ML19308C592
| ML19308C592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1979 |
| From: | Frampton G, Nitti D BABCOCK & WILCOX CO., NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280621 | |
| Download: ML19308C592 (37) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
~
l I
O N U CL E A R RE G U L ATO R'l CO MMISSIO N O
l IN THE MATTER OF:
THREE MILE ISLAND SPECIAL INQUIRY DEPOSITIONS DEEOSITION OF DONALD A.
NITTI O.
Place - Middletown, Pennsylvania Date -
Thursday, 11 October 1979 Pages 1 - 36 ch J
='
(202)347-3700 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
O'.._
OffkulReporters 80 0128() N 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY-g
1 d:pl-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 550 2
NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
,_________._,_______X y
(j -
-In the Matter of:
5 THREE MILE ISLAND
-SPECIAL.IMOUIRY DEPOSITIONS 6
.X 7
8 DEPOSITION OF DONALD A.
NITTI
'9 10 Trailer 203 jj Three Mile Island Nuclear Facility Middletown, Pennsylvania g
10:00 a.m.
~()
33 11 October 1979 14 BEFORE:
15 GEORGE T.
FRAMPTON, JR.
16 BILL JOHNSON 17 RON HAYNES PRESENT:
19
-GEORGE L. EDGAR, Esq., representing Mr. Nitti.
20 JOHN G. MULLIN, Esq., represehting Babcock & Wilcox.
ALSO PRESENT:
CARLA D'ARISTA, NRC staff.
ELIZABETH OLMSTED, Babcock & Wilcox staff.
9eral Reporters, Inc.
24 Ace-
'25
m.
a e-r m.
g
- ,A J,
y r
~
2_
~,
~,
-b
(
~dsp2' f
(
' ~
+}
C ' _O _N _T _E _N' _T _S s
~,..
..s.,.
. (}-
1
- 2 Exh'ibits
- .
Identified.
~
3
~
S
- 19-
-3
,e - -.
..1.
j'..
3 e
.v.
'.20-5 p 3=-
g n
i,
- 7 4
h
- 8
)
f p
i
+-
L v
10 4
- g; r
- 11
'12 I h..
113
. (.
r 14
-15 c
-16
+
s
,17 p'
L.
.18-('--
.. j 9 s
L20 i
i;
~ 1 21 r.
2: '.
- 3 Z
n, I
'r
.;, m J
V
, s "s
E' 23 r
,r Ass >a-J Reporters, Inc.
qa.,
9'25
+
l rs
.'q-.
(
l.- u
~
u
. r
>
- I, r
i,,
, g ;
3 I
sp3 P R O C'E E D'I N G S CR7550-2 MR. FRAMPTON:
This is a deposition teing conducted
'3 of Mr. Donald A. Nitti of the Babcock and Wilcox Company by
,7 sL
'n../
4 the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Special Inquiry
~
5
- Group on the Three Mile Island accident at Three Mile Island, 6
Pennsylvania, on October 11,-1979.
7 (Nitti deposition Exhibits 19-22 8
marked for identification.)
9 Whereupon, O
DONALD A. NITTI 11 was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 12 was examined and testified as follows:
'(e)'
13 EXAMINATION I#
BY MR. HAYNES:
15 0
Please state your full name for the record.
6 A
Donald Anthony Nitti, l7 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
18
.Q Mr. Nitti, you furnished us-with a resume of your 19 educational and professional qualifications, which I've had 20 marked as Exhibit 19 of this date.
21 Is that a photocopy of the resume you provided.us?
\\
/m-)
A That is correct.
(Counsel handing document to witness.)
23 I
24 12 On a' previous occasion you, I believe, had a telephone Am.
ethgwnes,lrc 25 p
. conversation'-- telephone interview with one or more people
4 7 74-I froid ' our group.
Is that right?
' Q).
'2 A:
That is correct.
3
.g
- And before we started today, I showed you a 4
memorandum that was written up by our group, recording some of
~
5 the answers to the. questions that they asked you in that 6
telaphone conversation.
7 I've.had that marked as Exhibit 20, and I'd like to show 8
that to you, and ask you whether that is substantially an 9
accurate account of what you told them during that telephone 10 conversation.
II A
Yes, this is an accurate summary of discussions at I2 that time.
13 Q
Exhibit 20 reflects that on March 29, in the evening, 14 you were asked by your management te estimate the maximun 15 amount of oxygen that might be in the reas bubble in the reactor 16 vessel at Three-Mile Island.
17 Do you remember who asked you to do that and what you recall 18 ab'out the specific directions you got; what it was you were I9 asked,to do and why?
20
~
A My recollection is, as I was about to leave work on l
21 Thursday night, Jim Taylor, who'is the manager of licensing, 9-)
22 caught me in the hall before I left; and said that he'd like
~23 me.to stick around; because he thought there would be -- he
'24 would need some help calculating the effects of hot radiolytic
- Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 hydrogen generation in the reactor coolant system.
5 sp5 1
He. asked me if I could do it..
I said yes, and I stuck
~
- 2 around and started to do the calculations.
I remember that
- 3
-was my first' exposure to the incident -- the details of the 7~( 'l
~
' ncident at'Three Mile-Island.
i 4
5 So, I was getting my stuff together to figure out what he 6
really wanted.
There was some confusion in that we didn't 7
know'the bubb.Tes size; we didn't know for sure there was a
-8 bubble; and Jim was trying to convey to me the status of what 9
the situaticn was.
10 He had some pressurizer level and pressure measurements to 11 try and estimate the bubble size and so forth.
At'any rate, 12 whatever Jim was waiting for when he asked me to stick around,
()
13 cam through and the mission that finally came about when it got 14 to me was we think there's a gas bubble in 'the reactor vessel.
15 Based on this compressibility information, and take a look; lo estimate the composition of that bubble and -- when we were
-17 trying to decide ~the ground rules as to what he meant by 18 composition of the bubble, basically it came out that he was 19
-interested in the most conservative value or the highest oxygen-20 composition that could be in the bubble.-
21 So,-that's what I set about doing.
Those are the calculations
' p)
(,
'22 that I generated on the night of the 29th.
I remember specifically. -
23. wrapping that up and going home sometime, you know, around 24 midnight; then getting home.and getting called several hours L Ace oderd Reponm, Inc.
