7                                          design it for the maximum effect and check to see, when 8..                                        they do as built, if it means anything.
                      )'
9                                                            JUDGE GROSSMAN:                                And doesn't it follow, 10                                            whether the result is insignificant or not, that if
+
            )  11                                            there'.s a deviation from your' actual design, it would 12                                            ordinarily be in the direction of having a lesser                                                                    ,
13                                            effect?
14                          A'              (WITNESS KOSTAL)                  Yes, sir.
L              15                                                              JUDGE GROSSMAN:                                Okay.
16                                                    s        MR. STEPTOE:                        Well, I'm not sure I followed 17                                            that', 'so I'm going to plunge in where Judge Grossman 'is 18                                            satisfied.
l 19                          BY MR. STEPTOE:
l              20                          Q                But do you design your members in your cable pan hangers i
: 21.                                          based on placing those cable pans at the worst location i
122                                            they can be ?
23                          A                (WITNESS KOSTAL)                  No.              Our initial design is based on s          21,                                          placing the cable pan as shown on our drawings.
4 e
i Sonntac ReDortina Service. T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)          232-0262
 
15043
  ,s,
          \
q; 1 Q    All right.
2            So when you answered Judge Grossman that you design 3      for -- I've forgotten the words now --
4                    JUDG E GROSSMAN:      The maximum effect or the 5      maximum function.
6 BY MR. STEPTOE:
7 0    -- the maximum effect or maximum function, you do that, 8      but not by -- not by -- I take it not by explicitly 9      addressing the location of the cable pans; is that 10      correct?
[ )'    11 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)        That's correct.
  'm/
12 0    What do you -- what were you referring to when you 13      said --
14 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)        I was referring to the fact that we 15      would perform this design and we would take -- for                  ,
16      exa m pl e, all 10 of these connections, we would take the 17      worst location where you had the highest set of loads in 18      any of those connections and design generically all 10 19      of the details of exactly the same.            That's what I was 20      referring to.
21                          (Indica ting . )
22            We would also do the same for those horizontal 23      m em be r s. There's 5 horizontal members, and all 5 of
(,r8)    24      those horizontal members are the same member; and they x,_-
sonntag Repor ting Service,_Ltd.          -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15044 r %,
s_. -)
k 1      also were designed for the highest set of loads that 2      exist in those horizontal members as one horizontal 3      m em be r , so it enveloped the highest loads.
4            That's what I was relating to by our enveloping of 5      the highest set of loads.
6                          (Indicating.)
7                  J U DG E C ALLIH AN :    Mr. Steptoe, before you 8      leave that --
9 BY MR. STEPTOE:
10 0    Mr. Kostal - .
  /m 11                  JUDG E CALLIHAN:        -- may I ask Mr. Kostal for (s../)
12      some approximate lineal dimensions on 159.
13            How wide are the pans, how wide is the hanger, for 14      instan ce ?
15 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)          The pans on the first 4 elevations 16      are 18 inches wide.          The pan on the top elevation is a 17      12-inch-wide pan.
18            Let me give you some rounded-off dimensions.            If 19      you start on the -- on the lef t side, the loca tion of 20      that pan is approximately 5 inches f rom the lef t-hand 21      side --
22                  MR. GUILD:        The edge of the pan, Mr. Kostal ?
23 A    (win 1ESS KOSTAL)        Yes. I'm rounding it off. It's
        \
  \m/)
24      slightly less, but it's around 5 inches.
Ronntag Repor ting Se rvien. T td.
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312)    232-0262
 
                                                                        =  ..
15045
,/ ~
V 1        The pan on the right-hand side is approximately 4 2  inches, and the dimension between the 2 pans is 3  approximately 2 inches.
4        So if I add that up, 4, 5, 2 and 36, I would ge t --
5  it's -- it's 4 foot -- roughly a 4-foot-wide hanger.
6              J UDG E CALLIH AN :    And the loads, as noted, are 7  pounds per unit area?
8 A (MITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes. These are what -- what these 9  loads are -- let me correct my yes.
10        What we do is we take the tributary length of cable
[n}
L.J 11  tray that this par ticular hanger will carry.        In 12  addition to that, we add an extra 6 inches to that 13  tributary length.
14        Take, for example, a 1-foot wide pan.        Th e 15  tributa ry length would be, let's say, 8 feet.
16        We would add 6 inches, and we would then multiply 8 17  foot 6 times the square-foot load, which is 45 pounds 18  per squa re f oot, so you would get 8 foot 6 times the 45 19  pounds. That would give you the value represented by 20  the 180 pounds.
21        In the like manner, we would take that same 22  tributa ry length, 8 foot 6, and multiply it by the 23  actual cable tray weight, including the cable tray --
f3
()    24  cable weight plus the cable tray, that total actual Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15046
  ,s
(  )
v 1  weight times that same length, and that's how we would 2  get this 79-pound value.
3                    (Indica ting . )
4              JUDG E CALLIH AN :    A cable tray weight per what 5  length ?
6 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Per squa re -- it's a square foot 7  basis -- oh, the length is based -- maybe I can draw a 8  picture.
9              MR. STEPTOE:      It would be Applicant's Exhibit 10  160.
A
(  ) 11              JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Well, Mr. Steptoe, I don't LJ 12  want to prolong this unnecessarily.
13        If it's possible to explain things simply without 14  drawing it --
15 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Sure.
16              JdDGE GROSSMAN:      -- I think it will --
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The hangers are spaced approximately 8 18  feet on center, so the tributa ry weight -- if you had 19  adj acent hangers, you would have half of a span of 8 20  feet and 8 feet, so the tributary would be 4 on each 21  side of the hanger, which would give you a total of 8 22  linea r feet.
23        That 8 linear feet, plus we put in an extra 6 O.
ism,j 24  inches as a conserva tism, so we would calculate, then, sonntag neporting gnruico._ Tf a.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15047
    '~'x LJ 1    for that particula r arrangement, the tributa ry length as 2    8 foot 6 times the square-foot load, pounds per square 3    foot, in the cable pan.
4          If a cable pan in 1 foot wide, it would be 45 5    pounds pe r square foot times the 8 foot 6.
6        If it's 18 inches vide, we would multiply the 7    ratio -- we would multiply the 18 inches, which is 8    1-1/2, timec the 45 times the 8 foot 6, which would give 9    you, then, the total weight for an 18-inch-wide tray; 10    and the like manner, if it was 24, it would be 45 pounds
[L. )l  11    times 2 feet wide, which would be 90 pounds, times that 12    8 foot 6 dimension.
13              JUDGE CALLIHAM:    Now, let me ask a clarifying 14    question.
15          I'm missing something. I'm sure i;'s simple.
16        Take the top pair of trays, which is a foot wide.
17-  The load in the celected lengths, which, as I 18    unde rstand , is f rom midpoint betueen hange rs to midpoint 19    between hange rs , ic 270 pounda?
20  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    No. It 's 180 pounds. The 270 pounds 21    is the came calculation redone, which ic 79 pounda --
22    oh, I'm sorry.
23              JUDGC GROSSMAN:    He's talking about the O) t.
v 24    hange ra right unde rneath that top.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15048 1    A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Oh, I apologize.
2                  JUDGE CALLIMAM:        Excuse ne.
3            The uppe r of the 8, which you said, I believe, were
]
4      a foot wide?
5    A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Right.
6            And --
7                  MR. STEPTOE:      Mo. Excuse me.
i 8            You caid those were 18 wide, those 2?
4 9    A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Okay. I stand corrected.
10            The first 1 is 12 inchec wide at the top, the next 11      level down ic 18 inches wide.
(
12            Since it wac 18 inches wide, it'c just the 1.5 13      times the 180 pounds, which would give you the roughly 14      270.
15                  JUDGE CALLIHAM:        So it's the single topmost I
16      that's 12 inches wide?
i 17    A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, sir.
l            18                  JUDGE C ALLIHAM:      And all the rest are 18 19      inches wide?
20    A  (UITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, sir.
!            21                  JUDGE CALLIHAN:        I apologize. I 22      nisu nde rstood.
l 23                  JUDGE COLE:      While we're on that, just one l            24      ques tion , Mr . Kost al .
I i
i                          Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I                                Geneva, Illinoic 60134
,                                    (312)    232-0262 i - .      -    ._                -
 
      .  ._    . . . . _ . _ _ ~          -      _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ - . _      _. _  .- _ _  . - . _      _. _
1                                                                                                              15049      [
f'y t
    & l-z.
f-1                          I'm looking at Applicant's Exhibit 159 again.
5~            2                        _ Based on a 45 pound per square foot tray load, you i                                                                                                                        '
3                    indicated an 8-foot spacing between supports?
l            4              A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)              That was a characterization.
5                          The exact spacing here I would have to go into the 1
6                    cales, which would give us'that exact spacing, but
;            7                    normally --
)            8                                JUDGE COLE:                    All right.            4 i
t'            9              A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)          --            for this illustration, I said --
10                    this is based on the actual-spacing'that exists for this 11                    ha nge r .
j            12                                JUDGE COLE:                    The reason why I raised the 13                    question is the spacing looks like 4 feet here rather i
i            14                    than 8 in order to get a 270-pound loading.
15                          So this did not have an 8-foot spacing in this 16                    example; is that correct?
l            17              A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                No.        The 45 pounds times 1-1/5, which l            18                    would give you roughly 67 pounds, times --
l l            19                                JUDGE COLE:                    Yes.
i
)            20              A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)            Okay.          In your example --
l 21                                JUDGE COLE:                    That would give you 540 pounds.
22              A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                Right, right.
23                                JUDGE COLE:                    Thank you.
l
(      24              DY MR. STEP"OE:
I I-t                                        Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I                                            Geneva, Illin ois                  60134 (312)              232-0262
 
i 15050 f- g (ss) 1  Q    Mr. Kost al, I'll refe r you to Inte rvenors' Exhibit 155B, 2      which is the Structural Engineering Division 3      Calculations for Cable Pan Hanger 104.
4            Do you have a copy of those before you?
5  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir, yes, sir.
6  0    All right.
7            Could you please turn to Page 5 of those 8      calculations.
9  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
10  0    Down in the left-hand corne r, the bottom corne r, there A
(      's 11      are two equasions, P sub A equals 6,805 pounds and P sub
  \ ,/
12      B equals 5 pounds, and then those figures are crossed 13      out and the numbers 3,662 and 2,847 are substituted for 14      them.
15            Do you see that?
,          16  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
17-                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:      What exhibit number are we i
j          18      looking at, Mr. Steptoe?
19                  MR. STEPTOE:    Intervenors' 155B, which is the 20      calculations, the st ructural calcs, Page 5 of the I
21      calculations, the bottom left-hand corner, P sub A and P f
(          22      sub D.
l          23  A    (WITNESS EOSTAL)    How --
l O        24  DY MR. STEPTOE :
l 7
( s/
    ~
I
'                          Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen eva , Illinois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15051
  \
1                Q          Now, Mr. Kostal, without drawing any pictures or without 2                            referring to any pictures, can you just explain what 3                            accounts for the change indicated here from 6,805 to 4                            3,662 and from 5 to 2,847?
5                A          (WITNESS KOSTAL)      The first set of numbers are a local 6                            member coordinate system, the local coordinate system, 5          7                            FA and FB, which is the 6,805 and the-5 pound.
8                                  The second set of-numbers are the global coordinate 9                            system, so the 3,662 is what we would define as PX and 10                            the 2,847 is the FY.
i 1
        ; 11                Q          So the man who made these corrections should have
      -/-
;        12                            changed FA and FB to read FX and FY?
i i        13                A          (WITNESS KOSTAL)      He should have indicated that these 14                            were FX and FY.
15                Q          Now, turning to Page 14 of the same document, 16                            Inte rveno rs ' Exhibit 15 5B --
f f        17                A          (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
18                Q          -- not quite half-way doun the page, there = is a figure l
19                            in a cloud on the right-hand side of the page which 20                            says, "Membe rs 21 and 22 are braces and loads are 21                            obtained from enveloping loads at Node 6 and 11."
22                                  Do you see that cloud?
;        23                A          (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.                                                  t
,  ( j    24                0          can you explain what Membe rs 21 and 22 are and Mode 6 1
j                                            Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l                                                  Ceneva, Illinois                        60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15052
    ,m
  /
k.j\
1      and 11 are?
2 A    (UITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
3            This -- this cloud and these -- these member and 4      node locations refer to the second computer run.
5            They are the exact came members in question, the 6      two longitudinal diagonal brace members, and the nodes 7      are the attachments of those longitudinal braces to the 8      vertical tube steel.
9 0    So the designations of the members and the nodes changed 10      from one -- from one computer run to the next?
(m)  11 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
LJ 12 0    Mr. Thorsell, I'm going to move on to you --
13                  MR. STEPTOE:  I believe I informed the Board 14      last time we were in session that we had some conce rn 15      about Intervenors' E::hibit 170, which was prepared by 16      Sa rgent & Lundy and given to Sa rgent -- given to the 17      Intervenors and Intervenors put it in evidence.
18 BY MR. STEPTOC :
19 Q    Do you have a copy of Intervenors' C::hibit 170 in front 20      of you?
21 A    (MITNESS THORSELL)    No, I don't.
22 O    I will give you one, sir.
l 23                        (Indicating.)
      ) 24            Just briefly, would you describe that Inte rvenors '
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15053
[ 'T 1  Exhibit 170 was intended to be?
2 A  (MITNESS THORSELL)    Intervenors' 170 is a list of the 3  conduit hange rs that appeared in the BCAP sample that 4  were taken from a list. prepared by Sargert & Lundy, the 5  more-highly-st ressed conduit hange rs.
6        The first column identifies the BCAP package 7  n umbe r ; the second column identifies the hanger 8  identification; and there's a column entitled " Actual 9  weight," which was intended to represent the actual 10  ueight on that conduit support at the time the listing rm
    ) 11  was prepared for BCAP.
(
LJ 12        Similarly, the " Maximum Allowable Weight" column 13  was intended to represent the maximum allowable veight 14  for that support at the time that the list was prepared 15  f or BCAP.
16        The " Percentage" column is merely a comparison of 17  the actual weight to the maximum allowable weight; and le  the final column, " current weight," represents the 19  current design -- design weight.
20        This exhibit was prepared, I believe, last 21  Mednesday ove rnight and in an attempt to be responsive 22  to Intervenors' request for this information.
23 0 Now, is there an error in this exhibit?
O)
\
s_-
24 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes.
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15054 f3 (y,,!
1              On reviewing the exhibit, it was determined that 2      the data in the " Actual Weight" and " Maximum Allowable 3    Weight" columns, which is historic data, did not 4      represent the weights that existed at the time that the 5      list uns prepared for DCAP.
6              It represents weights that we believe existed in a 7      time frame ea rlie r this yea r.
8 0  Now, have you -- this Intervenors' Exhibit 170 -- I 9      think you may have already indicated this -- is not the 10      list that was actually cent to BCAP in 1985; is that f^s  11    correct?
(
  \
      )
      /
12 A      (WITNESS THORSELL)      That is correct.
13              At the time the request was made, we were unable to 14      find the list that was cent to DCAP, and, consequently, 15    reconstructed this data.
16 0  Okay.
17              Mow, I believe there's also testimony that a cutoff 18    figure of 70 percent was used in sorting through the f
j        19    conduit hangers to determine which ones were highly 20    stressed.
21              Do you recall that testimony, Mr. Thorsell?
22 A    (WITNESS THORSCLL)        Yes, sir.
l
!        23 0  How was that 70-percent figure derived?
l ,
l
  !,x/  24 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)        That 70-percent figure was inferred Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gencva, Ill in ois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15055 f
(v )
1              from this reconstructed data.
2      O        All right.
3                      Have you prepared a corrected version of 4              Inte rvenors ' Exhibit 170?
5      A          (WITNESS THORSELL)            Yes, sir.
6      0        Okay.
7                      And I believe that that is a document that has just 8              been distributed.
9                      Could you -- are the numbers shown in thic table 10              t rue and correct, to the best of your knowledge and O      11              belief?
12      A        (WITNESS THORSELL)            Yes, sir, they are, to the extent 13              tha t these also are reconst ructed numbe rs.
14                      The calculations that existed at the time that the 15              list wac prepared for BCAP are not all available in
.I 16              hictorical files.
17                      Uhere they were available, the numbers in here
(
18              reflect the data f rom those calculations.
I          19                      Where they were not available, the numbera in here 20              reflect reconst ructed numbe ro based on the appropriate 21              revision to the drawing that c::icted at that time.
22      0        How would the numbe ro be reconstructed?
23      A        (MITNESS THORSELL)            The numbers would be reconstructed fhj s      24              by performing the conduit support calculation based on Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen eva , Illin oic      60134 (312)        232-0262
 
15056 0
1      the information shown on the design drawings that were 2      current as of that date, the date being January 9, 1985.
3                  MR. STEPTOE :  All right.
4            Now, Judge Grossman, I would like to mark this as 5      an exhibit, but I am hesitant about whether we dhould 6      mark it as Applicant's Exhibit 160 or whether come other 7      numbe r or Inte rvenors' 170 --
8                  JUDGE GROSSMAM:          160 is fine.                    That's 9      reconst ructed Inte rvenors ' Exhibit 170.                        That's fine.
10                        (The document vac thereupon marked n
11                        Applicant's Exhibit No.160 for (v)  12                        identification as of October 21, 1986) 13 BY MR. STEPTOC :
14 O    Mow, we have anothe r c::hibi t , Mr. Thorcell.
15            Over the weekend, did you find -- vere you able to 16      find the hictorical document which was used, which was 17      t ransmitted to DCAP, chowing a list of highly-stresced 10      conduit hangers?
19 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    Actually, late Friday afternoon the 20      document wac located in the files of the Electrical Site 21      Decign Group located out at Braidwood.
22 0    Okay.
23            Now, could you just take us through the columns (n\)
(    24      chown starting on the second page of thic document, Conntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Il lin oic 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15057 CN (v) 1    which is AR 7076.
2  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Okay. The firct column ic entitled 3    " Calc No."  This is a unique number identifying the 4    calculation that was performed for the subject conduit 5    hanger.
6        The second column in the drawing number. This ic 7    the electrical installation hanger location drawing on 8-  which the hange r is shown.
9        The third column is the -- the -- expressed in 10    percent, ic the ratio of the actual weight to the
(~}
g V
11    maximum allowable weight as calculated in January of 12    1985 for BCAP purposes.
13        The next column identifies the hanger type and 14    number.
15        The last column in entitled " Book No." which, I 16    believe, identifies the calc book number in which the 17    calculation is located.
18  0 How, how do we tell which of these conduit hange rc wac 19    celected by BCAP to be part of its cample?
20  A (WITNESS THORS ELL)  To the far left of the page, there 21    is a penciled-in number.
22          If you go down to Item 14, there's a 106, and I 23    believe that corresponds to BCAP Package No. 106.
(O) 24          If you turn to the next page, there are several Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15058
[h
  ?    4 C/  '
I  such numbe rs, ctarting at the top of the page with No.
2  138.
3 0 And those BCAP cample numbers, when were they added to 4  this document?
5 A  (NITNESS THORSELL)    I do not know.
G 0 Okay.
7 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    Another way to check is to look at 8  the drawing number and hanger number, which also 9  uniquely identifies the hanger, and then comparing that 10  with the drawing numbe r and hanger numbe r f rom the BCAP (A)
  \s /
11  package.
12 0 Now, referring to the firct page of thic document, 13  AR007075, does that indicate what the criterion was that 14  was used to identify highly-ctressed conduit hangerc?
15 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, cir.
16 0 What was that criterion according to this document?
l 17 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    That criteria is actual load of over i        18  90 percent of the allowable load.
l
!        19 0 Now, if we go to the percentage columns, which appear on 20  the cucceeding pages,'are, in fact, all of those 21  pe rcentage loads ove r 90 pe rcent?
22 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    There are a number of chem that are l
23  90 pe rcent and -- and ove r.
v
      )  24 0 Mr. Thorcell, have you compared the percentage figures l
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv i ce , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic    60134 g                              (312)  232-0262
 
15059
    /
  \    )
v 1  which appear on this -- thic document dated January 7, 2  1985, beginning AR007075, with the corresponding values 3  in Applicant'c Exhibit -- is it 16 -- 160, which is the 4  newly-reconstituted reconstructed list prepared on 5  Oct obe r 2 0, 1986?
6 A (WITNESS THORSELL)      Yec,.cir.
7 0 Are there any dif ferences?
8 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    There are four differencec.
9          The pe rcentage is dif ferent for BCAP Package No.
10  132 --
11
[}
    's J Q Well, let's refe r to Applicant's Exhibit 160.      It's 12  probably the easiest way to go about thic.
13 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    That'c what I'm looking at, 14  Applicant's Exhibit 160; and the dif ferences occur for 15  Package No. 132, Package No. 133, Package No. 148 and 16  Package No. 156.
17 Q All right.
18          Nou, what was the percentage value for Package No.
19  132 in the Janua ry 7,    1985, document?
20 A  (WITNCSS THORSCLL)    98 percent.
21 0 Can you explain the dif ference between the 47 percent 22  chown on Applicant'n Exhibit 160 and the 98-percent 23  figure?
b')
t v
24 A  (17ITMCSS THORSCLL)    This particular calculation had Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15060 io)
%J l      actually two calculations for two dif ferent member 2      cizes, and the --
3                JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Excuse me.
4            I don't see a 98 percent. I see a 72 percent.
5            Am I looking at the wrong figure?
6 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    If you take the exhibit that starts 7      with Page AR007075 --
8                JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay. I'm corry.
9 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    -- and go to the one, two, three, 10      four, the fifth page, which is AR007079, at tche top of (A)
%J 11      the page, the cecond item in BCAP Package No. 132 --
12                JUDGC GROSSMAN:      Okay. I'm corry.
13 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    -- and it has a percent of 98 14      pe rcent.
15                JUDGE GROSSMAN:      I was comparing Applicant'a 16      Exhibit 160 with Inte rvenorc' Exhibit 170, but we're not 17      doing that now.
18            Thank you.
19                MR. STEPTOE:    No.
20 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    Okay.
21 BY MR. STEPTOE:
22 0    What's the explanation for the difference between the 47 23      pe rcent and the 98 pe rcent?
24 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    Okay. The calculation for thic Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15061 U
1    hanger contained two calculations for two dif ferent 2    member sizes.
3          When the list was compiled in January.of 1985, the 4    98 percent was derived from the calculation for one of 5    those member sizes.
6          In the reconstructed list, the value of 47 percent 7    was based on the other member size, which is the member
    -8    size that was actually installed.
9  Q So on Janua ry 9, 1985, when this list was created, was 10    the figure 98 percent incorrect or correct?
11  A (WITMESS THORSELL)    It would have been incorrect, 12    because he should have used the other member size.
13  0 Okay.
14          The next change is Conduit Hanger 133, which shows 15    91 pe rcent on ~ Applicant 's Exhibit 16 07 16  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
17  0 What was the corresponding value in the Janua ry 9, 1985, j  18    document?
i  19  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    I have to find it.
20          The corresponding value is 93 percent, and that i
j  21    appears on Page AR007080, and it is Item No. 47 on that
;  22    page.
23          There is no identification in the margin that that 24    is for Package 133, but it can be identified from the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'                    Geneva, Illinois    66134
(                        (312)  232-0262
 
15062 V
1^  drawing number and the hanger number.
{        2  0 Do you know what the reason is for the difference 3    between 91 pe rcent and 93 pe rcent?
4  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir. The calculation on which i
,      5    93 pe rcent was based is not available, and this was a 6    reconstructed calculation, and the procedure by which 7    these calculations 'are performed allows some latitude to
,      8    the calculation -- calculator in terms of rounding off l        9    and other simplifications of the calculational j,      10    technique.
[$ h 11        Each of them is conservative, but given tuo people
  \--
12    doing the same calculation, the answers can come up i
13    slightly different depending on whether one rounded and
!      14    the other chose not to round, that sort of thing.
l      15  0 Is that explanation also applicable to any of the other i      16    tuo dif ferences that you have identified?
l      17  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    That's also applicable to Package i
i l
10    156.
[      19  0 And what was the difference there?
l      20  A (WITNESS THORS CLL)  The dif ference there is -- it's --
I 21    the percentage is shown as 95 percent in the 22    reconst ructed document and it's shoun as 90 pe rcent in 23    the document that was forwarded to DCAP.
24              MR. BCRRY:    Where is that?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134
[                          (312)  232-0262
 
15063 p.
( x- )
1 A    (NITNESS THORSELL)      It's on Page AR007080, and it is 2      Item 35 on that page.
3 BY MR. STEPTOE :
4 Q    Mow, that leaves us with one more difference for Package 5      No. 14 8.
6 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      Package No. 148.
7 Q    What is the value that is shoun in the Janua ry, 1985, 8      Sargent & Lundy memorandum which corresponds to the 9      53-pe rcent figure shown on Applicant's Exhibit 160?
10 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    It's shown as 98 percent on Page O    11      AR007080, Item No. 38 on that page.
qw ,J 12 Q    Do you know what the reason is for this difference?
13 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      The reason for this dif ference is 14      the same as the reason that I gave for Package No. 132.
15      That is, that the calculation contained tuo calculations 16      for -- one for each of two different member sizes.
17            The list that was prepared for DCAP was based on 18      selecting one of those member size 3.
19            The reconst ructed data is based on the other member 20      size, which represents the member size that was actually 21      in st alled .
22                    MR. STEPTOE:  Okay.
23            Judge Grossman, I ask that the January, 1985, O              memorandum, beginning with Page AR007075, be marked as t      24
\~/ )
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
I 15064
('
  'V 1  Applicant 's Exhibit 161.
2                      (The document was thereupon marked 3                        Applicant 's No. 161 for identification 4                        as of October 21, 1986.)
5                MR. STEPTOE:    And, Judge Groccman, I ack that 6  Applicant's Exhibit 160 and Applicant's Exhibit 161 be 7  admit t ed .
8                JUDGE GROSSMAM:      Any objections?
9                MR. BERRY:    No objection from the Staff.
10                MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, may I voir dire the
[}
v 11  witnecces?
12                JUDGC GROSSMAN:    Yes, you may.
13                      VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 14                          BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 Mr. Koctal -- or Mr. Thorcell,          I take it that your 16  explanations for the errors or apparent errors or, chall 17  we cay, deviationc between the data that appear and what 18  has now been discovered as the original memorandum --
19  that ic, the Jan ua ry, 7,      '85, Applicant's Exhibit 161 --
20  and your reconstructed data reprocent your belief as to 21  the basic for the discrepanciec?
22 A (WITNESS THORSELL)        Yes, cir.
23 0 You didn't make eithe r of the calculations yourcelf?.
24        You certainly didn't make the original Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic    60134
[                            (312)  232-0262
 
15065 A
i    )
  %J l      calculationc?
2  A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    That is correct.
3  0  And co you cimply have looked at the dif ferences and 4      speculated about the basic for those discrepancies?
5  A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, cir.
6                MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, I have no objection 7-    to the int roduction of the two documents, but 8      particularly in light of the fact that the record, f rom 9      thic panel to date, reflects tectimony, with come degree 10      of certitude, about a variety of factual matters that 11      thereafter prove to be not founded upon facts, but
[m\s}12        founded upon come degrees of cpeculation, I do ack that 13      the last line of examination be unde rstood as simply 14      reflecting the witness' speculation about the baces for 15      these dif ferences.
16            I don't mind them speculating; but on -- thic may 17      or may not prove to be a matter of cignificance.
18            I just don't want to have the record stand the way 19      it does, and diccover at come future point that, in 20      fact, the cpeculation ic without factual basic.
21          And so abcent specific knewledge of the bacic for 22      the changes, I would ack that the tectimony.cnly stand 23      for the witnecc' cupposition.
O) l
  'O 24                JUDGE GROSSMAM:    Mr. Steptoe.
Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15066 t    i
  \v!
1              MR. STEPTOE :    Judge Grossman, the word 2  " speculation" was a word that Mr. Guild used and Mr.
3  Thorsell agreed to; and I'd like to look behind this 4  word by asking Mr. Thorsell just what was the process 5  that was used.                  ,
6              JUDGE GROSSMAN:      All right.
7 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Okay. In the two cases where the 8  original calculations upon which the BCAP list were 9  based do not exist, the numbe rs in Applicant's Exhibit 10  160 were recreated in today's time frame using the
[)
    'V 11  information that existed at the time that the 12  calculations vere made and utilising the procedure for 13  making those calculations that existed at the time that 14  the calculations were made.
15        That procedure does allow the calculator to take 16  on -- or to perform the calculation in various ways.
17        For example, if a distance happens to be 1 foot 3 18  inches, the calculator can calculate based on that 1 19  foot 3 inches or the calculator always has the option 20  available to him to round to the next greater 6-inch 21  increment, so the calculation could have been done in 1 22  case on c 1-foot-3-inch basis, in another case on a 23  1-foot-G-inch basis.
O)
(
    %j 24        I do not have personal knowledge of how the Sonnt ag Repor ting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15067
(~
i    ,
v 1    calculation was done originally, because it does not 2    exist, but it's --
3                  JUDGC GROSSMAN:      Well, the point that's been 4    made, Mr. Thorsell, is that you are not sure that that's 5    the reason for the discrepancy, and I assume that your 6    answer would be responsive to that question --
7 A  (WITMCSS THORSELL)      Right.
8                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:  --
not as to why, ass uming 9    that it's so, there was that discrepancy, but whether 10    you are speculating in order to assume that it's so.
[}
  %J 11        And you've already said that that is the case?
12 A  (WITNESS THORS ELL)    Correct.
13        Nou, on the -- on the other two calculations 14    where -- where they exist, the numbe rs that exist in the 15    document that was prepared for BCAP can be reproduced 16    from those calculations utilizing the data that's 17    availabic for the other member size.
18                  JUDGC GROSSMAM:      But let me ask you:
19        Did you prepare Intervenors' 170?
20 A (MITMCSS THORSCLL)      Inte rvono rs ' 170?
21        No, sir.
22                  JUDGE GROSSMAM:      Who did that?
23 A  (UITNESS THORSCLL)      It was prepared by people working (O
w/
      ! 24    unde r my direction.
Sonntsg Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
j                                                        15068
      /
        .x
            'l Q_,,)
1              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Just a few days ago; is that 2    correct?
3  A (WITNESS THORSELL)  Correct.
4              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, isn't it clear that, 5    with rega rd to Item 132, that whoever prepared 6    Intervenorc' 170 did take into account the fact that 7    there were two members?
                / 8  A (WITMESS THORSELL)  No, sir.
L' ,,
a .          9              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, doesn't that figure of 10    72 percent represent the average between those -- of fv        11    those tuo members?
12  A (WITMESS THORSELL)  No, sir.
13          In Intervenorc' 170, for Package 132, the actual 14    ueight and maximum allowable weight represent weightc 15    that exicted at a point in time that does -- lot me take 16    a look.
17              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, okay.
18        It probably, then, is just a coincidence that that 19    72-percent figure is the --
20  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, yec, the 72 pe rcent ic derived 21    from a comparicon of those tuo weights.
22          Those two weightc are weightc that existed at come J
23    point in time, but do not correspond to the weights that A
I      ?,  j    24    existed in Janua ry of 1985.
t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l                                Geneva, Illinoic 60134 l
(312)  232-0262
 
