ML20010E189
| ML20010E189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8109030183 | |
| Download: ML20010E189 (87) | |
Text
_
1 1
. u -..,u Rv._ous wRv
-e
..- r.v.u.- ~ ~ - N ee-r i
l i
I l
I s
2 :::e.P.::ar Of:
i HOUSTON LIGHTING & PCWER COMPANY
)
) DCCKET No. 50-466 CP Allens Creek Nuclear Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1
)
e.- August 28, 1981 0..,c..e.
16318 thru 16402 A;:
Houston, Texas c
I
? IlO' fe(\\'-
g
'f$N
.~
g.f.'.fD
?e
.l j&
4; r --l 3
v 3
.m g
ma i_
u n//
pge s.
e.s.
g.
l q f 'y.
..nu,'
l y
x c =.
l i
L.LD O S)X REPORTLTG f.
40 0 vi: _. ia Ave., s.w. Was " e =n, C.
200:4 i
Tah:1cre: (202' 554-2245 1
1 W
y ^, ~)c r,0n b e
-r-' '..'.'.. l ;.--
y pgp 1
g 16318 4
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(])
BEFORE THE 2
3j NUCLEAR REGULATORr COMMISSrON 4
I.1 the Matter of:
)
e 5 !
)
E i
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP 6
1
)
l Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
7l Station, Unit 1
)
v 8
8' a
i I
Capricorn Room 9;
g l
Ramada Inn E
10 l 7787 Katy Freeway E
j Houston, Texas 2
11 i j
- Friday, d
12 :
August 28, 1981 3
O s
13,
PURSUA.' TO ADJOURNMENT, the above-entitled E
A 14 matter came on for further hearing at 9:00 a.m.
t2 i
2 15,
APPEARANCES:
z
=
y 16 l Board Members:
l p
17 SHELDON J.
WOLFE, Esq., Chairman y
i Administrative Judge 18 '
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
?
19 !
Washington, D.
C.
20555 5
W 20h GUSTAVE A.
LINENBERGER l
Administrative Judge 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel j!
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(}
22 Washington, D.
C.
20555 3
23 l DR.
E.
LEONARD CHEATUM i
i Administrative Judge i
l ()
24 !!
Route 3,
Box 350A i
j Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 l
25 ij ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
l l
l 16319 Q
j j APPEARANCES:
(continued) e I
For the NRC Staff:
- ()
23 3!
SrEPHEN SOH1Nx1, Esq.
-and-A 4l LEE DEWEY, Esq.
U U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20:55 e
5 i
r i
H i
~!
6
~
For the Applicant - Houston Lighting & Power Company:
E 7
l n
_~
J.
GREGORY COPELAND, Esq.
i s8 i
-and-SCOTT ROZZELL, Esq.
9l Baker & Botts J
g l
P e Shell Plaza 2ston, Texas 77002 E
10l E=
i 2
11 DAVID POWELL, Esq.
Lowenstein, Rein, Newman, Axelrad & Toll j
l2 1025 Connecticat Avenue, N.
W.
f E
Washington, D.
C.
20037 i
8 3
13 i
(
5 l
14 f For the Intervenors:
0 l
e j
2 15 l, JOHN F.
DOHERTY M
i 4327 Alconbury y
16 Houston, Texas 77021 z
j i
17 -
~
s 1
1 z
18 i t
i i
=
l i
i E
19 -
I A
I i
20)i i
l 21.!
i N
22 !!
l ()
I 23 l
)
24 J
()
i i
25 j l
j
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 1G3Co l
_I_ _N _D__E _X j,
i VOIR BOARD i WITNESFES DIRECT, DIRE CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM. l l i 3
GUY MARTIN, JR.
(Recalled) 4 I
e 5 l By Mr. Rozzell 16,325 5
j By Mr. Doherty 16,327 3
6 By Mr. Doherty 16,332 Bv Mr. Rozzell 16,381 b
7I B$' Judge Cheatum 16,382 By Judge Linenberger 16,336 8i Bv u
- Mr. Doherty 16,399 7
O I
d 9,I E
10 i z
4 h
11 3
12 :
I
=
1 Oa 13 a
5 14 x
=e 1
5 15 l
5
~
j
]
16 :i i
1.
d 17 !
i l
l l
E 18 i l
=
q l
19 'i t-5 i
n 20.:
l 21 i
O.
l 22 23 l
24 1
25 m
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
I i
16321 1-1 i
bm ggqgggQggqg j
()
9:00 a.m.
2<
i l
3l JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
The hearing is in session.
4 In attendance this morning representing Applicant s
5 n
1 6'
are Messrs. Copeland and Rozzell; Messrs. Schinki and 7
Dewey representing Staff; and Mr. Doherty.
~
'l 5
8 i After we had discussed with you yesterday n
d i
d 9l scheduling -- projected scheduling, we received informa-i i
10 tion from Washington that --
Let me back off that.
E i.
5 11 -
As you're all aware, the Commission policy l
about yesterday the Staff filing a week later than the 2l Applicant and presenting its testimony during the second 3
I Q
4f week of the expanded two-week schedule that we were 5l talking about --
e j
E I
a JUDGE WOLFE:
Well, I would hope that you would g
6 4
a e:
l l
7, be consulting with Applicant on scheduling, and perhaps
~
f8 asterisk what is al ready a mat te r of record, b2t to b ring that to
{
9l our attention once again in Applicant's proposed se-E 10 quence.
i 4
5 11 MR. SOHINKI:
All right.
the only reason I
<M d
12 :
raised that is that having an extra week might allow us Z
E to finish our review of some of the items that we haven't O
s 13
=
14 completed and might be able to file testimony on those a=
2 15 '
items.
5 J
16 '
JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
-z l
d 17 Anything else?
N E
18.
(No response.)
=
i
[
19,
JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
We are now proceeding n
j j
20 h to hear testimony on Doherty Contention 40.
t 21 l MR. ROZZELL:
That's right, Your Honor.
Our b
l 22 !! witness would be Guy Martin, who was sworn yesterday.
I O 1
l 23]
JUDGE WOLFE:
You are still under oath, Mr.
- O 24 h; Martin.
25 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
n 18325 3
1-5 WHEREUPON, l
1 I
i GUY MARTIN, JR.
l
()
was recalled as a witneis and having been previously duly 3;
1 sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
(c')
4
)
1 s-r DIRECT EXAMINATION g
5) 5 BY MR.
RO2ZELL:
j 6
l 5
G Mr. Martin, do you have before you the testimony A
7.i
~
1 5
i of Guy Martin, Jr. en behalf of Houston Lighting & Power 5
8/
l i
Company on Doherty Contention 40 - Part 100 releases?
n 94
)'
i A
Yes, I do.
b 10 9 2
3 E
G Does that testimony consist of nine pages of 3
11 a
I cuestions and answers?
12 i
z i
1, A
Yes, it does.
'I r
=
12 ;
(3J E
l j
G And were your professional qualifications made r
d i
E 1
a part of the record of yesterday's proceedings following l
r 15 5
}
]. gjl Transcript Page 16,245?
I e
l z
A Yes, they were.
g 97,
E i
18l G
With respect to your testimony, do you have I
j9 any corrections or additions?
a A
I have one small correction.
20
.t 21 j G
All right, sir.
And what is that?
j A
On Page 3,
Line 12, I would like to caange 22 o
23 the word " actual" to " estimated."
'4 G
All right.
Do you have further corrections?
~
-m k-).
25 A
No, I do not.
i f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
l r
1832S d
ll G
Was this testimony prepared by you or under 1-6 1
i 2
your direction and supervision?
A Yes, it was.
3 4
G As corrected, is it true to the best of your e
5 knowledge, information and belief?
l
~
n A
Yes, it is.
~
6, a
n G
And do you adopt it as your sworn testimony in 5
7; i,
n 3
8 this proceeding?
I N
l c
j d
9l A
Yes, I do.
i 5
^
E 10 MR. ROZZELL:
Your Honor, at this time I would I
h 11 request that the testimony of Guy Martin, Jr.,
on behaif a
12 l of Houston Lighting & Power Company on Doherty Content.on i
d 4
I l.
13 i 40 - Part 100 releases be copied into the record as if 4
=
i z
M 14 l read.
C u
1 E
15 In the copies that we have given to the court 5
y 16 !
reporter, we have deleted Mr. Martin's professional i
E 17,
qualifications, since those appear in the record of f
E 18 :
yesterday's proceedings.
I' l
t 19,
JUDGE WOLFE:
Any objection?
20 ll l
MR. SOHINKI:
No, sir.
t 21 MR. DOHERTY:
I would like to take the witness 22 d on voir dire, Your Honor.
1 23 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
24 y
///
()
1 25 l 777 I
-i
't i
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
= _ - -
I j
16327 1
1-7 VOIR DIRE j
BY MR. DOHERTY:
2j i
3j g
Mr. Martin, what did Kellex Labs -- what were l'
u Q
4{
they doing?
What was their business?
l 1
Kellex Labs goes back to the days of the Man-e 5
l
~
N hattan Project.
Let me just clarify that it doesn't exist G
6!
e N
l 5
7i anymore.
It's one of those laboratories which was l
N 5
8!
involved in the 1930's in the various studies which were N
o t
d 9l being conducted on the Manhattan Project in v a 2. 2.o u s areas; i
10,! for example, uranium enrichment which ultimately led to E
y 5
the development of the atom bomb.
5 11l.
d 12 '
And the purpose of my company's presence z
i 5
O s
13 i there was as part of the so-called Formerly Utilized 1
h 14 I Site Remedial Action Program, acronym FUSRAP --
I t:
E 15 :I G
Say it again, please.
5 l
l J
16 A
- FUSRAP, F-U-S-R-A-P.
-z 17 The purpose of my company's presence was to i
5 1
{
18,I participate in the decontamination work, which was being i
19 l conducted under the guidance of the Department of r-I 20 ) Energy.
l l
2Ih G
Did you participate in any surveillance of that O
22 l s ite. to determine the radiation --
i 23 "
A.
Yes, I did.
24 '
G
-- fields?
i I
25
)
Did you calculate any radiation doses that might j
i l
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
. = _ _ _.
16328 1-8 be received at any one place in that lab?
I
{])
A Yes, I did, t
i G
Did you calculate releases that might occur if 3
O i
there were accidents durinc decontamination?
L/
4' A
No, that was not part of the scope of work.
5ll s
i S
f G
Uh-huh.
g 6
i JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Mr. Martin, recognizing that n
7 f
some of those dates go back before your time, they go i
3 9l back before mine.
You said the 1930's.
I wonder if by i
chance you meant 1940's.
i z
i E
I THE WITNESS:
That's possible.
z 11 2
l
[-
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Okay, thank you.
12 j
E f
=
E 14 I G
It says you supervised the health physics acti-a l
2 5
15l vities.
Was your main problem then the protection of 1
2
=
I workers there?
3 16 l w
i g
j7 ?
A Protection of workers and also the field surveys 5
i E
18 and the dose calculation activities.
i
=
w t
19 G
Well, what about the protection of the public?
E 20 Was that part of it, too?
21 l A.
Public protection was part of the engineering
.22 plan, in terms of making sure that whatever dust which
.1 23j could have been raised by the decontamination work would 24 be kept on the site, in terms of taking the proper physi-
{])
25l cal measures to prevent any dust being raised and then i
t!
1 il ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18a23 o
il 1-9 j being blown by any kind of a wind, which wodd then affect l
y the public.
2 a
3l G
What's meant by quality factor in radiation 1
4 dosimetry, sir?
(])
i l
e 5
A Would you repeat the question, please?
r N
N 6
G What is meant by quality factor in radiation e
R R
7i dosimetry?
I n
1 3
8:
A.
The quality factor could be looked upon as l
what is the measure of --
Really, it's a measure of 9
5 E
10 I effectiveness of what kind of a dose, biological or i
?
=
i 7
11 otherwise, one specific type of radiation would have on
1)
The individual 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> dose at the exclusion
,o(3 area is 4.9 rem whole body and 150 rem thyroid V
2)
The individual accident duration dose at the 3
low population zone is 1.2 rem whole body and 6
71 rem thyroid.
7 Part 100 establishes limits of 25 rem whole S
body and 300 rem thyroid for either an individual two 9
hour dose at the exclusion area boundary or an individual 10 accidenr duration dose at the low population zone.
The above doses are well within the 10 CFR 100 limits.
,,1
__i In addition, it should be noted that gross 12 fuel failure to the point of melting would be (7,)
'[]
required to achieve the fission product inventories in containment that are assumed in Regulatory Guide 1.J.
_ a.
An analysis has alse been completed for a less
_1 /
conservative amcant of fuel damage and resultant
_ e.
l fission product release that would occur during a I
,o design basis accident.
Under this more realistic
,n analysis (PSAR Table 15.1.39-3) the following doses
~~
l I
would be received:
~~
1
~,
1)
Individual 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> doces at the exclusion area
~
i
(
\\
-6 "c
l
' and 3.4x10 rem
'4 of 5x10 rem whole body l
24 thyroid.
(
i
^
o
\\
[
l
,l I
s n
1 1
I 1
(
2)
Individual accident duration dose at the low 3
-7 population zone of 9.8x10 rem whole body and
~)
-5 1.8x10 thyroid.
3 Q.
How was the large amount (approximately 13 6
million curies) of Xe-133 released to the environment at 7
TMI?
3 A.
According to the Kemeny Commission Report, 9
most radicartivity escaping from TMI-2 to the environment 10 was in the form of fission gases transported through the 11 reactor coolant let-down/make-up system into the auxiliary building and through the building filters, then to the 12 vent header and to the outside atmosphere.
The major (o3 release of radioactivity on the morning of March 30 was caused by the controlled, planned venting of the make-up
,_1o tank into the vent header.
16 Q.
Is a scenario for radioactivity release of 1-i this type included in the dose assessment analyses of 18 Regulatory Guides 1.3 or 1.4?
19 A.
No.
