ML20028D090
| ML20028D090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1983 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301170064 | |
| Download: ML20028D090 (99) | |
Text
I s m par 3
AMK "
=
lO O:F:C A_ TRANSCIP~~
i PROCID:NGS 3E:OI.
!O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETT AND LI N SING 30ARD DKT/ CASE NO.
so-322-ct i
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Pcwer Station)
PLACE aausgauge, New vorx O
DATE 3enuary 1 1983 PAGF9 18,o33 - 18,129 gqec (
63-cm 1h.v (LL -< 4e fL E vy c' w f
'pthw 21 C ' )
M'--MG
{} 3 h
? 'CLb
$s<len l
f b~1 )C" L
t R3Ol170064 8:30113 PDR AD(K M 05000.122 T
PDP m aa O
3.!IESCN E CRING (202) 62S-9300 440 FIRST STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001
18,033 1
UNITEi) STATES OF AMERICA (x,)
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
()
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x v
5 In the Matter of :
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-0L 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) :
8
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9
Court of Claims, State of New York Third Floor "B" Building, Room 3B44 10 State Office Building Veterans Memorial Hichway 11 Hauppauge, New York 11787 12 Thursday, January 13, 1983 13
(~'S The hearing in the above-entitled matter
- i. 's_J 14 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
16 LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman 17 Administrative Judge 18 19 JAMES CARPENTER, Member 20 Administrative Judge 21 22 PETER A.
MORRIS, Member
,,V 23 Administrative Judge 24
/^N All-TI RECOIIDING, INC.
203.IEllICllO TUltNI*lliE
.%IINEOLA. NEW YOltli 11301
(? 1.')
- t1.1-f)1 71
' 1 st)
- 1 1 ". *1 l '.'
18,034 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Applicant:
3 T.
S. ELLIS III, Esq.
ANTHONY F.
EARLEY, Esq.
4 Hunton & Williams v
707 East Main Street 5
Richmond, Va.
23212 6
On behalf of the Regulatory Staff:
7 BERNARD BORDENICK, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
8 9
On behalf of Suffolk County:
ALAN DYNNER, Esq.
10 MICHAEL S. MILLER, Esq.
LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
11 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, H i.1 1,
Christopher & Phillips 12 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036
.f 14 Also present:
JAMES PATRICK HOGAN, Esq.
15 GA Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 81608 16 San Diego, California 92138 Counsel for Torrey Pines 17 18 19 20 21 22 0
23 24 0
2, i
l AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.IEltlCIIO TUltNI*IKE
.%IINEO1.A. NEW YOltK 11201 (212) :1&.1-0171 din) T11-1'l&2
18,035 1
C O_-_N T E N_ _T s O
=
wITNEssEst DIaECT Caoss aEDIaECT aECaoss Bonat 3
Louis D. Johnson, and Joseph P. Novarro (Resumed) c'O 4
av ar-ovaaer 18,037 By Judge Carpenter 18,053 5
By Judge Morris 18,054 By Mr. Dynner 18,057 6
By Judge Carpenter 13,063 By Judge Morris 18,063 7
By Mr. Dynner 13,070 By Judge Carpenter 18,076 8
By Judge Morris 13,077 By Mr. Dynner 18,082 10 E_1 E 1 Q l T_ E 12 NUMBER IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE 13 suffolk County 110 18,083 14 15 16 RECESSES:
g7 M rning - 18,081 18 19 20 21 22 0
23 24 O
25 AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
223 JEltICIIO T111tNPIKE SIINEOLA. NEW YORK 11501 (212) 343-0171 (ste) 741 = 3342
18,036 1
_P _R _O _C E_ _E _D _I N G S_
()
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, we'11 go on the record at 3
9:15.
l( )
4 Good morning.
As we discussed off the record yes-5 terday, we will recess a little earlier today than contemplat-6 ed, in order to have a brief meeting for approximately one 7
half hour to QA matters.
So we will run until approximately 8
12:15, and then as quickly as we can -- 10 minutes after 9
that re-assemble in Chambers, to discuss the QA matters.
10 Are you prepared to begin now, Mr. Dynner; the pre-11 liminary matters you can do when we finish cross-examination.
12 MR. DYNNER:
The only other matter we have, Judge 13
' (\\_j~')
Brenner, relates to the cross-examination, I believe 14 Mr. Johnson has some of the information requested.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Do you always want to keep doing it 16 out of sequence everytime he comes back with information?
i MR. DYNNER:
I'll do it whenever.
l l
18 He was asked for some information; as we get it, 1
1 19 we thought we'd give it.
90 JUDGE BRENNER:
What concerns me is that all of a
~
21 sudden, it seems you come back to that topic again, questions, i
22 and so on.
n l
{
\\
s_/
23 Why don't you give Mr. Dynner the information off l
l 24 the record and whenever he can, work it in.
,s
\\j 25 MR. DYNNER:
Yes, sir.
l AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
l 22:1.IElllCII() TUllNI'lKE 311NEOLA. NEW YOllK 11",01 (212h il 1.1-0171
'31tO ? 111:182
18,037 1
Whereupon,
(
)
2 LOUIS D.
- JOHNSON, 3
and JOSEPH P.
NOVARRO
,,(j the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, having been 5
previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and were further 6
examined and testified as follows:
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION -- Resumed 0
BY MR. DYNNER:
9 Q
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Novarro, yesterday you recall 10 you were discussing Task B; and I'm going to continue to ask 11 a few questions on Task B.
12 Mr. Johnson, you'll recall that I asked you some 13 fD questions about how -- on page 3-4, with reference to the r, t/
14 31,000 particulars it was determined the number of particulars 15
-- and I think you testified that Torrey Pines estimated the 16 number of particulars.
17 Could you tell me, how the estimates were arrived 18 at?
19 A
(WITNESS JOHMSON)
Yes, we knew how many documents 20 had been looked at and we took a -- some of those documents and counted how many things were considered in those documents l
i on and then estimated the total number of things that had been p
C/
looked at, based on the number of documents, Q
Do you remember how many documents that you had p
V 25 actually counted the nurter of requirements on in going A R-TI RECORDING, INC.
02:1.IEllICIIO TUltN1*1K10 3IINEGI.A. NEW Y(iltK 11301 (210) 3 63-0171 (316) 711-3380
18.038 I
through this calculation?
,()
2 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, I do not.
3 Q
Well, if I could ask for a range, would it be 10, fi )
4 or would it be close to a hundred, or closer to 500, sy 5
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
It would be closer to a hundred.
6 Q
Would it be fair to say on that basis, then, that 7
the 31,000 particulars estimate would be a fairly rough es-8 timate; isn't that correct?
9 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I testified that that was 10 an estimate; yes.
11 (Witnesses conferred.)
12 Q
Mr. Johnson on page 3-7 of Volume 2 of the Torrey 13
(~i Pines Report, there is a sentence in the middle of the page
- U 14 which reads as follows
"A lack of timely incorporation of 15 an E&DCR, in design documents, was noted in the review; but 16 availability and consideration of all applicable E&DCR's for 17 l
final construction and inspections was confirmed."
l l
18 Did discrepancy reports result from the lack of 19 timely incorporation of the E&DCR's that are referenced here?
20 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, they did not.
We did not 21 identify a requirement in the construction and control pro-22 gram for specific incorporation in the E&DCR's in the draw-
,q U
23 ings.
1 24 Q
If you were doing an analysis of the adequacy of gV 25 a quality assurance program, the time including the inclusion AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
203.IEllICIIO TUltNPIKE MINEOLA. NEW Y4)3tK 11301
',,,1 tei nr-,
' 305
- i - ^T s o
18,039 1
E&DCR's would be a factor in terms of compliance with the
(])
2 applicable Appendix B criterion in that area; wouldn't it?
3 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
In the context'of meeting the
(~T 4
requirements of Appendix B, at the time of the incorporation 5
of the E&DCR's that it would be a thing to consider and that's 6
why we did consider it; and that's why it's written up.
We 7
also perceived the area of E&DCR incorporation.
Maybe I 8
should explain that.
9 What we're talking about is a change to design 10 document; the incorporation refers to reflecting that change 11 on the face of the document as well as referencing the changed 12 number of the E&DCR changed document.
We were concerned about 13 this, as to whether it led to a condition where the total 14 design requirement might not have been known when the inspec-15 tions were made and the hardware was constructed.
16 And we perceived the matter, as we indicated here, 17 we established that the final-construction inspection does 18 consider all the E&DCR's that exist.
There is a controlled list of E&DCR's that's used in the final inspection that 20 insures that all the design changes are considered in the 21 final inspection.
1 22 So we established from the construction control 23 point of view, that the current system does provide for com-24 plete consideration of all design changes in the final in-O 25 spection.
And therefore, we decided that it was not a AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.IEltICIIO Tt*IINPIKE SIINEOLA. NEW YOltK 11501
( > n.= ) nA1-nsts
(=tsst) t a n.-Ln t:.2
18,040 1
construction control problem, and since we did not find a
()
2 specific requirement as to when these preparations had to 3
occur, we did not write a discrepancy report on them.
(
)
Q Now, Mr. Johnson, with regard to the audits, and 4
5 I think there is a list on page 3-6 of the types of audit 6
documents that were reviewed.
7 Do you know how many actual audits were reviewed by 0
Torrey Pines in connection with this task?
A (WITNESS JOHNSON) Yes.
We reviewed 34 audits, I 10 believe.
We did review 34 audits.
Q Thank you.
12 And what period of time did the 34 audits cover?
(])
A (WITNESc JOHNSON)
They were for the year 1977; and 14 we selected that year, because that was the maximum activity 15 of construction on the site.
16 (LILCO counsel confers with unidentified male.)
17 I
Q And in considering those audits:
They were reviewed 18 against the requirements of the current procedures and man-i 19 uals, and not the procedures and manuals as in effect during l
l 20 l
1977; isn't that your testimony?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That is correct.
22
/"S We referred back again to what we had already
(_/
23 established to be a satisfactory construction control pro-24 gram, and all the reviews and tasks related to that program, 2s in that if they met their requirements at the current l
l AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1 JEltICIIO TUltN1'IKE
.%IINEOLA. NEW YOltK 11501 f.
s.3)
>_ns,e f*sai
,ae_ rib >
18,041 1
satisfactory construction control program, we were sure that
(
2 they were satisfactory.
3 Q
But, Mr. Johnson, on page 3-7, the statement is made 4
that there were 25 DR's initiated in this review.
5 Do you have a breakdown as to how many of those 6
DR's were issued with respect to which component document 7
package?
8 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, sir, I do not.
9 0
Would you have any idea whether in the range of all 10 25 -- I should say if one looks at this as a spectrum and at 11 one of the spectrum, you could have a possibility of all 25 12 DR's being issued with respect to one component; or, on 13 l
(3 the other hand:
You could have one DR with respect to 25 (v'
14 different component packages of the 45.
Do you have any idea 15 where this fits within that spectrum?
16 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, I would not.
17 0
Would it have any significance to your conclusions i
in this task, if you found that they were 25 discrepancies 19 with at least one discrepancy in each of the 45 components' 20 documents that were reviewed, so that there was a deficiency 21 in more than 50% of the document packages that were looked at.
22 (Witnesses conferred.)
!v)
I 23 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
First of all, I think you used 24 the number "45" previously; and it was 25.
In our opinion
(,,v)
,,5 some of those were not valid; they were not references to AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
02:1.IEllICIIO TUltNI'lKE
.% I I N EO I.A. NEW YOltK 11301 D.*1**) M 1:1-0171 lqWNLS2ArtdNWR_ _______ __ _______ _____ __ _ __
18,042 1
requirements; so I think maybe we should use the number 20.
()
2 To address your question:
If eney were distributed 3
as you suggest, I would not suggest that there were deficien-f';
4 cies in 50% of the documents reviewed.
So,I would indicate
.v 5
that there were deficiencies identified out of roughly 31,000 6
investigated.
7 Q
Would it have made any dif ference if all 20 discrep-8 ancies were found in only one of the document package, that 9
covered the installation of the component in only one particu-10 lar year.
11 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
It might make a difference, and-12 we did consider the significance of what we were looking at, 13 as I'm sure you are well aware.
We made judgments based on (r~
s u/
14 the significance and on the distribution of the discrepancies 15 that were identified.
16 Q
Well, what I'm getting at, Mr. Johnson, is whether 17 you looked at the construction in doing Task B, which pur-18 ports to see whether the construction control program was 19 implemented; whether you looked at it in terms of the imple-20 mentation of that program in a particular year in a way that 21 might show for example that if all the discrepancies occurred 22 in one year, that might tell you about -- something about 23 the construction control program implementation in that year; 94 and it might say something about the program in other years.
7,(-)
25 Or, did you simply look at it as implemented over A ll-TI ItECOI1 DING, INC.
223 JEllICIIO TUllNPIKE
.%IINEOI A. NEW YUltR 11301
'212) 11 1,1 ^ O171 f If #O ? st n su
18,043 1
the whole range of the construction period.
O 2
^
(wrrnrss 3onnson) r eninx as statea in ene resore, 3
the investigation covered the full span from the current 4
initiation through installation of each of the components
,Q 5
identified in the table.
That covers a long time span; and 6
in fact, covers the complete construction time span of the 7
Shoreham Project on one or more of the components.
8 If all of the discrepancies had occurred in one year, that would have been observed by the reviewers; if all 9
10 the discrepancies had occurred on one of the components, that 11 would have been observed by the reviewers, and taken. into 12 account as conclusions arised on the implementation of the 13 program.
14 Q
All right, can you tell me whether all or a majority 15 of the discrepancies in fact did occur in a discreet period 16 of years -- one, two -- or a discreet number of component packages.
l 18 (WITNESS JOHNSON)' I can tell you that all-the dis-A crepancies d"d not occur in a single component; and all the<
I9 20 discrepancies. did not occur in a single year.
21 Can you tell me whether all the discrepancies Q
22 occurred with respect to a small number of components?
23 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, not checking the records; no.
24 Q
Would it have made any difference?
O 25 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I've already said that AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1 JEltICIIO TUltNPIKE
.TIINEOLA, NEW YOI4K 11301 (Pau) n.t t-n s ? t f nst) t.i t. sn.no
18,044 1
we looked at the discrepancies, and in considering the kinds
(],
2 of things that you're addressing as f ar as judgment and 3
whether the program was implemented properly.
(v~)
4 Q
So you --
5 (Witnesses conferred.)
6 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
7 Q
Mr. Johnson, is it your testimony that you don' t 8
know whether the majority of the discrepancies occurred with 9
respect to a small number of components, but you're assuming 0
that that wasn't the case, because if it were the case, II there would have been some kind of different conclusion?
12 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, sir, I'm not telling you 13 r3 that.
Qw,!