15069 7-
    ;    i
    \    )
1                JUDGE GROSSMAN:                      Okay.
2            Yec, I guess that'c the case, becauce those weights 3      shown on 170 are conciderably lecc than the other 4      weights.
5            But, now, what accounts for the fact that you have 6      cuch a difference in the maximum allowable weight?
7 A    (MITNESS THORSELL)    The difference would result from 8      going to a dif ferent st ructural member for the hanger.
9                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:                      Okay.      That's fine.,
10            That explainc it f ull y.
11 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    For example, a -- well, that's okay.
[j}
N 12                JUDGE GROSSM AN:                      All right.
13 BY MR. STEPTOE:
14 0    Moving on, Mr. Koctal --
35                JUDGE GROSSMAN:                      Oh, excuse me.
16            We 'll admit --
17                  MR. GUILD:            Mr. Chairman, may I further 18      question the witness?
19                JUDGE GROSSMAN:                      Certainly.
20                      VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 21                            (Continued) 22                          BY MR. GUILD:
23 0    Now, I understand, therefore, that the maximum allowable A
( '  )  24      weightc shown on your reconst ructed -- cecond l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin oic                    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
i
      !)
15070 s
        \-
a 1                reconst ructed list of more-highly-stressed items -- that g
2                is, Applicant's Exhibit 160 -- excuse me -- do not 3                necessarily represent the maximum allowable weights that 4                were used at the time the BCAP list was derived?
d 5  A            (WITNESS THORSELL)                                No, sir, they do represent the 6                maximum allcwable weights at the time the BCAP'was first i
7                prepared.                                                                                                            l 8  0          Well, in certain of those cases, you don't know what the
                        '9                values were that were used to make the calculations to 10                  provide BCAP with a list?
11    A            (WITNESS THORSELL)                                Yes, sir, I do.
12    O          Well, I thought I understood your testimony was that in 4
13                  certain instances you had to reconstruct the values
,                      14                  because the original values were not available to you, 15                  the original calculations were not available to you?
16    A            (WITNESS THORSELL)                                I had to reconstruct calculations, 17                but all of the numbe rs which go into that calculation do I
18                  exist on the dr$ wings, t        19    O'          Yes, sir.
;                      20                                Well, but my question is:
21                                You don't know uhat numbers were used by the person 22                ;who calculated the list for BCAP's purposes because you 23                  don',t have those numbers, you had to reconst ruct those, O)
(              24                  and you are telling me that you reconstructed them from Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois                          G0134 (9      3                                                                        (312)      232-0262
 
15071 I    I
\_J l      the data that appears on your drawings?
2 A    (WITNCSS THORSELL)    Right, which ic the data that the 3      original -- that the pe rson doing the calculation for 4      BCAP would have used.
5 Q    Uould have used.
G            You are speculating he would have used that data, 7      but you don't know that he used that data, do you, 8      because you don't have the data to refer to, cir?
9 A    (WITNESS THORSCLL)    No, cir, I do not know that he used 10      that data.
(m)    11            However, that in the only data available for him to N.)
12      use.
13 0    well, if he did it correctly and he followed the 14      practice that you followed when you reconst ructed it, 15      then you would infer that he would have used the came 16      data, but you don't for a fact that he used that same 17      data?
18 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)    That is correct. However --
19 Q    Now, in how many instances didn't you have the original 20      calculations to refer to to be able to determine what 21      data the original Sa rgent & Lundy pe rson utilized when 22      he compiled the BCAP more-highly-stressed lict?
23 A    (MITNESS THORSELL)    I believe 13.
ip) s 24 0    In 13 of the cases you did not have the data, the Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15072 7
(  )
  'w.J l  original cales?
2 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    That's my recollection.
3 Q All right.
4        And you had, therefore, to reconstruct in those 5  cacec?
6 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, cir.
7 Q All right.
8        And can you identify which cases those are?
9 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    Not right now. I don't remember all 10  13.
m 11 0 All right.
(v)  12        Do you have a -- is that a matter of record?        Did 13  you maintain documentation of the instances in which you 14  had to reconstruct the calculations?
15 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    That can be determined, yec, cir.
16 0 All right. I'd ack that you do that, sir.
17        And n ow, therefore, let me see if I have just got 18  thic ctraight.
19        Taking Intervenors' Exhibit 170 -- that is, the 20  original reconst ructed more-highly-stressed list -- and 21  Applicant's Exhibit 160, the more-recently reconstructed l
22  h ighl y-st r es s ed-lis t , I can't compare the two?  More 23  particularly, I can't -- the percentages are not going l f~b I
()    24  to be the same becauce the data is not the came?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I                      Geneva, Illinoic    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15073 1              A  (WITNESS THORS &LL)      Correct.
2              0  And I take, in your more recent calculation, the current 3                  weight figure, the extreme right-hand column --
4              A  (WITNESS THORSELL)          Yes, sir.
5              0  -- can I compare that to the maximum allowable weight 6                  figure used in Intervenors' 170?
7              A  (WITNESS THORSELL)      No, sir.
8              0  can I compare the current weight figure in your
]
9                  Applicant 's 16 0 to the -- strike that.
10                        Can I compare the percentage figure used in
[  \  11                  Applicant's 160, your more recent reconstruction, to the
      'N 12                  percentage figure utilized in Applicant's 161; that is, 13                  the Janua ry 7, 1985 -- the actual list that was derived?
14                        Are those figures the same?
15              A  (WITNESS THORSELL)          You can -- you can -- you can 16                  compare them; and the comparison, in some cases, will be 4
17                  based on -- on the same calculation and in some cases it i
l          18                  will be based on a reconstructed calculation.
19              Q  In 13 of those cases, it will be based on a
!            20                  reconstructed calculation?
21              A  (WITNESS THORSELL)      I believe 13 is the correct number.
l l            22                              MR. GUILD:        All right, sir; all right.
23                        Mr. Chairman, with the identification of the items 24                  where the data that's now displayed in the second (O)
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312) 232-0262
 
I 15074
(  )
LJ l        reconst ructed list is not actual data but based on a 2        reconstruction of that data, if that's identified for 3        the record, I have no objection to the documents being 4        received.
5                    JUDGE GROSSMAM:    Okay.
6              We'll admit those documents; that is, Applicant 's 7        Exhibit 170 and Applicant's -- I'm sorry -- 160 and 8        Applicant 's Exhibit 161.
9                          (The documents were thereupon received in 10                          evidence as Applicant's Exhibits Nos.
i  ') 11                          160 and 161.)
L.)
12  BY MR. STEPTOE :
13  Q    Mr. nostal, what was the purpose of providing to BCAP a 14        list of more-highly-stressed cable pan hange rs, the list 15        which has been identified as Intervenors' 169?
16  A    (WITNESS KOST AL)    The purpose of providing that list was 17        to supply BCAP with a list of more-highly-stressed 18        hange rs so they could meet their commitment to select 60 f
:        19        more-highly-stressed hangers as part of their BCAP 20        program.
l 21  Q    Okay.
i 22              What was the purpose of providing the list of 23        conduit hange rs -- highly-stressed conduit hange rs and l  f'%
I 24        highly-stressed electrical equipment to BCAP?
l
; (.uJ l
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15075 7~
/      i s
1 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The purpose of those two lists was 2  to -- to provide BCAP with a list of -- of hangers and 3  components that had higher stresses in them that they 4  could use for their celection in their engineering 5  judgment sample.
6        There was no commitment, as part of BCAP, to supply 7  60 components of this nature in these two populations.
8 0 There's no commitnent by BCAP --
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Ho commitment by BCAP to the NRC for 10  this program.
(      )  11 0 What was -- all right.
\,_)
12        Now, in each of these cases, for each of these 13  popula tion s , could Sargent & Lundy have calculated a 14  stress in each cable pan hanger, conduit hanger and 15  electrical -- piece of electrical equipment installed 16  and CC accepted as of June 30, 1984, and then sorted 17  through all those calculations to find all those which 18  exceeded a certain criteria for stress?
19                    (Indica ting . )
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, that's a task that could have 21  been pe rfcrmed.
22 0 Why wasn't it performed, sir?
23 A (WITNESS KOST AL)    The ma in reason it wasn't pe rf ormed p
i
      )    24  was the -- in order to do that, you would have to design Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)  232-0262                                j
 
15076 m
l    i V
1 all of the components to the same exact criteria.
2      In order to -- what I mean by that is our design is 3 a ve ry fluid design in the fact that many of the 4 hangers -- or many of the components are designed with 5 conse rvatism -- or all are designed conse rvatively the 6 first time.
7      As the design is refined, as conditions are known 8 on given components, the refinement of analysis takes 9 place.
10      In order to equalize the population, one would have n  '
11 to use that same refined analysis on all the components
[%.j) 12 in a given population, which would literally mean that 13 we would have to provide an updated set of calculations 14 to get it to that came exact, more-refined analysis.
15      That level of effort would have been extremely 16 time-consuming, very expensive, and would have only been 17 useful for that point in time in the BCAP program, 18 because the designs change, as new conditions cccur, 19 immediately after the creation of that design.
20                  (Indicating.)
21      If we were to do that, that level of effort across 22 the various populations where highly-stressed components 23 vas a consideration would have taken our entire ef forts 0\    24 for probably months on months, which would have then (d'
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
t Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
[
 
15077 O
  \s >
1  resulted in us not being able to support construction 2  and would have resulted in a cost which would -- an 3  engineering cost which would really have served no 4  useful purpose.
5        So for that reason, it wasn't a practical' 6  consideration to even suggest bringing the state of each 7  of our designs to the same level of detail.
8 0 Mr. Kostal, I think you said that -- you've indicated 9  that your designs -- or your cales are not always of --
10  are not always carried to the same level of detail.
11        Why wouldn't all your conduit hangers, for example, 12  be designed or analyzed to the same level of detail?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The primary reason they wouldn't be 14  is they don't need to be.
15        The -- our original -- you know, our normal 16  intent -- or our normal philosophy for any design is to i
17  use the most conservative design, which takes the least 18  amount of time, which still assures that the component i      19  meets the code requirements.
20        It's only when required to use a more refined or 21  detailed analysis, which takes further time or greater
;      22  time than the more simplified design, would we even 23  consider going to that next level of design.
24        That occurs when conditions arise during i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois  60134 (312)  232-0262 l
 
~
15078 v
1    const ruction and during the design; and we would 2    never -- we would -- normally we would not go. to that 3    next level of design unless conditions required us to go 4    to the next level of design.
5                      (Indica ting. )
6  Q Now, could you please refer to.Intervenors' Exhibit 168.
7  A  (NITNESS KOST AL)    Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I don't 8    have 168.
9  0 Okay.
3 10-                    (Indicating.)
j        11  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh, okay.
        -12  Q Mr. Kostal, we've already been through this, and just to 13    set the foundation, I just want to ask-these questions 14    briefly and we'll move on.
15          But what is this list?
16  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The Exhibit 168 is a list of i
17    discrepant observation packages from BCAP Uhere a 18    calculation was performed for notable discrepancies.
19'        It was a list that was created at the request of 20    nr. Guild, which formed the foundation for my 21    conclusions that are addressed. in my testimony.
22  0 And that conclusion was that there was 900 percent t
        -23    minimum design ma rgin remaining in the conduit hanger
(      24    . population after taking into account.the BCAP l
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)    232-0262
 
i 4
15079 m
1        dis crepancies; is that correct?
2              Could you identify where in your testimony that 3        conclusion appea rs?
4 A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
5              On Page 19 of my testimony under conduit hangers, I 6        indicated that for the evaluations of notable 7        discrepancies, the minimum remaining design margin was I
8        more than 30 percent and the average design margins 9        remaining in all the welds with these discrepancies was 10        900 percent above code allowable, 11 Q      -Now, Mr. Guild asked you a series of questions asking 12        you to. compare the list, which appears on Intervenors' 13        Exhibit 168, of conduit hangers with the list of 14        more-highly-stressed conduit hangers, which was 15        Intervenors' Exhibit 170, and for my purposes, it i
16        doesn't really matter whether you use Intervenors' 17        Exhibit 170 or Applicant's Exhibit 160.
18              But could you please tell me whether there are any l
19        items which appea r on Inte rvenors' Exhibit 168, which is 20        your list for conduit hangers, and the list of j
21        more-highly-stressed conduit hange rs which appea rs as 22        Applicant's Exhibit 160?
i 23                    MR. GUILD:    I'm sorry.
( j 24              Could I have that question read back.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15080
    . (D
          /
1                                                            (The question was thereupon read by the 2                                                                Reporter.)
3              A            (NITNESS KOSTAL)                              Yes, sir.
4                                There appears to be three: COH 133, which is also
: 5.                        found; COH 152; and COH 157.
6                                      MR. GUILD:                                      153, 152 and 157?
7              A            (WITNESS KOSTAL)                                  No, not 153; 133.
8                                      MR. GUILD:                                      So r ry .
            '9                BY MR. STEPTOE:
10                Q          Now, what does the intersection of those two lists tell 11                            you?
12              'A            (WITNESS.KOSTAL)                                    It really doesn't'-- all it' tells me 13                            is that there were no discrepancies in the 14                            highly-stressed list associated with the hangers in 15                            question that required an analysis for a notable 16                            discrepancy other than these.three mentioned.
17                Q          So that these three conduit hangers are the only 18                            highly-stressed conduit hangers which had notable
!          19                            discrepancies?
20                A            (WITNESS KOSTAL)                                    Yes, sir.
l          21                Q          Now, Mr. Guild, at Transcript Page 14843, asked you a 22                            question with respect to the average remaining design i          23                            margin -- what the average remaining design margin woulc c    3      24                            be if you calculated it only for the s-Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois                                        60134 (312)                            232-0262
 
15081 Q                                                                                                    ,
t 1    more-highly-stressed conduit hange rs, and you said you 2    hadn't done the calculation. He asked you whether it 3    might be lower than 900 pe rcent, and you said it might 4    be.
5          Do you knaf what the average remaining design 6    ma rgin would be for these three conduit hange rs?
7  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, if I add the 3 together, which 8    has the design ma rgin for COH 133 of 1.43, for COH 152 9    of 3.0, and COH 157 of 2.28, and I divide that by 3, I 10    will get an average design ma rgin of - 2.23, which is 223 r%
      /    '
11    percent.
12  O Okay.
13          And is that figure comparable to the 900-percent 14    figure which you give, for the entire list of conduit 15    hangers with notable discrepancies, in your testimony?
16  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, it would be comparable.
17  Q Okay.
18          Finally, we've had some discussion about the 19    fluidity of your calculational process, how it changes j              20    over time.
!              21          With respect to Intervenors' Exhibit 168, there are 22    design margin values in the center column.
23          What is the -- as of what time were these design
            )  24-  ma rgin numbe rs calculated?
j-                        Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i-                            Geneva, Illin ois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
l 15082 rx 1  A- (WITNESS KOST AL)    These_were calculated at the time 2    that we performed the BCAP evaluations, which were in 3    the 1985 time frame.
4  Q- Did you perform -- the same -- I'll ask you the same 5    question with respect to Intervenors' Exhibit 169, which 6    is the list of more-highly-stressed cable pan hangers.
7  A  (WITNESS KOST AL)    The --
8  Q  Let's -- first, under Byron, the column marked "HSIC" 9    for highly-stressed interaction coefficient, I guess, 10    what is the. time period applicable to these calculations 11    of interaction coefficients?
12 'A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The column which indicates the -- on 13    the left-hand side, the highly-stressed interaction, 14    that column is based on the design in -- of 3/4/85.
15  0  Okay.
16  A-  (WITNESS KOSTAL)-  The column called -- under Byron, 17    called " Current Interaction" --
18  0  Well, excuse me.
19          What does 3/4/85 --
20  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh, that*ic the time frame under --
21    at which this list was created of highly-stressed
      -22    conduit hangers -- cable pan hange rs.
23  0  All right.
b-  24
(                The next column is marked " Current IC."
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j                            (312) 232-0262                              '
 
15083 i      'T
_/
I          1  A'              (WITNESS . KOST AL)        That is the current interaction 2                  coefficient which exists in the cales today.
1 3  Q              And finally. the column marked "Braidwood Current IC."
4  A-              (WITNESS KOSTAL)            .That is also-the current interaction 5                  coefficient which exists in the cales today.
6  Q              Now, we've been through time periods for Intervenors' I          7                  Exhibit 170.
8                          Intervenors' Exhibit 171, which is a list of 9                  highly-stressed electrical equipment, there is -- do you 10                  have that before you, sir?
[s)
  \. J -
11  A              -(WITNESS KOSTAL)            Yes, sir.
1 12  0              Okay.
t
          '13                          Can you tell me:
;          14                          What is the date or time period as of which these 15'                  interaction coefficients appearing in the third column
!.        16                  vere calculated?
17  A              '(WITNESS KOSTAL)            Yes, sir.
18                          This date is 3/10/1985, and that's the date that 19                  this list was created and the interaction values --
20                  interaction coefficients that existed at that point in 21                  time.
i          22  Q              Now, is it common or uncommon for interaction 23                  co ef f icient s , calculations of design margin, to change l      )  24                  over time?
i 4                                      Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
;                                          Gencva, Illin ois            60134
[                                                (312)      232-0262
 
d 15084 f4 O
4 1    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        It is ve ry common. It's the normal
  .      2      design process that takes place over time.
3            In fact, that's part of our responsibility as. the 4      engineer, to update the calculations over time when 5      conditions require the cales to be updated.
6    0 What -- briefly summarize what are the conditions that 7      cause these design margins and interaction' coefficients 8      to change over time.
9    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Well, the first condition is the 10      changing in the loading associated with a given 11      component. That loading can change as a result.of
[}'a 12      adding additional component -- adding additional loads 13      to the same component.
14            The other -- the second condition is to take into 15      account as-built const ruction conditions.
I 16            The third condition could be to take into account 17      field problems that arise during construction.
i        18    0 If you have a problem such as --
l l        19    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Well, for example, BCAP program, l
20      we're doing these calculations to reflect the as-built 21      conditions incorporating the weld discrepancies.
i                                                                                            ,
22      That's -- that would be one example.
j        23                        (Indica ting. )
i    24    0 Now, is there any other reason why, aside from changes s
j                      Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134
[
(312) 232-0262-
 
15085 V)
  /
1  in loading, as-built conditions, field problems -- why 2  these values may change over time?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    They would also change over time 4  relative to the type of analysis that is performed.
5        As I mentioned before, the simplified analysis 6  versus the more detailed analysis would result in a 7  change in these interaction coefficients. In fact, 8  that's part of the evolution of the design.
9        We would use the simplified analysis until such 10  time as we no longer, based on the simplified analysis,
[  i 11  could show that the component was within code allowable,
  \x j 12  at which time you would then go to the next level.of 13  refinement to recalculate the capacity of the component 14  to determine whether or not it still remains within code 15  allevable.
16                  (Indicating.)
17 Q Mow, Judge Crossman asked the other day, with respect to 18  Intervenors' Exhibit 169 and the list of highly-stressed l
19  Byron cable pan hange rs, whether any of them had 20  required rework.
21        Do you recall that question?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
23 0 I think you said you didn't knou.
A Can you answer Judge Grossman's question now?
()    24 l
l Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
i 15086 I
  ~.,, '
1  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yec, cir.
2          We only required rework on one hanger package.
3  0 Which hanger package vac that?
4  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That was Hanger Package 057, which 5    had an interaction coefficient of 13.5, and in orde r 6    to -- that -- that particular hanger had to be repaired.
7  0 How, with respect to the other hange rs listed here with 8    interaction coefficients higher than 1, no rework was 9~  done, and yet the numbe rs changed. The current 10    interaction coefficients are down below 1 in all cases.
11          Have you made any ef fort to determine how that wac
[/
i
    ~'
12    possible without rework?
13  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir; and there are basically 14    three reasonc.
15          One ic the unique Byron response cpectra; the 16    second reason in the actual weights that exist for these 17    hangerc; and the third reason in the redictribution of 18    loads, where required, to adjacent hange rs to 19    accommodate the load that a given hanger couldn't carry.
20          Those are the prima ry three reasonc why we were 21    able, through analycic, to chov that each of these 22    components was acceptable and met code requirements.
23  0 Now, Mr. Kostal, just so -- I don't want to leave the
,- s
( j)          24    vrong impression here with respect to the Byron unique Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin oic 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15087 3
(v l'  seismic spectra, and I don't want to go into -- we've 2    got that drawing. I don't want to take time away by 3    going into it.
4        But can you just say whether the revision of 5    calculations to take advantage of the Byron-unique 6    spectra would be more advantageous or less advantageous 7    if you are t rying to bring the interaction coefficients 8-  down than the same exercise at 3raidwood?
9  A (WITNESS KOST AL)  Much more advantageous at Byron than j-      10    compared to Braidwood.
_s i
11  0 That's a function of the way the spectra are -- of the i        12    Byron-unique spectra as compared to the envelope l      -13    spectra; is that correct?
i 14  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
i
(        15              JUDGE GROSSM AN:    Do you have considerably l
;        16    more in your redirect?
I 17              MR. STEPTOE :    I think I do -- I think it 18    would be a convenient time to break -- another hour, 19    perhaps.
20              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Oh, okay, fine.
I 21        We'll take 10 minutes.
22                  (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 23                    the hearing was resumed as follows:)
24              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    We're back in session,
    /
i i
l Sonnt ag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15088 p-.
i    i G
1            Mr. Steptoe.
2                  MR. STEPTOE:    Yes.
3 BY MR. STEPTOE :
4 Q    Mr. Kostal, referring again to Intervenors' Exhibit 5      168 --
6 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
7 0    -- I believe you've stated already that the design 8      process was a fluid one and that refinement in the 9      calculations take place ove r time.
10            Referring to the values in this design margin 11      column on Inte rvenors' Exhibit 168, which were values (nV) 12      calculated as of the time of ECAP in 1985, are there any 13      further refinements which could be done with respect to 14      those calculations?
13                  MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, I object.
16            We're now on redirect. The matters are stated as a 17      matter of principle, and if we're now going to get 18      further refined calculations, we're going to get a basis      ,
19      for further refined calculations and we're going to have 20      further discovery as to what, if any, bases there are 21      for any further refined calculations.      We're going to 22      plow through those as well.
23            At s ome p oin t , there's simply got to be a point p
(v)  24      where Applicant puts up its case and rests en its case Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15089
    /~x 1
1 and doesn't put in some case it's held back and now it's 2 going to put-it on.
3      So I object to pursuing the'line of further refined 4 calc ula tion s .
5              JUDGE GROSSMAM:                                          Mr. Steptoe.
6              MR. STEPTOE :                                          Judge Grossman, the purpose of 7 this examination ~is to point out the conservativeisms 8 that are still in those numbe rs, and-I think it's 9 certainly within the scope of our direct case and the-10 scope of the cross examination; and I could do it using 11 a different exhibit than Intervenors' Exhibit 168.
12      I could go to the --
13              JUDGE GROSSMAN:                                            Okay. That's enough, Mr.
14 Steptoe, 15        I assume you are not going to have further 16 calc ula tions?
17              MR. STEPTOE:                                          Mo further calculations are 18  intended to be performed.
19        I'm just pointing out what the nature of the 20 conservativeisms that may not have been used so far 21 are --
22              JUDGE GROSSMAM:                                          Well --
          -23                  MR. STEPTOE :                                        -- a nd I 'll --
        ~
24                JUDGE GROSSMAM:                                          -- the further you go, the-Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois                                          60134 (312) 232-0262
 
          . . _  _.    . __        __  . = .        -  __            _  .
15090 rs (J
l 1          less sanguine I am about your not going beyond what you 2          have and opening up some new areas, but I assume the f        3          answer is going to be fairly general and we'll allow it.
        '4                If we start getting a little too specific about
(
5          additional items that we ought to be inquiring into, 6          then we're going to have some problems.
!      7                But I'll over rule the objection. Let's allow the 8          an swe r.
9                      MR. STEPTOE:      The answer will be general, 10            Judge Grossman.
[ h 11      BY MR. STEPTOE:
V
: 12. O    Mr. Kostal, could you just start with whichever one of 13            these populations in Inte rvenors' 168 you would like to.
14      A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
I 15                  There are numerous conservatisms that exist in any 3
16            of these populations.
17                  I'd like to start first with the cable pan hanger
!      18            population.
f      19                  These are conservatisms -- the first conservatism 20            that has not -- has never been considered is actual l      21            material strength. It hasn't considered -- it hasn't l
22            been considered yet on the Draidwood design nor in the 23            BCAP assessment, and --
24                      MR. GUILD:      Mr. Chairman, let me just l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gencva, Illinois 6#134 (312)  232-0262
 
15091 4
l O-s f
1        inte rject at this point.
2              If Mr. Kostal is giving us now -- can we simply 3-      . understand whether or not he's saying something beyond 4        what he's said in his prefiled direct, because there's 5        extensive testimony on this subject, conse rva tism?
6              When he says they have never been considered, has 7        he referred to them previously in his testimony?
i        8                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:            Yes.                            '
9              Mr. Steptoe, to the extent it's already been i
10        covered -- and I think it has already been covered -- it 11        isn't proper for redirect.
12              To the extent you are breaking new ground, then 13        we're just opening up Pendora's box here.
i        14                  MR. STEPTOE:        Well, Judge Grossman, let me          [
;        15        explain to you --
,        16                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:            What is it in the cross 17        examination that lays a foundation for these questions 18        on redirect?
19                    MR. STE PTOE :    Fine.
20              If you -- if you go -- I would say that
.        '21        Intervenors' 168 is one foundation, but another I        22        foundation is if you go to the document entitled " Design l        23        Procedures and Assumptions for the Evaluation and 24        Classification of Discrepancies, Concerns and Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois          60134
  ;                                (312,    232-0262
 
4 15092 75 ds_ ).
1        Observations Identified in the BCAP Program," which
;            21      is -- I think it's the Calculations No. 19.3.1.
3                  JUDGE GROSSM AN:      What's the exhibit number 4        we're referring to?
            -5      A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    161.
4 6                  MR. GUILD:      161.
7                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Inte rveno rs ' 161?
I 8                  MR. STEPTOE:      Inte rvenors'' 161.
9              Now, with respect to -- on Page 13 of that 10          document -- on Pages 12 and 13, the words appear, "All
.    'A i  11          components have specified capacities with inherent
!    D    12          design margins. Refined analysis, actual material 13          certificates and actual applied loads are all methods 14          for refining calculations, should one desire to remove
.          15          additional design conse rvatism.        When the capacity of an l          16          item is reduced by less than 10 percent, it becomes 17 apparent that the minor ef fect to the design margin may
.          18          easily be offset by applying any of the calculation 19          refinements available.      Therefore, engineering judgment i
20          that an item remains within design" -          " remains within 21          design allowables raay be applied to any item that 22          retains at least 90 percent of its section."
l          23-              Now, Mr. Guild asked the witness specifically about
          ) 24          that with respect to the use of the .90 R value, the use
!-                            Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134
[                                      (312)    232-0262
 
l I
15093 m
  \                                                                      l
%s Y                                                                      l 1      of _ the Y's 'and the f act that S & L did not perform 2      design significance calculations with respect to X's and 3      Y's at Transcript Page --
4                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, that's okay.
5                  MR. STEFTOE :  Well, a nyway --
6                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:    We recall that he did ask 7      questions. about that, and if the answe rs here are with 8      respect to that particular line of questioning, we'll 9      hear it, then.
10            Continue.
11                  MR. STEPTOE:    Oh, let me just set it'up, 12      then.
13  BY MR. STEPTOE:
14  Q    Mr. Kostal, do you agree with this statement that I just 15      read f rom your Procedure 19.3.l?
16  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
17- 0    Can you please describe what- conservativeisms are 18      available -- further refinements or conservativeisms are 19      available to you?
20  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
21                  MR. GUILD:    Mr._ Chairman, excuse me.
22            The first line -- the line of questioning was first 23      directed at -- the springboard for this line of O
()  24      questioning was purportedly Intervenors' 168.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15094'
  ~,
1      168 contains no X's and Y's.        It contains only 2 notable discrepancies that were the subject of 3 engineering' calculations.
I i      4      So it 's simply --
5              MR. STEPTOE :    Mr. Guild --
;      6              MR. GUILD:    -- in apposite to suggest that the j
7 excuse for getting this witness in what genuinely is
,      8 beyond the scope of anything touched on cross 9 examina tion --
d 10              JUDGE GROSSMAM:      My understanding is that Mr.
11 Steptoe is not referring to cross examination with 12 regard to Intervenors' 168, but other cross examination                        l 13 with regard to Inte rvenors' 161.
14              MR. GUILD:    Understood, Mr. Chairman.
15      -But then he said -- he said with respect to -- he i
16 started out with reference to Intervenors' 168 and he 17 said what conservatisms are reflected in these
;    18 calculations.
19      The calculations in that exhibit are~only for 20 notable discrepancies.      They, by definition, are not the
;    21 same subject as was referred to in the quoted language 22 f rom Inte rvenors' 161.
i 23        It's just an opportunity for Applicant to j    24 essentially repeat what appea rs at Pages 24 and Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)  232-0262
[.                                                                            . - . - -
 