Containment isolation is assumed to
'O
~
occur, and the containment is then assumed to leak at 2~'
the maximum allowable plant technical specifications
'2 leak rate.
24 O_..- -.
1~~.
i' t
e N,,/
Q.
Are any design improvements incorporated in 73, the Allens Creek design that would preclude the occurrence tp of a release such as that which occurred at TM ?
A.
First of all, ACNGS : Ices not utilice a coolant O.
let-down/make-up system, as provided at TMI, so a release path of this type is not possible at ACNGS.
Moreover in 4
5 response to the TMI incident, design modifications were 9
developed for the contaicnent isolation system.
These 10 modifications are required by NUREG-0713, " Licensing
_1 _-
Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction 13 Permits And Manufacturing License."
As detailed in Sections II.E.4.2, II.E.4.4, and III.D.l.1 of the ACMOS y,
,u PSAR, Appendix 0, Allens Creek has incorporated all
,a,,
sucgested modifications, such as containment isolation for non-essential systems, that were not already part of
_1 :
the plant design.
,_/
These design modifications were aveloped in respc.se 13 to the TMI incident to contain radioactive contaminants
_n a within the containment building.
Incorporarion of these
- ~Q modifications will help assure that releases such as
,7
~~
cccurred at TMI will not occur at Allens Creek.
9 Q.
What are your conclusions?
-~
a
~ $.
O f_(,)/
A.
The release mechanism which occured at TMI cannot be duplicated at Allens Creek, nor will the estimated doses from a design basis accident at Allens
-O Creek exceed the 10 CFR Part 100 limits.
O e
f b
C 10
%O t
I~O l O' 7-/
l l
lo a
19 20 l
22 s
24 i
[h!
t I
s
_9_
i I
16332l MR. RO22 ELL:
At this time we would tender j
i Mr. Martin for cross-examination.
()
2 i
JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Schinki.
3 t
MR. SOHINKI:
We have no questions, Mr. Chair-
{}
4
- ^"-
e 5 !
~
n JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Doherty.
j 6 l k-7)
CROSS-EXAMINATION d
n MR. DOHERTY:
g g.'
BY n
E 9i G
On Page 2,
at Line 15 of your testimony, you Y
E 10 state that the differences between a Babcock and 2
5 11 Wilcox PWR and a General Electric BWR at Allens Creek 5
5 4 will result in different isotopic source terms and dif-a 12 E=
-s 13 ferent containment releases rates during an accident.
()
2 y
14 What is the difference in isotopic source E
'l E
15 terms, generally, between these two types?
l 5
J 16 A
The basic difference originates from the power
.r d
17 '
level of those two reactors.
2=
i I
18 :
G All right.
But that doesn't address different 19I; isotopic sources.
What is the difference in isotopic 5
20 ;!
sources?
21 A.
The isotopes will be the same.
Okay, the iso-i 22 topes themselves -- the product of -- are fission
()
23 products so once you have fission of Uranium-235, I
24 you will have the same isotopes being produced.
l ()
l 25 The source term in question here is the actual i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
lii333!
5 1-13 I
inventory of radionuclides, which itself is a function I
j 1 of the power level of the reactor.
(
G Well, would the xenon source term be widely e
3 different --
i
/^)'
4 '
l I
A Yes, it will.
I c
51 6];
s G
In which direction?
Which would be the more l
j 3
l likely to widely produce xenon?
A 7 i 4
~
~
j A
Allens Creek will have higher xenon, because it 5
8 3.
u has a higher power level, I believe.
9 ;,
ip G
Okay.
Now, are we speaking of all xenons or c
10,
2 L
=
Xenon-133?
7 11 3
A I would say for all xenons.
12 a d
i S
G Now, is the xenon a disintegration product s
=
13 1
=
I from another isotope; or is it an original fission 5
14 E
l oroduct in these source terms?
I r
15 1 5
1 l
1 A
It's both, i
16 ;
i z
37]
G Both.
Would xenon always be released in a m
i l
t small break LOCA for the boiling water reactor, if it C
18 l z
4
=
3 d
left containment?
l
~
5-19,
3
=
A In small break LOCA you will have release of 20 :l I
i the primary coolant, which will contain certain amounts of 21 J I
Therefore, xenon will be released in a small break 22
[~>)
l l
23 LOCA.
i 24 G
Okay.
Now, assuming containment -- it is (l
i contained for, say, three hours, will there be any xenon j
25 l
\\
1 I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j
i 16334 ll as a degradation product from the element above it?
{
l-14 1
i A
It depends on which --
Well, would you be l
~
2 l
3 m re specific about which xenon you are talking about?
f I
4 G
Let's try 133 again.
I think we're
{}
5j A
Okay.
Then the answer to the question is e
a N
j 6 l yes, you will have Xenon-133 being produced as a result R
E 7
of the decay of Iodine-133.
0 f8 G
What's the half-life of Iodine-133?
u 9i 1
Twenty-one hours.
N I
E 10 i G
Twenty-one hours.
2=
11 Well. in your testimony I don't recall mention 6
d 12 ; of iodine.
I don't mean to say that there should have z
1 a
s 13 Il been.
But was most of the --
Well, what amount of the
()
E 3
14 l xenon released at TMI would you say came from iodine?
z b
1
. it.
c 15.
A Most or.
5 l
j 16)
G Most of it.
I d
17 l How is xenon detected in the air -- in the E
j i
C r
'e 18 environment?
r i
1 c
l 19 l A
There are a number of ways to detect any radio-M 20 !I active particle.
For example, in the environment, xenon 21 could be detected by what is called a high pressure f
i 22 t lonization chamber, where the passage of the gamma ray
("J T
23 would ionize in the chamber, and there would be a current i
l t
24 which then will be measured, detecting the presence of a g-
%J 25 radioactive particle.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
16335 l-15 1
G Would a thermoluminescent dosimeter detect i
(])
2 xenon?
3 A
Yes, it would, if it's there in sufficient l
(])
4 ' quantities.
I I think a moment ago you spoke of g
5]
G Is a l
j 6 ; the thermoluminescent dosimeter.
And you also mentioned R
7 reading NUREG-0558.
Was that average dose there on
~
\\
j 8j Page 3 at Line 17 deducted by the -- or was the u
that went into 9'
pardon me z.
figure -- was the data
.j that detailed study from thermoluminescent dosimeters?
10 II A
I don't recall.
I'm not coo sure of that.
[B 2
12 ]
G Are these ion chambers that you mentioned re-4
-s
=
13 q) g quired to be placed around nuclear plants, such as Allens r
14,
w Creek?
E l
0 15 h
A.
Yes, they are operating plants.
=
?
16 3
G Operating plants, sure.
I 17 '
d l
Was there a test for xenon at Three Mile Island l
~
t 18 l in the first six hours, to your knowledge?
4 19 4 A
I beg your pardon?
- y..
20 J G
Was there a test for the presence of xenon in l
21 the atmosphere within the first six hours of the Three i
22 '
('J')
Mile Island accident?
l l
i 23 j
A.
I don't think there was a test for xenon l
(])
specifically as a radionuclide.
Normally that's not 25 t
l done.
You cannot unless you use very sophisticiated l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l l
l
16336 1-16 I
3 apparatus, which is not norma 11y used for offsite measure- :
l l
ments.
You don't look for a very specific radi,nuclide.
C) 2 l
You just look for gross radioactivity.
3 4
G D n't thermoluminescent dosimeters only measure
(])
i 5i gamma radiation?
e e
N I
6l A.
No.
They will measure any radiation which i
~
e R
l strikes the TLD.
Cosmic rays are not just gamma 5
7 J,
N j
5 8
radiation.
i l
n I
9 G
Have you ever read the document " Assessment of i
k.
10 ] O f f s ite Radiation Doses from the ".nree Mile Island M
i 11 Unit 2 Accident" by Pickard, Lowe and Garrett Company?
t 5
1 e
A I have skimmed through it.
I have not read it d
12 l z
5 1
s 13 J in detail.
-)
j j
14 G
Do you recall any conclusions from that, in your 15
,kimming at all?
l J
16 i A.
Would you be more specific as to what con-z I
j l'7l clusions?
5 I
l i
E 16 j G
Do you recall what they concluded as the j
19 ]
amount of release of radioactive material from the l
s
~
=
20 3 plant?
i 21 l j
A Not from that report, but I have other sources i
22 i in which I do recall what was estimated.
g3u 23 G
All right.
Do you recall, perhaps, the amount 24 of noble gases that that publication stated had escaped l
l I
25 from the plant?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
i 16337 1-17 A
Not the one that you just quoted.
G Sot from that publication.
s-Do you recall any on that figure alone --
3 that is, noble gases?
4 A
Yes, I do.
4 g
5 !
?.
l G
What was the conclusion on that?
0 y'
7 1
A Approximately 2.5 million curies of noble il i
8, gases.
n j
G Did you say 2.5?
9 i
10 A
Yes.
The figure varies between 2 and 2.5.
2 11 ;
G Okay.
What publications were these --
<3 12l which one did you find most definitive?
d E
=
i 13 J A
The Kemeny Report was the first one, followed
()
5 s
14 q by the Rogavin Report.
d i
15 )
G Now, I have a copy --
Do you have a copy of I
J 16 NUREG-0558 with you?
i z
H 17 A
No, I don't.
2 1
=
l 18 1 MR. DOHERTY:
May I approach the witness, Your
=
J i
1 l
19 1 Honor?
5e 20]
JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
f 21 l (Document shown to witness.)
22,
BY MR. DOHERTY:
Gb 23 G
Mr. Martin, did I just show you a aver and 24 l the first page of NUREG-0558, " Population Dose and Health l
(]s i
l w
25 Impact of the Accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear l
l i
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
_ _ _ _ _. = _ -. _ - _ _..
I I
isaas Y
l-18
- j j ] Station"?
A.
Yes, you did.
2 3h JCDGE WOLFE:
And the date, Mr. Doherty, of il 4
issuance?
Q 1
i l
5)
MR. DOHERTY:
May 1979, Your Honor.
e E
1
?
n j
6 BY MR. DOHE RTY :
i n
R.
7 G
And does it also include as a subtitle on the 8
first page past the cover, " Preliminary Estimates for the
=
n
\\
U d
9l Period March 28, 1979 through April 1979"?
l l
l 1
l E
10 A
Yes, it does.
l 2
=
I l
g 11 l G
In your opinion, Mr. Martin, the fact that the 1
is l
- j 12 !
NUREG only covered that period, would that mean possibly 5
some of the dosage was missed -- some of it E
13,
that the OE
/:
I g
14 was not included?
3 2
l 2
15 MR. ROZZELL:
Your Honor, I'm going to have to E
i
+
j 16!
object to that question as impermissibly vague.
I know t
I l
17 I didn't understand it.
i 5
4 18 ;
MR. DOHE RTY :
I'll try to sharpen it.
_x
=
l 19 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
a ij j
20 BY MR. DOHERTY:
i 21 l 0
In your opinion, would study limited to that a
221 period miss counting in the total average dose that you've
(
- O 9
]
23 ]
given on Page 3 at Line 17 significant exposure?
i 24i A.
In my opinion, if all the analysis of the
. O 25j environmental measuring devices was completed by that i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
a
_ _ _ ~. _
. = _ - _ -
18339 4
1 i
1 1-19
- time, I would conjecture that they would have had a good 1 i
,/
handle on what the releases on what the doses woufa (J'
l be, a d they could have had a good mechanism for me"asuring 33 P the releases or ~.
estimating the releases.
i ()
5j But I want tu qualify what I said by -- when i
e t
I prefaced -- '
saying that if the analysis of all the j
6 1
l
[
7j environmental measuring devices was completed, which I'm I
l j
j 8
not sure it was done.
I don't have any knowledge of n
i I
3 that.
9 i
j j
10 l G
Can you repeat the last phrase there?
I had a 5
hard time understanding it.
jj s
j
.j j2 i
A I said that I just wanted to -- I prefaced my i
E sentence by saying that if the analysis of the measuring 13 ;
()
5 i
14 l devices was completed, then they would have had a good N
i 15 handle on estimating the releases from the plant.
i
]
5 l
)
16l G
You said analyzing the measuring devices?
e z
g 17 A
That you mentioned before, the TLD's, for n
E 18 i example -- if they had TLD's.
E 19 G
That's like calibrating them after they finished 3n 20 !
using them --
21 i A
No, I'm not saying calibrating them.
I'm L
il 22 1 saying that reading them.
(
f 23 G
So there could have been a failure to read r
I i
24 :i them when they should have been read, o r -- I'm not quite
()
1 25 sure what you mean.
I s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
I 1s340 1-20 o
A What I mean it that there are a certain 1
1' number -- there is a certain number of such devices 4
2*
I around any nuclear power plant.
3 1
And part of the routine program is to read 4
5l them periodically.
And what I'm saying is that if all i
e
~
j 6 l these measuring devices were read and the results analyzed, l
1 g
4 q then it's very possible that they could have had a very l
j 7
i 8 i g od handle on the esuimate of the releases.
i JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Mr. Martin, perhaps I mis-9 i
j j
10 interpreted what you said, but I would infer from what you E
j jj j said just now to Mr. Doherty, that there were some monitor-i i
s g
j2 l ing devices that were not read at the time.
Is that --
z A
5 13 l THE WITNESS:
No, that is not what I mean U
E t
1 14 l there.
d I
15 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Well, I I'm sorry.
I
,i 5
l J
16 j thought I heard you say that if all of them had beer s
i i
17 ;
read, it would have given a better opportunity to esti-i x
=
1 18 l mate what the releases were.
=
l 9
l E
19 l THE WITNESS:
I'll repeat what I said r
..re.
=
5 l
20 l JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Okay, please.
I'd appreciate 21 I it.
l!
22 0 THE WITNESS:
I understood Mr. Doherty's
()
23 ? question to be:
If the measurements were taken during that O
24 jj period of time, isn't it then possible that they would i
25 have a very good estimate of what would have been released d..
