ML19209B805
| ML19209B805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1968 |
| From: | Beisel W, Bierman G, Bitting C, Bond J, Grimes B, Long C, Lowe W, Ross D, Ryan R, Shields W, Traffas W, Wascher R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910100601 | |
| Download: ML19209B805 (81) | |
Text
,
. 4,.
y,
~.
n (f.
v.. -
.w n;
.x
' _,3;,...,,.
/
.,,. \\ ';
y:
~,
. [. _,.;
. -~ ;
a
_ ~
i-rz, 9.*f!!2D STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
'I ~
- c',
~.
i S r3 r.y
_n _- = '-}Gh.
s
~'
r :..
,'r s,,,
... :. 1,.
.IN THE MATTER OF:
z.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) 3 c.
Docket No. 50-289 w
..,.,u
~.
Place - Middletown, Pennsylvania
4 Date - 11 April 1968 Pag es.3D2... 382
~
c 1:
~
9 DUPLICATION OR COPYING OF THIS TRANSCRIPT
,n.
BY PHOTOGRAPHIC. ELECTROSTATIC OR OTHER FACSIMILE MEANS IS PROHIBITED BY THE ORDER
- ~,
FORM AGREEMENT Tetaphone:
O
~
~.
] .
. ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. c.,l.
.m Official Reporters l
415 Seeand Street, N.E.
7
~ '2 Washington, D. C. 20002
.l k l 3' 2b9,
HATION. WIDE COVERAGE y.
-7910100[dj(
a.
_.. g
.n.
i WRB 302 CR #4976 1
UNITED STATES OF AERICA 9
2 ATO!!IC ENERGY CO!!IIISSION
(.
y________________
a 4
In the matter of S
ETROPOLITAN EDISON CO)1PANY Docket No. 50-289 6
(Three Mile Island Nuc1 car Station, Unit 1) 7*
0 Auditorium, 9
60 West Emaus Street, 10 Middletown, Pennsylvania, 11 Thursday, 11 April 1968.
12 Hearing in the abovo-ontitled matter was reconvened, 13 pursuant to recess, at 9:05 a.m.
14 j ' BEFORE:
19 J. D. EOND, Chairman, g
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
16 COL. REUEL C. STRATTON, Member.
17 DR. CLARIT WILLIA!E, Member.
18 APICARANCES:
19 (As herotofore noted.)
l 20
' 21 o
22 23 1413 ?70 24
wb 2 303 L
1 "M.SEIEE2E" 2
WITNESSES:
PAGE 3
For the Applicant:
304
{
4 Wilford B. Doisol, Jr.
5 Georgo F. Bierman 6
Carroll H. Bitting
(
7 Willinn W. LoJe 8
Robert F. Ryan 9
William B. Shiolds 10 Mayno H. Traffas il Robert E. Wascher I
f2 For the AEC Roguintory Stnff:
11 Charico G. Long It Brian K. Gritos r
15 Dontrood P. Rces I
16 17 EXHIBITS:
18 None.
19 i
20 L
2{
b..i g413 27I 22 23 i
M I
ebl 304 1
E B 9 2 E E E.I E 9. 2 2
CHAIRMAN BOND:
The hearing will be in session.
t 3
Whereupon.
4 WILFORD B. BEISEL, JR.,
5 GEORGE F. BIERMAN, 6
CARROLL H
- BITTING, lg 7
WILLIAM W. LOWE, 8
ROBERT F. RYAN, 9
WILLIAM B. SHIELDS, 10 WAYNE H. TRAFFAS, and 11 ROBERT E. WASCHER r
la on behalf of the Applicant, and 13 CHARLES G. LONG, 14 BRIAN K. GRIMES, and 15 DENWOOD F. ROSS f
16 op behalf of the AEC Regulatory Staff 17 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, j
18 were examined and testified further as follows:
L, 10 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Are there any preliminary matters?
20 MR. CHARNOFF:
No;. sir.
21 CHAIRMAN BOND:
If not, you may proceed, h
22 Mr. Engelhardt.
r 23 MR. ENGELHARDT:
At the conclusion of the session 24 yesterday, there were two matters unfinished regarding ques-tions raised by the Board regarding certain of the statements 25 1413 ?72
?
l eb2 305 1
made by the staff.
And I would lil:e at this time to respond 2
to those, and then we will go on with the direct exaninntion L
3 which we had begun at the close of yesterday's session.
l 4
The first item that we would like to cover is I
5 that the Chairman raised the question that we would like to 6
have the staff identify where in tho Safety Evaluation can 7
be found the six items in the ACRS letter applicable to the 8
Duke Power Station application.
We have identified where in 9
the application those six items can be found, and this morn-10 ing we are prepared and I will ask Mr. Long to identify 11 where in the Safety Evaluation thosa six items are covered.
12 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
13 I would just suggest that this may well be done l
14 with brevity by giving page references without extensively 15 identifying the points again, t
16 Proceed, Mr. Long.
17 MR. IONG :
Item 1, the ipspection of primary 18 systems, is covered on page 24 of our Evaluation, 19 The second item, quality assurance of primary j
20 system, is brought up on page 54 of the Safety Evaluation.
21 However, this does not speak explicitly to this item, only b.
22 that we have taken into account in evaluating the quali-23 fications of the applicant and his contractors the quality 9
24 assurance program that they have proposed, which I did refer-t 25 ence yesterday in the application.
1413 '73 t
eL3 306 1
The third item is the positive moderator coeffi-G 2
cient.
That is discussed at pago 10 of our Evaluntion.
3 The fuel rod failure nt the end of coro life is
,- ('
4 covered on page 43 of our Safety Evaluation.
5 And xeno. oscillations is covered at page 11 and d
6 52.
I 7
And tho approved linor wold inspection was not ek 8
mentioned in the Safety Evaluation.
g CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you, t
10 I havo one question which might be stated now:
I 11 In your conclusion, you lumped togethor your con-12 clusion concerning the applicant's qualifications by in-
[
l 13 cluding unnamed contractors.
This I noted, notwithstanding 14 that in the ultimate conclusion the principal contractors I
15 properly are omitted.
16 I would just like clarification as to what is 17 the staff's position or viewpoint concerning the applicant's 18 qualifications without expressly including the qualifica-I 19 tions also of the contractors or agents of the applicant.
20 Is my question clear?
21 MR, LONGt.- I believe,it'is.
()
22 We, of course, have assessed the Metropolitan l
23 Edison Company no the applicant and we do believe them to 24 be qualified to proceed with'the construction of this reactor.
25 However, they do have to rely on these other~ contractors in 5
eb4 307 1
order to get the work done.
But we do consider Metropolitan 2
Edison as a corporation to be qualified to do the job.
3 CHAIRMAN BOND:
We properly :nay conclude that i
4 your position is that you, for the staff, believe Metro-5 politan Edison, the applicant, to be fully qualified tech-6 ni~cally, and that belief is based upon an analysis and
~
7 study of the Metropolitan Edison group and also on your sur-8 voy and review of the qualifications of the identified 9
principal contractors who will do the work for the appli-10 cant.
Is this correct?
11 MR. LONG:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
13 MR. ENGELHARDT:
A second question raised by 14 the Board yesterday involved a request that we provide a 15 statement expressing the extent of the evaluation of the I
16 staff of the safety implications of the position which had 17 boca stated by the applicant with respect to a comment by
~
18 the ACRS in its letter, namely, consideration should be 19 given to the development and utilization of instrumentation a
i 20 for prompt detection of gross failure of a fuel element.
21 I would like to ask Mr. Long to comment on that b..
22 point.
h 23 MR. LONG:
I think the proper way to start off 14 is that the first time this particular comment came out in
[
25 an ACRS letter was in December on the Diablo Canyon case, 1413 175
ob5 308 I
and Metropolitan Edison. letter, of courso, followed in 2
the month of January.
3
{
The concern, as we understand it and the way we 4
are considering it, is that if a local failure in a fuel P
S assembly can propagate to cause -- that's where the words G
" gross failuro" como in -- of a fuol assembly, that is, a A
7 collection of rods rather than individuni fuel rods, that i
8 this is the thing we are looking for.
9 At the present time I might add that the whole 10 nuclear industry is currently facing this particular issue II and trying to develop, as B&W and the applicant spoke yes-12 torday about their scoping of the problem.' We are also 13 trying to work in this area.
I4 There is belief that there are systems cvailable 15 that can possibly do the job once the problem has been IO studied.
17 MR. ENGELHARITP:
Wo shall now continue with the 18 direct testimony of the staff with respect to the items of b
10 information roquested by the Bon 2tl at the pre-hearing non-t 20
- ference, 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
~
22 HR. CNGELHARDT:
During the prrrhearing confer-23 ence, tio Board expressed some interest in the significance --
in the use, I should say, of the word " identical" as it is F
25 t
applied to tue Motropolitan Edison Three Mile Island plant i
1413
?76 r
eb6 309 r
U' and the Duke Power Company plant.
I 2
air. Long will attempt to explain the significance 3
of the use of that word " identical".
4 P.R. LONG:
In our Safety Evaluation where the word 5
" identical" appears, we were referring to the nuclear steam 6
supply system only, and in this particular area there are 7
some basic difforonces between the Metropolitan Edison 0
reactor and the Duke Power Company, for example, but they 9
are not of major significance, i
10 For examplo, as the applicant points out in his 11 documents yesterday, 2-A through 2-K, I believe, thero is 12 the difference on the earthquake acceleration used for the 13 design of the plant, und tho other basically would be the 14 difference in the fuel enrichment to be used.
15 These again are not what we consider significant 1.6 differences.
17 And, of course, the major point is that wo be-L 18 lieve there may be minor variations from one plant to another
~
19 and we do not seek to imply the component parts would be 20 interchangeablo.
But in order to correctly put the thing 21 in perspective we might uoc the words "substantially iden-i
(
22 I
tical".
I 23 4,)$ 777 24
?.5 L
i P
i
jon1 310 2
1 COL. STRATTON:
Your use of the word, your 2
qualification of the word " identical," I still don't' O
("
believe semantically changes the picture at all.
4 The word " identical" regardless of how you qualify it, 5
means something that is exactly alike, whereas "similar"
~
6 means that it is similar, in the sense thatyou have two i
7 buildings that are similar, but one is five times the size 8
of the other, but they are of similar design but different 9
in size.
Where you use the word " identical" it is just 10 like the difference between twins.
You have fraternal 11 twins or you have identical twins.
r 12 NR. LONG:
Maybe I should use the word fraternal G.
13 twins.
I 14 COL STRATTON:
It still does not clarify the E
15 situation because similarity is not identical.
i
'16 MR. LONG:
I think maybe to help the situation, 17 in our use of this word we are really relating it at the
~
18 construction permit stage to the design criteria, design t
t 19 basis being used for the development and design of the 2J nuclear steam supply system.
We are not trying to relate 21 ourselves to the specific nuts and bolts that may well be
(.
22 used when the final design is submitted.
This is where the t
23 major misunderstanding is, I believe.
The use of the word 24 "similar" or something like this -- it means the same as far F
25 as we are concerned.
l 1413 278
jon2 311 I
COL. STRATTON:
I am sorry, but you can cay 2
orally it rneans the same, but the ninute you put it down 3
{
on paper it does not mean the same.
When you use the word L
4
" identical" it means you can take any of the corrponents of 5
Oconee and immediately put it into !!etropolitan Edison.
6 When you say "similar" I will go along with it.
l 1
7 In your analysis where you say." nuclear steam
~
8 supply system is identical" it means that it is exactly 9
the same, and that I find difficulty in believing.
