ML20054E640
| ML20054E640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206140018 | |
| Download: ML20054E640 (227) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9 F rn , 4 NCC*.2.AR REGU~ATORY CO WlSSICN js. I1La i
4a t
b ; f tt 3, O
e BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mat::ar cf: .
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL (Shorenam Nuclear Power Station) : ,
O DATI: June 9, 1982 PAGES: 3818 - 4037 m: Hauppauge, New York TR* ^: ;
.unensos /- aooan.m
{
400 vi_T d a Ave., S.W. Washing.==, D. C. 20024 Talaphc:a : (202) 554-2345 820614001g PDR ADOCK ofhhk[2 PDR !:
j
35318 Q 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 --
x 5 In the Matter ofs s 8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY s Docket No. 50-322-OL 7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) a 8 -----------------x 9 Third Floor, B Building 10 Court of Claims 11 State of New York 12 State Office Building 13 Hauppauge, New York 14 Wednesday, June 9, 1982 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened, 18 pursuant to recess, at 9:04 a.m.
l 17 BEFOREs 18 LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman 19 Administrative Judge 20 21 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member 22 Administrative Judge 23 24 PETER A. MORRIS, Member 25 Administrative Judge O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.M 3819 O i aretaainces.
2 Ou behalf of Applicants 3 W. TAYLOR REVELEY, III, Esq.
4 DONALD P. IRW a, Esq.
i 5 Hunton C Williams 6 707 East Main Street 7 Richmond, Virginia 23212 8 On behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staffa 9 BERNARD BORDENICK, Esq.
10 Washington, D.C. 20555 11 On behalf of Suffolk Countys 12 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
13 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, O 14 Christopher & Phillips 15 1900 N Street, N.W.
16 Washington, D.C. 20036 17 18 19 20 21 1
22 23 O 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.J~
..r 4 Q,
3819-A tO ' carranza GCSS 2 WITNESSES: DIFBCT CRJSS REDIRECP REGOSS BOMO CN BOMD Richard E. Fortier,
- y. 4 Johnny J. Kreps and Robert Kirkwood (Resumed)
,\ 5 By Mr. Lanpher 3858 6 (Afternoon Session .. page 3918) 7 Richard E. Fortier, 8
Johnny J. Kreps and Robert Kirkwood (Resumed) g By Judge Morris 3919 By Judge Brenner 3923 10 By Mr. Reveley 3928 By Judge Morris 3936
- 11 3938
- By Judge Brenner By Mr. Lanpher 3939 12 By Judge Morris 3951 13 By Judge Brenner 3953 By Mr. Lanpher 3957 14 By Judge Brenner 3960 By Mr. Lanpher 3962 15 Robert L. Rothman, 16 Sang Bo Kim, Albert Yao Chee Wong 37 and 18 A. Stanley Lucks
$ By Mr. Irwin 3966 19 By Mr. Bordenick 3976 By Mr. Lanpher 3985 20 By Judge Brenner 4003 By Judge Morris 4003 By Judge Carpenter 4008 22 By Judge Brenner 4009 By Mr. Lanpher 4011 23 24 25 O
ALDEHSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
3819-B q q g T_ E E 1 S 2
EEEEE1EE BOUND IN 4 NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT 5 Suffolk County #13 3853 3863 3863 6
Suffolk County #14 3873 7
Suffolk County #15 4040 8
9 10 Suff olk County Exhibit Number 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page 38 63 Il Testimony of Albert Yao Chee Wong for the 12 Long Island Lighting Companyon SOC Contention
~
19 (e) -- Seismic Design and Prcfessional
~
13 Qualifications of Albert Yao Chee Wong and C
~ ~ ~
A. Stanley Lucks......................'..............page 3970 ,
14 NRC Staff Testimony of ' Sang Bo Kim and Robert 15 L. Rothman on Seismic Design (SOC Contention 16 19 (e) ) and the Professional Qualifications of Sang Bo Kim and Robert L. Rothman...................page 3979 17 18 )
I RECESSES:
19 20 #" "9 ~
21 Noon - 3917 22 Afternoon - 3965 23 24 25 ,
O ALDERSOfJ REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3820 O a8acIEoI8Sa 2 JUDGE BRENNERs Good mo rning.
3 He have a few procedural matters, as you know, 4 that we discussed briefly yesterday in part and held 5 over for further discussion today. I would like not to 6 take up too much time away from the testimony, so let's 7 go through the important ones first,and then I would 8 hope that other miscellaneous matters thar. need not be 9 decided at the beginning of the day today ve can hold 10 until the end of the day or, preferably, tomorrow 11 morning.
12 We will discuss one matter off the record and 13 in private among counsel today, and the time to do that 14 will be when we break for lunch. If counsel could 15 remain, we could go next door and discuss that matter 16 briefly.
17 In terms of priorities, perhaps the first 18 thing we should take up is the motion of LILCO to add 19 Dr . Lucks, L-u-c-k-s, as a witness on Suffolk Contention l
20 19E since that will come up as the next contention.
I 1
21 Mr. Irwin, you are up for that one. I 22 MR. IRWIN: Yes, Judge Brenner.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me make one preliminary remark, which does not go at all to deciding the
( 24 25 particular motion bef ore us, however the Board believes ,
1 I
l l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 V!RGIMA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3821
() 1 there is a misstatement in the second sentence of the 2 motion, and we raise it to make sure that the 3 misstatement does not represent a substantive 4 misunderstanding in what our ruling was because if it 5 does, you should go back and discuss it again.
6 The statement states that on May 27, 1982, the 7 Board ruled taat the contention did not involve the 8 issue of how the design response spectra interacted with 9 other considerations to produce an adequately 10 conservative seismic design (a perspective which Dr.
11 Wong is well able to provide).
12 That does not quite represent the full 13 pi cture . More fully, we ruled that if . LILCO vishes to 14 include in its case in support of the design response 15 spectra, pickad these other considerations -- and as you 16 will recall, the other considerations are the alleged 17 conservatism in the choice of the intensity of the 18 ea rthquake and also the alleged conservatism in the 19 choice of the acceleration of the earthquake, which, of 20 course, translates into the anchor point f or the 21 spectrum -- cur ruling was that if LI1CO did seek to 22 include that, that was its decision and we would not 23 prohibit LILCO f rom doing that; but it raised other
() 24 25 rights with respect to the County and possibly the Staff in terms of the Staff perhaps wanting to support in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
f 1 l
3822 '
I further detail what might loom as a disagreement between i
2 it and LILCO.
! 3 Mr. Irwin, do you want to comment on that?
4 MR. IRWIN: We agree with your interpretation 5 of your ruling, Judge Brenner. We did not mean to l 6 suggest otherwise in that sentence.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. The reason I 8 raised it, as I said, was to assure that a lack of 9 clarity on our part in what was an oral ruling not 10 translate into a fundamental misunderstanding for 11 further litigation in this matter.
12 MR. IRWINs Thank you, Judge Brenner.
13 In support of our motion, I believe that the 14 basic arguments set forth in the brief motion are pretty 15 self-explanatory. However, I think it is pretty
{
16 important to remember that we are dealing in a context 17 where the Board has expressed an interest in and a 18 concern for developing the best possible record and for 19 obtaining the best possible witnesses to testify on 20 matters which are potentially in controversy.
l 21 The derivation of the seismic response l
22 criteria is one whose focus has emerged as this hearing 23 has progressed and has really come into sharp focus only within the past week since th e testimony was filed. As
) 24 25 Er. Reveley indicated last week in response to the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3823
() 1 Board's discussion last Wednesday afternoon, LILCO has 2 embarked on a campaign to make sure that it has the best
(~ 3 possible people able to answer the most specific V} questions that the Board or other parties can put to us.
4 5 Dr. Lucks' presence is in response to that 6 concern by the Board.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We vill turn to 8 the County in a moment.
9 In general we understand we are in a bit of a 10 tight time frame on the contentions first coming up.
11 Er. Reveley also indicated that LILCO planned, if not a 12 total filing indicating all additional witnesses, at 13 least I infer from that that there would be an attempt O 14 to provide further notice for contentions further ahead 15 in the schedule.
16 HR. IRWIN: That is correct, Judge Brenner.
17 We are assembling, literally hour by hour, commitments 18 from people who have busy schedules and work from a 19 number of organirations. I am not sure that we will 1
20 have a comprehensive list by the end of this week, but 21 ve are trying to leap-frog further ahead, contention by 22 contention, as time goes on. You just cannot simply 23 pick up a witness off the shelf and plug him in. You
( 24 have to talk with him and find him and that kind of 25 thing.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
r l
3824 JUDGE BBENNERa We understand that.
j (]) 1 2 Br. Lanpher, do you want to respond to this 3 particular motion beyond the general objections that we 4 ruled on last week?
5 HR. LANPHER: Yes, I do, Judge Brenner. ,
6 First I would like to state that we were in 7 communication with Mr. Shea last night with respect to 8 this. I did not realize this would be taken up the 9 first order of business. Maybe I should have. He was 10 going to attempt to be here but I think I know his 11 position.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: I believe you, along with the 13 Board, were anxious to deal with this as soon as 14 possible given the schedule.
I 15 HR. LANPHER: No, I have objection to dealing 16 with it now. I just wanted the Board to understand that 17 he will ha here later. I am perfectly willing to 18 address it right now, and I do have concerns beyond 19 those which the Board ruled upon last week.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. I am going to let 21 You do that in a moment. I understand the context of 22 Your comments. I think Mr. Shea should have been here 23 to protect his interest today if he wanted to because 24 for all he knew, we would get into the seismic 25 contention in the next hour. I do not expect to move O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3825
() 1 that fast, but it could ha ve ha ppened.
2 Well, generally a SOC representative has not 3 been here. There is no excuse for his not being here l
4 this morning. But you proceed from the point of view of 5 the county.
I 6 HR. LANPHER4 Thank you, Judge Brenner.
l l 7 Just a couple of comments. I have no 8 objection to the Soard trying to get the best record 9 possible. Frankly, my concern with the addition of Mr.
10 Lucks - and we, just like the Board, learned of it last 11 night at the close of yesterday's session, this proposed 12 addition. It is our opportunity to prepare for a 13 different sponsor to this testimony. As the Board 14 knows -- you have reviewed my cross examination plan, I 15 chink -- the addition of Mr. Lucks will necessarily have 16 to change my approach.
17 Number two, if I had known that Mr. Lucks was 18 going to be on this panel -- and I did not know until 19 la st night --
I would have had to very seriously 20 consider bringing in a consultant who has been assisting 21 me in my preparation for this examination to hate him 22 here and present. He happens to be in California and 23 obviously cannot be here on this kind of short notice.
I feel s severe prejudice from this late addition of a
( 24 25 witness who in my opinion brings sharply different O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3826 qualifications to support this testimony.
(]) 1 2 The third point I would like to make is that I
-, 3 think -- well, I would just like to reiterate the 4 Board 's sta tement that I think the scope of this 5 centention has been clear from the very start, with the 6 exception of the ground motion portions that were 7 struck. This is not a case where SOC or the County has 8 put in the testimony and all of a sudden we have a 9 vastly broadened contention. We did not put in 10 testimony here, but the contention itself addressus the 11 question of the conservatism of the spectrum.
i 12 Mr. Wong in his prefiled testimony is the one 13 that raised the derivation of that spectrum. It is at 14 page 4 of his testimony. Now, if he was not able -- I 15 assume he wrote this. He ought to be able to support 18 this testimony.
17 Our bottom line is one of two things, Judge 18 Brenner. Either we should go forward with this is testimony sponsored as originally proposed, and if 20 subsequently there is a need to supplement or the Board 21 wants additional witnesses, that is, of course, within 22 Your discre tion, or this testimony ought to be deferred 23 to give me an opportunity to revise my plan, to have my 24 expert consult with me so that I can be adequately 25 prepared.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3627
() 1 I an deeply concerned with getting this kind 2 of notice the nigh t before. I understand we are on a 3 tight time frame, but I feel particularly in this case 4 this will create a severe prejudice to the County's 5 opportunity to pursue this matter. And one night's 6 preparation is just not enough given the press of the 7 many details that have to be attended to in this case.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: You have some inconsistencies 9 in your argument. By the same token, there are some 10 inconsistencies for the same reason -- th at is , ther 11 are corollary inconsistencies -- in LILCO's motion, and 12 they are this.
13 On the one hand, your main claim of prejudice 14 is that you would have vastly different preparation, yet 15 there is no additional substantive testimony, and you 16 yourself made the point that Dr. Wong's testimony does 17 address -- I do not want to discuss now how sufficient 18 it addresses it, but at least alludes to the spectrum.
19 So there is not additional testimony to prepare for.
20 I do not have your cross examination plan 21 right in f ront of me. I am reasonably familiar with it 22 and I certainly understand how you would have to have an 23 additional qualifications inquiry if you wished it.
() 24 However, an important line in your cross examination plan -- I want to try to say this without revealing any 25 O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
_ _ ~ . . - . _- .-
3828 i () 1 detail, but I do not think saying what I as about to say 2 would have any litigative strategic prejudice to you.
3 You do ask about the spectra, many of the same
{}
4 questions that the Board has, and those questions can be 5 asked, and to the extent it is Dr. Lucks who knows the 8 detail as opposed to Dr. Wong, we are happy to have Dr.
1 7 Lucks to supply that, and I think that is consistent 8 wi th your opening comments. So I am not sure what 9 additional substantive preparation you would need. I 10 can see where you might want to ask questions about 11 qualifications, but that does not take the same type of 12 preparation.
13 And let me make one other point. We agree i
O 14 with you in part in that it should have been clear from i
15 the beginning that somebody with Dr. Lucks' 18 qualifications would have been important to this t
17 contention. There is an inference in the motion to add 18 Dr. Lucks that the motion to strike gave renewed impetus l Ig to the need to add Dr. Lucks. LILCO is entitled to that
- 20 view, but the Board believes quite the contrary, that if 21 anything, it would have been the granting of the motion l 22 a denial of the motion to strike which would have 1
23 resulted in getting into the discussion of the
( 24 seismology, the choice of the intensity and the choice 25 of the acceleration, would have even more required Dr.
i i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20'24 (202) 554-2345
3829 Lucks' presence rather than less.
({} 1 2 Dr. Wong, as I recall, is a structural 3 engineer, and it is quite obvious to the Board tha t when 4 you are getting into details of the spectrum, there is a 5 meshing of disciplines between a structural engineer and 6 a seismologist, or a geotechnical engineer, if you 7 vill. So we disagree that granting the motion to strike 8 gave impetus to needing Dc.. Lucks.
9 However, we also are happy to have Dr. Lucks 10 added to the panel for the reasons we generally 11 indicated in both our general comments and in the ruling 12 on your prior action. But if I could ascertain better
- 13 what additional preparation you need, we would be 14 interested in assuring that you are not prejudiced.
15 NH. LANPHERa Well, Judge Brenner, I was not 16 able to talk with this expert that I had been consulting 17 with on this contention last night. He was 18 unavailable. I do nct know exactly --
I just know that 19 we prepared for the witnesses that were sponsoring this 1
20 te stim o ny . We have put together some exhibits for that 21 and I have prepared my cross examination plan and 22 amendments to it, my markups in that way.
23 Now frankly, I know your good faith, Judge Brenner, in saying that, gee, I do not think the
( 24 25 substance has been changed, but I cannot say that I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
r 3830 I would not have substantially different exhibits or
(])
2 approach. I cannot make that decision overnight, and 3 that is really my concern.
t 4 I want to be absolutely clear that we are not 5 trying to keep out relevant evidence or to prevent this 6 Beard from getting the best record. You have clearly an i
I 7 obligation to do that. But I think it is a vastly 8 different matter the night before to come in with new 9 witnesses, and I just think it is grossly unfair and 10 improper, and if the Board senses or LILCO senses a need 11 to supplement panels, I think we must set up a procedure
~
12 that we get advanced notification, and so that in 13 instances where people perceived a possible prejudice, 14 they have additional time.
15 Now, I can frankly say that with Mr. Kreps, 16 while I objected -- this is on SC-11 testimony --
I 17 reviewed the matters with my experts in this because I 18 happen to have those experts available, and I really did 19 not see deep down how it would too materially change my 20 cross examination plan. Now, there are some lines of
(
j 21 questions I would have to pursue differently on this 22 one. I must say I come out the other way.
23 That is my argument, sir, and --
() 24 JUDGE BRENNER Let me state I did not mean to state that I did not think the substance would change in 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3831
(]) I the answers. I think the substance would change in the 2 answers.
3 MR. LANPHER4 I think the substance changes in 4 the approach.
5 JUDGE BRENNER4 Well, that is the part I do 6 no t see. You would have to ask -- you have a lot of 7 questions about the spectra, and that is what we are 8 focusing on now, given the construction of the g contention in light of our prior discovery ruling and 10 LILCO's decision that they would want to stay with that 11 construction rather than expanding the inquiry into the 12 ea rthquake .
13 I will note parenthetically that the inquiry 14 might be expanded anyway depending upon our view of the 15 f urther information we have requested as to whether the 16 more recent earthquakes give any basis to further pursue 17 whether or not the correct intensity, that is, on the 18 modified Mercalli Scale earthquake, was chosen and 1g whether or not the proper acceleration value was 20 selected f or a given earthquake.
21 But that is an aside. If we were prescient to 22 know how that would work out, we might be able to handle 23 this together.
24 Are you requesting that this contention not be 25 tried at all this week or are you requesting a minor O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. _ - .-- -- - ~_ -- -
3832
() 1 shif t in the order? And why don't you tell me what the 2 discipline of your expert is also. You can tell me who 3 he or she is if you wish, but that is not necessary.
4 [ Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.]
5 MR. LAFPHER: His background is in both 6 geology and seismology. He is from California. He is 7 someone who has worked with MHB Technical Associates in 8 the past, and in the press of matters he was retained to 9 supply some briefing books for me and some other 10 assistance. We have talked on the phone. He has 11 assisted in preparation of the cross plan and other 12 things that we are not offering in his testimony, but he 13 is son.eone that I have relied upon in my preparation.
14 JUDGE BRENNER- It seems to me that it does 15 not affect your direct substantive questions, that is, 16 focusing on the basis for the comparison of their 17 spectra to the reg guide spectra and why their spectra 18 -- "their" being LILCO's selection of spectra -- is 19 adequately conservative for the Shoreham site. I can 20 see where you could claim the need for additional 21 preparation if you wanted to inquire into Dr. Lucks' 22 background cr whether he has published things in the 23 past that are a rg uably inconsistent with his present views and so on, but as to that aspect, we could bring
( ~
24 25 him back for that aspect.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3833 MR. L ANPHER : Obviously, I am not going to
(]) 1 2 speculate whether I would or would not. I obviously have not -- I have barely had a chance to read his --
O 3 4 JUDGE BRENNER: Why can't we go ahead with all 5 your substantive questions?
6 NR. LAMPHER: We can if you order me to do 7 so. I certainly am prepared to do so, Judge Brenner.
8 It is over my objection, though, for the reasons I 9 stated as well as the reasons I stated last week, but I 10 am not going to repeat those arguments.
11 JUDGE BRENNERs Well, you did not let me -
12 finish my sentence. It was going to be: Why can't we go 13 ahead with your questions to that panel which would not 14 result in any prejudice to you and then allow you 15 liberal right to call Dr. Lucks back for the purpose of 16 inquiry not into the substantive questions as to his 17 views of the spectra, but an inquiry, if you feel you 18 vant to question him further, on his qualifications or 19 on any prior matters that he has been involved in that 20 you think are arguably inconsistent with his present 21 views?
22 MR. LANPHER Well, I am not going to agree 23 with that approach.
JUDGE BRENNEBs I am not asking for your 1
( 24 25 agreement; I am asking you to tell me where the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3834
() 1 prejudice is in that approach.
2 MR. LANPHER: Where the prejudice is in what 3 you just proposed is not giving me a chance to recall 4 Dr. Lucks for further substantive inquiry if my 5 consultations with my experts indicate that there were 6 substantive areas that we would have wanted to pursue 7 with Dr. Lucks, but you -- well, those are my reasons.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: What else would you show your 9 expert that he does not already have? You do not have 10 any additional testimony of Dr. Lucks to show him. How 11 auch time do you need?
12 MR. LANPHERs I am not sure. I cannot answer i 13 tha t question, Judge Brenner.
O 14 JUDGE BRENNERa What else would you show to 15 your expert that LILCO has now provided besides Dr.
l 16 Lucks' qualifications?
17 MR. LANPHERs It is not a matter of what I 18 would show to the expert. The question is, in my 19 opinion, what possibly different approaches to cross 20 examination would we pursue in light of a new witness 21 co-sponsoring this testimony. I am not going to 22 speculate what different substantive approach it would 23 be. I just want it clear for the record tha t I have not
[) 24 had a chance to make that kind of inquir7 v'ith my v
25 expert, and thus I feel potential prejudice.
O ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3835 1 JUDGE BRENNERs All right.
(}
2 Does Staff have a position on it?
3 MR. BORDENICKs Judge Brenner, the Staff's O 4 position was to support the motion. Ess en tially what 5 Mr. Lanpher is saying is he maybe prejudiced by the fact 6 that the Applicant is adding the witness at the last 7 minute. That is the nature of the schedule on that 8 particular contention. However, I think the proposal 9 that the Board has outlined is more than adequate to 10 take care of any concerns if, in fact --
I appreciate 11 the fact that he cannot demonstrate what the prejudice 12 will be today because he has not had an opportunity to 13 talk to the particular expert that he is consulting with 14 on tha t contention, but if during the course of the 15 examination of the panel matters develop, the situation 16 can be taken care of in the recall of Dr. Lucks to give 17 him additional time to prepare.
, 18 I think, based on the f act that the Applicant I
19 is not adding any additional substantive testimony, th e 20 problems, if any, should be relatively minor and the 21 balance is the Applicant may have to recall Dr. Lucks to 22 accommodate any additional questions that Mr. La npher 23 may have that he could not have reasonably prepared for.
24 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, give us a moment.
/)
25 [ Board conferring.]
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 3836
(]) 1 JUDGE BRENNER We are going to in effect 2 grant the County's objection in part, I believe.
3 Perhaps Mr. lanpher will disagree with tha t 4 characterization of it, but let me explain. We will go 5 ahead with the combined panel with Dr. Lucks. Everyone e is to ask all the quastions they can ask now, and as I 7 indicated, from our view of the cross examination plan 8 there are a lot of questions on the basis for the choice 9 of the spectra that the County can and should ask.
10 However, we are going to permit these 11 witnesses to be recalled at the request of either the 12 Board or the County or, for that matter, any other party 13 to the extent even that it is even a kind of a 14 rebuttal. It is not a recall limited to qualifications; 15 it is a recall without limitation other than the 18 limitation we do not want you to ask the same questions 17 again. The main reason for that is an argument that you 18 did not raise, Mr. Lanpher, although your arguments also 19 support the result we have reached.
20 You may recall in our ruling on the general 21 approach of adding witnesses, we stated that there may 22 be a point where the direct testimony is just so brief, 23 shall we say, that the additional testimony that is actually heard orally from the witness is so much that
( 24 25 parties were deprived of their right to cross O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3837 e xa mina tion . We think that is very likely where this is
(]) 1 2 a contention where this is going to happen. That is, 3 you are going to be hearing the reasons in support of 4 the conclusions in LILCO's testimony for the first time 5 in response to your cross examination, and we think you 6 should have the opportunity to go through that record 7 af ter it is developed with the experts of your choosing 8 and call them back.
9 The Board is concerned that we might be 10 hearing some of these reasons for the first time now and 11 have follow-up questions also. That is our ruling.
12 I should add, Mr. Lanpher, tha t to the extent 13 it was important for your expert to be here to advise l
14 you -- and I realice that was not your main argument, 15 but you alluded to that -- that decision could have been 16 made to have the expert here today because it was 17 ce rtainly clear that you would have to get into areas of 18 your expert's expertise.
19 MR. IRWIN: Judge Brenner, may I ask for one 20 clarification of your ruling? In the demonstration of 21
-- I take it there would be a demonstration showing why 22 a party wished to go beyond Dr. lucks' qualifications 23 back into substantive areas, or is this going to be a preemptive right without any need for a basis of showing?
l
( 24 25 JUDGE BRENNER: No need for basis of showing.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
r 3838
() 1 We are not going to try to apply that judgment because 2 the alternative -- Mr. Lanpher is in a dif ficult 3 position of not knowing whether or not there is j 4 something he should be focusing on in light of this 5 additional witness. I must state he could not come up 6 with anything, and I do not see anything. However, it l
l 7 is not fair for a lawyer here without his expert to be i
i 8 put to that test on this kind of notice.
9 NR. IRWIN: I agree with that, J udge Brenner.
[ 10 I was just wondering whether, with the transcript in 11 front of him and having had an opportunity to review the 12 witness, whether a statement or showing or a reason i
13 might not be reasonable to require.
l I O 14 JUDGE BRENNEHa No. He will permit it the 15 other way. That is, if LILCO wants to argue that 16 nothing in addition to its written testimony came out on 17 the record and therefore there is no reason to require 18 them, we will listen to that argument, but if that is 19 the way it turns out, you have more problems than i 20 winning that procedural point. There is a lot of detail 1
21 missing from this testimony and it is clear to us and, I 22 think, clear to LILCO now.
23 I hope I am taking these items in what is the priority to have to consider them sooner rather than
( 24 25 later. I think as long as we are on the subject of
()
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3039 adding witnesses, it might be proper to take up the
(]) 1 2 Staff's motion to add Dr. Norman Lau ben , L-a -u -b -e -n , to 3 the . witness panel on SOC Contention 16 relating to clad 4 flow and flow blockage, unless somebody can tell me the 5 contention has been settled and therefore we need not 6 discuss it.
7 NR. REVELEYs Judge, I am afraid the 8 settlement discussions have broken down.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
10 Hr. Bordenick, I do not think it necessary for l
l 11 you to add anything to your motion unless you wish to.
12 HR. BORDENICK: I have nothing to add, Judge 13 Brenner.
14 JUDGE BRENNER: Are there any objections to 15 the motion.
16 HR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, on behalf of the 17 County, we do not have a position on this other than our 18 previous position.
19 I would like to say that Mr. Hinor informed me 20 that he had talked to Mr. Shea last night. Mr. Shea is 21 going to be here at 11:00 a.m. I do not know if he has 22 an objection or not. I understand your statement as to 23 he should be here, but I respectfully suggest perhaps on
[ that we could defer until approximate 11:00 this morning V) 24 25 when I believe Mr. Shea vill be here. I cannot speak O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3840
(} 1 for him.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: No, I want to rule now and I 3 vill reiterate on the record why. We have gone out of O 4 our way to accommodate SOC's attorneys not wanting to be 5 here. We recognize why they certainly do not want to be 6 here all the time and we a pprecia te that and we have 7 accommodated them by taking up motions, unless it is 8 related to the testimony being heard, solely at the 9 beginning of the day or the end of the day.
10 Further, we yesterday stated this would come 11 up today. So we have accommodated them to that extent 12 and tha t is the best we can do. I do not want to go 13 into it too far and it is not necessary by this, but 14 some of their claims as to the effect of the schedule on 15 their preparation of this case and then their later very 16 limited participation are not consistent. Let me leave l
17 it at tha,t.
18 All right, we will grant the motion to add Mr.
19 Lauben to the Staff's witness panel.
20 Related also to SOC Contention 16 was the 21 Staff's motion to separate its witnesses from LILCO's 22 witnesses. We indicated yesterday why we would be 23 inclined to keep the panel together, but we were going 24 to give you a chance to comment on our observations 25 today, Mr. Bordenick.
O -
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3041 ER. BORDENICK: Judge Brenner, our sole basis
(]) 1 2 for the motion was as indicated in the motion, that is, 3 the disagreement or potential disagreement between the 4 Applicant and the Staff, and as the Board pointed out 5 yesterday, they reconsidered that particular aspect as a 6 reason for separating the panels, and had we known that, 7 we may not have filed the motion.
8 While we do not withdraw the motion, we have 9 nothing further to add to yesterday's discussion on this
- 10 pa rticular motion .
11 JUDGE BRENNERs All right. And part of our 12 observations, which I may not have stated clearly, is 13 that the benefit of having the witnesses together we 14 think is substantial even where they disagree. In 15 addition, we did not see any prejudice to the Staff by 16 proceeding that way, and we will give you an opportunity 17 to state whether there is any prejudice.
18 MR. BORDENICKs I think the prejudice at this 19 point is really perceived. I cannot point to anything 20 concrete.
21 JUDGE BRENNERs All right. We will keep that 22 panel together. Don't let this inhibit you from l
l 23 informing us in advance so the parties can better prepare their cress examination if we grant the motion
( 24 25 as to why any of the panels should be separated. For O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
3842
() 1 example, the reason that everybody agreed on for 7B was 2 it would be totally unmanageable. So the Staff should 3 feel f ree to comment on any particular one.
4 MR. BORDENICKs We dc feel free. I do not 5 know whether we will have additional motions or not.
6 There is certainly the possibility that there will be 7 future motions.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: We have the Staff report, 9 particularly on loose parts monitoring system further 10 effort. We also, Mr. Bordenick, I hope you know, 11 invited the Staff to respond to our general comments on 12 supplementing witness panels and so on. Initially when 13 we made the comments, and you were present, I believe it O 14 was last --
15 MR. BORDENICK: Wednesday.
! 16 JUDGE BRENNER: -- W ednesday, we stated we 17 vere not inviting nor did we require any comments.
18 Nevertheless, LILCO made a response, which we found very 19 helpful to our understanding of what LILCO was going to 20 do, I believe on Thursday morning. And at that point, 21 when Mr. Repka was here for the Staff, we stated that it l 22 might also be helpful to hear from the Staff.
23 HR. BORDENICK: I am prepared to make some
() 24 responses to the Board's comments. Would you like me to 25 speak to the loose parts monitoring first?
O ALDERSON REPo1 TING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3843
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER Whichever order you wish to 2 take them in.
3 MR. BORDENICKs All right. Let me see.
4 On the loose parts monitoring contention, 5 which is Suffolk County 5, I believe, there was a 6 meeting in Bethesda yesterday, which, of course, I was 7 not present at since I was at the hearing, where that 8 particular subject. matter was one of many items on the 9 agenda, and if the Board recalls last week there was to testimony regarding an applicant letter dated March 11, 11 1982. I think, in fact, it was attached to the County's 12 testimony.
i 13 JUDGE BRENNER: That was the response to l
14 no tice of deficiency or notice of deviation?
15 MR. BORDENICK: Yes.
16 HR. LANPHER: It is SNRC 677.
! 17 MR. B'ORDENICKs That is correct, notice of 18 deviation. I think there was some question last week as 19 to whether or not the Staff was going to respond to this 20 letter. I can state that the answer to that is no, the 21 Staff did not intend to respond to the answer -- to the 22 letter. I do not know whether the Board and parties 23 have a copy of the letter in f ront of them , but at any ra te , the last paragraph of the letter states with
( 24 _
l 25 respect to the loose parts monitoring, audible and l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
3844 visual signals, full compliance will be achieved by June
(]) 1 2 30, 1982.
3 JUDGE BRENNERs Well, let me interject here.
4 Actually our question was not whether the Staff planned 5 to respond, it was when would the Staff respond, and the e reason we phrased it that way is I am astounded by the 7 fact that the Staff does not plan to respond, for this 8 reason. There is a notice of deviation stating you are 9 doing something wrong. LILCO comes back and says no, we 10 are not, for these reasons. How can it be left in limbo 11 like that?
12 MB. BORDENICK: Judge Brenner, at this point I 13 cannot answer the question. However, given the 14 situation last week, what I as prepared to state this 15 morning is that the_way the Staff would like to proceed,
, 16 if it is agreeable to the Board and the parties, is that 17 by June 30, if not sooner, the Applicant will make two 18 filings with the Staf f. As I say, this came about as a 19 result of the meeting yesterday, which, unfortunately, I 20 do not have all the details on. I just have the bare l
21 bone conclusions of the mee ting.
22 The first filing will, as I understand it, be 23 to show either that the Applicant, as they had originally committed and as noted in the Staff SER to
( 24 25 meet the requirements or to meet Reg Guide 1.133,or, in O
Ad)ERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 3845
() I the alternative that they do not meet it, well, what 2 they propose to do is the equivalent of what the reg i
3 guide provides, and that will include such matters as 4 the channel separation that came up last week.
5 JUDGE BRENNER4 Well -- let me let you finish.
6 MR. BORDENICK: That is one filing tha t they 7 will be making. The second filing, if you recall, last J veek there was testimony on the fact that the Applicant 9 gave to the Staff witness on this contention a draft of 10 a loose parts monitoring program description. That, as 11 I understand it, will be the final version of that -
l 12 document, will also be submitted concurrent with the 13 first document.