25 later by Mr.-Taylor; 3:00.in the morning or something like that
6
'l
-to come back.in.and expand on the calcule.ons.
b 2
So, you know, I'm pretty -- pretty-sure'of the date and the 3
informaiton.
p 4
Q Let me stop you for a moment.
5 A
Okay.
6 0
You referred to some calculations you made.
Let me 7
show you what has been marked as Exhibit 21 as of this date, 8
which is' four pages of calculations; and aske whether this is 9
- -whether pages one, two, and four are copies of some of the 10 calculations that you did on the evening of the 29th.
II (Counsel handing document to witness.)
12 A
- yes, p) 13 0
Okay, thank you.
do you know who did the calculatior s
t 14 that are on page three?
15 A
Charles Prior.
-16 Q
And his initials are on that page, too?
17 A
Yes.
C. W. P.
18 Q
Okay, thank you.
I take it from your own recollection 19 of the cequence of events Thursday and Friday, you can establish 20 pretty clearly in your own mind that this was something you
-21
'did on' Thursday night as opposed to Friday night, March 30th.
(]
22 Is that correct?
23 A-
-The date on the memo is written on the top.
I came 24 W gI Repo,te,s, Inc. 'in on -- well, actually, when I came back the next morning, I 25 had all these papers because-we were -- we didn't have tests
?
1
-or anything, so I'didn't'.want it to get lost.
g_
\\
-f
'7 2
So I wrote on the top of it who the '.elephone call was to, 3
and the only name I could remember was Tom Novack, and the time 7x G
4 and date on it.
5 So, I'm pretty sure of that time and'date.
6
- g
.Okay, but your notes reflect telephone conversation 7
with Mr. Novack of the NRC at about 11:40 p.
m.,
on Thursday, 8
March 29.
9 Hcw did that conversation come about?
10 A
Well.
II Q
Who participated as far as you can remember?
12 A
I really can't remember everybody involved.
Nhat it
,. m
~
S-)
13 was, is Jim Taylor, basically made verbal commitment to get back Id to Tom as soon as he had a response to Tom's earlier question.
15 So, I'm sure -- as soon as I finished the calculation, I 16 talked to Jim Taylor and Jim placed a call to Tom Novack; and it I7 was a conference call.
18 there was several people on NRC's end of the line.
I9
'O -
Do you know why'that was a conference call?
Were there 20 people.in different NRC buildings?
2I A
Two speaker phone calls.
There were several people on n(_,) ;
22 the NRC end, we had, probably, half a dozen people on our end.
23 A11.I can remember-specifically is, m'Jself, Jim Taylor, and 24 that's about it.
There was, I'm sure, at'least one other i
~
Am-FewW Rgorwes;Iw, 25 person 'from licensing and probably three or four other people, 7
I J
'8~
"1 Q
You don't remember the names of other people at the dll) 2 NRC, besides Mr. Novack?
3 A.
No.
\\2
.4
-Q
.But you do definitely remember-he was one of the 5
other people at'the other end of that phone. call.
6 Yes.
7 0
okay.
What do'you recall about the substance of 8
that phone call.
What you people said to the NRC people and 9
what their' response was?
10 A
Well, basically, I went through my cal culations and 11 told them what the hydrogen -- well, I told them was the 12 composition of the bubble was based on this radiolytic hydrogen 13 radiolytic hydrogen rate, which has a corresponding radiolytic
_ ( }j 14 oxygen production rate.
15 There was another page of calcalations that didn't get 16 telecopied, but basically, it showed the gas contribution from 17 radiolysis; any air that may have been in the BWST water that 18
.was injected; fission gas that may have been produced in the 19 fission process;.and estimated the gas conten that is 20 prepressurized in the fuel rods; and an estimate of the 21 hydrogen dissolved in the reactor coolant.
(~)N -
22 It came up.
23 Q
This would be hydrogen -- preexisting hydrogen --
24 A-It's the' hydrogen predisolved in the reactor l
Aw-W RMmnes, lrw 25
. coolant'during' normal operation of the plant.
When we took
9 I
-that all into account, we-had about 11,258 standard cubic feet.
~
_s
'di i
2
.At the reactor coolant' temperature and pressure conditions,
' ~ '
3 that amounted to a bubble size of 284 cubic feet -- 284.5.
e s-b 4
Q' Let me stop you there for a moment.-
Is that a-5 bubble of. basically noncondensible gases?
~
6 A
-Yes.
7 0
In other words, that would assume no steam bubble.
8 Is that correct?
9 A
That's -- that's correct.
10 Q
Esstentially?
II A
That is correct.
So, what we looked -- if you look 1
12 at that bubble, it would contain 5590 standard cubic feet of A.
!,)
13 hydrogen and 3.143 standard cubic feet of oxygen.
s 14 Now, the point that we made was that that is predicated 15 upon radiolytic oxygen and hydrogen being produced at the 16 maximum theoretical g value.
17 G value being number of atoms of radiolytic hydrogen 18 produced per hundred electron volts of energy absorbed in the 19 coolant.
Okay.
20 So, when you"look at the compos.'. tion of that bubble, it 21 showed like, maybe 5.5 peicent oxyger., which would put it in nV 22 a combustible rangs.
~23 So'we were very clear when we' talked to Mr. Novack to make
.g; 24 the point that this composition was-in response to his direct Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 question as to what is the maximum possible oxygen content; not l
10 1
really tying it to reality.
p710
^' J 2
To make that point, we went through this dissolved hydrogen --
3 we knew that the bubble was much larger than this 200 cubic b,_s 4
-foot size that we-had calculated.
5 We knew there-was other gas present.
We just assumed an 6
~800 cubic foot bubble.
Tc dilute the hydrogen partial pressure, 7
we just assumed that and calculated what the dissolved hydrogen 8
concentration would be.
9 We showed that that was much, much higher than what would 10 be required to produce -- to suppress the radiolytic hydroaen 11 production and the radiolytic oxygen production.
That seemed to 12 be a point that Mr. Novack hadn't considered when he asked the (f
13 question; and he asked us to telecopy calculations, you know, f
14 showing that point; confirming that point.
15
-Those four pages of calculations that you have there are 16
-the calculations that-show that the partial pressure of
'17
-hydrogen is sufficiently high to suppress the rediolytic 18 oxygen _ production and that that maximum number that we had 19 generated, really wasn't appropriate.
20 Q
All right.