10 Now, if you nay -- and I think you have described 11 it without apparently wanting to withdraw the word " identical" 12 and substitute the word "similar" --
13 MR. LONC:
We have no real problem with withdrawing 14 theword"idenkical."
15 COL. STRATTON:
I am only taking what is in the IS public eye.
17 MR. LONG:
We would be glad to correct that on
~
18 the record, to remove the word " identical" and substitute 19 the word "similar."
20 COL. STRATT0ll:
I think that your expression 21 would be considerably better.
I have no doubt that I know
(
22 personally what you mean in this discussion, but if I should 23 walk into the public document room and pick this up and read 24 it, or technically observe it, not necessarily sitting here, I
25 then I would assume it would be like the le-1 rifle, say, t
1413
?79
jon3 312 L
1 where you get roplacemont parts that fit exactly.
2 MR. LONG:
We will avoid that in the future.
3 MR. ENGELHARDT:
The Board also requested that p
4 the staff identify recent pressurized water reactor designs 5
which the staff in its testimony stated were not unlike the 6
Babcock and Wilcox design for this reactor.
t i
7 Mr. Grimes will respond to that inquiry.
8 MR. GRIMES:
The reactors that we were referring 9
to include the Turkey Point design and the Indian Point 2 j
10 reactors, and as a matter of fact, a comparison is made in 11 the PSAR in Table 1-2 to these other two designs.
12 The one poi.nt of difference is the once-through 13 steam generator.
And as I stated yesterday, we think that 14 the development program proposed will provide a catisfactory r
15 system.
CHAIRMINBOND:
Who provided the nuclear steam 16 17 supply to the facilities you have mentioned?
10 MR. GRIMES:
The Westinghouse Corporation.
f-19 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
20 MR. ENGELHARDT:
We were requested also to L
21 Present to the Board additional information regarding the h
2R Persons on the regulatory staff responsible for the develop-F 23 ment of the Safety Evaluation and information on those who I
24 contributed to its development as well as the extent to 25 which there was overlap of the staff members and staff work, 1413 ?80
jon4 313 1
between the Duke Power Company facility and the Three Mile 2
Island facility.
3 Mr. Long will provide some additional information
{
4 with regard to this inquiry.
5 MR. LONC:
The Division of Reactor Licensing 6
under Mr. Price has the responsibility for review, evaluation, 7
of Proposed facility designs presented in the applications.
O Reactor Project Branch No. 3 of which I am chief was assigned 9
Primary responsibility for the review through the Assistant 10 Director for Reactor Projects.
11 The scope and content of the review were formulated 12 by the project leader, in this case Mr. Brian Grimes, and 13 he reports to me.
14 Assignments for detailed review of certain areas 15 such as instrumentation design were formulated by Mr. Grimes, 16 approved by the Division management and given to four branches jy in the reactor technology group, and one branch in the reactor jg operations group which are in the Division of Reactor Licensing.
jg All of these branches report to Dr. Morris, who is t
20 Division Director.
21 When recuired, assistance is elso requested from b
the Division of Reactor Standards. The project leader 1s-22 I
responsible for the completion of the overall review and for 2S coordination of detailed reviews, including obtaining additional 24 I
inf rmation from the applicant when necessary and obtaining 25 1413 281
jons 314 L
I assistance from consultants.
2 When the reviews were completed the project 3
leader prepared a report which was reviewed by myself l
p 4
and by the Assistant Director of Peactor Projects, Roger 5
Boyd.
The concurrence of the reactor technology groups 6
and their assistant director was also obtained in their 7
appropriate review areas.
8 During the course of the review we did serve as 9
the staff of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguaras, l
10 When we received the advice of the ACRS in this case we b
11 prepared and issued our Safety Evaluation.
(2 The previous and similar application of Duke 13 Power Company for three nuclear units at its Oconee Nuclear 14 Station was also reviewed in this manner.
The project 15 leader Mr. Grimes, Assistant Director Mr. Boyd and myself i
16 all performed the same functions on the Duke applicatiors as 17 on the Metropolitan Edison application.
MR. ENGELHARDT:
The next item that the Board 18 g
jg expressed interest in is that the staff clarify its position 20 with respect to the staff fol' low-through on the items identified 21 in the Safety Evaluation which the staff stated it understood (ff 22 the applicant would undertake.
L 23 Before we respond to that inquiry, I would like 24 to direct several questions to the applicant which would assist, I think, in tying to our subsequent testimony the 23 1413 282
L jon6 315 r
1 it. tent of these statcments.
2 I think it is a fair statement that certain of 3
the information which we understood that the applicant would I
4 provido were based on statements of the applicant provided 5
during meetings with the applicant in connection with the 6
staff's review of this application.
7 In some instances these statements were not set 8
forth subsequently in any written document, but the staff l
9 would, of course, intend to follow through on such statements L
10 made by the applicant and fully anticipate holding them to 11 what our underutandings are.
12 However, for the purpuce of this record, and to 13 clarify the point, we would like to identify four items in 14 the staff's safety Evaluation on which we would like to get 15 confirmation from the applicant as to whether our under-t end2 16 standing is in fact correct.
- 3 17 CHAIRMAN BOND:
- Proceed, s
[
18 MR. ENGELHARDT:
Mr. Neidig, may I direct these 19 questions to you?
20 I refer you to page 20 of the staff's Safety i
21 Evaluation.
I refer you to the middle full paragraph
(,
22 beginning "The final trip circuit of the proposed reactor j
23 Protection system consists of a single DC bus fed from two station batteries.
Any event which would prevent deenergizing 24 25 the bus would prevent all rods from dropping.
The ACRS has 6
L
\\
jon 316 1
recommended that the system be revised.
We understand that 2
the applicant will comply with this request by splitting the 3
the bus into a number of sections so that the failure of one 4
bus to release its rods will not prevent a reactor scram."
5 Mr. Neidig, is our understanding correct with 6
respect to the intent of the applicant?
7 MR. NEIDIG:
May I call on Mr. Wascher to respond 8
to your question?
g MR. WASCHER:
Yes, your understanding is correct.
10 CHAIRMAN BOND:
The applicant will do that?
Is that correct?
11 t
12 MR. WASCHER:
Yes, sir.
MR. ENGELHARDT:
I nou refer you to page 21 of 13 14 the Safety Evaluation.
I refer you to the last full para-15 graph on that page reading " Reactivity is also controlled 16 by a permissive system which allows manual dilution of the primary system coolant boron concentration when a particular g7 control rod group reaches a fully withdrawn position.
Dilution 18 is automatically terminated when the rod group, driven down 19 20 by the servo, reaches a prescribed position, or when the f
integrated dilution flow has reached a preset maximum.
We 21 t
understand that these circuits will be designed in accordance
(
g with protection s.ystem standards and no single failureui.ll 23 Prevent automatic termination of dioution."
24 f
Mr. Neidig, would you confirm the accuracy of our g
}k})
_bi e
30' 317 1
understanding with respect to that matter?
2 MR. NEIDIG:
I would like to have Mr. Wascher 3
respond to that also.
4 HR. WASCHER:
Again, the staff understanding is 5
correct.
6 COL. STRATTON:
This wording says protection 6
7 system standards.
Now, what standards?
t-8 MR. WASCHER:
'there is a standard.
g COL. STRATTON:
IEEE?
10 MR. WASCHER:
Yes, sir.
11 MR. ENGELHARDT:
I refer you now to page 30 of 12 the Safety Evaluation.
I refer you to the paragraph 13 identified as 4.6, seismic design.
14 "The applicant has proposed to base the seismic 15 design of the containment building on assumed ground 5
16 accelerations of 0.06 g for Vae design, and 0.12 g for f
gf the maximum earthquake.
The response spectrum proposed is a combination of the Golden Gate and El Centro recorded 18 L.
ig spectra and is satisfactory to our seismic design consultants, Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services, as long 20 as the design corresponds to the envelope of the two spectra.
21 We understand that the applicant intends to conform to this G.
q 23 requirement, Mr. Neidig, would you confirm that that is your y
understanding and that is what your intent is?
25 1413 285
jon9 318 1
NR. NEIDIG:
I will call on Mr. Carroll Bitting 2
of Gilbert Associates to respond to your question.
r 3
MR. BITTING:
Your understanding is correct.
The r
4 soismic design will correspond to the envelope of the two f
5 stated spectra.
r 6
MR. ENGELHARDT:
Thank you.
7 Finally, I would refor you to pago 32 of the Safety '
8 Evaluation, the second full paragraph, reading 'The 9
l penotration pressurization system will be activated by 10 an engineered safety feature actuation signal.
We under-il stand that it will oporate on an air reserve tank at about 12 60 psi."
13 Mr. Neidig, would you confirm that undorstanding i
14 of the staff?
15 MR. NEIDIG:
Mr. Wayne Traffte of Gilbert 16 Associates will respond to your question.
17 MR. TRAFFAS:
Your understanding of this is cor-18 rect.
It will be approximately 60 psi.
{
19 There are further safety features that will include 20 valves that will be brought into this system to provide over-21 pressure protection for the penetration themselves.
This
- (
22 would prevent over-pressurization and leakage of the con-23 tainment atmosphore to the environment.
24 MR. ENN:
Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Does that complete your questioning?,
L 1
1413 286
jon 319 1
MR. ENGELHARDT:
That completes our questioning 2
of the applicant.
3
(.
I would like to ask Mr. Long to provide some 4
further comment with respect to the follow-through.
5 CHAIRMAN BOND:
We should like to hear that 6
before leaving this.
7 However, I would like to ask one or two questions.
8 Mr. Neidig, you have responded to these questions 9
and I call upon your people to provide answers.
Do you 10 as a responsible officer of Metropolitan Edison adopt 11 the answers made from the people whom you have nominated t
12 and recognize thot,e as commitments and obligations of the 13 applicant in this proceeding?
14 MR. NEIDIG:
Yes, I do.
r 15 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
16 MR. ENGELHARDT:
I would like to call on Mr. Long 17 to provide some further comments regarding the follow-L' 18 through that will be undertaken by the staff with regard 19 to these items, t
20 MR. LONG:
The phrase "we understand" is used in 21 our Safety Evaluation on pages 20, 21, 22, 30, 32, 38 and 40.
Q 22 Four of these were just discussed with the applicant.
23 In addition, the phrase "we have been informed" 24 is use'd on page 39.
L 25 In each instance the information following that 1413 287
jon 320 i
1 phrase was vital to our evaluation of that aspect of the 2
facility, but had not been formally documented at that time.
3 In each case we will required conformance of our 4
present understanding at the operating license stage.
I 5
Of course if a different means of meeting the i
6 same safety objectives is proposed in the final design, 7
the operating license review stage, this would be reviewed.
8 Present approval, however, is contingent upon the app'licant's 9
complying with our stated understending.
10 Now, for guidance of the Board, we have cross-11 referenced these areas, other than the four just covered, 12 to where the applicant is either responding in his summary 13 statement or where it is related in the application and PSAR, 14 if you would care to have this.
15 The item of understanding appearing on page 22 10 relating to cold shutdown capability is addressed to by the 97 applicant in his summary on page 17 and-in PSAR Volume 4, the answer to Question 18.2.
18 The item appearing on page 38 of our evaluation 19 about the loss of more than one check valve is in the 20 21 application in Volume 4, in the answer to Question 16.4 The item on page 39 of our evaluation relating to
([
22 the check valve vibration test is addressed to by the 23 y
applicant in his summary at page 27.
The item on page 41 dealing with the spray test 25 ik\\b
jon 321 b
I high temperatures, the containment spray test high 2
temperatures is covered by the applicant in their summary 3
on page 28.
t 4
That covers all of the items.
k L
5 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Let me ask one or two questions 6
in that connection.