14 At this point, because I do not know the full 15 nature and extent, nor does the Staff, of what these 16 documents will look like, I cannot give the Board a 17 definitive date ss to when the Staff review will be 18 completed. What I can say to the Board and the parties 19 is that I will personally undertake to assure the Board 20 that whatever review takes place will be on r.n expedited 21 basis, and I do know that part of that re'.lew will be 22 performed by,the Staff's consultant on loose parts 23 monitoring, which, as you may recall, is the Oak Ridge
() 24 National Laboratory.
25 The fact that they are physically removed from O
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3846 O i eetne a 1 er 1a i= ootao to ceu e so=e prod 1e==-
2 but in any event, I will personally undertake to assure 3 that the review is expedited, and what I would hope to 4 do is within a week of the time that Staff receives 5 whatever it is that the Applicant is going to submit, I 6 will then give the Board a date by which the Staff 7 review, which I contemplate will be in the form of i
l 8 supplemental testimony to which all parties would have l
l 9 an opportunity to file additional testimony based on the l 10 Staff's testimony.
11 That is essentially the way that the Staff 12 would propose to handle it, and we will tie into our 13 supplemental testimony our review of the documents that O 14 Long Island Lighting submits, and I think this will take 15 care of any outstanding questions that came up as a 16 result of the testimony last week. At least that is my 17 contemplation.
18 19 20 21 22 23 l O 24 l 25 l
l O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i l
3847 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Reveley, did you want to
(]) 1 2 state something ?
3 MR. REVELEY: I thought we were under a Board
( order to hold a settlement conference on loose parts.
4 5 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
6 MR. BORDENICK That is correct.
7 HR. REVELEY: I would suggest that the most 8 rational way to proceed, so we do not spend four more l 9 days on loose parts or however long we spend on them , is 10 to hold a settlement conference, see if in fact the 11 county and the company can agree on a loose parts 12 monitoring system for Shoreham, and then see if that 13 system, whatever it is, can pass the staff's scrutiny.
14 Bather than going back into another spasm of testimony.
]
15 MR. BORDENICKa Well, I am certainly agreeable 18 to doing that. On the other hand, I was somewhat 17 disturbed. I think one of the problems -- and I 18 recognize that perhaps the staff fell down on this 19 particular aspect of it, but -- the applicant did make a 20 commitment which the staff relied on in its SER review, 21 the fact that they would meet the Reg Guide. And as we 22 heard last week , earlier this year they were cited for 23 not meeting it.
24 So frankly, I do not know where the staff 25 stands on that particular aspect, independent of tne O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3848
() 1 settlement conference. But that is not the same as 2 saying that I do not welcome a se ttlement conf erence, 3 because I do think it may tend to focus matters which, 4 in turn , should expedite matters, also.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, it seems clear that all 6 these things should be tied together and discussed among 7 the parties, and I do not think that is inconsistent 8 with what either Mr. Reveley or you, Mr. Bordenick, just 9 stated.
1G MR. BORDENICK: No.
11 JUDGE BRENNERs Suffice it to sa y we have 12 heard enough testimony where if and when a settlement is 13 presented to us, we are independently now interested in
) 14 the basis for a settlement.
15 You mentioned the commitment to meet the Reg 16 Guide. I do not know what that means. There is a 17 disagreement on what you have to do to meet the Reg 18 Guide, so it is not a very -- as a lawyer, it is not a 19 very useful commitment to me.
20 In addition, as it may turn out, the notice of 21 deviation aspect may be the least of the disputes as to 22 whether or not the Reg Guide is met. I repeat my 23 surprise. I do not understand how the enf orcement a rm of the staff -- and I am not directing this to you as
( 24 25 counsel, of course, Mr. Bordenick -- I do not l
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3849
() 1 understand how the enforcement arm of the staff can 2 issue a so-called notice of deviation, get an answer 3 that in very polite language says -- well, let me not 4 get too vernacular. But the answer says these are the 5 reasons why we do not think your notice is correct, and 6 then not respond.
{
l 7 In terms of this proceeding, I think we are 8 going to come out the same way because we are going to e be in control of assuring.that we get the answor. But I 10 an ast unded that absent the proceeding, there would 11 have bee.a no response. When and if it gets to either 12 supplemental testimony or a basis for a partial or full 13 settlement or some combination thereof, the Board has 14 already stated in several places in this transcript what 15 ve expect to see, and we hope that you are looking at <
18 th a t .
17 I will attempt to briefly summarize, but I may 18 leave things out. So rely on the transcript, not on l 19 what I am stating now. But, we wanted the staff's view 20 on -- in response to LILCO's view on the channel 21 separation question we wanted the staff's view on l
l 22 whether or not putting sensors on th e recirc suction l
l 23 lines are necessary under the language of the Reg It talks about, I believe the term is something l
( 24 Guide.
25 close to natural collection areas.
l
()
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 3850
() 1 Judge Morris mentioned that he would be 2 interested in what the staff knows about the review of 3 other loose parts monitoring systems, preferably the 4 more recent the better, and the experience there. And 5 also, we were interested in proper procedures given the 6 loose parts indication, and as part of that, how 7 important it is to diagnose certain things more quickly, 8 ra ther than bringing in outside people or some 9 combina tion thereof.
I 10 This is where the dispute has ended up on the 11 issue.
12 MR. BORDENICKs Judge Brenner, it was my 13 personal contemplation -- it is up to me to see to it 14 that it is passed on to the staff that all these things, 15 and whatever else may have been in the transcript, was 16 encompassed within the supplemental testimony that I 17 alluded to.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. One reason I 19 mentioned it -- and I am sure it was obvious to you 20 before I mentioned it -- one reason I did is 21 notwithstanding the staff's not responding to the s
22 letter, we are going to be interested, in effect, in the 23 staff 's view of the letter in the testimony or the basis for settlement.
( 24 25 HR. BORDENICK Well, at this point, frankly, O
N.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3851
() 1 I do not know why the Region I staff did not respond to 2 tha t letter. That, if not explicitly at least 3 implicitly, will be included in the testimony.
s 4 JUDGE BRENNER: I am troubled more by the 5 apparent result of that meeting to which you were not 6 present, that they do not plan to respond, more than the 7 fact that they're -- that last paragraph in LILCO's 8 letter is of the same type as the general commitment to 9 meet the Reg Guides. You know --
10 HR. BORDENICKs Well, I think the reason that 11 the staff did not respond was that they were of the view 12 that L.LCO was going to come in with something further.
13 JUDGE BRENNERa Not on the channel, they were O 14 not. I mean, that was a pretty clear letter from 15 LILCO. All right, let's leave it at that.
18 MR. BORDENICK: I agree. I frankly do not 17 know what the answer is.
18 With respect to the Board 's -- ,
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Just one moment, in case --
20 (Board conferring.)
21 HR. BORDENICK: I do have one additional 22 comment on loose parts monitoring in response to Mr.
23 Re vele y 's reminder about the settlement conference. As
() 24 I earlier said, I an in full agreement that that should 25 take place, and I am just -- maybe this is something the l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3852
() 1 parties should discuss, but I would hope the soor.er it 2 takes place, the better off everyone will be.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: I do not want to interject the 4 Board too much in the settlement discussiols at this 5 point, but we think that contention is eminently 6 settleable.
7 MR. BORDENICK: I agree.
8 JUDGE BRENNEPs And it depends on cost-benefit 9 and further work in this proceeding versus LILCO's 10 thinking on whether or not, upon reflection and review, 11 the initial determinations made by Mr. Price should 12 continue and so on. I do not have to spell it out.
13 HR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I talked with Mr.
14 Irwin, one of the LILCO attorneys, last night about this 15 matter and we tentatively agreed that we were going to 16 sit down and talk hopefully next week when Mr. Goldsmith 17 will be in town, and Mr. Price happens to be out of town 18 this week I believe on vacation all week. And so, this 19 is just not a good time, but hopefully, next week and we 20 will see if time can be made.
21 JUDGE BRENNER: I will personally loose my 22 faith in reasonable people if that contention cannot at 23 least be narrowed, if not totally settled.
Let's go on to the next matter.
( 24 25 MR. BORDENICKs The next matter is the l
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3853 I
() 1 comments that the Board directed to the parties last 2 week. My reaction to it, frankly, was a lot of what the 3 Board said was certainly warranted. Also, my thoughts
}
t 4 at the time and on reflection were to the fact that the i
5 comments I think have to be placed in perspective, and 6 speaking for the staff, one of the problems that we 7 faced was the fact tha t the focus of the contention 8 seemed to be always shifting, but I think the Board has 9 recognized that and I think steps have now been tak en to 10 allevia te that particular aspect of it.
i
! 11 I think the , Board 's comments have been heard 12 by the staff over and above the people that are up here 13 on Long Island. I think it is a problem of my office, O 14 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and the Region 15 I applying the resources. I am sure the Board 16 recognizes that this particular proceeding is not the 17 only activity that the staff is involved with.
~
18 That is not to say that some of the staff l
19 testimony -- that justified some ,of the staff testimony 20 when it was filed. It was just a question, as it always 21 is, of resources and the emphasis of how those resources l
l I 22 are allocated.
23 There have been several meetings since last Wednesday and put simply, from my standpoint there have
( 24 25 been e _ot of promises made by the staff. Whether or O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
r 3854 not those promises will be carried through, that remains
(]) 1 2 to be seen.
3 I think from my own standpoint, during the 4 period when the Board is considering SC-SOC Contention 5 7B which will involve a different set of staff people 6 here on Long Island, we will be taking a long and hard 7 look at the testimony we have previously filed, an all .
8 other aspects, and as was the case with SOC-16, several 9 things may happen. For example, as adding witnesses.
10 I think the Board recognizes that the problems 11 that the pa rties are faced with and that the Board 12 itself is f aced with are very complex. All the totality 13 of the circumstances involving Shoreham, there are no 14 easy fixes to things, but the staff took the comments in 15 the main in the spirit which the Board directed them, 16 and we, as LILCO has done, have and will be undertaking 17 a review of just what it is we will be presenting to the 18 Board by way of supporting our position as regards the 19 contentions.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Yes, our whole 21 focus is on what is going to happen in the future rather 1
22 than dwelling on the past. Although you alluded a 23 little bit to the past in your comments this morning,
) 24 and tha t is fine. It was not necessary. We are 25 focusing on the f uture.
O 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3855
() 1 When you do look at this in consultation with 2 your collesques, Mr. Bordenick, if you get to a certain 3 contention where it appears that the addition of a new 4 witness is useful, and furthermore, it is likely that we 5 are going to hear a lot of new detail in the testimony, 6 you may want to consider uhether or not the motion might 7 focus on the new testimony to avoid the situation we are 8 in now on the seismic 1.
9 HR. BORDENICKs We have already given thought to to that. I am not sure yet what will transpire. I 11 certainly think there will be several contentions where 12 ve move to add an additional witness. Whether we seek 13 to expand on testimony previously filed or not, I am O 14 just not in a position to give a final answer on that l
15 today.
I 16 We will be looking a t that in detail over the 17 next two or three weeks af ter this week.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: As a general rule, unless it 1g is just a sentence or two I think -- and this is just a 20 general rule -- I think it would be unfair in the legal 21 sense to require questioning to go forward on new l
22 testimony in the timeframe of less than about two weeks.
23 MR. BORDENICK: I agree.
() 24 JUDGE BRENNER: And hopefully, even longer 25 than that actually.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 3856
() 1 MR. BORDENICK: I do not think that will be a 2 problem.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Depending on how expensive the 4 addition is, of course.
5 All right. Also, when you are planning this, 6 while we are here and you are back in Bethesda, you may l 7 recall tha t on the wa ter hammer contention, Suffolk 8 County 4, we were interested in the' procedures given the 9 testimony of Mr. Hodges, among others. LILCO has
, 10 already indicated they plan to add testimony in that 11 regard, and I hope the staff will consider a similar l 12 approach.
13 MR. BORDENICK: I guess it came up Thursday, O 14 or was it Friday. Well, I guess I ca" get the details 15 from Mr. Reveley later. I do not want to tie up the 16 Board on the question of whether or not we will be 17 filing supplemental testimony. At this point, no final 18 decision has been made. If we do not file, we certainly 19 will give the Board the benefit of our views on anything 20 tht the applicant files by way of procedures, or other 21 type testimony, either by asking leave to file 22 supplemental testimony or during the course of cross 23 examination of LILCO on its new testimony.
() 24 JUDGE BRENNERt All right. If you do it by 25 way of filing further staff testimony as a follow-up to l
)
( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 .
3857
(} 1 LILCO's further testimony, we would like to hear that 2 right away so we can have the testimony heard at the 3 same time. So we would like the indication that you 4 vish to do that, and what the schedule is by which you 5 would accomplish it.
6 MR. BORDENICKs I will attempt to get back to 7 the Board on that again before the end of the week af ter 8 I have talked to Mr. Reveley.
9 JUDGE BRENNER Well, you may want to see what 10 they file before you get back to us.
11 MR. BORDENICK4 That is true.
12 (Board conferring.)
13 JUDGE BRENNER All right. I do not know of 14 any other pending miscellaneous matters that we need 15 take up this morning, and I would like to proceed with 16 the testimony, unless the parties know of something.
17 (No response.)
18 All right, let's have the witnesses back up 19 again.
20 Whereupon, 21 RICHARD E. FORTIER, I l
22 JOHNNY J. KREPS and 23 ROBERT KIRKWOOD,
() 2e the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, 25 resumed the stand, and, having been previously duly O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 W1GINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3858
(} 1 sworn, were examined and testified further as follows:
2 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I will be right 3 back.
4 JUDGE BRENNERs Off the record.
5 (Discussion off the record. )
6 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, we are back on the 7 record, continuing with the county's cross examina tion 8 of this panel.
9 MR. LANPHER: Mr. Chairman, I passed out a 10 document while we were in recess, and I gave copies to 11 the pa nel.
12 CROSS EXAMINATION -- Resumed 13 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
14 0 Mr. Fortier, do you have a copy of a March 31, 15 1982 document entitled " Memorandum to File , A-21.6 50 "?
16 A (WITNESS FORTIER).Yes, I do.
17 0 Is that a LILCO memorandum to the file, sir?
18 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
19 MR. LANPHERs I would like to have 'this marked 20 as Suffolk County Exhibit 13 for identification.
21 (The document referred to 22 was marked Suffolk County 23 Exhibit No. 13 for
() 24 identification.)
25 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 3859 1
Does Suffolk County Exhibit 13 relate to the
(]) 1 Q 2 Rockwell valve failures that we were discussing 3 yesterday af ternoon, sir?
4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I am sorry, what was that?
5 0 Does Suffolk County Exhibit 13 relate to the 8 Rockwell valve f ailures discussed yesterday af ternoon, 7 sir?
8 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Did you say Suffolk County 9 137 10 0 The memorandum which I just gave you has been 11 marked Suffolk County Exhibit 13.
12 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Oh, I am sorry. Okay. Yes.
13 Q That does relate to the Rockwell valve 14 f ailures, correct?
15 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
16 0 Have you had an opportunity to review this 17 document?
18 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
19 0 on page 2 -- first of all, this document 20 describes the steps which were proposed by the 21 manufacturer to rectify the problem as it applied to 22 Shoreham, correct?
23 A (WITNESS FORTIER) This document relates to the
() 24 reviews that Rockwell had performed on their valve 25 generically, and this is the letter to file that LILCO I
() l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 3860
(]) 1 reviewed that report and closed out this issue.
j 2 0 Could you please describe -- strike that.
^
3 On page 2 in the paragraph entitled
}
4 " Conclusion" there is reference to a review, and you 5 just in your previous answer mentioned a review. Now, 6 this was a review that was performed by TILCO or on 7 behalf of LILC07 8 (Witness reviewing document.)
9 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The review they.are 10 referring to here is yes, they are typical or similar 11 type valves, and therefore, the concern at these other 12 facilities could be applicable to the valves installed 13 at Shoreham. So that was. the review that was performed 14 that is referred to in here.
15 0 Okay. So LILCO performed a review and 16 determined tha t the valve -- Rockwell valve failure 17 problem was applicable to the Shoreham valves, correct?
18 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The failure not necessarily 19 was applicable, but certainly that the valves were 20 similar to it. I do not believe they ever really 21 concluded what the failure mechanism was. They have 22 indicated some of the causes about the pins. They did 23 go back -- Rockwell tried to assess to determine what
() 24 was the cause of failure. And they, based on physical 25 layout and vibrational concerns, they were not able to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3861 I conclude that the particular failure was becaure of a
(])
2 specific resson.
3 They thought it involved various things. The b) 4 plant piping layout could have an effect. At these 5 plants they have on the discharge of the main steam 6 isolation velves, they have a vertical riser which may 7 not be conducive or may be cor.ducive to creatino 8 excessive vibration which could relate to the possible 9 failure mechanism here.
10 They could not conclude that that was the 11 cause. It could have been a maintenance concerns it 12 might have been the operating conditions. So I do not 13 know if f ailure mechanism is the same, but certainly, 14 the type of valve used was similar.
15 0 Did the LILCO review include a review to 16 determine whether, in the view of LILCO, the changes 17 proposed by Rockwell were adequate?
18 (Pause.)
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I have not asked them that 20 specific question. I do not know, beyond exactly what 21 the extent of their review was in that area.
22 0 By "their" in that answer, who are you 23 referring to? LILCO?
() 24 A (WIS'FSS FORTIER) LILCO.
25 0 okay. So you do not know whether a review of
(:) i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3862
(} 1 the adequacy of the Rockwell proposed changes which are 2 referenced in this memorandum was, in fact, undertaken 3 by LILCO.
4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I believe there was no 5 analysis as to the failure mechanism and so forth.
6 0 N o, that is not what my question was. Some 7 changes were proposed by Rockwell, correct?
8 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
9 0 !s it a fair characterization of your 10 testimony, Mr. Fo rtie r, that you cannot -- you do not 11 know whether LILCO performed any analysis of the 12 adequacy of those Rockwell-proposed changes?
13 (Pause.)
14 A (WITNESS FORTIER) They obviously placed an 15 order for them. In order to do that, they had to do 16 some review. What the extent of that review is I just 17 do not know.
18 0 Mr~. Kirkwood, has the staff performed any 19 Leview to determine whether the changes which are being 20 instituted for the main steam isolation valves are 1
21 Shoreham are proper and acceptable?
22 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I do not know.
23 0 Is this the kind of situation where af ter an
() 24 ICE notice, the staff generally would perform a review?
25 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I would assume someone
(:)
i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L
3863 1 would review the design changes, but I do not know if it 2 has been done in this instance.
3 MR. LANPHEF: Judge Brenner, I would like to 4 nove the admission of Suffolk County Exhibit 13.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Any objections?
6 MR. REVELEYa No objection.
7 MR. BORDENICKs No objection.
8 JUDGE BRENNER All right, we vill admit it 9 into evidence, and let's bind it in also at this point.
10 (The document previously 11 marked Suffolk County 12 Exhibit No. 13 for 13 identification was 14 received in evidence.)
15 (Suffolk County Exhibit No. 13 follovsa) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 24 l 25 0
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., ? W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
SC /}
- gy
' 4/9 C .
m March 31, 1982 Memorandum to File A21.650 NRC IE Information Notice 81-28 Pailure of Rockuell-Eduard Main Steam Isolation Valves (21SIV)
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 W. O. 44430/48923 Summary -
There have been several recent mech'anical failures of the "Rockwell-Edward Flite Flow Stop Valve," a "Y" pattern globe
() valve made by Rockwell International, used for main steam isola-tion valves (MSIV) at some ENR facilities. Operating BUR facil-ities using this valve include Brunswick Unit 1 and 2, Cooper, Duane Arnold, Fitzpatrick, Hatch Unit 2, and Vermont Yankee. Of the seven total reported mechanical failures, five occurred at Brunswick Unit 2 and one each occurred at Brunswick Unit 1 and Hatch Unit 2.
The failures that have occurred involved a mechanical separation of valve internals. This seoaration was either at the stem-to-
~
stem-disk threaded connection or at the main-disk-to-piston threaded connection. Either failure permits the main disk to be free of the stem. The failure in either mode results from fail- I ure of the threaded connection, which in some cases is caused by vibration-induced rotation of the disk so that it becomes disconnected from its threaded mate. Such rotation is believed
.to be caused by or aided.by the propensity of steam flow to produce vibration and to create turning forces on valve internal components when antirotation restraints are inadequate due to a ,
~
failed or missing pin. Other contributing causes are believed
<s
() to result from reassembly of the valve after disassembly at the site; such reassembly may have included inadequately torqued connections and failure to properly install the pins. Also, an .
examination of_ spare parts at the-Brunswick site showed that the l thread dimensions on the stems and stem disks did not meet !
drawing tolerances.
Rockwell International, in completing an analysis of the c failure, concluded that there is no credibic way to prove that
Memorandum to Pile
- i NRC IE Information Notice 81/28 March 31, 1982 Page Two tg, future occurrences of similar problems at other plants _might not occur. Therefore, to preclude future occurrences, Rockwell developed measures they consider wholly effective in' preventing disabling valve deterioration in the future. These measures -
involve relatively simple modifications in ccmponent designs in the stem, . stem-disk, disk-piston assemblies which will permit pre-installation inspection to confirm proper locking pin installation, with a higher degree of confidence than in the original danign, and provide substantially incicased. assurance that_ properly pre-tightened threaded joints willinot become loosened because of operating _ conditions such as severe turbu-lence of line fluid at the underside of the disk.
Conclusion A revicu which has been performed determined that the MSIVs in-stalled at Shoreham were manufacture.d by Rockwell and are phys-ically of the configuration described in the subject-Information Notice. Accordingly, to eliminate any concerns relevant to
[]} possible' valve deterioration, the modifications recommended by Rockwell will be incorporated in the Shoreham MSIVs. To this end, Purchase Order No. 374077 has been placed with Rockwell International for all new parts required to implement the modification. The modification will be' accomplished after receipt of all required parts.
f d-Sc.,,
n
'Prepareffby H. Eckert
. dme .
Approvdd by M. H. Milligan HE/ law
.c c : I?. J. Ilutelcr T. F. Gerecke J. Rivello R. Oliveros .
E. J. Youngling R. A. Loper W. E. Steiger D. R. Haeffner T. F. Gerecke R. M. Kascsak l B. R. McCaffrey J. Higgins I
()3,
( J. P. Morin J. A. Rigert J. M. Kelly Eng. File A21.650 V. A. Brandi
1 3864 l
JUDGE BRENNER: One minor point while we are
(]) 1 2 looking at the exhibit. I believe, Mr. Lanpher, you may 3 have referred to it at some point --
and perhaps this
}
4 was off the record; I do not recall when you stated this 5 --
that this was an internal memorandum. I do not knov 6 if you characterized it that way. It is certainly a 7 memorandum to file.
8 The only reason I raise this minor point, I 9 note on the cc there is a J. Higgins, and since this is to relating to an ICE informa tion notice, it occurs to me 11 that that may be the J. Higgins who is the NRC Resident 12 Inspector. I do not know.
13 HR. LANPHER: Well, that is why I was asking i
(
() 14 whether any review had been performed. I did not pursue 15 it further when Mr. Kirkwood just said he did not know.
16 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
17 0 Mr. Fortier, could you please turn to page 2 18 of your prepared testimony. Toward the bottom of the 19 page, the answer to number 5 -- and this is a summary of 20 your conclusions -- you state that, "The valves used in 21 safety-related systems should not f ail in an unsafe or 22 undetectable mode so as to jeopardize the safe operation 23 of the plan t."
l () 24 Mr. Fortier, you are not a licensed operator, 25 correct?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3865
() 1 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
2 0 Have you ever been a licensed operator?
3 A (WITNESS FORTIER) No, I have not.
U 4 0 Have you ever taken operations courses?
5 A (WITNESS FORTIER) No, I have not.
6 0 I would like you to turn to page 4 of your 7 testimony, and in answer 6, item 2, you state that the 8 procurement, design, fabrication and inspection, 9 installation and testing of safety-related valves to complies with strict quality assurance criteria in 11 accordance with Appendix B to Part 50. What is your 12 role in the quality assurance program a t LILCO, sir?
13 (Pause.)
14 A (WITNESS FORTIER) My role would be in regard 15 to valves that it is my responsibility to see that the 18 appropriate QA people in the organization, for instance, 17 would sign off the design documents. They would perform 18 the OA evaluation in that light, in support of my 19 request.
20 0 There is a separate QA organization, correct?
21 A (VITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
22 0 You are not part of that?
23 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I am not part of the OA O 24 era =1= tioa-25 0 So this represents your understanding of what O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3866
(} 1 they do, correct? It is not based on your -- excuse me, 2 let me just clarify. This is not based on your personal 3 knowledge; this is based upon what you understand ther 4 are doing?
5 A (WITNESS FORTIER) It is what they are directed 6 to do per the company guidelines and the criteria 7 outlined by the company. There is much overlapping 8 between my organization and the QA organization.
9 We impose, in our own specifications, the 10 requirements, for instance, to comply with certain 11 criteria. We indicate the kind of inspection, testing 12 that we would want from the operator; not operator, but 13 from the quality assurance individual, whether it be a 14 field or a vendor supplied quality control individual, 15 to perform and monitor certain checkpoints throughout -
16 the fabrication of the valves.
17 In our valve specs, we would be responsible 18 for that. So we, although we do not implement his job, 19 we do outline in many of the areas some of the 20 requirements that he must perform.
21 0 Turning your attention to page 5 of your 22 testimony, Mr. Fortier, you discuss on that page the 23 program for review of industry problems and operating
() 24 experience. You are asked in question 7, "Ha s this 25 review program proven successful?" Your answer is yes.
O 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3867
() 1 Is there any basis for that answer, other than 2 the example you give there with respect to the main 3 steam isolation valves?d 4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
5 0 What is that?
6 A (WITNESS FORTIER) There are various bulletins 7 and notices that do come around that we have responded 8 to through this program. In particular, I~can recall in 9 regard to this particular issue concerns with keys 10 failing to motor shaft in the operator, in the sense 11 that at a particular plant the wrong material was used, 12 such that it did not meet the design criteria.
13 To verify that, we required a site 14 inspection. The material was not able to be verified.
15 It was simpler to just replace with the proper 16 material. So we do not know if the particular 17 occurrence or the particular material that was 18 identified in that notice was typical of Shoreham.
19 But by that mechanism, we precluded the 20 concern by just going to the material that was there, or 21 that should have been , and which we believe was there.
22 I do not know if there was any material failure analysis 23 done on the particular keys that were removed. We did
()
24 not see any need. I doubt if there was sny.
25 0 A re there any other examples? Let me O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3868
(]) 1 understand. You specified your main stena isolation 2 valve example. We discussed that at some length, and 3 you talked about this key probles, for wont of a
)
4 shorthand. Are there others?
5 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I believe there was another 6 similar one; not the key material that I referred to, 7 but in some, age.in, motor-operated valve to valve 8 shaft. There was concerns where the key required 9 staking because with vibration, it could come out.
10 There again, we would have -- we verified the particular 11 valve and assured that the keys that were used on our 12 valves did not match up that type scenario, or they 13 would be staked.
14 We implemented it. This is going back a 15 couple of years ago. Maybe -- I forget the exact 16 timeframe, but there would be another case where in the 17 motor to motor shaft, there is an event that we 18 proceeded, whether because of an ICE bulletin or notice, 19 I forget whether it was a bulletin or notice.
20 0 Okay. Ara there any other examples, sir?
21 (Pause.)
22 A (WITNESS FOBTIER) Yes, there were others. The 23 timeframe and the exact scenarios relating with them and
() 24 whether_they were actually of this nature I would have 25 to go back and verify that.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
3869 Of what nature? You may he --
(]} 1 Q 2 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Well, some -- we get a lot 3 of ICE bulletins, not only with valves. It involves 4 many, many areas. And it is a matter of just sorting 5 them out. A lot of valve ones relate with control 6 circuitry possibly.
7 0 I am afraid you have misunderstood my 8 question, I apologize. You have a conclusion here tha t 9 your review program has proven successful.
10 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
11 Q And I was not -- I asked for the basis for 12 that, and your review program goes to a lot more than 13 fust valves, correct?
14 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
15 0 And I was not -- when I asked for examples I 16 was not limiting it to valves.
17 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Okay.
18 0 Did you --
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I thought I was trying to 20 limit it to valves because this was the issue. If we 21 extended cet through all components in the plant, at i
22 least 1.t ny area of responsibility which would be fluid 23 equi i <st,t. 2 tere are various ICE notices on a regular
() 24 basis that we have to review and respond and relate to 25 their applicability. So there are many ICE notices,
() ,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3870
(} 1 when you look at all the mechanical components in the 2 plant.
3 0 When you refer to this review program, I think 4 each of the examples you have given me and your general 5 statements also have been in the context of ICE notices.
6 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Or bulletins.
7 Q Or things sent directly from the regional NRC 8 about specific instances. Is that the source of your 9 information, primarily?
10 A (WITNESS'FORTIER) The sourt a of th e 11 information comes from various areas. The program 12 itself, when various -- various docuuents are reviewed, 13 in addition to the ICE bulletins, circulars und 14 notices. It also includes INPO review of the SER, 15 SOER. It relates to what used to be tied in with the 16 atomic clearinghouse and nuclear power experiences which 17 are now kind of covered by the INPO reports.
18 Those types of documents are received inhouse 19 in the quality assurance organization. They are the 20 group that handles the distribution and the assignment 21 as to responsibility for review of these type 22 documents. So it is more than just ICE bulletins. I 23 mentioned that because those were two that I do recall
() 24 that were related with valve problems.
25 0 You confused me in that last answer, Mr.
i O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3871
(} 1 Fortier, because you said that this industry -- these 2 industry experience data come into the quality assurance 3 department and then are distributed out. Now going back 4 to last Friday I believe, or maybe it was Tuesday 5 morning, yesterday morning, I thought you had said tha t 6 these materials either come in to the plant manager or 7 to the Nuclea r Services Division.
8 A (WITNESS FORTIER) No. Okay. You had asked --
9 okay. There are two different programs. We were to talking about the Stone E Webster QA program for 11 specifications just a short moment ago that I was 12 referring to on this particular document.
13 0 Wait a second. Now I am really confused. On 14 page 5 you talk about a review program. Q uestion 7.
15 That is what the questions askst has this review 16 progran proven successful.
17 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
18 0 Are you talking about a Stone C Webster 19 prog ra m ?
20 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) Okay. Actually, that 21 particular part, I was talking about a Stone & Webster l 22 program. There are multi programs. There is a Stone C 23 Webster. I guess when you first mentioned on the l
() 24 previous q uestion you are rela tin g to the quality 25 assurance program relating to -- at that time I was l
I
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3872
(} 1 referring to the procurement aspects of valves.
2 0 You are referring back to page 4 of your 3 testimony?
4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is right, and I was 5 referring to the Stone & Webster aspect of that program.
6 0 Okay.
7 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Okay.
8 0 I am not talking about --
9 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Okay.
10 0 Mr. Fortier, page 5, question 6, the review 11 program referenced there I understand to be the LILCO 12 review program, not Stone & Webster's. Is that correct?
13 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I tis a combination of both 14 the LILCO program and the Stone C Webster program. The 15 previous question that was asked, I was answering it 16 from the Stone & Webster aspect, from the valve 17 procurement aspect. If you take the whole response to 18 that question, it is a combination of both Stone C 19 Webster quality assurance plus the overall 20 responsibility would be LILCO quality assurance. That l 21 would continue the installation, testing and so forth.
l 22 When you followed up on the question, the next 23 page relating to problem reports, yes, I kind of got
() 24 confused there. That program, again, is a two-phase 25 program. Stone C Webster has its own internal house O
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3873
(} 1 program, and we, -- as I was just describing, the 2 particular program that LILCO has I believe was 3 described in great detail yesterday by Mr. Kreps.
4 Q Okay. On page 5, let's go up a couple of 5 lines. The last three lines of the paragraph which 6 carries over from page 4, you say, "Thus, Shoreham 7 safety-rela ted valves will be continuously reviewed 8 against the industry's latest operating experiences."
9 That sentence is in the prospective, something to happen 10 in the future, correct?
11 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Right. And in that light, 12 that would be the continuing LILCO program.
l 13 0 Mr. Kreps, that is the program which you 14 described yesterday, which is being implemented and in 15 fact continues to include also the project office review 16 of experience, correct?
17 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
18 (Counsel for Suf folk County conf erring.)