15095 (qv) 1                                    following of their prefiled direct case, the subject 2                                    that wasn't inquired into on cross examinatien.
3                                                MR. STEPTOE :        Judge' Gros sman, I did -- Mr.                            a, 4                                    Guild is correct that I changed springboards, but as I 5                                    told you at the beginning, I thought I had at least two 6                                    ways to get into this, and in response to the objection, I went to the specific line of cross examination.                                        J 7
8                                                JUDGE GROSSMAM:          Okay.                    That's a sufficient 9                                    f ou nda tion.
10                                          Then continue.
[d          h  11 12 A              (WITNESS KOSTAL)          I will review briefly, in each of the four electrical populations where welding was analyzed, 13                                    what types of conservatisms still exist within each of 14                                    those populations.
15                                          I'll start out with --
16                                                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:          Well, let me'say this:
s 17                                          Mr. Steptoe, we don't want to waste any time.
!                18                                          If you have it all in your-prefiled testimony, you l
!                .19                                    could just as easily refer to that as to. refer to live l-20                                    testimony on the same thing.
j                21                                                  MR. STEPTOE:          It is -- this is -- this will
                ;22                                    be a general discussion, but it's more specific than f
i k                23                                    what's in my-prefiled testimony --
24                                                  JUDGE GROSSM AN:        Okay.
!                                                              Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois . 60134
 
m _. __        . .      _.        _      _  __    -          _
15096
                      ~
(
              -s j,          1                  Con tin ue .
                        ,    2                        MR. STEPTOE:      -- in Mr. Kostal's prefiled 1
3            testimony.
4        A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)          It's more specific in the fact that 5            it details when and when we did not use these in our 6            analysis.
7                  Material strengths exist in all those_ populations.
8            The code has a minimum --
~
9                        MR. GUILD:      Excuse me.
10                  One more time, when we did and did not use them.
[1                  11    _
The new springboard now is when you did use them, i      hs' l            12            because the reference in Intervenors' 161 is when you
                          -13            are allowed to forego performing calculations because of i                        14            the known conse rvatisms.
15                  Now, if we're only talking about instances where 16            they didn't do calculations, Mr. Kostal simply should be s-17-          restricted from referring to Intervenors' 161 -- excuse
                          ;18            me -- the table that reflects the analysis of notable i
19          ' discrepancies --
                          -20                        MR. STEPTOE :      168.
[I'                        21                        MR. GUILD:      -- 168, because that is an 22            instance where, by definition, they had to do f                          23            engineering calculations.
f                                '
;1 l
24                  My problem, Mr. Chairman, with this is we're going i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois      60134 (312) 232-0262
 
r-15097 A
v) l 1 to get this general answer in, and then in findings it's 2 going to be not just limited to the springboard basis 3 for -- or springboa rd application, it's going to be a 4 general discussion that is cited for all purposes, rnd 5 if it's going to be a general discussion cited for all 6 purposes, it's a new -- it's a new element of their 7 direct case, it's not within the scope of cross 8 examination, it's going to be another subject for-9 recross, and I don't know what hc's going to say.
10      so I would ask that it be narrowly limited to
[%J  11 whatever Mr. Steptoe claims his hook is.
12            JUDGE GROSSMAN:              Well, I'm concerned about 13 that, too.
14      If we keep getting moving targets here, we just 15 keep going on indefinitely.
16      Now, you should have a direct case.                                You should 17 have brought in whatever design margir.s you are relying 18 on.
19      To have a moving target in which you suddenly bring 20 in more design margins on redirect, it just seems as 21 though, first of all, it's not fair, and then we just 22 have an open-ended case here.
23      You ought to decide what your case is and then
        ) 24 s tick to it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois            60134 (312)            232-0262
 
k r,
15098 1                    MR. STEPTOE :    Judge Grossman, there's been no 2        shifting of target here.
3              We stated in our direct testimony that there were          ,
4        ,conservativeisms. We did not go into detail based on we 5    ,,  didn't feel that we needed to, but'--
6                    JUDGE GROSSMAN:    But now -- excuse me.
7              But now you are going 'to go into details and you 8        are going to rely on that, and that's an entirely ~new
;          9        case.
10              If you had those margins to begin with and you were 11        relying on that, why didn't you prepare your testimony
!  l')\
    \
12        that way?
13                    MR. STEPTOE:    We did, Judge Grossman; I think 14        we did.
15              But there has to be some -- the testimony as it is 16        is 30 pages.
17              The point raised on cross examination was, I think, i          18        and I think that' the argument that's going to be coming 19        at us is, "You didn't do design significance 20        calculations where the R value was less than" -      "was 21        greater than .90.      You have" -  "in your. populations, 22        you have items for which the design ma rgins are less 23        than 10 percent.      Therefore, you have" -  "your l.
'      \
24 v).            sample" -    "your screening criteria is Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
9 15099
;                1      no n-con se rva t ism. "
2                    JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Well, didn't you have-3      testimony -- prepared testimony directed to ' that point 4      in which you justified the use of not going into the
.                5      exact calculations where the R factor was less than --
6      was more than .97 7                    MR. STEPTOE:      That is not in the direct 8      tes timo ny. That is a subject which was raised on cross 9-      examination.
10                    JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Okay.
;.            11              Well, let's : tear that, but let's not go beyond that
,      \.
12        into further design margins existing in the notable 13        discrepancies that weren't-used.
14                    MR. STEPTOE :    Okay.
15              Mr. Kostal, do you understand the Board's ruling?
16      A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, sir.
'                              What 1 will discuss is the margins that exist which 17 1
:              18        are reflective of what our judgment is based on for the a
i 19        R value screening of .9 and greater.
20                    JUDGE GROSSM AN:      Fine.
21      A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Okay. Material strengths.
22              In the cable pan hanger population, material I
23        strengths has not been used.
12 4              The actual material strengths, when required, can
}          f a
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i                                  Geneva, Illin ois    60134 4
(312)  232-0262
 
15100 s
1  be used based on pape rs written.
2        In fact, based on a voluminous paper that was 3  written, there is mill certs for all materials in the 4  study-that are greater than the minimum code allowables 5  ranging from 17 to 22 percent.
6              MR. GUILD:    Objection; hearsay.
i 7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That 's not hea rsay. I'll quote where 8  it comes from.
9              MR. GUILD:    Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
10        This is new. Are we going -- am I now going to get 11  the authoritative source and now we're going to bring      '
  \
12  the author of this paper in and we're going to litigate 13  what residual strengths are, inherent strengths-are in 14  materials?
15        This is simply . '>mething trying to buttress what    .
16  they didn't put in in the first instance.
i
!    17              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Excuse us.
i    18        We're going out to caucus on this.
[    19        Off the record.
20                    (There followed a discussion outside the 21                    record.
l i    22              JUDGE GROSSMAM:    Back on the record.
23        Okay. The Boa rd isn't unanimous on this.
j 24        The majority wishes to hear this.
1 i
Sonnt ag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15101 1          I disagree with that position, and I think this is 2    expanding the case. It is bringing in a-new case now 3'  with some moving .ta rgets, which leaves _ it open for 4    Intervenor to ask for further discovery on this and to 5    bring in a case'in rebuttal.
6        The. majority feel that this is legitimate redirect 7    examina tion.
8              JUDGE COLE:    I think it's a legitimate part 9    of the rebuttal case. I think the door has been opened 10    before on this issue and I think it's a necessary part
[)
  %/
11    of the case and we want to hear it.
12  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, Sir.
13        The -- when I was talking about material strengths, 14    what I was referring to is the material strengths that 15    the code allows for minimum properties versus what the 16    mills supplied; and there has been a study done by a 17    Professor Golumbus and a Revinda.      This study is 18    entitled " Properties of Steel For Use in Load Factor 19    Resistance Design."    It's published in the Journal of l      20    Structure Division of ASCE, Volume 104.
21        That study concludes, based on sample --
22              MR. GUILD:    Objection; hearsay.
l      '3  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It 's not hea rsay. It's what I read.
h*
24              MR. STEPTOE:    Excuse me.
  ~-l l
l Conntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134                              l.
r                            (312)  232-0262 f
 
15102 (y
(    )
  %.)
1        Let me make the legal a rguments.
2              MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, now have the 3  decision that, over my objection, this is within 4  legitimate scope.
5        Now we have a scope of whether or not Mr. Kostal, 6  who obviously is not the author of this study, is going 7  to supply the evidentiary foundation for the fact which S  he has now of fered, and that is, that there's some 9  strength --
10            JUDGE GROS SM AN:    Okay.
(n')
  'w,/
11              MR. GUILD:    -- of material --
12            JUDGE GROSSM AN:    Mr. Kostal is going to rely 13  on that as the type of hearsay that an expert in his 14  position could rely on, so we'll overrule the objection.
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    This study shows that the ranges of i        16  material strength ma rgins are between 17 and 23 percent.
17        In addition to that, we have received many of the l        18  material certs at Braidwood. These material certs show i
l 19  the same types of margins.
20              MR. GUILD:    Objection, aga in; hea rsay.
l        21        I would ask that if he's relying on documents that 1
22  are not before the Board and not produ ced in discove ry, 23  that Applicant be required to produce these documents.
  /~'s  24        Mr. Kostal --
(rs )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
t 15103-l 1                  JUDGE GROSSM AN:      Excuse me,
,          2              Are these analyses made at Braidwood?
3    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      The material certs are on Category 1 4      equipment. You receive material certs with Category 1 5      equipmen t. The material certs document the actual 6      strengths of these materials as compared to the code 7      requirements.
8              These certs do come in.      We have many of them.          -
9              What I am t rying to do is just characterize for you
,        10      that the certs exist at Braidwood, which are actual 11      material certs, which do show that the-actual strengths (s_- }
12      of these materials are greater than what we used in our F
13      design.
14              We have not relied upon any of these certs at this 15      point in t! ' e , but they do find -- they do form the 16      basis for why the screening of .9 is a justifiable 4
17      screening.
18                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Well, you are relying on 19      tha t n ow , and you relied on your design margins in your 20      direct case, whether you were specific or not.
,        21              Mr. Steptoe, did you make these materials available
>        22      to Mr. Guild during discovery?
i                                                                                        ,
          '3                  MR. FrEPTOE :    We made available to Mr. Guild
(% )\  24      everything that he asked for with respect to the BCAP Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15104
      <~
    \
l  program.
2      I don't think that he ever asked to look at 3  material certifications for cable pan hangers.
4      If he did, we would have given it to him.
5            MR. GUILD:    Well, sir, if I had known that 6  this was going to be a part of Applicant's case, then 7  perhaps I would have had a basis for asking.
8      This is exactly the problem. When I see an article 9  cited for the first time by a witness live on the
            -10  witness stand, reference to documents that have not been 11  previously cited as a basis for testimony, documents v[ \
          }
12  that have not been made available in discovery, perhaps 13  because not asked for, but because not relied upon, 14 . either, I'm simply forced to play catch-up ball, and, 15  really, -it becomes ve ry unfair when it's a party who has 16  very limited resources,_has been operating with very, 17  very strict time constraints in terms of the 18  ave ilability to prepare for this rebuttal case, and l            19  suddenly has a rebuttal case that's relying on a claimed 20  90 man-years of efforts, to dissect, to understand and 21  to prepare for in the span of less than two weeks.
l          -22      Now I'r learning about more than what I was told 23  about beforehand.
ig          24            JUDGE GROSSMAM:    Well, Mr. Steptoe, where are Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312)  232-0262 L
 
I 15105 ;
  ,- m l    )
  'wi 1-        these documents that establish what this testimony is 2          reviewing now?
3                        MR. STEPTOE:        With respect to those certs, 4          they are at the site, I understand.
5                Are they, Mr. Kostal?
6        A (WITNESS KOST AL)        Yes, sir.
7                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:                They are written documents?
8                        MR. STE PTOE :      Abs olut ely.
9        A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, sir.              They -- they form the 10          basis of the -- of the comment -- of the paragraph
[m\    11          that's indicated in the design control summary as the L .)
12          fact that you can use actual material certs.                      That's 13          what I'm referring to in this Exhibit 161.
14                We have not relied upon it, but it does exist, and 15          it does show that if you relied upon it, you would get 16          ma rgin s in the -211owables greate r than the 10 percent 17          that we used for the screening criteria.
18                        MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman --
19                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:                Okay.
20                  Mr. Steptoe, we also have a best-evidence problem 21          here.
22                  I think Mr. Guild's entitled to see what those 23          documents say without having a witness paraphrase and O
24          generalize, and that falls under the best evidence rule.
(v)\
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312)  232-0262
 
    ~.                                                    -              .. -        -              _    .      -  _ .
15106
    !O) i    V
.            1-                                          So_ I think we ought to. -- if you are going to have 2                              testimony on that, I think you ought-to have the 3                              documents here to support that.
4                                                      MR. BERRY:        Mr. Chairman --
;          5                                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Okay, i
6                                          This is another point _which the Board has 7                              caucussed, and the majority feels that the witness can                          ,
8                              testify without having those back-up documents and can' 1
I 9                              just generally state what he wants.
10                                          I will, again, indicate that I dissent from that.-
      /  N' 11                              I don't think it's fair to have general testimony                              i (s_sl                                                                                                                  c 12                              paraphrasing what supposedly is in documents without                            l
;                                                                                                                            L 13'                            having the documents to support that kind of testimony.
14                                          So --                                                              4 4
15                                                      JUDGE COLE:        Mr. Kostal, I'd like to ask just 16                              a few questions about the material certifications.
17                                                            BOARD EXAMINATION 18                                                                  BY JUDGE COLE:
19                  Q          Does Sargent & Lundy review these material 20                              certifications when they come in?
21                  A            (WITNESS KOSTAL)                    Yes, sir.
22                  0          nave you personally observed certain of these material
!          23                              certifications?
24                  A            (WITNESS KOSTAL)                    In my years working at the firm, yes, Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312)      232-0262
 
15107    -
                                                                                    'e
      /''N v)
(
I          1      I have seen many of these certifications.                        t i          2  0  You indicated some opinion as to the material strength 3      versus the code-allowable strength.
4          And what is your basis for making a statement as to
;          5      some certain percentage of the material strength versus 6      the code allowable based upon your observations of 7      material certifications for material coming into 8      Braidwood?
9  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    In reviewing the Braidwood data, the 10      ones that I have seen, they show that the actual 11      capacities exceed the minimum requirements of the code 12 and the minimum requirements that we used in our design.
l-l        13  0  All right, sir.
)          14          Now, you attached some numerical values or implied 4
15      some numerical dif ferences there.
f          16          Based upon your experience, your actual 17'    observations or the observations of people under you who 18      reported to you, can you make an estimate of what
                                                      ~
!          19      dif ference existed between the material certification l          20      and the code allcwable?
l          21  A  (NITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
i l          22          For example, in the case of A36 material, which is          ,
23      a 38-yield mrterial, which is used for many of these 24      components, the code allowable is 36, and the material i
Sonnt ag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.                          ,
: t.                          Geneva, Illinois    60134                                ,
(312)  232-0262
 
15108 r''S
{
%./
    )
1      certs that we have seen have showed ranges from 42 kips 2      per square inch exceeding levels higher than that, and I 3      say would that my general average of what I have seen 4      would be in the range of that 42 to 44 kips per 5      square -- kips pe r square inch.        That's what I have 6      observed over a period of time that I've been involved 7      in Braidwood.
8                MR. STEPTOE:      Judge Grossman, may I --
1                JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Well, I hate to interrupt 10      Judge Cole.
[m}
'wJ 11 BY JUDGE COLE:
12 0    Yes.
33            Which is in the range of something on the order of 14      18 to 20 percent or more over code allowable?
15 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)  Yes, sir.
16 0    And most of the materials we're talking about here are 17      A36 steel?
18 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    There's A36 steel and there's some 33 19      grade material and the tube steel is a 46 grade 20      material, but it's common structural steel elements.
21                      (Indica ting . )
22 0    All right, sir.
23            And your observations for the other materials?
/
\x , ) 24 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I have more observations for the 36 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
A 15109
  -\
1 material than I do on the others.
2            JUDGE COLE:    All right,' sir.
            '3      Thank you.
4            JUDGE-GROSSMAN:    Okay.
5      I would like to say my dissent goes to the 6 questions and answers on voir dire by Judge Cole, also, 7 not just to your questions, Mr. Steptoe, 8      You may continue.
          =9            MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, I just hope my 10- position for the record is protected as well.
      'N
[J    11 12 With respect to Dr. Cole and Dr. Callihan's position as well, I don't rise to object to their 13' raising these questions for the reco-d, but I'd like my 14  position preserved, and that is, without the evidentiary 15  basis for this testimony, it 's not prope r.
          -16            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Mr. Steptoe.
17            MR. STEPTOE :  Judge Grossman, what I would 18  propose, in light of these objections, if.I can, is we-19  could break, I will talk with the witnesses, see what we 20  can do to avoid the best evidence kind of problem that 21  we've had here, and come back and finish this line, and 22  that would conclude my redirect; but I think maybe I can 23  avoid some of these problems by talking with the 24  witnesses and making sure they are not unnecessarily Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15110 1  giving you conce rn.
2              MR. GUILD:        Mr. Chairman, I would prefer, 3  frankly, since now I've got to prepare for .whatever this 4  new evidence is -- it really is new from this counsel's 5  pe rspective -- I'd prefer if Mr. Steptoe does what he's 6  going to do and gets it on the record and so I can hear 7  what it is and won't be any further surprised by what's 8  yet.to come.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAM:      I assume Mr. Steptoe meant on 10  the record that we would resolve this.
11        I think, also, that it ought to be done on the L
12  record. We ought to get our ducks in a row on the 13  record.
14        We've had the disagreements expressed on the 15  record, so why don't you --
16              MR. STEPTOE:        What I had in mind was asking 17  the witness -- making sure that _the conservativeisms 18  that the witness i~s going to recount were ones that, if 19  he has to refer to -- whether he has to refer to some of 20  the documents -- some of the documents, like material 21  certs, whether we can avoid bringing that kind of 22  problem up.
23        I don't know whether it occurs again.
24                    (Indi ca ting. )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Coneva, Illin ois 60134 (312)    232-0262
 
l                                                                              15111
,    -~                                                                                  .
V l
1                        JUDGE GROSSMAM:      Well, I assume --
2'                        MR. STEPTOE:    I just trying to avoid further 3            objections.                                                      :
4                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Well, the objections have
                                                            ~
5            been made and the rulings have been made.
!          6                  I think we ought-to resolve it all on the record, 7            then.
i-8                  So-why don't you just continue, Mr. .Steptoe.              .
t                                                                                        i
!          9    'BY MR. STEPTOE:
;        10    0      Mr. Kostal, could you please continue.
I 11                  Is there any other refinement in the cable pan 12-          hange r population which has not -- which has not been 13            used which could be used with respect to the X's and Y's i
14            in defending your screening criteria?
15    A      (NITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
16                  The actual weights within the cable pans, which was 17            the illustration we had ea rlier, has been used only i
18            where required.
i 19                  It has not been used -- that certainly is available          ,
20            in any analysis to go back and use actual material --
21            actual cabic pan weights; and the example -- not the f        22            example, the actual case in point of Hanger 104, an
!        23            actual weight compared to the original design weight, it l        24            had a ma rgin of 40 pe rcent just by dividing the 40 -- 40
        ^
i l
l                            Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!                                Geneva, Illinois    60134
[
(312)  232-0262
 
4 i
15112      d v
1      pe r cent .
2              The other conservatism that we have built into the i            3      design in the cable pan hanger is the question -- is the
            -4      item of tributary span length considered in determining 5      the weight that would be applied to the hanger.
6              I had mentioned that we take the tributary span and
;            7      we add an additional 6 inches to that tributary span.
8      That additional 6 inches is a conservatism in our 9      calculating of those loads.
10              That conservatism ranges -- since our hangers are 11        generally about 6 foot 6 spacing at the plant, max is 8 12        foot 7 -- at least from all our drawings that's the
;        13        maximum they could put a spacing of a hanger -- and i          14        using the 8 foot 7 dimension, that 6 inches of tributary 15        additional length would perform -- would of fer you 5.8 l          16        percent margin.
17              Now, if I use the average of 6.6 feet as the 4
18        tributa ry span, it would of fe r you 7.7 pe rcent ma rgin.
19              It's a simple calculation that I did to show that.
20              The other benefit, which I had previously talked j          21        about, has to do with the unique response spectra.      That 22        is always availabic to us in any of these designs.
;          23              We use them where it's appropriate to use them; and 24        in refining the analysis, there are two othe r -- well, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!                                Geneva, Illinois      60134 f                                      (312) 232-0262
 
l 15113 1    there are other methods still available to us, and 2    that -- and I talked about this.during the hearing.
3        It has to do with the fact that we design our 4    hangers as a single hanger initially, and that the --
5    you could relook at any of these hanger configurations 6    with the cable pans as a system to redistribute the load 7    to other stronger hange rs or stif fer hangers.
8        That was one of the reasons why, in going back, we 9    were able to show Byron was acceptable.
10              MR. GUILD:      Objection, Mr. Chairman.
11  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    F in e .
12              MR. GUILD:        How much beyond can we go?  The 13'  Byron reference purely is beyond the scope of this case.
14              MR. STEPTOE:        I agree with counsel.
15        That comment about Byron should be stricken.
16  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    There is another refinement in 17    analysis, and that --
18              MR. GUILD:        Is that a response --
19              JUDGE GROSSMAN:      I take it Mr. Steptoe is 20    withdrawing that particular portion of the answer that 21    refe rs to Byron; is that so, Mr. Steptoe?
22              MR. STEPTOE:      Yes, Judge Grossman.
23  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Pine.
24        The other refined analysis we can do is -- and I Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312)  232-0262
 
F                                                                              '
F 15114
  ,  ,s
    -(s e
i                                                                          .
j          1  discussed this in response to Mr. Guild during this last 2  week-and-a-half - -it has to do with the fact that we've 3  done what I would refer to as a simple frame analysis, i
j          4  considering all the joints as being fixed or pinned..
5          One can do what you would call a more detailed
  !        6  analysis and model the actual joint rigidity or l_          7  stif fness at the joint.
i
          '8          This technique basically results in you 9  redistributing the load to the stif fer joints, which
!          10  then relieves the load on the joints'that, let's say,
,        11  have discrepancies associated with them.
12          That's a technique that's available that we-have
+
13  not used.
: j.        14          And the last item has to do with our allowables.
15  We have been using, in our design, an allowable based 16  on -- for a seismic event, a safe shutdown seismic
{
!          17  event, an SSSE, of .95 FY.
18          The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard 19  Review Plan 3.84 allows you to use 1.6 times FBX, which
{
!          20  would basically allow you to go to yield, which would 1
,          21  of fe r you immediately 5 pe rcent minimum additional l          22  margin.
i l          23          Those are the bases for which we believe that the R
        ) 24  value screening of .9 and greater is an appropriate
!                      Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva , Illinois  60134 t
(312) 232-0262
 
u-i 15115 O
1-  screening technique. That's in the cable pan hanger 2-  area.
3                      (Indicating.)
4          Material strengths and allowable stresses that I 5    mentioned are also applicable to the conduit support 6    area.
7              MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, may I inquire 8    whether the witness is referring to a document, notes,        i 9    in the rendition of the last answer?
10  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    These are my notes, yes, sir.
11              MR. GUILD:    May I ask that those notes be i      12    available prior to cross examination?
l      13              JUDGE GROSSMAM:      You are certainly entitled 1
,      14    to see them, Mr. Guild.
i
,      15          If you wish to take a look at them right now and
* j      16    see --
17              MR. GUILD:    I would be happy to allow him to
;      18    complete this line of testimony, Mr. Chairman.
19  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Sure you can have them.
l      20          The -- in the conduit support area, again, as I l
l      21    mentioned in the cable pan area, material strengths is 22    also applicable as well as the allowables is also 23    applicable.
(    24          The other items that we have is the tolerance on Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
1 i
15116  l
_ J[''\
l the location of a conduit onto the conduit support.
2      We include an additional tolerance of 2 inches from 3 the location in the most severe direction on that 4 cupport.
5      That offers -- for example, for a cantilever 6 hanger, a supporting conduit, let's say, horizontal 7 cantilever hange r, where we allow a maximum span' of 5 8 feet for where you can attach a conduit to a hanger, we 9 add an additional 2 inches to that. That affords you 10 3. 3 pe r cent , in that example, cable -- cable weight      ,.
11 within the conduit.
(
12      We develop a load table -- we have a load table --
13 excuse me -- within our E33 standa rd, which is a 14 structural standard associated with the designing of 15 conduit supports, and in that standa rd we assume. the 16 maximum -- we assume a complete cross section within the 17 conduit being totally full.
18      Now, it's physically impossible to pull a 19 conduit -- pull a cable through a conduit if it was
;          20 completely full.
!          21      There are what -- we have what we would call a 22 generic set of loads associated with what's the maximum 23 size conduit -- cable that you can actually pull through l    s 24 cenduits of dif ferent dimensions; and in using that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
  ;                      Geneva, Illin ois 60134
]                            (312)  232-0262
 
15117 A
y/
1                                              generic maximum weight of a cable that -- that you can 2                                              actually pull through a conduit -- for example, in a 3                                                1-inch cond uit, there is a ma rgin of 15 pe rcent -- and I 4                                              can provide Mr. Guild with this example -- but what we 5                                              have, for example, in our design -- initial design we 6                                              used 2.28 pounds per foot, and the maximum possible 7                                                cable that you could put in the conduit is 1.93 pounds 8                                              per foot.                    That is reflective of a 15-percent margin.
9                                                                    The -- and the prima ry -- what I would call, of all 10                                                these, the most significant area where we have margin is
[mT  11                                                  in the designing of conduit supports for seicmic.
    %)
12                                                                    In the development of the load tables that we had 13                                                been talking about ea rlier, we used the peak G level 14                                                anywhere within a given area.
15                                                                    For example, in the auxilia ry building, we would 16                                                  use the peak G level in that auxiliary building to 17                                                  define both the vertical and horizontal input motions 18                                                  for the conduit hange rs irrespective of the f requency .of 19                                                  the hange r.
20                                                                    When you look at conduit hangers, you find that 21                                                    conduit hange rs are much more rigid, meaning they have a 22                                                  much higher f requency level, than cabic pan hangerc.
23                                                                    When you go into the spectra at the frequency of a
(/
s_
24                                                    conduit hanger, you will find that that ic in the lower Sonnt ag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoic    60134 (312)  232-0262                            .
J
 
15118
    ,  's i          s
    \_,
1    por tion of the spectra.
2          For example in the horizontal direction, conduit 3    hangers are generally in the range of 15 cycles per 4    second and greater.      This is not at the peak location 5    within the response spectra.          This is at a higher level 6    location in the spectra.
7          We had given as an illustration -- and this was an 8    exhibit that was already admitted by Mr. Guild -- it has 9    to do with, f o.r example, the east-west direction, and if 10    I take -- this has to do with Elevation 431, and if I
      ,~.
11    took the peak G value off of this spectra, it would be
(%j )
12    1.65.
13          The f requency of range of our conduit supports 14    would allow me to go in and pick off the actual value 15    associated with the f requency of the conduit support 16    hanger, and the maximum, using a 15 cycles per second, 17    would be a G 1evel of 0.8.        That results in a margin of 18    over 200 percent.
19          That is just one example of where our peak 20    me thodology, compared to a more detailed methodology 21    using actual frequency of the hanger, would provide us 22    substantial margins.
23              J UDG E G ROSSMAN :    But, now, Mr. Kostal, in n
I        \
s        / 24    those higher frequencies, isn' t it true that, with v
__      nnnnEng_ Reporting snruicn,      r+ d ,
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15119 C%
V 1    regard to actual earthquakes, that the accelerations are
: 2. higher than the standards that had originally been 3    adopted by the NRC and by these companies?
4  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, these are higher, but they 5    are -- but they are less than the peaks associated with G    that same --
7              JUDG E GROSSMAN:    No, I'm not talking about 8    the values you have there.
9        But when you start talking about higher frequencies 10    with respect to ground motion, don't you agree that the 11    frequencies that are utilized in those standard spectra
(
12    generally do not reflect the actual ground motion at 13    higher f requencies, which have really been shown to be 14    greater in the last few years?
15  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    These are not f requencies associated 16    with ground motion. These are the frequencies -- what 17    I'm referring to, by f requency, is the f requency of the
      '18    component that's being designed.
t 19              JUDG E G ROSSMAN:    I understand what you are 20    saying.
i      21        But you are assuming, though, that the actual i
22    ground motions from an earthquake will be as taken into 23    account in those response spectra, aren' t you, and what 24    I'm asking you ist
  %j Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
{
15120 1            Isn't it a fact that in recent years it's been 2    observed that the ground motions at the higher 3    frequencies are actually greater than what were taken 4    into account in those tables?
5  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        I can't really speak to that.
6          _ All I can speak to is the f act that when we 7    developed these spectras, which were a commitment within 8    our FSAR, which were reviewed by the NRC, it was agreed 9    that these were the design spectras that would be used 10    for this particular plant based on the design parameters 1
l (j) 11    at that point in time.
j        12                      (Indica ting. )
;        13'          Th ey take into account the variables of soil 14    property and all the other commitments that were l      15    required in meeting the NRC requirements.      Tha t is wha t                ,
i                                                                                            i
;        16    these spectra relate to.
i        17                JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Okay.
18            Mr. Thorsell, did you have something to add to 19    tha t ?
20            I thought --
21  A (WITNESS THORSELL)        No, si r.                                            ,
22                JUDG E G ROSSMAN:    Oh, okay.
23  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      In the area of equipment, electrical 24    equipment conservatisms, again material strengths are nnnntng nnpnreing nnrulen, r.E a _
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15121
        >s 1                  applicable to equipment, and also allowable -- code 2                  allowables are applicable to equipment.
3                        The other areas that are also applicable are the 4                    unique Braidwood spectra, and the fourth point is the 5                  use of damping values.
6                        We' re allowed to use, for equipment design and the 7                  loads, the development of the loads to hold down this 8                    equipment -- to use a 4-percent damping value.
9                        We have conservatively used a 2-percent damping 10                    value.
11                        This would result in -- depending on the f requency
            )
12                  . of the equipment, it would result in margins approaching 13                    10 percent.
14                        We have not relied upon this at all as a -- you
                  ~
15                    know, in any of our designs to date, nor have we relied 16                    on material strengths, nor have we relied on changes in
              '17                    the -- in the code allowables.
18                            In the area of cable pans, the design of our cable 19                    pans, which are the hold-down welds in question, are 20                    based on the maximum width of pan that exists in the 21                    plant, which is 36 inches; it's based on a maximum span 22                    of -- of 8 foot 6 inches horizontal, which is what we 23                    allowed in our tables for spanning of supports between
(      24                    pan; it's based on a peak G of 2 horizontal and 4 SQ_nntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
1 15122 G,
1      ver tical .
2            By using that data, the maximum interaction 3      coefficient at Elevation 485 in the aux building was 4      .43; the maximum interaction coefficient at 426, which 5      is a lower elevation in the aux building, would be .25.
6            This would provide margins anywhere within the 7      plant greater than 200 percent.
8            We have not relied upon that at all, . but it is 9      certainly available to us if needed.
10            Tha't basically concludes the margins that exist j  ) 11      within the electrical populations.
12 BY MR. STEPTOE:
13 0    Okay.
14            Now, Mr. Kostal, I believe there was some 15      discussion earlier in the proceeding of using the terms 16      " design margin" and " safety margin. "
17            Do you use those terms interchangeably?
18 A    (WITNESL KOSTAL)      I have used those terms 19      interchangeably.
20 0    Okay.
21            What does the term " safety margin" mean, then?
22 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Design margin and safety margin as 23      you use them relate to the actual allowable -- the 24      actual stresses in the components to the allowable Ronntag Reportlng Enrvice, T.t d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)  232-0262
 
15123
./x
' x_
( j) 1  stresses as defined by the code.          This is typical of 2  engineers.
3        I think the layman would look at it a little 4  dif feren tly, in that they would look at safety margins 5  in terms of the collapse mechanism of a component, where 6  if you look at it in that light, you would also then 7  have to take into account the fact that the code builds 8  in a certain amount of margin between the ultimate 9  capacity of an element and the allowable that's allowed 10  to use for design, and that typically is in the range of; 11  2 times the ultimate capacity versus the allowable
(                                                                          '
12  ca pa city.
13              MR. STEPTOE:        Judge Grossman, all I have 14  remaining to do is put in the various exhibits that 15  we' ve go t --
16              JUDG E GROSSMAN:      Are you prepared to do that      ,
17  now ?
18              MR. STEPTOE:        I think we are, yes; but what 19  we could do is just do it after lunch by having a stack 20  before you.
21              J UDG E G ROSSMAN :    Okay. Why don' t we
: 22. distribute it, then, and we'll rule on that after lunch.
23        I take it Mr. Guild has reviewed all those
  \    24  e xhibits ?
sonntag ncporH ng snruinn. r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)    232-0262                                  ,
 