I, I
li ALDERSON REPORTING ~OMPANY, INC.
l
--- -- _ - _ = _ _ -
. - _ = _ _ __.
=.
I 16341 i
o 1-21 from the plant.
j 3 h
And in response to his question, I said that 2
i y
i j
3j, if ne were to assume that all the measuring devices
,i
\\
i l
4 were read, and the readings analyzed during that period
[)
5l of time, then they would have a good handle on what would e
i i
5 N
6 have been released from the plant during that period of E
i 8
7' time.
9 l
f 8,
JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, okay; now you said if they; 4
1 d
d 9l had all been read during that period of time, they would I
l E
10 l have a good handle on the releases during that period z
i
=
I 3
11j of time; right?
S I
d 12 :
THE WITNESS:
That's correct.
z i
'i
=
i E
13 i JUDGE LINENBERGER:
The converse of that causes i
OE A
14 l me to infer that some of them weren't read during that i
t e
i j
E 15 period of time, giving a less than fully possible estimate g
i 1
I y
16 l of releases, is that l
i d
17 '
THE WITNESS:
The converse of that is true.
E i
E 18 i But I'm not making a statement of fact; I'm just con-2 n
19 l jecturing.
s 20 !
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Well, do you happen to know i
21.il why there were some that were not read during that period 22 lh
! of time?
(2) i' 23 THE WITNESS:
I did not say that some of them 24j; were not read.
- ()
i j
25 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Okay.
I thought you said t
I F
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l L
1 18342 s
i 1-22 1
the converse was true.
(}
2 Well enough.
Excuse me, Mr. Doherty.
3,' Proceed.
i
(])
4!
DY MR. DOHERTY:
1 1
i i
5.
You say a good handle.
I'd like you to tell e
e 1
i n
j 6l me what that means to you.
Do you mean like within 50%
9 R
7l or do you mean like --
~
A I could not quantify what I mean by " good 8lI j
J 9!
handle," but something which is not off by a thousand i
z i
i l
y 10 i percent.
z i
E y
II l G
Okay.
Well, this study had a definite limit --
i s
2 12 f had a definite deadline.
They stopped studying at a cer-5 O
j 13 tain time.
=
3 g
14 i From what you know of the accident, were the u
5 15 '
b j
releases over before they stopped?
=
j l
f 16 !
A I don't have very much recollection of the TMI z
17 4
l y
incident on a chronological basis.
But I do recall that i
=
I 18 !
the unplanned releases were over soon t
i the releases F
l 19 i j
l after March 28th.
1 20 l I
G Now, at the foot of Page 3,
the one individual
(
21l outside the exclusion area, is that an individual v'ho is l
22 il sort of like standing at the fence kind of in
{}
23 '
i theory?
l 24 i A
Which line are you reading?
(}
25.
g I'm sorry, Line 21, almost the last line in that il 1
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.... ~.
16343 !
i l
1-23 page of testimony.
1 A
Yes, that would be one individual at or outside
(~#'t 2
- the exclusion area boundary.
[
t 3
G Okay.
Now, at Page 4 on Line 6,
you're dis-r(,s 4
)
i cussing Reg Guides, I believe 1.3 and 1.4 there.
And 5 I l
s
- you say, "Because it assumes immediate release j
6 I
E is that the actual wording of the Reg Guide -- "immediate E
7j release"?
8 8"
N u
A No, that is not the exact wording of the Reg 9
i i
I Guide.
b 10 4 2g G
Did you bring the Reg Guide with you, by any z.
11 S
chance?
12.j 3
3 l
1 No, I do not have it with me.
CD z
f G
Okay.
Do you recall what the wording is?
s 14 4 t
e A.
I think that the wording has the words of r
15 E
i "instanteous release hto the containment atmosphere,"
16
>t a
x or perhaps assumed to be immediately available for re-s E
lease into the containment atmosphere.
z 18 n
i i
G I see.
l
{
j9 5
MR. DOHERTY:
Do you have a copy, counsel, 20.,
f f this Regulatory Guide?
21 l
MR. ROZZELL:
I do not, Mr. Doherty.
j 22
/'T l
\\"#
MR. DOHERTY:
1.3?
l 23 MR. ROZZELL:
I do not.
l 24 m
i l
1 25 MP. DOHERTY:
May I approach the witness again, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
s i
16344 :
I l-24
' Your Honor?
1 i
.I JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
O (P use while document is shown to witness.)
3 i
1 e
5 I
H i
j 6 l I
r.
i
.5 7j
_~
1 2
3 5
8' 9!
/
O w
I z
t f
c j
12 l
~
O j
13 l
=
's:
M 14 d
\\
t 2
15 L z
a llll 16 e.
1.
6 17 2
1
~
1 E
18 i
l E
19) d 20 l
21 l1 0
23 1
I 24 :
O t
25 l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
. _= - _
I 16345 1
3 2-1 1 1 BY MR. DOHERTY:
ii ged) 2 G
Mr. Martin, did I show you a copy of Regulatory 3l Guide 1.3, Revision 2 just now?
1
()
4 A
Yes, you did.
5l 0
And that document is titled, " Assumptions Used i
e i
g l
2 6 lin Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of n
5 7
a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors."
Is 1
j 8l that true?
9 A
That's correct.
Z 3
10 l G
Now, on the first page of that in the Section 4
z i
j 11 l C called, " Regulatory Position," does it not say that 3
l l
l 12 l "The assumptions related to the release of radioactive E
(])
13 l material from the fuel and containment are as follows:
z i
.j 14 (a) 25 percent of the equilibrium radioactive iodine i
C i
i R
15 l inventory developed from maximum full power operation of l
^
j 16 l the core should be assumed to be immediately available for z
i 17 leakage from the primary reactor containment"?
{
18 :
A Yes, it does.
I I9 :
n I
G All right.
Now, in doing the calculations for g
20 l the design based accidents for the Allens Creek plant, how i
21 do you interpret that language, that is particularly, I
22 I " as sumed to be immediately available for leakage"?
{}
23 '
A It is assumed that 25 percent of the iodine 24
(])
i core inventory is instantaneously airborne in the containment 25 j atmosphere and is then available for release to the outside ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18346 i
A
\\
2-2 1
environment.
I rm()
2-G Does that Reculatorv Guide direct vou in any way j l
?
I 3 ! to take fuel temperature into account?
j I
tm (s) 4 j A
No, it doesn't.
i g
5 G
Do you know of any studies that indicate fuel
.H j
6 temperature may be a factor in iodine released from the fuel 7 R
5 7]
A I don't know of any study, but I know that to U
i 3
8 ; have any sort of releases comparable to what is assumed l
9 in Reg Guide 1.3, one would have to exceed the centerline Y
10 melting temperature of the ceramic fuel which is in excess 6
f 11
! of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit.
B 5
12
?
Now, in your testimony there's a particular
-=
1 rw(us) -
13 E
sentence here, starting at line 10 on page 4,
"This l
=
z 5
I4 assumption results in a higher ratio of shorter lived high
-=
}
15 3 energy
- amma emitting noble gases such as Krypton-88 being
=
l 16.I d
jreleased."
7:
N l7 Now backing up a minute, are you saying that a
.\\
{
18 the assumption is discussing or is assuming a high energy 19 g
agamma emitting -- excuse me.
n 20 +
Well, among the high energy emitting isotopes, l
2I would Iodine-133 be one of those?
l 22 l
( ')
A Yes, it would.
%J l
23 g
Okay.
Now, you stated a minute ago there's a i
f 21-hour half-life to that material, I believe?
(^/)
w 25 l
A That's correct.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
I 16347 i
2-3 1
G Do you know offhand the gamma energy emitted l
1 2 lwhen radio-iodine changes to, say, Xenon-133, which you
(])
3m indicated it does?
l 1
l
(])
1 A.
Most nuclides -- the answer to your question is I
4 g
5 no, but I could tell you that most nuclides decay by N
i I
j 6 lgiving off various levels of energy.
R 7j In the performance of those calculations, one sj 8 'normally uses what is called the average energy.
u
^
9 G
Well, are you saying that this high energy Y
g 10 ( emission process takes place inside containment, and that's z
3 11
- hy once if there's leakage, the public will only be s
N 12 exposed to a lesser energy emission?
E i
s 13 l
(^)s A.
That's not what I'm saying.
x
=
z 3
I4 G
All right.
Correct me then.
t i
1>
i
=
l A
What I'm saying is that due to the fact that l
15 5
~
=
,l n'
16 '
the releases are assumed to take place instantaneously in i
17 N
, the case of the design basis calculations, the mix of i
f
{
{
18 j radio-nuclides, which are then assumed to be released to M
g the outsice atmosphere, is made up of high energy l
I9
=
20 d radio-nuclides and low energy radio-nuclides.
+l 21 i
The dose will be made up of -- or the dose 1
i 22
(~;
l contribution will be much higher by the high energy l
(J J
23 radio-nuclides.
4
{
Conversely, if on-was to wait a number of I
25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> following an accident befere the release would take j
i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
1 16348 I
I l
2-4 1
place, tMre would have been much more decay of the high l
l i
i 21 energy nuclidea; therefore the dose would have been much
/ ])
s 3] lower.
I l
l
()
4)
G Now, in the --jumping ahead here a minute to 5)page 5 at line 17, you state, "The containment is assumed e
5 j
6 ! to leak at the maximum rate allowed by the plant technical u=
t i
7jspecifications for the duration of the accident."
~
j 8
Do you recall offhand what that leakage rate is?
b 9'
?.
A It's
.5 percent of the volume per day.
10 '
G Per day?
?
II A
Yes.
u 3
12 G
Did you say by volume?
E 1
(3 g 13 A
Yes.
%) =
z I4 G
Do you know what it is by weight offhand?
E O
15 b
A I beg your pardon?
=
k Ib G
Do you know what it is by weight offhand?
t 17 d
MR. ROZZELL:
Objection, Your Honor.
Mr. Doherty i
E 18
, would you clarify that, please?
Do you know what what is l
19 ]l by weight?
h j
j 20 0] BYMR. DOHERTY:
l 1
l 21 l 1
G What is the leakage rate by weight from the t
22 j containment?
(')s
\\
t 23 i
A No, I do not.
24
(')
G So at that figure 200 days is assumed that it l
%./
25 would leak the entire contents, have a total change?
i i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
I 16319 i I
2-5 1
A I'm sorry.
I did not understand.
l l
(3) 2 G
You said
.5 percent, I think?
l i
)
3; i
i A.
Yes.
(
4 g
Okay.
Is it safe to assume that in a hundred I
g 5 1 days there would be a total change of the atmosphere of i
en I
j 6]the containment at a le ak age rate like that?
Is that R
7ja proper --
Ej 8)
A No, it's not a proper statement.
U 9
9l g
Okay.
What would intervene to make that
?
10 '
improper?
Mathematically it looks good.
E j
11 l A
Well, mathematics is not correct.
It's an u
5 II exponential process.
E
({])
13 One can calculate how long it will take to z
5 I4 reach a very low level, but it's not a linear proportion.
t h
15 It's an exponential process, which has the form of J
16
-int, e
-z 17 N
G How did you conclude looking at page 4 that E
l
- IOjthe,
" releases to the environment did not occur until i
=
2 s
r 8
Iseveral hours into the incident"?
I think that's the l
=
l 20 0. phrase you used.
21 il
- l A
Which incident is that?
.t 22 '
m i
)
/
g.
This is the TMI incident.
I i
i A
I did not conclude that.
I read it in the e
24
(,s) reports which I mentioned.
G Which report?
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
16350 2-6 1
1 The Kemeny Report, for example.
4
(.)
2 Did they give how long the delay was?
i u
3 A
I believe it was on March 29th and March 30th.
()
4 G
You mean 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, something of that order?
1 5l A
Twenty-four, forty-eight hours.
sn N
l j
6 l G
Twenty-four to forty-eight hours?
R 5
7 l A
Uh-huh.
b f8 G
When you calculate dose rates out at the site u
c 9
boundary and so forth, do you need the energy emitted by 5
10 the radioactive decay in order to calculate the dose?
_d j
11 A
I'd like to just make one correction.
The aj 12 ) doses are not calculated at the site boundary.
c
(])
13 G
Well, anywhere you calculate them outside of z
3 14 the plant locale?
_w j
15 !
A Okay.
Yes.
The energy of the radio-nuclide t
~.
1 16 is taken into account.
q i
y 17 !
G And the energy is a characteristic of the E
I i
f 18 j particular element or particular isotope?
?
l I9 l A
Yes, it is.
2 a
20l G
So then is it fair to say that the philosophy 1
2Ihunder this is hold iodine in, prevent the high energy n
(")
22iemission from occurring in the public air, but it's less w;
23
, severe if it's a low energy release, such as with a gas l
/~';
24 like xenon'
\\_/
25 MR. ROZZELL:
Your Honor, I object to that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16351 2-7 j
question.
I don't think there's a foundation for it.
l 2
I don't know whac Mr. Doherty means by the philosophy of this.
I think he needs to back up and 3
(^J 1 provide a foundation for that.
T i
4 I
5l MR. DOHERTY:
I thought I'd run into trouble s
4 n
N 1
]
6 lwith that.
Maybe we can skip it.
I think it's self-R 7.' evident.
~
8 'i BY MR. DOHERTY:
5n s
9i G
Are there any other high energy isotopes besides Y
h 10 lodine?
2 11 A
Yes, there are.
Krypton-87 and Krypton-88 are j
u j
12 considered to be high energy radio-nuclides.
,, E a
(,) 5 13 G
Are they in large quantities or small quantities
,=
z 5
14 on an accident situation?
i i
i E
r 15 ;
A Their release after the accident, immediately 5
y 16 foll ing the accident, into the containment atmosphere i
l N
I7 ' car be high; however, when it reaches the point of dose l
E 18 j calculation outside, then because of their short half-lives, r
q g
19 j the quantities will be small.
e 1
20 J G
Do you know why the method used in Reg Guide 1.3 21d,i and PSAR Section 15.1.39 assumes only a 25 percent of the s
()
22 i iodine being released in the containment?