19 NR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I am going to ask 20 that certain extracts from NUREG/CR-2000 entitled l
21 " Licensee Event Report Compilation for the Month of 22 February 1982" be marked as Suffolk County Exhibit in 23 for identification.
l l
() 24 (The document referred to 25 was marked Suffolk County O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3874
(} 1 Exhibit No. 14 for 2 id en tifica tion. )
l 3 For the record, I provided these excerpts to 4 the witnesses a little before 9:00 this morning so they 5 could take a look at them so that hopefully we can 6 proceed reasonably fast.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: We do not have copies.
8 (Counsel handing documents to witnesses, Board 9 and parties.
10 JUDGE BRENNER : Off the record.
11 (Discussion off the record. )
12 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. So it is Suffolk 13 County 14 for identification.
l 14 MR. LANPHER: Yes.
15 BY MR. LANPHER ( Resumin g) :
16 Q Nr. Kreps, are you familiar with this report 17 series?
18 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, I am.
19 0 Have you reviewed this report?
20 A (WITNESS KREPS) Not until this morning.
21 0 Is this the kind of report that LILCO will 22 review on a regular basis?
23 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, it is.
() 24 0 Do you know whether this report has been 25 reviewed by LILCO?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3875
{} 1 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, I do not.
2 0 The program we have for revievir.g this that I 3 was describing in the testimony yesterday has not been 4 completely implemented.
5 0 Well, is the project office review program --
8 A (WITNESS KREPS) The project office --
7 0 -- which you described yesterday, is it 8 reviewing this report? -
9 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, they are.
10 0 Do you know whether that review has taken 11 place?
12 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, I do not.
13 0 Within how much time after receipt of a report 14 like this does the project office' complete a review?
15 A (WITNESS KREPS) I am not familiar with the 18 internal review process at the project office.
17 0 And what is the basis for your statement, 18 then, that they will review this?
19 A (WITNESS KBEPS) I am aware they have a 20 program; I am aware of what their program is. The exact 21 de tails of it I do not know in that I am not familiar 22 with the timeframe or even the individuals specifically 23 assigned. I am aware of the procedures they have for it
() 24 and I have seen information coming out of the review, 25 but the internal mechanism I am not -- I do not know all O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
}
3876
() 1 those details.
2 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
3 0 What, then, is the basis for your confidence 4 that they would look at this kind of a report?
5 A (WITNESS KEEPS) The basis for my testimony 6 yesterday was primarily directed to the future and 7 ongoing programs we have; in particular, that of the 8 independent safety evaluation group. Part of the 9 charter for that group specifically delineates a review 10 of the lERs, so I know those people in that program will 11 he-doing that.
12 0 I understand that, Hr. Kreps. My question 13 went solely to the ongoing program, the fact that future 14 programs still are in the process of being implemented.
15 You said , I believe, yesterday that the responsibility 16 for review of operating experience still rests with the 17 project office, correct?
18 A (WITNESS KREPS) They have one review -- ther 19 are in one of the review trains of that, yes.
20 0 Now, what is the basis for your confidence 21 that this will be reviewed by them?
22 A (WITNESS KREPS) I have seen reports and I
23 summaries of reports from the project office, summaries
() 24 of which they have indica'ted that the information was 25 gained from various LERs, IEE notices, bulletins,
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3877
() 1 circulars, SILs, TILs, other vendor information.
2 0 But you do not know the details of their 3 review program?
4 A (WITNESS KREPS) I do not know the specifics of 5 it, that is correct.
6 0 Is it fair to state then that with respect to 7 this volume of the LER report, you do not know whether 8 any determination has been made regarding how many, if 9 any, of the events set forth in that report may have 10 pertinence to Shoreham?
11 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, I do not.
12 JUDGE BRENNER Mr Lanpher, if you are going i 13 to finish this particular line in the next five minutes 14 or so, I will let you complete it before we take the l
15 break.
16 MR. LANPHER: Let me try to. I am going to 17 try to move quickly through this; then maybe that would 18 be a better time for a break.
l 19 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
l 20 0 Mr. Kreps, you had an opportunity to briefly 21 review Suf f olk County Exhibit 14 prior to the start of 22 toda y's proceeding, correct?
23 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
() 24 Q Now I would like you to turn your attention to 25 event 59 which is on page 17, and maybe the record O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3878 should reflect that I have just taken certain pages out
(]) 1 2 cf the NUGEG which was referenced at the start. I do l 3 ha ve the entire NUREG here, however, if Mr. Kreps should 4 need to refer to it for any reason.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, let's just note 6 that what you have marked for identification as Suffolk 7 County Exhibit 14 consists of the cover page, Roman 8 numeral lii, which is a page f rom the abstract at least, 9 and then pages 17, 20, 21 and 31.
10 I also want to make clear you asked the 11 witness if he had a chance to review this before the 12 hearing today and the vitness said yes. ,
I take it that l 13 relates back to the prior explanation that your only 14 opportunity was this morning just before the hearing.
15 Is that correct?
16 WITNESS KREPS4 That is correct.
17 BY MR. LAFPHER (Resuming):
18 Q Directing your attention to event 59 at 19 Dresden Unit 2, am I correct that this reports a failure 20 of an ADS valve to open under a test?
21 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
22 0 Could this failure have been detected other l
23 than by an actual valve test, sir?
() 24 A (WITNESS KREPS) Not to my knowledge.
25 0 I an directing these questions to you, Mr.
l
(:)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
3879
(} 1 Kreps. Mr. Fortier, I do not mean to exclude you. If 2 you want to add, do so, obviously.
7 ~g 3 Are similar --
(_ / 4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) On tha t pa rticular item -- '
5 JUDCE BRENNER: Excuse me, dr. Fortier. Also 6 in general, I know you know, but just to make sure Mr. l 7 Kirkwood knows if he has something to add, he can 8 indicate after the other witnesses.
9 MR. LANPHERa I did not necn .to --
10 BY MR. LAMPHER (Resuming):
11 Q Mr. Fortier, I do think you had something you 12 wanted to add. Please go ahead.
13 A (WITNESS FORTIER) On this particular item, 1
l 14 there when you are referring to the test, maybe I would 15 like you to rephrase that question. I was not sure what 16 you were asking. If I understood it perfectly, I 17 wondered if you could repeat it.
18 0 Okay. The question that I had asked was
~
19 whether Mr. Krops believed that this failure could have i
20 been detected other than by an actual valve test. Is 21 that the question you meant?
i i 22 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) Yes. Okay. And I guess l
23 where I had a little 4.ifficulty is that I am not sure
() 24 that when you say a valve test there is instrumentation I 25 tests that are required by our technical surveillance.
l C)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 l
l 3880 I am not responsible for that particular area, but I do
{]) 1 2 not know if some type of a channel functional test that 3 is required by the tech specs may have picked this up.
O 4 It is sn electrical circuit; it is not part of 5 a passive mechanical valve failure. I do not -- so I 6 quess to answer your question, I am not sure as to -- it 7 would necessarily be a valve test. It may be an 8 electrical circuitry test, and I wanted to make that 9 distinction.
10 0 Thank you, Mr. Fortier. This document 11 indicates that the failure was due to a wire that became 12 ph ysically wedged in the contact that bypasses the hold 13 coil. Is that correct?
( 14 A (WITNESS KREPS) Correct.
15 0 Would you view this f ailure -- perhaps we 16 should use the term loosely -- to be an undetectable 17 failure up until the time of the test?
18 .A (WITNESS KREPS) Until the time of the test or 19 until the time that operation of the ~ valve was l
20 attempted. That is probably true.
21 0 Are similar valves used at Shoreham?
22 A (WITNESS KREPS) I do not know.
23 0 Mr. Fortier, do you know?
() 24 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Again, my preblem -- I do 25 not know but I will clarify it -- that this particular
(}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.20024 (202) 554 2345
_ , _ , - , _ _ , _ _ _ . ~ . _ _
3881
( type concern would tie in more in the electrical -- or I
} 1 2 guess it would be the electrical area, and I think it is 3 really outside of my expertise. As to, number one, it O 4 would be detectable I do not know if because of the 5 circuit that is here, without having all the data 6 related to this subject matter, it is possible depending 7 on the control logic that is installed in the circuit, 8 that maybe this type of a thing in one circuit could 9 short it out and you would have gotten an indication. I 10 just do not know, nor would I be the right person to 11 know that.
12 0 Well, there are ADS valves at Shoreham, 13 correct?
O s_/ 14 A (WITNESS KREPS) Correct.
15 0 Now, are periodic valve tests required on the 16 ADS valves at Shoreham?
17 A (MITNESS KREPS) Yes, they are.
18 0 How frequently, sir?
19 A (WITNESS KREPS) Quarterly. And when we start 20 up af ter every cold shutdown.
21 ( Counsel for Suffolk Coun ty conf erring. )
22 0 What is the basis for your statement that they 23 are required quarterly, sir?
(WITNESS KREPS) You asked if there vare valve
(]) 24 A 25 tests required of the ADS, asked if there were tests O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
. 3882 1 required of the ADS valves. There is more th.an one type
(}
2 of test. We have valve exercising tests, we have logic 3 functional tests that we do to test out the logic of
( 4 th em . Those are done on various frequencies. So as f ar 5 as a test related to the ADS valves, they are done at 6 va rious f requencies including quarterly on the basis of 7 the technical specifications.
8 0 How about the tests, the exercise tests, of 9 the ADS valves? How frequently are those conducted?
10 A (WITNESS KREPS) Exercise test is performed for 11 every startup following a cold shutdown.
12 0 Would it be fair to state that those might not 13 be required anymore frequently than every refueling 14 outage , then?
15 A (WITNESS KREPS) If they went from one 16 refueling outage to another without ever shutting the 17 plant down, that could be correct.
18 0 And refueling outages are approximately every
~
19 18 months, is that correct?
20 A (WITNESS KREPS) Depending on the current fuel 21 cycle.
22 0 Now, ASME Section 11 specifies the standard 23 test interval of three months, correct?
() 24 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
25 0 I would like you to turn your attention to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3883
() I pa ge 20 of this exhibit, event 69. Am I correct that 2 this item covers the failure of a torus vacuum relief 3 isolation valve?
4 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is the title of the ites.
5 0 And that is what the substance of the item 6 covers, is that correct?
7 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
8 0 Does Shoreham have similar valves, sir?
9 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
10 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Want me to answer?
11 0 of course.
12 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I believe the valves they 13 are referring to here are -- it sounds like they are 14 normally opened valves, tying the torus and the drywell 15 together. Shoreham does not have a valve for that l
l 16 function, although we do have vacuum relief valves that 17 are normally closed, and probably have similar, although 18 not directly rela ted, functions.
l 19 0 'Now, you said that the similar valve at 20 Shoreham normally is closed, is that correct?
21 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I am not saying it is ,
22 similar to this particular manufacturer, so I do not 23 know. I am saying similar in function. We have vacuum
() 24 breakers at Shoreham.
25 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, I do not know how O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3884
{} 1 far you are planning to go, but you are quickly getting 2 to the point where you are asking these witnesses to 3 look at what is a very concise summary of an event, and O 4 which concise summary they have only seen this morning 5 and to start speculating as to what happened there and 6 then to extrapolste that speculation into its 7 applicability to Shoreham.
8 MR. REVELEY: You have stated my objection, 9 Judge. Unless it can be established clearly and quickly 10 that these LERs are directly relevant to Shoreham, I do 11 not see much point in pursuing them right now, 12 particularly since the witnesses have had very little 13 opportunity to study the document.
14 JUDGE BRENNER Particularly the points raised 15 on item 69 just is not worth anything, based on what you 16 have done so far. Let's take a 15-minute break and 17 consider the comments, and my comments were directed to 18 that one. I did not make any comments as to the 19 previous item examined.
20 We vill come back at 11:00 o' clock.
! 21 (A short recess was taken.)
22 23
() 24 25
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3885
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, we are back on the 2 record. I hope we pick up the pace a little bit. It 3 seems awfully slow, given the relative importance of 4 some of the points to the overall issue. And even the 5 speed mechanically seems to have slowed down. Maybe as 6 we drag on into the morning that happens, but it is 7 11:00 o' clock and let's see what we can do.
8 I know you did not start the cross until 9 10:00, but nevertheless.
10 ER. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I am going as f ar 11 as I can. I am making no deliberatt effort to delay.
12 And I am sorry some of the points seem insignificant to l 13 the Board. I am not asking anything that I think is 14 in significa nt , so --
15 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, you have 16 mischaracterized what I said. I said the length of time 17 we are spending on it, given the relative importance, i
18 seems out of propc -tion . That is different than whether 19 or not it is insignificant. But let's proceed.
20 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
21 0 Gentlemn , Mr. Fortier, Mr. Kreps, we have been 22 discussing several of the LERs which are summarized in 23 Suffolk County Exhibit 14. Is it fair to state that you
() 24 have not had an opportunity to determine whether these 25 LERs may or may not be applicable to Shoreham?
l ~O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3886 Q 1 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I would say that all four of 2 these particular items that we had, or you had j p 3 highlighted in this handout that you gave all involve l V 4 electrical or control type circuitry, which in my -- as 5 I understand the contention, does not relate with 6 passive mechanical valve f ailure.
7 Also, on the first one the electromatic relief 8 valve in the ADS function, Shoreham uses target rock 9 valves, so I am not sure this particular item is 10 hp'J 11ca ble .
11 The second one, they have a control scheme 12 with a different valve function. Again, I do not 13 believe it is applicable. And since those are the two 14 that we addressed in my review here, I would say that 15 they are no t applicable to Shoreham.
16 A (WITNESS KREPS) Perhaps it might be beneficial 17 to explain what would happen to the LER once it is 18 received by the Shoreham plant. An individual would be 19 assigned responsibility for reviewing this particular 20 LER. He would have to determine whether or not it was 21 applicable to the Shoreham plant. To determine this may 22 ne ce ssita te making phone calls to the individual plant, 23 such as in item 69 he may have to call the Hatch plant O 24 and ask them more questions about the type of valve they 25 have. He would then have to determine whether or not we O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3887 1
1 have the same type of valve and the same type of
(}
2 arrangement.
3 If it was determined that yes., we have the
%,J 4 same type of valve and the same type of plant 5 a r ra ng e me n t , then recommendations as to an analysis of 6 what the possibility of a similar type occurrence 7 occurring there would be undertaken. If it was 8 determined that the Shoreham plant was susceptible to 9 the same type of f ailure, then appropriate ac'. ion would 10 be recommended and implemented.
11 But it is a process you cannot do from just 12 looking at a concise summary of the LER. Much more 13 information is needed, and it has to be evaluated.
14 Q Hr. Kreps, is this the kind of document that 15 at least in summary form would be initially reviewed at 16 Shoreham to determine whether additional information 17 needed to be obtained?
18 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, it is.
t 19 0 And is the intention of LILCO to review, at 20 least in summary form, each and every LER which comes 21 out?
22 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, it is.
23 0 You do not think that is too burdensome a ta sk ?
() 24 A (WITNESS KREPS) We have a program set up with 25 a group of dedicated people solely for the purpose of
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3888
() 1 doing that; not only LERs but other ICE bulletins, 2 no tice s , ci rc ula rs, vendor documents, et cetera;
, 3 anything pertaining to operating history or experiences 4 at Shorehsm or other plants similar to Shoreham.
5 0 You think it is beneficial to obtain and, if 6 necessary, review such information?
7 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, I do.d 8 0 Wasn't it your testimony yesterday, M r. Kreps, 9 that you did not think it would be useful to obtain 10 in, formation directly from manufacturers such as 11 Rockwell, even prior to issuance of LERs?
12 A (WITNESS KREPS) I did not say it would not be 13 beneficial; I said the practicalities of it would be 14 somewhat limited. If Rockwell put out that information, 15 we would gladly take it and would evaluate it.
16 0 You have not asked them to make it available?
17 A (WITNESS KREPS) I do not know whether we have 18 or not.
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The information on that 20 LILCO has requested through the original proposal. I 21 believe that was placed with Rockwell. Rockwell had 22 given LILCO apparently their assessment of this concern, 23 so in this particular case related to the main steam
() 24 isolation valves from Rockwell, there was follow-on 25 correspondence between LILCO and Rockwell.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 4345 l
1 3889
() 1 0 But to the best of your knowledge, Mr.
2 Fortier, it is not an ongoing program between LILCO and ,
3 Rockwell, LILCO and other vendors, whereby the vendors 4 or suppliers of equipment will automatically notify 5 LILCO if problems or potential problems develop with the 6 -- with respect to the equipment which has been supplied 7 to LILCO?
8 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I am not f amiliar with those 9 inter-organizational workings at LILCO.
10 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.) -
~
11 0 Mr. Fortier, yesterday you described the 12 passive f ailures which have received single failure 13 analysis as being pump seals, measuring devices and 14 valve stem leakage. Correct?
15 (Pause.)
16 A (WITNESS FORTIER) For single failure analysis 1/ purposes.
18 0 Do you consider those passive failures to be 19 detectable failures or undetectable?
20 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The passive failures that I 21 referred to is a position, okay, that the valve would be 22 expected to be in. In normal open, would have no need 23 to closes it would be based on the valve being normally
() 24 opened, if that be the case.
25 0 Hy question is -- let's just take valve stem O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3890 1 leakage, f or instance, and a passive f ailure.
2 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
3 0 Are you, in the LILCO single failure analysis, 4 -- was that a passive detectable failure or a passive 5 undetectable failure which was analyzed?
6 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The failure of stem leakage 7 was the evaluation of a quantity of steam leaking l
8 through the stem. That was the evaluation that was 9 performed, and that is the sten leakage. The failure is 10 the f ailure of the packing in the valve stem.
11 0 Then, while it was a passive failure in the 12 sense that there was no movement of the stem, it was 13 also a detectable f ailure, correct?
14 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The -- yes, because we have 15 a system that would monitor leakage collection. So the 16 failure would be detected via collection or accumulation 17 of water in a sump.
18 0 Were any undetectable failures considered in 19 analyzing the ECCS in FSAR Section 6.3.3?
20 (Pause.)
21 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I am not sure without having 22 to re-review that particular section. If you would 23 like, I could do that.
O 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 3891 1 0 To the best of your recollection you cannot
(}
2 recall.
is 3 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I do not recall.
! O 4 0 In that FSAR section, if you can recall, were 5 the monitoring circuits such as limit switches, torque 6 switches and stem position indicators assumed to fail?
7 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I believe the -- I do not 8 know. I do not.
! 9 0 Hr. Fortier, yesterday I believe you said that 10 most safety-related valver 5 ave position indicators, 11 correct?
12 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The HOYs and AOVs, we got 13 off onto the manual, and other valves like that which
() 14 are also safety-related, and manual valves typically do 15 not, although there were some exceptions I think we 16 pointed out yesterday.
17 0 Now, do air-operated valves sense the position 18 of the operator, the valve stem or some other part?
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The air operators would be 20 mo'nito ring the valve stem movement.
21 0 Where do the motor-operated valves obtain
! 22 their position indication?
23 A (WITNESS FORTIER) They have their indication l
() 24 on a direct drive train that would be tied into the
! 25 motor shaft that is translated into the valve stem.
l (2)
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3892
() 1 Q That was the gea r train I think you had 2 referred to before.
- 3 A (WITNESS FORTIER) It would be part of that 4 gear train which is indirect -- well, yes.
5 0 Would you agree that a stem position indicator.
6 would be a more reliable position indicator?
7 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Without understanding --
8 no, I cannot answer -- I cannot answer that. I do not 9 know.
10 0 Compared to an indicator on the gear train, 11 for instance, would an indicator on this stem generally 12 -
and if you cannot answer, do not -- generally provide 13 a more reliable indication of valve operability?
14 A (WITNESS FOBTIEB) I do not think it provides 15 a more reliable method, because I believe the experience 16 -- it would improve a minute point where yes, you would 17 get closer to the valve disc say, but the experience is
! 18 that the present reliability is orders of magnitude in l
19 an acceptable level as the additional gain which is 20 insignificant to the basic position indication. So it 21 would possibly be what I would classify as an 22 in significa nt improvement for the kinds of failures that 23 you are talking about that it would miss.
() 24 0 Have you performed any analysis to determine 25 the relative reliability of the two kinds of indicators O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i l
3893
{} 1 that we were just discussing?
2 A (WITNESS FORTIER) No, but I have talked to 3 people on the Code Committee in regard to the position O 4 in dica tion , and it is through their belief that that is 5 the most positiva and appropriate method to be used for 6 stem movement.
7 Q You used the word "that is the most," and I do 8 not know exactly what you are referring to.
9 A (VITNESS FORTIER) Oh, that position 10 indication, okay, method, the one we described for a 11 motor-opera ted valve, okay, is a highly reliable and the l 12 recommended practice throughout industry to monitor l
13 valve, disc and stem movement.
( 14 0 Mr. Kirkwood, do you agree with that answer?
15 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) It is an accepted --
16 pardon me -- it is an accepted method of indicating 17 valve movement. I think there are equally -- there are 18 other means to detect movement, and I think from the 19 staff's point of view anyone would be acceptable.
20 0 The staff does not have any posi tion 21 respecting the relative merits of, for instance, a valve 22 stem indicator versus those that are on -- I keep using 23 the word "gsar train" because I forget exactly what you
() 24 referred to, Mr. Fortier.
25 A (WITNESS FORTIER) It is the operator shaft.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2348
3894 1 Q Operator shaft. Thank you. ,
[}
2 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I do not believe the staff 3 ' has made sry assessment on this.
O 4 0 Will even a stem indicator sense disc 5 valve / stem disc separation?
6 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) No, it would not.
7 0 Mr. Fortier, turning your attention to page 5 8 of your testimony, the last question, question 9, then 9 it carries over for about five or six pages, relating to 10 the testing program at Shoreham s tarting with 11 manufacturers testing, construction testing, et cetera.
12 What has your personal involvement been with 13 manufacturers testing? l? ave you participated in that 14 process?
15 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I have as a system engineer 16 back five or six years ago, have been involved on some 17 valve specs I was responsible for, and I actually 18 involved some witnessing of some valves that I was 19 responsible for, but that is a very limited number when l 20 You consider the valves within the plant. Since that l
21 time I have not had that active type role. I have had 22 people in my group that work for me sometimes get 23 involved in that manner.
() 24 0 Would the same basic answer go for 25 construction testing? Have you been involved in that?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3895
(} 1 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The construction tests we 2 get in volved. That is just a hydrostatic test, a 3 pressure boundary integrity-type test that we are O 4 referring to here. I would not get involved other than 5 re -e stablish the design parameters that they would test 6 it to.
7 0 These manufacturers or construction tests 8 would not test for passive or undetectable failures 9 during operation, would they?
10 A (WITNESS FORTIER) They are testing the 11 integrity of the operation of the valve.
12 0 That is -- excuse me. Is it fair to state 13 that the same kinds of tests would have been performed
' ( 14 on the main steam isolation valves -- construction 15 tests, manufacturers tests?
16 A (VITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
17 0 So notwithstanding these tests, there is no 18 assurance that there will not be failures.
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
20 (Pause.)
21 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Lanpher, if I may, I 22 would like to ask one question.
23 Mr. Fortier, how do you design and test for
() 24 undetectable failure or undetected failure?
25 WITNESS FORTIER: An undetectabic failure --
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTQN. D G. ;lC24 (202) 554-2345
3896 can you -- I assume there is probably different ways
(]) 1 2 that you can describe that. If you can give me an 3 example, an example, I will try to tell you the kind of 4 a test that maybe could be done, like a valve --
5 JUDGE CARPENTER: You were just responding to j 6 a description of the testing program in the sense of 7 this contention which is concerned about undetected 8 valve f ailures. I was curious as to how you would go 9 about designing a test. You testified that in f act 10 those tests were not really designed for that purpose, 11 and I am confused about how one would design such a test.
12 You testified that the tests were not 13 appropriate f or that purpose, and I was curious, are
~
14 there other tests which would be appropriate?
15 WITNESS FORTIER Okay. During the two stages 16 that we talked about of the test program -- and each 17 stage has specific functions. They are trying to verify 18 integrity, operability and so forth, and many of the 19 various stages of testing overlap and utilize common 20 features.
21 As you go through the further testing where 22 you get into performance tests relative to 23 preoperational testing, startup testing through
() 24 transient conditions an'i normal operating conditions, 25 they are actual functional tests that you must develop a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3 3897 i
() 1 flow, so therefore your flow path once initiated must go 2 to its proper position. That would definitely detect a 3 failure in that particular flow path if you do not reach 4 weighted flow, if a valve were say closed even though 5 the operator opened and indicated it was open; so that 6 would be detectable in that manner. The same would 7 apply in a valve that was supposed to close that did not.
8 That flow test would indicate that you would 9 not be getting -- you should be getting zero flow or 10 maybe recirculation flow, whereas in this case you would 11 be getting full flow.
12 These would be ways that some of the later, 13 you know, preoperational and startup tests would detect 14 valve failure of that nature.
15 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you.
16 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
17 BY MR. lANPHER: (Resuming) 18 Q Mr. Fortier, to follow up on Judge Carpenter's 19 question, would it be fair to say that the best way to 20 determine whether there has been a hitherto undetectable 21 failure is to perform tests to determine the operability 22 of the valve?
23 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I think you do not want to
() 24 design valves that fail, so that you have to develop 25 systems to try to determine detectability. You try to O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3898
() 1 assure in the valve design high integrity to assure that 2 they do not fail. You then perform the necessary tests, 3 and the tests that I refer here primarily are through 4 the various test programs that I described taking you 5 through all the different stages up through startup that 6 would expose the valves to serious or challenges that 7 th ey would likely be seeing at a future date.
8 It is that test program that gains you 9 confidence that the valves can perform, are designed and 10 are performing the wa y they were designed. And it is 11 that level where you instill your confidence in the 12 reliability of the valve. The further test program, the 13 later on as part of inspection this is a checkpoint that
, 14 periodically should be performed as a monitoring type 1
15 arrangement. But the most importan t is the beginning 16 phase.
17 Q I do not think anyone is suggesting that you 18 design valves that fail or are designed to fail, Mr.
19 Fortier, but I guess the line that I as trying to 20 develop here is that inherently failures which are 21 concealed in some ways are difficult to detect, correct?
22 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
23 0 And isn't -- and during operation that may be
() 24 particularly difficult because certain areas become 25 inaccessible or you have to take special precautions, O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3899
() I correct?
2 A (WITNESS FORTIER) It is correct, but the 3 me th od agsin to sddress that is primarily to preclude 4 the concern which would be the valve failure which is 5 the passive f ailure that we are talking about here. So 6 that is the most important thing, that based on 7 experience you incorporate in your design to preclude 8 having the event.
9 0 You uced the word " preclude." You have also 10 testified, however, that you really cannot preclude it.
11 I mean ycu can take steps to --
12 A (VITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
13 0 --
To lessen it, but you cannot preclude it, l
14 correct?
15 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
16 0 And that is the reason that an in-service 17 testing and inspection program is important to document 18 the continued operability of important valves, correct?
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Its importance is -- has to 20 be assessed in regard to the system and the f unction, in 21 that light.
22 0 Mr. Ki rk w oo d , yesterday you described briefly 23 the fact that the NRC staff will review the draft valve l () 24 test plan, correct?
25 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3900
() 1 0 What criteria does the NRC staft utilize to 2 review that plan?
3 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Section 11 of the ASME
{
4 pressure and boiler vessel code.
5 0 For Category A -- what are Category A and B l 6 valves?
l l 7 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, Ca tegory A valves 8 are valves which have a specified maximum seat leakage 9 when the valve is in the closed position, and Category B 10 valves are valves where seat leakage is inconsequential 11 when the valve is in the closed position to perform its 12 function.
13 0 What is the basic exercise test requirement O 14 for Category A'and B valves?
15 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Three months.
16 0 Is this a full exercise of the valves?
17 A (WITNESS KIBKWOOD) It depends. It can be a 18 full stroke or if you can get flow, maximum design flow l
19 through the valve at a part-open position, that would be 20 considered equivalent.
21 0 In your review of the valve -- the draft valve 22 test plan is it the staff's position that wherever 23 possible the three-month exercise test provisio< of the
( 24 ASME 11 should be met?
25 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes, provided it does not O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WAEHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~- . . _ _ , ._.. ,, .,. -- -
3901
() 1 put the plant in an unsafe position.
2 Q Where it is your judgment that an unsafe 3 condition perhaps would result from frequent exercise of 4 the valves or exercise every three months does the staff 5 require any additional safeguards for those valves which 8 cannot be exercised that frequently?
7 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Where a valve cannot be 8 tested in accordance with code requirements, then we 9 proceed to either cold shutdown or refueling.
10 0 Where you cannot exercise a valve every three 11 months that means it may go as much as in certain cases 12 18 months.
13 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) In the case of Shoreham, l
O 14 yes.
15 Q Let me finish, okay? Just so it is clear, a o
18 valve may then go 18 months without an exercise test 17 pursuant to ASME 11, correct?
18 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
19 0 And that is then 15 months over the normal 20 goal, correct?
21 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
22 0 Where that situa tion pertains does the NRC 23 staff require any special steps to be taken by the l
24 licensee to try to compensate for the lack of an l
25 exercise test during that period?
l O
l
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l-
3902 O ' ^ ("It"ess xtaxwooo) "-
l 2 0 Have you given any consideration to that?
3 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) We do not feel it is 4 nece ssa ry .
5 0 Well, then, do you feel that the ASME code 6 should be changed to require tests only every 18 months?
7 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) The three-month period is 8 basically established, as I understand it, as something 9 which is desirable. However, the staff position is that 10 approximately testing up to two years would still be 11 acceptable.
12 13 O ,4 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
3903 O ' 3uoce ans""sa- "r xirx ooa ia **i aroce==-
2 which has yet to be performed, of the staff giving its 3 view, a t least, of which valves can be tested on a more 4 extended period than three months, and as you indicated, 5 the very next milestone once you get beyond three months 6 will be refueling outages or perhaps other shutdown --
7 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: Cold shutdown, Judge 8 Brenner.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Any time a plant goes into 10 cold shutdown, is that the way the requirement is 11 ph rased ?
12 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: Certain valves that can be 13 tested at cold shutdown would then be tested at that
, 14 period, yes.
l JUDGE BRENNER: Even if there is -- say there l 15 i
16 are two cold shutdowns within a three-month period.
17 WITNESS KIRKWOODs No, in that case if a valve i 18 had been tested at a previous cold shutdown, then you tg would not test it if it was within another three-month 20 period.
21 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. In deciding which 22 vsives can be tested on an interval greater than three l 23 months, does the staff perform an analysis of the 24 consequences or risk of failure of such valves in 25 determining that the test interval can be extended and O
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l l
3904 l I
() I that no other special measures for detection are 2 necessary?
s 3 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: I believe there was some 4 work done in this regard. However, I do not know the 5 details. With respect to testing at cold shutdown, 8 Judge Brenner, it is not the staf f's intent to keep a 7 plant at cold shutdown to perform valve tests. I wanted 8 to clarify my previous statement.
g JUDGE BRENNER: Let me come back to that 10 clarification in a moment. But do I correctly infer 11 that if this type of risk or consequence analysis is 12 looked at at all by the staff, it would no t be your area' 13 and th a t is why you are not sure --
s O 14 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: It is not my area. I 15 believe the risk assessment group, they did some work in
, 18 this area.
l r
17 JUDGE BRENNER4 All right. Coming back to 18 your clarification, I am not sure I understand what you I
jg mean by the comment that it would not be the staff's 20 intent to keep a plant at cold shutdown. Do you mean if 21 they could start up otherwise, they would not have to 22 perform the valve tests?
23 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: There are certain valves
() 24 which may be specified to be tested at cold shutdown, 25 and it is our understanding that the Applicants would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
- _ . _~
3905
() 1 test within that time frame those valves which he can do 2 the tests on. However, if the plant is scheduled on an 3 ascent to power, it would not stay down to perform other 4 valve tests.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: I am still not sure I e understand it fully. Does that mean that the more 7 extended interval, that is, more extended than three 8 months, could be greater than refueling outages?
9 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: Oh, no, no. When a plant 10 comes down to cold shutdown for some reason, you test 11 the valves thac you can within that time period, and 12 then you go back to power. When you come to refueling, 13 you would test the balance of the valves.
14 JUDGE BRENNER: I guess if I saw the way the 15 requirements were written, it would be clearer to me, 16 but let me not pursue it at this point. Thank you.
17 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 18 0 ASME 11 is utilized by the NRC Staff pursuant 19 to 10 CFR 50.55A; correct?
20 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Correct.
21 0 And in that sense does the Staff consider the 22 three-month test rule to be the guideline unless 23 exceptions are documented?
() 24 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
25 0 Now, if there is a cold shutdown, for instance ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3906 O i everr three =eata vo=1a it de the st tr vo=1tioa 2 th a t these valves, then, should be exercised every three 3 months?
4 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes, unless there was some 5 basis to test a valve only at refueling.