1                                                                                        15124
          /')      -
;.        \m /                                                                                .
i-1                  MR. STE PTOE :      Yes; I think so, yes.
2                  JUDG E G ROSSMAN:      And the ones in which he had' i              ,
3    agreed to as the sketches, he's already given his 4    agreement?
i'                    5                  MR. STEPTOE:        I got that impression, but 22 ''                6    we'll firm that up over lunch.
i      .s.          7                  JUDG E G ROSSMAN:      Okay, fine.
8          So why don't we distribute that now and then we'll 9    recess for lunch until 1:15.                                      ,
10          de can distribute that off the record so that the l
          ,          11    Reporter is f ree to leave.
,.                  12                          (W HER EU PON, the hearing was continued to
            >        13                          the hour of 1:15 o' clock P. M.)
14 r                    15 L
16 s ~
t 17 f                    18 r
(
4 19 t      4 20 t                  21 1
I                  22 1
23 24 t
l t
l                                Sonntaa Renortina Snrvicn. Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)    232-0262
 
15125 O
1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3            BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5                                        :
In the Matter of:              :
6                                        : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY    :            50-457 OL 7                                        :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1    :
8          and 2)                        :
__________________x 9
10          Met pursuant to recess.
11                                Tuesday, October 21, 1986.
1:15 P. M.
12 13 14                    JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay. We're back in 15          session.
16              Mr. Steptoe, did you wish to offer documents at 17          this point?
18                    MR. STEPTOE:    Yes, but, Judge Grossman, Mr.
19          Miller has a preliminary matter.
20                    MR. MILLER:    Your Honor, we are beginning to 21          draft proposed findings, and I wanted to inquire of the
:  22          Board with respect to two matters.
1 23              First, what is the style of the proposed findings 24          that will be of most use; that is, just straight factual 25          findings and conclusions of law or those types of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134
_ J312(232-0262
 
i 15126
(~/
1 findings together with, if you will, a draft opinion?
2      I know that the practice among the Boards vary to 3 some extent; and before we get too far into the project, 4 we want to make certain that we are being responsive to 5 what would be most helpful to you.
6          JUDGE GROSSMAN:                Well, as far as the Board 7 writing its opinion or whatever the initial decision, 8 the usual format is proposed findings with an opinion, I 9 would assume similar to what Court of Claims trial 10 judges write:  findings of fact and then an opinion that 11 generalizes.
r),
(  12      Now, as to what you ought to submit, the 13 requirement is proposed findings.                If you wish also to 14 submit some sort of narrative similar to a brief, you 15 may certainly do that, but we're not requiring that you 16 do it.
17          MR. MILLER:                All right, sir.
18          JUDGE GROSSMAN:                Okay. The proposed findings
!      19 are the requirement, and whatever else you wish to i
20 supplement it with in the way of a brief is your option.
21 But we're certainly not requiring any of the parties to 22 go that far.
23      Does any party have any comment on that?
24          MR. GUILD:            Mr. Chairman, it takes me a (O) 25 little bit flat-footed.                I think it's a matter of some l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l                        (312) 232-0262
 
l                                                                                  i I
15127 l
    ''h (V
1    importance, and we'd certainly as well like to provide 2    whatever we do in a format that's most useful to the 3    Board.
4          Perhaps at a time that's not too distant, after 5    counsel has had a chance to put our heads together a 6    little bit, maybe we can take a few minutes on the 7    record or off the record with the Board and discuss the 8    matter.
9          I haven't thought about it beyond knowing it's 10 -
coming, and I wish I had the headstart that Applicant 11    has now.
N '
12                MR. MILLER:      I wish I could say we had a 13    headstart.      At this point we really don' t.
14          But I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it off the 15    record with other counsel; and then if we can provide 16    some further comments to the Board for its 17    consideration, we'd be happy to do so.
18                JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Well, the one thing that is 19    required is record citations.
20                MR. MILLER:      Right.
21                JUDGE GROSSMAN:      I suppose it might be 22    possible to submit your findings in more of a narrative 23    form, though I'm not recommending that, as long as 24    everything has the appropriate record citations affixed 7-~
i  V      25    to it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15128
(-
U 1                MR. MILLER:    I think we were certainly 2    anticipating that what I understand to be the 3    requirements of the rules of practice would be adhered 4    to in terms of separately numbered findings with record 5    citations.
6          In my past experience, different Boards have had 7    different additional supplemental materials that they 8    have asked the parties to supply, and I just wanted to 9    raise the issue at this point this long in advance of 10    when we're supposed to be submitting them to structure 11    them accordingly.
12          I'd be happy to confer with the parties.
13                JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Fine.
14                MR. MILLER:  The other thing that also has to 15    do with the findings is whether there's any -- whether 16    we should give some thought to how we deal with 17    references to the in-camera transcript.
18          I think that can be handled very easily, but if the 19    Board or the other parties have any thoughts on that, j    20    that's something else that we probably ought to address.
21                JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, I suppose if you have 22    proposed findings that relate to in-camera matters, you l    23    can just blank them out of your proposed findings, leave l
24    those numbers blank and then submit the in-camera 25    proposed findings.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l  _    _ _
(312) 232-0262
 
l 15129
(, . \
  %Y 1      That would obviate any problems you would have, and 2 then it would be up to the Board to wrestle with how to 3 publish an opinion that deals with in-camera materials.
4      Mr. Berry, do you have any comments you wish to 5 make?
6            MR. BERRY:        Mr. Chairman, I, like Mr. Guild, 7 haven' t given much thought to it at this time.
8      I would note that the Board has accurately 9 characterized the general practice of findings; and as I 10 understand, it's numbered paragraphs with record 11 citations.
()    12 13 I do know that the practice does vary upon Licensing Boards as to the style of the findings.        I 14 understand some Licensing Boards like opinions and 15 proposed finds in the form of an initial decision, for 16 example. Others prefer more of an adversarial
!        17 counsel-type pleading document.
18      It does vary, and I would think the best course at l
19 this time would be for the counsel to discuss this 20 matter among ourselves and come up with some format that 21 would be consistent and easy for the Board to follow.
l        22            JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Let me say that sometimes l
23 writing the opinion does not lend itself that readily to l        24 that style of numbered findings, but that's a matter for 25 the Board, really.
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l I                    Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15130 gy U
1        As far as the parties, as far as what the Board 2    requires of the parties, we need those basic references 3    and short proposed findings in any event in order to 4    base our opinion, though sometimes the initial decision 5    is better written in narrative form.            Sometimes it's 6    better in numbered paragraphs.          Usually both methods are 7    utilized.
8        But in any event, what the parties ought to submit 9    is basically the numbered paragraphs and the record 10    citations, unless there's some reason why it ought to be 11    done otherwise.
12                MR. GUILD:        Just for example, I noted that
[G\
13    the Byron Board seemed to appreciate there were 14    agreements as to a number of nondisputed factual 15    matters, which I think is the reason why the rules 16    contemplate the moving party, Applicant, going forward 17    with first filing.
18        We certainly don't exclude the possibility on 19    noncontroverted matters of adopting Applicant's framing 20    of findings of fact; and I think in order to do that, it 21    has to be in a rather nonargumentative fashion and a 22    neutral statement of numbered points.
23        That's just a spontaneous reaction.            But it seems 24    to me to suggest that where there is room for agreement 25    on nondisputed facts, following that format at least Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois        60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15131
  %J 1 initially is appropriate.
2            JUDGE GROSSMAN:  What I'd suggest, though, is 3 that you not try te consult on any uncontroverted facts, 4 because that wastes too much time.
5            MR. MILLER:  I agree.
6            JUDGE GROSSMAN:  I would suggest to 7 Applicant, which is going to go first, that it try to do 8 it in a nonargumentative manner because it's possible to 9 have many undisputed facts that are going to be disputed 10 because of the way the facts are presented, and there's 11 no purpose to making them argumentative when it's not 12 necessary.
v 13            MR. MILLER:  I agree with that, and we're 14 going to certainly try and do that.
    '15      In addition, what we have been trying to do, pretty 16 close and up-to-date, is to abstract testimony; and I've 17 spoken with Mr. Guild some time ago and told him that we 18 would share those abstracts with him.
19      We'll certainly do so with the Staff and the Board, l    20 af ter the parties have examined them, if they would be 21 of any use to the Board.
22      They are, in fact, summaries.              I can't vouch 23 completely for their accuracy, but they are a good guide 24 to what is by now a very extensive transcript.
A 25            JUDGE GROSSMAN:  This is the indexing that l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l                      (312) 232-0262
 
15132 0
1        your people have done?
2                                MR. MILLER:        Essentially indexing, yes.
3                                JUDGE GROSSMAN:        We certainly have no 4        objection to receiving any of that.
        -5                                Mh. MILLER:        Well, I will show it to the 6        other parties and see whether they feel -- I don't think 7        that we've slanted our characterization of testimony or 8        anything like that; but if there's any dispute about it 9        -- but I did want to alert the Board and parties to 10        that.
11                                JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Well, I would think right 12        now that we would certainly be amenable to having that
(
13        submitted as an appendix to your preposed findings, but 14        I'll certainly hear argument if there's any opposition 15        to that.                It certainly would speed up the process.
16                  Okay, fine.            Let's get on to the exhibits that Mr.
17        Steptoe is offering.
18                                MR. STEPTOE:        Judge Grossman, I will do that.
19        I have one turther matter.
20                  Having just had a conversation on the desirability 21        of avoiding confrontation and argument, I hesitate-to 22        say this; but I think the controversy that we had before 23        lunch was so important in terms of the possible scope of 24        recross and future performance that I do have something 25        more to say, which is that over lunchtime Mr. Kostal and Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134
  ..      _  -.    -. - . _ - - ~ ~ _.
(312) 232-0262
 
15133 A
1  I looked at the subjects that you brought up, compared 2  them to the subjects which are the conservatisms which 3  are discussed in his. prepared testimony, and the matters 4  that were brought up during the course of cross 5  eaamination.
6      With two minor exceptions, they were the same.
7  What is different about the redirect examination was 8  that it was made more specific and quantified to a 9  greater extent than it was in the direct testimony.              The 10  reason for that was to relate it to the R value 11  screening argument.
() 12 13 So I don't believe that we sandbagged Mr. Guild in any way.        I think the reason why he may have been 14  surprised by some of this is that each, quite 15  understandably, chose to focus his discovery on this 16  prepared testimony, which was filed in August.
17      On those areas where he thought Applicant was most 18  vulnerable, he didn't come to us and ask, "What's your 19  basis for this conservatism?            What's your basis for i    20  this?"  So I don't' believe that we've expanded the scope 21  of our case; in particular, with respect to the 22  controversy over certified material test results for 23  cable pan hangers, the actual material problems.
24      That in particular is discussed quite clearly at 25  Page 29 of Mr. Kostal's direct testimony.            The words l
l l            Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!                      Geneva, Illinois    60134 l      -
(312) 232-0262                          ._
 
15134 O\
    \
Vl 1    " test reaults" are used, not " certified material test 2    results."  But the 20-percent figure that Mr. Kostal
  .      3    quoted is there.
4          Now, if Mr. Guild had asked us, "What's your basis 5    for that," the answer he would have gotten would have 6    been a reference to the Byron certified material test 7    results and the paper that Mr. Kostal referred to.
8          There are two minor exceptions to that.      In one, 9    there was a discussion of a two-inch tolerance with 10    respect to conduit hangers, which is not explicitly set 11    forth in Mr. Kostal's direct testimony.
12          Mr. Kostal also said that the actual material
(
13    properties in the certified material testing would also 14    be applicable to electrical equipment.      In that case 15    there is a discussion of certified material test 16    reports, but it's with respect to electrical hanger 17    materials and not electrical equipment, the electrical l
18    equipment category.
19          So with those two small exceptions, we don't think 20    we've expanded this case at all.
21          Again, I raise that not to be argumentative but 22    because I think this is an important issue.
23                JUDGE GROSSMAN:  Well, okay.
24          But, Mr. Steptoe, where you did not go into 25    specitics and there wasn't any cross examination of
!            ~
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15135 n
1  those generalizations, you are again putting on your 2  case in chief, rather than rebutting the cross 3  examination, rather than putting on your redirect.      So 4  you do have that element in there.
5        Now, Mr. Guild may have been happy just to have the 6  generalizations in the record, but you've gone further 7  than that on redirect.
8              MR. STEPTOE:    Excuse me, Judge Grossman.
9        But we did have a problem, which Mr. Guild very 10  cleverly brought out on cross examination, which is that 11  the R value screening criteria for purposes of G
(J >
12 13 performing design significance calculations was .90 and higher. So we had the problem:    Where are we going to 14  get this extra 10 percent that we need?
15        He brought in the quantification element by 16  bringing in the R value screening criteria, and that's 17  what we had to meet by quantifying some of these 18  conservatisms and remaining conservatisms that could be
[
19  used up, if necessary.
20              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay. I'm not making a l      21  definitive ruling. I'm glad you explained that.
l 22        All I'm suggesting is the areas in which Mr. Guild 23  may have had a legitimate objection.
l l      24        If your indication is that these matters were O)
(,  25  cross-examined and you are going into the came matters
!                Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134
_ __J312) 232-0262
 
15136 U
1                without expanding, well, that's a response to Mr.
2                Guild's position.
3                      But we're not making a definitive ruling one way or 4                the other.
5                                          MR. STEPTOE:          I understand that, Judge 6                Grossman.                  Thank you for listening.
7                                          MR. GUILD:    May I be heard on that point --
8                                          JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Certainly.
9                                          MR. GUILD:    -- since counsel has thought 10                about it over lunch?
11                      Mr. Kostal thoroughly ruined my lunch, Mr.
()    12 13 Chairman.                  The five pages of notes that he had before him are detailed calculations as well as references to 14                matters that are beyond the scope of the direct 15                testimony.
i 16                      I'm not trying to re-argue the Board's ruling.                        I 17                simply want to make the point that I am unable, over the 18                luncheon recess preparing for recross on all matters, to 19                digest more than my lunch if you throw in Mr. Kostal's 20                new calculations.
21                      I ask leave of the Board to be able to review those 22                further and reserve on those subjects.
23                                          JUDGE GROSSMAN:          Well, I think Mr. Guild is 24                entitled to do that.                  The witness was referring to those l
, y ,)' 25                notes, and opposing counsel certainly is permitted to l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois                  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15137 3,
    )
a 1              review what he was referring to on the stand.
2                    If there isn't sufficient time to do it right now, 3              he ought to be given time for it.
4                          MR. STEPTOE:        All right, Judge Grossman.
5                    Mr. Kostal is going to be back anyway when he has 6              to discuss the weld discrepancy points.                  Maybe we can 7              just defer Mr. Guild's portion of that examination until 8              that time.
9                          MR. GUILD:        That will be fine, Mr. chairman.
10                          JUDGE GROSSMAN:              Fine.
11                    Does that conclude, then, your examination, other 12              than offering the exhibits, which I assume you' re going (O) 13              to do right now?
14                          MR. STEPTOE:        That's correct.
15                    Judge Grossman, the first exhibit which I'd like to 16              offer is what we'd like to have marked as Applicant's 17              Exhibit 162, which is the full version of the design 18              procedures and assumptions, Section 19.3.1.                            It is the 19              most current version.        In some cases it's a Rev. 5, and 20              in some cases it's a Rev. 6.
21                    What this document has that the previous document, 22              Intervenors' Exhibit --
23                          MR. GUILD:        161.
24                          MR. STEPTOE:        161?
    ) 25                          MR. GUILD:        Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l l
15138
                                                                      ]
s                                                                    !
1            MR. STEPTOE:    -- 161 did not have in 2  particular that is relevant is the Section 7, which 3  describes evaluation of weldment.
4      There is some immaterial or irrelevant material in 5  here, but Section 7 is actually the portion that we want 6  to offer. The reason why I put the whcle document 7  together is in case somebody else had a different idea 8 of what was relevant.
9      But it is Section 7, beginning on Page 35 and 10    running to Page 43, that we wish to offer at this time.
11                    (The document was thereupon marked
() 12 13 Applicant's Exhibit No. 162 for identification as of October 21, 1986.)
14                MR. GUILD:    I'm sorry; the number?
15                HR. STEPTOE:    Applicant's 162.
16                MR. GUILD:    Mr. Chairman, I have no objection 17    as long as it's understood that I don't intend to use 18    the new section of that document as a springboard for 19    additional cross examination, although I think it would 20    be appropriate for me to do so.
21          But I believe that Mr. Kostal's testimony on the 22    evaluation of welds has to stand on its own foundation, 23    and I would hope not to expect findings from the 24    Applicant that rely instead on the added sections of 25    this document.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15139
    <x 1        If it's being offered to show that there was a 2  procedure that governed the evaluation of welds, I have 3  no objection.
4            MR. STEPTOE:    Judge Grossman, I don't have in 5  mind any specific references to this. I'm not trying to 6  sneak something into the record. On the other hand, 7  this document was provided to Mr. Guild some time ago.
8        I don't want any limitation on my ability to go 9  into this document and say, "This is the methodology 10  that they used," if the record is unclear from Mr.
11  Kostal's extemporaneous comments.
12            MR. GUILD:    Then I object to the receipt of
      )
13  this document at this time. .I as'k that'the-Board 14  reserve on it.
15        I haven't had a chance to evaluate the new portions 16  of the document in sufficient depth to be able to take i        17 . an intelligible position on it.
l 18            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    I think we'll admit the 19  document now, but we will certainly listen to any motion 20  for reconsideration on the basis of anything that you 21  may see in there that's a surprise to you, Mr. Guild; 22  that is, in the context of Applicant's case.
23            MR. GUILD:    Then I would like to reserve on l
;        24  that subject as well for recross, and I withdraw the i
g, ) 25  stipulation. that I don't intend to cross on it.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134
[                          (312) 232
                                  , -0262              .
 
15140 O
U 1      If it's going to be received for all purposes, then 2 I'd like the opportunity to cross for those purposes as 3 well. I haven't had an opportunity to review the 4 document.
5            JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Well, I think you ought to 6 be able to recross on that, Mr. Guild, certainly.
7      So we'll admit the document with that 8 understanding.
9                (The document was thereupon received into 10                  evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.162.)
11            MR. STEPTOE:      Judge Grossman, the next rN 12 exhibit is Applicant's Exhibit 143, which is a sketch of
(
      }
13 a conduit hanger which is attached to a wall.
14            JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Any problem with that, Mr.
15 Guild?
16            MR. GUILD:    No, sir.
;        17            JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Mr. Berry?
18            MR. BERRY:    No, your Honor.
l l        19            JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Received.
l 20                (The document was thereupon received into 21                  evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 143.)
22            MR. STEPTOE:      The next exhibit I offer is l
23 Applicant's Exhibit 144.
l 24            MR. MILLER:      Perhaps our records are -- Mr.
25 Steptoe and I are not together.
l l                Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l                        (312) 232-0262
 
15141 b
V 1                  MR. STEPTOE:                Is 144 an exhibit?
2                  MS. CHAN:                No.
3                  MR. STEPTOE:                I didn't think it was an 4      exhibit.
5            It's a sketch of a cable pan hanger.                            I believe 6      that it was performed by Mr. Shevlin, and he was 4
7      discussing what was a difficult item to inspect.
8                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:                No objection, Mr. Guild?
9                  MR. GUILD:                No, sir.
10                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:                Mr. Berry?
11                  MR. BERRY:                No, your Honor.
12                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:                Received.
13                ,
(The document was thereupon' received into 14                                    evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.144.)
15                  MR. STEPTOE:                The next exhibit is Applicant's
;        16      Exhibit 145.              My records show that that has been 17      admitted by the Licensing Board,                  It is a sketch of a i
18      Systems Control --
19                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:                That's correct.            That's 20      admitted.      That's already been admitted.                        That's fine.
21            Why don't we go on?
i        22                  MR. STEPTOE:                The next document is 23      Applicant's Exhibit 146, which is again Mr. Kostal's l        24      sketch of a weld cross section.                  It's an illustration of b)
(      25      how R values might be calculated.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15142 O
V 1              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Any objectior.a?
2              MR. GUILD:    No objection.
3              MR. BERRY:    None.
4              JUDGE GROSSPAN:    That's received.
5                    (The document was thereupon received into 6                    evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 146.)
7              MR. STEPTOE:    Applicant's Exhibit 147 is Mr.
8  Thorsell's sketch of the cable terminations for Cable 9  130 where it enters a box.
10              MR. GUILD:    No objection.
11              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    'That's received.
12                    (The document was thereupon received into 13                    evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.147.)
14              MR. STEPTOE:    Applicant's Exhibit 148 is.a 15  sketch of cable cross sections by Mr. Thorsell.
16              JUDGE GROSSFAN:    No objections?
17              MR. GUILD:    I just observe that the cable
,              18  jacket depicted on the sketch, the proposed exhibit, l
l 19  appears to be somewhat more conservatively depicted than 20  the drawing that Mr. Thorsell did for us live in the 21  courtroom with respect to the jacket thickness for the
:              22  single-conductor single cable, as opposed to the l
l              23  multiple-conductor cable.
I l              24        But I have no problem.
25              MR. STEPTOE:    I don't know what the word l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312(232-0262    _    _
 
15143
("N
- \8s )
1 " conservative" means here, but --
2          MR. GUILD:    It's thinner in this picture than 3 it was as described by Mr. Thorsell when he was drawing 4 it under the mistaken belief that he was showing us how 5 a single-conductor cable jacket was thicker.
6          JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, to the extent that he 7 corrected his testimony, I would suspect that the 8 drawing we're getting now is more accurate.          So we'll 9 just, with those comments, receive 148.
10                (The document was thereupon received into 11                evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.148.)
iA;  12          MR. STEPTOE:    Applicant's Exhibit 149, Mr.
O 13 Kostal's sketch of a conduit hanger and a load table.            -
14          MR. GUILD:    No objection.
15          JUDGE GROSSMAN:    No objections?
16      We'll admit 149.
17                (The document was thereupon received into 18                evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.149.)
19          MR. STEPTOE:    Applicant's Exhibit 150 is Mr.
20 Kostal's sketch of a conduit hange r discrepancy where 21 the conduit hanger is out of posif Lon, and it's an 22 illustration of another way of calculating an R value.
23          JUDGE GROSSMAN :    No objections?
24      We'll admit 150.
      ) 25                (The document was thereupon received into Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262        -        . _ _ _    _
 
l l
15144
    /9 U
1                              evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.150.)
2                      MR. STEPTOE:      Applicant's Exhibit 151 is a 3    table of cable data entitled " Proposal Technical Data 4    for 600-volt Power and Control Cable."                    This was used by 5    Mr. Thorsell.
6                      JUDGE GROSSMAN :    No objections to Applicant's 7    151?
8                We'll admit that.
9                            (The document was thereupon received into 10                              evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 151.)
11                      MR. STEPTOE:      Applicant's Exhibit 152 is an S
[A. 12    & L drawing, electrical installation cable inf ormation, 13 .
and the drawing number is 03000Q..                                            .
14                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:      No objection to Applicant's 15    152?
16                We'll admit that.
17                            (The document was thereupon received into 18                              evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 152.)
19                      MR. STEPTOE:      Applicant's Exhibit 153 was 20    received.
21                Applicant's Exhibit 154 is Mr. Thorsell's sketch of 22    a limit switch and minimum bend radius within the limit 23    switch.
(          24                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:      No objection to Applicant's i    25    154?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
t 15145
  <~s i
(G 1                                                We'll admit it.
i 2                                                          (The document was thereupon received into l        3                                                            evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 154.)
4                                                      MR. STEPTOE:    Let the record show that 5                                          Applicant's Exhibit 155 is in.
6                                                Applicant'E 156 we did not offer.      We just asked 7                                          that it be marked for identification.
8                                                Applicant's Exhibit 157 and 158 are sketches which 9                                          are currently on the board, and we will undertake to 10                                          provide reduced copies of them at a later time.      I'll 11                                          try to remember to move them into evidence.
O}
12                                                Applicant's Exhibit 159 is a sketch of Cable Pan 13                                          Hanger 104 with the actual cable loads and the loads 14                                          derived using 45 pounds per square foot shown on it.
15                                                          (Indicating.)
16                                                We used it today.
17                                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:      And you're offering that 18                                          now?
19                                                      MR. STEPTOE:    Yes, we are offering that.
20                                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN :    Any objections to that?
21                                                      MR. GUILD:-  No, sir.
22                                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Admitted.
23                                                          (The document was thereupon received into 24                                                            evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.159.)
(      25                                                      MR. STEPTOE:    Then Applicant's Exhibite 160 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262                                l
 
15146 s
1                  and 161 have already been received, according to our 2                  records.
3                            JUDGE GROSSMAN:              That's correct.
4                            MR. STEPTOE:              That concludes my redirect.
5                            JUDGE GROSSMAN:              Okay.
6                        The Board has some questions of the panel.
7                            MR. GUILD:          May I have just a moment, Mr.
8                  Chairman?
9                            JUDGE GROSSMAN:              Oh, I'm sorry.
10                            JUDGE COLE:          Just a few questions, gentlemen.
11                                  BOARD EXAMINATION 12                                            BY JUDGE COLE:
13            Q    Mr. Kostal, does Sargent & Lundy have any independent 14                  responsibility to review or effect corrections of 15                  discrepancies?
16            A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)          We have -- our only independent 17                  responsibility is to analyze those discrepancies to
;      18                  determine whether or not they stay within code 19                  allowables. That's our main responsibility.
20                        If we find that it doesn't stay within code 21                  allowables, then we have two responsibilities.                                  One is 22                  to inform the client.          Second of all, they request that
;      23                  we give them a suggested corrective action.
I      24            0    What I mean by " independent responsibility" -- I mean m
(,)
t j      25                  other than any discrepancies that might be brought to l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15147 O
1            your attention by any contrectors or by Commonwealth 2            Edison.
3                  Does Sargent & Lundy, as the architect-engineer, 4            have independent responsibility over and above what 5            anybody else in the picture might have with respect to 6            identifying and correcting deficiencies?
7        A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Only our own internal deficiencies 8            that may arise as a result of us rejecting our 9            calculations, but no external outside responsibilities.
10        0- With respect to any discrepancies that are found out in 11            the tield with respect to construction?
()
12        A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well -- oh, okay. I see what you're 13            referring to.
14                  Our responsibility in that light is if we observe, 15            in the course of our normal' work, a discrepancy that 16            exists, our responsibility, as a good engineer, is to at
                                      ~
17            least report that to Commonwealth Edison so they can 18            take action on that.
19        0  All right, sir.
20                  Do you have any kind of program'to do anything like 21            that or would this just be incidental to your other 22            work?
23        A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It would be incidental to our other 24            work.
25        A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    Could I expand on that?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15148
  /^x 1        0    Certainly.
2        A      (WITNESS THORSELL)      Because we do have a design team in 3                the tield that is out in the plant every day, we have 4              established a protocol with Commonwealth Edison's 5              Project Construction Department whereby there's a 6              standardized notification memo that is completed and 7                forwarded to the lead electrical -- in the case of 8              electrical work, to the lead electrical engineer for 9              Commonwealth Edison's Project Construction Department, 10                informing him of any discrepancy that we come across in 11                the course of our -- of our normal activities, (q  j 12          Q    All right, sir. Thank you.
13                    Mr. Kostal, we spent a great deal of time 14              discussing calculations and recalculations, and most of 15              that time was spent discussing the calculation that's 16              contained in Intervenors' Exhibit 155-B.
17                    Do you know, sir, why the calculation that is 18              contained in Intervenors' Exhibit 155-B was redone?
19        A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No, sir, I don't know exactly why it i
20              was redone.
21                    But what I surmise is as we revise and update 22              various calculations, it was done to include new 23              ~information that could have arisen at that point in l
l      24              time.
25                    This particular hanger, 104, to the best of my I
i
!                              Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois      60134 (312) 232-0262
 
                                                                                              .A_
15149 1                        recollection, has been worked on, meaning there have 2                        been calculations associated with that hanger dating 3                        back into the late '70s.            So we have performed analysis 4                        on Cable Pan Hanger 104 since the late '70s and on other 5                        occasions.
6                              So this is one of an evolution of analyses being 7                        performed. In thir particular case, it was -- I at 8                        least know that it's more than the second time and more 9                        than the third time that this particular calculation has 10                        been worked on in this particular hanger.
11        0              Well, sir, the reason why I raise the question is the 12                        initial calculations indicated a safety margin, a margin
(
* 13                        of safety,-above 1.              ,
14                              Was the nature of the information contained such 15                        that it might have indicated some different safety 16                        margin below that or do you do these recalculations when 17                        new information arises, regardless of what is known as 18                        to whether it will have a positive or negative effect on
,  19                        design margin?
20      A                (WITNESS KOSTAL)            If we receive new information on a 21                        hanger, we would be doing calculations on the new 22                        information.
23                              If we -- meaning if we got different as-built l  24                        dimensions or different loading conditions, we would do 25                        that.
l l
i                                    Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois          60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15150 b
1        If we received information that, by observation, 2  was not critical to the present design on the hanger, we 3  would put a note in our calculations saying in general, 4  "By engineering judgment, this particular condition does
:      5  not affect the conservatisms built in the calc."
6        We would have a note of that nature on our 7  calculations when an engineering judgment is done, 8  rather than upgrading the calculations.
9        There are other times when you can't make an 10  engineering judgment, and you would perform a more 11  exacting calculation.
A} 12        So it really varies, depending on the circumstances 13  surrounding the element that's being considered for      -
14  review.
15 0 All right, sir.
16        With respect to this hanger, I believe several days 17  ago you testified that the structure was analyzed as 18  though the node connections were pinned.
19        Do you recall that, sir, and is that correct?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            The node -- yes, sir. The diagonal 21  members and the longitudinal brace -- the internal 22  diagonal member and the longitudinal brace members are 23  pinned.
24        All the remaining connections between the O
( ,)
25  horizontal members and vertical and the vertical member Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois            60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15151 1  to the ceiling are considered fixed.
2 0 Is this a more conservative or less conservative 3  analysis with respect to the design analysis of the 4  structure?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                It's consistent with what's contained 6  in textbooks.
7                  When you're looking at trusses, trusses are 8  actually loaded members.              They' re very stiff in an axial 9  member.
10                  When you frame a truss member into a moment-type 11  f rame, as in the case of that diagonal, you' re f raming 12  into a bending portion of the vertical member.
(n}
13                  The bending portion of the vertical member is not 14  very stiff.              As a result, it won't really -- it will 15  force the diagonal to act as a true truss-type member, 16  which is an axial component member, which really sees no 17  moment.
18                  That's discussed -- if you go back into textbooks 19  that are used in college, they talk about what are 20  trusses and how trusses act and how loads are 21  transferred through trusses, and they basically transfer 22  it through a truss in a tension or a compression manner.
23                  Even though you have to have a joint, you can't get l    24  a perfectly idealized joint that is a swivel.                    You have to assemble it in some manner with weld, but it's
    ) 25 l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'                            Geneva, Illinois    60134 l            _ _ _ _ _ -        .-
(312) 232-0262
 