14 Well, as I understood what you said in response to Q
15 my last question, it was that if most of the discrepancies 16 had occurred with respect to a small number of document pack-17 t
ages, that would have been taken into consideration by the 1
18 l
reviewers of Torrey Pines in reaching their conclusion; isn't 1
19 l
that what you said?
l 20 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes, it'is.
We -- I think we 21 have to put this in the context of the total program; and the 22 program was intended to look'at the safety satisfactoriness 7S V
3 l
of the construction.
As a result, when we saw a safety con-24 cern, we took it through a potential finding review which i
-s, NI y
included consideration of the types of -- being related, AR-TI ITECOIIDING, INC.
22:1.IEltlCIIO TUltNI*IKI:
.%IINEOLA. NEW YOltK 11301 (2141 !! i.1 ^ 8 9171 (S t el) 711 - 3:1 gg
r 18,045 1
considerations that you are addressing -- either multiple
()
2 failures or discrepancies in a system, that in themselves may 3
not be important, or a singular discrepancy that could have
(()
importance.
And I don't believe that any of these items in 4
5 the list of 20 ma1 discrepancies fell into those categories, 6
with the exception of the one significant category item that 7
related to the recirculation pump motor installation.
8 So in the context that you asked the question, those 9
things were considered and in total, review of what was pro-10 duced on the task being reviewed.
11 Q
So, as I understand it, your principle criteria for 12 whether or not the QA Program was properly implemented, goes 13
/
ultimately to whether or not there was a significant safety 4{}
~
14 concern involved; is that correct?
15 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That is part'of the consideration 16 that's given; yes, 17 r
i Q
Okay.
What's the other part?
18 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think as I've stated a number 19 of times:
We were using experienced and competent people in 20 the Quality Assurance program, and they were making judgments 21 based on all of the data -- not just one piece of data -- as 22 to whether the program was properly implemented.
23 And they reviewed what we observed in the records 4
on these components against the satisfactory, current constru&
25 tion control program.
AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1.IERICIIO TIJItN1*IKE MINEO!,A, NEW Y()ltK 11.0 1 f#WQILf&WW9Y62n RWNLSuvbnow
18,046 1
(Counsel for Suf folk County conferring. )
()
2 Q
Mr. Johnson, let me ask you to turn to page 3-8, so 3
I can ask you about some of the conclusions regarding Task B.
~( )
4 The first sentence of the last paragraph says:
5
" Based on tasks being reviewed, it is concluded that the con-6 struction procedure and controls identified in Task A were 7
effectively implemented."
8 And, just so I understand it, that sentence is not 9
literally true, because the Task A procedures and controls are 10 the current ones, and therefore literally wouldn't have spe-11 cifically applied to all of the document packages and matters 12 concerning the 45 components.
13
(])
Isn't that correct?
I4 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Let me try again, Mr. Dynner, I i
15 l
believe the statement is literally correct.
The construction 16 procedures and controls identified in Task A are meeting the 17 current program, which we judge to be satisfactory, were 18 effectively implemented in prior years, even though they may 19 not have existed then, because we reviewed the prior years' 20 documents against today's program, and found that they were 21 adequate.
l Q
I'm a little confused by your answer.
{}
23 Wouldn't it be more literally correct to say that 24 the earlier revision of the procedures and manuals were 25 effectively implemented.
Isn't that really what you did; AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:B JEltICIIO T1*IENI*IKE
.%IINICOI.A. NEW YOltK 11.01 r.....)
........,i N
18,047 1
that was your conclusion based upon reviewing these document n) 2 packages against current procedures, you're concluding that 3
the earlier revisions of those current procedures were im-m
)
4 plemented.
5 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That's not what I'm saying, 6
Mr. Dynner.
7 We reviewed a construction control program, which 8
happens to be the one in existence today.
We found it to be 9
adequate.
10 If that program is adequate -- and you may choose 11 to disagree with that -- that program is used as the test 12 against which all construction is prepared.
13
((v.D Then, by definition the construction is adequate 14 based on that control program definition.
I agree with the 15 documents that we were looking at, were done against earlier 16 revisions of the program that we reviewed.
But I think that 17 will attest to the fact that the earlier revisions (a) weren't 18 that much different; and (b) didn't change that much between 19 then and now.
20 But that's not what the statement said.
The state-21 ment says that we reviewed it agaii.st the current program, 2
(']
and have found it to be adequate.
V 23 Q
But, what confuses me, Mr. Johnson, is the assumption 24 then, I think it is an assumption in what you're saying that 25 when you looked at one of the earlier documents, you're saying AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223.IEltICIIO Tt'ItNI*IKE AllNEOLA. NEW Y()ltK 11301
',s,)
mir.ns-t f-ini t e s. -n s,
r 18,048 1
that because it complia with today's procedures, that it must n
2
(,'
have complied with a past earlier revision of that procedure; 3
and you haven't checked the earlier revisions, ard you don ' t 4
(
)
really know whether there was a major change or not.
5 I mean, it could have been -- couldn't it -- that 6
the earlier procedure was quite different, but that the docu-7 ment isn't properly filled out.
8 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I heard three or four 9
questions there.
10 First of all, certainly they were going to do an 11 earlier revision of the procedure.
As Mr. Novarro indicated 12 the other day, the procedures do not commonly change that 13 f "'
significantly from revision to revision.
( V) 14 Another thing that might be brought out is that 15 I'm not aware of any procedure ever getting any simpler, they 16 always get more stringent, when they change.
17 The fact that we can compare it to today's defini-18 tion of the construction control program, I think is probably 19 a more conservative approach in that today's programs probably 20 are more well defined, than the program suggested in 1969, 21 and I think Mr. Novarro mentioned that fact too.
q To address your last question, it is conceivable vj that the documents that we reviewed may not have matched the p
procedure revision that was in at the time.
That is not sig-
\\J g
nificant in my mind, however, because our charter is to AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223.IEltlCIIO TUltNPIKE MINEGI.A. NEW YOltK 11501 I
'*J 1 J. il 1M ~ OI T1 b16) 711:nn 12
18,049 1
determine whether an adequate construction control program was
([]
2 being implemented during construction of the Shoreham Plant; 3
and if the current program is adequate, and if that program
,m
(
)
4 can be used as a test for all of the construction activity 5
at Shoreham, then I believe we have a very high confidence 6
that the construction activity was conducted properly.
7 Q
Mr. Johnson, it's correct to say, isn't it that 8
Task B is conducted on the basis of a sample of components 9
selected by the judgment and application of Torrey Pines' 10 judgment and experience.
Is that fair?
l A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes.
We selected the components 13
.'^';
in an intelligent manner, I believe.
,(_,'
I4 Q
Well, that remains to be seen.
l i
15 l
(Laughter.)
16 Q
(Continuing)
I'n not disputing it; but I'm using 17 the word as I think you indicated previously,by intelligent, 18 you meant that you applied your judgmeng and engineering l
l l
19 experience; is that correct?
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
That's correct.
l 21 l
22
(\\
/
'~'
23 24 O>
N._
3 A R-TI RECORDING, INC.
02:1.IEltlCIIO TUllNI'lliU SIINEGI.A. NEW Y Oills 11 >O1
t * * "r i r. n s - t
(- t ati st.on*
18,050 1
(Witness referring to documents.)
7 2
Q Well, by life cycle, do you mean to suggest that
(]
3 with respect to each one of the components that you reviev-( )
4 ed, every single document that was ever generated with re-5 spect to that component during its life-time at the plant?
6 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No.
We reviewed the components 7
that are indicated in the report on pages 3-2 and 3-4, which 8
are primarily associated with the 18 criteria.
9 O
All right.
I think you said you reviewed the com-10 ponents on them.
You meant the --
11 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I'm sorry, --
12 0
-- document, right?
13 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
-- the elements of the life es.
8 U
14 cycle --
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
-- indicated on those two 17 pages.
18 Q
Thank you.
And your selection of those particular 19 elements was based upon the judgment of Torrey Pines, isn't 20 that correct?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
If Torrey Pines referring 22 to the Appendix B is judgment, then we did make that judg-i 23 ment.
Q And I think you testified that not necessarily 24
(
)
25 all of the criteria of Appendix B were covered by these AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.IEllICIIO Tt?IINI'IKE SIINEOLA. NEW YoltK 11301 MnRD 06%@n99 63 3 nD 9.gg_g r w a
18,051 2
1 various modeled elements.
(D 2
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
That's correct.
We have es-
%j 3
tablished since yesterday that 17 of the 18 criieria were
()
4 involved in the review of Task B; the only one that was not y
5 involved was criteria 1 on organization.
6 Q
So that Mr. Johnson, in order to come to the con-7 clusion that I have just read, page 3-A, and the final con-8 clusion in that paragraph which is that, "The implen:entation 9
of the construction procedures and controls is therefore 10 judged satisfactory", you would have had to extrapolate from 11 the judgment sample that you took of both the components and 12 the component packages in order to reach the general conclus-13 g3 ion that's made on page 3-A.
Don't you agree?
L,)
14 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I have already testified 15 that the conclusion on page 3-A was a judgment conclusion, 16 based on the data obtained and test speed.
17 Q
All right.
Well, if you agree then that it is an 18 extrapolation of the data that you examined, if I do a litt-19 le basic arithmetic, please stop me if I am making any arith-20 metic mistakes, there were 11,050 documents or 45 components, 21 correct?
22 (Witnesses conferred.)
p l
L) 23 l
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
I believe the number is 1,150.
24 0
1,150.
I'm sorry.
,~
%,/
A Yes.
A R-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1.iEltICIIO TifitN15114E MINEOLA. NEW Yt)IIIs 11301 fos,)
ts1.ns-t f-sa)
- ss.
Tso
18,052 g
Q Made a mistake the first time out.
3
(~'l 2
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
We'll try to help you.
v 3
Q Thank you.
(v3 4
(Counsel for Suffolk County conferring. )
5 (LILCO attorney conferring with unidentified male 6
in gallery.)
7 (Witnesses conferring.)
8 Q
That's about 25 documents per component if we were 9
to take an average, right?
10 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I will accept your mathematics.
11 Q
And if there were 31,000 particulars and 1,150 12 documents, that would be roughly what?
275 shall we say, 13 particulars?
,m l
)
a 14 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I assume that's correct calcula-15 tions too.
16 21R. ELLIS:
Can the record be clear that the witness 17 is not doing the calculations.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
The record is clear.
19 I don't know if I care.
20 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 21 Q
And if I were to, and you see where I am going, 22 Mr. Johnson, as I recall Mr. Novarro said that there were V
23 some -- and this was a rough approximation -- some 200,000 24 components.
I won't even try to do that.
200,000 times
(
25 275 times 25; the number of particulars is staggering, but A ll-TI ItECOllDING, INC.
22:1.IEltICIIO TUltNI*IKE
.%IIN EO LA. NEW YOltK 11.~.01
' ^
- 1 "' I t i 1. f11
- 1
'"1 s t )
- 11."'II^'
18,053 4
1 if you just do it on a component basis, you reached your
()
2 conclusion on the basis of 45 out of -- a partial document 3
packages for 45 out of 200,000 components, that's very, very
'( )
4 substantially less than one tenth of a percent of the total 5
population, isn't it?
6 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I'm afraid that I don't know the 7
total population, so I don't know that I can agree with you.
8 Q
Well, it's --
9 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
-- I agree that it's a small 10 number compared to the total population.
Q Well, taking Mr. Novarro's number of about 200,000 11 12 components and you look at the partial document packages for 45 components, then that's -- 45 out of 200,000 is very sub-13 14 stantially less than one tenth of one percent, isn't it?
15 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON) 45 out of 200,000 is less than 16 one tenth of a percent, I agree.
I'm not sure that's a val-i id compariscn, however, because you have many different kinds i
18 of components and different flavors of components in that.
200,000 number and you are addressing 45 specific components.
20 JUDGE CAPPENTER:
Mr. Dynner, if I can interject.
BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
Q Mr. Novarro made reference to 200,000 components.
22 23 Were those components safety-related components?
A (WITNESS NOVARRO)
No.
I didn't know which of 04 l'
the 200,000 were safety-related but not where they would 25 AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223.IEltICIIO TUltN1*IKE SIINEGI.A. NEW YO14K 11301 f in 3) n.t.t n s ?
f xnal t u mLin.
18,054 make that thousand s.
g Q
S the 200,000 number does not apply.
That's not 2
3 your count of safety-related A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
No.
4
,/
5 Q
-- components?
Do you know how many safety-relat-6 ed components a. rived?
A (WITNESS NOVARRO)
I don't know the number, Judge 7
8 Carpenter.
If 200,000 were the number of all the plant com-9 ponents, which is a rough approximation, I think it wouldn't 10 be unreasonable to think that somewhere in the range of half 11 would be non-safety-related.
It's a very big plant and I 12 think that that wouldn.' t be unreasonable.
13 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
/
i 14 Q
Mr. Novarro, are you familiar with the NPRDS sys-15 tem?
16 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I know what it means Judge.
It j
17 is a system for review of the operating components.
1 18 Q
Is it your understanding that those items which 19 are entered into the NPRDS are safety-related systems and l
20 components?
21 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I believe they are.
22 Q
And is it your understanding that the intent is to o
i'~ '/
23 include all or most of the safety-related components and l
24 systems in the plant on the NPRDS system?
,n
('
~
25 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
That's what I believe.
AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1 JI;IIIClit) TI'ItNI*1KE 3IIN1:OI,A. NI W YOltK 11501
'O l *JI*18i1-01Tl
'Pett1I T ll-Pril l ?
18,055 6
Q Do you know the approximate number of items that g
()
2 have been entered into the NPRDS system?
v A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
No, I don't.
But as I am say-3 ing, it is an evolving process and it doesn't all go in at 4
,d nce.
It's something that requires that the plant operating 5
6 personnel who are familiar with the operations of the plant 7
prepare data sheets which becomes computerized data, I 8
believe, and it's entered into the data base, and then the 9
operating history of the components on what items did on _
10 the basic needs for this system, so that you could tell over 11 a life-time of the plant components what they are later on, what 12 the reliability was.
13 Q
Yes, we have had some testimony at times here l
14 we have heard about systems so we know what it is.
Are you 15 f amiliar with a ballpark number for the number of systems 16 and components for other operating data sheets that are 17 entered into the NPRDS?
18 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I'm not versed in that; if 19 you would like I can find out.
20 Q
Would it surprise you if I told you that it was 21 my understanding that it would be less than 6,000?
22 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
Less than 6,000.
1 (m
i l
23 Q
Yes.
24 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I'11 take that as information.
25 I would like to say yes.
I don't know.
All-TI IZECOIIDING. INC.
223.IERICIIO TURNI'lliE M IN EO LA. NEW Y()ltK 11.~,01 f**fM *tI 1 fit ?1 f9 tat) ? 1 1 - 9.1. 8..'
18,056 7
1 (Witnesses conferred.)
2 O
The fact remains that you just don' t know.