7 It is my understanding from what has been said i.
O that in a summary sense where the staff's Safety Evaluation 9
uses these phrases "we understand," "we believe,"'lt is 10 understood",and the like,that indeed that means that where I
it the applicant in its application has made commitments 32 that the criteria or commitments that are there discussed 13 will be imposed and made requirements by the staff upon the 14 applicant, and that the staff's ultimate judgment of safety
~
33 rests on these assumptions and showings.
16 Is this a fair summary of the staff's position?
g7 MR. LONG:
Yes, that is correct.
l.
18 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Does the applicant so understand 19 its obligations?
I 20 MR. NEIDIG:
Yes, sir.
21 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
' ({ j 22 HR ENGELHARDT:
The applicant, in a group of 23 questions presented as testimony yesterday, presented an 24 answer to one question identified as 2-I which read " Describe 25 the current status of each of the research and development 1413 ?89
jon 322 L
1 items and its schedule for completion."
2 In light of this testimony the staff has some 3
g-additional comments in response to this inquiry which 4
originated by the Board in the pre-hearing conference, f
5 I would like to ask Mr. Long to provide additional 6
comment -- excuse me, Mr. Grimes.
7 MR. GRIMES:
As respects the research and develop-8 ment, we recognize that this is currently going on, that 9
certain phases have been completed by the applicant.
10 However, as I stated yesterday in my summary statement, we 11 cannot conclude that these problems have been completely 12 resolved until we have received and evaluated the results 13 of the work.
And so we must list these as research and I
14 development items until such time as we get complete informa-15 tion and have evaluated the results of the programs.
16 17 t
18 l.
19 1413 90 20 21
(
22 f
23 9
?.4 V
25 i
r
- 4 ebl 323 1
COL. STRATTON:
Along the line of the research 2
and development program, I assumo -- or recall some stato-3 ments made by counsel for the applicantthat the fulfillment
" (-
4 date,at which time the reactor.would be completed, the 5
electricity produced,is not too far distant when it is 6
compared to some of the other reactors which have been re-7 viewed by Boards, et cetera.
8 Do you believe that the research and development 9
program can progress sufficiently rapidly to permit fulfill-10 mont of this termination date as previously described?
11 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
We have evaluated these prog-12 rams with that specific thing in mind, that they can be 13 completed by the time of the operating license review.
14 CHAIRMAN BOND:
What are the posolble alterna-15 tives should that expectation not be realized?
16 MR. GRIMES:
That would vary from case to case.
17 In most cases there would be other means of achieving the
[
18 same objective.
In some cases it would be conceivable I I.
19 suppose that something might come up that would cause us to e
20 not license the plant until that point had been resolved.
21 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Are there others?
22 MR. GRIMES:
Not that I can think of.
F 23 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Nothing that might involved re-24 duced power limits?
t 25 MR. GRIMES:
That would be a,possible alternative, i
1413 ?91
h eb2 324 G
1
- yes, p,
CIU.IRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
3
' (-
MR. ENGELHARDT:
We have one final point that we f
4 would like to identify here, 5
During tb pro-hearing conference the Board ex-6 pressed some concern in connection with the research and 7
development program, that perhaps the sodium thiosulphato i-e 8
program at Oak Ridge was not strictly under control of the 9
applicant, and that thora appeared to be no assurance that 10 such a program could be completed.
l It And I think I would like to ask Mr. Long if he 12 would comment on that point to provide the Board with some 13 additional information.
I4 MR. LONG:
We also had the same consideration and 15 in our 1ctter to the appliennt of November 22nd, 1967, we 16 did request that they respond to this, and he did so.
And 17 it is located in Volume 4, in the answer to Question 17.4, 10 and I may quote from that.
In that he states:
i.
19 "We may indicate those experiments 20 which you believe will be carried out by other f
programs but you should indicate clearly your 22 responsibility of obtaining nocessary data in D
caso programs other than your own do not produce 9
24 conclusivo results."
25 And the applicant responded to this by stating
} k } 3.b 2
.. w --.
eb3 325 1
that they would take that responsibility.
2 CHAIRMAN LOND:
Do you concur, Mr. Neidig?
3
(
MR. NEIDIG:
Yes, sir.
4 MR. ENGELHARDT:
Mr. Chairman, I believe that r
5 completes tho staff's direct testinony.
6 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Is thoro cross-examination, or E-7 tro thoro questions on behalf of the applicant?
8 MR. CHARNOFF:
No, sir.
L 9
CHAIt?tdAN BOND:
Gen. Gross, on bohalf of the L
10 Commonwealth of Pcunsylvania, do you have comments or ques-11 tions?
12 GEN. GROSS:
No, sir, 13 CHAIR!.!AN BOND:
The matter of fission product 14 inventory was left for some further discussion, and I be-15 lieve the initiative there rests upon a nominated witness 16 for the applicant.
17 I believe wo also stated a request for some 18 comment from the staff.
IS Have you considered that Mr. Long or Mr. Grimos?
20 MR. LONG:
I think if I remember correctly yes-21 terday, it was left that the applicant had a number or two 22 to generate.
We wore in general agroemont with what he 23 stated in those documents, 2-A through 2-K, plus the way it I
was revised in the record, t
25 We have looked at this in general in relating to 1413 293 r
eb4 326 1
any PWR, not necessarily the Metropolitan Edison, and there-a fore it does not appear in our Safety Evaluation because 3
we believe the situation is such that there is no problem 4
associated with the release of tritium to the water.
5 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Have you for the staff examined L
6 the gross product inventory and have you seen the quantativs 7
figures upon possible release rates in the effluent?
~
8 MR. LONG:
As far as the fission products are 9
concerned, the applicant has addressed himself to this in L
10 the application relating to his evaluation of what 1 percent 11 failfuel might lead to in the primary system.
We may not P
12 be in total agreement with each of these numbers but in 13 general, we are in agreement with these numbers and have 14 reviewed them to assure ourselves that excessive concentra-15 tion of radioisotopes would not wind up, either by acciden-16 tal release or other means into the public domain of gases J
17 or liquids.
18 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Have you examined quantative 19 figures?
20 MR. LONG:
Yes, we did look at them.
As I said, 21 we don't agree precisely with each number but in general b
22 we do agree with what he has proposed.
23 CHAIRMAN BOND:
I will address this question for 24 any answer:
Where are those numbers?
25 Any witness nominated may respond.
-)] 4 f
I
eb5 327 1
MR. NEIDIG:
Mr. Chairman, may I call on 2
Mr. Traffas to respond here to your question?
3 MR. TRAFFAS:
Mr. Chairman, in the PSAR in l (
4 Section 11 I believe you will find these numbers.
5 MR. LONG:
Page 11-24 of that section.
6 MR. TRAFFAS:
Table 11-3, and this is also the 7
table that I referred to yosterday in response to your 8
earlier inquiry on the fission products inventory.
9 At this time I am also prepared to respond to 10 your quantative numbers that you asked for yesterday in 11 regard to the tritium release.
r 12 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Please do.
I 13 MR. TRAFFAS:
Based on an equilibrium tritium 14 concentration of 25 microcuries per cc in the roactor 15 coolant, the resulting concentration due to tritium in the 16 plant discharge would 0.35 of MPC based on an average ' annual L
17 discharge rate of 200,000 gallons per year, 18 This is equivalent to an average discharge rate j
f.
19 of 0.62 millicuries per second.
t 20 This concentration does not take into account 21 the further dilution by the river and is furtherInsed on the 22 assumption that all the tritium formed by the fission process l
23 is released through the zirconium clad.
Actually it is expected that only a fraction of the tritium will be re-25 leased from the fuel pins, 1413 295
ob6 328 eb6 L
1 Cr3IRMAN BOND:
My curiosity may be about an 2
irrelevant matter but translating these porcentages of MPC's 3
and microcuries per second quantatively, what do they come 4
'out an?
6 5
MR. TRAFFAS:
I am not sure I fully understand 6
your question.
7 CHAIRMAN BOND:
I really believe that.
I'm not 8
s.tre I do.
9 (Laughter.)
10 What in gross would be the annual release on 11 this -- we may call -- incredible assumption which you made t
12 to derive your percentage of MPC figures?
13 Do you understand that question?
l 14 MR. TRAFFAS:
You are asking, I believe, then for I
15 the total number of curies attributable to tritium that would 16 be discharged in a year, based on our average annual dis-17 charge rate of 200,000 gallons.
Is this correct?
' #5 18 CHAIRMAN BOND:
I believe yes, that is what I
[
19 asked, without impi g that all members of the Board con-20 cur in the view that that question should be asked.
Is 21 the answer convenient, or conveniently achiovable?
f- (
22 MR. TRAFFAS:
Mr. Chairraan, as I stated earlier, 23 this discharge is.35 of the limits of the 10 CFR 20 which 24 amounts to, in a yearly total curio dose, of 17000.
I 25 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
)h\\b
eb7_
329 1
Now one other:
2 What is the MPC limit which gave you your point?
3 MR. TRAFFAS:
Three timos 10 to the minus three.
g-4 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
5 MR. TRAFFAS:
Mr. Chairman, as a point of clari-6 fication for your understanding, this assumption here in 7
the calculations that wo have done is based on that all of 8
the primary coolant that no would lot down out of the 9
system in reducing the boron content would be released to F
10 the river.
This, however, is not our intention of our mode 11 of operation.
12 I think this should be clear for the record.
13 CHAIRMAN BOND:
Thank you.
It was clear in my
[
14 mind.
That's why I stated the question, making this assump-15 tion.
16 We are not skeptical about that.
17 It is apparent that the presentation of evidence on behalf of each of the participants is now complete 18 19 except that the subject of Amendments 8, 9, and 10 will bc 20 considered in a supplementary prosentation on behalf of the 21 staff.