6 Q What kind of a showing do you require for that 7 basis?
8 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, the Applicant would 9 demonstrate that it is not a practical matter to test a 10 valve during an operation.
11 Q Now, I am presuming there is a shutdown. I am 12 following up on Judge Brenner's statement. At shutdown l
13 it is feasible to test these valves, cold shutdown, l O 14 correct?
15 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Right.
16 Q But as I understood your prior answer, 17 notwithstanding the fact that the guideline document 18 says every 90 days or three months, you would waive that l
l 19 requirement or not impose that requirement if an l
20 applicant said, oh, we do not want to test any more l
21 valves because we want to get back to power operation.
22 Is that your testimony?
f 23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I am having problems with l O 24 the v r re oar e ta t- ar t vaer-25 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, me, too, Mr. Lanpher. I i
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3907 O 1 think you have confused the every three month 2 requirement with my questions, the follow-up questions 3 that I think you are entering following up on. We are 4 starting with the assumption that we are dealing with a 5 valve that in the Staff's view could be tested at an 6 interval greater than three months, and I was trying to 7 get a handle on how that requiremen t would read in light 8 of Mr. Kirkwood's clarification that a plant would not 9 necessarily have to stay in a cold shutdown once it 10 entered the cold shutdown just to test the valves.
11 MR. LANPHER: That is what I thought I had 12 asked. Let me ask it again, then. I was trying to 13 follow up on that. I am sorry I confused --
14 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, I think the 15 confusion is that type of question is not related to the 16 within three month period type requirement, not tied to 17 within that period.
18 BY MR. LANPHERa (Resuming) 19 0 Mr. Kirkwood, if Shoreham is in cold shutdown 20 no more frequently than three months, will Shoreham be 21 required to exercise all of its safety-related valves in 22 accordance with the three-month goal of ASME 11?
23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Unless thera was some 24 other basis for testing at refueling.
(
25 0 And what kind of basis would be required to l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l _ . _ . '""""^^"*":""'"'""'"'"''"~
3908 vaive or relieve the applicant of the three-monta
(]) 1 2 requirement?
3 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, I cannot address the O 4 Shoreham program since I have not worked on it, but I 5 can cite an example. On a PWR containment spray system, 6 there is a check valve in that containment, and to test 7 that valve fully, you would have to inject fluid through 8 the core spray nozzles, which is obviously a thing you 9 do not want to do. So in that case they usually 10 disassemble the valve and check the movement of the disc 11 and then reassemble the valve.
12 Now, doing that along with perhaps many other 13 valves which are testing at cold shutdown may not be a 14 practical matter.
15 0 Maybe that last word is just what I am having 16 trouble with, then. You say it may not be a practical 17 matter. What do you mean by that?
(
18 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, it may be necessary 19 to erect a temporary scaffold to get at the valve. It 20 may be pretty high up in the containment.
I 21 0 So it might take a lot of work to test some of 22 these valves in a manner which is feasible and safe.
23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
() 24 0 And is it fair to state that the amount of work or eff ort involved in testing a valve is an 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3909
() 1 important factor in the staff determination of how often 2 it ought to be tested?
3 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, it would be a l 4 factor. Another factor would be the radiation levels in 5 the area of the valve to be tested.
6 0 Do you perform any analysis or require an 7 applicant to perform any analysis to dccument that 8 extending the testing period beyond three months is 9 acceptable in terms of possible failures of that valve?
10 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I do not know that we 11 require applicants to perform such analyses.
( 12 0 Do you perform those analyses?
13 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) No, we do not.
O 14 0 Is it your understanding that the three months 15 test period of ASME 11 is related to the general 16 judgment that that is a proper time interval as a 17 general rule f or testing of safety-rela ted valves to 18 ensure their reliable operation?
19 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) It was a consensus number.
I 20 [ Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.1 21 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Kirkwood, maybe this will 22 help me understand. Where the staf f has made a 23 determination that a certain valve can be tested at a
( longer interval than every three months, how would the 24 25 interval requirement then read as applied to that valve?
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3910
() 1 (WITNESS KIRKWOODa We would sta te that the 2 valve would be tested at cold shutdown or refueling.
3 JUDGE BRENNER Is that meant to require it 4 woul be tested at cold shutdown where practicable and in 5 no event at a longer interval than every refueling?
6 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: That is correct, Judge 7 Brenner.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: It is possible that, depending o on the operating history of a plant, that you might have 10 a very long refueling interval yet many cold shutdowns 11 between tha t interval. In that situation, it is i 12 possible that a given valve might not be tested for 13 quite some several years; is that not correct?
O 14 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: No, sir. I believe 18 15 months would be the maximum for Shoreham.
! 16 JUDGE BRENNER: Because the requirements would 17 also state no later than 18 months or because of your 18 view that refueling would be every 18 months?
19 WITNESS KIRKWOODa Because the refueling, as I 20 understand it, would be every 18 months.
21 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, my point is if a plant 22 is down a lot for various reasons, you may not be using 23 up the fuel and the result would be that the refueling
() 24 interval could be years. Would that length of time, l 25 even in the absence of reasonably continuous operation, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3911
() 1 be of concern to the operability of a valve?
2 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: Judge Brenner, there is a 3 requirement in the code that you need not test in a 4 plant which is down for a prolonged period of time, such 5 as TMI-1. You do not go around testing those valves on 6 a three-month basis. Where a plant fs in a prolonged i
7 period of inactivity, then you do not continuously use 8 the IFT program.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: In that instance there would 10 he a requirement the test must be performed before the 11 plant is allowed to restart; is that correct?
12 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: That is correct.
13 BY HR. LANPHER (Resuming):
14 Q Mr. Kirkwood, I am still somewhat confused.
15 Where longer than three months is approved by the staff l 16 in approval of a valve test plan, does the staff require 17 any showing that this longer -- First of all, I 18 understand that the staff requires a showing that this 19 is a necessary period in terms of not endangering the 20 safety of the plan t in some way.
l 21 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Correct.
22 0 And in tha t showing, is your reference to the 23 fact that, for instance, a valve perhaps could not be (G/ 24 tested during opera tion and tha t to test during 25- operation would cause an unsafe condition?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3912
() 1 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
2 0 But of course it would be feasible. Perhaps 3 there might be a big penalty, but it is possible that 4 the plant every three months could go to cold shutdown.
5 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Theoretically.
8 Q And then you could test every three months.
7 A (*JITNESS KIRKWOOD) Theoretically, yes.
t 8 Q Do you require any showing that the longer 9 than three-month period will not increase the risk of 10 valve failure?
11 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) No, because it is our 12 position the t testing within a three-month to two-year 13 time frame is acceptable.
14 0 That is acceptable for every safety-related 15 valve?
18 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Only those that would put 7 the plant in some unsafe condition. If a valve is 18 normally testable, we expect it to be tested.
l l 19 0 Those that are not testable absent a cold 20 shutdewn, have you performed an analysis to document 21 that a longer untested period than three months does not 22 increase the risk of failure?
23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) No, I have not.
( 24 [ Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.] ,
25 MR. LANPHERs Judge Brenner, one minute. I am 1
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 3913
() 1 just about complete.
~
2 [ Counsel for Suf folk County conf erring.]
3 JUDGE BRENNER: While Mr. Lanpher is 4 conferring, what we are going to do procedurally is 5 braak for lunch when Mr. Lanpher is finished on the 6 supposition that he is going to be finished shortly. We 7 wi 1 take a one hour and 15 minute lunch break, but our 8 actual break will be longer because I want to allow time 9 to discuss that off-the-record matter as soon as we to break. Then when we come back the Board will ask some 11 questions of the panel and then we will go to Mr.
12 Reveley and Mr. Bordenick in turn.
13 [ Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.]
O 14 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
15 0 Mr. Kirkwood, in your review, or the staff's 16 review of the valve test plan, do you also review the 17 technical specifications or the draf t tech specs?
18 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) They are reviewed -- there 19 is a tech spec branch. However, where the tech specs 20 interface with the valve testing program, yes.
21 0 Do you review that to ensure that relief 22 requests which are granted match up with the tech specs?
23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Oh, yes.
() 24 0 Is that the purpose of your review of the tech 25 SDeCS7 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
39184 O i ^ (v1ratss xraxwooD) re - we at to xe ==re 2 there are no inconsistencies.
3 [ Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.]
4 0 Mr. Kirkwood, turning to page 2 of your 5 prefiled testimony, in the bottom third of the page you e refer to a staff audit of the equipment quality file.
7 Do you see that portion of your testimony?
8 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes, I do.
9 0 Has the staff completed that audit?
10 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) No, this is an ongoing 11 review.
12 0 Further down that page you refer to l
13 verification that the valves meet the environmental 14 qualification requirements. Is this part of the same 15 audit of equipment quality files or is this a different 18 audit?
17 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) 7t is essentially the 18 same. It is a site visit where they review the files 19 and, you know, specifications, anything necessary to l 20 assure the valves have been environmentally qualified.
21 0 How does this audit process relate to, in your 22 opinion, to this contention depiction of passive or 23 undetectable valve failures?
I 24 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, in the sense that it 25 assures that the valve is designed and qualified for the O
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3915
() 1 environ' men t in which it will function.
2 0 This does not relate to the testing program 3 but rather the initial design.
4 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Oh, yes, yes.
5 0 Is this part of the work that you personally 6 do or is this outside your area of responsibility?
7 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) This is outside my area of 8 responsibility. It is performed by the equipment g qualification branch.
10 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.1 11 0 Mr. Kirkwood, you earlier said, I believe, 12 that you had not worked on the Shoreham valve test l 13 program.
14 A (VITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
15 0 Have you reviewed that? -
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I have looked at the 17 submittal. I have not reviewed it.
18 0 That would be reviewed in the future by 19 someone under your supervision ?
20 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Someone else in the 21 Mechanical Engineering Branch. As I stated previously, 22 the person who normally would review this has 23 transferred within the Commission.
( 24 0 And that other person would be the person also 25 who will review the tech specs f or conformity or l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3916
() 1 consisten y with the plan as finally approved by staff?
2 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
3 [ Counsel for NRC conferring.]
4 JUDGE BRENNERs Mr. Kirkwood, I guess I have 5 the wrong impression. I certainly do recall your 6 testimony as to somebody who transferred out having been 7 previously involved, but I had the impression that it 8 was going to be you or somebody working with you who was 9 going to perform the review of the test plan for 10 Shoreham in the future.
11 Was that incorrect? How involved are you 12 going to be personally?
13 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: On a time as available 14 basis, Judge Brenner. I have worked on in-service 15 testing programs. I cannot state at this time that I 16 will be working on the Shoreham review. There is 17 another normal Shoreham reviewer. within the Mechanical 18 Engineering Branch and he may do it.
19 JUDGE BRENNER Well, I am not requiring an 20 answer. This is a comment. I suppose there is a reason 21 as to why he is not here and you are. It would 22 certainly be profitable for whoever is going to perform 23 tha t review to have reasonably detailed knowledge of
() 24 what is going on here, but let me leave it at that 25 unless you want to say something.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
3917 O i vtratss xtaxwooo, re 3= ave areaaer- 1 2 would like to comment that the review has been started 3 but it is only a prelimina ry review, and when they get 4 to the detailed review time frame, then it could be me 5 or it could be someone else. I have worked in other 6 previous reviews. That is why I am here.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: I hope whoever does the review 8 vill have the benefit of the record here. Let me leave 9 it at that.
10 HR. LANPHER: I have no further questions.
11 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Why don't we break 12 until 1:30, and we will ask everyone to leave the room
, 13 at this time and we will meet with counsel on that other O 14 matter.
15 [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m. the hearing was 16 recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. the same day.]
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 3918 l
l
() 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1:36 p.m.)
3 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We are back on the 4 record.
5 Before we resume the questioning of this panel 6 the Board would like to introduce Mr. Daniel Brown who 7 is sitting to our left. Mr. Brown is a lawyer with the 8 Licensing Board panel and will be assisting us as a law 9 clerk on this case among other things that people will 10 have him doing. And he is admitted to practice in the 11 state of New York and will be soon admitted in another 12 jurisdiction as well.
13 If you cannot contact me in terms of O 14 procedural matters or general background type matters, 15 it may be that Mr. Brown can help you from time to 16 time. In addition, we would appreciate it, as I 17 mentioned off the record, receiving an additional copy to of exhibits and cross examination plans and in the 19 future testimony, which will assist Mr. Brown in keeping i
j 20 up with the case as well as ourselves.
21 At this time Judge Morris has some questions l
22 of these witnesses.
23 Whereupon,
( 24 RICHARD E. FORTIER 25 JOHNNY J. KREPS O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3919
() 1 ROBERT KIRKWOOD 2 resumed the stand and were further examined and 3 testified as follows:
4 BOARD EXAMINATION ,
5 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
6 0 I just have a few questions at this time.
7 Mr. Fortier, the words you chose to answer one 8 of Mr. Lanpher's questions troubled me a little bit, and 9 when he was asking about the test program, of the 10 various steps, the manufacturer and so forth , he said 11 so me thing like notwithstanding this test program there 12 is no assurance that there will not be failures, and you 13 responded affirmatively to that. And this troubled me a -
14 little bit because I thought that the thrust of your 15 tactimony was that you felt that prevention of failures l 16 was important and that this test program was designed to 17 try to achieve the kind of integrity and reliability 18 which would in effect give you assurance that these is failures would not occur.
20 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Okay. I will respond to it l
21 in this msnner. In the manner I believe the questioning 22 was asked and the way I had given it, I believe that 23 same type of a question had come before in a manner that
() 24 does -- it precluded from possibly having occurred. And 25 I think the comment f rom an engineering viewpoint, there O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIFGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3920
() 1 is always a minute low pro babilit y, and we do not 2 preclude something from ever occuring usually.
3 It was in that context. and when I answered it 4 I was thinking of it at that type of a level, that I 5 could not positively say that ao, it would never happen 6 in the future. But I am confident that it would not 7 happen based on that program.
8 O That is the way I understood it, but I think 9 if one came upon the record cold, they might 10 misinterpret that.
11 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Okay.
12 0 Thank you.
l 13 While I am talking to you, there was CE) 14 discussion about feedback from suppliers or 15 manufacturers on experience at other sites. As a 16 representative of Stone and Webster do you know whether 17 there is in place now or will be such a program for 18 Stone and Webster's scope of supply?
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Relating to Shoreham?
20 0 Right.
21 A (WITNESS F06 TIER) Stone and Webster has 22 within its own organization an industry monitoring 23 program, snd this is controlled by our engineering f
() 24 assurance division. Within this program they review 25 various documents, INPO documents, bulletins, circulars, O
I ALDERSoN REPoRTtNG COMPANY,INC, f 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASPINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 3021
() 1 notices, data of that nature, significant event 2 reports. As a result of that program they have an 3 obligation to ref er to all plants that we have 4 previously been involved with with a utility in any 5 phases of construction, design, or even if we were not 6 involved in the construction and design aspects of the 7 plants, we may be doing some new work as a backfit to a i
8 new plant; so we do have informational data that we 9 evaluate these problems. If we believe it would be i to applicable, in this case to LILCO, there would be a 11 continuous communication f rom Stone and Webster in the 12 future identifying any problems that we are aware of 13 that would be related to our design implementing here at l 14 Shoreham. And that transfer of information would be 15 id en tified to LILCO.
l I 16 0 Is there reverse flow direct from LILCO to 17 Stone and Webster on their experience with your scope of 18 supply?
19 A (WITNESS FORTIEB) In the future I do r.at know i 20 about it. In the present it is because they interf ace l
21 with us to implement, and they continually from whatever 22 source they have developed data, they input that source 23 to the project, and usually we do the evaluation in many
() 24 of the areas for them.
25 0 Are you f amiliar with the similar kind of ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3922 I
l
() 1 arrangement that General Electric might have with LILCO?
2 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) I believe the arrangements i 3 that General Electric has, in particular because they 4 are the NSSS supplier, and the requirement for formal 5 contractual obliga tions into the future, I do not know 6 how Stone and Webster's relationship to that program 7 is. I just am not exposed to that. ;
8 Q I was looking for your knowledge of a direct i
9 agreement between LILCO and General Electric, apart from 10 any Stone and Webster involvement.
11 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I know I am familiar with 12 agreements in the sense that I know GE is -- has a 13 program of various informational letters, whether they 14 be service informational letters, technical information 15 letters that they accumula te through their opera ting 16 plants and get that information if determined applicable 17 to Shoreham to the appropriate utility like Shoreham 18 normally in the form of a recommendation saying these 19 are proposed changes, alternatives, or suggested 20 modifications to improve whatever the concern may have 21 been.
22 I am familiar that they have that program. I 23 am not really sure how the contractual aspects of it are
( 24 tied together.
25 0 Mr. Kreps, do you have any knowledae of such a O
v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3923
() 1 rela tionship directly between LILCO and General Electric?
2 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, Judge. That program 3 does exist, and it was part of the NSSS contract when 4 Shoreham was purchased, and it is an ongoing program.
5 And the informational letters that Mr. Fortier ref erred 6 to is an integral part of that, but other documents that
{
7 ma y be rela ted as part of the engineering evaluation 8 department I believe is referred to in some previous 9 testimony as rela ted to wa ter hammer -- other documents 10 of that type is also forwarded to the Shoreham plant.
11 0 Mr. Kirkwood , do you know whether or not l
12 Section 11 of the boiler and pressure vessel code uses 13 the expressions " active failure" and " passive failure?"
14 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) To the best of my 15 knowledge they do not. They talk about active / passive 16 valves, but I do not think they use it in the context 17 that is used here.
l 1
18 0 Does the code discuss in any way detectable 19 and nondetectable failures?
20 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Not to my knowledge.
21 JUDGE MORRIS: That is all I have.
22 (Board conferring.)
23 BY JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Kirkwood, I have a few brief questions
( 24 0 l
25 based on Supplement No. 1 of the SER. And I think I
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WAS'ilNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 1
3924
() 1 understand the status review based on your testimony 2 here, which was very helpful to me in understanding 3 th a t , but that would not be the way I normally would 4 have read the words in the SER, so I want to make sure I 5 ha ve it straight at this time.
6 As I look at Section 5.2.2 of Supplement 1 it 7 states in part that the Applicant committed to submit 8 its program, and program being referred to as noted in 9 the prior sentence as the in-service testing program for to pumps and valves which we have been discussing pursuant 11 to 50.55(a) of the regulations. And the SER then states 12 ve find this commitment acceptable, so so far we have a 13 commitment to submit the program.
14 Then when I go to the summary table appearing 15 on page 1-4 of that supplement, it states item 15, 16 in-service testing of pumps and valves, with the 17 reference to the Section 5.2.2, and the status column 18 bears the notation " Resolved pending confirmation."
19 That to me would imply a particular agreement known to 20 both parties, and the only thing left is actually to do 21 it. That is not really the status. There still may be 22 disagreements and a f air amount of judgment and perhaps 23 even argument for all I know on the part of LILCO and
() 24 the staff in determining which valves should be 25 permitted to be inspected and tested on a longer O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
1 -- _ ._
l 3925 l
() 1 interval and so on. ;
2 Is my last characterization correct, and if 3 so, how do you explain the SER?
4 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Judge Brenner, my
. 5 understanding of the status of the Shoreham program is 6 that it was submitted around the first of the year, and 7 the staff has reviewed the high pressure / low pressure 8 interface valves. There was some' initial disagreement 9 with the Applicant. Subsequently the Applicant agreed 10 wi th the staff position and is classifying those valves 11 in a manner which is satisfactory to the staff, so that 12 matter is considered resolved.
13 However, the balance of the program where the 14 status of the review is ongoing is not completed, and 15 for those valves for which the Applicant has asked for 16 an exemption, we have not revieve'd those -- that aspect 17 of the program. So that will be done, but it will be 18 some time in the future.
19 0 So the term " resolved pending confirmation" 20 should not be applied to the matter of requests from 21 LILCO for relief for particular valves from the l
22 three-month surveillance requirement of the code.
l 23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
1
() 24 0 Also in that Supplement 1 in Section 5.2.2 it 25 states, "A decision based on a preliminary review of any O
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.w. 20024 (202) 554 2245
3926
() 1 requests for relief from the ASME boiler and pressure 2 vessel code as to the acceptability of the program is 3 required to be made prior to issuance of a full power 4 license."
5 I have two questions about that. The firet 6 question is how does the staff distinguish between a 7 preliminary review and whatever review the staff thinks 8 can take the place after issuance of the full power 9 license?
10 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I believe the program was 11 looked at in sufficient detail to establish there were 12 not any major items which the staff felt could not be l
l 13 handled at a future date; and to that extent they have 14 given an okay on the program.
15 0 Well, do you have the section in front of you 16 of the SER7 17 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) No, sir.
18 0 I am sorry. I guess I thought you had it 19 convenient. I do not think then -- in my reading of it 20 it may have been hard for you to follow. I will wait 21 for you to get a copy and then I will follow up.
l 22 (Pause.)
{
i 23 JUDGE BRENNERs Thank you, Mr. Bordenick.
() 24 BY JUDGE BRENNERs (Resuming) 25 0 This is Supplement 1 we are looking at, and l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 3927
() I the section we are talking about appears on page 5-1.
2 The sentence I was just referring to is th e second l
sentence of that section. It does not state that the O 3 4 staff has decided based on a preliminary review tha; the 5 requests for relief are okay. It merely askes the 6 statement, as I look at it, as to how the staff'vould 7 proceed; that is, the staff contemplates perform 1ro a
- 8 preliminary review and then a further review. And I 9 ha ve heard nothing to date. stating that that preliminary 10 review has been performed. If so, nobody has told us in gg this record.
12 And maybe you can clarify that, but what I was 13 really going after was what portions of the review of O 14 these requests for relief could in the sta ff's view not 15 take place until after an operating licenre is issued?
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I cannot explain the 17 comments in the SER supplement since I have nct been i 18 involved in the review, but it is standard practice to 19 look at a program in sufficient detail pending a 20 detailed review which is performed by Idaho National 21 La bora tory, our consultants.
22 Q Am I correct that to my knowledge we have not 23 received any reports of any results of even a
() 24 preliminary review from the staff of the LILCO testing 25 program with respect to the request for relief from the l
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3928
() I three-month surveillance and testing requirenent?
2 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I believe that is so.
3 0 You may not know the answer to this since you
{
4 did not write this subsections, but in stating tha t in 5 the staff's view the preliminary review is required 6 prior to issuance of a full power license, is that meant 7 to imply that not even the prelininary review would be 8 required before a low power license?
9 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I cannot answer.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Thank you.
11 I guess it is to Mr. Reveley.
12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. REVELEYa O 14 0 Mr. Kirkwood, don't suppliers of 15 safety-related components have to report to the NRC any 16 problems with those components about which they become 17 aware?
18 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
19 0 And aren't those problems then memorialized by 20 the NRC in notices that are sent throughout the nuclear 21 industry?
22 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
23 0 Thus, am I correct that if a problem were to
() 24 develop with a particular supplier's safety-related 25 product and if that supplier failed to tell all affected O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 godGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3929
() 1 utilities, that those utilities nonetheless would get 2 the word f rom the NRC?
3 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) If you are speaking about 4 the ICE bulletins or notices, yes.
5 0 Am I also correct, Mr. Kirkwood, that ASME 11 6 does not call for an inflexible three-month valve 7 testing schedule?
8 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
9 0 In other words, the code expressly recognizes 10 that different testing frequencies may be appropriate 11 depending on the circumstances.
12 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: May I follow up on that? Am I O 14 correct that the code provides no further guidance than 15 that general proposition as Mr. Reveley just paraphrased 16 it?
17 WITNESS KIRKWOODa That is correct, Judge i 18 Brenner. It is left to the en'forcement authorities, 1
19 which is the NBC in this case.
20 JUDGE MORRISs While you are interrupted, in 21 responding to Mr. Reveley's question on th e reporting of 22 malfunctions, did you have in mind in your answer Part 1
1 23 21 of the Comnission's regulations?
( 24 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: I was thinking more along 25 th e lin es o f the ICE bulletins which the Commission O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3930 O i 1===e= verioaice111- are rou =reexino vita re rect to 2 the manuf acturer reporting to the Commission?
3 JUDGE MORRISs Yes.
4 WITNE3S KIRKWOODs Yes, I believe that is true.
5 JUDGF MORRISs Part 21.
6 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: Yes.
7 BY ME. REVELEY: (Resuming) 8 0 Mr. Fortier, there has been a good deal of 9 testimony over the last couple of days about the single 10 failure criterion, and much of that testimony has been 11 complex, at times metaphysically complex.
12 Would you very briefly and very simply restate 13 how the single f ailure criterion has been applied to O 14 Shorehan's valves?
l 15 l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 lO i
2.
25 l
l O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 23'5
\
3931
() 1 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The single failure criteria 2 for Shoreham valves has been applied in the following 3 manner. For f ailures of active valves, where the valve J
4 must open to perform its safety function, we provide a 5 redundant or diverse flow path. An example would be 6 like the core spray system. Here, if a valve in one of 7 the 1.;jection paths were to fail, the redundant core 8 spray loop would provide the safety function of core 9 coolant injection.
10 For failures of active valves where the valve 11 must close to perform its safety function, we have 12 provided redunant or diverse valves in the series. An 13 example of this case would be like the main steam 14 isolation valve where we had two valves in a series.
15 For f ailures of passive valves which are not 16 required to move to perf orm its saf ety function, we 17 design to accept valve stem leakage which we consider to 18 be the bounding passive failure.
i 19 0 Mr. Fortier, again, do you think the risk of 20 undetected mechanical valve failure will be significant l 21 at Shoreham?
22 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I def,initely do not.
23 0 Could you give us your reasons?
() 24 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I have lots of reasons for 25 this conclusion. To begin with, my actual experience O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
' 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3932
() 1 indicates very few mechanical valve failures. I also 2 ha ve a high confidence level in the design of the 3 valves. If a valve were to fail, it would most likely 4 fail during the pre-operational and startup test F program, which goes through various transient operating e conditions.
7 During ope ation of the plant, there are three 8 phases of vc1ve testing. The first phase would involve 9 special surveillance tests of the valves. That can be 10 broken down ito two parts. The first part would involve 11 special tests to specific valves. An example would be 12 the vacuum breakers in the dry well suppression chamber 13 area. This particul'r technical specification requires 14 these valves to be tested once every 31 days or at 15 anytime there is a steam release to the suppression 16 pool. You have a certain, I believe, two hours from 17 that time to test the valves.
18 The second part would be the implementation of Ig the ASHE 11 inservice inspection program, which involves 20 testing over the entire service life of the plant. And 21 which will be based upon a staff-approved valve test 22 plan.
23 The second phase of.special tests is a 24 surveillance test of fluid systems. This surveillance 25 test, again over the service life of the plant, is based O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3933
() 1 upon staff-approved technical specifications, evaluates 2 system performance to meet its intended safety 3 function. Through this test, the valves also would be
}
4 verified by the performance being satisfied that they 5 are functioning properly.
6 The third phase of the testing involves systems in 7 normal operation or intermittent operation, such as 8 suppression pool cooling system which by the technical 9 specifications are required when the pool temperature 10 gets above a certain temperature. Tha t portion of RHR 11 would go into a mode not on a time f requency, but 12 dependent upon a need frequency.
13 In addition to those three phases of O 14 surveillance testing, there is also the additione1 i
l 15 detection by use of the position indication on most MOV 16 and A0Y or motor-operated valves and air-operated 17 valves. There is also a continuous monitoring of the 18 future power industry-related problems, and a program to tg implement the feedback from those problems in evaluating 20 how they relate to the Shoreham plant design of valves.
21 And the final safeguard , we satisf y the single 22 failure criteris by providing redundant or diverse 23 valves. It is a combination of all of these reasons
( 24 that gives me the confidence that this particular issue 25 is of -- well, is of -- not a safety concern.
l O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3934 1 Q There has been some testimony about the MSIV
[}
2 problems experienced at Hatch and Brunswick.
3 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes.
4 0 Are you confident that the problem tha t wa s --
5 that occurred at those stations has been adequately 8 treated at Shoreham?
/ A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes, I am. I have 8 personally reviewed the Rockwell fix to the main steam 9 isolation valves that is being implemented on Shoreham.
10 The Shoreham main steam isolation valves originally had 11 some of the features that are included in the proposed 12 fix that Rockwell was making to the particular Brunswick 13 and Hatch valves.
14 In addition, I as satisfied that with the l 13 proposed additional changes that Rockwell was proposing 16 and that Shoreham is implementing, th a t this fix will .
17 provide adequate assurance that the failures that 18 occurred a2 Hatch and Brunswick will not occur at 19 Shoreham.
20 0 Mr. Kreps, how many members will Shoreham's 21 ISEG have?
l 22 A (WITNESS KREPS) The Shoreham Independent 23 Saf e ty Evaluation Group will be composed of a chairman
() 24 and at least five members, multi-discipline activities 25 and backgrounds.
l
()
1 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN's,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
r 3935 0 What disciplines will those members have?
(]) 1 2 A (WITNESS KREPS) The disciplines will include 3 at least mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, 4 el ectrical, electronics engineering, nuclear technology 5 and plant operations.
6 0 Who will the chairman of the group report to?
7 A (WITNESS KREPS) The chairman of the group 8 reports to the Chairman of Nuclear Operations Services.
9 0 What is the function of the ISEG?
10 A (WITNESS KBEPS) The ISEC is given the 11 responsibility to evaluate and review the operating 12 experiences of Shoreham and other plants similar to 13 Shoreham, to make recommendations based upon that 14 review, and to examine the plant characteristics and 15 make recommendations, specific recommendations, to try 18 to increase the overall safety of the Shoreham plant.
17 0 Does the ISEG have any other responsibilities?
18 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, they do not. It is an 19 independent group with no other responsibilities in the 20 direct operation of the plant.
21 0 When will they begin to function?
22 A (WITNESS KREPS) It is anticipated the ISEG 23 group would be completely in operation within the next
() 24 two weeks. Members have been selected and have been 25 undergoing training. Their procedures have been O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 3936 l
I
() 1 developed and tre in draft form, and the approval is 2 ex pected shortly.
3 MR. REVELEY: Judge, that is all I have.
4 BOARD EXAMINATION -- Resumed 5 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
6 Q On that same subject, M r. Kreps, I guess my 7 memory of the organizational structure is not too 8 clear. But you have said that the chairman or this 9 group would report to the Manager of Nuclear Operations 10 Services. Is that correct?
11 A (WITNESS KREPS) Nuclear Operations Support. I 12 may have said Services; I meant Support.
i 13 0 I am not sure, either. But to whom does tha t l
14 manager report?
15 A (WITNESS KR EPS ) He reports directly to the 16 Vice President, Nuclear.
17 0 So this is completely independent of the line 18 organization which is operating the plant, is that 1g correct?
i 20 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, it is.
21 0 can you tell me, you said they had no other 22 responsibilities.
23 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
() 24 0 Do they monitor the performance of the plant 25 on a daily basis?
i )
l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3937
{} 1 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes, they are. The actual 2 members, the five members or more, are assigned to the 3 plant, so they will be at the plant, monitor daily 4 activities there in addition'to reviewing other 5 documents that may be pertinent to the operation of the 6 plant. They report directly off-site to ^5e chairman of 7 the group, who then reports to the Manager of Nuclear 8 Operations Support.
9 0 So it is correct that they exercise their own 10 initia tive in deciding what aspects of plant operation 11 to look at?
12 A (WITNESS KREPS) Yes. They have a charter 13 which specifies what their overall program is to be, but 14 they have the latitude to investigate whatever areas 15 they feel need to be looked at to improve overall plant 16 sa f e ty'.
17 0 So they are not just passive, sitting there 18 vaiting for someone to bring a problem to them.
19 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, they go out to look for
, 20 problems and part of that is by assessing experience, i
l 21 problems that have developed at the Shoreham plant or 22 possible problems that have developed at other plants.
23 JUDGE MORRIS Thank you.
() 24 JUDGE BRENNER: I guess I have a follow-up, 25 too.
( -
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3938 BY JUDGE BRENNER:
(]) 1 2 0 Who is the present head of Nuclear Operations 3 Support?
4 A (WITNESS KREPS) Nuclear Opera tions Support is 5 Bob Kubinak.
8 0 I guess you had better spell that for the 7 reporter.
8 A (WITNESS KREPS) K-u-b-i-n-a-k, I believe.
9 0 And who is the Vice President, Nuclear?
10 A (WITNESS KREPS) Milt Bollock.
11 0 The other day you did not know who the 12 chairman was.
13 A '(WITNESS KREPS) The other day I was unsure of i
14 whether it was the Manager of Nuclear Operations Support 15 or whether it may have been another person. I did not 18 want to comment exactly on that, so I undertook to 17 ascertain that, in fact, there is a permanent chairman 18 assigned for the ISEG.