3 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
No.
You said that there was
(~')
4 testimony about that.
U 5
Q There was, yes.
6 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
To numbers also, or just the --
7 Q
I believe so, and my memory maybe a little vague 8
on that, but it.was certainly said that the entry of data 9
into the system for Shoreham is not complete.
But at the 10 time that testimony was given, I think there was something 11 like 4,000 or 4,000 plus items in the system.
12 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
Well, that is the system where 13
(]
Judge Carpenter was saying that when they have some idea of v
14 what the whole plant is, safety-related components are going 15 to be some number less than that.
I made an educated guess 16 for the moment, but that's all it is.
17 Q
Well, there may be some ambiguity here in that one 18 l
entry may be made for more than a dozen items which are iden-l 19 tical and that may get some ambiguity to the numbers that 20 are being brought about here.
But forgetting the arithmetic 21 for a while, Mr. Johnson, it is true that you didn't sample 22 g
the total population.
V 23 A
(WITNESS JOIINSON)
That is correct.
24 Q
So wouldn't your conclusion be more accurate to
(
i 25 not be stated that the system is 100 percent acceptable, A R-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.IERICIIO Tt'ItNI*IliE M IN EGI. A. NEW YOltK 11.~ 01 fat') n.s t-n t
- 1 f ta) s t.-+1 s a
18,057 8
but that parties did not turn up any information to show g
that it wasn't acceptable?
)
2 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That was part of the judgment 3
that we made, Judge Brenner.
Yes, that's correct.
4 JUDGE MORRIS:
Thank you.
5 6
BY MR. DYNNER: (Resuming) 7 Q
Mr. Johnson, and I would like to cover this last 8
Point, because in fairness to you, I asked you a some-what 9
related question during your deposition.
I would like to 10 get the actual total population numbers and I requested 11 them, so I hope you understand that in my using Mr. Nov-12 arro's 200,000 figure, with the assistance of Judge Morris 13 who is indicating that the figure for safety-related might s
14 be much less than that, I wasn't making any attempt to try 15 to trick you or change the numbers.
I don't have the numb-16 ers and I am trying to get at them as best I can.
Mr. John-son, is it fair to say in terms of the methodology used by 17 18 Torrey Pines for test, being the conclusions that you reach-19 ed; that it really wouldn't make much difference to you 20 whether the total population of safety-related components 21 was 2,000, or 4,000, or 10,000?
22 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
In the range of figures that 23 you are now using as opposed to 200 versus 4 billion, in 24 the deposition.
I think that range of numbers would be con-p) i 25 sidered because it would indicate possibly a degree of diff-
'~'
Alt-TI ItECOllDING INC.
22:1.II IIICIlO Tt *ItNI'IIW SIIN1:Of A. NI W Vi sit K 11,01
'=t *)
t: t.nt 1
f in) ~:1.Pra*
18,058 9
erences in plant hardware and possibly significance of plant 3
hardware, and I think we did make that judgment in the select-O 2
U ions that we made.
We have items to look at to represent a 3
77 4
broad spectrum of the inspection of the plant.
v 5
Q I'm sorry.
Because I didn't understand whether 6
your answer to the question is that the population within 7
that range -- the total population -- would make a dif fer-8 ence or would not make a difference to your conclusion?
9 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
It would not make a difference 10 to our conclusion, no sir.
11 Q
If -- I would like to bring this back for a moment 12 to the last two sentences in the last paragraph on page 3-A.
13 There is a short discussion preceeding this about the finding g
i
(/
14 that was made and then the sentence is that, "No other sub-15 stantial safety concerns were identified.
Implementation 16 of construction procedures and controls is thertfore judged 17 satisfactory".
Is the word "therefore" in that sentence --
18 in the last sentence intended to indicate that the conclusion 19 is at least substantially based upon the fact that no other 20 substantial safety concerns were identified?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I have already testified 22 tha t the safety concerns referred, consideration was given p]
\\
23 and the final judgment and that would be the subject of that 24 limitation.
(~h
~ ' '
25 Q
Well, what I am trying to get at, Mr. Johnson, All-TI IRECORDING. INC.
22:1.IIIIIICIIO TUltNI*Ilil!
.%IINI:OI. A, N10W Yt)ltis 11301 I?12) !! 1 1-f 1171
'"1Hi *11
-*fa*
18,059
.because we have 'already. talked.about the. f act that you _ -- your g.
10 as I said Torrey Pines' use of the standard is satisfactory 2
r not satisfactory is purely judgmental.
On a scale of 1 3
t 10, how important in reaching your conclusion about wheth-4 er a test is -- whether something is satisfactory or not, how 5
6 imPortant is the magnitude of safety concerns?
MR. ELLIS:
Let me just register an objection on 7
8 the ground that I think the question is excessively broad 9
and vague.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
It's hard for me to judge the ex-11 cessively part of-your objection; I'll permit the rest of 12 it, but judging from whether or not the witness feels that 13 he can answer it.
14 Can you answer it?
l 15 WITNESS JOHNSON:
I can give an answer.
I'm not 16 sure it will address what Mr. Dynner wants it to address.
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
If you're not sure 18 let's get the question put down a little better.
t 19 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 20 Q
What I am trying to get at Mr. Johnson, is again 21 the variables that go into the judgment as to whether some-22 thing is satisfactory, and I think you have testified at one O
23 point you said here that safety significance is certainly 24 one of the standards.
You have testified at another time, 25 I believe, that it was a substantial significant standard, All-TI RECORDING. INC.
- J2:1.IEltICIIO TUltNI*IKE
.%IINEGI,A. NEW YOltK 11301 (2 2) tt an-sit ? t f s s sil t.a s.=ut Ao
18,060 11 y
and what I am trying to do is see whether you can tell me
\\>
that if you were grading satisfactory on.a scale of 1 to 10, 3
how much weight would you give to the fact that having done
' \\
4 (V
your test, your review, there were no substantial safety con-5 cerns?
6 MR. ELLIS:
I'm not going to repeat an objection 7
to the question.
I will just object to the characterization 8
of the witness' testimony and let the record speak for it-9 self.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Answer the question.
11 If you're not going to object, just let it go, okay 12 Mr. Ellis?
13
,s()
MR. ELLIS:
Yes sir.
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
We already discussed the difference 15 between substantially yesterday and we are aware of the diff-16 erent views, and I agree that Mr. Dynner I think again has 17 characterized what the witness said on that point, but it 18 wasn't the main thrust of his question; because every time 19 we do this, the witness forgets the questica.
20 WITNESS JOHNSON:
I'll attempt to answer your 21 question, Mr. Dynner.
22 (a")
In a total context, everything that we're dealing with here relates to safety, and so in that respect, I would 24
(~]
say that the importance of safety is a 10.
I think you're 25 addressing the specific safety concerns which were identified AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
203.IERICIIO Ti?itNI'IKE SII N E G I.A. NEW Y()ltK 11301
( ? t '.' ) :t a:t-0171 f t et) ? 11 - mt s '.'
18,061 in Task B and asking what effect those had on the Task B con-1 clusion.
I had already testified that they did have an eff-(n 2
v 3
ect; the effect of the concerns that get through the PFR pro-cess and become findings or observations are evaluated for n
5 significance. That was considered in the total context here; 6
that's not the only thing we've considered, we've consider-7 ed what's right as well as what's wrong and the significance 8
of what's wrong.
To pick a number between 1 and 10 is diffi-9 cult for me to do because of the total context in that I 10 have considered everything that we looked at to be related 11 to safety, because it relates to the construction of the con-12 trol program and the safety-related equipment.
13 If you want to play a numbers game, it's a very (m) 14 small number, because we still have a great deal of things 15 that were right and not wrong.
If we want to play a signi-16 ficance game, it's a larger number, because the discrepancy that 17 became a finding is a significant thing ; that's being work-18 ed on.
19 I just -- I cannot pick a number between 1 and 10.
20 BY f1R. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 21 Q
Nr. Johnson, is it fair to say that based upon your l
l 22 judgment sample of 45 components, their partial document
,p 1
~
23 packages, that if the 45 represented, let's say one percent i
24 of the components at the plant, and you found one finding 25 as you define it, with 45, would it be fair to assume that AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1.iEltICIIO TUltNI*IKE
.TIINEGI.A. NEW YOlt K 11301
- ^* 1 ' % 7i f.in f *1 t ail
- 1 1. 7 t '*
18,062 13 there was, if you did a total population survey of the plant, g
2 expect to find 100 findings on component document packages 3
in the plant?
f')
4 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, that would not be fair to v
5 say.
6 Q
You wouldn't expect just to find this single finding 7
though in the total plant, would you?
8 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That is a possibility.
9 Q
You see what confuses me, is that you seem to be 10 extrapolating from the fact that one finding on the 45 com-11 ponents is not enough to cause you to say that the implemen-12 tation of the construction program was unsatisfactory, and n
13 in fact, to the contrary, you extrapolate your conclusion as t
)
14 to the satisfactoriness of the program with regard to the 15 entire plant and the entire period of construction.
But 16 you don't seem to be making the same kind of extrapolation 1
1 17 with respect to the defects that you found.
If you were to 18 make that same extrapolation, Mr. Johnson, and simply -- on 19 a simple arithmetic -- mathematical basis say that there is 20 one finding in 45 that there might be 100 or 200 findings 21 out there somewhere in the whole plant, wouldn't that be the 22 kind of analysis necessary in order to make your extrapola-7,U 23 tion to provide a conclusion as to the entire program for 24 the whole plant?
Csr L) 25 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
We did not make an arithmetical AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
223.IEltICIIO TI*IINI*IKE
.%IINEOla. NEW Yt )It K 11 >O1 (ts,1cvet.ns-i f i sil +e:
?i, _
18,063 14 1
extrapolation for the whole plant.
But I am sure that you
()
2 are well aware that an arithmetical extrapolation of the 3
whole plant is not a sbnple tabulation as you implied;
'(])
4 it's a very complex calculation for which I know of no 5
application models to work with.
So I don't think that 6
I can respond to your question.
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Mr. Dynner, may I persue that 8
thought just a little bit?
9 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
10 Q
Mr. Johnson, if you had looked at every component 11 and had found 100 findings, what would have been your judg-12 mental conclusion with respect to whether or not the process 13 had been satisfactorily carried out?
l 14 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
We would have to evaluate the 15 significance of those findings, certainly the value of 100 16 would be a questionable matter if we found that many things 17 in the number of items that we looked at.
18 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
19 Q
That's what I am trying to -- not only the suitab-20 ility of such arithmetic extrapolations as Mr. Dynner was i
21 engaging in, but furthermore, looking at the logic of doing 22 so, in terms of saying one times 100 means something, with-O 23 out understanding the nature of each of those elements.
24 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That's exactly the theory.
}
l 25 Q
So that I'm not sure why --
AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1 JEIIICIIO TUltN181KE 311NEOLA. NEW Y t>I4 R 11:101 f.
3) 3.
>_ns,.
I,..> )........ __. _ _ _ _
18,064 I
15 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
So that the nature --
( ">
2
\\_,)
Q
-- So that, I'm trying to be sure why --
3 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON) of the significance of the
(~'s 4
()
method --
5 0
-- you didn ' t do this as he 's asking -- why didn ' t 6
you do it?
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes.
We didn't do it because 8
as I indicated, I know of no existing application of the 9
kind of methodology that he's alluding to that allows that 10 to be done in the first place; in the second place it would 11 be a horrendous job if it were done and it could be done, 12 because of the elements as you pointed out;
'the dif ferences 13
,s()
in the types of things that you are talking about; the rela-14 tionship and the types -- between the types of things that 15 you considered as well as the pure numbers involved.
That's 16 why we have taken a judgment approach, process approach to 17 the independent review, is to be able to look and make a l
18 judgment on the adequacy of the Shoreham construction; do 19 it with experienced and competent personnel who have done this kind of work before; who are able to judge the ade-21 quacy of these things based on the data that's been provided 22 l
(~')
to them.
I is 3
Q Did numbers eriter into your judgment in selecting 24 i
(~')
how many components to look at?
Could you help me a little
'~
25 l
bit as to what sort of criteria led to the selection of 45?
j A R-TI RECORDING, INC.
l 223.IEllICitO TITIINI'IliE 3IINEO L A, NEW Y( Hlli 11301 4212D 3 6:1-0171 (316) 7 s 1
,3 s J
18,065 A
( I NESS JOHNSON)
The 45 components as stated in 16 1 the report, were selected from a larger selection of process
('
2 v
that occurred in Task C, and I'll be glad to describe that 3
4 process.
The selections in Task C -- the components in Task m
+ _.
B were selected to get a broad range, using the components 5
that were selected in Task C, which was an even broader range.
6 But the selections were made by a view of the FSAR, including 7
8 a check for 15; we asked that an analysis, a review of sys-9 tem description documents, review flow diagrams, and then 10 identifying from those reviews the simply related systems 11 and portions of systems within the plant.
The elements, 12 components in that system that we believe were important to 13 cold shut down on the plant were identified; and we used 73
(
)
v 14 criteria in identifying those pressure valves controlling 15 water cooling, controlling the primary containment cooling, 16 controlling area activity, controlling sports systems.
17 We also concerned ourselves with detection and initiation i
18 of corrective action.
Given the identification of those 19 components within the systems, we assigned senior level per-l 20 sonnel in disciplines of electrical and mechanical, life-21 support and structural areas.
They went through those compon-22 ents system by system; the different design organizations;
)
%)
equipment types; construction sophistication; other elements 24 that I don't remember right now.
Those components were arr-
/~';
\\
l 25 anged in order by system of components versus the selection i
l A R-TI RECORDING, INC.
een.n:nicito rt:nNr K1:
MINICOI.A. N10W YonK 11301 h?19)- n iWO171 (Nfd) ?al-nn12
18,066 1
17 of criteria.
Those system matrices were them compared with
(
2 each other, to eliminate duplication, and this resulted in 3
a final list of components that were selected for more detail
(~)
4 t/
and review.
From that list, this smaller list, Task B was 5
selected to maintain the broad range of construction inter-6 views that was derived in Task C.
That's a very long answer 7
to your very simple question.
8 Q
Well, you emphasized the Task C and that undoubtedly 9
was helpful; we're going to ta2'c about Task C in a little 10 while, so having testified that should be useful.
But you 11 still didn't focus on what I was to understand, what were 12 the thought processes in choosing from the list that were 13 c3
()
developed in Task C; these particular 45 items?
The report 14 simply says they were selected.
15 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Okay.
16 0
-- I'm trying to find out a little bit more.
17 l
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
We tried to select the more l
18 significant items out of the set in Task C and we tried to 19 select items that would cover the full range of construction 20 activity at the Shoreham site.
Again, he uses the most sim-21 plistic example; the recirculation pump motor is a very 22 rm( )
significant item in the plant and it does cover a broad 23 range of time in the plant construction.