And were these pages of calculations in 21 Exhibit 21 actually telecopied up to the NRC, to your knowledge?
(_)
22
. Or do _ you have an impression'if 'you don' t know?
23 A.
The commitment was made to telecopy those calculations 24
.to NRC.
Our standard -- and I just gave copies of the calculati 3ns.
' Ace-of Reporters, Inc.
25 to Mr. Taylor, and it would've been Mr. Taylor's res'ponsibility.
11 I
to distribute those copies via telecopy.
rs d( )
2 The copy that you have there as Exhibit, what -- Exhibit 17 3
(~x Q
Exhibit. :21.
\\_)
4 A
- Exhibit 21, seems to be the copy that was transmitted 5
to our customer at the -- at the site which either was given 6
to tutC or -- and probably this is more appropriate -- there's 7
been another copy telecopied to NRC
'directly.
8 0'
You think there would be a different set of calculations?
10 A
The same four pages would have been transmitted to NRC because I just got the impression that MR. Novack was in 12 Bethes'da at the time he called.
h'-)/
13 O
I believe that's correct.
So it's your impression 14 that these calculations were telecopied to the NRC, but you're 15 personally not sure whether it was actaully done by Mr. Taylor.
16 A
Right.
17 Q
Okay.
Let me go back for a minute, now, to the 18 original conversation or conversations that you had with Mr.
19 Taylor.
i
-20
~
You said a moment ago, I think, that he wanted you to do 21 a conservative estimate.
What did you mean by that?
Did.you I
22 in/
mean conservative with respect to the possibility that there l
23 might be enough' oxygen to reach flammability limits?
. Right.
To make the most pessimistic estimate, A-25 relative to the potential for hydrogen explosion.
1
12 4
1 In other wo-is, to maximize the amount of hydrogen and d
b2 2
oxygen present in the bubble.
3 frmp Q
So'the explcsive nature of any hydrogen in the L) -
4 bubble was not what the concern was as it was related to you.
5 Yes.
A 6
Q It wasn't just, "We're ' interested in knowing whether 7
this bubble is steam or hydrogen; but we're interested in 8
knowing if there's hydrogen in there.
What possible danger, if 9
any, does it pose?"
10 Is that a fair characterization?
11 A
Yes.
'I think that is a fair characterization.
12 O
of what you understood?
O-)
A I wasn't articulated quite 1.ike that, but there 14 certainly was a sense of urgency and concern over the potential 15 floor; enough oxygen present in the bubble to cause a risk of 16 an explosion.
17 Q
Okay.
Let me just show you what I've had marked as 8
Exhibit 22, which is a memo to the record initialed by J.H.T.,.
19 who I take it, is Mr. Taylor; and ask whether the first 20 paragraph there is consistent with what he realted to you 21 about what he had been asked to do by NRC people.
.g.
22
'L/
(Counsel handing document to witness.)
l
~ A' Yes,- it's consistent.
One of the problems is in all
(~h 24 the Verbal communication, some things get distorte'd, I guess.
Ace 3 Reponen, Inc.
25 Q
I can only ask you for your best recollection of
13 l
I what Mr.. Taylor conveyed ts you.
s
(
)
d3pk3 2
A I didn't see this document 'intil four or five months 3
after the accident.
This says, raised a concern about radiolytic U
4 -decomposition ~of the gas and resulting accumulation in the 5
reactor vessel, in that it might have been as much as 1200 6
cubic feet.
7 That was certianly part of the concern.
It was more global 8
in nature.
The concern was there was this gas bubble and 9
could it -- you know, could it explode.
10 If it was radiolytic production, the hydrogen and oxygen 11 would be in a stoichiometric ratio for the worst possible 12 explosive condition.
()
13 So, there really was a concern, not only about radiolytic 14 decomposition but the composition in general; what other gases 15 might have been present.
16 Q
Okay now, I'm going to have to ask you to help me 17 a little bit in explaining the difference between your l
18 maximum theoretical hydrogen and oxygen generation rates and j
19 what you figured would be.the more realistic _ calculations, and i
l 20 why there's a difference between those two things.
21 You started out by saying that on a theoretical basis, you A(f 22 calculated the total maximum amount of hydrogen and oxygen, then 23
'you went back to assume-there was an 800 foot bubble, and tried 24 to look at how much hydrogen and oxygen-might be in that bubble.
Ace-si ReporA s, 'oc.
25 Chi page four of your calculations that we've marked as 4
14 I
Exhibit 21 near the bottom, there are four different volumes I
i disi4 2
..:.aed on the assumption of an 800 cubic foot bubble, listed.
3 you've calculated that it would be primarily steam, but you've v
also shown that there is substantial amount of hydrogen and 5
Does that reflect your theoretical, rather than your realistic ~
6 7
set of calculations?
8 A
Yes.
9 MR. EDGAR:
Can we have that question read back to 10 make sure that we don't have it inverted?
THE WITNESS:
Say that again, now, I'm sorry.
I2 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
Q 13 Q
On page four, maybe you can explain to me what the I#
calculations there in cubic feet represent.
Do the assumptions 15 listed there -- it says assume an 800 cubic foot bubble.
6 do those estimated ot alculated volumes of various kinds I7 of gas also assume that maximum theoretical radiolysis productio n 18 of hydrogen and oxygen have occurred or are occurring?
A Yes.
Based on the calculation on page three -- on 20 page one you can see'we came up with a certain number of 21 standard cubic feet of hydrogen and oxygen.
When those standard (aj.
22 cubic feet are compressed; and when you take into account the 23 other sources that'I had previously mentioned about what was previously dissolved in the reactor coolant, and all that; and Am-el Reporters, Inc.
25
-[
15
-R
(
'I
'then you compressJit to the conditionlindicate'th'erer.the 537 t /'N15 2
- degrees-Fahrenh'eit andE935 psig, you would come up with these
~
3' j-
- compressed volumes lwhich are consistent with the numbers on h,)y~
page one, which is' based on the ~ maximum theoretical production -
- I 5
rate.between the.timejof the accident and~2200-h'ours on March'29 6
So that wouldLhave 'been the maximum amount of radiolytic 7
hydrogen that could.have been produced under the most optimum
~
8 conditions inithat period of time.
9 1)
Is there any way you can explain to me in' lay terms 10 how you' arrived at the percentage relationship of these four I
types of gaseous or semigaseous elements.