19 0 Has tha t particular individual been selected 20 ye t?
21 A (WITNESS KREPS) 'Yes, it is Brian McCaff rey.
f l 22 0 I guess I do not want to get into this too 23 much now. It may come up again under QA/0C operations,
() 24 and I guess at that time I will think about the 25 statement you made today, Mr. Kreps, with respect to the l
(S)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3939
{} 1 independence of the head of Nuclear Operations Support.
2 I do not want to pursue it today through you.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: I guess that is all I have.
4 Mr. Bo rdenick ? ,
5 MR. BORDENICKs I have no f urther questions of 6 the panel.
7 JUDGE BRENNERs Mr. Lanpher, based on the last 8 round?
9 MR. LANPHERs I know the rules.
10 (Laughter.)
11 RECROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. LANP HER :
13 0 What is Brian McCaffrey's present position at 14 Shoreham?
15 A (WITNESS KREPS) He is the Chairman of the ISEG 16 group.
17 0 That is his only job at this point?
18 A (WITNESS KBEPS) No, it is not. I think he is l
l 19 also the regulatory head in charge of licensing. His l
20 exact title I am not sure of.
21 0 So he has more than just the ISEG job at this 22 point?
23 A (WITNESS KREPS) At this point, true.
() 24 0 Now, is it your testimony that he will be 25 giving up all other responsibilities in two weeks when O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3940
(} 1 this ISEG becomes implemented or operable?
2 A (WITNESS KREPS) His exact function may not be 3 to give up all -- he is of f-site, to whom they report.
4 The on-site group is composed of a group leader and the 5 individuals in the group. That will be the sole 6 function of those people.
7 0 Have those people been chosen?
8 A (WITNESS KREPS) I believe most of them have 9 been.
10 (Counsel for Suf folk County conf erring.)
11 0 Can you please identify the five -- I guess it 12 is five -- ISEG members, and for each of them provide 13 their area of expertise?
14 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, I cannot. I know the 15 group chairman is Jack Alexander whose experience is in 16 reactor en;;ineering. The other members of it I am not 17 pe rsonally aware of who they are.
18 0 Mr. Alexander is in operations you said?
1g A (WITNESS KREPS) No.
20 0 Excuse me?
21 A (WITNESS KREPS) He is the group chairman for 22 the ISEG.
23 0 What is his area of expertise?
h, ss 24 A (WITNESS KREPS) Reactor engineering.
25 0 Now, how is it you know the qualifications O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3941
{) 1 that the other persons will have if you do not know who 2 the persons are?
3 A (WITNESS KREPS) The qualifications are set out 4 in the draft charter, or in the charter for the ISEG.
5 This was specified in response to NUREG-7770 and 6 specified various disciplines that must be fulfilled for 7 this.
8 0 These people have been selecteds you just 9 cannot recall their names at this time?
10 A (WITNESS KREPS) That is correct.
11 0 Mr. Kirkwood, you testified in response to Mr.
12 Reveley that when suppliers or vendors discover a 13 problem with their -- with safety-related equipment ther 14 have supplied, they must notify the NRC. Do you recall
- 15. th a t?
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
17 0 Then, the NRC will sometimes put out an ICE 18 bulletin, correct?
19 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
20 0 Does it do it in every case? Does the NRC put 21 out an ICE bulletin in every case where it learns there 22 has been a problem with a safety-related piece of 23 equipment?
() 24 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I do not know if they put 25 it out in every case. They p'ut it out in many cases.
}
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3942 1 0 Well then, isn't it true that the fact that
[}
2 vendors may notify the NBC does not ensure necessarily 3 that licensees such as LILCO will, in f act , learn of 4 problems?
5 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I am having trouble wi th 6 "every case." I just do not know.
7 Q You recall the testimony, do you not, that the 8 MSIV failures of the Rockwell valves commenced about six 9 years ago, 19767 10 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
11 Q The NRC did not put out an IEE bulletin or 12 in fo rm a tion notice until a pproximately six years later, 13 correct?
14 A (WITNESS KIRKUOOD) That is correct.
15 (Counsel for Suf folk County conf erring.)
16 Q Mr. Fortier, I just want to understand one 17 thing you said, that with respect to passive components 18 or passive valves, excuse me, stem leakage constituted 19 the bounding passive f ailure, or the bounding f ailure of 20 a passive valve. Is that your testimony?
21 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) It --
22 Q If you have it written down and want to repeat 23 it, that is fine.
() 24 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) No. I ha ve -- it 25 represented for passive valve -- okay, the single O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3943
{} 1 failure criteria for a passive valve. It would be the 2 valve sten leakage, okay, that bounds the type of 3 leakage or failures, passive f ailures that are 4 considered to be required. That is required. This is 5 predicated on low pressure operation, things of that 6 nature.
7 0 Is it also predicated on the judgment or 8 understanding that passive valves will not experience 9 failure during other phases of operation?
10 A (WITNESS FORTIER) We have for other phases of 11 operation passive failures that we consider in analysis, 12 okay, as initia ting events, f or instance. And that is a 13 totally different set of passive failures.
14 0 That is outside the single f ailure review, 15 correct?
16 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is right. Those would 17 be initiating events, and they involve pipe failures, 18 they involve all the other criteria established for 19 initiating events.
l 20 0 I wanted to stay with -- I believe your 21 testimony in response to Mr. Reveley was in the context 22 of the single failure analysis.
23 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
() 24 Q And so, am I correct that in that context, 25 failures of passive valves at other than low pressure l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l i
3944 l
l 1 operation are not considered?
{}
2 A (WITNESS FORTIER) It is considered tha t the 3 bounding condition would be LOCA events and the O 4 consequences of that event. The bounding failure, 5 passive failure, would be the valve stem leakage failure.
6 0 But that was -- my understanding was that was 7 only in the low pressure phase of operation, correct?
8 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
9 0 Where you are at high pressure operation, you 10 have not performed a single failure analysis of passive 11 -- failures of passive valves?
12 A (WITNESS FORTIER) The generic position 13 throughout the industry is that in the short term, which 14 in the time that you are referring to, passive failures 15 are not considered. It is the longer term that you have 16 the low pressure condition in which passive failures are 17 considerei.
18 0 Mr. Fortier, I,believe you stated that you 19 personally reviewed the proposed ESIV fix that Rockwell 20 suggested. Is that correct?
21 A (WITNESS FORTIER) That is correct.
22 0 What did you do?
l 23 A (WITNESS FOR TIER ) What did I do? It was after
() 24 it was implemented. I did it as a result of the 25 hearings.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l l
3945 l
{) 1 0 Okay. To your -- I am still curious. What 2 did your review -- when was your review?
3 A (WITNESS FORTIER ) My review --
4 0 Was it yesterday ?
5 A (WITNESS FORTIER) No, no. It has been, I 6 would say, over the last four months. It was af ter the 7 fix had been implemented, or the proposed fix 8 implementation by LILCO. Whenever my involvement on 9 this issue, which I think was probably in the prehearing 10 -- April saybe. Well, let 's see, June, July -- three 11 months ago. At that time when this contention was 12 identified, you sddressed the main steam isolation 13 failure as the key component in the testimony for 14 passive mechanical valve failures.
15 As a result of that, I started out an 16 investigation to look into tha t. Through that eff ort, 17 it culminated in the conclusion that I gave just a 18 little while ago.
19 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
20 0 Did you perform any specific analyses?
21 A (WITNESS FORTIER) No.
22 0 Wait -- did you perform any specific analyses 23 in this review which you undertook over the last couple
() 24 of months?
25 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I provided an assessment of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3946
(} 1 the event. I did not do a structural analysis, for 2 instance, which would be very unique and related with a 3 valve manufacturer's responsibility. I assessed the O 4 background on the event, the conditions that had been 5 described by the utility in conjunction with Rockwell, 6 identif ying the type and the potential causes for this 7 event to occur, which would be the unscrewing of the 8 disc from either the stem or from the piston.
9 In the assessment, I evaluated their 10 conclusions and I also assessed the proposed fixes that 11 they made. I am sa tisfied tha t the proposed fixes that 12 they made do address the kinds of potential concerns 13 that might have contributed to this failure at Brunswick 14 and Hatch. And it is through that assessment that I am 15 sa tisfied that it will not occur on Shoreham.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Fortier, am I correct that 17 your assessment, favorable assessment, of the fix 18 assumes that the problem with the missing pins was 19 caused by operation?
20 WITNESS FORTIER: No. That was just -- the 21 proposed fix involved various recommendations. Two of 22 them involved -- which really involved the potential, 23 even if the fix or even if the pins were not in. The
() 24 design is such that the valve disc would still stay in 25 place. The pin just provides further assurance that O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3947 rotational movement will not occur.
(]} 1 2 Obviously, with the pins out you loose that 3 additional fea ture. But it is -- the assessment 4 involved the design and how it could possibly unscrew.
5 This involves vibrational conclusions that some type of l 6 vibration had to be induced that would cause a potential
( -
l 7 rocking of the threaded joint to eventually cause it to 8 work its way down with a slight pitch of the pitch and 9 thread and potentially become disabled.
10 It is that type of an evaluation. What 11 Rockwell has done is they have provided a greater 12 prestress surface area so that when you pre-talk the 13 valve disc into the piston and into the valve stem, it 14 is allowed to have a much greater prestress applied over l
15 a greater surface area, such that now this vibrational to rocking, if it occurs, would not cause the material to 17 separate, because the prestress that was applied to the 18 washers and the shoulders that they modified in the 19 design.
l 20 The Shoreham original design had in the 21 piston-to-disc connection a much greater shoulder than 22 the one that was proposed or that occurred at Hatch and 23 Erunswick. As a matter of fact, one of the fixes that
() 24 they applied to those two utilities was to add some 25 depth in that shoulder to provide a greater prestress j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3948 1 surface area. We did not have to provide that because
[}
2 we had a heavier-duty prestress surface area already.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. And that would 4 apply to both pins. That is, under the new design you 5 are not depending on either of the rins with which there 6 was a problem before. When I say both pins, one of them 7 held the stem --
8 WITNESS FORTIER: That is correct.
9 JUDGE BRENNER -- in place, and one of them 10 held -- I am not using the right term -- the large 11 piston portion in place.
12 WITNESS FORTIER. That is correct. That is an 13 additional feature to the valve. The design basis to 14 preclude the event is the prestressing and the 15 pre-talking that is applied to the valve.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: And the pins are in there only 17 as a further backup?
18 UITNESS FORTIER: That is correct.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Okay.
20 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
21 0 Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Reveley asked you whether 22 ASME 11 was categoric in requiring tests of category A 23 and B valves every three months. Do you recall that?
() 24 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
25 0 You said that it was not categoric, that there O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3949
{) were some exceptions. Can you please tell me what those 1
2 exceptions are?
3 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) May I refer to the document?
4 0 Sure.
5 (Witness reviewing document.)
6 Nr. Kirkwood, could you tell us whether you 7 are referring to Section 34.10, and what document you 8 are referring to?
9 (Witness reviewing document.)
10 A (k3TNESS KIRKWOOD) I am referring to 11 subsection IWV3000; Section 11, Subsection IWV3000, and 12 I am going down to IWV3412. It states -- I think it is 13 the third sentence, quote, " Valves that cannot be 14 exercised during plant operation shall be specifically i 15 identified by the owner, and shall be full stroke 16 exercised during cold shutdowns."
17 Q Is that the only exception that you know of?
18 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) There may be an equivalent 19 one for check valves or something.
20 0 My question was in the context of category A 21 and B valves.
22 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
23 0 So they are to be exercised every three months
() 24 unless that is not practical during operation. If that 25 is the case, they should be fully exercised during each ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3950 1 cold shutdown, correct?
[}
2 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
3 0 Is that requirement imposed by the staff?
4 A (WITNESS KIRKWOO D) If it is impractical to 5 perform the tests in cold shutdown, we will permit 6 refueling.
7 0 Now, how would it be impractical to perform 8 the test at cold shutdown, sir?
9 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, as I noted this 10 morning, there msy be valves such as in a PWR core spray 11 system which is in a rather inaccessible position in the 12 containment during normal opera tion . You would have to 13 erect a structure, if there is not one there, and this 14 would involve a long period of time and many crafts.
15 0 But it would not lead to an unsafe plant 16 condition similar to trying to exercise the plant during 17 a valve, during an operation, to exercise that valve 18 during cold shutdown, would it? It would take work.
19 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes.
20 0 But doesn't, though, the code require that 21 work? Isn't it pretty categoric that if you cannot 22 exercise the valve during operation and thus meet the 23 th ree-month test requirement, then you shall do it
() 24 during cold shutdown? Isn't that what the code provides?
25 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is what the code
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3951
{} 1 states, but the practice of the staff is to permit, 2 under certain given conditions, testing at refueling.
3 (Counsel for Suffo1% County conferring.)
C, 4 MR. LANPHER: I have no further questions.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: All righ t . Let's go off the 6 record for a moment.
l 7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 (Board conferring.)
9 JUDGE BRENNERs Judge Morris has some 10 questions.
11 BOARD EXAMINATION -- Resumed 12 BY JUDGE MORRISa 13 0 Mr. Kirkwood, I guess it is a long time since 14 we read the contentions, so I am going to read the words 15 again to refresh your memory. Suffolk County contends 18 that LILCO _has not demonstrated that the velves used in 17 safety-rela ted systems at Shoreham will not fail in an 18 undetectable or unsafe mode. And it goes on from there.
19 The concluding sentence in your testimony, 20 based on your testimony, therefore, the intervenor's 21 allegations are without merit. Is it therefore your 22 Position that the -- that LILCO has demonstrated that 23 the valves used in safety-related systems at Shoreham
() 24 vill not fail in an undetectable or unsafe mode?
25 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I believe it is always O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
3952 1 possible for valves to fail in an undetected mode; 2 however, oy assuring conformance with. subsection IWV, O you have greater confidence that this will not happen.
4 I think it --I do not think as an engineer I could state 5 categorically that you will not have a passive valve 8 failure.
7 0 Is it your position that such a failure could 8 be in an unsafe mode?
9 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes, it could happen, I 10 imagine.
11 0 Is it your conclusion , therefore , that the 12 reason that you think the contention is without merit is 13 that this would not jeopardize safe operation of the 14 plant?
15 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct, because 18 there are redundant lines, other systems, that can bring 17 the plant to a safe condition.
18 0 So that really is your -- the basis for your 19 conclusion rather than that a valve failure could not 20 occur?
21 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes. A valve failure --
22 valve failures occur in the industry every so often, but 23 considering the number of valves that are in plants, it O 24 i= - veer == 11 === der- S=* ta r ao 1 11 vertoaic 111-25 There are bulletins that indicate this.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3953 In the contention, there are several general
(]) 1 0 2 design criteria referenced; 23, 34, 35, 37 and 40. I do 3 not know if you have all of these in your mind, but part 4 of the contention is that these failures would violate 5 these general design criteria. Have you reviewed that 6 part of the contention?
7 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I did not review the 8 contention in the context of those general design 9 criteria, no.
10 0 A re yo:2 able to offer an opinion as to whether 11 the kinds of f ailures we have been talking about would 12 violate those general design criteria?
13 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) No.
l 14 BY JUDGE BRENNER:
15 0 No, you cannot offer an opinion?
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct.
17 BY JUDGE MORRIS (Resuming)4 18 0 would anyone besides Mr. Kirkwood on the panel 19 care to respond to the recent questions?
20 A (WITNESS FORTIER) My answer to that in summary 21 would be, I believe, that my testimony took all of that 22 into perspective and that was the reason why I had to 23 take it to the stages, in my opinion, that I did, to
) 24 show that we did meet the criteria as outlined in the 25 general design criteria. And as such, I believe my O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3954 I testimony represents that Shoreham has adequately
)
2 addressed these type of concerns, and I am confident 3 th a t they -- it is not an issue or a concern, a safety 0 4 concern for Shoreham, and that we do comply with those 5 general design criteria as related to this passive 6 mechanical vslve failure issue.
7 Q And I do not want to put words in your mouth, 8 but let me try something. Do you base that, again, on 9 the low frequency of expected failures on the one hand, 10 and the lack of what you consider to be the safety 11 sigr.ificance, on the other hand?
12 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I think it is more s
13 ap prop ria te to say that I think there is defense in
( 14 depth, which is the approach that.I would visualize 15 this, and it is this defense in depth with a combination 16 of the different implementation of the systems and 17 designs, test programs, that I have already discussed 18 tha t gives me this confidence. And it is an aspect 19 where I feel confident.
i 20 0 Leading to your conclusion that it is not a 21 significant safety concern?
22 A (WITNESS FORTIER) For Shoreham, +, is 23 correct.
l
() 24 0 For Shoreham, right. Have you reviewed this 25 contention with respect to those specific general design i
ALDERSON REPoATING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
3955 criteria?
(]} 1 2 A (WITNESS FORTIER) Yes, I have.
3 0 What was your conclusion?
4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) My conclusion was that 5 Shoreham satisfied the general design criteria.
6 0 What was the : asis for that?
7 A (WITNESS FORTIEP) The basis was my testimony 8 and the presentation that I believe I have presented in 9 the last two days. I am not quite sure of the question 10 that you are --
11 (Pause.) '
12 0 Mr. Kreps, do You want to add anything?
13 A (WITNESS KREPS) No, I do not believe so, Judge.
14 JUDGE MORRISs Okay, that is all I have at 15 this time.
16 JUDGE BRENNERs I want to try to get one thing 17 clear here in regard to the single failure criterion 18 approach which a lot of people have asked you and other 19 witnesses about.
l 20 BY JUDGE BRENNER (Resuming)s
(
21 0 At some point during the litigation of this l 22 contention, one of the county witnesses, I think in i
23 response to a question, raised the concern or at least
() 24 offered his view that a single passive failure should be
, 25 assumed to occur along with a single active failure.
()
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3956 Not necessarily tha t they occur at the same time, but
(]) 1 2 you assume the existence of the passive failure and
( 3 superimpose, if you will, a single active failure.
l l If you have both of those failures within the 4
5 same system within the same -- if I am phrasing this 6 correctly --
within the same subsystem for which there 7 are also redundant subsystems, am I correct that those 8 two failures are, in effect, enveloped by the assumption 9 that the whole subsystem f ails given the existence of 10 the redundant subsystem?
11 A (WITNESS FORTIER) In that perspective, I would 12 agree with the conclusion that that is bounded by that 13 type -- but there are a lot of other conditions where 14 you could apply that same rule, which I would not agree 15 with. A passive failure in one loop and the active 16 failure in its redundent loop.
17 0 Right, I understand that.
18 A (WITNESS FORTIER) But as you summarized it, 19 there are many places within the plant and many other 20 subsystems that can take combinations of single 21 f ailures, many f ailures, and have no consequences on the 22 overall safety. But in the pure aspect of a single 23 failure, we are looking at potentially the worst cases.
l
() 24 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
25 (Board confarring.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3957
(} 1 JUDGE BRENNER: Is there anything based solely 2 on the Board's questions? '
3 MR. LANPHER Yes.
f O 4 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. That is fair if 5 you have sometning based on the Boa rd 's questions.
6 CROSS EXAMINATION ON BOARD EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. LANPHER:
a O Mr. Fortier, did you prepare the GDC analysis 9 found in Section 3.1 of the Shoreham FSAR7 10 A (WITNESS FORTI ER ) I would like to --
11 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
12 MR. REVELEYs Would you tell us what that 13 section is, please, Mr. Fortier? What is the name of O 14 the section?
15 WITNESS FORTIERs It is, Conformance to NRC 16 General Desien Criteria.
17 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming) 18 Q Did you prepare that section or any section of 19 it, Mr. Fortier?
20 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I would not be the person 21 directly responsible for -- in this format that woul.d be 22 an aspect of our licensing department. Th ey would --
23 and in some of these contentions or general design
() 24 criteria, it would directly involve my input. So in 25 sum, I would provide the necessary input for certain O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3958 1 sections.
2 The bulk of these were, I believe -- I forget 3 the date, but they go back quite a bit in time. And O 4 unless it was a particular system that I was involved, I 5 would not have been the originator. I would have since 6 then, if there were changes ta it, I would have been 7 involved in some of those aspects of it.
8 The responsibility f or these systems, for this 9 criteria, is a combination of LILCO, General Electric 10 and Stone E Webster, who would have primary 11 responsibility.
12 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
13 0 Would you turn to General Design Criterion 23, 14 which is discussed in there, and I do not have the page 15 number because I gave you my copy.
16 A (WITNESS FOPTIER) Okay.
17 0 Did you have input into the discussion 18 regarding that general design criterion?
19 A (WITNESS FORTIER) This particula r criteria 20 would be more in the control circuitry aspects, and 21 typically would not. There may have been some questions 22 someone in the control group might have asked me in 23 relation to it, but I would not have been responsible
() 24 for this particular criteria.
25 0 Would you take a look a t criterion 347 The i
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP 5NY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASNNGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 3959 i same question: Did you provide the input, or a portion
('} 1 2 of the input, for the discussion there?
3 (Witness reviewing document.)
4 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I believe the da te as I ha ve 1
5 on this particular section -- apparently two of the 6 three pages that address this were, I guess, the 7 original FSAR. I do not have a revision date on it, and 8 the initial page was Rev 3, November 1976. I was not in 9 the role that I am presently in, and therefore, I was --
10 I am not involved. It predated me.
11 0 Will you look at GDC 35, sir?
12 MR. REVELEYs Judge, I am going to object to 13 this. It seems to me it a little late in the game to be 14 going into it, A. B, we did not cite this portion of 15 the FSAR as something we were relying on. C, the only 16 read on which Mr. Lanpher -- to which Mr. Lanpher can 17 claim for these question is a relatively fleeting 18 mention by the Boa rd by Judge Morris, of the GDC.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: You have correctly cited the 20 read, however fleeting. The problem is the witness gave 21 a very af firmative answer to a general question, and 22 given that very strong answer given without any caveats 23 by the witness, Mr. Lanpher is entitled to inquire into
() 24 the bases f or it. You may be sorry that Judge Morris 25 asked the question.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 3960 l
i
() 1 HR. R EV ELEY : I thought the bases --
2 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me finish. Let me 3 finish. The witness gave a strong answer, that the O- 4 witness ' view is he has looked at all these general 5 design criteria, all these being the ones cited in the 6 contention, in the context of the contention, and he 7 thinks the plant meets them. I think Mr. Lanpher is 8 entitled to inquire into that. However, there has to be
, 9 a more efficient way of making that inquiry, Mr.
10 Lanpher, instead of the same question as to this one, 11 the same question as to that one.
12 HR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I would be happy 13 for the Board to ask the questions. This is the way 14 that occurred to me, and I do not think it is 15 laborious. If you want to direct me not to go forward 16 this way, fine, but I would prafer to go forward this 17 wa y .
18 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Let me give it a 19 try.
20 MR. LANPHER Fine. Go ahead.
21 BOARD EXAMINATION -- Resumed 22 BY JUDGE BRENNER:
23 0 Mr. Fortier, with respect to the GDC's cited
() 24 in the contention -- that is, criterion 23, 34, 35, 37 25 and 40 -- in addition to you have anything to add to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3961
(} 1 support the answer you gave Judge Horris that you 2 believe in the context of this contention the plant met 3 these criteria beyond the testimony you have already 4 given here in both your written testimony and oral 5 testimony?
6 A (WITNESS FOR' TIER) Yes. Although I may not 7 have had direct input on the development of these design 8 criteria, they have been established as guidelines that 9 our plant is designed to.
10 I have reviewed the general design criteria, 11 and it was based on that assessment that I made my 12 judgments.
13 0 I guess I do not fully understand that answer 14 myself. In the context of whether due to postulated or 15 potential undetectable or unsafe modes of mechanical 16 valve failure, these criteria are met. Is there 17 anything beyond that which you have testified about at 18 this hearing which we should know to determine your 1g basis for stating nothing with respect to this l
20 contention violates those criteria?
21 A (WITNESS FORTIER) To my knowledge if we 22 provide a system, a combination of systems such as in a 23 LOCA event, a core spray or an LPCI injection system, we
() 24 meet the intent of the ECCS requirements. We have met 25 those requirements in the analysis and the presentation l l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3962
- 1 ve gave, and it is based on that information that I made 2 my sta t em en ts . s 3 JUDGE BRENNER
- All right. Do you have O 4 anything to follow up on?
5 MR. LANPHER: I am going to continue the way I 6 was going with your leave, Judge Brenner.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, all right. You have 8 four more, so -- four more criteria.
9 HR. LANPHER: I have three more, 35, 37 and 40.
10 JUDGE BRENNER. I think you are going to get 11 the same answer as to each one that you have gotten as 12 to the first two and that I have just gotten to the 13 general question. That is, the assessment has been
( 14 performed; they disagree with your witnesses that these 15 general type criteria vill be violated for the reasons 16 they have given throughout the testimony.
17 HR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, that was not the 18 question I asked this gentleman.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Go ahead.
20 CROSS EIAMINATION ON BOARD EXAMINATION -- Resumed 21 BY MR. LANPHER:
22 Q With respect to GDC 35, 37 and 40 as set forth 23 in the FSAR, did you provide input for those FSAR
() 24 sections, sir?
25 (Witness reviewing document.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L _ _
3963
(} 1 A (WITNESS FORTIER) I believe all of those 2 pages were the original FSAR sections except one, and 3 th e revisions which were made in June of '78 would not 4 have been involved with the revisions I would have made.
5 0 Thank you.
6 Mr. Kirkwood, Judge Morris asked you a 7 question or maybe more than one question regarding your 8 final sentence in your testimony where you say the 9 intervenors' allegations are without merit. And to 10 pa ra ph ra se , I believe you said that the reason you have 11 confidence in the Shoreham system is that there are 12 redundant lines and other systems which provide 13 assurance that unsafe conditions will not develop or 14 something along those lines.
15 Do you recall that?
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) If I said it in that way --
17 0 You used the words " redundant lines and other 18 systems."
19 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Redundant lines and other 20 systems, yes.
21 0 Where is that addressed in your testimony, 22 that basis for your conclusion in your written 23 testimony? Is it addressed anywhere?
() 24 (Witness reviewing document.)
25 A (WITNESS KIEKWOOD) No, I do not think so.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3964
(} 1 MR. LANPHERs I have no further questions.
2 (Board conferring.)
3 JUDGE BRENNERs Is there anything else?
4 (No response.)
5 JUDGE BRENNER: I hope not.
6 MR. REVELEYa I have some, but I am not going 7 to ask them.
8 (Laughter.)
9 JUDGE BRENNERJ I am no going to say it.
10 (Laughter.)
11 MR. REVELEY: I thought we were going to get 12 through at 12:00.
13 JUDGE BRENNERs Originally"I said prior to 14 lunch, and of course the option could have been of l 15 having a very late lunch.
16 This witness panel is excused. We do 17 appreciate your time very much, g en tlem en .
18 (The panel was excused.)
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Kreps, maybe they will let 20 you go back to Texas now.
21 MR. KBEPS: I wish I could. Unfortunately, I 22 think I will get to spend another summer on Long Island.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, in fact, we will see Mr.
l
() 24 Kirkwood very shortly, too, on Contention 7(b).
25 Why don 't we take the break ear?.y since we O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGANIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 1
I 3965 l 1 will shift over to the next contention? When we come 2 back I would like to have the staff and LILCO witnesses 3 at the table on seismic design spectra, and then each in 4 turn can present the witnesses. After you name them we 5 will swear them all in together.
6 Be back at five minutes after 3:00.
7 (Recess.)
8 9
10 4
11 12 13 14 t
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I
3966
(} 1 Whereupon, 2 ROBERT L. ROTHMAN 3 SANG B0 KIM O 4 ALBERT YA0 CHEE WONG 5 A. ST ANLEY LUCKS 6 were called as witnesses by counsel for Applicant and, 7 having been duly sworn, were examined and testified as 8 follows:
9 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Let's have the 10 witnesses introduced and the testimony moved in, 11 beginning with LILCO's witnesses.
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY HR. IRWIN:
14 0 Long Island Lighting's two witnesses on SOC 15 Contention 19(e), seismic design, are Dr. Albert Yao 16 Ch ee Wong, who is second from the right on the panel as 1'y one faces the panels and Dr. Stanley Lucks, who is on 18 the very right as one f aces the panel.
19 Dr. Wong, do you have with you a copy of 20 testimony entitled " Testimony of Albert Yao Chee Wong 21 for the Long Island Lighting Company on SOC Contention 22 19 (e)--Seismic Design ?"
23 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, I do.
() 24 0 Does that testimony consist of eight pages of 25 text followed by four pages of professional O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3967 qualifications of Albert Yao G. Wong?
{]) 1 2 A (WITNESS WOKG) Yes, I have.
3 0 Dr. Wong, is it your understanding that O 4 certain portions of your testimony have been struck by 5 order of the hearing board on transcript pages 2,446 and 8 2,4477 7 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, I do.
8 0 Is it your understanding that those areas 9 include question and answer 12, and question and answer to 13, and question and answer 14 in their entirety?
11 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, yes, sir.
12 0 And then question 15 and answer 15 down 13 through the word "Shoreham" in the third line of the -
14 answer.
15 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
16 0 The remainocr of answer 15 remains in your 17 testimony, is that correct ?
18 A (WITNESS WONG) Also question 16, too.
19 Q Tes. Question 16 was also struck, that is 20 correct.
21 Is it your understanding also that on page 8 22 in the answer to question 24 the phrase in the second 23 line of your answer, namely "the peak ground
() 24 acceleration rate of 0.2g," was also struck?
25 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
O 3 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3968 Do you have any additions to or corrections to
(]) 1 Q 2 the testimony with the deletions of the ma terial just 3 noted?
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Excuse me. Let me interject.
5 Maybe you did this and I missed it. My notes and my 6 recollection, both of which may be incorrect, are that 7 with respect to question and answer 11, most of that was 8 struck except for the phrase "Shoreham is designed to 9 intensity 7 of the modified Mercalli scale."
10 And if you indicated that just now, Mr. Irwin, 11 I missed it.
12 MR. IRWINs Judge Brenner, if you will look at 13 the bottom of page transcript 2,445, line 23 --
14 JUDGE BRENNERs Why don't you tell me what it 15 says?
16 MR. IRWINs It says we would leave in question 17 11 for the reason given by the staf f. It is background 18 supplying the intensity of the earthquake.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. You are correct.
20 And the main reason was, as you just indicated, there 21 was no harm in the rest of it. That is probably why we 22 left it in. I'm sorry.
23 MR. IRWIN: Thank you.
() 24 BY MR. IRWINs (Resuming) 25 Q Dr. Wong, returning to the question I asked l
()
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INO, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
3969
{) 1 you, do you have any additions or corrections to the testimony aur it now stands?
2 .
)
3 A (WITNESS WONG) I have two corrections. On 4 Question 18 --
5 0 Would you indicate them, please?
6 A (WITNESS WONG) On the second line of the 7 answer insert "not necessarily" between "do" and 8 " resemble."
9 0 So the phrase would read "do not necessarily 10 resemble Shoreham."
11 A (WITNESS WONG) That is right.
12 The other correction is line 4 of the same 13 question, Question 18, renove the s from the word 14 " hurts."
,15 0 As corrected is this testimony true and 16 correct to the best of your knowledge?
17 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
18 0 Dr. Lucks, do you have with you a statement of 19 professional qualifications of A. Stanley Lucks, Chief 20 Geotechnical Engineer, Stone and Webster Corporation, 21 consisting of three pages?
22 A (WITNESS LUCKS) Yes, sir.
23 Q Is that sta tement of professional
() 24 qualifications true and correct to the best of your 25 knowledge?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3970 (WITNESS LUCKS) Yes, sir.
(]) 1 A 2 0 Dr. Lucks, have you reviewed the testimony 3 filed by Dr. Albert Iao Chee Wong on SOC Contention 4 19(e)?
5 A (WITNESS LUCKS) Yes, sir.
6 0 Do you support the testimony of Dr . Wong with 7 deletions and corrections noted by him?
8 A (WITNESS LUCKS) Yes, sir.
9 MR. IRWINa Judge Brenner, I would move the 10 testimony of Dr. Albert ao Chee Wong along with the 11 professional qualifications of Dr. Wong and the 12 professional qualifications of Dr. Lucks into evidence 13 at this time, and ask they be bound in the transcript.
14 JUDGE BRENNER: In the absence of objection 15 beyond the objection we have previously ruled upon, the 16 documents identified will be admitted into evidence and 17 bound in.