Those were the two 24
[)
primary criteria in selecting a Task B out of a Task C list.
25 (Witnesses conferred.)
All-TI IlECO11 DING, INC.
22:1.IEltlCIIO TUltN1*lKE SIINEGI.A. NEW YOltK 11 "> O 1 (212) :11:0 0171 f :tn) ?tt
.n1*
18,067 18 1
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
I guess I should also add and
()
2 it's obvious from the table, that we tried to cover a broad 3
range of systems and types of components as well.
'(])
4 Q
Do you think someone else carrying out that pro-5 cess might come up with a substantially different list?
6 JUDGE CARPENTER:
With_the same ground rules.
7 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
8 0
With the same ground rules?
9 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes, that's what I was going 10 to say.
11 Q
Yes.
12 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
If they were taking the same 13
{)
approach that we took, I would not~ expect the list to be 14 significantly different.
The precise number and the precise 15 types might differ, but I wouldn't expect them to be sig-16 nificantly different, no.
17 Q
I'm sorry.
I didn't specify.
I meant choice of 18 a particular level switch and another g,oup might have chos-19 en another level switch or might not have chosen a level 20 switch.
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That's possible, but I think l
in total, the type of range that's represented in the tax 23 components and the relevant significance of the components, 24 I would expect to be similar.
j O 2s Q
Right.
You're saying from a broad view, it would AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223.IEltICIIO TUltNI'1KE SIINEGI.A. NEW YOIIK 11301' IO f ~ } 71 R.1 dit ?1 (M t at) ? A t *t 1.1 7 D
18,068 19 be similar, but in detail it perhaps would be different.
g A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
They might be different, yes.
2 3
Q I don't want you to feel --
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
There's slightly different judg-4 s
L ;'
5 ment.
6 Q
There's no particular significance.
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
There's no precise significance 8
in --
9 Q
In individual items, is what I am trying to say.
10 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
And in a specific switch hav-11 ing been selected, it was selected to be representative of 12 pressure switches, and it happened to be in a given system.
13 And it had been selected through the process that I was re-V 14 ferring to for Task C on that.
15 Q
Could you give me a little better feel for what 16 you mean by representative?
17 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Representative -- I'm sorry, 18 I'm going to have to keep harping back to the Task C select-19 ion process.
The intent there was to select a broad range 20 of things, and to select what we considered to be major 21 safety-related things and we selected from that set up.
I 22 think we selected items that -- functional items, cover a
- )
23 broad range of functions within the plant.
To say that a 24 specific level switch, for example, was the most important
/
\\
\\
)
25 level switch in the plant is not the intent.
When I speak All-TI ItECOI1 DING, INC.
223.IEllICIIO TUltN1*tKE
.%11NEOLA. NEW YOl1K 11301 f.i. n ).....i...
18,069 20 3
of broad range, and it does represent level switch type 2
V' functions in the plant and in a lot of ways in important 3
switch application.
/~3 4
V (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring. )
5 Q
See, I'm trying to see how in choosing, you might 6
have been biased in some way.
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
We very much were biased I be-8 lieve, and the intent was to be biased towards things that 9
would provide us a broad base for the judgment that we made 10 and would lead directly to the safety of the construction --
11 or the construction of the safety-related hardware.
12 JUDGE MORRIS:
Thank you.
13
,m L)
WITNFSS NOVARRO: Judge Brenner, I thought I might 14 be able to add to the answer I gave to Judge Morris before 15 on the NPRDS.
16 As I look down the list of items on number 5 that l
17 was in Task B, you will see on the list that there are static 18 l
components, non-moving components pipe whips, pipe hangers, 19 l
cable trading sports; those are not the type of things that 20 I understand are to go into the NPRDS, because they are not 21 operational things that you would develop reliability-data 22 g()
on, and that's perhaps why the number that you suggested was 23 l
a lot smaller than I know of, because we -- in part, by l
24 l
I);
conducting the program, we looked at all of the piping, in t-g all of the safety-related piping systems in the plant and All-TI 11ECOllDI:s G. INC.
22:1.IEltICIIO TUltN1'IKE M IN EGI.A. NI?W YOltK 11 ~,01
',1 *)
ra1.ns-1 f t s O - s t. T w.'
18,070 21 there are many spools of pipe and there are thousands of pipe g
hangers and things of that type that I don' t believe go into 2
the NPRDS data.
3 JUDGE MORRIS:
Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORENNER:
Mr. Dynner, even before the Board's 5
6 questions, I have been for what it's worth, keeping track of 7
the comparison between your time on Task A and your time on 8
Task B, purposely not interjecting your questions on Task B g
until the Board had questions near the end here, and the pre-10 diction that Task A was longer than the others is not true 11 with respect to the immediate line.
12 So, how much longer is it going to be to finish 13 this line on your cross plan; Task A, B,
C, D-1, E-1 and F?
O'u 14 You're not finished with B yet are you, although 15 I hope imminently so.
16 MR. DYNNER:
Just about, Judge Brenner.
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, let's pick up the case a litt-18 le.
I hope you agree on reflection, that some of your quest-l If' ions on Task B, although phrased differently, were repeats of 20 questions you had just asked here; I'm not talking about the 21 deposition even.
22 You could go on quickly and get the information I
~'
23 think.
24 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resumina)
O 25 Q
Mr. Johnson, you made a statement in answer to a AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223 JEHICIIO TUltN1'IKE SIINEOLA. NEW YOttK 11301 d412D!!$3-0171 63163 741-f.MMR
18,071 I
22 question a while ago that you know no way that you could
i 2
Lj extrapolate from your judgment sample items mathematically 3
to your conclusion.
I would like to ask you first of all,
<w 4
'qj do you believe that given a judgment sample of, for example, 5
a document package that was celected by Torrey Pines in Task 6
B, and if you found that a given percentage of a particular 7
kind of document in the packages had n o signature in the 8
signature block, could you then mathematically extrapolate 9
any conclusion about signature blocks in all the other docu-10 ments?
11 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I believe there are a number 12 of criteria in the question.
First of all, I don't believe 13 c~()
that I testified that I didn' t know of any method; I testi-14 fied that I didn't know of any applied method that was avail-15 able to do what you were discussing.
Given the judgment 16 sample, if there was one signature block missing, I believe l
17 your latest question was whether that could be extrapolated 18 to all signature blocks?
19 Q
Or a number of signatures by -- given number of --
20 you found that a given number of signature blocks were not 21 l
filled out in the sample of documents that you looked at.
22
('i My question is, with that information, could you make an x
23 extrapolation mathematically, about this signature block 24
('s, in other documents at the plant?
25 MR. ELLIS:
Judge Brenner, may we have a clarifica-All-TI HECORDING, INC.
22:1.IEltICIIO TUllNPIKE SIINEOLA. NEW YOltK 11".01
1
?I Y.si f *1
' f all
- st
-'?s'
18,072 1
tion as to whether those other documents are the same docu-
)
2 ments?
v 3
MR. DYNNER:
Same documents.
Same type of docu-4
(
l ments.
v 5
MR. ELLIS:
Well, the same type and the same docu-6 ments would be two different things.
7 MR. DYNNER:
Same type of documents, Mr. Johnson.
O JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
That's enough between the two of you.
10 Answer the question please.
11 WITNESS JOHNSON:
It's my opinion that you could not 12 make a valid extrapolation of all documents, and again, I
(^')
refer to the known applied methodology in the mathematical
~
14 sense.
If I chose to accept your simple multiplication 15 approach in that methmatical context you could make an 16 extrapolation.
I do not believe that it would be valid, how-17 ever.
18 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 19 Q
And why don't you think that it would be valid, 20 Mr. Johnson?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Because it doesn' t consider 22 r^T all of the elements that are involved in making extra-
\\j polations -- mathematical.
24 n
Q What do you think those other elements are that
\\v) 3 are not considered?
AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1 JEllICIIO TUltNI*IliE
.%IINEGI.A. NEW Y()ltK 11n01 (21?) :11 E0171 In1HL T41:n 112
18,073 1
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think you are referring to the x'
science of statistics in referring to reliabilities and con--
3 fidence levels.
I think we discussed that in the depositior.,
v' and I think that it's already on the record.
5 Q
Can you answer the question now for us?
6 MR. ELLIS:
Judge, I can' t cite to a page number in 7
the deposition and I was not present at the deposition.
But 8
it is repetitive and I object to it here.
9 Mr. Dynner, who was at the deposition, would know.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, I don't recall the quest-11 ion being --
12 MR. DYNNER:
I didn't ask the question and he didn't 13 (o) answer it at the deposition so far as I can recall, Judge 14 Brenner.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
I was pretty much going to say 16 that -- I'm not saying that the information isn't there or 17 portions of it, but my memory of the deposition is not be-18 ing made a question and answer at a particular -- in one 19 particular place in the deposition.
20 It's here and that will be the second time.
21 WITNESS JOHNSON:
The mathematical extrapolation 22 I) from this data to the total population requires agreement v
between the parties that are using that information on the 24 Il reliableness, w'
One is a definition of what you are looking at AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.IEltICIIO T1*1tNI'lliE
.%IINEGI..t. NEW YoitK 11301
'"*f*)
fiI fit
- f M1ed *11
".f11*
18,074 1
on the total population.
One is a definition of what you
~( ')
2 consider to be an acceptable condition or a nonacceptable
\\s 3
condition.
One is about reliability and confidence level
('~'s 4
is acceptable in that extrapolation, and the definition or V
5 the parameters that are used relating to a mathematical 6
model that you would develop for making an extrapolation.
7 As I testified in my deposition, I am. not aware 8
of the methodology ever having been applied in the construct-9 ion review process.
Given that s ta tement, I would again 10 say that I don' t think that you can make that kind of extra-11 polation.
12 JUDGE BRENKER:
That answer, for the record, was 13 on page 222 of the deposition, but it was to a different
\\J 14 question and I wasn' t aware in advance that it would be 15 that same answer as the question was now phrased.
I think 16 I was thinking of a different question.
17 MR.DYNNER:
Yes, I wasn't aware you were going 18 to go into that, but it's helpful that you have, because I 19 have just one follow-up on this now that you have defined 20 the range, Mr. Johnson, of statistical extrapolation.
21 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Re suming) 92 Q
If your population, Mr. Johnson, consisted of
~
\\
)
3 all r~
the purchase orders for safety-related components 24 in the Shoreham plant, and if your sample consisted of all
(.,i ss 3
purchase orders for the 45 components, that you selected.
A R-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.IElllCIIO T1*ItN1*11(E SIINEGI.A. NEW YOltK 11501
__-_MJVWkdf0?A_______ ____._____lWVol 5MWK@dM.__ _____._____._____ __.
l
18,075 And if what you were trying to determine is whether or not 1
2 signature blocks were properly signed or had been lef t emp-3 ty.
Is it your testimony that the statistical method that 4
you just described or one akin to it, could not be utilized 5
in that scenario to extrapolate from the sample mathematically, 6
conclusions about all of the purchase orders for safety-relaged components in the plant.
7 8
(Witnesses conferred.)
9 (Suf folk County attorneys conferred. )
10 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Again, a multi-faceted question 11 Mr. Dynner.
First of all, I did not testify to a method 12 that could be used; I,
in fact, testified that I was not 13 aware of any method that had been used and utilized.
Second-14 ly, I would say that it would be very difficult to develop 15 a method to do the very simple thing that you described be-16 tween signatures on purchase orders, because not all purchase 17 orders are the same; the significance of signatures on a 18 purchase order is not the same.
These and many other ele-19 ments would have to be taken into account, when deriving the 20 model that you are discussing, much less applying the model.
l l
21 (Suffolk County attorneys conferred. )
22 Q
I have only one more question; it's a follow-up Mr.
O 23 Johnson on a line of questions from Judge Carpenter.
Is 24 there any reason why the number of components in the sample O
25 turned cut to be 45 instead of 90 or 180 or 1,000?
AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
223 JEltlCIIO TUltNI'IKE
.%IINEOLA. NEW YOltK 11301 (212) :14:n on ?n h
18,076 1
JUDGE MORRIS:
What for?
MR. DYNNER:
What for?
3 (Laughter.)
WITNESS JOHNSON:' The only reason that it turned 5
out to be 45 was that it was Torrey Pines' judgment that 6
that was a sufficient amount to give the basis that I pre-7 viously described.
8 MR. DYNNER:
Thank you.
That concludes my quest-9 ions on Task B, if the Board has any follow-up.
10 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Just one short summary question, 11 Mr. Johnson.
12 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
Q Did Torrey Pines, in fact, in designing this opera-14 tion, consider use of the statistical techniques?
15 A
'fWITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes sir, we did.
The basic 16 program approach that we used was originally developed for 17 the San Onofre Seismic Designer that we did.
We looked at 18 the possibility of a statistical approach at that time.
In j
19 l
the midst of this program Mr. Novarro again requested me to 20 take another look at the statistical approach.
In both dis-l 21 cussions, the latter discussion, I believe, is described in 22 O
the dep sition; in both of those discussions, it was our consensus of opinion at GA, that the theory exists certain-24 ly; the application of that theory is an earnest job.
If I
l 23 l
the application of the theory had been available, a large i
AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223 JEIIICIIO TUltN1*IKE MINEOLA. NEW YOltK 11 ">O 1 (212) f t4:10171 (Mut) 711.u al
18,077 if, as I am sure you are all aware, we would have considered g
using a statistical approach.
But the application of the 2
theory does not exist, and to incorporate in such a theory 3
the judgment and experience and competence of the reviewers, 4
5 is a very difficult thing to do too.
I think even where statistical methods are used, it doesn't preclude intelli-6 7
gence..
The program philosophy was derived or the program 8
logic was derived with the knowledge that the availability 9
of applied statistical methods was not there and we therefore 10 chose to look at the process control in a manufacturing 11 sense, if you will, and insure that the process definition 12 was adequate and then insure ourselves, on a judgment basis, 13 that the process had been implemented and had produced 14 some hardware.
15 JUDGE MORRIS:
Thank you.
16 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
17 Q
Mr. Johnson, you just testified that the theory
(
18 exists.
Where could I read that?
Where would I find that?
l 19 A
(WITNESS JO!!NSON)
I think in a number of text-20 books, and when I say the theory exists, certainly the 21 statistical theories are -- methods are available; maybe my l
l 22 choice of words is improper, I am not a statistician.
The 23 knowledge of how to mathematically derive and extrapolate 24 with given reliability and given confidence mathematically O
25 it certainly exists, not with respect to certain review, AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1 JEHICIIO TUltN1*IKE
.%IINEGI,A. NEW YORK 11301 f as 3) a.a. n a ns ? s fM ast) t.t s rt f40
18,078 1
however, it exists as a pure mathematical capability with
( })
respect to our construction review.