1 15152 l'~
M)  /
1                      constructed in such a manner that you allow for the 2                        joint to rotate slightly, relieving then the internal 3                        moment that is generated.
4                              That slight rotation that occurs relieves the 5                        moment, and it becomes pinned, meaning it doesn't really 6                        accept any moment.
7                              That's what I'm referring to when I talk about a 8                        pinned-type connection.
9    0                  All right, sir.
10                              And these are all welded connections; correct, sir?
11    A                  (WITNESS KOSTAL)          Yes, sir.
12    0                  Is this a reasonable assumption to make on a welded J
13                        connection that -- is it fair to say that then the 14                        secondary stresses arer.' t transf erred?
15    A                  (WITNESS KOSTAL)          They're transferred, but they're 16                      minor.
17                              In a welded connection -- let me give you an l
18                        example in this case.
I 19                              If you were to weld across the top and across the l          20                      bottom, which is separated, you have the ability to l
21                        transfer more moment because you've got a stronger 22                        element here and here with a lever arm, which basically i
23                      creates the ability to transfer a moment.
24                                            (Indicating.)
25                              If you weld along the two sides and you only put a l
l l                                          Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15153 O
1                                                        small portion of weld on the sides, it's very soft in 2                                                        resisting any kind of moment.
3                                                                                          (Indicating.)
4                                                                                So in creating a joint that you want to be a pinned 5                                                        joint, you look at the way you're going to construct 6                                                        that joint, and you idealize the construction in such a 7                                                        manner that you minimize the ability of the joint to a                                                        transfer any moment.
9        3 In the case of this diagonal brace, internal i
10                                                        diagonal brace, we put that weld on two vertical sides 11                                                        -- we don't put it across the top and across the bottom 12                                                        -- to more reflect a pinned connection.
13                              0                        All right, sir.                      That's very helpful.
14                                                                                And because of that technique in design, the 15                                                          assumption of a pinned connection is considered 16                                                          acceptable in standard practice?
17                              A                          (WITNESS KOSTAL)                    Yes, sir.
18                                0                        All right.
19                                                                                Towards the latter part of your testimony, you 20                                                          referred to more advanced structural analyses that would 21                                                          include possible carrying of certain portions of the 22                                                          load by adjacent supports; and I believe you performed 23                                                          that kind of analysis on at least three hangers at 24                                                          Byron.
25                                                                                Do you recall that, sir?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.                    I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15154 O
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    We performed it on three hangers at 2  Byron; but we performed it on carrying all the load 3  within the hanger, not translating the load to any other 4  hanger.
5                  (Indicating.)
6 0 I'm sorry. Would you repeat what you just said, sir?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    You asked whether or not we transferred the load from one support to another            I 8
9  support.
10        What we did was we performed an analysis at Byron 11  on the hanger, but we redistributed the load within the 12  hanger itself to other members, other joint connections.
13                  (Indicating.)
14 0 Within the same hanger and not to adjacent hangers?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Not to adjacent hangers.
16 O All right, sir.
;      17        I believe you also conducted an analysis that would 18  consider the possible additional support provided by 19  adjacent hangers, did you not, sir?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Not on Byron.
j      21        For the three hangers that were used in my j      22  testimony for Systems Control, those were three unique 23  hangers which had defects. We modeled the defects in 24  it, which then softened the joints, and performed the      ,
                                                                        ~
25  analysis.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15155 G
1        As a result of the analysis, we showed that we 2    could take twice the original design load.                    That's what
,      3    was the basis of the three analyses that were done for 4    my Byron testimony.
;      5  0 All right, sir.      Thank you.
6        You performed no such analyses for any hangers at 7    Braidwood?
8  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            No, none whatsoever.
9                  MR. GUILD:        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Dr.
10    Cole's interest in the subject, but I take it that the 11    Board ruling stands that the Byron analysis is not part 12    of the record in this proceeding.
(
13          I'm not obligated, I hope, to delve into that 14    question on the basis of the Board questioning.
15                  JUDGE COLE:          I don't think they conducted any 16    of those kinds of analyses at Braidwood.
17                  MR. GUILD:        Indeed.        That's what I 18    understood, too, Judge Cole.
19          I have objected to including the Byron analyses in 20    this record, and --
21                  JUDGE COLE:        The fairness of the analogy 22-  between Braidwood and Byron?
23                  MR. GUILD:        Right.
24                  JUDGE COLE:          I think we've agreed that that's
      '25    not part of this record.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
  )
Geneva, Illinois        60134
[              . _ - - .
(312) 232-0262
 
15156 O
1                MR. GUILD:      Understood.
2 BY JUDGE COLE:
3 Q    Mr. Kostal, at several places in your testimony, you 4      refer to the code allowable stress and a margin being 5      associated with the code allowable by a factor of 2.
6            Do you recall that, sir?
7 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    There's one place in my testimony 8      where I -- where I do state that, that's correct.
9            That's on Page 18. It's referred to as the second 10      design margin.
11 Q    And you also refer to it on Page 30 and on Page 24?
f\
d 12 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)  30 --
13 0    The third line from the bottom on Page 30 --
14 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
15 0    -- and the last paragraph on Page 24.
16 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I'm sorry. I was referring to the 17      wrong page.
18            You wouldn't believe this.      I'm missing Page 24 of l
19      my testimony.
l    20                MR. BERRY:      (Indicating.)
21 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    (Continuing.)    Yes, sir.
22 BY JUDGE COLE:
23 Q    Now, could you describe briefly the origin of that 24      factor of 2, sir?                                            )
l  \
l  ) 25 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The origin of that is found in the l
l                  Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262_
 
i 1
1 l
l 15157
  %)
1  various codes. The AISC code, which is the American 2  Institute of Steel Construction, discusses that.            ,
3        It's found in a slightly different manner in the 4  American Concrete Institute, when they talk about 5  ultimate capacity versus allowable capacities.
6        In those documents you will see stress-strain 7  interaction diagrams, which basically define the 8  behavior characteristics of material as they go through 9  loading, as they see load. Those stress-strain diagrams 10  show you you have a linear relationship up to a yield 11  point and then you have a little dip, and then it goes
  /%
i 12  up again until you get to an ultimate capacity.
13                  (Indicating.)
14        One of the provisions of the code is not to allow 15  you to use ultimate capacity but to use a yield strength 16  and then, from the yield strength, to work bacPwards to
,      17  an allowable strength.
18        So the code inherently shows. you what margins they 19  have brought into play from ultimate capacity to yield 20  capacity to the allowables that you can use.
21        That's illustrated and discussed throughout the 22  codes.
23 0 All right, sir.
24        I want to back up a little bit on the curve.
25        You indicated that the stress-strain curve has a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15158 v
1  linear portion up to a yield point, after which it 2  departs from linearity and then proceeds on in some 3  curve fashion to ultimate strength.
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
5 0 When we identify a steel like A36 as having the 6  allowable stress of 36,000, where does that 36,000 kips 7  or 36 kips per square inch fit on the stress-strain 8  curve with respect to yield point?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It fits in the linear portion of that 10  curve and the top of that curve. That represents the 11  yield point for A36 material.
12 0 Now, sir, on Page 29 of your testimony, you're referring
(
13  to conservatism and materials, and you talk about actual 14  test results for material that is used in the Braidwood 15  hangers.
16        You indicate "an average strength equal to 20 17  percent more than the minimum strength assumed in the 18  design."
19        The information that's come back from the 20  manufacturer's certifications or the test certifications 21  of the strength of the material -- at what point are 22  they measuring that on the stress-strain curve and how 23  does that relate to the yield point and how does that 24  relate to the 36,0007 O
( ,) 25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    They again are relating it to the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
(                        (312) 232-0262
 
15159
    ' b 1 \_s/
1                          yield point. They are relating these values to the 36 2                          ksi value. What they have basically demonstrated is it 3                          remains linear until it reaches these ranges that I 4                          discussed, which were 42 to 44 ksi.
5                              So the 42 to 44 is compared to the 36, which is the 6                          yield point that's discussed in the -- in the code and 7                          in the -- on those curves.              So it relates to that same 8                          yield point.
9                              What it basically does is it moves the point 10                          further up on the linear portion of the curve.                It 11                          doesn't yield at 36; it actually yields at 42 or 44 or I\  12                          whatever the test results are for the actual materials.
:  L) 13                        0 Sir, are you f amiliar with the general shape of the 14                          stress-strain curve out to failure?
15                        A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
16                        0 What is generally the relationship between the yield 17                          point and the failure point?
18                        A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      For A36 material, it's not quite 2, l
19                          but it's close to 2.              It ranges up to about 58 to 56; l
20                          and at 65, it's near 2.              At 58, it's in the range of 21                          1.8.
22                              That's generally the range that you'll find for 23                          A36-type material.
24                        0 All right, sir. Thank you.
25                              This information you just imparted is common Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois            60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15160 1  knowledge to anybody that's involved in structural 2  design, is it not, sir?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It's the first thing you learn when 4  you go to school.
5 0 All right, sir. Thank you.
      .6        Mr. Thorsell, I have just a couple questions for 7  you.
8        On Page 9 of your testimony, in answer to Question 9  17, you refer to " code-required design margins."
10        Are you referring to -- what codes are you 11  referring to?
4
    ) 12 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Those are the same codes that Mr.
13  Kostal has discussed.
14 0 Generally the structural codes?
15 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
16 0 Okay.
17        And the last -- a later part of your answer to 18  Question 17, at the top of the page, Page 10 of your 19  testimony, the last sentence in the paragraph at the 20  top, you state, " Discrepancies of this type include 21  undersized plate washers, incorrect junction box 22  mounting details and incorrect member location."
,    23 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes.
24 0 I guess I have a problem relating that to capacity.
25        How do you do that, sir?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
:                  Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15161 1    A              (WITNESS THORSELL)              Okay.                                                l 2                          Taking -- well, I can discuss it in general terms 3                    or --
4    A              (WITNESS KOSTAL)            Maybe I should answer.
5    A              (WITNESS THORSELL)              -- or Mr. Kostal.                These types of 6                    analyses of plate washers and junction box mounting 7                    details and member locations were done by Mr. Kostal.
8                          I have a f amiliarity with them and can discuss them 9                    in general terms, or Mr. Kostal can discuss them more 10                    specifically; whichever way you --
11    0              Well, I'd like something fairly general, because I have 12                    no feeling for how they would be related to capacity,
(
13                    these types of capacities.
14    A              (WITNESS THORSELL)              Okay.
15                          The mounting of a junction box -- one method of 16                    mounting that junction box is to bolt it to a structural 17                    support mem!ar.            That may be a Unistrut member or a tube 18                    steel member.
19                          The junction box is made out of 14-gauge sheet 20                    metal, and so the capacity of that bolt to support the 21                    junction box is limited by the size of the head of the 22                    bolt.
23                                            (Indicating.)
24                          In order to increase that holding capacity, a 25                    washer is used so that that load can be distributed over Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
[  --    .-  . _ - . - . .        _ _ _ _ -    .
(312) 232-0262
 
I 15162 t''~')
V 1  the -- over the surface of the sheet metal.
2 0 All right, sir. Let ne stop you there, because I think 3  you've already answered the question.
4        You're dealing here with structural capacity --
5 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
6 0 -- and I was relating it somehow to its capacity to 7  perform its function, its electrical function, and I 8  could not relate that in any way.
9 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    No, no. This is structural 10  capacity in these cases.
11 0 Okay.
G 12        That satisfies me on that point, unless you really (L-)
13  have something more to add, Mr. Kostal. I don' t have a 14  problem with that.
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    No, but I can characterize the 16  conservatism which we used, if you wish to hear it.
17 0 I think I can appreciate the conservatism in there, 18  so --
i          19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Okay.
20 0 On Page 12 of your testimony, Mr. Thorne11, in response 21  to Question 19, the top part of the page, you say, 22  " Sufficient margin also existed to accommodate loose 23  couplings and fittings."
24        I guess my question is:    If we can make a general 25  statement like there's margin there to accommodate it, l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i                        Geneva, Illinois  60134
(                            (312) 232-0262                ---            ._
 
15163 I
(''N                                                                  \
  %-]                                                                    l I  why was it considered as a possible design significance 2  in the first place?                                        l 3 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Okay.
4        Conduit is basically pipe, essentially, which is --
5  which comes in 10-foot or shorter lengths. In order to 6  make up a conduit run that is longer than 10 feet long, 7  it's necessary to use a coupling to thread that pipe 8  together.
9                  (Indicating.)
10        During the course of installation- there were 11  discrepancies noted where there may not have been full O)
(J    12  engagement of the threads of the conduit into the 13  coupling.
14        As a result, if there was a lack of total thread 15  engagement, there was a corresponding reduction in the 16  ability of that coupling to support that conduit.
17        That reduction was calculated by Mr. Kostal's 18  people. That calculation yielded a greater than 10 l
l      19  percent reduction in the capacity because of lack of l
20  total thread engagement.
21        Therefore, it became a notable discrepancy, and an t
i      22  analysis was done to determine that the threads that l
l      23  were engaged were sufficient to support the conduit.
i i
24 0 All right, sir.
(    'N j    ,) 25        On Page 14 of your testimony, at the top of the i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j                      Geneva, Illinois    60134
[                          (312) 232-0262                        - _
 
1 I
15164 O
1      page, you state, "Although none of the notable 2      discrepancies was design-significant, further evaluation 3      of these discrepancies was performed to fulfill the BCAP J    4      commitment to identify possible 'significant conditions i    5      adverse to quality.'"
6            I assume there you were talking' atout trying to 7      identify generic-type deficiencies; is that correct,
^
8      sir?
4 9 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      Correct.
10            This is referring to what we. discussed previously 11      as trending analysis, where we looked for any kind of a 12      generic defect or the possibility that a discrepancy 13      that was identified in BCAP may have taken on design 14      significance if it had been located in a different spot.
15 0    All right, sir.
16            Now, did Sargent & Lundy do that or did BCAP do 17      that?
i 18 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      Sargent & Lundy did that.
19                  JUDGE COLE:    That's all I have. Thank you 20      very much.
21                        BOARD EXAMINATION 22                        BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
)    23 Q    Mr. Thorsell, I'd like to refer to a motor which is j    24      characterized by being fed power through Cable 130 --
25 A    (WIT 1.ESS THORSELL)    Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15165 1 0 -- just for identification. Let's put it that way.
2        The motor drove a pump.
3 A  (WITNESS THORSELL)    In the case of Cable 130, the motor 4  drives a fan.
5 0 Oh, a tan.
6        What does the fan do?
7 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    The fan is part of the reactor 8  containment fan cooler. It's essentially part of the 9  HVAC system for the containment building.
10 0 Is that safety-related?
11 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
12 0 Well, returning now to power supply and to the motor, I 13  think you told us that it's a two-speed motor and,
;  14  therefore, it had two power supplies --
15 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
16 0 -- into the same junction box?
i  17 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
t 18 0 So just in sumuary, there were two three-conductor c
l  19  cables and six pigtails?
20 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Yes, sir.
I.
i  21 0 Do you recall what the other, other than 130, cable
;  22  designation was?
!  23 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    129.
24 0 And looking at Applicant's Exhibit 153, it was observed, l  25  to use your word, or it was reviewed by the Okonite i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262                    - - - . . _ -
 
(
15166 t~
k 1                      representative?
2    A                (WITNESS THORSELL)                    Yes, sir.
3    Q              Did 129 experience in any way the configuration, the 4                    bending at the pigtail connection, similar to 130?
5    A                (WITNESS THORSELL)                    Yes, sir.
6                                      The difference between.129 and 130, as reported in 7                      the BCAP observations, was that 129 had a slightly 8                      smaller bending radius than Cable 130.
9                                      To the best of my recollection, cable 130 had a 10                      bending radius of -- a minimum bending radius of 3
!                11                      inches, and Cable 129 had a minimum bending radius of I)
V 12                      2.5 inches.
13    0                And as I remember, outside diameter that determines the 14                      -- well, let me put it in the negative.
15                                      What was the outside diameter of the jacket that 16                      determined the bending radius?
17    A                (WITNESS THORSELL)                    In both cases, the outside diameter 18                      was 1.072 inches.
19    0                129 was under a little greater stress --
20    A                (WITNESS THORSELL)                    Yes, sir.
21    0                -- shall we say?
22                                      What was its disposition upon inspection by the 23                      Okonite people?
24    A                (WITNESS THORSELL)                    Well, it was reported to me that at
        \
d
( ,)        25                      the time that the cable was inspected by Mr. Bartolucci, i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262              _ _ .____,._ _.
 
l 15167 i
b 1                              he round that cable to be acceptably installed.
2                                    However, the tormat of the letter that came back 3                              f rom the Okonite Company was not one of saying 4                              acceptable or unacceptable but one of establishing an 5                              acceptance criteria.
6                                    Cable 129 did not fall into the acceptance criteria 7                              established by that letter and consequently was 8                              subjected to an insulation resistance test to determine 9                              if there was any deterioration of the -- of the 10                              insulation as a result of that bending radius.
11  Q                          And had it suffered?
12                                                        No, sir.
(        A                          (HITNESS THORSELL) 13    0                          The multiplication factor for 129, then, was less than 14                              2.5?
15    A                          (WITNESS THORSELL)      Yes, sir.
16    0                          Was 129 replaced?
17    A                          (WITNESS THORSELL)      No, sir.
18    Q                        Mr. Kostal, I had a series of questions on the 19                              calculational refinements that were discussed at some 20                              length this morning.      My colleague has covered them 21                              fairly completely.      I have a couple of odds and ends, if 22                              I may, please.
23                                    Referring to A36 steel, the practical values for 24                              design I think you said may be 40 to 44 kips per squart 25                                inch, whereas the handbook value is 36.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
  }
Geneva, Illinois    60134
[                            _
(312) 232-0262                                        l
 
15168 f
O) 1  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, sir, the allowable.
2  0 Where on the yield, the stress-strain curve, does the 40 3    value or the 42 value, or whatever your upper limit is, 4    fall with respect to the yield point?
5  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        It would fall higher, but the linear 6    curve would go up higher to reach that new higher 7    elevation, that new higher value.
8            The idealized stress-strain curve is linear up to 9    36. When you do a material test, sir, it became --
10    stays linear up to 42 to 44.        So the linear point on the 11    curve just moves up higher.
i
(      12                        (Indicating.)
13  0 And where is the yield point?
14  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        The yield point is at 36 for A36 15    material, but from the mill certificates, the yield 16    point would be in the range of 42 to 44.
;          17  0 I'm terribly sorry, but let me ask it again.
18            If one plotted stress-strain, you've got a linear 19    section now up to 40 to 44?
20  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      42 to 44.
21  0 42 to 44 kips per square inch.
22            And you spoke earlier, I believe, of a l
l 23    discontinuity at the yield point, a discontinuity in the 24    stress-strain curve --
I
        ) 25  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Oh, yes.
l l                        Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15169 1 0 -- at the yield point?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
3 0 Now, has the yield point advanced as well?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
5        Could I draw an illustration for you?
6        I think it may be easier.
7        This is load. This is strain.
8                  (Indicating.)
9        That's an idealized curve for stress versus strain.
10                  (Indicating.)
11        This point is for A36. It's Fy equal to 36 ksi.
() 12 13 The ultimate that I was referring to in my discussion with Judge Cole was this point up here, where 14  the material fails, which is called Fu. That range is 15  -- I haven't looked this up in a while, so I have to see
,      16  what it is. But it ranges from 58 to about 65. This is 17  the best-guess range at the moment.
18                  (Indicating.)
19        What I'm referring to -- when I talk about actual 20  material certificates, I'm referring to this curve, 21  which is conducted for materials. What happens is this j      22  point, rather than stopping right here, keeps going up l      23  until it reaches 42; and then it takes on this shape.
24                  (Indicating.)
l l    (  25        This is the Fy associated with the material l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15170 1                  certificate, and this is the point I'm referring to as 2                  42 to 44 ksi.
3                                  (Indicating.)
4    0              Thank you. That's what I attempted to say, and your 5                  picture shows it better.
6                        Why is there a difference between -- why are the 7                  two curves above the 36?
8    A              (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Why is this curve higher?
9                                  (Indicating.)
10    0              Yes.
11    A              (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Because there's a commitment in the
[\~_/)        12                  steel industry to never go below this value, so the only 13                  way they can meet that commitment is to always have 14                  material that's better than this value.
15                                  (Indicating.)
16                        This has been the common practice in the steel 17                  industry ever since I've been in school and prior to 18                  that. In order to support from the mill material that 19                  meets this requirement, the mill just makes better 20                  steel.
21    Q              What's the origin of the two curves, of each of the two 22                  curves?
23    A              (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh, these curves are developed by
,                  24                  thousands upon thousands of tests.
'    0            25                        This is strength and materials. This comes from Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15171
;  b' I        the -- when you go to school, the first course you take 2        is strength and materials; and the first thing they 3        explain to you is a stress-strain curve, which is based 4        on testing of materials.
l          5                      (Indicating.)
  =
6  Q    So this is industrywide or disciplinewide and not a 7        Braidwood -- not something that's unique to Braidwood?
8  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh, absolutely not. This is -- this
.          9        is totally industrywide, worldwide. It's just the basic 10        phenomenon of how materials behave.
11  Q    All right, fine. Thank you.
(        12            Finally, I have a general question, and I don' t l        13        know the degree to which you can address it. I'll leave 14        that up to you.
15            But I go back to Intervenors' Exhibit 145, with i
j        16        which you may be familiar, which we discussed I guess 17        somewhat with Dr. Kaushal.
18            There is --
19  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh, I have it.
20                      (Indicating.)
21            This is the table that was made up from Mr. Guild, 22        yes.
,        23                  MR. STEPTOE:    Yes.
i        24  BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
I 25  Q    There is, in either your testimony or Dr. Kaushal's f
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
1 15172  1 1  testimony or maybe both, a corresponding depiction of 2  the properties there.
3        Now, the one you have in your hand, which is 4  Intervenors' 145, has what genesis, in your knowledge of 5  it?
6 A (MITNESS KOSTAL)    I really haven't the foggiest idea.
7        The first time I saw this was when -- just the 8  other day when it was presented to me by Mr. Steptoe as 9  being an exhibit that Mr. Guild I guess personally put 10  together.
11        So I don't really know where his numbers are i
:      12  derived from.
s 13 0 My question was to have been:    What's the difference and 14  why the difference between Intervenors' showing of the i
!      15  information and the one that commonwealth Edison or 16  Sargent & Lundy has put forth?
1 i      17        I repeat:  This may be not a fair question, but if 18  you have any comment on it, I'd be grateful.
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, what it appears to be in this l
20  table is a different type of characterization, on the l
i      21  part of Mr. Guild, on discrepancies based on a sampling 22  basis, irrespective of how that sample is constructed l
23  and how many elements are within the sample.
24        It could have 100,000 items in one given component,
      ) 25  or it can have one item in a component. I guess the way i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262                          . - -
 
15173 0.
U 1    he characterized this, the best I can understand it, is 2    this is the percentage based on if there was one item 3    within a given component that was discrepant, he 4    considered that whole component, that whole item, 5    discrepant in calculating tb 'e types of percentages.
6                                      What we've looked at is we further looked at not 7    just the item, because an item is made up of numerous 8    components.                                It could be made up of 100 or 1,000 9    components.
10                                      So if you had 1,000 components within an item and 11    there was only one discrepancy, I would not characterize 12    it on a one-to-one basis.                                  I would characterize it on a 13    -- on the number of components that made up the item 14    because that I think is a more true reflection of what 15    the significance or what the meaning of the discrepancy 16    really means.
17                                      It would be like taking a car -- I guess that's the 18    best analogy I can think of.                                  A car is made up of 19    thousands of components; and if one little item on that 20    car was def ective, with this type of logic, we've got 21    one car that's def ective, one f or one.
22                                      My analogy is the car has doors, it has windows, it 23    has a motor, it has all kinds of things.                                  If the window 24    is defective, that doesn' t mer.n the whole car is bad.
25    It just means that there's something wrong with one Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois    60134
[                                                      (312) 232-0262
 
15174 o
i
.                1        portion of it.
2              That's how I would characterize -- or that's how we 3        characterized the discrepancies within this big item.
4              I don't think this has any meaning, as far as the 5        way I would look at it. But it may have meaning to Mr.
I 6        Guild.
7                  JUDGE CALLIHAN:      Thank you very much.
8                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Okay. I have a few 9        questions, Mr. Kostal, just on the role of Sargent &
10          Lundy.
11                            BOARD EXAMINATION                          '
12                            BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:                          I l
13        0 You indicated this morning that S & L looked at a 14          different level of design in the BCAP program than it 15          did originally as the architect-engineer.
1 16                I assume that you meant that there were certain
;              17          standards that were set originally but, under the BCAP 18          program, you looked for design margins.      So, in a sense, 19          you departed f rom those original standards to determine 20          whether there was any margin, whether some other 21          standard might be appropriate for measuring a 22          discrepancy.
23                Is my understanding incorrect on that?
24        A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    If I said that, Judge Grossman, that I
( ,j        25          was not what I meant to say, because the standards we l                                Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!                                    Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15175 (V
1  implored -- employed for the evaluations of these 2  discrepancies are exactly the same standards we have 3  used throughout the history of this project. They are 4  no different.
5 0 Well, I understood that you looked at other factors 6  within the standards and determined that there were 7  certain margins that you could isolate or that you could 8  observe in those particular standards.
9        Is that incorrect?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    What I was -- what I meant by -- our 11  standards, f rom the beginning of this project, have had 12  and continue to have the ability to use the simplified,
.J 13  the more exact and the more refined analysis.
14        The standards are there f rom the beginning of this 15  project. We've always had the ability to use these 16  types of methodologies that I've talked about.      It's 17  whether we've employed them at any point in time during 18  the design.
19        The same is true with' employing them in the BCAP 20  program. For many of these components, during the 21  course of the design of the project, we have utilized a 22  more exact detailed analysis, just the same way we've 23  used an exact detailed analysis to assess the BCAP 24  discrepancies; no different.
25 0 Are you saying now you didn't adopt certain standards at Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15176 O
1  the beginning or that you maintained those same 2  standards throughout?
3        Is that what you're saying?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Yes, sir.
5 0 Well, let's take a look at the response spectra.
6        Didn't you adopt a standard to begin with for your              i 7  FSAR, which was an envelope of Byron /Braidwood, and then 8  it's true that you did, isn t ic?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        We developed a standard, and we also 10  developed two unique spectra simultaneously.                We had all 11  three.
() 12 13 0 Yes, but the one that you used in making your calculations originally was the envelope of 14  Byron /Braidwood, was it not?
* 15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        That's correct.
16 0 Okay.
17        Now, in going to your BCAP program, we saw one 4
18  example in which you departed from that standard -- I'm j      19  not suggesting that it wasn't justified -- in which you 20  utilized response spectra for Braidwood, which in a
!      21  sense was somewhat more liberal, not without 22  justification, but nevertheless somewhat more liberal, l
l      23  rather than conservative.
!      24        Wouldn't you agree with that?
25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        But we have also used that same i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
4                                                                          15177 4
. v 1      unique -- that concept for designs prior to BCAP.        We've 1
2      used unique spectra prior to evaluating BCAP.      We have 3      used it in evaluating other unique conditions that-have 4      occurred at Braidwood.
5  0  But for your overall design at Braidwood, you used the 6      envelope, didn't you?
l          7  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Only initially, because it obviously 8      accommodated the engineering effort and ended up having 9      standardized components between Byron and Braidwood.
10            But as you got into the unicue conditions at
$        11      Braidwood, which is a plant that's built later than g    _12      Byron, we haven't been addressing the unique conditions 13      for -- since we've been building it, since 1975.      I 14      think that''s when we started construction.
15            So we have -- since that point in time, when 16      required, when it was necessary in order to assure that 17      the design still met the code, we have invoked these 18      particular types of more detailed analysis.
19  0  Did you change your FSAR, by the way, to indicate that 20      you were relying only on Braidwood spectra for those 21      items?
22  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I can't speak at the moment exactly 23      to the words that the FSAR has in them, but the two 24      spectras have been discussed at great length with the 25      NRC.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illincic 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
I 15178
(''%                                                                l N -]
1        There has been a series of questions relative to 2  seismic design. They have seen the spectras both on 3  Byron and Braidwood, so it would be my belief that what 4  we're doing is certainly within the guidelines that have 5  been established for the two projects.
6        What I can't speak to is exactly the words that are 7  defined within the body of the FSAR specifically on this 8  point. I would have to go back and read them.
9 0 Well, now, you indicated that with regard to the Byron 10  BCAP program -- is it called BCAP at Byron?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It was called QCIRP.
12 0 Whatever it was called, you even departed f rom the joint 13  spectra or the Byron part of that and used unique 14  response spectra that was, as you indicated, a departure 15  from even both of those in your program similar to-BCAP.
16        Isn't that so?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
18 0 Okay.
19        So in effect, at Byron that was a different 20  criteria than you set originally as the 21  architect-engineer; isn't that correct?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I guess I wouldn't say it's 23  different. You know, our original criteria was to.have 24  an enveloped spectra, as I said a moment ago, in order 25  to support economy of design.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15179 l (v
1        But, again, we have been using the Byron-unique 2  spectra for numerous years to address Byron-unique 3  problems -- or not " problems," but Byron-unique 4  conditions that have arisen over time.
5        So that concept of using the unique spectra of 6  Byron and the unique spectra of Braidwood has been used 7  throughout the design of the project when necessary.
8 0 Okay. Let's go into strength of materials.
9        Weren't there objective standards that were set 10  originally for the strength of materials that were 11  utilized in establishing the functions of the particular
()  12 13 A items that you required in your design?
(WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, and the basis for that was the 14  code allowables, which are the conservative allowables.
i      15        But we have --
16 0 Well --
l      17 A                      I'm sorry.
(WITNESS KOSTAL) 18 0 Could you not give us an entire exposition but try just l      19  to answer the questions?
20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
t 21 0 Okay.
22        Now, in determining whether you had design margins, 23  in your testimony here, didn't you go beyond what is prescribed for certain items as far as the strength of
!      24 l
O l ( ,) 25  materials and go into margins that are allowable that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15180 i
1  were taken into account in setting the design standards 2  but not utilized entirely in the design standards?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No, sir.
4        The only time we took account for the -- when we 5  took account of material properties, we had material 6  certificates to take account for those material 7  properties.
8 0 And were these strengths of materials that you' re l
9  discussing now with those documents with the 10  certificates on them -- were they taken into account to
;    11  their full extent in establishing the original standards  ,
12  for the particular components that you designed?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No. They were only taken into 14  account when we were reassessing the component for 15  whatever the condition was that arose.
j      16 0 okay.
:      17        Well, I thought we were going to not have any 18  disagreement on the f act that when you reassessed, you 19  took into account margins that you didn't take into
;      20  account originally.
21        Now I understand you to be saying that is so, at t
22  least in the last case.
23        Is that so generally?
I      24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      It's an option available. On i
25  Braidwood we haven't used it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15181 n'v' 1 Q In your BCAP program on your reassessments, you have not 2  used margins that you didn't take into account 3  initially?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    We have not taken into account 5  material strengths on any conduit supports either in 6  BCAP or at Braidwood to date.
7        We have not taken into account on any cable pan 8  hangers to date, either in Braidwood or in BCI.c. We 9  have not taken into account in any equipment or in any 10  cable pans.
11        So to date at Braidwood, we have not used any 12  actual material certificates in these populations.
LJ l      13 0 Okay.
14        Tell me what you took into account in your 15  recalculation in that Item 104 that you didn't take into 16  account originally for the original computation which 17  arrived at the 103-percent margin versus the later 18  128-percent margin.
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Two items.
20        One was the unique spectra, which was taken into
: 2)  account earlier in the prior run; but it's still -- the 22  prior run had the unique spectra. This run has the 23  unique spectra.
24        The only other thing f rom the prior run to this 25  unique run was the actual cable tray loads.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
I 15182 O
V 1 0 Okay.
2        Now, those actual cable tray loads -- those were 3  used instead of the 45 pounds per square foot?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
5 0 Okay.
6        Now, was this the only item in which you took that 7  into account?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Meaning --
9 0 Actual load versus estimated load or standardized load, 10  whichever way you want to characterize it.
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    You mean in the entire BCAP program 12  or --
13 0 Yes.
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I would be guessing, but I would 15  believe we probably used some actual weights someplace 16  else in the BCAP program.
17 0 Well, aren't there also other matters --
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    But not in these -- I'm talking about 19  other populations.
20 0 Okay.
21        Aren't there other matters that you also took into 22  account in the reassessment under the Braidwood program 23  that were not taken into account in setting your 24  original standards, such as a standardized load versus 25  an actual load?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262      - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
 