18 (The information referred to followsa) i 19 l
20 21 22 l
23
() 24
- 25 l
i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.,3.W., WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
I hk v
&!T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
{} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and___ Licensing Board_
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT YAO CHEE WONG FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SOC CONTENTION 19(e) --
_ SEISMIC _ DESIGN PURPOSE This testimony shows that the design response spectra and the corresponding damping values used for the seismic design of Shoreham ensure that the seismic design is conserva-tive. The jotal damping values in the Shoreham design are more conservative and provide more safety than the structural damp-ing values suggested in RegulatoJy Guide 1.61.
()
i l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing _ Board O
In the Matter of )
)
, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT YA3 CHEE WONG FOR Tli2 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SOC CONTENTION 19(e) --
SEISMIC DESIGN _
- 1. Q. What is your name and business address?
A. My name is Albert Yao Chee Wong. My business address is Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Oi 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02107.
- 2. Q. By whom and in what capacity are you employed?
A. I am employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as a Senior Structural Engineer.
\ '
- 3. Q. Would you briefly summarize your professional qual-l ifications?
A. I am the Principal Structural Engineer on the Shoreham project, responsible for providing techni-cal guidance in the design and analysis of all
(]} structures, resolving field problems during i
l
construction and interfacing with other engineering disciplines. My complete resume appears on pages i
9-12.
- 4. Q. Are you familiar with SOC Contention 19(e)?
A. Yes.
- 5. Q. What is the basic issue of the contention?
A. The thrust of the contention is that LILCO has not complied with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2, and 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A in regard to the seismic design of Shoreham because (1) the design response spectra for the seismic design are not based on Regulatory Guide 1.60, and (2) a damping
(]} value of 5 percent, rather than 4 percent as sug-gested in Regulatory Guide 1.61, was used.
- 6. Q. What are design response spectra?
A. Design response spectra are mathematical represen-Itations of an earthquake to be used in structural analysis and design. They are envelopes of pre-scribed maximum responses of a structure to seismic excitation. This response depends upon such fac-tors as natural frequency, peak ground accelera-tion, and damping values. Natural frequency is the
() rate at which the structure completes one cycle of
~
f motion per unit of time. Put simply, natural frequency describes how fast the structure vi-brates. The peak ground acceleration rate de-
[
scribes how fast the ground moves in terms of per-centage of gravity. The damping factor describes the amount of energy dissipated by the system during motion.
- 7. Q. Did Shoreham incorporate the design response spec-tra established in Regulatory Guide 1.60?
A. Shoreham did not incorporate the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra because it was designed before the issuance of Regulatory Guide 1.60.
% 8. Q. What design response spectra were used in the analysis at Shoreham? ,
A. The design response spectra used are shown in Shoreham FSAR Fig. 3.7.lA-1 and Fig. 3.7.lA-2.
- 9. Q. How do they differ from the spectra proposed by Regulatory Guide 1.60?
A. The Regulatory Guide 1.60 design response spectra are developed so that they can be used universally; that is, they can be applied to many sites in the United States. Accordingly the design response spectra are overly conservative. The Shoreham spectra were developed specifically for shoreham.
- 10. Q. What is the basis of Shoreham design response spec-tra?
A. Shoreham's design response spectra were developed based on the studies of Dr. H. B. Seed and Dr. R.
. V. Whitman, and the recommendation of NRC Consultant, Dr. Newmark, whose publication is the basis of Regulatory Guide 1.60. The Shoreham design response spectra were reviewed by the NRC and found to be adequately conservative.
- 11. Q. Let's further explore the Shoreham design. What is the basis of the Shoreham's safe shutdown earth-quake (SSE) design?
l l {} A. The design was based on the extrapolation of his-torical data of seismic activity in the Shoreham area. Shoreham is designed to Intensity VII of the Modified Mercalli scale. The intensity scale is a subjective measure of structural damage at a given
" location.
l
- 12. Q How-was-the-Mercall-i-ScalMrr-figure derived?_ - - -
s j
( . It was a conservative estimate based upon seis ic- L his ory in the area. Over 300 year historical str u ob-records i outhern New EngJa , New York and New I" 144h
(} Jersey were used. d largest intensity earthqutke that has oc red on Lon Island was Intensity V Thes N
l ata are discussed in the'PSAR.
. \ ~
r i
(MH the largest intensity earthquake was a W why-i.9 Shoreham designed to withstand a VII?
A To add an extra margin of safety, the Shoreha d'esign used a Intensity VII earthquake as e maxi-mum cred{ble earthquake.
14 . Q. How much g is an Intensity V earthquake than an Intensity earthquak cAruc k-A. Using the peak ground a c eration as the criter- YO ion, an Intensity VII arth ake is a factor of about 3 greater an an Intensity V earthquake.
- 5. Q. What is t maximum ground acceleratio to be ex-pect at Shoreham?
A. Ith an earthquake intensity of VII, the maximym ground acceleration rate of an SSE is 0.139 i .
_, However, for an added margin of safety 2 Shoreham used a 0.2g maximum ground acceleration as the
, design basis for its SSE. The OBE is defined as one-half the SSE.
. o- noJhoreham-is-designed-tomest7ucbaser grser.d -
acce ration't peeted c 144 (,
% As yes. ~I
- 17. Q. How do the Shoreham design response spectra compare p l to the Regulatory Guide 1.60 requirements?
l l
1 i
1
A. It is inappropriate to compare the Shoreham and Regulatory Guide 1.60 design response spectra. In total, the conservative inputs into Shoreham's
() design assure adequate safety.
. 18. Q. Why is it inappropriate to compare the Regulatory Guide 1.60 and Shoreham's design response spectra?
A. Regulatory Guide 1.60 is based on data from various AM necessor'ily sites that do resemble A
Shoreham. For example, be-cause Shoreham is on a soil site, the major con-
~
tributing structural frequencies are below 5 Hertz (Hz). Seismic input above 5 Hz will have an insig-nif'icant contribution to the structural response.
Therefore, frequency inputs above 5 Hz, which are
() included in Regulatory Guide 1.60, are insignifi-cant. ,
- 19. Q. Let us move to the second part of the contention.
What is the issue involved?
l A. Regulatory Guide 1.61 provides that a 4 percent material damping value should be used for the oper-I ating basis earthquake (OBE) analysis of Category 1 reinforced concrete structures. Shoreham, however, used a 5% total system damping value. SOC contends I n's that this value is insufficient.
~
1 i
- 20. Q. What is the difference between material damping and total system damping?
, A. Material damping is the damping associated with a particular kind of material and a particular type i
of structure. The total system damping is a weighted average of the damping factors of the structural system, includirg the subgrade soil damping.
- 21. Q. How is the total system damping determined?
A. The total system damping is a weighted average damping of the structure system. The weighting factor is based on the amount of energy stored by l
{} each part of the structural system, including the subgrade soil.
j
- 22. Q. Did the Shoreham seismic OBE analysis use the 4 percent material damping value as suggested by
A. No. The 44 structural damping value proposed by the Regulatory Guide is not applicable to the ap-proach taken for Shoreham. The Shoreham OBE seis-mic anitysis used 5 percent total system damping which is more conservative than 4 percent rein-
{} forced concrete material damping as suggested by negulatory Guide 1.61.
- -__- .- ~ -____.- -__._ - . - . - - . .
- 23. Q. What is the justification for using the 5 percent total system damping value?
A. Typical soil subgrade damping is 10% or more.
Using the weighted average scheme as discussed, the i .
use of 44 structural damping with 10% soil damping is equivalent to total system damping of 8%. ,
Shoreham, by using a 54 total system damping value, is conservative.
- 24. Q. Would you summarize your conclusions regarding Shoreham's seismic design?
~~
A. The'use of the Shoreham design response spectra /r $re"'
p *l peak-ground caeeleratiomte-.of-orag and the Tr' 1943 corresponding damping values ensure that the seis-mic design of Shoreham is sufficiently conserva- .
4 tive.
l l
l G
1
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Albert Y. C. Wong
() Senior Structural Engineer / Structural Division STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION My name is Albert Wong. My business address is 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02107. I am employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Division and have held this position since September 1979. I am assigned as the Principal Structural Eng,ineer on the Shoreham project. In this capacity,
, I am responsible for providing technical guidelines in the
() design and analysis of all structures, resolving field problems during construction, and interfacing with various vendors and other engineering disciplines. My responsibility also includes preparing manpower budgets and engineering schedules, attending technical committee meetings, and liaison with, and representa-tion of Long Island Lighting Company at various hearings.
I received my Bachelor of Science degree with honors, in civil engineering, from the University of Hong Kong in 1968; Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy in civil engineering in 1970 and 1973 from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana; and Master of Business Administration from
Boston College in 1981. In 1974 I successfully completed a course on multiprotection design conducted by the U.S. Civil
() Defense Preparedness Agency. In the area of power plant engin-eer, I have completed three graduate courses in power plant design at Northeastern University.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, I was a research assistant in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. My research included study of the durability of concrete, and the analytical study of load distribution in highway bridges.
~
I joined Stone & Webster Engineering Corpc.ation as a computer Applications Engineer in December 1972, ar.d in that capacity I was responsible for the implementation, development t
and modification of various structural analysis systems and
- programs in the areas of finite element analyses and dynamic analyses. I transferred to the Structural Division in September 1973 as a support engineer. From September 1973 to June 1978, I was assigned to different projects working on dif-ferent aspects of the design and analysis of power plant struc-l tures, My experience included the design of containment build-i ing, internal structure, foundation mat, and other structures; design of tornado missile barrier; seismic analysis of O
I I
containment structure, polar crane supporting structure, and other buildings; vibration analysis of fan foundation and
() stress analysis of piping penetrations and liner. I also per-formed a study on the effects of damping on structural response and the sliding of building under seismic excitation.
I was promoted to Structural Engineer in 1977 and Senior Structural Engineer in 1979. From 1978 to April 1980, I was assigned to various responsible positions on different pro-jects. I performed various conceptual studies of containment internal structure layout; developed structural design criter-ia; established engineering schedules, manpower requirements, and various bu'dget estimates. I was the responsible engineer in a seismic reanalysis task force supervising the seismic ana-lysis of all the buildings and presenting the SWEC approach and method of analysis to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -
I was assigned to Shoreham project as the Principal Structural Engineer in April 1980.
I sm a Registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts and a Member of both the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete Institute.
(ab
. My publications include:
"The Effects of Drying on the Freeze-Thaw Durability of Concrete," University of Illinois Engineering Experiment
() Station, Bulletin 506, by A. Y. C. Wong, C. L. Anderson, and H.
K. Hilsdorf.
" Effects of Diaphragms on Load Distribution on Continuous Slab Girder Bridges," by A. Y. C. Wong and W. L. Gamble - University of Illinois Structural Research Series, SRA 391.
"Probabilistic Prediction of Floor Response Spectra," by Manas K. Chakravorty, A. Y. C. wong, and D. C. Foster - Third Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June 4-6, 1979, Montreal, Canada.
"A Frequency Domain Approach to Seismic Analysis of Multiple Supported Secondary Systems." by Manas K. Chakravorty, A. Y. C. Wong, and M. B. Stetson - International Meeting on Fast Reactor Safety Technology, August 19-23, 1979, Seattle, Washington.
! )
O 1
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS r A. Stanley Lucks
(,w) Chief Geotechnical Engineer STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION My name is Stanley, Lucks.. My business address is 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02107. I mn employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as Chief Geotechnical Engineer responsible fo r the management of the Geotachnical Division. Geotechnical Division staff are responsible for all geologic, seismologic, geophysical and geotechnical engineering work for Stone & Webster projects. I have held this position since April 1978. My
(']
V responsibilities include.providing review and technical guidance for geotechnical work, including that involving Long Island Lighting' Company's Shoreham Project. My respon-sibilities have included the development of design response spectra.
I received my Bachelor of Science degree, with first class honors in civil engineering, from.Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1963; Diploma of Imperial ~ College in Soil Mechanics from Imperial College, London, England, in 1964; and Doctor of Philosophy in geotechnical engineering
(--) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering.
Corporation, I was a Project Soils Engineer with Lambe Associates, Concord, Massachusetts, from 1970 to 1972.
}
From 1966 until 1970, I was a Research Assistant at MIT and a Consultant to T. W. Lambe and Associates. My research included conducting studies and analyses of the shear strength of granular soils. From 1964 until 1966, I was a Civil Engineer with R. H. Cuthbertson & Associates, Edinburgh, Scotland.
I joined Stone & Webster Corporation as a soils engineer in June 1972. In November 1973 I was promoted to Senior Soils Engineer and Group' Supervisor. In these posi-
! tions I was responsible for geotechnical work on several l rh
~
projects. This work included geologic, seismologic and-l
-geotechnical engineering studies for several nuclear power plant siting and design projects. In November 1976 I was promoted to Assistant Chief Geotechnical Engineer responsible for the supervision of geotechnical workon several projects ,
as well as the operation of the Geotechnical Testing Labora-tory and the review of Technical Procedures for the control I of Geotechnical Division work. In April 1978 I was promoted to Chief Geotechnical Engineer responsible for the manage-
. ment of the Geotechnical Division.
i i
l
+ ..
6 -
I have coauthored several~ professional papers and reports in the field of geotechnical engineering.
These papers have included the assessment of seismic
}
hazard, the sliding an'd stability of structures'during earthquakes, the seismic stability of soil deposits and criteria for the design of retaining walls to withstand earthquakes. One paper, which I coauthored, was an analysis of certain soil characteristics at Shoreham:
"The Effect of Change in the Effective Stress on STP-N Values," 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (1981).
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts, a member of the American Society of Civil b
l Engineers and the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section, 1
the International Society of Soil' Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. I am also an Associate Member of the Institu-tion of Civil Engineers (London). I am a member of the Embankment Dams and Slopes and Publibations Committees of
! the American Society of Civil Engineers.
l l
sJ .
l l
i l'
l 3971 1
MR. IRWIN I have two preliminary matters
(]) 1 2 which I probably should have mentioned before I turned 3 in their testimony.
4 One is Mr. Lanpher and I did confer prior to 5 these witnesses coming here pursuant to the Board's 8 ganeral request, and we, to our mutual regret, did not 7 discover a common basis for a resolution or a 8 significan t narrowing of the issues.
9 The second, as I noted, is that the addition 10 of Dr. Lucks to the panel is for the direct purpose of 11 providing more detailed information on the nature and 12 derivation of design response spectra. His testimony 13 can be limited to that end. I would hope that the Board 14 allowed Dr. Lucks full scope of the application of his 15 expertise so as to provide the best possible record in 16 that area.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: As to the first part, that is, 18 the lack of result of the settlement negotiations, we 19 wil probe harder on ones where we think settlement was 20 apparently closer. It does not surprise us that a l 21 settlement was not reached on this contention. It does 22 surprise me personally -- I have not discussed it with 23 the Board -- that there was no room for narrowing.
() 24 Was there much focusing on the damping value 25 factor and the explanation given in the testimony and so l
i l
ALDERSON REFORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 V'RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 3972 '
on?
(]) 1 2 MR. IRWIN: We did discuss damping, and Mr.
3- Lanpher was good enough to tell me that he believe there 4 were some calculations which he was unable to locate in 5 the FSAR which would have been useful in erabling him to l 6 understand better our damping analysis. And I think I 7 vill let him address it beyond that if he wishes to.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: I guess the question is in the 9 direct testimony, which may be subject to total 10 destruction under your withering cross examination, but 11 as appears only preliminarily, and that is the only l 12 context we are in, they are not disagreeine essentially l
l 13 with what would be a conservative damping value as 14 advocated by the County or SOC in the contention.
15 They are stating they have bounded it with 16 their total damping value concept. And you did not see 17 any room for resolution given that factor?
18 MR. LANP!IER I think given my cross 19 examination plan this is an area where I would basically 20 vant to probe one area and find out the basis for -- I 21 forget the exact words they used -- the total damping 22 value, this combina tion of the structural damping and 23 the other damping which they take credit for, and
() 24 frankly find out whether the proper analyses underlie 25 th a t .
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554- % s
3973
() 1 JUDGE BRENNERs You could not ascertain that 2 from the discussions?
3 HR. LANPHER: I could not, and I could not get 4 it from the FSAR. Mr. Irwin is right. I did review the 5 FSAR sections where I thought it stould have been, and I 6 think that concern may disappear if they can point it 7 out. We will see.
8 I think it is fair to say that our concern 9 goes much more directly to the response spectrum issue.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. I am curious as to 11 where SOC's representatives are in all this; that is, 12 they are a party in the contention. I certainly 13 expected the County to participate in the settlement 14 discussions, but SOC did not participate. That is be 15 inference.
16 HR. IRWIN: That is correct, Judge Brenner.
17 HR. LANPHER: I have spoken with Mr. Shea on 18 this issue at some length. We have exchanged cross 19 plans, and frankly, he suggested and I agreed that I 20 would take the lead on this if only because we are in a 21 somewhat esoteric area where I have had a little bit of 22 trial experience before. And that is why I was the one 23 that talked with M r. Irwin.
() 24 JUDGE BRENNER: That was nice of Mr. Shea to 25 let the Board in on this. I recall a cover letter
/~T l
l NJ l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3974
() 1 somewhere that indicated that the SOC plan would be the 2 lead plan and that the County's plan would be follovup 3 to it. Is that an incorrect recollection? Perhaps I am 4 confusing another contention.
5 MR. LANPHER: I think just the opposite was 6 represented on this one, Judge Brenner, though I do not 7 have that letter.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. If it is important 9 to me, I will look later. They are not here. This is 10 their contention. Let the record so reflect it, and we 11 will proceed.
12 If you wanted to do an oral summary, Mr.
13 Irwin, with your witnesses you can do it now, and in 14 turn we will get the staff 's witnesses on.
! 15 MR. IRWIN: Thank you, Judge Brenner.
16 BY MR. IRWIN: (Resuming) 17 0 Again, Dr. Wong has prepared on behalf of the 18 panel a short summary of the testimony, and I ask him to 19 read it at this time.
l 20 A (WITNESS WONG) This testimony on seismic l
21 design shows that the Shoreham response spectra vill 22 derive f rom site specific analysis that accounted for 23 specific site characteristics. The total damping values
() 24 in the Shoreham design are more conservative and provide 25 more safety than the structural damping values suggested i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202: 554-2345
3975 in Beg Guide 1.61
[]} 1 2 The Sha eham design response spectra and the I
l 3 damping values used satisf y 10 CFR 50 Criterion 2 and 1(
4 CFR 100 Appendix A.
5 BR. IPWIN: Judge Brenner, I recognize that 6 that is not a verbatim reading of the statement of 7 purpose at the beginning of the testimony, and 8 therefore, I think under the previous Board rulings the 9 witnesses are prepared to answer questions which the 10 Board or Mr. Lanpher may have of them on the content of 11 their oral summary.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, now I am confused. When 13 you labeled this summary, I assumed it would not be the 14 subject of findings, and while the questions may get 15 into that area, you are not going to cite anything he 16 just said in support of a finding, unless you now tell 17 me that it is something other than a summary.
18 MR. IRWIN: Let me clarify it. I believe that 19 with respect to the reference to use of site specific l
20 characteristics to derive the design response spectra, 21 it goes beyond the limits of the previously written 22 statement of purpose. In that respect I believe that I 23 would hope it would be citeable. I am sure it is not
() 24 going to be the only instance where that subject comes 25 up.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 3976 Secondly, with reference to the issue of
({} 1 2 consistency with the requirements of the general design 3 criteria, Critorion 2, and of Part 100 Appendix A, again 4 I am sure that is not the only time that is going to 5 come up. But I would expect that would be citeable and 6 that these witnesses would be available to answer 7 questions on those.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: I do not think it is going to 9 be a problem on this particular one. However, in 10 general the test is not.whether or not a summary goes 11 beyond the written purpose. The oral summary is not 12 part of the findings. If you have anything in addition 13 it should be labeled as such, and presumably it would 14 have a handle on which to assert the additions a that is, l
i 15 some sort of rebuttal based on the testimony filed by 16 others or any cross examination that preceded the l
17 presentation of testimony. So we are not comparing it l
18 to the written summary. All right.
19 Maybe I should have stayed out of this summary 20 business, but I thought it would be helpful. I am 21 beginning to have second thoughts.
22 Mr. Bordenick.
23 MR. BOR DENICK : Thank you, Judge Brenner.
l
() 24 BY MR. BORDENICK:
25 Q First of all, I would like to identify for the O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3977
(]) 1 Board and the par ties the Staf f 's panel. On the left is 2 Dr. Robert L. Rothman, and on his left, our right, is q 3 Mr. Sang Bo Kim.
C/
4 Gentlemen , since this is joint testimony, I c will ask a question and then have each of you respond a beginning with Dr. Rothman and then Mr. Kim.
7 First of all, gentlemen, I have in front of me 8 a document headed "NRC Staff Testimony of Sang Bo Kim 9 and Robert L. Rothman on Seismic Design (SOC Contention 10 19 (e ) ) . " This document consists of a cover page, a 11 second page headed -- which is unnumbered -- headed 12 " Outline of Testimony," followed by eight pages of NRC 13 Staff testimony as previously identified, ending up with 14 a single page of profesional qualifications of Sang Bo 15 Kim, and an additional page headed " Robert L. Rothman, j
! 16 Geosciences Branch, Division of Engineering, U.S.
17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission," followed fou r lines 18 further with prof essional qualifications.
19 Now, Dr. Rothman, with respect to the areas of 20 this testimony specified either individually with the 21 initials RLR or jointly wi th the initials SBK and RLR -
l 22 were those portions so specified prepared by you? l l
23 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes, they were.
() 24 0 Since there are two of you, at least at this 25 point, would you please pass the microphone to each O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
3978
(]) 1 other?
2 Dr. Kim, the same question only substituting 3 "where solely indicated by the initials SBK." Were the
.O 4 portions of the testimony so identified prepared by you?
5 A (WITNESS KIM ) Yes, they were.
8 0 Dr. Rothman, do you have any corrections to 7 the portions of the testimony which you prepared?
8 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes, I have one addition.
9 On page 7 in answer -- the answer that takes up the
, 10 major part of page 7, near the bottom of the page, the 11 third sentence in that full paragraph, "The Staff now 12 accepts the relationship developed by Professor Otto 13 Nutley," and insert there "and Dr. Robert Hermann," --
l 14 and the last name is spelled H-e-r-m-a-n-n - "which 15 equates an epicentral modified Mercalli intensity 7 with 16 a magnitude of 5.3."
9 17 0 So you are simply adding an additional name to 18 the reference you made.
19 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes, that is right.
20 0 Is that the only correction you have?
21 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) That is right, yes.
22 0 Mr. Kim, do you have sny corrections?
23 A (WITNESS KIM) No corrections.
() 24 JUDGE BRENNERa Off the record.
25 (Discussion of f the record. )
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH:NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3979 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
(]) 1 Back on the record.
2 MR. BORDENICK: Thank you.
3 BY MR. BORDENICK: (Resuming) 4 0 Dr. Rothman, with the one correction which you 5 have just provided do you adopt the portions of the 6 testimony identified by your initials either separately l
7 or jointly with Dr. Kim as your testimony in this 8 proceeding?
9 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes, I do.
And, Mr. Kim, the same question to you. Do l 10 Q 11 you adopt the portions of the testimony identified 12 either by your initials alone or your initials jointly l
13 with Dr. Rothman as your testimony in this proceeding?
14 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes, I do.
15 MR. BORDENICK: Judge Brenner, I would move 18 that the joint testimony of Sang Bo Kim and Dr. Robert i 17 L. Rothman which I have previously identified be i
18 incorporated into the record as if read.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. In the absence of 20 objection we will admit the identified document into 21 evidence and bind it in the transcript.
l 22 (The information referred to follows )
23
() 24 25 O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
, In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) )
i NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF SANG B0 KIM AND ROBERT L. ROTHMAN ON SEISMIC DESIGN 4
O (SOCCONTENTION19(e))
l l
l 4
O
^
O
). .
OUTLINE OF TESTIf10NY
,r SOC alleges that t:.4 seismic design for Shoreham is inadequate in that it is not based on the standards in Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 The design response spectra for Shoreham were not based on Regulatory
' uide 1.60; the Staff did not apply Regulatory Guide 1.60 to plants with operating license applications docketed before January 1, 1977. The spectra used in the Shoreham design were, however, found to meet the applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix A and Part 100 Appendix A. 50C contends that Regulatory Guide 1.61 allows a value of only 4% for damping while the Shoreham design used a value of 5%.
Regulatory Guide 1.61 allows a value of 4% for structural damping; the 1
Shoreham design uses a value of 5% for structural and soil damping. Use of the 5% damping value at Shoreham was appropriate and not contrary to anything in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
$ ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMl11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD V(7 In the flatter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) )
- NRC STAFF TESTIf10NY OF SANG B0 KIM AND ROBERT L. ROTHMAN CONCERNING SEISMIC DESIGN ON S0C CONTENTION 19(e)
Q. Please state your respective names and positions with the NRC.
A. (SBK) My name is Sang Bo Kim. I am a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
A. (RLR) fly name is Robert L. Rothman. I am employed as a Seismologist in the Geosciences Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. My work includes the technical review and evaluation of the acceptability of proposed and operational nuclear reactor sites with respect to the seismological aspects of the sites. My work includes the use of my expertise in the areas of seismicity, rupture mechanics, seismic wave propagation, and seismic instrumentation. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
~
Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A. (SBK,RLR) The purpose of this testimony is to respond to S0C Contention 19(e) which states:
A major contributing factor in the TMI-2
()
r.
accident was that operating plants were not required by the NRC Staff (Staff) to be in compliance with current regulatory practices (i.e.,
Regulatory Guides, Branch Technical Positions, and Standard Review Plans). The TMI-2 accident also demonstrated that the current regulatory practices, practices similar to those being applied by the Staff in their safety evaluation of Shoreham, were in a number of cases not suitably conservative to properly protect the health and safety of the public (i.e. hydrogen generation, radiation shielding, source terms, and single failure criterion).
S0C contends that the NRC Staff has not required LILC0 to incorporate measures to assure that Shoreham conforms with the standards or goals of safety criteria contained in recent regulatory guides. As a result, the Staff has not required that Shoreham structures, systems, and components be backfit as required by 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55a, 6 50.57, and i 50.109 with regard to:
)
(e) Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61. -- The design response spectra for the seismic design of Shoreham are not based on the standards in Regulatory Guide 1.60.
Thus, the spectra have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently conservative to comply with 10 C.F.R.
Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2, and 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A. In addition, LILC0 did not use the Regulatory Guide 1.61 value of damping (4%) for the operating basis earthquake analysis of Category I reinforced concrete structures, but rather utilized a higher value of damping (5%), thereby also violating the regulations just cited.
i ()
v Q. Please describe the areas each of you will ad' dress in your testimony.
I
A. (SBK) My testimony addresses SOC's contention that the damping value for concrete structures used for the seismic analysis of the
[ Shoreham Plant is higher than that allowed by Regulatory Guide 1.61.
A. (RLR) My testimony deals with the part of Contention 19(e) which states that "[t]he design response spectra for the seismic design of Shoreham are not based on the standards in Regulatory Guide 1.60.
Thus, the spectra have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently conservative to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2 and 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A."
Q. We will first address the question of damping. Mr. Kim, could you please briefly describe damping?
A. (SBK) Two types of damping are involved here, structural damping and soil damping. Structural damping is a measure of energy dissipation of a structure under dynamic excitation. Soil also dissipates energy of structural vibration. The dissipation of energy from a structure to the surrounding soil is known as soil damping. When one investigates the adequacy of the structure for a seismic motion, the response of the structure is calculated by means of the equation of motion which is primarily based on Newton's Law. Damping value is one of several parameters in the equation. The response of the structure decreases as the damping value increases.
Q. What is the basis for justifying the use of a damping value greater than 4% in the seismic design of Shoreham?
A. (SBK) The damping value specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61 for the OBE, 4%, addresses only structural damping. The 5% damping value l used by Applicant, as indicated in FSAR Section 3.7.1.3A, consists of a e
1 I
I
- - - + - - - - - - + + - - - - - - - ' - ' - - ' ' - " ~ ~ ' ' ~
combination of structural and soil damping. A soil damping value is generally larger than a structural damping value. When combined, the overall damping value (although not a sum of the two separate damping values) is larger than the structural damping value standing alone. The Staff considers the use of 5% overall damping to be acceptable.
Q. We will now address the part of the Contention addressing Regulatory Guide 1.60. Dr. Rothman, does either 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix A or 10 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix A specify the use of Regulatory Guide 1.60?
A. (RLR) No, neither 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix A nor 10 C.F.R.
Part 100 Appendix A specifies the use of Regulatory Guide 1.60.
Q. Could you please describe the role of Regulatory Guide 1.60?
A. (RLR) Regulatory Guide 1.60 is applied as indicated in the
( NRC's Standard Review Plan (NIIREG-0800). Revision 2 (July 1981) of the Standard Review Plan, in discussing the acceptance criteria of seismic design (page 2.5.2-2) states, "The seismic design bases are predicated on a reasonable, conservative determination of the safe shutdown earthquake and the operating basis earthquake. As defined in Section III of j 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A (Ref. 3), the SSE and OBE are based on consideration of the regional and local geology and seismology and on the characteristics of the subsurface materials at the site and are described in terms of the vibratory ground motion which they would produce at the site. No comprehensive definitive rules can be promulgated regarding the investigations needed to establish the seismic design bases; the requirements vary from site to site."
l l
l l
l
Regulatory Guide 1.60 represents an approach which the staff considers acceptable to establish conformance with the Nuclear Regulatory
/ Commission regulations, but it is not specified as the only acceptable (c])
means of meeting the regulations. 10 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix A Section VI paragraph (a) in discussing the vibratory ground motion for the safe shutdown earthquake states "In view of the limited data available on vibratory ground motions of strong earthquakes, it usually will be appropriate that the response spectra be smoothed design spectra developed from a series of response spectra related to the vibratory motions caused by more than one earthquake." The Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectrum is a smoothed spectrum which was developed using earthquake acceleration time histories from events with a range of magnitudes and epicentral distances, v) f' Q. Did Applicaat use a smoothed design spectrum in designing the Shoreham facility?
A. (RLR) Yes, the Applicant used a modified Housner response spectrum in its design of Shoreham. Like the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum, the Housner spectrum is a smoothed spectrum which was developed from earthquake acceleration time histories from events with a range of magnitude and epicentral distances. These spectra were not specifically' l designed for use at any one site, but were developed for use with l
l differing reference peak accelerations (anchor points) to estimate different earthquake conditions.
Q. Could you describe the Shoreham response spectrum in more A
I) detail?
i
A. (RLR) The Shoreham response spectrum is a modification of the Housner response spectrum. At frequencies above about 2 Hertz it conincides with the Housner spectrum normalized to a peak ground acceleration of 0.20g. At frequencies below about 1 Hertz the Shoreham response spectrum is about 1.4 times higher than the Housner response spectrum normalized to a peak ground acceleration of 0.20g. At frequencies between 1 and 2 Hertz the Shoreham response spectrum is between these values. As was stated in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report, the Shoreham response spectrum is somewhat more conservative than the Housner spectrum, although it is less conservative than the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum.
i 0. Why did the Staff not evaluate the Shoreham facility against the standards adopted in Regulatory Guide 1.60?
A. (RLR) As indicated earlier, the use of Regulatory Guide 1.60 as an acceptance criterion for the adequacy of the seismic design of nuclear plants is identified in Section 2.5.2 of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, formerly NUREG 75/087). When the Standard Review Plan was first promulgated, the NRC Staff determined that it would be applied to i
l plants with operating license applications which were docketed after January 1,1977. Shoreham's OL application was docketed in January of 1976.
Q. What were the regulatory requirements used by the NRC Staff in reviewing the seismic design of the Shoreham facility?
A. (RLR) The Shoreham plant was required to meet th.e requirements of10C.F.R.Part50AppendixAand10C.F.R.Part100kppendixA. As mentioned earlier, neither specifies the use of Regulatory Guide 1.60. ,
_ _ . _ ---up
L l
Q. Did the Staff accept the use of a modified Housner spectrum
, anchored at 0.2g for the seismic design basis for the Shoreham site?
1
( A. (RLR) Yes. The Staff's basis for this acceptance is set forth '
v in Section 2.5.2 of the Shoreham SER. As indicated earlier, Appendix A to 10 C.F.R., Part 100 states that "it usually will be appropriate that the response spectra be smoothed design spectra developed from a series of response spectra related to the vibrating motions caused by more than one earthquake." The Housner spectrum is such a smoothed spectrum developed from the strong motion acceleration records of four earthquakes, all of magnitude 6.0 or greater. The Shoreham response spectrum is a modified Housner spectrum in that its spectral values are greater than those of the Housner spectrum at frequencies less than 2 Hertz.