In that sense, I say 2
3 that the -- maybe I should choose different words to avoid
(~')
4 being in trouble, but the mathematical capability to make v
5 statistical extrapolations is certainly a well defined sci-6 ence.
The application of that science to a situation that 7
we are discussing here, I am not aware of any place that it 8
has been done at all.
9 Q
I continue to have trouble with all of this.
I 10 have in my personal library, a number of textbooks, on 11 statistical methods.
They're like recipes to a certain 1
extent; depending on what you are doing, a particular port-13
(~i ion of a particular document is appropriate, and I have yet C./
14 to hear anyone or anything -- it gives me any guidance as 15 to wha t everybody is talking about, other than this very 16 vague term, " statistical me thods".
I am familiar with a 17 areat variety of statistical methods, but I haven' t got any 18 insight into what anybody is talking about, as to what 19 statistical methods they are talking about.
There are, 20 you know, a body of knowledge called mathematical statistics 21 is quite extensive, and to just arm-wave in that general
-)
direction, I just don' t find very insightful.
So I was K/
23 starting to get some feel for what you say Torrey Pines 24 looked at the use of statistical methods.
k) 25 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Okay.
The context of that AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1 JEIIICIIO T1*IINI*IKE SIINEOI.A. NEW YOltK 11301 N12) 14:1-0171 f, t ed 7 31
,3 3 2
18,079 1
statement was that we had at GA the number of statisticians 2
who are pure mathematical statisticians; we have a number of 3
statistician-type people who had also applied that in the 4
()
realm of probabilistic risk assessment, in the term of risk 5
analysis, in the term of 0. A.
production, Q.C. programs, and 6
we have discussed the effort at hand, the scope of the job 7
at hand, with those people to see whether they knew of any 8
reasonable way to apply the mathematical disciplines to the 9
subjects at hand.
I thought of an example as you were speak-10 ing that Judge Morris is familiar with in the application 11 to the probabilistic risk assessment realm loss 1400 study.
12 In my terminology, the methods existed long before that
^
13 (v')
started; there was significant ef fort required to develop 14 the model and apply the discipline and I am not sure that 15 there's yet a consensus on whether that's a proper model or 16 not.
It takes a great deal of effor t to apply the discipline 17 l
to a specific application and achieve consensus that it's 18 an acceptable way to do things.
19 l
Q That's what I wanted to explore, because before 20 you simply said that the theory exists, and it's my notion 21 I
that perhaps one might look at this usefully in terms of the
(~N pre-supposition that had to be stated, in which some people LJ l
use the jargon word " mode" for, and then the arithmetic 24 r3 operations, mathematical operations that are then appropriate l
'w) 25 having clearly stated the pre-suppositions.
Frequently, the l
1 1
AR-TI RECORDING, INC.
22:1.IEllICIIO TUltN1*IKE MINEOLA. NEW YOIIK 11301 (01 *) il 1:1-0171 (316) ?.31 - 32) (2
18,080 g
statement pre-suppositions is a major portion of the theory and the mathematical manipulations are are a consequence to I')
2 s_-
3 that which one can kind in any ctandard text are a very small part of this.
I wanted to see whether that perception that (3
4
\\s' 5
I had was coincident with the sort of problems that you en-6 counter when iou try to look at it; whether or not statistical 7
" statistical methods" could be used in this application, whether 8
the problems were in the mathematical theories or in the pre-9 suppositions that are necessary to make a sufficiently well-to defined problem statement that would be reliable.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
You're ready to move on to Task C; 12 is that it?
13 MR. DYNNER:
Yes sir.
-s
/ i
\\~J 14 JUDGE BRENNER:
We can take a break at this point.
15 Before we do, if I got this answer before, I'm 16 sorry, I don' t remember.
Can you tell me which part of 17 your cross plan ties in with Roman II in your handwritten 18 memorandum -- that is, the application and the statistics?
19 I see some questions relating to that up around --
l 20 MR. DYNNER:
Yes.
j 21 JUDGE BRENNER:
-- page 49 and 50.
22 MR. DYNNER:
That's correct.
Page 49, and as
(
23 you've noted -- and I'm noting as we go along -- that were 24 are elements of that, which are now being covered in the O
\\'~/
25 various tasks, which is expanding the tasks; and I assume will l
AR-TI RECORDING. INC.
223.IEltICIIO Tt?ItNI*IKE SIINEOLA. NEW YOttK 11301 (0121 IlWolT1
'"11 til 711 "i310
18,081 then shrink the past part, except as it relates to g
the more general propositions.
Il 2
U I think that's part of the explanation for why 3
,., 7 4
the coverage of this task -- for example -- took longer LJ 5
than anticipated.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
That brings you up to the last 7
portion and the Board's questions.
8 I really am anxious to finish them today -- at least 9
I had that hope when we broke yesterday, it would become 10 more fleeting.
11 MR. ELLIS:
Judge Brenner, I think -- you weren't 12 going to jar my pacemaker yesterday; you just did with the --
13 s>
JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, -.
\\
U 14 MR. ELLIS:
-- to the station.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, I hadn't thought of that --
16 (Laughter. )
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Close to the time we break, or 18 a little before it, at 12:15, I'll ask you for your time 19 estimate on your total cross examination.
If you could, 20 to the best of your present ability, give us that including 21 whatever, I think that would be helpful.
22 I have 10:30.
We'll take a 15 minute break until 23 10:45.
24 (Recess.)
V 25 A R-TI RECORDING. INC.
22:1.II:IIICIIO Tt?IINI*Ilil?
.TIINEOI.A. NEW YOltK 11301
('t') nam otts
(-sa) - s s. -n s,
18,082 3
JUDGE BRENNER:
I suppose by now everyone in 2
this room, including and perhaps most of all Mr. Dynner, 3
has begun to think of these tasks as tasks also.
And 4
now we are on to Task C.
BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 5 6
0 Mr. Johnson, before we get into Task C, there 7
is a very quick matter that related to a question I 8
asked you concerning Task A.
It was alluded to this 9
morning by M r. Ellis.- And over the bgeak I have talked to him.
So I think it is information that would be 10 useful to the Board concerning Task A to get to now 11 12 rather than wait until redirect.
The question concerned whether or not in 13 14 carrying out the Task A review the reviewers compared 15 the procedures and manuals to the pa rticula r measures stated in the ANSI standards that are referred to in the 16 regulatory guides, in turn referred to at Appendix 3.B 17 to the FSAR for Shoreham.
18 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
The answer.is yes, Mr.
39 Dynner.
20 l
Q Thank you.
Gentlemen, could you turn for a 21 moment to page 4-5 of Volume 2, which is Table 4.2-1 and 22 lists 37 systems selected for walkdown.
During the 23
()
deposition process I asked a question concerning how 24 25 many systems in th e plant that have safety-related l ()
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, I
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,003
()
i portions wer'e not selected for walkdown on this list.
2 And as I recall, the witnesses had difficulty in
(^T 3 determining that.
U 4
And what I would like to do to make the 5
process much, much easier is to pass out a copy of the 6 FSAR Table 3.2.1-1.
And also I would like to pass out 7 and have marked for identification a document entitled 8 " Plant Configura tion Review."
It is a LILCO document.
9 It is stated as " Project Procedure P-309."
And it bears 10 a date, Revision A 12/3/81; and Revision B, it looks like 5/6/82.
11 12 JUDGE BRENNER:
Did you say the document with 13 the P designation is a LILCO procedure?
MR. DYNNER Yes, it is, sir.
The LILCO 14 15 project procedure -- I beg your pardon -- P-309 consists 16 Of --
MR. ELLIS:
Do you mean Torrey Pines procedure?
17 MR. DYNNER4 No.
This is LILCO.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
I have the same problem, Mr.
19 Ellis.
Everybody uses P for procedures.
20 MR. DYNNER:
It consists of eight pages.
21 JUDGE MORRIS:
That would be Suffolk County 22 110.
23
()
(The document referred to 24 was marked Suffolk County 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,084
()
Exh ibit No. 110 for 1
identification.)
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is the procedure we are 3
/}
marking.
We are not marking the now-famous table.
4 MR. DYNNER:
That is correct.
5 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 6 7
0 Gentlemen, rather than have you try to do the 8 comparison that I have already done, I am going to walk 9 you through the comparison that I have done and ask you whether you agree with the comparison as yo u look a t it 10 and the project procedure P-309, which is now marked 11 Suffolk County Exhibit 110.
If you will turn to page 3 12 of 8, it states under 5.0 Appendices, that 5.1 is 13 entitled " Safety-Related Systems."
Isn't that correct?
14 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
That is what the procedure 15 16 says, yes.
Q Thank you.
And if you turn the page to page 4 37 o f 8, we see 5.1, and that is in fact a list of what has 18 been identified in the previous page as the 39 safety-related systems.
Is that correct, Mr. Novarro?
20 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
That is the list of systems 21 under 5.1, yes.
22 0
Now, if we compare this list, if we compare 23
()
this list with the table on page 4-5 of Volume 2 of the 24 Torrey Pines report, it is readily apparent, I think, as 25 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,085
()
1 we go down the list that the following safety-related 2 systems are identified in the plant configuration review 3 Appendix 5.1.
I am not on the Torrey Pines table.
And 4
they ares item G11, radwaste; item N, as in Nancy, 21, condensate and feedwater; item N23, miscellaneous 5
6 drains; item T11, condensate transfer and storage, item 7 P33, sample.
Do you agree with that?
A (WITNESS NOVARRO)
What was the last one?
P337 8
9 0
That is P33, sample, Mr. Novarro.
Do you 10 agree that that list that I have just given you, that those items do not appear on the Torrey Pines list of 37 11 12 systems selected for walkdown?
MR. ELLIS:
Judge Brenner, I object.
I am 13 34 sorry.
May I have the question read back?
I misunderstood the question.
15 JUDGE BRENNER He wants to know if they agree 16 that those five systems do not appear on the list in 17 Table 4.2-1 of the 37 systems selected for walkdown.
l 18 qu'estion he asked You may recall he is following up on a 19 on or about page 111 of the de position, and they didn't 20 know then, or Mr. Johnson didn't know.
l 21 WITNESS NOVARRO:
Those five systems are not 22 on the list of Torrey Pines 37 systems on Table 4.2.1.
23 f ()
JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Dynner, I wonder if I 24 l
could ask you a question.
Since you ha ve d one the 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 18,086
()
1 comparisons, do you have any the other way around?
Are 2 there any on Table 4.2-1 of Torrey Pines that is not on 3
the procedure?
If you have already done it.
And I
{}
don 't want you to do it now.
4 MR. DYNNERs I believe that the only systems 5
6 that are on the Torrey Pines list that are not on this 7
particular list are the five systems that appear at the bottom of Table 4.2-1, which were, a s you will recall, 8
g the five systems added by Torrey Pines later on.
And that was -- the process of adding those was covered in 10 11 my deposition of Mr. Johnson, as you recall.
BY MR. DYNNERs (Resuming) 12 13 0
Now, gentlemen, if you will turn for a moment O
14 now to Table 3.2.1-1 of the FSAR, a copy of which I distributed for you to look at, is it correct, Mr.
15 Novarro, that this table of the FSAR contains, among 16 other things, a list of the LILCO quality assurance 37 Category 1 items in the plant?
18 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I recall there has been a 19 lot of testimony about this table, from hearing from my 20 associates on previous hearing days.
This is the 21 equipment classifica tion table, as we all know, and it 22 has a listing of the principal components of the plant.
23
()
And across the top I read " Scope of Supply, Location, 24 Q ua lity Classification, LILCO Quality Assurance 25 ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,087
()
1 Category, Seismic Category, Purchase Order Date, 2
Principal Code and Comments."
3 Q
So you agree that this equipment
)
4 classification table does identify in the fifth column 5
the LILCO quality assurance category that a particular 6
item on the list would be categorized in, isn't that 7
correct?
8 A
(W ITNESS NOVARRO)
Yes.
9 0
Thank you.
And the Roman numerals on the 10 left-hand margin of the list are the number of systems.
11 And if you were to go down and look at those systems and 12 then come across, you would be able to find out whether 13 there were items numerically listed under that system O
14 which are categorized as LILCO qua li ty assurance 15 Category 1.
Isn't that true?
16 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
Yes.
17 0
All right.
And my only purpose in going 18 through this exercise, Mr. Novarro, is to see whether I 19 can assist you and Mr. Johnson in identifying wh e th e r 20 there are and what the other systems may be in the plant 21 tha t have portions which are safety-related; that is, 22 which a re LILCO quality assurance Category 1 and which 23 are not contained in the Torrey Pines list of 37 O(_/
24 systems.
Okay.
25 And one way we can do that is to start -- and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,000
(
1 this should not take too long, Judge Brenner -- is to 2
sta rt with the Roman numeral I reactor system.
It is 3
true, isn't it, Mr. Novarro, that the reactor system
(}
4 does contain items which are LILCO quality assurance 5
Category 1 and tha t the reactor system is not one of the 6 systems on the Torrey Pines list?
7 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
No, that is not true.
8 Q
Is it your testimony that the reactor system 9
is on the Torrey Pines list?
10 MR. ELLIS Judge Brenner, may I have a 11 clarification?
Since he is asking about what is on the 12 Torrey Pines list, may we have it understood that Mr.
13 Johnson can answer these questions as well as to what is O
14 on the Torrey Pines list?
15 JUDGE BRENNERa He never limited it, I don't 16 believe.
It's for either witness.
17 MR. DYNNERa Either witness, certainly.
18 WITNESS JOHNSON There are a num ber of 19 systems on our list that relate to what you may be i
l 20 calling the reactor system.
Just for a couple of 21 e xa m ple s, the nuclear boiler system, B21; reactor water
(
22 recirculation system, B31.
23 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming)
O 24 0
Excuse me.
Can I interrupt you for a moment, 25 Mr. Johnson, because with respect to the items that you
)
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
18,089
()
1 were going to name, if you will look on the FSAR table, 2
you will see that Roman numeral II on that table is the 3
nuclear boiler system and that the system numbered B21
{}
4 is the nuclear boiler system on the Torrey Pines list.
5 So just before you get into that, I wanted to point out 6
to you that some of the items that you are about to 7 raention may be already covered in the FSAR list of 4
8 systems.
9 MR. ELLIS:
Judge Brenner, could I suggest 10 that this is the kind of endeavor that we need an 11 opportunity, or the witnesses need an opportunity to 12 look at it, and there may be cross-references and all 13 sorts of things that if we had had foreknowledge we
()
14 could have reviewed this thing.
15 But I certainly, if it is going to be done 16 now, want the witnesses to have all the time they need.
17 I also, in the alterna tive, suggest it is something we l
18 can undertake to do.
I 19 JUDGE BRENNER:
That may be the case, but you 20 are assuming then you have to burrow through the detail, 21 and I don't yet know that that is necessary.
Maybe in a l
22 question or two we vill find out.