22 Is tint where we are, gentlemen?
}4 297 23 MR. ENGELHARIyr: Yes, sir. 24 MR. CHARNOFF; Yes, sir. t 25 CHAIRMAN BOND: And there appear to be no questions t
eb8 330 '1 on behalf of the parties.. And accordingly at this time it 2 might be helpful for Item 18 on the suggested agenda to come 3 {- before us, and that is entitled " Questioning of the witnesses 4 by Board members". S Colonel Stratton? 6 COL. STRATTON: Mr, Neidig, I would like to dis-7 cuss document 2-B and 2-C as presente6 yesterday. t 8 This was prepared, I feel quite certain, to pre-9 face what I asked earlier -- or that the Board asked during 10 the pre-hearing conference, and it does produce a much 6 11 better kindergarten display of the control rod than I was 12 able to read from the PSAR myself. 13 However, there is still some question in my mind. f4 Referring to this drawing, this sketch, rather, t 15 there are two arrows, one pointing toward the buffer seal 16 and another pointing away from the buffer seal. Would you t 17 tell me what this is supposed to indicate?. ~ 18 ' MR. NEIDIG: I will call on Mr. Robert Ryan 19 from Babcock and Wilcox to respond to your question. F 20 MR, RYAN: Those arrows, Colonel, are to describe 21 in a kindergarten inshion the buffer seal water flowing into J 22 the seal and the water flowing out of the seal p 23 COL, STRATTON: That's from an external force? 24 MR. RYAN: Yes, sir. ]4}3 298 25 COL. STRATTON: In other words, the primary b
eb9 331 I coolant which goes up along tho rod and through the cross-2 over to the mitre gears coming up as far as the seal is non-3 (- circulatory, non-circulating? 4 MR. RYAN: That is correct. The leakago of the 5 first arrow on the left-hand side of the buffor seal, thero I 6 is about 15 gallons an hour of water flowing into the seal, f-7 and some 10 to 12 or 14 porcent of that water goes down-t 6 ward. There should indeed be an arrow for water flowing 9 down into tle primary system. 10 COL, STRATTON: So in reality the primary coolant II in this control rod assembly is relatively stagnant? II MR RYAN: Yes, sir, 13 COL. STRATTON: In tho ovent of a scram of any 14 sort -- I don't care whether it is genuino or spurious -- r 15 you rely on the weight of the control rod assembly to, l 16 through the rack and pinion, operate the mitre gear and 17 operate the shaft up through the buffer soal to the point IO of disconnection by the magnetic clutch. t IO MR. RYAN: Yes, sir. 20 t COL. STRATTON: Now the question that I have: 21 Under the most adverse conditions at the end of (;; - 22 r a recycle run which you may have scheduled, the possibility 23 of settlement -- not settlement but crudding out in the l 24 mitre gear, in the bearings and what-have-you, is the force [ 25 developed by gravity on the rod and rod assembly sufficient 1413 ?99
eblo 332 i to ovorcono all the resistanco in this train and still 2 function within the time that is required to perform a 3 ( satisfactory scram? 4 MR. RYAH; Colonel, wo perfornod a lifetino test 5 on this thing whero we have tried to raise the water in the L 6 system, if you will, in a short period of timo but run tho 7 rod system through its prescribed nunbor of strokes for a 8 comploto lifetime. And as so, wo havo found that the scram 9 time at the end of this ontended lifetime period is the 10 samo or better than the ono at the beginning. 11 COL.STRATTON: That simulatos in your test actual 12 coolant water saline over a ninimum or maximum amount of 13 tino would be an exorciso cyclo for the control rod asson-14 bly? 15 MR. RYAN: Yes, sir. 16 COL. STRATTON: I don't want to be accused of l 17 making a do novo review, Mr, Chairman, but this I think s-18 was important to bring out y 1-19 CHAIRMAN BOND: 17 9 have one moro question which 20 is,d_o, novo, perhaps. o 21 In your tests which you described, how did you 22 provide for or allow for such hydraulic forcos as might 23~ bo existant in a loss of coolant situations? 24 MR. RYAN: Those tests would not duplicate a 25~ loss of coolant situation, Mr. Bond. Those tosts were only 1413 300
ebli 333 1 F 1 performod at the normal operating temperaturce and pressures, 2 the normal intended pressures and temporatures that this 3 ( rod drivo system will soo during its normal course of life, F 4 hopefully without any loss of coolant accident. 5 But the loss of coolant accidont temperature 6 and pressure conditions were not simulated in this test. 7 CHAIlWAN DOND: Tho difficulty in doing that is t. 8 very big. It's undorstandable. 9 Ylhat if anything did your calculationc~ indicate L 10 as to whether such probable forces in that situation would 11 be favorable or unfavorable to rod drop? 12 MR. RYAN: The calculations show that the rod 13 will indeed drop in. Howovor, I don't think we made the 14 calculations to indicate that the time would be in accordance 15 with what one would normally have without the loss of 16 coolant accident. 1J CHAIRMAN BOND: Mr. Long, could you contribute I 18 comment as to tho staff's view on this matter? F. 19 MR. LONG: I think what Mr, Ryan has stated as 20 far as the performance of the rod drive is concerned, we 1 21 perfectly agree with what ho said. As far as the forces 22 exerted on the control drive or the control rod drive } 3 mechanism during the loss of coolant accident, the applicant O has analyzod this situation assuming various failures in b [ the rod drive housing or in the seals, and we believo has 1413 301
- - = _ eb12 334 1 demonstrated that the rod will indood overcome those forces. 2 CHAIRMAN BOND: And that the timo throughout 3 would not be so affected so as to adversely affect the 4 safe shutdown? MR. LONG: Not adversely. 6 COL. STRATTON: Concerning document 2-D which is [- 7 the response to a question aroused by the statement in the 8 PSAR, concerning to what extent the reactor vessel would be 9 capable of direct and remote inspection after commencement p 10 of operation. 11 I am prompted to ask, particularly in view of f 12 the last sontence, whether or not within the last year or 13 within the foreseeable future that you believe better equip-14 mont will be developed to permit remote inspection in the t 15 sense that it will give bettor resolution to magnification 16 so that one can detect incipient crackings at an earlier 17 stage? 18 MR. NEIDIG: Mr. Beisel of B&W will respond, j 19 MR. BEISEL: There are various programs underway 20 to develop equipment which might be useful for such inspec-21 tion. However, at the moment our concept of the possible "( 22 inspections to be performed would be remote visual inspec-23 tions by means of equipment presently available such as a G 24 television camera or remote optical device, such as a peri-25 scope or a boroscope. 1413 302
..-..._t-..- eb13 335 1 There is no equipment to our knowledge beyond 2 this point of application for intpection of the reactor l
- 5 3
- vessel, p.
4 L 5 6 7 8 t 9 10 r 11 13 303 '2 13 14 i 15 i i 16 17 ,~ 18 19 20 r 21 t (J 22 i
- e 25 L
336 c1
- 6 1
COL. STRATION: That is the reason I asked the 2 question. I am f amilhar with the device which you. named. 3 I am interested because your cite. tion sort of indicated f( f 4 progress in this field. As to whether or not your work 5 was going to permit botter inspection of a vossel during 6 its lifetime, particularly when you say that the interior 7 can't be examined, that the internals have been removed. 8 What you are really telling me is that at the ~ 9 present time you are relying on present-time equipment, 10 but it is hoped that bettor equipment might be forthcoming. 11 MR. BEISEL: I think that is ossentially correct. 12 What we have done is made provision in the design 3 of both the reactor vessel's internals and the equipment F 14 external to the vessel and the annulus around the vessel 15 so that there is sufficient space to use presently-available 16 means for such reactor vessel inspections as may be found i 17 necessary, and that there may also be space for such 18 future developments as may becomo availablo and as may f. 19 be necessary. 20 COL, STRATION: Mr. Neidig,.I would like to 21 pursue the question of quality control during fabrication. 22 MR. NEIDIG: I will call on Mr. Biermaq, of i 23 Metropolitan Edison Company, to respond. 24 COL. STRAT' ION: My question is: ljaveyou 25 begun fabrication of this vessel? ( [ 1413 504
337 c2 1 MR. BIERMAN: Yes. 9 2 COL. STRATTON: Is it in the same shop in which 3 the fabrication of the Oconeo vessel was also fashionod? 4 MR. BIERMAN: Mt. Vernon, Indiatta. The vessel 5 is in Mt. Vernon, Indiana. 6 COL. STRATTON: Are the two vessels at the same 7 shop, the Oconeo vessel and the Three Mile vessel? t 8 MR. BIERMAN: I think so, yes. 9 COL. STRATTON: Bas the same construction crew, i 10 shop crew, been working on the vessels separately or are 11 they interchangeable? 13 MR. BIERMAN: I think there is a degree of inter-13 changeability. i 14 I would like some help from Mr. Boisel, if I 15 may. ?6 C11 AIRMAN BOND: The Board would appreciate your i 17 getting such help as you may need to change your statements 18 from what you think to what you know. 19 Md.BIERMAN: I think so. ' 20 MR. NEIDIG: May I ask Mr. Beisel to respond to 21 that point. (r 22 MR. BEISEL: May I ask that the question be re-L 23 stated, please?
- 9 24 COL. STRATTON:
In your fabrication of the Oconee 25 vessel and the Three Mile Metropolitan Edison vessel, is 1413
- 05
338 c3 t l I the same fabrication crew used, or are the welders inter-t 2 changeable and the riggers interchangeablo, does one crew 3 work on one vessel and then on the other? 4 I have a reason for asking this, I assure you. E 5 MR. BEISEL: I would like to consult with one i 6 of our back-up people, p' lease. 7 (Pause.) 8 MR. BEISEL: I want to clarify the exact shop 9 procedure involved. There is no assignment of specific 10 groups of people who build a specific vessel. They do 11 specific functions; that is, the welders involved in a 12 weld on one of the Oconcevessels could very likely be the 9 13 same welders performing a wold on the Three Mile Island t 14 vessel. The welders are identified and they are known and L 15 their qualifications are available, but there is no attempt 16 to segregate groups of people in the shop to build a c l 17 particular vessel. 18-COL. STRATTON: In other words, your fabrication 19 practices are probably the same as they have been for the L 20 past two or three years? t 21 MR. BEISEL: As far as the control of manpower' c-22 to perform the functions necessary to build the vessel, yes. I 23 COL. STRATION: Would your answer be the same if 24 I asked you concerning non-destructive testing? 25 MR. BIEREMN: I would have used the expression 1413 506
339 c4 9 1 "I believe". 2 COL. STRATTON: Have shop practicos changed in 3 the past year as far as non-dostructive testing of such L 4 vessels is carried out? 5 MR. BIERMAN: Shop practicos arc, to some degree, p' 6 in a stato of change to continue to improve the product. 7 g. Now, if you havo roference to a particular type of nt n-3 dostructive tost, I could moro accuratoly answer whether 9 that has changed in the last year or not. 10 COL. STRA?rON: Well, now I come to the "hookor" 11 question. 12 At a conference in Washington at rihich BTR was 13 present on the Oconce unit, the Advisory Copmittee emphasized t f 14 the importanco of quality assurance in fabrication, par-I 15 ticularly in the fabrication of the primary system, and then i 16 seven months later, with probably the same representatives 17 present, they considered the Metropolitan Edison application. 18 You made no mention of the necessity of quality assurance in - 19 fabrication. My chief interost is: What havo you done in r. 20 your factory to eliminate that previous recommendation so 21 that it did not apply to another vossol of the same character-t 22 1stics produced in tho same shop? 23 MR. BIERMAN: May I ask a question? You have 24 asked what have wo donc as a group to climinato the pro-p 25 VKsion of the ACRS letter. 1413 307