2 Can you do that on the basis of assuming that you had all 13
-that hydrogen and oxygen generation.
This is given partial N
' pressures and assuming that the bubble was diat large.
This 15 is what the ration has to be.
16 A
Well,.I calculated the amount of each one of those I7 components and -- and--I assumed it all went to a gas' phase in j,
l' 18 the. reactor coolant system and-didn't take into account any 19 losses relaased to the building or.any thing else.
20 I just assumed-it was all there.
21
. Q When you say "it", you.mean the hydrogen and the
-(QN
- 22 oxygen?
23
~
2#
. considered.' 1[ didn't consider any loss from the systems.
So, As-w coorwes. w.
. 25 ithis is sort?of maximum compositon and -- or maximum content
16 1
.and the -- we knew the bubble'was considerably bigger than the-
- gy dj 16E
.j00 cubic' foot'that'~I-had. calculated,;or could account.for.
2
... ;g 3
'So, I ' calculated the s'pecific volume.of steam at that ~
' m)
. ' temperature-and pressure,cand assumed.an-800 foot' bubble,'and c4
~5 came-up with, basically, the difference as-steam.
~
.6 The steam would dilute.the hydrogen and reduce-the abundance 7
'or'. partial] pressure in the coolant..So that was a conservative 8
assumption'at the time;.and it still is a conservative 19 assumption'.
10' Now, of course, if the difference in volume was due to hydrogen 11 that would be even more conservative, because we'd have even 12 more partial pressure and it would serve to suppress the 13 reaction even further.
14 0
9kay, now.
Let me get to that.
You said having.
15
.given.the maximum theoretical generation rates, you also told 16 Mr. Novack and the other people from the NRC that you didn't 17 think thet these rates would actually be seen, because hydrogen
-18 overpressure would suppress this process of radiolysis.
19 A
Right.
L 20 0
Where.-- where would the partial -- where would L
21 the~ hydrogen overpressure come from that would suppress this
- ,6 A );
22 ' process; the theoretical process that you calculated here?
~. 23 A-If we'didn't have this, going on,. right?
24
-Q ~
LWhat -- what would-be -- can you describe why it is
' Ace-r el Reporters,Inc.
25 that there is.a-hydrogen overpressure that suppresses this l
- 17 process
.'Is. that asL a-result!' of the' di~ssolved hydrogenuin - the
[l' 4
i p
f'~' ~ 7l-
~
2 L2 system from1 normal. operations', or is that aoresult'of.the:
J 3
- ongoing process ofIradiolysis-and recombination?.'
~
4'
- A-
- That's.a' good. question.
I don't know-how I'm going' 1
- . 5 to. answer that question. 1 Rephrase'iti 'could'you give me'that-
-6
'questiion again, zbecause the answer is. awkward-.to phrase.
I7
' I justiwant'to'makelsure I-under' stand it. correctly..
8 Let meLtry.
~
9 Q
okay.,
10!
3
- If the radiolytic' process did not occur,-then'there
~
'II would not be sufficient hydrogen overpressure.to suppress the~
I2
' reaction,..right?-
13
- Okay, if that: were the case, and I looked at.all the gas lid
' sources, there would beLno way to account for any bubble of' 15 any;significant size because of the composition that I-had
.16
.come'up with; which was over 11,000 standard cubic feet, now.'
- 17 There'.s a compression ration of about 40 by the time you 18 get-into'the reactor. system; 9000lof that 11,000. standard 119
' cubic Ifeet was a result -- about 9000 was a result of the A
.20 radiolysis porcess.
(21 30, 'if you; subtract. that 9000, you.have very little gas M
1\\,)[ _
'22 St'o' account!for in the bubble.
23
- The on'e' item we' 1. eft out' was the metal-water. reaction, which
.6 A..
1.
onlyf contributesL hy'drogen.
So any mysteri.ous increase, or l Ace-FedorJ Reporters, Inc.
25 bubble' size' larger thanithis.200 standard cubic feet either IhadJt'o be" steam.or hydrogen.
~
~
~
.I
.18 1
fQ--
Tokay.
Let'me getito-that'in justla second.. Was g18 2
whdt you were_saying to'.Mr. Novack,:yout. don't see -- you're'not.
~
4 3
flikely"to see any'netlor free' hydrogen.or-oxygen.such'as you have d
'4 listed 'here,' :because :: this. process does 'not generateifree~
~
5 hydrogen ~.and free oxygen.under-these. circumstance;.
6
'Is that~a fair summary of'it?
7
-7
'A-That -- yes, that's a ' fair summary.
~
-8 Q.
Ok ay '.
My next question is whether there was any 9
idiscussion ofithat. conversation,-that you remember about the 10
. possibility of dircomium-water reaction causing _ hydrogen II
' generation;in the system.
.12 In other'words, did you'or anyone say to NRC people or-l f')
13
- was it. discussed, "Look', lif-you've got a lot of hydrogen ~ in a.s.
- 14
'this bubble, it's got to come from zirc-water reaction;-.it'.s 15'
_not' coming from radiolysis."
16 A
I can't recall getting into that specifically with 17 Mr. Novack on,the evening of-the 29th.
It certainly was
=18 apparent that that of the sources of hydrogen, that I could 19
~ account'for.-
20 The'five sources.that.I previously mentioned; the one that 21
-is conspicuously missing, is metal-water reaction.
The reason
-.h
- 22 that is missing, is that adds' hydrogen-to the bubb]e which;
.a 23
'one, affects it's~ size, but doesn't affect the explosive 124 ipotential..
Nce-I Reporters, Inc.
l
-25 This1 calculation gives.you the most pessimistic j
j
1 19
'l interpretation ~from'an~ explosive compos'ition, which was my.
d,mj9 2
gggg i
yg. _
g
- Was.it-communicated'.to you before'.you did-these 3
dj 4-calculations,?that_this was a hydrogen bubble,.or substantially.
5-a hydrogen bubble'.
6 Was-it. assumed that there was a lot of hydrogen in it, or I
was there raised:a question as to what it-was?
Whether it-
^
8 could still be' all steam,- if there really was a bubble there.
-9 A-Well, the question came ab 7ut in the. broad context; 310 do the1best'you can to estimate the composition of the bubble..
II Q
Whatever it is?
I2 A-Whatever it is.
p 13
' () -
0-How could we - have a bubble; in other ds,-if we Id have a_ bubble, what's in it?'