But if there is an 23 overall answer, I would rather get that.
l 24 And, Mr. Dynner, I am not sure exactly how you 25 plan to proceed, so I don't want to stop you.
But I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,090
()
1 make a possible suggestion.
I thought you could get at 2 it possibly without involving Table 3.2.1-1 3 preliminarily and just ask him for an explanation of the
{}
4 difference that you established between the procedure 5 which you have marked as Suffolk County Exhibit 110 for 6 identification and the Torrey Pines table.
7 You can, of course, follow up with further 8 probing if you feel you need to then involving the 9 further detail and the FSAR table.
I was surprised that 10 you went from your primary questions right into the FSAR 11 table.
We have had a lot of testimony on this table, 12 and I can tell you that some of that testimony involves 13 questions of where things may be categorized even before O
14 you get into the substantive dispute as to whether the 15 categorization is accurate.
16 And we have also had a lot of testimony which 17 I will state -- and it may still be in dispute among the 18 parties as to what this table means in terms of the 19 extent one can rely on it to cover it as a listing of 20 e ve ry thing in the plant and what it purports to mean.
21 And I dont know yet how we come out on that.
22 But I just mention it so you don' t in error 23' depend solely on this table and then find out some of
)
24 our findings in a totally different context that you are 25 not thinking of undercuts your proposition when the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,091 0
vetat rou w at to =<* *t cou1a de cettea et = ore =1 911-2 MB. DYNNERs Judge Brenner, I did not fully 3 explain, I guess, what I hoped to do by the first 4
JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, you want to find out 5 whether they are aware that maybe they left things out, 6 and, if so, why.
7 MR. DYNNER4 Well, the things I am referring 8
to are not simply particular items.
I think the 9 witnesses have iden tified five systems on the plant 10 configuration review procedure which are not in the 11 Torrey Pines report.
12 What I will do simply is to go through, having 13 made the comparison, there are additional systems in the O
14 plant identified on the FSAR table which are systems 15 that contain safety-related portions.,
And I am not 16 going into what is safety-related beyond saying it is 17 LILCO quality assurance Category 1,
which are also not 18 covered on the table so far as we can tell.
And I am 19 asking the witnesses to identify whether we are correct 20 or not.
21 And perhaps the easiest way would be, and the 22 quickest way would be, to read through the systems 23 identified on the table and then ask the witnesses to 24 come back perhaps when they have had a chance to review 25 the table more carefully and tell us whether we are O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,092 I
/
1 correct or wnether we made some errors.
That would be a 2
fast process.
()
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
I didn't appreciate that you 4 had other systems.
5 MB. DYNNER:
No.
These are additional systems.
6 JUDGE BRENNERs Now I understand why you want 7
to do that.
And if you do want to do that, then I think 8 we ca. be efficient by giving them time to do it.
9 However, instead of just leaving it for now, why don't 10 you ask them the questions and the comparison that is 11 easy, or apparently easier, by title using just the 12 procedure, because the explanations there may or may not 13 be applicable to other areas and I don't want to 14 automatically assume that we have to go system by system.
15 MB. DYNNER:
Let me just explain, Judge 16 Brenner, if I could.
There are 14 systems that we have 17 identified on the FSAR table that appeared to be in 18 addition to the five.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
I know wha t you want to do 20 now.
I don't want to say any more because I don't want 21 to put thoughts in the witnesses' mind that they might 22 not have, but it may or may not be material to go 23 through this, these other systems.
Let me leave it at 24 that.
And we can find out more by a sking them about the 25 ones that we have identified through the procedure.
And O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,093
()
1 I am not stopping you f rom going into the table after 2
they have had time if you still feel you need to, but 3
not now because if they have to have time to review it.
{])
4 MR. DYNNER:
Okay.
Just to clarify what I 5
intend to do, and you can tell me if you want me to do 6
it or not, was to read off, simply read off the list of 7
the 14 systems which we have identified on the FSAR 8
table as not being covered in the 37, and then have the 9
witnesses come back and either confirm or say no, you 're 10 wrong.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
Give it to them off the 12 record.
But stay with the five that you have identified 13 and see if you can get some answers to those.
And that O_s 14 may form a pattern for the total later.
15 MR. DYNNER:
Yes, I will go on and ask about 16 those.
I would prefer to give them the 14 on the 17 record, though, just f or the clarity of the record.
18 JUDGE BRENNER :
It's not necessary.
You are l
19 going to come back to it an y wa y, and you can put it on 20 the record at that time if you are going to ask about it 21 later.
So we will wait and see a little mo re what you 22 are going to do with it.
23 MR. DYNNER:
Okay.
24 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 25 0
Mr. Johnson, it is true, isn't it -- and I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 18,094
()
the first 32 of thess 1
think you testified tha t the 32 2
systems that are on the list of systems selected for 3
valkdown were the 32 systems that were identified by
{
4 LILCO on materials that they brought with them in their 5
first meeting with Torrey Pines and you.
Is that 6
correct?
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
The first 32 systems on 8
that table are the same systems that were on the list 9
that LILCO brought to the. meeting, yes.
10 0
Mr. Johnson, did Torrey Pines make its own 11 independent investigation as to which systems containing 12 safety-related portions should be subjected to the Level 13 1 valkdown in Task C7 O
14 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes, we did.
15 0
And in making that determination, was Torrey 16 Pines aware that, for example, the five safety-related 17 systems that we have identified on Appendix 5.1 of LILCO 18 project procedure P-309 Revision B existed?
19 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes, we were.
As I 20 described earlier this morning, the beginning of our 21 review process and selecting what we would look at was 22 to review the FSAR, including Chapter, 15 as well as the 23 system description documents and the flow diagrams.
O x/
24 0
Could you with respect to each one of these 25 five systems explain why Torrey Pines chose not to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,095
()
1 subject any of them to examination and inspection under 2
Task C7 3
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
I don't know that I can
{)
4 give you detailed reasons on each system.
The overall 5
rea son is that we did not considor them important in the 6
cold shutdown activities of the plant, and that was the 7
c ri te ria to which we were reviewing the plant systems as 8
a means of gaining the safety items that we would 9
investigate in Task C.
10 0
Do you know what this system P33, en ti tled 11
" Sample," Identifies?
12 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I believe the P33 system is 13 the system that we used to collect liquid and other O
14 fluid samples from the various plant systems for 15 analysis.
16 0
Mr. Novarro, are any portions of these five 17 systems used in connection with cold shutdown?
18 A
( W ITN ESS NOV ABRO)
As far as I know, no.
19 C.
Mr. Johnson, is it correct that --
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
Could I interject for a 21 minute?
"When used in connection with" is subject to 22 some ambiguity, which was in your question.
I am not 23 sure that you now or later will ascribe the same meaning 24 to that as the witnesses.
25 When you answered the question, Mr. Novarro, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,096 c
1 did you mean none of those systems were essential to 2
cold shutdown or that none of those systems would be
(}
3 used by any mode of getting to cold shutdown?
4 WITNESS NOVARRO:
Judge Brenner, the 5
condensate and feedwater system would be used in some 6
modes to get to cold shutdown of the plant.
That is one 7
of the five.
8 JUDGE MORRISs Just to remove some additional 9
potential ambiguity, your answer was directed to those 10 things which might be used in getting to cold shutdown; 11 correct?
12 WITNESS JOHNSON:
Tha t is correct.
I 13 JUDGE MORRIS So the implication is not that O
14 they might not be used during cold shutdown?
l 15 WITNESS JOHNSON:
That is correct.
l 1
L 16 JUDGE MORRIS:
Thank you.
17 BY MR. DYNNER (Resuming) 18 0
So, Mr. Novarro, using Judge Morris' helpful 19 terminology as commented on by Mr. Johnson, it is your 4
20 testimony that none of these five systems -- is it your l
21 testimony that none of these five systems would be used 22 in getting to cold shutdown?
Or did you mean to 23 indicate one of them might be?
24 (Witnesses conferred.)
25 MR. ELLIS:
I think the ambiguity --
O
)
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, l
l 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,097
(
1 JUDGE BRENNERs No, I think the witness can 2
answer that and clear it up.
3 WITNESS NOVARRO:
I will try.
My answer is
[}
4 that the condensate and feedwater system, which is one 5
of the five, could be used to get to cold shutdown, but 6
there are other ways to do that in addition to using 7
tha t system.
8 MR. DYNNER:
Thank you, Mr. Novarro.
9 BY MR. DYNNER (Resuming) 10 0
Mr. Johnson, are there any systems on the list 11 that is Table 4.2-1 tha t was the list of 37 systems 12 selected for walkdown by Torrey Pines which would not be 13 used in getting to cold shutdown?
O 14 (Witnesses conferred.)
15 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
As I testified earlier this 16 morning, our set of criteria relating to cold shutdown 17 also included containment integrity and control of 18 reactivity and the fission products and things like 19 that.
And in that context, I would say that all of 20 those systems would be used within the framework of cold 21 shutdown that we were using for the review.
(
2..
O And using those same criteria, you identified a
23 no other systems in the plant containing safety-related 24 por' ions which would meet those criteria ; is that 25 correct?
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
l
18,098
()
1 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, that is not correct.
2 We identified a set of systems and components that would 3 meet that criteria.
They a re not necessarily the only
{}
4 ones that could meet that criteria.
I think Mr. Novarro 5 has already testified tha t the condensate and f eedwater 6 system, which is not on our list, could be used in the 7
process of achieving a cold shutdown.
I am sorry, 8
0 And, Mr. Johnson, do you know 9 Mr. Novarro, you were going to add something?
10 A
( WIT N ESS NOVARBO)
I was going to add that the 11 condensate and feedwater system is a non-safety-related 12 system, and I think the table would tell you tha t.
13 0
Well, Mr. Novarro, if it is a
.)
14 non-safety-related system, could you explain then why it 15 is listed as system N21 on Appendix 5.1 of this 16 procedure, which is entitled, as we have all read, 17
" Safety-Related Systems"?
18 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I will try.
I don 't know 19 whether this procedure has been used in this hearing I
20 before.
But it is my understanding th a t this procedure 1
21 was developed by our engineering staff to review, as it l
22 says in the front page if we were to have read on.
The l
23 FSAR descriptions of systems with respect to the
\\~/
24 construction drawings that we used to build the systems.
25 And as we know, the FSAR describes the plant O
1 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,099
(
1 in great detail and in describing the plant, it was 2 intended tha t we would look at those systems that were
(]}
3 delineated in the FSAR.
They are all major systems, of 4 course, and then do a detailed review of the FSAR 5 against the construction drawings.
6 So in that definition, it doesn't surprise me 7 tha t systems like radwaste, the five that you men tioned,
8 condensate and feedwater drains, condensates, transfer 9 and sampling system, would be part of this procedure and 10 perhaps in this definition listed as safety-related 11 systems, because the intent of this procedure was to 12 make a thorough review of the FSAR descriptions of 13 systems, drawings, the details against the construction 14 drawings r the plan t.
So in that definition, perhaps 15 that is how these five systems were included in the list.
16 O
So, Mr. Novarro, is it your testimony that 17 none of the five systems identified are saf ety-related 18 or contain portions that are safety-related within the 19 meaning of LILCO quality assurance Category 17 20 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
Yes.
21 MR. ELLIS:
May I have that question and 22 answer read back, please?
23 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
I 24 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 25 0
Mr. Novarro, if you will please kindly turn to O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,100
()
1 page 8 of 25 of Table 3.2.1-1, and identified as the 2 last system on that page is the radwaste system.
And it 3 appears on my table that items 3, piping containment
[}
4 isola tion, a nd 5, valves containment isolation, are 5 Category 1 items.
Does tha t change the answer to your 6 previous question?
7 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
No, it does not.
I think 8 there is a great deal of interpretation of this table, 9 and I think Judge Brenner mentioned that earlier.
And 10 from wha t I have heard from my colleagues in the QA 11 testimony, there was a great deal of discussion of this 12 table.
13 What I read under Roman XVIII radwaste system, O
14 piping containment isolation, that item as far as I know 15 was not contained in the G11 system as listed in 16 procedure 5.1.
That piping would be part of some other 17 system, probably related to the containment itself and 18 the valves also for that.
19 0
Could you tell me what is included in item N21 20 condensate and feedwater by the way of the major 21 components?
22 (Witnesses conferred.)
23 0
I beg your pardon.
I have asked you the wrong
(
24 question.
I meant to ask you what the major components l
25 are in system P11 on the plant configuration review l
()
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,101
,_)
1 list, the condensate transfer and storage?
2 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I would say transfer and 3 storage system, as I understand it, is the -- contains
(])
4 the condensate storage tank, 500,000 gallon outdoor 5 storage tank for water, the piping and pumps and valving 6 tha t allows that condensate water to be brought to the 7 plant systems as needed.
8 0
Now, Mr. Novarro, as you have described that 9 system, if you will turn to page 14 of Table 3.2.1-1, to there is a system identified as Roman numeral XXXII 11 entitled " Condensate Storage and Transfer System."
And 12 item 2 of that is piping suction line to HPCI, RCIC.
13 And that is a LILCO quality assurance Category 1 item, O-14 isn't it?
15 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
It is listed tha t wa y,
16 yes.
But again it is my understanding that the suction 17 lines that would bring wa te r to the HPCI and RCIC system 18 would be part of those systems, and those systems are 19 Category 1 a nd on the list of systems that Torrey Pines 20 reviewed.
l 21 0
- a ar answer would be that the P11 a
22 condensa te transf er and storage system listed on the 23 plant configuration review Appendix 5.1 is not the same rs k-24 condensate storage and transfer system on the Table 25 3.2.1-1, is that correct?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, P ' RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,102 1
A (WITNESS NOVARRO)
As far as I know, the lines 2
that are identified in the FSAB table are part of the 3
HPCI and RCIC systems, and removing them from the 4
definition or description of the condensate transfer and 5 storage system would then make that system consistent 6 with what is on the list in the LILCO procedure P3-09.
7 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred.)
8 Q
Do either of you gentlemen know whether there 9
are any other systems with safety-related portions --
10 that is to say, portions that are LILCO quality aside from the five that we have 11 assurance Category 1 12 just identified which are not included under the 37 13 systems selected for walkdown by Torrey Pines?
14 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Certainly, there are 15 safety-related components and portions of systems within 16 the plant that are not on the 37 systems listed in Table 17 14-1 of the Torrey Pines report.
An example of such an 18 item that is a little bit obvious might be the reactor 19 control building, for example.
20 0
Of those additional systems containing 21 safety-related portions, are any of them used in getting 22 to cold shutdown which were not on the list of 37 23 systems?
24 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
There may be some of them 25 tha t are used depending upon what method you choose to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,103
()
1 get to cold shutdown.
There are many methods to get to 2
cold shutdown.
3 0
And it is my understanding that in selecting
}
4 the 37 systems Torrey Pines selected just some of the S
methods for getting to cold shutdown in making the 6
selection of systems.