340 c5 1 COL. STRATTON: What has the applicant, this q 2 applicant, donc in excess of what Duho Power did in their s 3 application to change the picture in a shop in which two 4 vessels which are similar or identical are being fabricated, i 5 one sovon months previous, the ACHS request for quality L' 6 control having boon sovon months lator they are not pressing 7 for quality control; my question, what does the fabricator 8 do to clarify this situation? 9 MR. NEIDIG: Mr. Boiscl will answer that question, 10 Colonel Stratton, 11 MR, BEISEL: We have been conferring here to l 12 determino that to our knowledge our quality control and 13 quality assurance program have been available to the ACRS. t 14 We do not knort specifically what they might have donc in l 15 the interim to indicate that this statomont was no longer t 16 necessary in the Throc Milo Island report. 17 COL. STRATTON: You sco the other sido of the 18 coin of that statement is that at the time of the review t, 19 of the Oconce vessel, it indicated the deficiency and then, 20 sovon months later, in the review of this, because of the 21 lack of a recommendation, it indicated that the deficiccuy E 22 had boon clarified, and that was my reason for bringing it F 23 up. 24 I would point out to vou, Mr. Noidig, as well as E 23 your panel, that the reason that the Board appeared to bc 1413 508
A o6 341 1 5,ang into this with an oxtromely fino-tooth coub 1a becauso 2 in the devolopmont of an application to tho point whoro you 3 [ ( have the construction permit, the first timo any signature 4 apponre on any picco of papor authorizing this is whon the 5 Board has to sign off, hao to put their thrco namos to it, ~ 6 and thoroforo in making this rovioit no havo to be positivo 7 that the data provided, ovon on the bcmio of reforence to f 8 other applications, particularly when it involvos tho onmo 9 contractor, io clarified. 10 I truct you understand the purpose of this, Mr. 11 Noidig. 12 MS. NEIDIG: Yos, I unduistand. 13 DR. WILLIAM 3: I have a question. Juot to clarify 14 my understanding: I think this docunont, 3-i, is excollout 15 and it answorg acet of the quostions that I had on this, but 16 as a question of clarification I jus t wanted to kumf: It 17 refore several'ttees that if nocesse.ry, if the indopondent 10 engineering audit, which I assumo uop1d be by 01 thor Motro-o 19 politan Edison's staff or also by raferonce tin MPR Associatos ( 20 as being tho two indopendent onos. It says thLt if required 21 they can stop the work, but it is :ot clear to so as to whether 22 or not the engineering auditor can stop tho work or whether 23 he has to go up to the projoot manager to have the project manager stop the work. 1413 509 24 25 MR. BIERMANs Any quality assuranco function, n
c7 342 i 1 whethor by MP3 or Not-Ed, the field constructor or a 2 fabricator, will result in a stoppage if in the opinion 3 of the man inspocting at the timo ho dooms it is nocossary 4 ho rocommends it to myself or to our resident ougincor in 5 case it is a field-constructed proporty. The two of us 6 together reprosont project manaccmant and are able to stop 7 a job if in our opinion baeod on the rocommcodation they 8 make it is nocessary to correct the oituation. 9 DR. WILLIALTa: If you woro not availablo, could 10 he hold it up until ho got hold of you? 11 MR. BIERMAN: The roeident engincor will always 12 ' be available on the job ette. 13 DR. WILLIAM 3: All right, then thoro will always 14 he soincbody there? 15 MR. NUIDIG:- Right. Ho has that a,uthority. i 16 DR. WILLIAES: Right. Thank you. 17 But the resident ongineor is on the site? l 18 ER. BIER 1%N: H3 is on the site, yes. l. 19 DR. WILLIAnB: But supposing your officer was 20 . inspecting the pressuro vessel in the B&W shops, does he 21 have to tolephone to the resident engineer for you or cau 22 he say to BIR to hold it until we got satisfaction? 23 MR. DIEnlEN: I think they would dirscuss the 24 .possible corrective situations, 'and'1f a stoppago looked like 25 it was necessary to effect a correction,1 ton they would 1413 $10 r
c8 343 1 have to contact myself or a designated reprosentative to 2 stop the work. 3 g' - DH. WILLIAMS: In other words, the inspector does 4 not have the authority to -- 5 gg, pIgn"W: Ec recommnds. ~ 6 DR. WILLIAMS: Ho recomendo only. Okay. and 7
- 6 8
9 I 10 11 h 1413 511 ,3 14 15 16 i 17 10 19 20 s 21 I 22 24 r 25
...-......-.u-... jon1 344 7 1 CHAIRMAN BOND: My question perhaps has been 2 answered, but it isn't quite clear to me yet to whom or 3 (' through whom must this inspector in the field who lacks 4 authority to stop but has authority to recommend, to whom 5 or through whom must he achieve action? 6 MR. BIERMAN: Well, in a shop, for example the 7 BSW shop that the Colonel was referring to, they are set t 8 up in that shop with inspection insurance techniques to 9 stop work if they are in agreement that something is 10 proceeding incorrectly. 11 CHAIRMAN BOND: Who does the inspections? 4i 12 MR. BIERMAN: The inspection by BEW, MPR and/or 13 Met-Ed on a spot check basis. 14 CHAIRMAN BOND: And any one of those three groups 15 would have authority to stop or authority to recomr..end 16 stoppage? 17 MR. BIERMAN: To recommend stoppage. 18 CHAIRMAN BOND: To whom would they recommend? L E 19 MR. BIERMAN: To the B&W project manager and to 20 myself. [ 21 CHAIRMAN BOND: And action would be taken by I.' 22 either of those two? 23 MR. BIERMAN: Yes. 1413~ $12 24 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. 25 DR. WILLIAMS: I think that is all I had on this. k t
jon2 345 1 CHAIRMAN BOND: The hearing will be in recess a for about five minutes. 3 (Recess.) 4 CHAIRMAN BOND: The hearing will be resumed. 5 I want to say first, as a matter preliminary to f-6 the asking of some additional questions which I feel called 7 upon to ask, I want to say on behalf of the Board that we 8 have found that the responses by the applicant to the g questions which have been raised, and also now the responses 10 on behalf of the staff to matters and questions which have been raised, to be in general quite satisfactory and acceptable, g; I 12 and indeed, quite helpful to us in our understanding of the 13 Possible problems that might confront us. 14 As a consequence of the help that has been thus 15 Provided is that the er. tent of our questionc undoubtedly 16 has been and will have been curtailed. 37 We want to say that by way of expressing both ition and appreciation for your cooperation. And I recor 18 19 emphasize that that statement is made on behalf of each and I 20 all of the members of the Board. 21 I should like to pursue a bit further this quality tj, 22 control matter and begin by addressing a question to the i staff witnesses. 23 24 Where in the staff report are:' quality control Considerations discussed? 1413 513 I
...a-.. jon3 346 1 With a bit of preparation you can give a short 2 answer, and then I have e question which I hope will elicit 3 a bit more complete response. { 6 4 That second question ic: to what extent has the 5 staff in reaching its conclusions considered the organization, 6 functioning and operation of the applicant's personnel, [- 7 whether they be directly employed by the applicant or 8 contractors to, or employees of contractors to the applicant 9 in the fulfillment of the quality control responsibilities? 10 HR. LONG: As I mentioned earlier,on page 54 of 11 our evaluation where we discuss the technical qualifications 12 of the applicant. In reaching this conclusion and setting 13 forth the information we did there, quality control during 14 construction and quality assurance during fabrication and 15 installation is one of the areas we did include in making 16 this determination. 17 We have reviewed extensively the information 18 Provided by the applicant in the application, and we have 19 had several discussions with them at meetings to clarify 20 this information so that we understood what they were 21 Proposing, and it is on that basis that one, we believe 22 the qua'lity control and quality assurance programs provided i r 23 by the applicant are reasonable and, secondly, also that 24 the organization which they use to implement this is also F 25 adequate. This is in a sense what page 54 speaks to. 1413 314
jonto 347 1 CHAIRMAN BOND: In the course of that evaluation, 2 has the staff been provided with, or his it considered, 3 organizational tables or the equivalent of that showing t 4 delineation of responsibilities in and on behalf of the 5 applicant? 6 MR. LONG: Let me check. Just a moment, please. 7 CHAIRMAN BOND: Please do. i end7 8 MR. LONG: In Volume 1 of the PSAR, Table 1-13 L g does present the organization chart and includes rot only r 10 the applicant but also the principal contractors and how 11 they are interrelated. 12 Connected with this is also a description of 13 how it is to be performed thrcugh the organization, that is 14 the quality control and quality assurance. 15 I might point out that this is preliminary, as 16 most information can be at this stage. Our Division of Compliance which will follow the construction of the plant g7 gg throughout its full construction, will see that the informa-19 tion here is adhered to, or if changed is a reasonable change. 20 And we are kept informed of this all the time. b CHAIRMAN BOND: We are told and therefore know 21 that fabrication of the pressure vessel, to use that 22 as an illustration, is under way. We may assume that that 23 has been under way for some time. p To remove that from assumpt. ton I shall ask. g I \\hib
jon5 348 1[ How long has vessel fabrication been under way 2 for this plant? 3 Mr. Neidig? h 4 MR. NEIDIG: Mr. Beisel will answer that. 5 MR. BEISEL: I would like to consult with one l 6 of my people. 7 (Pause.) 8 MR. BEISEL: The reactor vessel has been'under 9 fabrication for approximately nine months. I 10 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. 11 Continuing upon the basis of that information and f 12 the predicate I undertook to lay earlier, Mr. Long, could 13 you explain for me as a layman what it is you understand to l 14 be the present situation let's say as of today with reference i l 15 to quality control in fabrication of this vessel? 16 MR. LONG: Well, I think first of all appropriate reference, back to the PSAR again, which is Volume 4, 17 answer to Question 1.1, the applicant has identified where 18 in the entire PSAR the various quality control and quality 19 t. assurance programs can be found for the various components i 20 21 of the system. It was on this information that we formulated y our opinion. I I would like to add that I personally do not know g what the Division of Compliance has developed as far as 24 I the pressure vessel, but I know they have been -- they have 25 1413 516
m t_... jon6 349 visitedtheBb1shopsquitefrequently. 1 And because there 2 are many more vessels than just the Metropolitan Edison 3 vessel in fabrication there, they review each and every 4 vessel and the stage of fabrication. They spot check 5 radiographs. They do, in a sense, a full inspection of 6 the process of that vessel. 7 CHAIRMAN BOND: Are you able now to say that t 8 during, or at least some time during this fabrication l 9 period the Division of Compliance personnel of the Atomic i 10 Energy Commission have visited and have spot-checked the 11 fabrication processes that are going on? 12 MR. LONG: I cannot say of my own knowledge that 13 they have done it for Metropolitan Edison. I do know that 14 they have done it for the Duke Power Company vessel. r 15 CHAIRMAN BOND: They logically might have looked 16 on the other side of the room while they were there, might 17 they not? c 18 MR. LONG: We can make that assumption, yes. 19 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. F 20 Mr. Neidig, I have one question I would like L 2) a bit more information on. L 22 Looking at your summary description of the 23 application, particularly at page 29, lines 14 through 18, 24 reference is made to the nuclear power activities group of f 25 General Public Utilities. Could you briefly describe the 1413 317 r r