I 1
15183
-~                                                                l V
1        Aren't there other matters such as that?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I'm trying to think outside of the 3  electrical populations right at the moment.
4        One thing that could come to mind -- and I guess I 5  -- I don't know if we did or we didn't so I would be 6  somewhat speculating -- we may have, in assessing in the 7  concrete area, actual concrete strengths, for example.
8        Whether we did or didn't, I'd really have to go 9  back and look.
10        But there's an area where we would'have actual 11  concrete cylinder breaks throughout the entire plant, 12  which are the conditions as to how the plant is built.
(
13  That's always available to us:    to use the actual 14  concrete cylinder breaks for a given area.
15        We may have used it in that kind of example.
16 0 Okay.
17        How about distributing loads when it came to welds 18  with regard to the electrical program?
19        Did you at all distribute loads from one defective 20  weld to nearby welds?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    No, we never did that.
22 O You never did that, okay.
23        Was that available for you to use as a design 24  margin if the need occurred to do that?
25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It's available for refined analysis Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15184                '
I 7s V) t 1      technique to obtain the actual margin.                          Yes, it's 2      available.
3  0  Well, wasn't it your obligation basically to determine, 4      if the item was close to not -- to indicating 5      design-significant effect, to take into account those 6      available design margins?
7 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                          Yes, and we did when we needed to in 8      order to show that we still stayed within the code-9      allowables.
10  0    Okay.
11            Was there any limit on the number of items that you
[ \    12      could take into account for design margin?
O 13  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                          We could take into account similar 14      items that I have mentioned here.                        They were all i
15      available to us.                        These are just the steps in the 16      refined analysis, so --
17  0    To the extent they're legitimate --
18  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                          Right.
19  0    -- you could take into account --
I 20  A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                          Right.
21 0    -- five items, for example?
22 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)                          If there were five options available l
23      to us, we could use all five.
l l                  24 0    You could take in 10, you could take in 100; whatever y_,/  25      was legitimate and available; is that so?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.                                                          ''
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15185 o
1 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Right.
2 0 Now, was there any limit as to the number of 3  calculations you could make with regard to using design 4  margins?
5 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        No.
6            In fact, when you go through the process, you try 7  and look at the simplest analysis that will still show l        8  that you're staying within code.
9            Let's say you performed that simpler analysis, and 10  you exceed the code allowables.      That tells you that, y      11  well, you didn't -- you needed to be a little more I
G  12  refined in your analysis.
      }
13            So there are times when the simplest approach --
14  which is in order to minimize the engineering time.
15  We' re always trying to minimize the engineering time and 16  still meet code within our analysis.
17            There would be times when we would do the simpler 18  analysis, and it wouldn' t meet the code.
;      19            So it tells us, well, we have to look a little bit 20  more closely at this particular connection and look at 21  these other available methods that we can use.
22 0 Right.
23            And you could do that over and over again; there 24  was no limit, was there?
25 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)        No limit.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
b 15186
[
    'J 1    Q    All right.
2                                Now, with regard to that particular item in which 3          we had the different response spectra, that may well
        ~4          have been one of those items in which there was an 2
5          original calculation.
6                              You didn't make that calculation, did you?
7    A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                    I personally didn't make the 8          calculation.
9    0    And so for all you know, that might have been that kind 10          of example where someone might have applied the 11          Byron /Braidwood originally and then decided to
() 12 13 recalculate with regard to the Braidwood spectra; is that so?
14    A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                    That's correct. In fact, we do have a      15          the original calc, which is based on the informal 16          spectra.
17    0    Oh, it was, okay.
18    A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                  Yes.
19    0    So this was an example of that kind of situation in 20          which there was a recalculation and taking into account i
21          an additional margin, basically, okay.
l 22                                Now, wouldn't you say that the determination of 23          what margins are available and what can be used is not 24          only a function of whether the margins are available but 25          whether whoever is making the calculation is aware of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15187 O
V 1  margins that exist in certain items?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That's correct, Judge.
3        But we'd have a training program for -- for 4  example, we have a standard on doing conduit hanger 5  calculations. There is a structural standard that 6  exists which gives all the guidelines that are available 7  to the engineer.
8        The engineer is trained in that procedure, and that 9  forms the basis to assure ourselves that -- I mean, to 10  assure within the firm that people don't make their own 11  judgments in terms of using -- or their -- let me 12  rephrase it.
s 13        They're aware of the kinds of margins that still 14  exist in the various types of components.
15 0 Okay. I wasn't trying to suggest that certain 16  individuals within Sargent & Lundy would --
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh.
18 0 -- do it differently.
1 19        But it's Sargent & Lundy basically that has the
,    20  knowledge and the expertise in order to determine what 21  types of margins exist and what actual margins exist.
22        Wouldn't you agree with that?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
;  24 0 And if there were some other firm doing the same 1
( 25  calculations that is not as competent or as resourceful Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15188
[
d 1  as Sargent & Lundy, that other firm might not be aware 2  of the same items or the same margins; isn't that so?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That could be.
4 0 Now, let's look at the other side.
5        Isn't there also the possibility that there are 4
6  margins in the other direction; that perhaps workability 7  isn' t 100 percent or materials aren' t 100 percent?
8        Isn' t that a possibility?
i        9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, and that's the main reason why 10  the code restricts the design level that you can -- the 11  allowables that you can use.
l  ()  12 13 The main purpose in the code is to assure that variabilities in construction and variabilities in the 14  properties are taken into account in establishing 15  allowables.
16        For an example, in steel, where you have a better 17  control on the variabilities, you allow an allowable
,      18  along this range that I gave of 2.
19        In the area of welding, which has much more 20  variability for installation, you only allow 30 percent 21  to 40 percent.
22        So depending on the type of commodity that you' re 23  installing, the code recognizes the difficulty of that 24  installation and appropriately assigns allowables that 25  designers can use.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262          . _ _ _ _ _ ___      __
 
1 l
15189
[3 )
1
    /
1 0 Well aren't you, though, taking into account some of 2  these margins now?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No. The margins you're talking about 4  are installation margins.
5        The code recognizes that welding is -- it's not 6  that easy to do, and they recognize that imperfections 7  will occur within a weld.
8        As a result, even though, for example, we use a 70 9  kai material, we' re only allowed to use, per our design, 10  either 28 kai, depending on the condition, or 21 ksi, 11  which is a factor of almost 70 percent less.
()  12 13 0 Isn' t it possible, though, to have even poorer materials or poorer workmanship which are not taken into account 14  in the code margins in a particular weld?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      But we have analyzed for those 16  workmanship conditions. That's what the purpose of our 17  analysis is:    to --
18 0 For the known def ects; isn't that so?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      For the defects that we have on --
20  that have been found in the BCAP program, we have done 21  that analysis.
22        When the defects have come up throughout the l
23  history of the project and nonconformances are written, 24  we have analyzed for those conditions.
( j  25 0 Well, as an example, we had the weld in which we were 4
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
I 15190 i
V 1  missing a portion of the length of the weld, and you 2  analyzed for that missing portion.
3        Isn't that correct?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
5 Q Did you take into account that there might also be a 6  nonobservable crack in that weld when you did that?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    For these particular components in 8  question, cracking -- we have observed cracks, and we 9  have analyzed for the cracks.
10        The types of materials we have are thinner 11  materials, in which crack propagation is really not a 12  problem.
[V\
13        There have been tests on materials less than a 14  half-inch thick that show that when you do have linear 15  indications, which are cracks, they don' t propagate.
16        The main concern of cracks is you don't want them 17  to propagate. They propagate in materials that have low 18  ductility values and materials that are thicker in 19  dimension.
20        These lighter-gauge materials and the plate 21  materials that we're using are thinner in dimension, and 22  tests have been conducted to show that these materials 23  do not propagate when linear indications are found 24  within them.
25 0 You mean they never propagate or they generally don't Conntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15191 1  propagate?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I can't really comment on the "never" 3  in general.
4        But what I can say is, based on my experience and 5  based on the literature that I've read, they don't 6  propagate.
7 0 Well, now, let's also take a look at the adhesion or 8  cohesion of the weld to the component.
9        Which is the proper word or isn't it --
s' 10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Fusion, fusion.
11 0 Okay, fusion.
12        Now, isn't it possible that the materials that were 13  actually used are imperfect to some extent so they don't 14  completely fuse, not so that you can observe it but in 15  actuality?
16        Is that a possibility?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    You can have imperfections in the 18  material. The materials are -- these are quality-grade 19  materials. The tests -- the materials that come from 20  the mill meet minimum standards established for these 21  materials.
22        The kinds of inclusions that you would have in 23  these materials would be localized. They're generally 24  found within the body of the material. They wouldn't be 25  on the surface, because you inspect for inclusions Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 f                    (312) 232-0262
 
I 15192 i
V 1  within the surface of the material.
2        Where you are making a weld, normally the 3  inclusions that you find are f rom the weld rod itself 4  when you're making the weld, which is in the weld 5  property; and that's like, you know -- there can be 6  certain inclusions from that process. But those are 7  generally minor.
8 0 Well, we've had some testimony with regard to possible 9  improper handling of rods with regard to storage and 10  preheating.
11        Isn't that a matter that could affect the fusion of 12
(      the weld?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It would make it more difficult for 14  the welder to make the weld, but he could still use the 15  rod.
16        It's just a matter of he has to have better -- if 17  he's a good welder, he would just -- he would -- he 18  would be observing the weld he's making, and he would 19  somewhat compensate for the fact if it wasn't kept 20  stored overnight in a container, as compared to being 21  lef t out where you could have a little moisture.
22        The little moisture -- obviously, if he wasn't as 23  good a welder, he may not be able to control that 24  condition. But if he's a very good welder, I believe he 25  would overcome that kind of a condition.
)              Sonntal Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, fTlinois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15193 O
1 0 Well, we can say that he might.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
3 0 Okay.
4        But, now, isn't it possible that if he didn't 5  overcome that condition, it might affect the fusion of 6  the weld but not to your observation on the particular 7  weld?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I guess it's possible.
9 0 Aren't there a number of things that could happen either 10  to the mater.tal or with regard to workmanship that might 11  negatively affect a weld or some other item that is not 12  observed and not actually taken into account by the
(
13  inspector when he determines if the item is discrepant 14  or not?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I can't -- I'd be speculating, Judge 16  Grossman.
17        I think my cohort could speak -- not Mr. Thorsell, 18  but Mr. Kurtz could speak with much more authority on 19  that subject than I can.
20 0 Well, let's take a look at that response spectra in 21  which you went from the envelope of Byron /Braidwood to 22  Braidwood.
23        I understand that the reason for the difference was 24  the soil around Braidwood versus the rock around Byron.
4 25        Isn't that so?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15194 V'
1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
2 0 And the fact that ground waves generally do not 3  propagate as easily in the soil condition as they do in 4  the rock and, therefore, you would get somewhat of a 5  muted ground motion?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The reverse.
7 0 The ground motion would be greater in the soil?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes.
9        In fact, that's why you have the amplification, and 10  that's why Braidwood is the governing spectra for the 11  vast majority of the -- of the curve.
12 0 Well, we're talking about the point in which Byron was 13  the governing -- I'm sorry.
14        The part that was used -- that was where Braidwood 15  was the governing --
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Right, but it's a very small section.
17                  (Indicating.)
18 0 Well, didn't that section indicate --
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Excuse me. I'm sorry. I said that 20  wrong.
21        The majority of the curve is governed by Braidwood.
22  There's only a small section where the spectra is 23  governed by Braidwood, and that is in the --
l 24 0 By Byron, you mean?
25 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    By Braidwood, and that is in the very Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15195 A
    's v )
1      low f requency range.
2                  MR. STEPTOE:    Judge Grossman, we have a copy 3      of those spectra with Byron and Braidwood shown.
4                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Could you show the witness 5      that, and could you tell me what exhibit that is, again?
6                  MR. STEPTOE:    Yes.
1 7            I think you misstated that.
8                  WITNESS KOSTAL:    No, I didn't, did I?
9                  MR. GUILD:    This is a new document.
10                  MR. STEPTOE:    We haven' t shown this.
11                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, why don't we -- I
,        12      believe we can do this by referring to the document that 13      we already have.
14                  MR. STEPTOE:    This is the same document that 15      you already have, except it shows the Byron-unique
]        16      spectra on it as well as the Braidwood.
l        17            If you don't want to use it, you certainly don't 18      have to; but it shows which one is the governing and at 19      what f requencies.
20                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, either one.
21            Let's look at the third page of this.
j        22 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
;        23 0    It was my understanding that with regard to the i        24      north-south component -- was that also Page 3 of the 25      other one? -- that you utilized the Braidwood-unique I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
1
(
15196
  'd 1                response spectra in the recalculation, which was not the 2                governing spectra.
3                      Isn't that so?
4          A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, they're almost identical in 5                that location. It's around -- I think I mentioned that 6                the f requency of the hanger in question,104, was about 7                6, and it's almost the same exact value.
8          0    I think I prefer to look at the other exhibit, where 9                there was somewhat of a difference.
10            A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Okay.
11                              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    What is the number of the
(  12                  other exhibit?
13                              MR. STEPTOE:    I think it's 167, Judge 14                  Grossman.
15                              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    I'm sorry. Which one?
16                              MR. STEPTOE:    Intervenors' 167, I believe.
17                              WITNESS KOSTAL:    Oh, I'm sorry, Judge.
18                        Where you want to look is on the vertical 19                  direction. That's where we had the slightly lower value 20                  for the Braidwood.
21                              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.
22            BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
23            0    Let's look at the -- I'm sorry. It is the vertical one, 24                  Page 3 of this exhibit.
25                        Now, isn't it correct that it was the Byron spectra Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva FiTrinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15197 in (v) 1  that were the governing spectra in this particular 2  direction and that the Braidwood-unique response spectra 3  was utilized, which was less stringent?
4          Isn' t that correct?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      For the vertical direction.
6 0 In the vertical direction, yes?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      In the vertical direction, yes, sir.
8 0 In the other directions, they were the same; is that so?
9 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No. They were actually considerably 10  less in the -- at the -- actually, they were the 11  governing. In the other directions, Braidwood is the
()  12 13 governing spectra for the east-west and north-south direction.
14          Only in the vertical is -- would Byron be the 15  governing.
16 0 Okay.
17          And so you used the Byron /Braidwood for the other 18  two directions, but the Braidwood-unique for the 19  vertical?
l        20 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No. Excuse me.
21          When you do the unique analysis, you use the three 22  components that are unique.      So in this case we would
;        23  still have used the Byron -- the Braidwcod-unique 24  horizontal spectran and the corresponding unique 25  Draidwood vertical spectra.
Sonntag Reporting _ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, III1nois    60134
{                            (312) 232-0262
 
I 15198 O
1 0 Okay, but let's take the vertical component.
2        With regard to that -- and I take it overall, 3  though, you've got a much better recalculation or at 4  least a somewhat better recalculation using 5  Braidwood-unique than you had with Braidwood/ Byron, or 6  you wouldn't have made the recalculation?
7 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    We thought that it would give us some 8  additional margin.
9        But in reality, if you look at these, you'll see 10  that you really don't get much at all out of the seismic 11  for the Braidwood-unique.
12 0 Well, you can't tell from looking at Exhibit 167.
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, if you look at the horizontals, 14  you can see that we still kept the two maximum 15  horizontal directions.
16        If you look at the vertical, in the f requency of 17  this particular hanger, there is a slight dip around the 18  6 -- this hanger is in the range I indicated to you of 19  about 6 cps. In that area, there is a slight dip in the 20  spectra but very small.
21 0 Well, it might be 10 percent or 5 percent, couldn't it?
22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It would be 5 percent -- 5 to 10 in 23  the vertical, but it would be nothing in the horizontal 24  two directions.
25 0 Well, the calculation, the original calculation, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, ITlinois 66134 (312) 232-0262
 
15199 O
, V 1  determined 103 percent.
2        If you take out 5 percent, it might have well been 3  98 percent; isn't that so?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I'd have to do that analysis.
5        I would doubt it.
6 0 Well, if it were 5 percent, wouldn't it be around 98 7  percent?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, the main contributing -- two of 9  the main contributing elements for this design are the 10  horizontal components more so than the vertical 11  component.
[)v 12        The vertical component in this area is about equal 13  to one g, whereas if you look at the two horizontal 14  components, you' re looking at two g's.
15        So the influence of the horizontal is much more 16  severe than the influence of the vertical.
17 Q Well, I think, Mr. Kostal, you had told me just before 18  that because it was a close case, that there was that 19  recalculation and that you got a better result using the i
20  Braidwood-unique response spectra.
21        Is that not true any longer?
i 22 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I indicated that -- well, I corrected i    23  the fact that I had thought that we had, at the very 24  first run, the Braidwood-unique -- we did have the O)
(
25  Draidwood-unique spectra one run before this last one we i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    GT34 (312) 232-0262
 
15200 I
/''T
    /
V 1  made.
2        So both runs were Braidwood-unique spectra. The 3  only thing that changed in the last analysis was the 4  weight of the cables.
5        The weight of  : e cables is significant in terms of 6  it's almost 40 percent less weight. That's the major 7  contributing reason, far in excess of the seismic, as to 8  why those stresses have gone down.
9 0 okay.
10        So your position right now is that you didn't 11  benefit by using the recalculated response spectra; is 12  that so?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    We benefited, but small.
14 0 Well, you indicated you might have benefited by 5 15  percent.
16        If it were 5 percent, isn' t it possible that the 17  recalculation would have shown 98 percent, the original 18  calculation, rather than 103 percent?
19 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, the original calculation -- I 20  would have to -- we'd have to do the run to be -- to be 21  -- it could -- it will be -- it will be slightly lower; 22  let me say that.
23        Whether or not it will go below 1, I can't really 24  say.
25 0 okay, but now let me ask you again:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15201 t0 U
1        Looking at this vertical component, wasn't it the 2  fact that you determined, or someone in Sargent & Lundy 3  who calculated the response spectra, that because there 4  was soil rather than rock, that with regard to the 5  vertical component, there would be less motion, ground 6  motion, to be taken into account with regard to 7  Braidwood than with regard to Byron?
8 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I guess I don't understand the 9  question, Judge.
10 0 Well, didn' t you take into account -- when I say "you,"
11  I mean Sargent & Lundy -- in calculating the response 12  spectra, that there would be a lesser ground motion (a)      vis-a-vis the vertical component where there was the 13 14  soil condition in Braidwood than the rock condition in 15  Byron?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    What we took into account is the 17  condition that existed and soil property variation.
18        So we -- we had the -- you know, initially when you 19  begin any project, you take geotechnical borings, and 20  you do -- you determine the characteristics of the soil, 21  the characteristics of the rock.
22        Those characteristica are reported to the NRC.
23  They are part of our subnittal to our PSAR. Those
.      24  characteristics are required by the NRC to be -- to take 25  into account the variability of the soil properties, so Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15202 O
V 1    we have to expand upon the soil parameters.
2          Then once we have established the soil parameters 3    that are going to be used, we perform the analynis to 4    generate these particular curves.
5          They define to the same extent the type of seismic 6    event and the g level that is required for this 7    particular plant. That was a whole evolution for a 8    number of years to determine what is the appropriate g 9    level for the designing of Byron /Braidwood.
10          We originally, through our geotechnical consultant 11    which was hired to the project, recommended a g level lower than what we finally agreed to and was arrived at (a) 12 through discussions with the NRC.
13 14  0 Let's go back --
15  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    So I mean --
16  0 I'm sorry. I thought you were completed.
17          Let's go back.
18          What were the variables between Braidwood and Byron 1
19    that resulted in the different response spectra that are 20    reflected in the vertical response spectra, Page 3 of 21    Exhibit 1677 22  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I know the soil property.
23  0 And what was that, in particular?
;    24  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Oh, I don't know, Judge. I'd --
( ) 25    within the firm, we have seismologists and we have I        l        Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15203 1  people who are much more capable of responding to that.
2        I can tell you that soil definitely plays a role in 3  determining any response f rom a seismic event. You have 4  to know the soil properties. You have to model the
        -5  building -- we modeled the building the same on Byron 6  and the same on Braidwood. It's the same model 7  basically which represents the structure, the concrete 8  portions of the structure and all their elements.
9        The only thing that changes then is the -- and we 10    have a motion that's given to us. We have to have the 11    same motion.
() 12 13 The only thing that changes with the motion and with the model is the soil conditions -- at least, from 14    my simplistic explanation.
15  0 Well, I had understood you to tell me the other day that 16    the modeling was based on rock at Byron and on soil at 17    Braidwood.
18        Is that incorrect?
l 19  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, that's the other portion of the 20    model.
J 21        There is -- what I was referring to is the building 22    model, from elevation --
23  0 But you indicated the building was the same basically, 24    as far as your calculations went?
25  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Right, so that model is identical.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15204 O
1 Q So the variable was the soil versus rocx --
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Right.
3 Q -- isn't that so?
4 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Right.
5 0 So, now, how did that af fect the response spectra?
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Exactly as indicated on this curve.
7                  (Indicating.)
8 0 Well, what did that have to do with the ground motion, 9  then?
10        I don' t want to suggest anything to you, because I 11  seem to have trouble getting agreement.
12        So why don't you explain to me why there would be a
(
13  difference in the response spectra where you have the 14  soil condition at Braidwood and the rock condition at 15  Byron?
16 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The primary difference is within the 17  model you have soil. You have a motion at grade. It's 18  deconvoluted, and then it's brought back up through the 19  building.
20        That process of taking the motion at grade, 21  bringing it down to the base of the model and then 22  exciting the model with that motion -- taking into 23  account the soil properties for that model, that motion 24  at the base of the model and the model, including the 25  soil -- results in these particular differences.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15205 O
1 Q      Okay.
2                          Now, what would be the motion, then, at Byron that 3        is different than the motion at Braidwood that you just 4        described?
5 A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                            It's the same motion at the free 6        field.                        It's .21 g.
7 0      But it was not devoluted?                          Is that the term you used?
8 A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                            Deconvoluted.
9 Q      Deconvoluted.                          I'm sorry.
10                            Is that what the difference is?
11  A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                            To the best that I know, it's the
()            12 13  0 primary difference.
In other words, the ground waves propagate in their full 14          -- to their full extent in the rock, whereas they' re g
15          deconvoluted in the soil, and that's taken into account.
16                            Isn't that so?
17                            In fact, basically, yes?
18  A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                            Yes.
19  0      Okay.
20                            "Deconvoluted" is another word for "deamplified";
21          is that so?
22  A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)                            No.
23                            "Deconvoluted" means that you take a motion at one 24          elevation and you bring it down to another elevation.
25  0      But you reduce the motion when you're doing that in your Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262      .  . . _      _ ~ _ _ . _ _
 
l 15206 O
1      calculation, aren' t you?
2    A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    You create a different motion.
: 3. O A somewhat reduced motion?
4    A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It could be higher in some areas; it 5      could be -- it could be lower.
6    0 Well, with regard to the vertical component, it 7      obviously was lower, wasn' t it?
8    A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I don't know. I'd have to go back 9        and ask our people who are familiar exactly with the 10      models and the runs that were performed.
11    0 Well, isn't that what's reflected on the different
(          12        response spectra here:    the fact that it is reduced for 13        the vertical component?
14    A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, it's reduced when it's brought
;                  15      back up in the building.
;                  16              Your question was:  Is the motion, when it's 17      deconvoluted to the base of the model, different in all 7
18        areas and is it less in all areas?
19              That I can't answer. I would have to go back and 20      ask the people who actually performed that analysis.
21    0 Well, I meant when it reaches the building or at least 22        is calculated to reach the building.
23              Then that is a somewhat reduced motion, is that t
l                  24      correct, as reflected in the vertical response spectra 25      shown on Page 3 here?
l l
l                                    Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262      -
 
15207
  ,m 1 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    (Indicating.)
2 0 Yes, okay.
3        Now, are you familiar with any phenomena where 4  having soil rather than rock actually amplifies motion?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I can' t -- I can' t really comment on 6  that, Judge Grossman.
7        If you want to ask this line of questioning, I 8  would prefer to bring in one of our seismic experts that 9  we have in the firm. I think he could discuss this 10  subject in great detail with you, but I can't do it.
11 0 Okay. Let's leave response spectra -- well, let's 12  assume, though, that it is possible that soil conditions 13  might amplify motion.
14        In any event, any such amplification was not taken 15  into account, as far as you know, in the Braidwood 16  response spectra, was it?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It would have been taken into 18  account, yes. That's how we would have developed this 19  spectra to take into account that amplification.
20 0 Well, not everybody has agreed that -- in seismology, 21  not everyone agrees, unless you know differently,
!    22  whether the ground motion is always amplified or is 23  always deamplified; it's a matter of judgment, isn't it?
l    24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Right, but what I was trying to i
25  respond to is if, in fact, it did amplify, these curves l
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
1 l
15208  I
  -                                                                          l bx                                                                        l 1      would have shown that amplification and taken it into 2      account.
3            If, in fact, it didn't, the curves would have 4      reflected that fact.
5  0  To the extent that your engineers were agreeable that 6      there was either the amplification or deamplification; 7      isn't that so?
8            There might be a difference in opinion?
9 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)      I can't answer that, Judge.
10  0  Okay.
11              You don't know enough about that?
12  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)      No.
13  0  Okay.. Let's leave the response spectra, and let's get 14      back to what we were talking about with regard to items 15      that might go to reduce design margins.
16              I assume, f rom what you told me, that you didn't 17      take into account in your recalculations any such items l    18      in particular because they were built into the code 19      requirements in the first place; isn't that so?
I 20  A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)      I don' t know what items I could take 21      into account.
22              I took into account all the discrepancies that were 23      noted, and there are no other items that I can take into 24      account.
l bi          Well, isn't it possible that there are discrepancies V  25  0 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
(    _    _
(312) 232-0262                                p
 
15209
(''N                                                                              i N,,
1  that weren' t noted?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                I don't -- all I know is that we 3  received, as part of our assignment, discrepancies that 4  were noted.
5        If discrepancies were missed during the inspection, 6  I don't know that.                I only can review the discrepancies 7  that are sent to us.                I can't speculate whether or not 8  they reflect anything other than the fact of what's 9  given to us.
10 0 Okay.
11        You didn't go out to the field and then review the
()    12 13 welds to determine whether there were additional discrepancies there that were not noted, did you?
14 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                I personally did not.
15 0 Well, whoever made the recalculation didn' t do that, did 16  he?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                Not Sargent & Lundy, who were 18  performing this analysis, no.
19 0 Well, if it had been your obligation to determine 20  whether there were items that went to reduce the design 21  margin, would it have been outside your scope to go to 22  the field and examine to see if there were non-noted 23  discrepancies?
i
  ,  _ 24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                If Commonwealth Edison asked us to 25  perform that scope of work, we would have performed that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15210 m
    )
1  scope of work; for example, the walkdown program for the 2  cable pan hangers.
3        We were a part of that walkdown program, along with 4  L. K. Comstock.      We had a defined scope of work with 5  that program.      One of those items was to look for 6  missing portions of welds, but --
7 0 Okay.
8        Well, within your scope in the BCAP program in 9  which you were searching or looking for design margins, 10  Commonwealth Edison didn't preclude you from going to 11  the field to observe the actual conditions to determine 12  whether there were actually design margins, did it?
(
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            It didn't preclude.-- they didn't 14  preclude us from going to the field.
15        But in the area of welding, did we go to the field 16  and review those same weld maps to determine whether or i
17  not there were any additional things missing f rom those 18  weld maps?      We did not do that.
19 0 No. I'm not talking about that.
20        I'm saying:      With regard to looking for increased 21  design margins, you were certainly entitled to go to the 22  field, if you wished to, to look for that?
l 23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            We never did that. We never went to i      24  the field to look for -- I'm talking about the welding j  25  populations.                                          ,
l i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15211 s
U 1      0 Okay.
2              But, Mr. Thorsell, you did go to the field, did you 3        not, to observe actual conditions that contributed to 4        there being a design margin, at least with regard to the 5        configuration that we discussed the other day?
6              Isn't that true?
7      A (WITNESS THORSELL)        Yes -- well, I went to the field in 8        order to obtain additional information that was not 9        contained in the observation report in order to do my 10        evaluation.
11              In the case of the example that I sketched fq ; 12        yesterday, prior to going to the field, I knew what the
      %J 13        limit switch looked like.      I knew in general how the 14        wires were configured in the limit switch.      I knew which 15        wire had the bend radius violation.
16              But what I did not know was the exact orientation 17        of that wire, and so my trip to the field was necessary l          18        to observe that orientation to confirm --
19      0 Well, it was only necessary because you were going to 20        determine whether any of the bare cable was -- I'm j          21        sorry; not the bare cable, but the cable which was l
22        subjected to the reduced bend radius -- whether any of l
l          23        that radius was near a conductor or the box itself; e
lj        24        isn' t that corregt?
!  ,    1 l
>w 25      A (WITNESS.THORSELb) That's correct.
lt                            *        -
l#                            .
l                          Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15212 x
b 1          Prior to going to the field, I could have made the 2    assumption that it was not, based on the knowledge of 3    the configuration of the conductors inside of a limit 4    switch assembly.
5          My trip to the field was necessary to confirm that 6    and document that so that my analysis could be subjected 7    to scrutiny.
8  0 Well, you could have made the assumption, without going 9    to the field, that it was touching, couldn' t you, in 10    which case the item itself would have been of design 11    significance and there would be no margin; isn't that 12    so?
13  A                      No, sir.    #
(WITNESS THORSELL) 14          In actuality, in the case that I illustrated, the 15    required clearance, as established in the NEMA 16    standards, is equal to the thickness of the insulation 17    and jacket. So if the insulation and jacket is present, 18    that establishes the gap that I need to perform that 19    analysis.
                                      ~
l    20  0 I'm not sure I understand that.
21          Are you saying that there was a requirement that 22    there be some separation, even without the discrepant 23    bend radius?
24  A (WITNESS THORSELL)    No.
25          What I'm saying is that the thickness of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15213 r'%
1  insulation and jacket on the conductor by itself 2  provides enough separation between that conductor and 3  another conductor to ensure that I do not have a problem 4  with voltage.
5 0 But weren't the standards that were used originally 6  based on there not being any separation and there might 7  be an actual touching of the two separate conductors or 8  the conductor to the box itself?
9 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    I guess I don't -- I don't follow 10  you exactly.
11 0 Well, the standards that are set for determining the 12  bend radius I assume are based on the insulation and
(}
13  jacket being intact --
14 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Correct.
15 0 -- isn' t that so?
16 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Correct, but --
l 17 0 So that in case there was a touching of that jacket or l
18  that conductor with another jacketed conductor or the 19  box itself, there would not be any current leakage from l
l 20  one to the other?
21 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    Correct.
l 1
22        But that is for a 600-volt cable. In other words, 1
l      23  to be able to have a 600-volt cable that is capable of, 24  I'll say, touching the enclosure of a box, I need to l    ) 25  have a certain thickness of insulation, all right.
!                Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
(                      .__
(312) 232-0262
 