Is that correct?
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
We developed a set of 8
components that would achieve cold shutdown, yes.
9 MR. DYNNER:
If I can take two minutes now, 10 Judge Brenner, I want to finish this up because I think 11 I have gotten 'gus much as I can on this poin t.
I would 12 like to read for the witnesses a list of 14 systems 13 identified in Table 3.2.1-1 which do not appear to be on O
14 the list of 37 systems, and have them confirm perhaps 15 Monday when we come back whether that is the case or not.
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
You a re about ready to 17 convince me that is going to take more tine to tell you 18 it's not wo r th the time tha n to just let you do it.
But 19 then you are going to have to run back through some of 20 the same systems at the time you cross-examine on them, 21 and it was my suggestion, not a ruling, that you keep it 22 all in one place in th e record but give them the 23 information on those systems off the record.
24 And when you do that, I think you also ought 25 to review the terminology in the questions and answers O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,104
()
1 between you and the witnesses.
And when you do follow 2
up on the other ones, if you have to, with respect to 3
your questions of getting to cold shutdown as compared
[}
4 to the answers of what the Torrey Pines criteria were, 5
because you may end up not having a meeting of the 6
question and answer in that regard, which would be a 7
digression from the main point of where you want to go.
8 So it is my last try.
You don 't need to list 9
the 14 now.
And maybe never, but maybe on Monday.
This 10 is in the realm of the things that I would have hoped 11 LILCO and the County were going to exchange information 12 on, and I recognize the information exchange was 13 focusing on other Roman numerals within your memo, O
14 however.
But now that we have come upon it, why not try 15 to include it in that area, and get a little better 16 answer as to what Torrey Pines included in terms of the 17 systems and why they didn't include other systems, and 18 then be able to better explore where you think there is 19 an inconsistent use of their criteria or not, which is 20 really where you are going.
So why don't you defer it?
21 MR. DYNNER4 Yes, sir.
l 22 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred. )
23 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming)
(
24 0
Mr. Johnson, I ha ve a cuestion I would like to 25 ask you to clarify the walkdown levels.
Now, on page O
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,105
()
1 4-4 of Volume 2 there is an explanation of Level 1 2
valkdown.
And tha t inspection or walkdown on Level 1,
3 the first criterion or the first element appears to be 4
tha there was a verification that piping ducts and 5
components were installed in the proper functional 6
order.
Is that correct?
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That was part of the 8
criteria, yes.
9 Q
Yes.
One of them.
Now, what physically was 10 done in order to determine whether those systems were 11 installed in a proper functional order on the Level 1 12 walkdown?
13 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think it is described in O
14 the paragraph there.
I can read it for you if you would 15 like:
"The Level 1 valkdown verified that all of the 16 systems, major components, and only those major 17 components as specified in the engineering documents, 18 were installed.
Level 1 valkdown of electrical i
l 19 mechanical systems verified that piping ducts and l
20 components were installed in the proper functional 21 order, were properly identified, and were shown on the 22 appropriate process flow diagram."
23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
18,106
/~')
(_
1 0
Now, Mr. Johnson, I think you misunderstood my 2
question.
My question was what physically was done to
('T 3
verify that piping ducts and components were installed V
4 in proper functional order.
And by way of example, was 5
this a visual inspection or were tests, various tests 6 carried out to see whether the components were 7 f un ctio nall y operating properly?
8 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think it is clear in 9 Section 4.3 of Task C starting on page 4-10, 11, 12, 13 10 and subsequent pages what activities were conducted 11 during the walkdowns.
And I think it is' clear that it 12 was a visual examination compared to the flow diagrams.
13 0
So all of the level 1 valkdown was a visual O
14 examination only, is that correct?
15 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes.
I guess we should 16 clarify that term -- visual in terms of looking at a 17 flow diagram and looking at hardware.
18 0
Mr. Johnson, why did Torrey Pines select the 19 flow diagram for the document to be used in the 20 individual inspection on level 1?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
The flow diagram is the 22 document that describes the process system in the design 23 of the plan t.
(
24 0
Were there other documents that could have 25 been used in conducting the level 1 valkdown?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,107 0)
\\_
1 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Not as efficiently, no.
2 0
My question was were there other documents
(~')
3 that could be used?
%J 4
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
There are many documents 5 that describe the plan t and the plant systems, ranging 6 from the FSAR to the detailed drawings of a nut and bolt 7 that are used in the system.
I'm not sure that you 8 would use the most inefficient method, but yes, there 9 are other documents.
10 0
And the reason you used the flow diagrams is 11 because you regarded that as the most efficient manner 12 for your purposes of the level 1 walkdown, is that your 13 testimony?
O 14 A
( W IT N ESS JOHNSON)
I think I already said tha t.
15 0
Thank you.
16 Was the level 2 walkdown a narrowing down of 17 the items that were inspected in the level 1 walkdown?
18 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No.
There were f ewer items 19 examined at level 2 than at level 1.
20 0
There were f ewer items looked at in level 2 21 than level 1 you say.
Did level 1 -- excuse me -- did 22 the level 2 items comprise items in every case that had 23 already been looked at in level 17 24 A
(W IT N ESS JOHNSON)
I'm not sure I can 25 absolutely say that.
Generally that is true.
ALDERSON REPORT;NG COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,108
()
1 Q
I will tell you what is confusing me and get 2
right to the point.
And tha t is that if you will turn 3 f or a minute to Appendix 4.F -- this is page rather
[}
4 4.F-45, Table F.3, and that continues on to page 5 F.4 -4 6.
And this is in the appendix, there is a tab 6 entitled " Appendix 4.F,"
and that is where this material 7 is located, of Volume 2.
And then at the bottom of the 8 page number for the Table F.4 I'm referring to is F.4-45.
9 MR. ELLIS:
I think you said Table F.4 Did 10 you mean Table F.37 11 HR. DYNNER:
F.3.
The page number is F.4-45.
12 JUDGE BRENNER4 We 've had it for five minutes.
13 MR. DYNNER:
I'm sorry.
There were some O
14 quizzical looks around the room, and that is why I was 15 repeating myself.
16 JUDGE BRENNERa Five minutes was an 17 e xa ggera tion.
Go ahead.
18 BY MR. DYNNER (Resuming) 19 0
Now, that table says it is a summary of level 20 1 components electrical walkdown, and a t th e top th e re 21 is an identification of switches, indicators, 22 t ra n smi t ter s, neutron monitors, et cetera.
And the 23 numbers under those columns, Mr. Johnson, identify, I 24 would take it, the number of those particular types of 25 items that were looked at in the level 1 valkdown, is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I 18,109
()
1 that correct?
2 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes.
3 0
All right.
Now, if you will turn the page to
)
4 F.4-46, you see a total number of various items.
For 5 example, in column 1 it shows a total number of six 6 indicators.
Do you see that?
7 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Yes.
8 Q
Now, if we look at the next table, which is on 9
page 4.F-47, that is entitled " Summary of Level 2 and 3 10 Components Electrical Walkd own. "
And if you turn the 11 page to 4.F-48 under " Indicators" it shows that 26 12 indicators were subjected to a level 2 valkdown.
And 13 what confused me is how, as I read the methodology of O
14 the various levels that were walked down in your report, 15 how there could be only six indicators walked down at 16 level 1 but 26 indicators walked down at level 2.
17 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Is that a question?
18 0
Yes.
I 19 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
First of all, we've 20 switched subjects.
Flow diagrams are not used to 21 specify electrical systems, and so the previous 22 discussion, the way we were having it, does not apply to 23 the electrical tables that you're referring to.
24 Q
I dic7't hinge my question to the previous 25 one, Mr. Johnson.
I'm just confused by this situation
}
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 18,110 1
here, and I wish you would try to alleviate it for me.
2 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I don 't know what is 3
confusing.
We walked down six indicators at level 1 and 4
26 at level 2.
5 0
All right.
The reason I am confused is 6
because as I read your description of the various 7
levels, it was the impression that I had at least that 4
8 level 1 looked at more things of the same type and then 9
you focused down to look at fewer things in more 10 detail.
And please correct me if that reading of the 11 report is wrong.
12 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
13 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I don't believe that is O
14 what I stated.
I think I stated that we selected other 15 components to look at at level 2 and 3 in more detail, 16 and generally since we were talking in the flow diagram 17 a re a which is mechanical elements, generally those more 18 detailed examinations were on the components that were 19 looked at at level 1.
20 In the electrical area your concern seems to 21 be that the more detailed examination was made at a 22 greater number than the system level walkdo wn.
I don't 23 have a specific explanation for you, but in some cases 24 the electrical elements are part of a larger assembly; 25 and in the system level walkdown you might not look at O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,111
()
1 as many specific items that you would want to look at in 2
a more detailed level.
3 0
Well, it is not a concern that I have.
I am
[}
4 happy that you looked at more things at level 2 and 3.
5 I was just confused because of the fact that on the 6
Table F.3 it is true with respect to indicators, 7
transmitters and controls that in each one of those 8
areas there were more items looked at in level 2 and 3.
9 And wha t you 're sa ying is there were some other, 10 possibly some other items that are not looked at in 11 level 1 in the electrical a rea, is that correct?
12 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think all the items that 13 were looked at are specifically identified in the same O
14 appendix tha t you are looking at.
And to make an answer 15 to your question, I think we would have to compare 16 specifics.
17 Q
This is not an area I'm not going to get into 18 in any depth.
It was just a matter that confused me, 19 and I though t it had a simple explanation.
Apparently, 20 it is not that significant in your view, is that correct?
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
What is not that significant?
22 You 're kind of having a very broad dialogue instead of 23 having a question and answer.
24 MR. DYNNER:
I withdraw the question.
25 BY MR. DYNNER:
t r.eraming )
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGtNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,112
()
1 Q
Mr. Johnson, when Torrey Pines made its 2
selection of the items, components to be subjected to 3
the Tast C inspection were you aware of the NRC's C-A-T s
4 or CAT inspection of the Shoreham plant?
5 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, sir.
6 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
7 Q
Er. Novarro, did it occur to you when you were 8
in contact with Torrey Pines regarding this inspection 9
to bring to Torrey Pines' attention the CAT inspection?
10 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I don't recall when the CAT 11 inspection was performed, so I'm having difficulty with 12 the time f ra me.
13 0
Well, if I told you that the CAT inspection 14 preceded the late April time frame when you first 15 con tacted Torrey Pines and preceded the May 18th date 16 when Torrey Pines began its inspection, would that help 17 you?
18 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I did not tell Torrey Pines 19 about that inspection, if it occurred in that time 20 frame.
I don't recall.
I don't think I told Torrey 21 Pines about many, many other inspections that the NRC 22 conducted at Shoreham over the life of the construction 23 project.
It just wouldn't be a practical thing to do, 24 and I think it also might have imposed an additional 25 bias or some concern beyond the independent nature of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,113
()
1 the look that Torrey Pines was going to do.
2 0
Mr. Johnson, if you -- by "you" I mean Torrey 3
Pines -- if Torrey Pines had known that there we re
{}
4 certain areas of the plant which had been subjected to 5
previous NRC inspections and for which various problems 6
had been identified, would that have in any way 7
influenced the areas that you chose to inspect in Task C7 8
A (WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, it would not.
The 9
selection method of Task C is based on a broad range of 10 con struction a ttributes, not on the history of the 11 plant; and it is based upon looklag at the plant or 12 systems in that context.
13 0
Well, if the purpose of the review had to do A
14 with the quality assurance program for Shoreham -- I 15 think it did, didn't it, Mr. Johnson?
16 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
The purpose of the review 17 was to look at the construction control program and its l
18 implementation and its product on Shoreham.
19 0
And chat is a QA/QC program, isn't it, Mr.
i 20 Johnson?
21 A
(W IT NESS JOHNSON)
The Q A program is the 22 predominant element in that, yes.
23 0
Then in reaching conclusions about the QA
()
24 prcorams, which is the predominant element in the 25 construction and con trol program that you were O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,114
)
1 reviewing, wouldn't it be relevant to you that there 2
were certain areas in the plant that had demonstrated
/'3 3
problems in the OA area, if that were the case?
\\~J l
4 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That is possible.
I think 5
the degree of those problems would have to be evaluated, 6
too.
7 0
If you had known, for exam ple, th a t there were 8
a number of NRC IEE reports in a given area covering 9
given matters, is it possible that that could have 10 affected the selection of items or components in th e 11 plant that you would have wanted to focus down on in 12 your Task C inspection?
13 MR. ELLIS:
I object to the question.
14 Anything is possible.
I don 't know how probative that 15 question is, and I object to it.
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
I recognize that as the 17 standard lawyer's objection to possible, and (a) it is 18 technically valid in almost all contexts, and (b) it is 19 practically valid in a lot of contex ts.
But' de pending 20 upon the witness' answer here, your objection may be of 21 less import, and it might be more efficient to hear 1
l 22 that.
Maybe sometimes the answer is very highly 23 unlikely, and in which case we have the record anyway.
24 Many times in general throughout the 25 proceeding I have pointed out that when you are dealing O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 4')0 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,115
()
1 in a technical area with expert witnesses, they don 't 2 normally need quite the same protection that a nonexpert 3 witness needs, and when you throw in the fact that you
{us}
4 are not before a jury, sometimes that ameliorates some 5 of the concern.
6 And I don 't mean to stop anybody from doing 7 their job here, but I can have him rephrase the 8 question, and I suspect it will take two or three 9 questions to get back to the same point.
10 All right.
I will tell you what.
Let's try a 11 little experimen t he re.
I sustain the objection.
12 Rephrase it to get where you want to go.
Because if we 13 just get a simple "Yes, anything is possible" answer, O^
14 then you will have to go on anyway.
15 While Mr. Dynner is thinking about he's going 16 to rephrase it, keep in mind what I just said for the 17 future, and that is why I spoke at greater length than l
18 was necessary for this particular objection.
19 Mr. Dynner, you have to ask another question.
20 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
21 BY MR. DYNNERs (Resuming) 22 0
Mr. Johnson, prior to the commencement of the 23 Torrey Pines review did Torrey Pines look at any NRC ICE
(
24 reports related to Shoreham?
25 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE-S W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,116
()
1 Q
If you had looked at ICE reports related to 2
Shoreham and they had indicated problem areas in the r'
3 plant, would that have affected Torrey Pines
- judgment V) 4 as to which components and items to include in Task C?
5 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
If we had looked at ICE 6 reports and if there were consistent hardware problems 7 in a given area indicating that the product of the 8 construction control program was not right in that area, 9 that could influence our selection.
10 The significance aspect has to come in, and 11 that would have to be related to the end product of the 12 construction control program to affect Task C.
13 0
Would it, and by "it" I mean your knowledge of A)
\\
14 IEE reports on any problems in various areas, would it 15 have affected your judgment as to the scope of tasks i
16 other than Task C?