/v The controlling earthquake for the seismic design of Shoreham is a Modified Mercalli intensity VII. This was characterized in the SER as being equivalent to a magnitude 5-1/2. The Staff now accepts the pd05A /L u364 - /' EA', g relationship developed by Professor Otto Nuttli which equates an epicentral Modified Mercalli intensity VII with a magnitude of 5.3. As stated in the SER, the Staff found that because magnitude 5-1/2 earthquakes were adequately represented in determining the spectral shape of the Housner spectrum that the Applicant's spectrum is acceptable. The Staff found that the reference acceleration value of 0.2g is conservative.
Q. Gentlemen, could you please provide brief conclus. ions to your testimony.
A. (SBK) The Regulatory Guide 1.61 damping value of 4% for the OBE referenced in the contention is a value for structural damping only.
r~%
Q The 5% damping value used by Applicant includes both structural and soil damping. Use of this 5% value does not contradict Regulatory Guide 1.61 and is acceptable to the Staff.
A. (RLR) The Staff did not apply Regulatory Guide 1.60 in its review of the Shoreham design response spectrum because Shoreham's applicantion for ao operating license was docketed before January 1, 1977. The Staff did apply the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 100 and found the modified Housner spectrum used in the Shoreham design to be acceptable, f) k.)
l
6 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SANG B0 KIM My name is Sang Bo Kim. I am a Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I received a B.S. degree in Engineering Mechanics from the University of Illinois in 1960, a M.S. degree in Applied Mechanics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1965, and a M.S. in Applied Mathematics from New York University in 1968.
Prior to joing the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, I was a Supervisory Engineer for David Ehrenpreis, Consulting Engineers (1960 - 1963), a Stress. Analyst for Combustion Engineering (1963 - 1965); a Senior Engineer for the Singer Company (1965 - 1968), a Senior Engineer for
( Gulf United Nuclear Fuels Corporation (1968 - 1971), and a Lead Engineer for Nuclear Fuels Service (1971 - 1972).
/]
I joined the NRC in 1972 as a Structural Engineer in the Transportation Branch of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguard. From 1973 to 1979 I was a Reactor Engineer with the Core Performance Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, from 1979 to the present I have been a Senior Structural Engineer with the Structural Engineering Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. My present duties include: evaluating the structural and earthquake engineering aspects of safety-related structures, systems and components, as proposed in Safety Analysis Reports, from the standpoint of functional capability and integrity, under normal plant operation, and for safe plant shutdown during normal, transient, accident and environmental conditions; performing independent calculations and engineering analyses to confirm or verify applicants' or vendors' assessment of structural integrity and response under pertinent load combinations, including postulated transient and accident conditions; and performing on-site technical audits of applicants' plant designs for selected structures and systems in the branch's area of responsibility to observe "as built" implementation of NRC Safety criteria.
e,,. , . , . , , , , -- , - - - o
, . . - . . - - ,-7,w
3)
' ROBERT L. ROTilMAN GEOSCIENCES BRAf1Cll DIVISION OF ENGINEERING U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A My name is Robert L. Rothman. I am presently employed as a U Seismologist in the Geost.iences . Branch, . Division of. Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 20555.
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I received a B.S. degree in Geology from Brooklyn College and M.S..and Ph.D'. ~ degrees in Geophysics from the Pennsylvania State University.
I have been employed by the NRC since October 1979 as a Seismologist in the,cvaluation of the suitability of nuclear power plant sites. '
My. area's of expertise include scismicity, rupture mechanics, . seismic wave propag'ation and seismic instrumentation. I am.now or have been responsible for the seismological safety review of approximately ten nuclear power plant sites.
From 1975 through 1979, I was employed by the U. S. Air Force 'Technical Applications Cen+er as a Seismologist in the nuclear explosion detection program. (
.I was involved in several projects of this program both as v I'
a Technical Project Officer and as a researcher. These projects included
']-
the detection of and the discrimination between underground explosions and earthquakes, magnitude and yield relationship studies, seismic network detection and location capability studies, regional and teleseismic wave propagation studies and projects to operate seismic instrument arrays -
and automatic data processing and cormiunications systems.
From 1965 through 1970 I was employed as a Seismologist by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. in this position I was involved in studies in the B areas of engineering seismology, seismicity and earthquake aftershock ~
t sequences. This work was performed.as part of a program to investigate scismic hazard in the United States.
From 1959 to 1961 and during 1964-1965 I was an Engineering Geologist with the New York State Department.of Public Works. In this position, I conducted geophysical field surveys in support of construction projects
- such as bridges, buildings and highways. -
i
3980
() 1 MR. BORDENICK: We are providing a copy of the 2 testimony with one correction noted by Dr. Rothman to 3 the Reporter.
)
4 BY MR. BORDENICK4 (Resuming) 5 0 Dr. Rothman, would you identify for the Board 6 those sections of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report 7 which are reasonably related to your testimony in this 8 proceeding?
9 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes. The section that my 10 testimony is related to is Section 2.5.2 of the Safety 11 Evaluation Report, and I believe the title of it is 12 " Vibra'--- Ground Motion."
. 13 Is that the original SER or-one of the 0 14 supplements?
15 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) That is in the original SER.
16 0 Is that the only section?
17 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes, that is right.
18 0 Mr. Kim, likewise would you identif y those 1g sections of either the original SEE or any supplements 20 which reasonably relate to your testimony in this 21 proceeding?
22 A (WITNESS KIM) FSAR Section 3.7.1.
23 0 Is that FSAR? Did you mean to say SER?
( 24 A (WITNESS KIM) Right. SER. I am sorry.
25 Right. Staff SER 3.7.1.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 3981
() 1 0 Is that the only section?
2 A (WITNESS KIM) Right. That is correct.
3 0 All righ t. Additionally, starting with Dr.
4 Rothman, would you give us a brief summary of your 5 testimony?
6 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN ) Yes. I am going to be 7 testifying on that portion of the contention that says 8 the design response spectra for seismic design of 9 Shoreham are not based on the standards and Regulatory 10 Guide 1.60; thus, the spectra have not been demonstrated 11 to be sufficiently conservative to comply with 10 CFR 12 Pa rt 50 Appendix A Criterion 2 and 10 CFR Part 100 13 Appendix A.
14 And the summary of our testimony is that the 15 rules as cited in Part 50 Appendix A Criterion 2 and 16 Part 100 Appendix A do not require that a regulatory 17 quide be used for the design in nuclear plants. They 18 specify that a smooth spectra taken from those of 19 several earthquakes be used, and this is what was done j 20 by the utility in developing the design response spectra 21 for the Shereham site.
22 The spectra adopted was based on the 23 controlling earthquake f or the tectonic province within 1
() 24 which the site is located, and the site was reviewed on 25 this basis.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3982
() 1 Q Mr. Kim, would you give us a summary of your 2 portion of the testimony?
3 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes.. My portion is addressed
)
4 to the discrepancy between the rea guide, Reg Guide 5 1.61, and FSAR Applicant's damping value.
6 My sumasty is the tag guide calls for 7 structural damping whereas Applicant's damping value 8 includes structural damping as well as soil damping, and 9 therefore, it does not contradict Reg Guide 1.61 and is 10 acceptable to the NRC Staff.
11 HR. BORDENICK: Thank you, gentlemen. I have 12 no further questions.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Irwin, we received a
() 14 filing identifying sections of the FSAR that in LILCO 's 15 view -- I guess one section in LILCO's view is pertinent 16 to the contention, and also one of the figures. I do 17 not know if you propose to move that figure into 18 evidence at this time or do anything further.
1g We should reference the section at least, but 20 more importantly, my inquiry is wha t should we do with 21 the spectra that we are likely to get into very shortly 22 in any event?
23 HR. IRWIN: Judge Brenner, let me refer to the i
( 24 section. The only reason I did not refer to it esrlier 25 is it had been tendered in writing.
l
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l l
3983 '
SUDGE BRENNERa Yes. Let me add we certainly
(]) 1 2 knew about it. I think it is helpf ul to the record to 3 ha ve it aan tioned a t this poin t.
4 MR. IRWINs Agreed. The section is 5 3.7.1.4 (a ) . The figure referred to is Figure 6 3. 7.1( a )-5. Both are from the FSAR. My recollection is 7 also that the section itself refers ta two additional 8 figures, 3.7.1(a)-1 and 3.7.1(a)-2 which may, I believe 9 --
were also provided at the same time.
10 JUDGE BRENNERa Yes. LILCO did provide the 11 Board copies of that.
12 MR. IRWINs Of course, the entire FSAR will 13 eventually come into evidence, but it might be more 14 convenient if these three figures and the supporting 15 FSAR text were entered into evidence at this time for 18 the convenience of the pa rties.
17 JUDGE BRENNERs I think it would be 18 convenient. You may have mechanical difficulty if your 19 figures, -1 and -2 figures are the sane versions as mine.
20 HR. IRWINs Haking them fit within the 21 transcript?
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
23 HR. IR WIN : Yes. How about letting me confer
() 24 with the Reporter to see if we can work out the 25 logistics of it? Perhaps we can reduce it. Perhaps we O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3984
() I can give him a folded version to fit within the 2 transcript. I frankly had not thought about the 3 logistics of it.
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's just leave it as it is 5 for right now; that is, you have identified the items in 6 the FSAR. At a convenient point in the litigation of 7 this contention, perhaps a t the end, we could leave it 8 like this if you like. If you think it would be usef ul, 9 and if the other parties egree, perhsps we could make to these larger figures exhibits, including a larger 11 version cf -5 if there is one, and in fact if there is 12 one, I would not mind it sooner rather than later. I 13 think it might be more useful to leave it in the larger 14 version. I will leave it up to you, and whatever you 15 vish to do is fine.
16 MR. IRWIN Fine. Let me see if I can deal 17 with the logistics of getting the figures both legible 18 and insertable into the transcript.
l l 19 20 21 22
^
23
() 24 I 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3985
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Do not make it 2 such a high priority that it gets in the way of your 3 substantive participation here. All right. The 4 witnesses, I take it, are now available f or cross 5 examina tion .
6 HR. IRWINs As far as I am concerned, the 7 LILCO witnesses are a vaila ble.
8 MR. BO R DENICK : Same with the staff.
9 JUDGE BRENNERa Mr. Lanpher?
10 Off the record.
11 (Discussion off the record.)
12 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, we are back on.
13 Mr. Lanpher for Suffolk County.
14 CROSS EXAMINATION l
15 BY MR. L,2 NPHER:
16 Q Thank you, Judge Brenner. Gentlemen, I would 17 like to turn your a ttention first to the damping issue 18 and see if that can be resolved, wh a te ve r. Mr. Wong, l
19 let me direct your attention to page 7 of your 20 testimony, but, Mr. Kim, I am sure if there is anything 21 you want to add, please go right ahead, pursuant to the 22 rules we have ectablished before.
23 Mr. Wong, -- is that Dr. Wong?
() 24 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes.
25 0 I am sorry. It is Doctor, is it not? Dr.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3986
(]) 1 Hong. I apologize. At the top of page 7 you use the 2 term " total system damping." You say that as a weighted 3 average, the damping factors of the structural system,
)
4 including the subgrade soil damping. Now first, can you 5 please defina for me what structural damping is?
6 A (WITNESS WONG) Structural damping, another 7 synonym is we call it material damping. The material a damping is when a structure is deformed or strained.
9 There is a certain amount of loss or dissipation of 10 strained energy. These phenomena can be represented as 11 some kind of damping, and this is associated with what 12 we call ma terial damping or structural dam ping.
I 13 The total system damping is when a structure 14 is composed of more than one components for example, a 15 concrete structure sitting on top of a foundation. The 16 total system consists of the concrete structure itself 17 and also, the foundation soil. And when we look at this 18 whole system as a whole, there is another damping; we 19 call that total system damping. This total system 20 damping is composed of both the damping of the structure 21 and also af the substrate soil.
22 0 Now, the damping of the structure, to use the 23 words you just used, that is the damping which is
(') 24 addressed in Regulatory Guide 1.61, correct?
25 A (WITNESS WONG) Correct. That is to say, if I O
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3987
() I have to test a member itself on a testing, machine, the 2 damping that we derive from that test is the damping 3 associated with tha t particular structure and that 4 particular material.
5 0 Disregarding any -- and that damping would 6 disregard any increase or decrease in the earthquake 7 torces due to interaction with the soil, correct?
8 A (WITNESS WONG) I did not say that.
9 0 Wait. I know you did not. I was following 10 on, Mr. Wong, so I was asking a question. Please tell 11 me whether I am right or not. Do you want me to repeat 12 the question?
13 A (WITNESS WONG) Could you please repeat your 14 question?
15 0 Sure. The structural damping which you were 16 just referring to and which is set forth in Regulator'y 17 Guide 1.61 disregards the interactions of that structure 18 with soil. Is that correct?
19 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir, that is correct.
20 0 Or the rock or whatever kind of foundation 21 materials it sits on?
22 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
23 0 Mr. Wono, we are going to get in trouble
() 24 unless you let me finish my question, okay, for the 25 reporter. Dr. Hong, excuse me.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3988
() 1 Would it be fair to say that LILCO has 2 increased the total damping f actor to include additional 3 damping in the total system due to the interaction of 4 the concrete structure with the soil?
5 A (WITNESS WONG) Could you repeat your question, 6 please?
7 0 would it be fair to state that LILCO has 8 increased the damping factor from four to five percent t
l 9 to account for or to take credit for its perception that 10 there will be additional damping, additional dissipation 11 of energy due to interaction of the structure with the 12 soil?
13 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
l l 14 0 And that is the incremental total -- the l
15 incremental damping which when added to the material or 16 structural damping which you mentioned before, makes up 17 total system damping, correct?
18 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir.
1
! 19 0 In what way was I wrong?
20 A (WITNESS VONG) It is not in the sense of 21 incremental because I would say additional damping due 22 to the soil.
23 0 You say additional damping due to the soil.
j () 24 Is it due to the soil or due to the interaction of the 25 structure with the soil?
O I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINCTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
3989
() 1 A (WITNESS WONG) Due to the fact that the soil 2 -- the structure is sitting on the soil, so that is 3 right, it is due to the interaction of the structure and 4 the soil. You are right.
5 0 Okay. Is it f air to call that -- and I think 3 you used the word " additional damping", not 7 incremental. You said additional damping. Is it fair 8 to say t'aa t that additional damping results from 9 soil-structure interaction?
10 A (MITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
11 0 What analyses have been performed by or on l 12 behalf of LILCO to quanity the additional damping under 13 the site-specific circumstances at Shoreham? -That is my 14 question, what analyses have been performed? My 15 colleagues here said it got garbled. Let me start over.
16 What analyses of soil-structure interaction 17 have been performed by or on behalf of LILCO to quantify 18 this additional damping?
19 A (WITNESS WONG) I have performed an analysis to l 20 that effect. I looked at the structure and I saw how it 21 was deformed, and since the structure is on the soft 22 side, essentially when the structure deformed under the 23 seismic excitation, it is the soil that moves the whole 24 structure. And looking at the ex cects of the soil 1
25 damping together with the material damping of the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3990
() 1 structure, I did my computation. And as shown in 2 question 23, that I get a much higher damping value.
3 That is to say, I used the four percent 4 structural damping in accordance with Reg Guide 1.60, 5 and 10 percent soil damping. I get a total system 6 damping of 8 percent, and, by the way, the 10 percent is 7 a very conservative value. Because when I did my 8 calculation the actual soil damping in the horizontal 9 and vertical direction, they are about 40 percent or 10 more. But however, the 10 percent was used because the 11 10 percent was a good conserva tive value.
12 0 Dr. Wong, are your analyses documented in the 13 Final Safety Analysis Report?
14 A (WITNESS WONG) The analysis was not. Th e 15 choice of the 5 percent damping went back all the way to 16 when they first -- to when the FSAR was filed. A t tha t 17 time, it was considered a conservative value to be used 18 in the industry; in fact, most of the plan t tha t was 19 built in that time, they used 5 percent damping.
l 20 Q Now, Dr. Wong, when did you conduct your 21 analysis?
l 22 A (WITNESS WONG) I conducted the analysis 23 particula to Shoreham when I started to respond to these 24 pa rticular contentions. However, in 1979 when I was l
l 25 involved with some other project, and in fact, in 1976, I
l l
l ALDERSON 9EPoR11NG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3991
() 1 1973, when I was involved in another nuclear project, we 2 did the same calculation. And it has been clearly shown 3 that a 5 percent damping for the OBE is conservative.
4 0 That is 5 percent damping for the OBE on a 5 soil site such as Shoreham. Is that you testimony, sir?
6 A (WITNESS WONG) For this particular testimony, 7 that is wha t I sta ted.
8 0 Now, I understand that your analysis is not 9 documented in the FSAR. Is there any analysis which 10 justifies damping above and beyond the 4 percent 11 structural damping of Reg Guide 1.61 anywhere in the 12 FSAR?
13 A (WITNESS WONG) The FSAR -- let me understand 14 your question.
15 0 Would you like se to repeat it, sir?
16 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, please.
17 0 Dr. Wong, I understood you to state that.your 18 analysis was performed in the last couple of months, I 19 guess. And that you also have performed other soil l
20 structure interaction analyses, whether for Shoreham or 21 for other plants, correct?
l 22 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
l 23 0 My question, however, goes to whether anywhere in the FSAR to your knowledge there is any documentation O)
\s 24 25 of the basis for using damping above -- strik e tha t.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INO, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3992
() 1 Not documentation of the basis, but any summary of any 2 analyses that have been performed which justify use of 3 damping, total system damping, above 4 percent. And I 4 have a copy of the FSAR if you need to refer to any 5 sections, sir.
6 A (WITNESS VONG) The FSAR does not contain any 7 calculation to that effect. However, if I would refer 8 to the FSAR, in Table 3.7.1-A --
9 0 Just a moment, Dr. Wong. Mr. Hubbard is 10 giving you a copy of that volume of the FSAR.
11 '(Counsel handing document to witness.)
12 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
l 13 0 You said 3.7-1A, Dr. Wong?
I 14 A (WITNESS WONG) 3.7.1A-1. Under 2C, they say l 15 that for reinforced concrete structure under the working l
16 stress limited to .5 yield point, the percentage of 17 critical damping ranges from 3.0 to 5.0.
l 18 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, for clarity of 19 the record , that table in the FSAR is entitled " Damping 20 Factors." I do not have extra copies of it, I am sorry.
21 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
22 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
23 Q Now, the bottom sentence on that table, Dr.
() 24 Wong, let me read it into the record so everyone has the 25 benefit of it, says, " Total system damping for O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3993
() 1 structures including damping from motion and subgrade is 2 5 percent for the operating basis earthquake and 7 3 percent for the design basis earthquake." Correct?
4 A (WITNESS WONG) Correct, yes, sir.
5 0 Now, as I also corre : that this damping 6 factors table nowhere provide, the basis for that 5 7 percent damping f actor, which is referenced?
8 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir. In the sense that 9 the table -- the FSAR did not state that -- the FSAR in to this particular table did not state how they derived the 11 total system damping. But however, if a reinforced l
12 concrete structure has 5 percent critical damping by 13 itself, when we include the effect of the soil which has 14 a lot more damping than a concrete structure, the 15 resultant damping will be much higher, and to me as an l 16 engineer, by looking at this statement, reinforced 17 concrete which has a critical damping of from three to 18 five percent, I would say the choice of 5 percent for a 19 total system damping is very conservative.
20 0 Now, that says, for completeness, where you l
l 21 were just reading was under item 2C of tha t table, 22 correct?
23 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
24 0 It says,"Beinforced concrete (with 25 considerable cracking) has percentage of critical O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 3994
() 1 damping of three to five percent." Correct?
2 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
3 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
4 0 M r. Kim, has the NRC staff performed any 5 analysis for Shoreham to confirm that the so-called e additional amount of damping above and beyond that 7 claimed pursuant to the regulatory guide as proper?
8 A (WITNESS KIM) No additional analysis has been 9 performed by the staff.
10 Q Now, Mr. Kim -- Dr. Kim -- ?
11 A (WITNESS KIM) Mr. Kim.
12 Q But I meant to say Dr. Wong. I apologize.
i 13 Dr. Wong, you said that you had performed an analysis l
("
14 recently. Can you describe in a little more detail what 15 this analysis entailed?
16 A (WITNESS WONG) Okay. Let us imagine a 17 structure sitting on soil and the structure deformed or 18 moved under some seismic excitation. With that 19 particular deformation we can compute the energy, the 20 strain energy stored in the reinforced concrete member.
21 We can also compute the strained energy in the soil, 22 okay. Now we know the damping for the concrete I
l 23 structure, which is 4 percent; 4 percent based on Reg And'let us assume a conservative 10 percent
) 24 Guide 1.61.
25 for the soil damping.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INO,
- 400 VIRG;NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (102) 554 2345
3995
() 1 Then, using the strain energy as a weighting 2 factor, we can compute the equivalent damping. This is 3 the process that I went through to compute the total 4 system damping.
5 0 Dr. Wong, what is a t h ree-dimensional fin 4.te 6 element soil-structure interaction study?
7 A (WITNESS WONG) Shoreham was licensed much 8 longer -- in 19 -- excuse me.
9 Q Do you want me to repeat the question?
10 A (WITNESS WONG) I know your question. I wanted 11 to make sure of the date, okay?
12 0 Excuse me.
13 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
14 A (WITNESS WONG) A three-dimensional 15 soil-structure -- finite element soil-structure modal is 16 that you model the soil using a finite element in three 17 dimensions. And from there you can determine the 18 damping of the soil.
tg Q Did you perform such a study?
20 A (HITNESS WONG) Not for Shoreham. !
l 21 0 Why didn't you?
22 A (WITNESS WONG) There was no need to do it for 23 Shoreham because that particular method, first, it is 24 complicated and the method used in Shoreham is more 25 conservative than that particular method.
O 1
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3996
() 1 Q Is it not true that if you want to get an
- 2. accurate determination of the interaction of the 3 structure with the soil, including its damping effects, 4 that you would perform such a study?
5 A (VITNESS WONG) Not really. Beca use when we 6 talk about four percent against five percent, and 7 whereby the soil that we assume to have five percent 8 and, in fact, a simple hand calculation can show us 9 about 40 percent, and based on my engineering judgment, 10 I do not think it requires such an analysis for only a 11 one percent difference.
12 Q So would it be fair to state that the damping 13 factor, the five percent damping factor for Shoreham 14 really reflects basically engineering j udg men t?
15 A (WITNESS WONG) Engineering judgnent with 16 calculation and with lots of conservatism.
17 Q I did not get that last one. Lots of l
18 conservatism?
l 19 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, because the fact we 20 assumed 10 percent for the soil and the f act that the l
l 21 calculation shows that the soil in the horizontal and l
l 22 vertical directions can have about 40 percent damping.
I
! 23 And we are talking about from four to five percent. You 24 are talking about a one percent dif ference, and the 25 assumptions that we make in our analysis are so ,
- c
- )
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3997
() 1 conservative and, in fact, it is part of my engineering 2 judgment.
3 (Counsel for Suf folk County conf erring . )
{~ }
4 0 Dr. Wong, I believe you said that you assumed 5 a 10 percent soil damping.
6 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, yes, sir.
7 0 And factored that with 4 percent structural 8 damping and came up with a number of 8 percent total 9 damping. Correct?
10 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
11 Q What is the process for combining the 10 and 12 the 8 -- the 10 and the 4 to come up with 8? How is l
13 that done?
O 14 A (WITNESS WONG) I thought I described that, but 15 I will try it once more and maybe give you some kind of 16 relative example.
l 17 JUDGE BRENNER: Dr. Wong, maybe this helps.
18 In your prior description, I am not sure you gave the 19 weighting factors. If you did, I missed it. And it 20 might help to include that in your answer.
l 21 WITNESS WONG: All righ t.
22 JUDGE BRENNERs Well, go ahead.
23 WITNESS WONGs I will try, okay. A structure 24 as, for exampla, a concrete structure sitting on soil, 25 it deforms under seismic excitation. With that
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3998
() 1 deformation I compute the strain energ7 stored in the 2 structure, and also, the strain energies stored in the 3 soil. The weighting factor -- the weighting factors are 4 based on the strain energy.
t 5 For a structure on soil, most of the strain 6 energy goes into the soil, I would estimate, on the 7 order of about 90 percer.t or more of the strain energy
(
8 in the soil because Shoraham is a relatively soft soil.
9 It has a major effect concerning the deformation of the 10 . structure. And based on this calculation, using the 11 strain energy as a weighting f actor, the equivalent 12 damping is computed using 4 percent material damping for 13 the concrete and 10 percent material damping for the 14 soil, I got about 8 percent total system damping.
15 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
16 C Hr. Kim, how did the NBC staff review the 17 damping f actors utilized by LILCO in its FSAR for 18 Shoreham?
19 A (WITNESS KIM) We primarily relied on Reg Guide 20 1.161 and we compared applicant's value with that, and 21 if there is a discrepancy such as in this case, we look 22 at the magnitude of the discrepancy and if they are 23 large, then we usually -- not in this case, but usually 24 ve ask for justification. But in this case, the 25 magnitude is so small, engineering judgment was made in
[
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3999
() 1 this particular case tha t 5 percent is acceptable to us.
2 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
3 0 Mr. Kim, this increased the damping factor by '
4 25 percent, correct?
5 A (WITNESS KIM) It depends on how do you make as 6 a base value.
7 0 Sta r tin g at 4 pe rce n t , the Reg Guide 1.61 as a 8 starting point, which I understood from your previous 9 answer you started with.
10 A (WITNESS KIM) However -- yes, in that respect 11 that is correct. However, the percentage of damping 12 csme from critical damping as a basis, and tha t is 1, so l
13 from that point of view, the increase is 1 percent, not 14 25 percent.
15 0 Now, in your review, Mr. Kim, the staff 16 applies 10 CFB Part 100, Appendix A, correct?
l l 17 A (WITNESS KIM) I am not quite f amiliar with 18 that particular 10 CFR, whether it is addressed to the 19 damping value in detail, such as 1.61, Reg Guide 1.61.
20 I would have to look at that. Otherwise, there is no l 21 need for Reg Guide 1.61. The regulation itself 22 specifies in such detail, that is my understanding.
23 0 Vell, Mr. Kim, there is a Reg Guide 1.60 24 concerning response spectra, but clearly, response l
25 spectra are addressed in Part 100, Appendix A.
l l CE) l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4000
() 1 A (WITNESS KIM) That is truo, but the degree of 2 detail may be different.
3 Q Is it your testimony that the NBC staff does
{}
4 not utilire Part 100, Appendix A in its review of 5 darping factors?
6 A (WITNESS KIM) My testimony specifically states 7 that che applicant's damping value does not contradict 8 1.61.
9 0 Now, Mr. Kim, how are -- excuse me. Have you 10 finished consulting?
11 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes. Yes, go ahead.
12 0 Okay. I do not want to stop you from --
13 A (WITNESS KIR) No, that is all right.
1
' () 14 0 Okay. Mr. Kim, the damping factors which are 15 computed for a nuclear power plant are utilized to 16 adjust the seismic response spectra. Correct?
17 A (WITNESS KIM) Could you repeat that -- to 18 adjust?
- 19 0 To adjust.
20 A (WITNESS KIM) Adjust, right.
l 21 Q Is that correct?
i 3 (WITNESS KIM) That is correct. Right.
22 23 0 And the higher the damping factor which is 24 utilized, the lower the response spectrum will be a t 25 critical frequencies, correct?
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4001
() 1 A (WITNESS KIM) That is correct.
2 0 Do you have Part-100 Appendix A available to 3 you, sir?
4 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes.
5 0 I would like you to turn your attention to 6 Roman VI-A of Appendix A to Part 100. Part VI is 7 en titled " A pplication to Engineering Design." It should 8 not be VI-A. I would like you to turn to VI-A-2 for the 9 operating basis earthquake. The last sentence of that 10 section says that, "The analysis or test shall take into 11 account soil-structure interaction effects, and the l 12 expected duration of vibra tory motion." Correct? Do 13 you see that portion?
14 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes, I see that. That is in correct.
16 Q Is it your testimony, sir, that when the staff 17 reviews response spectra in damping factors for nuclear 18 power plants, that they do not require analysis -- the 19 applicant to supply analysis or tests relating to 20 soil-structure interaction ?
21 A (WITNESS KIM) Could you repeat the first part 22 of that question again, please?
23 0 I just want to be clear that the NRC staff, l
l
() 24 when you review damping factors and response spectra,
! 25 because they are inter-related --
1 I
1 l
O -
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 V!AGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGT')N, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
4002
() 1 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes.
2 0 When you perform that review, and when --
3 let's add one additional factor -- when the damping 4 factor exceeds that which would be permitted under the 5 staff guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.61, you do not 6 require that difference to be documented by analyses or 7 tests?
l I
a A (WITNESS KIM) That is correct. The analysis 9 -- right, we do not require that. That is correct.
l to (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
11 MR. LANPHERa Judge Brenner, I am not sure --
12 how would you like to proceed on this? I have completed 13 my questions on damping, and it occurs to me that it may 14 be possible to let Mr. Kim leave tonight. I am not sure l .
15 if he would even want to, but if the Board would like to 18 pursue its questions and that I will leave up to you.
17 Otherwise, I would be happy to pursue the rest of my 18 examination immediately.
l 19 (Board conferring.)
20 JUDGE BRENNER Well, that is up to the staff 21 as to who they want to let go at any given point, given
! 22 the interaction of disciplines in this type of 23 contention. But I think for purposes of the record it 24 would be a good idea to divide up the approach on 25 damping value.
I O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4003
() 1 ER. LANPHER: I thought maybe it would help to 2 ha ve everything in one, pla ce.
3 JUDGE BR ENNER: Yes, that is the reason I am
{}
4 agreeing with you. You have completed your examination 5 on damping values?
6 3R. LANPHER Yes.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: In that case, let me follow 8 up, Mr. Kim, on Mr. Lanpher's last question.
9 BOARD EXAMINATION 10 BY JUDGE BRENNER 11 0 When you stated the staff did not require 12 supporting analyses, was that a general response or was 13 that just your answer with respect to Shoreham, given O 14 the difference between 5 percent and 4 percent?
15 A (WITNESS KIE) This is in response to -- in a 16 context that what I perceive to be our practice in the 17 branch.
18 (Board conferring.)
19 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
20 0 Mr. Kim, was it your understanding that the I
21 applicant made some measurements from which it derived l 22 the conclusion that the damping f actors were, like, 40 23 percent?
24 A (WITNESS KIH) The 40 percen't damping is a l 25 damping value generally discussed in the industry that
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4004
() 1 was not specifically mentioned in the FSAR. I do not 2 think that was mentioned in the FSAR.
3 O Maybe I should address the question to Dr.
{
4 Wong. Were soil properties measured at the Shoreham 5 site?
l
! 8 A (WITNESS WONG) Let me give more information l
! 7 about soil damping. The soil damping consists of two 8 parts, the material damping of the soil and wha t we call 9 the -- the other part is radiation damping. The 10 material damping is essentially the friction between the 11 granular soil under some kind of excitation. That is 12 the first type.
13 The second type of damping we called radiation l CE) 14 damping. Radiation dr4mping is the phenomenon when a l
15 structure is sitting on the soil and vibrates. The 16 energy radiates from the structure to infinity, and the 17 40 percent that I am talking about is for the horizontal 18 and the vertical direction. And which includes both of 19 them, the radiation damping and the soil material 20 damping.
21 0 And were these determined by measurement at 22 the shoreham site or calculated?
23 A (WITNESS WONG) They were calculated.
24 0 What was the basis for the calculation?
25 A (WITNESS WONG) The basis of those damping --
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4005 O i the radiation damping is from the theory of nr.
2 Richard 's pla te on elastic half-space. That is to say, i 3 if I have a rigid disc on an infinite plane there, when 4 these rigid circular plates start to vibrate, the energy 5 diff uses out fiton the plate to infinity. And this loss 6 of energy can be represented as some kind of damping.
7 We call it radistion damping.
8 9
10 11 12 i
13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
l 21 22 23 24 25 O
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
b 4006 i
() 1 0 Does that depend on the material properties of 2 the soil, the amount of that damping?
3 A (WITNESS WONG) It does. It depends on the 4 sheer modulus, the G value, the sheer modulus of the 5 soil, and the Poisson's ratio.
6 0 And how did you decide which values of those 7 two parameters to use?
8 A (WITNESS WONG) The sheer soil modulus and the 9 Poisson's ratio are measured.
10 0 At the Shoreham site?
11 A (WITNESS WONG) Right.
12 0 How were those measurements made, just briefly?
l 13 [ Panel of witnesses conferring.]