jon7 350 1 date of origin and structure of that group? 2 MR. NEIDIG: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 3 As you no doubt assume, or have assumed, the 4 Three Mile Island project came into being roughly two years 5 ago, perhaps a little more. Metropolitan Edison Company 6 is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation, f 7 the same holding company as it is with respect to the Jersey f 8 Central Power S Light Company which has under construction 9 at the present time the Oyster Creek Station. Recognizir.g 10 that GPU was interested -- that is General Public Utilities gg was interested in developing probably without any exception 12 over the next few years nuclear plants in preference to G' 13 fossil in areas other than the so called mine mouth areas, r 14 and this on an economic basis, it was believed that GPU had 15 an interest in creating a central organization which would r 16 have interest in all GPU plants, So the General Public Utilities Nuclear Power i 17 i gg Activities Group, under the direction of Mr. Lccis H. Roddis, ( gg Jr., was formed. And as the organization chart designated as 1-13 in Volume 1 of the PSAR indicates, the Nuclear Power 20 Activities Group now serves as an advisor to Metropolitan 21 l 22 Edison Company in its pursuit of the implementation of the Three Mile Island project. 23 I want to make clear that the Metropolitan Edison 24 T Company is the applicant and is responsible for seeing that 25 l 1413 (18'
jon8 351 1 things get done and GPU Nuclear Power Activities Group is 2 in the capacity I just outlined. 3 C:iAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. That ic quite helpful. 4 Are there, within that group, members from 5 Metropolitan Edison? 6 MR. NEIDIG: Yes, there are several people in that 7 group who arenow on the Metropolitan Edison Company payroll. 8 CHAIRMAN BOND: Connected with this project? 9 MR. NEIDIG: And they have the assignment to act L 10 in an advisory cepacity in specialized or in general areas 11 as we might require or can use for the Three Mile Island I 12 Project. 13 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. 14 I hav_e one other question. How many independent i Power line sources will be available to the facility? 15 MR. NEIDIG: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can answer that 16 g7 question. With respect to the plant proper on the island, 18 there will be two 230,000 volt transmission circuits I, 19 L connecting the plant with our major substation quite close 20 F L by. Mileage-wise, it is within two miles. 20 As of today it is our central substation, high (. 22 v ltage substation in this area. 23 So Three Mile will feed into that substation g F directly. g 25
jon9 352 1 In addition to that there is in connection with 2 Unit No. 1, or there will be -- I should correct my statement -- 3 there will be another 230,000 volt circuit emanating directly 4 from Three Mile Island Substation and will be built so that 5 it connects to an existing 230,000 volt circuit in a manner I which will feed the central section of Yorn County. It will 6 terminate presently at a station known as Jackson. 7 g Future plans for the development of this system include an extenssion of that 230,000 volt system so that it g 10 will become more extensive as the yearc go by. 11 Is this responsive to your question? CHAIRMAN B0!!D: I am sure it is, but I would like l 12 G y u to state again how many lines will enter the plant site 13 14 fr m external power supply sources. MR. NEIDIG: Three 230,000 volt circuits, two of 15 which will have more capacity than the third. These two 16 will terminate within a two mile area at a major substation g in the location into which at the present time and prior to 18 the energization of Three Mile Station itself will have terminating in it four 230,000 volt lines, two coming from g i the north or westerly direction and two coming from a southerly 21 direction -- five, I am sorry -- and one coming from an y g ecsterly direction via Reading into Middletown. g 24 This station, this major station to which I refer I-25 is known as the Middletown Junction Substatic: 2. 1413 $20 s
jon10 353 1 CHAIRMAN BOND: Of these three projected power 2 supply lines, I visualize now that three lines cross the 3 water to the island; is that correct? 4 MR. NEIDIG: That is correct. 5 CHAIRMAN BOND: What is this operation between 6 those lines? ~ 7 MR. NEIDIG: The two full capacity lines to which end7 8 I referred will each be on separate towers. f8 9 We are planning to build initially two double 10 circuit tower arrangements, and one of each of these two gg lines will be on each tower. 12 Have I made myself clear? CHAIRMAN BOND: I hope so. Except how far apart 13 will the lines be? i g4 MR. NEIDIG: I will have to consult my specialist 15 ver here. 16 CHAIRMAN BOND: I don't ask for this with prec#sion. 37 I ust want it to try to visualize how many lines will be 18 L 19 making the crossing to the island and what approximately 20 will be their separation. And this, of course, has some 21 bearing upon susceptibility to accident, for example. L '. ~, 22 MR. SHIELDS: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer 23 you are looking for is that although there are two lines 24 going in one direction, as Mr. Neidig mentioned, on separate f 25 towers, the line to Jackson is an entirely different directica, t 1413 321
jon11 354 i 1 using a different right-of-way, a different crossing over 2' the river, so that no conceivable accident which would occur 3 {. to the Middletown Junction lines could affect the Jackson 4 line. 5 Cl! AIRMAN BOND: Let me just, without purporting 6 to testify, say that it was said by another official that 7 the inconceivable did happen at another nuclear power plant O when five lines coming from five directions went out 9 simultaneously in the same windstorm. The incredible some-10 times does happen. 11 MR. NEIDIG: This is all true with respect to the 12 off-site power sources. You understand, of course, that we L 13 have deisel generators on site as backup, or as power source 14 available for plant operation in the event of shutdown. 15 CHAlltA!AN.DOND: And some batteries. 16 fnani: you. - 17 The island site is separated from the mainland by ~ 18 water which must be crossed by briding structures, as I under-19 stand it. Ilow many accessways to the island by road will 20 there be upon completion and during operation? 21 MR. NEIDIG: There will be one at the northern s 22 end of the island which will connect the mainland to the island, p 23 so to speak, and that will be a common railroad and highway. 24 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. I 25 I might say for the record, and as the parties 1413 322
jon 355 I are infcrmed th.st at least a majority of the members of the 2 Board did visit the site, we did cross what is as I now 3 understand it, a temporary bridge, and the permanent 4 bridge will be to the north, as you have indicated. s MR. NEIDIG: The permanent bridge will be at 6 the direct opposite end of the island to that which now 7 is accessible by the temporary road, yes. And that 8 temporary road, by our agreement with the governmental 9 authorities, will be removed. 10 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. [ 11 MR. NEIDIG: Unless they choose to prefer to 32 keep it there. 13 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. g4 I should like to ask'the applicant, or the staff, 15 and perhaps the applicant may have some comment -- this t 1G Permanent bridging structure being a sole method of access g7 to the island, has this been considered in the seismic design I* 18 analysis? Is it in Class 1, Class 2, or what consideration 10 has been given to that? 20 Mr. Long? r MR. LONG: I don't believe we have considered it 4; { 22 as a Class 1 structure for earthquake. We did consider it 23 fr m the flooding viewpoint and assured ourselves that with 24 the maximum design flood that the bridge would still be usable, L and the applicant has indicated that it would design the 25 1413 523
jon 356 r 1 bridge accordingly. But we did not consider the seismie 2 aspects. 3 CHAIRMAN BOND: Is it your view that seismic ( 4 disturbance which might impair or obstruct the use of the 5 bridge would not adversely affect the capabilities of the 6 plant to be shut down and to be maintained in a shutdown 7 condition? E 8 MR. LONG: That is correct. 9 CHAIRMAN BOND: Do you wish to say something to 10 that, Mr. Grimes? i 11 MR. GRIMES: We cannot exactly say what the 12 capability of the bridge is since we have not analyzed it 13 for earthquake. But the plant is designed to be shut down 14 safely in the event of a very large earthquake as compared 15 to the earthquakes that have occurred in the vicinity. 16 CIIAIRMAN BOND: And this could be maintained l 17 without relying upon the bridge? MR. GRIMES: Yes, sir. 18 19 CllAIRMAN BOND: Is this correct? 20 MR. NEIDIG: That is correct. 21 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. I will not at this time ask either the applicant L l 21 or the staff about the construction of this bridge with 23 24 reference to possible aircraft hazard. You may or may not wish to comment on that, on behalf of the staff, in your 25 1413 324
jon 357 l 1 5 supplemental presentation. I 2 The assurance you have given fulfills the concern 3 that I had upon that point. 4 Is it required to naintain plant shutdown that S boron solution effect part of the suberiticality cantrol 6 MR. NEIDIG: Mr. Wascher, would you respond to 7 that, please? 6 MR. WASCllER: Yes, it is. It is required. 9 CHAIRMAN BOND: To what extent could -- or what 10 would be the margin if we assumed the boron presence should 11 be lost? 12 ilR. WASCllER: Let me, understand. If the ability 13 to add the boron were lost? 14 CHAIR!!AN BOND: Yes. 15 MR. WASCHER: When I referred to the fact that it r 16 is necessary to add boron for plant shutdowr I referred to 17 the completely cold shutdown. I was making this assumption 18 in your question. [. 19 If the plant were to be hot, naintained in a hot 20 condition, a normal hot shutdown condition, no boron is t 21 required. Only insertion of the rods is required. The b 22 plant will go suberitical and can be maintained suberit~ical k 23 indefinitely, in that condition. 1413 $25 24 CHAIRMAN B01;D: Rods without boron? 25 ER. PASCl;ER: Yes, sir. It is only if you want to L
jon 358 1 cool the plant down to an ambient temperature such as you 2 would need if you were going to refuel the station. If you 3 want to cool the plant down, then you would have to add boron, 4 in order to keep it suberitical and in a cold condition. 5l CHAIRMAN BOND: Mr. Long, this then gives a 6 meaning that I didn't quite observe to your statement on 7 page 22, to which reference has been made, that local 8 station control will enhble chutdown in cold conditio6 for an 9 indefinite time. This, of course, does rely on the boron i L 10 presence. Is this correct? 11 MR. LONG: Yes, it does. r ( 12 CHAIRMAN BOND: I want to ask one or two questions G 13 also on the subject covered in Amendments 8, 9 and 10, but 14 before doing that I should like to ask, is it at present 15 the staff's position that it does not have cross-examination t 16 of the applicant's witnesses upon those matters? 17 MR. ENGELHARDT: That is correct. 18 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. 19 The opportunity for interrogation upon those 20 matters will not be totally abolished by whatever procedural 21 course may' develop on this day. ( 22 I have this somewhat generalized question of th9 23 applicant. 9 24 There is a conclusion of safety. Does that 25 conclusion rest on the improbability of an airplane strike t 1413 526
jon 359 1 or upon the resistance of the structures to such strike, or 2 upon some combination of those which, when added together, 3 equal safety? Or does it rely upon elther one independently? 4 Now, I recognize that is a somewhat multipronged' 5 question, and I should like to admonish the chosen witness 6 who will respond that I find some difficulty in getting total assurance on the probability and equations that lead up to it, 7 a but I would like to have some illuminating comment from some 9 ehdaen witness responsible for thic particular subject. L to 11 12 13 L 14 '5 1413 327 na 17 18 - 19 ( ' 20 21 22 s 23 2 ) 25 t i