17 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Not unless they were of 18 major significance.
As we have started out this whole 19 discussion, this is an independent review, and I would 20 point out that it is also independent of NRC as well as 21 LILCO, and for that reason we would do our own 22 evaluations.
If there was something glaringly major, 23 then that migh t ha ve an ef f ect.
But we do our own
(
24 review of the situation and our own evaluation.
25 0
In the course of preparing to carry out the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,117
()
1 Torrey Pines review did you ask anyone at LILCO or any 1
2 of the contractors about whether there were any NRC l
3 inspection reports or ICE reports or other relevant data
(" }
4 of that nature?
5 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I believe we were aware of 6 some at least ICE inspection reports during the course 7 of that review -- not prior to the start of the review.
8 Q
Well, Mr. Johnson, you will recall that I 9
referred the other day to the May 1982 proposal which 10 Torrey Pines prepared for LILCO and which was sent under 11 cover of the May 17, 1982 letter from Mr. Wessman to Mr.
t 12 Novarro.
And you may recall there that I read to you 13 and asked you a couple of questions concerning a 0
14 sentence on the second paragraph of page 1-1 of the 15 proposal which read s as follows.
" Concerns have been voiced by both 16 17 governmental and private sectors relating to the 18 adequacy of the Shcrcham plant, and LILCO has responded 19 successfully with numerous audits and checks on the 20 adequacy of th e plant, including third party and special 21 NRC investigations."
l 22 Now, Mr. Johnson, does that refresh your 23 recollection as to whether or not Torrey Pines knew of 24 NRC audits and inspections and checks prior to the time 25 that it undertook the Torrey Pines review.
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,118
()
1 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
My recollection stands as I 2
think I testified before, that was a statement made 3
based upon a general statement tha t Mr. Novarro had
()
4 provided to us.
5 0
Well, my point is doesn' t. this letter indicate 6
that at least Torrey Pines knew that such inspections or 7
a udits had in fact been carried out by the NRC, and as 8
you sta ted in the letter, responded successfully to by 9
LILCO?
10 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
Torrey Pines is very aware 11 that the NRC makes inspections and writes reports and 12 that those reports are responded to.
And if they were 13 not responded to in a sufficient manner, th e plan t would O
14 not be being constructed at this point in time.
I 15 0
Well, if you knew generally about the 16 existence of such inspection reports and reviews, and 17 if, as you testified, at least in ce rtain circumstances 18 they might be or would be relevant to items to be 19 selected, for example, for Task C, why didn 't you ask 20 LILCO f or copies of th ese NRC reports?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I already testified 22 tha t the only condition under which such reports might 23 affect the study is if they were of major significance.
24 And I think I already testified also that it is our 25 intent to perform a ve rifica tio n tha t is independent not l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,119 O
i on1r of tItCO aut or the NaC end the orogram is 2
structured that way.
3 0
Did you ask LILCO whether any of the NRC 4
reports were of major significance?
5 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I don't believe that I ever 6
asked the question in that context a fter th e start of 7
the program.
I believe I discussed with Mr. Nova rro 8
what NBC actions were in the process or what things were 9
involved there, but I did not ask Mr. Novarro whether 10 the re were any NRC actions that were of major 11 significance.
12 0
Mr. Johnson, did Torrey Pines ever become 13 aware, either before or after it commenced the review, O
14 of any electrical separation problems in the plant or a 15 history of such problems?
16 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I think I was aware that s
17 there were some discussions rela ting to electrical 18 separation, yes.
19 0
When did you become aware roughly of the 20 ele ctrical separation issue ?
21 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
I have no idea.
During the 22 course of the program.
23 0
Do you regard electrical separation as 24 something that is important to the safety of the plant?
25 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
It is one item that is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V1AGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,120
()
1 related to the safety of the plant, yes.
2 0
When you learned of the electrical separation 3
issues did it cause Torrey Pines to mala any changes in
[}
4 the review of the Shoreham plant that it was undertaking?
5 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
No, sir.
6 0
Can you summarize for us, Mr. Johnson, wha t 7
was the extent of Torrey Pines' inspection of electrical 8
separation in the plant?
9 A
(WITNESS JOHNSON)
That was not an item that 10 we inspected.
11 A
(WITNESS NOVARRO)
I would like to add to that 12 answer.
And I think that this issue has been discussed 13 at this hearing many, many times.
O 14 Electrical separation as we are considering it 15 is a design issue.
And on that basis it would not have 16 been something tha t Torrey Pines would have reviewed.
17,They did review the construction of raceways and 18 conduit.
The design of such items is covered by 19 drawings or specifications or change control documents, 20 and tha t is what would have been used, and that would l
21 have been the scope of their review.
22 We have said in the report, I believe several 23 times, that the design review issue is not something s) 24 that Torrey Pines was involved in.
i 25 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
O I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA A% E., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,121
()
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Dynner, it is about time 2
to recess if we wan t to lea ve a few minutes to get time
(~%
3 estimates and so on.
Would this be a convenient place
\\J 4
for you?
5 MR. DYNNER Yes.
Thank you, Judge Brenner.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
At the beginning of this week 7
I think it is fair to say you scoffed at or at least 8
disagreed with Mr. Ellis' characterization of two weeks 9
of cross examination by the County of this panel.
We 10 have done other things this week besides cross 11 exa mina tion, and we are well aware of that.
12 Nevertheless, I am becoming concerned that at this pace 13 it is going to take you longer than I believe you had O
14 con templa ted, and therefore, by definition longer than 15 anybody else had contemplated.
16 Can you give us a time estimate and explain 17 the ranges and so on?
18 (Pause.)
l 19 I thought you were going to think about this L
20 earlier.
Remember, I mentioned it before the break.
21 MR. DYNNER:
I have been thinking about it, as 22 you succested, and discussing it with my colleagues; and 23 I am not moving as quickly as I thought it would be
)
possible to do, certainly on Task C.
24 25 I am going to assume that I should be able to O
l l
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,122
()
1 finish this whole area in another four hours or so, and 2
then, depending upon if we then go into the next area 3
which is on page 11 of the cross plan, that begins Roman
)
4 numerals IV, V and VI.
As you are aware, that area, the 5
length of time that will take will in part depend upon 6
what kind of factual stipulations that we are able to 7
get from LILCO.
8 We have talked quite a bit 9
JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, remember, not just 10 f actual stipulations -- I will take that as the 11 shorthand -- but we discussed the other possibilities 12 even in the absence of f actual stipula tions, getting the 13 explanation and so on.
14 MR. DYNNER:
Well, we need to get the 15 stipulation, or at least we need to get the 16 determination of fact before we start even discussir.g
}7 explanation; and I don't know when that's going to 18 happen.
19 So that area of IV, V and VI is an area which 20 I certainly have gotten the very, very strong impression 21 from the Board that that is an area you would like to 22 compress as much as possible.
And we are moving in that 23 direction, and we hope that the discussions with LILCO 24 will enable us to move even more strongly in that 25 direction.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,123 O
1 and we have ne desire and no intention, havino 2
heard the Board's views, of going through each and every 3
document.
We are going to try to take Judge Brenner's 4
suggestions to heart about asking these questions very 5
succinctly f rom the top down rather than from the bottom 6
up.
7 We then will cover, as you know, Roman numeral 8 VII on the cross plan which, as I have indicated to you 9
in part, has been covered; but if you look at that you 10 vill see that there are areas that I would think should 11 be of significant interest to the Board tha t we would go 12 into.
13 MR. ELLIS:
Seven was not on mine.
Is that O
14 one we don't have?
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
I think he could give you the 16 topic.
17 MR. DYNNER:
That is our Roman II, Tim, on the 18 list.
19 MR. ELLISs Okay.
Thank you.
20 MR. DYNNER:
We just have a different system 21 of numbering on the cross plan and the list.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
They are not exactly co-equal, 23 but you haven't answered my question yet.
All of that said and done, you 25 are forcinq me to the wall because I am dealing with a O
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,124
(
1 great deal of unknown, an unknown quantity.
I certainly 2
foresee that, assuming we don't have other matters 3 coming into this thing as we did this week, that by
(}
4 Thursday I ought to be completed.
5 We're going to try to move as quickly as 6 possible, and the Board has certainly been a. spur to 7 that determination on our part.
I don't know whether I 8 can predict any more or any better than I have done 9 because of these variables that are involved.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
We will think about it, too, 11 but on our own.
We would have thoug ht that even in the 12 absence of what we hope is the meaningful assistance 13 towards efficiency of LILCO and the County exchanging 0)*
14 and discussing what we said they would, that you would 15 finish by Thursday.
And therefore, we hope that that is 16 the maximum, and to the extent efficiencies are 17 achieved, that will shorten that.
18 It is also our hope that the foundation that 19 you stated was so important for the County to lay in 20 going through the de tails of the tasks and why, and 21 which we are allowing you to do.
And I admit we have 22 complained about it, but complaints are different than 23 not allowing you to do it.
24 We hope that that thereby shortens also be a 25 meaningful margin what you have to do in the other O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,125 O
i ses,erte.
2 MB. DYNNER:
I think it will, Judge Brenner.
[]}
3 As I have indica ted, it is just very hard to make these 4
predictions.
I hope it is an area that the Board is 5 interested in and that we are able to stimulate you to 6 be interested in in terms of the range of the questions 7
we are asking.
8 We a re no t a t all trying to do anything that 9
would delay this procedure or cover any areas that to don 't think are significant.
we We are getting answers 11 sometimes that are causing i
i us to change the cross plan i
12 so we reduce the number of questions we are asking in 1 (:)
other a reas.
Ob vio usly, we're getting 13 answers that 14 stimulate further inquiry, and we certainly have very 15 carefully and seriously in mind the Board 's feelings 16 about this.
But we will try to do it in a manner that both serves our clients and 17 at the same time is 18 efficient.
19 JUDGE BRENNERs All right.
Keep in mind the 20 context of Torrey Pines' re port juxta posed against the 21 much larger area of LILCO's QA/QC and what LILCO may have done or not done.
22 23 And I think the context is fairly simple.
It is whether or not 24 the conclusions in the report are 25 supported by the report and then whether or not -- well, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASMNGTQht
~
~
18,126
(
1 I think we could stop there with tha t simple context, 2
and to argue about what the conclusions mean in the
(}
3 context of the report sometimes gets beyond the facts 4
and into the realm of things that can be argued outside 5 of the questions and answers.
6 And keeping in mind the purpose of the report 7
was a verifica tion of the existing si tua tio n, I will 8 give you one hint that we have some concern that Roman 9
IV on your memorandum, whether each of the 13 corrective 10 action plans get to the root cause, should be viewed in 11 that context.
It is pertinent but not as an end in 12 itself.
13 And I will stop there also.
O 14 All righ t.
When you mentioned you don't know 15 when some of these things can be done, if they are not 16 done between now and 10:30 Monday morning -- that is, 17 the exchange of all of this inf orma tion between the I
18 parties -- we would like to hear why not so we l
19 understand where the breakdown was, if you will, and we l
20 will take that into account.
And there is a message in 21 there.
22 JUDGE CARPENTER Mr. Dynner, if I may share 23 my feelings ra ther than thoughts with you --
I Q
L/
24 MR, DYNNER:
Should I duck for cover?
j 25 (Laughter.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,127
()
1 JUDGE CABPENTERs I just wanted to get your 2
reaction to my comment.
You know, I look at the cross 3 plan, and I see the logic of it, I think; and then I
{}
4 listen to the fleshing out of the questions, which are 5 very orderly and very carefully asked.
But as I sit 6 here and listen, what I'm learning is what the report is 7
not rather than what the report is.
And as I said 8
earlier, there are areas where one doesn't have to go 9
through so many examples to ask the question, why wasn't 10 the following approach to go back specitically to the 11 corrective action plan, the CAPS, to go through all 13 12 of those, to make it abundantly clear that they are not 13 attempts at a generic solution.
O 14 You know, that is pa tently obvious f rom simply 15 reading them.
It would be much more useful to me -- and 16 I'm speaking as an individual Board member -- to explore 17 why not rather than the hassle over what to me most 18 readers would conclude.
19 Do we need to go for six hours to make it 20 clear what they are not rather than discussing the issue 21 of what they are, and is it really appropriate?
And I'm 22 just trying to be responsive.
If we don't talk to you, 23 you don't know what we're thinking.
(
24 MR. DYNNER:
We very much appreciate your 25 views, Judge Carpenter.
That is very helpful.
And we O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18,128 1
certainly will take your views and statements and give 2
lt very serious consideration when that area comes up.
3 And in general I think it is helpful.
(}
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
We will add it always seems 5
easier from up here, and some of us have been in both 6
places, and we take that into account.
But even taking 7
that into account, we hope that things can move a little 8
more quickly; and we have said this to almost all cross 9
examiners for all parties throughout the proceeding, so 10 no one counsel has to duck.
11 I will add the obvious just to illuminate what 12 we are saying.
If we weren 't dealing with highly 13 competent, sophisticated people, we might not be as 7-V 14 aggressive in getting to where we think those people are 15 capable of getting, and tha t applies to you as well as 16 everybody else before us.
17 One minor points the parties will be filing 18 testimony on the issues that have been deferred to the 19 extent they are not settled; and we set schedules for 20 that and for motions to strike and responses to motions 21 to strike.
And the parties have to tell us what minor 22 adjustments they've made to those schedules, because the 23 schedules were set with the Tuesday through Friday
(~)
\\/
24 hearing schedule in mind, and there has to be an 25 adjustment of moving up by a day or two the responses to
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18,129 1
the motions and possibly, therefore, the date for the 2
motions.
And that is going to come up soon with respect 3
to any aspects of environmental qualification that are 4
not resolved.
So I will mention that.
5 Er. Irwin had said the parties would get back 6
to us, and we said whatever the parties work out is 7
going to be fines we just want to know.
8 MR. ELLIS.
I will communicste that to Mr.
9 Irwin so tha t we're prepared to communicate back to the 10 Board on Monday.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is acceptable.
That can 12 wai t.
13 All right.
We will adjourn until 10:30 on O
14 Monday morning.
15 (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m.,
the hearing was 16 recessed, to be reconvened at 10:30 a.m.,
- Monday, 17 January 17, 1983.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 O
2, 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W,. WASHINGTON O C. 20024 (202; 554-2345
)
NUCLEAR N *CRT COMMISSICN r'OThis is to certify that. the. attached preceedings before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
- D a.C 4 of Proceeding:
Janun,v 13, 1983 Dockec Nu:::ber:
50-322-oL Place of Proceeding; Haupeauge, New York wore held as herein appears, and. that this is the origt aL transe:-tpt therecf for the fila c.f the Coc::::1ssicc.
Ray Heer C'fficia! Eeporter (Typed)
C
.~
Officia M aporter (Signature) l l
l t
O_
O.
3-
-