15214
%d 1            In the case that I illustrated, I assumed, for 2      purposes of conservative evaluation, that there was no 3      insulation at all at the point of the minimum bend 4      radius; and then I applied a standard that establishes 5      the required. air space.
6            That required air space for a 120-volt circuit is 7      the same as --
8 0    Well, now, let's stop here.
9            Using those assumptions, if you did not go back out 10      to the field, you could have determined that there was 11      no space.
A 12            That would be the most conservative, and that is 13      also the assumption utilized in the original 14      specifications, isn't it:          that there is no space?
15 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      In the example that I illustrated, 16      I could have -- could have done that analysis --
17 0    Okay.
18 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      -- without going to the field.
19 Q    Okay.
20            If you had analyzed it that way, the particular 21      item would have failed the test, wouldn't it?
22            It would have been design-significant?
23 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      No.      It would have passed the test.
24 0    Well, then, why would you even bother going out to the 25      field?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15215 m
1        Well, let me ask you this. I don't want to stick 2  with that answer now.
3        It would have passed the test even if that 4  conductor, without any insulation, were touching the 5  box?
6 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    No.
7        It would have passed the test if that conductor had 8  -- if that conductor was separated f rom another terminal 9  by a distance that is equal to the thickness of the 10  insulation and jacket on the conductor.
11 Q But you couldn't determine that without going to the (3
() 12 A
field, could you?
My trip to the field established 13  (WITNESS THORSELL) 14  that the insulation and jacket was indeed there, that it 15  wasn't bare conductor.
16        However, there wouldn't have been a violation of 17  the bend radius of the insulation if the insulation 18  wasn't there.
19 0 Couldn' t you assume, if the bend radius hadn' t been
!    20  violated, that the jacket and insulation were not there 21  to a certain extent, at least to the extent of the crack 22  in the jacket and the insulation, and make your I
23  determination without going to the field?
24 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    There was no crack in the jacket or 25  insulation.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15216 1            All that was reported was a bend radius violation.
2      The easiest way to perform the analysis to correct all 3      of the information that I would need to make that 4      assessment was to go out and look at it in the field.
5    0 But what you' re telling me now is you didn' t even have 6      to do that; you could have made your analysis back at 7      your desk?
8    A (WITNESS THORSELL)      In the particular case that I 9      illustrated, that is true.
10    0 Well, what case are you talking about, then?
11    A (WITNESS THORSELL)      If I -- well, my approach was to go 12      out and collect the' data first and then perform the 13      analysis.
14            Retrospectively, based on the dimensions that I 15      need to make the analysis work in the case that I
,  16      illustrated, I did not need to make the trip to the 17      field, okay.
18            At the time I made the trip to the field to collect 19      the information, I didn't know that that would be the 20      number that I would have to rely upon.      I made the trip 4
21      to the field to establish what the spacings were, what 22      distances I had available to me, before I embarked on my 23      analysis.
24    0 I see, okay.
25            But in any event, your procedures didn' t preclude Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15217
/''s 1  you from going to the field?
2 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    No, sir.
3 0 And, in fact, if you had to go to the field to determine 4  whether some field condition provided you with some 5  design margin, you were free to do that?
6 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    That is correct.
7 0 And on the other hand, if it had been your obligation to 8  determine whether there were factors that go in a 9  direction opposite having design margin, if that had 10  been your obligation, you wouldn't have been precluded 11  from going to the field, either, would you?
(Dj  12 A (WITNESS THORSELL)    No, sir.
13 Q Now, when we discussed originally what your function was 14  in the case I'm talking about a few days ago, there had 15  been some discussion of what a reconfirmation program 16  was. I'm sorry. It may have been with a different 17  panel. I don't know if you were present.
18        But there was a talk of this being a reverification 19  or some other phrase which indicates that you were only 20  going to determine that there was actual safety margin; 21  you weren't starting from scratch on that to determine 22  whether the plant had been built safely with regard to 23  these components.
24        Were you present for that discussion on whether 25  this was a reverification or reconfirmation program?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15218 7,,x U
1 A (WITNESS THORSELL)      I believe I was present in the 2  courtroom at that time. I believe the discussion took 3  place with Mr. Kaushal's panel.
4 0 Okay. I'm not sure that you're the right panel.
5        But let me ask you:    Do you make any distinction --
6  do you have any distinction in your mind as to whether 7  this was a reverification or a reconfirmation program?
8 A (WITNESS THORSELL)      I don't have an opinion on that.
9              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay. I think we're going    :
10  to take the 10-minute break that everybody has been 11  waiting for.
T 12                  (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 13                    the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
14              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Let's go back on the record.
15        Mr. Steptoe?
16              MR, STEPTOE:    Yes, Judge Grossman.
17        I believe that Mr. Kostal made a misstatement in 18  response to one of your questions. Your question was, 19  "In the case of Byron, you departed from both spectras?"
20  At'least, that's my recollection of your question.      He 21  said yes.
22        Mr. Kostal, would you address that?
23              WITNESS KOSTAL:    If I made that statement, 24  that was incorrect.
    ) 25        What I meant to say is that on Byron we used the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
1 15219 l l
S V
1      unique Byron spectrg, and on Braidwood we used the 2      unique Braidwood spectra.
3                JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.
4            I have probably just one more question.
5 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
6 0    Mr. Kostal, given the fact of these assumptions, which I 7      believe you've indicated are so, that Sargent & Lundy 8      had the obligation under BCAP to determine whether there 9      are design margins that exist but not the obligation to 10      determine whether there are matters going in the other 11      direction -- that is, to not having design margin or n
12      lesser than code-specified margins -- given that there (U) 13      are no limitations that were put on Sargent & Lundy on 14      the number of matters that could be taken into account 15      in finding design margins, given that there is no 16      limitation on the number of calculations that Sargent &
17      Lundy could make using different and additional design 18      margins, given the fact that you indicate that there are 19      many more design margins available that were not even 20      used by Sargent & Lundy in making those calculations and 21      recalculations, and given your resourcefulness -- that 22      is, Sargent & Lundy's resourcefulness -- as an 23      engineering consulting firm, what do you think is the 24      chance that you would ever find any one of these noted 25      discrepancies or any noted discrepancy to be Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262      , _ _ _ _ - - . - - - _
 
15220 1          design-significant?
2  A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)            We had a case like that.      We had one 3          that would have been design-significant.              It was a cable 4          -- a conduit that was missing a number of clamps that 5          actually was found -- it was a conduit that was laying 6          on the floor, drooped to the floor with a number of 7          missing supports.
8                We couldn't -- we couldn't analyze that in any way 9          to make it work.
10                So there are conditions that have occurred over 11          time in the course of the construction where our
(
n)    12          capabilities, as you put it, are exhausted; and it's simpler just to fix the component than it is for us to 13 14          go through and exercise trying to make it still within 15          the code.
16                If I could respond a little further --
17  Q      Are you talking about an item that was found under the 18          BCAP program?
19  A      (WITNESS KOSTAL)            There was an item found under BCAP 20          which, when we first got it, obviously it was 21          invalidated for a different reason.              But when we 22          received it, we couldn' t have made that thing work 23          because it was missing three of its supports and it was 24          sitting on the floor.            That was a condition that existed on one.
s ,/  25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
                                                        .15221 1      If I could respond a little furtner, when we did 2 get information from BCAP in terms of discrepancies that 3 didn't allow us sufficient detail to perform any type of 4 analysis -- for example, we received welding information 5 on discrepancies, but the information provided was just 6 -- it wasn't detailed enough to allow us even to do an 7 evaluation -- we requested that the Level III Inspector 8 go back out and perform a physical weld map.
9      In the case of Braidwood, as compared to other 10 programs that we've been involved in, we have weld maps 11 for all these discrepancies. These are -- so we know 12 the complete construction and the condition that exists 13 on the welds that we've been evaluating, because they've 14 been inspected first by the BCAP -- whatever it was --
15 Level I or II Inspector, and then it's been inspected by 16 the Level III Inspector.
17      Weld maps were created on all the discrepancies 18 that we evaluated in the welding area. These weld maps i
19 were created by people competent to make these weld
) 20 maps. These were,-as I understand it, Level II and 21 Level III Inspectors.
22      In particular, when we asked for additional 23 information, those weld maps were created by Level III 24 Inspectors. That's the best inspector that we can 25 possibly expect to get something from, far better than I j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15222
[' h V
1            could ever do.
2                  So from the point of view of our obligation to 3            assure that we have all the hidden, missing things that 4            you were alluding to, we have those defined on the weld 5            maps.
6                  All those other little uncertainties that you were 7            alluding to that are possible -- that's what the code 8            recognizes. That's why the code establishes a lower 9            allowable:  to take into account all those hidden 10            uncertainties that could possibly occur in construction.
11            That's why the code in welding goes f rom 70 ksi strength 12            down to three-tenths of a -- three times that 70, or 21
(
13            ksi.
14                  The code recognizes that there are some hidden 15            blemishes that exist that the physical eye can't see.
16            That's why it provides that additional margin within 17            establishing the allowable as compared to the ultimate 18            capacity.
19  O        Mr. Thorsell?
l        20  A        (WITNESS THORSELL)    If I could add a little bit to 21            that, the case that Mr. Kostal initially referred to was l
22            an item that was determined to be -- it was identified 23            in BCAP and determined to be out of scope.        That 24            out-of-scope item, as Mr. Kostal described, is basically l        25            a conduit that was damaged and lying on the ground.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15223 (m)
N_/
1                            Your question was:        Is there a possibility that a 2            design-significant condition exists out there?
3                            In this case, it would have been a 4            design-significant condition.                                  However, the cha'rge of 5            BCAP was to determine if there is a design-significant 6            condition that could have gone undetected.
7                            In the particular case that Mr. Kostal referred to, i
8            the cable was not pulled in the conduit and could not 9            have been pulled because of the damage to the conduit.
10            Consequently, that conduit lying on the ground could not 11            have gone undetected.
12          0 Mr. Thorsell, my question was not whether or not there
(
13            was a design-significant condition but what the chances 14            are that Sargent & Lundy would determine that there was 15            a design-significant condition, taking into account all 16            the matters that I included in my question --
i 17          A (WITNESS THORSELL)                    Right.
18          0 -- which you have indicated to be so, you and Mr.
19            Kostal.
20          A (WITNESS THORSELL)                    Right, and --
l 21          0 And in this case you're telling me that Sargent & Lundy l      22            did not actually determine that there was a l
23            design-significant condition; it determined that while 24            there might have existed a design-significant condition, l
y,    25            this was outside the scope of the program.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
I I
l 15224  j G
U 1 A    (WITNESS THORSELL)      In the example that Mr. Kostal gave 2      -- let me -- let me further answer your question.
3            The discrepancies that we evaluated indicated that 4      there were -- that amongst the sample that was i
5      inspected, there were no design-significant conditions.
6            As part of our trending analysis or our evaluation 7      to determine if the possibility of a design-significant 8      condition existed in the unreinspected portion of the 9      plant, in the electrical area, we came up with two 10      recommendations:    one, that the attachment to conduit 11      supports be reviewed.
(/)
12 13 A walkdown for that was conducted. The reason for that assessment -- or for that recommendation was that 14      if you put the worst kind of discrepancy that you could 15      imagine in the worst place relative to att'achment to 16      conduit supports, you could have a potentially 17      design-significant condition. So to preclude that 18      possibility, we recommended a walkdown so that that 19      could be identified and repaired if it existed.
20            Similarly, there was a recommendation regarding 21      installation of stiffeners. If you had a component 22      installed -- I'm getting into Mr. Kostal's area a little 23      bit now -- on the smallest beam in the worst possible 24      configuration, there is a possibility - that without a 25      stiffener, you could be transferring forces to that beam Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
-                            Geneva, Illinois 60134 l      --    - __
(312) 232-0262                .              _
 
    . _ -    ,_e -
* a +A  a--mL,-  -m#    .L- - =.,_ ..--. l .- a-.--*4-#4 *e h-r  .m . 4 15225 t
i  V 1            that would have the potential to be design-significant.
2            So a walkdown for the presence of stiffeners, where 3          ' required, was recommended and carried through.
4        Q  But in order for your sampling program to be extended, 5            there would have to be a finding of some 6            design-significant items, isn't that so, and no such 7            item was ever found?
8        A  (WITNESS THORSELL)        Correct.
9        Q  From what you've indicated to me, Mr. Thorsell, the j          10            possibility of such an item ever being determined by 11            Sargent & Lundy would have had to be very small.
12        A  (WITNESS THORSELL)        That is true.
13                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:                Okay.
,          14                We're open to --
15                      MR. STEPTOE:              Judge Grossman --
16                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:                I guess it's Mr. -- how are 17            we handling this now, Mr. Berry; it's Mr. Guild's turn
!          18            now?
19                      MR. STEPTOE:              Judge Grossman, before we go
.          20            on, of course, Applicant has the burden of proof in
;          21            these proceedings, and your line of cross examination --
22            your line of examination raised some concern at counsel 23            table here.
24                          (Laughter.)
25                My understanding was that you were attempting to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15226 O
1 challenge and probe the basis of the witnesses' 2 testimony with respect to additional conservatisms with 3 respect to Applicant.
4              JUDGE GROSSMAN:                              If your question is whether 5 you'll be entitled to respond in your re-redirect to --
6              MR. STEPTOE:                              No.
7              JUDGE GROSSMAN:                              Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Steptoe.
8              MR. STEPTOE:                              Well, it's something like that.
9      It's whether we' re required, as part of our 10 evidentiary burden, either to bring in a seismologist to 11 answer questions that Mr. Kostal is unable to or to
( 12 prove the nonexistence of the kinds of latent problems 13 that you were probing at with these witnesses.
14      I guess we need to know about that; that is, for 15 example, if we are required to prove the nonexistence of 16 lack of fusion, invisible lack of fusion, then we would 17 have -- it would give us some problems, but at least 18 we'd better know about it now.
19              JUDGE GROSSMAN:                              No. There are no problems 20 with regard to that.
21      The only part that was relevant was the answer that 22 -- which I assumed would have been given immediately, 23 but I assumed incorrectly -- that Sargent & Lundy was 24 not under any obligation to determine that such items
( 25 existed or to take them into account.                                That's all that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
_~  -        ~ . _ _ -    _        . _ _ -      _ _ _ -    .  . _ _ _ -    .
15227 p
1 it went to.
I 2                MR. STEPTOE:        All right.
3                JUDGE GROSSMAN:        It took awhile to get there, 4 but that's all that was involved.
5          We certainly did not wish to have any seismic j          6 testimony or any. testimony with regard to hidden defects i
7 in the welds.
8                MR. STEPTOE:        Okay.      Thank you, Judge 9 Grossman.
10                MR. GUILD:        Mr. Chairman, if I might, on the i        11 last point, I think, of course, at the heart of BCAP is the question of the appropriateness of the inferences i
(  12 13 that Applicant asks this Board to trust, to rely on, 14 about the unsampled population.
:        15          It's been this party's position that those f        16 inferences, the inferences that there are no i        17 design-significant defects even as Sargent & Lundy 18 defines that term or defines it away -- that inference 19 cannot properly be made.
20          To the extent that the impropriety --
!        21                JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Mr. Guild, I don't think we 22 want to have argument here.
23                MR. GUILD:        No, sir.      Well, okay. That's i        24 fine.                                                                        ,
25          But if Mr. Steptoe is permitted to essentially ask i
e Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15228 b
1  the Board to relieve it of an obligation, it would seem 2  to me that the party that has an interest on the 3  opposite side of that question should at least be able 4  to state for the record his --
5              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    I'm sorry, Mr. Guild. I 6  thought you were just arguing your case here.
7        But you wish to have Mr. Steptoe have some --
8  maintain some burden?
9              MR. GUILD:    Indeed.
10        It seems to me inherent in terms of what their 11  theory of this rebuttal case is -- notwithstanding the 12  flaws in the Quality Assurance and Quality Control
(
13  Program at L. K. Comstock that demonstrated harassment, 14  intimidation and production pressure -- that this Board 15  can sign off on the quality of this plant based on the 16  inferences that they want you to make from the CSR 17  sample.
18        Now, those inferences, in this party's view, depend 19  exactly on the kinds of what Mr. Steptoe characterizes 20  as " latent defects" that I understood the Chairman to be 21  focusing on.
22        Those are the unknown defects that are out there in 23  the population as a whole that this party or that 24  Applicant, the Sargent & Lundy panel, has not 25  effectively evaluated because they don't know that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15229 f
Q) 1 they're there.
2      Now, I just mean to say that for the record only 3 because I don't think it's appropriate to relieve 4 Applicant of a burden of proving what I think they've 5 set out to prove.
6          JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, Mr. Guild, I was 7 merely citing some examples of defects that might be 8 there. I don't purport to give any testimony or 9 represent that there are any such defects.
10      I was just questioning, not giving testimony.
11          MR. GUILD:    Understood.
12          JUDGE GROSSMAN:    The answer that was given
(
13 and the only thing that was relevant to what we were 14 talking about was with regard to what these witnesses 15 understood their obligation to be with regard to any 16 such defects.
17      The ones I mentioned may not be at all existent, 18 and there may be 1,000 different kinds of defects.
19      So I don't think that my question, which 20 presupposes something, is the basis for expanding the 21 scope of the testimony.
22          MR. GUILD:    Or contracting it, I take it, 23 Judge, either.
  ,,  24          JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Pardon?
k ,) 25          MR. GUILD:    Or contracting it, either.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134                            l
[                      (312) 232-0262
 
l 15230 i
V 1                          JUDGE GROSSMAN:                  No. That's correct. We're 2        not contracting it.
3                        MR. GUILD:      Fine.
4                          JUDGE GROSSMAN:                    But we're just not adding an 5        additional burden to Mr. Steptoe on the basis of certain 6      suggested examples in my question.
7                    Mr. Berry, did you have something?
8                        MR. BERRY:      No, Mr. Chairman.
9                          JUDGE GROSSMAN:                    Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
10                          MR. GUILD:      Mr. Chairman, I had two matters I 11        wanted to bring up that are not examination at this 12        point but that do flow from the Board's examination.
(
13                    First, it's with some surprise that I now hear that 14        we did find a design-significant defect that was 1
15        declared out of scope.                I guess it sort of falls into 16        the -- sort of confirms one's questions about what these 17        invalid observations represent.
18                    I have perused Applicant's testimony, and I have 19        perused the BCAP final report.                          Even with all the drafts I
20        I went through, I find not even a veiled reference to 21        there being a design-significant defect found but 22        somehow declared out of scope.
l 23                    Be that as it may, I would ask that Applicant f
j        24        produce this observation on the design-significant i  25        conduit attachment or whatever it actually represents Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I                                  Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15231 1
(3 i
v) 1 and would reserve the right to inquire f rom this panel 2 on that subject.
3      The second matter is that only through Mr. Kostal's 4 response to the Board questions do I now understand that 5 there appears to have been a revised calculation for 6 Cable Pan Hanger 104 that preceded the two versions that 7 are the subject of Intervenors' Exhibit 155; that is, 8 some calculation that I now hear was based on the 9 enveloped or " enveloped" seismic response spectrum and 10 perhaps other assumptions as well.
11      I had understood that I was being given a complete
()    12 13 package with all the revisions of that particular calculation.
14      If I heard the answer correctly and there is a 15 preceding calc, I would ask that that be made available 16 for inspection as well.
17          MR. STEPTOE:    Judge Grossman, I don' t think 18 Mr. Guild heard the answer correctly.
19      There were preceding calculations, of course, but 20 they weren't part of the BCAP program. That was what 21 Mr. Kostal was talking about.
22          JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, that's not my 23 understanding, Mr. Steptoe.
24      My understanding is that all of these matters could
(\ _,, 25 have been calculated and recalculated, but there is an Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15232 0
1 initial calculation that was submitted by Sargent &
2 Lundy.
3      That's the one that was produced to you, Mr. Guild.
4      But how many calculations, informal calculations, 5 were made before that I would think is indeterminate at 6 this point and would not really be a formal document.
7      Is my understanding incorrect, gentlemen:    that 8 there could have been numerous calculations made with 9 any particular item?
10            WITNESS KOSTAL:    Sure.
11      These calculations, as I indicated, started in the 12 early -- late -- I mean, they started in the late '70s.
13 So every one of them has a calculation prior to some 14 point in time that the BCAP --
i          15            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    No. I'm talking about BCAP 16 calculations; that what are submitted here aren't the
;          17 calculations that the calculator made initially, but he 18 may have made a number of calculations.
i          19      Isn't that so?
20            WITNESS KOSTAL:    That's correct, and this was 21 explained at great length to Mr. Guild.
22      His original request was only twofold. One is he l
l          23 wanted to have -- we had a revised calculation, which is l          24 the subject of 104, and he wanted to have the computer 25 run by which that calculation was made.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15233 s
1 1      We had reference in there to an earlier computer      ,
2 run, which was the generation prior to this computer 3 run, which was the basis of the earlier calculations; 4 and we made that available to him.
5      Whether or not we had calculations earlier and 6 earlier than that was not a subject of discussion.      He 7 wanted to know the original calculation that we started 8 with to do the BCAP work, and that was the calculations 9 provided to him.
10          MR. GUILD:      I lost that answer again.
11      Mr. Chairman, my question was really a simple one.
() 12 13 I looked at a piece of paper that had a set of numbers and equations and line-throughs and changes. It had 14 revision marks on the document, and I took the 15 explanation given to me informally and then given to me l      16 under oath to be a complete one as well as a truthful 17 one.                                                        ,
l      18      That was that those were the two calculations that 19 were performed in BCAP by Sargent & Lundy for Cable Pan 20 Hanger 104.
21      Now, if there are other documents reflecting prior 22 calculations under BCAP, evaluations of that i      23 discrepancy, I would request that they be produced.
24          WITNESS KOSTAL:      If I could clarify that, i      25 there are no others. You have the only two relating to 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15234 1    BCAP.
2              MR. GUILD:        That's fine.
3          The other point was this newly identified now 4    design-significant conduit discrepancy.
5              JUDGE GROSSMAN:            Well, I'm not sure I accept 6    what's just been said now as not being at variance with 7    what was said before; that is, that there were prior 8    calculations but they were not submitted as the Sargent 9    & Lundy calculation; that the calculator may have made 10    other calculations and that, in fact, there was one made 11    on that Case 104, which used the enveloped spectrum 12    throughout.
i      13          Now, is that the case or isn' t it?
14              WITNESS KOSTAL:            We had a calculation at the 15    point that we -- there was a computer run on that hanger i      16    that existed at the point in time that a BCAP l
17    observation occurred.
l 18          That computer run was the ba~ sis for the original l
l      19    BCAP calculation assessment.
l      20          There was another computer run generated, which was l
21    the basis for all the revisions to that calculation.
l      22          Those are the two computer runs that form the basis 23    -- the first one formed the state in time that that l      24    hanger existed.      That's the calculation that governs.
(O) 25    That's the computer run that governs that hanger at that l
l
)                  Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!                      Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
r
:                                                                              15235 l
l 1      point in time.
2                We had a BCAP observation. We used that to do the        l 3      assessment of the BCAP observation.        That was the latest 4      analysis of that hanger that existed in our file.
5                We performed the assessment based on that analysis r
6      on the BCAP -- for the BCAP observations on those joints 7      that were discrepant, using that latest computer run.
8                We have subsequent -- after that analysis, there 9      was another computer run generated; and that was the 10      basis for the revisions to that calculation.        Those are 11      the two that Mr. Steptoe and I spent a great deal of 12      time on, and that formed the basis of the starting i      13      point.
14                That computer run -- and I forget; I don't have it 15      exactly with me -- that was the starting point that we 16      had, which our design was.      That was the current level 17      of our design when the BCAP discrepancy came in.              That's 18      what we used to evaluate BCAP.
19                Whether or not we had an earlier version six years 20      earlier is totally immaterial because we have -- we
:      21      could only use the one that's current at the time that 22      the BCAP observation comes in at.
I 23                    MR. STEPTOE:  I don't think he answered your
:      24      question, Judge Grossman, as to whether at any point in i
l      25      time was there a calculation using the enveloped Byron i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15236 A
U 1      and Braidwood spectra.
2                                  WITNESS KOSTAL:          Yes, sir.
3                                  MR. STEPTOE:          If so, at what point in time 4      did that exist?
5                                  WITNESS KOSTAL:          It's my understanding that 6      that existed in the late '70s time frame.
7                                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:          No.        I'm talking with regard 8      to this particular item, this discrepant item, Case 104 9      or Cable 104.
10                                      WITNESS KOSTAL:          Here it is.
11                                          (Indicating.)
12                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:          Cable Pan Hanger --
(
13                                      WITNESS KOSTAL:          Cable Pan Hanger 104 -- the 14        computer run that existed in the file when we got this 15        discrepancy was the computer run that was generated 16        6/1/85, okay?
17                            I think that's the date because that's what it --
18        well, that is the date.
19                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:          6/1/ 85?
20                                      WITNESS KOSTAL:          That's what it looks like, 21        yes, sir.
22                                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:          And was that with the
(          23        enveloped spectrum?
j          24'                                    WITNESS KOSTAL:          No.      That was with the
        \
l  s_ ,/  25        unique Braidwood spectra at that point in time.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
                                                                        \
l
                                                                        )
i 15237 i
o 1            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.
2      Now, prior to 6/1/85, was there a calculation made 3 using the enveloped spectrum?
4            WITNESS KOSTAL:    Yes, sir.
5      That was made at the very onset of the project, 6 which would have been this standard hanger 104, which 7 would have existed for Byron and Braidwood.
8      That would have been made to the enveloped response 9 spectra, and that calculation was made in the late 1970 10 time frame.
11            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    And that calculation, I 12 assume f rom what you told me before, was what was used 13 in the calculator's first determination or his first 14 calculation under BCAP?
15            WITNESS KOSTAL:    No, sir. That was the first 16 calculation ever generated.
17      What I said was that there were subsequent 18 generations of calculations over the history of this 19 project and over the history of that particular hanger.
l 20      At the point in time of 1985, we had a current 21 calculation. That current calculation was the basis for i
22 assessing the BCAP discrepancy.
23            MR. GUILD:    Mr. Kostal, I'm looking at i
l      24 Intervenors' 155 and 155-B. Let's just see if we can be 25 absolutely clear here.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262                                _
 
l 15238 O
1      The observation for the welding discrepancy by the 2 BCAP CSR inspector appears to have a review date in the 3 area of April 19, 1985. The preparation date is 4 obscured, but April 19, 1985, appears to be the day 5 someone signed off on that observation. That's 155.
6      Now, in 155-B the first date that I see is May 24, 7 1985, slightly more than a month later; and that's shown 8 as the date of preparation of the initial calculation 9 that appears in this document.
10      Do you follow me that far?
11            WITNESS KOSTAL:    Yes.
12            MR. GUILD:    Is there a calculation for BCAP 13 in evaluation of this discrepancy that precedes that 14 first calculation shown in Intervenors' 155?
15            WITNESS KOSTAL:    No, sir.
16            MR. GUILD:    Okay.
I 17      Now, the question, then, of the conduit --
18            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Well, before we get off 19 there, was there such a calculation that you no longer 20 have that was made by the person who was obligated to 21 make the original calculation?
22            WITNESS KOSTAL:    You mean back in the late I
23 '70s?
24            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    No. I mean back in April or i
( 25 May of 1985.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
 