23 l A
It's following the guidance of Reg Guide 1.3.
t rm 2#
()
.)
G Do you know why?
Have you ever heard an 25 explanation as to why they think the other 75 percent will i
1 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
16352 l
i 2-3 1 lnot?
(
2 A
Yes, I have.
3 G
Can you tell us what that is?
4 A
The 25 percent number is considered today to be t
I 5j a very conservative number.
By comparison to what actually e
n j
6l takes place in the chemical and physical worlds, you would R
7 have much less of iodine disassociating itself from water.
~
j 8
Iodine has a high affinity to remain in water.
d q
9 It's highly soluble in water.
Partitioning of
?
5 10 I iodine from water takes place at a very slow rate --
z E
4 11 G
I didn't catch that.
3 l
12 A
Partitioning of iodine from water takes place
=
( ) h 13 l at a very slow rate.
The reason to assume the 25 percent
=
x 5
14 is to insure that the calculations are done on a conservative b:
I 15 g
i enough level to insure that the proper features will be
=
j 16, installed into the plant to keep the doses below Part.100.
I y
17 !
But in the real world, the actual iodine release E
i i
18 3
would be much lower than that.
P I9 3
O You state that iodine has a high affinity for n
i 20 *I water.
In this accident scene does iodine become part of 21 l another compound in that process at all?
i
()
A No, it's not part of a -- well, there are various 23 ' forms of iodines and there are iodine compounds, but the
()
, major portion of the iodine is this so-called elemental 25 !iiodine, which constitutes 91 percent of the total iodine J
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16353 2-9 1
content, and that's just pure I-2.
l m
- i j
2 :
G It's 91 percent in this release scena ri o?
3 A.
That is correct.
g~g (s) 4
?
Okay.
Now, in this accident scenario that you've
]
5 Jdone calculations, do you know if the inerting of the e
N l
6 ' containmen t is assumed?
~
e R
5 7,
A No, it's not.
i g
8 G
Do you know if the technical specifications u
9 assume the carbon dioxide injection part of the inerting Y
10 process?
_6 j
11 A
What "atters in this case are the assumptions u
j 12 which are made in the calculational process of the off-site
=
() h 13 doses, and in that process inerting is not taken into
=
h 14 account.
I
=
i E
15 i G
Do you know what pressure is assumed --
What e
g' 16 pressura is assumed in the technical specification for i
d 37 containment leakage; do you know?
N l
E I8 I A
That's not assumed.
That's pretty much i
i I9 birrelevant because the containmont is assumed to leak at 5
20 y i t s design basis leak rate associated with the maximum l
21 ) allowable pressure.
l l
l ID 22 n.
Do you know what that maximum allowable pressure
~J l
23 l is?
l
(.s) i l
i rh 24.
A I believe it's 15 psi.
I l
25 0
Fifteen?
Did you say one five?
i i
I 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
\\
.l
4 s
l l
1sas.2 a
i 12-10 1
A Yes, one five.
Q v
2, G
Okay.
^
i 3!
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Mr. Martin, on this point, 1
i I
4! if for some reason the containment pressure were not 15 psi, i
s 5i but say 40 psi, would this five volume percent per day 5
i l
6i initial leakage rate from the containment then be higher?
R i
7l THE WITNESS:
No, Judge, it's
.5 percent, not i
\\
n j
8f5 percent.
u
\\
d 9
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
I thought you said the Y
10 design leakage rate was 5 percent.
z i
11 THE WITNESS:
No, it's
.5 percent.
3 N
12 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Point five, I'm sorry.
Okay.
1
=
13 Would that be higher if the pressure rose to, E
i Z
t 5
14 l say, 40 psi instead of the design pressure of 15?
Ej 15 THE WITNESS:
I would assume that you would
=.
i 16 l have a higher forcing function; therefore it would be l
17 M
- higher.
e 4
C 18 However, I just want to clarify that by saying I9 !
i that if 40 psi were to become the design basis of the 20 f containment and if
.5 percent per day were to become part 2I of the technical specification, then in the pre-operational
()
22 L testing of the containment structure at its peck pressure i
23 of 40 psi the leakages would have to remain at or under 1
(
the
.5 percent per day leak rate.
1 25
l Therefore, at either 15 or 40, whichever one i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I itiansi.
I I
2-11 1
will become the technical specification pressure, then i
r
(~N i
(_)
2 whatever leak rate is assumed to become the technical j
3 specification, one would have to provide the containment (3
?
()
4 which would be within those technical suecifications.
.l I
I g
5)
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
So you are saying, then, and 4-
'l j
6 I think this is potentially significant if so, you are R
7 j saying that almost irrespectise of what the accident analysis
~
j 8'shows the containment pressure will be, tech specs will not u
2 9* permit containment leakage to exceed
.5 volume percent per
?,
10 ' da y ?
Is that --
z
=
1
]
II THE WITNESS:
Tech specs will not allow the s
i 2
- 12) containment to leak at that leak rate which would allow
=
(','T 13
/
the doses to exceed Part 100-limits.
3 14 1 2
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
So so far as the tech spec
_t 0
15 g
is concerned, if the Part 100 leak rate that'is governing d
I0 with respect to a quantitative value, it's not the
.5
- percent, i
17 I y
3 it's that you stay below Part 100?
I 0
THE WITNESS:
Precisely.
i 19 "
i JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Thank you.
n 20 "1 BY MR.
DOHERTY:
d i
l 21
?
d Q
In the assumptions on containment leakage, you 1
()
lseem to bring in a time factor for the duration of the l
iaccident.
(s 24 i
s_)
In calculating the doses to the public, do you I
25 make an assumption with regard to life?
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 16356 ll 2-12 1 l MR. ROZZELL:
Excuse me, Mr. Doherty.
Are you l
()
2 now back on page 5?
9 3
MR. DOHERTY:
Yes, sir, around line 17 of that i
u
()
4 page.
l g
5]
THE WITNESS:
These time limits come from Part 100.
N l
j 6 !I should clarify that.
The two-hour time limit, the R
7 specific two-hour time limit duration comes from Part 100.
~
1 j
8 BY MR. DOHERTY:
I 9l
~.
G Well, now, then that seems to say to me that if
?
?g 10 two hours -- if for two hours you don't exceed the i
3_
5 II 10 CFR 100 or the Reg Guide or whichever sets your I2 j
jstandard here in your analysis, that you don't have to
=
() f I
worry any more.
3 14 That's not what you mean to imply, is it?
i
=
15 "l
0 l
A Would you explain what you mean by " worry."
b=
16 3
'J Well, that if you can show that it's beneath r
I 17 !
d j that criteria, that the dosage to the public is below
=
i 18 l th at,
E
- i that you don't have to consider any further progress j
19 h j of the accident?
e 20;j MR. ROZZELL:
Your Honor, I object to that l
] question.
21 I don't think that the answer that the witness 22 1
/mI
- could cive would be very helpful to this record or would V
i 23
- be relevant.
24 gs q,)
I think what Mr.
Doherty is saying is assume 25 I
that you meet the requirements of l' 0 CFR Part 100.
So what]
t l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
16357 l His contention goes to whether or not there is l
2-13 i
l
(])
2 some reason to believe-that the ability of the ACNGS unit 3
to meet those Part 100 standards has been adequately
]
I I,i 4 ;
I' determined.
t/
5]
MR. DOHERTY:
I can't figure out what he is e
N l objecting to.
I don't think there's anything objectionable l
~
6 t
e i
a t
s 7
to the question.
h
~
n 5
(Bench conference.)
8 "l u
9j JUDGE WOLFE:
Would you explain the question, d
5 I
10 h Mr. Doherty, and then we'll see if the objection still 3_
j 11 remains.
u I
- j 12 MR. DOHERTY:
Well, the witness has indicated i
E.
('J 5 13 l f o r the duration of the accident means two hours, and I'm s E u
z 5
14 ! trying to find out what placing that time limit does to
_=
E 15 the calculations.
5 l
It is not a challenge to the idea, that that's f
16 ]
^
l p
17 right or wrong, but I'm just trying to find out.
s 1
E 18 i MR. ROZZELL:
Well, the witness has stated, I l
n a
I9l believe, Your Honor, that the two-hou r du ra t i.on comes from s
20 l the regulations themselves.
,1 2I ll MR. DOHERTY:
I have no debate about where they 1
22,
f
(~g come from.
What I'm trying to find out is what effect i
l
%J 23 ; that two-hour time limit has on calculating the doses.
JUDGE LINEN 3ERGER:
I'm sure the witness can I
24
('],
w 25 explain this better than I can, but we have an objection I
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
L
r l
l 16338 1
!2-14 1 ! before us, so he has to hold off here while we settle I
()
2lthis.
l 3l But somewhere in the Regs there is a requirement
! ()
4l to calculate a two-hour dose at some location.
I didn't I
g 5l understand the witness to say anything from which you N
j 6l should infer, Mr. Doherty, that the curation of the R
7 accident itself is two hours.
~
l j
8, There is a requirement to calculate a two-hour N
9 dose, a twenty-four-hour dose and -- I don't know -- an
?
10 ad infinitum dose.
3 II 5
But those don't say anything about the duration 3
N I2 of the accident.
=
13
(])
Now, I would recommend to you that you try on 14 li 5
for size a question to the witness that asks if he was i
0 15 ascribing truly an accident duration to be two hours, and
=
~
16 i
B then develop from there.
i l
i C
17 d
I think that might get you where you want to go
=
i E
18 1
without interference from Mr. Rozzell.
H E
19 '
g BY MR. DOHERTY:
4 20 g
Well, do you think : hat using a two-hour 21 duration of the accident is the most conservative way to
(])
predict dosages to the public?
23 i MR. ROZZELL:
Objection, Your Honor.
I don't 24 O
l think Mr. Doherty listens very well.
25f MR. DOHERTY:
Well, I don't have any problem with
?
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 16359 i
2-15 1
that kind of criticism.
I've been hearing that for years.
l
())
2I (Laughter.)
3 MR. ROZZELL:
Same objection.
()
4, JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Why don't you try it the i
e 5! way I suggested it, Mr. Doherty.
9 I
h 6
JUDGE WOLFE:
That onjection is sustained.
R l
7 BY MR. DOHERTY:
I 1
f 8,
I G
Mr. Martin, in the many calculations like this
'J l
9l that you've done, apparently, have you ever calculated i
E 10 using a three-hour duration?
z l
5 II A
No, I haven't.
y
\\
M l
N I2 !
G How about just for one hour?
E i
()I h 13 !
A Neither.
l i
T i
j I4 l 0
I'm having a little problem perhaps with the
=
h 15 rule then.
Does the rule require you to calculate using
[
I6 l a release after two hours from the start of the accident?
z I
17 ;
y Is that what the rule requires?
I IO A
10 C F ;' Part 100 contains the following:
It E
l
-j 19 j says that the.
thyroid and whole body dose shall be 1
I 20 l calculated at two Fours into the accident through a l
21 l i
receptor located at the exclusion area boundary of the I
(])
22 {
nuclear plant, and for the duration of the accident 23 through a receptor located at the outer limit of the low
(])
4l population zone, without specifying what that duration will 25 be.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
. _ = _ _ _ _
l 16360 l
2-16 1
However, the two hours is in the law, 10 CPR 1
($)
2l Part 100, t
i l
3{
G In the submittals of the Applicant, do they
()
4 give estimates of the time it would take to mitigate s
5 accidents?
5 j
6l A
I'm not sure I understand your question.
l 5
I g
7 G
In the submittals of the Applicant, do they
~
j 8
give you expected time that they required to stop -- well,
-J 0[
9 to bring an accident under control?
i 2
5 10 A
In what aspect "under control" do you mean?
z E
I Il From a radiological aspect or from --
y 3
y 12 I
G Yes, radiological aspect.
E i
(])
13 A
No, there is no such time under which the z
5 I4 l radiological aspect is supposedly under control.
-C l
15 l G
Do they give estimates as to how much release
=
f 16 l there is?
z i
h II A
Yes, the re le a se s are presented.
E i
y 18 G
Yes, and you are the one who calculates those, C
19 E
correct?
i o
5 i
20lI A
Yes, that's correct.
21 I G
I wanted to get that.
(])
i Are you aware of any accidents that -- well, are there any accidents that you do where you assume that the
(])
containment fails in your analysis?
25 J:
A Yes.
s ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16361 i 2-17
)
G What accidents are these?
Do you know the j
(l 2 )l names of them?
<J 3
A They are the so-called Class 9 accidents.
l 4
( >s 4
.\\
G I see.
i l
5l MR. DOHERTY:
Could I address a question to c
E i
l G
6 ;the Board for a minute, or to the Chairman?
e R
I 5-7)
JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
\\q i
A t
l 5
8 MR. DOHERTY:
He's mentioned Class 9 accidents n
u 9
just a moment ago, and I....
5 E
10 !
BY MR. DOHERTY:
E
=
l
]
11 G
Well, are there any other accidents, except Class 9
s N
12 ' accidents, that you do this calculation, sir?
13 A
Would you re pe a t the question, please?
(])
z 5
I4,
G I'm sorry.
Are there any other accidents, other l
j 15 than Class 9,
that you do this for, that you use an E
j 16 assumption of containment failure?
z 17 4 A.
No, there isn't.
2 N
I
[
Are questions with regard to 9
G n
I9iClass 9 accidents out of order here?
2 E
i 20 0 JUDGE WOLFE:
Let's hear your question.
I don't 2I know what your question is.
l l
I
(/}
MR. DOHERTY:
All right.
I 22 1
\\_
i i
23 ! BY MR. DOHERTY:
l
(~')
G At what time after the duration of an accident l
%/
25 is the containment assumed to fall --
j l
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i l
16362 l
W l
1 1
12-18 1 1 ML ROZZELL:
I -- excuse me.