.15 A
What's in.it.
The presupposition was there~was a 16 bubble of some size based-on this compressability information.
I7' Now, do the best you can to estimate the composition from a
18 the standpoint of what's-the most pessimistic composition that W
'might be there that could cause a hydrogen explosion -- can
'20 cause an explosion due'to the radiolytic composition of any 21
. coolant that might be there -- coolant that might decompose.
j 22
- That is-what that first four pages of calculations was
~
23 intendedLto. impress.
The presence of steam bubble never really 24
..came up'on the 29th.
The reason ~is if-you look at the_ reactor hesi Reporters, Inc.
20
-coolant temperature and pressure, it was subcooled and it was --
p t w.
l
~
Y 20 1
ne w uld expect -the partiall-
.-the ' vapor pressure' of' water Lto.
id 20L 2
he 'relatively -low under those ~ coriditions, : and'not much-. steam 1
23
.to be'present.-
i l^) '
l4l However, we also:didn't-fully understand-the temperatures 5
'that the core had reached, and-the-length'of time-that:the' R
.l 6
' internals 'of'.the reactor coolant may have been heated to -
17 temperatures 1above the-normal operating temperatures and>that L8 sortLof, thing.
9 So, it-was.a -- and-I-can't. remember-the day-atcall -- it j
i
~ 10
'was a day lor two11ater_when somebody brought up the-point of
~
l
'11 whetherlthis bubble could have been a steam bubble as opposed
-h 13 I discussed it with Billy bingham,'who has.aLvery strong 14-technical background in heat transfer,_and Lhe did some "back
- 15
- of the envelope" calculationsfand kind-of convinced himself-16
'and me that it'wasn't a--steam bubble.
l17 Now, i~f I had to.put a time frame on that, I would say.~it
' 18 was some time on either March 31 or April 1, because at that
~
L time we were doing bubble size calculations, and the bubble 19 20 was shrinking very quickly.
21
'Our interpretation was'we were either degassing the coolant j
h(
22 much more efficiently than we thought we could do it, or we 23
- thought we had - a -leak. in the' gas phase, wh' re the bubble was.
~
9 e
! Ace 9-eral Reporters,l'nc.
~
y But e didn't inte.rpret it.as the collapsing of a steam 24 w
f 25 bubble..
O r
e
s 9,f,
~
21 El QL
- By?hhat.' time,
- ;you were assuming-that.it'was
-( j ? -
.2
-dep21':
substantfially? hydrogen.
3
. 73..
A
- Right.
And the main reasonJis.that the'hyd'rogen'
- 3._)
E 4.nunbers all5 corrolated. 'The le'ak: rate'was'-- showed a' linear
~~~
5 d'ecrease in bubble size which would b'e compatible with the
~
- 6 theory of there's'a small leak'.
The system is.under' constant 7
pressure..
8 The escapeiratefought-to be constant'over that period'of A
" time.
The hydrogen concentration in-the building was going up 0
an'd when the bubble _ size stopped', the hydrogen concentration in
~
11
-the building stopped'-
stopped' increasing.
~
So, the whole~ scenario fit together.
We didn't really t_),E
(~
13 pursue looking at the possibility. of whether 'it was' a steam
~
bubble in'any great depth.
-15 Q
Okay.
Let's go-back to your comversation that 16 evening; the conference call.
The conversation with the NRC 17'
_ people.-
-18 A
On the'29th?
j i
19 Q
On the 29th,-you mentioned that in.your own notes 20 you used,that you also considered the possible contribution of 2I
'g'ases - from' inside. - the fuel rods.
Am I correct?
\\:
- v,f
-22 LA
-(Nods;in the affirmative.)-
23 jg -
.Those.would only get out in the-system if there were
. fuel pin'fallure orifuel-failure of some-kind.
jee dnWn <3
-25 A-
'Right.
s v
E
'22 A
I notice that doesn't app' ear to be included'in the 22-Q.
~-
I-2
-four. categories 1that are listed on-pageifour.of your calculations.
3
- (T
.Is there a reason-ifor that?
'q f (A
Well basically, it.was so small it's --'well,-let's-
=-
5 see.
The gas-that's'prepressurized. in that -- it was mostly-helium and it was-1000 out of the 11,000 cubic feet.
6' 7
So, it's 1000 :as ' compared to 9000 from the hydrogen / oxygen L8 and it was -- we had all this - -it would.only act as a 9
~dilutant'and we had all this steam. acting in'there as a
.dilutant, so it really didn't-affect the conclusions very much.
I didn't -
I didn't know that, number there precisely at the
-12
' time,_either.
- (-) :
13 TF Were you making any particular assumptions about 14 whether there had been fuel failure or had not been fuel 15 failure?
16 A
At that time,.I assumed -- see, this calculation 17 continued on to the next day.
Some of the people that I 18
- needed; relative to the fuel characteristics and that kind of stuff weren't available-until the next day.
t So, some'of these numbers got refined the next day.
So I
-21 may have.gotten more detailed'information, on say, the r
prepressurization of the pins and that sort of thing that'I
~
3
'didn' t know on Friday ' night -- on Thursday night.
lT 24 hl._$n.ponen,ine.
Q In Exhibit 20, it indicates that you recall that Mr.-Novack's-response'in the telephone call was that's a new
23'
'I wririkle,c or:wordsito tihat effect.
id 73-
- 2' V
- A Yes.
3-Q.-
.What was itche thought wasca-new wrinkle?
O.
AL The' fact that'the radiolytic---hydrogen reaction would' Al 4
.be suppressed by:the' hydrogen. overpressure..
-6
-Q
'Why would that be a' new wrinkle?f Because you would
~
7-
.be. telling them~that if you've-got a hydrogen bubble it's not.
8
. coming:from radiolysis;'it's coming from somewhere else?
9 "A
No.
Unless somebody's had previous experience O.
dealing'with radiolytic composition, all they do is read reg.
11
. guides or'something like that, and it goves the radiolytic 12 decomposition rate and they don'.t understand the various
- D-perameters that affect it.
Id
'We had done some -- I had been' involved'in some experimental 5
. work'on radiolytic hydrogen' production and we know that you can 16 get any rate you want, just depending.on the kinds of 17 conditions which;you conduct the radiation -- any rate between IO zero and a g value?of
.5.