ebl 360 t $10 1 MR. NEIDIG: You are corroct in both assumptions; 2 probability is a major factor. Secondly, resistance does 3 entor into the problem likowiso. {- Now for more details on both of thoso items I will 4 call first on Mr. Lowo of Pickard, Lowo Associatos who will S i 6 address himself to the matter of probability, and then to ~ r. 7 Mr. Wayne Godfroy of Cilbert Associatos who will speak on-- 8 I will have to ask Mr. Carroll Bitting to initiate the dis-9 cussion on resistance of the structuro because Mr. Godfrey t 10 is not sworn in yet. 11 CHAIRMAN BOND: Well, if you wish to cell him aP and 12 a witness to got information, of course you may tio FGs O. 13 we will hear from him, 14 It is not the purpose of my q.uestion at this I 15 time to try to get substantiation or egehnical details. 16 Instead, my question'is niced at which or whero is the re-17 11anco, or are there reliancen to be placod, 18 MR. NEIDIG: Would you like to start with the 19 probability matter? I think Mr. Lowo can summarize that t 20 quite well for you. 21 CIIAIRMAN BOND: Pleano do, briefly. 22 MR. LOWE: I take it the th.:uat of your question is whether good judgment has been applied in. balancing out 23 probability that the plant romains cafo', and the measures 24 t 25 which have been taken to keep it safe. 1413 528 o'
eb2 361 1 To try to devolop sono judgment as to how this 2 lino should be drawn, the probability estimatos were made 3 ( and they have boon reported in Supplement No. 1 of the appli-t 4 cant's testimony. And the conclusion from that combined 5 study of structural capability and probability is that there i 6 is less than one in 200 million chanco, one chanco in 200 7 million per year that the structural capability will be ex-8 cooded and therefore the plant sustain serious damago by an 9 aircraft striko, 10 Or to put it another way, loss than one in five 11 million por plant lifotimo during the whole courso of the 12 plant life, 13 It is difficult to draw a judgment f however, as 14 to the meaning of such a number without relating it to other 15 types of human activity and what chances one takes in those. 16 I will give ono illustrativo numbor. 17 A person in the Unitod States has about one chance 18 in 50,000 of being killed by lightning during his lifetime. 19 We are protecting the plant so that the chance of its getting 20 hurt by an aircraft strike is about 1/100th of that. 21 r. CE".IRMAN BOND: Who will speak next to the ques-22 tion Mr. Noidig? g P 23 MR. NEIDIG: On resistance? G M CHAIRMAN BOND: Well, my question I will pass 25 again to you, or restato may be another question. 1413 52g
362 1 Upon which -- or is it a required combination -- 2 is relianco to be placed for enfory judgmont? 3 {. Does that holp you? 4 MR. NEIDIG: Wo have based our dosign on cortnin 5 critoria. 6 I would like to ask Mr. Ditting to discuss coro 7 fully the basis of the design of those structuros if design i 8 brings forth what the structuras are capablo of with roopect 9 to aircraft. 10 CHAIRMAN BORD: proceed, Hr. Bitting, 11 MR. BITTING: We have lookod at the various 12 plant areas which are requirod to bring the plant to a safe 13 shutdown. The area is basically the reactor building, the 14 control building, the fuol-handling building, the auxiliary 15 building, and a section of the iitermodiato building that 16 houses portions of the main steam line and omorgoney steam 17 pumps. Thoso are the basic areas which wo consider nocon-18 mary to be protected in order to bring the plant to a. safe 19 shutdown in the event of the hypolihotical aircraft inci-L 20 dont. i i 21 In looking at these areas we have made our pri-I 22 mary checks on the reactor building which is the area which 23 is further in 30 sign at this point than most of the other 24 structures. t 25 And let me point out that basically the reactor 1413 330
eb4 363 I building is designed essontially to withstand an internal 2 pressure to be brought about by a loss of coolant accident. 3 { Starting from that point and looking at the probability of 4 what aircraft sizes may impact this arou, we have analyzed S this structure for an aircraft weighing 200,000 pounds 6 travolling at 200 knots. And this is outlined in Appendix 7 C to Supplomont 5. 8 Wo have also analyzed the reactor building, look-9 ing at a 300,000 pound airplano which is analyzed in Appen-10 dix B to Supplomont 5, and also an object of G,000 pounds II 5 foot in diameter at a00 knots, and another object of 12 4,000 pounds travelling at 200 knots, 3 foot in diamoter. 13 On the basis of the probability of strikes that 14 have been developod we have analyzed the domo on the reactor 15 building particularly to soo that thoy can withstand these 16 particular missilos. And wo have found that this is possi-17 ble, that the building is safe; it will not collapse. IO We have also mado a chock elsewhero on the cylin-19 der of the building and found that this is also all right. 20 The other apoas that I have previously mentioned, II being the fuel hand?.ing areas and so forth, will bo designed 22 with the same basic philosophy in mind, that they will be 23 able to withstand the hypothotical strike and thereby main-tain safety of the plant to be brought to a safe shutdown I 25 condition. 1413 531
3 684 1 In this rogard wo have niso tahon into considera-2 tion such other things as tho air intake to the control 3 building and the auxiliary building as coll as protecting 4 the dischargo openings for the ventilation systom. 5 We have taken into consideration the fire pro-6 tection that might devolop as the result of an aircraft 7 crash, and we foel that we have developed a very safe situa-t. ) 8 tion. 9 CHAIR 1!AN BOND: It was the intent of my question 10 or questions to elicit information which had not bcon hore-11 tofore provided and the furnishing of which I have not yet 12 heard in those responoes. 9 i 13 DR. WILLIAMS: In an effort to elicit the infor-t 14 mation that I boliove Mr. Bond is getting, I would like to t 15 ask a quostion, and this is a hypothetien1 question. r I 16 If the probability of a striko wore, say, a 17 thousand timos greator than your pro:sont estimatos, would 18 you still believe that the design of this plant was safe 19 in view of its proximity to tho Olmsted State Airport? r 20 MR. BITTING: Are you dirooting the question to 21 me, Dr. Williams? L L', 22 DR. WILLIAMS: I an directing it to Mr. Noidig. 23 MR. NEIDIG: I would like to ask Mr. Lowe, who 24 is the export on probability, to respond directly, rather n-25 than give you a personal opinion. I. 1413 432
365 9 1 DR. WILLIAMS: Maybe I should clarify it this 2 way: 3 What we are really trying to find out 10-- Lot's 4 say it this way: 5 Do you bolievo the design is safe against any 6 strike that you would concoive of as presently projected 7 airplane design, rogardless of probability? 8 I think that's the question. 9 Now this does not mean that the answer is--
- Well, 10 nover mind.
Let's see what the answer is. 11 I think this will elicit the information we are 12 trying to get at, because it isn't clear, at least to some 9 13 of us, as to how the probability and the design are inter-14
- mixed, 15 MR. NEIDIG:
I understand your question, and it 16 is a difficult one to answer, and I hope that we can focus 17 on the problem. 18 I would like to direct your attention to page 4 19 of Supplement 1, which we have filed in connection with 20 Amendments 8, 9 and 16. And beginning on line 8 of page 21 4, I should like to read: b 22 "Tho load-time curve for an aircraft 23 strike is derived from the angle of impact, velo-24 city, mass distribution, contact area, and the 25 structural characteristics of the aircraft. )kbb b -i
366 r 1 Thorefora, different aircraft will have a difforont 2 timo-ourve doponding upon the cbovo variablos. It can be concluded that with a favorablo load-timo 3 4 curve, it is possible that the reactor building .5 could withstand the impact of an aircraf t largor ~ 6 than that described in the Application." r - 7 I believe that your quostion more explicitly i 8 said, can it withstand any aircraft crash, rogardless of 9 probability? I 10 Would not thct same qucation apply to any nuclear 11 plant, regardicas of chore it is locatod? c 12 What I'm trying to say is, you must considor the 13 matter of probability in this question. t 14 DR. WILLIAllSJ All right.. I think that is really s t 15 the answor. r 16 MR. NEIDIG: Now perhaps Mr. Lowo can add to what 17 I have said, if you will accept further discussion on proba-18 bility. f. 19 11 CHAIR 11AN BOND: The majority of the Board is t 20 satisfied with tho state of the record that non exists. 21 If the applicant, on examining the transcript, 22 believes that some additional or helpful clarification is 23 neoded, I believe the procedures to bo had will afford an M opportunity for that to.be done. l4l3 \\3b 25 Did you wish to state something more?
eb8 367 1 MR, NEIDIG: Yoo, ono noro point I would like 2 to have entered into tha record, Mr. Bond, is that for the 3 loadings we havo descrii>od in our Supplanent 1, the struc-4 turns will tako such a crash, regardless of probabilities. 5 CHAIR' DAN BOND: The record shows more now than 6 it did beforo. 7 COL. STRATTON: Our discussion was on the stato-8 mont that popped out horo. The Board is satisfied. Wo 9 are satisfiod that you have provided in Supplomont 5, to-j 10 gether with your other supplements, sufficient information 11 for us to base a conclusion which will be forthcoming. 12 MR. NEIDIG: Thank you. 13 CHAIILIAN BOND: Are there any questions on that 14 or any other matter? t 15 At this time I would again emphasize that a great 16 many questions, potential quoations, have boon eliminated 17 from our procedure by reason of the responses of the appli-18 cant and the staff to the discussion in the pro-hearing. 19 Th!.s brings to a conclusion at this point the 20 questions which the members of the Bonrd have to direct to 21 p the witnessos for the applicant and the staff upon the O' 22 matters which have boon covered in their testimony. 23 Referring again to the agenda, hr.ving completed 24 Item No. 18 and all antecedent items, wo come to Item 19, 25 " Closing Statenonts (If Any) by Counsel for AEC, Staff, and 1413 535
.-.. _... - -.... = - -... eb9 368 L 1 Applicant". 2 Aro thore any for the applicant? 3 MR. CHARNOFF: No, sir. 4 CHAIRMAN BOND: For the otaff? 5 MR. ENGELHARUT: No, sir. 6 CHAIRMAN BOND; Item 19 is dispocod of. 7 Item 20, "Robuttal Evidenco (If Any)", I 8 Is thero any? t 9 MR. CHAPJiOFF: No, sir. 10 MR. ENGELHARDT: No, sir. 11 CHAIRMAN BOUD: Item 20 is complotod. 12 Item 31 is " Concluding Procedural Matters"- 13 Thoro are sono which are of a somer.hnt routine P 14 nature. Thero are some proceduros such as transcript cor-15 rections and the filing of pleadings which are necessa'rily [ 16 contingent upon the completion in full of the evidentiary 17 hearing. That we shall not achieve on today. How and when r 18 wo shall achievo that is a matter for consideration. 19 Bofore wo reach those points -.and perhaps e 20 retreating upward on the agonda, I had overlooked an r 21 assurance that we had arrived at that one or two or more b 22 summary questions appropriately might bc asked, e i 23 Colonel Stratton? e 24 COL. STRATTON: As I pointod out earlier, r 25 Er. Neidig, in the long procedure required to arrive at a 1413 536 r
eb10 369 I provisional construction permit, the last stage is the 2 decision of the Board upon which signatures appear for the 3 first time when the Board arrives at its decision rendered 4 to the Director of Regulation, subject to review by the 5 Commission, to issue a provisional construction permit. j' 6 Therefore, for the record which wo must review 7 3 as part of our preliminary action to arrivo at a decision, 8 I would liho to have you confirm or affirm that the pre-l 9 liminary safety -- the PSAR plus Amendments 1 through 10 { 10 together with the summary description together with the 1 11 presentations presented before the Board at those hearings a h 12 and, of courso, which will be recorded in the transcript, 13 represent and contain thu complate technical data and back-14 ground of the application as submitted and is, in your 15 opinion, such factual data as you choose to submit and upon i 16 which the Board must preparo its decision, so far as you 17 are concerned. 18 MR. NEIDIG: This is correct. 19 COL, STRATION: Then as responsible officer for 20 the Metropolitan Edison Corporation, it is your intent then, 21 if a provisional construction permit is issued, to carry 22 out the construction of this station in accordance with the i 1 23 material submitted to us so far, and to include at a later 4 i 24 time the results of such research and development programs 4}} 337 25 which have been described?