Go ahead and I
i,
! a O
2, finish, Mr. Doherty.
1 didn e mean to interrupe you.
3 BY MR. DOHERTY:
i
] h 4
0 At what time after the beginning of an accident 5l is the containment assumed to fail in any of those I
ee i
j 6
accidents?
I R
5 7'
MR. ROZZELL:
Point of clarification.
Are you
~
6 j
8l inquiring there as to a Class 9 accident?
1 e
d 9
MR. DOHERTY:
Yes.
5 y
10 :
l MR. ROZZELL:
Then, Your Honor, I object.
c z
t l
]
11l I believe that the Board has previously ruled l
is l
d 12 l that inquiries into Class 9 accidents were beyond the scope i
g j OiI i
f this proceeding.
z 5
I4 i (Bench conference.)
l u
i e
r 15 E
s J
16l 1
{
z i
p 17 E
i 18
=H E
19,
x 20 l 1
l 21 '!,
22 ll l
23 '
24[
25
!I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
- ~ -
f 183G3 1
bm 1 ']
3-1 JUDGE WOLFE:
Objection sustained.
BY MR. DOHERTY:
(:)
24 i
G The wind dose you've spoken of when you speak A
3 of dose to a person, does that always imply a time
(])
4, a duration that is so much per certain amount of time?
5!
e l
s A
No, it doesn't.
There are two types of 5
0 i doses.
There's a dose rate and a dose commitmest.
3 7l 1
5 G
Does --
Say it again, the second part?
8 I 4
x a
l A
Commitment.
a 9i G
Commitment.
Is that like a total?
h.
10 ;
i A
A total.
2 11
<3 G
10 CFR 100 are all dose rates then?
'i 12 'I z
5 A
No, they are dose commitments.
()
i 3
i G
Dose commitments.
g 2
2 j
g 15 l Well, it's your expression here on Page 6,
5 "Part 100 establishes limits of 25 rem whole and 300 16 1
B i
z l
g y7 rem thyroid," etc.
Is that a dose commitment or a E
E 18 ;
dose rate?
l
=
E j9,
A Commitment.
I l
20 l G
That's a dose commitment.
21 It does have the unit two-hour dose there, 9
22 1 isn't that--
Why is that still a commitment?
(
l i
A The assumption is made that --
Maybe I should l
23 i
1 24.i explain to you why it's two hours.
()
i
(
25 G
You may.
I ti ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
8 i
16364 s
3-2 0
1 A
It is assumed that beyond two -- in the time 1
i]
i limit of two hours, emergency plans will take place CD 2 g hi h w
c will remove anyone at or beyond the site boundary, 3i i
r within the site boundary -- I'm sorry -- the exclusion
(])
4 i
5{
area boundary.
e
~
t N
Therefore, no further dose is calculated 6i 1
j 7
at a person at the exclusion area boundary.
So it is a total dose, not a dose rate.
8 n
r d
2-9l 4
It's a total because that two hours happens d
i E
10 l to be as long as the person is exposed; is that it?
E 11 !
A That's correct.
l 3
d 12 G
Why did you put in the sentence here, "In E
r
=
t addition, it should be noted that gross fuel failure to O
s 13 i E
5 14 i the point of melting would be required to achieve the
=
E 15 l fission product inventories in containment that are 5
y 16 l assumed in Regulatory Guide 1.3"?
7:
p 17 '
A.
Because once a loss-of-coolant accident occurs, 5_
18 the ACNGS has been designed to include the co-called Et r
i
}
19 ]
emergency core cooling system, which would act to cool 5
20 l the reactor core almost instanteously and prevent any 21!
sort of fuel failure, in terms of melting of the i
22 I
uranium itself.
(
23]
To have the type of releases, which are assumed I
24 i in the Part 100 calculations, it would have to have l
25 exactly that fuel failure, which if the ECCS is operating, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16365 h
3-3 it will not have.
1 l G
Uh-huh.
When you say " gross fuel failure,"
do you imply leaving of the fuel from the cladding into d the coolant, or do'you mean just the gases going to
[)
4 e
5 E
I 6l A
I mean the -- the nuclide inventory which is j
7l contained in the actual fuel matrix, not the cladding.
f 8f G
Not what?
i A
Not the cladding.
9 z
b 10 0
All right.
So it's more than the gases between E
]
jj the cladding and the fuel; is that --
<3 i
-j 12 A
It's much more than thatn.
z=
i j
h 13 l 0
Much more than that.
Okay.
l J
E A
14 Now you state here at Line 16 of Page 6, "An
+
t l
C
\\
l 15 '
analysis has also been completed for a less conservative E
J 16 l amount of fuel damage," etc.
Who did that analysis?
I p
l'7; A
I did.
18 l G
You did the analysis.
=
H; 19,
What did you use for guidance in doing that 5
l 20 l analysis?
21 A
These analyses are norially done to show l
22 !l what realistically could occur after such an accident, O
l 6
l 23 in terms of evaluating the radiological doses.
The l
24 e guidance is normally contained in the Appendix I to O
i 25 Regulatory Guide 4.2.
1 ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i I
l 3
16366 Y,
3-4 G
j j
O 2j A
That is correct.
I I
G And what does Regulatory Guide 4.2 deal with, 3
sir?
(])
4l A
It deals with the format guide for the prepara-e 5
En I
8 6l tion of environmental reports for nuclear power plants.
e f7 G
You state this is more realistic; is that 3
8 right?
"Under this more realistic analysis," is that d
d 9
what you mean to say, that you think using Reg Guide 2
E 10 4.2 is more realistic than using Regulatory Guide 1.3?
E 5
11 A
They are used for two different purposes.
B d
12 G
All right.
But you state aere on Line 19, z
5 O
s 13 i "Under this more realistic analysis."
=
t i
i 14 !
A That's correct.
i i,
=
E 15 '
G All right.
What specific differences are 5
y 16 there that are more realistic, as you call them?
i i
i 17 l A
The major assumption is that you have an emer-E 18 gency core cooling system operating, which will prevent 3
19,
the fuel from melting.
Therefore, you don't have that n
20 l much of an inventory being released to the containment.
21l G
Is there anything else?
22 l A
Yes, there are several levels of assumptions, 23 '
which tend to be more realistic; or conversely, less 24 ;
conservative than what one would do for the Part 100.
O 25 G
What are those, please?
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 16367
>l 1
1 If you follow from the matrix itself to the l
3-5 i
()
2, environment, there are various steps.
Number one, you x
3 assume that the activity contained in the gap of the fuel
(')
4 ) cladding, I
between the cladding and the fuel itself, that ks i
j l
5) inventory is released.
e E
- l a
3 6:
It's called the gas gap activity.
e 1
5 5
7 Number two, you assume --
d l
~
j 8f G
Could you stop there a minute?
This is the u
e 9i gas in this 4.2 analysis is the gas gap assumed Y
.E 10 !
released, or assumed not released?
E
=
3 11 l A
Assumed released.
s 12 O
In 4.2 --
3~
13 '
A That's correct.
{'
z 1
5 14 ll G
In the 4.2 analysis it's assumed released.
l j
15 )
Isn ' t it also assumed released in Reg Guide 1.3?
t d
i j
16 '
A Yes, it is.
However, the activity contained l
i d
17 in the fuel matrix is so overwhelmingly higher than the 6
l' c
18 g
gap, that the gap activity becomes negligible by com-c h
19,
parison.
E o
20$
It's like adding one million to one.
1 j
G Yes.
But I don't see that there's any dif-21 r
{]
22 l ference in the analysis from what you said.
ss 23 A
The difference is the inventory.
24 l
f]
G The 4.2's inventory -- total inventory is xs i
25 less; is that right?
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
j 16368 1
A Much less.
1 3-6 j
G But it's still --
You don't think that's
(}
2g i
W 3g very significant; is that right?
i
?
1 1
It is very significant.
()
4 5l G
Didn't you say a minute ago it was like one e
i H
l s
6l to a million?
e it f
7ll A
No, I said in response to your question, I said --
If I may repeat your question, which I recall, 8
3 9l was, " Don't ycu also consider the gas gap inventory in i
g l
5 l
l E
10 l the 1.3 analysis?"
5 l
E And I said the inventory which is contained in 11l i.
5, 12 '
the gas gap is srca lle r than that contained in the fuel z
E matrix, that it's like adding one to one million.
O s
13 i E
A 14l G
I see.
Pardon the interruption.
?
=
l i
E 15 l Are there any other differences?
5 I
J 16 '
A Yes, there are.
The iodine which is released I
e*
i j
17 from this gas gap goes to the water inventory, which is N
e 18 ;
contained in the reactor vessel.
=
i w
I 19 l Iodine has a high affinity for mixing with 5
i 20 I water.
Therefore, not the entire contents of the gas i
gap would have been released from the reactor sessel 21 22 !!
because of having mixed with the water in the reactor l ()
23 '
vessel.
24h After it has been released now from the water, 25 !
whatever fraction is released now, which will then go k
l!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_=
~
I 16363 i
e 3-7 1 i to the containment atmosphere, it would leak at a leak 2
rate, which is much less than the so-called design o
3 g basis technical specification leak rate.
a O
(])
4j Furthermore, filtration credit is taken because e
5 at ACNGS there is the so-called shell building -- I'm 1
r f
H N
6l sorry -- it's called a standby gas treatment system, e
I g
7 l' whose purpose is to filter the releases which go into 4
j
~
5 8!
the so-called shell building annulus volume.
d d
9; So the releases, prior to reaching the environ-i 5
10 !
ment, are filtered through safety-grade filtration E
i
=
i 2
11 systems.
i l
3 l
- j 12 l G
Do you believe -- going back to what you said i
i n
E 13 i about tech specs a minute ago, do you believe that they i
V 5
14 ;
2 x
are overly conservative?
j g
b
(
I g
15 ;
A The tech specs themselves are not overly con-0 4
j 16l servative.
i e
z 17 0
Do you think that's probably about what the sC i
z 18 :
leakage rate really is on one of these?
=
19 l A
No, it's much less than that.
R h
20-)
G Much less than that.
0 l
21 Do you have any data that you could give the h
22I Board here that would show that at the moment?
23)
A Yes, I do.
However, I have to qualify that l
24j these data are applicable to pressurized water reactors,
(
l 25 l not to boiling water reactors.
However, if I may, I'll l
1 I
ri I
l a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16370 l.go 3-8 ahead and give the st data.
j For two plants which have undergone this so-2; 3 [l>called integrated leak rate testing, which is a test
(])
4l which is done prior to the operation of the plant, the containment is pressurized to design basis pressure e
5 i
~
n in this case for the pressurized water reactor, 44 to 46 6:
~
e i
i G
R.
7 psi.
l f8 And then the leakage rate is measured over a t
4 o
d 9
period of time.
Plants which I have seen this testing E
10 conducted upon would leak at 20 times less their c
5 4
E 11 design basis leak rate.
B For example, instead of having a design basis i
d 12 i z
i
=
i s
13 l leak rate of.5% per day, such a plant -- such plants
=
14 l have leaked at.025% per day, which is a factor of 20
+
E i
E 15 <
1ess than the design basis number.
E i
l J
16 l 0
In doing this analysis, was the me thod used 1
mz p
17 to estimate dispersion the same?
E E
18 A
No, it was not.
=
19 ;
G What difference was there between the estimates a
i 20 for dispersion?
21l A.
In the Part 100-type calculations, one uses t
ll 22 !l what is called the 95 percentile atmospheric dispersion 23 factor, which is that atmospheric dispersion factor 24j which is only exceeded 5% of the time; or conversely, i
l 25 i which is larger than any other 95% of the time.
l ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. _. - = _ __
j isavi 3-9
[
(
However, in the more realistic calculations, 4
1 ;
j one uses an atmospheric dispersion factor, which is at
- ()
2j i
j the 50 percentile level.
Therefore, it's much less.
i 30 aj G
What about the -- with regard to the release
, ()
4I 4
of noble gases from the core inventory?
Is that the 5;j g
s same 100% assumption?
5 0k p
A It's 100%.
However, 100% of the gap inventory 6
7; 3
, as opposed to the fuel matrix inventory.
8
=
l G
Now, I think a moment ago you spoke about d
9l i
iodine; and that was essentially that this plugs in an i
.)
10 j assumption of some type of water filtration or mechani-2 11
- i 5
cal filtration.
Is that right?
^
12 1 z
[
5 A
Yes, I mentioned the filtration system.
()
h I
~
14 l JUDGE WOLFE:
We'll have a 15-minute recess.
=
i x
I a
e I think we're progressing here.
My suggestion is that we r
15 l
proceed through the lunch hour, and, hopefully, be able 16 l i
- e
[.
to complete also Applicant's witness.
z 4
5 We'll have a 15-minute recess now, and perhaps w
18 :,
{
j9 l later on :aother 15-minute recess.
5 i
All right.
We'll recess until a quarter of 20 ;
11:00.
21 l Ii 22 q (A short recess was taken.)
()
1 23 ll JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
J i
24 j BY MR. DOHERTY:
(3) 25l G
In y ur assessments in the PSAR did you --
i t l
I 1
i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
l a
18372 W
W a
yu use n
na nmen s
a n,
n erms of 3-10 1,] w 0it the amount of time that would be required for that to O
24 h
fhappen?
A The containment is assumed to be isolated at 4
l 5l the onset of the accident.
e 1
l MR. DOHERTY:
Your Honor, may I shut this off 6
j 7
a second?
k 8l (Pause.)
i N
BY MR. DOHERTY:
9 5
E 10 g
Is th a t the usual technical specification?
E!
jj !
A It's not, to my knowledge, a technical specifi-3
?
h 12 cation.
It's just a calculational assumption.
z:
O Do you know --
Well, have you ever in any 2
13
(
5 A
14 f of your studies found a plant that operated or was designed 0
i u!
15 l to cperate as an isolated containment?
x r
=
l Ml MR. ROZZELL:
Objection, Your Honor.