~
O I guess what I'm trying t'o get at by my question,
~
20 ils whether.if you told him you're not.getting any hydrogen
. 2 f.
.-or oxygen; net hydrogen or oxygen from radiolysis, 22 b.
--If that inevitably leads to the conclusion, "Well, we'd y
23 better looklat whether.we've: got a lot of. hydrogen from-24 from-the fuel cladding reactiin with water and hign heat."
m-Reporters, Inc.
25 Is thatJalmst an inevitable conclusion that one.would sf 1..
4
- 24-reach,:even if you-didn't discuss'itrinnthe phone-conversation?
L
~Br~l24
'2 JThat's'what'I'm tryingLto get'at.-
3 k[
g.
- Well,.. I think that's' ~a'. conclusion that one would reach.
h 4
I;think'that we had reached that conclusion that night.-
~
5
- g
- Yourselves?L i
- - i
.I 6
3
.Yes.
Although,..we=hadn't!really pursued the 7
-calculation in:any.-- in any: depth.
That was the-first, well 8
I. guess that 's why Jim called me back at 3:00 in the~ morning 9
'and said to come on inEand let's pursue this calculation, 10 because it's very important.
11 Q
When you say.this calculation, you mean this zirc-12 water question?-
13 A
Right.
Finish the whole calculation on the bubble, because they were concerned about -- well, the zirc-water,
~
15 the. bubble size and the -- they were concerned about the growth 16 in the bubble.
17 See, they wanted to' say, "Okay, if there is no radiolytic 18 hydrogen production, then the bubble should not be growing."
They. wanted to. get real precise measurements on bubble size.
'20 So if there wasn't radiolytic. hydrogen generation, they coul d, sort of, monitor.the increase in bubble size or something like O
~22 U
that.
.23 LThat was the thought process they were going through, but we'got some phone calls.that showed the.next day; I don't 25
' remember what time. that day; where we discussed as much as
25-I
~
- ld;p25l L15.-percentimetal-water reaction. with members of NRC.
i
):
A/
.2 0
- All1right;:when;you say 15fpercent; you mean-15
'3-g3 -
Epercent Lof. the cladding 'gone.to that: reaction. -
%1
- 4
~
AI
- Right.
-Q Used up inisuch aJreaction?-
A Right.-
-7 Q
. Of the zirconuim'in the cladding?
A 15-percent of the zirconium'in'the cladding. reacted --
9 would have had to react'with reactor in'the coolant-to produce
~
'the bubble size that we were measuring.
O Okay, but you don't recall that specific subject'-
12 being actually discussed in the conversation on the evening before?
14 A
No.
15 Q
-You think it wasn' t, ~ or-you just don' t have a
'16 recollection one way or the other?
A' I recall that we thought it was.too premature.
I 18 don't think we really had pursued that calculation, because we didn't know the bubble size.
l 20 So, we -- you know, we expected the difference in size-from r-21 what we could. account'for; would have to be due, probably, to
'/'b' 22
. (f metal-water' reaction.
23
.But we didn't; dwell on that point.
As a matter of' fact, L.h ners, we probably. avoided that point on the night of the 29th.
" I 25
-Do.you. remember when you first learned, if you did,
-Q.
~
4
26-I
.,dhp261
. that there probably had been a hydrogen detonation.in the
/
t
'A~
'2 reactor'.. building on W'ednesday?
gs (Pause.)
t Le' 4
A I can't--- I remember seeing the curve,'but-I
-5 really can.' t - remember wliat date I saw it on.
6 Approximately..
-Q' 7
A
.Somebody, we were putting all these preameters that 8
- would be plotted and sticking them up on thefwall.
As soon as 9
I saw it, you know, it looked'like it was obviously a hydrogen 10 explosion on the -- and that was-9 hourse after the accident;-
-11 which-wasp I guess, on -- that happened on Wednesday, and I t -
12 probably didn't see that' curve until Friday at the earliest; Saturday at the latest.
14 So, even thought.it happened on the 28th, I didn't see it IS until the 30th or the 31st.
16 Q
Okay.
Now, let.me ask you about Friday the 30th.
17
.You said you do recall some conversations with NRC people about
'18
. the zirc-water reaction.
19 Do you recall that you participated in such conversations, 20 yourself?
Chr is this in impression that you have from seeing 21
- transcripts or tapes or talking-with people afterwards?
D-
' 22'
(_JJ A
At.that particular time, I was probably on the.
phone 10 times a day.with differant people from.different n
n on.,.
organizations; NRC, several times a day'with NRC;'and just 125 basically giving the a. blow by blow of everything we were doing,
.g
s
~27 i
I So, I real'lyjdon't.re' call participating ~in one specific
~
( [....
A~'527 l 2-..t'elephone. call', other; than what we-have -in.the ~ record,.that-U
'3 saysnwe'did;specifically talk to somebody.on this. subject.
.<3
'j But I'can't remember.that --
5 MR.: EDGAR:
Off'the record.
6 (Discussion off the~ record.)
.I 7:
MR.:FRAMPTON:-
Let's-go back on the' record.
8 BY MR. FRAMPTON:
9
- Q Mr.'Nitti, your notes'of your telephone conversation-10 made byJus indicate-that-you do' recall on Friday;or Saturday, 11
' talking.with Mr.-Salvatori of Westinghouse about the oxygen 12
. generation issue.
(
3
.Do~you recall any discussions on Friday or Saturday with NRC people about chat subject again?
15 In other words, did people come back. to you questioning 16
'your view on that or asking the same question over again, that 17 you can remember.
18
.Or did it continue.to be an issue; if, you know -- if you 19 recall?-
20 A
Well,..I'm pretty sure -- positive that the-call from 21 Romano Salvatori was on Saturday, because I was impressed that I_q
- 22. -Westinghouse was. working on Saturday and.willing to call us and
)
23 offeriassistance.
24~
.So, I'm' positive-that was Saturday;: und I'm also positive 4
%,, a 25
.that the response-that he was able' to provide was very prompt.
9
/
Ol 28-
- j dip 28-JI'm surefit.was 1ater.oni.in.the day of Saturday-'that Dr. Connor,
~
2 I
you know,'Mr.~ Romano'had contacted Dr..Connor:and gotten'.a
'3~
then.I'calle'd response from him and had gotten back to'us; q
L.J_
- 4
~
~
~
Dr.TConnor-and discussed it some more.-
5
~
. Basically, he confirmed;our previous conclusion that the.