14 A (WITNESS WONG) The sheer modulus, they are l
15 measured from the geophysical measurement of the site 16 soil property. We have performed some geophysical 17 measurements of the soil at the Shoreham site, and the 18 Poisson's ratios. There are a lot of publications that 19 discuss the Poisson 's ratios.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: Dr. Lucks, yes, you may 21 supplement any time you wish. Go ahead.
I 22 WITNESS LUCKSs Dr. Wong was correct in l
l 23 stating that the geophysical -- the sheer modulus can be de termined or was determined f rom in situ geophysical
) 24 25 testing at the site. And also, the Poisson's ratio at O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 1 ._ .
4007
() 1 that time was generally selected from published values 2 in the literature that were given for various soil 3 types. You can also determine the Poisson's ratio from
{}
4 the geophysical testing at the site.
5 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
6 0 Could you describe what is encompassed in 7 geophysical testing?
8 A (WITNESS LUCKS) The geophysical testing would 9 be basically the measurement of the sheer wave and 10 compression wave velocities for the soils, and there are 11 relationships between these values and the sheer 12 modulus, the Young 's modulus, and also from the ratio, 13 the two velocities, the Poisson's ratio. '
O 14 0 And from these seasurements and calculations 15 you derived the 40 percent calculation.
16 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
17 0 Could you put an error band on that? Is it 40 18 plus or minus 2 percent, 20 percent?
19 A (WITNESS WONG) I do not know, sir. I cannot 20 give you a number. I would say plus or minus 25 percent 21 -- well, I cannot say that because they are not a linear 22 relationship. Plus or minus 10 percent, I would say.
23 0 Certainly not plus or minus 100 percent.
24 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir.
25 Q Mr. Kim, were you aware of these measurements i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4008
() 1 although the date. is not reported in the FSAR?
2 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes. This belongs to a 3 different discipline within NRC, in particular the
(
4 deotechnical Branch, and I go to the meetings with them 5 often, with the applicant, and I am a ware that they arc 6 doing the tests on soil condition at the sito.
7 0 Well, did the results of these measurements 8 affect your judgment in any way on the accetutability of 9 the damping factor?
10 A (WITNESS KIM) Yes. As I stated before, our 11 current practice in the Branch is to allow as much as 10 12 percent soil damping. In view of that, when you combine 13 with Reg Guide 1.61 4 percent damping, 1 percent 14 increase is not significant to merit applicant's 15 analysis or test value, things of that nature.
16 JUDGE MORRISa That is all I have. Thank you, 17 sir.
18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER 19 Q Dr. Wong.
20 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
21 0 On page 8 of your testimony in response to 1
22 Question 23, your response begins, " Typical soil ,
l 23 subgrade damping is 10 percent or more." Is that 24 correct, that was your testimony?
25 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4009
() 1 0 Under what conditions, if that is typical, 2 what sort of conditions would lead you to expect it to 3 be less than 10 percent?
4 A (WITNESS WONG) The reason --
5 0 What kinds of things, just quality?
6 A (WITNESS WONG) As far as I know, it is always 7 more than 10 percent. The reason I used 10 percent is 8 that the NRC will accept 10 percent all the time. That 9 is why I chose to put 10 percent. They would not argue 10 with me if I chose 10 percent.
11 JUDGE CARPENTER. Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me see if I understand 13 something, Dr. Wong.
14 BY JUDGE BRENNER4 15 0 And this is going to be a nontechnical term, 16 but the stiffer a site is, does that result in a higher 17 damping value or a lower damping value, that is, as you 18 go from soil to pre-consolidated soil to rock?
19 A (WITNESS WONG) The damping, the radiation 20 damping, it depends on the physical characteristics of 21 the soil. It also depends on the geometry, whether you 22 have a very large mat or a very small mat. So it is a 23 combination of dif f erent parame ters. I cannot give you 24 a definita trend.
25 0 All right. For the same size mat, is it fair O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 654 2345
4010
() 1 to characterize Shoreham as a frail site?
2 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
3 Q If it was a rock site, if you will, would
{}
4 there be a damping value applied, and if so, how would 5 that relate in comparison to this soil damping value?
6 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
7 A (WITNESS WONG) For the soil condition, it 8 depends whether it is sand or clay, the ma terial damping 9 vill be different. For the smaller mat, I have to 10 remember the equation.
11 Q Assume the same size mat. I do not want to 12 vary the mat size. I am just trying to end up with a 13 harder site. If I am on rock, would it be f air to apply O 14 the same type damping value or would it be lower or -- I 15 am just trying to get a feel for the direction of the 16 relationship.
17 [ Panel of witnesses conferring.]
18 A (WITNESS WONG) For a rock site we would not 19 do a soil-structure interaction. We assume the base is 20 fixed, actually.
21 Q Is there a transition-type soil site'for which 22 you would sta rt to lower the damping value ac it 23 approaches a rock-type site, if you will, or is there 24 just some sort of cut-off in categorizing a site as a 25 soil site and a non-soil site?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN lA AVE SNv., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 234$
4011
() ,
1 A (WITNESS WONG) The guideline that was given l
2 is if the sheer wave velocity is higher than 3500 feet 3 per second, then we consider it as a rock site. That is
{}
4 the guideline given.
5 0 Whose guideline is that?
6 A (WITNESS WONG) The NRC guideline.
7 Q Actually, once you are at about 2500 you are 8 in quite a stiff site, aren't you?
9 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
10 0 What was the sheer wave velocity for Shoreham, 11 if you recall?
12 A (WITNESS WONG) It was about 700.
13 0 So you are well within the category of 14 applying a soil damping value.
15 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
l 16 [ Board conferring.]
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Irwin, any questions on 18 the dam ping value?
19 HR. IRWIN: No, Judge Brenner.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Bordenick?
21 ER. BORDENICK: No, sir.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Back to you, Mr.
23 Lanpher.
24 CROSS EXAMINATION -- kesumed 25 BY HR. LANPHER:
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4012
() 1 Q Let me follow up on the questions you just 2 answered because I think it relates also to the response 3 spectrum issue. You said that the sheer wave value is
{}
4 on the order of 700 feet per second, is that right, at 5 the site?
6 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
7 0 What is the depth of soil at the site?
8 A (WITNESS WONG) It is about 1100 feet.
9 0 Would it be fair to characterize this as a 10 deep cohesionless soil site?
11 A (WITNESS WONG) I would say so.
12 [ Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.]
13 A (WITNESS WONG) Excuse me, sir. I have to l O 14 qualify one statement. The sheer wave velocity does not
. 15 stay constant for the depth of the soil. It increases l 16 from 700 to about slightly less than 2000 feet per 17 second at 1100 feet from the surface.
18 0 So the velocity gets higher as you go farther 19 down, correct?
20 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
21 IPause.)
22 0 Dr. Wong --
23 JUDGE BRENNER4 Mr. Lanph er, are you finished l 24 with the damping issue?
25 HR. LANPHER: Yes, I am.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
4013
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: I am going to try something 2 unusual here in this period of unusual things which we 3 have tried on this contention.
4 Do you see anything here that we do not see 5 that you would like to tell us about in terms of 6 some thing tha t is lurking in there? I am asking quite 7 seriously, as I hope you understand. The explanation --
8 HR. LANPHERs can I answer?
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
10 MR. LANPHER: I would like to answer you by 11 saying that I would -- well, I understand why you are 12 asking it now. let me respond. Our understanding is 13 that soil-structure interactions are very complex l >
14 phenomena. While admittedly from 4 to 5 percent is a 15 very small amount, our initial concern in reviewing the 16 FSAR is all of a sudden this figure was in there with no 17 scoring analysis, which we think is not the way the FSAR 18 is supposed to be done.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me add I am not asking <hy 20 did you raise it. I want to know where we are at now.
21 HR. LANPHER: Well, I have to give you a story 22 to tell you a little bit. If you want my story, you 23 ha ve to get the whole thing.
24 [ La ug h te r . )
25 I think, quite honestly, that the 5 percent O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH;NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
4014
() 1 value may be justifiable. The fact that detailed 2 analyses -- the exact detail of them I am not sure from l
3 what was said were not done until very recently, I think 4 is improper, and I guess our position would still be 5 that if you are going to take credit for an ircreased 6 damping value, those analyses should be set forth in the 7 FSAR and should be subject to NBC scrutiny. The concept 8 of engineering judgment in my practice before the NRC is 9 used far too often in place detailed engineering 10 analyses.
11 Now, I as not sure that the finite element 12 soil-structure interaction with complete computer 13 modeling would necessarily have to be done for this.
I 14 That is why I did not pursue that line. I think the 15 details of the analyses that Dr. Wong has performed 16 ought to be available for scrutiny. They ought to be in 17 the FSAR, and I think the NRC Staff in the SER should i 18 review those.
19 So that is where we come out. I still think 20 that those analyses ought to be on the record of the 21 FSAR. I think if you take credit for that it ought to 22 be in your FSAR and reviewed by the NRC Staff instead of 23 just the vague concept of engineering judgment.
Of course, having
) 24 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
25 problems with overuse of engineering judgment in general O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA A'd., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4015
() 1 is one thing, but applying it down to a particular 2 applica tion here, given the answers, I suppose the 3 counter-argument is that it was so safely within the 4 area given the conservatisms applied that it is not 5 necessary to analyze it down to the kind of detail that 6 you would want if they were in an area which was close 7 to the judgment line, if you will. But --
8 HR. LANPHERs Well, until I see the detail or 9 an expert sees the detail of the analyses, I hear Dr.
10 Kim -- Mr. Kim talking about the Staff using 10 percent, 11 not using 40 percent, so there seems to be uncertainty 12 there as to what will be acceptable.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, they use 10 percent 14 anyway, so why do you have to worry about it?
15 M.R. LANPHER: I hear Dr. -- Judge Morris being 16 influenced by the 40 percent, frankly, or being very 17 interested in that 40 percent number. I just thing we 18 have a sloppy record in the FSAR. That is why I pursued 19 it.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Again, I am not 21 going back to the discussion of what is in the FSAR.
22 Are you --
23 MR. LANPHEas That is the a pplication. That
( 24 is my understanding. They are supposed to justify their 25 figures in the applica tion or give you a track for how O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4016
() I they are justified'for the site-specific circumstances.
2 That has not been done.
3 JUDGE BRENNERs I am pursuing it in the
{}
4 context of how well the settlement negotiations are 5 working because it seems to me the questions on the 6 record that came out here could have and should have 7 been explored in negotiations, but if it is just the 8 lawyers meeting to say this is what I waat to argue, it 9 may not be working as well as involving th e experts also.
10 HR. BORDENICK: Judge Brenner, let me also 11 add, at least in the context of this contention, even 12 the lawyer for the Staff was not involved in the 13 discussions that took place. I do not know why that 14 is. I am just stating the fact.
15 HR. LANPHER: The settlement negotiations or i
16 discussion that took place was at 11 o ' clock last nigh t, 17 Judge Brenner, between me and Mr. Irwin. I have said 18 this before and I do not want to bore you, but you are 19 going to have to make more time if you wan t meetings and 20 full discussions. I am sorry, but we do not have that i 21 kind of time. .
22 I agree this is one area where we may have 23 been able to narrow it, but people cannot work any 24 harder than they are working right now, and I just want 25 it to be known on the record that I find it very i
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4017
() 1 difficult to accept criticism regarding settlement 2 discussions and the time put in given the extraordinary l 3 time that everyone is putting in on this case.
{}
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Given the emphasis we pushed 5 on settlement discussions, we should have been apprised 6 that the meeting which took place maybe was not adequate 7 as opposed to just getting a report as to what results i 8 vere not reached, and we are concerned that the parties 9 are not taking our direction in that regard very 10 seriously. ,
l 11 I also note that you are not the only lawyer 12 for the County, Mr. Lanpher, f ar from it, and we inten'd j 13 to take advantage of just the large number of lawyers !
14 representing the County and LILCO and the Staff s and let i
i 15 me let it go at that.
16 MR. LANPHERs Judge Brenner, I do not believe ,
i 17 that you are in a position, sir, to judge how we .
I 18 allocate the County's resources for lawyers.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, I think I an in a 20 position to judge that, and I have just given the ;
)
21 judgment.
I 22 The next contention coming up is going to be 23 iodine monitoring, Suffolk County Contention 24 28(a)(iii)/ SOC 7(a)(iii), and I guess I want to make 25 sure that negotiations take place prior to litigation to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 4018 h 1 the fullest extent practicatie. One thing we can do for l 2 you is try to adjourn closer to 5:00, and maybe we will 1
3 try that.
4 All right. The other reason I asked the 5 initial qtestion I did in interrupting the examination 8 was to find out if there is something lurking that we 7 are missing which we should focus on in our questions as 8 opposed to just letting the area pass.
l l 9 HR. LANPHERs I think your inquiry in that 10 regard, Judge Brenner, was just fine, and my only 11 hesitation was I was trying to think is this going to 12 get into areas that I wanted to get into, and I realize 13 tha t it did not think it would, plus with the l
0 14 possibility that Mr. Kim might be leaving or something 15 like that. It was perfectly proper. I have no 16 objection to that whatsoever.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 t 25 l
i l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINuTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
)
1 4019
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, why don 't you ,
2 proceed.
3 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
4 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
5 0 Dr. Rothman, --
6 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Yes?
7 0 Who develops response spectra?
8 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Excuse me?
9 0 Who develops response spectra?
10 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Seismologists basically 11 develop response spectra.
12 0 How do they go about doing that?
13 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Do you mean in particular, I
) for a particular site or in general or --
14 15 0 Let's start with the general and then we will 18 talk about --
17 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) There are several different 18 ways of doing response spectra, and we can talk about 19 the way they are done for nuclear power plants, or the 20 way they are done for other facilities.
21 0 Why don't we try nuclear power plants?
22 (Laughter.)
23 A ( WITNESS ROTHH AN) Basically, there are two 24 techniques that are used for developing site response 25 spectra for nuclear power plants. One of them is the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4020
() 1 general shape type response spectra such a s the one 2 recommended by Reg Guide 1.60, in which records from
, 3 several earthquakes, strong motion accelograph records 4 from several earthquakes were used to generate response 5 spectrum. And then, the -- a statistical analysis was 6 done on these response spectra, and the shape of the 7 84th percentile -- that is, the mean of or the average 8 of the response spectra from these earthquakes -- was 9 taken. A standard deviation was calculated, and the 10 level at which the mean plus 1 standard deviation level 11 was obtained is used as a shape, a smooth shape for a 12 response spectrum.
13 Now, this response spectrum is obtained from
(:)
14 several earthquakes which were recorded at different 15 distances on different foundation conditions, and for 16 different magnitudes of earthquakes. So what you obtain 17 with that is a shape. It is then used in conjunction 18 with a peak horizontal ground acceleration, which is 19 called an anchor point, to set the level of the 20 amplitude of that response spectrum shape. That is one 21 way of doing it, and that would be called the general.
22 You could also have a site-specific response 23 spectrum in which records are obtained under specific 24 site conditions at a particular magnitude level, and at 25 a particular distance from the site. And these records O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
\
l i
4021
() 1 are used to obtain a response spectra, and then -- or 2 several response spectra, --
and then a statistical 3 analysis is done on these to obtain a level.
4 Now, if the magnitude level of the earthquakes 5 that were used in obtaining hese response spectra are 6 similar to the earthquake expected at the site, then you 7 do not do any scaling; you just use that spectra as it 8 is. If you have to use earthquakes f rem a smaller 9 magnitude or larger magnitude in the site-specific, 10 which may be the case for earthquakes for which you do 11 not have many data, then you may do some kind of scaling 12 to get the proper level of the response spectra.
13 0 What do you mean, Dr. Rothman, by scaling?
14 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Well, if you have records 15 from an earthquake that is larger than that which you l 18 are using for your specific site, you may want to reduce 17 the level of the response spectra, or if you have 18 records from earthquakes that were smaller, you may want 19 to raise the level in order to meet the conditions of 20 the site for which you are developing this response 21 spectra.
22 0 Now, i# I understand what you said, when you 23 are doing a site-specific response spectra, you look at
) 24 the specific site conditions first, correct?
25 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Well, one of the factors O
ALDER 3ON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4022
() I would be the site geology. Generally, it is because of 2 the types of records that we have. We do not have an 3 infinite number of records. It is usually developed 4 into rock sites and then soil sites, and the soil sites 5 may be subdivided into shallow soil sites as opposed to 6 deep soil sites.
7 0 You also look at magnitude?
I 8 A (WITNESS ROTHNAN) Magnitude, yes.
9 0 You would also look at the distance frvm the 10 epicenter?
11 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Well, you would look at the 12 distance f rom the earthquake source to the recording 13 station at which it was recorded, and try to match that i 14 as well as possible f or the distance at which you rTpect l
15 the earthquake to occur from the site for which you are 16 developing the spectrum.
17 (Counsel for Suf folk County conferring.)
- 18 0 Now, you indicated I believe that this work in l
19 developing a response spectra is primarily done by 20 seismologists, is that correct?
21 A (WITNESS ROTHM AN ) Seismologists or earthquake 22 engineers or structural engineers. The techniques were 23 first developed by earthquake engineers, actually. At
( 24 the NBC, the review is performed by seismologists, l 25 though.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
I 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4023 l
() 1 0 You need geologists to help you with site 2 conditions and this kind of thing.
3 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) That is right.
)
4 0 Dr. Wong, what are your degrees in, sir?
5 A (WITNESS WONG) I have my Ph.D. in structural 6 engineering.
7 0 Your resume, on page 9 of your pre-filed 8 testimony, says you got your Ph.D. in civil 9 engineering. Are you correcting your resume?
10 A (WITNESS WONG) No. Civil has several 11 branches. You have, for example, structur al, 12 geotechnical, environmental, hydraulic, different 13 branches.
l 14 0 Okay. When you -- so then, your specialty 15 within the civil engineering field is in structural 16 engineering?
17 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
l 18 0 And your undergraduate and Master's degrees 19 vere also in civ'il engineering, sir?
l 20 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
21 0 Do you have any degree is seismology?
22 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir.
23 0 Do you have any degree in geology?
24 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir. But however, in the 25 undergraduate course, it is compulsory for the civil
()
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4024
() 1 engineer to take two or three courses in geology.
2 0 It is not compulsory for the engineer to take 1
l 3 any courses in seismology?
4 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir. But however, in my 5 Ph.D. degree we io have a course on earthquake 6 engineering. We'do talk about seismicity, although not 7 in depth as in seismology.
8 0 Did you prepare the response spectrum for the 9 Shoreham facility which is found in the FSAR? I guess 10 that is FSAR Figure 3.7.1A-1.
11 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir.
12 0 Have you prepared any response spectra for the 13 Shoreham facility?
O 14 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir.
15 0 Have you prepared a response spectra for any 16 other nuclear power plant?
17 A (WITNESS WONG) No, sir. When I firs t -- when 18 I started working in the nuclear industry, we already, 19 the fira Stone & Webster, we already adopted the Reg ;
20 Guide 1.60 spectra; that is why there is no need to 21 develop the specific spectra. That was since 1974 22 0 You said Stone E Webster has adopted the Reg 23 Guide 1.60 response spectrum? Is that your testimony?
24 A (WITNESS WGNG) I should rephrase that. I 25 think I used the wrong word, adopted. Since the Reg O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA A'rE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4025
() 1 Guide 1.60 was published, all the projects that I worked 2 on, we used Reg Guide 1.60 response spectra.
l 3 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.) l
{}
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Did you wish to add something?
5 WITNESS WONG: Yes.
6 JUDGE BRENNER: Go ahead.
7 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming)4 8 0 If you want to add something, Dr . Wong, it is i
9 fine. l l
10 A (WITNESS WONG) And the Reg Guide 1.60 was 11 published sometime in Decembe; 1973.
l 12 A (WITNESS LUCKS) May I supplement that answer, ,
13 please? The technical procedures at Stone E Webster ,
') 14 that govern the selection and derivation of ground j 15 response spectra are within the Geotechnical Division, 16 and that procedure specifies how we would use 1.60 17 - standard spectra for a site where we select to do so.
18 It also covers that on a particular site that 1g we may elect .o develop a site-specific response 20 spectra, and that should be developed on a site-specific 21 basis.
22 0 Dr. Lucks, you say this is pursuant to some 23 Stone E Webster procedures, internal procedures, of the 24 Geotechnical Division?
25 A (WITNESS LUCKS) Division, yes.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., $.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4026 i
() 1 0 Do these procedures have a title or a 2 description?
3 A (WITNESS LUCKS) Geotechnical Division
{}
4 Procedures and Guidelines, Technical Procedures and 5 Guidelines.
6 Q And is there a particular procedure, or are 7 there particular procedures which guide Stone E Webster 8 engineers or seismologists on whether to use the Reg 9 Guide 1.60 spectrum or whether to develop site-specific 4
10 spectra?
11 A (HITNESS LUCKS) They are given the freedom to 12 -- with the participation of the client or any other 13 co nsultant involved --
to elect to construct a i
0 14 site-specific response spectrum.
15 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
16 JUDGE BRENNER4 Mr. Lanpher, while you have 17 paused for a moment, if I am going to keep my promise to 13 you and to everybody to adjourn closer to 5s00 than 19 6:00, contrary to some other sessions, I do have the one 20 thing regarding fuel that somebody was going to get me i
21 the transcript of Thursday, June 9, the very end of the 22 day. And if I could have that -- I can find it if I 23 have the transcript. I can find it if I have the
) 24 transcript. I know right where it is.
25 And what I would like to do is do that -- I am O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4027 l l
() 1 sorry. Today is the 9th, that is right. Thursday, June 2 3. In any event, Mr. Lanpher, when you come to a 3 convenient stopping place in the next five minutes or 4 so, you can stop and I will do that one thing at that 5 time, if I have the transcript by then.
6 (Counsel for Suf folk County conf erring. )
7 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
8 0 Dr. Rothman, you were earlier describing both 9 the general and site-specific spectra and how they can 10 be derived. What is the anchor point?
11 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) The anchor point for the 12 general spectrum is the high frequency asymptote. It is 13 the point at the high frequency range, usually about 30 0 14 to 33 hertz, at which the standard response spectra is 15 anchored with a peak horizontal acceleration, when we 16 are talking about horizontal response spectra.
17 And then for the hec Guide 1.60, then the 18 other levels of velocity displacement, et cetera, are 19 calculated from this anchor point. It is specified in 20 the Reg Guide how the calculation should be made, and it 21 is just an arithmetic procedure.
22 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
23 0 Dr. Wong, the anchor point for the Shoreham 24 spectrum is 0.29, correct? This is for the safe 25 sh utdown earthquake, I should say.
l O
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 65J 2345
4028
() 1 A (WITNESS WONG) Yes, sir.
2 0 Have you ever selected -- I asked you earlier 3 whethar you had ever developed a response spectra for
{)
4 any nuclear facility and you answered no. I 5 understand. Have you ever selected the anchor point for 6 any nuclear facility?
l 7 A (WITNESS WONG) The anchor point is defined by 8 Reg Guide 1.60.
9 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
10 0 Dr. Rothman, do you agree with that?
11 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) No, I do not.
12 Q Why no+.?
13 A (WITNESS ROTHMAN) Reg Guide 1.60 does not 14 specify anchor points.
l 15 A (WITNESS LUCKS) Hay I supplement that l
l 16 response, please?
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
l 18 WITNESS LUCKS: The Reg G uid e 1.60 would I
19 define the selection of the anchor point relative to the l
l 20 peak ground acceleration. It does not specify the 21 ground acceleration, but how the spectra are tied into 22 it are specified in Reg Guide 1.60 23 WITNESS WONG: Let me say, wher I interpret
( 24 your anchor point, I interpret as to frequency where you 25 pinpoint the anchor point. Reg Guide 1.60 states that O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 4029
() I the anchor point is at 33 hertz, and that is what I 2 mean. I do not mean the Reg Guide 1.60 selects the g 1
(} 3 level or the percentage, but Reg Guide 1.60 defines the 4 anchor point is at 33 hertz.
5 BY MR. L?uPHER (Resuming):
6 Q Do you agree that that is a proper selection 7 of the frequency at which response spectra should be 8 anchored?
9 A (WITNESS WONG) It depends on the site 10 conditions. For example, I can see that there may be 11 other cases whereby one can select some different 12 points. The way the 1.60 was derived was based on 13 statictical analysis of various earthquake records. You O 14 know, on that basis, they selected those points.
15 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, this is -- that 16 answer I am going to have to follow up on tomorrow but 17 it is going to take a while.
18 JUDGE BRENNERs All right.
19 MR. LANPHERa I would like to do one last l
20 thing. I would like to mark for identification a 21 document, and I will have to pass it out, and that would 22 be -- we are talking about the Reg Guide so much, Reg 23 Guide 1.60. And it is 3evision 1, Decem be r 1973. And I 24 would like to mark that as Suffolk County Exhibit 16 for 25 identification, and we will pass it out afterwards.
O i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
f 4030 O i crhe docu ent referred to 2 was marked Suffolk County l 3 Exhibit No. 15 for 4 identification.)
5 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. That is fine. I l
6 thin we will probably end up binding it in, but let's do 1
l 7 it tomorrow since the questions will proceed from that 8 point.
9 MR. LANPHER: That is fine.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's excuse the witness panel 11 at this point, and we will resume at 9:00 o' clock i
12 tomorrow.
13 HR. BORDENICKs Judge Brenner, does that last 14 statement indi:ste the Board wants Mr. Kim back 15 tomorrow? We would be delighted to take the county up 16 on its offer to excuse him , if the Board and parties are l
17 finished with him.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: We do not have any independent 19 reason for wanting him. We are not going to ask anymore 20 questions about the damping value. You have to 21 determine for yourself whether our questions about the 22 spectra could involve him or not. And you may make that 23 determination. You might want to consult with him O aftorwards.
V 24 25 MR. BORDENICKa Yes, we will do tha t. But O
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
,_. . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ . __ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
4031 ,
l l
() 1 assumino we decide there is no reason for him to remain, 2 he is free to leave?
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes. Just in case that
{}
4 happens, Mr. Kim, we thank you for your appearance here 5 today. We appreciate it.
6 All right, we are still in session but the 7 panel is excusad. You had better go before somebody 8 changes their mind.
9 (Laughter.)
10 The famous "one last question" syndrome.
11 All right. Last week on June 3, at transcript 12 pages 3391 to 93, we made our announcement and ruling 13 with respect to the Shoreham Part 70 license for the 14 proposed shipment of new fuel for Shoreham. At that 15 time, the Board approved the resolution arrived at by 16 the parties and we stated then that we would lif t the 17 stay if the staff 's review concluded that it was 18 acceptable to the staff for the stay to be lifted.
19 The staff has informed us off the record at a 20 meeting among the Board and counsel for all the 21 cognizant parties that it has completed its review of f '22 the resolution and now supports the lif ting of the stay.
23 Accordingly, we now lift the stay, and it is 24 in f avor of -- or, if you will, -- it is superseded by 25 the agreement as we mentioned in our ruling last week.
O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4032 O i Taet 115tia 1= ithout pres =aice to the co=atr to co=e 2 to us for certain requests for relief, if it deems it p 3 necessary to do so.
d What we will probably attempt to do is to, 4
i 5 rather than issue a formal separate o-der lifting the 6 stay, we will send out a confirmatory cover order, 7 enclosing the pertinent transcript paces which would be 8 today and the transcript of last week, as well.
9 All right. Mr. Bordenick, you wanted to do 10 something off the record but in public? -
11 12 .
13 14 15 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 l 22 l
23 2A 25 lO l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4033 1
() 1 MR. BORDENICKs It can be in public, yes.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
3 Is there anything else we need do on the b'"g 4 record today?
5 MR. LANPHER: J'idge Brenner, I think it would 6 be good to advise the Board of where we stand on the 7 schedule of subsequent contentions.
8 MR. BORDENICK That is one of the things I 9 wanted to discuss at least.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's do that on the record.
11 MR. LANPHER: My understanding is we are 12 proceeding with this contention. We then go to iodine 13 monitoring. I have Mr. Minor who is on his way over 14 here right now for what I suppose is a settlement 15 discussion. Then we go to SOC 16. Then in the normal 16 schedule we would have 28(a)(1), which is ECCS restart.
17 Mr. Bridenbaugh, one of the --
18 JUDGE BRENNER: ECCS cutort. It is the same, 19 two ends of the same --
20 MR. LANPHER: It depends on which way you are 21 coming a t it.
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. LANPHER: Mr. Bridenbaugh has a commitment and cannot be here on Friday, so I do not know if we h 24 25 vill get to that. There is a potential problem there.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 4034
() 1 I suppose we could start with LILCO and staff people, or 2 in the alternative we could go to 31, or the 3 alternative, if we get up to that point we could adjourn 4 for the week and get ready for 7(b) .
P 5 JUDGE 9RENNERa I want to make use of Friday, 6 but I would like not to have to break in the midst of a ;
I 7 contention; so th9se a re the competing considerations, 8 and I would like to be able to assess the situation as 9 late as the end of the day on Thursday. We are flexible 10 in terms of jumping to electrical separation if 11 necessary, or we could be if we are advised that we 12 should be.
13 But, Mr. Bordenick? j 14 HR. BORDENICKa Judge Brenner, I simply was 15 going to point out I think the staf f is willing to be ;
l 16 flexible, but I have got to have some kind of reasonable 17 notice to bring people up here. That was the point I l
18 was going to raise off the record. At least I wanted to 19 know where we were going to be going tomorrow.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, we are going to iodine 21 monitoring. ,
22 HR. BORDENICKa All right. That witness is on 23 his way up, so it is no problem.
I) 24 JUDGE BRENNERa I put en emphasis on the "if V
25 it is not settled." And then we are going to clad swell O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH!NGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4035 1 and flow blockage. I certainly hope to be able to --
2 MR. BORDENICK: The problem on that -- that is 3 SOC 16, I believe.
{
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
5 MR. BORDENICK: The problem on that, if the 6 Board and parties will recall, is one of the staff's 7 witnesses is not available tomorrow, being the 10th.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: I did not recall that. You 9 are co rrect. You had advised us.
10 MR. BORDENICK: We can take them out of 11 order. As I say, I am willing to be flexible. The only 12 thing I need to know is when to bring people up here.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: You are talking only about
\s 14 that one day.
15 MR. BORDENICK4 Correct.
16 JUDGE BRENNERs I do not think that is going 17 to be a problem.
18 ( La ughter . )
e Sorry to say that.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. IRWIN I was going to say that we have 22 similar competing problems. Our witnesses for both the 23 ECCS cutoff, for restart and the clad swelling and flow blockage come from California. They have an inexorable, h 24 25 irreducible amount of turnaround time, and we are, as O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.VL. WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- - - - - . - . , , .-. . ~ - . . _ - _ _ _ _
l 4036 l 1
() 1 opposed to leaping to electrical separation, we are in 2 the process of supplementing our witness panel on that 3 issue.
{}
4 We will advise the parties fully of the 5 qualifications of all witnesses tomorrow morning, but I 6 do not believe -- I have discussed their schedules with 7 them, and we will have a motion to supplement the panel.
8 But suffice it to say I have talked with then 9 about Friday, and that will not be possible for them. I 10 think as Mr. Revel'ey pointed out, though, it is not 11 likely to be a practical prcblem.
12 JUDGE BRENNERa Here is the situation. If we i 13 could wait until the end of the day tomorrow to take a l
() 14 look r4t whether we might reach ECCS cutoff this week, 15 that might solve a lot of problems right there. If it 16 looks like we are going to reach it, then let's discuss 17 what we are going to do in light of Mr. Bridenbaugh's 18 problem.
19 MR. REVELEY: Judge, could we set the time for 20 arguing the 7(b) motion to strike tomorrow? Mr.
21 Bordenick has indicated he does not care when it is 22 argued.
23 MR. BORDENICK: That is correct.
HR. REVELEY: Could we do it at the beginning
) 24 25 of the day?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
! 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I 4037 i
l l
O i JUDcE 8aENNEat Ies. roo do not have enrhodr !
l 2 flying in? l l
3 MR. BORDENICK: That is correct. l 4 JUDGE BRENNER: On an airplane.
5 (Laughter.)
6 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. I think we can 7 adjourn for the day. He vill take up the motion on 8 7(b), LILCO's response, in any event tomorrow.
9 (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the hearing was to ' recessed, to be reconvened the following day, Thursday, 11 June 10, 1982.)
12 1
13 0 14 15 16 17 18 l
19 20 21 22 I
23 24 25
- O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
-e--
h NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSIO*f
, This is to. certify that the attached proceedings before the b .
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O in the matter af: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nudlear Power Station)
Date of Proceeding: June 9, 1982 Dock.at Number 50-322-OL Place of Proceeding: Hauppauge, New York were held as hersin appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
David'S. Parker Official Reporter (Typed)
=A - /
(SIGNATURE OF .hCRTIH O
Q