I don't
..4 z
d 17 see the relevance of that question.
5 i
E 18 ;
MR. DOHERTY:
He states that they assume that i
7, 19 j containment isolation occurs at the onset of the acci-I 20 l dent, which to me means essentially that containment l
21 i isolation is always there always, a part of just i
22 I operation.
(
1 23 I'm asking if he has ever heard of such a a
24 ) thing.
U 25 '
(Bench conference.)
I i
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 8
- I 16373 s
3-11 JUDGE %)LFE:
And your objection?
)
f f
a
)
7j MR. ROZZELL:
Is to the relevance, Your Honor.
1 3 j I d n't see how that has anything to do with the topic 1
4 at hand, or the calculational assumption that Mr. Martin
(])
i i
has said that we have here.
e 5
I l
l 6:
MR. DOHE RTY :
I think the calculation would be
~
c R
s 7
influenced by whether the containment is isolated at the 4
~
s j
i gf start of the incident or not.
.s 0
i d
9j (Bench conference.)
I
?.
E 10 JUDGE WOLFE:
I'll overrule the cbj ection, but E
5 11 '
the Board on its own motion will not allow the question l
1 s
d 12 !
until some foundation is laid for the question itself.
z s
I d
13 l We find the form of the question to be poor i
=
i 14 !
BY MR. DOHERTY:
d i
e t
E 15 2
g Well, is it true that there is no time between l
N l
l J
16 l the incident and the containment isolation then?
It's f
w l
l d
17 assumed a sealed building at the start of the accident; 5c
'e 18 i is that right?
l
- s 19,
A That's right.
E i
20 !
Q.
From your knowledge of power plant operations, l
1 l
21 i do you believe that, in fact, nuclear power plants --
i i
A 22 and particularly Allens Creek --
Do you believe that i
23 it will be --
Well, do you believe that operating l
4 j
24j nuclear power plants always operate with the containment l
l 25 !
isolated?
i j
u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
3 16374 1
1
?
A No, they do not operate with the containment 3-12 1
(])
2{
isolated.
However, I want to add that analyses are done h
3 q as part of the licensing process, to show that if the
(])
4 containment was open and you would have a simultaneous i
g 5:
LOCA, one of the licensing requirements is that the Part s
I 100 doses to be calculated to prove that by the time that j
6; R
l
{
7 you would isolate containment and then contain all of your
~
j 8
releases, it would still be below the Part 100.
It's c
d 9
one of the requirements.
Y 10 And that requirement is spelled out in E
,5 11 Branch Technical Position CSB 6.4 of the Standard Review i
d 12 l Plan.
E; 1
l
(])
g 13 l G
Did you make any attempt --
Well, let me z
l 5
14 ;
ask you this.
g i5 In your opinion, would releases be increased
=
j 16 at all if the containment were not isolated for ten l
N I7 minutes?
5
{
18 '
A Why ten minutes?
cs I
I9 !
O Why ten minutesc g
e 20f A
Yes.
I 21 0
Say it again?
22 A
Yes.
23 g
Well, I don't know.
It's just a number that has 24 come about a rew times here.
It's just I'd prefer
(])
25 !
that you answer the question, instead of asking me one.
j l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
=_._ _ _
l 18375 l
3-13 i
A I don't say that ten minutes is not a reasonable j
(])
2; number.
However, I will tell you what the number is.
i 3)f It's on the order of 15 seconds.
i
(])
4 0
What is that number?
Fifteen seconds?
5 A
The time that it takes to receive the contain-j e
i N
6; ment isolation signal to close the butterfly valves of
~
e i
R i
7 the containment isolation.
5 5
8 g
Well, what I asked was -- I think -- in your a
i d
I d
9l opinion, would there be significantly more release if, i
i 10 l for whatever reason it took ten minutes to isolate?
z i
=
i j
11 j
.s In those 15 seconds you would have an additional I
j 12 i release, if you were to assume that the injection of E
I
(}
13 i activity into the containment were instanteous.
- However, z
1-4!
one has to consider also that it will take some time g
w I
E
- I z
15 f be fore you have any fuel melting; and that time is on e
16 ll
~.
the order of 20 minutes.
4 z
y 17 Therefore, if you receive the containment I
{
18l isolation signal, which would then actuate your valves c
19 l to close in 15 seconds, the likelihood will be that you s
5 20 l will not get any additional release.
2l '
O What if it takes just ten minutes just the 1
22
(}
same?
I don't think you covered the ten minutes.
23)
A It would not take ten minutes.
I will not con-i 24 jecture on that because it will not take ten minutes.
25 ;
G Well, let us say that the operator for some n
n ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I i
i 16376 I
I i
1 5 reason does not isolate for ten minutes.
ll 3-14
()
2 A
It's an automatic actuation.
It's not an 3
operator actuation.
()
4 G
Is that true of the Allens Creek plant -- that 5ll there's an automatic actuation of containment isolation?
g I
s j
6!
A Yes, it is.
R 7 i G
And do you know what activates the signal to do l
8 that, what condition does that?
U
)
k 9
A Pressure is one.
High containment activity i
E 10 k could be another one.
z
/
5 II I G
Pressure.
Where is the pressure n;easured, u
I I
I2 '
2 sir?
t 7
i t
()
g 13 A
The --
z t
I4 '
[
MR. SOHINKI:
I'll object to that question.
e 0
15 b
i I think we're getting way beyond the scope of the E
I0 contention and the issue that we're discussing.
17 l
d MR. DOHERTY:
Well, there's a question and i
=
E 18 l answer on Page 7.
He says " Containment isolation is i
H
)
19 i i
g assumed to occur."
And I think it's reasonable to get i
t 20 into why it's assumed to.
[
21l He has given me a large part of that answer.
q 22 j
{}
(Bench conference.)
23 "
l JUDGE WOLFE:
Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Once you have your break in
(])
25 i your recirculation line of the boiling water reactor, you 1
4 0
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 16377 3-15 will have an injection of mass and energy into the 1 !.
i containment, at which time the pressure will rise.
()
2l Therefore, that pressure will be sensed 3.,
i
(])
4f signaling that something has gone abnormally wrong.
5!
G Is that within the drywell?
e I
~
A I d n't know specifically where that is.
I 6
j don't know those details of the plant.
7 E
8, i
G Okay.
n l
5 9;
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Mr. Martin, I think Mr.
8 E
10 l Doherty's question basically goes to why is this a good 2
})
assumption with respect to containment isolation as indi-l a
i d
12 l cated on Page 7 of your testimony.
And really what you E
t
=
i have answered, in effect, is that it's a good assumption O
s 13 !
G because that's the way the systems and the input signals A
14 l 0
l M
\\
2 15 and the response to them would normally work.
I j
16 At the same time we've had quite a bit of i
i p
l'7 discussion about stuck valves and valve reliability and z
p 1
E 18 l so forth.
And I think it's not an unreasonable question
=
\\
H I
19 ;
to raise that maybe all these signals work, but that i
l n
20]
containment isolation valve has been sitting there open 21 l for maybe many weeks or many months or something; and i
22 l maybe somehow it has gotten a little gummy or a little 23 sluggish, and it gets the signal to close, but it takes 24 its own time about doing it; or maybe it doesn't move in O
25 i the first five minutes and somebody has got to run out I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
4, 16378 4
1 1
ard kick it or something.
i 3-16
(])
2q Is there --
Do your accident analyses in any 6
3 ] way become upset if there's some delay in containment 4
(])
4 l isolation valves functioning properly?
i g
5t THE WITNESS:
I will answer your question, Judge, 5
j 6
in two parts.
The first part I will say that as part i
E i
5 7;
of the normal licensing process, one has to go through 3
i j
8, the exercise of calculating offsite doses, assuming, d
9I number one, that the containment has been opened, and z
l g
10 l that the PERT system, for example, is operating.
z d
E y
II And you have a simultaneous LOCA, loss-of-M N
I2 l coolant accident.
At that time one assumes that the E
i 13 I
{J3 5
actuating signals -- whatever they are:
pressure or f
14 {
radiation -- will sense the proper monitors, which will
_C l
15 then cause containment isolation.
k Ib l At that point containment is assumed to be i
.f I7
~
isolated, and then you would have your normal injection 1
=
f 18 of inventory in the atmosphere of the containment.
8 I9 l One should keep in mind also that it does take 20 '
a finite time prior to having that injection of in-21 l l
Ventory into the containment atmosphere; it does take time 22 h to uncover : the core, especially for a BWR; and it 23 '
does take time to reach the center line melting a
24 i
{}
temperature of the fuel.
25 "i And these times are on the order of approximately i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l s
16379 20 minutes.
3-17 1
1 1
I The containment is designed to be isolated in i
{3 2
~J n
les than approximately 15 to 16 seconds.
3 (3
On the one hand, there are very conservative 4
'J
~
5 ] as sumptions which are made in the calculation of the c
s il P rt 100 doses.
But these, if you will, could be
.~
6 M
l tempered by these assumptions where one realistically j'
7 ii a
-f8 assumes that you will have effected complete isolation in 15 seconds, and that no releases will occur until E
9; 5
E 10 ;
then, considering the fact that it will take at least 2
i 11 20 minutes before you in real life, in reality, have any l
'<s d
12 ;
sort of fuel melting, and then the injection of that large d
~
(3 E
13 inventory into the containment atmosphere.
x_/
E A
14 If you still don't have that immediate in-t=
E 15 jection of inventory into the atmosphere of the contain-5 h
16 ment while your containment door is open, we have done l
d 17 l these calculations and proven chat the aCNGS plant would 2
i
=
f E
be below Part 100, if you were to consider that 18 ]
still i
l 3
l 19 i portion o f the release which takes' place in'that 15-5 l
20 1 second time interval.
l 21 0 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Okay.
So that calculation l
J i
4 22 1 speeds up the release, which is generally assumed to k3/
i 23 take, as you say, on the order of 20 minutes -- the i
l 24 release from the core.
x-25 But s ': i l l -- it speeds up the release to be l
I 1
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
1 f
16380 2-18 i
an instanteous one, but still assumes containment j
i in 15 seconds.
2 f isolation occurs U
Now, have you done a calculation that leaves 3 jj 1r the release the way you think it's going to happen, but
()
4 k lo ks at what the consequences are if there's difficulty e
5 r
I u
6!
in effecting containment isolation in 15 seconds; namely, e
i E
7 that it takes a somewhat longer time?
h 3
I 8
Is that kind of analysis --
n G
q 9
THE WITNESS:
No, sir, it hasn't.
z i
5 10 l JUDGE LINENBERGER:
It hasn't been done.
Okay.
E t
=
r 3
11 l Back to you, Mr. Doherty.
S l
d 12 BY MR. DOHERTY:
E:
13 :
G You mention on Page 8 Allens Creek has in-Og =
[
14 corporated all suggested modifications, such as contain-Cf 15 i ment isolation for non-essential systems, that were not j
16 l already part of the plant design.
I d
17 That's around Line 13.
Now, did I understand N
E 18 ) correctly that non-essential system isolation can
=
1
~
19 )! be overridden by the operator, if the operator so R
1 20ll desires?
!I Il 21 r
A I really coulde t tell you.
I don't have a h
n 22 II very detailed knowledge of that area.
(
l 23 '
g Okay.
Well, how did the Applicant define a 24 "non-essential system"?
25 i A
I would define, in my opinion, what is meant by i
.\\
N ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
s 1G381 J
"non 'ssential system."
3-19 1
l In my opinion, a non-e:sential system is these --
7 r thc' system which will not be necessary to mitigate 3
a the consequences of the accident in question.
(])
4 {
I release l 5 i G
N w, when you say on Line 9 at the top, a e
E n
G 6 ', mechanism -- do you see that, at the top of Page 9 of your e
i l
N s
7 testimony?
n 5
8 A.
Yes.
n N
9 Q.
Do you mean the pathway, sort of, that the Y
10 material moves through?
Is that
.2 E
11 A
That's correct.
U j
12 G
Just a final question on Reg Guide 1.3.
Do you q
5 13 recall the calculation that you used?
Is that for a l
r(-)
s A
14 1 BWR without a stack, is that the type of calculation 2
i
=
t E
15 that you --
5 l
J 16 A
That is correct.
.r p
Okay.
No further questions, Your z=
\\
E 18 I Honor.
6 a
i I
19 1 Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.
a 20 i JUDGE WOLFE:
Redirect, Mr.
Rozzell?
21 "
MR. ROZZELL:
Yes, Your Honor, I have just a l
t 22 few questions.
f 7-(_g) 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION I
l i
24 BY MR. ROZZELL:
l
(_)
Q.
Mr. Martin, do you recall your discussion earlier l 25 t
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
. -. =. --
I j
j 16382 3-20 1 ' this morning with Mr. Doherty concerning the leakage l
(])
2 rate of the containment?
I believe at that time you i
3!
testified that the design basis containment leakage i
(])
4 rate was.5%; is that correct?
l I
e 5 4 A
That's correct.
i s
i
]
j 6!
G Now, does that number encompass both filtered R
}
7 and non-filtered air?
Ej 8
A Yes, it does.
(
4 l
9 9
G Can you give me the rate of leakage of un-
?
i l
10 filtered air?
z l,
5 II A
Unfiltered air leakage is approximately 4%
B l
f 12 of the overall leak rate, which works out as a percent per l
5 i
13
(])
day to be.0195% per day.
z I4 O
So that's 4% of the.5%?
Ej 15 A
That's coirect.
=
E Ib MR. ROZZELL:
Thank you.
Those are all the z
17 d
questions I have, Your Honor.
=
i JUDGE WOLFE:
Are there Board questions?
E i
19 i i
JUDGE CHEATUM:
I have one question arising j
l 20 l from your testimony on Page 6.