- 6 hydrogen overpressure-would have suppressed-any radiolytic i
7
. oxygen-formation.
8 0
. Okay, :my l question is, really, wh' ether you recall 9
this being an issue that anybody from'the.NRC directly came back
-10 to you on, or to anyone-else at B & W.
11 A
I --
12 Q'
Raising the problem new or questioning --
=13
.A My recollection is-very clear on that, and that is 14 I don't recall:any conversation with any memeber of the NRC 15 that rehashed the concern relative to whether radiolytic reaction-
~
16 was supressed.
17 We had many calls with,the NRC over that period of time, but 1
18 it was always on something now; not going back over something.
-that we had previously communicated.
20 Q
Do you-recall whether you knew this was -- continued-21 to be a cancern:on somebody's part?
~
)
22 737
- Well,-yes.
23
.In the media or among people working at the site or g,
kg whereever. -
~
-A lWell, I rea, didn't have a whole lot of time to i
i w
^
- l
~
29~
~
~
I' " read \\the newspapers'at'that. time,:but the:--fand-there'were a id"+49. :
3
'2 lot'of. people' involved at NRC,-and'in our shop.
3
)gs..
There.was a lothofLplanning:and; questions! going on relative-n\\~/i 4
- to growth in the' bubble, L or potential-for' hydrogen explosion; 5
'thetability;of thesvessel to withstand explosion and-all these 6
things -~had been turned on and :were : progressing ' for -
into, I'm 7
sure, throught April 1st, anyway.
8 So, to some extent,- I was curious as to whether the 9
Commission believed what we had told-them about suppressing"the 10 radiolysis-reaction, or whether they were proceeding on another course, which was assuming.that it was continuing.
p 12 Since I only had a limited perspective on the overall 13 operation, I just didn' t-know what the controlling criteria was-
'for that.
15 Q
Well, if.you were aware that other people were.
'16 working on the question of what happens if there's a hydroge'n I7 explosion, it would seem that this continued to be~ a concern 18 and; yet, based on your calculations, one ought not to have 19 been. concerned-about it.
20 A
That's correct.
21-
-Q Did that'ever come to your mind as a contradiction 1of
/\\
22 V~
any. kind?
23 A-Very clearly, very clearly.
24
'(Laughter.)
Am d Rgenws,-Irm 25 Q
Did you every have conversations with other people
s _
^
~
30
- FridayjorISaturd'y
- about the -- inle'ssence.- 'to'why.the, hell S
Jdd 0
a
- l 2 f anybody is worried about1this; Lor isn't this' _ allivery 'theoretica:.?
a 43-7 ) A, Lys ve.made those-statements', but obviously no.t.to-
!(_)
4 ;peopleiinithe-right positions.. You know,;we' don't all!
5 communichte:directly.with the White House, you.know,.this-is --
6
- (Laughter.-) -
-47 LQ.
Let mi ask~you about that'.
I certainly don't mean
~
~
"{
8
.'to Jsuggest thatL you should have, you know, that you bore any
-9 responsibility for, you know, setting the country. straight.
10 Do:you know whether other people-were working onithis problem for the NRC or Met Ed from B & W down at'Lynchburg made' 12
- any effortsLto remonstrate.with.anybody7about whether this~
$[, f 13 really was a valid concern;'that there'was an explosion Id~
potential?
15 A
I got the impression'on -- probably clearly on
. 16 Saturday from talking with Dr. Connor; and several telephone 17 calls took place on Saturday that he had talked directly with 18 NRC before he L-u calked with me.
That he had told NRC the
-19 same-thing.
20
.Somehow or other -- and I can't remember who told me to
- 21
'get in touch with Bob Ritzman at SAI, but I talked to him and' l([
22 gotLthe: impression that he had been' talking to-the Commission 23 Jand I sortiof.got-the impression that everybody in the country
~
- 24 thatLhadany_ knowledge of radiolysis was working on it.
W-et Reporters, Inc.
25
- So,1f just. figured.it was in good; hands.
There was a lot R
v g
~x
- dEp311 h1 o f icontingency' ' planning l going on.
But I'just didn't have the-
. f}
^#
2
=overall' perspective.asitoLwhat werefthe driving forces and.what
- 3; :were; the real: concerns; who was - worrie'd ' about.what.
(q:)
4 MR. FRAMPTON: :Off.the' record-for a minute.
5 (Discussion off--the record.)
6
'MR.-FRAMPTON:
Back on the record.
Do you want to 7
th question,' Bill?-
8 BY MR. JOHNSON:
-9 Q
. Don, I'd like to know something about what you call 10-.the : substance of 'your conversation with Bob Ritzman.
Was it
~
aJ echnical discussion;-were dou discussing differences of 11 t
12 conclusions?
What do you recall?
I f
13 A.
Basically, all I can recall is that somebody said
. 14 that Bob.Ritzman was working on this problem.
I called Bob.
. 15 We discussed it and he was -- we discussed it in some detail..
16 I-know, I.have a whole page of notes of various things we
- 17
. discussed.
And -- the-bottom line is that, basically, he was 18 in agreement with what we had said relotive to the hydrogen
- 19 supressing the radiolytic production of hydrogen and oxygen.
20 That was my main concern in talking to him.
So it didn't --
lit helped -- you know, tus from looking into it anymore.
It was i
21 p.
u,j:
- 22 another. confirmation; and we were tyring to make sure that the resti- :nobo'dy else had$any concerns relative to the-technical
'23
-2'4
~ asssumptions that we hademade;. realizing the importance of the
' Ace-
') Reporters, Inc.
' 25
' conclusion.
9 y
w
1 32
'I lSo,.:we were-3ust-looking_fosfsupport and basically,-he 2
db[32:
isupported our conclusion. LWe_ felt. good about'it,.and didn't
=3-
{.
really follow-up with. Bob more than that one telephone call.
. Was: this on: Saturday' if you ~ recall?
Q A'
I'm prettyisure it was on Saturday, because I'know it
~
6 was_on a weekend; and I-knowlI called him at home.
Whoever gave 7
s name gave-both his business number and his home number.
hi 8
So, I'm pretty;sure it was on Saturday.
Could I ask in connection, were there any cther
.Q.