15239
    /''h V
1            WITNESS KOSTAL:    This is the calculation that 2  exists for Braidwood BCAP discrepancy. This is the only 3  calculation.
4            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    But was there another one 5  which --
6            WITNESS KOSTAL:    Earlier?
7            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    -- which was not used by the 8' person who made the calculation, who then went on to use 9  the unique Braidwood spectrum?
10            WITNESS KOSTAL:    No, sir.
11            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.
r 12      Mr. Guild?
13            MR. GUILD:    The remaining question, sir, ic a i'
14  preliminary matter.
,      15      I'd like to ask, through the Chair, that the 16  Applicant make available for inspection the 17  documentation on the design-significant conduit 18  discrepancy that was declared out of scope.
i        19            JUDGE GROSSMAN :    Any problem, Mr. Steptoe?
i 20            MR. STEPTOE:    No problem, Judge Grossman.
21            WITNESS KOSTAL:    Can I clarify something?
22      We made no calculation. It was an observation l        23  package that, by observation, you couldn't even make a 24  calculation. So we have no calculation on this one.
25            MR. GUILD:    Then just --
l j                Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l                        (312) 232-0262
 
d 15240 0
1          WITNESS KOSTAL:    All I'm saying is if I tried 2 to make a calculation, I couldn't make a calculation to 3 make that thing work.
4          WITNESS THORSELL:      Let me --
5          JUDGE GROSSMAN:      I think Mr. Guild wants the 6 observation package.
7          MR. GUILD:    Yes.
8          WITNESS KOSTAL:    That's fine.
9          WITNESS THORSELL:      What that was was an 10 observation that was declared out of scope. All of the 11 out-of-scope observations were included in NCR 6145, i        12 which Mr. Guild has a copy of.
4 13          MR. GUILD:    That's the one-thousand-plus-page 14 document I did not thumb through last night, Mr.
        -15 Thorsell, to find that one.
16      But you' re telling me that if I do so, it will be i
17 in that document?
18          WITNESS THORSELL:      Yes, sir, and we can l        19 identify which one of the observations it is.
f        20          MR. GUILD:    That would be a help.
21      May I ask the generic question before we go 22 further:  Are there any others that I haven't yet 23 blundered into that are design-significant observations
!        24 under DCAP, whether declared out of scope, invalid, i
25 inappropriate for further processing or File 13?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15241
            \
V 1                        Are there any others out there anywhere, Mr.
2                Kostal, to your knowledge?
3                              WITNESS KOSTAL:        Not that I'm aware of.
4                              MR. GUILD:    Mr. Thorsell?
5                              WITNESS THORSELL:            To the best of my 6                knowledge, that is the only out-of-scope observation 7                that, if we had tried to do an analysis, may have been 8                found to be design-significant.
9                        But going back to the --
10                              MR. GUILD:    Let me stop you there.                  I don't 11                mean to interrupt unduly, but you limited your answer to 12                invalid or out of scope.
IV) i            13                        Are there any of any character that are 14                design-significant, to your knowledge, Mr. Thorsell?
!              15                              WITNESS THORSELL:            No, sir. There are no 16                design-significant BCAP observations.
17                              MR. GUILD:    Aside from this one, now?
i              18                              WITNESS THORSELL:            This was determined to be 19                out of scope.      Therefore, a design significance
(              20                evaluation was not done.
I 21                              MR. GUILD:    Fine.
22                              WITNESS THORSELL:            We were merely
<              23                volunteering --
l              24                              MR. GUILD:    My only point now is I'm trying 25                to be precise in my use of the language, and I ask you i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15242 O'O 1        to be precise in your response to make sure I'm not 2        mishearing your answer.
3                Whether declared out of scope, invalid, 4        inappropriate for further processing or otherwise not 5        processed, are there any other discrepancies that were 6        identified in the course of the BCAP CSR inspection that 7        are of design significance?
8                    WITNESS THORSELL:                  Not to my knowledge.
9                    JUDGE GROSSMAN:          Now, going back to what, Mr.
10            Thorsell?
11                        WITNESS THORSELL:                  Well, what this was was a 12            case of construction damage, and part of the 13            determination that BCAP makes in evaluating out of scope 14            is a determination of:    Would this have gone undetected?
15                  There is no possibility that this could have gone 16            -- could have gone undetected, and I speculate that that 17            entered into the BCAP decision to make it out of scope.
l l      18                  In the case of our evaluation of NCR 6145, the 19            corrective action for this item was to repair or restore 20            it to its original design condition.
21                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:          Mr. Guild, you may continue 22            with your cross examination --
l l      23                        MR. GUILD:    Thank you, sir.
1 24                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:          -- recross examination.
25                            RECROSS EXAMINATION Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l 15243
(
  \J l                      BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Now, I'm looking at the BCAP program document, and at 3  Page Roman II-7, there's a table which is entitled 4  " Example of Sample Expansion for Discovery of 5  Design-Significant Discrepancy by CSR."
6        It's by way of an example, but the example given 7  for -- only one of two examples given of a 8  design-significant discrepancy is a cracked fillet weld.
9        Now, I gather you didn't write this document, but, 10  Mr. Kostal, would you agree that a cracked fillet weld 11  is appropriately denominated a design-significant
() 12 13 A discrepancy?
(WITNESS KOSTAL)    What are you reading f rom?
14 0 This is the BCAP program document, sir, the document 15  that commonwealth Edison Company submitted to the 16  Nuclear Regulatory Commission that was supposed to 17  govern how you did the BCAP program.
18            MR. STEPTOE:    Judge Grossman, may I have a 19  moment to secure that document?
20            JUDGE GROSSMAN:      Certainly.
21            MR. STEPTOE:    Is this already in as an 22  exhibit?
23            MR. GUILD:    No, it's not.
24            MR. STEPTOE:    Can I see it, Bob?
(  25            MR. GUILD:    Sure. I'd be happy to show it to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15244 O
1      you. It's right there.
2                          (Indicating.)                                      l 3                MR. MILLER:                Phil, we've got it.
4                MR. GUILD:                I've found an extra copy.
5                MR. BERRY:                I'll take it.
1 l
6                MR. GUILD:                (Indicating.)
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 0    Mr. Kostal, again, it's Page Roman --
9                MR. MILLER:                He doesn't have a copy.
10                MR. GUILD:                Mr. Berry, could you pass it over 11      to the witness for me?
[/)
12                MR. BERRY:                (Indicating.)
w 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 0    Roman II-7, Table 1 of the BCAP program document, Mr.
15      Kostal, June, 1984.
16 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)          Okay.
17 0    All right, sir.
18          Do you see there that there are two examples given 19      of design-significant discrepancies for use as 20      illustrations in describing how the sample would be 21      expanded if there were found to be a design-significant 22      discrepancy?
23 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)          Yes, sir.
24 0    All right.
    ) 25          One of the examples that's not relevant here is a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15245 I
v 1  valve installed backwards in the mechanical contractor's 2  scope of work?
3 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
4 0 And the other example is described -- and I quote --
5  " cracked fillet weld."
6 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The example is associated with the 7  structural steel framing erection under American Bridge, 8  where this example relates to steel components which are 9  thicknesses of material greater than a half an inch.
10        So the example cited here is for cracked welds 11  associated with joining materials that are greater than I  12  a half an inch thick.
O) 13 0 All right.
14        So you're telling me that in order for this 15  particular -- for a cracked weld to be 16  design-significant, you have to consider the application 17  where the crack is found?
18 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    You not only have to consider the 19  application of where the crack is found; you also have 20  to consider whether or not at that application you have 21  cyclic loading, because --
22 0 I'm sure there are a whole variety of considerations.
23        But will you agree that if those considerations are 24  appropriately taken into account, that a cracked fillet
( j 25  weld is an appropriate example of a design-significant Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134                          ,
(312) 232-0262
 
15246 O) t
    % ./
1              discrepancy?
2    A        (WITNESS KOSTAL)              In the case of structural steel 3              framing where you have material thicknesses larger, this 4              has the potential of being design-significant once you 5              perform that assessment.
6    0        Well, sir, does a cracked fillet weld ever have the 7              potential for being design-significant within the 8              context of the L. K. Comstock scope of work?
9    A        (WITNESS KOSTAL)              For the components that we are 10              reviewing, the material thicknesses are less than a half 11              an inch; and for those particular components, it would
[)
V 12              not be design-significant.
13    0        There's no case where a cracked weld, then, could be l            14              design-significant within the electrical contractor's 15              scope of work; is that your testimony?
16    A        (WITNESS KOSTAL)              My testimony says that for the types 17              of materials used, which are these materials less than a 18              half an inch, and of all -- and the Unistruts that are 19              used and the thickness of those Unirtruts, those 20              components assessed for a cracked fillet weld would not 21              be design-significant.
22    0        No. I'm not sure you' re answering the same question I 23              asked, so let me just see if I can rephrase it.
24                    Are there any circumstances in the electrical scope 25              of work where a cracked weld -- let's make it more Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
;                                      Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
 
15247 O
v 1          general -- a cracked weld could be a design-significant 2          discrepancy, in your opinion; any application 3          whatsoever?                                  ,
4      A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I don't know. That's a -- that's an 5          all-universal type of comment.
6      0  It's intended to be.
7      A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    To the best of my knowledge, no, it 8          wouldn't be design-significant, because, to the best of 9          my knowledge, all the materials that are supplied are 10              less than a half an inch thick.
11          0  All right, sir.
12                  So given that they' re less than a half an inch 13              thick, under no circumstance could a weld to base metal 14              less than a half-inch thick -- a cracked weld, rather, 15              be design-significant; is that your testimony?
16          A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, let me rephrase it slightly.
17          0  How about answering the question?
18                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:  I believe he's answered that l
19              question, and his answer was no.
;        20                        MR. GUILD:  If you heard it that way, fine, i        21              Judge.
22                        WITNESS KOSTAL:  Well, let me just clarify.
23                  If the crack was long enough and it resulted in no l
24              weld being there at all, you could still perform a weld 25              analysis. We still perform a weld analysis so that when l                              Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ 1312) 232-0262                    __      _  _
 
l 15248 1    a crack is present, we delete that portion of the crack 2      from the analysis.
3            So if you had the entire assembly totally cracked 4    and there was no weld whatsoever, you would have to go 5      through an analysis to determine design significance.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0  That's the point of my question.
8            Can you just not answer the question because you 9    don't have enough facts or can you tell me categorically 10      that there are no circumstances where a cracked weld in 11      the electrical scope of work would be 12
(        design-significant?
13 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      I can't answer that question.
14 0  You can't answer it; you need to know the specifics of 15      the application; is that right?
16 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      (No response.)
17 L  The size of the crack, the type of base metal, the 18    nature of the component, et cetera?
19 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      That's correct.
20 Q  All right, sir.
21            Well, now, did you find any cracked welds?
22            You did find some cracked welds, didn't you, in 23    your CSR for the electrical populations?
24 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)      Yes, sir.
25 0  You found a cracked weld in the cable pan population; Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15249 O
1  correct?
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
3 0 You found a cracked weld in the cable pan hanger 4  population; correct?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
6 Q Now, I take it that consistent with your general 7  testimony, you evaluated through the calculational 8  process you had gone through in both of those cases and 9  determined that those particular cracks did not 10  constitute design-significant discrepancies?
11 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That's correct.
() 12 13 0 All right, sir.
Now, you extended the hypothesis a moment ago to 14  say that depending on the length of the crack, it might 15  be equivalent to there being no weld at all in the crack 16  extended the full length of the weld; correct?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That's the hypothesis that one would 18  have to make.
19 Q Yes.
20        Well, beyond simply cracked welds, you found 21  instances in the electrical scope of work where there 22  were no welds at all, where the welds were missing; is 23  that correct?
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That's correct.
(
(  25 0 All right.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15250 2
q
    \s, 1                                        In the cable pan population, you found six missing 2                              welds?
3                            A (WfTNESS KOSTAL)                Yes, sir.
4                            0 And in the conduit hanger population, you found two 5                              missing welds?
6                            A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                Yes, sir.
7                            0 All right.
8                                        In the cable pan hanger population, you found 67 9                              missing welds?
10                              A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                Yes, sir.
11                                Q And in the equipment population, you found 11 missing
[b      12 13                                A welds?
(WITNESS KOSTAL)                Yes, sir.
14                                0 And I take it that since you've advanced the general 15                                  testimony that there were no design-significant l            16                                  discrepancies, you evaluated each of the places where 17                                  the welds were missing and found that they didn't 18                                  represent design-significant discrepancies?
19                                A (WITNESS KOSTAL)                That's correct.
r
;          20                                0 Now, you answered the Chairman's question a while ago in 21                                  a way that seemed inconsistent with what I had heard you 22                                  say earlier.
f 23                                            I thought you told me that where welds were found 24                                  missing, you did take into account the fact that there y ,j    25                                  was an adjacent weld for purposes of performing your 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l        . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - . . _ . . _ . _ _    . _ _ . _ _ _ . _    {312) 232-0262
 
l 15251  -
8
  /~'h                                                                  1 V
l 1  design significance calculation.
2 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Where welds are missing, we take into 3  account the welds associated with the stress plane.
4 0 Which may be an adjacent weld?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It's all part of the transfer of the 6  load through the stress plane.
7 0 So your answer should have been a little more precise to 8  the Chairman's question.
9        In fact, you do take into account adjacent welds if 10  they're part of the same stress plane adjacent to the 11  missing weld?
12 A                      Could you say that again?
(        (WITNESS KOSTAL) 13 0 You do take into account adjacent welds if they' re part 14  of the same stress plane adjacent to the missing weld?
15 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    We take into account all the welds 16  that are at that stress plane.
17 0 Indeed.
18        And it so happened, in the cases of missing welds 19  found in the CSR electrical populations, given the 20  existence of adjacent welds in the same stress plane,      ,
21  those missing welds did not represent, in your 22  determination, design-significant deficiencies?
23 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That's correct.
24        There was -- in our design these joints have more 25  than -- we defined a weld as a straight line. When it
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262                          --
 
15252 O
1  made a right-hand corner, it became a second weld.
2        But all these connections and all these stress 3  planes have more than one weld associated with them.
4 0 All right, sir.
5        Now, would you agree that in -- that the absence of 6  a weld -- let me back up.
7        The BCAP program document uses, as an example of a 8  design-significant discrepancy, as we just spoke of a 9  moment ago, a cracked weld, a cracked fillet weld.          As 10  you pointed out, it was in the structural area.
11        Would you agree that a missing weld is an example 12  appropriately of a design-significant defect again
(
13  dependent on its application, where it is, what other 14  weldments or connections there may be in the same stress 15  plane, the other considerations that you take in making 16  a design significance evaluation?
17 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        We would have to analyze each 18  condition to determine whether or not it was 19  design-significant.
20 0 Well, what I'm asking, sir, is for an opinion on a 21  generic question.
22        That is, can the absence of a weld ever be 23  design-significant, in your opinion?
24 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)        Can the absence of all the welds be l'
s ,) 25  design --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15253 4
v
,                1    Q A missing weld, as you define that attribute -- can that 2      ever be design-significant?
3    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            I'd have to characterize it.
4            It would be my opinion that based on refined 5      analysis, based on taking into account the remaining 6      stiffness of the joint, probably not.
.                7    0 Okay.
8            So I guess the follow-up question, then, is:            A i              9      missing weld in the electrical population -- if I asked 10      you whether or not it could ever be design-significant, 11      the answer would be the same:            Probably not?
(          12    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            Probably not, yes, sir.
13    0 Well, how about, now, a missing weld and a cracked weld 14      on the same stress transfer plane?
15    A (WITNESS KOSTAL)            Yes, sir.
16    0 How about a missing weld and a cracked weld in the same 17      stress transfer plane?
18                  MR. STEPTOE:            Judge Grossman, I object on the 19      grounds of lack of foundation.            Mr. Guild says there was 20      such a combination.            I understand that --
',              21                  MR. GUILD:            I'm asking it as a hypothetical 22      question.
23                  MR. STEPTOE:            Yes, it's a hypothetical I
i              24      question, but it's of no value if --
( j        25                  JUDGE GROSSMAN:            I think it is of some value.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.                              '
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15254 O
1          I don't think it's the type of question that 2      requires any foundation. I don't believe Mr. Guild is 3      trying to connect that up with any particular instance, 4      and I don't think he has to. That's not the nature of 5      the question.
6          Rather than have discussion, I think we ought to 7      let Mr. Guild just ask those questions. So we'll 8      overrule that.
9          Mr. Guild?
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 0  Could a cracked weld and a missing weld on the same
  /% 12      stress plane, taken together, ever represent a 13    design-significant discrepancy in the electrical scope 14      of work, Mr. Kostal?
15 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Well, let me -- let me characterize 16      it as --
17 0    How about answering the question yes or no or tell me 18      you can't answer it because --
19 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I don't believe so, and let me 20    qualify why --
21 0  All right, sir.
22 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    -- okay?
23          Part of the normal engineering design that you 24    bring to constructing any component is to assure 25    yourself that you have alternate load paths within that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.                            )
i                    Geneva, Illinois 60134                                  1 (312) 232-0262                      ___ - -
                                                                              )
 
15255 1
1  design to account for -- so that you -- so that you 2  maintain redundancy.
j      3        Probably the best example I can give -- and 4  everybody has read about it -- is the Hyatt House.
5  That's a single hanger on a rod, absolutely no 6  redundancy. If you fail the rod, if you fail that 7  connection, it falls down.
8        Our componenta aren't like that.
9 0 Okay.
10        You're referring to -- just so your example is 11  clear; I'm not sure everybo6y knows that -- this is the
() 12 13 A walkway that fell down and killed a bunch of people?
(WITNESS KOSTAL)    This is the walkway that was 14  supported on a rod that went through two pieces of 15  channel and that was attached basically with a nut 16  underneath the channel and supported off of that, a 17  single degree of failure.      If you lose the rod, you lose 18  it all.
19        We don't have that in these components. You don't 20  have that type of design. You have redundancy in all 21  the designs.
22        The hangers have multiple welds. They have 23  multiple supports. There are continuous supports all 24  along the length of these components that we're 25  supporting.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15256 O
    \  >
w/
1                                    In the case of the cable pan, we support them at 2                          six feet something inches to eight feet something 3                          inches, continuously along.
4                                    Even if you lost the entire hanger, the cables 5                          within the pan can drape between the two adjacent 6                          hangers.
7                        0 Now, you' re getting a little bit far f rom the f rame of 8                          analysis that I thought you were using.
9                        A (WITNESS KOSTAL)              I'm trying to explain to you your 10                            analogy of the "what if" question, and I'm saying to you 11                            we brought to this project the "what if" question by 12                            building in redundancies to that design and alternate 13                            load paths to take these "what if" questions.
14                          0 Let me ask you to really, so that you don't force me to 15                            miss any more lunches trying to read your stuff and 16                            figure this out -- you use a framework of analysis, and 17                            I want to ask you to maintain some consistency here; 18                            that is, to use " design-significant" in the way you've 19                            used " design-significant" through the course of thic 20                            exercise and not to start jumping back and telling me l
21                            that the cables would droop between the missing hanger 22                            if the hanger falls down.                    Maybe they can; maybe they 23                            can't.
24                                      But you analyzed for design significance using a 25                            different frame of reference, and that was analyzing Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15257 v
1        that stress plane and to see where that stress plane 2        would do its job, would meet code allowables; correct?
3      A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Yes, sir.
4      Q All right, sir.
5            Now, I'm asking you, sir:    Using the framework of 6        analysis that you had employed to make design 7        significance characterizations that you've done in this 8        case and not changing the framework of analysis, if you i
9        have a missing weld and on the same stress plane there's 10        only one other weld and that weld is cracked, could that 11        ever, withits the electrical scope of work, represent a 12        design-significant discrepancy as you've used
[G) 13        " design-significant discrepancy" in BCAP?
14      A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    And if you say that you have a hanger 15        which is the only thing that -- or you have a single 16        element which is the only thing supporting the element 17        and that you have only two welds, one of which is on one 18        side, which is cracked, and one of which is on the other 19        side, missing, and there are no other redundancies, then 20        you would call that -- that would be design-significant.
21              You'd have to put it in a box in order to define 22        it.
23                    JUDGE GROSSMAN :  Excuse me.
24              Mr. Kostal, what you're saying now is that just
(      25        using the criteria of the stress analysis wouldn't be as Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois  60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15258 lv 1    far as you would go, because even if it didn't meet 2    those criteria, you would then go on and use that 3    further refinement which you were just talking about 4    now.
5          Isn't that.the case?
6                WITNESS KOSTAL:    Sure.
7          That refinement is readily available to any 8    engineer to use. It's a question of:      Can you use the 9    further refinement?
10          If I take the Hyatt example, there is no further 11    refinement to use. If I use the example of a cantilever
    )  12    sticking out of a wall, supporting a component, if the 13    component is not attached to anything else and I only 14    have two welds on that cantilever, that's like the Hyatt 15    House:  One weld is missing and one weld is cracked.
16          That could be design-significant.
17                JUDGE GROSSMAN:    But Sargent & Lundy didn't 18    design the plant that way -- is that what you're saying?
19    -- the way the Hyatt --
20                WITNESS KOSTAL:    That's correct.
21                JUDGE GROSSMAN:    So you do have redundancies 22    there, and if you didn't meet the criteria f rom that 23    stress analysis, you would then go on to a redundancy 24    and analyze that to determine whether it was
; ( j  25    design-significant?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i                        Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262        -. - - ,        -.-- -_-
 
15259 a
1                WITNESS KOSTAL:    That's correct.
2                MR. GUILD:    All right, sir.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 0    Let's take a hypothetical of a piece of electrical 5      equipment, a junction box; and let's just take your 6    case:    It's a cantilever, and there are two welds 7      holding this.
8          Let's make it a horizontal member to which the 9      junction box is mounted. It's welded to a vertical 10    column, and there are two welds. One weld is cracked, 11      and one weld is just not there; it's missing.
12          Could that missing weld and that cracked weld,
[V\
13      taken together, be a design-significant discrepancy?
14 A    (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It could be.
15          We would have to look at what that junction box 16      was. You'd have to look at how the -- what was coming 17      into the junction box, what kind of conduit was coming 18      in.
19          We'd require, on either side of the junction box 20      within approximately three feet, a hanger. So that 21    potential exists that if it was a big enough conduit, 22      the conduit could support the junction box.
23 Q    I see.
24          So at that point you'd get beyond just looking at 25      the discrepancy from the perspective of the stress Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15260 O
1  transfer plane, the physical welded connection between 2  the horizontal member and the vertical member; and you'd 3  start looking at other things, like the adjacent hangers 4  that would support the conduit?
5 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    That's based on your hypothetical.
6  We did not do that at all.
7 Q Well, what I'm trying to do is ask you my hypothetical 8  but in application to how you do your work, sir.
9        My point is that even in that case, you would 10  hesitate at declaring a missing weld and a cracked weld, 11  the only two welds on a stress transfer plane, as being 12  design-significant?
13 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    Wewouldn') hesitate. We would just 14  perform the analyses that are available to us to 15  determine whether or not it ib or isn>'t 16  design-significant.
17 0 All right, sir.
18        But as you sit here today, you wouldn't agree that 19  that was a design-significant discrepancy within the 20  meaning of BCAP without doing that analysis?
21 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The analysis is what determines the 22  design-significant discrepancy. The analysis is 23  available, and that's what defines.
24        If we perf orm the analysis and the analysis still 25  stays within code for the entire component, which l;
i j              Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j                  Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i 15261 l
Uq 1    includes more than just, say, the weld, if you wanted to i                                                  2    go to that next level, that would be still considered in 3    the privy of the designer to -- in determining design 4    significance.
5  0 And you'd be f ree to do that in performing your role --
!                                                  6    "you," Sargent & Lundy -- within BCAP; that's consistent l
7    with doing your BCAP analysis:    to go to that next l
8    refined level of analysis?
I 9  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    The option is there.
10        Have we ever used it?    We have never used it nor do 11    we ever have the need to use it, because we've never --
12    we didn't have any discrepancies of the hypothetical 13    nature that you're referring to.
14        So, therefore, hypothetically we haven't had to go 15    to these alternate analyses.
16  0 I coe.
17        Well. I take it, if you take my hypothetical and 18    there's a cracked weld and a missing weld on this 19    junction box but you find that the junction box is going 20    to be held up by the adjacent hangers on either side and 21    the conduit running f rom those adjacent hangers to the 22-  junction box, that it would be acceptable engineering to 23    simply declare those discrepancies as insignificant and 24    to use them as is without repairing them?
25  A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I wouldn't say that they would be Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15262 0
1  insignificant, and I wouldn't say you wouldn't repair 2  them.
3        We did recommend throughout the BCAP program, as 4  Mr. Thorsell mentioned, two areas -- in particular, 5  electrical -- that we --
6 0 I'm going to get to that, but I want to focus on this 7  particular hypothetical.
8        It's your testimony that it wouldn't be 9  design-significant if the adjacent hangers would support 10  the load of the junction box, but you' re not prepared to 11  tell me that you would recommend an accept-as-is
() 12 13 A disposition of those discrepant weld conditions?
(WITNESS KOSTAL)    I would not recommend "as is" if we 14  couldn't at least support the junction box in the manner 15  it should have been supported.
16 0 What difference does it make if you'd still have it 17  supported within the requirements of your interpretation 18  of the code, even with the missing weld and a cracked 19  weld, by the use of the conduit and the adjacent 20  supports?
21        Why fix it?
22 A  (WITNESS KOSTAL)    It's just not good practice to leave 23  it that way.
24 0 I see.
25              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Excuse me.                I don't think he Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262            - _ _ - . _ _ _ _
 
15263 m
(V) 1 gave a complete answer. One part was whether it was 2 design-significant, and the second was whether you would 3 repair it.
4      Now, I understood you to say that you would have it 5 repaired, but you didn't answer directly whether you 6 would consider it design-significant.
7            WITNESS KOSTAL:    We would do the analysis to 8 determine if, in fact, it was design-significant.                  If it 9 was, we would report it as design-significant.
10            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    And that would depend on 11 whether the adjacent hangers or whatever other support
    ;m 12 there was was sufficient to support it; is that so?
(
      )
13            WITNESS KOSTAL:    Yes, sir.
14            JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.
15            WITNESS KOSTAL:    And if we were going to rely 16 upon that logic, we would certainly request that those 17 adjacent hangers be inspected to assure that they were 18 constructed properly.
(
19            MR. GUILD:    Judge Cole?
l        20            JUDGE COLE:    Mr. Kostal, how do you evaluate 1
i 21 a cracked weld?
l        22            WITNESS KOSTAL:    There are a number of l
23 textbooks that are out which define the -- depending on 24 the type of crack that exists, depending on the geometry l
i O i      25 of the crack, the depth of the crack, the 1cagths of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
-                    Geneva, Illinois 60134 l                        (312) 232-0262  _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ____ __
 
I 15264 1      crack, the types of materials, there are formulations 2      and curves that are presented that allow you to perform 3      an analysis.
4            There is also a determination in terms of whether 5      or not the element that you're reviewing sees a lot of 6      cyclic loading.
7            If it has a substantial amount of cyclic loading, 8      then you have a slightly -- you have different curves 9      which take into account the f atiguing effect of the 10      crack in the weld.
11            That literature is available, and techniques for 12
(          perf orming this analysis are available.
13            I just don't have in front of me the references 14      that would address this, but we -- they do exist.
15                  JUDGE COLE:    Is it common to consider a 16      cracked weld the same as a missing weld in order to 17      evaluate and see whether you have to go to the detail of 18      evaluating the crack?
19            Is this a standard practice, sir?
20                  WITNESS KOSTAL:    Our standard practice is if 21      we have a cracked weld, we look to see whether or not it 22      can propagate -- that's the first consideration -- based l
23      on the type of materials that are joining together.
l 24            Then the second consideration is that we assume 25      that that cracked weld has no integrity at all no matter
;                  Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l                        Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
 
15265 1        how deep it is, and we take that portion of the crack 2        and delete it from the weld profile and say the 3  5      remaining of the weld is only what carries the load.
4                    JUDGE COLE:              All right, sir.
5              So it's just missing in that portion?
6                    WITNESS KOSTAL:              It's missing in the portion 7        where the crack occurs once the crack propagation 8        analysis is performed.
9                    JUDGE COLE:              So the extent of the crack is 10        really the significant part of the analysis?
11                    WITNESS KOSTAL:              Yes, sir.
['N' 12                    JUDGE GROSSMAN:              I believe in your prefiled 13        testimony, with Byron you assumed that it propagated, 14        and here you did not assume that.
15                    WITNESS KOSTAL:              That's correct.
l      16    BY MR. GUILD:
17    Q    Mr. Kostal, I guess what I was trying to figure out is:
18              Since you couldn't have any design-significant weld 1
19        discrepancies in the electrical population, taking 20        cracks and taking missing welds -- I guess any defect 21        short of a missing weld or less likely to be significant 22        than missing altogether -- what's the point of this 23        exercise?
24              Why on earth did Sargent & Lundy generate these 25-        mounds of calculations, this mass of paper, if you knew Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
i l
l 15266      j 1  the answer when you started the exercise in the first 2  place?                                                                            l 3        And that is, regardless of how bad a job Comstock 4  Quality Control Inspectors did in having the freedom to 5  document discrepancies or Comstock welders did in 6  welding cable pan hangers and conduit hangers and cable 7  pan, that none of it made any difference at all because 8  you were already certain that you were never going to 9  find anything that was design-significant?
10 A (WITNESS KOSTAL)    I didn' t say that.
11        What I said was that we have tools -- we have 12  analytical techniques available to assess for it.
[v)          I didn't say that using and exhausting those 13 14  techniques, we couldn't find a design-significant 15  discrepancy. I never said that.
16              MR. GUILD:    Well, the record will speak for 17  itself, Mr. Kostal.
18        Mr. Chairman, I do have considerable recross.                      I 19  know that the clock on the wall isn't exactly right, but 20  I have about seven minutes till by my watch.
l l
21        I've got a stack of paper that Applicant was
!    22  courteous enough to give me this morning.                    I'd like to l
l    23  review it before I --
24              JUDGE GROSSMAN:    Okay.                We'll adjourn until
( ) 25  9:00 o' clock tomorrow.
l l              Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262      . _ _ . - , . - - _ _ _ _        -_.      - _.
 
15267 A
U 1                    Do we have anything further than that, Mr. Steptoe?
2                        MR. STEPTOE:        Since we have four witnesses 3              here, I was wondering if there Guild knows how long his 4              cross will be.
5                        MR. GUILD:    I've got a real juicy document, 6              and I think it will take an hour or more of this panel 7              before I conclude.
8                        MR. STEPTOE:        Okay.
9                        JUDGE GROSSMAN:        Okay, fine.          We'll 10              adjourned, then, until 5:00 o' clock tomorrow.
11                        MR. MILLER:        Your Honor, if I could just keep s
(-s) 12              the Reporter on, if I could note for the record that I 13              have further rebuttal testimony of Mr. Simile and Mr.
14              Bossong on -- and Mr. Archambeault; and we also have the 15              small amount of rebuttal testimony from Mr. Dominique, 4
16              Mr. Rasiniak and Mr. DeWald with respect to the chain of 17              custody of Mr. Puckett's test coupons.
18                              (Indicating.)
19                        MR. BERRY:    Mr. Chairman, I remarked earlier 20              that the Staff was considering whether to produce any 21              witnesses in response to the rebuttal testimony that 22              we've been hearing.
23                    I think we' re in a position at this time to state 24              that I'm confident that Staff will include at least two 25              more witnesses. One of them will be Mr. Gardner to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
l l
15268    l t ' ' N.                                                                          l w-1 address BCAP issues, and also we'll probably produce a 2 member of the Staff with respect to Mr. Archambeault and 3 Mr. Martin. Undoubtedly that will be Mr. Westberg, who 4 was the inspector assigned to look into those 5 allegations.
6      We will have prefiled testimony for those 7 witnesses, also, and make them available to the parties 8 well in advance of their appearance.
9      I may have stated this before; but I'd just like to 10 state again for the record at this time that with 11 respect to Mr. Gardner and his testimony, I'm confident
(~)
%d 12 to say that his testimony should not come as a surprise 13 to any party or even to the Board; that his testimony 14 would relate to his activities as the NRC Region III's 15 BCAP inspector.
16      In that vein, I would note that the Region III NRC 17 issued a report on BCAP and that report has been made 18 available to the Applicant, to the Intervenors.          They 19 were on the service list for that.
20      I think there are also a number of other reports 21 that the Region and Mr. Gardner may have issued in the 22 course of his assignment as the BCAP inspector.          One of 23 them at least has already been introduced and received 24 in evidence in this proceeding. Again, the Intervenors 25 and the Applicant were on the service list for those, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
 
15269 h
V 1      also.
2              So I would expect or anticipate that Mr. Gardner's 3      testimony will relate to his activities, and his 4      activities in general have been documented in inspection 5      reports.
6              I only note that just to put the parties on some 7      kind of notice of what the scope of the testimony will 8      be.
: 9.              Again, I fully expect that it will be made 10      available to the Board and parties well in advance of 11      his appearance here.
() 12 13 It appears now that we have a number of witnesses that we're going to have to go through before we come 14      around to the Staff again, and I have every confidence 15      that our testimony will be filed and produced long 16      before we get to that point.
17                      JUDGE GROSSMAN:            Fine. Thank you, Mr. Berry, 18      for giving us as much advance notice as you could with 19      what you would think the content of the testimony will 20      be.
21              Okay. Are we ready to adjourn?
22              Fine. We're then adjourned until 9:00 o' clock 23      tomorrow morning.
24                          (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:00 P. M., the 25                              hearing of the above-entitled matter was l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
                                              . . - . .      .- - - - _ - ~  . _ _ - - - . - .
 
1 15270 1                  conLinued to the 22nd day of October, I
2                  1986, at the hour of 9:00 o' clock A. M.)
3 4
5 6
i          7 8
9
!          10 i          11 12 i
13 l
I          14 15 16 17 18
!          19 20 I
21 i
22                                                                            I i                                                                                        l
,          23 24 25 l
.                  Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois    60134 (312) 232-0262 - - .          _ - . _ _ _ _
 
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This  is  to certify  that the      attached  proceedings  before the  UNITED  STATES  NUCLEAR    REGULATORY    COMMISSION  in  the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:        COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
DOCKET NO.:                50-456 OL, 50-457 OL PLACE:                    CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
.              DATE:                      TU'ESDAY,' OCTOBER 21, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)    /d/V (TYPED)              hh Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation G.
a
* Lch We e i er                            *e      p}}

Latest revision as of 15:14, 10 December 2024

Transcript of 861021 Hearing in Chicago,Il.Pp 15,020-15,270
ML20197B252
Person / Time
Site: Braidwood  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/21/1986
From:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#486-1353 OL, NUDOCS 8610280293
Download: ML20197B252 (250)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20197B252&oldid=4108514"