21f l
BOARD EXAMINATION
!l 22 0 BY JUDGE CHEATUM:
23 l' G
Beginning at Line 12, you use the term " gross
'l 24 a
(])
fuel failure to the point of melting," and then down 25 ii below you use -- beginning with Line 16, a new paragraph, N
l u
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I il 163S3 a
0 1
3-21 1 ]
"An analysis has also been completed fo r a less con-servative amount of fuel damage and resultant fission 2) s 3 l product release..."
4 What's the difference between fuel failure
[])
5!
versus -- and fuel damage?
It isn't clear to me.
e R
0 n
2 6!
A Okay.
It's really --
Well, let me just say l
n 1
E_
7' for one second that what I have used there is in the s
j 8
lingo of the industry in this case, but in terms of I
o t
t 9i fuel failure I can think of two situations.
i l
l c
i 10 It's really a semantics prob]em.
Fuel failure, E_
3 11 in the true sense of the word, means that the uranium --
i j
12 ;
the ceramics have melted.
And to have that situation, you 5
I O
=
13 r would have to have, number one, uncooling of your coil z
t y
14 d by uncovering it, and failure to provide adequate cooling.
5 i
j 15 l It would melt by decay heat process.
E j
j 16 ;
It would melt due to the uranium itself, which i
^
i l
(
17 is part of the fuel matrix.
This is the true meaning, t
t 5
18 '
as I know it, of fuel failure.
E k
b I9,
However, since that situation has an extremely
=
l 20 !
low probability of occurrence, when one considers the I
1 l
21 entire reactor core, fuel failure is normally intended l
l l
22 to mean failure of the cladding, which is the zircoloid
( (
23 '
l cladding, which protects the ceramics.
I' 24 f There is also one additional place where that 1
25 :
terminology is used is when you get yourself a batch 1
i n
t 1
I s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
p 16384 3-22 i
- l of fresh fuel for either -- from any of those fuel
)
2 manufacturers, you have what is called pin defects.
3l You have cladding defects in terms of pin hole i
i 4:
penetrations in your cladding, failures due to improper
(])
1 e
5t welds.
i N
l j
6l So a fresh batch of fuel could have fuel de-R
[
7' fects and it could also be called fuel damage.
And these
~
,j 8
percentages are very small out of an entire core, in J
d 9
terms of fractions of one percent.
7:
y 10 So there are three cases where one could refer
_3 j
11 to fuel damage or fuel failure.
And depending on the
?
j
- j 12 context, it would be different things.
1
=
{}
g 13 '
So going back to Line 12, the connotation here 5
14 ;
is that what you have there is actual melting of the z
l
~b l
j 15 f uranium.
=
l j
16 i on Line --
A N
I7 '
G Well, it says, "to the point of melting."
E I
w 1
l z
18 A
Yes --
N g
I9 ;
G
-- which means that you have fuel failure, but n
i 20 l it doesn't result in melting --
21 'l A
Well, to have these types of releases that 22 !
one uses for Part 100 calculations, you have to have 23 '
fuel melting entirely.
"h
///
(J 4
///
O I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
g 4
16385 4
0 1
E a
l4-1 1 '
on line 16 what is meant here is you don't have I
i
'c !( )
2! the fuel melting, you have the cladding failing.
3 G
Well, that's what I thought you meant, but I i
i
()
4I wasn't sure.
e 5
A This is what I mean, yes.
N j
6, G
On page 8 where you are referring to non-essential j
E E
7 systems, does this mean that these non-essential systems i
~
j 8
are subject to containment isolation in the design of d
I n}
9' ACNGS?
i zc
-j y
10 A
I'm sorry, I'm r.at sure I understand the
~
3_!
II question.
3 i
N I2 l G
Well, you say that, "Allens Creek has
=
(}
13 incorporated all su gested modifications, such as i
5 14 l 2
j contal;- nt isolation for non-essential systems."
E F
15 g
A Yes.
=
Q Does that mean that the non-essential systems z
17 '
d are in the containment isolation system?
E l
5 18 A
No.
It means that --
19 j
G They are outside of the system?
20 1
These non-essential systems which could affect 1
21licontainment isolation are isolated.
I 22 i O
i G
They are isolated?
23 A
Yes.
If you were to have, for example, just an 24 3 O,
- qexample, a pipe penetrating containment, for example, and 25 ') going out of containment, which would be part of a l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16386 I
i i
1 i
non-essential system, that pipe would be isolated, if it ja-2 1 ;
4 h.()
2,,
were part of a non-essential system.
3 G
And you define non-essential systems as those i
l ()
4 not needed to mitigate an accident?
I i
i I
5; A
That is correct.
e i
E I
n i
e 6,
G Okay.
e i
N l
s 7
JUDGE CHEATUM:
I believe that's the only r
I s
l 5
8 question I had that wasn't already answered pretty well in d
j 9l 0
Mr. Doherty's cross-examination.
i
?
E 10 BOARD EXAMINATION E=
2 11 BY JUDGE LINENBERGER:
a l
j 12 l G
In response to a question by Mr. Doherty upon 1
5 l
(])
13 i voir dire, Mr. Martin, you characterized the meaning of z
5 14 the term " radiation quality" or " quality of radiation" w
i N
I 2
15 in a manner that indicated perhaps the ef fe :ts of different E
j j
16 types of radiation might be different, and you indicated t
i y
17 ! by way of an example that you would ascribe a number like
(
E ww 18 !
to neutrons and, say, one to betas.
l 20 58 6
19 '
Now, is this kind of relative weighting related a
20 to something that's frequently called relative biological 3
2I effectiveness?
22 A
Not quite, sir, no.
It's two different areas.
()
23 g
What is the distinction between relative i
24
()
biological e f fectiveness and radiation quality?
25 A.
Quality factor, you mean.
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I i
i_-.____.___.,.._.._.._.____._____.__..._._,..
163s7 I
i 4-3 O.
Quality factor, right.
l l
()
2 l 1
The quality factor is -- well, one is a statistical l
- 3) measure, and the actual relative biological effectiveness l
()
4 is the measured damage that a certain type of radiation I
s 5, would do upon hitting, for example, tissue.
l i
j 6
he quality tactor is simpiy a me as u re of what l
R b
7)youwould call the punch that one type of radiation has 5
0 g
8 compared to another where the number one is used for u
z.
9! gammas and beta., and much higher numbers like twenty for 0
1 5
10 $ neutrons.
u 1
Z 1
E i
s II j C.
Okay.
When asked about ~ontainment leakage, s
12 2
you gave a number
.5 volume percent per day, but when E
/N d 13 asked what this would translate into in weight percent, I
(,)
g I
5 14 '
believe you indicated you weren't sure of that numbcr.
15 b
l Now, I'm just a little bit curious here.
What
=
~
16 4
kinds of things happen that make the volume percent rate z
i M
17 d
of leakage different from the weight percent rate of
=
z 18 <
leakage?
I s
19)
E A
If you were to consider that post-accident you i
a 20 ll would have the containment and the pressure, high 21 ; temperature and pressure, where the volume is a constant i
i J
l l
(s) 22 ] volume ; however, the mass is going to be much higher.
23 !
r So the relationship of PV or to NRT doesn't em 24 j
l
(,).
stand anymore, because right now you are not operating at i
25 STP conditions anymore.
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
163SS l
4-4 1
You have a mixture of steam, of water and of I
a
()
2 air, and the linear proportional relationship between PV l
3 1 equal to NRT is no longer applicable because it's no i
p) 4 longer an ideal gas, as air is usually taken to be for
(
i c
5, such calculations.
E i
j 6 l 0
But if you could reach into a mixed containment R
l
=
1 S
7 j atmosphere and scoop up one percent of the volume of that aj 8
containment atmosphere, recognizing that it's a mixture of u
9
^
many things, I don't understand why you wouldn't also be
?
E 10
!- scooping up one percent of its weight, if it's mixed.
M&
h II l Now, if it's not homogeneous, that's a a
12 2
1different matter, and maybe it isn't.
E 13
^ ~(,) E A.
I see your question, and I would ask you to just 5
14
?
think of the following case, not as a response to your 1
C 0
15 l g
j question, but just for your consideration.
16 3
Think of the case where you would not be at z
F 17 d
higher temperature and oressure. You would be at standard
=
18 ili' t and pressures; and if you we re still to go in l
h emperatures l
19 l and reach, you would be reaching for less mass, but yet l
3 l
20 l l
- the volume would still be the same.
l 21 f f
3 0
Okay, fine.
I J
l 22 e f3 f
on page 2,
around lines 17 through 19, in m) t 23 I talking about the differences between TMI and Allens 24
(,)
Creek, you indicated that there will be "different isotopicj gs l
l 25 source terms," and I believe you ascribed those differences t i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
163S9 4-5 1
to differences in power level between Allens Creek and TMI.
i
()
2 Is the converse true, that if the power le ve l s 3 swere the same at the onset of an accident and the fuel
()
4 burnup had been the same up to the onset of an accident, c
5 that these different isotopic source terms would then be s
j 6 l no longer different; they would be the same?
l R
7j A
That is c o r re c t.
It doesn't matter if it's 4
j 8
In the fission process what matters is the u
k 9
power level and the quantity of u anium present.
?
10 '
so, therefore, assuming that you would have th3 z
1 E
4 4
II l same enrichment, which reads between 2.5 and 3 percent to a
j 12 ' 35, you would have the same core inventory upon reaching
()
13 the equilibrium.
3 14 2
G Yes.
I should have specified the same E
O 15 t
i enrichment.
You are right.
=
y 16 Now, source terms there in that context means z
17
'd iwhat's available in the fuel to be released, I gather?
=
E 18 A
That is co r re c t.
\\
19 l I
l j
q G
Now, you say "di f fe rent containment release l
20 ]'l l
rates during an accident."
l 21 Now, again, under the same assumptions of same
(~)
enrichment, same burnup, same power levels, will the l
23 i containment release rates be the same for a BWR and a PWR
'4 l ()
such as TMI?
I l
25 A.
It could be the same, depending apon whether or l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16390 i
4-6 1 "the design of the containment itself is also identical.
1
()
2 S
Well, that's really what I'm getting at.
Let's 3
talk about Allens Creek and TMI so that we don't have to J
(s) 4 qspeculate about containment designs too far.
g 5
Then comparing those two, given the same source 5
I j
6 l terms in terms of what's available to get out of the fuel, t'
l
{2 7]wouldyou have different containment re le a se rates at u
(i g
8]Allens Creek compared with TMI?
9l A
I'm sorry.
Could you just repeat the first part
?
E 10 ! o f you t -luestion?
l j_
11 G
Okay.
I understood you to say that whether or j
u N
12 not containment release rates were different between a l f])_f13 BWR and a PWR, you said they might be the same, they might z
5 14 be different; whether or not they are different would h
}
15 depend on whether there are differences in designs of the
=
y 16 two containments.
A 17 1
3 j
Now I'm saying if we look specifically at
=
l a[
IO, Allens Creek and compare it specifically with TMI, we don't l 8_
I9 have to speculate about differences in designs of
=
20 '0l containment, because we know what each of those designs 21,:.
- 1s.
J 22 !
So given the two design concepts, one for a l
(}
l 23 l
BWR and one for a PWR, of the containment, would the l
1 24
' (]
containment release rates be expected to be different from 25 each of these two facilities, assuming everything else was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
l 163!)1 l
l l4-7 1 [ the same, such as power level, burnup and so forth?
i
()I 2
A Yes, the answer is yes, they could be expected j
1 3
to be different in more than one aspect.
I i
(
4l Can you just give a few examples of what would
(
i 5! contribute to this difference?
c
)
s I
j 6,
A Yes.
Primarily, for example, at Allens Creek, i
2
\\
5 7' Allens Creek uses the so-called double barrier containment i
i
\\
~
j 8
design, where you have the primary containment is a free-1
-J 0;
9 standing steel container.
?
10 It's surrounded by a concrete shield building, E
h II and between the shield building and free-standing steel B
I i
2 I2 ! building there is an annulus, which is normally kept at i
()
13 ! negative pressure.
z i
5 I4 !
Post-accident, the safety related system takes l
t l
h 15 ' over the function of the normally operating negative l
I k
I0 ! pressure maintenance system and maintains the annular I
z
{
17 '
d region also under negative pressure.
=
30 The purpose for keeping it at negative pressure c8 3
is to insure that all releases from the primary containment
=
20 into the annular region will go through the environment 21 af ter passing through a safety filtration system.
l
())
The Babcock and Wilcox TMI plant did not have 23 ' such an annular region.
This is the major difference O
24 l be tween ACNGS and TMI.
I 25 l6 G
Fine.
I should like to go to page 4 and talk a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 16392 i
4-8 1 [little bit about the question at the top of the page and L
(])
2l the answer to that question that occupies most of the page.
3 The question asks for an explanation of "how the
()
4 number of curies of Xenon-133 could be larger than obtained I
g 5j under Reg Guide 1.3 or 1.4 analyses, yet result in doses N
i j
6 still acceptable and lower than 10 CFR 100 limits."
R 7
The answer, as I read it, explains how it is i
j 8l bacause of a holdup in the facility subsequent to an d
2 9
accident, explains how it is that you would expect a E,
10 larger fraction of the total activity that is relee. sed would 3
h II be xenon -- let me modify that.
Explains how it is that a
j 12 $there would be a higher ratio of xenon tci kryp ton 5
(]) l 13 released because of the time available at TMI for short z
I4 j life krypton to decay before there was release to the E
9 15 [ environment.
g
=
~
16 3
So I understand the answer in terms of why l
17 '
d the xenon-krypton ratio might be higher than you would
=
5 18 expect from an analysis done under the referenced Reg s
"s 19 i Guides 1.3 and 1.4.
I I
20 '
My problem is I do not see how the answer explains 21!
- why the Xenon-133 in and of itself would be larger than i
22 1
(])
Reg Guide 1.3 or 1.4 contemplate.
23 A.
Yes, I will be glad to explain to you.
24 Il
(])
b In the case of TMI, a large portion of the 25 j releases did not take place from the containment.