10 estimates' made on the effect of impurities - on recombin ation 11 rates. EIn other words, you mentioned only hydrogen as being --
promoting -recombination; but how about -- at any point in this f-)'
- 13. period,Lwas the effect of fission _ products due to the damaged 14 core and so forth have any possible influence on suppressing 15 recombination, even in the presence of hydrogen or that being
- 16 a factor..
17 Was that considered at all, to your knowledge?
8 A
We'didn't consider it.
Now, I don't know if Bob's
~
study got into that or not.
I know the follow on study that Westinghouse -- that_Argonne is doing now, is looking at that 21 sort of. thing, but that's -- we were working in real time, with 1
w i
o 22 r
a'fewfhours to reach conclusion.
j We were-not;looking1at it in.that great a detail. ~ We weren' u even equipped to doIthat if'we' wanted'to.
~
w go,,
\\
- 25~
BY MR. -FRAMPTON:
4 e
.(-
,5--
33 I
[d 3;
tQ _
iMr. Nitti, Lother ; than matter--that.we' have ' alre'ady c2 discussed, fhere,. 'were ' there other issues or prob 1' ems - that you -
3 workedL'on'in responseitw the" accident overithe period from
-h7o
_4 March-29th.to April 1st, or-2nd?.
5
.yg so,'.could you summarize, very briefly, what they were.
insofar as youLremember?
iI 6
7 A-Well,' we-talked'primarily-about the compositonLof 8
the~ hydrogen 4 bubble.
My:overal1~~ responsibility was to A
' coordinate all-the radiochemistry and chemistry aspects of the 10
-accident.
11 So, I was involved with estimating the bubble size,.and 12 tracking the bubble's_ size; as a' function of time, refining the (7-13
- *s' -
calculational techniques on the bubble; establishing the l#
statistical-error bars that we'might expect on the size of the.
15 bubble.
16 Following the amount of activity that was observed in the I7
' reactor coolant when we first got the samples back, then_there 18 were a whole-lot of other radiological considerations relating 19
-to radiation damage to various components that we were working L
20 on.
21 But that basically summarizes my involvement other than the
- fm
,l d-
~
hydrogen bubble composition.
._23
.Q
~Okay..Thank you.
Let's go off the record for a D%
.-24 moment.
! Acei M Reporterss Inc.
.25
.(Discussion off the record.)-
l 34 1
I
- dip 34i MR.:-FRAMPTON: : Back on the. record.
77 (h
2 4BY MR. FRAMPTON:
j 3
.Q Mr. Nitti, you--referred to.two other documents during
.g
.r
.\\
4
?che < deposition.-..You referred-to.some'extraicalculations, back---
-S up? calculations that you did~on Thursday; and'.you referred to some 6
- notes of. telephone conversations you had with Dr.-Ritzman and
,7 7
Dr.!Connor.
8 For.the-record, during the break, we asked you to provide 9
.us with photocopies o'f those'back-up calculations',.which.are 10 pages' 5 through-lO which would : follow ~ on ' pages 1 through 4 of.
-11 Exhibit 21.
12
'We've also asked you to provide us with notes that you had 13 with telephone. conversations with Dr. Ritzman and Dr. Connor I#
with th'e understanding that if that is only part of a-page full of other notes, that you can give us the extract that refers 0
only to those conversations.
17 Is there any problem about getting us copies of that
-8 material?
19
~A.
No.
20 MR. EDGAR: One correction for the record.- The 21 statement was made~that the additional calculations on pages --
^
- 22
();
'THE WITNESS:
Five.
23 MR. EDGAR: 'Five through. ten were done on Thursday.
,, g First~of'all,=is that true, and if that's not true, when were 25 1.they done.so:we can,geta correct identification-
-35
?
- THE-WITNESS:.All the calculations.on pages--5 through
~
- d p35
.(
'):
s N 2
10.wereJeither done'on Thrusday or Friday.
^
- 3 BY MR.-FRAMPTON
~
1 N:
\\'~)
4
.Q
.Do you recall.that son <> Were definitely ' done -
'5 Thurs' day?!
'6
- A' I'm' pretty sureIthatLpage 5,'since it's in such
~7 detail was done'on Friday.--Page'6 may have been done on
.8 Thursday, because it's -.it covers the-same kind'of material,
'9 but-it's a little bit more. approximate, so when I resh'
. led 10 the-pages'and put the calculation in one place; ~ I put most I
accurate stuff first and --
12 MR. EDGAR:
What about page 7?
)-
13
.THE WITNESS:
Page 7, I think, was partially done 14 on Thursday.
It was started on Thursday and was revised some-15 time on Friday.
Page 8 was probably -- it was probably Friday, 16 and page 9 was probably Friday., Page 10 was Friday.
~
17 MR. EDGAR:
Okay, now when you refer to Friday, can
-l 18
- you give-him --
19 THE WITNESS:
Excuse-me,.the first half of page 10 20
.we started on Thursday.-
It ended with the calculation on 21 Friday.
(p);
22-
. MR. ' EDGAR:
Could you' explain, wh'n we're talking e
23 about Thursday and Friday, here, 'could you' go back just to pin
- l..
- 24
'd'own what. your' work : day.. consisted ~ of on Thursday and Friday?
Am-el Reporters, Inc.
L
'25 THE WITNESS:
Well, my work day started at 8:00 in
l f.
36' p
id: d361
-I she morning lan'd'.normally. ends at-5:00'on Thursday.- But most of=
~
c s'
- 2
.that.wasLnot1related to.the' hydrogen problem.
My' involvement-
~
- 3-
~
. ry with the-hydrogen problem! started.:around.5:00 on Thursday
- ~ f^
4 night and ended'probably.12:30 on Friday morning.-
~
4 5
iBY MR'.~
FRAMPTON:
Q' il:2 : 30 ' a.m. ? L I
6 7
12: 30 ' a.m. Friday: morning f and' then it started, like, A
- 3:30 a.m.: Friday morning and ended -- I_ don't.know -- sometime 9
around-midnight Friday night.
0
-MR. EDGAR:.. Ok ay.
11' MR. FRAMPTON:
Mr. Nitti, thunk you very-much for 12 l
your-cooperation and your time.
We appreciate it.
' I) 13 A-THE WITNESS:
All right.
14 (Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the deposition was adjourned.)
15 16 17
. 18 19
-- 20 21
-n k.f 22 23
-24 b
.i n ponen. inc.
~.25 b
?