ebil 370 3 MR. NEIDIG: This is correct. 2 COL. STRATTON: I am going to ask the se.mo ques-3 tion, abbreviated somewhat, to the reprocontative of the 4 staff. 5 Do you concur with with oxception of Amendments 6 8, 9 and 10 that up to that point, namely, the PSAR plus 7 Amendments 1 through 7, togother with the matorial presented 8 herein before this Hearing Board constitutes the technical 9 data, background, and so forth upon which the Board shou'.d f to render its decia!on? i II ER. LONG: Except for supplement '. as filed by 12 the Applicant, yes, that is correct. 13 COL. STRATTON: Yes. All right. 14 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. 15 Leet there be cicundere:tanding, I should like to 16 point out that Colonel Stratton articulated thoso questions 17 on behalf of the Board and not no a mattor of individual 18 curiosity. I cay that becauso my reopening of the question l. 11 10 might have led to a contrary belief. 20 t 6 21 ( h 22 as \\4\\ 24
jon1 371 i 12 1 Upon procedural matters, some discussions were. f 2 had on yesterday to some extent on the record and to some L 3 extent off the record, C' r 4 What, gentlemen, is your suggestion, aimed at 5 achieving expeditiously and effectively the purposes that 6 we need with reference to proceeding on the record or off 7 the record? I* There has not been derived on off-the-record 8 discussion to our knowledge a definitive proposal, t g l Would off-the-record discussion perhaps speed up i 10 arrival at agreement? yy l MR. CHARN0FF: I don't believe that will because 12 it is only at this point. 13 MR. ENGELHARDT: No, sir. t 14 CHAIRMAN BOND: It is never necessary. t 15 Y u maY Proceed and take the lead in discussing 16 t the matters, the procedural matters at hand, 37 i k. MR. CHARN0FF: Leaving aside for the moment the 18 issue of establishing dates for the filing of findings and 3g conclusions and filing dates for corrections to the record, 20 the applicant moves that the record of the hearing be closed r s1 seven days after the staff's Safety Evaluation of applicant's. 5 22 t Amendments 8, 9 and 10 to its application is made available g l to the parties hereto, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 24 the Board, unless prior to the conclusion of such seven day l 25 1413 339 j
... _ ~ -. jon2 372 e w 1 period of time any of the parties, the Commonwealth of f 2 Pennsylvania or the Board either request a further hearing f 3 or addresses an inquiry to any party hereto with respect to
- C 4
the subject matter covered in the said amendments. 5 I believt, Mr. Chairman, that this motion 6 reflects the consideration that the applicant has given 7 to the discussion we held yesterday and is consistent with-8 the ganeral remarks that were made by the others present 9 hereto. 10 CHAIRMAN BOND: Mr. Engelhardt? 11 MR. ENGELHARDT: I am generally in support of 12 the motion that Mr. Charnoff has made. 13 I think there might possibly be some element of 14 ambiguity in one term used in his motion, namely the specific 15 day -- or rather I should say when the seven days begins to In other words, I think we could interpret his motion 16 run. 17 as possibly being the date the staff puts in the mail the 18 information or evaluation of the amendments referred to. 19 I think that that could involve several additional days of I 20 lost time while mailings occur. 21 I think we might be a little.more specific with (- 22 respect to that date, to provide enough time for everyone 23 to have a full period toreview the staff evaluation. 24 MR. CHARN0FF: Our intention in that regard, t 25 Mr. Chairman, is of course as we indicated yesterday, and 1413 340
jon3 373 1 as the attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania indicated, 2 would be the date of receipt by the parties, the Board members 3 and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And it seems to me C, 4 .that the possibility that each of us may receive this on a 5 different date, the seven days should begin to run according F 6 to the date of last receipt by any of the parties or Board 7 members. 8 CHAIRMAN EOND: Are you conversant with how many 9 days seven days may be equivalent to under the Commission's t 10 rules and the interpretations of it? 11 I will leave that as a rhetorical question. 12 MR. CHARN0FF: I know that there a.re rules dealing 13 with this, and.I dolnot recall them specifically. But let me 9 14 make my motion clear. f 15 I am talking in terms of seven days, including 16 days of the weekend and holidays. 17 MR. ENGELHARDT: I think I might mention that the-18 rules provide that when service is made by mail three 19 additional days are permitted for the mailing, for receipt t. 20 by parties to whom the documents have been mailed. 21 CHAIRMAN BOND: I can demonstrate to you that (1 22 seven days equals at least thirteen days under those rules. 23 But I hope we won't be confronted with such problems. 24 The Board believes it is desirable, though not [ 25 necessary, to consider the subject presented by the motion, i I 1413 541 I
I jon4 374 3 and in aid of this consideration would like to have 2 Provided to it by counsel for the proponent, if he has a (.. 3 COPY, or by the reporter by quick transcript, so that it may 4 consider the particular motion and perhaps other matters 3 which would need to be specified in ruling upon the 6 Procedural course contemplated, t I Is there objection? .j MR. CHARN0FF: There is no objection, and the 8 applicant would be pleased to give you an easily read copy g f my statement. 10 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. yg We will be in recess for a few moments. 12 I-e ess.) 13 CHAIRMAN BOND: The hearing will be in session. g The Board has considered the motion which has been 15 made and in general approves the concept which is submitted 16 by agreement of the parties, as we understand it. Is that g "8* 18 MR. ENGELHARDT: That is correct. gg CHAIRMAN BOND: And the Board also concurs in the 20 l statement that proceeding along the lines so indicated will 21 comport with the needs and wishes of the State of Pennsyivania (- g and its representatives, as has been stated during the course g j of the proceedings. In order to avoid a possible difficulty in numbering t 25 )k\\b
jon 375 i 1 and counting days I would like to inquire if it would be 2 satisfactory to specify the period of time aftar the filing 3 of the staff's supplemental report and evidence in calendar ( 4
- days, notwithstanding that a number of days might otherwise 5
be computed with application of the alternatives considered 6 in the Commission's rules and interpretations. To give specificit 7 to that question it would seem that if provision were made that' 8 I any party or any person or any member of the board should have 9 a period of ten calendar days after the filing and serving to of the staff evidence within which to present.or suggest P 11 further hearing or cross-examination. 12 Would not that accomplish the purposes and be fair t 13 to all7 t 14 MR. CHARN0FF: Do I understand in your use of the 15 term filing and serving that you are using those terms as 16 set forth in the rules? And that is that depositing the 17 mail is filing and you would initiate the ten calendar day 10 count from the deposit of the mail? ? 19 CHAIRMAN BOND: From the date of the service and 20 filing. I would assume those dates would be the same. I 21 t E c 22 23 24 1413 543 r 2s p" J i
. w. 376 F 13 ebl 1 Is that a valid assumption, Mr. Engelhardt? 2 MR. ENGELHARDP: Yes, sir, The certificate of 3 service will be dated and it will be the date upon which 4 the material will actually be pinced in the mails, so we S will start counting from the date appearing on the certi-6 ficate of r:ervice. 7 CllAIRMAN BOND: That will be the same date as t 8 the filing in the Public Document Room? 9 MR. ENGELHARUP: That is correct. 10 MR. CIWWOFF: As you have amended the motion, 11 Mr. Chairman, that is acceptable to us. 12 CHAIRMAN BOND: Is Mr. Gerusky present? 13 MR GERUSKY:
- Yes, 14 CHAIRMAN BOND:
General Gross advised us infor-15 mally that he would have to be away for a period of time 16 and he indicated, as he had earlier, that you may speak for 17 him and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 18 Do you have comment on this? f. 19 MR. GERUSKY: We concur with your previous deter-f 20 mination. i 21 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. M The motion as amended and modified accordingly 23 is sustained, and I shall endeavor now to state for the 24 Board which is the intended effect of the ruling and of the h 25 procedural course upon which we shall be embarked. l 1413 444
eb2 377 1 The AEC regulatory staff, for explained reasons, 2 was not roady to go forward to completion with its evi-3 dence in this pioceeding. The nature of that delay has 4 been explained and it is understood by 211 of us. It is 5 expected that the AEC regulatory staff will present and ?. 6 will file for the record; it will serve upon all parties i. 7 and upon intorested porsons as shoon by the record a sup-r 8 plomontal report or an addsudum to its report, embodying 9 a Safety Evaluation of the proponed facility, particularly 10 in the light of the considorations discussed in Amendmonts i 11 g 8, 9, and 10 to the application. 12 This document will be filed, sorved, and sub-13 mittod undor oath, and it is expected although not required f l 14 that such filing will be acconplished on or about April 23rd, 15 1968. [ 16 In that correct, Mr. Engelhardt7 p 17 MR. ENGELHARDP: Yes, sir, I believe that is the 18 target date that we are attempting to moet in this case. 19 CHAIRLIAN BOND: I havo not stated it any more 20 biMingly than you have. It is an expectation but not a 21 requiroment. 22 Howover, tho effect of the ruling is that the 23 occurrenco of that event fixco the comnoncement of the time i 9 i 24 pcriod of ten calendar days thereafter which will be allowed r 25 before the record is or may be closed. If, during that 14}7) 14b
jon1 380 1 84 1 CHAIRMAN BOND: It is understood that your 2 question of the Board is would it be helpful. That question 3 does not elicit a clear, definite answer. I will state my 4 views and ask my colleagues if they wish to comment also. 5 It would seent co be desirable to have presented 6 the proposed findings and conclusions which have been evolved 7 and developed thoughtfully on the basis of the whole record, 8 of all of the record, of all of the evidence and all points. 9 This I should clearly label one n. n's viewpoint, 10 I evaded that matter which your question suggests 11 by saying that within ten days after the close of the record 12 proposed findings and conclusions may be filed, or the parties 13 may elect to file sooner. 14 It is hardly conceivable that fully meaningful P eadings could be filed before the record is complete. And l 15 16 we won't know that the record is complete until all of the evidence is in and the time for possible cross-examination 17 l 18 or further hearing has expired. 19 Do you wish to say anything, gentlemen? 20 DR. WILLIAMS: No. 21 COL. STRATTON: I think that covers it. ([ 22 CHAIRMAN BOND: Is your question answered, Mr. Charnoff? 23 24 MR. CHARN0FF: Evasively, yes. 1413 546 25 (Laughter.) i I E
jon2 381 i I CHAIRMAN BOND: Do you have coment on this matter, 2 Mr. Engelhardt? 3 MR. ENCELHARDT: No, sir, I am satisfied with that { 4 schedule that you have just ou : lined. 5 CHAIRMAN B0iiD: Prcposed findings and conclusions l' 6 are d rected as has been said, and the outer limits of the 7 time period for filing of such has been specified, L. e The same time period is available to the parties s 9 for the filing of suggested c>r proposed corrections to the 10 transcript. 11 If there be imputed evasiveness on that matter 12 the Board will say, through me, I believe, that such pleadings 9 13 may appropriately be filed at any time within that period I 14 beginning on the day and ending on the day of closing of the 15 record as they see fit, and such earlier filing might be k 16 helpful to the Board. 17 Is there comment or question about that? 18 MR. CHARN0FF: No, sir. V L 19 MR. ENGELHARDT: No, sir. 20 CHAIRMAN BOND: The ruling therefore has been 21 stated. The motion as modified and as explained has been h* 22 sustained, and the proceeding will go forward in accordance i with those rulings and explanation. 23 24 Is there at this time now comment upon or question k 23 about any other matter? 1413 54' L r
eb4 379 I be submitted on behalf of the parties, the applicant and 2 the staff. The Board does not undertake to delinente the 3 extent to which that shall be a separately or jointly de-F 4 rived pleadings, The judgment of counsel will be roli?d 5 upon in respect'to that matter. 6 Is that satisfactory on that particular point? 7 MR. CHARNOFF; On the schedule basis, yes, it is, 8 Mr. Chairman. 9 Might I inquiro whethor it would facilitate the f 10 Doard's considoration of thic mattor if the applicant were 11 to submit como time ne=t neck our proposed findings and r 12 conclusions, based on the record as of today? If so, the 9,', 13 applicant would be free to make such a filing, subject of 14 course to the qualification that wo night subsequently 15 supplement or amend it after we reviow the staff's supple-13 16 mont to its testimony. 17 18 19 g, 20 I 21 g ( 22 }(}3 kb 23 24 I 25
jon3 382 h I' MR. CHARN0FF: None from the applicant. 2 MR. ENGELHARDT: The staff has no further matters. 3 CHAIRMAN BOND: On behalf of the Commonwealth of 6 i(' 4 Pennsylvania? General Gross, do you have any comment upon 5 any matter before us before we shortly shall adjourn this 6 hearing? i 7 MR. GROSS: No, sir. 8 CHAIRMAN BOND: Thank you. 9 The hearing record in this proceeding is and will 10 remain open until its closing is effected in accordance with 11 the rulings which were made and explained. 12 The purposes of the oral hearing at this place 13 and at this time appear to have been as fully accomplished 14 as it was feasible. Accordingly, and subject to such re-t 15 opening of the proceedings as may be ordered pursuant to 16 the procedural ruling, the hearing in this proceeding is now 17 adjourned. 18 (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., hearing in the above-t 19 entitled matter was adjourned.) 20 21 I C 22 23 9 24 l 25 t
. ; l- ~ i m.E.ni._2 -. : 1.. '11 . c.1 A St e ll ~ a 'n ,, l b e g . af
- p.
/ e4 J(' r i f~ -. { = ~ .}}