It took i,
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18393 l
I 4
i 4
4-9 1 l place at, say, hours or days later when water was trans fe rred
,~
1 (J
21 to the auxiliary building, to a drain tank in the auxiliary 4
i 3
building.
9
(-)x 4j That water contained a large inventory of J
g
- 5) Iodine-133, which decays into Xenon-133.
Xenon-133 at H
i j
6 jthat point, then, is referred as radiogenic Xenon-133, U
l 5
7jbecause i t comes from its parent, Iodine-133.
C
~
j 8
In addition to the core being a source of J
0 9i Xenon-133, which s the only source considered in the
?,
E 10 Part 100 calculations, what you have at TMI is an 5
4 5
II ) additional source of Xenon-133, which comes from the a
j 12 production of Iodine-133.
^
5 l
('
E The radiogenic Xenon-133 is not considered in 13 u.
=
z 5
I4 the Part 102 calculations.
ae
{
15 0
Okay, fine.
That's understandable.
3 d
I6 '
Additionally, I can understand it.
I z
17j But now, the next question asks whether the J
l f
I0 Reg Guides have been revised since TMI to reflect, really, i
19 i this kind of thing that you just described, and the answer 1
l 20 '1 is, "No."
l i
21!
Now, I realize that you don't call the shots at l
22 '
l
{])
i NRC, but TMI did happen.
Things were worse than the Reg
! Guides would lead one to expect, at least so far as the l
(])
Xenon is concerned and, therefore, I ask you in your j
25 l
protessional opinion whether you think it would be prudent i
l I
r ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l T
5 163M a
1 1
4-10 1 ' to make a revision to the Reg Guides to take into account t
i
(~/)
2,!the possibility that you might have radiogenic Xenon 1
l
~
3 ultimately available for release to the atmosphere in i
(])
4 addition to the direct fission product xenon?
l 5!
A What I would like to state in my professional e
s 6 ! opinion, Judge, is that the lessons learned from TMI have
~
c R
s 7; been imp le me n te d in terms of certain engineering fixes
~
j 8! which would prevent the mechanism, the releasing mechanism u
9 from occurring which wen.l' then cause radiogenic Xenon-133 zcy 10 h as an additional source above and beyond what is normally 3
11 j
l assumed in the Reg Guide 1.3.
s j
12 '
Therefore, I would say that the Reg Guide as it E.
l
(~'
g 13 - stands right now would suffice for the purpose of assessing
=
x 14 the Part 100 doses, having provided the kind of systems E
I
{
15 which wculd prevent that release mechanism from occurring.
=
j 16,
G Okay.
I understand what you say.
Rather than i
N I7 changing the Reg Guide to make it fit TMI-1, we are t
i c
g 18 changing --
l c"
I9 3
A.
The plant.
=
20 :
G
-- plant designs so that they will not behave o
i 2I as TMI-1 did -- or 2,
I mean?
h 22 :I A
That's correct.
CJ S
i 23 I G
All right.
By the way, in at least one place, l
4
{])
maybe more, one place in particular being page 5 at line 25 17, you use the term " duration of the accident."
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
18395 4-11 1
I can understand conceptually how one knows
()
2 about when an accident starts, but when you say " duration,"
E l
- 3) that means there's a terminal point somewhere.
()
4 What constitutes the end of an accident so that c
5 you can talk about a duration?
s l
j 6
A.
The term " duration" here should be taken in the
-7 5
7; content of the Part 100 calculations, and the context has e
1 g
8 been defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the u
k 9i various SRP's, namely SRP 15.6.5 of the Standard Review
?-
5 10 ' Plan, which defines the duration of the accident as 30 6
?
f h
II days for the purpose of the Part 100 dose calculations.
i s
j7,
2 G
So it's not the length of time it takes 3
() f 13 something to escape from the core or anything like that?
5 14
?
It's based on the impact on people at some point exterior E
O 15 3
to the facility?
=
k I0 A
That is correct.
The assumption is made here 7-s 1
y" j that within 30 days the residents at the outer boundary of 17 4
5 IO !! the low population zone would have had time to be given 19 j
the necessary protective actions prior to receiving the i
20 doses, the dose guidelines of 10 CFR 100.
l But that term " duration" is strictly for the If
()
purpose of the Part 100 calculations, nothing else.
23 i
G Pages 5 and 6 reference or avert to certain 24
/)
things tnat have been considered by the PSAR and with
(,
I respect to fission product behavior and releases.
l s
t
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
i 16396 4-12 1.
My question is did you critique these kinds of l
())
2! PZAR analyses to satisfy yourself that they are reasonable?
i 3!
A I have personally done those calculations.
l
()
4 G
You have, and so you personally satisfied yourself i
c 5l that what the Applicant did in these parts of the PSAR were 9
j 6(done reasonably proner and with appropriate results?
R 7'
A Well, the work has been done by the Applicant's sj 8
AE in this case, and I was the one who has performed d
y 9
these calculations.
3 10 g.
Okay.
So when you quote the PSAR, in one sense II here you are quoting yourself?
a j
12 A
I am quoting myself.
5 I
(]) j 13 G
All right.
Okay, let's go the next step.
Who t
I 4 'j g
1-has critiqued you?
=
0 15 b
A My immediate supervisor.
It was a long hot
=
J 16 summer.
^
l n
17 '
3 (Laughter.)
5 l
w 18 G
By the way who is your supervisor?
s" 19 '
A.
In those days it was -- well, seven or eight j
20 was Joseph Franco.
years ago, it 21 G
Is he still with the organization?
I
(])
A He is still with the organization.
23 G
Where does he fit in the organization?
()
A Well, presently he is regional manager at 25 !lthe Bellview office in Bellview, Washington.
il l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
il i
16397 i
4-13 1
JUDGE WOLFE:
What was he eight years ago?
What 1
73
()
2 'was his title when he was your supervisor?
I 9
3j THE WITNESS:
Eight years ago -- well, not quite l
/~'N l
(,/
4 eight years ago, probably seven years ago, he was a e
5 principal engineer.
=N j
6 We have a formal Quality Control Program to R
7l perform such calculations.
It is a written procedure
~
j 8' approved by the corporate structure within Ebasco.
O d
9i BY JUDGE LINENBERGER:
i O
4 y
10 l' G
Well, maybe I should probe this from just a 3
11 j
l slightly different direction.
3 l
12 '
Do you know whether the Applicant himself has
=
r h) 1 13 g
independently critiqued your contribution here to make sure
(,
z 5
14 you are not putting him in a spot he doesn't want to be in?
_t
}
15 >
A I doubt that the Applicant has done that.
I
=
j 16 couldn't say.
z N
I7 i
G Okay.
E l
u a
g 18j A
I might add, Judge, that there aren't too many C
'I h
I9 of the Applicants left who were involved in those days,
=
n 20 1; but in any event, I don't think it has been done.
I'm not t
1 1
21 ]too sure it has been done.
s 22 1
()
G On page 7 at the top, Item 2 at the top of page es 23
'7, are those the 30-day numbers?
w 24,'
A.
These are the 30-day numbers.
/
1 i
25 G
In describing ft.ssion product behavior and i
i i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. !NC.
I
16398 1
l 4-14 j
consequences, you have several times discussed the i
p)
(
2 importance or-the ract that lodine is very soluble in I
3 ;wate-t l
(m) 4.
Now, Xenon under all conditions we've talked I
5 i about here, accident, normal operation, whatever, Xenon is e
l I
i G
6 always a gas, right?
e R
l B
7j A
That is correct.
~
i 5
8 G
Now, under some conditions throughout the u
u d
9 spectrum of events we've been talking about here, iodine Y
5 10 j may be a gas or it may be a solid.
z i
=
1 3
11 Now, so far as the behavioral mechanisms or the s
j 12 behavioral phenomena that you've been talking about, does
=
l
( ) g 13 the fact that iodine makes the transition from gaseous to
=
z 14 solid phase at some temperature affect these re le a se
)
c i
t
^
,z 15 mechanisms or release phenomena in any way?
t 1
16 The calculations always assume that iodine is l
g i
s l
i z
l I
y 17 l always in the gaseous phase.
l t
6 9
G So when you talk about its untake into water, i
s 18 ]
1 I 9 "i i t ' s b
as though a gas were being a bubble through the g
a 20 l wa ter or something?
2I A
Physically, yes.
22 '
(3 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Thank you, sir.
That's all
%)
)
23 i
I have.
i
- 'i 24 JUDGE NOLFE:
Cross-examination on Board questions, k/
i 25 Mr.
Schinki?
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 P
16399 I
i l
I4-15 1
MR. SOHINKI:
No, sir.
I
(
2 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Doherty?
h t
3!
RECROSS-EXAMINATION O
4isvMR.
DOuERTv:
I e
5i g
Did you say you calculated these out in 1973?
i 5
j 6
A The first --
A 7
g When Mr. -- the name seems to have slipped my
~
j 8l mind, the gentleman now in Bellview Washington, was at 0
1 2
9 the company.
What year was that, that those were done and z.
c i
y 10 reviewed?
l z
E II l
4 A
The original set of calculations which were M
12 ;
i I
i
! presented in the original docketed version of the PSAR j
i
(} g 13 !
l were done in the summer of 1973.
\\
I4 i
0
'73?
=
i c
15 t b
j A
That is correct.
=
l 16 i
5 0
And you did them and he reviewed them, right?
z d
17 l A
Right.
E l
z 18 i l
0 Did you have a bachelor's degree at that time?
"H 19 !
j A
No, but I had 136 credits to my bachelor's l
20 !
- degree.
21 !
G With regard to a question Dr. Cheatum aske
- you,
!l l
()
mainly the material on page 6,
are these two analyses meant i
23 ' to compare the exact same design based accident?
24 i O
A They are not meant for that purpose.
I 25 ['
G Say again?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ _ = _ _
l 16400 i
l4-16 1
A They are not meant for that purpose.
[
j ()
2 G
Okay.
All right, go ahead.
i i
3 !
A The purpose for doing those two sets of a
j ()
4fcalculations, following, number one, the Reg Guide 1.3 I
5 g
! guidance, the purpose for that is to satisfy the site l
S i
j 6l suitability criteria of 10 CFR Part 100.11.A.
R i
B 7
The purpose for doing the so-called realistic
~
j 8
type calculations is to have a knowledge of what would be 4
9i the doses if one were to make a more realistic assessment 2.
E 10 1
- j of th e.e e doses.
=
II G
All right, but I think the title of the Guide I2 has been read into the record before.
It's,
" Assumption
() !
! Used for Evaluating Potential Radiological Consequences of
[
3 14 i
j a Loss of Coolant Accident."
M 9
15 g
Did you assume the same accident for both F
16 M
i calculations?
z j7 ;
t e
l d
A By the same accident, do you mean the same l
=
E 18
=
initiating event?
w E
19 i 2
l G
Yes, the same pipe breaking at the same place?
I 20 !
i A
Yes, that is correct.
i G
The same conditions.
So only the consequences 22 i are different; is that right?
23 A
No, there are more di f ferences than that.
24 +
O G
Well, but I think you answered that the accident 25 the same; is that right?
- was i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
j 18401 i
I4-17 1
A That is right.
The initiating event is the i
i l
(])
2 same.
O 3!
G All right, fine.
Thanks very much.
(])
4 MR. DOHERTY:
No further questions, Your Honor.
I g
5l JUDGE WOLFE:
Is there re di re c t, Mr. Rozzell?
5 j
6 MR. ROZZELL:
No, sir.
9 b
7 JUDGE WOLFE:
Is the witness to be excused E
8l; g
permanently?
I J
i e
9 li MR. ROZZELL:
Yes, sir.
z 10l JUDGE WOLFE:
The witness is excused I
z t
I 5
II permanenrly.
B I
12 '
l E
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
E i
13 l
\\
l
(]) --
i
/
(The witness was excused.)
i 5
I4 '
JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Schinki.
6 i
N 1
-g 15 l MR. SOHINKI:
Yes, sir.
=
E JUDGE WOLFE:
Do you have a witness?
l
~ '
.~
17
]
MR. SOHINKI:
No, sir.
I think that's the
=
18 completion of the business for today.
I 19 '
S i
JUDGE WOLFE:
I thought that you were going to e
20l have Mr. Reed here today.
21 I l
MR. SOHINKI:
No, I don't believe so.
i
(}
22]k MR. COPELAND:
That was not my understanding.
23 ^
MR. DOHERTY:
Nor mine, sir.
i 24]
JUDGE WOLFE:
I see.
All right.
(])
25 Well, you were close on target there, Mr. Doherty.
l
,i
'I h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1saoe l 4 - 1.8 1 ! Here it is 11:55.
I
(])
2' MR. DOHERTY:
The witness' answers were roughly 3
what I expected, and that's what makes it easy to predict.
(])
4 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
Anything before we 2
5i recess until September 14th?
I 5
l 6!
MR. COPELAND:
No, sir.
E i
5 7
MR. SOHINKI:
We have nothing.
~
i j
8l JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
So tidying up, then, d
k 9
within the next two weeks and hopefully sooner, we will be 10 l 5
issuing our formal Second Order Ruling on Motions for 3
h II Summary Disposition.
u N
I2 Then the next week we will advise the parties
=
Oj 13 by an order what the scheduling will be, namely whether v -
i 3
14 l we will proceed the second scheduled week in September and g
e 15 whether we will proceed on the dates of October 5th through j
16 the 16th.
I C
17 '
d All right.
This session is concluded.
E IO (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the hearing was 19 i adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
Monday, September 14.
j 8
i 20 l 19 81. )
l 21 22 !
23 ;
24 e 5 ()
25.,
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
k_)s 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the i
J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY DATE of proceedings:
28 August 1981
)
i l
DOCKZT Number:
50-466 CP l
PLACE of proceedings:
Houston, Texas l
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original eranscript thereof for the file of the Commission.
l l
(~\\
L)
Mary L.
Baabv Official Reporter (Typed) l DlawWLA Offfdial Reporter (Signature) rm 1
-s
<-